• No results found

The effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM"

Copied!
53
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM.

Suze Korse | 10543570

Thesis Proposal Leadership & Management MSc Business Administration

Department of Economics and Business University of Amsterdam

June 2015

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Suze Korse, 10543570, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. Thereby it is measured what the effect is of differences in PS-fit rated by both the manager and the employee. In turn, the relationships with satisfaction and performance are examined. This study is conducted through a survey in different organizations and in two countries. The total sample consisted of 269 manager-employee dyads. It is found that the managers’ perception of HRM is influencing the employees’ perception of HRM. Thereby it is found that the perception of employees of HRM is influencing the job satisfaction of employees. Also, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee is mediated by employees’ perception of HRM. Finally, it is found that there is relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and their perception of PS-fit. Further research is needed, therefore implications and directions for future research are discussed.

(4)

Table of contents

1. Introduction ... 5

2. Literature review ... 8

2.1. HRM and the relation with organizational outcomes ... 8

2.2. Perceptions of both managers and employees of HRM ... 9

2.3. The moderating role of PS-fit ... 11

3. Method ... 15

3.1. Procedure and sample description ... 15

3.2. Description of measures ... 17 3.3. Analytical strategy ... 18 4. Results ... 20 4.1. Data preparation ... 20 4.2. Analyses ... 22 5. Discussion ... 30

5.1. Conclusion and practical implications ... 30

5.2. Limitations and directions for future research ... 33

6. References ... 34

7. Appendix ... 37

Appendix 1: Introduction letter for respondents ... 37

Appendix 2: Survey Manager ... 39

Appendix 3: Survey employee ... 42

Appendix 4: Output MODMED Syntax ... 48

Appendix 5: Output Three way interaction Syntax ... 50

List of figures

Figure 1. Research model

Figure 2. The people management-performance causal link Figure 3. Hypothesis

Figure 4. Model 2 Moderated mediation effect Figure 5. Model 11

(5)

1. Introduction

Firms are always focused on increasing their performance. Especially in these times of financial crisis only the best performing firms will survive. The role of HRM in increasing the organizational performance has been studied often (Boselie et al, 2005; Combs et al, 2006; Guest 2001). Research found that HRM relates positively to organizational (productivity, efficiency, etc.), financial (profit, sales, etc.) and HR-related outcomes (like satisfaction and commitment) (Piening et al, 2014; Boselie et al, 2005; Wright et al, 2005). However, the way that HR affects organizational performance outcomes isn’t completely clear yet. Between the HRM intervention of the manager and the performance of the employee, or other related HR outcomes, lies the ‘black box’, which are the intervening variables that explain and declare what HRM does to improve performance, how and why (Boselie et al, 2005). There is proof of the existence of the ‘black box’ and there is an increasing amount of studies that tried to look inside. A few mechanisms are found explaining the relationship between HR practices and HR related outcomes.

One of these mechanisms is the employee perception of HRM. Central to understanding employees’ reactions to HR practices, and thus the HRM-performance link, are the differences between an organization’s intended HR practices and the implemented practices that employees experience (Piening et al, 2014). HR practices influence employee outcomes, like commitment and satisfaction, but only when employees consistently experience them in intended ways (Piening et al, 2014). The perception of what people see and experience what the organization is like in term of practices, policies, procedures and routines is mediating the relationship between HRM and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). So the perception of employees of HR practices is an important factor mediating the relationship between HRM and performance. For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) show that the perception of the employee will mediate the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and perceived performance of the unit. In this study this relationship is tested whereby the manager rates the performance of the employee. Also job satisfaction as HR outcome is measured. This is indicated by the employee themselves.

Current research focuses mainly on the perceptions of employees of HRM (Nishii et al, 2008). However, how managers fulfil their people management and implement the intended HR practices depends on their own motivations and commitments (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). As a consequence their motivation and commitment influences the perception of the employee of HR practices. In a study of Den Hartog et al (2013) the relationship between the perceptions of the managers and the perception of the employees is

(6)

investigated. They found a relationship, however, this relationship isn’t really strong, probably because of the influence of other factors (Den Hartog et al, 2013). Earlier research also found that a consistent way of implementing HR practices could influence individuals’ perception of HRM, which in turn will be related to individuals’ attitudes and behaviour (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Thereby, as mentioned before, Nishii et al (2008) found that HR practices could only influence employee behaviours in a desired way when they are perceived and interpreted by employees in such a way that it will engender their behavioural reaction. Therefore, it is proposed that the perception of the employee of HR practices mediates the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and job satisfaction and performance of the employee, as seen in figure 1. However, strong evidence of a mediating effect of employees’ perception of HRM is limited. This current study will address the research gap by investigating when and how the relation between perceptions of HR practices by managers and employees and HR outcomes as employee satisfaction and performance occurs.

As argued, the motivation and commitment of the manager for implementation of HR practices could influence the perceptions of the employee of HRM. Also, the relationship between the manager and employee could influence the perceptions of the employee, independent of the content of the HR practices (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Furthermore, it is found that this relationship influences the job satisfaction of the employee (Liao et al, 2009). Therefore, it is expected that the relationship between the manager and employee could also influence other HR outcomes, like job performance of the employee. If there is a high-quality relationship between the employee and the supervisor, it will lead to greater job satisfaction of the employee (Liao et al, 2009). The contribution of this study is to extend the current research by examining the Person-Supervisor fit (PS-fit) as a moderator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance and satisfaction through the perception of the employee of HRM. PS-fit are the perceptions concern the match between employees’ and supervisors’ characteristics like values, personality, and behavioural styles (Van Vianen et al, 2011). If there is a match between the manager and employee in terms of shared values, personality and behavioural styles, than the interpersonal attraction and frequency of the interaction will rise (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). If there would be a match between the manager and supervisor it would therefore be expected that it could influence the agreement between the manager and employee perceptions.

(7)

measured. Gerstner and Day (1991) found that if the perceptions between the manager and the employee don’t converge, it could influence the performance in a negative way. A lack of agreement between the manager and the employee was influencing the relationship between them and therefore also the job satisfaction and performance of the employee. Therefore, it’s important that both the ratings of the employee and the manager of PS-fit are taken into account. An additional contribution of this study is that it investigates whether there is an interaction effect between the managers’ perception of HRM, manager rated PS-fit and employee rated PS-fit on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction and performance via employees’ perception of HRM. This research will investigate if the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employee perception of HRM becomes stronger when both manager rated PS-fit and employee rated PS-fit are high. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Research model The aim of this study is to examine the effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. Thereby it is measured what the effect is of differences in PS-fit rated by both the manager and the employee. In turn, the relationships with satisfaction and performance are examined. This interaction effect hasn’t been studied before. Since there is very little evidence of the consequences of PS-fit in the work environment (Maden & Kabasakal, 2014), it is interesting to know what its influence exactly is. This study does not only contributes to the HRM theory, but also to the theories about the fit between the supervisor and the employee.

HR practices Manager HR practices Employee

Satisfaction Performance

PS-fit Manager PS-fit

(8)

Furthermore, this study extends evidence of the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and organizational outcomes, including employee performance and satisfaction (Wright et al, 2005; Boselie et al, 2005). Thereby, this study investigates the factors that influence this relationship, which helps to better understand what’s going on in the black box. It provides more information about HRM implementation in general and which factors play a role in this process. Also, this study contributes to the existing literature by finding more evidence for the relationship between the perception of the manager and the perception of the employee of HR practices, since the evidence isn’t really strong yet (Den Hartog et al, 2013).

2. Literature review

In this section, the theoretical background regarding this study will be outlined, after which the hypotheses will be formulated. First, the theoretical backgrounds of HRM and the relation with organizational outcomes will be discussed. Second, the mediating effect of employees’ perception of HRM will be outlined. Finally, the moderating effect of PS-fit will be discussed, whereby also is taken into account the interaction effect of PS-fit on the relationship of managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or performance, via employees’ perception of HRM.

2.1. HRM and the relation with organizational outcomes

Human Resource Management can be defined as the “policies, practices and systems that influence employees’ behaviour, attitudes and performance. HRM practices include analysing and designing work, determining human resource needs (HR planning), attracting potential employees (recruitment), choosing employees (selection), teaching employees how to perform their jobs and preparing them for the future (training and development), rewarding employees (compensation), evaluating their performance (performance management), and creating a positive work environment (employee relations)’ (Noe et al., 2012, p. 5).

In this study, HRM is also referred to as “High Performance Work Practices (HPWP). Research about HRM shows that an integrated set of ‘high performance’ HR practices will be most effective to organizational outcomes, rather than separate HR practices (Boselie et al, 2005). HPWP’s are performance enhancing and it includes incentive compensation, training, employee participation and selectivity (Boselie et al, 2005).

As mentioned before, between the HRM and performance lies the ‘black box’ (Boselie et al, 2005). However, there are different models that explain how HRM increases the

(9)

between HRM and performance is the AMO-model (Appelbaum et al, 2000). The HPWS’s increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the employees, it empowers them to leverage their KSAs for organizational benefit, and finally it increases their motivation to do so (Combs et al, 2006). According to the AMO-model, the performance of employees is the result of the Ability, the capacity of the employees, the Motivation and the Opportunities the employees get to perform. The AMO-model is indicated in the following formula: Performance = f(A x M x O). So the organization is able to influence the three concepts, Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (Boselie et al, 2005). All three concepts need to be present to increase the financial outcomes, organizational outcomes and HR-related outcomes (Boselie et al, 2005). In this way the AMO-model explains and declares how HRM affects performance. As a result, there is a greater job satisfaction, lower employee turnover, higher productivity, and better decision-making (Combs et al, 2006). Therefore it helps to improve organizational performance and it also improves the internal structure of the organization to facilitate communication and cooperation. As a consequence it increases the flexibility and efficiency of an organization (Combs et al, 2006).

The AMO-model is about the ability of the organization or manager to influence HR-related outcomes. However, not only the manager or organization could influence HR-HR-related outcomes, there are more factors that could influence HR-related outcomes. One of these factors is the perception of employees of HRM. The perception of employees is what people see and experience what the organization is like in term of practices, policies, procedures and routines. This perception of employees is mediating the relationship between HRM and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The perceptions and its influence will be further explained below.

2.2. Perceptions of both managers and employees of HRM

As mentioned above, HR practices can contribute to the performance of an organization. HR practices are also seen as a tool for managers that could be used to communicate important goals and desired employee behaviours from the organization to the employee (Rousseau and Greller, 1994). Den Hartog, Boselie and Paauwe (2004, p. 563) argue that HR practices are ‘signals’ and that individual employees interpret the signals differently. HR practices are often part of an HR system. Ideally, HR systems reflect its strategy and context. It shows how the organization would like to manage their employees and in this way HR practices communicate the goals of the organization (Den Hartog et al, 2013). However, not every employee interprets HR practices in a similar way, because employees differ in experience,

(10)

values or preferences (Nishii et al, 2008). Also personal interpretations and social constructions (Rousseau and Greller, 1994) are influencing the perceptions of the employees on HR practices and therefore the goals of the organization.

In the model of Purcell & Hutchinson (2007) it is shown that there is a people management-performance causal chain (figure 2).

Figure 2. The people management-performance causal chain (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007) In this study the boxes 2 until 5 are important. The actual practices are the HR practices that are implemented by the managers, so it is what the managers put into practice and it reflects the perception of the manager. Second, the perceptions of practices are the perceptions of the employees of the actual HR practices (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). However, the implementation of the practices by the manager is influenced by their own motivations and commitments (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Therefore, according to this chain, the actual practices, implemented by the manager, are influencing the perception of the employee of the practices. Also Den Hartog et al (2013) found a relationship between the perceptions of the employees and the perception of the managers, however this relationship was weakly. Purcell & Hutchinson (2007) found that the perception of employees was linked with the perception of the front line manager as the deliverer of HR practices. Therefore, since the perceptions of the employees of HRM are influenced by the actual practices implemented by the manager, the next hypothesis is conducted.

Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between managers’ perceptions of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM

Finally, the employee attitudes and behaviour boxes are important in this study. The employee attitude and behaviour is the response to the perception of the employee of HRM. This could be reflected in commitment, satisfaction or other HR-related outcomes. In this study, employees’ attitude and behaviour are measured as job satisfaction of the employee and job performance of the employee, which is indicated by the manager.

(11)

As mentioned in the introduction, it is found that HR practices influences employee outcomes, but only when employees consistently experience them in intended ways (Piening et al, 2014). The perception of what employees see and experience what the organization is like in term of practices, policies, procedures and routines is mediating the relationship between HRM (managers’ perception) and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, Den Hartog et al, 2004). Also Nishii et al (2008) argues that the employees’ experience of the HR practices will affect employee outcomes. Thereby, managers’ interpretation of HR practices provides the context within employee perceptions of HR practices is formed (Liao et al, 2009). It is expected that, besides the direct relationship between managers' perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM, the perception of the employee of HRM explains the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance. If there is a misalignment, this can affect employee outcomes (Liao et al, 2009). Also it is expected that this mediation will be partial rather than full, since there are other factors, like building a superior human capital pool, that are influencing this relationship (Den Hartog et al, 2013). In the HRM field, there are differences in employee outcomes studied. The HR-related outcomes in this study are job satisfaction of the employee and employee performance, since different studies already found significant relationships with these outcomes (Wright et al, 2005; Nishii et al, 2008; Den Hartog et al, 2013). For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) found that the perception of the employee mediates the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and perceived performance of the unit and the perception of the employee of job satisfaction (Den Hartog et al, 2013). In this way, the results of the studies are comparable in the end and the evidence of the results will become stronger. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employee satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employee performance.

2.3. The moderating role of PS-fit

The section above proposes that the relationship between HRM (managers’ perception) and job satisfaction or performance of the employee is mediated by employees’ perception of HRM. Besides the intermediary mechanism managers’ perception of HRM that explains the relationship between HRM and performance, a second question in this study is whether the fit

(12)

between the supervisor and the employees is influencing the alignment between manager and employee perceptions of HRM, and in turn, employee satisfaction and performance. To open the black box further, it is of critical interest to determine whether or not the mediation effect of employees’ perception of HRM remains constant across different values of a moderator.

It is argued that employees who have a fit with their work environment are better off than employees who do not have a fit. Kristof-Brown et al (2005) found that employees who perceive a fit with their environment are more satisfied with their job, are more attached to their organization, and perform better. There are different types of fit, like a fit with work group, job organization and supervisors (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). In this study, the fit between the employee and the supervisor is further investigated.

As mentioned before, PS-fit is the perception concern the match between employees’ and supervisors’ characteristics like values, personality, and behavioural styles (Van Vianen et al, 2011). The similarity-attraction theory provides the main explanation for the effectiveness of PS-fit. This theory argues that people are more attracted to those with whom they are similar (Byrne, 1971). As a consequence, the supervisor evaluates the employee more favourably and likes the employees whom they perceive as being more the same rather than less similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971). Also the personal values of supervisors and followers influence their behaviour in certain work situations. It is found that there is a positive relationship between PS-fit and job satisfaction and a correlation with overall performance of the employee (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). This is because people have a need for validation of their perspectives (Byrne, 1971). By achieving a fit and by interacting with others these fundamental needs can be met (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). As a consequence the employees who perceive a good interaction with their supervisors, show an increased level of satisfaction and achievement. The employees get willingness and energy to do more things beyond their duties (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). Therefore, PS-fit causes a number of positive work outcomes, like employees’ job satisfaction (Maden & Kabasakal, 2014). Finally, a correlation between the values of the employee and the manager enhances the identification of the employee with the manager and this reduces the interpersonal conflict. When supervisors and employees fit in terms of characteristics, experiences and needs, than interpersonal attraction increases and also the quality and frequency of the interaction will rise (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). Thereby, the employees depend on their supervisors when it comes to their career opportunities, social support and rewards (Van Vianen et al, 2011). Also, the loyalty of the employee to the supervisor will increase if the employee perceives a fit with the supervisor

(13)

(Van Vianen et al, 2011). Given the above, both the organization, the supervisor and the employee benefits from a PS-fit.

It is expected that PS-fit will influence the relationship between the managers perceptions of HRM and the employees’ perception of HRM. There are studies that already found a moderation effect on the relationship between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated HRM. For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) found communication to moderate this relationship. In this study, it is expected that PS-fit will moderate the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. A PS-fit increases the quality and frequency of the interaction between the supervisor and the employee. If the interaction is more and better, it is assumable that the employees better understand the perception of the managers’ regarding the implementation of HR practices and therefore perceive them in the right way. In this way, there will be a positive moderating effect. If there is a low fit or a lack of agreement between the supervisor and employee, that means that the interaction between them is of low quality and not very often. Therefore, it could be that the employee doesn’t perceive the intentions of the manager in a right way. It is expected that PS-fit moderates the relationship between the perception of the manager and the perception of the employee of HRM. The following hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perception of PS-fit moderates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM.

Furthermore, it is expected that there will be an interaction effect between employee-rated HRM, manager PS-fit and employee PS-fit on job satisfaction and performance of the employee. It is found that there are perceptual differences between HR managers and employees involving HR practices (Aryee, Walumba, Seidu, & Otaye, 2012; Den Hartog et al, 2013). In this way, it is assumable that there are also differences in the perspectives of managers and employees about the quality of the fit between each other. Therefore, managers; perception of PS-fit is added to the model. The Leader-member exchange theory (LMX theory) is an important theory about the relationship and fit between leaders and members. This theory focuses on dyads, couples of managers and employees and argues that managers develop different relationships with each employee. The fit between the supervisor and employee is influencing the responsibility of the employee, their influence on decisions and their access to resources (Rockstuhl et al 2012). Also, if there is a good fit, the manager provides the employee more information, greater status, personal support and approval and

(14)

career development opportunities (Davis and Garner, 2004). This contributes to an increase in the performance of the employee (Rockstuhl et al 2012, Gerstner & Day, 1997). Therefore, for an organization it is important that the quality of the fit between the supervisor and the employee is good.

However, sometimes the perception of the managers and employees of the relationship do not converge (Sin et al, 2009). Gerstner & Day (1997) for example, found that there could be a lack of leader-member agreement on how they both rate the quality of the relationship. This lack of agreement could influence the level of performance of the employee (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The concept of PS-fit is in line with LMX, both theories focus on the relationship between the manager and the employee and also take into account the influence of this relationship on organizational outcomes. Therefore, it’s assumable that there could also be a lack of agreement between the supervisor and the employee in PS-fit. In this study, the literature about the differences in ratings in the LMX theory is used as a starting-point for the PS-fit, since the different ratings of employees and managers of PS-fit haven’t been investigated before. It is expected that the ratings of the PS-fit of the employee and the manager could be different and the combination of manager and employee ratings of PS-fit could influence the relationship between employees’ and manager perception of HRM. Based on the literature of the LMX theory, it is expected that if both the manager and the employee rate the PS-fit positive, this will have the strongest effect on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. If both the manager and the employee perceive a high PS-fit, that means that the interaction is frequent and of high quality. Due to this interaction, the manager can communicate his or her perception of HR practices and this increases the likelihood that the employee better understands the perceptions of the manager. This better understanding could influence the perceptions of the employee of the HR practices. On the other hand, if both the manager and the employee rate the PS-fit negative, it is expected that there is a low level of interaction, which could influence the perception of the employee of the HR practices negatively, since the employee doesn’t interact with the manager frequently and of high quality. This means that the manager could not explain his or her perceptions and intentions. Because of a lack of research no expectations can be formulated with regard to the other options. It’s not known yet how and what the effect will be when only the manager or the employee rate the fit negative. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.

(15)

Hypothesis 5: There will be a three-way interaction between manager-rated HRM, manager PS-fit and employee PS-fit on employees’ perception of HRM, such that the relationship between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated HRM will be strongest when both manager and employee PS-fit are high.

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 Figure 4. Hypotheses 3. Method

In this chapter the method of this study will be presented. The procedure, the sample, the data collection techniques, the measurement of the variables and the procedure of the data analysis will be explained in more detail.

3.1. Procedure and sample description

A research team of the Master Business Studies conducted this study. The team consisted of three students and was supervised by Dr. Corine Boon, from the Leadership and Management department of the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the project was to add extra data for both the professor and the theses of the students. In 2014, another research team already collected data of dyads at Dutch organizations. This year, the research team collected data from March to May 2015 at German organizations. Except for the language, no changes have been made in the questionnaire. The Dutch items are converted to German by a bilingual student and are reviewed by a bilingual researcher from the department. The translation has

HR practices Manager HR practices Employee

Satisfaction Performance

PS-fit Manager PS-fit

(16)

been done, because Saunders and Lewis (2012) argue “familiar and clear questions advance the validity of the responses”.

For this study data of German organizations has been collected to the existing data. The reason to collect data in Germany was because one of the members of the research team is German and had interesting contacts already in Germany that would like to participate in this survey. Also, this provided the opportunity to test this model in an international sample. Dyads are couples of one manager with an associated employee. However, in this study sometimes double dyads are used, one manager with two associated employees.

In the introduction of the questionnaire, it’s emphasized that the information will be treated confidentially. Also, the introduction outlined the purpose, duration and the concepts of the questionnaire. Because there was no sampling frame of the population, the data was collected with a combination of two non-probability sampling methods, namely convenience sampling and snowball sampling (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The first was used to gain access to respondents and organizations via personal contacts of the German member of the research team. The organizations were invited via e-mail to participate in this survey. The second method was used to try to get more dyads participated via the already participating employees and managers (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The managers and employees were invited to participate with an e-mail in which consent was asked and instruction of the procedure was given. After three weeks a reminder was send to the respondents who hadn’t finished the questionnaire yet.

Via the dyads, data has been obtained from both the manager and the employee. By using a matching code, the surveys of the managers and the employees are linked. Via Qualtrics the data was online collected. Thus, a quantitative study was conducted with four questionnaires; a Dutch manager and employee questionnaire and a German manager and employee questionnaire. The questionnaire consists closed questions, which represents a suitable type of question for this study (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Through a Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 7), the questions could be answered. There were different items included regarding HR practices, job satisfaction of the employee, task performance of the employee and PS-fit. Also, questions about demographic data were added to the questionnaire. In this study only the data obtained for the variables HR practices, PS-fit, task performance and job satisfaction and control variables gender and age of employee, country they live in and tenure of the employee with the supervisor were used. The manager questionnaire took approximately five minutes to complete and the employee questionnaire approximately ten

(17)

minutes to complete. The managers rated HR practices, PS-fit and task performance. The employee rated HR practices, PS-fit and job satisfaction.

After the data collection, the two datasets were merged. The final sample consisted of 269 dyads. The dataset consists of 134 manager and 269 employees. The data collection was mainly collected from Dutch respondents (70,6 %), but also German respondents participated (29,4%). In total, 62,7% of the managers is male and 37,3% of the managers is female. Of the employees, 39,5 % is male and 60,5 % is female. The average age of the managers is 43,25 years old (SD=11,57) and the average age of the employees is 36,35 years old (SD=12,59). Finally, employees work with together with the supervisor on average for 3,33 years (SD=3,94).

3.2. Description of measures

The measurements scales of the variables included in this study are shown in this section. Only validated scales were used, because that indicates a proven quality of the items. Also it increases the reliability (Saunders and Lewis, 2012).

Managers completed the 15-item HRM practices scale that is developed by Kehoe and Wright (2013). The HRM scale consisted of three concepts: ability enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-motivation-enhancing practices. Together, the 15 items represent a high performance human resource system. With this scale, the perception of the manager on the HR practices is reflected, because the managers were asked to show to what extent they agrees with the statements related to specific practices. Examples of scale items are: “The company hires only the very best people for this job” and “Employees receive formal training each year”. Cronbach’s alpha for managers perception of HRM is α=0.808. Also employees completed this 15-item scale. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.862.

The Person-Supervisor fit is measured by a 3-item scale, developed by Cable and DeRue (2002). The employees used the exact scale of Cable and DeRue (2002) and for the managers, the items are reworded. Therefore, they used the reformulated version. Sample items are: “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that this subordinate values” and “My personal values match this subordinate‘s values”. Cronbach’s alpha for managers perception of PS-fit is α=0.902. For employees cronbach’s alpha is α=0.936.

The manager was also asked about their perception of the task performance of each employee. This 4-item scale is developed by Van Dyne & LePine (1998). Examples of scale items are: “The employee fulfils the responsibilities specified in his/her job description” and “The employee meets performance expectations”. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.874.

(18)

Finally, the employee was asked about their job satisfaction. This 3-item scale was developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh (1979). Scale items are: “In general I don’t like my work” and “In general, I like working here”. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.841. 3.3. Analytical strategy

The data has been analysed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 22.0 (SPSS 22.0). The data was (re-)coded and variables and constructs were created. Some respondents skipped the majority of the questions, those respondents were excluded for the dataset. There was no need to check for normality, since the dataset consists of 269 dyads. Skewness and kurtosis will then not influence the results (Field, 2009).

After this, an exploratory deductive research analysis has been completed. In this way the demographic characteristics of the sample were computed. Also, with a reliability test the internal consistency of the scales was tested. The scales are reliable when Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.7 or higher (Field, 2009). A dummy variablewas made from the control variable country, in which 0 refers to respondents from the Netherlands and 1 refers to respondents from Germany.

Some control variables were included in order to prevent unintended effects that influence the result of the study (Field, 2009). The control variables in this study are: gender of employee, age of employee, country and tenure with the supervisor. The distinction is made between the German and Dutch respondents by controlling for country, since cultural differences can impact HR practices, HR policies and its effectiveness (Laurent, 1986). Also, only the employee control variables are represented since their group has the majority.

The first hypothesis was tested through multiple regression analyses. Hypothesis 2 and 3 focus on the mediating effect of HRM perception of employees on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or performance. These hypotheses have been tested with six multiple regression analyses. To test this mediation effect the SPSS macro Process of Andrew Hayes is used. This macro is provided by the website of Andrew Hayes (www.afhayes.com).

Hypotheses 4 was tested through the moderated mediation effect. First, the variables managers’ perception of HRM, managers’ perception of PS-fit and employee perception of PS-fit has been standardized. Thereafter, by creating interaction variables in the multiple regression analyses the moderating influence of PS-fit was analysed (Baron and Kenny, 1986). To test the moderated mediation effect the SPSS macro MODMED of Hayes is used. If this macro is used in the right way, then it provides information about which variables in the

(19)

model functions as the independent variable, the mediator, the outcome, and the moderator in the desired analysis. In this study, model 2 (see figure 4) is used, whereby some fourth variable (W) the a1 path affects (Preacher et al, 2007).

Figure 4. Model 2 Moderated mediation effect (Preacher et al, 2007)

Hypothesis 5 is tested with a three-way interaction effect. This means that there is a two-way interaction that varies across levels of a third variable. For this hypothesis, model 11 is used, whereby the influence of two variables (W and Z) the a1 path affects (Preacher et al, 2007). See figure 5. To test this hypothesis, hypotheses 4 and 5 are combined.

(20)

Figure 5. Model 11 (Preacher et al, 2007)

4. Results

This chapter first describes the process of data preparation. Thereafter, the results of the exploratory analysis will be given. This follows by a description of the analyses with regards to the hypotheses testing and finally the results will be discussed.

4.1. Data preparation

Table 1 show the means, standard deviation and correlations of the variables. There are no items deleted in order to increase the internal consistency. It’s important to check for correlations between variables before running a regression analysis. Table 2 shows the Pearson’s correlation coefficients from the SPSS analysis indicating the significant correlations between variables.

The tests for multicollinearity (table 2) shows that there are no multicollinearity problems in any of the regression analyses, because the tolerance levels are higher than 0.10, and the VIF values are below 5. This is the case when independent variables correlate to a

(21)

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Controls: 1. Gender_e - 2. Age_e 36,26 12,593 -.013 3. Country - .104 .266** 4. Tenure 3,325 3,936 .009 .413** .220** Variables: 5. mHRM 4,775 0.847 -.091 -.020 -.228** -.211** 6. eHRM 4,306 0.987 -.036 .088 -.105 -.054 .338** 7. Jsattot 5,840 0.999 .046 .061 .032 .012 -.009 .253** 8. Perftot 5,956 0.808 .132 .024 .188** .029 .032 -.023 .252** 9. mPSfit 5.176 1.059 .024 .023 -.040 .024 .137* .216** .176** .369** 10. ePSfit 5.095 1.176 -.013 -.053 .003 .026 .121 .257** .318** .256** .242** Notes: Alphas are in parentheses; *p < .05. **p < .01.

Gender_e = gender employee, Age_e = age of employee, Tenure = tenure of the employee with the supervisor, mHRM = manager rated HRM, eHRM = employee rated HRM, Jsattot = Job satisfaction of the employee, Perftot = Performance of the employee rated by manager, mPSfit = manager rated PS-fit, ePSfit = employee ratedd PS-fit

(22)

Therefore, multicollinearity should be avoided (Field, 2009). Managers’ perception of HRM is used as dependent variable.

Table 2. Multicollinearity Tolerance VIF Jsattot .862 1.160 Perftot .941 1.062 mFittot .837 1.195 eFittot .841 1.189

Notes: Tolerance levels needs to be higher than .10 and VIF values below 5. Dependent variable: mHRM

4.2. Analyses

To test the hypotheses different analyses were conducted and all tests are controlled for gender and age of the employee, country and tenure with the supervisor.

The first hypothesis is: There will be a positive relationship between managers’ perceptions of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. To test this hypothesis a linear regression analyse was conducted. The results show that the regression model is significant (F (5,229) = 7.272; p < 0,01). There is a direct significant positive relationship between managers perception of HRM and employees perception of HRM (β = .333, t =5.111, p < 0.01). The variable mHRM explains 14 % of the variance in eHRM. The results are shown in table 3. Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 3. Regression Results

B SE β t F p R2 Gender_e -.048 .127 -.024 -.379 Age_e .012 .005 .155* 2.251 Country -.058 .140 -.028 -.413 Tenure -.009 .017 -.037 -.535 mHRM .393 0,077 .333** 5,111 7.272 .000 .140 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01

Dependent variable: eHRMtot

The second hypothesis is: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and Job satisfaction. This hypothesis can be conducted with a mediation model and is tested by using multiple regression analyses with a syntax provided by Preacher and Hayes. According to Baron & Kenny (1986) there are four

(23)

managers’ perception of HRM and Job satisfaction, which can be mediated. Second, treat the employees’ perception of HRM (mediator) as dependent variable and test if there is a relationship with managers’ perception of HRM (independent). Third, test that employees’ perception of HRM affects Job satisfaction, by using managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM as two independent variables and Job satisfaction as dependent variable. Fourth, identify the significance of the relationship including the mediator in the regression analysis. The results of the analysis are represented table 4. It is shown that the model as a whole is significant (F = 5.208, p < 0,01, R2 = 0.124) Thereby, the first step is not significant, (β = -0.135, t (228) = -1.655, p > 0.05). The second step, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM is positive significant, as shown in table 3. Finally, step 4 is not significant (β = 0.007, t (228) = 0.081, p > 0.05). According to Baron & Kenny (1986) all steps needs to be significant in establishing a mediation effect.

Table 4. Multiple regressions: mHRM and Job satisfaction, mediated by eHRM

Variables Step F p R2 β t p 1 .415 .838 .009 mHRM .007 .081 .936 Controls: Gender_e .148 -1.095 .275 Age_e .004 .734 .464 Country .044 .293 .770 Tenure -.006 -.341 .734 4 5.208 .000 .124 eHRM .359** 5.377 .000 mHRM -.135 -1.655 .099 Controls: Gender_e .148 -1.095 .275 Age_e .004 .734 .464 Country .044 .293 .770 Tenure -.006 -.341 .734 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01

(24)

There are some researchers who have different thoughts about the need of a direct relationship between the independent and the outcome variable in order to support mediation. They argue that there could still be a mediating effect even if there is no significant relationship between the independent and the outcome variable (Hayes, 2009). Also Zhao, Lynch and Chen (2010) comply with the assumption of Hayes (2009), that it’s only necessary to test for an indirect effect in order to decide whether there is a mediation effect. Therefore, also an indirect effect is tested of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee. In order to do that, a bootstrapping method has been used (Hayes, 2009). For analysing the direct, indirect and total effects the process macro of Hayes (2013) is used. The results are shown in table 5. As seen in the table, eventhough there is no significant direct or total effect, there is significant indirect effect (β = 0.142, LLCI = 0.075, ULCI = 0.260). The confidence interval does not contain zero, which indicates an indirect effect. This means that employees’ perception of HRM is a mediator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee.

Table 5. Direct, indirect and total effect of: mHRM and Job satisfaction, mediated by eHRM

Variables β t BootLLCI BootULCI p

Effects:

Direct -.135 -.1.655 -.295 .026 .099

Indirect .142 - .075 .260 <.050

Total .007 .081 .936 -.155 .168

Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01

The third hypothesis is: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance. This hypothesis is tested in the same way as Hypothesis 2 and according to the same four steps necessary in establishing a mediation effect of Baron & Kenny (1986). As seen in table 6, the model as a whole is significant (F = 2.294, p > 0.05, R2 = 0.063). The first step is to test if there is a relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance of the employee. The results show that there is no significant relationship (β = 0.111, t (212) = 1.628, p > 0,05). Second, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM has been tested and in line with hypothesis 2 there is a significant positive relationship (β = 0.380, t (212) = 4.737, p < 0,01). Finally, identify the significance of the relationship including the

(25)

mediator in the regression analysis, turns out not to be significant. Since not all four steps necessary in establishing a mediation effect are significant, there is no mediating effect of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance of the employee. Therefore, H3 can be rejected.

Table 6. Multiple regressions: mHRM and Job performance, mediated by eHRM

Variables Step F p R2 β t p 1 2.672 .023 .061 mHRM .097 1.497 .136 Controls: Gender_e .189 1.736 .084 Age_e -.003 -.626 .532 Country .336** 2.803 .006 Tenure .002 .154 .878 4 2.294 .036 .063 mHRM .111 1.628 .105 eHRM -.037 -.665 .507 Controls: Gender_e .185 .1702 .090 Age_e -.002 -.515 .607 Country .333 2.773 .570 Tenure .002* .133 .030 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01

The results of the fourth and fifth hypothesis are combined in this chapter. First, it is tested whether PS-fit (rated by the employee) moderates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. This hypothesis is tested with a moderation model by using a regression analyses with a syntax provided by Preacher and Hayes. The results show that the model as a whole is significant (F = 7.854, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.199). In table 7, the results of the analysis can be found.

The effect of mHRM on eHRM is not significant (β = 0.130, t = .386, p > 0.05). Also, eFITtot is not significant (β = 0.016, t = 0.055, p > 0.05). Finally, the interaction mHRM x eFITtot is not significant (β = 0.041, t = .0671, p > 0.05). This indicates that there is no

(26)

significant direct moderating effect of PS-fit for managers’ perception of HRM on employees’ perception of HRM.

Table 7. Analysis of moderation effect of PS-fit

F p R2 β t p Controls: Gender_e -.081 -.648 .518 Age_e .013* 2.500 .013 Country -.069 -.508 .612 Tenure -.013 .-811 .418 Variables: mHRM .130 .386 .700 eFITtot .016 .055 .956 mHRM x eFITtot 7.854 .000 .199 .043 .671 .503 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01 Dependent variable: eHRMtot

Thereafter, it is tested whether there will be moderated mediation effect, whereby is tested if employees’ perception of PS-fit moderates the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction via the employees’ perception of HRM. This is tested both with job satisfaction of the employee and job performance of the employee as outcome.

First, the moderated mediation model is tested by using a regression analysis with the syntax provided by Preacher and Hayes, model 2. Employee rated HRM was regressed on control variables, manager rated HRM, ePS-fit and the interaction term (mHRM x ePS-fit). This moderated mediation model is tested twice, first with job satisfaction as outcome, second with Job performance as outcome. The results of the model with job satisfaction of the employee as outcome are listed in table 8, in the upper part of the table. The results show that for job satisfaction the model as a whole is significant (F = 5.777, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.193). However, the interaction term is not significant (β = -0.039, t = -0.596, p > 0.05). Therefore, PS-fit doesn’t function as a moderator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction via employees’ perception of HRM.

(27)

Table 8. Analysis of moderated mediation effect of PS-fit

R2 F β t p

Interaction with outcome Jsattot Controls: Gender_e .155 1.233 .219 Age_e .003 .490 .625 Country .040 .293 .770 Tenure -.007 -.398 .691 Variables: zmHRM -.139* -2.054 .041 zeFITtot .267** 4.014 .000 zmHRM X zeFITtot .193 5.777 -.039 -.596 .552 zeHRM .283** 4.260 .000

Interaction with outcome Perftot Controls: Gender_e .204 1.898 .059 Age_e .000 .014 .989 Country .307** 2.638 .009 Tenure -.002 -.160 .873 Variables: zmHRM .095 1.677 .095 zeFITtot .185** 3.245 .001 zmHRM X zeFITtot .137 3.554 -.086 -1.541 .125 zeHRM -.080 -1.422 .157 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01

Dependent variable: Jsattot and Perftot

Second, this model has been tested with performance as outcome. It is tested if PS-fit has a moderated effected on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance and job performance of the employee via the employees’ perception of HRM. The results are shown in table 8 and show that the model as a whole is significant (F = 3.554, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.137). However, again, the interaction term is not significant (β = -0.086, t = -1.541, p > 0.05). Therefore, PS-fit doesn’t function as a moderator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance of the employee via the employees’ perception of HRM.

Since no significant interaction terms has been found, there is no support for H4, in that there is no moderation effect found of the employees’ perception of PS-fit on the

(28)

relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or job performance of the employee via employees’ perception of HRM.

Finally, additional analyses were done to explore potential three-way interactions. The interaction models were extended with a second moderator, the perception of the manager of PS-fit. This moderated mediation model with two moderators is also tested twice. First, with the outcome job satisfaction of the employee and second, with the outcome performance of the employee. It is examined whether there will be a three-way interaction between manager-rated HRM, manager PS-fit and employee PS-fit on employees’ perception of HRM, such that the relationship between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated HRM will be strongest when both manager and employee PS-fit are high. Employees’ perception of HRM was regressed on managers’ perception of HRM, PS-fit rated by the manager, PS-fit rated by the employee and the interaction terms. The results for the outcome job satisfaction of the employee are shown in table 9 and 10. The model as a whole is significant (F = 5.083, p = < 0.05, R2 = 0.130). However, none of the interactions are significant. Therefore, there is no three-way-interaction found with the outcome job satisfaction of the employee. The results do show a significant positive relationship between employees; perception of HRM and managers’ perception of HRM and between employees’ perception of PS-fit and employees’ perception of HRM. Thereby, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit is marginally significant (β = 0.125, t (228) = 1.862, p = 0.064). Also, as found before, a significant relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee is found.

Table 9. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job satisfaction

R2 F β t p Controls: Gender_e -.089 -.681 .497 Age_e .014* 2.563 .011 Country -.097 -.682 .496 Tenure -.019 -.106 .270 Variables: zmHRM .250** 3.675 .000 zePSfit .240** 3.432 .001 zmPSfit .125 1.862 .064 zmHRM x zePSfit .011 .156 .876

(29)

zmHRM x zmPSfit .094 1.282 .201

zePSfit x zmPSfit .100 .1598 .112

zmHRM x zePSfit x zmPSfit .232 5.506 .076 .954 .341

Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01, Dependent variable: eHRM

Table 10. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job satisfaction

R2 F β t p Controls: Gender_e .134 .998 .320 Age_e -.003 -497 .620 Country .111 .757 .450 Tenure -.001 -.029 .977 Variables: zmHRM -.137 -1.921 .056 zeHRM .130 5.083 .367** 5.379 .000 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01, Dependent variable: Jsat

The results for the outcome job performance of the employee are shown in table 11 and 12. The model as a whole is significant (F = 2.274, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.063). However, none of the interactions are significant. Therefore, there is no significant three-way interaction effect for the outcome job performance. Again, these results do show a positive significant relationship between employees perception of HRM and managers’ perception of HRM and between employees’ perception of PS-fit and employees’ perception of HRM. Thereby, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit is marginally significant (β = 0.126, t (228) = 1.834, p = 0.068.

Table 11. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job performance

R2 F β t p Controls: Gender_e -.093 -.697 .486 Age_e .014* 2.552 .012 Country -.101 -.695 .488 Tenure -.019 -1.083 .280 Variables: zmHRM .253** 3.663 .000 zePSfit .241** 3.363 .001

(30)

zmPSfit .126 1.834 .068 zmHRM x zePSfit .009 .128 .898 zmHRM x zmPSfit .094 1.259 .230 zePSfit x zmPSfit .009 1.542 .125 zmHRM x zePSfit x zmPSfit .225 5.237 .075 .911 .363 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01 Dependent variable: eHRM

Table 10. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job performance

R2 F β t p Controls: Gender_e .183 1.673 .096 Age_e -.002 -.501 .617 Country .223** 2.774 .006 Tenure .002 .131 .896 Variables: zmHRM .093 1.606 .110 zeHRM -.037 -.661 .509 Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01, Dependent variable: Perftot

5. Discussion

The aim of this study is to extend the current research by examining the PS-fit as a moderator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance through the perception of the employee of HRM. In this section, the conclusions are drawn from the results section. Furthermore, some limitations of this study, suggestions for future research, and theoretical and practical implications will be given.

5.1. Conclusion and practical implications

The results come from in total 269 useable manager-employee dyads. The results show that hypothesis 1 is confirmed. It is found that there is a positive relationship between managers’ perceptions of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. This means that the HRM practices, implemented by the manager, are positively influencing the perception of the employee of the HRM practices. These results are in line with other studies (Den Hartog et al, 2013; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Managers’ perception of HRM explains 14% of the perception of employees of HRM. When the employees perceive the practices as positive, this will

(31)

wasn’t really strong yet (Den Hartog et al, 2013), this study strengthens the evidence of a relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. Managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM only partly overlap (β = 0.250), probably because of the influence of other factors, like communication (Den Hartog et al, 2013) or personal interpretations (Rousseau and Greller, 1994).

Also, there is found support for H2. First it is found that there is significant, direct and positive relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee. This means that if the employees perceive HRM as positive, their job satisfaction will increase. Second, it is found that there is an indirect of effect of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee. This means that the perception of the manager about the HR practices is influencing the satisfaction of the employee in a positive way, only if the employee perceive the implemented HR practices by the manager as positive. This is in line with the existing literature of Wright et al (2005), Nishii et al (2008), Bowen & Ostroff (2004) and Den Hartog et al (2013).

However, no support was found for hypothesis 3. This means that there is no mediating effect found of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance. Since no correlation was found between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance of the employee, there is no direct relation to mediated. However, also no indirect effect is found. These results are not in accordance to the existing literature. Wright et al, 2005; Nishii et al, 2008; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004 and Den Hartog et al, 2013 all found the perception of the employee mediating the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and perceived performance of the unit.

Finally, no support was found for hypothesis 4 and 5. This means that there is no moderating influence found of PS-fit on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. Almost all variables correlated, besides managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit. This could be explained by the fact that the perception of employees of the relationship between them and the supervisor is about shared values. How the manager is implementing HR practices does not necessarily say anything about if the supervisor and manager share values or whether their personalities match. Therefore, it could be that no relation between these variables has been found. Also,

(32)

no moderated mediation and no three-way interaction are found of PS-fit on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance and satisfaction through employees’ perception of HRM, probably due to this lack of correlation. Since little research has been done about the PS-fit, the results are difficult to be compared with other studies.

What is found in this study, is that there is a positive significant relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit. This means that if employees perceive the HR practices as more positive, they will also perceive the fit between them and the supervisor as more positive. Thereby, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit is marginally significant (β = 0.125, t (228) = 1.862, p = 0.064).

The results of this study can serve as guidance for managers in practice. The significant relationship between the managers’ perception of HRM and the employees’ perception of HRM has consequences for the practical implications of managers. Managers should endeavour to implement HR practices for three reasons. First, they have to implement HR practices in order to enhance the satisfaction of their employees. Second, the perception of managers of HR practices is influencing how the employees perceive the HR practices of the organization. It’s important that the managers in the organizations makes sure that the employees have a good perception of the practices, because this study found that the perception of employees of HRM is influencing the job satisfaction of the employee. Therefore, the manager has to be aware that his or her implementation of the HRM practices is important for the organization. Third, it is found that the perception of employees of HR practices is influencing their perception of the relationship with their supervisor. Given the fact that the managers’ perception of HRM is influencing the employees’ perception of HRM, it’s very important for the organization that managers drive positive perceptions of HRM by employees.

Taken together, this study has increased our understanding of the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM, employees’ perception of HRM and the influence of these perceptions on the job satisfaction. Thereby, this study has been a starting point to examine the effect of PS-fit within the field of HRM.

(33)

5.2. Limitations and directions for future research

In this section some limitations of this study will be discussed. Also some suggestions for future research are provided. The results of this study contributes to the literature of strategic human resource management.

In this study dyads have been used. However, the participation was not completely anonymous. Special codes were made to match managers and subordinates. It could be that employees were afraid of losing their job if they admitted that the match with the supervisor wasn’t really good or if they say that they are not satisfied with their job. Thereby, Graen and Scandura (1987) commented that supervisors often do not discriminate between low- and high-quality dyads, due to socially desirable responses. This could also influence the outcome of the study. Another factor that could be influenced by socially desirable responses is the risk of self-rated items. In this study PS-fit and job satisfaction, were self-rated by the employee and the manager. To overcome this limitation, also manager-rated items have been used, like a manager rating the performance of the employee and manager rated the fit with the employee. However, this could have influenced the results.

Another limitation could be the cross-sectional nature of this study. This means that there could be reversed causation or that it could play a role. It is found that organizations that are well-doing, have more money to spend on HR practices, which in turn could influence the performance of the organization positively (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan & Allen, 2005). In this study, it is not tested whether the effects were causal. The focus has been on the implementation of HR practices by the manager influencing the job satisfaction and performance of the employee, not the other way around. In the future more research is needed regarding the direction of causality.

Thereby, since no mediating effect of perception of the employee on the relationship between the perception of the manager and job performance of the employee is found, future research is needed. These results are not in line with the study of inter alia Den Hartog et al (2013). Future research is needed about this relationship to confirm or reject the findings of this study. Since both a direct relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee and indirect relationship of managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee via employees’ perception of HRM is found, it would be interesting to test more outcomes. Suggestions for future research are outcomes as commitment, since this has been test by other studies.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

In 2000, a study [12] in which the effects of total sleep deprivation, REM sleep and SWS interruption and sleep recovery on mechanical and thermal pain sensitivity

The question remains what role of uncertainty avoidance plays at an individual level and how or if it is related to HR distinctiveness and satisfaction or employee

This study aims to test the moderating effect of the psychological contract importance of employees on the relationship between HRM practices within the HRM systems as perceived

Voogt, Erstad, Dede, &amp; Mishra (2013), specified skills that are more related to the current economic and social situation, than the skills that were required in the past

Lines (2004) confirms the importance of recipients, by stating that the involvement of recipients will lead to change success. He concludes by arguing that the use

Concerning the moderating effect however, only one of the interaction effects related to the three significant benefits has been found to be statistically significant, namely the one

By deploying thematic analysis method, data were categorized into different meaningful groups, after which major themes emerged, such as respondents’ perception on

Green messages are known to influence brand gender and this is an important marketing tool to create product equity, but it is not yet known how an anti- consumption message