FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
Human Resource Management and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction
THESIS SUPERVISORS
Dr. Corine Boon
Prof. Dr. Deanne Den Hartog
Student: Asimakopoulou Christina
Student Number: 10398503
AMSTERDAM
2014
Abstract
This study comprehensively evaluates the relationship between employees’ perceptions of bundles of High Performance Work Practices and organizational citizenship behavior, dedicating a focus to the possible mediating role of job satisfaction in these relationships. Data in this research was collected from surveys of managers as well as employees from diverse organizations among numerous countries. Contrary to our predictions were most of the results of this research, where HRWPs’ bundles which aim to enhance employees’ abilities as well as those which target to employees’ motivation were found unrelated to organizational citizenship behavior, while on the opposite, opportunity-enhancing HR practices showed a significant relationship with organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction was found to fully mediate this relationship.
Keywords: ability-enhancing HR practices, motivation-enhancing HR practices, opportunity-enhancing HR practices, job satisfaction, OCB
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction……….….……..4
2. Literature Review……….……..7
2.1. Ability-enhancing, Motivation-enhancing and Opportunity-enhancing HR practices……….…..7
2.2. Job satisfaction……….……10
2.3. Dimensions of OCB…..………...……12
2.4. HPWPs and organizational citizenship behavior……….………14
2.5. The mediating role of job satisfaction………...…..16
3. Research methods………18
3.1. Procedure……….18
3.2. Participants……….….18
3.3. Measurement………...…19
4. Data analysis and results……….…20
4.1. Data analysis………...…20
4.2. Results………..……..…20
4.2.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations………...…………20
4.2.2. Regression analysis………...……24
5. Discussion………...……35
6. Implications for theory and practice………...………37
7. Limitations……….……….38
8. Future research………....…………39
9. Conclusion………....……..…40
10. References……….……….……….…..…..41
1. Introduction
Many studies have emphasized the importance of strategic management of employees in order to elicit their productive potential (Batt, 2002). Strategic human resource management (SHRM) examines bundles or systems of HR practices in place rather than HR practices in isolation. While some studies have found organizational benefits which are associated to particular HR practices, it is generally believed that a system's view is more appropriate (Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006). Delery (1998) stated that “the basic assumption is that the effectiveness of any practice depends on the other practices in place. If all of the practices fit into a coherent system, the effect of that system on performance should be greater than the sum of the individual effects from each practice alone” (p. 291). Based on the assumption that implementation of a specific organizational strategy which is in line with a system of internally coherent human resource practices instead of isolated individual practices influence organizational performance (Lepak et al., 2006); research in SHRM has examined the impact of high-performance work systems on organizational performance. Although Boxall and Purcell (2003) noted that there is no consensus regarding the definite components of HPWSs, they find a common “very basic theory of performance” being used, which they name the “AMO theory”. Boxall and Purcell claim that performance is a function of employees’ abilities, motivation and opportunities. Bundles of HR practices have been distinguished that affect the aforementioned components and thus, have been categorized into ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HR practices.
Based on the social exchange theory, the implementation of HR practices that aim to the development of employees’ abilities, motivation and opportunities send signals to employees that they are highly valued. In turn, employees are willing to perform beyond their given job descriptions following the norm of reciprocity (Wei, Han and Hsu, 2010). The discretionary effort displayed by employees that exceeds one’s basic job requirements is defined by Organ (1988) as “organizational citizenship behavior” (OCB). Over the years organizational citizenship behavior has received much attention from practitioners and has become one of the most thoroughly studied constructs in the organizational behavior literature. Organ (1988) argued that OCB is a much sought-after element that individuals should display and is held to be vital for the viable functioning of an organization. He further proposed that OCB can maximize the
efficiency as well as productivity of both the employee and the organization that ultimately contribute to the overall effective functioning of the organization. Thus, researchers’ efforts that examine how to motivate and stimulate employees to more fully engage in OCB may provide substantial implications for managers and employers.
It has been found that one of the most salient antecedents of OCB is job satisfaction. Based on previous literature, job satisfaction has been found to have a positive relationship with OCB. Workers with high levels of job satisfaction are more likely to participate in OCB (Brown, 1993). Moreover, job satisfaction has been found to have a strong relationship with HR bundles intended to enhance employees’ abilities, motivation and opportunities. Employees feel higher levels of job satisfaction in those organizations which use HPWSs by giving them the opportunity to participate in decision making procedures, improving their knowledge, skills and abilities and providing them career opportunities and autonomy in work (Guest et al., 2004). Some prior studies have already tested the relationship between HR bundles based on the AMO model and OCB when mediated by job satisfaction, but they limit our understanding of this relationship because they focus mainly on the unit-level basis. More particularly, a recent study of Messersmith and his colleagues (2011) found that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between HPWSs and OCB in the aggregate.
The aim of this study is to orient our research towards understanding the strength of this relationship between ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HR practices, and OCB when mediated by job satisfaction.
Though each of the components of the AMO theory has been studied extensively, the equal focus on abilities, motivation and opportunities is quite novel. Most of the previous studies have mainly examined the relationship between a single bundle of HR practices and outcomes. Vroom (1964) focused on the abilities and motivation of an employee as determinants of performance, more particularly stating that “the effects of motivation on performance are dependent on the level of ability of the worker, and the relationship of ability to performance is dependent on the motivation of the worker” (p. 203), lacking thus the integration of opportunities in his study. Likewise, Campbell’s (1990) study also focused on only the ability and motivation components in their relationship of job performance and provided the assumption that situational effects are held constant.
Recently, researchers have started to look at each of the AMO theory components in its holistic approach (Jiang et al. 2012; Huselid, 1995; Subramony, 2009; Lepak et al., 2006). The contribution of the current study to the literature is the examination of the relationship of ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HR bundles with job satisfaction and OCB and the extent to which those bundles have the same or different effects on the two variables. Furthermore, this article studies the HR bundles from an employee perspective, extending the limited studies that have focused on the important role of employees’ perceptions of HR practices. Due to the fact that employees’ perceptions of HR bundles follow managers’ HR practices’ implementation (Nishii & Wright, 2008), employees’ perceptions are more likely to be indicative of their behaviors and attitudes that they will display than the HR ratings that their managers provide. Individual differences in reactions to and the perceptions of a company’s HRM practices come from numerous factors such as values and beliefs, past experience or individual expectations (Den Hartog, Boselie and Paauwe, 2004). Therefore, an HRM system can be understood and interpreted in different ways and employees’ perceptions of this system are most relevant to behavioral and attitudinal outcomes on an individual level (Guest, 1999). For this reasons, the effects of HR practices are chosen to be studied from the employee perspective rather than a manager’s perspective in this research.
The following section consists of a review of the literature regarding the HR practices based on the AMO theory, job satisfaction and OCB. Next, the hypotheses of this study are articulated. Following, the method section describes the procedure, the respondents’ participation and the measurement of the variables used within this research. Subsequently, the results of the research are thoroughly analyzed and report if the hypotheses are supported or rejected. Afterwards, in the discussion part the results of the hypotheses are analyzed and potential reasons for the hypotheses that were rejected are articulated. Then, implications for theory and practice are suggested and the main limitations of this research are highlighted. Finally, suggestions for future research are made followed by a concluding section.
The research model that is used in this study is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research Model
2. Literature review
2.1. Ability-enhancing, Motivation-enhancing and Opportunity-enhancing HR Practices
Organizations and jobs do not have the leading role on strategic priorities – people do. Subsequently, organizations and jobs develop and implement strategy through the individual and collective behaviors of their employees (Colvin and Boswell, 2007).
Researchers of HR practices have pointed out the importance of creating a system of consistent HR practices, known as performance work systems (HPWS) or
high- Motivation-enhancing HR bundles Opportunity-enhancing HR bundles
Job Satisfaction Organizational Citizenship Behavior MEDIATOR Skill-enhancing HR bundles 7
commitment or high-involvement systems. HPWSs consist of a set of separate but interconnected HR practices that opt to maximize the performance of the organization by enhancing employees’ competences, attitudes and motivation (Huselid, 1995).
High-performance work systems rely heavily on the development of a mutual investment-based employment relationship, where an organization invests in employee skills and opportunities, and in turn, anticipates employees to be qualified and motivated in order to make valuable job-related investments in the organization (Huselid, 1995).
Lepak and colleagues (2006) suggested that it would be wise to conceptualize HR practices in bundles which will consist of the following dimensions: skill-enhancing HR practices, motivation-enhancing HR practices and opportunity-enhancing HR practices. First, skill-enhancing HR practices are designed to improve the quality of the people hired, or to improve the existing skills and abilities of current employees, or both. Employees can be hired through sophisticated selection processes designed to detect the best potential employees. Organizations can also enhance the quality of current employees via comprehensive training and development activities after the successful selection of employees.
While the collective knowledge, abilities and skills determine the potential contribution that a pool of employees could make to an organization, employees must also have the appropriate attitudes and motivation in order to recognize and acknowledge that potential. MacDuffie (1995) noted that “skills and knowledgeable workers who are not motivated are unlikely to contribute any discretionary effort. Motivated workers who lack skills or knowledge may contribute discretionary effort with little impact on performance” (P. 199). The enhancement of employees’ motivation can be accomplished by the implementation of merit pay or incentive compensation systems which reward employees for fulfilling specific tasks and goals. Additionally, protecting employees from arbitrary treatment via a formal grievance process can also motivate them to put more effort to achieve goals as they will expect their efforts to be rewarded in a fair way (Ichniowski et al., 1994). It has also been argued that the provision of job security motivates employees to work harder. Ichniowski and his colleagues claim that “Workers will only expend extra effort…if they expect….a lower probability of future layoffs” (1994: 10). Also, due to the fact that it is unlikely that rational employees will be able to determine efficiency-enhancing changes in work structures if those changes
would destroy their jobs, job security should encourage information sharing (Levine, 1995) which is incorporated in the opportunity-enhancing HR practices.
Employees possessing the needed skills and motivation to perform must be also provided opportunities to use their skills. Although there is no consensus on which those particular opportunities are, researchers have highlighted the structure of work and the level of participation, empowerment and involvement. Employee participation systems, team based-production systems and internal labor markets that give employees the opportunity to develop in an organization are the most common HR practices which fall into this category.
Many scholars have proposed that HPWSs impact on organizational performance by affecting both the ability and the collective behaviors and attitudes of employees to use their human capital to benefit the organization (Huselid, 1995).
Indeed, a focus on employee skills and attitudes is in line with the argument that individual performance is a function of the skills and abilities, and motivation at the individual level of analysis (Wright, Kacmar, McMahan & DeLeeuw, 1995). Employee performance relates to behaviors that are in compliance with the organizational goals and that are controlled by the individuals (Cambell, McCloy, Oppler & Sager, 1993). The direct determinants of job performance are declarative knowledge, procedural skill and knowledge, and motivation. The first type of knowledge refers to knowledge of principles, facts and procedures that are needed to accomplish job tasks. Procedural skill and knowledge represent skills in actually doing what is required to be done, thus it is a combination of knowing what has to be done and how it should be done. Moreover, motivation refers to the combination of an individual’s intensity, direction and duration of effort. Motivation is demonstrated by an individual’s choices to display effort, choices of how much and choices of how long to exert the effort (Lepak et al., 2006).
It is essential to emphasize that HR practices may be associated with more than one HR dimension. HR practices are not tied to a particular HR system, but rather, their use combined with other HR practices imposes their impact on the HR dimensions. It becomes evident that a single HR practice does not belong to any specific type or HR system objective. Instead, HR practices are dependent on the context and their effectiveness and impact is contingent on other HR practices with which they are combined. Thus, HR practices may be used to accomplish multiple and different objectives. For example, training may improve employees’ knowledge, skills and
abilities, and at the same time enhance employee feelings of intrinsic motivation. Another example is participation in decision making which may provide employees both the motivation and opportunity to perform.
2.2 Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction has been defined as the positive affect that individuals have toward their jobs in relation to a number of aspects such as promotion opportunities, management style, working conditions, the job itself, pay and the work group (Arnold and Feldman, 1986).
Tziner and Vardi (1984) defined job satisfaction as an affective response or reaction to a great number of work-related aspects. Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) have demonstrated that there is a clear consensus in the definition of job satisfaction. They claim that job satisfaction is an affective (emotional) reaction to someone’s job, which results from the comparison of the incumbent’s actual outcomes with desired outcomes. While Cranny et al. (1992) demonstrate that job satisfaction is an affective response, others state that job satisfaction is an attitude which someone holds about his/her job. For example, Brief (1998) suggests that job satisfaction “is an attitude towards one’s job” (p. 10), while Miner (1992) says that “it seems desirable…to treat job satisfaction as generally equivalent to job attitudes” (p. 116).
Drawn from the literature it can be inferred that satisfaction as affect and satisfaction as attitude are not unrelated. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) define job satisfaction as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation” (p. 7).
Locke (1969) articulated a similar definition where he suggests that job satisfaction is the “pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating one’s job values. Job dissatisfaction is the unpleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as frustrating or blocking the attainment of one’s values” (Locke, 1969, p. 317). Additionally, he said that job satisfaction is a ‘‘pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’’ (Locke, 1976, p. 1300).
Numerous studies have endeavored to identify the factors that determine or affect job satisfaction. The most frequently used theories to analyze the determinants of job satisfaction are content and process theories (Dyer, Daines and Giauque, 1990).
However, after countless debates over which perspective prevails over the other, some recent studies such as Rollinson (2008) highlight the need to incorporate both perspectives in the study of factors determining job satisfaction.
More specifically, content theories assume that job satisfaction will be reached if individuals’ needs are fulfilled. All people have needs that have to be satisfied and values that have to be met in order for them to be satisfied with their jobs (Melte, 2002). Content theories also propose that certain characteristics should be present in jobs (Adbullah et al., 2011). This approach is supported by a variety of theories including Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of need theory and Herzberg’s two factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 1959).
Process theories punctuate the overall or cognitive process which leads to job satisfaction. More particularly, process theories specify the different types of variables (perceptions, needs, expectations, and values) which are considered to be related to job satisfaction. Furthermore, they emphasize the extent to which those variables should be combined and displayed in order to determine job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). This perspective is included in the equity (Adams, 1963) and expectancy (Vroom, 1964) theories.
Much of the literature proposes that job satisfaction can be considered as a function of personal but also work variables. Abu-Bader (1998) has classified them into four groups. The first group refers to personal characteristics such as age, gender and education. The second category is related to work conditions such as workload, role conflicts, number of clients and autonomy levels. The third group refers to work incentives including economic bonuses, promotion opportunities and a good salary. The last category relates to interpersonal relationships at work such as working with colleagues and quality of supervision.
According to Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of need model, participation in decision making is a factor for promoting job satisfaction. When organizations provide their employees a working environment where they have the opportunity to engage in decision-making activities and are given decision making responsibilities, it is believed that higher development of employees will be achieved. That eventually leads to the attainment of higher-order needs (Maslow, 1943), including self-expression and independence which ultimately enhance their job satisfaction (Vroom, 1964).
2.3. Dimensions of OCB
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to a set of discretionary workplace behaviors which exceed one’s basic job requirements. They are frequently determined as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty. More specifically, Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable” (p. 4). Podsakoff and
colleagues (2000) have proposed that Organizational citizenship behavior is consisted of seven dimensions which are: 1) Helping Behavior, 2) Sportsmanship, 3) Organizational Loyalty, 4) Organizational Compliance, 5) Individual Initiative, 6) Civic Virtue, and 7) Self Development.
Helping behavior refers to voluntarily helping others with work-related problems or preventing the occurrence of them. Organ (1988) divides helping behavior into altruism which involves helping others and providing assistance to work-related problems and to courtesy which relates to making the right action in order to prevent the creation of problems for colleagues.
Sportsmanship is defined by Organ (1990b) as “a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining” (p. 96). In addition to the aforementioned definition, Podsakoff and colleagues (2000) have demonstrated that “good sports” are individuals that not only are not complaining when they are treated inconveniently by others, but also hold a positive attitude when things do not follow their way, are not offended when their suggestions and advice are disregarded, are eager to sacrifice their personal interest on the altar of the best of the work group, and do not feel personally disheartened when their ideas are rejected.
Organizational loyalty refers to the promoting of one’s organization to outsiders, directing every possible effort in protecting, supporting and defending the organization from external threats, and staying committed to it even at the existence of unfavorable conditions.
Organizational compliance relates to an individual’s acceptance of the rules, procedures and regulations that underpin the organization, which leads to meticulously abidance to them, even when no one else complies with them.
Individual initiative refers to the displaying of extra-role behavior in task-related actions. More specifically, when an individual engages in behaviors to accomplish tasks which are beyond the minimal requirements then he voluntarily initiates for their fulfillment. Such behaviors involve the development of innovation and creativity in order to improve one’s task or the overall performance of the organization, possessing overwhelming enthusiasm and putting extra effort to achieve one’s task, initiating in taking on more responsibilities than required and stimulating others in the organization to behave in the same way. This dimension is also known as conscientiousness (Organ, 1988). Many researchers, though, do not distinguish it as a separate dimension due to the fact that the line to what is considered in-role behavior and what extra-role behavior is very thin (i.e. MacKenzie et al., 1993).
Civic Virtue generally refers to the responsibilities which an individual has because of being a “citizen” of the organization in which he works (Graham, 1991). Particularly, civic virtue reflects a long-term engagement and commitment to the organization as a whole. That is accomplished by participating actively in the organizations governance (be present at meetings, expressing one’s opinion about the strategy the organization needs to follow, etc.), observe opportunities and threats for the company (stay informed about changes that might affect the organization) and ensure the fulfillment of its best interests (lock doors, carefully observing suspicious actions, etc.) even at personal risk and cost.
Self development represents the voluntarily behaviors an individual engages in, aiming to improve his own knowledge, skills and abilities (George and Brief, 1992). Those behaviors might include “seeking out and taking advantage of advanced training courses, keeping abreast of the latest developments in one’s field and area, or even learning a new set of skills so as to expand the range of one’s contributions to an organization” (George and Brief, 1992: 155). Although this dimension has not been considered as an additional citizenship behavior from many researchers, Podsakoff and colleagues (2000) incorporate it as a separate organizational citizenship behavior. In this study, endeavors will be directed towards examining the relationship of the HR bundles through job satisfaction with all seven dimensions of OCB as a consistent variable and not each dimension separately. This article aims to provide a deeper
insight into the aggregate extra-role behaviors that employees display when they are provided with HR practices that enhance their abilities, motivation and opportunities, and when they feel satisfied.
2.4. HPWPs and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) employees receive inducements for their contributions to the organization (Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997) in the form of HR practices, to which they reciprocate either by displaying positive or negative behaviors which depend on their perceptions about the reasons why management implements the HR practices (Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). High performance work practices affect the expectations and norms that go beyond the particular behaviors which these practices are designed to stimulate (Singh, 2009). Extra-role behaviors are exhibited by employees when a social exchange contract characterizes the employee-employer relationship and which are, in turn, determined by the organization’s HPWPs. The latter may transfer the perspective to employees that their company fosters humanistic values, is willing to trust them and cares about their well-being. Accordingly, based on the reciprocity norm, employees will be motivated to enhance their contribution and efforts and, thus, exhibit extra-role behaviors (Tsui et al., 1997).
Bundles or HR practices that focus on enhancing employees’ abilities include selective staffing, coaching and mentoring, and competency development. Those HR practices reflect an organization’s pursuit to establish a long-term exchange relationship with its employees (Sun et al., 2007). The long-term establishment in addition to the intention of personalized relationships stimulates the employees’ motivation to reciprocate to their management by engaging in discretionary behaviors.
Selective staffing impacts on the individual’s job fit and the quality of the employees which, in turn enhance the motivation and commitment of the workforce (Wright et al., 2003). Additionally, an organization which implements selective procedures inspires prestige and status to those who are selected (Gong & Chang, 2008). Similarly, competency development practices improve employee quality and involvement. Thus, we expect that:
Hypothesis 1 (a): Ability-enhancing HR practices will be positively related to OCB.
Performance-based compensation is categorized under the motivation-enhancing HR practices. Based on the expectancy theory, Fey et al., (2000) argue that if an organization provides rewards which are perceived as attractive by an employee, he/she will perform in a way which will guarantee the acquisition of the reward. Morisson (1996) notes that “…rewards that are based on company-wide performance will mitigate against the quid pro quo mindset inherent in economic exchange relationships, while laying the foundation for social exchange” (p. 506). Thus, higher levels of commitment may foster employees to exhibit discretionary behaviors. Therefore, we expect that:
Hypothesis 1 (b): Motivation-enhancing HR practices will be positively related to OCB.
Empowerment has been widely identified with opportunity. The existence of empowerment stimulates employees’ involvement (Konrad, 2006), thus reinforcing a greater sense of intrinsic motivation and positive job attitudes. Participative procedures help employees realize the company’s competitive position and are given the opportunity to participate in processes to improve it (Wright et al., 2003). This stimulates a positive environment where people feel appreciated, valued and respected (Gong & Chang, 2008). An environment like that is one which is highly valued by employees and don’t want to leave; they identify with it and try to make it succeed. OCB is related to employees’ subjective appraisal of their work outcomes and individuals who are involved in the determination of at least some work outcomes might perceive those outcomes as being fairer. Moreover, information sharing provides the opportunity to employees to share information regarding performance, financial and operational strategies and communicates to employees that they are trusted (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). A good communication system can be highly involving and provides employees with information which is timely and important for the effective functioning of their work, thereby encouraging them personally to display extra effort (Konrad, 2006). Hence, we expect that:
Hypothesis 1 (c): Opportunity-enhancing HR practices will be positively related to OCB.
2.5. The mediating role of job satisfaction
HPWSs are likely to impact on OCB in an organization through the effect that they have on the level of satisfaction of employees. According to Guest (1999) employees feel job satisfaction when their organization provides them the opportunity to take part in the decision making process, provides a clear communication between hierarchies and provides them training to increase their skills and knowledge. A recent study by Macky and Boxall (2007) found a positive relationship between the implementation of HPWSs and employee job satisfaction. In addition to this finding, previous studies found direct as well as indirect effects between models of HPWSs and levels of employee job satisfaction (Guest, 1999; Takeuchi et al., 2009; Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999).
There are numerous reasons why HR bundles that enhance employees’ ability, motivation and opportunity might relate to employee job satisfaction and employees, in turn, engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. Through the implementation of ability-enhancing HR practices, employees most likely have been screened by a rigorous selection process and have been trained in-company, acquiring firm or industry-specific skills. Also, through those HR practices it is likely that organizational segments will make a better match between employees and jobs. This better match will enhance employees’ job satisfaction as they will acknowledge that they are well suited in the job content and are more able to successfully accomplish their required job duties. Subsequently, they are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2 (a): Job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between HR bundles that enhance employees’ abilities and aggregate employees’ OCBs.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, HPWSs allow for higher levels of job security, greater information sharing, and tighter linkages between one’s job performance and his compensation. Those factors will most likely result in a workforce which is more satisfied with their job. In turn, satisfied employees will be more motivated to involve in discretionary behaviors, and this will eventually lead in the department’s higher performance results. This linkage is supported by a recent study; Whitman et al. (2010) found that unit-level job satisfaction strongly correlated to unit-level performance and OCB. Lapierre and Hackett (2007) also supported that higher levels of job satisfaction are related to OCBs by employees.
Hence, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2 (b): Job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between HR bundles that enhance employees’ motivation and aggregate employees’ OCBs.
Moreover, the implementation of opportunity-enhancing HR practices are more likely to create to the employees the feeling that the organization is willing to invest in them, trusts them in decision-making processes and cares about their needs for development and promotion (Evans, 1970). Therefore, one could expect employees to experience higher levels of satisfaction with the implementation of opportunity related HR practices. In turn, employees that acknowledge that their company provides them opportunities in their job and display high levels of satisfaction are more likely to involve in OCBs.
Consequently we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2 (c): Job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between HR bundles that enhance employees’ opportunities and aggregate employees’ OCBs.
Thus, it becomes apparent that there is a strong relationship between the three variables, namely HPWSs may produce higher levels of OCB when employees experience high levels of job satisfaction.
3. Research methods
3.1. Procedure
Evans and Mathur (2005) highlight some major advantages that online surveys entail. Some of them are global reach, speed and timeliness, convenience, ease of data entry and analysis, low administration cost, controlled sampling, large sample easy to obtain etc. For the aforementioned reasons, the data collection was completed via two online surveys: one for the managers and one for the employees. The surveys used were developed by a research team consisting of six master students studying at the University of Amsterdam. The research was conducted under the supervision of Dr. C. Boon and Dr. Prof. D. Den Hartog of the HRM Department of Amsterdam Business School. The surveys used for the data collection were already used in the year 2011 from previous students who were studying the same track and were supervised by the same professors. A few items were added in the surveys sent out this year. Both surveys were conducted in Dutch as well as in English so that the respondents would not be restricted in the boundaries of the Netherlands. Using our own network of contacts we invited managers to participate in our survey via an e-mail which included a thorough description of the purposes of this research and defined instructions on how to answer the survey. The potential managers were kindly asked to choose at least three of their subordinates who they would like to assess, to participate in the employee survey. Using personalized links, each respondent had a unique code which linked each manager with the respective employees that he/she chose to evaluate. Respondents were ensured that anonymity is strictly kept and their answers are treated confidentially. As an incentive provided in order to participate, respondents were provided the option at the end of the survey to be given feedback about the overall results from the theses of all six students when they would finally be conducted.
3.2. Participants
The surveys were sent to 345 workers in total, consisting of 106 managers and 239 employees. The completed surveys returned were representing a response rate of 90.57% for managers and 87.02% for employees. For this study both managers and employee data were needed to test the model presented in Figure 1. In our sample
57.85% of the respondents were male and 42.15% were women. The respondents’ tenure ranges from less than one year 42 years in the same organization with a mean of 8.38 which means that the average amount of employees are working at their organization from 7 to 8 years and the standard deviation ranks at 8.72 which indicates that the years working in the same organization varies a lot among employees in our data. The level of education ranges from high school to a professional degree and the mean for our data stands at 3.37, meaning that most employees possess a “Higher vocational education” or a “University Bachelor degree”, and the standard deviation at 1.57.
3.3 Measurement
Items were administered in Dutch and English depending on the nationality of the respondents. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HR practices are
measured with 15 items based on Kehoe and Wright (2010). Employees had to indicate to which extent they thought the HR practices were implemented in the organization in which they worked. Respective example items for each of the HR bundles were “Employees undergo structured interviews (job related questions, same questions asked for all applicants) before being hired”, “Employees have the opportunity to earn individual bonuses (or commissions) for productivity, performance, or other individual performance outcomes” and “Employees regularly receive formal communication regarding company goals and objectives”. Reliability scores for all of the bundles were remarkably low with motivation-enhancing HR practices and opportunity-enhancing HR practices ranking 0.698 and 0.692 respectively, while the ability-enhancing HR practices showed the lowest reliability rate ranking at 0.528.
Job satisfaction is tested with three items based on Cammann, et al. (1979). The three
items include “All in all I am satisfied with my job”, “In general, I do not like my job” and “In general, I like working here”. Reliability of this three item scale is 0.844 which is relatively high.
Organizational citizenship behavior is measured by 13 items. Managers had to rate to
what extent they believed their respective subordinates displayed extra role behaviors.
Example items are “This employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect his/her work group” and “This employee gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in his/her group”. The reliability score for this item was 0.918 which is considerably high.
Education and Tenure are used as control variables in this study and are measured by the following questions “What is the highest level of education you have completed?” and “How long have you worked at your current company?” respectively.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1. Data analysis
The data was analyzed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Missing values in our data were coded with .999. When variables included missing data they were “Hotdecked” with other variables of our data with which they displayed a correlation higher than 0.3 (Myers, 2011).
To test whether the hypotheses were supported or rejected, correlation and regression analyses were used. The correlation analysis when performed indicates the strength of the relationship between the variables measured. In addition, linear regression analyses were used to test the overall research model and to identify if there was the mediation effect which was expected based on the hypotheses.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
In order to test for the presence of outliers, a boxplot procedure was used. The results lead to the elimination of 8 observations.
For the purpose of checking the reliability of the scales employed, Cronbach’s alpha was used. This statistic produced coefficients well above the general recommended values, for the variables Job Satisfaction (α=0.844) and OCB (α=0.918). Also, the Motivation (α=0.698) and Opportunity (α=0.692) variables are within the proximity of accepted boundaries. Concerning the Ability (α=0.528) variable, the lower alpha can be due to sample heterogeneity, taking into account the fact that the respondents to the
surveys had different nationalities, different ages and different educational backgrounds. However, since Ability is an integrated component of the AMO bundle, I inspect this variable further in correlation and regression analyses.
Regarding the Education variable, the mean value of 3.37 corresponds to an education level that is between “Higher vocational education” and “University Bachelor degree”. The standard deviation of 1.57 indicates that a small proportion of the employees in our sample are found at the extremes: either only having a High School degree (coding option = 1) or PhD degree (coding option=6).
When measuring the Tenure of employees, the most commonly displayed number of years working in the same company was 7. The standard deviation of 8.72 is in fact larger than the mean (8.38) and it reflects the rather large variation in tenure between employees.
The HR bundles variables show similar levels of assessment by the respondents, with Opportunity-enhancing bundles showing a slightly higher mean (4.942) and standard deviation (1.034) than the Ability-enhancing bundles which have a mean of 4.340 and standard deviation of 1.140 or the Motivation-enhancing bundles with a mean of 4.341 and a standard deviation of 1.162.
Concerning the Job Satisfaction variable, the mean value is 5.958 and the standard deviation is 0.960, which is higher than that reported by Liang and Crant (2010). This indicates the fact that in our sample the respondents show high levels of job satisfaction.
The Organizational Citizenship Behavior variable has a mean of 5.574 and a standard deviation of 0.850. This is consistent with the fact that according to the evaluations of the managers, the employees in our sample display high levels of discretionary effort.
Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Variables Correlations Table Pearson Correlation VARIABLES Mean Std. Deviatio n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Education 3,372 1,570 1,000 -0,034 0,083 0,104 -0,002 -0,026 0,105 2. Tenure 8,387 8,792 1,000 -0,075 -,143** -,191** -0,097 0,028 3. Ability 4,340 1,140 1,000 ,603** ,592** ,292** 0,108 4. Motivation 4,341 1,162 1,000 ,543** ,256** 0,051 5. Opportunity 4,942 1,034 1,000 ,465** ,120* 6. Job Satisfaction 5,958 0,960 1,000 ,192** 7. Organizational Citizenship Behavior 5,574 0,850 1,000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Regarding the correlation table, one can observe that the HR bundles variables are strongly correlated in a significant way. For example, the correlation between Motivation and Opportunity is r=0.543, p<0.01. Even higher correlation is observed between Ability and Motivation (r=0.603, p<0.01), while a slightly lower correlation is found between Ability and Opportunity (r=0.592, p<0.01). Framing these correlations in the context of the Tenure variable we can see that only Opportunity and Motivation are negatively and significantly associated with the years working in the same organization (r=-0.191, p<0.01 and r=-0.143, p<0.01). This suggests that the data in our sample falls under the incidence of diminishing returns, meaning that as employees spend more time in a company they become less sensible to HR bundles, which can be interpreted by the fact that their potential to advance is increasing at a decreasing rate. This suggests that Ability, Motivation and Opportunity variables capture differential effects with respect to the HR practices implemented and justifies the use of multiple HR bundle variables.
The Job Satisfaction variable is positively and significantly associated with all of the HR bundles variables (Ability: r=0.292, p<0.01, Motivation: r=0.256, p<0.01, Opportunity: r=0.465, p<0.01). The latter correlation can be explained by the fact that Ability-enhancing and Motivation-enhancing HR practices may be more implicitly associated with Job Satisfaction in the mind of the employees, while Opportunity-enhancing HR practices may require a more explicit articulation on behalf of the company, thus exerting a stronger influence on job satisfaction.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior is found to be positively and significantly correlated with Job Satisfaction (r=0.192, p<0.01). This coefficient is slightly smaller than the r=0.36 reported by Lapierre and Hackett (2007), however this can be attributed to differences in sample size.
Interestingly, contrary to our expectations, we do not find any significant correlation between the two control variables used, namely education and tenure, and OCB (r = 0,105, r = 0,028).
4.2.2. Regression analysis
In order to test the hypotheses multivariate regressions were used. Figure 2 illustrates the scheme of models that need to be estimated, so as to check if one variable functions as a mediator to a relationship between two other variables.
Figure 2 – Graphical representation of a mediation model
Source: Kenny et al. (1998)
According to Kenny et al. (1998, pg. 260), four main conditions must be satisfied so as to suggest the existence of a mediation effect:
a) The independent variable is correlated with the dependent variable. b) The independent variable is correlated with the mediator variable. c) The mediator variable affects the dependent variable.
d) When introducing the mediator variable in explaining the dependent variable
jointly with the independent variable, the latter becomes insignificant.
This situation is deemed “full mediation” by Mathieu et Taylor (2006) and is contrasted by the authors with the situation of “partial mediation”, where after the introduction of the mediator in explaining the dependent variable, the independent variable may display a decreased coefficient, but does not lose significance altogether. Table 1 presents the results of the first stage regressions testing the first condition of Kenny et al.’s study, where the dependent variable OCB is regressed on each of the AMO bundles variables. The opportunity-enhancing bundle performs the best, having a significant effect in explaining organizational citizenship behavior (t = 2,132, p-value = 0,034) supporting thus Hypothesis 1 (c), while the ability and
enhancing bundles appear not to have a significant effect (t = 1,523, p-value = 0,129, t = 0,679, p-value = 0,498) respectively. One possible explanation for this is due to sample effects. However, a more likely reason would be the fact that employees value opportunity-related HR practices more than the other two bundles of HR practices, which in turn, give them the incentive to display more discretionary effort. The findings therefore reject Hypotheses 1 (a) and 1 (b) which state that ability-enhancing HR practices and motivation-enhancing HR practices will be positively related to OCB, respectively.
Table 1 – Regressions testing the relationship between AMO bundles and OCB
Variables F R2 B t Sig.
OCB
1. Ability Enhancing Bundle
Constant 5,050 21,214 0,000** Ability 0,072 1,523 0,129 Education 0,062 1,957 0,051 Tenure 0,002 0,379 0,705 2,221 0,024 2. Motivation Enhancing Bundle Constant 5,226 22,609 0,000** Motivation 0,031 0,679 0,498 Education 0,063 1,980 0,049* Tenure 0,002 0,324 0,746 1,592 0,017 3. Opportunity Enhancing Bundle Constant 4,796 16,435 0,000** Opportunity 0,107 2,132 0,034* Education 0,067 2,100 0,037* Tenure 0,005 0,761 0,447 2,975 0,031
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the opportunity model is significant (F = 2,975), the rather low coefficient of determination (R2 = 0,031) suggests that there is a larger part of the total variation which is not accounted for within the model. This means that there may be other factors influencing the relationship between the opportunity variable and the organizational citizenship behavior variable, and that generally the model does not have very high predictive power. This is further supported by the fact that the coefficient of the opportunity variable is rather small (β = 0,107). According to this model, if opportunity would increase by 1, OCB would increase by 0,107.
One thing to be noted is the fact that from the control variables, Education is significant both in the motivation model (t = 1,980, p-value = 0,049) and the opportunity model (t = 2,100, p-value = 0,037). Also, in the ability model, the variable is very close to being significant at 5% level (t = 1,523, p-value = 0,129). The positive coefficients of the Education variable in the opportunity model (β = 0,067) and motivation model (β = 0,063) suggest that the higher the level of education the employee has, the higher the level of OCB he will show.
Table 2 – Regressions testing the relationship between AMO bundles and Job Satisfaction
Variables F R2 B t Sig.
Job Satisfaction
1. Ability Enhancing Bundle
Constant 5,021 21,962 0,000** Ability 0,254 5,747 0,000** Education -0,030 -0,937 0,349 Tenure -0,008 -1,437 0,152 12,273 0,098 2. Motivation Enhancing Bundle Constant 5,215 22,906 0,000** Motivation 0,209 4,776 0,000** Education -0,033 -1,000 0,318 Tenure -0,007 -1,165 0,245 8,834 0,072 3. Opportunity Enhancing Bundle Constant 3,864 14,650 0,000** Opportunity 0,433 9,541 0,000** Education -0,013 -0,436 0,663 Tenure -0,001 -0,135 0,892 31,802 0,219
Table 2 presents the results of regressions of Job Satisfaction on AMO bundles testing the second condition of Kenny et al.’s research, so as to see if the independent variable is significantly related to the mediator. This condition is satisfied for all the models estimated.
When using ability as independent variable (t = 5,747), the model is significant (F = 12,273) and has an R2 = 0,098. The motivation variable (t = 4,776) yields a slightly weaker model (F = 8,834) and has an R2 = 0,072. By far, the strongest model (F =
31,802) is the use of opportunity as independent variable (t = 9,541), yielding an R2 = 0,219.
Indeed, this is consistent with evidence in the literature that employees feel higher levels of job satisfaction when they benefit from a broader system of HR practices, which may include things like the opportunity to take part in decision making processes, the provision of training targeting to knowledge and skill enhancement, the creation of a climate of clear communication between hierarchies (Guest, 2004).
Table 3 – Regressions testing the relationship between Job Satisfaction and OCB Variables F R2 B t Sig. OCB Job Satisfaction Constant 4,128111 11,294 0,000** Job Satisfaction 0,197 3,583 0,000** Education 0,068 2,182 0,030* Tenure 0,006 0,991 0,323 5,667 0,058
The third condition for certifying a mediation effect, according to Kenny et al. (1998) is the existence of a significant relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable. Table 3 presents the regression results testing this condition.
Job Satisfaction is found to be a significant determinant of OCB (t = 3,583, p-value = 0,000). The R2 of the model explains 0,058 of the variation within the model. The β = 0,197 suggests that Job Satisfaction on its own has an incrementally larger effect than any of the AMO bundles on their own. This is consistent with the study of Lapierre and Hackett (2007), who show that Job Satisfaction is strongly related to OCB. This strength may be derived from the fact that the Job Satisfaction construct captures multiple effects related to personal well-being in an organization, beyond those found in AMO bundles.
Regarding the control variables, only Education is significant (t=2.182, p-value=0.030) and has a positive value (B=0,068) indicating that more educated employees will tend to display higher OCB.
Table 4 – Regressions testing the mediating role of job satisfaction
Variables F R2 B t Sig.
OCB
1. Ability Enhancing Bundle
Constant 4,029 10,681 0,000** Ability 0,072 0,468 0,640 Education 0,072 2,298 0,022* Tenure 0,006 0,940 0,348 Job Satisfaction 0,195 3,368 0,001** 4,687 0,64 2. Motivation Enhancing Bundle Constant 4,105 10,851 0,000** Motivation -0,014 -0,309 0,757 Education 0,075 2,358 0,019* Tenure 0,005 0,912 0,362 Job Satisfaction 0,208 3,655 0,000** 4,654 0,064 3. Opportunity Enhancing Bundle Constant 4,02 10,53 0,00** Opportunity 0,03 0,52 0,61 Education 0,07 2,34 0,02* Tenure 0,01 1,01 0,32 Job Satisfaction 0,19 3,02 0,00** 4,700 0,064
As stated above, the final condition in establishing a mediation effect is that upon the introduction of the mediator in the regression along with the independent variable, the latter loses its significance and suffers a decrease in magnitude.
Drawn from Table 4, we can see that Job Satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between the Opportunity Enhancing Bundle and OCB. Figure 3 presents a graphical
representation of the significance of the relationships between the variables, found in this type of mediation.
Figure 3 – Graphical representation of mediation schemes
Source: Mathieu et Taylor (2006)
The results of the regression indicate a rather clear mediation effect of Job Satisfaction on the Opportunity variable. In this model (F = 4,700), the coefficient of Job Satisfaction is statistically significant at the 1% level (t = 3,02, p-value = 0,00). At the same time, the coefficient of the opportunity level becomes insignificant (t = 0,52, p-value = 0,61) and its value decreases from the initial model that does not include the mediator (β = 0,107) to the current model (β = 0,029). Also, there is an incremental increase in R2 from 0,031 in the initial model to 0,64 in the mediated model.. This is to be expected since the provision of opportunities to employees is associated to OCB but is conditional to the levels of job satisfaction of employees. I interpret this as evidence supporting the Hypothesis 2 (c) according to which the relationship between opportunity-enhancing HR practices and OCB is mediated by Job Satisfaction.
Similar patterns can be observed for the other two HR bundles as well. For example, when Job Satisfaction (t=3,368, p-value=0,001) is introduced in the Ability regression (F=4,687), the coefficient of the Ability variable is even more insignificant (t=0,468 p
value=0,640). In the same manner, in the Motivation regression (F=4,654), the Job Satisfaction variable is significant (t=3,655, p-value=0,000), but the Motivation one is even more insignificant than in the first stage regressions (t=-3,09, p-value=0,757). These results can be considered a sign of “indirect effects” as discussed in Mathieu and Taylor (2006). In the situation of “indirect effects”, the independent variable influences the mediator significantly, and the mediator influences in turn the dependent variable.
However, since in the first stage regressions, Ability and Motivation were found not to have a significant effect on OCB at 5% level, following James et al. (2006) and taking the view that the initial significance between the dependent and independent variables is required, I interpret this as evidence supporting the rejection of Hypothesis 2 (a) and Hypothesis 2 (b).
Table 5 – The result of Sobel tests: Job Satisfaction mediates AMO
Sobel Test Ability Motivation Opportunity
t-stat 1.387 0.667 3.354
p-value 0.165 0.504 0.001**
Table 6 – The result of Aroian tests: Job Satisfaction mediates AMO
Aroian Test Ability Motivation Opportunity
t-stat 1.339 0.644 3.338,
p-value 0.180 0.519 0.001**
In order to further check the validity of the regression analysis, a formal test was performed, using the procedure of Sobel (1982), as recommended by prior literature (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The results indicate a significant mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between AMO bundles and organizational citizenship behavior (t-stat=3.354, p-value=0.001). Also, a different version of the previous test was run as in Aroian (1947), with this test also confirming this results (t-stat= 3.338, p-value= 0.001)
5. Discussion
The aim of this study is to contribute to the existing literature testing the relationship between HR bundles which enhance employees’ abilities, motivation and opportunities, and OCB when mediated by job satisfaction. Nishii et al. (2008) noted that individual perceptions of the impact of HRM practices and policies ineluctably vary. This study is differentiated from the fact that a focus is given on the employees’ perception of HR practices as most of the previous studies have mainly focused on managers’ perceptions of HR practices. Although previous investigations on the relationship between HRM and different outcomes have focused mainly on individual best practices (Guzzo, Jette and Katzell, 1985) and also on comprehensive HPWSs (Combs et al, 2006), this research provides a thorough insight on the extent of effectiveness of more compact bundles comprising HR practices that aim to increase particular workforce characteristics, namely ability, motivation and opportunity levels. Many SHRM scholars have pointed out the importance of classifying HR practices into those bundles and highlighted the need for further investigation of the utility of this classification (e.g. Boselie et al., 2005; Wright and Boswell, 2002).
Contrary to our expectations, ability-enhancing and motivation-enhancing HR practices did not show a significant relationship with OCB. One reason that could justify this unexpected result regarding the ability-enhancing bundle is that HR practices that target to the development of employees’ abilities might be taken for granted by them. Selective recruitment which will ensure the company the hiring of the best and most suitable candidates, as well as the implementation of comprehensive training and development activities in order to provide them with the needed knowledge and skills to perform ultimately, can be considered by the employees to be in the interest of the company. Hence, it might be that employees will put effort in performing ultimately strictly within the job description for which they have been hired and received training, without putting effort to perform beyond the expected job requirements. Thus, ability-enhancing HR practices could affect in-role performance but not extra-role behaviors.
With respect to the insignificant relationship of the motivation-enhancing HR practices and OCB one reason could be that monetary rewards based on the accomplishment of specific tasks and goals are not appealing to most of the employees. Although the monetary incentive is often regarded as very important, it is not always the driving force in motivating people and stimulating them to engage in discretionary effort.
It could also be the case that employees prioritize different values that are provided to them in a different hierarchy. Cultural traits can play an important role in explaining the variation in prioritizing values among different cultures. Hosftede’s (1980) milestone in the field of organizational culture identified five dimensions of national cultural differences. In short, those are a) power distance, which determines the extent to which the less powerful members of an institution accept and expect that power is distributed unequally; b) individualism versus collectivism, which is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups; c) masculinity versus femininity which determines the distribution of roles between the two sexes; d) uncertainty avoidance, which refers to the extent to which a culture tolerates or avoids ambiguous situations and uncertainty; and e) long-term orientation, which emphasizes perseverance and saving for future betterment.
As culture can be defined in a broad sense, it captures not only the regional or national scope, but also the organizational context. Employees in a particular culture, either national or organizational, may value motivational factors differently than employees from another cultural context. Thus, the incentives which employees are provided by the HR practices applied in their organization might not meet their expectations and not be considered as a motivational factor that would elicit their engagement in discretionary efforts. An example of that would be the individual pay linking with performance for an employee coming from a collectivistic society or country. As the employee would not feel attracted by the particular HR practice, he/she might value another practice that happens not to be implemented in his organization, to be more appealing to him/her and would boost the emergence of extra-role behaviors. Consequently, due to the high level of heterogeneity of our sample, this explanation seems to provide a solid understanding of why motivation-enhancing HR practices are not found to be related to OCB.
Extending prior studies which found a significant association between opportunity-enhancing HR practices and OCB, this study also revealed a strong relationship between those two variables but also found a significant mediating effect of job satisfaction. Messersmith and his colleagues (2011) found a partial mediating effect of job satisfaction in the HPWPs-OCB relationship, although they did not yield results for each of the HR bundles separately. This study demonstrates that employees who highly value HR practices which allow them to participate in decision making actions; have the opportunity to express their opinion about job related matters; have a reasonable and fair complaint process and regularly receive formal communication regarding company objectives and goals; and increase their job satisfaction
levels. In turn, employees’ acknowledgement of the provision of opportunities in their job and their feeling of satisfaction stimulates them to reciprocate and display discretionary behaviors.
6. Implications for theory and practice
Most relevant studies have extensively examined the effects of a company’s overall HR practices or HR bundles, while this article focuses on the employee perceptions of HR practices. Therefore it contributes to the understanding of the extent to which employees display organizational citizenship behaviors when they are satisfied with their job based on the degree to which they perceive that the HR practices which their organization implements enhance their skills, motivation and opportunities. The employees’ perceptions of HR practices is a major determinant in understanding their behaviors at their workplace because they are affected by numerous and diverse HR practices rather than a single HR practice (Chang, 2005). It has been found that employees value highly the provision of opportunities by their company which subsequently reinforces their willingness to engage in OCBs, while job satisfaction has been found to have a strong mediating effect in this relationship. Thus, organizations should consider that the implementation of HR practices that enhance employees’ opportunities are regarded by them as very salient.
As prior studies have mainly focused on the managers’ perceptions of HR practices rather than the extent to which employees value and perceive HR practices are being implemented in their organization, this current study denotes the significance of the existence of opportunity enhancing HR practices from an employee point of view. This study is differentiated from previous studies in the fact that managers tend to rate and comprehend the company’s established HR practices in a different way than the employees do, so this study’s results provide a unique understanding in which HR practices are the most essential for the employees when they experience a high level of job satisfaction, in order to engage in OCBs. Moreover, this current study enlightens us regarding not only which HR practices enhance the display of OCB when combined with the feeling of job satisfaction, but also about which HR practices should be less focused on. In that way, managers can prioritize and pay attention to implement the ones that seem to elicit the highest level of OCB from employees, which in this study is opportunity enhancing HR practices.
Furthermore, the results of this study indicate a potential way in which management can stimulate employees to involve in OCB. According to the results, the provision of opportunity-enhancing HR practices helps organizations communicate to employees a feeling that the organization cares about their interests and their need for opportunities and, thus, signals the company’s willing to build a long-term exchange relationship with them. The strong mediating effect that job satisfaction is found to have in this study between opportunity-enhancing HR practices and OCB indicate that the HR practices that aim to increase employees’ opportunities may reinforce employee involvement in providing useful business to their company, and reduce the time they spend on doing things which are beneficial for themselves but not for their company (Wei et al., 2010).
This article also offers implications for managers pursuing to elicit OCBs from their subordinates, and gives some insight into why employees intend to involve in those behaviors. It has been widely believed that increasing employees’ pleasure in their job may be costly and may provide only a short-term and ambiguous reward. It is seemed to believe that it would be more worthy if managers directed their subordinates in increasing productivity and performance. Nevertheless, our results indicate that the implementation of HR practices that are directed towards enhancing employees’ opportunities will make them more satisfied with their job and, in turn, they will engage in OCB, which is empirically proven to be associated to individual performance (Allen and Rush, 1998).
7. Limitations
This study has several limitations which need to be taken into consideration. One limitation of this study involves the exclusive examination of ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-motivation-enhancing HR practices. It is possible that other classification strategies of the HR practices exist, which might be equally effective or even have a stronger impact on their relationship with job satisfaction and OCB. Given the literature review which focused on the specific bundling of the HR practices provided in this study, this particular classification was chosen to be tested.
Another limitation that should be taken into account is related with the methodology of the study. This research measured the bundles of HR practices at the company level. There is a possibility that the HR practices are not applied to all the employees equally, and thus fluctuations within an organization might influence employees’ perceptions, a fact that is not
captured in this study. In turn, the extent to which employees displayed OCB may not be indicative of the extent to which they perceive that HR practices are implemented. Hence, measuring HR practices’ implementation at a business-unit or divisional level may yield more concrete explanations of the relationship between the bundles of HR practices and OCB.
A common phenomenon observed in surveys which are long in length is the decrease of the quality of the responses or even the loss of the respondents. Adequate motivation is considered necessary to obtaining reliable and valid data and continued participation (Sudman and Bradburn, 1974), and motivation of respondents is possible to decline as the survey prolongs beyond an optimal point (Cannell and Kahn, 1968). Therefore, it might be the case that respondents’ ratings were not trustworthy after a certain point in the survey regarding the reliability of honest responses. The existence of outliers demonstrates that this might have been the case.
Furthermore, although confidentiality was promised, it is sometimes the case that managers as well as employees might be concerned about the transparency of their answers. This fact could lead to the overrating of the extent to which employees believe that the HR practices which they were asked to evaluate are implemented in their company compared to the actual extent to which they believe those practices are indeed implemented. Also, employees might have overrated the extent to which they experience job satisfaction again in the same respect. Working also vice versa, managers might have valued the OCBs that their respective subordinates display higher than they actually did.
8. Future research
This research has focused on OCB on the aggregate and not on the separate dimensions of OCB. In the future, attempts can be directed to illustrate and examine in more depth the impact of ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HR practices on the different dimensions of OCB through job satisfaction. The aforementioned examination will yield more thorough and consistent results of the different behaviors that employees exhibit when they perceive that HR practices are implemented in their organization which enhance their abilities, motivation and opportunities and when they feel satisfied with their job.
