• No results found

A LONG WAY DOWN?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A LONG WAY DOWN?"

Copied!
37
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

RELATIONSHIPS AND QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION ON THE

ACCEPTANCE OF HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES

Master thesis, MSc specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 15, 2014 ELISA HERBERT Studentnumber: 2546701 Briljantstraat 7 9743 NA Groningen tel. 0031 647664524 E-Mail: e.herbert@student.rug.nl First Supervisor/University of Groningen

Dr. Susanne Täuber

(2)

ABSTRACT

Strategic Human Resource research aims to determine interdependencies in the still very unknown field between HR activities and organizational outcome. The following study looked at the influence of Line Managers to reach a greater extent of employees regarding HR activities. The study wanted to uncover a connection between the relationships of Line with HR Managers and the acceptance of HR activities by employees. This connection was further tested in a mediation with quality of communication. In an online questionnaire, participants from different German companies rated the factors of acceptance, relationship and quality of communication in their organization. The findings not only state a main effect of relationship on the acceptance of HR activities but also showed the mediating effect of quality of communication. The study concludes that HR Managers must be more considerate of the role of Line Managers. Furthermore, organizations should specialize their communication training to adopt communication of different actors to their interaction level.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

(4)

Recent research found, only one-third of employees show acceptance towards HR activities (Cantrell & Smith, 2010; cf. Stirpe, Trullen & Bonarche, 2013). In order to work as efficiently as possible, HR Management has to consider the factors that facilitate them to increase employees` acceptance of HR activities. Researchers found that employees are often unfamiliar with the purpose of HR activities, which in turn has a negative influence on employees´ attitudes towards them (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nischii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). This finding indicates a high effort for HR Managers, because it is not easy to reach all employees at the same time and intensively work on their acceptance. This difficulty arises also from the frequency HR Managers interact with different types of employees.

Organizations are characterized through different types of employees. Those types indicate the extent of responsibility an employee has within the company as well as his or her main area of action. The extent of responsibility results in certain hierarchies. The greater the number of hierarchical levels between two organizational actors, the greater is also their hierarchical distance (Hill, Seo, Kang & Taylor, 2012). Hierarchies complicate the work of Human Resource Managers in organizations. For instance, formal hierarchies can prevent direct interaction of the personnel department with employees and thus create psychological distance. Therefore, the current study tried to identify a way to overcome this distance.

(5)

Regardless of the types of employees, long-established organizational relationships are difficult to change and influence (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2010). Yet, the current study had the intension to provide organizations with a model to effectively use relationships to increase acceptance of HR activities. Therefore, a mediating variable has been included. Literature research highlighted communication as a reasonable mediator. The examination of mediating mechanisms is, according to Jiang et al. (2013, p.1450), ‘one of the most recent trends in strategic HR research’. Communication quality has been identified as an important mediator to positively strengthen organizational relationships (Den Hartog et al., 2012). Den Hartog et al. showed that clear, informative and useful communication used by Line Managers had a positive influence on employee ratings of HR activities. However, this finding has not been transformed on the HR Management level to make assumptions about their communication to Line Managers. As a result, the present thesis investigated the argument that the relationship between HR and Line Managers is positively associated with employees’ acceptance of HR activities, and that this relationship is mediated by communication quality between HR and Line Managers as well as Line Managers and employees.

In the theoretical framework, all components of the study are going to be explained in more detail. First of all, the factors acceptance, organizational relationships and communication quality are going to be defined. The theoretical framework is also including a separate accentuation of the role of Line Managers. Furthermore, the methodology of the study, analysis of data and discussion of the results are going to be presented.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Acceptance of HR activities

(6)

acceptance of HR activities in relation to employee performance. Their findings of an existing, positive relation between employees` perspective and performance emphasizes the relevance of research on employees' acceptance of HR activities. The researchers suggested, if employees perceive HR activities as reasonable they increase their acceptance towards them. This in turn becomes apparent through an increase in important work behaviors by employees (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Strengthening the acceptance of HR activities is also important for HR Managers themselves, because ‘the constant worry of all personnel administrators is their inability to prove that they are making a contribution to the enterprise. Their preoccupation is with the search for a ‘gimmick’ that will impress their management associates. Their persistent complaint is that they [HR Manager] lack status.’ (Drucker, 1954 cf. Wright et al., 1998). Although stated back in the 1950s, this issue is still noticeable in the everyday work life of Human Resource departments. The concern of unseen contribution to the company and low acceptance of HR activities shows the importance of investigating the topic. An absent acceptance of HR activities is unfavorable, especially considering the findings of recent research about the positive impact of HR activities towards organizational outcomes. It would indicate that employees stand in their own way to increase company success. If a company is able to achieve employees` acceptance for HR activities, HR Managers have the possibility to show that HR activities indeed have a positive outcome on organizational performance (Triguero-Sanchez et al., 2013). This could strengthen the awareness of HR Managers contributions to the company. Acceptance can be defined as the positive attitude of employees towards HR activities (Stirpe et al., 2013), while HR contributions are defined as the perceived process of HR functions and the contribution to the company in various dimensions (Wright et al., 1998).

(7)

and focuses researchers´ attention to examining HR systems from the employee's perspective’ (cf. Jiang et al., 2013, p.1453). On the other hand, Ulrich (1997) noted that evaluating employees` opinions on HR activities may result in what is best for them, but might be less informative regarding what is important for the company (cf. Wright et al., 1998). Redman and Snape (2005) supported this view by stating that non-managerial employees often perceive the values and interests of an organization as remote from their own. This leads to a discrepancy in why HR Managers seek for feedback and what they receive. In addition, the organizational structure of a firm often makes it unpractical and costly for HR Managers to directly address employees. Yet, HR researchers are aware of the positive outcome that greater acceptance of HR activities among employees could establish. Finding an indirect but equally effective source for influencing this acceptance would be a great improvement. According to Wright et al. (1998), Line Managers are better suited to evaluate HR activities than employees. This is largely because Line Managers are both individual users of the HR activities, as well as being interested in positive results or changes in their employees based on Line Managers directing position. In other words, Line Managers are exercising HR activities and provide them to subordinates. Moreover, if Line Managers support HR activities, a positive influence on employees' acceptance of HR activities can be expected (Stirpe et al., 2013). Furthermore, Line Managers typically have more knowledge about what is best for an organization than normal employees. Therefore, it is important for HR Managers to broaden their knowledge about the role of Line Managers.

Line Management, the intermediary

(8)

higher strategic management and receive tasks. Due to these responsibilities, Line Managers have a lot of interaction with Human Resources (Jones & Saundry, 2012).

Stirpe et al. (2013) found that Line Managers` support of HR innovations has an even greater influence on employee acceptance of HR activities than top management support or disagreement. For an organization, this influence on employees may appear as a challenge when Line Managers` effectiveness ratings of HR activities are low. It indicates that Line Managers are not connecting the success of a company with HR activities (Wright, McMahan, Snell & Gerhart, 1998). Moreover, Line Managers complained that they are not fully informed on HR practices. They expressed concerns for not being familiar with all HR activities regarding their subordinates. Wright et al. (1998) therefore suggest a stronger focus on Line Managers from a HR Management side, in order to improve the relationship between them. Consequently, the current study focused on organizational relationships. In particular the relationship Line Managers have with HR Managers and also the relationship employees have with their Line Managers. The interaction in a relationship is always accompanied by a kind of communication.

(9)

present research was to identify a model that can be seen as a valuable explanation of this organizational process.

A construct of organizational relationships

The model, tested in the present research, focused on two important relationships within an organization, namely HR and Line Managers as well as Line Managers and employees. These relationships are located on different hierarchical levels. A relationship is a complex form of interaction between individuals. Its complexity emerges from a composition of various components such as trust, identification and feeling close. I define organizational relationships as a feeling of trust and low perceived distance of one actor to a fellow actor, including a high level of identification between the two.

The Human Resource department is often located outside the everyday work area of most employees. Hence, employees and HR have little possibility for interaction and there is a greater chance that employees are not familiar with HR´s daily business. I argue that this creates a perceived distance between employees and HR Management. The degree of interaction between two actors defines the distance between them (Antonoakis & Atwater, 2002). Antonoakis and Atwater (2002) further termed the perceived differences in status and authority as (social) distance.

(10)

management as more efficient, which led to a better application of HR activities (Triguero- Sanchez et al., 2013). Since perceived distance can be identified as a part of relationships, this argues in favour of organizational relationships effecting the acceptance of HR activities.

Mouzas, Henneberg and Naudé (2007) focused on the importance of another component of organizational relationships. They marked trust as a component, especially applicable in identifying interpersonal relationships. The research field of organisational trust is a highly reported one (Costigan, Insinga, Berman, & Kranas, 2011; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011; Van de Bunt, Wittek, & Klepper, 2005).‘Sociologists often find trust in socially embedded properties of relationships among people’ (Roussseau et al. 1998,p.393). This high focus on the concept expresses the importance of trust as a feature of organizational relationships in this study. ‘Trust is defined by a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another’ (Rousseau et al., 1998, p.395).

(11)

Researchers also highlighted that employees, who are more likely to identify with organizational actors to whom they have a local or close relationship such as Line Managers in a work unit, tend to seek advice within such a relationship (Lomi, Lusher, Pattison, & Robins, 2013). This advice seeking encourages a transfer of knowledge between the two. In other words, employees who identify strongly with their Line Managers are also more open for Line Managers advise. This indicates that Line Managers are indeed in a position to transfer knowledge about HR activities to employees. All three components: trust, identification and perceived distance focus on important aspects of interpersonal interaction. Therefore, they are able to provide adequate information about organisational relationships.

The role of communication quality

The investigation of the relationships between all three actors in this study is critical for drawing a causal chain from one end to the other, as suggested in the Black Box research (Jiang et al., 2013). But what mediates the process from organizational relationships to employee acceptance of HR activities?

(12)

purpose of HR activities. (Den Hartog et al., 2012; Kernan & Hanges, 2002). This finding can be used by HR Managers to inform Line Managers about HR activities. Nevertheless, HR Managers must be aware that their way of communicating affects not only Line Managers understanding, but also their support of HR activities. The implementation process supervised by Line Managers might be hampered, if they are unfamiliar with certain HR activities (Wright et al., 1998).

(13)

The model (Figure 1) of the present research provides a better understanding of the predicted relations in an organization. The communication process of HR activities primarily starts at the HR department. Hence, the relationship effect and quality of communication from HR Managers to Line Managers are considered as level 1 of the process. Line Managers, consequently, have the responsibility to communicate the HR activity to their subordinates. Their relationship effect and quality of communication are considered on level 2 in the model. Figure 1

Summarizing the above, the present research states the following hypotheses:

Hypotheses 1a: The relationship between HR and Line Managers affects the acceptance of HR activities by Line Managers.

(14)

Mediation hypotheses 1a`: The relationship between HR and Line Managers affects the acceptance of HR activities by Line Managers, mediated by the quality of communication between HR and Line Managers.

Mediation hypotheses 1b`: The relationship between employees and Line Managers affects the acceptance of HR activities by employees, mediated by the quality of communication between employees and Line Managers.

Hypotheses 2a: Trust and identification ratings correlate positively with quality of communication between Line and HR Managers, while perceived distance ratings of Line Managers correlates negatively with quality of communication.

Hypotheses 2b: Trust and identification ratings correlate positively with quality of communication between employees and Line Managers, while perceived distance ratings of employees correlate negatively with quality of communication.

Hypotheses 3a: Quality of communication between Line and HR Managers correlates positively with acceptance of HR activities amongst Line Managers.

Hypotheses 3b: Quality of communication between employees and Line Managers correlates positively with acceptance of HR activities amongst employees.

Hypotheses 4: Trust and identification are higher between employees and Line Managers than between Line Managers and HR Managers, whereas perceived distance is rated lower between employees and Line Managers than between Line Managers and HR Managers.

(15)

Figure 2 Modell with Hypotheses

METHODOLOGY Sample description

61 employees (30 male, 31 female) from different companies in Germany participated in this study. The average age was 31.33 years, with a range from 20 - 61. The companies differed in business (public 41.4%; trade and industry 58.6%) and size (small 29.3%; middle 17.2%; large 53,4%).1 Among participants, their tenure (<5 years 50.8%; 5-10 years 24.6%; 10-20 years 18%; >20 years 6.6%) was measured, as well as their current position (employee 73.8%; Line Manager 19.7%; Human Resource Manager 6.6%). The latter was used to divide them into the different levels of the model. In this study, only the answers of participants in the groups ‘employee’ and ‘Line Manager’ were used. The data was gathered through a convenience sample. The online questionnaire was send to the participants via E-Mail.

Measures

To determine the relationships between Human Resource department and Line Managers as well as employees and their direct Line Manager the components trust, identification and perceived distance were measured. In order to use a scale of items to measure a construct,

(16)

the scale must exceed a threshold of Cronbach´s alpha being .70 (Sedelmeier & Renkewitz, 2008). The constructs of acceptance, communication quality and trust were all found to be highly reliable. The reliability and validity of all measurements can also be determined as acceptable through their previous usage and testing in other studies.

Trust was controlled through the Behavioral Trust Inventory (Gillespie, 2003). On a 7-point Likert-scale from 1 (not at all willing) to 7 (completely willing), questions regarding reliance (How willing are you to rely on your leader´s task-related skills and abilities) as well as disclosure (How willing are you to share your personal feelings with your leader) were used. The trust subscale consisted of 9 items (𝛼 =.90).

The participants in the ‘employee’ group rated trust in their Line Manager, whilst participants in the ‘Line Manager’ group rated trust in their subordinates and HR Managers. Please see the Appendix for a more detailed overview of all the items used in this study.

Identification was measured through the OID graphic rating scale from Shamir and Kark (2004), in which participants had to decide from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (complete overlap). The participants in the ‘employee’ group rated identification with their Line Managers, whereas participants in the ‘Line Manager’ group rated identification with their subordinates and HR Managers.

(17)

The variable quality of communication was measured through the items of Den Hartog et al. (2012), who used items similar to Kernan and Hanges (2002). The items were ‘The amount of information I received about HR activities is adequate’, ‘Employees receive information concerning all phases of HR activities in a timely manner’, ‘My managers provide a sufficient amount of information to me’, ‘The information provided by my managers is useful’, and ‘I understand the information communicated by my managers’. A 7-point scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The communication quality subscale

consisted of 5 items (𝛼 =. 85). Participants in the ‘employee’ group made statements about their Line Managers, while participants in the ‘Line Manager’ group made statements about their HR Managers.

Finally, the dependent variable acceptance was measured with the items of Stirpe et al. (2013) The four item scale read: ‘I like the way HR activities are designed’, ‘I want HR activities to continue to be used in the future’, ‘HR activities are useful in improving the competitiveness of our company’ and ‘HR activities are useful in improving the way we work’. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

(18)

RESULTS Data structure and strategy of analysis

The data used in this study was divided into two groups according to the data collection. The groups are referred to as employees and Line Managers, separated by the participant's choice of job level. The group of HR Managers only had 2 participants and was therefore excluded in the data analysis. Due to the collected data, some limitations have to be acknowledged. The allocation of participants into the job level groups resulted in an unequal number of participants. The group of employees had 45 participants, while the group of Line Managers had 12. The small statistical power of the Line Manager group has to be considered while analyzing the results. In the following data presentation, results belonging to the employee group are marked with an E and results belonging to the Line Manager group are marked with LM. The results section is divided into several parts. Each hypothesis is going to be analyzed starting with hypotheses 2 to 5 and results are shown in detail. Furthermore, the mediation model is going to be presented. Due to the illustration of the direct and indirect effect, the analysis of hypotheses 1 a and b is going to be presented with the analysis of 1a´ and b´. The data has been analyzed through SPSS version 18.0.

Hypothesis 2 a & b

The testing of hypothesis 2 required the analysis of the relationship between Line Managers and their HR Managers and the relationship between employees and their supervisors (LM) regarding their communication quality (Communication). First the variables Trust, Identification and Perceived Distance were separately correlated with Communication for both job groups (Table 1). Trust, Identification and Communication correlated moderately positively for employees. The results showed further a non-significant correlation with a negative trend for Perceived Distance and Communication (r= -.10, p=.486).

(19)

have a strong, positive, significant correlation (r= .83, p=.001), while Identification and Communication showed a positive non-significant correlation (r= .43, p=.160). The correlation of Communication and Perceived Distance for this job group indicated a positive, significant relation against the prediction (r= .63, p=.025). This is going to be discussed further in the discussion section. Overall on hypothesis 2, the data revealed that high trust and identification are associated with more quality in communication of employees with their Line Managers, as well as Line Managers in their HR Manager. A decrease in perceive distance by employees towards their Line Managers is associated with an increase in quality of communication. On the other hand, the more perceived distance increases between Line and HR Managers the more increases the quality of communication between them.

Table 1 visualizes the correlation of all variables with each other. In the upper right corner the correlations of the employee group are presented. In the lower left part the correlations for the Line Manager group are presented.

TABLE 1 Correlations Employee Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1 Acceptance 1 .475** .318* .314* -.008 2 Communication .721** 1 .406** .342* -.107 3 Trust .752** .834** 1 .415** -.242 4 Identification .296 .433 .574* 1 -.400** 5 Perceived Distance .561 .639* .632* .735** 1

Correlations Line Manager Legend: ** significant p< .01 (2-tailed)

(20)

Hypothesis 3 a & b

The third hypotheses predicted that an increase in quality of communication is associated with an increase in acceptance of HR activities. The correlations of both factors showed a positive and significant dependence on each other (rE= .47, p=.001; rLM=.72, p=.008). The study proved this prediction to be correct for both levels of interaction in the model.

Hypothesis 4

I looked for significant differences on each factor between the two levels of the model. The third hypothesis identified the relationships between the mentioned actors in their different job levels by analyzing the ratings of Trust, Identification and Perceived Distance. It was predicted that Trust and Identification between employees and their Line Managers was more positive due to estimate ratings, than for Line Managers with their HR Managers. On the other hand, perceived distance should be lower between the employees and Line Managers than Line Managers and HR Managers. The t-test comparing the means of both job groups within each construct did not show any significant differences for Communication (ME=4.65, SDE=1.24; MLM= 5.10, SDLM= 1.33), Trust (ME= 4.94, SDE=1.15; MLM= 4.32, SDLM= 1.37), Identification (ME=3.47, SDE=1.31; MLM= 3.25, SDLM=1.21) and Perceived Distance (ME= 52.56, SDE= 25.08; MLM=58.41, SDLM= 29.49). The p-values are presented in Table 2.

Hypothesis 5

(21)

TABLE 2 t-Test

Variable Employee Line Manager

M SD M SD t (11) p Communication 4.65 1.24 5.10 1.33 1.19 .25 Trust 4.94 1.15 4.32 1.37 -1.44 .17 Identification 3.47 1.31 3.25 1.21 -0.63 .54 Perceived Distance 52.56 25.08 58.41 29.49 0.68 .50 Acceptance 4.31 1.14 5.19 1.04 2.97 .013* Legend: *significant p<.05 (2-tailed)

Hypotheses 1a & b and the mediation model

After analyzing hypotheses 2 to 5, the direct and indirect effect of Relationship on Acceptance had to be proved (Hypotheses 1a & b, 1a`& b`). Due to the two process levels of the model the data was analyzed in two steps.

(22)

The following model (Figure 3) shows the direct effect and indirect effect for both levels of organizational interaction. A mediation model illustrates the prediction of one variable from another in a direct effect, and in an indirect effect including a third variable (Hayes, 2009). Figure 3

First of all, the upper part of the model, which is illustrating the predicted direct and indirect effect for the Line Manager group, is going to be presented. This will be followed by an equally structured analysis of the employee group.

For the Line Manager group Relationship significantly predicted Acceptance, 𝛽 = .74, t(11)= 3.45, p=.006. The adjusted R2 value refers to an explanation of 49% of variance in Acceptance by Relationship. According to the model, Relationship had a significantly positive effect on Communication, 𝛽= .83, t(11)= 4.65, p=.001.

(23)

Although, the regression was significant (F(2,9)= 6.29, p=.019) the testing with PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) revealed no indirect effect of Relationship on Acceptance through Communication Quality, 𝛽 =.23, BCa CI [-0.489, 0.808]. The comparison of 𝛽 -values between the direct and indirect effect presented a decrease, 𝛽direct=.74, 𝛽indirect=.23. This can be seen as a trend for mediation, nevertheless, the above presented results reflect the small sample size of the Line Manager group.

The correlation between Communication and Relationship left some possibility for both variables to be interchangeable. During the mediation analysis, thought has been given to both allocations in the model. The testing of mediation with Communication as a predictor and Relationship as a mediator was non-significant. Hence, the allocation of Relationship as a predictor and Communication as mediator at the Line Manager level remained more reasonable.

In the following section the lower part of the model will be analysed (Figure 3).

The relationship of employees with their Line Managers (𝛽 = .34, t(44)= 2.4, p=.023) significantly predicted the acceptance of HR activities and indicated a direct effect. The adjusted R2 value reports that 9% of the variance in Acceptance is explained by Relationship. Regression analysis showed again that Relationship effects Communication, 𝛽 = .42, t(44)= 3.07, p=.004.

(24)

the direct and indirect effect presented a decrease when Communication was included (𝛽direct= .34, 𝛽indirect=.18). This can be seen as an indicator for mediation. The prediction was further supported by a significant PROCESS test, revealing an indirect and positive effect of Relationship on Acceptance through Communication,  𝛽=.18, BCa CI[0.039, 0.371].

The testing of the mediation revealed no indirect effect of Communication on Acceptance through Relationship. Hence, the allocation of Relationship and Communication was again clarified and corresponded with the presentation in the model. In other words, Communication mediates the relation between Relationship and Acceptance in the employee group.

As a result of the exclusion of Perceived Distance in the construct of Relationship, the effects of Perceived Distance have been analyzed separately. On the Line Manager level the following results could be determined.

The direct effect Perceived Distance had on Acceptance was marginally significant and showed a positive direction, which was not predicted, 𝛽 =.02, p= .058. Further, the effect Perceived Distance had on Communication was significant,  𝛽 =.03 p=.025, and went also in a not predicted positive direction. There was a significant indirect effect of Perceived Distance on Acceptance through Communication, 𝛽= .01, BCa CI [0.002, 0.039].

On the employee level, there was no direct effect of Perceived Distance on Acceptance but the 𝛽 − value showed a negative trend in the predicted direction, 𝛽= -.01, t(44)= -.05, p=.959. Moreover, the analysis showed no significant effect of Perceived Distance on Communication. Consequently, PROCESS revealed no indirect effect Perceived Distance on Acceptance through Communication, 𝛽=-.002, BCa CI [-0.011, 0.005].

(25)

DISCUSSION

The model wanted to clarify the influence of organizational relationships on acceptance of HR activities. The whole process should be mediated by the quality of communication between the organizational actors the study focused on. In general, my findings support my predictions.

The results of Hypotheses 1a revealed a direct effect on acceptance of HR activities by the relationship Line Managers have with HR Managers. In addition, hypotheses 1b was as well proved to be correct, showing a direct effect for the relationship of employees with Line Managers on employees´ acceptance of HR activities. The results of the mediation analysis (Hypotheses 1a` & b`) revealed no significant mediation of the quality of communication on the effect on acceptance of HR activities by the relationship of Line Managers with HR Managers. Still, there was a trend in the predicted direction of mediation. In the employee group the predicted mediation was found. Hence, the relationship employees have with their Line Manager not only directly effected their acceptance of HR activities, but it was also mediated by the quality of communication those organizational actors have with each other.

(26)

The predicted group differences for a higher feeling of trust and identification on the employee level, compared to Line Managers, did not appear. The same applied to the prediction of lower perceived distance between employees and Line Managers. Therefore, hypothesis 4 was completely disproved in the current study. Nevertheless, the group comparison of acceptance ratings in hypothesis 5, proved a higher acceptance of HR activities by Line Managers.

From a theoretical perspective my findings represent existing HR research and expand it. Jones and Saundry (2012) state a close work of Line Managers with HR Managers regarding HR activities. This is proved by my studies direct effect the relationship, of Line Managers with HR Managers, has on Line Managers´ acceptance of HR activities. Particularly, the fact that Line Managers rated their acceptance of HR activities that are provided to their subordinates pointes this out. The direct effect on the Line Manager level in combination with higher acceptance rating for HR activities from Line Managers verifies also the previous research on Line Managers influence and understanding of organizational management (Wright et al.,1998). As stated above, the results strengthen the presumption that Line Manager better understand and support HR activities in comparison to normal employees. Wright et al.´s (1998) suggestion about a stronger focus of HR Management on Line Managers is now even more supported by the current results.

(27)

The second direct effect of the study confirms the findings of Stirpe et al. (2013). They stated that there is a greater influence of Line Managers than Top Management opinion on employees. This finding can be supported by my studies result that the relationship, employees have with their Line Managers, effects the acceptance of HR activities by employees. Moreover, the findings of my study continue recent research findings. A CIPD survey from 2007 indicated that a lot of operational managers take less effort in subordinate management than from HR Management intended (Jones & Saundry, 2012). The less effort is, among others, a result of a lack of confidence in decision making. Line Managers with greater knowledge and experience about HR activities are more confident in their decision making about HR activities. Jones and Saundry (2012) state further that this confidence is partly based on high-trust relationships with HR Managers. Such information is crucial to show HR Management the importance of their relationship with Line Managers. Considering these results, the causal chain of my study and its importance becomes more obvious. HR Managers have to constantly work on their relationship with Line Managers. They also have to make Line Managers aware of a Line Manager´s significant role in employees´ acceptance of HR activities. As the findings about the effect of relationship on acceptance show, this employee acceptance of HR activities can particularly be influenced by the relationship Line Managers have with their subordinates. Considering the results of the direct effect and the mediation, practical implementations for organizations can be derived.

(28)

training is a stable and well-established instrument in the area of personnel development. HR Managers should be aware that using this instrument more sufficiently on the Line Manager level could also support the overall acceptance of HR activities in the organization. Yet, this should not be seen as a suggestion to primarily focus on improving the communication between HR and Line Managers. The mediation for the relationship of employees and their Line Managers on employees´ acceptance clearly signifies the need for an increase in communication training at the Line Manager and employee level.

The findings of perceived distance should be taken into further consideration as well. Especially the interesting result of a higher distance between Line Managers and HR Managers, which accompanies a positive feeling about identification, trust and acceptance as well as communication quality, should make HR Managers aware of their position and reference in the organization. They are expected to provide Line Managers with a professional work base, which, as the results indicate, is created through a certain distance.

On the other hand, the relationship between Line Managers and employees can be stabilized and supported by a close work base. Therefore, Line Managers can work on their appearance in the team and be more open with their employees. This could not only increase trust and identification but also reduce misunderstandings in communication, because employees know their supervisors better and understand what they intend.

(29)

show the interdependence across levels, because then Line Managers and employees refer to the same process. This could unveil for example a strong relationship between HR and Line Managers being associated with a high acceptance of HR activities from employees. The experimental testing in a laboratory, on the other side, could manipulate relationship on both job levels and show the extent to which relationship is possible to influence acceptance. Especially, in an organizational setting relationships have to be managed different. Line Managers and their subordinates do have a different relationship base than Line Managers and HR Managers. Therefore, an experimental study could mark the similarities and differences to provide companies with more guidance to manage those relationships. Moreover, the manipulation of communication by providing the Line Manager or employee with high or low-quality communication examples could further demonstrate the strength of the mediation. The findings of such a study can help to improve communication trainings. Finally, I want to point out again that the small sample size of the Line Manager group limits the validity of the results in this study.

CONCLUSION

(30)
(31)

REFERENCES

Antonakis, J. & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704.

Badescu, G. 2007. Trust, Corruption and Tax Evasion in Romania. Tax Evasion, Trust and

State Capacities, 3, 307.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

management, 17(1), 99-120.

Batt, R. 2002. Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of management Journal, 45(3), 587-597.

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of management journal, 39(4), 779-801.

Bhattacharya, C. B. & Sen, S. 2003. Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of marketing, 76-88. Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Berman, J. J., Kranas, G., & Kureshov, V. A. 2011.

Revisiting the relationship of supervisor trust and CEO trust to turnover intentions: A three-country comparative study. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 74-83.

Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M. A. 2012. HRM, communication, satisfaction, and perceived performance: a cross-level test. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1637-1665.

De Winne, S., Delmotte, J., Gilbert, C., & Sels, L. 2013. Comparing and explaining HR department effectiveness assessments: evidence from line managers and trade union representatives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1708-1735.

(32)

Haase, N., Renkewitz, F., & Betsch, C. 2013. The measurement of subjective probability: Evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of various scales. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1812-1828.

Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, mod- eration, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Hill, N. S., Seo, M. G., Kang, J. H., & Taylor, M. S. 2012. Building employee commitment to change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct managers' transformational leadership. Organization Science, 23(3), 758-777. Hitt, M. A., Biermant, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. 2001. Direct and moderating effects

of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management journal, 44(1), 13-28.

Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. 2013. Where do We Go From Here? New Perspectives on the Black Box in Strategic Human Resource Management Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1448-1480.

Jones, C., & Saundry, R. 2012. The practice of discipline: evaluating the roles and relationship between managers and HR professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 252-266.

Kehoe, R. R. & Wright, P. M. 2013. The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391.

Kernan, M. C. & Hanges, P. J. 2002. Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916.

Lomi, A., Lusher, D., Pattison, P. E., & Robins, G. 2013. The focused organization of advice relations: A study in boundary crossing. Organization Science, 25(2), 438-457. McEvily, B. & Tortoriello, M. 2011. Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and

(33)

Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S., & Naudé, P. 2007. Trust and reliance in business relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1016-1032.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the “why” of Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503-545.

Redman, T., & Snape, E. 2005. Unpacking Commitment: Multiple Loyalties and Employee Behaviour*. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 301-328.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404. Sanders, K. & Frenkel, S. 2011. HR-line management relations: characteristics and effects.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1611-1617. Sedlmeier, P. & Renkewitz, F. 2008.: Forschungsmethoden und Statistik in der

Psychologie.München: Pearson.

Shamir, B. & Kark, R. 2004. A single item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 115-123.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32. Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. 2001. Building trust: In business, politics, relationships, and

life. Oxford University Press.

Stirpe, L., Trullen, J., & Bonache, J. 2013. Factors helping the HR function gain greater acceptance for its proposals and innovations: evidence from Spain†. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.

Townsend, K. 2013. To what extent do line managers play a role in modern industrial relations?. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51(4), 421-436.

(34)

Van de Bunt, G. G., Wittek, R. P., & de Klepper, M. C. 2005. The Evolution of Intra-Organizational Trust Networks The Case of a German Paper Factory: An Empirical Test of Six Trust Mechanisms. International sociology, 20(3), 339-369.

(35)

APPENDIX

Trust scale Employee group How willing are you to…

1. Rely on your supervisor´s work-related judgments? 2. Rely on your supervisor´s task-related skills and abilities?

3. Depend on your supervisor to handle an important issue on your behalf? 4. Rely on your supervisor to represent your work accurately to others? 5. Depend on your supervisor to back you up in difficult situations?

6. Confide in your supervisor about personal issues that are affecting your work?

(36)

Identification measurement Employee group

(37)

Communication quality scale Employee group

1. The amount of information I receive about HR activities is adequate.

2. Employees receive information concerning all phases of HR activities in a timely manner. 3. My supervisor provides a sufficient amount of information to me.

4. The information provided by my supervisor is useful.

5. I understand the information communicated by my supervisor.

Acceptance scale Employee group

1. I like the way HR activities are designed.

2. I want HR activities to continue to be used in the future.

3. HR activities are useful in improving the competitiveness of our company. 4. HR activities are useful in improving the way we work.

5. The HR department is performing its job the way I would like it to be performed. 6. The HR department is very responsive to meeting customer (line managers´ and employees´) needs.

7. The HR department provides me with useful and timely information regarding HR issues. 8. The HR department has helped to enhance the firm´s competitive position.

9. The HR department contributes to building and/or maintaining the firm´s core competence. 10. The HR department contributes to building the firm´s human capital

(employees/managers) as a source of competitive advantage.

11. The policies, practices, and procedures coming from the HR department help front-line business partners in their jobs.

12. The HR department has developed a well-coordinated set of policies, practices, and procedures.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

We hebben taken genoemd die door de meeste HR-managers worden uitgevoerd, maar deze zullen van organisatie tot organisatie verschillen en ook afhanke- lijk zijn van de manier waarop

In deze sessie lichten we de 'so ' aspecten van het Human Resource Beleid toe, hoewel net die aspecten vaak ook zeer 'hard' en 'aanwezig' kunnen zijn

Onderzoek zal dus verder moeten gaan dan alleen maar de relatie tussen de input (zijnde een concreet personeelsinstrument als bijvoorbeeld beloning, training et cetera) en

However, the expected moderation effect of promotion-focused leadership was not supported by this research, it was expected that the focus of improving the current state and

However, at the individual level time pressure has also been found to have positive and curvilinear effects (Nijstad, 2015). The question of our research is whether time pressure has

In the current research I will look at the influence of an innovative team climate, networking ability, and at the interaction between those two factors on the individual

Conducting qualitative, open-ended interviews with 21 retired employees of the company explored and broadened understanding of the concept of organizational commitment, as

Further, technological innovation positively influences both hard and soft lean practices, and soft lean practices positively influence operational performance