P
ERCEIVEDO
RGANIZATIONALS
UPPORT AS THE MEDIATINGMECHANISM BETWEEN HIGH
-
COMMITMENTHR
S
YSTEMS ANDWORKER
-
RELATEDO
UTCOMESMaster thesis, MSc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2017 Chantal Zwarg Student number: S3247821 Email: c.k.j.zwarg@student.rug.nl Supervisor Prof. dr. E.Molleman
2
Perceived organizational support as the mediating mechanism between
high-commitment HR systems and worker-related outcomes
ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationship between high-commitment HR systems, as experienced by employees, and worker-related outcomes. It focusses on perceived organizational support (POS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986) as the mediating mechanism and on perceived organizational discretion (POD) and union membership as moderators of this relationship which could explain heterogeneity in effect sizes found in meta-analyses on POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle, Edmondson & Hansen, 2009). The results of regression analyses of data collected via online questionnaires from 293 employees from Germany, the Netherlands and other countries showed a partial mediation of the relationship between experienced HR system and organizational commitment and a full mediation of the relationship between high-commitment HR system and job satisfaction through POS. Furthermore, this study found a marginally significant positive interaction effect of POD and HR system on POS. However, the hypotheses pertaining to union membership were rejected because in the focal sample union membership showed a positive interaction effect on POS, instead of the expected negative interaction.
Keywords: HR system, high-commitment HR system, perceived organizational support (POS),
3
INTRODUCTION
In times of global competition and a war for talents, an organization’s human resources can be crucial for achieving competitive advantage (Pfeffer, 1998; Porter, 1985; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang & Takeuchi, 2007). Consequently, companies invest in HR practices to develop a satisfied and committed workforce. Those companies which are perceived as an attractive employer according to employer rankings such as Fortune's annual listing of “The 100 Best Companies to Work For” and Glassdoor’s employee choice award have employee support programs in place (Great Place to Work Institute, 2007).
In order to sustain this competitive advantage an organization’s human resource management should meet the inimitability criterion of the resource-based view (Chadwick, Super & Kwon, 2015). As complex, integrated systems of commitment-based HR practices which enhance employee skills and efforts are more difficult to imitate by a competitor than an individual HR practice, the interest of SHRM scholars in HR systems as a management tool to influence different outcomes increased in the last decades (Huselid, 1995; Jackson, Schuler & Jiang, 2014). While many studies deal with the relationship between HR systems and organizational performance (Combs, Liu, Hall & Ketchen, 2006; Jackson et al., 2014; Sun, Aryee & Law, 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2007) less attention is paid to the effects of HR systems on employee outcomes.
4
organization values their contributions (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Employees who experience favorable treatment by their employer are likely to reciprocate by exhibiting effort to contribute to the organization’s goals. Further, they strongly identify with the organization.
This study contributes to the strategic human resource (SHRM) literature in three ways: First, it examines the effect of coherent HR systems, as experienced by the employee, on worker-related outcomes. As criticised by Guest (2002), Bowen and Ostroff (2004), the majority of HR system scholars examine the effect of HR systems on organizational performance but neglect the impact on employees. This study expands research by focussing on affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction as dependent variables.
Second, this study further explores the “black box” (Boxall et al., 2011) between HR systems and outcomes by examining POS as mediating mechanism. While many scholars have studied the effect of POS as a mediator on the relationship between individual HR practices and employee outcomes (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), there is to the best of my knowledge no study considering that the effects of HR systems are possibly mediated by POS.
5
heterogeneity in effect sizes which has been found in meta-analyses (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009).
Besides making a theoretical contribution, this study can be of interest to practitioners as it advances the understanding of how HR systems are linked to desired employee outcomes and subsequently contribute to sustained competitive advantage by examining POS as the mediating mechanism.
To achieve these contributions to SHRM literature and to provide new insights for practitioners, this study aims at answering the following research questions: Does perceived organizational support (POS) mediate the relationship between experienced high-commitment HRM systems and a) affective organizational commitment and b) job satisfaction as worker-related outcomes? Do a) perceived organizational discretion and b) union membership moderate the before-mentioned indirect effect of experienced high-commitment HRM systems on worker-related outcomes?
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Experienced high-commitment HR systems and organizational commitment
6
building an internal labour market, compensation based on group or organizational performance, training programs focussing on long-term growth and development opportunities. Further, commitment-based HR systems foster teamwork. However, the conceptualizations of high-commitment, high-involvement and high-performance HR systems are not clearly distinct but overlapping. This means that certain HR practices are common to all three HR systems and that the terms are often used interchangeably (Wood, de Menezes & Lasaosa, 2003). For example, extensive skills training, promotion from within and results-oriented appraisal are also part of a performance HR systems as described by Huselid (1995) and Sun et al. (2007). Also, high-involvement HR systems emphasize teamwork and intensive training and development in a similar way (Boxall, Hutchison & Wassenaar, 2015; Lawler, 1986). Therefore, the findings of studies examining the effect between any kind of HR system and the employee outcomes of interest are considered in the following.
skills-7
enhancing dimensions of HR systems are positively related to collective affective commitment. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1a: Experienced high-commitment HR systems are positively related to affective
organizational commitment.
Experienced high-commitment HR systems and job satisfaction
Similarly, many scholars suggest a positive relationship between HR systems and job satisfaction: Based on data from the Statistics Canada Workplace and Employee Survey, Yanadori and Van Jaarsveld (2014) show that the employee-reported index of high-performance work practices is positively related to job satisfaction. For the European countries, Bauer (2004) confirmed a positive effect of being involved in a high-performance workplace organization on job satisfaction. Also, the study of Macky and Boxall (2007) shows a strong correlation between high-performance work system and job satisfaction. Further, Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg and Croon (2013) found that employee perceptions of the HR system are positively related to employee satisfaction. Accordingly, it is expected that high-commitment HR systems, as experienced by employees, have a positive effect on their job satisfaction. Stated formally:
Hypothesis 1b: Experienced high-commitment HR systems are positively related to job satisfaction.
The mediating effect of perceived organizational support
8
treatment which represents a positive evaluation of the employee (Eisenberger et al., 1986). According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), employees incorporate organizational membership into their self-identity and feel emotionally bound to the organization when employees’ need for praise is met. Further, employees feel an obligation to repay received favorable treatment and exhibit effort to help the organization reach its objectives which is in line with social exchange theory (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Besides fairness and supervisor support, organizational rewards and job conditions are considered antecedents of POS. Therefore, the construct of POS is often used to link HR practices to individual level outcomes (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). For example Park, Newman, Zhang, Wu and Hooke (2016) found that POS partially mediates the relationship between mentoring and turnover intention. Further, Gavino et al. (2012) studied the mediating role of POS and found that the positive indirect effect of performance management and promotional opportunities on employee outcomes is fully mediated by POS. Moreover, Allen and Rhoades Shanock (2013) show that the positive indirect effect between socialization tactics and organizational commitment is mediated by POS.
These findings are supported by meta-analyses: According to Riggle et al. (2009), organizational rewards and job conditions are positively related to POS. However, when controlled for fairness and supervisor support the effect becomes smaller but remains significant. Moreover, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) as well as Riggle et al. (2009) found a strong effect of POS on organizational commitment and on job satisfaction. Further, POS explains more than 50% of the variance of organizational commitment and nearly 38% of the variance of job satisfaction in the meta-analysis of Riggle et al. (2009).
9
& Ostroff, 2004; Takeuchi, Chen & Lepak, 2009) and HR attributions (Nishii et al., 2008; Van De Voorde & Beijer, 2015) were studied as mediators of the relationship between HR systems and employee outcomes. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies examining POS as the mediating mechanism between HR systems and employee outcomes.
But the concepts of POS (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and HR attributions as described by Nishii et al. (2008) have similarities, namely that employees make inferences about the reasons for organizational actions. In the case of POS employees interpret favourable treatment by the organization as positive evaluation of themselves and commitment to them (Eisenberger et al., 1986), while HR attributions represent employees’ interferences about the organization’s motivation behind implementing HR practices or systems (Nishii et al., 2008). Therefore and because of the empirical findings supporting a mediation effect of POS on the relationship between individual HR practices and employee outcomes, it is expected that POS also mediates the relationship between high-commitment HR systems and attitudinal employee outcomes. Stated formally:
Hypothesis 2a: The positive relationship between experienced high-commitment HR
systems and affective organizational commitment is mediated by perceived organizational support (POS).
Hypothesis 2b: The positive relationship between experienced high-commitment HR
10 Figure 1
Conceptual Model – Mediation
The moderating effects of union membership and organizational discretion
The meta-analyses of Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) and Riggle et al. (2009) emphasize the importance of studying potential moderators to explain conflicting findings and the heterogeneity of effect sizes across samples. Additionally, Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart and Adis (2015) call for future research on contextual variables and attributional heuristics that may moderate the relationship between favourable treatment through the organization and POS.
11
Despite this considerable attention in theory, organizational discretion has been rarely studied in empirical HRM research. According to Gavino et al. (2012) discretionary HR practices represent a non-mandatory investment in the employees of an organization. They found that the discretionary HR practices of performance management, decision making, participation and promotional opportunities have significant indirect effects on employee outcomes. However, the relationships between transactional HR practices such as processing new-hirer paperwork and pay accuracy and worker-related outcomes are not mediated by POS. While Gavino et al. (2012) categorized HR practices as either discretionary or transactional based on literature, Eisenberger et al. (1997) asked respondents to rank job conditions with regard to the organization’s perceived control over these HR practices. Eisenberger et al. (1997) reported a six times stronger association between POS and job conditions which employees perceived as highly discretionary as opposed to job conditions attributed little organizational discretion. Further, they showed that employee perceptions regarding the job conditions under high, intermediate and low control of their employer vary systematically across organizations. These findings suggest that perceived organizational discretion has a positive moderation effect on the indirect positive relationship between high-commitment HR systems and employee outcomes. Stated formally:
Hypothesis 3a: The indirect positive relationship between experienced high-commitment HR systems and organizational commitment is moderated by the extend of perceived organizational discretion. The higher the extend of perceived organizational discretion the more positive this relationship will be.
12
Besides government regulations and a tight job market (Kurtessis, et al., 2015), strong labour unions or the threat of unionization are frequently named as external factors restraining the organization’s discretion (Aselange & Eisenberger, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) when selecting and designing HR practices. Moreover, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) considered to study unionization as a moderator of the relationship between HR practices, POS and employee outcomes to explain the variability of effect sizes. Unions represent employee interests and negotiate on their behalf for better working conditions or higher pay (Hogler, Hunt & Weiler, 2015) and are, therefore, sometimes in conflict with management for resources (Pohler & Luchak, 2015). In dual organizational environments such as unionized workplaces there is a potential for divided loyalties towards union and employer (Goeddeke & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2010). In a competitive industrial relations climate being committed to the organization and a union can cause a role conflict (Festinger, 1957).
13
Relatedly, Berger, Olson and Boudreau (1983) argue that unions teach their members to value those job conditions more highly that the union strives to improve.
This paper follows Goeddeke and Kammeyer-Mueller’s (2010) call to study the joint effects of union and organizational support on employee outcomes. When extending the voice hypothesis and the arguments of Berger, Olson and Boudreau (1983), union membership can be expected to weaken the indirect relationship between high-performance HR systems and employee outcomes by politicizing employees and by influencing their perception of their employer’s HR system and support. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4a: The indirect positive relationship between experienced high-commitment HR systems and organizational commitment is moderated by union membership. For union members this positive relationship will be weaker than for non-union members.
Hypothesis 4b: The indirect positive relationship between experienced high-performance HR systems and job satisfaction is moderated by union membership. For union members this positive relationship will be weaker than for non-union members.
Figure 2
14 METHOD
Sample and Procedure
In order to test the before-mentioned hypotheses, an online survey was conducted among employees from multiple companies. I used my personal network to contact employees via e-mail and social networks such as LinkedIn, Xing and Facebook to convince them to participate in the study and to act as multipliers within their company and personal network. To acquire union-members as respondents, I asked the biggest German unions to distribute the survey among their members or to post the link and a short description of the research project on their website.
Data was collected through an online questionnaire administered on Qualtrics. The questionnaire was completely anonymous and participation was voluntary. In the beginning participants were ensured confidentiality and were informed about content and purpose of the survey. As the questionnaire contains 44 statements on employee perceptions of the HR system, perceptions of management’s discretion, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the survey took about 10 minutes to be completed.
In total 303 employees filled out the survey of whom ten were excluded because they did not complete the questionnaire. Therefore, the focal sample consists of 293 respondents from Germany (94.5 %), the Netherlands (3.1 %) and other countries (2.4 %). Of the respondents 60.8 % were male and 39.2 % were female with a mean age of 39.77 years (SDage = 13.01) and a mean
organizational tenure of 13.37 years (SDtenure = 12.47). 59 % of the employees who completed the
15 Measurement
All items of the questionnaire were developed in English and translated into German so participants could choose between these two languages when answering the questionnaire. All items are listed in Appendix A.
Experienced high-commitment HR system. The independent variable, originally an
organization-level variable, consists of 16 items developed by Collins and Smith (2006). Those items were slightly modified to fit the individual level because this study intended to measure the experienced high-commitment HR system by asking respondents to give their perception of the high-commitment HR system on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The 16 items are grouped into the sub-dimensions selection policies (e.g. “Our selection system focuses on the potential of the candidate to learn and grow with the organization.”), incentive policies (e.g. “Salaries for employees in my position are higher than those of our competitors.”) and training and development policies (e.g. “My employer has a mentoring system to help develop employees.”). Nevertheless, Collins and Smith (2006) provided evidence that all items loaded on a single factor. In the focal data set the scale shows good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
Job satisfaction. To measure overall job satisfaction, the Job Satisfaction Subscale of the
Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh (1983) was used. Despite the variety of job satisfaction measures utilized in research, this scale was selected because of its length. It consists of three items such as “In general, I like working here.” and was measured on a 7-point agree–disagree scale. The scale shows high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .88).
Affective organizational commitment. The affective organizational commitment scale
16
respondents were asked to rate each item measured on a 7- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The ACS has a Cronbach’s alpha of .84.
Perceived organizational support (POS). The variable was measured with an 8-item scale
developed by Eisenberger et al. (1997). This scale combines the eight items with the highest factor loading from originally 36 items developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). To mitigate potential response bias, positive and negative wordings were used for the items. With a Crombach’s alpha of .90 the scale demonstrates high reliability. Sample items from this scale are “My organization cares about my opinion” and “Help is available from my organization when I have a problem”. The items for POS were measured on a 7- point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Perceived organizational discretion (POD). Although many researchers argue that perceived
organizational or managerial discretion affects POS (Blau, 1964; Cotterell et al., 1992; Eisenberger et al., 1987; Gouldner, 1960) this moderator effect has been rarely tested in empirical research. Only Eisenberger et al. (1997) studied the effect of employee-reported POD empirically by asking participants to group 18 HR practices according to their employers’ degree of control (high, moderate, low) over those job conditions. While Eisenberger et al. (1997) analysed the effect of POD on the relationship between individual HR practices and POS, the current study has a system focus and examines the effect of POD on the relationship between coherent HR systems and POS. Due to this difference in the study focus, the ipsative scaling procedure used by Eisenberger et al. (1997) cannot be applied in the current study because it does not capture the total amount of organizational discretion. Therefore, respondents were asked to rate the following four statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree):
17
- “My organization is limited when selecting and designing HR practices by external
constraints such as government regulations, contractual obligations or a competitive job market.” (R)
These statements were inspired by organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1997; Kim, Eisenberger, & Baik, 2016) and management literature (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). This scale showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .71.
Union membership. Union membership was measured as a dichotomous variable (1 = union
member, 0 = non-union member).
Control variables. To exclude other explanations of the studied relationship (Becker, 2005)
18 Data Analysis
In preparation for hypothesis testing, reverse-coded items were recoded and variables were computed for experienced high-commitment HR system, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment and perceived organizational discretion. Further, all variables except the dependent variables and the dichotomous moderator union membership were standardized.
To test hypotheses 1a and 1b a regression analysis was performed. Further, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2015) was used to test mediation (2a, 2b) and moderated mediation hypotheses (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and CorrelationsMeans, standard deviations (SD) and bivariate correlations for the studied variables are reported in Table 1. The variable means reveal that the respondents in this sample, on average, rated their job satisfaction as relatively high. As expected, the experienced HR system was significantly related to POS (r = .64, p < .001), to job satisfaction (r = .43, p < .001) and to affective organizational commitment (r = .48, p < .001). Similarly, POS showed high positive correlations with the dependent variables job satisfaction (r = .61, p < .001) and affective organizational commitment (r = .61, p < .001). Also, POD was found to have a small but significant positive correlation with job satisfaction (r = .15, p < .01) and affective organizational commitment (r = .19, p < .01). The fact that job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment show these correlation coefficients with the same direction and of similar size is not surprising because the dependent variables are highly correlated (r = .71, p < .001).
19
which indicate that older respondents and employees who are working for the same company for a longer timespan are more likely to be a union member than younger employees with a shorter organizational tenure. However, the control variables age, tenure and gender showed no significant correlations with the two dependent variables and were therefore omitted from further analysis as recommended by Becker (2005). To decide whether to include country of residence as a control variable, a univariate analysis of variance was performed. It revealed that the between-subject effects of country of residence neither on affective organizational commitment (F(2, 290) = 1.69, p = .19, ηp2 = .01) nor on job satisfaction (F(2, 290) = 0.98, p = .38, ηp2 = .00) were significant.
20 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson’s Zero-order Correlations
Note: N=293; ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05; a 1 = male, 2 = female; b 1 = Germany, 2 = Netherlands, 3 = others; c 0 = non-union member, 1 = union-member.
21 Normality Testing
As a normal distribution is a pre-requirement for further analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed and skewness and kurtosis were tested. The significance levels of the Shapiro-Wilk test, which are reported in Table 2, reveal that none of the variables in the sample is normally distributed. As perfectly symmetrical data with a skewness of zero is unlikely to be found with real-world data, I followed Bulmer’s (1979) instructions on how to interpret the skewness value. According to Bulmer (1979) skewness values between - ½ and + ½ indicate an approximately normal distribution. This is the case for all studied variables but job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is moderately skewed with a skewness of -.958. As this value is close to -1 which is considered as highly skewed by Bulmer (1979), I additionally did a visual inspection of the histogram as recommended by Field (2009). The histogram of job satisfaction shows a medium-long left tail but the curve still resembles the general shape of a normal distribution. Therefore, no transformations were done. While job satisfaction shows a slightly positive kurtosis or leptokurtic distribution, all other variables show slightly negative kurtosis values. This is called platykurtic and means that the peak is lower and broader in comparison to a normal distribution (Field, 2009).
TABLE 2
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality Skewness (SE = .14) Kurtosis (SE = .28) Shapiro-Wilk test (significance) Experienced HR system .10 -.76 .002
Perceived organizational support -.11 -.75 .004
Perceived organizational discretion -.11 -.27 .018
Job satisfaction -.96 .45 .000
Affective organizational commitment -.11 -.58 .035
22 Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1a stated that experienced high-commitment HR systems are positively related to affective organizational commitment. The results of an ordinary-least square regression analysis which are reported in Table 3 (top part) show that HR system and affective organizational commitment are indeed significantly and positively related (B = .62, SE = .07, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is supported. Hypothesis 1b posited that experienced high-commitment HR systems are positively related to job satisfaction. Table 3 shows a highly significant and positive relationship between HR system and job satisfaction (B = .59, SE = .07, p < .001). These results support hypothesis 1b.
Hypothesis 2a suggested that the indirect relationship between experienced high-commitment HR systems and affective organizational high-commitment is mediated by perceived organizational support (POS). Table 3 (middle part) shows a significant positive effect between HR system and POS (B = .64, SE = .05, p < .001) as well as between POS and affective organizational commitment (B = .67, SE = .08, p < .001). The performed bootstrapping procedure (Table 3, bottom part) showed that the indirect effect between experienced high-commitment HR system and affective organizational commitment was indeed significant (B = .43, SE = .06, CI95%
[.319, .537]). As the direct effect of experienced HR system on affective organizational commitment remained significant (B = .19, SE = .08, p <.05) it can be concluded that there is no full mediation but partial mediation. Consequently, hypothesis 2a is supported. This mediation model was able to explain 39 % of variance in affective organizational commitment, while the model without the mediator solely explained 23 % of variance in affective organizational commitment.
23
(B = .76, SE = .08, p < .001). This indirect effect between experienced HR system and job satisfaction was further supported by a bootstrapping procedure (B = .48, SE = .06, CI95% [.376,
24 TABLE 3
Results of the regression analyses for dependent variable model and mediator model
Note: N = 293; Bootstrap sample size = 1,000 Dependent Variable Models
DV =
affective organizational commitment
DV = job satisfaction
R² = .23 R² = .19
Predictors B SE T p B SE t p
Experienced HR system .62 .07 9.29 <.001 .59 .07 8.20 <.001
Mediator Models Mediator =
perceived organizational support
DV =
affective organizational commitment
DV = job satisfaction
R² = .40, F(1, 291) = 197.58 R² = .39, F(2, 290) = 92.16 R² = .38, F(2, 290) = 87.26
Predictor B SE t p LLCI ULCI B SE t p LLCI ULCI B SE t p LLCI ULCI
Perceived organizational support .67 .08 8.71 <.001 .519 .822 .76 .08 9.35 <.001 .599 .918 Experienced HR system .64 .05 14.06 <.001 .547 .725 .19 .08 2.50 .013 .041 .344 .10 .08 1.26 .208 -.057 .262
Indirect Effects DV =
affective organizational commitment
DV = job satisfaction
Predictor Effect Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot
ULCI Effect Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot ULCI
25 TABLE 4
Regression results of the moderated mediation models for the moderator perceived organizational discretion
Interaction Effect Mediator =
perceived organizational support R² = .41, F(3, 289) = 68.13
Predictor B SE t P LLCI ULCI
Constant -.01 .05 -.30 .768 -.103 .076 HR system .61 .05 13.24 <.001 .522 .704 Perceived organizational discretion .07 .05 1.58 .115 -.180 .164 Experienced HR system x
Perceived organizational discretion .07 .04 1.73 .085 -.010 .148
Index of moderated mediation DV =
affective organizational commitment
Mediator Index Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Perceived organizational support .05 .04 .003 .099
Index of moderated mediation
DV = job satisfaction
Mediator Index Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Perceived organizational support .05 .03 -.003 .111
Conditional indirect effect of experienced HR system on organizational commitment at values of moderator
Mediator POD Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
26 Note: N=293; Bootstrap sample size =1,000.
TABLE 5
Regression results of the moderated mediation analyses for the moderator union membership
Conditional indirect effect of experienced HR system on job satisfaction at values of moderator
Mediator POD Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
perceived organizational support -1.00 .41 .06 .303 .564 perceived organizational support .000 .47 .06 .358 .595 perceived organizational support +1.00 .52 .07 .394 .668
Interaction Effects Mediator =
perceived organizational support R² = .43, F(3, 289) = 73.61
Predictor B SE t P LLCI ULCI
Constant .21 .07 2.91 .003 .068 .352 HR system .51 .07 7.81 <.000 .377 .632 Union membership -.31 .09 -3.36 .001 -.498 -.130 Experienced HR system x
Union membership .18 .09 1.99 .048 .002 .365
Index of moderated mediation
DV =
affective organizational commitment
Mediator Index Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Perceived organizational support .12 .06 .021 .260
Index of moderated mediation
DV = job satisfaction
Mediator Index Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
27 Note: N=293; Bootstrap sample size =1,000.
To test the interaction effects of perceived organizational discretion (POD) and experienced high-commitment HR systems on affective organizational commitment or job satisfaction (Hypotheses 3a & 3b), moderated mediation analyses were performed. It was hypothesized that the indirect relationship will be more positive when the extend of POD increases. Further, it was assumed that the moderating effect occurs between the independent variable and the mediator. Therefore, model 7 of Hayes’ process macro was used. Although the main effect of POD on POS was insignificant (B = .07, SE = .05, p = .12), Table 4 shows that the interaction effect on organizational commitment as well as on job satisfaction was marginally significant (B = .07, SE = .04, p = .09). As depicted in Figure 3, under a low-level HR system the extend of POD did not affect POS. However, under a high-commitment HR system POS is higher when a high level rather than a low level of organizational discretion is perceived by the employees. Moreover, the bootstrapping procedure showed that the conditional effect of experienced HR system on affective organizational commitment was stronger for a high value of POD (B = .46, SE = .06, CI95% [.338, .594]) than for a low extend
of POD (B = .37, SE = .06, CI95% [.246, .486]). Similarly, the conditional effect of experienced
Conditional indirect effect of experienced HR system on affective organizational commitment at values of moderator
Mediator Union
membership Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
perceived organizational support .000 .34 .07 .219 .481 perceived organizational support +1.00 .46 .07 .334 .603
Conditional indirect effect of experienced HR system on job satisfaction at values of moderator
Mediator Union
membership Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
28
HR system on job satisfaction was stronger for a high (B= .52, SE = .07, CI95% [.394, .668])
than for a low value of POD (B =.41, SE=.06, CI95% [.303, .564]). Due to this tendency,
hypotheses 3a and 3b are marginally supported. Figure 3
Interaction effect of perceived organizational discretion and HR system on perceived
organizational support
29
perceived organizational support (B = -.31, SE = .09, p < .01), the moderated mediation analyses revealed a significant and positive interaction effect (B = .18, SE = .09, p < .05) on POS. This interaction effect implies that for union members high-commitment HR systems have a stronger influence on their POS than for non-union members. Relatedly, the conditional indirect effect of experienced HR system on organizational commitment as well as on job satisfaction was stronger for union members than for non-union members as can be seen in Table 5. Therefore, hypothesis 4a and 4b are not supported, because these results are not in the expected direction.
Figure 4
Interaction effect of union membership and HR system on perceived
organizational support
DISCUSSION
30
intended to shed light on organizational discretion and union membership as potential moderators which could explain variability in effect sizes found in meta-analyses on POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009).
The results revealed that experienced high-commitment HR systems were positively associated with both organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Furhtermore, it was demonstrated that these direct relationships are mediated by POS. However, only marginal support was found for the hypothesized positive interaction effect between perceived organizational discretion and HR systems on worker-related outcomes. The hypotheses which stated that the moderator union membership weakens the positive indirect relationship were not supported as the conditional indirect effect appeared to be in the opposite direction; for union members the indirect effect was stronger than for non-union members.
Theoretical Implications
31
a stronger predictor of worker-related outcomes than individual HR practices results from synergistic or additive effects of HR policies within an HR policy domain and from synergistic effects of HR policy domains within an HR system (Jiang et al., 2012). In a coherent and deliberately designed HR system HR policies are supposed to work together either independently with non-overlapping effects on employee outcomes (additive effect) or interdependently with the effectiveness of an HR practice depending on other HR policies (synergistic effect; Delery, 1998). Ideally, the HR policies within an HR policy domain enhance each other, being a powerful connection (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997).
By examining perceived organizational support as the mediating mechanism between high-commitment HR systems and worker-related outcomes, this study contributes to organizational support literature. To the best of my knowledge, the present research is the first one to study the mediating role of POS in the relationship between experienced HR system and attitudinal employee outcomes solely on the individual level. However, also the cross-level research of Zhong, Wayne and Liden (2016) has found support for the mediating role of POS in the relationship between high-performance HR systems and the behavioural employee outcome job engagement. In the present study the relationship between HR system and job satisfaction was fully mediated by POS. Moreover, a strong partial mediation of the relationship between experienced HR system and affective organizational commitment through POS was found.
32
significant positive interaction effect of POD and experienced HR system on affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction (p (one-tailed) = .085/2 = .043). However, in literature a long-lasting controversy about one-sided testing can be found (Eysenck, 1960; Nickerson, 2000). Although one-tailed tests have an increased power over two-tailed test (Kimmel, 1957), it is a disadvantage that a difference in the unpredicted direction cannot be distinguished from zero difference when a sided test is used. To limit the usage of one-tailed tests, Kimmel (1957) suggests that they should be only used if effects in the opposite direction are meaningless and if those opposite findings are not deducible from any theory. As these criteria are not objective, Eysenck (1960) calls to generally avoid one-tailed tests. Although in this study the hypotheses are directional, two-tailed testing was employed because an opposite effect would not be meaningless but would have an impact on employee perceptions of organizational support, their organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Despite the growing number of researchers who treat marginal significance as evidence for hypotheses (Pritschet, Powell & Horne, 2016), this study considers the findings only as a preliminary indication for a positive moderating effect of POD which needs further probing to be fully supported. However, if a significant interaction effect is found when replicating this study, this would represent a relevant contribution to organizational support literature as it can explain variance found in meta-analyses dealing with POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009).
33
and the employer and, therefore, their levels of perceived organizational support due to experienced high commitment HR system were expected to be lower.
Nevertheless, there are other possible explanations for the positive interaction effect. Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1990) describe the act of joining a union as a commitment to the organization as those employees invest time in improving the workplace conditions. When those employee interests fought for by unions such as higher pay and better working conditions are realized through a high-commitment HR system, the reasons for conflict between management and workers are mitigated. Further, the introduction of a sophisticated HR system by the employer might be viewed as the fruits of their engagement for better working conditions by union members. Therefore, they are more highly valued by union members (Berger et al., 1983). Also, they regard this as evidence that their employer truly values their opinions. This could explain why the conditional indirect effect of HR systems on employee outcomes is stronger for union members than for other employees. It means that union members are more sensitive to an HR system being perceived as good or bad than other employees.
For another possible explanation it can be refered to the human relations variant of unitarism. According to Geare, Edgar and McAndrew (2006) a sophisticated system of HR practices can be seen as the means for achieving unitarism, aligning employees with the organizational goals and winning their commitment to the organization. Moreover, Cullinane and Dundon (2012) posit that an HR system can diminish conflict between union members and management by establishing a cooperative employment climate. This implies that the use of a high-commitment HR system which creates a cooperative organizational climate might compensate for the negative effect of union membership on POS and leads to a positive interaction effect.
34
cooperative (Keller & Kirsch, 2016), might also explain the interaction effect. Therefore, future research could incorporate the quality of the industrial relations system as a moderator or replicate the study with participants working in a liberal market economy like the US.
Practical Implications
In knowledge-intensive industries, where employees are viewed as crucial for achieving sustainable competitive advantage, the results of this study hold several implications for HR practitioners and organizations as a whole. Experienced high-commitment HR systems have a significant positive effect on employees’ affective commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn influence employees’ motivation, performance and desire to remain with the organization (Chordiya, Sabharwal & Goodman, 2017). Therefore, in times of a war for talents and in order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, it is advisable for organizations to design and implement a system of interrelated and internally consistent HR policies which is only imperfectly imitable by a competitor compared to individual HR practices (Barney, 1991). Furthermore, the use of a high-commitment HR system is preferable over an incremental approach to HRM, where through random combination of HR practices substitutive effects (Delery, 1998) or even deadly combinations (Becker et al., 1997) can occur. An example of such a deadly combination could be when organizations encourage teamwork but have also adopted pay schemes that consider only individual contributions. Therefore, an incremental approach to HRM could counteract with the organizational goals and would be a waste of financial resources as well as effort.
35
perception that their organization cares for their well-being and opinion will be more satisfied with their job and will experience more affective organizational commitment. Subsequently, they will exhibit more effort to help the organization reach its objectives (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001). As marginal support was found that favourable treatment is more highly valued by employees when stemming from the organization’s discretionary choice (Cotterell et al., 1992; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1987), it might be advisable to communicate that HR practices are established in excess of legal requirements and other external pressures to treat employees favorably and fairly (Koys, 1991; Eisenberger et al., 1997). This is a very inexpensive way to increase POS and to subsequently enhance employees’ affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Lastly, the findings pertaining to the moderating role of union membership have implications for unionized workplaces. The results of this study showed that union members are more sensitive to the quality of HR systems because high-commitment HR systems have a stronger influence on union members’ POS than on the POS of non-union members. However, in absence of a sophisticated HR system, union membership has a negative effect on POS. To enhance the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of union members, it is advisable to establish a high-commitment HR system which also leads to a cooperative industrial relations climate (Cullinane & Dundon, 2012).
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
36
research could reduce measurement error by using a temporal separation between predictor and criterion variables, which decreases respondents’ ability to recall previous answers to draw inferences (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012).
Second, the scale reliability of the moderator POD should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results for hypotheses 3a and 3b. The scale shows a Cronbach’s alpha of .71 which is slightly above the generally accepted threshold of .7 for judging the adequacy of a scale (Cortina, 1993). However, Cortina (1993) urges researchers to interpret Cronbach’s alphas in the light of the number of items in a scale and considering the context. According to McKennell (1970) a scale with 4 items and a Cronbach’s alpha of .71 has a higher inter-item correlation than a 10-item scale with α = .80. The scale for POD, which was first tested in this study, shows inter-item correlations of .38. This scale might form a stepping stone for future research in which more related items measuring the concept of POD could be added to the scale. This would increase the Cronbach’s alpha and reduce the proportion of the test score which reflects error (Cortina, 1993).
Third, the results pertaining to the moderated mediation hypotheses with POD as the moderator should be treated with caution. The analysis of this sample revealed only a marginally significant interaction effect on employee-related outcomes which can be either interpreted as a caution against rejecting the hypotheses or as modest evidence for the before-mentioned effect (Pritschet et al., 2016). Exploring this interaction effect in further studies might produce valuable insights. Improving the scale reliability of POD, as suggested above, might be helpful to find evidence supporting the hypotheses developed in this study.
37
2016) might yield different results. Another possibility for further research is to incorporate the quality of industrial relations at the firm-level (e.g. conflictual or cooperative) as a moderator in this conceptual model.
Conclusion
The findings of the present study suggest that perceived organizational support (POS) fully mediates the relationship between employee-reported high-commitment HR systems and job satisfaction. Furthermore, a partial mediation of the relationship between high-commitment HR systems and organizational commitment through POS was found. Moreover, this study sheds light on possible reasons for heterogeneity in effect sizes found in meta-analyses dealing with POS. Perceived organizational discretion has a marginally significant positive interaction effect on POS, which can be seen as a modest indication that favourable treatment in form of a coherent high-commitment HR system is more highly valued when stemming from organizational discretion rather than from external constraints. Further, union membership which was studied as a moderator did not produce the hypothesized negative but a positive interaction effect. These findings pertaining to potential moderators of the indirect relationship between HR systems and worker-related outcomes can be a stepping stone for further research.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. 1981. Creating the corporate future. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
38
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization . Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. 2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Aselange, J., & Eisenberger, R. 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5): 491-509 .
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Bauer, T. 2004. High performance workplace practices and job satisfaction: Evidence from Europe. IZA Discussion Paper, 1265: 1-33.
Becker, B., Huselid, M., Pickus, P., & Spratt, M. 1997. HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1): 39-47.
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. 1998. High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. In G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management. Stamford: JAI Press.
Becker, T. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3): 274-289.
39
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Boon, C., & Kalshoven, K. 2014. How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and
commitment: The moderating role of task proficiency. Human Resource Management, 53(3): 403–420.
Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203–221.
Boxall, P., Ang, S., & Bartram, T. 2011. Analysing the ‘black box’ of HRM: Uncovering HR goals, mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7): 1505-1532.
Boxall, P., Hutchison, A., & Wassenaar, B. 2015. How do high-involvement work processes influence employee outcomes? An examination of the mediating roles of skill utilisation and intrinsic motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(13): 1737-1752.
Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., & Lucifora, C. 2010. Why so unhappy? The effects of unionization on job satisfaction. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(3): 357-380. Bulmer, M.G. 1979. Principles of statistics. New York: Dover Publications.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., García-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. 2011. The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(7): 1442-1463.
40
organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices: 71–138. New
York: Wiley-Interscience.
Cao, J., & Hamori, M. 2016. The impact of management development practices on organizational commitment. Human Resource Management, 55(3): 499-517.
Chadwick, C., Super, J., & Kwon, K. 2015. Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment-based HR practices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 360–376.
Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. 2017. Affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A cross-national comparative study. Public Administration, 95(1): 178-195.
Collins, C., & Smith, K. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 544–560.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. 2006. How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 501–528.
Cortina, J. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1): 98-104.
Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. 1992. Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4): 658-668.
41
Delery, J. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3): 289-309.
Den Hartog, D., Boon, C., Verburg, R., & Croon, M. 2013. HRM, communication, satisfaction, and perceived performance: A cross-level test. Journal of Management, 39(6): 1637-1664.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, R., & Marvel, J. 1987. Reciprocation ideology. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(4): 743-750.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. 1997. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5): 812-820.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 42-51. Eysenck, H. J. 1960. A concept of statistical significance and the controversy about one-tailed
testing. Psychological Review, 67(4): 269-271.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational
outcomes: The moderating role of manegerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3): 484-503.
42
Gardner, T., Wright, P., & Moynihan, L. 2011. The impact of motivation, empowerment and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2): 315-350.
Gavino, M., Wayne, S., & Erdogan, B. 2012. Discretionary and transactional human resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 51(5): 665-686.
Geare, A., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. 2006. Employment relationships: Ideology and HRM practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7): 1190-1208.
Goeddeke, F., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. 2010. Perceived support in a dual organizational environment: Union participation in a university setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1): 65-83.
Gouldner, A. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161-178.
Great Place to Work Institute. 2007. FORTUNE's 100 best companies to work for nomination and application process.
Guest, D. 2002. Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3): 335-358. Hammer, T., & Avgar, A. 2005. The impact of unions on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover. Journal of Labor Research, 26(2): 241-266.
Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate, 50: 1-22. Heywood, J., Siebert, W., & Wei, X. 2002. Worker sorting and job satisfaction: The case of
43
Hogler, R., Hunt, H., & Weiler, S. 2015. Killing unions with culture: Institutions, inequality, and the effects of labor’s decline in the United States. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 27: 63-79.
Huselid, M. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 635-672.
Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Jiang, K. 2014. An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 1-56.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D., Hu, J., & Baer, J. 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(6): 1264-1294.
Keller, B., & Kirsch, A. 2016. Employment relations in Germany. In Bamber, J., Lansbury, D., Wailes, N., Wright, F. (Eds.), International & comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes: 179-207. London: Sage.
Kim, K., Eisenberger, R., & Baik, K. 2016. Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 37(4): 558–583.
Kimmel, H. D. 1957. Three criteria for the use of one-tailed tests. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4): 351-353.
44
Kurtessis, J., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M., Buffardi, L., Stewart, K., & Adis, C. 2015. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 41(3): 1-31.
Lawler, E. 1986. High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. 2002. Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28: 517– 543.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. 2007. The relationship between high-performance work practices and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4): 537-567.
Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 171-194.
McKennell, A. 1970. Attitude measurement: Use of coefficient alpha with cluster or factor analysis. Sociology, 4(2): 227-245.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 538-551.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
45
Nishii, L., Lepak, D., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the "why" of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503–545.
Odewahn, C., & Petty, M. 1980. A comparison of levels of job satisfaction, role stress, and personal competence between union members and nonmembers. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(1): 150-155.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. 2007. The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals' turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3): 326-357 .
Park, J., Newman, A., Zhang, L., Wu, C., & Hooke, A. 2016. Mentoring functions and turnover intention: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(11): 1173–1191.
Parker, K.N., & Brummel, B.J. 2016. Examining the Curvilinear Relationship Between Income and Job and Pay Satisfaction. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4): 164-173. Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. 1990. Unions and Job Satisfaction: An alternative view. Work
and Occupations, 17(3): 259-283.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review, 40: 96–124.
46
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539-569.
Pohler, D., & Luchak, A. 2015. Are unions good or bad for organizations? The moderating role of management's response. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(3): 423–459. Porter, M. 1985. The Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z. 2016. Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science, 27(7): 1036-1042.
Renaud, S. 2002. Rethinking the union membership/job satisfaction relationship: Some empirical evidence in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, 23(2): 137-150. Riggle, R., Edmondson, D., & Hansen, J. 2009. A meta-analysis of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62: 1027-1030.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 698–714.
Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 558-577.
47
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. 2009. Through the looking glass of social systems: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on employe attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1–29.
Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L., & Tripoli, A. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1089-1121.
Van De Voorde, K., & Beijer, S. 2015. The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee outcome. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(1): 62–78.
Wailes, N., Wright, C., Bamber, G., & Lansbury, R. 2016. Introduction: An internationally comparative approach to employment relations. In Bamber, J., Lansbury, D., Wailes, N., Wright, F. (Eds.), International & comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes: 1-19. London: Sage.
Whitener, E. 2001. Do high-commitment human resource practices affect employee commitment. Journal of Management, 27: 515–35.
Wood, S., de Menezes, L., & Lasaosa, A. 2003. Family-friendly management in Great Britain: Testing various perspectives. Industrial Relations, 42(3): 221-250.
Yanadori, Y., & Van Jaarsveld, D. 2014. The relationships of informal high performance work practices to job satisfaction and workplace profitability. Industrial Realtions, 53(3): 501-533.
48
APPENDIX A
High-commitment HR system Items (Collins & Smith, 2006)
Selection Policies
1. Internal candidates are given consideration over external candidates for job openings. 2. Employees are selected based on an overall fit to the company.
3. Our selection system focuses on the potential of the candidate to learn and grow with the organization.
4. My employer ensures that all employees in a position like mine are made aware of internal promotion opportunities.
Incentive Policies
5. Employee bonuses or incentive plans are based primarily on the performance of the organization.
6. Salaries for employees in my position are higher than those of our competitors. 7. Shares of stock are available to me through stock purchase plans.
8. Goals for incentive plans are based on business unit or company performance. Training and Development Policies
9. My employer provides multiple career path opportunities for employees like me to move across multiple functional areas of the company.
10. My employer provides training focused on team-building and teamwork skills training. 11. My employer provides company social events for employees to get to know one another. 12. My employer offers an orientation program that trains employees on the history and
processes of the organization.
49
15. Performance appraisals are used primarily to set goals for personal development. 16. Performance appraisals are used to plan skill development and training for future
advancement within the company.
Overall Job Satisfaction Items (Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire,
1983)
17. All in all I am satisfied with my job. 18. In general, I don’t like my job. 19. In general, I like working here.
Affective Organizational Commitment Items (Allen & Meyer, 1990)
20. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. 21. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
22. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
23. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one. (R)
24. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization. (R) 25. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization. (R) 26. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 27. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R) Perceived organizational support (POS) Items (Eisenberger et al., 1997)
28. My organization cares about my opinion.
