hpws-aftermid (3)

8/12/2019 HPWS-Aftermid (3)

1/18

HPWS-after mid notes by Noureen Mushtaq Page 1

1st lecture after mid: dated 22-4-2014What, why and fro whom (Petter Boxall, 2012)

How to do work is dependent on the context in which the work has to be done. Your context defines your HPWS, therefore each component of HPWS will be

defined differently, in different contexts.

As the needs of these components are defined by the context, everything else si alsodetermined by what context demands and the black box will work likewise, thus thecausality would be different also.

Therefore, in simple words we can conclude that for effective use of HPWS,organizations should be aware of their context in which they are suppose to operate orare operating presently.

It means that organizations have to know their context well before going for HPWS.For which organizations have to collect extensive data for defining or identifying thecontext

That is why an organization needs different sets of practices at each level as per the

requirements of the contexts or needs of the contexts. Two lines of analysis HPWS:

This article argues that there are two lines of analysis in the high-performancework systems literature that are important for HR researchers and strategists.

1. The first involves mapping the diversity that exists in work systems andunderstanding which ones perform in which contexts and why. This line of analysis ismost relevant where there are serious misfits between a firms models of HRM andi ts str ategic context .

2. The second line of analysis can help to enhance perfor mance in any fi rm . It involvesanalysing the chain of links inside the black box of HRM , asking how managers

envisage HRM: How they interpret and enact it How it affects the psychological and social climates inside theorganization,

For whom it performs.Following these lines of analysis, and improving our research methods, will make our

discipline more relevant to the larger debate around economic and employee well-being inour societies.1st line:It includes following two aspects:

1. Mapping the diversity that exists in work systems and understanding which one performance, in which context and for what reasons (why).

2. Where are serious misfits present between the business model of HRM and strategiccontext of the organization

2nd line:It includes analyzing the chain of links inside the black box of HRM, by asking:

How manager visualize HRM (means; intended HR practices, takes HR as softor hard variant)

How they interpret (because of the influence of various external factors) andenact (means; actual HR practices) it.

How it effects the psychological climate (referring to employees perception

about HR practices) and social climate (referring to the relationships or


2/18


interactions between different jobs and employees) of the organization. Thisconsists two main simple questions:

1. How do you perceive it?2. How do you interact?

This aspect defines that for which party these HR practices are actually

serving?? It is either the employee or the employer?And that is why there should not be any gap or conflict between the perception of employeesor employers about HR practices because the positive perception ill result into positiveenhancement of HPWSs outcomes. It is obvious that because of the positive perception ofemployees, organizations will get its work done by the core of heart by its employees. In thisway the path of accepting, understanding and following becomes more comfortable forthem.

That is why the contribution of human resource management in the organizational performance has been discussed in literature on the basis of high performance work systems.It can be illustrated this way that:

HRM HPWS OP

HRM is an essential function of organizations and the contributions of HRM have been explained through HPWS. That is why HPWS is a common term nowadays.

1. Industrial relations researches actually gave momentum to this concern. In theAnglophone world it is used by:

Government ministries Think tanks HR professional associations Trade unions Management consultancies etc

And the levels or fields in which the concept of HPWS have been used, shows that howimportant HPWS is in all management or organizational fields.

2. But these are mere illustrations, whereasWhat Author is doing in this article?

3. As the literature of HPWS is beneficial for practitioners and researchers, this articlewill review what has been going on in this important, but puzzling body of literatureand make an argument about what we should take seriously in it.

4. Author has attempted to review that while work systems are critical to anyorganizations performance

o there are many types of themo

To chart this varietyo Explain its causeso Model its mechanismso Measure its outcomes.

5. This is an analytical approach to the study and practice of HRM (Boxall andPurcell 2010; Boxall, Purcell and Wright 2007), in simple words it is attempted to

build a thorough and accurate understanding of:o What managers try to do in managing work and people,o What motivates their actions,o What affects their successo What are the implications for organizational stakeholders of their actions.

Two Parts of Article:


3/18


1. How the HPWS literature has emerged and then author tried to disentangle what itmeans.

2. Identified two sets of useful questions it raises:i. What work systems prevail in which contexts and why?

ii. How can the performance of any work system be improved and forwhom?

Note: that author has used the term work system and HR system interchangeably in thisarticle.Objective of Article:The first part of the article contains:

Analysis for practitioners and researchers But still it is not a settle body Work systems are critical to any kind of organizational performance, because:

There are many types of work systems Primary task is to chart the variety Explain its mechanism Measure its outcomes Outcomes of all nature (financial as well as attitudinal ) Etc

While the second part of the article consists of: What kind of work systems and for which context and for what reasons (why) Performance of work systems is more important and for whom it is important

And it will be presented in the following pattern: Present literature Questioning on that literature Conclusion

HPWSs: Background and Meanings:For understanding HPWS, we have to keep the social and historical context in front of

our sight. HR systems and work systems are almost alike because: The way in which work is organized is alike The way in which people are managed who would do it is alike

We cannot understand HPWS without the knowing the history of HPWS along with thesocial context such as:

Scientific management Human resource movement Socio-technical work systems Industrial democracy Job enrichment Job enlargement And all other conceptual steps for reaching at HPWS

Stimulus for Reaching to HPWS:The objective of HPWS cannot be completely achieved without understanding those

reasons that caused a diversion of management towards the emergence of HPWS. Thereforethere were various stimulating factors that resulted into diverting focus on HPWS.

To reform the future of US manufacturing industry. Widespread terminology usage in Academic fields (in industrial or employment

relations, HRM, organizational behaviour and operations management).


4/18


Inferiority of US models as restricted use of workers abilities and discretionaryefforts , because of the rise of Japanese Lean production, including quality enhancingtechniques resulting into improved quality, flexibility, cost and delivery, such as:

Quality circles Just in time inventory Team based production

At that time US model of management was considered as inferior because:: Not able to have Discretionary efforts restricted use of abilities

Over the last 30 years, there are other stimulations of change in work systems becauseof the AMT etc (Advanced manufacturing technology), in the forms of:

robots computer aided systems etc

And because of technological advancements, many other fields are facing

change also. That is why organizations are now more focused on off shoring andcompetitive performance etc. Most recently, because of Offshoring to China, India and other low-cost producers,

the discussion is getting more spotlight of Competitive Performance cause in the formHPWS.

Nature of Problem and Solution:Up till here it is viewed that how the nature of the problems in the form of stimulating

factors have focused on HPWS> when the nature of the problem is different, then its solutioncannot be similar or based on rule of thumb either, means that for different natured problems,its solutions have to be different in their nature likewise. Because of the difficult nature ofthese problems HPWS is supposed to address, this phenomenon of HPWS is a blurred one,

which covers three concepts, that needs to be understood in variety of ways:1. Performance2. Systemic effects3. Work practices

Literature focuses on the performance of the organization in terms of Economic performanceor social legitimacy or corporate social responsibility as the criteria for performancemeasurement. There are following important elements to be kept in mind regarding HPWS:

1. A very important basis or idea that is present throughout in the literature of HPWS isthat H PWS depends upon the Positi ve response from employees.

2. Importance of systemic effects; Bundling of work (Mac Duffie, 1995, 2000) has beenconsidered as crucial in HPWS literature defined as it is the combination ofpractices into a bundle, rather than in dividual pr actices, whi ch shapes the patternof interactions between and among managers and employees . His researchemphasized on making:

i . Changes to skill formation strategies i i . Employee incentives (driving forces of motivation)

What is more important in HPWS literature is the extent to which all related concepts,components or systems are aligned (strategic linkages ) of business elements beyondHRM.

Systemic Linkages or Interactions:Because of technological advancements of the firms, there are higher requirements of

high human infra-structure now. In various studies the productive utilization of technologyhas been achievement by the ability of technology to improve the human infrastructure of the


5/18


organization. While in other studies discussing the US firms adopting Japanese style of leanmanufacturing systems perform much better when they are supported by empowering stylesHRM. Therefore, for better performance of organizations even while incorporating change ortechnological advancement, human infrastructure has to be modified and aligned to be ableto support the system for desired performance outcomes. And for this, organizations have to

go beyond the limited HRM sphere and understand the importance of integration andcomplementarily to the management system of workplace or business unit. It will also enableHPWS to get closer to the senior managers thinking regarding their business.

Major Weakness of HPWS literature in terms of IV and DV:

Although in this article, author had taken IV and DV like any other study but because ofexisting confusion and diversity of concepts of HR practices, there are not censuses present,making IV and DV both as weak. In five leading HPWS studies and al of the practicesmentioned in it are not similar to the other one. That is why this becomes the greatestweakness of HPWS literature:

I t i s hard to def ine the natur e of th e proposed solut ion and the term itsel f is notin herentl y descri ptive Thus there are problems existing whenever it is attempted to solve this problem that:

There is Absence of consensus regarding HR components or practicesAnd then these HR practices have to accommodate the Socio-Cultural variationswhen moved from one nation to anotherAnd because authors claiming to mention their IV (HR practices) as to be the best

practices have ignored the contextual factors involved and that makes their studiesflawed.Because when contextual aspects are overlooked whiel conducting study, then itcontains majore falws in the conceptualization.Even Context-defined practices are not even able to answer the concerns of variation

but only presence and coverage of those practices among the workforce the way these practices are implemented and experienced by workforce.One cannot know the exact underpinning effects of these HR practices only by theirface value because it is difficult to answer that when an employee has beenempowered, does he perceives it as effective or intensification? It is difficult toidentify it on the face value of these practices only.Therefore it is important to answer the question that how these practices are

implemented and experienced in particular situations. Answering these concerns:

On the basis of the HPWS literature there are two main variations in HPWSterminologies, being more meaningful and descriptive as they indicate dominant themeunderpinning the managerial actions:

1. High involvement Management (reflects efforts to redesign job for enhancedworker responsibilities and authority; it includes reverse engineering,involvement in skill development and incentive to participate)

2. High commitment HR practices (reflects efforts to enhance employeecommitment to organization not to the HR practices)

Two sets of important Questions:There are two important theoretical questions which have to be focused:

1. What work systems prevail in which contexts and why?

Management Taking Care OF HR Employees Taking Care of organization


6/18


2. How can the performance of any work system be improved and for whom?Q1:What work systems prevail in which contexts and why?

Instead of asserting best practices try indentifying different kinds of worksor HR systems in an organization

Develop their reasonably descriptive terms Examine which one works highly in which context Reason of their high performance

HPWS literature shows that there is greater diversity in the paths that managerfollows their quest for higher performance. As Kaufman and Miller (2011) demonstrate withdata on 381 US firms, there is major variation in the per capita expenditure of firms on HRM.Their analysis shows, for example, that firms with more capital-intensive production

processes spend more per employee on HRM, something that is only logical if theirexpensive equipment is to be handled skilfully and carefully. Similarly, Fabling and Grimes(2010) show wide variation in HRM through a study of 3378 New Zealand firms, with theadoption of particular HR practices being related to the size and age of firms and the level oftechnology used.

As an initial categorization of variation in HR systems, Boxall and Purcell (2011)construct a typology that go across:

familial HR models informal models industrial models salaried models high-involvement models craft-professional models and outsourcing models, And relates these to organizational and industry contexts.

Similarly, but using more technical language, Toh, Morgeson and Campion (2008) identifyfive major HR systems cost minimizers, contingent motivators, competitive motivators,resource makers, and commitment maximizers and relate each of them to key contextualvariables in a study of 661 US organizations. Their unsurprising conclusion is that:

HR bundles are adopted that f it with the context i n which the organizations areembedded

Variation of HPWS exists at different levels in and among organizations , as eachlayer of management will need to apply different HR systems for workforce groups ofdifferent value

Studies likewise show that it is unwise to generalize HR practices from sectors likecapital intensive manufacturing or professional services etc.

Thus, these studies imply that what is Highly performing in HRM is going to depend heavilyon the economics of the particular business model

Thus, for HR strategists, the first useful question that arises in the HPWS literature isabout:

o Whether a firms work systems fit its particular context and strategy. o Are they consistent with both its economic and social viability? o And can they adapt to shifts in what is viable?o Changes in such factors as competitive intensity, technology, labour markets

and social regulation will render the work systems of a proportion of firms abad fit with their environment.


7/18


o Poor fit brings a need for radical surgery in work systems. Being able toidentify the kind of HR systems a firm has, and assess their fit with itsunfolding context, is the first step in using the HPWS literature effectively in

practice . ( to identify and detect that particular practice that is causing mismatching with teh fit)

Q2: How can the performance of any work system be improved and for whom?1. The first question is important for all those firms in which the fit of HR

systems is poor.2. The second question is relevant to every firm (as every organization needs

improvements as perfection does not exist) because it focuses on how toimprove the mediating links that exist inside the black box of any HRsystem, which are depicted in Figure 1. How so?

The HPWS debate has fostered an understanding of the way in which all HR systems dependon influencing the abilities (A), motivations (M), and opportunities (O) of individuals to

perform. And these variables are inevitable set of mediators that defines the relationship of performance. But this is not all. Management itself is a complex variable in this chain oflinks, especially in large organizations. Senior managers set HR policies with varying degreesof clarity and consensus, and act in terms of this policy framework with varying degrees ofconsistency, as Bowen and Ostroff (2004) have argued. Then, what senior managers envisagein HRM is interpreted and enacted in various ways as line managers fill in the blanks and

put their own mark on HRM in direct relationships with their team members ( line managersas executives see and analyze such decisions in the light of the availability of resources).

According to HPWS literature it is more like a fact that HR systems affect : o Psychological climates of individual employees o Organizational context in which they are implant

Various studies show that how this individual level attributes varies under managerialmotives inside the HR practices and how these varying responses linked withindividual level outcome and unit level organizational outcomes at last.


8/18


It is very important to identify that which kind of performance climate organizationis trying to create in its contexts.

Describing HR systems in relation to managements desired climates has the virtueof enabling us to recognize equifinalit y: the idea that companies will most likelyadopt an idiosyncratic (specific) set of HR practices in their particular context in aneffort to achieve a certain kind of climate (how would you go to build such kind of

psychological climate). Because of the studies of Black Box examining e mployees perceptions and

responses, a question is raised that whose interests are served by any particular HRsystem

We had been discussing win/win situation and it appealed to politicians but the nubor core of this question is:

o For whom , is a highly performing work system highly performs? As high performance has to be mutually serving and there could be various contribution inthis regard but one would be to assist the parties to build mutually satisfying, more

sustainable types of HR practices and systems on a good analysis of when, why, how andfor whom they will work . And this is the actual essence of HPWS that it must not be a toolof manipulation but of Mutuality.Improving our Research Methods:

There are various lessons present in HPWS literature regarding the methodologies. Such as: Importance of collecting data from management regarding the intended practices

while collecting data from employees on perceived practices etc Using Employee-reported data and management-reported data Taking care of the directions of causality

In brief, these include: identifying the target employee group in any study (rather than

assuming that all employees in an organization are subject to thesame HR system),

gathering multiple responses from well-informed managers on their particular theory of HRM for this group,

obtaining data from employees on their perceptions of, andresponses, to management goals, practices and behaviours, locating

proximal outcome measures that are not provided by the source(s)

used for the independent variables and that are measuredsubsequent to them, and building longitudinal data sets, wherever possible (e.g. Gerhart

2007; Lepak et al. 2006 Nishii and Wright 2008; Paauwe 2009;Van de Voorde, Paauwe and Van Veldhoven 2010; Wall and Wood2005; Wright et al. 2005).

As a result of these sorts of critical reflections on methods, the standard for whatconstitutes good data in any study of HR strategy and outcomes has risen, and this is a goodthing. Conclusions

For all its faults, there are two lines of analysis in the HPWS literature that can addvalueto the theory and practice of HRM:


9/18


The first involves mapping the diversity that exists in work systems, and understandingwhich ones perform in which contexts and why.

Rigorous research shows that what is highly performing in HRM is variable. Itdepends on fit or compatibility with an unfolding business environment and strategy, and isnot set in the stone of any particular writers conception of best practices or h igh-

performance practices.Our first task is to uncover and describe the patterns that characterize HRM in

particular contexts, and understand what shapes them. Where they are seriously out of kilterwith their environment or the firms aspirations, the role of the HR strategist is to reshapethem to achieve a better fit. This first line of analysis is most relevant to those firms wherethere are serious misfits between HRM and its surrounding context but the second line ofanalysis applies to every firm, however well it is managed in HRM. It involves analysing thechain of links or mediators inside the black box of the firms models of HRM. We are nowmore attuned to the need to study how managers envisage HRM, how they interpret and enactit, and how it affects the complex psychological and social climates inside organizations,

particularly the larger ones. Given the centrality of employee responses, we have begun tothink seriously about who is best served by the diverse HR systems we see in action intodays world. When and how can HR systems become more mutually beneficial? TheHPWS literature has also pushed along the methodological debate so that we are now muchmore sensitive to data quality in HRM studies. Following these lines of analysis, andimproving our research methods, will make our discipline more relevant to the larger debatearound economic and employee well-being in our societies.


10/18


2nd lecture After mid: dated: 29 th April 2014

Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between HPWS and performance

Issue of Black Box:

Throughout the discussion in the class, with reference to the articles, empirical studiesand literature, we had been discussing that HPWS has a positive impact on the organizationaloutcomes. But literature is still unable to prove that:

o What actually mediates?o What actually changes?o What actually translate?

That makes HPWS results into organizational enhanced performance or outcome.This article explains:

That is why recent researches have been focusing on exploring the underlyingmechanism that enables this connection between High performance work practicesand organizational performance.

In this particular article, authors have found that there are various Individual levelattitudinal factors (job satisfaction, organizational commitment and psychologicalempowerment, as well s OCB) having potential to provide the insights into how HRsystems influences the organizational performance.

The results prove the unit-level path model; departmental level HPWS is linked withenhanced levels of JS, OC and PE.

Therefore, these individual level attributes are linked with OCB and then OCB is

linked to a second order construct and that is departmental performance.Another Attempt to Break the Cover:

Literature has shown that there is positive relationship between Highinvestment, high involvement or high performance work systems and variousfirm performance outcomes

HPWS has been operationalized the links of various factors (productivity,voluntary turnover, profitability, growth, innovation, customer service,survival and firm level performance metrics).

As per the definition of HPWS (Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang & Takeuchi,2007): A gr oup of separate but i nterconnected human resour ce (H R) practices

designed to enhance employees skills and efforts

Yet there are consensuses in literature that there is a lack of clearunderstanding of the key mediating factors.


11/18


In short researchers ha ve fairly strong evidence that HPWS work but areless clear as to exactly how this relationship unfolds

Some studies stated that HPWS (as an entire HR system) influencesemployees skills, motivation and opportunities.

Concluding that the entire HR system of an organization influences one ofthese three drivers of employee performance.

Studies have also shown more emphasise to examine the role of employeeinterpretation of HR system.

Author of this study states that the human resource system of an organization actuallyinfluences the attitudinal factors of an employee, such job satisfaction, affective commitment& Psychological empowerment of the employee and these are the attitudinal changes not just

behavioural changes, which motivates or stimulates individuals or employees to exhibit positive behaviours for the enhanced performance of the organization by putting extra efforts,known as discretionary behaviour such organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). And inthis way Human resource system of an organization ultimately influences the departmentallevel performance of the organization (as studied in by the author).

We can very easily see that how much complexity exists in between these linkages, whichhave been tried to uncover by literature of HPWS and organizational performance, becauseexploring the function or process in-between HPWS and Organizational performance is notthat simple. There are possibilities of number of factors involved in it.

Contributions: This paper has addressed a blind spot in the literature and showed the important role

of the combination of important attitudinal variables is effects by HPWS andimpacting on organizational performance.

Provided empirical tests of key attitudinal and behavioural constructs. Complete model has been used in this study that may urge continued refinement ofthe theoretical models

A multi source model offers additional insights to this research base as compare tosingle-respondent data.

This paper has used aggregate employee data (individual attitudes and behaviours)with unit level outcomes because characteristics that are common to that i sshar ed by the members of a unit

And this enabled researchers to test the strength of perception across differentdepartments, and also helped to assess the link between perceived HR system andaggregate level of OCB.

This paper has allowed connecting shared perceptions to an objective and relevantmeasure of departmental performance.

The remainder (over view) of the paper proceeds as follows: Discussed the primary theoretical mechanisms linking HPWS with employee

attitudes, OCB and Departmental performance. Hypotheses development Testing of hypotheses by multi source data Ann analysis are made at departmental levels Discussed that how these results fit within existing strategy, HRM paradigm Future directions for analysis are purposed


12/18


This paper has focused on the individual level attitudes and behaviours such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological empowerment andorganizational citizenship behaviour w hile the sample size was taken from publicsector. Therefore, the results gained by this study, supports a unit level path modelthat is departmental level performance of the organization was linked HPWS through

the attitudinal factors of individuals such as JS, OC, PE and OCB. Studies of over 25 years indicate that there are finds reported in literature that highinvestment in HPWS has shown variance for performance ratios, which are not onlyorganizational level but also of individual level outcomes such as enhanced employeeskills etc.

The value addition by this article is its methodology, data testing, sampling,arguments, empirical evidences from literature etc

Other Problems, when Attempted to Unlock the Black Box:There are a number of problems or issues that are presenting when we try to discuss the

mechanism between HPWS and organizational performance linkage such as:

Measures of HPWS (consisting of HR practices would be same generally across theworld)

Another important issue regarding measure the effects of HPWS on organizational performance is how to operatioanlize HPWS for which factors:

For Productivity? For turnover?

Lack of clear understanding of mediating factors in this linkage It has been proved even empirically that HPWS works positively in welfare of th

organization. But how? Is still not answered confidently.

Thus, A major issue in this area of research is that the mechanism or mechanistic isnot being understood regarding this linkage.

Mechanism Studied in this paper:Therefore, this study has attempted to address these issues by making the linkage of

HPWS with organizational performance through employees. According to this study, HPWSoperates by influencing the employees of an organization, along with their skills,motivational level; opportunities etc are also enhanced as a result of HPWS. Therefore, anobvious relationship between HPWS and performance can be proved by using employees asthat mediating factor.

Another important point also arises regarding employees interpretation of HR systems Outcomes = Perceived HR practices Employees Reactions, when we discuss thislinkage through the help of employees, as the mechanism translating this relationship.

Nishi, Lepak and Schnieder:

Purpose:


13/18


Potential individual attitudinal and behavioural mediators in the linkage between HPWS and organizational performance.

Exploring one key mediating path out of so manyContributions:Contributions of this study were:

It has addressed the blind spot It has discussed important attitudinal factors or variables in this relationship He has also provided empirical overview of the existing knowledgeResearch Ti p The basic essence of research is that they know what they are up to/their

objectives are clear to them. Therefore the objectivity of the research is very important and ithas to be very clear to the researcher, himself. On the basis of the gap and future directions provided by the existing literature, you can refer that why have you choose this model. And

theory along with the existing empirical support has to be used for develop hypothesesdevelopment. Time frame for data collection has to be specified in study while theory and

data type directs towards the methodology of testing to be adopted. Whenever performancewill be measured, it should never be done by singular data source.

Through factor analysis we try to identify the variables or factors on the basis of theresponses. It ensures that the variable have been identified by the respondents as made by

researcher or not. By rotating through various ways, it tries to refine or explain the scattereddata (it can attempts rotations 200 times) . If you dont do it, then some responses or data

would be cutting or omitting others and your results would not be significant.

Theoretical background and hypotheses:

Macro HRM relies on RBV for defining how performance is achieved RBV states that competitive advantage can be achieved from combining

idiosyncratic/distinctive resources Because firm level resources are heterogeneous and these difference can lead to

sustainable competitive advantage HR is the potential for achieving sustainable competitive advantage But RBV by general abstraction of the concept has not demonstrated the clear

evidence documenting it Conceptually, Organizational performance results from human efforts resulted from

HR system Thus, HR systems are effective to the extend that they help to positively affect

employees and inspire them to contribute to important organizational outcomes Therefore it is concluded that performance would be defines to the extent employees

display their discretionary behaviours Instead of using HPWS as a system level construct, unit level (departmental

performance) have been used in this study on the basis of the statement by Bowen andOstroff (2004):

The characteristics of strong HRM systems are more likely t promote sharedperceptions and give rise to the emergence of a strong organizationalclimate about HRM content

As these shared perceptions are more likely to be similar on departmental level andwill influence the discretionary behaviour of employees


14/18


HRM has a strong literature regarding the importance of employee behaviours in the performance of the organization

Differences of HR systems and practices are depended upon the differences inemployee behaviours

Importance of Extra role positive behaviours of employees in performance


15/18


3rd lecture after mid: dated: 6 th May 2014HPWSs impact on Organization through Employees:

As it has been discussed before that there is no rule of thumb for defining themediation that exists in the form black box. Whatever HR practices or systems you mayapply; it has to be influencing the employees psychology etc, so that they exhibit

discretionary behaviours/efforts that would be the reason of organizational betterment.Therefore:

HRS has to be positively perceived by employees.This is the key of the success of this relationship. This is what has been attempted to discussin this article by the author on the departmental level because:

Sum of all employees performance Departmental Performance Sum of AllDepartments Organizational Performance

As it is needed that the black box has to be properly explained that is why behavioural perspectives have also been used.

Behavioural Perspectives:There are basically two types of roles:

i. In role behavioursii. Extra Role Behaviours

It is obvious that for achieving high performance, organizations have to align all of the practices with the expected discretionary behaviours from the employees.

There are different supportive theories that are also present in literature such as:

Social Exchange Theory:Organization invest through walking Extra mile for employees and then employees

try to pay back by benefiting organization through their discretionary efforts

HPWS helps employees by enhancing their skills, experiencing and training etc (SET). Morrison (1996) has also used OCB as a mediator HPWS has to be utilized for performance enhancement because only the adoption of

HPWS will not affect the performance f the organization After the utilization of HPWS, organization will be able to attract employees,

motivating them so that they will exert discretionary efforts for the organizational

purposes. In this regard, employees perception about the implemented HR practices or systemmatters a lot, because the result of HPWS highly depends upon it.

HPWS will influence the employees to enhance their OCB. Empirical results show that OCB partially mediates the relationship between HPWS

and organizational performanceTheoretical Importance of article being studied:

Impact on employees performance, generally Impact on discretionary behaviour specifically

That is why the success of a manager lies in aligning the direction of employees and linemanagers .Reasons of the relationship between HPWS and Satisfaction:


16/18


Through the following components, we are actually talking about Person-Job fit throughusing HPWS and empirical endorsement existing in literature (which were discussed inlecture also):

Rigorous selection procedure and training in company and industry specific skills Selective staffing and training initiatives Greater information sharing High level of job security Tighter linkages between ones performance and ones compensation

Researching Employee reactions to HPWS in service sector: Role of OrganizationalJustice Theory


17/18


We had been seeing in literature that one thing is confirmed that whatever humanresource practices are used, it would be implemented and effected by employees

When through event theory, various events (terrorism etc) are linked with the stockexchange rates, without any intervening factors such as investors perceptions etc) atthis level comes the concept of Behavioural Finance.

This question regarding the intervening factors, has not been addressed or considered by Finance theory

But everything has been effecting or resulting into outcomes, through employees. In this article, the black box has been attempted to be unlocked by perception of

justice and al four kinds of justice have been studied in this article Distributive justice would impact the standards, procedural justice will impact on the

process of decision making and interpersonal justice will influence the quality ofinterpersonal treatment.

In this article, author has used constructs to explain the relationship It has also explained causality As HPWS is a firm level constructed, it is implemented or selected at this level while

the responses are depending on individual level of the organization. If employees perceive the system on the basis of equality then, he will enhance performanceaccordingly.

Organizations bottom line objective is always Profits etc. A greater or intense level integration would pressurize the employees to meet the highexpectation (and these expectations are holding an employee just like an octopus)

In the basis of Negative perceptions, all of the HR practices would impact negatively. For instance, Employee Voice (refers to participating, representing work floor

decision etc) is the factor that would ultimately result in satisfaction

Methodology:Studies have covered on two levels of the organization:

1. Organizational level2. Individual level


18/18


hpws-aftermid (3)

Documents