hr, perceived organisational support and organisational identification: an analysis after...

HR, perceived organisational support and

organisational identification: an analysis

after organisational formation

Martin R. Edwards, Department of Management, King’s College LondonHuman Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 1, 2009, pages 91–115

Academic research has rarely investigated the role that people management plays inencouraging employees to identify with their employing organisation. This articlereports on a study investigating the role that employee perceptions of the HRenvironment plays in encouraging organisational identification and the importanceof perceived organisational support in this relationship. Two research surveys arediscussed, one carried out shortly after the formation of the new organisation withinthe UK National Health Service, and one is a replication study undertaken 13months later. The results show that key HR-related factors predict organisationalidentification; this effect is both direct and indirect through perceptions oforganisational support. The findings also demonstrate that, as the organisationmatures, there are some interesting changes in which aspects of the HR environmentpredict identification and perceptions of organisational support.Contact: Martin R. Edwards, Department of Management, King’s CollegeLondon, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NH, UK. Email:[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

With increasing energy being invested by HR departments into becomingan ‘employer of choice’, more attention is being paid to the managementof an organisation’s corporate image and the extent to which employees

identify and share the values of their employing organisation (Edwards, 2005).Running parallel to this growing practitioner interest is an increasing body ofacademic research that investigates why people identify with their employer (e.g.Van Dick, 2001; Riketta, 2005; Bartels et al., 2006; Van Knippenberg et al., 2007), ormore specifically, why people experience organisational identification (OID). Whenemployees demonstrate high levels of OID, which involves a self-definingpsychological linkage between the individual and the employing organisation, arange of beneficial work-related behaviours and attitudes have been found to follow.A company that fosters high levels of identification will benefit from having aworkforce that shares its principal goals and values, and from having employees thatexhibit increased feelings of membership and belonging. Research has shown astrong link between those who identify with their employer and intentions to stay,greater levels of in-role and extra-role performance, more worker cooperation, andhigher levels of citizenship (see Riketta’s, 2005 meta-analysis); outcomes that anymodern HR function would hope to foster among its workforce.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 1, 2009 91

© 2009 The Author.

Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]

A review of the research literature investigating identification can provide anumber of insights into how an HR function might encourage higher levels of OID.Researchers have argued that an organisation would be expected to have higherlevels of OID when it has a recognisable, positive, strong identity with identifiablevalues (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Elsbach and Glynn, 1996).Considerable attention has been paid to how employees perceive the organisation’simage and identity when considering processes of identification, and recent researchhas demonstrated the importance of ensuring that the employer communicatespositive, distinctive and enduring characteristics when encouraging OID (Dukerichet al., 2002; Fuller et al., 2006).

Aside from an organisation’s image being very important in the encouragementof identification, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the peoplemanagement environment and the way employees are treated will play a role infostering OID. In particular, HR activities which ensure that the organisation is seenas fair and supportive are likely to encourage OID. The research literature shows, forexample, that perceptions of justice relating to rewards and the fair implementationof procedures lead to higher levels of identification (Olkonnen and Lipponen, 2006).There is also growing evidence in the literature suggesting that perceivedorganisational support (POS) (as defined by Eisenberger et al., 1986 as ‘the extent towhich the organisation values their [employee] contributions and cares about theirwell-being’: 501) is an important mechanism in models that predict the extent towhich people are likely to engage psychologically with their employing organisation.

This research article investigates the role that an organisation’s peoplemanagement environment plays in encouraging POS and, ultimately, the extent towhich employees identify with the organisation. In addition, this investigation iscarried out within a context of recent organisational change, specifically just after theformation of a new organisational identity. The implications of this organisationalcontext on the investigation into the importance of HR practices in fostering POS andOID are also examined.

OID: THE IMPORTANCE OF POS

As mentioned, there is growing interest in the concept of OID; this increase in focuspartly mirrors wider societal interest in identity issues related to the workplace, overand above that is, employees’ purely economic concerns (Blader et al., 2007: 5). Theincreasing academic interest in identification, however, can also be explained by therich theoretical background and burgeoning body of research linked with the notionof OID associated with social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Ashforth andMael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Van Dick, 2004). Proponents of social identity theoryposit that people have a personal identity as well as one or more social identitieswhich help define them in terms of their membership of particular social groups.Furthermore, it is also suggested that people will be more likely to link themselveswith a particular social group or category if being a member makes them feel goodabout themselves or, if membership provides a greater sense of self-regard. Given thekey role that work plays in peoples’ lives, an employee’s membership within aparticular organisation can be an important feature of his or her sense of self, andthe organisation that the employee works for can become a central part of his or her

Organisational identification

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 1, 200992

© 2009 The Author.


social identity. It is argued here that where the organisation is perceived as beingsupportive to employees, greater levels of OID will follow.

The theoretical explanations for why perceptions of organisational support shouldencourage OID are twofold. The main argument can be found in strands of argumentpresented within Tyler and Blader’s (2003) group engagement model. According tothis model, people’s willingness to engage in an organisation will be dependentupon information that members gain from how the organisation treats them. Whenan organisation treats employees fairly and with respect, this will provideinformation that employees are valued. Subsequently, when employees believe thattheir organisation values them, this will contribute positively to their senseof self-worth (boosting members’ self-esteem is a key driving mechanism ofidentification according to social identity theory) (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Hogg andAbrams, 1988). It is argued here that where an organisation is perceived as beingsupportive of employees, this will mean that the organisation will be considered totreat the workforce with respect (this argument has been made by Fuller et al., 2006).Fair and supportive treatment, therefore, will provide information to employees thatthe organisation values their contribution and respects them, thus boosting theirself-regard. In return the employees will be more likely to engage psychologicallywith the organisation.

The second explanation for why POS will be important in fostering OID islinked to the principles of social exchange theory proposed by authors such asGouldner (1960), Blau (1964) and Levinson (1965). It is suggested that if anorganisation provides employees with particular ‘rewards’, this leads to theformation of an exchange-based relationship. Specifically, when the organisationprovides employees with socio-emotional support, the employee reciprocates byforming a bond with the organisation. This bonding can be seen to occur througha process of identification (Rousseau, 1998). Similar arguments have beenpresented over a number of years within the context of organisational supporttheory (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), a key manifestation of a social exchangerelationship in the workplace occurs when employees judge that the organisation issupportive. When the employee perceives organisational support, he or she willform a link with the organisation responsible. Eisenberger et al. (1986: 501) arguedthat ‘the extent that perceived support . . . meets the needs for praise and approval,the employee would incorporate organisational membership into self-identity andthereby develop a positive emotional bond’. They argued that perceptions oforganisational support will lead to a feeling of obligation which, because of the normof reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), will encourage a psychological investment in return.Such an argument therefore provides a basis for why perceptions of organisationalsupport might lead to OID.

Two explanations exist therefore that explain why POS would lead to higherlevels of employee identification; one involves social exchange mechanisms inaccordance with Eisenberger et al.’s arguments, and the other involves self-esteemboosting that employees feel when the organisation supports/values them.Whichever mechanism accounts for the link between POS and OID, increasedperceptions of organisational support are expected to encourage employees toidentify with their employing organisation.

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


H1: POS will be positively related to OID.

The argument presented here is that supportive treatment of employees willencourage them to identify with the organisation. When considering what factorsmight lead to a perception that an organisation is supportive of employees, theorganisation’s HR policies and practices can be viewed as the obvious candidate. Anorganisation’s people management environment will no doubt play a central role ininfluencing employee perceptions of whether they feel supported by the organisation(and ultimately levels of identification); such a proposition is supported by researchliterature.

POS: THE IMPORTANCE OF HR

A number of HR practices are expected to encourage employee perceptions that anorganisation is supportive as they will indicate to employees that the organisationvoluntarily chooses to be supportive of staff and, furthermore, that it is willing toinvest in their well-being (Wayne et al., 2002). HR practices are considereddiscretionary activities that imply employer investment in, and commitment to,employees (e.g. the provision of training and development); trust in employees (e.g.the provision of autonomy and participative practices); or, the reverse, signal a lackof concern for employee well-being (with the existence of job and role stressors).Importantly, the thoughtful and considerate management of people within anorganisation will very likely indicate to employees that the organisation supportsthem and that it is concerned for their well-being. As Allen et al. (2003: 100) argue,the provision of particular HR practices will ‘signal that the organisation issupportive’. Given the wide scope of influence that HR policies and practices willoften cover, it would be expected that many aspects of an organisation’s peoplemanagement environment will influence employee perceptions of POS.

In the current study, perceptions relating to a range of features linked to theorganisation’s HR environment will be measured to examine whether they predictthe extent to which employees perceive that the organisation is supportive. In themain, the HR-related features selected here that are expected to be important factorsdriving POS have been identified in the existing literature. These include allowingemployee participation in decision making, the provision of fair rewards andallowing opportunities for growth (Allen et al., 2003), the provision of developmentaland promotional opportunities (Wayne et al., 1997), the provision of fair rewards, fairprocedures, opportunities to be involved in decision making, and employeerecognition (Wayne et al., 2002). Although not specifically focusing on the role of HR,in a meta-analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) presented a wide range of factorsrelated to HR practices that predict POS. These included perceptions of proceduraland distributive justice; employee ‘voice’; supervisory support; pay levels;promotional opportunities; job security; autonomy; and negative job stressors suchas work overload, role conflict and role ambiguity. All of these features of the workenvironment will be linked to how an organisation’s HR policies and practices aredesigned and implemented. The HR department’s reward strategy; its informationsharing and participation policies; its practices relating to mentoring, training andcareer development; and its policies and practices related to dealing with grievances



© 2009 The Author.


will all influence the said factors identified in the research literature as fosteringperceptions of organisational support. Given this, we would expect the following:

H2: Employee perceptions related to the extent of: (a) distributive justice, (b)procedural justice, (c) autonomy, (d) opportunities for advancement, (e)supportive management, (f) decisive action (in response to bullying,discrimination and harassment), (g) an open and involved communicationenvironment, (h) open and involved team meetings – will be positively relatedto POS.

H3: Perceptions of: (a) role pressure/overload and (b) job-related stress – will benegatively related to POS.

The HR-related factors measured here are presented as being important infostering POS. Importantly, however, the study is proposing a mediated model in thatfeatures of the HR environment are expected to influence perceptions of POS which,in turn, will encourage OID. There is a considerable body of research evidencedemonstrating that where features of the HR environment impact employeeperceptions and outcomes, this will often be through the mechanism of perceptionsthat the organisation is supportive (Wayne et al., 1997, 2002; Masterson et al., 2000;Miodeenkutty et al., 2001; Rhoades et al., 2001; Allen et al., 2003). Among this research,the HR-linked features of the work environment found to be related to attitudinaloutcomes (such as affective commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)and intentions to stay) mediated through POS include: procedural justice, distributivejustice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, developmental experiences,promotions, participation in decision making, growth opportunity, fair rewards,inclusion and recognition. The argument presented to account for such a mediatingmodel is generally that the provision of particular HR practices and policies will beperceived as a discretionary investment in employees, and these policies will, asmentioned earlier, signal that the organisation is concerned for their well-being.Subsequently, employees will perceive that the organisation is supportive of them andfurthermore, that they are valued and respected. These perceptions will thenencourage employees to respond with identification either as a result of the self-esteem boosting that such perceptions lead to or as a result of reciprocation inaccordance with the principles of social exchange theory.

In the context of the current study, it is argued that where employees perceive thatthe organisation is supportive, they will be more likely to identify with thisorganisation. If employee perceptions of organisational support are influenced byfeatures of the HR environment and the department’s policies and practices, then itis reasonable to posit that features of the HR environment will have an indirect(mediated) effect on employee identification via POS. Given this, the followingproposition is presented (Figure 1):

H4: POS will mediate the relationship between perceptions of the HR-relatedenvironment and OID.

RESEARCH CONTEXT: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

The context of the current study is that of a newly formed organisation following arestructure, specifically a newly formed health service provider within the UK

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


National Health Service (NHS). The research, investigating the impact that the HRenvironment has on POS and OID, is carried out within the context of thistumultuous organisational context. Linked to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) work onorganisational identity, scholars who have written on the subject of OID emphasisehow important it is that the organisation has an enduring and recognisable identityin order for the individual to identify with it as an entity (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Dutton et al., 1994). However, where organisations changestructure, reorganise or rebrand, this can have a negative impact on how theemployees feel towards the employing organisation. Such issues have beenresearched in the context of organisational mergers (Bartels et al., 2006; Van Dicket al., 2006).

The current study is carried out in two waves, the first taking place shortly afterorganisational reformation (seven months after the NHS Trust came into being) andthe second involving a follow-up 13 months later. It would be reasonable to expecta newly formed organisation to take some time for its identity to take hold withemployees and, additionally, for HR practices to form a coherent strategy. One might,therefore, expect differences across the two time periods in levels of attitudes andstrength of perceptions. In the current study, however, no predictions are made inrelation to changes in levels of perceptions and attitudes as it was not possible tocarry out systematic analysis of practices and policies across the 13-month timeperiod (which would be required to account for any changes). Central to the study,however, are specific predictions in relation to a particular pattern of expectedrelationships between features of the HR environment, POS and OID (H1–H4).Despite possible differences in context at the two time points, one would expect keyfeatures of the HR environment to be important factors in influencing POS and forPOS to influence OID regardless of the changing contextual environment. Therefore,the relationships being presented with hypotheses H1–H4 are expected at both timepoints, and results in the current study are expected to be consistent across the13-month period, thus, the results found at time 1 should also be found at time 2.

H5: The pattern of relationships found between features of the HR environment,POS and OID 20 months after organisational formation will not differ fromthose found seven months after organisational formation.

In summary, the main focus of the current study is to investigate the role thatperceptions of the HR environment have on POS and, ultimately, employeeidentification. Given that the investigation will be carried out as an emergent

FIGURE 1 Proposed impact that perceptions relating to the HR environment have onorganisational identification, mediated through perceived organisational support



© 2009 The Author.


organisational identity matures, it is also an aim of this research to examine whetherthe pattern of relationships found stays the same across this time period.

METHODOLOGY

Study context and procedures

This study is carried out within the context of the UK NHS, specifically at an NHSTrust in the south of England which came into existence during April 2001 after therestructuring of Trusts in the area. The first round of surveys were distributed duringthe Trust’s infancy, seven months after formation and repeated 13 months later. Inboth Study 1 and 2, paper questionnaires were attached to the employee payslipsalong with pre-paid return envelopes.

Samples

Study 1 There were 1,850 employees at the NHS Trust seven months after formation.Following listwise deletion procedures, 492 usable questionnaires were included inthe analysis (27 per cent of the organisation). The majority of the (representative)sample were female (71 per cent compared with 29 per cent male). The age range ofthe sample was as follows: five employees (1 per cent) were aged less than 20 years,32 (6.5 per cent) were aged between 20 and 25 years, 52 (10.6 per cent) between 26 and30 years, 64 (13.0 per cent) between 31 and 35 years, 94 (19.1 per cent) between 36 and40 years, 75 (15.24 per cent) between 41 and 45 years, 80 (16.26 per cent) between 46and 50 years, 50 (10.2 per cent) between 51 and 55 years, and 40 (8.1 per cent) wereover 56 years of age. Of the sample, 10.6 per cent were managers, 19.5 per cent werein occupations categorised as professional (including doctors), 54.5 per cent of thesample were nurses and 15.4 per cent were categorised as ‘staff’.

Study 2 There were 2,400 employees at the Trust 20 months after its formation; 563usable questionnaires were returned (24 per cent of the organisation). Seventy-fourper cent of respondents were female (26 per cent were male). The age range of thissample was as follows: six employees (1.1 per cent) were aged less than 20 years, 41(7.3 per cent) were aged between 20 and 25 years, 45 (8.0 per cent) between 26 and30 years, 71 (12.6 per cent) between 31 and 35 years, 93 (16.5 per cent) between 36and 40 years, 100 (17.8 per cent) between 41 and 45 years, 86 (15.3 per cent) between46 and 50 years, 63 (11.2 per cent) between 51 and 55 years, and 63 (10.3 per cent)were over 56 years of age. Of the sample, 10.3 per cent were managers, 18.3 per centwere professionals, 52.4 per cent were nurses and 19 per cent were ‘staff’.

Measures

The same measures were used in both studies, Likert-type scales were used with5-point responses ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Further detailsof items for each of the scales used with reliability coefficients are set out in theAppendix. In all scales the alpha coefficients were greater than 0.77.

Control variables Four control variables were used in the study. Average hoursworked per week, job tenure, age, also occupational group, where ten categories of

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


occupation were provided and subsequently recategorised into four sizeable groups:nurses, managers, professionals and staff.

Independent variables A number of scales were presented which provideinformation on respondents’ perceptions relating to the Trust’s HR managementenvironment. Three items measuring job pressure/high workload and two foropportunities for advancement were used based on those reported by Price et al.(1992). Three job autonomy items used were based on those reported by Peccei andRosenthal (1997). Three items measuring distributive justice were based on Price andMueller’s (1986) distributive justice index and three procedural justice items werebased on Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) scale. Three items were constructed tomeasure job stress and can be considered to be tapping stress reactions. Threemeasures used in the survey were based on previous NHS employee attitude scales,the first of which involved three items referred to as decisive action, the secondinvolved a four-item scale used to measure whether managers were perceived asbeing motivational/supportive, and the third included four items measuringemployee perceptions of an open team meeting environment. Four items were used(constructed) to examine the communication climate; these items measuredinvolvement and employee voice (see Marchington and Wilkinson (2000) for adiscussion on different forms of participation and involvement).

Mediating variable Three POS items were used based on items with the highestfactor loadings from the Eisenberger et al. (1986) measure.

Dependent variable Three items were used to measure OID; this is a shortenedversion of the Edwards and Peccei (2007) measure.

Analysis procedures

The first stage of the analysis involved checking the integrity of the measurementmodel used in each study. This was achieved by comparing the fit of two sets ofconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models at each wave of data collection. At eachtime, a model was tested which set all attitude and perception scale items to loadonto a single factor, and the fit of this model was compared with the fit of ameasurement structure that loaded all items onto their respective (separate) latentconstruct. This test, the Harman single factor test, checks for integrity of the factorstructures and goes some way towards checking for the existence of any seriousproblems with common method variance (this will be discussed later in theLimitations section). The next stage of analysis involved testing the structuralrelationships between latent constructs in the predicted models. The hypothesisedmodel presented earlier predicts OID from perceptions of the HR environment withPOS as a mediating mechanism. This model was tested at both time points using fullstructural equation modelling (SEM) with Lisrel 8.80 (Joreskog and Sorbom,Scientific Software International, Inc., Copyright © 2006). Full SEM models enableresearchers to simultaneously test structural (predictive) models while taking intoaccount the factor structure of each construct (or scale), and each variable isrepresented in the model by an underlying latent construct. At time 1 and 2, the fullymediated model was tested with controls entered as independent variables



© 2009 The Author.


(including the occupational group dummies with main employee group, nurses, asthe reference category) along with the HR environment-related independentvariables in the prediction of POS (the mediating variable). These initial models wereset to include a structural path from POS to OID. Although a mediated propositionis being presented, other model structures may exist that explain any impact that HRfeatures and POS may have on OID. As an example, features of the HR environmentcould possibly have a direct impact on OID as well as an indirect impact via POSas a mediator. When testing mediated models, both direct and indirect relationshipsare often tested (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Although the present study’s hypothesespredict an indirect effect of HR practices through POS, in order to take into accountthe possibility that there may be some direct impact of HR features on employeeidentification, both direct and indirect paths between features of the HR environmentand OID are to be tested. Thus, the mediating model was tested again withadditional paths included between all independent variables and OID to check fordirect effects and part-mediation. The non-significant paths in the resulting modelwere removed (a method recommended by Kelloway, 1998: 84) and the model wastested again; this was assumed to be the ideal predictive model with each study. Tocheck whether there was a difference in the predictive paths at time 1 compared withtime 2, a multi-sample invariance test was also carried out (details to be discussedlater). In order to check for the possible effects of common method bias as a resultof the use of a single survey instrument in cross-sectional studies, a method posedby Podsakoff et al. (2003) was applied to the best models resulting at each timeperiod. This approach, it is argued, tests the fit of particular models while controllingfor the effects of common method bias by allowing all attitude and perceptionvariables to crossload onto a notional common method latent construct.

RESULTS

Descriptives

Tables 1 and 2 show the means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations of themain variables used in both Study 1 and Study 2. From looking at the independentvariables, there are positive perceptions that the respondents’ managers aremotivating (M = 3.66 time 1, M = 3.76 time 2), have good levels of autonomy(M = 3.84 time 1, M = 3.91 time 2), positive perceptions of team meetings (M = 3.53time 1, M = 3.60 time 2), positive perceptions that the Trust would take decisiveaction (M = 3.39 time 1, M = 3.44 time 2), and perceptions of an open and involvedcommunication environment (M = 3.17 time 1, M = 3.11 time 2). The respondentsexhibited fairly neutral perceptions of opportunities for advancement (M = 3.04 time1, M = 3.07 time 2), and there is a slight tendency to disagree with the statementsregarding job stress (M = 2.91 time 1, M = 2.83 time 2). Respondents tended to beunder some pressure with their workloads both seven months and 20 months afterthe reorganisation, although there was some drop across the time period (M = 3.58time 1, M = 3.31 time 2). Generally respondents tended to perceive low levels ofdistributive justice (M = 2.63 time 1, M = 2.69 time 2) and procedural justice (M = 2.84time 1, M = 2.79 time 2). The organisation shows a fairly neutral level of OID sevenmonths after the Trust came in existence (M = 3.03); this shows a slight increase(M = 3.11) 13 months later. Levels of POS are fairly low in both studies (M = 2.87 time

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


TAB

LE

1B

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ions

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

csfo

rth

eva

riab

les

used

inth

ean

alys

is:

seve

nm

onth

saf

ter

reor

gani

sati

on

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15M

ean

SD

1.Tr

ust

OID

3.03

0.78

2.H

ours

ofw

ork

0.10

*–

37.1

10.2

3.A

ge0.

03-0

.05

–4.

Job

tenu

re0.

080.

040.

36**

*–

4.8

4.9

5.M

otiv

atin

gm

anag

er0.

29**

*0.

03-0

.07

-0.0

7–

3.66

1.05

6.A

uton

omy

0.22

***

0.05

-0.0

40.

070.

26**

*–

3.84

0.81

7.D

istr

ibut

ive

just

ice

0.26

***

-0.0

00.

00-0

.06

0.35

***

0.25

***

–2.

631.

048.

Proc

edur

alju

stic

e0.

34**

*0.

040.

01-0

.07

0.30

***

0.21

***

0.40

***

–2.

840.

669.

Pres

sure

0.02

0.21

***

0.14

**0.

06-0

.10*

-0.0

2-0

.20*

**-0

.05

–3.

581.

0310

.Jo

bst

ress

-0.0

50.

21**

*0.

010.

01-0

.20*

**-0

.20*

**-0

.20*

**-0

.22*

**0.

49**

*–

2.91

1.06

11.

Invo

lved

com

mun

icat

ion

0.40

***

0.09

*0.

01-0

.08

0.43

***

0.38

***

0.44

***

0.45

***

-0.0

7-0

.28*

**–

3.17

0.92

12.

Dec

isiv

eac

tion

0.40

***

0.00

0.05

0.04

0.32

***

0.17

***

0.27

***

0.38

***

-0.1

0*-0

.19*

**0.

43**

*–

3.39

0.80

13.

Ad

vanc

emen

t0.

20**

*0.

09-0

.23*

**-0

.12*

*0.

19**

*0.

19**

*0.

24**

*0.

24**

*0.

05-0

.08

0.36

***

0.19

***

–3.

041.

0614

.Te

amm

eeti

ngs

0.36

***

0.02

-0.0

6-0

.07

0.46

***

0.27

***

0.30

***

0.41

***

-0.0

3-0

.17*

**0.

55**

*0.

37**

*0.

33**

*–

3.53

0.86

15.

POS

0.47

***

0.05

-0.0

1-0

.02

0.28

***

0.28

***

0.34

***

0.46

***

-0.1

0*-0

.25*

**0.

57**

*0.

37**

*0.

40**

*0.

37**

*–

2.87

0.72

N=

492.

*p

<0.

05,

**p

<0.

01,

***

p<

0.00

1.

OID

,or

gani

sati

onal

iden

tific

atio

n;PO

S,pe

rcei

ved

orga

nisa

tion

alsu

ppor

t;SD

,st

and

ard

dev

iati

on.



© 2009 The Author.


TAB

LE

2B

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ions

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

csfo

rth

eva

riab

les

used

inth

ean

alys

is:

20m

onth

saf

ter

reor

gani

sati

on

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15M

ean

SD

1.Tr

ust

OID

–3.

110.

842.

Hou

rsof

wor

k-0

.01

–35

.310

.63.

Age

0.13

**-0

.03

–4.

Job

tenu

re0.

080.

020.

31**

*–

4.59

5.11

5.M

otiv

atin

gm

anag

er0.

29**

*-0

.03

0.01

-0.0

8–

3.76

0.98

6.A

uton

omy

0.26

***

-0.0

20.

05-0

.04

0.30

***

–3.

910.

827.

Dis

trib

utiv

eju

stic

e0.

26**

*-0

.09*

-0.0

5-0

.11*

0.33

***

0.30

***

–2.

691.

028.

Proc

edur

alju

stic

e0.

46**

*-0

.08

0.01

-0.0

60.

33**

*0.

24**

*0.

39**

*–

2.79

0.75

9.Pr

essu

re0.

000.

23**

*0.

14**

0.13

**0.

030.

08-0

.13*

*-0

.04

–3.

311.

0010

.Jo

bst

ress

-0.1

2**

0.18

***

-0.0

00.

09*

-0.2

5***

-0.1

6***

-0.2

6***

-0.3

2***

0.39

***

–2.

831.

0411

.In

volv

edco

mm

unic

atio

n0.

41**

*-0

.02

0.03

-0.1

2**

0.58

***

0.43

***

0.42

***

0.53

***

0.07

-0.2

5***

–3.

110.

90

12.

Dec

isiv

eac

tion

0.42

***

-0.0

50.

02-0

.08

0.42

***

0.28

***

0.27

***

0.52

***

-0.0

2-0

.24*

**0.

52**

*–

3.44

0.83

13.

Ad

vanc

emen

t0.

27**

*-0

.04

-0.1

4**

-0.1

5***

0.31

***

0.19

***

0.37

***

0.22

***

-0.0

2-0

.14*

*0.

37**

*0.

25**

*–

3.07

1.07

14.

Team

mee

ting

s0.

35**

*-0

.03

0.02

-0.0

50.

57**

*0.

32**

*0.

33**

*0.

33**

*0.

04-0

.18*

**0.

60**

*0.

47**

*0.

31**

*–

3.60

0.89

15.

POS

0.51

***

-0.0

50.

01-0

.08*

0.43

***

0.26

***

0.44

***

0.60

***

-0.0

8-0

.27*

**0.

63**

*0.

53**

*0.

36**

*0.

49**

*–

2.83

0.85

N=

563.

*p

<0.

05,

**p

<0.

01,

***

p<

0.00

1.

OID

,or

gani

sati

onal

iden

tific

atio

n;PO

S,pe

rcei

ved

orga

nisa

tion

alsu

ppor

t;SD

,st

and

ard

dev

iati

on.

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


1, M = 2.83 time 2). The Pearson’s correlation coefficients presented in Tables 1 and2 show support for all of the relationships predicted as part of hypotheses H1, H2and H3. This is the case both at time 1 and at time 2, with the singular exception ofa lack of support for H3: a, at time 2 (the relationship between job pressure and POSat time 2 did not quite reach significance, p = 0.051).

Testing the measurement model at time 1

A CFA model that assigned each attitude and perception scale item to its proposedlatent variable construct showed a good level of fit (c2 = 1,157.65, d.f. = 600,c2/d.f. = 1.93, RMSEA = 0.044 [90 per cent confidence interval – CI = 0.040:0.047],RMR = 0.049, ECVI = 2.93, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98), this performed significantly better(p < 0.001) than a model which assigned all items to a single latent construct(c2 = 10,721.50, d.f. = 665, c2/d.f. = 16.12, RMSEA = 0.18 [90 per cent CI = 0.17:0.18],RMR = 0.15, ECVI = 22.15, CFI = 0.70, TLI = 0.66). Furthermore, with the separatefactor measurement model, Lambda coefficients showed that all scale items loadedonto their correct latent construct (significance of loadings: p < 0.001 with all items).

Testing the mediated model at time 1

Full SEM which tested the relationship between the independent variables (includingcontrols) onto POS, and POS onto OID, (a fully mediated model) showed goodfit statistics (c2 = 1,527.18, d.f. = 771, c2/d.f. = 1.98, RMSEA = 0.045 [90 per centCI = 0.041:0.048], RMR = 0.057, ECVI = 4.00, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97). In accordancewith hypothesis H1, POS was found to predict OID. However, of the predictionsmade relating to H2 and H3, only H2: b, d, f and g, were supported. In order to fullytest H4, an additional model was examined with direct paths between theindependent variables and POS, between POS and OID, as well as between theindependent variables and OID simultaneously. This model which tested part- andfull-mediation showed good fit statistics (c2 = 1,435.36, d.f. = 755, c2/d.f. = 1.90,RMSEA = 0.043 [90 per cent CI = 0.039:0.046], RMR = 0.048, ECVI = 3.88, CFI = 0.98,TLI = 0.97) with a significant improvement on the fully mediating model (c2

difference = 91.82, d.f. = 16, p < 0.001). The model showed the same directrelationships between the independent variables and POS, some significant directrelationships between the independent variables and OID, as well as many non-significant paths. In order to ensure a parsimonious model, non-significant pathswere removed and the model was retested; the resulting best structural model1 is setout in Figure 2. The model which demonstrates direct and indirect prediction of OIDfrom features of the HR environment showed good fit statistics (c2 = 1457.12,d.f. = 778, c2/d.f. = 1.87, RMSEA = 0.042 [90 per cent CI = 0.039:0.045], RMR = 0.050,ECVI = 3.83, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98). As Figure 2 shows, there are significant uniqueeffects of opportunities for advancement on POS (b = 0.20, p < 0.001, indirect effect onOID: b = 0.05 [Wald 95 per cent CI = 0.03:0.07]), as well as perceptions of an opencommunication environment on POS (b = 0.34, p < 0.001, indirect effect on OID:b = 0.14 [0.08:0.20]) and perceptions of procedural justice on POS (b = 0.21, p < 0.001,indirect effect on OID: b = 0.08 [0.04:0.12]). There was also a part-mediation of theimpact of perceptions of decisive action on OID (direct effect b = 0.23, p < 0.001) withan effect on POS also (b = 0.10, p < 0.05, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.04 [0.00:0.08]).The total effect of perceptions of decisive action on OID was therefore b = 0.27. There



© 2009 The Author.


were also unique direct effects of the managerial job category dummy on OID(b = 0.11, p < 0.01), job tenure on OID (b = 0.10, p < 0.05), job stress on OID (b = 0.10,p < 0.05) and perceptions of team meetings on OID (b = 0.19, p < 0.001). POS was thestrongest predictor of OID when accounting for all variables (b = 0.35, p < 0.001).

The final model presented in Figure 2 was retested with the addition of a newlatent construct (considered a common method control) set to crossload onto all ofthe attitude and perception variables. This extra model showed a number ofacceptable fit statistics (c2 = 1,998.05, d.f. = 861, c2/d.f. = 2.32, RMSEA = 0.052 [90 percent CI = 0.049:0.055], CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96). However some indicators performedquite badly (RMR = 0.11, ECVI = 4.59), and this model performed significantly worsethan the final model presented in Figure 2 (c2 diff = 540.93, d.f.diff = 83, p < 0.001).2

Testing the measurement model at time 2

A CFA model that assigned each attitude and perception scale item onto its proposedlatent variable construct at time 2 showed a good level of fit (c2 = 1,209.79, d.f. = 600,c2/d.f. = 2.02, RMSEA = 0.043 [90 per cent CI = 0.039:0.046], RMR = 0.045, ECVI =2.65, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98), performing significantly better (p < 0.001) than a one-factor model (c2 = 12,603.10, d.f. = 665, c2/d.f. = 18.95, RMSEA = 0.18 [90 per centCI = 0.18:0.18], RMR = 0.14, ECVI = 22.70, CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.72). Again, all scaleitems loaded significantly onto their correct latent construct (p < 0.001 with all itemloadings) with the proposed measurement model.

FIGURE 2 Structural diagram showing the factors predicting perceived organisationalsupport (POS) and organisational identification (OID) just after organisational formation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


Testing for model invariance at time 2

The final model produced at time 1 was tested for structural invariance across the twosamples; a model was tested which allowed the structural paths in the model to varyacross the samples (c2 = 2,984.53, d.f. = 1,556), and this was followed by a modelwhich held the structural paths the same at time 1 and time 2 (c2 = 3,006.77,d.f. = 1,566). The model holding the structural paths invariant performed significantlyworse than the model allowing the two samples to vary (c2 difference = 22.24,d.f. = 10, p < 0.01). We can therefore assume that the two samples show differentpatterns of prediction, counter to H5.

Testing the mediated model at time 2

The SEM analysis approach taken at time 1 was repeated at time 2 which initiallyinvolved testing the relationship between the independent variables (includingcontrols) and POS as well as between POS and OID (a fully mediated model). Thismodel showed good fit statistics (c2 = 1,534.67, d.f. = 771, c2/d.f. = 1.99, RMSEA =0.042 [90 per cent CI = 0.039:0.045], RMR = 0.051, ECVI = 3.51, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98).Of the predictions made relating to H1–H3, the results showed support for H1; H2:a, b, d, f, g, h; and H3a. To test H4, an additional model was examined that had directpaths between the independent variables and POS, between POS and OID, as well asbetween the independent variables and OID simultaneously. This model showedgood fit statistics (c2 = 1,425.79, d.f. = 755, c2/d.f. = 1.89, RMSEA = 0.040 [90 per centCI = 0.037:0.043], RMR = 0.045, ECVI = 3.37, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99) and a significantimprovement on the fully mediating model (c2 difference = 109.52, d.f. = 16, p < 0.001).As with time 1 the non-significant paths were removed and the model was retested.The resulting3 structural paths with this model are set out in Figure 3. The modelshowed good fit statistics (c2 = 1,438.74, d.f. = 773, c2/d.f. = 1.86, RMSEA = 0.039[90 per cent CI = 0.036:0.042], RMR = 0.045, ECVI = 3.33, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98). AsFigure 3 shows, there are significant effects of perceptions of distributive justiceon POS (b = 0.09, p < 0.05, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.02 [Wald 95 per centCI = 0.00:0.04]), job pressure on POS (b = -0.10, p < 0.01, indirect effect on OID:b = -0.02 [-0.04:0.00]), perceptions of an open communication environment on POS(b = 0.27, p < 0.001, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.08 [0.02:0.14]) and perceptions of teammeetings on POS (b = 0.12, p < 0.05, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.03 [0.01:0.05]). Thereare part-mediated effects of a number of measures relating to the HR environment onOID through POS. Perceptions of decisive action had a direct effect on OID (b = 0.13,p < 0.01) as well as on POS (b = 0.15, p < 0.001, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.04[0.00:0.08]), the total effect of decisive action on OID was b = 0.17. Advancementopportunities had a direct effect on OID (b = 0.14, p < 0.001) as well as on POS(b = 0.09, p < 0.05, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.02 [0.00:0.04]). The total effect ofadvancement opportunities on OID was b = 0.16. Procedural justice had a direct effecton OID (b = 0.23, p < 0.001) as well as on POS (b = 0.28, p < 0.001, indirect effect onOID: b = 0.07 [0.03:0.11]). The total effect of procedural justice on OID was b = 0.30.There are significant direct effects of the management job category dummy on OID(b = 0.11, p < 0.01), job tenure on OID (b = 0.13, p < 0.01), autonomy on OID (b = 0.08,p < 0.05) and age on OID (b = 0.10, p < 0.05). POS was again the strongest directpredictor of OID when all variables were accounted for (b = 0.26, p < 0.001).



© 2009 The Author.


This final model presented in Figure 3 was retested with the addition of a newlatent construct set to crossload onto all of the attitude and perception variables. Thisextra model showed a number of acceptable fit statistics (c2 = 2,058.93, d.f. = 855,c2/d.f. = 2.41, RMSEA = 0.050 [90 per cent CI = 0.047:0.053], CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97)athough some indicators performed quite badly (RMR = 0.11, ECVI = 4.14), and thismodel performed significantly worse than the final model presented in Figure 3(c2 diff = 620.19, d.f.diff = 82, p < 0.001).4

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to examine the role that features of the HR environmentplay in fostering OID – mediated through POS – and to compare the pattern ofrelationships shortly after the formation of a new organisation with those 20 monthsafter the structure came into existence. In the main analysis, the results demonstrate

FIGURE 3 Structural diagram showing the factors predicting perceived organisationalsupport (POS) and organisational identification (OID) 20 months into the organisation’s life

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


that some features of the HR environment can be expected to foster POS and OIDregardless of the organisational identity developmental context. Perceptions relatingto features of the HR environment are related to POS, which subsequently plays amajor role in predicting OID in the models tested. In support of the study’smediation hypothesis, the models indicate that some features of the organisation’sHR environment are related to OID indirectly through POS as a mediatingmechanism at both time points. The findings do not, however, completely supportthe mediating hypothesis as some features of the HR environment are directlyrelated to OID both at time 1 and time 2 (details to be discussed later). In bothstudies the models did show that POS is consistently related to OID, also a numberof HR-related features are consistently related to POS at both time points. However,it is not the case that the structural models were invariant across the two studies asthere were some interesting differences in patterns of prediction (details to bediscussed later), and as such, the results of the second wave of research did notcompletely replicate the findings of the first wave.

As the findings set out in Figures 2 and 3 show, POS is generally the mostimportant factor directly related to the extent to which people identify with theorganisation. There was a slight drop in strength of the relationship between POSand OID across the two studies which suggests that perceptions of support might beparticularly important immediately after a restructure; however, POS does remainthe most influential factor in the models predicting OID. This supports the assertionthat POS has a key role in fostering OID, as argued earlier.

The results support the assertion that particular features of the HR environmentare important in encouraging perceptions of organisational support. Across bothtime periods, perceptions of opportunities for advancement, open communicationsand procedural justice are key. The more that people perceived promotionalopportunities, the more they felt that the organisation implements procedures in ajust and fair way, and the more that people perceived an open communicationenvironment, then the more organisation support they perceived. Such findingssupport a number of strands of existing research. Firstly, that procedural justice isimportant in encouraging perceptions of support (Hutchison, 1997; Moorman et al.,1998; Rhoades et al., 2001; Loi et al., 2006), as is having an open communicationenvironment (Wayne et al., 2002; Allen et al., 2003) and having opportunities forpromotion (Shore and Shore, 1995). Additionally, the results suggest that perceptionsthat the organisation would act decisively if employees experienced harassment,discrimination or bullying, predicts perceptions of organisational support, regardlessof context. As these four HR-associated factors are significantly related to POS onboth occasions, it is reasonable to assume that these features are likely to be keydrivers that explain whether employees perceive that the organisation is supportive.

There is also evidence that other features of the HR environment are important inencouraging perceptions of organisational support with the second study; featuresthat did not initially appear with the first phase of research. These include theprovision of fair rewards (in accordance with Shore and Shore’s (1995) findings) andlower levels of job pressure. One more feature becomes an important predictor ofPOS at time 2: open team meetings. These findings may well indicate that someHR-related practices could be more consistent in encouraging POS; others, however,may be context dependent.



© 2009 The Author.


Given the direct relationships that aspects of the HR environment have with POSin the current analysis, and the key role that POS plays in models set to predict OID,POS seems to mediate the relationship between many HR features and OID. It canbe argued that where features of the HR environment influence identification, itwill often, although not exclusively, be because of the fact that HR practicescan encourage or discourage perceptions that the organisation is supportive ofits workers. Despite this, there is not unconditional support for the mediatinghypothesis, as a number of direct relationships are found between particular featuresof the HR environment and OID. At both time 1 and time 2, there is a direct andindirect relationship between perceptions of decisive action and OID; this is also thecase for procedural justice and advancement opportunities at time 2. Additional tothis, there are direct relationships between perceptions of open team meetings andOID at time 1, and between autonomy and OID at time 2. Therefore, as well as theimportance that aspects of the HR environment play in encouraging POS, and OIDindirectly through POS, the findings indicate that HR policies and practices can beexpected to directly encourage employees to identify with the organisation. Thesefindings support some of the research and arguments presented in the literature, forexample, procedural justice and open communications have been found to play adirect role in encouraging identification (Tyler and Blader, 2003; Van Dick et al., 2006;Bartels et al., 2007).

As mentioned, one of the aims of the current study was to compare the resultsfound at time 1 and time 2. Although it was recognised that there may be a changein levels of attitudes and perceptions in this changing context, it was predicted thatthe pattern of relationships would be the same. This prediction was only partiallysupported, as although some patterns of prediction at the two time points weresimilar, the analysis indicated variance in results when the final model at time 1 wastested at time 2 and the two sets of analyses independently produced differentresults. The second wave of research therefore fails to replicate the findings found attime 1; when the results from the two studies are compared, some interestingdifferences are found. Most notably, more HR-related features are linked to both POSand OID in the latter study. Also, there is a greater pattern of full-mediation at time1 compared with time 2, with POS playing a bigger role in the prediction of OID justafter formation.

Across the two studies, there are a number of unique direct relationshipsbetween perceptions associated with features of the HR environment and employeeidentification that are worth highlighting. Employees who experience stressreactions at time 1 were more likely to identify. Conceivably, during a time ofrestructuring, there will be a degree of identity-related stress which could cause ‘aloss of organisational moorings’ (Albert et al., 2000: 14). Employees may then inturn forge a link with the new organisation to try and regain an identity-relatedfoundation (although this is not directly tested here). This relationship falls awayat time 2 when the more established organisational identity may no longer be asource of stress. At time 1 a positive perception of team meetings is directly relatedto identification; this relationship, however, falls away at the 20 months stage.Presumably, team meetings may provide an important source of informationconcerning the restructured organisation and be a vehicle through which the neworganisation communicates with workers, thus influencing levels of identification.

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


Another interesting finding is that immediately after organisational formation,opportunities for advancement had no direct relationship with OID, nor didautonomy. These two factors did, however, link directly with identification inStudy 2 when the organisation has matured somewhat. It is feasible that any directelement of status provision that these HR-related features have on OID may onlybecome important as the restructuring settles.

In both studies, certain demographic control variables are shown to be importantin the models produced. The longer employees had been in the same job role, thenthe more likely they were to identify with the Trust. Also 20 months after the Trusthad formed, age seems to become more important; the younger the employee theless likely he or she was to identify with the Trust. Also of interest, at both timepoints, those who worked in a managerial role were the most likely to identify withthe Trust. As managers would have been instrumental in building the neworganisation and helping forge its new identity, it makes sense that they havethe greatest levels of identification compared with other staff groups. Although thefindings indicate that particular demographic features were linked to OID, theresults of the study overall clearly point towards features of the HR environmentbeing important factors that can be expected to foster POS and OID.

Key implications for HR managers

Aside from the interesting implications that arise from the specific findingshighlighted earlier, there are some key implications for HR managers to consider.The main implication is that HR practices and the people management environmentcan be expected to influence the extent to which employees form a bond with theorganisation. Whether this is because particular HR practices increase levels of POSor whether particular practices are likely to send a direct valuing message toemployees, thus encouraging identification, the findings presented here suggest thathow the organisation manages its people should influence the extent to which theyforge a psychological bond with their employer. As mentioned, findings presentedby other researchers have shown that features of an organisation’s image (andwhether it can be considered prestigious) can encourage identification; the currentfindings indicate that how an organisation manages its employees will be importantin fostering identification. In particular, the HR department should make every effortto ensure that organisational policies and procedures are implemented in a fair andjust manner. It is also important for the HR function to ensure that an open andinvolved communication climate exists and for employees to have good promotionalopportunities. A finding that should be of particular interest to HR managers,especially those involved in managing equal opportunities, is the importance ofemployee perceptions that decisive action would be taken if they were harassed,bullied or discriminated against. Aside from specific HR practices that are likely toencourage employees to bond with the organisation, in general, the results of thisstudy point towards the central role that HR can play in encouraging employeeidentification by ensuring that its practices support employees.

Limitations

The main limitation of the current study is the cross-sectional nature of the research.Although the study investigates OID over two waves of research, the method used



© 2009 The Author.


is not a longitudinal design where respondents are tracked across time. Having aresearch design that uses two separate cross-sectional surveys at different time pointshas a number of implications that limit our confidence in making inferences from theresults. For example, where there is a change in the results across time, although itwould be reasonable to assume that the responses reflect attitudes within theorganisation and the obvious explanation for differences is that perceptions ofemployees within the organisation have shifted, changes in attitudes across time mayalso be because of differences in the make-up of the samples at the different timepoints. In fact as the number of respondents has increased from time 1 to time 2, weknow that the samples include different people (even though the demographicmake-up of the samples is representative of the organisation at both time points).Unfortunately, as it was not possible to track respondents across the two surveys, wecan neither test any change in attitudes of particular individuals nor can we examinewhether factors at time 1 have influenced factors at time 2. Furthermore, the modelspresented are making assumptions about the predictive order of the variables usedin the analysis, one must however be careful in interpreting the results and assumingthat the relationships show causal links with cross-sectional data, any causalinterpretation of the results should be viewed with this in mind.

A second major limitation of the current study is the fact that all of the variablesused in the analysis were measured with the same questionnaire instrument at eachtime. Researchers argue that mono-method studies can be prone to many differentsources of common method bias, which means that variables might share variancebecause of a systematic bias and that correlations might be artificially inflated(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although there is some debate in the literature regarding theextent to which common method bias is actually a problem in organisational research(Spector, 2006), it was considered prudent to carry out some testing to investigatewhether this was a concern in the current study. One first step used to check for thepossible effects of common method variance is to see whether the scale items loadonto one factor as well as, or better than, a model which loads items onto theseparate constructs assumed in the measurement design. The results of this test didnot indicate that there was a problem of common method variance as all itemsloaded onto their respective latent constructs and this model fit the data better thana single factor analysis (which, if there were major problems with common methodbias, it should theoretically perform better). This is a useful first step in checking forcommon method bias. However, Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommend other moresophisticated methods to attempt to actively control for the possible effects ofcommon method bias. Specific procedures are recommended when a researcher isaware of the source of common method bias (e.g. social desirability and personalitytraits affecting the results); the design of the current study did not, however, includemeasures to assess different causes of method bias. A particular statistical test thatone can carry out to model the possible impact of unmeasured common method biasinvolves the introduction of a notional unmeasured latent factor which is then linkedto each attitude and perception item in any models examined. It is argued that thismethod, which aims to control for a shared variance latent construct, can factor out:(1) the effects of personality traits, (2) method biases, and (3) random measurementerror (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As mentioned earlier, this control approach was used insupplemental analyses with the models presented in Figures 2 and 3. However, the

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


supplemental models did not perform as well as the original models, meaning thatone would need to be very careful interpreting the results of this additional analysis.Additionally, as there is some debate as to the validity of results that this form ofanalysis produces,5 the supplemental analyses are therefore considered to beindicative only and have not been the focus of interpretation in the main body of thecurrent paper. Some paths presented in Figures 2 and 3 fail to reach significance withthe additional testing.6 It is possible that this may be as a result of the filtered-outeffects of common method bias, but as the common method models fail to reach asuperior degree of fit compared with the original analyses, it would not be sensibleto rely on the results associated with this additional testing. What is clear, however,is that in all analyses, POS remains central in models set to predict OID, as doperceptions that the organisation would act decisively if employees experiencedharassment, discrimination or bullying. As this is the case even when carrying outanalysis which attempts to control for an unknown common methods construct, wecan be very confident that these findings in particular are reliable.

CONCLUSION

There is a key message to be gained from both studies: it is reasonable to assume thatPOS predicts OID and, in the current analyses, it often plays a key mediating rolein the impact that HR practices may well have on OID, although some features ofthe HR environment could well have a direct impact on OID. As these findings havebeen found across the two studies in a changing organisational environment, thisprovides considerable support for the argument that people management practicesare likely to influence whether people identify with their employer. There are,however, some specific differences in patterns of prediction which may well belinked to changes in the organisational context. This indicates the need for furtherresearch to be carried out to investigate the impact that HR policies and practiceshave on OID in changing organisational contexts.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Riccardo Peccei for his advice and supportduring the course of this research project and Jane Sturges for her comments on anearly version of this article. Also, the author is grateful to the Chief Executive andHR Director of the NHS Trust.

Notes

1. Once the non-significant paths were removed, the results indicated that the‘best’ predictive model should include a path between team meetings and OIDdirectly; this was added.2. These results show significant unique effects of opportunities for advancementon POS (b = 0.12, p < 0.05, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.02 [0.00:0.04]) andsignificant direct effects of the management job category dummy on OID(b = 0.13, p < 0.01), job tenure on OID (b = 0.12, p < 0.01), job stress on OID(b = 0.16, p < 0.01) and decisive action on OID (b = 0.18, p < 0.01). POS was againthe strongest predictor of OID when all variables were accounted for (b = 0.25,p < 0.01).



© 2009 The Author.


3. After removing the non-significant paths, the relationship between autonomyand POS became non-significant; this was removed. The results suggested thatthe final model would be improved if a decisive action was set to predict OIDdirectly; this was therefore included.4. These results show significant direct effects of the management job categorydummy on OID (b = 0.14, p < 0.01), job tenure on OID (b = 0.15, p < 0.001),advancement opportunities on OID (b = 0.14, p < 0.01) and age on OID (b = 0.12,p < 0.05). Procedural justice had a direct effect on OID (b = 0.21, p < 0.001) as wellas on POS (b = 0.23, p < 0.001, indirect effect on OID: b = 0.06 [0.02:0.10]). The totaleffect of procedural justice on OID was b = 0.27. Perceptions of decisive actionhad a direct effect on OID (b = 0.12, p < 0.05) as well as on POS (b = 0.13, p < 0.05,indirect effect on OID: b = 0.04 [0.00:0.08]), the total effect of decisive action onOID was b = 0.17. Job pressure had a fully mediated relationship on OID throughPOS (b = -0.13, p < 0.01, indirect effect on OID: b = -0.02 [-0.04:0.00]). POS againhas a very significant direct relationship with OID when all variables wereaccounted for (b = 0.20, p < 0.001).5. Controlling for an unmeasured common method variable where the source ofbias is not identified can be considered a problematic (although statisticallysophisticated) interpretive tool leading to concerns of validity. As Podsakoff et al.(2003) point out, the results do not allow the researcher to identify any sources ofbias, and Spector (2006: 230) argues that researchers carrying out such analyses‘in many cases are controlling for something that does not exist’.6. Which one needs to be careful in interpreting when attempting to control forcommon method variance as: ‘finding a reduction in relationships after control[itself] is inconclusive’ (Spector, 2006: 230).

REFERENCES

Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985). ‘Organizational identity’, in L.L. Cummings and B.M.Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, pp. 263–295, Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E. and Dutton, J.E. (2000). ‘Organizational identity andidentification: charting new waters and building new bridges’. Academy of ManagementReview, 25: 13–17.

Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003). ‘The role of perceived organizationalsupport and supportive human resource practices’. Journal of Management, 29: 99–118.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F.A. (1989). ‘Social identity theory and the organization’. Academyof Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.

Bartels, J., Douwes, R., DeJong, M. and Pruyn, A. (2006). ‘Organizational identificationduring a merger: determinants of employees’ expected identification with the neworganization’. British Journal of Management, 17: 49–67.

Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., DeJong, M. and Joustra, I. (2007). ‘Multiple organizationalidentification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communicationclimate’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 173–190.

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


Blader, S.L., Wrzesniewski, A. and Bartel, C.A. (2007). ‘Identity and the modernorganization: an invitation’, in C.A. Bartel, S.L. Blader and A. Wrzesniewski (eds),Identity and the Modern Organization, London: LEA.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Dukerich, J.M., Golden, B.R. and Shortell, S.M. (2002). ‘Beauty is in the eye of the

beholder: the impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on thecooperative behaviours of physicians’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 507–533.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994). ‘Organizational images andmember identification’. Administration Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.

Edwards, M.R. (2005). ‘Employer and employee branding: HR or PR?’ in S. Bach (ed.), TheManagement of Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition, Oxford: Blackwell.

Edwards, M.R. and Peccei, R. (2007). ‘Organizational identification: development andtesting of a conceptually grounded measure’. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 16: 25–57.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). ‘Perceivedorganizational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507.

Elsbach, K.D. and Glynn, M.A. (1996). ‘Believing your own “PR”: embeddingidentification in strategic reputation’. Advances in Strategic Management, 13: 65–90.

Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Reylea, C. and Beu, D. (2006). ‘Perceivedexternal prestige and internal respect: new insights into the organizationalidentification process’. Human Relations, 59: 815–846.

Gouldner, A. (1960). ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’. AmericanSociological Review, 25: 176–177.

Hogg, M. and Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of IntergroupRelations and Group Processes, London: Routledge.

Hutchison, S. (1997). ‘Perceived organizational support: further evidence of constructvalidity’. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57: 1025–1034.

Kelloway, K.E. (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide,Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Levinson, H. (1965). ‘Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organisation’.Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 370–390.

Loi, R., Hang-yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006). ‘Linking employees’ justice perceptions toorganizational commitment and intention to leave: the mediating role of perceivedorganizational support’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79:101–120.

Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992). ‘Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of areformulated model of organizational identification’. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,13: 103–123.

Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2000). ‘Direct participation’, in S. Bach and K. Sisson(eds), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice, 3rd edn,Oxford: Blackwell.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.A. and Taylor, M.S. (2000). ‘Integrating justice andsocial exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on workrelationships’. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 738–748.

Miodeenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R. and Nalakath, A. (2001). ‘Perceived organizationalsupport as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors toaffective organizational commitment’. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50:615–634.

Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998). ‘Does perceived organizationalsupport mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizationalcitizenship behavior?’ The Academy of Management Journal, 41: 351–357.



© 2009 The Author.


Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993). ‘Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior’. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36: 527–556.

Olkonnen, M.E. and Lipponen, J. (2006). ‘Relationships between organizational justice,identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes’.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 202–215.

Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (1997). ‘The antecedents of employee commitment to customerservice: evidence from a UK service context’. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 8: 66–86.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, L.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). ‘Common methodbiases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.

Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Marshfield,MA: Pittman.

Price, J.L., Mueller, C.W. and Currivan, D.B. (1992). Study of Teacher Turnover in the ChicagoPublic Schools. Mimeograph, University of Iowa.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived organizational support: a review of theliterature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698–714.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001). ‘Affective commitment to theorganization: the contribution of perceived organizational support’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86: 825–836.

Riketta, M. (2005). ‘Organizational identification: a meta-analysis’. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 66: 358–384.

Rousseau, D.M. (1998). ‘Why workers still identify with organizations’. Journal ofOrganizational Behaviour, 19: 217–233.

Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995). ‘Perceived organizational support and organizationaljustice’, in R. Cropanzano and K. Kracmar (eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, andSupport, Westport, CT: Quorum.

Spector, P.E. (2006). ‘Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?’Organizational Research Methods, 9: 221–232.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979). ‘An integrative theory of social conflict’, in W. Austeinand S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Inter-group Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago:Nelson Hall.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003). ‘The group engagement model: procedural justice,social identity theory, and cooperative behavior’. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 7: 349–361.

Van Dick, R. (2001). ‘Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and researchfrom social and organization psychology’. International Journal of Management Reviews,3: 265–283.

Van Dick, R. (2004). ‘My job is my castle: identification in organizationalcontexts’. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19: 171–203.

Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J. and Tissington, P.A. (2006). ‘Working under a black cloud:sustaining organizational identification after a merger’. British Journal of Management,17: 69–79.

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R. and Tavares, S. (2007). ‘Social identity and socialexchange: identification, organizational and supervisor support, and withdrawal fromthe job’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 457–477.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997). ‘Perceived organizational support andleader member exchange: a social exchange perspective’. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 82–111.

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2002). ‘The role of fair treatmentand rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange’.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590–598.

APPENDIX: VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSES

Organisational identification: (Alpha 2001 = 0.85, Alpha 2003 = 0.86)

� ‘My employment in the [organisation] is a big part of me’� ‘What the Trust stands for is important to me’� ‘My membership of the Trust is important to me’

Pressure/Work load: (Alpha 2001 = 0.93, Alpha 2003 = 0.92)

� ‘The workload in my job is too heavy’� ‘I don’t have enough time to get everything in my job done’� ‘I never seem to have enough time to get my job done’

Job stress: (Alpha 2001 = 0.86, Alpha 2003 = 0.87)

� ‘Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night’� ‘My job is having a negative impact on my health’� ‘I worry a lot about work outside hours’

Job autonomy: (Alpha 2001 = 0.89, Alpha 2003 = 0.90)

� ‘I can use my personal judgement to decide what I do in my job’� ‘I have the opportunity to decide how and what I do in my job’� ‘I can make my own decisions in carrying out my job’

Distributive justice: (Alpha 2001 = 0.94, Alpha 2003 = 0.92)

� ‘I am fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities I have’� ‘I am fairly rewarded for the stresses and strains of my job’� ‘I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job’

Procedural justice: (Alpha 2001 = 0.86, Alpha 2003 = 0.91)

� ‘Decisions at this Trust are made in an unbiased manner’� ‘All decisions in this Trust are applied consistently’� ‘Decisions at this Trust are made fairly’

Opportunities for advancement: (Alpha 2001 = 0.94, Alpha 2003 = 0.94)

� ‘There is the opportunity for me to further my career at the Trust’� ‘I have the opportunity for advancement at this Trust’

Motivating and supportive manager: (Alpha 2001 = 0.94, Alpha 2003 = 0.93)

� ‘My immediate manager motivates me in a positive way’� ‘My immediate manager is easily approachable’



© 2009 The Author.


� ‘My immediate manager helps me to improve the way I do my job’� ‘My immediate manager provides me with any advice and support I need’

Involved communication: (Alpha 2001 = 0.88, Alpha 2003 = 0.87)

� ‘I do not bother to put forward my ideas because management is not reallyinterested’

� ‘Staff views get listened to by those who make decisions’� ‘I feel involved in decisions about my own area of work’� ‘I feel able to voice opinions and influence changes’

Team meetings: (Alpha 2001 = 0.89, Alpha 2003 = 0.92)

� ‘Team meetings provide me with the opportunity to discuss work issuesproperly’

� ‘We get good feedback at team meetings on issues raised by us’� ‘Team meetings are an effective way of keeping us up to date’

Decisive action: (Alpha 2001 = 0.93, Alpha 2003 = 0.93)

� ‘The Trust would act decisively if employees experienced discrimination’� ‘The Trust would act decisively if employees experienced bullying at work’� ‘The Trust would act decisively if employees experienced harassment at work’

POS: (Alpha 2001 = 0.78, Alpha 2003 = 0.87)

� ‘The [organisation] shows very little concern for me’� ‘The Trust cares about my general satisfaction at work’� ‘The Trust really cares about my well-being’

Martin R. Edwards


© 2009 The Author.


hr, perceived organisational support and organisational identification: an analysis after...

Documents