human resources asia pacific journal of - sage publications

http://apj.sagepub.com/Human Resources

Asia Pacific Journal of

http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1038411105058707

2005 43: 361Asia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesFiona Edgar and Alan J. Geare

Employee voice on human resource management

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)

can be found at:Asia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesAdditional services and information for

http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://apj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361.refs.htmlCitations:

at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011apj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://apj.sagepub.com/

http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahri.com.au/

http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://apj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361.refs.html


Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2005 43(3)

Employee voice on human resource management

Fiona Edgar and Alan J. GeareUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Empirical research on human resource management (HRM) practice has mainlyassessed and evaluated the activity from an employer’s perspective. Concern has been expressed about the lack of empirical analysis conducted from the employees’perspective. This exploratory study begins to fill this gap in the literature byexamining the current views that 626 New Zealand employees have about HRM in their organisations. It identified those aspects of HRM that are important to anemployee in the employment relationship today, and highlighted a number of sharedconcerns about practices in their organisations. This study found that, from anemployee’s perspective, training and development is becoming an increasinglyimportant issue. Employer investment in this area may have the greatest potential to contribute beneficially to organisational performance.

These findings suggest that not all HRM practices are equally beneficial interms of the outcomes they produce, and practitioners may need to identify andimplement those practices that have the most usefulness. The results also provideinsights for academics and practitioners to use as they seek to develop new policiesand practices that are aimed at maximising the potential of people in the workplace.

Keywords: employees, human resource management, New Zealand

Most research in the area of human resource management (HRM) has beenconducted from a managerial or academic perspective, and, apart from somerare exceptions (Guest 1999; Cully, Woodland, O’Reilly and Dix 1999), theemployee voice has been afforded very little attention. This situation developedeven though employees are considered to be an organisation’s most importantasset and most models of HRM identify them as being an important stake-holder in the employment relationship. This paper builds the employee

361

Correspondence to: Dr Fiona Edgar, Department of Management, University of Otago, POBox 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; fax: +643 479 8173; e-mail: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA andNew Delhi; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright © 2005Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 43(3): 361–380. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411105058707.

APJHR_43_3_Edgar.qxd 12/10/2005 9:34 PM Page 361



viewpoint into HRM by exploring their views on HRM practice and identi-fying what it is about HRM they consider important. In doing so some of theways incorporating the employee voice into studies on HRM can benefit thefield are highlighted.

All variants of HRM are ultimately concerned with the effective managementof people so that organisations achieve their objectives and goals. However, atleast according to the British literature (Keenoy 1990), the two principal modelsof HRM that came from the United States in the 1980s differ significantly.There is the strategic model of HRM (Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna 1984),characterised as ‘hard’, and the Harvard variant (Beer, Spector, Lawrence,Quinn-Mills and Walton 1984; Walton 1985) characterised as ‘soft’.

Under the hard model, the effectiveness of HRM is measured using somesort of criteria that reflects organisational performance (for example, prof-itability, productivity levels, absenteeism, and turnover rates – see Edwards1995; Becker and Gerhart 1996; Huselid 1995). Here the outcomes from theeffective utilisation of human resources for the organisation are of paramountimportance, whereas outcomes for employees do not enter into the equation –thus with this model employees are largely considered a means to an end.

Under the soft model of HRM, business performance is still the primaryobjective, but importance is also attached to employee well-being and employeecommitment. Employee well-being is an end in itself, and can be used as ameasure of effectiveness of HRM (Guest 1999). It is also a means to employeecommitment, which in turn is a means to improved business performance.From an ethical viewpoint this balancing of the needs and interests of theorganisation with those of individuals is widely supported and seen as anecessary obligation on the part of employers (Payne and Wayland 1999).

Securing employee commitment has come to be seen as pivotal to thesuccess of HRM. For example, Guest (1999, 6) claims ‘only by winning thecommitment of employees is it possible to achieve corporate goals’ and further-more suggests (Guest 1998, 42): ‘The concept of organisational commitmentlies at the heart of any analysis of HRM. Indeed, the whole rationale for intro-ducing HRM policies is to increase levels of worker commitment so that otherpositive outcomes can ensue.’

Underpinning this relationship is the view that employee attitudes andbehaviours can be affected by human resource policies and practices and it isthis perspective which has been adopted by most HRM researchers (Whitener2001; Arthur 1994). However, it is likely some practitioners face some very realdilemmas as they try to reconcile the rhetoric of soft HRM with its emphasison developing employee commitment, when for many employees the employ-ment relationship is no longer based on permanence (Mallon 1998; Fournier

362 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2005 43(3)

Models of HRM

APJHR_43_3_Edgar.qxd 12/10/2005 9:34 PM 62



1997). The adoption of flatter organisational structures may compound thisproblem by reducing the potential for employees to move upward within anorganisation. While progression can be achieved through the promotion oflateral development and realistic job previews (as opposed to hierarchalprogression), and Fournier (1997, 366) reports these to be consistent ‘with theliterature on the new career model’, it is not always achievable. Indeed, it hasbeen argued that some organisations utilise this new concept of ‘career’, withits emphasis on individuality, as a means of controlling employee behaviour inthe workplace (Dyer and Humphries 2002; Fournier 1997).

The new workplace culture, which is built around the promotion of indi-vidualism (evidenced by the increasing emphasis and adoption of practices suchas performance-based pay), must surely conflict with the implementation ofpractices such as team-working and quality circles that are collective ways ofworking. Similarly, equal employment opportunity (EEO) practices have beenshown to most useful when they are operated within a collective model and donot fit comfortably where the emphasis is on the individual (Whitehouse 1992).Hendry and Jenkins point out that where employers attempt to maintain therhetoric of organisational commitment yet implement changes such as thosementioned above, a situation is created whereby an agenda is produced for prac-titioners that is ‘long on intentions and short on deliverables’ and inevitablyresults in a lack of ‘coherence in employment policies’ (1997, 41). The popularpress has tried to reconceptualise the construct of commitment in light of thechanging nature of employment (Stum 1999), but this redefining process doesnot necessarily facilitate the development of new policies and practices to meetthe needs of employees today.

There are a number of logical reasons why employee voice is needed. First, ifit is accepted that employees are important stakeholders, then exploring theirviews on HRM makes empirically testing of some of the assumptions and rela-tionships in HRM more accurate. For example, while there is some supportavailable to suggest soft HRM does indeed achieve its aim of improvingemployee well-being (Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli 1997; Guest 1999; Woodand Albanese 1995; Wood 1995; Ogilvie 1986), some researchers, however,remain unconvinced (Legge 1995; Keenoy 1990; Iles, Mabey and Robertson1990). For example, Iles, Mabey and Robertson (1990, 151) comment:

as is often the case with much of the HRM literature, the data are almostentirely gathered through interviews with a small number of managers,rather than through more systematic measurement: they may thereforesimply reflect managerial rhetoric or managerial beliefs about what hashappened or what should happen.

Employee voice on HRM 363

The need for employee voice




This mismatch between managerial rhetoric and reality is a majorproblem that is continually raised in the HRM literature (Edwards 1995; Guest1995). While most managers claim to use practices associated with soft HRM,the reality is found to be different. This difference is referred to as arhetoric–reality gap. Recently, some attempt has been made to highlight thisproblem by incorporating the employee viewpoint into HRM studies (Guest1999; Cully, Woodland, O’Reilly and Dix 1999).

Also if soft HRM is to realise its full potential, then the practices engen-dered by it must be those that are believed to be important to the employee(Koys 1988). But what is important to the employee with respect to the employ-ment relationship today is a question that has received little empirical attention.So obtaining employee views about HRM allows us to explore some of theserelationships by providing insights into how effective employees considercurrent HRM policy and practice to be.

Hard HRM, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the attainment oforganisational goals. But even if we are only concerned with outcomes such as‘profitability’, getting employee views is still important, given that, ifemployees are dissatisfied in the workplace, then high levels of dissatisfactionin the long term is likely to impact on profitability.

A further reason for including the employee perspective in HRM researchrelates to the benefits that come from encouraging researchers to adopt amulti-constituency approach to data collection. To date, information on theeffectiveness of HRM has been obtained primarily from managers/employers,with little else to confirm or deny its accuracy. Since employers are reportingon their own HRM practices, this increases the likelihood of social responsebias. Furthermore, as Guest (2001) observes, the employer reports on the effec-tiveness of their HRM policies and practices from their perspective as amanager, not from their experience of the actual practices – they are not theconsumers of HRM, the employee is. So collecting data from employees as wellas employers and other relevant stakeholders is likely to enhance the reliabilityof findings reported in studies on HRM.

Finally and perhaps the most important reason is that HRM is funda-mentally built around the view that employees are the organisation’s ‘greatestasset’, and therefore should be afforded some voice in research into HRM.

This paper examines aspects of the soft HRM model. Its research objectivesare, first, to examine the strength of employees’ views as to whether HRMpractice is taking place in their organisations. Second, it gives the employees’evaluations of HRM functions. The paper also reports on employees’ self-eval-uations of their levels of commitment and their levels of well-being. The rela-


Research objectives




tionships between employee commitment, employee well-being and employeeviews on HRM practice are then explored.

Studies in HRM have identified that HRM professionals need to respondmore effectively to employee needs (Armstrong 2001). Moreover, it has beensuggested that HRM practices are one means by which organisations ‘candemonstrate their support for, or commitment to, their employees and, in turn,foster a reciprocal attachment by employees’ (Meyer and Smith 2000, 327).Thus it is suggested that the usefulness of some HRM practices are likely to bethwarted if the perspectives of academics and practitioners about what consti-tutes soft HRM and hence which HRM practices are important are notcongruent with the views of employees. So a final objective of this paper is toidentify which aspects of HRM, employees currently consider important.

This paper makes a contribution to the literature in that most research onHRM practice has relied solely on employer reports (Cully et al. 1999) andignored employees’ views. The more informed employers and academics arewith regards to employees’ views about the importance and value of HRMpractices, the greater the probability that initiatives in introducing HRMpractices will be effective.

This study involves an examination of employee attitudes towards a numberof HRM initiatives. Perceptual evaluations related to employer performanceand the importance of HRM are investigated across ten functional areas. Asdata presented here were originally collected to assess the impact of govern-ment legislation on HRM, the four functional areas of HRM covered by thelegislation (i.e. health and safety; training and development; EEO; and recruit-ment and selection) are studied in depth. While a limitation, the use of specificHRM domains in research examining HRM practice has been the approachmost commonly adopted in prior studies (Meyer and Smith 2000).

This study first explores HRM practice in the workplace. To examine thisemployees are asked to indicate the extent they consider a range of soft HRMinitiatives across those four functional areas mentioned above have been oper-ationalised in their workplace. Second, an overall evaluative rating of employerperformance across a broader range of functional HRM areas (ten in total) isobtained. An examination of the relationship between employee assessments ofoperationalised HRM practice, along with employee evaluations of employerperformance and employee work-related attitudes is then undertaken. Finally,the analysis identifies those areas of HRM employees consider to be ‘most’important in order to establish which HRM practices are most likely to havethe potential to elicit desirable employee outcomes, and thus contribute posi-tively to organisational performance.


Approach




Participants for this study were secured by firstly writing to all those employersin the Wellington and Christchurch regions, listed in the New Zealand businesswho’s who, with 50 or more employees. In total 234 organisations werecontacted, with reminder letters being sent to those who had not respondedone month after the initial contact was made. Of these 234, a total of 52 agreedto participate (22%). Twelve of these 52 subsequently withdrew their consent,leaving a total sample of 40 organisations. This low response is not uncommonat the organisational level and research by Tomaskovic-Devey, Leiter andThompson (1994) has found that organisational non-response is predominantlythe result of organisations either not wanting to divulge confidential informa-tion or an unwillingness to expend the time involved.

Participation was voluntary, confidentiality was guaranteed, and thecompany fully endorsed their participation. The targeted population ofemployees consisted of a total of 1075 full- and part-time workers. A total of626 employees responded (a response rate of 58%) by completing the ques-tionnaire and returning it in the reply-paid envelope provided. This responserate compares very favourably for survey research in this area (Scandura andWilliams 2000). Employers were requested to distribute the surveys to a repre-sentative sample of their workforce, in terms of occupational classification,ethnicity and gender. The number of employees in each organisational samplewas based on organisation size, with 10 per cent (a minimum of 20 and amaximum of 50) of employees from each organisation being requested toparticipate.

The data were analysed using SPSS 10.1, a statistical analysis programspecifically designed for use in the social sciences. The results reported hereprimarily involve the analysis and reporting of descriptive and frequency data,along with correlation analyses aimed at assessing the relationships betweenthe variables.

The survey administered to employees included a section requesting arange of demographic information, such as ethnicity, gender, occupation andage. The strength of soft HRM practice is measured using a 20-item percep-tual scale (a = 0.9256), comprising five items for each of the four areasexamined. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed(using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to stronglyagree = 5) with each of these statements (for example: ‘EEO is promotedwithin this organisation’). The five items for each functional area were later collapsed, enabling the relationship between assessments about the strength of HRM practice and levels of employee commitment andemployee well-being to be explored. Three additional HRM-focusedquestions tapping the employee’s overall impression of their employer werealso included.

Employee commitment is measured using a shortened version of the


Method




Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) 15-item survey instrument (OrganisationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ)), which has been proven to have soundpsychometric properties. The measure has six items (a = 0.8535), with respon-dents again being asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with eachof the statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = stronglydisagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Two employee attitudes are used to measure employee well-being (organ-isational fairness and job satisfaction). A brief discussion on their selection iswarranted.

The systems, policies and procedures that are operating in an organisa-tion can impact on an individual’s perceptions of bias and fairness (Kurlandand Egan 1999). Fairness has also been linked to several dimensions of organ-isational citizenship, including ‘courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientious-ness’ (Schappe 1998, 279). If an organisation is perceived by its employees toperform HRM practice well, then it is likely that employees will report highlevels of organisational fairness. This study measures the construct using anadapted and shortened version of the scale used by Moorman (1991) which hasbeen reported as being a reliable and valid measure. The measure has six items(a = 0.9160), with respondents being asked to indicate the extent to which theyagreed with each of the statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

A multitude of measures are available for measuring job satisfaction(Warr, Cook and Wall 1979; Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist 1967). Thisstudy used an adapted and shortened form of the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (MSQ) (short form) (Hirschfeld 2000). This scale broadlyconceptualises job satisfaction as being the ‘extent to which an individual’srequirements are fulfilled by the organisation’ (Schappe 1998, 282). Thismeasure has been widely used in management research, and has been reportedas being suitable for a range of research applications (Rentsch and Steel 1992).This measure has been proven to be psychometrically acceptable, simple informat and short in length (Schappe 1998). The scale has six items (a = 0.8554)tapping both the intrinsic (how people feel about the nature of their job tasksthemselves) and extrinsic (how people feel about aspects of the work situationthat are external to the job or work itself) dimensions of job satisfaction(Hirschfeld 2000, 256), and specifically addresses the effectiveness of organisa-tional policies. Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they werewith respect to each of the statements, and a 5-point Likert scale ranging from1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied was used.

Three additional questions were included. The first question askedemployees to rate the overall performance of their employer across a broaderrange of ten functional areas of HRM practice. They were then asked toidentify, from this list of ten practices, the four they considered were the mostimportant and to indicate how important they considered each of the fourHRM functions comprising the focus of this study to be. Provision was also





made for employees to make any additional comments about HRM practicesin their organisation should they wish to do so.

An analysis of the demographic data obtained from participants is presentedin table 1. The sample is skewed in terms of occupational classification. Some53 per cent of participants classified themselves as belonging to the ‘profes-sional’ occupational grouping. However, this group’s representation in theactual labour force is considerably lower. The remaining variables are reason-ably representative of these groups’ respective representation rates in the NewZealand labor force.

Employees were first asked to assess the strength of current operationalisedHRM practice in their organisations as well as provide an overall impressionof their employer by indicating the extent to which they agreed with eachstatement (see table 2). The results show employees tended to agree or moder-ately agree with all of the statements on soft HRM practice. This suggests thatall of the HRM practices in those areas examined are indeed used in theirorganisations.

Participants were then asked to provide an evaluative rating of theiremployer’s current performance for a range of HRM areas (see table 3). Ratingsof employer performance across these functions reveal some differences ofsizeable magnitude. While the functions of health and safety, sexual harass-ment and EEO appear to be performed relatively well, others, notably


Table 1 Demographics of employee sample (N = 626)

Demographic Demographicvariable Percentage (%) variable Percentage (%)

GenderMales 46Females 54

AgeUnder 20 220–50 78Over 50 20

EthnicityEuropean 78Maori 7Polynesian 5Chinese 5Other 5

Length of serviceLess than 1 year 161–5 years 476 years plus 37

OccupationProfessional 53Semi-professional 13Clerical/administration 24Trades 3Labourer 3Other 4

SectorPublic 55Private 45

The sample

Results




performance appraisal, discipline / discharge and promotion, are considerednot to be performed well at all. The former three areas are to differing degreescovered by legislation in New Zealand, and it may be that compliance withlegislation improves performance. On the other hand, with the possibleexception of discipline and discharge, the poor performing areas are thosewhere employers have more discretion in how they deal with their employees.Increased managerial prerogative in certain HRM areas may either create animpression, or reflect a reality, that policies and practices are unfairly or incon-sistently applied. Alternatively, it may simply be that those employees partici-pating in this study have been denied promotion or have experiencedperformance problems. However, this seems an unlikely explanation givenmost employees considered performance in these areas to be poor.


Table 2 Employees’ assessments* of current operationalised HRM practice (N = 626)

No. Area Statement of HRM practice Mean score (SD)

1 H&S Working conditions are good 4.18 (.924)

2 H&S Employer addresses health issues 3.95 (1.147)

3 H&S Employer addresses safety issues 4.21 (.958)

4 H&S Employer addresses worker well-being 4.02 (1.053)

5 H&S Money is spent on health & safety 3.88 (1.048)

6 R&S Operate impartial recruitment & selection process 3.72 (1.076)

7 R&S Favouritism not evident 3.57 (1.179)

8 R&S Interview panels used 3.93 (1.152)

9 R&S Organisation pays attention to recruitment processes 3.10 (1.237)

10 R&S All appointments based on merit 3.48 (1.225)

11 EEO Spends enough money on EEO 3.37 (1.037)

12 EEO Supports work–family life balance 3.85 (1.064)

13 EEO Supports cultural difference 3.82 (.996)

14 EEO Men & women have the same opportunities 3.86 (1.155)

15 EEO Promotes EEO 3.69 (1.047)

16 T&D Encourages staff to extend abilities 3.91 (1.091)

17 T&D Provides training opportunities 3.86 (1.137)

18 T&D Discusses training & development requirements 3.84 (1.176)

19 T&D Pays for work-related training 3.89 (1.117)

20 T&D Committed to training and developing employees 3.88 (1.048)

21 Overall Organisation is a ‘good’ place to work 4.16 (.951)

22 Overall Employer is a ‘good’ employer 4.09 (.989)

23 Overall HRM practices are ‘good’ 3.87 (1.055)

* 1 = Employee strongly disagrees this practice occurs in their workplace, 5 = Employee strongly agreesthis practice occurs in their workplace




Ratings of employer performance and assessments of the strength ofHRM for the four functions were then correlated. The results of this rela-tionship are presented in table 4. (For simplicity, correlations among the HRMvariables are not included in the table.) While it is found the mean perform-ance ratings for all four functions are somewhat lower than the mean assess-ments of practice, these assessments are nonetheless found to be statisticallysignificantly (albeit weakly) correlated to performance ratings. So contrary toinferences drawn in previous studies on HRM which have relied on numbersof HRM practices to measure effectiveness (Guest 1999; Cully et al. 1999), thesefindings suggest that the operationalisation of a range of HRM practices doesnot necessarily result in effective HRM practice, at least not from theemployees’ perspective.

The relationship between HRM practice and employee commitment andemployee well-being was then examined. The mean scores and standard devi-ations for the three attitudes examined in this study are presented in table 5.All three work-related attitudes recorded moderate scores, with very littledifference evident between the scales.

The data about the strength of HRM practice were collapsed and aggre-gated to produce a mean score for each function. This score was then corre-lated with employees’ aggregated mean scores for the three employee attitudes.


Table 3 Employee ratings of employer performance across HRM functions (N = 626)

Area of HRM practice Mean Std dev. Area of HRM practice Mean Std dev.

Health and safety 3.86 .91

Sexual harassment 3.75 .96

EEO 3.63 1.04

Recruitment and selection 3.37 1.03

Training and development 3.36 1.09

Benefits and entitlements 3.31 1.05

Salary and wages 3.30 .99

Performance appraisal 3.11 1.10

Discipline and discharge 3.11 1.05

Promotion 2.93 1.00

Scale: 1 = ‘very bad’ and 5 = ‘very good’

Table 4 Relationship between employee assessments of HRM practice and employee performance ratings of HRM practice

Assessments of current operationalised practice

Performance ratings 1 2 3 4

1. Health and safety .505*

2. Recruitment and selection .607*

3. Training and development .648*

4. EEO .588*

* Statistically significant at the .001 level (Spearman’s rho)




These results (see table 6) showed that employee assessments of current HRMpractice were all highly and statistically significantly correlated with bothemployee commitment and employee well-being.

Job satisfaction was most strongly correlated with training and develop-ment, and health and safety, with recruitment and selection, on the other hand,being the strongest correlate of organisational fairness. EEO had the weakestcorrelation with all three employee work-related attitudes. The scalemeasuring an employee’s overall impression of their employer and HRMpractice in their organisation was the largest correlate with respect of employeeattitudes. This supports those findings obtained in prior studies that also finda relationship between HRM practice and employee attitudes, and furthermoresuggests that these four areas of practice have the potential to elicit desirableorganisational benefits. However, caution is required here in drawing any firmconclusions as these results do not tell us anything about causality between thevariables in question, nor has the possibility been addressed that these findingsare contaminated by problems associated with common method variance, i.e.‘an artificial correlation across questions due to mood or other contaminants’(Fiorito 2002, 217).

If we accept that soft HRM practice is probably going to produce benefi-cial outcomes for the organisation and the employee, then are there some areasof practice that are more likely to contribute positively to this end than others?


Table 5 Employees’ work-related attitudes (N = 626)

Item Mean Std dev.

Organisational commitment (OC) 3.73 .783

Organisational fairness (OF) 3.70 .865

Job satisfaction (JS) 3.72 .797

Table 6 Relationship between employee assessments of HRM practice and employee work-related attitudes

Employee attitudes

Assessment of current practice OC OF JS

Health and safety .593* .620* .625*

Recruitment and selection .541* .649* .570*

Training and development .595* .592* .631*

EEO .520* .553* .495*

Overall impression of employer .721* .762* .746*

* Statistically significant at the .001 level using Spearman’s rho




To answer this question, participants were asked to identify from a list of tenfunctional HRM areas, the four they consider to be most important. It is likelyemployees will attribute most importance to those HRM functions which besthelp them meet their needs.

The results in table 7 reveal a high degree of consensus among employeesthat the opportunity for training and development is of paramount import-ance. A slightly lower level of consensus is evident for salary and wage entitle-ments, with a moderate level of agreement being found for the areas of healthand safety, and performance appraisal systems On the other hand, the areas ofEEO and recruitment and selection are considered to be important for aroundonly 37 per cent and 20 per cent of employees respectively. Arguably, this isnot surprising as participants have already gained entry into the organisation.The group who are most likely to see this matter differently are those whohave applied for a position within the organisation and have subsequently beendeclined. This therefore highlights the importance and need to collect data inHRM studies from a wider group of stakeholders.

The importance employees appear to place on training and developmentand the need for employers to provide more opportunities for this reflects thegrowing body of literature that suggests the notion of a ‘job for life’ has goneand employees need to take some responsibility for their own career manage-ment. Some time ago, human resource practitioners wrote about this changein direction (Tornow 1988, 97 and 99):

Paternalism and job security are out these days. Taking responsibility foryour own career is in … The need for lifelong learning is also becoming


Table 7 Percentage of employees who considered HRM function to be very important (N = 620*)

Area of HRM Total employees Percentage

Training and development 508 81

Salary/wages 442 70

Performance appraisal 316 52

Health and safety 316 51

Benefits and entitlements 246 40

EEO 232 37

Promotion 177 28

Recruitment and selection 124 20

Discipline/discharge 37 6

Sexual harassment 23 4

* Some respondents did not complete this section of the survey therefore the N of the sample was reduced from 626 to 620.




more apparent. To participate in the job market, workers must also avoidskills obsolescence …

The logic for employers providing their employees with training is that itenables them to do their jobs better. The logic behind development is that itenables employees to do future tasks better, possibly as a result of promotion,job expansion or job change. Investment in these areas supposedly equips theorganisation with a high performing workforce, providing it with flexibilityshould it be required (Pfeffer and Veiga 1999).

The benefits to the employee are that they enhance their employabilityand foster the development of lifelong learning skills. These benefits are seenas desirable in a time when job security is no longer an attainable goal for manyemployees.

To some extent training and development may be seen as a risky invest-ment by employers as workers may leave the organisation and take theacquired skills elsewhere. However, if training and development is valued byemployees the provision of this benefit is likely to positively impact onemployee retention.

Finally, for verification purposes and also to enable a more accurateinsight about the actual level of importance attached to various HRM functionsto be obtained, employees were asked to indicate, using a 5-point Likert scale,the extent they considered the four areas of HRM practice that comprised thefocus of this research to be important. These results are presented in table 8,and are reasonably consistent with the results presented in table 7. While allareas received relatively high ratings, EEO was again afforded relatively lessimportance. Recruitment and selection, on the other hand, rated much higherthan when respondents had 10 function areas to choose from. Clearly the typeof measures used affects the results obtained and this shows why moresupporting data, preferably of a qualitative nature, are required about therelative importance of various HRM functions before any inferences can bemade about what really counts for employees.

In this study, this requirement was in some part addressed by theprovision of the open-ended question. When employees were provided with


Table 8 Level of importance attached to HRM function by employees (N = 626)

Item Mean Std dev.

Health and safety 4.83 .43

Recruitment and selection 4.67 .75

EEO 4.03 .83

Training and development 4.80 .57

Scale: 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important




the opportunity to comment on HRM practice in their organisation, a total of326 employees responded (60%) chose to do so. The grouping of thesecomments into specific content areas highlighted that there was significantagreement among employees on a number of issues, namely training anddevelopment, EEO and communication.

A number of employees (n = 76) commented on the need for more orbetter training and development opportunities. This suggests training anddevelopment now assumes a high priority in the employment relationship andis viewed as an area of great importance for employees. These commentssupport the findings of the survey that 81 per cent of respondents rank trainingand development as an important area of HRM practices (see table 7). In aperiod when employees cannot be assured job security, they must assume someresponsibility for their own career management, so ensuring one is marketablein employment becomes an important objective. This can be achieved by beingprovided with opportunities for training and development.

The second area that elicited a large number of responses was EEO. Thefollowing excerpts show that, of the groups commonly targeted by EEOpolicies and practices, those that have a focus on ethnicity were the subject ofa lot of negative feedback. For example:

… should stop differentiating between Maori and everyone else. It isdivisive and the back lash against the ‘favoured’ Maori is growing stronger.Irrespective of the Treaty, we are all New Zealanders and we should all betreated the same in employment terms, not by quota.

Maori should not be treated any differently to other minority groups orEuropean groups.

EEO is generally considered to be an aspect of soft HRM practice, butemployees attached less importance to this practice as compared to the otherpractices examined in this study (see table 8). Surprisingly, this finding stillheld when only data from EEO beneficiaries was used in the analysis. Possiblya heightened awareness about the individualised nature of employment rela-tionships today (Muller 1999) may explain the relatively lower level of import-ance afforded to this area by employees.

Related to EEO is the balancing of work and family life. The need formore family-friendly working environments is also a recurrent theme foremployees. A number of responses relate to work overload and stress, and theinability to satisfactorily mesh the demands of work and family life. The gapbetween the rhetoric of policy and its impact on practice is clearly exemplifiedin the following quote:

‘Family friendly’ policies, e.g.: sick leave to care for dependent relatives. I have ten days annual sick leave. If my children are sick, I have to use





this leave. 10 days doesn’t go far over a year. An employer can appearexemplary in terms of its stated policies on HRM practices. However, it is how these policies are applied (or not applied) that is important. Myemployer ‘looks good’ in terms of its stated policies, but I have someconcerns at how they are applied by some managers.

On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that some organisations have‘got it right’ and their policies are working well: ‘I work 60% of full time [24hrs/wk] and am able to balance work and family without undue pressure andcontinue to be paid commensurate with my full time co-workers.’

It is of interest that so many employees made comments about the lack of consistency or the presence of unfair practices in their workplace. It is widelyaccepted that common law in New Zealand has addressed the issue of fair and proper treatment of employees, yet one-third of employees who madecomments reported that HRM practices in their organisation were eitherunfair or lacked consistency in their application. It is possible that these percep-tions have grown out of the employee dissatisfaction noted earlier in relationto EEO initiatives that are seen to overtly favour some target groups.

Poor communication and a lack of participation in decision-making were also identified by a large number of employees as major problems.Communication in the workplace relates to the process of information sharing,and is an aspect of employment practice that is under management’s control(Wimalasiri 1995). Research shows that it is positively correlated withemployees’ work-related attitudes, and thus is crucial to effective organisa-tional functioning (Wimalasiri 1995). Some 117 employees made reference tocommunication problems in their workplace. A few examples of the types ofissues raised by employees are as follows:

Overall very good place to work, though I feel management lacks certaincommunication skills with staff and makes a pretence to listen to what staff want but make there own decisions with what seems to be littleconsideration for staff views.

Better communication of what is going on. An attempt is being madebut more needs to be done.

Only a small proportion of employees made comments about theirwages/salaries (43 in total). This small number is surprising given that this areaof HRM practice was rated as being highly important by 78 per cent of allemployees. Possible explanations are that most employees participating in thisstudy were relatively satisfied with their current income, or they simply feltmore strongly about other issues.

A total of 80 employees chose to make a general observation or commentabout management in their workplace. More than two-thirds of these were





negative criticisms of management or leadership style, with the remainingthird complementing on the good job being done by management.

This exploratory study has shown employees report they are reasonablysatisfied with most areas of HRM practice in their organisation and generallyhold the view their employer is a ‘good employer’. Some concerns wereexpressed by employees, however, and these concerns may be signalling a needfor change in certain areas of HRM practice. The main recurring themesemerging from this study suggest that more opportunities for training anddevelopment, along with an approach to EEO that fosters equal employmentopportunities for all are practices that would be positively embraced byemployees in the workplace today.

As discussed in the introduction to this paper the primary objective of softHRM is to help both the organisation and the employee achieve their objec-tives. Hence, practices are designed and developed with the specific aim ofencouraging employees to willingly ‘go the extra mile for the organisation’. Ineffect this means eliciting high levels of commitment among employees. Twotypes of worker commitment have been identified in the literature (Mowday,Steers and Porter 1979). Continuance – which reflects an employee’s willing-ness to stay in the organisation; and affective/attitudinal – reflecting both awillingness on the part of the employee to exert high levels of effort; and alsotheir belief in, and acceptance of ‘the values and goals of the organisation’(Singh and Vinnicombe 1998, 231). Clearly soft HRM, with its emphasis onforging a link between organisational and employee goals, appears to beprimarily concerned with promoting affective/attitudinal commitment amongthe workforce. The results of this study suggest the continuance dimensionmay no longer be relevant. Employees seem to now be cognisant of the rolethey play in managing their own careers, as is evidenced by their willingnessto engage in ongoing training and development. Therefore, it is possible thatcurrent measures of organisational commitment may be describing a pastworld and are now outdated.

In the area of EEO, the mean evaluative scores for current practice andemployer performance suggested employers could do more in this area, yet theemployee comments when viewed in isolation from the survey data provideda somewhat different picture of the problems that may be surfacing in thisarea. The employee comments hinted that it was possibly the philosophybehind EEO practice in their organisation that was giving rise to employeedissatisfaction, and not a perception that employers were not performing thefunction well. Indeed, comments made by employees about HRM practiceelicited a commonly held perception that EEO should benefit all groups in the


Discussion/conclusions




workplace equally, and current approaches which are premised on notions of‘equity’ appear to evoke a strong negative reaction.

The current study has some limitations that need addressing, and there arealso a number of potential directions for future research that have been identi-fied in light of these findings. First, the view from only one stakeholder in theemployment relationship, namely the employee, is reported in this paper.Future studies in HRM need to explore the potential benefits that will comefrom using a multi-constituency approach to data collection. Also, along withthe use of a single stakeholder, the evaluative nature of the questions used intro-duces the possibility of common method variance. However, it should be notedin this study the standard deviations for all measures were relatively small.

Second, only four areas of HRM practice were specifically addressed inthis study. The use of specific HRM domains can complicate the interpreta-tion of data (Meyer and Smith 2000), so further research exploring other areasof practice, particularly those that were identified by employees as beingimportant, is required.

This study was conducted for exploratory purposes, and hence the typesof analyses used are limited. The causal nature of the relationship betweenHRM practice and employee commitment and employee well-being requiresthorough investigation. Although the findings of this study suggest employeecommitment may be linked to HRM, we must view these results with cautionbecause, as Whitener (2001) has highlighted, the specific relationship betweenhuman resource practices and organisational commitment has not, as yet, beenempirically investigated in isolation. This type of assessment would be bestundertaken by employing a case study method. However, research using moresophisticated statistical techniques such as regressions and path analysis toexplore the predictive value of specific HRM functional areas and practices onemployee attitudes and vice versa would also be useful.

Finally, as far as the HRM practitioner is concerned, this study’s findingssuggest a ‘good employer’, at least from one employee’s perspective, could bedefined as one who:

communicates well, applies policies and processes fairly and consistently,recognises good work and rewards both in pecuniary terms and with praiseand encouragement, and acknowledges the importance of ‘employability’ byproviding all employees with opportunities for training and development.

Furthermore, HRM initiatives implemented by practitioners should be thosemost appropriate to meet the needs of their employees, and these practicesshould also be performed well, as it would appear it is the quality of the HRMpractice that counts rather than the quantity.





Fiona Edgar (PhD) did her PhD on a Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Fellowship, and

currently works as a lecturer in the Department of Management at the University of Otago. Her current

research interests include examining the relationship between HRM practice and its impact on

employees, along with the relationship between workplace ideology and HRM practice.

Alan J. Geare (PhD) has been professor of management, University of Otago, since 1987. He is author

of a number of books and many articles in industrial relations, industrial law and HRM. He has worked

as a consultant to companies and unions and has been a government-appointed mediator and

adjudicator.

References

Armstrong, G. 2001. The change agenda: Performance through people, the new peoplemanagement. London: CIPD.

Arthur, J. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance andturnover. Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 670–87.

Becker, B. and B. Gerhart. 1996. The impact of human resource management onorganizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal39(4): 779–801.

Beer, M, B. Spector, P. Lawrence, D. Quinn-Mills and R. Walton. 1984. Managing humanassets. New York: The Free Press.

Cully, M., S. Woodland, A. O’Reilly and G. Dix. 1999. Britain at work: As depicted by the 1998Workplace Employee Relations Survey. London: Routledge.

Dyer, S. and M. Humphries. 2002. Managing workplace change through contemporary careerdiscourse. Celebrating excellence: The proceedings of the 16th AIRAANZ Conference,107–16. Auckland, NZ.

Edwards, P.K. 1995. Human resource management, union voice and the use of discipline: ananalysis of WIRS3. Industrial Relations Journal 26(3): 204–20.

Fiorito, J. 2002. Human resource management practices and worker desires for unionrepresentation. In The future of private sector unionism in the United States, eds J.T.Bennett, B.E. Kaufman and M.E. Sharpe, 205–26. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fombrun, C.J., N.M. Tichy and M.A. Devanna. 1984. Strategic human resource management.New York: Wiley.

Fournier, V. 1997. Graduates’ construction systems and career development. Human Relations50(4): 363–94.

Guest, D.E. 1995. Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations. InHRM: A critical text, ed. J. Storey, 110–41. London: Routledge.

Guest, D. 1998. Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture. In Human resourcemanagement: the new agenda, eds P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, 37–51. London: FTPitman Publishing.

Guest, D. 1999. Human resource management – the workers’ verdict. Human ResourceManagement Journal 9(3): 5–25.

Guest, D.E. 2001. Human resource management: when research confronts theory.International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(7): 1092–106.

Hendry, Chris and Romy Jenkins. 1997. Psychological contracts and new deals, HumanResource Management Journal 7(1): 38–44.





Hirschfeld, R.R. 2000. Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire Short Form make a difference? Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 60(20): 255–70.

Huselid, M.A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal38(3): 635–672.

Iles, P., C. Mabey and I. Robertson. 1990. HRM practices and employee commitment: pitfallsand paradoxes. British Journal of Management 1: 147–57.

Keenoy, T. 1990. HRM: A case of the wolf in sheep’s clothing? Personnel Review 19(2): 3–9.Legge, K. 1995. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Macmilliam.Koys, D.J. 1988. Human resource management and a culture of respect: effects on employees’

organisational commitment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1(1): 57–68.Kurland, N.B. and T.D. Egan. 1999. Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcomes

and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 437–58.Mallon, M. 1998. The portfolio career: pushed or pulled to it? Personnel Review 27(5): 361–77.Meyer, J.P. and C.A. Smith. 2000. HRM practices and organisational commitment: test of a

mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 17(4): 319–31.Moorman, R.H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organisational

citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal ofApplied Psychology 76(6): 845–55.

Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of organisationalcommitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14: 224–47.

Muller, M. 1999. Unitarism, pluralism, and human resource management in Germany.Management International Review Special Issue 3: 125–44.

New Zealand business who’s who, 41st edn. 2000. Auckland: New Zealand Financial PressLimited.

Ogilvie, J.R. 1986. The role of human resource management practices in predictingorganisational commitment. Group and Organisation Studies 11(4): 335–59.

Payne, S.L. and R.F. Wayland. 1999. Ethical obligation and diverse values assumption inHRM. Manpower 20(5): 297–315.

Pfeffer, J. and J.F. Veiga. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy ofManagement Executive 13(2): 37–48.

Rentsch, J.R. and R.P. Steel. 1992. Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews andWithey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52:357–67.

Scandura, T.A. and E.A. Williams. 2000. Research methodology in management: currentpractices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal43(6): 1248–64.

Schappe, S.P. 1998. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairnessperceptions on organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Psychology 132(3):277–90.

Singh, V. and S. Vinnicombe. 1998. What does ‘commitment’ really mean?: Views of UK andSwedish engineering managers. Personnel Review 29(2): 228–58.

Stum, D.L. 1999. Workforce commitment: Strategies for the new work order. Strategy andLeadership January/February: 4–7.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., J. Leiter and S. Thompson. 1994. Organizational non-response.Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 439–57.

Tornow, W.W. 1988. Contract redesign. Personnel Administrator October: 97–101.Tsui, A., J. Pearce, L. Porter and A. Tripoli. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee–

organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy ofManagement Journal 40(5): 1089–1121.





Walton, R. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review63(2): 77–84.

Warr, P., J. Cook. and T. Wall. 1979. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes andaspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52: 129–48.

Weiss, D.J., R.V. Dawis, G.W. England and L.H. Lofquist. 1967. Manual for the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: Vocational Psychology Research.

Whitener, E. 2001. Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employeecommitment? A cross level analysis using hierarchical linear modelling. Journal ofManagement 27: 515–35.

Whitehouse, Gillian. 1992. Legislation and labor market gender inequality: An analysis ofOECD countries. Work, Employment and Society 6(1): 65–86.

Wimalasiri, J.S. 1995. An examination of the influence of human resource practices,organizational commitment and job satisfaction on work performance. InternationalJournal of Management 12(3): 352–63.

Wood, S. 1995. The four pillars of HRM: are they connected? Human Resource ManagementJournal 5(5): 49–58.

Wood, S. and M.T. Albanese. 1995. Can we speak of a high commitment management on theshop floor? Journal of Management Studies 32(2): 215–47.





human resources asia pacific journal of - sage publications

Documents