impact of university's optimal human resource management practices on organizational...

Systems Engineering — Theory & PracticeVolume 29, Issue 11, November 2009Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: SETP, 2009, 29(11): 112–122

Impact of University’s Optimal Human Resource ManagementPractices on Organizational PerformanceXING Zhou-ling∗Management Science and Engineering Department, Nanchang University, Nanchang 33031, China

Abstract: This study explored the construction of the university optimal human resource management practices (OHRMP) and the im-

pact of OHRM on organizational performance. A sample of 700 staff from 7 universities in China was used for data analysis by structural

equation modeling. The result indicated that (i) OHRMP were composed of staff recruitment and allocation, motivation mechanism, par-

ticipation, and performance management, and (ii) organizational performance was composed of staff satisfaction, teaching and research

performance, society satisfaction, and financial performance. Further, the result also showed that (i) staff recruitment and allocation have

significantly a positive impact on staff satisfaction and society satisfaction, and (ii) motivation mechanism has significantly a positive

impact on teaching and research performance and financial performance, and (iii) participation has significantly a positive impact on

society satisfaction; organizational performance management has significantly a positive impact on staff satisfaction. Implications for

management theory and practice are discussed.

Key words: university optimal human resource management practices; university organizational performance; structural equation model

1 Introduction

17th National Congress of the Communist Party of

China has made it clear that to improve the quality of train-

ing specialized personnel is one of the priorities of univer-

sity education. Moreover, the quality of personnel training in

universities relies on teachers, and the quality of teachers de-

pends on the human resource development and management

of universities. Therefore, based on its objective of training

high-quality specialized talents and outstanding innovative

talents, university’s human resources development and man-

agement is different from the one in enterprises, and we need

to explore our own and more suitable model of university

human resource management practices, to guide university’s

human resources development and management and enhance

its organizational performance. In recent years, research on

the relationship between optimal human resource manage-

ment practices and organizational performance in universi-

ties are rare, although the research in enterprises is popular

and much progress has been made. However, university’s

human resources development and management plays an im-

portant role in enhancing organizational performance, so it is

of theoretical value and practical significance to study the re-

lationship between them. Based on the analysis above, this

thesis focuses on the relationship between university’s op-

timal human resource management practices and organiza-

tional performance. On one hand, this will help us to know

whether relevant empirical evidence from domestic and for-

eign for-profit organizations is applicable to university orga-

nizations, and any particular characteristic exists in the pro-

cess of Chinese universities’ efforts of enhancing human re-

source management practice in organizational performance.

On the other hand, this study will help us to understand bet-

ter the key factor in universities ,organizational performance,

and more valuable empirical evidence for enhancing the or-

ganizational performance in China’s universities.

2 Theoretical background and hypothesis

2.1 Optimal human resource management practicesBoxall[1] holds that as the most important progress in

the study on relationship between human resources manage-

ment strategy and organizational performance, optimal hu-

man resource management practices have been paid more

and more attention. From the perspective of organizational

design Nadler et al[2] considered that optimal human re-

source management system is a complete allocation of hu-

man resources to effectively meet the needs of market and

customer and achieve high- performance system of organi-

zations. Farias and Varma[3] considered that two main prin-

ciples of optimal human resource management practices sys-

tem design are the employees’ involvement and empower-

ment, the best implementation of optimal human resource

management practices mean that the job focus shift from

controlling employees to commitment employees. It seemed

that this human resource management practice systems are

different from Taylor’s control management style. Accord-

ing to Bamberger Meshoulam ’s[4] findings, Li-yun Sun[5]

has developed a set of optimal human resource management

practices scale, including eight factors and 27 items. Eight

factors were staff selection, training, internal promotion, oc-

cupational safety, job description, result-oriented evaluation,

Received date: July 26, 2009

∗ Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]

Foundation item: Supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Soft Science Foundation (No.GCJ200736)

Copyright c©2009, Systems Engineering Society of China. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.

XING Zhou-ling/Systems Engineering — Theory & Practice, 2009, 29(11): 112–122

incentive rewards, participation. Although the previous de-

scriptions and empirical studies in the past had not pre-

cisely defined optimal human resource practices, but now,

for the question that what is optimal human resource prac-

tices, the answer is generally agreed, and it mainly refers

to that the organization can improve organizational perfor-

mance by means of employee training and development, em-

ployee participation in decision-making, internal promotion

and incentive compensation and other practices. The pur-

pose and tasks of universities is to foster high-level expertise

of an innovative spirit and practical ability to develop sci-

ence, technology and culture, to promote the socialist mod-

ernization construction. University teachers are the main hu-

man resources, accordingly, teachers are required not only

to have the academic quality but also to study their own

teaching personality to form a unique operating system of

the practice, teaching ideas, teaching styles and genres as

well as a strong professional awareness. Thus, the recruit-

ment and allocation of university teachers are very impor-

tant. ”Talent-post matching” is a primary factor in univer-

sity’s Human Resources Management. Next is the incentive

mechanism ; recent research works have indicated that train-

ing, internal promotion, and incentive pay are all different

manifestations of incentive mechanism. University’s incen-

tives mainly constitute training, internal promotion , incen-

tive pay. Moreover, university’s teachers should be thought-

ful and should have personal talents. Only by encouraging

teachers to participate in making management decisions, en-

hancing their status, and strengthening sense of belonging,

teachers’ potential can be maximized in a stimulating, open,

and democratic atmosphere. Finally, carrying out the perfor-

mance management of teachers means to give timely feed-

back and communication about the results of their teaching

by recognizing good aspects of their work and pointing out

the things they still need to improve. In summary, this study

suggests that university optimal human resources manage-

ment practices means first university uses scientific methods

in the recruitment and allocation of teachers. Second use

the training, internal promotion, incentive pay incentives and

participation mechanisms to stimulate teachers enthusiasm

and potential. Third uses performance management to help

teachers to improve their individual performances and have

a positive impact on organizational performance. Therefore,

this article studies university optimal human resources man-

agement practices from four perspectives, the staff recruit-

ment and allocation, motivation mechanism, participation,

and performance management.

2.2 Organizational performance

Kaplan & Norton[6] considered that the Balanced

Scorecard provides a comprehensive framework of the orga-

nizational performance evaluation, which transfers organi-

zation, strategic objectives into a set of system performance

evaluation index. As colleges and universities belong to

non-profit organizations, the traditional accounting does not

fully reflect the picture of universities organizational perfor-

mance. The Balanced-Scorecard-based assessment of orga-

nizational performance is more suitable for universities. The

Balanced Scorecard has been introduced to many foreign

universities’ performance management system. For exam-

ple, in Cornell University, the Balanced Scorecard was suc-

cessfully practiced and the school’s staff reduction included

more than 20 administrative personnel and a few unqualified

teachers. In addition, application of Balanced Scorecard in

the University of California and University of Washington

was also successful[7]. A number of domestic scholars also

conducted some studies on the feasibility of the Balanced

Scorecard mainly based on the following aspects: quality of

teaching and research, parents, students, employers’ satis-

faction, teaching and employees’ satisfaction, financial sta-

tus. Since the Balanced Scorecard is not suitable for all or-

ganizations or a certain industry, different Balanced Score-

cards are required to match different organizations , which

have their own development strategy and competitive envi-

ronment, mission, strategies, techniques, and culture. In fact,

the key to test the success of using the Balanced Scorecard

is its transparency: an observer should be able to see the

organization’s competitive strategy[6] through the balanced

scorecard indicators,. Therefore, based on contingency the-

ory, universities mission, development strategies, and ob-

jectives, we establish a suitable organizational performance

evaluation system for universities. Organizational perfor-

mance in university will be analyzed based on dimensions:

a financial level, customer level, internal business processes,

and learning and growth perspective. A well-structured bal-

anced scorecard should contain a series of interrelated goals

and targets, and these goals and targets are not only con-

sistent but also mutually reinforcing. This is just like flight

simulators, the scorecard should contain a variety of impor-

tant variables in a complex series of causality[6]. The strat-

egy is a set of causal assumptions. Management systems

must make a clear statement about relationship between the

objective (and indicators) at all levels, so that it can be man-

aged and confirmed. A cause-effect chain in University or-

ganizational performance should cover four dimensions of

the Balanced Scorecard, for example, the proportion of in-

come to expenditure may be the financial indicators of the

Balanced Scorecard. The drivers of this indicator may be the

increasing proportion of client-level students’ applications to

the graduates’ employments, due to a high degree of commu-

nity satisfaction. Thus, social satisfaction should be consid-

ered in the Balanced Scorecard customer level, because its

prediction on it will have a great influence on the proportion

of income and expenditure. Furthermore, how do the col-

leges and universities obtain social satisfaction? According

to Customer preference analysis, employers emphasize the

quality of graduates, while parents and students emphasize

graduate employment rate. Therefore, improving the qual-

ity of the graduates will bring higher social satisfaction, fol-

lowed by the improvement of financial performance. Social

satisfaction and high-quality graduates should be considered

in the customer level of the scorecard. Following this logic

way, the next question is: which part of the process should

be paid more attention for an outstanding performance in

training higher-quality graduates? In order to cultivate high-

quality graduates, colleges and universities need to improve

teaching performance and scientific research performance.

These two factors may become indicators in balance score-

card’s internal business processes. Then, another question

is: How do the colleges and universities improve internal


Figure 1. Cause-effect chain diagram of universityOrganizational performance

business processes as well as teaching performance and re-

search performance? In order to achieve this goal, colleges

and universities should enhance the faculty and staff satisfac-

tion, and make them devote themselves to education. As a

result, teachers will be eager to study the latest theories of the

discipline and learn teaching skills in order to improve the

teaching ability and capability of doing scientific research.

In this way, a complete cause-effect chain is formed (see Fig-

ure 1), including four dimensions with Balanced Scorecard

running through as a vertical vector.

Based on previous studies and the inferences above, it

can be concluded that organizational performance of col-

leges and universities is composed of four dimensions: staff

satisfaction, teaching and research performance, social satis-

faction and financial performance.

2.3 Optimal human resource management practicesand organizational performance

MacDuffie[8] found positive associations between staff

selection and product quality. Wright McCormick[10] ]also

showed that employee selection had positive impact on fi-

nancial performance. According to a university’s mission,

its product quality means the quality of talent. Based on

these, the following hypotheses are put forward:: H1, staff

recruitment and allocation have a positive impact on staff

satisfaction; H2, staff recruitment and allocation have a pos-

itive impact on teaching and research performance; H3, staff

recruitment and allocation have a positive impact on society

satisfaction; H4, staff recruitment and allocation have a pos-

itive impact on financial performance ; Studies by Delaney

and Huselid[9] also showed that staff training and incentive

pay had significantly a positive impact on organizational per-

formance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are also put

forward::

H5, a motivation mechanism has a positive impact on

staff satisfaction; H6, a motivation mechanism has a positive

impact on teaching and research performance; H7, a moti-

vation mechanism has a positive impact on social satisfac-

tion; H8, a motivation mechanism has a positive impact on

financial performance. Staff participation is a manifestation

of managing staff relationship. Universities are the places

where intellectuals cluster, and each has his or her

Figure 2. Structural model diagram of variablehypothesis relations of causes and effects

own thoughts. If universities actively encourage staff partic-

ipation when they are doing the decision-making and man-

agement, university organizational performance will be in-

creased. Arthur’s[11] studies have shown that participation

will lead to a higher productivity. Therefore, the following

hypotheses are put forward: H9, participation has a positive

impact on staff satisfaction; H10, participation has a posi-

tive impact on teaching and research performance; H11, par-

ticipation has a positive impact on social satisfaction; H12,

participation has a positive impact on financial performance.

Performance management is very important for a sustained

development of an organization, and the agreement on this

has been achieved for a long time. Through performance

management and performance assessment, necessary basis

can be provided for the college staff’s management deci-

sions, such as promotion, training, transfer, payment of post

allowance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are put for-

ward: H13, performance management has a positive impact

on staff satisfaction; H14,performance management has a

positive impact on teaching and research performance; H15,

performance management has a positive impact on social

satisfaction; H16, performance management has a positive

impact on financial performance.

Based on hypotheses above and the research literature,

we propose a supposition model (see Figure 2) as a bench-

mark model, and will carry on the hypothesis examination

with the structural equation.

3 Research methods

3.1 Sample

During December 2007- April 2008, 7 “211 Project”

universities from six provinces in the central part of China

were given a total of 700 questionnaires. 520 were returned

with returning rate of 74.28%. 400 valid questionnaires were

returned with rate of 76.92%. Among these, male accounted

for 50.9%, female 49.1%. People less than 30 accounted for

26%, 31-45 years 55%, people older than 45 years accounted

for 19%. Professors accounted for 24%, associate professor

36%, lecturer, 29%, and assistants 11%. Ph.D. graduates

accounted for 28%, postgraduates 42% and undergraduates

accounted for 30%.


Table 1. Colleges and universities t optimal human resourcesmanagement practices 4 Factor loading matrix

Item

Factor loading

Staff recruitment

and allocation

(factor1)

Motivation

mechanism

(factor2)

Participation

(factor3)

Performance

management

(factor4)

1 574

2 586

3 564

4 .566

5 598

6 588

7 .527

8 693

9 780

10 .692

11 .544

12 .846

13 .806

14 .762

15 .702

16 .826

17 .692

18 .583

3.2 Research tools3.2.1 University optimal human resource

management practices scaleOn the basis of the scale adapted from Li-Yunsun[5], we

considered the university actual situation, and initially devel-

oped a new scale to measure University optimal human re-

source management practices. According to the results from

discussion on topic’s rationality and applicability by relevant

experts and the Universities Personnel (HR) leaders, the au-

thor modified of the title and determined 27 alternative topics

for a pretest scale. The evaluation in Li-Yunsun’s scale was

result-oriented, while the author made some changes and

adopted both process and result-oriented evaluation. Mean-

while, the author used Likert’s 5-level self-rating scale, from

“do not match at all “to” complete match”, scored from 1

to 5. Predictive samples were 1200 faculty members from 7

“211 Project” university in six provinces in the central part of

China. First , an exploratory factor analysis was conducted

on the sample data (600), and the results showed the follow-

ing: After orthogonal rotation, there were 4 factors whose

eigenvalues are greater than 1, with the explaining rate of

68.48%. The first factor was staff recruitment and alloca-

tion; the second factor was the “motivations,” composed of

training, internal promotion and incentive pay. The third fac-

tor was “participation”; the fourth factor was “performance

management,” composed of job description and process &

results-oriented evaluation. In addition, the value of factor

loading which reflects the occupation safety, was less than

0.5. Based on these findings, the author deleted four items

about this factor and other five items that affect the validity

of the questionnaire or were considered unnecessary repeti-

tion from testing perspective.

The author finally determined 18 items in this scale of

Universities Optimal Human Resource Management Prac-

tices, including the following four factors: staff recruitment

Table 2. System for the use of model fit indices and thecorresponding list of criteria

Fit index X2/df RFI RMSEA SRMR NFI NNFI IFI CFI

Standard

Value< 3 > 0.9 < 0.1 < 0.08> 0.9> 0.9> 0.9> 0.9

Source: Hau Kit-tai, et al (2004); Huang Fang-ming (2005); Haw-

Jeng Chiou (2006)

and allocation (4 items), motivation mechanism (6 items),

participation (4 items), and performance management (4

projects). 4 Factor loading matrix is illustrated in Table.

Then the author did confirmatory factor analysis on these

four dimensions with the other half of the sample data (600).

Results showed that confirmatory factor analysis had vali-

dated the four dimensions derived from exploratory factor

analysis. Furthermore, the reliability of the scale was tested,

and its degree of internal consistency reliability (Cronbach

α coefficient) were: 0.87,0.91,0.88 ,and 0.92, and the value

of constructing reliability were: 0.89,0.90,0.88 ,and 0.90.

Factor 1 refers to staff recruitment and allocation. It

primarily means teachers’ recruitment, selection ,and em-

ployment as well as post layout in colleges and universities,

stressing that people should match the post.

Factor 2 refers to motivations. It includes teachers’

training, internal promotion ,and incentive pay in colleges

and universities.

Factor 3 is participation. It mainly refers to the com-

munication with and management of college teachers. This

provides them with opportunities and platforms about partic-

ipation in decision-making and management in order to en-

hance their sense of belonging and strengthen their loyalty

to the universities, because the faculty and staff feel they are

respected.

Factor 4 is performance management. It includes the

basis of goal making, performance appraisal, and perfor-

mance evaluation.

3.2.2 University’s organizational performance scaleStudies have shown that there is a strong positive corre-

lation between the results of subjective evaluation and objec-

tive evaluation on organizational performance[12−13]. There-

fore, this study used subjective method to evaluate organiza-

tional performance, and evaluate organizational performance

of colleges and universities from four dimensions: the fi-

nancial performance, society satisfaction, teaching and re-

search performance and staff satisfaction. Respondents are

required to compare average value of performance indicators

in the past three years with the value of their major competi-

tors, and then get the degree of matching as a direct measure

value. In this research, Kamman’s job satisfaction scale was

adopted to measure the degree of staff satisfaction through

three items, describing staff’s subjective response to their

work and the organization[14]. The coefficient α is from 0.67

to 0.95. Although there is lack of suitable scales of the other

three dimensions for reference, the author made the initial

scales based on their contents, and then discussed the ne-

cessity of each item through focus group discussion, expert

forum, as well as the analysis on its completeness. Using

deductive method, based on literature review and practical

results of the study, and discussions with relevant scholars,


Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (N = 400)

X2/df RFI RMSEA SRMR NFI NNFI IFI CFI

Single-Factor Model 5.46 0.8984 0.1052 0.0718 0.9060 0.9188 0.9249 0.9248

Two-Factor Model 4.53 0.9129 0.0940 0.0659 0.9196 0.9336 0.9388 0.9387

Five-Factor Model 4.19 0.9194 0.0894 0.0605 0.9275 0.9402 0.9463 0.9462

Eight -Factor Model 2.29 0.9508 0.0571 0.0464 0.9581 0.9723 0.9765 0.9764

Note: Single-Factor Model: All eight variables are combined into one factor; two-factor model: four factors of Optimal human resource

management practices are combined into one factor, and four factors of organizational performance are combined into one factor; five-factor

model : Staff recruitment and allocation, motivation mechanism, participation, and performance management are considered as four separate

factors. Four factors of Organizational performance are combined into one factor; eight-factor model: Staff recruitment and allocation, mo-

tivation mechanism, participation, performance management, staff satisfaction, teaching and research performance, community satisfaction

and financial performance are all considered as separate factors.

three original scales above have been made. Meanwhile, the

author used Likert’s 5-level self-rating scale, from “do not

match at all “to” complete match”, scored from 1 to 5.

3.3 Data analysis

In this study, LISREL8. 70 was adopted for statisti-

cal analysis and processing. According to Anderson and

Gergbing[15] proposal, first of all, structural equation (LIS-

REL8.70) was used to conduct confirmatory factor analy-

sis (CFA) through assessment questionnaire measuring the

reliability and validity of the related instruments. Because

part of the scales were designed by the author, construct va-

lidity of eight variables was also examined through confir-

matory factor analysis (CFA). We compared the eight-factor

model, five-factor model, two-factor model, and single-

factor model, and then did construct reliability and distinc-

tion validity analysis. Second, we analyzed the overall fit-

ting level of measurement model on the sample data. Fi-

nally, path analysis was conducted to test the cause-effect

relationship hypothetical model ( Figure 2) among the vari-

ables through structural equation modeling. As for the fit in-

dex, the author lists criteria according to Hau Kit-tai[16−18]

in Table 2 for later analysis for reference is listed.

4 Findings

4.1 Survey model’s appraisalBefore carrying on the supposition confirmation, the

author verified the construction validity and distinction va-

lidity of the measurement model in order to guarantee the

adequacy and appropriateness of each multiple scale. The

result is shown in Tables 3 and 4.

As shown in Table 3, compared with other three mod-

els, 8–factor model fits the actual data the best ,and this can

prove that 8 variables involved in this thesis have the good

construction validity.

4.2 Hypothesis testing, explaining analysis on internallatent variable

The results of analysis through LISREL8.7 is shown in

Table 5, which is about the direct effects and the overall ef-

fect between model path coefficients and variables. From Ta-

ble 5 we can get that (1) staff recruitment and allocation have

a significant positive effect on staff satisfaction (β = 0.33,

p < 0.001, T = 3.15), so Hypothesis 1 was supported; staff

Table 4. Correlation coefficient between all the variables, AVE values, construct reliability and discriminant validity√AV E ρC Staff recruitment

and allocation

Motive

mechanism

Participation Performance

management

Financial

performance

Society

satisfaction

Teaching

and research

performance

Staff

satisfaction

Staff

recruitment

and

allocation 0.870 0.843 1.0000

Incentive

mechanism

0.825 0.837 0.7389**** 1.0000

Participation 0.863 0.826 0.5386**** 0.6716**** 1.0000

Performance

management

0.829 0.781 0.7468**** 0.6327**** 0.5533**** 1.0000

Financial

performance

0.782 0.635 0.1013 0.1587** 0.2028**** 0.2680**** 1.0000

Society

satisfaction 0.875 0.809 0.5953**** 0.4962**** 0.3843**** 0.6365**** 0.2007**** 1.0000

Teaching

and research

performance 0.776 0.532 0.6629**** 0.5740**** 0.5688**** 0.7192**** 0.1223* 0.6152**** 1.0000

Staff

satisfaction 0.805 0.591 0.5700**** 0.4869**** 0.4721**** 0.6702**** 0.1896**** 0.6564**** 0.8049**** 1.0000

Note: All tests are two-tailed tests, and when T ≥ 3.29, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.001 support; T ≥ 2.58pm, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 support; T ≥ 1.96pm,∗∗p < 0.05 support; T ≥ 1.65pm, ∗p < 0.1 support; T < 1.65pm, p ≥ 0.1, nonsupport.


Table 5. Model path coefficients and SEM analysis results of inter-relations between variables

Hypothesis Path Nonstandard Standard

error

T value Full-

standardized

Support/

nonsupport

Impact of staff recruitment and allocation on organizational performance

H1 Staff recruitment and allocation→staff satisfaction 0.2778 0.0880 3.15*** 0.3294 support

H2 Staff recruitment and allocation→teaching and research performance 0.096 0.1264 0.76 0.1290 nonsupport

H3 Staff recruitment and allocation→society satisfaction 0.4003 0.1145 3.49**** 0.4157 support

H4 Staff recruitment and allocation→financial performance 0.0854 0.1060 0.8056 0.1070 nonsupport

Impact of motive mechanism on organizational performance

H5 Motivation mechanism→staff satisfaction 0.0203 0.1397 0.146 0.023 nonsupport

H6 Motivation mechanism→teaching and research performance 0.1839 0.0862 2.13** 0.2420 support

H7 Motivation mechanism→society satisfaction –0.2793 0.1191 –2.34** –0.2825 support

H8 Motivation mechanism→financial performance 0.4397 0.0623 7.05**** 0.5325 support

Impact of participation on organizational performance

H9 Participation→staff satisfaction –0.0485 0.1530 –0.371 –0.0323 nonsupport

H10 Participation→teaching and research performance –0.3065 0.1477 –2.074 –0.2338 nonsupport

H11 Participation→society satisfaction 0.3335 0.1262 2.64*** 0.1958 support

H12 Participation→financial performance 0.0627 0.1130 0.5548 0.0443 nonsupport

Impact of performance management on organizational performance

H13 Performance management→staff satisfaction 0.2695 0.0887 3.04*** 0.3176 support

H14 Performance management→teaching and research performance –0.1199 0.1724 –0.6954 –0.1611 nonsupport

H15 Performance management→society satisfaction 0.1710 0.1636 1.0452 0.1778 nonsupport

H16 Performance management→financial performance 0.1259 0.1296 0.9715 0.1566 nonsupport

Explained variance proportion R2 on staff satisfaction 0.3581

Explained variance proportion R2 on teaching and research performance 0.4217

Explained variance proportion R2 on society satisfaction 0.6145

Explained variance proportion R2 on financial performance 0.7552

recruitment and allocation have a significant positive effect

on social satisfaction (β = 0.42, p < 0.001, T = 3.49), so

Hypothesis 3 was supported.

(2) The motivation mechanism has a significant posi-

tive effect on teaching and research performance, (β = 0.24,

p < 0.05, T = 2.13), so Hypothesis 6 was supported; moti-

vation mechanism has a significant negative effect on social

satisfaction, (β = −0.28, p < 0.05, T = 2.34), so Hypoth-

esis 7 received the support from the opposite side (see later

explanation); motivations has a significant positive effect on

financial performance, (β = 0.53, p < 0.001, T = 7.05), so

Hypothesis 8 was supported.

(3) Participation has a significant positive effect on so-

cial satisfaction (β = 0.20, p < 0.01, T = 2.64), so Hy-

pothesis 11 was supported.

(4) Performance management has a significant positive

effect on staff satisfaction (β = 0.32, p < 0.01, T = 3.04),

so Hypothesis 13 was supported. In addition, four dimen-

sions of the optimal human resource management practices

have explained each total variance, 35.81% for staff satisfac-

tion, social satisfaction 42.17%, teaching and research per-

formance 61.45%, and financial performance 75.52%.

4.3 Overall fit analysis of the model for sample data

Fit indices of the model for sample data are: χ2/df =2.63, RFI = 0.9424, RMSEA = 0.05954, SRMR =0.0536, NFI = 0.9475, NNFI = 0.9659, IFI = 0.9690,

CFI = 0.9689. Referring to the aforementioned fit index

criteria, we can conclude that the above goodness-of-fit in-

dices are very high. Therefore, it is considered that this study

has received ideal overall model fit for sample data.

5 Discussion and conclusion

5.1 Discussion and analysis

The purpose of this study is to discuss impact of the

university optimal human resource management practices on

organizational performance from management point of view.

The author found that one-to-one correspondence does not

exist in all the relationships among these two’s four dimen-

sions respectively.

(1) Some dimensions of the university optimal human

resource management practices do not have a significant im-

pact on organizational performance, especially the motiva-

tions, which have significantly negative effects on social sat-

isfaction. In order to analyze the reason , the author re-

viewed the literature, revisited some universities surveyed,

and talked with staff there. It was found that all of these uni-

versities pay much more attention to scientific research than

teaching. Among these 7 ”211 Project” universities, three

are science and engineering universities, where scientific re-

search is emphasized, and the other four are comprehensive

universities, whose dominant disciplines are also about sci-

ence and engineering. The more they emphasize the scien-

tific research, the more they will ignore the teaching. On the

contrary, educating students is still considered the main form

in university education. If a university’s motivation mecha-

nism can not balance teaching and researching scientific re-

search, college teachers will be misled easily and spend most

of their energy in researching rather than teaching students

well. This will decline teaching quality as well as students’

quality. In this way, students are not excellent enough to find

a better job, and the employment rate will also drop. Mean-

while, the reputation of the university where these students

study will be weakened. In a word, social satisfaction will


not be well met, if motivation mechanism can-not balance

scientific research and teaching well. In addition, the mo-

tivation mechanism has had a significant positive influence

on teaching and research performance as well as on financial

performance, while its impact on staff satisfaction was not

significant. This indicates that the majority of faculties hold

different opinions on the current motivation mechanism, in-

cluding promotion, training, post allowance, and this mech-

anism can not effectively improve the staff satisfaction, for

some unreasonable items still exist in the current motivation

mechanism, which should be improved further .

(2) Staff recruitment and allocation have had a signif-

icant positive influence on staff satisfaction and social sat-

isfaction, while its impact on teaching and research perfor-

mance as well as on financial performance is not significant.

This finding is inconsistent with most previous studies ex-

cept Fey’s[19] study, which has shown that internal recruit-

ment is not related with organization’s overall performance.

It shows that, although the university has attached great im-

portance to the recruitment of talent, and has made efforts

to achieve “talent-post matching,” a suitable motivation and

restraint mechanism is still needed to help the working staff

with a better performance and exploit their potentials. As

demonstrated in the X and Y theory of motivation, theory in

the human nature owns some characters both described in the

X and Y theory. The direction of employees’ development

lies in the environment created by the organization. If there

is no difference between the results of doing it and not doing

it, or doing more and doing less, talents’ working enthusiasm

will fade away with the change of its working environment.

Therefore, it can be inferred that motivation can be used as a

middle variable between staff recruitment and allocation and

the teaching and research performance and financial perfor-

mance. Only by placing teachers, who are carefully selected,

in the right positions and exploiting their potentials, can indi-

vidual and organizational performance be enhanced. Deeper

study on this issue is also worth doing in the future.

(3) Participation has had a significant positive influence

in the social satisfaction, while its impact on staff satisfac-

tion, teaching and research performance and financial per-

formance is not significant, and this does not match Arthur

and MacDuffie’s results obtained from verification in the en-

terprise. The author analyzed the surveying process and re-

visited the teachers and leaders surveyed. It was found that

although the general staff are encouraged to give their views

before the university makes important decisions, not all the

staff especially lower position staff can participate in the dis-

cussion meeting, and only a few leaders and professors get

the opportunity. Although teachers with professor titles ac-

counted for only 24% of the total surveyed objects, this may

be related to the small sample size. In the future, the oppor-

tunity of participation should be provided for more common

teachers, in order to improve staff satisfaction, teaching and

research performance and financial performance.

(4) Performance management has affected staff satis-

faction a lot, while its impact on teaching and research

performance, community satisfaction, and financial perfor-

mance is not significant. This shows that university per-

formance management has a positive influence on teacher

satisfaction, but the management do not fully utilize the re-

sults of performance evaluation to enhance individual and

college organizational performance, that is to say, evalua-

tion results have not been fully used. Teacher performance

evaluation is a scientific, objective and efficient and valuable

judgment on teachers’ working performance, and this is im-

portant part of personnel management and construction of

teaching staff. The results of this evaluation can be also con-

sidered a good reference for teacher recruitment, retention,

or dismissal, salary increase or reduction, promotion or de-

motion, as well as a prominent factor affecting teachers’ ca-

reer development[20]. A symbol of a successful management

performance lies in the full use of performance evaluation re-

sults to promote individual’s career performance as well as

university organizational performance. Some colleges and

universities still need to work hard on this and improve their

current performance management mechanisms.

5.2 Conclusions and suggestions

In this thesis, some contribution has been done to re-

search on human resource management and organizational

performance in education field. Seven ”211 Project” uni-

versities from six central provinces of China were involved

in this research. During the period of system transition, this

was done in a large scale to verify the results about human re-

source management theory’s application to for-profit organi-

zations. This can do some help to human resources manage-

ment research for improving university organizational per-

formance. Based on relevant theories and practices, uni-

versity optimal human resource management practice has

been obtained, which includes four dimensions, staff recruit-

ment and allocation, motivation mechanism, participation,

and performance management. Organizational performance

has also been discussed and obtained, including four dimen-

sions, staff satisfaction, teaching and research performance,

social satisfaction degree, and financial performance. Rela-

tionships among these variables have been examined by us-

ing structural equation models. In conclusion, after Empir-

ical data collection, validation and analysis, university opti-

mal human resource management practice is helpful to im-

prove the organizational performance.

(1) Hypotheses about impact of staff recruitment and

allocation on four dimensions of organizational performance

have been partially supported. Staff recruitment and alloca-

tion have a significant positive influence on staff satisfaction

and social satisfaction, and this can become strong evidence

for the fact that university human resource management de-

partments are contributing to organizational performance. A

scientific and rational selection and allocation of college fac-

ulty can be a great help for strengthening advantages of orga-

nizational competitive ability. Therefore, colleges and uni-

versities should accurately set their strategic objective and

plan the working process in the future according to their

own prominent discipline and particular needs. Meanwhile,

based on the goal and plan, they can use scientific methods

to strengthen construction of teaching staff, and carry out a

selection and allocation.

(2) Hypotheses about the influence of the motivation

mechanism on four dimensions of organizational perfor-

mance have been partially supported. Motivations have had

a significant positive influence on teaching and research per-


formance and financial performance, and this indicates that

colleges and universities should establish and improve the

motivation mechanism in order to improve the teaching and

research performance and financial performance. First, a fair

internal promotion system should be established. Although

the university has employed talents, if the motivation mech-

anism is not useful, the talents may choose to quit the job,

or talents’ potential can-not be fully exploited. The second

President of Hong Kong University of Science and Technol-

ogy, Paul Chu once said, ”The key to attract talents to work

in this young university firstly is the consensus on the dream.

Many people working or study abroad wanted to go back

China and do something valuable. What’s more importantly,

is to have a good management system.” Recruiting talents is

not an easy task, while how to get these talents employed

contribute to the development of the university is a more dif-

ficult problem. A reasonable system can get talents together

and cooperate with each other. Internal promotion should

become a positive motivation for college faculty and staff to

work harder, rather than a bad factor that reduces their en-

thusiasm. University internal promotion criteria should vary

according to different groups and levels. At present, there

are three kinds of models for teaching and research staff’s

internal a promotion different promotion in China: appraisal

and appointment combination mode, appraisal and appoint-

ment separate models, and appointment model without ap-

praisal. As for university administrative staff’s internal pro-

motion, there are two kinds of models: one is administrative

post promotion model and the other is staff position rank

promotion model. Colleges and universities should deter-

mine a more suitable model according to their own develop-

ment strategy and actual situation of human resource. Sec-

ond, improving the distribution system about incentive pay

is important. For colleges and universities, the incentive pay

system can reflect the connection to the working ability and

salary. People’s salaries are determined by their post and per-

formance. This can lead teacher’s attention to develop their

career ability, and thus improve both individual and organi-

zational performance. In addition, position factor, capacity

factor, and performance factor should also be considered in

the incentive pay system. Among these factors, performance

factor should consist of two aspects, teaching and research-

ing. A balance between these two aspects is helpful for each

other. Finally, establishing a sound training system is essen-

tial. First, training should be done based on performance

evaluation. Teachers who have the potential for teaching and

researching can be given a higher-level training. Teachers

who are responsible for their work but lack of strong teach-

ing and research ability can be provided with more system-

atic and basic training to enhance their working ability. Sec-

ond , establish incentive restriction mechanism of teachers’

training in order to strengthen the supervision, inspection,

and concern should be established. Third, the training should

be evaluated to summarize experience for reference in the fu-

ture training. In addition, colleges and universities are places

where intellectuals are willing to stay. Besides getting satis-

faction from their salary, promotion, and training, they also

want their work to be recognized and respected, and this can

bring them a sense of achievement. Therefore, university

human resource management should also pay attention to

spiritual incentive, which is a more delicate, complicated,

and efficient motivation. It requires administrator to take the

means of ideological education to encourage people to work

actively and initiatively. Managers need to combine material

incentives and spiritual incentives. On the one hand, faculty

and staff are thought as a ”natural people” whose material

and security needs should be met; on the other hand, they

are ”social people” who should be provided with rights, care,

identity, chance for improvement self-realization. These fac-

tors enable faculty and staff to feel that they are always get-

ting improved in their organizations. Furthermore, incentive

policies about salary paying, training, and position promo-

tion should be formulated based on the same final goal, and

coordinated with each other for better effect.

(3) Hypotheses about participation’s influence on four

dimensions of organizational performance have been par-

tially supported. Participation’s positive impact on social

satisfaction indicates that if university administrators en-

courage general staff to participate in decision-making dis-

cussion and really respect their opinions, university organi-

zational performance can be improved.

(4) Hypotheses about performance management’s influ-

ence on four dimensions of organizational performance have

been partially supported. Performance management has had

a significant positive influence on staff satisfaction, while

its impact on teaching and researching performance, social

satisfaction and financial performance is not significant. It

shows that colleges and universities should completely use

performance evaluation results in order to improve individ-

ual and organizational performance as well as to establish

a sound performance management system. There are two

purposes of performance management: one is to improve its

organizational performance through motivations; the other is

to promote individual’s development and always put people

first. Therefore, during the application of the evaluation re-

sults, staff factor and university factor should be considered

first to realize their full development. These evaluation re-

sults, which are from scientific evaluation system and crite-

ria, should also be known by university staff, because these

can help them to objectively understand their own perfor-

mance better, which part is successful and which part still

needs improvement. Managers should recognize and ap-

praise successful and effective work of staff and help them

to find shortcomings and relevant solutions. Improvement

plans can be made through communication for a better per-

formance. In addition, another function of the performance

evaluation results is that these results can be used as an ob-

jective basis and reference for the rational use of teaching

staff in schools, training and development, incentive payroll,

internal promotions, awards, and punishment. In this way, it

can standardize and strengthen staff responsibilities, play its

guiding function, and thus establish a complete competition,

motivation, and elimination mechanism.

5.3 Inadequacy of the current research and directionsfor the future research

Inadequacies of the current research are pointed out in

this thesis, and the author hope these points can be consid-

ered and get solved in the future researches.

First, it is sampling and data limitation. Our sam-


ples are seven “211 Project” universities from six central

provinces , which are not obtained by probability sampling,

but selected by the author. Therefore, these findings may

not be used to explain the situations of all “211 Project”

universities by analogy in China. In future research stud-

ies, non-“211 Project” universities or universities from other

provinces can be chosen . Meanwhile, our data were ob-

tained through questionnaires, and each questionnaire was

finished only by one respondent, so that it was inevitable. In

future research, a variety of investigative methodology can

be considered, the degree of homologous error can be re-

duced by collecting information from different individuals

as much as possible.

Second, subjective performance indicators are adopted

in this thesis. Although these indicators in the survey are be-

lieved to be effective and acceptable, adding more objective

performance indicators will be helpful for more convincing

illustration.

Third, optimal human resource management practice is

the only factor considered in this thesis ,which may affect or-

ganizational performance. In future research, additional fac-

tors can be considered, such as other human resource man-

agement practices, interactions of different factors.

Finally, our study only focuses on the impact of op-

timal human resource management practices’ on organiza-

tional performance. Other conditions that may affect the re-

source performance practice have not been considered.

References[1] Boxall P. HR strategy and competitive advantage in the ser-

vice sector. Human Resource Management Journal, 2003,

13(13): 5–20.

[2] Nadler D A, Gerstein M S. Designing High-Performance

Work Systems: Organizing People, Work Technology and In-

formation. Organizational Architecture. San Francisco, CA,

Jossey-Bass, 1992.

[3] Farias G F, Varma A. High performance work systems: What

we know and what we need to know. Human Resource Plan-

ning, 1999, 21(2): 50–54.

[4] Bamberger P, Meshoulam I. Human Resource Strategy. New-

bury Park, CA: Sage, 2000.

[5] Sun L Y, Aryee S, Law K S. High-performance human

resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational

performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 2007, 50: 558–577.

[6] Kaplan R S, Norton D P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translat-

ing Strategy into Action. Guangzhou: Guangdong Economy

Press, 2004.

[7] Deng J f. University performance management analyse. An-

hui Literature, 2008(1): 36.

[8] MacDuffie J P. Human resource bundles and manufacturing

performance: Organizational logic and flexible production

systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Re-

lations Review, 1995, 48: 197–221.

[9] Delaney J T, Huselid M A. The impact of human resource

management practices on perceptions of performance in for-

profit and nonprofit organizations. Academy of Management

Journal, 1996, 39: 949–969.

[10] Wright P M, McCormick B, Sherman W S, et al. The role of

human resource practices in petro-chemical refinery perfor-

mance. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

ment, 1999, 10: 551–571.

[11] Arthur J. Effectc of human resource systems on manufac-

turing performance and turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 1994, 37(3): 670–687.

[12] Dess G G, Davis P S. Generic Determinants of Strategic

Group Membership and Performance. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 1980, 27: 467–488.

[13] Pearce John A, Keith R D, Robinson R B. The Impact of

Grand Strategy and Planning Formality on Financial Perfor-

mance. Strategic Management Journa1, 1987, 8(2): 125–134.

[14] Dai L. Fields, Taking The Measure of Work: A Guide To

Validated Scales For Organizational Research and Diagnosis.

Beijing: China Light Industry Press, 2004.

[15] Anderson J C, Gerbing D W. Structural Equation Modeling

Practice: A Review and Recommend Two-step Approach.

Psychological Bullen, 1988, 103: 411–423.

[16] Huang F M. The Theory and Application of Structural Equa-

tion Model. China Tax Press, 2005.

[17] Qiu H Z. Structural Equation Model. Taibei: Shaungye Book

Gallery Ltd, 2006.

[18] Hou J T, Wen Z L, Cheng Z J. Structural Equation Model

and Its Application, Educational Science Publishing House,

2004.

[19] Fey C F, Bjorkman I, Pavlovskaya A. The effect of human re-

source management practices on firm performance in Russia.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

2000, 11(1): 1–18.

[20] Liu S A. Thinking of the university teacher performance

evaluation results in the Application. Continuing Education,

2007, 3: 44–48.

impact of university's optimal human resource management practices on organizational...

Documents