justice, trust and employee reactions: an empirical examination of the hrm system
TRANSCRIPT
Justice, trust and employeereactions: an empirical
examination of the HRM systemAnastasia A. Katou
Department of Marketing and Operations Management,University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of an integrated HRM system(content, process and climate) on employee reactions (motivation, commitment, work engagement, andorganizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)), through the mediating role of organizational justice(distributive, procedural and interactional) and organizational trust (integrity, competence anddependability), which has not been fully studied in the past.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a national sample of 133 organizationsfrom the public and private sectors in Greece and on data obtained from 1,061 employees. Thestatistical method employed is structural equation modelling.
Findings – The findings of the study suggest that the HRM process has a higher impact on employeereactions than HRM content. Additionally, the findings support the idea that procedural anddistributive justice are related more to trust dependability and integrity, and that procedural justice isa better predictor of employee reactions than distributive justice.
Research limitations/implications – The study does not allow for dynamic causal inferencesbecause the data was collected using a questionnaire at a single point in time. Furthermore, thefindings of the study may not generalize across borders, because the study was applied in the Greekcontext, which has different labour relations with respect to other countries.
Practical implications – The study has clear implications for both managers and decision makers,because it suggests that employees are more committed and satisfied when the HRM system is moreconsistent and distinctive, more rewarding and provides opportunities for training.
Originality/value – The theoretical significance of the study is important, because it suggests thatboth the content and the process of HR practices, as perceived by employees, strongly influenceemployees’ reactions, such as motivation, commitment, work engagement and organizationalcitizenship behaviour OCB.
Keywords HRM content, HRM process, HRM climate, Justice, Trust, Employee reactions, Greece,Human resource management
Paper type Research paper
1. IntroductionAn HRM system usually consists of three parts: content, process and climate (Bowenand Ostroff, 2004). HRM content refers to the individual HR policies and practices thatmake up an HRM system (Boselie et al., 2005). HRM process refers to the method bywhich HR policies and practices are communicated to employees (Li et al., 2011). HRMclimate refers to how HR policies and practices are experienced by employees(Kinnie et al., 2005). HRM climate is influenced by both HRM content and process (Bowenand Ostroff, 2004).
In investigating the relationship between HRM systems and employee reactionsearly studies concentrated on the content – reactions relationship (Boselie et al., 2005).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
Management Research ReviewVol. 36 No. 7, 2013pp. 674-699q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-8269DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2012-0160
MRR36,7
674
Later studies considered that HRM climate, or HR policies and practices asexperienced, mediate the causal relationship between content and reactions (Wrightand Nishii, 2004). Recent studies suggest that HRM climate mediates the causalrelationship between process and reactions (Li et al., 2011). However, Bowen andOstroff (2004) proposed that HRM content and process must be integrated effectively inorder to investigate the HRM system – employee reactions relationship. This is thefirst objective of the present paper. In other words, this study examines the existenceand the strength of the influence of both the content and the process of the HRMsystem on employee reactions, such as employee motivation, commitment, workengagement and organizational citizen behaviour (OCB).
Considering that the HR policies and practices regulate the relationships betweenemployers and employees, the content and process of an HRM system determines how HRpolicies and practices are experienced by employees (Kinnie et al., 2005). Constructiveshared perceptions about HR policies and practices across employees, or a strong HRMclimate, are positively related to organizational justice, which in turn builds trust in theorganization (Zhang and Agarwal, 2009; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). However,although research links justice, or the fairness of the HRM system, to a variety of employeeattitudes, few studies have examined the relationship between organizational justiceand employee reactions through organizational trust (DeConinck, 2010). This is the secondobjective of the present paper. In other words, this study examines the existence and thestrength of the influence of various dimensions of organizational justice andorganizational trust on employee reactions.
Some studies demonstrate that distributive justice (fairness of outcomes employeesreceive) does not significantly affect trust in the organization (Konovsky and Pugh,1994). Other studies show that both distributive justice and procedural justice(the fairness of the procedures by which decisions are made) are related to trust in theorganization (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Kumar et al., 1995; Tyler and Lind, 1992).In particular, procedural justice seems to be a better predictor of employee reactions(Folger and Konovsky, 1989), but the effects of distributive and procedural justice onorganizational trust give mixed results (Wong et al., 2006).
Summarizing, the purpose of this paper is two-fold. The first purpose is to investigatethe HRM system – employee reactions relationship by integrating into the HRM system,the content, process and climate dimensions of HR policies and practices. The secondpurpose is to investigate whether organizational justice and trust mediate therelationship between the HRM system and employee reactions. This will advance ourunderstanding of the HRM-employee reactions relationship.
2. Research framework and hypothesesFigure 1 presents an operational model linking HR practices and employee reactions.The proposed operational model assumes that organizational justice mediates therelationship between HR practices and organizational trust, whilst organizational trustmediates the relationship between organizational justice and employee reactions.Specifically, the model is constituted of two related systems; the HRM system and theemployee reactions system. The first system is based on the notion that HRM contentand HRM process influence HRM climate. The second system is based on the notion thatorganizational justice (i.e. HRM fairness) influences employee reactions throughorganizational trust.
Justice andemployeereactions
675
2.1 The HRM systemThere are three concepts that are generally related with an HRM system: content,process, and climate.
2.1.1 HRM content. Research on the HRM-performance relationship has moved from afocus on individual HR practices to a set, or HRM system, of practices. The individualpractices that make up the HRM system constitute the content of the HRM system. Thecontent of the HRM system refers to a set of HR practices and policies through whichorganizations can improve the acquisition, development, retention and utilization of theirhuman capital in order to achieve the strategic goals of the organization (Boselie et al.,2005). The concept of equifinality is attached to HRM systems (Delery and Doty, 1996),whereas identical outcomes can be achieved by a number of different HRM systems.
The HRM system is built around two fundamental approaches; the best-practiceapproach ( Jackson et al., 1989; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998) and the best-fit approach (Miles andSnow, 1984; Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Wright and Snell, 1991, 1998). The best-practiceapproach, associated with the so-called universalistic model, advocates independence,supporting the idea that context (e.g. business strategies, types of organizations, typesof employees) and HR practices are mutually independent in improving organizationalperformance (Huselid and Becker, 1996). The best-fit approach, associated with theso-called contingency model, advocates dependence, supporting the idea that HRpractices should be consistent with the context in order to maximize businessperformance (Delery and Doty, 1996; Ferris et al., 1999).
2.1.2 HRM process. Over the last decade, attention in the literature has turned fromHRM content to HRM process (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Nishii et al., 2008). HRM processrefers to “the way HR policies and practices are communicated to employees” (Li et al.,2011, p. 1826). Given the content of an HRM system, employees may find it difficult toattach only one kind of meaning, because individuals may perceive the HRM practicesdifferently. This means that although employers intended to deliver HR practices inorder to achieve a specific purpose, say improved organizational performance,employees perceive the meaning of these HR practices in diverse ways. But if themeaning of the HRM system is not shared among employees, their collective attitudesand behaviours needed for achieving the specific purpose will be weak and, as a result,the purpose will not be properly achieved.
According to Bowen and Ostroff (2004), for an HRM system to be properlycommunicated it must have three features: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus.
Figure 1.An HRM system –employee reactionslinkage framework
HRM Content• Resourcing• Training• Rewards• Relations HRM Climate
• Resourcing• Training• Rewards• Relations
EmployeeReactions
• Motivation• Commitment• Work engagement• OCBHRM Process
• Distinctiveness• Consistency• Consensus
The unmediated Organizational Justice effect?
Organizational Controls: Sector, Ownership, SizeIndividual Controls: Gender, Age, Seniority, Position
OrganizationalTrust
• Integrity• Competence• Dependability
OrganizationalJustice
• DistributiveJustice
• ProceduralJustice
• InteractionalJustice
The unmediated HRM climate effect?MRR36,7
676
Distinctiveness refers to features that allow the event-effect relationship to stand out inthe environment, thereby capturing attention and arousing interest. Consistency refersto features that allow the event-effect relationship to present itself the same over time,people and contexts. Consensus refers to features that produce agreement amongemployee views of the event-effect relationship.
An HRM system may be considered to be a strong HRM system if it satisfies thefeatures of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. A strong HRM system producesa shared meaning of the HRM system among employees, thus shaping common positiveattitudes and behaviour, which positively influence organizational goals. Thus, theHRM process and the HRM strength may be considered to be two alternativeexplanations of the same concept that reduce variability in employee attitudes andbehaviours.
2.1.3 HRM climate. The content of the HRM system influences employees’perceptions of HR practices that in turn have an effect on employee attitudes andbehaviour. Thus, a distinction must be made between actual implementation of the HRpractices and how these practices are experienced by employees (Kinnie et al., 2005):
This suggests that the effect of HR practices is not likely to be automatic and always asexpected; instead, their effect will reside in the meanings that employees attach to thosepractices (Nishii et al., 2008, p. 504; Wright and Nishii, 2004).
But employees may understand the HR practices idiosyncratically, meaning that twoemployees may perceive the same practices differently (Guzzo and Nooman, 1994). Onlywhen perceptions are shared across employees, or when a strong HRM climate exists,are employees expected to develop desired collective attitudes and behaviour. An HRMsystem that has the features of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus may jointlyshape the perceptions of individuals, thus creating a strong HRM climate (Bowen andOstroff, 2004). In addition, Bowen and Ostroff (2004, p. 206) proposed that, “HRM contentand process must be integrated effectively in order for prescriptive models of strategicHRM actually to link to firm performance”. On the basis of the above the followinghypotheses are developed:
H1. HRM content is positively related to HRM climate.
H2. HRM process is positively related to HRM climate.
2.2 The employee reaction systemThere are three concepts that are regularly related with an employee reaction system:organizational justice, organizational trust and employee reactions.
2.2.1 Organizational justice. It usually consists of three related forms of justice:distributive justice, interactional justice and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash andSpector, 2011; Colquitt et al., 2001, for literature reviews). Distributive justice refers to thefairness of outcomes employees receive (e.g. pay and promotion) (Adams, 1965).Employees’ feelings about distributive injustice are associated with dissatisfaction(DeConinck and Stilwell, 2004). Procedural justice refers to the procedures (e.g. level ofemployee voice) by which decisions are made (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Althoughemployees’ feelings of dissatisfaction about procedural injustice are directed towardthe organization, dissatisfaction may be alleviated if employees participate indecision-making (DeConinck, 2010). Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal
Justice andemployeereactions
677
treatment in how employees are treated in the organization (e.g. personal needs andrights) (Bies and Moag, 1986). Employees’ feelings of dissatisfaction about interactionalinjustice are mainly directed toward their supervisor (Masterson et al., 2000).
HR policies and practices regulate the relationships between employers and employees.The content and the process of an HRM system interact to influence employees in shapinga strong HRM climate (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Employee satisfaction is reflected in astrong HRM climate and is positively related to organizational justice (Zhang andAgarwal, 2009) that in turn produces positive emotions (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).In contrast, weak HRM climates support perceptions of injustice. Thus, HRM systems areplaced within the wider domain of regulating justice in the organization (Frenkel et al.,2011). On the basis of the above the following hypothesis is developed:
H3. A strong HRM climate is positively related to organizational justice.
2.2.2 Organizational trust. Trust is an important concept in management researchbecause it enables supportive behaviour and reduces disagreement at work (Wong et al.,2006). Trust within an organization refers to the overall evaluation of an organization’strustworthiness as perceived by the employee and is usually categorized at two levels:individual and organizational (Puusa and Tolvanen, 2006). At the individual level, trust isbased on interpersonal interaction (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003), involving the day-to-dayinteraction between supervisors and employees (Tan and Tan, 2000). At the organizationallevel, trust is a collective phenomenon (Shamir and Lapidot, 2003), involving relations witha variety of essential groups in the organization (Tan and Tan, 2000). Because littleempirical research exists distinguishing between the two levels of trust (DeConinck, 2010),and as individual trust is the main determinant of organizational trust (Mishra, 1996), wewill not make any specific distinction between the two in this study.
Trust is important in relationships within organizations and between organizations(Gounans, 2005; Johnson et al., 2003; Swan et al., 1999). Within organizations trust isinfluenced by employees’ perceptions of justice (Brockner and Siegel, 1996; Vanhala andAhteela, 2011). If employees perceive that the organization is fair, they will assume that theorganization will continue to be fair in the future (DeConinck, 2010). Employee perceptionsof justice lead to increased trust in the organization, implying that justice is an integralpart of trust (Brockner and Siegel, 1996). Empirical research supports the assumption thatthere is a positive relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust(Aryee and Chen, 2004; Aryee et al., 2002; Stinglhamber et al., 2006). Specifically, thefindings of meta-analysis indicate that all three dimensions of organizational justice(i.e. distributive, procedural and interactional justice) may influence both levels of trust(i.e. at the individual and organizational level) (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2011;Colquitt et al., 2001; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). However, Wong et al. (2006) support the viewthat although organizational justice and trust are closely related, previous research on theeffects of organizational justice on trust has produced mixed results. Thus, it could beinteresting to test the following hypothesis in the context of Greece:
H4. Organizational justice is positively related to organizational trust.
H3 and H4 imply that the relationship between HRM climate and organizational trust ismediated by organizational justice (Karriker and Williams, 2009). This is because astrong HRM climate, involving a positive experience of HR policies and practices on the
MRR36,7
678
part of employees, produce dividends in terms of organizational trust in fairorganizations (Colquitt and Greenberg, 2003).
2.2.3 Employee reactions. The most important employee reactions within anorganization are usually categorized into four types: motivation, commitment, workengagement or satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Employeemotivation is defined as “a set of energetic forces that originates both within as wellas beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine itsform, direction, intensity, and duration” (Pinder, 1998, p. 11). Recognition, incentives andrelations constitute key energetic forces of employee motivation (Lockwood, 2010).Employee commitment describes the extent of an employee’s identification with andattachment to an organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Affective commitment (denotingan emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization),continuance commitment (denoting the perceived costs associated with leaving theorganization), and normative commitment (reflecting a perceived obligation to remain inthe organization) are essential dimensions of employee commitment (Allen and Meyer,1990; Meyer et al., 2002). Employee work engagement or satisfaction is defined as“a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or jobexperiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Vigour (high levels of energy and mental resiliencewhile working), dedication (sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, andchallenge), and absorption (being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work)are three key dimensions of employee work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002).Organizational citizenship behavior refers to work-related behaviour that goes above andbeyond that which is dictated by organizational policy and one’s job description (Graham,1991; Organ, 1988). Altruism (helping other members of the organization in their tasks),courtesy (preventing problems deriving from work relationships), sportsmanship(accepting less than ideal circumstances), conscientiousness (dedication to the job anddesire to exceed formal requirements in aspects such as punctuality or conservation ofresources) and civic virtue (responsibly participating in the life of the organization) havebeen conceptualized as the key dimensions of OCB (Dimitriades, 2007; Niehoff andMoorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Restubog et al., 2009).
The findings of meta-analytic studies conducted by Colquitt et al. (2007) and Dirksand Ferrin (2002) support the assumption that employee reactions such as jobsatisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior are associated with trust at theindividual level, while organizational commitment is related with organizational trust(Cook and Wall, 1980; DeConinck, 2010). Furthermore, organizational trust has beendemonstrated to be an important predictor of organizational citizenship behavior(van Dyne et al., 2000), while perceptions of organizational justice stimulate trust inthe organization that will improve employee reactions (Cropanzano et al., 2002;Restubog et al., 2009). On the basis of the above the following hypothesis is developed:
H5. Organizational trust is positively related to employee reactions.
H4 and H5 imply that the relationship between organizational justice and employeereactions is mediated by organizational trust (Karriker and Williams, 2009). This isbecause feelings of trust based on organizational justice will develop positive employeereactions as reciprocal obligations (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). In particular,empirical research supports the assumption that organizational justice positivelyinfluences organizational citizenship behaviour (Blakely et al., 2005; Liao and Rupp, 2005;
Justice andemployeereactions
679
Moorman et al., 1993; Rego and Cunha, 2010; Restubog et al., 2009; Tansky, 1993),organizational commitment (Liao and Rupp, 2005; Rifai, 2005) and job satisfaction(Rifai, 2005).
3. Method3.1 SampleData for this research was collected in October and November 2011 using aquestionnaire survey, which was distributed to the employees of public and privateorganizations in the manufacturing, services and trade sectors covering the whole ofGreece. The questionnaires were administered by 100 individuals pursing managementdegrees at a Greek business school, who helped to collect data from their organizationsand also from their contact organizations. The survey instrument was distributed to400 organizations with more than 20 employees. The questionnaires were completedwith help from the people who administered them, after the latter had attended a seminarfor training purposes. Following Gerhart et al. (2000) who suggest that the reliability ofHR measures will be increased by using five to ten respondents per firm, the samplerswere asked to concentrate on eight respondents from each organization; two at seniormanagement level (one from the HRM/Personnel Department and one from the FinanceDepartment if possible), two at middle management level (including line managers) andfour at other level of employment. 3,200 questionnaires were distributed altogether.1,061 usable questionnaires were returned from the employees in 133 organizations,a response rate of 33.25 percent at the organization level, and 33.16 percent at theemployee level. Table I shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
3.2 MeasuresTable II summarizes the measuring instruments with respect to constructs used in thestudy, the authors who initially developed the instruments, the subscales used and theitems used in each subscale. For all items five-point scales were used.
3.2.1 HRM content. The construct of HRM Content (i.e. HR practices) comprised offour subscales: resourcing, development, reward and relations (Armstrong, 1996). Theitems for each subscale were measured on a scale ranging from 1 – low use to 5 – highuse. Example items included, “how would you rate the level of use of the performanceappraisal policy in your organization?” and “how would you rate the level of use of theinvolvement policy in your organization?”
3.2.2 HRM process. The construct of HRM process (i.e. HR practice features)comprised of three subscales: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus (Bowen andOstroff, 2004). Each subscale included a number of sub-subscales as shown in Table II.For example, distinctiveness comprised of four sub-subscales: visibility, intelligibility,legitimacy and relevance. In developing the items in each sub-subscale we followedDelmotte et al. (2007). The items for each sub-subscale were measured on a Likert scaleranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree. Examples of the items included“HR practices are known to everybody in this company” (visibility) and “the HRdepartment in this organization has a high added value” (relevance).
3.2.3 HRM climate. The construct of HRM climate (i.e. HR practices as experienced)was organized into four subscales: resourcing, development, reward and relations(Armstrong, 1996). In developing the items in each subscale we followed Kinnie et al. (2005).The items for each subscale were measured on a scale ranging from 1 – very little to
MRR36,7
680
5 – very much. Example items included, “overall, how satisfied do you feel with yourcurrent career opportunities?” and “how satisfied are you with your pay compared with thepay of the other people at your work place?”
3.2.4 Organizational justice. The construct of organizational justice (i.e. fairness ofthe HR system) consisted of three subscales: distributive justice, procedural justice andinteractional justice (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). The items for each subscale weremeasured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree.Examples of the items included “employees consider promotions to be fair in thisorganization” (distributive justice), “all job decisions are applied consistently across allaffected employees” (procedural justice), and “the general manager offers adequatejustification for decisions made about my job” (interactional justice).
3.2.5 Organizational trust. The construct of organizational trust was composed ofthree subscales: integrity, competence and dependability (Paine, 2003). The itemsfor each subscale were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to5 – totally agree. Examples of the items included, “this organization treats people like
Number Percentage
SectorManufacturing 297 28.0Services 437 41.2Trade 327 30.8OwnershipPublic 198 18.7Private 863 81.3Size (in number of employees)20-100 565 53.3101-200 296 27.9200 þ 200 18.9Mean size (^ standard deviation) 113.62 (^105.14)SexMale 630 59.4Female 431 40.6PositionSenior manager 133 12.5Middle manager 249 23.5Other employee 679 64.0Age (in years)-25 110 10.426-35 339 32.036-45 343 32.746 þ 269 25.4Mean age (^ standard deviation) 38.08 (^9.87)Seniority (in years)1-5 378 35.66-10 270 25.411-15 175 16.516 þ 238 22.4Mean seniority (^ standard deviation) 10.39 (^7.96)
Note: n ¼ 1,061
Table I.Sample demographic
measures of respondents
Justice andemployeereactions
681
Construct Instrument author SubscalesNumber of
items Cronbach’s a
Percent ofvarianceexplained
HRM content Armstrong (2006) 0.864 71.188Resourcing 3 0.772 68.844Training 3 0.843 76.091Rewards 3 0.873 79.843Relations 3 0.801 71.565
HRM process Delmotte et al.(2007)
0.918 86.342
Distinctiveness 0.929 82.374Visibility 4 0.881 73.747Intelligibility 3 0.888 81.666Legitimacy 3 0.868 79.205Relevance 3 0.889 81.908Consistency 0.894 82.627Instrumentality 4 0.866 71.848Validity 3 0.875 80.057Consistency of HRmessages
4 0.869 72.164
ConsensusAgreement amongmessage senders
4 0.896 76.367
HRM climate Kinnie et al. (2005) 0.924 81.419Resourcing 3 0.869 79.501Training 4 0.903 77.413Rewards 4 0.906 78.257Relations 4 0.877 72.987
Organizationaljustice
Niehoff andMoorman (1993)
0.918 86.342
Distributive justice 4 0.894 75.938Procedural justice 4 0.844 68.812Interactional justice 4 0.900 76.888
Organizationaltrust
Paine (2003) 0.915 85.437
Integrity 4 0.902 77.268Competence 3 0.861 78.213Dependability 4 0.885 74.399
Employeereactions
0.854 70.536
Lockwood (2010) Motivation 0.924 86.880Recognition 3 0.926 87.176Incentives 4 0.898 76.622Relations 4 0.912 79.141
Allen and Meyer(1990)
Organizationalcommitment
0.805 71.994
Affective commitment 7 0.935 72.165Continuancecommitment
4 0.828 66.127
Normative commitment 4 0.730 57.266
(continued )
Table II.Summary of measuringinstruments
MRR36,7
682
me fairly and justly” (integrity), “this organization has the ability to accomplish what itsays it will do” (competence), and “this organization can be relied on to keep itspromises” (dependability). We note here that according to Mishra’s (1996) model oftrust, these three dimensions are among the factors that determine organizational trust.
3.2.6 Employee reactions. The construct of employee reactions consisted of foursubscales: motivation (Lockwood, 2010), organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer,1990), work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and organizational citizenship behaviour(Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). Each subscale included a number of sub-subscalesas shown in Table II. For example, organizational commitment contained threesub-subscales: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normativecommitment. Similarly, OCB contained five sub-subscales: altruism, courtesy,sportsmanship, conscientiousness and civic virtue. The items for each sub-subscalewere measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree.Examples of the items included, “I feel loyal to my company” (affective commitment) and“I am always punctual” (conscientiousness).
3.2.7 Controls. Several additional organizational and individual variables werecontrolled for in order to rule out alternative explanations of the findings (Turnley andFeldman, 2000). Specifically, we used the organizational controls of sector, ownershipand size, and the individual controls of gender, age, seniority and position, as shown inTable II. Each of the controls was estimated as a single latent variable.
In developing the constructs of the study we followed a three step approach. First,each sub-subscale was developed as a weighted average of all the items comprising thesub-subscale, with weights being the factor loadings of the items in a confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA). Second, each subscale was developed in a similar way using asitems the sub-subscales already developed in step one. Finally, each construct wasdeveloped in a similar way using as items the subscales developed in step two.
3.3 Consistency of the survey instrumentTo investigate the consistency of the survey instrument the following procedures wereconsidered (Katou, 2012). The questionnaire used in the study is based on well accepted
Construct Instrument author SubscalesNumber of
items Cronbach’s a
Percent ofvarianceexplained
Schaufeli et al.(2002)
Work engagement 0.887 82.070
Vigor 6 0.906 68.067Dedication 5 0.921 76.059Absorption 6 0.918 71.066
Niehoff andMoorman (1993)
Organizationalcitizenship behaviour
0.848 63.009
Altruism 4 0.870 71.995Courtesy 4 0.811 64.125Sportsmanship 4 0.824 66.142Conscientiousness 4 0.820 65.309Civic virtue 4 0.888 75.163 Table II.
Justice andemployeereactions
683
and validated items developed in the literature, thus establishing content validity.Construct internal consistency was investigated by evaluating the computed Cronbach’a.The figures in Table II indicate that the survey instrument is reliable for testing the modelshown in Figure 1, as all Cronbach’s a are much higher than 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).Construct validity was examined by evaluating the percentage of the total varianceexplained by each dimension obtained by applying CFA with Varimax rotation and thecriterion that the eigenvalues should be greater than one. The percentage of total varianceexplained is reported in Table II as greater than 50 per cent, and all items loaded well ontheir respective factors (details omitted for brevity), indicating acceptable constructvalidity for the survey instrument (Hair et al., 2008). Furthermore, construct validity wasexamined by evaluating the average variance extracted (AVE) for each dimensionobtained by applying CFA. The AVE values reported in Table III are much higher than0.50, indicating acceptable construct validity for the survey instrument (Hair et al., 2008).Construct composite reliability was assessed by examining the calculated compositereliability scores (Pavlou and Gefen, 2005). The figures in Table III indicate that the degreeof construct reliability is acceptable, since all reliability scores exceed 0.90, except thescores for commitment and OCB, which are lower but close to 0.90. Construct discriminantvalidity was assessed by examining whether the correlation coefficients between pairs ofconstructs were significantly different from unity, and by examining whether the squareroot of each factor’s AVE is larger than its correlations with other factors (Gefen andStraub, 2005). Table III presents the correlation coefficients of all constructs used in thestudy. It can be seen that the correlation coefficients are significantly different from unity,and they are smaller than the square root of each factor’s AVE, providing evidence thatthey are separate constructs.
Although the correlation matrix highlights some high correlations, multicollinearityamong these constructs is not a serious concern since all relevant checks, such as conditionindex (largest CI ¼ 15.451, which is less than 30), tolerance values (smallest TOL ¼ 0.381,which is greater than 0.10), and variance inflation factors (largest VIF ¼ 2.624, which isless than 10) did not suggest evidence of significant multicollinearity (Kleinbaum et al.,1988).
To reduce the threat of common method bias in the survey design, we asked multiplerespondents from each organization to answer the questions in the questionnaire (Lindelland Whitney, 2001). However, taking into consideration that some correlation coefficientswere rather high, Harman’s (1967) single factor test was also used to examine thelikelihood of common method bias. According to this test, the simultaneous loading of allitems in a factor analysis, revealed four factors, and not just one, with the first factorexplaining only 28.899 percent of total variance, indicating that there was little commonmethod bias in the data.
3.4 Statistical analysisTo test the hypotheses developed of the proposed framework the methodology ofstructural equation models (SEM) was used, using LISREL and maximum likelihoodestimation (MLE). SEM is effective when testing models that are path analytic withmediating variables, and include latent constructs that are being measured withmultiple items. We used MLE because tests of departure from normality, skewness andkurtosis for all variables used were within acceptable statistical limits (except for thecontrols) ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 2004).
MRR36,7
684
Mea
ns
(SD
)C
onst
ruct
reli
abil
ity
aH
RM
con
ten
tH
RM
pro
cess
HR
Mcl
imat
eO
rgan
izat
ion
alju
stic
eO
rgan
izat
ion
altr
ust
Mot
ivat
ion
Com
mit
men
tW
ork
eng
agem
ent
Org
aniz
atio
nal
citi
zen
ship
beh
avio
ur
Em
plo
yee
reac
tion
s
HR
Mco
nte
nt
3.43
(0.8
1)0.
908
[0.7
71]
HR
Mp
roce
ss3.
34(0
.85)
0.95
00.
700
**
[0.8
63]
HR
Mcl
imat
e3.
29(0
.88)
0.94
60.
723
**
0.76
8*
*[0
.814
]O
rgan
izat
ion
alju
stic
e3.
37(0
.88)
0.92
80.
666
**
0.80
9*
*0.
801
**
[0.8
10]
Org
aniz
atio
nal
tru
st3.
61(0
.86)
0.94
60.
648
**
0.75
0*
*0.
815
**
0.78
7*
*[0
.854
]M
otiv
atio
n3.
44(0
.90)
0.95
20.
627
**
0.69
4*
*0.
785
**
0.73
5*
*0.
726
**
[0.8
69]
Com
mit
men
t3.
60(0
.78)
0.88
50.
492
**
0.55
2*
*0.
615
**
0.54
5*
*0.
662
**
0.59
7*
*[0
.720
]W
ork
eng
agem
ent
3.55
(0.8
0)0.
932
0.49
7*
*0.
548
**
0.60
3*
*0.
579
**
0.59
2*
*0.
609
**
0.73
1*
*[0
.819
]O
rgan
izat
ion
alci
tize
nsh
ipb
ehav
iou
r3.
92(0
.64)
0.89
50.
329
**
0.40
5*
*0.
385
**
0.40
1*
*0.
452
**
0.43
9*
*0.
635
**
0.61
4*
*[0
.627
]E
mp
loy
eere
acti
ons
3.62
(0.6
6)0.
905
0.59
1*
*0.
665
**
0.72
7*
*0.
685
**
0.73
5*
*0.
805
**
0.88
7*
*0.
889
**
0.76
9*
*[0
.698
]
Notes:
Sig
nifi
can
tat
:* p
,0.
05an
d*
* p,
0.01
;
aco
nst
ruct
reli
abil
ity¼
iXl
i
0 @1 A2
=iXl
i
0 @1 A2
þiX
12
l2 i
��
2 6 4
3 7 5
wh
erel
i–
stan
dar
diz
edlo
adin
g;
dia
gon
alfi
gu
res
inb
rack
ets
rep
rese
nt
AV
E
Table III.Means, standard
deviations, andcorrelation coefficientsof the constructs used
in the study
Justice andemployeereactions
685
We assessed the overall model fit following Bollen’s (1989) recommendation to examinemultiple indices, since it is possible for a model to be adequate on one fit index butinadequate on many others. We used the x 2-test (with critical significance levelp , 0.05) and the normed-x 2 ratio (with critical level no more than 3, or at most 5),the goodness of fit index (GFI, with critical level not lower than 0.80, or 0.70 for complexmodels), the normed fit index (NFI, with critical level not lower than 0.90),the comparative fit index (CFI, with critical level not lower than 0.90), and the rootmean squared error of approximation (RMSEA, with critical level not more than 0.05,0.08, and 0.10 to indicate excellent, good, and mediocre fit, respectively) (Kenny, 2011).
4. ResultsTable III displays the means, standard deviations, and the bivariate correlationcoefficients between all the constructs used in the study. We observe strong, positive andsignificant correlations between all structural constructs, supporting the hypotheses ofthe study. However, results based on correlations, although interesting, may bemisleading due to the interactions between several variables. Therefore, in order toisolate the possible links between the variables involved in the research frameworkshown in Figure 1, the results with respect to five estimated models are reported inTable IV. The first four models treat each of the employee reactions (i.e. motivation,commitment, work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour) as theultimate dependent construct in the model, while in the fifth aggregate model thedimensions of the ultimate dependent construct refer to the four individual employeereactions studied previously. For each model we present two types of results. The firstrefers to full mediation, where the links with question marks in the complete frameworkin Figure 1 are not present, reflecting a more parsimonious model. The second refers tothe complete model presented in Figure 1 (i.e. including the links with question marks),reflecting partial mediation.
In all cases the estimated standardized coefficients reported in Table IV are highlysignificant and the GFI confirmed the validity of all models. However, it must be notedhere that the x 2 are significant and indicate that the proposed models are not adequaterepresentations of the entire set of relationships. Considering that x 2 statistics may beinflated by high sample sizes and high correlation coefficients, the value of the normed-x 2
(i.e. value ofx 2/degrees of freedom) was used instead. In our cases this value is less than 3,confirming the validity of our models (Pedhazur and Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991).
Comparing the diagnostics and the number of significant links that exist between theconstructs for each model we see that the specification of the partially mediated modelsis preferable to the full mediation models. Considering that both the direct and theindirect standardized effects are significant, we may conclude that the indirecthypotheses of the study with respect to mediation are supported. This means thatorganizational justice partially mediates the relationship between HRM climate andorganizational trust, and organizational trust partially mediates the relationshipbetween organizational justice and employee reactions. For the partial mediationalternative of the aggregate employee reactions model (see results in the last columnin Table IV) the mediating relationships are also shown in Figure 2. The circles representthe related latent variables and the bold arrows indicate the structural relationshipsbetween the corresponding variables. The numbers that are assigned to each arrow arethe estimated standardized coefficients.
MRR36,7
686
Mod
el1:
mot
ivat
ion
Mod
el2:
com
mit
men
tM
odel
3:w
ork
eng
agem
ent
Mod
el4:
org
aniz
atio
nal
citi
zen
ship
beh
avio
ur
Mod
el5:
emp
loy
eere
acti
ons
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
on
Con
tent!
clim
ate
0.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
00.4
0R
esou
rcin
g0.
720.
720.
720.
720.
720.
720.
720.
720.
720.
72D
evel
opm
ent
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Rew
ard
s0.
860.
860.
860.
860.
860.
860.
860.
860.
860.
86R
elat
ion
s0.
740.
740.
740.
740.
740.
740.
740.
740.
740.
74P
roce
ss!
clim
ate
0.6
80.6
90.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
8D
isti
nct
iven
ess
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Con
sist
ency
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Con
sen
sus
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Clim
ate
!ju
stic
e0.9
50.9
30.9
50.9
00.9
50.9
10.9
50.9
00.9
50.9
1C
limate
!tr
ust
0.6
20.6
50.6
30.6
00.6
6R
esou
rcin
g0.
810.
810.
810.
810.
810.
810.
820.
820.
810.
81D
evel
opm
ent
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Rew
ard
s0.
810.
810.
810.
820.
810.
820.
820.
820.
810.
82R
elat
ion
s0.
830.
830.
830.
830.
830.
830.
830.
830.
830.
83Ju
stic
e!
trust
0.9
40.2
80.9
10.2
70.9
20.2
80.9
10.3
10.9
20.2
6Ju
stic
e!
react
ions
0.6
8ns
0.3
90.0
9*
0.3
1D
istr
ibu
tiv
e0.
830.
840.
830.
840.
830.
840.
830.
840.
830.
84P
roce
du
ral
0.81
0.83
0.82
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.81
0.85
Inte
ract
ion
al0.
770.
780.
770.
790.
770.
790.
770.
790.
770.
79T
rust
!re
act
ions
0.8
00.1
90.7
90.8
00.6
80.3
90.5
00.4
20.8
50.5
9In
teg
rity
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.88
Com
pet
ence
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
Dep
end
abil
ity
0.88
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.90
Mot
ivati
onR
ecog
nit
ion
0.87
0.86
Ince
nti
ves
0.89
0.90
Rel
atio
ns
0.89
0.89
(con
tinued
)
Table IV.Estimates of SEM
Justice andemployeereactions
687
Mod
el1:
mot
ivat
ion
Mod
el2:
com
mit
men
tM
odel
3:w
ork
eng
agem
ent
Mod
el4:
org
aniz
atio
nal
citi
zen
ship
beh
avio
ur
Mod
el5:
emp
loy
eere
acti
ons
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
on
Com
mit
men
tA
ffec
tiv
e0.
900.
90C
onti
nu
ance
0.60
0.60
Nor
mat
ive
0.69
0.69
Wor
ken
gage
men
tV
igor
0.87
0.87
Ded
icat
ion
0.88
0.88
Ab
sorp
tion
0.77
0.77
Org
aniz
ati
onal
citi
zensh
ipbe
havi
our
Alt
ruis
m0.
690.
69C
ourt
esy
0.79
0.79
Sp
orts
man
ship
0.75
0.75
Con
scie
nti
ousn
ess
0.73
0.73
Civ
icv
irtu
e0.
660.
66E
mpl
oyee
react
ions
Mot
ivat
ion
0.73
0.74
Com
mit
men
t0.
830.
82W
ork
eng
agem
ent
0.81
0.81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
citi
zen
beh
avio
r0.
650.
64O
rganiz
ati
onalco
ntr
ols
!co
nte
nt
Sec
tor
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
Ow
ner
ship
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
Siz
e0.
210.
210.
210.
210.
210.
200.
210.
210.
210.
21
(con
tinued
)
Table IV.
MRR36,7
688
Mod
el1:
mot
ivat
ion
Mod
el2:
com
mit
men
tM
odel
3:w
ork
eng
agem
ent
Mod
el4:
org
aniz
atio
nal
citi
zen
ship
beh
avio
ur
Mod
el5:
emp
loy
eere
acti
ons
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
onF
ull
med
iati
onP
arti
alm
edia
tion
Fu
llm
edia
tion
Par
tial
med
iati
on
Org
aniz
ati
onalco
ntr
ols
!pr
oces
sS
ecto
r0.
090.
080.
080.
080.
080.
070.
080.
080.
080.
08O
wn
ersh
ip0.
590.
590.
590.
590.
590.
590.
590.
590.
590.
59S
ize
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Indiv
idualco
ntr
ols!
react
ions
Gen
der
0.06
*0.
01n
s0.
110.
110.
112
0.01
ns
0.19
0.18
0.13
0.09
Ag
e2
0.02
ns
0.01
ns
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
Sen
iori
ty2
0.01
ns
0.05
*0.
140.
150.
160.
320.
200.
220.
150.
19P
osit
ion
20.
120.
02n
s2
0.02
ns
20.
01n
s2
0.05
ns
0.28
0.06
ns
0.08
*2
0.03
ns
0.06
*
Dia
gnos
tics
x2
415.
7739
0.35
377.
7636
5.83
409.
7739
6.48
454.
8944
4.47
489.
3548
0.59
df
295
293
295
294
295
293
348
346
321
319
p0.
000
0.00
00.
001
0.00
30.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
0N
orm
edx
21.
411.
331.
281.
241.
391.
351.
311.
281.
521.
51R
MS
EA
0.05
10.
046
0.04
20.
039
0.04
90.
047
0.04
20.
042
0.05
70.
056
NF
I0.
970.
970.
970.
970.
960.
970.
960.
960.
960.
96C
FI
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
GF
I0.
840.
850.
850.
860.
840.
850.
840.
840.
820.
83
Notes:
Sig
nifi
can
tat
:*
p,
0.10
;no
star
,0.
001;
fig
ure
sre
pre
sen
tst
and
ard
ized
con
stru
ctco
effi
cien
ts;
ital
icfi
gu
res
rep
rese
nt
stan
dar
diz
edst
ruct
ura
lco
effi
cien
ts;
ns
–n
on-s
ign
ifica
nt
Table IV.
Justice andemployeereactions
689
Figure 2.Estimation results of theHRM system – employeereactions linkage model
Em
ploy
eeR
eact
ions
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Tru
stH
RM
Clim
ate
HR
MC
onte
nt
HR
MP
roce
ss
Mot
ivat
ion
Com
mitm
ent
Eng
agem
ent
OC
B
Inte
grity
Com
pete
nce
Dep
enda
bilit
y
Res
ourc
ing
Tra
inin
g
Rew
ards
Rel
atio
ns
Dis
tictiv
enes
s
Con
sist
ency
Con
sens
us
Res
ourc
ing
Tra
inin
g
Rew
ards
Rel
atio
ns
0.31
0.40
Seni
orit
y
Pos
itio
n
Age
Gen
der
0.88
0.82
0.90
0.74
0.82
0.64
0.72
0.81
0.86
0.74
0.92
0.95
0.81
0.81
0.89
0.82
0.83
Chi
-Squ
are
= 4
80.5
9 df
= 3
19 p
-val
ue =
0.0
00 N
orm
ed C
hi-S
quar
e =
1.5
1 R
MSE
A =
0.0
56 N
FI =
0.9
6 C
FI =
0.9
9 G
FI =
0.8
3
Seni
ority
Gen
der
Age
Posi
tion
Ow
ner
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Just
ice
Dis
trib
utiv
e
Proc
edur
al
Inte
ract
iona
l
0.84
0.85
0.79
0.68
0.91
0.26
0.59
0.81
0.09 0.08 0.19
0.06
Sect
or
Size
Sect
or
Ow
ner
Size
0.66
0.91
0.50 0.77
0.88
0.14
0.08
0.20
0.21
0.49
0.59
0.79
0.95
0.85
MRR36,7
690
The results indicate that for all cases the links within the HRM system (i.e. from HRMcontent and process to HRM climate) and the link connecting the HRM system and theemployee reactions system (i.e. from HRM climate to organizational justice andorganizational trust) are the same in all models. In addition, the common links within theemployee reaction system (i.e. from organizational justice to organizational trust) do notdiffer significantly in all models. Finally, the specific links within the employee reactionsystem (i.e. from organizational justice to employee reactions, and from organizationaltrust to employee reactions) are different depending on the type of employee reaction.
5. FindingsThere are five major findings of this study. First, the content and the process of HRpractices, as perceived by employees, strongly influence employees’ reactions, such asmotivation, commitment, work engagement and OCB. In particular, considering thehighest values of the standardized coefficients of the items reported in Table IV, rewardsand training and development (content) and consistency and distinctiveness (process)are the most important drivers that produce shared perceptions among employees(climate), which in turn influence employee reactions, such as incentives, affectivecommitment, dedication and sportsmanship, through organizational justice and trust.
Second, the impact of the HRM process on employee reactions is much stronger thanthe impact of HRM content. This finding is important because most studies haveinvestigated either the influence of HRM content on employee attitudes (Kinnie et al.,2005; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007) or the influence of the HRM process on employeereactions (Frenkel et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011).
Third, HRM climate, organizational justice and organizational trust serially mediatethe relationship between the content and process of the HRM system, and employeereactions. Furthermore, in this serially mediated procedure, organizational justiceinfluences employee reactions through organizational trust. The findings indicate thatthe impact of the HRM system is stronger for employee commitment, and less for workengagement, motivation and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Fourth, procedural and distributive justice are related to organizational trust,supporting the findings of Alexander and Ruderman (1987), Kumar et al. (1995) andTyler and Lind (1992). In addition, procedural justice seems to be a better predictor ofemployee reactions, supporting Folger and Konovsky (1989) and Nikbin et al. (2012).
Fifth, considering the controls used in the study, the results indicate that motivation,commitment, work engagement and OCB are higher in the services and trade sectors,private organizations and larger organizations in the Greek context. In addition, theresults show that motivation, commitment, work engagement and OCB are higheramong women, older people, people who have worked longer in the organization, andpeople in lower positions.
6. Discussion6.1 ContributionThe contribution of this study can be related to its two objectives. According to the firstobjective, we found that both the content and the process of the HRM system influence theemployee reactions of employee motivation, commitment, work engagement andorganizational citizenship behaviour. Thus, the study, by integrating both the HRMcontent and process in investigating the HRM system – employee reactions relationship,
Justice andemployeereactions
691
confirms and extends empirical evidence focusing on either the content or the processalone in investigating the HRM – reactions relationship (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).Furthermore, the study, by establishing that the strength of the influence of HRM processis stronger than the influence of HRM content, breaks new ground in investigating theHRM system – employee reactions relationship. This is because it indirectly confirms thatit is more important to communicate effectively to employees the existing HR policies andpractices than to try to apply new ones. Specifically, for countries like Greece, which havebeen affected by the economic and financial crisis, concentrating on costly HR practices,such as rewards and training and development, is not enough unless an effort is also madeto communicate these HR policies and practices (and others) more consistently anddistinctively. Moreover, using consistent and distinctive procedures of communicationmay not incur any additional costs to the organization.
According to the second objective we found that organizational justice and trustmediate the relationship between the HRM system (content, process and climate) andemployee reactions. Specifically, in this study we traced the strength of the influenceof various dimensions of both organizational justice and organizational trust onemployee reactions. This study contributes to the growing number of studies that try toopen the black box ofthe HRM – employee reactions relationship (Paauwe, 2009;van de Voorde et al., 2010, 2012). Accordingly, we argue in this study that researcherscan go beyond looking at the two end-points of the relationship, and illuminate theintervening stages of the HRM-employee reactions relationship. This study supports theview that employee reactions do not just depend on HRM content and process that mayshape the perceptions of individuals (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004), but that theseperceptions of individuals influence specific factors of organizational justice and trust,which in turn influence employee reactions. Thus, contrary to Wong et al. (2006) whoargue that the relationship between organizational justice and trust produces mixedresults, the results of the present study indicate that procedural and distributive justiceare related to trust, dependability and integrity, which in turn influence employeereactions. In countries like Greece, which are experiencing economic and financial crisis,employee reactions may be very sensitive to trust and justice in the organization, due tothe uncertainties that have grown during the period of crisis.
Beyond the above, an important further contribution of this work relates to thegeneral findings with respect to the controls used in the investigation. We found thatorganizational and individual controls do matter when examining the HRM-reactionsrelationship. Specifically, although we connected organizational and individual controlswith all constructs of the model, we found significant links only between organizationalcontrols (sector, owner, size) and HRM content and process, and between individualcontrols (gender, age, seniority, position) and employee reactions. These results addvalue to the growing evidence suggesting that organizational characteristics havedifferential effects on HRM systems (Katou, 2012), and individual characteristics havedifferential effects on perceptions of employees ( Johnson et al., 2009; Lin, 2008).
6.2 Implications for practiceThis study has clear implications for both managers and decision makers. It identifiesthat employees are more committed and satisfied when the HRM system is moreconsistent and distinctive, more rewarding, and when it provides opportunitiesfor training. This is important considering that the Greek economy is under competitive
MRR36,7
692
pressure due the current economic and financial crisis. Thus, to improve employeereactions, which may result in improved organizational performance, managers shouldmake their HRM systems more instrumental (i.e. the HR function succeeds in linkingoutcomes to employee behaviour), valid (i.e. the HR initiatives match their actual effects),consistent (i.e. the HR department send compatible and stable messages across contextsand time), and more visible (i.e. salient and readily observable), understandable (i.e. easeof comprehension of its content), legitimate (i.e. its agents have legitimacy in shapingemployee actions) and relevant (i.e. helping to achieve the goals of employees) (Li et al.,2011) (Table II). This means that managers need to develop the skills to design andimplement HRM systems that lead to desired employee attitudes. For example,communication methods between managers and employees in relation to appraisalprocedures developed by the HR department may facilitate desired actions that willmake employees committed from their first day in the organization. In addition,managers and practitioners need to think about the extent to which actions that the HRdepartment undertakes meet the needs of employees (Nishii et al., 2008).
6.3 Limitations and further researchThis study has three main limitations. First, the data was collected using a questionnaireat a single point in time. As a result, the study does not allow for dynamic causalinferences (Cavanaugh and Noe, 1999). Future research would benefit from employinglongitudinal data. Second, although the Harman (1967) test indicated that there was littlecommon method bias in the data, reliance on single respondents may limit confidence inmaking cause and effect inferences. Future research could minimize possible commonmethod bias concerns if data were gathered from independent sources (Podsakoff andOrgan, 1986). Third, the study was applied in the Greek context, which has differentlabour relations from other countries, and thus the findings from the Greek sample maynot generalize across borders (de Jong et al., 2009). Future research should include othercontexts such as different countries.
7. ConclusionsThis study provides an empirical test of the HRM-employee reactions relationship.We followed Bowen and Ostroff (2004) in examining the content of an HRM system,expressed by actual HR practices (resourcing, training, rewards and relationships) andthe process of the HRM system, specifically the strength of the HRM system(distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) and their contribution to HRM climate(employees’ shared perceptions of the HRM system). In addition, we examined themediating role of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactionaljustice) and trust (integrity, competence and dependability) in the relationship betweenemployees’ shared perceptions of the HRM system and employee reactions (motivation,commitment, work engagement and OCB).
We conclude that, in the integrated system of HRM content and process (Bowen andOstroff, 2004), the HRM process has a greater impact on employee reactions than theHRM content. Furthermore, we found that organizational justice mediates therelationship between HRM climate and trust, and that trust mediates the relationshipbetween organizational justice and employee reactions. In particular, we found thatprocedural and distributive justice is related more strongly with trust, dependability andintegrity, and also we found that procedural justice is a better predictor of employee
Justice andemployeereactions
693
reactions than distributive justice. Therefore, this study provides a useful startingpoint for future research that could investigate the impact of both the content and theprocess of HRM systems on employee reactions, mediated by organizational justice andtrust.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice inorganizational behaviour”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 177-198.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Armstrong, M. (1996), A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, Kogan Page, London.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2004), “Countering the trend towards careerist orientation in the age ofdownsizing: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 4,pp. 321-328.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship betweenorganizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal ofOrganizational Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003), “Trust in managerial relationships”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 282-304.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication fairness ofcommunication”, in Lewicki, R.J., Shepard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research inNegotiations in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Blakely, G.L., Andrews, M.C. and Moorman, R.H. (2005), “The moderating effects of equitysensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizationalcitizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 259-273.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), “Commonalities and contradictions in HRM andperformance research”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 67-94.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the roleof the ‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2,pp. 203-221.
Brockner, J. and Siegel, P. (1996), “Understanding the interaction between procedural anddistributive justice: the role of trust”, in Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust inOrganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 390-413.
Cavanaugh, M.A. and Noe, R.A. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of relationalcomponents of the new psychological contract”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 20, pp. 323-340.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2011), “The role of justice in organizations:a meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86,pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. and Greenberg, J. (2003), “Organizational justice: a fair assessment of the stateof the literature”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science,2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
MRR36,7
694
Colquitt, J.A., Conlin, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H. and Ng, K.L. (2001), “Justice at themillennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Cook, J. and Wall, T.D. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitmentand personal need non-fulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguishprocedural from interactional justice”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27,pp. 324-351.
DeConinck, J.B. (2010), “The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support,and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 63, pp. 1349-1355.
DeConinck, J.B. and Stilwell, C.D. (2004), “Incorporating organizational justice, role states, paysatisfaction and supervisor in a model of turnover intentions”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 225-231.
de Jong, J., Schalk, R. and de Cuyper, N. (2009), “Balanced versus unbalanced psychologicalcontracts in temporary and permanent employment: associations with employeeattitudes”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Delery, J. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:test of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 802-835.
Delmotte, J., Winne, S.D., Gilbert, C. and Sels, L. (2007), “Comparing line managers’ and tradeunion representatives’ assessments of HRM strength”, paper presented at the Dutch HRMNetwork Conference, Tilburg, November.
Dimitriades, Z.S. (2007), “The influence of service climate and job involvement oncustomer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations:a survey”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 469-491.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implicationsfor research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628.
Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell-Cook, G. and Frink, D.D. (1999), “Humanresource management: some new directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 385-415.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionsto pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Frenkel, S.J., Li, M. and Restubog, S.L.D. (2011), “Management, organizational justice andemotional exhaustion among Chinese migrant workers: evidence from two manufacturingfirms”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2005), “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in ISadoption: a study of e-commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for InformationSystems, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-30.
Gerhart, B., Wrigth, P.M., McMaham, G.C. and Snell, S.A. (2000), “Measurement error in researchon human resource s and firm performance: how much error is there and how does itinfluence effect size estimates?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 803-834.
Gounans, S.P. (2005), “Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights frombusiness-to-business services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Graham, J. (1991), “An essay on organizational citizenship behaviour”, Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 249-270.
Guzzo, R.A. and Nooman, K.A. (1994), “Human resource practices as communications and thepsychological contract”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33, pp. 447-462.
Justice andemployeereactions
695
Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2008), Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings, Prentice-Hall, London.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Huselid, M.A. and Becker, B.E. (1996), “Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panelestimates of the human resource management – firm performance link”, IndustrialRelations, Vol. 35, pp. 400-422.
Jackson, S., Schuler, R. and Rivero, J.C. (1989), “Organisational characteristics as predictor ofpersonnel practices”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 727-786.
Johnson, J.T., Barksdale, H.C. Jr and Boles, J.S. (2003), “Factors associated with customerwillingness to refer leads to sales people”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 4,pp. 257-263.
Johnson, S.K., Holladay, C.L. and Quinones, M.A. (2009), “Organizational citizenship behavior inperformance evaluations: distributive justice or injustice?”, Journal of Business andPsychology, Vol. 24, pp. 409-418.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (2004), LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer Software], ScientificSoftware International, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL.
Karriker, J.H. and Williams, M.L. (2009), “Organizational justice and organizational citizenshipbehavior: a mediated multifoci model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 112-135.
Katou, A.A. (2012), “Investigating reverse causality between human resource managementpolicies and organizational performance in small firms”, Management Research Review,Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 134-156.
Kenny, D. (2011), “Structural equation modeling”, available at: http://davidakenny.net/cm/causalm.htm (accessed December 12, 2011).
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005), “Satisfaction with HRpractices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all”, HumanResource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 9-29.
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. (1988), Applied Regression Analysis and OtherMultivariate Methods, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and exchange”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1995), “The effects of supplier fairness onvulnerable resellers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 54-65.
Li, X., Frenkel, S. and Sanders, K. (2011), “Strategic HRM as process: how HR system andorganizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes”, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1825-1842.
Liao, H. and Rupp, D.E. (2005), “The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on workoutcomes: a cross-level multi-foci framework”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90,pp. 242-256.
Lin, C.-P. (2008), “Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors,gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan”, Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 241-250.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance incross-sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,pp. 1297-1349.
MRR36,7
696
Lockwood, N.R. (2010), Motivation in Today’s Workplace: The Link to Performance, ResearchQuarterly, Society for Human Resource Management, Berea, OH.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and socialexchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, andnormative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, andconsequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1984), “Designing strategic human resources systems”,Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 36-52.
Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M.and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman, R.H., Neihoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly andorganizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, and procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6,pp. 209-225.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizen behaviour”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 3, pp. 527-556.
Nikbin, D., Ismail, I., Marimuthu, M. and Armesh, H. (2012), “Perceived justice in service recoveryand switching intention: evidence from Malaysian mobile telecommunication industry”,Management Research Review, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 309-325.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HRpractices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 503-545.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Solider Syndrome, LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.
Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Paine, K.D. (2003), Guidelines for Measuring Trust in Organizations, The Institute of PublicRelations, London.
Pavlou, P.A. and Gefen, D. (2005), “Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces:antecedents, consequences, and moderating role”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 372-399.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1991), Measurement, Design, and Analysis: AnIntegrated Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the WorkForce, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.
Pinder, C.C. (1998), Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, Upper Saddle River,New Jersey, NJ.
Justice andemployeereactions
697
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organization research: problems andprospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizationalcitizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performancecausal chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Puusa, A. and Tolvanen, U. (2006), “Organizational identity and trust”, Electronic Journal ofBusiness Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 29-33.
Rego, A. and Cunha, M.P. (2010), “Organisational justice and citizenship behaviors: a study in thePortuguese cultural context”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 404-430.
Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Bordia, S. (2009), “The interactive effects of procedural justiceand equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach:an interactionist perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 165-178.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of theliterature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rifai, H.A. (2005), “A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction,affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior”, Gadjah MadaInternational Journal of Business, Vol. 7, pp. 131-154.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement ofengagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal ofHappiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Linking competitive strategies with human resourcemanagement practices”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Shamir, B. and Lapidot, Y. (2003), “Trust in organizational superiors: systemic and collectiveconsiderations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 463-491.
Stinglhamber, F., De Cremer, D. and Mercken, L. (2006), “Perceived support as a mediator of therelationship between justice and trust”, Group of Organizational Management, Vol. 31No. 4, pp. 442-468.
Swan, J.E., Bowers, M.R. and Richardson, L.D. (1999), “Customer trust in the salesperson: anintegrative review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 93-107.
Tan, H.H. and Tan, C.S.F. (2000), “Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust inorganization”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 2,pp. 241-260.
Tansky, J.W. (1993), “Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: what is the relationship?”,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 195-207.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2000), “Re-examining the effects of psychological contractviolations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in group”, Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-192.
MRR36,7
698
van de Voorde, F.C., Paauwe, J. and van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2010), “Predicting business unitperformance using employee surveys: monitoring HRM-related changes”, HumanResource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 44-63.
van de Voorde, F.C., Paauwe, J. and van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2012), “Employee well-being andthe HRM-organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000),“Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizationalcitizenship in a non-work setting”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 3-23.
Vanhala, M. and Ahteela, R. (2011), “The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizationaltrust”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 869-888.
Wong, Y.-T., Ngo, H.-Y. and Wong, C.-S. (2006), “Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB:a study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises”, Journal ofWorld Business, Vol. 41, pp. 2344-2355.
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2004), “Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: integratingmultiple level analysis”, paper presented at the What Next for HRM? Conference,Rotterdam, June.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1991), “Toward an integrative view of strategic human resourcemanagement”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 203-225.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit andflexibility in strategic human resources management”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 756-772.
Zhang, H. and Agarwal, N.C. (2009), “The mediating roles of organizational justice on therelationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China”,International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 676-693.
About the authorAnastasia A. Katou is a Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Operations Managementat the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research interests include humanresource management, organizational behaviour, and business strategies, with a focus onorganizational performance. She received a BA and an MBA from the University of Sunderland,UK, and a PhD and a PgD from the Cardiff University, Wales, UK. She has published numerousarticles in academic journals, such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management,Thunderbird International Business Review, Employee Relations, Global Business andOrganizational Excellence, Multinational Business Review, European Journal of InternationalManagement, European Management Journal, Personnel Review, Journal of IndustrialEngineering and Management, International Journal of Human Resources Development andManagement, Journal of World Business, and Management Research Review. Anastasia A. Katoucan be contacted at: [email protected]
Justice andemployeereactions
699
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints