linking performance appraisal quality with employee

Linking Performance Appraisal Quality with

Employee Participation in Informal Learning

Activities through Psychological Empowerment

By

Aamer Waheed

CIIT/SP12-PMS-005/ISB

PhD ThesisIn

Management Sciences

COMSATS University Islamabad

Islamabad Campus - Pakistan

Fall, 2018

ii


Linking Performance Appraisal Quality with

Employee Participation in Informal Learning

Activities through Psychological Empowerment

A Thesis presented to


In partiall fullfilment

Of the requirement of the degree of

PhD Management Sciences

By

Aamer Waheed


Fall, 2018

iii

Linking Performance Appraisal Quality withEmployee Participation in Informal LearningActivities through Psychological Empowerment

A Post Graduate thesis submitted to the department of Management Sciences

as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of Degree of Ph.D in

Management Sciences.

Name Registration Number

Aamer Waheed CIIT/SP12-PMS-005/ISB

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Qaisar Abbas

Director


Lahore Campus

Co-Supervisor

Dr. Omer Farooq Malik

Assistant Professor

Department of Management Sciences,


iv

Certificate of Approval

This is to certify that research work presented in this thesis, entitled “LinkingPerformance Appraisal Quality with Employee Participation in Informal LearningActivities through Psychological Empowerment” was concluded by Aamer Waheedbearing Registration No.CIIT/SP12-PMS-005/ISB, under the supervision of Prof. Dr.Qaisar Abbas. No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any otherdegree. This thesis is submitted to the Department of Management Sciences,COMSATS University Islamabad in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Management Sciences.

Student Name: Aamer Waheed Signature: ____________________

Examination Committee:

External Examiner 1: External Examiner 2:

Prof. Dr. Hafiz Mushtaq AhmadDepartment of Management SciencesBahria University Islamabad

Prof. Dr. Masood-ul-HassanChairmanDepartment of CommerceBZU Multan

Prof. Dr. Qaisar AbbasSupervisorDirectorCOMSATS University IslamabadLahore Campus

Dr. Samina NawabChairpersonDepartment of Management SciencesCOMSATS University IslamabadWah Campus

v

Author’s Declaration

I, Aamer Waheed, bearing registration No. CIIT/ SP12-PMS-005/ISB, hereby state

that my thesis titled “Linking Performance Appraisal Quality with Employee

Participation in Informal Learning Activities through Psychological Empowerment” is

my own work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree

from this university i.e. COMSATS University, Islamabad or anywhere else in the

country/world.

At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after I graduate the

University has the right to withdraw my PhD degree.

Date: 09 December, 2019 _____________________

Aamer Waheed


vi

Plagiarism Undertaking

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “Linking

Performance Appraisal Quality with Employee Participation in Informal Learning

Activities through Psychological Empowerment” is solely my research work with no

significant contribution from any other person. Small contribution or help wherever

taken has been duly acknowledge and that complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero-tolerance policy of HEC and COMSATS University Islamabad

towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an author of the above titled thesis declare that no

portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material used as reference is

properly referred / cited.

I undertake if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis

even after award of PhD Degree, the University reserves the right to withdraw/revoke

my PhD degree and that HEC and the university has the right to publish my name on

the HEC/University website on which names of students are placed who submitted

plagiarized thesis.

Date: 09 December, 2019 ____________________

Aamer Waheed


vii

Certificate

It is certified that Aamer Waheed, Registration No. CIIT/ SP12-PMS-005/ISB, has

carried out all the work related to this thesis under my supervision at the Department

of Management Sciences, COMSATS University, Islamabad and the work fulfills the

requirement for award of PhD degree.

Date: 09 December, 2019Supervisor:

______________________Prof. Dr. Qaisar AbbasDirectorCOMSATS University IslamabadLahore Campus

In-charge / Head of Department:

_____________________________Department of Management SciencesCOMSATS University Islamabad

viii

DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated to my parents

Abdul Waheed and Safira Begum.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I acknowledge the bounty and support of my creator ALLAH Almighty,

who bestowed me with this great strength, courage and the power to perform the work

that I was assigned. He showed us the light of knowledge through which I found right

way to success. After that, Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) who

is the cradle of light, guidance and inspiration for all the creation of this universe. I

express extreme gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Qaisar Abbas and co-supervisor,

Dr. Omer Farooq Malik for their invaluable help, skillful guidance, and continuous

dedication throughout my research work. Both supervised the study with personal

dedication words fail to adequately express. Whenever I faced difficulty, they always

helped and guided me to solve the problem. I am eternally grateful to my head of

department, Dr. Aneel Salman, for his investment in my academic, professional, and

personal development. I also appreciate the contributions of Dr Timothy Colin

Bednall, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia for sharing his

knowledge and guidance. I am also grateful to Ms. Saba Bahareen Mansur, Assistant

Professor, English Language Center, for English editing and proof reading of

manuscript. I would like to thank all the faculty members who participated in the

survey and provided the valuable information. Without their support, time and

patience this research would not have been completed. To my best colleagues and

friends, Dr. Usman Ayub, Dr. Asif Shehzad, Dr. Malik Faisal Azeem, Muhammad

Shahid Iqbal, Arooj Khan and Muhammad Waqas Maharvi, thank you. I want to

acknowledge the support from the administrative staff, Dr. Abubakar Saeed (In-

charge graduate programs), Muhammad Zahid Malik and Imtiaz Ali (program

officers) and Mr. Muhammad Kamran (Naib Qasid). I am surrounded by family,

friends, and colleagues who provide unconditional love and encouragement including

my parents Abdul Waheed and Safira Begum, my wife, my children Rehab and

Adeen, brothers Asim Waheed, Mudassir Waheed and Afaq Mohsin, brother in-law

Inam-ur-Rehamn, and all family members.

Aamer Waheed

CIIT/ SP12-PMS-005/ISB

x

List of Publications

1. Waheed, A., Abbas, Q., & Malik, O. F. (2018). ‘Perceptions of PerformanceAppraisal Quality’ and Employee Innovative Behavior: Do PsychologicalEmpowerment and ‘Perceptions of HRM System Strength’ Matter? BehavioralSciences, 8(12), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8120114

2. Shahzad, A., Waheed, A., Khan, M. A. (2012). The Mediating Effect of IntrinsicMotivation on Perceived Investment in Employee Development and WorkPerformance, International Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics &Management, 2(5), 27-35.

3. Abbas, Q., Hameed, A., Waheed, A. (2011). Gender Discriminating & Its Effecton Employee Performance/Productivity, International Journal of Humanities andSocial Science, 1(15), 170-176.

4. Malik, O.F., Abbas, Q., Kiyani, T.M., Malik, K.U., Waheed, A. (2011). Perceivedinvestment in employee development and turnover intention: A social exchangeperspective, African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1904-1914.

5. Malik, O.F., Waheed, A., Malik, K.U. (2010). The Mediating Effects of JobSatisfaction on Role Stressors and Affective Commitment, International Journalof Business and Management, 5(11), 223-235.

xi

ABSTRACT

Linking Performance Appraisal Quality with Employee

Participation in Informal Learning Activities through

Psychological Empowerment

Organizations are facing increased economical, technological and labor market

challenges. In addition, they are confronted with the pressure to broaden the

employees’ participation in learning for sustainable development. Despite, manifold

efforts made towards learning in the workplace, the trends in adult learning

participation in Pakistan have remained unchanged for decades. The organizations are

relying more on formal training and learning activities whereas informal ways of

learning are not used to a large extent. The employee engagement in informal learning

activities (ILAs) is more important than formal learning because it contributes to more

than seventy percent of total learning.

The connection between human resource management practices and organizational

performance has been well established in variety of settings through employees’

participation in ILAs. There are some theoretical and methodological gaps that need

further investigation. The main research question to guide this study is how does

HRM system (content and process) impact employee participation in ILAs that

includes reflection (RE) on daily activities, knowledge sharing (KS) and innovative

behavior (IB) at the workplace. The purpose of this study is to propose a model that

explains the process in which HRM system, in terms of content (Perceptions of

performance appraisal quality) and process (perceptions of HRM system strength), is

linked to these ILAs under HR system strength (HRSS) theory.

Additionally, it is highly advised by the literature the relationship of HRM system

with organizational performance is no more recognized as a direct relationship. The

psychological empowerment (PE) as a positive job attitude plays a vital role in

shaping the behaviors of individuals in the workplace. Thus, building on the HRSS

theory, social cognitive theory and empowerment theory, the PPAQ and ILAs

relationship is better explained as mediated by PE. Moreover, it becomes imperative

xii

to examine the moderating role of PHSS in the relationship of PPAQ with employees’

attitudes (PE) and behaviors (ILAs) simultaneously.

Quantitative cross-sectional data were collected from the faculty members of twelve

public sector Higher Education Institutes/Universities (HEIs) of Islamabad Pakistan.

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is used for statistical

analysis of the quantitative data collected through self-administered questionnaire.

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine the construct validity, composite

reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. It appeared that the

perceptions of performance appraisal quality (PPAQ) is positively linked with PE,

RE, KS and IB. The PE is appeared to positively influence ILAs (RE, KS and IB). In

addition, PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and these three ILAs. Further,

perceptions of HRM system strength (PHSS) as a moderator is supportive to

employees’ PE and ILAs (RE, KS and IB). The direct and interaction effect models

have small predictive relevance for all three ILAs.

The contribution of this study is manifold as it integrates the different views and

approaches into one single model to explain the mystery of ‘black box’ in HRM and

organizational performance relationship. The novel is the mediating role of PE in

explaining the relationship fetched new understandings for the researchers and

practitioners in the field of organizational behavior, organizational learning and

human resource development (HRD). In addition, the study contributes to the

literature by demonstrating that PHSS have incremental effects on employees’ PE and

ILAs. The practical implications and future directions are also discussed.

Keywords: Informal learning activities, Perceptions of performance appraisal quality,

HRM system strength, Knowledge sharing, Reflection, Innovative behavior

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………... 01

1.1. Overview of the Chapter ……………………..…………. 02

1.2. Introduction of the Study ……………………..………… 02

1.3. Background of the Problem ………………..…………… 08

1.4. Problem Statement ………………………..…………….. 11

1.5. Purpose of the Study …………………………………….. 141.6. Research Questions ………………………………….….. 14

1.7. Research Objectives ………………………………….…. 15

1.8. Significance of the Study ………………………..……… 16

1.9. Thesis organization …………………….….……………. 18

1.10. Definitions of Terms ………………..………….………... 20

1.11. Summary …………………………..….…………………. 21

2. Literature Review …………………………..……….………….. 22

2.1. Introduction ……………………….……….……………. 23

2.2. Theoretical Orientation for the Study ….……..………… 23

2.3. Human Resource Management ……………….………... 24

2.3.1. Different Conceptualization of HRM ………… 25

2.3.2. Different Conceptualization of HRM Practices. 26

2.4. HRM and Organizational Performance ………………… 28

2.4.1. The Nature of Relationship …………………. 29

2.4.2. Diffeent Approaches to HRM ………………. 30

2.5. Underpinning Theories …………………………………. 33

2.5.1. Attribution Theories …………………………. 34

2.5.2. Multilevel Model Linking HR and FirmPerformance ……………………………….…. 35

xiv

2.5.3 HR System Strength Theory ……………….… 37

2.5.4 Social Cognitive Theory ……………….…….. 38

2.6. HR System Strength Theory and OrganizationalPerformance....................................................................... 39

2.7. Learning ……………………….…………………….…. 40

2.8. Workplace Learning ……………………….…………… 41

2.8.1. Formal Learning ………………….…………. 42

2.8.2. Informal Learning …………………………… 43

2.9. Informal Learning Activities (ILAs) ………………….... 52

2.9.1. Reflection …………………….………………. 53

2.9.2. Knowledge Sharing ………………….………. 57

2.9.3. Innovative Behavior ………………….………. 62

2.10. Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality …….…... 67

2.11. Psychological Contract and Psychological Climate ……. 71

2.12. Organizational Empowerment …………………….…….. 72

2.12.1. Social-Structural Empowerment ……...…..….. 73

2.12.2. Psychological Empowerment ………..………. 75

2.12.2.1. Meaning …………………………. 78

2.12.2.2. Competence ……………….……... 79

2.12.2.3. Self-Determination ………….…… 79

2.12.2.4. Impact …………..……..…...…… 80

2.13. Perceptions of HRM System Strength …………..….…… 82

2.13.1. Distinctiveness …………………………..…. 83

2.13.2. Consistency ………………….………………. 85

2.13.3. Consensus …………………………..………… 86

2.14. Conceptual Framework …………………………..……... 87

2.15. Hypotheses Development …………………………….… 88

2.15.1. Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality

xv

and Psychological Empowerment ……….….... 88

2.15.2. Psychological Empowerment and Informallearning activities ……….……………………. 90

2.15.2.1. Psychological Empowerment andReflection ………….……………. 92

2.15.2.2. Psychological Empowerment andKnowledge Sharing ………….…... 93

2.15.2.3. Psychological Empowerment andInnovative Behavior ………..……. 94

2.15.3. Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Qualityand Informal Learning Activities ………….…. 95

2.15.3.1. Perceptions of PerformanceAppraisal Quality and Reflection.. 97

2.15.3.2. Perceptions of PerformanceAppraisal Quality and KnowledgeSharing………………………….. 98

2.15.3.3. Perceptions of PerformanceAppraisal Quality and InnovativeBehavior ………………………… 99

2.15.4. Mediating Role of PsychologicalEmpowerment ………………………………... 100

2.15.5. Moderating Role of Perceptions of HRMSystem Strength ……………………………… 101

2.16. Conceptual Model ………………………………………. 103

2.17. Summary ……………...…………………………………. 105

3. Research Methodology …………………………………………. 107

3.1. Introduction ……………………………………………. 108

3.2. Research Methodology ………………………………… 109

3.2.1. Research Philosophy ………………………… 109

3.2.2. Research Approach …………………………. 110

3.2.3. Methodological Choices ……………………. 111

3.2.4. Research Strategy …………………………… 113

xvi

3.2.5. Time Horizon …………………..…………... 113

3.2.6. The Purpose of the Research ……………..… 113

3.2.7. Data Collection and Data Analysis …………. 114

3.3. Industry Setting ………………………………………... 115

3.4. Population ……………………………………………... 118

3.5. Sampling ………………………………………………. 119

3.6. Measurement and Scales ………………………………. 122

3.6.1. Informal Learning Activities ….……..……… 123

3.6.2. Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality. 124

3.6.3. Perceptions of HRM System Strength …….… 124

3.6.4. Psychological Empowerment ……………….. 125

3.6.5. Demographics and Control Variables ……….. 126

3.7. Research Ethics …………………………...……………... 126

3.8. Pilot Study ………………………….………….………... 127

3.9. Evaluation of Underlying Assumptions of MultivariateData ……………………………………………………… 128

3.9.1. Missing Values Analysis …………….………. 128

3.9.2. Multivariate Outliers …………...…….……… 128

3.9.3. Normality Test ………….…..………….……. 129

3.10. Data Analysis ……………………….……………….…. 129

3.10.1. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ……..…. 130

3.11. Measurement Model …………………………….……… 132

3.11.1. Internal Consistency Reliability ………...…… 133

3.11.2. Indicators Reliability ………………..….……. 133

3.11.3. Convergent Validity ………………….………. 134

3.11.4. Discriminant Validity ………………………… 134

3.12. Structural Model ………………………..………….……. 136

3.12.1. Coefficient of Determination (R2) …………… 136

xvii

3.12.2. Effect Size (f 2) ……………………..….……. 136

3.12.3. Path Coefficient Estimates ……..…….………. 137

3.12.4. Predictive Relevance Q2 and q2 ……..……..... 137

3.13. Summary...………….……………………………………. 139

4 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………. 140

4.1. Introduction……..………………………………………. 141

4.2. Evaluation of Underlying Assumptions of MultivariateData………………………………………………………. 141

4.2.1. Missing Value…..…………………….………. 141

4.2.2. Collinearity ………………….……….………. 142

4.2.3. Heteroscedasticity…………………….………. 142

4.2.4. Common Method Variance ………….………. 142

4.3. Respondents Profile ……………………..……………… 143

4.4. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures …..…. 145

4.5. Graphical Representation of Descriptive Statistics ……. 147

4.6. Structural Equation Modeling ………….………………. 147

4.7. Measurement Model ………………….………………… 147

4.7.1. Internal Consistency Reliability ……………... 147

4.7.2. Composite Reliability ………….……………. 148

4.7.3. Convergent Validity …………………………. 148

4.7.3.1. Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Test 151

4.7.3.2. Fornell-Larcker ……………..…… 151

4.7.3.3 Cross Loadings …………………. 151

4.7.3.4 Correlation ………………………. 152

4.8. Structural Model ……………………………...…………. 158

4.8.1. Main Effect ………………………..…………. 158

4.8.2. Mediating Effect …………………..…………. 161

4.8.3. Moderating Effect ……………………………. 165

xviii

4.8.4. Interaction ……………………….…………… 167

4.9. Effect Size (f 2) and Predictive Relevance (q2) …………. 169

4.9.1. f 2 and q2 for Main Effect Model…………….... 170

4.9.2. f 2 and q2 for Moderating Effect Model………. 172

4.10. Control Variables ………………...……………………… 175

4.11. Summary………….……………………………………… 175

5. Discussion ………………………………………………………... 177

5.1. Summary ……………………...…………………………. 178

5.1.1. Research Design ……………..………………. 179

5.1.2. Population and Sample……….………………. 179

5.1.3. Instrumentation ……………….……………… 180

5.1.4. Scale Reliability ……………….……………... 180

5.2. Findings …………………………..……………………... 180

5.3. Discussions ………………………...……………………. 183

5.4. Theoretical Contributions ……………………..………… 187

5.5. Practical Implications …………………...………………. 189

5.6. Limitations and Future Directions ………………………. 190

5.7. Concluding Remarks …………………………………... 191

References …………………………………………………………... 193

Annexure-I: Questionnaire………………………………………… 226

Annexure-II: Graphical representation of Constructs.…………... 232

xix

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 2.1. Multilevel Model Linking HR Systems and Firm

Performance (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) ………………..36

Fig 2.2. Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Styles ……………. 44

Fig 2.3. Watkins and Marsick’s (1992) Informal and Incidental

Learning Framework ………..……………….………….47

Fig 2.4. Cseh, Watkins and Marsick’s (1999) Informal and

Incidental Learning Framework ……………..………….48

Fig 2.5. Bennett’s (2012) Four-part Informal Learning Model …. 50

Fig 2.6. Gibb’s (1988) reflective cycle………..…….…………… 55

Fig 2.7. Luan and Serban’s (2002) classification of knowledge … 58

Fig 2.8. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1994) SECI Model with Chini’s

(2004) developmental tools ……………….…………….60

Fig 2.9. Proposed Conceptual Model ……………...……………. 104

Fig 4.1. A Main Effect Model ……………………..……………. 160

Fig 4.2. Interaction Effect Model: Perception of HRM System

Strength as a Moderator …………………………………166

Fig 4.3. Interaction effect of perception of HRM system strength

on perceptions of performance appraisal quality and

psychological empowerment. ………………...…………

167



reflection………………………………………………....

168

xx



knowledge sharing. ………………………………….....

168


on Perceptions of performance appraisal quality and

innovative behavior …………………………………….

169

xxi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Summary of Research Process …………………………. 114

Table 3.2. Summary of Responses (case wise) ………………….… 121

Table 3.3. Features of Reflective Measurement Models ………....... 132

Table-3.4. Main Guidelines/Rules of Thumb for Assessing

Reflective Measurement Models………………...……….135

Table 3.5. Guiding principles for structural model evaluation...…… 138

Table 4.1. Collinearity Assessment (Reflection, Knowledge

Sharing, Innovative Behavior: Dependent Variable)....…143

Table 4.2. The Descriptive of the Sample (N = 360) ...……………. 144

Table 4.3. Mean, Standard deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis,

Cronbach, Items Description.………………….…………145

Table 4.4. Results summary for reflective measurement model.…. 149

Table 4.5. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)…………...………. 153

Table 4.6. Fornell–Larcker test for discriminant validity…..……… 154

Table 4.7. Cross Loadings…………………………………………... 155

Table 4.8. Results of Main effect model……………………………. 159

Table 4.9. The mediating effect of Psychological Empowerment (IV

= Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality) ………162

Table 4.10. Bootstrapping Results of the indirect effect

(DV=Reflection)…………………………………………163

xxii


(DV=Knowledge Sharing) …………………..…………..163


(DV=Innovative Behavior) …………..……….…………164

Table 4.13. Results of PLS-SEM Moderation Model………………... 165

Table 4.14. Effect size and predictive relevance for mediating

variable (DV=Reflection) ……………….……………170


variable (DV=Knowledge Sharing) …………………….171


variable (DV=Innovative Behavior) ……………………171

Table 4.17. Effect size and predictive relevance for moderating

variable HRM System Strength (DV=Psychological

Empowerment) ………………………………………….

172


variable HRM System Strength (DV=Reflection) …….173


variable HRM System Strength (DV=Knowledge

Sharing)…………………………………………………..

173

Table 4.20 Effect size and predictive relevance for moderating

variable HRM System Strength (DV=Innovative

Behavior) ………………………………………………...

175

Table 4.21 Decision about Hypotheses……………………………… 174

xxiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AMOS Analysis of Moment Structures

CO Competence

CS Consensus

CT Consistency

DI Distinctiveness

HEC Higher Education Commission of Pakistan

HEIs Higher Education Institutes/Universities

HR Human Resource

HRD Human Resource Development

HRM Human Resource Management

HRSS HRM System Strength Theory

IB Innovative Behavior

IL Informal Learning

ILAs Informal Learning Activities

IM Impact

KS Knowledge Sharing

ME Meaning

OP Organizational Performance

PE Psychological Empowerment

PHSS Perceptions of HRM System Strength

PLS Partial Least Squares

RE Reflection

SD Self-Determination

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

2

1.1 Overview of the Chapter

This chapter provides the basis of this thesis and provides the general

introduction of the theme and topic of the study (Section 1.2). The background of the

problem is explained in Section 1.3 and problem statement in Section 1.4. The

purpose of the research is explained in Section 1.5. Section 1.6 outlines the research

aims, objectives and questions. Brief overview of the methodology is provided in

Section 1.7. The significance of the study is explained in Section 1.8 and theoretical

framework is presented in Section 1.9. Section 1.10 provides summary of the thesis

structure and organization. The terms are defined in Section 1.11 and the summary of

this is presented is Section 1.12.

1.2 Introduction of the Study

The success and sustainable existence of any organization is confronted with

many challenges in today’s competitive world. Organizations are facing economic,

technological and labor market challenges. They are required to cope up with these

challenges for the survival, success and growth (Noe et al., 2014). The stakeholders

demand for optimal level of satisfaction leading to economic challenge. Organizations

need to develop expertise in mobile computing and get access through social media

for improvement in communication means with internal as well as external parties to

tackle the technological changes (Noe et al., 2013). Labor market challenges call for

utmost assistance from the talents and abilities of the available labor force. On the

other hand, workers differ with each other in terms of gender, age, race, skills, and

capabilities making it more contestable (Toossi, 2009). Furthermore, workers’

expectations are also changing in terms of work, workplace, and behaviors (Butts et

al., 2013).

In such a highly demanding business environment, organizations strive for

competitive advantage by utilizing their corporate resources intelligently and

optimally. In other words, the management and deployment of these resources is

critical for success and sustainability (Oladigo, 2018). According to the resource-

based view, firms can get competitive advantage, especially in terms of sustenance

and development, by capitalizing their associated resources (Barney, 1991). The

associated resources can be categorized in three broader themes; financial capital,

3

physical resources, and human capital. Financial capital can be expressed in terms of

money or cash that a firm or organization holds. Physical resources are the capital or

material resources composed of tools, machinery, equipment, infrastructure, and

technology. At last, workers or employees are used as one of the significant input or

resource by the firms in their business.

The human capital is an intangible asset that provides services to the employer

and is recognized as the most valuable asset that the firms should focus upon to get

competitive advantage (Katou et al., 2014; Noe et al., 2010). Together with this, the

organizations are underrating the importance of their intangible assets or more

precisely; human capital (Oladejo & Odetoye, (2018). This human capital contributes,

at its best, to the firm’s competitive advantage especially when they are valuable,

intellectual, unique, and different (Barney & Wright, 1998). Human resource or

human capital is a polished and matchless resource for an organization especially

when their knowledge, abilities, and skills come across with other assets/resources

(Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011).

All this call for the special attention towards the importance of human

workplace learning for success and survival. This is due to the fact that the markets

are becoming more technology intensive, competitive, and global in nature (Clarke,

2004; Marsick & Volpe, 1999). Workplace learning associates the human capital

development and the organizational development, with the vision of sustainability in

the learning processes and outcomes. The concept of workplace learning involves two

approaches i.e. formal learning and informal learning.

The formal learning involves the enrollment of employees in on-the-job

training programs with a certain level of education or certification and completing

various courses according to the job description (Jacobs & Park, 2009). For this,

organizations are making efforts to augment the potential and increase performance of

workforce through employee development programs (Marsick, 1988a). These

development programs being conducted by the organizations and are considered as a

top-down hierarchical practice (Noe et al., 2014). In such a practice, the team leaders

or the senior managers are responsible for identifying the employee learning

requirements and accordingly, conducting the training programs for them (Bednall &

Sanders, 2016; Bednall et al., 2014).

4

These programs include mandatory participation in the training programs that

emphasizes on attaining knowledge and improving the skills and abilities to adapt and

predict situations to achieve strategic goals and objectives for the organization

(Kraiger and Ford, 2006). Introduction of such training programs have proved to be

successful in enhancing the performance of employees in different areas (Aguinis &

Kraiger, 2009; Noe et al., 2014; Bednall et al., 2014). The organizations are investing

millions of dollars on training programs to promote and encourage formal learning to

have competitive advantage (Choi & Jacobs, 2011). For that reason, it is not

unexpected that employee training and development has become not only an ordinary

industry but a multibillion-dollar industry (Noe et al., 2010). Despite, its importance

in the development of human capital, this form of learning has some drawbacks as

well.

The formal learning through training has been criticized by different

researchers as such trainings bear high costs, requires extra time, and need extra

efforts to put in those trainings which may divert the employees from their natural

work environment (Cormier-MacBurnie et al., 2015; Schei & Nebro, 2015; Lohman,

2009; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Hall, 1996; Lohman, 2006). In addition, learning and

knowledge is not restricted to the formal activities in a classroom environment.

Workplace learning is comprised of more productive learning activities in the

authentic workplace. It is therefore, necessary to recognize and understand the

currently changing trends of workplace learning (Jacobs & Parks, 2009).

For long term prosperity, success and sustainable development of human

capital, the skills should be developed through lifelong continuous learning

procedures which are significantly different from formal training and

development programs (London & Sessa, 2006). In the new global and competitive

economy where sustainability is the focus of every organization, diversity in learning

is an important source of competitive advantage (Crick, Haigney, Huang, Cobourn, &

Goldspink, 2013; Kynd, 2016; Clus, 2011).

The concept of informal learning (IL) is synonymous to incidental learning

and self-development (Marsick & Watkins, 1990; Marsick et al., 1999; Orvis &

Leffler, 2011). IL is generally “characterized as unstructured, experiential, and non-

institutionalized” (Marsick & Volpe, 1999), activities initiated by employees in the

5

natural working environment with an intention to learn something new (Cerasoli et

al., 2017). IL is considered as more effective than formal learning because of its

effectiveness and contribution to development. In comparison to the formal training,

IL provides the individuals/employees more meaningful learning experiences by

providing them with the latest set of skills and knowledge (Tannenbaum et al., 2010).

It includes cognitive activities, such as learning by one own self (own experiences),

learning from others (mentor, supervisor, peers), and learning from non-interpersonal

material resources (books, papers, online material) thus helps in polishing the skills

and expertise of employees (Lohman, 2005; Doornbos et al., 2008).

Geijsel et al. (2009) says that ILAs are those which is least partially controlled

by the employees. It is “a set of connected activities carried out individually or in

interaction with others, aimed at optimizing individual or collective practices” (Van

Woerkom et al., 2002). Crouse et al. (2011) and Clarke (2004) has identified that job

rotation, trial and error, mentoring, working with others, reading and researching, job

shadowing, surfing the web, reflection on action, observing others, and networking

are the major types of ILAs in which employees are engaged.

Similarly, Lohman (2005; 2006) has identified that talking with others,

searching journals and magazines, collaborate with others, searching the internet,

sharing material and resources, observing others, trial and error, and reflection on

other’s practices are considered as ILAs. Self-directed projects are also considered as

informal types of learning (Chan & Auster, 2003). De Groot et al. (2012) and Van

Woerkom et al. (2002) has presented that learning from mistake, asking for feedback,

critical reflection, vision sharing, knowledge sharing, social interaction and

experimentation are the critical behaviors in which employees are engaged. It includes

the activities such as interacting with others, self-reflection, reading job relevant

material and experimenting with new ways of performing tasks (Noe et al., 2013).

The employee involves in different types of activities or behaviors that are

considered as ILAs. The literature varied in describing the types and nature of ILAs

(Jeong et al., 2018). However, Bednall et al. (2014) made a judgement that despite,

different classifications and types of ILAs consensus has been found for three

activities. In current study, reflection on daily activities (RE), knowledge sharing

6

(KS), and innovative behavior (IB) are considered as representative ILAs (Jeong et

al., 2018; Bakkenes et al., 2010; Kwakman, 2003).

Reflection on daily activities or reflection (RE) is an important workplace ILA

for building knowledge and expertise in employees. Marsick et al. (2014) argue that

ILAs are initiated by the reflective strategies, which is a dialectical process of action

and reflection. It is believed that reflection helps employees to consolidate

knowledge, recognize improvement areas and exchange of routine behaviors (Frankel

et al., 2012a; Van Woerkom, 2004; Parsons & Stephenson, 2005). Reflection

following one’s actions, or the actions of others, and personal experimentation, are

examples of learning on one’s own (Jeon & Kim, 2012; Lohman, 2005).

Knowledge sharing (KS) is a set of behaviors that helps in exchange of

acquired knowledge among individuals, groups and organizations (Chow & Chan,

2008; Ryu et al., 2003). The sharing of success and failures through informal chats or

meetings is also considered as KS behavior (Kwakman, 2003). Individuals are highly

socialized to share their best practices and mistakes with colleagues (Frankel et al.,

2012b; Yu & To, 2013). KS is a social interaction process of imparting new

knowledge at individual, group and organizational level (Jeon & Kim, 2012; Van den

Hooff et al., 2012; Lin, 2007). The transformation of individual knowledge into

organizational knowledge is known as KS (Foss et al., 2010) and it is an enabler of

knowledge management (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). KS is an informal way of learning

in which employees discuss their problems, share ideas, and seek advice from their

colleagues through informal feedback and support (Bednall et al., 2014).

Innovative behavior (IB) is vital for performance improvement (Cesario &

Chambel, 2017; Janssen et al., 2004), organizational effectiveness and success

(Thurlings et al., 2015; Scott & Bruce, 1998; Woodman et al., 1993) by creating or

introducing new product, technology or process. IB was initially recognized as extra-

role behavior (Organ, 1997) but now importance with respect to job and performance

has been acknowledge and attained the status of in-role behavior as a part of normal

job assignment or routine work (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Janssen, 2000). The

creativity is a component of IB (Jong & Hartog, 2010). Irrespective of emanates of

innovation, the flow is from individual to group and then organization (Mumford,

7

2000). The individuals and their inspirations are the main source of innovation by

displaying IB (Woodman et al., 1993).

The participation in ILAs (RE, KS and IB) is meant obligatory for accountants

(Wahab et al., 2016), managers (Choi and Jacobs, 2011), nurses (Svensson et al.,

2004; Bjørk et al., 2013), teachers (Van Eekelen et al., 2005; Lohman, 2009), and

HRM practitioners (Crouse et al., 2011). The employees can learn by their voluntary

participation in these ILAs (Milia & Birdi, 2010). Informal learning is dependent on

many factors such as personal abilities of an individual and on the context of learning.

This type of learning is initiated by the learner according to his/her learning interests,

by the actions and reflection and on need basis. It depends on the motivational level

and experience that is not a part of formal classroom learning (Tannenbaum et al.,

2010; Lohman, 2009; 2006). The organizations are still facing the challenge of “how

best to encourage and enable informal learning to enhance the performance” (Bednall

et al., 2014).

Since the early work of Marsick (1988a, 1988b) and Marsick and Watkins

(1990) the interest in informal learning has grown substantially. With this the

development and support to ILAs was a big challenge faced by HR practitioners and

researchers (Marsick, 2009; Ellinger, 2005). A number of conceptual and empirical

studies have been carried out to show the ways and means through which ILAs can be

facilitated (Schurmann & Beausaert, 2016; Choi & Jacob, 2011). There are different

factors that are used to decide the degree of involvement and effectiveness in informal

learning programs. The personal features and characterizes of an individual affect

their actions and decisions (Enos et al., 2003).

Research has recognized that the development of employees through informal

learning is influenced by individual level socio-demographic factors (Sibaran et al.,

2015; Nilsson & Rubeson, 2014), personal characteristics (Noe et al., 2013; Hoekstra

et al., 2009) and job characteristics (Schurmann & Beausaert, 2016; Sutherland, 2016;

Jeon & Kim, 2012). Similarly, the study focusing on group level antecedents of

informal learning found that leadership (Pifer et al., 2015; Ouweneel et al., 2009),

feedback (Holly et al., 2016; Nisbet et al., 2015; Hoekstra et al., 2009), networking

(Schurmann & Beausaert, 2016; Doornbos et al., 2008) and interpersonal relationship

8

(Cuyvers et al., 2016; Cunningham & Hillier, 2013; Lai et al., 2011) positively

stimulates IL by engaging employees in different ILAs.

Moreover, the organizational level factors like organizational characteristics

(Nisbet et al., 2015; Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014), organizational culture and

environment (Cormier-MacBurnie et al., 2015; Neher et al., 2015; Pifer et al., 2015)

organizational interventions (Schurmann & Beausaert, 2016; Cunningham & Hillier,

2013; Lohman, 2000) work tools and resources (Cuyvers et al., 2016; Kyndt et al.,

2009; Lohman, 2009) influence employees’ participation in ILAs. The above

mentioned studies have attempted to identify individual, group and organizational

level characteristics that affect IL. However, very little research (as per researchers’

knowledge) has been done to investigate the role of HRM in facilitating and

promoting IL (Bednall et al., 2014). The underlying mechanism through which HRM

affects performance in terms of ILAs has also not received considerable attention in

literature.

There is a well-established relationship between HRM and OP (e.g.,

Messersmith et al., 2011; Macky & Boxall, 2007; Wright et al., 2005; Delery & Doty,

1996). Literature also suggests that the focus should be made on proximal variables

or individual outcomes while studying the effect of HRM on performance (e.g.,

Gruman & Saks, 2011; Wright et al., 2003) because these proximal variables have

effect on distal variables or organizational outcomes. The ILAs (RE, KS and IB) are

known to be related with proximal outcome i.e. employee performance (Bednall et al.,

2014; Enos et al., 2003). This study is undertaken to investigate the direct and indirect

effects of HRM on these three ILAs.

1.3 Background of the Problem

The human resource or human capital is strategically important because it

helps organizations to achieve competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). It is valued for

its degree of complexity and inimitability as compared to other tangible and intangible

assets (Huselid, 1995). Further, the complexities and ambiguities in human attitudes

and behaviors make it more difficult to imitate by other organizations. Therefore,

researchers and practitioners focused more on human resource or employees. They

paid attention in studying the possible factors or mechanism through which the

9

organization can attain maximum benefits from human resource. Because of this, it

was established and realized that human resource needs to be managed with due care

and attention. As a result, HRM as a system succeeded in capturing the attention of

scholars and practitioner over the past three decades.

The positive relationship between HRM and performance is supported through

substantial empirical evidences. Despite, the sufficient support from literature there is

a central issue in this regard that how and why HRM system contributes to

performance (Bednall et al., 2014; Messersmith et al., 2011; Savanevicience &

Stankeviciute, 2011); Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). There are many stages between HRM

and performance which is referred to as ‘black box’ by the researchers.

The ‘black box’ mystery can be resolved through theory refinement (Guest,

1997). In response to Guest’s call, the employees’ behavioral perspective was the

focus of literature to link HRM with performance. The behavioral mechanism of

performance is mainly related to how the HRM system affects performance. It is

conceptualized that HRM system affects the most proximal variable which in turn

contributes towards distal organizational outcomes (Kanfer, 1992). Employees’

attitudes and behaviors are recognized as a main proximal variable in the relationship

of HRM with performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Dyer & Reeves, 1995).

The most researched employees’ attitudes are job satisfaction, organizational

commitment in the relationship between HRM and performance. Ostroff and Bowen

(2000) presented a multilevel framework in which they highlighted the mediating role

of psychological climate in HRM-performance relationship. In addition, Amenumey

and Lockwood (2008) demonstrated that organizational level psychological climate

positively influences individual level PE. The focus of the current research/study is on

PE. The PE as a positive job attitude plays a vital role in shaping the behaviors of

individuals in the workplace (Dust et al., 2014). The PE explains the psychological

mechanism through which HRM system affects performance (Messersmith et al.,

2011). The effectiveness of HRM systems depends on function of inspiring

employees and contributing towards positive outcomes.

In line with this PE is considered as more suitable in predicting employees’

behavior than organizational commitment and job satisfaction. In current study we

10

propose that PE is a mediating link or mechanism (psychological mechanism) through

which the HRM system directly and indirectly affects organizational performance.

Although the behavioral perspective is essential for achieving a positive

organizational performance, the integration and study of other perspective is required

to better comprehend the nature of HRM-performance relationship (Jiang et al.,

2012b).

The other theoretical consideration found in literature is that employees

perceive the HRM system differently which may result in deviant behaviors. These

results or outcomes could be different from what an HRM system aims to accomplish

(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Nishii & Wright, 2007; Boselie et al., 2005). Therefore, the

HRM system and its implementation are equally important alongside the content of

HRM. Secondly, the perception of HRM system is more important and it will not

produce the desired results if the perception is not made properly. The HRM system is

characterized by shared perceptions of interrelated activities. It communicates the

expected behaviors that are rewarded (Ostroff and Bowen, 2016; Becker et al., 1997).

Therefore, a strong system is created when it exists distinctively, it communicates

messages consistently, and consensually accepted at all levels of organizational

hierarchy (managers and employees) with respect to HR practices and HRM system

objective.

Regardless of the important role that an HRM system (HRM content and

HRM process) has in enhancing the knowledge of how an HRM system is linked with

organizational performance, most of the studies focuses on defining the content of

HRM (Hewett et al., 2018; Hauff et al., 2017; Farndale & Sander, 2017; Piening et al.,

2014; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016; Delmotte et al., 2012). This one-sided focus of the

researcher on HRM system led Bown & Ostroff (2004) to divert the attention of the

researcher towards studying the process approach together with content approach.

Consequently, the current study is the extension of existing empirical research

undertaken to examine the relationship of HRM system with performance. This is

being done by joining the behavioral perspective (ILAs) and psychological

perspective (PE) into one single model. It provides additional support to the HRM and

performance literature by presenting a integrated model that incorporates both, the

content (PPAQ) and process of HRM (PHSS). This is undertaken to answer the main

11

research question that how HRM system is directly or indirectly linked with ILAs in

terms of RE, KS and IB in higher education sector in Pakistan.

1.4 Problem Statement

Theoretically, the relationship of HRM and performance (employee and

organizational) has been challenged by many researchers due to its ignorance of many

related variables. For better understanding of this relationship it is highly

recommended to include and study the role of other mediating and moderating

variables (Farndale & Sander, 2017; Bednall et all, 2014; Katou et al., 2014; Katou,

2012). There are many model proposed by the HRM literature on the linking

mechanism of HRM system and performance. The AMO (Ability, Motivation, and

Opportunity) model is one of them but the focus of AMO model is on the content of

HRM. The HR system strength (HRSS) theory by Bowen & Ostroff (2004) which is

based on the multilevel framework (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) has been theoretically

addressed by many scholars (e.g., Baluch, 2017; Gilbert et al., 2015; Bednall et al.,

2014) resulting in a robust and solid theoretical ground (Hewett et al., 2018) in

explaining the HRM and performance relationship.

The HRSS theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) addresses the content and process

perspectives of HRM. The mediating links between HRM and performance

(individual and organizational) is the focus of this theory. Given the importance of

multilevel framework (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) in conceptualizing the mechanism

through which HRM system (content and process) affect performance (individual and

organizational), the empirical studies have tested the model by incorporating different

attitudes and behavior (e.g., Hauff et al., 2017; Messersmith et al., 2011) and have

invigorated attention in this area (Hewett et al., 2018). However, they did not

investigate the psychological mechanism that may be responsible for transmitting the

effect of HRM on employees’ behaviors. The theory (Dust et al., 2014; Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004) also posits that PE as a positive job attitude plays a vital role in shaping

the behaviors of individuals in the workplace. Thus, it becomes imperative to examine

the mediating role of PE in the relationship between HRM and employee behaviors.

Further, there are two main approaches of HRM found in the literature; HRM

content and HRM process are used while studying different relationships (Bednall et

12

al., 2014; Li, 2010). The focus of HRM content approach is on the HRM practices

that constitute the HRM system whereas to address how HRM practices deliver

messages to employees is the focus of HRM process approach. In addition,

employees’ perceptions of the HRM system that create a shared climate is addressed

through the HRM process approach (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The content approach

was the focus of majority of studies at the cost of process approach. The employees’

perceptions of HRM system (HRM process) shape employees’ outcome i.e. attitudes

and behavior (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), Therefore, it is suggested that the content

approach alone is not enough to explain the HRM and performance relationship.

However, the process approach must be considered along with content of HRM

system.

The HRM process approach in an HRM system has been addressed through

conceptualizing the strength of an HRM system. The employees’ PHSS moderates the

relationship of HRM and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). A noticeable study

(e.g. Bednall et al., 2014) investigating such relationship has focused only on

behavioral perspective i.e. ILAs. Unfortunately, no study to the best of our

knowledge, found that investigates the moderating effect of PHSS as a process of

HRM on relationship between HRM content (PPAQ) and PE (psychological

perspective). Additionally, the HRM content and process are two complementary

facets of an HRM system in bringing out positive work attitudes and behaviors. The

studies integrating the content and process approaches as suggested by Bowen and

Ostroff (2004) are scarce.

Practically, the higher education institutes/universities in Pakistan have

witnessed many improvements since the educational reforms during the military

regime (i.e. 1999-2007) and the establishment of Higher Education Commission

(HEC) of Pakistan. The national level reforms and huge investment has been made for

the development of higher education institutes (HEIs) in Pakistan (Rasheed et al.,

2011). HEC is aimed to carry the same through different innovation program, faculty

development programs and quality improvement programs. Such changes have

created a competition among the two sectors in HEIs i.e. public and private sector

HEIs. The number of degree awarding institutes/university has increased from 42

13

(1980) to 175 (2016) (Mahmood, 2016) and 194 at the end of 2018

(www.hec.gov.pk).

It has been noted that during the last 10 years, Pakistan has enormously

increased its research productivity (Herciu, 2015; hec.gov.pk). These changes have

created demand for well-equipped professionals for the sustainable development. The

formal learning and training programs are insufficient, fragmented and unfocused

(Chaudary & Imran, 2012). The formal learning and training programs are objectively

designed for nominated individuals or small group. These programs are insufficient to

cater the development need of all the individuals. It is supplemented that formal

learning programs are designed for imparting specific knowledge, expertise or skills

which is not enough to address all the aspects of employee development (Kwakman,

2003; Enos et al., 2003; Burns et al., 2006).

Among different aspects of individual learning activities in an organization, IL

has drawn considerable attention, as it is the major form of learning that is related to

adults, especially in the work environment (Marsick, 2009; Marsick et al., 2006;

Ellinger, 2005; Marsick and Watkins, 1990). The IL contributes 70 to 80 percent of

workplace learning (Cross, 2007; Rothwell et al., 2003) and even some authors

counted it to 90 percent (e.g. Li et al., 2009). Despite, the evidences that IL help in

achieving the competitive advantage (Gijbels et al., 2012) the trends in adult learning

participation in Pakistan have remained unchanged for decades. The HEIs of Pakistan

fail to recognize its importance and address the issues hindering employee

participation in ILAs and devising mechanism to promote informal ways of learning.

Additionally, the majority of studies on IL have carried out in the developed

context i.e. Western contexts. However, such studies are very rare in Asian context,

particularly very few studies done on IL in Pakistan (e.g., Wahab et al., 2016; Khan et

al., 2013; Chaudary & Imran, 2012; Khalid et al., 2011; Nawab, 2011). Unfortunately,

no research has been found in Pakistan that surveyed the impact of HRM on ILAs in a

higher education sector of the country. Furthermore, the HRM system (content and

process) is recognized to be the important tool through which the HEIs can develop

such a skilled and learned workforce. Despite the significance of the HRM system to

influence employees’ ILAs (RE, KS and IB), no previous study was found to address

14

the ‘black box’ mystery that how HRM as a system (content and process) affects ILAs

to improve performance of higher HEIs in Pakistan.

1.5 Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this research is to solve the ‘black box’ puzzle by

developing and presenting a comprehensive model based on the theory of HRSS

(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). It is obligatory to establish a comprehensive model for

studying the influence of content of HRM system (PPAQ) on ILAs (RE, KS and IB)

by observing the psychological mechanism (PE) and incorporating the process of

HRM system (PHSS) effects.

In current study, we aim to establish empirical link of HRM content and more

specifically PPAQ with PE. Second, direct links between PE and ILAs (RE, KS and

IB) are explored. Third, the direct influences of PPAQ on ILAs (RE, KS and IB) are

examined. Fourth, the mediating role of PE as posed by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) is

examined as this relationship is yet unexplored (based on researchers’ knowledge).

Lastly, the influence of employees’ HRM process (PHSS) on PE is facing paucity to

the best of our knowledge whereas the influence of PHSS on ILAs needs clarity

(Bednall et al., 2014).

Such an investigation adds value in the field of organizational behavior,

performance appraisal and PE. A sound framework for depicting the employee

(faculty) participation in ILAs with respect to the quality of performance appraisal

does not exist. The present examination aims to add such a conceptual framework by

investigating the role of HRM (content and process) and more particularly the PPAQ

and PHSS in promoting ILAs through PE among the faculty members working in

Pakistani HEIs.

1.6 Research Questions

The previous studies (e.g., Bednall et al., 2014) have reported the value of the

perceptions of HRM system (content and process) to attain better performance

characterized by employee participation in ILAs. However, the further clarity is

needed for the underlying mechanism through which HRM system (content and

15

process) contribute towards ILAs. The main research question to guide this study is

how does HRM system (content and process) impact employee participation in ILAs

(RE, KS and IB) as a proxy for organizational performance? Additionally, this study

examined the effect that PE had on ILAs (RE, KS and IB) in isolation and in

relationship with PPAQ. There are few sub-questions that need to be answered in

support of the main research question. These sub-questions are as under:

1. Does PPAQ impact PE?

2. Does PE impact ILAs including; RE (2a), KS (2b) and IB (2c)?

3. Does PPAQ impact ILAs including; RE (3a), KS (3b) and IB (3c)?

4. Does PE mediate the relationship between PPAQ and ILAs including; RE (4a),

KS (4b) and IB (4c)?

5. Does PHSS moderate the relationship PPAQ and PE (5a) and ILAs including; RE

(5b), KS (5c) and IB (5d)?

1.7 Research Objectives

The objective of the study is to develop and test a widespread model that

captures the HRM System (Content and Process), Psychological (Psychological

Empowerment) and Behavioral Perspectives (Informal Learning Activities) in

explaining HRM and Performance link. A model that incorporates the mediating

variable (PE) and moderating variable (PHSS) in relationship between HRM content

(PPAQ) and ILAs (RE, KS and IB). This can be achieved by through review the

literature related to HRM and performance and more specifically, PPAQ, PE, PHSS

and ILAs (RE, KS and IB) in order to determine the factors and relationship among

these constructs. Secondly, to develop a logical understanding and build a study

model that relates the way in which HRM content (PPAQ) is linked to ILAs (RE, KS,

IB), including PE that mediate the relationships and PHSS that moderate the

relationships. Lastly, to empirically test and validate the model to provide implication,

offer recommendation and note limitation of the study for theory and practice. This

can be achieved by looking the specific objective.

1 To examine the relationship between PPAQ and PE.

2 To examine the relationship between PE and ILAs (RE, KS and IB).

3 To examine the relationship between PPAQ and ILAs (RE, KS and IB).

16

4 To investigate the mediation of PE on the relationship between PPAQ and ILAs

(RE, KS and IB).

5 To investigate the moderation of PHSS on the relationship between PPAQ and

PE, RE, KS and IB.

1.8 Significance of the Study

The literature indicates the individual, group and organizational level factors

to promote ILAs (RE, KS and IB) in different contexts (e.g., Cuyvers et al., 2016;

Sutherland, 2016; Schurmann & Beausaert, 2016; Noe et al., 2013; Wahab et al.,

2016; Choi and Jacobs, 2011; Bjørk et al., 2013; Van Eekelen et al., 2005; Lohman,

2009, & Crouse et al., 2011). Only limited studies (Bednall et al., 2014) focused on

determining the impact of HRM by observing the behavioral perspective of

employees through their participation in ILAs that leads to organizational

performance. The current study is significant with respect to answering the theoretical

and practical gaps as discussed under.

First, to solve the ‘black box’ dilemma, there are many studies carried out to

examine the effect of HRM on individual and OP. These studies are insufficient to

define the clear mechanism through which this relationship occurs (Baluch, 2017;

Farndale & Sander, 2016; Messersmith et al., 2011). A promising trend has found in

the literature to clarify the mediating mechanism through which HRM system affect

employees’ performance (Jiang et al., 2012a). According to Bowen & Ostroff (2004),

such systems operate through influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviors.

Unfortunately, literature has focused only on the behavioral perspective of mediating

mechanism. It is well supported by literature that PE as an employee attitude

influences behavior which in turn contributes to performance at individual and

organizational level. Based on the HR system strength (HRSS) theory (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004), this study is important as it is among the first to study PE as mediator

in the HRM (content and process) and performance relationship in terms of ILAs (RE,

KS and IB).

Second, it has been well understood that to get the clear view of the HRM and

performance relationship the HRM system approach should be considered. It is

important to observe the presence of HRM system. In addition, the employees’

17

perceptions of such system should also be considered (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Nishii

& Wright 2007). It means the integration of HRM content and process approaches is

important to enhance our viewpoint of the process through which the HRM system

(content and process) is connected to organizational performance. Additionally, the

HRM system affects organizational performance by developing employees’ attitudes

and behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff 2004). Therefore, this study is an attempt to present

a theoretical model that incorporates both the approaches (content and process) in

meaningful way.

Finally, the influence of HRM system on employees’ attitude or behavior is

examined in independent studies. There is a dearth of studies investigating the

moderating links by including the employees’ attitude and behavior as suggested by

Bowen & Ostroff (2004). This study is significant because it is designed to address

the above-mentioned theoretical gaps. It is undertaken to empirically examine the

moderating effect of PHSS (HRM process) by including the both employees’ attitude

(PE) and behavior (RE, KS and IB) to represent the comprehensive linkages in HRM-

performance relationship.

Contextually, a large number of studies on HRM system and performance

relationship have carried out in Western context (Katou et al., 2014; Katou &

Budhwar 2010). However, the focus on Asian countries and especially Pakistan is

very limited (Chaudary & Imran, 2012). Thus, higher education sector and HEIs

operating in Pakistan is selected. The faculty members’ participation in ILAs is

essential for sustenance in today’s knowledge economy. The higher education sector

of Pakistan comprises of 194 HEC recognized degree awarding HEIs. These include

115-public and 79-private HEIs operating all over Pakistan.

Further, after the establishment of Higher Education Commission in 2002, this

sector has shown phenomenal growth. The HEIs are facing severe competition form

national and international institutes/universities in imparting quality education

(Majoka & Khan, 2017). Thus, the development of human capital or HR is big

challenge for HEIs. The HEIs are making huge investment in the development of HR

for gaining market share and competitive advantage. Despite of this, until recently

there has been no reliable evidence found for investigating the effect of HRM system

(content and process) on ILAs as a proxy for employee performance of higher

18

education sector of Pakistan. Therefore, this study is undertaken to fill this gap by

putting focus on the important sector of Pakistan’s economy.

Furthermore, this study is significant because it highlights the importance of

HRM system for the HEIs operating in Pakistan, and the role that the HR managers

and policy makers can play to develop their workforce through ILAs (RE, KS and

IB). The human capital is recognized as one of the most valuable assets that

contribute towards achieving the competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). It is the

degree of complexity and inimitability of intangible assets, especially HR that makes

it more valuable and important for achieving sustained competitive advantage

(Huselid, 1995).

Lastly, the human attitudes and behaviors also hold complex and ambiguous

causal relationship. It increases the inimitability by creating barriers for other

organizations. Consequently, researchers and practitioners in the field of HRM have

shifted their attention towards investigating the all possibilities of obtaining maximum

benefit from HR. Therefore, it is important to study the mediating and moderating

links by which human resource is capitalized and operationalized.

1.9 Thesis Organization

The study is presented into five chapters as under:

Chapter 1 (Introduction): The research topic is introduced in this chapter by

demonstrating the importance of informal learning and background of the problem. It

provides the theoretical and methodological gaps or research problems. It also

outlined the purpose of the study, the research aims, research objectives and research

questions. The justification for methodology, significance of the research and the

thesis structure is presented at end.

Chapter 2 (Literature Review): The theoretical orientation of the study is

presented in this chapter. It provides the theoretical background of the study through

comprehensive and critical review of the published literature. It starts with literature

review of HRM, HRM and performance relationship. Further, different issues and

trends like HRM practices and HRM system, direct and indirect relationship, best fit

and best practices, content and process approaches are critically reviewed. In the

19

section of underpinning theories different attribution theories are discussed. The HRM

system strength (HRSS) has anchored in support of this study. Furthermore, the

literature is reviewed for ILAs (RE, KS and IB), PPAQ, PE and PHSS. After this the

proposed conceptual model and the relationships are explained in theoretical

framework. The relationships and hypothesis of the study are outlined. The discussion

has been made on the PE (mediating variable) and PHSS (moderating variable).

Chapter 3 (Research Methodology): The methodological issues are

discussed in this chapter. It includes the issues that this research intends to deal for

achieving its stated objectives. The justification for adopted methodology, which is

the quantitative methodology, is explained and discussed. Next the overview of the

education sector of Pakistani HEIs, the population and sampling design are explained.

Further the measurement and scales, research ethics, pilot study, assumptions of

multivariate data analysis are briefly addressed. Lastly, the chapter provides the

reasons for selecting different statistical techniques that are used.

Chapter 4 (Data Analysis): This chapter outlines the analysis and results of

current study. In the first part of this chapter, the information regarding the

demographics of the respondents is presented. In addition, descriptive and the

appropriateness of data is ensured by addressing the assumptions for multivariate data

analysis. In second part, the final results of the study are presented. The results for

main effect, mediation effects and moderating effects including inferential statistics

are presented in this chapter. It also provided the numerical support for the acceptance

and rejection of research hypotheses.

Chapter 5 (Discussion): The findings of the research are summarized in this

chapter. The results and study hypotheses are discussed in light of previous findings

and studies. Further the major theoretical contribution and practical implications of

the results and findings ae explained. Furthermore, this study suggested some future

researches which are outlined by keeping in view the limitations of current study.

Lastly, this chapter offers the concluding comments of the thesis by summarizing the

main purpose, methodology, results and contributions of this study.

20

1.10 Definitions of Terms

The constructs of this study include: (1) informal learning, (2) reflection, (3)

knowledge sharing, (4) innovative behavior, (5) perceptions of performance appraisal

quality, (6) psychological empowerment, and (7) perceptions of HRM system

strength. These key words are defined as follows:

Informal Learning: IL is defined as “a process in which individuals are

objectively engage themselves informally by initiating different activities for the

achievement of their personal and organizational goals” (Marsick & Velope, 1999;

Lohman, 2005)

Reflection: RE is defined as “a degree of intentionality or show on their

experience” (Marsick, 1988b). Reflective practices enable individuals in using

experience to learn about their work, personal and professional relationships,

themselves and society. It enables them to travel through hard situations and bring

enquiry into feelings, values and beliefs (Bolton, 2014).

Knowledge Sharing: It is defined as the activities in which individuals, groups

and organizations are involved in the dissemination or transfer of knowledge (Terry et

al., 2013; Lee & Choi, 2003).

Innovative Behavior: IB is the individual behavior of generating novel

solutions to problems; promoting idea by convincing colleagues; and implementing it

within group, unit or organization (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Scott & Bruce,

1994).

Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality: It is defined as the

“perceptions of employees regarding the appraisal feedback in terms of its clarity,

regularity, and openness” (Bednall et al., 2014).

Psychological Empowerment: PE is defined as “a set of cognitions or states

influenced by the work environment the helps and create an active-orientation to

one’s job” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Perceptions of HRM system strength: The employees’ perceptions of HR

message and polices as distinctive, consistent, and consensual is known as strength of

21

HRM system. These clear, consistent and unambiguous messages create perception of

strong HR system (De Winne et al., 2013; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

1.11 Summary

In this chapter the importance of ILAs (RE, KS and IB) and the factors

stimulating ILAs are discussed. The role of HRM as a system and its impact on

performance in terms of ILAs (RE, KS and IB) is meant obligatory for survival and

competitive advantage. Irrespective of promising trend investigating the HRM and

performance relationship, there are many theoretical and practical gaps which are

discussed. The summary of these gaps is expressed in one single question that is:

‘how does the HRM system in terms of content and process contribute to individual

and organizational performance’? This question is referred to as ‘black box’ and the

present study was undertaken to fill this gap by investigating the effect of HRM

system (content and process) on employees’ ILAs (RE, KS and IB).

The purpose of the research, aims, objective and questions are outlined on the

basis of the gaps and problem statement. The research methods section provided

overview of the methodology adopted for this study. A quantitative methodology by

using the survey questionnaire was adopted to test the proposed theoretical model. An

effort has been made to present a comprehensive model to address this issue. The

conceptual framework was built by including the behavioral and psychological

perspective of HRSS theory. The current study is important and significant because it

integrates the content and process approaches of HRM along with behavioral and

psychological perspectives of employees into one single model. This proposed model

enhances our understanding and contributes to knowledge by defining the mechanism

through which HRM system affects ILAs (RE, KS and IB) and employee

development.

22

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

23

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 1 describes in detail the background to the problem being examined in

this thesis and sets out the study aims and objectives. This chapter is designed to

address the first objective of the current study and it provides the theoretical basis for

the research. It covers the review of literature for HRM, its importance for

performance, different issues and debates in HRM research. The theories in HRM

research are discussed in support of current study. The in-depth review of the relevant

literature and historical development is provided for ILAs i.e. RE, KS with colleagues

and IB. In addition, the literature is reviewed for, PPAQ, PE and PHSS. Further, this

chapter addresses the second research objective and presents the theoretical model.

The three main parts of the model are HRM content and process (PPAQ, PHSS), HR

outcomes i.e. attitudes (PE) and Behaviors (ILAs). The detail about the study

variables/constructs, literature review and operationalization are needed to develop

study hypothesis. The development of hypotheses is discussed in detail and summary

concludes the current chapter.

2.2 Theoretical Orientation for the Study

The positive relationship between HRM and OP is demonstrated by many

studies. For example, in a meta-analysis Combs et al. (2006), determine that a high

performance work system (HPWS) is positively related to employee performance

(productivity and retention) and organizational financial outcomes (business growth

and market returns). In their study they consider HPWS as a set of different HR

practices. Subramony (2009) provides further meta-analytic evidence that the effects

of the HPWS is significantly larger than individual HR practices in terms of operating

performance, employee retention, financial performance, and overall performance

ratings.

Recently Hauff et al. (2017) establish that HRM system as known, understood

and accepted by the employees help in achieving the attitudinal HRM targets. These

studies indicate that the features of an HRM system operate synergistically to

influence performance. However, our knowledge pertaining to (1) conceptualization

and measurement of an HRM system and (2) the mechanisms through which a HRM

system affect employee and business performance (the so-called ‘black box’ problem)

24

remain limited (Messersmith et al., 2011; Bednall et al., 2014; Becker & Huselid,

2006; Wright et al., 2001; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Becker & Gerhart, 1996).

The next sections provide a theoretical background to the thesis. The concept

of HRM and the two theoretical debates are first reviewed. Two prevailing types of

conceptualization of a HRM system i.e. the content of HRM and the process of HRM

are than reviewed. The progress in conceptualizing HRM suggests application of a

psychological approach is also discussed. A promising research model linking HRM

and employee performance has been proposed by Ostroff and Bowen (2000). After

critically reviewing this model, this chapter concludes by outlining the approach

adopted in this thesis based on Bowen and Ostroff’s model.

2.3 Human Resource Management (HRM)

The business environment is changing and it is inevitable. The local and

international markets are witnessing the technological, economic, communication and

political changes. These changes are phenomenal in influencing organizations and the

ways of doing businesses. The organizations are now adapting new technology,

methods and strategies to achieve competitive advantage. It is very unfortunate that

these resources can be easily copied and imitable by other organizations. However,

among all the resources human capital is considered as the most difficult to imitate

when it is well qualified, trained and motivated (Ferguson & Reio, 2010).

According to Barney and Wright (1998), human resource (HR) or human

capital is recognized as an important factor for gaining competitive advantage. It

cannot be easily copied in comparing with equipment and other tangible assets.

Further, investment in the growth and development of firm’s HR or human capital

decreases the chances of such intimation. As a result, researcher and practitioners

have diverted their attention towards HR and taken as a strategic resource to achieve

competitive advantage (Dessler, 2006). In resource-based view of the firm, the human

capital generates the complicated social relationship within organization, that are

inimitable and contributes to firm’s competitive advantage (Barney 1991).

Consequently, HRM has become the fundamental to all firms, irrespective of their

size and nature of business (Abzari et al., 2011).

25

The literature varies in defining the construct of HRM. It can be defined as a

“set of managerial activities and tasks concerned with developing and maintaining a

qualified work force in ways that contribute to organizational effectiveness” (Denisi

& Griffin 2005). Therefore, it can be said that well managed and qualified human

resource will have positive effects on organizational performance. When the

employee performance will rise it will automatically raises the OP.

The relationship between HRM system and organizational performance has

been the focus of many scholars and academicians over the past few decades. It is

well known that HR has a significant contribution in achieving a competitive

advantage. After realizing the value of HRM for firm performance, the focus of the

researchers was on investigating the nature and practices of HRM and how it is linked

with OP. The following sections discuss the two theoretical debates or challenges that

are prevalent in the HRM literature.

2.3.1 Different Conceptualiztion of HRM

The HRM has been studied and conceptualized from two different viewpoints

by the researcher. The individual HRM practice and its impact is the focus of first

perspective whereas; HRM system is the focus of second perspective. The objective

of both the perspectives is to link the HRM practices or HRM system with

organizational performance. Numerous scholars have paid attention on studying the

relationship of individual HRM practice like staffing (Terpstra & Rozell, 1993),

training (Bartel, 1991) and compensation (Gehart & Milkovich, 1990) with

organizational performance. These studies have been conducted in early development

stage of HRM (Katou, 2012).

The focus of research has shifted and attention has been paid to system

perspective of HRM than individual HRM practice (Katou, 2012). Under the HRM

system perspective an individual HRM practice is not sufficient and cannot work in

isolation rather in combination with other HRM practices. Secondly, different HRM

practices are functioning simultaneously so the employees are exposed to all of them

(Jiang et al., 2012a). In addition, the HRM system is more effective than individual

HRM practices because of its advantage for having mutually reinforcing support of

HRM practices in a system (Ahmad & Schroeder 2003, p. 22).

26

A bundle or a set of different HRM practices developed for a workgroup is

known as HRM system (Boxall et al., 2011, p. 1505). The synergy among different

HRM practices and the complexity of HRM system enables organizations to create a

competitive advantage (Barney & Wright, 1998). The synergy among different HRM

practice can have a positive or negative impact on performance as well as on

competitive advantage. Therefore, the organization must develop HRM system with

utmost attention to avoid such deadly combination (negative effects) of HRM

practices (Jiang et al., 2012b). At last, Becker and Gerhart (1996) present an abstract

level HRM in which they categorize different HRM practices into four main groups.

Performance appraisal is one of the groups defined by them. So, the current study

focuses on performance appraisal. The employees’ perceptions of performance

appraisal is the focus of this study instead of specific practice.

2.3.2 Different Conceptualization of HRM Practices

In addition to HRM practices or system perspective there are two distinctive

approaches found in the literature. These first approache is known as the “best

practice approach” in the HRM literature and the second approach is known as “best

fit approach”. The justifications have been made for the best fit approach in

conceptualizing HRM (Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute 2011). Based on the

contingency theory (Wright & Gardner, 2000), the strategic HRM research focused on

best fit approach. The internal fit and external fit is the basic assumption of the best fit

approach. Under this approach the consistency in HRM practices has ensured through

the alignment with organizational strategic goals. The internal fit is further

categorized as horizontal and vertical fit among the strategies (Ubeda-Garcia et al.,

2013). In best fit approach the positive organizational performance is possible when

HRM system is designed in such a way that it contributes towards the firm level

objective and strategies.

In addition, the organizational contexts are different based on their economic,

legal, social, cultural, political and technological factors (Frankel et al., 2012a). These

factors undoubtedly affect the implementation process within organization. Thus, it is

inappropriate to propose or declare the best practice that fits all organizations. As a

result of this a fit has been created between HRM and organizational environment.

The organizations must design their HRM practices in compliance with the

27

requirement of external and internal environment (Yousaf et al., 2016). The best

practice HRM for one organization can be adopted by other organization. The

sustained competitive advantage through best practice HRM alone cannot be achieved

(Bartel, 2004). Therefore, the best fit approach is more appropriate for organization to

achieve sustained competitive advantage.

According to Wright and Gardner (2000), the best fit approach is failed to

receive the empirical support in contrary to best practice approach. This drawback has

created a gap and the link has been created between specific HRM practices and

desired organizational outcomes (Pfeffer & Villeneuve, 1994; Pfeffer & Jeffrey,

1998). This relationship exists regardless of internal and external fit with their

environment. Based on ‘universalist approach’, the best practice approach proposes

that a single best HRM practice can be effective for those all organization that adopts

these practices (Ferguson & Reio, 2010; Neal, West & Patterson, 2005). It is

advantageous to adopt best practice approach because of empirical support received in

the HRM field (Ubeda-Garcia et al., 2013). The best practice approach has the

empirical support but it is criticized for having the same effect on the organizational

performance by different HRM practices.

This is an ongoing debate and lack consensus among the researchers on single

integrated definition of HRM. In addition, there is lack of consensus on the practices

that actually constitute HRM (Wright & Gardner, 2000). Ahmad and Schroeder

(2003) are of the opinion that the context, strategy, regulations and some other factors

could create these differences. Therefore, studies (e.g., Becker & Gerhart, 1996;

Youndt et al., 1996) suggested studying the HRM at the theoretical level instead of

specific set of HRM practices.

In a meta-analysis Boselie et al., (2005) grouped the HRM practices in four

categories including, “recruitment and selection, training and development,

compensation and performance appraisal” or performance management. These

findings are similar to Becker and Gerhart (1996) distribution of HRM practices.

Accordingly, it is assumed that organizations are similar when best practice (abstract

level HRM system) is considered and different when best fit is considered (sub-

practices). The current study eliminates or controls the differences by proposing an

abstract level approach to HRM by including the PPAQ and PHSS.

28

2.4 HRM and Organizational Performance

A literature review shows that there has been a considerable time and effort

paid to examine the link between HRM system and OP (Bednall et al., 2014; Ho,

2010). Regardless of substantial evidences on this promising relationship, there are

few unanswered questions also known as the ‘black box’. A very little is known about

the intervening and mediating role of other variables they can have in HRM-

performance relationship.

The HRM and performance relationship can be distributed in three different

phases. In the first phase, the HRM and performance relationship has received

attention of scholars in early 1980s. A link between HRM and business strategy has

been created in a study by Miles and Snow (1985). The development in the field of

HRM and its relationship with organizational performance has laid the foundations

for survey-based methods. In second phase, mid-1990s different studies (e.g.

Ichniowski et al., 1997; Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995) are leading in survey-

based HRM research. The overall findings of these studies demonstrate that HRM

practices are considered as critical factors for improving organizational performance.

The focus of these studies is on presenting the empirical results for HRM and

performance relationship whereas conceptual and theoretical issues are less focused.

Further development is the introduction of third phase in which the theoretical

and conceptual issues are considered. In this phase arguments have been made for

clarity in the relationship between HRM and OP (e.g., Guest, 2011; Messersmith et

al., 2011). The questions regarding how, why and what are the mechanisms through

which HRM is linked with the performance has emerged. These queries are known as

the ‘black box’ and demand has been placed for refinement in theories and

development of comprehensive model (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). There is an

agreement among the researcher that HRM directly cannot be linked to organizational

performance. The opening the ‘black box’ means that there should be some

intervening or mediating variables present in the link between HRM system and

performance.

29

2.4.1 The Nature of Relationship

In the early stages of the investigating the link between HRM and

organizational performance, it was assumed that there is a direct relationship between

these constructs (Terpstra & Rozell, 1993). Later, this was challenged by many

researchers. The direct relationships are missing theoretical rigor which means it is

not valid. There is a possibility of having other intervening and mediating variables

(Katou, 2012). Therefore, it is inevitable to investigate the mediating variables for

better understanding of HRM and performance relationship. The study of mediating

link is a significant development in the field of HRM and a reply to Guest’s (1997)

call who ask for further development and refinement in the theory. Afterwards, the

researchers have developed and tested the theoretical model by including the

mediating and intervening variables.

It is evident and the indirect relationship (HRM and organizational

performance) has succeeded to find the theoretical and empirical support of many

studies. It was agreed that the inclusion of at least one intervening (mediating or

moderating) variable in studying the relationship is of worth or theoretical

contribution (Wright & Gardner, 2000). In addition, there is an agreement that

organization do not perform but the ‘people’ do (Colvin & Boswell, 2007). Therefore,

the inclusion of individual-level intervening variable is highly recommended in the

HRM system and OP relationship.

Furthermore, the HRM system does not have a direct impact on organizational

performance; instead, it affects the employees’ attitudes and behaviors, which in turn

affect OP (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Katou & Budhwar, 2010). Thus, inclusion of an

intervening (moderating or mediating) variables in the relationship between HRM

system and organizational performance is addition in literature and imperative for

explaining relationship. Dyer and Ravees’s (1995) argument on the mediating

variables enabled researchers to classify them into proximal and distal variables.

Further, Wright et al. (2003) argues that the focus should be made on proximal

variables (individual outcomes). These proximal variables than contribute to or have

an effect on distal variables (organizational outcomes).

30

A large body of knowledge has studied these causal links (i.e. HRM and

organizational performance) through the responses of employees by including the

proximal variables (e.g. Bednall et al., 2014; Messersmith et al., 2011; Sanders et al.,

2008). According to the literature employee’s behavior including AMO (Ability,

Motivation, Opportunity), Turnover, OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior), and

employees attitudes including job satisfaction and commitment (organizational) are

frequently studied as proximal variables linking HRM system and organizational

performance (Messersmith et al., 2011; Boselie et al., 2005).

Similarly, employees’ ongoing learning (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009) and their

participation in ILAs by depicting the behavior of RE, KS and IB as proximal

variables contributes to distal outcomes (Bednall et al., 2014). There are still some

theoretical questions that need further refinement which will be discussed in coming

sections.

2.4.2 Different Approaches to HRM

In last section the answer was made to the question that how HRM system

affects organizational performance. It is proposed that there must be mediating

mechanism that link HRM system with organizational performance or through

proximal variables. This is insufficient while explaining the relationship in the ‘black

box’. In addition to mediating mechanism, researchers have documented that the

focus of existing literature is on investigating the content of the HRM system.

Moreover, the attention has been made on the content of mediating variables. With

this importance, the execution process of the HRM system was focused less

(Delmotte et al., 2012).

The two dominant types of HRM conceptualization has revealed in the

literature studying the HRM system and organizational performance relationship.

These approaches are known as the HRM content and process approaches. The

content approach of an HRM system seeks to answer questions such as: what form

should HR practices (e.g. selection, performance appraisal & recruitment and

training) take in order to foster organizational performance? Although this approach

has generated a considerable amount of supporting empirical evidence (see Combs et

31

al., 2006 and Subramony, 2009, for a review), there are studies that challenge this

view (Kaufman, 2010; 2015; Wall & Wood, 2005).

Recently, it has been acknowledged that more emphasis needs to be placed on

employee perceptions and interpretations of HRM system including policy and

practice (Baluch, 2017; Farndale & Sanders, 2016; Yousaf et al., 2016; Nishii et al.,

2008; Sanders et al., 2008). This is because employee attitudes precede and are likely

to strongly influence performance as part of the causal chain. Hence, the HRM

process approach emphasizes more on HRM delivery system. It asks how an HRM

system can be designed and implemented effectively, to achieve the business goals. In

process approach the emphasis has been given on how these practices are

communicated and implemented (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). While both approaches

focus on an HRM system, they have associated conceptual and methodological

problems, as discussed below.

The first phase includes the development of HRM concept in 1980s where the

emphasis has been made on the defining the content of HRM (Delmotte et al., 2012).

According to literature a bundle, or a set, of HRM practices have developed and these

are linked with performance (financial and operational). The key assumption of this

approach is that a bundle of HR practices, each practice interacting with one another,

contributes to performance (Huselid, 1995; Boxall & Macky, 2007; Macky & Boxall,

2009; Boxall & Mackay, 2009 Sanders & Yang, 2016). With specific strategic foci

(content), different sets of HR practices have been identified, such as ‘high-

performance’ (Harley et al., 2007; Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005), ‘high-commitment’

(Benkhoff, 1997), and ‘high-involvement’ (Batt, 2002) work systems.

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that the relationship between HRM and OP

can be better explained through the combination of content and process approaches. A

well-developed HRM system cannot make difference if it is not implemented properly

or as planned (Khilji & Wang, 2006). Further, the content approach might deliver

incorrect inferences or conclusions. The implementation of HRM practices might be

inconsistent, so employees perceive and interpret these practices differently (Nishii

and Wright 2007; Bowen & Ostroff 2004). Subsequently, the HRM system and

organizational performance relationship can greatly influenced by employees’

perceptions of these practice. There is a significant difference found between the

32

intended (planned) HRM practices and actual (implemented) HRM practices (Nishii

& Wright, 2007). Therefore, it can be said that the relationship is better explained

with the combination of both: the content and the process approach of HRM system

(Bednall et al., 2014).

Methodologically, a related issue concerns who should rate HR practices?

There is general understanding that intended HR practices may differ from

implemented practices, which are likely to be perceived and evaluated differently by

employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Literature (e.g., Nishii & Wright, 2007)

argued that the employees’ perceptions of HRM practices differ significantly. This

difference is generated by the implementation process of HRM practices. According

to Huselid and Becker (2000), the HR managers are the right medium for collecting

information about HRM practices. However, employees’ assessment of HRM practice

is more appropriate when the objective is to collect information about the

implemented or actual HRM practices than the intended or planned (Gerhart et al.,

2000). Therefore, HR manager’s assessment should be replaced with employees’

assessment. The employee experience HRM practice regularly so they are more

reliable in providing the realistic view of the actual HRM practices.

The other reason for selecting the process approach is its ability to generalize

the findings. The content of HRM system is mostly context specific whereas process

of HRM system is more generic in nature and applicable in different settings

(Delmotte et al., 2012). They argue that, every organization does not have formal HR

department and pay for performance strategy, but an employee can pronounce upon

HR decision and justice. Thus, it is worth studying the process through which HRM

system (content and process) affects employee performance and ultimately the

organizational performance (Baluch, 2017; Yousaf et al., 2016).

The literature supported that HRM system in terms of content and process

affects organizational performance. This relationship is largely based on employees’

perceptions of the HRM system. In addition, an agreement was found on the issue that

HRM system and performance relationship can be better explained by exploring the

mediating link underlying this relationship. The attitudes and behaviors of employees

are considered as one of the major mechanisms of the ‘black box’ (Messersmith et al.,

2011; Bednall et al., 2014). Further, an investigation of proximal variables (individual

33

outcomes) can generate more accurate results for distal variable i.e. organizational

performance. The proximal variables are based on employees’ perceptions and they

are directly associated with the attitudes and behaviors of employees (Frankel et al.,

2012a; Sanders & Frankel 2011). The attitudes and behaviors than contribute towards

organizational performance (Guest, 1997). Thus, there is a need to study the

employees’ perceptions of HRM while investigating the HRM and performance

relationship (Nishii et al., 2008).

The literature review shows that the intended HRM practices are significantly

different from implemented or actual HRM practices. These practices are differently

perceived and interpreted by the employees. This idiosyncratic perception is normal

because employees tends to respond in such a way that benefits them. Further,

psychologically and empirically it is validated that employee perceive and react

differently to the same set of HRM practices (Nishii & Wright, 2007). These

individual perceptions further contribute to create a larger view at organizational

level.

The difference between the planned and actually implemented HR practices

creates differences at organizational level which may negatively affect organizational

performance (Kepes & Delery 2006). Therefore, it is important that employee

perceive HRM practices in same way and it depends on how these practices are

implemented (Edgar & Geare, 2009). Bown & Ostroff (2004) provided a solution to

this problem. They argue that the shared perceptions among employee can be created

through the effective implementation of a strong HRM system. In next section the

theories for HRM and performance relationship are discussed in detail.

2.5 Underpinning Theories

The literature exhibits different micro and macro theories for the study

constructs. As the theories at micro level spotlight the individuals, small structures

and processes unlike theories at macro level that spotlight structures, processes and

problems in social context and their relationships with each other. The review exhibits

multiple theories for the justification and development of the study constructs. In past

numerous theoretical frameworks like self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan,

2000), theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), social exchange theory

34

(Blau, 1968), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) have been used by

scholars to explain the HRM and performance relationship. Particularly, these theories

are used by the researcher to explain the effect of different HR practices on

employees’ attitudes and behaviors. The attribution theories play an important role in

the development of theoretical framework for current study. The implications and

developments in these theories are discussed under.

2.5.1 Attribution Theories

Attribution theories created great interest from social psychology and the

explanation of situation by the people in which they are dealing or operating. The

responses of people are the core of attribution theories. The work of Heider (1958),

Kelly (1973), and Weiner (1979) put forth the theoretical foundations of attribution

theories. Heider (1958), explaining the psychology of interpersonal relations fixed

bases for attribution theories.

Heider’s attribution theory is based on the premise that the perceived causality

affects the perceiver’s responses and actions. Heider’s attribution theory is further

expended by Kelly (1967, 1973) and proposes that, people apply the covariation

principle to conclude the causes. The theory is based on the covariation principle of

distinctiveness, consistency and consensus (Kelly, 1967) can called theory of specific

attribution.

The final model of attribution was developed by Weiner (1979) and termed as

attributional theory. Weiner’s (1979) attributional theory explains how future

expectations, emotions, and performance are influenced by causal attributions. The

core of his theory is the search for the cause of outcomes in terms of locus of

causality, stability, and controllability.

According to Weiner (2008), attribution theory gained the attention of social

psychologist in early part of its development but now is on the decline. However,

there is an accelerated use of attribution theories in the field of HRM has seen in the

last two decades (Hewett et al., 2018). The dynamics in the field of HRM has drawn

different elements of attribution theories with little integration of the different

perspectives.

35

There are two noticeable developments in attribution theories have been made

in the last two decades. The first development is HR System Strength (HRSS) Theory

by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) based on multilevel framework for HRM-performance

linkage by Ostroff & Bowen (2000). The second development is the HR Attribution

Theory by Nishii et al., (2008). The HRSS is the most prominent theory in support of

this research. Ostroff and Bowen (2000) have developed a multilevel framework for

HRM-performance linkage that provides the foundation for HR system strength

theory. Multilevel framework for HRM-performance (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) and

HR system theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) are discussed in next sections.

2.5.2 Multilevel Model Linking HR and Firm Performance (Ostroff

& Bowen, 2000)

Ostroff and Bowen (2000), made an effort to comprehend the model while

catering the need of dichotomy of micro and macro research from multiple levels and

perspectives. They suggested that individual level research is used to draw inferences

about the organizational level performance and effectiveness. They undertake the

research with a goal to integrate the individual, organizational and cross or multilevel

streams into a framework in explaining the link between HRM system and firm

performance as mentioned in the figure 3.1.

This multilevel conceptual framework hold the structural features of an

organization that should fit with the environmental and technological demands.

Organizational design alone is not sufficient in ensuring the organizational

effectiveness but it requires support from the members of the organizations to achieve

organizational goals. The organizational goals and objectives are achieved through the

commitment and willingness of employees. The model explicitly demonstrate that

how HRM system helps organizations to achieve the desired performance through

developing employees’ attitudes and behaivors. Further, HR practices are critical in

creating the employee perceptions, attitudes and behaviors.

In the framework they proposed that at organizational level, HR system

influence organizational climate and normative contracts that shape human capital

development and collective attitude and behaviors. These in turn influence

36

organizational performance. To answer the question that how these normative

contracts and organizational climate develop? They proposed that HRM system

should shape individuals’ perceptions of what the organization is demanding

(psychological climate). It defines the expectations about the exchange between

employees and employers (psychological contract). When these are shared across

employees within the organization, the organizational climate and normative contracts

are formed.

Figure 2.1: Multilevel Model Linking HR Systems and Firm Performance

(Ostroff & Bowen, 2000)

As shown in the Figure 3.1, the multilevel constructs in which individual level

constructs contributes to organizational performance. In the same model they created

the distinction between the content of HR system and process by which HRM is

enacted in the organization. They propose that shared climate perceptions and shared

contract expectations will occur only when the process of the HRM system is strong.

It is argued that employees’ attributes are believed to be the mediating mechanism

linking HRM and firm performance. They also made a distinction between

psychological and organizational climate. Psychological climate is based on the

individuals’ perceptions of the work environment and can be idiosyncratic.

Organizational climate is a summary of employees’ perceptions of the work and

workplace. This multilevel framework is accepted as large and refined. The further

37

theoretical development in this model is the development of HR System Strength

Theory (HRSS) by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). The detail about HRSS is discussed

next.

2.5.3 HR System Strength Theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004)

HR System Strength Theory (HRSS) by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) is based on

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and the Attribution Theory of Kelley (1967,

1973). The basic premise of HRSS theory is that the organizational goals are achieved

when the HRM system sends signals to employees about the important organizational

goals, and expected behaviors, that are valued and rewarded by organizations (Bowen

& Ostroff, 2004). The HRSS theory established a link between HRM and

performance through HRM system strength. HRM system is basically the integration

of content and process approach of HRM. The content approach represents a specific

set or bundle of HR practices, which signals to employees, to engage in certain

behaviors. In process approach the design and implement of HR practices in the

responsibility of HR department. The department in the process approach is

responsible for communicating the HRM messages to employees.

The HRSS theory is based on the co-variation principle of attribution theory

(Kelly, 1967; Kelly & Michela, 1980). According to HRSS (Bowen and Ostroff,

2004) the HRM system is strong when employees perceive the HRM system as

distinctive, consistent and consensual. These perceptions have been created through

the implementation of different HR practices. The HRSS theory explains the process

of making attribution for individual behaviors as well as situational factors. The

distinctive HRM system refers to employees’ perceptions of HRM system in terms of

its visibility, authenticity, relevance and understanding of the messages. Employees

perceive consistency when the same messages have been received from different HR

practices over time, people and contexts (Nishii & Wright, 2007; Khilji & Wang,

2006; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Consensus refers to the fairness in decision making,

agreement among employees and policy makers (HR and line manager), that they are

sending the same messages (Delmotte et al., 2011; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

38

The effective implementation of HR practices is the core of strong HRM

system. The strong HRM system ensures the implementation of HR practices as

envisioned or planned (Nishii et al., 2008; Khilji & Wang, 2006). Strong HRM

system sends clear, unambiguous and consistent messages to employees. The HRM

system creates strong organizational climates that provide support and encourage

employees to display desired attitudes and behaviors. The psychological perspective

of HRSS theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) is based on social cognitive theory which is

explained next.

2.5.4 Social Cognitive Theory

This theory is based on social cognitive psychology to study the motivation,

behaviors and actions of individuals. Different theories have different

conceptualization of human nature in understanding their behaviors and motivation.

Social cognitive theory examines how people can take charge and control over their

own life.

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) is based on triadic reciprocal

causation. The personal factors, behavioral patterns and environmental events interact

and operate bi-directionally which is the emergence of interactive agency (Bandura,

1986, 1999). The personal factors comprise of cognitive, effective and biological

events. Also, the environment is not a monolithic entity rather and structures are

imposed, selected or constructed environment (Bandura, 1999). Social Cognitive

Theory is more comprehensive than social learning theory of Bandura (1974) for

knowledge acquisition.

The seminal studies by Bandura (1986, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2001) have

advanced the concept of self-efficacy. The human actions are controlled through the

psychological mechanism in which their belief in capabilities produced the desired

outcomes. Bandura (1991) investigated that how self-efficacy functions with socio-

cognitive factors of social cognitive theory are helpful in defining human motivation,

adaption and variation. The Social Cognitive Theory is based on motivational and

self-regulatory mechanisms in which knowledge acquisition is a cognitive process in

contrast to modifying behaviors and reinforcing consequences. The ‘social’ part of

39

theory consider environment, whereas ‘cognitive’ part recognizes individual cognitive

process in influencing motivation, actions and behaviors (Stajkovi & Luthans, 1998).

In next section we explain how social cognitive theory supports the assertion and

application of HRSS theory.

2.6 HR System Strength Theory and Organizational

Performance

Attribution theories like HR system strength theory (HRSS) have applied in

different areas of research like organizational behavior, management and more

specifically HR research to explain HR processes (Hewett et al., 2018). Bowen and

Ostroff (2004) made an effort to explain the concept that how an HRM system

strength can be used in determining the HR-performance linkage. The question how

HR practices lead to organizational outcome is addressed through the integration of

content and process approaches. The content is the specific HR practice or bundle of

practices with and intended performance outcome (Khilji & Wang, 2006). The

process is the support and process of HR followed in by the organization through

policy maker and managers. The fundamental is that how an HRM system is

perceived by the employee and stimulates desired behaviors and outcomes.

Although the model was not empirically examined by Bown and Ostroff

(2004) but there are substantial evidences for the relationship between HRM system

and performance. A notable study by Sanders et al., (2008), found that the strength of

an HRM system affect employees’ affective commitment. HRM system strength is

used to determine the HRM performance linkage like, satisfaction with HR practices

(Delmotte et al., 2012), justice and emotional exhaustion (Frankel et al., 2012a), work

performance (Guest & Conway, 2011), achievement of HR targets (Hauff et al.,

2017), work satisfaction, intention to quit and vigor (Li et al., 2011), motivation and

opportunity (Gilbert et al., 2015), organizational climate and organizational

performance (Pereira & Gomes, 2012), job strain (Van et al., 2015), HR effectiveness

(De Winne et al., 2013), work overload and job involvement (Shantz et al., 2016), job

satisfaction (Tandung, 2016), perceived organizational support (Chen & Wang, 2014).

40

Bednall et al. (2014) made an effort to study the HRM-performance link by

studying ILAs. The effect of PPAQ on ILAs is examined through moderating role of

PHSS. The current study is designed in support of his finding and by filling the gap.

According to Aguini and Kraiger (2009), the quality and consistency of employees’

performance can be enhanced through ILAs and these employees’ performance

enhances the organizational performance. The direct influence of PPAQ and

moderating role of PHSS in stimulating ILAs needs more clarity. Secondly the

mediating mechanism or psychological climate as proposed by Ostroff and Bowen

(2000) and Bowen and Ostroff (2004) based on the social cognitive theory (Bandura,

1986) is yet unexplored.

By applying the HR system strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), an

effort is made to re-investigate the link between HRM content i.e. PPAQ and ILAs as

an indicator of employee as well as organizational performance. Secondly the role of

HRM process i.e. PHSS to empower employee and facilitate informal learning will be

explored. Lastly employee’s feeling of PE as an outcome of HRM system (content

and process) and its role in stimulating participation in ILAs will be explored. The

literature on workplace learning, formal learning and IL is summarized under. Further

the literature on ILAs RE, KS and IB is explained in subsequent sections.

2.7 Learning

Learning is a complicated process that happens continuously and can be

affected by many factors. There is extensive research on internal cognitive processes

that create learning situations and how different factors can influence the

effectiveness of a persons’ learning. There are some external processes as well by

which learning occurs and how factors influence the informal learning activities

(ILAs) are lacking attention. Moreover, formal learning has received intense scrutiny

whereas the informal learning (IL) instances have not been given the due importance.

Most of the employees’ learning experience is comprised of the learning occurred

through informal ways (Anderson et al., 2003). In this paper IL in the workplace is

defined as the progression by which a transformation in knowledge happens. The

process happens naturally, guided by the learner and it depends on the surrounding

workplace environment. Examples of ILAs include employees’ RE, KS with

41

colleagues or peers, and IB. These learning activities affect the growth and success of

an organization. The framework presented for ILAs are somewhat focused or limited

to contexts, so a comprehensive understanding is not created (Anderson et al., 2003).

IL affect organizational performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009) but the factors

promoting IL within work settings and specifically the role of HRM system is less

focused. The next sections provide the review of literature on workplace learning,

formal and IL.

2.8 Workplace Learning

Hicks et al. (2007) define workplace learning as a process of acquiring

knowledge, skills and attitudes at workplace. It enhances the individual and

organizational performance. In their view workplace learning is a broader concept in

comparison to education and training. Workplace learning enables employee to deal

with the complex situations and consistent changes in work environment (Hall &

Steven, 1996). Ongoing learning benefits organizations by retaining the skillful

workforce (Bednall et al., 2014). Workplace learning is a way in which individual

engage themselves in activities and interactions on the basis of relational

interdependence (Maxwell, 2014).

Jacob (2001) defines workplace learning from two perspectives i.e. individual

level learning and organizational level learning. The learning at organizational level is

defined as; the workplace learning is an institutional process of enhancing employees’

performance by addressing their development needs. From individual perspective, it

is a process in which individuals succeeds in achieving their personal and professional

goals. Workplace learning involves the participation of employee in different

development programs. These programs are designed by the organization with the aim

of enhancing employees’ knowledge, skills and attitudes. In other terms individuals

are trained and equipped with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the

challenges at workplace.

The objective of learning programs is the attainment of personal and

organizational goals (Jacob, 2001). Workplace learning brings consistency and quality

in employees’ performance that result in improved performance of organization

(Auginis & Kraiger, 2009). Nawab (2011) argues that the workplace learning is a

42

ongoing process in which the knowledge is created and transferred at work setting.

The workplace learning is a broader term and can be further classified in two types of

learning i.e. formal learning and informal learning (Watkins & Marsick, 1997).

Researchers (e.g., Marsick, 1988a; Jacobs & Park, 2009) suggest that the

workplace learning can be classified into two broader categories. First, it can be a

deliberate and planned process which is known as formal learning. Second, it can be

unintentional and spontaneous learning which is known as IL. The knowledge

development and knowledge transformation are the main objectives of these two

types of learning (Endres, et al., 2007). Other than similarities these can be

differentiated in terms of control, facilitation and other features. The details on each

are as under:

2.8.1 Formal Learning

The formal learning normally takes place outside the working environment

(Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Further, it can be said that it is ‘off the job’ activities or

programs in which employees are engaged to learn something new. Additionally, it is

created within formal educational setting and is a classroom-based learning. It is a

planned and systematic process in which the objectives are well-defined. The design

and implementation of these programs depends on the predetermined outcomes

(Jacobs, 2003). Eraut (2002) presents the formal learning framework and extends the

definition of formal learning. According to him formal learning can be characterized

as, the design of events or packages based on objective outcomes, for implementation

with the support from trainers and rewarding them for their services.

In the view of Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) workshops, trainings and seminars

are the methods of formal learning in which the skills and knowledge of employees

are developed. These activities lead to improved performance of individual, groups

and ultimately the firm performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). These planned

learning activities in the workplace intend to help individuals in gaining specific

knowledge, skills and awareness in different areas, and also helps them in performing

a better job. These programs are well-structured and generally sponsored by the

institutions. The formal learning activities include all the training and development

programs that an organization has to offer. It is normally conducted in a contextual

43

manner, away from the workplace, with specific learning objective and outcomes in

mind. Formal learning creates the sense of organizational ownership among

employees. It sends signals to employee that the organization value their growth and

development.

According to Vrasidas and Glass (2004) formal learning is a top down

approach and learning needs are determined by the senior leaders. The organizations

offer different training and development programs to fulfill these demands. These

programs are successful and beneficial in enhancing employee performance (Aguinis

& Kraiger, 2009). Despites of its importance and contribution the formal learning

approach has been largely criticized for many reasons. First it is expensive because

large amount of budget is required for such programs. Second, these programs are

conducted in a planned and organized manner, so these are time consuming as well.

Lastly, these programs disconnect employees from their daily work as these programs

are normally conducted outside or away from the job (Hall & Steven, 1996). The

importance and effectiveness of these programs cannot be neglected but more

emphasis is placed on IL because of many reasons. In next section the nature and

importance of IL is explained.

2.8.2 Informal Learning (IL)

The concept of IL has received a considerable attention of the scholars and

practitioners over a long period of time but lacks consensus on single

conceptualization (Skule, 2004). Malcolm et al. (2003) argue that formal learning and

IL are not totally different from each other but a relational continuum. Similar to

formal learning, there are different conceptualizations and definitions of IL exists in

literature like, experience learning, learning by doing, self-managed learning,

incidental learning, continuous learning (Watkins & Marsick, 1992) reactive learning,

implicit learning and deliberate learning (Eraut, 2004). According to Marsick et al.

(2006) IL indeed has received the attention since the early work of Lindeman (1926)

on adult education. Further, a book “A dynamic theory of personality” by Lewin

(1935) sheds light on individual’s training and learning. The other notable work on IL

is the book titled “The adult learning theory” of Knowles (1984). Knowles (1984)

presented the assumptions and principles of andragogy. The term andragogy is similar

to adult education.

44

In the same period Kolb (1984) has written a book “Experimental Learning” in

which he presents the four distinct experiential learning styles or cycle of experiential

learning; also known as “Kolb’s experiential learning theory”. According to Kolb

(1984) “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience”. It is basically the interpretation of one’s own

experience and learning.

According to Kolb (1984) individual learns through four interconnected stages

that are experience, reflection, conceptualization and test. A person’s experience

reflected in work leads to abstract concepts and its experimentation which further

leads to new experience. Kolb (1984) has presented the four learning styles. The first

style is based on the feelings and doing known as accommodating. Second is based on

the feeling and observation i.e. diverging. Third is watching and thinking i.e.

converging. Last is thinking and doing i.e. assimilating. These styles clarify the

learning process through which an employee enhances his/her abilities by learning

different things

Figure 2.2: Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Styles

Marsick (1988a) further extends the Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model

for the staff development. She outlines the answers for what if, why, what and how

regarding staff development. Theory building or conceptualization of idea, actions,

direct experience and reflection are the answer to these questions. She adds that the

45

quality of work life is enhanced through training, IL and other systematic changes.

These changes also bring improvements in productivity by establishing new cultural

norms in work design. The leadership and learner centered principles strengthen the

training orientation. She further adds that the networking of employees with

colleagues foster IL.

Consequently, Marsick’s (1988a; 1988b) work on learning is known as

paradigm shift. She argues that the business trends are changing where entrepreneurial

spirit, participative management, and empowerment culture are fundamentals for

progress and growth. Further, she says that the changes in human values, social

interactions, commitment, service orientation, risk taking and independent thinking,

are also observed. These arguments have shifted the focus from mechanistic and

behaviorism paradigms to technical, interpretative and strategic paradigms.

Based on logical positivism, technical paradigm focuses objectively on body

of knowledge, skills and transmission process. The humanistic and phenomenological

known as interpretative paradigm emphasize on how experiences facilitate learning in

personalized situations. This paradigm considers learning as a process in which

interaction leads to understand the importance of experience, knowledge and

capabilities. In strategic paradigm people learn social norms when they pursue tasks.

In this paradigm different forces like, economic, cultural and social forces shape

meanings (Marsick, 1988b).

In Marsick’s (1988b) view the worker’s life have been neglected in formal

training and emphasis is made on job-related knowledge and skills. The objective of

learning is not only the organizational productivity, but the personal growth of

individual is equally important. Leaning theories in social sciences can better explain

the workplace learning than behaviorism. She introduced three types of learning i.e.

dialogic, instrumental and self-reflective. Dialogic learning takes place when people

interpret the policies, procedures, goals and objective in work settings to understand

the consensual norms in society. Instrumental learning is task oriented also known a

prescriptive learning. It consists of the identification of problem, formulation of

action, implementation and observation of results. The self-reflected learning is a

46

mechanism of understanding the personal change and impact which is also known as

meaning perspective.

In Marsick’s (1988b) emphasis is made on reflection and critical reflection for

learning in the workplace. Reflection is defined as an intentional action of individual

employee to display or show his/her experience. She explains that when reflections

are in action it means IL is in action. She argues that the training and education are

known as transformation systems whereas learning is the acquisition, interpretation,

recognition, change and assimilation of feelings, skills and information.

Marsick and Watkins (1990) extend their work by presenting the informal and

incidental learning model. This model is rooted in the viewpoint of action science

(Argyris & Schon, 1978) learning from experience (Dewey, 1938) and interaction

science theory (Lewin, 1935). Marsick and Watkins (1990) explain the need and

nature of IL by separating it from formal learning and training. They argue that a

learning without designated place or without expectation is known as IL. IL is

integrated with daily work routine and linked with learning from others. The people

face problems and challenges in their work. Their experiences provide them guidance

to tackle these situations (Marsick & Watkins, 1990).

Incidental learning is defined as the learning through trial and errors or

learning through the organizational cultural norms (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). IL is

mostly done unconsciously and triggered by spontaneous internal and external events

or situations. It is an inductive process of reflection and action and happens

haphazardly by chance. Further Marsick and Watkins (1990) outline the factors that

promote IL. They identify that time and space for learning, internal and external

environment scanning, attention to goals, heighted consciousness, reflective skills,

inductive mindset, collaborating others and trust are the important factors for

promoting IL at workplace (Marsick & Watkins, 1990).

Consequently, Watkins and Marsick (1992) has developed the theoretical

framework by differentiating the formal, informal and incidental learning based on

action and reflection. Their framework is presented in Figure 2.3. They are of the

opinion that formal learning occurs in the absence of action, highly structured and

institutionally sponsored. Incidental learning is known as the by-product of some

47

other activities and it is a subset of IL. In incidental learning people learn by trail-and-

error (Tikkanen, 2002) and through interaction with others (Van der Heijden et al.,

2009).

According to Watkins and Marsick (1992) IL is a planned or spontaneous

learning occurred through experience. It takes place in an unstructured way and it is

not based on classroom activities. Additionally, these activities are not sponsored by

the organization rather it is initiated by the learner. It is self-directed learning based

on networking, coaching and mentoring. It is through continuous awareness, resource

sharing and experimentation.

Figure 2.3: Watkins and Marsick’s (1992) Informal and Incidental Learning

Framework

Watkins and Marsick (1993) highlight the importance of learning and more

importantly IL for organizational effectiveness. The organizations are required to

continuously develop their employees’ skills and knowledge through formal and IL

for better performance. In this perspective they focused more on ‘continuous learning’

which is synonyms to IL.

Meanwhile, a notable contribution is the identification of learning style.

Kolb’s (1984) work on learning was further refined by Honey and Mumford (1992) in

their book “The manual of learning styles”. They present the four learning styles as

activist, theorist, pragmatist and reflector. Activist learn by doing and they are people

with dirty hand, open mind and unbiased. Theorist concentrates on systematic

analysis of models, facts, logic or theory to take action. The pragmatist are the people

48

with ambitions of trying the learning or bringing the abstract concept into practice.

Reflectors are known as observers who avoid interruptions and analyze the

information and data to make conclusion. Mumford and Honey (1992) provide

answers to a question that how people actually learn? According to them learning

requires the assessment of individual’s learning strength, encouraging them to

advance their learning potential, and guiding them for improvement through their

preferred style.

Watkins and Marsick (1997) refine their informal and incidental learning

model by applying the double-loop learning framework of Argyris and Schon (1978).

Cseh (1998) highlights the importance of context and found that it pervades in every

stage of learning process, which were missing in Watkins and Marsick (1997) model.

Cesh, Watkins and Marsick (1999) provide the refined model after including the

context in the learning process. The proposed model is presented in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Cseh, Watkins and Marsick’s (1999) Informal and Incidental Learning

Framework

The context is defined as the opportunity that provides base for IL. The

context is the trigger/action that initiates the learning process. The individual’s

reactions are initiated by the triggers that generate solution/strategy to continue with

the process of IL. Likewise, the later stages of the learning process occur as;

producing proposed solutions, assessing consequences, lessons learned, and framing

the business context (Marsick & Watkins, 2001).

49

The individuals are the major source of devising a new plan and applying it in

his/her daily life. One cannot say that the model is cyclical and even inclusive, yet it

gives a good understanding of IL at least starting with agreed upon “trigger” point.

Summing, it is imperative that the employer/administrator creates a trigger to initiate

the IL process. Marsick and Watkins (2001) highlight the following features of IL.

It works or combined with daily routines.

It is triggered by an internal or external environment.

It is a result of unconscious thought process.

It results by chance and thus is unstructured.

It is an inductive process of reflection and action.

It is related with learning of others

Like formal learning, IL is also important for enhancing the knowledge and skills

of employees within their workplace. IL doesn’t work through the organized

programs rather it works in an unusual way and in natural work settings or

environment. Additionally, no one is ready to learn something but unintentionally

they become the part of the IL process. Thus, IL makes use of a well-balanced

combination of individual concerns such as logical interest, self-directedness and

motivation (Beckett & Hager, 2005).

The learning in which the skills, knowledge and expertise are developed

through informal ways and outside the educational setting is known as IL

(Livingstone, 1999). It is a learning process in which personal needs are satisfied

without having the explicit objective like formal learning (Marsick & Velope, 1999).

Livingstone (2001) note that ILAs is less focused by the scholars because of its

presence and connection with other social and related activities. The study further

adds that comprehension and assessment of ILAs is difficult because of their nature

and pedagogies. Marsick and Watkins (2001) place IL as a by-product of incidental

learning which occurs spontaneously.

The other notable development is the classification of IL based on the

consciousness and intentionality of learner. Schugurensky (2000) propose that there

are three forms of IL namely; tacit, self-directed and incidental learning. The

50

consciousness-based model is further refined by Bennett (2012) and proposed the

fourth form i.e. integrative learning as presented in Figure 2.5.

Bennet (2012) is of the view that IL is self-directed when it is done

consciously and with intent to learn. The incidental learning is also a conscious

learning, but it is unintentional and spontaneous. Tacit learning comprises of both i.e.

unconscious and unintentional learning. In this learning intention was not there but

unconsciously learned something. Lastly, the integrative learning is a form of learning

in which learning occurs unconsciously but with intention.

Figure 2.5: Bennett’s (2012) Four-part Informal Learning Model

So, it can be conscious-unconscious or intentional-unintentional learning but

above all it considers as an IL. Bennett (2012) further argues that the learners should

be encouraged to learn through experience. This statement provides support to the

assertion of Schon (1983) that tacit knowledge is embedded but can be altered or

assessed through reflective practices.

The comparative analysis of formal and IL is made by Eraut (2000) in which

formal learning is classroom-based whereas IL is experience-based. IL is learning

from others and not a planned activity as compared to formal learning. He introduces

the third type of learning which is non-formal and lies between formal and IL. Eraut

(2004) defines IL as an experience-based learning which occurs without any formal

arrangement. Accordingly, it is more flexible in terms that it allows learners to learn

socially by providing freedom as compared to formal learning.

51

IL is defined as the learning which is not formal (Colley et al., 2002). Lohman

(2000; 2005) defines IL as the learning activities at workplace in which the focus is

on the professional development. Further, it involves the learner’s psychical,

emotional and cognitive efforts for developing knowledge and skills. Lohman (2006)

outlines the IL procedure as: knowledge exchange, experiment, and environmental

scanning. Knowledge exchange is the sharing of experience based on information

given by others. Second, experimenting is the incidental learning from daily/routine

activities. Lastly, experimental scanning is the learning done outside the organization

and based on personal interest and time.

IL is not formal but intentional. Strimel et al. (2014) says that IL take place

when individuals participate in any formal development programs in contrast to IL

that is the acquisition of new knowledge through real-world experience. Kyndt et al.

(2013) conceptualize the IL as the activities in which low degree of planning and

organization found. Further, these activities are not defined in terms of objective,

time, context and support. IL is not limited to a certain context or environment

(Cunningham & Hillier, 2013). It occurs as a result of engagement in daily work

routines at individual or group level. The outcomes of IL are unpredictable because it

happens spontaneously and without an instructor (Kyndt et al., 2013).

Throughout the review we agree with Skule (2004) that it is difficult to find

consensus among scholar on the conceptualization of IL. However, for our research

drawing on Marsick and Velope (1999) and Lohman (2005) IL is defined as a process

in which individuals objectively engage themselves informally by initiating different

activities for the achievement of their personal and organizational goals.

In next section the literature is reviewed for ILAs in which employees

including teachers (faculty members) are engaged.

52

2.9 Informal Learning Activities (ILAs)

ILAs are non-institutionalized activities in which employees are engaged for

the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013).

Marsick et al., (2006) argue that incidental learning is different from IL (Manuti et al.,

2015). IL is not fully dependent on planned development or organized programs, but

it is embedded in the context of practice, and arouse during critical moments of need.

It is based on the unintended activities and situations where learning is not the main

objective. It can be evolved as a result of personal experience or engagement, group

activities, mentoring, coaching and organizational policies (Manuti et al., 2015). The

mentoring and coaching, the relationship with peers and job restructuring are included

in the general framework for IL (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013).

According to Carasoli et al., (2018) ILAs are largely field-based and initiated

by learners with an intention to learn. Van Woerkom et al. (2002) define the ILAs as

a set or bundle of related activities undertaken individually or collectively for the

purpose of improving individual or organizational performance. Literature varied in

describing the types of learning activities. Crouse et al. (2011) and Clarke (2004)

identify that job rotation, trial and error, mentoring, working with others, reading and

researching, job shadowing, surfing the web, reflection on action, observing others,

and networking are the major types of ILAs in which HR professional are engaged.

Similarly, Lohman (2006; 2005) identify the eight ILAs in which teachers are

involved. These activities include talking with others; sharing material and resources,

searching journals and magazines, trial and error, collaborate with others, observed

others, searching the internet, and reflection on other’s practices. Self-directed

projects are also considered as informal types of learning (Chan & Auster, 2003). Van

Woerkom et al. (2002) present that learning from mistake, critical reflection, asking

for feedback, vision sharing, challenging group think, sharing knowledge, social

interaction and experimentation are the critical behaviors resulted from job

characteristics and motivational factors (De Groot et al. (2012).

In addition, external environmental scanning, learning through interaction with

others and self-experimentation are the types of activities in which the managers

53

involve (Choi & Jacobs, 2011). Doornbos et al. (2008) present a framework in which

searching; brainstorming, reflection on performance, consulting advisors, peers’

feedback and observing superiors are the major activities of work-related learning of

teachers. The teachers’ IL can be categorized as learning by doing, learning by

considering own teaching practice, learning through experimentation and getting ideas

from others (Kwakman, 2003; Hoekstra et al., 2009). Lai et al (2011) add self-

directed learning as a type of IL activity. Similarly, Van Der Heijden et al. (2009)

speaks about interpersonal interactions that trigger IL and De Groot et al. (2012)

suggests critical reflection as a major learning activity.

Similar to the view of Skule (2004) about definition and conceptualization of

IL, the literature varied in describing the types and nature of ILAs as well (Jeong et

al., 2018). However, Bednall et al. (2014) made a judgement that although there are

different classifications and types of ILAs consensus has been found for three

activities. Reflection (RE), knowledge sharing (KS), and innovative behavior (IB) are

known as representative ILAs (Jeong et al., 2018; Bakkenes et al., 2010; Kwakman,

2003). For current study we follow the proposition of Bednall et al. (2014) and the

detail of these three activities are as under:

2.9.1 Reflection (RE)

RE is a learning process in which individuals learn through their everyday

experiences and it is recognized as an integral part of teaching and research. The

employees of educational institutes are encouraged to use the designed models of RE

to determine their capability and replicate on their experiences during teaching

practice. RE has been conceptualized differently in many studies. We observed that

the titles or names are changed frequently but the meanings and conceptualizations

are more or less same. Some speak of RE, whereas others speak of critical reflection,

reflection-in-action, reflection-for-action, reflection-on-action and self-reflection.

The theoretical roots of RE is connected with the early work of Dewey (1933;

1938), Habermas (1981), Schon (1983), Kolb (1984), Gibbs (1988) and Johns (2000).

Dewey’s (1938) theory of inquiry believes that individuals learn through their

reflections on experience not from experience. In his theory the ‘autonomy of

thought’ is established through the ‘ladder of knowledge’. He argues that the logic to

54

solve a problem is dependent on empirical reflective thought or inquiry. The meaning

of logic is determined by inquiry into inquiry or turning logic back to inquiry. The

inquiry is perceived as open-ended, transactional and inherently social. When we

replicate what we already know is the appreciation of the competence developed

through prior experience. This reflection on experiences is the conversion of tacit

knowledge ito explicit knowledge (Schon, 1992).

The early work of Schon’s (1983) on reflective practices was influential. He

was curious to know that how people solve work problems in their profession (Reece

& Walker, 2007). Schon (1983) explains the reflecting on incident from two

perspectives. The first perspective is known as reflection-in-action in which when

someone reflects through the action, he/she become aware of the context of actions. It

allows more freedom and less dependence on well-established theory and techniques.

A new theory is being developed for that specific context. Reflection-in-action refers

to the immediate response or application of experience, knowledge and skills on-the-

spot for making adjustments (Bolton, 2014).

The second perspective is known as reflection-on-action in which the previous

results or actions guides the present actions. It helps to re-discover the contributions

and outcomes. It refers to the future action based on previous experience and learning

and also termed as “thinking on feet” by Schon, (1983). Reflection comprises of the

activities such as evaluation of performance and goal achievement, recognizing

strengths and identification of weaknesses, and developing strategies to remove

obstacles (Schon, 1983).

Further, Killion & Todnem (1991) explain the reflection from three

perspectives or directions. They introduce the third direction i.e. reflection-for-action

in Schon’s (1983) model. In their view, reflection-on-action requires thinking back on

what one has achieved by examining the activities, attentions, and product. In

reflection-in-action, the individual is accountable for reflecting while performing or

doing the job. The third direction reflection-for-action refers to the individuals’

review or analysis of accomplishment, identifying the helpful plans and procedures to

follow in future tasks.

55

The learning cycle of Kolb (1984) as discussed earlier in Section 2.8.2, is

based on experiential learning theory. He presents the four stages for learning based

on experience. First, concrete experience is the learning through active involvement

of learner in assigned task. Second, reflective observation refers to the review of

experience made by leaner during the work. Third, abstract conceptualization is a

stage in which the learner grasps understanding of events through learning a lesson.

Last, active experimentation is the practical implications of what has learned by the

learner.

His (i.e. Kolb, 1984) model was applied in education and training for the

development of abstract concept and applications through reflection. In his learning

cycle, the feeling sense and thought process, are used to perform some action which is

known as reflection. The emphasis has been made on the use of information for doing

something. Reflection is not an abstract term, but it leads to experimentation and

development of new experience. The learning experiences are transformed through

reflective observations (Helyer, 2015). With the growing interest in reflection Gibbs

(1998) develops the reflective cycle to inspire individuals to think and learn

systematically. According to him the reflection is a cyclical pattern of behaviors in

which individuals’ future actions are determined by the previous reflections. The

Figure 2.6 below shows the six stages in reflective cycle presented by Gibbs (1988).

Figure 2.6: Gibb’s (1988) reflective cycle

56

First, description refers to the recalling of previous events, activity, incident or

experience with precision and impartiality. Second stage, feelings refer to the

apprehension of consequences or individual reactions of the events like result, output,

and product. Third, evaluation is the individual thoughts or judgment made by the

learner by considering the positive and negative aspects. In fourth, analysis the

anticipatory thoughts or deliberate interaction has been manifested by the learner.

Fifth, conclusion refers to the learning of individuals by summarizing the responses to

the events and deciding the appropriate action or response for future. Last, action plan

refers to the strategies, approaches and tactics to formalize the outcome of the

learner’s reflection.

In addition, Lewis and Haviland-Jones (2000) conceptualize a model for

structured reflection. The model is developed for nursing profession but can be

applied to other disciplines as well. In their view the reflection is a structured

procedure comprises of description, reflection, influencing factor, evaluation and

learning. In description the learner defines the events followed by estimation of

consequences in later stage i.e. reflection. In next the learner identifies the internal,

external, and knowledge factors that affect decision making. In evaluation stage the

learner analyzes the choices and results of alternatives. The learning stage refers to the

experience of individual by comparing the results with pre-determined targets.

Reflection is also known as self-reflection (Noe et al., 2013). Self-reflection

refers to the recognition of strength by an employee and defining the development

areas, monitoring the progress, and bringing change in personal behaviors to deal with

the perceived challenges (Parsons & Stephenson, 2005). Reflection provides

assistance to employees in consolidating the knowledge, identifying the improvement

areas, reassessing the current conception of high performance and stimulating routine

behavior (Van Woerkom, 2004).

Eraut (2004) uses the term ‘reactive learning’ in which the current practices

generate the future behaviors. Reflection is an intuitive mode of cognition. He is of

the opinion that individual gets familiarity with the situation based on patterns and

intuitions by using reflection. Reflection is a degree of intentionality or show on their

experience (Marsick, 1988b). Reflective practices through experience help individuals

to learn about their work and their personal and professional relationships among

57

themselves and with the society. It enables them to tackle the hard situations and

bring enquiry into feelings, values and beliefs (Bolton, 2014).

Reflection is a valid learning tool that instigates critical thinking. The

individual critically reviews the experiences to develop understandings and

knowledge to draw conclusion or action plan for future events. It is a private stuff as

well as a legal requirement (Nicol & Dosser, 2016). The current study adapts the

conceptualization of Van Woerkom (2004) and defines reflection as a behavior in

which employees consolidate their knowledge to identify the areas for improvement

for achieving better performance.

2.9.2 Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge possess by individuals is a source of comparative advantage

(Drucker, 1995) as well as competitive advantage for organizations (Sadegh, 2015;

Jeon et al., 2011). Knowledge possessed by the individuals is an intangible asset of

value for organizations. The focus is on the acquisition of knowledge, knowledge

creation, knowledge management and knowledge promotion in every discipline

(Tzokas & Saren, 2004).

Knowledge is known as the awareness of facts or events. It emerged through

understanding, reflection, involvement and learning the reality at specific time and

context. The available knowledge is known as an economic resource which is

strategically important for organizations (Grant, 1996a; 1996b; Van Den Hooff &

Ridder, 2004). Knowledge must be developed, managed and valued (O’Dell &

Grayson, 1998). Knowledge is classified in two broader categories i.e. explicit

knowledge and tacit knowledge (Luan & Serban, 2002). The classification is

presented in Figure 2.7.

Explicit knowledge is somehow formal and created systematically whereas

tacit knowledge is developed through intuitions, insights and hunches (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge is documented and codified information

available in hard form which is easily transferable. Implicit knowledge is personal and

context specific, so it is difficult to articulate and document. Explicit knowledge is

easy to share whereas tacit knowledge sharing is difficult to capture, communicate

and share (Luan & Serban, 2002).

58

Figure 2.7: Luan and Serban’s (2002) classification of knowledge

Organizations learn through the knowledge sharing process. Organizational

learning is recognized as a process of accessing new knowledge and using it for

developing capabilities. These capabilities are developed through formal and informal

learning process. The knowledge economy and global competition are the compelling

terms to acquire new knowledge. There is a need to reassess the requirements and

ways for acquiring new knowledge. This new knowledge generates new skills for

gaining competitive advantage and organizational success. The organizations can

create and learn knowledge through different ways (Inkpen, 1998).

The sharing of knowledge and especially tacit knowledge is very critical. It is

a big challenge for organizations in the knowledge management process. The

individuals are not willing to share their tacit knowledge. Knowledge hiding affects

the flow of knowledge and knowledge management process. Knowledge hiding is

natural because the employees are coming from different background and with

different values, beliefs and habits at work (Bukowitz & Williams, 1999). They are

reluctant to share knowledge because of its value. Davenport and Prusak, (1998)

demonstrate that lack of time, cultural differences, time and work space, recognition

and rewards, intolerance towards mistake, and lack of ability to acquire knowledge

are the main barriers or challenges for the acquisition of new knowledge.

The organization should develop strategies to promote tacit knowledge sharing

and overcome these barriers in knowledge management process (Bukowitz &

Williams, 1999). Senge (1990) termed this as learning organization in which

knowledge sharing is being facilitated. The learning organizations are those where

employees are continuously engaged in expanding their capacity. The objective is to

create the difference and produce desired results. In learning organizations, the

59

collective goals are set free, new thinking patterns are developed and the employees

learn continuously and collectively (Senge, 1990).

Marsick and Watkins (1996) presented a framework for learning

organizations. The framework explains the dimensions of learning in organizations.

They major elements of their model are as under:

Encouraging collaboration and team learning

Promoting inquiry and dialogue among employees

Providing continuous opportunities for learning

Creating systems to capture and share learning by integrating it in daily work

Empowering employees towards collective vision

Connecting organizations with its environment

Strategic leadership for learning

Further, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) present a model for knowledge creation

and knowledge sharing. Their model is also known as “SECI (Socialization,

Externalization, Combination and Internalization) model”. The SECI model is further

refined by Chini (2004) in which the tools for development are proposed. The

modified model is presented in Figure 2.8., in which four forms of knowledge sharing

are discussed.

First, socialization is based on the principle of sharing feelings, emotions and

experiences by developing tools for brainstorming, rotation, secondary projects and

guidance. In socialization knowledge is transferred through imitation, reflection,

direction and practices. Second, the externalization involves the transfer of tacit

knowledge through the transfer of expert knowledge, problem solving technology,

team collaboration tools, informal chat groups and decision support system. Third, the

combination is the joining of best practices and databases through internet and web-

based learning. Fourth, internalization involves learning by doing, on the job training

and learning by observation. The informal meeting and chats are also considered

under internalization.

60

Figure 2.8: Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI Model with Chini’s (2004)

developmental tools

Dixon (2000) defines knowledge sharing as a process that involves knowledge

diffusion, knowledge distribution, knowledge transaction and knowledge exchange

(Dixon, 2000). Knowledge sharing is set of behaviors that helps in exchange or

dissemination of acquired knowledge (Chow & Chan, 2008; Ryu et al., 2003). It is

exchange among individuals, groups and organizations in which knowledge, success

and failures are shared through informal chats or meetings (Kwakman, 2003).

Davenport and Prusak, (1998) demonstrate that knowledge is an asset of

organization and the knowledge management is critical for organizational success.

They identify that the acquired knowledge, dedicated knowledge, fusion knowledge,

adaptation knowledge and networking knowledge are the main sources of knowledge.

Further, they propose the four steps that organizations should follow for effective

knowledge management. First, they must create the knowledge repositories. Second,

the existing knowledge or repositories must be accessible to all in organization. Third,

organization should facilitate the sharing environment and lastly management and use

of knowledge for achieving objective and goals.

Individuals are highly socialized to share their best practices and mistakes

with colleagues (Yu & To, 2013). Knowledge sharing is a socialization process in

which knowledge workers are engaged in developing new ideas and creating new

business opportunities (Grant, 1996a). Lodhi and Ahmad (2010) added that the

knowledge management policies affect the knowledge sharing behavior of employees.

61

The knowledge sharing is recognized as the creation of new knowledge. New

knowledge is crated through either exploitation or combination.

In other word, knowledge sharing is a social interaction process at individual,

group and organizational level (Van den Hooff et al., 2012). Knowledge sharing at

individual and group level is comprises of knowledge donation (sending of

knowledge) and knowledge collection (receiving of knowledge). In this the

employees are motivated to communicate, consult and learn from other colleagues

(Van Den Hooff & Ridder, 2004; Lin, 2007; Foss et al., 2010). Knowledge sharing at

organizational level includes capturing, organizing, and transforming the experience-

based knowledge to all employees. As whole, knowledge sharing is the exchange of

information, experience and skills with colleagues in work setting (Lin, 2007).

Knowledge sharing is a process in which knowledge is being transferred or

shared among individual, groups or organization through collaboration and

involvement (Terry et al., 2013). In knowledge sharing the new knowledge has been

created through the exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge (Lee & Choi, 2003). It is

a process of mutual exchange for sharing tacit and explicit knowledge which creates

new knowledge (Wu & Cuvusgil, 2006; Nonaka et al., 2008). The sharing of tacit

knowledge requires extra efforts from employee as compared to sharing of explicit

knowledge (Hau et al., 2013). Newmann and King (2000) further says that knowledge

sharing is a process in which employees exchange their ideas with colleagues, discuss

their problems and asks for help or advice.

In the view of Foss et al. (2010) when individual knowledge is transformed

into organizational knowledge than it is known as knowledge sharing. The knowledge

management is only possible when the knowledge is shared among employees at

organizational level (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). It is the transformation process in which

individual knowledge is transferred at organizational level through the development

of new product, service and process (Van den Hooff & Ridder, 2004).

Baalen et al (2005) argue that knowledge is only valuable when it is shared.

They further say that organizations can manage the knowledge resources effectively if

the knowledge is shared. It enhances the organizational learning capacity by

62

facilitating individuals to exchange knowledge. It works for the community by

increasing their capabilities and skills (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000).

Knowledge sharing is beneficial as it provides informal feedback, sharing of

new ideas, and attains social support (Van Eekelen et al., 2005). Knowledge sharing

with colleagues means providing feedback for their work and performance, sharing

new ideas and providing social support (Van Eekelen et al., 2005; Kwakman, 2003).

It is an informal way of learning in which employees discuss their problems, share

ideas, and seek advice through informal feedback and support (Bednall et al., 2014).

Similarly, the knowledge sharing is important for academicians in imparting

knowledge and skills to students during their course of study. Further, the faculty

members are supposed to face the negative emotions of students which can be

overcome by motivating them, increasing performance and by teaching (Rowe &

Fitness, 2018). Further, the implementation and promotion of mindfulness practices

by the faculty members help students to reduce their stress level (Hj Ramli et al.,

2018). The academic staff should provide psychological support and counseling to

students for coping problems like stress (Iorga et al., 2018).

Faculty members learn from their colleagues (Viskovic, 2006), experiences

(Lawler, 2003), and by performing active roles (Merriam & Caffarella, 2007). The

managers/administrator of educational institute who value human behavior are more

effective in terms of organizational efficiency.

2.9.3 Innovative Behavior

In this competitive knowledge-economy innovation is vital for sustainability

and success of organizations (Zhu, 2015; Thurlings et al., 2015). Innovation is

recognized as an important factor to meet the challenges by developing, implementing

and promoting new knowledge, ideas, technology and business models (Wan et al.,

2015; Omri, 2015; Axtell et al., 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1998). For long-term survival

and sustainability in the competitive world the organizations must promote innovation

and encourage their employee to take active part in developing new and better ways

of doing things.

63

According to Aalbers et al. (2014) IB of employees is considered as an

important factor for organization performance and competitiveness. There are

informal networks that play a vital role in promoting innovation and IB.

It is normally observed that other than coaching and mentoring - informal

meetings, get together parties, tea and lunch breaks, and combine activities

undertaken outside the job - offer foundation for informal networks that are important

for innovation and IB. In addition, these informal activities are considered as

investment made by the organizations (Aalbers et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2014).

IB or innovative work behavior was initially recognized as extra-role behavior

(Organ, 1997; Roberts, 2003) but later attained the status of in-role behavior as a part

of normal job assignment or routine work (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Janssen, 2000). It

is deliberate behavior of an employee that can be initiated within individual’s work

role, group or organization (Javed et al. 2017; Scott & Bruce 1994). IB is recognized

as an individual level framework to study innovation. IB is the result of collaborative

activities in which individuals are involved in creating, presenting, testing and

implementing the new ideas (Kanter, 1988).

The seminal work of Katz’s (1964, 1966) leads in developing understanding of

innovative work behavior. In views of Katz (1964) IB is not a formal action of

individuals to deal with uncertainties and contingencies. The organizations depend on

the blueprints of their employee’s IB in delicate social system. This description of

organizational environment provided by Katz (1964) does not fully address the rapid

changes and developments in business environment. The later studies succeeded in

collecting evidences and acknowledged the importance of IB for organizational

performance (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).

After the two decades of Katz’s (1964, 1966) propositions, Kanter (1988)

presents a model for IB comprises of innovative activities or behaviors at micro level.

She poses that idea generation, coalition building, idea realization and diffusion are

the main components of innovative work behaviors. First, Idea generation is the

initiation of innovation process by identifying the similarities and differences in the

work environment. The entrepreneurs or innovators are the agents to promote

innovations and enhance effectiveness. Second, Coalition building represents the

64

search for power, help and support from different stakeholders to develop novel

solution. This new idea or solution is the response to the problems faced by

stakeholders in work environment. Third, idea realization refers to the intentions of

developing, adopting or introducing the new idea in practices within organization,

group or individual level. The sample of idea, product or model is prepared for testing

in this phase. Last, transfer or diffusion represents the implementation and

development of product or idea into practice. For diffusion the employees devote

substantial effort to convert ideas into reality (Kanter, 1988).

In the same period Amabile (1988), also develops a model for IB in which

ideas are generated by setting the agenda, related information and resources. Her

model was criticized as it distinguishes between idea generation and idea realization.

The focus of model is on creativity whereas implementation of novel solution is

ignored (Dorenbosch et al., 2005). In response to this Axtell et al. (2000) presented a

framework and make addition in her model of IB by introducing ‘idea suggestion’

stage. Idea suggestion is the earlier phase from coalition building and closely linked

with creativity (Axtell et al., 2000). In addition, suggesting the idea means that the

new idea is developed or generated prior to make suggestions. Secondly, if there is no

idea is suggested than it does not guarantee that the idea may not generate. It might be

generated but not shared or suggested. So, in the view of Axtell et al. (2000) the idea

suggestion is more important than idea generation.

The other notable development is the conceptualization of IB by Scott and

Bruce (1994). According to them innovation process is comprises of activities and

behaviors. These activities and interconnected but do not follow a sequence. As a

result of these interconnected or combined activities the employees’ behaviors are

shaped accordingly. This involves problem recognition, generation of solutions and

ideas, sponsor seeking and idea production (i.e. implementation) (Scott & Bruce,

1994).

Janssen (2000) extends the work of Kanter (1988) and presented the universal

view of IB at work. IB is the individual’s ability to reach an idea or a solution for a

complex situation or problem faced by the organization (Janssen, 2000). In idea

generation, the novel solution or useful idea is formed in any area or realm. Further he

notes that the work-related problems, inconsistencies, breaks/gaps, changing

65

environment and business trends are the initiators for the creation of novel ideas. In

idea promotion, the employees engage themselves in social activities and networking

to attract sponsors and supporters through coalition building. In idea realization, the

sample solution is tested within organization, group or work role.

Kleysen and Street (2001) propose the principle dimensions of IB by

combining the search on creativity and innovation literature. Creativity is different

from innovative work behavior, but it is considered as the critical factor in stimulating

IB (Slatten & Mehmetoglue, 2011). According to Kleysen and Street (2001) the

innovation process is comprised of four applications. The first is opportunity

exploration in which the term ‘exploration’ used symbolically to express the

knowledge of innovation opportunities. This is similar to travelling (exploration) as it

enhances knowledge about countries.

In opportunity exploration they identify that attention, searching, recognizing

and gathering information about opportunities are the four types of behaviors. Second,

generativity refers to the guiding behaviors for benefiting or growing the future

people, organization, product and process. The third application is known as

formative investigation. It is the conceiving of idea, opinion or solution. Forth

application is championing which refers to as the social-political behaviors of

individuals in innovation process. Last application refers to the implementation of

innovation as part of normal business (Kleysen & Street, 2001).

Dorenbosch, et al., (2005) present the modified model of IB based on the

models presented by Janssen (2000) and Scott and Bruce (1994). The focus is given to

IB of employee at job level or small-scale innovation at work. They propose that the

IB comprises of “problem recognition, idea generation, idea promotion and idea

realization”. This conceptualization of IB is similar to Janssen (2000) and Scott and

Bruce (1994). Similar to Dorenbosch et al. (2005), recently, De Jong & De Hartog

(2010) provide the universal view of innovative work behavior comprises of “idea

generation, idea championing and idea implementation”.

The IB and innovation process as explained in these models is basically

discussing the same set of actions but with different labels. All the suggestion,

extensions and improvements have been made after the early work of Kanter (1988).

Idea generation and innovation activation (Kanter, 1988) is exchanged with problem

66

recognition and generation of solution (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Similarly, idea

generation (Janssen, 2000; Dorenbosch et al., 2005; De Jong & De Hartog, 2010) is

replaced opportunity exploration and generativity (Kleysen & Street, 2001). Lastly,

idea realization (Janssen, 2000; Dorenbosch et al., 2005) has renamed as idea

production (Scott & Bruce, 1994), idea implementation (De Jong & De Hartog, 2010)

and idea application (Kleysen & Street, 2001).

These researchers make an assertion that the organizations should appreciate

practicing the past experience to generate new ideas. It brings informal and innovative

ideas into practice while dealing with crises and mistakes. MacKenzie et al., (2005)

argue that these scholars have just played with the terms rather making any substantial

contribution. It is simply the denomination of construct with different labels where

overlapping and contamination are likely to occur. However, the conceptualization

made by Janssen (2000) is more comprehensive and all-inclusive. IB is the individual

behavior of generating novel solutions to problems; promoting idea by convincing

colleagues; and implementing it within group, unit or organization (Van der Vegt &

Janssen, 2003; Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

According to Kanter (1998) the nature and complexity of problem define the

origin of innovation and IB. The problems which involve low degree of complexity

can be resolved by the individuals. The employees provide the simple innovation for

the small problem. The team efforts, specific knowledge, competencies and skills are

required to deal with the problems of great complexities or complex innovations. The

IB is such type of behavior that is initiated within a work role by introducing a new

and useful idea to a group or organization for achieving desired objective (Farr &

Ford, 1990).

Kleysen & Street (2001) define IB as the concentrated effort made by the

individuals to generate, introduce and apply the novel solution. The solution can be at

any level of organizational hierarchy or in work role. The solution includes the

newness in product, idea generation, technological development or administrative

change. The main objective is to improve the working relations by applying the new

idea for the efficiency and effectiveness (Kleysen & Street (2001).

IB is an individual’s ability of reaching to an idea or solution for a complex

situation or problem faced by organization. Idea generation, idea promotion and idea

67

implementation are the major components of IB (Janssen, 2000). The innovative

employees keep on searching the new opportunities to satisfy their creative appetite

(Haq et al., 2017). IB includes the originating the different solutions to problems,

encouraging peers to implement the new tactics, and eventually executing them within

the organization (Vander Vegt & Janssen, 2003).

Innovativeness is the modifications, simplification or improvement in work

routines or services with the element of newness in specific context. IB or innovation

is the outcome of the individual interaction with present situation and providing

solution based on previous knowledge or experience (Yu et al., 2007). For this

research IB is the individual behavior of generating novel solutions to problems;

promoting idea by convincing colleagues; and implementing it within a group, unit or

organization (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

2.10 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality (PPAQ)

The HRM practices, high commitment human resource management

(HCHRM), high performance work system (HPWS), high involvement, high

performance work practices (HPWP), are used interchangeably (Datta et al., 2005;

Guthries, 2001; Subramony, 2009). It is basically a bundle, a set of practice or a

system which is designed to enhance employees’ skills, satisfaction, commitment,

motivation and productivity. The practices include recruitment, training, feedback,

evaluation, compensation, promotion, development, performance appraisal,

incentives, benefits, and job security” (Aryee et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2012b; Denisi

et al., 2014; Datta et al., 2005).

The concept of formally evaluating employees has been around for centuries.

However, only recently (i.e., the past 50 years) has the concept of rating employees

been an accepted practice in a large number of organizations (Murphy & Cleveland,

1995). Performance appraisal is an important but controversial HR practice (Lilley &

Hinduja, 2007; Roberts, 2003), initially used by organization as a control system to

enhance productivity and performance (Boswell & Boudreau, 2002). According to

Murphy and Cleveland (1995), performance appraisals have followed two basic

trends over the past 30 years.

68

The first trend deals with how the appraisal methods have moved from more

trait-based approaches to more behavioral and results-oriented approaches. This

approach has allowed the appraisal of an employee to be more objective as well as

provide more specific feedback to employees based upon these more objective criteria

(Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). So, under this approach performance appraisal is

structured, formal and systematic evaluation of individual performance after a period

based on objective outcomes. The objective of performance appraisal is to effectively

utilize the employees’ knowledge and skills (Denisi et al., 2014).

The second trend deals with how the uses of performance appraisal

information have expanded. Specifically, for quite some time the performance

appraisal system was used primarily for administrative purposes such as salary or

promotion decisions. However, performance appraisals have more recently begun to

be used for employee development and feedback, legal documentation, and research

(Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). This expansion of performance appraisal usage has

allowed for both supervisors and employees to use all of the behavioral information

about an employee and work toward raising performance as well as increasing

satisfaction levels of both the supervisor and the employee. Bell and Arthur (2008)

suggested that the effective performance appraisal should always be supportive,

reliable, realistic and acceptable.

In performance appraisal the supervisors made the subjective and objective

judgements of employee performance, so the complexity and variation found in

performance appraisal process (Brown et al., 2010). The focus of objective

performance appraisal is the quantifiable results or aspects of job performance. The

performance appraisal become complex when subjective judgements are made. In

subjective performance appraisal the quality of performance appraisal is diluted.

There is a possibility that the supervisor may be biased, or results and

emotions are misinterpreted (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Longenecker et al., 1987).

This leads to understanding of performance appraisal quality holistically and it is

crucial because of more subjective in nature (Treadway et al., 2007). As it stands,

though, performance appraisals are one of the least popular aspects of the human

resources systems in many organizations (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Neither

69

supervisors nor subordinates look forward to participating in the performance

appraisal process and they are rarely satisfied with the overall results of the process.

This dissatisfaction is often due to the fact that the system used by their

organization does not help raise performance levels. Therefore, the quality of

performance appraisals is an issue that needs to be addressed in order for the

satisfaction of both supervisors and employees to be increased as well as for valuable

information that can be used by the organization to be obtained (e.g., for employee

development, training, and legal documentation).

The attitude of supervisor in the appraisal feedback is important because it is

considered as a source of quality perception by employee in performance appraisal

process (Brown et al., 2010). The quality of performance appraisal includes; detailed

discussion, privacy, individual attention and determining the development needs

(Roberts, 2003). Brown et al. (2010) defines performance appraisal quality as an

assessment made by the employees regarding the performance appraisal process. The

quality of performance appraisal is defined through the treatment and procedures

adopted in the performance appraisal. It is the performance appraisal qualtiy that

enhances the employee’s capacity to positively influence the desired outcomes

(Brown et al., 2010).

The employees perceive quality in appraisal feedback “in terms of its clarity,

regularity, and openness” (Bednall et al., 2014). When the supervisor regularly held

appraisal meeting, clearly communicate the feedback and openly discusses the

problems than employee perceive quality in the feedback (Bendall et al., 2014). These

practices and events send signals, communicate promises and psychologically

empower employee for desired contributions (Ostroff and Bowen, 2000).

The effectiveness of performance appraisal is determined by the quality of

feedback or the perceptions of quality in performance appraisal process (Roberts,

2003). The quality of performance appraisal is determined by the procedures followed

in formal performance appraisal and the interactive handling of employees during the

formal appraisal. The organizations must show commitment with the whole

performance appraisal process to achieve its objective (Brown et al., 2010).

70

The employees’ attitudes and behaviors are influenced by the perception of

HR practices (Alola et al., 2018; Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Well implemented and

aligned HR practices helps organizations to maximize employees’ performance by

facilitating positive reactions at work and motivation (Boxall & Prucell, 2008;

Huselid, 1995). It communicates to employees about the expected behavior that are

rewarded (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Performance appraisal motives employee to

display behaviors that are consistent with organizational strategic objective (Datta et

al., 2005).

The ongoing feedback has been provided to individuals regarding their actual

performance and expected performance. The development needs are highlighted

through the feedback (Chuang & Liao, 2010; Deepa et al., 2014; Lepak & Snell,

2002). The feedback delivery mechanism is more important (Hattie & Timperley,

2007). In addition, the employees’ reactions to these appraisals are critical because the

fairness and quality of appraisals leads to improved performance of individual,

motivation (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008; DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006; Tziner et al., 1998),

self-regulation (Van den boom et al., 2004), self-monitoring (Kwakman, 2003) and

increased self-efficacy (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2013). The ineffective performance

appraisal leads to negative behavior like job turnover (Dailey & Kirk, 1992).

According to Brown et al. (2010), employees are sensitive to the quality of

performance appraisal. It is a process of evaluation after which the rewards and

appreciation is given to better performers. The poor or low performers are first

counseled and on subsequent poor performance the extreme steps are taken i.e.

demotion, dismissal or pay decrease (Brown et al., 2010; Roberts, 2003; Mayer &

Davis, 1999).

Employees’ perceptions of low quality in performance appraisal have

detrimental effects on their attitudes and behaviors (Fugate et al., 2008). It is a big

challenge for organization to provide the quality feedback to motivate and retain

employees (Heathfield, 2007). In addition, the past experience of employees with

performance appraisal affects the subsequent participation in performance appraisal

process (Brown et al., 2010).

In current study we perceive the quality of performance appraisal as the

perceptions of employees regarding the appraisal feedback “in terms of its clarity,

71

regularity, and openness” (Bednall et al., 2014). The clarity refers to the employees’

familiarity with the performance appraisal process in term of its purpose and their

role. It comprises of performance expectation and providing the correct information

regarding current and desired performance during the feedback (Kluger & DeNisi,

1996; Brown et al. 2010).

The regularity indicates the pattern of ongoing feedback. The employee

should communicate the performance feedback in regular intervals to judge and make

improvements. The openness refers to the level of communication in which the

employees and supervisor share their views and feedback on performance appraisal

(Brown et al., 2010). The literature suggests that the organization should encourage

open dialogue in feedback process (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).

In next sections summary of literature is presented for psychological contract

and psychological climate. It leads the further development of organizational

empowerment concept. The structural empowerment and psychological empowerment

concepts are than reviewed. First, the discussion on psychological contracts and

psychological climate is meant obligatory for better understanding of the construct

because of its different operationalization and varieties in literature.

2.11 Psychological Contract and Psychological Climate

The psychological perspective or empowerment is found in the seminal work

of Argyris (1957a; 1957b) but it did not gain popularity till 1995 when Rousseau

(1995) set basis for organizational psychological contract in his book “Psychological

Contract in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements”. The

employment relationship can be better understood through a psychological contract

which is based on the agreement among employers and employees (Rousseau, 1995).

According to psychological contracts, employees and employers interact with

each other based on mental models or existence of cognitive schema. The jobs can be

made valuable to workers using idiosyncratic arrangements. This is more prevalent

when the involved features are not easily obtained from other employers. If special

opportunities for training and development are provided to employees then it is

72

believed that their psychological contract will be relational with the employer

(Rousseau, 2005).

Based on mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations, psychological

contracts are unwritten mutual expectations defined by the relationship between an

employer and an employee. Ostroff and Bowen (2000) model for multilevel

performance framework highlighted the mediating role of psychological climate. It is

conceptualized in many ways, so uncertainty is there in its perception and

operationalization. It is used with different terms like organizational climate,

collective climate, organizational culture and psychological climate as well. Secondly

organizations have different climate at different levels like at unit and group level.

Thirdly, there is a lack of agreement about the dimension of psychological climate to

make a construct under the scope of definitions (Amenumey & Lockwood, 2008).

The psychological climate is the perception of environment at organizational

level and psychological empowerment is the feeling of cognition at individual level

(Schneider, 1990). The more clarity is given by Amenumey and Lockwood (2008)

and proved that the organizational level psychological climate positively influences

the PE at individual level. There is agreement on the dimensions and

operationalization of PE that eventually leads to organizational level empowerment in

contrast to psychological climate. The next section explains the concept of

organizational empowerment.

2.12 Organizational Empowerment

The participative management and the employee involvement theories are

used to explain the notion of empowerment (Spreitzer, 2007). There are two distinct

theoretical views are found in literature for organizational empowerment (Wallace et

al., 2011). Empowerment is generally considered as either social-structural

empowerment or psychological empowerment (Mathieu et al., 2006; Spreitzer, 1995;

Spretizer, 2008).

The social-structural empowerment focuses on the macro level view of the

organizational empowerment whereas; psychological empowerment focuses on micro

level empowerment at the workplace. The basis of social-structural empowerment is

73

on contextual factors or social structures of empowerment in the workplace at macro

level. Cognition or psychological perspectives are the focus of PE at micro level

(Spreitzer, 2008). The detail and review is as under:

2.12.1 Social-Structural Empowerment

The social exchange theory and social power theory set foundation for the

concept of social-structural empowerment. The early work of Kanter (1977) on

women’s empowerment set foundations for social-structural empowerment theory and

research. The social-structural empowerment is also known as structural

empowerment, relational contract or managerial perspective of empowerment. The

structural empowerment is grounded on the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1968)

and social power theory (French, 1956).

The focus of structural empowerment is on structures, policies, processes and

practices. The relational aspect of empowerment focuses on empowerment generated

through shared and expressive connection with others at work. (Spreitzer, 2008).

Generally, it is observed that at lower levels of an organization, an individual requires

the responsibility along with authority to be an effective employee. However, these

individuals are not empowered with authority and greater burden of function of

responsibility is placed on them. This phenomenon leads to less effectiveness of an

individual which ultimately leads to poor performance of individuals and

organizations as well.

In this regard, managers empower their employees through the process of

empowerment in which they delegate the authority at lower level of organizational

hierarchy along with responsibility (Wellins et al., 1991; Mathieu et al., 2006).

Structural empowerment is a managerial practice of granting authority to the

subordinates (Huselid et al., 1997). The delegation of authority at lower level and

providing opportunities for making decision related to work routines and tasks is

known as structural empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). Structural empowerment is that

how manager transform power and authority at lower level employees.

Structural empowerment for individuals and social groups rotates around

needs, concerns and strategies. It helps individuals and groups in expressing their

74

needs, showing their concerns and devising strategies to achieve the socio-cultural or

political needs with better decision making. From the individual point of view,

empowerment is the acknowledgement of the individual position in a group in terms

of his capability and power, self-efficacy, control, independence, knowledge, growth

and self-determination (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Structural empowerment is a process in

which organizational and other forces eliminate the conditions of helplessness in the

organization. It can be the institutional processes, cultural impacts, political changes,

economic effects or social pressures that foster transformation and promote

empowerment (Liden & Arad, 1996). Organizations empower employees and ensure

high involvement, sharing of information and knowledge, adequate rewards by

bringing change in their structures, police and practices (Bowen & Lawler, 1995).

The manager’s needs to maintain the right balance, or in other words, the

“right mix” of available information, knowledge, power and pay to work in parallel to

effective management control and direction. The information in “right mix” includes

processes, quality, customer feedback and events. The knowledge encompasses the

work itself, the power to make decisions, and actions regarding rewards and growth

(Lawler, 1992, 1994). Empowerment brings changes in employees’ interaction with

colleagues and bosses, customer and suppliers, by applying the democratic

approaches in communication. Empowered employees enjoy the personal and firm

level benefits of these motivating practices (Spreitzer, 2007)

The nature of structural empowerment is advantageous in a manner that it

leads the organization for better effectiveness. The outcomes of it include less

spoilage, less absenteeism, better quality output, better problem solving and decision

making and lower turnover (Dennison, 1984). Most importantly, empowerment is not

a general trait applicable to different situations; it is a perception-based asset formed

by a work environment and applicable in particular circumstances (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). The employee enjoys the powerfulness in decisions at work

(Menon, 2001).

The employees provide unique ideas, otherwise not attended upon, to solve

the problem of the firm. However, there are conditions to it; the employee/worker

should be in closer contact with actual production. The employees are empowered and

also action is taken on the ideas submitted and incorporated into production processes.

75

Kanter (1977) also set basis for the link between social-structural empowerment and

PE. It was demonstrated that the power tools are critical for PE of middle managers

(Spretizer, 2008).

Similarly, Spreitzer (1996) study on social-structure found that the unit level

factors promote PE of teams. The work of Seibert et al., (2004) demonstrated that

social-structural empowerment at macro level enhances PE at individual or micro

level. Likewise, Morgeson & Campion (2003) examined the mediating role of PE in

the relationship between social-structural empowerment and individual level

outcomes. In next section the literature is reviewed, and discussion has been made on

the construct of psychological empowerment.

2.12.2 Psychological Empowerment

The structural empowerment focuses on how work has to be done whereas;

the focus of psychological empowerment (PE) is on how employee experiences their

work. Conger and Kanungo (1988) are known as pioneer in conceptualization of PE.

PE shapes individual behavior above and beyond the aptitudes of structural

empowerment (Parker & Griffin., 2001). The focus of PE is on cognitional and

emotional perspective of individual attitudes. Conger and Kanungo (1988) are the first

to offer psychological perspective on empowerment (Han et al., 2016). They provided

the new insight to social scientist for understanding of empowerment.

Conger and Kanungo (1988) define empowerment as a process in which the

employees’ feeling of self-efficacy is enhanced. The work role, conditions, and tasks

are designed in such a way that discourages powerlessness among employees. This is

achieved by adopting the formal and informal techniques. The formal techniques are

considered as organizational practices while the informal are providing efficacy

information. In their view empowerment is not only the delegation of authority and

power to subordinate instead a personal belief of employee about their roles and

relation to organization (Spreitzer, 2008).

According to Conger and Kanungo (1988) the employee self-efficiency can

be enhanced by delegating the authority and sharing of resources. PE is seen when

employees are provided with authority, autonomy and freedom in carrying out their

76

work (Hancer & George, 2003). Conger & Kanungo (1988) classify the process of

empowerment in five stages: Stage one includes the identification of the conditions

that are promoting powerlessness among employees.

They identified that the contributing factors are supervisory role, reward

system, nature of job and organizational factors are the concern of the employee in

first stage. Next, in second stage, managers try to deal with the external conditions

that are promoting powerlessness among employees. To deal with external challenges,

they identified that strategies like goal setting, participative management, job

enrichment, performance-based rewards, feedback system and modeling are helpful.

In stage three, self-efficacy information is provided to employees through

verbal encouragement, vicarious experience, dynamic interaction, enactive attainment

and emotional encouragement. Therefore, in stage four, employees have the feeling of

empowerment due to the receiving of self-efficacy information. Consequently, the

employee experiences the behavioral effects of empowerment in last stage.

The work of Conger & Kanugo (1988) is further refined by Thomas and

Velthouse (1990) in which they present a theoretical framework of empowerment

known as cognitive model of empowerment. According to them empowerment is not

a dispositional trait but the manifest of the four cognition of intrinsic task motivation.

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) define empowerment as a tool through which the

employees’ cognitions or states are shaped by the work environment. This creates an

alignment between personal and organizational goals (Spreitzer, 2008). They propose

that, in a cognitive model, the individual’s personality and work context

(environment) shape the employees’ empowerment. They provided the interpretive

style of work role in which the circumstances and conditions, work as a source of

intrinsic task motivation.

The task motivation suggests that the employee’s orientation and

empowerment are related to his/her role at workplace. It consists of a set of four

cognitions; meaningfulness, competence, choice and impact. The meaning is related

with the perceived value of an employee’s work. The competence refers to the skills

and capabilities possessed by employee to perform the task or work. The competence

is similar to self-efficacy of Conger and Kanungo. It refers to the employees’

77

perceptions of their effectiveness for the task or job. The choice refers to the

employees’ ability of making decision regarding actions. Impact refers to the

employees’ ability to affect organizational outcomes.

The principle of Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and Conger and Kanungo

(1988), is the intrinsic task motivation of employees inculcated by the compelling

organizational environment (Krishnan, 2012). The further advancement in PE

construct is the development of its measurement scale. Spretizer (1995) has developed

the multidimensional measures of PE in workplace. 12-item scale was established to

measure each dimension of PE with 3 items and on 7-point Likert scale. She assumes

that PE is not a dichotomous, and employees perceive different degree of

empowerment. The four dimensions are distinct in second order confirmatory factor

analysis. Spreitzer (1995) scale was validated at individual, unit and team level;

different languages, cultures and different contexts.

According to Spreitzer (1995), PE is mindfulness and obligation-based design

which requires that an individual is actively orientated to work role. Furthermore, the

work environment shapes the cognitive element of the worker. This is contrary to the

belief that a fixed personality attribute shapes the cognitive aspect of the worker. PE

has evolved over time leading to various schools of thought; these include work of

Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and Spreitzer (1995). In

their view PE is the psychological responses or cognitive inspirations of individuals’

in reply to organizational approaches and practices.

In order to ensure that the four dimensions proposed by Thomas and

Velthouse (1990) explain the true essence of PE Spreitzer (1997) refines their work.

Modern theories in psychology and sociology advocate that work, or performance of

individual should lead to personal development of the employee. The provision of

employee with the power and motivating them to express their capabilities and skills

to the fullest extent is the basic premise for these theories. The employees’

satisfaction can be achieved if the working environment allows them to use his/her

skills, increase intellectual capacity and make responsible decisions. This will develop

a sense of personal control and a strong self-esteem. This is the basic assumption of

self-actualization theorists (O’Brien, 1986).

78

Spreitzer et al. (1997) refine the construct of PE by drawing the

interdisciplinary literature on psychology, education, social work and sociology. They

further define the four cognitions reflecting the active orientation of employee work

role as; “meaning, competence, self-determination and impact”. The Conger &

Kanungo’s dimension of choice is synonymous to self-determination. Meaning

involves a match between employee personal values, beliefs and standards with work

demands (Thomas & Velthouse 1990).

Competence or self-efficacy is the employee’s belief on one’s capability to

successfully perform the assigned task or work (Bandura, 1989). Self-determination

or choice is personal control or autonomy over work and implies job involvement

(Deci, Connell, and Ryan 1989). Impact refers to the perception of influence one has

on outcome and implies organizational involvement in contrast to self-determination

(Thomas & Velthouse 1990; Spretizer et al., 1997; 1999). The details of these

dimensions are as under;

2.12.2.1 Meaning

The term meaning (Spreitzer, 1995) or meaningfulness (Thoman and

Velthouse, 1990) is similar to Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) term of meaningfulness

for specific task or project. Conger and Kanungo (1988) recognized the prominence

of meaning with reference to individuals’ feeling of power at work to manage people

and situations. The importance of evaluation of task against the personal standards is

considered as meaningfulness (Spretizer, 1995). Meaning refers to a kind of influence

that the task or work have on psychic energy of individual (Abdulrab et al., 2017). It

is the value of individuals’ work with respect to personal goals and standards

(Thomas &Velthouse, 1990; Okyireh & Simpeh, 2016). It refers to the

appropriateness of principles, standards and actions at work (Brief & Nord, 1990).

Stander and Rothmann (2010) define meaning as a perception of employees towards

their work and abilities. Meaning is something when employees feel that they are

empowered and can make their own work decision. Their competence and job

performance enhance, and they see the effect of their work (Chiang & Hsieh, 2012).

Laziness, detachment and discrete behaviors are the signals of low degree of

meaningfulness in employee in contrary to energetic, commitment and high

79

involvement show high level of meaningfulness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). It

enhances employee empowerment and performance at work by having fair reward

and recognition system (Herrenkohl et al., 1999).

2.12.2.2 Competence

The term competence is similar to agency beliefs or performance expectancy

(Bandura, 1989) and studied as self-efficacy in clinical psychological literature

(Bandura, 1977; 1986). It is observed that low self-efficacy leads to avoidance

behavior by escaping from confrontation and results in low competency and self-

esteem. The high competency leads to extra efforts, persistence in problem solving

and IBs at work (Bandura, 1977). Competence is the confidence that employee have

on his or her skills to perform task activities (Thomas & Velthhouse, 1990; Spretizer,

1995). The lack of confidence will emerge as a lack of PE. The competence is

affected by the power and jurisdiction of employees in decision making (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988). It is employees’ perception of their abilities to carry out work and

task skillfully (Okyireh & Simpeh, 2016; Corsun & Enz, 1999, Thomas & Velthouse,

1990). Spretizer (1995) also concluded that high self-esteem lead to feeling of

competence in employee. She added that the performance feedback from supervisor is

important for strengthening the sense of competence in employees. The recognition of

employee as important part of organization and providing them authority are the basis

for employee feeling of PE (Spretizer, 1995).

2.12.2.3 Self-Determination

Spreitzer’s (1997) used the dimension of self-determination similar to the

choice dimension of Thomas and Velthouse (1990). Thomas and Velthouse (1990)

made an assertion that it is the causal responsibility for employees’ actions which is

analogues to the locus of causality (DeCharms, 1968). The locus of causality and

locus of control are the two different terms with different meanings and interpretation

(Deci & Ryan, 1985). The focus of locus of control is on outcome contingencies and

how it deals with uncertainties (Rotter, 1966). The locus of causality is the perception

of person’s behavior as self-determined and basic requirement of intrinsic motivation

(DeCharms, 1968). Deci and Ryan (1985) added self-determination as an important

80

element of intrinsic motivation along with competence. The self-determination is the

employees’ perception of control over the work and autonomy in decision making

(Spretizer, 1997). The high level of self-determination leads to motivation in

controlling in work environment (Hancer & George, 2003) and job satisfaction

(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The employee feels self-determination when they

perceive that they are no just following the rules of higher authorities rather have

freedom and autonomy in decision making to affect the work (Spretizer, 1997).

2.12.2.4 Impact

It refers to the perceived control of an employees’ over the environment and

how the accomplished task makes difference by affecting environment (Thoamas &

Velthouse, 1990). It is similar to knowledge of results (Hackman & Oldham, 1980)

and learned helplessness (Abramson et al., 1978). It is related to work context, so it is

different from locus of control. Spreitzer (1995) refer impact as an event of employee

that has influence on organization. Employee feel empowerment if they sense

progression towards goals. Okiyireh and Simpeh (2016) define impact in which

individuals successfully create the differences at strategic, managerial and functional

levels of organization and work outcomes.

The work of Thomans and Velthoouse (1990) and Spretizer (1995) on PE in

term of conceptualization, operationalization and measurement was remarkable. There

work is vastly admired by the researcher and practitioners across the globe in different

context, at different level and in different industries. The criticisms and applauses are

the beauty of the research and vital for creation of new knowledge. Similarly, in

social science research suggestions, recommendation and directions are proposed to

enhance the body of knowledge. It is impossible to explain every research and its

contributions to the construct of PE but few of them are discussed under;

Menon (2001) further confirm that it is a measurable psychological state and

considered as a continuous variable rather simply answering empowered or not

empowered. PE is a personal psychological determinant and reactions to work

conditions. It is passive orientation and individual personal beliefs of their role in

organization (Quinn & Spreitzer, 2001).

81

Bowen and Lawler (1992) view PE as managerial practice that leads to

increase profitability. Few studies like Niehoff et al. (2001) argue that PE helps

employees in coping stress at work. The two seminal changes (i.e. Hancer & George,

2003; Hanser et al., 2005) have made in which the authors proposed the three

dimensional and two-dimensional structure of PE. In contrary, studies (like Stander &

Rothmann, 2009; Uner & Turan, 2010) confirmed the four-factor model for PE and

scale after assessing the validity and consistency of the constructs in first order and

second order.

PE has received reasonable attention from the scholars and practitioners in

the field of HRM. It plays a vital role in shaping the individuals’ organizational

behaviors in the workplace (Dust et al., 2014). The number of studies has undertaken

to identify the antecedents and consequences of PE. Ledoux et al. (2018) found that

PE plays a vital role in the development of compassion among employee in medical

as compared to structural empowerment. Structural empowerment does not influence

nursing staff effectively.

The importance of empowerment has been realized by every discipline (Paul

et al., 2000). They added that the productivity and quality of work life can be

improved by involving the employee and empowering them. Empowerment plays a

critical role in making decision regarding. It involves providing authority with

responsibility at lower level employees (Paul et al., 2000).

Thomas & Velthouse (1990) and Spretizer (1995) have identified a set of four

cognitions or dimensions of PE. Similarly, Spretizer (1995) also added that the

combination of these dimensions gives better understanding and insights of the

construct (Koberg et al., 1999). The exclusion of single aspect diminishes the overall

empowerment perception and combination gives the proactive essence of

empowerment (Spretizer & Quinn, 1996). In current study the PE is studied

collectively by combining all four dimensions into a single construct.

82

2.13 Perceptions of HRM System Strength (PHSS)

The different between the content of HRM and process of HRM is explained

by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). They are of the opinion that HRM-performance linkage

can be better understand with the strength of HRM system. Strength is basically the

integration of HRM content and process. The HR practices are effective when they

are aligned with the strategic objectives. It means that these practices should be

horizontally and vertically aligned with the strategic goals of the firm (Pereira &

Gomes, 2012).

The role of HR department is critical as the development of HR policies and

implementation is the responsibility of HR department in which they communicate

the HR messages to employees (Guest and Conway, 2011). The system is strong

when these practices and policies are properly implemented. It means the line

managers have to implement the practices in accordance to the agreed plan or as

intended (Nishii et al., 2008; Khilji & Wang, 2006).

According to HR system strength theory (HRSS) of Bowen and Ostroff

(2004), the system communicates the performance requirements to employee

regarding their performance. It sends signals to employees about the expected

behavior that are rewarded for the achievement of organizational goals (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004; Nishii & Wright, 2007). In addition, the strong system is characterized

by high level of its distinctiveness, consistency in practices and consensus in the

messages by HR department (Hewett, 2018; Delmotte et al., 2011; Bowen & Ostroff,

2004).

In addition, the PHSS is conceptualized differently. First it is the perceptions

of employee about the package, bundle or set of practices implemented. The higher

the number of practices means the more signals by the HR department to employee

about their performance (White & Bryson, 2013). This number perspective does not

ensure that the practices are distinctive and consistent. The higher number of practices

does not imply the censuses among the policy makers as well.

Second, it is conceptualized as the ratings on content of HRM i.e. specific HR

practices. The higher ratings on particular practice indicate a strong system (Stumpf et

al., 2010) as the ratings justify the shared perceptions of stronger system among

83

employees (Veld et al., 2010). Third, the above operationalization of HRM system is

lacking focus on the three meta-features as proposed by Bowen and Ostroff (2004)

based on the co-variation principle of attribution theory (Kelley, 1973). Under this

theory it is mandatory that the organization must provide distinct, consistent and

consensual HR messages (i.e. at all levels).

These clear, consistent and unambiguous messages create perception of strong

HR system which in turn leads to a strong organizational climate (De Winne et al.,

2013; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The strong climate generated through strong system

motivates employee to depict anticipated attitudes and behaviors (Wright & Nishii,

2007; Nishii et al., 2008; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The three meta-features i.e.

distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus as proposed by Boswen and Ostroff

(2004). The conceptualization of these meta-features is as under:

2.13.1 Distinctiveness

Distinctiveness refers to the delivery of visible, understandable, legitimate and

relevant HR messages to employee (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). They further added that

HRM system cannot be separated from the content of HRM i.e. HR practices. The

complete understanding of these HR practices by the employees refers to the

realization of HRM system by them. The comprehendible HR practices help

employees to make attributions of these practices (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

The visibility refers to the observable and salient HR practices in term of

communicating the HR messages to employees. The employees must be clear about

what lies under the domain of HR and what goes beyond its domain (Delmotte et al.,

2012). For example, if the objective of training is not clear then the employees are not

certain about the desired behavior. This will generate the tendency in employee for

interpreting the situation or practice based on their prejudices or opinions. Thus, leads

to different behaviors and week situations are likely to exist.

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that the organizations are required to enhance

the visibility of HR practices to a wide range of employees for creating the strong

situations The HR practices must be designed and aligned with the personal goals of

84

employees (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) or vertical alignment (Pereira & Gomes, 2012)

to ensure the visibility.

Understandability of HR messages refers to the extent to which these are

understood by the employees. The individuals differ in their comprehension and

understanding so the messages must be unambiguous. The HR practices and

procedures developed by the organization must be easy to understand by all

employees regardless of their knowledge and capabilities (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

The legitimacy of authority is the credibility or status of the HRM system as

perceived by the employees (Bowen & Ostroff 2004). Based on social cognitive

theory the legitimacy concept refers to the social status of the employee working for

HR department and communicating the practices. It is observed that when messages

are received through credible source implies importance and high status. It means the

employees are also affected by the personal characteristics of the sender. The worth of

HR department in the organization and top management support to it reflects the high

legitimacy or authority.

Relevance refers to the perception of employee regarding the development and

implementation of HR practices that these practices are designed to help them for the

achievement of their personal and professional goals (Delmotte et al., 2012). The HR

system must be designed by considering the organizational and individual

development goals. For example, if the university is pursuing a differentiating

strategy through research and innovation but at same time the monetary gains are the

individual goals. Under this condition the HRM system must relate the deviating

goals by creating synergy. This can be made by the research productivity awards and

recognition to employees. This relevancy is required by the organization to effectively

operate in competitive environment.

The distinctiveness alone cannot explain the attribution of causation to create

strong situation. It explains the communicating the message by sender and encoding

of theses message uniformly among employees (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). For a

strong situation it is important that the messages sent by the HR practices are

consistent about the required behaviors and rewards. The consistency in these

messages is discussed next:

85

2.13.2 Consistency

It refers to the articulation of HR practices in such a way that it appears

reliable and coherent across different level of organizational hierarchy at different

time. Consistency is the establishment of constant relationship with individuals and

environment over time (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). It is the understanding of the cause

and effect over time and implies that when some event occurred the cause of that

object also exists (Eastman, 1994). The consistency in messages communicates the

employee about the specific behaviors that are expected and rewarded (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004). The perception of HRM system as consistent requires that the

relationship is established through the instrumentality, validity and consistency in HR

messages.

Instrumentality is such design of HR practices that links these messages with

the expected behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). It is expected that employees decide

to perform a certain behavior based on their expectation of the outcome under

expectancy theory of Vroom (1964). The supervisor and HR manager should create a

visible and understandable cause-effect relationship when implementing HR

practices. It is expected that the employees’ empowerment, motivation and

competence is influenced by these programs and practices (Delery & Shaw, 2001).

The employees’ behavior or results are closely related to the application of consistent

HR practices over time (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Pereira & Gomes, 2012).

The validity is important element for making attribution of HR practices. It

refers to the employee perceptions of actual implementation of HR practices in

accordance to the plan or as intended (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The difference

between the intended and implemented HR practices leads to different perceptions by

the employees (Bowen & Ostrof, 2004). There is a need to minimize the difference

between HR practices (planned and implemented) and it leads to different perception

about expected behaviors (Khilji & Wang, 2006). The professionals and HR policy

makers are responsible for design and implementation of HR policy by determining

the expected behaviors and outcomes (Wright & Nishii, 2007; Khilji & Wang, 2006).

The implementation of these practices is made by the line manager. The line manger

implements the policy as perceived by them and it depends on their competence,

desire and support provided by higher authorities (Bos-Nehles, 2010). The validity is

86

ensured when there is low ambiguity or difference lies between the intended and

implemented HR practices (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Khilji & Wang, 2006).

The consistent HR messages refer to the regularity in sending the signals by

HR department for expected behaviors and outcomes (Delmotte et al., 2011; Bowen

& Ostroff, 2004). Bowen and Ostroff (2004) suggested ensuring three types of

consistent messages. First, the messages communicated by the HR department or

policies must be similar to the messages endorsed by line managers. Second, there

should not be any inconsistency in messages of different HR practices means that the

HR practices should be internally consistent. Third, the messages in HR practices

should be stable over time or for longer period. The double-bind and constant change

in messages is disastrous and harmful to create a shared perception of consistent HR

messages (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

2.13.3 Consensus

Consensus refers to agreement or generalization of an incident or behavior

among all individuals (Delmotte et al., 2011; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). It is important

that individual perceive the same effect and it can be viewed through the agreement

among decision makers and fairness in treatment (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

Agreement among decision makers or message senders refers to standing of

all involved parties at same wave length or degree of settlement at all levels of

organizational hierarchy. Agreement among message sender helps in fostering the

consensus (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). It is understood that the strategic plans and

policies are formulated at top level by the policy makers. The HR practices and

policies are formulated and designed by the HR managers and professionals. The

implementation of these policies and practices is the responsibility of line managers or

supervisors. There must be an agreement among the all levels of organizational

hierarchy in communicating the HR messages for desired behaviors, value and design

of HR practices (Delmotte et al., 2011; Sanders et al., 2014; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

The fairness refers to the impartiality of the practices. The fairness of HRM

system is judged by its adherence with the principles of justice i.e. “distributive,

procedural and interactional justice”. Distributive justice in HRM system examined

87

as the fairness in content and outcomes of HR practices. The results or performance

should be the criteria for recognition and reward. In addition, procedural justice

explained by the fairness in the practices likes promotions and rewards. The

interactional justice is recognized as the impartiality of the decisions by HR

department. The perceptions of fairness by employee in HRM system influence their

attitudes and behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

2.14 Conceptual Framework

The numerous scholars and practitioners have documented their research in

reputed journals on the relationship between HRM and performance (employee and

organizational). The consensus also found in literature that the proximal outcomes

(individual) contribute to distal outcomes (organizational). They identified that HRM

directly or indirectly affects employees’ job satisfaction (Messersmith et al., 2011),

turnover intention (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Gardner et al., 2001), organizational

commitment (Messersmith et al., 2011; Shahnawaz & Juyal, 2006), productivity

(Bloom & Reenen, 2010) and financial outcomes (Adnan et al., 2011). The

organizational performance can be measured in terms of cost reduction, quality

improvement, flexibility and time (Jayaram et al., 1999).

There is promising relationship between organizational performance and HRM.

However, there are some theoretical questions need to be answered. These questions

are about how the HRM system affects organizational performance which is referred

to as the ‘black box’. Answering this question was the focus of the researcher in the

past three decades. The aim of this research is to answer this question by developing

an agreed-upon theoretical model that reveals how HRM affects performance in terms

of ILAs.

This study is grounded on the HR system strength (HRSS) theory developed

by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). The theory of HR system strength depicts that the

individual level research is used to draw inference about the organizational level

performance and effectiveness. The theory hold the structural features of an

organization that should fit the environmental and technological demands.

Organizational effectiveness cannot be ensured through the organizational design only

but it requires support from the members of organizations i.e. employee to achieve

88

organizational goals. It is well known that the satisfied and committed employees are

more willing to work for the achievement of organizaitonal goals.

The HRSS theory focuses on HR practices. These practices are useful in

shaping the employees attitudes and beahvior in such a way that is supportive to

organizaitonal goals. The employees’ perceptions of these practices shape their

attitudes and behaviors. HR system influence organizational climate and normative

contracts that shape human capital devleopment and collective attitude and behaviors.

These in turn influence organizational performance.

Conceptual links are required to be established by keeping in view the

similarities among the construct used in the study (Akers & Sellers, 2004). The

developments of hypotheses are discussed under:

2.15 Hypothesis Development

2.15.1 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and

Psychological Empowerment

Human capital is the critical resource for competitive advantage (Huselid,

1995) and well-designed HRM system (Barney & Wright, 1998) is essential for

performance and sustainable development (Barney, 1991). The HR system is

comprising of different HR practices like; recruitment and selection, training and

development, compensation and performance appraisal (Boxall et al., 2011). HR

system strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) states that HRM system as a

combination of HR content and process influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors

by creating a psychological climate. The concept of psychological climate and PE is

based on the social cognitive theory (Banduar, 1986).

HR practices like performance appraisal, compensation, and feedback (Denisi

et al., 2014; Aryee et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2012b) influence employees’ skills,

motivation and opportunities to contribute (Lepak et al., 2006). This in turn

contributes to productivity, profitability, growth, innovation, customer service, at

organizational level (Youndt et al., 1996; Datta et al., 2005; Ichniowski & Shaw,

1999). The well aligned (horizontal and vertical fit) HR practices influence

89

employees’ attitudes and behaviors by developing skills, motivating employees and

providing greater opportunities to contribute (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Messerrsmith

et al., 2011; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000).

The accuracy in performance appraisal leads to retention of skilled workforce

(Lilly & Hinduja, 2007). Similarly, quality of performance appraisals generates strong

reactions (Thayer, 1987) and increases the perceived obligations of employee towards

organizations and employer which in turn affect their attitudes (Hetidrix et al., 1998).

Employees’ experience of quality in performance appraisal is expected to influence

employees feeling of attitudes. It generates the positive feelings and sense of

achievement in employees. Employees feel value and perceive constructive position

in their jobs (Lind & Tyler, 1988).

PE is an employee feeling of empowerment and this is manifested in four

cognitions. First, employees give meaning to their work. Second, they trust their

competence. Thrid, they are determined to achieve organizatioanl goals. Fourth, they

know that their actions and decision have impact on organzation (Spreitzer, 1995).

Employees can perform well if they are satisfied and feel the responsibility for the

work assigned to them, this can easily be done through performance appraisal.

Performance appraisal encourages the employees to engage themselves in achieving

the organizational goals and to create an environment that can lead to increase their

performance and productivity (DeNisi & Sonesh, 2010).

Previous literature demonstrates that the HR practices influence employees’

job attitudes. The focus of the studies was on affective commitment and job

satisfaction (Takeuchi et al., 2009). In addition, Messersmith et al., (2011) found that

the bundle of HR practices influences job satisfaction, PE and affective commitment

of employees. It is observed that rewards and job security enhance PE (Spreitzer,

1995). Carless (2004) found that appraisal and recognition influence the job attitudes

by creating a psychological climate.

Furthermore, Aryee et al., (2012) found a significant positive relationship

between high performance work systems (HPWS) and PE of employee. They studied

the performance appraisal as a part of HRM system. The study (i.e. Aryee et al., 2012)

lacks in explaining the relationship of individual HR practice with PE. The study by

90

Brown et al. (2010) sheds light on the relationship between performance appraisal

quality and job attitudes. They argue that high quality in the performance appraisal

experiences of employees’ leads to high level of job satisfaction and low-quality leads

to lower level of job satisfaction. Thus, quality in performance appraisal is critical to

create high levels of job attitudes like job satisfaction (Brown et al, 2010). In addition,

the employees’ self-worth and feeling of achievements are positively influenced by

the quality of performance appraisal (Campbell & Campbell, 2001).

However, it is observed that there is less evidence to support an association

between PPAQ and PE. The HR system strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004)

posed that HR practices create a psychological climate at organizational level. This

psychological climate is useful in crating the PE at individual level (Amenumey &

Lockwood, 2008). Therefore, following the notion HR system strength theory and

based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), it is anticipated that the PPAQ as

content of HR, psychologically empower employees to act and work in progressive

manner. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: There is direct, positive and significant relationship between

PPAQ and PE.

2.15.2 Psychological Empowerment and Informal learning

activities

PE as cognition of meaning, competence, self-determination and impact, is

recognized as an important element of workplace learning (Zimmerman, 1990; 1995;

2000). It promotes learning by creating social-political awareness and attachments

with organizations (Kanter, 1988; Koberg et al., 1999; Pfeffer & Villeneuve, 1994). It

enables employee to acquire, develop and share knowledge and skills. PE allows

employee to share resources across organization and participate in workplace learning

(Zimmerman, 1995; 2000).

The employee perception of meaning and usefulness of work may influence

the engagement in job and participation in learning (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Similarly,

the competence or intrinsic motivation positively influences the work performance,

learning and adaptability (Harackiewicz et al., 1985). In addition, self-determination

91

is also known as important factor to motivate employee to work and learn (Locke &

Schweiger, 1979). The employees feel capable of taking actions and responding to

unique situation or work-related problems encountered during the work (Linden et al.,

2000).

Impact creates belief among employees that they can affect organizational

outcome. They involve in learning at workplace by showing dedication to their work

(Ashforth, 1989). Empowering employees is a set of experiences in which individuals

have control on decision, resources and access to information (Zimmerman, 1995).

There is a noticeable interest of researchers and practitioners found in literature for

identifying the psychological drivers that promote individual behaviors. It is

anticipated that this influence the workplace learning. (Yu et al., 2007).

Those employees who give meaning to their work put more efforts because of

their level of commitment with organization (Linden et al., 2000). It has identified

that organizational climate (Balkar, 2015), Self-efficacy (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,

2000), organizational culture (Zhu, 2015), Leadership (Zhang & Kwan, 2018;

Moolenaar et al., 2010; Sagnak, 2012) and motivation to learn is an important driver

of individuals’ behaviors (Montani et al., 2014).

According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and psychological

empowerment theory (Spreitzer, 2008), the empowered employees take active

orientation towards their work which leads them is displaying organizational

citizenship behaviors (Choi, 2007; Messersmith et al., 2011), job satisfaction

(Laschinger et al., 2001), compassion (Ledoux et al., 2018), work satisfaction and job

performance (Linden et al., 2000), voice behavior (Yoo et al., 2017), and

organizational commitment ( Bogler & Somech, 2004). Therefore, it can be argued

that PE as a positive job attitude influences the employee’s behaviors. Employee

participation in ILAs is initiated by the learner at his/her own. These activities are

self-directed and non-institutionalized initiated by the employees at their workplaces

like RE, KS and IB. The detail on each activity is as under:

92

2.15.2.1 Psychological Empowerment and Reflection

PE refers to a perception that an employee holds. It engages the workforce in

the assigned job with commitment as they have been provided with a higher degree of

flexibility (Noe & Wilk, 1993) and more freedom regarding decision making (Walton,

1985). Investigating the effects of PE on IL of employees, while keeping in view the

service based organizations/institutions, the outcomes are intangible. As employees’

feels satisfied and perceive a significance role in the organization they will engage

themselves in more and more ILAs to nourish their abilities (Smylie, 1988). So, it can

be figured out from the existing researches that a positive relationship exists between

human resource empowerment and ILAs.

Previous research shows that the performance of psychologically empowered

employees is superior to those who are less empowered (Linden et al., 2000). They

consider themselves as more competent and capable to influence their work and job in

meaningful way (Spreitzer, 1995). They tend to show initiatives by displaying

positive behaviors and acting freely (Wang et al., 2014; Wallace et al., 2011; Thomas

& Velthouse, 1990). According to the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), the

human behaviors and functions are shaped by the cognitive processes in interaction

with their enviornment. Relfection on daily activities is a type of behavior that is

triggered through the enviornement and interaction with HR system.

However, there is less evidence to support an association between PE and RE

and has not been a subject of empirical research. Based on HR system strength theory

(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), Bednall et al. (2014) studied the effect of HR system

(content and process) on ILAs including RE. Their study lacks in observing the

psychological perspective of HRSS theory. The creation of psychological climate and

empowerment among employees lead to the desired behaviors and attitudes (Ostroff

& Bowen, 2014). It is argued that PE is a motivational construct which deals with the

cognition of employees and stimulate desired behavior like RE. Therefore, we

hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PE and RE.

93

2.15.2.2 Psychological Empowerment and Knowledge Sharing

KS is recognized vastly as a source of competitive advantage (Argote et al.,

2003). It improves the individual ability and efficiency in problem solving by creating

the organizational memory (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Feiz et al., 2017). PE is a

motivational aspect in which employees are inspired and motivated to share

knowledge at work. The psychologically empowered employees consider KS as a part

of their job (Spreitzer, 1995). So, it can be said that employees share knowledge with

others if they are psychologically empowered to share their experiences and

knowledge (Sadegh, 2015).

PE is the perceptions of employees and feeling of power to deal with events,

situations and problems (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). It is a set of motivational

cognitions shaped by work environment (Spreitzer, 1995). Organizations should

involve their employee in work by empowering the willpower and degree of

sovereignty among them. Focusing on employees' empowerment, Conger and

Kanungo (1988); Quinn and Spreitzer (1997); and Siegall and Gardner (2000)

concluded that empowerment comes up with the two-way causal relationship between

employees’ personal control and organizational outcomes. It motivates employees and

makes them enthusiastic to take control of work opportunities in the best interest of

organization. The leaders’ role is also important for empowering employee to share

their knowledge (Han et al, 2016; Fong & Snape, 2015; Wallace, 2011).

Previous studies found that employees share knowledge with colleagues if

they are psychologiclly empwoerd to share (Seibert et al., 2011; Ozbebek &

Kiliçarslan 2011; Srivastava et al., 2006). The relationship between pscyhological

empowerment and knowledge shairng is empirically examined for employee working

is service business (Ozbebek & Kilicarslan 2011). Messersmith et al. (2011) found a

positive relationship of HR practices with PE. In addition, the empowered teachers

participate in critical decisions that directly affect learning and teaching (Dee et al.,

2003). Empowerment facilitates teachers by enhancing professionalism, improving

quality of work and heightening sense of conviction in terms of their own

effectiveness (Katzenmayer & Moller, 2009).

94

The PE has received less attention (Dee et al., 2003). The relationship between

PE and KS is yet to be re-examined for faculty members working in HEIs. Based on

HRSS (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) the PE is

a motivational construct and positive job attitude that influences employee’s

behaviors. So, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PE and KS.

2.15.2.3 Psychological Empowerment and Innovative Behavior

The empowerment allow employees to improve their service delivery and

rectify mistakes by bringing change in the work processes (Fernandez &

Moldogaziev, 2012). PE foster the performance and behavioral change through social

learning (Wallace et al., 2011). Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), provided the

fremwork to link psychologicl empowement with innovative behaivor. The IB

requries extra effort on behalf of employee. Their cognitive state help and motivate

them to be innovative and creative in their work. Personal value of employee and their

competency influence their innovative behaivor. When employee perceive their work

is making differences in other life they find new ways of doing their work.

Spreitzer et al. (1999) examines the relationship between PE and leadership.

They proved that the empowered supervisor are more foucsed, inspirational and

influential. It is of worth studying the influnece of individual’s cognitive state, that is

psychological empowement (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995) on the

individual behaivor. Empowered employees promote new ideas and bring enthusiasm

in the workplace (Sarkar & Singh, 2012). The PE allows employees in releasing their

potential, being innovative in their work, groups or organization (Palaniammal et al.,

2016).

It is also argued that PE of employees plays a vital role in developing the

employees and promoting learning through IB (Spreitzer, 1995; Bhatnagar, 2012).

According to Ayoub et al., (2018) the psychologically empowered employees display

creative mindset and it is linked with creative performance of employees. Studies like

(Knol & Linge, 2009) found that PE positively linked with IB. Recently Trust (2017)

95

found that motivation and empowerment facilitate teachers to improve, change and

adopt new practices. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2c: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PE and IB.

2.15.3 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Informal

Learning Activities

Employees participate in in ILAs when they have confident about their

abilities to complete their jobs successfully (Smylie, 1988). By having the

organizational support and sufficient time, the employees can actively participate in

those informal activities to improve their skills and abilities (Noe & Wilk, 1993). In

terms of organizational content, human resource practices can help organization in

conducting such learning activities and formulating performance appraisals which

provide an insight to the performance feedback to overcome the weaknesses, and to

enhance the effectiveness of the individuals and organization (DeNisi & Sonesh,

2010).

The effect of performance appraisal and praticularly PPAQ on IL is not well

studied in literature. The literature suggests that performance feedback can develop

interest towards auto didacticism and self-learning (Kamphorst & Swank, 2018). On

the basis of available research, it can be concluded that effectively delivered feedback

can improve employee performance, so the quality in performance appraisal would

increase the participation in ILAs (Bednall et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2010).

The argument that the employees tend to leave the organization when they

find their job boring and uninteresting is widely accepted (Boxall et al., 2003).

Employees’ perceptions of quality in performance appraisal motivates them to

perform well and remain committed to organizational goals. The objective of

performance appraisal is to improve employee performance (Brown et al., 2010). The

research recognizing performance appraisal as a control system argues that the

effectiveness of performance appraisal is depending on the quality and amount of

feedback (Roberts, 2003). A study by Brown et al., (2010) found that the low-quality

96

performance appraisal leads to dissatisfaction of employees with their job, less

committed and are more likely to quit their job.

The performance appraisal system is important because it helps the

organization for developing the employees’ capabilities (Smith, 1987). A notable

study of Ngari and Ndirangu (2014) in which they evaluated the impact of

performance appraisal quality on employee performance. Their study was carried out

in the context of investment management firms in Kenya. So, it can be said that high

quality performance appraisal system determines the organizational success or failure

as employees feel more determined and competent in fulfilling their duties that is

important to any organization.

The effects of HRM and specifically PPAQ on encouraging ILAs have been

less well-studied. The feedback provided by the supervisor can promote self-directed

learning. These feedbacks are considered as the only antecedent of self-monitoring

(Kwakman, 2003). Self-assessment is another criterion to promote learning (Kruger &

Dunning, 1999). With the exception of above mentioned studies, very little is known

about how HRM system affect employee performance in terms of ILAs. The feedback

on the content of HRM system (i.e. performance appraisal) provided by the supervisor

is important.

This perceptive feedback from supervisor or managers is useful in

encouraging employees to treat mistake as learning opportunities. The supervisors and

managers are the main interference between employee and a frim. The supervisors are

responsible for the implementation of HR practices in best interest of organization to

achieve organizational strategic objectives. (Nankervis et al; 2005). In addition, the

perceived HR practices for professional development motivate employees to increase

their performance through participation in ILAs.

Following HRSS theory it can be argue that the content of HRM (i.e. specific

HR practice) plsys a vital role in the development of desired behaviors among

employees. The developments of hyptheses for PPAQ on ILAs (RE, KS and IB) are

explained in sub-sequent sections:

97

2.15.3.1 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Reflection

According to Kamphorst and Swank (2018) the objective of performance

appraisal is twofold. First, the purpose of performance appraisal system is to serve the

company for its performance objective. Second, is to serve the employees in their best

interest and to improve their performance. These system i.e. performance appraisal

are used to maintain the record the availabe human resources in the form of skills and

abilities of employees working in an organizaiton.

Additionally, these systems are helpful is designing the mechanism thorugh

which these skills and capabilites can be used to improve performance. The

performance appraisal feedback encourgages employees by compensating their

mistakes and strengthening them for setting valuable learning goals (Bednall et al.,

2014; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2013). It can be said that the effective feedback from

supervisors and managers provided support to employee. They perceive the feedback

when it is properly communicated i.e. clarity. When the feedback meetings and

disscusions are held regularly i.e. regualrity and when supervisor communicate the

feedback with any ambiguity i.e. openess.

The affect of PPAQ on the reflective behaviors of employees are less well-

studied (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). The feedback promotes self-regulation and

self-monitoring thus, it is considered as an antecedent to employee participation in

ILAs (Van den Boom et al., 2004; Kwakman, 2003). The review of litereatrue

suggests that employee performance and self-regulation can be enhanced by the

effectiveness and quality of feedback. It is anticipated that the quality feedback on

performance appraisal lead to stimulate employees in ILAs.

The previous literatrue demonstrate that the perception of performance

appraisal in terms of its quality, effectiveness and fairnessness tend to increase the

employees’ job satisfaction (Darehzereshki, 2013; Brown et al., 2010; Ahmad et al.,

2010; Fletcher & Williams, 1996), affective commitment (Bekele et al., 2014; Brown

et al., 2010), work performance (Bekele et al., 2014), and decrease turnover intention

(Bekele et al., 2014; Ahmed et al., 2014).

By following the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and HR system

strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) an assertion has been made that employee

98

behaivor like reflection is stimulated thorugh the percpitons of quality in performance

appraisal. In a study by Bednall et al. (2014) PPAQ is studied as a criterion for RE.

We continue with same line of argument and it is hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3a: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PPAQ and RE.

2.15.3.2 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Knowledge

Sharing

It is the fact that people do not follow the instructions rather they perform for

what is measured for them i.e. performance appraisal. Similarly, they participate in

KS activities if it is linked with their performance appraisal (Jain, 2005). A study by

Liu and Liu (2011) found that performance appraisal system and incentive

compensation plan indirectly effect KS behavior of R&D professional through

perceived self-efficacy of KS.

In a view of Ling et al. (2009), employees are more willing to share

knowledge if it is linked with reward and performance appraisal. O’Dell and

Grayson’s, (1998) ‘if only we knew what we know’ narrative suggests that change in

the reward system is helpful in encouraging employees to share and transf the

knowledge among colleagues. Hansen and Avital (2005) determine that the incentive

structures, organizational culture and administration are the main driving elements of

KS at firm level. Rewards, benefits and other intrinsic factors influence KS at

individual level (Lin, 2007).

Similarly, KS is used as a performance evaluation criterion in American

Management System and recognized the contribution with ‘Knowledge in action’

award (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). Job design/characteristics that positively influence

the three psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are likely to

have influence on KS (Gagne, 2009). In the proposed model based on HRSS, the

performance appraisal system including the contnet of HRM (PPAQ), is a criterion of

employees performance, positively influence KS behaviors. So, We hypothesize the

following:

99

Hypothesis 3b: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PPAQ and KS.

2.15.3.3 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Innovative

Behavior

The fairness in rewards positively influence the employees’ innovative

behavior of employee working in telecom sector of Pakistan (Haq et al., 2017).

Similarly, Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2012) conclude that the performance

appraisal practices which are linked with rewards are known to have a positive impact

on innovation. Although, the performance-based reward encourages’ to be innovative

at work and display IB, but the relationship can be reverse in case of low rewards

(Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2012).

Previous studies suggest that Leadership (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007;

Abbas et al., 2012; Zhang & Kwan, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018), procedural justice (Kim

& Park, 2017), supervisor support (Janssen, 2005) positively affect employees’ IB.

The HR practices like performance appraisals which are designed to exploit

employee’s knowledge play an active role in the promotion of innovation and IB

(Shipton et al., 2006). It is argued that the performance appraisal quality enhances the

employees’ feelings of achievements and their constructive position in the

organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988).

In addition, the perceived HR practices for professional development

motivates teacher. These practices influence the behaviors of teachers and helpful in

generating the positive outcomes like improved interaction and teaching. Following

HR system strength theory Bednall et al., (2014) found a positive relationship

between the PPAQ and IB of teachers working in vocational education training

institutes. It is anticipated that HRM in terms of content i.e. PPAQ positively affect

the employees’ behaviors like IB. Based on HRSS theory, we continue with this line

of argument and hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3c: There is a direct, positive and significant relationship between

PPAQ and IB.

100

2.15.4 Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

The PE is basically the employee’s feelings of their worth on job or in

organization. The employees are empowered by delegating the authority and

responsibility. The HRM system plays a vital role in developing such attitudes among

employees through their performance appraisal. It is a mechanism of explaining the

behavioral outcome in a mediated relationship with external contingencies (Baron &

Kenny, 1986). PE is vibrant in different contexts (Zimmerman, 1995).

The individual HR practice or its perception is not expected to have direct

effect on employees’ outcomes. These practices create a psychological climate at

individual level which mediates the relationship (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Likewise,

Spreitzer (1995) argues that the work context encourage innovation by

psychologically empowering employee to be innovative at work.

Fairness in rewards and open communication triggers meaningful involvement

(Haq et al., 2017) and stimulates positive attitudes and behavior among employees

(Ariyani & Hidayanti, 2018; Amabile, 1996; Janssen, 2000). Carless (2004) made an

assertion that PE mediates the relationship between appraisal and recognition and job

satisfaction. In a meta-analysis (Seibert et al., 2011) found that high performance

managerial practices influence innovation and organizational citizenship behavior

through PE.

Aryee et al., (2012) found that individual experience with high performance

work system positively influence employee PE which in turn leads to service

performance. Similarly, Bonias et al. (2010) concluded that PE mediates the

relationship between high performance work systems and perception of the quality of

care among hospital employees. In addition, PE mediates the relationship between

high-performance work system and organizational citizenship behavior (Messersmith

et al., 2011). Previously different studies have found the mediating role of PE.

Recently a study by Han et al., (2016) found that PE mediates the relationship

between transformational leadership and KS intentions of public sector Koren

employees. The similar finding is evident in a study Seibert et al., (2011) in which

they empirically demonstrated that PE has a direct and positive affect on KS.

101

Previous research proves the mediating role of PE for different organizational

and individual level constructs like, leadership (Pieterse et al., 2010), KS (Phung et

al., 2017), work engagement (Ariyani & Hidayati, 2018) and work environment

(Choi, 2007). The ‘black box’ mystery in HRSS theory suggests having a mediating

link in relationship of HRM with performance. PE among employees crated through

HRM system is more suitable mechanism in predicting the employees’ behavior like

ILAs. Therefore, it is anticipated that employees’ PPAQ in terms of its clarity,

regularity and openness give authority and psychologically empower employee to

implement new ideas, practices and methods at work. So, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4a: PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and RE

Hypothesis 4b: PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and KS.

Hypothesis 4c: PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and IB.

2.15.5 Moderating Role of Perceptions of HRM System Strength

The ‘black box’ question that how an HRM system affect organizational

performance is better explained through the integration of content and process

approaches (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The content approach consists of specific HR

practice or set of practices (Khilji & Wang, 2006). The process approach is

conceptualized through the strength of an HRM system. The emphasis has been

placed on the perceptions and interpretations of an HRM system. It includes the

policies and practices followed in an HRM system (Farnadale & Sanders, 2016;

Yousaf et al., 2016; Weiner, 1985).

It is argued that employees’ attitudes and behaviors are perceived to be

strongly influenced by an HRM system (Hewett et al., 2018). The emphasis of an

HRM system is on the delivery mechanism through which the HR messages has been

communicated and delivered to employees (Nishii et al., 2008). It is how the practice

is communicated and implemented (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The HRSS theory set

basis for strong HRM system when it is distinctive, consistent and holds consensus.

The HRM-performance linkages have been acknowledged by numerous researchers

through the process approach. Previous research demonstrates that HRM system

positively influences employees’ affective commitment (Sanders et al., 2008). The

102

employees’ satisfaction with different HR practices (Delmotte et al., 2012) is

achieved through the proper implementation of an HRM system. The strong HRM

system has a negative effect on emotional exhaustion of employees and helps them to

improve performance (Frankel et al., 2012a). It ensures the procedural and distributive

justice in implementation of different policies and plans.

Similarly, strong HRM system ensures the effectiveness of HR policies and

practices (DE Winne et al., 2012). It promotes the job or work satisfaction among

employees’ and reduces the chances of quitting the job and vigor (Li et al., 2011). The

achievement of HR targets (Hauff et al., 2017) and high quality or improved

employees’ performance is ensured through an HRM system (Guest & Conway,

2011) alongside organizational performance (Perieira & Gomes, 2012). It creates the

perceptions of organizational support (Chen & Wang, 2014), reduce job starin (Van

De Voorde & Beijer, 2015) and helps in achieving the overall job satisfaction

(Tandung, 2016)

The major premise behind the HRSS theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) is that

the HR practices influence individual level attitudes and behaviors where HRM

system strength moderates the relationship (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff &

Bowen, 2000). The relationship between PPAQ and ILAs (RE, KS, and IB) was

moderated by the PHSS in a study by Bednall et al. (2014). They argue that the

strength of HRM system varies by context and culture. So, by anticipating the

employees’ PE in the study as a positive job attitude that is influenced by an HRM

system and re-examining the effect on ILAs, we hypothesize the followings:

Hypothesis 5a: PHSS moderates the positive relationship between PPAQ and

PE.

Hypothesis 5b: PHSS moderates the positive relationship between PPAQ and

RE.

Hypothesis 5c: PHSS moderates the positive relationship between PPAQ and

KS.

Hypothesis 5d: PHSS moderates the positive relationship between PPAQ and

IB

103

2.16 Conceptual Model

The HR system strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) depicts that

individual, socio-cultural, organizaitonal and psychological factors interact to develop

attitude and behaviors. The HR system strength theory (HRSS) has provided support

and guides the researchers to develop a conceptual model and hypotheses. The review

of the literature provided the conceptualization of different constructs of the study.

Employees’ performance can be measured through different attitudes and

behaviors. ILAs are the employees’ behaviors that are considered as a significant

contributor to OP. The role of HRM (content and process) and its link with ILAs is

presented in a conceptual model. The theoretical model of the current study and

hypotheses development are explained under:

The premise of the current study suggest that employees perceptions of quality

in performance appraisal (PPAQ) as a support from organizaiton helps in creating

psychological climate by empowering the employee. This assertion is well supported

by HRSS theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The PE of employee influence employees’

behaviors and foucus has been made on their particiatiopn in ILAs.

The social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) provides the partial support as the

foucs of HRSS thoery on the psychological climates that emerged thorugh HRM

system (content and process). The PE mediates the relationship and PHSS by

employees moderates the underlying relationships. Based on the discussion and the

arguments provided above, the theoretical model developed for the current study is

presented in Figure 2.9. It is proposed to study HRM (PPAQ, PHSS) and ILAs (RE,

KS and IB) relationships for the faculty members of HEIs.

104

Figure 2.9: Proposed Conceptual Model

The existing literature has focused less on PHSS and workplace learning in

context of employees’ outcomes, while the role of PE is not yet explored (based on

researchers’ knowledge). This study is an effort to examine the link between PPAQ

(HRM content) and employee participation in ILAs (RE, KS and IB) through

employee PE as mediator and perceptions of HRM system strenght (HRM process) as

moderator.

This study provides an insight to explore the relationship among performance

appraisal (i.e. content of HRM), PHSS (i.e. process of HRM), PE (psychological

perspective) and employee participation in ILAs (behavioral perspective) that will

lead to employee and organizational performance. This study is intended to establish a

link between HR content i.e. PPAQ (specific HR practice) and employees feeling of

PE i.e. psychological climate as posed by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). The PE further

linked with employee participation in ILAs.

The direct relationship between PPAQ and ILAs is mediated by PE as

proposed by HRSS theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). In HRSS theory it is also

augmented that the PHSS moderates the relationship of PPAQ with PE by creating a

strong HRM system. Further, the moderating role of PHSS on the direct relationship

H5c

H2a

H1

H5d

H5bH3a

H5a

Mediation: H4a, H4b, H4c

Perceptionsof HRMSystem

StrengthInformal Learning

Activities

Reflection

PsychologicalEmpowerment

H2b KnowledgeSharing

H2c

H3b

InnovativeBehaviorH3c

Perceptions ofPerformance

AppraisalQuality

105

of PPAQ with PE and ILAs (RE, KS, and IB is examined for faculty members

working in HEIs of Pakistan.

This study encourages the organizations working in the higher education

sector of Pakistan to develop and implement such HR policy that foster participation

in ILAs in their workplace to achieve organization’s targets. This study explains that

how HRM can perform better to enhance employee performance in most effective,

highly motivated and timely basis. It will also examine how specific HR practice

(PPAQ i.e. content of HRM) can contribute to make proficient and committed

workforce. It will also help employees to style their proficiencies according to the

work requirements that could facilitate them in appraising their performance.

This study will also contribute in the policy and decision making regarding the

future of higher education institutes as at present this education sector lack a

systematic and comprehensive viewpoint on HRM practice. This study is significant

in term of methodical approach adopted for this study. The result and inferences will

be made based on quantitative data and it will increase the generalizability of finding

after getting support from data. This study aims to provide integrated development

plan including ILAs that drives from every day working life and it will help the

practitioners to make better decisions about HRM system and performance appraisal

in support of participation in ILAs. The next sections explain the theoretical

relationship between the studied constructs.

2.17 Summary

This chapter was intended to provide a comprehensive and complete review

of the published literature on ILAs including RE, KS and IB. The constructs of HRM

content and process i.e. PPAQ and PHSS has been explained from theory and

literature. The nature and effect of PE are reviewed with support from multiple

theories. The development and advances in constructs, their definition and

conceptualization has been discussed in detail. A thorough discussion was provided to

address the development in the theory of HRM and organizational performance

relationship and how it is linked with ILAs. Secondly the theory development in

psychosocial empowerment literature is discussed and how it is linked with attitudes

106

and behaviors. In the review of the literature the two theoretical debates are prominent

in conceptualizing the HRM and system of HRM as summarized below:

1. The first issue was whether to consider HRM system as a bundle of

interconnected practices or investigate the influence of an individual HR

practice on ILAs i.e. RE, KS and IB. The literature demonstrated that both the

perspectives have their own benefits there is a need of synergy between the

content and process of HRM system.

2. The second issue is the make decision regarding the best-practice approach of

HRM and best-fit approach of HRM. From the recent literature it is evident

that the trend in HRM has changes and the focus has been made on best-fit

HRM.

An effort has been made to understand the value of studying indirect effect of

HRM (content and process) on ILAs. Such an indirect link is established by including

the mediating variable i.e. PE and moderating variable i.e. PHSS. The PHSS is the

understanding of strong HRM system by employees. The PPAQ and PHSS and an

HRM (content and process) further create a psychological climate. These climates are

basically the employees’ feeling of psychological empowerment which in turn affects

their behavior i.e. ILAs (RE, KS and IB).

Further, in this chapter the discussion has been made on theoretical framework

with the support of different theory in which HRSS is more prominent. The model is

conceptualized to address the research questions. The HRSS theory sets foundations

for the development of conceptual framework with the support from social cognitive

theory. The behavioral theory like HRSS was employed to address employee’s

behavior, for example ILAs. The social cognitive theory provided support for PE as

mediator in the HRM system and ILAs relationship. Based on these two theories and

arguments a set of five main hypotheses were outlined.

107

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

108

3.1 Introduction

The research design enables the researcher to logically and unambiguously

address the problem statement through evidences. It is the logical and coherent

integration of different components of study to ensure that the research problem is

addressed affectively. It is a snapshot of activities like collection, measurement,

analysis and reporting of data taken from respondents. The research problem is

basically the guiding premise for selecting your methodology. The research process

comprises of research design, research methodology and data analysis. Design phase

includes, the research aims, and objectives are stated clearly (Chapter 1), the review

of published literature i.e. literature review and establishing hypotheses based on

construct relationship i.e. conceptual or theoretical framework (Chapter 2). In second

phase i.e. research methodology (current chapter 3), it provides detail about

methodology, population, sample, instruments and data collection strategies. The third

phase is related to data analysis (Chapter 4), discussion, future recommendation and

limitation (Chapter 5).

Based on philosophical paradigms, research questions and approaches to

undertaking research the methodology the researcher provides a justification for

adopting a quantitative approach to the research. Research hypotheses are already

defined, and the design of the empirical research methods is then considered. This

includes the rationale for the design of the questionnaires which are used as

instruments to collect information and measure the relevant variables included in the

hypotheses (data collection). Factors which were important in administering the

survey are discussed and finally the chapter introduces the methods used to analyze

the data.

Criteria for determining the sample, i.e. selecting HEIs for inclusion in the

research sample and the appropriateness of the selected unit of analysis for the

purposes of this research is also discussed in this section of the chapter. The strategy

for data collection i.e. methods used to obtain data from respondents in the sampled

universities is also described.

The design of the questionnaires themselves is described and in particular this

is linked to a discussion on how the researcher ensured that items included in the

109

survey instruments were appropriate and aligned with the theoretical constructs

included in the research model.

Finally, the chapter gives an introductory account of how the analysis of the

quantitative data was conducted, (the analysis itself is provided in Chapter 4) and how

conclusions about linkage between variables will be determined in order to test the

research hypotheses. Ethical issues that had to be considered in the research are also

noted.

3.2 Research Methodology

This research is undertaken to investigate the relationship between PPAQ and

three ILAs i.e. KS, IB and RE on daily activities with mediating role of PE and

moderating role of HRM system strength. The emphasis was on how HRM (content

and process) empower employees of higher education sector of Pakistan to stimulate

ILAs. Based on the HRM process theory also known as HRSS theory of Bowen and

Ostroff (2004), the hypotheses have been developed after extensive literature review.

The relationships between the constructs are causal and the idea has been

conceived in a process model. The study is focused on testing the theory and

clarification rather than theory generation. So, this study is based on the objectivism

with positivistic epistemology and deductive approach. The research is mainly

focused on quantitative research methods by taking the positivistic stance. It is

obvious that the carefully designed methodology can address the research objectives

and research questions. The objectives of the research can be achieved if research

methodology provides answers and support for the questions posed. The details on

each methodological issue and justifications are as under;

3.2.1 Research Philosophy/Paradigm

The research paradigm is a set of beliefs and views that provide guidance to

researcher or an investigation (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is human construction or

principles that transact the researcher’s view about inquiry and results (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2000). It defines the research philosophical orientation regarding research

process, methods and methodology (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Creswell (1998)

defines paradigm as a basic set of assumptions that guide researchers’ inquiries. It

110

comprises of four elements namely, epistemology, ontology, methodology and

axiology (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Candy (1989) is known as the leader in the

paradigm research and listed three main taxonomies like positivist, interpretivist (also

known as constructivist) and critical (also known as transformative) paradigms. In

later studies (e.g. Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003; Saba, 2003) the fourth paradigm was

introduced and known as pragmatic paradigm.

Selection of paradigm is important, and it helps researcher to make

philosophical conventions in research and it also enable in choosing instruments and

methods. This study is perception based and follows the philosophy of positivism.

According to positivism the science is the basic for true knowledge. The positivism

includes the techniques, methods and procedures that are used in natural sciences. It

provides the best framework for investigating the social science or social world. The

paradigms are important because it defines the suitable methodology for a research

(Morgan, 2007). The methodological implications of paradigm choice guide and help

the researcher in many ways. First it helps to address the research questions. Second,

it helps and guide in the process of data collection. Third, it is useful for data analysis

techniques. The positivist paradigm means that the data, collection and analysis would

be quantitative in nature and procedures.

For current study the positivist paradigm was suitable as it believes that the

truth was out there and needs to be discovered. The context was import and

generalization across context was made for current study. The prime objective of the

current study was to examine the holistic viewpoint of the relationships between

PPAQ, PHSS, PE and ILAs (RE, KS and IB) in higher education institute of Pakistan

through mediated moderation with the belief that cause, and effect relationships was

distinguishable and analytically separable. The results are quantified, and theory is

used to control and predict outcomes. The research followed the scientific method of

investigation and relies on testing of hypothesis. There was objective search for facts

and observe knowledge.

3.2.2 Research Approach

An approach to research is conscious scientific reasoning and different

approaches are attached to different viewpoints/philosophies (Saunders et al., 2009).

111

There are two approaches namely; inductive and deductive are used in research for

acquisition of new knowledge (Hyde, 2000). The third approach neither follows the

pattern of pure deduction nor the pure induction and called abductive approach and

considered as great advancement in science (Taylor et al., 2002). The decision at this

level is strongly influenced by the decision made earlier while deciding objective, aim

and limitation.

According to Saunders et al. (2009) the positivist philosophical stance starts

with the development of hypothesis and uses deductive approach. The hypotheses in

deductive research are developed prior to testing and generalization of the results. The

argumentation based on prior knowledge, results and discussion generate/produce

new knowledge. The quantitative design starts with the theory and operationalization

of constructs. Further the hypotheses are developed for different relationships.

Afterwards, the data collection, analysis and the decisions for accepting or rejecting

the hypotheses are made (Cavana et al., 2001).

In the current study the theory was first adopted in support of current study.

The theoretical framework was developed and hypotheses were formed tested in

specific research context. This is what normally followed in deductive research so the

current stud is of the deductive orientation. In this approach the major concepts, ideas

and theories are selected through the review of literature. Another reason for selecting

the deductive approach is the support from other studies in the area of performance

appraisal used this approach under the umbrella of HRM.

3.2.3 Methodological Choices

The research choices include mono method, mixed method or multi-method.

When using the single method, the choices could be quantitative or qualitative. In

mixed method usually referred to the use of both qualitative and quantitative in

combination to create a single data set (Flick, 2011). In a multi-method wider

selection of method is used and research is separated into different segments, which

produces different data set (Bryman, 2012). In multi-method research the data is

analyzed by using the techniques of quantitative or qualitative methodologies (Feilzer,

2010).

112

Quantitative and qualitative researches have different orientation, and both are

different with respect to data collection methods, the analysis techniques and the

presentation of results. The numerical or statistical data is the core of quantitative

research in contrast to descriptive narrations used in qualitative research to understand

the natural phenomenon. Qualitative research allows for a design to evolve rather

having a complete design at the beginning of study and if not possible but difficult to

predict the outcome of interaction. In contrast quantitative research is based on

deductive approach and it requires a hypothesis before research can begin.

The review of literature shows that the existing research on performance

appraisal (Brown et al., 2010), HRM system strength (Sanders et al., 2008; Mihail &

Kloutsiniotis, 2016; Sanders & Yang, 2016), informal learning activities (Runhaar &

Sanders, 2016; Keith et al., 2016, Bednall et al., 2014) have been done by using the

quantitative methods of research.

The quantitative methods are best recognized for measuring attitudes and

opinions; this stem suits the aims of current research. Second, it is difficult to conduct

the qualitative study for large population like employees working in HEIs of Pakistan.

The current study was undertaken to ascertain employee’s perceptions and

considering interview would restrict the data from limited employees. The

quantitative research approaches to large amount of respondent in a faster way. Third,

the study intends to investigate the effect of already established models and theories

in HRM and OP relationship. Forth, it was adopted because of time constraints in

contrast to qualitative research which can be quite time consuming.

Fifth, it is known for its objectivity and quantitative methods ascertain

responses without researcher influence on it which enables the researcher to compare

respondent’s opinions and attitude. According to Burns et al., (1993), the researcher

must be objective and his/her values and perceptions should not influence the study.

Last, the quantitative research also minimizes the biasness which affects the validity

of study and produces valid answers.

113

3.2.4 Research Strategy

The research strategy is the researcher plans to conduct the research. The

researcher can select from different approaches while making strategy. The benefits

and limitations are attached with each choice, so the selection should carefully give a

thorough thought to each of it. The researcher can choose more than one choice, but it

must be justified well in work. For current study we followed the survey research.

According to Bryman and Bell (2011), the survey research involves sampling

a representative proportion of the population and often linked with deductive

approach. The survey research is used in quantitative research projects and produce

quantitative data for empirical analysis. It is mostly used to examine the causal

relationship with different type of data. It is known as finest and economical research

strategy to collect the rich and reliable data. We are using the survey research because

it allows collection of huge data to answer the, who, where, when and how of your

research.

3.2.5 Time Horizon

It is basically related to time for the research study in which the project is

intended to complete. In literature two types of time framework were specified; the

cross-sectional and the longitudinal study (Bryman, 2012). For current study we are

adapting the cross-sectional design. In cross-sectional study the data is collect at a

certain point and used when the research is undertaken to study the phenomenon at a

specific time. Majority of studies had undertaken cross-sectional studies to answer a

question or solve a problem at time (Flick, 2013). Normally in cross-sectional studies

grounded theory, case study, survey and limited experimental strategies are used

whereas; in longitudinal study the data is collected over a longer period or extended

over time. The doctoral degree research generally defines a time line and limited

resource so for current research cross-sectional framework was selected.

3.2.6 The purpose of the Research

The purpose of this research is explanatory and is undertaken to explore the

relationship between variable. The explanatory study is objective, normally uses

114

literature reviews, survey questionnaire and sometime interviews and focused group

studies to investigate the relationship between variables.

3.2.7 Data Collection and Data Analysis

The decision regarding best fit of data and analysis is critical for research.

Whatever approach is followed in data collection, it is categorized in two types;

primary and secondary data. In current study we have collected the primary data

through self-administered questionnaire.

Primary data is known as the data collected or derived from first hand-sources

either through survey questionnaire, interview or historical data (Bryman, 2012).

When it is historical data it means that it was not necessarily collected for research

being undertaken like statistical surveys, census, and data derived from other

researchers and stock records. Thus, “primary data is one which is being analyzed

itself rather than through the prism of another analysis” (Flick, 2013).

This section of research guides researcher to decide about the type and nature

of data required and decision regarding sample groups and content of questionnaire is

made. The researcher must ensure synchronization among philosophical assumption,

strategies, choices and time-horizon while deciding about data and tools. The

summary is presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Summary of Research Process

Purpose of research Explanatory

Research philosophy/paradigm Positivist

Research approach Deductive

Research Methodology Quantitative

Research Strategy Survey research

Time Horizon Cross-Sectional

Data collection Primary data

Data collection process Self-administered questionnaire

115

3.3 Industry Setting

The education system of a country set basis for growth and development. It

plays a critical role in its cultural, political, social and economic development. The

developed economies around the globe are supporting their education system by

developing consistent policies and through realistic plans (Majoka & Khan, 2017).

The Pakistani Higher Educational sector has grown rapidly over the past twenty years

and is now one of the most important sectors in Pakistan's economy.

Among the reasons for this is that not only there is a high level of demand

from Pakistani students who wish to achieve a higher education qualification but there

is also a large demand from international economies for skilled human capital. The

major reforms in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan can be traced back after 1999

when democratic government was overthrown by the military. The military led

regime was helpful in the development of higher education sector of Pakistan.

The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) was established in 2002

and they initially introduced a five-year plan. The emphasis was given on the socio-

economic development and technological advancement through vibrant education

sector. The focus of the policies was on quality of higher education and improvement

of accessibility. The emphasis has been given to science and technology in addition to

increased enrolment. The public and private sector was very liberal in order to

enhance access to higher education.

Because of this liberty there is threefold increase in the number of degree

awarding institutes/universities in the country. The number of HEIs has increased

from 42 in 1980 to 175 in 2016 (Mahmood, 2016). Currently there are 115 public

sector HEIs in Pakistan in addition to 79 private sector universities/institutes. This

rapid increase in establishing HEIs was overwhelming and posed considerable

challenges for the HEC Pakistan which is responsible for overseeing the accreditation

and quality assurance of universities operating within the country.

The infrastructure development, quality enhancement and financial issues are

the problem faced by these newly developed universities/institutes. In this regard, the

initiatives like creation of endowment funds; faculty development; revision in service

116

structure; strengthening the libraries and laboratories; national (industry) and

international linkages were quite helpful in enhancing the quality education (Majoka

& Khan, 2017).

The HEC Pakistan, working in cooperation with the Quality Assurance

Agency (QAA), implemented a rigorous quality assurance system and established the

Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) to review all aspects of higher education in

Pakistan to safeguard public interest. QAC instituted a system of program reviews

(which focused on the quality and standard of the degrees provided by universities)

and institutional reviews (which have a broader remit to examine the overall quality

assurance arrangements and governance of universities).

Participation in the review process was compulsory for all universities and

those who failed to meet the standards required by external audit by QAC or put in

place suitable improvement plans could potentially have programs of study

discontinued or even lose their license to provide degrees in Pakistan. The system of

reviews posed considerable challenges to universities and most importantly, it

compelled them to examine very carefully how they could enhance their

organizational performance.

This background is very relevant to the research presented here. The system of

program reviews required universities to report on the systems which they had in

place to assure the quality of academic staff, demonstrate how staff were appraised

and also demonstrate that there was a robust system in place to deal with staff

development and promotion opportunities for academic staff. The system for

institutional reviews also had a very strong focus on institutional governance and of

standards which universities were required to demonstrate, one standard (which it was

compulsory to demonstrate had been achieved or the institution would be given a

judgement of ‘no confidence’) was devoted entirely to HRM.

Based on the above discussion, HEIs clearly had to re-examine the processes

and procedures they had in place for HRM and in particular, in order to comply with

the standards, had to demonstrate that their HRM practices were strategic. Their

interest in HRM practices arises from the desire to satisfy the requirements of the

QAA in order to keep their accreditations and to remain competitive or at least

117

survive in a highly competitive environment. HEIs that meet the QAA requirements

should be well positioned to enroll a high number of students which is the principal

revenue stream for HEIs operating in Pakistan.

HEIs in Pakistan are thus now fully aware of the need to have better HRM

practices to gain competitive advantage. This awareness has been translated into a

continuous search for methods of developing, training, retaining, selection, recruiting,

and performance appraisal and other practices to enhance their staff and faculty

members. In Pakistan, all HEIs are required to have a special (separate) department to

assure implementation of a quality system. All academic and administrative

departments must work with the Quality Enhancement Centre/Cell or department to

meet the requirements of quality assurance Agency (QAA) and the HEC (Mahmood,

2016).

Competitive advantage within HEIs in Pakistan requires high performance

employees, whether they are administrators or faculty staff. It is important not to

overstate the case that HEIs in Pakistan are being compelled to put in place better

HRM practices because of the requirement of external review. Some HEIs have

clearly accepted that, as this thesis proposes, there is a close relationship between

HRM practices and employee performance in term of their participation in ILAs and

thus organizational performance. In this study, this relationship will be tested

empirically in public sector HEIs operating in Pakistan.

There are many cases where clearly HRM practice should stimulate

participation in informal learning. For instance, a low turnover rate in personnel at the

university should reduce the need to acquire and integrate new workers into the

quality system. Another example is that the success in achieving and sustaining

competitive advantage in universities should clearly depend on training and

development of employees, performance assessments, procedures of selecting and

appointing employee, and other HRM practices. However, it is important that this is

not simply assumed to be the case and there is thus a need to demonstrate this clearly.

It is important in the context of this to examine how employee development through

their participation in ILAs is shaped and influenced by performance appraisal in

Pakistan.

118

3.4 Population

Specification of the scope of empirical studies in the HRM field should be

conducted according to the objectives and research model that the researcher has

designed and must be very careful to give a detailed description of the context in

which they were undertaken (Wright & Gardner, 2003). This is true of both

qualitative and quantitative studies (although arguably much more important in the

former). Hence, the current study, focused on Pakistani HEIs which shared a large

number of common characteristics. The selection was done after a brainstorming

session where research associates, lecturers, assistant professor, associate professor

and professors has provided their honest opinion of workplace learning and the role of

HRM system and HR practices in stimulating formal and more specifically informal

learning at workplace.

Moreover, these faculty members were asked about the relationship among

quality of performance appraisal and their feeling of empowerment to participate and

engage in ILAs. Almost all the faculty members from the selected organization

confirmed the role of informal learning in promoting quality in teaching and research

and also highlighted the organizational factors specifically the HR policies and

practices for facilitating such practices. The HEIs operating under Higher Education

Commission includes degree awarding institutes, universities and research centers.

This study is focused only on public sector Pakistani HEIs where HRD and

workplace learning programs have been developed and implemented for the faculty

members as compared to private sector HEIs. These development programs are useful

in transferring knowledge and skills. The world is changing rapidly and known as

knowledge-economy in which the development needs must be satisfied. The research

setting has been selected based on the following criteria:

1. The Pakistani HEI/Universities has been characterized as one of the

important sectors for the development and growth of economy in terms of

education and research. It means the developed and skilled workforce is the

requirement of this sector. For sustainable development of HEIs and

education sectors the employees are required to learn more by themselves.

2. The Pakistani HEIs and HEC have been providing assistance to employees

119

by offering different faculty development programs that include foreign and

indigenous scholarships as well. These programs are designed to meet a

specific set of learning objectives.

3. The faculty members of these HEIs participate in different formal and

informal learning programs and activities. The faculty members can judge

better their work and informal learning needs, based on their experience and

social demand.

4. The faculty members are required to develop their knowledge and skills in

dealing with daily challenges related to their job that they encounter at the

workplace.

5. The appraisal systems, HR practices, culture and employee development

programs are almost identical because of facing the cut throat competition in

education industry.

3.5 Sampling

The sampling part of methodology chapter is concerned with implementing

the quantitative approach principles. In terms of samples for HR research we agree

with the assertion of Pfeffer and Jeffrey (1998). They argue that, to obtain meaningful

results of the study on HRM practices selecting specific industry is more appropriate

than cross-industry studies. In addition, the economic conditions of all the firms in

same industry are almost constant. Further the HEIs in Pakistan are classified as

private and public sector. There are the chances of having different economic and

budgetary condition between the two sectors. Therefore, the current study focuses

only on public sector HEIs as they hold the same funding source i.e. government

funding.

Academic staff (faculty members) from twelve public sector HEIs operating in

Pakistan, have participated in the study. Collectively, these form the unit of analysis

which reflects university/institute level as the organizational unit of analysis for

several reasons. This is important for two reasons. First, the institution level survey

(i.e. HEIs in this case) is more reliable in HRM research than corporate level surveys

(Gerhart et al., 2000). The managers are well aware of HRM practices that are being

implemented at their organization unless it is extraordinary large (see also Takeuchi,

R. et al., 2007).

120

Second, while the ability of managers, employee and academic staff at a

university may certainly affect variation in performance at different levels (in this

case at university/institute or Departmental level). However, much university/institute

HRM activity occurs at the university/institute level. As subunits of a single

organization, these faculties follow a central HRM strategy and almost all follow

HRM procedures that are common across the university/institute.

To follow the quantitative approach in this study, it is important that the

sample represents the wider population (i.e. Pakistani HEIs). The generalizability of

the research depends upon the participation of people to a certain extent (number).

The selected individuals are the representative of a larger group or population, so

sampling is critical. Further, the data collection was a big challenge for researcher

because of the complete list of faculty members were not available with researcher so

random sampling was not possible.

The random sampling techniques is useful when complete list of participate

from population is available with researcher (Saunders & Thornhill, 2012). It is better

to use non-probability sampling technique for generalization when complete list of

participants is not available in a given context (Guo & Hussey; 2004). In catering

these constraints researcher used the personal references and convenience sampling

techniques was adopted for data collection. It was used as a technique to construct a

sample of employee as the survey asked for sensitive personal and organization

information (Saunders & Thornhill, 2012).

The self-administered questionnaire is used and data from the faculty members

of twelve public sector universities/institutes of Islamabad region is collected. The

Islamabad is a capital of Pakistan and almost the representation for all over country is

available in term of human capital. The questionnaires were distributed before the

prior approval from administration and consent from faculty members are also taken

in verbal along with covering note. A brief orientation of study and guidance are

explained by the researcher.

The selected institutes/universities are presented in Table 3.2.

121

Table 3.2: Summary of Responses

Name Faculty Q/Distributed Q-Filled

Air University 135 30 18

Allama Iqbal Open University 151 30 17

Bahria University (Islamabad, Karachiand Lahore Campus) 556 50 32

COMSATS University Islamabad(Islamabad, Abbottabad, Attock,Lahore, Wah, Vehari, Sahiwal andVirtual Campus)

2475 100 83

Federal Urdu University of Arts,Sciences & Technology (Islamabad andKarachi Campus)

497 50 29

Institute of Space Technology 138 40 18

International Islamic University 456 50 26

National Defense University 67 20 9

National University of ModernLanguages (Islamabad, Lahore,Faislamabad, Pershawar, Multan,Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta, Campuses)

680 50 28

National University of Sciences &Technology 1135 100 71

Pakistan Institute of Engineering &Applied Sciences 140 40 28

Quaid-i-Azam University 256 40 18

Total 6809 600 377

The sample of this study consists of all Pakistani public HEIs that meet the

following criteria:

1. All the HEIs charted by the federal government of Pakistan and operate in the

territory of federal capital Islamabad.

2. The public sector HEIs that attained the degree awarding status before the year

2017-2018.

122

3. The number of academic staff (full time faculty members) is considered as an

indicator of university size, and only universities with more than 50 full time

faculty members were selected. It is believed that minimum firm size is

required to identify organizations with an explicit or formalized HRM.

4. Public sector HEIs that have Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) or Quality

Assurance (QA) department functional to meet the criteria of HEC. This again

ensures that there is a degree of uniformity in the sample as this provides an

important indicator of quality of the universities and the adoption of robust

practices across the university to deliver that quality.

This study deals with organizational level construct (faculty PHSS & PPAQ)

and ILAs (RE, KS and IB) at the operational level. PPAQ affect all academic and

administrative staff. Since the faculty members are more engaged and involved in

ILAs, the study sample includes faculty members at all levels (designation wise &

program wise). Surveying academics will provide an opportunity to understand the

public sector HEIs comprehensively and as part of the competitive business

environment for higher education in Pakistan.

3.6 Measurement and Scales

The study used self-administered questionnaire to test the impact of PPAQ on

ILAs (RE, KS and IB) with the mediating role of PE and the moderating role of

PHSS. The questionnaire is used to collect the data because it is considered as less

expensive, invite quick responses, reduce bias, and provide objective view, stable and

dependable measure without variations in addition to time constraint and budgetary

issues. The study involves measuring employees’ perception and attitude towards

performance appraisal quality; surveys give us an option to collect responses from

large number of employees to get a broad view of their opinion.

The questionnaire consists of five sections with covering note from researcher.

The first section consists of the scales on three ILAs namely, RE, KS and IB. The

items to measure the HRM Distinctiveness, HRM Consistency and HRM Consensus

were listed in the second section to measure employees’ perception of HRM System

Strength. In third section items selected to measure PPAQ was listed. The fourth

section was consisting of scales on meaning, competence, self-determination and

123

impact to measure employees’ PE. In last section employees were asked to provide

the personal/demographic information.

We adopted the identical/existing scale from literature that had been shown

reliable in other studies. Use of standard questionnaires used in previous studies

should provide consistency and a strong basis for comparison of results with other

research. All items (other than personal characteristics) were measured using 5-point

Likert scale (1=Totally Disagree, 5=Totally Agree). The 5-point Likert scale is

considered as reasonable for measuring perceptions, ease in use, better reflection and

accuracy of participants’ objective evaluation.

The descriptive statistics such as mean (M), standard deviation (SD),

skewness, kurtosis and reliability (α) measures are presented and discussed in the

section of “Descriptive statistics and Reliability of Measures”. The standardized items

were used to measure the variable in present research. The brief overview of the

measures used is explained under.

3.6.1 Informal Learning Activities

The first section is to ascertain the response from employee about their

participation in ILAs. Three activities RE, KS and IB have been undertaken to

measure the employee participation in informal learning.

‘Reflection’ was accessed by using the RE scale developed by Van Woerkom

(2003). The scale consists of 4-item which measures the extent to which faculty

members believed that they could control the reinforcement of their actions to

increase their performance. A sample item is “I check if I move forward in reaching

my goals in my job”. The Composite Reliability (CR) was 0.921.

‘Knowledge sharing with colleagues’ was accessed by using the KS scale

developed by Van Woerkom (2003). The 4-item scale measures the degree to which

faculty members cooperate, share their knowledge and experiences, and ask advice

that could improve their performance. A sample item is “I discuss problems in my

classroom teaching with others in order to learn from them”. The CR was 0.947.

124

Innovative behavior was measured using the IB scale developed by De Jong

and Den Hartog (2005). The 5-item scale is selected to measure the degree to which

faculty members search for new idea, involved in promoting the idea within

workgroup or organization and implement it to improve performance. A sample item

is “I promote and defend my innovative ideas to others”. The CR was 0.924.

3.6.2 Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality

The PPAQ (HRM content) questions were taken from the work of Bednall et

al., (2014). They developed the questionnaire from high-commitment HRM scale of

Sanders et al. (2008). The 3-item scale was intended to assess the clarity (“In

performance appraisals I get clear feedback on my performance”), regularity (“My

supervisor regularly holds performance appraisal conversation with me”), and

openness (“Supervisors keep open communications with me in the job”) of feedback

from received from supervisor. The CR was 0.912.

3.6.3 Perceptions of HRM System Strength

The strength in HRM system considers that the messages communicated to

employees are clear, consistent and unambiguous. It communicates them about the

behaviors that are expected and rewarded (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The PHSS was

measured using a composite of 3 subscales from Delmotte et al. (2012) measurement

study. The sub-scales assess distinctiveness, consistency and consensus.

Distinctiveness is about the degree to which the content of HRM is clear,

legitimate and understandable. The distinctiveness scale consists of 6-items. A sample

item is “The procedures and practices developed by HR are easy to understand”. The

CR was 0.939.

Consistency is about the extent to which the HR messages are aligned with HR

system. The consistency scale consists of 6-items. A sample item is “The suggestions,

procedures, and practices that HR comes up with actually contribute to the better

functioning of this organization”. The CR was 0.947.

Consensus refers to the fairness and agreement among decision makers at all

levels in communicating the need and purpose of different HR practices. The

125

consensus scale consists of 4-items. A sample item is “The people in our organization

responsible for HR have a mutual agreement about how to deal with employees”. The

CR was 0.957.

PHSS was also measured as a composite of distinctiveness, consistency and

consensus and the CR for composite scale was 0.965.

3.6.4 Psychological Empowerment

As a construct, PE has traditionally been assessed as a composite of four sub-

scales or cognitions. It includes meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact

as perceived by employees (Spreitzer, 1995). The 12-item scale developed by

Spreitzer (1995) is used to measure these four cognitions (3-items for each sub-scale).

Her work is very widely used in the literature and it has almost become a standard for

questionnaire on PE.

Meaning refers to the level of fit between person’s beliefs and the value of

work. The meaning scale consists of 3-items. A sample item is “My job activities are

personally meaningful to me”. The CR was 0.957.

The competence refers to the employees’ belief in their abilities to perform the

tasks. The competence scale consists of 3-items. A sample item is “I am self-assured

about my capabilities to perform my work activities”. The CR was 0.951.

The self-determination refers to the decision of employees regarding initiating

work-related activities. The self-determination scale consists of 3-items. A sample

item is “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job”. The CR was

0.955.

Finally, impact is an employees’ feeling of having control or influence on

work. The impact scale consists of 3-items. A sample item is “I have a large impact

on what happens in my section of this department”. The CR was 0.966.

PE was also measured as a composite of meaning, competence, self-

determination and impact. The CR for the composite scale was 0.965.

126

3.6.5 Demographics and Control Variables

In current study the information related to demographic such as age, gender,

educational level, marital status, current job position, personal income and work

experience were collected in the study. Participants were asked to provide their name

and name of the serving institute/university. Age was measured on a 6-point ordinal

scale, ranging from 1 (20–24 years) to 6 (45 years and above). The respondents were

asked to indicate their gender (1=male, 2=female), marital status (1=married,

2=unmarried and 3=other), education (1=masters, 2=PhD and 3=post-doctoral

degree), current job position (1=research associate/teaching assistant, 2= lecturer,

3=assistant professor, 4=associate professor, 5=professor and 6=other).

The participants were asked to provide their personal income with nine

income brackets of twenty thousand intervals starting from 20,000. To determine the

work experience in current organization respondents were asked to provide feedback

on four options (1=less than 1 year, 2=1-5 years, 3=6-10 years and 4=more than 10

years.

In studies control variables are used to increase the statistical strength,

decreases the terms of errors and possibility of alternative conclusions. The current

study used age and gender as control variable in structural model. These two variables

were assumed to effect employee’s RE, KS (Bendall et al., 2014) and IB (Janssen,

2000; 2005; Bendall et al., 2014).

3.7 Research ethics

Ethics in research is important (Sekaran, 2003) and it is more important when

interaction with respondent is made during the data collection (Polonsky & Waller,

2011). Polonsky and Waller (2011) suggested that the researcher should ensure the

voluntary participation of respondents, communicating informed consent, expected

benefits and major findings, privacy and secrecy of respondents and responses,

possibility of damage and there should not be any conflict of interest among the

respondents and researcher. Cooper and Emory (1995) have outlined the same

guidelines to address the ethical issue.

127

In current study ethics was on top during survey and followed the advices as

discussed above. The faculty members from selected universities/institutes have been

approached after taking permission from administration. The copy of questionnaire

had also been presented to administration and they were briefed on objectives of the

study. Other steps include the cover letter of questionnaire (Annex-A) with brief

objective and benefits expected from research. Moreover, the researcher showed

respect to participants’ rights of privacy regarding revealing or keeping confidential

their information and identities. Lastly, the survey has been conducted in a non-

contrived and natural working environment where the researcher interference was

minimal.

3.8 Pilot Study

To check the internal reliability of the scale, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient

was calculated. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.7 or higher are considered

acceptable and this was the case for all the scales used. Then, correlation between the

factors was used to calculate whether these variables are interdependent or not. Again,

calculation of correlation indicated that those variables were consistent and that they

do not contradict each other. Face validity of the questionnaire was checked using the

view of specialists i.e. subject matter experts (SME) in this field and taking notes of

respondent’s comments in the pilot questionnaire to clarify the questionnaire before it

was widely distributed. Note that as part of the pilot the researcher made a minor

modification to the way the scale was phrased and replaced the words ‘our VET

school’ with ‘our organization’ (which could have suited the study context).

Similarly, the PE scale which used the anchors (1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly

Agree), as shown in Appendix I. The instrument was pilot tested through distributing

the questionnaire among fifty faculty members from the sample. Results of the pilot

study reflected the fact that the questionnaire was clear and appropriate for gathering

the data which the researcher required.

128

3.9 Evaluation of Underlying Assumptions of Multivariate

Data

For the estimation of multivariate structural model, the data should be

accurate, reliable (consistent) and normally distributed. The researcher should assess

the data characteristics in terms of missing values, outliers, and normality of data. The

variables in structural equation models are correlated with each other and their

statistical dependence must be considered while analyzing such data. If the underlying

assumption of missing value, normality and multivariate outlier are addressed in

preliminary analysis than further analysis estimates would be more accurate.

3.9.1 Missing Values Analysis

When survey research is used for data collection in social sciences, the

problem of missing data is obvious. It arises because the respondent fails to answer

one or more question. To meet the assumption of multivariate data analysis the

researcher should check for any missing values in the data. The analysis should

determine the percentage of missing value for a construct or case. The data with less

than 5% missing value per indicator or per case (respondent) should be considered for

analysis in PLS structural equation modeling.

The missing values can be replaced with the mean value; expectation

maximization algorithm can be generated or replaced with nearest neighbor (Hair et

al., 2010). These replacements bring little change in the estimates of PLS-SEM. The

second option is the case wise deletion of missing value. The latter option was opted

for current study and 17 cases with missing value were systematically deleted form

data set. It was ensured that the deleted cases are not from same group i.e. same

institute/university and secondly do not diminish the observations at large which

cannot bias the results.

3.9.2 Multivariate Outliers

The next step in multivariate data analysis is the determination of suspicious

response patterns or inconsistent answers known as outliers. The outliers influence the

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in PLS-SEM, so the researcher should

129

evaluate the data for such issues (Hair et al., 2010). For current study Mahalanobis D2

statistics was used to detect the multivariate outliers in the data. The chi-square

distribution with degree of freedom process is followed to determine the value of D2.

The total number of independent variables is used as degree of freedom for chi-square

distribution. The D2 value of 0.005 or less is used for the determination of multivariate

outlier. The D2 value of the all cases in current study was examined and no case was

detected as a multivariate outlier.

3.9.3 Normality Test

When questionnaire is used to collect the data than the researcher should

address the issue of data distribution in multivariate data analysis. The data must be

examined for the assumption of normal distribution (Hair et al., 2010). The PLS-SEM

do not require the data to be normally distributed however it is important to verify the

normality of data because non-normal data can be problematic is the assessment of

parameter’s significance (Hair et al., 2017). Hair et al. (2013) provide guidelines to

access the normality by screening the skewness and kurtosis value in absence of

complete test for multivariate normality. The value of skewness and kurtosis between

-1 and +1 is considered excellent and the value between -2 and +2 is acceptable. In

current study the calculated values of skewness and kurtosis are within the acceptable

range of -2 and +2 so the data is considered normal for further analysis.

3.10 Data Analysis

In analysis phase the causal relationship among the studied variables were

examined. The data was collected through self-administered questionnaire from the

faculty members of twelve public sector universities/institute of Islamabad region.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been used to study the relationship among

the studied variables. To test the relationship in structural model and estimating the

measurement model we used Partial Least Squares (PLS) or more specifically

SmartPLS v. 3.2.7 (Ringle et al., 2017) in current study.

PLS was selected because it is suitable and recommended where the model is

complex, and relationships are many like; direct, indirect, interaction term etc. (Chin,

2010a; 2010b; Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009). It provides the variance-based

130

analysis and allows freedom in distribution of variables. PLS has various strengths

that made it suitable for data analysis, including its soft distributional assumptions, its

flexibility in modeling higher-order constructs, and its ability to handle complex

research models such as the combination of mediating and moderating effects The

current study was aiming to find the variation in multiple dependent variables with the

effects of independent, mediating and moderating variable so PLS-SEM was selected

for data analysis.

3.10.1 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

Hair et al. (2011) are of the opinion that Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

is the latest technique that has been used by researcher for data analysis. It facilitates

in testing the difficult and complex relationships among the variables. Structural

equation modeling facilitates the inclusion of latent constructs of variable. SEM

acquired the attention of researcher in the last two decades and remarkable rise is

observed in the interest and utilization of structural equation modelling.

SEM is a multivariate analytical technique (MAV) that is used to test and

estimate the difficult and complex relationship concurrently (Hair et al., 2016). SEM

allows researcher to test the multi-level dependent relationship in which a dependent

variable (DV) become an independent variable (IV) at same time in a model. SEM

enables the researchers to evaluate measurement models and structural model more

effectively. In structural model of SEM, it allows multiple dependent variables, multi-

dimensional latent variables with indicators in a model. It is effective tool to assess

the direct, indirect, total and interaction effect in a model (Hair et al., 2011).

There are two types of methods used in structural equation modeling:

covariance-based techniques known as CB-SEM (Hair et al., 2014; Joreskog, 1993)

and variance-based PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2014; Lohmoller, 2013). The both

techniques share the same roots. CB-SEM develops covariance matrix on structural

equation and focused on decreasing the differences between the theoretical and

estimated covariance matrix. To apply CB-SEM, the data should be normal with

minimum sample size.

131

Hair et al. (2011) suggested using PLS-SEM when strict assumption of CB-

SEM cannot be fulfilled, and researchers are interested to study the complex models

without the rigid assumption of normality of data. The partial least squares (PLS)

approach used in structural equation modeling (SEM) is considered adequate for

prediction of causal modeling or theory building. It can also useful in theory

confirmation and it enables the researcher to explain variance in applications (Sarkar

et al., 2001).

PLS-SEM is an alternative of CB-SEM with relaxing the demands on data and

specification of relationship (Dijkstra, 2010; Jöreskog & Wold, 1982). While

examining the structural equation models (SEM) or complex models, PLS (Partial

Least Squares) is considered as a valuable technique and increasingly applied in

testing of such models. The variance-based modeling is used in PLS-SEM estimation

(Hair et al., 2014).

CB-SEM is like multiple regression (MR) when analyzing the relationships

whereas PLS-SEM uses ordinary least squares (OLS) technique of regression and

minimize the errors and increases R2 (Hair et al., 2011). PLS-SEM is useful for

moderated-mediation or mediated-moderation in which both mediating and

moderating variables are examined together (Hair et al., 2016). The model in present

study constitutes of independent, dependent, mediating, moderating and control

variables at the same time so PLS-SEM is selected to test the complex model. PLS-

SEM defines model as structural model and measurement model. Measurement model

is known as outer model contains information about latent variables and manifest

variables (Henseler et al., 2009). Structural Model is also known as inner model and it

provides information about the relationship between latent variables (Hair et al.,

2016).

The combination of both structural model and measurement model is called

structural equation modeling. The structural equation modeling (SEM) in PLS follows

the two-step process. In the first step the assessment has been made for measurement

model. In this the reliability and validity of data and measures are assessed using

different techniques. It may be noted that the criteria for assessing the reflective and

formative measurement models are different. The results of measurement model offer

logic and build confidence in testing the theoretical model or structural model.

132

Measurement model provide adequate support for the validity, so the results of

structural portion are presented in second stage (Chin, 2010b).

3.11 Measurement Model

In structural equation modeling (SEM) there are latent variables with multiple

indicators. Measurement model is also known as outer model and it specifies the

direction and causality of relationship between indicators and latent variables. In

measurement model using SEM; it is important to differentiate between reflective and

formative measurement model (Hair et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2013).

In reflective measurement model the direction of causality is from the

construct to the indicators. The observed measures reflect the variation in latent

variable or constructs are expected to display changes in all of its indicators. In

formative measurement model the direction of causality is from indicators to

constructs or construct is defined as a combination of its indicators (Henseler et al.,

2009; Henseler et al., 2016). The PLS-SEM can handle both reflective and formative

outer model without any restriction, but CB-SEM can use the formative models under

certain conditions (Diamantopoulos & Riefler, 2011). Furthermore, PLS-SEM is not

controlled by identification concerns, even if models become complex. This is a

situation where CB-SEM is not preferred. (Hair et al. 2011). This study utilizes

reflective measurement model and its characteristics are given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Features of reflective measurement models (Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007)

Direction of causality is from construct to its measures.

Indicators are lexes/expressions of the variable/construct.

All indicators are used commonly and reducing of an indicator willnot change the conceptual scope of construct.

In reflective model indicators and constructs have the relatednomological net.

Hulland (1999) presented three sets of methodological consideration while

applying PLS in the context of management research; first set includes the assessment

133

of reliability and validity of measures; second set is the determination of relationship

between measures and constructs and third set is determination of path coefficient for

model adequacy. These sets are followed in two stage sequential analysis of

measurement model and structural model. Reflective measurement models were

evaluated for reliability, validity (convergent and discriminate) (Hair et al., 2011).

The rules of thumb are presented in Table 3.3.

3.11.1 Internal Consistency Reliability

Coefficient alpha (α) by Cronbach (1951) was widely used as a measure of

reliability (Bollen, 1989) but it is an old way to measure internal consistency (Chin,

1998). Cronbach alpha (α) provides inter-correlations-based estimates of reliability. It

assumes that all indicators are equally reliable (Hair et al., 2011) or equally weighted

(Chin, 1998). Whereas, PLS give priority to indicators in terms of their reliability and

generates a more reliable composite. Hair et al. (2011) suggested to use composite

reliability (CR) in measuring internal consistency and it is more appropriate than

alpha (α). The Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive about number of items, so it provides

underestimated internal consistency in PLS path models. Whereas composite

reliability (CR) takes into account the indicators that have different loading and

interpret the result in the same way as Cronbach’s alpha (α). The composite reliability

(CR) value of 0.70 or greater is considered satisfactory (Werts et al., 1974; Bagozzi

Yi, 1988).

3.11.2 Indicators Reliability

Indicators reliability is the standardized outer loadings of all indicators in

structural equation modeling. Loadings are basically the variances extracted from the

items in PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2011). The rule of thumb for indicators reliability is

that the latent variable should explain at least 50% of variance in each indicator. It

means the absolute correlation between a latent variable and its construct should be

0.70. In other words, the absolute standardized outer loadings of all indicators should

be 0.70 or above. If the standardized outer loadings are smaller than 0.4 then the

indicators should be eliminated from reflective measurement models. The validity is

assessed by examining the convergent validity and discriminant validity.

134

3.11.3 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity proves the uni-dimensionality of constructs. It signifies

that a set of indicators are the true representation of their construct. The inter-

correlation among the indicators of a construct is assessed to determinate the

convergent validity (Hair et al., 2011). The high inter-correlation among the indicators

shows that they are related to the same construct. It is suggested to use average

variance extracted (AVE) as a criterion to check convergent validity and the value of

AVE should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The AVE value of 0.50

assumes sufficient in explaining half of variance of its indicators on average.

3.11.4 Discriminant Validity

It shows that the constructs are different from each other (Hair et al., 2016).

The joint set of indicators of different constructs is expected not to be uni-

dimensional. The inter-correlations among the indicators of different constructs have

been analyzed to assess the discriminant validity. The low correlation among the

indicators of different construct shows that the constructs are different.

The guidelines and rules of thumb for assessing the measurement model are

presented in Table 3.4.

In PLS path modeling, three approaches were used to access the discriminant

validity; The Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion, Fornell and Larcker (1981)

criterion and Cross Loadings. The cross-loading criterion is more liberal in which the

loading of an indicator should be greater than its cross-loadings (Chin, 1998). In

HTMT criterion the value of HTMT should be significantly smaller than 1.0 (Henseler

et al., 2009). In Fornell-Larcker criterion the latent variable shares more variance

with its assigned indicators than with any other latent variable. The square root value

of AVE of a construct should be greater than the squared correlations with other

constructs (Henseler et al., 2009).

135

Table 3.4: Main guidelines/rules of thumb for assessing reflective measurement

models

Criterion Recommendations / Rules of Thumb Reference

Indicator reliability

Standardized indicator loadings of

0.70 or higher is acceptable;

Standardized indicator loadings of

0.40 is acceptable in exploratory

studies

(Hulland, 1999)

Internal-

consistency

reliability (ICR)

Do not use Cronbach’s alpha;

Composite Reliability (CR) value of

0.70 or higher is acceptable;

Composite Reliability (CR) value of

0.60 is acceptable in exploratory

studies

(Werts, Linn &

Joreskog, 1974);

(Bagozzi & Yi,

1988)

Indicator reliability

(IR)

Indicator loadings of 0.70 and higher

is acceptable

(Hair, Ringle, &

Sarstedt, 2011)

Convergent validity

(CV)

Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

value of 0.50 or higher is acceptable

(Hair, Ringle, &

Sarstedt, 2011)

Discriminant

validity (DV)

The squared AVE of a construct

should be higher than its correlation

with any other construct

An indicator’s loadings should be

higher than all of its cross loadings

(Fornell &

Larcker, 1981)

Chin, 1998

136

3.12 Structural Model

When the outer model provides you with reliable and valid estimates than the

next step is to provide evidences in support of inner path model or theoretical model

as exemplified by the structural portion of model (Henseler & Chin, 2010). The

estimates are calculated, and PLS-SEM considers the variance without comparing it

with covariance as in CB-SEM. It applies the non-parametric evaluation criteria to

access the quality of inner model (Chin 1998, 2010; Henseler et al. 2009). Structural

model is PLS-SEM are assessed by; coefficient of determination (R²), Effect size (f 2

and q2), path coefficient (β) with level of significance (t-statistics & p-value), and

predictive relevance (Q2) (Hair et al., 2011).

3.12.1 Coefficient of Determination (R2)

The predictive power of the structural model is assessed by the value of R2.

The coefficient of determination or Goodness of fit (R2) is the primary criterion for

inner model evaluation, calculated for endogenous latent variables. R2 explain the

variance in each endogenous (dependent) variable due to exogenous (independent)

variables, like ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. This is obtained because the

case value of the latent variables is determined by the weight relations (Chin, 2010).

The R2 value closer to 1.0 is considered as a good model (Hair at el., 2016). The R2

value of 0.19, 0.33 and 0.67 in PLS models are assumed as weak, moderate and

substantial model. The moderate R2 is accepted when an endogenous latent variable

has one or two exogenous latent variables in the inner path model structure (Chin,

1988).

3.12.2 Effect Size (f 2)

The change in R2 is explored to see the size of impact that the exogenous

latent variable (independent) has on endogenous latent variable (dependent). The

change (f 2) is calculated by using the Cohen’s (1992) method and it is similar to the

operational definition of multiple regressions. The R2included and R2

excluded are

calculated when the predictor latent variable is used and omitted in the structural

equation respectively (Henseler & Chin, 2010). The effect size (f 2) is explored to

determine the unexplained variation in endogenous (dependent) variables. The effect

137

size (f 2) of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represents small, medium and large effect at the

structural level (Cohen, 1992).

When there is a set of predictors for dependent construct and you want to

compare the baseline model with superset model with the inclusion of additional

latent variable, researchers are suggested to perform F test with bootstrapping.

3.12.3 Path Coefficient Estimates

The path coefficient estimates of the PLS is basically the standardized beta

coefficient (β) of the OLS regressions (Hair et al., 2011). It determines the magnitude

of the relationship between the variables. The path coefficient in structural model is

evaluated in terms of sign, magnitude, significance and via bootstrapping (Chin,

2010a). The significance of path coefficient is inferred after examining the t-value,

confidence intervals through bootstrapping and p-value (Henseler et al., 2009; Hair et

al., 2011).

3.12.4 Predictive Relevance Q2 and q2

The predictive relevance is known as the model’s capability to predict

(Henseler et al., 2009) which is largely ignored by CB-SEM (Hair et al., 2011). PLS-

SEM provides an added estimation of structural model by establishing its competency

in forecasting and it is preferred by researcher when the objective of the research is

theory development and prediction. Stone-Geisser’s Q2 (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1974),

by using blindfolding procedures (Tenenhaus et al., 2005) is the principal measure of

predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2011). According to Stone-Geisser (Stone, 1974;

Geisser, 1974) criterion the model must provide prediction for the indicators of the

endogenous latent variables.

The cross validated redundancy obtained from blindfolding procedure fits the

PLS path modeling approach like “hand in glove” (Jöreskog & Wold, 1982). The

blindfolding procedure is useful for the dependent latent variable with reflective

measurement model operationalization. If the Q2 value for endogenous variable is

larger than zero than its exogenous variable has predictive relevance. The relative

effect of Q2 (q2) is assessed similar to f2 by inclusion and omission process. The q2

value of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represents small, medium and large predictive relevance

138

of independent variable in explaining the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2011). The

guidelines and rules of thumb for assessing the structural model are presented in

Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Guiding principles for structural model evaluation

CriterionRecommendations / Rules of

ThumbReference

R2 value

R2 values of 0.19, 0.33 and 0.67 are

described as low, moderate and high

respectively in the inner model.(Chin, 1998)

Effect size f 2

f 2 value of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 show

large, medium and weak effect at

the structural level.

(Cohen, 1992)

Estimate for Path

coefficient

The sign, magnitude and

significance (bootstrapping) of the

relationship should be evaluated for

structural model.

(Hair et al., 2011)

Predictive relevance

Q2 and q2

Use blindfolding; Q2 > 0 is evidence

of predictive relevance and Q2 < 0 is

lack of predictive relevance; q 2

value of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 show

large, medium and weak degree of

predictive relevance.

(Hair et al., 2011)

139

3.13 Summary

Chapter 3 explained and discussed the methodological issues in detail. The

explanation and justification for the selection of positivist research philosophy with

deductive research approach, quantitative study with survey research, cross-sectional

with explanatory purpose and primary data collection from higher education

institutes/universities are explained. The use of non-probability sampling technique to

collect the data from sample is explained.

The selection of structural equation modeling SEM for path model and PLS

for analysis are discussed. The issues of missing value, outliers and normality for

multivariate data analysis are addressed. The procedure which followed for reflective

measurement model and reliability tests (indicators reliability; internal consistency

reliability) and validity tests (convergent validity; discriminant validity) with rule of

thumb are discussed. For the measurement of structural model and testing of

hypothesis in inner model are discussed.

The importance of coefficient of determination, effect size, path coefficient

and predictive relevance for structural models are discussed and explained in detail.

Measurement and scale of, PPAQ (independent variable), PE (mediator), perception

of HRM system strength (moderator), RE, KS, and IB are explained. The data

analysis is discussed in chapter 4. It starts with the analysis and reporting of

demographics characteristics of the respondents. The descriptive statistics, results of

reliability and validity tests, finding of measurement model and structural model are

analyzed and reported.

140

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

141

4.1 Introduction

The objective of the current study was to explore the relationship between

PPAQ and three ILAs (RE, KS and IB) of faculty members working in HEIs of

Islamabad, Pakistan. This relationship was examined with the inclusion of PE as

mediator and PHSS as possible moderator in a quantitative study. This chapter will

report the results of data analysis.

The underlying assumptions of multivariate data analysis including missing

values, outliers and normality are assessed. The demographic characteristics of the

sample are reported through frequencies and percentages. The descriptive of measures

are reported through Cronbach’s alpha value. The constructs and measures were

analyzed for mean value and standard deviation. The skewness and kurtosis were also

calculated to address the assumptions of multivariate data analysis. PLS-SEM was

used to estimate the measurement model and structural model.

In reflective measurement model the internal consistency reliability of the

constructs were measured through composite reliability (CR). The confirmatory factor

analysis was performed to analyze the indicators reliability. Similarly, the convergent

and discriminant validity were assessed to determine the reliability and validity of

data and measures. The main effects and mediating effect have been measured in

reflective measurement model. Structural model and the relationship have been

measured by determining the, coefficient of determination, path coefficient estimates,

effect size and predictive relevance.

4.2 Evaluation of Underlying Assumptions of Multivariate

Data

This section will explain the scrutiny of data with respect to missing value,

collinearity, heteroscedasticity and common method variance.

4.2.1 Missing Value

Total 600 questionnaires were distributed among the faculty members of

twelve public sector HEIs of Islamabad region. 377 questionnaires were filled and

returned. The response rate was sixty three percent. Out of these 17 questionnaires

142

were excluded from subsequent data analysis because respondents did not fill the

questionnaire properly and information was missing on important questions.

4.2.2 Collinearity

The structural model was assessed for collinearity issues and before

interpreting the results the latent variable scores are used to assess collinearity.

According to Hair et al. (2011), if the predictor constructs tolerance value is greater

than 0.20 and VIF is lower than 5 than there is no issue of collinearity. The VIF

values extracted on different relationship are clearly below the threshold of 5.0 so it is

inferred that there is no issue of collinearity persist in the structural model. Once the

collinearity issue is addressed than the path coefficient can be examined to determine

the degree of association among studied variables. The VIF values and tolerance

values are presented in Table 4.1. The PLS-SEM algorithm for maximization of

variance explained, are effective at reducing the collinearity (Kock & Lynn, 2012).

4.2.3 Heteroscedasticity

The issue of heteroscedasticity is a problem when inconsistency of a variable

is not equal to the range of value of predictor variable. The scatter diagram for error

terms was observed to ensure that there is no issue of heteroscedasticity and the

variance was constant.

4.2.4 Common Method Variance

Common method variance can be a problem when single-source data is used

to measure latent variables. To address this problem, we performed Harman single-

factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) on eleven first-order latent variables in our research

model. The result shows the emergence of more than one factor. The common method

factor accounted for well below the 50% threshold variance. This indicated that the

common method bias does not pose a significant problem with respect to collected

data.

143

Table 4.1: Collinearity Assessment (Reflection, Knowledge Sharing, Innovative

Behavior: Dependent Variable)

Reflection Knowledge

Sharing

Innovative

Behavior

Constructs VIF Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF Tolerance

Perceptions of

Performance

Appraisal Quality

1.280 0.781 1.280 0.781 1.280 0.781

Perception of HRM

System Strength1.087 0.920 1.090 0.917 1.091 0.917

Psychological

Empowerment1.321 0.757 1.322 0.756 1.322 0.756

4.3 Respondents profile

This section explains the demographics of the respondents. The demographic

information was collected on the respondent’s age, gender, education level, current

job position, salary and tenure. In a sample of 360, 59.7% participants were male and

40.3% were female. In terms of job position the sample of faculty members was

established from 25 research associates (7%), 183 lecturers (51%), 132 assistant

professors (37%), 16 associate professors (4%) and 4 professors (1%).

From respondent’s qualification, the 211 were having master’s degree

(58.6%), 102 were holding doctoral degree (28.3) and 47 were having post-doctoral

qualification (13.1%). In term of age 53.6% are in the age bracket of 30-40 years. The

tenure shows 55% are in 1-5 years and 33% are in 6-10 years of service in current

organization. Demographics of quantitative phase are reported in Table 4.2.

144

Table 4.2. The Descriptive of the Sample (N = 360)

Title Characteristics Frequency Percent

Gender (Male)

(Female)

215

145

59.7%

40.3%

Age

20-24 Years

25-29 Years

30-34 Years

35-39 Years

40-44 Years

45 and Above

16

92

124

69

41

18

4.4%

25.6%

34.4%

19.2%

11.4%

5.0%

Educational

Level

Master's Degree

PhD

Post-Doctoral Degree

211

102

47

58.6%

28.3%

13.1%

Marital Status Single

Married

91

269

25.3%

74.7%

Current Job

Position

(Designation)

RA/TA

Lecturer

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor

Professor

25

183

132

16

4

6.9%

50.8%

36.7%

4.4%

1.1%

Estimated

Salary/Income

Rs.20001-40000

Rs.40001-60000

Rs.60001-80000

Rs.80001-100000

Rs.100001-120000

Rs.120001-140000

Rs.140001-160000

Above Rs.160000

18

30

66

49

30

48

40

79

5.0%

8.3%

18.3%

13.6%

8.3%

13.3%

11.1%

21.9%

Tenure

Less than 1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

More than 10 years

16

199

119

26

4.4%

55.3%

33.1%

7.2%

145

4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures

Table 4.3 exhibits the descriptive statistics of the studied variables. The results

for Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), Skewness, Kurtosis and Reliability measures

(α) are reported.

The PPAQ showed the consistency among the items (α = 0.856), RE (α =

0.885), KS (α = 0.925) and IB (α = 0.898). PE (α = 0.960) was measured as a

composite of meaning (α = 0.932), competence (α = 0.923), self-determination (α =

0.929) and impact (α = 0.947) having the coefficient alphas for all the scale are in

acceptable range. PHSS (α = 0.962) was measure as a composite of distinctiveness (α

= 0.914), consistency (α = 0.914) and consensus (α = 0.914) with acceptable

coefficient alpha value.

Table 4.3. Mean, Standard deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis, Cronbach, Items

Description

Latent

VariablesIndicators Mean

Std.

DeviationSkewness Kurtosis

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Perceptions of

Performance

Appraisal Quality

PPAQ1 4.1111 0.73805 -0.848 1.323

0.856PPAQ2 4.0889 0.74107 -0.804 1.184

PPAQ3 4.1000 0.72057 -0.871 1.611

Psychological Empowerment 0.960

Meaning

ME1 4.1139 0.85156 -1.145 1.627

0.932ME2 4.1111 0.85356 -1.134 1.577

ME3 4.1000 0.84840 -1.128 1.615

Competence

CO1 4.1167 0.85282 -1.066 1.380

0.923CO2 4.0639 0.82024 -1.063 1.722

CO3 4.0944 0.83913 -1.062 1.517

Self-

Determination

SD1 4.0000 0.86401 -0.964 1.203

0.929SD2 4.0472 0.87713 -1.013 1.202

SD3 4.0444 0.87250 -1.023 1.266

Impact

IM1 3.9917 0.97743 -1.099 0.906

0.947IM2 3.9944 0.97887 -1.100 0.898

IM3 3.9806 0.97155 -1.097 0.937

146

Perceptions of HRM System Strength 0.962

Distinctiveness

DI1 4.3972 0.72018 -1.076 0.867

0.923

DI2 4.3250 0.69414 -0.888 0.869

DI3 4.3278 0.69883 -0.895 0.821

DI4 4.3667 0.70730 -0.992 0.872

DI5 4.3944 0.70016 -1.064 1.084

DI6 4.4278 0.69242 -1.106 1.081

Consistency

CT1 4.2222 0.74307 -0.670 0.018

0.932

CT2 4.1333 0.74190 -0.507 -0.162

CT3 4.1500 0.73870 -0.538 -0.097

CT4 4.1278 0.73534 -0.501 -0.107

CT5 4.1972 0.73321 -0.625 0.060

CT6 4.2583 0.74448 -0.661 -0.016

Consensus

CS1 4.2556 0.72460 -0.740 0.297

0.940CS2 4.2889 0.73503 -0.810 0.284

CS3 4.2556 0.73224 -0.739 0.215

CS4 4.2528 0.72749 -0.734 0.258

Reflection

RE1 4.1167 0.66989 -0.587 0.887

0.885RE2 4.1111 0.70722 -0.541 0.338

RE3 4.0778 0.67552 -0.531 0.705

RE4 4.0611 0.67724 -0.562 0.819

Knowledge

Sharing

KS1 4.1278 0.76868 -0.814 0.874

0.925KS2 4.1500 0.78265 -0.831 0.745

KS3 4.1278 0.76868 -0.814 0.874

KS4 4.2389 0.79947 -0.917 0.595

Innovative

Behavior

IB1 4.3167 0.68794 -0.868 0.919

0.898

IB2 4.3194 0.69271 -0.925 1.109

IB3 4.3556 0.70511 -1.011 1.087

IB4 4.4417 0.70172 -1.007 1.670

IB5 4.4944 0.69617 -1.375 1.760

147

The value of Skewness and Kurtosis were examined to test the normality

(individual and multivariate). The value of skewness and kurtosis of all the indicators

are in acceptable range and lies between -2 and +2. However, the item having value in

between -1 and +1 is considered excellent when addressing the normality issue.

4.5 Graphical Representation of Descriptive Statistics

The graphical representations of the constructs are shown in Annexure-II. The

histogram and normal q-q plot is presented.

4.6 Structural Equation Modeling

For the analysis purpose SmartPLS v.3.2.7 (Ringle et al., 2017) was used in

estimation. Two steps approached is followed in current study for the data analysis

and estimation by using SmartPLS. In the first step, the measurement model or outer

model with reflective measures is assessed for indicator’s reliability and validity. The

SmartPLS provides several metrics like standardized indicators loadings, cross-

loadings, composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted

(AVE) for the assessment of measurement model.

The adequate support of measurement model allows the assessment of the

structural model or inner model. The results for coefficient of determination, effect

size, path coefficient estimates, inter-construct correlation and predictive relevance

are obtained, to test the main effect, mediating effect and moderating effect. In PLS-

SEM model, first we examined the outer model in an effort to validate the

measurement model (Hair at al., 2013).

4.7 Measurement Model

4.7.1 Internal Consistency Reliability

In a reflective measurement model of present study there were thirteen latent

variables (PPAQ, PE, meaning, competence, self-determination, impact, PHSS,

distinctiveness, consistency, consensus, RE, KS and IB). The PE and PHSS were

measured as composite variables and duplicate items were used for measurement

148

purpose. The final model was same as to reflective model because all items were

loaded (factor loadings) well above the threshold value of 0.70 and the internal

consistency reliability of all the scales were good. The coefficient alpha (α) based on

inter-correlations estimates is widely accepted to measure the internal consistency but

PLS-SEM provides the composite reliability (CR) which is more reliable than alpha

(α). However, the alpha (α) value is also reported along with CR value in Table 4.4.

4.7.2 Composite Reliability

The composite reliability (CR) value is calculated to measure the internal

consistency reliability. It interprets the results in the same way as to Cronbach’s

alpha. The composite reliability (CR) value of all the latent variables demonstrated

high level of internal consistency reliability. The composite reliability value for PPAQ

(0.912), meaning (0.957), competence (0.951), self-determination (0.955), impact

(0.855), PE (0.965), distinctiveness (0.939), consistency (0.947), consensus (0.957),

PHSS (0.965), RE (0.921), KS (0.947) and IB (0.924) are well above the threshold

level. The CR results are presented in table 4.4.

4.7.3 Convergent Validity

The convergent validity is determined by assessing the inter-correlation

among the indicators of a construct. It proves that the constructs are unidimensional.

The average variance extracted (AVE) value is used to assess the convergent validity

of all the constructs. In present study the AVE value of PPAQ (0.776), meaning

(0.880), competence (0.867), self-determination (0.876), impact (0.664), PE (0.694),

distinctiveness (0.721), consistency (0.748), consensus (0.848), PHSS (0.636), RE

(0.744), KS (0.816) and IB (0.710) are well above the threshold level of 0.50 (Hair et

al., 2013). The AVE results are presented in Table 4.4.

149

Table 4.4. Results summary for reflective measurement model

First-Order

Constructs

Second-Order

Constructs Indicator’s FL CR AVE CV

Perceptions of

Performance

Appraisal Quality

PPAQ1

PPAQ2

PPAQ3

0.883

0.869

0.891

0.912 0.776 Yes

Meaning

ME1

ME2

ME3

0.940

0.937

0.938

0.957 0.880 Yes

Competence

CO1

CO2

CO3

0.927

0.929

0.937

0.951 0.867 Yes

Self-

Determination

SD1

SD2

SD3

0.936

0.938

0.934

0.955 0.876 Yes

Impact

IM1

IM2

IM3

0.950

0.956

0.948

0.855 0.664 Yes

Psychological

Empowerment

Meaning

Competence

Self-Determination

Impact

0.894

0.898

0.881

0.877

0.937 0.788 Yes

Distinctiveness

DI1

DI2

DI3

DI4

DI5

DI6

0.853

0.845

0.841

0.880

0.823

0.852

0.939 0.721 Yes

150

First-Order

Constructs

Second-Order

Constructs Indicator’s FL CR AVE CV

Consistency

CT1

CT2

CT3

CT4

CT5

CT6

0.840

0.872

0.907

0.914

0.815

0.836

0.947 0.748 Yes

ConsensusCS1

CS2

CS3

CS4

0.922

0.921

0.922

0.920

0.957 0.848 Yes

Perceptions of

HRM System

Strength

Distinctiveness

Consistency

Consensus

0.915

0.916

0.908

0.938 0.834 Yes

Reflection

RE1

RE2

RE3

RE4

0.841

0.883

0.883

0.842

0.921 0.744 Yes

Knowledge

Sharing

KS1

KS2

KS3

KS4

0.892

0.896

0.891

0.934

0.947 0.816 Yes

Innovative

Behavior

IB1

IB2

IB3

IB4

IB5

0.838

0.856

0.889

0.822

0.805

0.924 0.710 Yes

Note: CR=Composite Reliability; FL=Factor Loadings; AVE=Average Variance Extracted;CV=Convergent Validity

151

4.7.3.1 Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Test

The study first used the HTMT (Hetrotrait-Monotrait) criteria to test the

discriminant validity. The HTMT is an upper boundary estimate for the factor

correlation. If the HTMT value is significantly less than 1.00 than it is considered that

the factor is discriminant from others. The value calculated for HTMT in Table 4.5

shows that all variables achieved discriminant validity.

4.7.3.2 Fornell-Larcker

Secondly, the study also followed the Fornell-Larcker guidelines to test the

discriminant validity. According to Fornell-Larcker criterion the square root of the

average variance extracted (AVE) for a variable should be greater than the correlation

with other variables in the model. In current study the square roots of the AVEs for all

constructs are higher than the correlation of these constructs with other variables in

the path model. Table 4.6 shows the results and the square roots of the AVE’s for

PPAQ is (0.881), PE (0.833), meaning (0.938), competence (0.931), self-

determination (0.936), PHSS (0.798), distinctiveness (0.849), consistency (0.865),

consensus (0.921), RE (0.863), IB (0.843) and for KS is (0.903). The square root of

the AVEs for PHSS (0.849) is lower than its correction with distinctiveness (r =

0.915), consistency (r=0.916) and consensus (r=0.908). The square root of AVEs for

PE (0.833) is also lower than its correlation with meaning (r = 0.894), competence (r

= 0.898), self-determination (r = 0.881) and impact (r = 0.877). Both variables were

multidimensional construct and selected items were measuring the dimensions as well

as main variable in the path model.

4.7.3.3 Cross Loadings

Thirdly, the cross loadings of items were also used to ascertain the

discriminant validity (Chin, 1998). When the indicator’s loading on a construct is

higher than its cross loadings on other constructs than discriminant validity is

evidenced (Hair et al., 2011). Table 4.7 shows the loadings and cross loadings of all

the indictors used in the study. All indictor’s loading on the main construct were

higher than the cross loadings on other constructs which further justifies the

152

discriminant validity. By adopting the three approaches the overall discriminant

validity was achieved with the PLS-SEM analysis in present study.

PE and PHSS were studied as multidimensional constructs and the same items

were used to measure the main variable and its dimension. The items loaded on these

constructs also shows loadings with its corresponding dimensions as well. The

indicator of CO1 has the highest value for the loading with its corresponding

construct competence (0.927) and PE (0.841), while all cross loadings are

considerably lower. The same findings hold for all the indicators measuring different

constructs. Overall, HTMT, cross loadings as well as the Fornell-Larcker criterion

provided evidence for the construct’s discriminant validity.

4.7.3.4 Correlation

Table 4.6 shows the correlation matrix among all the constructs in the study.

The analysis shows that the PPAQ is positively related to PE (r = 0.460***, p<0.001),

RE (r = 0.456***, p<0.001), KS (r = 0.358*, p<0.05) and IB (r = 0.399**, p<0.01).

PE also shows positive relationship with RE (r = 0.393**, p<0.01), KS (r = 0.461***,

p<0.001) and IB (r = 0.468***, p<0.001). According to Tian and Wilding (2008), the

correlation value of 0.10 - 0.30, 0.40 – 0.60 and 0.70 – above, are considered as week,

moderate and high relationship respectively. The arithmetic sign with the value

determines the nature of relationship as negative or positive.

153

Table 4.5. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Perceptions of performance Appraisal Quality

2. Meaning 0.486

3. Competence 0.476 0.849

4. Self-Determination 0.421 0.747 0.774

5. Impact 0.442 0.734 0.734 0.768

6. Distinctiveness 0.085 0.054 0.041 0.049 0.071

7. Consistency 0.036 0.029 0.045 0.027 0.105 0.786

8. Consensus 0.058 0.032 0.034 0.028 0.068 0.821 0.808

9. Reflection 0.523 0.359 0.357 0.371 0.441 0.075 0.051 0.076

10. Knowledge Sharing 0.402 0.389 0.359 0.393 0.606 0.106 0.065 0.048 0.550

11. Innovative Behavior 0.446 0.448 0.429 0.429 0.486 0.100 0.076 0.061 0.721 0.646

12. Perceptions of HRM System Strength 0.064 0.042 0.044 0.038 0.089 0.974 0.968 0.949 0.072 0.081 0.087

13. Psychological Empowerment 0.507 0.945 0.954 0.934 0.916 0.060 0.058 0.045 0.425 0.487 0.498 0.059

154

Table 4.6. Fornell–Larcker test for discriminant validity

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality 0.881

2. Meaning 0.433 0.938

3. Competence 0.424 0.788 0.931

4. Self-Determination 0.376 0.695 0.717 0.936

5. Impact 0.398 0.690 0.686 0.720 0.951

6. Distinctiveness 0.065 0.047 0.010 0.036 -0.066 0.849

7. Consistency 0.023 0.002 -0.032 0.009 -0.099 0.731 0.865

8. Consensus 0.044 0.026 -0.027 0.001 -0.062 0.767 0.758 0.921

9. Reflection 0.456*** 0.326 0.323 0.336 0.404 -0.064 -0.030 -0.068 0.863

10. Knowledge Sharing 0.358* 0.361 0.332 0.364 0.568 -0.098 -0.058 -0.042 0.496 0.903

11. Innovative Behavior 0.399** 0.414 0.395 0.396 0.451 -0.083 -0.057 -0.051 0.642 0.589 0.843

The square roots of the AVEs are mentioned diagonally and correlations between the constructs are mentioned off-diagonally.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001

155

Table 4.7. Cross Loadings

PPAQ ME CO SD IM DI CT CS RE KS IB PHSS PE

PPAQ1 0.883 0.384 0.367 0.332 0.343 0.048 0.019 0.055 0.390 0.303 0.337 0.043 0.402

PPAQ2 0.869 0.380 0.364 0.314 0.362 0.012 -0.002 -0.005 0.385 0.306 0.342 0.002 0.400

PPAQ3 0.891 0.381 0.389 0.347 0.346 0.107 0.042 0.065 0.428 0.334 0.372 0.078 0.412

ME1 0.387 0.940 0.757 0.658 0.671 0.041 -0.014 0.034 0.267 0.371 0.375 0.021 0.853

ME2 0.431 0.937 0.744 0.648 0.642 0.029 -0.013 0.004 0.333 0.341 0.386 0.007 0.836

ME3 0.403 0.938 0.716 0.651 0.630 0.061 0.032 0.035 0.319 0.304 0.406 0.047 0.827

CO1 0.398 0.733 0.927 0.669 0.658 0.016 -0.023 -0.023 0.314 0.346 0.348 -0.010 0.841

CO2 0.402 0.725 0.929 0.673 0.660 -0.022 -0.057 -0.037 0.285 0.312 0.373 -0.043 0.840

CO3 0.384 0.743 0.937 0.659 0.599 0.034 -0.009 -0.014 0.302 0.269 0.383 0.005 0.826

SD1 0.330 0.638 0.662 0.936 0.661 0.018 -0.016 -0.022 0.301 0.319 0.355 -0.006 0.814

SD2 0.348 0.659 0.671 0.938 0.688 0.034 0.016 0.004 0.301 0.357 0.382 0.021 0.832

SD3 0.378 0.654 0.679 0.934 0.673 0.048 0.024 0.020 0.342 0.346 0.376 0.035 0.827

IM1 0.387 0.663 0.657 0.683 0.950 -0.061 -0.092 -0.034 0.387 0.559 0.440 -0.071 0.836

IM2 0.374 0.666 0.645 0.704 0.956 -0.058 -0.083 -0.052 0.385 0.551 0.428 -0.072 0.841

IM3 0.373 0.641 0.657 0.668 0.948 -0.070 -0.107 -0.092 0.380 0.509 0.418 -0.098 0.824

156

DI1 0.043 0.049 0.012 0.019 -0.025 0.853 0.656 0.711 -0.035 -0.061 -0.053 0.812 0.015

DI2 0.062 0.028 -0.001 0.030 -0.052 0.845 0.628 0.645 -0.070 -0.065 -0.081 0.777 0.001

DI3 0.003 0.013 -0.008 0.046 -0.085 0.841 0.644 0.691 -0.071 -0.095 -0.091 0.796 -0.011

DI4 0.065 0.041 -0.013 0.039 -0.070 0.880 0.632 0.650 -0.042 -0.088 -0.063 0.794 -0.002

DI5 0.108 0.099 0.069 0.075 -0.009 0.823 0.565 0.579 -0.048 -0.058 -0.058 0.723 0.065

DI6 0.054 0.010 -0.005 -0.023 -0.095 0.852 0.594 0.622 -0.059 -0.132 -0.080 0.759 -0.033

CT1 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.027 -0.085 0.638 0.840 0.616 -0.026 -0.079 -0.077 0.772 -0.009

CT2 0.043 -0.021 -0.065 -0.028 -0.098 0.666 0.872 0.694 0.009 -0.009 -0.042 0.820 -0.060

CT3 -0.001 0.000 -0.021 0.011 -0.106 0.640 0.907 0.702 -0.083 -0.084 -0.092 0.827 -0.034

CT4 0.001 -0.003 -0.029 0.017 -0.073 0.674 0.914 0.703 -0.037 -0.032 -0.077 0.843 -0.026

CT5 0.014 -0.013 -0.037 0.026 -0.055 0.574 0.815 0.600 0.007 -0.038 0.003 0.733 -0.023

CT6 0.050 0.032 -0.030 -0.004 -0.094 0.595 0.836 0.611 -0.022 -0.058 -0.005 0.753 -0.028

CS1 0.067 0.024 0.008 -0.002 -0.059 0.699 0.723 0.922 -0.029 -0.022 -0.022 0.843 -0.009

CS2 0.054 0.054 -0.014 0.026 -0.047 0.697 0.680 0.921 -0.047 -0.045 -0.052 0.825 0.005

CS3 0.022 0.022 -0.041 0.010 -0.023 0.704 0.674 0.922 -0.080 -0.015 -0.047 0.825 -0.009

CS4 0.019 -0.004 -0.051 -0.029 -0.099 0.725 0.716 0.920 -0.095 -0.070 -0.069 0.850 -0.052

RE1 0.392 0.257 0.250 0.269 0.308 -0.115 -0.046 -0.089 0.841 0.422 0.543 -0.090 0.306

157

RE2 0.399 0.297 0.288 0.318 0.353 -0.012 0.000 -0.031 0.883 0.397 0.536 -0.014 0.354

RE3 0.406 0.304 0.298 0.302 0.345 -0.039 -0.008 -0.041 0.883 0.427 0.545 -0.031 0.353

RE4 0.376 0.266 0.278 0.271 0.388 -0.057 -0.052 -0.077 0.842 0.468 0.593 -0.066 0.340

KS1 0.314 0.324 0.316 0.308 0.498 -0.114 -0.072 -0.079 0.459 0.892 0.538 -0.097 0.410

KS2 0.336 0.316 0.258 0.325 0.516 -0.091 -0.057 -0.029 0.449 0.896 0.526 -0.067 0.401

KS3 0.322 0.344 0.304 0.321 0.512 -0.098 -0.051 -0.021 0.436 0.891 0.540 -0.065 0.420

KS4 0.319 0.322 0.321 0.362 0.524 -0.051 -0.028 -0.022 0.450 0.934 0.525 -0.038 0.433

IB1 0.350 0.343 0.344 0.312 0.366 0.000 0.004 -0.016 0.581 0.511 0.838 -0.004 0.385

IB2 0.365 0.387 0.341 0.353 0.385 -0.092 -0.047 -0.069 0.537 0.511 0.856 -0.076 0.414

IB3 0.407 0.401 0.393 0.393 0.436 -0.056 -0.040 -0.032 0.560 0.511 0.889 -0.047 0.458

IB4 0.267 0.319 0.303 0.314 0.358 -0.088 -0.058 -0.023 0.509 0.487 0.822 -0.064 0.365

IB5 0.262 0.276 0.265 0.281 0.342 -0.128 -0.113 -0.081 0.519 0.462 0.805 -0.120 0.329

Note: CO = Competence; CS = Consensus; CT=Consistency; DI=Distinctiveness; IB=Innovative Behavior; IM=Impact;

KS=Knowledge Sharing; ME=Meaning; PPAQ=Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality; RE=Reflection; SD=Self-

Determination, PE=Psychological Empowerment; PHSS=Perceptions of HRM System Strength

158

4.8 Structural Model

The study used a data set with 360 observations for our empirical PLS-SEM

analysis. The path model in the current study tested the paths from PPAQ to PE, RE,

KS and IB. Moreover, it is tested the moderating effect of PHSS upon the

relationship between PPAQ and PE, RE, KS and IB. Structuring the equation model

explained in the study of six latent variables (i.e. PPAQ, PE, PPHS, RE, KS and IB)

has been tested. PPAQ was put as an independent variable. PHSS was loaded as

moderating latent variable loaded on three observed variables i.e. distinctiveness,

consistency and consensus. PE was loaded as a dependent latent variable loaded on

four observed variables i.e. meaning, competence, self-determination and impact.

Moreover RE, KS and IB were loaded as dependent variables.

4.8.1 Main Effect

The path model’s coefficient is used to understand the relationships among the

variables in the model and PLS-SEM estimation for path coefficient are analyzed. The

results are analyzed by extracting the coefficient’s value, t-value and level of

significance i.e. p-value. As a rule of thumb, the path coefficient’s standardized value

of 0.10 or above is considered significance and less than 0.10 are considered

insignificant (Hair et al., 2013). T-value is calculated with the process of

bootstrapping and 1000 bootstrap sample were used in estimation. Bootstrapping is

recognized as the latest techniques to determine the significance of path coefficient

with estimate of t-value. The critical t-value of 1.96 with 5% significance level

(α=0.05) as probability of error, is considered for analysis of results.

In Figure 4.1 the path coefficient with p-values are shown. The examination of

path coefficient’s results shows that, PPAQ has a direct and positive relationship with

the mediating variable i.e. PE (β = 0.468, p value < 0.001) hence accepted H1. PE has

direct and positive impact on RE (β = 0.222, p value < 0.01), KS (β = 0.375, p value <

0.001) and IB (β = 0.329, p value < 0.001) hence H2a, H2b and H2c are accepted.

PPAQ also has direct and positive impact on all three-dependent variable i.e. RE (β =

159

0.358, p value < 0.001), KS (β = 0.222, p value < 0.01) and IB (β = 0.265, p value <

0.01). The results provided support for the acceptance of Hypothesis 3a, 3b and

3c.The results are presented in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.1.

Table: 4.8 Results of Main effect model

Hypothesis Hypothesis Paths PathCoefficient’s T-values Accept/reject

significanceH1 PPAQ PE 0.468 5.978 Accept***

H2a PE RE 0.222 2.824 Accept**

H2b PE KS 0.375 5.283 Accept***

H2c PE IB 0.329 4.668 Accept***

H3a PPAQ RE 0.358 4.270 Accept***

H3b PPAQ KS 0.222 3.028 Accept**

H3c PPAQ IB 0.265 3.108 Accept**

PHSS RE -0.073 1.490 Insignificant

PHSS KS -0.072 1.576 Insignificant

PHSS IB -0.080 1.802 Insignificant

PHSS PE 0.034 0.679 Insignificant

Age RE 0.053 1.191 Insignificant

Gener RE 0.019 0.404 Insignificant

Age KS -0.012 0.256 Insignificant

Gener KS -0.003 0.064 Insignificant

Age IB 0.036 0.048 Insignificant

Gener IB -0.031 0.663 Insignificant

Note: IB=Innovative Behavior; KS=Knowledge Sharing; PPAQ=Perceptions ofPerformance Appraisal Quality; RE=Reflection; PE=Psychological Empowerment;PHSS=Perceptions HRM System Strength*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001

160

Note: t-values in parenthesisDirect Effect


Appraisal Quality


R2 = 0.218

ReflectionR2 = 0.258

KnowledgeSharing

R2 = 0.272

InnovativeBehaviorR2 = 0.266

Perceptions ofHRM System

Strength

Age

Gender

0.375 (5.283)0.468 (5.978)

-0.034 (0.679)

0.222 (3.028)

0.358 (4.270)

0.036 (0.848)

0.019 (0.404)

0.053 (1.191)

-0.031 (0.663)

-0.012 (0.256)

-0.003 (0.064)

0.265 (3.108)

Figure 4.1: A Main Effect Model

-0.073(1.490)

161

R2 value shows the predictive power or variance in dependent variable. The R2

value of 0.19, 0.33 and 0.67 in PLS models are assumed as weak, moderate and

substantial. As shown in Figure 4.1, the R2 value estimated for PE (mediating

variable) is 0.218. The R2 value for RE, KS and IB is 0.258, 0.272 and 0.266

respectively. Together, the results implied a satisfactory and substantial model.

4.8.2 Mediating Effect

The results are also analyzed for mediating relationship, whether PE mediates

the relationship between PPAQ and RE, KS and IB. The significance of the direct

relationships among construct is preliminary condition to test the mediation. This was

ensured by the evaluation of structural model results. The relationship between PPAQ

and PE was evident (β = 0.468, p value < 0.001). The relationship between PE and RE

(β = 0.222, p value < 0.01), KS (β = 0.375, p value < 0.001) and IB (β = 0.329, p

value < 0.001) also provided support for mediation analysis.

Indirect effect was examined using bootstrapping and 1000 bootstrap re-

sampling was used to calculate the significance of the indirect effect (Preacher &

Hayes, 2004; 2008). The point estimate of 0.104 (RE), 0.176 (KS) and 0.164 (IB) for

the indirect effect at 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for RE (0.030; 0.199),

KS (0.097; 0.284) and IB (0.079; 0.260) indicated that PE mediates the relationship of

between PPAQ and; RE, KS and IB. Because zero was not included in the confidence

interval, thus it can be said the indirect effects is significantly different from zero at

p<0.05, supporting Hypothesis 4a, 4b and 4c.

In next step the strength of indirect effects was analyzed which is the actual

strength of mediating effects. Indirect effects are the product of the direct effects

between independent and mediating variable and between mediating and dependent

variables. The path coefficient, t-value for direct effects (IV-DV, Mediator-DV) and

indirect effects (IV-Mediator-DV) are presented in Table 4.9 with level of

significance. The total effects were calculated by adding the direct effects (IV-DVs)

and indirect effects (IV-Mediator-DVs). The VAF was calculated by dividing the

indirect effect by total effect. The VAF provided the ratio (percentage) to determine

the strength of indirect effect.

162

The VAF value of lower than 0.20 (20%) is considered as no mediation, as

and higher than 0.80 (80%) is considered as full mediation. In between 0.20 (20%)

and 0.80 (80%) is considered as partial mediation. The VAF calculated for indirect

effects of RE, KS, and IB are 0.23 (23%), 0.44 (44%), and 0.37 (37%) respectively.

Since the VAF is greater than 20% but less than 80%, so affect is considered

as partial mediation. The estimation of mediation analysis including path coefficient

for direct and indirect effects with path coefficients, level of significance and VAF

ratio are presented in Table 4.9. The highlight of bootstrap results for RE, KS and IB

are presented in Table 4.10, Table 4.11 and Table 4.12 respectively.

Table 4.9: The mediating effect of Psychological Empowerment (IV = PPAQ)

Dependent

VariableObserved Path

Path

coefficientt-value Hypotheses VAF

Reflection

PPAQ RE 0.358 4.270***

H4a

(accepted)

0.23

(23%)PE RE 0.222 2.824*

PPAQ PERE 0.104 2.386**

Knowledge

Sharing

PPAQ KS 0.222 3.028**

H4b

(accepted)

0.44

(44%)PE KS 0.375 5.283***

PPAQ PEKS 0.176 3.598***

Innovative

Behavior

PPAQ IB 0.265 3.108**

H4c

(accepted)

0.37

(37%)PE IB 0.329 4.668***

PPAQ PEIB 0.154 3.332**

Note: IB=Innovative Behavior; KS=Knowledge Sharing; PPAQ=Perceptions of

Performance Appraisal Quality; RE=Reflection; PE=Psychological Empowerment;

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001

163

Table 4.10: Bootstrapping Results of the indirect effect (DV = Reflection)

PPAQ PEPath ‘a’

PE REPtah ‘b’

PPAQ PERE

Path ‘ab’

Sample 0 0.557 0.161 0.090

Sample 1 0.552 0.182 0.101

Sample 2 0.449 0.201 0.090

Sample 3 0.427 0.182 0.078

Sample 4 0.453 0.240 0.109

Sample 5 0.443 0.229 0.102

Sample 6 0.443 0.280 0.124

Sample 7 0.507 0.357 0.181

Sample 8 0.561 0.216 0.121

Sample 9 0.548 0.264 0.145

Sample 10 0.436 0.257 0.112

…………. ……….. ……….. ………..

Sample 999 0.429 0.231 0.099

Note: PPAQ = Perceptions of performance appraisal quality; PE = PsychologicalEmpowerment; RE=Reflection

Table 4.11: Bootstrapping Results of the indirect effect (DV = Knowledge Sharing)

PPAQPEPath ‘a’

PE KSPtah ‘b’

PPAQ PEKS

Path ‘ab’Sample 0 0.557 0.389 0.216

Sample 1 0.552 0.241 0.133

Sample 2 0.449 0.347 0.156

Sample 3 0.427 0.348 0.148

Sample 4 0.453 0.354 0.160

164

Sample 5 0.443 0.433 0.192

Sample 6 0.443 0.330 0.146

Sample 7 0.507 0.404 0.205

Sample 8 0.561 0.464 0.260

Sample 9 0.548 0.404 0.221

Sample 10 0.436 0.406 0.177

…………. ……….. ……….. ………..

Sample 999 0.429 0.412 0.177

Note: PPAQ = Perceptions of performance appraisal quality; PE = PsychologicalEmpowerment; KS= Knowledge Sharing

Table 4.12: Bootstrapping Results of the indirect effect (DV = Innovative Behavior)

PPAQ PE

Path ‘a’

PE IB

Ptah ‘b’

PPAQ PE IB

Path ‘ab’

Sample 0 0.557 0.269 0.150

Sample 1 0.552 0.318 0.175

Sample 2 0.449 0.329 0.148

Sample 3 0.427 0.265 0.113

Sample 4 0.453 0.350 0.158

Sample 5 0.443 0.308 0.136

Sample 6 0.443 0.370 0.163

Sample 7 0.507 0.427 0.216

Sample 8 0.561 0.389 0.218

Sample 9 0.548 0.370 0.207

Sample 10 0.436 0.395 0.172

…………. ……….. ……….. ………..

Sample 999 0.429 0.304 0.130

Note: PPAQ = Perceptions of performance appraisal quality; PE = PsychologicalEmpowerment; IB=Innovative Behavior

165

4.8.3 Moderating Effect

The moderating role of PHSS in the relationship between PPAQ and PE

(H5a), RE (H5b), KS (H5c), and IB (H5d) were analyzed in next step. It was

hypothesized that perceived HRM system strength positively influence these

relationships. The higher the PHSS higher the relationship between the two constructs

and vice versa. For this purpose, interaction effects have been calculated.

Consequently, bootstrapping procedure with 1000 bootstrap samples, no sign change

option, mean replacement for missing value, 300 iterations, Bias-Corrected and

Accelerated (BCa) Bootstrap for confidence interval were used to conduct the two-

tailed significance test with 0.05 significance level. The results for moderation

analysis i.e. path coefficient, t-value and significance level are presented in Table 4.13

and Figure 4.2.

Table 4.13. Results of PLS-SEM Moderation Model

Hypothesis Hypothesis PathPath

coefficientT-value

Accept/reject

significance

H5aInteraction 4

PE0.325 2.813 Accept**

H5bInteraction 1

RE0.251 2.153 Accept*

H5c Interaction 3

KS0.235 2.162 Accept*

H5b Interaction 2

IB0.283 2.707 Accept**

Note: RE = Reflection; IB = Innovative Behavior; KS = Knowledge Sharing; PE =

Psychological Empowerment; PHSS=Perceptions of HRM System Strength;

Interaction 1 = Interaction between RE and PHSS; Interaction 2 = Interaction

between IB and PHSS; Interaction 3 = Interaction between KS and PHSS; Interaction

4 = Interaction between PE and PHSS

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p<.001

166

Note: t-values in parenthesisDirect EffectModerating Effect


Appraisal Quality


R2 = 0.248

ReflectionR2 = 0.274

KnowledgeSharingR2 = 0.287

InnovativeBehaviorR2 = 0.286

Perceptions ofHRM System

Strength

Age

Gender

0.349 (4.762)0.456 (6.387)

0.015 (0.281)

0.228 (3.062)

0.364 (4.233)

0.045 (1.068)

0.019 (0.422)

0.061 (1.379)

-0.031(0.657)

0.005 (0.098)

-0.002(0.053)

0.271 (3.180)

Figure 4.2: Interaction Effect Model: Perceptions of HRM System Strength as a Moderator

0.325 (2.813)

0.235 (2.162)

0.283 (2.707)

0.251 (2.153)

167

4.8.4 Interaction

The Figure 4.2 and Table 4.13 show that the effects of PPAQ on PE (β =

0.456, p value < 0.001), RE (β = 0.364, p value < 0.001), KS (β = 0.228, p value <

0.01), and IB (β = 0.271, p value < 0.01) are significant with t- value of 6.387, 4.233,

3.062 and 3.180 respectively. The interaction of PHSS and PPAQ has also significant

and positive effect on PE (β = 0.325, p value < 0.01), RE (β = 0.251, p value < 0.05),

KS (β = 0.235, p value < 0.05), and IB (β = 0.283, p value < 0.01) are significant with

t- value of 2.813, 2.153, 2.162, and 2.707 respectively. Hence the hypotheses 5a, 5b,

5c and 5d for moderating role of PHSS were accepted. If the PHSS become higher

(i.e. PHSS is increased by one standard deviation point), this would imply that the

relationship between PPAQ and PE, RE, KS and IB would increase by the size of

interaction i.e. 0.781, 0.615, 0.463 and 0.554 respectively. The same kind of

interpretation holds for situation of lower PHSS (i.e. PHSS is decreased by one

standard deviation point). Hence, the positive effect of PPAQ on PE, RE, KS and IB

were stronger when PHSS was high. Similarly, when PHSS gets higher, PPAQ

became more important for explanation PE, RE, KS and IB. To determine the nature

of moderating effects, the slopes above and below the mean of PHSS has computed to

plot the interaction. Figure 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 shows the moderating effects of

PPAQ on other variables.

Figure 4.3: Interaction effect of PPHS on PPAQ and PE.

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Low Performance AppraisalQuality

High Performance AppraisalQuality

Psyc

holo

gica

l Em

pow

erm

ent

Low HRM System Strength High HRM System Strength

168

Figure 4.4: Interaction effect of PPHS on PPAQ and RE.

Figure 4.5: Interaction effect of PPHS on PPAQ and KS.

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5



Ref

lect

ion

on D

aily

Act

iviti

es


1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Kno

wle

dge

Shar

ing


169

Figure 4.6: Interaction effect of PPHS on PPAQ and IB

4.9 Effect Size (f 2) and Predictive Relevance (q2)

The change is R2 is explored to obtain the effect size f2. It allows evaluating

the size of impact that an exogenous variable have on endogenous variable. The

R2included and R2

excluded are calculated for main effect model as well as moderating

effect model. This was done by omitting the mediating variable (PE) from main effect

model and moderating variable (PHSS) from interaction effect model. The effect size

(f 2) of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represents small, medium and large effect an exogenous

variable has on endogenous variable.

Similarly, the change is Q2 is explored to obtain the predictive relevance q2.

Predictive relevance is the model’s capability to predict the effect. Blindfolding

procedures is used to determine the cross-validated measure (Q2) for mediating and

moderating variables.

We adopted the same procedure and Q2included and Q2

excluded are calculated for

main effect model as well as moderating effect model by omitting the mediating (PE)

and moderating (PHSS) variable form models respectively. The q2 value of 0.02, 0.15,

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5



Inno

vativ

e B

ehav

ior


170

and 0.35 represents small, medium and large predictive relevance of independent

variable in explaining the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2011).

4.9.1 f 2 and q2 for Main Effect Model

Firstly, the f 2 and q2 are calculated for main effect model to determine the effect size

and predictive relevance that PE have on RE, KS and IB. The values of effect size (f2) calculated for PE on RE (0.051), KS (0.150), and IB (0.113). The result shows PE

has small effect for RE and medium effects are evident for KS and IB.

Similarly, the predictive relevance (q2) value calculated for PE on RE (0.030), KS

(0.103), and IB (0.064) are all supporting. The result shows small predictive relevance

for RE and IB whereas KS has medium predictive relevance. The results for effect

size (f2) and predictive relevance (q2) are presented in Table 4.14 (RE), Table 4.15

(KS), and Table 4.16 (IB).

Table 4.14. Effect size and predictive relevance for mediating variable (DV =

Reflection)

Summary of

Results

R2

value

Q2

value

Path co-

efficient

f2 effect

size

q2 predictive

relevance

PPAQ PE

RE0.258 0.176 0.358,0.222

0.051 0.030

PB RE 0.220 0.151 0.462

Note: PPAQ = Perceptions of performance appraisal quality; PE = Psychological

Empowerment; RE=Reflection

f2 = R2incl - R2

excl / 1 - R2incl q2 = Q2

incl - Q2excl / 1 - Q2

incl

= 0.258 – 0.220 / 1- 0.258 = 0.176 – 0.151/1- 0.176

= 0.038 / 0.742 = 0.025 / 0.824

= 0.051 = 0.030

171


Knowledge Sharing)

Summary of ResultsR2

valueQ2 value

Path co-

efficient

f2 effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ PE KS 0.272 0.201 0.358,0.3750.150 0.103

PB KS 0.163 0.119 0.399


Empowerment; KS=Knowledge Sharing

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0.272 – 0.163 / 1- 0.272 = 0.201 – 0.119/1- 0.201

= 0.109 / 0.728 = 0.082 / 0.799

= 0.150 = 0.103


Innovative Behavior)

Summary of

Results

R2

valueQ2 value

Path co-

efficient

f2 effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ PE IB 0.266 0.168 0.358,0.3290.113 0.064

PB IB 0.183 0.115 0.329


Empowerment; IB=Innovative Behavior

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0.266 – 0.183 / 1- 0.266 = 0.168 – 0.115/1- 0.168

= 0.083 / 0.734 = 0.053 / 0.832

= 0.113 = 0.064

172

4.9.2 f 2 and q2 for Moderating Effect Model

Secondly, the f 2 and q2 are also calculated for moderating effect model to

determine the effect size and predictive relevance that PHSS have on PE, RE, KS and

IB. The values of effect size (f2) calculated for PHSS are, PE (0.041), RE (0.030), KS

(0.028), and IB (0.113). The result shows that PHSS has small effect for all variables.

The predictive relevance (q2) value calculated for PHSS on PE (0.023) RE (0.017),

KS (0.018), and IB (0.020). The q2 result shows small predictive relevance for PE and

IB. The q2 value of 0.17 for RE and 0.18 for KS is not substantially low therefore it

also implies small predictive relevance. The results for effect size (f 2) and predictive

relevance (q2) are presented in Table 4.17 (PE), Table 4.18 (RE), Table 4.19 (KS),

and Table 4.20 (IB).

Table 4.17. Effect size and predictive relevance for moderating variable HRM System

Strength (DV=Psychological Empowerment)


value

Q2

value

Path

co-efficient

f2

effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ, Interaction PE 0.248 0.158 0.456, 0.3250.041 0.023

PPAQ PE 0.217 0.139 0.466


Empowerment; Interaction = PPAQ*HR

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0.248 – 0.217 / 1- 0.248 = 0.158 – 0.139/1- 0.158

= 0.031 / 0.752 = 0.019 / 0.842

= 0.041 = 0.023

173


Strength (DV = Reflection)


value

Q2

value

Path

co-efficient

f2

effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ, PE, Interaction

RE0.274 0.187

0.364, 0.193,

0.251 0.030 0.017

PPAQ, PE RE 0.252 0.173 0.353, 0.225


Empowerment; Interaction = PPAQ*HR; RE = Reflection

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0.274 – 0.252 / 1- 0.274 = 0.187 – 0.173/1- 0.187

= 0.022 / 0.726 = 0.014 / 0.813

= 0.030 = 0.017


Strength (DV = Knowledge Sharing)


value

Q2

value

Path

co-efficient

f2

effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ PE, Interaction

KS0.287 0.212

0.228,

0.349, 0.235 0.028 0.018

PPAQ PE KS 0.267 0.198 0.217, 0.379


Empowerment; Interaction = PPAQ*HR; KS = Knowledge Sharing

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0.287 – 0.267 / 1- 0.287 = 0.212 – 0.198/1- 0.212

= 0.020 / 0.713 = 0.014 / 0.788

= 0.028 = 0.018

174


Strength (DV = Innovative Behavior)


value

Q2

value

Path

co-efficient

f2

effect

size

q2

predictive

relevance

PPAQ PE, Interaction

IB0.286 0.181

0.271, 0.297,

0.283 0.113 0.020

PPAQ PE IB 0.260 0.165 0.260, 0.333


Empowerment; Interaction = PPAQ*HR; IB = Innovative Behavior

f2 = R2incl - R2



incl

= 0. 286 – 0.260 / 1- 0.286 = 0.181 – 0.165/1- 0.181

= 0.026 / 0.714 = 0.016 / 0.819

= 0.036 = 0.020

Table 4.21. Decision about Hypotheses

S.No Hypothesis Decision

Hypothesis 1There is direct, positive and significant relationship

between PPAQ and PE.Accepted

Hypothesis 2There is a direct, positive and significant relationship

between PE and RE (2a), KS (2b), and IB (2c).Accepted

Hypothesis 3There is a direct, positive and significant relationship

between PPAQ and RE (3a), KS (3b), and IB (3c).Accepted

Hypothesis 4PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and RE

(4a), KS (4b), and IB (4c).Accepted

Hypothesis 5PHSS moderates the positive relationship between

PPAQ and PE (5a), RE (5b), KS (5c), and IB (5d).Accepted

175

4.10 Control Variables

Two demographic (control) variables, age and gender were also included in

analysis of main effect model and interaction effect model. The results of both models

show that the relationships among the control variables and outcome variables (RE,

KS and IB) were small, unsystematic and nonsignificant (all p-value <.10). All

control variables failed to predict the outcome variables.

4.11 Summary

In the current chapter the data were analyzed, and results are reported. A total

of 377 questionnaires were filled and received. After the initial test for missing

values, outliers and collinearity test, 17 cases were omitted from further analysis. The

demographics are explained in terms of frequency, mean, standard deviation,

skewness and kurtosis. Two steps approach is used to test the reflective measurement

model and structural model. In reflective measurement model the internal consistency

reliability, composite reliability measures were established to ensure that the

indicators used in study are reliable. For convergent validity, value of average

variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs was well above the threshold level. The

tests like; Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT), Fornell-Larker and cross-loadings was

calculated and provided support for discriminant validity.

In next stage the main effect of structural model was examined. The results of

present study validate the quantitative finding that there is a direct and positive

relationship between PPAQ and PE, RE, KS and IB. It was also verified that PE has

direct and positive relationship with RE, KS and IB and the results were affirmative.

PE also received support from results for its mediating role in the relationship

between PPAQ and RE, KS and IB.

Further in interaction effect model, the moderating roles of PHSS was also

supported for PE, RE, KS and IB. The results of main effect model and interaction

effect model was examined in terms of their coefficient of determination (R2), path

coefficient (β), level of significance (t-value and p-value), effect size (f2) and

176

predictive relevance (q2). The results of the present study supported the study

hypothesis, and all were accepted.

In next chapter the results calculated here are discussed in more detail with

respect to objective of study, adopted methodology and literature. The discussion on

the results is much needed because the present study is of its first kind to link HRM

(content and process) with ILAs (RE, KS and IB) through PE.

177

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

178

5.1 Summary

Informal learning is an important workplace learning approach used by

workers to acquire tacit, or implicit, job knowledge and skills in the workplace

(Marsick, 2009). Informal and formal workplace modes of learning are described as

dichotomous anchors located on opposing ends of a workplace learning continuum

(Eraut, 2004, Noe, et al., 2013). Informal learning is characterized by the autonomous

actions of the learner who activates and engages workplace learning processes and

activities under terms and conditions of their choosing (Marsick & Watkins, 1990).

Reflecting on one’s actions or the actions of others, sharing knowledge and

experimenting with new techniques are examples of ILAs (Lohman, 2005; Jeon &

Kim, 2012).

Literature has identified different types of ILAs in which employees are

engaged and consensus has been found for three representative ILAs including; RE,

KS and IB (Jeong et al., 2018). Previous research demonstrated that different

individual, group and organizational level factors can inhibit or incite trigger for

individual learner to engage in ILAs (Noe et al., 2013; Cuyvers et al., 2016; Holly et

al., 2016; Hoekstra et al., 2009). The HRM in term of content (specific HR practice)

and process (HRM system) influence employees’ participation in ILAs; including RE,

KS and IB (Bednall et al., 2014). This study examined the influence of PPAQ as

content of HRM on three ILAs (RE, KS and IB) with mediating (PE) and moderating

(PHSS) variables.

A comprehensive informal learning model combining HRM content (PPAQ)

and HRM process (PHSS), are linked to three ILAs (RE, KS and IB) in which faculty

members of HEIs are engaged through PE (psychological perspective). The key

empirical findings from this study support previous research (Bednall et al., 2014) that

reported the influence of HRM on ILAs. This chapter summarizes the research,

presents findings and discussion, theoretical contribution and practical implication are

discussed.

179

5.1.1 Research Design

A correlational research design, using partial least squares, structural equation

modeling was used to analyze the data in this study. A single instrument, measuring

eleven constructs, comprised of 51 items including 7 demographic questions, was

administered personally to collect responses from the participants. The principle

research question examined the extent to which the participation in ILAs is better

explained through HRM content and process and PE. The purpose was to examine the

influence that this combination of factors promotes participation in ILAs.

The dependent variable, informal learning in this study was defined as the

activities like; RE, KS and IB activities in which employees are engaged. Independent

variable included employee PPAQ. PE and PHSS was studied as mediating and

moderating variables respectively. The RE (four-item) and KS (four-item) scales were

adapted from Van Woerkom (2003) in this study. A five-item scale was adapted from

De Jong and Den Hartog (2005) to measure IB. A three-item scale was adapted from

Bednall et al. (2014) to measure the PPAQ. A twelve-item scale was adapted from

Spreitzer (1995) to measure the PE.

The research questions in this study included:

1. Does PPAQ impact PE?

2. Does PE impact ILAs including; RE (2a), KS (2b) and IB (2c)?

3. Does PPAQ impact ILAs including; RE (3a), KS (3b) and IB (3c)?

4. Does PE mediate the relationship between PPAQ and ILAs including; RE

(4a), KS (4b) and IB (4c)?

5. Does PHSS moderate the relationship PPAQ and PE (5a) and ILAs including;

RE (5b), KS (5c) and IB (5d)?

5.1.2 Population and Sample

Pakistani higher education institutes/universities were selected for current

study. The self-administered questionnaire and data from 12 public sector

universities/institutes of Islamabad region was collected. A total of 600 questionnaires

were distributed among the faculty members of selected DAIs and 377 questionnaires

180

were filled and returned. The final response rate, after excluding the 17 responses in

preliminary analysis, was 60% (360). In a sample of 360, 59.3% participants were

male and 40.7% were female. In terms of job position the sample of faculty members

was established from 25 research associates (7%), 183 lecturers (51%), 132 assistant

professors (37%), 16 associate professors (4%) and 4 professors (1%). From

respondent’s qualification, the 211 were having master’s degree (58.6%), 102 were

holding doctoral degree (28.3) and 47 were having post-doctoral qualification

(13.1%). In term of age 53.6% are in the age bracket of 30-40 years. The tenure shows

55% are in 1-5 years and 33% are in 6-10 years of service in current organization.

5.1.3 Instrumentation

The faculty members completed a five-part questionnaire. The first part

included scales of ILAs i.e. RE, KS and IB. The second part of the questionnaire

measured PPAQ. The PE and PHSS were measured in third and fourth part of the

questionnaire. Participants responded using a five-point frequency scale, ranging from

1= “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”. The fifth part of the questionnaire

contains the 7 items measuring demographics of the sample.

5.1.4 Scale Reliability

Scale reliability for the current study was examined by calculating the

composite reliability for each construct. The composite reliability value for PPAQ

(0.912), meaning (0.957), competence (0.951), self-determination (0.955), impact

(0.855), PE (0.965), distinctiveness (0.939), consistency (0.947), consensus (0.957),

PHSS (0.965), RE (0.921), KS (0.947) and IB (0.924) are well above the threshold

level.

5.2 Findings

This section presents research findings organized by the five principal research

questions. The overall objective of the research was to present a comprehensive

model to study the effect of HRM on ILAs. The findings are generalizable to faculty

181

members of the HEIs and other employee working in different sectors where learning

is considered obligatory.

Research Question 1: Does PPAQ impact PE?

We demonstrated that PPAQ have a direct, positive and significant

relationship with PE. This finding is consistent with previous research having same

nature of relationship between HR practices and different individual level attitudes

(Takeuchi et al., 2009) and specifically PE (Messersmith et al., 2011; Aryee et al.,

2012). HR practices psychologically empower and motivate employees (Lepak et al.,

2006; Liao et al., 2009) to effectively contribute towards organizations (Datta et al.,

2005; Ichniowski & Shaw, 1999). Performance appraisal quality does the same by

creating a sense of empowerment and self-efficacy beliefs among employees (Conger

& Kanungo, 1988). The organizations should design and implement such HR

practices that provide autonomy to employee in their work and decisions.

Research Question 2: Does PE impact ILAs including; RE (2a), KS (2b)

and IB (2c)?

First, we demonstrated that PE positively influences RE. This relationship

confirms the proposition of HR system strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) and

social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The underlying premise of these theories

postulate that an individual’s behavior is the result of psychological mechanism and

psychological climate. Reflection is an intuitive mode of cognitions (Eraut, 2004). It

refers to the recognition of strength by the employee and defining the development

areas, monitoring the progress and bringing change in personal behavior to eliminate

the perceived challenges (Parsons & Stephenson, 2005). Psychologically empowered

individuals build competency in employee to affect their job by showing reflection on

their daily activities.

Second, we demonstrated that PE positively influences KS. It is proven that

PE has a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior that leads to

organizational performance (Messersmith et al., 2011). The results are consistent with

previous studies (Seibert et al., 2011; Ozbebek & Kilicarslan 2011; Srivastava et al.,

182

2006) and concluded that employee share the knowledge if they are psychologically

empowered. This finding is also consistent with study conducted in service business

(Ozbebek & Kilicarslan 2011) where employees frequesntly share their tacit

knowledge among colleague.

In addition, we established the link between PE and IB. This judgment

supports the premise of empowerment theory (Spreitzer, 2008) that PE plays an active

role in shaping employees’ behaviors (Choi, 2007; Yoo et al., 2017; Laschinger et al.,

2001) This result is consistent with previous research (Spretizer, 1995; Knol &

Linger, 2009; Ayoub et al., 2018). The PE influences individual behavior in

meaningful way (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Wang et al., 2014) and enhances

performance (Linden et al., 2000). The organizations should empower employee for

adopting new knowledge, techniques and process in their work for improvement and

innovation.

Research Question 3: Does PPAQ impact ILAs including; RE (3a), KS (3b)

and IB (3c)?

The study established the empirical link between PPAQ and ILAs including;

RE, KS and IB. These findings support the claim that HR practices plays active role

in shaping individual attitudes and behaviors (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2012;

Shipton et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2010). The results are consistent with previous

research (Bednall et al., 2014) by demonstrating the positive relationship between

PPAQ and ILAs including; RE, KS and IB. When employees perceive the quality in

performance appraisal they tend to be more innovative at work by adopting the new

skills, techniques and practices (Bednall et al., 2014). The supervisors should

regularly hold the performance appraisal meeting with their subordinates and openly

communicate the feedback to them will ensure quality and stimulate IL in employees.

Research Question 4: Does PE mediate the relationship between PPAQ

and ILAs including; RE (4a), KS (4b) and IB (4c)?

We also demonstrated that PE mediates the relationship between PPAQ and

ILAs; RE, KS and IB. As per our knowledge this is first of its kind to investigate the

183

mediating role of PE in underlying relationships. These results found consistency with

previous studies (Messersmith et al., 2011; Seibert et al., 2011; Phung et al., 2017;

Aryee et al., 2012) that examined the mediating role of PE in similar type of

relationship between different HR practices and employees’ behaviors.

The judgment also finds support from the assertion of Barron & Kenny (1986)

that PE can be studied as a psychological mechanism for explaining behavioral

outcomes. This shows that the individual task is important with respect to its impact

on other employees and organization. They feel themselves competent for assigned

tasks and empowered to make decisions. The employees take active part in innovation

by depicting IB when they are psychologically empowered through the quality of

performance appraisal and feedback process.

Research Question 5: Does PHSS moderate the relationship PPAQ and PE

(5a) and ILAs including; RE (5b), KS (5c) and IB (5d)?

Furthermore, the study established the moderating role of PHSS. First, we

demonstrated that PHSS strengthening the relationship between PPAQ and PE. As per

our understanding and knowledge this study is first of its type to empirically

investigate such affect. The only theoretical support is the multilevel framework of

Ostroff and Bowen (2000) in which they posed that strength of HR system can be the

moderator on psychological climate at individual level. Second, we also demonstrated

that the relationships between PPAQ and ILAs including; RE, KS and IB are

strengthened by PHSS. This is consistent with previous research (Bednall et al.,

2014). The results find an incremental effect of PHSS on PE and ILAs.

5.3 Discussion

A detailed discussion is provided on the main objective of this research under

this Section. The main objective of this research was to propose a comprehensive

model linking HRM with performance. The missing links are known as ‘black box’ in

the literature. To understand the relationship between HRM and performance the

theory about HRM and performance is first summarized in literature review. The links

between HRM and performance has created by taking the proxies i.e. PPAQ and

184

PHSS as an abstract level HRM and ILAs (RE, KS and IB) as the performance

indicators (Bednall et al., 2014; Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). This Section also provides

the in-depth discussion on the mediating role of PE and the moderating role of PHSS

in strengthening the relationship. This is in reply to Guest (1997) call for theory

refinement.

The area of HRM has researched from different perspectives which generated

different theoretical debates. The literature shows that the best-fit and best-practice

approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The best-fit approach has the

advantage of internal and external fit which is considered as a source of competitive

advantage. However, there is a lack of consensus among the researcher on the

practices that constitutes HRM system under best-fit approach. Additionally, this

approach lacks in its empirical validation as well (Wright & Gardner, 2000).

Conversely, the best-practice approach is supported by empirical research and

proposes that a set of HRM practices produce the same results regardless of other

factors i.e. context (Pfeffer, 1994). The best-practice approach also criticized for

having the same effect on different organizational performance. The both best-fit and

best-practice approaches have disadvantages and lack the consensus among

researcher. This created the space for third theoretical approach in conceptualizing

HRM. The abstract-level HRM is proposed by Becker and Gerhart (1996). Under this

approach the HR practices are classified into four main groups (Boselie et al., 2015).

The abstract-level HRM eliminates the differences between the other two approaches.

So, the current study was designed to research the HRM at abstract level rather than

best-fit or best-practice.

Additionally, the other debate in HRM literature is to study the individual

HRM practices or study the system of HRM. The individual HRM practices were the

focus of research in 1990 (e.g. Gerhart & Milkovich, 1990) which was later

challenged for its validity (Katou, 2012). The main argument developed was that the

individual HRM practice cannot operate is isolation. It is suggested that these

practices operate in combination or interaction with other practices. Employees

experience the different HR practice at same time. The more value is given to synergy

between these two approaches.

185

Moreover, the direct relationship between HRM and organizational

performance is criticized by many studies due to the ignorance of other contributing

variable (Wright & Gardner, 2000). The more clarity is needed to better understand

the HRM and performance relationship. The ‘black box’ issues are dealt through the

inclusion of possible intervening variables (mediating and moderating). In addition,

the more emphasis has been placed on the study of proximal variables or individual

level outcomes that affects the distal variable or organizational level outcomes

(Paauwe, 2009). These proximal variables are employees’ attitudes and behaviors. It

was found that the PE is more suitable positive attitude that studied as a mediating

variable.

Furthermore, the study of HRM performance relationship through the content

of HRM and mediating link is only half the solution to ‘black box’ mystery. The

process approach of HRM system is equally important. There are different

conceptualizations of HRM system strength in the literature. Under the process

approach the HRM system and its implementation plays a vital role in shaping the

human attitudes and behavior which ultimately leads to organizational performance

(Bednall et al., 2014; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The literature suggests that a well-

designed HRM system cannot produce the desired results if it is poorly implemented.

The employees’ perceptions of an HRM system in terms of its distinctiveness,

consistency and consensus are crucial. The system sends signals to employee about

the expected behaviors.

This study provides the empirical evidences on how abstract level HRM in

terms of content and process affect ILAs. The results of this study are important for

several reasons. First, the results indicated a statistically significant relationship

among PPAQ and ILAs including; RE, KS and IB. This supports that ILAs are

influenced by organizational level contextual factors like PPAQ. This is in reply to

Bednall et al. (2014) for replicating the study in another context. Contextual factors

have been previously predicted to influence employees’ informal learning

engagement either positively or negatively (Ellinger, 2005).

Second, results indicate that PE is positively correlated to ILAs including RE,

KS and IB. These findings are important and extend our general understanding of how

186

HRM in terms of content and process influence informal workplace learning. In

addition, this is in line with the Dyer and Reeves (1995) suggestion that an HRM

system affect the organizational performance after affecting the proximal variables.

Unlike previous studies the current research is focused on only PE as the most

suitable under HRSS theory for HRM-organizational performance linkages (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004).

Lastly, results indicate that PHSS moderates the positive relationship of HRM

with PE and ILAs including; RE, KS and IB. This also addresses the issue of

integrating content and process approaches for better understanding of the HRM-

performance relationship. The employees’ perception of HRM system in terms of its

distinctiveness in presence, consistency in messages and consensus among the policy

maker, creates a strong climate. There was a main question that how strong HRM

system influences employees’ attitude and behaviors is addressed. It shows that HRM

system strength psychologically empower employees to display the required

behaviors i.e. ILAs for better performance (individual and organizational level).

The findings of this study account for 25, 27 and 26 percent variance in RE,

KS, and IB is explained by the relationship along with 22 percent variance is

explained by PPAQ in direct effect model. In interaction effect model the variance

reached to 27, 28, 28 and 24 percent for RE, KS, IB and PE respectively. These

results are concurrent with previous studies (e.g. Bednall et al., 2014; Messersmith et

al., 2011). Faculty members of HEIs are engage in ILAs to solve personal learning

needs while at work. The findings of this study confirm that organizational contextual

factors like PPAQ and PHSS interact with employee attitudes and behavior as

proposed by Bowen & Ostroff (2004).

The work conditions, social-relational and hierarchical are the contextual

factors that are related to informal and incidental learning process (Marsick &

Watkins, 1990). In addition, the findings also support the assertion of HR system

strength theory (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) for psychological factors influencing

attitudes and behavior. PE as an antecedent of ILAs has positive impact. The findings

of the study also specify the causal relationship of HR system strength theory that

187

HRM (content and process) do not directly influence the ILAs rather through the

psychological climate by psychologically empowering employee.

Among the examined variables, the predictive relationship of perceptions of

ILAs and PE was found to be statistically significant. This finding suggests that ILAs

like RE, KS and IB are influenced by psychological factors within organizational

context. This finding is consistent with relevant studies examining the relationships

between informal learning processes and organizational factors (Jeon & Kim, 2012;

Hoekstra et al., 2011; Doornbos, et al., 2008; Ellinger, 2005). The results of this study

also support previous research findings on informal learning for teachers (Lohman,

2005), public sector managers and supervisors (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013), HRD

professionals (Lohman, 2009), nurses (Bjørk et al., 2013) and police officers

(Doornbos et al., 2008).

Faculty members have asked to report their participation in three ILAs i.e. RE,

KS and IB. They reveal equal preference towards these activities. ILAs found equally

important for the profession of teaching and preferred collaborating with others

directly (Doornbos, et al., 2008). These three ILAs were adapted from the work of

Bednall et al. (2014) and were empirically validated for teachers in vocational training

schools. The faculty members operate independently in the classroom and it allows

more flexibility in term of time and choosing an informal learning path. Their role is

based on social interaction so there is no surprise of their engagement in ILAs.

5.4 Theoretical contributions

The study intends to examine the employee participation of ILAs from the

perspective of HR system strength theory and a conceptual model was developed. The

study succeeded in determining the relationships under HR system strength theory

which suggests that the employee attitudes and behavior are not directly shaped by the

HR practices. The role of HRM system strength and the role of psychological climate

are critical as they trigger such attitudes and behaviors. The study confirmed the

positive influence of PPAQ in determining employee participation in RE, KS and IB.

This study thus responds to the call of Bednall et al. (2014) for replicating the study in

another context and setting.

188

The current study makes several theoretical contributions. First, the study is

succeeded in establishing the theoretical and empirical link between HRM and

performance specifically, the content of HRM (i.e. PPAQ) and the process of HRM

(i.e. PHSS). The effect of psychological perspective i.e. PE is also established.

Previous studies (Aryee et al., 2012; Messersmith et al., 2011) studied the relationship

of HR practices and different employees’ attitudes and behavior. These studies were

conducted by taking the bundle or set of HR practices in which the impact of

individual practice cannot be determined. Performance appraisal was studied as a prat

of HR system. The other (e.g., Carless, 2004) studied performance appraisal in

combination or in isolation as a whole system where no distinction has been made

between different elements of performance appraisal like; satisfaction with

performance appraisal, accuracy in performance appraisal, reactions to performance

appraisal, effectiveness of performance appraisal and quality of performance

appraisal. The current study contributed in the literature by establishing the theoretical

and empirical link of employees’ PPAQ with PE which was focused less in literature.

In addition to this the current study succeeded in examining the mediating role

of PE in relationship between PPAQ (HRM) and ILAs (Performance) including; RE,

Ks and IB. To the best of our knowledge the relationship between PPAQ and PE is

emerging in literature but studies (Bednall et al., 2014) have been conducted on the

relationship between PPAQ and ILAs (RE, KS and IB). The mediating role of PE

underlying these relationships brings new insight by making additions in the

literature. The empowered employees participate in ILAs (RE, KS and IB). The

quality of performance appraisal plays an active role in promoting employees feeling

of PE at work.

Lastly, this study also contributed in theory by establishing the intervening

role of PHSS in relationship with PE. The moderating role of PHSS for ILAs (RE, KS

and IB) is evident (Bednall et al., 2014). The current study established the moderating

role of PHSS in relationship between PPAQ and PE. As per researcher knowledge this

study is the first of its kind to establish such relationship. The PHSS play active role

in empowering employee and consequently stimulating desired behaviors. This stems

189

the new directions of research in organizational behavior, HRM, HR practices and

performance appraisal.

5.5 Practical Implications

The results of the study also have some practical implications for multiple

stakeholders including, employees, managers, policy makers and researchers. The

employees’ participation in ILAs is imperative for sustainability of organizations. The

study is conducted in educational context and the faculty members are involved in

teaching and research.

First the positive affect of PPAQ on ILAs (RE, KS and IB) directly and

indirectly through PE calls for special attention. Given that PPAQ facilitate employee

in RE on daily activities, encourage KS and promote IB among faculty members,

organizations should develop such appraisal practices that ensure quality. It implies

that open communication policy must prevail and ensured through feedback.

The supervisor/head of the department is held responsible for improvement in

teaching and research. The performance appraisal needs to be supportive for

employee and it gives voice to the problems faced by the faculty members rather

practicing it as a monitoring mechanism. The supervisors are required to regularly

highlight the areas for improvement and change. This will change the employees’

perceptions of their performance appraisal and they consider quality in that. The

quality of performance appraisal implies that employee will respond positively by

adapting and engaging themselves in learning informally.

Secondly the HEIs and other organization need to psychologically empower

their employee in their work. It implies that they are empowered to bring innovation

in teaching and practice by adopting the new methods, techniques and technology;

sharing knowledge among colleagues and through reflection on their daily activities.

It will ultimately lead to better performance of faculty members in term of teaching

and research. RE, KS and IB in teaching generate new ideas and insights which

improve the performance of students and finally organizational performance is

improved.

190

Thirdly, the higher authorities or policy makers should device policies to

promote ILAs. The organization should provide assistance to employee with respect

to technological change. Training and continuous learning must be the focus of

policies in the field of education. The faculty members should be empowered to bring

positive change in their work, and organizations must recognize and reward them. It

will affect the performance of colleagues, groups and unit as well.

Lastly, the policies should be same at all levels or organizational hierarchy.

Especially with respect to HR policy the HRM system should send distinct and

consistent messages to employees. It will eradicate the biasness and favoritism. The

consensus regarding HR policies should be present at all levels of organization.

5.6 Limitations and Future Directions

The current studies carried out by having some limitations that offer

opportunities for future research. Firstly, the propose model and the results of the

study implies positive assertions however, it implied the cross-sectional design. The

longitudinal design will help to understand the changes in behavior over time can be

of interest. We followed the explanatory approach whereas mixed methods especially

sequential explanatory design in future is recommended to strengthen the current

findings.

Secondly, in current study the RE, KS and IB were assessed as unidimensional

construct. The exploration of different dimensions of these behaviors is interesting for

future research. It is suggested that the separate assessment for creation, promotion

and implementation of new idea should be made in future research. Similarly, current

study is only focused on single element of performance appraisal i.e. PPAQ. The

future study including other elements and HR practices in the model can be fruitful

for determining the role of HRM in ILAs.

Thirdly, we demonstrated preliminary investigation in which psychologically

empowerment partially mediates the relationship between PPAQ and ILAs. There is a

possibility of other factors that also mediate the relationship between the studied

constructs. The study focusing other behavioral/cognitive factors would be interesting

191

for future research like; job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover

intention. Similarly, the role of other moderating variables like organizational culture

and structural empowerment can be explored in future studies.

Lastly, the current study was conducted in a specific sector and the data was

collected from the specific group. The sample was the faculty members working in

twelve public sector universities of Islamabad, Pakistan. The same was not

highlighted in the title of this dissertation and we are unable to entertain the

suggestions of foreign examiner due to certain administrative constraints.

Additionally, trusting on one sector with similar firms/institutes/universities calls the

generalizability into question. The replication in future is invited to test the robustness

of the current model on different samples by involving more sectors and industries.

The future studies to undertake the comparative studies among public and private

sectors institutions/universities might be fruitful, as there might be different

orientation exists for ILAs.

5.7 Concluding Remarks

There are a countless number of opportunities for an employee to learn in the

workplace. Beyond the formal training that organizations provide to their employees

there are ILAs that can give an employee the chance to gain valuable knowledge. It is

an important means of acquiring tacit knowledge by the faculty members. ILAs can

be independent or collaborative, and include activities like; RE, KS and IB. Scholars

generally agree that worker dependence on self-directed and autonomous learning

may not occur without the support from HRM system (content and process) within the

organization. The administrators and HR professional must ensure that their

supervisors understand their impact on the informal learning practices of their

employees.

The focus of this study was based on a conceptual framework developed by

Bowen & Ostroff (2004) and Ostroff and Bowen (2000). The current study

empirically demonstrated that the PPAQ have positive impact on employee

participation in ILAs including; RE, KS and IB in educational context. The feedback

and performance appraisal influences faculty members’ participation in ILAs. The

192

feedbacks encourage the teaching staff to take initiative and place value on knowledge

and skills acquisition. The PPAQ create supportive learning climate in which faculty

members are engaged in ILAs.

These relationships between PPAQ and ILAs are mediated by PE. The

combination of socio-cultural and psychological factors is useful in predicting

participation in ILAs. The psychological climates where employees are empowered to

take decisions at their own facilitate participation.

Further we found that the PHSS moderate the relationship between PPAQ and;

PE, RE, KS and IB. The institutes/universities and supervisor/manager of different

department are advised to stimulate ILAs by bringing quality in performance

appraisal and by empowering employees. It implies that the HEIs should development

such policies and practices that forester RE, KS and IB. It is meant compulsory for

organizational growth, development and sustainability. This will lead to improved

performance at individual, unit and organizational level.

193

REFERENCES

194

Aalbers, R., Dolfsma, W., & Koppius, O. (2014). Rich Ties and Innovative Knowledge Transfer withina Firm. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 833-848.

Abzari, M., Labbaf, H., Atafar, A., Talebi, H., Moazami, M., & Teimouri, H. (2011). Comparativeanalysis of challenges of organizational culture scope in two private and public sectors of Iran’spetrochemical industry and its impact on effectiveness of human resource managementpractices’. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 1480-1490.

Adnan, Z., Abdullah, H. S., & Ahmad, J. (2011). Direct influence of human resource managementpractices on financial performance in Malaysian R&D companies. World Review of BusinessResearch, 1(3), 61-77.

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams,Organizations, and Society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.

Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracingperformance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 139–145.

Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource management practices onoperational performance: recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of operationsManagement, 21(1), 19-43.

Ahmed, A., Hussain, I., Ahmed, S., & Akbar, M. F. (2010). Performance appraisals impact onattitudinal outcomes and organisational performance. International Journal of Business andManagement, 5(10), 62.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Alola, U., Avci, T., & Ozturen, A. (2018). Organization Sustainability through Human ResourceCapital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability, 10(8), 2610.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. HachetteUK.

Amenumey, E. K., & Lockwood, A. (2008). Psychological climate and psychological empowerment:an exploration in a luxury UK hotel group. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 265-281.

Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., & Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical Perspectives on Learning in an InformalSetting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 177-199.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on managingknowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. ManagementScience, 49(4), v-viii.

Argyris, C. (1957A). Personality and organization; the conflict between system and the individual.

Argyris, C. (1957B). The individual and organization: Some problems of mutualadjustment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-24.

195

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Approach. Reading,MA: Addision Wesley.

Ariyani, N., & Hidayati, S. (2018). Influence of Transformational Leadership and Work Engagementon Innovative Behaviour. Etikonomi, 17(2), 275-284.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Seidu, E. Y. M., & Otaye, L. E. (2012). Impact of High-PerformanceWork Systems on Individual- and Branch Level Performance: Test of a Multilevel Model ofIntermediate Linkages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 287-300.

Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The Experience of Powerlessness in Organizations. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 207-242.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000). Shop FloorInnovation: Facilitating the Suggestion and Implementation of Ideas. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.

Ayoub, D., Al-Akhras, D., Na’anah, G., & Al-Madadha, A. (2018). The Relationship BetweenPsychological Empowerment and Creative Performance of Employees: Mediating Effect of JobSatisfaction in International Non-Governmental Organizations European Scientific Journal,14(20), 217-239.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher Learning in the Context of EducationalInnovation: Learning Activities and Learning Outcomes of Experienced Teachers. Learning andInstruction, 20, 533-548.

Balkar, B. (2015). The Relationships between Organizational Climate, Innovative Behavior and JobPerformance of Teachers. International online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2).

Baluch, A. M. (2017). Employee perceptions of HRM and well-being in nonprofit organizations:unpacking the unintended. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(14),1912-1937.

Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior Theory and the Models of Man. American psychologist, 29(12), 859.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of Cognitive Processes through Perceived Self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of Personal Agency through the Self-efficacy Mechanism. Self-efficacy:Thought Control of Action, 1, 3-37.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of SocialPsychology, 2(1), 21-41.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self‐efficacy Beliefs as Shapersof Children's Aspirations and Career Trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187-206.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,17(1), 99-120.

196

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The Role of HumanResources in Gaining Competitive Advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31-46.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in SocialPsychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Bartel, A. P. (1994). Productivity Gains from the Implementation of Employee TrainingPrograms. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 33(4), 411-425.

Bartel, A. P. (2004). Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: Evidence fromRetail Banking. Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 57(2), 181-203.

Batt, R. (2002). Managing Customer Services: Human Resource Practices, Quit Rates, and SalesGrowth. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 587-597.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic Human Resources Management: Where do We gofrom Here?. Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a Source of ShareholderValue: Research and Recommendations. Human Resource Management: Published inCooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and inalliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 36(1), 39-47.

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management on OrganizationalPerformance: Progress and Prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779-801.

Beckett, D., & Hager, P. (2005). Life, Work and Learning. Routledge.

Bednall, T. C., & Sanders, K. (2017). Do Opportunities for Formal Learning Stimulate Follow‐UpParticipation in Informal Learning? A Three‐Wave Study. Human ResourceManagement, 56(5), 803-820.

Bednall, T. C., Sanders, K., & Runhaar, P. (2014). Stimulating Informal Learning Activities throughPerceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Human Resource Management SystemStrength: A Two-Wave Study. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 45-61.

Bekele, A. Z., Shigutu, A. D., & Tensay, A. T. (2014). The Effect of Employees’ Perception ofPerformance Appraisal on their Work Outcomes. International Journal of Management andCommerce Innovations, 2(1), 136-173.

Bell, S. T., & Arthur Jr, W. (2008). Feedback acceptance in developmental assessment centers: the roleof feedback message, participant personality, and affective response to the feedbacksession. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 681-703.

Benkhoff, B. (1997). A test of the HRM model: Good for employers and employees. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 7(4), 44-60.

Bennett, E. E. (2012). A four-part model of informal learning: Extending Schugurensky's conceptualmodel. Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (Saratoga Springs, NY).

Berg, S. A., & Chyung, S. Y. Y. (2008). Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace.Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(4), 229-244.

Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, workengagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of HumanResource Management, 23(5), 928-951.

197

Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 7, 452-457.

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Why do Management Practices Differ Across Firms andCountries?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1), 203-24.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of Teacher Empowerment on Teachers’ OrganizationalCommitment, Professional Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior inSchools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277-289.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). A New Incremental Fit Index for General Structural EquationModels. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316.

Bolton, G. (2014). Reflective practice: Writing and Professional Development. (4th edn). London, SagePublications.

Bonias, D., Bartram, T., Leggat, S. G., & Stanton, P. (2010). Does Psychological EmpowermentMediate the Relationship Between High Performance Work Systems and Patient Care Quality inHospitals? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 319-337.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and Contradictions in HRM and PerformanceResearch. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.

Bos-Nehles, A. (2010). The line makes the difference: Line managers as effective HRpartners. Zutphen, The Netherlands: CPI Wöhrmann Print Service.

Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002). Separating the Developmental and Evaluative PerformanceAppraisal Uses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 391-412.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler III, E. E. (1992). The Empowerment of Service Workers: What, Why, How,and When. MIT Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 31.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler III, E. E. (1995). Empowering Service Employees. MIT Sloan ManagementReview, 36(4), 73-85.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–Firm Performance Linkages: The Role ofthe “Strength” of The HRM System. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2007). High‐performance work systems and organisational performance:Bridging theory and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 261-270.

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: progressingthe high involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), pp. 03-23.

Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management (2nd Edition). New York:Palgrave MacMillan.

Boxall, P., Ang, S. H., & Bartram, T. (2011). Analysing the ‘black box’ of HRM: Uncovering HRgoals, mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment. Journal of ManagementStudies, 48(7), 1504-1532.

Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New Zealand: Thecauses and consequences of leaving and staying with employers. Asia Pacific Journal of HumanResources, 41(2), 196-214.

Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the Performance Appraisal Experience.Personnel Review, 39(3), 375-396.

198

Bryman, A. (2012). Sampling in Qualitative Research. Social Research Methods, 4, 415-429.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Ethics in Business Research. Business Research Methods.

Bukowitz, W. R., & Williams, R. L. (1999). Looking Though the Knowledge Glass. CIO-FRAMINGHAM MA-, 13, 76-85.

Burns & Grove (1993) The Practice of Nursing Research, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia: Saunders.

Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learningdisabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 3-5.

Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Wang, T. S. (2013). How important are work–family support policies?A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 98(1), 1-25.

Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people managementpractices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720-735.

Campbell, D. J., & Campbell, K. M. (2001). Why individuals voluntarily leave: perceptions of humanresource managers versus employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 23-41.

Candy, P. C. (1989). Alternative paradigms in educational research. The Australian EducationalResearcher, 16(3), 1-11.

Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship betweenpsychological climate and job satisfaction?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 405-425.

Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative andquantitative methods. John Wiley & Sons, Australia.

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.

Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A.(2018). Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 33(2), 203-230.

Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A.(2017). Antecedents and Outcomes of Informal Learning Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journalof Business Psychology.

Cesário, F., & Chambel, M. J. (2017). Linking organizational commitment and work engagement toemployee performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 152-158.

Chan, D. C., & Austerb, E. (2003). Factors contributing to the professional development of referencelibrarians. Library & Information Science Research, 25(3), 265-286.

Chaudary, I. A., & Imran, S. (2012). Listening to Unheard Voices: Professional Development Reformsfor Pakistani Tertiary Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 88-98.

Chen, D., & Wang, Z. (2014). The effects of human resource attributions on employee outcomesduring organizational change. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(9),1431-1443.

199

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modernmethods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.

Chin, W. W. (2010A). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment. In Handbookof partial least squares (pp. 83-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Chin, W. W. (2010B). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares(pp. 655-690). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Chini, T. (2004). Effective knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Springer.

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change‐oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work environmentcharacteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,28(4), 467-484.

Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of Formal Learning, Personal Learning Orientation, andSupportive Learning Environment on Informal Learning. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 22(3), 239-257.

Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizationalknowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465.

Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. U. I. (2010). Strategic human resource management in service context:Taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers. PersonnelPsychology, 63(1), 153-196.

Clarke, N. (2004). HRD and the challenges of assessing learning in the workplace. InternationalJournal of Training and Development, 8(2), 140-156.

Clus, M. A. L. (2011). Informal learning in the workplace: A review of the literature. AustralianJournal of Adult Learning, 51(2), 355-373.

Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-Formal Learning: Mapping the ConceptualTerrain. A Consultation Report, 387-415.

Colvin, A. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2007). The problem of action and interest alignment: Beyond jobrequirements and incentive compensation. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 38-51.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practicesmatter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. PersonnelPsychology, 59(3), 501-528.

CONGER, J. A., & KANUNGO, R. N. (1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory andPractice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Cooper, D. R., & Emory, C. W. (1995). Business Research Methods, USA: Richard D. Irwin.

Cormier-MacBurnie, P., Doyle, W., Mombourquette, P., & Young, J. D. (2015). Canadian Chefs’Workplace Learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(6), 522-537.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.

Crick, R. D., Haigney, D., Huang, S., Coburn, T., & Goldspink, C. (2013). Learning power in theworkplace: the effective lifelong learning inventory and its reliability and validity and

200

implications for learning and development. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 24(11), 2255-2272.

Cross, J. (2011). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation andperformance. John Wiley & Sons.

Crouse, P., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators andoutcomes: a qualitative study among human resource management practitioners. HumanResource Development International, 14(1), 39-55.

Crouse, P., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators andoutcomes: a qualitative study among human resource management practitioners. HumanResource Development International, 14(1), 39-55.

Cseh, M. Managerial Learning in the Transition to a Free Market Economy in Romanian PrivateCompanies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens, 1998.

Cseh, M., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1999). Informal and incidental learning in the work-place.In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptualconsiderations (pp. 59–74). MuNster, Germany: Waxman.

Cunningham, J., & Hillier, E. (2013). Informal Learning in The Workplace: Key Activities andProcesses. Education+ Training, 55(1), 37-51.

Cuyvers, K., Donche, V., & Van den Bossche, P. (2016). Learning beyond graduation: exploring newlyqualified specialists’ entrance into daily practice from a learning perspective. Advances inHealth Sciences Education, 21(2), 439-453.

Daileyl, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of jobdissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305-317.

Darehzereshki, M. (2013). Effects of Performance Appraisal Quality on Job Satisfaction inMultinational Companies in Malaysia. International Journal of Enterprise Computing andBusiness Systems, 2(1).

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human Resource Management and LaborProductivity: Does Industry Matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), pp. 135–145.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what theyknow. Harvard Business Press.

De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2005). Determinanten van innovatief gedrag: een onderzoekonder kenniswerkers in het MKB. Gedrag & Organisatie, 18(5), 235-259.

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity andInnovation Management, 19(1), 23-36.

De Winne, S., Delmotte, J., Gilbert, C., & Sels, L. (2013). Comparing and explaining HR departmenteffectiveness assessments: Evidence from line managers and trade union representatives. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1708-1735.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B., & Duemer, L. (2003). Structural antecedents and psychological correlates ofteacher empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 257-277.

201

Deepa, M. E., Palaniswamy, D. R., & Kuppusamy, D. S. (2014). Effect of Performance AppraisalSystem in Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Productivity. ContemporaryManagement Research, 8(1), 72 - 82.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy ofmanagement Journal, 39(4), 802-835.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39(4), 802-835.

Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations:Review, synthesis, and extension. In Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement (pp. 165-197). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Delmotte, J., Winne, S. D., & Sels, L. (2012). Toward an assessment of perceived HRM systemstrength: scale development and validation. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 23(7), 1481-1506.

Denisi, A. S., & Griffin, R. W. (2005). HRM: An Introduction. Cengage Learning India PrivateLimited, New Delhi, 246.

DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance Appraisal, Performance Management andImproving Individual Performance: A Motivational Framework. Management and OrganizationReview, 2(2), 253-277.

DeNisi, A. S., & Sonesh, S. (2011). The appraisal and management of performance at work. In S.Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbooks in Psychology. APA handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 255-279).Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

DeNisi, A. S., Wilson, M. S., & Biteman, J. (2014). Research and practice in HRM: A historicalperspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3), 219-231.

Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2),5-22.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigms and perspectives in transition. Handbook ofQualitative Research, 2, 157-162.

Dessler, G. (2006). A Framework for Human Resource Management. Pearson Education India.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educationalprocess. Lexington, MA: Heath, 35(64), 690-698.

Dewey, J. (1938). 1963. 2007. Experience and education.

Di Milia, L., & Birdi, K. (2010). The relationship between multiple levels of learning practices andobjective and subjective organizational financial performance. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 31(4), 481-498.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Riefler, P. (2011). Using formative measures in international marketingmodels: a cautionary tale using consumer animosity as an example. In Measurement andResearch Methods in International Marketing (pp. 11-30). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

202

Dijkstra, Theo (2010), “Latent Variables and Indices: Herman Wold’s Basic Design and Partial LeastSquares,” in Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications inMarketing and Related Fields, Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi, Wynne W. Chin, Jörg Henseler, andHuiwen Wang, eds., Berlin: Springer, 23–46.

Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know.Harvard Business School Press.

Doornbos, A. J., Simons, R. J., & Denessen, E. (2008). Relations between characteristics of workplacepractices and types of informal work‐related learning: A survey study among DutchPolice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 129-151.

Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M. L. V., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On‐the‐job innovation: the impact of jobdesign and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity andInnovation Management, 14(2), 129-141.

Dorenbosch, L., Reuver, R. d., & Sanders, K. (2006). Getting the HR Message Across: The Linkagebetween Line – HR Consensus and "Commitment Strength" among Hospital Employees.Management Revue, 17(3), 274-291.

Drucker, P. F. (1995). The New Productivity Challenge. Quality in Higher Education, 37, 45-53.

Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychologicalempowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 35(3), 413-433.

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and Managing A High‐Performance Knowledge‐SharingNetwork: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367.

Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human Resource Strategies and Firm Performance: What Do We Knowand Where Do We Need To Go?. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3),656-670.

Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation andorganizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1379-1391.

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2009). Inside the “black box” and “HRM”. International Journal ofManpower, 30(3), 220-236.

Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting: TheCase of “Reinventing Itself Company”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), 389-415.

Else Ouweneel, A. P., Taris, T. W., van Zolingen, S. J., & Schreurs, P. J. (2009). How taskcharacteristics and social support relate to managerial learning: Empirical evidence from Dutchhome care. The Journal of psychology, 143(1), 28-44.

Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal Learning and the Transfer of Learning:How Managers Develop Proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369-387.

Eraut*, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non‐formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 70(1), 113-136.

Eraut, M. (2002). Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. Routledge.

203

F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structuralequation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European BusinessReview, 26(2), 106-121.

Farndale, E., & Sanders, K. (2017). Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-culturallens. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 132-148.

Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation.

Feiz, D., Dehghani Soltani, M., & Farsizadeh, H. (2017). The effect of knowledge sharing on thepsychological empowerment in higher education mediated by organizational memory. Studies inHigher Education, 44(1), 3-19.

Ferguson, K. L., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2010). Human resource management systems and firmperformance. Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 471-494.

Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2012). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovativebehavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1),155-187.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory andresearch.

Fletcher, C., & Williams, R. (1996). Performance management, job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment1. British Journal of Management, 7(2), 169-179.

Flick, U. (2011). Mixing methods, triangulation, and integrated research. Qualitative inquiry andglobal crises, 132.

Flick, U. (Ed.). (2013). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage.

Fong, K. H., & Snape, E. (2015). Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment and employeeOutcomes: Testing a multi‐level mediating model. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 126-138.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.

Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in organizations:Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Managementstudies, 47(3), 455-482.

French Jr, J. R. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63(3), 181.

Frenkel, S. J., Li, M., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2012A). Management, organizational justice andemotional exhaustion among Chinese migrant workers: Evidence from two manufacturingfirms. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(1), 121-147.

Frenkel, S., Restubog, S. L. D., & Bednall, T. (2012B). How employee perceptions of HR policy andpractice influence discretionary work effort and co-worker assistance: evidence from twoorganizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4193-4210.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational change: Anexamination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 1-36.

204

Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge‐sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48(4),571-589.

Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Beginning to unlock the blackbox in the HR firm performance relationship: the impact of HR practices on employee attitudesand employee outcomes. CAHRS Working Paper Series, 75. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Geijsel, Femke P., Sleegers, Peter J. C., Stoel, Reinoud D., & Krüger, Meta L. (2009). The Effect ofTeacher Psychological and School Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers'Professional Learning in Dutch Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406-427.

Geisser, S. (1974). A Predictive Approach to the Random Effect Model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107.

Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensation andfinancial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 663-691.

Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2000). Measurement error in research on the humanresources and firm performance relationship: Further evidence and analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 53(4), 855-872.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further EducationUnit.

Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., & Vervecken, D. (2010). Influencing work-related learning: The role of jobcharacteristics and self-directed learning orientation in part-time vocational education. Vocationsand Learning, 3(3), 239-255.

Gilbert, C., Winne, S. D., & Sels, L. (2015). Strong HRM processes and line managers’ effective HRMimplementation: a balanced view. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 600-616.

Grant, R. M. (1996A). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capabilityas knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.

Grant, R. M. (1996B). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,17(S2), 109-122.

GROOT, E. D., JAARSMA, D., ENDEDIJK, M., MAINHARD, T., LAM, I., SIMONS, R.-J., &BEUKELEN, P. V. (2012). Critically Reflective Work Behavior of Health Care Professionals.Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 31(1), 48-57.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. HumanResource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook ofQualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.

Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and researchagenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.

Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: still searching for someanswers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3-13.

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2011). The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a ‘strong HRsystem’on organisational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 22(8), 1686-1702.

205

Guo, S., & Hussey, D. L. (2004). Nonprobability sampling in social work research: Dilemmas,consequences, and strategies. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(3), 1-18.

Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence fromNew Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190.

Habermas, J. (1981). Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press.

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squaresstructural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. Y. A., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). RE [2010]: MultivariateData Analysis. A Global Perspective.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: SAGEPublications Ltd.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal ofMarketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling:Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.

Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean Careers of the 21st Century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 8-16.

Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1996). Teaching/Learning Events in the Workplace: A Comparative Analysisof their organizational and Interactional Structure. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society: July 12-15, 1996, University of California, SanDiego (Vol. 18, p. 160). Psychology Press.

Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D. Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and knowledgesharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130-149.

Hancer, M., & George, R. T. (2003). Psychological empowerment of non-supervisory employeesworking in full-service restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1), 3-16.

Hancer, M., George, R. T., & Kim, P. B. (2005). An Examination of Dimensions of PsychologicalEmpowerment Scale for Service Employees. Psychological Reports, 97, 667-672.

Hansen, S., & Avital, M. (2005). Contributing your" wisdom" or showing your cards: A quantitativeinquiry of knowledge sharing behavior. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 342.

Haq, M. A. u., Usman, M., & Hussain, J. (2017). Enhancing Employee Innovative Behavior: TheModerating Effects of Organizational Tenure. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and SocialSciences, 11(3).

Harackiewicz, J. M., Sansone, C., & Manderlink, G. (1985). Competence, achievement orientation, andintrinsic motivation: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2),493.

206

Harley, B., Allen, B. C., & Sargent, L. D. (2007). High performance work systems and employeeexperience of work in the service sector: The case of aged care. British Journal of IndustrialRelations, 45(3), 607-633.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and socialcapital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal ofInformation Management, 33(2), 356-366.

Hauff, S., Alewell, D., & Hansen, N. K. (2017). HRM System Strength and HRM TargetAchievement—Toward A Broader Understanding of HRM Processes Human ResourceManagement, 56(5), 715-729.

Heathfield, S. (2007). Performance Appraisals Don't Work-What Does?. The Journal for Quality andParticipation, 30(1), 6.

Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based learning(WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15-27.

Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effectsbetween latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural EquationModeling, 17(1), 82-109.

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling ininternational marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing (pp. 277-319). EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited.

Herciu, L. (2015). Pakistan: Another BRICK in the wall. New York, NY: Thomson & Reuters.

Hetidrix, W. H., Robbins, T., Miller, J., & Summers, T. P. (1998). Effects of Procedural andDistributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover. Journal of Social Behavior andPersonality, 13(4), 611-632.

Hewett, R., Shantz, A., Mundy, J., & Alfes, K. (2018). Attribution theories in Human ResourceManagement research: a review and research agenda. The International Journal of HumanResource Management, 29(1), 87-126.

Hicks, E., Bagg, R., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2007). Canadian accountants: Examining workplacelearning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(2), 61-77.

Hj Ramli, N. H., Alavi, M., Mehrinezhad, S. A., & Ahmadi, A. (2018). Academic Stress and Self-Regulation among University Students in Malaysia: Mediator Role of Mindfulness. BehavioralSciences, 8(1), 12.

Ho, H. (2010). Theorizing HRM and (Firm) Performance Relationship from the Human NaturePerspective'. International Journal of Arts and Science, 3(7), 327-41.

Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher Learning in a Context of Educational Change: InformalLearning Versus Systematically Supported Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 76-92.

207

Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experienced teachers’informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 21(4), 276-298.

Holley, D., Santos, P., Cook, J., & Kerr, M. (2016). “Cascades, torrents & drowning” in information:seeking help in the contemporary general practitioner practice in the UK. Interactive LearningEnvironments, 24(5), 954-967.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper's guide. Maidenhead: Peter HoneyPublications.

Hooff, B. V. d., Schouten, A. P., & Simonovski, S. (2012). What one feels and what one knows: Theinfluence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 16, 148-158.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review offour recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity,and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.

Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (2000). Comment on “Measurement error in research on humanresources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effectsizeestimates?” by Gerhart, Wright, Mc Mahan, and Snell. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 835-854.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resourcesmanagement effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40(1), 171-188.

Hyde, K. F. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative marketresearch: An international journal, 3(2), 82-90.

Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (1999). The effects of human resource management systems on economicperformance: An international comparison of US and Japanese plants. ManagementScience, 45(5), 704-721.

Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource managementpractices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 291-313.

Inkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategicalliances. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4), 69-80.

Iorga, M., Dondas, C., & Zugun-Eloae, C. (2018). Depressed as Freshmen, Stressed as Seniors: TheRelationship between Depression, Perceived Stress and Academic Results among MedicalStudents. Behavioral Sciences, 8(8), 70.

Jacobs, R. (2003). Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertise in the workplace.Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A Proposed Conceptual Framework of Workplace Learning:Implications Development for Theory Development and Research in Human Resource. HumanResource Development Review, 8(2), 133-150.

Jain, K. K. (2005). Knowledge sharing–role of human resource management. Indian Journal ofTraining and Development, 35(4).

208

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative workbehaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.

Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employeeinnovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 573–579.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and groupinnovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 129-145.

Javed, B., Khan, A. A., Bashir, S., & Arjoon, S. (2017). Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: therole of psychological empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(8), 839-851.

Jayaram, J., Droge, C., & Vickery, S. K. (1999). The impact of human resource management practiceson manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 18(1), 1-20.

Jeon, K. S., & Kim, K. N. (2012). How do organizational and task factors influence informal learningin the workplace?. Human Resource Development International, 15(2), 209-226.

Jeon, K. S., & Kim, K.-N. (2012). How do organizational and task factors influence informal learningin the workplace? Human Resource Development International, 15(2), 209-226.

Jeon, S., Kim, Y. G., & Koh, J. (2011). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of-practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251-269.

Jeong, S., Han, S. J., Lee, J., Sunalai, S., & Yoon, S. W. (2018). Integrative Literature Review onInformal Learning: Antecedents, Conceptualizations, and Future Directions. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 1-25. doi:10.1177/1534484318772242

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A., & Winkler, A. L. (2012A). Clarifying theconstruct of human resource systems: Relating human resource management to employeeperformance. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 73-85.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012B). How does human resource managementinfluence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediatingmechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294.

Johns, C. (2000). Becoming a reflective practitioner: A reflective and holistic approach to clinicalnursing, practice development and clinical supervision. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Jong, J. d., & Hartog, D. d. (2010). Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity and InnovationManagement, 19(1), 23-36.

Jong, J. P. J. d., & Hartog, D. N. D. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour.European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIScommand language. Scientific Software International.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982). Systems under indirect observation, Part II. North-HollandPublishing Company, Amsterdam, 68, 108.

Kamphorst, J. J., & Swank, O. H. (2018). The role of performance appraisals in motivatingemployees. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27(2), 251-269.

Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1-53.

209

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Kanter Men and Womenof the Corporation1977.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions forinnovation in organizations: Elsevier Science.

Katou, A. A. (2012). Investigating reverse causality between human resource management policies andorganizational performance in small firms. Management Research Review, 35(2), 134-156.

Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies and organisationalperformance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector. European ManagementJournal, 28(1), 25-39.

Katou, A. A., Budhwar, P. S., & Patel, C. (2014). Content Vs. Process In The HRM-PerformanceRelationship: An Empirical Examination. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 527-544.

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 131-143.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop asleaders. Corwin Press.

Kaufman, B. E. (2010). SHRM theory in the post‐Huselid era: why it is fundamentallymisspecified. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 49(2), 286-313.

Kaufman, B. E. (2015). The RBV theory foundation of strategic HRM: critical flaws, problems forresearch and practice, and an alternative economics paradigm. Human Resource ManagementJournal, 25(4), 516-540.

Keith, N., Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2016). Informal Learning and EntrepreneurialSuccess: A Longitudinal Study of Deliberate Practice among Small Business Owners. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 65(3), 515-540.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.University of Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review ofPsychology, 31(1), 457-501.

Kepes, S., & Delery, J. E. (2006). Designing effective HRM systems: The issue of HRM strategy. TheHuman Resources Revolution: Why Putting People First Matters, 55-76.

Khalid, M. M., Rehman, C. A., & Ashraf, M. (2011). Exploring the link between Kirkpatrick (KP) andcontext, input, process and product (CIPP) training evaluation models, and its effect on trainingevaluation in public organizations of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6(1),274-279.

Khan, Z. W., Tanveer, M., & Saleem, I. (2013). Analyzing Learning Environment: A ComparativeStudy of Public and Private Sector Schools of Pakistan. Journal of Management &Organizational Studies, 2(1), 49-54.

210

Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). ‘Intended’ and ‘implemented’ HRM: the missing linchpin in strategichuman resource management research. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 17(7), 1171-1189.

Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. EducationalLeadership, 48(6), 14-16.

Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement,Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior forSustainable Organizations. Sustainability, 9(2).

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in EducationalContexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.

Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovativebehavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284-296.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: AHistorical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of structural and psychologicalempowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 359-370.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes ofempowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & OrganizationManagement, 24(1), 71-91.

Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: Anillustration and recommendations.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development.

Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (2007). The Expanding Role of Workplace Training: Themes and TrendsInfluencing Training Research and Practice. (L. L. Koppes ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one'sown incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77(6), 1121.

Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149-170.

Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professionaldevelopment: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Reviewof Educational Research, 86(4), 1111-1150.

Kyndt, E., & Baert, H. (2013). Antecedents of Employees’ Involvement in Work Related Learning: ASystematic Review. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 273-313.

Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplacelearning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 369-383.

211

Kyndt, E., Govaerts, N., Verbeek, E., & Dochy, F. (2013). Development and validation of aquestionnaire on informal workplace learning outcomes: A study among socio-educational careworkers. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(8), 2391-2410.

Lai, H. J., Wu, M. L., & Li, A. T. (2011). Adults' participation in informal learning activities: Keyfindings from the adult education participation survey in Taiwan. Australian Journal of AdultLearning, 51(3), 409.

Lai, H. J., Wu, M. L., & Li, A. T. (2011). Adults' participation in informal learning activities: Keyfindings from the adult education participation survey in Taiwan. Australian Journal of AdultLearning, 51(3), 409.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of structural andpsychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’smodel. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(5), 260-272.

Lawler III, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization.

Lawler III, E. E. (1994). From job‐based to competency‐based organizations. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 15(1), 3-15.

Lawler, P. A. (2003). Teachers as adult learners: A new perspective. New Directions for Adult andContinuing Education, 2003(98), 15-22.

Ledoux, K., Forchuk, C., Higgins, C., & Rudnick, A. (2018). The effect of organizational and personalvariables on the ability to practice compassionately. Applied Nursing Research, 41, 15-20.

Lee Endres, M., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K., & Alam, I. (2007). Tacit knowledge sharing, self-efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community. Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 11(3), 92-103.

Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizationalperformance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Managementinformation systems, 20(1), 179-228.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationshipsamong human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal ofManagement, 28(4), 517-543.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resourcemanagement systems in strategic human resource management research. In Research inPersonnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 217-271). Emerald Group PublishingLimited.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers (DK Adams & KE Zener,Trans.). New York: McGraw.

Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. M. (2000). Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Li, J., Brake, G., Champion, A., Fuller, T., Gabel, S., & Hatcher-Busch, L. (2009). Workplace learning:the roles of knowledge accessibility and management. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4),347-364.

Li, X. (2010). From a process perspective: How an HRM system influences employee attitudes inChinese hotels. The University of New South Wales.

212

Li, X., Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process: how HR system andorganizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes. The International Journalof Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1825-1842.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management andemployee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on servicequality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371.

Liden, R. C., & Arad, S. (1996). A power perspective of empowerment and work groups: Implicationsfor human resources management research. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 14, 205-252.

Lilley, D., & Hinduja, S. (2007). Police officer performance appraisal and overall satisfaction. Journalof Criminal Justice, 35(2), pp. 137-150.

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. InternationalJournal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer Science &Business Media.

Lindeman, E. C. (1926). Andragogik: The method of teaching adults. Workers’ Education, 4(3), 8.

Linden, D. V. D., Keijsers, G. P., Eling, P., & Schaijk, R. V. (2005). Work stress and attentionaldifficulties: An initial study on burnout and cognitive failures. Work & Stress, 19(1), 23-36.

Ling, T. N., San, L. Y., & Hock, N. T. (2009). Trust: facilitator of knowledge-sharingculture. Communications of the IBIMA, 7(15), 137-142.

Liu, N. C., & Liu, M. S. (2011). Human resource practices and individual knowledge-sharingbehavior–an empirical study for Taiwanese R&D professionals. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 22(04), 981-997.

Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring The Icebergs Of Adult Learning: Findings Of The First CanadianSurvey Of Informal Learning Practices. WALL Working Paper, 19, 1-23.

Livingstone, D. W. (2001). Expanding notions of work and learning: Profiles of latent power. NewDirections for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(92), 19-30.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 1(10), 265-339.

Lodhi, S. A., & Ahmad, M. (2010). Dynamics of Voluntary Knowledge Sharing inOrganizations. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 4(2).

Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case study ofpublic-school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 83-101.

Lohman, M. C. (2005). A Survey of Factors Influencing the Engagement of Two Professional Groupsin Informal Workplace Learning Activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4),501-527.

Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers' engagement in informal learning activities.Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 141-156.

213

Lohman, M. C. (2009). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of information technologyprofessionals in informal learning activities. Information Technology, Learning, andPerformance Journal, 25, 43-53.

Lohmöller, J. B. (2013). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Springer Science &Business Media.

London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group Feedback for Continuous Learning. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 5(3), 303-329.

Longenecker, C. O., Sims Jr, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employeeappraisal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(3), 183-193.

Luan, J., & Serban, A. M. (2002). Technologies, products, and models supporting knowledgemanagement. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(113), 85-104.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement modelmisspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommendedsolutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710.

Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance work practices’ andemployee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects. The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 537-567.

Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2009). Employee well-being and union membership. New Zealand Journal ofEmployment Relations, 34(3), 14.

Mahmood, K. (2016). Overall Assessment of the Higher Education Sector. Higher EducationCommission (HEC): H-9, Islamabad, Pakistan, 1-80.

Majoka, M. I., & Khan, M. I. (2017). Education Policy Provisions and Objectives. A Review ofPakistani Education Policies. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(2).

Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formallearning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 313-318.

Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015). Formal andinformal learning in the workplace: a research review. International Journal of Training andDevelopment, 19(1), 1-17.

Marsick, V. J. (1988A). A new era in staff development. New Directions for Adult and ContinuingEducation, 1988 (38), 9-21.

Marsick, V. J. (1988B). Learning in the workplace: The case for Reflectivity and critical reflectivity.Adult Education Quarterly, 38(4), 187-198.

Marsick, V. J. (2009). Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research andpractice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 265-275.

Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The Nature and Need for Informal Learning. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 1(3), 1-9.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning.London: Routledge.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adultand Continuing Education, 2001(89), 25-34.

214

Marsick, V. J., Nicolaides, A., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Adult learning theory and application inHRD. Handbook of Human Resource Development, 40-61.

Marsick, V. J., Nicolaides, A., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Adult Learning Theory and Application inHRD (N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco & M. L. Morris ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and Practice of Informal learning in theknowledge era. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1 (3), 80-95.

Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M. W., & Volpe, M. (2006). Reviewing Theory and Researchon Informal and Incidental Learning. ERIC. online submission.

Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (1996). A framework for the learning organization. In Action: Creating theLearning Organization, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria VA, 3-12.

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: anempirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), pp. 97-108.

Maxwell, B. (2014). Improving workplace learning of lifelong learning sector trainee teachers in theUK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 377-399.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust formanagement: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123.

Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. AppliedPsychology, 50(1), 153-180.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: AComprehensive Guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking the BlackBox: Exploring the Link Between High-Performance Work Systems and Performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105-1118.

Mihail, D. M., & Kloutsiniotis, P. V. (2016). The effects of high-performance work systems on hospitalemployees' work-related well-being: Evidence from Greece. European ManagementJournal, 34(4), 424-438.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing Strategic Human Resources Systems (pp. 36-52).Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California.

Montani, F., Odoardi, C., & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovativework behaviour: Proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 87(4), 645-670.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examiningrelationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications ofcombining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 12(2), 423-452.

215

Mumford, A., & Honey, P. (1992). Questions and answers on learning styles questionnaire. Industrialand Commercial Training, 24(7).

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. HumanResource Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Nankervis, A., Miyamoto, Y., Taylor, R., & Milton-Smith, J. (2005). Managing Services. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nawab, A. (2011). Workplace learning in Pakistani schools: a myth or reality?. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 23(7), 421-434.

Neal, A., West, M. A., & Patterson, M. G. (2005). Do organizational climate and competitive strategymoderate the relationship between human resource management and productivity?. Journal ofManagement, 31(4), 492-512.

Neher, M. S., Ståhl, C., & Nilsen, P. (2015). Learning opportunities in rheumatology practice: aqualitative study. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(4), 282-297.

Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses schoolcapacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.

Ngari, J. M. K., & Ndirangu, L. N. (2014). Effects of Performance Appraisal Quality on Performanceof Employee in the Financial Sector: A Case of Investment Management Firms in Kenya.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: Amodel and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Nicol, J. S., & Dosser, I. (2016). Understanding reflective practice. Nursing Standard, 30(36).

Nilsson, S., & Rubenson, K. (2014). On the determinants of employment-related organised educationand informal learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 36(3), 304-321.

Nisbet, G., Dunn, S., & Lincoln, M. (2015). Interprofessional team meetings: Opportunities forinformal interprofessional learning. Journal of interprofessional care, 29(5), 426-432.

Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations: implications for strategichuman resource management. CAHRS Working Paper #07–02.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HRpractices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customersatisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503-545.

Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation indevelopment activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291.

Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the Twenty-First Century Workplace.The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1, 245-275.

Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & Dachner, A. M. (2010). Learner Engagement: A New Perspective forEnhancing Our Understanding of Learner Motivation and Workplace Learning. The Academy ofManagement Annals, 4(1), 279-315.

216

Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & Marand, A. D. (2013). Individual differences and informal learning in theworkplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 327-335.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing Flow: A Process Theory of the Knowledge-Based Firm. Springer.

O'Dell, C., & Grayson Jr, C. J. (1998). The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice: if only weknew what we know. New York, NY, 10020.

Omri, W. (2015). Innovative behavior and venture performance of SMEs: The moderating effect ofenvironmental dynamism. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(2), 195-217.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. HumanPerformance, 10(2), 85-97.

Orlitzky, M., & Frenkel, S. J. (2005). Alternative pathways to high-performance workplaces. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8), 1325-1348.

Orvis, K. A., & Leffler, G. P. (2011). Individual and contextual factors: An interactionist approach tounderstanding employee self-development. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 172-177.

Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizationaleffectiveness. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & K. J. Klein (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, andMethods in Organizations (pp. pp. 211–266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Reflections on the 2014 Decade Award: Is There Strength In TheConstruct Of Hr System Strength? Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 196-214.

Özbebek, A., & Toplu, E. K. (2011). Empowered Employees’ Knowledge SharingBehavior. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 3(2), 69-76.

Palaniammal, V. S., Iswarya, S., & Dr.B.Saravanan. (2016). Performance Appraisal System ofEmployees at Private Metals and Alloys Pvt. Ltd in Vellore. International Journal for Researchin Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 4(9), 173-179.

Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embeddingengagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 60-67.

Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: collaborationand critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 95-116.

Paul, R. J., Niehoff, B. P., & Turnley, W. H. (2000). Empowerment, expectations, and thepsychological contract-managing the dilemmas and gaining the advantages. The Journal ofSocio-Economics, 29(5), 471-485.

Peng, J., Zhang, G., Fu, Z., & Tan, Y. (2014). An empirical investigation on organizational innovationand individual creativity. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3), 465-489.

Pereira, C. M. M., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). The strength of human resource practices andtransformational leadership: impact on organisational performance. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 23(20), pp. 4301-4318.

217

Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systemsresearch. MIS Quarterly, 623-656.

Pfeffer, J., & Jeffrey, P. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. HarvardBusiness Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Villeneuve, F. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power ofthe work force (Vol. 61). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Phung, V. D., Hawryszkiewycz, I., Chandran, D., & Ha, B. M. (2017). Knowledge Sharing andInnovative Work Behaviour: A Case Study from Vietnam. Paper presented at the AustralasianConference on Information Systems, Hobart, Australia.

Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H.-G. (2014). Mind the Intended- Implemented Gap:Understanding Employees’ Perceptions Of HRM. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 545-567.

Pieterse, A. N., Knippenberg, D. v., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational andtransactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychologicalempowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), pp. 609-623.

Pifer, M. J., Baker, V. L., & Lunsford, L. G. (2015). Academic departments as networks of informallearning: faculty development at liberal arts colleges. International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 20(2), 178-192.

Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the Human Capital Resource: A MultilevelModel. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 127-150.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases inbehavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal ofapplied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

Polonsky, M. J., & Waller, D. S. (2018). Designing and managing a research project: A businessstudent's guide. Sage publications.

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐performance causalchain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leadershould consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37-49.

Rasheed, M. I., Aslam, H. D., Yousaf, S., & Noor, A. (2011). A critical analysis of performanceappraisal system for teachers in public sector universities of Pakistan: A case study of theIslamia University of Bahawalpur (IUB). African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3735-3744.

Reece, I., & Walker, S. (2016). Teaching, training and learning: A practical guide. Business EducationPublishers Ltd.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2017). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH,http://www. smartpls. com.

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A Technique thatWorks. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), pp. 89–98.

Rothwell, W., Lindholm, J., & Wallick, W. G. (2003). What CEOs expect from corporate training:Building workplace learning and performance initiatives that advance. New York: AMACOM.

218

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Sage Publications.

Rowe, A. D., & Fitness, J. (2018). Understanding the Role of Negative Emotions in Adult Learningand Achievement: A Social Functional Perspective. Behavioral Sciences, 8(2), 27.

Runhaar, P., & Sanders, K. (2016). Promoting teachers’ knowledge sharing. The fostering roles ofoccupational self-efficacy and Human Resources Management. Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership, 44(5), 794-813.

Ryua, S., Hob, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. ExpertSystems with Applications, 25(113-122).

Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology: A pragmaticparadigm. Handbook of Distance Education, 1, 3-20.

Sadegh, T. (2015). Introducing a Model of Relationship between Knowledge Sharing Behavior, OCB,Psychological Empowerment and Psychological Capital: A Two-Wave Study. American Journalof Applied Psychology, 4(4), 95-104.

Sagnak, M. (2012). The empowering leadership and teacher’s innovative behavior: The mediating roleof innovation climate. African Journal of Business Management, 6(4), 1635-1641.

Sanders, K., & Frenkel, S. (2011). HR-line management relations: characteristics and effects. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1611-1617.

Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2016). The HRM process approach: The influence of employees’ attributionto explain the HRM‐performance relationship. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 201-217.

Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & de Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual and shared employeeperceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. PersonnelReview, 37(4), 412-425.

Sanders, K., Shipton, H., & Gomes, J. F. (2014). Guest editors’ introduction: Is the HRM processimportant? Past, current, and future challenges. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 489-503.

Sarkar, A., & Singh, M. (2012). Non-work Domain Control as an Additional Dimension ofPsychological Empowerment of Women Teachers. Psychological Studies, 57(1), 86-94.

Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Aulakh, P. S. (2001). The influence ofcomplementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 358-373.

Saunders, M. N., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business & management: An essential guide toplanning your project. Pearson.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearsoneducation.

Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2011). Human resource management practices linkage withorganizational commitment and job satisfaction. Economics & Management, 16.

Schei, V., & Nerbo, I. (2015). The invisible learning ceiling: Informal learning among preschoolteachers and assistants in a Norwegian kindergarten. Human Resource Development Quarterly,26, 299-328.

Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

219

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner how professionals think in action.

Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey's legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2),119-139.

Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field.

Schürmann, E., & Beausaert, S. (2016). What are drivers for informal learning?. European Journal ofTraining and Development, 40(3), 130-154.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of IndividualInnovation in theWorkplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the Leader in R&D: The Joint Effect of SubordinateProblem-Solving Style and Leader-Member Relations on Innovative Behavior. IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 3-10.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: AMultiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, And Satisfaction. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47(3), 332-349.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and Consequences of Psychologicaland Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2003). Research methodology for business.

Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learningorganization. Performance+ Instruction, 30(5), 37-37.

Shahnawaz, M. G., & Juyal, R. C. (2006). Human resource management practices and organizationalcommitment in different organizations. Journal of the Indian Academy of AppliedPsychology, 32(3), 171-178.

Shantz, A., Arevshatian, L., Alfes, K., & Bailey, C. (2016). The effect of HRM attributions onemotional exhaustion and the mediating roles of job involvement and work overload. HumanResource Management Journal, 26(2), 172-191.

Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor ofinnovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3-27.

Sibaran, R. M., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., Putro, U. S., & Munir, N. S. (2015). The Influence ofmultigenerational workforce in effective informal team learning. Journal of Economics andBusiness Research, 21(2), 199-127.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. PersonnelReview, 29(6), 703-722.

Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learningin the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8-20.

Slatten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). What are the drivers for innovative behavior in frontline jobs?A study of the hospitality industry in Norway. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &Tourism, 10(3), 254-272.

Smith, M. (1987). Feedback as a performance management technique. Management Solutions. 32, 20-9.

220

Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational andpsychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational ResearchJournal, 25(1), 1-30.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: Therelationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-rolebehavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 649-659.

SPREITZER, G. (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership, empowerment, and peace.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1077-1095.

Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking Stock: A Review of More Than Twenty Years of Research onEmpowerment at Work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of OrganizationalBehavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement,and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social Structucal characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy ofManagement Review, 39(2), 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformationalleaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 237-261.

Spreitzer, G. M., Janasz, S. C. d., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to Lead: The Role ofPsychological Empowerment in Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511-526.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). Dimensional Analysis of the Relationshipbetween Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Strain. Journal ofManagement, 23(5), 679-704.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams:Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49(6), 1239-1251.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.

Stander, M. W., & Rothmann, S. (2009). Psychological empowerment of employees in selectedorganizations in South Africa. South Asian Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 196-203.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 111-147.

Strimel, G., Reed, P., Dooley, G., Bolling, J., Phillips, M., & Cantu, D. V. (2014). Integrating andmonitoring informal learning in education and training. Techniques: Connecting Education &Careers, 89(3), 48-54.

Stumpf, S. A., Doh, J. P., & Tymon Jr, W. G. (2010). The strength of HR practices in India and theireffects on employee career success, performance, and potential. Human ResourcesManagement, 49(3), 353-375.

Subramony, M. (2009). A Meta-Analytic Investigation of The Relationship Between HRM Bundlesand Firm Performance. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 745-768.

221

Sutherland Olsen, D. (2016). Adult learning in innovative organisations. European Journal ofEducation, 51(2), 210-226.

Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Åberg, C. (2004). Integrating formal and informal learning atwork. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 479-491.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the Looking Glass of A Social System: Cross‐Level Effects of High‐Performance Work Systems on Employees’ attitudes. PersonnelPsychology, 62(1), 1-29.

Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical examination of themechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance ofJapanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1069.

Tandung, J. C. (2016). The link between HR attributions and employees' turnover intentions. GadjahMada International Journal of Business, 18(1), 55.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal Learning andDevelopment in Organizations (S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas ed.). New York, NY, US:Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Taylor, S. S., Fisher, D., & Dufresne, R. L. (2002). The aesthetics of management storytelling: A keyto organizational learning. Management Learning, 33(3), 313-330.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods inthe social and behvioral sciences. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & BehavioralResearch, 3-50.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. ComputationalStatistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159-205.

Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational levelmeasures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 27-48.

Terry Kim, Taegoo, Gyehee Lee, Soyon Paek, and Seunggil Lee. "Social capital, knowledge sharingand organizational performance: what structural relationship do they have inhotels?." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25, no. 5 (2013): 683-704.

Thayer, F. C. (1987). Performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The disasters multiply. Review ofPublic Personnel Administration, 7(2), 36-53.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An "Interpretive"Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.

Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471.

Tikkanen, T. (2002). Learning at work in technology intensive environments. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 14(3), 89-97.

Toossi, M. (2009). Labor force projections to 2018: Older workers staying more active. Monthly LaborReview, 132(11), 30-51.

Torunn Bjørk, I., Tøien, M., & Lene Sørensen, A. (2013). Exploring informal learning among hospitalnurses. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(7), 426-440.

222

Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderatingrole of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation andratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied psychology, 92(3), 848.

Trust, T. (2017). Motivation, empowerment, and innovation: Teachers' beliefs about how participatingin the Edmodo math subject community shapes teaching and learning. Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, 49(1-2), 16-30.

Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Beaudin, G., & Marchand, S. (1998). Impact of RaterBeliefs Regarding Performance Appraisal And Its Organizational Context On Appraisal Quality.Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(4), 457-467.

Tzokas, N., & Saren, M. (2004). Competitive advantage, knowledge and relationship marketing: where,what and how?. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 124-135.

Úbeda-García, M., Marco-Lajara, B., García-Lillo, F., & Sabater-Sempere, V. (2013). Universalisticand Contingent perspectives on human resource management: an empirical study of the Spanishhotel industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), 26-51.

Uner, S., & Turan, S. (2010). The construct validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Spreitzer'spsychological empowerment scale. BMC public health, 10(1), 117.

Van Baalen, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., & Van Heck, E. (2005). Knowledge Sharing in an EmergingNetwork of Practice: The Role of a Knowledge Portal. European Management Journal, 23(3),300-314.

Van De Voorde, K., & Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions in the relationshipbetween high‐performance work systems and employee outcomes. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 25(1), 62-78.

Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts andtutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students' self-regulated learningcompetence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 551-567.

Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence oforganizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledgesharing. Journal of knowledge management, 8(6), 117-130.

Van Der Heijden, B., Boon, J., Van der Klink, M., & Meijs, E. (2009). Employability enhancementthrough formal and informal learning: an empirical study among Dutch non‐academic universitystaff members. International Journal of Training and Development, 13(1), 19-37.

Van der Vegt, G., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity onInnovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 29(5), 729–751.

Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher educationteacher learning. Higher Education, 50(3), 447-471.

van Woerkom, M. (2003). Critical reflection at work: Bridging individual and organizational learning.Twente: Twente University Press.

Veld, M., Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2010). HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: does the messagecome across at the ward level?. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(4), 339-356.

Viskovic, A. (2006). Becoming a tertiary teacher: learning in communities of practice. HigherEducation Research & Development, 25(4), 323-339.

223

Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2004). Teacher professional development. Online ProfessionalDevelopment for Teachers, 1-11.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. 1964. NY: John Wiley & Sons, 45.

Wahab, M. S. A., Saad, R. A.-J., & Samsudin, M. A. M. (2016). Situational Inhibitors to InformalLearning in the Workplace: A Case Study of Accountants. The European Proceedings of Social& Behavioural Sciences, 26-31. doi:10.15405/epsbs.2016.08.5

Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and businessperformance, and the case for big science. Human Relations, 58(4), 429-462.

Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychologicalempowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: amanagerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), pp. 840-850.

Walton, R. E. (1985). Toward a strategy of eliciting employee commitment based on policies ofmutuality. HRM Trends and Challenges, 49.

Wan, F., Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation:Evidence from China. Technovation, 39-40, 94-104.

Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and teameffectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning inorganizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 287-300.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Consulting using actiontechnologies. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1993(58), 81-90.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of learning organization(DLOQ)[survey]. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization.

Watkins, K. E., Yang, B., & Marsick, V. J. (1997, March). Measuring dimensions of the learningorganization. In Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Academy of HRD Conference (pp. 543-546).

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 71(1), 3.

Weiner, B. (1985). " Spontaneous" causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 74.

Weiner, B. (2008). Reflections on the history of attribution theory and research: People, personalities,publications, problems. Social Psychology, 39(3), 151-156.

Wellins, R. S. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality,productivity, and participation. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA94104-1310.

Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Joreskog, K. G. (1974). Quantifying unmeasured variables. Measurementin the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine, 270-92.

White, M., & Bryson, A. (2013). Positive employee attitudes: how much human resource managementdo you need?. Human Relations, 66(3), 385-406.

Woerkom, M. v. (2004). The Concept of Critical Reflection and Its Implications for Human ResourceDevelopment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 178-192.

224

Woerkom, M. V., Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. (2002). Critical reflective working behavior: Asurvey research. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 375-383.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizationalcreativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Wright, P. M., & Gardner, T. M. (2000). Theoretical and empirical challenges in studying: the HRpractice-firm performance relationship. CAHRS Working Paper Series. 83.

Wright, P. M., & Gardner, T. M. (2003). The human resource-firm performance relationship:methodological and theoretical challenges. The new workplace: A guide to the human impact ofmodern working practices, pp.311-328.

Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiplelevels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series, 468.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on theperformance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HRpractices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-446.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. (2001).Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data andsuggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 875-901.

Wu, F., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation ininterfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 81-89.

Yoo, J. (2017). Customer power and frontline employee voice behavior: Mediating roles ofpsychological empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 238-256.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean Jr, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management,manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836-866.

Yousaf, A., Sanders, K., & Yustantio, J. (2018). High commitment HRM and organizational andoccupational turnover intentions: the role of organizational and occupational commitment. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(10), 1661-1682.

Yu, B. T. W., & To, W. M. (2013). The effect of internal information generation and dissemination oncasino employee work related behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33,475-483.

Yu, P., Wu, J.-J., Chen, I.-H., & Lin, Y.-T. (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work? Empiricalevidence of professionals in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology Management, 39(3/4),pp. 412-429.

Feilzer, M. Y (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery ofpragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.

Zhang, X., & Kwan, H. K. (2018). Empowering leadership and team creativity: The roles of teamlearning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity. In Creative Leadership (pp.95-121). Routledge.

225

Zhang, Y., Zheng, J., & Darko, A. (2018). How Does Transformational Leadership Promote Innovationin Construction? The Mediating Role of Innovation Climate and the Multilevel Moderation Roleof Project Requirements. Sustainability, 10(5).

Zhu, C. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education,Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2013). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.

Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment Theory (Vol. 43-63): Plenum Publishers.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a Theory of Learned Hopefulness: A Structural Model Analysis ofParticipation and Empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 71-86.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 23(5), 581-599.

226

Annexure-I

COMSATS UniversityIslamabad

(Department of Management Sciences)

Dear Sir/Madam,Assalam-o-Alikum

This survey is conducted as a partial requirement for the completion of the Doctor ofPhilosophy in Management Sciences, COMSATS University, Islamabad.

The aim of this study is to link performance appraisal quality with employeeparticipation in informal learning activities through psychological empowerment withsupport from HRM system strength.

I would like to invite your participation in this survey by filling up the attachedquestionnaires. All information will be treated with the strict confidentiality and onlythe aggregate data will be analyzed. In other words, individuals who respond to thisquestionnaire will not be identified.

The survey will take approximately 15 - 20 minutes and your participation is verymuch appreciated.

Thank you for your valuable assistance.

Prepared byAamer Waheed SattiDoctoral Student, Department of Management SciencesCIIT, Islamabad

Supervised byProf. Dr. Qaisar AbbasDirector, CIIT, Lahore Campus.

Co-Supervised byDr. Omer Farooq MalikAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Management SciencesCIIT, Islamabad

227

Section A: Informal Learning ActivitiesThe following set of statements describes your participation in Informal Learning Activities in your current

organization. For each statement, please indicate to which extent you feel it is agreeable or disagreeable.Please Encircle or Tick () one answer. There is no right or wrong answer.

Reflection

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I think about what I find important in my job 1 2 3 4 5

2 I check if I move forward in reaching my goals in my job 1 2 3 4 5

3 I compare my functioning with how I functioned a year ago 1 2 3 4 5

4 I compare my functioning with that from my colleagues 1 2 3 4 5

Knowledge Sharing

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I share my knowledge and experiences with my colleagues on a regularbasis 1 2 3 4 5

2 I discuss with my colleagues what I think is important in my job 1 2 3 4 5

3 I discuss problems in my classroom teaching with others in order tolearn from them 1 2 3 4 5

4 I ask my colleagues for advice on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5

Innovative Behavior

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I come up with creative solutions for problems 1 2 3 4 5

2 I go searching for new methods and ways to work 1 2 3 4 5

3 I promote and defend my innovative ideas to others 1 2 3 4 5

4 I try to convince colleagues of alternatives ways to work 1 2 3 4 5

5 I try to reach agreement about new ways to realize tasks 1 2 3 4 5

228

Section B: HRM System StrengthThe following set of statements describes your perception of HRM system in appraisal process by your

organization. For each statement, please indicate to which extent you feel it is agreeable or disagreeable.Please Encircle or Tick () one answer. There is no right or wrong answer.

HRM Distinctiveness

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 In our organization it is clear what belongs to the tasks and what’soutside the field of HR. 1 2 3 4 5

2 When one asks the HR department for help, they provide clearanswers. 1 2 3 4 5

3 The procedures and practices developed by HR are easy to understand. 1 2 3 4 5

4 In general, the HR employees in this organization are highlyappreciated. 1 2 3 4 5

5 The HR department undertakes exactly those actions that meet ourneeds. 1 2 3 4 5

6 The employees in this organization experience the HR practices asrelevant. 1 2 3 4 5

HRM Consistency

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 The suggestions, procedures, and practices that HR comes up withactually contribute to the better functioning of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5

2 The HR instruments for staff appraisal succeed in reinforcing thedesired behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5

3 The appraisal system is designed in such a way that desiredperformances are being encouraged. 1 2 3 4 5

4 One can have faith that the HR practices realize the goals for whichthey were designed. 1 2 3 4 5

5 HR practices in this organization achieve their intended goals. 1 2 3 4 5

6 In our organization there is clear consistency between words and deedsof the HR department. 1 2 3 4 5

HRM Consensus

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 The people in our organization responsible for HR have a mutualagreement about how to deal with employees. 1 2 3 4 5

2 If employees perform well, they get the necessary recognition and 1 2 3 4 5

229

Section C: Performance Appraisal QualityThe following set of statements describes your perceptions of performance appraisal quality in the appraisalprocess by your organization. For each statement, please indicate to which extent you feel it is agreeable or

disagreeable. Please Encircle or Tick () one answer. There is no right or wrong answer.

Section D: Psychological EmpowermentThe following set of statements describes your feeling or perception of being empowered in making decisionabout your work- and job-related activities and support from your organization. For each statement, please

indicate to which extent you feel it is agreeable or disagreeable. Please Encircle or Tick () one answer. Thereis no right or wrong answer.

rewards.

3 Employees consider promotions as fair in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5

4 The HR department in our organization takes decisions impartially. 1 2 3 4 5

Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 My supervisor regularly holds performance appraisal conversation withme 1 2 3 4 5

2 In performance appraisals I get clear feedback on my performance 1 2 3 4 5

3 Supervisors keep open communications with me in the job 1 2 3 4 5

Meaning

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 The work I do is very important to me 1 2 3 4 5

2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5

3 The work I do is meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5

230

Competence

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I am confident about my ability to do my job 1 2 3 4 5

2 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities 1 2 3 4 5

3 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 1 2 3 4 5

Self-Determination

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job 1 2 3 4 5

2 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work 1 2 3 4 5

3 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in howI do my job 1 2 3 4 5

Impact

No Description

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neut

ral

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agre

e

1 I have a large impact on what happens in my section of this department 1 2 3 4 5

2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my section of thisdepartment 1 2 3 4 5

3 I have significant influence over what happens in my section of thisdepartment 1 2 3 4 5

231

1. Age:

12 20 — 24 years 22 25 — 29 years 33 30 — 34 years

44 35 — 39 years 55 40 — 44 years 66 45 and above

2. Gender:

11 Male 22 Female

3. Educational Level:

11 Master’s degree 22 PhD 33 Post-Doctoral Degree

4. Marital Status:

11 Single 22 Married 22 Other

5. Current Job Position.

11 Research Associate/Teaching Assistant 11 Lecturer 22 Assistant Professor

11 Associate Professor 11 Professor 22 Other

6. Estimated Monthly Personal Income:

11 Less then Rs.15000 22 Rs. 15,001 – 20,000

33 Rs. 20,001 – 25,000 44 Rs. 25,001 – 30,000

55 Rs.30,001 – 35,000 66 Rs. 35,001 – 40,000

77 Rs.40,001 – 45,000 88 Rs.45,001 – 50,000

88 Above Rs.50,000

7. How many years have you worked for your current employer?

11 Less than 1 years 22 1 – 5 years

33 6 – 10 years 44 More than 10 years

Thank you very much for your assistance in completing this questionnaire. It surely will

be of great help to me.

Wish you the very best in your future.

Section E: Personal Information

Please Tick () in the box that best describes yourself: -

232

Annexure-II

Graphical Representation of Descriptive Statistics

Figure 4.1: Histogram of Perceptions ofPerformance Appraisal Quality

Figure 4.2: Normal Q-Q Plot of Perceptions ofPerformance Appraisal Quality

Figure 4.3: Histogram of Meaning

m

Figure 4.4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Meaning

234

Figure 4.5: Histogram of Competence Figure 4.6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Competence

Figure 4.7: Histogram of Self-Determination Figure 4.8: Normal Q-Q Plot of Self-Determination

235

Figure 4.9: Histogram of Impact Figure 4.10: Normal Q-Q Plot of Impact

Figure 4.11: Histogram of PsychologicalEmpowerment

Figure 4.12: Normal Q-Q Plot of PsychologicalEmpowerment

.

236

Figure 4.13: Histogram of Distinctiveness Figure 4.14: Normal Q-Q Plot of Distinctiveness

Figure 4.15: Histogram of Consistency Figure 4.16: Normal Q-Q Plot of Consistency

237

Figure 4.17: Histogram of Consensus Figure 4.18: Normal Q-Q Plot of Consensus

Figure 4.19: Histogram of Perceptions of HRMSystem Strength

Figure 4.20: Normal Q-Q Plot of Perceptions ofHRM System Strength

238

Figure 4.21: Histogram of Reflection Figure 4.22: Normal Q-Q Plot of Reflection

Figure 4.23: Histogram of Knowledge Sharing Figure 4.24: Normal Q-Q Plot of KnowledgeSharing

239

Figure 4.25: Histogram of Innovative Behavior Figure 4.26: Normal Q-Q Plot of InnovativeBehavior

linking performance appraisal quality with employee

Documents