“the influence of hr practices on employees’ attitudes
TRANSCRIPT
“The influence of HR practices on employees’ attitudes: the
moderating role of employee attributions and the relationship with
their manager’’
Student: Jetze Meijer
ANR: 444417
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J. Paauwe
Period: January 2014 – October 2014
Theme: Added value of HR
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical background ............................................................................................................................ 6
Variability between intended and implemented HR practices .............................................................. 6
Employee attributions about HR practices ............................................................................................ 7
Employee attitudes ................................................................................................................................ 7
Transformational leadership ............................................................................................................... 11
Transactional leadership ..................................................................................................................... 11
Leader member exchange ................................................................................................................... 13
Method .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Sample................................................................................................................................................. 16
Procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................... 21
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Correlation results ............................................................................................................................... 23
Regression results ............................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Absence of relation between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes .............................. 30
Lack of moderating effects ................................................................................................................. 31
Employee HR attributions ................................................................................................................... 32
Importance of LMX ............................................................................................................................ 33
Limitation and recommendations for research design ........................................................................ 34
Implications for practitioners .............................................................................................................. 36
Reference list .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A Questionnaire line manager ................................................................................................ 43
Appendix B Questionnaire employees .................................................................................................... 59
Appendix C Reliability statistics............................................................................................................. 64
3
Abstract
Based on the social exchange theory it was proposed that when employees have the feeling that
the organization invests in them through HR practices they react with beneficial attitudes in return. It was
expected that this relationship would be moderated beneficially by employee well-being attributions and
non-beneficially by cost-reduction attributions. Also was expected that high quality relationships between
employee and manager would moderate this relationship in a beneficial way. Multi-source quantitative
data was collected among 147 employees and 34 line managers among different organizations in different
sectors. Results showed that there was no relationship between implemented HR practices and employee
attitudes. Also no moderating effects were found. Results showed that although no moderating effects
were found both attributions and a high quality relationship between leader and member were beneficially
correlated to most employee attitudes. The results of this study can contribute to the debate about how
HRM can add value and how line managers can assist in this in this process.
Keywords: devolution, social exchange theory, employee attributions, leader member exchange theory,
employee attitudes
4
Introduction
Human resources (HR) are considered to be the most important asset of an organization (Ahmad
& Schroeder, 2003). For a long time organizations were structured in a way that HR managers were
responsible for the daily HR tasks. Lately there has been a shift, where the HR department focusses more
on strategic HR responsibilities while the responsibility of operational HR tasks was transferred to line
management (Bos-Nehles, 2010). Intended HR practices are designed and developed on strategic level by
the HR department (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005) and responsibilities of HR specialists for daily HR tasks are
handed over to line managers.
This process of handing over responsibilities from HR specialists working in a centralized HR
division, to line managers in other units is called devolution (Bos-Nehles, 2010). As a result of this shift,
differences can exist between how HR practices are intended and how they are implemented at the end
(Wright & Nishii, 2007). When implemented practices are different than how they are intended by HR
management, this can have complications for how employees perceive those practices which impacts their
reactions.
Employees all perceive and react different to HR practices. Nishii (2006) argues that
implemented HR practices will provoke beneficial attitudes for the organization among employees. Based
on the SET in this study it is proposed that HR practices relate to employees attitudes. This is influenced
by attributions they make about HR practices (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). Nishii et al. (2008)
define HR attributions as causal explanations that employees make regarding managements’ motivations
for using particular HR practices. Attributions employees make about HR practices can have an important
influence on their satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and ultimately on
organizational performance (Nishii, 2006). To be able to understand how HR attributions are associated
with the relationship between HR practices and employee attitudes this study will make use of the social
exchange theory (SET).
Investigating how employees perceive HR practices is important for organizations. Research
about the relationship between HR practices and organizational performance is one of the most popular
streams of the HRM field (Brewster, Gollan & Wright, 2013). More clarity about how employees
perceive and react to HR practices could give better insight in how HR practices relate to organizational
performance. Additionally managers play an important part in the implementation of HR practices.
Knowing how managers relate to the relation between HR practices and employee attitudes could be
beneficial for organizations.
This research will provide an insight of how HR practices and different leadership styles relate to
employees’ attitudes. Furthermore it investigates in how the possible association of HR practices with
5
employees’ attitudes can be influenced by the relationship with their leader or by different attributions
that employees have.
Since line managers are the implementers of these practices it can be concluded that managers
play an important role in the relationship between implemented HR practices and employees’ attitudes.
There are studies about how attributions influence employees’ attitudes and reactions (Nishii et al., 2008)
but none of them discusses how supervisors play a role in this relationship. Therefore is also chosen to
investigate the effect of leaders on attitudes of employees. To show possible differences between
leadership styles, we use two leadership styles that focus on different dimensions among leaders. It would
be too complex to investigate all existing leadership styles, therefore is decided to study two. Chosen is
for transformational and transactional leadership. Transactional leaders are responsible for allocating
work to subordinates, regardless of whether the employees have the resources or capability to perform the
assigned tasks (English, 2006), while transformational leaders, energize their followers apart from their
self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society (Bass, 1998). Besides the effects of
different leadership styles the relationship between employee and supervisor will be discussed, the leader
member exchange (LMX) theory. LMX concentrates on the dyadic relationship between leader and
member instead of only looking at the personal traits of the leader or the situational characteristics.
According to Gerstner and Day (1997) high quality LMX relationships are positively related to
organizational and individual outcomes. For this reason it is assumed that a high quality LMX
relationship will strengthen the relationship between HR practices and employees’ attitudes. The
assumptions made above result in the following research question: To what extent do HR practices and
different leadership styles have influence on employees’ attitudes and to what degree is the relationship
between HR practices and employees’ attitudes influenced by employee attributions and LMX?
6
Theoretical background
Variability between intended and implemented HR practices
Wright and Nishii (2013) build a design of HR policies in practice. They focus on distinguishing
between intended, actual and perceived HR practices (figure 1). Intended HR practices are the practices
that are designed and developed on strategic level by HR management (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). Higher
management decides that these are the best practices for managing employees (Brewster et al., 2013).
Actual HR practices are those practices that are implemented by the person who manages employees.
Mostly this will not be the HR manager but a line manager (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Brewster et al.,
2013). In this study will be referred to these practices as implemented practices. Perceived practices are
how the practices are in the end understood by employees (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005).
Many authors have emphasized the need to distinguish between intended practices (designed on
strategic level by HR management) and implemented or actual practices (those implemented by line
managers) (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Wright & Nishii, 2007). Drawing conclusions about practices in
organizations based on intended HR practices can be misleading because of differences in intentions of
HR management and implementation of line management. There is a possibility that managers fail to
implement practices or implement them differently than intended by HR management. Wright and Nishii
(2007) noted that while firms have to explain what and how HR practices are to be implemented,
variability often exists at the operational level because supervisors may differ in how they implement
them. As a consequence, differences can exist between implemented HR practices even among employees
in the same jobs.
Bos-Nehles, Riemsdijk & Looise (2013) define ability as the competence necessary for successful
implementation of HR practices on the work floor. According to them the ability of managers also has
Figure 1
7
effect on the effectiveness of HRM implementation. Having the skills and knowledge to implement the
HRM activities effectively will help to reduce the difference between intended and implemented HR
practices. So, how line managers implement intended HR practices can lead to different perceptions of
HR practices among employees.
Employee attributions about HR practices
Also the set of HR practices that are used, have a signaling function by sending messages from
which employees define their work environment (Rousseau, 1995). Employees are not inactive recipients
of HR practices. The relationship between HR practices and attitudes of employees can depend on the
attributions that employees make about the underlying intentions of the HR practices they experience
(Fiske & Taylor, 1984). People attach different meanings to social incentives. Nishii et al. (2008) define
HR attributions as causal explanations that employees make regarding managements’ motivations for
using particular HR practices. Attributions employees make about HR practices can have an important
influence on their attitudes and behavior, so ultimately on organizational performance (Nishii, 2006).
Nishii et al. (2008) divided organizational internal attributions into two types. First the attribution that HR
practices are motivated by the organizations’ concern for enhancing employee well-being. The second
attribution is focused on reducing costs and exploiting employees. They found that attributions that are
motivated by the organizations’ concern for enhancing employee well-being are positively related to
employee attitudes. Attributions focused on reducing costs (cost-reduction attributions) were negatively
related to employee attitudes. In this study attributions will be used according to this division.
Based on the social exchange theory (SET) Nishii (2006) explains how HR attributions are
associated with employee reactions. The core of SET lies with the perception that social exchanges
involve a series of interactions that generate obligations among participants towards each other (Saks,
2006). Saks (2006) also states that the rules of exchange usually include mutuality. This means that
certain actions of a person or organization will lead to a reaction from another person or organization. It is
argued that employees are motivated to demonstrate positive attitudes and behavior when they perceive
that their employer values them and their contribution (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). This is in line with the
statements of Nishii (2006). She argues that when employees notice that the underlying intentions of HR
practices will turn out in positive and beneficial circumstances they will feel an obligation to return with
behavior in positive and beneficial ways. On these attributions employees base their judgments regarding
where they should focus their energies and competencies.
Employee attitudes
Employees make attributions about managements’ reasons for implementing different HR
practices. How employees perceive these HR practices (e.g., as helpful, hurtful, supportive, exploitative,
constructive or destructive) impacts how they react. These reactions can affect employee attitudes and
8
behavior (Nishii et al., 2008). Behavior is different from attitudes as it refers to open observable actions
while attitudes refer to internal unobservable thoughts of employees (Hewstone, Stroebe and Stephenson,
1996). Bowen and Ostroff (2004) discus ‘a framework for understanding how HR practices as a system
can contribute to firm performance by motivating employees to adopt desired attitudes and behaviors that,
in the collective, help achieve the organizations strategic goals’ (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004, p 204).
Desirable employee attitudes help to achieve the strategic goals of the organization. Hence employee
reactions in this study will be measured according to three different attitudes; employee engagement, job
satisfaction and turnover intention that are both important for organizations as for individual employees.
Employee engagement is a frequently used term and is defined in many different ways. First,
engagement is a positive state of mind including vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova,
Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker 2002). Vigor stands for high levels of energy and mental resilience when
someone is working. Dedication concerns high levels of involvement and experiencing a sense of
significance, enthusiasm and challenge. Absorption represents a high level of concentration, in which
time is forgotten and there are troubles with detaching from work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Second,
researchers specialised in burnout consider engagement to be the opposite of burnout (Maslach, Schaufelli
& Leiter, 2001). Third, Macey, Schneider, Barbera & Young (2009) say that engaged employees give
more of what they have to offer and therefore an engaged workforce is more productive. In this study
engagement is defined as a condition that is useful for organizations because engaged employees are
involved, committed, show passion, have interest, focus and energy.
Job satisfaction is how people feel about their job and its different aspects. It is the extent to
which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their job. Job satisfaction can be considered as
a global feeling about the job or as a related group of attitudes about various aspects of the job (Spector,
1997). According to Greenhause and Powell (2006) employees who experience positive emotions about
their work, have higher job satisfaction. Employees who perceive that their managers care about their
well-being, will also feel more satisfied (Eisenbeger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
Turnover intentions refer to the consideration to work for another employer (Steel & Ovalle,
1984). Turnover intentions are a conscious and deliberate willingness to leave the organization (Tett &
Meyer, 1993). Greenhouse and Powell (2006) state that employees who experience more positive
emotions about their work, should experience lower turnover intentions. Pomaki, DeLongis, Frey, Short,
& Woehrle (2010) state that psychosocial stressors, such as lack of social support can start a process of
job dissatisfaction, turnover intention and finally actual turnover.
Based on SET it is expected that HR practices create beneficial attitudes among employees for
the organization. It suggests that where employees have the feeling that the organization is investing in
them through HR practices, they are more willing to reciprocate through high levels of engagement and
performance (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees and Gatenby, 2013). Multiple researchers found evidence for
9
beneficial effects between HR practices and employees attitudes (Marescaux, Winne, & Sels, 2013; Wei,
Han & Hsu, 2010; Kroes 2012). Marescaux et al. (2013) stated that employees who are subject to HR
practices are more likely to experience a general feeling of autonomy and satisfaction which is associated
with higher work engagement, higher affective organizational commitment and a lower intention to leave
the organization. Also Nishii (2006) states that HR practices will provoke beneficial attitudes among
employees. Therefore is assumed that HR practices lead to beneficial employee attitudes. This leads to the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1A: Implemented HR practices are positively related to employee engagement and job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1B: Implemented HR practices are negatively related to turnover intention.
As explained, the SET of Saks (2006), describes a relationship between HR practices and
attitudes of employees. In line with the principles of SET it is expected that employees who perceive that
their contribution is valued, will demonstrate beneficial attitudes (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Nishii et al.
2008). Employees perceive that their contribution is valued when their underlying explanations about
managements’ motivations for implementing certain HR practices is in favor of employees (employee
well-being attributions). So, when HR practices are perceived by employees as a concern for enhancing
their well-being, they will demonstrate beneficial attitudes in return. As multiple researchers found
evidence for a direct effect, a moderating effect is expected to exist as well. When HR practices are more
appreciated this will strengthen the relation between HR practices and employee attitudes. Therefore is
proposed that well-being attributions among employees will strengthen the relationship between
implemented HR practices and employee attitudes. Well-being attributions will moderate the assumed
relation between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes in such a way that this relationship
will become stronger. It is assumed that the existing perception among employees that the organization
cares and invests in them because they implement HR practices, will become stronger as these practices
signal organizational concern for employees. However, when employees perceive that underlying
intentions of HR practices signal lower levels of concern for employees (cost-reduction attributions)
lower levels of satisfaction and commitment are a likely consequence (Nishii et al., 2008). Cost-reduction
attributions arise when employees feel that managements’ underlying reasons for implemented HR
practices are reducing costs and organization views employees as a cost to be minimized. In this case
employees have perceptions that management sees employees as costs to control, focuses on enforcing
employee compliance with rules and procedures and monitors the quantity of employee output
(Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000). In this case levels of commitment and satisfaction will be negative
10
(Appelbaum, Lavigne, Schmidt, Peytchev, & Shapiro, 1999). So, when HR practices are perceived by
employees as a strategy to minimize employee costs, they will demonstrate adverse attitudes in return. As
multiple researchers found evidence for a direct effect of cost-reduction attributions (Nishii et al. 2008;
Guest and Rodrigues 2014 forthcoming), a moderating effect is expected to exist as well. Hence is
proposed that cost-reduction attributions among employees will relate adverse to the relationship between
implemented HR practices and employee attitudes. Cost-reduction attributions will moderate the assumed
relation between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes in such a way that this relationship
will become weaker. It is assumed that the perception among employees that organization cares and
invests in them because they implement HR practices, will become less strong as these practices signal
employees as a cost to be minimized. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2:Well-being focused HR attributions moderate the relationship between implemented HR
practices and employee attitudes in such a way that implemented HR practices will relate stronger to
employee attitudes.
Hypothesis 3: Cost-reduction focused HR attributions moderate the relationship between implemented
HR practices and employee attitudes in such a way that implemented HR practices will relate weaker to
employee attitudes.
Leadership
Alfes et al. (2013) found that positive experiences of HR practices alone are not sufficient enough
to generate high levels of engagement among employees. They suggest that the combination of positive
perceived line management and positive experiences of HR practices together are associated with an
engaged and high performing workforce. According to Bandura (1986) leaders are important for
employees as role models whom they can observe and learn from through indirect experiences. Brown,
Trevino and Harrison (2005) suggest that the function as role model is the best way to understand the
influence and consequences of leaders. Also Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, and Niles-Jolly (2005)
state that leaders influence employee job experiences by role modeling and signaling the consequences
and rewards that that employees should expect for certain behaviors. So, leaders signal the value placed
upon employees by the employer through their leadership styles (Den Hartog, Paauwe & Boselie, 2004).
According to Bass (1991) transactional and transformational leadership styles have different effects on
followers. Therefore is assumed that different leadership styles lead to different employee attitudes. These
two leadership styles will be studied to see if different effects exist. First theory about different leadership
styles will be discussed and later also the effect of the relationship between leader and follower. To find
11
out if these styles have different influence on employees’ attitudes this research will focus on these two
styles.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is based on a relationship where followers perform beyond expected
level of performance as a consequence of the behavior of their leader (Bass & Stogdill, 1990).
Transformational leaders extend and elevate the interests of their employees. They also generate
awareness and acceptance about the objective and mission of the group and motivate employees to look
beyond their self-interest for the benefits of the whole group (Bass, 1991). They are charismatic so they
inspire and intellectually energize their employees (Bass, 1991). By being charismatic, transformational
leaders have great power and influence over employees. Employees have a high degree of trust and
confidence in transformational leaders and therefore want to identify with them. Transformational leaders
are also accommodating for individual employees. They pay individual attention to their different
employees and act as mentors for those employees that need development. Transformational leaders
intellectually challenge their employees by showing employees new ways of looking at old problems,
teach them to see obstacles as challenges that need to be solved instead of problems and emphasize on
rational solutions. An important proposition of Bass & Avolio (1993) is the expansion hypothesis which
states that transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership.
Transactional leadership
The transactional leadership relation is based on an exchange model where followers make
contributions in reaction to rewards and support from their leader. Behavior of transactional leaders
consists of explanation of tasks requirements and specification of the dependent rewards (Bass & Stogdill,
1990). According to Bass and Avolio (as cited in Weinberger, 2009), transactional leadership consists of
two factors: (a) contingent reward and (b) management by exception. Conditional rewards make
expectations clear, positively reinforce the achievement of the agreed goals and specify what will be
received if certain performance levels are met. Management by exception is defined as focusing on task
execution. Looking out for possible problems that might arise and correcting those problems to maintain
performance at an acceptable level. Drawing on this, English (2006) states that transactional leaders are
responsible for allocating work to subordinates, regardless of whether the employees have the resources
or capability to perform the assigned tasks. Transactional leaders create a clearly structured framework
whereby it is decided by the leaders what is required and what rewards are received. Although reprimand
is not always used, a good functioning system of discipline is usually available. When employees do not
meet their responsibilities, the employee is considered to be personally responsible and reprimanded for
the failure (English, 2006). Employees under leadership of a transactional leader are motivated by their
12
self-interest. In exchange for their effort they expect rewards, reaching certain goals or accomplishing a
task (Weinberger, 2009).
As mentioned before, transformational leadership is built on transactional leadership according to
Bass & Avolio (1993). Bass (1998) did however made clear that transformational leadership is no
substitute for transactional leadership. This is in line with Judge and Piccolo (2004) who found that the
two constructs have distinctive values in predicting outcomes as performance, satisfactions and
effectiveness. Their study also found that transformational leadership did explain variance beyond the
effects of transactional leadership. Concluded can be that transformational and transactional leaders show
very different traits. Where transformational leaders influence employees with charisma, pay attention to
individual differences and stimulate employees intellectually (Bass, 1991), transactional leadership is
only based on an exchange model (Bass & Stogdill, 1990) whereby employees are personally responsible
for their performance and employees are only seen as contributing to the goal of the leader (English,
2006). The transactional-transformational paradigm views leadership as either a matter of contingent
reinforcement of followers by a transactional leader, against the energizing of followers apart from their
self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society by a transformational leader (Bass, 1997).
Therefore it is proposed that employees with a transformational leader will demonstrate more beneficial
attitudes than with a transactional leader, as their leaders show more signals of interest in their employees.
According to SET (Saks, 2006) it is suggested that when employees have the feeling that the underlying
behavior of their leaders is in their interest this will lead to more beneficial attitudes. They have the
feeling that their leader invests in them and acts in their interest and thus they will react with beneficial
attitudes. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4A: Transformational leadership is positively related to employee engagement and job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4B: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employee turnover intention.
In the case of transactional leadership, employees are not treated with as much esteem as with
transformational leadership. Still transactional leaders try to motive and stimulate their employees to get
the most out of them. Only in doing so transactional leaders focus more on extrinsic motivation of
employees. Transactional leadership is more practical. Their behavior consists of explanation of tasks
requirements and specification of the dependent rewards (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Therefore it is assumed
that also the transactional leadership style is beneficially related to employees’ attitudes. Both different
leadership styles motivate employees but transformational leaders motivate and inspire employees in
ways that go beyond exchanges and rewards. Hence is expected that transactional leadership is also
13
beneficially related to employee attitudes but less strong than is the case with transformational leadership.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5A: Transactional leadership is positively related to employee engagement and job
satisfaction
Hypothesis 5B: Transactional leadership is negatively related to employee turnover intentions.
Leader member exchange
Line managers can form employees’ attributions of HR practices based on their relationships with
employees (Nishi et al., 2008). According to Zohar (2000), line managers influence employees’
attributions, reactions and attitudes to HR practices mainly through their role as implementers of
organizational policies and practices. Line managers have the task of executing organizational policies by
translating them into action patterns during their interactions with employees. They influence employees’
job experiences by role modeling and by signaling the consequences and rewards that employees should
expect for certain behaviors (Schneider, et al., 2005). As said before, according to Bandura (1986) leaders
are important for employees as a role model to observe and to learn from through indirect experiences.
So, leaders signal the value placed upon employees by the employer, both in terms of the way they
implement HR practices and through their leadership styles (Den Hartog, Paauwe & Boselie, 2004). It
makes sense that when leaders serve as role models they influence the relationship between HR practices
and employee attitudes as they are the implementers of HR practices. Therefore is not only assumed that
behavior of leaders influences employee attitudes but we also expect that the quality of the relationship
between leader and employee moderates the relationship between HR practices and employees’ attitudes.
The leader member exchange (LMX) theory describes the dyadic relationship between supervisor
and employee (Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999). Because LMX concentrates on the leader member
relationship instead of looking at the personal traits or situational characteristics it distinguishes itself
from traditional leadership theories (Gerstner & Day, 1997). LMX can be seen as a form of social
exchange and states that the outcome of this relationship is very important for organizational and
individual outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Central to the theory of LMX is
the idea that consistently living up to the agreements of this relationship creates trust, respect, loyalty and
affect in this relationship (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou & Yamarinno, 2001).
Supervisors tend to develop different relationships with each employee (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Schriesheim et al., 1999) which means that the LMX relationship between supervisors and their
employees can vary in quality (Graen & Scandura, 1987). According to Gerstner and Day (1997) high
quality LMX relationships are positively related to organizational and individual outcomes. A high
14
quality relationship with your manager can affect the whole work experience of employees in a positive
way, including performance and affective outcomes. As a high quality LMX relationship has positive
effects on employee attitudes they say it is reasonable to propose that LMX affects turnover beneficially
through other attitudes such as job satisfaction. In addition, Gerstner and Day (1997) and Green,
Anderson and Shivers (1996) found that the support of leaders can help employees to overcome work
related problems and therefore contribute to their job satisfaction. They also stated that previous research
has indicated higher levels of job satisfaction among employees, when there are higher quality
relationships between manager and employee. It is important for employees to build up a high quality
relationship, instead of a relationship of low quality, because they can experience advantages of these
high quality relationships, such as more support of their supervisors (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
As leaders signal the value placed upon employees by the organization through implementing HR
practices it is assumed that LMX will influence the relationship between HR practices and employee
attitudes. This relationship is based on SET. When employees have the feeling that the organization
invests in them through HR practices they will react with beneficial attitudes. As line managers are the
implementers of practices it is assumed that they are important for employees and therefore can influence
this relationship. It is assumed that a good relationship with the line manager who implements the
practices will further strengthen this relationship. Different studies have found that a high quality LMX
relationship is positively related to employee attitudes, outcomes and performance (Gerstner & Day,
1997; Green et al., 1996). It is therefore expected that a high quality LMX relationship will further
strengthen the relationship between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes. LMX will
moderate the assumed relation between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes in such a way
that when LMX is perceived as high it will be stronger and when LMX is perceived as low it will have no
effect. The hypothesis that follows is:
Hypothesis 6: Quality of the LMX relationship moderates the relationship between implemented HR
practices and employee attitudes in such a way that implemented HR practices will relate stronger to
employee attitudes when LMX is perceived as high than when LMX is perceived as low.
15
Figure 2. Conceptual model
2
5B
1A
Employee
attributions
Implemented HR
practices
job satisfaction &
employee
engagement
Transactional
leadership
Transformational
leadership
LMX
Turnover intention
4B
3
4A
5A
1B
6
16
Method
Research design
This study is part of a bigger research were three different categories of respondents are
investigated with the use of a quantitative study. The research made use of multi-source data as
questionnaires were distributed among HR managers, line managers and employees. Data was collected
together with two other master students. All students that participate in the data collection process use the
data for their individual studies. To get a clear image of the relations between different respondent
categories in the organization and to avoid same source data, questionnaires were distributed among HR
managers, line managers and employees. The core constructs of this research are implemented HR
practices, employees’ attributions, LMX, transformational leadership, transactional leadership and
employee attitudes. HR managers were questioned about which HR practices are present in the
organization. The same was done for line managers. Besides these questions line managers were also
questioned about constrains they experience and how they see the added value of HR. Employees were
questioned about their attributions, leaders and attitudes. All data for this particular study was collected
by a structured questionnaire among employees and line managers in different organizations.The primary
purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between implemented HR practices and employee
attitudes. To measure implemented HR practices data is collected among line managers because line
managers are the implementers of HR practices. Since this study is part of a bigger research the
questionnaire also contains other instruments, variables and specific questionnaire for HR managers that
will not be used for this study. Data collected among HR managers will not be used for this study as HR
managers were not part of the conceptual model. Employees were questioned about their attitudes so the
relation between HR practices and employee attitudes could be investigated. Also data about employee
attributions and how employees see their leaders was collected so the moderating effect of these two
variables can be investigated. To make the multi-source data usable for research, data will be analyzed on
unit/ line manager category as all line managers in this research were responsible for one unit. An
employee mean score per unit will be created by aggregating the data with unit as referent category in
SPSS. The aggregated mean scores will be used in regression analysis to test the hypotheses.
Sample
The data in this study was collected by master students of Tilburg University in cooperation with
Prof. Dr. Jaap Paauwe. This specific study is part of a broader research and data was collected with two
other master students from Tilburg University. Data was requested from different organizations in
different sectors; health care, commercial and educational sector. Of all questionnaires, 181
questionnaires (34 line manager questionnaires, 147 employee questionnaires) were returned completed
17
which made them valuable for research. The overall response rate was 20.6% as of the 880 distributed
questionnaires, 181 questionnaires were returned. The response rate among line managers was 19.3 %
(34/176) and among employees 20.9% (147/704). The HR manager questionnaires that were also
collected for research were not used for this particular study. The organizations that participated were
different hospitals, a school institution, municipality of Tilburg and different commercial companies. The
different organizations were located in Noord-Holland, Utrecht, Noord-Brabant and Zeeland (provinces in
the Netherlands). The organizations were chosen based on the network of the students and tutor
participating in the research which makes it convenience sampling. Among these line managers 47% were
women and 53% were men. The average age of the line manager respondents was 45.62 years old (SD =
8.56). Because control variables were only included in the employee questionnaire, we cannot say
anything about age and sex of the employee respondents.
Procedure
To test the hypotheses a quantitative study was conducted. This research made use of unit referent
to be able to examine the HR activities for the unit as a whole. HR managers, line managers and
employees are being asked to report regarding practices present in their unit. Variables and findings of the
unit will be linked so that hopefully conclusions can be made about differences between units/ line
managers. Through a formal letter, e-mail or/and telephone call contact persons within different
organizations were approached to participate in the research. The letter explained the ambition of the
study and requested for an appointment. After the first contact the HR manager(s) of the organizations
were approach. During this conversation the ambition of the study was explained and there was requested
for an interview. During the interview with HR managers, the researchers discussed the structure of the
organization and the HR department to determine which HR practices their organization is aiming at.
There is chosen to ask about the most common HR practices; recruitment & selection, training &
development, rewards, performance appraisal and participation & communication. During the interviews
researchers tried to enthusiasm HR managers to participate in the research. When HR managers were
willing to participate in the research they filled in the HR manager questionnaire and distributed the line
manager questionnaires among a couple of line managers. Line managers who participated received a
package with their questionnaire, five questionnaires for employees, addressed envelopes and a letter with
clear instructions and explanation of the goal and ambitions of the study. The line managers filled in their
own questionnaire and also distributed the employee questionnaire among a couple of employees. All
used questionnaires were tested before to see whether they were conceivable for the respondents and if
they did not exceed the time limit. The aim was five line managers per HR manager and five employees
per line manager only in practice this was not always possible. In order to maintain confidentiality, line
managers as well as the employees had to send their finished questionnaires directly to the researchers
18
(they have a central address at Tilburg University) in a return envelope that was provided in the
questionnaire package. Each questionnaire and return envelope was marked with a code so the researchers
can instantly see whether it was a line manager or employee that answered the questionnaire and to which
unit and organization they belonged. After 3 weeks reminders were sent to the HR manager or contact
person within the organization. Because employee data was only useful when it could be linked with the
right line manager data. Line managers who did not yet return the questionnaire where contacted by
phone and email to maximize their return rate and so the usefulness of the data.
Unfortunately the number of received line manager questionnaires was low, especially in
comparison to the number of received employee questionnaires. This is partly due to the fact that from the
three different categories of respondents, the employee category was the largest. The most questionnaires
were distributed among employee respondents. Another reason was that the response rate among line
managers was low. Since there were less questionnaires distributed among line managers a low response
rate caused that few line manager questionnaires were received. As the number of received employee
questionnaires was rather large there is chosen to ‘’disaggregate’’ instead of to ‘’aggregate’’ the scores. In
the case of aggregation the mean score of employees per unit would be calculated. With disaggregating,
the scores of the managers were now duplicated with the number of employees from their unit that had
returned the questionnaire. With the use of disaggregation, the line manager data was linked to every
employee. Instead of the small number of manager questionnaires, 34, the number of managers and
employees in the data file was now the same 147, which is a substantial increase in data.
Measures
The instruments that measured the variables were evaluated by means of factor analysis to check
scale validity. A scale is suitable for regression analysis if the factor analysis showed KMO values higher
than 0.6 and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity is 1. Cronbach’s alpha was used to check reliability of the
scales.
Implemented HR practices
Implemented HR practices were measured by asking line managers if they thought that a certain
practice was present in their organization. In this research there was chosen to ask about the most
common HR practices; recruitment & selection, training & development, rewards, performance appraisal
and participation & communication. A sample item is: “Are the following HR practices present in your
organization: selection test (eg. intelligence, personality, for selecting new employees).’’ A 2-response
scale was used: present ‘yes’ or ‘no’ The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.628.
19
Employees’ attributions
Employee attributions were measured by asking employees to indicate the extent to which the
five HR practices used in this study were used in order to promote employee well-being (well-being
attribution); and to get the most work out of employees (cost-reduction attribution). Following Nishii et
al. (2008) we asked employees to score each HR practice on the two attributions, instead of having
employees select one attribution per HR practice activity, thereby leaving open the possibility that there
may be multiple goals attached to each activity. A sample item is: “my unit recruits and selects in the way
it does to keep costs low.’’ A 5-point response scale was used ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to
‘strongly agree’ (5). Category (3) was a neutral category. Reliability for the employee well-being
attribution was 0.904 and for the cost-reduction attribution 0.860.
Leader member exchange
Leader member exchange was measured utilizing the seven-item leader membership exchange
scale by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). A sample item is: “my supervisor understands my problems and
needs.” Response categories ranged from (1) totally disagree, to (5) totally agree. Category (3) was a
neutral category. Responses were coded that a high score on this scale meant the LMX relationship
between leader and employee was of high quality. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.935.
Transformational leadership
In this study transformational leadership was measured using the five-item transformational
Leadership Scale (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004). A sample item is: ‘‘my leader allows
employees to influence important decisions.’’ Response categories ranged from (1) totally disagree, to (5)
totally agree. Category (3) was a neutral category. Responses were coded that a high score on this scale
meant a person their leader shows a transformational leadership style. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
was 0.801.
Transactional leadership
Transactional leadership was measured using the six-item transformational Leadership Scale (De
Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004). A sample item is: ‘‘my leader attaches great importance to clear
agreements and fair pay.’’ Response categories ranged from (1) totally disagree, to (5) totally agree.
Category (3) was a neutral category. Responses were coded that a high score on this scale meant a person
their leader shows a transactional leadership style. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.908.
20
Employee attitudes
Employee attitudes will be measured by three constructs; engagement, job satisfaction and
intention to leave
Engagement
Engagement was measured by utilizing the nine-item scale by Schaufelli et al. 2002. A sample
item is: “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.” Response categories ranged from (1)
never, to (5) very often. Category (3) was a neutral category. Responses were coded that a high score on
this scale meant a person was highly engaged. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.857.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured by utilizing the three-item scale by Camman, Fichman, Jenkins,
and Klesh (1979). A sample item is: “In general I like working there.” Response categories ranged from
(1) totally disagree, to (5) totally agree. Category (3) was a neutral category. Responses were coded that a
high score on this scale meant a person had a high job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
was 0.730.
Turnover intention
Turnover intention was measured by utilizing a three-item scale (Mobley, 1982). A sample item
is: ‘’I am planning to search for a job at another company this year.’’ Response categories ranged from
(1) totally disagree, to (5) totally agree. Category (3) was a neutral category. Responses were coded that a
high score on this scale meant a person had a high turnover intention. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
was 0.900.
Control variables
Control variables were used in this study but they were only included in the line manager
questionnaire. Consequently control variables were only measured among line manger respondents and
they can only speak for that category. Production method was included as a dummy variable (labor-
intensive = 0, capital-intensive = 1) because according to Datta, Guthrie and Wright (2005) industry
characteristics influence the effects of HR practices on labor performance so HR practices are more likely
to lead to higher commitment and greater skill enrichment in labor-intensive organization than in capital-
intensive organization. There will controlled for age because Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, and de Lange (2010)
found that associations between maintenance HR practices of performance management, rewards,
information sharing, teamwork, and flexible work schedules and work-related attitudes strengthen with
age, although the relationship between the development HR practice of promotion and affective
commitment weakens with age. There will be controlled for high skilled and low skilled based on their
educational level because according to Pare & Tremblay (2007) investing in employees lead to a greater
21
likelihood of affective commitment among high skilled employees. Line manager educational level was
coded as a dummy variable (primary school = 0, secondary school = 1, secondary professional education
= 2, higher professional education = 3, university = 4). Also for most highly skilled professionals, much
of their motivation ensues from the recognition they get from managers for a job well done and the
feeling that they are a pivotal part of the organization (Agarwal & Ferratt, 1999; Gomolski, 2000). The
last control variable used is gender which is also coded as a dummy variable (women = 0, men= 1).
According to Scott and Brown (2006) it will be more difficult for female leaders to place themselves as
having characteristics (e.g., ambitious) through, for example, role modeling behaviors. Given the
importance of the relationship between leader and employee in this study, gender of managers is included
as a control variable. As the data in this study is disaggregated to make it useful for this study the control
variables that are only measured at line manager respondent category should be treated with caution.
Since these control variables are duplicated, findings of control variables can become less accurate.
Statistical analysis
This study investigates the relation between HR practices and employee attitudes, the relation
between different leadership styles and employee attitudes and also how LMX and employee attributions
moderate the relation between HR practices and employee attitudes. This study is quantitative and cross-
sectional in nature, since the hypotheses according to the conceptual model as displayed in figure 2 will
be tested by means of a questionnaire and the data will be collected at a single point in time (Bryman,
2004). After data is collected, data analyses will be performed by making use of SPSS. Thereafter an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) will be used to check whether the measurements used actually represent
the factors needed. A sequential multiple regression is often used to test interaction and moderating
effects (Hinkle, Wiersma & Jurs, 2003). This study will use the stepwise modeling method, meaning that
in the first model only control variables and the independent variable (implemented HR practices) will be
measured. By following this procedure there will be tested if the control variables influence the dependent
variables (employee attitudes; job satisfaction, engagement and turnover intention). As data was requested
from both line managers and employees for this study, a link could be drawn between these scores by
aggregating the data in SPSS. Unfortunately the number of received line manager questionnaires was low,
especially in comparison to the number of received employee questionnaires. Therefor is chosen to
‘’disaggregate’’ instead of to ‘’aggregate’’ the scores. The scores of the managers were now duplicated
with the number of employees from their unit that had returned the questionnaire. If four employees from
the managers’ unit had returned the questionnaire, the data of the manager would be duplicated four times
because those employees all have that manager. So, all employees from the same unit have the same
manager score. By this the high number of received employee questionnaires were better used than in the
case of aggregating the data. When the data would have been aggregated the average score of the
22
employees of a unit would have been used. This average employee score would have been linked with the
managers’ score. Because the number of received line manager questionnaires is very limited in
comparison to the number of received employee questionnaires, the N of this study would have been
much lower. The N of this study is larger with disaggregating because now the number of employees is
the N instead of the number of line managers/units. Which means that the N is 147 instead of 34.
Unfortunately the control variables in this study were al measured at line manager respondent category.
The employee questionnaire did not include any control variables. As the data in this study is
disaggregated to make it useful for this study. The control variables, which are only measured at line
manager respondent category, should be treated with caution. Since these control variables are duplicated,
findings of the control variables can become less accurate. The control variable production method (labor-
intensive = 0, capital-intensive = 1) is left out of the analysis. According to the filled in questionnaires all
the participating organizations are labor-intensive organizations and therefore this variable did not show
any relation.
To test hypothesis 1 the approach was to control for age, gender and educational background of
line managers by adding them to the model before examining the relations of the studied variables
(step1). In the second model, the independent variable (implemented practices) will be added to be able to
control for the relationship between intended and implemented HR practices in the next models (step 2).
To test hypotheses 2 and 3 the approach was to control for age, gender and educational background of
line managers by adding them to the model before examining the relations of the studied variables
(step1). Implemented HR practices will be added (step 2) to the model followed by LMX and employee
attributions. Afterwards the interaction (created by multiplying the standardised variables employee
attributions and the variable actual HR practices) will be added to test for possible moderation effects of
employee attributions (step 3). An interaction relation is found when the interaction does relate significant
to the dependent variable. To test hypothesis 6 the approach is to control for age, gender and educational
background of line managers by adding them to the model before examining the relations of the studied
variables (step1). The variable implemented HR practices will be added (step 2) to the model followed by
LMX and employee attributions. Afterwards the interaction (created by multiplying the standardised
variables LMX and implemented HR practices) is added to test for possible moderating effects of LMX
(step 3). An interaction relation is found when the interaction does relate significant to the dependent
variable.
23
Results
Correlation results
The means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables are presented in Table 1. The
relationships are measured using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Table 1 shows that
job satisfaction and HR practices are not significant related (r=-.100, p>.05), which is not in line with
hypothesis 1A. According to the table also employee engagement and HR practices are not significant
related to each other (r=-.119, p>.05), which is not in line with hypothesis 1A. Turnover intention is
significant positively related to HR practices (r=.229, p<.05) which is not in line with hypothesis 1B.
Employee well-being attributions are significant positively related to job satisfaction (r=.555, p<.01),
employee engagement (r=.586, p<.01) and significant negatively related to turnover intentions (r=-.474,
p<.01). Employee cost-reduction attributions are significant positively related to employee engagement
(r=.255 p<.01) which was unexpected. Also the dependent variables are positively correlated with the
moderating variable LMX. LMX is positive significant related to job satisfaction (r=.486, p<.01), positive
significant related to employee engagement (r=.460, p<.01) and negative significant to turnover intention
(r=-.484, p<.01).
Furthermore as table 1 shows, a very high correlation between transactional-, transformational
leadership and LMX was found. The correlation indicates the strengths of the relationship between the
two variables. In this case a very strong positive correlation between the three variables was found which
indicates that higher values on one variable are associated with higher values on the other variable. The
found correlations indicate that in this case the association is very strong. Apparently they measure the
same constructs to a large extent. These different variables have a very high overlap with each other and
could not be distinguished enough from each other, which made further analysis impossible. Both three
variables show the presence of leadership. Therefore is assumed that the presence of a leader is more
important than the style. In the present data set transactional-, transformational leadership and LMX could
not be distinguished. Based on this was decided to leave the two leadership styles out. Since the main
purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of HR practices on employee attitudes and how line
managers play a part in this relationship. It seems more relevant for this study to leave the moderating
effect of LMX in as it investigates a possible moderating effect on this relationship.
24
Table 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. Gender 0,53 ,500 -
2. LM Age 45,83 8,535 0,151 -
3. Educational
Level
3,40 0,818 -0,010 -,099 -
4. Implemented
HR Practices
0,701 0,145 ,143 -,250**
,200**
5. LMX 3,790 0,774 -,011 ,152 ,021 -,089
6. Well-being 3,20 0,685 ,026 ,043 -,013 -,057 ,619**
7. Cost-
reduction
3,258 0,636 -,039 -,178 -,014 -,088 ,042 ,121
8. Transforma-
tional
3,724 0,653 ,018 ,088 ,059 -,028 ,800** ,672** ,185*
9. Transactional 3,668 0,755 ,065 ,087 ,133 -,027 ,773** ,637** ,067 ,791**
10. Job
satisfaction
4,062 0,746 ,053 ,042 -,068 -,100 ,486** ,555** ,037 ,497** ,450**
11. Employee
engagement
3,779 0,579 ,162 -,049 -,172 -,119 ,460** ,586** ,255** ,466** ,426** ,740**
12. Turnover
intention
1,947 1,034 -,053 -,142 -,001 ,229* -,484** -,474** -,064 -,474** -,428** -,614** -,422**
25
Regression results
To test employee engagement, the relation of the control variables on engagement is regressed
(table 2a). Gender (women = 0, men= 1) has a significant positive relation with engagement (β =0.263,
p<0.05) as can be seen in in Table 2a (step 1). Which means that employees with a male leader in this
study are more engaged. Next the relation of HR practices on engagement is added in step 2, as well as
the two attributions and LMX. The presence of HR practices is not significant related to engagement,
while controlling for the control variables. This is in contrast with hypothesis 1A. It was expected that:
HR practices are positively related to employee engagement. Although the variable HR practices was
added, the control variable gender was still positively related to engagement (β =0.175, p<0.05).
Remarkable is that the well-being attribution is significant positive related to engagement (β =0.544,
p<0.01). Though the regression analysis shows significant results for this relationship these findings
should be carefully considered. Table 1 also shows high correlation between the two constructs. Therefore
it is difficult to say if there is indeed a relationship between the well-being attribution and engagement or
that they possibly measure the same constructs to a large extent which could also explain the found
relationship. The results testing hypotheses 2, 3 and 6 are presented in table 2a (step 3). The results show
that none of the interaction terms were significant. No significant moderation effect of LMX or the
attributions on engagement was found.
Table 2a. Regression results for engagement
Engagement
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
β β β
Gender 000 .263* 00 .175* .165*
Age 000-.124 00 -.108 -.059
Education -.190 -.040 -.021
Implemented HR practices -.085 .668
Well-being attribution ¤ .544** .524**
Cost-reduction attribution 000 000-.150 .132
LMX .162 .928*
Implemented HR practices x well-being 000 -.300
Implemented HR practices x cost-reduction -.318
Implemented HR practices x LMX -1.032
R2 change 000-.083 000-.552 .518
Note: *p < 0.05, **p <0.01
26
To test job satisfaction, the relation of the control variables on job satisfaction is regressed (table
2b). Next the relation of HR practices on job satisfaction is added in step 2. The presence of HR practices
is not significant related to job satisfaction, while controlling for the control variables. This is in contrast
with hypothesis 1A. It was expected that: HR practices are positively related to job satisfaction.
Remarkable is that the well-being attribution is significant positive related to job satisfaction (β =0.525,
p<0.01). Again this relationship should be considered carefully. Though the regression analysis shows
significant results for this relationship table 1 also shows high correlation between the two constructs.
Therefore it is difficult to say if there is indeed a relationship between the well-being attribution and job
engagement or that they possibly measure the same constructs to a large extent. The results testing
hypotheses 2, 3 and 6 are presented in table 2b (step 3).The results show that none of the interaction terms
were significant. No significant moderation effect of LMX or the attributions on job engagement was
found.
Table 2b. Regression results for job satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
β β β
Gender 000 .132 00 .051 .031
Age 000-.023 00 -.048 -.026
Education -.168 -.033 -.022
Implemented HR practices -.057 .045
Well-being attribution ¤ .525** .528
Cost-reduction attribution 000 000-.027 -.629
LMX .168 .875
Implemented HR practices x well-being 000 .015
Implemented HR practices x cost-reduction .838
Implemented HR practices x LMX -.936
R2 change 000-.040 000-.431 .449
Note: *p < 0.05, **p <0.01
To test turnover intention, the relation of the control variables on turnover intention is regressed
(table 2c). Next the relation of HR practices on turnover intention is added in step 2. The presence of HR
practices is not significant related to turnover intention, while controlling for the control variables. This is
in contrast with hypothesis 1B. It was expected that: HR practices are negatively related to turnover
intention. Remarkable is that the well-being attribution is negatively related to turnover intention (β =-
0.344, p<0.05). Also in this case this relationship should be considered carefully. Though the regression
analysis shows significant results for this relationship table 1 also shows high correlation between the two
27
constructs. Therefore it is difficult to say if there is indeed a relationship between the well-being
attribution and turnover intention or that they possibly measure the same constructs to a large extent
which could also explain the found relationship. The results testing hypotheses 2, 3 and 6 are presented in
table 2c (step 3).The results show that none of the interaction terms were significant. No significant
moderation effect of LMX or the attributions on turnover intention was found.
Table 2c. Regression results for turnover intention
Turnover intention
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
β β β
Gender 000-.143 00 -.072 -.049
Age 000-.092 00 .050 .050
Education .061 -.059 -.054
Implemented HR practices .171 1.680
Well-being attribution ¤ -.344* .246
Cost-reduction attribution 000 000 .075 .841
LMX -.246 -.091
Implemented HR practices x well-being 000 -.818
Implemented HR practices x cost-reduction -1.118
Implemented HR practices x LMX -.274
R2 change 000-.034 000-.311 .369
Note: *p < 0.05, **p <0.01
It is also explained earlier in this paragraph but although significant results were found between
the well-being attribution and the different attitudes these relationships should be considered carefully.
Correlations between these different variables are also very high. Therefore it is difficult to say if there is
indeed a relationship between the well-being attribution and the different attitudes. Another cause could
be that in this present data set these variables measure the same constructs to a large extent. This could
also explain the found relationship.
28
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of HR practices on employee attitudes and
how managers play a part in this relationship. The underlying idea of the beneficial effect of HR practices
on employee attitudes was based on previous research and on the social exchange theory (SET) of Saks
(2006). Based on this, employees would react with job satisfaction, engagement and lower turnover
intentions when they have the feeling that organizations are investing in them through HR practices.
Based on SET and on previous research it was stated that these attitudes would become stronger when
they have the feeling that the HR practices are beneficial for their own well-being and these attitudes
would become less strong when employees have the feeling that these practices are only beneficial for the
organization in terms of cost-reduction. Also investigated was if the quality of the relationship between
leader and member influences the relationship between present HR practices and employee attitudes.
Previous research showed that a high quality leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship, leads to
beneficial employee attitudes. As line managers are to be considered important in the implementing
process of HR practices it was assumed that a high quality LMX relationship would strengthen the
relationship between HR practices and attitudes. Cross-sectional data was obtained with questionnaires,
filled in by 147 employee respondents, 34 line managers and analyzed to test the hypotheses. Hypothesis
1 was concerned with the direct effect of the HR practices on employee attitudes. Hypotheses 2 and 3
dealt with the moderation effect of employees’ attributions on the relationship between HR practices and
employee attitudes. Hypothesis 6 was concerned with how the quality of the LMX relationship could
influence the relation between HR practices and employee attitudes. Results did not support that present
HR practices were beneficially related with employee attitudes. Present HR practices were measured
among line manager. As they are becoming more responsible for the operational HR tasks in many
organizations (Bos-Nehles, 2010), line managers know best which HR practices are actually
implemented. Filling in the line manager questionnaire took a lot of time what caused possible
explanations for the fact that no significant results were found. Line managers were occupied with other
things and therefore hesitant to participate in the research. Which led to a small number of received line
manager questionnaires. When they did participate they apparently filled in the questionnaire very rapidly
due to their pressing time schedule. Conspicuous was that all the boxes in the questionnaires below each
other were ticket, especially at the end of the questionnaire. Therefore is assumed that managers
frequently ticket all the boxes that were listed below each other just to be done with the questionnaire. As
a consequence this led to data that most probably does not correspond with reality. Other possible reasons
for the fact that no relationship was found between HR practices and employee attitudes are the HR
measure and sample size.
29
Unfortunately the different leadership styles and LMX could not be distinguished from each other
in the present data set. Found correlations between the variables were too high. Therefore as it is
explained before was decided to continue only with LMX. The moderating effect of both attributes and
LMX are not significant as can be seen in table 2. Both LMX and employee attributions were measured
among employee respondents. From the correlation table (table 1) could be seen that despite of the non-
significant relationship between HR practices and employees attitudes there is a strong correlation
between LMX and employee attitudes, between well-being attribution and employee attitudes and even
between cost-reduction attribution and employee engagement. Which means that there are possible
relationships between the constructs that do correlate with each other.
30
Discussion
Absence of relation between implemented HR practices and employee attitudes
It seems that the results of this study do not support the idea that employee appreciation of
present HR practices leads to reciprocation from employees through beneficial levels of employee
attitudes. In this study was examined, with use of social exchange theory (SET) of Saks (2006), if
implemented HR practices have a beneficial relationship with employee attitudes. It is argued that
employees are motivated to demonstrate beneficial attitudes and behavior when they perceive that their
employer values them and their contribution (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). This is in line with the statements
of Nishii (2006). When employees notice that the organization is investing in them through HR practices
she argues that they will feel an obligation to return with behavior in positive and beneficial ways. That is
why in this study, based on SET and previous research, was assumed that there would be a beneficial
relationship between present HR practices and employee attitudes. Present HR practices were measured
among line managers while employee attitudes were measured among employee respondents. However
no significant relationship between HR practices and employee attitudes was found. This finding is in
contrast with the findings of other researchers who found evidence for a positive effect between HR
practices and employee attitudes (Marescaux et al., 2013; Wei et al., 2010; Kroes 2012). Marescaux et al.
(2013) stated that employees who are subject to HR practices are more likely to experience a general
feeling of autonomy and satisfaction which is associated with higher work engagement, higher affective
organizational commitment and a lower intention to leave the organization. Alfes et al. (2013) found that
employee perceptions of line managers’ behavior and HR practices are positive related to employee
engagement. They suggest that organizations able to support a climate of reciprocity according to SET
will produce positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes from employees. Also the findings of McClean
and Collins (2011) were in line with our assumptions. When companies invest in their employees with the
use of HR practices, employees reply with putting in more effort. Employees are more likely to contribute
higher levels of unrestricted effort when the organization shows investment in them. We give some
possible explanations for the fact that this research shows different results than found by previous studies.
As the sample size (N=147) in this research was sufficient, there is a possibility that a larger sample could
have facilitated significant results that would be in line with findings of other researchers. The rather
small sample size could have led to the fact that no significant results were found. Secondly the way HR
practices were measured could have influenced the findings of this study. Implemented HR practices were
measured according to the questionnaire developed by Susanne Beijer (2014 forthcoming). This
questionnaire was newly developed and not yet widely used. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that this
way of measuring is the right way for measuring HR practices. The used HR measure could be a reason
31
for the fact that findings in this study are not in line with other research. At last the organizational context
could have influenced the findings. Filling in the line manager questionnaire took a lot of time what
caused possible explanations for the fact that no significant results were found. Line managers were
occupied with other things and therefore hesitant to participate in the research. Which led to a low
response rate among managers. When they did participate they apparently filled in the questionnaire very
rapidly due to their time schedule. This led to data that did not correspond with reality as they seemingly
ticket all the boxes that were listed below each other. A couple of times respondents even draw a line
from top to bottom to tick the boxes of one answer category. Unlike HR managers, line managers do
maybe not see the importance of this study. This study and so also the questionnaire were focused on
HRM. This lack of interest of line managers could also be a possible reason for filling in the
questionnaire, as it appears, carelessly. Concluded can be that the results in this study about the
relationship between present HR practices and employee attitudes are in contrast with the results found in
other research. Possible explanations can be sample size, organizational context and the HR measure.
Therefore is recommended for future research to further investigate the effect of HR practices on
employee attitudes. A larger sample and a shorter questionnaire that specifically focuses on implemented
practices could lead to more precise information about this relationship.
Lack of moderating effects
Secondly was examined if different attributions among employees moderate the relationship
between HR practices and employee attitudes. No significant moderation effect of either the well-being
attribution or the cost-reduction attribution was found. Despite the fact that no moderation effect was
found, the well-being attribution has effect on the different employee attitudes. The well-being attribution
is positive significant associated with job satisfaction, engagement and a negative significant associated
with turnover intention. Table 1 even shows that the cost-reduction attribution is positive related with
engagement but less strong than with the well-being attribution. This is in contrast with the findings of
Nishii et al. (2008) and Guest and Rodrigues (2014 forthcoming) who found that the cost-reduction
attribution was negatively related to some employee attitudes. In this study no moderating effect of cost-
reduction attribution was found during the regression analysis but a positive significant correlation was
found between cost-reduction attribution and employee engagement. Concluded can be that in this study
the cost-reduction attribution correlates different with employee attitudes than was expected based on
previous research. As said before, employees are not inactive recipients of HR practices. The relationship
between HR practices and attitudes of employees can depend on the attributions that employees make
about the underlying intentions of the HR practices they experience (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). From this
study it appears that even the cost-reduction attribution is positively related to engagement, what was
32
unexpected. It was reasoned that cost-reduction attributions would provoke non beneficial attitudes
among employees as it was assumed that cost-reduction attributions were seen as organizational interest
only. Future research should investigate the possibility that cost-reduction signals are also appreciated by
employees as they signal that organizations carefully consider all expenses. Future research may find that
there is a possibility that these signals are positive received by employees because an organization that
keeps the costs low will have a competitive advantage due to its low costs. This safeguards the survival of
the organization in the market place, which means job security for employees as the organization
continues to exist. From the findings in this study it appears important that HR practices signal to
employees that the organization is aware of their value, cares about them and invests in them. These are
possible explanations for the findings in this study that future research could investigate. Nishii et al.
(2008) and Guest and Rodrigues (2014 forthcoming) found evidence for the fact that cost-reduction
attributions among employees are negatively related to employee attitudes. The results in this study are
not in line with those findings but this study does not provide enough significant evidence to propose the
opposite effect. On the one hand found correlations give rise to further research on the other hand above
made explanations have to be carefully considered because they are partly based on found correlations.
For this reason no effects are proposed but it is recommended to further investigate this subject. It is
recommended to further investigate the relation between employee attitudes and different employee
attributions. It could be that future research will find results that are in line with findings in this study, that
both well-being and less strong cost-reduction attribution are beneficially related to employee attitudes.
Employee HR attributions
Based on the article of Nishii et al. (2008) this study focuses on the assumption that employees
make attributions about HR practices and that these attributions can be divided in two types; a well-being
and a cost-reduction attribution. The construct of HR attributions refers to the explanations that
employees make regarding managements’ motivations for using particular HR practices. HR attributions
are employees’ explanations about managements’ motivations for using particular HR practices (Nishii et
al., 2008). With this in mind the findings in this study do raise the question if these two attributions do
indeed cover HR practices. Results in this study show that there is no relation between HR practices and
employee attitudes. However, this study found evidence for a relation between the well-being attribution
and the different employee attitudes. Even a correlation is found between the cost-reduction attribution
and engagement. Therefore future research could possibly confirm that the well-being and the cost-
reduction attribution, as used in this study, are not only influenced by causal explanations that employees
make about managements’ reasons for implementing certain HR practices. Apparently other
organizational aspects like for example leadership, organizational culture or working environment could
33
also have influence. These possible explanations are partly based on correlations and therefore they have
to be considered carefully. That is why it is recommended to further investigate the above made
assumptions between how supposed HR attributions are indeed influenced by explanations that
employees make regarding managements’ motivations for using particular HR practices or that other
influences could play part.
Importance of LMX
At last was examined if the quality of the relationship between leader and member moderated the
relation between HR practices and employee attitudes. Based on literature it was expected that a high
quality relationship would lead to a stronger relationship between HR practices and employee attitudes. In
contrast to the hypothesis, results showed that there was no significant moderation effect of LMX on the
relation between HR practices and employee attitudes. Although no moderating effect was found, table 1
shows that LMX correlates in a beneficial significant way with engagement, job satisfaction and turnover
intention. However, HR practices show no relationship with employee attitudes. Future research should
investigate if there is a possibility that working for someone with whom you have a good relationship and
whom you like is more important than the presence of HR practices. This raises the question if HR
practices really have something to offer to employees. Future research could possibly find that working
for someone you like is more important to employees than the presence of HR practices. Another reason
based on literature is that a high quality relationship with your leader gives social support to employees.
The conservation of resources theory (COR) and the job demands resources (JD-R) model both
emphasize the importance of social support. COR theory suggests that employees want to gain, keep and
protect their resources and that this motivates employees’ behaviors (Hobfoll, 2001). From a COR
perspective the leader-member relationship acts as an important source of support for preserving these
resources. Higher quality LMX relationships receive more interpersonal and organizational resources.
Pomaki et al. (2010) state that psychosocial stressors, such as lack of social support can start a process of
job dissatisfaction, turnover intention and finally turnover. This points out how important social support
can be for employees. There is a possibility that a good leader member relationship could be more
important for employees than HR practices. As possible suggestions made above are only based on found
correlations they have to be considered carefully. Found correlations can also be caused by other effects.
This is why is suggested that future research should investigate if HR is as important to employees as we
think. There is a possibility that further research will find that a good relationship ship with your manager/
working for someone you like will be at least equally important.
34
Limitations and implications for practitioners
Limitations
The results of this research should be interpreted with caution due to limitations of this study.
First of all, the sample used for this study consisted of 147 employees and 34 line managers. The sample
is sufficient but a larger population would be better to guarantee the reliability of the research (Singleton
& Straits, 2005).
Second limitation is the cross-sectional design of this study; there is only one measurement point
in time. Based on the nature of cross-sectional study we cannot test causal relationships. In this study,
SET and already existing empirical evidence are the basis for the proposed directions for the relationships
in this study. To provide stronger inference about causal direction between the relationships, for future
research longitudinal designs are advised (Singleton & Straits, 2005).
Furthermore, source bias is a methodological threat because employees filled in the
questionnaires themselves. This can lead to different outcomes because employees filled in how they
perceive, for example, leadership style. If this was also measured among leaders this could have led to a
different outcome (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Though there is chosen for this way of data collection,
because job satisfaction, engagement and turnover intention are only measurable by examining the
perception of the experience of the employee.
Fourth, the correlation between LMX and the different leadership styles was too high and
therefore the different variables could not be distinguished from each other in the present data set.
Apparently they measure the same constructs to a large extent. A possible explanation is that the scales
who measured transactional-, transformational and LMX were taken from a larger questionnaire. The
small scales in this questionnaire were too small to show the difference between the constructs.
As the data in this study was disaggregated to make it useful for this study it should be treated
with caution as it is in fact manipulated and can become less accurate.
Limitation and recommendations for research design
The structure of the research was well thought of in advance. Still there were some limitations of
the research design that can be improved for future research. During the research it was experienced that
of the three different respondent categories that were measured HR managers, line managers and
employees, the line managers were most difficult to persuade to participate in the research. A possible
reason is that HR managers saw the importance of this research because it is their field of profession and
they were therefore keen to participate in the study. Line managers however did not see the purpose of
35
this research, had to fill in a long questionnaire and were as we experienced very busy with their own
responsibilities. The questionnaire of the employees only took five minutes and therefore we experienced
no difficulties with this group. The line manager questionnaire did not only included questions about the
present HR practices for this study. As the questionnaire was part of a larger research it also contained
questions for other research that were not used for this particular study. This resulted in the fact that the
line manager questionnaire became very long and because of the length managers were hesitant to fill in
the questionnaire or probably filled in the questionnaire very rapidly. Filling in the questionnaire very
quickly most likely led to data that does not correspond with reality. During construction of the
questionnaires the researchers tried to minimize the length of the questionnaire as much as possible.
Questions were left out but at the end it was not possible to shorten the questionnaire more because it had
to keep its purpose in collecting data to test the conceptual models of different studies. For future research
shorter questionnaires are recommended because the length of the line manager questionnaire in this
study led to a low response rate and presumably to carelessly filling in of the questionnaire. Which will
probably lead to data that does not correspond with reality.
Another limitation of the research design was that the data of employees could not always be
linked to the right line manager and vice versa. An important part in the study was to link the data
collected by employees with data of line managers so conclusions could be drawn. Because the research
was anonymous we could not ask for personal details. Therefore every questionnaire was given a code so
line managers and employees could be linked with each other, their unit and their organization. The
questionnaires were distributed hardcopy which made it possible to write down the codes in small letters
on the back before they were distributed. We were afraid that when the questionnaires would be
distributed online respondents would not feel anonymous because then they had to fill in the code
themselves. Despite of all these precautionary measures some questionnaires could still not be linked.
Reasons were that some managers did not fill in the questionnaires at all, so the employees belonging to
these managers did not have any line manager data in our data set. Another reason was that some codes
had been obscured by employees. The code probably gave them the feeling that they were traceable and
therefore they made it unreadable. Unfortunately these questionnaires could not be used for our research
because we could not link them to line manager data/implemented HR practices. For future research is
recommended to more clearly explain the intention behind the codes and explain clearly that participating
organizations will only receive feedback about the whole study and not for individual units or employees.
The third improvement is the use of different scales to measure the leadership styles and LMX.
The scales that were used to measure transactional and transformational leadership were taken from a
larger questionnaire that measured four different leadership styles; charismatic, transactional, autocratic
and passive leadership. The questions for transformational leadership were some of the questions
36
belonging to charismatic leadership. There is a possibility that the correlation between the leadership
styles was very high because the scales were taken from a larger questionnaire. Therefore is
recommended for future research to measure different leadership styles with the larger original scales
instead of shortened versions as used in this study. By including the original questionnaire from De
Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman (2004) that measures four different leadership styles there is a
probability that the differences between the construct would become clearer instead of the high
correlation between the styles in this study. Also the shortened version of LMX was used in this research.
It is also recommended to use the non-shortened version for future research when investigating both LMX
and leadership styles to prevent high correlations between the constructs.
The last improvement for the research design is that control variables were only included in line
manager questionnaires. At first all the data would have been aggregated to the category of line managers.
For that reason it was no problem to only measure the control variables at the respondent category of line
managers. Because of the low number of returned line manager questionnaires there was decided to
disaggregate the data on the employee category. Which means that the line manager data is duplicated
with the number of employees per unit. The small amount of control variables measured among line
managers are now duplicated. This makes the control variables unreliable to use. Therefore is
recommended to measure control variables at all different categories of respondents in future research.
Implications for practitioners
Employee attitudes that are measured in this study do have different effects on employees. Job
satisfaction plays a crucial role in job performance (Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Butt, 2013) and engaged
employees give more of what they have to offer which makes engaged employees more productive
(Macey, Schneider, Barbera & Young, 2009). Turnover of employees comes with considerable expenses
because of advertising, searching for, interviewing, screening, and training of employees (Soppa, 2003). It
seems clear that these employee attitudes are therefore important for organizations. According to this
study present HR practices did not have any positive effect on employee engagement or job satisfaction.
Neither did it have a negative effect on turnover intentions. Other findings show that employee
attributions do however relate to many employee attitudes. As discussed earlier, apparently the fact that
there are practices is more important for employees than the number of practices or the intention behind
the practices. They signal to employees that they are important for the organization and that the
organization is willing to invest in them. The human resource department has to take into account that the
added value does not come from implementing HR practices on itself. It is more important that employees
perceive that underlying reasons for managements’ implementation of HR practices is also in their
benefit, like for example organizational survival. HR practices can still be implemented because of
37
organizational goals/benefits but how they are introduced in the organization has influence on attributions
employee makes about managements reasons for implementation. If a cost-reduction practice is
introduced to employees only because the organization wants to keep more money appears different then
when it is introduced so the organization will survive and employees will keep their jobs. How HR
practices are intended and implemented does have influence.
How practices are implemented leads to line management as they are mostly implementers of
practices. The importance of how a practice is introduced gives a high degree of responsibility to line
management as they implement practices. Therefore HR departments should work closely together with
line managers to discuss how practices are intended and what they should signal to employees so line
managers can keep this in mind during introduction/implementation.
It appears from this study that a good employee manager relationship is more important than
present HR practices. Therefore HR should also focus on how these high quality relationship between
manager and employees could be established as apparently this has beneficial outcomes on employee
attitudes. In the case of a good relationship between manager and employee, employees have the feeling
that managers always act in their interest. Therefore it is suggested that also the HR department should
create such a relationship with their employees. The HR department should create an environment were
all practices are seen as beneficial for the employee. In this case employees will always have the feeling
that HR practices are implemented for them also, and they will probably react with beneficial attitudes.
Acknowledgements
The author wish to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Jaap Paauwe and Dr. Susanne Beijer for their supervision,
advisement and support throughout the realization of this master thesis.
38
Reference list
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource management practices on
operational performance: recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of operations
Management, 21(1), 19-43.
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (November 01, 2013). The Relationship
Between Line Manager Behavior, Perceived HRM Practices, and Individual Performance:
Examining the Mediating Role of Engagement. Human Resource Management, 52, 6, 839-859.
Agarwal, R., & Ferratt, T. W. (1999). Coping with labor scarcity in information technology: Strategies
and practices for effective recruitment and retention. Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Studies of cognition and emotion in organisations: Attribution, affective
events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion.Australian Journal of
Management, 27(1 suppl), 11-20.
Bamberger, P., & Meshoulam, I. (2000). Human resource strategy: formulation, implementation, and
impact. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (January 01, 1997). Does the Transactional-Transformational Leadership Paradigm
Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?. American Psychologist,52, 2, 130-139
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. Theory, Research & Managerial
Applications, 3.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational
Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bos-Nehles, A.C. (2010). The line makes the difference: line managers as effective HRM partners.
University of Twente
Bos-Nehles, A. C., Van, R. M. J., & Kees, L. J. (2013). Employee Perceptions of Line Management
Performance: Applying the AMO Theory to Explain the Effectiveness of Line Managers' HRM
Implementation. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 861-877.
Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Butt, A. N. (March 01, 2013). Combined effects of positive and negative
affectivity and job satisfaction on job performance and turnover intentions.Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147, 2, 105-123.
39
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the
“strength” of the HRM system. Academy of management review, 29(2), 203-221.
Brewster, C., Gollan, P. J., & Wright, P. M. (2013). Guest Editors' Note: Human Resource Management
and the Line. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 829-838.
Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective
for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
97, 117–134.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment
questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een
vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17(5), 354-
381.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: a model and research
agenda. Applied psychology, 53(4), 556-569.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity:
does industry matter?. Academy of management Journal, 48(1), 135-145.
Daniel, T.L. (1985). Managerial behaviors: Their relationship to perceived organizational climate in a
high-technology company. Group & Organization Studies, 10(4), 413-428.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation.Journal of applied psychology, 75(1), 51.
English, F. W. (2006). Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6), 827.
Gomolski, B. (2000). Management update: Tips to identify successful candidates for
telecommuting. InSide Gartner Group, 1-12.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in
organizational behavior, 9(1), 175-208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-
40
domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2) 219-247.
Guest, D.E., Rodrigues, R. (2014 forthcoming). HR attributions, HR implementation and Employee
Well-Being. Paper prepared for the symposium on HRM Implementation at the 2014 Academy of
Management Conference, Philadelphia 1-5 August 2014.
Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., & Brouer, R. L. (2009). LMX and subordinate political skill: Direct and
interactive effects on turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(10), 2373-2395.
Hewstone, M. E., Stroebe, W. E., & Stephenson, G. M. E. (1996). Introduction to social psychology: A
European perspective . Blackwell Publishing.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston,
Mass: Houghton Mifflin.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337-421.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D.N. & De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire
(ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly,
22, 51-69.
Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of age on the
associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta‐ analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111-1136.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in
employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes. Human
Resource Management Journal, 20,(2), 138-156.
Kroes, Y. (2012). The influence of HR practices on employees' attitudes and behaviors: the mediating
role of a climate for safety. (Master thesis; Degree granted by Tilburg University. FSW.
personeelwetenschappen; Supervisor(s): J. Paauwe; 47 p.)
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its Conceptualizations,
Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009).Employee engagement: Tools for
analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. John Wiley & Sons.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2013). HR practices and HRM outcomes: the role of basic need
satisfaction. Personnel Review, 42(1), 4-27.
41
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. (2001), "Job burnout", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52
pp.397-422.
McClean, E., & Collins, C. J. (2011). High‐commitment HR practices, employee effort, and firm
performance: Investigating the effects of HR practices across employee groups within
professional services firms. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 341-363.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Nishii, L.H. (2006). The role of employee attributions of HR practices in SHRM. Poster presented as the
recipient of the 2005 S. Rains Wallace Dissertation Research Award at the 21st annual
conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Dallas, TX.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P., & Schneider, B. (2008) Employee attributions of the ‘’why’’ of HR practices:
their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology. 61(3), 503-545.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource Management
Journal, 15(4), pp. 68-84.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,
procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information
technology professionals' turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3),
326-357.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Frey, D., Short, K., & Woehrle, T. (2010). When the going gets tough: Direct,
buffering and indirect effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(6), 1340-1346.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saks, A. M., (2006) "Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement." Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A
comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data- analytic practices. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 63-113
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). The folly of theorizing “A”
but testing “B”:A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member
Exchange illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 515-551.
42
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding
Organization-Customer Links in Service Settings. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(6),
1017-1032.
Scoppa, V. (February 01, 2003). The Role of Turnover Costs in the Enforcement of Performance-Related
Pay Contracts. Metroeconomica, 54, 1, 60-78
Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of
leadership behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 101(2), 230-242.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organization science,4(4), 577-594.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA
Singleton Jr, R. A., & Bruce, C. Straits. 2005. Approaches to social research,4.
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between
behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 673.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings.Personnel psychology, 46(2), 259-293.
Tierney, P., (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change The role of work
group supervisors and peers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2)
Treviño, l.K., Brown, M. & Hartman, L.P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive
ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56
(3), pp. 5-37.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (January 01, 2000). Implications of leader-member
exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: relationships as social
capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
18, 137-186.
Wei, Y. C., Han, T. S., & Hsu, I. C. (2010). High-performance HR practices and OCB: A cross-level
investigation of a causal path. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21(10), 1631-1648.
Weinberger, L. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence, leadership style, and perceived leadership
effectiveness. Advances in Developing Human Resources,11 (6), 747-772.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple
levels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series, 468.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-96.
43
Appendix A line manager questionnaire
1. HRM activiteiten
In dit onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de aanwezigheid van een aantal HRM activiteiten binnen uw afdeling. Deze HR activiteiten zijn het aantrekken en selecteren van nieuwe medewerkers, het trainen en ontwikkelen van huidige medewerkers, het vaststellen en bespreken van salaris en andere beloningen, het evalueren en beoordelen van uw huidige medewerkers en participatie en communicatie tussen u en uw medewerkers.
1a. Aantrekken en selecteren van potentiele nieuwe medewerkers
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over het aantrekken en selecteren van potentiele nieuwe medewerkers voor de afdeling(en) waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent binnen deze organisatie. Geef per stelling aan of de volgende activiteiten voor de medewerkers in uw afdeling aanwezig zijn. Geef daarnaast voor elke stelling ook aan in hoeverre de lijnmanager deze activiteit uitvoert en in hoeverre de personeelsadviseur deze activiteit uitvoert (vul dus voor zowel de lijnmanager als de personeelsadviseur de vraag in).
Uitvoering door:
Aanwezig Lijn manager
Personeels-adviseur
Ja
Nee
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
1. Selectie interviews voor het selecteren van nieuwe medewerkers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Selectietests (bv. intelligentie, persoonlijkheid) voor het selecteren van nieuwe medewerkers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Assessment centra voor het selecteren van nieuwe medewerkers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Gespecialiseerde selectiebureaus voor het selecteren van nieuwe medewerkers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
44
1b. Trainen en ontwikkelen van uw huidige medewerkers
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over het trainen en ontwikkelen van de medewerkers voor de afdeling(en) waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent binnen deze organisatie. Geef per stelling aan of de volgende activiteiten voor de medewerkers in uw afdeling aanwezig zijn. Geef daarnaast voor elke stelling ook aan in hoeverre de lijnmanager deze activiteit uitvoert en in hoeverre de personeelsadviseur deze activiteit uitvoert (vul dus voor zowel de lijnmanager als de personeelsadviseur de vraag in).
Uitvoering door:
Aanwezig Lijn manager
Personeels-adviseur
Ja
Nee
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
N
iet
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
1. Regelmatige training en opleiding (minstens eens per jaar).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Regelmatige formele interne bedrijfstrainingen (minstens eens per jaar).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Regelmatige externe trainingen (minstens eens per jaar).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Training ter ontwikkeling van persoonlijke professionele vaardigheden.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Sociale vaardigheidstrainingen zoals communicatietraining of presentatietraining.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Formele loopbaantrajecten. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. Coaching. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Opvolgingsbeleid/ planning. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. Mentors en buddy’s. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Cross functionele projectteams (om inzicht te krijgen in verschillende onderdelen in de organisatie).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Ontwikkelingsprogramma’s voor high potentials (programma’s speciaal ontwikkeld voor toekomstig leiders).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Interne promotie (gekwalificeerde medewerkers hebben de mogelijkheid promotie te maken naar beter betaalde posities).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45
1c. Vaststellen en bespreken van salaris en andere beloningen Onderstaande stellingen gaan over vaststellen en bespreken van het salaris en eventueel andere bonussen van de medewerkers voor de afdeling(en) waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent binnen deze organisatie. Geef per stelling aan of de volgende activiteiten voor de medewerkers in uw afdeling aanwezig zijn. Geef daarnaast voor elke stelling ook aan in hoeverre de lijnmanager deze activiteit uitvoert en in hoeverre de personeelsadviseur deze activiteit uitvoert (vul dus voor zowel de lijnmanager als de personeelsadviseur de vraag in).
Uitvoering door:
Aanwezig Lijn manager
Personeels-adviseur
Ja
Nee
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
N
iet
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
1. Hogere salarissen dan marktconform is. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Salarisstijging op basis van individuele prestaties.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Naast het basissalaris een bonus of andere financiële extra’s.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Naast het basissalaris een individuele prestatie beloning (bonussen of andere financiële extra’s).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Naast het basissalaris een team-of afdelingsgebonden prestatie beloning.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Een systeem voor winstdeling. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
46
1d. Evalueren en beoordelen van uw huidige medewerkers Onderstaande stellingen gaan over het evalueren en beoordelen van de medewerkers voor de afdeling(en) waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent binnen deze organisatie. Geef per stelling aan of de volgende activiteiten voor de medewerkers in uw afdeling aanwezig zijn. Geef daarnaast voor elke stelling ook aan in hoeverre de lijnmanager deze activiteit uitvoert en in hoeverre de personeelsadviseur deze activiteit uitvoert (vul dus voor zowel de lijnmanager als de personeelsadviseur de vraag in).
Uitvoering door:
Aanwezig Lijn manager
Personeels-adviseur
Ja
Nee
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
N
iet
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
1. Een formeel functionerings- en beoordelingssysteem.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Jaarlijkse evaluatie van individuele prestaties.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Beoordeling van prestatie meerdere keren gedurende het jaar in een gesprek.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Gezamenlijk overeengekomen prestatiedoelen.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Beoordeling van teamprestatie als onderdeel van beloning.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
47
1e. Participatie en communicatie richting uw huidige medewerkers Onderstaande stellingen gaan over de communicatie van HR beleid richting de medewerkers voor de afdeling(en) waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent binnen deze organisatie. Geef per stelling aan of de volgende activiteiten voor de medewerkers in uw afdeling aanwezig zijn. Geef daarnaast voor elke stelling ook aan in hoeverre de lijnmanager deze activiteit uitvoert en in hoeverre de personeelsadviseur deze activiteit uitvoert (vul dus voor zowel de lijnmanager als de personeelsadviseur de vraag in).
Uitvoering door:
Aanwezig Lijn manager
Personeels-adviseur
Ja
Nee
Nie
t
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
N
iet
In
bep
erk
te m
ate
In s
terk
e m
ate
In z
eer
ster
ke
mat
e
Vo
lled
ig
1. Regelmatig werkoverleg in de afdeling. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Betrokkenheid bij het maken van beleid. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. De vrijheid om in nieuwe materialen en technologie te investeren.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. De mogelijkheid om zelf de onderlinge taken in te delen.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Deelname in zelfsturende teams. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Formele participatieprocessen zoals verbeteringsteams.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7.De mogelijkheid om zelf de kwaliteit en de uitvoer van het werk te bewaken.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Het zelf bewaken van de kosten en de productiviteit.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. Betrokkenheid bij beslissingen over het selecteren van een nieuwe collega.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Beïnvloeding van de direct leidinggevende van de eigen werkplanning.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11.Controle van activiteiten door de direct leidinggevende.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Dagelijkse verdeling van taken door de direct leidinggevende.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
48
2. Zichtbaarheid
In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de zichtbaarheid van de HRM
activiteiten (genoemd bij vraag 1) binnen de organisatie. Met zichtbaarheid wordt de mate bedoeld
waarin u een helder idee heeft over de HRM activiteiten, weet welke HRM activiteiten
geïmplementeerd zijn, en wat u wel en niet kunt verwachten van de HR afdeling. Geef aan in
hoeverre u het met de stelling eens of oneens bent.
3. Relevantie
In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de relevantie van de HRM activiteiten.
Met relevantie van de HRM activiteiten (genoemd bij vraag 1) wordt bedoeld de mate waarin wordt
waargenomen dat de HRM initiatieven en activiteiten de doelen van de organisatie ondersteunen.
Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens of oneens bent.
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens
1. Het functioneren van de HR afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten is voor mij onduidelijk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Ik word regelmatig geïnformeerd over de initiatieven van de HR afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. De HR afdeling werkt teveel achter de schermen m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Het is voor mij duidelijk welke taken binnen en buiten het HR veld vallen m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens
1. Op deze afdeling ervaren medewerkers de HRM activiteiten als relevant.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. De HRM activiteiten geïntroduceerd door de HR afdeling zijn onbruikbaar.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. De medewerkers op deze afdeling vragen zich af hoe bruikbaar de HRM activiteiten zijn. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
49
4. Eenduidigheid over de informatievoorziening vanuit de HR functie
In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de eenduidigheid van de
informatievoorziening vanuit de HR functie binnen de organisatie. Hiermee wordt bedoeld de mate
van overeenkomstigheid tussen de HRM activiteiten (genoemd bij vraag 1), de mate van continuïteit
en stabiliteit van HRM activiteiten over tijd en de mate waarin woorden en daden overeen komen.
Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens of oneens bent.
5. Consensus tus en de belangrijkste HRM beslissingspartners (bijv. directie, Personeelsadviseur, lijnmanager, OR)
In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de consensus tussen de belangrijkste
HRM beslissingspartners. Hiermee wordt bedoeld de mate waarin de HR beslissingspartners
dezelfde visie delen en op dezelfde golflengte zitten. Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens
of oneens bent.
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Op onze afdeling veranderen de HRM activiteiten om de minuut (bij wijze van spreken).
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. De verschillende HRM initiatieven m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten zenden verschillende signalen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. De initiatieven geïntroduceerd door de HR afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten zijn tegenstrijdig.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Op deze afdeling is er een overeenkomst van HRM informatievoorziening tussen wat de HR afdeling zegt en wat de HR afdeling doet m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens
1. Ik zit op dezelfde golflengte als de HR afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Alle HR staf medewerkers zijn het eens over de manier waarop medewerkers gemanaged worden m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Top management en de HR afdeling delen dezelfde visie m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Het management team steunt het HR beleid van mijn afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. HR management op deze afdeling m.b.t. de HRM activiteiten is tot stand gebracht door wederzijdse instemming tussen HR en lijnmanagement.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
50
De volgende vragen zijn vragen over uw HR-rol als lijnmanager in het algemeen; de vragen zullen focussen op de tijd die u aan HR taken en -verantwoordelijkheden besteed, uw motivatie om deze HRM activiteiten uit te voeren, uw eigen competenties als lijnmanager voor HR, de ondersteuning van de HR afdeling binnen deze organisatie en de richtlijnen en procedures voor het uitvoeren van uw HRM taken.
7. Tijdsbesteding aan HR taken en -verantwoordelijkheden Onderstaande stellingen gaan over de tijd die u vanuit uw functie als lijnmanager besteedt aan alle HR taken en- verantwoordelijkheden. Kunt u bij de onderstaande stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het hiermee eens of oneens bent?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens
1. Het lijkt of het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden nooit afkomt.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Ik heb nooit het gevoel dat de dag te kort is. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 3. Ik hoef mijn HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden nooit af te zeggen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Het is nodig dat ik een prioriteitenlijstje maak om alle activiteiten die tot mijn leidinggevende taak behoren, uit te kunnen voeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheid gehaast en wellicht minder zorgvuldig uitvoer om alles af te kunnen krijgen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
51
8. Motivatie om HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden uit te voeren Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op uw motivatie om de HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden uit te voeren. Geef voor elk van de stellingen aan in hoeverre u het hiermee eens bent.
Waarom houdt u zich bezig met het uitvoeren van HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Omdat ik vind dat het uitvoeren van deze activiteiten interessant is.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Omdat het leuk is deze activiteiten te verrichten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Omdat ik me prettig voel bij het uitvoeren van deze activiteiten.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Omdat ik dit doe voor mijn eigen bestwil. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 5. Omdat ik vind dat het goed voor me is om deze activiteiten uit te voeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Omdat ik geloof dat het verrichten van deze activiteiten belangrijk voor mij is.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. Ik voer deze activiteiten uit maar ik ben er niet van overtuigd dat ze de moeite waard zijn.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
8. Ik weet het niet, ik zie niet in wat deze activiteiten mij opleveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
9. Ik verricht deze activiteiten, maar ik ben er niet zeker van dat het verstandig is hiermee door te gaan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
10. Omdat het de mensen in mijn team helpt te groeien, zichzelf te verbeteren en te ontwikkelen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
11. Omdat deze activiteiten me helpen mijn team aan te sturen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
12. Omdat het me helpt bij het bereiken van mijn productieafspraken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
13. Omdat het mij helpt mijn medewerkers op een eerlijke en consistente manier te behandelen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
52
9. Competenties voor het uitvoeren van uw HR taken en- verantwoordelijkheden Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op uw eigen HR kennis en vaardigheden nodig om uw HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden uit te kunnen voeren. Kunt u voor deze stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het hiermee eens of oneens bent? Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Ik blijf kalm wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met moeilijkheden in het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden, omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn vaardigheden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een probleem bij het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden, dan vind ik verschillende oplossingen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Wat er ook gebeurt in het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden, ik kan het aan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. De ervaringen die ik in het verleden in mijn HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden heb opgedaan hebben me voorbereid op mijn HR toekomst.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Ik bereik de doelstellingen die ik aan mezelf stel in het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
De volgende twee stellingen gaan over trainingen of cursussen die u gevolgd heeft met betrekking tot de HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden en de ervaring die u hebt in het uitoefenen van deze taken. Kunt u voor onderstaande stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het ermee eens of oneens bent?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. De cursussen die ik heb gevolgd zijn nodig om de HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden goed uit te kunnen voeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Het cursusaanbod was voldoende om de HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden goed te kunnen uitvoeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
53
10. Ondersteuning bij het uitvoeren van uw HR taken en-verantwoordelijkheden Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op de ondersteuning die u van de HR afdeling en van de HR consultants ontvangt. Kunt u voor de volgende stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het hiermee eens of oneens bent?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Als de HR afdeling belooft iets te doen binnen en bepaalde tijd dan gebeurt dit ook.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. De HR afdeling staat erop foutloze HR gegevens te beheren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. De HR consultants informeren mij over het tijdstip waarop bepaalde diensten geleverd zullen worden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. De HR consultants zijn altijd bereid om mij te helpen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. De HR managers/personeelsadviseurs beschikken over de kennis die nodig is om mijn vragen te kunnen beantwoorden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Op de HR afdeling werken medewerkers die mij persoonlijke aandacht geven.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. De HR afdeling heeft het beste met mij voor.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
54
11. HR beleid en procedures voor het uitvoeren van uw HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op het HR-beleid en de procedures die ter beschikking staan bij het uitvoeren van uw HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden. Kunt u voor de genoemde stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het ermee eens of oneens bent?
Ik ervaar de volgende conflicten bij het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden: Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Ik werk met tegenstrijdig HR-beleid en –richtlijnen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Ik krijg HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden toegewezen zonder de bijbehorende menskracht om het uit te voeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Ik moet regels en gedragslijnen negeren om bepaalde HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden uit te voeren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Ik werk met twee of meer groepen die ieder op geheel verschillende wijze opereren, bij het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Ik voer HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden uit die acceptabel zijn voor de ene persoon maar niet worden geaccepteerd door anderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Voor mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden geldt:
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Ik heb duidelijke, geplande doelstellingen voor mijn HR taken en -verantwoordelijkheden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Ik mis richtlijnen en gedragsregels om me te helpen. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 3. Ik moet wennen aan het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 4. De uitleg van wat er moet gebeuren bij het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken en verantwoordelijkheden is duidelijk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
55
Wat is uw mening over de HR-formulieren en –richtlijnen die u ter beschikking heeft?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. De HR-formulieren die mij ter beschikking staan zijn duidelijk en begrijpelijk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. de HR-formulieren die mij ter beschikking staan zijn concreet genoeg om ze te kunnen gebruiken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Ik vind de HR-formulieren eenvoudig te gebruiken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
56
12. Toegevoegde waarde HR functie Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op uw mening over de toegevoegde waarde van de HR functie. Kunt u voor de genoemde stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het ermee eens of oneens bent?
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. De HR afdeling vervult haar werk op de manier waarop ik zou willen dat het wordt gedaan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. De HR afdeling voldoet aan de behoeften van de organisatie.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. De HR afdeling verschaft me nuttige en actuele informatie met betrekking tot HR vraagstukken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. De HR afdeling draagt bij om het concurrerend vermogen van de organisatie te verbeteren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. De HR afdeling levert toegevoegde waarde aan de medewerkers van de organisatie.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. De HR afdeling draagt eraan bij dat de kerncompetenties van de organisatie worden gerealiseerd.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. De HR afdeling draagt bij aan de opbouw van het menselijk kapitaal van de organisatie, met als doel het creëren van concurrentievoordeel.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
8. Beleid, activiteiten en procedures die van de HR afdeling komen, helpen de managers en medewerkers in hun werk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
9. De HR afdeling heeft goed gecoördineerde beleidstukken, activiteiten en procedures ontwikkelt.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
10. De HR beleidstukken, activiteiten en procedures ondersteunen het bedrijfsplan van de organisatie.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
57
13. Algemene gegevens Wat is uw leeftijd? Wat is uw geslacht?
Hoelang bent u werkzaam in uw huidige functie?
Hoelang bent u werkzaam in een leidinggevende functie?
Wat is de hoogste opleiding die u hebt voltooid?
Wat is het totaal aan personen werkend op de afdeling waaraan u leiding geeft?
Man ☐ Vrouw ☐
0 tot 1 jaar ☐ 1 – 2 jaar ☐ 2 – 5 jaar ☐ 5 – 10 jaar ☐ Langer dan 10 jaar ☐
0 tot 1 jaar ☐ 1 – 2 jaar ☐ 2 – 5 jaar ☐ 5 – 10 jaar ☐ Langer dan 10 jaar ☐
Lagere school ☐ Voortgezet onderwijs (MAVO, HAVO, VWO) ☐ Middelbare beroepsopleiding (MBO) ☐ Hogere Beroepsopleiding (HBO) ☐ Universiteit ☐
58
Hoeveel mensen werken onder uw directe verantwoordelijkheid (dagelijks contact, rechtstreeks verantwoordelijk)?
Wat is de hoogste opleiding die de mensen in uw team/ afdeling hebben voltooid?
Mocht u verder nog vragen en/ of opmerkingen hebben, dan horen wij dat graag.
Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname!
0 ☐ 1 t/m 5 ☐ 6 t/m 10 ☐ 11 t/m 15 ☐ 16 t/m 20 ☐ 21 t/m 25 ☐ 26 of meer ☐
Lagere school ☐ Voortgezet onderwijs (MAVO, HAVO, VWO) ☐ Middelbare beroepsopleiding (MBO) ☐ Hogere Beroepsopleiding (HBO) ☐ Universiteit ☐
59
Appendix B employee questionnaire
1. HRM activiteiten
In het volgende onderdeel vragen we uw mening over de achterliggende redenen van HRM
activiteiten op uw afdeling. Geef per activiteit aan in hoeverre u het met iedere stelling eens bent.
A. Mijn afdeling werft en selecteert op de huidige manier:
B. Mijn afdeling biedt de huidige ontwikkelings-en carrièremogelijkheden:
C. Mijn afdeling beloont medewerkers op de huidige manier:
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Zodat medewerkers kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen leveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Om het welzijn van medewerkers te bevorderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Om de kosten laag te houden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Om zoveel mogelijk werk gedaan te krijgen door medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Zodat medewerkers kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen leveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Om het welzijn van medewerkers te bevorderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Om de kosten laag te houden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Om zoveel mogelijk werk gedaan te krijgen door medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Zodat medewerkers kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen leveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Om het welzijn van medewerkers te bevorderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Om de kosten laag te houden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Om zoveel mogelijk werk gedaan te krijgen door medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
60
D. Mijn afdeling evalueert de prestaties van medewerkers op de huidige manier:
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Zodat medewerkers kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen leveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Om het welzijn van medewerkers te bevorderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Om de kosten laag te houden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Om zoveel mogelijk werk gedaan te krijgen door medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
E. Mijn afdeling betrekt medewerkers op de huidige manier bij beslissingen:
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Zodat medewerkers kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen leveren.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Om het welzijn van medewerkers te bevorderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Om de kosten laag te houden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Om zoveel mogelijk werk gedaan te krijgen door medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
61
2. Leiderschapstijl
In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de manier van leidinggeven van uw
manager. Geef per stelling aan in hoeverre u het hier mee eens of oneens bent.
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1 Mijn leidinggevende staat toe dat medewerkers beslissingen beïnvloeden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Mijn leidinggevende is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Mijn leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het gevoel dat ze bijdragen aan een opdracht.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en waarden.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Mijn leidinggevende is bereid om te investeren in het welzijn van de medewerkers.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Mijn leidinggevende zorgt ervoor dat medewerkers hun werk kunnen doen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. Mijn leidinggevende hecht veel waarde aan heldere afspraken en een eerlijke beloning.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
8. Mijn leidinggevende ziet erop toe dat afspraken worden nagekomen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
9. Mijn leidinggevende bekritiseert medewerkers alleen met goede redenen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
10. Mijn leidinggevende houdt zich aan zijn/haar woord.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
11. Mijn leidinggevende is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van zijn/haar verplichtingen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
62
3. Relatie met uw leidinggevende In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over de relatie die u hebt met uw
leidinggevende. Geef per stelling aan in hoeverre u het hier mee eens of oneens bent.
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 1. Ik weet waar ik sta met mijn leidinggevende.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Mijn leidinggevende begrijpt mijn problemen en behoeften.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Mijn leidinggevende weet wat ik kan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Mijn leidinggevende helpt mij met het oplossen van problemen op het werk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Ik kan erop rekenen dat mijn leidinggevende mij koste wat het kost zal helpen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Mijn leidinggevende heeft genoeg vertrouwen in mij om mij te verdedigen als ik er zelf niet ben.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. Ik heb een goede werkrelatie met mijn leidinggevende.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
63
4. Uw werkbeleving In het volgende onderdeel zullen vragen gesteld worden over hoe u zich voelt op en over het werk.
Geef per stelling aan in hoeverre u het hier mee eens of oneens bent.
Nooit Zeer vaak 1. Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Op mijn werk zet ik altijd door, ook als het tegenzit.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Als ik werk, voel ik me fit en sterk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Ik vind het werk dat ik doe nuttig en zinvol.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. Als ik aan het werk ben, dan vliegt de tijd voorbij.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
8. Ik kan me niet van mijn werk losmaken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
9. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk. ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
Totaal mee oneens Totaal mee eens 10. Ik vind het leuk om hier te werken.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
11. Ik ben tevreden over mijn werk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
12. Ik vind mijn werk niet leuk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
13. Ik denk er aan om van baan te veranderen.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
14. Ik ben dit jaar van plan om te zoeken naar een baan bij een ander bedrijf.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
15. Ik verwacht dat ik snel bij een ander bedrijf werk.
☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
64
Appendix C Reliability statistics
HR practices scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,628 ,630 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
LMAantSelaanwezig ,5469 ,33957 158
LMTrainOntaanwezig ,7297 ,22619 158
LMSalarisaanwezig ,4203 ,26448 158
LMEvalBeooraanwezig ,7228 ,21854 158
LMPartCommaanwezig ,8590 ,16218 158
Well-being attribution scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,904 ,904 10
65
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
(werving en selectie) Zodat
medewerkers
kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen
leveren.
3,58 ,862 142
(werving en selectie) Om het
welzijn van medewerkers te
bevorderen.
3,18 ,894 142
(ontwikkelings en carriere
mogelijkheden) Zodat
medewerkers
kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen
leveren.
3,42 ,917 142
(ontwikkelings en carriere
mogelijkheden) Om het
welzijn van medewerkers te
bevorderen.
3,16 ,920 142
(beloning) Zodat
medewerkers
kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen
leveren.
2,93 ,927 142
(beloning) Om het welzijn
van medewerkers te
bevorderen.
2,88 ,887 142
(evaluatie) Zodat
medewerkers
kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen
leveren.
3,40
,953 142
(evaluatie) Om het welzijn
van medewerkers te
bevorderen.
3,18 ,970 142
(participatie) Zodat
medewerkers
kwaliteitsprestaties kunnen
leveren.
3,25 1,046 142
(participatie) Om het welzijn
van medewerkers te
bevorderen.
3,06 ,984 142
66
Cost-reduction attribution scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,860 ,860 10
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
(werving en selectie) Om de
kosten laag te houden. 3,37 1,056 142
(werving en selectie) Om
zoveel mogelijk werk
gedaan te krijgen door
medewerkers.
3,45 ,935 142
(ontwikkelings en carriere
mogelijkheden) Om de
kosten laag te houden.
3,27 ,961 142
(ontwikkelings en carriere
mogelijkheden) Om zoveel
mogelijk werk gedaan te
krijgen door medewerkers.
3,38 ,881 142
(beloning) Om de kosten
laag te houden. 3,29 ,979 142
(beloning) Om zoveel
mogelijk werk gedaan te
krijgen door medewerkers.
3,01 ,875 142
(evaluatie) Om de kosten
laag te houden. 3,08 1,011 142
(evaluatie) Om zoveel
mogelijk werk gedaan te
krijgen door medewerkers.
3,37 ,912 142
(participatie) Om de kosten
laag te houden. 3,04 1,003 142
(participatie) Om zoveel
mogelijk werk gedaan te
krijgen door medewerkers.
3,34 ,882 142
67
Transformational leadership
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,801 ,800 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Mijn leidinggevende staat
toe dat medewerkers
beslissingen beïnvloeden.
3,61 ,815 142
Mijn leidinggevende is in
staat anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar
plannen.
3,70 ,867 142
Mijn leidinggevende geeft
medewerkers het gevoel dat
ze bijdragen aan een
opdracht.
3,74 ,889 142
Mijn leidinggevende laat
zien overtuigd te zijn van
zijn/haar idealen,
opvattingen en waarden.
3,87 ,877 142
Mijn leidinggevende is
bereid om te investeren in
het welzijn van de
medewerkers.
3,76 ,825 142
68
Transactional leadership
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,908 ,911 6
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Mijn leidinggevende zorgt
ervoor dat medewerkers hun
werk kunnen doen.
3,77 ,750 141
Mijn leidinggevende hecht
veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke
beloning.
3,57 ,981 141
Mijn leidinggevende ziet
erop toe dat afspraken
worden nagekomen.
3,70 ,925 141
Mijn leidinggevende
bekritiseert medewerkers
alleen met goede redenen.
3,67 ,923 141
Mijn leidinggevende houdt
zich aan zijn/haar woord.
3,77 ,892 141
Mijn leidinggevende is
betrouwbaar in het nakomen
van zijn/haar verplichtingen.
3,75 ,927 141
Leader member exchange scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,935 ,935 7
69
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Ik weet waar ik sta met mijn
leidinggevende.
3,94 ,766 145
Mijn leidinggevende begrijpt
mijn problemen en
behoeften.
3,69 ,968 145
Mijn leidinggevende weet
wat ik kan.
3,81 ,938 145
Mijn leidinggevende helpt
mij met het oplossen van
problemen op het werk.
3,67 ,913 145
Ik kan erop rekenen dat mijn
leidinggevende mij koste
wat het kost zal helpen.
3,49 1,021 145
Mijn leidinggevende heeft
genoeg vertrouwen in mij
om mij te verdedigen als ik
er zelf niet ben.
3,83 ,900 145
Ik heb een goede
werkrelatie met mijn
leidinggevende.
4,05 ,844 145
Engagement scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,857 ,864 9
70
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Als ik s’ morgens opsta heb
ik zin om aan het werk te
gaan.
3,90 ,886 143
Op mijn werk zet ik altijd
door, ook als het tegenzit. 4,13 ,704 143
Als ik werk, voel ik me fit en
sterk. 3,81 ,830 143
Ik ben enthousiast over mijn
baan. 4,01 ,892 143
Ik ben enthousiast over mijn
baan. 4,07 ,861 143
Ik vind het werk dat ik doe
nuttig en zinvol. 4,12 ,764 143
Ik vind het werk dat ik doe
nuttig en zinvol. 4,17 ,816 143
Ik kan me niet van mijn werk
losmaken. 2,66 1,015 143
Ik ga helemaal op in mijn
werk. 3,20 ,827 143
Job satisfaction scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,730 ,735 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Ik vind het leuk om hier te
werken.
4,0342 ,90527 146
Ik ben tevreden over mijn
werk.
3,8699 ,90412 146
Vr12 gespiegeld 4,2671 ,97762 146
71
Turnover intention scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
,900 ,902 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Ik denk er aan om van baan
te veranderen. 2,16 1,231 147
Ik ben dit jaar van plan om
te zoeken naar een baan bij
een ander bedrijf.
1,87 1,130 147
Ik verwacht dat ik snel bij
een ander bedrijf werk. 1,82 1,038 147