1

What’s in ‘the black box’? Examining different mediators of the effect of HRM on

employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

Julian Gould-Williams Cardiff University Business School

UK

Tom Redman University of Durham,

UK

Chris Stride Institute of Work Psychology

University of Sheffield UK

Paper presented at the PMRA.IRSPM.ASIA conference University of Hong Kong.

14th, 15th October, 2010.

This paper represents work in progress and should not be quoted without prior consent from the authors.

This project was funded by the ESRC

2

What’s in ‘the black box’? Examining different mediators of the effect of HRM on employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the mediating stage between an organisation’s human resource management interventions [hereafter HRM] and its outcomes. It does so by comparing the explanatory power of three different variables, perceived organizational support, empowerment and work intensification. These variables capture three competing theoretical frameworks, respectively, social exchange theory, intrinsic motivation and labour process. Data analysis is based on a sample of Welsh local authority employees (n = 1,755) surveyed in 2006/07.

3

INTRODUCTION.

There is a long standing assumption that HR practices affect organizational performance.

However the mediating variables linking HR practices with organizational performance remain

largely unknown and thus are said to exist within a ‘black box’ – the contents of which are yet to

be fully discovered (Boselie, Dietz & Boon, 2005; Guest, 1997; Wright & Gardner, 2003). For

most scholars, the linking mechanisms between HRM and performance are presumed to be

various employee outcomes (Guest, 1997) manifest in certain work-related attitudes and

behaviours. According to this perspective, HRM interventions should elicit ‘positive’ employee

attitudes and behaviors, which in turn should contribute to improvements in organisational

performance metrics such as increased productivity (Cappelli & Neumark, 2001; Huselid, 1995;

Youndt & Snell, 1996), enhanced quality (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Hoque, 1999; MacDuffie,

1995; Pil & MacDuffie, 1996), lower labour turnover (e.g. Batt, 2002; Gelade & Ivery, 2003;

Lowe, Delbridge & Oliver, 1997), and, even though the linkage is much disputed, higher profits

and market share (Huselid, 1995; Ngo et al., 1998; Wright et al., 1999, 2001, 2003). Conversely,

it is also possible that while HR practices may improve performance outcomes at the

organizational level, this maybe achieved at a cost to employees’ work experience and well-being.

If this is so then we would expect HR practices to generate negative employee outcomes such as

increased labour turnover, absenteeism (Fernie & Metcalf, 1995; Guest & Hoque, 1994; Wood &

de Menezes, 1998), detrimental work-family spillover (White et al., 2003) and a reluctance to

engage in citizenship behaviours (Godard, 2001; Tsui et al., 1997).

Surprisingly, given that employees are “the primary recipients and consumers of HRM” (Guest,

1999: 10), and that it is through transformations in employees’ attitudes and behaviours that HRM

is generally believed to work (though see Schneider et al., 2003, for evidence of the causal path in

註解 [s1]: In summary, commentators propose that HRM works by enhancing employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors in ways that will benefit organizational performance. Further, it is possible that HRM might at the same time satisfy employees’ needs and interests, though this last condition does not always apply, and this potential ‘disconnect’ is the cause celebre of HRM’s critics.

4

reverse), few major research surveys have asked employees what they think about the HRM

systems and policies to which they are exposed in their working lives (Edgar & Geare, 2005;

Keegan & Boselie, 2006; Truss, 2001). Indeed, survey data on HRM practice often only reflects

the voice of management, and often only one manager who may be prone to self-serving bias,

such as the person directly responsible for the organisation’s HRM (Gould-Williams, 2003: 31) –

though Wall and Wood (2005: 451) note that self-report measures are no more likely to generate

positive findings than studies using more ‘objective’ measures. Exceptions include Guest (1999),

and Berg, Appelbaum, Bailey and Kalleberg (1996).

Although there are plenty of acknowledgements of the existence of the black box, there are

relatively few studies that have attempted to ‘unlock’ the box, to examine the mediating effects of

key variables. Delery (1998: 289) noted how little is understood about “the mechanisms through

which HRM practices influence effectiveness” (see also Batt, 2002: 587); Purcell (1999: 29)

expressed his concern that the link was “taken for granted”. Boselie, Dietz and Boon’s (2005: 11)

review of 104 studies published between 1995 and 2004 found just 20 studies where there were

“identifiable mediating effects” in the table of findings. Examples include Ahmad and Schroeder

(2003), Batt (2002), Gelade and Ivery (2003), Meyer and Smith (2000) and Vandenburg et al

(1999). The search for mediators of the HRM performance relationship seems to be an elusive one.

For example, Kuvaas’s (2008) recent study of social exchange mediators (perceived

organizational support, affective organizational commitment and organizational justice) found no

evidence for mediation between developmental HR practices and individual work performance.

The purpose of this study is, firstly, to solicit employees’ assessments of the HR practices used by

their employer and thereafter an assessment of their effects on work-based attitudes and

5

behaviours. Second, it is to examine the competing merits of several variables for this mediating

phase, derived from three separate theories of how HRM works and hence what should be the

contents of the ‘black box’. In pitching a number of candidates against each other in terms of their

respective explanatory power, the paper seeks to address the long-standing need to unlock the

‘black box’ to gain a more complete understanding of the HRM-performance link. This is useful

knowledge for employers, to help them orientate their policies and practices toward the attitudes

and behaviour that best facilitate the impact of HRM on performance.

The paper proceeds as follows. The next section briefly reviews the literature on the ‘black box’.

We then present the three mediating variables we tested in our study. The method and findings

follow, and we draw conclusions and offer practical recommendations in the final section.

How HRM works: soliciting superior performance from employees.

There are a number of theories that seek to explain how HRM impacts employees’ attitudes and

behaviours in order to yield performance benefits. Space does not permit a detailed review (plenty

of such reviews have been published since Wright and McMahan’s (1992) classic early statement:

see Boselie et al., 2005; Guest, 1997; Paauwe & Richardson, 1997; Wood & Wall, 2005; Wright

& Boswell, 2002). Guest has advocated expectancy theory (1997), and the psychological contract

(1999). Gould-Williams (2003: 30) and Green (2004) see HRM psychologically aligning

organisational and employee goals, the latter interpreting this as inviting work intensification.

Wood (1999) highlighted HRM’s focus on securing high commitment and associated behaviours,

while Appelbaum et al’s (2000) ‘AMO’ theory depicts performance as a function of employees’

Ability, Motivation and Opportunity to participate and HRM attempts to deliver these three pre-

conditions to a high level.

6

According to MacDuffie (1995), there are three conditions that need to be satisfied in order for

innovative human resource practices to contribute to improved economic performance:

“Employees possess knowledge and skills that managers lack; employees are motivated to

apply this skill and knowledge through discretionary effort; the firm’s business or production

strategy can only be achieved when employees contribute such discretionary effort”

(MacDuffie, 1995: 199).

Thus, an organisation’s HR policies and practices are understood to be designed in order to tap

into employees’ knowledge and motivation to help the organisation to achieve its goals, over and

above what they are contractually expected to provide. It follows, therefore, that work-related

attitudes and behaviours such as job satisfaction, confidence in one’s abilities and personal

autonomy, and the belief that the organisation is supportive of its employees all suggest

themselves as viable candidates for the ‘black box’.

This is a somewhat benign, mutually beneficial model of what HRM does, and it dominates the

academic and practitioner discourse (Keegan & Boselie, 2006; Peccei, 2002). Yet this view has

been strongly critiqued. Sceptics argue that, far from investing in employees’ skills and

knowledge and enhancing their motivation and fostering a sense of community and mutuality of

interests, HRM works instead by duping or coercing employees into accepting intensified

workloads and demanding performance targets that exploit unjustly employees’ knowledge and

motivation (e.g. motivation based on fear). This may be achieved through a carefully orchestrated

HR strategy (Green, 2004: 718), or it may be the consequence of a deliberate lack of investment

in HRM and reliance on more conventional means of managerial control (Guest & Hoque, 1994).

7

Thus, an alternative theoretical framework is needed that explores the possibility of HRM being a

punitive managerial tool, with consequent negative employee outcomes such as stress and

perceived work intensification.

Before exploring our three mediation frameworks, we need first to establish HRM’s direct effect

on employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

HRM’s direct effects: hypotheses.

On balance, the empirical evidence – particularly that which has been gathered through

quantitative survey designs – has found that employees tend to report positive perceptions of their

employer’s HR practices. They also tend to report positive attitudinal and behavioural outcomes

as a result (see Guest, 1999). Accordingly, though we are sympathetic to the critics’ case, we

assume for our hypotheses that our employee respondents will report positive effects from HRM.

Our dependent variables include the most commonly cited employee attitudes/behaviours of value

to employers and employees alike: job satisfaction, intention to quit, trust, stress, extra and in role

behaviours . Job satisfaction is a specific positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of

“immediate reactions” regarding one’s job or job experiences (Gould-Williams, 2003: 34). Guest

(1999) suggests that the rationale for building a link from HR practices to job satisfaction is that

the latter should have consequent positive impacts on a range of additional performance measures

(Patterson & West, 1998). There is evidence that satisfied employees are less likely to quit, which

can be especially critical in tight labour markets. Gould-Williams (op cit) notes how satisfaction

can be unstable over time and so we might expect it to be closely associated with employees’

impressions of their employer’s HRM – as they have recently experienced it.

8

In their ‘People and performance’ model, Purcell et al. (2003) argue that better performance

derives from employees offering discretionary behaviours of benefit to their employer. Known as

‘organisational citizenship behaviours’ (hereafter OCBs), these discretionary extra efforts are

undertaken by employees, above and beyond what is required of their job. They include working

on job assignments outside strict job parameters and contractual agreements, assisting new

colleagues, and being willing to consider the organisation’s interests to be a priority. There are

two kinds cited by Smith et al. (1983): OCB-Os are behaviours directed primarily at the

organisation, and are identified to be notably valuable to the organisation and the management by

contributing to effectiveness and lower unit labour costs (i.e. eliciting more effort for the same

salary). OCB-Os represent behavioural compliance with what a “good employee ought to do”

(Smith et al., 1983). OCB-Is refer to behaviours that are directly and intentionally aimed at

helping specific individuals in face-to-face situations.

The linkage between HRM and quit rates is long-standing in the empirical literature (Arthur, 1994;

Huselid, 1995). Batt (2002: 589) notes how poor selection and job design can push people toward

quitting, while careful selection for ‘cultural’ and ‘job’ ‘fit’, quasi-autonomous job designs,

effective training and good pay have all been associated negatively with quit intent.

Finally, stress at work may be due to a number of factors – Green (2004) cites technological

advancements allowing greater managerial monitoring of employees, the declining strength of

trade unions as a countervailing force against managerialism, and employees’ own desire to work

harder and longer – but one possible cause of stress is HRM. As Green (2004: 718) writes, “it is

implicit or explicit in the new policies [i.e. HRM] that increased commitment is manifested in

9

increased levels of effort”. However, the link is far from proven: though they looked specifically

for the link, Appelbaum et al (2000) could not find it in their study.

Given these assumptions and prior research evidence, the following is hypothesized for HRM’s

direct effects:

Hypothesis 1a-e: Employees’ perceptions of the company’s HRM will be positively related

with a) employees’ job satisfaction, b) OCB-O c), OCB-I, d) trust, and negatively with e) quit

intentions and f) perceived stress.

Hypotheses on direct effects are important to establish the first requirement of a mediation model

(cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). We identified three different sets of candidates for the mediating

variable(s) between HRM and our individual-level employee outcomes. Two of the candidates

conform to a ‘soft’/‘high road’ approach to HRM (social exchange; intrinsic motivation); the last

candidate is a ‘hard’/‘low road’ approach (labour process/ work intensification). We discuss each

in turn in the next section.

Mediation candidate #1: Perceived organisational support (a ‘social exchange theory’ model

of HRM).

Social exchange theory has been noted by several studies as being an apt theoretical model for

understanding the employment relationship (for recent overviews see Coyle-Shapiro & Conway,

2004; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The essence of the theory is reciprocity: if the employer,

through its HRM policies and practices, demonstrates to its employees benevolence and support –

particularly if this is seen to be beyond the normal bounds of employment contracts – then its

employees will work ‘beyond contract’ (cf. Fox, 1974) in response, including demonstrating more

10

proactive effort and greater loyalty (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Such attitudinal and

behavioural outcomes potentially might lead to superior performance levels.

Another way of understanding the same process is provided by Whitener (2001): HR practices

shape workforce attitudes by moulding their perceptions of the nature of their employer and the

mutual expectations of the relationship. Employees’ consequent behavioural response reflects

these perceptions. For example, employees interpret the trustworthiness of management as a good

indicator of the organisation’s commitment to them, and this is then reciprocated by being

trustworthy on behalf of, and in dealings with, the employer (Whitener, 2001). Thus, the emphasis

is on generating desirable employee outcomes via the demonstration of organisational support,

commitment to the organisation and trust in management.

Allen, Shore and Griffeth (2003) found that ‘supportive’ HR practices (e.g. participation in

decision-making, fair rewards, development opportunities) contributed to perceived organisational

support, and this mediated the relationships between HRM job satisfaction and turnover. Tsui and

colleagues (1997; see too Tsui & Wu, 2005) compared four different models of the employee-

organisation relationship based on differing degrees of social and economic exchange. They found

that the ‘mutual investment’ approach (an open-ended, long-term social and economic exchange

arrangement based on mutual gain) performed best – although the strict economic exchange

model (a ‘quasi-spot contract’: minimal social engagement but high rewards attached to

demanding performance targets) also did well. Gould-Williams (2003: 48) reported an intriguing

finding for trust: interpersonal trust delivered no change to employee outcomes, but there was a

significant negative effect for ‘systems trust’ on OCBs. He interprets this as either trust does not

lead to greater effort or low-trusting employees work harder. In sum, HRM may be designed to

11

create a norm of mutually beneficial reciprocity, although the balance of benefits attained may

still disproportionately favour the employer (cf. Guest & Peccei, 2001).

Perceived organisational support (hereafter POS) reflects a social exchange model of HRM: the

theory predicts that, should HRM be geared toward securing high levels of POS, and should this

be appreciated by employees, then the employer can expect its investment in the social exchange

to be reciprocated in kind with satisfaction and extra effort on the part of employees. Thus, the

following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 2a-e: Employees’ perceived organisational support will mediate the relationship

between perceived HRM and our dependent variables: a) job satisfaction, b) OCB-O c),

OCB-I, d) trust, and negatively with e) quit intentions and f) perceived stress.

Mediation candidate #2: Empowerment (an ‘intrinsic motivation’ model of HRM).

The second framework is taken from motivation theories (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985; Latham &

Pinder, 2005). This framework holds that HRM policies and practices are designed and

implemented so as to motivate employees and equip them with the necessary confidence and

skills to give more to their employer in terms of effort and quality. The theory is that highly

motivated employees feel capable of taking on greater levels of ‘responsible autonomy’ in their

work and consequently can achieve higher levels of performance. Moreover, they want to do so,

on account of their employer’s HRM investments in, for example, job design, training, appraisal,

career development, and reward. This echoes Appelbaum and colleagues’ (2000) ‘AMO’ theory.

Such a level of employee motivation is likely to require two conditions: a sense of genuine

empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995; Wilkinson, 1999) and a heightened sense of self-efficacy.

‘Empowerment’ has its roots in intrinsic motivation, and is associated with four key

12

organisational practices: power and accountability to make decisions that would traditionally have

been made by managers (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2004: 19), shared information, knowledge

acquisition, and rewards (cf. van den Berg, 1999; Seibert et al., 2004). In other words, employees

need to be given, through the employer’s HRM policies and practices, sufficient stocks of each of

these pre-requisites in order to be empowered. This degree of personal control has long been

associated with higher levels of motivation (Herzberg, 1957).

Thus, empowered employees will be more confident in their work-related abilities and hence be

more motivated. They will consequently report high levels of positive attitudes towards their job

and their employer, including job satisfaction and regular and extensive displays of OCBs. On the

latter, the act of empowering lower-level employees will bring them into regular contact with

high-level management that might not otherwise have happened, and hence will provide more

natural opportunities to demonstrate OCBs on behalf of the organisation. Accordingly, the

following hypotheses summarise the assumptions of the motivation framework of HRM theory:

Hypothesis 3a-e: Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between

perceived HRM and the dependent variables: a) job satisfaction, b) OCB-O c), OCB-I, d)

trust, and negatively with e) quit intentions and f) perceived stress.

Mediation candidate #3: Work intensification (a ‘labour process’ theory model of HRM).

Work intensification represents the ‘low road’ approach to HRM; it is a ‘hard’ version rather than

the ‘softer’ [i.e. more employee-oriented] variant suggested in the two previous models (cf. Guest,

1987).

13

Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley’s (2000: 504) version of labour process theory emphasises the

systematic intensification of work as a means of “minimizing the potential gap between labour

power and actual labour as a means of maximizing profit”. Green (2004) conceptualised it slightly

differently: he notes how recent innovations in managing people and technologies have been, in

his phrase, “effort-biased: that is to say, they have increased the marginal productivity of effort”

(Green, 2004: 715). Essentially, Ramsay and colleagues, and Green, argue that HRM is deployed

by management to control employees and to compel them to work longer and harder – to cope

with heavy workloads and demanding targets – as a way of maximizing employee contribution.

‘Multi-skilled’ and ‘functionally flexible’ employees now work on more tasks than they did

previously. They also work longer hours – at work and at home and on the move – in order to

complete their salaried tasks. HRM has been complicit in this. Firms use “techniques aimed at

engendering greater identification of employees with company objectives” (Green, 2004: 718)

through, for example, career progression and training opportunities being linked to good

appraisals, performance-related pay and pseudo-participation schemes. Control and intensified

work can also come from rigid application of rules and procedures that focus on increasing

efficiency, eliminating waste and reducing labour costs (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005) and

narrow task-based training. These can all lead employees to exert greater effort, whether they

would like to or not. Thus, the labour process approach “conceptualizes [HRM]1 practices as

leading, directly or indirectly, to work intensification” (Ramsay et al., 2000: 505).

While this approach may lead to increased productivity it may also be expected to lead to less

desirable results in terms of employee attitudes and behaviours, such as lower job satisfaction,

reduced OCBs, increased intention to quit, and higher stress levels. Importantly for this model, the

1 Ramsay et al (2000) use the term ‘high-performance work systems’.

14

consequences for employees’ well-being may be a secondary concern for the employer - as long

as the targets are met. Interestingly, Ramsay et al.’s (2000) analysis of WERS98 data found little

support for the labour process framework for explaining HRM – though it also found little support

for either of two ‘ideal-type HRM’ models either. Green’s study using the same data found some

support for HRM “appearing to engender greater effort” (2004: 737).

To test the labour process theory interpretation of what HRM does, we used a measure of work

intensification in part based on the research developed by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive.

If a work intensification model of HRM holds, then we would expect negative direct effects of

HRM on our two employee outcomes, and for this to be fully or partially explained by our work

intensification variable. We hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4a-e: Employees’ perceived work intensification will mediate the relationship

between perceived HRM and our dependent variables: a) job satisfaction [negatively], b)

OCB-O [negatively], c), OCB-I [negatively], d) trust [negatively], and [positively] with e)

quit intentions and f) perceived stress.

Figure 1 below summarizes the general model that will be tested in the study:

Antecedent Mediators (‘Black box’ candidates) Outcomes

Figure 1 The general testing model in the study

Social exchange Perceived Organisational

Support

Motivation Empowerment

Work intensification Perceived work pressure

Job satisfaction

Trust

Stress

Intention to quit

?

?

?

OCB

Employees’ perceptions

of HRM

THE RESEARCH SETTING

There are 22 single tier, unitary local authorities in Wales employing over 162,000 people2.

Over the last 25 years local government in Wales has undergone much re-organisation, as has

been the case for much of the public sector in the UK. Since 1997 central UK government has

introduced a plethora of policies designed to modernise and improve public services. The on-

going public sector reforms have formed part of the ‘local government modernisation agenda’.

In Wales, a significant component of change has occurred within the last 10 years with the

establishment of the Welsh Assembly Government (formerly referred to as the National Assemb

for Wales) under the Government of Wales Act, 1998. The Assembly sets the national priorities

ly

,

2 ONS Quarterly Public Sector Employees Survey (June, 2007)

15

16

get.

strategic context and the overall level of funding for public services, with local government in

Wales receiving around half of the Assembly’s bud

In 2002 the Assembly introduced the Wales Programme for Improvement (Circular 18/2002), in

an attempt to achieve continuous improvement in service delivery. Under this programme, the

principle drivers for change in Wales include the Assembly’s policy paper, Making the

Connections: Delivering Better Services for Wales (October, 2004); the Beecham review of local

service delivery – Beyond Boundaries (June, 2006); and a policy statement from the Assembly on

local government’s contribution to improving people’s lives - A Shared Responsibility (March,

2007). One of the four core themes of the Assembly’s agenda for service improvement is the

achievement of a motivated and ‘energetic’ workforce by equipping frontline workers and public

sector leaders with world-class skills. The Assembly is keen for local government organisations

to find their own particular approach to service improvements in which they are encouraged to

seek the co-operation and support of all staff in that ‘staff need to feel part of these changes …

For many staff, our proposals will generate new ways of working and more satisfying jobs’

(Making the Connections, 2004: 33). As a consequence of this, local government organisations’

HRM interventions are likely to be high on the agenda.

METHOD

Sample

A self-completion questionnaire was distributed to a mixed occupational group of 6,625

employees across 16 local authorise in Wales (6 declined to participate in the study as they were

undergoing organisational re-structuring). In each participating local authority eight departments

were surveyed namely Housing Management, Leisure, Education (excluding schools), Social

17

Services – Children services, Planning, Revenue and Benefits, HR, Waste Management. A survey

facilitator was nominated by the HR director in each of the participating authorities. This person

and their team were given instructions on how to randomly distribute the questionnaires across the

eight service departments, in which every nth person was given a questionnaire – n being

calculated to provide a departmental sample of 60 employees. In all cases the service departments

received a maximum of 60 questionnaires. Where the service department consisted of fewer than

60 staff, then all staff received a questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were returned

individually to the university in sealed, pre-paid envelopes. A total of 1,755 usable responses

were received, a response rate of 26.5 percent.

In this sample, respondents had an average of 7.63 years tenure in the department and 9.86 years

in the Authority. Average age was 39.84 years, 61 percent were female and 83 percent were

married/living as married. The sample was occupationally diverse, and 90 percent were permanent

staff and 85 percent full-time employees,

Questionnaire design

Measures

Independent variable: ‘Perceived HRM’. In considering the linkage between HRM and

performance, the first basic requirement is conceptualizing and specifying HRM as an

independent variable (Legge, 2001: 23). However, there is no agreement in the theorizing of

HRM as to what the operationalisation should contain (Boselie et al., 2005). Most, however, cover

the four main areas of HRM activity: recruitment and selection, training and development,

18

employee involvement, and reward – though other policies may be particularly apt for different

research settings.

Our scale consists of 15 items, covering the main policy domains of HRM. We adopted seven of

the eight original items from Gould-Williams and Davies’ measure of HRM in local government

(2005). Additional items were taken from Truss (1999). Respondents were asked to indicate,

using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree, the extent

they consider each practice occurs in their organisation. Sample items include; I am provided

with sufficient opportunities for training and development; The appraisal system enables an

accurate assessment of people’s strengths and weaknesses in this department .The Cronbach’s

alpha was 0.88.

Dependent variables. Employee outcomes were measured as follows. ‘Organisational citizenship

behaviours (OCBs)’ were measured with 8 items based on those of Smith and Organ (1983).

Respondents were asked the frequency of their demonstrating various behaviours, with a five-

point response scale (‘Not at all’ = 1; ‘At every available opportunity’ = 5). Four items

represented OCBs directed toward individual colleagues (‘altruism’: OCB-I - Cronbach’s alpha

=.80, sample item “Help new people to settle into the job.”) and four items tapped OCBs toward

the organisation (OCB-O - Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75, sample item” “Suggest ways to improve

service quality”.). In-role behaviour was measured with three items based on Williams and

Anderson (1991) e.g., “Perform according to your supervisor’s requirements”.

Intention to quit was measured with 4 items -eg “I often think of quitting this job”, Cronbach’s

alpha .89.

19

Stress was assessed using four items drawn from Spreitzer et al (1997), using a 7-point ‘strongly

disagree-strongly agree’ scale. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.

Job satisfaction was measured with three items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment

Questionnaire (Spector, 1997), using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to

7 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77.

Mediating variables. For our black box candidates based on ‘social exchange’, we adopted the

Perceived Organisational Support measure from Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) 8-item short form of

scale. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81. For our ‘intrinsic motivation’ candidates, we used the full

12-item Empowerment scale from Spreitzer (1995). This comprises four factors: meaning,

competence, self-determination, and impact. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87. Finally, for our

‘work intensification’ model, we adopted 8 items from the ‘demand’ scale produced by Cousins et

al (2004) – sample item “I have to work very fast.”; the remaining items are our own based on the

literature. There is as yet no validated scale on intensification. All items were ranged on a 7-point

Likert scale (ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was

0.91.

We deployed, marital status, type of contract (permanent or otherwise), age and tenure in

department as individual-level control variables, with the first two converted into dummy

variables for the purposes of statistical analysis.

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS.

The measurement model gave an adequate fit to the data: Chi-Square Test of Model Fit Value 5268.822 Degrees of Freedom 1691 P-Value 0.0000 CFI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.038, SRMR = 0.033 Communalities of all items were > 0.35, and almost all > 0.5.

Antecedent Mediators (‘Black box’ candidates) Outcomes

Communication

Social exchange Perceived Organisational

Support

Motivation Empowerment

Job satisfaction

Trust

OCB

Communication

20

Career

management/ Recognition

Social exchange Perceived Organisational

Support

Work Intensification Work pressure

Antecedent Mediators (‘Black box’ candidates) Outcomes

Job satisfaction

Trust

Intention to Quit

Stress

negative

negative

+

Career management/recognition

21

Appraisal

Antecedent Mediators (‘Black box’ candidates) Outcomes

OCB

Appraisal

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS

………………….

REFERENCES

Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organisational commitment: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (2), 175-197. Ahmad, S. and 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. Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M & Griffeth, R.W (2003). ‘The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process’. Journal of Management, 29 (1), 99-118

22

23

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T & Kalleberg, A.L. (2000). ‘Manufacturing advantage: why high-performance work systems pay off’. Ithaca, NY: Cormell University Press Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Sandy, C. (2001) The effect of high-performance work practices on employee earnings in the steel, apparel, and medical electronics and imaging industries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54 (2), 525-543. Baron, R.M & Kenny, D.A (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182 Batt, R. (20002). ‘Managing customer services: human resource practices, quit rates and sales growth’. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3), 587-597 Batt, R. and Monique Valcour, P. (2003). ‘Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover’. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 189-220. Berg, P., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T & Kalleberg, A.L. (1996). ‘The performance effects of modular production in the apparel industry’. Industrial Relations, 35 (3), 356-373 Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). ‘Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research’. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 1-29. Cousins, R., Mackay, C.J., Clarke, S.D., Kelly, C & Kelly, P.J (2004). ‘Management Standards and work-related stress in the UK: practical development’. Work and Stress, 18 (2) Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M. & Conway, N (2004). ‘The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange’, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Shore, L.M., Taylor, S & Tetrick, L.E (ed): ‘The employment relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives’. Oxford: OUP Edgar, F & Geare, A. (2005). ‘HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures - different results’. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). ‘Perceived organizational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Gelade, G.A. & Ivery, M. (2003). ‘The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance’. Personnel Psychology. 56:2, 383-404. Godard, J. (2001). ‘High performance and the transformation of works? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work’. Industrial and Labor relations review, 54(4), 776-805. Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D. and Cardy, R. (2004). ‘Managing Human Resources - 4th ed’. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

24

Gould-Williams, J. (2003). ‘The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 28-54. Gould-Williams, J. & Davies, F. (2005). ‘Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes’. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1-24. Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. & Truss, C. (1999). ‘Linking individual performance to business strategy: the people process model’. Human Resource Management, 38(1), 17-31. Green, F (2004). ‘Why has work effort become more intense?’ Industrial Relations, 43 (4), 709-741 Guest, D. (1987). ‘Human resource management and industrial relations’. Journal of Management Studies, 24 (5), 503-521 Guest, D. (1997). ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 265-276. Guest, D. (1999). ‘Human resource management - the worker’s verdict’. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), 5-25. Guest, D. and Conway, N. (2000). ‘Peering into the black hole: the downside of the new employment relations in the UK’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(3), 367-389. Guest, D. (2001). ‘Human resource management: when research confronts theory’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1092-1106. Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (2001). ‘Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39:2, 207-236. Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2004). ‘An assessment of progress to date and research priorities for the future for research on human resource management and performance’. Discussion paper for seminar on “HRM what’s next?” Rotterdam, June 9 2004. Huselid, M. (1995). ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3), 635-672. Huselid, M., Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (1997). ‘Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1), 171-188. Keegan, A.E & Boselie, P (2006). Journal of Management Studies, Keenoy, T. (1999). ‘HRM as hologram: a polemic’. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (1).

25

stLatham, G.P & Pinder, C.C (2005). ‘Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the 21 century’. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 485-516 Legge, K. (2001). ‘Silver Bullet or spent round? Assessing the meaning of the ‘high commitment management’/performance relationship’, in J Storey (ed). ‘Human resource management: a critical text - 2nd ed’. London: Thomson Learning, 21-36. MacDuffie, J. (1995). ‘Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organisational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (2), 197-221. Meyer, J. & Smith, C. (2001). ‘HRM practices and organisational commitment: test of a mediation model’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 17(4), 319-331. Paauwe, J & Richardson, R. (1997). ‘Introduction special issue on HRM and performance’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 257-262. Purcell, J., Kinnie, N. and Hutchinson, S. (2003). ‘Inside the black box’. People Management, 15 May, 30-36. Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000). ‘Employees and high-performance work systems: testing inside the black box’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (4), 501-531. Seibert, S., Silver, S. and Randolph, W. (2004). ‘Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction’. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349. Smith, A. Organ, D. and Near, J, (1983). ‘Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: its nature and antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Spector, P.E. (1997). ‘Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spreitzer, G.M (1995). ‘Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation’. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1456. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M & Nason, S (1997). ‘A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain’. Journal of Management, 23 (5): 679-704. Truss, C (1999). ‘Human resource management: gendered terrain?’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 10 (2), 180-200 Truss, C. (2001). ‘Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes’. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (8), 1121-1149.

26

Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L. & Tripoli, A. (1997). ‘Alternative approaches to the employee-organisation relationship: does investment in employees pay off?’ Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5), 1089-1121. Tsui, A. and Wu, J. (2005). ‘The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach: implications for human resource management’. Human Resource Management, 44 (2), 115-121. Vandenberg, R., Richardson, H & Eastman, L. (1999). ‘The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness: a second-order latent variable approach’. Group and Organisation Management, 24 (3), 300-339. Wall, T. & Wood, S. (2005). ‘The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science’. Human Relations, 58(4), 429-462. White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C. and Smeaton, D. (2003). ‘High-performance management practices, working hours and work-life balance’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 175-195. Whitener, E. (2001). ‘Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical liner modeling’. Journal of Management, 27, 515-535. Williams, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. 1991. “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours”, Journal of Management 17: 601-617. Wright, P. & McMahan, G. (1992). ‘Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management’. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320. Wright, P. & Boswell, W. (2002). ‘Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research’. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276.

27

Table 1: ‘Black box’ HRM studies (1995-2004 – source: Boselie et al., 2005)

Ahmad & Schroeder (2003) Commitment Batt (2002) Berg Chandler & McEvoy Fey et al (2000) Gelade & Ivery (2003) Climate Gould-Williams (2003) 1. Trust (systems and interpersonal)

2. Commitment Guest (2001) Guest (1999) 1. Psychological contract Huselid (1995) 1. Turnover

2. Productivity Huselid (1997) Meyer & Smith (2000) 1. Perceptions of procedural justice

2. Perceived organizational support Park et al (2003) 1. Increases in employees’ skills and attitudes

2. Employee involvement Paul Ramsay et al (2000) Rogg Climate Sha (1998) Van den Berg et al (1999) 1. Morale

2. Employee involvement Whitener (2001) 1. Perceived organisational support

2. Trust in management 3. Organisaitonal commitment

Wright et al (1999) Wright et al (2003)

28

28