The devolution of HRM practices

The devolution of HRM practices - Does HRM add value from the perspective of line management? –

- Master Thesis -

Project theme: The added value of HRM from the perspective of the Line Manager

Names of the supervisors: Prof. Dr. J. (Jaap) Paauwe

Dr. K. (Kerstin) Alfes (second reader)

Project period: January 2013 – March 2014

Student’s name : Annelies Buddingh

ANR: 125818

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=yD4RycycwhzWdM&tbnid=C5KdHMdC6SW56M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=https://stuwww.uvt.nl/~s143286/Jeugdliteratuur/index.php?pagina=tilburg&ei=lr9vUaO5OMLX0QXp4IGABA&bvm=bv.45368065,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNHnfsQS51VBivd-l

2 Master Thesis Annelies Buddingh: The devolution of HRM practices

Preface Veenendaal 12th March

Dear Reader,

You have in front of you my master thesis. This thesis is the final part of my studies

at Tilburg University. In February 2013 I became very motivated to investigate the

topic which follows below. After following courses like ‘Performance Management’,

‘International HRM’, ‘Organizational Change’ I was triggered by the subject that Prof.

Dr. Jaap Paauwe presented for his thesis circle: Does HRM add value? A critical note

and more focused on practical affairs within organizations was totally my cup of tea.

Together with two co-students we went through the whole process of: specify the

topic, formulate a research question, develop a research model, create a theoretical

framework and last but not least collecting and analyzing data. Although the data

collection caused some delay and took a lot of energy, we noticed the relevance and

interest of a lot of practitioners in this subject. The devolution of HRM practices and

the role of line management in this process is really an urgent issue in many

organizations at the moment. That is why I am proud to present to you this ‘value

adding’ thesis for Human Resources.

This thesis would not have been created without the help of my supervisors: Prof.

Dr. J. (Jaap) Paauwe and Dr. K. (Kerstin) Alfes. It was inspiring to exchange thoughts

with Jaap since he is such a prominent person within the field of HR. I have learned a

lot from him about designing and executing proper research. I would also like to

express my appreciation for Kerstin, who was involved in my research from an early

stage. She was always willing to give feedback and answer my questions very quickly.

I would also like to thank all the HR-managers of several organizations who made it

possible to collect data and execute our research. Furthermore my thanks go to my

aunt Anne Marie who helped with the translation procedure and my friends Anke

and Jos who shared their expertise of SPSS with me.

I truly hope you will enjoy reading my thesis,

Annelies Buddingh


Abstract

In this study a new concept in Human Resource theory is developed and

investigated: HRM strengths. HRM strengths are features which could determine the

degree of implementation of HRM practices in organizations. The effect of intended

HRM practices is examined on perceived HRM practices, added value and HRM

strengths from the perspective of Line-Managers and employees. Data was gathered

by means of three different surveys that were distributed among HR-managers, Line

Managers and employees in a variety of organizations within the Netherlands.

Results indicate that HRM practices are perceived by employees the way they are

intended by HR managers in most cases, and Line Managers rate overall HRM

practices to be valuable and in accordance with HRM strengths.

Keywords: implementation, devolution, line management, HRM strengths.


Contents

Abstract 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………5 2. Theoretical framework……………………………………………………………………………………6

Implementation………………………………………………………………………………………6 AMO framework……………………………………………………………………………………..8 HRM strengths………………………………………………………………………………………..8

3. Research design……………………………………………………………………………………………12 1. Population and sample………………………………………………………………………….12 2. Procedure…………………………………………..…………………………………………………12 3. Instrument……….…………………………………………………………………………………..13

HRM content and degree of implementation…….…………………………………13 HRM strengths and added value…………………………….…………………………….15 Control variables…………………………………..………………………………………………17

4. Initial plan for statistical analysis……………….………………………………………….17 4. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

1. Contingencies………………………………………………………………………………………….19 2. Perceived degree of implementation………………………………………………………21 Descriptive statistics……………………………………………………………………………….21 Regression analysis…………………………………………………………………………………23 3. Perceived added value…………………………………………………………………………….25

Descriptive statistics…………………………………….……………………………………….25 Regression analysis……………………………………………………………………………….26

4. HRM strengths………………………………………………………………………………………..28 Descriptive statistics………………………….………………………………………………….28 Regression analysis………………………………….…………………………………………….30

5. Conclusion & Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..33 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………..33 Interpretation & discussion….………………….….……………………………………………33 Limitations and suggestions for future research……………………………………….35

Implications……………………….……………………………………………………………………..37 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39

Appendix 1: Surveys…………………….………………………………………………………………………….42 Appendix 2: Factor analysis perceived HRM practices………………….……….………….…….51 Appendix 3: Factor analysis perceived added value………………………………………………..55 Appendix 4: Factor analysis HRM strengths…………..………………………………………………..57


1. Introduction

Human Resource Management (HRM) refers to the practices, policies, and systems

that influence employees’ attitudes, behaviour, and performance. Many

organizations refer to HRM as involving ‘people practices’ (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart,

Wright, 2003). There are several important practices that organizations can use to

manage their employees such as: selective staffing, extensive training, result-

oriented appraisal, and incentive rewards (Sun, Aryee, Law, 2007).

Practitioners and academics alike acknowledge that Line Managers (LMs) are

responsible for the execution and implementation of HRM practices in the

organization (Bos-Nehles, 2010). Indirectly, LMs have been regarded as key for the

effectiveness of HRM and the achievement of positive employee and organizational

performance (Soens, 2012). The rationale of why line involvement in HRM has

emerged in recent years is, according to Brewster and Larsen (2000), due to five

elements: cost reduction, providing a more comprehensive approach to HRM,

placing responsibility for HRM with managers most responsible for it, speeding up

decision making, and as an alternative to outsourcing the HR function. Experience as

well as research in the field of devolution of HR responsibilities to the line has shown

that the implementation of HR tasks by LMs is not always executed the way HRM

policy makers intended it initially. This may be caused by several factors. Bos-Nehles

(2010) argues that LMs experience five possible constraints in implementing HRM

practices: lack of time, lack of relevant HRM competence, lack of support from the

HRM department, lack of clear policies and procedures, and lack of motivation to

execute HRM responsibilities.

On the other hand Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that the HRM process

and conditions under which HRM practices are (not) effective, need to be taken into

account. The authors state that the degree of implementation of HRM practices in

the organization depends on the ‘strength of the HRM system’. They explain that the

HRM system is a process where features send signals to employees that enable them

to understand the appropriate and desired responses. When this eventually leads to

a collective sense of what is expected, we can speak of a strong HRM system.


Until now researchers have mainly examined the relationship between HRM

practices and HRM system effectiveness (Combs, Hall, Ketchen, 2006; Paauwe &

Boselie, 2005; Subramony 2009), whereas the implementation of HRM has only

received limited attention. The aim of the current study is to reduce this gap in our

knowledge by obtaining insights in the implementation process of HRM practices

focussing on the pivotal role of LMs. These insights can help to attempt to optimize

the relationship between HRM managers and LMs in order to accelerate the

implementation process. The research question can be formulated as follows: To

what degree do HRM strengths, perceived by line managers, influence the degree of

implementation and perceived added value of HRM practices?

The paper starts out by presenting a theoretical framework to determine the

relationship between intended HRM practices by policy makers and perceived HRM

practices by employees and the pivotal role of the line-manger in this process.

Derived from the theory, hypotheses will be formulated. Subsequently the research

design and statistical procedure will be described.

2. Theoretical Framework

Implementation

HRM implementation is defined as the application and execution of HRM practices

(HRM content) in the organization (Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013). “HRM content

consists of specific implemented bundles of HRM practices and policies. It refers to

the set of practices adopted, preferably largely driven by the strategic goals and

values of the organization.” (p. 12, Vigna, 2012)

Effective implementation of HRM practices is seen as the result of a fit

between strategic choice and the HRM architecture (Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013). In

the ‘process model of SHRM’ it is argued by Nisshi and Wright (2008) that actual

HRM practices should influence perceived HRM practices and subsequently the

performance outcome. Ideally, one would assume that implemented HRM practices

are perceived the way they are intended by decision makers.

An issue which has been raised by understanding performance as an outcome

of HRM practices is known as the black-box problem. This black box problem is


explained as the mediating links of intended, actual, and perceived HR practices that

influence the effectiveness of HRM systems (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). It is often

noticed that there is a gap between intended HRM policies and what is actually

delivered by LMs (Purcell & Huchinson, 2007). This particular study focuses on the

link between the intended HRM practices (initiated by the HRM department) and the

perceived practices (experienced by employees) where the degree and way of

execution of HRM practices by the Line Manager determines the degree of

implementation.

LMs are defined as the lowest level of managers at the operational level, who

manage a team of operational employees on a daily basis and who are responsible

for executing HRM activities. For several reasons LMs may be the best source of

research (Wright, McMahan, Snell, Gerhart, 2001). Firstly, they are users of the HRM

practices both as employees who are subject to them, and as managers who have a

vested interest in these practices in order to have the maximal positive impact on

their subordinate employees. Secondly, LMs have more extensive knowledge of

what might be best for the organization and are in a unique position to evaluate the

tradeoffs between practices that might be desired by employees, but would put the

organization in financial disadvantage. LMs are in the ideal position to make

decisions concerning how to balance the desires of and returns to shareholders,

customers, and employees. In this way they are in the position to influence the

alignment between individual objectives and organizational objectives. Lastly, LMs

lead HRM’s most important customer: the employee. (Wright et all, 2001).

This in turn leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The intended HRM practices defined by HR managers are positively

related to the perceived degree of implementation by employees.

Hypothesis 2: The intended HRM practices defined by HR managers are positively

related to the perceived added value by LMs.

Besides a direct relationship between intended- and perceived HRM practices

and added value a moderator is proposed which might influence these relations:

HRM strengths. Recent literature argues that implementation by line managers


depends to a considerable extent on features of the broader organizational context

(Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013). ‘HRM system strengths’ are regarded to be such a

feature. With the aid of AMO- theory (Appelbaum, 2000) and theory on HRM system

strengths (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) the conditions are defined under which intended

HRM unfolds to influence perceived HRM and added value.

AMO framework

An important theory to determine the degree of implementation - and the added

value of HRM - is the AMO framework (Appelbaum, 2000). This framework explains

the three requirements for employee performance: the A stands for ability, which

means that employees can perform the job, because they have the necessary

knowledge, skills and abilities. M is for motivation, which explains that employees

will perform the job, because they feel interested and incentivised. The O is for

opportunity, which means that the work structure and the environment provide the

necessary support for the employee to perform the job. All three factors are

involved in creating employee performance.

HRM practices typically include the empowerment, motivational, and skill

domains and are likely to influence business performance by simultaneously

providing employees with the opportunity to contribute to the organization’s

success, motivating them to perform, and increasing the skills of the workforce

(Subramony, 2009). According to the AMO framework it seems plausible that LMs

especially value HRM practices which increase the ability, motivation, and

opportunity of employees. So that kind of HRM practices (furthering ability,

motivation and opportunity) will lead to a higher degree of implementation. In that

line of thinking the three meta-features derived from the AMO literature are: ability

[1], motivation [2] and opportunity [3]. Besides the AMO framework, also theory on

HRM system strengths, as indicated by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), is relevant to

indicate other features for HRM strengths.

HRM strengths

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that the HRM system is one of the most important

components which enable an organization to become more effective and to gain


competitive advantage. The HRM system is defined as a process where features send

signals to employees that permit them to understand the desired and appropriate

responses and form a common sense of what is expected. They explain how a

‘strong climate’ can be regarded as a ‘strong situation’, where employees share a

common interpretation of what behaviors are expected and rewarded within the

organization. They propose a set of characteristics, based on social influence and

social cognitive theories, which permit HRM systems to create strong situations

where unambiguous messages are communicated to employees about the

appropriate behavior. These characteristics refer to the process whereby consistent

messages about HRM content are send to the organization’s members.

HRM practices are considered as communications from the employer to the

employee. In order to ensure that a message has its desired effect, the two-step

process of ‘reception’, encoding of the message, and ‘yielding’, acceptance of the

message, is crucial (McGuire, 1972).

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) developed a number of meta-features -

characteristics that allow messages to be received and to be interpreted similarly

among employees - on the basis of the attribution theory. Attribution theory states

that individuals can make confident attributions about cause-effect relationships in

situations depending on the strength of the system. The strength of the HRM system

is determined by three different factors: the distinctiveness, consistency, and

consensus of the communicated message. Distinctiveness means that the message is

clear and can be distinguished from other messages. Consistency means that the

message is consistent over time and in different situations. Consensus means that all

HRM authorities, including line management, agree on the content of the HRM

message. These features of the HRM process allow for employees to interpret, react

to and distribute information from HRM practices in a correct and collective way. A

shared perception of the HRM system and climate occurs. Bowen and Ostroff (2004)

propose that when the HRM system is perceived as high in distinctiveness,

consistency, and consensus, it will generate a ‘strong situation’ that supports HRM

implementation.

Derived from the literature (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delmotte et all, 2012;

Bos-Nehles, 2010) five constructs, next to the AMO constructs, are developed to give


meaning to the concept ‘HRM strengths’. The selection is made taking the LMs

perspective into account, according to which features they would consider to be the

most relevant in order to execute HRM-practices. Proposed is that when HRM

practices are perceived high in personal relevance, organizational relevance, validity,

procedural justice and user friendliness it will generate a strong situation (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004) and therefore support HRM implementation (Guest & Conway, 2011).

Relevance refers to HRM content that is designed in such a way that LMs

perceive it as relevant so that it generates support to achieve an important goal. For

that reason relevance is associated with the concept distinctiveness (Bowen &

Ostroff, 2004). A distinction is made between personal relevance [4], meeting the

goals of the LM, and organizational relevance [5], meeting the goals of the unit of

the LM. The next indicator, validity [6], is covered by the concept consistency and

investigates whether HRM practices are consistent with what they promise to do and

what they actually do. When HRM content is perceived as valid by the LM, the

construct will contribute to generate a strong situation (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The

feature procedural justice [7] has been chosen to be included to cover the concept

consensus. Procedural justice refers to the extent to which HRM content, and the

decisions based on this content, are perceived as fair (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;

Delmotte, De Winne & Sels, 2012). Besides procedural justice there are two other

elements of justice in an organizational context: distributive and interactional justice.

Distributive justice, which reflects on the fairness of the outcome, and procedural

justice are strongly related. Indeed, the more an employee considers a process fair,

the more tolerant the employee is about the consequences of the process.

Interactional justice is focussing on how decisions are communicated instead of the

fairness of the decision itself (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). For these reasons the concept

procedural justice has been chosen to cover the concept. The last indicator for HRM

strengths is user friendliness [8]. An important requirement for implementation of

HRM practices are clear policies and procedures (Bos-Nehles, 2010), or in other

words the conditions that provide LMs with the knowledge of how to execute the

HRM practices. To recapitulate, the meta-features covering HRM strengths are: [1]

ability, [2] motivation, [3] opportunity, [4] personal relevance, [5] organizational

relevance, [6] validity, [7] procedural justice, and [8] user friendliness.


It is postulated that the HRM strengths, perceived by the LMs, moderate the

relationship between the intended HRM practices by HRM-managers and the

perceived HRM practices by employees. In other words it is expected that the degree

of implementation depends on the variable: HRM strengths. If LMs perceive HRM

strengths it is expected that the relationship between the independent variable

(intended HRM-practices) and the dependent variable (perceived HRM-practices) is

affected in a positive way.

Now that HRM strength features have been identified and the moderation effect has

been explained the following hypotheses can be formulated:

Hypothesis 3: HRM strengths moderate the relationship between intended HRM

practices and perceived degree of implementation in a positive way.

Hypothesis 4: HRM strengths moderate the relationship between intended HRM

practices and the perceived added value of the HRM practices in a positive way.

The above mentioned hypotheses can be represented in a conceptual model (Figure

1):


3. Research Design

Quantitative data was collected with the aid of on-line questionnaires. The

questionnaires were distributed within different organizations in the Netherlands.

The design of the empirical research was cross-sectional with a multi-respondent

approach. The different respondents as sources for data were: HRM managers, Line-

Managers and employees. HRM managers determined the HRM content and

employees provided data about the perceived degree of implementation. LMs

provided the data to measure the HRM strengths as well as the data for the

perceived added value of the HRM function. The unit of analysis was the Line

Managers department in an organization (=N).

1. Population and Sample

Different kinds of organizations located in the Netherlands were approached. The

size of the organizations varied. The minimum requirement for participation was

however the presence of at least one person responsible for HRM. Ideally one HRM

manager filled in the questionnaire about the HRM content in the organization and

passed on the other questionnaires about HRM strengths and perceived added value

of the HRM function to five Line-Managers who respectively passed on the

questionnaire about the degree of implementation to five subordinate employees.

Some larger organizations participated with more than one HR manager, in that case

the amount of other respondent groups in that particular organization increased as

well.

2. Procedure

Questionnaires were a suitable research tool to collect large amounts of data. Taking

costs and time into account the use of online surveys was preferable.

Prior to the questionnaire a brief introduction and instructions were provided. The

subject and the composition of the questionnaire were explained. Information was

given about what the data will be used for, where the questionnaire came from and

the period of time for filling it in. Assurance was given that the collected data would

be treated confidentially and that anonymity was guaranteed.


The choice was made to collect data from various actors (HRM managers,

LMs, and employees) to avoid the single source bias. This was done because the

reliability of a single rater is typically quite weak (Gerhart, Wright, McMahan & Snell,

2000). Furthermore, use was made of a multi-method approach to avoid the

common method bias. Various scales were adapted from previous research projects.

The surveys were available in English and Dutch. All the questions of the three

different surveys were translated and retranslated from English to Dutch by two

independent translators which ensured that the Dutch version was equivalent to the

English version (Brislin, 1970). It was estimated that each single respondent would

need 10 minutes to fill in the survey.

3. Instrument

The questionnaire measured different variables. The operationalization of the

variables in the study is shown below. For an overview of the items on the

questionnaires see Appendix 1. The items were to be measured on a six point Likert

scale from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (6).

HRM content and degree of implementation.

The sources of data to measure the ‘HRM content’ and the ‘degree of

implementation’ were respectively the HRM managers and employees. In order to

identify a certain degree of implementation there needed to be a match between

both questionnaires. Use was made of an adapted scale by Vigna (2012) to measure

eight different HRM practices. This scale was largely acquired from Sun, Aryee and

Law (2007), but Vigna formulated two additional items to increase the Cronbach’s

alpha for the dimensions ‘employment security’ and ‘incentive rewards’. The 28-item

scale from Vigna (2012) was adapted to the referent categories resulting in two

different surveys. The scale included eight dimensions, the first alpha was from the

scale of HR-managers, the second represented the alpha from the scale of

employees: ‘selective staffing’ (4 items, α.87 & α .86) with the example item: “great

effort is taken to select the right person”; ‘Extensive training’ (4 items, α .92 & α .87)

with the example item: “extensive training programs are provided”; ‘Internal

mobility’ (4 items, α .81 & α .83), with the example item: “Employees who desire


promotion have more than one potential position they could be promoted to”;

“Employment security” (3 items, α .84 & α .89), with the example item: “Employees

can be expected to stay with this organization for as long as they wish”; ‘Clear job

description’ (3 items, α .83 & α .91), with the example item: “Jobs have an up-to-

date description”; ‘Result-oriented appraisal’ (3 items, α .81 & α .83), with the

example item: “Performance is measured with objective quantifiable results”;

‘Incentive rewards’ (3 items, α .76 & α .79), with the example item: “Employees are

rewarded based on their actual performance’; and ‘Participation’ (4 items, α .84 & α

.85), with the example item: “Employees are often asked by their supervisor to

participate in decisions”. According to DeVellis (2003), the minimum requirement for

an alpha to be acceptable is .7, however values above .8 are preferable. In the

current study the Cronbach alpha coefficients were > .766

Reliability analysis HRM practices

The 28 items of the eight HRM practices scale were subjected to a principal

components analysis (PCA). Prior to performing a PCA the suitability of the data for

factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the

presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser Meyer-Olkin value was .84,

exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability

of the correlation matrix. The principal components analysis revealed the presence

of eight components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 29.2%, 10.7%, 8.7%,

7.0%, 5.8%, 5.5%, 4.6%, 3.2% of the variance respectively. The eight components

explained a total of 76.6% of the variance. The interpretation of the eight

HRM practices α HR-managers (N=21)

α Employees (N=166)

Staffing .873 .869 Training .918 .876 Internal mobility .810 .833 Employment security .837 .896 Job description .835 .914 Performance appraisal .808 .828 Compensation .766 .789 Participation .842 .850


components was consistent with previous research on the HRM practices Scale

(Vigna, 2012). The pattern and component matrix are presented in Appendix 2.

HRM strengths and added value

In order to measure HRM strengths and the perceived added value of the HR

function, data was gathered from LMs. The scale to measure the HRM strengths

consisted of eight meta-features of the HRM function and was based on existing

scales of Delmotte, Winne and Sels (2011), Bos-Nehles (2010), Guay, Vallerand, and

Blanchard (2000), Liao and Rupp (2005), and self-constructed items (Buddingh,

Ritzen & Yaneva, 2013). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm

whether eight dimensions and 26 items were acceptable. The eight identified HRM

strengths were: ‘Abilities’ (3 items, α .81 ), with the example item: “HRM practices

help my unit to grow, improve and develop”; ‘motivation’ (4 items, α.73), with the

example item: “I carry out HRM practices, because I have good reasons to do so”;

‘Opportunity’ (3 items, α.86), with the example item: “HRM practices help my unit to

get involved in the organization”; ‘Personal relevance’ (4 items, α.70), with the

example item: “The HRM department develops HRM practices that I need”;

‘Organizational relevance’ (3 items, α.79), with the example item: “HRM practices

help me to reach the goals of my unit”; ‘Validity’ (3 items, α.82), with the example

item: “I can have faith that the HRM practices realize the intended purpose”;

‘Procedural justice’ (3 items, α.82), with the example item: “Procedures and

guidelines of HRM practices are fair”; and ‘User friendliness’ (3 items, α.83), with the

example item: “The HRM practices I am provided with are clear and

understandable”.

The reliability analysis was acceptable (DeVellis, 2003), because all the alpha’s were

> .7

Reliability analysis N = 54

HRM Strengths α

Ability .808 Motivation .735 Opportunity .856 Personal relevance .702


The 26 items of the ‘HRM Strength’ scale were subjected to a principal

components analysis (PCA). Prior to performing the PCA the suitability of data for

factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .666, therefore

exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) reached statistical significance, the correlation matrix

revealed barely coefficients of .3 and above. This did not support the factorability of

the correlation matrix. In some cases the items did load on the desired factor, e.g.

opportunity. Considering the limited sample size of LMs (N=54) a factor analysis was

not reliable. Ideally, the overall sample size should be more than 150 (Pallant, 2010).

The pattern and component matrix are shown in Appendix 4. Despite the limited

sample size, it was possible to identify quite some items which load on the desired

factor. It was plausible that a lager sample would generate an acceptable result. This

assumption and the theoretical foundation on HRM strengths led to the decision to

pursue the analysis with the eight initially designed ‘HRM strengths’.

The second part of the survey was also filled in by the Line-Managers. It

consisted of a 10-item scale to measure the perceived added value and was adopted

from Wright, McMahan, Snell and Gerhart (2001). The Cronbach’s alpha for this

‘added value’ scale was .919. According to DeVellis (2003), this is perfectly reliable.

An example question was “The HRM department is performing its job the way I

would like it to be performed”. The 10 items of the ‘perceived added value’ scale

were subjected to a principal components analysis (PCA). Beforehand the suitability

of data for the factor analysis was assessed. The correlation matrix revealed the

presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was

.87, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test

of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the

factorability of the correlation matrix. The PCA revealed, as expected, the presence

of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 59,08% of the variance.

The component matrix is presented in Appendix 3.

Organizational relevance .793 Validity .819 Procedural Justice .816 User friendliness .830


Control variables

Two control variables were taken into account to investigate possible spurious

effects and isolate the impact of the main independent variable. Organizational size

and organizational age were regarded to have an impact on HRM practices, because

large and well-established organizations have more access to resources (Boselie,

Diets & Boon, 2005). According to Boselie, Diets and Boon (2005) size in particular

does matter because they found this control variable in sixty-four studies. Age was

found in twenty-five studies. The size of the organization was measured by marking

the amount of employees working in de organization. The organizational age was

measured in years.

4. Initial plan for statistical analysis

After gathering the data the statistical analysis was executed with the use of SPSS.

Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test whether

the items and dimensions of the three different surveys were acceptable. Firsty, the

Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

(Kaiser, 1970) index was used to assess the factorability of the scales. Secondly,

Kaiser’s criterion and Catell’s scree (Catell, 1966) test were used to do factor

extraction in order to determine the smallest number of factors. Thirdly, to check

which items load onto which factors, oblimin rotation was performed. And finally,

the Cronbach’s alpha was determined to test the reliability of each factor. The

minimum requirement for an alpha to be acceptable is .7, however values above .8

are preferable (DeVellis, 2003)

Before conducting the regression analysis the intra-class correlation

coefficients, ICC(1), needed to be examined in order to justify multilevel data

analyses. The ICC(1) determines whether the data from employees can be

aggregated to the department level and can be analyzed as a group mean (LeBreton

& Senter, 2008). The data needed to be aggregated in order to compare the results

between the dataset from different respondent groups.


Initially a hierarchical multiple regression would be conducted to test the

hypotheses. In this regression analysis the ‘degree of implementation’ and

‘perceived added value of the HRM function’ would be predicted by the variables:

‘intended HRM practices’. Subsequently the effect of the moderator would be

tested. The relationships to be measured between different variables can be

represented in a statistical model as follow:

The values of ‘intended HRM practices’, rated by HRM managers and ‘degree

of implementation’, rated by employees would be transformed into two indices

(Vigna, 2012; Sun et al., 2007). To do so the mean and its z-score for each HRM

practice would be calculated. Subsequently, these mean scores would be aggregated

to the department level for each corresponding line manager. The extent to which

the mean scores between HRM managers and employees differ, is the indicator for

the degree of implementation (a1).

The stepwise regression would be executed as follows: Firstly the control

variables would be assimilated to prevent spurious correlations. Then the

independent variable (HRM content, X) and moderation variable (HRM strengths, M)

would be standardized. The second step was to add the main effect of the HRM

content. Next, the main effect of the ‘HRM strengths’ would be added. This would be

followed by the fourth step, the interaction (XM). The moderation effect would be


measured by multiplying the ‘HRM content’ by ‘each standardized HRM strength’.

Consequently 16 regressions would appear: X * M * Y1 (perceived degree of

implementation) + X * M * Y2 (added value of HRM function). If the regressions

would be significant the moderation effect would be proved and in that case the

relationships a3 and b3 could be confirmed.

4. Results

1. Contingencies

The aim of this research was to investigate how the HRM content, implemented by

the HRM department, would effect the perceived degree of implementation of HRM

practices by employees and the perceived added value of the HRM function by line-

management. Subsequently the intention was to measure the moderation effect of

‘HRM strengths’ in these relationships. Unfortunately, derived from the collected

data it was not possible to measure these moderation effects, since we experienced

difficulties clustering the data. After the data was collected it was in most cases not

possible to define which LMs belonged to which HR-manager and which employee

belonged to which LM. Apparently the majority of our respondents did not

understand what to fill in when we asked for ‘division’/‘department’/’department

code’. However it was possible to create clusters of respondents per organization, so

it was decided to analyze merely direct effects.

Theoretical underpinning

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) describe how HRM practices influence employee

perceptions of climate at the individual level. In a strong situation, variability among

employees, or in this case line managers’ perceptions, of the meaning of the

situation will be small and will reflect a common desired content. In turn,

organizational climate will show a significant association with employee behaviors

and attitudes. This occurs because a strong HRM system can foster similar

viewpoints in such a way that the situation leads every employee or LM to see the

situation similarly, causes uniform expectancies about reactions, provides clear

expectations about rewards for the desired reactions and behaviors and induces

compliance and conformity through social influences.


If the HRM system is weak, HRM practices will send messages that are

ambiguous and subject to individual interpretation. In that case variability and

unintended making sense may happen, because LMs will not experience the HRM

practices to be in line with a HRM system where distinctiveness, consistency and

consensus are paramount (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

The adapted version of the research model can be represented as follows:

The relationships for H1 and H2 were investigated as initially intended and H3 and

H4 were replaced by one newly formulated hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The intended HRM practices defined by HRM-managers are positively

related to the perceived HRM strengths by LMs.

Briefly the statistical procedure was performed as follows: for each dataset a factor

and reliability analysis was conducted, followed by a representation of the

descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations and correlations among variables

including the control variables to look for spurious effects. In order to demonstrate

possible causal relationships linear regressions were executed.


2. Perceived degree of implementation of HRM practices (Hypothesis 1)

Descriptive statistics

In Table 1 the means, standard deviations and correlations of all the variables are

presented, and also the control variables organizational age and size are included.

The values are calculated for respondents of all organizations together. Table 1

represents as expected several positive correlations between intended HRM-

practices and perceived HRM-practices. Significant relationships (p < .01) are

identified for six out of eight practices: Staffing (r=.265), Training (r=.563),

Employment security (r=.284), Clear job description (r=.354), Performance appraisal

(r=.246), Compensation (r=.481). For the practices ‘Internal mobility’ and ‘Employee

participation’ no significant relationships are found.

The control variables ‘Organizational age’ and ‘Organizational size’ show significant

correlations with multiple HRM practices. These variables are therefore included in

the regression analysis.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables (N=12)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 Int. staffing 4.865 .495 1

2 Int. training 3.538 1.356 .423** 1

3 Int. mobility 4.321 .637 .474** .823** 1

4 Int. security 3.724 .952 -.353** -.751** -.643** 1

5 Int. description 4.266 .656 .298** -,130 -.087 .443** 1

6 Int. appraisal 4.087 .709 .694** .083 .217** .240** .666** 1

7 Int. rewards 4.109 1.309 .392** .354** .506** -.046 .162* .636** 1

8 Int. participate 4.464 .314 .653** .186* .297** -.124 .497** .596** .529** 1

9 Per. Staffing 4.342 .908 .265** .163* .143 -.051 .038 .190* .122 .099 1

10 Per. Training 3.542 1.184 .281** .563** .408** -.363** .010 .060 .104 .009 .296** 1

11 Per. Mobility 3.760 .966 .209** .035 .057 .005 .071 .070 -0.53 .031 ,316** .356** 1

12 Per. Security 3.715 1.175 .002 -.292** -.293** .284** .098 .111 -.101 -.063 .227** -.003 .414** 1

13 Per. Description 3.756 1.166 .110 .149 -.039 .023 .354** .104 -.088 .108 .186* .331** .424** .310** 1

14 Per. Appraisal 3.812 .968 .267** .213** .162* -.033 .298** .246** .142 .227** .249** .332** .462** .319** .537** 1

15 Per. Rewards 3.464 1.293 .248** .138 .184* .178* .187* .441** .481** .149 .208** .284** .323** .320** .180* .412** 1

16 Per. Participate 4.335 1.017 -.038 -.084 -.124 .240** .122 .089 .096 .033 .269** .128 .388** .337** .299** .315** .415** 1

17 Org. age 28.8 28.39 .201** .519** .314** -.231** .158* -.026 -.233** -.296** .118 .459** .267** -.004 .376** .290** .067 .049 1

18 Org. size 17325 37544 .391** .575** .539** -.690** -.627* -.022 .206** -.196* .151 .299** .074 -.092 -.182* -.029 .084 -.148 .267** 1

Int. = intended by the HR department ** P <.01 *P < .05 Per. = perceived by employees

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations of the combined

variables: ‘Intended HRM practices’ and ‘Perceived HRM practices’. These

coefficients are created by calculating one mean out of all separate HRM practices. A

significant, medium strong, correlation is identified for the relationship between

Intended HRM practices and Perceived HRM practices (r = .301). So overall we could

state that there is a relationship between the HRM practices which are defined by

HRM managers and the perceived HRM practices by employees, so a certain degree

of implementation exists.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables (N = 12) M SD 1 2 3 4

1 Intended practices 4.172 .448 1

2 Perceived practices 3.841 .679 .301** 1

3 Organizational age 28.8 28.391 .131 .326** 1

4 Organizational size 17325 37544 .123 .032 .267** 1

** P < .01

Regression analysis

In order to measure the model and test Hypothesis 1, a linear regression analysis

was performed, as shown in Table 4. The regression table predicts the extent to

which a HRM practice, defined by the HR manager of a certain organization, is

perceived by the employees of that same organization. These measurements are an

indicator for the degree of implementation of HRM practices.

Table 4: Linear regression analysis of separate HRM practices Model R2 F Non-standardized Coefficients Std. Coeff.

Beta B Std. Error

Staffing .076 4.432* Constant 2.170* .721

Org age .002 .151 .236

Org size 1.043

Staffing .432*

Training .356 30.028** Constant 1.860** .231

Org age .009*

Org size -8.441

Training .403** .076 .461


** = p < .001 * = p < .05

Five out of eight predicting HRM practices show a significant relationship with the

outcome variable (the perceived practices): Staffing (β = ,432), training (β = ,403),

Employment security (β = ,526), Performance appraisal (β = ,340), Compensation (β =

,540). For the HRM practices: Internal mobility, Clear job description and Employee

participation no significant relationships were found.

Table 5 represents the overall regression of all the HRM practices together. The

predictor variable (= Intended HRM practices) significantly (p = <.001) predicts the

outcome variable (= Perceived HRM practices) with a gradient of the regression line

of: ,410. In other words, if the intended HRM practices (the predictor variable) is

increased by 1 unit, the perceived HRM practices will increase with ,410 unit.

Hypothesis 1 is confirmed: The intended HRM practices defined by HR managers are

positively related to the perceived degree of implementation by employees.

Mobility .072 4.211 Constant 3.749** .573

Org age .009**

Org size 6.101

Int. Mobility -.062 .139 -.041

Security .103 6.265** Constant 1.60** .531

Org age .002

Org size 5.972

Empl. Security .526** .127 .426

Description .244 17.532** Constant 1.972* .743

Org age .016**

Org size -5.265

Description .331 .173 .186

Appraisal .159 10.112** Constant 2.151** .415

Org age .011**

Org size -2.801

Appraisal .340* .098 .251

Compensation .272 20.056** Constant 1.012* .332

Org age .010*

Org size -3.011

Compensation .540** .071 .550

Participation .031 1.742 Constant 3.874* 1.208

Org age .004

Org size -4.590

Participation .097 .263 ,030


Table 5: Linear regression of ‘intended practices’ on ‘perceived practices’

** P = < .001

3. Perceived added value of HRM practices (Hypothesis 2)


In Table 6 the means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables are


The values are calculated for respondents of all organizations together. Table 6

represents as expected several positive correlations between intended HRM-

practices and perceived added value of HRM practices. Significant relationships (p <

.01) are identified for five out of eight practices: Staffing (r=.366), Training (r=.503),

Internal mobility (r=.439), Employment security (r=-.371), Employee participation

(r=.370). For the practices ‘Clear job description’, ‘Performance appraisal’ and

‘Rewards’ no significant relationships are found.


correlations with multiple variables. These variables are therefore included in the

regression analysis.

Table 6: Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables (N = 12)

** P <.01 *P < .05

Model R2 F Non-standardized Coefficients Std. Co Beta B Std. Error

Degree of implementation

.181 11.84** Constant 1.943** .454

Org age .007**

Org size -1.537

Degree implementation

.410** .109 .271

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Int. staffing 4.865 .495 1

2 Int. training 3.538 1.356 .377** 1

3 Int. mobility 4.321 .637 .462** .789** 1

4 Int. security 3.724 .952 -.290* -.758** -.631** 1

5 Int. description 4.266 .656 .470** -.025 -.003 .340* 1

6 Int. appraisal 4.087 .709 .778** .078 .197 .190 .749** 1

7 Int. rewards 4.109 1.309 .455** .288* .421** -.023 .252 .645** 1

8 Int. participate 4.464 .314 .734** .202 .333* -.143 .420** .624** .512** 1

9 Added Value 4.0623 .758 .366** .503** .439** -.371** .264 .193 .125 .370** 1

10 Org. age 29.07 30.385 .139 .547** .359** -.238 .270* .014 -.192 -.280* .367** 1

11 Org. size 12715 31539 .294* .534** .488** -.673** -.475** -.005 -205 -.148 .078 .258 1



variables: ‘Intended HRM practices’ and ‘Perceived added value’. These coefficients

are created by calculating one mean out of all separate HRM practices. A significant,

medium strong, correlation is identified for the relationship between Intended HRM

practices and Perceived added value (r = .389). So we could state that there is a

relationship between the HRM practices which are defined by HRM managers and

the perceived added value of HRM practices by LMs.

Table 7: Means, standard deviations and correlations among combined constructs (N = 12) M SD 1 2 3 4


2 Added value 4.062 .758 .389** 1

3 Organizational age 28.8 28.391 .176 .367** 1

4 Organizational size 17325 37544 .126 .078 .258 1

** P < .001

Regression analysis

In order to measure the model and test Hypothesis 2, a linear regression analysis

was performed, as shown in Table 8. The regression table predicts the extent to

which a HRM practice, defined by the HR manager of a certain organization, is

perceived by the LMs of that same organization as added value. These

measurements are an indicator for the degree of added value of HRM practices from

the perspective of LMs.

Five out of eight predicting HRM practices show a significant relationship with the

outcome variable (the perceived added value): Staffing (β = .474), Training (β = .359),

Internal mobility (β = .587), Employment security (β = -.513), Employee participation

(β = 1.036)


Table 8: Linear regression analysis of separate HR practices and added value

** = p < .001 * = p < .05

Table 9 represents the overall regression of all the HRM practices together. The

predictor variable (= Intended HRM practices) significantly (p = <.05) predicts the

outcome variable (= perceived added value) with a gradient of the regression line of:

.551. In other words, if the intended HRM practices (the predictor variable) is

increased by 1 unit, then the perceived added value will increase with .551 unit.

Hypothesis 2 is confirmed: The intended HRM practices defined by HR managers are

positively related to the perceived added value of HR practices by LMs.

Model R2 F Non-standardized Coefficients Std. Coeff. Beta B Std. Error

Staffing .246 5.331* Constant 1.568 .840

Org age .009*

Org size .000

Add value .474* .177 .350

Training .315 7.502** Constant 2.879** .284

Org age .002

Org size .000

Add value .359** .100 .610

Mobility .269 6.013** Constant 1.456 .791

Org age .006

Org size .000

Add value .587* .196 .454

Security .293 6.764** Constant 5.973** .672

Org age .008*

Org size .000

Add value -.513* .155 -.566

Description .173 3.420* Constant 2.602* .808

Org age .007

Org size .000

Add value .286 .191 .251

Appraisal .170 3.340* Constant 3.055** .536

Org age .009*

Org size .000

Add value .182 .127 .186

Compensation .176 3.497* Constant 3.251** .373

Org age .011*

Org size .000

Add value .130 .083 .214

Participation .369 9.532** Constant -.904 1.111

Org age .012**

Org size .000

Add value 1.036** .244 .502


Table 9: Linear regression analysis intended HRM practices and added value

* = p < .05

4. HRM strengths (Hypothesis 3)


In Table 10 the means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables are


The values are calculated for respondents of all organizations together.

Table 10 represents a few positive correlations between intended HRM-practices

and HRM strengths. The following significant relationships (p < .01) are identified:

Staffing is related to Organizational relevance (r=.389) and Validity (r=.286). Clear job

description is related to Validity (r=.307). Performance appraisal is related to

Organizational relevance (r=.347) and Validity (r=.290). Compensation is related to

Validity (r=.272) and User-friendliness (r=.468). Employee participation is related to

Validity (r=.302). For the practices ‘Training’, ‘Internal mobility’, and ‘Employment

security’ no significant relationships are found.


correlations with some correlations. These variables are therefore included in the

regression analysis.


HRM content .240 5.153 Constant 1.561 .870

Org age .008*

Org size .000

Added V. .551* .212 .332

Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables (N=12)

Int. = intended by the HR department ** P <.01 *P < .05 HRM strengths (variables 9 until 16)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 Int. staffing 4.865 .495 1

2 Int. training 3.538 1.356 .377** 1

3 Int. mobility 4.321 .637 .462** .789** 1

4 Int. security 3.724 .952 -.290** -.758** -.631** 1

5 Int. description 4.266 .656 .470** -.025 .003 .340* 1

6 Int. appraisal 4.087 .709 .778** .078 .197 .190 .749** 1

7 Int. rewards 4.109 1.309 .455** .288* .421** -.023 .252 .645** 1

8 Int. participate 4.464 .314 .734** .202 .333* -.143 .420** .624** .512** 1

9 Ability 4.525 .830 .188 .115 .081 -.057 .064 .135 .111 .093 1

10 Motivation 4.958 .647 .091 .126 .219 .009 -.088 .095 .198 .074 .632** 1

11 Opportunity 4.006 .894 .250 .170 .087 -.086 .179 .201 .092 .268 ,600** .419** 1

12 Pers. Relevance 4.277 .699 .059 .180 .243 -.029 .040 .048 .170 .243 .358** .463** .367** 1

13 Org. Relevance 4.234 .843 .339* .115 .132 .031 .196 .347* .161 .153 .569** .499** .401* .260 1

14 Validity 3.827 .887 .286* .155 .165 .114 .307* .290* .272* .302* .120 .299* .165 .621** .195 1

15 Justice 4.740 .691 .173 .142 .235 .022 .061 .227 .259 .067 .252 .542** .233 .250 .382** .261 1

16 User-friendly 4.333 .777 -.013 -.104 -.058 .159 -.029 .206 .468** .233 .058 .325* .205 .344* .093 .164 .325* 1

17 Org. age 28.8 28.39 .139 .547** .359** -.238 .270* .014 -.192 -.280* .039 .002 .109 -.010 .213 .098 .067 -.413** 1

18 Org. size 17325 37544 .294* .534** .488** -.673** -.475** -.005 .205 -.148 .216 .143 -.002 -.099 .175 -.156 .159 -.056 .258 1


variables: ‘Intended HRM practices’ and ‘HRM strengths’. These coefficients are

created by calculating one mean out of all separate HRM practices. A significant,

medium strong, correlation is identified for the relationship between Intended HRM

practices and HRM strengths (r = .378). So we could state that there is a relationship

between the HRM practices which are defined by HRM managers and the HRM

strengths rated by LMs.

Table 11: Means, standard deviation and correlation among combined variables (N=12)

** P < .01

Regression analysis

In order to measure the model and test Hypothesis 3, linear regression analyses

were performed, as shown in Table 12 and 13. The outcomes in table 12 show the

regressions between all separate HRM practices on the comprehensive construct

‘HRM strengths’. In other words this table predicts the extent to which a HRM

practice, defined by the HR manager of a certain organization, is perceived by the

LMs of that same organization as HRM strength.

Three out of eight predicting HRM practices show a significant (p < .05) relationship

with the outcome variable (the perceived HRM strengths): Performance appraisal (β

= .203), Compensation (β = .143), and Employee participation (β = .444).

M SD 1 2 3 4


2 HRM strengths 4.362 .503 .378** 1

3 Organizational age 28.8 28.391 .176 .029 1

4 Organizational size 17325 37544 .126 .069 .258 1


Table 12: Regressions separate HRM practices → ‘HRM strengths’ Model R2 F Non-standardized Coefficients Std. Coeff.

Beta B Std. Error

Staffing .079 1.423 Constant 3.127** .615

Org age .000

Org size .000

Strength .259 .129 .285

Training .038 .665 Constant 4.088** .216

Org age -.002

Org size .000

Strength .097 .073 .250

Mobility .046 .800 Constant 3.535** .560

Org age -.001

Org size .000

Strength .201 .137 .241

Security .016 .274 Constant 3.988** .479

Org age .000

Org size .000

Strength .085 .112 .145

Description .047 .823 Constant 3.505** .572

Org age -.002

Org size .000

Strength .200 .135 .263

Appraisal .102 1.884 Constant 3.514** .370

Org age .000

Org size .000

Strength .203* .088 .311

Compensation .120 2.283 Constant 3.738** .254

Org age .002

Org size .000

Strength .143* .056 .360

Participation .104 1.926 Constant 2.322* .867

Org age .002

Org size .000

Strength .444* .189 .328

** P < .001 * P < .05

Table 13 represents the linear regressions between the comprehensive construct

‘Intended HRM practices’ in combination with the separate HRM strengths, in order

to identify which HRM strengths generate a significant relationship. Two out of eight

HRM strengths show a significant (p < .05) relationship: Validity (β = .784) and User-

friendliness (β = .490)


Table 13: Regressions ‘HRM practices’ → separate HRM strengths

** P < .001 * P < .05

Table 14 represents the overall regression of the combined constructs ‘HRM

practices’ and ‘HRM strengths’. The predictor variable (= Intended HRM practices)

significantly (p = <.05) predicts the outcome variable (= HRM strengths) with a

gradient of the regression line of: .419. In other words, if the Intended HRM

practices (the predictor variable) is increased by 1 unit, then the HRM strengths

value will increase with .419 unit. Hypothesis 3 is confirmed: The intended HRM

practices defined by HR managers are positively related to the perceived HRM

strengths by LMs.


Intended HRM practices

.059 1.053 Constant 3.633* 1.043

Org age -.001

Org size .000

Ability .204 .253 .113


.050 .869 Constant 3.965** .216

Org age -.001

Org size .000

Motivation .240 .073 .250


.058 1.029 Constant 2.198 1.122

Org age .002

Org size .000

Opportunity .422 .272 .217


.059 1.038 Constant 2.900* .879

Org age .000

Org size .000

p.relevance .343 .213 .225


.127 2.425 Constant 2.085* 1.020

Org age .004

Org size .000

o.relevance .481 .247 .262


.203 4.254 Constant .576 1.025

Org age .003

Org size .000

Validity .784* .248 .406


.091 1.672 Constant 3.107** .840

Org age .000

Org size .000

Justice .386 .204 .260


.254 5.685 Constant 2.635* .868

Org age -.012*

Org size .000

User-friendly .490* .211 .290


Table 14: Regression analysis HRM-content and HRM strengths

* = p < .05

5. Conclusion and Discussion

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to investigate how the HRM content, implemented by

the HRM department, will affect the perceived degree of implementation of HRM

practices by employees and the perceived added value of the HRM function by line-

management. Subsequently the intention was to measure the moderating effect of

‘HRM strengths’ in these relationships. Therefore the following research question

was formulated: To what degree do HRM strengths, perceived by line managers,

influence the degree of implementation and perceived added value of HRM

practices? Unfortunately it is impossible to answer this specific question. From the

collected data it was not possible to test the moderating effect, since we could not

cluster the data the way we needed to. However, resulting from this research

significant direct effects were found for ‘Intended HRM practices’ defined by the

HRM-managers and the three dependent variables: ‘Perceived HRM practices,

‘Added value of HRM practices’ and ‘HRM strengths’. The three hypotheses were

confirmed. To receive a better understanding of the outcomes the next section

explains the findings of the research more specifically.

Interpretation and discussion

Linear regression analysis was used to test the effects between the variables. When

examining the effect of intended HRM practices on perceived HRM practices it

appeared that employees perceive most of the practices like they are intended by

the HRM department, which is also confirmed in the studies of Bos-Nehles (2013)

and Vigna (2012). For the practices: Internal mobility, Clear job description and


HRM content .145 2.835* Constant 2.637* .602

Org age -.001

Org size .000

Strengths .419* .146 .382


Employee participation, perceived implementation was not proved. This could be

explained by the fact that those three practices are perhaps less tangible than the

other five practices. For example Training and Performance appraisal can be very

specific and visible in an organization; indeed employees can easily mark them as

present to a certain degree. More blurred HRM practices like Employee participation

and Internal mobility, are in that sense not tangible or visible, but are more or less

present in the background of an organization which makes them harder to identify.

The prediction that intended HRM practices are positively related to

perceived added value of HRM practices is confirmed by this study. Five out of eight

HRM practices have been proved to add value, from the perspective of line

management. Also the overall regression between these constructs shows a medium

strong significant relationship, which is in accordance with the theory (Wright,

McMahan, Snell, Gerhart, 2001). In line with those results the regression analysis

also proved that intended HRM practices are positively related to HRM strengths

measured by line-management. In particular, the HRM practices are experienced to

be valid and user-friendly. The importance of Validity in order to determine a ‘HRM

strength’ is adapted from research from Delmotte et al. (2012) and the concept of

User-friendliness is derived from the work of Bos-Nehles (2013).

For the relationship between intended HRM practices and the following HRM-

strengths no significance was found: Ability, Motivation, Opportunity, Personal

relevance, Organizational relevance and Procedural justice.

According to the AMO-constructs (Ability, Motivation and Opportunity) use was

made of the ‘big AMO model’ where the survey concerned questions about the unit

of the LMs. An example question was: HRM practices enhance the knowledge in my

unit (abilities). The possibility exists that if the questions were asked from the

perspective of the ‘small AMO-model’ significance was found. In that case the

questions had to be formulated from the perspective of the person him/her self (the

Line Manager): e.g. HRM practices enhance my knowledge. The choice was made to

investigate the big-AMO since this study focuses on the features that improve the

implementation process throughout the whole organization. For that reason the

expectation was that LMs would be inclined to implement HRM-practices in case


they were convinced that the practices would contribute to the ability, motivation

and opportunity of their subordinate employees.

Referring to the relevance of HRM-practices, no significance was found. To

develop relevant HRM-practices HRM-managers need to know the business, both

the long-term objectives of the organization and the short-term goals of the LMs,

who will use the HRM practices and processes to steer their employees aligned with

the organizational strategy. The HRM-managers will be able to align the overall

strategy and HRM successfully when they have a mix of general knowledge. They

need to know how an organization functions, have expert knowledge on HRM

practices and processes, and they need to know for example under which conditions

individual performance-based pay is successful. Next, the empathic ability of an

HRM-manager should not be underestimated. An emphatic HRM manager is aware

of the LMs emotions and is able to use that emotional awareness to achieve results.

An emphatic HRM-manager is more likely to gain insight into employees’ individual

situations and line managers’ local context and is subsequently more likely to initiate

the necessary tools to motivate employees.

The HRM-strength procedural justice was, like relevance, absent in this study. To

increase procedural justice the HRM-department needs to create realistic

expectations by making sure that decision-making procedures are transparent and

clearly communicated. Moreover, it is important to align the decision making

process with organizational norms and values in order to enhance acceptability

among employees. Acceptability might be improved by engaging employees/LMs in

the decision making process, for example 360⁰ feedback, or afterwards by clearly

explaining why and how decisions were made. Furthermore, decisions should be

based on correct information and the procedures should apply in the same manner

to every employee. Another advice refers to the protest against a decision, and that

would be to make sure that there exists a procedure for handling and reporting

complaints.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The current study has four limitations. The first has already been explained in the

results section and has to do with the lack of information to cluster the data bundles.


The integrated questions to control this (e.g. which division do you work for? What is

your department code?) were not understood and/or filled in correctly by most of

the respondents. Afterwards it was impossible to define which LM belonged to

which HR manager and which employee belonged to which LM. This resulted in a

necessary change of the research model where only direct links could be tested. The

consequence was that the moderating effect of the LMs perceptions on the

implementation process was excluded from this research. To prevent this in the

future it is recommend that the questionnaires should be designed in such a way

that the researchers keep control of the coding of the separate surveys. Asking

names is not an option (e.g. what is the name of your manager?) as this would

compromise the confidentiality and anonymity of the study. The solution could be to

code every survey beforehand, and collect the data on hard-copy.

The second limitation has to do with the distribution of the surveys. Since the

HRM department was asked to distribute the questionnaires to five line-managers,

and the Line-Managers were asked to distribute the surveys to five employees, this

procedure could lead to a biased sample, as the respondents might be chosen based

on personal preference. It is possible to prevent this bias by giving instructions to

HRM managers and line-managers on how to choose their colleagues randomly, for

example alphabetically. However a longer/more complicated introduction may

restrain the respondent to complete the survey. So in this particular study the

benefits outweighed the disadvantages.

The third limitation is lack of data with regard to the hard performance

outcome measures, such as absenteeism, turnover etc. This makes it impossible to

draw conclusions concerning the actual added value of HRM. The findings of this

study are purely about the perceived added value of the HRM function.

The last limitation is the limited amount of data which was available in order

to generalize the outcomes to a lager population. Extensive research is needed in

order to investigate the concept of ‘HRM strengths’ more profoundly. In order to

make sure a reliable factor analysis is performed on the designed concept ‘HRM

strengths’ one should seek to collect data from at least 150 Line-Managers (Pallant,

2010).


Implications

Even though this study has its limitations and brings new questions to the fore, the

results are useful and are definitely something which organizations and researchers

can build upon. The implications for research are the following:

Firstly, although previous research demonstrated difficulties and limitations

from Line Managers with the implementation process of HR-practices, this study

showed that the majority of HR-practices are well implemented. The practices:

Staffing, Training, Employment security, Performance appraisal and Compensation

are perceived by employees the way HR-decision makers intended it to implement.

Furthermore it is confirmed that Line Managers in general perceive HRM-practices to

be valuable. They determine HRM-practices to be valid and user-friendly.

Secondly, the developed scales to measure the degree of implementation

and added value are tested to be valid and reliable and provide the opportunity for

other researchers to measure these variables in organizations. The scale for HRM

strengths was tested reliably, however the validity was not proved since the sample

size of Line Managers was too small. It is expected that the scale will prove its

validity when a factor analysis is performed for a lager sample.

Thirdly, because of differences in organizational age and size it is possible

that the degree of implementation and perceived added value are experienced in a

different way by Line Managers and employees. For that reason the process of HRM

implementation can yield a positive result in one organization and a negative result

in another.

Furthermore there are a number of practical implications and

recommendations. First of all this study proved that Line Managers are able to

implement HR-responsibilities effectively because the majority of the intended HRM

practices are correctly perceived by employees. Secondly, organizations can be

reassured that LMs perceive most of the designed HRM-practices to be valuable,

witch will minimize the possible resistance in the implementation process. HRM

practices are in particular rated as ‘valid’ and ‘user-friendly’ by the line. In order to

improve the degree of implementation and perceived added value is it important

that LMs know for which HR-tasks they are responsible and why those tasks are


valuable for the company. Organizations could include the HR-responsibilities in the

job descriptions or appraisals in order to communicate the importance.


References

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P, & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing

Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resouces and competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17: 99-120.

Bos-Nehles, A. (2010). The line makes the difference: line managers as effective HR

partners. Enschede: University of Twente.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., and Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM

and research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67-94.

Bowen, D. & 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.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (3rd ed.)

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds) (2000), Human Resource Management in

Northern Europe: Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy, Blackwell, Oxford.

Brislin, R., W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 1:3, 185-216.

Combs, J. Hall, A. Ketchen, D. (2006) How much do high-performance work practices

matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance.

Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528.

Delmotte, J, De Winne, S and Sels, L. (2011). Toward an assessment of perceived

hrm system strength: scale development and validation. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:7, 1481-1506.

Gilbert, C, De Winne, S. & Sels, L. (2011): The influence of line

managers and HR department on employees' affective commitment, The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:8, 1618-1637.

Guay, F.,Vallerand, R. J. and Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS).

Motivation and Emotion, 24:3, 175-214.


Guest, D., and Conway, N. (2011). The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a

‘strong HR system’ on organizational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1686-1702.

Guest, D. and Bos-Nehles, A. (2013). HRM and performance: the role of effective

implementation. In Paauwe, J., Guest, D., and Wright, P. (Eds.), HRM and

performance: Achievements and Challenges. London: Wiley Press.

LeBreton, J. M, and Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater

reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods,

11:4, 815 – 852.

Liao, H. and Rupp, D.E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation

on work outcomes: a cross-level multiforce framework. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90:2, 242-256.

McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: The information processing paradigm. In C.

G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology: 108-141. New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2003). Human resource

management: gaining a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2005) HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource

Management Journal, 15:4, 68-83.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed). London , England: Mcgrawhill.

Perry, E. & Kulik, C. (2008). The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for

perceptions of people management effectiveness, The International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 19:2, 262-273.

Purcell, J. & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-

performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource

Management Journal, 17:1, 3-20.

Subramony, M. (2009) A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between

HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48:5,

745-768.

Sun, L., Aryee, S. and Law, K. (2007). High-performance human resource practices,

citizenship behaviour, and organizational performance: a relational

perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 50:3, 558-577.


Soens, N. (2012). Line managers’ contributions to high-performance work systems:

an empirical study of the agents, outcomes, and mediators of HRM

implementation (dissertation).

Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D., Wang, H, and Tekeuchi, K. (2007) An empirical examination

of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and

the performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92:4, 1069-1083.

Vigna, C. (2012). Employee perceptions of strategic human resource management:

considering HRM content and process. Antwerpen: University of

Antwerpen.

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.

Wright, P. McMahan, G. Snell, S. and Gerhart, B. (2001). Comparing line and HR

executives’ perceptions of HR effectiveness: services, roles, and

contributions. Human Resource Management, 40:2, 111-123.


Appendix 1: Surveys in English and Dutch

Survey for HRM-Managers

Adapted from: Sun, Aryee and Law (2007) Answers: 6-point scale: ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).

Selective staffing (Staffing)

1. Great effort is taken to select the right person.

2. Long-term employee potential is emphasized.

3. Considerable importance is placed on the staffing process.

4. Very extensive efforts are made during the selection process.

Extensive training (Training and development)

5. Extensive training programs are provided for employees.

6. Employees will normally go through training programs every few years.

7. There are formal training programs to teach new hires the skills they need to

perform their job.

8. Formal training programs are offered to employees in order to increase their

promotability in this organization.

Internal mobility

9. Employees have opportunities for upward mobility.

10. Employees have a future in this organization.

11. Employees have clear career paths in this organization.

12. Employees who desire promotion have more than one potential position they

could be promoted to.

Employment security

13. Employees can be expected to stay with this organization for as long as they

wish.

14. Job security is almost guaranteed to employees.

15. Employees have a feeling of job security.

Clear job description

16. The duties in this job are clearly defined.

17. Jobs have an up-to-date description.

18. The job description for a position accurately describes all of the duties

performed by individual employees.

Results-oriented Appraisal (Performance appraisal)

19. Performance is measured with objective quantifiable results.

20. Performance appraisals are based on objective quantifiable results.

21. Employee appraisals emphasize long term and group-based achievement.


Incentive reward (Compensation)

22. Employees receive bonuses based on the profit of the organization.

23. There is a close tie or matching of pay to individual/group performance.

24. Employees are rewarded based on their actual performance.

Participation

25. Employees are often asked by their supervisor to participate in decisions.

26. Employees are allowed to make decisions.

27. Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way

things are done.

28. Supervisors keep open communications with employees.

Survey for Line-managers Abilities (1 item adapted from Bos-Nehles 2010; 2 items self-constructed by Buddingh, Ritzen & Yaneva 2013):

1) HRM practices help my unit to grow, improve and develop themselves. 2) HRM practices enhance the knowledge in my unit. 3) HRM practices ensure that my unit has the necessary competences.

Motivation (4 items adapted from Guay, Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000):

4) I carry out HRM practices, because I have good reasons to do so. 5) I carry out HRM practices, because it’s worth it. 6) I know what HRM practices are delivering me. 7) I carry out HRM practices, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it. (R)

Opportunity (3 items self-constructed):

8) HRM practices help my unit to perform. 9) HRM practices help my unit to get involved in the organization. 10) HRM practices make it possible to share information.

Personal relevance (4 items adapted from Delmotte et al. 2012):

11) The HR department develops HRM practices that I need. 12) I experience implemented HRM practices as relevant. 13) Many of the practices introduced by the HR department are useful. 14) I often wonder about the usefulness of specific HRM practices. (R)

Organizational relevance (1 item adapted from Bos-Nehles, 2010; 2 items self-constructed by Buddingh, Ritzen & Yaneva 2013):

15) HRM practices help me to reach the goals of my unit. 16) HRM practices help me to reach the goals of my unit in a timely fashion. 17) I need HRM practices to achieve the goals of my unit.

Validity (3 items taken from Delmotte et al. 2012):


18) The HRM practices implemented in this organization sound good in theory, but do not function in practice. (R)

19) There is a wide gap between intended and actual effects of HRM practices. (R)

20) I can have faith that the HRM practices realize the intended purpose. Procedural justice (3 items adapted from Liao & Rupp, 2005):

21) Procedures and guidelines of HRM practices are fair. 22) The procedures of HRM practices to make decisions are not fair. (R) 23) I can count on HRM practices to have fair policies.

User friendliness (3 items adapted from Bos-Nehles 2010):

24) The HRM practices I am provided with are clear and understandable. 25) The HRM practices I am provided with are concrete enough to use them. 26) I find HRM practices difficult to use. (R)

Added value of the HR function ‘HR contribution’ (10 items adapted from Wright, McMahan, Snell & Gerhart, 2001)

1) The HR department is performing its job the way I would like it to be

performed;

2) Our HR department is very responsive in meeting organizational needs;

3) The HR department provides me with useful and timely information

regarding HR issues;

4) The HR department has contributed to enhance the organization’s

competitive advantage;

5) The HR department provides value added contribution to the organization’s

employees;

6) The HR department contributes to building and/or maintaining the

organization’s core competence;

7) The HR department contributes to building the organization’s human capital

(managers and employees) as a source of competitive advantage;

8) The policies, practices and procedures coming from the HR department help

managers and employees in their job;

9) The HR department has developed a well coordinated set of policies,

practices and procedures;

10) The HR policies, practices and procedures help support the organization’s

business plan.


Survey for employees Adapted from: Sun, Aryee and Law (2007) Answers: 6-point scale: ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).

Selective staffing (Staffing)

1. Great effort is taken to select the right person.

2. Long-term employee potential is emphasized.

3. Considerable importance is placed on the staffing process.

4. Very extensive efforts are made in selection.

Extensive training (Training and development)

5. Extensive training programs are provided.

6. Employees will normally go through training programs every few years.

7. There are formal training programs to teach new hires the skills they need to

perform their job.

8. Formal training programs are offered in order to increase promotability.

Internal mobility

9. I have opportunities for upward mobility.

10. I do have a future in this organization.

11. I have clear career path in this organization.

12. If I desire promotion I have more than one potential position I could be

promoted to.

Employment security

13. I can expect to stay with this organization for as long as I wish.

14. Job security is almost guaranteed.

15. I have a feeling of job security.

Clear job description

16. The duties in my job are clearly defined.

17. My job has an up-to-date description.

18. My job description accurately describes all of the duties I perform.

Results-oriented Appraisal (Performance appraisal)

19. My performance is measured with objective quantifiable results.

20. My performance appraisals are based on objective quantifiable results.

21. Appraisals emphasize long term and department-based achievement.

Incentive reward (Compensation)

22. I receive bonuses based on the profit of the organization.

23. My individual pay is tied or matched to group performance.


24. I am rewarded based on my actual performance.

Participation

25. I am often asked by my supervisor to participate in decisions.

26. I am allowed to make decisions by myself in this organization.

27. I have the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are done.

28. My supervisor communicates openly with me.

Vragenlijst voor HRM-managers Aangepast uit: Sun, Aryee en Law (2007) Antwoorden: 6-punts schaal: Variërend van 1 (volledig oneens) tot 6 (volledig eens). Selectieve werving (personeelswerving) 1) Er wordt grote moeite gedaan om de juiste persoon te selecteren. 2) De nadruk wordt gelegd op het potentieel van de werknemer voor de lange termijn. 3) Er wordt aanzienlijk belang gehecht aan het wervingsproces. 4) Er worden zeer omvangrijke inspanningen geleverd binnen het wervingsproces. Uitgebreide training (training en ontwikkeling) 5) Er worden uitgebreide trainingsprogramma’s aan werknemers verstrekt. 6) Normaal gesproken ondergaan medewerkers iedere paar jaar een trainingsprogramma. 7) Er zijn formele trainingsprogramma’s om de nieuw aangestelde personen de vaardigheden bij te brengen die ze nodig hebben om hun taak te kunnen verrichten. 8) Er worden formele trainingsprogramma’s aan de werknemers geboden om hun mogelijkheid tot promotie in deze organisatie te vergroten. Interne mobiliteit 9) Werknemers hebben mogelijkheden om promotie te maken. 10) Werknemers hebben een toekomst in deze organisatie. 13) Werknemers in deze organisatie hebben duidelijke carrièrepaden 14) Werknemers die promotie wensen hebben meer dan één mogelijke positie waar ze naartoe gepromoveerd kunnen worden. Zekerheid van werkgelegenheid 15) Werknemers kunnen verwachten dat ze bij deze organisatie kunnen blijven zolang als ze dat willen. 16) Werkzekerheid is zo goed als gegarandeerd voor werknemers. 17) Werknemers hebben een gevoel van werkzekerheid. Duidelijke taak omschrijving 18) De taken in deze baan zijn duidelijk omschreven. 19) De functiebeschrijvingen zijn ‘up-to-date’.


20) De functieomschrijving geeft op accurate wijze alle verplichte activiteiten weer die door de individuele werknemer verricht moeten worden. Op resultaten gebaseerde beoordeling 21) Prestatie wordt door middel van kwantificeerbare resultaten gemeten. 22) Prestatiebeoordeling is gebaseerd op objectieve kwantificeerbare resultaten. 23) Prestatiebeoordelingen leggen de nadruk op wat er op lange termijn en op basis van de groep is bereikt. Beloning door middel van een bonus (Compensatie) 24) Werknemers ontvangen bonussen gebaseerd op de winst van de organisatie. 25) Er is een nauw verband tussen of evenaring van het salaris voor individuele- en groepsprestatie. 26) Werknemers worden beloond op basis van hun werkelijke resultaten. Participatie 27) Werknemers worden regelmatig door hun leidinggevenden gevraagd om deel te nemen aan besluitvorming. 28) Werknemers mogen beslissingen nemen. 29) Werknemers worden in de gelegenheid gesteld om voorstellen te doen met betrekking tot verbeteringen in de manier waarop dingen worden gedaan. 30) Leidinggevenden handhaven open communicatie met hun werknemers. Vragenlijst voor medewerkers Aangepast uit: Sun, Aryee en Law (2007) Antwoorden: 6-punt schaal: variërend van 1 (volledig oneens) tot 6 (volledig eens). Selectieve werving (personeelswerving) 1) Er wordt grote moeite gedaan om de juiste persoon te selecteren. 2) De nadruk wordt gelegd op het potentieel van de werknemer voor de lange termijn. 3) Er wordt aanzienlijk belang gehecht aan het wervingsproces. 4) Er worden zeer omvangrijke inspanningen geleverd binnen het wervingsproces. Uitgebreide training (Training en ontwikkeling) 5) Er worden uitgebreide trainingsprogramma’s aan werknemers verstrekt. 6) Normaal gesproken ondergaan medewerkers iedere paar jaar een trainingsprogramma. 7) Er zijn formele trainingsprogramma’s om de nieuw aangestelde personen de vaardigheden bij te brengen die ze nodig hebben om hun taak te kunnen verrichten. 8) Er worden formele trainingsprogramma’s aan de werknemers geboden om hun mogelijkheid tot promotie in deze organisatie te vergroten. Interne mobiliteit 9) Ik heb promotiemogelijkheden. 10) Ik heb een toekomst in deze organisatie.


11) Ik heb een duidelijk carrièrepad in deze organisatie. 12) Als ik een promotie zou wensen dan heb ik meer dan één mogelijke positie waarnaar ik kan promoveren. Werkgelegenheid zekerheid 13) Ik kan verwachten dat ik bij deze organisatie kan blijven voor zolang als ik wil. 14) Werkgelegenheid wordt bijna gegarandeerd. 15) Ik heb het gevoel van baanzekerheid. Duidelijke taakomschrijving 16) De taken in mijn baan zijn duidelijk omschreven. 17) Mijn baan heeft een ‘up-to-date’ beschrijving. 18) Mijn taakbeschrijving beschrijft op nauwkeurige wijze al de taken die ik doe. Op resultaten gebaseerde beoordeling (Beoordeling van taakvervulling) 19) Mijn prestatie wordt door middel van objectief kwantificeerbare resultaten gemeten. 20) Mijn prestatiebeoordeling is gebaseerd op objectieve kwantificeerbare resultaten. 21) Beoordelingen leggen de nadruk op wat er op lange termijn en op basis van de groep is bereikt. Beloning door middel van een bonus (Compensatie) 22) Ik ontvang bonussen gebaseerd op de winst van de organisatie. 23) Mijn individuele salaris is verbonden aan of hangt af van de groepsprestatie. 24) Ik word beloond op basis van mijn werkelijke prestatie. Participatie 25) Ik word regelmatig gevraagd door mijn leidinggevende om deel te nemen aan besluitvorming. 26) Ik mag zelf beslissingen nemen in deze organisatie. 27) Ik heb de gelegenheid om suggesties te maken over verbeteringen in de manier waarop dingen worden gedaan. 28) Mijn leidinggevende communiceert openlijk met mij. Vragenlijst voor lijn managers Sterke punten van het personeelsbeleid Vaardigheden (1 punt, aangepast uit Bos-Nehles 2010; 2 punten zelf opgesteld door Buddingh, Ritzen en Yaneva 2013): 1) HRM activiteiten helpen de mensen van mijn afdeling om te groeien, zichzelf te verbeteren en te ontwikkelen. 2) HRM activiteiten verhogen de kennis in mijn afdeling. 3) HRM activiteiten verzekeren dat mijn afdeling de noodzakelijke vaardigheden heeft. Motivering (4 punten aangepast uit Guay, Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000):


4) Ik voer HRM activiteiten uit, omdat ik goede reden heb om dat te doen. 5) Ik voer HRM activiteiten uit, want het is het waard. 6) Ik weet wat HRM activiteiten me opleveren 7) Ik voer HRM activiteiten uit, maar ik weet niet of het iets goeds is om het na te streven. Gelegenheid (3 punten zelf opgesteld): 8) HRM activiteiten zorgen ervoor dat de mensen van mijn afdeling goed met elkaar kunnen omgaan. 9) HRM activiteiten helpen mijn afdeling betrokken te zijn in de organisatie. 10) HRM activiteiten maken het mogelijk om informatie te delen. Persoonlijk belang (4 punten aangepast uit Delmotte et al. 2012):

11) De HR afdeling ontwikkelt HRM activiteiten die ik nodig heb. 12) Ik ervaar toegepaste HRM activiteiten als relevant. 13) Veel van de activiteiten ingevoerd door de HR afdeling zijn nuttig. 14) Ik vraag me regelmatig af wat het nut is van specifieke HRM activiteiten. (R)

Relevantie voor de organisatie (1 punt aangepast uit Bos-Nehles, 2010; 2 punten zelf opgesteld door Buddingh, Ritzen & Yaneva 2013)

15) HRM activiteiten helpen mij om de doelstellingen van mijn afdeling te behalen. 16) HRM activiteiten helpen mij om de doelstellingen van mijn afdeling op tijd te behalen. 17) Ik heb HRM activiteiten nodig om de doelstellingen van mijn afdeling te behalen.

Deugdelijkheid (3 punten uit Delmotte et al. 2012):

18) De HRM activiteiten die in deze organisatie worden toegepast klinken goed in theorie, maar functioneren niet in de praktijk. (R) 19) Er is een kloof tussen de bedoelde uitvoering en de daadwerkelijke uitvoering van de HRM activiteiten. 20) Ik kan erop vertrouwen dat HRM activiteiten het beoogde doel realiseren.

Procedurele rechtvaardigheid (3 punten aangepast uit Liao & Rupp, 2005):

21) Procedures en richtlijnen van HRM activiteiten zijn eerlijk. 22) The procedures van HRM activiteiten om beslissingen te nemen zijn niet eerlijk (R) 23) Ik kan erop rekenen dat de HRM activiteiten een eerlijk beleid hebben.

Gebruiksgemak (3 punten aangepast uit Bos-Nehles 2010):

24) HRM activiteiten die aan mij worden aangeboden, zijn duidelijk en begrijpelijk. 25) HRM activiteiten die aan mij worden aangeboden, zijn concreet genoeg om te gebruiken. 26) Ik vind HRM activiteiten moeilijk om te gebruiken. (R)


Personeelszaken contributie (10 punten, aangepast uit Wright, Snell & Gerhart, 2001): 1) De HR afdeling vervult haar baan op de manier waarop ik zou willen dat het wordt gedaan. 2) Onze HR afdeling voldoet aan de behoeften van de organisatie. 3) De HR afdeling verschaft me nuttige en actuele informatie met betrekking tot HR vraagstukken. 4) De HR afdeling heeft bijgedragen om het concurrerend vermogen van de organisatie te verbeteren. 5) De HR afdeling levert toegevoegde waarde aan de werknemers van de organisatie. 6) De HR afdeling draagt ertoe bij dat de kerncompetenties van de organisatie worden opgebouwd en/of gehandhaafd. 7) De HR afdeling draagt bij aan de opbouw van het menselijk kapitaal van de organisatie, met als doel het creëren van concurrentievoordeel. 8) Beleid, activiteiten en procedures die van de HR afdeling komen, helpen de managers en werknemers in hun werk. 9) De HR afdeling heeft goed gecoördineerde beleidstukken, activiteiten en procedures ontwikkelt. 10) De HR beleidstukken, activiteiten en procedures ondersteunen het bedrijfsplan van de organisatie.


Appendix 2: Factor analysis perceived HRM practices measured by employees (N=166)

Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

My performance is measured

with objective, quantifiable

results

,908

My performance appraisals

are based on objective,

quantifiable results

,886

Appraisals emphasize long

term and department based

achievement

,642

Extensive training programs

are provided ,897

Employees will normally go

through training programs

every few years

,861

There are formal training

programs to teach new hires

the skills they need to

perform their job

,774

Formal training programs are

offered to increase

promotability

,767

Great effort is taken to select

the right person ,919

Considerable importance is

placed on the staffing

process

,912

Very extensive efforts are

made in selection ,865

Long term employee

potential is emphasized ,604

My individual pay is tied or

matched to group

performance

,851

I am rewarded based on my

actual performance ,836

I receive bonuses based on

the profit of the organization ,632


My supervisor communicates

openly with me -,841

I am often asked by my

supervisor to participate in

decisions

-,823

I have the opportunity to

suggest improvements in the

way things are done

-,821

I am allowed to make

decisions by myself in this

organization

-,778

If I desire promotion I have

more than one potential

position I could be promoted

to

-,887

I have opportunities for

upward mobility -,784

I have a clear career path in

this organization -,706

I do have a future in this

organization -,460

Job security is almost

guaranteed ,910

I can expect to stay with this

organization for as long as I

wish

,890

I have a feeling of job

security ,837

The duties in my job are

clearly defined -,874

My job has an up to date

description -,817

My job description accurately

describes all of the duties I

perform

-,788

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.


Structure Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

My performance appraisals

are based on objective,

quantifiable results

,916 ,311 ,325 -,322 -,371

My performance is measured

with objective, quantifiable

results

,913 -,328 -,409

Appraisals emphasize long

term and department based

achievement

,732 -,310 ,419 -,314

Extensive training programs

are provided ,870

Employees will normally go

through training programs

every few years

,865

Formal training programs are

offered to increase

promotability

,390 ,837 -,362

There are formal training

programs to teach new hires

the skills they need to

perform their job

,821

Considerable importance is

placed on the staffing

process

,907

Great effort is taken to select

the right person ,890

Very extensive efforts are

made in selection ,866

Long term employee

potential is emphasized ,721 -,352 ,322

My individual pay is tied or

matched to group

performance

,368 ,366 ,903 -,347

I am rewarded based on my

actual performance ,404 ,891 -,318

I receive bonuses based on

the profit of the organization ,708 -,348 ,325

I have the opportunity to

suggest improvements in the

way things are done

,368 -,858


My supervisor communicates

openly with me -,834

I am often asked by my

supervisor to participate in

decisions

-,832 ,301

I am allowed to make

decisions by myself in this

organization

-,797 ,340

I have opportunities for

upward mobility ,426 ,349 -,311 -,860

If I desire promotion I have

more than one potential

position I could be promoted

to

-,826

I have a clear career path in

this organization ,381 ,345 ,302 -,334 -,813 ,314

I do have a future in this

organization ,403 ,349 -,468 -,678 ,503 -,343

Job security is almost

guaranteed ,907

I can expect to stay with this

organization for as long as I

wish

-,318 ,901

I have a feeling of job

security -,306 -,364 ,891

The duties in my job are

clearly defined ,393 -,906

My job has an up to date

description ,476 ,306 -,349 -,900

My job description accurately

describes all of the duties I

perform

,503 ,313 -,305 -,884




Appendix 3: Factor analysis perceived added value measured by line-managers (N=54)

Component Matrixa

Component

1

ADDED VALUE OF HR-43

The HR department has

developed a well

coordinated set of policies,

practices and procedures

,826


The HR department

contributes to building the

organization's human

capital (managers,

employees) as a source of

competitive advantage

,822


The HR department is

performing its job the way I

would like it to be performed

,809


The HR department

provides value added

contribution to the

organization's employees

,805


The HR policies, practices

and procedures support the

organization's business plan

,786


Our HR department is very

responsive in meeting

organizational needs

,774


The policies, practices and

procedures coming from the

HR department help

managers and employees in

their job

,762



The HR department has

contributed to enhance the

organization's competitive

advantage

,747


The HR department

provides me with useful and

timely information regarding

HR issues

,717


The HR department

contributes to building

and/or maintaining the

organization's core

competence

,614

Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.

a. 1 components extracted.


Appendix 4: Factor analysis HRM strengths measured by line-managers (N=54)

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ABILITY-1 ,690 ,444

MOTIVATION-6 ,683

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

13 ,682

MOTIVATION-4 ,657

ABILITY-2 ,652 ,468

OPPORTUNITY-8 ,615 ,347 ,310 ,377

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-15 ,615 ,330 -,325

OPPORTUNITY-9 ,612 ,437

MOTIVATION-5 ,612 ,382

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-17 ,608 ,338 -,366

MOTIVATION-7 -,572 ,336 ,441

JUSTICE-22 -,561 ,489 ,461

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

14 -,560 -,312 ,470

OPPORTUNITY-10 ,556 ,375 ,438

JUSTICE-21 ,546 -,503 ,432

ABILITY-3 ,544 ,303 -,505

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

12 ,498 -,372 -,368 ,336

VALIDITY-18 -,536 ,584 ,302

USER-FRIENDLINESS-26 -,433 ,535 -,497

VALIDITY-19 -,414 ,518 -,341 ,349

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

11 -,399 ,604 ,325

VALIDITY-20 -,386 ,397 -,377

USER-FRIENDLINESS-24 -,376 ,782

USER-FRIENDLINESS-25 ,364 -,408 -,311 ,520 ,404

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-16 ,502 ,612

JUSTICE-23 ,489 -,473 ,517


a. 7 components extracted.


Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MOTIVATION-5 ,755

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

12 ,659 -,421

MOTIVATION-7 -,657 ,312

ABILITY-1 ,539 ,384

VALIDITY-19 ,850

VALIDITY-18 ,820

VALIDITY-20 -,812

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

11 -,527 ,468 ,348

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

13 -,409 ,318

JUSTICE-21 -,836

JUSTICE-23 -,799

JUSTICE-22 -,316 ,685

USER-FRIENDLINESS-24 ,914

USER-FRIENDLINESS-25 ,852 ,313

USER-FRIENDLINESS-26 -,782

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-16 ,796

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-17 ,689 -,402

ORGANIZATIONAL

RELEVANCE-15 ,399

MOTIVATION-6 ,390

OPPORTUNITY-9 ,840

OPPORTUNITY-8 ,816

OPPORTUNITY-10 ,802

MOTIVATION-4 ,415 ,519

ABILITY-3 -,763

PERSONAL RELEVANCE-

14 ,480 ,302 ,548

ABILITY-2 ,316 ,379 -,477



a. Rotation converged in 20 iterations.

The devolution of HRM practices

Documents