When CSR is social norm. How socially responsible human resource management affects employee behaviour

http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/19/0149206314522300The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206314522300

published online 19 February 2014Journal of ManagementJie Shen and John Benson

Management Affects Employee Work BehaviorWhen CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 19, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 15, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 15, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/19/0149206314522300

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://southernmanagement.org

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/19/0149206314522300.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of ManagementVol. XX No. X, Month 2014 1 –24DOI: 10.1177/0149206314522300

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1

When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource Management

Affects Employee Work Behavior

Jie ShenJohn Benson

University of South Australia

Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM), defined as corporate social responsibility (CSR) directed at employees, underpins the successful implementation of CSR. While its relationship with employee social behavior has been conceptualized and received some empirical support, its effect on employee work behaviors has not been explored. In this article we develop and test a meso-mediated moderation model that explains the underlying mechanisms through which SRHRM affects employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior. The results of multilevel analysis show that organization-level SRHRM is an indirect predictor of individual task performance and extra-role helping behavior through the mediation of individual-level organizational identification. In addition, the mediation model is moderated by employee-level perceived organizational support and the relationship between organiza-tional identification and extra-role helping behavior is moderated by organization-level coop-erative norms. These findings provide important insights into why and when SRHRM influences employee work behaviors.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; employee work behavior; organizational identifi-cation; socially responsible human resource management

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Patrick Wright, Action Editor of Journal of Management, two anonymous reviewers, and Carol Kulik for their comments and suggestions for the development of this article. An earlier version of the article was presented at the 2011 Academy of Management annual meeting. Financial support for this research project was provided by the China Natural Science Foundation (Award No. 71132003).

Corresponding author: Jie Shen, International Graduate School of Business, Centre for HRM, University of South Australia, Level 5 Way Lee Building, City West Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.

E-mail: [email protected]

522300 JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314522300Journal of ManagementShen and Bensonresearch-article2014

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 15, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Organizations implement corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, that is, “con-text-specific organisational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expecta-tions and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis, 2011: 855), to improve their social performance, gain institutional legitimacy, and ultimately increase organizational performance and long-term competitiveness through attracting customers (Larson, Flaherty, Zablah, Brown, & Wiener, 2008; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006) and motivating employees (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006). One major dimension of CSR is CSR policies and practices directed at employees, or what we refer to as socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM). SRHRM goes beyond pro-viding employees with superior pay and working conditions and may include recruiting and retaining socially responsible employees, providing CSR training, and taking account of employees’ social contributions in promotion, performance appraisal, and remuneration (Orlitzky & Swanson, 2006; Shen & Zhu, 2011). As such, SRHRM is not only an integral part of CSR initiatives but also an important tool for its successful implementation as it is through employees that the objectives of CSR are achieved. Overall, the presence of organi-zational CSR activities is considered a positive influence on various employee behaviors (Rupp et al., 2006), although such relationships have not been empirically explored. The purpose of this study is to address this knowledge gap by examining how SRHRM is related to employee work behaviors.

The limited research on the influence of SRHRM on employees’ behaviors has generally focused on the association between SRHRM and employees’ awareness of, and commitment to, CSR. This direct employee outcome of adopting SRHRM has been conceptualized in the literature (Orlitzky & Swanson, 2006) and has received some anecdotal empirical support (Idowu & Papasolomou, 2007; Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Peterson, 2004). Whether and how SRHRM influences employees’ direct work behaviors, however, remains conceptually and empirically unexplored. A recent meta-analysis by Jiang, Lepak, Hu, and Baer (2012) revealed that HRM practices can influence employee behaviors through different mediating paths, such as human capital and motivation. Nevertheless, the strength of those mediating paths varied considerably and depended on the attributes of HRM practices. Generally, HRM practices fall within three categories: skill-enhancing, motivation-enhancing, and opportu-nity-enhancing practices (Jiang et al., 2012; Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006). While SRHRM includes skill-enhancing practices (e.g., CSR training) and motivation-enhancing practices (recognizing and rewarding social contributions), it differs from HRM more gener-ally as it is CSR specific and facilitates the implementation of CSR that mainly addresses the interests of external stakeholders. As a consequence, SRHRM may influence employee work behaviors above and beyond the impact of general HRM, and this is likely to be in other ways and through different mediating paths from those for general HRM.

Our exploration of the social and psychological processes of SRHRM is underpinned by social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Using this theoretical base we propose a transformational logic: organiza-tional identification as a mediating path in the relationship between SRHRM and task perfor-mance and extra-role helping behavior. While SRHRM is generally expected to be positively correlated to organizational identification, in this study we adopt a more theoretically bal-anced approach to investigating the effect of SRHRM on employee work behaviors by considering the contingency of perceived organizational support (POS). Organizational



Shen, Benson / When CSR Is a Social Norm 3

cooperative norms were also included as a moderator as organizational identification may have positive effects on a range of employee outcomes. The strength of these relationships are largely dependent on organizational climates and whether they lead to extra-role helping behavior is related to the level of organizational cooperative norms (Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011). As shown in Figure 1, our conceptual model therefore provides important insights into why and when SRHRM may motivate positive employee work behaviors. The next section provides the theoretical justification for each of the research hypotheses under-pinning this model.

Theory and Hypothesis Development

Organizational Identification as a Mediator in the SRHRM–Employee Work Behavior Relationship

Organizational identification is defined as a perceived unity with, and feelings of belong-ing to, an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This construct is underpinned by social identity theory, which posits that people tend to categorize themselves and others into social groups to develop a positive self-concept by identifying with groups that enhance their self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). An organization’s conformity to social norms is one factor that is likely to enhance the self-esteem of employees and hence, through this self-categori-zation process, should result in higher levels of organizational identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In addition, institutional theory suggests that institutions, such as “regulative, normative, and cognitive structures and activi-ties,” exert pressure on organizations to conform to social norms and thereby garner social legitimacy for their operations (Scott, 1995: 33; also see DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008). As such organizational structures and actions should be understood in the contexts of their institutional and social environments (Martinez & Dacin, 1999).

As CSR has largely become a global social norm employees are likely to judge their orga-nization by its CSR behaviors. A company’s successful engagement in CSR will

Figure 1The Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Extra-roleHelping Behavior

CooperativeNorms

SociallyResponsible

HRM

OrganizationalIdentification

OrganizationalLevel

IndividualLevel

PerceivedOrganizational

Support

TaskPerformance

H1a H1bH3a

H4

H2

H3b




consequently be accepted favorably by employees and will thus result in stronger employee identification with the organization (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Upham, 2006). For example, Upham (2006: 83) found that a “more charitable organizational identity tends to lead to higher employee identification with the organization.” More recently, research has also shown that the statistical effect of CSR on employee orga-nizational identification is larger than that of market and financial performance (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007). Adopting SRHRM practices, such as assessing and rewarding employee social performance, is an organizational signal of conforming to social CSR norms and is vital to the successful implementation of CSR initiatives (Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003; Orlitzky & Swanson, 2006). Hence, the adoption of SRHRM is likely to increase employee organizational identification.

Social identity theory also suggests employee organizational identification is positively related to employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (Turker, 2008) as such identification results in “employee actions that reinforce the organization and one’s status within it” (Upham, 2006: 83). Broadly speaking, work behaviors can be classified into task perfor-mance and contextual performance, including extra-role helping behavior (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Task performance is work activities prescribed by the formal job role while extra-role helping behavior, often referred to as individual-directed organizational citi-zenship behavior (OCB), is employee discretionary behavior not normally found in job descriptions (Motowidlo, 2000; Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Importantly, task performance is regarded as the critical determinant of organizational performance (Werner, 1994) while extra-role helping behavior has many potential benefits for coworkers by con-tributing to organizational effectiveness, interpersonal harmony, and job performance and satisfaction (Mossholder et al., 2011; Ng & Van Dyne, 2005; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Given the complexity of work in the contemporary workplace it is often necessary for employees to go beyond their formal job descriptions and to work cooperatively with cowork-ers (Koopmans et al., 2011). A number of empirical studies have shown that employees who identify with an organization tend to devote extra effort to promote the organization’s collec-tive interests and values by living up to their job obligations through their task performance and extra-role helping behavior (Carmeli et al., 2007; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004; Upham, 2006; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carrón, 1992). Extra-role helping behavior, as a discretionary activity, may be a risk-taking behavior on the part of the helper as the consequences of such behavior may place the help receiver at an advantage and the helper at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, when employees develop high levels of organiza-tional identification they are more likely to take risks to help coworkers (Bartels, Peters, de Jong, Pruyn, & van der Molen, 2010). Based on the above discussion, SRHRM should influ-ence employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior through the mediation of organizational identification.

The literature has conceptualized task performance and extra-role helping behavior as dis-tinct dimensions of employee behaviors, and there is empirical evidence that they have differ-ent antecedents, contribute independently to overall organizational performance, and are not usually significantly correlated (Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Motowidlo, 2000). Bergeron (2007) goes further and argues that extra-role helping behavior may have even a detrimental effect on task performance that will, in turn, impact on career advancement. In recent years




there has been increasing attention to extra-role helping behavior as organizations often rely on helping behavior to deal with the more nonroutine aspects of work (Mossholder et al., 2011). As extra-role helping behavior is usually directed toward coworkers, employees often have greater discretion over it (Williams & Anderson, 1991), and this makes extra-role help-ing behavior quite distinct from task performance. This suggests our dependent variables are distinctive dimensions of employee work behaviors. As such, we propose the following two separate cross-level mediation hypotheses concerning employee work behaviors:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): SRHRM will be positively related to employee organizational identification, which, in turn, will be positively related to employee task performance.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): SRHRM will be positively related to employee organizational identification, which, in turn, will be positively related to employee extra-role helping behavior.

Direct and Moderating Effects of Perceived Organizational Support

POS is the extent to which employees believe that “their organization values their contri-butions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986: 501; also see Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Organizational support theory posits that the level of POS influences employee beliefs concerning their legitimacy as organizational members (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Dutton et al., 1994) and that when employees feel themselves to be legitimate organizational members they tend to psychologically and emotionally attach themselves to the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). As such, there should be a direct linkage between POS and organizational identification. A number of empirical studies have revealed that POS is an antecedent to organizational iden-tification (Edwards & Peccei, 2010; Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008). Hence, we expect our study to provide further empirical evidence that there is a positive direct relationship between POS and organizational identification.

In addition to the direct effect of POS, POS is also likely to influence the relationship between SRHRM and organizational identification. Social identity theory suggests that being valued as legitimate organizational members increases employees’ felt obligation to care about the organization conforming to social norms and valuing the organization’s external reputation (Ashforth et al., 2008; Dutton et al., 1994). As discussed earlier, the adoption of SRHRM practices is a sign of an organization’s commitment to conform to socials norms, which in turn will increase its external reputation. In contrast, when employees perceive they are not valued as legitimate organizational members they are likely to become highly indif-ferent to whether their organization adopts SRHRM practices. This indifference will under-mine the positive impact of SRHRM on employee organizational identification. That is, the effect of SRHRM practices on employee organizational identification will vary at different levels of POS. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): POS will be significantly related to organizational identification as well as moder-ate the relationship between SRHRM and employee organizational identification such that higher levels of POS are associated with a stronger SRHRM–organizational identification relationship.

The positive relationships of POS with employee work attitudes and behaviors are well established in the literature (Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, Sucharski, & Aselage, 2009;




Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). In this study, while we expect to replicate past research findings by confirming the positive relationships of POS with employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior, we also expect, as dis-cussed below, that POS will moderate the relationships between organizational identification and the two employee behaviors considered in this study.

It would be reasonable for employees to expect that if their organization is socially responsible toward external stakeholders then it will also be socially responsible toward its workers (Zappalá, 2004). Some organizations may, however, be keen to engage in CSR to protect corporate reputation and to attract customers, but less keen to act in a socially responsible manner toward their own employees (Klein, 2001; Royle, 2005). For example, an organization may attempt to offset the costs of external CSR activities by compromising employees’ welfare, development, and working conditions (Royle, 2005). Under these cir-cumstances, the engagement in external CSR may be seen by employees to threaten their rights and interests. In this case even though employees identify with their organization they may not exhibit favorable work behaviors. Research to date has not addressed this issue.

Nevertheless, social exchange theory posits that “social exchange involves the principle that one person does another a favor, and while there is a general expectation of some future return, its exact nature is definitely not stipulated in advance” and that the “voluntary actions of individuals are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964: 93). As such, it can be argued that POS, over such matters as adequate wages, fair working conditions, personal development opportunities, support for employee personal and family matters, and employee involvement and participation, is likely to minimize any threats posed by external CSR programs. This, in turn, may improve employee task performance and elicit higher levels of OCB, such as extra-role helping behavior (Organ, 1988, 1997; Organ & Lingl, 1995). Therefore, organizational identification should be generally associated with positive employee work behaviors, although the strength of this relationship is likely to be influenced by whether an organization provides adequate support to meet the interests and needs of employees. Thus the following individual-level moderation hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): POS will moderate the relationship between organizational identification and employee task performance such that high levels of POS will be associated with a stronger orga-nizational identification–task performance relationship.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): POS will moderate the relationship between organizational identification and employee extra-role helping behavior such that high levels of POS will be associated with a stronger organizational identification–extra-role helping behavior relationship.

Moderating Role of Cooperative Norms

Extra-role helping behavior is discretionary and is influenced by the cooperative norms prevailing within the wider organizational relational climate (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Mossholder et al., 2011). While cooperative norms are influenced by individualistic and/or collectivistic cultural values, which are important components of national cultures, they largely determine organizational work environments (Triandis, 2001). Social exchange the-ory suggests that people weigh up potential benefits and costs of social relationships (Blau,




1964). As Deckop, Cirka, and Anderson (2003) found, employees help others because others help them so that they perceive benefits from the mutual help relationship.

There is strong empirical evidence that cooperative norms are positively related to discre-tionary helping behaviors in the workplace (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Ng & Van Dyne, 2005), which in turn allow members to receive social approval (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). When strong cooperative norms exist in the workplace, workers will expect their coworkers to engage in collaborative behaviors, such as information sharing, to assist with task completion (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean, 1995). Based on the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), this shared expectation creates obligations for members to help each other (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; George & Jones, 1997). This supports a direct relationship between coopera-tive norms and extra-role helping behavior.

In addition to this direct effect, cooperative norms may also moderate the relationship between organizational identification and extra-role helping behavior. Earlier, we argued that organizational identification results in a range of positive employee work behaviors. When employee helping behavior is seen as behavior of moral importance helping can become contagious in the workplace (Anderson & Person, 1999). Cooperation among employees increases group cohesion, which functions as the “glue” that further consoli-dates the group. A cohesive group possesses the common characteristics of cooperation, satisfaction, and enjoyment (Forsyth, 1999). As such, group cohesion induces individuals to value group-produced outcomes more than the cost of their relative level of effort (Olson, 1965). In addition, a workplace with strong group cohesion upholds cooperative norms (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), which in turn promotes individual willingness to help other group members (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995). In this circumstance, organizational identification should lead to more extra-role helping behavior. On the other hand, when there is a low level of cooperative norms organizational identification may result in other positive work behaviors, but not necessarily extra-role helping behavior. This suggests that the strength of the organizational identification–employee extra-role helping behavior relationship may vary depending on the level of cooperative norms within the workplace. As such, the following moderation hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Cooperative norms will moderate the relationship between organizational identifi-cation and employee extra-role helping behavior such that high cooperative norms will be associ-ated with a stronger organizational identification–extra-role helping behavior relationship.

The conceptual model, together with the hypothesized relationships, is shown in Figure 1.

Method

Sample and Data

We collected the data for this study from 35 manufacturing companies in the People’s Republic of China in 2010. We recruited companies that had published social reports so as to ensure all participating companies had, at least, attempted to develop and implement formal SRHRM policies. Out of the 35 firms, 4 were joint ventures, while the others were privately owned companies. This ownership composition is similar to the overall structure of business




organizations in China as reported in the China Statistical Yearbook 2010 (t = 4.56, df = 1, p = .14). The three-year average sales for participating companies (2007-2009) ranged between RMB 537,000 (US$85,200) and RMB 84,000,000 (US$13,800,000), while the average firm size (number of employees) and age were 471 employees and 15 years, respec-tively. These sales and employment figures are typical of Chinese firms as illustrated in the most recent Business in China Survey (China Europe International Business School, 2013). Overall, the sample of firms in this study appears to be broadly representative of business organizations in China.

To achieve a representative and balanced distribution of employee responses, we asked, and assisted, the HR manager in each company to randomly select 50 employees to partici-pate in the research. Meetings were then held with the selected participants in the workplace to outline the purpose of the research and data collection procedures, discuss confidentiality issues, and encourage participation in the project. Each employee received a package con-taining three questionnaires: one for themselves, one for their supervisor, and one for each of their five selected peers. The employees were asked to answer questions relating to SRHRM, POS, organizational identification, and cooperative norms. Supervisors completed question-naires with regard to employees’ task performance. As extra-role helping behavior relates to work colleagues, each employee was required to ask five peers to rate him or her on this kind of behavior. The use of multiple data sources not only enhanced the quality of the data but also reduced significantly the potential for common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

The questionnaires were distributed and collected in the workplace. In total, we received 785 matched, completed, and useable questionnaires. The overall employee response rate was 44.9%, with the employee response rate within companies varying between 32% and 84%. Although the employees of any one company did not exceed 5.4% of the overall sample, the variation in the response rate required further investigation to ensure the SRHRM practices of any company or a small group of companies did not bias the results. First, we checked for outliers in responses using SPSS 20. The result shows a 5% trimmed mean of 23.90, which is similar to the overall mean of 24.28 (SD = 6.08), thus suggesting a normal distribution of responses. Second, we deleted the three cases with the largest response rates (n = 42, 35, 32). This did not alter, in any substantial way, the results of the multilevel analysis. Third, we reran the analysis by controlling for the response rate at the organizational level. The results show that there were only slight changes to some correlations and p values, with the results for all hypotheses remaining the same. In addition, the distribution of responses was not significantly related to SRHRM (.08, p = .63), task performance (.02, p = .36), or extra-role helping behavior (.04, p = .27), thus showing that the companies with the higher response rates did not have noticeable differences in SRHRM practices or the employee behavior measures. In short, the variations in response rates were not a significant factor in influencing the hypothe-sized relationships.

Slightly more than half of the respondents were male (58.1%), and most were in the age range of 30 to 49 years (60.6%). The vast majority of respondents had completed at least a high school education (84.9%) and occupied nonmanagerial positions (83.7%), and most had between 1 and 10 years of work experience with their company (70.8%). More details of the respondent profiles are provided in Table 1.




Measures

The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Chinese by a bilingual academic and back-translated into English independently by another bilingual academic. To test the applicability of, and further explore potential items for, the proposed measures, we conducted focus group discussions with 20 full-time MBA students in China. Following these discussions a pilot study of 30 employees in three Chinese companies was conducted. The results showed that the Chinese version of the questionnaire was suitable for use with Chinese employees. We used 5-point Likert-type scales for all multi-item variables, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All individual factor loadings were signifi-cant and exceeded the minimum recommended value of .40 (Holtman, Tidd, & Lee, 2002).

Dependent Variables

Supervisor-rated task performance. Task performance was measured using the six-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). The six items were “this employee ful-fills all the responsibilities specified in his/her job description,” “this employee consistently meets the formal performance requirements of his/her job,” “this employee conscientiously

Table 1

Characteristics of Respondents (N = 785)

Characteristic Percentage

Gender Male 58.1 Female 41.9Age 18-29 years 20.5 30-39 years 40.1 40-49 years 21.1 50 years and older 18.3Education Completed primary school 15.1 Completed high school 49.3 Diploma 15.8 Bachelor’s degree 18.3 Postgraduate qualification 1.5Tenure Less than 1 year 18.2 1-5 years 39.3 6-10 years 31.5 Over 10 years 11.0Position Nonmanagerial 83.7 Supervisor 11.2 Middle manager 5.1 Senior manager 0.0




performs tasks that are expected of him/her,” “this employee adequately completes all of his/her assigned duties,” “this employee fails to perform essential duties of his/her job,” and “this employee neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform.” The scale’s alpha coefficient was .80.

Peer-rated extra-role helping behavior. Extra-role helping behavior was measured using four items adapted from Organ and Konovsky (1989). The original scale was composed of 16 items relating to a range of OCB behaviors. From this scale we chose four items specifically relating to helping fellow employees and modified some wording to ensure compatibility with Chinese expression. The four items were “this employee volunteers to do things for the work group,” “this employee helps other group members with their work responsibilities,” “this employee helps orient new employees in the work group,” and “this employee helps others in the work group to learn about the work.” These four items were confirmed as appro-priate measures in the focus group discussions. As we planned to average the results of the five peer assessors to get a single assessment for each employee, it was necessary to check for outliers. Based on analysis with SPSS 20, the results showed the scores dropped away in a reasonably even slope, and the 5% trimmed means were similar to the original means for all items. These findings suggest it was appropriate to average the five responses to calculate a single employee score on this construct. The alpha coefficient for this scale was .79.

Independent Variables (Employee Rated)

Socially responsible HRM. Socially responsible HRM was measured using six items from Orlitzky and Swanson (2006). The six items were “my company considers person identity-CSR identity fit in recruitment and selection,” “my company provides adequate CSR train-ing to promote CSR as a core organizational value,” “my company provides CSR training to develop employees’ skills in receptive stakeholder engagement and communication,” “my company considers employee social performance in promotions,” “my company con-sider employee social performance in performance appraisals,” and “my company relates employee social performance to rewards and compensation.” Participants in focus discus-sions suggested some additional items, such as offering time for employees to engage in CSR activities; however, they were not supported by a majority of those present and so were not included in the final scale. Exploratory factor analysis was then performed on this vari-able using half the sample. The analysis extracted one factor (eigenvalue = 3.29, explaining 54.8% of variance). Confirmatory factor analysis was then performed on this factor using the other half of the sample. The results supported the single dimensional structure, χ2(9) = 25.12, p < .01; comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, incremental fit index (IFI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .04. All items had significant factor loadings (> .40), and the alpha coefficient for this scale was .81.

Organizational identification. Employee organizational identification was measured using the six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). The six items were “when someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment,” “I am very interested in what others think about my organization,” “when someone criticizes my organization, it




feels like a personal insult,” “when I talk about my organization, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they,’” “my organization’s successes are my successes,” and “if a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed.” The scale’s alpha coefficient was .81.

Perceived organizational support. POS was measured using the eight-item scale utilized by Hekman, Steensma, Bigley, and Hereford (2009). The eight items were “my organization cares about my opinions,” “my organization cares about my well-being,” “my organization appreciates any extra effort from me,” “my organization would ignore any complaint from me,” “even if I did the best job possible, my organization would fail to notice,” “my organiza-tion cares about my general satisfaction at work,” “my organization shows very little concern for me,” and “my organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.” The alpha coef-ficient for this scale was .83.

Cooperative norms. Cooperative norms were measured using three items adapted from Chatman and Flynn’s (2001) 5-item scale. Two items were deleted from the original five-item scale, as one item measured the perceived importance of workplace cooperation rather than assessing the degree of cooperation and the other duplicated another item. The three items used in this study were “there is a high level of cooperation between team members,” “people are willing to sacrifice their self-interest for the benefit of the team,” and “there is a high level of sharing between team members.” The alpha coefficient for this scale was .76.

Control Variables

Employee rated/provided variables. Gender, age, education, position, and tenure were used as individual-level control variables as the literature has suggested that these variables may influence the interpretation of and responses to organizational policies, task perfor-mance, and extra-role helping behavior (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Messersmith, Patel, & Lepak, 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Gender was coded 1 (male) or 2 (female). Age was coded 1 (18-29), 2 (30-39), 3 (40-49), or 4 (50 years and older). Education was coded 1 (primary school), 2 (high school), 3 (diploma), 4 (bachelor’s), or 5 (postgraduate). Tenure was coded 1 (less than 1), 2 (1-5), 3 (6-10), or 4 (over 10 years). Position was coded 1 (nonmanagerial), 2 (supervisor), 3 (middle manager), or 4 (senior manager). In addition, it is widely recognized that general HRM practices are related to employee work behavior through multiple mediation paths (Jiang et al., 2012). One of the paths follows a transactional logic, POS, which, according to Edwards and Peccei (2010), is in turn positively related to organizational identification. Hence, we also controlled for general HRM at the organization level. General HRM was measured using the 19-item scale developed and tested in the Chi-nese context by Sun, Aryee, and Law (2007) and was aggregated to the organization level. All items are listed in the appendix. The alpha coefficient for this scale was .83.

Manager provided variables. We also controlled for two organizational-level variables, firm size (number of employees) and firm age (in years), which have been associated with organizational CSR activities (Brammer & Millington, 2003) and HRM practices (Datta, Guthrie, & Wright, 2005). Since the distribution of employee numbers was skewed, we used a log transformed firm size to reduce the effect of outliers.




Levels of Analyses

This study utilized data collected at various levels within the organization. Generally, employees within the same organization share the same HRM practices. As a result, employee consequences of HRM practices may not be independent of organizational conceptual effects. Hence, it is appropriate to conceptualize and measure HRM practices at the organizational level, although, as suggested by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), such data would be best collected from individuals to examine contextual effects and employees’ perceptions. Cooperative norms are shared beliefs and expectations among members that they must work together to achieve “shared pursuits, shared objectives and mutual interests” (Chatman & Flynn, 2001: 956; also see Wagner, 1995). Consequently, we also conceptualized cooperative norms as an organization-level construct. In contrast, organizational identification, POS, task perfor-mance, and extra-role helping behavior were conceptualized as individual-level variables.

We tested between-group variations and within-group interrater agreement in SRHRM, cooperative norms, and general HRM to see whether they were suited to be aggregated as group level constructs. Their homogeneity within company was assessed by rwg (LeBreton, James, & Lindell, 2005), which ranged from .78 to .96 for SRHRM, from .76 to .93 for coop-erative norms, and from .76 to .91 for general HRM. According to James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984), an rwg greater than .70 is desirable, and the higher the value of rwg the stronger the within-group agreement of the construct. A one-way ANOVA showed that there were signifi-cant variations in SRHRM, F(34, 785) = 2.26, p < .001, in cooperative norms, F(34, 785) = 1.77, p < .01, and in general HRM, F(34, 785) = 2.10, p < .001, among the 35 companies. Intraclass correlation (ICC1), which represents the proportion of variance due to company variability, and the reliabilities of the mean (ICC2), which represents the extent to which organizations differentiate individual ratings of company-level variables (Bliese, 2000), were .17 and .74 for SRHRM, .19 and .79 for cooperative norms, and .16 and .77 for general HRM, respectively. As such, the analyses satisfied the preconditions for aggregating the Level 2 constructs. Therefore, multilevel analysis was performed as this technique outper-forms classical regression analysis in predictive accuracy (Mathieu & Taylor, 2007; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Results

The Measurement Model

We performed a series of confirmative factor analyses to assess the discriminant validity of the measurement model. Results showed that the hypothesized six-factor model of SRHRM, organizational identification, POS, cooperative norms, task performance, and extra-role helping behavior, χ2(481) = 1550.56, p < .001; CFI = .90, IFI = .89, RMSEA = .08, and SRMR = .07, fitted the data significantly better than all other alternative models, such as the five-factor model, where task performance and extra-role helping behavior were com-bined, χ2(486) = 2696.53, p < .001; CFI = .76, IFI = .75, RMSEA = .14, and SRMR = .19, Δχ2 = 1145.97, p < .001, and the one-factor model, χ2(496) = 3839.33, p < .001; CFI = .47, IFI = .43, RMSEA = .19, and SRMR = .20, Δχ2 = 1142.80, p < .001. The results indicated that the six variables in the conceptual model are distinctive constructs and were therefore retained in the subsequent analysis.




Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables at the individual level. As shown in the table, SRHRM was positively related to organization iden-tification. SRHRM, cooperative norms, POS, and organizational identification were posi-tively related to task performance and extra-role helping behavior, respectively. These results provide preliminary support for our research hypotheses. The statistical result also shows that although task performance is positively related to extra-role helping behavior the correlation between these two variables is relatively low (r = .14, p < .05). This finding provides support for the conceptualization of the distinction between the two outcome variables. This finding is particularly relevant to our sample population as most respondents in this study are produc-tion workers who have little discretion over task performance, but greater discretion over extra-role helping behavior toward coworkers.

Hypothesis Testing

We tested the hypotheses by conducting multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) using Mplus 7. Conventional multilevel modeling is regarded as not suited for testing cross-level mediation due to potential bias of indirect effects (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). MSEM overcomes this problem by separating between- and within-group effects and taking into account measurement errors (Preacher et al., 2010). Before testing the substantial hypotheses, we first ran null models, containing no explanatory variables, to examine whether there was residual variance in the individual-level model by Level 2 units. The results revealed that additional variance existed that could be explained by organizational-level pre-dictors for task performance, u0, χ2(34) = 205.76, p < .001, and for extra-role helping

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables at the Individual Level

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organization-level variables 1. Firm size 2.67 2.80 — 2. Firm age 14.80 6.20 –.01 — 3. SRHRM 3.33 0.72 .09 .03 — 4. Cooperative norms 3.23 0.79 .10 .23* .35* — Individual-level variables 5. Extra-role helping 3.05 0.83 .13 .10 .51* .62** — 6. Task performance 3.38 0.73 .08 .15* .40** .40** .14* — 7. POS 3.21 0.63 .07 .20* .42** .55** .40** .38** — 8. Organizational

identification3.09 0.80 .22* .19* .46** .56* .66** .60*** .50***

Note: Level 1, N = 785; Level 2, N = 35. POS = perceived organizational support; SRHRM = socially responsible human resource management.*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.




behavior, u0, χ2(34) = 210.54, p < .001. Hence, it was appropriate to implement the multilevel modeling approach. We then examined whether adding control variables improved the mod-els’ fit. After we entered the control variables into the equation, the chi-square values reduced for task performance, Δχ2(35.78), p < .001, and for extra-role helping behavior, Δχ2(42.16), p < .001, thus indicating that the models had better fit with the data than the null models.

Our conceptual model as shown in Figure 1 includes two cross-level full mediated (a 2-1-1 design) moderation relationships. Preacher et al. (2010) suggested that the indirect effect in cross-level mediation must be assessed strictly at the between-group level. We there-fore fitted two cross-level full mediation models at the between-group level. Following the Edwards and Lambert (2007) procedure for estimating mediated moderation models, we added POS, cooperative norms, and the interaction terms (SRHRM × POS, organizational identification × POS, organizational identification × cooperative norms) to the equations so as to examine mediation at different levels of moderators and moderation in the two stages of mediation. In creating the interaction terms we grand centered SRHRM and cooperative norms, and group centered POS and organizational identification, so as to obtain unbiased estimates of cross-level interactions (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998; Kreft, de Leeuw, & Aiken, 1995). Results show that the two full mediated moderation models had a good fit with the data: χ2/df = 2.51, p < .001; CFI = .99, IFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .04, and SRMR = .02, for task performance, and χ2/df = 2.78, p < .001; CFI = .98, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .02, for extra-role helping behavior.

In H1a and H1b, we proposed that organizational identification would mediate the rela-tionships between SRHRM, and task performance and extra-role helping behavior. Checking the between-organizational-level coefficients, it was found that SRHRM had a significant and positive effect on organizational identification (γ = .26, p < .01), which was in turn posi-tively and significantly related to task performance (γ = .33, p < .001) and extra-role helping behavior (γ = .51, p < .001). The indirect effect of organizational identification was signifi-cant for task performance (r = .09, p < .01) and for extra-role helping behavior (r = .13, p < .01). We tested our meso-mediation hypotheses using bootstrap confidence intervals. The results showed that a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval from 1,000 bootstrap samples did not contain zero (.02 > − < .14) for task performance or (.05 > − < .22) for extra-role helping behavior (Mathieu & Taylor, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Thus, SRHRM influ-enced indirectly employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior through the mediation of organizational identification. H1a and H1b were therefore supported.

H2 predicted a direct effect of POS on organizational identification and a moderating effect of POS on the relationship between SRHRM and organizational identification. Results show that in keeping with H2, both POS (γ = .40, p < .001) and the interaction of SRHRM and POS had a positive and significant effect on organizational identification (γ = .11, p < .05) at the between-organizational level. After controlling for the main effects of POS and SRHRM, the interaction of SRHRM and POS explained an additional 2% variance in orga-nizational identification. According to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), in general, moderation explains 1% to 3% of the variance in criterion variables. Against this standard, the moderating effect of POS fell within the normal range. Using Preacher’s macro system (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006) we plotted the moderating effect of POS, as illustrated in Figure 2, which indicated that SRHRM was significantly related to higher organizational identification (p < .05) when POS was high (1 SD above the mean), but was not significantly




associated with organizational identification (p = .46) when POS was low (1 SD below the mean). As both POS and organizational identification were Level 1 variables, we also esti-mated their within-organization relationship. The result revealed that POS was significantly and positively related to organizational identification at the within-organization level (γ = .45, p < .001). H2 was therefore supported.

We then examined the moderating effects of POS on the relationships between organiza-tional identification and the two dependent variables (H3a and H3b). Results showed that POS had significant positive effects on task performance (γ = .12, p < .05) and extra-role helping behavior (γ = .32, p < .01), so did the interaction of POS and organizational identifi-cation on task performance (γ = .14, p < .05) and extra-role helping behavior (γ = .11, p < .05). As organizational identification and the two outcome variables are Level 1 variables, we also estimated the within-group effects. At the within-group level, organizational identifica-tion was positively and significantly related to task performance (γ = .20, p < .05) and extra-role helping behavior (γ = .39, p < .001). Accordingly, we plotted the moderating effects of POS on the relationships between organizational identification and two outcome variables at both the within- and between-group levels. The moderating effects of POS at the between-group level are illustrated in the top left and top right panels of Figure 3, and the within-group level in the bottom left and bottom right panels of Figure 3. At the between-organization level, the effects of organizational identification on employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior were much stronger (p < .01, p < .01) when the levels of POS were high (1 SD above the mean) and much weaker when the levels of POS were low (p = .34, p = .29; 1 SD below the mean). Similarly, at the within-organization level, the effects of organiza-tional identification on employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior were also much stronger (p < .01, p < .01) when the levels of POS were high (1 SD above the mean) and also much weaker when the levels of POS were low (p = .41, p = .35; 1 SD below the mean). Therefore, H3a and H3b were supported.

In H4, we predicted that cooperative norms would moderate the relationship between organizational identification and extra-role helping behavior. As cooperative norms were

Figure 2Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) on the Relationship

Between Socially Responsible Human Resource Management (SRHRM) and Organizational Identification



16

Fig

ure

3M

oder

atin

g E

ffec

ts o

f P

erce

ived

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Su

pp

ort

(PO

S)

on t

he

Rel

atio

nsh

ips

Bet

wee

n O

rgan

izat

ion

al I

den

tifi

cati

on

and

th

e O

utc

ome

Var

iab

les

Not

e: T

op le

ft a

nd to

p ri

ght:

Mod

erat

ing

effe

cts

of P

OS

on

the

rela

tion

ship

s of

org

aniz

atio

nal i

dent

ific

atio

n w

ith

task

per

form

ance

and

ext

ra-r

ole

help

ing

beha

vior

at t

he

betw

een-

grou

p le

vel.

Bot

tom

left

and

bot

tom

rig

ht: M

oder

atin

g ef

fect

s of

PO

S o

n th

e re

lati

onsh

ips

of o

rgan

izat

iona

l ide

ntif

icat

ion

wit

h ta

sk p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd e

xtra

-rol

e he

lpin

g be

havi

or a

t the

wit

hin-

grou

p le

vel.




conceptualized at the organizational level, this variable moderated the relationship between organizational identification and extra-role helping behavior only at the between-organiza-tion level. The results confirmed a significant direct effect (γ = .51, p < .01) and a moderating effect (γ = .13, p < .05). We plotted the moderating effect of cooperative norms at the between-group level. As shown in Figure 4 when cooperative norms were high (1 SD above the mean), the effect of organizational identification on employee extra-role behavior was stronger (p < .01), compared to when cooperative norms were low (1 SD below the mean), where the effect was weaker (p < .05). Therefore, H4 was supported.

Discussion

Research Contribution

CSR has increasingly become a social norm and underpinning the effectiveness of the implementation of CSR programs is the adoption of SRHRM, which is CSR directed toward employees. This study examined whether SRHRM benefits the organization through its influence on employee work behaviors. To date, few CSR studies have considered such micro-level outcomes and so little is known about effects of CSR on employees except for its benefits in talent attraction and employee retention (Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Greening & Turban, 2000; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). This is a major knowledge gap in the CSR literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, 2011). This study extended the CSR literature by exploring the effects of SRHRM on employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior. This is a signifi-cant advancement as employees often bear the consequences of CSR, especially those directed at employees (Aguinis, 2011). We found that SRHRM was positively and signifi-cantly related to task performance and extra-role helping behavior and their relationships are fully mediated by organizational identification. Prior research (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2007) found that CSR increases employee organizational identification. This study extended this finding by providing further empirical evidence that SRHRM, which is adopted to assist in

Figure 4Moderating Effect of Organizational Cooperative Norms on the Relationship

Between Organizational Identification and Extra-Role Helping Behavior




the implementation of CSR initiatives, also increases organizational identification which, in turn, influences employee work behaviors.

The results of this study also found that POS was positively related to organizational iden-tification as well as moderated the relationship between SRHRM and organizational identi-fication (the first stage of the mediation of organizational identification) and the relationships between organizational identification and employee task performance and extra-role helping behavior (the second stage of the mediation of organizational identification). A high level of POS strengthens these relationships. This finding is consistent with past research, such as Chuang and Liao (2010), who argued that employee workplace behaviors are influenced by an organizational climate of concern for employees. Indeed it is possible that if employees believe they have been treated unfairly or have not received the support they require from the organization, they may regard SRHRM as a threat (e.g., considering social performance in appraisal, promotion, and rewards may overshadow the significance of work performance; Shen & Zhu, 2011). The findings of this study indicate that adequate organizational support may minimize the perceived potential threats of SRHRM practices that underpin the success-ful implementation of external CSR and strengthens the positive influence of SRHRM on employees. Our research findings, therefore, extend the current CSR literature in relation to the effect of CSR on employees.

This study has also answered the call for more research on the influence of cooperative norms on employee work behaviors (Chatman & Flynn, 2001), especially extra-role helping behavior (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005), and therefore, to some extent, has filled a void in the cur-rent organizational behavior literature. The results showed that cooperative norms moderate the relationship between employee organizational identification and employee extra-role helping behavior. This finding lends support to the existing literature that a cooperative orga-nizational climate results in cooperation and helping behavior (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Mossholder et al., 2011; Ng & Van Dyne, 2005).

Implications for Management Practice

Management scholars and practitioners have begun to recognize that engagement in CSR can become an important source of organizational competitive advantage and not simply a financial impost. CSR has thus become a key priority for business leaders around the world (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006; Pfeffer, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Based on the findings of this study, it is important for organizations to formulate and implement appropri-ate SRHRM policies and practices as they not only are essential for the successful implemen-tation of external CSR programs, but also increase organizational identification, which in turn results in more positive employee work behaviors. More specifically, it becomes an imperative for organizations to recruit socially responsible employees (e.g., by considering individual CSR values in selection), provide CSR training, recognize social performance in appraisals, and link social performance to promotion and rewards. It is also important to include employees in organizational CSR communications and associated activities to enhance employees’ awareness of CSR.

Some CSR programs address only the interests of external stakeholders, and so may be perceived by employees to threaten their interests. This research shows that it is important




for organizations to provide substantial organizational support through identifying the nature of, and attempting to meet, employees’ concerns, which allows the positive effects of CSR and SRHRM on employee work behaviors to be realized. Finally, this research suggests that cooperative norms lead to helping behavior in the workplace. This finding indicates that different organizational climates can result in different employee work behaviors. It is therefore important for firms to implement policies directed at developing an appropriate organizational climate if they are to achieve the desired employee and orga-nizational outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research Direction

In conclusion, it is important to note the limitations of this study and the need for further research. First, this research was conducted in a developing country, China, where CSR regu-lations, traditions and standards, SRHRM, and national culture and values are to some extent different from those in Western economies. Although our conceptual model is theoretically based and so should hold up in most situations, the strength of the relationships considered in this study may vary in developed economies or other cultural environments. For example, the effects of SRHRM and organizational identification on helping behavior may be weaker in individualistic cultures. Therefore, it would be desirable to replicate the study in cross-cultural contexts. Such studies would further develop and validate the measures of the SRHRM construct and retest the strength of the relationships examined in this study. Second, the cross-sectional data utilized in this study can explain the hypothesized relationships only at a particular point in time. In future studies we would suggest that longitudinal data and/experimental or quasi-experimental designs should be considered so as to examine changes to employee work behaviors due to changes in SRHRM. When conducting longitudinal stud-ies, we suggest that data be collected at three distinct points of time including prior to the introduction of any new SRHRM policies. Experimental designs could also be utilized such as business simulations involving MBA students.

Third, the residual variance components for the full model (γ = .03, p < .001) showed that there might be other predictors that can explain some of the variance in the dependent vari-ables examined in this study. As such, further research is needed to identify other literature-supported variables that could be included in the conceptual framework or controlled for in the analysis. For example, personality (Organ & Lingl, 1995) and individualistic and collec-tivistic values (Sosik & Jung, 2002) are likely to influence an employee’s extra-role helping behavior and so could be included as predictor or control variables in future studies. This latter variable would be especially important to control for in cross-cultural research. In the CSR literature, organizational pride has also been identified as a mediator (Jones, 2010) and the equity sensitivity of supervisors (Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999) and the salience of CSR issues to employees (Bansal & Roth, 2000) as moderators at the individual level of analysis. It would therefore be valuable to test whether these variables play the same roles in the SRHRM–employee work behavior relationship. Finally, this study explored only task performance and extra-role helping behavior. SRHRM may have an impact on other employee behaviors, such as absenteeism, turnover, and ethical behavior, and so these outcome vari-ables would be worthy of exploring in future research.




Appendix

Items Used to Measure General Human Resource Management

1. Great effort is made to select the right employees in my company. 2. My company emphasizes employees’ long-term potentials in selection. 3. My company provides extensive training to employees to improve their skills. 4. Formal training programs are offered to employees in order to increase their chances of promo-

tion in my company. 5. Employees have few opportunities for upward mobility in my company (reverse coded). 6. Promotion in my company is based on seniority (reverse coded). 7. Employees have clear career paths in my company. 8. Employees in my company can expect to stay for as long as they wish. 9. The duties in employees’ jobs are clearly defined in my company.10. Employees’ jobs have up-to-date descriptions in my company.11. Performance is measured with objective quantifiable results in my company.12. Employee appraisals emphasize long-term and group-based achievement in my company.13. Rewards in my company are competitive to other companies in the same region.14. Rewards in my company are based on employees’ performance.15. Individuals in my company receive bonuses based on the profits of the organization.16. Employees have the opportunity to participate in decision-making in my company.17. Employees in my company have autonomy to make decisions about how to do their jobs.18. Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are done

in my company.19. Supervisors keep open communications with employees in my company.

ReferencesAguinis, H. 2011. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: 855-879. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38: 932-968.

Anderson, L., & Person, C. 1999. Tit for tat: The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 717-736.

Bartels, J., Peters, O., de Jong, M., Pruyn, A., & van der Molen, M. 2010. Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organizational identification. Personnel Review, 39: 210-226.

Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. 2006. Identity, identification, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34: 128-137.

Bergeron, D. M. 2007. The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizen at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32: 1078-1092.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. 2008. Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49: 37-44.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation

and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza-tions: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.




Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual per-formance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.

Brammer, S., & A. Millington, A. 2003. The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 213-226.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 972-992.

Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. 2006. The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organi-zational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19: 403-419.

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and conse-quences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 956-974.

Chen, Z., Eisenberger, R., Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L., & Aselage, J. 2009. Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: Which leads to which? Journal of Social Psychology, 149: 119-124.

China Europe International Business School. 2013. Business in China Survey. Shanghai: Author. http://www.ceibs.edu/media/archive/images/2013/02/20/FC9AD31D0509CD45BA2E849F7329B082.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2013.

Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. 2010. Strategic human resource management in service context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel Psychology, 63: 153-196.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collier, J., & Esteban, R. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16: 19-33.

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. 2005. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 135-145.

Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Anderson, L. M. 2003. Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47: 102-113.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.

Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1-22.

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. 2007. Organizational identification: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16: 25-57.

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. 2010. Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9: 17-26.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. 2004. Organizational citizenship behaviour in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 960-974.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29: 459-478.

Forsyth, D. 1999. Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 1997. Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, moods. Human Relations, 30: 393-416.Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161-

178.Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a

quality work force. Business and Society, 39: 254-280.Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., & Hereford, J. F. 2009. Combined effects of organizational and

professional identification on the reciprocity dynamic for professional employees. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 506-526.

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641.




Holtman, B. C., Tidd, S. T., & Lee, T. W. 2002. The relationship between work status congruence and work-related attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 903-915.

Idowu, S. O., & Papasolomou, I. 2007. Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance, 7: 136-147.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 86-98.

Jiang, K. F., Lepak, D., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1264-1294.

Jones, D. A. 2010. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteering program. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 857-878.

Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. 1997. Cohesion and organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23: 775-793.

Klein, N. 2001. No logo. London: HarperCollins.Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J.

(2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53: 856-866.

Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A cri-tique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33: 994-1006.

Kreft, I. G. G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. 1995. The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30: 1-21.

Larson, B. V., Flaherty, K. E., Zablah, A. R., Brown, T. J., & Wiener, J. L. 2008. Linking cause-related marketing to sales force responses and performance in a direct selling context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36: 271-277.

LeBreton, J. M., James, L. R., & Lindell, M. K. 2005. Recent issues regarding rWG, r*WG, rWG(J), and r*WG(J). Organizational Research Methods, 8: 128-138.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. 2006. A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management, vol. 25: 217-271. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70: 1-18.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. 1992. Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of the reformulated model of organiza-tional identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103-123.

Martinez, R., & Dacin, A. 1999. Efficiency motives and normative forces: Combining transactions costs and insti-tutional logic. Journal of Management, 25: 75-96.

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. 2007. A framework of testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behav-ior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 141-172.

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of orga-nizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1-18.

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, G. C., & Lepak, D. P. 2011. Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1105-1118.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. J. 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual different predictor of organiza-tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127-142.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. 2011. Special issue call for papers: Corporate social responsibility and human resource management/organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 64: 283-285.

Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. 2011. Human resource management systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36: 33-52.

Motowidlo, S. J. 2000. Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10: 115-126.




Mudrack, P., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. 1999. Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 539-560.

Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. 2005. Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behaviour in work groups: A multilevel analysis. Group and Organization Management, 30: 514-540.

Olson, M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.),

Managing HR for environmental sustainability: 85-116. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The “good soldier” syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behaviour: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10:

85-97.Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behav-

iour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164.Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. 1995. Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social

Psychology, 135: 339-350.Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis.

Organization Studies, 24: 403-441.Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. 2006. Socially responsible human resource management. In J. R. Deckop (Ed.),

Human resource management ethics: 3-25. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Peterson, D. K. 2004. Recruitment strategies for encouraging participation in corporate volunteer programs. Journal

of Business Ethics, 49: 371-386.Pfeffer, J. 2010. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24:

34-45.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral

research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513-563.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2011. Creating share value. Harvard Business Review, 89: 62-77.Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interaction effects in mul-

tiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31: 437-448.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209-233.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical liner models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 825-836.

Royle, T. 2005. Realism or idealism? Corporate social responsibility and the employee stakeholder in the global fast-food industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14: 42-55.

Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R., & Williams, C. 2006. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 537-543.

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Shen, J., & Zhu, J. H. 2011. Effects of socially responsible HRM on employee organizational commitment.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 3020-3035.Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and

recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. 2008. Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational

exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73: 457-464.Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. 2002. Work-group characteristics and performance in collective and individualistic cul-

tures. Journal of Social Psychology, 14: 5-23.




Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behaviour, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 558-577.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Triandis, H. C. 2001. Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69: 907-924.Turker, D. 2008. How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business

Ethics, 89: 189-204.Upham, S. P. 2006. A model for giving: The effect of organizational charity on employees. Journal of Corporate

Citizenship, 22: 81-90.Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean, P. J. 1995. Extra-role behaviours: In pursuit of construct and defini-

tional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organiza-tional behavior, vol. 17: 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Wagner, J. A. 1995. Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 152-172.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in percep-tions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590-598.

Werner, J. M. 1994. Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 98-107.

Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carrón, A. V. 1992. Group dynamics in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sports psychology: 124-139. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organiza-tional citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.

Zappalá, G. 2004. Corporate citizenship and human resource management: A new tool or a missed opportunity? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42: 185-201.



When CSR is social norm. How socially responsible human resource management affects employee behaviour

Documents