Annoted bibliography

Human Resource Management, July-August 2014, Vol. 53, No. 4. Pp. 545–567

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21605

Correspondence to: Erk P. Piening, ESCP Europe, Heubnerweg 8-10, 14059 Berlin, Germany, Phone: +49 (0) 30

32007 125, E-mail: [email protected].

MIND THE INTENDED-

IMPLEMENTED GAP:

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’

PERCEPTIONS OF HRM

E R K P. P I E N I N G , A L I N A M . B A L U C H , A N D H A N S - G E R D R I D D E R

This study aims to shed light on the implementation of HR practices as a

key piece of the human resource management (HRM)–performance puzzle.

Although the literature suggests that discrepancies between the organiza-

tion’s intended and implemented HR practices are essential to understanding

employees’ perceptions of and reactions to HRM, little attention has been

devoted to this issue. Drawing upon a multiple-case study of German health

and social services organizations, we therefore explore the linkages (and po-

tential gaps) between intended, implemented, and perceived HR practices.

Our study provides new insights into the underlying mechanisms of this re-

lationship, highlighting an organization’s ability to leverage its resources as

playing a crucial moderating role in implementing intended HR practices,

while employees’ expectations of HRM moderate the link between imple-

mented and perceived HR practices. We advance a set of propositions that

contributes to a more nuanced, multilevel understanding of the complex

phenomenon of HRM implementation. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: strategic human resource management, intended and imple- mented HRM, employees’ perception of HR practices, case study

Introduction

G iven its theoretical and practical importance, considerable atten- tion has been devoted to the rela- tionship between human resource management (HRM) and perfor-

mance over the last two decades. While there is indeed some evidence to suggest that HR interventions are positively related to various

organizational and financial performance outcomes (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Subramony, 2009), insight into the pro- cess through which HRM actually contributes to firm performance still remains limited (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Guest, 2011; Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013). In order to unlock the “black box” between HRM and perfor- mance, strategic HRM scholars have increas- ingly turned their attention to examining

546 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Identifying

differences between

an organization’s

intended HR

practices and

its implemented

practices that

employees

experience is

seen as central

to understanding

employees’

reactions to HR

practices, and

thus the HRM-

performance link.

arising from perceptual differences between HR managers and employees regarding the HR practices used in an organization (e.g., Aryee, Walumba, Seidu, & Otaye, 2012; Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013). We address this gap by conducting a multiple-case study that aims to provide in-depth insights into the subtleties and nuances of HRM imple- mentation, thereby contributing to a bet- ter understanding of employees’ perceptions of HR practices and, ultimately, the HRM- performance relationship. Drawing on Wright and Nishii’s (2006) framework, we specifically examine the complex linkages (and potential gaps) between an organization’s (1) intended HR practices, (2) its implemented practices, and (3) employees’ subjective perceptions of these objectively existing practices.

Exploring the underlying mechanisms of this relationship, this study extends the growing body of process-based research on HRM (e.g., Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012; Sanders, Dorenbosch, & De Reuver, 2008) that has mainly considered employee per- ceptions of HR practices in isolation from the way in which these practices have been implemented. As our central contribution, we develop a set of propositions specifying the conditions under which congruency between intended, implemented, and perceived HRM is likely to occur. These propositions high- light the critical moderating role played by an organization’s ability to effectively leverage its resources in avoiding an implementation gap between intended and implemented HR practices as well as employees’ expectations of HRM in accounting for an interpretation gap between implemented and perceived HRM. By clarifying the relationships between these and further relevant factors (e.g., agreement among HR decision makers) at the individual as well as the organizational level, this study provides an important step toward a multi- level understanding of the complex phenom- enon of HRM implementation.

Conceptual Background

Drawing on the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, HRM scholars suggest that a firm’s HR system—i.e., the “set of distinct but

employees’ attitudinal and behavioral re- sponses (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover) to HR practices (e.g., Baluch, Salge, & Piening, 2013; Messersmith, Patel, & Lepak, 2011; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008).

Identifying differences between an organi- zation’s intended HR practices and its imple- mented practices that employees experience is seen as central to understanding employ-

ees’ reactions to HR practices, and thus the HRM-performance link (Arthur & Boyles, 2007; Khilji & Wang, 2006). Specifically, it has been argued that “any research attempting to demonstrate a rela- tionship between HRM and firm performance stands on firmer ground when assessing the actual practices rather than the intended policies” (Wright & Boswell, 2002, p. 264). The process-oriented approach to HRM highlights the importance of the psychological processes through which employ- ees interpret and respond to the information conveyed in HR practices (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012). HR practices are assumed to bring about the desired employee out- comes only when they are consis- tently experienced by employees in intended ways (Kehoe & Wright, 2013).

However, despite the increas- ingly recognized importance of understanding employees’ percep- tions of HR practices and why they may differ from management’s

intentions, research on this issue is still in its infancy. While there is, albeit limited, empiri- cal support for divergence between the organi- zation’s intended HR practices and employees’ experiences thereof (Khilji & Wang, 2006; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009; Truss, 2001), insight into how this occurs is lacking, as the process of implementing HR practices has been vastly neglected in the literature (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Woodrow & Guest, 2014). Instead, existing research focuses almost exclusively on the performance implications

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 547

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

between intended and implemented HRM can be traced back, for example, to line man- agers’ lack of training in implementing HR practices, lack of interest, work overload, self-serving behavior, and tensions between HR and line managers. HR practices may be reinterpreted and renegotiated by line man- agers and lower-level employees, thereby leading to variation in the application of the practices (Currie & Proctor, 2001; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Stanton, Young, Bartram, & Leggat, 2010). Den Hartog et al. (2013) found that the higher managers’ communi- cation quality, the more likely managerial and employee perceptions of HR practices are congruent. Taking an interpretivist approach to HR systems as meaning-creating devices, Alvesson and Kärreman (2007) demonstrate that despite divergence between intended and implemented HR practices, employees perceived the firm’s HR system as support- ive and effective. With HRM serving a highly symbolic sense-making function for employ- ees, the effectiveness of HR systems is mainly dependent on the quantity of HR practices and intensity of usage, rather than their quality and rationality. Their study contrasts with evidence that points to the importance of achieving a high degree of consistency between intended and implemented HRM to elicit desirable perceptions of and reactions to HR practices (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Khilji & Wang, 2006).

Research on Employees’ Perceptions of HRM

The aforementioned process-based approach to HRM is grounded in theories on causal attributions. Attribution theories broadly seek to explain how and why people make causal explanations about specific events (e.g., success and failure) or other people’s actions (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967; Weiner, 1985). Drawing on Kelley’s (1967) attribution theory, Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) concep- tual work is based on the assumption that the HRM-performance linkage is likely to depend on the strength of the HR system in place that allows employees to form a shared sense of the behaviors that are expected, supported,

interrelated activities, functions, and processes that are directed at attracting, developing, and maintaining (or disposing of) a firm’s human resources” (Lado & Wilson, 1994, p. 701), rather than single HR practices can be a source of competitive advantage (Barney & Wright, 1998; Colbert, 2004). Accordingly, the combination of interrelated practices cre- ates synergistic effects and makes the advan- tage difficult for competitors to identify and imitate (Coff, 1997). Yet, as strategic HRM research that draws on the RBV is character- ized by a lack of microfoundations in which the firm’s internal workings (e.g., individual actions and interactions) remain unspecified (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Foss, 2011), scholars have increasingly adopted a microperspective to unravel the mechanisms through which HR systems influence performance (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nishii et al., 2008). In particu- lar, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) distinguish between two interrelated features of an HR system—namely, content and process. The former refers to the set of HR practices that is adopted by a firm to achieve particular objec- tives. While this component of HR systems has been studied extensively, little attention has been devoted to the process aspect that refers to “the features of an HRM system that send signals to employees that allow them to understand the desired and appropriate responses and form a collective sense of what is expected” (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p. 204). Of central importance to employees’ shared understanding of HRM, however, are differ- ences between intended and implemented HRM in that employees are often not even aware of the existence of specific HR practices or they are actively discouraged from partici- pating by managers, leading to these practices rarely being used absent a supportive climate (Arthur & Boyles, 2007). In this regard, there is often a gap between “rhetoric and reality” (Legge, 1995), in which HR managers’ and employees’ perceptions about the diffusion, availability, or quality of HR practices differ (Kuvaas, 2008; Liao et al., 2009; Truss, 2001).

Research on the factors that may account for this gap, however, is scant, focusing pri- marily on the role of line managers in imple- menting HR practices. Accordingly, gaps

548 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Specifically, as employees develop beliefs about the extent to which their employer values their work and cares about their well- being, HR practices perceived to emphasize participation, fairness of rewards, and growth opportunities are shown to lead to positive employee reactions (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Nishii et al., 2008).

Method

In this study, we employ a multiple-case-study design. As detailed empirical investigations into complex phenomena without stripping the data of their context, case studies provide rich opportunities for generating new insights in research areas where there is little empiri- cal substantiation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). In particular, it is increasingly recog- nized that in-depth case studies hold promise for improving our limited understanding of the functioning of HRM (e.g., Truss, 2001; Woodrow & Guest, 2014).

Research Setting and Sampling Strategy

We conducted our case study in the context of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) providing health and social services. In the first phase of our research, we followed a theoretical sam- pling strategy (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Patton, 2002) and drew on a homogeneous sample of 11 main welfare associations oper- ating in the federal state of Lower Saxony in Germany. As part of the first phase of our research (spring to summer 2011), in-depth, semistructured interviews with three execu- tive directors, eight board directors, and three HR managers were carried out to assess the organization’s goals as well as its stated values and beliefs about employees, the role of HRM in coping with external pressures, and the HR practices used. Based on these interviews, we classified each of the cases according to a the- oretically driven sampling frame that accounts for an organization’s strategic and employee orientations being the dominant influences on the design of HR systems into one of the four types of HRM architectures: (1) a low strategic and employee orientation, (2) a high strategic and employee orientation,

and rewarded by management. Accordingly, the effective implementation of an HR sys- tem depends on employees’ perceptions of the system’s distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus.

First, the distinctiveness of an organiza- tion’s HR system is conceptualized as a func- tion of its visibility (the degree to which employees have a clear idea of which HR prac- tices are offered), understandability (degree to which the content and functioning of HR practices is clear), legitimacy of authority (degree to which the HR function is perceived as being highly accepted and credible), and relevance (degree to which HR practices are perceived as useful, supportive, and relevant). Next, the consistency dimension encom- passes three subcategories—namely, instru- mentality (degree to which the cause-effect relationship in reference to the HR system’s desired employee behaviors and associated employee consequences is unambiguous), validity (degree of consistency between what HR practices purport to do and what they actually do), and consistency of HR mes- sages (degree of internal consistency of HR practices). Finally, consensus in employees’ perception of an HR system depends on the agreement among principal HRM decision makers (e.g., regarding how to design and implement the HR practices) and fairness of the HR system (degree to which HR practices adhere to the principles of distributive, pro- cedural, and interactional justice) (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delmotte, DeWinne, & Sels, 2012; Li, Frenkel, & Sanders, 2011; Pereira & Gomes, 2012).

Empirical evidence supports some of the ideas advanced by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). For example, research shows that HR systems perceived as highly distinctive, consistent, and composed of a broad range of high-per- formance HR practices are positively related to various HR outcomes such as commitment and job satisfaction, while negatively related to turnover intention (Li et al., 2011; Sanders et al., 2008). Other studies highlight that not only the availability, but also the perceived effectiveness (relevance) of HR practices influ- ences employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Chang, 2005; Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012).

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 549

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Notwithstanding the

growing importance

of HRM in order

to cope with their

increasingly

competitive

environments and

rising job demands,

small organizations

(especially in

the nonprofit

sector) often lack

professional HR

structures and

systems, with HR

activities being

characterized as

informal and ad hoc.

and ad hoc (Festing, Schäfer, & Scullion, 2013; Patel & Cardon, 2010).

Data Collection and Analysis

In the second research phase (summer to fall of 2011), we conducted 15 additional inter- views with key informants within the four selected cases. Four HR managers as well as employees from different hierar- chical levels and organizational functions (six departmental man- agers and five lower-level employ- ees) were interviewed to capture a full range of perspectives and allow for data triangulation. Different sets of questions were employed for HR managers and employees. The former were asked to describe, for instance, the organization’s HR function or its HR practices, while the latter were questioned about the HR practices implemented in the organization to cross-check this data, in addition to their per- ceptions of the usage, relevance, and fairness of HR practices. Two researchers conducted each of the interviews, which lasted between 30 and 80 minutes and were digi- tally recorded and transcribed. Document analysis based on more than 800 pages of public and inter- nal documents (e.g., mission state- ments, bylaws, annual reports, and presentation materials) supple- mented the interview data to check and augment contradictory evi- dence, thereby enhancing validity by reducing inaccurate data and hindsight or attributional biases (Yin, 2009). These documents helped us to better understand the context and triangulate the data gained from the inter- views to identify the HR practices in use (Berg, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

The main analysis occurred in sev- eral stages of aggregating the data from within-case and cross-case analysis to iden- tify the mechanisms behind the intended- implemented gap.

(3) a low strategic with high employee orien- tation, and (4) a high strategic but a low employee orientation (for a detailed descrip- tion of this typology and procedure for cate- gorizing the cases, see Ridder, Baluch, & Piening, 2012; Ridder, Piening, & Baluch, 2012).

This classification of HRM served as a guide for determining further issues of sam- pling in our study. In the second research phase, we selected four cases out of the wider sample that are representative of HRM for each of the individual quadrants. These four cases exhibit maximum differences in HRM types, thereby providing several pos- sibilities for comparison and increasing the external validity of the results (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In the following section, we refer to this smaller subset of our sam- ple (Cases A–D). Table I specifies the welfare associations according to their key prin- ciples, areas of activity, main constituents, size, and the key informants interviewed in each organization.

Despite Case D being the largest of the four cases in terms of the number of employ- ees, the NPOs are comparable in the scope of their activities as umbrella organizations. In fact, the small to medium-sized Cases A, B, and C provide HR services to a similar num- ber of employees as Case D when accounting for the legally independent subsidiaries they operate (e.g., hospitals, child care centers, and homes for the elderly). As previous research on the HRM-performance link has been pre- dominantly conducted in the context of large for-profit firms (e.g., Hayton, 2003), these smaller organizations offer an inter- esting research setting. Similar to small and medium-sized enterprises in general (Patel & Cardon, 2010), NPOs face particular chal- lenges in acquiring, developing, and retain- ing highly qualified employees given limited resources (Guo, Brown, Ashcraft, Yoshioka, & Dong, 2011). Notwithstanding the grow- ing importance of HRM in order to cope with their increasingly competitive environments and rising job demands, small organizations (especially in the nonprofit sector) often lack professional HR structures and systems, with HR activities being characterized as informal

550 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

T A

B L

E

I

M u

lt ip

le C

a se

S tu

d ie

s a

n d

K e

y In

fo rm

a n

ts

W el

fa re

A

ss o

ci at

io n

K ey

P ri

n ci

p le

s, A

re as

o f A

ct iv

it y,

a n

d M

ai n

C o

n st

it u

en ts

C as

es

S iz

e o

f th

e U

m b

re lla

O

rg . (

N o.

o f

E m

p lo

ye es

)

K ey

In fo

rm an

ts

1s t

R es

ea rc

h

P h

as e

2n d

R es

ea rc

h

P h

as e

A s s o

c ia

ti o

n

o f

s o

c ia

l

m o

v e m

e n

ts

U p

h o

ld s p

ri n

c ip

le s o

f e q

u a

l re

p re

s e

n ta

ti o

n a

n d

s o

c ia

l ju

s ti

c e

w h

il e

m a in

ta in

in g

r e li

g io

u s ,

id e o

lo g

ic a

l, a

n d

p o

li ti

c a

l in

d e

p e

n d

e n

c e

.

P ro

m o

te s i

ts m

e m

b e r

o rg

a n

iz a

ti o

n s , w

h ic

h c

o v

e r

a w

id e

r a

n g

e o

f

h e a lt

h a

n d

s o

c ia

l s e rv

ic e s f

o r

y o

u th

, fa

m il ie

s , e

ld e

rl y , a

n d

s ic

k a

n d

d is

a b

le d

p e rs

o n

s .

C a

s e

A 5

5 B

o a rd

d ir

e c to

r 1 d

e p

t. m

a n

a g

e r

2 l o

w e r-

le v e l

e m

p lo

y e e s

R e li g

io u

s

w e lf

a re

a s s o

c ia

ti o

n I

P ro

te c ts

h u

m a n

d ig

n it

y ;

s u

p p

o rt

s p

e o

p le

i n

n e

e d

; p

ro m

o te

s s

o li -

d a ri

ty ,

fr e e d

o m

, ju

s ti

c e ,

a n

d p

e a

c e

; a

n d

f o

ll o

w s t

h e

s o

c io

-r e

li g

io u

s

C h

ri s ti

a n

p ri

n c ip

le s o

f s u

b s id

ia ri

ty , in

d iv

id u

a li ty

, a

n d

s o

li d

a ri

ty .

H e lp

s t

h e p

o o

r a n

d s

o c ia

ll y

d is

a d

v a

n ta

g e

d t

h ro

u g

h h

e a

lt h

a n

d

s o

c ia

l s e rv

ic e s i

n a

re a s o

f a

s s is

te d

l iv

in g

; lo

n g

-t e

rm , d

is a

b le

d , a

n d

e ld

e rc

a re

; y o

u th

a n

d f

a m

il y

w e

lf a

re ; a

n d

c o

u n

s e

li n

g r

e g

a rd

in g

d o

-

m e s ti

c v

io le

n c e ,

p re

g n

a n

c y , a

d d

ic ti

o n

, le

a rn

in g

d is

a b

il it

ie s , h

o m

e -

le s s n

e s s ,

le g

a l

o ff

e n

d e rs

, d

e b

t, a

n d

m ig

ra ti

o n

.

C a

s e

B 3

3 B

o a rd

d ir

e c to

r 1 H

R m

a n

a g

e r

1 d

e p

t. m

a n

a g

e r

1 l o

w e r-

le v e l

e m

p lo

y e e

C a

s e

B 2

1 5

0 B

o a rd

d ir

e c to

r

C a

s e

B 3

3 8

H R

m a n

a g

e r

In te

rn a ti

o n

a l

w e lf

a re

a s s o

c ia

ti o

n

F o

ll o

w s t

h e p

ri n

c ip

le s o

f h

u m

a n

it y , im

p a

rt ia

li ty

, n

e u

tr a

li ty

, in

-

d e p

e n

d e n

c e ,

v o

lu n

ta ry

s e rv

ic e

, u

n it

y , a

n d

u n

iv e

rs a

li ty

. P

ro v

id e

s

h e a lt

h ,

lo n

g -t

e rm

, a n

d e

ld e

rc a

re ; e

m e

rg e

n c y

m e

d ic

a l s e

rv ic

e s ;

ch il

d c a re

; y o

u th

s e rv

ic e s ; s e

rv ic

e s f

o r

m ig

ra n

ts a

n d

i n

d is

a s te

r a

r-

e a s ;

a n

d s

e rv

ic e s t

o i

ts m

e m

b e

r o

rg a

n iz

a ti

o n

s .

C a

s e

C 9

0 E

x e c u

ti v e d

ir e c to

r 2 H

R m

a n

a g

e rs

2 d

e p

t. m

a n

a g

e rs

1 l o

w e r-

le v e l

e m

p lo

y e e

W o

rk e rs

’

w e lf

a re

a s s o

c ia

ti o

n

E m

e rg

e d

h is

to ri

c a ll

y o

u t

o f

th e

w o

rk e

rs ’ m

o v

e m

e n

t a

n d

f o

ll o

w s

th e v

a lu

e s o

f d

e m

o c ra

ti c s

o c ia

li s m

: s o

li d

a ri

ty , to

le ra

n c e

, fr

e e

d o

m ,

e q

u a li

ty ,

a n

d s

o c ia

l ju

s ti

c e

. P

ro v

id e

s a

r a

n g

e o

f h

e a

lt h

a n

d s

o c ia

l

s e rv

ic e s f

o r

s o

c ia

ll y d

is a d

v a

n ta

g e

d y

o u

th , fa

m il ie

s , e

ld e

rl y , s ic

k ,

m e n

ta ll

y i

ll ,

d is

a b

le d

, a n

d h

o m

e le

s s p

e rs

o n

s t

h ro

u g

h c

o u

n s e

li n

g

s e rv

ic e s i

n r

e p

ro d

u c ti

v e h

e a

lt h

, a

d d

ic ti

o n

, u

n e

m p

lo y

m e

n t,

d e

b t,

a n

d m

ig ra

ti o

n .

C a

s e

D 1

,3 0

0 B

o a rd

d ir

e c to

r 1 H

R m

a n

a g

e r

2 d

e p

t. m

a n

a g

e rs

1 l o

w e r-

le v e l

e m

p lo

y e e

C a

s e

D 2

1 ,4

0 0

E x e c u

ti v e d

ir e c to

r

C a

s e

D 3

3 ,0

0 0

E x e c u

ti v e d

ir e c to

r

H R

m a n

a g

e r

R e li g

io u

s

w e lf

a re

a s s o

c ia

ti o

n

II

O ri

e n

ts i ts

a c ti

v it

ie s t

o t

h e B

ib le

, re

s p

e c ts

h u

m a n

d ig

n it

y , a n

d a

c ts

a s

a s

e rv

ic e c

o m

m u

n it

y t

o p

ro v id

e h

e lp

f o

r th

e s

o c ia

ll y d

is a d

v a n

ta g

e d

w h

il e p

ro c la

im in

g t

h e r

e li g

io u

s m

is s io

n i n

t h

e G

o s p

e l. P

ro v id

e s s

o -

c ia

l w

e lf

a re

s e rv

ic e s i n

s o

c ia

l c a re

, h

e a lt

h c

a re

, a n

d e

d u

c a ti

o n

i n

t h

e

a re

a s o

f e ld

e rc

a re

, s u

p p

o rt

f o

r th

e u

n e m

p lo

y e d

a n

d d

is a b

le d

, y o

u th

a n

d f

a m

il y w

e lf

a re

, h

e a lt

h c

a re

, a n

d m

ig ra

ti o

n i s s u

e s .

C a

s e

E

1 ,9

0 0

B o

a rd

d ir

e c to

r

H R

m a n

a g

e r

C a

s e

E 2

1 0

2 B

o a rd

d ir

e c to

r

C a

s e

E 3

7 0

B o

a rd

d ir

e c to

r

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 551

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

data and the HRM literature, we developed analytical categories that represent a further step in data reduction (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These broader empirically grounded categories were induced by the analytical technique of pattern matching (Yin, 2009) in which theoretical patterns were compared with empirical patterns to confirm the guid- ing theoretical assumptions, or modify them based on the new categories emerging from the data that the theory has not yet accounted for. Drawing out the commonalities and dif- ferences across the cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994), each case was scored from low to high along these categories underlying intended, implemented, and perceived HRM. Seeking out recurring empirical regularities across these individual categories to move up the ladder of abstraction (Guba, 1978), the out- put of this cross-case analysis yielded higher aggregated patterns for each case, such as “agreement about ambitious intentions.”

Stage 3: Identifying Mechanisms

Underlying the Intended-Implemented Gap

In the final stage of the data analysis, we fol- lowed up on divergent findings through returning to the raw data and iterating the findings with the literature as we developed our emerging theoretical explanations (Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989). Using content-analytic matrices (Miles & Huberman, 1994), we repeatedly compared and contrasted the conditions under which an intended-implemented gap occurred across the cases. This method of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was repeated in several cycles until a point of sat- uration had been reached in which no new insights could be gleaned from the data. As a result of this iterative process, we identified several mechanisms that account for the intended-implemented gap (or lack thereof)— most notably, the “effectiveness of leveraging resources” and “employees’ expectations of HRM” as variables moderating the linkages between intended, implemented, and per- ceived HRM. By verifying these relationships with the data from which they are derived, a complete chain of evidence is ensured from

Stage 1: Within-Case Analysis: Coding

the Data and Constructing Case Stories

This stage of the data analysis comprised two steps. First, we performed initial coding of the interview data using relevant theoretical con- structs from HRM research. For example, codes pertaining to HR system features of dis- tinctiveness, consistency, and consensus (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) were carefully defined in accordance with the literature so that each author had a similar understanding of the codes. Remaining open to themes emerging from the data, codes were also used to initially aggregate the data that retained interviewees’ terms or were descriptive phrases summarizing the data (e.g., “match between organizational values and HR prac- tices”) (see Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). At least two of the authors independently coded the interview data for each case. In the second step of the within-case analysis of Stage 1, case stories were constructed from the joint analysis of the coded interview data, which were supple- mented by public and internal documentary evidence cross-checking—for example, the implementation of intended HR practices through internal assessments of the HR pro- cesses. In order to maintain the independence of replication logic (Yin, 2009), we strictly treated each case as a distinct analytical unit, with each author solely creating a narrative for one case, which led to studying each case in depth before examining successive cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Following Langley (1999), the four case stories that traced a narrative from the organization’s HR goals and activi- ties to employees’ usage of the HR practices served as a validation tool for subsequent analysis rather than presenting a theoretical account at this preliminary stage.

Stage 2: Cross-Case Analysis:

Building Broader Analytical Categories

As the analysis progressed, cross-case compar- isons revealed differing patterns concerning management’s intended HR practices and employees’ experience of their implementa- tion. Cycling back and forth between our

552 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Due to the short-

term, fragmented

perspective that

prohibits a coherent

HR program,

perceived HRM

[for the modest

approach] entails

that employees are

only aware of a few

HR practices in the

organization and do

not experience their

continuous usage.

switching to a wage structure with lower pay and conditions for the employees allowed the organization to reduce personnel costs, which the board director viewed as a very “fortunate situation […] whereas the other associations did not do that for ideological reasons” (Case A: Int. 1, p. 11). Decision makers agree broadly on the administrative, low-cost approach to HRM, which entails that only a low range (i.e., the number, content, and complexity of HR practices) of basic HR practices is intended. These practices include training, compensa- tion, and contract management (Case A: Doc. 5, p. 65).

With regard to implemented HRM, this agreement about modest intentions enables the organization to channel its limited resources into fully implementing its HR practices. In this respect, Case A consistently pursues the adoption of practices that pro- vide the organization and its members with financial incentives, such as tax benefits from company cars. Reflecting the intended prag- matic approach in Case A, which does not “have HRM that you would refer to or call by that name” (Case A: Int. 2, p. 2), the HR function is decentralized with departmental managers carrying out HR activities beyond compensation and contracts.

Due to the short-term, fragmented per- spective that prohibits a coherent HR program, perceived HRM entails that employees are only aware of a few HR practices in the organiza- tion and do not experience their continuous usage. Nevertheless, employees receive con- sistent messages about the espoused adminis- trative function of HRM through the enacted HR practices and perceive a high degree of fairness in accessing these HR practices—for example, equal opportunities to use training upon individual request. These employees’ perceptions are indicative of their relatively low expectations of HRM. When questioned about the provision of few HR practices, an employee in Case A (Int. 3, p. 14) responded with “I am really satisfied with that.” As the employees are not very demanding in what they expect from their organization’s HRM, employees can be characterized as satisfied non-demanders whose low expectations are met by implementing a few basic HR practices.

the empirically grounded analytical catego- ries to the set of propositions we develop (Yin, 2009).

Findings

The empirical findings for each individual case are presented along the aforementioned categories of intended, implemented, and per- ceived HRM, as adapted from Wright and Nishii (2006).1 First, intended HRM repre- sents decision makers’ desired HR practices,

which can be the outcome of an HR strategy. Second, implemented HRM describes the practices that objectively exist (are used) in an organization. This category is based on the observation that “not all intended practices are actually implemented, and those that are may often be imple- mented in ways that differ from the initial intention” (Wright & Nishii, 2006, p. 11). Finally, per- ceived HRM refers to employees’ subjective perceptions and inter- pretations of the HR practices that are implemented in an organiza- tion. Though individual employ- ees may perceive specific HR practices differently, it is argued that shared perceptions among employees about the organiza- tion’s HR practices are likely to emerge given social interaction and socialization processes (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Table II summa- rizes the underlying categories

that characterize intended, implemented, and perceived HRM in the selected cases.

Case A

Regarding the organization’s overarching principles for managing its staff, the focus of intended HRM in Case A reflects both a low strategic and employee orientation. Specifically, HRM is characterized by a short- term fragmented perspective and concentra- tion on executing operational tasks, with employees being viewed as expenditures rather than valuable investments. For example,

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 553

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

T A B L E I I Patterns for Intended, Implemented, and Perceived HRM

Categories Case A Case B Case C Case D

Intended HRM

Focus of

HRM

Low strategic and

employee orienta-

tion: HRM focuses

on administrative

tasks

Low strategic

orientation/high

employee orienta-

tion: HRM focuses

on employee well-

being

High strategic

orientation/low

employee orien-

tation: functional

view of HRM as a

means to real-

ize the strategic

goals

High strategic and

employee orienta-

tion: enhancing

employee skills

and well-being to

achieve strategic

objectives, but also

a goal in and of

itself

Agreement

among HR

decision

makers

High: agreement

about the admin-

istrative HR func-

tion with low HR

investments

High: consensus

that the HR pro-

grams should sup-

port the needs of

employees for their

own sake and value

Low: lack of

agreement about

the desired HR

strategy and how

to achieve it

High: agreement

that substantial HR

investments are

needed to achieve

organizational goals

Range of HR

practices

Low: few, basic

administrative HR

practice

Low: few, basic

employee-oriented

HR practices

High: wide-

ranging, sophisti-

cated HR practices

High: wide-ranging,

sophisticated HR

practices

Pattern Agreement about

modest intentions

Agreement about

modest intentions

Disagreement

about ambitious

intentions

Agreement about

ambitious inten-

tions

Implemented HRM

Degree of im-

plementation

of intended

HR practices

High: imple mented

the low range of

intended HR prac-

tices

High: implemented

the low range of

employee-oriented

HR practices

Low: partially

implemented

the high range

of intended HR

practices

High: implemented

the high range of

intended HR prac-

tices

Degree of

centralization

of the HR

function

Low: absence of

a stand-alone HR

department, decen-

tralized HR activities

(beyond pay and

contracts)

Low: administrative-

oriented HR depart-

ment, decentralized

HR activities (be-

yond employment

law)

Low: strategi-

cally oriented

HR department,

yet departmen-

tal managers

carry out most HR

activities

Medium: top-down

implementation by

strategic HRD staff

unit, yet training is

decentralized

Pattern Full implementa-

tion of a modest HR

program

Full implementa-

tion of a modest

HR program

Incomplete

implementation

of an ambitious

HR program

Full implementation

of an ambitious HR

program

Perceived HRM

Visibility of

HR practices

Low: employees

aware of few HR

practices in the

organization

Medium: mainly

work-life bal-

ance practices are

perceived

Low: employees

unclear about

which practices

are available

High: QM system

ensures that HR

practices are highly

visible

Consistency

of HRM

messages

High: employees

receive consistent

messages about the

administrative func-

tion of HRM

High: the organiza-

tion’s espoused val-

ues are perceived

as enacted through

HR practices

Low: employees

receive inconsist-

ent messages

through HR

practices

High: HRM is per-

ceived as being

consistent with

the organization’s

values

(Continued)

554 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

approach to HRM in which the departmen- tal managers are best equipped to address the specific needs of their employees, the line managers predominantly carry out the HR function beyond the area of employment law. As “lone warriors” personally responsible for their training opportunities, these depart- mental managers place a strong emphasis on “involving the employees […], developing and setting goals together” (Case B: Doc. 5, p. 9).

Given the focus on employee well-being without strategic intent, perceived HRM entails that employees are mainly aware of the work- life balance practices, yet view the provision of HR practices as unsystematic and lacking formally organized and structured processes from the executives. For example, one of the departmental managers in Case B (Int. 3, p. 8) admitted that HRM “just works on its own somehow.” Employees receive consis- tent HRM messages in which the organiza- tion’s espoused values, such as balancing a career with family, are enacted through the implemented HR practices. Finally, employ- ees perceive a high degree of fairness given the equal access to HR practices, for example, “it is watched out for that everyone is treated equally” with regard to the provision of train- ing (Int. 4, p. 7). Similar to Case A, despite the low visibility and lack of continuous usage of HR practices, employees’ relatively low expectations toward HRM are met through the provision of basic employee-oriented

Case B

Unlike the low employee orientation in Case A, intended HRM in Case B is characterized by a focus on developing and retaining their employees that stems from humanistic- oriented HR principles of employees being worth investing into per se. This high employee orientation occurs at the expense of a clear stra- tegic intent as Case B will, for example, “finance trainings that the employee is doing for him- self even if he is only able to use a bit of it for the organization” (Case B: Int. 1, p. 15). Given decision makers’ consensus about employee well-being as the purpose of HRM, Case B is willing to invest in their employees’ needs. Yet, in the absence of a clear strategic perspective and professionalized HR function, only a lim- ited number of basic work-life balance HR prac- tices are intended (e.g., flexible working hours) (Case B: Docs. 2, 4), reflecting the agreement about modest intentions in HRM.

Concerning implemented HRM, the man- ageable number of HR practices that are focused on supporting the needs of the employees are implemented as part of total quality management (TQM) within the orga- nization (Case B: Doc. 2, pp. 96–105). The full implementation of intended HR practices is broadly supported by a generous HR budget, given that the organization is on “a blessed island because they have done well financially with their given resources” (Case B: Int. 2, p. 10). Consistent with the employee-oriented

T A B L E I I Patterns for Intended, Implemented, and Perceived HRM (Continued)

Categories Case A Case B Case C Case D

Perceived HRM

Continuity of

usage of HR

practices

Low: lack of con-

tinuously used HR

practices due to the

short-term, frag-

mented perspective

Low: HRM viewed

as lacking formally

organized and

structured proc-

esses

Low: employees

view HR practices

as informal, un-

systematic, and

random

Medium:

continuously used

except for appraisal

interviews (due to

time constraints)

Fairness of

HR practices

High: equal

opportunities to use

HR practices upon

request

High: equal access

to HR practices

perceived

Low: lack of

fairness per-

ceived (e.g.,

unequal pay)

High: perception

that performance is

adequately valued

and rewarded

Pattern Employees: satisfi ed

non-demanders

Employees:

satisfi ed non-

demanders

Employees:

disappointed

demanders

Employees: satis-

fi ed demanders

QM = Quality Management.

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 555

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

As the line

managers carry

out the HR function

without being

centrally steered by

the HR department,

managers are forced

to “muddle through”

by informally using

the HR practices

they deem helpful in

coping with the work

environment.

sort of just disappeared into nirvana” (Case C: Int. 2, p. 6). Despite sufficient resources— i.e., “these are qualified people and there is money—we are not about to go bankrupt” (Case C: Int. 5, p. 12)—Case C is unable to leverage these resources to implement its intended HR practices. Instead, the HR depart- ment admits in an internal document that it has not achieved a “strategic orientation with its HR processes” but has a “decentral- ized form with isolated applications” (Case C: Doc. 1, p. 16). As the line managers carry out the HR function without being centrally steered by the HR department, managers are forced to “muddle through” by informally using the HR practices they deem helpful in coping with the work environment (e.g., performance appraisal) (Case C: Int. 5, p. 5).

Perceived HRM reflects this incomplete implementation of the ambitious HR program. Employees are not aware of which HR prac- tices are available in the organiza- tion (low visibility) and view these practices as informal, unsystematic and “happening only randomly if at all” (Case C: Int. 5, p. 3). For example, a departmental manager addressed this lack of continuity as “there was supposed to be annual feedback with employees […] but after one year they stopped this” (Case C: Int. 5, p. 3). In addition, employees receive inconsistent messages about the implemented HR practices. Most notably, the HR department encourages personnel development but reproaches the managers using these HR prac- tices for having too much time when sending employees to training. As one of the departmental managers commented, “I received the notice in writing from the HR department: ‘as long as we have the time to send our employees to training courses, then [our workload] really cannot be that bad.’ I think that it is a bit weird” (Case C: Int. 5, p. 12). Moreover, employees perceive a lack of fairness, which results, for example, out of the arbitrary distribution of bonuses to managers

HR practices, pointing to an employee type of satisfied non-demanders.

Case C

In contrast to the low strategic orientation of intended HRM in the previous cases, a strong alignment between organizational strategy and HR activities is intended in Case C. The high strategic and low employee orientation is illustrated in the functional view of employ- ees among decision makers: “a satisfied employee who is qualified in his field will do a good job ultimately and then will follow the organization’s goals and that is really a means to an end” (Case C: Int. 2, p. 12). Yet, there is a lack of agreement within the HR department about the strategic goals and the means to achieve them (e.g., devolving HR tasks to departmental managers vs. initiating several new HR projects). As one HR manager notes, “[r]ealistically you have to see what you actu- ally have time for… . I am not in consensus with my colleague who follows many, many goals that all come from textbooks. And that is where I say that we can’t achieve that with our staff level” (Case C: Int. 2, p. 12). The wide range of intended sophisticated HR prac- tices—for example, strategic HR planning and career development (Case C: Doc. 2)—emerges in part out of the discord among the organiza- tion’s decision makers about their HR strategy. Reflecting this disagreement about ambitious intentions in HRM, one HR manager com- mented about this multitude of HR projects that “one process should be started and fin- ished consequently rather than having 1,000 processes running parallel and here another project and there another external consultant and so on …” (Case C: Int. 2, p. 8).

In terms of implemented HRM, the data reveals that HR managers initiate several new HR projects simultaneously but fail to follow through on their implementation, leading to a partial implementation of the high range of intended HR practices in Case C. As one of the HR managers stated: “We started our goal setting and performance appraisal sys- tem and that was a point in which our former executive director who initiated it switched to another organization and the whole thing

556 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

system or rule, we then bring it to the depart- mental managers—i.e., in general, information or training is given. What they then decide to do [in the implementation] is up to them. We do have evaluation and control feedback loops though” (Case D: Int. 2, p. 11).

These systems as well as formal and infor- mal information channels have implications for perceived HRM, enhancing the visibility of the available HR practices in the organization. As one of the departmental managers in Case D noted, “It is secured through our TQM that there is a training and development plan that is coordinated. It’s not just where the employ- ees’ individual suggestions are, but also the institutional directors’ perspectives about the gaps in our organization and where some- one should get further training and if so, who should participate” (Case D: Int. 4, p. 5). In addition, most HR practices are continuously used due to their consistent top-down imple- mentation and steering through the strategic HRD staff unit. Employees receive consistent messages about the organization’s espoused values (e.g., equality and transparency) through the enacted HR practices. Pertaining to the organization’s conviction to the value of equality in Case D (Int. 5, p. 6) as seen in offering dignified compensation, one of the employees noted that “I think it is legitimate to say that [our services] are more expensive, but no one who works for us earns below a minimum wage.” Finally, employees perceive a high degree of fairness as their performance is valued and rewarded by their employer through, for instance, fair pay or opportunities for personal development. Overall, the data suggest that the employees in Case D have high expectations toward HRM, which are met through effectively delivering a wide range of sophisticated HR practices. The employees can hence be labeled as satisfied demanders.

Toward an Understanding of Implementation and Interpretation Gaps in HRM

Based on the findings presented here, we advance a set of propositions specifying the conditions under which congruency between intended, implemented, and perceived HRM

and unequal pay structure between newly hired and long-term employees, which has been referred to in the organization as a “two class society” (Case C: Int. 3, p. 3). In con- trast to Cases A and B, in which employees’ relatively low expectations of HRM are met, employees in Case C can be characterized as disappointed demanders. Instead of the HR practices provided by the HR department fulfilling employees’ higher expectations in aiding the completion of job tasks, the depart- mental manager replied laughing that “I have to disappoint you there and answer that with a clear no” (Case C: Int. 4, p. 5).

Case D

Regarding intended HRM in Case D, the high strategic and employee orientation is based on the principle that enhancing employees’ skills and well-being through HR practices is not only a means to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives (e.g., service quality), but also a goal in and of itself (Case D: Int. 1, p. 4). Unity among the executive director and HRD man- ager about the strategic importance of HRM ensures that consistent, substantial investments are made in HR activities and structures. As a consequence, the HR system is composed of a variety of sophisticated HR practices (e.g., selec- tive staffing, appraisal interviews, employee attitude surveys) (Case D: Doc. 1, p. 50).

In terms of implemented HRM, this ambi- tious HR program is fully implemented given the broad agreement about the means to achieve both the strategic and employee-related goals of HRM through aligning HR functions, structures (e.g., controlling and TQM systems), processes, and practices. Unlike the other cases in which HRM is also carried out by line man- agers, Case D provides an illustrative example of achieving a vertical fit with the organiza- tion’s strategic goals despite the decentralized HR function. The departmental managers are not only guided in using the HR practices as originally intended by supporting TQM and controlling systems, which have a strategic steering function, but also through top-down implementation that is coordinated by the HRD staff unit. As the HRD departmental man- ager noted, “If you implement the concept,

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 557

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Our data suggest

that in organizations

that have previously

made low HR

investments,

employees have

lower expectations

toward HRM

than in those

with traditionally

comprehensive HR

systems.

A, B, and D completely implemented their respective intended HR practices, Case C only achieved a partial implementation of its HR practices. Interrelationships among the fac- tors underlying intended HRM are vital for understanding this implementation gap. It is striking that Cases A, B, and D achieved con- gruency between intended and implemented HRM despite substantial differences in their focus of HRM (i.e., administrative, oriented toward employee well-being, or bridging stra- tegic and employee needs) as well as their range of HR practices (i.e., few, basic, or far- ranging, sophisticated HR practices). The high degree of agreement among principal decision makers about intended HRM appears to be a common underlying factor of these cases, whereas a lack of consensus about the goals and design of HRM impedes the imple- mentation of HRM in Case C. Agreement among principal deci- sion makers is likely to produce greater consistency in delivering HR practices, as this consensus serves as a guideline for designing and carrying out HRM. Yet, this agreement alone is insufficient for understanding the full complexity of the link between intended and implemented HRM. Instead, the data yield a more nuanced picture of HRM implementation in which the congruency in Cases A, B, and D can also be traced back to these organizations channeling the available financial resources to support the implementation of HR practices. Alongside disagree- ment about an ambitious HR program in Case C, the analysis reveals a partial implementa- tion of HRM arising from the organization’s inability to leverage its available resources. Despite having sufficient financial resources, Case C does not make the necessary invest- ments in HR staff, structures, and systems (e.g., TQM) that are critical for implementing the multitude of HR projects. In light of the decentralized approach to HRM observed across all of the cases, these systematic HR investments increase the likelihood that

is likely to occur. These propositions reveal the mechanisms underlying an implementa- tion gap between intended and implemented HR practices as well as an interpretation gap that refers to discrepancies between the implementation of HRM and employees’ per- ceptions thereof. Table III summarizes the categories that emerged from our analysis as capturing intended, implemented, and per- ceived HRM and, hence, form the basis for developing the propositions.

As depicted in Table III, our study high- lights the effectiveness of leveraging resources as playing a crucial moderating role in imple- menting intended HR practices and employ- ees’ expectations of HRM as moderating the link between implemented and perceived HR practices. Following Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999), we understand a resource as “an asset or input to production (tangible or intangi- ble) that an organization owns, controls, or has access to on a semi-permanent basis.” Leveraging resources involves taking actions that mobilize, coordinate, and deploy a firm’s resources in order to create value (Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland, 2007). In this study, leverag- ing resources specifically refers to the extent to which an organization is able to configure its financial, structural, and personnel resources to form HR capabilities that support the implementation of HRM. The second identi- fied moderator, employees’ expectations of HRM, suggests that employees form expecta- tions about their employer’s intentions and attitudes toward them based on their experi- ences with the HR practices enacted by the organization in the past (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Our data suggest that in organizations that have previously made low HR invest- ments, employees have lower expectations toward HRM than in those with traditionally comprehensive HR systems. These expecta- tions shape employees’ perceptions of the organization’s current HR activities.

Conceptualizing the Implementation Gap Between Intended and Implemented HR Practices

Our analysis revealed that the four cases vary in their implementation of HRM. While Cases

558 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

T A B L E I I I Description of the Emergent Categories

Categories Description Illustrative Quotes

Intended HRM

Focus of HRM Organization’s overarching princi-

ples for managing its staff, which

refl ects differing degrees of stra-

tegic and employee orientations.

Strategic orientation refers to the

degree to which HR activities are

proactively directed toward achiev-

ing the organization’s strategic

goals (as opposed to an administra-

tive orientation) that are driven by

values, missions, and stakeholder

expectations. Employee orientation

describes the extent to which or-

ganizations view employees as valu-

able resources (as opposed to being

seen as a cost factor) and focus on

employees’ needs, motivations, and

development in their HR activities.

Strategic orientation: “My basic position is

quite simple: We need less people, but better

people in order to reach our goals… . we are

going to have fewer employees in the future

if we want to pay them more in order to get

and retain better employees” (Case C: Int. 1,

p. 8).

Employee orientation: “Personal responsibil-

ity, especially in terms of the working hours

[…] we don’t constantly check that in the

sense of control; instead it has to do with

trust so that [the employees] have scope”

(Case B: Int. 1, p. 19).

Agreement

among HR

decision

makers

Degree to which the principal HR

decision makers agree about the HR

goals of the organization and how

to achieve these goals.

“And that’s why I am of another opinion. It

is worthless to […] start any kinds of instru-

ments that sound great and show what we

do and how we are a modern fi rm if our

basic processes don’t work. […] All the man-

agement and personnel development proc-

esses and all is chic and nice, but I believe

that the basic work has to be done fi rst and

everything else can be on top” (Case C: Int. 2,

p. 13).

Range of HR

practices

Number, content, and complexity

of HR practices, ranging from few

basic HR practices to a wide variety

of sophisticated HR practices.

“[Strategic HRM] has a range [of practices] in

our organization that is growing and becom-

ing broader and broader.” (Case D: Int. 2, p.1).

Effectiveness

of leveraging

resources

Moderator

Extent to which an organization

is able to confi gure its fi nancial,

structural, and personnel resources

to form HR capabilities. These ca-

pabilities can, for example, take the

form of specifi c processes, struc-

tures, and systems (e.g., TQM) that

support the implementation of HR

practices.

“We also have a system for that. The man-

ager uses these feedback talks to write down

what skills are needed. These are collected so

no one can get around this. As an example,

we always observed that the training budgets

were decreasing in the childcare centers be-

cause no one was steering that. […] So then

we also have corresponding guidelines that

you have to take part in training in certain

periods or we bundle all of that through a

central pool of training measures” (Case D:

Int. 1, p. 11).

Implemented HRM

Degree of im-

plementation

of intended

HR practices

Degree to which the organization’s

HR practices are used as frequently,

consistently, or assiduously as origi-

nally planned.

“At the moment we are so caught up in the

operational, administrative processes that we

don’t have time to lift up our heads and look

beyond […] And that’s what ultimately led to

the failure of our goal setting and perform-

ance appraisal system” (Case C: Int. 2, p. 9).

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 559

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

T A B L E I I I Description of the Emergent Categories (Continued)

Categories Description Illustrative Quotes

Implemented HRM

Degree of

centraliza-

tion of the HR

function

Degree to which HR activities are

centrally planned, implemented,

and steered by the HR function/de-

partment.

“The administrative department is not

responsible for HR activities. […] They do

payroll and everything with employment law.

But HRM—that is done by the departmental

managers…” (Case A: Int. 2, p. 3).

Employees’

expectations

of HRM

Moderator

Employees’ expectations about their

employer’s intentions and attitudes

toward them as well as the level of

support they receive. These expecta-

tions are based on their experience

with the HR practices enacted by the

organization in the past.

“Maybe I just take all of it for granted that I

am [satisfi ed]… We each have our own offi ce,

which I really appreciate. Those are all the

working conditions. We have procedures for

training and we can take annual leave when

we want to. […] These working conditions

were different under our previous director.

There were other things, things weren’t so

clearly structured previously like training. […]

There were differences, but now it is clearly

regulated” (Case B: Int. 3, pp. 13–14).

Perceived HRM

Visibility of

HR practices

Degree to which employees have a

clear idea of which HR practices are

offered.

“This type of offer [employees being in-

formed about the practices] is still somewhat

non-existent… . I don’t perceive that there is

a routine or regular suggestions or a proce-

dure of communication. That kind of com-

munication between the departments and

HR department is presently not continuous”

(Case C: Int. 4, p. 3).

Consistency

of HRM

messages

Degree to which HR practices send

consistent messages about the

behaviors that are expected and re-

warded in the organization; congru-

ence between words and deeds.

“We have a lot of female employees and I

think they are here because you can combine

this job with family […] and the organization

follows through on that” (Case B: Int. 4, p. 8).

Continuity of

usage of HR

practices

Degree to which HR practices are

systematically used over time.

“According to our quality management

system, [goal setting] is once a year. Because

my boss had to do 60 of these talks a year,

he asked if a few people would have it every

two years. We said, no problem, we’d like that

every two years. It works wonderfully” (Case

D: Int. 5, p. 4).

Fairness of

HR practices

Degree to which the access to HR

practices and the allocation of out-

comes is perceived as fair.

“[With regard to stagnant wages], the em-

ployer knows and takes advantage of the fact

that many people love their job and wouldn’t

switch because they could earn more some-

where else. They know that and use that. And

I personally don’t think that is fair” (Case C:

Int. 5, p. 9).

departmental managers will carry out the HR activities as intended. Taken together, the cases reveal that there must at least be agree- ment among decision makers about HRM intentions (“what to do”) to avoid an

implementation gap, which is especially unlikely to occur when organizations are effective in leveraging their resources into developing appropriate HR structures, sys- tems, and processes (“how to do”). Thus:

560 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

implementation of HR practices. As a result, HR practices are perceived as having a low degree of visibility, continuity of usage, and fairness, with HRM messages being viewed as highly inconsistent. On the other hand, in Cases A, B, and D in which HRM was imple- mented as intended, HRM messages are expe- rienced by the employees as being consistent with the organization’s espoused goals and values. However, in these cases, discrepancies can be observed between the implementation of HRM and employees’ perception thereof. Despite differences in the content and extent of the respective HR systems (modest vs. ambitious), employees’ demands are satisfied with regard to HRM (e.g., HR practices are viewed as fair). Strikingly, the analysis reveals that employees have relatively similar percep- tions about HR programs, which are contrary in their aims and differ in their comprehen- siveness (e.g., administrative cost-cutting or strategic). This interpretation gap between implemented HR practices and employees’ perceptions can be traced back to employees’ expectations of HRM. Employees are shown across the cases to differ in their expectations, for example, regarding the support that can be gained from the HR department. Given the traditionally low investments in employ- ees in the organizations pursuing a modest approach to HRM, employees are not very demanding in what they expect from their organization’s HRM. In Cases A and B, these low expectations of employees are met despite perceiving low visibility and lack of continu- ity in the implemented HR practices. With increasing expectations toward HRM as observed in the organizations characterized by ambitious HR programs (Cases C and D), the implementation of HR practices gains in importance for shaping employees’ percep- tions of HR practices. These cases reveal that beyond achieving a high degree of imple- mentation of intended HR practices in terms of these practices being used in some way or another in the organization, the sophistica- tion of HRM (e.g., strategic relevance of implemented HR practices) in addition to how well HR practices are delivered in the organization (e.g., their continuity of usage by managers) matter. In sum:

Proposition 1: When there is agreement among HR decision makers about the intended HR prac- tices, organizations that leverage their resources effectively are more likely to achieve congruency between intended and implemented HRM.

Moreover, the case data suggest that the organizations face different demands in leveraging resources that are associated with differences in their intended HRM. This obser- vation is reflected in the cases with ambitious intentions toward HRM (Cases C and D) in which channeling financial resources into the development and usage of supporting structures (i.e., such as controlling and TQM systems) is pivotal in implementing more comprehensive HR systems. In particular, when HRM is intended to play a more stra- tegic role, which is characterized by a greater number and complexity of HR practices that must be vertically and horizontally aligned, professional HR structures guide managers in implementing HR practices as originally intended. In contrast, when the range of HR practices is limited to fundamental adminis- trative tasks or employees’ basic needs (Cases A and B), organizations are faced with a less demanding implementation task. The data demonstrate that in these cases the manage- able number of HR practices is implemented without requiring extensive investments in supporting HR structures and processes. Therefore:

Proposition 2: The higher the organization’s range of intended HR practices, the more the congruency between intended and implemented HRM depends on the organization’s effectiveness in leveraging resources.

Conceptualizing the Interpretation Gap Between Implemented and Perceived HR Practices

Cross-case analysis has shown that achieving congruency between intended and imple- mented HRM is a necessary condition for employees to perceive HRM in accordance with management’s intentions. On the one hand, the employees in Case C are aware of inconsistencies in the organization’s

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 561

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Our findings

contribute to a more

nuanced view of

HRM implementation

than previous

research that has

widely conflated

employees’

perceptions of HR

practices with the

implementation of

HRM.

findings concerning (1) key features of HR systems, (2) employees’ expectations about HRM, and (3) management’s implementation approach entail important theoretical implications.

First, at a broad level, this study supports the assumption that the strength of the HR system shapes employees’ perceptions of HRM (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delmotte et al., 2012; Sanders et al., 2008). Of the process features of HR systems identified by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), our findings point to the visibility of HR practices, consistency of HRM messages, continuity of usage of HR practices, and fairness of HR practices as the relevant categories that characterize the way employees perceive the organiza- tion’s HR practices. We observed, for instance, that expanding the range of implemented HR prac- tices enhances the visibility of HRM within the organization, which can be attributed to the set of practices being more present in employees’ daily work routines and activities relative to other stimuli (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). In contrast, other HR sys- tem aspects such as the under- standability of HR practices did not emerge from our analysis as integral for explaining the dis- crepancy between the implemen- tation of HRM and employees’ perceptions thereof. As a possible explanation, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) discuss the idea that cer- tain features of HR systems may be more critical than others—for example, without consistent HRM messages, distinctiveness and consensus may lessen in impact.

Second, our study strikingly indicates similar employee perceptions of a dissimi- lar stimulus (i.e., HR programs that vary in their goals as well as content and complex- ity of HR practices). For example, adminis- trative HR practices focusing on cost-cutting were perceived as being as fair as HR practices oriented toward employee well-being. While comparable observations have been made by

Proposition 3: The higher the employees’ expecta- tions of HRM, the more likely the implementation of HR practices will infl uence whether employees perceive HRM as intended.

Discussion

The main contribution of this study to the HRM literature is the development of propo- sitions that specify the conditions under which congruency between intended, imple- mented, and perceived HRM is likely to occur. Although prior research confirms that imple- mented HR practices can diverge substan- tially from managers’ original intentions (e.g., Truss, 2001), insights as to why this occurs remain limited given the paucity of research on the implementation process of HRM (Woodrow & Guest, 2014). Our findings contribute to a more nuanced view of HRM implementation than previous research that has widely conflated employees’ perceptions of HR practices with the implementation of HRM. By providing initial empirical evidence of the mechanisms underlying the gap between intended and implemented HR prac- tices (implementation gap) as well as between their implementation and employees’ percep- tions of HRM (interpretation gap), this is one of the first studies to integrate the organiza- tional and individual processes fundamental to HRM implementation. Pointing to the complexity and breadth of this phenomenon, our findings highlight that gaining insight into the reality of employees’ experience of HR practices requires considering the rela- tionships among a variety of factors at the organizational (e.g., centralization of the HR function) and individual (e.g., employees’ expectations of HRM) levels.

Theoretical Implications

Extending prior research adopting a process- based approach to HRM that focuses predom- inantly on the relationship between perceived HRM and its performance implications (Aryee et al., 2012; Nishii et al., 2008), our study sug- gests that further attention should be directed toward the antecedents of employees’ percep- tions of HR systems. In particular, our

562 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Our study shows

that as employees’

expectations of

HRM increase, the

implementation

of HRM gains in

importance for

employees to

perceive HRM in

intended ways.

organization share a common sense of what behaviors are expected and rewarded (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

Practical Implications

This study raises several important implica- tions for managers to consider when design- ing and implementing HR systems, which primarily concern being aware of potential implementation and interpretation gaps. In order to ensure that HR practices are imple- mented as intended, our findings suggest the importance of leveraging resources by invest- ing in HR personnel and building supporting structures and systems (e.g., controlling and TQM). Effectively leveraging existing resources is especially pertinent for small organizations that are likely to have fewer slack resources to invest in comprehensive HR systems than larger firms. This is in line with RBV theorizing, which proposes that while owning valuable resources is a neces- sary condition for gaining a competitive advantage, organizations must also possess distinctive capabilities to effectively bundle and deploy these resources (Sirmon et al., 2007). In this respect, HR managers have been ascribed the role of “architects” who can foster the development of capabilities that support HRM implementation by allocating resources to learning activities (see Makadok, 2001).

Furthermore, our findings indicate the challenges that HR departments face in ful- filling multiple roles (e.g., administrative function, strategic partner). In particular, by taking on a purely strategic role yet fail- ing to provide support for the operational implementation of HR practices, HR manag- ers can undermine the consistent usage of HR practices in the organization (Teo & Rodwell, 2007). The distance between the HR depart- ment and employees that is created through transferring most HR responsibilities to line managers, as shown in some cases, can result in a lack of trust in the organization’s HR function (Gilbert et al., 2011). A decentral- ized implementation approach is especially problematic when line managers are unable and unwilling to implement HR practices

Alvesson and Kärreman (2007), this finding contrasts starkly with other studies showing that depending on the attributions employ- ees make about why HR practices are intro- duced in a firm, differences in attitudinal and behavioral reactions may arise (Allen et al., 2003; Nishii et al., 2008). In line with prior work suggesting that expectations matter in that they influence people’s attributions about HRM (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), our study indicates that the similar perceptions of HRM across the cases can be explained by differences in employees’ expectations of HRM. In particular, HR practices send mes- sages to employees about what is expected of them and what they can expect of the orga-

nization. Insofar as employees’ prior experiences with HRM shape their subsequent expectations, employees are likely to have lower expectations toward HRM in orga- nizations that have made low investments in HRM in the past.

Third, our study shows that as employees’ expectations of HRM increase, the implementa- tion of HRM gains in importance for employees to perceive HRM in intended ways. In this respect, the HR function was found to be decentralized to a large extent across the cases. Although HRM is often viewed synonymously with the HR department, previ- ous research has also pointed to

the dominant role of line managers in imple- menting HR practices (Gilbert, De Winne, & Sels, 2011; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). This decentralized approach to HRM can be seen as one of the main reasons for failing to implement HR practices and achieving a strategic integration of HRM. As a poten- tial explanation, the literature suggests that similar to the meaning employees attach to the rationale behind HR practices, managers’ attributions about HR practices may influ- ence how they choose to implement these practices (Guest, 2011; Liu & Batt, 2010). Managers’ differing interpretations of and priorities given to HRM implementation may render it unlikely that employees across the

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 563

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Our study reinforces

the importance

of creating a

supportive climate

that encourages the

use of the available

HR practices

(e.g., by providing

employees with

time off from work

for personnel

development).

limitations. First, the reliance on case-study data from NPOs limits the generalizability of our findings. As the majority of research on the HRM-performance link has been con- ducted in large for-profit firms, our findings might be specific to the nonprofit context of the present study. By using comparative research designs, future studies could sys- tematically examine similarities and differ- ences between HRM in the private and nonprofit sector and thus clarify whether the relationships observed in this study appear to hold in other contexts as well. Second, although our study provides new insight into the emergence of discrepancies among intended, implemented, and perceived HRM, there are further pieces in the HRM- performance puzzle that remain to be addressed. For example, our study needs to be complemented by research examining how HR strategies are actually generated and subsequently translated (or not) into HR policies. Moreover, ethnographic interpretive enqui- ries hold promise for shedding light on the processes through which employees individually and collectively attach meaning to certain HR practices and the performance implications arising from their interpretations of real- ity. Finally, longitudinal research that provides a better under- standing of changes among the variables identified in this study over time and potential feedback loops is warranted. For example, longitudi- nal studies could explore employees’ responses to changes in the provision and quality of HR practices and their influence on employees’ expectations toward HRM over time, thereby enhancing our limited knowledge of temporal issues surrounding the HRM-performance link (Piening, Baluch, & Salge, 2013). Despite these limitations, we believe that this study provides a valuable starting point for future research on the complex linkages between intended, imple- mented, and perceived HRM.

as intended. Since line managers are gener- ally not HR experts, they might simply lack knowledge about the HR practices and how to implement them. As such, the HR depart- ment is well advised to regularly provide relevant information and training as well as monitor the implementation of HR prac- tices (Gilbert et al., 2011). Specifically, orga- nizational efforts (e.g., regular meetings and newsletters) to improve the flow of informa- tion from HR decision makers to line man- agers and, in turn, to employees might be a promising approach to avoid not only imple- mentation gaps, but also interpretation gaps. This suggestion is in line with studies show- ing that high communication quality ensures that the HR system is visible, understandable, and sends unambiguous messages to employ- ees (Den Hartog et al., 2013). Not least, fre- quent and open communication may enable decision makers to assess employees’ expecta- tions of HRM and provide them with valu- able information about potential problems regarding the content and implementation of the organization’s HR practices to ensure they support employees in carrying out their work. In terms of averting interpretation gaps, our study highlights that it is particularly impor- tant to ensure the consistency of HRM mes- sages about the behaviors that are expected and rewarded in the organization (Stanton et al., 2010). When top management and HR decision makers cannot agree among them- selves on the intended messages, employees are likely to experience HRM as being unsys- tematic and ineffective. In this respect, our findings indicate that confusion and dis- satisfaction arise when employees perceive divergence between the espoused values (e.g., employee development) and the HR practices that are enacted. Thus, our study reinforces the importance of creating a supportive cli- mate that encourages the use of the available HR practices (e.g., by providing employees with time off from work for personnel devel- opment) (Arthur & Boyles, 2007).

Limitations and Future Research

We acknowledge that the results of this study should be considered in light of its

564 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the special issue editorial team for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Funding for this research was provided by the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture within the program Pro*Niedersachsen (project nr. 11.2-76202-17-1/08).

Note

1. Wright and Nishii’s (2006) distinction between

intended, implemented (which they refer to

as  actual HRM), and perceived HRM provides an

extension to the common dichotomy of intended

and implemented HRM, which merely highlights

potential differences between managerial and em-

ployee accounts of whether and how HR practices

are used by an organization. This may suggest that

decision makers often have a somewhat unrealistic

perception of what is going on in their organization.

The notion of intended HRM as proposed by Wright

and Nishii (2006) implies, however, that managers

can be quite aware that certain HR practices have

not been implemented as originally intended.

Implementation failure (a gap between intended

and implemented HRM) occurs when an HR

practice is used less frequently, less consistently, or

less assiduously than planned.

ERK P. PIENING is an assistant professor of human resource management at the ESCP

Europe in Berlin. He received his PhD from the Leibniz University Hannover. His cur-

rent research interests include strategic HRM, deviant workplace behavior, team learn-

ing, and open innovation. He has published in journals such as the Journal of Applied

Psychology, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and Human

Resource Management Review.

ALINA M. BALUCH is a lecturer in management at the University of St. Andrews. She

received a PhD from the Leibniz University Hannover, where she was a postdoctoral

researcher at the Institute of Human Resource Management. Her research addresses

strategic HRM, performance, and organizational change in nonprofi t and public sector

organizations. Her work has been featured in journals such as the Journal of Applied

Psychology, British Journal of Management, the International Journal of Human Research

Management, and Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

HANS-GERD RIDDER holds the Chair in Human Resource Management at the Leibniz

University of Hannover. His research focuses on dynamic capabilities, strategic HRM,

and qualitative research methods. His work has been published in Human Resource

Management Review, Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Public Management

Review, Public Administration, Research Methodology in Strategy and Management and

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofi t Organizations.

References Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The

role of perceived organizational support and sup-

portive human resource practices in the turnover

process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Unraveling

HRM: Identity, ceremony, and control in a manage-

ment consulting fi rm. Organization Science, 18,

711–723.

Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human

resource system structure: A level-based strategic

HRM approach. Human Resource Management

Review, 17, 77–92.

Aryee, S., Walumba, F. O., Seidu, E. Y. M., & Otaye,

L. E. (2012). Impact of high-performance work

systems on individual- and branch-level perform-

ance: Test of a multilevel model of intermedi-

ate linkages. Journal of Applied Psychology,

97, 287–300.

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 565

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Baluch, A. M., Salge, T. O., & Piening, E. P. (2013).

Untangling the relationship between HRM and hos-

pital performance: The mediating role of attitudinal

and behavioural HR outcomes. International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 24, 3038–3061.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a

strategic partner: The role of human resources in

gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource

Management, 37, 31–46.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human

resources management: Where do we go from

here? Journal of Management, 32, 898–925.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for

the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Allyn & Bacon.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding

HRM-fi rm performance linkages: The role of

the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of

Management Review, 29, 203–221.

Chang, E. (2005). Employees’ overall perception of

HRM effectiveness. Human Relations, 58, 523–544.

Coff, R. W. (1997). Human assets and management

dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to

resource-based theory. Academy of Management

Review, 22, 374–402.

Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based

view: Implications for theory and practice in stra-

tegic human resource management. Academy of

Management Review, 29, 341–358.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., 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.

Currie, G., & Proctor, S. (2001). Exploring the relation-

ship between HR and middle managers. Human

Resource Management Journal, 11, 53–69.

Delmotte, J., DeWinne, S., & Sels, L. (2012). Toward

an assessment of perceived HRM system strength:

Scale development and validation. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 23,

1462–1480.

Den Hartog, D., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon,

M. A. (2013). HRM, communication, satisfaction,

and perceived performance: A cross-level test.

Journal of Management, 39, 1637–1665.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007).

Methodological fi t in management fi eld research.

Academy of Management Review, 32, 1155–1179.

Ehrnrooth, M., & Björkman, I. (2012). An integra-

tive HRM process theorization: Beyond signalling

effects and mutual gains. Journal of Management

Studies, 49, 1109–1135.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case

study research. Academy of Management Review,

14, 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory

building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.

Festing, M., Schäfer, L., & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent

management in medium-sized German compa-

nies—An explorative study and agenda for future

research. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24, 1872–1893.

Foss, N. J. (2011). Invited Editorial: Why micro-

foundations for resource-based theory are

needed and what they may look like. Journal of

Management, 37, 1413–1428.

Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2011). The infl u-

ence of line managers and HR department on

employees’ affective commitment. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 22,

1618–1637.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013).

Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:

Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational

Research Methods, 16, 15–31.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery

of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of natural-

istic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles:

University of California, Los Angeles.

Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management

and performance: Still searching for some

answers. Human Resource Management Journal,

21, 3–13.

Guo, C., Brown, W. A., Ashcraft, R. F., Yoshioka, C. F., &

Dong, H.-K. D. (2011). Strategic human resources

management in nonprofi t organizations. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 31, 248–269.

Hayton, J. C. (2003). Strategic human capital manage-

ment in SMEs: An empirical study of entrepreneur-

ial performance. Human Resource Management,

42, 375–391.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal rela-

tions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic

resource-based view: Capability lifecycles.

Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.

Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where

do we go from here? New perspectives on the

black boxes in strategic human resource manage-

ment research. Journal of Management Studies. 50,

1448–1480.

566 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2014

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of

high performance human resource practices on

employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of

Management, 39, 366–391.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social

psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska sympo-

sium on motivation (pp. 192–240). Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press.

Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). ‘Intended’ and

‘implemented’ HRM: The missing linchpin in

strategic human resource management research.

International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 17, 1171–1189.

Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the

employee-organization relationship affects the link-

age between perception of developmental human

resource practices and employee outcomes.

Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1–25.

Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource

systems and sustained competitive advantage:

A competency-based perspective. Academy of

Management Review, 19, 699–727.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process

data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.

Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management:

Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Li, X., Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic

HRM as process: How HR system and organiza-

tional climate strength infl uence Chinese employee

attitudes. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 22, 1825–1842.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do

they see eye to eye? Management and employee

perspectives of high performance work systems

and infl uence processes on service quality. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94, 371–391.

Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors infl uence

performance: A multilevel study of coaching and

group management in technology-mediated ser-

vices. Personnel Psychology, 63, 265–298.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and ena-

blers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of

Management Journal, 50, 57–84.

Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-

based and dynamic-capability views of rent crea-

tion. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing quali-

tative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. 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.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative

data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008).

Employee attributions about the “why” of HR

practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and

behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 61, 503–545.

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and perform-

ance: What next? Human Resource Management

Journal, 15, 68–83.

Patel, P. C., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Adopting HRM

practices and their effectiveness in small fi rms fac-

ing product-market competition. Human Resource

Management, 49, 265–290.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evalua-

tion methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pereira, C. M. M., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). The strength

of human resource practices and transformational

leadership: Impact on organisational perform-

ance. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 23, 4301–4318.

Piening, E. P., Baluch. A. M., & Salge, T. O. (2013). The

relationship between employees’ perceptions

of HR systems and organizational performance:

Examining mediating mechanisms and temporal

dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,

926–947.

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line man-

agers as agents in the HRM-performance causal

chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human

Resource Management Journal, 17, 3–20.

Ridder, H.-G., Baluch, A. M., & Piening, E. P. (2012). The

whole is more than the sum of its parts? How HRM

is confi gured in nonprofi t organizations and why

it matters. Human Resource Management Review,

22, 1–14.

Ridder, H.-G., Piening, E. P., & Baluch, A. M. (2012). The

third way reconfi gured: How and why nonprofi t

organizations are shifting their human resource

management. VOLUNTAS: International Journal

of Voluntary and Nonprofi t Organizations, 23,

605–635.

Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & De Reuver, R. (2008).

The impact of individual and shared employee

perceptions of HRM on affective commitment:

Considering climate strength. Personnel Review,

37, 412–415.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007).

Managing fi rm resources in dynamic environments

to create value: Looking insight the black box.

Academy of Management Review, 32, 273–292.

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM 567

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T., & Leggat, S. (2010).

Singing the same song: Translating HRM mes-

sages across management hierarchies in Australian

hospitals. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21, 567–581.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualita-

tive research. Techniques and procedures for devel-

oping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation

of the relationship between HRM bundles and fi rm

performance. Human Resource Management, 48,

745–768.

Teo, S. T. T., & Rodwell, J. J. (2007). To be strategic in

the new public sector, HR must remember its oper-

ational activities. Human Resource Management,

46, 265–284.

Truss, C. (2001). Complexities and controversies in

linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal

of Management Studies, 38, 1121–1149.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achieve-

ment motivation and attribution. Psychological

Review, 92, 548–573.

Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2014). When good HR

gets bad results: Exploring the challenge of HR

implementation in the case of workplace bully-

ing. Human Resource Management Journal, 24,

38–56.

Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating

HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro

human resource management research. Journal of

Management, 28, 247–276.

Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2006). Strategic HRM and

organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels

of analysis (CAHRS Working Paper 06-05). Ithaca,

NY: Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies,

Cornell University.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and

methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.