Activity 4 org beh

When do bundles of high performance work systems reduce employee absenteeism? The moderating role of workload

Renee de Reuver, Karina Van de Voorde and Steven Kilroy

Department of HR Studies, Tilburg University, AB Tilburg, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Although Human Resource Management (HRM) scholars have frequently called for a more contextualized approach to HRM, there is still a limited understanding of how the HRM-employee outcome relationship varies under different conditions. This study tests a model that positions workload as a moderator of the relationship between perceived skill-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and employee absenteeism. Using data from 194 employees, the results revealed that under high workloads, perceived opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices reduce absenteeism. However, workload did not influence the relationship between skill-enhancing and motivation-enhancing HPWS and absenteeism. The findings highlight that demanding work conditions in the form of a high workload can alter the relationship between HRM and key employee outcomes in such a way that the benefits of some HR practices become particularly useful when employees really need them. In addition, the findings underline the need to focus on the differential effects of skill-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing HPWS practi- ces for a richer understanding of the HRM–employee out- come relationship.

KEYWORDS HPWS; ability; motivation- and opportunity-enhancing HPWS bundles; absenteeism; contingency approach; workload

Introduction

Over the last two decades, a substantial body of research has shown that more intensive use of high performance work systems (HPWS) is associ- ated with positive employee-centered outcomes, like higher individual performance (e.g., Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009), lower turnover (e.g., Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011) and higher work attendance

CONTACT Renee de Reuver [email protected] Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, AB Tilburg, The Netherlands. � 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2021, VOL. 32, NO. 13, 2889–2909 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1616594

(e.g., Kehoe & Wright, 2013). HPWS have been defined as a set of com- plementary HR practices (including rigorous selection and recruitment procedures, training and skill development, career development oppor- tunities, performance appraisal, rewards, and employee involvement) designed to contribute to organizational efficiency and effectiveness by enhancing employees’ skills, motivation and opportunities to contrib- ute at work (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kallenberg, 2000). Extending this logic, scholars have recently shown that skill-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices impact employee outcomes in a heterogeneous way, suggesting that decomposing the HPWS con- struct into three dimensions is particularly important for gaining a better understanding of the HPWS–employee outcome link (e.g., Gardner et al., 2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). There has also been a growing focus on employees’ perceptions of and attitudes toward HPWS practices that are implemented within organizations (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Nishii & Wright, 2008). Indeed, scholars have shown that employees’ attitudes (like commitment) and subsequent behaviors at work (like absenteeism and turnover) are more shaped by employees’ perceived experiences of HPWS than by ‘actual’ imple- mented HPWS practices (Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Liao et al., 2009). Despite these developments, remarkably little research has been

devoted to the conditions under which different HPWS practices, ‘actual’ or perceived, influence employee outcomes (Peccei, Van de Voorde, & Van Veldhoven, 2013). This is important to investigate as Human Resource Management (HRM) scholars have suggested that a wide range of individual, organizational, cultural and institutional factors may affect the HPWS–employee outcome relationship (Bal, Kooij, & De Jong, 2013; Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013; Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, & Gould- Williams, 2011). Indeed, some researchers have even wondered whether it makes sense at all to think of HRM and outcomes in terms of univer- sally valid relationships (e.g., Delery & Doty, 1996; Johns, 2006). The few empirical studies following this line of enquiry have indeed revealed a number of variables that can affect the relationship between HPWS and employee outcomes, including the sector (Blom, Kruyen, Van der Heijden, & Van Thiel, 2018), employee age (Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010), job control (Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith, 2013), trust (Innocenti, Pilati, & Peluso, 2011), procedural and interactional justice (Kuvaas, 2008) and team cohesion and task complexity (Chang, Jia, Takeuchi, & Cai, 2014) to name a few. These findings underscore the need for more empirical research exploring when different bundles of HPWS practices affect employee outcomes.

2890 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

Accordingly, and consistent with a more contextualized approach to HRM, we examine the moderating role of demanding working condi- tions in the form of workload in the relationship between perceived bun- dles of skill-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing HPWS and absenteeism. A large proportion of the working population are con- fronted with high levels of workload; for example, in Europe, 36% of workers report working to tight deadlines, while 33% report working at high speed (Eurofound, 2015). Such high levels of workload is a key pre- cursor of employee ill-health and absenteeism (Darr & Johns, 2008). Yet despite recognized links between these prevalent experiences, health- related problems such as stress, and organizational outcomes such as absenteeism (Darr & Johns, 2008), the moderating role of workload has received no attention in the extant literature on the HPWS–employee outcome relationship. In the present study, we draw on well-established theoretical

approaches to construct two sets of hypotheses. Building upon Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001) and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), we posit that for employees who face high levels of workload, the resources and support provided by HPWS will become especially useful in reducing employee absenteeism levels. Indeed, the propositions of both COR theory and the JD-R model postulate that job resources, including HR practices, gain particular saliency in the context of high demands (e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2018). This article contributes to the strategic HRM literature on HPWS and

employee outcomes in three ways. First, we extend HRM research by adopting a contingency perspective in order to examine under what con- ditions perceived HPWS have beneficial effects on employee outcomes (Bal et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Peccei et al., 2013). In particular, we address a blind spot in the HRM literature by empirically testing to what extent the link between perceived HPWS and absenteeism depends upon the level of job demands experienced by employees, that is, their work- load. Much of the existing work in this area have investigated the psy- chological and motivational mechanisms through which HPWS influence employee (health-related) outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013; Lepak, Jiang, Han, Castellano, & Hu, 2012). As such, it has largely ignored the possibility that the relationship between HPWS and outcomes might depend on the particular work demands employees are confronted with. Second, in investigating the aforementioned research gap, we differenti-

ate between the three sets of HPWS practices – those that are skill- enhancing (recruitment and selection; training and development), motiv- ation-enhancing (performance appraisal and rewards) and opportunity-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2891

enhancing (participation, autonomy, and communication). In so doing, we connect with a growing body of literature that emphasizes the differential effect of bundles of HR practices on employee outcomes (e.g., Boxall, Ang, & Bartram, 2011; Gardner et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2012). This so called bundle based approach is rarely applied albeit it provides important insight into which set of practices are most relevant for the creation of desired outcomes, that is, reduced absenteeism (Jiang et al., 2012). Indeed, Boxall et al. (2011) argue that it is important to be aware that different bundles of HR practices can be pushing in different directions. Finally, departing from a significant body of strategic HRM research

capturing managerial reports of HPWS, the present study represents a contribution by assessing employees’ perceptions of the HPWS in place. Some existing research has examined the link between HPWS and absen- teeism through managerial reports of the HR practices (e.g. Guest & Peccei, 2001; Guthrie, Flood, Liu, & MacCurtain, 2009). Although important in its own right, such an approach ignores the potential for variability in employee perceptions of HPWS which is imperative to cap- ture (Boon, Belschak, Den Hartog, & Pijnenburg, 2014; Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2017). Moreover, scholars have argued that due to manager’s ten- dency to overstate the extent of HR practice implementation, gathering employee perceptions of the practices is believed to represent a more reliable estimate (Guest, 2011). In what follows, we first review the nature of the primary association

between perceived HPWS and absenteeism. Then, we theorize how work- load may moderate the direct effects of bundles of HPWS on absenteeism.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Employee absenteeism can be defined as a form of withdrawal behavior whereby employees avoid unfavorable work situations by not showing up for work (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). Employee absenteeism is regarded as a root cause of losses in productivity and company perform- ance (Neuborne, 2003). In Europe, absenteeism rates are between 3 and 6% of working time and are estimated to cost about 2.5% of GDP (Eurofound, 2010). Employee absenteeism is a serious outcome for organizations as it is usually seen as one of the first stages in the quitting process (Bowen, 1982) as employees attempt to increase the psycho- logical and physical distance between themselves and the organization (Farrell & Peterson, 1984). Therefore, investigating strategies to reduce absenteeism is critical not only because of the detrimental consequences it may have on the employee (i.e. ill health) and the organization (i.e. losses in company performance), but also because at this stage of the

2892 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

withdrawal process, management can still take action to avoid absentee- ism culminating into turnover (Allisey, Noblet, Lamontagne, & Houdmont, 2014). Two decades of empirical research has shown that the use of HPWS are associated with reduced employee absenteeism (e.g., Zatzick & Iverson, 2011; Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005; Guthrie et al., 2009). Based on the absenteeism literature (Johns, 1997; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009), the stress model offers a central explan- ation as to why employees are more likely to be absent from work. However, previous research also shows that employees who possess more resources are less likely to suffer from job-related stress (Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). Hence, the resources provided by HPWS practices (e.g. better development and career opportunities, performance feedback, rewards, job autonomy and participation) reduce absenteeism by protect- ing employees against stress (Boon, Belschak, Den Hartog, & Pijnenburg, 2014). Both the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001) recognize how resources such as HPWS, are both (1) functional in achieving work goals and (2) help employees deal with their job demands i.e. a high workload (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). In line with previous research in strategic HRM (Boon et al., 2014; Kehoe & Wright, 2013), we position HPWS as important resources, which, should make employees less likely to be absent. However, we depart from previ- ous research by suggesting that the relationship between perceived HPWS and absenteeism depends on the levels of workload experienced by employees.

The moderating role of workload in the HPWS–absenteeism link

One of the propositions of the JD-R model is that individuals are more likely to draw on their resources under more stressful conditions – including those induced by high job demands (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Similarly, Hobfoll’s (2002) COR theory argues that the acquisi- tion (strengthening or augmenting) of resources, and the accompanying positive outcomes, become increasingly important in the context of resource loss. This implies that resources acquire particular salience in the context of high job demands. To illustrate, Van Woerkom, Bakker and Nishii (2016) showed that job resources were associated with reduced employee absenteeism only for those employees who had to cope with high work demands, but not for those who experienced low work demands. Following this line of reasoning, we argue that the effects of perceived

HPWS on employee absenteeism should be considered in light of employee work demands. Specifically, HPWS which constitute valuable

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2893

job resources for employees should become particularly important when workload levels are high (Bakker & Demerouti, 2018). Indeed in such a situation of high workload, employees are in more need of the cognitive, motivational and energetic resources inherent to a HPWS system to deal with demanding work conditions. Employees who have access to HPWS practices may be more likely to experience demanding work conditions as a situation they can handle, rather than as stressful and debilitating (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Biron, 2010). We anticipate that all dimensions of HPWS provide employees with

valuable resources and support, and thereby positively influence employee outcomes. At the same time, in line with a bundle based approach (Jiang et al., 2012), we purport it is possible that skill, motiv- ation and opportunity dimensions of HPWS may differ in the degree to which they influence absenteeism under demanding work conditions, that is, workload. This is because each of these dimensions serves a dif- ferent purpose, and may be more or less helpful in tackling the copious challenges confronted at work (Boxall et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2012; Veld, Paauwe, & Boselie, 2010). Skill-enhancing HPWS practices like selection, training and develop-

ment are designed to ensure that employees have the organization-spe- cific knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) needed to meet the demands of the job. Such practices help provide employees with the knowledge, skill utilization and learning resources required to adequately perform their job (Boon et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2012). Employees facing high levels of workload are more likely than those with low or moderate workloads to benefit from a match between their KSA and their job requirements, and are more likely to find value in learning and career opportunities (Bakker, Van Veldhoven, & Xanthopoulou, 2010). This means, in turn, that skill-oriented HPWS are likely to reduce absentee- ism at least somewhat more among employees facing high workloads than among their counterparts whose work is less demanding. Motivation-enhancing practices like benefits and promotion opportuni-

ties stimulate employees to attend work even under stressful work condi- tions, because they offer assurance that the additional effort invested to cope with more demanding working conditions will be positively appraised and rewarded by the organization. Previous research has shown that employees who experience an imbalance between their efforts and the resources they receive back from the organization, that is, appreciation and rewards, experience increased feelings of stress and are absent more often (Biron & de Reuver, 2013; Geurts, Schaufeli, & Rutte, 1999). Opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices are those that increase

employees’ opportunities to contribute to the organization. They include

2894 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

policies designed to empower and involve employees, for instance by strengthening communication among coworkers and between employees and managers, allowing employees more access to information, and giv- ing them more control over day-to-day decision making within their jobs (Jiang et al., 2012). Previous research has shown that such empow- ered and involved employees are better able to cope with more demand- ing working conditions (Bakker et al., 2010). In particular, highly skilled workers with unstructured, complex jobs (which matches the sample in the present study) work more effectively when they have the latitude to make their own decisions about how to organize their work (Chung- Yan, 2010; Frese & Zapf, 1994). Consequently, we expect that ‘when things get tough’, employees who perceive more opportunity-enhancing HPWS are more likely to experience their workload as a situation they can handle. We also expect that opportunity-enhancing HPWS will have an

even stronger effect on absenteeism under a high workload than skill- and motivation-enhancing practices for two primary reasons. First, opportunity-enhancing practices create the conditions under which the other two bundles operate. Indeed, Boxall and Macky (2009, p. 12) argue that ‘it is the choice to improve employee involvement opportunities in the work process that leads on to the ability (A) and motivation (M) dimensions’. In effect, opportunity-enhancing practices form the building block upon which the ability and motivation practi- ces are required to improve employee and organizational outcomes. That is, however good an employee’s skills or training, and however generous the firm’s appraisal and reward systems, both are of little value if employees lack opportunities to display their skills and abil- ities (Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006). Secondly, motivation- enhancing and skill-enhancing practices are less focused on improving the situation of the employee and their well-being than opportunity- enhancing practices (Boon et al., 2014). As a result they are less likely to ameliorate withdrawal behavior such as absenteeism. Indeed the JD-R model for example recognizes that, above all resources, auton- omy and control are the most pivotal when it comes to enabling employees to cope with demands such as workload (e.g. Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Following the above arguments, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypotheses 1a-c: Workload moderates the relationship between per-

ceived skill- (2a), motivation- (2b), and opportunity-enhancing (2c) HPWS practices and absenteeism, such that the negative relationship between these practices and absenteeism is stronger under conditions of high rather than low levels of workload.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2895

Hypotheses 2: Perceived opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices are more negatively related to absenteeism under conditions of high workload than are perceived skill- and motivation- enhancing HPWS practices.

Method

Sample and procedure

This study was conducted in a single company in the Netherlands that provides mail services within the Netherlands and parcel and logistic services worldwide. Corporate HR invited the researchers to survey pro- fessional staff members at the firm’s corporate headquarters. The staff worked in various departments within the firm (e.g., finance, legal, HR, and corporate communications). A total of 782 employees with fixed contracts were asked to complete a web-based survey. A cover letter that accompanied the questionnaire guaranteed respondents’ confidentiality. The cover letter also informed potential respondents that the goal of the study was to examine diverse issues in the workplace, such as work prac- tices, and job-related behaviors and attitudes. By means of a unique code, questionnaire data could be linked with absenteeism data retrieved from the company’s employee absence records. In total, 205 employees completed the questionnaire (a response rate

of 26.2%). Eleven respondents were excluded because they took disability leave within the study period (i.e., they were absent 20% or more work- ing days), thus potentially biasing the dependent variable (absenteeism). Of the respondents, 67% were men, and 63.4% had completed a bache- lor’s degree. Participants’ average age was 46.4 years (SD ¼ 10.8). To lessen concern about possible sampling bias, we used a non-parametric chi-squared test to compare the 194 employees in the sample with the full set of professional staff members working at the corporate headquar- ters along the two demographic variables. T-test results showed that the two groups were not statistically different in terms of age (v2¼ 2.78; df ¼ 1, p> 0.05) or gender (v2¼ 0.89; df ¼ 1, p> 0.05). Furthermore, a one-sample t-test showed that employees in the sample had the same level of absenteeism as the full set of employees (t ¼ .00; df ¼ 193, p> 0.05).

Measures

Employee-experienced HPWS. The measure of HPWS comprised 23 items assessing employees’ perceptions of the skill-, motivation- and opportun- ity-enhancing practices used in their organization.

2896 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

The items were derived from Gardner et al. (2011) except where other- wise indicated. In total the skill-enhancing practices were captured by seven items,

namely those related to recruitment, selection, training and development (sample item: ‘The results of the performance evaluation process are used to determine employees’ training needs’). One of Gardner et al. (2011) original measures (on tuition reimbursement for completing col- lege classes) was dropped as it was deemed irrelevant for the Dutch ser- vice industry. We supplemented the four remaining items of Gardner et al.’s measure with one item adapted from Snell and Dean (1992) (‘Much money is spent in my unit on training employees’) and two items assessing coaching on the job inspired by Macky and Boxall (2007). Eight items measured motivation-enhancing practices, namely those

related to performance appraisal and rewards (sample item: ‘Qualified employees have the opportunity for promotion to positions of greater pay and/or responsibility within the company’). Two items in Gardner et al. (2011) original scale on the opportunity to earn group- and com- pany-wide bonuses were dropped (deemed irrelevant for the company under study). The remaining four items from Gardner et al. (2011) were supplemented by four items adapted from Kinicki, Jacobson, Peterson and Prussia (2013) assessing the quality of the firm’s performance man- agement process. The final eight items in the HPWS scale measured opportunity-

enhancing practices, related to participation, communication and auton- omy at work (sample item: ‘Employees in this job are involved in formal participation processes’). We dropped one item from Gardner et al. (2011) (on employees’ access to a reasonable and fair complaints process) because this item was deemed irrelevant in the Dutch work setting. The six remaining items from Gardner et al. (2011) were supplemented by two additional items tapping participation in decision-making and auton- omy at work, one from Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie and Paauwe (2011) and the other from Veld, Paauwe and Boselie (2010). All items with one exception were measured on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from ‘fully disagree’ (1) to ‘fully agree’ (5). The exception was one item from the skill-enhancing scale which solicited hours of training per year. Following Gardner et al. (2011), the answers given to this item were recoded into five groups in conformity with the 5-point scale of the other items. Cronbach’s alphas for the skill-, motivation- and opportun- ity-enhancing HPWS scales were .72, .75 and .86, respectively. Workload was assessed using three items derived from the ‘pace and

amount of work’ scale of the Dutch Questionnaire on the Experience

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2897

and Assessment of Work (QEEW) (Van Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994). Employees were asked to rate their experience of time pressure, required working speed, and amount of work in their job (sample item: ‘Do you have to hurry?’). Participants responded on a 4-point scale from 1 (‘never’) to 4 (‘always’). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .85. Evidence for the validity of this scale has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Bakker et al., 2010). Absenteeism was measured as the proportion of working days employ-

ees were absent in a 1-year period. Objective absenteeism figures were obtained from employee absence records maintained by the organization. To reduce the skewness of the distribution, a log transformation was applied to this variable (Guthrie et al., 2009). Control variables. We controlled for gender (0¼male, 1¼ female), age

and commitment as they may be associated with absenteeism (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Wu & Chaturvedi, 2009). As the age of employees was not normally distributed (the kurtosis value was above �1.0), we decided to distinguish between younger (� 45) and older (> 45) work- ers. Affective commitment was measured with a scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Following Moideenkutty, Blau, Kumar and Nalakath (2001), we selected three of the five items with the highest factor load- ings reported by Allen and Meyer (1990) (sample item: ‘I feel like “part of the family” at my organization’). Items were answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 ¼ ‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .81.

Results

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations and correlations for the focal variables used in the study. Only opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices are negatively correlated with absenteeism (r ¼ �0.19�). To test the hypothesized model, we used hierarchical regression analyses.

Table 2 shows that workload significantly moderated the relationships between opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices and absenteeism (B ¼ �.18��, s.e. ¼.07), but not between skill-enhancing and motivation-enhanc- ing HPWS practices, and absenteeism (B ¼ .02, s.e. ¼.08; B ¼ �.03, s.e. ¼.07, respectively). Therefore, Hypothesis 1a and b were not supported. To further examine the conditional direct effects of workload on the

opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices-absenteeism association, we con- ducted simple slopes analyses under three different conditions of work- load (at �1 SD, mean, and þ1 SD). As Table 2 depicts, while under conditions of high levels of workload there is the expected negative asso- ciation between opportunity-enhancing HPWS and absenteeism (B ¼

2898 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

�.16��, s.e.¼.05, bootstrap 95% CI ¼ �0.26 to �0.06). Under conditions of average and low workload the association between opportunity- enhancing HPWS and absenteeism is not significant (B ¼.03, s.e.¼ .06, bootstrap 95% CI ¼ �0.08 to 0.15; B ¼ �.06, s.e.¼ .04, bootstrap 95% CI ¼ �0.15 to 0.02, respectively). We graphically illustrated the inter- action by plotting two slopes of the moderating variable: �1 SD and þ1 SD (see Figure 1). These results support hypotheses 1c. Finally, based on our results that the moderation of high workload

was significant for the opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices–absentee- ism link, but not for the skill- and motivation-enhancing HPWS practi- ces–absenteeism linkage, we can conclude that under conditions of high workload, the influence of opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices was stronger than that of skill- and motivation-enhancing HPWS practices, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations between the study variables. Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.33 0.47 2. Age 0.60 0.49 �.44�� 3. Commitment 4.32 1.22 �.10 .08 4. Skill HPWS 3.01 0.61 .11 �.08 .27�� 5. Motivation HPWS

3.57 0.68 .09 �.06 .23�� .60��

6. Opportunity HPWS HPWS

3.68 0.70 .04 �.00 .34�� .54�� .65��

7. Workload 2.29 0.53 �.02 �.14� .07 �.03 �.03 �.06 8. Absenteeism 0.27 0.32 �.01 .02 �.19�� �.14 �.18� �.04 �.10 �p < .05.��p< .01; n¼ 189; min/max scores: Skill HPWS, Motivation HPWS, Opportunity HPWS (1–5); Workload (1–4); Commitment (1–7); Gender (0¼male, 1¼ female); Age (0 ¼ � 45, 1 ¼ > 45); Absenteeism: log 10 trans- formation (0–1.32).

Table 2. Regression results for the conditional effects of workload on the relationship between skill-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing HPWS practices and absenteeism. Predictor B s.e. T R2

F(10,179)¼2.72�� .13 Gender �.01 .05 �0.16 Age .02 .05 0.38 Commitment �.05� .02 �2.41 Skill HPWS �.09 .19 �0.50 Motivation HPWS .13 .16 0.83 Opportunity HPWS .35 .18 1.90 Workload .72�� .24 3.05 Skill HPWS � Workload .02 .08 0.30 Motivation HPWS� Workload �.03 .07 �0.38 Opportunity HPWS � Workload �.18�� .07 �2.42 Conditional direct effect of Opportunity HPWS on absenteeism

B s.e. LLCI ULCI �1 SD .03 .06 �0.08 to 0.15 M �.06 .04 �0.15 to 0.02 þ1 SD �.16�� .05 �0.26 to �0.06 �p < .05;��p< .01; n¼ 189; unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size ¼ 5000; LL¼ lower limit; CI¼ confidence interval 95%; UL¼ upper limit.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2899

Discussion

The present study provides evidence for the differential impact of HPWS bundles on employee behavior, and shows that some of these relation- ships are contingent upon the degree to which employees face high levels of workload. In accordance with COR theory, employees who are confronted with

resource loss as a result of a high workload are likely to cope better at work if they can replenish their resources through opportunity-enhanc- ing HPWS practices (Bakker et al., 2010). Opportunity-enhancing practi- ces empower employees by giving them more control over their work (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998), thereby enabling them to design or shape their own jobs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This, in turn, makes those empowered employees more resilient in the face of a high workload, and therefore more likely to show up for work. The findings can also be interpreted using the JD-R model which also suggests that individuals are more likely to draw on their resources under stressful conditions – including those induced by high demands (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). In this regard HPWS are more likely to reduce absentee- ism under conditions of high workload as resources gain particular sali- ency in the context of demands. It has been observed that employees who have access to HPWS may be more likely to experience demanding work conditions as a situation they can handle, rather than as stressful and debilitating (Bacharach et al., 2010). In the present study, the results suggest that when confronted with high levels of workload, employees can use their opportunity-enhancing practices to deal persistently with their overbearing workload and choose the right approach to better deal with the situation and avoid withdrawing from the organization, that is, absenteeism (Bakker & Demerouti, 2018).

Figure 1. The relationship between opportunity HRWP and absenteeism as a function of workload: Curves for 2 different levels of the moderator (�1 SD and þ1 SD of workload).

2900 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

We expected that skill-enhancing HPWS, like (e.g. rigorous selection, development and training), would better prepare employees for high lev- els of workload, and consequently lead to less absenteeism. However, we did not observe this under conditions of high workload. Likewise, although we anticipated that motivation-enhancing practices (i.e., those dealing with performance appraisals and rewards) would keep employees motivated to attend work even when this required additional effort (i.e., under demanding work conditions), this was not borne out by our analysis. These findings may reflect the nature of the sample in our study. As

our respondents were specialized, highly educated professionals, it may be that they had already benefited from organizational investment in training and skills development, and in performance-based compensation and rewards (Lepak & Snell, 2002). Consequently, skill- and motivation- enhancing HR practices might not have offered these professionals an extra source of resources in the form of enhanced competency levels and appreciation for compensatory effort respectively that would strengthen their capacity to cope with a high workload. For skill-enhancing HPWS, it may be that employees feel that they already have the abilities and skills to adequately cope and accomplish their tasks. Indeed, Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, and Primeau (2001, p. 401) highlight that ‘it is logical to con- clude that stressors would be much more threatening to those who do not perceive themselves as capable of performing their job tasks’. For motivation-enhancing HPWS, there was also no statistically significant moderating effect of workload. This could also reflect the view that Dutch employees in our sample do not directly benefit from more motivation-enhancing practices when faced with high workloads. Additional effort of employees might not have immediately been rewarded by the organization partly because of the existing rules and legislation governing pay in the Netherlands and therefore these practices might not influence employees’ decision to withdraw from the work- place, that is, being absent when faced with high workloads. Moreover, performance management practices can help employees to grow, develop and boost their personal success in the long run, but may be something which doesn’t help them deal with an overbearing workload in the short term (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008). The results of the present study also reveal that under conditions of a

high workload, opportunity-enhancing practices are the only such practi- ces to reduce absenteeism. These results are in line with our expectations that opportunity-enhancing practices form the building block of HPWS bundles (Boxall & Macky, 2009) and that they are better geared towards improving the situation of the employees and their well-being (Boon

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2901

et al., 2011) which is particularly important in the context of an over- bearing workload. It somewhat confirms the notion that resources associ- ated with the JD-R model including involvement, control and participation in decision making have the strongest effect on health related outcomes (e.g. Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Overall, a significant the- oretical implication of the findings is that the core premise of both COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002) and the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) which suggests that resources gain particular saliency in the context of high demands, does not hold for all types of job resources. Indeed, when looking at the salience of resources from a strategic HRM viewpoint, it appears that opportunity-enhancing practices are the only such practices that function according to the propositions of the well-established theor- etical perspectives. It may be that the particular job resource provided should specifically match the demand (Bakker & Demerouti, 2018). For example, in this case, skill-enhancing and motivation-enhancing practices may be less suited to dealing with an overbearing workload for the rea- sons outlined above. Given the differential results regarding the impact of the different

HPWS bundles in impacting absenteeism under conditions of high work- load, our findings underscore the need to differentiate between practices in future research (Jiang et al., 2012). In fact, contrary to the widely held assumption that all practices need to be implemented concurrently, the present study shows, that for specialized, highly educated professionals, at least for the outcome of absenteeism, that only opportunity-enhancing practices are relevant for dealing with an over bearing workload.

Implications for practice

Our results provide key insights for practitioners. In a professional con- text characterized by high workloads, HR systems designed to involve and empower employees to manage their own jobs may serve as an effective means to prevent high absence rates. This highlights the import- ance for organizations to invest in HR systems, particularly which focus on involving employees and garnering their participation in decision making, in order to avoid the costs associated with absenteeism. This is especially useful information if organizations have limited financial resources to invest in a comprehensive set of HPWS practices. Finding that opportunity-enhancing HPWS reduce absenteeism under high levels of workloads, demonstrates to managers, contrary to some of the critical arguments in the SHRM literature (e.g. Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000), that investing in HPWS are more likely to improve rather than impair employees’ experiences at work (Guthrie et al., 2009).

2902 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

Furthermore, our findings highlight the importance of employees’ per- ceptions of HPWS practices. It is not sufficient for organizations to invest in designing and implementing HPWS if they fail to effectively communicate their existence to employees (e.g., Den Hartog et al., 2013). By communicating that the intended goal of the (opportunity-enhancing) HPWS practices reflects care, support, participation and autonomy at work; organizations can further reduce withdrawal behavior.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these find- ings. First, the response rate was relatively low, and somewhat lower than the average response for studies using data collected from individu- als (52.7% according to Baruch & Holtom, 2008). To assess the possible impact of subject attrition on our data, we examined the mean differen- ces in the demographic variables and absenteeism between the respond- ents and non-respondents in the data collection. Based on the results obtained, we are reasonably confident that any attrition was random and hence unlikely to have biased our results (Little & Rubin, 1987). Second, our study relied on self-reported data to measure the associa-

tions between bundles of HPWS and workload. The correlation among the variables in our model were rather modest, ranging from �.06 to �.03, countering the common assumption that common method vari- ance (CMV) is a universal inflator of correlations (Spector 2006). Moreover, CMV leads to a diminution of the interaction term, which makes interaction effects more difficult to find. This implies that finding interaction effects in data with possible CMV ‘should be taken as strong evidence that an interaction effect exists’ (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010, p. 470). Third, our reliance on data from staff members in one logistic services

organization in the Netherlands limits the generalizability of our find- ings. In the Netherlands, the influence of institutional factors on work- related issues is relatively large (Boselie, Paauwe, & Jansen, 2001), limit- ing managerial discretion in choosing to use specific HPWS practices (Rabl, Jayasinghe, Gerhart, & K€uhlmann, 2014). In addition, prior research suggests that HPWS might have a stronger positive effect on individual outcomes in service compared to manufacturing industries (e.g., Liao et al., 2009). Therefore, future research should replicate this study in other industries and countries. Fourth, our use of skill, motivation and opportunity enhancing practi-

ces were inspired by the influential study of Gardner et al. (2011). While the practices adopted are highly consistent with those used in the

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2903

mainstream strategic HRM literature (e.g. Subramony, 2009) and consist- ent with a recent review of the practices typically considered by research- ers under each bundle (Gile, Buljac, & van de Klundert, 2018), they are by no means exhaustive. For example, contrary to some of the studies, we don’t incorporate teamwork as an opportunity-enhancing practice, health care benefits and rostering and scheduling as motivation-enhanc- ing practices and job description generation throughout job analysis as a skill-enhancing practice. Finally, the data is cross-sectional. This means it is possible that

employee outcomes influence the way employees perceive and appraise HPWS, rather than perceived HPWS affecting employee outcomes. Although, the causal relation between employee outcomes and employee perceptions of HPWS is established in the literature (Piening, Baluch, & Salge, 2013), longitudinal research is needed to further investigate the possibility of reverse causality and feedback loops in the HRM–employee outcome chain. Further longitudinal research could also explore the role of endured exposure to high and low levels of work demands.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study extends work in strategic HRM by demonstrat- ing that the level to which employees experience demanding working conditions in the form of workload affects the link between opportunity- enhancing HPWS practices and absenteeism. These findings underline the importance of adopting a contingency perspective on the relationship between bundles of HPWS and behaviors, and suggest that investments in the different bundles of HPWS practices are more beneficial in some work contexts than in others.

References

Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracing performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 139–145. doi: 10.1002/job.493

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, con- tinuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

Allisey, A.F., Noblet, A. J., Lamontagne, A. D., & Houdmont, J. (2014). Testing amodel of officer intentions to quit: The mediating effects of job stress andjob satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(6), 751–771.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kallenberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advan- tage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

2904 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2010). Alcohol consumption and work- place absenteeism: The moderating effect of social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 334–348. doi:10.1037/a0018018

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of wellbeing. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

Bakker, A. B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-con- trol model. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 3–16. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/ a000006

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organiza- tional research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863

Bal, P. M., Kooij, D., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How do developmental and accommoda- tive HRM enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 545–572. doi: 10.1111/joms.12028

Biron, M., & De Reuver, R. (2013). Restoring balance? Status inconsistency, absenteeism, and HRM practices. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 683–696. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.694165

Blom, R., Kruyen, P. M., Van der Heijden, B., & Van Thiel, S. (2018). One HRM fits all? A meta-analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1–33.

Boon, C., Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Pijnenburg, M. (2014). Perceived human resource management practices: Their effect on employee absenteeism and time allocation at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 21–33. doi:10.1027/1866- 5888/a000101

Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: Examining the role of person–- organisation and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138–162. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.538978

Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Jansen, P. (2001). Human resource management and perform- ance: Lessons from the Netherlands’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1107–1125. doi:10.1080/09585190110068331

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “Strength” of the HRM system. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221. doi:10.2307/20159029

Bowen, E. D. (1982). Some unintended consequences of intention to quit. The Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 205–211. doi:10.5465/amr.1982.4285563

Boxall, P., Ang, S. H., & Bartram, T. (2011). Analyzing the ‘black box’ of HRM: Uncovering HR goals, mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environ- ment. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1504–1532. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2010.00973.x

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 3–23. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00082.x

Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–680.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2905

Chung-Yan, G. A. (2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 237–251. doi:10.1037/a0019823

Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293–318. doi:10.1037/a0012639

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835. doi:10.5465/256713

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1–9.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499

Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M. (2013). HRM, communica- tion, satisfaction, and perceived performance: A cross-level test. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1637–1665. doi:10.1177/0149206312440118

Eurofound. (2015). First findings: Sixth European Working Conditions Survey (Reference No: EF1568). Brussels, Belgium: European Union. Retrieved June 15, 2016, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_docu- ment/ef1568en.pdf. doi:10.2806/59106

Eurofound. (2010). Dublin Ireland. Retrieved 27 June, 2018, from https://www.euro- found.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/docs/ewco/tn0911039s/tn0911039s.pdf

Farrell, D., & Peterson, J.C. (1984). Commitment, absenteeism and turnover of new employees: A longitudinal study. Human Relations, 37(8), 681–692.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, and J. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 315–350. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01212.x

Geurts, S. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Rutte, C. G. (1999). Absenteeism, turnover intention and inequity in the employment relationship. Work & Stress, 13, 253–267. doi: 10.1080/026783799296057

Gile, P. M., Buljac, M., & van de Klundert, J. J. (2018). The effect of human resource management on performance in hospitals in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic litera- ture review. Human Resources for Health, 16, 34.

Guest, D. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers’. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3–13.

Guest, D. E., & Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at work: Mutuality and the balance of advan- tage. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2), 207–236. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00197

Guthrie, J. P., Flood, P. C., Liu, W., & MacCurtain, S. (2009). High performance work systems in Ireland: Human resource and organizational outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 112–125. doi:10.1080/09585190 802528433

Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 305–350. doi:10.1177/ 014920639802400303

2906 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337–421. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. In W.B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds), Series in applied psych- ology: Social issues and questions (pp. 115–33). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Innocenti, L., Pilati, M., & Peluso, A. M. (2011). Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices and employee attitudes. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 303–317. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00151.x

Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1699–1724. doi:10.1177/0149206311419663

Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 401–409. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.401

Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2017). Understanding employees’ perceptions of human resource practices: Effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers and coworkers. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 69–91. doi:10.1002/hrm.21771

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource manage- ment influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. doi:10.5465/ amj.2011.0088

Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do we go from here? New per- spectives on the black boxes in strategic Human Resource Management research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1448–1480.

Johns, G. (1997). Contemporary research on absence from work. Correlates, causes and consequences. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 115–174.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208687

Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366–391. doi:10.1177/0149206310365901

Kinicki, A. J., Jacobson, K. J. L., Peterson, S. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Development and validation of the performance management behavior questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 1–45. doi:10.1111/peps.12013

Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111–1136. doi:10.1002/job.666

Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee-organization relationships affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1–25.

Lepak, D. P., Jiang, K., Han, K., Castellano, W. G., & Hu, J. (2012). Strategic HRM mov- ing forward: What can we learn from micro perspectives? In G. P. Hodgkinson &

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2907

J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 231–258). New York: Wiley.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 217–271.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543. doi:10.1177/014920630202800403

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 influ- ence processes on service quality. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371–391. doi:10.1037/a0013504

Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.

Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance work practi- ces’ and employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 537–567. doi:10.1080/ 09585190601178745

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and per- formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118. doi:10.1037/a0024710

Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2001). Perceived organisational support as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors to affective organisational commitment. Applied Psychology, 50(4), 615–634. doi:10.1111/1464- 0597.00076

Neuborne, E. (2003). The carrot, not the stick. Potentials, 36, 39–41. Nishii, L., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for

strategic human resources management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 225–248). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peccei, R., Van De Voorde, K., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2013). HRM, well-being and per- formance: A theoretical and empirical review. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. Wright (Eds.), Human resource management and performance: Achievements and challenges (pp. 15–46). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Salge, T. O. (2013). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of human resource systems and organizational performance: Examining mediating mechanisms and temporal dynamics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 926–947. doi:10.1037/a0033925

Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & K€uhlmann, T. M. (2014). A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system–business performance rela- tionship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1011–1041. doi:10.1037/a0037712

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 501–531. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00178

Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 561–589. doi:10.1002/job.329

2908 R. DE REUVER ET AL.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health, In G. Bauer & O. H€ammig (Eds), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht: Springer.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917. doi:10.1002/job.595

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241

Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource man- agement: A human capital perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 467–504. doi:10.2307/256484

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 745–768. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20315

Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. F. (1994). The measurement of psychosocial job demands with a questionnaire: The Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW). Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden.

Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 141–150. doi: 10.1037/apl0000033

Veld, M., Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2010). HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: Does the message come across at the ward level? Human Resource Management Journal, 20(4), 339–356. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00139.x

Wu, P. C., & Chaturvedi, S. (2009). The role of procedural justice and power distance in the relationship between high performance work systems and employee attitudes: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Management, 35(5), 1228–1247. doi:10.1177/ 0149206308331097

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. doi:10.2307/ 259118

Zatzick, C. D., & Iverson, R. D. (2011). Putting employee involvement in context: A cross-level model examining job satisfaction and absenteeism in high-involvement work systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3462–3476. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.561016

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2909

Copyright of International Journal of Human Resource Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.