Research Project

Disentangling the strength of the HRM system: effects on employees reactions

Dolores de la Rosa-Navarro, Mirta Díaz-Fernández and Alvaro Lopez-Cabrales

Department of Business Administration, Pablo de Olavide University, Sevilla, Spain

Abstract Purpose – A strong HRM system (encompassing the dimensions of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) facilitates a collective interpretation of Human Resource Management (HRM) practices in a common direction, and consequently, a conjoint response by employees. The purpose of this paper is two fold: first to argue that those dimensions have a direct impact on the reaction of employees (organisational citizenship behaviour, OCB and intention to remain, IR); and second, the authors propose that these dimensions are not independent, but rather can interact in such a way that consensus impacts on the consistency of an HRM system, and consistency mediates the relationship between consensus and OCB and IR. Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed HR managers and employees from a sample of 102 Spanish hotels. Specifically, HR managers were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing the dimensions of HRM strength, and employees completed a different questionnaire reporting their levels of OCB and IR. The authors examined the reliability and validity of measures by means of Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Finally, structural equations models were applied to test direct effects and mediating hypotheses. Findings – As an initial finding, the authors obtained two dimensions of HRM strength: consistency and a new factor, which is a combination of distinctiveness and consensus, labelled the “Reputation” of the HRM system. A second result is that such the reputation of the HRM system positively affects OCB and IR. Third, consistency mediates in the relationships between the reputation of the HRM system and OCB and IR. Research limitations/implications – Although the authors are aware of the limitations of our paper, regarding the cross-sectional data design and the assessment of HR strength by managers, the authors believe that the results highlight the importance of HRM system strength, since it affects individual outcomes. Originality/value – One of the valuable contributions made by this paper is that the authors obtained two dimensions for HRM strength instead of the three proposed by Bowen and Ostroff (2004): consistency and reputation (as a combination of distinctiveness and consensus). The authors explain that the new dimension is related to the concept of employer branding, emphasising HRM system’s internal image, facilitating common expectations that guide employees towards the desired responses. Second, Reputation impacts Consistency, improving employees’ OCB and IR; hence, the dimensions of HRM system strength are not independent, but they are better able to interact in order to affect employee outcomes. Keywords Intention to remain, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Strength of HRM system Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction The main theoretical approaches to understanding the influence of Human Resource Management (HRM) on organisational results have focused on HRM practices as drivers of performance and competitiveness. The behavioural approach (Schuler and Jackson, 1987) argues that certain HRM practices develop employees’ skills, knowledge and motivation in such a way that their behaviours contribute to the implementation of strategy and the achievement of strategic goals. For its part, the resource-based view (Barney, 1991) relies on certain characteristics of human resources and the way in which they are managed by means of specific HRM practices to provide a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Wright et al., 1994). These research streams study the content of HRM practices. Employee Relations: The

International Journal Vol. 42 No. 2, 2020

pp. 281-299 © Emerald Publishing Limited

0142-5455 DOI 10.1108/ER-12-2018-0322

Received 13 December 2018 Revised 9 April 2019

26 June 2019 Accepted 16 August 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0142-5455.htm

This work was supported by FEDER/Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades-Agencia Estatal de Investigación (ECO2017-82208-P) and Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Plan Nacional de IþDþ I (ECO2013-44274-P).

281

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

According to Bowen and Ostroff (2004), the content of an HRM system refers to the set of practices devised for meeting strategic goals. However, this approach seems to be insufficient to answer the question regarding how HRM affects organisational performance (Paauwe, 2009; Boselie et al., 2005). In that respect, researchers have shifted the focus from HRM content onto process (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Nishii et al., 2008). Research has gradually moved away from an exclusive focus on HRM content and static concepts of positioning towards HRM processes and a dynamic approach (Heffernan et al., 2016). HRM process 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 and Ostroff, 2004, p. 204).

As long as perceptions are shared by employees, the intended attitudes and behaviours are more likely to be achieved (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). A strong organisational climate will facilitate a collective interpretation of HRM practices in a common direction, and consequently, a conjoint response by employees. Bowen and Ostroff (2004), on the basis of Kelley’s (1967) attribution theory, propose the features that make a strong HRM system, which are distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. The distinctiveness of an HRM system implies that it stands out in the environment, showing it to be significant, thereby drawing attention and provoking certain uniformity in employees’ reactions (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Consistency generally refers to coherence in the event-effect relationship, which remains steady over time regardless of people and contexts (Katou et al., 2014). Consensus refers to features that produce agreement in employees’ views of the event-effect relationship, in part because there is agreement among the message senders (Sanders et al., 2008).

In spite of the interest surrounding the concept of strength and its popularity among HRM researchers (Bednall et al., 2014; Coelho et al., 2012; Delmotte et al., 2012; Katou et al., 2014; White and Bryson, 2013), there is a research gap surrounding the way the different dimensions work together in order to achieve employee outcomes. Indeed, Ostroff and Bowen (2016), in their critical review of the research being developed about their proposal of strength, suggested that distinctiveness, consistency and consensus are not in fact independent dimensions and that they can influence each other. Therefore, this paper pursues two specific objectives: first, to study the effects of HRM strength on employee reactions in the form of organisational citizenship behaviours (OCB) and intentions to remain (IR), as a strong HRM system creates a shared attribution of meaning to HRM practices, thereby generating common expectations, and conjoint attitudes and behaviours. Second, to ascertain whether the different dimensions of HRM strength influence each other in order to trigger these expected effects. This second objective is relevant and novel because it empirically verifies the suggestion made by Ostroff and Bowen (2016) that those dimensions might be related to one other.

One distinctive feature of this paper is the perspective chosen to study such relationships. Previous research testing the strength of HRM systems has focused on employees as respondents who assess distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. The logic behind this is that it is not only important to offer certain HRM practices to employees (HRM content) but also to ensure they are similarly perceived by employees, in order to achieve the employer’s intended aims (Nishii et al., 2008). This paper adopts managerial perceptions in order to assess the strength of HRM systems. As HR managers are the key players who design HRM practices and policies, this paper focuses on their perceptions in terms of the distinctiveness of the messages they send out, consistency in the way HR practices work and the degree of consensus they generate. Although more respondents and perceptions are usually recommended to avoid the Common Method Bias, the literature has stated the validity of using just one informant, the HRmanager, in cases where very specific information is required that this person knows (Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Bou-LLusar et al., 2016). By asking HR managers, we are seeking to ascertain how the HRM system is introduced or how it is actually applied, following the typology developed by Renkema et al. (2017). It is similar to the

282

ER 42,2

approach taken byWhitener (2001), who only asked HR managers about “High Commitment” HRM practices while employees reported their commitment and perceptions of trust and organisational support.

Therefore, this paper seeks to make two specific contributions. First, it addresses the interrelationship between the dimensions of HRM system strength and extends present conceptual understanding by suggesting that some of the dimensions mediate in the explanation of OCB and IR. Second, as an empirical result, a new dimension named “Reputation of HRM system” will explain the internal relationships between distinctiveness, consistency and consensus; as such dimensions can influence each other. The theoretical proposal and empirical testing of the notion that HRM strength dimensions are combined and that they also interact in order to influence employees’ reactions is a general contribution that responds to Ostroff and Bowen (2016) call for research about how the features outlined for HRM strength might operate together, as these authors suggest, for example.

The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section is dedicated to explaining in detail the concept of HRM strength and its impact on employees’ reactions. Section 3 is concerned with how such dimensions work together and influence each other. Section 4 contains methods and results, closing with a final point that sets out the discussion and implications of the results obtained.

2. Strength of the HRM system and its effects on employees’ reactions HRM departments design practices that configure the HRM system to be implemented within organisations. The strength of the HRM system (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004) could mean that the area of HR works well, has credibility, and is valued by employees and other organisational units. In that sense it can be related to the notion of perceived organisational competence, which means that employees trust in the organisation’s ability to achieve its goals and objectives (Kim et al., 2016). Individuals who perceive that their organisations have a high level of organisational competence may feel that several of their socio-emotional needs are being met, such as the need for esteem, a sense of belonging or the need for emotional support, which feeds into employee commitment (Kim et al., 2016). Therefore, the process approach seems to have its own weight in explaining certain employee reactions, regardless of the HRM practices offered.

Although Bowen and Ostroff (2004) postulated that HRM system strength mediates HR practices and outcomes, the research reveals its direct effect on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Different studies have found the positive impact of a strong HRM system on work satisfaction, vigour (Li et al., 2011), motivation, commitment (Katou et al., 2014; Hauff et al., 2017; Cafferkey et al., 2019) or work engagement and OCB (Katou et al., 2014).

Furthermore, the good reputation of a firm in terms of corporate social responsibility allows employees to meet their basic needs and feel satisfied (Vlachos et al., 2013). The multiple needs model of organisational justice (Cropanzano et al., 2001) suggests that employees’ reactions to social responsibility actions derive from instrumental-, relational- and morality-based needs (Rupp et al., 2006), which are related to the satisfaction of needs regarding control, a sense of belonging and the need for meaningful existence, respectively. In a similar way, a strong HRM system can help to satisfy those needs. The need for control can be satisfied, as the consistency of HR practices implies continuity and stability over time. The perception of justice enhances the quality of the social exchange relationships between employees and organisations (Rupp et al., 2006), making employees feel part of the firm and thus helping to satisfy the need for a sense of belonging. The need for meaningful existence also can be satisfied, as the HRM system takes into account the interests of the employees; its procedures and decisions are considered fair, and it has credibility and legitimacy. The foreseeable motivation and satisfaction of employees will probably lead to higher levels of OCB. At the same time, the positive image or reputation of the HRM system

283

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

can feed into the expectations of employees, in such a way that they are ready to invest in extra-role behaviour in order to get a similar response from the firm.

Therefore, this paper proposes that each of the dimensions of the strength of the HRM system (distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) will positively impact on OCB and intention to remain, as explained below.

2.1 Effects of distinctiveness on employee reactions The first dimension, distinctiveness, refers to those features that make an HRM system stand out, drawing the attention of the employee (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). In order to do so, situational characteristics are salient and visible to the majority of employees in their daily work activities. Visibility can be enhanced as there are a greater number and type of practices, increasing the complexity of the HRM system and its scope, allowing a greater number of employees to be exposed to those practices (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).

However, such practices must be useful to employees, a second feature of distinctiveness. Employees can satisfy some of their needs because the HR practices are relevant, that is, they are significant not only for organisational goals, but also for individual ones.

Another characteristic of distinctiveness is understandability, in the sense that it is important not only to communicate the existence of HR practices offered to employees, but also to explain how they work (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Based on attribution theory and research from Kelley (1955) and Feldman (1981), if employees perceive that stimulus are unclear or ambiguous, they cannot understand how they work, transparency can help to foster the legitimacy of the HR decision-makers’ authority, as it avoids suspicion and rumours among employees (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009). Employees are more likely to conclude that the organisation has good intentions, thereby facilitating the acceptance of HR policies.

Furthermore, the legitimacy of authority implies that subordinates accept someone else as a model who sets behavioural standards (Kelman and Hamilton, 1989), and in turn, they are ready to perform according to such standards. This legitimacy will be attributed to the HRM function when it is perceived to be a high-status and high-credibility function, which depends largely on senior management support and the strategic importance given to that area (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Communicator credibility is a key factor in the attribution or influence processes (Rousseau, 1995).

In order to understand the influence of distinctiveness on employee reactions, the relevance dimension could be key, since it means that an organisation offers HR practices that are important for employees and help to satisfy their needs. OCB has been found to be a common reaction when individuals perceive their working conditions to be satisfying (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Dalal, 2005). According to social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), employees respond in ways that benefit the organisation and other employees. Prior to displaying citizen behaviour, employees probably perceive that the workplace processes, outcomes and interactions are fair and feel committed to the organisation (Dalal, 2005). Consequently, they will probably have the intention to remain.

The other components of distinctiveness help to explain OCB and IR as they attribute credibility to the message (legitimacy of authority) and make it easier to perceive (visibility), and be understood (understandability). However, the essential influence on OCB and IR is the relevance of what it is offered.

In sum, when HR practices are relevant for employees, they have been communicated in a way that is easy to understand (understandability), employees know what can be expected (visibility) and they attribute a legitimacy of authority to persons responsible for HR policies, they are more likely to feel that their interests and needs are taken into account, reinforcing their motivation and leading them to greater levels of commitment, IR and extra-role behaviours.

284

ER 42,2

Based on the previous arguments, the first research hypothesis posited is as follows:

H1a. Distinctiveness is positively related to OCB and the intention to remain.

2.2 Effects of consistency on employee reactions The second dimension, consistency, refers to the stability of the HRM system itself. It is composed of instrumentality, which means that there is a clear cause-effect relationship so that employees really know the consequences of their behaviours. It guarantees the existence of an adequate incentives system that rewards the desired behavioural pattern (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). According to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory, individual motivation is explained by three factors: valence, instrumentality and expectancy. Thus, instrumentality together with the relevance of the HR practices could boost levels of employee motivation (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004), leading them to increase their commitment to the organisation and their extra-role behaviours as well (Lavelle et al., 2007).

Instrumentality can help to construct a predictable working environment, providing employees with a greater sense of control as they can know and understand the consequences of their behaviours. In this regard, employees have guidelines for a better orientation of their behaviours, and thus they are less likely to experience disappointments or rupture of their psychological contract, consequently decreasing their intentions to leave (Rousseau, 1995).

Consistency also refers to the coherency between what HRM practices are aiming to achieve and what they actually achieve. It is what Bowen and Ostroff (2004) called validity. This coherence regarding the behaviour of HRM actors gives them credibility, which is necessary in order influence employee behaviour. The credibility of the issuer is a prerequisite for modifying the conduct of the recipient (Rousseau, 1995).

The third component of consistency pertains to consistency between different HR practices. This concept has repeatedly been presented as strategic HRM, as it is the foundation of the configurational approach. This model highlights the synergistic effects resulting from this fit, in such a way that the practices reinforce each other producing a joint positive effect (Huselid, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996). In fact, the literature on strategic HRM also refers to it as horizontal fit, in contrast to vertical fit, which refers to the coherence between an HRM system and other external and organisational factors (Schuler and Jackson, 1987). However, so far, research has not yielded any definitive findings regarding the best results of the consistency of HR practices. Effectively, the HPWS or ability–motivation–opportunity model (AMO) has been associated with greater levels of productivity, commitment or extra-role behaviours (Huselid, 1995; Jiang et al., 2012), along with decreased turnover and absenteeism (Batt and Valcour, 2003).

However, it cannot be affirmed definitively whether those results are explained by coherence among HR practices or by the superiority of such practices (Huselid, 1995). Studying the strength of an HRM system provides a better understanding of the particular influence of consistency on OCB and the intention to remain. This concept is studied through the process approach, in contrast to the content approach, where the congruence of HR practices is studied through configurations. In addition to the synergies derived from the conjoint action of HR practices acting in the same direction, consistency helps to set employee expectations, sending them a clear message about what is expected of them and what they can receive in exchange (Baron and Kreps, 1999). Therefore, expectations are more realistic, and there will be fewer possibilities of breaking the psychological contract, which in turn reduces employees’ intentions to leave (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). Employees perceive a more stable and predictable working environment, which can enhance the credibility of the organisation when it comes to influencing their behaviours, in terms of OCB and IR.

285

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

According to the preceding discussion, the second research hypothesis formulated is as follows:

H1b. Consistency is positively related to OCB and the intention to remain.

2.3 Effects of consensus on employee reactions The last dimension of the strength of an HRM system is consensus. In order to promote consensus with regard to the reaction of employees, there are at least two requisites: the existence of consensus among HR decision-makers or “message senders”, and the fairness of the HRM system; both distributive and also procedural justice (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).

There is more likely to be consensus among employees if they see that the message senders agree among themselves (Rousseau, 1995). Agreement among HR decision-makers helps to increase the legitimacy of the HRM system’s authority, as HR managers and line managers are supported by senior management. Hence, employees appreciate the coherence among the different agents, facilitating the acceptance and implementation of HRM policies (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Additionally, the extent to which employees perceive that the process for allocating benefits and resources (procedural justice), and the results of that distribution are fair, positively affects the capacity of the HRM system to influence employee attitudes and behaviours (Waldman and Bowen, 1998). In order to obtain procedural justice, the reasons behind any decisions made must be well explained (Özbek et al., 2016). The perception of fairness facilitates the acceptance of proposed HR practices, thus contributing to the credibility and legitimacy of the HR department.

The interest of researchers in studying organisational justice has largely focused on work-related outcomes, grounding its influence in trust (Colquitt and Rodell, 2011), organisational commitment (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) and OCB (Moorman, 1993). In this present study, organisational justice is analysed as part of the strength of an HRM system, but it is also expected to have an impact on OCB. Again the authors base their hypotheses on the norm of reciprocity, arguing that when managers treat employees fairly, employees respond with high levels of OCB (Organ, 1988). Thus, a positive social exchange emerges, where both parties are making a mutual investment, reinforcing the employees’ commitment and their intention to remain (Tsui et al., 1997).

Based on the previous arguments, the third hypothesis formulated is as follows:

H1c. Consensus is positively related to OCB and the intention to remain.

3. Internal relationships within the dimensions of HRM strength The meta-features of HRM system strength explained above may interrelate, but this proposition has not been empirically tested (Hewett et al., 2018). Considering the features separately allows for the possibility of interactions between them. In this regard, Sanders and Yang (2016) found that a high combination of the three features strengthened the relationship between high commitment HR practices and affective commitment.

Although such interactions may exist and would provide a promising strand of research, we have not found any research testing whether some features may be precursors to the development of others, as proposed by Ostroff and Bowen (2016). They argue that consensus among key HR decision-makers is a precursor to consensus among employees. Consensus among decision-makers and agents of the HRM system sends out a consistent message to employees, thus facilitating a similar interpretation of these practices among employees. They maintain that the lack of consensus could explain some of the inconsistent findings regarding the importance of HRM system strength and HPWS (Ostroff and Bowen, 2016).

286

ER 42,2

An HRM system comprises different agents: not only HR experts who work in the HRM department, but also senior management, who set the strategic objectives that determine HRM policies, and line managers who apply these practices (Rousseau, 1995; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Different agents at different levels within the organisation with different responsibilities are simultaneously sending messages about the employment relationship (Rousseau and Greller, 1994). Accordingly, it is hard to ensure consensus between all the agents and their respective messages. If message senders do not agree regarding the intended message, consistency will likely be hampered (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). The managerial perceptions communicated by the HRM philosophy can mutually reinforce employees’ shared perceptions of their working climate (Kellner et al., 2016). When employees receive clear and uniform communications about HRM, this can create a strong situation and positively influence organisational performance outcomes (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).

An important part of consistency is stability over time. HRM practices will acquire their meaning across time, and expected behaviours are more likely to be achieved if HR practices are administered consistently over time (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). The stability of such practices over time enhances agreement among employees in relation to what is expected of them and what they expect of the organisation in return (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni, 1994). The desired stability will be easier to achieve if there is consensus among decision-makers; otherwise different messages coming from different sources create an unpredictable working environment, where employees do not know in advance the consequences of their behaviours. A lack of consensus promotes ambiguous situations subject to individual interpretation as employees try to reduce uncertainty by interacting and consulting with one another to develop shared interpretations (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Therefore, consensus is especially important among senior executive managers and the HR department, as they seem to perform a key role in the dissemination of HRM philosophy (Kellner et al., 2016). The consistency between the tangible and intangible elements of the HRM architecture requires a fluid relationship between the HR department and senior management (Kellner et al., 2016).

Based on previous arguments, we propose that consensus among HR decision-makers will facilitate the consistency of the different HRM practices, as the complementarity of these practices requires the agreement of the different agents involved in the design and implementation of the HRM system. Consequently, H2 is formulated as follows:

H2. Consensus will promote the consistency of the HRM system.

However, in spite of the importance of consensus among HR decision-makers, previous research has not found any relationships between consensus and employee performance (Guest and Conway, 2011), affective commitment (Sanders et al., 2008), or work satisfaction, vigour and intentions to quit (Li et al., 2011). However, regarding consistency, Sanders et al. (2008) found that it was positively related to affective commitment, and Li et al. (2011) found that it was negatively related to intentions to quit. These results lead us to think about the possible mediating role that consistency plays between consensus and individual outcomes. The overall idea is that employees will behave in a better way in terms of OCB and IR if the consensus among HR decision-makers has been translated into consistent HRM practices. We argue that consensus among HR decision-makers will help to develop consistent and complementary HRM practices (Baron and Kreps, 1999), which in turn will foster common expectations among employees and their adequate response.

Therefore, it is assumed that consensus among HR decision-makers is a prerequisite of consistency (Ostroff and Bowen, 2016), and that the latter will fully mediate the relationship between consensus and the intended effects (Figure 1). Hence, we finally propose that:

H3. Consistency will mediate the relationship between consensus, OCB and intention to remain.

287

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

4. Method 4.1 Population and sample The hypotheses formulated here were tested out in the hospitality sector because tourism is one of the most relevant industries in the Spanish economy. During the last financial crisis it suffered a tremendous blow, so HRmanagers are quite concerned about employees’ behaviours because of the high level of turnover within this sector. The population included 4-star Spanish hotels with more than 50 employees from the SABI database, containing 392 firms. Questionnaires were sent to each firm in the population. The HR manager and four employees per firm were selected as respondents. Finally, we received completed questionnaires (one HR manager and four employees) from 102 firms, giving a response rate of 26.02 per cent.

HR managers were chosen because they have in-depth knowledge of the HRM system implemented in their firm. Furthermore, HR managers are involved in designing the HRM system and also receive feedback about different HRM practices from employees and other managers in their firms, and they also assess employees’ behaviours at work. Hence, it was felt that HR managers would be the best respondents for questions about the strength of the HRM system as they can assess the HRM level introduced, as suggested by Renkema et al. (2017). Questions related to OCB and IR, on the other hand, were answered by the four employees from each firm.

Regarding the specific characteristics of our sample, it comprised 102 four-star Spanish hotels with more than 50 employees. In general, these hotels are successful and well- established firms, although the oldest hotel has been running for 93 years and the youngest for 3 years, giving an average “age” of 27.14 years when the data were collected. With regard to the gender of the employees that answered our questionnaire, 213 were women and 195 were men (52.28 and 47.72 per cent, respectively). All of these employees occupied non-managerial positions. These 408 employees were distributed in five different labour categories: reception and reservations, administration, cleaning and maintenance, catering and other services (spa, golf and social events organisation). Specifically, 59 employees (14.38 per cent) work in reception and reservations, 109 employees (26.79 per cent) in administration, 103 employees (25.16 per cent) in cleaning and maintenance, 109 employees (26.79 per cent) in catering and 21 employees (6.86 per cent) in other services such as spa, golf and social events organisation.

We have data from two different types of respondents from each firm: HR managers and four employees. Therefore, first of all, we determined whether the employees’ responses within each firm were similar, calculating the inter-rater agreement ratio (rwg) for OCB and IR following the procedures described by James et al. (1993). In both cases, we obtained favourable values: rwgedwards¼ 0.81 for OCB and rwg¼ 0.71 for IR. These results point to the agreement of the various respondents from the same firm and ensure the validity of aggregating the employees’ responses surveyed at the same firm. So, for each item, we used the average of the responses from the four employees from the same firm.

Consensus Consistency

IR

OCB

Distinctiveness

Figure 1. Theoretical model

288

ER 42,2

An ANOVA was performed to identify potential non-response bias. The ANOVA was carried out between respondent and non-respondent firms, considering industry membership, number of employees and revenue. The results revealed no significant differences between respondent and non-respondent firms, indicating that the data were not affected by non-response bias, as shown in Table I.

4.2 Measurement Strength of the HRM system. Following Bowen and Ostroff (2004), three dimensions of HRM strength were identified: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. The three dimensions of HRM system strength were measured using the scale proposed by Delmotte et al. (2012), who measured it as a composite of three subscales, which included the dimensions of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. All the items included in the questionnaire were measured using a five-point Likert scale.

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). The scale proposed by Kehoe and Wright (2013) was used to measure OCB. Employees were asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 5, the extent to which they agreed with six items related to their OCB.

Intention to remain (IR). We used the scale proposed by Kehoe and Wright (2013) to measure IR. Employees answered four items regarding their intention to remain with the firm on a scale from 1 to 5.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to assure the reliability and validity of all the scales considered in this study. Table II shows the results of the CFA (Goodness of fit: χ2¼ 417.7866; p¼ 0.01327; BB-NFI¼ 0.731; BB-NNFI¼ 0.939; CFI¼ 0.946; RMSEA¼ 0.037). Two factors were obtained for strength of HRM system – unlike the proposal formulated by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) – namely reputation of the HRM system (t¼ 3.10) and consistency (t¼ 3.21). Reputation of the HRM system comprised the dimensions of distinctiveness and consensus proposed by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). We have chosen the name “reputation” because the new construct includes items regarding distinctiveness sub-dimensions of visibility (e.g. “employees are regularly informed about the initiatives taken by the HR department”), legitimacy (items like “in general, the HR staff are appreciated in this organisation”) and relevance (“the HR department in this organisation has high added value”, for example). The sub-dimensions of consensus included in reputation of the HRM system are agreement and distributive justice, and comprised items such as “Senior management and HR management clearly share the same vision” and “in this organisation, rewards are clearly related to performance”, respectively. We consider that this new construct assesses the good image and credibility of the HRM system and the extent to which it is agreed.

Related to extra-role behaviour, two factors were obtained: OCB (t¼ 3.66) and IR (t¼ 3.62).

Table III shows correlations between factors as well as descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α.

Table III shows the reliability and validity of the scales used in this study. Reliability of the scales is guaranteed. Composite reliability is higher than 0.7 in all cases. Convergent

Mean SD F Sig.

Number of employees Respondent (0) Non-respondent (1)

1,599.38 1,796.05

2,017.008 2,978.421

6.047 0.542

Sales revenues Respondent (0) Non-respondent (1)

2.0E+008 2.0E+008

184,093,973.2 174,238,074.2

1.829 0.196

Labour costs Respondent (0) Non-respondent (1)

35,494,039 36,014,511

32,748,343.301 31,526,154.948

2.540 0.111 Table I.

Analysis of non- response bias

289

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

Reputation of HRM system Consistency OCB IR

Employees are regularly informed about the initiatives taken by the HR department

0.567

The HR staff has enough authority to get their ideas accepted 0.624 In this organisation, HRM is synonymous with excellent work 0.549 In general, the HR staff is met with much appreciation in this organisation

0.540

The HR department undertakes exactly those actions that meet our needs

0.636

The HR department in this organisation has a high added value 0.576 Many of the practices introduced by the HR department are useless (R)

0.510

HR management and line management are clearly on the same wavelength

0.674

All HR staff members in this firm mutually agree with the manner in which employees are managed

0.711

Top management and HR management clearly share the same vision

0.617

Management unanimously supports HR policy in this organisation

0.660

In this organisation, the distribution of bonuses and other rewards is perceives as fair by employees

0.482

In this organisation, employees consider promotions as fair 0.555 If employees perform well, they get the necessary recognition and rewards

0.616

In this organisation, rewards are clearly related to performance 0.522 In this organisation, the results of the yearly appraisals are generally considered as fair

0.608

The HR instruments for employee appraisal succeed in encouraging the desired behaviour

0.574

The HR practices implemented in this firm sound good in theory, but do not function in practice (R)

0.731

The appraisal procedure developed by the HR department, has in practice other effects than the intended effects (R)

0.565

There is a wide gap between intended and actual effects of HR initiatives (R)

0.688

The various HR initiatives send inconsistent signals (R) 0.603 The successive initiatives introduced by the HR department often clash badly (R)

0.542

Employees provide constructive suggestions about how their department can improve its effectiveness

0.663

For issues that may have serious consequences, employees express their opinions honestly even when others may disagree

0.689

Employees encourage others to try new and effective ways of doing their job

0.756

Employees help others who have large amounts of work 0.658 Employees willingly share their expertise with their coworkers 0.700 I plan to spend my career at this organisation 0.802 I intend to stay at this organisation for at least the next 12 months

0.756

I do not plan to look for a job outside of this company in the next 6 months

0.710

Notes: Goodness of fit: χ2¼ 417.7866; p¼ 0.01327; BB-NFI¼ 0.731; BB-NNFI¼ 0.939; CFI¼ 0.946; RMSEA¼ 0.037. All items are significant at 99 per cent

Table II. Confirmatory analysis factor (standardized solution)

290

ER 42,2

validity is assured by the average variance extracted (AVE), which in all cases is higher than 0.5 (Table IV ).

4.3 Results In order to test the proposed hypotheses, structural equations models (SEM) were used in order to analyse the goodness of fit of two different and opposite models using EQS 6.4 statistical software. It is an appropriate technique for identifying the presence of mediating role of consistency in the relationships between visibility/consensus and OCB/IR. Two different analyses were applied, simultaneously, each one corresponding to a different dependent variable, OCB vs IR.

The results show a direct and positive relationship between reputation of the HRM system and consistency (Model 2 in Tables V and VI), and between consistency and OCB and IR (Model 3 in Table V and Model 3 in Table VI). These results indicate that H1b is supported. Furthermore, as shown by Model 1 in Table V and Model 1 in Table VI, there are direct and positive relationships between reputation of the HRM system and OCB and IR, respectively. As reputation combines items from distinctiveness and consensus, H1a and H1c are partially supported.

Mean SD Reputation of HRM system Consistency OCB IR

Reputation of HRM system 3.9846 0.9644 (0.900) Consistency 4.6000 0.7635 0.496** (0.893) OCB 4.6462 0.6689 0.563** 0.462** (0.828) IR 4.0462 0.1197 0.481* 0.144*** 0.478** (0.872) Notes: Cronbach’s α appear on the diagonal. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001

Table III. Correlations and

descriptive statistics

Reputation of HRM system Consistency OCB IR Composite reliability

Reputation of HRM system 0.858 0.932 Consistency 0.246 0.729 0.856 OCB 0.317 0.213 0.731 0.886 IR 0.231 0.020 0.228 0.582 0.824 Notes: The values in the diagonal are the average variance extracted of each factor (AVE); The rest of the numbers correspond to the existing squared correlations between factors

Table IV. Discriminant validity

Independent variables Model 1 dependent

variable OCB Model 2 dependent variable consistency

Model 3 dependent variable OCB

Reputation of HRM system 0.362** 0.390** 0.303** Consistency 0.125*

Goodness of fit χ2 200.0437 200.0307 199.1097 p 0.02893 0.02897 0.02838 BB-NFI 0.746 0.746 0.748 BB-NNFI 0.930 0.930 0.930 CFI 0.940 0.940 0.940 RMSEA 0.047 0.047 0.047

Table V. Results related to OCB

291

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

Since a new dimension was created for this study, namely “Reputation” of the HRM system, which combined distinctiveness and consensus, H2 could not be tested in the way it was theoretically suggested originally. Nevertheless, the new dimension of “reputation”was seen to have a positive and significant effect on consistency. As the new dimension mixes items from distinctiveness and consensus, H2 is partially supported.

The final tests conducted sought to ascertain whether consistency mediates in the relationships between reputation of the HRM system and OCB and IR (H3). In order to do so, the method proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981) was used, which consists of estimating three models.

Model 1:

Y ¼ b11 Xþe1:

Model 2:

Me ¼ b21 Xþe2:

Model 3:

Y ¼ b31Xþb32Meþe3;

where Y is the dependent variable, X the independent variable and Me is the mediator variable. Furthermore, the following conditions must be met:

(1) in the second equation, β21 must be significant;

(2) in the third equation, β32 must be significant; and

(3) in the third equation, β31 must be less than (in absolute terms) β11 in the first equation.

Tables V and VI show the results for the regressions where the independent variables (OCB and IR, respectively) and the mediator variable (consistency) are considered. The pattern for different coefficients related to reputation of the HRM system, consistency, OCB and IR fulfil all the aforementioned proposed conditions (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Judd and Kenny, 1981).

Therefore, the results initially support the mediating effect of consistency in the relationships between reputation of the HRM system and OCB and IR as shown in Tables V and VI and in Figure 2. These results indicate that H3 is supported.

5. Discussion, implications and future research lines The main objectives of this paper were, first, to study how HRM process or strength (instead of content) is associated with employee outcomes and, second, to see the internal configuration

Independent variables Model 1 dependent

variable IR Model 2 dependent variable consistency

Model 3 dependent variable IR

Reputation of HRM system 0.345*** 0.390** 0.288** Consistency 0.121*

Goodness of fit χ2 240.7726 200.0307 239.9788 p 0.02897 0.02897 0.03118 BB-NFI 0.741 0.746 0.742 BB-NNFI 0.937 0.930 0.936 CFI 0.945 0.940 0.944 RMSEA 0.044 0.047 0.044

Table VI. Results related to IR

292

ER 42,2

and relationships within HRM strength itself. To this end, a survey was conducted on a sample of HR managers and employees in the hospitality sector, since these managers make major decisions regarding HR issues. In light of the results obtained, this paper makes a contribution to the theory and has practical implications that can be discussed.

In relation to the first objective, our results confirm the direct and positive effects of HRM system strength on both OCB and IR. However, only two features are identified: reputation and consistency. In any case, this research has corroborated that employees are more committed and engaged when the HRM system is strong, specifically when the HRM system has a strong reputation (it is visible, relevant, legitimate, agreed and fair) and a high level of consistency. Our results are in line with previous studies such as those of Sanders et al. (2008), Li et al. (2011), Hauff et al. (2017) and Cafferkey et al. (2019), which have revealed the direct impact of HRM system strength on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours. Hence, the few empirical studies conducted to date have shown that the features of the HRM system have value in themselves, regardless of the specific HR practices, highlighting the relevance of the HRM process approach (Hauff et al., 2017).

In relation to the second objective of the paper, that is, to test the internal effects between the dimensions of strength, we have found that a new dimension labelled “reputation of the HRM system” improves its consistency. In other words, it is not possible to talk about consistent HRM systems unless they guarantee, as a prerequisite, certain mixed characteristics of distinctiveness and consensus. This result confirms and even enriches somewhat the proposal made by Ostroff and Bowen (2016) that consensus is the necessary antecedent to develop strong HRM systems, although in this case a hybrid between distinctiveness and consensus is considered to be the antecedent. Furthermore, the fact that consistency mediates between the reputation of an HRM system and OCB seems to reinforce that suggestion. In any case, more research is needed to confirm the interrelations between the features of HRM system strength. In that regard, Hauff et al. (2017) pointed out that “the different components of strength are more interrelated than expected” (p. 725).

It is also interesting to note the failure to obtain three reliable and valid dimensions of HRM strength, such as the theoretical ones of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. Interestingly, the measurement model used here defined a new dimension that combines items from distinctiveness and consensus. It seems that HR managers consider both dimensions to be a single factor, pertaining to the “Reputation” of the HRM system, as it combines notions of visibility, relevance, legitimacy, agreement and fairness. These dimensions are related to the concept of employer branding, which emphasises the organisation’s goal relating to managing its identity as an employer and creating an image for itself as a “great place to work” to attract potential and retain current employees

Reputation of HRM system

Consistency

IR

OCB

0.362**

0.121*

0.125*

0.390**

0.345***

Notes: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Figure 2. Tested model

293

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

(Ambler and Barrow, 1996). Our results are in line with these kinds of studies, where brand distinctiveness and brand prestige were found to have a positive effect on employees’ brand commitment (App and Büttgen, 2016). Along similar lines, we have found that the “reputation” of the HRM system is positively related to OCB and intention to remain.

Hence, an interesting question arises regarding the differences and similarities between the notion of employer branding and the reputation feature of the HRM system. The origin and the objectives of these concepts are different. Employer branding comes from the field of marketing and emphasises the company’s image, establishing the identity of the firm as an employer for its actual and potential employees (Edwards, 2009). Whereas the reputation of the HRM system is focused on the internal image, facilitating common expectations that guide employees towards the desired responses. Therefore, reputation, as part of the HRM system strength, seeks to achieve certain behaviours among employees, playing a central role in the translation of designed into implemented HRM practices (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). In short, reputation is a feature of the HRM system that seeks to influence employees’ behaviour, whereas the main objective of employer branding is to create the identity of the firm as an employer, highlighting its differentiated offering regarding its competitors (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004).

In previous studies, distinctiveness was the strongest predictor of target outcomes (Hewett et al., 2018), as found by Li et al. (2011) in relation to work satisfaction and vigour, or in the case of Sanders et al. (2008) in relation to affective commitment. Furthermore, Aksoy and Bayazit (2014) found that consensus and consistency were significant predictors of goal quality and strength but only when mediated by distinctiveness. In our case, the distinctiveness dimension merges with consensus, but our relabelling as “reputation” emphasises the image and relevance of the HRM system, as explained above, in line with the concept of employer branding, which in turn necessarily implies a certain degree of distinctiveness.

The HRM contextual approach (Farndale et al., 2017; Martín-Alcázar et al., 2005) can also be helpful in understanding this interesting but unexpected result. Following this approach, the HRM function is integrated within the macro-social framework with which it interacts, conditioning HRM strategy. Therefore, the Spanish economic context, and especially in the case of the hospitality sector that has suffered the effects of recent crises, may explain managerial concerns regarding how to enhance the legitimacy and good image of the HRM function. Consequently, the reputational dimension of the HRM system is outstanding in this particular context, although future research should explore this in more detail.

The results discussed previously also have some interesting practical implications. First, HR managers should be aware of the need to guarantee the good image and respectfulness of the HR function; something that is critical in the “post crisis” context and which is covered by the new dimension of “Reputation”. Hence, it is suggested that HRM departments should invest in reporting their practices to employees, explaining how they add value, agree with line managers or how well performance is rewarded, to cite a few examples of reputational practices. Second, our results show that investment in this “Reputation” of the HRM system will produce positive outcomes, as it leverages both IR and OCB in employees. Finally, if managers consider OCB to be an extra-role behaviour and a bonus over and above the mere IR, they must design and implement HRM systems that guarantee at the same time its consistency and reputation. In other words, consistency will motivate OCB, and such consistency will benefit from a good reputation of the HRM system. Again, it is recommended that managers do their best in explaining how intended and realised HRM practices converge, something that is critical in the case of performance appraisals.

These results present certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional data design is not the best choice for testing causality within internal dimensions of HRM system strength.

294

ER 42,2

A longitudinal data set would be preferable. Second, variables were measured by just one of the main actors involved in HRM: HR managers. Bou-LLusar et al. (2016) recognise that HR managers can be key informants because they possess the most qualified knowledge about the variables studied. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to complement and even compare their point of view by considering the perceptions of employees or workers’ representatives regarding these issues. In this regard, the work carried out by Sanders et al. (2008) is outstanding and could be used as a guideline for methodological issues. Third, it would have been useful to verify empirically whether OCB and IR help to improve hotel results ( financial ratios, customer satisfaction, etc.), since the literature suggests that employee behaviours can influence firm performance (Katou et al., 2014; Sarikwal and Gupta, 2013).

However, the limitations explained above could provide potential and promising research avenues to explore. Other future research lines could address questions regarding the need to consider new ways of managing employees. In this regard, one option would be to explore the extent to which the strength dimensions we obtained leverage the effects of HRM practices that are oriented towards sustainability or social responsibility, as these practices are concerned with the needs of employees and other stakeholders (Barrena-Martínez et al., 2019; Guerci et al., 2018). Future research might also establish links between the reputation of an HRM system and employer branding, as suggested previously. Finally, subsequent research could study other possibilities of internal relationships within the concept of strength, considering the new feature of reputation. This new feature, reputation, might moderate the relationship between consistency and OCB, as a reputational HRM system can act as a valid vehicle to reinforce consistent messages sent to employees, for example.

In summary, the findings presented here demonstrate the effects of HRM strength dimensions on employee OCB and IR. A different internal configuration of strength dimensions is obtained, suggesting interactions between them. These results make a contribution to the emerging debate surrounding HRM content vs process and how they interact in order to produce employee outcomes, a debate that is generating high expectations among researchers and practitioners.

References

Aksoy, E. and Bayazit, M. (2014), “The relationships between MBO system strength and goal‐climate quality and strength”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 505-525.

Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 185-206.

App, S. and Büttgen, M. (2016), “Lasting footprints of the employer brand: can sustainable HRM lead to brand commitment?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 703-723.

Arthur, J. and Boyles, T. (2007), “Validating the human resource system structure: a levels-based strategic HRM approach”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-92.

Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 501-517.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.

Baron, J.N. and Kreps, D.M. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

295

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

Barrena-Martínez, J., López-Fernández, M. and Romero-Fernández, P.M. (2019), “Towards a configuration of socially responsible human resource management policies and practices: findings from an academic consensus”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 17, pp. 2544-2580.

Batt, R. and Valcour, P.M. (2003), “Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover”, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 189-220, doi: 10.1111/1468-232X.00287.

Bednall, T.C., Sanders, K. and Runhaar, P. (2014), “Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and HRM system strength: a two-wave study”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 45-61, doi: 10.5465/ amle.2012.0162.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), “Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 67-94, doi: 10.1111/j.1748- 8583.2005.tb00154.x.

Bou-LLusar, J.C., Beltrán-Martín, I., Roca-Puig, V. and Escrig-Tena, A.B. (2016), “Single- and multiple- informant research designs to examine the human resource management- performance relationship”, British Journal Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 646-668, doi: 10.1111/1467- 8551.12177.

Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2004.12736076.

Cafferkey, K., Heffernan, M., Harney, B., Dundon, T. and Townsend, K. (2019), “Perceptions of HRM system strength and affective commitment: the role of human relations and internal process climate”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 21, pp. 3026-3048.

Coelho, J.P., Cunha, R.C., Gomes, J.F.S. and Correia, A.G. (2012), “Developing and validating a measure of the strength of the HRM system: operationalizing the construct and relationships among its dimensions”, Working Paper No. 0562, Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon.

Colquitt, J.A. and Rodell, J.B. (2011), “Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: a longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1183-1206, doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.0572.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001), “Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 164-209, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791.

Dalal, R.S. (2005), “Ameta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1241-1255, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.

Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 802-835, doi: 10.5465/256713.

Delmotte, J., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2012), “Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system strength: scale development and validation”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1481-1506, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.579921.

Edwards, M.R. (2009), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Farndale, E., Ligthart, P., Poutsma, E. and Brewster, C.J. (2017), “The effects of market economy type and foreign MNE subsidiaries on the convergence and divergence of HRM”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 1065-1086.

Feldman, J.M. (1981), “Perception, cognition, and the organization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 128-138.

Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009), “Trust repair after an organization-level failure”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-145, doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.35713319.

296

ER 42,2

Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 166-167, doi: 10.2307/2092623.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: appling a multi-level, multi-domain perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247, doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.

Guerci, M., Decramer, A., Van Waeyenberg, T. and Aust, I. (2018), “Moving beyond the link between HRM and economic performance: a study on the individual reactions of HR managers and professionals to sustainable HRM”, Journal of Business Ethics, April, pp. 1-18, available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3879-1

Guest, D. and Conway, N. (2011), “The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a ‘strong HR system’ on organisational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1686-1702.

Hauff, S., Alewell, D. and Katrin Hansen, N. (2017), “HRM system strength and HRM target achievement—toward a broader understanding of HRM processes”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 715-729.

Heffernan, M., Harney, B., Cafferkey, K. and Dundon, T. (2016), “Exploring the HRM-performance relationship: the role of creativity climate and strategy”,Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 438-462.

Hewett, R., Shantz, A., Mundy, J. and Alfes, K. (2018), “Attribution theories in human resource management: a review and research agenda”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-126.

Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-672, doi: 10.2307/256741.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-309.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1264-1294, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0088.

Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), “Process analysis: estimating mediation in evaluation research”, Evaluation Research, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 602-619, doi: 10.1177/0193841X8100500502.

Katou, A.A., Budhwar, P.S. and Patel, C. (2014), “Content vs. process in the HRM-performance relationship: an empirical examination”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 527-544, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21606.

Kehoe, R. and Wright, P. (2013), “The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ actitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 366-391, doi: 10.1177/0149206310365901.

Kelley, G.A. (1955),ATheory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, NY.

Kelley, H.H. (1967), “Attribution theory in social psychology”, in Levine, D. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 15, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 192-240.

Kellner, A., Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A., Greenfield, D. and Lawrence, S. (2016), “The message and the messenger: identifying and communicating a high performance HRM philosophy”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1240-1258.

Kelman, H.C. and Hamilton, V.C. (1989), Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Kim, K.Y., Eisenberger, R. and Baik, K. (2016), “Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: moderating influence of perceived organizational competence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 558-583, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698.

Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E. and Brockner, J. (2007), “Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 841-866, doi: 10.1177/0149206307307635.

297

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system

Li, X., Frenkel, S.J. and Sanders, K. (2011), “Strategic HRM as process: how HR system and organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1825-1842.

McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637, doi: 10.2307/256489.

Martín-Alcázar, F., Romero-Fernández, P. and Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2005), “Strategic human resource management: integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual perspectives”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 633-659, doi: 10.1080/09585190500082519.

Moorman, R.H. (1993), “The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 759-776, doi: 10.1177/001872679304600604.

Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.

Ostroff, C. and Bowen, D.E. (2016), “Reflections on the 2014 decade award: is there strength in the construct of HR system strength?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 196-214, doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0323.

Özbek, M.F., Yoldash, M.A. and Tang, T.L.P. (2016), “Theory of justice, OCB, and individualism: Kyrgyz citizens”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 365-382, doi: 10.1007/s1055.

Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 129-142, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00809.x.

Renkema, M., Meijerink, J. and Bondarouk, T. (2017), “Advancing multilevel thinking in human resource management research: applications and guidelines”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 397-415.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 525-546.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contract in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Rousseau, D.M. and Greller, M. (1994), “Human resource practices: administrative contract makers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 385-401, doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930330308.

Rousseau, D.M. and Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1994), “Linking strategy and human resource practices: how employee and customer contracts are created”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 463-489, doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930330312.

Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 537-543, doi: 10.1002/job.380.

Sanders, K. and Yang, H. (2016), “The HRM process approach: the influence of employees’ attribution to explain the HRM-performance relationship”,HumanResourceManagement, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 201-217.

Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L. and de Reuver, R. (2008), “The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: considering climate strength”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 412-425, doi: 10.1108/00483480810877589.

Sarikwal, L. and Gupta, J. (2013), “The impact of high performance work practices and organisational citizenship behaviour on turnover intentions”, Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 11-19.

298

ER 42,2

Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 207-219, doi: 10.5465/ame.1987.4275740.

Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1089-1121, doi: 10.2307/256928.

Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. and Rapp, A.A. (2013), “Feeling good by doing good: employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 577-588, doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1590-1.

Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY. Waldman, D.A. and Bowen, D.E. (1998), “The acceptability of 360-degree appraisals: a customer-

supplier relationship perspective”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 117-130, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199822)37:2.

White, M. and Bryson, A. (2013), “Positive employee attitudes: how much human resource management do you need?”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 385-406, doi: 10.1177/0018726712465096.

Whitener (2001), “Do ‘High Commitment HRM Practices’ affect employee commitment?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-535.

Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-326, available at: http://DOI.org/10.1080/09585199400000020

About the authors Dolores de la Rosa-Navarro is Assistant Professor of Business Administration in the Business Administration Department, Pablo de Olavide University (Seville). She received a PhD Degree in Business Administration from the Pablo de Olavide University in 2006. She has been Visiting Scholar at the Carlos III University (Madrid), Tilburg University (The Netherlands) and King’s College of London. Her current work focuses on research in organisational behaviour, leadership, and employment relationships. She has published in journals like British Journal of Management or European Journal of Management and Business Economics. Dolores de la Rosa-Navarro is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Mirta Díaz-Fernández is Assistant Professor of Management in the Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain. Her research interests include strategic human resource management, compensation, individual competencies and intellectual capital. Her publications include The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Business Research Quarterly and Personnel Review.

Alvaro Lopez-Cabrales is Associate Professor of Human Resource Management in the Business Administration Department, Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), where he obtained his Doctorate Degree in 2003. He has been Visiting Scholar at the Texas A&M University, in the USA. His current work focuses on research in human capital, employment relationships, organisational capabilities and innovation. He is publishing his research in international journals as Human Resource Management, R&D Management, Personnel Review, British Journal of Management or The International Journal of Human Resource Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

299

Disentangling the strength of

the HRM system