Edgar and Geare Article

Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources
http://apj.sagepub.com/
Employee voice on human resource management

Fiona Edgar and Alan J. Geare
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2005 43: 361
DOI: 10.1177/1038411105058707
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)
Additional services and information for Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://apj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://apj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/361.refs.html
Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011
APJHR_43_3_Edgar.qxd
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
Page 361
2005 43(3)
Employee voice on human resource management

Fiona Edgar and Alan J. Geare
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Empirical research on human resource management (HRM) practice has mainly

assessed and evaluated the activity from an employers perspective. Concern has
been expressed about the lack of empirical analysis conducted from the employees
perspective. This exploratory study begins to fill this gap in the literature by
examining the current views that 626 New Zealand employees have about HRM
in their organisations. It identified those aspects of HRM that are important to an
employee in the employment relationship today, and highlighted a number of shared
concerns about practices in their organisations. This study found that, from an
employees perspective, training and development is becoming an increasingly
important issue. Employer investment in this area may have the greatest potential
to contribute beneficially to organisational performance.
These findings suggest that not all HRM practices are equally beneficial in
terms of the outcomes they produce, and practitioners may need to identify and
implement those practices that have the most usefulness. The results also provide
insights for academics and practitioners to use as they seek to develop new policies
and practices that are aimed at maximising the potential of people in the workplace.
Keywords: employees, human resource management, New Zealand
Most research in the area of human resource management (HRM) has been
conducted from a managerial or academic perspective, and, apart from some
rare exceptions (Guest 1999; Cully, Woodland, OReilly and Dix 1999), the
employee voice has been afforded very little attention. This situation developed
even though employees are considered to be an organisations most important
asset and most models of HRM identify them as being an important stakeholder in the employment relationship. This paper builds the employee
Correspondence to: Dr Fiona Edgar, Department of Management, University of Otago, PO

Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; fax: +643 479 8173; e-mail: fedgar@business.otago.ac.nz
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and
New Delhi; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright 2005
Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 43(3): 361380. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411105058707.
361
362
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 362
2005 43(3)
viewpoint into HRM by exploring their views on HRM practice and identifying what it is about HRM they consider important. In doing so some of the
ways incorporating the employee voice into studies on HRM can benefit the
field are highlighted.
Models of HRM
All variants of HRM are ultimately concerned with the effective management
of people so that organisations achieve their objectives and goals. However, at
least according to the British literature (Keenoy 1990), the two principal models
of HRM that came from the United States in the 1980s differ significantly.
There is the strategic model of HRM (Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna 1984),
characterised as hard, and the Harvard variant (Beer, Spector, Lawrence,
Quinn-Mills and Walton 1984; Walton 1985) characterised as soft.
Under the hard model, the effectiveness of HRM is measured using some
sort of criteria that reflects organisational performance (for example, profitability, productivity levels, absenteeism, and turnover rates see Edwards
1995; Becker and Gerhart 1996; Huselid 1995). Here the outcomes from the
effective utilisation of human resources for the organisation are of paramount
importance, whereas outcomes for employees do not enter into the equation
thus with this model employees are largely considered a means to an end.
Under the soft model of HRM, business performance is still the primary
objective, but importance is also attached to employee well-being and employee
commitment. Employee well-being is an end in itself, and can be used as a
measure of effectiveness of HRM (Guest 1999). It is also a means to employee
commitment, which in turn is a means to improved business performance.
From an ethical viewpoint this balancing of the needs and interests of the
organisation with those of individuals is widely supported and seen as a
necessary obligation on the part of employers (Payne and Wayland 1999).
Securing employee commitment has come to be seen as pivotal to the
success of HRM. For example, Guest (1999, 6) claims only by winning the
commitment of employees is it possible to achieve corporate goals and furthermore suggests (Guest 1998, 42): The concept of organisational commitment
lies at the heart of any analysis of HRM. Indeed, the whole rationale for introducing HRM policies is to increase levels of worker commitment so that other
positive outcomes can ensue.
Underpinning this relationship is the view that employee attitudes and
behaviours can be affected by human resource policies and practices and it is
this perspective which has been adopted by most HRM researchers (Whitener
2001; Arthur 1994). However, it is likely some practitioners face some very real
dilemmas as they try to reconcile the rhetoric of soft HRM with its emphasis
on developing employee commitment, when for many employees the employment relationship is no longer based on permanence (Mallon 1998; Fournier
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 363
Employee voice on HRM
1997). The adoption of flatter organisational structures may compound this

problem by reducing the potential for employees to move upward within an
organisation. While progression can be achieved through the promotion of
lateral development and realistic job previews (as opposed to hierarchal
progression), and Fournier (1997, 366) reports these to be consistent with the
literature on the new career model, it is not always achievable. Indeed, it has
been argued that some organisations utilise this new concept of career, with
its emphasis on individuality, as a means of controlling employee behaviour in
the workplace (Dyer and Humphries 2002; Fournier 1997).
The new workplace culture, which is built around the promotion of individualism (evidenced by the increasing emphasis and adoption of practices such
as performance-based pay), must surely conflict with the implementation of
practices such as team-working and quality circles that are collective ways of
working. Similarly, equal employment opportunity (EEO) practices have been
shown to most useful when they are operated within a collective model and do
not fit comfortably where the emphasis is on the individual (Whitehouse 1992).
Hendry and Jenkins point out that where employers attempt to maintain the
rhetoric of organisational commitment yet implement changes such as those
mentioned above, a situation is created whereby an agenda is produced for practitioners that is long on intentions and short on deliverables and inevitably
results in a lack of coherence in employment policies (1997, 41). The popular
press has tried to reconceptualise the construct of commitment in light of the
changing nature of employment (Stum 1999), but this redefining process does
not necessarily facilitate the development of new policies and practices to meet
the needs of employees today.
The need for employee voice
There are a number of logical reasons why employee voice is needed. First, if
it is accepted that employees are important stakeholders, then exploring their
views on HRM makes empirically testing of some of the assumptions and relationships in HRM more accurate. For example, while there is some support
available to suggest soft HRM does indeed achieve its aim of improving
employee well-being (Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli 1997; Guest 1999; Wood
and Albanese 1995; Wood 1995; Ogilvie 1986), some researchers, however,
remain unconvinced (Legge 1995; Keenoy 1990; Iles, Mabey and Robertson
1990). For example, Iles, Mabey and Robertson (1990, 151) comment:
as is often the case with much of the HRM literature, the data are almost
entirely gathered through interviews with a small number of managers,
rather than through more systematic measurement: they may therefore
simply reflect managerial rhetoric or managerial beliefs about what has
happened or what should happen.
363
364
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 364
2005 43(3)
This mismatch between managerial rhetoric and reality is a major

problem that is continually raised in the HRM literature (Edwards 1995; Guest
1995). While most managers claim to use practices associated with soft HRM,
the reality is found to be different. This difference is referred to as a
rhetoricreality gap. Recently, some attempt has been made to highlight this
problem by incorporating the employee viewpoint into HRM studies (Guest
1999; Cully, Woodland, OReilly and Dix 1999).
Also if soft HRM is to realise its full potential, then the practices engendered by it must be those that are believed to be important to the employee
(Koys 1988). But what is important to the employee with respect to the employment relationship today is a question that has received little empirical attention.
So obtaining employee views about HRM allows us to explore some of these
relationships by providing insights into how effective employees consider
current HRM policy and practice to be.
Hard HRM, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the attainment of
organisational goals. But even if we are only concerned with outcomes such as
profitability, getting employee views is still important, given that, if
employees are dissatisfied in the workplace, then high levels of dissatisfaction
in the long term is likely to impact on profitability.
A further reason for including the employee perspective in HRM research
relates to the benefits that come from encouraging researchers to adopt a
multi-constituency approach to data collection. To date, information on the
effectiveness of HRM has been obtained primarily from managers/employers,
with little else to confirm or deny its accuracy. Since employers are reporting
on their own HRM practices, this increases the likelihood of social response
bias. Furthermore, as Guest (2001) observes, the employer reports on the effectiveness of their HRM policies and practices from their perspective as a
manager, not from their experience of the actual practices they are not the
consumers of HRM, the employee is. So collecting data from employees as well
as employers and other relevant stakeholders is likely to enhance the reliability
of findings reported in studies on HRM.
Finally and perhaps the most important reason is that HRM is fundamentally built around the view that employees are the organisations greatest
asset, and therefore should be afforded some voice in research into HRM.
Research objectives
This paper examines aspects of the soft HRM model. Its research objectives
are, first, to examine the strength of employees views as to whether HRM
practice is taking place in their organisations. Second, it gives the employees
evaluations of HRM functions. The paper also reports on employees self-evaluations of their levels of commitment and their levels of well-being. The rela-
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 365
tionships between employee commitment, employee well-being and employee

views on HRM practice are then explored.
Studies in HRM have identified that HRM professionals need to respond
more effectively to employee needs (Armstrong 2001). Moreover, it has been
suggested that HRM practices are one means by which organisations can
demonstrate their support for, or commitment to, their employees and, in turn,
foster a reciprocal attachment by employees (Meyer and Smith 2000, 327).
Thus it is suggested that the usefulness of some HRM practices are likely to be
thwarted if the perspectives of academics and practitioners about what constitutes soft HRM and hence which HRM practices are important are not
congruent with the views of employees. So a final objective of this paper is to
identify which aspects of HRM, employees currently consider important.
This paper makes a contribution to the literature in that most research on
HRM practice has relied solely on employer reports (Cully et al. 1999) and
ignored employees views. The more informed employers and academics are
with regards to employees views about the importance and value of HRM
practices, the greater the probability that initiatives in introducing HRM
practices will be effective.
Approach
This study involves an examination of employee attitudes towards a number
of HRM initiatives. Perceptual evaluations related to employer performance
and the importance of HRM are investigated across ten functional areas. As
data presented here were originally collected to assess the impact of government legislation on HRM, the four functional areas of HRM covered by the
legislation (i.e. health and safety; training and development; EEO; and recruitment and selection) are studied in depth. While a limitation, the use of specific
HRM domains in research examining HRM practice has been the approach
most commonly adopted in prior studies (Meyer and Smith 2000).
This study first explores HRM practice in the workplace. To examine this
employees are asked to indicate the extent they consider a range of soft HRM
initiatives across those four functional areas mentioned above have been operationalised in their workplace. Second, an overall evaluative rating of employer
performance across a broader range of functional HRM areas (ten in total) is
obtained. An examination of the relationship between employee assessments of
operationalised HRM practice, along with employee evaluations of employer
performance and employee work-related attitudes is then undertaken. Finally,
the analysis identifies those areas of HRM employees consider to be most
important in order to establish which HRM practices are most likely to have
the potential to elicit desirable employee outcomes, and thus contribute positively to organisational performance.
365
366
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 366
2005 43(3)
Method
Participants for this study were secured by firstly writing to all those employers
in the Wellington and Christchurch regions, listed in the New Zealand business
whos who, with 50 or more employees. In total 234 organisations were
contacted, with reminder letters being sent to those who had not responded
one month after the initial contact was made. Of these 234, a total of 52 agreed
to participate (22%). Twelve of these 52 subsequently withdrew their consent,
leaving a total sample of 40 organisations. This low response is not uncommon
at the organisational level and research by Tomaskovic-Devey, Leiter and
Thompson (1994) has found that organisational non-response is predominantly
the result of organisations either not wanting to divulge confidential information or an unwillingness to expend the time involved.
Participation was voluntary, confidentiality was guaranteed, and the
company fully endorsed their participation. The targeted population of
employees consisted of a total of 1075 full- and part-time workers. A total of
626 employees responded (a response rate of 58%) by completing the questionnaire and returning it in the reply-paid envelope provided. This response
rate compares very favourably for survey research in this area (Scandura and
Williams 2000). Employers were requested to distribute the surveys to a representative sample of their workforce, in terms of occupational classification,
ethnicity and gender. The number of employees in each organisational sample
was based on organisation size, with 10 per cent (a minimum of 20 and a
maximum of 50) of employees from each organisation being requested to
participate.
The data were analysed using SPSS 10.1, a statistical analysis program
specifically designed for use in the social sciences. The results reported here
primarily involve the analysis and reporting of descriptive and frequency data,
along with correlation analyses aimed at assessing the relationships between
the variables.
The survey administered to employees included a section requesting a
range of demographic information, such as ethnicity, gender, occupation and
age. The strength of soft HRM practice is measured using a 20-item perceptual scale (a = 0.9256), comprising five items for each of the four areas
examined. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed
(using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly
agree = 5) with each of these statements (for example: EEO is promoted
within this organisation). The five items for each functional area were
later collapsed, enabling the relationship between assessments about
the strength of HRM practice and levels of employee commitment and
employee well-being to be explored. Three additional HRM-focused
questions tapping the employees overall impression of their employer were
also included.
Employee commitment is measured using a shortened version of the
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 367
Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) 15-item survey instrument (Organisational

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)), which has been proven to have sound
psychometric properties. The measure has six items (a = 0.8535), with respondents again being asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each
of the statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Two employee attitudes are used to measure employee well-being (organisational fairness and job satisfaction). A brief discussion on their selection is
warranted.
The systems, policies and procedures that are operating in an organisation can impact on an individuals perceptions of bias and fairness (Kurland
and Egan 1999). Fairness has also been linked to several dimensions of organisational citizenship, including courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness (Schappe 1998, 279). If an organisation is perceived by its employees to
perform HRM practice well, then it is likely that employees will report high
levels of organisational fairness. This study measures the construct using an
adapted and shortened version of the scale used by Moorman (1991) which has
been reported as being a reliable and valid measure. The measure has six items
(a = 0.9160), with respondents being asked to indicate the extent to which they
agreed with each of the statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
A multitude of measures are available for measuring job satisfaction
(Warr, Cook and Wall 1979; Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist 1967). This
study used an adapted and shortened form of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) (short form) (Hirschfeld 2000). This scale broadly
conceptualises job satisfaction as being the extent to which an individuals
requirements are fulfilled by the organisation (Schappe 1998, 282). This
measure has been widely used in management research, and has been reported
as being suitable for a range of research applications (Rentsch and Steel 1992).
This measure has been proven to be psychometrically acceptable, simple in
format and short in length (Schappe 1998). The scale has six items (a = 0.8554)
tapping both the intrinsic (how people feel about the nature of their job tasks
themselves) and extrinsic (how people feel about aspects of the work situation
that are external to the job or work itself) dimensions of job satisfaction
(Hirschfeld 2000, 256), and specifically addresses the effectiveness of organisational policies. Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were
with respect to each of the statements, and a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied was used.
Three additional questions were included. The first question asked
employees to rate the overall performance of their employer across a broader
range of ten functional areas of HRM practice. They were then asked to
identify, from this list of ten practices, the four they considered were the most
important and to indicate how important they considered each of the four
HRM functions comprising the focus of this study to be. Provision was also
367
368
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 368
2005 43(3)
made for employees to make any additional comments about HRM practices
in their organisation should they wish to do so.
The sample
An analysis of the demographic data obtained from participants is presented
in table 1. The sample is skewed in terms of occupational classification. Some
53 per cent of participants classified themselves as belonging to the professional occupational grouping. However, this groups representation in the
actual labour force is considerably lower. The remaining variables are reasonably representative of these groups respective representation rates in the New
Zealand labor force.
Results
Employees were first asked to assess the strength of current operationalised
HRM practice in their organisations as well as provide an overall impression
of their employer by indicating the extent to which they agreed with each
statement (see table 2). The results show employees tended to agree or moderately agree with all of the statements on soft HRM practice. This suggests that
all of the HRM practices in those areas examined are indeed used in their
organisations.
Participants were then asked to provide an evaluative rating of their
employers current performance for a range of HRM areas (see table 3). Ratings
of employer performance across these functions reveal some differences of
sizeable magnitude. While the functions of health and safety, sexual harassment and EEO appear to be performed relatively well, others, notably
Table 1
Demographics of employee sample (N = 626)
Demographic
variable
Percentage (%)
Gender
Males
Females
46
54
Age
Under 20
2050
Over 50
2
78
20
Ethnicity
European
Maori
Polynesian
Chinese
Other
78
7
5
5
5
Demographic
variable
Percentage (%)
Length of service
Less than 1 year
15 years
6 years plus
16
47
37
Occupation
Professional
Semi-professional
Clerical/administration
Trades
Labourer
Other
53
13
24
3
3
4
Sector
Public
Private
55
45
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 369
Table 2
Employees assessments* of current operationalised HRM practice (N = 626)
No.
Area
Statement of HRM practice
Mean score (SD)
H&S
Working conditions are good
H&S
Employer addresses health issues
3.95 (1.147)
H&S
Employer addresses safety issues
4.21 (.958)
H&S
Employer addresses worker well-being
4.02 (1.053)
H&S
Money is spent on health & safety
3.88 (1.048)
R&S
Operate impartial recruitment & selection process
3.72 (1.076)
R&S
Favouritism not evident
3.57 (1.179)
R&S
Interview panels used
3.93 (1.152)
R&S
Organisation pays attention to recruitment processes
3.10 (1.237)
4.18 (.924)
10
R&S
All appointments based on merit
3.48 (1.225)
11
EEO
Spends enough money on EEO
3.37 (1.037)
12
EEO
Supports workfamily life balance
3.85 (1.064)
13
EEO
Supports cultural difference
3.82 (.996)
14
EEO
Men & women have the same opportunities
3.86 (1.155)
15
EEO
Promotes EEO
3.69 (1.047)
16
T&D
Encourages staff to extend abilities
3.91 (1.091)
17
T&D
Provides training opportunities
3.86 (1.137)
18
T&D
Discusses training & development requirements
3.84 (1.176)
19
T&D
Pays for work-related training
3.89 (1.117)
20
T&D
Committed to training and developing employees
3.88 (1.048)
21
Overall
Organisation is a good place to work
4.16 (.951)
22
Overall
Employer is a good employer
4.09 (.989)
23
Overall
HRM practices are good
3.87 (1.055)
* 1 = Employee strongly disagrees this practice occurs in their workplace, 5 = Employee strongly agrees
this practice occurs in their workplace
performance appraisal, discipline / discharge and promotion, are considered

not to be performed well at all. The former three areas are to differing degrees
covered by legislation in New Zealand, and it may be that compliance with
legislation improves performance. On the other hand, with the possible
exception of discipline and discharge, the poor performing areas are those
where employers have more discretion in how they deal with their employees.
Increased managerial prerogative in certain HRM areas may either create an
impression, or reflect a reality, that policies and practices are unfairly or inconsistently applied. Alternatively, it may simply be that those employees participating in this study have been denied promotion or have experienced
performance problems. However, this seems an unlikely explanation given
most employees considered performance in these areas to be poor.
369
370
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 370
Table 3
2005 43(3)
Employee ratings of employer performance across HRM functions (N = 626)
Area of HRM practice
Mean Std dev.
Area of HRM practice
Mean
Std dev.
Health and safety
3.86
.91
Benefits and entitlements
3.31
1.05
Sexual harassment
3.75
.96
Salary and wages
3.30
.99
EEO
3.63
1.04
Performance appraisal
3.11
1.10
Recruitment and selection
3.37
1.03
Discipline and discharge
3.11
1.05
Training and development
3.36
1.09
Promotion
2.93
1.00
Scale: 1 = very bad and 5 = very good
Ratings of employer performance and assessments of the strength of

HRM for the four functions were then correlated. The results of this relationship are presented in table 4. (For simplicity, correlations among the HRM
variables are not included in the table.) While it is found the mean performance ratings for all four functions are somewhat lower than the mean assessments of practice, these assessments are nonetheless found to be statistically
significantly (albeit weakly) correlated to performance ratings. So contrary to
inferences drawn in previous studies on HRM which have relied on numbers
of HRM practices to measure effectiveness (Guest 1999; Cully et al. 1999), these
findings suggest that the operationalisation of a range of HRM practices does
not necessarily result in effective HRM practice, at least not from the
employees perspective.
The relationship between HRM practice and employee commitment and
employee well-being was then examined. The mean scores and standard deviations for the three attitudes examined in this study are presented in table 5.
All three work-related attitudes recorded moderate scores, with very little
difference evident between the scales.
The data about the strength of HRM practice were collapsed and aggregated to produce a mean score for each function. This score was then correlated with employees aggregated mean scores for the three employee attitudes.
Table 4
Relationship between employee assessments of HRM practice and employee

performance ratings of HRM practice
Assessments of current operationalised practice
Performance ratings
1. Health and safety
.505*
2. Recruitment and selection

3. Training and development
.607*
.648*
4. EEO
.588*
* Statistically significant at the .001 level (Spearmans rho)
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 371
Table 5
Employees work-related attitudes (N = 626)
Item
Mean
Std dev.
Organisational commitment (OC)
3.73
.783
Organisational fairness (OF)
3.70
.865
Job satisfaction (JS)
3.72
.797
These results (see table 6) showed that employee assessments of current HRM
practice were all highly and statistically significantly correlated with both
employee commitment and employee well-being.
Job satisfaction was most strongly correlated with training and development, and health and safety, with recruitment and selection, on the other hand,
being the strongest correlate of organisational fairness. EEO had the weakest
correlation with all three employee work-related attitudes. The scale
measuring an employees overall impression of their employer and HRM
practice in their organisation was the largest correlate with respect of employee
attitudes. This supports those findings obtained in prior studies that also find
a relationship between HRM practice and employee attitudes, and furthermore
suggests that these four areas of practice have the potential to elicit desirable
organisational benefits. However, caution is required here in drawing any firm
conclusions as these results do not tell us anything about causality between the
variables in question, nor has the possibility been addressed that these findings
are contaminated by problems associated with common method variance, i.e.
an artificial correlation across questions due to mood or other contaminants
(Fiorito 2002, 217).
If we accept that soft HRM practice is probably going to produce beneficial outcomes for the organisation and the employee, then are there some areas
of practice that are more likely to contribute positively to this end than others?
Table 6
Relationship between employee assessments of HRM practice and employee

work-related attitudes
Employee attitudes
Assessment of current practice
OC
OF
JS
Health and safety
.593*
.620*
.625*
.541*
.649*
.570*
.595*
.592*
.631*
EEO
.520*
.553*
.495*
Overall impression of employer
.721*
.762*
.746*
* Statistically significant at the .001 level using Spearmans rho
371
372
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 372
Table 7
2005 43(3)
Percentage of employees who considered HRM function to be very important

(N = 620*)
Area of HRM
Total employees
Percentage
508
81
Salary/wages
442
70
Performance appraisal
316
52
Health and safety
316
51
Benefits and entitlements
246
40
EEO
232
37
Promotion
177
28
124
20
Discipline/discharge
37
Sexual harassment
23
* Some respondents did not complete this section of the survey therefore the N of the sample was reduced
from 626 to 620.
To answer this question, participants were asked to identify from a list of ten
functional HRM areas, the four they consider to be most important. It is likely
employees will attribute most importance to those HRM functions which best
help them meet their needs.
The results in table 7 reveal a high degree of consensus among employees
that the opportunity for training and development is of paramount importance. A slightly lower level of consensus is evident for salary and wage entitlements, with a moderate level of agreement being found for the areas of health
and safety, and performance appraisal systems On the other hand, the areas of
EEO and recruitment and selection are considered to be important for around
only 37 per cent and 20 per cent of employees respectively. Arguably, this is
not surprising as participants have already gained entry into the organisation.
The group who are most likely to see this matter differently are those who
have applied for a position within the organisation and have subsequently been
declined. This therefore highlights the importance and need to collect data in
HRM studies from a wider group of stakeholders.
The importance employees appear to place on training and development
and the need for employers to provide more opportunities for this reflects the
growing body of literature that suggests the notion of a job for life has gone
and employees need to take some responsibility for their own career management. Some time ago, human resource practitioners wrote about this change
in direction (Tornow 1988, 97 and 99):
Paternalism and job security are out these days. Taking responsibility for
your own career is in The need for lifelong learning is also becoming
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 373
more apparent. To participate in the job market, workers must also avoid
skills obsolescence
The logic for employers providing their employees with training is that it
enables them to do their jobs better. The logic behind development is that it
enables employees to do future tasks better, possibly as a result of promotion,
job expansion or job change. Investment in these areas supposedly equips the
organisation with a high performing workforce, providing it with flexibility
should it be required (Pfeffer and Veiga 1999).
The benefits to the employee are that they enhance their employability
and foster the development of lifelong learning skills. These benefits are seen
as desirable in a time when job security is no longer an attainable goal for many
employees.
To some extent training and development may be seen as a risky investment by employers as workers may leave the organisation and take the
acquired skills elsewhere. However, if training and development is valued by
employees the provision of this benefit is likely to positively impact on
employee retention.
Finally, for verification purposes and also to enable a more accurate
insight about the actual level of importance attached to various HRM functions
to be obtained, employees were asked to indicate, using a 5-point Likert scale,
the extent they considered the four areas of HRM practice that comprised the
focus of this research to be important. These results are presented in table 8,
and are reasonably consistent with the results presented in table 7. While all
areas received relatively high ratings, EEO was again afforded relatively less
importance. Recruitment and selection, on the other hand, rated much higher
than when respondents had 10 function areas to choose from. Clearly the type
of measures used affects the results obtained and this shows why more
supporting data, preferably of a qualitative nature, are required about the
relative importance of various HRM functions before any inferences can be
made about what really counts for employees.
In this study, this requirement was in some part addressed by the
provision of the open-ended question. When employees were provided with
Table 8
Level of importance attached to HRM function by employees (N = 626)
Item
Mean
Std dev.
Health and safety
4.83
.43
4.67
.75
EEO
4.03
.83
4.80
.57
Scale: 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important
373
374
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 374
2005 43(3)
the opportunity to comment on HRM practice in their organisation, a total of

326 employees responded (60%) chose to do so. The grouping of these
comments into specific content areas highlighted that there was significant
agreement among employees on a number of issues, namely training and
development, EEO and communication.
A number of employees (n = 76) commented on the need for more or
better training and development opportunities. This suggests training and
development now assumes a high priority in the employment relationship and
is viewed as an area of great importance for employees. These comments
support the findings of the survey that 81 per cent of respondents rank training
and development as an important area of HRM practices (see table 7). In a
period when employees cannot be assured job security, they must assume some
responsibility for their own career management, so ensuring one is marketable
in employment becomes an important objective. This can be achieved by being
provided with opportunities for training and development.
The second area that elicited a large number of responses was EEO. The
following excerpts show that, of the groups commonly targeted by EEO
policies and practices, those that have a focus on ethnicity were the subject of
a lot of negative feedback. For example:
should stop differentiating between Maori and everyone else. It is
divisive and the back lash against the favoured Maori is growing stronger.
Irrespective of the Treaty, we are all New Zealanders and we should all be
treated the same in employment terms, not by quota.
Maori should not be treated any differently to other minority groups or
European groups.
EEO is generally considered to be an aspect of soft HRM practice, but

employees attached less importance to this practice as compared to the other
practices examined in this study (see table 8). Surprisingly, this finding still
held when only data from EEO beneficiaries was used in the analysis. Possibly
a heightened awareness about the individualised nature of employment relationships today (Muller 1999) may explain the relatively lower level of importance afforded to this area by employees.
Related to EEO is the balancing of work and family life. The need for
more family-friendly working environments is also a recurrent theme for
employees. A number of responses relate to work overload and stress, and the
inability to satisfactorily mesh the demands of work and family life. The gap
between the rhetoric of policy and its impact on practice is clearly exemplified
in the following quote:
Family friendly policies, e.g.: sick leave to care for dependent relatives.
I have ten days annual sick leave. If my children are sick, I have to use
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 375
this leave. 10 days doesnt go far over a year. An employer can appear
exemplary in terms of its stated policies on HRM practices. However, it
is how these policies are applied (or not applied) that is important. My
employer looks good in terms of its stated policies, but I have some
concerns at how they are applied by some managers.
On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that some organisations have
got it right and their policies are working well: I work 60% of full time [24
hrs/wk] and am able to balance work and family without undue pressure and
continue to be paid commensurate with my full time co-workers.
It is of interest that so many employees made comments about the lack
of consistency or the presence of unfair practices in their workplace. It is widely
accepted that common law in New Zealand has addressed the issue of fair
and proper treatment of employees, yet one-third of employees who made
comments reported that HRM practices in their organisation were either
unfair or lacked consistency in their application. It is possible that these perceptions have grown out of the employee dissatisfaction noted earlier in relation
to EEO initiatives that are seen to overtly favour some target groups.
Poor communication and a lack of participation in decision-making
were also identified by a large number of employees as major problems.
Communication in the workplace relates to the process of information sharing,
and is an aspect of employment practice that is under managements control
(Wimalasiri 1995). Research shows that it is positively correlated with
employees work-related attitudes, and thus is crucial to effective organisational functioning (Wimalasiri 1995). Some 117 employees made reference to
communication problems in their workplace. A few examples of the types of
issues raised by employees are as follows:
Overall very good place to work, though I feel management lacks certain
communication skills with staff and makes a pretence to listen to what
staff want but make there own decisions with what seems to be little
consideration for staff views.
Better communication of what is going on. An attempt is being made

but more needs to be done.
Only a small proportion of employees made comments about their
wages/salaries (43 in total). This small number is surprising given that this area
of HRM practice was rated as being highly important by 78 per cent of all
employees. Possible explanations are that most employees participating in this
study were relatively satisfied with their current income, or they simply felt
more strongly about other issues.
A total of 80 employees chose to make a general observation or comment
about management in their workplace. More than two-thirds of these were
375
376
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 376
2005 43(3)
negative criticisms of management or leadership style, with the remaining

third complementing on the good job being done by management.
Discussion/conclusions
This exploratory study has shown employees report they are reasonably
satisfied with most areas of HRM practice in their organisation and generally
hold the view their employer is a good employer. Some concerns were
expressed by employees, however, and these concerns may be signalling a need
for change in certain areas of HRM practice. The main recurring themes
emerging from this study suggest that more opportunities for training and
development, along with an approach to EEO that fosters equal employment
opportunities for all are practices that would be positively embraced by
employees in the workplace today.
As discussed in the introduction to this paper the primary objective of soft
HRM is to help both the organisation and the employee achieve their objectives. Hence, practices are designed and developed with the specific aim of
encouraging employees to willingly go the extra mile for the organisation. In
effect this means eliciting high levels of commitment among employees. Two
types of worker commitment have been identified in the literature (Mowday,
Steers and Porter 1979). Continuance which reflects an employees willingness to stay in the organisation; and affective/attitudinal reflecting both a
willingness on the part of the employee to exert high levels of effort; and also
their belief in, and acceptance of the values and goals of the organisation
(Singh and Vinnicombe 1998, 231). Clearly soft HRM, with its emphasis on
forging a link between organisational and employee goals, appears to be
primarily concerned with promoting affective/attitudinal commitment among
the workforce. The results of this study suggest the continuance dimension
may no longer be relevant. Employees seem to now be cognisant of the role
they play in managing their own careers, as is evidenced by their willingness
to engage in ongoing training and development. Therefore, it is possible that
current measures of organisational commitment may be describing a past
world and are now outdated.
In the area of EEO, the mean evaluative scores for current practice and
employer performance suggested employers could do more in this area, yet the
employee comments when viewed in isolation from the survey data provided
a somewhat different picture of the problems that may be surfacing in this
area. The employee comments hinted that it was possibly the philosophy
behind EEO practice in their organisation that was giving rise to employee
dissatisfaction, and not a perception that employers were not performing the
function well. Indeed, comments made by employees about HRM practice
elicited a commonly held perception that EEO should benefit all groups in the
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 377
workplace equally, and current approaches which are premised on notions of

equity appear to evoke a strong negative reaction.
The current study has some limitations that need addressing, and there are
also a number of potential directions for future research that have been identified in light of these findings. First, the view from only one stakeholder in the
employment relationship, namely the employee, is reported in this paper.
Future studies in HRM need to explore the potential benefits that will come
from using a multi-constituency approach to data collection. Also, along with
the use of a single stakeholder, the evaluative nature of the questions used introduces the possibility of common method variance. However, it should be noted
in this study the standard deviations for all measures were relatively small.
Second, only four areas of HRM practice were specifically addressed in
this study. The use of specific HRM domains can complicate the interpretation of data (Meyer and Smith 2000), so further research exploring other areas
of practice, particularly those that were identified by employees as being
important, is required.
This study was conducted for exploratory purposes, and hence the types
of analyses used are limited. The causal nature of the relationship between
HRM practice and employee commitment and employee well-being requires
thorough investigation. Although the findings of this study suggest employee
commitment may be linked to HRM, we must view these results with caution
because, as Whitener (2001) has highlighted, the specific relationship between
human resource practices and organisational commitment has not, as yet, been
empirically investigated in isolation. This type of assessment would be best
undertaken by employing a case study method. However, research using more
sophisticated statistical techniques such as regressions and path analysis to
explore the predictive value of specific HRM functional areas and practices on
employee attitudes and vice versa would also be useful.
Finally, as far as the HRM practitioner is concerned, this studys findings
suggest a good employer, at least from one employees perspective, could be
defined as one who:
communicates well, applies policies and processes fairly and consistently,
recognises good work and rewards both in pecuniary terms and with praise
and encouragement, and acknowledges the importance of employability by
providing all employees with opportunities for training and development.
Furthermore, HRM initiatives implemented by practitioners should be those

most appropriate to meet the needs of their employees, and these practices
should also be performed well, as it would appear it is the quality of the HRM
practice that counts rather than the quantity.
377
378
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 378
2005 43(3)
Fiona Edgar (PhD) did her PhD on a Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Fellowship, and
currently works as a lecturer in the Department of Management at the University of Otago. Her current
research interests include examining the relationship between HRM practice and its impact on
employees, along with the relationship between workplace ideology and HRM practice.
Alan J. Geare (PhD) has been professor of management, University of Otago, since 1987. He is author
of a number of books and many articles in industrial relations, industrial law and HRM. He has worked
as a consultant to companies and unions and has been a government-appointed mediator and
adjudicator.
References
Armstrong, G. 2001. The change agenda: Performance through people, the new people
management. London: CIPD.
Arthur, J. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 67087.
Becker, B. and B. Gerhart. 1996. The impact of human resource management on
organizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal
39(4): 779801.
Beer, M, B. Spector, P. Lawrence, D. Quinn-Mills and R. Walton. 1984. Managing human
assets. New York: The Free Press.
Cully, M., S. Woodland, A. OReilly and G. Dix. 1999. Britain at work: As depicted by the 1998
Workplace Employee Relations Survey. London: Routledge.
Dyer, S. and M. Humphries. 2002. Managing workplace change through contemporary career
discourse. Celebrating excellence: The proceedings of the 16th AIRAANZ Conference,
10716. Auckland, NZ.
Edwards, P.K. 1995. Human resource management, union voice and the use of discipline: an
analysis of WIRS3. Industrial Relations Journal 26(3): 20420.
Fiorito, J. 2002. Human resource management practices and worker desires for union
representation. In The future of private sector unionism in the United States, eds J.T.
Bennett, B.E. Kaufman and M.E. Sharpe, 20526. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fombrun, C.J., N.M. Tichy and M.A. Devanna. 1984. Strategic human resource management.
New York: Wiley.
Fournier, V. 1997. Graduates construction systems and career development. Human Relations
50(4): 36394.
Guest, D.E. 1995. Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations. In
HRM: A critical text, ed. J. Storey, 11041. London: Routledge.
Guest, D. 1998. Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture. In Human resource
management: the new agenda, eds P. Sparrow and M. Marchington, 3751. London: FT
Pitman Publishing.
Guest, D. 1999. Human resource management the workers verdict. Human Resource
Management Journal 9(3): 525.
Guest, D.E. 2001. Human resource management: when research confronts theory.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(7): 1092106.
Hendry, Chris and Romy Jenkins. 1997. Psychological contracts and new deals, Human
Resource Management Journal 7(1): 3844.
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 379
Hirschfeld, R.R. 2000. Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form make a difference? Educational and Psychological
Measurement 60(20): 25570.
Huselid, M.A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal
38(3): 635672.
Iles, P., C. Mabey and I. Robertson. 1990. HRM practices and employee commitment: pitfalls
and paradoxes. British Journal of Management 1: 14757.
Keenoy, T. 1990. HRM: A case of the wolf in sheeps clothing? Personnel Review 19(2): 39.
Legge, K. 1995. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Macmilliam.
Koys, D.J. 1988. Human resource management and a culture of respect: effects on employees
organisational commitment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1(1): 5768.
Kurland, N.B. and T.D. Egan. 1999. Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcomes
and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 43758.
Mallon, M. 1998. The portfolio career: pushed or pulled to it? Personnel Review 27(5): 36177.
Meyer, J.P. and C.A. Smith. 2000. HRM practices and organisational commitment: test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 17(4): 31931.
Moorman, R.H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organisational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology 76(6): 84555.
Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of organisational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14: 22447.
Muller, M. 1999. Unitarism, pluralism, and human resource management in Germany.
Management International Review Special Issue 3: 12544.
New Zealand business whos who, 41st edn. 2000. Auckland: New Zealand Financial Press
Limited.
Ogilvie, J.R. 1986. The role of human resource management practices in predicting
organisational commitment. Group and Organisation Studies 11(4): 33559.
Payne, S.L. and R.F. Wayland. 1999. Ethical obligation and diverse values assumption in
HRM. Manpower 20(5): 297315.
Pfeffer, J. and J.F. Veiga. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of
Management Executive 13(2): 3748.
Rentsch, J.R. and R.P. Steel. 1992. Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and
Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52:
35767.
Scandura, T.A. and E.A. Williams. 2000. Research methodology in management: current
practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal
43(6): 124864.
Schappe, S.P. 1998. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness
perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Psychology 132(3):
27790.
Singh, V. and S. Vinnicombe. 1998. What does commitment really mean?: Views of UK and
Swedish engineering managers. Personnel Review 29(2): 22858.
Stum, D.L. 1999. Workforce commitment: Strategies for the new work order. Strategy and
Leadership January/February: 47.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., J. Leiter and S. Thompson. 1994. Organizational non-response.
Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 43957.
Tornow, W.W. 1988. Contract redesign. Personnel Administrator October: 97101.
Tsui, A., J. Pearce, L. Porter and A. Tripoli. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee
organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal 40(5): 10891121.
379
380
12/10/2005
9:34 PM
Page 380
2005 43(3)
Walton, R. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review
63(2): 7784.
Warr, P., J. Cook. and T. Wall. 1979. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and
aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52: 12948.
Weiss, D.J., R.V. Dawis, G.W. England and L.H. Lofquist. 1967. Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: Vocational Psychology Research.
Whitener, E. 2001. Do high commitment human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross level analysis using hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of
Management 27: 51535.
Whitehouse, Gillian. 1992. Legislation and labor market gender inequality: An analysis of
OECD countries. Work, Employment and Society 6(1): 6586.
Wimalasiri, J.S. 1995. An examination of the influence of human resource practices,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction on work performance. International
Journal of Management 12(3): 35263.
Wood, S. 1995. The four pillars of HRM: are they connected? Human Resource Management
Journal 5(5): 4958.
Wood, S. and M.T. Albanese. 1995. Can we speak of a high commitment management on the
shop floor? Journal of Management Studies 32(2): 21547.

Edgar and Geare Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edgar and Geare Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of

Employee voice on human resource management

Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Employee voice on human resource management

Empirical research on human resource management (HRM) practice has mainly

Correspondence to: Dr Fiona Edgar, Department of Management, University of Otago, PO

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Employee voice on HRM

1997). The adoption of flatter organisational structures may compound this

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

This mismatch between managerial rhetoric and reality is a major

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Employee voice on HRM

tionships between employee commitment, employee well-being and employee

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Employee voice on HRM

Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) 15-item survey instrument (Organisational

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Demographics of employee sample (N = 626)

Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 14, 2011

Employee voice on HRM

Employees assessments* of current operationalised HRM practice (N = 626)

Statement of HRM practice

Mean score (SD)

Working conditions are good

Employer addresses health issues

Employer addresses safety issues

Employer addresses worker well-being

Money is spent on health & safety

Operate impartial recruitment & selection process

Favouritism not evident

Interview panels used

Organisation pays attention to recruitment processes

All appointments based on merit

Spends enough money on EEO

Supports workfamily life balance

Supports cultural difference

Men & women have the same opportunities

Encourages staff to extend abilities

Provides training opportunities

Discusses training & development requirements

Pays for work-related training

Committed to training and developing employees

Organisation is a good place to work

Employer is a good employer

HRM practices are good

performance appraisal, discipline / discharge and promotion, are considered

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Employee ratings of employer performance across HRM functions (N = 626)

Area of HRM practice

Mean Std dev.

Area of HRM practice

Health and safety

Benefits and entitlements

Salary and wages

Recruitment and selection

Discipline and discharge

Training and development

Scale: 1 = very bad and 5 = very good