Journal of Management-2013-Jensen-1699-724

Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.
com/
High-Performance Work Systems and Job Control: Consequences for

Anxiety, Role Overload, and Turnover Intentions
Jaclyn M. Jensen, Pankaj C. Patel and Jake G. Messersmith
Journal of Management 2013 39: 1699 originally published online 12 September
2011 DOI: 10.1177/0149206311419663
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/6/1699
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Aug 5, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 2, 2012
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 12, 2011
What is This?
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014
Journal of Management Vol. 39 No. 6,
September 2013 1699-1724 DOI:
10.1177/0149206311419663 © The
Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
High-Performance Work Systems and Job

Control: Consequences for Anxiety, Role
Overload, and Turnover Intentions
Jaclyn M. Jensen
George Washington University
Pankaj C. Patel
Ball State University
Jake G. Messersmith
University of Nebraska-Kearney
This study examines relationships among high-performance work systems (HPWS), job control,
employee anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Building on theory that challenges the
rhetoric versus reality of HPWS, the authors explore a potential “dark side” of HPWS that suggests
that HPWS, which are aimed at creating a competitive advantage for organizations, do so at the
expense of workers, thus resulting in negative consequences for individual employees. However, the
authors argue that these consequences may be tempered when HPWS are also implemented with a
sufficient amount of job control, or discretion given to employees in determining how to implement
job responsibilities. The authors draw on job demands–control theory and the stress literatures to
hypothesize moderated-mediation relationships relating the interaction of HPWS utilization and job
control to anxiety and role overload, with subsequent effects on turnover intentions. The authors
examine these relationships in a multilevel sample of 1,592 government workers nested in 87
departments from the country of Wales. Results support their hypotheses, which highlight several
negative consequences when HPWS are implemented with low levels of job control. They discuss
their findings in light of the critique in the literature
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Jim Guthrie, Tjai Nielsen, and Jana Raver for their helpful feedback and
comments. We acknowledge Dr. Julian Gould-Williams, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the UK Data
Archive for data access and funding. The original data creator, depositor, or copyright holders, the funder of the data
collection, and the UK Data Archive bear no responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the data.
Corresponding author: Jaclyn M. Jensen, Department of Management, George Washington University, 2201 G
Street NW, Funger Hall 315, Washington, DC, 20052, USA
Email: jmn1@gwu.edu
1699

1700 Journal of Management / September 2013
toward the utilization of HPWS in organizations and offer suggestions for future research
directions.
Keywords: high-performance work systems; job control; anxiety; role overload; turnover
intentions
As organizations consider ways to increase and enhance organizational performance,

research on strategic human resource management (HRM) has gained increasing attention.
Within research on strategic HRM, a particular focus has emerged on high-performance
work systems (HPWS), also referred to as high-performance work practices and best
practice HRM. HPWS are a set of practices that typically comprise comprehensive
recruitment and selection, incentive-based compensation, performance management,
extensive employee involvement, and detailed training initiatives (Huselid, 1995).
Collectively, these practices are expected to provide a source of sustained competitive
advantage to firms when the practices are horizontally matched as a complement to each
other and also vertically aligned with the firm’s strategy (Delery, 1998; Huselid, 1995).
Indeed, scholars have empirically established a relationship between HPWS and a variety
of organizational outcomes including performance, productivity, and turnover (Batt, 2002;
Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), suggesting that from an organizational perspective, HPWS
are an important contributor to organizational success.
An interest in the theoretical rationale for why HPWS relate to organizational
performance has also emerged. Researchers have drawn on the resource-based view of the
firm (Barney & Wright, 1998), a contingent frameworks perspective (Boselie, Dietz, &
Boon, 2005), and social exchange theory (Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007) to
explain the positive effects of HPWS on organizational outcomes. While the mainstream
view is that HPWS are beneficial for organizations, an alternative theoretical perspective
has developed that challenges the “rhetoric versus reality” of HPWS. This perspective
suggests that HPWS, which are aimed at creating a competitive advantage for
organizations, do so at the expense of individual employees, thus resulting in role overload,
burnout, and heightened pressure for individuals (Godard, 2001, 2004; Gould-Williams,
2007; Kroon, van de Voorde, & van Veldhoven, 2009; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley,
2000). From this vantage point, HPWS may have some deleterious consequences for
individual employees. However, we argue that these consequences may be tempered when
HPWS are implemented with a sufficient amount of job control, or discretion given to
employees in determining how to implement job responsibilities (Karasek, 1979). At low
levels of job control, we illuminate the potential for an alternative “dark side” of HPWS
that places a true concern for workers at the expense of organizational performance
(Ramsay et al., 2000). By examining the moderating effect of job control on the
relationship between HPWS and employee experiences, we hope to address the question of
the underlying mechanisms influencing employee reactions to HPWS.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to contribute to extant literature on employee
reactions to HPWS utilization. We adopt an individual-level perspective, which highlights
the importance of considering the motivational implications of HPWS adoption and to draw

Jensen et al. / High-Performance Work Systems and Job Control 1701
on theories with a commensurate individual-level focus (Truss, 2001). We explore this

relationship in the context of job demands–control theory (Karasek, 1979) and stressor–
strain relations (Jex & Beehr, 1991). Job demands–control theory states that strain is a
function of job demands and control (also referred to as job decision latitude). Thus, two
employees faced with the same job demands will respond differently depending upon the
amount of control or discretion they have in determining how to complete their jobs and
fulfill their responsibilities (Karasek, 1979). We follow existing work that argues that
HPWS not only present employees with great opportunity but also place great demands on
employees (Evans & Davis, 2005; Kroon et al., 2009). However, we suggest that the
relationship between HPWS (as a source of job demands) and stress-related outcomes will
depend upon how much control or discretion employees possess over their work.
This research contributes to the HRM literature by looking at individual perceptions of
HPWS and also by developing a theoretical perspective on the importance of job control in the
implementation of HPWS. We also incorporate individual-level outcomes beyond those of firm-
level financial performance and examine the effects of HPWS utilization on anxiety, role
overload, and turnover intentions. This approach expands views of organizational performance
from financial impact to employee well-being, thus bridging the psychological and economic
perspectives of HPWS. In doing so, rather than relying solely on managerial views of HPWS
utilization, we attempt to connect with a growing body of literature that emphasizes the effect of
HPWS experiences on employee perceptions (Lepak, Taylor, Tekleab, Marrone, & Cohen,
2007; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008).
In addition, the focus on these outcomes is consistent with suggestions by Arthur (1994),
Godard (2001, 2004), and Gould-Williams (2003, 2007) that HPWS may, in fact, be perceived
as a work stressor, and it brings together literatures relating human resource (HR) strategy to
occupational strain in the form of anxiety and role overload. Further, we explore the mediating
role of anxiety and role overload in the relationship between HPWS utilization, job control, and
turnover intentions, consistent with increased interest around the mediating mechanisms
impacting performance-related outcomes (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Wright & Gardner, 2003).
Finally, we employ a multilevel approach in our investigation. With research calling for the
study of organizational-level HR practices and employee-level HR perceptions simultaneously
(Delery, 1998; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009; Takeuchi et al.,
2007; Way, 2002; Wright & Boswell, 2002), a multilevel model is more appropriate to account
for the nesting of employees within organizational units, the linkages between individuals and
departments, and the effects of HPWS on individual employees. Our conceptual model,
illustrating the link between HPWS at the department and employee level, and our hypothesized
relationships is presented in Figure 1.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
HPWS comprise a system of HR practices that, when aligned with organizational strategy,
are designed to increase organizational performance and productivity (Delaney & Huselid,
1996; Huselid, 1995; Lepak & Shaw, 2008; Takeuchi et al., 2007). While the specific practices
included in the conceptualization and measurement of HPWS tend to vary

Figure 1
Conceptual Model
HPWS
Utilization Department Level
Employee Level
Job
Control
HPWS Anxiety Turnover

Perception Hypothesis Role Overload Hypothesis Intentions
1&2 3&4
Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems.
across studies, some consensus has emerged with practices falling into three important
areas: enhancing employee skills, increasing motivation, and facilitating empowerment
(Wright & Boswell, 2002). With these as a guide, the system of high-performance work
practices examined in the current study includes selection and recruitment, employee
training, performance management, management consultation of employees in decision
making, career opportunities, adequate communication, team work, reduction of status
differences between management and employees, job security, and competitive
compensation. Further, in line with previous studies on HR practices, we adopt a system-
level approach to our investigation of HPWS (rather than an examination of individual
practices) and examine the collective impact of the set of practices on employee outcomes.
The Emergence of the “Dark Side” of HPWS
Researchers advocating a critical perspective or “dark side” of HPWS propose a

distinction between hard versus soft HRM practices, which refer to those systems aimed at
eliciting control versus commitment, respectively (Arthur, 1994; Guest, 1999; Lepak &
Shaw, 2008). The hard, or control-oriented, view of HRM is focused on the employee as a
resource or object, subject to controls around cost reduction, compliance with rules, and
rewards based on business performance. The soft, or commitment-oriented, view suggests
that organizations implement HR practices to enhance employees’ psychological
commitment to the organization and engender trust by involving employees in decision
making and showing concern for worker outcomes. Scholars of the “dark side” suggest that
while the rhetoric of HPWS may be soft, the reality is almost always hard, as business
performance trumps employee well-being, thereby leading workers to feel exploited (Truss,
Gratton, Hope-Hailey, McGovern, & Stiles, 1997). Furthermore, scholars have challenged
the efficacy of HPWS, suggesting that the focus on firm performance outcomes has largely

ignored the potential negative effects on individual employee outcomes (Alvesson, 2009;
Godard, 2001, 2004). For instance, Godard notes that “proponents [of HPWS] not only
overestimate the positive effects of high levels of adoption of these practices, but also
underestimate the costs—costs that are often not reflected in the performance measures
used by researchers” (2004: 355).
As stated by Kroon et al., “Although employees may value the incentives offered to them
through HPWSs, the message that the system signals to the employees is one of increasingly
higher performance, and that it is the company which ultimately benefits from the employees’
extra effort (Legge, 1995)” (2009: 512). Similarly, Ramsay et al. (2000) suggest that the control
and performance requirements stemming from HPWS can be taken only so far before employee
dissatisfaction and conflict arise. Thus, the “dark side” of HPWS emerges, and the perceived
demands of increased performance and effort at work become more salient. Kroon et al. (2009)
examined this hypothesis in a study of HR managers and employees in a variety of organizations
in the Netherlands. The organization’s utilization of a system of high-performance work
practices included rigorous selection, development and career opportunities, rewards,
performance evaluations, participation and communication, task analysis, and job design.
Results supported the theorized relationship, such that as employee perceptions of HPWS
utilization increased, perceptions of job demands also increased.
A Caveat to the “Dark Side”—The Importance of Job Control
The “dark side” viewpoint is not without question, as a majority of the research on
HPWS has supported the positive effects of implementing this set of practices. To explore
the effect of HPWS on employee experiences, we argue that a more detailed look at the set
of practices implemented under HPWS may help to explain why employees and
organizations may be experiencing HPWS somewhat differently. To do so, we turn to the
literature on job demands–control theory. Job demands–control theory (Karasek, 1979) has
served as the basis for much of the research on stress over the past 30 years and is
composed of three components: job demands, job discretion, and mental strain. Job
demands are psychological stressors such as expectations for working fast and hard and
accomplishing large amounts of work, task pressures, and job-related personal conflict.
Employees vary in the extent to which they have job discretion, or the individual’s potential
control over tasks and conduct throughout the workday. According to the theory,
employees who have more control over how and when decisions are made, delegation of
work tasks, and autonomy may be better able to cope with job demands and experience less
mental strain, which results when job demands overwhelm job discretion (Karasek, 1979).
Mental strain has been captured using a variety of measures, including anxiety, defined as
an emotional state of perceived apprehension and increased arousal (Spector, Dwyer, &
Jex, 1988; Spielberger, 1966), and role overload, or when the expectations of work exceed
the available time, resources, or personal capability of the employee (Dougherty &
Pritchard, 1985; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970).
The ability of employees to cope with workplace stressors has been the focus of much
occupational research, and those who are able to effectively cope with stressful situations

often experience fewer stress-related outcomes (Jex & Beehr, 1991; Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, &
Primeau, 2001). As stated by Jex et al., “It is logical to conclude that stressors would be
much more threatening to those who do not perceive themselves of being capable of
performing their job tasks” (2001: 401). Therefore, we argue that the effect of HPWS on
employee strain should be considered in light of employee job control. For example, an
employee who has little control over how and when to do his or her work is likely to suffer
greater psychological consequences from the perceived job demands associated with
HPWS than another employee perceiving the same demands who has the latitude to exert
more personal discretion.
Therefore, at low levels of job control, we argue that organizations are not likely to reap
the positive benefits associated with HPWS. Since HPWS establish generalized norms for
reciprocity, akin to a psychological contract (Guest, 1998; Rousseau & Greller, 1994),
employees who are not afforded job control or discretion in completing work tasks may
feel that they are getting less out of the system while being expected to perform with
greater effort. Subsequently, the perception shifts from that of a soft, or commitment-
oriented, approach to a hard, or control-oriented, approach, and the effort to comply with
the demands of work is no longer discretionary but, rather, is required and expected (Evans
& Davis, 2005). As a consequence, we argue that employees will experience greater strain,
including higher anxiety and role overload. Therefore, taking into consideration individual
differences in discretion, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between HPWS utilization and anxiety is moderated by job
control. As job control decreases, HPWS utilization will relate to higher anxiety.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between HPWS utilization and role overload is moderated by job
control. As job control decreases, HPWS utilization will relate to higher role overload.
Mediating Role of Anxiety and Role Overload on Turnover Intentions
Further, we argue that anxiety and role overload will play an important role in the
relationship between HPWS utilization, control perceptions, and turnover intentions.
Research on the relationship between HPWS and turnover has generally found that HPWS
are negatively related to turnover (as an indicator of organizational performance). These
studies have typically been conducted at the organizational level of analysis and often rely
upon firm-level measures of turnover (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Shaw, Dineen, Fang,
& Vellella, 2009; Way, 2002) or quit rates (Batt, 2002). In addition, the question of
possible mediating or moderating effects has been growing in importance, as several
scholars have advocated for increased attention to understanding how HPWS relate to
employee outcomes (Batt, 2002; Wright & Gardner, 2003). In sum, we theorize that firm-
level research on turnover has not adequately considered individual attitudes that drive
turnover intentions and that the relationship between HPWS and turnover intentions is
likely to be affected by control perceptions as well as key psychological mediators.
Drawing on the stressor–strain relationship, work stressors act as triggers of negative
emotions, attitudes, and cognitions, which ultimately lead to coping behaviors via emotional

or physical withdrawal (Jex, 1998). Turnover intentions are a form of job-related

withdrawal (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991), and several scholars have established empirical
evidence linking stressful work to turnover intentions (Balfour & Neff, 1993; Todd &
Deery-Schmitt, 1996). Furthermore, in a sample of Dutch truck drivers, the relationship
between stressful work (as a function of job demands and control) and turnover intentions
was supported by de Croon, Sluiter, Blonk, Broersen, and Frings-Dresen (2004).
De Croon et al. (2004) also found that psychological strain mediated the relationship
between stressful work and turnover intentions. According to several models of work stress
(see Jex & Beehr, 1991, for a review), it is important not only to understand the direct
effects of stress on employee outcomes but also to identify the mediating mechanisms for a
more complete understanding of the stress process (Beehr & Schuler, 1982). In line with
this theorizing, we propose that the stressor of HPWS, in combination with low job control,
will relate to increased anxiety and role overload perceptions. These perceptions, in turn,
are theorized to relate to increased coping via turnover intentions. We posit that employees
faced with job demands that overwhelm their personal control will seek to psychologically
separate themselves from the demands of work by considering leaving the organization. In
doing so, turnover intentions serve as a coping mechanism in response to anxiety and role
overload. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3: Anxiety mediates the relationship between the interaction of HPWS utilization and
control perceptions on turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 4: Role overload mediates the relationship between the interaction of HPWS
utilization and control perceptions on turnover intentions.
Method
Data Source and Study Context
The sample for this study was derived from a larger study of government employees in
Wales conducted in 2006-2007 (Gould-Williams, 2008; 2009). The Welsh government is
structured in local government authorities, which are comparable to municipalities or city
governments and provide typical local government services such as education, social work,
road services, and waste management, among others. Within each government authority
sits various departments (such as waste management or education) responsible for different
areas of service. Unlike traditional departments within a firm, such as marketing or finance,
each department in the local government authority is an autonomous unit with discretion
over employment policies.
Because the impact of HRM policies and practices often depends upon the social, political,
and union contexts (Boselie, Paauwe, & Richardson, 2003), it is important to recognize that the
HPWS practices examined in the current study were implemented under the Best Value regime
established by the Welsh government in 1999 (Gould-Williams, 2003; National Assembly for
Wales, 2000). The Best Value regime is a program designed to increase the quality and
effectiveness of services provided to constituents and encourages

staff at all levels to become involved in the process. Similar to a private-sector business
implementing an HPWS for its employees, there may be transitional problems as
employees adjust to new work settings. The current survey was conducted approximately 8
years after implementation of the Best Value regime, and therefore the HPWS practices
were believed to be well established. In addition, the overall effects of HPWS in public-
sector organizations have been found to be similar to results observed in private-sector
organizations (Gould-Williams, 2007).
Procedures and Sample
Procedures. Twenty-two local government authorities were asked to participate in a

study on employee practices. To encompass a wide array of services while managing
survey costs, the study focused on eight departments in each authority: Education
(excluding schools), social services (Children’s Services), Planning, Housing Management,
Revenues and Benefits, Waste Management, Leisure and Culture, and Human Resources.
Of the 22 authorities, 6 declined participation because they were going through internal
restructuring, lacked adequate resources to conduct a survey across different departments in
the local authority, or had recently conducted a similar workforce survey. This resulted in a
participating sample of 128 departments (16 local authorities with 8 departments each;
Appendix A). Employees and department heads from the participating departments were
then invited to complete surveys. The employee survey was conducted by mail and
assessed employee perceptions of HPWS, job control, anxiety, role overload, and turnover
intentions. The departmental survey was conducted by mail or phone and assessed the use
of HPWS within the department; departmental responses from the department head were
used to examine the validity of employee perceptions.
Employee-level sample. To ensure representativeness across occupational classes, a

stratified sample was used. Some authorities have a higher number of individuals in the
Waste Management Department, while others have a higher percentage of employees in
professional ranks in the Education Department. To ensure representativeness, self-
completion questionnaires were distributed to a stratified sample, with a purposeful
oversampling of frontline, nonmanagerial staff. The targeted sample of 6,625
nonmanagerial employees held a variety of occupational titles. Of those asked to
participate, 1,755 returned questionnaires by the cutoff date, providing a response rate of
26.5%. Details about the number of respondents per authority and department are provided
in Appendix B (Table B.1). Based on the total number of individuals employed in the
Welsh Government Authority in 2007 (population size = 22,603) and the total number of
targeted employees (n = 6,625; sample proportion = 29.3%), the sampling error at 99.9%
was 3.4%. The sampling error is within recommended limits (McNemar, 1947), suggesting
that response bias was not a concern. To further ensure representativeness at the department
level, we calculated sampling error for each department in the local authorities. As shown
in Table B.2 in Appendix B, among the units included in the analysis, the highest sampling
error was 5.79% for the Revenue and Benefits Department in authority number 11.

Department-level sample. Of the 128 departments that initially agreed to participate, 16

of the service departments failed to provide enough employee responses (fewer than 3) to
warrant a departmental survey. The resulting population of 102 department heads, who
were not a part of the employee survey, were invited to participate. A total of 91 responses
were received from department heads, representing a response rate of 89.2%. Sixty-five
department heads returned completed questionnaires by mail, and 26 answered the
questionnaire by phone.
We removed units with fewer than 10 employee responses, which are indicated in gray
in Appendix B, Table B.1. This resulted in the final sample of 1,592 employees
representing 87 departmental units. The Revenue and Benefits Department in authority
number 1 represented the highest number of employees (39 employees), and the lowest
number of employees (11 employees) were from Planning (authorities 9 and 17), Social
Services (authorities 6 and 15), Housing (authorities 5 and 17), Education (authority 7),
Leisure (authority 8 and 19), Waste Management (authority 17), and HR (authorities 9 and
10). To assess whether our data had adequate power for multilevel analysis, we calculated
the power estimate to be 0.89 (above the recommended limit of 0.80). Power analysis was
based on the procedure recommended by Raudenbush and Liu (2000).
Measures
Employee-level measure of HPWS. Since our research questions are designed to assess the
effects of HPWS on employee-level outcomes, it is essential to measure employee perceptions
of HR policies and practices. Recently, Huselid and Becker (2011) reviewed the growing
number of studies that assess recognition, perception, and effects of HPWS on individual
employees. Here we build upon this work to examine the individual-level perceptions of
employees in the context of HPWS. To measure employee perceptions of HPWS, a 15-item
scale was utilized (Appendix C). The scale consisted of (a) 7 HR practice items drawn from
Gould-Williams and Davies (2005) and (b) 8 items from Truss (1999), consistent with content
reflecting employee skills, motivation, and empowerment. Employees were asked to indicate on
a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed that each practice was being utilized (α = .81).
Department-level measure of HPWS. Department heads were asked to indicate the

percentage of employees within their departments who were managed by HPWS practices.
Prior studies on HPWS have used a dichotomous measure of whether a practice is used
within a firm. However, several recent studies call for assessing presence and prevalence of
practices (Becker & Huselid, 2006). The measure of HPWS at the department level was
composed of 21 items (Appendix C), 19 of which were from the HPWS measure utilized
by Datta, Guthrie, and Wright (2005). Two additional items were used to assess utilization
of family-friendly policies. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .81.
We used the departmental-level measure of HPWS to examine the validity of our
employee measure of HPWS utilization and to address concerns associated with common-
method bias (Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2000). Matched data on departmental

reports on the use of various HPWS practices was correlated with aggregated employee
reports of HPWS utilization. The correlation between department-reported HPWS and
aggregated employee reports of HPWS from respective departments was r = .59 (p < .001,
one tailed), suggesting consistency in departmental and employee attitudes toward the use
of HPWS.
Job control. The measure of job control, taken from Spreitzer (1995), was composed of
six items. Employees were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree) responses to the following items: (a) I have significant autonomy in
determining how I do my job; (b) I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work;
(c) I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job;
(d) I have a large impact on what happens in my section of this department; (e) I have a
great deal of control over what happens in my section of this department; and (f) I have
significant influence over what happens in my section of this department. Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was .88.
Anxiety. Anxiety was measured using a six-item scale derived from Derogatis and
Spencer (1983). As is common with the measurement of anxiety in occupational settings
(e.g., Spector et al., 1998), employees were asked to indicate on a 4-point scale (1 = not at
all to 4 = definitely/very much) how they had been feeling over the past month. The items
were (a) I feel tense or wound up, (b) I get a sort of frightened feeling like “butterflies” in
the stomach, (c) I get a sort of frightened feeling as if something awful is about to happen,
(d) I feel restless as if I have to be on the move, (e) I get sudden feelings of panic, and
(f) I can sit at ease and feel relaxed. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .79.
Role overload. Role overload was measured using an eight-item scale from Cousins et al.
(2004). Employees were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree) their responses to the following items: (a) I am pressured to work long hours,
(b) I have unachievable deadlines, (c) I have to work very fast, (d) I have to work very
intensively, (e) I have to neglect some tasks because I have too much to do, (f) Different
groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine, (g) I am unable to take
sufficient breaks, and (h) I have unrealistic time pressures. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale
was .91.
Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessed using a four-item scale (1 =

strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) derived from Tett and Meyer (1993): (a) I often
think of quitting this job, (b) I am always on the look out for a better job, (c) It is likely that
I will look for another job during the next year, and (d) There isn’t much to be gained by
staying in this job. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .89.
Control variables. Given the multilevel nature of the study, we used controls at both the
employee and department levels. At the department-level, we controlled for (a) percentage
of managerial employees, (b) percentage of professional employees, (c) total number of
employees, and (d) performance. We included these controls because of the established

connection between HPWS utilization and aggregated performance measures (Guthrie,

2001; Huselid, 1995; Takeuchi et al., 2007) and the potential effects of the nature of the
workforce on employee perceptions of HPWS. For instance, several studies have noted that
different types of employees experience disparate models of HRM (Lepak & Shaw, 2008;
Lepak & Snell, 1999; Lepak et al., 2007). In particular, these studies have noted that greater
attention is focused upon managerial and professional employees relative to their
counterparts.
Departmental performance was assessed by aggregating employee responses in each
department to four questions measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree): (a) This department provides excellent service when compared
to similar departments in other authorities, (b) This department has a good reputation, (c) This
department provides excellent value for money, and (d) This department wastes resources
(reverse coded). This measure reflects two key areas of performance in public-sector
organizations: the quality of the service provided and departmental reputation (Anheier, 2000;
Drucker, 2006; Mayston, 1985). The Cronbach’s alpha measuring reliability
was .81 for this measure (ICC 1 = 0.17; ICC2 = 0.88; r*wg(j) = 0.90). Given the high level of
agreement, aggregation of employee responses to the performance of the service department
level seemed valid. To assess the accuracy of aggregated employee perceptions of
performance, we compiled data on departmental rankings provided by the Welsh Assembly
Government (2008). We took the 2008 rank of the individual departments and correlated it
to aggregated employee responses. The correlation was significant (r = .72, p < .001),
indicating that employee perceptions of departmental performance were consistent with
government rankings.
At the employee level, we controlled for (a) job position, measured as a dummy variable
with nonmanager as a reference category (1 = manager, 2 = supervisor); (b) employment
status (1 = permanent, 0 = temporary); (c) gender (1 = male, 0 = female); (d) years of
education; (e) age; (f) marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried); and (g) years of service.
The selection of control variables was guided by previous studies (e.g., Datta et al., 2005;
Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Guest, 1999; Lepak et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2007). By
including these factors, we control for the potential effects of individual demographic
differences, such as gender and tenure, which might affect the way an individual perceives
stress, anxiety, job control, or role overload. For instance, it has been noted that women
may experience greater levels of work stress and overload than their male counterparts do
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser, 1999). Further, Nishii et al. (2008)
note that long-tenured employees are less likely to have favorable views of the HR system;
therefore, this is an important factor to control for in our model.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables are presented in
Table 1. To account for the effects of departmental practices on employee-level outcomes
and the nesting of employees within departments, we utilized a multilevel approach, as
described below.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Turnover 3.25 0.88 .89

intentions
2. Department- 0.41 0.27 .29** .81
level HPWS
3. Employee-level 3.47 0.89 .17** .59** .81
HPWS
4. Role overload 3.13 0.97 .13** .21** .14** .91
5. Anxiety 3.42 1.05 .24** .20** .19** .22** .79
6. Job control 3.14 1.03 .15** .17** .12* -.17** -.19** .88
7. % managerial 0.15 0.59 .08* .08* .10* .09* .16** .09* –
employees
8. % professional 0.40 0.64 .09* .07* .06 .09* .11* .01 .05 –
employees
9. Total employees 11.53 9.92 .07* .08* .08* .07* .06 .09* .02 .05 –
10. Department 3.48 1.22 -.08* .12** .17** .05 -.08* .03 .02 .01 .02 .81
performance
11. Job position 0.53 1.07 .07* .12* .05 .10* -.04 .06 .04 .07* .06 .04 –
12. Employment 0.91 .03 .12* .11* .06 .07* .11* .04 .03 .05 .07* .01 .03 –
status
13. Gender 0.38 – .05 .14** .09* .07* .05 .03 .02 .02 .05 .03 .04 .05 –
14. Years of 13.19 4.83 .06 .02 .07* .05 .04 .09* .06 .07* .05 .04 .06 .07* .07* –
education
15. Age 39.85 12.03 .07* .06 .05 .07* .02 .06 .05 .10* .10* .04 .07* .07* .05 .09* –
16. Marital status 0.67 – .04 .01 .03 .01 .02 .04 .05 .06 .06 .02 .07* .05 .08* .05 .11* –
17. Years of service 9.59 1.64 .11* .13** .17** .06 .05 .09* .06 .07* .05 .06 .06 .07* .06 .12* .23** .14**
Note: Coefficients alpha are in italics along the diagonal. Job position coded 1 = manager, 2 = supervisor, with
nonmanager as reference category. Employment status coded 1 = permanent, 0 = temporary. Gender coded 1 =
male, 0 = female. Marital status coded 1 = married, 0 = unmarried. HPWS = high-performance work systems.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Muthén and Satorra (1995) propose two approaches to address modeling complex data
in a multilevel latent variable framework either via aggregated or disaggregated analysis.
Aggregated analysis is useful in developing population average models that do not provide
generalizations to any particular sampling unit. Disaggregated analysis, on the other hand,
estimates variability in Level 1 variables (here, the employee level) across independent
sampling units. To assess the effects of HPWS utilization at the employee level,
disaggregated analysis offers the more informative approach while accommodating
variability at Level 2. In the current sample, it is likely that variability in managerial styles,
resource availability, and differences in departmental tasks could affect employee-level
outcomes. A multilevel setting helps control for such fixed effects. Traditionally, multilevel
analysis using hierarchical linear modeling has been able to test mediation models but only
when the outcome variable is at Level 1. However, recent analysis by Preacher, Zyphur,
and Zhang (2010) proposed the use of multilevel structural equation models to overcome
the limitations of traditional multilevel analysis in predicting mediation effects through
multiple levels. We follow this prescription.

Disaggregated multilevel structural equation models were first developed by Goldstein and
McDonald (1988) and were recently proposed by Preacher, Zhang, and Zyphur (2011) as
appropriate methodological tools for use in organizational research. Disaggregated multilevel
structural equation models test multilevel structural equation models. For the analysis presented
here, we used the M-Plus software package to estimate the multilevel structural equation model.
Although multilevel structural equation models have been used recently for confirmatory factor
analytic models, their true implementation as complete structural equation models has been rare
(see, for exception, Gottfredson, Panter, Daye, Allen, & Wightman, 2009; Preacher et al., 2010;
Preacher et al., 2011). Since we do not use latent variables, we used multilevel path analysis in
the proposed model. Extensive psychometric expositions of this method are available in works
by Bollen, Bauer, Christ, and Edwards (2010), Goldstein and McDonald (1988), and Skrondal
and Rabe-Hesketh (2004).
We utilized Mplus Version 5.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2009) to estimate all
structural equation models. A full information maximum likelihood estimator was used for
all analyses, and the weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted estimator was also
used to test model fit based on chi-square measures. The MLR estimator is asymptotically
equivalent to the estimator proposed by Yuan and Bentler (2000). Adaptive Gauss-Hermite
quadrature with default integration points was used for numerical estimation. The sampling
units or departments have a two-way cross-categorization: (a) within authorities and (b)
among departments. Departments located in individual local authorities are therefore likely
to have correlated error terms. Similarly, departments engaging in similar functions across
authorities may have correlated errors. For example, the Education Departments in two
different local authorities may have correlated errors. To limit the effects of the cross-
cutting correlation among standard errors, we clustered the departments and the authorities
as a bimodal distribution of standard errors.
Table 2 shows the results of the estimation. We used the residual covariance matrix,
which is derived after removing the effects of control variables. The results of this analysis
provided a model demonstrating satisfactory fit, χ2/df = 1.059; root mean square error of
approximation = 0.069; standardized root mean square residual–within (SRMRwithin) =
0.019; SRMRbetween = 0.006; comparative fit index = 0.957; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.939.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed moderating effects of job control on anxiety (β = –.11, p <
.01) and role overload (b = –.11; p <.01), respectively. In Figures 2 and 3, we show the
interaction plots for these results. In both figures, with increasing HPWS perceptions at the
employee level, we see that at high levels of job control, anxiety and role overload are
almost flat, while at lower levels of job control, anxiety and role overload are significantly
greater. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 suggested moderated-mediation effects. To test the significance of
the moderated-mediation paths, differences in mediation effects at high and low levels of
job control were calculated and are presented in Table 3. Hypotheses 3 and 4 proposed
moderated-mediation effects of the interaction of HPWS and job control through anxiety (β
= –.04, p < .05) and role overload (β = –.10, p < .05) on turnover intentions, respectively.
The results of our analysis support partial mediation of anxiety and role overload on the
relationship between the interaction of HPWS and job control on turnover intentions.

Table 2
Multilevel Path Analysis Results
Standardized betas SE t Value p
HPWS → HPWS Perception .46 .14 3.24 .00

HPWS Perception → Role Overload .29 .13 2.29 .01
HPWS Perception → Anxiety .12 .05 2.29 .01
Job Control → Anxiety –.24 .08 –2.99 .00
Job Control → Role Overload –.32 .10 –3.10 .00
HPWS Perception × Job Control → Anxiety (Hypothesis 1) –.11 .05 –2.30 .01
HPWS Perception × Job Control → Role Overload (Hypothesis 2) –.11 .04 –2.92 .00
HPWS Perception → Turnover Intentions (R2 = .24) –.13 .06 –2.05 .02
Anxiety → Turnover Intentions .19 .04 4.59 .00
Role Overload → Turnover Intentions .40 .13 3.14 .00
HPWS Perception → Anxiety → Turnover Intentions .02 .01 2.44 .01

HPWS Perception → Role Overload → Turnover Intentions .12 .04 2.81 .00
Covariance
Department HPWS, employee HPWS perception .15 .05 3.00 .00
Anxiety, job control .05 .04 1.29 .10
Role overload, job control .16 .06 2.75 .00
Anxiety, role overload .10 .04 2.71 .00
Note: χ2/df = 1.059; root mean square error of approximation = 0.069; standardized root mean square residual–
within (SRMRwithin) = 0.019; SRMRbetween = 0.006; comparative fit index = 0.957; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.939.
HPWS = high-performance work systems.
Figure 2
Moderation Effects for High-Performance Work System (HPWS)
Perception × Job Control → Anxiety

Figure 3
Moderation Effects for High-Performance Work System
Perception × Job Control → Role Overload
Table 3
Moderated Mediation Effect
Path: HPWS Perception × Job HPWS Perception + HPWS
Control → Anxiety → Turnover Perception × Job Control → Anxiety →
Intentions Anxiety Turnover Intentions Total Effects
0.12 – 0.11 × (Job Control)
Job control low ( = 2.11; –1 SD) –0.11 0.19 –0.02
Job control high ( = 4.17; +1 SD) –0.33 0.19 –0.06
Difference (Hypothesis 3) –0.22 (p = .01) 0 –0.04 (p = .02)
Path: HPWS Perception × Job HPWS Perception + HPWS

Control → Role Overload → Perception × Job Control → Role Overload →
Turnover Intentions Role Overload Turnover Intentions Total Effects
0.29 – 0.11 × (Job Control)
Job control low ( = 2.11; –1 SD) 0.05 0.40 0.02
Job control high ( = 4.17; +1 SD) –0.18 0.40 –0.07
Difference (Hypothesis 4) –0.24 (p = .02) 0 –0.10 (p = .03)
Note: HPWS = high-performance work system.
Discussion
HPWS have received a great deal of research attention in the strategic HRM literature. These
studies have suggested that HPWS may be utilized to reduce turnover, increase productivity,
enhance customer service, and ultimately enhance firm performance (Cappelli &

Neumark, 2001; Chuang & Liao, 2010; Datta et al., 2005; Delaney & Huselid, 1996;
Delery & Doty, 1996; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Huselid & Day, 1991; Liao et al.,
2009; Messersmith & Guthrie, 2010; Takeuchi et al., 2007; Way, 2002). The net result of
these studies has generated a strong paradigm in HR research that advocates the positive
performance benefits that arise from HPWS adoption and implementation (Guest, 1999;
Kroon et al., 2009).
Furthermore, prior work on the effectiveness of HPWS has mainly focused at the firm
level and has paid particularly close attention to financial outcomes. Although data on firm-
level measures of HPWS and performance obtained from organizational leaders are useful
in explaining the overall effects of HR practices, this research focuses on the effects of
HPWS utilization at the individual employee level. In addition, the potential negative side
effects that HPWS utilization may hold for an organization’s workforce are rarely studied,
despite calls for a balanced examination of the effects of HPWS on employees and their job
attitudes (Keegan & Boselie, 2006). Thus, in this study we examine the potential “dark
side” of HPWS by focusing on the interaction of HPWS perceptions and job control on
anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions.
After controlling for the nesting of employees within departments and authorities, the
results of our analysis demonstrate a significant interaction between employee perceptions
of HPWS utilization and job control on both role overload and anxiety. Employees who
perceive greater organizational use of HPWS and who possess more job control
demonstrate lower levels of anxiety and role overload, while those with less job control
demonstrate higher levels of anxiety and feel that their roles are overloaded. Further, the
results of the study suggest that anxiety and role overload partially mediate the relationship
between the interaction of HPWS perceptions and job control on turnover intentions. This
finding implies that HPWS utilization, when coupled with low levels of job control, tends
to leave employees feeling greater levels of anxiety, role overload, and more prone to
turnover intentions. While we hypothesized full mediation, the results showing partial
mediation illustrate that turnover intentions, which are a form of strain, are also directly
affected by employee perceptions of HPWS and job control.
Taken together, these results speak to a critique in the literature toward the motivation of top
managers in their decisions to utilize HPWS in organizations (i.e., Godard, 2001, 2004; Guest,
1999; Keenoy, 1997; Kroon et al., 2009; Legge, 1995; Ramsay et al., 2000). These critical
assessments have a multitude of complex philosophical roots, but each concentrates on one
encompassing question: While HPWS may benefit organizational performance, what effect do
they have on the lives of individual employees? Critical scholars have argued that HR systems,
such as HPWS, are little more than a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (Godard, 2001; Keenoy, 1990).
These authors suggest that organizations implement HPWS as a form of covert exploitation
designed at eliciting greater levels of participation and effort from employees (Kroon et al.,
2009; Legge, 1995; Willmott, 1993). However, to date, little empirical work has been done to
address this viewpoint. Early assessments have relied primarily upon case studies, which have
not necessarily been directed at assessing the utilization of HPWS specifically but have focused
more upon performance management and other more narrow aspects of HRM (Guest, 1999).
The present analysis, along with recent work on burnout by Kroon et al. (2009), suggests that
when HPWS are implemented with low levels of job control employees are more likely to
experience the “dark side” of HPWS.

Thus, it may not be the malicious intent of managers or the organization but the absence of
job control accompanying HPWS implementation that results in negative consequences for
anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The results of this study highlight the need for further discussions of HPWS utilization
by both practitioners and organizational scholars alike. More specifically, the implications
of this study suggest that careful analysis needs to be undertaken to assess ways to best
reconcile individual perceptions with the demands for organizational performance. In other
words, how may HPWS or the HR system in general best be used to simultaneously
support the interests of both the organization and the individual?
While this remains an open question, there is some evidence from this study and
elsewhere that the way in which an HPWS is implemented and the philosophy behind the
implementation of the system may have significant effects on the resulting perceptions of
HPWS by organizational members. For instance, the present study demonstrates that job
control attenuates the relationship between HPWS and both role overload and anxiety such
that employees who are given more autonomy and control over their individual
assignments feel less pressure as a result of HPWS utilization within the organization.
These results echo the literature on job demands–control theory (Karasek, 1979), which has
long recognized the importance of control perceptions on employee attitudes.
Further, these results support the conclusion advanced by Guest (1999) about why employees
tend to have an overall positive assessment of HPWS. Systems of HR practices that are adopted
under a soft approach to HRM, in which employee involvement, commitment, and collaboration
are at the heart of the HR system, may elicit greater feelings of autonomy and care than hard
forms of HRM do. While critics have argued that such soft approaches are merely a means to
exploit employees, it may be that such systems truly do exhibit mutuality (Walton, 1985), or the
idea that what is best for the employee is also best for the organization, when implemented in
proper ways. Therefore, the results of this study further underscore the importance of how
HPWS are experienced and perceived by employees in determining the likely effects on
organizational performance (Liao et al., 2009; Nishii et al., 2008).
The literature on job design speaks to the heart of this issue by relating the inconsistency
between organizational intentions around HPWS implementation and employees’
experiences of anxiety and overload. As noted by Becker and Huselid (2006, 2011), the
universal hypothesis regarding HPWS is that “more is better” and that one type of HPWS is
likely to fit all organizations, yet this is rarely the case. While this argument goes more
specifically into the set of practices included in HPWS, we believe it relates to the findings
of this study as well. Namely, HPWS are likely to be less effective in jobs where low levels
of autonomy and control exist.
These findings further support the configurational perspective of HR systems, which
suggests the need to carefully examine and select practices, integration systems, and HR
philosophies that complement one another (Delery & Doty, 1996). As stated by Lepak and
Shaw, “A key issue in the configurational perspective is the argument that a given HRM
practice—regardless of its situational superiority—is unlikely to yield substantial benefits at

the organizational level unless it is combined with other effective practices” (2008: 1488). The
results of this study suggest that working to align the context of implementation through job
design and systems that support employee discretion, and focusing on the organization’s
intentions around HPWS, may be a necessary step to instill a sense of control and autonomy in
employees, which may assist firms in avoiding the potential “dark side” of HPWS. Finally, we
would argue that autonomy and control are critical components of HPWS effectiveness, and
organizations that attempt to implement HPWS without also addressing job design issues
relating to employee discretion are not as likely to achieve valued outcomes.
Limitations and Future Directions
The results of this study should be considered in light of its limitations. First, the sampling
frame for this study focuses upon public-sector employees in the government of Wales. The
sampling frame provides a unique context that limits the generalizability of the findings. It may
be that public-sector employees are more apt to feel anxiety and role overload from the
utilization of HPWS than their counterparts in private-sector organizations. In particular, the
government of Wales has a history of demanding high performance standards from employees
(National Assembly for Wales, 2000). Further, in an era where greater scrutiny is placed on the
use of public funds, it may be that public-sector employees are more prone to have negative
perceptions of HPWS, which serve to color their attitudes and intentions. As a result, future
studies should investigate the hypothesized model in a private-sector setting.
In addition, the study focuses on turnover intentions rather than on actual turnover
events. While Ajzen’s (1991) model has been useful in linking intentions to behaviors,
focusing on turnover intentions rather than actual turnover remains a weaker test of this
important individual and organizational outcome. Future research may endeavor to collect
data on actual turnover events and supplement these empirical findings with qualitative
assessments from exit interviews. Such assessments would provide a more fine-grained
assessment of the linkages between HPWS utilization and turnover in organizational
settings. This is particularly salient given that existing research in strategic HRM has
reported a negative relationship between HPWS utilization and turnover rates at the
organizational level of analysis (i.e., Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Way, 2002). Additional
work is needed to help reconcile these findings between individual perceptions of intent to
turnover and actual turnover rates at the organizational level.
We also acknowledge the possibility of a third variable, or an alternative explanation for
our findings. While departmental reports and employee perceptions of HPWS utilization
were highly correlated, we were unable to assess how effectively the practices had been
implemented or whether effects related to the employee’s manager, such as managerial
style, may explain why some employees experienced greater anxiety and role overload. In
our multilevel analysis, we controlled for departmental effects but did not assess for the
effects of managerial style and behaviors. However, because managers often have a strong
influence over employees’ day-to-day experiences, future research should investigate the
role of managerial and organizational characteristics more fully.
Using cross-sectional data, this study was also an examination of the effects of HPWS
on employee outcomes. Thus, we cannot infer causality. Research in this area can build

upon our findings by examining the effects of HPWS on employees’ experiences through
longitudinal research. In doing so, more clarity can be brought to the question over whether
employee perceptions of HPWS change over time, with subsequent effects on anxiety, role
overload, or turnover intentions. Several studies have begun to examine the longitudinal
effects of HR practices on business performance (Birdi et al., 2008; Ployhart, Weekley, &
Ramsey, 2009), yet given the effects of employee stress and health on productivity
(Tetrick, Perrewe, & Griffin, 2010), this is an important area for future work.
Finally, the strategic HRM literature has yet to consistently agree upon a set of practices that
constitute HPWS (Takeuchi et al., 2007). As a result, the specific practices selected for this
study may not be representative of all HPWS utilized in organizations. However, we attempt to
mitigate this by including a large number of practices that have been identified as elements of
HPWS in previous strategic HRM studies (e.g., Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Truss, 1999).
Conclusion
HPWS hold the promise of offering organizations a strategic mechanism to achieve

performance benefits; however, the results of the present analysis suggest that
organizations must be cognizant of the effects of HPWS on employees. If the
implementation of HPWS practices is not coupled with an appropriate increase in control
and autonomy to individual employees, simply instating a bundled set of integrated HR
practices may have negative effects on employee perceptions of anxiety and role overload.
This becomes even more salient when turnover intentions are considered, as results from
the present analysis suggest that HPWS lead to stronger turnover intentions through the
perceptions of anxiety and role overload. In conclusion, this study suggests a more nuanced
approach to assessing HPWS in organizational settings.
Appendix A
Structure of a Typical Local Authority
Local Authority
Departments
Social Housing Waste Revenue and Human

Managemen
Planning Services Management Education Leisure t Benefits Resources
Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department

Head Head Head Head Head Head Head Head
Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees

Appendix B
Table B.1
Distribution of Respondents
Service Department
Authority Social Housing Waste Revenue and Human
Number Planning Services Management Education Leisure Management Benefits Resources Total
1 8 9 23 8 23 23 39 26 159
2 21 22 14 14 21 24 20 25 161
3 23 22 19 17 9 16 20 26 152
5 5 2 11 0 2 0 0 0 20
6 1 11 8 16 10 9 19 17 91
7 21 7 8 11 18 2 18 6 91
8 6 19 13 6 11 8 19 23 105
9 11 19 14 24 6 5 14 11 104
10 4 16 14 21 14 4 15 11 99
11 22 0 7 17 23 0 12 12 93
13 22 14 10 22 13 3 20 26 130
14 2 0 15 15 18 6 0 17 73
15 3 11 4 5 7 0 5 13 48
16 17 22 18 30 21 27 21 22 178
17 11 10 11 13 21 11 3 1 81
19 30 24 26 20 11 14 17 28 170
Total 207 208 215 239 228 152 242 264 1,755
Note: Gray highlights indicate dropped units, for a final sample of 1,592 employees representing 87 units.
Table B.2
Sampling Error per Included Unit
Service Department (percentages)
Authority Social Housing Waste Revenue and Human
Number Planning Services Management Education Leisure Management Benefits Resources
1 5.59 5.74 2.44 3.44 2.03 1.93 2.03 1.74
2 1.61 2.05 5.22 5.49 2.02 2.48 5.63 2.25
3 1.62 1.57 3.73 4.85 5.78 3.75 4.77 1.71
5 4.25 7.96 5.58 3.72 5.71 9.69 9.31 8.48
6 4.37 5.33 18.31 4.08 5.27 8.45 4.02 3.90
7 2.27 5.06 19.25 3.86 3.84 12.06 3.96 10.77
8 4.02 4.98 4.93 3.43 5.05 15.64 3.98 1.73
9 2.70 4.89 3.70 1.51 3.50 8.03 5.68 4.46
10 5.69 3.86 4.09 2.19 4.62 6.27 5.01 4.27
11 2.59 4.42 17.27 5.46 2.24 9.47 5.79 3.57
13 2.41 3.68 4.48 2.32 5.27 6.40 4.31 1.75
14 5.10 3.55 4.68 4.60 3.76 9.11 9.88 4.30
15 6.94 5.11 11.51 5.15 5.13 9.80 10.13 5.53
16 3.77 1.66 4.10 2.49 2.48 1.89 2.28 1.58
17 4.90 4.99 4.87 5.67 1.72 4.14 15.55 14.12
19 1.79 1.68 1.50 4.00 5.59 4.70 4.74 2.36
Note: Gray highlights indicate dropped units, for a final sample of 1,592 employees representing 87 units.

Appendix C
Employee and Department-Level Measures of
High-Performance Work Systems
Employee-Level Measure
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your
department? (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
1. I am provided with sufficient opportunities for training and development.

2. I receive the training I need to do my job.
3. This department keeps me informed about business issues and about how well it’s doing.
4. There is a clear status difference between management and staff in this department.
5. Team working is strongly encouraged in our department.
6. A rigorous selection process is used to select new recruits.
7. Management involve people when they make decisions that affect them.
8. Communication within this department is good.
9. Communication between departments is good.
10. I feel my job is secure.
11. The rewards I receive are directly related to my performance at work.
12. Career management is given a high priority in this department
13. I have the opportunities I want to be promoted.
14. The appraisal system provides me with an accurate assessment of my strengths and
weaknesses. 15. I am given meaningful feedback regarding my performance at least once a year.
Department-Level Measure
We are trying to get an overall impression of how employees are managed in your department.
Please provide your best estimate in each case that describes the HR practices in existence in YOUR
Department. Indicate what percentage of employees . . .
1. Have one or more employment test prior to hiring (e.g. personality, ability tests).
2. Hold non-entry level jobs as a result of internal promotions ( i.e. % of employees that have
been promoted within the organisation since their initial post).
3. Are promoted on the basis of merit or performance as opposed to length of service.
4. Are hired following intensive/extensive recruiting (e.g. your department had to put forth a
lot of effort to recruit).
5. Are routinely administered attitude surveys to identify and correct employee morale
problems.
6. Are involved in programmes designed to elicit participation and employee input (e.g.
quality circles, problem-solving or similar groups).
7. Have access to a formal grievance and/or complaint system.
8. Are provided with service department operating performance information.
9. Are provided with financial performance information.
10. Are provided with information on strategic plans.
11. Receive a formal personal performance appraisal/feedback on a regular basis.
12. Receive a formal personal performance appraisal/feedback from more than one source (i.e.
from several individuals such as supervisors, peers, etc.).
(continued)

Appendix C (continued)
13. Receive rewards which are partially contingent on group performance (e.g. department
bonuses).
14. Are paid on the basis of a skill rather than a job-type (i.e. pay is primarily determined by a
person’s skill or knowledge level as opposed to the particular job they hold).
15. Receive intensive/extensive training in organization-specific skills (i.e. task or
organization specific training).
16. Receive intensive training in generic skills (e.g. problem-solving, communication skills)
17. Receive training in a variety of jobs or skills (“cross-training”).
18. Routinely perform more than one job (are “cross utilized”/multi-skilled).
19. Are organized in self-directed teams in performing a major part of their work roles.
20. Are offered flexible working (e.g. job share/term-time employment/flexitime, home
working). 21. Are covered by “family-friendly” policies (e.g. time off to care for dependents).
Note: For the employee-level measure, items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 are from Gould-Williams and Davies (2005),
and items 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are from Truss (1999). For the department-level measure, items 1 through
19 are from Datta, Guthrie, and Wright (2005).
References
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Alvesson, M. 2009. Critical perspectives on strategic HRM. In J. Storey, P. M. Wright, & D. Ulrich (Eds.), The
Routledge companion to strategic human resource management: 52-67. London: Routledge.
Anheier, H. K. 2000. Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach (London School of
Economics Civil Society Working Paper No. 1). London: Centre for Civil Society.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 670-687.
Balfour, D. L., & Neff, D. M. 1993. Predicting and managing turnover in human service agencies: A case study of
an organization in crisis. Public Personnel Management, 22: 473-486.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. 1998. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining
competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37: 31-46.
Batt, R. 2002. Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 587-597.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here?
Journal of Management, 32: 898-925.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2011. SHRM and job design: Narrowing the divide. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31: 379-388.
Beehr, T. A., & Schuler, R. S. 1982. Current and future perspectives on stress in organizations. In K. M. Rowland,
& G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Personnel management: New perspectives: 390-419. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. 2008. The impact of
human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study.
Personnel Psychology, 61: 467-501.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2005. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual
initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 740-748.
Bollen, K. A., Bauer, D. J., Christ, S. L., & Edwards, M. C. 2010. Overview of structural equations models and
recent extensions. In S. Kolenikov, D. Steinley, & L. Thombs (Eds.), Statistics in the social sciences: Current
methodological developments: 37-79. New York: Wiley.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research.
Human Resource Management Journal, 15: 67-94.

Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. 2003. Human resource management, institutionalization and organiza-
tional performance: A comparison of hospitals, hotels and local government. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14: 1407-1429.
Cappelli, P., & Neumark, D. 2001. Do “high performance” work practices improve establishment level outcomes?
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54: 737-776.
Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. 2010. Strategic human resource management in service context: Taking care of
business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel Psychology, 63: 153-196.
Cousins, R., Mackay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J., & McCaig, R. H. 2004. “Management standards”
and work-related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work and Stress, 18: 113-136.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. 2005. HRM and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy
of Management Journal, 48: 135-145.
de Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W. B., Broersen, J. P. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. 2004. Stressful
work, psychological job strain, and turnover: A 2-year prospective cohort study of truck drivers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89: 442-454.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 919-969.
Delery, J. E. 1998. Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human
Resource Management Review, 8: 289-310.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universal-istic,
contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 802-835.
Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. 1983. The brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedure
manual I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Dougherty, T. W., & Pritchard, R. D. 1985. The measurement of role variables: Exploratory examination of a new
approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 141-155.
Drucker, P. F. 2006. What executives should remember. Harvard Business Review, 84: 144-152.
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. 2005. High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The
mediat-ing role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31: 758-775.
Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. 1993. Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological
and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 289-318.
Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. 2000. Measurement error in research on human
resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?
Personnel Psychology, 53: 803-834.
Godard, J. 2001. High performance and the transformation of work: The implications of alternative work practices
for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54: 776-805.
Godard, J. 2004. A critical assessment of high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42:
349-378.
Goldstein, H., & McDonald, R. 1988. A general model for the analysis of multilevel data. Psychometrika, 53: 455-467.
Gould-Williams, J. 2009. Wales Local Government Staff Survey, 2006-2008 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK
Data Archive [distributor]. SN: 6239, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6239-1.
Gould-Williams, J. S. 2003. The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior perfor-
mance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 1-
27.
Gould-Williams, J. S. 2007. HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: Evaluating social exchange
relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18: 1627-1647.
Gould-Williams, J. S. 2008. Evaluating the effects of “best practice” HRM in local government: Full research
report (ESRC end of award report, RES-000-22-1454). Swindon: ESRC.
Gould-Williams, J. S., & Davies, F. 2005. Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on
employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7: 25-47.
Gottfredson, N., Panter, A., Daye, C., Allen, W., & Wightman, L. 2009. The effects of educational diversity in a
national sample of law students: Fitting multilevel latent variable models in data with categorical indicators.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44: 305-331.
Guest, D. E. 1998. Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19:
649-664.

Guest, D. E. 1999. Human resource management—The workers’ verdict. Human Resource Management Journal,
9: 5-25.
Guthrie, J. P. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand.
Academy of Management Journal, 44: 180-190.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1991. General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39: 110-128.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. 2011. Bridging micro and macro domains: Workforce differentiation and strategic
human resource management. Journal of Management, 37: 421-428.
Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. 1991. Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive
and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 380-391.
Jex, S. M. 1998. Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. 1991. Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related
stress. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9):
311-365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. 2001. The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations:
Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 401-409.
Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-308.
Keegan, A., & Boselie, P. 2006. The lack of impact of dissensus inspired analysis on developments in the field of
human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1491-1511.
Keenoy, T. 1990. HRM: A case of the wolf in sheep’s clothing? Personnel Review, 19: 3-9.
Keenoy, T. 1997. HRMism and the languages of re-presentation. Journal of Management Studies, 34: 825-841.
Kroon, B., van de Voorde, K., & van Veldhoven, M. 2009. Cross-level effects of high-performance work practices
and burnout: Two counteracting mediating mechanisms compared. Personnel Review, 38: 509-525.
Legge, K. 1995. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lepak, D. P., & Shaw, J. D. 2008. Strategic HRM in North America: Looking to the future. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 19: 1486-1499.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation
and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31-48.
Lepak, D. P., Taylor, S. M., Tekleab, A. G., Marrone, J. M., & Cohen, D. 2007. Examining variability in high
invest-ment human resource system use across employee groups, establishments, and industries. Human
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. 2009. Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee
perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94: 371-391.
Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. 1999. Stress and workload of men and women in high-ranking positions.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4: 142-151.
Mayston, D. J. 1985. Non-profit performance indicators in the public sector. Financial Accountability and
Management, 1: 51-74.
McNemar, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages.
Psychometrika, 12: 153-157.
Messersmith, J. G., & Guthrie, J. P. 2010. High performance work systems in emergent organizations:
Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, 49: 244-266.
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. 1998-2009. Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Muthén,
B., & Satorra, A. 1995. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology,
25: 267-316.
National Assembly for Wales. 2000. Local Government Act 1999: Guidance to local authorities in Wales on Best
Value (Circular 14/2000). Cardiff, UK: National Assembly for Wales.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their
effect on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503-545.
Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Ramsey, J. 2009. The consequences of human resource stocks and flows: A
longitudinal examination of unit service orientation and unit effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
52: 996-1015.
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. 2011. Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data:
The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18: 161-182.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J. & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel
mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209-233.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. 2000. Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside
the black box. British Journal of Labour Relations, 38: 501-531.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. 2000. Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials.
Psychological Methods, 5: 199-213.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150-163.
Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. 1994. Human resource practices: Administrative contract makers. Human
Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R., & Vellella, R. F. 2009. Employee-organization exchange relationships, HRM
practices, and quit rates of good and poor performers. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1016-1033.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. 2004. Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and struc-
tural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. 1988. Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance
outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 11-19.
Spielberger, C. D. 1966. Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. 2009. Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level mediating
effects of high performance work systems on employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1-29.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. 2007. An empirical examination of the mechanisms
mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 1069-1083.
Tetrick, L. E., Perrewe, P. L., & Griffin, M. 2010. Employee work-related health, stress, and safety. In J. L. Farr &
N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection: 531-549. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Tett, R., & Meyer, J. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path
analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46: 259-293.
Todd, C. M., & Deery-Schmidt, D. M. 1996. Factors affecting turnover among child care providers: A
longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11: 351-376.
Truss, C. 1999. Soft and hard models of human resource management. In L. Gratton, V. Hope-Hailey, P. Stiles, &
C. Truss (Eds.), Strategic human resource management: Corporate rhetoric and human reality: 40-58.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Truss, C. 2001. Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of
Management Studies, 38: 1121-1149.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P., & Stiles, P. 1997. Soft and hard models of human resource
management: A reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34: 53-73.
Walton, R. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63: 77-84.
Way, S. A. 2002. High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the US
small business sector. Journal of Management, 28: 765-785.
Welsh Assembly Government. 2008. Performance indicators. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://dissemination
.dataunitwales.gov.uk/webview/.
Willmott, H. 1993. Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal
of Management Studies, 30: 515-552.

Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. 2002. Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human
resource management research. Journal of Management, 28: 247-276.
Wright, P. M., & Gardner, T. M. 2003. The human resource-firm performance relationship: Methodological and
theoretical challenges. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The new
work-place: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices: 311-328. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. 2000. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with
non-normal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30: 165-200.

Journal of Management-2013-Jensen-1699-724

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Journal of Management-2013-Jensen-1699-724

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.

High-Performance Work Systems and Job Control: Consequences for

Southern Management Association

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

>> Version of Record - Aug 5, 2013

High-Performance Work Systems and Job

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

As organizations consider ways to increase and enhance organizational performance,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

on theories with a commensurate individual-level focus (Truss, 2001). We explore this

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

HPWS Anxiety Turnover

Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems.

The Emergence of the “Dark Side” of HPWS

Researchers advocating a critical perspective or “dark side” of HPWS propose a

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

A Caveat to the “Dark Side”—The Importance of Job Control

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Mediating Role of Anxiety and Role Overload on Turnover Intentions

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

or physical withdrawal (Jex, 1998). Turnover intentions are a form of job-related

Data Source and Study Context

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Procedures and Sample

Procedures. Twenty-two local government authorities were asked to participate in a

Employee-level sample. To ensure representativeness across occupational classes, a

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Department-level sample. Of the 128 departments that initially agreed to participate, 16

Department-level measure of HPWS. Department heads were asked to indicate the

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessed using a four-item scale (1 =

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

connection between HPWS utilization and aggregated performance measures (Guthrie,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

1. Turnover 3.25 0.88 .89

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

HPWS → HPWS Perception .46 .14 3.24 .00

HPWS Perception → Anxiety → Turnover Intentions .02 .01 2.44 .01

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Path: HPWS Perception × Job HPWS Perception + HPWS

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Limitations and Future Directions

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

HPWS hold the promise of offering organizations a strategic mechanism to achieve

Social Housing Waste Revenue and Human

Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department

Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

1. I am provided with sufficient opportunities for training and development.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on April 26, 2014

You might also like