HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis

Journal of Management Studies 47:7 November 2010
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00911.x
HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour,

and Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis joms_911 1219..1247
Ed Snape and Tom Redman

Hong Kong Baptist University; Durham Business School
abstract We examine the relationship between HRM practices, conceptualized at the

workplace level, and individual employee attitudes and behaviour. We focus on two possible
explanations for the relationship: social exchange and job influence/employee discretion.
Findings from a study of employees in North-East England suggest that there is a positive
impact of HRM practices on organizational citizenship behaviour, through an effect on
perceived job influence/discretion. There was no such effect for perceived organizational
support. These findings provide support for a job influence and opportunity explanation of
HRM effects on employee attitudes and behaviour.
INTRODUCTION
Much of the early work evaluating the impact of human resource management (HRM)
practices on performance focused on the organizational level of analysis, and examined
the effect of systems of HRM practices on organizational outcomes such as employee
turnover, productivity, machine efficiency, scrap rates, customer alignment, customer
satisfaction, and financial and perceptual measures of firm performance (Arthur, 1992,
1994; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Delery and Doty, 1996;
Huselid, 1995; Rogg et al., 2001; Youndt et al., 1996). This body of work is now
extensive, with a meta-analysis of the HRM–organizational performance relationship
drawing on 92 studies conducted between 1990 and 2005 (Combs et al., 2006).
More recently, attention has turned to the effects of systems of HRM practices on
individual employee attitudes and behaviours (Allen et al., 2003; Kuvaas, 2008; Wright
et al., 2003; Zacharatos et al., 2005). Allen et al. (2003) show that the positive relation-
ship between ‘supportive human resource practices’ and organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and employee turnover is mediated by perceived organizational support,
whilst Zacharatos et al. (2005) show that a ‘high-performance work system’ is associated
with trust in management and safety climate, which mediate relationships with personal
Address for reprints: Tom Redman, Durham Business School, Durham University, Mill Hill Lane, Durham
DH1 3LB, UK (tom.redman@durham.ac.uk).
The authors have contributed equally to this paper.
© 2010 The Authors

Journal of Management Studies © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management
Studies. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
1220 E. Snape and T. Redman
safety orientation and safety incidents. Kuvaas (2008) found that the positive relationship
between ‘developmental human resource practices’ and work performance was not
mediated by perceived organizational support, affective commitment, or organizational
justice (procedural or interactional).
Most of the studies adopt a single unit of analysis, either individual employees or the
organization/business unit. For example, Allen et al.’s (2003) two studies were conducted
entirely at the individual level of analysis, using single-organization samples, with
individual-level perceptual measures of HRM practices. Zacharatos et al.’s (2005)
employee-level study involved respondents from two organizations, treated as a single
sample, and again with individual-level perceptual measures of HRM practices. Kuvaas
(2008) gathered data across 64 savings banks, but this was an employee-level study, using
perceptual measures of HRM.
There are a small number of multi-level studies of HRM (Holman et al., 2009; Liao
and Chuang, 2004; Sun et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2009; Whitener, 2001; Wu and
Chaturvedi, 2009). Most of these examine the effect of organization- or establishment-
level HRM practices on individual employee outcomes, focusing on the effects of HRM
on individual attitudes such as job satisfaction (Takeuchi et al., 2009; Wu and
Chaturvedi, 2009), trust in management (Whitener, 2001), and organizational commit-
ment (Takeuchi et al., 2009; Whitener, 2001; Wu and Chaturvedi, 2009). To our
knowledge, no study has examined the effect of organizational or establishment-level
HRM on individual organizational citizenship behaviour and in-role performance. This
is an important omission, since evidence suggests that employee behaviours may have
implications for organizational performance (e.g. Organ et al., 2006), and can there-
fore provide an explanation for the relationship between HRM and organizational
performance.
In this paper, we are concerned with the relationship between HRM practices, and
employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and in-role performance. We
explore the nature of the HRM practices–behaviours linkage. In addition to the social
exchange explanation implied by earlier HRM studies (e.g. Allen et al., 2003; Takeuchi
et al., 2009; Takeuchi et al., 2007; Zacharatos et al., 2005), we examine an additional
explanation for the effects of HRM: that HRM practices enhance employee perfor-
mance by providing greater intrinsic motivation and opportunity to perform through
higher levels of perceived job influence and discretion. In so doing, we address the widely
recognized need for a richer understanding of the linkages between HRM and outcomes
(Evans and Davis, 2005; Wright and Nishii, 2007), and the suggestion that research
examining the intermediate-linkages in HRM–performance research ‘should be given a
high-priority by HRM scholars’ (Ferris et al., 1999, p. 394). We are also responding to
calls for researchers to diversify their attention away from social exchange in analysing
the antecedents of OCB (e.g. Restubog et al., 2008; Zellars and Tepper, 2003), and to
suggestions that employees’ job influence and discretion may be a significant element in
the link between high-commitment HRM practices and performance (Delbridge and
Whitfield, 2001; MacDuffie, 1995).
In the extant literature, HRM–outcomes relationships have been under-theorized
(Guest, 1997). They have been addressed in terms of social exchange theory, but recently
this framework in general has been criticized (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004;
© 2010 The Authors

Journal of Management Studies © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and
Society for the Advancement of Management Studies
HRM Practices, OCB, and Performance 1221
Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Kiewitz et al., 2009). We provide a complementary
perspective by examining job characteristics theory explanations of HRM–outcomes
linkages. In so doing, we contribute towards a deeper understanding of the specific
psychological mechanisms that may mediate the relationship between HRM and indi-
vidual employee performance. Furthermore, given that employee performance has been
shown to be associated with organizational performance (Ilgen and Pulakos, 1999), we
believe that our analysis provides additional insights into the underlying processes and
mechanisms involved in HRM effects, thereby addressing the so called ‘black box’
problem (Paauwe, 2009; Ramsay et al., 2000).
In an organizational context, discretion has been defined as an individual’s right to
make choices based on an authoritative assessment of the situation (Feldman, 2001, p.
164). Following this approach, we define perceived job influence/discretion as the
amount of freedom of choice employees perceive they have over important aspects of
their work, such as the range of tasks undertaken, the pace of work, how the job is done,
working hours, when breaks are taken, and such like. According to job characteristics
theory the core characteristic of autonomy/discretion produces a ‘critical psychological
state’ of experienced responsibility for the work, which in turn leads to improved work
effectiveness (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Job discretion is argued to enhance employ-
ees’ sense of responsibility for work outcomes and increases their willingness to go the
‘extra mile’ to complete tasks. Conversely, low job discretion may foster a sense of
‘learned helplessness’, ‘reduced industriousness’, or ‘going through the motions’
(Eisenberger, 1992; Seligman, 1975), which is likely to decrease employee performance
and participation in citizenship behaviours. There is evidence suggesting a strong asso-
ciation between job characteristics and employee attitudes and behaviours (Humphrey
et al., 2007), and we take this further by examining the mediating role of job influence/
discretion in the HRM–performance relationship, so that our paper also contributes to
a more complete understanding of the antecedents of OCBs.
In this study, we sample across a range of workplaces, using managers’ ratings of
HRM practices at the workplace level to predict employees’ individual-level attitudes
and behaviours. Such an approach allows us to go beyond individual perceptions of
HRM and specifies practices at the workplace level of analysis. We begin by discussing
the issues associated with conceptualizing and measuring HRM. We then review the
relatively small number of HRM studies that have used multi-level designs. We argue
that there is a need to extend this research to consider organizational citizenship and
performance behaviours as outcomes and also to assess alternative mediating mecha-
nisms in the HRM–employee outcomes relationship. Next, we examine social exchange
and perceived job influence explanations for HRM effects, which provides the basis for
the development of our hypotheses. We then present our methodology and findings,
concluding the paper with a discussion of the implications and limitations of the study.
THE NATURE OF HRM

The specification of the ‘bundle’ of HRM practices varies considerably across studies
(Boselie et al., 2005; Dyer and Reeves, 1995; Wood and Wall, 2007). To some extent this
reflects different conceptualizations of the underlying work system. Work systems have
© 2010 The Authors

been conceptualized as ‘high involvement’ (Lawler, 1986), with information sharing the
key characteristic, and as ‘high commitment’ (Wood and De Menzies, 1998), with the
essence being a work system that aims to encourage employees to identify with the goals
of the organization and to motivate them to work hard to accomplish those goals. More
recently, a ‘high performance work system’ approach is beginning to dominate HRM
research. This is conceptualized as a system of interconnected HR activities, designed to
ensure that employees have a broad range of superior skills and abilities, which are
utilized to achieve the organization’s goals, and thereby provide sustainable competitive
advantage (Way, 2002; Wood and Wall, 2002).
It appears that consensus is emerging on the nature of the high performance work
system construct. Wright and Boswell (2002) identify three broad conceptual categories
of HRM practices. First, employee skills, with HR activities aimed at attracting talented
employees and developing their skills. Second, motivation, with practices such as per-
formance related pay aimed at eliciting high levels of effort. Third, the use of empow-
erment programmes to enable employee voice and influence. There appears to be
growing empirical support for the impact of HR programmes conceptualized along these
lines (Combs et al., 2006). Furthermore, these HR activities are seen as interdependent
‘bundles’, such that the use of one HR activity often necessitates the inclusion of others,
such as performance-contingent rewards and performance appraisal. In this paper we
follow this high performance work system conceptualization and define an HRM pro-
gramme as a formal integrated system of HR activities that includes selective recruitment
and selection, extensive training and development, regular performance appraisal,
performance-contingent rewards, and high levels of employee involvement (Becker and
Huselid, 1998; Zacharatos et al., 2005). Given our focus on social rather than economic
exchange (see below), we examine collective performance-contingent rewards, based on
work group, department, team, or organization performance, rather than on individual
performance.
There have been suggestions that individual employee-rated measures of HRM may
be better predictors of employees’ attitudinal outcomes than are manager/employer-
level HRM measures (Edgar and Geare, 2005; Khilji and Wang, 2006). However, any
suggestion that employee-rated, rather than employer-rated, HRM measures account
for significant variance in employee attitudes may be attributed to common method bias.
In fact, some authors have found little difference between manager ratings and employee
ratings in assessing the impact of HRM on attitudinal outcomes (e.g. Takeuchi et al.,
2007). In this study, given the need to minimize concerns about common method bias,
we use an HR manager rating of HR practices at the workplace level of analysis.
CROSS-LEVEL HRM RESEARCH

The great majority of studies of the impact of HRM tend to focus on a single level of
analysis, most often the organization level (Combs et al., 2006), but with a growing
number of individual-level studies (Allen et al., 2003; Kuvaas, 2008; Zacharatos et al.,
2005). Despite some theorizing on multi-level HRM models (Arthur and Boyles, 2007;
Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff and Bowen, 2000; Wright and Nishii, 2007), there
is relatively little empirical work adopting a multi-level approach. In part, this may
© 2010 The Authors

reflect the practical difficulties of gaining research access to a large number of internal
respondents across multiple organizations or workplaces (Wright and Boswell, 2002,
p. 266).
What few multi-level studies there are have typically specified HRM as an
organization- or business-unit-level variable. Sun et al.’s (2007) study of People’s
Republic of China hotels found that high performance HR practices, evaluated by
managers at the hotel level, were positively associated with service-oriented OCB,
evaluated by supervisors but aggregated to the hotel level, and that this mediated the
relationships between HR practices and hotel-level voluntary labour turnover and pro-
ductivity. This was a multi-level study, with 81 hotels nested within 12 cities, but there
was no analysis at the employee level. Other studies have, however, involved the analysis
of employee data nested within higher-level units. For example, in a study of 257
employees in 25 units of a US restaurant chain, Liao and Chuang (2004) examined the
effects of three manager-rated store-level HR practices, employee involvement, training,
and performance incentives, on individual employee service performance. They found
that only employee involvement practices were positively associated with employee
performance. In a study of 522 employees in 76 Japanese establishments, Takeuchi et al.
(2009) reported that ‘concern for employees climate’, an aggregated establishment-level
measure of the extent to which employees feel that the establishment values and
shows concern for them, fully mediated the relationships between manager-rated
establishment-level high performance work systems (HPWS) and employee’s individual-
level job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Wu and Chaturvedi’s (2009)
cross-level study of 1383 employees in 23 Asian manufacturing and service firms found
that individual-level procedural justice mediated the relationship between an aggregated
employee-rated measure of establishment-level HPWS and individual employee job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, Whitener’s (2001) study of 1689
employees in 180 US credit unions found that organizational-level (HR manager-rated)
HRM practices of internally equitable rewards moderated the individual-level perceived
organizational support–organizational commitment relationship, such that it was stron-
ger in organizations with high internal equity of rewards. In addition, the relationship
between perceived organizational support and trust in management was stronger in
organizations with highly developmental appraisal practices, but weaker in organizations
with highly comprehensive training opportunities.
These multi-level studies have focused mainly on the effects of organizational- or
establishment-level HRM on individual employee attitudes. Of the studies cited above,
only Sun et al. (2007) and Liao and Chuang (2004) examine employee behaviours. In the
former, this is specified at the hotel- rather than the individual-level of analysis and in the
latter this was ‘employee service performance’, an employee self-rating of specific cus-
tomer service-related behaviours. There is clearly a need to extend the multi-level
research to consider mainstream organizational citizenship and performance behav-
iours. This is a key aim of the present study.
In addition, we go beyond the direct OCB linkages identified by Sun et al. (2007), and
we test potential mediators other than concern for employees and social exchange (Sun
et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2007, 2009). We follow the earlier studies by specifying
HRM at the unit level of analysis. In line with our interest in the impact of HRM on
© 2010 The Authors

employee attitudes and behaviours, we specify our mediator and outcome variables at
the individual level. This raises the issue of the theoretical bases for the HRM–outcomes
linkage, to which we now turn.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

The relationship between an organization and its employees may be conceptualized as
involving economic or social exchange. Economic exchange is based exclusively on a
specific contractual relationship, requiring specific performance of contractual obliga-
tions, with no expectation of performance beyond the specified terms of the contract
(Blau, 1964). Social exchange, however, involves imperfectly specified terms and a norm
of reciprocity, such that discretionary benefits provided to the exchange partner are
returned in a discretionary way in the longer term (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Obligations are non-specific, and trust is essential to the long-term viability of the
relationship.
Employment relationships may be seen as having the characteristics of social exchange
(Blau, 1964). For example, organizational justice has been seen as providing the employ-
er’s side of such an exchange, with employees reciprocating through high levels of
discretionary OCB (Moorman, 1991). Furthermore, consistent with the social exchange
view, the justice–OCB relationship has been shown to be mediated by trust and per-
ceived organizational support (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Moorman et al., 1998), and
the latter in particular has been used as an indicator of employees’ perceptions of a
favourable social exchange (e.g. Allen et al., 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Wayne et al.,
1997).
Other organizational inputs into the employment relationship have also been consid-
ered in a social exchange context. Wayne et al. (1997) considered the quality of leader–
member exchange as an input into a social exchange, and terms of employment may also
be seen in this way. Thus, Van Dyne and Ang (1998) found that contingent workers have
lower levels of OCB, which they interpret as evidence that ‘. . . when individuals like
contingent workers feel that organizations view them as short-term, temporary, or
dispensable, they reciprocate by performing only required duties and minimizing citi-
zenship behaviors’ (p. 694).
There is strong evidence that individual HRM practices impact on employee percep-
tions of organizational support. Providing training and development and the investment
of managerial time in appraising the performance and training needs of employees sends
strong messages that they are valued organizational assets (Rhoades and Eisenberger,
2002; Tansky and Cohen, 2001). Reward strategies, for example pay for performance
which often pay above market rates (Pfeffer, 1998), can increase feelings of being
supported and valued by the organization. Employee involvement practices can also
signal that employee contributions are valued and that the organization seeks to build a
social exchange relationship with employees (Allen et al., 2003).
Human resource management policies in general may be seen as an input into the
social exchange process, as the evidence of positive effects of bundles of ‘high perfor-
mance’ or ‘high commitment’ work practices on employee attitudes, behaviour, and
turnover suggests. More specifically, HRM practices which demonstrate that the orga-
© 2010 The Authors

nization is committed to employees in the long term, wishes to invest in them, and is
concerned about their welfare and development are likely to result in employees feeling
that the organization is being supportive, and so be positively associated with OCB.
Thus, Allen et al. (2003) found that ‘supportive human resource practices’ (i.e. partici-
pation in decision making, fairness of rewards, and growth opportunities) contributed to
employees’ perceived organizational support, which mediated the relationships between
HRM practices and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and employee turn-
over. They argue that this is because perceived organizational support creates feelings of
obligations to repay the benefits and support received from the organization, based on
the norm of reciprocity (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In other words, perceived organiza-
tional support reflects the strength of the employee’s perceived social exchange relation-
ship with the organization.
There is evidence at the business establishment level that high performance work
systems are associated with employee perceptions of social exchange. In a Japanese
study, Takeuchi et al. (2007) found that high performance work practices, rated by both
employees and managers, were positively associated with collective human capital and
establishment-level social exchange, which mediated the relationship with a subjective
measure of establishment performance. Similarly, in their hotel-level study, Sun et al.
(2007) argue that the mediating role of service-oriented citizenship behaviours in the
relationship between high performance human resource practices and both productivity
and turnover reflects a relational view of the employment relationship, with employees
reciprocating the organization’s favourable treatment.
Social exchange envisages the employee reciprocating the employee’s supportive
treatment, and one possible form of reciprocation is organizational citizenship behav-
iour. Two of the most commonly-cited dimensions of OCB are compliance and altruism
(Organ et al., 2006). Compliance involves cooperative behaviours which help increased
efficiency, such as volunteering for things that are not absolutely required by the job.
Such behaviours go beyond the basic performance of job requirements, to include
discretionary behaviours which reflect a cooperative adherence to the spirit as well as the
letter of organizational requirements. Altruism refers to discretionary helping behav-
iours, such as assisting others with their work when they have been absent or are
overloaded. Such behaviours benefit specific individuals, although they may also indi-
rectly benefit the organization as a whole by increasing the effectiveness of the work
group.
A review of the literature reports over 30 dimensions of OCBs, with considerable
variation in the nature of behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, ‘helping’ behav-
iours have been described by Podsakoff et al. (2000, p. 516) as being an important form
of citizenship behaviour by ‘virtually everyone who has worked in this area’. Our focus
on compliance and altruism is consistent with this ‘helping’ conceptualization of OCB,
helping the organization in general (compliance) and specific individuals such as
co-workers (altruism). Furthermore, in a study of the consequences of HRM, helping
behaviours targeted at the organization and individuals who work there are of particular
interest, given the strong linkage of these dimensions to organizational performance
(Organ et al., 2006).
Based on the above, we offer the following hypotheses:
© 2010 The Authors

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived organizational support will mediate the positive relationship
between HRM practices and OCB (compliance).
Hypothesis 1b: Perceived organizational support will mediate the positive relationship
between HRM practices and OCB (altruism).
In contrast to OCB, in-role behaviour has been characterized as non-discretionary

and thus as not providing currency in a social exchange relationship. However, recent
debates have questioned the degree to which the discretionary–non-discretionary dis-
tinction can be neatly drawn when differentiating OCB and in-role behaviours. Harrison
et al.’s (2006) meta-analytic findings suggest that behaviours typically seen as in-role,
such as absence and lateness, may be better interpreted as controllable forms of input
reduction and thus subject to the same motivations as OCB. Therefore, consistent with
this, we suggest that Hypothesis 1 will also apply in the case of in-role behaviour.
Hypothesis 1c: Perceived organizational support will mediate the positive relationship
between HRM practices and in-role behaviour.
JOB INFLUENCE AND EMPLOYEE DISCRETION

Social exchange theory has become a strong theme in the OCB literature. However,
there have recently been calls for researchers to diversify their attention away from social
exchange in analysing the antecedents of OCB (Zellars and Tepper, 2003). Perceived job
characteristics may provide an explanation for OCB, which lies outside the traditional
social exchange explanation.
The job influence/discretion construct has been used in a wide range of studies. Job
influence has been found to be an antecedent of organizational commitment (Sherer and
Morishima, 1989; Snape and Chan, 2000), job and pay satisfaction (Cappelli and Sherer,
1988), job demands, stimulating work, skill development, and involvement (Petterson
et al., 1995). It has also been used as a measure of ‘psychological workload’ in predicting
weight gain (Overgaard et al., 2004). Holman et al. (2009) conducted a multi-level
analysis (establishments nested within countries) of work design variation in call centres,
finding that job discretion was negatively associated with quit rates and labour costs.
Closely related concepts, such as job autonomy, task control, and decision latitude
(Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Karasek, 1979), have been found to be positively related
to employee wellbeing and motivation (Parker and Wall, 1998), and meta-analytic
studies report relationships between job autonomy and behaviour (e.g. performance,
absenteeism, and turnover intent), attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction and organizational
commitment), role perceptions (e.g. role conflict and role ambiguity), and wellbeing (e.g.
stress, burnout, and overload) (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Humphrey et al., 2007). In
addition, job influence has been studied as an outcome variable, for example of employee
involvement and participation programmes (Delbridge and Whitfield, 2001), and of
family-friendly management practices (Ortega, 2009). In these studies, perceived job
influence/discretion is typically seen as a job autonomy-type variable, tapping the
© 2010 The Authors

amount of influence employees perceive they have over aspects of their work, such as the
range of tasks undertaken, the pace of work, how the job is done, working hours, when
breaks are taken, etc.
In this paper, we are interested in the link between HRM practices and job influence/
discretion. There are suggestions that high levels of job influence are necessary for such
practices to impact positively on organizational performance. For example, MacDuffie
(1995, p. 198) argues that flexible production systems require an ‘enriched’, ‘motivated,
skilled and adaptable’ workforce, whilst Appelbaum and colleagues’ manufacturing
studies draw on sociotechnical theory and job characteristics theory to argue that worker
self regulation is the primary mechanism through which job design influences outcomes
(Appelbaum et al., 2000; Berg et al., 1996).
Most recently, Ortega (2009) has examined the relationship between employees’
ratings of their involvement in performance pay, job rotation, continuous improvement,
teamwork, and vertical communication on the one hand, and employee discretion on the
other. The latter was measured by asking employees whether they could choose the
order in which they conduct tasks, the methods with which they work, the speed of work,
timing of breaks, and working hours. Findings suggested that performance pay and
vertical communications were positively associated with discretion, but other practices,
such as teamwork and job rotation, were either unrelated or even negatively associated
with some aspects of discretion (Ortega, 2009, p. 21).
The literature on high-commitment HRM practices has suggested that employees’
degree of job influence and discretion is a significant element in the causal link between
such practices and performance (Delbridge and Whitfield, 2001; MacDuffie, 1995).
HRM practices which build employees’ skills and involvement provide them with the
ability and opportunity to exercise a higher degree of perceived influence over decision
making in the job. This in turn may bring a heightened sense of self efficacy and intrinsic
motivation to perform (e.g. Hackman and Oldham, 1980). In addition, job holders with
higher levels of job influence may have greater potential for task-related interaction with
supervisors and co-workers, and thus have a work environment more conducive to
performing discretionary OCB. There is some support for the latter in Settoon and
Mossholder’s (2002) finding that relationship quality is associated with interpersonal
citizenship behaviour.
The literature on individual HR practices and employee influence and discretion
reinforces these arguments. Thus, skill development and employee involvement are
positively associated with job influence (Petterson et al., 1995), and employee involve-
ment practices provide employees with increased ‘role-making’ opportunities to
expand and enrich their job roles and thus increase their positive perceptions of job
influence (Evans and Davis, 2005; Wood and Wall, 2007). There is also evidence of a
link between job characteristics and OCB. Studies have reported that task feedback,
task routinization, intrinsically satisfying tasks, and task scope all have significant cor-
relations with OCB (Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996), and Pod-
sakoff et al.’s (2000, p. 551) review of the literature demonstrates a consistent
relationship between task variables and OCB. The suggestion is that employees who
are able to exercise a high degree of influence in their jobs are motivated and enabled
to perform.
© 2010 The Authors

HRM Practices
Workplace level
Individual level
Perceived organizational Compliance.
support. Altruism.
Perceived job influence. In-role behaviour.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model

Note: We also included control variables at the individual (workplace tenure, gender, managerial and
professional job status) and workplace levels (sector, log of employment, and age of workplace).
The above arguments may be expected to apply to performance in general, both

OCBs and in-role behaviours. As we noted in our discussion of Hypothesis 2c, we may
question the extent to which OCBs are entirely and unambiguously discretionary and
in-role behaviours non-discretionary. It is more likely that both aspects of performance
will be seen by employees as having discretionary and non-discretionary elements, which
opens up the possibility for motivational factors, as well as social exchange, to influence
both. The argument developed above suggests that job discretion provides the ability,
opportunity, and motivation to perform in general. We hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived job influence will mediate the positive relationship between
HRM practices and OCB (compliance).
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived job influence will mediate the positive relationship between
HRM practices and OCB (altruism).
Hypothesis 2c: Perceived job influence will mediate the positive relationship between
HRM practices and in-role behaviour.
The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1. We included control variables at the

individual (organizational tenure, gender, and managerial and professional job status)
and workplace (age of workplace, public or private sector, and natural logarithm of total
workplace employment) levels.
METHOD
Sample
The data came from a study of human resource management in North-East England.
The sample was identified through the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service
(ACAS). We used the ACAS North-East officers’ contacts list to approach HR officers or
© 2010 The Authors

senior managers to request participation in the study, and 114 workplaces initially agreed
to participate. A survey facilitator was identified in each establishment, typically located
in the HR department, and provided with guidance on how to distribute the surveys.
Each workplace was sent a pack consisting of a questionnaire to be completed by the
on-site manager responsible for HRM, a questionnaire for the senior general manager
on site, and 50 questionnaires to be distributed to a sample of employees. Questionnaires
had a workplace identifier and were returned direct to the university. We received at
least partial responses from 60 workplaces, a 53 per cent response rate. The respondents
are broadly representative of the main employers in North-East England, with an
emphasis on manufacturing (for example, light engineering, defence industries, pro-
cessed food, brewing, pharmaceuticals, commodity and specialist chemicals, and steel)
and the public sector (NHS, local government, universities, civil service, and uniformed
services – police, fire, and ambulance), and rather less emphasis on private services (e.g.
TV media, distribution, privatized utilities, legal, and accountancy); small companies
were underrepresented. We received 867 responses from employees in these workplaces,
representing a 29 per cent response rate.
In this paper, we used data only from those workplaces for which we had responses
from an on-site manager responsible for HRM and a general manager. We also excluded
those workplaces for which we had fewer than three individual employee respondents
(Ambrose and Schminke, 2003). Along with missing values, this reduced the sample for
analysis to 28 workplaces, and 519 employees. In this sample, the number of employee
respondents per workplace ranged from 7 to 40. The analysis reported is based on data
from the employee, HR, and general manager questionnaires.
In this employee sample, mean organizational tenure was 12.15 years, average age
was 40.25 years, 38 per cent were female, 76 per cent were married or living as married,
17 per cent were in managerial or supervisory jobs, and 20 per cent were in professional-
level jobs. Looking at the workplaces, average total employment was 639, average
establishment age was 47 years, and 75 per cent were in the private sector, of which 16
were in manufacturing.
Measures
The measures of perceived job influence, perceived organizational support, OCB, in-role
behaviour, and the individual-level control variable (managerial status) were included in
the employee questionnaire. The measure of HRM practices and the workplace-level
controls (sector and employment) were taken from the HRM manager questionnaire.
Perceived organizational support was measured with four items from Eisenberger
et al. (1986), responding on a seven-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (= 1) to ‘strongly
agree’ (= 7). In selecting the items for perceived organizational support we followed the
recommendations of Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) that short forms of POS should
capture the key facets of the definition of POS. Thus items 8, 9, 20, and 25 from the
original scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986) were used. These are high loadings items (all
between 0.72 and 0.83), which have been used in the various short forms of the scale and
are drawn from the core facets of employee wellbeing (e.g. ‘the organization really cares
about my well being’) and contribution (e.g. ‘the organization cares about my opinions’).
© 2010 The Authors

Perceived job influence/discretion was based on Magneau and Hunt’s (1996) scale,
responding to the question ‘Thinking about your present job, how much say do you
actually have in the following decisions?’ (‘No say’ = 1 to ‘A lot of say’ = 4), with four
items covering the tasks to be performed, the amount of work to be performed each day,
establishing work rules and procedures, and deciding how exceptional issues are to be
dealt with.
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) was measured with nine items. Five
items, based on Podsakoff et al. (1990), represented altruism (e.g. ‘Help others who have
heavy workloads’), and four items, drawn from Smith et al. (1983), represented compli-
ance (e.g. ‘Volunteer for things that are not absolutely required’). In-role behaviour (IRB)
was measured with three items from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale, selecting
based on their high factor loadings (e.g. perform all the tasks that are expected of you
[0.87]). Responses for OCB and in-role behaviour were on a five-point scale, reflecting
the frequency of engagement in the activity (‘never’ [= 1] to ‘always’ [= 5]).
Whilst self-reported OCBs and IRBs are quite common in the literature (Podsakoff
et al., 2000), it is more usual to use supervisor reports. However, in the present study, we
already had a complex research design – gathering data from employees, HR managers,
and general managers across multiple establishments – and it was neither feasible nor
cost-effective for us to gather supervisor ratings of individual employee behaviours. In
particular, our initial discussion with employers suggested that research access and
response rates were likely to be compromised by requesting supervisor ratings. On
balance, we felt that it was preferable to use self reports of employee behaviour, as was
done in at least one earlier multi-level study of employee performance (Liao and Chuang,
2004). It should be noted that questionnaires were completely anonymous and were
mailed back directly to the university by respondents, which may reduce the incentive for
individuals to overstate their own citizenship and in-role behaviours. Furthermore, our
concern was with the variance in such behaviours across individuals and workplaces,
rather than with their overall mean levels in the sample, so that any tendency for self
reports to systematically overstate such behaviours is unlikely to affect our findings.
We estimated a measurement model for the employee sample, including all the scales
measured in the employee questionnaire: perceived job influence, perceived organiza-
tional support, compliance, altruism, and in-role behaviour. The hypothesized five-
factor model provided a reasonable overall fit (c2 = 748.589; d.f. = 160; GFI = 0.886;
AGFI = 0.850; CFI = 0.908; RMSEA = 0.078). All indicators loaded significantly
(p < 0.001) on their latent variables. A single-factor model provided a poor fit
(c2 = 4102.531; d.f. = 170; GFI = 0.511; AGFI = 0.396; CFI = 0.386; RMSEA = 0.197),
with a significant deterioration in chi-square relative to the hypothesized model (change
in c2 = 3353.942; change in d.f. = 10; p < 0.01). We also found a significant deterioration
in chi-square relative to the hypothesized model for 4-factor models which combined
altruism and compliance (change in c2 = 695.234; change in d.f. = 4; p < 0.01), and
perceived job influence and organizational support (change in c2 = 922.122; change in
d.f. = 4; p < 0.01), and also for a 3-factor model combining altruism, compliance, and
in-role behaviour (change in c2 = 1019.116; change in d.f. = 7; p < 0.01).
Table I shows the item loadings for the 5-factor model, along with the variance
extracted, construct reliabilities, and squared correlations amongst constructs. All factor
© 2010 The Authors

Table I. Standardized factor loadings, variance extracted, reliabilities, and squared correlations for the
5-factor measurement model (employee-rated variables)
Item Perceived org. support Perceived job influence Compliance Altruism In-role behaviour
POS1 0.86
POS2 0.84
POS3 0.79
POS4 0.73
PJI1 0.81
PJI2 0.84
PJI3 0.83
PJI4 0.88
COMP1 0.83
COMP2 0.92
COMP3 0.88
COMP4 0.50
ALT1 0.65
ALT2 0.72
ALT3 0.74
ALT4 0.74
ALT5 0.69
IRB1 0.42
IRB2 0.87
IRB3 0.64
Variance extracted 0.65 0.70 0.64 0.50 0.45
Construct reliability 0.72 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.77
Interconstruct squared correlations
POS – 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.00
PJI 0.23 – 0.18 0.05 0.01
COMP 0.04 0.18 – 0.26 0.01
ALT 0.00 0.05 0.26 – 0.03
IRB 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 –
loadings exceeded 0.5, apart from one in-role behaviour item. The variance extracted
was at least 0.5, apart from in-role behaviour, which is close to that level, and construct
reliability estimates all exceeded 0.7. These findings suggest convergent validity. There is
also evidence of discriminant validity. We examined the modification indices associated
with the 5-factor model, and none of these indicated standardized cross loadings in
excess of 0.3. Furthermore, as shown in the bottom section of Table I, for all constructs
the variance extracted substantially exceeded the squared correlations with other
constructs.
Ratings of HRM practices in the workplace were collected in the HR manager
questionnaire. Respondents were asked to assess the percentage of employees or jobs in
their workplace which were covered by a range of specified HRM practices. The specific
practices included in the system of HRM practices have varied between studies (Dyer
and Reeves, 1995). However, the common theme is that the practices address the
recruitment, development, motivation, and involvement of employees. Accordingly, we
© 2010 The Authors

include multiple practices which are likely to address each of these areas, as shown in the
Appendix. The items describe a HPWS approach which selects staff carefully, appraises
their performance regularly, motivates them with performance related rewards, and
provides them with formal induction, training, and promotion opportunities, and with
information and opportunities to give their views. The HR manager was asked to
provide a rating for managers and professionals as one group and also for all other
employees. Separate HRM practices ratings by the HR manager for the job groups of
managers and professionals and for other employees were computed by averaging the 12
items, and an overall workplace rating was computed from these, weighted by the
proportion of managers and professionals and other employees.
We had only a small sample of HR managers (one per workplace), with 50 workplaces
for which all HR data was available, so that with 12 items in the HRM measure, the ratio
of subjects to variables (STV) was only 4.17. This is less than the minimum recom-
mended STV ratio of 5:1 often cited for exploratory factor analysis (e.g. Hair et al.,
2006). Nevertheless, we performed a factor analysis, and the results are summarized in
the appendix. The first four factors each had eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounted
for 59 per cent of variance. A fifth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.003, but this fell below
an ‘elbow’ point in the scree test and did not add to the interpretability of the solution.
The rotated factor loadings for the four-factor solution are shown in the Appendix.
Factor 1 related to the provision of off-the-job training, performance appraisal, quality
circles, attitude surveys and formal induction for new recruits, and so appeared to
represent a developmental approach to HRM (‘Development’). The second factor
related primarily to the use of a rigorous selection process (‘Selection’), although the
provision of employee newsletters and briefings also loaded on this factor. Factor 3
related to the use of group and organization-wide incentive pay (‘Rewards’). The final
factor was concerned with on-the-job training and internal promotion, representing an
internal labour market approach to HRM (‘Internal labour market’).
These findings, although they should be treated with caution given the small sample
size, provide some evidence for multidimensionality. However, where separate dimen-
sions have been identified, it has been common to combine them into a single HRM
practices dimension (e.g. Bae and Lawler, 2000; Sun et al., 2007). Such an approach is
consistent with the argument in the literature that it is the system of practices as a whole
that constitutes a strategic asset for the organization (Becker and Huselid, 1998; Datta
et al., 2005). In the case of our measure, it is significant that careful selection, employee
development and involvement, internal development and promotion of employees
(‘make’ rather than ‘buy’), and group-based incentives have all been identified as char-
acteristic of the high performance work system approach to HRM (Combs et al., 2006),
providing some theoretical rationale for combining them into a single measure. Finally,
using a unitary measure has the advantage of model parsimony.
Following on from such arguments, and in order to provide for comparison with
previous findings, we initially followed the single-dimension approach, aggregating
across all 12 items to produce a single measure of HRM practices. This provides the basis
for our core analysis. However, in light of the findings of the factor analysis and mindful
of the possibility that job characteristics and social exchange might be differentially
related to our four dimensions, we also conducted a post hoc analysis using the four
© 2010 The Authors

HRM dimensions separately: development, selection, rewards, and internal labour
market. Given the exploratory nature of this dimensional analysis, we offer no specific
hypotheses here.
The level 1 control variables were organizational tenure (measured in years), gender
(female = 1; male = 0), and managerial or professional job status (= 1; other job = 0), all
taken from the employee questionnaire. The level 2 controls were sector (public ser-
vices = 1; private sector = 0), the natural logarithm of total workplace employment, both
taken from the HR manager questionnaire, and establishment age, taken from the
general manager questionnaire.
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the individual-level variables are shown
in Table II. We evaluated the impact of HRM practices on employees’ organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviours using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM). Compli-
ance, altruism, and in-role behaviours were modelled separately as individual-level
dependent variables, with HRM practices as the workplace-level independent variable.
HRM Practices, Perceived Job Influence, and Organizational Support

A condition for mediation by perceived organization support and job influence is that
HR practices are positively associated with these variables. Therefore, before estimating
the models for compliance, altruism, and in-role behaviour, we estimated models with
perceived organization support and perceived job influence as dependent variables. We
adopted a staged approach to the HLM analysis, as shown in Tables III and IV. We
began with a null model, with no level 1 or level 2 predictors. The ratio of between-group
to total variance provided an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.128 for per-
ceived job influence and 0.136 for perceived organizational support, suggesting that 12.8
and 13.6 per cent of the variance in perceived job influence and perceived organizational
support resides between groups. Although the ICCs were small, there was statistically
significant between-group variance in perceived job influence and perceived organiza-
tional support, suggesting that it was appropriate to examine level 2 predictors.
We then estimated model 2, including the level 1 control variables only. The results
suggest that managers, professionals, and women had higher levels of perceived job
influence (Table III) and perceived organizational support (Table IV), with organiza-
tional tenure negatively associated with perceived organizational support only. The
random error variance on the constant was significant for both dependent variables. We
then proceeded with model 3, which included the level 2 predictors. According to these
results, none of the level 2 controls was significant in the perceived job influence analysis
(Table III), but perceived organizational support was higher in public sector workplaces
(Table IV). HRM practices was positively associated with both perceived job influence
(Table III), and perceived organizational support (Table IV).
HRM Practices and Employee Behaviour

Turning now to the analyses for compliance, altruism, and in-role behaviour, we used a
similar staged approach, as shown in Tables V, VI, and VII. Beginning with the null
© 2010 The Authors

1234
© 2010 The Authors

Table II. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities (individual-level variables)
Mean S. D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tenure 12.15 9.81

Female 0.38 0.49 -0.25***

Manager 0.17 0.38 0.12** -0.11*
Professional 0.20 0.40 -0.05 -0.08 -0.23***
Perceived organizational support 4.06 1.44 -0.11* 0.16*** 0.15** 0.05
Perceived job influence 2.79 0.96 0.01 0.03 0.35*** 0.19*** 0.42***
Compliance 3.02 0.91 -0.05 0.02 0.24*** 0.06 0.18*** 0.37***

Altruism 3.28 0.87 -0.04 0.19*** 0.11** -0.05 0.03 0.16*** 0.46***
In-role behaviour 4.75 0.54 -0.05 0.15** -0.01 -0.17*** 0.02 -0.07 0.22*** 0.19***
E. Snape and T. Redman
Note: 2-tailed tests. n = 519.

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table III. Results of HLM analysis for the antecedents of perceived job influence
Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 4 Model 6 Model 7
Level 1
Constant 2.78*** (0.12***) 2.42*** (0.13**) 2.37*** (0.11*) 2.45*** (0.11*) 2.75*** (0.14**) 2.76*** (0.13**) 2.22*** (0.12**)
Tenure 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Female (= 1; male = 0) 0.13* (0.00) 0.13* (0.01) 0.13* (0.01) 0.13* (0.01) 0.13* (0.01) 0.13* (0.01)
Manager (= 1; other = 0) 1.07*** (0.08) 1.05*** (0.06) 1.07*** (0.06) 1.08*** (0.06) 1.06*** (0.06) 1.05*** (0.06)
Professional (= 1; other = 0) 0.68*** (0.01) 0.67*** (0.01) 0.67*** (0.01) 0.69*** (0.01) 0.68*** (0.01) 0.69*** (0.01)
Level 2
Sector ( private = 0; 0.15 0.06 -0.08 0.10 0.02
public = 1)
Log employment -0.07 -0.06 -0.03 -0.07 -0.04
Age of establishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HRM practices 0.01*
HRM dimensions
Development 0.01*
Selection -0.00
Rewards 0.00
Internal labour market 0.01*
HRM Practices, OCB, and Performance
Within-group residual 0.81 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66

variance
Model deviance 1400.30 1300.88 1323.84 1324.45 1326.30 1325.76 1323.85
Notes: Unstandardized coefficient estimates with robust standard errors. Estimates of the random error variance components are in parentheses. n = 519 for individual-level variables.
n = 28 for group-level variables.
†
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
© 2010 The Authors

1235

1236
Table IV. Results of HLM analysis for the antecedents of perceived organizational support
© 2010 The Authors

Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 4 Model 6 Model 7
Level 1
Constant 3.98*** (0.29***) 3.66*** (0.40**) 3.00*** (0.39*) 3.22*** (0.38*) 3.32*** (0.45**) 3.84*** (0.39*) 3.04*** (0.41**)
Tenure -0.01† (0.00) -0.01† (0.00) -0.01† (0.00) -0.01† (0.00) -0.01† (0.00) -0.01† (0.00)
Female (= 1; male = 0) 0.39* (0.06) 0.35* (0.04) 0.36* (0.04) 0.37* (0.05) 0.36* (0.11) 0.36* (0.04)
Manager (= 1; other = 0) 0.70** (0.30) 0.62** (0.32) 0.64** (0.30) 0.66** (0.26) 0.59** (0.39) 0.64** (0.28)
Professional (= 1; other = 0) 0.36* (0.19) 0.30† (0.20) 0.30† (0.18) 0.32† (0.17) 0.26 (0.21) 0.32† (0.18)
Level 2
Sector ( private = 0; 0.60** 0.40† 0.54* 0.76** 0.40†

public = 1)
Log employment -0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.08 0.02
Age of establishment -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
HRM practices 0.01*
HRM dimensions

Development 0.01
Selection 0.00
E. Snape and T. Redman
Rewards 0.01**
Internal labour market 0.01†
Within-group residual 1.81 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.64 1.65
variance
Model deviance 1819.58 1796.80 1811.92 1814.60 1815.10 1810.51 1814.31
Notes: Unstandardized coefficient estimates with robust standard errors. Estimates of the random error variance components are in parentheses. n = 519 for individual-level variables.
n = 28 for group-level variables.
†
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table V. Results of HLM analysis for the antecedents of OCB (compliance)
Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Level 1
Constant 3.01*** (0.05**) 2.80*** (0.09*) 2.23*** (0.06†) 2.68*** (0.02†)
Tenure -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00)
Female (= 1; male = 0) 0.09 (0.03) 0.08 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)
Manager (= 1; other = 0) 0.68*** (0.03) 0.64*** (0.01) 0.32*** (0.03)
Professional (= 1; other = 0) 0.29* (0.11) 0.24* (0.11) 0.05 (0.04)
Perceived organizational support 0.01 (0.00)
Perceived job influence 0.30*** (0.08†)
Level 2
Sector ( private = 0; public = 1) -0.06 -0.15†
Log employment 0.06 0.04
Age of establishment -0.00 -0.00
HRM practices 0.01† 0.00
Within-group residual variance 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.62
Model deviance 1370.94 1345.34 1366.02 1313.88
Notes: Unstandardized coefficient estimates with robust standard errors. Estimates of the random error variance compo-
nents are in parentheses. n = 519 for individual-level variables. n = 28 for group-level variables.
†
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table VI. Results of HLM analysis for the antecedents of OCB (altruism)
Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3
Level 1
Constant 3.29*** (0.05***) 3.11*** (0.07) 3.17*** (0.05)
Tenure 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Female (= 1; male = 0) 0.35*** (0.01) 0.34*** (0.01)
Manager (= 1; other = 0) 0.27** (0.07) 0.11 (0.07)
Professional (= 1; other = 0) -0.05 (0.22*) -0.16 (0.16)
Perceived organizational support -0.03 (0.00)
Perceived job influence 0.15** (0.02)
Level 2
Sector ( private = 0; public = 1)
Log Employment
Age of establishment
HRM practices
Within-group residual variance 0.71 0.65 0.62
Model deviance 1319.21 1301.73 1296.02
†
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
© 2010 The Authors

Table VII. Results of HLM analysis for the antecedents of in-role behaviour
Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Level 1
Constant 4.76*** (0.02**) 4.72*** (0.05**) 4.54*** (0.04**) 4.51*** (0.05**)
Tenure -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00)
Female (= 1; male = 0) 0.19** (0.05*) 0.19** (0.05*) 0.17** (0.05†)
Manager (= 1; other = 0) -0.01 (0.04) -0.00 (0.06) -0.02 (0.12)
Professional (= 1; other = 0) -0.19* (0.09) -0.19* (0.10) -0.21* (0.10)
Perceived organizational support 0.02 (0.00*)
Perceived job influence -0.00 (0.01)
Level 2
Sector ( private = 0; public = 1) -0.16* -0.24**
Log Employment 0.05 0.06
Age of establishment 0.00 0.00
HRM practices -0.00 -0.00
Within-group residual variance 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23
Model deviance 820.48 807.40 834.23 836.01
†
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
models, we calculated ICCs of 0.055 for compliance, 0.065 for altruism, and 0.053 for
in-role behaviour. Although the ICCs were smaller than for perceived job influence and
organizational support, there was still significant between-group variance in compliance,
altruism, and in-role behaviour.
We then estimated model 2, with level 1 control variables only (compliance, altruism,
and in-role behaviour – Tables V, VI, and VII, respectively). These results suggest that
compliance was higher for managers and professionals, altruism was higher for managers
and for women, and in-role behaviour was for higher for women and lower for profes-
sionals. For compliance and in-role behaviour, but not for altruism, the model 2 results
showed significant random variance components for the intercept, so that we proceeded
to include the level 2 controls and HRM practices in model 3 for compliance and in-role
behaviour only. According to these results (Table V and VII), of the level 2 controls only
sector was significant. There was a positive direct relationship of HRM practices on
compliance, but no such direct HRM relationship for in-role behaviour.
Moving to model 4 for compliance and in-role behaviour, we added the hypothesized
mediators, perceived job influence, and organizational support. In the case of compli-
ance (Table V), perceived job influence was significant, with a positive coefficient, and
the coefficient for HRM practices was no longer significant. Perceived organizational
support was non-significant. Taken along with the earlier results on the associations
between HRM and the potential mediators, these findings suggest that perceived job
influence, but not perceived organizational support, fully mediated the relationship
between HRM practices and compliance, providing support for Hypothesis 2a, but not
for Hypothesis 1a. For in-role behaviour (Table VII), there was no direct HRM practices
© 2010 The Authors

effect and neither perceived organizational support nor perceived job influence were
significant, providing no support for Hypotheses 1c or 2c.
Although it was inappropriate to include level 2 predictors for altruism, we did
examine the effects of the mediators, perceived organizational support and perceived job
influence (model 3 of Table VI). There was no significant effect for perceived organiza-
tional support, providing no support for Hypothesis 1b, but there was a significant
positive effect of perceived job influence on altruism. According to Baron and Kenny
(1986), the lack of a direct effect from HRM practices to altruism in the previous model
rules out mediation. However, Seibert et al. (2004) argue that a significant direct rela-
tionship between the independent and dependent variables is not required for mediation,
and that only relationships between the independent and mediator, and between the
mediator and dependent variables are necessary, referring to this as an ‘indirect rela-
tionship’. Mathieu and Taylor (2006) suggest that the lack of a direct relationship
between independent and dependent variable rules out mediation, because ‘[i]f no such
relationship exists, then there is nothing to be mediated’ (p. 1038), but they also accept
that an ‘indirect relationship’ does not require an initial relationship between indepen-
dent and dependent variable. They recommend a sequence of decision rules, beginning
with a test for full mediation and then proceeding to assess partial mediation and an
indirect relationship. We followed their recommended sequence, according to which
perceived job influence was not a mediator, but it did intervene in the indirect relation-
ship between HRM practices and altruism. HRM practices were significantly associated
with perceived job influence, which was significantly associated with altruism; the Sobel
test of this indirect relationship was significant (Sobel test statistic = 1.95; two-tailed
p = 0.05). Whilst not strictly supporting the mediation Hypothesis 2b, this finding sug-
gests that job influence plays a role in transmitting the effects of HRM practices to
altruism.
Post Hoc Analysis of the HRM Dimensions

Finally, as explained earlier, we also conducted a post hoc analysis using the four HRM
dimensions identified in the factor analysis: development, selection, rewards, and internal
labour market. As shown in Table III, the development and internal labour market
dimensions were positively associated with perceived job influence, the selection and
rewards dimensions having no significant association. As shown in Table IV, only the
rewards and internal labour market dimensions were positively associated with perceived
organizational support. These results suggest that job influence was associated with a
developmental approach to HRM, with an emphasis on employee training, appraisal,
involvement, and internal career development. In contrast, perceived organizational
support was associated with collective incentive pay and internal career development,
implying that such HRM practices in particular are interpreted by employees as inputs
into a social exchange process.
The results for HRM dimensions were not included in Tables V, VI, and VII for
reasons of space. The only significant direct association between HRM dimensions and
employee behaviours was for the internal labour market dimension in the case of
compliance, and this was fully mediated by perceived job influence.
© 2010 The Authors

DISCUSSION
Our findings suggest that HRM practices had a positive association with compliance,
mediated by perceived job influence, and that perceived job influence intervened in a
significant indirect association between HRM practices and altruism. HRM practices
were significantly associated with perceived organization support, suggesting that such
practices are seen by employees as demonstrating that the organization is concerned
about their welfare and values their contribution. However, there was no association
between support and OCB/IRB, so that there was no evidence that perceived organi-
zational support mediated the relationship between HRM and employee behaviour. The
implication is that the impact of HRM practices on compliance and altruism is trans-
mitted via perceived job influence only, providing support for an intrinsic motivation and
opportunity view of HRM effects on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour.
The study has implications for theory and research. Our findings on the importance
of perceived job influence in the HRM practices–compliance relationship support the
view that it is time to look beyond purely social exchange explanations of OCB (Zellars
and Tepper, 2003). HRM practices are significant, not just as currency in a social
exchange relationship with employees, but also for their role in enhancing employees’
sense of job influence. The latter may provide intrinsic motivation, a sense of self
confidence, and the opportunity to perform OCB. We have not examined intrinsic
motivation, a sense of self confidence, and the opportunity to perform OCB, separately
in the current study, but our findings suggest that the role of these issues in the HRM
practices–performance linkage represents a fruitful area for further research. Studies
which can examine these links in more detail would be useful.
Recent years have seen a decline in the amount of research on work design. According
to Humphrey et al. (2007, p. 1332) this reflects a ‘case closed’ attitude amongst research-
ers, in that the motivational approach is so widely accepted that there seems to be little
need for more research in this area. Wood and Wall (2007) have also emphasized that
despite the prominence given to work design in seminal accounts of HRM (e.g. Walton,
1985), work design items are not common in studies of HPWS. Our findings point to the
importance of work design, represented by the degree of perceived job influence and
discretion, in transmitting the effects of HRM practices to individual employee behav-
iour and performance. There is a view that jobs in the new knowledge economies have
become less uni-dimensional, less tightly defined, and less routinized (e.g. Cascio, 1998),
with a greater need for employees to exert influence and use their discretion. Given such
developments, along with our findings, we suggest that it would be premature to neglect
the role of work design.
Our findings suggest that high performance work practices provide workers with the
autonomy and discretion needed to meet to the demands of the modern workplace. Job
influence and discretion may remove the need for workers to constantly check with
managers for permission to act, something that is likely to be important in more complex
organizational contexts. High performance work practices may have the potential to
reduce the ‘under-utilization’ of employees in high-discretion work environments by
tapping employees’ citizenship behaviours (Huselid, 1995, p. 637). Jobs that are struc-
tured so that employee discretion and influence is limited run the risk of squeezing out
© 2010 The Authors

employees’ capacity to use their skills and abilities to the full in engaging in behaviours
that help both the organization and their colleagues to find better ways of working.
Multi-level designs have the potential to bridge the gap between the hitherto largely
separate research traditions of strategic human resource management (SHRM), with its
emphasis on organizational level analysis of HRM system and performance outcomes,
and micro-level organizational behaviour, which focuses on individuals’ attitudinal and
behavioural responses. Reviews of the SHRM literature have recently called for more
multi-level studies (Paauwe, 2009, p. 133), and HRM researchers are now beginning to
respond (Takeuchi et al., 2009; Wu and Chaturvedi, 2009). Multi-level research designs
have the potential to open up the ‘black-box’ of the HRM performance linkage, since
HRM is essentially a unit-level management intervention that must surely transmit to
organizational-level outcomes via some kind of effect on employees’ attitudes and behav-
iours. In this paper, we have demonstrated that company-level HRM may have an effect
through an association with individual employee behaviour, and that perceived job
influence is an intervening variable in this process. Multi-level studies that examine other
potential mediators of the HRM–outcomes linkage would also be valuable. For example,
it would be useful to consider other job characteristics as potential mediators, including
feedback from the job and task identity. In addition, there are other potential alternatives
to social exchange, aside from job characteristics, including the possibility that HRM has
its effects through work intensification (Ramsay et al., 2000), and organizational trust
and identification (Restubog et al., 2008). The former promises a stronger link with the
industrial relations research tradition, stepping away from the unitarist assumptions of
much of the HRM research and emphasizing the implications for employee wellbeing,
whilst the latter introduces social identity perspectives as an alternative to exchange-
based explanations of HRM.
Studies examining potential moderators of the relationships between HRM, job
characteristics, and outcomes would also be of interest, and again such studies are
likely to need to examine cross-level effects. Aside from early work on HR ‘fit’ with
business strategy, research on contextual moderators is in the relatively early stages,
although with some encouraging results to date (e.g. Datta et al., 2005; Sun et al.,
2007). We need to learn more about the potential boundary conditions of HRM
effects, and organizational or environmental moderators such as environmental uncer-
tainty or change turbulence (Herold et al., 2007; Waldman et al., 2001), would be
worthy of investigation by HRM researchers. There would also be merit in investi-
gating potential individual-level moderators of HRM effects, including variables such
growth needs strength, for example.
Our post hoc analysis of the dimensions of HRM suggested that the development
and internal labour market dimensions were positively associated with perceived job
influence, whilst the rewards and internal labour market dimensions were positively
associated with perceived organizational support. These findings suggest that the job
characteristics effects of HRM are especially associated with an approach that empha-
sizes internal careers and employee development, which may be seen as involving a
‘make’ rather than ‘buy’ approach to staffing, whilst social exchange is associated with
financial rewards and internal careers, which may be seen as employer inputs into a
social exchange process. This analysis was exploratory and post hoc rather than
© 2010 The Authors

theory-driven, but these findings suggest that future studies should pay more attention
to the potentially differential effects of specific HRM dimensions. We are not calling
for the ‘unbundling’ of HRM practices, but rather a recognition that HRM may
consist of more than a unitary bundle, something which was recognized in Huselid’s
(1995) pioneering study, but which has perhaps been neglected in some of the more
recent work on SHRM.
Our findings should be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study. First, the
sample is based on one English region, which may limit the potential generalizability of
the findings. North-East England was traditionally an area of heavy industry with high
levels of unionization and industrial militancy, and in recent years it has been charac-
terized by structural change and a relatively high level of unemployment. Whether
similar results, particularly on the non-significance of perceived organizational support,
would be found in an area with a different industrial relations tradition is an interesting
area for further research.
Second, the use of HRM managers’ ratings of HRM practices rules out common
method bias in the prediction of self-reported employee attitudes and behaviour.
However, our mediator variables (perceived organizational support and job influence)
came from the same employee questionnaire as OCB and in-role behaviour, raising the
possibility of common method bias in the relationships between these variables.
However, our measurement model (reported above) provided evidence for the discrimi-
nant validity of the employee attitudes and behaviours, including perceived organiza-
tional support and job influence, which suggests that common method bias did
not account entirely for the observed relationships amongst the employee-reported
constructs.
Third, we have not measured social exchange perceptions directly and studies that do
so may provide a fruitful line of further research in the SHRM field (e.g. Takeuchi et al.,
2007). Fourth, given that our study was conducted at the establishment level and
included a mixed sample of public and private organizations, as well as manufacturing
and services based firms, it was not possible to gather common establishment-level
performance data of an objective nature. Future studies could usefully attempt this,
perhaps in less diverse samples. Finally, our study had a cross-sectional research design,
which means that we cannot draw firm conclusions about causality. Future studies might
usefully adopt a longitudinal element, but given the problems of research access for
multi-level studies, we must recognize that this will be very demanding.
The question of how HRM practices impact on employee attitudes and behaviour is
important for management. Our conclusion, that such effects are transmitted through
perceived job influence, suggests that issues of job influence and discretion are key to
designing effective HRM strategy. Managers need to think beyond providing HRM
practices aimed at providing benefits and support, and should consider the effect of such
practices on the degree of influence employees may exert in their daily work. This will
require HRM practices that build employees’ skills and knowledge via training and
development, provide promotion opportunities to higher level jobs, and give employees
deeper and more frequent opportunities to exercise discretion in their work through
employee involvement practices such as problem solving and quality improvement
groups and through the design of the work itself.
© 2010 The Authors

APPENDIX: HRM PRACTICES ITEMS AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR
ANALYSIS RESULTS
What percentage of jobs/employees. . . ? 1 2 3 4
Involve off-the job training, arranged and financed by the organization 0.76
Are covered by a regular (e.g. annual or 6-monthly) formal performance 0.72
appraisal
Are involved in regular quality circles or similar problem solving groups 0.66
discussing quality and/or workflow issues
Are asked to complete an employee attitude survey on a regular basis (e.g. 0.57
annually)
Have a formal induction programme for new recruits 0.57 0.31
Are covered by an information sharing programme (e.g. employee 0.74 0.32
newsletter or briefings)
Involve a sequence of two or more interviews before recruitment 0.63
Involve a formal psychological selection test before recruitment 0.34 0.59 -0.43
Are covered by a bonus scheme based on the performance of the work 0.76
group, department, or team
Are covered by a bonus scheme based on the performance of the 0.76
establishment or organization as a whole
Involve on-the-job training 0.79
Are normally (in more than half the cases) filled by internal promotion 0.38 0.58
from within the organization rather than by recruiting from outside
Note: The extraction method was principal components analysis. Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M. and Griffeth, R. W. (2003). ‘The role of perceived organizational support and
supportive human resource practices in the turnover process’. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.
Ambrose, M. L. and Schminke, M. (2003). ‘Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship
between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory
trust’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance
Work Systems Pay Off. New York: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. (1992). ‘The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steel
minimills’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 488–506.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). ‘Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover’.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670–87.
Arthur, J. B. and Boyles, T. (2007). ‘Validating the human resource system structure: a levels-based strategic
HRM approach’. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 77–92.
Bae, J. and Lawler, J. J. (2000). ‘Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: impact on firm performance
in an emerging economy’. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 502–17.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173–82.
Becker, B. E. and Gerhart, B. (1996). ‘The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801.
Becker, B. E. and Huselid, M. A. (1998). ‘High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesis
of research and managerial implications’. In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 16, 53–101.
Berg, P., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T. and Kalleberg, A. L. (1996). ‘The performance effects of modular
production in the apparel industry’. Industrial Relations, 35, 356–73.
© 2010 The Authors

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). ‘Commonalties and contradictions in HRM and performance
research’. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67–94.
Bowen, D. and Ostroff, C. (2004). ‘Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the
“strength” of the HRM system’. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–21.
Cappelli, P. and Sherer, P. D. (1998). ‘Satisfaction, market wages and labor relations: an airline study’.
Industrial Relations, 27, 56–73.
Cascio, W. F. (1998). ‘The virtual workplace: a reality now’. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 37, 32–6.
Combs, J., Lui, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006). ‘How much do high-performance work practices
matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance’. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–
28.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. and Conway, N. (2004). ‘The employment relationship through the lens of social
exchange theory’. In Coyle-Shapiro, J. L. M., Shore, L. M., Taylor, M. S. and Tetrick, L. E. (Eds), The
Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
5–28.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. (2005). ‘Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review’. Journal of
Management, 31, 874–900.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P. and Wright, P. M. (2005). ‘Human resource management and labor productivity:
does industry matter?’. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 135–45.
Delaney, J. T. and Huselid, M. A. (1996). ‘The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949–69.
Delbridge, R. and Whitfield, K. (2001). ‘Employee perceptions of job influence and organizational partici-
pation’. Industrial Relations, 40, 472–89.
Delery, J. E. and Doty, D. H. (1996). ‘Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests
of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions’. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 802–35.
Dyer, L. and Reeves, T. (1995). ‘Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and
where do we need to go?’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 656–70.
Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2005). ‘HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures – different
results’. Personnel Review, 34, 534–49.
Eisenberger, R. (1992). ‘Learned industriousness’. Psychological Review, 99, 248–67.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). ‘Perceived organizational support’.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–7.
Evans, W. R. and Davis, W. D. (2005). ‘High-performance work systems and organizational performance:
the mediating role of internal social structure’. Journal of Management, 31, 758–75.
Feldman, M. (2001). ‘Social limits to discretion: an organizational perspective’. In Hawkins, K. (Ed.), The
Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 163–84.
Ferris, G., Hochwater, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G. and Frink, D. D. (1999). ‘Human resource
management: some new directions’. Journal of Management, 23, 385–415.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G. R. (1987). ‘The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta analysis’.
Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Guest, D. (1997). ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–76.
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A. and Roth, P. A. (2006). ‘How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences’. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
305–25.
Herold, D., Fedor, D. B. and Caldwell, S. D. (2007). ‘Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation
of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change’. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92, 942–51.
Holman, D., Frenkel, S., Sorenson, O. and Wood, S. (2009). ‘Work design variation and outcomes in
call centers: strategic choice and institutional explanations’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 62,
510–32.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D. and Morgeson, F. P. (2007). ‘Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: a meta-analytical summary and theoretical extension of the work
design literature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–56.
© 2010 The Authors

Huselid, M. A. (1995). ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and
corporate financial performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–72.
Ilgen, D. A. and Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation and
Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). ‘Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Khilji, A. and Wang, X. (2006). ‘ “Intended” and “implemented” HRM: the missing linchpin in strategic
human resource management research’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1171–89.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. and Hochwarter, W. (2009). ‘The interactive effects of
psychological contract breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational support: evi-
dence from two longitudinal studies’. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 806–34.
Konovsky, M. A. and Pugh, S. D. (1994). ‘Citizenship behavior and social exchange’. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 656–69.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). ‘An exploration of how the employee-organization relationship affects the linkage
between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes’. Journal of
Management Studies, 45, 1–25.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High Involvement Management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liao, H. and Chuang, A. (2004). ‘A multi-level investigation of factors influencing employee service
performance and customer outcomes’. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). ‘Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic
and flexible production systems in the world auto industry’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48,
197–221.
Magneau, J. M. and Hunt, R. G. (1996). ‘Police unions and the police role’. Human Relations, 49, 1315–43.
Mathieu, J. E. and Taylor, S. E. (2006). ‘Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type
inferences in organizational behavior’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–56.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). ‘Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behav-
iors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–55.
Moorman, R. H., Blakey, G. L. and Niehoff, B. P. (1998). ‘Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?’. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 41, 351–57.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature,
Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ortega, J. (2009). ‘Why do employers give discretion? Family versus performance concerns’. Industrial
Relations, 48, 1–25.
Ostroff, C. and Bowen, D. (2000). ‘Moving to a higher level; HR practices and organizational effectiveness’.
In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 211–66.
Overgaard, D., Gamborg, M., Gyntelberg, F. and Heitmann, B. L. (2004). ‘Psychological workload is
associated with weight gain between 1993 and 1999: analyses based on the Danish Nurse Cohort
Study’. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 1072–81.
Paauwe, J. (2009). ‘HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects’. Journal of
Parker, S. and Wall, T. (1998). Job and Work Design: Organizing Work to Promote Well-Being and Effectiveness.
London: Sage.
Petterson, I. L., Arnetz, B. B. and Arnetz, J. E. (1995). ‘Predictors of job satisfaction and job influence: results
from a national sample of Swedish nurses’. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 64, 9–19.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Mackenzie, S. B. (1995). ‘An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels
of analysis framework’. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 289–328.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors’. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–42.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H. (1996). ‘A meta-analysis of the relationships between
Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions and perfor-
mance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380–99.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. and Bacharach, D. (2000). ‘Organizational citizenship behav-
iors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research’.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–63.
© 2010 The Authors

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000). ‘Employees and high-performance work systems: testing
inside the black box’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 501–31.
Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P. and Esposo, S. R. (2008). ‘Effects of psychological contract
breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: insights from the group value model’. Journal of
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature’. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Rogg, K. L., Schmidt, D. B., Shull, C. and Schmitt, N. (2001). ‘Human resource practices, organizational
climate, and customer satisfaction’. Journal of Management, 27, 431–49.
Seligman, M. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. New York: WH Freeman/Times
Books.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R. and Randolph, W. A. (2004). ‘Taking empowerment to the next level: a
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction’. Academy of Management Journal, 47,
332–49.
Settoon, R. P. and Mossholder, K. W. (2002). ‘Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents
of person- and task-focussed interpersonal citizenship behavior’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255–
67.
Sherer, P. D. and Morishima, M. (1989). ‘Roads and roadblocks to dual commitment: similar and dissimilar
antecedents of union and company commitment’. Journal of Labor Research, 10, 311–30.
Smith, A. C., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–63.
Snape, E. and Chan, A. (2000). ‘Commitment to company and union: evidence from Hong Kong’. Industrial
Relations, 39, 445–59.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K. (2007). ‘High performance human resource management practices,
citizenship behaviour, and organizational performance: a relational perspective’. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 558–77.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D., Wang, H. and 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, 1069–83.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G. and Lepak, D. (2009). ‘Through the looking glass of a social system: cross-level
effects of high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes’. Personnel Psychology, 62, 1–29.
Tansky, J. W. and Cohen, D. J. (2001). ‘The relationship between organizational support, employee
development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study’. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
12, 285–300.
Van Dyne, L. and Ang, S. (1998). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore’.
Waldman, D., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J. and Puranam, P. (2001). ‘Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty’.
Walton, R. E. (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 U.S. small business sector’. Journal of Management, 28, 765–85.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. and Liden, R. C. (1997). ‘Perceived organizational exchange and leader-member
exchange: a social exchange perspective’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). ‘Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment?
A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modelling’. Journal of Management, 27, 515–35.
Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. (1991). ‘Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors’. Journal of Management, 17, 601–17.
Wood, S. J. and De Menzies, L. D. (1998). ‘High commitment management in the UK: evidence from the
workplace industrial relations survey, and employers’ manpower and skills practices survey’. Human
Relations, 51, 485–515.
Wood, S. J. and Wall, T. D. (2002). ‘Human resource management and business performance’. In Warr,
P. B. (Ed.), Psychology at Work, 5th edition. London: Penguin, 351–74.
Wood, S. J. and Wall, T. D. (2007). ‘Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management-
performance studies’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1335–72.
Wright, P. M. and Boswell, W. R. (2002). ‘Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and macro
human resource management research’. Journal of Management, 28, 247–76.
© 2010 The Authors

Wright, P. M. and Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: Integrating Multiple Levels of
Analysis. Centre for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper, No. 07003. New York:
Cornell University.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M. and Moynihan, L. M. (2003). ‘The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units’. Human Resource Management Journal, 13, 21–36.
Wu, P. C. and Chaturvedi, S. (2009). ‘The role of procedural justice and power distance in the relationship
between high performance work systems and employee attitudes: a multilevel perspective’. Journal of
Management, 35, 1228–47.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W. and Lepak, D. P. (1996). ‘Human resource management,
manufacturing strategy and firm performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 836–66.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Iverson, R. D. (2005). ‘High-performance work systems and occupational
safety’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 77–93.
Zellars, K. L. and Tepper, B. J. (2003). ‘Beyond social exchange: new directions for organizational citizen-
ship behavior theory and research’. In Martocchio, J. J. and Ferris, G. R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI Press, Vol. 22, 395–424.
© 2010 The Authors


HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis

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

HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management Studies 47:7 November 2010

HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour,

Ed Snape and Tom Redman

abstract We examine the relationship between HRM practices, conceptualized at the

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

THE NATURE OF HRM

© 2010 The Authors

CROSS-LEVEL HRM RESEARCH

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

In contrast to OCB, in-role behaviour has been characterized as non-discretionary

JOB INFLUENCE AND EMPLOYEE DISCRETION

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

Figure 1. Hypothesized model

The above arguments may be expected to apply to performance in general, both

The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1. We included control variables at the

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

HRM Practices, Perceived Job Influence, and Organizational Support

HRM Practices and Employee Behaviour

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

Tenure 12.15 9.81

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and

Note: 2-tailed tests. n = 519.

Within-group residual 0.81 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66

© 2010 The Authors

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

© 2010 The Authors

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and

Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3

© 2010 The Authors

Independent variable Null model Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

© 2010 The Authors

Post Hoc Analysis of the HRM Dimensions

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

What percentage of jobs/employees. . . ? 1 2 3 4

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

You might also like