File 146364

The impact of employees’ use of HR practices on employee performance:
the moderating role of perceived organizational support and

the employees’ perspective to HR effectiveness
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies 2017 – 2018
Imke Boonen (Student nr.: 2001582)
Supervisor: J. van Beurden MSc
Supervisor: Dr. M. Verhagen
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
January 2018 – August 2018
Tilburg University – School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Abstract
The effects of Human Resource (HR) practices on employee performance have been extensively studied
however, the effects of employees’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of HR practices have been under
researched. This study examines to what extent the use of HR practices (i.e. employee development, career
opportunities, performance management, job design, communication and information sharing,
participation, work-life balance, job security and rewards) influences employee performance and to what
extent this relationship is mediated by the perceived HR effectiveness and moderated by the perceived
organizational support. Building on AMO-theory, it was expected that HR practices would enhance the
development of knowledge, skills and the opportunity employees receive to perform. According to the
COR-theory, organizational support could strengthen the positive relationship between the use of HR
practices and their effectiveness ratings for employee performance. A cross-sectional study was conducted
among 464 employees from different Dutch organizations in various sectors. Results support the positive
relationship between use of HR practices and HR effectiveness ratings. Furthermore, the results support the
positive relationship between use of HR practices and employee performance except for the HR practices
employee development and rewards. Despite of what was expected, no positive relationship was found
between the effectiveness ratings of HR practices and employee performance for the HR practices;
employee development, career opportunities, performance management, job design, work-life balance, job
security and rewards. Finally, results showed that perceived organizational support did strengthen the
positive relationship for the HR practices; employee development, career opportunity, performance
management, job design, participation, work-life balance and rewards.
Keywords: Employees’ use of HR practices, HR effectiveness ratings, perceived organizational support,

employee performance, AMO-theory.
Introduction
Since employees are responsible for carrying out the mission and strategy of organizations, there is a
common belief that organizations depend heavily on the performance of their employees (Wright &
McMahan). In order to effectively influence performance, organizations can use tools, such as providing
employees with a training or performance appraisals (Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). These tools
are referred to as Human Resource (HR) practices (Huselid, 1995). Recent research has shown that the
perceptions of employees regarding HR practices influence their behavior and outcomes rather than the
implementation of the HR practices (Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Jiang, Takeuchi, &
Lepak, 2013). Moreover, in research about the effectiveness of HR practices, the main focus lies on how
these practices influence organizational performance (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Huselid & Becker,
1994; Ichniowski, Shaw & Prennushi, 1994). Nevertheless, it is the employee who performs the tasks within
the organization, meaning that employee performance is essential in creating organizational performance.
Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to understand how employees perceive and react to the HR
practices (Beijer, 2014; Nishii & Wright, 2007). In most studies, the perceptions of employees mainly
include the availability or use of HR practices in relation to employee outcomes (Den Hartog, Boon,
Verburg & Croon, 2013). However, the fact that HR practices are available or that employees make use of
them, does not imply that employees perceive the HR practices as effective for their performance (Van de
Voorde & Beijer, 2015; Den Hartog et al., 2013). Therefore, in this study, we distinguish the perceptions
of employees regarding HR practices in two categories (1) use of HR practices (2) employees’ judgements
of the effectiveness of those HR practices for their performance (Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013).
Moreover this study aims to gain insight on whether making use of HR practices and perceiving them as
effective will enhance employee performance. Based on aforementioned arguments and building on the
Ability Motivation and Opportunity (AMO)-theory, this study assumes that employees who use HR
practices will rate those HR practices as more effective for their performance since those HR practices
facilitate new knowledge, skills and abilities to achieve their work goals and provide employees with
opportunities to perform (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleber, 2000).
Another aspect for acquiring insight in the relationship between HRM and employee performance
is investigating the role of working conditions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak,
2013). To understand the conditions under which the use of HR practices are rated as effective for employee
performance, this study investigates the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS). POS
refers to the extent to which the organization values the contribution of employees and cares about their
well-being (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). The organizational support theory by Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002), is used to describe the role of POS in the relationship between the use of HR practices
and HR effectiveness ratings. When employees use the HR practices and the organization considers the
goals and values of employees and cares about their well-being and opinion, the effectiveness ratings of
those practices will be rated higher (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
In addition, drawing on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2002), employees
may enrich resources (POS) by investing in other resources (offered by facilitating HR practices). POS and
the feeling that organization provides the employee with useful HR practices are assumed to be positively
related to HR effectiveness ratings (Shore & Shore, 1995).
In sum, this study contributes to the HRM literature in two ways. First, the more objective form of
employee perceptions in terms of use of HR practices, and the more subjective view in terms of HR
effectiveness ratings for employee performance (Jiang et al., 2013). Second, this study creates a better
understanding of when the use of HR practices are rated as more effective for employee performance and
more specifically whether the level of POS alters the relationship between the use of HR practices and HR
effectiveness for employee performance. Therefore the following research question is stated:
To what extent does employees’ use of HR practices influence employee performance and to what extent is
this relationship mediated by employee HR effectiveness ratings and to what extent is the relationship
between employees’ use of HR practices and employee HR effectiveness ratings moderated by perceived
organizational support?
Theoretical framework
The impact of employees’ use of HR practices on employee performance
HR practices are defined as activities that an organization has implemented to attract, motivate, develop
and retain employees in such a way that it is beneficial for employees and contributes to achieving
organizational goals (Delery & Doty, 1996). Therefore, HRM is seen as a strategic focus where HR
practices are seen as resources that contribute to the performance of employees (Wright, McMahan, &
McWilliams 1994). HR practices involve a number of activities that are identified in the literature and
imbed the performance of an employee in a broad sense. The HR practices in this study include:
performance management (e.g. appraisals), employee development (e.g. formal courses and programs),
work-life balance (e.g. options to work part-time), communication and information sharing (e.g.
information about procedures), participation (e.g. employee involvement in organizations policy), career
opportunities (e.g. grow opportunities), job design (e.g. varied and challenging work), job security (e.g.
security of employment) and rewards (e.g. fairness of recognition) (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Hurtz &
Williams, 2009). These practices are selected based on an existing list of the most included practices in
previous research and represent the daily aspects of someone’s’ work and the activities that are involved
(Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Hurtz & Williams, 2009).
In this study, employee performance consists of task proficiency, adaptivity and proactivity (Griffin,
Neal, & Parker 2007). Together, those three aspects describe the most comprehensive understanding of
employee performance. First, task proficiency describes behaviors that are not placed in a social context
and that can be formalized (Griffin, et al., 2007). Moreover, task proficiency of employees is closely related
to concepts such as, “tasks performance” (Borman & Motow 1993), “job role behavior” (Welbourne,
Johnson, & Erez, 1998) and concepts of "job-specific," "non-job-specific," and "written and oral" task
proficiency (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Second, task adaptivity reflects the degree to
which employees can adjust to new equipment, processes or procedures in core tasks (Griffin et al., 2007).
Last, task proactivity refers to the extent to which employees engage in future behavior to change their own
work situations, their work role or themselves. It is about better ways of doing core tasks in the job (Griffin,
et al., 2007).
The relationship between use of HR practices and employee performance can be explained by
applying the AMO theory (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleber, 2000). HR practices provide employees
with elements that are needed to perform as they help employees developing skills and abilities to achieve
their work (A), motivate (M) employees, and provide opportunities to perform (O). Based on this theory it
can be concluded that HR practices can be seen as initiatives to enhance the performance of employees
(Liao, Toya, Lepak & Hong, 2009). For example, the HR practice: employee development, provides the
employee with the ability to perform since this HR practice help employees to enhance their level of skills
and knowledge through trainings (Colquit, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Another example can also be given for
the HR practice participation which is related to engaging employees by giving them room to think about
the organizations’ policy and career opportunities (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Hurtz & Williams, 2009).
When an employee is allowed to participate in policy making they will have a say in how future events will
look like. In this way, employees have an opportunity to make contributions that will benefit them and
providing themselves with opportunities to participate will subsequently motivate them (Zins,
Bloodoworth, Weissber, & Walberg, 2004).
By drawing on previous mentioned research and in imitation of Veld (2012), Veld, Paauwe &
Boselie (2011) this study is measuring the HR practices independently of each other and not as a bundle
and expects that the more employees make use of HR practices, the higher their performance will be.
Therefore, based on the above-mentioned arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ use of HR practices is positively associated with employee performance.
The relationship between employees’ use of HR practices & employee performance: the mediation
role of HR effectiveness ratings.
Previous studies mainly focused on the use and availability of HR practices in the relationship with
employee performance (see e.g., Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Wright & Nishii 2004).
Thus, less is known about how employees rate the effectiveness of HR practices and how the perceptions
about HR practices impact their performance (Beijer, 2014; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Guest & Conway,
2011; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Rousseau & Greller, 1984; Wright, McMahan, McCornick, & Scott, 1998).
To describe the mediating role of HR effectiveness ratings in the link between use of HR practices and
employee performance, the AMO (Appelbaum et al., 2000) theory is applied. AMO theory suggest that HR
practices affect employee outcomes by enhancing employees’ ability and skills (e.g. training), motivation
and incentives (e.g. information sharing and opportunities to promote) and opportunities to participate (e.g.
communication) (Appelbaum et al., 2000). In this line of reasoning, HR practices can act as initiators to
help employees to improve their performance. Meaning that when employees use HR practices, they
experience the positive effect on their ability, motivation and opportunity as their performance will
increase, leading to higher effectiveness ratings on those HR practices. This will possibly elevate
performance more comparted to employees who make little or no use of HR practices.
The research of Nishii et al. (2008) found that the perceived effectiveness of HR practices, are
playing an important role in influencing the overall effect of HR practices. Moreover, Guest (1999) argued
that a distinction can be made between employees use of HR practices and their experiences with the
benefits of those practices (increase knowledge and skills through training). Furthermore, he stated that
when HR practices are experienced as effective, the motivation of employees will increase (Guest, 1999).
In addition to increasing motivation, employees acknowledge that HR practices do not only increase their
abilities but also increase their opportunities to perform better (Guest, 1999). Thus, employees acknowledge
that HR practices that are rated as effective can enhance their performance.
Therefore, this study makes a distinction between the use of HR practices and the effectiveness of
HR for employee performance. Following the above arguments the following hypotheses are defined:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ use of HR practices is positively associated with HR effectiveness ratings for
employee work performance.
Hypothesis 3: Employee HR effectiveness ratings for their work performance is positively associated with
employee performance.
Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between use of HR practices and employee performance
is partially mediated by HR effectiveness ratings for employee work performance.
The relationship between employees’ use of HR practices and employee effectiveness ratings: the
moderation role of perceived organizational support.
Working conditions may influence the way employees value and experience resources (HR practices)
Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Jiang et al., 2013; Wright & Nishii, 2007). These conditions could have an
impact on the relationship between use of HR practices and employees’ perception regarding the
effectiveness of HR practices (Wright & Nishii, 2007). In this study the moderation role of POS in the
relationship between use of HR practices and their effectiveness ratings is examined. POS refers to
employees’ perception towards the commitment of an organization to them and reflects their beliefs about
the extent to which the organization values the contribution of employees and cares about their well-being
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed that employees
who perceive that their organization values their contribution and is committed to them (high POS) feel
obligated to reciprocate in benefit of the organization. A possible beneficial action could be making
suggestions for better performance (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
The moderating role of POS can be explained by the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory by
Hobfoll (1989). One of the propositions of COR theory is that employees strive to retain, protect and build
resources and they fear the potential or actual loss of the valued resources. In line with this reasoning, the
COR theory suggest that employees act as a function of resources and these resources can be anything that
has value in ways of contributing to accomplish goals that can be attached to the employee (Hobfoll, 1989).
This suggests that although the possible loss of resources is an important drive for employees to try to
preserve and obtain resources, employees who obtain greater resources show higher levels of other
resources (Hobfoll, 2002). For example an employee who experiences high levels of POS feels valued by
the organization, which creates a situation in which the employee will see HR practices as more valuable
for their work situation (Hobfoll, 2002) and will therefore rate the HR practices as more effective for their
performance. This principle of resources that are linked to other resources have been confirmed by other
researchers who have examined how resources co-travel in resources caravans (Cozzarelli 1993; Rini,
Dunkel-Schetter, Wadhwa & Sandman, 1999).
Empirical research has found that POS has an influence on HR practices (Cleveland & Shore, 1992;
Hutchison & Garska, 1996;, Shore & Tertich, 1991; & Wit, 1992). Therefore, it is expected that employees
who perceive a high level of POS believe that the organization is committed to them and will protect their
interests (Eisenberger et al., 1986), are more likely to respond positively to HR practices. In addition,
employees may also, to a greater extent, experience how such HR practices can provide an opportunity to
improve their performance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 5: POS strengthens the relationship between employees’ use of HR practices and HR
effectiveness ratings.
Based on aforementioned hypotheses, the following conceptual model (see Figure 1) will be examined in
this study.
Perceived Employee HR
organizational effectiveness
support ratings
H5 +
H4+
H2 + H3 +
Employees’ Use Employee

HR practices performance
H1+
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
* Note: Use of HR practices consist of the following nine HR practices: employee development; career
opportunities; performance management; job design; communication and information sharing;
participation; work-life balance; job security and rewards.
Method
Research design
This quantitative research was part of a study for the Master’s thesis Human Resources Studies. This study
was conducted by the project group: HR effectiveness and performance: Understanding employee
perceptions and individual differences. Cross-sectional data was gathered by 10 students through a
hardcopy and online questionnaire at one point in time between mid-April and mid-May 2018. Data was
collected from multiple organizations in different sectors. To examine the conceptual model and
corresponding hypotheses, an explanatory study was conducted, focused on the perceptions of the
employee.
Population and Sample
The investigated sample of this study were employees working in organization in the five main industries
in the Netherlands (i.e. Health care, Business Services, Education, Production and Government). 502
respondents participated in the study indicated a response rate of 62.3%. The results of in total 464
respondents were used, the other 38 were through listwise deletion excluded from the analysis because they
contained missing values. As shown in Table 1, the sample consisted of 196 male respondents (42.2%) and
268 female respondents (57.8%). The age of the respondents varied between 17 and 64 years, the average
age was 34.9 years (SD 12.96) and most of the respondents work in the sector Business Services (31.4%).
Furthermore, the higher achieved level of education of the sample is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the sample (N= 464)
Variable name N Mean St. dev. Percentage
Gender
Male 196 42.2%
Female 268 57.8%
Age 34.9 12.96
Sector
Business services 147 31.4%
Education 80 17.3%
Production 38 8.2%
Government 18 3.9%
Healthcare 103 22.3%
Other 78 16.9%
Highest achieved education
Elementary school 20 4.3%
Basic 29 6.3%
Secondary 132 28.6%
Higher education 166 36.0%
Academic 114 24.7%
Procedure
Convenience sampling was used for both the individual participant as well as for the selecting
departments/managers. This is a non-random sampling method where members of the proposed population,
who meet the criteria (work in one of the five sectors), are used due to the fact that they are easy assessable
for the researchers (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). All students used their own network and invited
people from their network which fit the criteria. Even though random sampling is a better way to collect
data, convenience sampling was used due to the timeframe of this study. To test the proposed hypothesis
the data was obtained by a survey research in which respondents received a hardcopy questionnaire or
online questionnaire via Qualtircs consisting of 117 questions. The questionnaires were available both in
Dutch and in English since the respondents were also foreign employees working in the Dutch
organizations. Furthermore, each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter which provided
information about the aim and purpose of the research, instructions on how to fill in the questionnaire and
an informed consent which had to be singed before starting the questionnaire. Along with this cover letter,
the respondents received an invitation via email with a personal link to fill in the questionnaire. Respondents
were given four weeks to complete the questionnaire, after two weeks a reminder was sent.
Both supervisors and employees were asked to participate in this study. When supervisors were
approached to participate they were asked to let their employees join and the other way around. When a
manager was willing to participate, a random sampling method applied to randomly select five employees
about which the manager would fill in the questionnaire. In this sampling method the manager was asked
to make a list with the initials of the employees working in the department and we ordered people based
upon their initials and assign a random function: ‘RAND()’, value between 1-0 in Excel to them. This was
followed by the process of selecting the respondents with the highest values to participate and invited their
direct supervisors as well. Unfortunately, due to the fact that only a few managers participated in the study
their answers were not sufficient enough to be used in the analysis. Finally, participants were “recruited”
through a flyer that was presented by all students/researchers on Facebook and LinkedIn and to personal
contacts. If people wanted to participate they were asked to send a message to the students/researches, who
checked if the participants fitted the criteria and send them a link to participate in the study.
Instruments
Even though the scales were validated in previous research, the validity and reliability of the scales were
tested again by means of factor analyses (Principal Component Analysis). In order to create a factor
solution, the scale had to comply with a number of criteria. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of
Sampling Adequacy required to be above .6. The KMO measure assessed the extent to which the items
were related as determined by their inter-correlations (Kaiser & Rice 1974). Furthermore, to test the
reliability of the scales, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient was used which was obtained from the
reliability analyses. The Cronbach’s alpha had to be between .6 / .7 in order to be considered sufficient and
above .7 was considered good (Evers, Van Vliet-Mulder, & Groot, 2000).
Employees’ Use of HR practices. 32 items were used to test whether a practice is used by the
employee or not (based on Veld, Paauwe, & Boselie, 2011; Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe 2010).
This variable was originally a dichotomous variable however it was recoded into a dummy variable (0 = no
use, 1 = use) due to interpretation possibilities. An example question is ‘I attend trainings, courses and / or
workshops’. In order to ensure construct validity of the use HR practices scale, a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was executed. By reason of dealing with dichotomous variables, Mplus (Muthén, 2011)
was used. To evaluate the model fit, we followed Hu and Bentler (1998) suggestion by using multiple
indices of fit. This include the chi square statistic (χ2), the comparative fit index (CFI; acceptable above
0.90 and good above 0.95), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; acceptable above 0.90 and good above 0.95) and
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; acceptable below 0.08, but preferably close to 0.06).
First, all 32 items were forced to load on one factor in the CFA, resulting in low fit indices (see Table 2).
The expected 9-factor model resulted in a sufficient model fit (see Table 2). However, three items (one of
performance management, one of job design and one of rewards scale, see Table 2) scored low on the
expected factor and had little variance and were therefore removed. The 9-factor-II model for use of HR
practices showed a good fit indices after removing those three items (see Table 2), 9-factor-II model
(χ²(341) = 574.314, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .954, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = .946, Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .038.
Table 2.
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Mplus
χ² df RMSEA CFI TLI
1-factor 2191.870 464 .088 .655 .631
9-factor-I 775.383 428 .041 .931 .920
9-factor-II 574.314 341 .038 .954 .946
*The following items were removed after performing the 9-factor-I analysis, because of low factor loadings: ‘I monitor the
quality of my work’, ‘I carry responsibility for my own work’, and ‘I share in the profit of the organization’.
Factor analysis has been performed for the individual items of the Use scale which showed acceptable
values. The results of the factor analysis including the component matrix can be found in appendix IIII
Table 15. A PCA was carried out and the matrix only showed one eigenvalue higher than one (see
appendix VI, Table 20).
Employee HR effectiveness ratings for their work performance: The perceived effectiveness of HR
practices for employee performance inquires the effectiveness rating employees would give regarding the
HR practices they use or not. Respondents were first asked to what extent they use HR practices (0= no use
1= use) and as a follow up question, they were asked to indicate the perceived effectiveness of that practice
for their performance. The items about HR effectiveness were again based on the scale of Veld, Paauwe,
and Boselie (2011) and Boon, Den Hartog, and Paauwe (2010). The items had answer possibilities ranging
from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). When HR practices were used they were asked to indicate how
helpful the practice is for achieving work goals. In addition, when HR practices were not experienced as
available to the respondents they were asked to indicate how helpful the practice would be if they had used
the practice in order to achieve their work goals. An overview of the HR practices and their effectiveness
ratings can found in appendix V, Table 19. Since the variable perceived effectiveness of HR practices
existed of items with different follow-up questions, the variable had to be recoded. The answer possibilities
were recoded into positive outcomes (1 = HR practices are perceived as effective) and negative outcomes
(-1 = HR practices are not perceived as effective). Meaning that when respondents were asked to rate how
effective they perceive the existing HR practices or would perceive as effective when they do not use the
HR practice, the positive outcomes (4 and 5) were recoded into 1 and the negative outcomes (1 and 2) were
recoded into -1. Neutral answer possibility (3) was recoded into 0.
Factor analysis has been performed for the individual items that measures the Use scale which
showed acceptable values. The results of the factor analysis including the component matrix can be found
in appendix IIII Table 16. A PCA was carried out and the matrix only showed one eigenvalue higher than
one (see appendix VI, Table 21).
Perceived organizational support: The short version of the scale developed by Eisenberger et al.
(1986) was used to measure POS. This measure included four items and an example of a question that was
asked is: ‘My organization strongly considers my goals and values’. Respondents were asked to rate the
questions on a five-point Likert scale, varying from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”. The
factor analysis indicated a good KMO-index of .77, and a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .01).
Additionally, the component matrix showed that all four items have a higher loading score than .30 (see
appendix IIII, Table 17). A PCA was carried out and the matrix only showed one eigenvalue higher than
one (see appendix VI, Table 22). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .80, which is considered good
(Evers et al., 2000).
Employee performance: was measured with a scale developed by Griffin et al., (2007). The scale
included nine items to measure task proficiency, adaptivity and proactivity. An example question is: ‘How
often have you assured yourself in the past month that your tasks have been completed correctly’. Items
were answered on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). The factor analysis
indicated a good KMO-index of .84, and a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .01). Additionally,
the component matrix showed that all nine items have a higher loading score than .30 (see appendix IIII,
Table 18). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .72, which is considered sufficient (Evers et al., 2000).
A PCA was carried out and the matrix only showed one eigenvalue higher than one (see appendix VI, Table
23).
Control variables: To test for spuriousness in the relationship between the above-mentioned
variables, control variables are included in the analyses. This study controls for gender (0 = male, 1 =
female) and age (measured in years) since Liao et al., (2009) stated that those control variables have a
potential impact on how employees perceive HR practices and their effectiveness for their performance. In
addition, this study controls for sector since aspects of the employment relationship are settled via collective
bargaining at sector/industry level. The room for perceptions concerning HR practice outcomes may
therefore differ between sectors (Sels, Brande, & Overleat, 2000). The variable sector will be coded as
dummy variables and consist of the following categories: 0 = private organizations, consisting of business
services, production and the other category and 1 = public organizations consist of healthcare, education
and government. In previous studies private and public sectors are mostly seen as a homogeneous group
(Stewart & Walsh, 1992) however research has shown that there has been little empirical comparison
between HR practices in the public and private sector (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000).
Data analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics was used to analyzed the data and test the model and hypotheses. Before starting the
analysis, the data was checked for outliers, missing values and errors. In addition, a correlation matrix was
made. The HR practices were analyzed separately from each other, using a HR practice approach where
the focus lies on a single HR practices without controlling for the other HR practices (Veld et al,. 2011;
Veld 2012).
To test the hypotheses for the individual HR practices, the Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro in SPSS
was used. The PROCESS analysis allows testing moderated mediation models to estimate simultaneously
the conditional indirect coefficient for different levels of the moderator. Furthermore, the PROCESS
analysis uses bootstrapping to estimate the conditional indirect effects for HR effectiveness in the use for
HR practices – employee performance relationships. The Hayes PROCESS Macro model 1 and 4 were used
to test the whole model with the moderation (H5) mediation (H4) effect of POS and HR effectiveness on
the relationship between use of HR practices and employee performance. Moreover, the direct relationship
between use of HR practices and HR effectiveness ratings (H2) and the direct effect of HR effectiveness
ratings on employee performance (H3) is tested by model 7. For all variables the probability level (p) was
compared to the significance level (<.05) (one-tailed significance test).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 3, presents the mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and the correlations for the study variables. The
table shows that the perceived use of HR practices is positively correlated to the effectiveness ratings of
those HR practices (employee development: r = .39 p< .01, career opportunities: r = .39 p< .01, performance
management: r = .26 p< .01, job design: r = .20 p< .01, communication and information sharing: r = .23
p< .01, participation: r = .18 p< .01, work-life-balance: r = .25 p< .01, job security: r = .26 p< .01 and
rewards: r = .11, p< .05). Employee performance is significant positively related to use of career
opportunities (r = .11, p< .05), performance management (r = .12, p< .01), job design (r = .25, p< .01),
communication and information sharing (r =.14, p< .01), participation (r =.14, p< .01), work-life balance
(r =.12, p< .01), job security (r =.15, p< .01). In addition, performance is significantly related to the
effectiveness ratings of job design (r =.13, p< .01), effectiveness ratings of communication and information
sharing (r =.15, p< .01), effectiveness ratings of participation (r =.15, p< .01), effectiveness ratings of job
security (r =.1, p< .05) and to the moderator POS (r =.26, p< .01).
Furthermore, POS is only significant and negatively related to the effectiveness rating of career
opportunities (r = -.15, p< .05), and the effectiveness rating of rewards (r = -.24, p< .05), whereas the use
of HR practices is significant and positively related to POS.
Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations
Measure M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
1. Employee performance 5.1 .72 1
2. Employee development .70 .31 .11* 1
3. Career opportunity .48 .38 .12** .48** 1 .
4. Performance management .69 .34 .25** .38** .32** 1
5. Job design .86 .25 .14** .19** .11* .24** 1
6. Communication/ info sharing .62 .32 .14** .24** .21** .24** .38** 1
7. Participation .76 .28 .12** .27** .25** .24** .34** .47** 1
8. Work-life balance .72 .31 .15** .18** .24** .19** .07 .11* .13** 1
9. Job security .67 .41 .02 .03 .07 .15** .24** .19** .21** .05 1
10. Rewards .26 .28 .23** .06 .15** .11* -.01 .12* .02 .01 .05 1
11. Eff Employee development .53 .52 .02 .39** .32** .18** .07 .09* .08 .00 .02 11* 1
12. Eff Career opportunity -.01 .60 .02 .12** .39** -.02 .00 -.07 .02 .02 -.01 .13** .35** 1
13. Eff Performance management .09 .63 .01 .22** .22** .26** .04 .06 .03 .00 .01 .13** .40** .30** 1
14. Eff Job design .62 .47 .13 .16** .16** .09* .20** .24** .13** .02 .13** .06 .37** .22** .22** 1
15. Eff Communication/ info sharing .16 .60 .13* 09 .04 .01 .12* .23** .22** .01 .11* .03 .17** .13** .20** .29** 1
16. Eff Participation .11 .59 .15** -06 .06 .05 .14** .45** .18** .03 .11* .02 .22** .23** .26** .17** .35** 1
17. Eff Work-life balance -.15 .62 .04 .05 .04 .05 .01 .04 .04 .25** .01 -.04 .07 .15** .15** .19** .28** .23** 1
18. Eff Job security .05 .71 .11* .08 -.09* .01 .04 .04 .02 .06 .26** .01 .10* .15** .16** .15** .24** .27** .28** 1
19. Eff rewards -.15 .66 -.04 .16** .09 .18** .13** .08 .18** .16** .03 .11* .18** .09* .18** .06 .08 .14** .17** .24** 1
20.. Perceived org support 3.6 .67 .15* .31** .28** .26** .29** .30** .40** .27** .17** .09** .50** .04 -.15* .13** .07 .00 -.01 .01 -.24* 1
Note. ** p < .01. * p < .05. Use HR practices 0 (no use) and 1 (use), Effectiveness ratings 1 (effective) and -1 (not effective), Perceived organizational
support (1 – 5), Employee performance (1 – 5).
Hypotheses testing
The Tables 4 till 13 present the results of the tested hypotheses in which Table 4 demonstrate an overview
for which hypothesis support is found (✔) or not (X) and Table 5 (employee development); Table 6 (career
opportunity; Table 7 (performance management); Table 8 (job design); Table 9 (communication and
information sharing); Table 10 (participation); Table 11 (work-life balance); Table 12 (job security) and
Table 13 (rewards) consist of the conditional direct and indirect effects of the HR practices.
The results of hypothesis 1 show that the use of HR practices is in most cases positively significant
related to employee performance (career opportunities; performance management; communication and
information sharing; participation; work-life balance; job security (see table 4 and model 2 of the Tables 5
till 13). For the HR practices employee development and rewards no significant relationship was found.
Therefore, hypothesis 1 is partially supported, which suggest that the use of HR practices has a positive
effect on employee performance. Hypothesis 2 suggested that the use of HR practices was positively related
with the perceived effectiveness ratings of those practices for employee performance. Significant positive
results are found for employee development; career opportunities; performance management; job design;
communication and information sharing; participation; work-life balance and job security. The results show
that the hypothesis is supported for almost all the HR practices, which suggest that employees’ use of HR
practices is positively related to the effectiveness of HR practices, except for the HR practice rewards (see
Table 4 and model 3 of the Tables 5 till 13).
Furthermore, it was suggested that HR effectiveness ratings are positively related to employee
performance (H3). The results indicated that effectiveness ratings of only the HR practices communication
and information sharing and participation positive and significantly relate to employee performance.
Meaning that hypothesis 3 is partially supported (see Table 4 and model 2 of the tables 5 till 13). Focusing
on the positive link between use of HR practices and employee performance, mediated by HR effectiveness
ratings for employee work performance (H4), results show significant relationships for the practices
communication and information sharing and participation (see Table 4 and model 3 of the Tables 5 till 13).
Therefore hypothesis 4: the positive relationship between use of HR practices and employee performance
is mediated by HR effectiveness ratings is partially supported.
At last, the fifth hypothesis suggests that POS strengthens the relationship between employees’ use
of HR practices and HR effectiveness ratings in such a way that the positive relation is stronger under
conditions of high levels of POS than under low levels of POS. For the HR practice employee development,
career opportunity, performance management, job design, participation, work-life balance and rewards
Imke Boonen (student nr: 2001582)
significantly and positive results were found, see Table 4 and the moderation analysis below model 3 in the
Tables 5 till 13). The conditional values show that for the HR practices performance management and job
security there only is a moderating effect when employees perceive an average of high level of POS on the
relationship between use of HR practices and their effectiveness ratings. Furthermore, for the HR practice
rewards only a moderating effect is found for employees who perceive a high level of organizational support
in the relationship between use of HR practices and their effectiveness rating. Altogether hypotheses 5 is
partially supported.
Table 4
Results of the hypotheses
HR practices Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5
Employee development X ✔ X X ✔
Career opportunity ✔ ✔ X X ✔
Performance management ✔ ✔ X X ✔
Job design ✔ ✔ X X ✔
Communication and information sharing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ X
Participation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Work-life balance ✔ ✔ X X ✔
Job security ✔ ✔ X X X
Rewards X X X X ✔
19
Table 5
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on employee development mediated by HR
effectiveness ratings, moderated by perceived organizational support and controlled for gender, age and sector.
Predictor variable B SE t R2
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for employee development F(5, 458)=19.64 .203
Use of HR practice employee development .69** .09** 7.60**
POS -.07* .04* -1.96*
Gender .32** .12** 2.72
Age -.04 .05 -.94
Sector -.01** .00** -4.21**
Model 2: Employee performance F(5,446)=.1.94 .023

HR effectiveness ratings -.01 .08 -.18
Use of HR practice employee development .13 .13 .95
Gender .02 .08 .25
Age .01* .00* 2.85*
Sector -.03 .07 -.38
Model 3:Interacion model HR Effectiveness F (7, 446) = 15.51 .222

Use of HR practice employee development .75** .09** 8.07**
POS -.05 .04 -1.43**
Use of HR practice employee development × POS .32** .12** 2.72
Employee performance .01 .03 .15
Gender -.04 .05 -.84
Age -.01** .00** -4.04
Sector -.02 .05 -36
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of employee development on employee performance
Boot indirect effect Boot SE LL 95% UL 95%
Effectiveness ratings employee development .0183 .0515 -.0902 .1185
Moderation analysis
Bootstrap results for conditional effect for use of HR practices on HR effectiveness ratings at values of the moderator
(POS)
Boot effect perceived organizational support Boot SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
-.6675 (-1SD) .5291 .1107 .3115 .7468
.0000 (0SD) .7475 .0920 .5666 .9284
.6675 (+1SD) .9659 .1302 .7100 1.221
Notes N = 452. Bootstrap sample size = 5.000. LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit. Centralized regression
coefficients are reported. Four decimals presented in order to clarify the lower and upper limit value.
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
20
Table 6
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on career opportunities, mediated by HR effectiveness
ratings, moderated by perceived organizational support and controlled for gender, age and sector.
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for career opportunities F(5, 454)= 29.32 .245
Use of HR practice career opportunities .68*** .07*** 9.60***
POS -.24*** .04*** -5.66**
Gender -.14** .05** -2.70**
Age -.01* .00* -.2.58*
Sector -.07 .05 -1.34
Model 2: Employee performance F(5,454)=3,67 .038

HR effectiveness ratings -.01 .06 -,21
Use of HR practice career opportunities .28* .09* 2.81*
Gender .03 .07 .37
Age .01** .00** 3.38**
Sector -.01 .07 -.13
Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (6,453) = 7.29 .095

Use of HR practice career opportunities .68*** .08*** 9.09****
POS -.22*** .04*** -5.09**
Use of HR practice career opportunities × POS .29* .12* 2.50*
Employee performance .05 .04 1.22
Gender -.13* .05* -2.57*
Age -.01* .00* -.2.41*
Sector -.07 .05 -1.40
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of career opportunities on employee performance
Effectiveness ratings career opportunities .0540 .0429 -.0291 .1418
Moderated analysis
(POS)
-.6610 (-1SD) .5030 .1181 .2709 .7352
.0000 (0SD) .6868 .0742 .5409 .8327
.6610 (+1SD) .8705 .0925 .6888 1.052
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
21
Table 7
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on performance management, mediated by HR
effectiveness ratings, moderated by perceived organizational support and controlled for gender, age and sector.
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for performance management F(5.457)= 15.29 .169
Use of HR practice performance management .48*** .09*** 5.13***
POS .09 .05 1.31
Gender -.03 .06 -.44
Age -.01*** .00*** -6.25***
Sector .07 .06 1.20
Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 2.85 .034

HR effectiveness ratings .06 .06 1.12
Use of HR practice performance management .21* .10* 1.97*
Gender .04 .07 .58
Age .01* .00* 3.05*
Sector -.02 .07 -.21
Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (7,445) = 14.45 .090

Use of HR practice performance management .50*** .09*** 5.28***
POS .09 .05 1.84
Use of HR practice performance management × POS .46** .15** 3.12**
Gender -.02 .05 -.37
Age -.01*** .00*** -6.24***
Sector .08 .06 1.42
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of performance management on employee performance
Effectiveness ratings performance management .0211 .0260 -.0286 .0748
Moderated analysis
(POS)
-.6681 (-1SD) .2141 .1272 -.0359 .4641
.0000 (0SD) .5100 .0935 .0363 .6936
.6681 (+1SD) .8058 .1403 .5300 1.082
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
22
Table 8
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on job design, mediated by HR effectiveness ratings,
moderated by perceived organizational support and controlled for gender, age and sector.
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for job design F(5,457)= 4.80 .090
Use of HR practice job design .45*** .11*** 4.07***
POS -.00* .03* -.04*
Gender -.04 .05 -.80
Age -.00** .00** -2.63**
Sector -.03 .043 -,79

Gender .00 .07 .06
Age .01 .00 1.92
Sector -.04 .07 -.55
Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (7,445) =5.74 .097

POS .01 .03 .07
Use of HR practice job design × POS .45** .12** 3.67**
Gender -.03 .05 -.70
Age -.00** .00** -3.19**
Sector -.03 .043 -,79
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of job design and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings job design .4318 .0353 -.0214 .1354
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6681 (-1SD) .2828 .1051 .0762 .4894
.0000 (0SD) .5930 .1201 .3570 .8289
.6681 (+1SD) .9031 .1755 .5583 1.247
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
23
Table 9
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on communication and information sharing, mediated
by HR effectiveness ratings, moderated by perceived organizational support and controlled for gender, age and
sector.
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for communication and information sharing F(4, 447)= 7.313 .063
Use of HR practice communication and information sharing .44*** .10*** 4.53***
POS .02 .04 .50
Gender .06 .05 1.04
Age -.00 .00 -1.05
Sector -.07 .06 -.22

HR effectiveness ratings .13* .06* 2.20*
Use of HR practice communication and information sharing .23* .11* 2.13*
Gender .02 .07 .32
Age .01* .00* 2.55*
Sector .01 .07 .14
Model 3: HR Effectiveness ratings F (7,444) = 4.97 .078

Use of HR practice communication and information sharing .43*** .10*** 4.34***
POS .01 .05 .27
Use of HR practice communication and info. sharing × POS .12 .14 .85
Employee performance .08* .04* 1.04
Gender .06 .05 1.97
Age -.00 .00 -1.00
Sector -.08 .06 -1.42
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of communication and information sharing and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings communication and info. sharing .0535 .0278 .0093 .1199
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6683 (-1SD) .3569 .3569 -.0853 .6285
.0000 (0SD) .4418 .4418 -.2494 .6342
.6683 (+1SD) .5266 .5266 -.2634 .7899
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
24
Table 10
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on participation, mediated by HR effectiveness
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for participation F(4, 449)= 7.84 .067
Use of HR practice participation .65*** .11*** 5.64***
POS -.05 .04 -1.12
Gender -.17* .06* -3.08*
Age .00 .00 .56
Sector .06 .06 .99

HR effectiveness ratings .15** .06** 2.63**
Use of HR practice participation .27** .11** 2.49**
Gender .03 .07 .48
Age .01* .00* 2.41*
Sector -.00 .07 -.04
Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (7,446) = 8.00 .121

Use of HR practice participation .64*** .12*** 5.49***
POS -.07 .04 -1.72
Use of HR practice participation × POS .56*** .12*** 4.85***
Employee performance .10* .04* 2.66*
Gender -.17* .06* -3.02*
Age .00 .00 .56
Sector .06 .06 .99
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of participation and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings participation .0721 .0313 .0258 .1493
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6675 (-1SD) .2493 .1082 .0366 .4620
.0000 (0SD) .6478 .1149 .4219 .8736
.6675 (+1SD) 1.046 .1625 .7269 1.365
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
25
Table 11
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on work-life balance, mediated by HR effectiveness
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for work-life balance F(4, 447)= 9.04 .074
Use of HR practice work-life balance .55*** .10*** 5.39***
POS -.07 .05 -1.54
Gender .03 .06 .43
Age -.00 .00 -1.54
Sector .02 .06 .41

HR effectiveness ratings .02 .05 .44
Use of HR practice work-life balance .28* .12* 2.43
Gender .01 .07 .18
Age .01** .00** 2.84**
Sector -.02 .07 -.24

Use of HR practice work-life balance .60*** .10*** 5.99***
POS -.06 .04 -1.31
Use of HR practice work-life balance × POS .39* .13* 3.15*
Gender .02 .06 .38
Age -.00 .00 -1.65
Sector .01 .06 .24
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of work-life balance and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings work-life balance .0267 .0297 -.0269 .0917
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6685 (-1SD) .3700 .1206 .1331 .6069
.0000 (0SD) .6247 .0996 .4289 .8204
.6685 (+1SD) .8794 .1402 .6039 1.154
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
26
Table 12
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on job security, mediated by HR effectiveness ratings,
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for job security F(4, 448)= 8.79 . 074
Use of HR practice job security .48*** .09*** 5.67***
POS -.04 .05 -.65
Gender -.00 .06 -.89
Age -.00 .00 -1.70
Sector .15* .07* 2.12*

Use of HR practice job security .20* .09* 2.22*
Gender .03 .07 .42
Age .01** .00** 2.60**
Sector -.05 .07 -.71

Use of HR practice job security .45*** .09*** 5.25***
POS -.04 .06 -.69
Use of HR practice job security × POS .19 .13 1.44
Gender -.07 .06 -1.22
Age -.01* .00* -2.35*
Sector .15* .07* 2.16*
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of job security and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings job security .0433 .0245 .0020 .0988
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6682 (-1SD) .3638 .1159 -.1360 .5917
.0000 (0SD) .4765 .0853 .3089 .6441
.6682 (+1SD) .5893 .1261 .3141 .8370
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
27
Table 13
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on rewards, mediated by HR effectiveness ratings,
Model 1: HR effectiveness ratings for rewards F(4, 447)= 16.40 .147
Use of HR practice rewards .12 .11 1.08
POS -.22*** .06*** -3.04***
Gender -.21** .06** -3.42**
Age -.01*** .00*** -6.25***
Sector -.01 .06 -.12

HR effectiveness ratings -.01 .06 -.17
Use of HR practice rewards .11 .22 .89
Gender .03 .07 .40
Age .01* .00* 2.85*
Sector -.00 .07 -.01

Use of HR practice rewards .13 .11 1.13
POS -.23*** .05*** -.47***
Use of HR practice rewards × POS .38* .17* 2.20*
Gender -.20** .06** -3,27**
Age -.01*** .00*** -6.02***
Sector -.01 .06 -.07
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of rewards and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings rewards .0085 .0123 -.0044 .0495
Moderated mediation analysis

(POS)
-.6687 (-1SD) -.1373 .1590 -.4497 .1752
.0000 (0SD) .1252 .1107 -.0924 .3429
.6687 (+1SD) .3877 .1503 .0923 .6830
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
28
Post hoc analysis

Within this study, the HR practices were measured independently. Since the results of some hypotheses
were in contrast with the expectations, the decision was made to test all the hypotheses with the total use
scale, which merged the HR practices into a bundle. Below the results of the investigation of HR practices
bundle in relation to employee performance, HR effectiveness (as a bundle) and the moderating role of
POS. The results indicate that the bundle of HR practices is significantly positively related to employee
performance (B = .82, p < .01, see Table 14, model 2). In addition the use of HR practices as a bundle is
significantly positive related to the effectiveness ratings of those practices for employee performance (B =
.78, p < .01, see Table 13, model 1). Furthermore, results show that the effectiveness ratings for the bundle
HR practices is significantly and positive related to employee performance (B = .21, p = < .05, see Table
14, model 2). Due to fact that a positive link between the bundle of HR practices and their effectiveness
ratings and between the effectiveness ratings and employee performance was found, it was expected that a
positive mediation effect should occur. Results show indeed a positive mediation of HR effectiveness
ratings between use of HR practices as a bundle and employee performance (B = .20 LLCI= .06, ULCI=
.37, see Table 14, model 3). Finally a significantly and positive relation was found between use of HR
practices as a bundle and HR effectiveness ratings moderated by POS (B = .35, p < .01, see Table 14, model
3). These positive findings show that measuring HR practices as a bundle has a significant impact on
different outcomes meaning that measuring HR practices leads to different findings and a combination of
HR practices have bigger effects of different outcomes than individual practices.
29
Table 14
Conditional direct and indirect effects of use of HR practices on total use scale, mediated by total HR effectiveness
Model 1: Total HR effectiveness ratings for total use scale F(5, 426)= 12.58 .142
Use of HR practice total use scale .69*** .12*** 5.79***
POS -.08** .02** -3.03**
Gender -.05 .03 -1.90
Age -.06*** .00*** -.4.99***
Sector .01 .03 .17
Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 2.85

Total HR effectiveness ratings .21* .10* 2.06* .034
Use of HR practice total use scale .82** .20** 3.97**
Gender .04 .07 .56
Age .01** .00** 3.13**
Sector .01 .07 .09

Use of HR practice total use scale .73*** .12*** 6.09***
POS -.08** .02** 3.25**
Use of HR practice total use scale × POS .35** .13** 2.69**
Gender -.05 .03 .43
Age -.04 .03 -.1.61
Sector -.01*** .00*** -.5,10***
Mediation analysis
Indirect effect of total use scale and employee performance
Effectiveness ratings total use scale .2010 .0794 .0624 .3769
Moderation analysis
(POS)
-.6634 (-1SD) .5375 .1383 .2657 .8093
.0000 (0SD) .7794 .1198 .5440 1.014
.6634 (+1SD) 1.021 .1554 .7159 1.326
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.00
30
Discussion
Seven HR practices were significant and direct related to employee performance, meaning that HR
practices positively influence employee performance by stimulating employee motivation and commitment
and providing employees with the opportunity to perform (Appelbaum et al., 2001). However, two HR
practices; rewards and employee development were not significantly and directly related to employee
performance. A reason for this non-significant relationship could be that those HR practices have, not a
direct effect on core tasks of work and therefore may not have an effect on employee performance, but
rather on other employee outcomes, such as motivation (Blau, 1964; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Lepak
and Snell 1999). The different perceptions towards rewards could be an explanation why the HR practices
rewards was not significant related to employee performance (Deci, Kostner, and Ryan (1999). When
employees experience a non-controlling reward, this will have a more positive effect on how employees
perceive the effectiveness of the rewards than a controlling rewards were employees may feel pressured to
deliver specific behavioral outcomes, which has a negative effect on how they perceive the effectiveness
of rewards (Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983). Moreover, a reason why employee development was not
significantly related to employee performance could be due to the fact not every employee wants to learn
(additional) new things and continuously developing and challenging themselves if this is not necessary for
performing their job (Froehlich, Beauseart, & Segers, 2016).
In line with the AMO model (Appelbaum, et al., 2000) and the study of Guest and Conway (2011),
this study found a positive link between the use of HR practices and their HR effectiveness ratings for all
the HR practices, except for rewards. These findings underlie the importance of taking the employee
perceptions of HR practices into account, in order to influence their attitudes and behaviors (Den Hartog,
Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013). A explanation why the HR practices
rewards show a non-significant effect could be due to the fact that the HR practice rewards can be perceived
as temporary stimulus, controlling or lack of essence and therefore not effective for their performance (Deci
et al., 1999; Bowen 2000; Nelson and Spitzer 2002).
31
In contrast to the many significant effects between use and effectiveness of HR practices, few
significant effect are found in de relation between HR effectiveness and employee performance. These non-
significant finding can be a result of the measurement of the variable HR effectiveness since employees
were asked if the use a certain HR practices or not and if they perceive the HR practice as effective for their
performance or would perceive it as effective when they would use the HR practice. Meaning that there are
two groups (use/no-use) of employees but only the employees who used the HR practices can actually
indicate the effectiveness (Guest and Conway, 2011). The other group can only indicate an expectation
which makes those answers subjective. In addition, the non-significant findings could also be a result of
the fact that they do not say anything primarily about content of work and are more focused on the
development of the employees as preconditions to better performance on the long term. These HR practices
relate to the work satisfaction of employees and can serve as supportive tools to make the work of
employees more enjoyable and let employees feel good in their job but are not a precondition to carry out
someone’s’ work (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975; Wexley & Latham, 1981; Lawrence, Detelin, & Tom,
2012; LePine, Zhang, Crawfor, & Rich, 2016). In contrast, positive and significant effect were found for
the HR practices communication and information sharing and participation, probably due to the fact that
these HR practices are substantive topics about the content of work. This is in line with the AMO-theory
(Appelbaum, et al., 2000) in which it is stated that HR practices affect employee outcomes by enhancing
motivation and incentives (e.g. information sharing) and opportunities to participate (e.g. communication).
The performance of an employee mainly concerns how someone performs their job and communication-
information sharing and participation ensure that employees have all the information they need to perform
their job and can influence/control the content of their work, which can help to work more effectively and
better execute tasks, leading to improving their performance. According to Appelbaum, et al. (2002)
involvement is decision-making and participation are seen as being fundamental in promoting opportunities
to participate and contribute to the performance of employees.
Additionally, it was hypothesized that the relationship between use of HR practices and employee
performance is mediated by perceived HR effectiveness. However, results indicate that there is only a
significant positive mediation effect found between the HR practices; communication and information
sharing and participation. Probably due to the fact that only for those HR practices a positive and significant
effect was found between the use of the HR practices and their effectiveness ratings and between the
effectiveness ratings and employee performance. Guest and Conway (1999) stated that employees
32
acknowledge the fact that sharing information, communication and participation increase the opportunity
to perform better and therefore acknowledge the effectiveness of those HR practices.
For the other HR practices no significant relationship was found what could be a result of the focus
on the HR-performance debate at which HR practices are tested on their contribution to employee
performance. However, not all practices contribute to employee performance as they are more useful
improving employee well-being, job satisfaction or engagement (see e.g., Boxall, Guthrie, & Paauwe, 2006;
Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, & Swart, 2005). For example, the HR practices work-life balance and
career opportunities are in first instance not created improve employee performance but are, according to
the literature, more associated with higher levels of well-being and job satisfaction (Boxall et al., 2006;
Paauwe & Richardson, 2011; Wright & Boswell, 2002).
By observing the COR-theory (Hobfoll, 2002) it was expected that POS strengthens the positive
relationship between use of HR practices and the effectiveness ratings. Results supported a positive relation
for the HR practices; employee development, career opportunities, performance management, job design,
participation, work-life balance and rewards. A possible reason why POS strengthened the relationship
between use of rewards and the effectiveness rating of rewards could be that the organization shows their
effort and appreciation to provide an employee with rewards. In addition, providing employees with support
(e.g., care about their well-being, considering their goals/values and care about their opinion) gives
employees the opportunity to organize their work according to their needs and preferences and work on
their personal development (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). For example by giving employees the
opportunity to work part-time, follow a training, change the design of their work or let them express their
goals/preferences/needs to develop in a performance appraisal. It was suggested by Hobfoll (2002) that
employees who perceive high levels of organizational support and use HR practices that are valuable to
them, rate the effectiveness of those practices as high. Furthermore, this suggest that employees who
perceive a high level of organizational support may, to a greater extent, experience how such HR practices
can provide an opportunity to improve their performance what means that they will experience those
practices as more effective for their performance. (Settoon Bennett & Liden ,1996).
On the other hand, no significant relationship was found for the HR practices job security and
communication and information sharing. Meaning that POS does not strengthen the positive relation
between those HR practices and their effectiveness ratings. Presumably due to the fact that about a third of
the respondents has indicated that they do not have job security at the moment the non-significant effect
appeared. POS is therefore not relevant or has no influence on the relationship between use of job security
33
and their effectiveness ratings since the precondition to asses job society (having job security) is absent for
about a third of the respondents. Buckingham and Coffiman (2009) stated that when those employees do
receive job security, support of an organization would positively influence this relationship. Additionally,
POS does not strengthen the relationship between use of communication and information sharing and their
effectiveness rating for employee performance. Which can be due to the fact that POS cannot influence this
HR practice. Communication and information sharing is concerned with obtaining information about
procedures who already has been established and in which no changes can be made. An employee cannot
organize this HR practice according to their own preferences or needs and the support of the organization
is therefore not relevant to them.
Limitations and future research

Several limitation should be considered when interpreting the results. First, a limitation of the study is the
use of a cross-sectional data which made it impossible to draw conclusions on causality. Longitudinal
research is needed to further investigate the possibility of reversed causation.
A second limitation could be the measurement of the effectiveness rating scale since there was only
a positive relationship between effectiveness ratings and employee performance for the HR practices
communication and information sharing and participation. As mentioned before this could be due to the
fact that we combined the answers of the use and no-use questions where the answers of the no-use
questions are highly speculative and not based on experience. The non-significant relationships could also
presumably be a consequence of the way the variable HR effectiveness was analyzed. The scores of the
effectiveness scale were analyzed with a range between -1, 0 and +1 where -1 stands for that the HR practice
is not rated as effective for employee performance, 0 for a neutral answer and +1 for that the HR practices
is rated as effective for employee performance. For further research it would be relevant to see if a different
range of scores leads to more/other significant effects between the variables. An option would be to expand
the range from -2, (effective) to +2. (effective) and where the 0 stands for not effective. Employees who
originally indicated a 1, 2 or 3 (no effect or neutral) are now subdivide in category 0 (not effective), the
original 4 becomes category 1 (effective) and the original 5 becomes category 2 (very effective).
The third limitation is in line with previous limitation namely the numerous non-significant
relationships between the effectiveness ratings of the HR practices for employee performance. It is
advisable for future research to investigate what outcomes employees perceive HR practices as effective.
It could be for example that the effectiveness ratings are more related to well-being, satisfaction or
34
engagement (Boxall et al., 2006; Kinnie et al., 2005). These authors stated that different employees value
different types of HR practices, meaning that employees perceive HR practices different and those
perceptions generate different levels of satisfaction which is related to how effective employees perceive
the HR practices.
Finally, a limitation of this study is reliability of the scores of employee performance. In this study
self-rating data is used which increased the possibility of socially desirable answers. Respondents might
answer socially desirable in order to present themselves in a favorable light (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986),
what leads to biased data in comparison to a measurement which also includes answers from a manager.
The intention was to include managers to avoid common method bias, however it was difficult to let
managers participate since a lot of managers did not want to participate due to for example time issues. In
addition employees were reservedly in asking their manager to participate due to possible privacy
violations. In the future it would be relevant to investigate why managers did not want to participate and
take into account the employees’ reluctance and make sure that anonymity is guaranteed to gather
information from both employee and manager to enhance the reliability of the data (Guest & Conway,
2011). This could be done by explaining the procedure of data collection in detail.
Implications for practice
This study shows the importance of the perceptions of employees regarding the use and effectiveness of
HR practices. Previous research mainly focused on the organizational perspective and outcomes (Huselid,
1995; Huselid et al., 1994; MacDuffie, 1995), which indicates that there is a gap in the literature regarding
the perceptions of employees. The measurement of HR effectiveness is a new concept which is increasingly
in demand since research showed that the perceptions of employees are important for understanding how
they perceive HR practices and their effectiveness (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994).
This study contributes to existing literature by separating the use of HR practices and their
effectiveness ratings and test which relationships regarding the HR practices and their effectiveness are
significant. Results show that it is not sufficient for organizations to let employees use HR practices when
they do not perceive them as effective for their work performance. Moreover, there are specific work
conditions under which the HR practices are perceived as more effective for their performance. In
particular, employees who perceive high levels of organizational support, rate HR practices like employee
development, career opportunities, performance management, job design, work-life balance, participation
and rewards as more effective for their performance higher. Therefore, it is interesting for organizations to
35
know which HR practices are more strongly related to effectiveness ratings and employee performance so
they can motivate employees by emphasizing their commitment to these HR practices in their
communications with employees.
This study suggests that when employees do not get the opportunity to use specific HR practices
they are not able to rate them as effective for their performance. Therefore, it is advisable that managers sit
down and talk to their employees about which HR practices they value most or perceive as effective for
their performance and what kind of support they need/prefer when using the HR practices, before
implementing HR practices. When the HR practices are perceived as useful and employees experience
support, they will rate the effectiveness ratings of the HR practices for their performance as high.
Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between the use of HR practices and employee performance and the
mediating effect of HR effectiveness. Furthermore, the circumstances under which the HR practices are
perceived as effective were explored by including the moderating role of POS support in the relationship
between use of HR practices and their perceived effectiveness ratings. These findings suggest that the use
of HR practices is more beneficial in a work situation and environment where employees feel supported.
However, this relationship is weaker for employees who perceive lower levels of support. Additionally,
since there was only found a positive relationship between the effectiveness ratings of communication and
information sharing and participation and employee performance, it is advisable for future research to
explore on which outcomes employees perceive HR practices as effective. To conclude, the findings
highlight the importance of the transfer of HR practices to the employee and on the other hand emphasize
the importance of the effect of work-related factors in order to enhance the perceived effectiveness of HR
practices.
36
References
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The relationship between line
manager behavior, perceived HRM practices, and individual performance: Examining the
mediating role of engagement. Human resource management, 52(6), 839-859.
Doi:10.1002/hrm.21512
Antonacopoulou, E. P. (1999). ‘Training does not imply learning’: The individuals’ perspective
International Journal of Training and Development 3(2) 14-33.
Doi:10.1111/1468-2419.00061
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage; Why
high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and

turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2): 670 – 687. Doi: 10.2307/256705
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328. Doi 10.1108/02683940710733115
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Beijer, S. E., (2014) HR practices at work: Their conceptualization and measurement in HRM research.
Retrieved from: https://tilburguniversity.on.worldcat.org/oclc/894671484
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between
perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person–
organization and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(1), 138-162. Doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.538978
Borman, W. C, & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, (Eds.), Personnel
selection in organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Doi: 10.1002/job.322
37
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human resource management journal, 15(3), 67-94.
Doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x
Boxall, P., Guthrie, J.P. and Paauwe, J. (2016), “Editorial introduction: progressing our
understanding of the mediating variables linking HRM, employee well-being and
organizational performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, (26)2, 103-111.
Doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12104
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave
Macmillan
Bowen, B.B, (2000) Recognizing and rewarding employees, Mcgraw-Hill.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of
the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
Doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.12736076
Buckingham, M., & Coffiman, C. (2009). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do different. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (199) 3. A theory of performance.
In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations:
35-69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chang, E. (2005). Employees’ overall perception of HRM effectiveness. Human relations, 58(4),
523- 544. Doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055037
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 678-707. Doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.678
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I. (2000) ‘Consequences of the Psychological Contract for the
Employment Relationship: A Large Scale Survey’, Journal of Management Studies, 37(7):
903–30. Doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00210
38
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
(125)6, 627–668 Doi: 0033-2909/99S3.00
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices
on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4)
949-969. Doi: 10.2307/256718
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions. Academy of management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. Doi: 10.2307/256713
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990) Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
51-59. Doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3) 500-507. Doi:9010/86/500.75
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016), Comparison of Convenience Sampling and
Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistic 5(1), 1-4.
Doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Evers, A. V. A. M., Van Vliet-Mulder, J. V., & Groot, C. D. (2000). Documentatie van tests
en test research in Nederland.
Froehlich, D. E., Beauseart, S., & Segers, M. (2016). Aging and the motivation to stay employable.
Journal of Managerial Psychology 31(3). 756-770. Doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0224
Griffin, M. A., Neal. A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance:
Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts. The Academy of
Management Journal 50(2) 327-347. Doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2011). The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a
‘strong HR system’ on organizational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1686-1702. Doi:
10.1080/09585192.2011.565657
39
Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human resource practices as communications and the
psychological contract. Human resource management, 33(3), 447-462.
Doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930330311
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a
Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2) 250–79.
Doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. Doi:10.0003/066.89.0075
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general
psychology, 6(4), 307. Doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: Sensitivity to
under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
Doi: 1082-989X/98/J3.00
Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation
in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 635.
Doi: 10.1037/a0014580
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal,
38(3), 635-672. Doi: 10.2307/256741
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (1994). The strategic impact of human resources: Results from a
panel study. Working paper, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997) Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of
Management Jounal, 40(2), 171-188. Doi: 10.2307/257025
40
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1994). The effects of human resource management
practices on productivity. Working paper, Columbia University, New York
Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do we go from here? New perspectives on
the black boxes in strategic Human Resource Management research. Journal of
Management Studies, 50, n/a-n/a. Doi:10.1111/joms.12057
Kaiser, H. F. & Rice, J. (1974). A second generation little jiffy. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. 34: 111-17. Doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(85)90016-9
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2005). Satisfaction with HR
practices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all. Human
Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 9-29. Doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00293.x
LePine, M.A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E.R. and Rich, B.L. (2016), “Turning their pain to gain:
charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance”, Academy
of Management Journal 59(3). 1036-1059. Doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778
Lepak, D. P., and S. A. Snell (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human
capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review. 24(1): 31-48.
Doi:10.1.1.469.8661
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and
employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on
service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371. Doi: 10.1037/a0013504
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance. Journal of applied psychology, 69(2), 241.
Doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.69.2.241
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Flexible

production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, (48)
2. 197-221. Doi: 0019-7939/95/4802
Mathieu, J. E,. Tannenbaum, S. I. and Salas, E. (1992), ‘Influences on individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness’. Academy of Management Journal
35(4) 828-47. Doi.org/10.5465/256317
41
Mitsuhashi, H., Park, H. J., Wright, P. M., & Chua, R. S. (2000). Line and HR
executives' perceptions of HR effectiveness in firms in the People's Republic of China.
International Journal of Human Resource Management,11(2), Doi:
10.1080/095851900339828
Muthén, B. (2011). Latent Variable Growth Modeling with Multilevel Data. Los Angeles, US:
University of California.
Nelson, B. & Spitzer, D. R., (2000) The 1001 rewards &recognition fieldbook: the complete
guide, 1st Edition, Workman Publishing Company.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction.
Personnel psychology, 61(3), 503-545. Doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2008.00121.x
Nishii, L. H. & Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations: Implications for

strategic human management (CAHRS Working Paper No. 07-02). Retrieved from Cornell
University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human
Resource Studies website: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/467Pallant, J.
(2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows. Berkshire, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Noe, R. A. (1986). “Trainees attributes and attitudes: ‘neglected influences on training

effectiveness’. Academy of Management Review 11(3) 736-49
Doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4283922
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and
organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Koslowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations Foundations, extensions, and new
directions. 211-266. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects.
Journal of Management studies, 46(1), 129-142. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00809.x
42
Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford University
Press on Demand.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544. Doi: 0149-2063/86
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E. III, & Hackman, J, R. 1975. Behavior in organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Prasad, & Prasad. (2010). "Administrative Thinkers". New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Rhoades, L,.Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001) Affective commitment to the organization: The
contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5)
825-836. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1994). Human resource practices: Administrative contract
makers. Human Resource Management, 33(3) 385–401. Doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930330308
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal
context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (45)2, 736–750. Doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.45.4.736
Rini, C. K., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Wadhwa, P. D., & Sandman, C. A. (1999). Psychological
adaptation and birth outcomes: The role of personal resources, stress, and sociocultural
context in pregnancy. Health Psychology, 18(4), 333–345. Doi:10.0278.6133.99/300
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. Doi: 10.1002/job.248
Sels, L., Janssens, M., Van den Brande, I. and Overlaet, B. (2000). ‘Belgium, a culture of
compromise’, in D.M. Rousseau and R. Schalk (eds), Psychological Contracts in
Employment. Cross-National Perspective, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R. C. (1996). ‘Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity’. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–27. Doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. 1995. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice.
Organizational politics, justice, and support: 149–164. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Stewart, J. & K. Walsh. 1992. ‘Change in the management of public services’, Public
Administration 70(2), 499–518. Doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1992.tb00952
Van De Voorde, K., & Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship
between high‐ performance work systems and employee outcomes. Human Resource
Management Journal, 25(1), 62-78. Doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12062
Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2010). Predicting business unit
performance using employee surveys: monitoring HRM‐related changes. Human
Resource Management Journal, 20(1), 44-63. Doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00114.x
Veld, M. (2012). HRM, Strategic Climate and Employee Outcomes in Hospitals: HRM Care for Cure?.
Retrieved from: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/31198/
Veld, M., Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2011). HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: does the message
come across at the ward level? Human Resource Management Journal, 20(4), 339-356.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00139.x
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. and Liden, R. C. (1997). ‘Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective’. Academy of Management Journal,
40(1), 82–111. Doi: 10.2307/257021
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity
analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
Doi: 10.2307/256941
Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. 1981. Developing and training human resources in organizations.
Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: Integrating
multiple levels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series, 468. Doi:
10.4135/9788132108269.n2
44
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M. & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). ‘The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units’. Human Resource Management Journal 13(3), 21–36
Doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource
management. Journal of Management,18(2), 295-320. Doi: 10.1177/014920639201-
800205
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., McCormick, B., & Scott, S. W. (1998). Strategy, core
competence, and HR involvement as determinants of HR effectiveness and refinery
performance. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 17-29. Doi 10.1087/24314901
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C, & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5, 301-326. Doi:10.1080/09585199400000020
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L.(2006) Strategic HRM and Organizational behavior. Integrating
multiple levels of analysis. Working paper, 06-05. Ithace, NY: CAHRS Cornell
University
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base
linking social and emotional learning to school success. Building academic success on
social and emotional learning: What does the research say, 3-22. Doi:
10.1080/10474410701346725
45
Appendix
46
Appendix I: Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYEE
General information
1. What is your gender?

 Male
 Female
2. What is your age? _______ year
3. In which sector are you working?

 Business services
 Education
 Production
 Government (public administration)
 Healthcare
 Other, namely: ___________________
4. What type of organisation is it (e.g. hospital, supermarket, law firm, retail shop, school, university, government
department, post office, etc.)? Please specify:
______________________________
5. What is your highest achieved education?

 ‘elementary school’
 ‘basic’: VMBO, MBO1 or MBO2
 ‘Secondary’: HAVO, VWO, MBO3 of MBO4
 ‘higher education’: HBO
 ‘academic’: university
6. How many years do you work at your current organization? _______ year
7. How many hours a week do you work? _______ hour
8. What type of contract do you have?

 Fixed contract
 Temporary contract
 Zero-hours contract
 Other, namely: ___________________
9. What is your function? _______________
47
10. What are the two most important job tasks?
1. ____________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________
When you want to correct a wrong answer, please cross through and circle the right answer. Please circle one answer. Please
circle an answer which comes into mind first and which is most applicable to you.
The following statements are about your current work situation. Please indicate the extent to which these statements are related
to you.
1 2 3 4
Never Sometimes Often Always
11. Can you count on your colleagues when you encounter difficulties in your work? 1 2 3 4
12. If necessary, can you ask your colleagues for help? 1 2 3 4
13. Do you get on well with your colleagues? 1 2 3 4
14. Is there a good atmosphere between you and your colleagues? 1 2 3 4
15. Do you have too much work to do? 1 2 3 4
16. Do you have to work extra hard in order to complete something? 1 2 3 4
17. Do you have to hurry? 1 2 3 4
18. Do you find that you are behind in your work activities? 1 2 3 4
The following statements are about your organization. Please indicate the extent to which these statements are related to you.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
19. My organization really cares about my well-being. 1 2 3 4 5

20. My organization shows very little concerns for me. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My organization strongly considers my goals and values. 1 2 3 4 5
22. My organization cares about my opinion. 1 2 3 4 5
48
23. I usually know where I stand with my leader. 1 2 3 4 5

24. My leader understands my job problems and needs. 1 2 3 4 5
25. My leader recognizes my potential. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Regardless of how much formal authority my manager has built into his or her 1 2 3 4 5
position, my manager would be personally inclined to use his/her power to help
me solve problems in my work.
27. Regardless of how much formal authority my manager has built into his or her 1 2 3 4 5
position, I can count on my manager to “bail me out”, even at his or her own
expense, when I really need it.
28. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her 1 2 3 4 5
decision if he/she were not present.
29. I have an effective working relationship with my leader. 1 2 3 4 5
30. The process used to conduct my performance appraisal is fair. 1 2 3 4 5
31. The process used to determine my salary is fair. 1 2 3 4 5
32. The process used to make decisions about my promotions or job changes 1 2 3 4 5
within this organization is fair.
33. The process used to address any concerns or complaints I voice about 1 2 3 4 5
this organization is fair.
For the past month, please indicate below how often you have carried out the behaviour.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never Almost never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Always
34. Carried out the core parts of your job well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. Completed your core tasks well using the standard procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. Ensured your tasks were completed properly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. Adapted well to changes in core tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. Coped with changes to the way you have to do your core tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
39. Learned new skills to help you adapt to changes in your core tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. Initiated better ways of doing your core tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49
41. Come up with ideas to improve the way in which your core tasks are done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. Made changes to the way your core tasks are done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The following statements are about human resources management within your organization and the influence of this on
performing your daily work tasks. Please indicate whether the following statements were applicable to you in your job during the
last year. First you have to choose for ‘yes’ or ‘no’, after that there is a follow-up question based upon your first answer.
1 2 3 4 5
43. I follow training, courses and workshops. Yes No
If you have answered “yes”:
43a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of following 1 2 3 4 5
trainings, courses and workshops.
If you have answered ‘’no’’:
43b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had 1 2 3 4 5
followed trainings, courses and workshops.
44. I obtain new skills and knowledge during work. Yes No
If you have answered ‘’yes’’:
44a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of obtaining 1 2 3 4 5
new skills and knowledge during work.
44b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had obtained 1 2 3 4 5
new skills and knowledge.
45. I receive coaching in developing my knowledge and skills. Yes No
If you have answered ’’yes’’:
45a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of receiving 1 2 3 4 5
coaching in developing my knowledge and skills.
received coaching in developing my knowledge and skills.
50
1 2 3 4 5
46. I get support in planning my career development. Yes No
46a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of getting 1 2 3 4 5
support in planning my career development.
support in planning my career development.
47. I have the opportunity to do another job within my organization. Yes No
47a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having the 1 2 3 4 5
opportunity to do another job within this organization.
47b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had the 1 2 3 4 5
opportunity to do another job within this organization.
48. I have career prospects within this organization. Yes No
48a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having career 1 2 3 4 5
prospects in this organization.
48b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had career 1 2 3 4 5
prospects in this organization.
49. My performance is periodically evaluated by my manager. Yes No
49a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of the 1 2 3 4 5
periodic evaluation of my performance by my manager .
49b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had a 1 2 3 4 5
periodic evaluation of my performance by my manager.
51
50. I have periodic conversations with my manager about my work results. Yes No
50a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having periodic 1 2 3 4 5
conversations with my manager about my work results.
50b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had periodic 1 2 3 4 5
conversations with my manager about my work results.
51. My work results are determined in joint consultation. Yes No
51a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of determining 1 2 3 4 5
my work results in joint consultation.
51b. My work results would have improved in the last year if my work 1 2 3 4 5
results were determined in joint consultation.
52. I monitor the quality of my work. Yes No
52a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of monitoring 1 2 3 4 5
the quality of my work.
52b. My work results would have improved in the last year if had 1 2 3 4 5
monitored the quality of my work.
53. I have diverse work. Yes No
53a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having 1 2 3 4 5
diverse work.
diverse work.
52
1 2 3 4 5
54. I have challenging work. Yes No
challenging work.
challenging work.
55. I make my own decisions in work. Yes No
55a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of making my 1 2 3 4 5
own decisions in work.
55b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I would 1 2 3 4 5
have made my own decisions in work.
56. I carry responsibility for my own work. Yes No
If you have answered ‘’yes’:
56a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of carrying 1 2 3 4 5
responsibility for my own work.
carried responsibility for my own work.
57. I have a say in the policy of the organization. Yes No
57a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having a say in 1 2 3 4 5
the policy of the organization.
57b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had a say 1 2 3 4 5
in the policy of the organization.
58. I give my opinion on work-related issues in the organization. Yes No
53
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
58a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of giving my 1 2 3 4 5
opinion on work-related issues in the organization.
58b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had given 1 2 3 4 5
my opinion on work-related issues in the organization.
59. I participate in consultation in which the division of tasks are determined. Yes No
59a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of participating in 1 2 3 4 5
consultation in which the division of tasks are determined.
participated in consultation in which the division of tasks are determined.
60. I am informed about the general course of events within the organization. Yes No
If you have answered ‘’yes’’ :
60a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of being 1 2 3 4 5
informed about the general course of events within the organization
60b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I was 1 2 3 4 5
informed about the general course of events within the organization.
61. I am informed about specific procedures within the organization. Yes No
informed about specific procedures within the organization.
If you have answered ‘’no’’
informed about specific procedures within the organization.
62. I am informed about significant changes in the organization. Yes No
informed about significant changes in the organization.
54
informed about significant changes in the organization.
63. I have insight in the way decisions are made within the organization. Yes No
63a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having insight 1 2 3 4 5
in the way decisions are made within the organization.
63b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had insight 1 2 3 4 5
in the way decisions are made within the organization.
1 2 3 4 5
64. I get support in combining work and care tasks in my private situation. Yes No
64a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of getting 1 2 3 4 5
support in combining work and care tasks in my private situation.
If you have answered ‘’no’’
received support in combining work and care tasks in my private situation.
65. I can adjust my work schedule to my private life. Yes No
65a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having being 1 2 3 4 5
able to adjust my work schedule to my private life.
If you have answered ‘’’no’’:
65b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I was able 1 2 3 4 5
to adjust my work schedule to my private life.
66. I can work part-time if my private life requires it. Yes No
66a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having being 1 2 3 4 5
able to work part-time if my private life requires it.
55
66b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I was able to 1 2 3 4 5
work part-time if my private life requires it.
67. I have an employment contract that offers me job security at my current employer. Yes No
67a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of having an 1 2 3 4 5
employment contract that offers me job security at my current employer.
67b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I had an 1 2 3 4 5
employment contract that offers me job security at my current employer.
68. I have certainty of keeping my current work activities. Yes No
certainty that I can keep my current work activities.
certainty of keeping my current work activities.
69. I have certainty to keep working in my current team. Yes No
certainty that I keep working in my current team.
certainty to keep working in my current team.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
70. I have a competitive salary for my function. Yes No
a competitive salary for my function.
70b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I 1 2 3 4 5

had a competitive salary for my function.
56
71. I receive in addition to my base salary other financial perks. Yes No
71a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of receiving 1 2 3 4 5
other financial perks in addition to my base salary.
other financial perks in addition to my base salary.
72. I have performance-related pay. Yes No
performance-related pay.
72b. My work results would have improved in the last year if I 1 2 3 4 5

had performance-related pay.
73. I receive a bonus which depends on the team or department performance. Yes No
73a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of receiving a 1 2 3 4 5
bonus which depends on the team or department performance.
received a bonus which depends on the team or department performance.
74. I share in the profit of the organization. Yes No
74a. My work results have improved in the last year as a result of sharing 1 2 3 4 5
in the profit of the organization.
shared in the profit of the organization.
The following statements are about how you feel at work. Please indicate the extent to which the following statements
describe your situation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57
75. At my work, I feel bursting with energy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

77. I am enthusiastic about my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
78. My job inspires me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
79. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

80. I feel happy when I am working intensely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
81. I am proud on the work that I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
82. I am immersed in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 83. I
get carried away when I’m working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
84. By the end of the working day, I feel really worn out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85. Because of my job, at the end of the working day I feel rather exhausted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
86. I find it difficult to concentrate in my free time after work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
87. I cannot really show much interest in other people when I have just come 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 home
myself.
88. I help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
89. I give up time to help others who have work or home problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90. I assist others with their duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
91. I keep up with developments in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
92. I express loyalty towards the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
93. I demonstrate concern about the image of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I put effort or I would put effort in my work…
58
94. …because I have fun doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
95. …because what I do in my work is exciting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
96. …because the work I do is interesting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please indicate the extent to which the following statements apply to you.
1 2 3 4 5
97. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them. 1 2 3 4 5
98. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. 1 2 3 4 5
99. I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks. 1 2 3 4 5
100. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. 1 2 3 4 5
101. If I should find myself in a jam, I could think of many ways to get out of it. 1 2 3 4 5
102. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goal. 1 2 3 4 5
103. There are lots of ways around any problem that I am facing now. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
104. I can think of many ways to achieve my current goals. 1 2 3 4 5
105. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. 1 2 3 4 5
106. If something can go wrong for me, it will. 1 2 3 4 5
107. I'm always optimistic about my future. 1 2 3 4 5
108. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. 1 2 3 4 5
109. I rarely count on good things happening to me. 1 2 3 4 5
110. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad. 1 2 3 4 5
111.It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event. 1 2 3 4 5
112. It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens to me. 1 2 3 4 5
59
113. I usually come through difficult times with little trouble. 1 2 3 4 5
114. I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life. 1 2 3 4 5
115. I like to try things out in a new way. 1 2 3 4 5
116 I take many initiatives for changes in my work. 1 2 3 4 5
117. I see projects about innovation as a challenge. 1 2 3 4 5
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
60
Appendix II: Cover letter
Tilburg, April 2018
Dear Sir, Madam,
You receive this letter because you are willing to participate in my research on the work experience of employees as
part of our Master thesis project. Thank you very much in advance for participating in our study!
Reason for this research

Most people spent a (large) part of their lives at work. Work can be a source for inspiration, but also a source for
stress. In the context of our Master Human Resource Studies at Tilburg University we investigate how employees
experience their work. In our research we are interested in the employees’ perception of the working environment
and which aspects influence this work experience.
The research
We have developed two different questionnaires for you as employee and your direct supervisor. To get the most
complete impression of the employees’ working environment and your experiences in work, we ask your manager
general questions about work aspects but also questions about your behavior in work. Filling out the employee
questionnaire will take you approximately 20 minutes. Filling out the manager questionnaire will take your manager
approximately 15 minutes. We ask you to fill out the employee questionnaire and to share the manager
questionnaire with your direct manager. You can share the manager questionnaire yourself of ask the Master student
to do this (hardcopy or digital).
For this research it is important to link different research data. In order to be able to do this, we have created an
individual code for each employee in the questionnaire. We ask you to fill out this code [CODE] in the questionnaire
when asked.
Instruction questionnaire employee

The questionnaire consists of several components that contain questions about different work related factors on
which we want to collect information about your experiences and behaviors at work. The answer possibilities vary
per component. Therefore, before you start with a new component, please read the corresponding instructions first.
Confidentiality of the data
61
Your data will only be collected for our scientific research if you decide to participate in this research. We want to
emphasize that participating in this research is voluntary, and answers will be treated confidentially. You have the
right to decline to participate and withdraw from the research once participation has begun, without any negative
consequences, and without providing any explanation.
Furthermore, no names of questions or persons will be mentioned in the research papers.
When you have any questions or suggestions, you can contact our Master thesis supervisors. For any comments or
complaints about this research you can contact the “Ethics Review Board” of Tilburg School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences.
Click on the link below to continue to the questionnaire:

https://tilburgss.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9vigivCjs9kWvT7
Thank you in advance for participating in this research!
With kind regards,
Kristie Bakker Eline Hamberg

Femke van den Bergh Roxy Janssen
Imke Boonen Marloes Leeijen
Anneloes van Eijk Paularin Pascha
Pleun van Gestel Marieke ter Steege
Namens de Master studenten HRS,
Tina Peeters Jeske van Beurden

Promovenda (thesis supervisor) Promovenda & Docent (thesis supervisor)
Tilburg University Tilburg University
62
Appendix III: Flyer
63
Appendix IIII Factor analysis and component matrixes

Table 15
Factor analysis and component matrix use HR practices
Variable Component matrix KMO

Employee development .61***
ED 1 .76
ED 2 .69
ED 3 .71
Career opportunity .58***
CO 1 .63
CO 2 .79
CO 3 .85
Performance management .62***
PM 1 .74
PM 2 .83
PM3 .71
Job design .55***
JD 1 .84
JD 2 .83
JD 3 .50
Communication and information .72***
sharing
CIS 1 .82
CIS 2 .77
CIS 3 .72
CIS 4 .64
Participation .61***
PAR 1 .69
PAR 2 .74
PAR 3 .72
Work-life balance .55***
WLB 1 .55
WLB 2 .79
WLB 3 .72
Job security .66***
JS 1 .81
JS 2 .93
JS 3 .88
Rewards .63***
REW 1 .44
REW 2 .68
REW 3 .79
REW 4 .75
Note. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity ***p < .00. KMO between 5 and 6 is considered sufficient, KMO > 6 is
considered good (Evers et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alpha questionable <.06, <.08 acceptable, <.09 good.
64
Table 16
Factor analysis and component matrix of effectiveness ratings of HR practices
Variable Component matrix KMO Cronbach Alpha

Employee development .65*** .63
HR eff ED 1 .95
HR eff ED 2 .93
HR eff ED 3 .93
Career opportunity .59*** .62
HR eff CO 1 .92
HR eff CO 2 .93
HR eff CO 3 .73
Performance management .61*** .69
HR eff PM 1 .92
HR eff PM 2 .89
HR eff PM 3 .76
Job design .60*** .61
HR eff JD 1 .94
HR eff JD 2 .92
HR eff JD 3 .89
Communication and information .80*** .82
sharing
HR eff CIS 1 .93
HR eff CIS 2 .90
HR eff CIS 3 .85
HR eff CIS 4 .76
Participation .67*** .63
HR eff PAR 1 .90
HR eff PAR 2 .89
HR eff PAR 3 .70
Work-life balance .71*** .77
HR eff WLB 1 .95
HR eff WLB 2 .93
HR eff WLB 3 .89
Job security .69*** .86
HR eff JS 1 .96
HR eff JS 2 .93
HR eff JS 3 .91
Rewards .713*** .83
HR eff REW 1 .91
HR eff REW 2 .90
HR eff REW 3 .87
HR eff REW 4 .88
Note. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity ***p < .00. KMO between 5 and 6 is considered sufficient, KMO > 6 is
considered good (Evers et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alpha questionable <.06, <.08 acceptable, <.09 good.
65
Table 17
Factor analysis and component matrix perceived organizational support

Perceived organizational support .77*** .80
POS 1 .83
POS 2 .82
POS 3 .78
POS 4 .74
Table 18
Factor analysis and component matrix employee performance

Employee Performance .84*** .72
EP 1 .53
EP 2 .77
EP 3 .65
EP 4 .71
EP 5 .79
EP 6 .70
EP 7 .78
EP 8 .71
EP 9 .75
66
Appendix V
Table 19
Use of HR practices and their effectiveness ratings
Variable Use Effective No use Effective

Employee development
ED 1 294 202 170 73
ED 2 421 350 43 18
ED 3 261 181 203 74
Career opportunity
CO 1 180 100 284 64
CO 2 229 78 235 37
CO 3 259 89 205 45
Performance management
PM 1 381 110 83 21
PM 2 323 155 141 60
PM3 262 121 202 56
Job design
JD 1 411 274 53 29
JD 2 374 273 90 60
JD 3 418 314 46 18
Communication and information sharing
CIS 1 404 159 60 16
CIS 2 361 162 103 32
CIS 3 418 166 46 31
CIS 4 236 93 228 46
Participation
PAR 1 162 72 302 71
PAR 2 388 169 76 10
PAR 3 311 164 153 32
Work-life balance
WLB 1 278 113 185 32
WLB 2 359 181 105 35
WLB 3 360 137 102 16
Job security
JS 1 328 128 136 29
JS 2 307 129 156 36
JS 3 303 114 161 36
Rewards
REW 1 137 46 326 103
REW 2 193 53 270 75
REW 3 89 30 375 97
REW 4 64 18 400 80
67
Appendix VI
Table 20
Total variance explained by eigenvalues for HR practices
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 2.66 29.55 29.55
2 1.29 14.31 43.85
3 1.01 11.23 55.09
4 .89 9.89 64.97
5 .81 9.01 73.98
6 .72 8.02 82.01
7 .61 6.83 88.83
8 .51 5.69 94.52
9 .49 5.48 100
Table 21
Total variance explained by eigenvalues for effectiveness rating

1 2.86 31,79 31,79
2 1.24 13.84 45.64
3 1.03 11.42 57.06
4 .84 9.38 66.44
5 .74 8.19 74.63
6 .71 7.01 82.44
7 .67 7.40 89.84
8 .52 5.80 95,64
9 .39 4.36 100
Table 22
Total variance explained by eigenvalues for perceived organizational support

1 2.49 62.35 62.35
2 .62 15.47 77.82
3 .52 12.93 90.74
4 .37 9.25 100
68
Table 23
Total variance explained by eigenvalues for employee performance

1 3.92 43.57 43.57
2 2.03 22.58 66.15
3 .76 8.44 74.59
4 .49 5.49 80.01
5 .43 4.75 84.82
6 .41 4.60 89.42
7 .37 4.14 93.56
8 .34 3.75 97.32
9 .24 2.68 100
69

File 146364

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

File 146364

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The impact of employees’ use of HR practices on employee performance:

the moderating role of perceived organizational support and

Master Thesis Human Resource Studies 2017 – 2018

Imke Boonen (Student nr.: 2001582)

Supervisor: J. van Beurden MSc

Supervisor: Dr. M. Verhagen

Master Thesis Human Resource Studies

January 2018 – August 2018

Tilburg University – School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Keywords: Employees’ use of HR practices, HR effectiveness ratings, perceived organizational support,

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ use of HR practices is positively associated with employee performance.

Employees’ Use Employee

Population and Sample

Communication and information sharing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ X

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,446)=.1.94 .023

Model 3:Interacion model HR Effectiveness F (7, 446) = 15.51 .222

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,454)=3,67 .038

Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (6,453) = 7.29 .095

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 2.85 .034

Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (7,445) = 14.45 .090

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 6.29 .072

Model 3: Interaction model HR Effectiveness F (7,445) =5.74 .097

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,456)= 4.75 .045

Model 3: HR Effectiveness ratings F (7,444) = 4.97 .078

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,458)= 4.85 .049

Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (7,446) = 8.00 .121

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,455)= 3.35 .034

Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (7,444) = 6.92 .096

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 4.25 .043

Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (7,454) = 7.14 .096

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,456)= 1.95 .021

Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (7,444) = 14.27 .162

Moderated mediation analysis

Post hoc analysis

Model 2: Employee performance F(5,457)= 2.85

Model 3: Interaction model Effectiveness F (6,424) = 9.3 .117

Limitations and future research

Implications for practice

Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Bowen, B.B, (2000) Recognizing and rewarding employees, Mcgraw-Hill.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Flexible

Nishii, L. H. &amp; Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations: Implications for

Noe, R. A. (1986). “Trainees attributes and attitudes: ‘neglected influences on training

1. What is your gender?

2. What is your age? _______ year

3. In which sector are you working?

5. What is your highest achieved education?

7. How many hours a week do you work? _______ hour

8. What type of contract do you have?

9. What is your function? _______________

10. What are the two most important job tasks?

Never Sometimes Often Always

12. If necessary, can you ask your colleagues for help? 1 2 3 4

13. Do you get on well with your colleagues? 1 2 3 4

14. Is there a good atmosphere between you and your colleagues? 1 2 3 4

15. Do you have too much work to do? 1 2 3 4

16. Do you have to work extra hard in order to complete something? 1 2 3 4

17. Do you have to hurry? 1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Nishii, L. H. & Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations: Implications for