Do High-Performance Work Systems Really Satisfy Employees? Evidence from China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Relationship between Sustainability and Human Resource Management (HRM)
2.2. Western-Based HPWS in Chinese Contexts
2.3. The Application of Affective Events Theory (AET)
2.4. Research Hypothesis
3. Research Method
3.1. Samples and Data Collection Procedure
3.2. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Cross-Level Mediating Effect of Job Design and Work Intensification
4.2. Mediating Effect of Positive Affect and Negative Affect
5. Discussions
6. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Arthur, J.B. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 670–687. [Google Scholar]
- Huselid, M.A. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 635–672. [Google Scholar]
- MacDuffie, J.P. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Rev. 1995, 48, 197–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsay, H.; Scholarios, D.; Harley, B. Employee and high-performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2000, 38, 501–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appelbaum, E.; Bailey, T.; Berg, P.; Kalleberg, A.L. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off; ILR Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Boselie, P.; Brewster, C.; Paauwe, J. In search of balance-managing the dualities of HRM: An overview of the issues. Per. Rev. 2009, 38, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepak, D.P.; Liao, H.; Chung, Y.; Harden, E.E. A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006; Volume 25, pp. 217–271. [Google Scholar]
- Su, Z.-X.; Wright, P.M. The effective human resource management system in transitional China: A hybrid of commitment and control practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 2065–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogbonnaya, C.N.; Valizade, D. Participatory workplace activities, employee-level outcomes and the mediating role of work intensification. Manag. Res. Rev. 2015, 38, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Morris, J.L. High-performance work systems and organizational performance: Testing the mediation role of employee outcomes using evidence from PR China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.-Y.; Hong, Y. When western HRM constructs meet Chinese contexts: Validating the pluralistic structures of human resource management systems in China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 3983–4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramar, R. Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1069–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mak, A.; Cheung, L.; Mak, A.; Leung, L. Confucian thinking and the implications for sustainability in HRM. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2014, 6, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Zhu, C.J.; Dowling, P.J.; Bartram, T. Exploring the effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on work-related well-being of Chinese hospital employees. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3196–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparham, E.; Sung, J. High Performance Work Practices—Work Intensification or “Win-Win”? Center for Labor Market Studies, University of Leicester: Leicester, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Godard, J. High performance and transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. ILR Rev. 2001, 54, 776–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godard, J. A critical assessment of the high performance paradigm. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2004, 42, 349–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paauwe, J. HRM and performance: Achievement, methodological issues and prospects. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Stefano, F.; Bagdadli, S.; Camuffo, A. The HR role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability: A boundary-shifting literature review. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariappanadar, S.; Kramar, R. Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organizational performance and employee harm. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2014, 6, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mignonac, K.; Herrbach, O. Linking work events, affective states and attitudes: An empirical study of managers’ emotions. J. Bus. Psychol. 2004, 19, 221–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrad, C.; Gherheș, V. A Human Resources Perspective on Responsible Corporate Behavior. Case Study: The Multinational Companies in Western Romania. Sustainability 2018, 10, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariappanadar, S. Sustainable human resource strategy: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2003, 39, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Wright, P.K.; Su, Z. Human resource management and firm performance in China: A critical review. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2010, 48, 58–85. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Research in Organizational. Behavior; Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996; Volume 18, pp. 1–74. [Google Scholar]
- Mostafa, A.M.S. High-performance HR practices, positive affect and employee outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2017, 32, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boxall, P.; Macky, K. High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being. Work Employ. Soc. 2014, 28, 963–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, S.; Van Veldhoven, M.; Croon, M.; de Menezes, L.M. Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Hum. Relat. 2012, 65, 419–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karasek, R.A., Jr. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avgar, A.C.; Pandey, N.; Kwon, K. Discretion in context: A moderated mediation model of the relationship between discretion and turnover intentions. Ind. Relat. 2012, 51, 106–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, C.M.; Chen, S.J.; Huang, P.C.; Chien, J.C. Effect of diversity on human resource management and organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 857–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J.M.; Patel, P.C.; Messersmith, J.G. High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 1699–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroon, B.; van de Voorde, K.; van Veldhoven, M. Cross-level effects of high-performance work practices on burn-out: Two counteracting mediating mechanisms compared. Pers. Rev. 2009, 38, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wegge, J.; van Dick, R.; Fisher, G.K.; West, M.A.; Dawson, J.F. A test of basic assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in call center work. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macky, K.; Boxall, P. High-involvement work process, work intensification and employee well-being: A New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2008, 46, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, M.J.; Brief, A.P.; Georg, J.M.; Roberson, L.; Webster, J. Measuring affect at work: Confirmatory analysis of competing mood structures with conceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1091–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brayfield, A.H.; Rothe, H.F. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1951, 35, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, D.A. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 723–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social Psychol. research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krull, J.L.; MacKinnon, D.P. Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2001, 36, 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrena-Martinez, J.; López-Fernández, M.; Romero-Fernandez, P.M. Drivers and barriers in socially responsible human resource management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harley, B. Employee responses to high performance work system practices: An analysis of AWIRS95 data. J. Ind. Relat. 2002, 44, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J. Employees’ satisfaction with HRM in Chinese privately-owned enterprises. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2010, 16, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G. Culture and Organizations; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Baruch, Y. Response rate in academic studies—A comparative analysis. Hum. Relat. 1999, 52, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klumb, P.; Elfering, A.; Herre, C. Ambulatory assessment in industrial organizational psychology: Fruitful examples and methodological issues. Eur. Psychol. 2009, 14, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational level | ||||||||
1. HPWS | 3.48 | 0.21 | ||||||
2. Industry | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.04 | |||||
3. Ownership | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 0.34 * | ||||
4. Size | 6.79 | 1.04 | 0.02 | 0.73 *** | 0.75 *** | |||
Individual-level | ||||||||
1. Gender | 0.62 | 0.49 | ||||||
2. Tenure | 12.24 | 9.46 | 0.08 | |||||
3. Job discretion | 3.07 | 0.71 | 0.02 | −0.05 | ||||
4. Work intensification | 2.83 | 1.08 | −0.09 | −0.05 | −0.03 | |||
5. Positive affect | 2.97 | 0.85 | −0.10 | −0.50 | 0.20 *** | −0.03 | ||
6. Negative affect | 1.82 | 0.58 | 0.05 | 0.13 * | 0.01 | 0.13 * | −0.28 *** | |
7. Job satisfaction | 3.30 | 0.59 | −0.03 | −0.14 ** | 0.17 ** | −0.15 ** | 0.31 *** | −0.39 *** |
Predictors | Model 1 HPWS→PA | Model 2 HPWS→JD | Model 3 JD→PA |
---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 2.74 ** | 1.82 ** | 2.98 ** |
Organizational level | |||
Industry | −0.16 | −0.45 ** | −0.02 |
Ownership | −0.13 | −0.16 | −0.14 |
Size | 0.07 | 0.23 * | 0.03 |
HPWS | −0.76 * | 0.15 | |
Employee level | |||
Gender | −0.20 * | 0.04 | −0.23 ** |
Tenure | −0.00 | −0.01 | −0.00 |
Job discretion | 0.22 ** |
Predictors | Model 1 HPWS→NA | Model 2 HPWS→WI | Model 3 WI→NA | Model 4 HPWS, WI→NA |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 1.11 * | 3.72 ** | 1.71 * | 1.05 * |
Organizational level | ||||
Industry | −0.26 * | 0.05 | −0.11 | −0.26 * |
Ownership | −0.07 | 0.28 | 0.12 | −0.09 |
Size | 0.11 | −0.13 | 0.00 | 0.12 |
HPWS | 1.41 *** | 0.63 * | 1.38 *** | |
Employee level | ||||
Gender | 0.07 | −0.16 | 0.09 | 0.08 |
Tenure | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Work intensification | 0.08 ** | 0.06 * |
Predictors | Model 1 JD→JS | Model 2 JD→PA | Model 3 PA→JS | Model 4 JD, PA→JS |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.03 | −0.10 * | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Tenure | −0.13 * | −0.03 | −0.13 * | −0.12 * |
Job discretion | 0.16 ** | 0.20 *** | 0.10 * | |
Positive affect | 0.30 *** | 0.28 *** |
Predictors | Model 1 WI→JS | Model 2 WI→NA | Model 3 NA→JS | Model 4 WI, NA→JS |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.04 | 0.06 | −0.01 | −0.02 |
Tenure | −0.14 ** | 0.14 * | −0.09 | −0.09 |
Work intensification | −0.17 ** | 0.17 ** | −0.11 * | |
Negative affect | −0.38 *** | −0.36 *** |
Path | Research Hypothesis | Analytical Results |
---|---|---|
H1 | Not supported | |
H2 | Supported | |
H3 | Supported | |
H4 | Supported |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chang, P.-C.; Wu, T.; Liu, C.-L. Do High-Performance Work Systems Really Satisfy Employees? Evidence from China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103360
Chang P-C, Wu T, Liu C-L. Do High-Performance Work Systems Really Satisfy Employees? Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103360
Chicago/Turabian StyleChang, Po-Chien, Ting Wu, and Chen-Lin Liu. 2018. "Do High-Performance Work Systems Really Satisfy Employees? Evidence from China" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103360
APA StyleChang, P.-C., Wu, T., & Liu, C.-L. (2018). Do High-Performance Work Systems Really Satisfy Employees? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103360