Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Sustainable HRM
1.2. Human Resource Management System (HRMS)
1.3. Organizational Affective Commitment
1.4. Organizational Trust in Manager
1.5. Moderation Models
1.6. Mediation Models
2. Method
- To evaluate the direct impact of HRMS and OT on OAC.
- 2.
- To compare two models of the effects of OT on OAC.
2.1. Procedure and Sample
2.2. Instruments
HRMS
2.3. Statistical Analysis Procedure
Model 1: The moderator model
Model 2: The mediator model
3. Results
3.1. Factors Interpretation on the Development of the Measures
3.2. Reliability Analysis for Iv’s
3.3. Evidence from Reliability Data
3.4. Evidence for Validity
- Model 1: Moderation model
- Control Variables
- Main effects and Interactions of the moderation model
- Model 2: The mediation model
4. Discussion
Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- Lee, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Moon, S. Enhancing employee creativity for a sustainable competitive advantage through perceived human resource management practices and trust in management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boon, C.; Den Hartog, D.N.; Lepak, D.P. A Systematic Review of Human Resource Management Systems and Their Measurement. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2498–2537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, D.E.; Ostroff, C. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boselie, P.; Dietz, G.; Boon, C. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2005, 15, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostroff, C.; Bowen, D.E. Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 196–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, B.E.; Huselid, M.A. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? J. Manag. 2006, 32, 898–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do, H.; Budhwar, P.; Patel, C. Relationship between innovation-led HR policy, strategy, and firm performance: A serial mediation investigation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1271–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breswter, C.; Gooderham, P.N.; Mayrhofer, W. Human Resource Management: The promise, the performance, the consequences. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2016, 3, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaney, J.T.; Huselid, M.A. The Impact of Human Resources Management on Organizational Performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 949–969. [Google Scholar]
- Gould-Williams, J. The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 14, 28–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guest, D.; Conway, N. The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a “strong HR system” on organisational outcomes: A stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 1686–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Kim, S.; Rafferty, A.; Sanders, K. Employee perceptions of HR practices: A critical review and future directions. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 128–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, K.; De Cieri, H. Similarities and differences in international and comparative human resource management: A review of 60 years of research. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, K.; Dorenbosch, L.; de Reuver, R.S.M. The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. Pers. Rev. 2008, 37, 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhala, M.; Ritala, P. HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational innovativeness. J. Manag. Psychol. 2016, 31, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitener, E.M. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? J. Manag. 2001, 27, 515–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitener, E.M.; Brodt, S.E.; Korsgaard, M.A.; Werner, J.M. Managers as inititators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 23, 513–530. [Google Scholar]
- Zeffane, R.; Connell, J. Trust and HRM in the new millennium. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 14, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhala, M.; Dietz, G. How Trust in One’s Employer Moderates the Relationship Between HRM and Engagement Related Performance. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2019, 49, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clipa, A.-M.; Clipa, C.-I.; Danileț, M.; Andrei, A.G. Enhancing sustainable employment relationships: An empirical investigation of the influence of trust in employer and subjective value in employment contract negotiations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boxall, P.; Purcell, J. Strategic HRM; where have we come from and where should we be going? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2000, 2, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truss, C. Changing HR functional forms in the UK public sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 20, 717–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guest, D.E. Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kooij, D.T.A.M.; Guest, D.E.; Clinton, M.; Knight, T.; Jansen, P.G.W.; Dikkers, J.S.E. How the impact of HR practices on employee well-being and performance changes with age. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2013, 23, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troth, A.C.; Guest, D.E. The case for psychology in human resource management research. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2020, 30, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peccei, R.; Van De Voorde, K. Human resource management–well-being–performance research revisited: Past, present, and future. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2019, 29, 539–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cafferkey, K.; Harney, B.; Dundon, T.; Edgar, F. Unravelling the foci of employee commitment. J. Organ. Eff. 2017, 4, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peccei, R.; Van De Voorde, K. The Application of the Multilevel Paradigm in Human Resource Management–Outcomes Research: Taking Stock and Going Forward. J. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Beurden, J.; Van De Voorde, K.; Van Veldhoven, M. The employee perspective on HR practices: A systematic literature review, integration and outlook. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van De Voorde, K.; Beijer, S. The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2015, 25, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgar, F.; Geare, A. HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures—Different results. Pers. Rev. 2005, 34, 534–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrow, P.C. Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal research. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cafferkey, K.; Heffernan, M.; Harney, B.; Dundon, T. Perceptions of HRM system strength and affective commitment: The role of human relations and internal process climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 3026–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, F.M.; Bastos, A.V.B. Comprometimento organizacional: Bases para uma abordagem processual. Psicol. Teor. Pesqui. 2014, 30, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maia, L.G.; Bastos, A.V.B.; Solinger, O.N. Which factors make the difference for explaining growth in newcomer organizational commitment? A latent growth modeling approach. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 537–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao-Urhahn, X.; Biemann, T.; Jaros, S.J. How affective commitment to the organization changes over time: A longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal relationships between affective organizational commitment and income. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockner, J.; Flynn, F.J.; Dolan, R.J.; Ostfield, A.; Pace, D.; Ziskin, I.V. Commentary on “radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage: The Moneyball story”. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2006, 45, 127–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidron, A.; Tzafrir, S.; Meshoulam, I. All we need is trust:Trust and human resource management. Team Perform. Manag. 2016, 22, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snape, E.; Redman, T. HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1219–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeuchi, R.; Lepak, D.P.; Wang, H.; Takeuchi, k. An Empirical Examination of the Mechanisms Mediating Between High-Performance Work Systems and the Performance of Japanese Organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1069–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pereira, C.M.M.; Gomes, J.F.S. The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership: Impact on organisational performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 4301–4318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farndale, E.; Sanders, K. Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, K.; Shipton, H.; Gomes, J. Call for papers: Are HRM processes important? Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012. Available online: http://www.eawop.org/ckeditor_assets/attachments/128/hrm_process_si.pdf?1332990184 (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- Vieira, V.A. Moderação, mediação, moderadora-mediadora e efeitos indiretos em modelagem de equações estruturais: Uma aplicação no modelo de desconfirmação de expectativas. Rev. Adm. RAUSP 2009, 44, 17–33. [Google Scholar]
- Innocenti, L.; Pilati, M.; Peluso, A.M. Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices and employee attitudes. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2011, 21, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fryxell, G.E.; Dooley, R.S.; Li, W.S. The Role of trustworthiness in maintaining employee commitment during restructuring in China. Asia Pacific J. Manag. 2004, 21, 515–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.; Bailey, C. The link between perceived HRM practices, performance and well-being: The moderating effect of trust in the employer. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2012, 22, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farndale, E.; Hope-Hailey, V.; Kelliher, C. High commitment performance management: The roles of justice and trust. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann-Willenbrock, N.; Grohmann, A.; Kauffeld, S. Promoting multifoci citizenship behavior: Time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 62, 454–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahajan, A.; Bishop, J.W.; Scott, D. Does trust in top management mediate top management communication, employee involvement and organizational commitment relationships? J. Manag. Issues 2012, 24, 173–190. [Google Scholar]
- Quittner, A.L.; Glueckauf, R.L.; Jackson, D.N. Chronic Parenting Stress: Moderating Versus Mediating Effects of Social Support. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 1266–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lewis, H.A.; Kliewer, W. Hope, coping, and adjustment among children with sickle cell disease: Tests of mediator and moderator models. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996, 21, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator.mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coelho, J.P.; Cunha, R.C.e.; Gomes, J.F.S.; Correia, A. Strength of the HRM system: The development of a measure. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2015, 8, 1069–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabral-Cardoso, C. The evolving Portuguese model of HRM. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2004, 15, 959–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krosgaard, M.A.; Brodt, S.E.; Whitener, E.M. Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira-Oliveira, A.T.; Silva, I.; Keating, J. Desenvolvimento organizacional: O uso de confiança como ferramenta. Conferência Investig. e Interv. Recur. Hum. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, R.C.; Gavin, M.B. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 874–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carochinho, J.A.; Neves, J.G.; Jesuino, J.C. “Organizational comitment”—O conceito e sua medida: Adaptação e validação do “ Organizational commitment questionannaire(OCQ)” para a cultura organizacional portuguesa. Psicol. Teor. Investig. Prática 1998, 3, 269–284. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pedhazur, E.J.; Schmelkin, P.L. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Luhmann, M.; Baraldi, A. Estimating and graphing interactions. In Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Data analysis and Research Publication; Cooper, H., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 101–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Tabachnicnk, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Multivariate Statistics; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. Int. J. Test. 2001, 1, 55–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, R. Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Measurement and instrumentation in psychology. In Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Issues and Instrumentations; Amercian Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, D.Z.; Whitener, E.M.; Cross, R. Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1163–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ehrnrooth, M.; Björkman, I. An Integrative HRM Process Theorization: Beyond Signalling Effects and Mutual Gains. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1109–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elorza, U.; Aritzeta, A.; Ayestaran, S. Exploring the black box in spanish firms: The effect of the actual and perceived system on employees’ commitment and organizational performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 1401–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogbonnaya, C.; Daniels, K.; Connolly, S.; van Veldhoven, M. Integrated and isolated impact of high-performance work practices on employee health and well-being: A comparative study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 98–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeeren, B. Variability in HRM implementation among line managers and its effect on performance: A 2-1-2 mediational multilevel approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 3039–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaas, B.S.; Mcclendon, J.A.; Gainey, T.W. Trust and the role of professional employer organizations: Managing HR in small and medium enterprises. J. Manag. Issues 2002, 14, 31–48. [Google Scholar]
- Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 450–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladeira, W.J.; Santini, F.; Araujo, C.; Sampaio, C. A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction in Tourism and Hospitality. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2016, 25, 975–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jepsen, D.M.; Rodwell, J. Female Perceptions of Organizational Justice. Gender Work Organ. 2012, 19, 723–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean | Standard Deviation | |
---|---|---|
Age | 40.15 | 9.99 |
Seniority | 12.80 | 11.08 |
Number of subordinates (a) | 24.32 | 16.42 |
Seniority in management (a) | 2.90 | 1.78 |
Frequencies | Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 582 | 42.7 |
Female | 781 | 57.3 | |
Educational | 4th grade | 91 | 6.7 |
Qualifications | 6th grade | 71 | 5.2 |
9th grade | 177 | 13.0 | |
12th grade | 410 | 30.0 | |
Bachelor | 105 | 7.7 | |
Graduation | 485 | 35.5 | |
Masters | 26 | 1.9 | |
PhD | 1 | 0.1 | |
Contract type | Permanent | 862 | 75.9 |
Fixed-term | 204 | 18.0 | |
Temporary | 68 | 6.0 | |
Other | 2 | 0.2 | |
Manager | Yes | 209 | 18.4 |
No | 926 | 81.6 | |
Yes | 133 | ||
No | 81 | 37.9 | |
Public vs. private sector | Public Private | 457 872 | 34.4 65.6 |
Industry vs. Services Sector | Industry Services | 602 727 | 45.3 54.7 |
Factors | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Socialization’s Utility | 00.071 | 0.185 | 0.707 | 0.189 | 0.113 |
Recruitment & Selection Utility | 00.112 | 0.197 | 0.687 | 0.125 | 0.133 |
Performance evaluation Utility | 0.195 | 0.122 | 0.652 | 0.130 | 0.260 |
Training Utility | 0.085 | 0.035 | 0.760 | 0.087 | 0.046 |
Administrative procedures Utility | 0.206 | 0.192 | 0.662 | 0.130 | −0.009 |
Communication (sharing information) Utility | 0.197 | 0.145 | 0.775 | 0.180 | −0.027 |
Team work Utility | 0.132 | 0.095 | 0.767 | 0.198 | 0.000 |
Socialization’s Visibility | 0.201 | 0.215 | 0.197 | 0.697 | 0.210 |
Recruitment & Selection’s Visibility | 0.195 | 0.260 | 0.169 | 0.681 | 0.187 |
Performance evaluation Visibility | 0.264 | 0.273 | 0.223 | 0.586 | 0.253 |
Training Visibility | 0.220 | 0.286 | 0.210 | 0.589 | 0.175 |
Administrative procedures Visibility | 0.326 | 0.297 | 0.231 | 0.577 | 0.003 |
Communication (sharing information) Visibility | 0.380 | 0.280 | 0.212 | 0.658 | 0.057 |
Team work Visibility | 0.270 | 0.216 | 0.338 | 0.607 | 0.082 |
Socialization’s Comprehensibility | 0.195 | 0.692 | 0.169 | 0.295 | 0.186 |
Recruitment & Selection’s Comprehensibility | 0.216 | 0.751 | 0.151 | 0.227 | 0.197 |
Performance evaluation Comprehensibility | 0.280 | 0.677 | 0.134 | 0.247 | 0.237 |
Training Comprehensibility | 0.196 | 0.736 | 0.136 | 0.204 | 0.164 |
Administrative procedures Comprehensibility | 0.276 | 0.746 | 0.187 | 0.170 | 0.032 |
Communication (sharing information) Comprehensibility | 0.358 | 0.707 | 0.216 | 0.255 | 0.054 |
Team work Comprehensibility | 0.280 | 0.604 | 0.332 | 0.279 | 0.043 |
Salary increases depend on the performance appraisal results | 0.250 | 0.083 | 0.102 | 0.154 | 0.656 |
Employees who are rewarded are those who deserve. | 0.423 | 0.215 | 0.115 | 0.135 | 0.657 |
The existing reward system helps each employee to achieve greater success | 0.425 | 0.144 | 0.102 | 0.185 | 0.672 |
All employees know exactly when and what to do in order to receive a prize. | 0.343 | 0.218 | 0.024 | 0.161 | 0.656 |
The HRM practices are applied similarly in various departments | 0.576 | 0.265 | 0.134 | 0.120 | 0.295 |
The Human Resource Management practices are consistent over time | 0.628 | 0.233 | 0.142 | 0.169 | 0.290 |
The guidance provided by the HR Department is credible | 0.714 | 0.270 | 0.142 | 0.131 | 0.184 |
The HRM practices contribute to a high level of employees performance | 0.705 | 0.217 | 0.160 | 0.138 | 0.351 |
The HRM practices contribute to a good performance appraisal | 0.696 | 0.216 | 0.149 | 0.153 | 0.393 |
There is a consistency between what the HR Department diffuses and states and then what it does and apply. | 0.641 | 0.222 | 0.115 | 0.163 | 0.276 |
All activities of HRM system complement themselves in order to reach the objectives of my employer. | 0.611 | 0.176 | 0.169 | 0.038 | 0.142 |
The HR department appears to be informed about the best practices that are used in other organizations. | 0.737 | 0.138 | 0.187 | 0.151 | 0.157 |
Our HR system is effective as to attract and retain competent employees. | 0.727 | 0.133 | 0.153 | 0.190 | 0.240 |
Our HR system is effective in developing skills among our employees. | 0.719 | 0.126 | 0.152 | 0.175 | 0.224 |
The HR Department was consistent with my expectations regarding the role and responsibilities of HR function | 0.764 | 0.171 | 0.181 | 0.221 | 0.207 |
The HR Department is available to listen to me whenever I need. | 0.784 | 0.161 | 0.087 | 0.204 | −0.015 |
I feel that my opinions and suggestions are heard by the HR Department. | 0.773 | 0.188 | 0.098 | 0.218 | 0.073 |
The HR Department helps me solve problems. | 0.819 | 0.147 | 0.095 | 0.224 | 0.022 |
Normally the Human Resources Department tries to understand my opinion on the definition of new procedures. | 0.763 | 0.157 | 0.093 | 0.243 | 0.126 |
Eigenvalues | 23.08 | 4.85 | 4.63 | 3.96 | 3.02 |
% of variance | 0.576 | 11.84 | 11.29 | 9.65 | 7.37 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | N of Participants | N° of Items | |
---|---|---|---|
HR relationship with employees | 0.959 | 1246 | 15 |
Comprehensibility | 0.926 | 1112 | 7 |
Utility | 0.883 | 1089 | 7 |
Visibility | 0.903 | 1095 | 7 |
Distributive justice | 0.841 | 1335 | 4 |
Mean | Min | Max | Standard Deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M | Min | Max | SD | |
HR relationship with employees | 60.31 | 15.00 | 90.00 | 14.57 |
Comprehensibility | 27.46 | 7.00 | 42.00 | 6.48 |
Utility | 26.89 | 7.00 | 35.00 | 4.52 |
Visibility | 27.65 | 7.00 | 42.00 | 5.80 |
Distributive justice | 12.82 | 4.00 | 24.00 | 12.82 |
Dimension | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) HR relationship with employees | - | |||
(2) Comprehensibility | 0.612 ** | - | ||
(3) Utility | 0.482 ** | 0.525 ** | - | |
(4) Visibility | 0.656 ** | 0.717 ** | 0.604 ** | - |
(5) Distributive justice | 0.686 ** | 0.532 ** | 0.36 8 ** | 0.544 ** |
Mean | Standard Deviation | N | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Afective commitment | 36.8 | 6.33 | 1053 | - | |||||
(2) Trust in manager | 34.77 | 8.15 | 1046 | 0.73 ** | - | ||||
(3) HR relationship with employees | 60.77 | 14.32 | 1211 | 0.66 ** | 0.60 ** | ||||
(4) Comprehensibility | 27.66 | 6.36 | 1072 | 0.48 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.60 ** | |||
(5) Utility | 27.00 | 4.41 | 1052 | 0.41 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.46 ** | 0.52 ** | ||
(6) Visibility | 27.83 | 5.67 | 1059 | 0.55 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.72 ** | 0.59 ** | |
(7) Distributive justice | 12.95 | 4.85 | 1295 | 0.49 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.68 ** | 0.53** | 0.37 ** | 0.55 ** |
Cluster 1 (n = 585) | Cluster 2 (n = 364) | F (1947) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Standard Deviation | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
HR relationship with employees | 69.47 | 8.92 | 47.39 | 13.88 | 889.56 |
Comprehensibility | 31.35 | 4.97 | 21.89 | 5.56 | 741.86 |
Utility | 29.00 | 3.403 | 23.42 | 5.33 | 388.12 |
Visibility | 31.15 | 4.53 | 22.65 | 5.03 | 726.07 |
Distributive Justice | 15.69 | 3.76 | 8.69 | 3.36 | 843.96 |
Model 1—Controls | Model 2—Main Effects | Model 3—Interactions | |
---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | β | β | B |
(a) Control Variables | |||
Sex | −0.13 *** | −0.07 *** | −0.07 *** |
Age | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Dummy for Public vs. Private Sector | 0.16 *** | 0.07 ** | 0.06 ** |
Dummy for Industry vs. Service Sector | 0.21 *** | 0.07 ** | 0.06 ** |
Seniority | −0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Dummy contract type | 0.11 *** | 0.07 *** | 0.06 *** |
Management function | −0.12 *** | −0.02 | −0.02 |
Seniority in management | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 |
Number of subordinates | 0.02 | 0.03 † | 0.03 † |
Seniority in management in other organizations | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Training in HR | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
(b) Main effects | |||
OT in management | 0.53 *** | 0.51 *** | |
HR relationship with employees | 0.20 *** | 0.21 *** | |
Comprehensibility | −0.02 | −0.02 | |
Utility | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
Visibility | 0.14 *** | 0.13 *** | |
Distributive Justice | −0.01 | ||
(c) Interactions | |||
HR relationship with employees X OT in manager | −0.01 | ||
Comprehensibility X OT in manager | −0.01 | ||
Utility X OT in manager | 0.05 | ||
Visibility X OT in manager | −0.03 | ||
Distributive Justice X OT in manager | 0.09 *** |
Intercept | R2 (R2 Aj) | F Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(a) Step 1: Control variables | 40.21 | 0.07 (0.07) | 0.073 *** | F(11,1317) = 9.38 *** |
(b) Step 2: Main effects | 11.38 | 0.59 (0.59) | 0.517 *** | F(17,1311) = 110.91 *** |
(c) Step 3: Interactions | 11.94 | 0.60 (0.60) | 0.005 *** | F(22,1306) = 87.09 *** |
Regression 1 VD (OAC) | Regression 2 VD (OT) | Regression 3 VD (OAC) | Regression 4 VD (OAC) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables and mediator | β | β | β | β |
HR relationship | 0.34 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.20 *** | |
Comprehensibility | 0.06 † | 0.15 *** | −0.02 | |
Utility | 0.07 ** | 0.10 *** | 0.02 | |
Visibility | 0.21 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.14 *** | |
Distributive Justice | 0.07 ** | 0.12 *** | −0.01 | |
OT in management (mediator) | - | 0.66 *** | 0.53 *** |
Intercept | R2 (R2 Aj) | F Change | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(a) Regression 1 (HRMS on OAC) | 15.28 | 0.41 (0.41) | 0.34 *** | F(5.1312) = 151.29 *** |
(b) Regression 2 (HRMS on OT) | 9.43 | 0.37 (0.37) | 0.32 *** | F(5.1312) = 134.99 *** |
(c) Regression 3 (OT on OAC) | 17.63 | 0.53 (0.53) | 0.46 *** | F(1.1316) = 1294.07 *** |
(d) Regression 4 (HRMS and OT on OAC) | 11.38 | 0.59 (0.59) | 0.52 *** | F(6.1311) = 275.53 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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
Ferreira-Oliveira, A.T.; Keating, J.; Silva, I. Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229443
Ferreira-Oliveira AT, Keating J, Silva I. Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229443
Chicago/Turabian StyleFerreira-Oliveira, Ana Teresa, José Keating, and Isabel Silva. 2020. "Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229443
APA StyleFerreira-Oliveira, A. T., Keating, J., & Silva, I. (2020). Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust. Sustainability, 12(22), 9443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229443