High-Performance Human Resource Practices and In-role Performance A moderated mediation model of

Job satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Person-Organization fit

Master Thesis

Coordinators:

Name and student number:

Dr. Corine Boon

Adriana Loredana Anghel

Dr. Stefan Mol

6263070

February 10th, 2012

Abstract
In the human resource management-organizational performance research context, this paper
investigates the influence of human resource practices on employee attitudes and behaviors
as an important stage in the process linking human resource practices to organizational
performance. Although there have been several studies analyzing the extent to which highperformance human resource practices influence work attitudes and behaviors , there is still
a great interest in further enhancing the existing models and replicate previous findings.
Hence, this study proposes a moderated mediation model where person-organization fit
moderates the strength of the high-performance human resource practices - in-role
performance relationship as mediated by job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The mediation and moderated mediation hypotheses are tested using two SPSS macros
developed by Preacher & Hayes (2007). Results indicate that employees perceptions of highperformance human resource practices are positively related to job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment. Moreover, job satisfaction, affective commitment
and normative commitment mediate the high-performance human resource practices - in-role
performance link and person-organization fit moderates the strength of the mediated
relationship between perceptions of high-performance HR practices and in-role performance
via job satisfaction.

Keywords: Perceptions of HRM, work attitudes, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

in-role performance, person-organization fit, high-performance HR practices, moderated
mediation
2

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development .................................................... 7
2.1 Perceptions of HPHR practices ..................................................................................................................7
2.2 High-Performance HR practices and work attitudes ......................................................................8
2.3 The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment ............................ 14
2.4 The moderating role of person - organization fit........................................................................... 18
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Sample and procedure ................................................................................................................................ 22
3.2 Measurements ................................................................................................................................................. 23
4. Data analysis and results ........................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Mediation analysis......................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Moderated mediation analysis ................................................................................................................ 30
5. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 34
6. Strengths and limitations of the study ................................................................................ 40
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Perceptions of HPHR practices - Questionnaire items ........................................................................ 42
Job satisfaction - Questionnaire items ........................................................................................................ 43
Organizational commitment Questionnaire items ............................................................................ 44
In-role performance - Questionnaire items.............................................................................................. 45
Person-Organization fit Questionnaire items ...................................................................................... 45
References ....................................................................................................................................... 46

1. Introduction
In the past 20 years, the field of strategic human resource management (HRM) has focused
on two major research directions: first, demonstrate that HRM practices can support
organizations to achieve their performance goals and second, gain a better understanding
of the processes through which the relationship between HRM practices and organizational
performance occurs. Scholars have devoted a large number of empirical studies trying to
demonstrate the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance and
have provided extensive proof that systems of HR practices such as high-performance HR
(HPHR) practices are associated with different measures of organizational performance
(Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000;
Guthrie, 2001; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). However, the process through
which these practices influence organizational performance has received less empirical
attention (Purcell, 2003; Wright et al., 2005) and the topic continues to be very appealing
to the field of strategic HRM.
Some authors have suggested that there are mediating mechanisms through which
the process takes place (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996;
Guest, 1997; Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). More specifically, Dyer & Reeves (1995)
proposed that HR practices have an immediate impact on proximal outcomes such as
employees attitudes (e.g. satisfaction, commitment) and behaviors (e.g. turnover,
absenteeism, job performance) that further impact more distal outcomes such as
organizational and market-based outcomes (productivity, profitability, stock price).
Following this sequential chain, Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt (1997) argued that it is
critical to have a thorough understanding of the relationship between HR practices and
employee outcomes before making further connections with organizational performance.
Despite this suggestion, a limited number of studies have analyzed the relationship
between HR practices and employee attitudes and work behaviors - such as job satisfaction
(e.g. Macky & Boxall, 2007), commitment (e.g. Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997;
Whitener, 2001; Macky & Boxall, 2007; Kehoe & Wright, 2010), trust-in-management (e.g.
Whitener, 2001; Macky & Boxall, 2007), well-being ( Appelbaum et al., 2000; Delaney &
4

Godard, 2001; Guest, 2002), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) , absenteeism and
turnover (e.g. Kehoe & Wright, 2010) - and even fewer research papers focused on
attitudes and behaviors as mediating mechanisms between HR and organizational
performance (e.g. Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007;
Gong, Law, Chang, & Xin, 2009). In addition, the majority of these studies assessed the
impact of managerial perceptions of HR practices on employees attitudes and behaviors
rather than employee perceptions of HR practices, which are more likely to have a stronger
influence (Guest, 2001; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Edgar & Geare, 2005). For instance, Kehoe
& Wright (2010) are among the few authors who proposed employees perceptions of HR
practices in relation to affective commitment, OCB, turnover and absenteeism. Thus, there
is still a great interest in finding further evidence about the linkages between HR practices
and employee attitudes and behaviors.
This paper seeks to provide additional insight in the relationship between employee
perceptions of HPHR practices and employee attitudes and behaviors by examining the
mechanisms that link HPHR practices to individual performance. Specifically, the paper
proposes that perceived HPHR practices relate to in-role performance as mediated by
employee satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, the paper introduces perceived
person-organization fit (PO fit) as a possible moderator of the mediated relationship. The
reasoning behind this proposition stems from recent calls in the literature for examining
the moderating role of fit between employees and their environment (KristofBrown,
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) on work outcomes. As Kristof (1996) notes, more positive
outcomes will result if employees work in an environment that fits their personal
characteristics. Thus, employees attitudinal and behavioral reactions to HPHR practices
might depend upon the extent to which they match the organization they work for.
In addition, it is proposed that an empirical model which simultaneously examines
job satisfaction and organizational commitment as the mediating mechanism in the HR
practicesin-role performance link and PO fit as the moderator, contributes to the
literature in several ways: it focuses on the effects of employees perceptions of HPHR
practices instead of managers perceptions on employees attitudes and behaviors, it adds
to the existing work that links HR practices and job satisfaction and organizational
5

commitment, it connects HPHR practices to PO fit, thus linking the PO fit with and HRM
literature and hopefully enhances the existing theory linking HR practices and work
behaviors.
The paper begins by discussing perceptions of HPHR practices and their
relationship with employees attitudes and behaviors (with an emphasis on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and in-role performance) and examines the moderating role of
PO fit. Next, the research methodology and results are reported and finally the discussion
and limitations of the study are presented.

Perceptions of
Person-Organization
fit

Job satisfaction

Affective
commitment

Perceptions of High
Performance HR
Practices

Continuance
commitment

In-role performance

Normative
commitment

Figure1. Conceptual model scheme

2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development

2.1 Perceptions of HPHR practices
Past research linking HR practices to organizational performance suggested that an
integrated set of HR practices, called HPHR practices or high-performance work systems
has a greater impact on performance rather than HR practices taken separately (Arthur,
1994; Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Huselid, 1995; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000). The
advantage of creating a system of HPHR practices is that the value of HR practices grows in
relation to organizational performance when they complement and support each other in a
unified system (MacDuffie, 1995; Delery, 1998). Thus, researchers (e.g. Delery & Shaw,
2001; Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995) tried to come up with the best
combination of HR practices that could drive organizational effectiveness and maximize the
competitiveness of the firms. While their endeavor resulted in a lack of consensus as to
which HR practices to be included in the HPHR practices system, some common practices
stemmed as shared across sources. These common practices referred mainly to exhaustive
recruitment and selection procedures, extensive training programs focused on the needs of
the business and incentives based upon performance (Becker et al., 1997) and their role is
threefold: to improve the skills of the workforce, to encourage involvement in decisionmaking processes and to motivate employees to display discretionary efforts (Appelbaum
et al., 2000; Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006) that are in line with the organizational
objectives.

Hence, the final purpose of these practices is to increase organizational

performance.
Based on this triple role and after reviewing previous research in the area of HPHR
practices, this paper selected for empirical testing a set of HR practices gathered by Sun et
al. (2007). This set included ability-enhancing practices and training opportunities such as
hiring selectivity and formal training programs; motivation-enhancing practices such as
incentive rewards for individual and group performance and results-oriented performance
appraisals, opportunities for upward mobility and employment security; and opportunityenhancing practices such as decision-making participation, open communication with
superiors and suggestions for improvement.
7

Within the previous research connecting HPHR practices and employee attitudes and
behaviors, as noted in the introduction, the majority of existing studies reported
management evaluation of HR practices, neglecting the views of employees (e.g. Arthur,
1994). Since previous empirical evidence suggests that there are significant perceptual
differences between managers and employees concerning HR practices (Appelbaum et al.,
2000; Kane, Crawford, & Grant, 1999; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009), a more intuitively
appealing approach would be to consider employee perceptions of HR practices instead of
manager perceptions. Bowen & Ostroff (2004) and Parker (1998) state that employees
attitudinal and behavioral reactions are more likely to depend on the way they perceive HR
practices. Moreover, Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider (2008) indicate that employee perceptions
of the HR practices form as a result of the way line managers implement the HR practices.
Therefore, following these suggestions, it is argued that employees perceptions of HR
practices - as predictors of attitudes and behaviors - are a better measurement of HR
practices than managers ratings and this is the approach chosen for this study.
What is more, the present research seeks to distinguish itself from the majority of
the studies by measuring the intensity of HPHR practices (the extent to which the practices
are operationalized at the workplace) rather than assessing their presence which involves
yes/no response format which was used in the past (e.g. Edgar & Geare, 2005; Wright et al.,
2005). The downside of evaluating HR practices by presence and from a managerial
perspective is that even if a manager declares that the practice is used in the company,
there is no indication of how well the practice is implemented or to what extent the
practice actually exists on the work-floor (Edgar & Geare, 2005).

2.2 High-Performance HR practices and work attitudes

Central to HPHR practice is that organizations can achieve better performance results by
influencing the employees to put more effort in their work, to be more committed by
encouraging them to be a part of the decisional system (Bauer, 2004). Within the
framework of HPHR practices, not only companies are expected to gain an advantage, but
also employees do, as they experience greater job satisfaction and higher wages (Bauer,
8

2004). Job satisfaction as well as employee commitment are very important attitudes in an
organization as they incorporate employees feelings and thoughts about their job and
organization itself. These feelings arise from the actual experiences that employees have at
work (Olson & Zanna, 1993). Moreover, these outcomes are considered core concepts in
the HRM literature as a large number of studies point out their relevance for the HRM
performance literature, linking them directly to various measures of performance (e.g.
Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Rioux & Penner, 2001), in a variety of contexts, thus
emphasizing their broad use and importance.
In a workplace where HPHR practices are effectively implemented and where
employees perceive their relationship with their employer as a mutual partnership, it is
more likely that employees respond back with feelings of satisfaction, attachment and
obligation towards their employer. Furthermore, these feelings translate into positive work
behaviors such as job performance. For instance, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton (2001),
in their employee level meta-analysis, showed that job satisfaction is correlated to
individual job performance.
The relationship between perceived HPHR practices and employee attitudes such as
satisfaction and organizational commitment can be explained by the social exchange
theory, which states that the voluntary actions of individuals are motivated by the returns
they are expected to bring from others . . . (with the) exact nature (of the return) never
specified in advance but . . . left to the discretion of the one who makes it (Blau, 1986, p.
91-92). Thus, organizations foster mutual transactions between employees and employers
and this social exchange determines unspecified particular, when organizations convey
their good intentions towards obligations (Konovsky, 2000). In particular, this induces
feelings of obligation on the part of employees to respond positively to these intentions
with attitudes and behaviors beneficial to the organizations (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen,
2002).
Job satisfaction, the first employee outcome of interest in this paper, is one of the
most studied variables in the organizational behavior research due to its relevance for
employees well-being and its association with important outcomes such as OCB ( Williams
& Anderson, 1991; Bolon, 1997) and turnover ( Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Iverson &
9

Currivan, 2003). In general, job satisfaction is defined by most authors as the attitude that
employees have toward their jobs and different related aspects of their job (Lofquist &
Dawis, 1969, p. 53; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975, p. 53-4; Locke & Henne, 1986, p. 21).
For instance, Locke (1976, p. 1300) stated that job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive
emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of ones job experiences.
Feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are recognized through employees
responses toward their jobs, supervisors, co-workers and work climate. Studies have
demonstrated that job satisfaction is related to day-to-day satisfaction of the individual
(Rode, 2004) and have confirmed that employee attitudes towards the organization are
driven by their satisfaction (Naud, Desai, & Murphy, 2003) . Thus, given these findings, it
appears to be very important for organizations to direct their efforts and resources toward
keeping their employees satisfied.
Research in the HRM literature has broadly discussed the effects of HR practices on
job satisfaction and the results seem to be mixed. On the one hand, some studies suggested
that HR practices such as performance related pay and involvement practices were linked
to lower job satisfaction, because of their association with higher work effort (e.g.
Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005; Green, 2006). On the other hand, other studies (e.g. Guest,
2002) revealed that HR practices such as direct participation practices and a good working
climate in general were associated with higher employee satisfaction. Nevertheless, there
is not so much work that investigates the effects of systems of HPHR practices on job
satisfaction, but the findings indicate that HPHR practices have positive effects on job
satisfaction (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Furthermore, in a study examining the influence of
innovative HR practices on several indicators of employee well-being (e.g. job satisfaction,
task involvement, commitment, empowerment, citizenship behavior), Delaney & Godard
(2001) showed that

moderate levels of HPHR practices have a significant positive

influence, while increased levels of HPHR practices have a weaker or even negative effect
on job satisfaction.
As stated above, HPHR practices are intended to offer employees the opportunity to
participate in decision making, to improve their skills and to motivate them. It is argued
that these practices have an impact on the work environment, increasing the
10

communication among workers and creating good working conditions and a friendly
climate. As such, employees are assumed to appreciate more these characteristics and to
experience greater job satisfaction. For instance, Appelbaum et al. (2000) state that
participation in decision-making creates trust between employees and their supervisors
and leads to employees having a better perception of the importance of their job. Thus, the
first hypothesis of this paper is posited as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to job satisfaction.
Another employee outcome of interest in the model proposed in this paper is
organizational commitment. The notion has been described as a core focus of HRM,
fundamental for the effectiveness and well-being of an organization, being the "central
feature that distinguishes HRM from traditional personnel management" (Storey, 1995, p.
112). Mowday, Porter, & Dubin (1974) and Steers (1975) argue that committed employees
may perform better than those who are less committed. It has also been suggested that
organizational commitment is an important indicator of organizational effectiveness.
Hence, these statements uncover the importance and implications of organizational
commitment for the organization theory.
The concept of organizational commitment started to receive a lot of interest in the
1970s and since then it has been defined and conceptualized in various ways. Buchanan,
(1974) states in his paper that overall, commitment is defined by most scholars as being
the bond between an employees and the organization they work for. Bateman & Strasser
(1984) define it as multidimensional in nature, involving an employees loyalty to the
organization, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, degree of goal and
value congruency with the organization, and desire to maintain membership (p.95).
Furthermore, Meyer & Allen (1997) defined a committed employee as being one who stays
with an organization, attends work regularly, puts in a full day and more, protects
corporate assets, and believes in the organizational goals.
Buchanan (1974) and Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian (1974) identified three major
components of organizational commitment: (1) identification: employees' embrace the
11

organizations goals and values as their own; (2) involvement: the employee's willingness
to show their effort for the well-being of the organization and (3) loyalty: the employees
emotions towards the organization and the desire to remain in the organization. These
three components constitute only the affective dimension of organizational commitment. In
1991, Meyer & Allen added two more dimensions to the construct, namely continuance
commitment and the normative commitment. Continuance commitment represents the
willingness to maintain membership in the organization because of the perceived costs of
leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). These costs might refer to relationships
with other employees, things that are special to the organization such as years of
employment or benefits that the employee may receive (Reichers, 1985). Normative
commitment refers to the feeling of obligation that an employee experiences towards the
organization and the workplace (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Further research conducted by
Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) showed that employees with affective commitment remain
in the organization because they want to, those with a strong continuance commitment
remain because they have to and those with a normative commitment remain because they
feel that they have to (p. 3).
The

affective

dimension

of

commitment

has

been

the

most

popular

conceptualization used in research studies of organizational commitment, statement

supported by Legge (1995, p. 182) who argues that, "virtually all the research conducted on
organizational commitment, per se, has used the attitudinal conceptualization". Moreover,
much of the research linking HR practices to organizational commitment has also focused
on the affective component of commitment (e.g. Kehoe & Wright, 2010; Sanders,
Dorenbosch, & De Reuver, 2008). This paper tries to complement the existing work by
focusing on the influence of perceptions of HPHR practices on each of the three dimensions
of organizational commitment proposed by Meyer & Allen (1991).
Research drawing on social exchange theory has shown that employees
commitment comes as a response to their perceptions of the organizations commitment
towards them (Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).
In return, employees might experience feelings of attachment and identify themselves with
the organizations goals and values, attachment that represents the affective dimension of
12

commitment. Emotionally attached employees have a stronger desire to continue their

employment relationship with their employer. Past research determined that systems of
HR practices have an important role in developing the affective commitment of employees
(e.g. Gaertner & Nollen, 1989; Meyer & Smith, 2000; Gould-Williams, 2003). HR practices
like training opportunities, empowerment through decision-making involvement send a
clear signal of support, care and commitment toward the employees. Consequently,
employees feel that they are valued and important for the organizational success and
undergo stronger feelings of attachment. Taken together, these arguments promote the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to affective
commitment.
Second, whereas the positive relationship between HR practices and affective commitment
has been widely approached, there is less evidence of the influence of HR practices on
continuance commitment. Employees who stay in the organization on the basis of
continuance commitment are aware of the costs involved by leaving (Meyer & Smith, 2000)
and therefore remain in the company because they need to do so. A positive relationship
between HR practices and continuance commitment has been suggested by Allen & Meyer
(2000). In contrast, Meyer & Smith (2000) did not find any eloquent link between HR
practices and continuance commitment. Regardless of these mixed findings, this paper
proposes that HPHR practices are positively linked to continuance commitment. It is
argued that employees who are empowered, not only experience affective commitment,
but also continuance commitment as they might think that by leaving, they lose the
advantages related to participation in decision-making. Also, the amount of energy and
effort employees put in the company will be lost if they decide to leave, so they might be
disinclined to do so (Meyer et al., 2002).

Moreover, skill development and career

opportunities generate specific firm expertise that will make the employees decision to
quit, harder.

13

Finally, the normative dimension of commitment comprises the moral facet of commitment
that ties employees to the organization. Employees feel that they have an obligation toward
their employer and that remaining in the organization is the right thing to do. These
feelings might stem from their identification with the organization values and culture and
from the fact that the organization invested in them through the HR practices (Meyer &
Allen, 1997). Furthermore, it may arise from the benefits provided by the organization such
as secure employment, training and career development opportunities that induce feelings
of obligation for the employees to reciprocate with loyalty. In light of the arguments
presented above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to continuance
commitment.
Hypothesis 2c: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to normative
commitment.

2.3 The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Recent research linking HPHR practices and behaviors (Kehoe & Wright, 2010; Sun et al.,
2007) has suggested that this relationship may be explained indirectly through job
attitudes. Some of the theories that have tried to explain the relationship between HPHR
practices, satisfaction, commitment and individual performance have been the social
exchange theory (Blau, 1986) and psychological contract theory (Robinson & Morrison,
1995). What these theories have in common is a norm of reciprocity (Netemeyer, Boles,
McKee, & McMurrian, 1997). When employees perceive HPHR practices as fostering
organizational support, investment in their skills, opportunities for career development,
rewards and performance feedback (Wright et al., 2003), they reciprocate with feelings of
satisfaction and attachment towards their organization, as a form of gratitude towards the
organization and its people. Furthermore, satisfied and committed employees are more
likely to display behaviors that are beneficial for the organizational performance. For
14

instance, they might perform better than those who are less committed (Wright et al.,
2003), behavior that further impacts organizational performance.
Employee performance is the last outcome of interest in this paper and is defined
here as in-role performance or task proficiency. Williams & Anderson (1991) described inrole performance as the work behavior that is related to the duties and responsibilities that
are formally specified in the employment contract. Moreover, Liao, Toya, Lepak & Hong
(2009) referred to it as the knowledge, skills and abilities and motivation to perform. While
at the organizational level, it has been proven that systems of HR practices contribute to
the attainment of organizational performance (Becker et al., 1996; Huselid, 1995), it is still
unclear how bundles of HR practices influence performance at the individual level ( Guest,
1997; Ferris, Hochwater, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999; Wright & Boswell, 2002).
Scholars argued that a range of practices such as careful selection, training programs,
incentive pay and employee involvement in decision-making processes improve the
knowledge, skills and abilities ad increase motivation that stimulate employee performance
(Huselid, 1995). Since task performance depends on the ability and motivation of the
employee (Dyer & Reeves, 1995) , it can be stated that these practices drive the employees
to use their technical skills and knowledge to perform their tasks. This argument is also
supported by a very recent research conducted by Chang & Chen (2011) that showed that
HPHR practices influence employee in-role performance by enhancing the knowledge skills
and abilities of the employees. However, this paper proposes that the signals that the
organization sends through HR practices do not directly affect in-role performance, but
rather indirectly through attitudes like job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
In the previous section of the study, it was hypothesized that HPHR practices are
positively linked to job satisfaction and organizational commitment via social exchanges. It
is further proposed that satisfied employees are more likely have better performance
results. The job satisfaction - job performance relationship represents one of the most
interesting topics in the organizational psychology (Judge et al., 2001). The premise of this
relationship is that attitudes entail behavioral implications (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973;
Fishbein, 1973). Previous research studies on the job satisfaction-job performance have
suggested that there is a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Petty,
15

McGee, & Cavender, 1984), yet results indicate weak correlations. For instance, Iaffaldano
& Muchinsky (1985) performed a review of the job satisfaction-job performance literature
and found that the correlation between the two is about .17. According to Organ (1988),
this weak relationship might result due to the limited definition used of job performance.
Nonetheless, a more recent meta-analysis Judge et al. (2001) showed that the correlation
coefficient between job satisfaction and job performance was at 0.30. Moreover, Eagly &
Chaiken (1993) argue that "In general, people who evaluate an attitude object favorably
tend to engage in behaviors that foster or support it, and people who evaluate an attitude
object unfavorably tend to engage in behaviors that hinder or oppose it" (p. 12). Drawing
on the arguments presented above, it can be argued that HPHR practices influences
positive job behaviors such as in-role performance through job satisfaction. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceptions of HPHR
practices and in-role performance.
Over the past years, researchers have analyzed the effects of affective and normative
commitment on performance. Meyer & Allen (1991) suggested that both affective and
normative commitment are positively related to job performance, yet normative
commitment is less associated with job performance. Further findings showed that
normative commitment was either positively, negatively or non-related to performance
(Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Affective commitment is the most studied dimension in organizational commitment
literature mainly because of its effects on behaviors that are advantageous for
organizations (Riketta, 2002) . One of these behaviors is job performance (Mowday, Porter,
& Steers, 1982; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Randall,
Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). An explanation for this premise is that attached
employees are more likely to invest more effort in their work. Previous empirical work
found moderate correlations between affective commitment and job performance
(Mowday et al., 1982; Randall, 1990; Cohen, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Allen & Meyer,
16

1996) and the meta-analysis of Mathieu & Zajac (1990) also found that affective
commitment is associated with job performance. Moreover, empirical results from Meyer,
Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky (2002) show that normative commitment is associated
with job performance to a lesser extent than affective commitment.
As far as the relationship between continuance commitment and performance is
concerned, prior research suggests that there is a negative relationship between the two
concepts (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991). Some of the explanations offered for these results are based on the fact that
employees with continuance commitment think that they have no other alternatives but to
stay in the organization and as a consequence they behave in a way that affects their
performance results (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Other studies however indicated that there is
no relationship at all between continuance commitment and in-role performance (Mayer &
Schoorman, 1992; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). However,
this research proposes that the two concepts might be connected in the sense that the
employees who are willing to maintain membership even they do not want to still have
good performance results because of their fear of being laid off . Another reason could be
the related to their future need for positive references when they decide to pursuit another
job. Based on the arguments provided above and on the hypothesized relationship between
HPHR practices and affective, continuance and normative commitment, the next
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4a: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions HPHR
practices and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 4b: Continuance commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions
HPHR practices and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 4c: Normative commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions HPHR
practices and in-role performance.

17

2.4 The moderating role of person - organization fit

Of great interest in this paper is to analyze the moderating role of perceived PO fit on the
indirect relationship between perceived high performance HR practices and in-role
performance through job satisfaction on the one side and the three components of
organizational commitment on the other. Person-organization fit (PO fit) is a sub
component of the comprehensive notion of person - environment fit (PE fit) initially used
by Lewin (1935) who stated that behavior is a function of the person and the environment.
In accordance with Lewins theory, Kristof (1996) defined PO fit as the
compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity
provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c)
both (p. 45).

In the literature, multiple dimensions of the construct have been

researched, comprising needs-structure fit (Bretz Jr, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Bretz Jr & Judge,
1994), goal congruence (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991), personalityclimate fit (Christiansen,
Villanova, & Mikulay, 1997) and value congruence (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989;
O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997). However, as noted in the
literature review on PO fit performed by Piasentin & Chapman (2006), the latter has been
the most common operationalization of PO fit.
The present study considers for analysis the perceived PO fit, which indicates the
extent to which the employees believe their personal values are similar to the
organizational culture and values (Kristof, 1996; Cable & DeRue, 2002). The reason for
focusing on perceptions of PO fit instead of actual or objective PO fit, which entails a
comparative analysis between answers about fit provided by employees on the one side
and by the employer on the other side (Kristof, 1996), is that people's perceptions of
reality actually drive them to react in certain ways. Therefore, as long as employees
perceive a good fit with their organization, it is no longer important if the actual fit exists
(Thomas William & Thomas Dorthy, 1928). Consequently, perceived fit is thought to be a
better predictor of work outcomes such as satisfaction and commitment, than the actual
congruence between employees and organizations (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Cable &
Judge, 1997; Judge & Cable, 1997). The importance of PO fit has been revealed by
18

numerous empirical research studies (e.g. Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1990; Judge & Ferris, 1992;
Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz Jr, 1995; Kristof, 1996) which argued that when there is a
greater fit between characteristics of individuals and the characteristics of the organization
they work for, the more positive work related outcomes will be achieved. Posner, Kouzes, &
Schmidt (1985) stated that if the employee perceives a good fit with the organization he or
she works for, then it is likely that feelings satisfaction, commitment will result. Empirical
evidence supports the idea that high levels of value congruence between employees and
their organizations lead to certain positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Chatman, 1991). Hence, PO fit can be considered as an
essential element in keeping employees committed which is so necessary in a tight labor
market and a competitive business environment.
Although previously it was argued that the relationship between perceptions of
HPHR practices and in-role performance is mediated by job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, it is expected that the strength of this relationship will be different for
different levels of PO fit. As such, perceived PO fit is proposed as a moderator of the
influence of perceptions of HRM on in-role performance that occurs through job
satisfaction and affective, continuance, normative commitment.
There are two arguments for advancing such a proposition. First, employees
reactions to HPHR practices might rely on their perception of fit with the organization they
work for. Erdogan & Bauer (2005) argued that employees who match the values of the
organization understand better the organizational signals and needs due to their higher PO
fit. Consequently, the influence of HPHR practices on attitudes is more likely to be attained.
A very recent research that supports this argument showed that the relationship between
perceived HPHR practices and job satisfaction is moderated by PO fit (Boon, Den Hartog,
Boselie, & Paauwe, 2011). Second, it is expected that employees with higher PO fit display
attitudes that are consistent with what the organization wants to achieve through the
HPHR practices. For instance, it is argued that the greater match between employees
values and the organization values would strengthen the effectiveness of HPHR practices in
eliciting positive attitudes and behaviors.

19

In contrast, it is suggested that employees with a lower PO fit are less likely to understand
what the organizations wants to achieve through the HR practices and this may result in a
weaker role of HPHR practices in predicting satisfaction and commitment that further
influence in-role performance. Moreover, if employees perceive a misfit with their
organization, they might experience feelings of incompetence, stress and anxiety.
Hypothesis 3 and H4 outlined above suggest that job satisfaction on the one hand
and organizational commitment on the other mediates the effect of perceived HPHR
practices on in-role performance. The fact that the mediated relationship between
perceived HR practices and in-role performance is also expected to depend on the level of
PO fit complicates the mediation into a "moderated mediation" ( James & Brett, 1984;
Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) in which the relationship between
the independent variable and the mediator is moderated by another variable. To support
the hypotheses, it is therefore necessary to establish this moderated mediation and show
that there is significant interaction of PO fit and HPHR practices in predicting job
satisfaction and commitment, which in turn affect in-role performance. Therefore, on the
basis of PO fit theory, the arguments presented and previous empirical research, it is
argued that PO fit should strengthen the role of job satisfaction and the three components
organizational commitment in mediating the effects of HRM perceptions and in-role
performance and the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 5: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via job satisfaction such that the indirect effect is
stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
Hypothesis 6a: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via affective commitment such that the indirect
effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.

20

Hypothesis 6b: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via continuance commitment such that the
indirect effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
Hypothesis 6c: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via normative commitment such that the
indirect effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.

21

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and procedure
The sample was part of a larger study on HRM, employee attitudes, behaviors and
performance conducted by the HRM/OB Department at the University of Amsterdam.
Respondents from Europe, United States and China were invited to participate in the study.
The research was conducted at the individual level and the data were collected from two
sources: employees and their supervisors.

Employees rated the HPHR practices, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment and the supervisors rated the in-role
performance of their subordinates.
The data was gathered over a 3 months period, using two self-administered online
questionnaires, one dedicated to the employee and the other dedicated to the supervisor.
The employee survey contained 306 questions and took around 25 minutes to complete
and the supervisor survey contained 103 questions and took around 10 minutes to
complete. Moreover, both surveys had two language versions: English and Chinese. The
employees were approached through press releases and social media websites.
At the beginning, an e-mail invitation with a link to the survey was sent to the
employees. After filling the questionnaire, the employees invited their supervisors to
participate to the study by forwarding them the link to the supervisor survey. Weekly
reminders were sent during the data collection process, both to employees and
supervisors. The responses were exported to SPSS 19 for analysis.
Out of 387 sent invitations, 229 employee questionnaires and 131 complete sets of
employee-supervisor dyads were received, thus yielding a response rate of 59% and 34%
respectively. The majority of the employee-supervisor dyads (63,4%) worked in China,
followed by The Netherlands with 20,6%. More than 15% of the dyads came from the
education and research sector, 14,5% from the legal/administration sector, 9,2% from the
banking industry, 8,4% from the hospitality and tourism sector and the remaining 53%
from various other industries.

22

Of the 131 employee participants, 58,8 % were female, their age ranged from 20 years to
59 years (M=29.10, SD=8.36) and 76,3 % had university education. More than a half of the
employee respondents were single (51,1 %) and 42,7 % had a full-time job with a norm of
40 hours a week and more . The average job tenure of the employees was 2.25 years
(SD=2.50) and the average organizational tenure was 3.58 years (SD= 5.11).
With regards to the supervisors characteristics, approximately 56% were men and
their age ranged from 23 years to 60 years (M=37.23, SD=6.97). The majority were married
(72,5 %) and 91.6% had a university education. The average tenure with the company was
13,94 years, and average tenure in the supervision position was 8,29 years. On average, the
supervisors managed the employees for around 4 years (SD=3.69). More than 34 % of the
supervisors interacted with their subordinates at least once every day.

3.2 Measurements
Perceptions of HPHR practices. In order to measure perceptions of HPHR practices, a scale
with 27 items developed by Sun et al. (2007) was used. Participants were asked to rate
each item on a Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The scale
covered questions about the eight most important areas of HR practices pertaining to
selectivity in staffing procedures, training, employment security, clear job description,
results-oriented appraisal, incentive reward, internal mobility and participation. Out of the
27 items, three were contraindicative. Sample items were Formal training programs are
offered to employees in order to increase their promotability in this organization,
Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are
done and Employees have few opportunities for upward mobility. All the items can be
found in the Appendix. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .92.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was gauged using a 3-item scale developed by Cammann
(1979). Responses were given on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5)
strongly agree. Sample items included All in all, I am satisfied with my job and In general,
I dont like my job. The reliability of the scale was .74.
23

Organizational commitment. To measure the three dimensions of organizational

commitment, the 24-item scale of Allen & Meyer (1990) was selected for this study. Sample
items include: from the affective commitment scale I would be very happy to spend the
rest of my career with this organization; from the continuance scale I feel that I have too
few options to consider leaving this organization and from the normative commitment
scale If l got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave
my organization. All the organizational commitment items appear in the Appendix.
Employees were asked to report, on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) to (5), the extent to
which they disagreed or agreed with each commitment item. Cronbachs alpha coefficients
were as follows: affective commitment scale .71, continuance commitment scale .55 and
normative commitment scale .63.
Perceptions of person-organization fit. Perceptions of PO fit were assessed using Cable &
DeRue's (2002) 3-item scale which included items such as The things I value in life are
very similar to the things that my organization values. The scale reliability was .80 and the
participants rated the items on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7)
strongly agree.
In-role performance. In-role performance was measured using supervisor-ratings of
Williams & Anderson's (1991) 7-item scale. Sample items included My subordinate fulfills
responsibilities specified in job description, My subordinate meets formal performance
requirements of the job. Responses were given on a 7-point scale ranging from (1)
strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .90.
Control variable. Since more than half of the respondents were Chinese, the control
variable chosen for this study was the language of the survey (Chinese vs. English). This
variable could have a significant influence on the variables examined in the study, as the
Chinese culture is considerably different from European and American culture. For
instance, in the Chinese organizational management it is common that people are hired
based on family relationships rather than on competences (House et al., 1999), fact which
opposes to the hiring selectivity criteria incorporated in the HPHR practices.
24

4. Data analysis and results

Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and Cronbachs alphas for the variables
examined in the study are presented in Table 1. Perceptions of HR practices significantly
correlated with job satisfaction (r = .42, p < .01), affective and normative commitment (r =
.44, p < .01, r = .30, p < .01), meaning that the better perception employees have over the
HPHR practices the more satisfied and committed they are. Although weak, a positive
significant correlation between perceptions of HPHR practices and employees in-role
performance (r = 17, p < .05) was identified. Job satisfaction had a moderate positive
significant correlation with in-role performance (r = 42, p < .01). Out of the three
dimensions of organizational commitment, affective commitment and normative
commitment had a positive significant correlation with in-role performance (r = .34, p <
.01, r = .22, p < .01) whereas continuance commitment had a weak negative significant
correlation with in-role performance (r = -.17, p < .05). PO fit was moderately correlated
with HR practices (r = .48, p < .01), job satisfaction (r = .44, p < .01), affective commitment
(r = .48, p < .01) and normative commitment (r = .38, p < .01). Finally, job satisfaction and
affective commitment were highly correlated (r = .50, p < .01) and job satisfaction and
normative commitment had a weaker, but significant correlation (r = .28, p < .01).
Hierarchical regressions were used to test the first four proposed hypotheses.
Results show that after controlling for survey language, perceptions of HPHR practices
were a significant predictor of job satisfaction ( = .48, p < .01, F (2,128) = 20.47, p < .01),
thus providing support for Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that employees perceptions of HPHR practices would be
positively related to affective commitment. Consistent with the bivariate correlations
between employees perceptions of HPHR practices and affective commitment (Table 1),
results in Table 2 show that HPHR practices were a significant predictor of affective
commitment ( =.47, p < .01, F (2,128) = 16.81, p < .01), thus providing support for
Hypothesis 2a.

25

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations

Variables
1. Survey
language
2. Perceptions
of HR practices
3. Job
satisfaction
4. Affective
commitment
5. Continuance
commitment
6. Normative
commitment
7. P-O fit
8. In-role
performance
Note.

SD

1.60

0.49

3.48

0.59

.25**

[.92]

3.85

0.67

-.14

.42**

[.74]

3.25

0.60

.01

.44**

.50**

[.71]

2.99

0.52

-.03

-.07

-.07

-.04

[.55]

3.08

0.54

.11

.30**

.28**

.49**

.13

[.63]

3.61

0.83

.08

.48**

.44**

.48**

-.01

.38**

[.80]

3.83

0.71

-.39**

.17*

.42**

.34**

-.17*

.22*

.27**

[.90]

N=131
Cronbachs alphas are reported on the diagonal.
Correlations are significant at *p < .05 and **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Hypotheses 2b and 2c predicted that perceptions of HPHR practices would be positively

related to continuance commitment and normative commitment. Results in the Table 2
show that only H2c was supported. Perceptions of HR practices were significantly related
to normative commitment ( = .29, p < .01, F (2,128) = 6.54, p < .01), but did not
significantly associate with continuance commitment ( = -.06, ns), thus providing no
support for Hypothesis 2b.

26

Table 2. Results of hierarchical regression analysis

Job Satisfaction
Variables

Survey language

Affective

Continuance

Normative

Commitment

Commitment

Commitment

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

-.14

-26 ***

.01

-.10

-.03

-.02

.11

.04

HPHR practices

.48***

.47***

-.06

.29***

R2

.02

.24

.00

.20

.001

.006

.01

.09

Adjusted R2

.01

.23

-.007

.19

-.006

-.01

.006

.07

R2

.02

.22

.00

.20

.001

.004

.01

.08

2.65

37.55***

.03

33.58***

.19

.51

1.72

11.23***

Note.

***p < .001

4.1 Mediation analysis

In order to test the proposed mediation hypotheses and the significance of the indirect
effects, the INDIRECT macro for SPSS proposed by Preacher & Hayes (2008) was used.
Unlike SOBEL, the first macro for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
developed in 2004 by the same Preacher & Hayes, the INDIRECT macro adjusts all paths for
the potential influence of covariates that are not specified as mediators in the model
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
The INDIRECT macro estimates the unstandardized path coefficients (B) of a
mediation model by assessing the four mediation steps proposed by Baron & Kenny,
(1986): (1) the path from the independent variable to the mediator must be significant; (2)
the path from the mediator to the dependent variable must be significant; (3) the total
effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be significant; and (4)
the independent variable must have no effect on the dependent variable when the mediator
is held constant (full mediation) or should become significantly smaller (partial mediation).
Then, it tests the significance of the indirect effect using both normal theory (e.g.,
the Sobel test - Sobel, 1982) and bootstrap procedures. However, when using control
variables, the results for Sobel test are no longer displayed in the output. Bootstrap
27

procedures are considered preferable over normal procedures as the Sobel test, because
they do not assume that the distribution of the indirect effects is normal and therefore
provide stronger protection against type II error (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The regression
results for testing mediation are reported in Table 3.
Hypothesis 3, H4a, H4b and H4c proposed that job satisfaction, affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment would mediate the
relationship between perceived HR practices and in-role performance. Results in the fourth
column of Table 3 show that, after controlling for survey language (B = - .68, se = .11, p <
.01), HR practices were positively and significantly related to job satisfaction (B = .55, p <
01), affective commitment (B = .47, p < .01) and normative commitment (B = .26, p < .01)
and negatively and not significantly related to continuance commitment (B = -.05, ns).
These findings are in line with the results obtained by performing hierarchical regressions
for H1, H2a, H2b and H2c, which tested the same relationships.
Results in the fifth column show that job satisfaction (B = .32, p < 01), affective
commitment (B = .33, p < 01), continuance commitment (B = .23, p < .05) and normative
commitment (B = .27, p < 01) significantly related to employees in-role performance.
Moreover, the results in the sixth column demonstrate that the total effect of HR practices
is positively and significantly related to in-role performance. However, the seventh column
of Table 3 shows that when separately controlling for job satisfaction, affective
commitment, continuance commitment the effects of HR practices on in-role performance
dropped and became non-significant., whereas when controlling for normative
commitment, the effects of HR practices on in-role performance dropped, but still remained
significant. The effect size of perceived HPHR practices reduced, both for job satisfaction
(from B = .35, p < .01 to B = 17, ns), affective commitment (from B = .35 p < .01 to B = .19,
ns) and normative commitment (from B = .35, p < .01 to B= .28, p < .01), and bootstrap
procedures showed that the mediation effect was significant. Taken together, the results
presented above show that all four Baron & Kenny (1986) conditions for mediation were
not supported for H4b, fully supported for H3, H4a and partially supported for H4c.
To further assess the significance of the mediation, bootstrap procedures were used.
The significance of the indirect effect using bootstrapping is established by determining
28

whether zero is contained within the 95% confidence interval (thus indicating the lack of
significance). The results presented in the last two columns of Table 3 were based on 5000
bootstrapped samples using bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004) and showed that the indirect effect of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment is indeed significantly different from zero at p <
.05 (two tailed). Thus, taken separately, job satisfaction, affective commitment fully
mediate and normative commitment partially mediates the relationship between HR
practices and employees in-role performance providing evidence for H3, H4a and partial
evidence for H4c.

Table 3. Summary of results for testing mediation hypotheses

Variables

IV

HRP

Note.

Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effect

Effect

Effect

Total

IV on

M on

effect IV

DV

on DV

.55**

.32**

.35**

AC

.47**

CC
NC

JS

DV

IRP

Direct
effect
IV on DV

BCa 95% CI

Indirect
Effect

SE

(5000 bootstraps)
Lower

Upper

.17(ns)

.17**

.05

.05

.32

.33**

.19 (ns)

.15**

.06

.06

.27

-.05

-.23*

.34**

.01

.02

-.02

.07

.26**

.27**

.28**

.07

.03

.01

.16

N=131
IV = Independent Variable, M = Mediating Variable, DV = Dependent Variable, SE = Standard Error,
HRP = HPHR Practices, JS = Job Satisfaction, AC = Affective Commitment, CC = Continuance Commitment,
NC = Normative Commitment, IRP = In-role performance, BCa = bias corrected and accelerated
**p<.01

29

4.2 Moderated mediation analysis

Hypothesis 5, H6a, H6b and H6c predicted that the indirect effect of job satisfaction,
affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment on the high
performance HR practices in-role performance relationship would be stronger under
high levels than under low levels of PO fit.
The moderated mediation hypotheses were assessed using the MODMED SPSS
macro proposed by Preacher et al. (2007). In this paper, the macro estimates the
unstandardized coefficients (B) of the conditional indirect effect of HPHR practices on inrole performance through a proposed mediator variable, conditional on a moderator of the
path from the independent variable to the mediator. Then it calculates the significance of
the conditional indirect effect using both Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) and bootstrap
procedures.
The core of moderated mediation is to determine whether the strength of the
mediation is different across low and high levels of the moderator (Preacher et al., 2007).
More specifically, moderated mediation occurs if the interaction between HPHR practices
and PO fit is significant in the test, suggesting that the indirect effect is different for low and
high levels of PO fit, and if the bootstrap intervals do not contain zero, suggesting that the
indirect effect is significantly different from zero (Preacher et al., 2007). Thus, the
moderated mediation hypotheses proposed in this paper are supported when the
conditional indirect effect of HR practices on in-role performance, via the proposed
mediators taken separately, job satisfaction, affective, continuance and normative
commitment differs in strength across low and high levels of PO fit.
After controlling for survey language, results in Table 4 show that H6a, H6b are not
supported, as the interaction between HPHR practices and PO fit is not statistically
significant in predicting affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment. Although the interaction between HPHR practices and PO fit is significant in
predicting normative commitment in the mediator variable model, no relationship is found
between normative commitment and performance in the dependent variable model, so no
moderated mediation is found. Therefore, H6c is not supported either.
30

Table 4. Test of moderated mediation (predicting in-role performance)

Mediator Variable Model
Predictor

SE

HRP

.28

.27

1.04

.30

PO fit

.13

.26

.51

.60

.20**

.07

.41

.03

HRP

-.09

.75

-.39

.69

PO fit

-.15

.23

-.65

.51

PO fit x HRP

.12

.06

1.78

.07

HRP

-.27

.25

-1.07

.28

PO fit

-.18

.24

-.74

.45

PO fit x HRP

.06

.07

.85

.39

HRP

-.45

.23

-1.93

.05

PO fit

-.37

.22

-1.65

.09

PO fit x HRP

.17**

.06

2.66

.00

JS

PO fit x HRP
AC

CC

NC

Dependent Variable Model

Predictor

SE

JS

.27**

.09

2.94

.00

HRP

-.42

.28

-1.49

.13

PO fit

-.41

.26

1.52

-.12

PO fit x HRP

.16*

.07

2.06

.04

AC

.24**

.10

2.37

.01

HRP

-.31

.28

-1.12

.26

PO fit

-.33

.27

-1.23

.21

PO fit x HRP

.14

.08

1.74

.08

-.26**

.10

-2.59

.01

HRP

-.41

.28

-1.45

.14

PO fit

-.42

.27

-1.55

.12

PO fit x HRP

.18

.08

2.34

.08

NC

.17

.11

1.55

.12

HRP

-.26

.29

-.91

. 36

PO fit

-.31

.27

-1.12

. 26

PO fit x HRP

.14

.08

-1.12

. 26

CC

Note. SE = Standard Error, HRP = HPHR Practices, JS = Job Satisfaction, AC = Affective Commitment, CC =
Continuance Commitment, NC = Normative Commitment; **p<.05

31

Only the interaction between PO fit and HPHR practices (B = .20, p < .05) was statistically
significant in predicting job satisfaction. This implies that the indirect effect of HPHR
practices on in-role performance through job satisfaction is moderated by PO fit. The sign
of the interaction is consistent with the interpretation that the indirect effect is larger for
higher levels of PO fit, thus supporting the assumption of moderated mediation.
To further examine the moderated mediation relationship which required the
magnitude of the conditional indirect effect of HPHR practices via job satisfaction to be
different for low and high levels of PO fit, bootstrap procedures were used. The low and
high levels of PO fit were operationalized as one standard deviation above (+1 SD) and
below (-1 SD) the mean score of the variable as recommended by Preacher et al. (2007).
Estimates and confidence intervals of the conditional indirect effects for HR practices
across low and high levels of PO fit are covered in Table 5.
As hypothesized, bootstrapping analyses indicated that job satisfaction mediated
the effect of HPHR practices on in-role performance at low and high levels of PO fit
(confidence intervals do not contain 0 at = .05), the strength of the conditional effect
increasing along with levels of PO fit (B = .10 at -1 SD, B = .11 at +1 SD). Hence, H5 was
confirmed.

32

Table 5. Bootstrap results for testing the significance of conditional indirect effect
Bootstrap results
BCa 95% CI
(5000 bootstraps)
Mediator

Moderator

Level

JS

PO fit

Low

AC

CC

NC

Note.

PO fit

PO fit

PO fit

Conditional

Lower

Upper

.10**

.01

.24

High

.11**

.01

.27

Low

.06

.00

.16

High

.11

.01

.23

Low

.02

-.01

.10

High

-.00

.-08

.07

Low

.00

-.02

.06

High

.03

.00

.16

indirect effect

JS = Job Satisfaction, AC = Affective Commitment, CC = Continuance Commitment,

NC = Normative Commitment, BCa = bias corrected and accelerated

33

5. Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between employees perceptions
of HPHR practices and important employees attitudes and behavioral outcomes and the
role of PO fit in this relationship, as part of the chain linking HRM to organizational
performance. More specifically, based on social exchange theory and PO fit theory, this
paper proposed and tested a moderated mediation model in which job satisfaction and the
three dimensions of organizational commitment mediate the relationship between HPHR
practices and in-role performance and where PO fit moderates the strength of the
proposed mediation. As discussed earlier, few studies in the HRM organizational
performance literature have approached the connection between HPHR practices and
employees attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Kehoe & Wright, 2010) and most of them have
disregarded the views of employees as related to these outcomes, using managerial reports
of HPHR practices instead. As there are solid reasons why managerial reports of HPHR
practices might not have the expected influence on employee outcomes (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004; Nishii & Wright, 2008), this study brings its contribution in the HRM literature by
investigating the effects of employees perceptions of HPHR practices on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and in-role behavior. Furthermore, by analyzing the
moderating role of PO fit on work outcomes, it addresses recent calls in the literature for an
examination of this nature.
In general, the findings of the study indicate that perceived HPHR practices
positively relate to job satisfaction, affective commitment and normative commitment.
Moreover, job satisfaction and affective commitment fully mediate and normative
commitment only partially mediates the perceived HPHR practices - in-role performance
relationship. Contrary to the predictions, continuance commitment neither mediates the
relationship the HPHR practices-in-role performance relationship, nor is significantly
related to HPHR practices. In addition, PO fit only moderates the mediated relationship of
HPHR practices and in-role performance via job satisfaction, the results providing no
support for the moderated mediation hypothesis of PO fit on the link between perceived
HPHR practices, affective commitment, normative commitment and in-role performance.
34

The positive association between employees perception of HPHR practices and job
satisfaction is in line with the results obtained by previous researchers (Appelbaum et al.,
2000). This result suggests that employees experience greater job satisfaction when they
perceive HHR practices as more effective. Consequently, the findings support the idea that
high-performance work systems that emphasize the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking employ incentive schemes and opportunities for training and provide them with
opportunities for upward mobility play an important role in the development of job
satisfaction.
Furthermore, the results of this study reveal that perceived HPHR practices
positively related to affective commitment and normative commitment. This is consisted
with the arguments provided for these hypotheses and with previous findings ( Meyer &
Smith, 2000; Gould-Williams, 2003) showing that employees develop affective commitment
toward their organizations when they perceive HPHR practices as supportive and meant to
establish a social exchange relationship with them (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Meyer & Smith,
2000). In particular, organizations that put their efforts into improving the skills of
employees, providing promotion opportunities and encouraging employees decisionmaking participation are more likely to cultivate feelings of attachment among its
employees. Such practices are a proof of care and interest toward the employees, who in
turn feel more appreciated and important. What is more, with regards to the positive effect
of HPHR practices on the normative commitment, it can be concluded that employees
experience feelings of obligation in relation to their organization which as argued before
derive from the idea that the organizations has fulfilled its obligation by offering secure
employment, training and careers opportunities. Hence, it can be stated that all the factors
that trigger affective commitment are also responsible for normative commitment, but to a
lesser extent.
Contrary to the predictions, perceived HPHR practices did not significantly relate to
continuance commitment. This result stands as an outlier compared to the results of other
studies who found a positive relationship between HPHR practices and continuance
commitment (e.g. Allen & Meyer, 2000). One possible explanation for this result might be
that employees do not stay in the organization because of the costs involved by their leave
35

(e.g. achievements, retirement plans, expertise), but because they probably do not have
other alternatives. Hence, HPHR practices seem to have no influence whatsoever on
employees decision to continue the employment relationship and for this reason,
continuance commitment could rather be considered a negative form of commitment.
Overall, these findings add to the existent studies on HPHR practices and employee
attitudes by identifying HPHR practices as antecedents of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment.
Job satisfaction and affective commitment were found as full mediators and
normative commitment as a partial mediator in the HPHR practices in-role performance
relationship. Consistent with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1986), these findings point
out the fact that employees perceptions of HPHR practices affect employees in-role
behavior through attitudinal outcomes job satisfaction and affective commitment to a
greater extent and normative commitment just to a limited extent. It is thus demonstrated
that employees who manifest job satisfaction and affective commitment as a result of the
effectiveness of HPHR practices are inclined to work harder and have better performance
results. The partial mediation effect of normative commitment supports on the one hand
the fact that this dimension of commitment is a predictor of in-role performance, but also
that perceptions of HPHR practices are a predictor of in-role performance. This implies that
although normative commitment explains a part of the influence of HPHR practices on inrole performance, it does not grasp the full effect. An explanation for that would be that for
instance, employment security practices might affect in-role performance without doing so
via normative commitment. Furthermore, practices such as incentive rewards might not
increase the normative commitment, but they might encourage people to perform better.
Another explanation would be that there are some other variable that can explain the
remaining portion of influence of HPHR practices on in-role performance. Since it has
already been proven that job satisfaction and affective commitment act as mediators,
maybe other explanation outside the social exchange theory could provide the grounds for
the part of influence of HPHR practices and in-role performance. Future research might
examine if HPHR practices affect in-role performance through some other mechanisms
such as trust in management or leadership behavior.
36

As far as continuance commitment is concerned, results showed no mediation effect and it

negatively related to in-role performance. This result contradicts the assumptions of a
positive link made in the beginning and supports the previous findings (Meyer et al., 1989;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Employees who would like to leave the organization, but
because of certain conditions do not have other option but to continue working for the
organization, feel trapped and behave in ways that affect their performance results.
Another goal of this research was to analyze the role of PO fit in the relationships
between HPHR practices and employee work attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment) and
behavior (in-role performance). Using the PO it theory, the study proposed that perceived
PO fit moderates the strength of the indirect relationship between HPHR practices and inrole performance via job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Results showed that
PO fit moderated the indirect relationship between HPHR practices and in-role
performance via job satisfaction in such a way that the mediated relationship was stronger
for employees who perceived a higher PO fit than for the ones who perceived a lower PO fit.
Although the influence of HPHR practices on job satisfaction indeed depends on wheatear
employees perceive their values to be the same with the organization they work for which
in turn affects their in-role performance, the strength of the conditional effect increasing
along with levels of PO fit, the growth is very small (B = .10 at -1 SD, B = .11 at +1 SD).This
implies that both high PO fit employees and also employees who have a slightly lower PO fit
have a good understanding of what the organization wants to achieve and give positive
interpretations to the signals sent through HPHR practices, such that HPHR practices have
a greater effect on job satisfaction, which in turn leads to greater individual performance.
Still, the conditional indirect effect is statistically significant and therefore the results
provide support for the proposed hypothesis.
The last three hypotheses of this study proposed a moderated mediation effect of PO
fit between HPHR practices and in-role performance via the three dimensions of
organizational commitment. The results provided no support for these hypotheses, thus
showing that a high or low identification of the employees with the company values does
not influence the magnitude of the HPHR practices effect on employee commitment and
further on in-role performance. A possible explanation for this lack of support could be that
37

independent of the match employees perceive to have with their organization, if the HR
practices send the appropriate messages they reciprocate anyway with affective
commitment and obligation toward their employer that further translates into
performance results.
One might show interest in the reason why the moderated mediation occurs for job
satisfaction but not for organizational commitment. One reason might be that job
satisfaction, in comparison to commitment, has an intrinsic component (Herzberg,
Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), which might resonate better with the intrinsic nature of
values that organization and employees have in common. Nevertheless, future research
might find different results in a different research context.
From a theoretical perspective, the current study contributes to the HRM literature
by focusing on employees perception of HPHR practices as a predictor of desired employee
outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In line with social
exchange theory, the findings demonstrate that perceptions of HPHR practices affect
employees performance behavior through their effect on attitudinal outcomes job
satisfaction and the three dimensions of commitment. Moreover, it emphasizes the
important role of attitudes in eliciting desired employee behaviors as a consequence of the
influence of appropriate combination of HR practices. Furthermore, it broadens the HRM
literature by integrating the social exchange and PO fit theory, proposing PO fit as a
construct that might help gain a better understanding of the effects of perceived HPHR
practices on employees outcomes.
From a practical point of view, the findings of this paper have several managerial
implications. In developing systems of HPHR practices, organizations need to take into
consideration the responses of workers if they want to achieve good performance results.
Moreover, these practices need to be correctly implemented so that the message that the
organization is trying to send through them is the same with what employees perceive
about the HR practices. Also, by focusing on employees perceptions rather than managerial
perceptions of HR practices, organizations could identify the areas that are perceived by
managers as functioning, but not perceived as so by the employees. In addition, it provides
valuable information for HR selection and employment practices. Organizations might want
38

to focus on hiring people based on PO fit, since findings reveal that it has an important role
in predicting positive work attitudes and behaviors.

39

6. Strengths and limitations of the study

As with every research, the present one has its strengths and limitations. The most
important strength of this paper is refers to the way the data was collected - from two
sources, employees and their supervisors. The study relied on self-reports of employee
work attitudes namely job satisfaction and organizational commitment and supervisor
evaluations of in-role performance. This means that by using a paired employee-supervisor
sample, it avoids the presence of common-method variance bias, which is considered as a
serious issue that could discredit research findings (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998).
Nevertheless, its limitations draw the attention when interpreting the findings. A
first limitation is the cross-sectional design, which means that causeeffect relations cannot
be inferred from our findings. For instance, perceived HPHR practices and organizational
commitment may be reciprocally related. Perhaps because employees have feelings of
commitment toward the organization, they may perceive HPHR practices as being more
effective. Future research may consider a longitudinal design to confirm the causal basis of
the relationships examined in this study.
Second, there was no control over the influences that might have perturbed
respondents in providing their answers as the data was collected through a selfadministered questionnaire. Therefore, the circumstances under which the questionnaires
were filled out could not be verified. Third, participant bias might affect the results of the
study as socially desirable responses might have been provided. For instance, supervisors
might have been prone to reporting more favorable responses about the in-role
performance of their subordinates. Fourth, the low scale reliability obtained for
continuance commitment (.55) and normative commitment (.63) might have affected the
quality of the analysis and of the found relationships.
In addition, with regards to the testing of hypotheses proposed in this paper, one
could raise the question of wheatear these hypotheses could be tested all at once as one
integrated model instead of testing each hypothesis separately. One of the reasons for not
taking this approach was the lack of appropriate statistical possibilities. While the
INDIRECT macro for mediation allows the insertion of multiple mediators at the time, the
40

macro for moderated mediation does not. Preacher & Hayes are currently working on a
moderated mediation macro that allows the insertion of multiple mediators, but it is not
yet released for the public.
Finally, this paper only focused on PO fit as a potential moderator in the mediated
relationship between HPHR practices and in-role performance. Future research may
examine the effects of other moderators that could possible influence the above mentioned
relationship. Results should be then compared in order to provide HR practitioners and
managers with a better perspective on what should be done to better manage their
relationship with the employees that will eventually lead to more positive results.

7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the current research brought significant contribution to the HRM and PO fit
literature by providing evidence that perceptions of HPHR practices have a very important
role in fostering employee attitudes and behaviors. Furthermore, the findings uncover the
importance of employees work attitudes (satisfaction and commitment) in bridging HR
practices with individual performance. Moreover, it provided some useful insight for HR
practitioners on how to create the HR practices system in order to trigger the right
employee attitudes and behaviors that will help the organization prosper and remain
competitive on the market.

41

Appendix
Perceptions of HPHR practices - Questionnaire items
Selective Staffing

1. Great effort is taken to select the right person.

2. Long-term employee potential is emphasized.
3. Considerable importance is placed on the staffing process.
4. Very extensive efforts are made in selection.
Extensive Training
5. Extensive training programs are provided for individuals in customer contact or front-line jobs.
6. Employees in customer contact jobs will normally go through training programs every few years.
7. There are formal training programs to teach new hires the skills they need to perform their job.
8. Formal training programs are offered to employees in order to increase their promotability in this
organization.
Internal Mobility
9. Employees have few opportunities for upward mobility.
10. Employees do not have any future in this organization.
11. Promotion in this organization is based on seniority.
12. Employees have clear career paths in this organization.
13. Employees in customer contact jobs who desire promotion have more than one potential position they
could be promoted to.
Employment Security
14. Employees can be expected to stay with this organization for as long as they wish.
15. Job security is almost guaranteed to employees.

42

Clear Job Description

16. My duties are clearly defined.
17. My job has an up-to-date description.
18. The job description for a position accurately describes all of the duties performed by individual
employees.
Results-Oriented Appraisal
19. Performance is more often measured with objective quantifiable results.
20. Performance appraisals are based on objective quantifiable results.
21. Employee appraisals emphasize long group-based achievement.
Incentive Reward
22. Individuals receive bonuses based on the profit of the organization.
23. Close tie or matching of pay to individual/group performance.
Participation
24. Employees are often asked by their supervisor to participate in decisions.
25. Individuals are allowed to make decisions.
26. Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are done.
27. Supervisors keep open communications with employees.

Job satisfaction - Questionnaire items

1. All in all I am satisfied with my job.
2. In general, I dont like my job.
3. In general, I like working here.

43

Organizational commitment Questionnaire items

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
2. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
3. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own.
4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one.
5. I do not feel like 'part of the family' at my organization.
6. I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization.
7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.
9. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up.
10. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
11. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization
now.
11. It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization now.
12. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
13. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.
14. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of
available alternatives.
15. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would
require considerable personal sacrifice another organization may not match the overall
benefits I have here.
16. I think that people these days move from company to company too often.
17. I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization.
18. Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me.
19. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that
loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
21. If l got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my
organization.
22. I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization.
44

23. Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their
careers.
24. I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or 'company woman' is sensible
anymore.

In-role performance - Questionnaire items

1. Adequately completes assigned duties.
2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description.
3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.
4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job.
5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation.
6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform.
7. Fails to perform essential duties.

Person-Organization fit Questionnaire items

1. The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values.
2. My personal values match my organizations values and culture.
3. My organizations values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life.

45

References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2000). Construct validation in organizational behavior research: The case
of organizational commitment.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage Cornell
University Press Ithaca, NY/London.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career
world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177-202.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986a). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986b). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.
Bauer, T. K. (2004). High performance workplaces and job satisfaction: evidence from Europe. IZA
Discussion Paper no. 1265.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, , 464-482.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value:
Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39-47.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power. Social Life,
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life Transaction Publishers.

46

Bolon, D. S. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees: A

multidimensional analysis involving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hospital
& Health Services Administration, 42(2), 221-241.
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 personorganisation and person
job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(01), 138-162.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004a). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the"
strength" of the HRM system. The Academy of Management Review, , 203-221.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004b). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the"
strength" of the HRM system. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
Bretz Jr, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination of the
attractionselectionattrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42(3), 561-581.
Bretz Jr, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1),
32-54.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 533-546.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-883.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546-561.
Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648-657.
Chang, P. C., & Chen, S. J. (2011). Crossing the level of employee's performance: HPWS, affective
commitment, human capital, and employee job performance in professional service
organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 883-901.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3)
Christiansen, N., Villanova, P., & Mikulay, S. (1997). Political influence compatibility: Fitting the
person to the climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(6), 709-730.
Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational
commitment and its outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3), 253268.

47

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, d. (2006). How much do highperformance work practices
matter? A metaanalysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel psychology,
59(3), 501-528.
Delaney, J. T., & Godard, J. (2001). An industrial relations perspective on the high-performance
paradigm. Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 395-429.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for
research. Human Resource Management Review,
Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and extension.
Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know
and where do we need to go? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3),
656-670.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measuresdifferent
results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. E. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:
The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 859-891.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwater, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1999). Human
resources management: Some new directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 385-415.
Gaertner, K. N., & Nollen, S. D. (1989). Career experiences, perceptions of employment practices,
and psychological commitment to the organization. Human Relations, 42(11), 975.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm
performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263.
Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving
superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14(1), 28-54.
Green, F. (2006). Demanding work: The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy Princeton Univ
Pr.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.

48

Guest, D. E. (2001). Human resource management: When research confronts theory. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1092-1106.
Guest, D. (2002a). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335.
Guest, D. (2002b). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335.
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from
new zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of meyer and allen's (1991)
three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1),
15.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B.(1959). the motivation to work.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V.
(1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global
Leadership, 1, 171-233.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, , 635-672.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251.
Iverson, R. D., & Currivan, D. B. (2003). Union participation, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: An EventHistory analysis of the ExitVoice hypothesis. Industrial Relations: A Journal
of Economy and Society, 42(1), 101-105.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69(2), 307.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfactionjob performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions.
Human Resource Planning, 15(4)

49

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz jr, r.,d. (1995). An empirical investigation of the
predictors of executive career success. Personnel psychology, 48(3), 485-519.
Kane, B., Crawford, J., & Grant, D. (1999). Barriers to effective HRM. International Journal of
Manpower, 20(8), 494-516.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2010). The impact of high performance human resource practices on
employees' attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management,
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 698.
Konovsky, M. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations.
Journal of Management, 26: 489-511.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 149.
KristofBrown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, e. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals'fit at
work: a metaanalysis of personjob, personorganization, persongroup, and person
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Legge, K. (1995). HRM: Rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas. Human Resource Management: A
Critical Text, Routledge, London, , 33-59.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers (DK adams & KE zener, trans.).
New York & London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.(Original Work Published in 1935),
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.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, , 1319-1328.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 1-35.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to work Appleton-Century-Crofts Nueva York.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 48(2), 197-221.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between high-performance work practices and
employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 537-567.

50

Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human resource management at work: People management
and development CIPD Publishing.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171.
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through
a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal,
35(3), 671-684.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A
field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application
Sage publications, inc.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational
commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences
De l'Administration, 17(4), 319-331.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. (1974). Unit performance, situational factors, and employee
attitudes in spatially separated work units* 1. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 12(2), 231-248.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover Academic Press New York.
Naud, P., Desai, J., & Murphy, J. (2003). Identifying the determinants of internal marketing
orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1205-1220.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. The Journal of
Marketing, 61(3), 85-98.

51

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.
Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic
human resource management. The People make the Place: Dynamic Linkages between
Individuals and Organizations, New York: Taylor and Francis Group,
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
44(1), 117-154.
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 487-516.
Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of
Management, 14(4), 547-557.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A metaanalttic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Parker, M. (1998). Ethics and organizations Sage Publications Ltd.
Petty, M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between
individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, , 712721.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2006). Subjective person-organization fit: Bridging the gap
between conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 202-221.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5),
603-609.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical
test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293-309.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879.

52

Purcell, J. (2003). Understanding the people and performance link: Unlocking the black box CIPD
Publishing.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Frontline managers as agents in the HRMperformance causal
chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high-performance work systems:
Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 501-531.
Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological
investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 361-378.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and
organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 159-174.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of
Management Review, 10(3), 465-476.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A metaanalysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A
motivational analysis* 1. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled
obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 289-298.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated
model. Human Relations, 57(9), 1205.
Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & De Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual and shared employee
perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. Personnel Review,
37(4), 412-425.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 637.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 774-774.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.
Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Workrelated commitment and job performance: It's also the
nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6), 621-634.

53

Steers, R. M. (1975). Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 20(4), 546-558.
Storey, J. (1995). Human resource management: A critical text Thomson Learning Emea.
Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behaviour and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 558-577.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the
mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of
japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1069.
Thomas William, I., & Thomas Dorthy, S. (1928). The child in america: Behavior problems and
programs. New York: AA Knopf,
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, , 1089-1121.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit:
Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 333-352.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, , 82-111.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do high commitment human resource practices affect employee
commitment? Journal of Management, 27(5), 515.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991a). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),
601-617.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991b). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),
601-617.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991c). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),
601.
Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and
macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276.
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.

54

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR
practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-446.

55