high involvement human resource practices as antecedents

i

High Involvement Human Resource Practices as

Antecedents of Innovative Work Behavior in

Software Companies of Pakistan: An Ability-

Motivation-Opportunity Framework Perspective

By

Wali Ur Rehman

CIIT/FA12-PMS-020/ISB

PhD Thesis

In

Management Sciences

COMSATS University Islamabad

Islamabad Campus - Pakistan

Spring, 2017

ii


High Involvement Human Resource

Practices as Antecedents of Innovative Work

Behavior in Software Companies of Pakistan: An

Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework

Perspective

A Thesis Presented to


In partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree of

PhD (Management Sciences)

By

Wali Ur Rehman


Spring, 2017

iii

High Involvement Human Resource Practices as

Antecedents of Innovative Work Behavior in

Software Companies of Pakistan: An Ability-

Motivation-Opportunity Framework Perspective

A Post Graduate Thesis submitted to the Department of Management Sciences as

partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of Degree of PhD in

Management Sciences.

Name

Registration Number

Wali ur Rehman


Supervisor

(Dr. Mansoor Ahmad)

Assistant Professor, Department of Management Sciences

COMSATS University Islamabad,

Islamabad Campus

iv

Certificate of Approval

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, entitled, “High Involvement

Human Resource Practices as Antecedents of Innovative Work Behavior in Software

Companies of Pakistan: An Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework Perspective” was

conducted by Mr. Wali ur Rehman, PhD Scholar, CIIT/FA12-PMS-020/ISB, under the

supervision of Dr. Mansoor Ahmad. No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere

else for any other degree. This thesis is submitted to the Department of Management

Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad Campus, in the partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Management

Sciences.

Student Name: Wali ur Rehman Signature: _________________

Examinations Committee:

Signature: Signature:

__________________________ ___________________________

External Examiner 1: External Examiner 2:

(Designation & Office Address): (Designation & Office Address):

……………………………………… …………………………………..

……………………………………… …………………………………..

__________________________ ____________________________

Dr. Mansoor Ahmad Dr. Aneel Salman

Supervisor HoD,

Department of Management Sciences Department of Management Sciences

COMSATS University Islamabad COMSATS University Islamabad

Islamabad Campus Islamabad Campus

__________________________ ____________________________

Dr. Samina Nawab Dr. Khalid Riaz

Chairperson, Dean,

Department of Management Sciences, Faculty of Business Administration,

COMSATS University Islamabad COMSATS University Islamabad

v

Author’s Declaration

I, Wali ur Rehman, Registration Number CIIT/FA12-PMS-020/ISB, hereby state that my

PhD Thesis titled, “High Involvement Human Resource Practices as Antecedents of

Innovative Work Behavior in Software Companies of Pakistan: An Ability-Motivation-

Opportunity Framework Perspective” is my own work and has not been submitted

previously by me for taking any degree from this University i.e., COMSATS University

Islamabad or anywhere else in the country/world.

At any time if any statement is found to be incorrect even after I graduate the University

has the right to withdraw my PhD Degree.

Date: ______________________ __________________________

Wali ur Rehman


vi

Plagiarism Undertaking

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled, “High Involvement

Human Resource Practices as Antecedents of Innovative Work Behavior in Software

Companies of Pakistan: An Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework Perspective” is

solely my research work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small

contribution / help wherever taken has been duly acknowledged and that complete thesis

has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of HEC and COMSATS University Islamabad

towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an author of the above titled thesis declare that no

portion of my thesis has been plagiarism and any material used as reference is properly

referred/cited.

I undertake if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis even

after award of PhD Degree, the University reserves the right to withdraw / revoke my PhD

degree and that HEC and the university has the right to publish my name on the HEC /

University website on which names of students are placed who submitted plagiarized

thesis.

Date: ______________________ ________________________

Wali ur Rehman


vii

Certificate

It is certified that Wali ur Rehman, Registration No. CIIT/FA12-PMS-020/ISB, has carried

out all the work related to this thesis under my supervision at the Department of

Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad Campus, and the

work fulfills the requirement for award of PhD Degree.

Date: _________________________

Supervisor:

_____________________

Dr. Mansoor Ahmad

Assistant Professor

Department of Management Sciences


Islamabad Campus

Head of Department:

___________________________________ Dr. Aneel Salman

Head,



Islamabad Campus

viii

DEDICATION

This work has been dedicated to my sister Tasleem (Late), my parents, brothers and sisters,

my wife Goher Fatima, my daughters Hamna, Minsa and Aaisha, and my father-in-law

Haji Mubarak Hussain (Late).

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I thank Almighty Allah, Who gave me strength and patience to complete

this thesis. I hereby acknowledge the support and prayers of my parents, my brothers

and sisters, my wife, and my daughters. I must also acknowledge the contribution

of my MPhil teachers, particularly, Dr. Mehboob Ahmed and Dr. Hummayoun

Naeem. I must not forget my professional mentor, Prof. Ahmed Ali Khan, and Prof.

Dr. Hafiz Mushtaq, who supported and kept me motivated throughout these years.

I am also grateful to all my PhD teachers including Prof. Dr. Khalid Riaz, Dr.

Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, and Dr. Iram Khan.

I am very grateful to Dr. Mansoor Ahmed, my PhD Supervisor for his continuous

support and encouragement throughout the journey, due to which I could complete

my PhD. I am also thankful to Dr. Matthew Allen and Dr Mustafa Raziq for their

valuable comments and support in completing the thesis. I am also thankful to Dr

Umar Farooq and Dr Muhammad Ikramullah, for their guidance and extended

support. I am also thankful to Dr. Saqib Yousaf and Dr. Osman S. Paracha, Prof.

Dr. Syed Tahir Hijazi and Dr. Rana Ejaz Ali Khan for their time and valuable

comments. I am also thankful to the In-charge PhD Program and the HoD Dr. Aneel

Salman for their support and kindness. I am also grateful to Mr. Tehseen Riaz, Malik

Zahid and Mr. Imtiaz Ali for their extended support.

I am also thankful to the Higher Education Commission for awarding Indigenous

Scholarship for MPhil leading to PhD Studies. I am also grateful to the staff of HEC,

particularly the staff working in Human Resources Development department,

particularly, Ms. Saima Naurine, Project Director, Dr. Baqir Husnain, Mr. Zeeshan

Haider, Mr. Shoaib Irshad and most importantly Rana Tauqeer Riaz, Project

Manager for their friendly and facilitative roles.

Wali ur Rehman


x

ABSTRACT

High Involvement Human Resource Practices as Antecedents of

Innovative Work Behavior in Software Companies of Pakistan: An

Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework Perspective

This study analyzed the impact of high involvement Human Resource practices on IWB of

employees working in software companies of Pakistan in the context of the AMO

Framework. Ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing HR

practices were taken as independent variables. Drawing on the social cognitive and

exchange theories the mediating role of psychological empowerment (PsyEmp) and the

moderating role of the supportive work environment were also examined. Data was

collected randomly from 538 employees and their supervisors working in software

development and R&D departments of software companies in Pakistan. Structural

Equation Modeling was employed to estimate the research model by using SmartPLS

Version 3.0. The results showed that PsyEmp mediates the impact of only two group of

HR practices, i.e., ability and opportunity enhancing HR practices and IWB. Individually,

coworker support is a significant while management support is an insignificant direct

predictor of IWB. The results contributes to the AMO theory of HRM and Social Cognitive

theory by examining the indirect conditional effect of three groups of HR management

practices on the IWB at different levels of coworker support and management support,

which were neglected by previous researches. Future studies may consider cross industry

longitudinal design after inclusion of personality related variables to see their moderating

effect on the relationships. Managers should develop a psychological contract between the

organization and employees through the alignment of the HR practices with the strategic

goals. They should also consider balance between participatory management and

productive competition between coworkers to capitalize on the strength of management

and coworker support, respectively.

Keywords: AMO Framework, Management Support, Psychological Empowerment, IWB

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................ 5

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Question(s) ............................................ 6

1.3. Research Objectives. ................................................................................... 9

1.4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................... 10

1.5 Research Gap ............................................................................................ 12

1.6 Contribution of the Study ......................................................................... 16

1.7 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................ 19

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................... 21

2.1 Concepts & Definitions ............................................................................ 22

2.1.1 High Involvement Human Resources Practices – AMO Framework 23

2.1.1.1 Ability Enhancing Human Resources Practices ............................... 24

2.1.1.1.1 Selection .................................................................................. 24

2.1.1.1.2 Training ................................................................................... 25

2.1.1.2 Motivation Enhancing Human Resources Practices ................... 28

2.1.1.2.1 Compensation Contingent on Performance ............................. 28

2.1.1.2.2 Performance Appraisal ............................................................ 29

2.1.1.3 Opportunity Enhancing Human Resources Practices ................. 30

2.1.1.3.1 Employees’ participation ......................................................... 30

2.1.1.3.2 Job Design ............................................................................... 31

2.1.2 Psychological Empowerment ............................................................. 32

2.1.3 Supportive Work Environment .......................................................... 33

2.1.3.1 Management Support .................................................................. 34

xii

2.1.3.2 Coworker Support ....................................................................... 36

2.1.4 Innotative Work Behavior .................................................................. 36

2.2 Theoretical Reflections ............................................................................. 39

2.2.1 Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework ..................................... 44

2.2.2 AMO Framework of HRM and PsyEmp ........................................... 49

2.2.3 Psychological Empowerment and Innovative Work Behavior .......... 56

2.2.4 Supportive Work Environment and Innovative Work Behavior ....... 61

2.3 Research Model ........................................................................................ 66

2.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 68

3. Research Methodology .................................................................................. 70

3.1 Research Paradigm.................................................................................... 71

3.2 Research Design........................................................................................ 73

3.2.1 Industry .............................................................................................. 74

3.2.2 Respondents ....................................................................................... 76

3.2.3 Data Collection................................................................................... 79

3.2.4 Common Method Variance ................................................................ 81

3.2.5 Missing values and Data Screening .................................................... 83

3.2.6 Limitations of the Research Design and Treatment ........................... 85

3.2.7 Ethical Issues Central to this Study.................................................... 86

3.3 Survey Instruments ................................................................................... 88

3.3.1 High Involvement Human Resources Practices ................................. 88

3.3.2 Ability enhancing Human Resources Practices ................................. 88

3.3.3 Motivation enhancing Human Resources Practices ........................... 89

3.3.4 Opportunity Enhancing Human Resources Practices ........................ 90

xiii

3.3.5 Supportive Work Environment .......................................................... 91

3.3.6 Psychological Empowerment ............................................................. 92

3.3.7 Innovative Work Behavior ................................................................. 92

3.4 Statistical Techniques ............................................................................... 94

3.4.1 Structural Equation Modeling ............................................................ 97

3.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 99

4. Results ........................................................................................................... 100

4.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................... 100

4.2 Evaluation of the Measurement Models ................................................. 103

4.2.1 Reliability and Convergent Validity ................................................ 103

4.2.1.1 Ability Enhancing Human Resources Practices .......................... 104

4.2.1.2 Motivation Enhancing Human Resources Practices .................... 106

4.2.1.3 Opportunity Enhancing Human Resources Practices .................. 107

4.2.1.4 Psychological Empowerment ....................................................... 108

4.2.1.5 Management Support - Supportive Work Environment .............. 110

4.2.1.6 Coworker Support - Supportive Work Environment ................... 111

4.2.1.7 Innovative Work Behavior ........................................................... 112

4.2.2 Discriminant Validity ...................................................................... 114

4.3 Structural Model Diagnostics ................................................................. 118

4.3.1 Multi-Collinearity Diagnostics ........................................................ 119

4.3.2 Unobserved Heterogeneity .............................................................. 122

4.4 Structural Model Estimation .................................................................. 124

4.5 Goodness of Fit Index ............................................................................ 128

4.6 Mediation Analysis ................................................................................ 136

xiv

4.7 Moderation Analysis .............................................................................. 140

4.8 Summary of the Chapter ......................................................................... 145

5. Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................... 149

5.1 Theoretical Contribution ......................................................................... 158

5.2 Empirical and Methodological Contribution .......................................... 162

5.3 Managerial Implications ......................................................................... 163

5.4 Research Limitations .............................................................................. 166

5.5 Future Research Implications ................................................................. 167

5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 170

6. References .................................................................................................... 173

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 194

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Operational Research Model ............................................................................. 18

Figure 2: Conceptual Model ............................................................................................. 66

Figure 3: Statistical Model ................................................................................................ 67

Figure 4: Main Effects Model - Path Coefficients and Bootstrapped t-values .............. 127

Figure 5: Interaction Effects Model Simple Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped t-values) 142

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Guidelines for Measurement Model Estimation ................................................. 95

Table 2: Guidelines for Structural Model Estimation ....................................................... 96

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 102

Table 4: Measurement Model - AbEnHR ....................................................................... 104

Table 5: Measurement Model - MoEnHR ...................................................................... 106

Table 6: Measurement Model - OpEnHR ....................................................................... 107

Table 7: Measurement Model - PsyEmp ........................................................................ 108

Table 8: Measurement Model - Management Support ................................................... 110

Table 9: Measurement Model - Coworker Support ........................................................ 112

Table 10: Measurement Model - IWB ............................................................................ 113

Table 11: Items Cross-Loadings for all Constructs ........................................................ 115

Table 12: Discriminant Validity Estimation, AVEs and Inter-correlations .................... 117

Table 13: Endogenous and Exogenous Variables ........................................................... 119

Table 14: Multi-Collinearity VIF values of the Exogenous Variables ........................... 120

Table 15: Main Effects Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped SEs and t-values) .................. 125

Table 16: Coefficient of Determination (R2) - Endogenous Variables ........................... 129

Table 17: Effect size f2 for IWB...................................................................................... 132

Table 18: Effect Size f2 for PsyEmp ............................................................................... 132

Table 19: Q2 and q2 effect size for Exogenous Variables ............................................... 134

Table 20: Total Effects with Bootstrapped SEs and t-values ......................................... 135

Table 21: Mediation Analysis (Bootstrap t-values and CIs) ........................................... 137

Table 22: Interaction Effects Model: Simple Path Coefficients (Bootstrap t-values) .... 141

Table 23: Conditional Indirect Effect of AbEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp ............... 144

Table 24: Conditional Indirect Effect of MoEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp ............... 144

Table 25: Conditional Indirect Effect of OpEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp ............... 144

Table 26: MGA- Gender and Company Origin .............................................................. 145

Table 27: Summarized Hypotheses Testing Results ....................................................... 148

Table 28: Hypotheses Testing ......................................................................................... 151

xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of Companies ..................................................................................... 194

Appendix B: Independent Samples t-test for Early vs. Late Respondents ..................... 195

Appendix C: Descriptive Statistics of Items ................................................................... 196

Appendix D: Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 199

Appendix E: Measurement Model (Loadings and bootstrapped t-values) ..................... 207

Appendix F: Interaction Effects Model: Outer loadings paths and t-values ................... 208

Appendix G: HTMT Ratio of Correlations & Confidence Intervals .............................. 209

Appendix H: FIMIX Procedure Results for unobserved Heterogeneity ......................... 210

Appendix I: 3-way Interaction through Regression ........................................................ 211

Appendix J: Interaction effect of SMG on SCW->IWB ................................................. 212

Appendix K: Indirect Conditional Effects of Exogenous Variables on IWB ................. 213

Appendix L: Predictive Accuracy (R2) and Effect size f2 for Endogenous Variables .... 214

Appendix M: Predictive Relevance (Q2) and q2 effect size for Exogenous Variables ... 215

Appendix N: Initial Model including all items and Loadings ........................................ 216

Appendix O: Summary of Measurement Models Reliability and Validity .................... 220

Appendix P: List of Publications and Referencing Style for this Thesis ........................ 222

xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AbEnHR “Ability Enhancing Human Resources Practices”

AMO “Ability-Motivation-Opportunity”

CAC Corporate Advisory Committee

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration

CMV Common Method Variance

DIFX Dubai International Financial Exchange

NRI Network Readiness Index

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

GITR Global Information Technology Report

HEC Higher Education Commission

HPWPs High Performance Work Practices

HRM HRs Management

ICT Information, Communication and Technology

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT Information Technology

IWB IWB

KSE Karachi Stock Exchange

MoEnHR Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices

NASDAQ “National Association of Securities and Dealers Automated Quotations ”

NCEAC National Computing Education Accreditation Council

OpEnHR Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices

PASHA “Pakistan Software Houses Association”

PSEB “Pakistan Software Export Board”

PsyEmp PsyEmp

R&D Research & Development

SCW Coworker Support

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

SET Social Exchange Theory

SMG Management Support

STPs Software Technology Parks

Chapter 1

Introduction

2

1. Introduction

In recent decades human capital has captured the attention of academics and practitioners

as the most important resources for firms (Harney & Jordan, 2008; Naveed & Jadoon,

2012; Nyberg, Moliterno, Hale, & Lepak, 2014; Paauwe, 2009; Rasouli, Mooghali,

Mousavi, & Rashidi, 2013; Subramony, 2009). HRs have become the epicenter of all the

activities in the firms; they have the capabilities to provide efficiency and effectiveness in

terms of optimal utilization of other resources (raw material, knowledge resources, physical

resources, capital and financial resources). Efficient and effective HRs are vital for any

organization to achieve sustainable growth (Delery & Doty, 1996; Hoque, 1999; Paauwe,

2009; Pastor et al., 2015). “Employees’ IWB is very vital, as far the efficient and effective

utilization of the resources is concerned. Purpose of this research is to examine the

mechanism through which HRs practices affect IWB of” employees, particularly the

mediating role of PsyEmp (PsyEmp) and moderating role of supportive work environment

(SWE) were assessed.

Organizations are always striving for effectiveness and efficiency of their employees to

achieve optimal results (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Purcell,

Kinnie, Hutchinson, Rayton, & Swart, 2003). For the sake of efficiency, cheap resources

are inevitable; however, in the absence of cheap resources, efficient and innovative

utilization of the available resources satisfies the desired objective of efficiency i.e.,

through enhancing the IWB of the employees (Agarwal, 2014; Lowendahl, Revang, &

Fosstenlokken, 2001; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas, 1996). The importance of HRs is evident

from the fact that organizations, not only in developed economies but also in developing

countries, are investing in proper management of HRs (Liang, Marler, & Cui, 2012). One

such investment in this regard is establishment and strengthening of dedicated HRs

management departments in organizations irrespective of the sector, business, size, or

context of the firm (Khilji, 2002; McGaughey & Cieri, 1999; Thomas, Billsberry,

Ambrosini, & Barton, 2014). HRs departments are staffed with highly qualified

professionals in the field of HRs management. The investment does not discontinue here,

3

rather it is the start of the whole process through which sophisticated policies and practices

are introduced for the optimal utilization of the HRs (i.e., employees working for the

achievement of the objectives of the organizations). These initiatives need further

investments, which the organizations are ready to bear to get expected results. Effective

management of these resources makes the organization more profitable and sustainable in

long run (Arthur, 1994; Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Kazlauskaite & Buciuniene,

2008; Lu, Zhu, & Bao, 2015). A dedicated HRs management system can help organization

achieve its objectives through optimal utilization of HRs.

The success of the HRs management depends largely on the purposeful HRs practices

implemented in the organizations, which should be aligned to the organization’s strategic

goals (Collings & Wood, 2009). Alignment of the HRM system and the incorporated

practices with predefined strategic targets of the organizations are important. It is hard to

find an agreed upon list of HRs practices, which exhaustively constitutes the successful

HRs management system (Budhwar & Debrah, 2004; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012;

Lawler, Chen, Wu, Bae, & Bai, 2010; Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2011); however,

debate on the categorization of best practices versus best fit does exist, particularly in

international HRs management literature (Boxall & MacKy, 2009; Glinow, Drost, &

Teagarden, 2002; Khilji, 2002). The purposeful integration of customized HRs practices

according to the requirements of the organizations seems to work well in some industries,

while in others a best practices approach is suitable (Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). In

addition, there is also a debate on the implementation of the HRM systems within the

organizations which considers different HRM systems for different groups and teams

working within an organizations (Krausert, 2014). According to his study, the two different

HRM systems i.e., high involvement HR system and the internal labor market system

across the three tiers of the employees, i.e., the top management, the middle management

team and the professional workers, are used to meet the end objectives of the organizations.

Krausert (2014) argued that there are different group of HRs practices systems

implemented in the organizations, which are addressing each set of the employees, based

on their involvement and importance within the organizations. However, based on the main

objective of this study, i.e., the IWB, the HRs management system which is addressing the

4

professional employees who are directly involved in the innovative work and knowledge

work are important here. A system of HRs practices, which addresses the innovative

capabilities of the employees, is developed through combination of different but relevant

HRs practices.

Organizations purposefully group together different HRs practices to predict and promote

desired behavioural outcomes in employees (Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006; Tadić

& Pivac, 2014). There are myriad of combination “of the HRs practices which are proposed

and implemented by organizations. Research on the typologies of the HRs management

practices reports that their ultimate objective is the organizational performance and

productivity, however, through the employees’ specific behavioural aspects. Jiang et al.

(2012), in a meta-analysis of previous studies, identified several typologies of HRs

practices and their association with the behavioural aspects of employees. One such HRs

system is the integration “of high involvement HRs practices. High involvement HRs

practices” are designed to enhance the involvement of employees in the organization

through various initiatives. These HRs practices are used with various organizational as

well as psychological factors to exert synergetic impact on the employees. This study is

concerned with the HRs management practices and their impact on the employees’

behaviours, specifically, the study examines the role of “high involvement HRs practices” in

predicting the IWB of employees working in software companies of Pakistan; in this

context it is a neglected area of research and warrants research study. The study also takes

PsyEmp as mediator and coworker support and management support as moderators while

examining the impact of HRs practices on the “IWB” of” employees.

5

1.1 Background of the Study

The globalization and the hyper-turbulent advancement in the organizational field has

disturbed the status quo maintained by the organizations in terms of organizational

management (Stahl et al., 2012). Similarly, software industry is no exception to this, rather

this industry is one of the most prominent industries affected by the globalization and other

advancements, and this is particularly due to the nature of the products it produces.

Software companies’ survival is subject to creative and innovative delivery of products and

services. This is partially due to the short life-cycle of the software products and the similar

activities of the competitors. Today’s innovation may soon be outdated and the resultant

product becomes obsolete; hence risks of losing competitive advantage over competitors

is always a threat to the firms. HRs, in general, are critical sources of competitive advantage

for any firm, therefore, resources are to be utilized both efficiently and effectively

(Lowendahl et al., 2001; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas, 1996; Veenendaal & Bondarouk, 2015).

Efficient and effective utilization of the HRs in knowledge intensive firms is very essential

for competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Bysted & Jespersen, 2014; Pfeffer, 1994).

It is also evident from the “Resources Based View (RBV)” of the firms (Lowendahl et al.,

2001; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas, 1996), that knowledge is considered as instrumental in

achieving competitive advantage over their competitors; and the way it is creatively

utilized in organizations in the production of novel knowledge (i.e. new product

development, both services and goods). Employees’ creativity is important for all such

organizations to become competitive with respect to their competing organizations,

particularly in those industries where their stocks of their knowledge are common (i.e., not

unique and imitable stock of knowledge (Barney, 1991; Stoffers, Neessen, & Dorp, 2015).

This common stock of knowledge is attributed to the uniform curricula for trainings and

academic qualifications provided in the educational institutions, not only within the

country but also across the borders. Software companies rely on the software engineers,

software experts, whose knowledge base is supposedly common, therefore, the latter view

of the RBV of the firms is relevant here (i.e., common stock of knowledge). In this

backdrop, this study considers instrumentality of knowledge as critical source of

6

competitive advantage for the software companies, and only creativity and innovativeness

of employees will produce innovative products.

It is inevitable for the organizations to make their employees creative to enable them to in

produce new and innovative products, (Prieto and Perez-Santana, 2014). Therefore, the

IWB of these employees is radical and absence of this behaviour is precarious. Having the

common base of knowledge for all HRs working in the software companies, the onus is on

the organizations to ensure efficient and innovative utilization of the knowledge possessed

by the employees. Organizations can foster and promote the IWB through implementation

of effective and designated HRs practices to inculcate innovativeness in employees. The

referent blend of customized HRs practices is important for such companies.

In the prevailing research, it is agreed among management researchers that customized and

target oriented HR practices are implemented across the different tiers of employees within

the organizations to get the desired results, namely, but not limited to productivity of the

employees, higher level of commitment, increased loyalty and their IWB (Boselie, Dietz,

& Boon, 2005; Katou & Budhwar, 2010; Subramony, 2009). The focus of this study is the

IWB of employees and how HRs practices predict and foster this behavioural aspect of

employee. In addition to the HRs practices, employees’ cognitive conditions and wellbeing

play major role in predicting the IWB; therefore, PsyEmp of employees is considered an

important channel. To what extent these psychologically empowerment employees exhibit

IWB depends on the contextual factors, such as the work environment? Supportive work

environment is also important factor, which may affect the creativity of the employees.

Therefore, management support and coworker support are also included in this study to

ascertain their moderating effect on the IWB of employees working in software companies

of Pakistan.

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Question(s)

Innovative behaviour of the employees is very important factor in the productivity of the

knowledge intensive companies, where only the innovative solutions and product

7

development are the sources of the competitive advantage (Athreye, 2001; Braojos-Gomez,

Benitez-Amado, and Javier Llorens-Montes, 2015). HRs management is a critical

component of the organizational performances. In the context of knowledge intensive

companies, which rely on the IWB of the employees, it becomes challenge for them to

accurately predict and promote this behavioural aspect in the employees. Several HR

practices are in place in the organizations, however, the rationale for these practices varies.

Random implementation of the HR practices would certainly increase the costs of the

organization, let alone giving any benefit to the organization. Every HRs practice is a

source of cost to the organization, if it is not aligned with the strategic targets of the

organization. In these circumstances purposeful and integrated HRs system, keeping in

view the desired outcome, may pay off in long term. Understanding about the generating

mechanism through which HRM system and certain HRM practices predict the IWB is

crucial in implementation of the whole system of HRM. The HRs management system

particularly focusing on the abilities, motivation and opportunity aspects of the employees

work domains are important (D’innocenzo, Luciano, Mathieu, Maynard, & Chen, 2016)

which could work in synergy and perhaps utilize full efficacy of the HRM system. The

HRM configuration based on the “AMO framework (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, &

Kalleberg, 2000)” may be important predictors of innovative behaviour while making the

employees more psychologically empowered. In addition, in the context of the Social

Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), it was important to assess the role of supports from

the management and the coworkers in predicting IWB. The relationship are also not

understood in the literature, whether more support from coworker helps IWB or otherwise.

Recently, Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) suggested to examine the impact of the

coworkers support and proposed that strong ties among coworkers reduces the

innovativeness of employees. They argued that number of weak ties are very important in

predicting the IWB. How these, two kinds of supports i.e., management and coworker

support interacts while affecting the innovative behaviour of psychologically empowered

employees? This study, based on this argument, aimed at exploring the generating

mechanisms through which these HR practices predict Innovative behaviour of the

knowledge based workers in the software companies of Pakistan.

8

The research questions of the study are as follows:

1. “What is the effect of HR practices on IWB of employees working in software

companies of Pakistan? ”

2. Does “PsyEmp mediate between the HRs management practices and the IWB of the

employees working in software companies of” Pakistan?

3. Does supportive work environment moderate the relationship between PsyEmp and

IWB of the employees working in the software companies of Pakistan? ”

4. “What is the conditional indirect effect of AbEnHR, MoEnHR, and OpEnHR

practices on IWB” of employees working software” companies in Pakistan through

PsyEmp on different boundary conditions of management support and coworker

support?

9

1.3. Research Objectives.

The objectives of this research study are to:

i. Analyze “the role of High Involvement HR practices using the Ability-

Motivation-Opportunity framework, in predicting the IWB of the employees”;

and to;

a. Analyze “the impact of ability enhancing HRs practices on IWB of

employees” working in software companies in Pakistan;

b. Analyze the impact of motivation - enhancing “HRs practices on IWB of


c. Analyze the impact of opportunity-enhancing “HRs practices on IWB of


ii. Analyze the mediating role of “PsyEmp” between (“ability, motivation and

opportunity-enhancing”) HRs practices and employees’ IWB in software

companies in Pakistan;

iii. Analyze the moderating role of supportive work environment (i.e., “management

support and co-workers support”) between PsyEmp and IWB of the employees

working in software companies in Pakistan.

iv. Analyze the conditional indirect effect of “ability - enhancing HR practices,

motivation - enhancing HR practices and opportunity - enhancing HR practices”

on the IWB of employees through PsyEmp on different boundary conditions of

management support and coworker support.

10

1.4 Significance of the Study

IWB is one of the major sources of competitive advantage for any organization

(Veenendaal & Bondarouk, 2015), regardless of industry. These competitive advantages

are gained through the relevant behaviours of the employees. Organizations are striving to

inculcate the innovative behaviour in the employees. Theories are abound, which suggests

the contextual factors and organizational practices to enhance the IWB of employees. In

the context of HRs management, “Ability-Motivation-Opportunity, (AMO) framework

(Appelbaum et. al., 2000)” is the relevant framework, which is widely used to predict

requisite behaviour in employees, i.e., innovative behaviour. HRM practices are classified

in the context of AMO framework (i.e., ability - enhancing, motivation - enhancing, and

opportunity - enhancing HRs practices). According to the Social Cognition Theory (SCT)

(Bandura, 2001), human behaviour is the result of personal factors and the environmental

factors. In personal factors, the cognitive processes are important, while in the

environmental factors, the practices employed by organization are important. The

interaction between these three factors is the main argument of the social cognitive theory.

In this study, the moderation effects of the management support and coworker support are

assessed in explaining the association between the cognitive processes i.e., “(PsyEmps) and

the IWB”.

In the contexts of AMO and social cognitive theories, this study examined the impact of

the designated HRs practices categorized as high involvement HRs practices (Lepak et al.,

2006; Sun et al., 2007) (i.e., ability-enhancing, opportunity-enhancing and motivation-

enhancing HRs practices) on the IWB of the employees through PsyEmp of the employees

as mediators, and the conditions under which the impact of HRM on IWB is higher or

otherwise i.e., supportive work environment (Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013).

Management supports and coworker supports are important contextual factors which are

considered in this study to see their moderating impact on “relationship between “PsyEmp

level and the innovative work” behaviour.

According to Paauwe (2009), Ability-Motivation-Opportunity framework is instructive of

the tool which describes and explains the effects of HRM on “employees’ “performance

11

(e.g., see Bartel, 2004; Harney & Jordan, 2008). This ability-motivation-opportunity

(AMO) framework is also validated and examined through empirical investigations

regarding its role in the HRs management and performance relationships (Appelbaum et

al., 2000; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Subramony, 2009). It is also argued that employees

perform efficiently” when they” perceive themselves as competent for their jobs (i.e., they

have the required and desired skills and abilities to perform his tasks), he is provided

incentives to do his jobs (i.e., his motivation level is increased to do his job) and finally,

they are given sufficient exposure and provided sufficient opportunities for completion of

their assigned tasks for which they have the required skills and abilities. Boselie (2010)

further argued that customized HRs practices are required to address these aspects related

to ““ability, motivation and opportunity” (AMO)” of employees. The relevant HR practices

are termed as ability - enhancing, motivation - enhancing and opportunity - enhancing HRs

practices, respectively.

Knowledge intensive firms focus on targeted HRs practices that increase the employee’s

abilities and motivation level to make them innovative. It is not uncommon in such firms

that employees apply their knowledge in novel ways to produce novel and innovative

products. This suggests that the main sources of knowledge creation, inter-alia, are the

human resources of that organization (Chandler, Keller, & Lyon, 2000; Vanhala & Ritala,

2016). Organizations need to ensure efficient and productive use of their employees.

Through continuous development of the employees’ skills, coupled with the provision of

sufficient opportunities to perform and apply their skills and knowledge could enable them

to perform innovatively (Bartel, 2004; Harney & Jordan, 2008). These objectives require

integration of different customized HRs practices to create their synergetic impact on the

behavioural aspects of employees. One of the most important and frequently used

theoretical frameworks is the ability-motivation-opportunity framework (Jiang, Lepak, Hu,

& Baer, 2012). Application of ““AMO framework” to define the HRM system is in vogue in

academic” management researchers (Boxall & MacKy, 2009; Katou & Budhwar, 2010;

Paauwe, 2009; Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2011).

12

The software industry of Pakistan is in growing stage and started winning national as well

as international awards and certifications including ISO certification, CMMI certification

and other international certifications. On average software companies spent 45% of their

total expenditure on product development, 7% on research and development and 5 % on

the training of the employees (PSEB, 2010). The software developers constitute more than

50% of the total workforce of the industry; however, the remaining collectively comprise

top management, business development, project managers and customer service agents

including other non-IT professionals. Considering this high proportion of the software

developers, the study focused on the HRs practices which emphasize mechanism through

which the IWB of this workforce is enhanced for the benefit of the companies’

productivity. The study is helpful in identifying the management practices, which are

beneficial for the software companies to increase their innovativeness and creativity in their

new product development. The coworker support is one of the important predictors of the

innovative behaviour, and its role is confusing as far the new idea generations is concerned

(Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Their proposition is that strong ties among the coworkers

may inhibit innovativeness, while support from management may increase the

innovativeness. Therefore, it is important to study coworker and management support in

explaining the role of PsyEmp on IWB.

1.5 Research Gap

Several theories are abound in management research which are instructive in integration of

human resources practices in achieving individual behavioural outcomes and

organizational goals. For example, there are some theories which are operational at

organizational level (e.g., Resources-based theory and contingency theory), while other at

individual level (e.g., Ability-Motivation-Opportunity [AMO] framework). Research

studies are abound which considered both the perspectives in studying the association

between HRs practices and the organizational performance indicators (Jiang et al., 2013).

However, Jiang et al., (2013) stressed the need to study the AMO framework to explain the

mechanism through which HRs practices affect performance and behavioural outcomes at

the individual level analysis. In addition, the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001)

suggests that there is interaction between three factors behaviours, personal factors and

13

the environmental factors. Drawing on this theory, PsyEmp is included in this study as

mediator in the “HRs management and IWB” relationship. Furthermore, it was also argued

that the strong ties between the coworker may inhibit the innovative behaviour of

employees (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), this proposition warrants a study to examine

moderating effect of the coworker support in the context of social cognitive theory. They

further argued that the support from external source i.e., management may reduce the ties

between the coworkers which could be helpful in increasing the innovative behaviour. This

confusing and paradoxical proposition in the relationship between the HRs management,

PsyEmp and IWB in the presence of coworker support and management support warrants

further research.

In addition, “in a recent study conducted by (Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014) these HRs

practices are analyzed as antecedents of employees behaviours, they put forth implication

for future research regarding studying the impact of the HRs practices on the “IWB” of the

employees by including some other organizational variables, which could further clarify

the relationship between the HRs practices and their impact on the IWB. Therefore,

considering this research gap, this study considers the AMO framework for analyzing the

impact of High Involvement HRs practices “(ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing and

opportunity-enhancing HRs practices) on the IWB” of the employees’ work behaviour

through PsyEmp” on boundary conditions of management support and coworker support.

Several studies have examined the impact of high performance work practices on the firms

performance, including productivity and innovation (Bartram et al., 2014; Boxall &

MacKy, 2009; Guerrero & Barraud-didier, 2004). Particularly, studies are conducted in

western countries to investigate the impact of HRs management practices on the innovative

behaviour of employees (Athreye, 2001; De Jong, 2007; de Jong & den Hartog, 2010;

Deshmukh, 2014; Janssen, 2003; Laursen & Foss, 2003; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Shipton,

West, Dawson, Birdi, & Patterson, 2006; Subramanian & Youndt, 2005). However, there

is scant research in other parts of the world including in Pakistan, particularly in the context

of high performance work practices systems (Ahmad & Allen, 2015).

14

The prominent cultural differences between the Western part and the Eastern parts of the

world (Hofstede, 1993; Liang et al., 2012) warrants research studies to examine the

implications of these research models and HRs management systems in Pakistan which are

primarily developed by and for the Western parts of the world and extensively tested in the

western parts of the world (Ahmad & Allen, 2015; Hashim, 2010). Pakistan is

characterized as having more collectivism orientation, high power distance, high

uncertainty avoidance, and patriarchal norms (Ali, 2013; Hofstede, 1993). The first two

characteristics are important for this study. These characteristics make Pakistan an

important country where the research models primarily developed for the cultural societies

characterized by individualism and low power distance (Hofstede, 1993), therefore make

Pakistan very different to many western countries. These national cultural values and

characteristics are reflected in the organizational cultures and are important premises for

development and implementation of management practices, most importantly the HRs

management. Prominent of all the management practices in Pakistan as a result of these

national cultural values, are the centralization, strict formalization, less autonomy, and lack

of equal opportunities (Ali, 2013; Islam, 2004; Khilji, 2002). All these management

practices and cultural differences have their own consequential effects on HRs

management i.e., employees are likely to get less support from their group members and

immediate supervisors, which is mainly caused by the hierarchical structure of the

organizations influenced by high power distance. Alternatively, management may extend

extra support to a specific employee or group of employees as a result of any political

returns (Ali, 2013). Nevertheless, high involvement HRs practices i.e., flexible work

design, employee participation in decision making, and training opportunities, have their

positive impact on the attitudes and behaviour of the employees (Katou & Budhwar, 2010).

Several studies are conducted to study the dynamics of the software industry from

environmental analysis to the management practices to HRs practices in the software

companies in Asian countries like India (Agarwal, Khatri, & Sirinavasan, 2012; Bajpai &

Shastri, 1998; Heeks & Nicholson, 2002), Iran (Nicholson & Sahay, 2003), Sri Lanka &

Korea (Barr & Tessler, 2002), Japan (Rapp, 1996). This industry in in growing stage and

research has started appearing in the context of the management practices to increase the

15

productivity of the industry. Studies are conducted to develop some frameworks for policy

makers drawing on these studies (e.g., Heeks & Nicholson, 2002); some developed general

models for the software companies to assessing the factors of competitiveness of the

software and IT industries and categorized companies on the bases of their market i.e.,

local or foreign and their production i.e., service or delivery, hence making a 2x2 matrix

(Heeks, 1999). In a similar attempt researchers categorized different countries and

observed that India and Japan are radically lagging behind America in software operations

viz-a-viz the innovative and creative production (Cusumano et al., 2003). Still, a lot of

research is warranted in this geographical context. However, in general, the software

industry is under researched in Pakistan, in particular it was termed as ‘uncharted territory’

regarding its structure, management practices and other industrial dynamics (PSEB, 2010),

which warrants more research in this industry, particularly in the HRM and IWB linkages.

16

1.6 Contribution of the Study

This “study contributes to the body of knowledge in following ways: First, the study

contributes to the “AMO framework in the context of HRs management (Appelbaum et al.,

2000) in assessing its association with the innovative behaviour of the employees. The role

of ability - enhancing HRs practices; motivation - enhancing HRs practices; and

opportunity - enhancing HRs practices” was assessed in predicting the innovative behaviour

through PsyEmp. The study contributes to the HRM and IWB literature by empirically

demonstrating that PsyEmp mediates between HRM and IWB and transfers the impact of

only ability enhancing and opportunity enhancing HRs practices. However, for the

motivation enhancing HRs practices, the PsyEmp is not important factor in predicting the

IWB”. This result is interesting to be interpreted in the context of organization, i.e., positive

cognitive process do not translate the effect of motivation – “enhancing HRs practices to

innovative work” behaviour, rather they are directly effective tools, or perhaps they may be

working through some other mechanism, for example intrinsic motivation etc.

Second, this study also contributes to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001). The study

included PsyEmp to explain the relationship between HRM and IWB in the context of

social cognitive processes, which suggests that individuals develop their cognitive

processes to analyze the environment and respond accordingly. These results are in

conformity with the previous results which demonstrated that PsyEmp has positive impact

on the employees engagement in the organization, thereby putting extra efforts and

exhibiting IWB (Jose & Mampilly, 2012). According to the social cognitive theory, the

behaviour is directly predicted by intrapersonal cognitive and motivational processes

which are substantially affected by the external factors i.e., HRs management practices, in

this study, the link from cognitive processes to the behaviour was further assessed in the

presence of contextual factors. These contextual factors are taken in the form of

management support and coworker support. Furthermore, the assessment of conditional

indirect effects of coworker support and management support on the PsyEmp and IWB

relationship moves forward the propositions of a recent study (Perry-Smith & Mannucci,

17

2017). The results suggest that employees are more innovative when they get less support

from coworkers and high support from management, substantiating the proposition that

employees having strong ties with coworkers may reduce their innovativeness, when they

have strong ties with their supervisors, thereby considering supervisors as important social

actors as compared to the coworkers in the context of organization, hence contributing to

the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) in understanding the interplay between different

social actors operational in the context of principle of reciprocation in social exchanges.

Third, management support and coworker support are also important constructs in the

context of Pakistan, which is characterized as high on the cultural dimensions of power

distance and collectivism (Hofstede, 1993). Therefore, the study has also contributed to the

detailed understanding of the interplay between the management support and coworker

support. The results show that employees exhibit high level of IWB; when they have high

level of management support and low level of coworker support. These results advances

the body of knowledge through understanding the interplay between management support

and coworker support. These results further suggest mutually exclusiveness of the

management support and coworker, which may be according to the national culture as well

as organizational culture in the context of Pakistan. The organizational structure is more

centralized (due to high power distance), formalized rules and regulations and group based

incentives.

18

“To achieve the objectives of the study, operational research model is developed, which is

estimated to test the hypotheses of the study. The operational research model is provided

below in Figure-1. The model examine the mediating role of PsyEmp between “ability -

enhancing HR practices, motivation - enhancing HR practices, opportunity - enhancing HR

practices and the IWB.” In addition, the moderating role of management support and

coworker support between PsyEmp and innovative work” behaviour is also examined.

Figure 1: Operational Research Model

Researcher’s own processing of the model. “The research model is provided above. Where in this figure, Ability -

Enhancing HRs practices, Motivation - Enhancing HRs practices, and Opportunity - Enhancing HRs practices are

independent variables, PsyEmp is the mediating Variable, which mediates the impact of HRs practices on the IWB. The

Management Support and Coworker Support are moderating variables. Innovative Work Behaviour of the employees

is the dependent variable. For the ease of the reader, the operational research model is reproduced here for clear picture

of what follows in the thesis.”

The thesis structure is provided in the next section, which outlines the contents and the

topics covered in each chapter of the study.

19

1.7 Thesis Structure

The first chapter highlighted the background of the study and introduced the topic,

elaborated the problem statement of the study and explained the significance of the study.

Research questions and research objectives are enlisted, significance of the study was

highlighted. Finally, research gap was identified and the contribution of the study is

provided in the first chapter.

The second chapter defined the core concepts of the study starting with the “High -

Involvement HRs practices in the context of” the AMO framework. The PsyEmp,

management support and the coworker support are explained and their inter-relationships

are highlighted and elaborated in the light of the prior research. IWB is also defined and its

relationship with other variables of the study is elaborated. This chapter also contains

overview of the literature and has critically analyzed the current literature on the topic of

the study and elaborated the theoretical framework with schematic diagram of the research

model; hypotheses are developed and provided in this chapter. In addition, theoretical

reflections are provided in this chapter, which highlighted the importance of the AMO

framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000) and the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001) in

explaining the model of the study.

The detailed research methodology of the study is provided in third chapter with an

overview of the analytical tools and relevant guidelines adopted for the estimation of the

model. Details about the research paradigm is provided in this chapter. In this study,

positivist approach is used to conduct the research. Detailed overview of the industry

selected for this study is provided in this Chapter. Characteristics of the population and the

respondents along with the data collection method and procedure are also provided in this

chapter. Some preliminary data refinement and data screening is conducted and details are

provided. In addition, survey instruments of all the variables of the study and their details

are provided in this chapter. A brief overview of the statistical techniques such as structural

equation modeling which is used in this study is also provided to finish the chapter.

20

Fourth chapter provides the results of the statistical analyses of the measurement model

and structural equation modeling. Sequentially, descriptive statistics are provided as a first

step, the measurement models are evaluated second, then reliability and validity analysis

results are provided. Some necessary structural model diagnostics are performed and their

results are provided. Results of the mediation, and moderation analyses are provided after

the estimation of the structural model and goodness of model fit. The summarized results

are provided in the end of this chapter.

Finally, in chapter five, the results are discussed in the light of literature; hypotheses testing

results are provided in a table, which is followed by the theoretical implications.

Managerial implications based on results of the study are also provided in this Chapter.

Some important research limitations are highlighted and based on these limitation some

future research directions are provided for the future research. Appendices are provided at

the end of the thesis, which includes the questionnaire used in this study for the data

collection, the descriptive statistics of the items of each measure and other supplementary

statistical analysis’ results are provided.

21

2. Literature Review

The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of “high involvement HRs practices

on the “IWB” of employees” through a mediator i.e., PsyEmp, and moderators i.e.

management support and coworker support in the software companies in Pakistan. This

chapter highlights previous researches conducted in the perspectives of the HRs

management and its role in predicting the employees’ behaviours, for example, the IWB.

Particularly, the role of “high - involvement HRs practices” with the performance of the

employees. Ability-Motivation-Opportunity framework is used in this study to examine the

impact of ““high - involvement HRs practices”,” therefore, the perspective of the “ability

motivation and opportunity framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000)” is also discussed. How

the concepts of PsyEmp and supportive work environment (management support and

coworker support) are assessed and studied by previous researches and the roles they have

played in translating the impact of the HRs practices in predicting the IWB of the

employees is also discussed. Furthermore, literature from the Asian context, though very

few studies exist, is also discussed; while more studies from the western parts of the world

are included to understand the relationship between HRM practices and “IWB,” particularly,

in the knowledge intensive firms.

The organization of the literature, included in this chapter, is such that the important

concepts, included in this study, are defined in the context of previous researches, which is

followed by inclusion of the empirical evidences regarding the relational aspects of these

concepts. More precisely, the first section outlines the combination of several HRs

practices which are bundled differently keeping in view the strategic objectives of the

organizations. Instead of discussing individual HRs practice, this section draws on the

literature related to system-like approach for the HRs practices. The second section of the

literature review highlights and integrates empirical studies conducted to analyze the

relationship between “high involvement HRs practices, PsyEmp, the supportive work

environment and IWB.” It further explains the mechanism through which these HRs

practices capitalize on the AMO framework (ability-motivation-opportunity framework)

to predict PsyEmp. Importance of the AMO framework is also highlighted in this section.

22

Finally, the synthesis of literature review culminated in the development of hypotheses of

the study.

2.1 Concepts & Definitions

High – invo1vement HRs practices comprise six different HRs practices, which focused

on employees’ involvement in the organization to make them more capable, motivated and

autonomous in carrying out their routine job activities. These HRs practices are; “rigorous

system of selection, training, performance based compensation system, feedback oriented

performance appraisal system, flexible job design and increased employees’ participation

in decision making” (Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Subramony, 2009;

Sun et al., 2007). Researches are diverse in terms of inclusion of the HRs practices either

as individual practice in isolation or integrated as a bundle of different HRs practices. It is

also argued that the impact of HRs practices in a bundle would have synergetic impact on

the organizational performance as well as on the individual performance (Guerrero &

Barraud-didier, 2004). The integrated HRs practices are referred to HRs systems, which

may be in the form of any of several combinations of HRs practices related to selection of

employees, their training, performance management, performance appraisal, rewards

system, compensation management, employees participation, job design or career

management (Abstein et al., 2014; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009). While arguing the

importance of HRs management for the organizational performance (Huselid, 1995), the

underlying factors which make the organizations more productive need to be examined and

for that matter a causal links between the HRs management, the underlying factors and the

organizational outcomes are important. These underlying factors are employees’ attitudinal

aspects as well as behavioural outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013).

The bundle of HRs practices is preferred over individual HRs practice, reason being one

practice while having an interaction effect on employees may offset the draw drawbacks

of other HRs practices. This synergistic implementation of HRs practices in groups is the

main idea behind development of high performance work systems, such as High

Invo1vement HRs practices (Boxall & MacKy, 2009). Adoption of “high involvement HRs

23

practices” in bundle form are attributed to the size of the company, age of the company, the

competitive advantage, culture and other factors both internal as well as external factors

(Ordiz-fuertes, & Fernández-sánchez, 2003; Wood, Veldhoven, Van, Croon, & Menezes,

2012). However, the study is limited to the consequences of the high invo1vement HRs

practices and the antecedents are not the objective of this study.

2.1.1 High Involvement HRs Practices – AMO Framework

The “HRs practices included in this research are categorized as high-involvement HRs

practices “(Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Subramony, 2009; Sun et al.,

2007). According to Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014) high involvement HRs practices”

increase the motivational level of the emp1oyees, which increase their innovative

behaviour,. In the context of AMO framework, there are three further sub-categories of

these HRs practices namely”: “ability - enhancing, motivation - enhancing and opportunity

- enhancing HRs practices.” Each sub-category is explained in relevant section below.

24

2.1.1.1 Ability Enhancing HRs Practices

Ability enhancing HRs practices are used either for buying or enhancing, and developing

the requisite skills and capacities of the employees “(Cascio, 1991; Flamholtz & Lacey,

1981; Jiang et al., 2012).” In the former, the selection is more relevant, while for the later,

training programs are important. These two HRs practices are defined and elaborated in

the following sections.

2.1.1.1.1 Selection

Selection is more relevant to new recruits in the organization, as the way they are assessed

through the selection process leaves a lasting impressions and is the source of developing

the perception about the organization. However, selection of new employees is a very

critical role the HRs management departments carry out but the consequences of a wrong

selection are manifold. Ranging from extensive training programs to managing the

diversity and establishing compatibility of the new entrants not only with the organizational

setup but also with the other members of the organization (Black, Noel, & Wang, 1999;

Shah et al., 2012). The list goes on and further includes the lower productivity of the

employee and increased level of turnover intentions. Therefore, the selection of new

employees should be based on carefully crafted mechanism, which is aligned with the goals

and objectives of the organization. Careful selection further warrants the clear description

of the job tasks and requisite skills and attitude required for the completion of these tasks.

The selection should be based objectively on these criteria rather than the subjectivity and

discretion of the decision makers i.e., some screening and testing mechanism are to be

introduced which objectively examine the requisite skills and capabilities required for a

particular job (Korzilius, Bücker, & Beerlage, 2017; Newell, 2005).

Research studies are abound which demonstrate selection as important HRs practices and

their role in defining the organizational and individual level performance. For example,

studies estimated the investment in the recruitment and selection processes as one of the

important predictors of the labor productivity (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2017; Koch &

McGrath, 1996) and demonstrated a positive and significant association between the

25

sophisticated selection methods and the employees productivity. The sophistication of

selection methods means systematic planning of the selection method with identification

of the resources gaps in the organization according to the objectives and nature of the roles

and the relevant skills requirements. Another study conducted to assess the role of the

selection in predicting the employees performance (Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2011)

demonstrated significant positive causal link between selection methods and employees

performance.

Selection process starts when the potential candidates show their interest in the company

and formally apply for certain jobs, which are followed by different types of assessment

mechanism to ensure induction of appropriate candidates. The bundle of HRs practices

comes into play at this very stage, where companies start recruitment of new employees.

The recruitment is different from selection in that the former is related to ‘attracting’ the

prospect employees (Newell, 2005). The only source of attraction for the prospect workers

is what the organization offers them. All offerings of the organization are solely the

functions of the HRs management hence become part of the HRs practices. Therefore,

integration of the HRs practices and communication of these HRs practices to the relevant

stakeholders is important (Kufidou, 2001; Vanhala & Ritala, 2016).

2.1.1.1.2 Training

An alternate to buying new skills is developing existing human capital. “Organizations

introduce training programs which are designed to enhance the skills of the existing

employees or new incumbents” (Cascio, 1991; Flamholtz & Lacey, 1981). Provision of

training opportunities is also a pre-requisite “for employees to perform the tasks assigned to

them”. Since employees are new to the organization and have no ideas about various

processes and working conditions of the organization, they often need first hand trainings

and orientation programs in order to become capable of performing the tasks (Black et al.,

1999). Training is also considered to be a part of the high involvement HRs practices

system as this reflects the ownership of the organization and its commitment to treat its

employees favorably. The objectives of the training programs are two fold; first,

26

organizations inculcate and enhance the requisite skills in the employees, and second,

giving employees a sense of being owned by the organization. Employees perceive training

programs as favorable treatment from the organization as they also enrich their skills base

and have more opportunities to excel in their field of operations both internally within the

organization as well as externally with other competing workforce (Bloom, Genakos,

Sadun, & Reenen, 2012). Training programs are also welcomed by the employees working

in knowledge intensive companies as they are also concerned about their survival in the

hyper turbulent and changing global markets, particularly the knowledge workers whose

survival is largely linked with their continuous learning (Coget, 2011; F. M Horwitz &

Heng, 2003; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2001).

Knowledge workers are keen to learn new skills and knowledge, in order to be competitive

in the industry (Agarwal et al., 2012). Their survival is ensured only through their

continuous learning, as argued by Agarwal et al., (2012), knowledge workers like to take

on the projects, which could create new avenues of learning for them, besides giving them

opportunities to use their existing knowledge, they capitalize on the opportunity and learn

new skills and knowledge. In these circumstances, the new job ventures, training

opportunities, job rotation and other such arrangement by the organizations are very fruitful

for such knowledge workers. Due to the attractive benefits offered by the high-tech

companies, and IT related companies, software engineers and other qualified workforce is

attracted towards this industry, however, in a western country, the figures are surprisingly

at lowest level i.e., quarter of the total workforce in Canada (Warhurst, 2006). These

workforces are having high level of analytical and technical skills, besides the learning

capabilities (Agarwal, 2012).

Empirical evidence shows a causal link between the training program and the productivity

of the employees (Bartel, 2004; Shuck & Reio, 2014). However, the link is strong in the

knowledge intensive companies, where the training programs are the only sources in the

organizational settings through which knowledge and skills of the employees are enhanced.

These new skills are subsequently used in production of the new products where innovative

products are valued in the product market. There is a significant association between the

27

training program and the performance of the employees, particularly when the training is

supplemented with other HRs practices in an embedded system, such as compensation and

proper feedback (Arthur, 1994; Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2011). The HRs

management at strategic level is also the positive predictor of the innovative performance

of the employees and the innovative capabilities of the organizations as a whole, which

give the later competitive advantage over their competitors (Aryanto, Fontana, & Afiff,

2015). Not only the strategic level implementation of these designated and customized HRs

practices, but also its alignment with the core objectives of the innovation within the

organizations is also very important in order to achieve the objectives of the innovativeness

(Horwitz, Heng, & Quazi, 2003).

28

2.1.1.2 Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices

“Motivation – “enhancing HRs” practices” include compensation contingent on performance

and performance appraisal systems of the organization “(Jiang et al., 2012; Prieto & Perez-

Santana, 2014).” Each of these HRs practice is elaborated below.

2.1.1.2.1 Compensation Contingent on Performance

The next HRs practice included in this HRs system is compensation contingent on

performance. Organizational success, to some extent, depends on implementation of an

appropriate and effective compensation system (Bartol, 1999; Veenendaal & Bondarouk,

2015). Compensation system is the integral part of any HRs management system, as it is

the only factor which is valued most by the employees (Chen, Kraemer, & Gathii, 2011).

The rationale of the compensation system, however, varies across the companies depending

upon the performance measures. Companies emphasizing teamwork and other group based

task achievements mainly offer team based compensation packages besides individualistic

packages. However, individual-level target oriented organizations design competitive

compensation packages, where employees compete with others and striving to achieve

their targets (Bartol, 1999; Desai, 2013). The extent of the interdependence of the

employees on each other, as already envisaged by the organizations is the basis for

compensation system either as individual based competitive compensation system or group

based compensation system (Festing, 2012). Companies emphasizing on the team based

performance should realize the importance of the team based compensation systems.

Mismatch between the actual job design and the rewarding mechanism would be drastic

for the organization. For example, a company wants the employees to work in teams and

targets are assigned to the teams without further delegation of the work at individual level

and its compensation system encourages only individual level performance, then every

member of the team would work independently and would be in direct competition with

other team members. Empirical research shows a positive significant impact of the

compensation system on the performance of the employees (Delaney & Huselid, 1996).

Other studies are also supporting the positive association between the competitive

compensation system and the productivity of the employees regardless of their work

29

domain (Chen et al., 2011; Delery & Doty, 1996). In this backdrop, performance appraisal

is very important practice to keep the employees motivated.

2.1.1.2.2 Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal is one component of the whole performance management system

which is meant to assess the achievements of employees against the assigned targets. The

performance management, as a whole, incorporates a range of activities which are carried

out to facilitate the performance of the employees with the core objective of enhancing

organizational performance. Appraisal is incomplete without sharing the outcome of the

assessment with the employees and the subsequent treatment with the employees in the

form of proper compensation system (Kennedy, 1995; M. S. Malik & Aslam, 2013). This

is the relevant mechanism to identify the skills gap among the employees and to identify

the training programs for inculcation of these deficient skills. There is a radical

improvement in this aspect of the HRs management system; as earlier year-end process to

measure the performance of employee has now been replaced with the quarter or even

monthly basis continuous system of performance appraisal. The new system of

performance management and appraisal is technical and complicated process which

enables both the employees and the supervisors to interact with each other in terms of the

targeted and achieved objectives (Decramer, Smolders, Vanderstraeten, & Christiaens,

2012; Moynihan, 2005). The 360 degree evaluation of the employee performance has

enabled all the stakeholders to assess the performance of the employees according to their

involved participation in the system of appraisal. This enriched form of evaluation allows

the important stakeholders to put forth their suggestions in order to improve the

productivity of the organization through alignment of the individual performance standards

with that of the organizational objectives (Blok & Paauwe, 2005; Paauwe, Wright, &

Guest, 2012; Sui & Wang, 2013). There are evidences that the performance appraisal

systems which are based on the result-oriented measures are associated both with the

organizational performance (Delery & Doty, 1996) and the individual level performance

(den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, 2004).

30

2.1.1.3 Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices

Opportunity “enhancing HRs practices” include job design and employee participation

“(Jiang et al., 2012; Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Sun et al., 2007).”

Each of these HRs practices is elaborated below.

2.1.1.3.1 Employees’ participation

Employees’ participation is one of the essential and important HRs practices included in

the HRs system (Kim & Sung-Choon, 2013). Employees are involved in the decision

making processes at various stages of the organizations to give their due impact in the

important aspects of the organizational operations (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2008). In

particular, if employees are involved in the decision making process and are given more

opportunities in such activities, they are more psychologically empowered. Employees are

more comfortable and feel secured when they are given opportunities to say their words in

the management’s decision making meetings. This gives them a sense of ownership of the

business with their participation in decision making process as the rationale behind all the

decisions are shared with the employees. Clear understanding of the rationale and the basis

for various decisions enable them to give informed consent on various decisions of the

company (Batt, 2002; Kizilos, Cummings, & Cummings, 2013).

Employees’ participation is an important and necessary element of the high involvement

HRs practices (Lawler et al., 2010; Ordiz-fuertes & Fernández-sánchez, 2003). However,

in the context of Pakistan there is less likely that the employees are given more autonomy

and participation considering the national culture, where the power distance is very high as

compared to the western countries (Hofstede, 1993; Islam, 2004). However, in recent

studies conducted in Pakistan, there are evidences that organizations adopted the HRs

practices which are implemented in multinational companies (Ahmad & Allen, 2015). The

industries included in that study were pharmaceutical, banking and IT sector. The diffusion

of the HRs practices in the local companies of Pakistan which are results of adoption of

HRs management practices from the West based multinational companies operating in

Pakistan. However, the companies operating in Pakistan usually employ hierarchical

31

structures which is the reflection of the high distance culture of the region (Hofstede, 1993;

Khilji, 2002). Previous research shows that employee participation has a positive

association with the employee performance (Katou & Budhwar, 2010). However, the

impact of enhanced employees participation as part of the HRs system is also examined in

the previous researches, particularly, its impact on the organizational performance

(Abstein et al., 2014; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Huselid, 1995). According to a study,

conducted by Datta, Guthrie, & Wright (2005) to investigate the impact of high

performance work system that incorporates employees participation as one of the HRs

practices, this practice is positively associated with the employees’ productivity.

2.1.1.3.2 Job Design

Job design is a pivotal and effective tool an organization can employ to motivate and

encourage employees to perform their tasks more efficiently. Employees who have more

autonomy have been associated with greater discretionary efforts (Sun et al., 2007). This

is one of the cost efficient ways to motivate employees, as the concern of the employees

regarding work family balance is taken care of by the management, while designing

working conditions. A good Job design includes more autonomy given to the employees at

workplace (Pastor et al., 2015; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000), which are useful tools to

enhance creativity and IWB of employees. Research demonstrated that job design has a

positive association with the employees behaviours i.e., it positively affects intrinsic

motivation of employees which leads to creative performance by the employees (Amabile

et. al, 1996; De Spiegelaere et. al, 2016; Shalley et al., 2000). According to Jiang et al.,

(2012) The specific arrangements for the job designs include all such arrangements made

by the organizations through which they enhance the exposure of the new as well the

experienced employees within the departments as well as across different departments.

Effective and flexible job designs give employees sufficient opportunities and exposure in

the organizations when they are assigned to different roles and levels within their jobs. “Job

design also includes regular rotation of the employees to different tasks and departments

and provision of flexible work environment to increase their mutual learning and

collaboration among employees (Jiang et al., 2012).” PsyEmp as a predictor of “IWB of the

32

employees” in the context of knowledge intensive companies is studied in several studies

for example, (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Pieterse et. al, 2010; Sun et. al, 2012). Since

job design can enhance the PsyEmp level of employees, it is considered important for this

study. Job design is one of the important antecedents of the PsyEmp and IWB, it was

considered in this study, as part of the opportunity enhancing HRs practices.

2.1.2 PsyEmp

“Conger & Kanungo (1988), defined the PsyEmp of individuals as psychological in nature

and termed it as motivational aspect of his confidence in his competence. “According to

Thomas & Velthouse (1990)”” PsyEmp level of employees is gauged by four similar

cognitive dimensions, which enable the individuals to perceive their work. Drawing on the

researches of “Conger & Kanungo (1988) and Thomas & Velthouse, (1990), four

dimensions of the PsyEmp were more refined and validated by Spreitzer (1995).” PsyEmp

is the combination of a set of cognition and psychological states which are important

indicators of the feeling of an employee about his control over his work. In addition to the

sense of control, the overall involvement of employees in his role is determined by the

PsyEmp (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011; Spreitzer, 1995). Conger and Kanungo

(1988) pioneered to relate the empowerment with the motivation of the employees and

defined it as the process through which the employees sense high level of self-confidence.

Employers identify the factors which are resulting in powerlessness among the employees,

and subsequently by removal of these hindrances through formal HRs practices. Adding to

this concept, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) emphasized on the importance of the intrinsic

motivation for performance of the tasks assigned to the employees.

This intrinsic motivation of the employees regarding the task performance is manifested in

four different cognitions namely; meaning, competence, self-determination, and the

impact (Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012b; Spreitzer, 1995). The ‘Meaning’ dimension of the

PsyEmp is defined as the value an employee give to his job, and compares it with his own

standards and ideals about that job (Sangar & Rangnekar, 2014; Marc Siegall & Gardner,

33

2000; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Competence is the second dimension of PsyEmp,

which is feeling an individual about his confidence in competencies (Joo & Shim, 2010;

Siegall & Gardner, 2000). To distinguish it from the ability dimension of AMO framework,

it is argued that the ability dimension in this context is the actual practices undertaken in

the organization, while the ‘competence’ dimension of the PsyEmp is purely cognitive in

nature, which is the employee’s own feeling about his competence. Self-determination is

the third dimension of PsyEmp which determines the level of autonomy/discretion an

individual has while performing his tasks, i.e., feeling and actual practices of having

discretionary choices in performing while deciding independently, initiating without any

restriction and regulating his work (Battistelli, Montani, & Odoardi, 2013; Deci, Connell,

& Ryan, 1989; L. Lu, Lin, & Leung, 2012). Impact refers to the extent to which the

individuals can influence different important organizational outcomes (i.e., strategic and

operational decisions), through his input (Ouyang, Zhou, & Qu, 2015; Siegall & Gardner,

2000). PsyEmp increases individual’s proactive role and active orientation and decreases

the passive orientation about the way he is doing his tasks in organization. "Active

orientation here refers to the sense of autonomy and competence which enables him to

define and shape his work (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Jose, Rupert, & Ma, 2015;

Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995) suggested that the construct

of PsyEmp cannot be measured simply as a dichotomous variable (i.e empowered or not

empowered);” rather it is advisable to measure this construct as a continuous variable on a

continuum determined by the researcher i.e., from less empowered to more empowered,

and can be measured uni-dimensionally.

2.1.3 Supportive Work Environment

The work environment is perceived by all the employees either as positive and supportive

or as negative and hindering in achievement of their assigned goals. There is a different

perspective about the work environment from an employee’s point of view, when he

perceives any disparity between what is promised by the organization and what he actually

experiences. No matter what the perspective i.e., perceived or the experienced one, the

success lies in the prevalence of supportive work environment. Supportive work

34

environment is a holistic situation which covers multi-faceted supports from the

organizational environment, however, in this study the term is defined as the extent to

which employees perceive that the management cares about them favorably i.e., the

management support directly received from the immediate supervisors and the support they

receive from their coworkers (Glaveli, Karassavidou, & Zafiropoulos, 2013; Lingard &

Francis, 2006).

Contextual factors in the organizations play a vital role in enhancing the employees positive

behaviours, particularly the IWB (Joo et al., 2013). Regardless of the efficiency and

creativity of the individual employee, the external environment is more important while

exhibiting innovative behaviour. Prieto & Perez-Santana, (2014) argued that an employee

performs efficiently, when he is provided conducive and supportive environment. It is also

argued that supportive work environment is an antecedent of favorable behaviours at

individuals levels i.e., innovative behaviour, enhanced creativity, productivity, high levels

of organizational commitment, increased satisfaction level “(Delery & Doty, 1996; Lepak

et al., 2006). According to Parker et. al, (2006), the supportive work environment is the

combination of two types of supports an employee receives from the environment of the

organization, i.e., coworker support and management support; these two supports are

considered as specific and distinct dimensions of the supportive work environment.

According to Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014), these two supports positively affect the

employees’ innovative behaviour. It is also argued that for the innovative behaviour to be

a success for an organization, employees should be given more support from the

management and from their peers. The former supports the employees in encouraging and

owning new ideas proposed by the employees; while the latter helps in giving the moral

support with brainstorming, encouragement and accommodation.” These supports are

useful when employees conceive some novel ideas in the work settings (Farr & Ford,

1990).

2.1.3.1 Management Support

35

Management support is included in the research model as a moderating variable to assess

its moderating effect on the PsyEmp and IWB relationships (Joo, McLean, & Yang, 2013).

Management support is measured through the extent of the support received from the

immediate supervisor and the management as a whole. The immediate supervisors are the

only means through which the management interacts with the employees. Supervisors are

the intermediaries through which management transfer their treatment towards the

operational employees. Fair and transparent implementation of the HRs practices is one

way to reflect the extension of the organizational benefits towards employees (Lingard &

Francis, 2006). Organizations’ only source of communication to their employees is the

relevant supervisors who are in direct contact with the employees. This way the supervisors

serve as bridge between the organization and the employees. In the absence of this link

between the organization and the employees, the latter feel disowned by the organization

and hence left with no option but to deteriorate their performance outcomes. Employees

associate their supervisor’s attitude towards them as of the organizational attitude and

hence reciprocate through showing corresponding behaviours (Jose & Mampilly, 2012;

Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Employees show positive behaviours when they perceive

favorable treatment from their organizations which is translated only through their

immediate supervisors considering them the agents of the organization (Jose, Rupert, &

Ma, 2015).

36

2.1.3.2 Coworker Support

The other dimension of supportive work environment is coworker support. Employees get

more inspiration and motivation from their peers (Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2011),

particularly, when putting extra efforts are concerned. In a hostile organizational

environment, where peers have lack of trust and support from others in the organizations,

employees are not performing their optimal (Joo et al., 2013). Employees, no matter how

efficient and creative they are, can perform effectively and innovatively only when they

work in a conducive and supportive environment (Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). Peers

support is not a by-default function of the organizations, instead very careful and targeted

interference of the management in the forms of relevant HRs practices can ensure this

support (Shalley et al., 2004). Particularly, it is very important in the knowledge intensive

companies where the individual reliance is totally on their knowledge. In such situations,

it is a great challenge for the organizations to cultivate the mutual trust and inculcate

supportive culture among the employees (Berman, Down, & Hill, 2002).

Coworker support is included in this research model as a second moderating variable to

assess its moderating effect on the PsyEmp and the IWB relationships (Joo, McLean, &

Yang, 2013). The support in the form of motivation, moral support, encouragement and

other forms of behaviours from the peers, which portrays the trust between employees is

considered as coworker support.

2.1.4 IWB

In the current ever changing nature of the corporate world, the definition of job

performance tends to be changing as well. The performance of a job cannot be gauged

merely through completion of the tasks and predefined targets without showing any

proactive behaviour in the workplace (Hsiao, Chang, Tu, & Chen, 2011). Proactive

behaviour is inevitable for adjusting in the ever adapting circumstances and is one of the

37

underpinning characteristics of successful and productive employees (Griffin, Neal, &

Parker, 2007; Pons et. al, 2016). According to Parker et al., (2006), employees showing

proactive behaviours not only are self-initiators but also serve as source of improvement in

the working conditions. Such proactive behaviours are indicators of the IWBs of the

employees. The concept of IWB is a multistage process, which started with the problem

recognition, which is followed by solution generation, and promotion of the ideas for

solution and finally realization of the generated ideas in the workplace (de Jong & den

Hartog, 2008; Janssen, 2000, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

There are a variety of terminologies used in different researches for this behaviour which

comes under the umbrella of IWB, like, creativity, innovative behaviour and individual

innovation (Kim & Yoon, 2015; Perry-Smith, 2017; Scott & Bruce, 1994), innovative

performance (Janssen, 2003), on the job innovation (Dorenbosch, van Engen, & Verhagen,

2005) and employees’ creativity or creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Perry-Smith &

Mannucci, 2017). There are some distinctions between the extra-role and in-role

innovativeness (Ng & Feldman, 2012). The former requires the employees to go out of the

box (finding solution which are not included in their job description), while the latter

warrants the employees to remain in their working terms and conditions while performing

innovatively. IWB is the result of the discretionary efforts put forth by the employees in

the assigned roles and discontinues once the desired objective is achieved. Distinguishing

creativity from the IWB, Amabile et al. (2001) argue that the former is a spontaneous action

and has no predefined purpose and is not meant for further application, while the latter

includes the application of the novel ideas besides, generation and promotion of the ideas.

They further argued that employee creativity may be considered as sub part of the holistic

IWB of employees. “According to Farr & Ford (1990), innovativeness of the employees is

their intention to propose and suggest novel and useful ideas in the improvement of the

processes, services, products procedures. It is also argued that the IWB is very subtle, and

is difficult to gauge their intentions but organizations may obtain the relevant information

regarding their intentions either through formal or informal means in the form of ideas put

forth by the employees. The innovative behaviour of employees is useful and effective in

organizational performance and sustainability if these innovative, novel and useful ideas

38

of these employees are given due importance by the management. This can be achieved

with the help of support from the organizational agents for the betterment of the processes,

products and or services. According to Janssen (2000) IWB is defined as the behaviour of

the employees when they propose novel ideas, which are having potential for being

beneficial for the organizations. The benefits could be through their innovative solutions

to the existing processes as well as introduction of new ideas about the new processes.

However, regarding dimensionality of the concept of IWB, there is conflicting arguments

and applications. One stream supports the multifaceted nature of the concept of IWB (de

Jong & den Hartog, 2010), while some support the idea of uni-dimensionality of the

concept (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994).” In this study IWB is taken as uni-

dimensional concept.

IWB of employees is important ingredient in companies’ innovativeness, as companies are

not innovative per se; these are the employees who are innovative and make the company

innovative (Abstein et al., 2014). Innovativeness of the employees is vital for the

companies to become innovative and compete in the hyper turbulent environment, where

excelling in one industry is largely dependent on being innovative (Janssen, 2000). For the

sustainable development of the companies, the IWB of employees not only working

directly in the operations but also in the other domains of the companies like service

delivery, employee management and other functions is an important precursor (Shalley,

Gilson, & Blum, 2000). The empirical studies lack in the HRs research regarding designing

and configuration of the HRs for predicting IWB (Abstein et al., 2014) with some

exceptions (Amabile et al., 1996; Boxall & MacKy, 2009; de Jong & den Hartog, 2010;

Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Delery & Doty, 1996).

39

2.2 Theoretical Reflections

According to Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001), cognitive processes, either

positive or negative, are the outcome of the environmental factors in general, and

organizational factors in particular in the organizational setups. The positive or negative

cognitive processes are directly linked with the treatments the employees receive from the

organizations. These cognitive processes are the precursors for the attitudes and behaviours

of the employees. This theory assumes interactions between three factors, environmental

factors, their personal factors and individual behaviour. The first factor, environmental

factors, in the organizational setup, are the HRs practices which are directly affecting the

employees’ personal factors, i.e., the cognitive processes. In response to the cognitive

processes, employees reciprocate accordingly; i.e., positive cognitive processes results in

positive behavioural outcomes and vice versa. However, according to the Social Exchange

Theory (Blau, 1964), individuals are working in social setups, and their behaviours are

determined by the way they are treated by others in the environment and reciprocate to the

benefits they receive from the social actors, the strength of their reciprocation is determined

by the favorable treatment they receive from the actors. This theory suggests that the

employees respond to their contextual factors without bringing in the psychological aspects

into play while reciprocating to the external contextual factors. However, the proponents

of the interactionist model of creative behaviour (Woodman & Sawyer, 1989) and

organizational support theory (OST) “(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa,

1986)” suggests that the employees’ reaction and reciprocation to the more powerful actors

in the organizational setup is stronger as compared to the lesser powerful actors. This

suggests that the employees would prefer and give high value to the support and the favors

received from the higher management and would give low value to the support received

from the people in parallel positions i.e., comparatively lower level than the former level.

Resultantly, the reciprocation of these employees towards the favorable or unfavorable

treatment would be higher in extent when it is received from the higher level in the

hierarchy of the organization and vice versa.

40

In the organizational setups, individuals exhibit similar patterns of their behaviours, when

they are working in teams with peers and with the superiors. The basic principle in this

theory is the reciprocation (Gouldner, 1960). Their responses may reflect the treatment

they received from their organizations, from their peers, and from their supervisors, as a

matter of reciprocation. The responses of the individuals are determined by the cognitive

processes generated from their environment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). These processes

are the reflection of their feelings about the treatment they receive from the environment.

It is important for the organizations to create alignment between the facilities and treatment

given to the employees and the targets and the task assigned to them (Seibert et al., 2011).

This alignment will result in positive cognitive processes and the subsequent reciprocation

in the form of positive and productive behaviour, provided the employees are otherwise

treated fairly from the other contexts of the organizations. Now, the onus is on the

organizations to create a balance and alignment between what is given to the employees

and what is expected from them. Organizations treat their employees through HRs

practices, designed to promote the desired behaviours and to ensure the effectiveness and

efficiency of the employees. HRs management systems are particularly important for the

organizations to develop and foster desired behavioural outcomes (Liu, Gong, Zhou, &

Huang, 2017).

The arguments related to the measurement of HRs practices as individual practices or to

measure them in bundle / system-like practices is equally divided. HRs practices in bundles

have gained popularity in the last two decades (Blok & Paauwe, 2005; Katou & Budhwar,

2010; Pastor et al., 2015). Previous studies are favoring incorporation of the practices in

bundles in their relational studies to analyze their impact on other organizational variables

(Blok & Paauwe, 2005; Katou & Budhwar, 2010; Shipton et al., 2006; Subramony, 2009).

These studies largely adopted the notions of the best fit against best practice approach.

These two approaches are differentiated through categorizing them at the surface level HRs

practices and fundamental level HRs principles for implementation of the HRs practices

(Paauwe & Boselie, 2004). They further argued that the surface level HRs practices refers

to the actual practices being implemented in the organization and are subject to be affected

by the specific organizational environment hence affected by the contextual factors. This

41

dependency of the HRs practices on the context of the company puts these HRs practices

in the category of ‘best fit’, which are fit into that specific environment of the company.

On the other hand, there are some underpinning HRs principles and processes, which serve

the premise for implementation of the specific HRs practices. These generic principles and

processes are adopted by all organizations regardless of the contextual and environmental

differences and hence referred to as the ‘best practices’ category of the HRs management

(Boxall & MacKy, 2009; Purcell et al., 2003). Concluding this argument, it is instructive

that the general principles and the processes underlying HRs practices, in general,

conforms to the best practice approach; while the actual HRs practices may be prone to the

contextual factors and modified according to the organizational requirements are referred

to the best fit approach, which is the integration of HRs practices to serve the objectives of

the organization.

Alternatively, there is also another debate in the management research which suggests that

the customization and differentiation in the HRs practices is prevalent not only between

different organizations, but they, sometimes, also differ across the hierarchy of the

organizations (Krausert, 2014). These differentiation of the HRs practices system is not

random, instead, they are differentiated and customized according to the requirements of

the different hierarchical positions. Krausert (2014) classified three different customization

within a single organization for the HRs practices systems to work effectively. These

classification is based on the internal labour market of the organization. Each system of the

HRs practices is designed for each level of the employees in the hierarchy of the

organization. These hierarchical classification is simple, i.e., the top management, middle

managers, and the frontline employees working in the same organization. This within

organization customization is based on the political factors rather than the genuine

requirements for each level of the internal labour market. However, the debate regarding

the best practices versus best fit approach is further extended through the study conducted

by Krausert (2014). Nevertheless, he also supported the idea of integration of the HRs

practices to achieve the end results.

42

The integration of HRs practices is mainly attributed to their alignment with the internal

factors (the objectives and goals of the organization) as well as the external environment

(HRs practices implemented in other alike organizations) to get the synergetic impact of

the HRs system on the individual as well as organizational outcomes (Delaney & Huselid,

1996; Delery & Doty, 1996; Jiang et al., 2013). However, the integration of different HRs

practices is useful, as organizations do not implement HRs practices in isolation, rather a

bundle of the HRs practices is implemented. The issue arises regarding the rationale and

the mechanism to form the integrated / bundle of the HRs practices for inclusion in the

research as a concept, which is to be measured in order to analyze its impact on other

variables of interest. There are statistical as well as arbitrary approaches for integration of

these HRs practices to make a bundle. The statistical techniques to develop such a bundle

is the principal components analysis and clustering algorithms (Delaney & Huselid, 1996;

Delery & Doty, 1996). However, besides these statistical methods, there are some simple

techniques which are used in the literature to combine the HRs practices to make their

bundle, i.e., just counting and integration of the individual practices. Boselie et al. (2005)

argued that any mechanism for the integration of the HRs practices is justified and

applicable, as long as there is sound theoretical foundation for opting for a particular

method of integration. Delery (1998) supports the integration of the HRs practices in a

bundle / system-like construct to assess its impact on the organizational or individual level

outcomes. Drawing on these researches this study measures each bundle of the HRs

practices through the items of the relevant HRs practices to examine their impact on the

“IWB of the employees.”

Different HRs practices are combined together and termed differently by different

researchers in their studies (Jiang et al., 2013). Jiang et al., (2013) provided list of all the

combinations of the HRs practices and conducted a literature review of all the possible

bundles used in previous researches. Not only the bundles, but their relationships with other

behavioural as well attitudinal aspects of individual employees are also highlighted. In

addition, the generating mechanism through which these bundles affect the individual level

and organizational level outcomes are also identified in the meta-analysis. For example,

high “performance work practices and individual service performance through individual

43

level PsyEmp (Liao et al., 2009); high performance work practices and individual level job

performance through individual level job commitment (Hsiao et al., 2011); HRs practices

and business performance through organizational learning (Lopez, Peon, & Ordas, 2005);

high performance work practices and establishment performance (Sun et al., 2007); high

involvement work practices and organizational effectiveness through employee

involvement (Butts, Vandenberg, DeJoy, Schaffer, & Wilson, 2009); high commitment

work system and new product performance (Chang, Hsu, Liou, & Tsai, 2013); HRs

management system and organizational outcomes (Katou & Budhwar, 2010); and high

performance work system and the organizational citizenship behaviour through person-job

fit approach (Boon, den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, 2011).” In this study, high involvement

HRs practices are used to assess their impacts on the IWB of employees.

After explanation of bundles of the HRs management practices which are popular and used

in the previous researches with their premises and purposes along with their association

with the individual as well as organizational outcomes, the next section further elaborates

inclusion of these HRs practices in the context of ability – motivation - opportunity

framework, the relevant theory which is used to carry out this study.

44

2.2.1 Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Framework – Theoretical Background

All the HRs management theories, some way or the other, incorporate and prioritize the

HRs management systems and their linkages with the performance of the employees or

organizations (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017). AMO framework of HRs management

was first developed by (Bailey, 1993), however, the model was later on developed and

refined by Appelbaum et al., (2000) by consulting and incorporating the high performance

work systems in the framework.

All the HRs management theories are classified in three different categories, i.e., the micro-

level, the meso-level and the macro-level (Blok & Paauwe, 2005). At micro level,

prominent theories are Attribution theory (Heider, 1958). Exchange theories (e.g., Leader-

Member Exchange theory, (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996); “social exchange theory

(SET)” (Blau, 1964); “Reciprocity theory” (Gouldner, 1960); perceived organizational

support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, et al., 1986); “equity theory” (Adams,

1963), Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), organizational justice theories (Distributive

justice theory (Cohen, 1987); Interactional justice theory (Bies & Moag, 1986), and

procedural justice theory (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and psychological contract theory

(Rousseau, 1989). At meso level, the prominent theories are AMO theory (Appelbaum et

al., 2000), Resources based view (Barney, 1991); and human capital theory (Becker, 1964).

At Macro level, the prominent theories are “Contingency theory (Schuler & Jackson, 1987),

institutional theory (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983), and contextually based HRs theory” (Jaap

Paauwe & Boselie, 2004).

However, regarding HRs management as a bundle, “there is no consensus on the agreed

upon list of HRM related practices which could be used exclusively to define the HRs

management system, however, a new trend was established recently, that is the ability –

motivation - opportunity (AMO) framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000), which is the

extension of the earlier theory i.e., Expectancy theory of Vroom (1964), ” is used to define

45

HRs management in specific way (Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2011). Ability

Motivation Opportunity (AMO) theory is the extension of the earlier theory of micro level

performance i.e., Expectancy Theory of Vroom (1964), which emphasized on the ability

and motivation aspects only, however, AMO theory added ‘opportunity to perform’ term

(Appelbaum et al., 2000). This theory is termed as ‘the increasingly used theory of

performance’, which emerged in 1990s to study the HRM-performance relationships

(Collings & Wood, 2009). In a review study conducted by Boselie et al., (2005), AMO

theory, resources based view and institutional theory are the theories which dominate the

HRM field. AMO theory is operational both at the individual and organizational level

(Blok & Paauwe, 2005). However, resources based view (Barney, 1991) is concerned with

organizational level outcomes; while institutional theory is operational at macro level i.e.,

the industry level (Boselie, Paauwe, & Richardson, 2002).

This framework clarifies the way HRs management is used, particularly, in exploring the

HRs management and performance relationships at individual level (Paauwe, 2009). This

is the widely used and accepted mechanism to understand the HRs management and

performance linkages (Harney & Jordan, 2008). This theory suggests that people perform

optimally when they have ability to perform, they are motivated to perform and lastly, they

have sufficient opportunities to perform. Furthermore, the ability of employees identify the

upper limits of performance, motivation influences them to turn their capabilities into

action, and opportunity provides avenues for these capabilities to be transformed to

measurable job outcomes.

A meta-analysis of the AMO framework and its efficacy in the HRs management research indicated

that it is an important framework which is used to link the HRs management and the work related

behaviour of employees (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016). This framework has manifold utilities

both in the research studies for the researchers to unveil the relationship between HRs management

and the behavioural aspects of the employees on one hand and their efficacy in actually predicting

the desired behaviour in the employees in the organizational setup on the other hand. The results

of this meta-analysis suggested that not only the contextual factors, but also the individual factors

also contribute in the successful implementation of the AMO framework. Considering these

46

arguments and claims, it is hard to implement and suggest a bundle of HRs practices which could

be considered as intrinsically effective HRM system, rather the contextual and individual factors

make any system a failure or a success. However, to be safe, a reasonably well suited HRM system

may be developed and implemented to get its reasonable benefits in the organizational setup

(Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016).

Although the specific HRs practices and their arbitrary inclusion in these HRs systems

remain debatable; selection of the HRs practices should be focusing on some aspects of the

employees (Abstein et al., 2014). The important aspects for predicting the desired

employees behaviours are related to promotion of ability, provision of opportunity and

inculcation of motivation of the employees (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Jiang et al., 2012).

Researchers used “ability-motivation-opportunity framework for understanding the

relationship between the HRs management and micro level performance indicators, i.e.,

individual employee’s behavioural outcomes. Since the study is aimed at exploring the

HRs management and individual level performance outcomes therefore, the relevant

theoretical framework is the AMO framework. HRs management plays important and

critical role in any organization, which molds and develops employees’ attitudes and

behaviours and is important antecedent of the employees’ effectiveness (Chen & Huang,

2009). HRs practices are instrumental in the organizational effectiveness and efficiency in

terms of achieving its goals.” According to Jiang et al. (2012), HRs practices involve

employees extensively within an organization in order to make them more effective and

innovative in terms of achieving the organizational goals.

Drawing on the “Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theoretical framework”, which is

indicative for the adoption of certain HRs practices in an organization (Appelbaum et al.,

2000) the specific HRs practices relevant here are; selection, training, compensation,

participation, job design and performance appraisal. AMO framework also serves as a

generating mechanism through which HRs practices can affect important behavioural

aspects of the employees in organization (Paauwe, 2009). Several studies have been

conducted so far for validating the changing mechanism, which is explained by the AMO

framework to demonstrate relationship between HRM and performance (e.g., Appelbaum

et al., 2000; Bartel, 2004; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Harney & Jordan, 2008). There is no

47

agreement over the universality of a certain set of HRs practices which can have a standard

and unique impact on the behavioural aspects of HRs (Katou & Budhwar, 2010; Marler &

Fisher, 2013; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). This study while considering the nature of

knowledge intensive companies, identified “high involvement HRs practices” relevant to the

industry; therefore, included in this study in the context of AMO framework to predict the

IWB (Boxall & MacKy, 2009).

There is lack of research which examined the effects of HRs on the IWB through PsyEmp.

Exceptions to these assertions about lack of studies are some studies which examined the

IWB of employees in different industrial settings i.e., in advertising agencies (Arif &

Zubair, 2006), a study conducted in education sector (Usman, Danish, Waheed, & Tayyeb,

2011), another study was conducted to examine the IWB in the fast moving consumer

goods organizations (Imran & Haque, 2011; Imran, Saeed, & Fatima, 2010), in banking

industry of Pakistan (Khan, Aslam, & Riaz, 2012) in other industrial setups (for example,

see Afsar & Rehman, 2015; Arif & Zubair, 2006; Imran & Haque, 2011; Khan et al., 2012;

Usman et al., 2011). A recent study conducted in the software industry was related to the

impact of software technology parks on the overall performances of the firms established

in these technology parks (Mangrio, Bhutto, & Naqvi, 2013). They studied the contribution

of the software technology parks on firms’ performance, but there is still lack of a research

study which examined and analyzed “the impact of HRs practices on IWB of employees

working in software companies of Pakistan, particularly regarding the research model of

this study”.

However, testing of the relationship between the “HRs practices and “IWB through the

PsyEmp and assessing the moderating roles of the management support and coworker

support” in the context of Pakistan” is important, as Pakistan is culturally different from the

western part of the world. In a previous study conducted in the context of Pakistan to assess

the flexible HRs practices effect on the IWB of employees working in different companies

of Pakistan showed that the flexible HRs HR practices have positive effect on the IWB of

employees (Javed, Anas, Abbas, & Khan, 2017). They further concluded and call for a

future research to include organizational level contextual factors to see the moderating

48

effects on HRM and IWB relationships. Studies in different industrial setups are frequently

conducted in Pakistan in the HRM and innovativeness domains (Ashraf et al., 2011; Mangi,

Jhatial, Shah, & Ghumro, 2012; Saeed, Sami, Lodhi, & Iqbal, 2013; Yousaf, Yang, &

Sanders, 2015). Most of the studies in Pakistan are conducted in the banking industry

(Abbas, Rasheed, Habiba, & Shahzad, 2013; Aurangzeb, 2012; Hassan, Shakeel, & Imran,

2012; Rehman, Janjua, & Naeem, 2015); and telecom industry (Malik, Bashir, Khan, &

Malik, 2013; Saeed et al., 2013; Sajjad & Amjad, 2011; Yasmeen, Farooq, & Asghar,

2013).

HRs management system, should be clarified and made unambiguous to the employees in

order to make the system more useful. Employees should know what practices are there

and why these are being implemented coupled with the knowledge of the expected

behaviours. For example, the appraisal system should be based on the transparent and

readily known parameters, which is free from any kind of biasness. Every system should

be provided with the manual for its relevant stakeholders, in this case the employees with

all the relevant and necessary explanations (Colquitt & Zapata-phelan, 2007). The fairness

of the appraisal systems and the subsequent rewards systems can only be achieved when

the employees are provided sufficient opportunities to discuss their performance i.e., the

employees participation in the decision making should be ensured in the organization in

order to make the other HRs practices transparent and justifiable (Sun et al., 2007).

49

2.2.2 AMO Framework of HRM and PsyEmp

PsyEmp is also considered as an important indicator of an employee’s productivity and

efficiency (Afsar & Badir, 2016; Seibert et al., 2011). Being empowered means an

employee feels comfortable in performing his tasks efficiently and with autonomy.

PsyEmp is defined as feeling of confidence in performing one’s tasks in an organization

with autonomy and productively (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Relational framework is

necessary to simplify the relationship between the HRs practices and desired behavioural

outcomes. For instance, literature demonstrates that there is a positive relationship between

the HRs practices and the PsyEmp of the employees (Seibert et al., 2011). HRs practices

such as employees participation, job rotation, fair competitive compensation system, and

flexible work assignments enhances the PsyEmp of the employees (Fong & Snape, 2013).

In this debate on the AMO framework and its relevance to the psychological aspects, is

also prevalent, (Kroon et al., 2013), which argued that the basic concepts underpinning this

framework is the concept of the psychology. The psychology comes into play at three

different domains in this model. First, the model strives to ensure that the employees are

having sufficient abilities to perform their duties, and they are motivated enough to perform

their duties beyond what is the minimum expectation of the organization i.e., ensuring the

discretionary efforts from the employees and finally, they are given enough opportunities

to perform and apply their knowledge and skills in the organization in discharge of their

duties. The understanding of this model is not straightforward, as the effects of the HRs

management on the performance is not that simple, rather the effectiveness of this model

largely depends on how the individual employees perceive the HRs management systems

and the underlying practices. These are the subjective perceptions of the individual

employees, which are subject to their psychological and cognitive processes about the

environment and the HRs practices being implemented in the organizations (Boxall &

MacKy, 2009). Therefore, it may be safe to claim that the AMO framework and the HRs

system has no intrinsic value, per se, as they are only instrumental if the employees have a

positive psychological perception about these HRs practices (Jiang et al., 2012).

50

According to Purcell et al., (2003), in the context of AMO framework, there are three

different group of HRs practices which are useful. These HRs practices are used in

developing new skills to improve the ability dimension of AMO of the employees. To make

the employees more motivated these HRs practices are supplemented by the motivation

enhancing HRs practices which motivate employees to perform. Finally, “maximum

opportunities are to be ensured to capitalize on the motivated employees. “According to

Delery & Doty (1996), organizations have two different strategies for accumulation and

integration of the HRs; first one is the buying orientation. In this strategy organizations

induct new employees with the requisite skills by carefully selecting competent employees,

through implementation of rigorous selection and sophisticated recruitment and

assessment techniques (Jiang et al., 2012).” The second orientation of integration of skills

set is to develop or make-orientation, wherein the focus is development of the requisite

skills are given to the existing employees through purposeful extensive training and

development programs. Motivation levels of the employees are increased through

provision of competitive based incentives which gives the employees feeling of

competence when he is given incentives based on competition (incentives and rewards are

provided for his contribution). Employees reciprocate toward their organizations by giving

maximum input to increase the organizational output “(Blau, 1964). This is partially

attributed to the psychological bonds between employees and their organizations; which

becomes more stronger through provision of favorable and beneficial treatments to

employees in the form of incentives (Haar & Spell, 2004). According to Jiang et al. (2012),

sufficient opportunities to be provided to the motivated employees to perform their tasks

and to exhibit proactive behaviour. They should be given more autonomy and discretion in

performing their tasks, which can be achieved through the flexible work assignment,

reasonable job rotation, team work, maximum involvement in decision making, and the

information sharing about the important decisions of the organization. This dimension of

the high-involvement HR practices is less costly as compared to the other two dimensions

as explained above”.”

For understanding association between the HRs practices and PsyEmp - cognitive in nature,

it is important to associate HRs practices to different dimensions of PsyEmp. The first

51

dimension of the PsyEmp is ‘competence’, which is cognitive in nature and defined as the

feeling of the employee about his competence (i.e., requisite skills), to complete various

tasks assigned to him. The relevant HRs practices, which could enhance such feelings about

his ‘competence’ are the appropriate selection method and purposeful trainings, which are

actually implemented in the organization (Cascio, 1991; Delery & Doty, 1996; Flamholtz

& Lacey, 1981; Jiang et al., 2012). The more the selection method is rigorous and

sophisticated trainings are implemented, the more competent the employees feel. The next

dimension of the PsyEmp is ‘meaning’, which is defined in terms of the task’s importance

to the employee. The underpinning HRs practices which are considered appropriate as for

the ‘meaning’ dimension are compensation and performance appraisal (Jiang et al., 2012;

Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). A judicious performance appraisal and compensation

management system gives feeling to employees that they are treated fairly according to

their individual contribution, which make them more empowered and motivated (Blau,

1964; Buchner, 2007; Esposito et al., 2013; Meadows & Pike, 2010). The third dimension

of PsyEmp is ‘impact’; which is the measure of feeling of influence an employee has in the

performance of the organization. Fourth dimension of PsyEmp is ‘self-determination’,

which is also measured cognitively, and is defined as the feeling of an employee about the

discretion he has in performing various tasks of his job. The more he is autonomous in

performing his tasks, the more he is empowered to perform better and innovatively (Deci

et al., 1989). The relevant HRs practices in increasing the autonomy and discretion of an

employee are flexible job design and enhanced employee participation (Jiang et al., 2012;

Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Sun et al., 2007). More flexible job

design gives more opportunities to the employees to manage their work and life judiciously

and hence improves employees’ wellbeing and PsyEmp level of employees (Jiang et al.,

2012).

As suggested by HRs management research and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)

employees develop affiliation with the organizations in reciprocation when they receive

positive treatment from the organization in the form of employee favored HRs practices

(Chang et al., 2013; Fong & Snape, 2013). Individual HRs practice may enhance some

aspects of employees’ wellbeing, but once different HRs practices are devised and

52

integrated in such a way to create synergetic impact on the employees, it becomes very

effective and efficient in enhancing the psychological wellbeing of employees, thereby

establishing psychological contract with the organizations (Wang & Lee, 2009) which

results in overall increase in the satisfaction of employees (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). This positive relationship between HRs management, PsyEmp and

employees satisfaction has been demonstrated by several studies (Joo & Shim, 2010; Knol

& Linge, 2009; Sangar & Rangnekar, 2014; Seibert et al., 2011). High involvement HRs

Practices (Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Subramony, 2009; Sun et al.,

2007) help organizations to become effective and efficient as, “according to Prieto & Perez-

Santana (2014) these HRs practices enhance the motivation of employees, and “their IWB.

There are three sub-categories of these HRs practices namely; ability - enhancing,

motivation - enhancing and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices”.”

The framework has vastly been tested in the western setup, however, in the context of

Pakistan, no such study exists, which analyzed the AMO framework in translating the

impact of HRs management to the IWB of employees working in software companies of

Pakistan, an exception is the study of Anjum et al., (2016), which studied the impact of

effort-enhancing HRs “practices on IWB of employees”. “Ability enhancing HRs practices

are implemented for buying new skills or enhancing and developing the existing skills of

the employees, and depends on the skills set required by the organization (Cascio, 1991;

Flamholtz & Lacey, 1981).” Previous researches have demonstrated a positive link of the

rigorous selection procedures and post induction training programs with the PsyEmp of the

employees at work (Seibert et al., 2011; Siegall & Gardner, 2000). Once employees have

the desired skills (which organizations can ensure either through the selection of right

people or provision of appropriate trainings to the employees). Similarly, the provision of

appropriate and purposeful training to the employees after their proper induction in the

organizations also increases the PsyEmp level (Black et al., 1999; Guerrero & Barraud-

Didier, 2004; Patton, Marlow, & Hannon, 2000; Seibert et al., 2011). Collectively, these

two HRs practices related to rigorous selection and proper training opportunities, are

classified as ability enhancing HRs practices. Ability enhancing HRs practices give

cognitive feelings to the employees that they are competent enough to perform their tasks

53

effectively, which increases their PsyEmp level. These positive cognitive processes are the

results of the favorable treatments given by the organizations to the employees, as

suggested by the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), thereby making employees more

psychologically empowered. Therefore, the relationship between ability enhancing HRs

practices and PsyEmp level of the employees is hypothesized as follows:

H1a: “Ability Enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp level of employees

working in software companies of Pakistan.”

54

“Motivation enhancing HRs practices” are the specific practices which are related to the

compensation and developmental performance appraisal systems implemented within the

organization (Jiang et al., 2012; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). “Employees are reasonably

rewarded for their input and contribution toward the organization ”; which resultantly

increases their motivation level and satisfaction level (Blau, 1964); and empower them

(Bowen & Lawer, 1992), and the organizational performance if they are executed

transparently to the employees (Kufidou, 2001; Lawer, 1994). However, according to

social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), if the rewards are not provided transparently and

proportionately to their contribution, then it will result in negative cognitive processes and

diminish self-efficacy of the employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Performance appraisal

systems also provides feedback to the employees about their standing in the organization;

if the feedback is favorable then they gain more confidence “(Buchner, 2007; Esposito et

al., 2013; Meadows & Pike, 2010).” By feeling so, their jobs become meaningful to them.

Provision of rewards by the organizations shows the intention of the organization in

investing on improving the skills and knowledge of the employees, which is helpful in

increasing the empowerment level of the employees (Spreitzer, 1995; Tannenbaum,

Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991). The positive association between compensation

and PsyEmp has been demonstrated by various researches (Bartol, 1999; Gkorezis &

Petridou, 2012b; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004). Performance appraisal is a useful tool

for empowering employees, as demonstrated by recent researches, there is a strong positive

association between performance appraisal and PsyEmp of employees (Kennedy, 1995; M.

S. Malik & Aslam, 2013). These two HRs practices constitute motivation enhancing HRs

practices. Therefore, drawing on the assertions of previous evidences, the relationship

between MoEnHR and the PsyEmp level of employees is hypothesized as follows:

H1b: “Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices increase PsyEmp level of employees


55

Opportunity enhancing HRs practices are those practices which ensure flexible job design

and enhanced employees participation in decision making and other working conditions of

the “organization “(Jiang et al., 2012; Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Sun

et al., 2007). Job designs include all working arrangements within an organization which

enhance experience” and exposure of employees. Effective job design enable the employees

to get more opportunities within their domains of work while performing different tasks

and working at different levels of their job. Job designs also include rotation of the

employee to different tasks; flexible work environment to ensure their learning new skills

and enhancing their collaboration with other employees within the organization (Jiang et

al., 2012). Employee participation is defined as the employees’ involvement in decision

making processes at different levels. This involvement encourages them to participate in

the organizational betterment. Employees are involved in the decision making through a

regular system of seeking feedback and suggestions from the employees on different issues

both at the lower and higher level and sometimes, rewarded if the suggestions are fruitful

for the organization.” Employees are also informed about important decisions taken at the

different levels. Policies and regulations of organizations are regularly shared with the

employees, which also serves as informed consent for important organizational decision.

Employees participation and PsyEmp are positively related to each other as demonstrated

by previous studies (Butts et al., 2009; Janssen, 2003). From the perspective of the social

cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), the cognitive processes are invoked once employees

start feeling of more autonomy and more self-determination when they are provided

sufficient opportunities to participate in the decision making. Suitable job designs are also

important predictors of the PsyEmp of employees (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Harmon et al.,

2003). Drawing on these evidences which demonstrate the positive association between

opportunity enhancing HRs practices and employees’ PsyEmp level, the hypothesis is

developed as follows:

H1c: “Opportunity enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp level of employees


56

2.2.3 PsyEmp and IWB

Employees, on regular basis, engage in discretionary efforts such as showing IWB as a

reciprocation (Blau, 1964) to the organizations when they are treated fairly by the

organizations. Employees perceive their relationship with the organization either way after

analyzing the treatment they got from the organizations. According to the Social Exchange

Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) and the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 2001),

employees reciprocate to the organizations by showing positive behaviours when they

perceive their organization’s treatment towards them favorably and vice versa. The only

mean through which organizations treat their employees is through their HRs systems and

the practices they employ in the organizations to facilitate, motivate and engage employees

(Blau, 1964; Katou & Budhwar, 2010; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). However, the important

factor for success of these systems is the agents of the organizations who are directly

involved in the implementation of these HR practices. HR practices which are adopted by

the organizations to improve the employees’ learning and provide opportunities for

enhancing their knowledge are associated with the innovative behaviours of the employees,

which are materialized when they produce innovative products and act proactively in

solution of organizational problems (Shipton et al., 2006).

IWB is important outcome expected by the knowledge intensive companies, whose sole

reliance is on the innovativeness of their employees, particularly when the knowledge is

common across employees and organizations “(Aryanto et al., 2015). Employees’ IWB is

due to their personal and the contextual factors, which include the set of “HRs practices

system implemented by organizations, envisaged as useful for enhancing the innovative

skills of employees (Chandler et al., 2000; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). Chandler et al.,

(2000) further argued that incentives and reward system are effective tools adopted by the

organizations to develop employee’s IWB Hornsby et al., (2002) and Kuratko et al., (2005).

Furthermore, according to Shalley et al., (2004), HRM systems and the relevant HR

practices addressing the evaluation system and flexible job designs are important

antecedents of the employees’ innovative behaviour, which may affect through some

mediators”.” Although they may have a negative effects on the individual behaviour if they

57

are treated and perceived by the employees as a control mechanism, which may give some

sense of the mistrust on the part of the organizations towards the employees, which would

naturally affect their perception and performance in the organizational setup (Langfred,

2004). In this backdrop, it is important to ensure the fair implementation of the evaluation

systems in the organizations with proper orientation programs designed for the frontline

employees to give a positive sense of competition and fair evaluation system (Langfred,

2004).

The research studies analyzing the role of HRs management on the IWB studied either

specific HRs practices of the whole HRs system, such as rigorous selection, supportive

work environment, training or compensation as predictors of IWB (Boon et al., 2011) or

studied the association between the HRs systems and the organizational performance (Liao

et al., 2009). In fact, the HRs systems incorporate various practices, which are experienced

as a whole rather than individually by the employees. This system-like HRs approach may

be best predictor of the IWB, instead of taking HRs practices individually and separately

(Ramamoorthy, Flood, Slattery, & Sardessai, 2005).

According to “Prieto & Perez-Santana, (2014), IWB of the employees can be attributed

equally to the personal factors and contextual factors. The contextual characteristics are

related to the organizational treatments in general, which include the HR System and the

relevant practices implemented by the organization, particularly those practices which are

aimed at developing the innovative behaviour of the employees. In this context, as also

suggested by Chandler et al., (2000), incentive and reward system are the relevant HRs

practices which are used to develop employees innovative work, behaviour. Prieto &

Perez-Santana (2014) empirically demonstrated the positive relationship between the

incentive system based on the competence and the IWB, and further identified that these

“HRs practices are important antecedents of IWB of the employees. According to Shalley

et al., (2004), HR designed for the evaluation systems and flexible job designs” are

important precursors of employees’ IWB. The evaluation system, is used to appraise the

performance of the employees and also to keep them informed about their current

performance and also the future expected performance level. The feedback is provided to

58

the employees about their contribution, the skills they are having, and the skills they need

to acquire in future; such information is useful for the employees to develop their positive

feelings about their own performance. According to Prieto & Perez-Santana, (2014)

flexible job designs are the effective techniques” to inculcate new skills and give detailed

orientation about the functioning of the organizations. Job rotations are also considered

important aspects of the job designs system which are also considered as on-the-job

training for these employees through which they gain hands-on training and experiences

about the functioning of different departments in an organization.

Employees are more creative when they are psychologically empowered which is only

possible when a suitable and conducive working environment is provided to them.

Although the immediate outcomes are hard to judge, but subtle changes in the behaviour

of the employees can be gauged through carefully crafted monitoring system. (Choi,

Anderson, & Veillette, 2009). In such situations the outcome is very subtle as can only be

measured through routine interactions of the employees with each other and with their

supervisors. Such a behaviour cannot be gauged through clearly visible products, rather

they are measured on continuous basis (Farr & Ford, 1990). Janssen (2000) further defined

the IWB of employees as innovative ideas being forwarded by an employees which should

have value for an organization in the form of enhanced production, innovative solution to

existing problems or generation of new processes for performing various tasks. There are

several studies which demonstrated the strong relationship between PsyEmp and the

employee’s IWB (e.g., (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015; Sangar & Rangnekar, 2014; Zhang

& Bartol, 2010). Therefore, it is expected that the PsyEmp will have a positive impact on

the IWB of employees.

H2: ““PsyEmp increases the IWB of the employees working in software”

companies in Pakistan.”

“According to a study conducted by Jiang et al. (2012), employees are trained, educated and

guided to perform creatively. “Ability - enhancing, motivation - enhancing and opportunity

- enhancing HRs systems” are implemented in the organizations to enhance employee’s

skills, motivate them to create value and increase their participation in decision making,

59

respectively, to achieve the sustainable and competitive advantage. These employees are

motivated to put some discretionary efforts in the achievement of the individual as well as

organizational targets, which and get rewards according to their contribution. “According

to Kennedy (1995) and Siegall & Gardner (2000), employee’s PsyEmp levels serve as one

of the effective tools for management to make the them more productive, effective and

efficient”. Services sectors organizations have exhibited to be benefited more from the

employee’s PsyEmp, which is due to their frequent interactions with customers and due to

being psychologically empowered and confident about their skills and competence, they

give best services which enhances the customer satisfaction (Berman, 1995; Lashley,

1999).” In this context, it is expected that the PsyEmp may transfer the effects of ability

“enhancing HRs practices” to the employee’s IWB. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H3a: “Ability Enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp, which ultimately

increases the IWB of employees working in software companies in Pakistan.”

60

Motivation enhancing HRs practices empower employees (Bowen & Lawer, 1992), and

ultimately persuade the them to put discretionary efforts in the organization. The positive

association between compensation and PsyEmp has been demonstrated by various

researches (Bartol, 1999; Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012b; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004).

Performance appraisal is a useful tool for empowering employees, as demonstrated by

recent researches, there is a strong positive association between performance appraisal and

PsyEmp of employees (Kennedy, 1995; Malik & Aslam, 2013). These two HRs practices

collectively form motivation enhancing HRs practices. Therefore, drawing on the

assertions of previous evidences, the effect of motivation enhancing HRs practices is

translated in the form of IWB of employees through the PsyEmp of employees. Therefore,

the mediation hypothesis is stated as follows:

H3b: “Motivation Enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp, which ultimately


“Opportunity enhancing HRs practices” include job design and participation “(Jiang et al.,

2012; Lepak et al., 2006; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Sun et al., 2007).” There is a

positive association between opportunity enhancing HRs practices and PsyEmp and the

impact is further translated through empowered employees in the form of discretionary

efforts which result in innovative behaviour of employees. Similar mediation association

is expected between opportunity enhancing HRs practices, PsyEmp and IWB in the

software industry of Pakistan, therefore, the next hypothesis is stated as follows:

H3c: “Opportunity Enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp, which ultimately


61

2.2.4 Supportive Work Environment and IWB

The work environment is perceived by all the employees either as positive and supportive

or as negative and hindering in achievement of their assigned goals. However, in some

instance, the work environment may be counterproductive, but the reasons for this are

unlimited (de Jonge & Peeters, 2009). There is a different perspective about the work

environment from an employee’s point of view, when he perceives any disparity between

what is promised by the organization and what he actually experiences. No matter what the

perspective is either perceived or the experienced one, the success lies in the prevalence of

supportive work environment. In the context of organizational support theory (Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), supportive work environment is a holistic

situation which covers multi-faceted supports from the organizational environment,

however, in this study the term is defined as the extent to which the employees perceive

that the management cares about them favorably i.e., the management support directly

received from the immediate supervisors and the support they receive from their coworkers

(Glaveli et al., 2013; Lingard & Francis, 2006). There are different agents which are

responsible for characterization of the environment (de Jonge & Peeters, 2009). These

agents are the coworkers, immediate bosses, the subordinates and also the external

stakeholders, such as customers in the services industry where close interactions with the

customers is warranted.

The immediate supervisors are the only means through whom the management interacts

with the employees. Supervisors are the intermediaries through which management

transfer their treatment towards the operational employees. Fair and transparent

implementation of HRs practices is one way to reflect the extension of the organizational

benefits towards employees (Lingard & Francis, 2006). Organizations’ only source of

communication to their employees is the relevant supervisors who are in direct contact with

the employees. This way the supervisors serve as bridge between the organization and the

employees. In the absence of this link between the organization and the employees, the

latter feel disowned by the organization and hence left with no option but to deteriorate

62

their performance outcomes. Employees associate their supervisor’s attitude towards them

as of the organizational attitude and hence reciprocate through showing corresponding

behaviours (Jose & Mampilly, 2012; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Employees show positive

behaviours when they perceive favorable treatment from their organizations which is

translated only through their immediate supervisors considering them the agents of the

organization (Jose, Rupert, & Ma, 2015).

The personal characteristics of employees aside, the contextual factors are also very vital

in enhancing the innovative capabilities of employees. In a discouraging and non-

conducive environment employees are not able to give their optimum as far as their

creativity is concerned (Joo et al., 2013). “Employees, no matter how efficient and creative

they are, can perform optimally only when they perceive their working environment as

conducive (Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). Previous studies demonstrated “the association

between supportive environment and the favorable behavioural outcomes at individual

levels i.e., innovativeness, creativity, productivity, enhanced satisfaction and commitment

levels (Delery & Doty, 1996; Lepak et al., 2006). However, the links between these

variables were direct rather than the conditional. According to Parker et. al, (2006), the

supportive work environment constitute both the support from the coworkers as well as the

support received from the management. The two types of the supports i.e., the management

and coworker supports are two different dimensions of the supportive work environment,

which according to Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014)” positively affects IWB of the

employees.”

Employees, after understanding their roles in the organizations and taking ownership of

their roles, which is only possible once they have autonomy over their work and start

working innovatively and put extra efforts. Otherwise, they will not yield useful ideas,

which is the underpinning of the creativity. One of the precursors for being innovative is

the PsyEmp (Knol & Linge, 2009). Encouraged by the management in the form of giving

due ownership to the creative ideas and human support from the coworkers, the

psychologically empowered employees may yield optimal results in the form of creativity.

63

In situations, where HRs practices had yielded positive results by psychologically

empowering the employees, these employees may become more creative if the support is

provided both by the management as well as the coworkers (Amabile et al., 1996; Prieto &

Perez-Santana, 2014; Shalley et al., 2000).

The PsyEmp of employee is connected with the leader’s behaviour towards them.

Organizational leaders help their employees and subordinates through information sharing,

facilitate performance of the employees, involve their employees in decision making

processes related to assignment of the goals, setting of the performance standards; they

also serve as mentors for their employees. These treatments from the supervisors empower

the employees and enhances their feelings of contributions, autonomy, self-efficacy and

their cordial association with the organization. However, given the role of the supervisors

in translating the organizational HRs practices, their role is mere instrumental. Since they

only implement the HRs practices in organizations, while the PsyEmp of the employees is

largely dependent on the existing HRs practices of the organization which are already

communicated to the employees and are implemented only through the immediate

supervisors of the employees. Therefore, a strict causal relationship between the immediate

supervisors’ support and the PsyEmp remain ambiguous (Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014).

It is argued that presence of the HRs system in the organization enhances the PsyEmp of

the employees as they feel blessed with having such a system. However, it is further argued

and demonstrated that the implementation of these practices may largely conditioned on

the way these are transformed, that is, the role of their immediate supervisor as an evaluator

is vital in this context (Chandler et al., 2000; Fiksenbaum & Fiksenbaum, 2014; Prieto &

Perez-Santana, 2014). Employees are not treated in isolation, rather they received the

favorable treatment from the organization based on their evaluation, which may be true

reflection of their individual contribution as well as their performance in relation to their

peers and other co-workers. Not only the evaluation but they also support and propagate

the ideas generated by the subordinates by giving it due ownership. It is therefore,

hypothesized that the prediction of IWB of the employees is conditioned with the

supportive role of the management without any bias.

64

In the context of knowledge companies which rely on the common stock of knowledge,

the role of coworker support is somewhat confusing (Berman et al., 2002). However, there

are some empirical evidences that the support from coworkers further enhances the IWB

of employees who are psychologically empowered (Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014).

Though the study was conducted in other cultural setup, but still the moderating role of the

coworker support is expected and is relevant equally in the context of Pakistan. Therefore,

the moderating role of coworker support on PsyEmp and IWB association is hypothesized

as follows:

H4: “Coworker “supports moderate the impact of the PsyEmp on the IWB of

employees working in software companies” in Pakistan.”

65

Similarly, the organizational support theory suggests that employees are more productive

and put extra efforts, when they are provided maximum support from the management. The

effect is positive when the employees have already developed positive cognitive

assessment of their environment and the organizational treatment (Bandura, 2001), i.e.,

once the employees are psychologically empowered. The management support is also vital

for predicting “innovative behaviour of employees (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013). In the

context of knowledge intensive firms” which rely on the common stock of knowledge as

already mentioned earlier, the role of managers and immediate supervisors are very

important. In the presence of management support, the empowered employees are more

creative (Coelho & Augusto, 2010; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Herrmann & Felfe, 2014;

Heeseok Lee & Choi, 2003; Yildiz, Uzun, Semih, & Kun, 2017) and vice versa, thereby

the impact of PsyEmp on IWB is moderated by management support. Therefore, the same

moderation impact is expected in the context of software companies of Pakistan, therefore,

moderating role of management support on “PsyEmp and IWB association” is hypothesized

as follows:

H5: “Management supports “moderate impact of the psychological

empowerment on the IWB of employees working in software companies” in

Pakistan.”

66

2.3 Research Model

“The independent variables are the ability - enhancing HRs practices (AbEnHR), motivation

- enhancing HRs practices (AbEnHR), and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices

(OpEnHR). PsyEmp is the mediating variable, supportive work environment (management

support and coworker support) are the moderating variables. IWB is the dependent

variable. The conceptual research model of this study, is provided below in Figure-2.”

However, Figure-3 shows the corresponding statistical model of the study.

For the analysis of the statistical model, single level structural equation modeling is used

to estimate the model. The unit of analysis is the individual employees of the software

companies, hence SmartPLS software was used to estimate the model at single level.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

Researcher’s own processing of the model. “The research model is provided above. Where “Ability Enhancing HRs

practices, Motivation Enhancing HRs practices, and Opportunity Enhancing HRs practices are independent variables,

PsyEmp is the mediating Variable, which mediates the impact of HRs practices on the IWB.” The Management Support

and Coworker Support are moderating variables. Innovative Work Behaviour of these employees is the dependent

variable.”

67

Figure 3: Statistical Model

Researcher’s own processing of the model. The hypotheses are diagrammatically presented here. Hypotheses and the

relevant reference are provided in the relevant portion i.e., hypotheses development of this chapter.

Where, ““AbEnHR = Ability Enhancing HRs practices, MoEnHR = Motivation Enhancing HRs practices, and OpEnHR =

Opportunity Enhancing HRs practices are independent variables. PsyEmp = PsyEmp is the mediating Variable. SMG =

Management Support and SCW = Coworker Support are moderating variables. SMG * PsyEmp = Interaction term of

Management support and PsyEmp. SCW * PsyEmp = Interaction term of Coworker Support and PsyEmp. IWB = IWB

of the employees is the dependent variable. H1a, H1b, H1c, H2, H3a, H3b, H3c, H4 and H5 are the hypotheses developed

in previous sections of this chapter. The model” is estimated at level-1 across from IVs to the DV.”

H1a: “Ability Enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp level of employees working in software companies of

Pakistan.”

H1b: “Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices increase PsyEmp level of employees working in software companies of

Pakistan.”

H1c: “Opportunity enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp level of employees working in software companies of

Pakistan.”

H2: “Psychological “empowerment increases the IWB of employees in an organization.”

H3a: “Ability enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp, which “ultimately increases the IWB of the” employees.”

H3b: “Motivation enhancing HRs practices increase psychological “empowerment, which ultimately increases the

IWB of the employees.”

H3c: “Opportunity enhancing HRs practices increase PsyEmp, which ultimately increases “the IWB of the” employees.”

H4: “Co worker “support moderates the impact of the psychological empowerment on the IWB of” employees.”

H5: “Management “support moderates the impact of the psychological empowerment on the innovative work

behaviour of the” employees.”

68

2.4 Summary

The second chapter reviewed the existing literature and critically analyzed the literature on

the HRs practices, particularly the high involvement HRs practices and each bundle of HRs

practices are discussed in details. In addition, the mediating variable i.e., PsyEmp and its

origin and relationship with the other variables are discussed. The moderating variables

i.e., management support and coworker support and the dependent variable i.e., IWB is

also discussed at length. In addition, theoretical framework and the relevant theories are

discussed with their relevance to the constructs of this study. To start with, the concepts

and constructs are defined through the available literature. All the constructs are defined

and elaborated, followed by the Ability – Motivation - Opportunity (AMO) framework is

elaborated and discussed with its relevance to the “Ability - Enhancing HR practices

(AbEnHR), Motivation-Enhancing HR practices (MoEnHR), and Opportunity-Enhancing

HR practices (OpEnHR), respectively. Critical analysis is provided for the AMO

framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000),” Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) high

involvement HRs practices and the PsyEmp.

Literature review on the relationship between the PsyEmp and IWB is also provided with

their relevant hypotheses development. In addition, management support and coworker

support linkages are highlighted and elaborated with the help of previous research to

develop relevant hypotheses to hypothesize the moderating role of these two moderators.

Furthermore, their relationships with the IWB is also provided. Based on these literature

and the theoretical framework, the research model is developed and provided in this

chapter. At the end of the chapter two separate models are provided one is the conceptual

model (Figure-2) and the second one is the statistical model (Figure-3).

69

Chapter – 3

Research Methodology

70

3. Research Methodology

“This study was conducted to examine the “impact of ability, motivation, and opportunity

enhancing HRs practices on the IWB of the employees working in software companies in

Pakistan. The study also examined the mediating role of PsyEmp between HRs practices

and the IWB. In addition, the moderating roles of management support and coworker

support were also examined between the PsyEmp and IWB. Survey was conducted to

collect data on the independent, mediating, moderating and dependent variables to analyze

the relationships between the variables. Data was collected from the operational employees

working in software companies registered with Pakistan Software Houses Association

(PASHA) and Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB). Research methodology adopted

for this study is elaborated in the next ” sections.”

The research methodology of any research study must conform to the research objectives

and the research questions a researcher intends to achieve (Sekaran, 2003). The

methodology adopted in this study is also in conformance with the objectives of the study

with all the necessary justifications and previous evidences. The chapter highlights the

important components of the research design which include the purpose of the study, type

of investigation, extent of researcher’s interference with the study, identification of unit of

analysis, determination of the study setting, and the horizon of the study (Sekaran, 2003).

The research methodology is based on certain assumptions which are suggested under

different research paradigms. The research paradigm of this study is briefly explained in

the next section.

71

3.1 Research Paradigm

For an enquiry for the quest of the knowledge and truth, there are certain set of beliefs

which should be adhered to in order to reach to the reality. These set of principals are

collectively termed as research paradigm. It directs the researchers to follow certain path

to explore the reality about any phenomena of interest (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2012). It

deals with the nature of the reality, what is the knowledge, and how to reach and unearth

that reality. It also helps the researcher to adopt certain type of the research design

(Saunders et al., 2007). The research design encompasses the research method and the

objectives of the research and how the data is collected and what methods are used to

analyze the data to examine certain phenomena and examine the inter-relationship between

different phenomena of interest to reveal the reality. According to (Guba, 1990), research

paradigm can be characterized in three different domains, i.e. ontological, epistemological,

and methodological. The first one i.e., ontological questions are concerned with reality and

seek the answer to question; ‘what is the reality?’. The second domain i.e., epistemological

domain is concerned with the how to know the reality. Finally the third domain i.e.,

methodological domain seeks to answer the question ‘how do you go about finding the

reality?’. Broadly, these three domains set some principals which determine the whole

paradigm of research and instructive in differentiation between different paradigms.

There are different research paradigms, but the most prominent paradigms are

positivist/normative/realistic/objectivism and interpretive / social constructivist /

subjectivist. In this study, the positivist paradigm is used to carry out the research (Johnson

& Onwuegbuzie, 2012). The underpinning principles of the positivist paradigm in these

three different domains are as follows: Ontologically, it assumes that the social phenomena

is independent and free from other factors and suggests that there is a single reality which

exists regarding a certain phenomenon and is free from any subjective interpretation;

Epistemologically, positivist paradigm assumes that, in the social world, the reality can be

investigated and revealed but only through reliable and valid quantitative tools to measure

the different phenomena and estimate the relationships through scientific methods (Guba,

1990). Finally, methodologically, the availability of the quantitative data and the scientific

72

methods are used to collect the data and estimate the relationships. Since, the reliable and

valid measures were available to collect the data on the variables of this study, and

scientific methods were available to complete the data collection methods coupled with the

scientific and statistical tools for estimation, this study fulfills the requirements and

assumptions of the positivist paradigm.

The prominent strengths of the positivist paradigms are manifold (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2012). First, it tests and validates the existing theories and how these

relationships exists between the constructs; second, it tests hypotheses which are available

/ constructed before the data is collected i.e., it can generalize the results of one study and

theory over the period of time, third, it can reasonably and precisely predict certain

phenomena in advance based on the available data, and finally, there is flexibility a

researcher can enjoy in developing and modifying the model to test different competing

models. The advocates of positivist paradigm (Ayer, 1959; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004;

Popper, 1959) suggests that human behaviours and attitudes may be studied and examined

in the lines of the principles of the positivist paradigms, just as conducted in the natural

sciences i.e., objectively and through scientific methods. They further suggested to treat

the social observations in much the same way the physical observations are treated in the

natural sciences. The objectivity of the research is also important factor of the positivist

paradigm and should be free from any personal or environmental biases (Nagel, 1986). In

this study, causal relationship between the HRs practices and the IWB is examined through

the mediating role of PsyEmp and the moderating role of the supportive work environment.

The substantiation of the hypotheses is based on the data collected through scientific

method through reliable and valid measures of the constructs, therefore, this research

fulfills the assumptions of the positivist approach and uses deductive approach which

assumes to validate a theory and substantiate hypotheses after carefully crafted research

design and hypotheses testing procedure (Saunders et al., 2003). The research design of

this study is elaborated in the next section.

73

3.2 Research Design

The study used survey method for collection of data. The HRs management researchers are

accustomed with employing survey method to collect data on various HRs practices and

other behavioural as well as attitudinal variables to study the causal association between

these variables (Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Bartel, 2004; Beaumont, 1993; Gooderham,

Nordhaug, & Ringdal, 1999; Jiang et al., 2012; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). Researchers

collected primary data directly from the respondents of the study (Bjorkman, Fey, & Park,

2007; Delery & Doty, 1996; Harney & Jordan, 2008; Huselid, 1995; Katou & Budhwar,

2010; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003b) and examined the association between HRs management

and other organizational as well as individual level variables.

In terms of nature of data collection this study is attributed as cross-sectional, since the data

was collected once from the respondents and not repeated (Sekaran, 2003). Cross-sectional

data can also be used for the establishing the causal links between variables, particularly,

in the HRM-performance literature, where HRs management practices are in place

(whether in practice or perceived by the employees), which are affecting the employees

attitudes, behaviours and individual level outcomes (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Purcell

& Hutchinson (2007) presented a causal chain of the HRs management and individual level

outcomes relationships. They suggested that the sequence of the data collection is

important for these variables to suggest causality between the HRs management and the

behavioural outcomes. In this context, the data on HRs management practices are collected

before the data on predicted behaviour outcome variable is collected.

For the study a survey was conducted and primary data was collected through a carefully

designed survey instrument incorporating items to tap all the “high involvement HRs

practices, PsyEmp, the supportive work environment (which includes management support

and coworker support), the IWB” and demographic control variables from operational

employees working in the software companies of Pakistan. The data was collected in

almost six months from February, 2015 to July, 2015 from the software companies

operational in Pakistan. Most of the software companies are operating in the designated,

74

dedicated and purposeful built software technology parks (STPs). The software technology

parks (STPs) are located in four cities of Pakistan, i.e., Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and

Karachi, where all the software companies are operating to avail the government

subsidized technology / connectivity related infrastructure (PSEB, 2014).

Unit of analysis in this study was individual employees and their immediate supervisors

working in the relevant departments of the selected software companies. The employees

are the only source who practically experience the treatments from the organizations in the

form of the HRs practices implemented in the organization. They are the direct

beneficiaries of HRs management practices, hence are in better position to respond to the

items on HRs practices. The hypotheses were tested through structural equation modeling

and other statistical techniques. The details are provide in the relevant sections.

3.2.1 Industry

In Pakistan, the second important sector in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) is that

of telecom and information technology (IT) which had enjoyed an investment of US$ 3.4

billion in the last decade (Board of Investment, 2015) followed by the Oil and Gas sector.

This accounts for almost 31.5% of the total inward FDI for the period 2000-2010. The total

worth of IT industry in Pakistan is estimated to be around US $ 2.8 billion, a major chunk

of this investment is due to the flow of FDI from US multinationals and expatriate US

Pakistani nationals who have established an IT company in Pakistan with a front office in

US (Pakistan Software Export Board, 2010). Relatively a new industry with heavy

presence of foreign companies and with its knowledge intensive workforce makes it a

worthwhile sector to examine association between the high involvement HRs practices and

their association with other variables, particularly IWB as taken in this study.

The significance of the software sector for Pakistan is evident from the initiatives taken by

the government of Pakistan. One such initiative is the establishment of NATIONAL ICT

R&D FUND in 2007 through Ministry of Information Technology and

Telecommunication. There are some other organizations which are working to promote

and strengthen the software industry of Pakistan like, Ministry of Information Technology

75

and Telecommunication (MoITT), Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), Pakistan

Council of Science and Technology, Pakistan Science Foundation, and National

Commission for Science and Technology. One of the active and important organizations

working in the promotion of the software industry is the Pakistan Software Export Board

(PSEB, 2014). Another such organization is the formal association of the software

companies with the name of Pakistan Software Houses Association (PASHA), which

works for the betterment of the industry. For the promotion of foreign investment in the

industry, the Government has established Software Technology Parks (STPs) on a covered

area of 7000 sq. ft., which are provided with necessary IT infrastructure; third, foreign

investors are provided facility of 100% profit repatriation; fourth, exemption of income

tax; and last, provision of internet connectivity facility on subsidized rates (PSEB, 2014).

Out of 1800 IT companies, 110 companies have so far obtained the ISO 9001 (International

Standards Organization), 23 companies obtained CMMI (Capability Maturity Model

Integration) and 11 companies got ISO 27001 certification, 2 companies each are listed on

Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) and National Association of Securities and Dealers

Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) and one company is listed on Dubai International

Financial Exchange (DIFX). All these achievements are the result of the endeavors of the

PSEB. For the protection of the rights of the software companies in Pakistan, a professional

association has also been created by the software companies with the name of Pakistan

Software Houses Association (P@SHA) in year 1992 by nine software houses; however

by the year 2007, the number of software houses increased to 350. This association is a

professional body to decide and manage the businesses of the software industry and to

identify future growth opportunities for the software companies operating in Pakistan. The

efforts of the P@SHA in promotion of the software houses resulted in development of IT

policy and action plan of the government of Pakistan.

According to Global Information Technology Report (2014), a study conducted to assess

the impact of Information Technology on the competitiveness of a country, Pakistan is

ranked at 111th out of 144 countries on Networked Readiness Index (NRI). The important

factor studied for NRI is the environment provided by the concerned government (i.e.,

political and regulatory environment coupled with the business and innovative

76

environment). Among low-medium income group of countries Pakistan was placed at 14

in Year 2009-10, whereas China, India and Sri-Lanka were placed at 1st, 3rd and 9th,

respectively. According to the report GITR (2012), it is imperative for an economy to

develop the software industry as it accounts for significant value addition, generation of

employment and innovation through its close interaction with the other industries (Dutta,

Bilbao-Osorio, & Geiger, 2012).

The Higher Education Commission, Pakistan, the higher education regulatory commission,

has established a national council for accreditation of the computer related academic

programs offered in the universities with the name of National Computing Education

Accreditation Council (NCEAC, 2010). Due to this accreditation council, the curricula

offered by different educational institutions become similar to each other, hence yield

workforce with the similar knowledge domain. In such situations, where all the

professionals having similar educational and IT related expertise, the knowledge becomes

common among the professionals. The only way they can contribute towards their

organizations is through creative generation of the products / services. In addition, HEC

has asked the universities to establish corporate advisory committee (CACs) and to include

members from the industry for industry-academia linkages for mutual benefits of the

academic and industry. Software companies are selected for this study, because they are

engaged in extensive research and development activities – innovative product output -,

which are aimed at innovation and creative production of the services and goods. Since

these companies are largely dependent upon the innovation and knowledge creation in the

form of software development, service innovation and research and development to ensure

their competitiveness viz-a-viz their competitors in the industry; therefore, IWB of

employees is vital for their success.

3.2.2 Respondents

Data was collected from the operational employees and their immediate supervisors

working in the product development, research and development and software development

and service delivery departments of the software companies of Pakistan. The operational

77

employees working in these departments are important respondents viz-a-viz the dependent

variable of the study i.e. IWB. Operational employees in the software companies are those

who are working in the product development and research & development departments

who are supposed to be well educated and trained in the field of computer science. These

workers fall under the category of knowledge workers, since they are involved in

implementation of their knowledge and the companies survival and performance is

dependent on their knowledge base (Cushen & Thompson, 2012). Furthermore, the

linkages of the HRs practices to these knowledge workers is evident from the existing

literature (Alvesson, 2011). According to Cushen and Thompson (2012), the knowledge

workers have autonomy in applying their skills and knowledge in the work environment,

which makes them vulnerable to the HRs practices of the organizations. The organizations

need to ensure the best utilization of their knowledge and skills through implementation of

suitable HRs practices in order to make them more innovative (Cushen and Thompson,

2012). The workers in software industry are the knowledge workers who are also enjoying

the autonomy in applying their knowledge and skills (Agarwal et al., 2012). The software

developers and engineers working in the software industry also constitute the knowledge

workers (Warhurst, 2006), it is further argued that simply applying skills and knowledge

in the workplace is enough to justify the knowledge workers.

The focus of this study was the IWB of the employees, therefore, those employee working

directly in the production and services departments were the target of this study, and hence

constituted the respondents of this study. The respondents were at least graduate in the field

of computer sciences, i.e., computer and software engineers. These workforce are directly

working in the software development and service provision. The roles they got in these

companies are the software engineers, software developers, sales executives (after sale

services), junior engineers and senior engineers (based on their experiences).

In addition, the roles and the skills level classification of these employees (termed as

operational employees) are the software architect, programmers (including Andriod, iOS,

Ruby, java, .net, python, Web development languages, Database front end programmer,

and Microsoft Sharepoint & Dynamics), Game designer, Game producer, Game Produce

78

manager, Database Administrator, Graphic Designer etc. They work in three categories,

entry level, middle level and top level developers and engineers; these classification is

based on their experience and tenure (PSEB, 2014).

This workforce is expected to have attained professional qualification from the recognized

and accredited educational institutions, thereby making them qualified enough to

participate in the survey, hence no issue of non-response bias. They are qualified to identify

and evaluate different HRs practices implemented in their organizations and understand

the language of the questionnaires without any difficulties, therefore, survey instruments

were adopted as such without any modification / alteration.

The data on the dependent variable was collected from the immediate supervisors of the

respondents. The brief profile of the immediate supervisors are the Team Lead, Quality

Assurance incharge, the CEOs (in small companies, who are directly supervising the

workforce), Chief information officer, Chief operation officers, project managers (for

sponsored allocated projects and other indigenous project teams) and the senior developers

/ programmers and engineers who are heading the relevant departments.

HRs management researchers emphasize on the importance of benefitting the operational

level employees through effective HRs practices in the organizations in order to get optimal

results in the form of enhanced performance of the employees. A clear indication of this

approach can be seen from the huge number of studies to relate the high performance

related HRs practices with the performance outcomes of the operational level employees

(Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012a; Liao et al., 2009; Merlot & De Cieri,

2012; Rowley & Benson, 2002). In the software industry, the structure is different from

other conventional organization; employees are working on smart technologies and can

work even in small spaces. In the absence of sophisticated and large machinery in the plants

and offices, the number of supporting staff and the higher management is comparatively

less as compared to other industries. The availability of these HRs practices is less likely

in comparatively smaller organizations. Therefore, the software companies, which

inducted 50 or more employees were suitable for this study, to examine the real effect of

HRs management on IWB.

79

3.2.3 Data Collection

All the operational employees and their immediate supervisors, who are actively involved

in the software development, service delivery and other software related tasks, working in

the software companies in Pakistan constituted the population of the study. In the first

phase, companies were selected randomly from the whole population. The list of software

companies operating in Pakistan was available at the website of Pakistan Software Export

Board (PSEB) and Pakistan Software Houses Association (PASHA). The companies were

verified by a telephone call and physical inspection where necessary. Software companies

are located in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi either independently in

commercial areas, residential areas or concentrated in purposeful facilities termed as

Software Technology Parks (STPs). Only those companies were randomly selected which

fulfilled the three criteria. First, companies employing more than 50 employees were

considered for this study. Second, the companies must be registered with Pakistan Software

Houses Association (PASHA); and Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB). Third, they

should have a designated HRs management department.

According to the first criterion, there were total 279 companies, which were registered with

the professional association of software houses namely Pakistan Software Houses

Association (PASHA) and listed with the Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB). Out of

these companies only those companies were retained for further selection which employed

at least 50 employees and had established a HRs department. In this first phase 61

companies were selected from the list of all the companies which fulfilled the three criteria.

Only 55 companies agreed to participate in the study, while 6 refused to participate in the

study. Their contact details and addresses were obtained from the official website of

PASHA. The website is very comprehensive, as it provides complete details of the

company, including the company’s complete location and area of operations. List of the

selected 55 companies is provided at Appendix-A.

80

All the selected companies’ HRs departments were contacted through email and visited

personally to ensure maximum participation from their employees. The HRs managers

were requested to provide the lists of the employees to ensure random selection of the

employees. However, four companies agreed to provide list of the employee, rest of the

companies declined the request of provision of the list of the employees due to their internal

policies. Employees in these companies were available in close proximity and were easily

approachable but only through the cooperation of the HRs departments of the concerned

company. Every company agreed to facilitate the data collection process. The HR

departments helped in random distribution of the questionnaires to the employees. The

cooperation and support from the HRs departments is crucial in getting maximum response

from the respondents (Jia et al., 2014). The HRs managers were requested to facilitate the

conduction of the survey; after brief introduction of the topic and the purpose of the study,

they agreed to involve their employees in the survey. The HRs department facilitated the

random selection of respondents for distribution of the questionnaires and identification of

their immediate supervisors for collection of data on IWB of the employees. Involvement

of the HRs officers helped obtaining maximum participation by the employees.

During the distribution of the questionnaires, with the help of the HR officers of the

companies, lists were developed for the selected employees, with the names of their

supervisors. The matching of the responses is important in the multi-source data collection

(de Jonge & Peeters, 2009). Employees were asked to respond to all the items on the

questionnaires (the first sections with a serial number unique to each responding

employee), except to the items of IWB (a separate detachable section attached to the main

questionnaire). However, the HRs departments facilitated to get the last section (containing

the names of the responding employee) filled by their immediate supervisors without

disclosing the employees’ responses (the responses of the employees were kept

confidential by the researcher) which ensured the confidentiality of their responses. Later

on, the questionnaires were matched through the sorting key mentioned on the

questionnaires, and the responses were merged together with the help of lists developed in

the first stage. The first section contained only the serial number of the individual

employee, however, the last section contained the name of the individual respondent and

81

the serial number (similar to the one mentioned on the first section of the questionnaire for

matching the responses from the employee and supervisor). The serial number of the first

section and the last section were matched to merge the responses from the employees and

their supervisor.

Questionnaires were distributed to 800 operational employees. According to Krejcie and

Morgan (1970), a sample size of 384 is sufficient to correctly estimate the unbiased

parameters. In addition, a cases and parameters ratio suggests that 10:1 ratio for a minimum

sample size is required, for estimation of Structural equation modelling through maximum

likelihood (Kline, 2011). This study is not using maximum likelihood method of estimation

for the SEM, instead PLS-SEM is used to estimate the model. Therefore, a minimum

sample size of 400 was target of this study (Krejcie & Morgan, 1975). Keeping in view

the response rate in HRs management research conducted HRM literature (i.e., 50%

average response rate (Baruch and Holtom, 2008), 800 questionnaires were distributed to

get minimum 400 questionnaires. A total 538 operational employees returned the

operational and completed questionnaires with 81 supervisors reported questionnaires for

their relevant subordinates, correct and complete questionnaires were received, the

response rate viz-a-viz questionnaire distribution is 67%, which is in acceptable range as

suggested by high performance HRs management researchers. The response rates for

studies analyzing HRs management and performance linkages ranges between 25% to 85%

for example, 25.46% (Abstein et al., 2014), 33.5% (Grant, Berry, & Carolina, 2011), 42%

(Amabile et al., 1996), 54% (Batt, 2002), 55% (Dorenbosch et al., 2005), 60.7%

(Bhatnagar, 2005), 77% (Kim & Yoon, 2015), 85% (Hon et al., 2011). These figures

suggest that the response rate for this study was according to the norm of the HRs

management research.

3.2.4 Common Method Variance

However, the data collection in this study was segregated as far as the data collection on

different variables was concerned, which was done only to avoid the potential threats of

Common Method Variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The data for

82

the independent, mediating and moderating variable was self-reported and collected

directly from the respondents; however data for the dependent variable i.e., IWB was

collected from their immediate supervisor. The respondents were also provided a facility

to identify their immediate supervisor, who were approached for responses on the

dependent variable. Although the number of respondents outnumbered the immediate

supervisors, but this segregation of the data was inevitable in ensuring the avoidance of

common method bias. The findings could be reasonably bias free once the data on different

variables were collected from multi-sources i.e., on the main independent variables,

mediating variable and the moderating variables from the respondents (employees) and on

the dependent variable from the immediate supervisor. The collection of data from the

immediate supervisor would contribute in interpreting the findings the results in three

ways: first, the supervisors are best judge of their subordinates in terms of their creativity

and the ideas which they have generated and put forward to them for approval, second, the

responses on the IWB from the employees would suffer from the self-reporting bias as

there are chances that the respondents show biasness as a result of social desirability

biasness (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and are expected to misrepresent their true behaviour

about their innovative capabilities; and third, the segregation would minimize the bias in

the results by avoiding the spurious correlation between the variables which could have

been arisen through the common source (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

This segregation of the data collection was made to avoid common method variance

(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The researcher had no difficulties in data collection as far as the

comprehension and understanding of the language by the respondents were concerned, as

all the target respondents were well qualified to respond to the items without any explicit

external support. Pilot study also confirmed this. Through involvement of HRs departments

it was expected that all employees would participate in the study; however, some of the

employees did not provide their final questionnaire to the researcher due to their personal

reasons.

In addition to that, suspicious response patterns were checked through standard deviation

for every observation using MS Excel to see whether any observation yields low standard

83

deviation (e.g., near to or equal to zero). This suspicious response patterns is termed as

consistency motif (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Consistency motif (suspicious response

patterns) is the result of the tendency of respondents to give all responses consistently

throughout the questionnaire and mark all the observations in a straight line. Standard

deviation for any observation (case) equals to zero is the indication of consistency motif,

hence eligible for deletion. The analysis showed no such respondents which yielded low or

zero standard deviation, hence all the responses were retained for further analysis.

For response and non-response biases, the sample was appropriate, as all the respondents

were from the same industry and represented the relevant population i.e., operational

employees of the software companies, wherein the IWB is relevant factor, and were

qualified enough to comprehend the questionnaire, hence no issues of sampling bias. Non-

sampling bias is due to two factors, one is the response and other one is the non-response

bias. The respondents were ensured the confidentiality of their responses, to avoid non-

response bias. Items which could invoke the social desirability concern or double barreled

questions were carefully checked, which could have resulted in the response bias. The late

respondents are representatives of the non-respondents (Armstrong and Averton, 1977),

therefore, in addition to this remedial strategy, the differential analysis of the respondents

of first quarter with the respondents of last quarters confirmed that these two groups are

not different from each other hence proved unavailability of non-response bias (See

Appendix-B). This test confirmed non-availability of the response bias.

3.2.5 Missing values and Data Screening

The descriptive statistics of the items are provided in Appendix-C, which show that all the

items are within the predefined range, i.e., the minimum =1 and maximum = 5. All the

items were measured on five-point Likert scale, hence no observation was identified as

outlier uni-variately. The skewness and kurtosis of all the items were in the acceptable

range i.e., below 1, which shows that all the items are uni-variate normally distributed.

Another data screening step is to see any outliers in the data. For this purpose, SPSS was

used to see the distribution of the data to identify the outliers in dataset and all the responses

84

were in acceptable ranges i.e., between 1 and 5. The results of showed no outliers in the

dataset. The table also identified missing data for each of the items, and in no case the

missing data exceeded 1 % threshold, hence mean replacement is the recommended

treatment of these missing data (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). Accordingly, the

missing data was dealt with the mean replacement technique using SPSS before using it in

the model estimation through SEM in SmartPLS.

85

3.2.6 Limitations of the Research Design and Treatment

The research design is the central section of any research document and it has to be in

conformity with the overall theme of the research, particularly, the research questions

developed in the earlier section of the study (Bono & McNamara, 2011). Since the

questions of this study were warranting the causal linkages between the variables of the

study, however, for the true causality between the variables, a pure research design is

required with a longitudinal data. However, since in this study multi-sources were

involved, hence the data on the independent variables were collected earlier from the

employees / operational employees, and data on the dependent variable was collected from

their immediate supervisors just after the data on the independent variables were collected.

This temporal precedence of the independent variables establishes the fact that the

perception of the favorable HRs practices by the employees would result in the high level

of IWB. Literature suggested that perception of favorable HRs management (i.e., high

involvement HRs practices) has a positive impact on the IWB (Shipton et al., 2006) and as

temporal antecedents of the IWB; this study with a cross-section design can conclude that

employees with the perception high level of favorable HRs practices tend to report high

levels of IWB scores.

Another issue was the adaptation of the instruments borrowed from other research settings.

The measurement instruments, which were typically developed and tested in other

geographical and cultural settings, sometimes, need to be revised according to the local

settings. In this study, this issue was tackled as the respondents were graduates from the

HEIs who were working in the software industry and were well versed with the

terminologies used in the measurement tools. The same was also ensured through the pilot

testing, and the respondents were comfortable in comprehending and responding to the

items of the measurement tools. Therefore, all the tools were used unchanged and used the

adopted tools in this study due to the comprehension levels of the respondents of this study.

86

Third issue was related to the common method bias, which was inevitable in studies where

the single source is responding to all the variables and providing data on all the items of

the study. In this study, as a procedural measure the data collection was segregated both

temporally (to give temporal precedence to the variables come first in the model over the

variable which comes later in the model) and the source wise (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The

later was ensured through collection of data on the independent variables, mediating

variable and moderating variables from the employees while data on the dependent variable

was collected from their immediate supervisors.

3.2.7 Ethical Issues Central to this Study

Ethical issues are inevitable whenever the research involves human being as respondents

and subject of the research study. This study, just like other studies, has considered the

individual employees working in the software industry of Pakistan for the collection of the

data. There involves some personal information, which is to be collected from the

respondents, just like their perception about the HRs practices, what are their level of

PsyEmp, what they feel about the organizations, and also the others in the organizations

were asked to report about their immediate subordinates on their IWB. In such

circumstances, it is necessary to get their prior consent for data collection and other

formalities, which involves the involvement of the relevant stakeholders from within the

organizations. This is the primary issue where the territories of the ethics are confronted

by the researcher.

In this study, the primary data was collected and the concerned organizations were

approached in advance for their consent to involve their employees for the data collection

process. They were provided with the objectives of the study, though very brief and to the

point, and were assured that the data would be used only for the academic purposes i.e., for

the PhD thesis and the confidentiality of the responses would be ensured. In doing so, the

ethical challenges were averted, which were related to the participants’ responses privacy

87

and the informed consent were obtained from both the employees as well as their

organizational gatekeepers.

The researcher’s own integrity and honesty is another ethical consideration in this study.

This was ensured through the university’s internal mechanism which ensures that the

material used in the thesis is purely researcher’s own processing and nothing is copied from

some where else. It also ensures the data analytical techniques through its internal

examination and evaluation mechanism through which they ensure the genuineness of the

data collected and analysis. Another issues arises here is related to the intellectual property

rights, which is ensured through proper and just citations of the work used in this study. In

addition, the unique research methodology and the results interpretation ensures the

intellectual property rightness. Furthermore, the university’s mechanism to implement and

follow the zero tolerance against the plagiarism is the indication of the genuineness of the

data and the material used in this study. To this account two documents are provided by

the author. First, a separate dedicated declaration duly signed by the author is provided in

this thesis, which ensures the authenticity of the data and material used in this study.

Second, a plagiarism free certificate duly signed by the author and the concerned

responsible stakeholders i.e., the supervisor, HoD, Chairman and the Dean of the faculty.

These two documents supports the claim of the author for being genuine and the work

being original.

Since the data was collected from the respondents and their immediate supervisors, the

individual respondents were also given the contact details of the researcher, if in case they

need the results of the study. The results were aggregate, and disclosing the results would

not identify any individual or any individual organization, but would reflect the results of

all the combined sample of 538 without identifying any individual or organization. The

data was collected through scientific method, as per norms of the research community in

the field of management studies, and the details are provided in the method section of the

study. The researcher has presented the data and its analysis the way it is produced by the

statistical software and no personal or subjective treatment is given to the data nor to the

analysis results.

88

3.3 Survey Instruments

A questionnaire was designed after incorporating all the items of the independent variables,

moderating variable, mediating variable and the dependent variable and was used for data

collection. The questionnaire contained 61 items related to the variables of the study. Each

variable was measured using multiple items keeping in view their subjective nature. HRs

measures were drawn from existing literature and covered three types “of HRs practices,

i.e., ability - enhancing, motivation - enhancing and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices,

measured through the items of selection, training, compensation, performance appraisal,

job design and employee” participation.

Appendix-D provides the complete questionnaire detailing all the variables and the relevant

items used to measure the “high involvement HRs practices, PsyEmp, management support,

coworker support and IWB”. Researchers suggested use of subjective scales instead of

objective measures for tapping HRs practices constructs other latent constructs

(Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; Ng & Feldman, 2012). Subjective scales are used to tap

the HRs practices by soliciting feedback from the respondents on various dimensions and

items of the constructs, thereby making it subjective scales which ensures reasonably true

representation of the construct. The details of the measures are provide below.

3.3.1 High Involvement HRs Practices

According to Jiang et al., (2012), all the groups of HRs practices i.e., ability, motivation

and opportunity enhancing HRs practices are measured through reflective items of

selection and training; compensation and performance appraisal; and job design and

participation, respectively. The ability, motivation and opportunity enhancing HRs

practices are taken as uni-dimensional constructs, measured through reflective items of the

relevant practices (Obeidat, Mitchell, & Bray, 2016; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014).

3.3.2 Ability enhancing HRs Practices

89

Ability enhancing HRs practices are measured through the items of selection and training.

The items related to the selection were taken from the 5-item tool adopted from Prieto &

Perez-Santana (2014). The responses are from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The

items of the selection are “Our company spends a great effort in selecting the right person

for every position.”; “Our company uses extensive procedures in recruitment and selection,

including a variety of test and interviews.”; “In recruiting, our company emphasizes the

potential of new hires to learn and grow with the company.”; “Our company takes care on

its image when recruiting and selecting employees.”; and “Employees are selected based

on their overall fit to the organization.”. The items related to the training were taken from

an adopted 5-item tool used by Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014). The sample items are:

“Employees normally go through ongoing training programs.”; “Our company provides

training focused on team-building and teamwork skills.”; “Managers provide specialized

training and development for their employees”; “Managers initiate and provide various

kinds of training and development for their employees.”; and “Our company has good

mentoring system to support newly hired employees”. However, to avoid CMV, an item

was reversed to make it “Managers do not provide specialized training and development

for their employees” to cater for the consistency motif (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

3.3.3 Motivation enhancing HRs Practices

Motivation enhancing HRs practice’s construct was measured through the items of

compensation and performance appraisal. The items for compensations were taken from a

4-item scale adopted from Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014). The sample items are

“Employees in this organization receive monetary rewards based on their individual

performance.”; “Employees in this organization receive monetary rewards based on their

group performance.”; “Employees in this organization receive monetary rewards based on

the organizational performance.” and “Our Company’s pay system reflects employee’s

contribution to the company.” However, to avoid CMV, an item was reversed to make it

“Our company’s pay system does not reflect employee’s contribution to the company.” to

cater for the consistency motif (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The items for performance

appraisal were taken from a 5-item tool adopted from Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014). The

90

sample items are as follows: “Employees performance appraisal is based on individual

behaviours and attitudes at work.”; “Employees performance appraisal is oriented towards

their development and progress at work.”; “Employees performance appraisal emphasize

collective and long-term based results.”; “Employees receive performance feedback on a

routine basis’ and ‘Performance appraisals are based in objective quantifiable results.”.

3.3.4 Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices

Opportunity enhancing HRs practices’ construct was measured through the items of job

design and employees’ participation. Items for job design were taken from 4-item Likert

scale developed by Prieto & Perez-Santana (2014). The sample items are as follows: “Our

company provides opportunities to employees through job rotation and flexible work

assignments in different work areas.”; “Our company transfers extensively different tasks

and responsibilities to employees.”; “Our company emphasizes employees’ team work and

network collaboration” and “Employees in this organization have broadly designed jobs

requiring a variety of skills.”. Items for employees’ participation were taken from a 6-item

Likert scale adopted from the same study. The sample items are “Employees in this

company are allowed to make decisions.”; “Employees are provided the opportunity to

suggest improvements in the way things are done”; “Employees are invited to participate

in a wide range of issues, including performance standards, quality improvement, benefits,

etc.”; “Employees are invited to participate in problem solving and decision making.”;

“Employees receive information on the relevant concerns of the company (goals,

performance, etc.).”; and “Supervisors keep open communication in this company.”.

However, to avoid common method variance, two items were reversed as “Employees in

this company are not allowed to make decisions” and “Employees are not invited to

participate in problem solving and decision making”.

91

3.3.5 Supportive Work Environment

The supportive work environment is further divided into two kinds of support i.e.,

management support and co-workers support. Tools for both variables are also adopted

from previous studies i.e., for management support, a 5-item tool developed by Chandler

et al., (2000) and Hornsby et al., (2002). The items for management support are:

“Employees in this organization feel it is easy to approach to their supervisor.”;

“Employees in this organization receive encouragement and support from their

supervisors.”; “Employees in this organization have access to resources that they need to

do their work.”; “Employees in this organization have the guidance and help that they need

to do their work.” and “Employees in this organization are aware of the policies and

procedures to perform their work.”.

Coworkers support was measured by a tool developed and published in previous researches

(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; H. Lee & Choi, 2003; Subramanian & Youndt, 2005). The

items for Coworker support are as follows: “Employees in this organization have

relationships based on trust and reciprocal faith.”; “Employees in this organization trust

their coworkers.”; “Employees in this organization share a commonality of purpose and

collective aspirations with others at work.”; “Employees share information and learn from

one another.”; “Employees view themselves as partners in charting the direction of the

organization.” and “Employees interact and exchange ideas with people from different

areas of the organization.”. However, to avoid common method variance in the data set

following two items were reversed as “Employees in this organization do not trust their

coworkers.” and “Employees do not share information and learn from one another”.

92

3.3.6 PsyEmp

To measure PsyEmp a well-established, reliable and validated tool developed by Spreitzer

(1995) is adopted for this study. The tool consists of four dimensions i.e., impact, self-

determination, meaning and self-efficacy, and collectively they measure PsyEmp through

additive characteristic (Spreitzer, 1995). Each dimension is measured on 3-item Likert

scale. Items for measuring the construct of PsyEmp as a whole are as follows: “My impact

on what happens in my department is large.”; “I have a great deal of control over what

happens in my department.”; “I have significant influence over what happens in my

department.”; “The work I do is very important to me.”; “My job activities are personally

meaningful to me.”; “The work I do is meaningful to me.”; “I have significant autonomy

in determining how I do my job.”; “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my

work.”; “I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my

job.”; “I am confident about my ability to do my job.”; “I am self-assured about my

capabilities to perform my work activities.” and “I have mastered the skills necessary for

my job.”. However, to avoid common method variance one item was reversed as “The

work I do is not meaningful to me.”

3.3.7 IWB

IWB of the employees was measured on a nine-item tool (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce,

1994); the tool contains three dimensions i.e., idea generation, idea promotion and idea

realization. All the three dimensions are measured on 3-item tools. They are additive and

cannot be identified in isolation, and can tap the IWB, when collectively measured, hence

showing additive characteristic (Janssen, 2000). Therefore, all the items were used to

measure the single construct of IWB. According to de Jong & den Hartog (2010), the

collective measurement of the dimensions in the summative form is more useful as

compared to segregation of the dimensions of the measure.

93

Therefore in this study it is used as uni-dimensional construct of the IWB, to effectively

measure the innovative behaviour of employees. In addition, the data on IWB was collected

from the immediate supervisors of the responding employees, therefore these items sought

information from the supervisors about the reporting employees. All the items were

measured on a scale of 5 (never to always) with 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 =

often, and 5 = always. The items used to measure the IWB are as follows: “How often this

employee creates new ideas for difficult issues?”; “How often this employee searches out

new working methods, techniques, or instruments?”; “How often this employee generates

original solutions for problems?”; “How often this employee Mobilizes support for

innovative ideas?”; “How often this employee acquires approval for innovative ideas?”;

“How often this employee makes important organizational members enthusiastic for

innovative ideas?”; “How often this employee transforms innovative ideas into useful

applications?”; “How often this employee introduces innovative ideas into the work

environment in a systematic way?” and “How often this employee evaluates the utility of

innovative ideas?”.

In addition to these main variables, two demographic variables were used as control

variables, i.e., gender of the respondents and the company origin i.e., local or foreign. A

multi-group analysis was conducted to assess the differences in the responses viz-a-viz

IWB, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014).

94

3.4 Statistical Techniques

Prior to the estimation of main model, data was assessed through FIMIX procedures for

unobserved heterogeneity. Measurement models were estimated and diagnostics were

performed. Measurement models were estimated through the reliability and validity

assessment using SmartPLS software. For the reliability and validity, convergent validity,

composite reliability and discriminant validity were checked. For the main research model,

structural equation modeling was used to estimate the path coefficients. The mediation and

moderation analysis was carried out in SEM using the SmartPLS software. In addition to

that, indirect conditional effects of the ability-, motivation-, and opportunity-enhancing

HRs practices on the IWB through PsyEmp on boundary conditions of management

support and coworker support was assessed through the Hayes procedures (Hayes, 2013).

For the goodness of fit, different tests, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014), were applied to

assess the goodness of fit, which include, coefficient of determination, blindfolding

procedures for out of the sample generalization of the model.

The data on the independent variables, the mediating variable and the moderating variables

were collected directly from the employees of the software companies and the data on the

dependent variable was collected from their immediate supervisors. This procedure was

adopted to avoid common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Since the immediate

supervisors were asked to provide feedback on the IWB of each respondent working under

his supervision, therefore the analysis was carried out the individual employee level. The

unit of analysis were individual employees and there was no aggregation or segregation of

data was involved nor it was warranted in this analysis, therefore, the analysis was carried

out at single level i.e., the individual level.

The guidelines for analysis and the relevant threshold values for the measurement model

estimations are provided in the Table-1 below.

95

Table 1: Guidelines for Measurement Model Estimation

Criterion Recommendations Source

Internal - Consistency

Reliability

Composite Reliability must be

greater than 0.70 i.e., (CR

>0.70).

(Nunnally, 1978)

“Indicator Reliability” Indicator loadings are to be

greater than 0.70.

(Hair et al., 2011)

“Convergent Validity” AVEs must be more than 0.50. (Hair et al., 2011)

“Discriminant Validity” Three criteria for discriminant

validity are:

a. “Indicators’ loading on

the relevant construct

must be greater than their

loadings on other

constructs.”

b. “AVEs of a construct

must be greater than its

inter-correlation with

other constructs.”

c. HTMT ratio of the

correlation should be less

than 0.90, and the

confidence intervals of

these ratio should not

contain a value of 1.

(Chin, 1995)

(Fornell &

Larcker, 1981)

(Henseler, Ringle,

& Sarstedt, 2015)

96

The guidelines for the estimation of the structural model and the threshold values are

provided in the Table-2.

Table 2: Guidelines for Structural Model Estimation

Criterion Recommendations Source

Estimates of Path

Coefficients

“Path coefficients represent the

relevant effect of an independent

variable on the dependent variable.

No threshold value for this

coefficient. The significance of the

path coefficients are assessed

through t-values calculated through

bootstrapped procedure.”

(Chin, 1998)

“R2 Value-Coefficient of

Determination”

“In the structural models, R2 values

of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 are

described as low, moderate and

high coefficients, respectively.”

(Hair et al., 2011)

“Effect size f2 value” “f2 coefficients of 0.02, 0.15, and

0.35 show small, medium and large

effects respectively. More

optimistic values of f2 effect size

for moderation to have small;

medium; and large effects are

0.005; 0.01; and 0.025;

respectively.”

(Cohen, 1988)

(Kenny,2016)

“Predictive Relevance Q2

and q2”

“These coefficients are estimated

through blindfolding procedures

and Q2 > 0.00 shows predictive

relevance. Effect size q2 values of

0.02; 0.15; and 0.35 indicates

small; medium; and large effects

size, respectively.”

(Geisser, 1974;

Stone, 1974)

VAF “VAF=Variance accounted for.

(Less than .20 – no mediation;

VAF between 0.20 and 0.80 –

partial Mediation; and VAF > 0.80

means full mediation. The CIs do

not contain the value of 1, therefore

all the indirect effects are

significant.”

Hair et al., (2014)

97

3.4.1 Structural Equation Modeling

With the introduction and consolidation of the second generation analytical techniques of

structural equations modeling, which are more powerful and user-friendly as compared to

the first generation analytical techniques (such as regression and ANOVA etc.) (Lowry &

Gaskin, 2014), structural equation modeling is taking precedence over other analytical

tools and procedures in the existing researches (Hsu, 2010; Jia et al., 2014; Lowry &

Gaskin, 2014; Marsh et al., 2007; Wong, 2013). Behavioural aspects of the employees are

hard to comprehend through a straight forward mechanism, rather multiple

dimensions/items are used to tap it accurately (Messmann & Mulder, 2012). Structural

Equations Modeling is used in this study due to its capability to estimate multiple structural

models simultaneously and is useful in offsetting the potential threats of the measurement

errors, for which the regression is incapable (Hsu, 2010). Structural equation modeling is

considered important extension of the exploratory factor analysis and the multiple

regression analysis and considered as one of the new generation analytical techniques

(Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). SEM has the ability to simultaneously assess the reliability and

validity of the constructs and the estimation of the causal relationships between the

constructs (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000).

Generally, there are two forms of structural equation modeling (SEM); i.e., covariance

based –SEM (represents constructs through factors) and variance based – SEM (represents

constructs through components), the latter is alternatively termed as Partial Least Squares

–SEM (Wong, 2013). PLS-SEM is useful for non-normal data, and other statistical

procedures which are not supported in CB-SEM (Marcoulides, Chin, & S., 2009). Among

others, following are the main characteristics which make the PLS-SEM more suitable over

the CB-SEM for this study. Firstly, factor indeterminacy, which is defined as inability of

determining specific factors. As, unobservable constructs may be correlated highly with

many of the observable items but may show negative correlations with other constructs,

sharing the same pattern of the observable items (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). PLS avoids

this problem of factor indeterminacy by creating constructs from the factor scores, which

98

are used for further analysis with other constructs in the structural models. Secondly, the

data distribution flexibility, which is related to the assumption of the data distribution. PLS

does not assume any distributional patterns of the data while normal distribution is the

assumption of the regression analysis, and CB-SEM (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011),

hence the normality of the data is not a major problem in applying PLS-SEM. To this effect,

in PLS-SEM, bootstrapping resampling routine is used to calculate the standard errors of

the coefficients and t-values are estimated. Thirdly, moderation is very conveniently

assessed in the PLS-SEM as compared to the CB-SEM, which is not sensitive to moderator

effects (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). Chin et al., (2013), empirically demonstrated

that product-indicator approach is better performed in the PLS-SEM to measure the

interaction and moderation effects. This study also aimed at exploring the group

differences, thereby performed multi-group analysis. Usually, multi-group analysis

reduces the samples sizes for each group when the data is divided into the relevant groups.

Since CB-SEM cannot perform analysis on small sample sizes and PLS-SEM is suitable

for small sample sizes, hence PLS-SEM was preferred technique to perform multi-group

analysis (Hair et al., 2014). Another problem with the interaction effect, which is difficult

for CB-SEM to handle, is the large number of indicators formed through the interaction

terms, which are comfortably handled by PLS-SEM. The large number of indicators

assigned to the interaction terms needs very large data for CB-SEM to accurately perform

analysis (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). In such situations, CB-SEM requires very large

sample size to achieve convergence (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014), researchers suggested to use

CB-SEM when the number of indicators is 40-50 (this study has 61 items, excluding the

indicators of interaction terms), in order to prevent convergence problem of the model

(Chin et al., 2003).

Therefore, PLS-SEM was used in this study on the basis of following considerations. In

this context, a purposeful software i.e., SmartPLS Version 3.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will,

2010) was used to analyze the model of this study (Hair et al., 2014). The analysis was

performed in the following sequence. First, evaluation of the measurement models was

carried out for all the exogenous and endogenous constructs. The measurement models’

99

reliability and validity were confirmed through composite reliability, Average Variance

Extracted (AVE), discriminant validity, cross loadings, Fornell-Larcker criterion for

discriminant validity, and HTMT criterion for discriminant validity. Second, estimation of

the structural model was carried out, i.e., estimation of structural model’s path coefficients.

Goodness of fit index is discussed in the relevant section, which includes coefficient of

determination, effect size of the predictive accuracy, blindfolding procedures for predictive

relevance of each construct, importance-performance matrix analysis. Mediation analysis,

multi-group analysis and finally, moderation effects of the interaction terms were assessed

after ensuring the Measurement Invariances in the data through MICOM procedure of

SmartPLS. The following sections elaborate the evaluation of measurement models along

with all the important criteria to establish reliability and validity of the constructs used in

this study.

3.5 Summary

In this chapter, first research paradigm is explained and the research approach which is

used for this study is briefly explained. Followed by the research design of the study, some

of the limitations of the research design of the study are highlighted and how they were

handled were also elaborated. Brief overview of the software industry is provided along

with the characteristics of the respondents of the study were also highlighted. The

procedure to avoid some of the biases in the research are also highlighted and the remedial

measures taken to avoid these biases are also elaborated. Data clearing techniques

including miss values and data cleaning method and procedure is elaborated. Limitations

of the research design and the ethical issues of conducting this research are also highlighted

with brief details about how these are overcome in this research.

Survey instruments and their origin along with the sample items are provided with their

reliability and validity statistics. Finally, the statistical technique which was used to

estimate the model i.e., Structural equation modeling through Partial Least Square is

elaborated in this chapter. An overview of the software used for the estimation of the

research model i.e., SmartPLS is provided.

100

4. Results

The objectives of the study were to assess the impact of HRs practices, particularly the

“high - involvement HRs practices, on the IWB” of employees working in software

companies of Pakistan. “In addition, the research also assessed the mediating role of

PsyEmp in transferring the impact of high involvement HRs practices to IWB. “High-

involvement HR practices were integrated in the context of ability-motivation-opportunity

framework, such that; selection and training related HRs practices constituted ability -

enhancing HRs practices; compensation and performance related appraisal practices

constituted motivation - enhancing HRs practices; and finally, job design and employee

participation related HRs practices constituted opportunity - enhancing HRs practices.

Furthermore, moderation effect of supportive work environment in differentiating the

impact of the PsyEmp on IWB” was also assessed.” Supportive work environment was

divided in two distinct supports i.e., management support and coworker support.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

The respondents were selected from the software companies of Pakistan. A total of 61

software companies were included in this study. Total 55 companies participated in the

study, while remaining 6 refused. Sampling procedure is elaborated in the relevant section.

Out of the participating companies, 45% of respondents were from local companies while

55% were from foreign companies. Maximum years of experience of respondents were 18

years. Male respondents constituted 64% of the sample. Respondents with graduate degree

were 60%, their qualification were in the field of information technology and computer

sciences and were computer and software engineers; those with a Masters were 33% while

some 7% have a higher degree. All the variables were normally distributed having values

of kurtosis and skewness below the threshold point of absolute values of 3 and 1,

respectively (Sekaran, 2003). In addition, the roles level classification of these employees

(termed as operational employees) are the software developers 26%, programmers 23%,

101

Web developers 21%, Database Administrators 17%, and Game Designer and developers

13%. They all work in three categories, entry level, middle level and top level however,

they were not asked to report their level.

Descriptive statistics are provided in the Table-3 below. The results showed that average

age of the respondents was 29 years, with the minimum age of 23 and maximum 49 years.

The skewness and kurtosis of the age are 1.681 and 3.082, respectively, which showed

slightly skewed data having high kurtosis. Since, this variable is not the part of main model,

therefore, has no issue in further analysis, except in multi-group analysis. Respondents

were having average experience of 3.89 years, while the minimum experience was 1 year

and the maximum experience in years was 18. The data on experience was slightly skewed

(skewness = 2.379) and highly kurtot (kurtosis = 8.002), which is due to more concentration

in the mean having less spread.

The descriptive statistic showed average number of employees as 474 with standard

deviation of 622, which showed the spread of the data as far as the number of employees

is concerned; in addition, the minimum number of employees was 50 and maximum 2400.

Similarly, the years of operations of the companies showed that the average years is 15.62

years, while the minimum and maximum years of operations are 2 and 63, respectively,

with a standard deviation of 11.166 (skewness = 2.121, kurtosis = 5.980). More companies

are concentrated on the average years of operations as can been seen from high value of

kurtosis (i.e., 5.980). Among these respondents, 140 were software developers, 124 were

programmers, 113 were web developers, 91 were database administrators and remaining

70 were game designers and game developers. The frequency of the respondents based on

their designation is provided in the Table-3 below.

102

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

N Min Max Mean Std

. Deviation

Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Err Statistic Std. Err

Age 538 23 49 29.18 5.272 1.681 0.105 3.082 0.210

Qualification 538 1 3 - - - - - -

Graduates 323 - - - - - - - -

Masters 177 - - - - - - - -

Higher Degrees 38 - - - - - - - -

Designation 538 - - - - - - - -

Software Developers 140 - - - - - - - -

Programmers 124 - - - - - - - -

Web Developers 113 - - - - - - - -

Database Administrator 91 - - - - - - - -

GameDesigner/Developer 70 - - - - - - - -

Experience 538 1 18 3.89 2.980 2.379 0.105 8.002 0.210

Total Employees 538 50 2400 474.88 622.516 1.612 0.105 1.529 0.210

Years of Operation 538 2 63 15.62 11.166 2.121 0.105 5.980 0.210

AbEnHR 538 1.4 4.3 3.097 0.862 -0.144 0.106 0.325 0.212

MoEnHR 538 1.7 4.4 3.246 0.901 -0.424 0.106 0.029 0.211

OpEnHR 538 1.9 4.2 3.253 0.924 -0.387 0.106 -0.142 0.211

PsyEmp 538 2.0 4.3 3.222 0.880 -0.399 0.106 0.260 0.212

SMG 538 1.2 4.2 3.153 0.902 -0.077 0.106 0.076 0.210

SCW 538 2.3 4.3 3.379 0.910 -0.469 0.106 -0.040 0.211

IWB 538 1.3 4.6 3.465 1.01 -0.497 0.106 -0.248 0.211

Valid N (list wise) 538

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. “AbEnHR = Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices, MoEnHR =

Motivation - Enhancing HRs Practices; OpEnHR = Opportunity - Enhancing HRs Practices; PsyEmp =

PsyEmp; SCW = Coworker Support; SMG = Management Support; and IWB = IWB.”

103

4.2 Evaluation of the Measurement Models

Assessment and establishment of reliability and validity of the constructs are pre-requisite

for any further analysis. Hair et al., (2014) suggested different sets of tests for assessing

reliability and validity of the constructs. Since, all the constructs, used in this study, are

reflectively measured, therefore the relevant procedures to establish reliability and validity

are applied. The assessment of the measurement models are provided in the following

sections for each latent variable. Appendix-E shows the measurement models’ outer

loadings and bootstrapped t-values in the main effect model, while the Appendix-F shows

the extended model i.e., interaction model after inclusion of the interaction effects. The

reliability and validity of the constructs were assessed through the prescribed criteria

provided in the Table-1.

4.2.1 Reliability and Convergent Validity

High Involvement HRs practices are “classified into three different groups i.e., “ability -

enhancing, motivation - enhancing and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices” (Abstein et

al., 2014).” The individual ability - enhancing HRs practices construct was measured by

reflective indicators related to selection and training. Similarly, motivation - enhancing

HRs practices construct was measured by reflective indicators related to performance based

compensation and performance appraisal system. Lastly, opportunity - enhancing HRs

practices group was measured through the reflective indicators related to job design and

employee participation. The detailed assessment of measurement models of the “ability -

enhancing HRs practices, motivation - enhancing HRs practices, opportunity - enhancing

HRs practices,” PsyEmp, management support, coworker support and IWB are provided in

the relevant section below.

104

4.2.1.1 Ability Enhancing HRs Practices (AbEnHR)

Assessment of the measurement model of ability-enhancing HRs practices indicated that

the following indicator did not load to the construct of ability enhancing HRs practices:

“HAT8: Managers provide specialized training and development for their employees (loading = 0.134).”

All the other indicators loaded well to the construct and were retained for further analysis

of the measurement models before incorporating them in the overall structural model.

Some other items, which loaded sufficiently to the construct, but also cross-loaded on other

constructs and hence threatened the discriminant validity, were also removed to ensure the

validity of the construct. Following indicators were removed to establish discriminant

validity of the model: “HAS1: Our company spends a great effort in selecting the right person for

every position; HAT9: Managers initiate and provide various kinds of training and development for their

employees; HAT10: Our company has good mentoring system to support newly hired employees.” In

addition to the outer loadings of the indicators to construct, the significance of these

loadings was also required, which was tested through bootstrapping procedures with 1000

resamples for calculating t-values (Abstein et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2014). The results of

the bootstrapped 1000 resamples with t-values and the outer loadings of the retained items

are provided in Table-4. All the indicators loadings are significant after applying

bootstrapping routine with 1000 sub-samples.

Table 4: Measurement Model - AbEnHR

Indicators (Items) Loadings t-Values Composite

Reliability

AVE

HAS2: “Our company uses extensive

procedures in recruitment and selection,

including a variety of test and interviews”

0.786 39.48 0.921 0.660

HAS3: “In recruiting, our company emphasizes

the potential of new hires to learn and grow” 0.823 56.01

HAS4: “Our company takes care on its image

when recruiting and selecting employees” 0.817 51.96

HAS5: “Employees are selected based on their

overall fit to the organization” 0.805 52.80

HAT6: “Employees normally go through

ongoing training programs” 0.851 69.40

HAT7: “Our company provides training

focused on team-building and teamwork skills” 0.789 45.19

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. HAS and HAT stand for the items related to selection and training constituting

the ability-enhancing HRs practices.

105

Internal consistency reliability is one of the important criteria for assessment of the

reliability of the constructs. The criterion to establish internal consistency reliability is the

Cronbach’s alpha, which measures the inter-correlations between the items of the

construct (Hair et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha assumes all the indicators to have equal

loadings on their construct, which is not the case when PLS-SEM is applied to assess the

model, as PLS-SEM prioritize indicators according to the reliability of each indicators,

therefore an alternate criterion i.e., Composite reliability is used to assess the reliability of

the construct (Kline, 2011). Composite reliability considers the outer loadings of all the

indicators of the construct. The interpretation of the composite reliability is similar to that

of Cronbach’s alpha, (values ranging from 0 to 1; however, values between 0.7 and 0.9 are

considered satisfactory) (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). The composite reliability of the

construct of ability-enhancing HRs practices is higher than the recommended values i.e.,

0.897.

Convergent validity is defined as the extent to which the measure correlates positively with

other measures of the same construct (Sekaran, 2003). In the context of PLS-SEM, the

convergent validity is measured through Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of the

measure and through the outer loadings of the indicators (Hair et al., 2014). Higher loadings

values greater than 0.708 of the indicators confirms the individual indicator’s reliability.

Square of this value becomes average value extracted (AVE) and Communality i.e.,

(0.708)2 = 0.50, which indicates that 50 percent of the variation in that particular indicator

is being explained by the construct. Taking this threshold, at least 50% of variation is to be

explained by the concerned construct. All the retained indicators of the ability enhancing

HRs practices show fairly high levels of indicator loadings, hence proves their indicator

reliability i.e., higher than 0.708. Ability Enhancing HRs Practices showed higher level of

average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.660; this value is higher than the threshold value of

AVE = 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al., (2014). Hence, the composite reliability of ability

enhancing HRs practices construct is established.

106

4.2.1.2 Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices (MoEnHR)

Outer loadings of the items to the construct of motivation-enhancing HRs practices

indicated that the following indicator did not load sufficiently to the construct of

motivation-enhancing HRs practices: HMC14: “Our company’s pay system reflects employee’s

contribution to the company” (loading = 0.207 bootstrap 1000 t-value = 2.890). Except this

indicator all other indicators loaded well to the construct of motivation enhancing HRs

practices, and were retained for further analysis. In later analyses, following indicators

were removed to establish discriminant validity of the model: HMC11: “Employees in this

organization receive monetary rewards based on their individual performance”; HMC12: “Employees in

this organization receive monetary rewards based on their group performance”; HMP17: “Employees

performance appraisal emphasize collective and long-term based results”; HMP18: “Employees receive

performance feedback on a routine basis”. The results of the bootstrapping are provided in Table-

5, which indicates that all the indicator loadings are significant after applying bootstrapping

routine with 1000 sub-samples.

Table 5: Measurement Model - MoEnHR

Loadings t-

Values

Composite

Reliability

AVE

HMC13: “Employees in this organization receive

monetary rewards based on the organizational

performance”

0.800 43.77 0.890 0.670

HMP15: “Employees performance appraisal is

based on individual behaviours and attitudes at

work”

0.837 58.40

HMP16: “Employees performance appraisal is

oriented towards their development and progress at

work”

0.846 61.07

HMP19: “Performance appraisals are based in

objective quantifiable results” 0.790 44.53

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. HMC and HMP stand for the corresponding items related to compensation performance appraisal for MoEnHR.

The composite reliability of MoEnHR is higher than the recommended values i.e., 0.836,

hence the internal consistency reliability of the construct is established. The AVE of

107

motivation enhancing HRs practices = 0.670 (i.e., > 0.50); which confirms the convergent

validity of the construct.

4.2.1.3 Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices (OpEnHR)

The assessment of the loadings of the items to the construct of opportunity-enhancing HR

practices indicated that the following indicators did not load sufficiently to the construct of

opportunity-enhancing HR practices HOP24: “Employees in this company are allowed to make

decisions” (loading = 0.148, bootstrap t-value = 1.955), HOP27: “Employees are invited to

participate in problem solving and decision making” (loading 0.079; bootstrap t-value = 1.043).

Except these indicators all the indicators loaded well to the construct and retained for

further analysis. However, discriminant analysis showed that following items were cross

loaded and were problems in establishing validity of the construct, therefore, removed from

further analysis: HOD21: “Our company transfers extensively different tasks and responsibilities to

employees”; HOD22: “Our company emphasizes employees’ team work and network collaboration”;

HOP25: “Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are done”.

The results of the bootstrapping routines are provided in Table-6.

Table 6: Measurement Model - OpEnHR

Loadings t-values Composite

Reliability

AVE

HOD20: “Our company provides opportunities to

employees through job rotation and flexible work

assignments in different work areas”

0.803 47.95 0.909 0.667

HOD23: “Employees in this organization have broadly

designed jobs requiring a variety of skills” 0.781 39.66

HOP26: “Employees are invited to participate in a wide

range of issues, including performance standards, quality

improvement, benefits, etc.”

0.801 47.94

HOP28: “Employees receive information on the

relevant concerns of the company (goals, performance,

etc.)”

0.843 62.46

HOP29: “Supervisors keep open communication in this

company” 0.852 75.46

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. HOD and HOP stand for the corresponding items related to work design and

employees’ participation, respectively constituting OpEnHR.

108

The composite reliability of opportunity-enhancing practices (OpEnHR) is greater than the

threshold value of 0.7 i.e., 0.875, therefore, its internal consistency reliability is confirmed.

Considering this criterion some low loading items were deleted from the measurement

construct of OpEnHR as mentioned in the relevant section above. OpEnHR’ AVE = 0.667,

hence, the composite reliability of the construct is established.

4.2.1.4 PsyEmp

The PsyEmp construct was measured by 12 reflective indicators (Spreitzer, 1995). The

construct has been used variously in different researches, some researchers used this

construct as uni-dimensional construct while others used it as multi-dimensional construct.

As suggested by Spreitzer (1995), the different dimensions of the PsyEmp are additive in

nature, as they form the construct, and uni-dimensional construct is as suitable as multi-

dimensional. In this study, uni-dimensional construct of PsyEmp with all the reflective

indicators was used to measure the construct.

The assessment of the measurement model of the PsyEmp indicated that the following

indicator did not load sufficiently to the construct of PsyEmp PEM46: “The work I do is

meaningful to me” (loading = 0.134, bootstrap 1000 t-value = 1.896). The item was therefore

removed from the construct and the measurement model was reassessed to see the outer

loadings of all the reflective indicators on the construct. All the remaining indicators loaded

sufficiently on the construct of the PsyEmp and were retained for further analysis of the

measurement model. However, later measurement analysis yielded that following items

were problematic in establishing discriminant validity of the construct, therefore deleted

from further analysis: HEI41: “My impact on what happens in my department is large”; HEI42: “I

have a great deal of control over what happens in my department”.

Table 7: Measurement Model - PsyEmp

Items Loadings t-values Composite

Reliability

AVE

109

PEI43: “I have significant influence over what

happens in my department” 0.811 50.46 0.941 0.641

PEM44: “The work I do is very important to

me” 0.8276 58.01

PEM45: “My job activities are personally

meaningful to me” 0.7818 45.0

PEA47: “I have significant autonomy in

determining how I do my job” 0.7981 42.26

PEA48: “I can decide on my own how to go

about doing my work” 0.8113 51.30

PEA49: “I have considerable opportunity for

independence and freedom in how I do my job” 0.7892 46.60

PEC50: “I am confident about my ability to do

my job” 0.8082 54.52

PEC51: “I am self-assured about my

capabilities to perform my work activities” 0.805 52.58

PEC52: “I have mastered the skills necessary

for my job” 0.7737 42.86

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. PEI stands for the corresponding items of the Impact dimension

constituting the PsyEmp construct; PEM stands for corresponding items of ‘meaning’ dimension constituting PsyEmp

construct; PEA stands for the corresponding items of ‘autonomy’ dimension constituting the PsyEmp construct; and PEC stands for the corresponding items of ‘competence’ dimension of the PsyEmp construct.

Results provided in Table-7 indicated that the retained indicators loaded well to the

construct of PsyEmp with minimum loading of 0.7818 which are above the recommended

threshold value of 0.707 (item reliability) (Hair et al., 2014). The results of the

bootstrapping are provided in the Table-7, which indicates that all the indicator loadings

are significant after applying bootstrapping with 1000 sub-samples (all t-values > 42.2617).

The internal consistency reliability of the PsyEmp construct was assessed through

composite reliability. The composite reliability of the PsyEmp was 0.941, which indicates

that the construct is reliable. The construct of PsyEmp shows higher level of average

variance extracted (AVE) = 0.641. This value is higher than the threshold value of AVE =

0.50 as suggested by Hair et al., (2014). Hence, the convergent reliability of these construct

is proved.

110

4.2.1.5 Management Support - Supportive Work Environment

Supportive work environment has two distinct dimensions which are measured separately

and included as separate constructs in the structural model for further analysis. The first

construct is the management support (SMG), which is measured through 5 reflective items

on five point Likert scale (1=strong disagreement to 5= strong agreement). The assessment

of the measurement model of the management support indicated that all the five items

loaded well to the construct with all the loadings higher than the 0.708. However, in later

analysis to ensure the discriminant analysis, following two items were dropped from the

measurement model as these items were loaded to other constructs too (issue of cross

loadings). SMG30: “Employees in this organization feel it is easy to approach to their supervisor”;

SMG31: “Employees in this organization receive encouragement and support from their supervisors”.

The remaining items with their loadings and bootstrapped t-values are provided in Table-

8.

Table 8: Measurement Model - Management Support


Reliability

AVE

SMG32: “Employees in this organization have

access to resources that they need to do their work”

0.870 78.2014 0.905 0.760

SMG33: “Employees in this organization have the

guidance and help that they need to do their work”

0.889 78.6299

SMG34: “Employees in this organization are

aware of the policies and procedures to perform

their work”

0.856 70.5687

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. SMG stands for the corresponding items of the management support

construct.

The results indicated that the retained indicators loaded well to the construct of

management support with minimum loading of 0.856 which are above the recommended

threshold value of 0.707 (item reliability) (Hair et al., 2014). Accordingly, bootstrapping

with 1000 samples was run to calculate the standard errors of the estimates (Hair et al.,

111

2014). The internal consistency reliability of the management support construct was

assessed through composite reliability. The composite reliability of the management

support was 0.905, which indicates that the construct is reliable. The construct of

management support shows higher level of average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.760. This

value is higher than the threshold value of AVE = 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al., (2014).

Hence, the convergent reliability of the construct of management support is proved.

4.2.1.6 Coworker Support - Supportive Work Environment

The coworker support construct was measured by 6 reflective indicators. The assessment

of the measurement model of the coworker support indicated that the following indicators

did not load sufficiently to the construct of coworker support; SCW36: “Employees in this

organization trust their coworkers” (loading = 0.124, bootstrap 1000 t-value = 1.866) and

SCW38: “Employees share information and learn from one another” (loading = 0.104, bootstrap

1000 t-value = 1.766). These two indicators were therefore, removed from the construct

and the measurement model was reassessed to see the outer loadings of all the reflective

indicators on the construct. However, the results of discriminant validity required one more

item to be deleted from the measurement model of coworker support, which was cross

loaded with other constructs. The item which cross loaded was SCW39: “Employees view

themselves as partners in charting the direction of the organization”; and was deleted from further

analysis. All the remaining 3 indicators were retained for further analysis of the

measurement model after ensuring the discriminant validity of the construct. The results of

the loadings are provided in Table 9.

112

Table 9: Measurement Model - Coworker Support


Reliability

AVE

SCW35: “Employees in this organization have

relationships based on trust and reciprocal faith” 0.840 53.1975 0.876 0.703

SCW37: “Employees in this organization share a

commonality of purpose and collective aspirations

with others at work”

0.856 59.1707

SCW40: “Employees interact and exchange ideas

with people from different areas of the

organization”

0.819 43.9954

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. SCW stands for the corresponding items of the Coworker support construct.

The results indicated that the retained indicators loaded well to the construct of coworker

support with minimum loading of 0.819 which are above the recommended threshold value

of 0.707 (item reliability) (Hair et al., 2014). The composite reliability of the coworker

support was 0.8765, which indicates that the construct is reliable. The construct of

coworker support shows higher level of average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.703. This

value is higher than the threshold value of AVE = 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al., (2014).

Hence, the convergent reliability of the construct of coworker support is established.

4.2.1.7 IWB

The IWB construct was measured using 9 items on five point Likert scale (1=never, to

5=always). This construct is also measured through reflective indicators (Janssen, 2000).

The data was collected from the immediate supervisors of the respondents. The construct

is used variously in different researches (Scott & Bruce, 1994), some researchers used this

construct as self-report construct and collected data from the main respondents while the

others used it as other-reported construct and collected data from the respondents’

immediate supervisors (Janssen, 2003). Scott & Bruce (1994) used the construct as multi-

dimensional, while some studies considered it as uni-dimensional construct (Janssen,

2000). The construct used in this study is adopted from Janssen (2000), which measured

the construct on one dimension, though the construct has three different domains, but these

dimensions are considered additive and yield a complete construct when used it uni-

dimensionally. Hence, the IWB is operationalized as uni-dimensional construct in this

study.

113

The assessment of measurement model of IWB indicated that all the reflective indicators

loaded well on the construct, as all the outer loadings are higher than the threshold value

of 0.708. The minimum outer loading coefficient is 0.876, which is higher than the

recommended value. However, during discriminant validity analysis, five items were

deleted from the construct, as they were cross loaded to other constructs in the structural

model. The items which were deleted from the measurement model are: IIG53: “How often

this employee creates new ideas for difficult issues?” IIG54: “How often this employee searches out new

working methods, techniques, or instruments?” IIG55: “How often this employee generates original

solutions for problems?” IIP56: “How often this employee Mobilizes support for innovative ideas?” IIR

60: “How often this employee introduces innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way?”

The outer loadings of 4 indicators which were retained for further analysis after ensuring

the discriminant validity are provided in Table-10.

Table 10: Measurement Model - IWB

Items Loadings

t-values Composite

Reliability

AVE

IIP57: “How often this employee acquires

approval for innovative ideas?”

0.862 68.0255 0.911 0.720

IIP58: “How often this employee makes

important organizational members enthusiastic

for innovative ideas?”

0.876 74.2765

IIR59: “How often this employee transforms

innovative ideas into useful applications?”

0.868 80.326

IIR61: “How often this employee evaluates the

utility of innovative ideas?”

0.786 38.4878

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. IIP and IIR stand for the corresponding items of the IWB construct.

All the 4 items load sufficiently well with no cross loadings as all the cross loaded items

were removed from the measurement model. The removed items were particularly related

to the cognitive activities undertaken at the employee level, and the immediate supervisor

had no access to those cognitive processes. The IWB was uni-dimensional construct, and

deletion of these items will not affect the relationships between the variables. All the outer

loadings’ coefficients are provided in Table-10. The t-values show that all the indicators

are significantly loaded to the construct of IWB (Abstein et al., 2014). The composite

114

reliability of the IWB was 0.911, which indicates that the construct is reliable. Since, the

construct of IWB shows higher level of average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.7203.

Therefore,, the convergent reliability of the construct of IWB is proved.

4.2.2 Discriminant Validity

The next evaluation criterion for the reflective measurement model is the discriminant

validity, which is defined as the distinctiveness of the construct from other constructs, and

assessed empirically (Sekaran, 2003) through three different procedures, i.e., cross

loadings of the indicators on other constructs of the model; the Fornell-Larcker criterion,

which compares the square root of AVE of the construct with its inter-correlations with

other constructs used in this model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); and more conservative and

recommended criterion is hetero-trait mono-trait ratio (HTMT) of correlation criterion

(Henseler et al., 2015).

According to the first criterion i.e., the cross loadings of the items, it is expected that an

indicator’s loading on its main construct must be greater than its loading on all other

constructs of the model (Hair et al., 2014). The cross loadings of all the indicators are

provided in the Table-11. The table shows that all the indicators’ highest loading is on its

relevant construct. However, there are some cross loadings which are large enough but, the

criterion suggested by Hair et al., (2014) requires that indicator’s highest loading must be

on its intended main construct to prove discriminant validity. Considering the fulfillment

of the evaluation criterion of the measurement model of the ability enhancing HRs

practices, it is included in the structural model as reflectively formed construct.

115

Table 11: Items Cross-Loadings for all Constructs

Items

AbEnHR MoEnHR OpEnHR PsyEmp SMG SCW IWB

HAS2 0.7859 0.4003 0.4483 0.3475 0.2608 0.3203 0.2425

HAS3 0.8230 0.4182 0.3778 0.3649 0.2778 0.2863 0.2465

HAS4 0.8169 0.4062 0.3862 0.3253 0.3153 0.2971 0.2677

HAS5 0.8055 0.4155 0.3662 0.3559 0.3130 0.3231 0.2980

HAT6 0.8516 0.4556 0.4431 0.3880 0.3346 0.3774 0.3064

HAT7 0.7886 0.4180 0.3829 0.3463 0.2779 0.3276 0.2928

HMC13 0.4438 0.8003 0.3848 0.3822 0.3583 0.3745 0.3504

HMP15 0.4430 0.8367 0.4055 0.3619 0.3606 0.4085 0.356

HMP16 0.4479 0.8464 0.4222 0.3778 0.3404 0.4166 0.3951

HMP19 0.3707 0.7898 0.4442 0.3515 0.3184 0.4111 0.3734

HOD20 0.3972 0.4061 0.8033 0.3357 0.2601 0.391 0.2882

HOD23 0.4486 0.3990 0.7812 0.4003 0.4282 0.3824 0.2993

HOP26 0.4230 0.4426 0.8012 0.4307 0.4187 0.4434 0.3316

HOP28 0.3749 0.4064 0.8433 0.4050 0.3404 0.4407 0.2918

HOP29 0.3782 0.4041 0.8518 0.3908 0.3010 0.4448 0.3222

PEA47 0.3815 0.3719 0.3686 0.7981 0.3472 0.3540 0.3638

PEA48 0.3457 0.3481 0.4115 0.8113 0.3055 0.3780 0.3950

PEA49 0.3075 0.3493 0.3626 0.7892 0.2943 0.3047 0.3836

PEC50 0.3317 0.3395 0.3695 0.8082 0.2810 0.3524 0.3540

PEC51 0.3188 0.3343 0.3776 0.805 0.2673 0.3268 0.3419

PEC52 0.3213 0.3456 0.3831 0.7737 0.2815 0.3601 0.4003

PEI43 0.4033 0.3692 0.3911 0.811 0.3105 0.3522 0.3529

PEM44 0.3554 0.3535 0.3856 0.8276 0.3201 0.3537 0.3783

PEM45 0.3410 0.3604 0.3524 0.7818 0.3240 0.3601 0.3779

SMG32 0.3332 0.4115 0.4192 0.3763 0.8704 0.5083 0.3306

SMG33 0.3418 0.3877 0.3973 0.3633 0.8892 0.4536 0.3279

SMG34 0.3501 0.3728 0.3755 0.3396 0.8561 0.4773 0.3244

SCW35 0.3609 0.4110 0.3971 0.3603 0.5031 0.8397 0.3568

SCW37 0.3585 0.4375 0.4611 0.4074 0.4491 0.8562 0.3811

SCW40 0.3104 0.4188 0.4754 0.3809 0.3810 0.8189 0.3457

IIP57 0.3167 0.4173 0.3151 0.4121 0.3393 0.3870 0.8624

IIP58 0.2988 0.3944 0.3090 0.4158 0.3160 0.3760 0.8757

IIR59 0.3039 0.4087 0.3604 0.4510 0.3115 0.3649 0.8679

IIR61 0.2837 0.3690 0.3430 0.3917 0.2747 0.3522 0.7858 Note: Where HAS and HAT are the relevant items for “(AbEnHR = Ability enhancing HRs practices); HMC and HMP

are the relevant items for (MoEnHR =Motivation - enhancing HRs practices); HOD and HOP are the relevant items for

(OpEnHR = Opportunity - enhancing HRs practices)”; PEA, PEC, PEI and PEM are the relevant items for (PsyEmp =

PsyEmp); SMG are the items for management support; SCW are the relevant items for coworker support; and IIP and

IIR are the relevant items for (IWB = IWB).

116

The second criterion for assessing the discriminant validity of the constructs is the Fornell-

Larcker criteria (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which requires the squared root of AVE of the

construct to be higher than its correlations with the other constructs. The Table-12 shows

squared root of AVE of all the constructs in diagonal whereas the correlations of the

constructs with other constructs in the lower non-diagonal cells. Square Roots of AVEs for

all the constructs are higher than their inter-correlation with other constructs, hence the

discriminant validity of the constructs is established. For example, the squared root of AVE

of ability enhancing HRs Practices (AbEnHR) = 0.812 is greater than its inter-correlations

with other constructs (0.174-0.635). The square root AVE of motivation enhancing HRs

practices (MoEnHR) = 0.819 is greater than its correlations with the other constructs

(0.303-0.617). The squared root of AVE of opportunity enhancing HRs Practices

(OpEnHR) = 0.817 is greater than its correlations with the other constructs (0.212-0.632),

therefore its discriminant validity is established. Similarly, square root of AVE of PsyEmp

(0.801), management support (0.872), coworker support (0.838) and IWB (0.849) are

higher than their inter-correlations with other constructs for PsyEmp (0.337-0.589), for

management support (0.186 - 0.630), for coworker support (0.264 – 0.632) and for IWB

the correlations with other constructs are (0.174 - 0.337). Since square root of AVEs of all

the constructs are higher than their inter-correlations with other variables, therefore,

according to second criterion, the discriminant validity of all the constructs is established.

117

Table 12: Discriminant Validity Estimation, AVEs and Inter-correlations

AbEnHR MoEnHR OpEnHR PsyEmp SMG SCW IWB

AbEnHR 0.812 0.736 0.774 0.645 0.689 0.594 0.287

MoEnHR 0.635 0.819 0.757 0.707 0.691 0.706 0.572

OpEnHR 0.606 0.617 0.817 0.723 0.743 0.706 0.366

PsyEmp 0.537 0.550 0.589 0.801 0.741 0.604 0.514

SMG 0.448 0.514 0.522 0.473 0.872 0.764 0.562

SCW 0.488 0.600 0.632 0.544 0.630 0.838 0.346

IWB 0.174 0.303 0.212 0.337 0.186 0.264 0.849

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. “AbEnHR = Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices,

MoEnHR = Motivation - Enhancing HRs Practices; OpEnHR = Opportunity - Enhancing HRs Practices;

PsyEmp = PsyEmp; SCW = Coworker Support; SMG = Management Support; and IWB = IWB.” The

diagonals values are the square root of the AVEs of respective constructs. The lower diagonal (underlined

values) contains inter-correlations of the constructs, which are lower than AVEs (diagonal values), hence

fulfill second criterion of discriminant validity. The upper diagonals contains (Bold-underlined values)

respective HTMT ratios of correlations, which are less than 0.90 hence establishes discriminant validity of

all the constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).

The third and more conservative criterion for assessing the discriminant validity is the

Hetero-trait-Mono-Trait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations criterion (Henseler et al., 2015).

According to this criterion the HTMT ratio as indicated against each construct with other

constructs must not equals or greater than 1. It tests the null hypothesis (H0: HTMT Ratio

is equal to or greater than 1) and alternate hypothesis (H1: HTMT Ratio is less than 1). The

basic algorithm calculates the HTMT Ratios while the Bootstrapped procedure calculates

the confidence intervals to test the hypothesis of HTMT ratio to assess the discriminant

validity. The values of HTMT ratio equals to or greater than 1 shows lack of discriminant

validity, which is calculated through the algorithm procedure of SmartPLS. The results are

provided the upper diagonal of the Table-12, which show that all the values of HTMT

ratios are less than 1 and even less than .90 for all the constructs which established the

discriminant validity of all the constructs. In addition, the statistical evidence for rejecting

the null hypothesis, bootstrapped procedures with 1000 resamples is run to calculate the

confidence intervals. These confidence intervals must not contain the value 1, in order to

reject the null hypothesis. The results of the bootstrapped confidence intervals for HTMT

ratios are provided in Appendix-G. The results show that confidence interval for all the

constructs does not contain the value 1, which means the null hypothesis is rejected and

the discriminant validity is confirmed.

118

4.3 Structural Model Diagnostics

“After confirmation of the reliability and the validity of all the measures i.e., the

measurement models, the next step addresses the evaluation and analysis of the structural

model and estimation of the path coefficients. The structural model includes all the

constructs of the study i.e., “ability - enhancing HRs Practices (AbEnHR), motivation -

enhancing HRs practices (MoEnHR), opportunity - enhancing HRs Practices (OpEnHR),”

PsyEmp (PsyEmp) - mediating variable, management support (SMG) and co-worker

support (SCW) as moderating variables and IWB as dependent variable.”

The assessment of structural model involves collinearity assessment, measurement

invariance (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015), observed and unobserved heterogeneity

in the data, significance of path coefficients, coefficient of determination (R2), the f2 effect

size, the predictive relevance (Q2), q2 effect size and IPMA analysis. Each of these

assessment criteria for the structural model are analyzed in the following sections with the

relevant discussions and interpretations. The estimation of the structural model is carried

out through a sequence of analyses. In the first step the model tested for multi-collinearity

between the independent variables of the model (Hair et al., 2014). Estimation of the model

in the partial least squares (PLS) is based on the OLS regressions of each individual

endogenous variable, therefore, in the presence of any high level of correlations among the

independent variables, the path coefficients may be biased (Wong, 2013). Therefore, it is

a prerequisite, inter alia, to establish that the independent variables are free from multi-

collinearity before analyzing the structural model. The next section deals with the multi-

collinearity diagnostics.

119

4.3.1 Multi-Collinearity Diagnostics

The statistics which are used for the assessment of multi-collinearity between the

independent variables are tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) (Aiken & West,

1991). It is important to analyze all sets of the structural model i.e., collinearity between

the exogenous variables associated with each endogenous variable in the model. In this

context, the following combinations of the independent variables as shown in Table – 13

are tested for multi-collinearity. SmartPLS algorithm was performed to estimate the VIF

and Tolerance values for all the exogenous variables included in the models.

Table 13: Endogenous and Exogenous Variables

Model Exogenous Variables Endogenous

Variable

Analysis

Set-1 Ability-Enhancing HRs Practices

Motivation-Enhancing HRs

Practices

Opportunity-Enhancing HRs

Practices

PsyEmp

This is the first part of the main

structural model. The multi-

collinearity diagnostic is performed

for this model. The collinearity

between three exogenous variables is

assessed through SmartPLS

algorithm, which yields the results of

VIF and Tolerance.

Main

Model

Ability-Enhancing HRs Practices

Motivation-Enhancing HRs

Practices

Opportunity-Enhancing HRs

Practices

PsyEmp

Management Support

Coworker Support

IWB The multi-collinearity diagnostic is

performed for the main structural

model. The multi-collinearity

between six exogenous variables is

assessed through SmartPLS

algorithm, which yields values of

Tolerance and VIF.

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. “There are two endogenous variables in the model i.e., PsyEmp

(mediator) and IWB (dependent variable)”. The table indicates the exogenous variables for each endogenous variable. VIF = variance inflation factor and tolerance are the statistics to test the multi-collinearity between the exogenous variables. These

values are calculated through the SmartPLS software (Ringle et al., 2010).

In the first step the model of first endogenous variable i.e., PsyEmp (PsyEmp) was assessed

through SmartPLS algorithm and estimated values of VIF values (Tolerance is equal to

1/VIF, hence not calculated separately for these variables. Values of VIF > 10 and

Tolerance < 0.10 are the indication of major problem of multi-collinearity (Berman, Down,

& Hill, 2002; Camison & Villar-Lopez, 2012; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995;

Kline, 2011; Pallant, 2010; Peng, 2012; Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007). The VIF values for

all the independent variables for the model of PsyEmp were in the acceptable range i.e.,

120

below the threshold value of 5.00 (Aiken & West, 1991). The exogenous variables for

PsyEmp (PsyEmp) were free from the problem of multi-collinearity i.e., the VIF values

were below 5.00 threshold value. The VIF values for the exogenous variable “ability-

enhancing HRs practices (AbEnHR VIF = 3.29), motivation-enhancing HRs Practices

(MoEnHR VIF = 3.39), and opportunity-enhancing HRs Practices” (OpEnHR VIF = 3.141)

were below 5.00, hence no multi-collinearity.

Table 14: Multi-Collinearity VIF values of the Exogenous Variables

Exogenous Variables

Endogenous Variables

VIF for

IWB

VIF for

PsyEmp

(PsyEmp)

“Ability-Enhancing HRs Practices” (AbEnHR) 3.461 3.290

“Motivation-Enhancing HRs Practices”

(MoEnHR) 4.001 3.390

“Opportunity-Enhancing HRs Practices”

(OpEnHR) 4.233 3.141

PsyEmp (PsyEmp) 3.291

Coworker Support (SCW) 4.211

Management Support (SMG) 3.046

Note. Researcher’s own processing of the survey data. “There are two endogenous variables in the model i.e., PsyEmp

(mediator) and IWB (dependent variable). The table indicates the exogenous variables for each endogenous variable. VIF = variance inflation factor and tolerance are the statistics to test the multi-collinearity between the exogenous variables. These

values are calculated through the SmartPLS software (Ringle et al., 2010). All the values are below threshold value of 5,

hence no issue of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).”

121

Similarly, SmartPLS algorithm was run again to assess the multi-collinearity for the main

structural model of endogenous variable IWB . For this model all the variables were

categorized as exogenous variables. All the independent variables were having values of

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) within the threshold points recommended by researchers

i.e., < 5.00. The results of multi-collinearity diagnostics (VIF Values) indicated in the Table

- 14 show that the highest value of VIF for any independent variable is 4.233. The VIF

values for the independent variables “ability-enhancing HRs Practices (AbEnHR VIF =

3.461), motivation-enhancing HRs Practices (MoEnHR VIF = 4.001), opportunity-

enhancing HRs practices (OpEnHR VIF = 4.233),” PsyEmp (PsyEmp VIF = 3.291),

Coworker Support (SCW VIF = 4.211), and Management Support (SMG VIF = 3.046)

were below the threshold value of 5.00, hence there is no multi-collinearity between the

exogenous variables for model of IWB .

Multi-collinearity diagnostics was performed for the structural model only, as there was no

measurement model which have formative indicators. In case of reflective measurement

model, there is no need to assess the multi-collinearity between the indicators (Hair et al.,

2014), and only formatively measured measurement model requires multi-collinearity

diagnostics for independent variables. In addition to the multi-collinearity diagnostics, it is

also important to assess the data for unobserved heterogeneity, which may also cause path

coefficients to be biased due to prevalence of the heterogeneous clusters of data (Hair,

Sarstedt, Matthews, & Ringle, 2016). The data was assessed for unobserved heterogeneity

through the FIMIX procedure of the SmartPLS. FIMIX (Finite-Mixture), assumes that the

data is the mixture of several clusters, and the data pattern may be same within and different

between the clusters (Matthews, Sarstedt, Hair, & Ringle, 2016). The analysis of

unobserved heterogeneity and the results are reported in the following section.

122

4.3.2 Unobserved Heterogeneity

Partial Least Square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) estimates unbiased

coefficients when the data is drawn from homogenous population (Jedidi, Jagpal, &

DeSarbo, 1997). Data drawn from heterogeneous population warrants multi group analysis

(MGA) on the basis of clusters so defined in the process of heterogeneity analysis (Hair et

al., 2014). Smart PLS FIMIX Procedure is a procedure which assesses the unobserved

heterogeneity in the context of Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-

SEM) and treat the unobserved heterogeneity if it exists (Hair et al., 2016). The procedure

extracts the number of clusters from the whole data, which are further used for treatment

if found problematic. The process is two-stage. In the first step, latent variable scores are

obtained to use them as input in a series of mixture regression analyses. Detailed procedure

is provided by researchers (e.g., see Matthews et al., 2016). In this section the focus is on

the prevalence of the unobserved heterogeneity through Smart PLS FIMIX Procedure. The

results are provided in Appendix-H.

Different information criteria are used to assess the data for the unobserved heterogeneity

in the context of FIMIX-PLS. “These criteria are as follows: Akaike’s Information Criterion

(AIC); Modified AIC with Factor 3 (AIC3), Modified AIC with Factor 4 (AIC4), Bayesian

Information Criteria BIC, Consistent AIC (CAIC), Hannan Quinn Criterion (HQ),

Minimum Description Length with Factor 5 (MDL5), LogLikelihood (LnL), EN (Entropy

Statistic (Normed)), NFI (Non-Fuzzy Index), and NEC (Normalized Entropy Criterion)

(Sarstedt, Becker, & Schwaiger, 2011).” They suggested that AIC3 and CAIC should be

interpreted jointly (i.e., the number of segments suggested together by these two criteria

should be considered for further analysis). In other words, in cases when these two criteria

identify the same number of segments, this number indicates the appropriate number of

segments in the data. In addition, two other information criteria, i.e., AIC with factor 4

AIC4 and BIC generally perform well. However, they further indicated that the other

information criteria either overestimate or underestimate the number of segments in a

dataset, particularly, AIC over specifies the correct number of segments. In contrast to the

AIC, Minimum Description Length 5 (MDL5) indicates more tendency of underestimation

of the number of segments in the dataset. Sarstedt et al. (2011) recommended for the

123

researchers to use these information in order to determine a certain ranges of reasonable

segments numbers: For details on different criteria and their efficacy, see the relevant

literature (Hair et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2016). Furthermore, another information

criteria which is more relevant in predicting the number of segments in the dataset is the

EN (Entropy Statistics), the highest the value of EN for any number of segments indicates

the proper number of segments. For all the information criteria the lowest values indicate

the number of different segments in the dataset except EN, for which the highest value

indicates specific number of segments in the dataset.

The results did not suggest any specific number of segmentation in the dataset, as different

criteria indicated different segmentations hence dataset is free from any unobserved

heterogeneity, therefore, aggregate data was used to estimate the model (Matthews et al.,

2016). Therefore, the data analysis was limited to the aggregate data only and no further

diagnostics and treatment of the heterogeneity was performed. All the diagnostics are

performed on the dataset, and the model’s path coefficients are free from any kind of

biasness. The estimation of the structural model is provided in the following section.

124

4.4 Structural Model Estimation

After the reliability and validity of the constructs are established, diagnostics were run for

assessing the problems of unobserved heterogeneity in the data and multi-collinearity

among the exogenous variables, and found no issues of unobserved heterogeneity and

multi-collinearity between the exogenous variables. Non prevalence of the unobserved

heterogeneity was assessed through FIMIX procedures of SmartPLS. The results showed

that the data was free from any unobserved heterogeneity. The relevant diagnostics are

successful and the results of the analysis are expected to be free from any type of biasness.

However, separate multi-group analysis were carried out to assess the differences in the

data on the basis of the predefined groups.

The path coefficients of the structural model were estimated through the PLS-algorithm –

a procedure of SmartPLS version 3.2.3 (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). PLS-algorithm,

is the procedure in SmartPLS to run the analysis to estimate path coefficients of the

structural model for all the one way arrows, which indicate the regression coefficients of

exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. The main effects model is provided in

Figure-4, which shows the hypothesized relationships between the variables used in the

structural model along with the t-values calculated through bootstrapped procedures. All

the path coefficients have standardized values between -1 to +1, and represent the relative

strength of each path. A value close to -1 or +1 indicates that the impact of that particular

predictor is high on the dependent variable, while a value close to 0 indicates a weak

relationship between the variables. Another interpretation of these coefficients is that the

highest the value of the path coefficient the more it is significant and vice versa (Hair et

al., 2014). However, the statistical significance of the coefficients can only be ascertained

through the standard errors, which are subsequently used to calculate t-values (Hair et al.,

1995). Standard errors of the path coefficients were obtained through bootstrapped

procedure with 1000 resampling. The results of the direct path coefficients and the relevant

bootstrapped standard errors and t-values are provided in Table-15.

The t-values are computed through bootstrapping routine (e.g., for 1,000 subsamples, 538

bootstrapped cases) by dividing the path coefficient by the standard error yielded by the

125

bootstrapping routine (Hair et al., 2014). For example, for the path of PsyEmp -> IWB, the

coefficient is 0.424, and the standard error calculated by the bootstrapping routine is 0.090

provides t-value = 0.424/0.090 = 4.721, which is significant at 5% level of significance.

Similarly, t-values are calculated for all the path coefficients through bootstrapping routine

(with 1,000 subsample, and 538 bootstrap cases). The path coefficients, as listed in Table-

15, show that all the paths are significant except the paths: from Ability-Enhancing HRs

Practices to the IWB (-0.049, t-value = 0.794); from Opportunity-Enhancing HRs Practices

to the IWB (-0.045, t-value = 0.583); and from management support to IWB (0.059, t-value

= 1.019).

Table 15: Main Effects Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped SEs and t-values)

Simple Paths

Path

Coefficient

Sample

Mean

Standard

Errors t-values

Ability “Enhancing HR Practices” >

“IWB” -0.049 ns -0.0418 0.0622 0.7943

AbEnHR > PsyEmp 0.226* 0.2222 0.0643 3.5075

“Motivation Enhancing” HR Practices” > “IWB” 0.325* 0.3166 0.078 4.1639

“Motivation “Enhancing HR” Practices” > PsyEmp 0.252* 0.2548 0.0732 3.436

“Opportunity Enhancing” HR Practices > IWB -0.045ns -0.0331 0.0771 0.5832

“OpEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.394* 0.3959 0.0717 5.5002

PsyEmp > “IWB 0.419* 0.4147 0.0854 4.8992

Coworker Support > “IWB” 0.18* 0.1763 0.0678 2.6553

Management Support > “IWB” 0.059ns 0.0565 0.0574 1.019

* Significant @ 1% level of significance; ns = non-significant. Standard errors are calculated through 1000 Bootstrapped resamples of

538 cases to calculate the t-values for the path coefficients.

126

The ability-enhancing HRs practices (0.226, t-value = 3.507), motivation-enhancing HRs

practices (0.252, t-value = 3.436), and opportunity-enhancing HRs practices (0.394, t-value

= 5.500) have strong and significant impact on the PsyEmp. These effects are transferred

through PsyEmp to the IWB for only two types of HRs practices, which can be observed

from the insignificant direct paths to IWB [i.e., ability – “enhancing HRs practices”

(Coefficient = -0.049, t = 0.794), and “opportunity – enhancing HRs practices” (Coefficient

= -0.045, t = 0.583)], however, for “motivation - enhancing HRs practices” the impact is

not transferred through PsyEmp to IWB, which is evident from the direct significant path

to IWB (Coefficient = 0.325, t = 4.163). The HRs practices constituting the motivation

enhancing HRs practices are compensation and performance appraisal. These two practices

are compulsory parts of any job and has a direct impact which is not mediated by the

PsyEmp.

Coworker support is significant predictor of the IWB (0.18, t-value = 2.655), which shows

the importance of the supportive and facilitative attitude of the coworker instead of support

from the management. Management support is insignificant predictor of IWB (0.059, t-

value = 1.019). The results suggests that employees are more innovative when they trust

other colleagues. They are supported both morally as well practically by their colleagues.

This is very important, as in the first instance the ideas are shared with the colleagues and

peers about their feasibility and acceptability. Once it is accepted by the colleagues only

then these ideas are put forth for the perusal of the management for approval.

127

Figure 4: Main Effects Model - Path Coefficients and Bootstrapped t-values

Note. “Where in this figure, AbEnHR = “Ability - enhancing HRs practices, MoEnHR =

Motivation - enhancing HRs practices, OpEnHR = Opportunity - enhancing HRs

practices,” PsyEmp = PsyEmp, SCW = Coworker Support, SMG = Management Support,

and IWB = IWB. Values on the paths are the main effects of each exogenous variables on

these endogenous variables. Values in the parenthesis are the bootstrapped t-values for

each path. Values mentioned in the Ovals are the R2 (Coefficient of Determination) for

each endogenous variable’s model.”

128

4.5 Goodness of Fit Index

Researchers proposed goodness of fit indices for the Partial Least Square (PLS) – Structural

Equations Modelling (SEM) to globally validate the PLS model through the specified

indices (Tenenhaus, Amato, & Esposito Vinzi, 2004; Tenenhaus, Esposito Vinzi, Chatelin,

& Lauro, 2005), since there is no universal goodness of fit index for structural model in

PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2014). The reason is that this index is unable to differentiate between

the valid and invalid models, like goodness of fit indices used for Covariance based –SEM.

In addition, there is not a single goodness of fit index / criterion to evaluate the PLS-SEM

estimates (Wong, 2013), instead multiple criteria are used to assess the goodness of fit,

including non-parametric evaluation criteria all based on the bootstrapping mechanism and

blindfolding procedures (Hair et al., 2014).

In this context, Hair et al., (2014) suggested alternate parameters to assess the suitability

and goodness of fit of the models with the data i.e.; the coefficient of determination (R2)

measures the overall predictive accuracy of the model; effect size of the predictive accuracy

(f2) measuring the relevant prediction accuracy of each exogenous variable; predictive

relevance (Q2) measures the relevance of this model to predict the endogenous variable

through blindfolding procedure; and effect size of predictive relevance (f2). These alternate

parameters and techniques are used in this study to analyze the suitability and goodness of

fit of the model (Hair et al., 2014). All these criteria for assessing the suitability and

goodness of fit of the model are analyzed and evaluated in the following sections.

129

Evaluation of the structural model considers coefficient of Determination (R2) an important

indicator of the model estimation (Kline, 2011). This is important parameter to explain the

accuracy of the model’s predictive power, and is the measure of the extent to which these

exogenous variables’ “(ability - enhancing HRs practices, motivation - enhancing HRs

practices, opportunity - enhancing HRs” practices, PsyEmp, management support and

coworker support) predict the endogenous variable . The value of R2 falls between 0 and

1, where high values mean high levels of variations being explained by the exogenous

variables in the endogenous variable and vice versa. The value of R2 is sensitive to the

number of exogenous variables included in the model, as exclusion of an important variable

from the model may result in underestimation of the overall predictive accuracy of the

model (Ping Jr., 1996).

The coefficients of determination (R2) for the two models [Each endogenous variable (i.e.,

PsyEmp and the IWB) is predicted by the relevant set of exogenous variables], with each

endogenous variable and their respective exogenous variables are provided in Table-16.

Table 16: Coefficient of Determination (R2) - Endogenous Variables

Endogenous Variable Exogenous Variable(s) R Square

PsyEmp Ability – “Enhancing HRs Practices”

Motivation –“Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Opportunity – Enhancing HRs Practices”

0.655

IWB

“Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Motivation – Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Opportunity - Enhancing HRs Practices”

PsyEmp

Management Support

Coworker Support

PsyEmp*Management Support

PsyEmp*Coworker Support

0.668

Note. “The R2 values are calculated for the two endogenous variables i.e., PsyEmp and the IWB through SmartPLS using the survey

data.”

For the first model, the ability – “enhancing HRs practices,” motivation - enhancing HRs

Practices and opportunity – “enhancing HRs practices” are the exogenous variables

predicting dependent variable i.e., PsyEmp. For the model of PsyEmp the coefficient of

determination (R2) is 0.655, which means 65% of variation in the endogenous variable i.e.,

PsyEmp is explained by the three exogenous variables namely ability – “enhancing HRs

130

practices”, motivation – “enhancing HRs practices” and opportunity – “enhancing HRs

practices.” The main model of the study contains all the variables (namely, ability -

enhancing HRs practices, motivation - enhancing HRs Practices, opportunity - enhancing

HRs practices, PsyEmp, coworker support, and management support) as exogenous

variables predicting IWB. This model has coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.668, which

shows that almost 67% of the variation in IWB is being explained by these exogenous

variables. These values of the R2 show that the exogenous variables are good predictors of

the IWB.

Another important parameter, in addition to the R2, is the f2 effect size. This coefficient

measures the change in R2, when a particular exogenous variable is excluded from the

model. It is obtained by calculating R2 when all the variables are included in the model (R2

included) minus R2 when a particular exogenous variable is deleted from the model (R2excluded)

divided by (1 – R2included). The formula to calculate effect size (f2) is:

Equation 1: f2 Effect Size Formula

𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑2 − 𝑅𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑

2

1 − 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑2

The same calculation is repeated for each individual exogenous variable of the model to

assess its importance in predicting the endogenous variable. The resultant coefficient

shows the f2 effect size, which is the relevant importance of that particular construct in

explaining the endogenous variable (For details, see Hair et al., 2014). As per guidelines

of Cohen (1988), f2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and

small effects, respectively.

The value of f2 effect size for each exogenous variable was calculated manually through

the above formula, which are provided in Table-17. In this table, it can be seen that the

values of f2 effect size when the variable PsyEmp is excluded from the model is (0.1878)

and has a large predictive importance in explaining the IWB. The coefficient of effect size

f2 for psychological is higher than any other exogenous construct, therefore it has more

predictive importance for IWB. Similarly, motivation-enhancing HRs practices (0.0787)

131

and coworker support (0.0272) have medium size effect f2, which follow PsyEmp in terms

of their predictive importance in explaining IWB. Ability-enhancing HR practices

(0.00303), OpEnHR (0.00303) and management support (0.00606) have low effect size f2,

as classification proposed by Cohen (1988). Therefore, it is concluded that the ability-

enhancing HRs Practices, opportunity-enhancing HR practices, and management support

have low predictive importance as compared to the motivation-enhancing HR practices,

PsyEmp and coworker support.

132

Table 17: Effect size f2 for IWB

Model (“IWB”) R2 f2 effect size Cohen (1988) Criterion

R2included, IWB Model 0.668

R2 Excluded, Ability – “enhancing HR Practices” 0.667 0.00303 Small f2 effects size

R2 Excluded, Motivation – “enhancing HR Practices” 0.642 0.07878 Medium f2 effects size

R2 Excluded, Opportunity – “enhancing HR Practices” 0.667 0.00303 Small f2 effects size

R2 Excluded, PsyEmp 0.606 0.18787 Large f2 effects size

R2excluded, Management Support 0.666 0.00606 Small f2 effects size

R2 Excluded, Coworker Support 0.659 0.02727 Medium f2 effects size

R2 Excluded, SMG*PsyEmp 0.665 0.00709 Small f2 effect size

R2 Excluded, SCW*PsyEmp 0.664 0.00723 Small f2 effect size

Note. The values of f2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As per guidelines of Cohen (1988), f2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects,

respectively. SMG*PsyEmp = interaction term of management support and coworker support; SCW*PsyEmp = interaction

term of coworker support and PsyEmp.

The value of f2 effect size for each exogenous variable for PsyEmp was calculated, and

provided in Table-18. Values of f2 effect size when the variable opportunity enhancing

HRs practices is excluded from the model is (0.142) and has a large predictive importance

in explaining the PsyEmp as compared to other two exogenous variables.

Table 18: Effect Size f2 for PsyEmp

Model (PsyEmp) R2 f2 effect size Cohen (1988)

Criterion

R2included, PsyEmp Model 0.655

R2 Excluded, Ability-enhancing HRs Practices 0.639 0.046377 Small f2 effect size

R2 Excluded, Motivation-enhancing HRs Practices 0.636 0.055072 Small f2 effect size

R2 Excluded, Opportunity-enhancing HRs Practices 0.606 0.142029 Medium f2 effect size

Note. The values of “f2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As

per guidelines of Cohen (1988), f2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects”,

respectively.

In addition to the R2, which determines the predictive accuracy of the model, another

important parameter in PLS-SEM, is the predictive relevance of this model. Predictive

133

relevance of the model is represented by Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value1 (predictive relevance)

as suggested by (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). Blindfolding procedure of SmartPLS was

used to calculate Q2 values through with D. = 9, (As it is advisable to have value of D.

between 5 and 10, which is not a complete divisor of the total sample size i.e., 538 in this

case) (Hair et al., 2014). The Q2 value larger than 0 shows the predictive relevance of this

model for the reflective endogenous construct (Geisser, 1974, Stone, 1974). The Q2 for the

IWB is 0.4816, which is quite high from 0, hence the model’s predictive relevance is high

for the IWB i.e., all the exogenous variables included in the model are relevant in out of

the sample prediction of the IWB. The Q2 for the PsyEmp is 0.4197, which is quite high

from 0, hence the model’s predictive relevance is high for the PsyEmp i.e., all the

exogenous variables included in the model are relevant in predicting the PsyEmp.

Furthermore, analogous to the f2 effect size for R2, the effect size q2 is also calculated2 to

ascertain the predictive relevance of each individual exogenous variable of the overall

model.

1 To calculate the Q2, actual value of each nth reflector of the endogenous variable is omitted, which is

initially considered missing values and treated with mean replacement. The process is repeated so every

datum of each indicator is omitted and replaced through reiteration, the process of omission of the nth value

is termed as blindfolding procedure with ceratin omission distance D. The omission distance ‘D’ is the

number which indicates the distance of the observations; if D is 9, then every 9th observation will be omitted

and replaced with mean for further processing and calculation. The iteration continues till the stage all the

observations of the predictive endogenous variable are omitted and replaced. Subsequently, these omitted

values are calculated with the help of the latent variables scores and the path coefficients, therefore, construct

cross-validated redundancy’s coefficient is used for Q2. 2 The “q2 values are calculated for each omitted variable, and the relevant q2 effect size is calculated. This

parameter measures the change in the Q2, when a particular exogenous variable is excluded from the model.

It is calculated through Q2 when all the variables are included in the model (Q2 included) – Q2,” when the

exogenous variable is deleted from the model (Q2excluded) divided by (1 – Q2

included). The same calculation is

repeated for each individual exogenous variable of the model to assess its importance in predicting the

endogenous variable.

134

Mathematically, the effect size for a particular exogenous variables is calculated through

the following equation:

Equation 2 : Effect size q2 Values formula

𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑2 − 𝑄𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑

2

1 − 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑2

The results are provided in Table-19. According to the threshold values suggested by

Geisser (1974), and Stone (1974), all the exogenous variables have predictive relevance in

predicting the IWB (all the Q2 values are higher than 0). However, individually q2 effect

size varies across the exogenous variables, as PsyEmp has a high level predictive relevance

in predicting the IWB (0.0866), which is followed by motivation-enhancing HRs practices

which also has good predictive relevance (0.0408) while the remaining variables have the

q2 values less than 0.02, nevertheless they are important and relevant predictors of the IWB.

Table 19: Q2 and q2 effect size for Exogenous Variables

Model Q2 q2 effect size

Geisser (1974) and Stone (1974)

Criterion

Q2 (IWB-Model) 0.4816

Q2 Excluded, Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices 0.4723 0.01794 Low predictive relevance

Q2 Excluded, Motivation - Enhancing HRs Practices 0.4604 0.040895 Medium predictive relevance

Q2 Excluded, Opportunity - Enhancing HRs

Practices 0.4782 0.006559

Low predictive relevance

Q2 Excluded, PsyEmp 0.4367 0.086613 Medium predictive relevance

Q2 excluded Management Support 0.4797 0.003665 Low predictive relevance

Q2 Excluded, Coworker Support 0.4750 0.012731 Low predictive relevance

Note. “The values of q2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As per

guidelines of (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974), q2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects, respectively.”

135

Additionally, Table-20 provides the results of total effects of each exogenous variable on

the relevant endogenous variable. This analysis considers the total effect of each construct

(including all the relevant direct and indirect paths from the exogenous variable to the

endogenous variable). For example, total effect of ability enhancing HRs practices on IWB

through PsyEmp is (0.047, t = 0.825). This is because maximum effect of the ability

enhancing HRs practices is absorbed by PsyEmp (the mediator), the total effect of PsyEmp

on IWB is (total effect = 0.424, t = 4.721).

Table 20: Total Effects with Bootstrapped SEs and t-values

Total Effects

Total

effect

Sample

Mean

Standard

Deviation t-value p-Values

Ability “Enhancing HR Practices”

> IWB

0.047 0.052 0.056 0.825 0.410

Ability “Enhancing HR Practices”

> PsyEmp

0.226 0.208 0.065 3.468 0.001*

“MoEnHR” > IWB

0.428 0.416 0.073 5.874 0.000*

“MoEnHR” > PsyEmp

0.252 0.268 0.073 3.428 0.001*

“OpEnHR” > IWB

0.112 0.132 0.076 1.477 0.141(ns)

“OpEnHR” > PsyEmp

0.394 0.393 0.070 5.621 0.000*

PsyEmp >

“IWB”

0.424 0.423 0.090 4.721 0.000*

PsyEmp*SCW >

“IWB”

-0.055 -0.073 0.078 0.707 0.480(ns)

PsyEmp*SMG >

“IWB”

0.009 0.018 0.073 0.122 0.903(ns)

Coworker Support >

“IWB”

0.167 0.156 0.071 2.360 0.019**

Management Support >

IWB

0.061 0.054 0.063 0.979 0.328(ns)

* “1 % level of significance ** 5% level. of significance; ns = non-significant.” Where SMG = Management Support and SCW = Coworker Support

136

4.6 Mediation Analysis

As suggested by Hair et al., (2014), mediation is tested through bootstrapped sampling of

the data to get standard errors for the indirect path coefficients to assess its significance.

The bootstrapping procedure exhibits high level of statistical power as compared to the

Sobel test (Kline, 2011) and Barron and Kenny (1986) method of mediation. The Sobel

test (Sobel, 1982) compares the direct effects of the independent variables on dependent

variable with the indirect effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable

through the mediator. However, there are some assumptions to run Sobel test like other

statistical tests, i.e., regarding the normal distribution of the effects, which is usually not

possible for indirect effects, as the two path coefficients are multiplied to get the indirect

effect, hence the distribution of such multiplied normally distribution coefficient does not

give normal distribution.

Therefore, bootstrapped sampling procedure was used for mediation analysis. This

approach of bootstrapping is more relevant and perfect analytical tool for Partial Least

Square – SEM,. The results for the significance of the indirect effects are provided in

Table-21. The pre-requisites are fulfilled for the mediation analysis, i.e., the direct zero

order impact of the independent variable is significant on the dependent variable. The direct

zero order paths from the independent variable (IVs) to the mediator and the paths from

mediator to the dependent variable are significant. Product of these two paths (i.e., path

from IV to mediator and path from mediator to DV) define the indirect impact of the

independent variable on dependent variable through mediator. The zero order significant

path from the independent variable to the dependent variable becomes insignificant after

inclusion of the mediator in the model to establish mediation in the model. The extent to

which the direct effect has been absorbed by the indirect effect is also required to classify

the mediation as full, partial or no mediation, which is calculated through Variance

accounted For (VAF), as suggested by Hair et al., (2014)

137

Table 21: Mediation Analysis (Direct and indirect Effects with Bootstrapped t-values and CIs)

Mediation

Analysis

Direct Effect Indirect Effect Effect Absorbed

Coeffici

ent t-value

Coefficient

(Sample Mean)

(LLCI – ULCI)

t-value

(p-value) VAF

3 Mediation

AbEnHR -> IWB -0.049 0.794

0.096

(0.087)

(0.054 – 0.134)

3.087

(0.002) 2.054

Full

Mediation

MoEnHR -> IWB 0.325 4.163

0.107

(0.115)

(0.083 – 0.169)

2.424

(0.016) 0.249

No Mediation

OpEnHR -> IWB -0.045 0.759

0.167

(0.164)

(0.106 – 0.198)

4.245

(0.000) 1.493

Full

Mediation

PsyEmp -> IWB 0.419 4.899

Note. Mediation analysis through SmartPLS software. Where, “AbEnHR” = “Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices”,

“MoEnHR” = “Motivation - Enhancing HRs Practices”, “OpEnHR” = “Opportunity - Enhancing HRs Practices”, PsyEmp =

PsyEmp, IWB = IWB”, VAF = Variance Account For. “As per guidelines of Hair et al., (2014), the VAF less than .20

means no mediation; VAF between 0.20 and 0.80, partial mediation; and VAF greater than 0.80 means full mediation.

The value of VAF greater than 1 always mean full mediation. The value of VAF for MoEnHR -> IWB is 0.249 (partial

mediation as per Hair et al., (2014) criteria), but the direct path is still significant therefore, no mediation, regardless of

the VAF value. The values in parenthesis are the lower limits and upper limit confidence interval for the indirect effects

calculated through bootstrapped procedures with 1000 resamples. The CIs do not contain the value of 1, all the indirect

effects are significant.”

The insignificant direct path coefficient of the ability-“enhancing HRs practices” -> IWB (-

0.0499, |t-value| = 0.794) shows that the direct effect of ability-enhancing HR Practices on

IWB is fully mediated by the mediator i.e., PsyEmp (indirect effect = 0.096, t value = 3.

087, VAF = 2.054). The path coefficient from ability-enhancing HRs Practices to PsyEmp

is significant (0.226, t-value = 3.508), which fulfills one of the conditions of mediation

between the independent variable and the mediator. The other path which is also relevant

in interpretation of the mediation is from PsyEmp to IWB (from mediator to the dependent

variable), which is also significant (0.419, t-value = 4.899). “These significant path

coefficients show that PsyEmp fully mediates between ability-enhancing HRs Practices

3 Reference Hair et al., (2014) p. 224-225. “Variance Accounted for (VAF) is the criterion to calculate how

much the effect of independent variable on the dependent variable is absorbed by the mediator and to classify

the mediation as no, partial or full mediation. This is done once the direct effect becomes insignificant after

inclusion of the mediator in this model. The VAF is calculated through dividing the indirect effect (i.e.,

product of the path coefficients from the IV to MV and from MV to DV) on the (indirect effect + direct

effect). The values of VAF for each exogenous variable are calculated manually.”

138

and IWB. Similarly, the path coefficient from opportunity-enhancing HRs practices - >

IWB is also insignificant (-0.045, |t-value| = 0.5893) also shows that the direct effect of the

opportunity-enhancing HRs practices is fully mediated by PsyEmp. The path coefficient

from opportunity-enhancing HRs Practices to PsyEmp is significant (0.3944, t-value =

5.500), which also fulfills one of the conditions of mediation between the independent

variable and the mediator. The other path which is also relevant in interpretation of the

mediation is the path from PsyEmp to IWB, which is also significant (0.419, t-value =

4.899). These significant indirect path coefficients from independent variable to the

mediator and from mediator to the dependent variable show that PsyEmp fully mediates

between opportunity enhancing HRs Practices and IWB (indirect path = 0.167, t-value =

4.245, VAF = 1.493).”

However, motivation enhancing HRs practices still has a strong significant direct impact

on the innovative working behaviour even after inclusion of the mediator, i.e., PsyEmp

(0.325, t-value = 4.163), which shows that the PsyEmp does not mediate between

motivation enhancing HRs Practices and IWB. The direct impact of motivation enhancing

HRs Practices on PsyEmp is also significant (0.252, t-value = 3.436) and the “direct impact

of PsyEmp on IWB is significant” (0.419, t-value = 4.899). The results show that PsyEmp

does not mediate between MoEnHR and IWB.

In the final stage, to assess how much variation has been absorbed by the mediator between

the independent variable and the dependent variable VAF (variance account for) is

calculated to assess the extent of mediation (Hair et al., 2014). The value of variance

account for (VAF = 2.054) is calculated manually through the formula (Hair et al., 2014).

Threshold points for full mediation is (VAF above 0.80), for partial mediation (VAF

between 0.20 and 0.80), any value less than 0.20 means no mediation. The VAF = 2.054

shows that there is full mediation by the PsyEmp between the AbEnHR and the IWB. The

OpEnHR effect is also mediated by PsyEmp and the value of VAF = 1.493 shows full

mediation. Although the VAF value for motivation enhancing HRs practices is .249, which

is slightly higher than the minimum threshold point of .20 as suggested by Hair et al.,

139

(2014), but there was no mediation at all as the direct path was still significant even after

inclusion of mediator.

140

4.7 Moderation Analysis

Moderation was assessed through inclusion of interaction term in the main effect model to

make it interaction effects model. Interaction terms were created through product indicators

approach i.e., multiplying each standardized indicator of the exogenous latent variable

(PsyEmp) with each standardized indicator of moderator variables (coworker support and

management support), as suggested by Chin et al., (2003). Complete interaction model,

with outer loadings and bootstrapped t-values for outer and inner model, is provided in

Appendix-F. These product indicators become indicators of the interaction terms. A new

model, i.e., interaction effects model, is estimated after inclusion of these interaction terms

in the main model. The interaction effects inner model after inclusion of the interaction

terms of both the moderating variables, i.e., coworker support and management support is

provided in Figure-5. Reliability and validity assessment is not required for the interaction

terms, as it is the combination of two different constructs, hence represent two distinct

constructs (Hair et al., 2011). Primary interest is to see the sign and significance of the

interaction term, if it is significant, the moderation effect is significant. The next step is to

determine the strength of the interaction effect. The estimation of interaction effect

involves the f2 effect size to determine strength of its effect4. The results of the interaction

effects model are provided in Table-22.

Although the interaction effects of the PsyEmp and the management support on the IWB

(0.009, |t-value| = 0.122) and PsyEmp and coworker support on IWB (-0.055, |t-value| =

0.707) are insignificant, the simple effect of coworker support is significant5 (0.167, t-value

= 2.360). Which shows the importance of the supportive and facilitative attitude of the

coworker instead of support from the management. Management support is insignificant

4 For the moderating effect, the criteria for f2 effect size suggests that effect size 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025

represent small, medium and large effect size, respectively (Kenny, 2016). 5 “The SmartPLS is not designed to provide the conditional indirect impact of the independent variables on

the dependent variable through a mediator which is moderated by another variable. In this regard, indirect

conditional impact is assessed through macros developed by Hayes (2013) for SPSS, which is also

recommended by Hair et al., (2014).”

141

predictor of IWB (0.061, |t-value| = 0.979). The results suggests that employees are more

innovative when they trust other colleagues are supported both morally as well practically

by their colleagues. This is very important as in the first instance the ideas are shared with

the colleagues and peers about their feasibility and acceptability. Once it is accepted by the

colleagues only then these ideas are put forth for the perusal of the management for

approval.

Table 22: Interaction Effects Model: Simple Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped t-values)

Simple Paths Effects

Sample

Mean

Standard

Deviation t-values f2 effect size

Ability – “Enhancing HR Practices” >

IWB

-0.049 -0.035 0.058 0.841 0.00303

Ability – “Enhancing HR Practices” > PsyEmp

0.226 0.208 0.065 3.468

Motivation – “Enhancing HR Practices”

> IWB

0.321 0.301 0.079 4.066 0.07878

Motivation – “Enhancing HR Practices”

> PsyEmp

0.252 0.268 0.073 3.428

Opportunity – “Enhancing HR Practices”

> IWB

-0.055 -0.032 0.073 0.759 0.00303

Opportunity – “Enhancing HR Practices”

> PsyEmp

0.394 0.393 0.070 5.621

PsyEmp ->

IWB

0.424 0.423 0.090 4.721 0.18787

PsyEmp*SCW -> “IWB ”

-0.055 -0.073 0.078 0.707 0.00723a

PsyEmp*SMG -> “IWB ”

0.009 0.018 0.073 0.122 0.00709a

SCW -> IWB

0.167 0.156 0.071 2.360 0.02727

SMG -> IWB

0.061 0.054 0.063 0.979 0.00606

Note. “The results are calculated using SmartPLS Software. PsyEmp*SCW = interaction term of the PsyEmp and coworker support;

PsyEmp*SMG = interaction term of the PsyEmp and management support; IWB = IWB.”

a. Small effect size

Note. “The values of f2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As per guidelines

of Cohen (1988), f2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects, respectively. However, for moderation analysis, according to Kenny (2016), the effect sizes of 0.005, 0.01 and 0.025 are termed as small, medium and high,

respectively.”

142

Figure 5: Interaction Effects Model - Simple Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped t-values)

_______________

Note. “The structural model is estimated through SmartPLS Software. The diagram shows the path coefficient calculated through the

Algorithm procedure of the SmartPLS software. AbEnHR = “Ability - Enhancing HRs Practices”; MoEnHR = “Motivation - Enhancing

HRs Practices”; OpEnHR = “Opportunity - Enhancing HRs Practices”; PsyEmp = PsyEmp; PsyEmp*SCW = interaction term of the

PsyEmp and coworker support; PsyEmp*SMG = interaction term of the PsyEmp and management support; SMG = Management

Support, and SCW = Coworker Support; and IWB = IWB.”

As suggested by statistical researchers, whenever there are two moderators involved in one

model, it is imperative to assess the moderating effect of one moderator on the moderation

effect of other moderator, i.e., 3-way interaction effect (Dawson, 2014). Accordingly,

further moderation analysis was carried out to assess the 3-way interaction effect by

inclusion of a new interaction term combing three variables (i.e., one independent variable

and two moderators). The regression was run to assess whether the 3-way interaction term

was significant or otherwise. The results provided in Appendix-I, indicated that the 3-way

interaction term was insignificant (-0.004, t = -0.276), therefore further explanation of the

interaction terms through graphs was irrelevant. In addition, in the lights of the directions

of Dawson (2014), another interaction term was also included in the regression analysis

143

i.e., (SMG*SCW) interaction term of management support and coworker support. Though

this was not the objective of the study, but the regression analysis requires inclusion of this

interaction term.

Appendix-I shows the results of the regression analysis, which corroborate the coefficients

provided through the SmartPLS, i.e., “the impact of PsyEmp on the employees’ IWB was

not moderated by the coworker support and management support. Although, this was not

the focus of this study, but the results show that management support moderates the impact

of coworker support on IWB” (SCW_SMG = -.123, t = -4.158). This implies that

management support dampens the impact of coworker support on IWB. The impact of

coworker support on the IWB of the employees is weak in those employees who have

higher level of management support. There are other alternate interpretations of this

relationship, however, this is not the scope of this study and gives directions for future

research to extensively analyze this relationship. This relationship is graphically presented

in Appendix-J.

For the assessment of the indirect conditional impact of the high involvement HRs practices

on IWB through the PsyEmp on higher boundary and lower boundary of the management

support and coworker support, a macro developed by Hayes (2013) for SPSS was used to

complete the analysis. This procedure yielded the indirect conditional effects as mentioned

in the Table-23, Table-24 and Table-25 for indirect conditional effects of AbEnHR,

MoEnHR and OpEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp, respectively.

144

Table 23: Conditional Indirect Effect of AbEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp

SCW SMG Effect Boot SE t-value BootLLCI BootULCI

High Low 0.083 0.0438 1.89498 0.014 0.1986

High High 0.0873 0.0301 2.90033 0.0384 0.159

Low Low 0.1038 0.0323 3.21362 0.0494 0.1785

Low High 0.108 0.0417 2.58993 0.0423 0.2199

For calculation of the conditional indirect effect please see footnote.6 In the above table SCW =

Coworker Support, SMG = Management Support, IWB = IWB, LLCI and ULCI are the

lower limit and upper limit confidence intervals, respectively.

Table 24: Conditional Indirect Effect of MoEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp


High Low 0.0926 0.0534 1.73408 0.017 0.2466

High High 0.0974 0.0409 2.38142 0.037 0.2055

Low Low 0.1157 0.0458 2.5262 0.0488 0.2322

Low High 0.1205 0.0599 2.01169 0.0384 0.2734

In the above table SCW = Coworker Support, SMG = Management Support, IWB = IWB, LLCI

and ULCI are the lower limit and upper limit confidence intervals, respectively.

Table 25: Conditional Indirect Effect of OpEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp


High Low 0.1452 0.0726 2 0.0186 0.3162

High High 0.1527 0.0405 3.77037 0.0861 0.2494

Low Low 0.1814 0.0442 4.10407 0.1111 0.2896

Low High 0.1889 0.0618 3.05663 0.0801 0.3272

In the above table SCW = Coworker Support, SMG = Management Support, IWB = IWB, LLCI

and ULCI are the lower limit and upper limit confidence intervals, respectively.

The results show that the conditional indirect effects of these AbEnHR on IWB is higher

when both the coworker support and management support are higher (0.0873, t = 2.90).

6 The conditional indirect effect of AbEnHR on IWB through PsyEmp is calculated through as [a (b1 +

b4SCW + b5SMG)], where, a = regression coefficient of AbEnHR on PsyEmp, b1 = regression coefficient of

PsyEmp on IWB, b4 = regression coefficient of interaction term SCW * PsyEmp and b5 = regression

coefficient of interaction term SMG * PsyEmp. Each value is calculated by using this formula.

145

This result indicates that through ability enhancing HRs practices, employees are

interacting with their coworkers, and have maximum opportunities to collaborate and

develop mutual trust, which results in the IWB. The conditional indirect effects of

motivation -enhancing HRs practices and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices on IWB

are higher when employees have low coworker support is high management support i.e.,

(0.1205, t = 2.011) and (0.1889, t = 3.05), respectively. Overall, the results imply that the

management support is important variable in predicting IWB, as for all the types of HRs

practices the high level of management support is important. In addition to the moderation

analysis, observed heterogeneity was also assessed in the dataset.

Table 26: MGA- Gender and Company Origin

AbEnHR-> IWB MoEnHR->IWB OpEnHR->IWB

Male (344) 0.1866 0.2032 0.2014

SE 0.0614 0.064 0.063

Female (194) 0.171 0.1774 0.3202

SE 0.0523 0.0508 0.0584

t-value 0.194 0.165 1.386

Local (240) 0.1764 0.1692 0.1882

SE 0.0695 0.0691 0.0728

Foreign (298) 0.2075 0.2003 0.2253

SE 0.0329 0.0308 0.0352

t-value 0.405 0.412 0.46 Note. In this table “AbEnHR = Ability Enhancing HRs practices, MoEnHR = Motivation enhancing HRs

practices, OpEnHR = opportunity enhancing HRs practices, SE = standard error, IWB = IWB.” All the values

are insignificant, which indicates that the coefficients are not different across different groups based on Gender

and Company’s origin.

The results of the multi-group analyses are provided in Table-26. The results revealed that

there are no differences in the path estimation on the basis of gender and company’s origin.

The results were obtained through bootstrapped procedures (1000 subsamples,

bootstrapped cases according to the sizes of the relevant groups). All the t-values were

below the threshold point of 1.96, hence no differences between the groups.

4.8 Summary of the Chapter

146

The chapter starts with the descriptive statistics of the respondents of the study. All the

demographic variables of the respondents are provided in the first table of the chapter. The

evaluation of measurement model is provided which established the reliability and validity

of the constructs of the study. It also highlighted the convergent validity and discriminant

validity of the constructs through different statistics. Diagnostics for conducting the

structural equation modeling were performed and the results are provided in the relevant

sections. These diagnostics include multi-collinearity diagnostic and unobserved

heterogeneity diagnostics. Both the diagnostics showed good results and there were no

problems of multi-collinearity and unobserved heterogeneity, therefore structural model

estimation was performed. Structural model estimation includes the model fitness which is

provided under the relevant section.

Mediation analysis and moderation analysis were performed to test the relevant mediation

and moderation hypotheses of the study. The results of the hypotheses testing is provided

in the Table-27. This table shows that out of nine total hypotheses six were substantiated,

however, remaining three were rejected.

The ability-enhancing HRs practices has a strong positive impact on the PsyEmp (H1a)

accepted, which shows that the employees were feeling competent as a result of the

AbEnHR, which were meant for enhancing their competence level, which gave them

positive feelings about themselves, hence exhibited strong impact on the PsyEmp.

Motivation enhancing HRs practices has a positive significant impact on the PsyEmp (H1b)

accepted. This shows that the MoEnHR which included the compensation and performance

appraisal related HRs practices which gave them motivation and encouragement to feel

they are treated well by their organization, hence exhibited high level of PsyEmp. OpEnHR

also have positive significant impact on the PsyEmp, (H1c) accepted. The employees are

given more opportunities in the form of flexible work design and they got more job rotation,

which gave them more exposure to the functioning of the organization, which increased

their positive feelings about the organization and as a result of reciprocation, they exhibited

high level of PsyEmp.

For mediation analysis, PsyEmp did not mediate the relationship between motivation

enhancing HRs practices and IWB (H3b) rejected, which suggests that for those employees

147

who were experiencing high level of motivation related HRs practices such as high level

of compensation and good appraisal, for those the PsyEmp did not mediate between

motivation - enhancing HR practices and the IWB. However, for ability enhancing HRs

practices and opportunity - enhancing HRs practices, the PsyEmp mediated the relationship

between the respective HRs practices and the IWB. This implies that the PsyEmp is

important construct for transferring the effect of AbEnHR (AbEnHR) and opportunity -

enhancing HR practices (OpEnHR) to the IWB.

148

Table 27: Summarized Hypotheses Testing Results

Simple Paths Path-

Coefficient t-value Hypothesis

H1a: “AbEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.226 3.468 Accepted

H1b: “MoEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.252 3.428 Accepted

H1c: “OpEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.394 5.621 Accepted

H2: PsyEmp >

IWB 0.424 4.721 Accepted

H3a: “AbEnHR” > “IWB” -0.049 0.841

Mediation

Hypothesis

Accepted

H3b: “MoEnHR” > IWB 0.321 4.066

Mediation

Hypothesis

Rejected

H3c: “OpEnHR” > “IWB” -0.055 0.759

Mediation

Hypothesis

Accepted

H4: PsyEmp*SCW > IWB -0.055 0.707

Moderation

Hypothesis

Rejected

H5: PsyEmp*SMG > “IWB” 0.009 0.122

Moderation

Hypothesis

Rejected

SCW > IWB 0.167 2.360

SMG > IWB 0.061 0.979



149

5. Discussion and Conclusion

This study analyzed the impact of high involvement HRs practices on the IWB of

employees working in software companies of Pakistan in the context of ability-motivation-

opportunity framework and social cognitive theory. “The impact of ability enhancing HRs

practices, motivation enhancing HRs practices and opportunity enhancing HRs practices

on IWB were examined. In addition, the mediating role of PsyEmp in transferring the

impact of high involvement HRs practices” (“AbEnHR, MoEnHR, and OpEnHR”) to IWB

was also assessed. Furthermore, moderation effect of supportive work environment in

differentiating the impact of PsyEmp on the employees’ IWB was also assessed.

Supportive work environment was divided in two distinct organizational specific supports

i.e., management support and coworker support. The measurement models of the

constructs, used in this study, were reliable and valid.

Before structural model estimation, diagnostics were performed to avoid any impartial or

unbiased results (Hair et al., 2014), i.e., multicollinearity between the exogenous variables

and unobserved heterogeneity in the dataset. There was no problem of multi-collinearity

as the values of variance inflation factor for all the independent variables for both the

models of PsyEmp and IWB, respectively were less than threshold point of 5 (Berman et

al., 2002; Camison & Villar-Lopez, 2012; Hair et al., 1995; Kline, 2011; Pallant, 2010;

Peng, 2012; Petter et al., 2007). The results of test of unobserved heterogeneity suggest

that there is no substantial level of heterogeneity in the data, as the results did not identify

specific number of segments in the dataset (Matthews et al., 2016). The path coefficients

of the structural model were estimated through the PLS-algorithm (Hair et al., 2014) for

the substantiation of the hypotheses of the study. The results of the simple path coefficients

and the relevant bootstrapped standard errors and t-values are provided in Table-15.

The path coefficient for direct path from ability-enhancing HRs practices to PsyEmp is

significant (0.226, t = 3.468), therefore H1a is supported, which confirms the previous

studies (Guerrero & Barraud-didier, 2004; Liao et al., 2009; Seibert et al., 2011) i.e.,

ability-enhancing HRs practices positively affect PsyEmp of employees. These results

confirm the earlier study (Anjum, Sabir, Makhdoom, & Hussain, 2016), which considered

150

effort-enhancing HRs practices as antecedents of the IWB. The more the rigorous HRs

practices related to selection and training and development, the more the employees are

psychologically empowered. The path coefficient for direct path from motivation-

enhancing HRs practices to PsyEmp is significant (0.252, t = 3.428), therefore H1b is also

supported. The results are in conformity with the previous researches (Gkorezis &

Petridou, 2012a; Jiang et al., 2012; Lepak et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2009) i.e., motivation-

enhancing HRs practices positively affect PsyEmp of employees. The more the justified

and fairly implemented compensation and performance appraisal related HRs practices are

the more the employees are psychologically empowered. According to social cognitive

theory, employees develop more positive cognitive process as a result of favorable and

conducive treatments given by the organizations in the form of HRs management practices.

The path coefficient for direct path from motivation-enhancing HRs practices to PsyEmp

is significant (0.394, t = 5.621), therefore H1c is also supported. The results show that there

is a positive impact of opportunity-enhancing HRs practices on PsyEmp of employees,

which confirms earlier studies results (Bartram et al., 2014; Conger & Kanungo, 1988;

Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014). The path coefficient from PsyEmp to the IWB is also

significant (0.424, t = 4.721), hence hypothesis H2 is supported, which confirms and

validate the results of previous studies (Knol & Linge, 2009; Ramamoorthy et al., 2005;

Sangar & Rangnekar, 2014; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013).

151

Table 28: Hypotheses Testing

Simple Paths Path-

Coefficient t-value Hypothesis

H1a: “AbEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.226 3.468 Accepted

H1b: “MoEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.252 3.428 Accepted

H1c: “OpEnHR” > PsyEmp 0.394 5.621 Accepted

H2: PsyEmp >

IWB 0.424 4.721 Accepted

H3a: “AbEnHR” >

“IWB” -0.049 0.841

Mediation

Hypothesis

Accepted

H3b: “MoEnHR” > “IWB” 0.321 4.066

Mediation

Hypothesis

Rejected

H3c: “OpEnHR” > “IWB” -0.055 0.759

Mediation

Hypothesis

Accepted

H4: PsyEmp*SCW > “IWB” -0.055 0.707

Moderation

Hypothesis

Rejected

H5: PsyEmp*SMG > “IWB” 0.009 0.122

Moderation

Hypothesis

Rejected

SCW > IWB 0.167 2.360

SMG > IWB 0.061 0.979



The hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c were related to the mediation analysis. These hypotheses

were tested to assess the mediating role of PsyEmp between H3a: ability-enhancing HRs

practices and IWB; H3b: motivation - enhancing HRs practices and IWB; and H3c:

opportunity - enhancing HRs practices and IWB. The results are provided in Table-21.

These results also confirmed that hypotheses H3a and H3c have been substantiated and

mediation of PsyEmp is established between the ability enhancing and opportunity

enhancing HRs practices and the IWB, however, the hypothesis H3b did not substantiate

i.e., no mediation by PsyEmp between motivation enhancing HRs practices and the IWB.

152

Results show that PsyEmp mediates between the ability-enhancing HRs Practices and

IWB. The direct path from ability enhancing HRs practices is insignificant (-0.0499, |t-

value| = 0.794), and indirect effect is significant (indirect effect = 0.096, t value = 3. 087,

VAF = 2.054) which shows that the effect of the ability-enhancing HRs practices on IWB

is fully mediated by PsyEmp. These findings concur with other studies that show

mediating role of PsyEmp is significant in transferring the impact from ability enhancing

HRs practices to the IWB (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015; Berman, 1995; Boon et al.,

2011; Lashley, 1999; Sangar & Rangnekar, 2014; Zhang & Bartol, 2010) the hypothesis

H3a is substantiated. These results imply that employees develop psychological contract

with the organization as a result of the system applied for selection of the employees. If the

system is rigorous and competitive, employees will feel more comfortable and confident

about their abilities and skills, which would results in development of positive cognitive

processes. Post induction period is also important for the employees to develop their

feelings about the organization. Proper orientation and on the job training programs which

are designed purely to develop the requisite skills of the employees provide opportunities

for the employees to become more competent and confident. The competence and

confidence are important aspects, which are predictors of positive cognitive feelings hence

result in positive behavioural outcomes in the form of IWB.

In contrast to the previous researches (Bartol, 1999; Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012b; Guerrero

& Barraud-didier, 2004; Kennedy, 1995), the results showed that PsyEmp did not mediate

between motivation enhancing HRs practices and IWB. Results showed that motivation

enhancing HRs practices still have a strong significant impact on the innovative working

behaviour even in the presence of the mediator, i.e., PsyEmp (0.321, t-value = 4.066) .

Therefore in contrary to the earlier studies (for example see, Bartol, 1999; Gkorezis &

Petridou, 2012b; Guerrero & Barraud-didier, 2004; Kennedy, 1995; Malik & Aslam,

2013), the hypothesis H3b did not substantiate. The HRs practices constituting motivation

- enhancing HRs practices are compensation and performance appraisal. Compensation

and performance appraisal systems are considered compulsory parts of any job and have a

direct impact on IWB which is not mediated by the PsyEmp. These results imply that these

153

two components of the HRs management system do not affect the cognitive processes, as

they are the basic functions. Employees may not feel privileged and do not consider these

practices as extended favorable treatments given to them from the organization, since they

are paid for their jobs and contributions in the organization. However, other facilities in the

form of training, participation in decision making and flexible job design may give them

positive feelings, if such facilities are provided to the. The literature showed that motivation

enhancing HRs practices are self-reliant in terms of predicting any positive behaviour in

employees (Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012b; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004; Yasmeen et

al., 2013). However, in contrary to most of the studies as well as hypothesized in this study,

it is expected that these HRs practices are intrinsically powerful tools for predicting any

desirable behavioural outcomes, which may not rely on any other intervening or mediating

mechanism, such as PsyEmp in this study.

Conforming to the literature, PsyEmp mediates the direct path from opportunity-enhancing

HRs Practices -> IWB becomes insignificant (-0.055, |t-value| = 0.759), and indirect effect

is significant (indirect path = 0.167, t-value = 4.245, VAF = 1.493), which shows that the

effect of the opportunity-enhancing HRs practices is fully mediated by PsyEmp. These

findings concur with other studies that show mediating role of PsyEmp is significant in

transferring the impact from opportunity enhancing HRs practices to the IWB (Lepak et

al., 2006; Nyberg et al., 2014; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014; Sun et al., 2007). Therefore,

hypothesis H3c was substantiated. These results imply that flexible job design and enhanced

employee participation in decision making make the employee more empowered and

autonomous over the task accomplishment. They also develop positive feeling of their

impact and importance in the organization, due to which they put extra effort in achieving

their targets and exhibit IWB.

The hypotheses H4 and H5 were related to the moderation analysis, which were tested to

assess the moderating effects of coworker support and management support between

PsyEmp level of the employees and their IWB, respectively. Both the moderations are

insignificant as opposed to the hypothesized moderations, i.e., interaction effects of the

PsyEmp and the management support on the IWB (-0.0095, t-value = 0.2163) and PsyEmp

154

and coworker support on IWB (-0.0648, t-value = 0.9889) are insignificant. “These results

imply that neither coworker support, nor management support moderates the relationship

between PsyEmp and IWB, which are in contradiction of the previous studies ” (see for

example, (Chandler et al., 2000; Fiksenbaum & Fiksenbaum, 2014; Glaveli et al., 2013;

Joo et al., 2013; Jose et al., 2015; Jose & Mampilly, 2012; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Lingard

& Francis, 2006). However, these results confirm the strong link between PsyEmp and the

IWB (Knol & Linge, 2009; Odoardi, Montani, Boudrias, & Battistelli, 2015) and it is

believed that the PsyEmp is itself so strong predictor of the IWB, that the link is not affected

by boundary conditions of management support and coworker support. “However,

separately, coworker support is significant predictor of the IWB” (0.1655, t-value = 2.3878),

which shows the importance of the supportive and facilitative attitude of the coworker

instead of support from the management. Peers support can help each other in sharing and

improving ideas, thereby giving them self-efficacy and yield IWB, this may partially be

attributed to the collectivist orientation of the society and organizational culture.

Management support is insignificant predictor of IWB (0.0635, t-value = 1.0227), which

is in conformity with the cultural characteristic of the society, in general and organizational

culture in particular, where more centralized and hierarchical form of structure prevails in

the organizations, and employees have less access to the management. In the absence of

the management support employees feel comfortable building trust with peers and share

ideas with each other.

These results suggested that the employees are more innovative when they trust other

colleagues and are supported both morally as well practically by their colleagues. This is

very important as in the first instance the ideas are shared with the colleagues and peers

about their feasibility and acceptability. Once it is accepted by the colleagues only then

these ideas are put forth for the perusal of the management for approval. These results are

the reflection of the cultural characteristics of the Asian region, particularly, Pakistan,

where the power distance is high and the trust level between the employees and

management is weaker as compared to the region where power distance is low (Hofstede,

1993). In addition, the discretionary powers with the management in terms of accepting or

rejecting the novel ideas inhibit these employees’ innovative capabilities. These innovative

155

capacities are the bases of their performance evaluations, therefore, employees prefer to

share their ideas preliminary with the peers, once they get the approval and formal support

from their peers, only then these are formally shared with the other stakeholders, i.e.

management.

Since the purpose of this research was to examine the complete model for predicting IWB,

therefore, the indirect conditional effects are relevant here, to understand the holistic

mechanism through which IWB can be predicted. Conditional indirect effects of HRs

practices on the IWB were assessed at different levels of each moderator taken collectively.

The results are provided in Appendix-K, which show that all the conditional indirect effects

are significant, as none of the confidence intervals include zero, however, the conditional

indirect effect of opportunity enhancing HRs practices is higher of all the HRs practices.

The conditional indirect effect is more prominent when the coworker support is low and

management support is high and vice versa. In addition, moderation effect of management

support on the coworker support and IWB relationship was also assessed (Dawson, 2014),

which showed that management support dampens the impact of coworker support on the

IWB and further suggests that employees who have more supports from their management,

the effect of coworker support on their innovative behaviour is reduced.

These results suggest that opportunity enhancing HRs practices are more useful for

predicting IWB when employees are psychologically empowered and are getting high

support from management and low support from coworkers. The same pattern of

conditional indirect effect of HRs practices on IWB is exhibited for other group of HRs

practices, however, they have small effect size as compared to the opportunity enhancing

HRs practices. These results are also supported by the analysis of effect size for each

exogenous variable in predicting IWB through the PsyEmp. The results of effect size for

each exogenous variable in predicting accurately the IWB are provided in Appendix-L.

The results of effect size (f2) also suggests the same i.e., the effect size of opportunity

enhancing HRs practices is higher as compared to the other group of HRs practices i.e.,

156

(0.143), as far their effects on PsyEmp are concerned, which is the main factor having high

effect size (f2) on IWB (0.164).

In addition to the predictive accuracy, another important parameter is the predictive

relevance of the model, which is also termed as out of the sample generalization (Geisser,

1974; Stone, 1974). The results suggest that this model is relevant for out of the sample

data as the Q2 for the IWB and PsyEmp are higher than zero i.e., 0.474 and 0.4816,

respectively. These results suggest that the exogenous variables included in the model have

out of the sample relevance in predicting the PsyEmp and IWB. However, these assertions

are pseudo generalization of the model for out of the sample data. Furthermore, the relative

importance of each exogenous variable in predicting the IWB was calculated through q2

effect size. The results are provided in Appendix-M, which show that PsyEmp has a high

level of predictive relevance in predicting the IWB (0.0866), and for PsyEmp, opportunity

enhancing HRs practices have highest value (0.132), which also confirms the results of

predictive accuracy, i.e. opportunity enhancing HRs practices are more relevant and

important as compared to the other two groups of HRs practices, followed by motivation -

enhancing HRs practices (0.067) and ability enhancing HRs practices (0.047).

The conditional indirect effects of the HR management are higher when the management

support is high and the coworker support is low. These surprising results are partially

attributed to the cultural orientation of the Asian countries, such as Pakistan, which is high

on the power distance and collectivism dimension (Hofstede, 1993). Pakistan is higher on

the power distance as compared to the western countries, therefore, the employees give

more value to the support received from the management as compared to the support

received from the coworkers. These results are also in conformity with the assertion and

arguments of the social exchange theory, which posits that individual responds to the

expectations of the more powerful actors if the former receives support from the latter.

However, in the presence of support from multiple actors in the organizations, the response

is more prominent to the powerful actors. In addition, in the context of the innovative

157

behavior of the employees these results confirms the propositions of Perry-Smitt (2017)

that strong ties and support among coworkers inhibit the innovativeness.

158

5.1 Theoretical Contribution

This study contributes to the literature of HRs management in the context of AMO

framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001). This

study extends the AMO theory of HRs management literature to the domain of IWB by

exploring the mediating role of PsyEmp. IWB is considered to be a critical source of

competitive advantage for the organizations, and has gained popularity in its contribution

(Liu, Chow, Gong, & Wang, 2016). Particularly, according to Jiang et al., (2013) the

system approach of HRM has mainly focused on the firm level performance indicators,

while in this study it is established that integration of different HRs practices is relevant at

micro-level through which employees’ abilities and skills could be enhanced to achieve

individual level performance outcomes. In the context of AMO framework of HRM, which

is operational at micro level of analysis, the impacts of ability, motivation, and opportunity

- enhancing HRs practices were assessed to see their effects on IWB of the employees. The

contributions of the study are as follows:

First, the study contributes to AMO framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000) and identifies

PsyEmp as generating mechanism through which the impacts of only ability and

opportunity - enhancing HRs practices (OpEnHR) are translated into IWB. The non-

mediated relationship between the motivation enhancing HRs practices and IWB

contributes to the AMO framework and suggests that only those HRs practices are

considered important and favorable treatment by the employees which are complementary

in nature. Employees join organizations, once they agree to the monetary benefits offered

by the organizations, and had an idea about the performance appraisal mechanisms, due to

familiarity in the field of operations. Once they experience the organizational processes in

the form of selection, trainings, flexible job design, and employees’ participation in the

organizational decision making, they start developing positive or negative feelings about

the organization, which are transformed into the relevant cognitive processes.

Second, the study contributes to the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001) by studying

the personal factors i.e., the cognitive processes, the environment, i.e., the HRs practices

159

i.e., and the behaviour i.e., IWB. According to the social cognitive theory, intrapersonal

cognitive processes are substantially affected by the external factors, in this study, the

external factors are taken in the form of HRs practices. In addition, two contextual factors

are taken together to represent a supportive work environment and both types of supports

are taken as moderating variables, which contributed to explain the conditional indirect

effects of HRs management on the IWB. The results suggest that there are boundary

conditions which may determine the strength of the effect of external factors through

cognitive processes to the behaviour. These contextual factors in this study are the

management support and coworker support. In the organizational set up, the results show

that the effect of the HRs practices on the IWB through PsyEmp is high when the

management support is high and coworker support is low. There is an interplay between

the management support and coworker support. These two supports are mutually exclusive,

and both cannot be perceived similar by an employee. If there is high management support,

one must have low level of coworker support due to centralized organizational structure,

where either vertical integration or horizontal integration is possible.

Third, in the context of interactionist model of creative behaviour (Woodman & Sawyer,

1989) and organizational support theory (OST) (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, et

al., 1986), the conditional indirect effect of coworker support and management support on

the PsyEmp and IWB relationship moves forward the propositions of a recent study (Perry-

Smith & Mannucci, 2017). PsyEmp has been considered as very important predictor of the

organizational as well as individual level positive outcomes (Seibert et al., 2011). However,

the effects of the PsyEmp on the outcome variables are not consistent, due to which

researchers suggested possibilities of the moderators in the models (Chen & Tesluk, 2012;

Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012). Particularly, under what conditions and for whom

PsyEmp is effective is considered an important contribution. This research contributes to

the body of knowledge through testing the moderating role of the management support and

coworker support which are neglected by previous researches (Colquitt & Zapata-phelan,

2007; Pratt, 2009; Prieto & Perez-Santana, 2014), particularly, the indirect conditional

effect of ability enhancing – HRs practices (AbEnHR), motivation – enhancing HRs

practices (MoEnHR) and opportunity – enhancing HRs practices (OpEnHR) on IWB

160

through PsyEmp on different levels of management support and coworker support. The

results suggest that employees are more innovative when they get low horizontal

integration and high vertical integration, i.e., less support from coworkers and high support

from management, substantiating the proposition that employees having strong ties with

coworkers may reduce their innovativeness, hence contributing partially to substantiate the

proposition put forth by (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) and contributing to the social

exchange theory (Blau, 1964). In the context of social exchange theory, the reciprocation

of positive behaviour is subject to the gains from the social actors, in case of coworker

support, the expected gain may be less than when employees have support from the

supervisors. Earlier studies also ignored the importance of the supportive work

environment as a moderator while predicting the IWB in the context of person-environment

congruence, where the personal factors i.e., the cognitive processes of an individual which

are the reflections of his personality and the contextual factors i.e., support from the

coworkers and management in predicting innovativeness need to be studied (Joo, McLean,

& Yang, 2013).

There are studies which are conducted to assess the impact of HRs management on the

IWB through PsyEmp but in different cultural settings i.e., in the West (Athreye, 2001; De

Jong, 2007; de Jong & den Hartog, 2010; Deshmukh, 2014; Janssen, 2003; Laursen & Foss,

2003; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi, & Patterson, 2006;

Subramanian & Youndt, 2005). The management support and coworker support are

important constructs in the context of Pakistan, which is characterized as high power

distance and high on collectivism (Hofstede, 1993). Therefore, this study examined the

association between these variables in a different context, that is, in Pakistan, which has

different cultural characteristics as compared to the western countries, where such studies

are conducted more frequently. The results of this study are confirming previous studies

conducted in the context of Pakistan for some of the relationships, i.e., positive relationship

between HRs management practices and the IWB, particularly they assessed moderating

role of PsyEmp, in the textile industry of Pakistan (Anjum et al., 2016) and manufacturing

industry (Kalyar, 2008). In this study, the opportunity enhancing HRs practices are both

directly and indirectly affecting the IWB of employees, which supports the earlier study

161

(Javed et al., 2017). In the context of IT industry, a study conducted by Hanif and Khan

(2016) demonstrated positive association between the PsyEmp and IWB. They have linked

the PsyEmp to the IWB through organizational resources and work engagement (Hanif &

Khan, 2016). No study is conducted in Pakistan, which has considered the research model

of this study from the perspective of AMO theory of HRM and social cognitive theory for

explaining the relationship between HRM and IWB in the presence of management support

and coworker support as moderators. However, there is insignificant impact of

management support when the coworker support is controlled, thereby implicating that

separately management support has no impact on IWB. This insignificant impact of the

management support on the IWB is important contribution, as this is in conformity with

the cultural characteristic of the eastern society, which is attributed as high on power

distance, a situation when the distance between management and employees is high, and

this distance results in lack of mutual trust.

162

5.2 Empirical and Methodological Contribution

Several studies have examined the models to see the impact of HRs practices on the

behaviours of the employees particularly through some mediating mechanism through

which the mediator is involved such as these studies which attempted to open the black

boxes between the HRM and the behaviour of the individual (Blok & Paauwe, 2005;

Harney & Jordan, 2008; Jiang et al., 2013; Purcell et al., 2003), however, this study is a

methodological contribution in a sense that it provides the boundary conditions for the

effect of HRs practices to be translated into a positive behaviour. Another methodological

contribution of this study is that the data was collected from two different sources i.e., the

employees and their immediate supervisors – to whom these employees were reporting -

to avoid common method bias, and a holistic model was estimated through partial least

square structural equation modeling.

The empirical results showed that the management support and coworker support did not

moderate the effect of PsyEmp on the IWB. However, the supplementary analysis of the

model demonstrated that the IWB of the employees is higher when the management

support is high and coworker support is low. This implies that the employees give more

importance to the support from the management as compared to the support from their

coworkers. This might be due to the ongoing competition between the coworkers where

their novel ideas are the main source of their competitive advantages. These results,

although alarming, but could be exploited for the benefit of the organizational innovative

capabilities. This doesn’t imply that organizations should endeavor to reduce the coworker

support, but the support from the management should be given more weightage in order to

promote the IWB of the employees.

163

5.3 Managerial Implications

The results of the study are of direct practical relevance for the organizations. As suggested

by these results, it is advisable for the managers to focus on the ability enhancing,

motivation enhancing and opportunity enhancing HRs practices, as the earlier research also

demonstrated that the HR systems are positive predictors of the IWB as also demonstrated

in a recent study (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017). Particularly, for the opportunity

enhancing HRs practices, flexible job design and employees’ enhanced participation in

decision making processes may be ensured. These recommendations do not undermines

the importance of other HRs practices, but only ensure optimal and effective utilization of

the HRs and their IWB.

It is also evident from the results that these HRs practices increase the PsyEmp levels of

the employees; which resultantly increased their IWB. These results suggest following

managerial implications for the managers. First, the relational contracts – the effects of

ability-motivation-opportunity enhancing HRs practices are mediated by PsyEmp – are

more important than the transactional contract. Employees’ psychological contract is

formed at the selection and recruitment process when he gets the realistic preview of the

job demands and the skills requirements (Aggarwal & Bhargava, 2009), therefore,

selection of employees through sophisticated, realistic and rigorous selection process

develop a psychological contract between the organization and employees. The employees

should be provided training facilities in learning new skills in their relevant fields. The

aggregate level rewards and long term incentive plans also encourage employees to

develop the relational contracts with their organization.

Second, the employees’ involvement in the organizational decision making is also

important for psychological contract as they develop a sense of empowerment when they

are engaged in work related important decision making and are provided with job

autonomy and provision of professional development opportunities. The immediate

supervisors should treat the employees fairly and should give timely feedback to the

employees about their performance which would give the employees a sense of their

164

relationship with the organization. Managers should pose high levels of confidence on their

subordinates demanding high levels of performance outcomes which would make them

more psychologically empowered (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).

Third, HRs management system should be clarified and made unambiguous to the

employees in order to make the system more useful, which could be done through

employees’ participation in the decision making processes. Employees should know what

practices are there and why these are being implemented coupled with the knowledge of

the expected behaviours. For example, the appraisal system should be based on transparent

and readily known parameters. Every system should be provided with the manual to the

employees with all the relevant and necessary explanations (Colquitt & Zapata-phelan,

2007). The fairness of the appraisal systems and the subsequent rewards systems can only

be achieved when the employees are provided sufficient opportunities to discuss their

performance i.e., the employees participation in the decision making should be ensured in

the organization in order to make the other HRs practices transparent and justifiable (Sun

et al., 2007).

Fourth managerial implication for the companies is regarding the configuration of the HRs

practices which are helpful in prediction of the IWB. Particularly, it is important to consider

the importance of management support and coworker support in predicting innovative

behaviour, as a lot of risk is involved when innovative ideas are shared with colleagues and

immediate supervisors before the ideas are realized and commercialized. Organizations

should consider the importance of the coworker support, which could be enhanced through

the training programs, where they interact with each other and increase their mutual trust,

particularly in those projects where the team work is radical for productivity. However, for

those projects which are managed independently by the employees, maximum support may

be given from the immediate supervisors to these employees, in this regards, organizations

should be careful in selection of the managers i.e., only supportive managers The balance

could be achieved through ensuring maximum support from the managers, while providing

competitive based compensation to foster positive competition between the employees,

which would enable them to exhibit more IWB.

165

Similarly, in the context of knowledge intensive industry, HRs practices, which are more

useful for inculcating the right form of behaviour should be devised and implemented, as

these industries depend on the esoteric knowledge possessed by the individuals in that

industry. One other suggestion for the managers is to introduce group level performance

based incentives, for group based projects, besides the individual level performance based

compensation, so that the employees work in close connection with each other and can off-

set the weaknesses of each other and produce more productive and innovative ideas, which

could be shared with supervisors. Social networking opportunities are more important to

promote rapport between the employees and their supervisors, which are also useful tools

for promoting innovative behaviour of employees.

Finally, considering the importance of the fear of being assessed negatively by others may

inhibit innovative behaviour (Yuan & Woodman, 2010), which is directly linked to the

management support and coworker support. Organizations should introduce flexible

mechanisms to encourage their employees to share their ideas. The process of idea

generation should be formal as well as informal, so that shying employees may also

contribute by giving useful and innovative ideas through informal mechanisms. Generally,

organizations should introduce the HRs management practices in the context of ability-

motivation-enhancing framework, which suggests implementation of relevant HRs

practices in order to enhance the skills of the employees, who are motivated to perform

their duties, and are provided with sufficient opportunities to successfully and optimally

perform their duties.

166

5.4 Research Limitations

This study, like other research studies, has its own limitations. First, this study could have

gauged the innovative capabilities and performance of the project teams and the

organizations as a whole, but no such data was available at this stage, therefore the study

was limited to the IWB of the respondents alone and no organizational level aggregate

variable was included in this study.

Second, there were six variables for which the data was collected from the same employee

/ respondent, i.e., the ability enhancing HRs practices (AbEnHR), motivation enhancing

HRs practices (MoEnHR); and opportunity enhancing HRs practices (OpEnHR), PsyEmp,

management support and coworker support. This single source data collection for these six

variables could be have been resulted in biased results, however, the post hoc test did not

show any common method variance, therefore, relied on the responses of the single source

i.e., employees for these variables, although the data on the dependent variable were

collected from their respondents to avoid common method variance in the independent

variables and the dependent variable as suggested by Podsakoff et al., (2003). The single

source data usually inflates the inter-correlations between the variables, however, the

multi-collinearity diagnostics of the study variables showed no such inflation of the inter-

correlations between these single source variables.

Third, important personal factors are ignored, which in the context of the interactionist

perspective (Woodman & Sawyer, 1989), are termed as the factors other than the

contextual factors, i.e., the nature of the employees, for example, personality or internal

factors contributing to the behavioural outcome of the employees. This limitation can be

addressed in a future research study after inclusion of personality related variables as

moderators to see their idiosyncratic impact on the relationships between the contextual

factors and the IWB of the employees.

167

Fourth, there may be some other potential moderators which could affect the relationships

between the employees’ PsyEmp and their IWB such as the leadership style of the

immediate supervisor, however, in this study, such data was not available, hence the

leadership style could not be controlled / included in this model. In addition, there could

be more generating mechanism through which these effects are transferred from the HRs

practices all the way through the potential mediators (ignored in this study) to the IWB of

the employees. Finally, we collected data from the companies having at least 50 employees

due to the requirements of the study objectives, however, companies having less than 50

employees would give more insights about these relationships.

5.5 Future Research Implications

Future research implications are as follows: First, this study suggests, on the basis of the

results, that future research may be conducted to include other relevant constructs which

could demonstrate the generating mechanism through the motivation enhancing HRs

practices and IWB. Since, the motivation enhancing HRs practices’ impact was not

mediated by PsyEmp, therefore, one such construct is intrinsic motivation, which could be

considered as a generating mechanism through which motivation enhancing HRs practices

affect IWB.

Second, these results (insignificant moderation of coworker support and management

support) highlight the possibility of fear of exploitation and fear of contamination (Empson,

2001) in the context of knowledge workers, which suggests, that employees have fear that

if they share their ideas with their coworkers without the support of their supervisors, there

are chances that they may have these fears about their ideas either to be contaminated or

be exploited by their coworkers or supervisors. These two fears may inhibit innovative

behaviour, if there is no support from the management, which needs to be examined in

future research. These two constructs may be included in the research model as moderators.

Third, a larger study considering the same constructs in other industries would be of interest

for the sake of generalization of the results in other contexts. Further experimental and

168

longitudinal studies to examine the hypothesized causal linkages between the variables

included in the research model of this study may contribute to the body of knowledge by

examining the true causal linkages between the HRs practices, PsyEmp, management

support, coworker support and IWB.

Fourth, a dimensional level analysis of the AMO and PsyEmp may give some ideas about

specific impacts of each type of HRs practices on each of the four dimensions of the

PsyEmp, and their relevance in predicting the IWB of the concerned employees. In

addition, the IWB may also be analyzed using its three dimensions as suggested in the

literature (Scott & Bruce, 1994). These three dimensions of the IWB may be assessed as

dependent constructs viz-a-viz the relevant HRs practices i.e., ability (AbEnHR),

motivation (MoEnHR) and opportunity (OpEnHR) enhancing HRs practices. This study

drew upon the AMO theoretical framework for inclusion of HRs practices and social

exchange theory and social cognitive theories, while future research may consider other

micro level theoretical frameworks e.g., contingency theory, resources based view of the

firm etc., to predict the IWB through other generating mechanism with other set of

mediators and moderators.

Fifth, in the context of the interactionist perspective (Woodman & Sawyer, 1989), the

innovative behaviour of the employees are affected by the contextual factors and

‘something else’, which are the nature of the employees, i.e., personality or internal factors

contributing to the outcome. These assertions suggest further exploration of the research

model, by including individual level variables for example, personality, knowledge, skills,

and other personal traits related variables as moderators (Pieterse et al., 2010) to see their

idiosyncratic impact on these relationships i.e., between the contextual organizational

specific factors and the IWB of the employees.

Sixth, regarding the role of coworker support and management support, the results of the

study show that conditional indirect effect of the HRM through PsyEmp is high when

management support is high and coworker support is low. These results warrants an

interesting study from the perspective of Granovetter’s strength-of-weak-ties theory

169

(SWT) (Granovetter, 1973). This theory suggests that when the coworkers have strong

mutual ties they may be less innovative compared to when they have weak ties. Future

study may incorporate the construct of mutual ties between the coworkers to assess its

impact on the IWB of the employees; which could contribute to the Granovetter’s theory

(1973), as also suggested in a recent study (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). In addition,

to these constructs, leadership styles of the supervisors may be considered as important

predictors an important predictor of the IWB (Carlo Odoardi, Montani, Boudrias,

Battistelli, & Authors, 2015) to assess the linkages of the HRM and IWB, for which future

research may study the leadership style of the supervisors to see its moderating role in the

presence of coworker support in the relationship between HRM and IWB through PsyEmp

as mediator, which may also fulfill the call for future research (Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, &

Niu, 2015).

Seventh, the IWB was taken as uni-dimensional construct and the feedback was provided

through the behaviours of the employees for their innovativeness, however, the innovative

behaviour travels through different phases, hence in the context of the componential theory

of creativity (CTC) (Amabile et al., 1996), a future research may include the construct of

IWB as a multi-dimensional construct to assess the impact of different antecedents on

different stages of innovation. Furthermore, the IWB may be so subtle, that it can hardly

be gauged by the respondents through subjective measures as recently proposed by a study

on the idea generation journey (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). More objective and

multiple measures of the innovative both at individual level as well as at organizational

level to get precise information about the innovativeness in the form of services delivered

/ product developed by the respective employees may give interesting insights about the

relationships between HRM, PsyEmp and IWB. In particular, the organizational level

indices and measures may be further used in comparative studies incorporating

organizations from different industrial setups.

Seventh, the model of the study hypothesized causal linkages between the HRs

management, PsyEmp, management support, coworker support and the IWB. Literature

suggested that perception of favorable HRs management (i.e., high involvement HRs

170

practices) has a positive impact on the IWB (Shipton et al., 2006) and as temporal

antecedents of the IWB, this study with a cross-section design can conclude that employees

with the perception high level of favorable HRs practices tend to report high levels of IWB

scores. Similarly, other results of the study can be interpretable, however, a longitudinal

study can confidently assert the causality between the independent variable(s), mediating

variable(s), moderators and the dependent variable(s); hence, longitudinal study or/and

simulation study may be conducted in future to validate the research model and results of

this study. Finally, since the data was collected from the companies having at least 50

employees due to the requirements of the study objectives, however, companies having

less than 50 employees would give more insights about these relationships. A multi-group

analysis on the basis of the size of the company, such as comparing the results of these

relationships in smaller and larger companies would also give some insights which could

differentiate the managerial implications for smaller and larger companies. Furthermore,

the sample collected for this study included respondents having Bachelors degrees in the

relevant field, however, there may be other professionals who could have the professional

expertise from the programs other than the university degree programs such as based on

the training programs and other skills enhancement programs offered by the professional

organizations, who could provide different insights about the association between the HR

practices and the IWB. A future research after including sample of other software

developers who gained the requisite skills through non-degree programs may be conducted

for the generalization of the results of this study.

5.6 Conclusion

This study concludes that in the context of AMO framework of HRs management and

social cognitive theory, the effects of ability enhancing and opportunity enhancing HRs

practices are transferred through PsyEmp. The results showed that six hypotheses were

accepted while three were not substantiated. The hypotheses related to direct links between

HRs management and IWB and PsyEmp were substantiated. However, for the mediational

hypotheses, PsyEmp mediates between the links from ability-enhancing HRs practices to

171

the IWB and from opportunity enhancing HRs practices to IWB. However, PsyEmp did

not mediate between motivation enhancing HRs practices and IWB. It is concluded from

the results that the cognitive processes of the employees are necessary for transferring the

impact of ability enhancing and opportunity enhancing HRs practices. Motivation

enhancing HRs practices are self-reliant and need no generating mechanism to transfer the

effect to predict positive behaviour. Both the moderations are insignificant as opposed to

the hypothesized moderations, i.e., interaction effects of the PsyEmp and the management

support on the IWB and PsyEmp and coworker support on IWB are insignificant. However,

the three way interactions suggest that management support dampens the effect of

coworker support on IWB.

The discussion on the AMO framework and its utility in the organizational setup in terms

of its implementation and the desired objectives is somewhat confusing in the literature, as

Bailey (1993) argued that the HRM systems do not have any intrinsic values per se, that

means, they are instrumental and could only be effective once they are perceived positively

and conducive by the recipient of the HRs practices, i.e., the employees. In this study, it is

concluded that the effectiveness of the HRs practices is largely depending on their

perception of the system, i.e., if they perceive the HRs practices being positive and pro-

employees, they may reciprocate in the form of positive behaviour, such as IWB.

Alternatively, if the same system of HRs practices is perceived negatively by employees,

it would give negative results, through the reciprocation mechanism. Therefore, these HRs

practices alone may not give the optimal results, but their perceptions would make them

better in terms of their effect on the employees and the resulting reciprocation by the

employees towards the organizations.

These results conform to the cultural orientation of the society as a whole which is

generally high on power distance, which suggests that employees prefer and rate the

support from the management higher as compared to the support from their peers. This

moderation implies that for the employees who have high level of management support,

the effect of coworker support on IWB is reduced. These results are also verified through

172

the conditional indirect effect of HRs practices on the IWB through PsyEmp on different

levels of management support and coworker support. The results show that the effect of

HRs management is higher on IWB when the management support is high and coworker

support is low. This interplay between management support and coworker support needs

further exploration. All the other details about the managerial implications, theoretical

contribution and future research directions are provided in the relevant sections in this

chapter.

173

References

Abbas, F., Rasheed, A., Habiba, U.-, & Shahzad, I. (2013). Factors promoting knowledge

sharing & knowledge creation in banking sector of Pakistan. Management Science

Letters, 3(2), 405–414.

Abstein, A., Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P., Abstein, A., Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2014).

IWB : The Impact of Comprehensive HR System Perceptions and the Role of Work

– Life Conflict. Industry and Innovation, 21(2), 91–116.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67, 422–436.

Afsar, B., & Badir, Y. (2016). The mediating role of PsyEmp on the relationship between

person-organization fit and IWB. Journal of Chinese HRs Management, 7(1), 5–26.

Afsar, B., & Rehman, M. (2015). The relationship between workplace spirituality and

IWB : the mediating role of perceived person – organization fit. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(4), 329–353.

Agarwal, N. M., Khatri, N., & Sirinavasan, R. (2012). Managing Growth: HRs

Management Challenges facing the Indian Software Industry. Journal of World

Business, 47(2), 159–166.

Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and IWB to work engagement. Personnel

Review, 43(1), 41–73.

Aggarwal, U., & Bhargava, S. (2009). Reviewing the relationship between HRs practices

and psychological contract and their impact on employee attitude and behaviours.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(1), 4–31.

Ahmad, M., & Allen, M. M. C. (2015). High Performance HRM and Establishment

Performance in Pakistan: An Empirical Analysis. Employee Relations, 37(5), 506–

524.

Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of HRs management practices on

operational performance : recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of

Operations Management, 21(1), 19–43.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting

Interactions. Newbury Park CA: Cage.

Ali, F. (2013). A multi-level perspective on equal employment opportunity for women in

Pakistan. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(3), 289–

309.

Alvesson, M. (2011). De-Essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on

Sceptical Research Going against the Mainstream. Journal of Management Studies,

48(7), 1640–1661.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the

Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–

174

1184.

Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, O. L. (2015). Linking Empowering Leadership to Job

Satisfaction, Work Effort, and Creativity: The Role of Self-Leadership and PsyEmp.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1–20.

Anjum, A., Sabir, H., Makhdoom, H. ur R., & Hussain, M. S. (2016). Effort-Enhancing

HR Practices and IWB : Role of Employee Empowerment. International Journal of

Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(10), 356–368.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage:

Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Arif, S., & Zubair, A. (2006). IWB and Communication Climate among Employees of

Advertising Agencies.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of HRs systems on manufacturing performance and turnover.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.

Aryanto, R., Fontana, A., & Afiff, A. Z. (2015). Strategic HRs Management, Innovation

Capability and Performance: An Empirical Study in Indonesia Software Industry.

Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 211(3), 874–879.

Ashraf, H., Khalid, M., Maqsood, S., Kashif, M., Ahmad, Z., & Akber, I. (2011). Internal

Branding in Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan : Employee ’ s Perspective. Asian

Journal of Business Management, 3(3), 161–165.

Athreye, S. S. (2001). Competition , Rivalry And Innovative Behaviour COMPETITION

, RIVALRY. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10(1), 1–21.

Aurangzeb, D. (2012). CONTRIBUTIONS OF BANKING SECTOR IN ECONOMIC

GROWTH : A Case of Pakistan, 2(6), 45–54.

Ayer, A. J. (1959). Logicalpositivism. New York: The Free Press. Biesta, G. J. J., &

Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham,. MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Bailey, T. (1993). Discretionary effort and the organization of work: Employee

participation and work reform since Hawthorne. Teachers College and Conservation

of HRs, Columbia University. Retrieved from:

https://books.google.es/books?id=KCoiMwEACAAJ.

Bajpai, N., & Shastri, V. (1998). Software Industry in India: A Case study. Discussion

Paper No. 667.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective”,. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Barr, A., & Tessler, S. (2002). Developing Sri Lanka’s Software Industry. Report Submitted

to World Bank. Aldo Ventures Inc.

Bartel, A. P. (2004). HRs Management and Organizational Performance: Evidence from

retail Banking. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(2), 181–203.

175

Bartol, K. M. (1999). Refraining Salesforce Compensation Systems : An Agency Theory-

Based Performance Management Perspective. The Journal of Personal Selling and

Sales Management, 19(3), 1–16.

Bartram, T., Karimi, L., Leggat, S. G., Stanton, P., Bartram, T., Karimi, L., … Stanton, P.

(2014). Social identification : linking high performance work systems , PsyEmp and

patient care. The International Journal of HRs Management, 25(17), 2401–2419.

Batt, R. (2002). Managing Customer Services: HRs Practices, Quit Rates, and Sales

GrowthManaging Customer Services: HRs Practices, Quit Rates, and Sales Growth.


Battistelli, A., Montani, F., & Odoardi, C. (2013). The impact of feedback from job and

task autonomy in the relationship between dispositional resistance to change and

IWB. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 26–41.

Beaumont, P. B. (1993). HRs Management: Key Concepts and Skills. London: Sage

Publications.

Becker, G. (1964). Human Capital. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (for NBER).

Berman, E. M. (1995). Empowering Employees in State Agencies: A Survey of Recent

Progress. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(1), 833–850.

Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. L. (2002). Tacit Knowledge as a Source of

Competitive Advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of

Management Journal, 45(1), 13–31.

Bhatnagar, P. J. (2005). The power of PsyEmp as an antecedent to organizational

commitment in Indian managers. HRs Development International, 8(4), 419–433.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.

Research on Negotiations in Organizations, 1(1), 43–55.

Bjorkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2007). Institutional theory and MNC subsidiary

HRM practices : evidence from a three-country study. Journal of International

Business Studies, 38(1), 430–446.

Black, D. A., Noel, B. J., & Wang, Z. (1999). On the Job Training, Establishment Size and

Firm Size: Evidence from Economies of Scale in Production of Human Capital.

Southern Economic Journal, 66(1), 82–100.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Burnswick NJ: Transaction.

Blok, T., & Paauwe, J. (2005). Unraveling the different black boxes : In search for theories

explaining the black boxes between HRM and Performance. HRM Models and

Theories, 1–7.

Bloom, N., Genakos, C., Sadun, R., & Reenen, J. Van. (2012). Management Practices

Across Firms and Countries. Academy of Management Perspective, Symposium(1),

12–33.

Bono, E. J., & McNamara, G. (2011). FROM THE EDITORS PUBLISHING IN AMJ —

PART 2 : RESEARCH DESIGN. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657–660.

Boon, C., den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The Relationship between

perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: Examining the role of person-

176

organization and person-job fit. The International Journal of HRs Management,

22(1), 138–162.

Boselie, P. (2010). High Performance Work Practices in the Health Care Sector: A Dutch

case study. International Journal of Manpower, 31(1), 42–58.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and Condradictions in HRM and

Performance Research. HRs Management Journal, 15(3), 67–94.

Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. (2002). HRs Management, Institutionalization

and Organizational Performance: A Comparison of Hospitals, Hotels and Local

Government (Erasmus Research Institute of Management Report Series: Research in

Managementt).

Bowen, D., & Lawer, E. (1992). The Empowerment of Service Workers: What, Why, How

and When. Sloan Management Review, 33(1), 31–39.

Boxall, P., & MacKy, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems:

Progressing the high-involvement stream. HRs Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.

Braojos-Gomez, J., Benitez-Amado, J., & Javier Llorens-Montes, F. (2015). How do small

firms learn to develop a social media competence? International Journal of

Information Management, 35(4).

Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory : A look from the performer ’ s

perspective with implications for HRD Performance Management Theory : A Look

from the Performer ’ s Perspective with Implications for HRD. HRs Development

International, 10(1), 59–73.

Budhwar, P. S., & Debrah, Y. (2004). Dynamics of HRM Systems in the Asian Context

and the Research Agenda. In 4th Asia Academy of Management Conference (pp. 1–

21).

Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Wilson, M. G. (2009).

Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the role of

empowerment and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 14(2), 122–136.

Bysted, R., & Jespersen, K. R. (2014). Exploring Managerial Mechanisms that Influence

IWB : Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2),

217–241.

Camison, C., & Villar-Lopez, A. (2012). On How Firms Located in an Industrial District

Profit from Knowledge Spillovers : Adoption of an Organic Structure and Innovation

Capabilities. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 361–382.

Cascio, W. F. (1991). Costing HRs: The Financial Impact of Behaviour in Organizations.

Boston: PWS-Kent. Boston: PWS-Kent.

Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. W. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and

consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59–76.

Chang, H., Hsu, H., Liou, J., & Tsai, C. (2013). Psychological contracts and innovative

behaviour : a moderated path analysis of work engagement and job resources. Journal

177

of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 2120–2135.

Chen, C., & Huang, J. (2009). Strategic HRs practices and innovative performance: the

mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research,

62(1), 104–114.

Chen, C., Kraemer, J., & Gathii, J. (2011). Understanding locals’ compensation fairness

vis-à-vis foreign expatriates: the role of perceived equity. The International Journal

of HRs Management, 22(17), 3582–3600.

Chen, G., & Tesluk, P. (2012). Team participation and empowerment. In S. W. J.

Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Chin, w. w. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In

Modern Methods for Business Research (p. 295). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chin, W. W. (1995). The holistic approach to construct validation in IS research: Examples

of the interplay between theory and measurement (pp. 33–43). Proceedings. ASAC,

Windsor, ON, Canada,.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent

variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte

Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information

Systems Research, 14(1), 189–217.

Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. a., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual Inhibitors of Employee

Creativity in Organizations: The Insulating Role of Creative Ability. Group &

Organization Management, 34(3), 330–357.

Coelho, F., & Augusto, M. (2010). Job Characteristics and the Creativity of Frontline

Service Employees. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 426–438.

Coget, J.-F. (2011). Does National Culture Affect Firm Investment in Training and

Development? Academy of Management Perspective, Research B(November), 85–87.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: theory and research. Social Justice Research,

1(1), 19–40.

Collings, D. G., & Wood, G. (2009). HRs Management: A Critical Approach (1st ed.).

New York: Routledge.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing:

A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of


Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, N. R. (1988). Empowerment Process : The Theory and Practice

Integrating. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory

and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.

Cushen, J., & Thompson, P. (2012). Doing the right thing? HRM and the angry knowledge

worker. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(2), 79–92.

178

Cusumano, M., Alan, M., Kremmer, C. F., & Crandal, W. (2003). The Global Survey of

Software Development Practices. Paper No. 178, Center for E-Business, MIT.

D’innocenzo, L., Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J., Maynard, T., & Chen, G. (2016).

Empowered to Perform : A Multi-level Investigation of Empowerment on

Performance in Hospital Units. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1290–1307.

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). HRs Management and Labour

Productivity: Does the Industry Matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1),

135–145.

Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How.

Journal of Business and Psychology.

De Jong, J. (2007). Individual Innovation: The Connection between Leadership and

employees’ IWB. PhD University of Twente, EIM: Zoetermeer.

de Jong, J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring IWB. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 19(1), 23–36.

de Jong, J. P. J., & den Hartog, D. N. Den. (2008). IWB: Measurement and Validation.

de Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports and coworker reports

of counterproductive work behaviour: A cross-sectional multi-source survey among

health care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(5), 699–707.

De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). IWB and performance-

related pay: rewarding the individual or the collective? The International Journal of

HRs Management, 5192(June 2017), 1–20.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. E., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-Determination in a Work

Organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A., & Christiaens, J. (2012). The Impact of

Institutional Pressures on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher

Education in the Low Countries. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 88–103.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The Impact of HRs Management Practices on

Performance in for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(4), 949–969.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic HRs management:

tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions.


den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance Management : A Model

and Research Agenda. Applied Psychology: AN International Review, 53(4), 556–

569.

Desai, V. M. (2013). Imitate Others ? Not if We Have the Chance : Competitive

Differentiation in Medical Malpractice Insurers ’ Pricing Decisions under

Uncertainty. British Journal of Management, 1–18.

Deshmukh, S. (2014). HRs Management and Organization Innovation. Sinhgad Institue of

Management and Computer Application (SIMCA), 307–313.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. a. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in

179

organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British

Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.

Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional

Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American

Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job Innovation: The

Impact of Job Design and HRs Management through Production Ownership.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–141.

Dutta, S., Bilbao-Osorio, B., & Geiger, T. (2012). The Networked Readiness Index 2012 :

Benchmarking ICT Progress and Impacts for the Next Decade: Global Information

Technology Report (GITR) Series.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A Double-edged Sword : Transformational

Leadership and Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54–68.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to

knowledge transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations,

57(4), 839–862.

Esposito, V., Nito, E. De, Giuridiche, S., Sociali, E., Economia, D., & Silvestri, L. (2013).

Dealing with knowledge in the Italian public universities The role of performance

management systems. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 431–450.

Farr, J., & Ford, C. (1990). Individual Innovation. In M. West & J. Farr (Eds.), Innovation

and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies (pp. 63–80).

Chichester: Wiley.

Festing, M. (2012). Strategic HRs Management in Germany: Evidence of Convergence to

the US Model, the European Model, or a Dintinctive National Model? Academy of

Management Perspective, Symposium(2), 37–54.

Fiksenbaum, L. M., & Fiksenbaum, L. M. (2014). Supportive work – family environments :

implications for work – family conflict and wellbeing. The International Journal of

HRs Management, 25(2), 653–672.

Flamholtz, E. G., & Lacey, J. M. (1981). Flamholtz EG, Lacey JM. Personnel

Management, Human Capital Theory, and HRs Accounting. Los Angeles: Inst. Ind.

Relat., Univ. Calif.

Fong, K. H., & Snape, E. (2013). Empowering Leadership , PsyEmp and Employee

Outcomes : Testing a Multi-level Mediating Model. British Journal of Management,

1–13.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS

180

applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–

452.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,

18(1), 39–50.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and

regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communication AIS, 4(1), 1–78.

Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika, 61(1),

101–107.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role

of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

Gkorezis, P., & Petridou, E. (2012a). The effect of extrinsic rewards on public and private

sector employees’ PsyEmp: a comparative approach. The International Journal of

HRs Management, 23(17), 3596–3612.

Gkorezis, P., & Petridou, E. (2012b). The effect of extrinsic rewards on public and private

sector employees ’ PsyEmp : a comparative approach, 5192(January 2016).

Glaveli, N., Karassavidou, E., & Zafiropoulos, K. (2013). Relationships among three facets

of family- supportive work environments , work – family conflict and job satisfaction :

a research in Greece. The International Journal of HRs Management, 24(20), 3757–

3771.

Glinow, V. A. M., Drost, E. A., & Teagarden, M. B. (2002). Converging on IHRM best

practices : Lessons learned from a globally Distributed Consortium on Theory and

Practice. HRs Management, 41(1), 123–140.

Gooderham, P. N., Nordhaug, O., & Ringdal, K. (1999). Institutional and rational

determinants of organizational practices : HRs Management in European Firms.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 507–531.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,

1360–1380.

Grant, A. M., Berry, J. W., & Carolina, N. (2011). THE NECESSITY OF OTHERS IS

THE MOTHER OF INVENTION : INTRINSIC AND PROSOCIAL

MOTIVATIONS , PERSPECTIVE TAKING , AND CREATIVITY. Academy of


Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. H. (2007). A new model of work role performance:

Positive behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of


Griffin, M. a, Neal, a., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance:

Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts. Academy of


Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. (N. Park, Ed.). CA: Sage.

181

Guerrero, S., & Barraud-didier, V. (2004). High-involvement practices and performance

of French firms. The International Journal of HRs Management, 15(8), 1408–1423.

Guerrero, S., & Barraud-Didier, V. (2004). High-involvement practices and performance

of French firms. The International Journal of HRs Management, 15(8), 1408–1423.

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and

organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 461–473.

Haar, J. M., & Spell, C. S. (2004). Programme Knowledge and Value of Work-Family

Practices and Organizational Commitment. The International Journal of HRs

Management, 15(6), 1040–1054.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. I., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data

Analysis (4th ed.). Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data

Analysis. Vectors.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least

Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publication (Vol. 46).

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). From the special issue guest editors.

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 135–138.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating

unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I - method. European Business

Review, 28(1), 63–76.

Hanif, F., & Khan, M. (2016). Linking Psychological Contract and IWB , moderated path

analysis of Organizational Resources and mediated role of Work Engagement. In

Proceedings of 2nd International Multi-Disciplinary Conference 19-20 December,

2016, Gujrat (pp. 1–11).

Harmon, J., Scotti, D. J., Behson, S., Farias, G., Petzel, R., Neuman, J. H., & Keashly, L.

(2003). Effects of high-involvement work systems on employee satisfaction and

service costs in veterans healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management / American

College of Healthcare Executives, 48, 393-406; discussion 406-407.

Harney, B., & Jordan, C. (2008). Unlocking the Black Box: Line Managers and HRM-

Performance in a Call Centre Context. International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 57(4), 275–296.

Hashim, J. (2010). HRs management practices on organisational commitment: The Islamic

perspective. Personnel Review, 39(6), 785–799.

Hassan, M., Shakeel, M., & Imran, M. (2012). Interrelations between Organizational

Culture , Innovation and Employee Performance : Evidence from Banking Sector of.

Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 32(2), 339–355.

Heeks, R. (1999). Software Strategies in Developing Countries. Development Informatics,

Paper No. 6, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of

Manchester, UK.

Heeks, R., & Nicholson, B. (2002). Software Export Success Factors and Strategies in

182

Developing and Transitional Economies. Development Informatics, Working Paper

Series, Paper No. 12, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University

of Manchester, UK.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing

discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). Testing Measurement Invariance of

Composites Using Partial Least Squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 1–

45.

Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2014). Effects of Leadership Style , Creativity Technique and

Personal Initiative on Employee Creativity. British Journal of Management, 25(1),

209–227.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of

Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94.

Hon, a. H. Y., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2011). Overcoming Resistance to Change and

Enhancing Creative Performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941.

Hoque, K. (1999). HRs management and performance in the UK hotel industry. British

Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(3), 419–443.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the

internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale.

Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.

Horwitz, F. M., & Heng, C. T. (2003). Finders, Keepers? Attracting, motivating and

retaining knowledge workers. HRs Management Journal, 13(4), 23–44.

Horwitz, F. M., Heng, C. T., & Quazi, H. A. (2003). Finders, keepers? Attracting,

motivating and retaining knowledge workers. HRs Management Journal, 13(4), 23–

44.

Hsiao, H., Chang, J., Tu, Y., & Chen, S. (2011). The Impact of Self-efficacy on IWB for

Teachers. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 31–36.

Hsu, K. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with IBM SPSS Amos: A methodology

for predicting behaioral intentions in the services sector. IBM: Business Analytics.

New York: IBM Corporations.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of HRs Management Practices on Turnover,

Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 38(3), 835–872.

Imran, R., & Haque, A. M. (2011). Mediating Effect of Organizational Climate between

Transformational Leadership and IWB. Pakisan Journal of Psychological Research,

26(2), 183–199.

Imran, R., Saeed, T., & Fatima, A. (2010). Organizational climate as a predictor of IWB.

African Journal of Business Management, 4(15), 3337–3343.

Islam, N. (2004). Sifarish, sycophants, power and collectivism: administrative culture in

183

Pakistan. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), 311–330.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and IWB. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and

less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364.

Javed, A., Anas, M., Abbas, M., & Khan, A. I. (2017). Flexible HRs Management And

Firm Innovativeness : The Mediating Role Of IWB. Journal of HRS MANAGEMENT,

XX(1), 31–42.

Jedidi, K., Jagpal, H. S., & DeSarbo, W. . (1997). Finite-mixture structural equation models

for response-based segmentation and unobserved heterogeneity. Marketing Science,

16(1), 39–59.

Jia, L., Shaw, J. D., Jiao, S., Park, T., & Graduate, O. (2014). A Social-Structural

Perspective on Employee-Organization Relationships and Team Creativity. Academy

of Management Journal, 57(3), 869–891.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D., Hu, J., & Baer, J. (2012). How Does HRs Management Influence

Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms.


Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do We Go From Here ? New

Perspectives on the Black Box in Strategic HRs Management Research. Journal of

Management Studies, 50(8), 1449–1480.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Mixed Methods Research: A Research

Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Joo, B. B., & Shim, J. H. (2010). PsyEmp and organizational commitment : the moderating

effect of organizational learning culture. HRs Development International, 13(4), 425–

441.

Joo, B. K., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B. (2013). Creativity and HRs development: An

integrative literature review and a conceptual framework for future research. HRs

Development Review, 12(4), 390–421.

Jose, G. M., Rupert, S., & Ma, M. (2015). Relationships Among Perceived Supervisor

Support , PsyEmp and Employee Engagement in Indian Workplaces. Journal of

Workplace Behavioural Health, 30(3), 231–250.

Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR Practices and Employee

Engagement : A Social Exchange Perspective, 4(7), 423–430.

Kalyar, M. N. (2008). CREATIVITY , SELF-LEADERSHIP AND INDIVIDUAL

INNOVATION. The Journal of Commerce, 3(1), 20–28.

Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies and

organisational performance : Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector.

European Management Journal, 28(1), 25–39.

Kazlauskaite, R., & Buciuniene, I. (2008). The role of HRs and their management in the

establishment of sustainable competetive advantage. Engineering Economics, 5(6),

184

78–84.

Kennedy, J. C. (1995). Empowering Employees Through the Performance Appraisal

Process. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(1), 793–811.

Kesting, P., Ulhøi, J. P., Song, L. J., & Niu, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on

innovation - a review. Journal of Innovation Management, 3(4), 22–41. Retrieved

from

Khan, M. J., Aslam, N., & Riaz, M. N. (2012). Leadership Styles as Predictors of IWB

Predictors. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 17–22.

Khilji, S. E. (2002). Modes of convergence and divergence : an integrative view of

multinational practices in Pakistan. The International Journal of HRs Management,

13(2), 232–253.

Kim, H., & Sung-Choon, K. (2013). Strategic HR functions and firm performance: The

moderating effects of high-involvement work practices. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 30(1).

Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An Innovation-Driven Culture in Local Government: Do

Senior Manager’s Transformational Leadership and the Climate for Creativity

Matter? Public Personnel Management, 1–22.

Kizilos, M., Cummings, C., & Cummings, T. (2013). How High-Involvement Work

Processes Increase Organization Performance: The Role of Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 49(4), 413–436.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.).

London: The Guilford Press.

Kloutsiniotis, P. V, & Mihail, D. M. (2017). Linking innovative HRs practices, employee

attitudes and intention to leave in healthcare services. Employee Relations Iss

Employee Relations Iss Employee Relations, 39(1), 34–53.

Knol, J., & Linge, R. Van. (2009). Innovative Behaviour: the effect of structural and

PsyEmp on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 359–370.

Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. (1996). Improving Labour Productivity: HRs Management

Policies Do Matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 335–354.

Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J. L. E., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and IWB: The

mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 56(1), 13–24.

Krausert, A. (2014). HRM Systems for Knowledge Workers: Differences Among Top

Managers, Middle Managers, and Professional Employees. HRs Management, 53(1),

67–87.

Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1975). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 607–610.

Kufidou, S. (2001). HRs Management: The Challenge of 21st Century in the Workplace.

Thessaloniki: Anikoula.

Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle

level managers’ entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

185

29(6), 699–716.

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too Much of a Good Thing? Negative Effects of High Trust and

Individual Autonomy in Self-Managing Teams. Academy of Management Journal,

47(3), 385–399.

Lashley, C. (1999). Employee Empowerment in Services: A Framework For Analysis.

Personnel Review, 28(3), 169–191.

Laursen, K., & Foss, N. J. (2003). New HRs management practices, complementarities and

the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243–

263.

Lawer, E. (1994). Motivation in Work Organisations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, J. J., Chen, S., Wu, P., Bae, J., & Bai, B. (2010). High-performance work systems

in foreign subsidiaries of American multinationals : An institutional model. Journal

of International Business Studies, 42(2), 202–220.

Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and

organizational performance : An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal

of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179–228.

Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and

organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal

of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179–228.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and sustaining the

sources of innovation. Cambridge: MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A Conceptual review of HRs

management systems in strategic HRs management research. In J. J. Martochhio

(Ed.), Research in Personnel and HRs Management (pp. 217–247). Bingley: Emerald

Group Publishing Ltd.

Liang, X., Marler, J. J., & Cui, Z. (2012). Strategic HRs Management in China : East Meets

West. Academy of Management Perspective, 26(2), 55–70.

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), 371–391.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader-Member Exchange:

An Empirical Assessment Through Scale Development. Journal of Management,

24(1), 43–72.

Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the

relationship between work ‐ family conflict and burnout among construction

professionals ? Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 185–196.

Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J. (2017). HRs systems , employee creativity , and

firm innovation : The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management

Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.

Liu, F., Chow, I. H. S., Gong, Y., & Wang, H. (2016). Mediating links between HRM

bundle and individual innovative behaviour. Journal of Management and

186

Organization, 25(2), 1–16.

Lopez, S. P., Peon, M. M. J., & Ordas, V. J. C. (2005). HRs Practices, Organizational

Learning and Business Performance. HRs Development International, 8(2), 147–164.

Lowendahl, B. R., Revang, O., & Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2001). Knowledge and value

creation in professional service firms : A framework for analysis. Human Relations,

54(7), 911–931.

Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling

(SEM) for building and testing behavioural causal theory: When to choose it and how

to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123–146.

Lu, K., Zhu, J., & Bao, H. (2015). High-performance HRs management and firm

performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems (Vol. 115).

Lu, L., Lin, X., & Leung, K. (2012). Goal orientation and innovative performance: The

mediating roles of knowledge sharing and perceived autonomy. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology.

Malik, M. S., & Aslam, S. (2013). Performance Appraisal and Employee ’ s Motivation :

A Comparative Analysis of Telecom Industry of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social

Sciences, 33(1), 179–189.

Malik, S. A., Bashir, N., Khan, M. M., & Malik, S. A. (2013). Predicting Employees

Turnover in Telecom Mobile Communication Call Centers of Pakistan. Middle-East

Journal of Scientific Research, 17(4), 481–494.

Mangi, R. A., Jhatial, A. A., Shah, S. A. A., & Ghumro, I. A. (2012). HRs management

practices in private sector organisations in Pakistan: study of cultural influences.

Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(7), 20–30.

Mangrio, W. B. U. X., Bhutto, A., & Naqvi, I. B. (2013). Contributions of Science and

Technology Parks Towards Firms’ Performance in Pakistan. Mehran University

Research Journal of Engineering & Technology, 32(3), 391–400.

Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2008). HRs Management at Work. London: CIPD.

Marcoulides, G. A., Chin, W. W., & S., S. C. (2009). A critical look at partial least squares

modeling. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 171–175.

Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Tomas, J. M. (2016). Deconstructing AMO framework: A

systematic review. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 1040–1087.

Marler, J. H., & Fisher, S. L. (2013). HRs Management Review An evidence-based review

of e-HRM and strategic HRs management. HRs Management Review, 23(1), 18–36.

Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. a., & Widaman, K. F. (2007).

Unconstrained Structural Equation Models of Latent Interactions: Contrasting

Residual- and Mean-Centered Approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 570–580.

Matthews, L. M., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating

unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part II # a case study. European Business

Review, 28(2), 1–38.

Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data.

187

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—Fador

fab?Amultilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management,

38(8), 1231–1281.

McGaughey, S. L., & Cieri, H. De. (1999). Reassessment of convergence and divergence

dynamics : implications for international HRM. The International Journal of HRs

Management, 10(2), 235–250.

Meadows, M., & Pike, M. (2010). Performance Management for Social Enterprises. System

Practice Action Research, 23(1), 127–141.

Merlot, E. S., & De Cieri, H. (2012). The challenges of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami for

strategic international HRs management in multinational nonprofit enterprises. The

International Journal of HRs Management, 23(7), 1303–1319.

Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for

IWB as a dynamic and context-bound construct. HRs Development International,

15(1), 43–59.

Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal-Based Learning and the Future of Performance

Management. Public Adminstration Review, 65(2), 203–216.

Nagel, T. (1986). The view fom nowhere. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Naveed, S., & Jadoon, Z. I. (2012). HRM Practices in Public Enterprises in Pakistan:

Exploring Rhetoric and Reality through Case Study Analysis. In Proceedings of 2nd

International Conference on Business Management (pp. 1–28).

NCEAC. (2010). National Computing Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved

October 20, 2015, from www.nceac.gov.pk

Newell, S. (2005). Recruitment and Selection. In Managing HRs (Stephen Ba). New York:

Blackwell Publishing.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report

measures of employee creativity. Human Relations, 65, 1021–1047.

Nicholson, B., & Sahay, S. (2003). Building Iran’s Software Industry: An Assessment of

Plans and Prospects Using The Software Success Model. Development Informatics

Paper No. 15.

Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nyberg, A. J., Moliterno, T. P., Hale, D., & Lepak, D. P. (2014). Resources-based

perspectives on unit-level human capital: a review and integration. Journal of

Management, 40(1), 316–346.

Obeidat, S. M., Mitchell, R., & Bray, M. (2016). Employee Relations The link between

high performance work practices and organizational performance Empirically

validating the conceptualization of HPWP according to the AMO model. Employee

Relations, 38(4), 578–595.

Odoardi, C., Montani, F., Boudrias, J.-S., Battistelli, A., & Authors, F. (2015). Linking

188

managerial practices and leadership style to IWB. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 36(5), 545–569.

Odoardi, C., Montani, F., Boudrias, J. S., & Battistelli, A. (2015). Linking managerial

practices and leadership style to IWB: The role of group and psychological processes.

Leadership and Ogranization Development Journal, 36(5), 545–569.

Ordiz-fuertes, M., & Fernández-sánchez, E. (2003). High-involvement practices in HRs

management : concept and factors that motivate their adoption. The International

Journal of HRs Management, 14(4), 511–529.

Ouyang, Y., Zhou, W., & Qu, H. (2015). The impact of PsyEmp and organisational

commitment on Chinese nurses ’ job satisfaction. Contemporary Nurse, 50(1), 80–91.

Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and Performance : Achievements , Methodological Issues and

Prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129–142.

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging “Strategic HRM” and the Relevance of the

Institutional Setting. HRs Management Journal, 13(3), 56–70.

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2004). " Best Practices … in spite of Performance " Just a matter

of Imitation ?

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and Performance : What Next? HRs Management

Journal, 15(4), 68–83.

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and Performance: What next? HRs Management

Journal, 15(4), 68–83.

Paauwe, J., Wright, P. M., & Guest, D. (2012). HRM and performance: What do we know

and where should we go? HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges,

(December), 1–14.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual (4th ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

Parker, S. H., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive

behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.

Pastor, J., León, A., Wood, S., Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., Menezes, L., … Zhang, J.

(2015). Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational

performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Australasian

Conference on Business and Social Sciences 2015, 19(4), 169–184.

Patton, D., Marlow, S., & Hannon, P. (2000). The Relationship between training and small

firm performance: Research Frameworks and Lost Quests. International Small

Business Journal, 19(1), 11–27.

Peng, G. Z. (2012). FDI legitimacy and MNC subsidiary control: From legitimation to

competition. Journal of International Management, 18(2), 115–131.

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, V. P. (2017). FROM CREATIVITY TO INNOVATION:

THE SOCIAL NETWORK DRIVERS OF THE FOUR PHASES OF THE IDEA

JOURNEY. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79.

Petter, S., Straub, D. W., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information

systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.

189

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competetive Advantage through People. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Pieterse, A. N., Knippenberg, D. V., Chippers, M., &, & Stam, A. D. (2010).

Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behaviour: The

moderating role of PsyEmp. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31(1), 609–623.

Ping Jr., R. a. (1996). Latent Variable Regression: A Technique for Estimating Interaction

and Quadratic Coefficients. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 31(1), 95–120.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Pons, F. J., Ramos, J., & Ramos, A. (2016). Antecedent variables of innovation behaviours

in organizations: Differences between men and women. Revue Europeenne de

Psychologie Appliquee, 66(3), 117–126.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic ofscientific discovery. New York: Routledge.

Pratt, M. (2009). From the editors: The lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and

rewriting) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.

Prieto, I. M., & Perez-Santana, M. P. (2014). Managing IWB : the role of HRs practices.

Personnel Review, 43(2), 184–208.

PSEB. (2010). PSEB Pakistan IT Market Assessment - 2010.

PSEB. (2014). Pakistan Software Export Board. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

www.pseb.gov.pk

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-

performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. HRs Management Journal,

17(1), 3–20.

Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the

People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box. London: Open University

Press.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of IWB:

Development and Test of an Integrated Model. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 14(2), 142–150.

Rapp, W. V. (1996). Customized Software: Strategies for Acquiring and Sustaining

Competitive Advantage: A Japanese Perspective. Center for Economic Relations with

Japan, University of Victoria.

Rasouli, R., Mooghali, A., Mousavi, M., & Rashidi, M. (2013). Modeling the impact of

HRM practices on knowledge workers ’ job satisfaction and intention to stay : re-

examining the Herzberg ’ s two-factor theory of motivation. World of Sciences

Journal, 4(1), 31–41.

Rehman, W. ur, Janjua, saquib Y., & Naeem, H. (2015). Impact of burnout on employees’

performance: an analysis of banking industry. World Review of Entrepreneurship,

Management and Sustainable Development, 11(1), 88–105.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2010). SmartPls 2.0 [Computer Software]. Retrieved

190

from www.smartpls.de

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, (2), 121–139.

Rowley, C., & Benson, J. (2002). Convergence and Divergence in Asian HRs

Management. California Management Review, 44(2), 90–109.

Saeed, R., Sami, A., Lodhi, R. N., & Iqbal, A. (2013). Intellectual Capital and

Organizational Performance : An Empirical Study in Telecom Sector of Pakistan.

Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(4), 517–523.

Sajjad, F., & Amjad, S. (2011). Assessment of Total Quality Management Practices and

Organizational Development . ( The case of Telecom Services Sector of Pakistan ).

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 321–330.

Sangar, R., & Rangnekar, S. (2014). PsyEmp and Role Satisfaction as Determinants of

Creativity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 10(2),

119–127.

Sarstedt, M., Becker, J. M., & Schwaiger, M. (2011). Uncovering unobserved

heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: When Model Selection Critrion Provides an

Appropriate Number of Segments? Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 34–62.

Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2011). HRs Management Practices Linkage with

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Economics and Management,

16(1), 921–928.

Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (1987). Linking Competitive Strategies With HRs Management

Practices’,. Academy of Management Executive, (3), 207–219.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model

of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),

580–607.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of

psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. The

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach (4th ed.).

New York: John Wiley.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. . (1996). Social exchange in organizations:

perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee

reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227.

Shah, S. S. H., Fatima, M., Waris, S., Aziz, J., Jaffari, A. R., Ejan, W., & Sherazi, S. K.

(2012). The Causal Relationship of Training on Organizational Performance. Asian

Journal of Business Management, 4(2), 111–113.

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching Creativity Requirements and

the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intention to Leave. Academy of


Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management,

191

30(6), 933–958.

Shipton, H., West, M., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor

of innovation. HRs Management Journal, 16(1), 3–27.

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2014). Employee Engagement and Well-Being: A Moderation

Model and Implications for Practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

21(1), 43–58.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of PsyEmp. Personnel Review, 29(6),

703–722.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual Factors of PsyEmp. Personnel Review,

29(6), 703–722.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confident intervals for indirect effects in structural

equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1), 290–312.

Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.

Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 45–62.

Spreitzer, M. G. (1995). PsyEmp in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and

Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.

Stahl, G., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., … Wright, P.

(2012). Global Talen Management: How Leading Multinationals Build and Sustain

Their Talen Pipeline. Sloan Management Review, 53(2), 25–42.

Stoffers, J., Neessen, P., & Dorp, P. Van. (2015). Organizational Culture and IWB: A Case

Study of a Manufacturer of Packaging Machines. American Journal of Industrial and

Business Management, 05(04), 198–207.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36(1), 111–147.

Subramanian, M., & Youndt, M. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types

of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

Subramony, M. (2009). A Meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM

bundles and firm Performance. HRs Management, 48(5), 745–768.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing knowledge: Commodification as a

dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human Relations,

54(7), 933–953.

Sui, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Relational Evaluation, Organization-Based Self-Esteem, and

Performance: The Moderating Role of Allocentrism. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 21(1), 17–28.

Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-Performance HRs practices, citizenship

behaviour and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of


Sun, L., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-

level investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55–65.

Tadić, I., & Pivac, S. (2014). Defining HRs “Bundles” and Its’ Correlation with

192

Companies’ Financial Performances. International Journal of Social, Behavioural,

Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8(4), 1032–1036.

Retrieved from http://waset.org/publications/9997946/defining-human-resources-

bundles-and-its-correlation-with-companies-financial-performances

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. ., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1991). Meeting Trainees’

Expectations: The Influence of Training Fulfillment on the Development of

Commitment, Self- Efficacy and Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1),

759–769.

Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness of-fit index for

PLS structural equation modeling. In Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting

(pp. 739–742). Padova, Italy: CLEUP.

Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path

modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hilssdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An

‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,

15(4), 666–681.

Thomas, L., Billsberry, J., Ambrosini, V., & Barton, H. (2014). Convergence and

Divergence Dynamics in British and French Business Schools : How Will the Pressure

for Accreditation Influence these Dynamics ? British Journal of Management, 25(1),

305–319.

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist

approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2S), 11–25.

Usman, A., Danish, R. Q., Waheed, N., & Tayyeb, U. (2011). Moderating effect of

employees ’ education on relationship between feedback , job role innovation and

organizational learning culture. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1684–

1690.

Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2016). HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational

innovativeness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 95–109.

Veenendaal, A., & Bondarouk, T. (2015). Perceptions of HRM and their effect on

dimensions of IWB: Evidence from a manufacturing firm. Management Revue, 26(2),

138–160.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). PsyEmp and Job Satisfaction: An Analysis of Interactive

Effects. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 271–296.

Warhurst, C. (2006). Mapping Knowledge in Work: Proxies or Practices? Work

Employment & Society, 20(4), 787–800.

Wong, K. K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)

Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.

Wood, S., Veldhoven, M., Van, Croon, M., & Menezes, L. M. de. (2012). Enriched job

193

design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The

mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), 419–445.

Woodman, R. W., & Sawyer, J. E. (1989). An interactionist model of organizational

creativity. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,

Miami.

Xerri, M. J., & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour : the importance of

employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International

Journal of HRs Management, 24(16), 3167–3177.

Yasmeen, R., Farooq, U., & Asghar, F. (2013). Impact of Rewards on Organizational

Performance : Empirical Evidence from Telecom Sector of Pakistan. Journal of Basic

and Applied Scientific Research, 3(5), 938–946.

Yildiz, B., Uzun, S., Semih, S., & Kun, C. O. Ş. (2017). Drivers of Innovative Behaviours :

The Moderator Roles of Perceived Organizational Support and PsyEmp. International

Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(2), 341–260.

Yousaf, A., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

on task and contextual perfrmance of Pakistani professionals: The mediating role of

commitment foci. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 133–150.

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR IN THE

WORKPLACE : THE ROLE OF PERFORMANCE AND IMAGE OUTCOME

EXPECTATIONS. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee

Creativity: The Influence of PsyEmp, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process

Engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

194

APPENDICES Appendix A: List of Companies

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

3sc Technologies pvt.Ltd. 9 1.7 1.7 1.7 APEX Consulting Pakistan 9 1.7 1.7 3.3

ARBISOFT (PRIVATE) LTD. 9 1.7 1.7 5.0

Arpatech Pvt. Ltd 7 1.3 1.3 6.3 AutoSoft Dynamics (Pvt.) 9 1.7 1.7 8.0

Avanceon 14 2.6 2.6 10.6

Bramerz Private Limited 7 1.3 1.3 11.9 CARE (Center for Advanced 9 1.7 1.7 13.6

CIKLUM PAKISTAN (Pvt.) Lt 23 4.3 4.3 17.8

Cloud BPO (Private) Limit 8 1.5 1.5 19.3

Comstar – Information S 9 1.7 1.7 21.0

Confiz 9 1.7 1.7 22.7 CTO 24/7 Private Limited 8 1.5 1.5 24.2

CureMD Healthcare 14 2.6 2.6 26.8

Dockland Technologies Pak 7 1.3 1.3 28.1 Ebryx SMC-Pvt. Ltd. 7 1.3 1.3 29.4

Elixir Technologies Pakis 9 1.7 1.7 31.0

Excellence Delivered ExD 9 1.7 1.7 32.7 FOURGEN Information Syste 8 1.5 1.5 34.2

FutureNow Technologies (P 9 1.7 1.7 35.9

GAMEVIEW PAKISTAN (PVT) L 13 2.4 2.4 38.3 HTECH SOlutions Pvt Limit 9 1.7 1.7 40.0

i2c 14 2.6 2.6 42.6

IBM 13 2.4 2.4 45.0 ICON Consultants (Pvt) Lt 7 1.3 1.3 46.3

InfoTech Private Limited 9 1.7 1.7 48.0

InvoCode Pvt Ltd 8 1.5 1.5 49.4 Jabs Solutions 6 1.1 1.1 50.6

Jin Technologies (Pvt.) L 7 1.3 1.3 51.9

Kabot International (Pvt) 9 1.7 1.7 53.5 Mazars Consulting Pakista 9 1.7 1.7 55.2

Mixit Technologies 8 1.5 1.5 56.7

National Consulting for B 9 1.7 1.7 58.4 NetSol 19 3.5 3.5 61.9

NTES Technologies 9 1.7 1.7 63.6

Ovex Technologies Pakista 9 1.7 1.7 65.2 Pakistan Revenue Automati 24 4.5 4.5 69.7

Primatics Financial ( Pvt 14 2.6 2.6 72.3

Sabri Technologies 8 1.5 1.5 73.8 Sensys Pvt Ltd 8 1.5 1.5 75.3

SisTech Systems 4 .7 .7 76.0

Softech Systems (Pvt) Lim 6 1.1 1.1 77.1 Software Labs 4 .7 .7 77.9

Strategic Systems Interna 6 1.1 1.1 79.0

Synergy Computers Pvt Ltd 6 1.1 1.1 80.1 Systems Limited 20 3.7 3.7 83.8

Talented Earth Organizati 4 .7 .7 84.6

Target Systems 6 1.1 1.1 85.7 Techaccess Pakistan Priva 6 1.1 1.1 86.8

TEXPO Pakistan (Pvt) LTD 6 1.1 1.1 87.9

The Resources Group 39 7.2 7.2 95.2 TkXel 6 1.1 1.1 96.3

TRICAST MEDIA PRIVATE LIM 6 1.1 1.1 97.4

Wavetec (Private) Ltd. 6 1.1 1.1 98.5 XAVOR PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD 8 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 538 100.0 100.0

195

Appendix B: Independent Samples t-test for Early vs. Late Respondents

Norte: In this table, SCW = Coworker support, SMG = Management Support, PsyEmp = PsyEmp, IWB = IWB. Respond

Time = 1 for early respondents while 2 for late respondents.

Respond Time N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error Mean Mean

Difference

t-value

Age 1.00 117 30.08 6.006 .555 1.407 2.009

2.00 115 28.67 4.551 .424

Qualification 1.00 117 1.56 .648 .060 0.068 0.801

2.00 115 1.50 .654 .061

Experience 1.00 117 4.20 3.417 .316 0.753 1.939

2.00 115 3.44 2.403 .224

YearsOper

1.00 117 15.56 11.575 1.070 0.001 -.001

2.00 115 15.56 11.671 1.088

IWB 1.00 117 .0551 .93679 .08661 -0.0264 -.214

2.00 115 .0816 .95031 .08862

PsyEmp 1.00 117 .0503 .91885 .08495 -0.122 -.097

2.00 115 .0625 1.00142 .09338

SCW 1.00 117 .0793 .96625 .08933 0.068 .527

2.00 115 .0112 .99952 .09321

SMG 1.00 117 .1097 .99902 .09236 0.107 .819

2.00 115 .0020 1.00230 .09346

196

Appendix C: Descriptive Statistics of Items

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

“Our company spends a great effort in

selecting the right person for every position.”

538/0 1 5 2.79 1.132 .362 .105 -.477 .210

“Our company uses extensive procedures in

recruitment and selection, including a variety

of test and interviews.”

538/0 1 5 2.99 .973 .099 .105 -.285 .210

“In recruiting, our company emphasizes the

potential of new hires to learn and grow with

the company.”

538/0 1 5 3.07 1.016 -.085 .105 -.490 .210

“Our company takes care on its image when

recruiting and selecting employees.”

538/0 1 5 3.11 1.121 -.059 .105 -.621 .210

“Employees are selected based on their

overall fit to the organization.”

536/2 1 5 3.14 1.117 -.052 .106 -.756 .211

“Employees normally go through ongoing

training programs”

537/1 1 5 3.17 1.051 -.091 .105 -.541 .210

“Our company provides training focused on

team-building and teamwork skills”

533/5 1 5 3.14 1.075 -.036 .106 -.553 .211

“Managers do not provide specialized

training and development for their

employees”

537/1 1 5 2.92 1.026 -.022 .105 -.381 .210

“Managers initiate and provide various kinds

of training and development for their

employees”

537/1 1 5 3.22 1.113 -.153 .105 -.701 .210

“Our company has good mentoring system to

support newly hired employees”

538/0 1 5 3.34 1.221 -.266 .105 -.899 .210

“Employees in this organization receive

monetary rewards based on their individual

performance”

538/0 1 5 3.51 1.160 -.320 .105 -.720 .210


monetary rewards based on their group

performance”

537/1 1 5 3.33 1.007 -.391 .105 -.360 .210


monetary rewards based on the

organizational performance”

538/0 1 5 3.07 1.014 -.020 .105 -.280 .210

“Our company’s pay system does not reflect

employee’s contribution to the company”

536/2 1 5 2.94 .973 -.108 .106 -.065 .211

“Employees performance appraisal is based

on individual behaviours and attitudes work”

537/1 1 5 3.17 1.061 -.216 .105 -.589 .210

“Employees performance appraisal is

oriented towards their development and

progress at work”

538/0 1 5 3.24 1.111 -.226 .105 -.676 .210

“Employees performance appraisal

emphasize collective and long-term based

results”

538/0 1 5 3.25 1.074 -.229 .105 -.438 .210

“Employees receive performance feedback

on a routine basis”

536/2 1 5 3.34 1.113 -.214 .106 -.664 .211

“Performance appraisals are based in

objective quantifiable results”

537/1 1 5 3.51 1.225 -.412 .105 -.807 .210

“Our company provides opportunities to

employees through job rotation and flexible

work assignments in different work areas”

537/1 1 5 3.36 1.248 -.244 .105 -.929 .210

“Our company transfers extensively different

tasks and responsibilities to employees”

538/0 1 5 3.34 1.017 -.398 .105 -.339 .210

“Our company emphasizes employees’ team

work and network collaboration”

537/1 1 5 3.13 1.006 -.164 .105 -.186 .210

“Employees in this organization have

broadly designed jobs requiring a variety of

skills”

533/5 1 5 3.05 1.021 .030 .106 -.386 .211

“Employees in this company are not allowed

to make decisions”

537/1 1 5 2.89 1.028 .059 .105 -.330 .210

“Employees are provided the opportunity to

suggest improvements in the way things are

done”

538/0 1 5 3.21 .999 -.255 .105 -.336 .210

“Employees are invited to participate in a

wide range of issues, including performance

standards, quality improvement, benefits,

etc.”

538/0 1 5 3.22 1.080 -.093 .105 -.634 .210

“Employees are not invited to participate in

problem solving and decision making”

537/1 1 5 2.83 1.079 .001 .105 -.603 .210

“Employees receive information on the

relevant concerns of the company (goals,

performance, etc.)”

538/0 1 5 3.26 1.063 -.236 .105 -.478 .210

197

“Supervisors keep open communication in

this company”

538/0 1 5 3.40 1.227 -.260 .105 -.990 .210

“Employees in this organization feel it is

easy to approach to their supervisor”

537/1 1 5 3.71 1.136 -.562 .105 -.445 .210


encouragement and support from their

supervisors”

538/0 1 5 3.50 .981 -.558 .105 .026 .210

“Employees in this organization have access

to resources that they need to do their work”

538/0 1 5 3.18 1.039 .011 .105 -.399 .210

“Employees in this organization have the

guidance and help that they need to do their

work”

538/0 1 5 3.12 1.035 -.021 .105 -.399 .210

“Employees in this organization are aware of

the policies and procedures to perform their

work”

537/1 1 5 3.16 1.033 -.137 .105 -.352 .210

“Employees in this organization have

relationships based on trust and faith”

535/3 1 5 3.24 1.038 -.114 .106 -.577 .211

“Employees in this organization do not trust

their coworkers”

538/0 1 5 2.82 1.010 .099 .105 -.162 .210

“Employees in this organization share a

commonality of purpose and collective

aspirations with others at work”

538/1 1 5 3.31 .997 -.254 .105 -.405 .210

“Employees do not share information and

learn from one another”

538/0 1 5 2.80 1.089 .063 .105 -.549 .210

“Employees view themselves as partners in

charting the direction of the organization”

537/1 1 5 3.42 1.062 -.406 .105 -.336 .210

“Employees interact and exchange ideas

with people from different areas of the

organization”

537/1 1 5 3.59 1.217 -.456 .105 -.820 .210

“My impact on what happens in my

department is large”

538/0 1 5 3.36 1.219 -.166 .105 -.909 .210

“I have a great deal of control over what

happens in my department”

538/0 1 5 3.30 1.018 -.372 .105 -.334 .210

“I have significant influence over what


536/2 1 5 3.15 1.012 -.140 .106 -.264 .211

“The work I do is very important to me” 538/0 1 5 3.14 1.053 -.010 .105 -.416 .210

“My job activities are personally meaningful

to me”

536/2 1 5 3.16 1.117 -.093 .106 -.677 .211

“The work I do is not meaningful to me” 535/3 1 5 2.78 .992 .068 .106 -.306 .211

“I have significant autonomy in determining

how I do my job”

535/3 1 5 3.21 .985 -.217 .106 -.235 .211

“I can decide on my own how to go about

doing my work”

538/0 1 5 3.21 1.062 -.122 .105 -.579 .210

“I have considerable opportunity for

independence and freedom to I do my job”

536/2 1 5 3.16 1.158 -.163 .106 -.729 .211

“I am confident about ability to do my job” 536/2 1 5 3.23 1.115 -.178 .106 -.605 .211

“I am self-assured about my capabilities to

perform my work activities”

536/2 1 5 3.29 1.124 -.222 .106 -.667 .211

“I have mastered the skills necessary for my

job”

537/1 1 5 3.47 1.197 -.352 .105 -.814 .210

“How often do you create new ideas for

difficult issues?”

538/0 1 5 3.67 1.154 -.524 .105 -.555 .210

“How often do you search out new working

methods, techniques, or instruments?”

536/2 1 5 3.53 1.039 -.582 .106 -.049 .211

“How often do you generate original

solutions for problems?”

538/0 1 5 3.37 1.081 -.248 .105 -.522 .210

“How often do you Mobilize support for

innovative ideas?”

536/2 1 5 3.36 1.168 -.301 .106 -.695 .211

“How often do you acquire approval for


538/0 1 5 3.37 1.186 -.292 .105 -.777 .210

“How often do you make important

organizational members enthusiastic for


538/0 1 5 3.42 1.136 -.319 .105 -.665 .210

“How often do you transform innovative

ideas into useful applications?”

537/1 1 5 3.45 1.153 -.324 .105 -.687 .210

“How often do you introduce innovative

ideas into the work environment in a

systematic way?”

538/0 1 5 3.52 1.195 -.470 .105 -.695 .210

“How often do you evaluate the utility of


537/1 1 5 3.63 1.291 -.547 .105 -.856 .210

“How often this employee creates new ideas

for difficult issues?”

538/0 1 5 2.95 1.067 .089 .105 -.520 .210

“How often this employee searches out new

working methods, techniques, or

instruments?”

538/0 1 5 2.97 .945 .033 .105 -.185 .210

“How often this employee generates original


536/2 1 5 2.93 1.024 .150 .106 -.509 .211

“How often this employee Mobilizes support


534/4 1 5 2.93 .998 .162 .106 -.279 .211

198

“How often this employee acquires approval


535/3 1 5 2.99 1.072 .031 .106 -.606 .211

“How often this employee makes important

organizational members enthusiastic for


534/4 1 5 2.93 1.075 .007 .106 -.589 .211

“How often this employee transforms

innovative ideas into useful applications?”

537/2 1 5 2.97 1.051 .160 .105 -.531 .210

“How often this employee introduces

innovative ideas into the work environment

in a systematic way?”

538/0 1 5 2.96 1.117 .028 .105 -.657 .210

“How often this employee evaluates the

utility of innovative ideas?”

537/0 1 5 3.10 1.187 -.007 .105 -.883 .210

Valid N (list wise) 534

199

Appendix D: Survey Questionnaire

Dear Executive,

“I am a PhD student at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad (Now

COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad Campus). As a requirement of my degree, I

am undertaking a research study on the topic of ‘High Involvement HRs practices as

Antecedents of IWB in Software Companies of Pakistan: An Ability Motivation

Opportunity Framework Perspective’. As a data collection tool, following questionnaire

has been designed for responses for the High Involvement HRs practices, PsyEmp,

supportive work environment and employees’ IWB. The input received henceforth, will be

of value for the software companies in designing and implementing HRs practices, which

could enhance the IWB of the employees.”

I would be very grateful if you spare some time and complete the questionnaire. The

confidentiality of the responses as well as anonymity of the respondents will be ensured.

The information sought will only be used for academic purpose only. This will take only

15-20 minutes of your time.

Thanking you in anticipation.

(Wali Ur Rehman)

PhD Scholar (HRM)


200

SECTION – 1: GENERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

PLEASE ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE OPTION

Gender: 1. Male

2. Female

Age: ___________Years

Qualification: 1. Graduation Designation: _______________________

2. Masters

3. Higher Degree Department: _______________________

Experience in the Company: ________Years/Months

Company Name:________________________________

Total Employees in the Company:_________________ Years since Operations in

: ______

Company Origin: 1. Local 2. Foreign

Your EMAIL Address:

__________________________Contact:___________________

Your Supervisor’s Name: __________________Email:__________________________

“The contact details will be used only for collecting information on the Dependent Variable

of the study i.e., the IWB . This segregation of the data collection is due to the research

design of the study. The anonymity and confidentiality of your responses will be ensured.

In addition, the results of the study will also be shared with you on the completion, upon

your request through email.”

201

SECTION – 2 High Involvement HRs Practices

Section 2(A): Ability enhancing HRs Practices

ItemNo “How much you agree with the following

statements?” Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neither Agree

Strongly

Agree

HAS01 “Our company spends a great effort in

selecting the right person for every position.” 1 2 3 4 5

HAS02 “Our company uses extensive procedures in

recruitment and selection, including a variety

of test and interviews.”

1 2 3 4 5

HAS03 “In recruiting, our company emphasizes the

potential of new hires to learn and grow with

the company.”

1 2 3 4

5

HAS04 “Our company takes care on its image when

recruiting and selecting employees.” 1 2 3 4 5

HAS05 “Employees are selected based on their overall

fit to the organization.” 1 2 3 4 5

HAT06 “Employees normally go through ongoing

training programs” 1 2 3 4 5

HAT07 “Our company provides training focused on

team-building and teamwork skills” 1 2 3 4 5

HAT08

“Managers do not provide specialized training

and development for their employees” 1 2 3 4 5

HAT09 “Managers initiate and provide various kinds

of training and development for their

employees”

1 2 3 4 5

HAT10 “Our company has good mentoring system to

support newly hired employees” 1 2 3 4 5

202

Section 2(B): Motivation enhancing HRs Practices

ItemNo “How much you agree with the

following statements?” Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neither Agree

Strongly

Agree

HMC11 “Employees in organization receive

monetary rewards based on individual

performance”

1 2 3 4

5


monetary rewards based on their group

performance”

1 2 3 4 5


monetary rewards based on

organizational performance”

1 2 3 4 5

HMC14 “Our company’s pay system does not

reflect employee’s contribution to the

company”

1 2 3 4 5

HMP15 “Employees performance appraisal is

based on individual behaviours and

attitudes at work”

1 2 3 4 5

HMP16 “Employees performance appraisal is

oriented towards their development and

progress at work”

1 2 3 4 5

HMP17 “Employees performance appraisal

emphasize collective and long-term

based results”

1 2 3 4 5

HMP18 “Employees receive performance

feedback on a routine basis” 1 2 3 4 5

HMP19 “Performance appraisals are based in

objective quantifiable results” 1 2 3 4 5

203

Section 2(C): Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices


following statements?” Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree

HOD20 “Our company provides

opportunities to employees through

job rotation and flexible work

assignments in different work

areas”

1 2 3 4

5

HOD21 “Our company transfers extensively

different tasks and responsibilities

to employees”

1 2 3 4 5

HOD22 “Our company emphasizes

employees’ team work and network

collaboration”

1 2 3 4 5

HOD23 “Employees in this organization

have broadly designed jobs

requiring a variety of skills”

1 2 3 4 5

HOP24 “Employees in this company are not

allowed to make decisions” 1 2 3 4 5

HOP25 “Employees are provided

opportunity to suggest

improvements in the way things are

done”

1 2 3 4 5

HOP26 “Employees are invited to

participate in a wide range of issues,

including performance standards,

quality improvement, benefits, etc.”

1 2 3 4 5

HOP27 “Employees are not invited to

participate in problem solving and

decision making”

1 2 3 4 5

HOP28 “Employees receive information on

the relevant concerns of the

company (goals, performance,

etc.)”

1 2 3 4

5

HOP29 “Supervisors keep open

communication in this company” 1 2 3 4 5

204

SECTION – 3 Supportive Work Environment




SMG30 “Employees in this organization feel

it is easy to approach to their

supervisor”

1 2 3 4 5

SMG31 “Employees in this organization

receive encouragement and support

from their supervisors”

1 2 3 4 5


have access to resources that they

need to do their work”

1 2 3 4 5


have guidance and help that they


1 2 3 4 5

SMG34 “Employees in this organization are

aware of the policies and procedures

to perform their work”

1 2 3 4 5

SCW35 “Employees in this organization

have relationships based on trust

and reciprocal faith”

1 2 3 4 5

SCW36 “Employees in this organization do

not trust their coworkers” 1 2 3 4 5

SCW37 “Employees in this organization

share a commonality of purpose and

collective aspirations with others at

work”

1 2 3 4 5

SCW38 “Employees do not share

information and learn from one

another”

1 2 3 4 5

SCW39 “Employees view themselves as

partners in charting the direction of

the organization”

1 2 3

4

5

SCW40 “Employees interact and exchange

ideas with people from different

areas of the organization”

1 2 3 4 5

205

SECTION – 4 PSYEMP




PEI41 “My impact on what happens in

my department is large” 1 2 3 4 5

PEI42 “I have a great deal of control

over what happens in my

department”

1 2 3 4 5

PEI43 “I have significant influence over

what happens in my department” 1 2 3 4 5

PEM44 “The work I do is very important

to me”

1 2 3 4 5

PEM45 “My job activities are personally

meaningful to me” 1 2 3 4 5

PEM46

“The work I do is not meaningful

to me”

1 2 3 4 5

PEA47

“I have significant autonomy in

determining how I do my job” 1 2 3 4 5

PEA48 “I can decide on my own how to

go about doing my work” 1 2 3 4 5

PEA49 “I have considerable opportunity

for independence and freedom in

how I do my job”

1 2 3 4

5

PEC50 “I am confident about my ability

to do my job”

1 2 3 4 5

PEC51 “I am self-assured about my

capabilities to perform my work

activities”

1 2 3 4 5

PEC52 “I have mastered the skills

necessary for my job”

1 2 3 4 5

206

IWB – Rated by Immediate Supervisor

“Innovation is a process involving both the generation and implementation of ideas. As

such, it requires a wide variety of specific behaviours on the part of individuals. While

some people might be expected to exhibit all the behaviours involved in innovation, others

may exhibit only one or a few types of behaviour.” Please rate above mentioned employee

(subordinate) on the following:

Item

No

“How often this employee engaged

in following activities under your

supervision?”

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

IIG53 “How often this employee creates

new ideas for difficult issues?” 1 2 3 4 5

IIG54 “How often this employee searches

out new working methods,

techniques, or instruments?”

1 2 3 4 5

IIG55 “How often this employee generates

original solutions for problems?” 1 2 3 4 5

IIP56 “How often this employee

Mobilizes support for innovative

ideas?”

1 2 3 4 5

IIP57 “How often this employee acquires

approval for innovative ideas?” 1 2 3 4 5

IIP58 “How often this employee makes

important organizational members

enthusiastic for innovative ideas?”

1 2 3 4 5

IIR59 “How often this employee

transforms innovative ideas into

useful applications?”

1 2 3 4 5

IIR60 “How often this employee

introduces innovative ideas into the

work environment in a systematic

way?”

1 2 3 4 5

IIR61 “How often this employee evaluates

the utility of innovative ideas?” 1 2 3 4 5

Should you need results of the study any time in future, please feel free to contact on

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

207

Appendix E: Measurement Model (Loadings and bootstrapped t-values)

“HAS and HAT are relevant items for ability enhancing HRs practices, HMP and HMC are relevant items for motivation

enhancing HRs practices, HOD and HOP are relevant items for opportunity enhancing HRs practices; PEA, PEC, PEI

and PEM are relevant items for PsyEmp, SCW are the relevant items for coworker support, SMG are relevant items for

management support and IIP, IIR are relevant items for IWB.”

208

Appendix F: Interaction Effects Model: Outer loadings paths and t-values

“HAS and HAT are relevant items for ability enhancing HRs practices, HMP and HMC are relevant items for motivation

enhancing HRs practices, HOD and HOP are relevant items for opportunity enhancing HRs practices; PEA, PEC, PEI

and PEM are relevant items for PsyEmp, SCW are the relevant items for coworker support, SMG are relevant items for

management support and IIP, IIR are relevant items for IWB.”

209

Appendix G: HTMT Ratio of Correlations & Confidence Intervals

HTMT Ratio (Confidence Intervals)

Original

Sample

(O)

Sample

Mean

(M)

2.5% 97.5%

IWB -> AbEnHR 0.28701 0.28743 0.097 0.4561

MoEnHR -> AbEnHR 0.736164 0.737881 0.609961 0.872356

MoEnHR -> IWB 0.5723 0.57342 0.414656 0.768624

OpEnHR -> AbEnHR 0.7744 0.770884 0.680625 0.8464

OpEnHR -> IWB 0.36684 0.36661 0.284416 0.543044

OpEnHR -> MoEnHR 0.7569 0.760384 0.616225 0.870489

PsyEmp -> AbEnHR 0.644809 0.638401 0.498436 0.751689

PsyEmp -> IWB 0.514409 0.514201 0.214656 0.619025

PsyEmp -> MoEnHR 0.707281 0.714025 0.565504 0.863041

PsyEmp -> OpEnHR 0.7225 0.720801 0.595984 0.829921

PsyEmp*SCW -> AbEnHR 0.063001 0.062001 0.012996 0.140625

PsyEmp*SCW -> IWB 0.081796 0.083521 0.024649 0.173056

PsyEmp*SCW -> MoEnHR 0.087025 0.088804 0.026569 0.175561

PsyEmp*SCW -> OpEnHR 0.1024 0.101124 0.034225 0.183184

PsyEmp*SCW -> PsyEmp 0.046225 0.045796 0.008464 0.131044

PsyEmp*SMG -> AbEnHR 0.030976 0.031329 0.0036 0.094249

PsyEmp*SMG -> IWB 0.038416 0.039601 0.005776 0.117649

PsyEmp*SMG -> MoEnHR 0.0484 0.050176 0.011025 0.128164

PsyEmp*SMG -> OpEnHR 0.0625 0.062001 0.012321 0.130321

PsyEmp*SMG -> PsyEmp 0.010201 0.014161 0.0025 0.061504

PsyEmp*SMG -> PsyEmp*SCW 0.908209 0.908209 0.872356 0.938961

SCW -> AbEnHR 0.6889 0.693889 0.550564 0.833569

SCW -> IWB 0.34656 0.346225 0.220944 0.642724

SCW -> MoEnHR 0.690561 0.695556 0.552049 0.835396

SCW -> OpEnHR 0.743044 0.751689 0.591361 0.837225

SCW -> PsyEmp 0.741321 0.744769 0.595984 0.876096

SCW -> PsyEmp*SCW 0.119025 0.121104 0.046225 0.208849

SCW -> PsyEmp*SMG 0.065025 0.066564 0.016641 0.145161

SMG -> AbEnHR 0.594441 0.597529 0.458329 0.731025

SMG -> IWB 0.56289 0.56278 0.331041 0.702244

SMG -> MoEnHR 0.731025 0.732736 0.600625 0.850084

SMG -> OpEnHR 0.7056 0.715716 0.585225 0.8281

SMG -> PsyEmp 0.603729 0.606841 0.458329 0.736164

SMG -> PsyEmp*SCW 0.064009 0.066049 0.017689 0.137641

SMG -> PsyEmp*SMG 0.030976 0.0324 0.004761 0.093636

SMG -> SCW 0.763876 0.767376 0.7056 0.8836

IWB: IWB; SCW: Coworker Support: SMG: Management Support; PsyEmp: PsyEmp; Ab/Op/Mo/EnHR:

Ability-Opportunity-Motivation-Enhancing HR

210

Appendix H: FIMIX Procedure Results for unobserved Heterogeneity

Information Criteria Full Data 2-

Segments

3-

Segments

4-

Segments

5-

Segments AIC 1,780.467 1,190.125 1,029.641 1,009.043 944.229*

AIC3 1,793.467 1,013.229* 1,070.641 1,064.043 1,217.125

AIC4 1,806.467 1,244.125 1,111.641 1,119.043 1,082.229*

BIC 1,835.464 1,203.091* 1,304.348 1,241.720 1,236.132

CAIC 1,848.464 1,244.091* 1,331.348 1,296.720 1,305.132

HQ 1,802.033 1,234.915 1,058.693* 1,100.283 1,097.656

MDL5 1,977.240 2,159.449* 2,224.890 2,612.426 2,955.745

LnL -877.234 -568.062 -473.821 -449.522 -403.114*

EN 0.980* 0.899 0.697 0.728

NFI 0.988 0.915 0.632 0.650

NEC 9.979 51.411 153.828 138.125

“AIC Akaike’s Information Criterion” “AIC3 (Modified AIC with Factor 3)”

“AIC4 (Modified AIC with Factor 4)” “BIC (Bayesian Information Criteria)” “CAIC (Consistent AIC)” “HQ (Hannan Quinn Criterion)”

“MDL5 (Minimum Description Length with Factor 5)” “LnL (LogLikelihood)”

“EN (Entropy Statistic (Normed))” “NFI (Non-Fuzzy Index)” “NEC (Normalized Entropy Criterion)”

“* The smaller the value of each criterion the better the segmentation, except for EN, which should be larger for a better segmentation.

As suggested by Sarstedt et al., (2011), AIC3 and CAIC indicates 2-segments in the dataset (the smallest values for these two criteria suggest 2-segments). In addition, the highest value of EN is for 2-segments. Therefore, the data is free from any type of unobserved

heterogeneity as suggested by Matthews et al., (2016).”

211

Appendix I: 3-way Interaction through Regression

Model

Un-standardized

Co-efficients

Standardized

Co-efficients

T Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) .061 .029 2.088 .037

AbEnHR -.046 .047 -.046 -.979 .328

MoEnHR .298 .050 .297 5.940 .000

OpEnHR -.025 .051 -.025 -.488 .626

PsyEmp .383 .051 .383 7.494 .000

PsyEmp_C -.013 .066 -.015 -.197 .844

PsyEmp_M .079 .065 .095 1.217 .224

SCW .165 .051 .165 3.254 .001

SMG .093 .044 .093 2.101 .036

PE_MS_CS -.004 .013 -.012 -.276 .783

SCW_SMG -.123 .030 -.173 -4.158 .000

a. Dependent Variable: IWB “Where, AbEnHR = Ability enhancing HRs practices, MoEnHR = Motivation enhancing HRs practices, OpEnHR = Opportunity

enhancing HRs practices, PsyEmp = PsyEmp, PsyEmp_C = interaction term of PsyEmp and coworker support, PsyEmp_M = interaction

term of PsyEmp and management support, SCW = Coworker support, SMG = Management Support, PE_MS_CS = 3-way interaction

term of PsyEmp, management support and coworker support, and SCW_SMG = interaction term of coworker support and management

support.”

212

Appendix J: Interaction effect of SMG on SCW->IWB

In this figure, SCW = Coworker Support and SMG = Management Support.

213

Appendix K: Indirect Conditional Effects of Exogenous Variables on IWB

Independent Variable

Mediator

SCW SMG

AbEnHR

(LLCI – ULCI)

MoEnHR

(LLCI – ULCI)

OpEnHR

(LLCI – ULCI)

PsyEmp Low Low 0.1038

(0.0494 – 0.1785)

0.1157

(0.0488-0.2322)

0.1814

(0.1111-0.2896)

PsyEmp Low High 0.108

(0.0423-0.2199)

0.1205

(0.0384-0.2734)

0.1889

(0.0801-0.3272) PsyEmp High Low 0.083

(0.0140-0.1946)

0.0926

(0.0170-0.2466)

0.1452

(0.0186-0.3162)

PsyEmp High High 0.0873

(0.0384-0.1590)

0.0974

(0.0370-0.2050)

0.1527

(0.0861-0.2494)

“Note. The results are calculated using Hayes (2013) process macros developed for

assessment of moderation-mediation models. This table shows the indirect conditional

effects of exogenous variables [i.e., “ability-enhancing HRs Practices (AbEnHR),

motivation-enhancing HRs practices (MoEnHR) and opportunity-enhancing HRs practices

(OpEnHR)” on the IWB through PsyEmp (PsyEmp) on different values of the moderators

(i.e., management support-SMG and Coworker Support-SCW)]. The table also shows the

95% confidence intervals for each effect. All the confidence intervals do not contain any

zero value, therefore the effects are significant @ 5% level of significant.”

214

Appendix L: Predictive Accuracy (R2) and Effect size f2 for Endogenous Variables

Exogenous Variable(s) PsyEmp

R2 = 0.655

IWB

R2 = 0.668

“Ability-Enhancing HRs Practices”



0.045b

0.054b

0.143c

“Ability Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices”

PsyEmp

Management Support

Coworker Support

0.002a

0.078b

0.002a

0.164c

0.004a

0.020a Note. The values of f2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As per guidelines of Cohen (1988), f2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects,

respectively.

a. Small effect, b. Medium Effect c. Large Effect

215

Appendix M: Predictive Relevance (Q2) and q2 effect size for Exogenous Variables

Exogenous Variable(s) PsyEmp

Q2 =

0.418

IWB

Q2 = 0.474

“Ability-Enhancing HRs Practices”



0.047b

0.063b

0.132c

“Ability Enhancing HRs Practices” “Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices”

“Opportunity Enhancing HRs Practices”

PsyEmp

Management Support

Coworker Support

0.019a

0.040b

0.006a

0.087b

0.003a

0.013a Note. The values of q2 effect size show the predictive relevance for each excluded variable from the structural model. As per guidelines of (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974), q2 effect sizes of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered as large, medium and small effects, respectively.

a. Small Effect size b. Medium effect size c. Large effect size

216

Appendix N: Initial Model including all items and Loadings

Items AbEnHR IWB MoEnHR OpEnHR PsyEmp SCW SMG

“Our company uses

extensive procedures in

recruitment and selection,

including a variety of test

and interviews.”

0.7844 0.2925 0.6327 0.6696 0.5895 0.566 0.5107

“In recruiting, our

company emphasizes the

potential of new hires to

learn and grow with the

company.”

0.7995 0.1965 0.6467 0.6147 0.6041 0.5351 0.5271

“Our company takes care

on its image when

recruiting and selecting

employees.”

0.7994 0.2174 0.6374 0.6215 0.5704 0.5451 0.5616

“Employees are selected

based on their overall fit to

the organization.”

0.7883 0.3459 0.6446 0.6052 0.5966 0.5685 0.5595

“Our company has good

mentoring system to

support newly hired

employees”

0.7449 0.1536 0.675 0.6657 0.6229 0.6144 0.5785

“Employees normally go

through ongoing training

programs”

0.8265 0.2412 0.6466 0.6188 0.5885 0.5724 0.5272

“Our company provides

training focused on team-

building and teamwork

skills”

0.7569 0.192 0.8003 0.6204 0.6183 0.612 0.5986

“Managers initiate and

provide various kinds of

training and development

for employees”

0.7858 0.3969 0.8367 0.6368 0.6016 0.6392 0.6005

“Employees in this

organization receive


their individual

performance”

0.4925 0.3286 0.8373 0.6503 0.6147 0.6455 0.5835




their group performance”

0.4965 0.3111 0.8671 0.6665 0.5929 0.6412 0.5643




the organizational

performance”

0.5174 0.2369 0.7839 0.8033 0.5794 0.6255 0.51

“Employees performance

appraisal is based on

individual behaviours and

attitudes at work”

0.5459 0.2471 0.756 0.7812 0.6327 0.6184 0.6544


appraisal is oriented

towards their development

and progress at work”

0.5536 0.2759 0.7957 0.8012 0.6563 0.6659 0.6471


appraisal emphasize

collective and long-term

based results”

0.5412 0.2402 0.7683 0.8433 0.6364 0.6639 0.5835

217

“Employees receive

performance feedback on a

routine basis”

0.592 0.2677 0.8302 0.8518 0.6252 0.667 0.5487

“Performance appraisals

are based in quantifiable

results”

0.5969 0.3032 0.8067 0.6072 0.5895 0.595 0.5893

“Our company provides

opportunities to employees

through job rotation and

flexible work assignments

in different work areas”

0.6286 0.3285 0.6327 0.7989 0.6041 0.6155 0.5528

“Our company transfers

extensively different tasks

and responsibilities to

employees”

0.6111 0.3194 0.6467 0.8767 0.5704 0.552 0.5429

“Our company emphasizes

employees’ team work and

network collaboration”

0.5369 0.295 0.6374 0.8252 0.5966 0.5937 0.5301


organization have broadly

designed jobs requiring a

variety of skills”

0.5471 0.2848 0.6446 0.7782 0.6229 0.5717 0.5171

“Employees are provided

the opportunity to suggest

improvements in the way

things are done”

0.5759 0.3327 0.675 0.7931 0.5885 0.6001 0.5306

“Employees are invited to

participate in a wide range

of issues, including

performance standards,

quality improvement,

benefits, etc.”

0.5402 0.2941 0.6466 0.8034 0.6183 0.5935 0.5573

“Employees receive

information on the relevant

concerns of the company

(goals, performance, etc.)”

0.5677 0.3151 0.8003 0.8036 0.6016 0.5948 0.5658

“Supervisors keep open

communication in this

company

0.6032 0.3148 0.8367 0.8105 0.6147 0.6001 0.5695

How often this employee

creates new ideas for

difficult issues?”

0.3285 0.7986 0.3464 0.3696 0.2929 0.713 0.2107

“How often this employee

searches out new working

methods, techniques, or

instruments?”

0.3194 0.8554 0.3898 0.3147 0.2794 0.3735 0.2271


generates original


0.295 0.829 0.3373 0.3215 0.3327 0.3909 0.2616


Mobilizes support for


0.2848 0.8332 0.3317 0.3052 0.3563 0.266 0.2595


acquires approval for


0.3327 0.8102 0.2653 0.3657 0.3364 0.2351 0.2785


makes important

organizational members

enthusiastic for innovative

ideas?”

0.2941 0.8087 0.3375 0.3188 0.3252 0.2451 0.2272


transforms innovative 0.3151 0.8304 0.3357 0.3204 0.3895 0.2685 0.2986

218

ideas into useful

applications?”


introduces innovative ideas

into the work environment

in a systematic way?”

0.3148 0.8295 0.3099 0.3368 0.3041 0.3144 0.3005


evaluates the utility of


0.275 0.7879 0.2900 0.2503 0.3704 0.2724 0.2835

“I have significant

autonomy in determining

how I do my job”

0.5727 0.1925 0.2911 0.6665 0.7833 0.612 0.5643

“I can decide on my own

how to go about doing my

work”

0.5696 0.1965 0.5827 0.8033 0.801 0.6392 0.51

“I have considerable

opportunity for

independence and freedom

in how I do my job”

0.5974 0.2174 0.5782 0.7812 0.7825 0.6455 0.6544

“I am confident about my

ability to do my job” 0.6174 0.2459 0.5879 0.8012 0.7997 0.6412 0.6471

“I am self-assured about

my capabilities to perform

my work activities”

0.588 0.2536 0.6077 0.8433 0.7887 0.6255 0.5835

“I have mastered the skills

necessary for my job” 0.4925 0.2412 0.5946 0.8518 0.7685 0.6184 0.5487

“My impact on what

happens in my department

is large”

0.4965 0.292 0.6007 0.6072 0.7538 0.6659 0.5893

“I have a great deal of

control what happens in

my department”

0.5174 0.2969 0.6415 0.6415 0.8388 0.6639 0.5528

“I have significant

influence over what


0.5459 0.3286 0.6227 0.6022 0.8158 0.667 0.5429

“The work I do is very

important to me” 0.5536 0.3111 0.6106 0.6079 0.813 0.595 0.5301

“My job activities are

personally meaningful to

me”

0.5412 0.3369 0.6411 0.6145 0.7637 0.6155 0.5171


organization have

relationships based on trust

and reciprocal faith”

0.592 0.3471 0.6615 0.619 0.5895 0.7985 0.5306


organization share a

commonality of purpose

and collective aspirations

with others at work”

0.5969 0.3759 0.6472 0.6254 0.6041 0.8335 0.5573

“Employees view

themselves as partners in

charting the direction of

the organization”

0.6286 0.3402 0.646 0.621 0.5704 0.8643 0.5658

“Employees interact and

exchange ideas with people

from different areas of

organization”

0.6111 0.3677 0.6245 0.5937 0.5966 0.8267 0.5695


organization feel it is easy

to approach to their

supervisor”

0.5369 0.3032 0.6393 0.6475 0.6229 0.566 0.8263

219



encouragement and

support from their

supervisors”

0.5471 0.3285 0.6075 0.6305 0.5885 0.5351 0.8969


organization have access to

resources that they need to

do their work”

0.5759 0.3194 0.6327 0.6128 0.6183 0.5451 0.8402


organization have the

guidance and help that they


0.5402 0.295 0.6467 0.6302 0.6016 0.5685 0.8176


organization are aware of

policies and procedures to

perform work”

0.5677 0.2848 0.6374 0.6791 0.6147 0.6144 0.789

220

Appendix O: Summary of Measurement Models Reliability and Validity

Construct Loadings Range

(AVE7

)

Composite

Reliabilit

y8

(Items)

AbEnHR

MoEnHR

OpEnHR

PsyEmp

SMG SCW IWB

AbEnHR 0.786 – 0.851

(0.660)

0.921 (6) 0.812 0.736 0.774

0.6

45 0.689

0.59

4 0.287

MoEnHR 0.790 – 0.846

(0.670)

0.890 (4) 0.635 0.819 0.757

0.7

07 0.690

0.70

5 0.572

OpEnHR 0.781 – 0.852 (0.667)

0.909 (5) 0.606 0.617 0.817

0.7

23 0.743

0.70

6 0.366

PsyEmp 0.773 – 0.827

(0.641)

0.941 (9) 0.537 0.550 0.589

0.8

01 0.741

0.60

4 0.514

SMG 0.856 – 0.889

(0.760)

0.905 (3) 0.448 0.514 0.522

0.4

73 0.838

0.76

3 0.562

SCW 0.819 – 0.856 (0.703)

0.876 (3) 0.488 0.600 0.632

0.5

44 0.630

0.87

2 0.346

IWB 0.786 – 0.876

(0.720)

0.911 (4) 0.174 .0303 0.212

0.3

37 0.186

0.26

4 0.849

“Where, AbEnHR = Ability-enhancing HRs practices, MoEnHR = Motivation Enhancing HRs Practices, OpEnHR = Opportunity-

enhancing HRs practices, PsyEmp = PsyEmp, SMG =Management Support, SCW = Coworker Support and IWB = IWB. AVE =

Average Variance Extracted. The loading range shows the minimum and maximum factor loadings for the construct. The bold values

in the diagonal are the squared root of AVEs, which are compared with the corresponding correlations in the lower diagonal to establish

discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion). The italic values in the lower diagonal are inter-correlations of the constructs while the

underlined values in the upper diagonal are HTMT ratios of correlations (used for establishing discriminant validity).”

7 “In the context of PLS-SEM, the convergent validity is measured through Average Variance Extracted

(AVE) of the measure and through the outer loadings of the indicators (Hair et al., 2014). Higher loadings

values greater than 0.708 of the indicators confirms the individual indicator’s reliability. Square of this

value becomes average value extracted (AVE) and Communality i.e., (0.708)2 = 0.50, which indicates that

50 percent of the variation in that particular indicator is being explained by the construct. Taking this

threshold, at least 50% of variation is to be explained by the concerned construct. All the retained indicators

of the AbEnHR show fairly high levels of indicator loadings, hence proves their indicator reliability i.e.,

higher than 0.708. AbEnHR showed higher level of average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.660; this value is

higher than the threshold value of AVE = 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al., (2014). Hence, the composite

reliability of AbEnHR construct is established.”

8 “This is one of the important criteria for evaluation of the reliability of the constructs. The criterion to

establish internal consistency reliability of the construct is the Cronbach’s alpha, which measures the inter-

correlations between the items of the construct (Hair et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha assumes that all the

indicators have equal loadings on the construct, which is not the case when PLS-SEM is applied to assess the

model, as PLS-SEM prioritize indicators according to the reliability of each indicators, therefore an alternate

criterion i.e., Composite reliability is used to assess the reliability of the construct (Kline, 2011). Composite

reliability takes into account the outer loadings of all the indicators of the construct. The interpretation of the

composite reliability is similar to that of Cronbach’s alpha, (values ranging from 0 to 1, values between 0.7

and 0.9 are considered satisfactory) (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). The composite reliability of the construct

of ability-enhancing HR practices is higher than the recommended values i.e., 0.897.”

222

Appendix P: List of Publications and Referencing Style for this Thesis

Rehman, W. U. and Ahmed, M. (2015). AMO Framework and Psychological

Empowerment: Conceptual model decoding the black box between HRM and

IWB. (Leadership and Ideas for Tomorrow). Business Review. 10(1): 86-

101. HEC Recognized journal in ‘Y’ Category.

The referencing style used in this study was APA Style for reference sixth Edition as per

requirements of the COMSATS University Islamabad. The detailed information is

available:

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), Sixth Edition.

Available online on https://www.apastyle.org/manual

https://www.apastyle.org/manual

high involvement human resource practices as antecedents

Documents