human resource systems and helping in organizations: a relational

HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS ANDHELPING IN ORGANIZATIONS:A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

KEVIN W. MOSSHOLDERAuburn University

HETTIE A. RICHARDSONLouisiana State University

RANDALL P. SETTOONSoutheastern Louisiana University

We propose linkages among human resource (HR) systems, relational climates, andemployee helping behavior. We suggest that HR systems promote relational climatesvarying in terms of the motivation and sustenance of helping behavior, and we expectHR systems to indirectly influence the nature of relationships and the character ofhelping within organizations. By considering HR systems and their respective rela-tional climates together, researchers can gain a better understanding of expectationsand dynamics surrounding helping behavior.

Organizations often depend on helping be-haviors to deal with nonroutine aspects of work.Helping behavior is a robust predictor of groupand organizational performance (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) and hasbecome more important in light of the movementtoward greater employee involvement (e.g., Box-all & Macky, 2009), interactive work structures(e.g., Frenkel & Sanders, 2007), and human re-source (HR) flexibility within organizations (e.g.,Beltran-Martın, Roca-Puig, Escrig-Tena, & Bou-Llusar, 2008). Because helping behavior involvesactions by which individuals positively affectothers, much organizational research hassought to identify its immediate dispositionaland situational antecedents. Less work hasbeen devoted to establishing broader mecha-nisms organizations can use to purposely har-ness helping (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie,2006). Thus, although current research offersguidance regarding individual-level influenceson helping behavior, it is less informative as to

how organizations should promote and sustainhelping between employees.

Helping refers to interpersonal organizationalcitizenship behavior (OCB) that is affiliative, co-operative, and directed at other individuals(Flynn, 2006; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; VanDyne & LePine, 1998). These qualities differenti-ate it from prosocial behaviors that are morechallenging (e.g., voice), prohibitive (e.g.,whistle-blowing), or directed at the organizationin general (e.g., civic virtue). Helping can beproactive as well as reactive (Grant, Parker, &Collins, 2009). Finally, helping has been concep-tualized as addressing both person- and task-focused needs (Dudley & Cortina, 2008). Theformer is more likely to entail personal problemsolving and emotional support, whereas the lat-ter is more likely to involve instrumental assis-tance and informational support.

In this article we propose that HR systemsserve as a broad-based influence on helpingwithin organizations. This argument corre-sponds with the behavioral perspective of stra-tegic HR, which suggests that HR systems influ-ence organizational performance by elicitingand controlling employee behaviors (Jackson,Schuler, & Rivero, 1989). Establishing conceptuallinkages between HR systems and employeehelping could enhance our understanding ofhow helping can be facilitated in varying cir-

We thank Mark Ehrhart, Stefanie Naumann, and AlanWalker for their helpful suggestions on drafts of this article.We are also grateful for the insightful comments of associateeditor David Lepak and three anonymous reviewers duringthe review process. We presented an earlier version of thepaper at the 2009 Academy of Management annual meeting.

� Academy of Management Review2011, Vol. 36, No. 1, 33–52.

33Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

cumstances. Scholars have argued that throughappropriate HR systems, organizations can in-fluence employees’ actions and can build socialcapital as a potential source of competitive ad-vantage (e.g., Collins & Smith, 2006; Evans &Davis, 2005). Unfortunately, HR systems havebeen examined most often in connection withfirm-level outcomes rather than individual-levelbehaviors like helping. Because HR system ef-fects frequently are described as occurringthrough individual-level variables, researchershave suggested a need to better understand HRsystems’ influence on employees and the rela-tionships formed among them (Becker & Huselid,2006).

We describe three archetypal HR systems thatinfluence employees’ relationships with one an-other and use a mesolevel approach (Penner,Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005) to link HRsystems with employee helping behavior. Key inthis approach is recognizing the intermediatesociocognitive environments that stem from HRsystems and support conceptually distinct formsof interpersonal relationships among employ-ees. Such environments, which we label rela-tional climates, influence how helping emergesand is sustained. We offer propositions regard-ing dimensions that support helping within par-ticular HR systems and their associated rela-tional climates. After highlighting practiceconfigurations emblematic of specific HR sys-tems, we characterize the nature and prevalenceof helping anticipated within them.

HR SYSTEMS AND RELATIONAL CLIMATES

The decision to help is affected by a stream ofevaluations flowing from relationships (Ames,Flynn, & Weber, 2004) and influencing helpingexchanges (Deckop, Cirka, & Andersson, 2003).Individuals determine the relevance of theirhelping behavior based in part on the problemsand resolution opportunities afforded by theirinterpersonal circumstances. As such, manag-ers seeking to influence the likelihood of help-ing in the organization should be aware of thebroader relational climate in which their em-ployees work. We suggest that HR systems are aprincipal means by which managers affect rela-tional climates and that empirical support forthis notion has begun to surface. Collins andSmith (2006) showed that HR practices empha-sizing employee commitment were positively re-

lated to climates for trust, cooperation, andknowledge sharing across a sample of high-technology firms. Elsewhere, Takeuchi, Chen,and Lepak (2009) and Chuang and Liao (2010)found that HR systems affected employee per-ceptions of a concern-for-employees climate,with the latter study also showing that em-ployee helping behavior was positively influ-enced by this climate. Finally, Sun, Aryee, andLaw (2007) determined that high-performanceHR practices were positively correlated withfirm-level service-oriented citizenship behavior,and they argued that such behavior affectsnorms that encourage helping among organiza-tion members.

Three Archetypal HR Systems

Lepak, Bartol, and Erhardt (2005) suggestedfocusing on the purpose of HR systems whendefining them. Compliance and commitmentsystems represent two widely discussed arche-types with distinct objectives. We use the termarchetype in recognition that these are idealsystems that organizations can enact to varyingdegrees. In compliance systems employees aretreated as externally motivated and benefitingfrom appreciable monitoring and control (Boxall& Macky, 2009; Walton, 1985). Well-specifiedrules and procedures are seen as necessary forobtaining employee adherence to organization-al goals. Moreover, employees are consideredan expense to be minimized by reducing directlabor costs and improving efficiency (Arthur,1994). Although researchers initially viewedcompliance systems as less viable than the al-ternatives, these systems might be suitable un-der certain circumstances, such as when em-ployees’ skills have little firm specificity orequivalent labor is widely available (Lepak &Snell, 1999).

In contrast, in commitment systems value isplaced on employee well-being and employeesare assumed capable and intrinsically moti-vated (Boxall & Macky, 2009; Lepak, Taylor, Tek-leab, Marrone, & Cohen, 2007; Walton, 1985). Psy-chological links are forged between theorganization and employees, minimizing theneed for extensive control mechanisms and giv-ing employees discretion to act in ways favor-able to the collective (Arthur, 1994). The resultantmutual commitment between the organizationand employees means the distinction between

34 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

self and others becomes blurred, for employeeactions are oriented toward advancing and re-ceiving benefit from the organization as a col-lective whole. Although sometimes discussed aspreferable to other alternatives, Lepak and Snell(1999) suggested that commitment systems aremost appropriate strategically when employ-ees have knowledge and firm-specific skillsthat are not readily available in the externallabor market.

In addition to these two alternatives, Lepakand Snell (1999) discussed a collaborative HRsystem in which the organization protectsagainst employee opportunism by incorporatingvestiges of instrumental tactics while simulta-neously seeking cooperation with employees.Walton (1985) similarly described a transitionalapproach that is neither as market driven norcontrol focused as a compliance system, nor is itas broadly mutual as a commitment system.Building on these precedents, we conceptualizecollaborative systems as those where coopera-tive, goal-oriented relationships between theorganization and employees are viewed as nec-essary for organizational success. The organiza-tion requires specific employee contributionsthat cannot be fully realized without employees’willing acceptance of organizational goals,which is unlikely to be achieved through rulesand control measures alone. Although both col-laborative and commitment systems entail as-pects of interdependence, trust, and informationsharing, the blurring of boundaries between selfand others found in the latter system does notoccur in the former. Rather, collaborative rela-tionships resemble partnerships or alliances inwhich employee identities remain distinct.

The unique characteristics of the three arche-types suggest they can be differentiated by dis-tinct design components as well. Using Lepakand Snell (1999) as a guide, we define each HRsystem in terms of elements supporting and re-inforcing a characteristic employment relation-ship and employment mode. As described ingreater detail below, employment relationshiprefers to whether the implied psychological con-tract between the organization and employeesis transactional, balanced, or relational (seeRousseau, 1995). Employment mode describeswhether human capital acquisition and devel-opment is more internal or external to the orga-nization. Although the three HR systems dis-cussed are theoretically derived, research

indicates empirical support for their existencein organizations (e.g., Arthur, 1994; Lepak &Snell, 2002; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997).

We maintain that the emergent relational cli-mate experienced by employees working withina particular HR system is a function of the twosystem elements (i.e., employment relationshipand employment mode) and practices enacted tooperationalize them. HR practices have beendiscussed as having signaling influences onemployees’ psychological contracts with organi-zations (e.g., Rousseau, 1995), and a recent liter-ature review concluded that HR practices sub-stantially determine such contracts (Suazo,Martinez, & Sandoval, 2009). Importantly, re-searchers have suggested that in evaluatingpsychological contracts, employees rely on in-formation from coworkers (Ho & Levesque, 2005).There is also theoretical support for the ideathat HR systems directly affect employees’ sense-making about their relationships with one an-other (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ferris et al.,1998). For example, Frenkel and Sanders (2007)proposed that employee control systems reflect-ing employer-employee social partnershipsshould carry over to employee-employee rela-tionships, and they found that such a systempositively influenced coworker helping.

Our premise is that a given relational climatewill emerge when an HR system more closelyresembles one of the three HR system arche-types, as would be the case when system ele-ments—employment relationship and mode—and HR practices were coherently implemented(cf. Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). We assume it is thecombination of HR system elements and prac-tices that leads to the emergence of the rela-tional climates rather than any one of them inisolation. As explained below, a compliance HRsystem is likely to engender a market pricingclimate. With a collaborative system, an equal-ity matching relational climate is more likely toemerge. Finally, a commitment HR system ismost likely to sustain a communal sharingclimate.

Relational Climates: Schema and Dimensions

Researchers have argued that HR systems caninfluence employee climate perceptions (e.g.,Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005) by symbol-ically framing (Rousseau, 1995) and directlycommunicating (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) key or-

2011 35Mossholder, Richardson, and Settoon

ganizational values and behaviors. Others havenoted that climate is a powerful social mecha-nism through which HR systems impact employ-ees’ values and behaviors because it shapeswhat employees construe the systems to mean(Ferris et al., 1998). Interestingly, scholars em-phasize the collective social effects of HR sys-tems but have said little about their influence onrelationships that develop among employeesoperating at similar levels in the organization.Although some have recently moved in this di-rection by investigating HR system links with aconcern-for-employees climate (Chuang & Liao,2010; Takeuchi et al., 2009), the focus still has notbeen on inherently relational behaviors likehelping.

When dealing with a facet-specific organiza-tional climate (e.g., service climate), scholarshave noted that it is important to highlight whatis unique about the climate and to focus on thebehavior fundamental to it (Schneider, 1990). Inaccordance with this notion, relational climaterefers to shared employee perceptions and ap-praisals of policies, practices, and behaviors af-fecting interpersonal relationships in a givencontext. Depending on the HR system, operation-al policies and procedures could encourage em-ployees to develop close or more tenuous ties.We suggest that varying relational climates ex-ist, as has been demonstrated with other facet-specific climates like service, safety, and ethics(Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Congruent with anintegrated approach to climate etiology (Schnei-der & Reichers, 1983), we view relational climateas beginning with structural aspects of HR sys-tems (e.g., policies, procedures) that initializeand guide employee interactions. As employeesinteract under the influence of a particular HRsystem, sensemaking processes result in collec-tive interpretations and norms that shape em-ployee expectations for interpersonal relation-ships within the system. In essence, employeeswill perceive organizations as enacting cli-mates supportive of varying levels of interde-pendency and mutuality, qualities central to arelational focus (Sun et al., 2007).

Scholars considering how relationships serveas a context for employee interactions (e.g.,Blatt, 2009; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shepp-ard & Sherman, 1998) have used Fiske’s (1992)relational models theory to explain the effects ofsuch contexts on important organizational out-comes. Given that our focus is on relational cli-

mate, we believe his framework provides a via-ble means for substantively differentiatingamong particular relational climates and, inturn, understanding connections between HRsystems and helping behavior. Fiske (1992) pos-ited four distinct relational forms—market pric-ing, equality matching, communal sharing, andauthority ranking. Broad in scope and examinedin a number of disciplines, they describe inter-personal activities, such as how people under-stand and motivate each other in their relation-ships (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). These formscomprise cognitive schemas individuals shareregarding relationships (cf. Blatt, 2009) and, assuch, can be viewed as paralleling broader re-lational climates. Because our focus is on help-ing and relationships between individuals ofsimilar hierarchical status, and because author-ity ranking concerns partners differing in powerstatus, we excluded this form from considerationhere.

Relationships occurring in a market pricingcontext are predicated largely on means-endsconsiderations. Consistent with game-theoreticperspectives, individuals are guided by a desireto optimize personal outcomes by engaging inrelationships that appear to offer the best cost-benefit ratios (Murnighan, 1994). In equalitymatching contexts, relationships are founded ona sense of social obligation and turn-taking inexchanges. Individuals’ primary concern is thatrelationships are balanced, and they attach im-portance to long-term equivalence (Robinson,Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994). Finally, in communalsharing contexts, feelings of solidarity predom-inate. People blur individual distinctions intheir interactions over time, and the personalwelfare of others is considered significantabove self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005).

Relational models theory provides the broadfoundation for conceptualizing relational be-havior within distinct climates. We further de-lineate relational climates using dimensionsidentified as exerting a critical influence onhelping in relationships, which is consistentwith a problem-centered approach to studyingrelational phenomena (Bigley & Pearce, 1998).Thus, we reviewed several research domainsrelevant to helping in organizations, seeking toidentify critical actionable dimensions ratherthan an exhaustive list. Among the substantiveareas we reviewed were social capital (e.g., Bo-lino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Nahapiet &


Ghoshal, 1998), psychological contracts (e.g.,Rousseau, 1995, 2004), interpersonal relations(e.g., Penner et al., 2005; Rusbult & Van Lange,2003), interpersonal helping (e.g., Flynn, 2006;Settoon & Mossholder, 2002), and relational cap-ital (e.g., Blatt, 2009).

Dimensions we identified as fundamentalconcerns were (1) the motivation for exchangesin the relationship, (2) justice norms by whichexchange fairness is weighed, (3) risks that po-tentially undermine the relationship, and (4) thebasis for trust between parties. Briefly, underly-ing the genesis of helping exchanges are dis-tinct motives guiding employees’ entrance intorelationships (e.g., Flynn, 2006; Rioux & Penner,2001). Because the exchange of help is central tothe relationship, partners attempt to gauge thefairness of this process against appropriate ex-pectations or norms (e.g., Cropanzano & Mitch-ell, 2005; Kabanoff, 1991; Molm, Collett, &Schaefer, 2007). Helping exposes employees toreal as well as perceived risks (e.g., Sheppard &Sherman, 1998), so mechanisms that strengthenthe confidence one party has in the other alsoincrease relationship stability. Trust develop-ment is perhaps the principal mechanism forthis purpose (e.g., Malhotra, 2004; Sheppard &Sherman, 1998), making it critical for successfulhelping exchanges. Table 1 displays these fourdimensions and how they should differ acrossthe three relational climates.

Below we discuss the characteristic employ-ment relationships and modes of the three HRsystems and their associated relational cli-mates in greater depth. Helping is expected tobe initiated and sustained differently within theclimates, and we offer propositions involvingthe dimensions central to interpersonal relation-

ships to express these differences. Finally, wediscuss configurations of operational HR prac-tices to illustrate their connections with helpingbehavior. As part of this discussion, we offeradditional propositions regarding the relativeprevalence and type of help accompanyingthese practices and climates.

COMPLIANCE HR SYSTEMS: EFFECTINGHELPING THROUGH A MARKET

PRICING CLIMATE

Proponents of a compliance system hold thatemployees are extrinsically motivated commod-ities, and they seek to establish control and ef-ficiency in deploying the workforce (Walton,1985). Because in this type of system necessaryhuman capital is assumed available in the mar-ketplace, there is little incentive to pursue en-during employment relationships. The impliedemployment relationship (i.e., psychologicalcontract) is transactional, involving short-termrelationships marked by economic inducementsfor prescribed contributions (Rousseau, 1995).The obligations of both the organization andemployees are narrow and well defined (Tsui etal., 1997). Viewing employees as commoditiesleads to an employment mode in which the or-ganization generally hires or contracts for ser-vices externally. With an emphasis on efficientaccess to human capital, there is greater accep-tance of nonstandard (e.g., part-time or contin-gent) employees as a means to obtain requisiteknowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). Conse-quently, there is less organizational incentive todevelop employees internally.

TABLE 1Motivation and Sustenance of Helping Behavior

Relational Climate andAssociated Dimensions Market Pricing Equality Matching Communal Sharing

Motivation for exchange Self-interests ● In-kind reciprocity● Knowledge sharing

● Affective and emotional bonds● Shared social values

Justice norm Equity Equality Need based

Perceived risks Insufficient return oninvested behavior

● Poor coordination● Unbalanced reciprocation

● Misanticipation of others’ needs● Empathic inaccuracy

Type of trust established Calculus based Knowledge based Identity based


Motivation and Sustenance Propositions

A compliance HR system implies organiza-tion-employee links that are short term, transac-tional in nature, and characterized by minimalinvestment. We propose that compliance HRsystems will lead to a relational climate inwhich employees perceive relationships as use-ful only to the extent personal benefits accruefrom them and in which focal inputs and out-comes can be sufficiently monitored. This cre-ates an implicit level of interpersonal reserveamong employees, limiting relational depth.Workplace exchanges can take on a haltingquality, with relational partners assessingwhether efforts exerted are worth the benefitsderived. Such behavior reflects a minimalistlogic likely to be adopted by help-givers whoevaluate exchanges primarily on means-endconsiderations (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Mc-Kinney, 2000). Thus, we argue that a complianceHR system will signal a market pricing climate,and employees will expect helping to be initi-ated and sustained accordingly.

An undercurrent of self-concern implies help-ing behavior will be motivated by work atti-tudes, job considerations, and career issues ofan instrumental nature (e.g., see De Dreu, 2006,and Perlow & Weeks, 2002). Help most likely willbe exchanged when it is discreet (e.g., expresslyfor the recipient) and utilitarian (e.g., a problemis resolved). Such exchanges sustain productiveinterpersonal relationships in market pricingclimates because they fulfill minimal expecta-tions for transient relationships (Sheppard &Sherman, 1998). When relational partners eval-uate the utility of help received, each weighs thedistribution of outcomes. However, because eq-uity is the norm by which fairness is evaluatedin market pricing climates, the relative ratio ofinputs and outputs of each person is the keyconsideration instead of an absolute amount.Close social interactions occur less often be-cause employees must be concerned with theirown work goals and responsibilities rather thanthose of others. As such, judgments about thefairness of help exchanged are likely to be tiedto the event level (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005),meaning each exchange event will be assessedin terms of its instrumentality to the help-giver.

Proposition 1a: In a compliance HRsystem, helping behavior is motivated

by self-interest and perceived instru-mentality.

Proposition 1b: In a compliance HRsystem, helping behavior is judged ac-cording to the norm of equity and isevaluated as fair when input-outputratios of exchange partners are per-ceived as similar.

An uppermost concern of help-givers in mar-ket pricing climates is receiving an adequatereturn on invested helping behavior. Helpingcoworkers can enhance personal and organiza-tional status, but even successful help-giverscan become burdened with responsibilities. Re-ceiving help can place the beneficiary in a po-sition of dependence on the help-giver (Bam-berger, 2009). Accurate a priori assessments ofthe costs and rewards of helping are difficult,making relationships in market pricing climatesmore dependent on the outcomes of the last ex-change. Because of the tenuous nature of inter-personal interactions, decisions to help will bebased in part on trust that is grounded in thedirect benefits anticipated from the relationship.The threat of sanctions for trust violations andthe promise of rewards for expected behaviorwill be noticeable. Helping behavior that is re-liable and sensitive to possible downsides mit-igates uneasiness about the risks involved(Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). When expectationsabout help-givers’ competence are validated, re-cipients will more likely view them as trustwor-thy. Such calculus-based trust (Lewicki, Tomlin-son, & Gillespie, 2006) reduces the perceived riskof unfavorable returns from the helping relation-ship. This form of trust should be consideredfragile because it generally exists when partieshave less history of interpersonal exchange andit can be eroded by ineffective helping behavior.

Proposition 1c: In a compliance HRsystem, helping behavior will be per-ceived as more risky as the possibilityof an insufficient return on investedbehavior increases.

Proposition 1d: In a compliance HRsystem, the type of trust most likely todevelop between individuals who ex-change helping behavior is calculus-based trust.


Compliance HR Practices: Prevalence andFocus of Helping

As scholars have noted, it is often instructiveto examine in more operational terms how em-ployee behaviors might be affected by thebroader HR system (e.g., Wright & Boswell, 2002).Therefore, we exemplify how helping could beaffected by the tenor of practices in a compli-ance HR system and associated market pricingclimate. In organizationally viable interper-sonal relationships, a mix of task-relevant andinterpersonal obligations is considered (Zohar &Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Therefore, one practical con-sideration is whether helping will be directedtoward task- or person-focused needs. It is alsoreasonable to expect that HR systems might con-strain or amplify the overall prevalence of help-ing among employees. We thus offer proposi-tions regarding the prevalence and type ofhelping most likely in a compliance HR system.

For purposes of illustration, we discuss prac-tice categories considered by many as centralHR concerns: selection and staffing, trainingand development, work design features, and re-ward and appraisal systems (e.g., see Arthur,

1994; Beltran-Martın et al., 2008; Toh, Morgeson,& Campion, 2008). Table 2 displays these prac-tices, along with corresponding HR system com-ponents and relational climates. There likelyare multiple configurations by which an HR sys-tem can be realized and through which a partic-ular relational climate emerges. Although we donot discuss all configuration possibilities, theone illustrated would be expected to influencethe nature and prevalence of employee helping.

Because human resources in compliance HRsystems tend to be acquired externally and withtransactional relationships in mind, typical se-lection practices emphasize technical compe-tencies rather than social ones (Koch & McGrath,1996). The weight given to technical competenceand the higher likelihood of nonstandard work-ers (e.g., part-time, contract) in compliance sys-tems could reduce helping overall in the work-force. Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) found thatpart-time employees engaged in fewer helpingbehaviors than did their full-time counterparts.Additionally, because of the emphasis on effi-cient access to work-ready human capital incompliance HR systems, there is less concern for

TABLE 2HR Systems, Relational Climates, and Example Practice Configurations

HR System ElementCompliance Based/Market Pricing

Collaborative Based/Equality Matching

Commitment Based/Communal Sharing

Employment mode External External and internal Internal

Employment relationship Transactional, short term Balanced, short and long term Relational, long term

Example practice configurationsStaffing ● Emphasis on technical

selection criteria● Emphasis on technical then

social selection criteria● Emphasis on technical

and social selectioncriteria together

Training/development ● Individualcompetencies

● Individual and socialcompetencies

● Shared competencies● Relational social capital

● Human capital ● Cognitive social capital

Work design ● Work independence ● Reciprocal interdependence ● Mutual interdependence● Low involvement ● Moderate involvement ● High involvement● Structural barriers to

interaction● Integrated lateral networks ● Dense networks, teams

Rewards and appraisalemphasis

● Individual based● For quantifiable task

outcomes● Dispersed pay

structures● Evaluative appraisal

● Individual and group based● For task and social

outcomes● Compressed pay structures● Evaluative and

developmental appraisal

● Group based● For shared outcomes● Compressed pay

structures● Evaluative and group

developmental appraisal


training and development (Snell & Dean, 1992).Organizations turn to in-house developmentonly when the needed KSAs are not available inthe external labor market, decreasing the likeli-hood that formal socialization mechanisms willbe present to foster helping tendencies.

Compliance system work designs will favorjobs that are clearly defined and highly pre-scribed such that employees have less task in-terdependence with others in the organization.Task independence lessens employees’ per-ceived need to help one another and couldheighten competition for mobility opportunities.Indirectly supporting this notion, Van der Vegtand Van de Vliert (2005) found peer-rated help-ing decreased under conditions of low task in-terdependence. Elsewhere, Wageman andBaker (1997) found task interdependence led tomore interpersonal cooperative behavior.

The emphasis on specified contributions im-plies compliance compensation practices willemphasize greater pay dispersion and quanti-fied employee outputs, creating interpersonalcompetition for rewards (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery,2002). Results-based rewards should direct em-ployees toward their own specific work respon-sibilities and task goals (Kang, Morris, & Snell,2007). As noted above, in market pricing cli-mates, equity norms are used to judge fairness.In a recent experiment Bamberger and Levi(2008) found that when incentives were awardedaccording to the norm of equity, less helpingoccurred. Emphasizing individual rewards canalso diminish noninstrumental exchanges thatmight stimulate eventual helping relationships.Consistent with the less interdependent workdesign and behavior-based pay likely in marketpricing climates, judgments evaluating em-ployee activity will tend to focus on individualaccomplishments (Connelley & Folger, 2004).Performance feedback will be more evaluativethan developmental and, again, will emphasizetechnical competence over social fit. This em-phasis aids the organization in decidingwhich employees should be retained but ne-cessitates employee discretion in help seekingto avoid creating detrimental impressions oftheir competencies.

Considering this illustrative compliance prac-tice configuration, we suggest inferences can bemade regarding the relative prevalence and na-ture of helping likely in the emergent marketpricing climate. Although not precluded, em-

ployees’ helping behavior will occur on an oc-casional basis because work is designed to en-able goal accomplishment through employees’own efforts rather than jointly with others. Inview of the summative influence of these prac-tices, we posit the following.

Proposition 1e: In a compliance HRsystem and market pricing climate,helping behavior will occur less fre-quently than in collaborative or com-mitment HR systems.

Proposition 1f: In a compliance HR sys-tem and market pricing climate, help-ing behavior will be more task fo-cused than person focused.

COLLABORATIVE HR SYSTEMS: EFFECTINGHELPING THROUGH AN EQUALITY

MATCHING CLIMATE

Collaborative HR systems involve organiza-tion-employee partnerships in which contribu-tions are elicited from those whose competen-cies and knowledge are recognized as importantresources for accomplishing organizationalgoals. Such systems entail employment rela-tionships that reflect a balanced psychologicalcontract with both transactional and relationalattributes (Rousseau, 1995). To achieve balance,both parties must be open to exchanging infor-mation regarding employee input opportunitiesand outcome needs (Rousseau, 2004). This em-ployment relationship requires the organizationand employee to strive toward common inter-ests. Accordingly, the organization might seeklargely transactional, but less transitional, rela-tionships with nonstandard employees. An ex-ample would be contract employees who workon-site for the organization over an extendedperiod and who are encouraged to view them-selves as partners with the organization (Cascio& Aguinis, 2008). Alternatively, the organizationmight develop deeper relationships with stan-dard employees yet maintain an understandingthat such relationships will end should condi-tions require it. The relationships in these exam-ples suggest more durable arrangements thanthose likely in a compliance system.

The employment mode in a collaborative HRsystem also involves a balance of elements, fa-cilitating cooperative interactions among em-ployees who pursue task goals in partnership


with each other and the organization. The orga-nization can exercise an external employmentmode in acquiring individual competencies, ashappens in compliance HR systems. Addition-ally, however, an internal mode can be followedwhereby employee development transpireswithin the organization. Although a mixed em-ployment mode might seem inconsistent with acollaborative orientation, research indicates or-ganizations can successfully mix internally andexternally sourced employees (e.g., full time andcontingent) when the goal is support and stabil-ity rather than simply cost reduction (Way,Lepak, Fay, & Thacker, 2010). Thus, unlike com-pliance systems, collaborative systems give riseto greater employee interdependence within theorganization.


Organizational approaches to managing em-ployees in collaborative HR systems are predi-cated on knowledge sharing required by goalcommonalities (cf. Lepak & Snell, 1999, 2002).Under the influence of such systems, employeesensemaking will lead to a climate in whichrelationship partners each recognize that ex-changes of help are beneficial in attaining im-mediate as well as more distal goals. This en-courages employees to perceive that developingand maintaining relationships creates a tacitsocial resource from which to draw when pursu-ing more complex or ambiguous goals. Relation-ships among employees will be more lastingthan in market pricing climates, for they serveas an asset that has value for both extrinsic andintrinsic reasons. Thus, collaborative HR sys-tems are likely to stimulate equality matchingclimates, which are characterized by sharedfeelings of social obligation and turn-taking inexchanges.

Work relationships in equality matching cli-mates turn on expectations of reciprocity, per-haps the most widely recognized form of socialexchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thiscompels employees to be mindful of both theimmediate effects and longer-term obligationsof helping acts. The motivation to provide helpinvolves relational benefits (e.g., social support)as well as instrumental benefits (e.g., knowl-edge and advice). However, the preeminence ofreciprocity diminishes the self-interested bar-gaining associated with market pricing cli-

mates and, instead, emphasizes that one per-son’s actions are tied to another’s over time(Molm, 2003). Maintaining balanced exchangesallows parties to better manage relational in-debtedness incurred during exchange cycles.Because reciprocity is integral to equalitymatching climates, the justice norm by whichemployees evaluate the fairness of their ex-change relationships is equality of input (Fiske,1992). When employees determine that theyhave been treated well in specific helping ex-changes with others, they develop fairness per-ceptions about particular partners that influ-ence future exchanges. Thus, judgments aboutfairness are likely to be tied to the entity level(Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005), rather than eventlevel as in market pricing climates. Favorablefairness impressions lead to continuing ex-changes of help, whereas unfavorable impres-sions do not.

Proposition 2a: In a collaborative HRsystem, helping behavior is motivatedby in-kind reciprocity and is main-tained by balanced exchanges inrelationships.

Proposition 2b: In a collaborative HRsystem, helping behavior is judged ac-cording to the norm of equality and isevaluated as fair to the degree thatthere is parity in exchange partners’inputs.

Too great or too small of a response to anoth-er’s help can induce feelings of overobligationor short-changing, respectively. Even when aresponse is well gauged, a longer than normaltime lag in delivery can affect how it is per-ceived (Flynn, 2003). Thus, common hazards inan equality matching climate are unbalancedreciprocity and poor coordination. Well-de-signed interdependencies can reduce the per-ceived risk of poor coordination by creatingmore predictable and consistent contexts forhelping (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). Themarked certainty afforded by more durable re-lationships also creates conditions in which ex-change partners foresee each other’s needs,thereby facilitating knowledge-based trust(Lewicki et al., 2006). Because this type of trust isbased on understanding others and their behav-iors, it is best developed through regular commu-nication flowing from repeated exchanges. Grad-


ually, the basis for trust shifts from outcome-based evidence provided by the content ofexchanges, as commonly found in market pric-ing climates, to assuredness regarding help-givers’ integrity. Those whose help has met de-sired requisites develop positive reputations,magnifying the potential for future helping ex-changes (Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo,2002; Lewicki et al., 2006).

Proposition 2c: In a collaborative HRsystem, helping behavior will be per-ceived as more risky as the possibilityof unbalanced reciprocity and poorcoordination increases.

Proposition 2d: In a collaborative HRsystem, the type of trust most likely todevelop between individuals who ex-change helping behavior is knowl-edge-based trust.

Collaborative HR Practices: Prevalence andFocus of Helping

Because collaborative employment relation-ships involve social cooperation with a goal-focused orientation, HR practices will integratetechnical competence and social fit through asocial exchange paradigm. Table 2 shows em-blematic practices, system elements, and therelational climate expected for a collaborativeHR system. When technical and social criteriaare both weighed in the selection process, em-ployees will possess problem-solving compe-tencies and the social skills to use them. Oncehired, newcomers are subject to socializationprocesses that introduce them to the importanceof social interaction and encourage embedded-ness in the organization (e.g., collective and in-vestiture tactics; Allen, 2006). Other develop-ment practices will instruct employees on howtheir KSAs facilitate task accomplishment,while relationships will permit them to benefitfrom others’ KSAs. Traditional development pro-grams will be expanded to recognize organiza-tional learning (Borgatti & Cross, 2003), informalsocial networks (Higgins & Kram, 2001), and lat-eral mentoring (Raabe & Beehr, 2003), all ofwhich underscore the value of helping as a so-cial exchange ware. Brown and Van Buren (2007)noted that training encouraging interpersonalinteraction should lead to a denser social net-

work and increase the likelihood of helping-related behaviors in the organization.

Work design practices that acknowledge taskinterdependencies and reciprocal work flowsamong employees (e.g., Humphrey, Nahrgang, &Morgeson, 2007) will be apparent in collabora-tive HR systems. Research has shown thatgreater task interdependency can result in morehelping (e.g., DeJong, Van der Vegt, & Molleman,2007). Network structures allow employees toshare information and learn of others’ workchallenges, stimulating helping that benefitsdirect exchange partners as well as others con-nected through task interdependencies (Venkat-aramani & Dalal, 2007). When task interdepen-dency is higher, some research suggests thatyoking potential rewards to cooperation withcoworkers will positively affect performance(Wageman & Baker, 1997). Collaborative sys-tems are likely to incorporate formal and infor-mal rewards for helping in order to manageemployee interdependencies. Compressed payranges will help encourage collaborative be-haviors (Pfeffer & Langton, 1993). In attemptingto administer incentive distributions, even-handed assessments (Connelley & Folger, 2004)of both evaluative and developmental perfor-mance facets will be important because worksuccess involves shared tasks and goals. Perfor-mance appraisal and feedback will recognizenot only how employees perform their own as-signments but also how well they cooperatewith others’ work efforts.

The practices operating in collaborative HRsystems encourage both task- and person-focused helping. This makes employees’ behav-ior more predictable, allowing for adaptation,task coordination, and a greater likelihood offuture effective helping (Bolino et al., 2002). Con-sequently, helping will occur more frequentlythan in compliance systems. When practicesalert employees that their work efforts affectthose of others, they can relate in more heedfulways and are more likely to exchange helpingbehaviors (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonen-shein, & Grant, 2005). Considering the cumula-tive effect of these practices, we suggest thefollowing.

Proposition 2e: In a collaborative HRsystem and equality matching cli-mate, helping behavior will occur


more frequently than in a complianceHR system.

Proposition 2f: In a collaborative HRsystem and equality matching cli-mate, helping behavior will be lesstask focused and more person focusedthan in a compliance HR system.

COMMITMENT HR SYSTEMS: EFFECTINGHELPING THROUGH A COMMUNAL

SHARING CLIMATE

In a commitment system, employees and theorganization are viewed as having high regardfor one another. The goal of this system is toelevate employee performance by bolsteringcollective commitment. The generalized mutual-ity developed by the organization and employ-ees underpins an employment relationship hav-ing a collective focus. As such, the dominantemployment relationship is likely to be longterm and relational, requiring open-ended obli-gations on the part of both the organization andemployees (Rousseau, 1995, 2004; Tsui et al.,1997). Employer inducements are directed at in-creasing employees’ well-being and extendingtheir organizational careers. In exchange, em-ployees are expected to accept the organiza-tion’s interests as their own. An HR system witha goal of creating strong links between the or-ganization and employees reflects an employ-ment mode that is primarily internal and recog-nizes the long-term benefits of developingcritical task and social competencies. Accord-ingly, the organization often relies on internallabor markets and training as the means of de-veloping employee capabilities and fosteringaffective outcomes.


In commitment HR systems, managing em-ployees is predicated on developing secure, un-constrained relationships. Under the influenceof such systems, employee sensemaking leadsto a relational climate in which employees feelencouraged to join in lasting relationships thatsupport goal striving, while elevating the statusof those with whom the goal is accomplished.We argue, therefore, that commitment HR sys-tems will produce communal sharing climatescharacterized by feelings of solidarity and

blurred self-other distinctions—much as occursamong family or clan members (Ouchi, 1980).This notion also implies that helping within thisHR system will be motivated and sustained inways deeper than in market pricing and equal-ity matching climates.

In communal sharing climates, the welfare ofthe other party is respected. Because individu-als care about the well-being of group members,their mindfulness of others’ needs reinforcestendencies to extend help. Feelings of common-ality with other employees increase the likeli-hood that relationships will be maintained fortheir own sake and prosocial motives will un-derpin helping (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Moreover,help-giving can lead employees to further valuethe welfare of those to whom they have ex-tended help (Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008). Pos-itive emotions flowing from exchanges tend tobe attributed to the dense web of relationshipsrather than specific parties involved (Lawler,2001), which means help is also extended partlybecause of affect levels within the collectivegroup. Because resources exchanged throughhelping are considered shared and available toindividual employees or the group as a whole,fairness is judged by how well needs for helpare collectively met for generalized others (Con-nelley & Folger, 2004). In communal sharing cli-mates, fairness in relationships entails the ex-perience of belonging, an absence of conflict,and a desire for frequent interaction (Gillespie &Greenberg, 2005).

Proposition 3a: In a commitment HRsystem, helping behavior is motivatedby prosocial values and affectivebonds with relational partners.

Proposition 3b: In a commitment HRsystem, helping behavior is judged bya need-based norm and is evaluatedas fair to the degree that the needs ofa generalized recipient are met.

Helping behavior within communal sharingclimates is imbued with empathy, which devel-ops as relational partners make assumptionsabout each other’s needs based on previous in-teractions (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). Withtime, employees develop more accurate personperceptions that allow them to better anticipatethose needs (Davis, 1994). In close relationships,however, emotions can sometimes lead employ-


ees to feel they know what others want, whichcould increase the risk of misreading others’feelings (e.g., reduced empathic accuracy; Ickes,1993) and misanticipating their needs. This riskis mitigated somewhat by employee beliefs thatsuch actions are unintentional. The mutual un-derstanding gained from stable relationshipsamong employees with shared values fostersidentification-based trust (Lewicki et al., 2006),which can instill a high level of unstated confi-dence among relational partners. Multiple mo-tives (e.g., elicitative, compensatory, moralistic)underlie identification-based trust, making itoverdetermined (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996)and difficult to erode.

Proposition 3c: In a commitment HRsystem, helping behavior will be per-ceived as more risky as the possibilityof empathic inaccuracy and misantici-pation of needs increases.

Proposition 3d: In a commitment HRsystem, the type of trust most likely todevelop among individuals who ex-change helping behavior is identifica-tion-based trust.

Commitment HR Practices: Prevalence andFocus of Helping

The practices, system elements, and rela-tional climate expected for a commitment HRsystem are displayed in Table 2. The emphasison employee relationships in commitment sys-tems makes selection practices important forcreating commonalities in employees’ prosocialbeliefs and values. Efforts will be made to at-tract employees who can meet broad work de-mands and whose values support a willingnessto work in concert with others (Hom et al., 2009).Likewise, an internal employment mode focusedon social development and long-term potentialsuggests that extensive training and develop-ment will be offered, including socializing new-comers to prosocial sentiments in the organiza-tion. For instance, employees might receivetraining in interpersonal skills, team building,or relating to coworkers having personal prob-lems as a way of increasing their understandingof others (e.g., Heaney, Price, & Rafferty, 1995).Traditional mentoring programs will be ex-panded to include relational mentoring (Ragins

& Verbos, 2007) to impart empathy and othersocial proficiencies.

With interdependence being a core feature ofcommitment HR systems, work design practiceswill include reliance on team structures and re-lational coordination (Gittell, Weinberg, Ben-nett, & Miller, 2008). Communal sharing climatescomprise dense, multiplex social networks inwhich employees must integrate their interestswith those of the work unit. The close relation-ships experienced generate instrumental (e.g.,task-relevant) and expressive (e.g., emotionalsupport) benefits (Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004).Team-based work designs can induce employ-ees to develop a shared understanding of criti-cal work behaviors. This enables them to assistwith task requirements before help is formallyrequested (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2001) or toback up other team members when help isneeded (Porter et al., 2003).

In commitment systems, incentives promotesocial behaviors like knowledge sharing, peersupport, and helping. Examining helping pat-terns in three joint ventures, Perlow, Gittell, andKatz (2004) found that rewarding team membersfor helping whoever needed it reinforced pat-terns of generalized helping among all teammembers. Elsewhere, Harrison, Price, Gavin,and Florey (2002) determined that team rewardcontingencies positively influenced cooperativeinteractions among team members. Because in-formal rewards like recognition and praise aredelivered in a social context, they are fitting andmore frequent returns for cooperative behavior.Higher wage benchmarks add to the embeddingeffects of social bonds (Evans & Davis, 2005), andcompressed pay structures contribute to em-ployee cohesiveness (Shaw et al., 2002). Perfor-mance appraisal and feedback are likely to in-clude an ample developmental componentthrough which expectations about positive so-cial interactions are emphasized (Reilly & Mc-Gourty, 1998). Appraisals might also include acollective component, with some goals partici-patively set by individuals or groups (London,2007).

The configuration of these practices suggestshelping will occur frequently, and although itcan be both task and person focused, the lattertype of helping will occur more than in marketpricing and equality matching climates. Prac-tices that increase employees’ interconnected-ness and require them to learn interpersonal


and teamwork skills instill social norms forhelping and facilitate helping in group-orientedcontexts (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005). Weighing thecollective effect of these practices, we thus offerthe following.

Proposition 3e: In a commitment HRsystem and communal sharing cli-mate, helping behavior will occurmore frequently than in compliance orcollaborative HR systems.

Proposition 3f: In a commitment HRsystem and communal sharing cli-mate, helping behavior will be lesstask focused and more person focusedthan in compliance or collaborativeHR systems.

DISCUSSION

Perhaps because of its inherently interper-sonal nature, much organizational research in-volving helping behavior has focused at the in-dividual level. Because HR managers commonlycontend with issues requiring multilevel consid-erations (e.g., Chuang & Liao, 2010; Takeuchi etal., 2009), taking only an individual-level ap-proach to understanding helping behaviorwithin organizations is limiting. Attempting tointegrate both organizational and individualcomponents, we have developed a conceptualframework identifying three archetypal HR sys-tems, a relational climate supported by eachparticular system, and dimensions describingthe impetus and maintenance of helping in eachclimate. We also have discussed how the con-figuration of practices used to operationalizeeach HR system can influence the prevalenceand nature of helping behavior expected toemerge in each climate.

A primary contribution of the proposed frame-work is that it offers a new means of understand-ing the potential interplay between HR systemsand helping behavior. Considering how HR sys-tems affect broader relational climates can al-low organizations to positively influence em-ployees’ expectations regarding the nature ofboth task and interpersonal exchange dynamicsoccurring in the workplace. We have under-scored the role of relational climate as an inter-mediary between the three HR systems andhelping, and we have mapped out the dimen-sions it comprises. This climate construct has

not been formally recognized in the manage-ment literature. Such consideration, however, isconsistent with arguments that shared em-ployee perceptions and attributions about HRsystems precede employee attitudinal and be-havioral reactions (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). In essence, weargue that employee helping behavior can beshaped in the aggregate by the ways in whichorganizations manage their human resources,and we suggest how helping might be facili-tated within particular relational climates. Suchinformation could inform managers of subtlefeatures associated with helping stimulated bydiffering HR systems.

By offering insights into HR system influenceson helping behavior, the proposed frameworkalso contributes to our understanding of howorganizations can become more adaptive viatheir human resources. With the assistance ofothers, employees can modify their KSAs to dealwith workplace contingencies and change. Ini-tiatives to increase organizational flexibility aresometimes unsuccessful because organizationsemphasize restructuring or technology and ig-nore the role that employees play. Wright andSnell (1998) identified an overlooked adaptivecomponent— behavioral flexibility—that in-volves employees’ learning to apply appropriatediscretionary efforts. They also noted that be-havioral flexibility emerges partly throughscripts in which employees gain knowledgefrom workplace interactions. Helping involvesdiscretionary behavior, and the differing help-ing “scripts” embedded within the three pro-posed relational climates depict such interac-tions. Thus, our framework suggests employees’helping behavior should contribute to buildingorganizational flexibility and underscores theirimportance in attaining it.

A final contribution is that our propositionsare pertinent to the “black box” problem in stra-tegic HR research (cf. Becker & Huselid, 2006).Although helping in the aggregate has beenexamined as an indirect mediator of HR systemeffects on firm performance (Chuang & Liao,2010), there remains a need to explicitly considerthe effects of HR systems on individual-levelhelping. Our framework suggests how aspectsof HR systems and emergent relational climatesencourage helping, partly addressing this issue.Moreover, it is consistent with a “context theo-rizing” approach advanced by Bamberger (2008),


which encourages researchers to identify phe-nomena typically associated with different lev-els and to substantively specify how they can belinked. Focusing on connections between macro(i.e., HR systems, relational climates) and micro(i.e., helping behavior) phenomena, the presentframework could compel researchers to con-ceptualize helping as stemming from morethan situational necessities or serendipitousopportunities.

Implications and Future Research

Our proposed framework has practical impli-cations for practicing managers who want toenhance helping in their organizations. A keyimplication is that actions taken to increase thelevel of helping should work in concert with thegiven HR system and its associated relationalclimate. The HR literature has noted that strate-gic context affects the appropriateness of an HRsystem (Jackson et al., 1989; Lepak & Snell, 1999).Organizations must be aware that institutionalpressures can shape strategic choices regardingthe HR system and relational climate. For exam-ple, managing helping among employees in so-cial service organizations would require differ-ent emphases than it would in financial serviceorganizations. Because interpersonal supportand care are hallmarks of their missions, socialservice and health care organizations mightfind that commitment-based practices support-ive of helping in communal sharing climatesenable greater employee effectiveness. The re-lational architecture of work performed in theseorganizations is such that close coordinationand empathic concern enhance the delivery ofservices required to benefit clients and custom-ers (Gittell et al., 2008; Grant, 2007). In contrast,organizations might find that a compliance HRsystem and accompanying market pricing cli-mate are more appropriate for managing andsupporting employee helping behavior in envi-ronments traditionally marked by employeestriving in the midst of competitive forces (e.g.,financial services).

Although we suggest helping occurs less fre-quently when compliance HR systems are en-acted than when collaborative or commitmentsystems are enacted, we nonetheless expectsome helping to take place in all three arche-typal systems. This assumes, however, suffi-cient coherence among the policies and prac-

tices operationalizing the particular HR system.Applying HR system components so they com-plement each other facilitates common under-standing across employees (Werbel & DeMarie,2005). Alternatively, managers likely will findthat systems comprising diverging elements failto produce strong, consistently interpreted cli-mates because they communicate conflictingmessages about expected employee behaviors(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). For example, if employ-ees are selected for their technical competenceand participate in skills training but subse-quently are rewarded for group-based goal ac-complishment, confusion about the types of re-lationships to form with others (i.e., marketpricing versus communal sharing) could sur-face. Under such conditions ambiguity wouldbe manifested regarding appropriate helpingbehavior.

Future work should consider potential man-agement difficulties caused by different HR sys-tems and climates existing for different sets ofemployees in the organization. For instance, in-dividuals working in contexts amenable to anequality matching climate might becomestressed when interacting with those whosework is more in line with a market pricing cli-mate. This could occur because employees fromthe latter would be less likely to offer or recip-rocate help than their equality matching coun-terparts. Other problems with helping ex-changed across distinct relational climatescould arise: unmet or conflicting expectations,misperceptions of the worth of helping given orreceived, and emotional hostility at perceivedtrust violations. Some scholars have comparedhow helping varies across different organiza-tional cultures in the same industry (Perlow etal., 2004), but little research has addressed dif-ficulties arising across different cultures or cli-mates within the same organization.

Some have argued that the significance ofimplementing particular HR practices is less im-portant than their net effect on the particularclimate needed to achieve strategic objectives(e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Although we exem-plified the archetypal HR systems using a set ofcommon practices, it should be noted that differ-ing practice configurations could be used tostimulate helping, as long as they generate be-havioral expectations consistent with the tar-geted relational climate. Managers wanting toincrease the chances that employees will de-


velop similar expectations regarding helpingexchanges should adhere to the strategic focusof the selected HR system and ensure coherencein implementing specific practices (Schneider,Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-Jolly, 2005; Zohar &Tenne-Gazit, 2008). For example, managers im-plementing a commitment HR system should bemindful that work design, rewards, and ap-praisal practices signal the importance ofshared/team activities. Managers can also influ-ence climate indirectly through role modelingand through demonstrating competencies re-flective of the preferred climate. For example,managers employing a collaborative HR systemshould use opportunities to share knowledgeand distribute information in routine interac-tions with employees.

Although we suggest that particular rela-tional climates and attendant helping behaviorstend to be propagated by certain sets of HRpractices, there are obstacles to this. First, dis-connects can occur between the implementationof intended HR practices and the practices asexperienced by employees (Liao, Toya, Lepak, &Hong, 2009; Nishii et al., 2008). Second, evenwhen practices are implemented as intended,helping could be disproportionately constrainedin compliance HR systems. Compliance systemsemphasize efficiencies in producing and re-warding task outcomes, even while propagatinginstrumental helping. In some cases pay-for-performance practices can reduce helping-related behaviors like OCB (e.g., Deckop, Man-gel, & Cirka, 1999). Deckop et al. (2003) also notedthat how much help is received (or withheld) byemployees might determine future levels ofhelp-giving. If HR practices constrain helpingbehavior enough to reach a negative tippingpoint, the act of withholding help could trans-form into more active counterproductive workbehavior (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Spec-tor & Fox, 2010). Finally, regardless of the HRsystems in place, certain managerial typesmight stymie the development of helping behav-ior. For example, managers whose styles couldbe described as toxic (Frost, 2004) or narcissistic(Maccoby, 2000) would not likely be concernedwith viable relational climates or employeehelping behavior.

Complicating implementation issues, manag-ers must deal with top-down as well as bot-tom-up dynamics that influence what is viable

as help in each of the three relational climates.Researchers recognize that managerial assump-tions and actions can be important influenceson climates and behaviors since they determinehow practices are enacted at the employee level(Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999). Especially inorganizations where market pricing relationalforces are active, top-down dynamics might ex-ert more influence on helping behavior. In suchinstances managers could more easily structurework relationships to supply helping opportuni-ties because task goals are, in comparison toother relational climates, better known. It is pos-sible that top-down forces are relevant in theother HR systems as well. For instance, Taylor,Levy, Boyacigiller, and Beechler (2008) foundthat the influences of organizational culture andcommitment-oriented HR practices are filteredthrough top management team orientation. Re-gardless, top-down management influence willnot necessarily lessen the amount of coopera-tion and assistance that occurs, but the auspicesunder which they occur will derive more directlyfrom top management preferences and expecta-tions (Frenkel & Sanders, 2007).

In organizations relying heavily on projectteams and self-managed groups, bottom-up dy-namics would be expected to have greater influ-ence in determining the character of helping.Because of greater interdependencies, employ-ees would likely engage in more helping-oriented sensemaking regarding relations withother employees (Grant et al., 2008). Conceiv-ably, bottom-up dynamics could even influencemanagers to adjust HR practices to accommo-date emergent social interactions. Some re-search suggests bundles of HR practices areadopted to fit ongoing social and managerialprocesses (Toh et al., 2008; Truss, 2001). This no-tion is consistent with the concept of structura-tion (Giddens, 1984), in which interaction pat-terns among employees are shaped by formalorganizational structures and, in turn, reinforceor alter these structures over time. Althoughthere is scant empirical evidence that relationalclimate and helping interactions could influ-ence an entire HR system, researchers havefound that patterns of helping can affect HRpractices (e.g., rewards and compensation) con-tained within such systems (Perlow et al., 2004).Learning how to shape HR practices so as tosupport interactions occurring in relational cli-


mates could allow organizations to formallyaugment effective helping routines employeeshave developed on their own.

Our arguments imply that managers shouldattempt to discern their units’ relational climateand acquaint employees with the respectiverisks that helping exchanges entail. After diag-nosing forces underlying helping in their units,managers could then actively encourage help-ing or reduce interpersonal obstacles to it. Forexample, employees who need help tend to un-derestimate the likelihood of receiving it (Flynn& Lake, 2008). Counseling employees about theinterpersonal risks and ways of mitigating themcould assist in the development of helping rela-tionships appropriate to particular relationalclimates. Such discussions might simulta-neously legitimize help-seeking by employeesand encourage suitable help-giving responses(Bamberger, 2009). Recent research suggeststhat when helping is understood as normativelyacceptable, employees are less reticent to seekhelp (Hofmann, Lei, & Grant, 2009).

Conclusion

We propose that more emphasis be placed onan overlooked intersection of the micro- andmacro-oriented HR systems literature. We haveargued that researchers should begin to con-sider connections among HR systems, relationalclimates, and helping behavior, with the ideathat strategically harnessing helping will be-come more critical to organizations in the future.It is important for organizations to understandprocesses that ultimately lead employees to ex-change help over time. Too many organizationsdeal with helping on an as needed basis, with-out recognizing the full implications of continu-ities underlying helping exchanges in the work-place (cf. Flynn, 2006). Whereas in the short termhelping behaviors have consequences for inter-personal relationships, in the long run theymight well have consequences for the organiza-tion as a whole. Research has shown that help-ing behavior is associated with an array of pos-itive interpersonal outcomes, but broaderorganizational implications, such as greaterflexibility or coordination, have not as yet beendocumented. Hopefully, the framework pre-sented here will stimulate future research con-necting strategic HR and helping behavior andwill promote greater understanding of the chal-

lenge of cultivating viable relational climates inorganizations.

REFERENCES

Allen, D. G. 2006. Do organizational socialization tactics in-fluence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journalof Management, 32: 237–256.

Ames, D. R., Flynn, F. J., & Weber, E. U. 2004. It’s the thoughtthat counts: On perceiving how helpers decide to lend ahand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30:461–474.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? Thespiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academyof Management Review, 24: 452–471.

Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems onmanufacturing performance and turnover. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 670–687.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & McKinney, V. 2000.Boundary management tactics and logics of action: Thecase of peer-support providers. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 45: 704–736.

Bamberger, P. A. 2008. Beyond contextualization: Using con-text theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in manage-ment research. Academy of Management Journal, 51:839–846.

Bamberger, P. A. 2009. Employee help-seeking: Antecedents,consequences and new insights for future research. Re-search in Personnel and Human Resources Manage-ment, 29: 49–98.

Bamberger, P. A., & Levi, R. 2008. Team-based reward allo-cation structures and the helping behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 24: 300–327.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human re-sources management: Where do we go from here? Jour-nal of Management, 32: 898–925.

Beltran-Martın, I., Roca-Puig, V., Escrig-Tena, A., & Bou-Llusar, J. C. 2008. Human resource flexibility as a medi-ating variable between high performance work systemsand performance. Journal of Management, 34: 1009–1044.

Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. 1998. Straining for shared mean-ing in organization science: Problems of trust and dis-trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 405–421.

Blatt, R. 2009. Tough love: How communal schemas andcontracting practices build relational capital in entre-preneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34:533–551.

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2002. Citi-zenship behavior and the creation of social capital inorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 27:505–522.

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. A. 2003. A relational view ofinformation seeking and learning in social networks.Management Science, 49: 432–445.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firmperformance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the


HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203–221.

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. 2009. Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource ManagementJournal, 19: 3–23.

Brown, K. G., & Van Buren, M. E. 2007. Applying a socialcapital perspective to the evaluation of distance train-ing. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas (Eds.), Toward a science ofdistributed learning: 41–63. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. 2008. Research in industrial andorganizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes,choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:1062–1081.

Chuang, C.-H., & Liao, H. 2010. Strategic human resourcemanagement in service context: Taking care of businessby taking care of employees and customers. PersonnelPsychology, 63: 153–196.

Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. 2006. Knowledge exchange andcombination: The role of human resource practices inthe performance of high-technology firms. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49: 544–560.

Connelley, D., & Folger, R. 2004. Hidden bias: The influenceof relational models on perceptions of fairness in humanresource systems. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational modelstheory: A contemporary overview: 197–220. Mahweh, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange the-ory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Manage-ment, 31: 874–900.

Davis, M. H. 1994. Empathy: A social psychological approach.Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. 2003. Doingunto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in orga-nizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47: 101–113.

Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. 1999. Getting morethan you pay for: Organizational citizenship behaviorand pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 42: 420–428.

De Dreu, C. K. W. 2006. Rational self-interest and other ori-entation in organizational behavior: A critical appraisaland extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journalof Applied Psychology, 91: 1245–1252.

DeJong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. 2007. Therelationships among asymmetry in task dependence,perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92: 1625–1637.

Dudley, N. M., & Cortina, J. M. 2008. Knowledge and skillsthat facilitate the personal support dimension of citizen-ship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1249–1270.

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. 2005. High-performance worksystems and organizational performance: The mediat-ing role of internal social structure. Journal of Manage-ment, 31: 758–775.

Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M.,Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. 1998. Toward a social

context theory of the human resources management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human Re-source Management Review, 8: 235–264.

Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality:Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psy-chological Review, 99: 689–723.

Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. 2005. The four basic social bonds:Structures for coordinating interaction. In M. W. Baldwin(Ed.), Interpersonal cognition: 267–298. New York: Guil-ford Press.

Flynn, F. J. 2003. What have you done for me lately? Tempo-ral adjustments to favor evaluations. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 91: 38–50.

Flynn, F. J. 2006. How much is it worth to you? Subjectiveevaluations of help in organizations. Research in Orga-nizational Behavior, 27: 133–174.

Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. B. 2008. If you need help, just ask:Underestimating compliance with direct requests forhelp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:128–143.

Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. 2007. Explaining variations inco-worker assistance in organizations. OrganizationStudies, 28: 797–823.

Frost, P. J. 2004. Handling toxic emotions: New challenges forleaders and their organization. Organizational Dynam-ics, 33(2): 111–127.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of thetheory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. 2005. Are the goals of orga-nizational justice self-interested? In J. Greenberg & J. A.Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: 179–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gittell, J. H., Weinberg, D. B., Bennett, A. L., & Miller, J. A. 2008.Is the doctor in? A relational approach to job design andthe coordination of work. Human Resource Manage-ment, 47: 729–755.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivationto make a prosocial difference. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 32: 393–417.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving com-mitment: Employee support programs and the prosocialsensemaking process. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 51: 898–918.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. 2009. Getting credit forproactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend onwhat you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology,62: 31–55.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002.Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects ofsurface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning.Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029–1045.

Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. 1995. Increasingcoping resources at work: A field experiment to increasesocial support, improve team functioning, and enhanceemployee mental health. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 16: 335–352.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. 2001. Reconceptualizing men-


toring at work: A developmental network perspective.Academy of Management Review, 26: 264–288.

Ho, V. T., & Levesque, L. L. 2005. With a little help from myfriends (and substitutes): Social referents and influencein psychological contract fulfillment. Organization Sci-ence, 16: 275–289.

Hofmann, D. A., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. M. 2009. Seeking help inthe shadow of doubt: The sensemaking processes un-derlying how nurses decide whom to ask for advice.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1261–1274.

Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu,P. P., & Li, L. 2009. Explaining employment relationshipswith social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94: 277–297.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007.Integrating motivational, social, and contextual workdesign features: A meta-analytic summary and theoret-ical extension of the work design literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 1332–1356.

Ickes, W. 1993. Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61:587–610.

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C. 1989. Organiza-tional characteristics as predictors of personnel prac-tices. Personnel Psychology, 42: 727–786.

Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 2002.Liking and attributions of motives and mediators of therelationships between individuals, reputations, helpfulbehaviors, and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 87: 808–815.

Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad-emy of Management Review, 16: 416–441.

Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. 2007. Relationalarchetypes, organizational learning, and value creation:Extending the human resource architecture. Academy ofManagement Review, 32: 236–256.

Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. 1996. Improving labor produc-tivity: Human resource management policies do matter.Strategic Management Journal, 17: 335–354.

Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. 1996. Collectivetrust and collective action: The decision to trust as asocial decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trustin organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 357–389. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. 2009. Assembling fragments intoa lens: A review, critique, and proposed researchagenda for the organizational work climate literature.Journal of Management, 35: 634–717.

Lawler, E. J. 2001. An affect theory of social exchange. Amer-ican Journal of Sociology, 107: 321–352.

Lepak, D. P., Bartol, K. M., & Erhardt, N. L. 2005. A contingencyframework for the delivery of HR practices. Human Re-source Management Review, 15: 139–159.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource archi-tecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocationand development. Academy of Management Review, 24:31–48.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 2002. Examining the human re-

source architecture: The relationships among humancapital, employment, and human resource configura-tions. Journal of Management, 28: 517–543.

Lepak, D. P., Taylor, M. S., Tekleab, A. G., Marrone, J. A., &Cohen, D. J. 2007. An examination of the use of high-investment human resource systems for core and sup-port employees. Human Resource Management, 46: 223–246.

Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. 2006. Models ofinterpersonal trust development: Theoretical ap-proaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.Journal of Management, 32: 991–1022.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. 2009. Do they seeeye to eye? Management and employee perspectives ofhigh-performance work systems and influence pro-cesses on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 94: 371–391.

London, M. 2007. Performance appraisal for groups: Modelsand methods for assessing group processes and out-comes for development and evaluation. Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice & Research, 59: 175–188.

Maccoby, M. 2000. Narcissistic leaders. Harvard BusinessReview, 78(1): 69–77.

Malhotra, D. 2004. Trust and reciprocity decisions: The dif-fering perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Or-ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,94: 61–73.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. 2001. A temporallybased framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.

Molm, L. D. 2003. Theoretical comparisons of forms of ex-change. Sociological Theory, 21: 1–17.

Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. 2007. Buildingsolidarity through generalized exchange: A theory ofreciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 113: 205–242.

Murnighan, J. K. 1994. Game theory and organizational be-havior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 83–123.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectualcapital, and the organizational advantage. Academy ofManagement Review, 23: 242–266.

Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. 2005. Antecedents and performanceconsequences of helping behavior in work groups.Group & Organization Management, 30: 514–540.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employeeattributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects onemployee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satis-faction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503–545.

Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. 2004. Group social capitaland group effectiveness: The role of informal socializingties. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 860–875.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006.Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, anteced-ents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129–141.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A.


2005. Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. An-nual Review of Psychology, 56: 365–392.

Perlow, L. A., Gittell, J. H., & Katz, N. 2004. Contextualizingpatterns of work group interaction: Toward a nestedtheory of structuration. Organization Science, 15: 520–536.

Perlow, L. A., & Weeks, J. 2002. Who’s helping whom? Layersof culture and workplace behavior. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 23: 345–361.

Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. 1993. The effect of wage dispersionon satisfaction, productivity, and working collabora-tively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 38: 382–407.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach,D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A crit-ical review of the theoretical and empirical literatureand suggestions for future research. Journal of Manage-ment, 26: 513–563.

Porter, C. O., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West,B. J., & Moon, H. 2003. Backing up behaviors in teams:The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journalof Applied Psychology, 88: 391–403.

Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. 2003. Formal mentoring versussupervisor and coworker relationships: Difference inperceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 24: 271–293.

Ragins, B. R., & Verbos, A. K. 2007. Positive relationships inaction: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas inthe workplace. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.),Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a the-oretical and research foundation: 91–116. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. 1998. Performance appraisal inteam settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance ap-praisal: State of the art in practice: 244–277. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. 2001. The causes of organiza-tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1306–1314.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Chang-ing obligations and the psychological contract: A longi-tudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37:137–152.

Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organiza-tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. 2004. Psychological contracts in the work-place: Understanding ties that motivate. Academy ofManagement Executive, 18(1): 120–127.

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. 2003. Interdependence,interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 54: 351–375.

Schneider, B. 1990. The climate for service: Application of theconstruct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climateand culture: 383–412. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., &Niles-Jolly, K. 2005. Understanding organization-

customer links in service settings. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 48: 1017–1032.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. 1983. On the etiology ofclimates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19–39.

Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship qualityand relationship context as antecedents of person- andtask-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87: 255–267.

Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. 2002. Pay dispersion andworkforce performance: Moderating effects of incentivesand interdependence. Strategic Management Journal,23: 491–512.

Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. 1998. The grammars oftrust: A model and general implications. Academy ofManagement Review, 23: 422–437.

Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W., Jr. 1992. Integrated manufacturingand human resource management: A human capitalperspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35:467–504.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2010. Theorizing about the deviantcitizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay oforganizational citizenship and counterproductive work be-havior. Human Resource Management Review, 20: 132–143.

Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J. E., Sonenshein, S., &Grant, A. M. 2005. A socially embedded model of thrivingat work. Organization Science, 16: 537–549.

Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Work status and orga-nizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restau-rant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22:517–536.

Suazo, M. M., Martinez, P. G., & Sandoval, R. 2009. Creatingpsychological and legal contracts through human re-source practices: A signaling theory perspective. HumanResource Management Review, 19: 154–166.

Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. 2007. High-performance humanresource practices, citizenship behavior, and organiza-tional performance: A relational perspective. Academyof Management Journal, 50: 558–577.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. 2009. Through thelooking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects ofhigh-performance work systems on employees’ atti-tudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1–29.

Taylor, S., Levy, O., Boyacigiller, N. A., & Beechler, S. 2008.Employee commitment in MNCs: Impacts of organiza-tional culture, HRM, and top management orientations.International Journal of Human Resource Management,19: 501–527.

Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. 1999. Examiningemployee involvement in the context of participativework environments. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 24: 271–299.

Toh, S. M., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2008. Humanresource configurations: Investigating fit with the orga-nizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:864–882.

Truss, C. 2001. Complexities and controversies in linking


HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 38: 1121–1149.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. 1997.Alternative approaches to the employee-organizationrelationship: Does investment in employees pay off?Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1089–1121.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. 2005. Effects of perceivedskill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping inwork teams. Journal of Management, 31: 73–89.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive va-lidity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108–119.

Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. 2007. Who helps and harmswhom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helpingand harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 92: 952–966.

Wageman, R., & Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and cooperation:The joint effects of task and reward interdependence ongroup performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,18: 139–158.

Walton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment in the work-place. Harvard Business Review, 63(2): 77–84.

Way, S. A., Lepak, D. P., Fay, C. H., & Thacker, J. W. 2010.Contingent workers’ impact on standard employee with-drawal behaviors: Does what you use them for matter?Human Resource Management, 49: 109–138.

Werbel, J. D., & DeMarie, S. M. 2005. Aligning strategichuman resource management and person-environ-ment fit. Human Resource Management Review, 15:247–262.

Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. 2002. Desegregating HRM: Areview and synthesis of micro and macro human re-source management research. Journal of Management,28: 247–276.

Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1998. Toward a unifying frame-work for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic humanresource management. Academy of Management Re-view, 23: 756–772.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. 2005. High-performance work systems and occupational safety.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 77–93.

Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. 2008. Transformational leader-ship and group interaction as climate antecedents: Asocial network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,93: 744–757.

Kevin W. Mossholder ([email protected]) is the C. G. Mills Professor of Manage-ment at Auburn University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. His primary research interests center on interpersonal workplace interac-tions, the effects of these interactions on organizational outcomes, and contextualissues that shape such effects.

Hettie A. Richardson ([email protected]) is associate professor and the William W. andCatherine M. Rucks Professor of Management at Louisiana State University. Sheearned her Ph.D. in organizational behavior and human resource management fromthe University of Georgia. Her current research interests include strategic humanresource management, employee involvement, and empowerment.

Randall P. Settoon ([email protected] ) is professor of management and dean of theCollege of Business at Southeastern Louisiana University. He received his Ph.D. fromLouisiana State University. His primary research interests include organizationalcitizenship behavior, social exchange relationships, and organizational trust.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

human resource systems and helping in organizations: a relational

Documents