the effect of ps-fit on the relationship between the
TRANSCRIPT
The effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM
and the perception of the employee of HRM.
Suze Korse | 10543570
Thesis Proposal Leadership & Management
MSc Business Administration
Department of Economics and Business
University of Amsterdam
June 2015
Supervisor: Dr. Corine T. Boon
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Suze Korse, 10543570, who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of
completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the
perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. Thereby it is
measured what the effect is of differences in PS-fit rated by both the manager and the
employee. In turn, the relationships with satisfaction and performance are examined. This
study is conducted through a survey in different organizations and in two countries. The total
sample consisted of 269 manager-employee dyads. It is found that the managers’ perception
of HRM is influencing the employees’ perception of HRM. Thereby it is found that the
perception of employees of HRM is influencing the job satisfaction of employees. Also, the
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee is
mediated by employees’ perception of HRM. Finally, it is found that there is relationship
between employees’ perception of HRM and their perception of PS-fit. Further research is
needed, therefore implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Key words: HRM, PS-fit, Job satisfaction, Job performance
4
Table of contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review .................................................................................................................. 8
2.1. HRM and the relation with organizational outcomes ..................................................... 8
2.2. Perceptions of both managers and employees of HRM ................................................... 9
2.3. The moderating role of PS-fit ........................................................................................ 11
3. Method ................................................................................................................................. 15
3.1. Procedure and sample description ................................................................................ 15
3.2. Description of measures ................................................................................................ 17
3.3. Analytical strategy ......................................................................................................... 18
4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1. Data preparation ........................................................................................................... 20
4.2. Analyses ......................................................................................................................... 22
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 30
5.1. Conclusion and practical implications .......................................................................... 30
5.2. Limitations and directions for future research .............................................................. 33
6. References ........................................................................................................................... 34
7. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix 1: Introduction letter for respondents .................................................................. 37
Appendix 2: Survey Manager ............................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3: Survey employee ............................................................................................... 42
Appendix 4: Output MODMED Syntax ................................................................................ 48
Appendix 5: Output Three way interaction Syntax ............................................................... 50
List of figures
Figure 1. Research model
Figure 2. The people management-performance causal link
Figure 3. Hypothesis
Figure 4. Model 2 Moderated mediation effect
Figure 5. Model 11
5
1. Introduction
Firms are always focused on increasing their performance. Especially in these times of
financial crisis only the best performing firms will survive. The role of HRM in increasing the
organizational performance has been studied often (Boselie et al, 2005; Combs et al, 2006;
Guest 2001). Research found that HRM relates positively to organizational (productivity,
efficiency, etc.), financial (profit, sales, etc.) and HR-related outcomes (like satisfaction and
commitment) (Piening et al, 2014; Boselie et al, 2005; Wright et al, 2005). However, the way
that HR affects organizational performance outcomes isn’t completely clear yet. Between the
HRM intervention of the manager and the performance of the employee, or other related HR
outcomes, lies the ‘black box’, which are the intervening variables that explain and declare
what HRM does to improve performance, how and why (Boselie et al, 2005). There is proof
of the existence of the ‘black box’ and there is an increasing amount of studies that tried to
look inside. A few mechanisms are found explaining the relationship between HR practices
and HR related outcomes.
One of these mechanisms is the employee perception of HRM. Central to
understanding employees’ reactions to HR practices, and thus the HRM-performance link, are
the differences between an organization’s intended HR practices and the implemented
practices that employees experience (Piening et al, 2014). HR practices influence employee
outcomes, like commitment and satisfaction, but only when employees consistently
experience them in intended ways (Piening et al, 2014). The perception of what people see
and experience what the organization is like in term of practices, policies, procedures and
routines is mediating the relationship between HRM and performance (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004). So the perception of employees of HR practices is an important factor mediating the
relationship between HRM and performance. For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) show that
the perception of the employee will mediate the relationship between the perception of the
manager of HRM and perceived performance of the unit. In this study this relationship is
tested whereby the manager rates the performance of the employee. Also job satisfaction as
HR outcome is measured. This is indicated by the employee themselves.
Current research focuses mainly on the perceptions of employees of HRM (Nishii et
al, 2008). However, how managers fulfil their people management and implement the
intended HR practices depends on their own motivations and commitments (Purcell &
Hutchinson, 2007). As a consequence their motivation and commitment influences the
perception of the employee of HR practices. In a study of Den Hartog et al (2013) the
relationship between the perceptions of the managers and the perception of the employees is
6
investigated. They found a relationship, however, this relationship isn’t really strong,
probably because of the influence of other factors (Den Hartog et al, 2013). Earlier research
also found that a consistent way of implementing HR practices could influence individuals’
perception of HRM, which in turn will be related to individuals’ attitudes and behaviour
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Thereby, as mentioned before, Nishii et al (2008) found that HR
practices could only influence employee behaviours in a desired way when they are perceived
and interpreted by employees in such a way that it will engender their behavioural reaction.
Therefore, it is proposed that the perception of the employee of HR practices mediates the
relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and job satisfaction and
performance of the employee, as seen in figure 1. However, strong evidence of a mediating
effect of employees’ perception of HRM is limited. This current study will address the
research gap by investigating when and how the relation between perceptions of HR practices
by managers and employees and HR outcomes as employee satisfaction and performance
occurs.
As argued, the motivation and commitment of the manager for implementation of HR
practices could influence the perceptions of the employee of HRM. Also, the relationship
between the manager and employee could influence the perceptions of the employee,
independent of the content of the HR practices (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Furthermore, it
is found that this relationship influences the job satisfaction of the employee (Liao et al,
2009). Therefore, it is expected that the relationship between the manager and employee could
also influence other HR outcomes, like job performance of the employee. If there is a high-
quality relationship between the employee and the supervisor, it will lead to greater job
satisfaction of the employee (Liao et al, 2009). The contribution of this study is to extend the
current research by examining the Person-Supervisor fit (PS-fit) as a moderator in the
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance and satisfaction through
the perception of the employee of HRM. PS-fit are the perceptions concern the match between
employees’ and supervisors’ characteristics like values, personality, and behavioural styles
(Van Vianen et al, 2011). If there is a match between the manager and employee in terms of
shared values, personality and behavioural styles, than the interpersonal attraction and
frequency of the interaction will rise (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). If there would be a match
between the manager and supervisor it would therefore be expected that it could influence the
agreement between the manager and employee perceptions.
In this study, both the supervisor and the employee indicates their perception of PS-fit.
In this way, the agreement between the perspective of the supervisor and employee could be
7
measured. Gerstner and Day (1991) found that if the perceptions between the manager and the
employee don’t converge, it could influence the performance in a negative way. A lack of
agreement between the manager and the employee was influencing the relationship between
them and therefore also the job satisfaction and performance of the employee. Therefore, it’s
important that both the ratings of the employee and the manager of PS-fit are taken into
account. An additional contribution of this study is that it investigates whether there is an
interaction effect between the managers’ perception of HRM, manager rated PS-fit and
employee rated PS-fit on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job
satisfaction and performance via employees’ perception of HRM. This research will
investigate if the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employee
perception of HRM becomes stronger when both manager rated PS-fit and employee rated
PS-fit are high. See figure 1.
Figure 1. Research model
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of PS-fit on the relationship between the
perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. Thereby it is
measured what the effect is of differences in PS-fit rated by both the manager and the
employee. In turn, the relationships with satisfaction and performance are examined. This
interaction effect hasn’t been studied before. Since there is very little evidence of the
consequences of PS-fit in the work environment (Maden & Kabasakal, 2014), it is interesting
to know what its influence exactly is. This study does not only contributes to the HRM theory,
but also to the theories about the fit between the supervisor and the employee.
HR practices Manager HR practices Employee Satisfaction
Performance
PS-fit Manager
PS-fit
Employee
8
Furthermore, this study extends evidence of the relationship between perceptions of
HR practices and organizational outcomes, including employee performance and satisfaction
(Wright et al, 2005; Boselie et al, 2005). Thereby, this study investigates the factors that
influence this relationship, which helps to better understand what’s going on in the black box.
It provides more information about HRM implementation in general and which factors play a
role in this process. Also, this study contributes to the existing literature by finding more
evidence for the relationship between the perception of the manager and the perception of the
employee of HR practices, since the evidence isn’t really strong yet (Den Hartog et al, 2013).
2. Literature review
In this section, the theoretical background regarding this study will be outlined, after which
the hypotheses will be formulated. First, the theoretical backgrounds of HRM and the relation
with organizational outcomes will be discussed. Second, the mediating effect of employees’
perception of HRM will be outlined. Finally, the moderating effect of PS-fit will be discussed,
whereby also is taken into account the interaction effect of PS-fit on the relationship of
managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or performance, via employees’ perception
of HRM.
2.1. HRM and the relation with organizational outcomes
Human Resource Management can be defined as the “policies, practices and systems that
influence employees’ behaviour, attitudes and performance. HRM practices include analysing
and designing work, determining human resource needs (HR planning), attracting potential
employees (recruitment), choosing employees (selection), teaching employees how to perform
their jobs and preparing them for the future (training and development), rewarding
employees (compensation), evaluating their performance (performance management), and
creating a positive work environment (employee relations)’ (Noe et al., 2012, p. 5).
In this study, HRM is also referred to as “High Performance Work Practices (HPWP).
Research about HRM shows that an integrated set of ‘high performance’ HR practices will be
most effective to organizational outcomes, rather than separate HR practices (Boselie et al,
2005). HPWP’s are performance enhancing and it includes incentive compensation, training,
employee participation and selectivity (Boselie et al, 2005).
As mentioned before, between the HRM and performance lies the ‘black box’ (Boselie
et al, 2005). However, there are different models that explain how HRM increases the
performance of the employees. The most important theory explaining the relationship
9
between HRM and performance is the AMO-model (Appelbaum et al, 2000). The HPWS’s
increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the employees, it empowers them to
leverage their KSAs for organizational benefit, and finally it increases their motivation to do
so (Combs et al, 2006). According to the AMO-model, the performance of employees is the
result of the Ability, the capacity of the employees, the Motivation and the Opportunities the
employees get to perform. The AMO-model is indicated in the following formula:
Performance = f(A x M x O). So the organization is able to influence the three concepts,
Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (Boselie et al, 2005). All three concepts need to be
present to increase the financial outcomes, organizational outcomes and HR-related outcomes
(Boselie et al, 2005). In this way the AMO-model explains and declares how HRM affects
performance. As a result, there is a greater job satisfaction, lower employee turnover, higher
productivity, and better decision-making (Combs et al, 2006). Therefore it helps to improve
organizational performance and it also improves the internal structure of the organization to
facilitate communication and cooperation. As a consequence it increases the flexibility and
efficiency of an organization (Combs et al, 2006).
The AMO-model is about the ability of the organization or manager to influence HR-
related outcomes. However, not only the manager or organization could influence HR-related
outcomes, there are more factors that could influence HR-related outcomes. One of these
factors is the perception of employees of HRM. The perception of employees is what people
see and experience what the organization is like in term of practices, policies, procedures and
routines. This perception of employees is mediating the relationship between HRM and
performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The perceptions and its influence will be further
explained below.
2.2. Perceptions of both managers and employees of HRM
As mentioned above, HR practices can contribute to the performance of an organization. HR
practices are also seen as a tool for managers that could be used to communicate important
goals and desired employee behaviours from the organization to the employee (Rousseau and
Greller, 1994). Den Hartog, Boselie and Paauwe (2004, p. 563) argue that HR practices are
‘signals’ and that individual employees interpret the signals differently. HR practices are often
part of an HR system. Ideally, HR systems reflect its strategy and context. It shows how the
organization would like to manage their employees and in this way HR practices
communicate the goals of the organization (Den Hartog et al, 2013). However, not every
employee interprets HR practices in a similar way, because employees differ in experience,
10
values or preferences (Nishii et al, 2008). Also personal interpretations and social
constructions (Rousseau and Greller, 1994) are influencing the perceptions of the employees
on HR practices and therefore the goals of the organization.
In the model of Purcell & Hutchinson (2007) it is shown that there is a people
management-performance causal chain (figure 2).
Figure 2. The people management-performance causal chain (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007)
In this study the boxes 2 until 5 are important. The actual practices are the HR practices that
are implemented by the managers, so it is what the managers put into practice and it reflects
the perception of the manager. Second, the perceptions of practices are the perceptions of the
employees of the actual HR practices (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). However, the
implementation of the practices by the manager is influenced by their own motivations and
commitments (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Therefore, according to this chain, the actual
practices, implemented by the manager, are influencing the perception of the employee of the
practices. Also Den Hartog et al (2013) found a relationship between the perceptions of the
employees and the perception of the managers, however this relationship was weakly. Purcell
& Hutchinson (2007) found that the perception of employees was linked with the perception
of the front line manager as the deliverer of HR practices. Therefore, since the perceptions of
the employees of HRM are influenced by the actual practices implemented by the manager,
the next hypothesis is conducted.
Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between managers’ perceptions of HRM
and employees’ perception of HRM
Finally, the employee attitudes and behaviour boxes are important in this study. The employee
attitude and behaviour is the response to the perception of the employee of HRM. This could
be reflected in commitment, satisfaction or other HR-related outcomes. In this study,
employees’ attitude and behaviour are measured as job satisfaction of the employee and job
performance of the employee, which is indicated by the manager.
11
As mentioned in the introduction, it is found that HR practices influences employee
outcomes, but only when employees consistently experience them in intended ways (Piening
et al, 2014). The perception of what employees see and experience what the organization is
like in term of practices, policies, procedures and routines is mediating the relationship
between HRM (managers’ perception) and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, Den Hartog
et al, 2004). Also Nishii et al (2008) argues that the employees’ experience of the HR
practices will affect employee outcomes. Thereby, managers’ interpretation of HR practices
provides the context within employee perceptions of HR practices is formed (Liao et al,
2009). It is expected that, besides the direct relationship between managers' perception of
HRM and employees’ perception of HRM, the perception of the employee of HRM explains
the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance. If there is a
misalignment, this can affect employee outcomes (Liao et al, 2009). Also it is expected that
this mediation will be partial rather than full, since there are other factors, like building a
superior human capital pool, that are influencing this relationship (Den Hartog et al, 2013). In
the HRM field, there are differences in employee outcomes studied. The HR-related outcomes
in this study are job satisfaction of the employee and employee performance, since different
studies already found significant relationships with these outcomes (Wright et al, 2005; Nishii
et al, 2008; Den Hartog et al, 2013). For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) found that the
perception of the employee mediates the relationship between the perception of the manager
of HRM and perceived performance of the unit and the perception of the employee of job
satisfaction (Den Hartog et al, 2013). In this way, the results of the studies are comparable in
the end and the evidence of the results will become stronger. Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’
perception of HRM and employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship between managers’
perception of HRM and employee performance.
2.3. The moderating role of PS-fit
The section above proposes that the relationship between HRM (managers’ perception) and
job satisfaction or performance of the employee is mediated by employees’ perception of
HRM. Besides the intermediary mechanism managers’ perception of HRM that explains the
relationship between HRM and performance, a second question in this study is whether the fit
12
between the supervisor and the employees is influencing the alignment between manager and
employee perceptions of HRM, and in turn, employee satisfaction and performance. To open
the black box further, it is of critical interest to determine whether or not the mediation effect
of employees’ perception of HRM remains constant across different values of a moderator.
It is argued that employees who have a fit with their work environment are better off than
employees who do not have a fit. Kristof-Brown et al (2005) found that employees who
perceive a fit with their environment are more satisfied with their job, are more attached to
their organization, and perform better. There are different types of fit, like a fit with work
group, job organization and supervisors (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). In this study, the fit
between the employee and the supervisor is further investigated.
As mentioned before, PS-fit is the perception concern the match between employees’ and
supervisors’ characteristics like values, personality, and behavioural styles (Van Vianen et al,
2011). The similarity-attraction theory provides the main explanation for the effectiveness of
PS-fit. This theory argues that people are more attracted to those with whom they are similar
(Byrne, 1971). As a consequence, the supervisor evaluates the employee more favourably and
likes the employees whom they perceive as being more the same rather than less similar to
themselves (Byrne, 1971). Also the personal values of supervisors and followers influence
their behaviour in certain work situations. It is found that there is a positive relationship
between PS-fit and job satisfaction and a correlation with overall performance of the
employee (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). This is because people have a need for validation of
their perspectives (Byrne, 1971). By achieving a fit and by interacting with others these
fundamental needs can be met (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005). As a consequence the employees
who perceive a good interaction with their supervisors, show an increased level of satisfaction
and achievement. The employees get willingness and energy to do more things beyond their
duties (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). Therefore, PS-fit causes a number of positive work
outcomes, like employees’ job satisfaction (Maden & Kabasakal, 2014). Finally, a correlation
between the values of the employee and the manager enhances the identification of the
employee with the manager and this reduces the interpersonal conflict. When supervisors and
employees fit in terms of characteristics, experiences and needs, than interpersonal attraction
increases and also the quality and frequency of the interaction will rise (Jing & Juan-juan,
2010). Thereby, the employees depend on their supervisors when it comes to their career
opportunities, social support and rewards (Van Vianen et al, 2011). Also, the loyalty of the
employee to the supervisor will increase if the employee perceives a fit with the supervisor
13
(Van Vianen et al, 2011). Given the above, both the organization, the supervisor and the
employee benefits from a PS-fit.
It is expected that PS-fit will influence the relationship between the managers perceptions
of HRM and the employees’ perception of HRM. There are studies that already found a
moderation effect on the relationship between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated
HRM. For example, Den Hartog et al (2013) found communication to moderate this
relationship. In this study, it is expected that PS-fit will moderate the relationship between the
perception of the manager of HRM and the perception of the employee of HRM. A PS-fit
increases the quality and frequency of the interaction between the supervisor and the
employee. If the interaction is more and better, it is assumable that the employees better
understand the perception of the managers’ regarding the implementation of HR practices and
therefore perceive them in the right way. In this way, there will be a positive moderating
effect. If there is a low fit or a lack of agreement between the supervisor and employee, that
means that the interaction between them is of low quality and not very often. Therefore, it
could be that the employee doesn’t perceive the intentions of the manager in a right way. It is
expected that PS-fit moderates the relationship between the perception of the manager and the
perception of the employee of HRM. The following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perception of PS-fit moderates the relationship between managers’
perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM.
Furthermore, it is expected that there will be an interaction effect between employee-rated
HRM, manager PS-fit and employee PS-fit on job satisfaction and performance of the
employee. It is found that there are perceptual differences between HR managers and
employees involving HR practices (Aryee, Walumba, Seidu, & Otaye, 2012; Den Hartog et
al, 2013). In this way, it is assumable that there are also differences in the perspectives of
managers and employees about the quality of the fit between each other. Therefore, managers;
perception of PS-fit is added to the model. The Leader-member exchange theory (LMX
theory) is an important theory about the relationship and fit between leaders and members.
This theory focuses on dyads, couples of managers and employees and argues that managers
develop different relationships with each employee. The fit between the supervisor and
employee is influencing the responsibility of the employee, their influence on decisions and
their access to resources (Rockstuhl et al 2012). Also, if there is a good fit, the manager
provides the employee more information, greater status, personal support and approval and
14
career development opportunities (Davis and Garner, 2004). This contributes to an increase in
the performance of the employee (Rockstuhl et al 2012, Gerstner & Day, 1997). Therefore,
for an organization it is important that the quality of the fit between the supervisor and the
employee is good.
However, sometimes the perception of the managers and employees of the relationship
do not converge (Sin et al, 2009). Gerstner & Day (1997) for example, found that there could
be a lack of leader-member agreement on how they both rate the quality of the relationship.
This lack of agreement could influence the level of performance of the employee (Gerstner &
Day, 1997). The concept of PS-fit is in line with LMX, both theories focus on the relationship
between the manager and the employee and also take into account the influence of this
relationship on organizational outcomes. Therefore, it’s assumable that there could also be a
lack of agreement between the supervisor and the employee in PS-fit. In this study, the
literature about the differences in ratings in the LMX theory is used as a starting-point for the
PS-fit, since the different ratings of employees and managers of PS-fit haven’t been
investigated before. It is expected that the ratings of the PS-fit of the employee and the
manager could be different and the combination of manager and employee ratings of PS-fit
could influence the relationship between employees’ and manager perception of HRM. Based
on the literature of the LMX theory, it is expected that if both the manager and the employee
rate the PS-fit positive, this will have the strongest effect on the relationship between
managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. If both the manager and
the employee perceive a high PS-fit, that means that the interaction is frequent and of high
quality. Due to this interaction, the manager can communicate his or her perception of HR
practices and this increases the likelihood that the employee better understands the
perceptions of the manager. This better understanding could influence the perceptions of the
employee of the HR practices. On the other hand, if both the manager and the employee rate
the PS-fit negative, it is expected that there is a low level of interaction, which could influence
the perception of the employee of the HR practices negatively, since the employee doesn’t
interact with the manager frequently and of high quality. This means that the manager could
not explain his or her perceptions and intentions. Because of a lack of research no
expectations can be formulated with regard to the other options. It’s not known yet how and
what the effect will be when only the manager or the employee rate the fit negative.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
15
Hypothesis 5: There will be a three-way interaction between manager-rated HRM, manager
PS-fit and employee PS-fit on employees’ perception of HRM, such that the relationship
between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated HRM will be strongest when both manager
and employee PS-fit are high.
H1 H2
H3
H4
H5
Figure 4. Hypotheses
3. Method
In this chapter the method of this study will be presented. The procedure, the sample, the data
collection techniques, the measurement of the variables and the procedure of the data analysis
will be explained in more detail.
3.1. Procedure and sample description
A research team of the Master Business Studies conducted this study. The team consisted of
three students and was supervised by Dr. Corine Boon, from the Leadership and Management
department of the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the project was to add extra data for
both the professor and the theses of the students. In 2014, another research team already
collected data of dyads at Dutch organizations. This year, the research team collected data
from March to May 2015 at German organizations. Except for the language, no changes have
been made in the questionnaire. The Dutch items are converted to German by a bilingual
student and are reviewed by a bilingual researcher from the department. The translation has
HR practices Manager HR practices Employee Satisfaction
Performance
PS-fit Manager
PS-fit
Employee
16
been done, because Saunders and Lewis (2012) argue “familiar and clear questions advance
the validity of the responses”.
For this study data of German organizations has been collected to the existing data.
The reason to collect data in Germany was because one of the members of the research team
is German and had interesting contacts already in Germany that would like to participate in
this survey. Also, this provided the opportunity to test this model in an international sample.
Dyads are couples of one manager with an associated employee. However, in this study
sometimes double dyads are used, one manager with two associated employees.
In the introduction of the questionnaire, it’s emphasized that the information will be
treated confidentially. Also, the introduction outlined the purpose, duration and the concepts
of the questionnaire. Because there was no sampling frame of the population, the data was
collected with a combination of two non-probability sampling methods, namely convenience
sampling and snowball sampling (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The first was used to gain access
to respondents and organizations via personal contacts of the German member of the research
team. The organizations were invited via e-mail to participate in this survey. The second
method was used to try to get more dyads participated via the already participating employees
and managers (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The managers and employees were invited to
participate with an e-mail in which consent was asked and instruction of the procedure was
given. After three weeks a reminder was send to the respondents who hadn’t finished the
questionnaire yet.
Via the dyads, data has been obtained from both the manager and the employee. By
using a matching code, the surveys of the managers and the employees are linked. Via
Qualtrics the data was online collected. Thus, a quantitative study was conducted with four
questionnaires; a Dutch manager and employee questionnaire and a German manager and
employee questionnaire. The questionnaire consists closed questions, which represents a
suitable type of question for this study (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Through a Likert scale
(ranging from 1 to 7), the questions could be answered. There were different items included
regarding HR practices, job satisfaction of the employee, task performance of the employee
and PS-fit. Also, questions about demographic data were added to the questionnaire. In this
study only the data obtained for the variables HR practices, PS-fit, task performance and job
satisfaction and control variables gender and age of employee, country they live in and tenure
of the employee with the supervisor were used. The manager questionnaire took
approximately five minutes to complete and the employee questionnaire approximately ten
17
minutes to complete. The managers rated HR practices, PS-fit and task performance. The
employee rated HR practices, PS-fit and job satisfaction.
After the data collection, the two datasets were merged. The final sample consisted of
269 dyads. The dataset consists of 134 manager and 269 employees. The data collection was
mainly collected from Dutch respondents (70,6 %), but also German respondents participated
(29,4%). In total, 62,7% of the managers is male and 37,3% of the managers is female. Of the
employees, 39,5 % is male and 60,5 % is female. The average age of the managers is 43,25
years old (SD=11,57) and the average age of the employees is 36,35 years old (SD=12,59).
Finally, employees work with together with the supervisor on average for 3,33 years
(SD=3,94).
3.2. Description of measures
The measurements scales of the variables included in this study are shown in this section.
Only validated scales were used, because that indicates a proven quality of the items. Also it
increases the reliability (Saunders and Lewis, 2012).
Managers completed the 15-item HRM practices scale that is developed by Kehoe and
Wright (2013). The HRM scale consisted of three concepts: ability enhancing, motivation-
enhancing and opportunity-enhancing practices. Together, the 15 items represent a high
performance human resource system. With this scale, the perception of the manager on the
HR practices is reflected, because the managers were asked to show to what extent they
agrees with the statements related to specific practices. Examples of scale items are: “The
company hires only the very best people for this job” and “Employees receive formal training
each year”. Cronbach’s alpha for managers perception of HRM is α=0.808. Also employees
completed this 15-item scale. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.862.
The Person-Supervisor fit is measured by a 3-item scale, developed by Cable and
DeRue (2002). The employees used the exact scale of Cable and DeRue (2002) and for the
managers, the items are reworded. Therefore, they used the reformulated version. Sample
items are: “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that this subordinate
values” and “My personal values match this subordinate‘s values”. Cronbach’s alpha for
managers perception of PS-fit is α=0.902. For employees cronbach’s alpha is α=0.936.
The manager was also asked about their perception of the task performance of each
employee. This 4-item scale is developed by Van Dyne & LePine (1998). Examples of scale
items are: “The employee fulfils the responsibilities specified in his/her job description” and
“The employee meets performance expectations”. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.874.
18
Finally, the employee was asked about their job satisfaction. This 3-item scale was
developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh (1979). Scale items are: “In general I
don’t like my work” and “In general, I like working here”. Cronbach’s alpha is α=0.841.
3.3. Analytical strategy
The data has been analysed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 22.0 (SPSS 22.0).
The data was (re-)coded and variables and constructs were created. Some respondents skipped
the majority of the questions, those respondents were excluded for the dataset. There was no
need to check for normality, since the dataset consists of 269 dyads. Skewness and kurtosis
will then not influence the results (Field, 2009).
After this, an exploratory deductive research analysis has been completed. In this way
the demographic characteristics of the sample were computed. Also, with a reliability test the
internal consistency of the scales was tested. The scales are reliable when Cronbach’s Alpha
is 0.7 or higher (Field, 2009). A dummy variable was made from the control variable country,
in which 0 refers to respondents from the Netherlands and 1 refers to respondents from
Germany.
Some control variables were included in order to prevent unintended effects that
influence the result of the study (Field, 2009). The control variables in this study are: gender
of employee, age of employee, country and tenure with the supervisor. The distinction is
made between the German and Dutch respondents by controlling for country, since cultural
differences can impact HR practices, HR policies and its effectiveness (Laurent, 1986). Also,
only the employee control variables are represented since their group has the majority.
The first hypothesis was tested through multiple regression analyses. Hypothesis 2 and 3
focus on the mediating effect of HRM perception of employees on the relationship between
managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or performance. These hypotheses have
been tested with six multiple regression analyses. To test this mediation effect the SPSS
macro Process of Andrew Hayes is used. This macro is provided by the website of Andrew
Hayes (www.afhayes.com).
Hypotheses 4 was tested through the moderated mediation effect. First, the variables
managers’ perception of HRM, managers’ perception of PS-fit and employee perception of
PS-fit has been standardized. Thereafter, by creating interaction variables in the multiple
regression analyses the moderating influence of PS-fit was analysed (Baron and Kenny,
1986). To test the moderated mediation effect the SPSS macro MODMED of Hayes is used. If
this macro is used in the right way, then it provides information about which variables in the
19
model functions as the independent variable, the mediator, the outcome, and the moderator in
the desired analysis. In this study, model 2 (see figure 4) is used, whereby some fourth
variable (W) the a1 path affects (Preacher et al, 2007).
Figure 4. Model 2 Moderated mediation effect (Preacher et al, 2007)
Hypothesis 5 is tested with a three-way interaction effect. This means that there is a
two-way interaction that varies across levels of a third variable. For this hypothesis, model 11
is used, whereby the influence of two variables (W and Z) the a1 path affects (Preacher et al,
2007). See figure 5. To test this hypothesis, hypotheses 4 and 5 are combined.
20
Figure 5. Model 11 (Preacher et al, 2007)
4. Results
This chapter first describes the process of data preparation. Thereafter, the results of the
exploratory analysis will be given. This follows by a description of the analyses with regards
to the hypotheses testing and finally the results will be discussed.
4.1. Data preparation
Table 1 show the means, standard deviation and correlations of the variables. There are no
items deleted in order to increase the internal consistency. It’s important to check for
correlations between variables before running a regression analysis. Table 2 shows the
Pearson’s correlation coefficients from the SPSS analysis indicating the significant
correlations between variables.
The tests for multicollinearity (table 2) shows that there are no multicollinearity
problems in any of the regression analyses, because the tolerance levels are higher than 0.10,
and the VIF values are below 5. This is the case when independent variables correlate to a
high extent with each other and this can influence the results of multiple regression.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Controls:
1. Gender_e -
2. Age_e 36,26 12,593 -.013
3. Country - .104 .266**
4. Tenure 3,325 3,936 .009 .413** .220**
Variables:
5. mHRM 4,775 0.847 -.091 -.020 -.228** -.211**
6. eHRM 4,306 0.987 -.036 .088 -.105 -.054 .338**
7. Jsattot 5,840 0.999 .046 .061 .032 .012 -.009 .253**
8. Perftot 5,956 0.808 .132 .024 .188** .029 .032 -.023 .252**
9. mPSfit 5.176 1.059 .024 .023 -.040 .024 .137* .216** .176** .369**
10. ePSfit 5.095 1.176 -.013 -.053 .003 .026 .121 .257** .318** .256** .242**
Notes: Alphas are in parentheses; *p < .05. **p < .01.
Gender_e = gender employee, Age_e = age of employee, Tenure = tenure of the employee with the supervisor, mHRM = manager rated HRM, eHRM =
employee rated HRM, Jsattot = Job satisfaction of the employee, Perftot = Performance of the employee rated by manager, mPSfit = manager rated PS-fit,
ePSfit = employee ratedd PS-fit
Therefore, multicollinearity should be avoided (Field, 2009). Managers’ perception of HRM
is used as dependent variable.
Table 2. Multicollinearity
Tolerance VIF
Jsattot .862 1.160 Perftot .941 1.062
mFittot .837 1.195
eFittot .841 1.189
Notes: Tolerance levels needs to be higher than .10 and VIF values below 5.
Dependent variable: mHRM
4.2. Analyses
To test the hypotheses different analyses were conducted and all tests are controlled for
gender and age of the employee, country and tenure with the supervisor.
The first hypothesis is: There will be a positive relationship between managers’
perceptions of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. To test this hypothesis a linear
regression analyse was conducted. The results show that the regression model is significant (F
(5,229) = 7.272; p < 0,01). There is a direct significant positive relationship between
managers perception of HRM and employees perception of HRM (β = .333, t =5.111, p <
0.01). The variable mHRM explains 14 % of the variance in eHRM. The results are shown in
table 3. Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Table 3. Regression Results
B SE β t F p R2
Gender_e -.048 .127 -.024 -.379
Age_e .012 .005 .155* 2.251
Country -.058 .140 -.028 -.413
Tenure -.009 .017 -.037 -.535
mHRM .393 0,077 .333** 5,111
7.272 .000 .140
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
Dependent variable: eHRMtot
The second hypothesis is: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship
between managers’ perception of HRM and Job satisfaction. This hypothesis can be
conducted with a mediation model and is tested by using multiple regression analyses with a
syntax provided by Preacher and Hayes. According to Baron & Kenny (1986) there are four
steps necessary in establishing a mediation effect. First, there has to be a relationship between
23
managers’ perception of HRM and Job satisfaction, which can be mediated. Second, treat the
employees’ perception of HRM (mediator) as dependent variable and test if there is a
relationship with managers’ perception of HRM (independent). Third, test that employees’
perception of HRM affects Job satisfaction, by using managers’ perception of HRM and
employees’ perception of HRM as two independent variables and Job satisfaction as
dependent variable. Fourth, identify the significance of the relationship including the mediator
in the regression analysis. The results of the analysis are represented table 4. It is shown that
the model as a whole is significant (F = 5.208, p < 0,01, R2 = 0.124) Thereby, the first step is
not significant, (β = -0.135, t (228) = -1.655, p > 0.05). The second step, the relationship
between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM is positive
significant, as shown in table 3. Finally, step 4 is not significant (β = 0.007, t (228) = 0.081, p
> 0.05). According to Baron & Kenny (1986) all steps needs to be significant in establishing a
mediation effect.
Table 4. Multiple regressions: mHRM and Job satisfaction, mediated by eHRM
Variables Step F p R2
β t p
1 .415 .838 .009
mHRM .007 .081 .936
Controls:
Gender_e .148 -1.095 .275
Age_e .004 .734 .464
Country .044 .293 .770
Tenure -.006 -.341 .734
4 5.208 .000 .124
eHRM .359** 5.377 .000
mHRM -.135 -1.655 .099
Controls:
Gender_e .148 -1.095 .275
Age_e .004 .734 .464
Country .044 .293 .770
Tenure -.006 -.341 .734
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
24
There are some researchers who have different thoughts about the need of a direct
relationship between the independent and the outcome variable in order to support mediation.
They argue that there could still be a mediating effect even if there is no significant
relationship between the independent and the outcome variable (Hayes, 2009). Also Zhao,
Lynch and Chen (2010) comply with the assumption of Hayes (2009), that it’s only necessary
to test for an indirect effect in order to decide whether there is a mediation effect. Therefore,
also an indirect effect is tested of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between
managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the employee. In order to do that, a
bootstrapping method has been used (Hayes, 2009). For analysing the direct, indirect and total
effects the process macro of Hayes (2013) is used. The results are shown in table 5. As seen in
the table, eventhough there is no significant direct or total effect, there is significant indirect
effect (β = 0.142, LLCI = 0.075, ULCI = 0.260). The confidence interval does not contain
zero, which indicates an indirect effect. This means that employees’ perception of HRM is a
mediator in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the
employee.
Table 5. Direct, indirect and total effect of: mHRM and Job satisfaction, mediated by eHRM
Variables β t BootLLCI
BootULCI p
Effects:
Direct -.135 -.1.655 -.295 .026 .099
Indirect .142 - .075 .260 <.050
Total .007 .081 .936 -.155 .168
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
The third hypothesis is: Employees’ perception of HRM mediates the relationship
between managers’ perception of HRM and performance. This hypothesis is tested in the
same way as Hypothesis 2 and according to the same four steps necessary in establishing a
mediation effect of Baron & Kenny (1986). As seen in table 6, the model as a whole is
significant (F = 2.294, p > 0.05, R2 = 0.063). The first step is to test if there is a relationship
between managers’ perception of HRM and performance of the employee. The results show
that there is no significant relationship (β = 0.111, t (212) = 1.628, p > 0,05). Second, the
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM has
been tested and in line with hypothesis 2 there is a significant positive relationship (β = 0.380,
t (212) = 4.737, p < 0,01). Finally, identify the significance of the relationship including the
25
mediator in the regression analysis, turns out not to be significant. Since not all four steps
necessary in establishing a mediation effect are significant, there is no mediating effect of
employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM
and job performance of the employee. Therefore, H3 can be rejected.
Table 6. Multiple regressions: mHRM and Job performance, mediated by eHRM
Variables Step F p R2
β t p
1 2.672 .023 .061
mHRM .097 1.497 .136
Controls:
Gender_e .189 1.736 .084
Age_e -.003 -.626 .532
Country .336** 2.803 .006
Tenure .002 .154 .878
4 2.294 .036 .063
mHRM .111 1.628 .105
eHRM -.037 -.665 .507
Controls:
Gender_e .185 .1702 .090
Age_e -.002 -.515 .607
Country .333 2.773 .570
Tenure .002* .133 .030
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
The results of the fourth and fifth hypothesis are combined in this chapter. First, it is tested
whether PS-fit (rated by the employee) moderates the relationship between managers’
perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. This hypothesis is tested with a
moderation model by using a regression analyses with a syntax provided by Preacher and
Hayes. The results show that the model as a whole is significant (F = 7.854, p < 0.01, R2 =
0.199). In table 7, the results of the analysis can be found.
The effect of mHRM on eHRM is not significant (β = 0.130, t = .386, p > 0.05). Also,
eFITtot is not significant (β = 0.016, t = 0.055, p > 0.05). Finally, the interaction mHRM x
eFITtot is not significant (β = 0.041, t = .0671, p > 0.05). This indicates that there is no
26
significant direct moderating effect of PS-fit for managers’ perception of HRM on employees’
perception of HRM.
Table 7. Analysis of moderation effect of PS-fit
F p R2
β t p
Controls:
Gender_e -.081 -.648 .518
Age_e .013* 2.500 .013
Country -.069 -.508 .612
Tenure -.013 .-811 .418
Variables:
mHRM .130 .386 .700
eFITtot .016 .055 .956
mHRM x eFITtot
7.854 .000 .199 .043 .671 .503
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
Dependent variable: eHRMtot
Thereafter, it is tested whether there will be moderated mediation effect, whereby is tested if
employees’ perception of PS-fit moderates the relationship between managers’ perception of
HRM and job satisfaction via the employees’ perception of HRM. This is tested both with job
satisfaction of the employee and job performance of the employee as outcome.
First, the moderated mediation model is tested by using a regression analysis with the
syntax provided by Preacher and Hayes, model 2. Employee rated HRM was regressed on
control variables, manager rated HRM, ePS-fit and the interaction term (mHRM x ePS-fit).
This moderated mediation model is tested twice, first with job satisfaction as outcome, second
with Job performance as outcome. The results of the model with job satisfaction of the
employee as outcome are listed in table 8, in the upper part of the table. The results show that
for job satisfaction the model as a whole is significant (F = 5.777, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.193).
However, the interaction term is not significant (β = -0.039, t = -0.596, p > 0.05). Therefore,
PS-fit doesn’t function as a moderator in the relationship between managers’ perception of
HRM and job satisfaction via employees’ perception of HRM.
27
Table 8. Analysis of moderated mediation effect of PS-fit
R2
F β t p
Interaction with outcome Jsattot
Controls:
Gender_e .155 1.233 .219
Age_e .003 .490 .625
Country .040 .293 .770
Tenure -.007 -.398 .691
Variables:
zmHRM -.139* -2.054 .041
zeFITtot .267** 4.014 .000
zmHRM X zeFITtot .193 5.777 -.039 -.596 .552
zeHRM .283** 4.260 .000
Interaction with outcome Perftot
Controls:
Gender_e .204 1.898 .059
Age_e .000 .014 .989
Country .307** 2.638 .009
Tenure -.002 -.160 .873
Variables:
zmHRM .095 1.677 .095
zeFITtot .185** 3.245 .001
zmHRM X zeFITtot .137 3.554 -.086 -1.541 .125
zeHRM -.080 -1.422 .157
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
Dependent variable: Jsattot and Perftot
Second, this model has been tested with performance as outcome. It is tested if PS-fit has a
moderated effected on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and
performance and job performance of the employee via the employees’ perception of
HRM. The results are shown in table 8 and show that the model as a whole is significant (F =
3.554, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.137). However, again, the interaction term is not significant (β = -
0.086, t = -1.541, p > 0.05). Therefore, PS-fit doesn’t function as a moderator in the
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance of the employee via
the employees’ perception of HRM.
Since no significant interaction terms has been found, there is no support for H4, in
that there is no moderation effect found of the employees’ perception of PS-fit on the
28
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction or job performance
of the employee via employees’ perception of HRM.
Finally, additional analyses were done to explore potential three-way interactions. The
interaction models were extended with a second moderator, the perception of the manager of
PS-fit. This moderated mediation model with two moderators is also tested twice. First, with
the outcome job satisfaction of the employee and second, with the outcome performance of
the employee. It is examined whether there will be a three-way interaction between manager-
rated HRM, manager PS-fit and employee PS-fit on employees’ perception of HRM, such that
the relationship between manager-rated HRM and employee-rated HRM will be strongest
when both manager and employee PS-fit are high. Employees’ perception of HRM was
regressed on managers’ perception of HRM, PS-fit rated by the manager, PS-fit rated by the
employee and the interaction terms. The results for the outcome job satisfaction of the
employee are shown in table 9 and 10. The model as a whole is significant (F = 5.083, p = <
0.05, R2 = 0.130). However, none of the interactions are significant. Therefore, there is no
three-way-interaction found with the outcome job satisfaction of the employee. The results do
show a significant positive relationship between employees; perception of HRM and
managers’ perception of HRM and between employees’ perception of PS-fit and employees’
perception of HRM. Thereby, the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and
employees’ perception of PS-fit is marginally significant (β = 0.125, t (228) = 1.862, p =
0.064). Also, as found before, a significant relationship between employees’ perception of
HRM and job satisfaction of the employee is found.
Table 9. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job satisfaction
R2
F β t p
Controls:
Gender_e -.089 -.681 .497
Age_e .014* 2.563 .011
Country -.097 -.682 .496
Tenure -.019 -.106 .270
Variables:
zmHRM .250** 3.675 .000
zePSfit .240** 3.432 .001
zmPSfit .125 1.862 .064
zmHRM x zePSfit .011 .156 .876
29
zmHRM x zmPSfit .094 1.282 .201
zePSfit x zmPSfit .100 .1598 .112
zmHRM x zePSfit x zmPSfit .232 5.506 .076 .954 .341
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01,
Dependent variable: eHRM
Table 10. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job satisfaction
R2
F β t p
Controls:
Gender_e .134 .998 .320
Age_e -.003 -497 .620
Country .111 .757 .450
Tenure -.001 -.029 .977
Variables:
zmHRM -.137 -1.921 .056
zeHRM .130 5.083 .367** 5.379 .000
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01,
Dependent variable: Jsat
The results for the outcome job performance of the employee are shown in table 11
and 12. The model as a whole is significant (F = 2.274, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.063). However, none
of the interactions are significant. Therefore, there is no significant three-way interaction
effect for the outcome job performance. Again, these results do show a positive significant
relationship between employees perception of HRM and managers’ perception of HRM and
between employees’ perception of PS-fit and employees’ perception of HRM. Thereby, the
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit is
marginally significant (β = 0.126, t (228) = 1.834, p = 0.068.
Table 11. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job performance
R2
F β t p
Controls:
Gender_e -.093 -.697 .486
Age_e .014* 2.552 .012
Country -.101 -.695 .488
Tenure -.019 -1.083 .280
Variables:
zmHRM .253** 3.663 .000
zePSfit .241** 3.363 .001
30
zmPSfit .126 1.834 .068
zmHRM x zePSfit .009 .128 .898
zmHRM x zmPSfit .094 1.259 .230
zePSfit x zmPSfit .009 1.542 .125
zmHRM x zePSfit x zmPSfit .225 5.237 .075 .911 .363
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01
Dependent variable: eHRM
Table 10. Analysis of a three-way interaction effect, outcome job performance
R2
F β t p
Controls:
Gender_e .183 1.673 .096
Age_e -.002 -.501 .617
Country .223** 2.774 .006
Tenure .002 .131 .896
Variables:
zmHRM .093 1.606 .110
zeHRM -.037 -.661 .509
Notes: *p < .05. **p < .01,
Dependent variable: Perftot
5. Discussion
The aim of this study is to extend the current research by examining the PS-fit as a moderator
in the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and performance through the
perception of the employee of HRM. In this section, the conclusions are drawn from the
results section. Furthermore, some limitations of this study, suggestions for future research,
and theoretical and practical implications will be given.
5.1. Conclusion and practical implications
The results come from in total 269 useable manager-employee dyads. The results show that
hypothesis 1 is confirmed. It is found that there is a positive relationship between managers’
perceptions of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. This means that the HRM practices,
implemented by the manager, are positively influencing the perception of the employee of the
HRM practices. These results are in line with other studies (Den Hartog et al, 2013; Purcell &
Hutchinson, 2007). Managers’ perception of HRM explains 14% of the perception of
employees of HRM. When the employees perceive the practices as positive, this will
positively influence their performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Since this relationship
31
wasn’t really strong yet (Den Hartog et al, 2013), this study strengthens the evidence of a
relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM.
Managers’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of HRM only partly overlap (β =
0.250), probably because of the influence of other factors, like communication (Den Hartog et
al, 2013) or personal interpretations (Rousseau and Greller, 1994).
Also, there is found support for H2. First it is found that there is significant, direct and
positive relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the
employee. This means that if the employees perceive HRM as positive, their job satisfaction
will increase. Second, it is found that there is an indirect of effect of employees’ perception of
HRM on the relationship between managers’ perception of HRM and job satisfaction of the
employee. This means that the perception of the manager about the HR practices is
influencing the satisfaction of the employee in a positive way, only if the employee perceive
the implemented HR practices by the manager as positive. This is in line with the existing
literature of Wright et al (2005), Nishii et al (2008), Bowen & Ostroff (2004) and Den Hartog
et al (2013).
However, no support was found for hypothesis 3. This means that there is no
mediating effect found of employees’ perception of HRM on the relationship between
managers’ perception of HRM and job performance. Since no correlation was found between
managers’ perception of HRM and job performance of the employee, there is no direct
relation to mediated. However, also no indirect effect is found. These results are not in
accordance to the existing literature. Wright et al, 2005; Nishii et al, 2008; Bowen & Ostroff,
2004 and Den Hartog et al, 2013 all found the perception of the employee mediating the
relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and perceived performance of the
unit.
Finally, no support was found for hypothesis 4 and 5. This means that there is no
moderating influence found of PS-fit on the relationship between managers’ perception of
HRM and employees’ perception of HRM. Almost all variables correlated, besides managers’
perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit. This could be explained by the fact
that the perception of employees of the relationship between them and the supervisor is about
shared values. How the manager is implementing HR practices does not necessarily say
anything about if the supervisor and manager share values or whether their personalities
match. Therefore, it could be that no relation between these variables has been found. Also,
32
no moderated mediation and no three-way interaction are found of PS-fit on the relationship
between managers’ perception of HRM and job performance and satisfaction through
employees’ perception of HRM, probably due to this lack of correlation. Since little research
has been done about the PS-fit, the results are difficult to be compared with other studies.
What is found in this study, is that there is a positive significant relationship between
employees’ perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit. This means that if
employees perceive the HR practices as more positive, they will also perceive the fit between
them and the supervisor as more positive. Thereby, the relationship between managers’
perception of HRM and employees’ perception of PS-fit is marginally significant (β = 0.125, t
(228) = 1.862, p = 0.064).
The results of this study can serve as guidance for managers in practice. The
significant relationship between the managers’ perception of HRM and the employees’
perception of HRM has consequences for the practical implications of managers. Managers
should endeavour to implement HR practices for three reasons. First, they have to implement
HR practices in order to enhance the satisfaction of their employees. Second, the perception
of managers of HR practices is influencing how the employees perceive the HR practices of
the organization. It’s important that the managers in the organizations makes sure that the
employees have a good perception of the practices, because this study found that the
perception of employees of HRM is influencing the job satisfaction of the employee.
Therefore, the manager has to be aware that his or her implementation of the HRM practices
is important for the organization. Third, it is found that the perception of employees of HR
practices is influencing their perception of the relationship with their supervisor. Given the
fact that the managers’ perception of HRM is influencing the employees’ perception of HRM,
it’s very important for the organization that managers drive positive perceptions of HRM by
employees.
Taken together, this study has increased our understanding of the relationship between
managers’ perception of HRM, employees’ perception of HRM and the influence of these
perceptions on the job satisfaction. Thereby, this study has been a starting point to examine
the effect of PS-fit within the field of HRM.
33
5.2. Limitations and directions for future research
In this section some limitations of this study will be discussed. Also some suggestions for
future research are provided. The results of this study contributes to the literature of strategic
human resource management.
In this study dyads have been used. However, the participation was not completely
anonymous. Special codes were made to match managers and subordinates. It could be that
employees were afraid of losing their job if they admitted that the match with the supervisor
wasn’t really good or if they say that they are not satisfied with their job. Thereby, Graen and
Scandura (1987) commented that supervisors often do not discriminate between low- and
high-quality dyads, due to socially desirable responses. This could also influence the outcome
of the study. Another factor that could be influenced by socially desirable responses is the risk
of self-rated items. In this study PS-fit and job satisfaction, were self-rated by the employee
and the manager. To overcome this limitation, also manager-rated items have been used, like
a manager rating the performance of the employee and manager rated the fit with the
employee. However, this could have influenced the results.
Another limitation could be the cross-sectional nature of this study. This means that
there could be reversed causation or that it could play a role. It is found that organizations that
are well-doing, have more money to spend on HR practices, which in turn could influence the
performance of the organization positively (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan & Allen, 2005). In
this study, it is not tested whether the effects were causal. The focus has been on the
implementation of HR practices by the manager influencing the job satisfaction and
performance of the employee, not the other way around. In the future more research is needed
regarding the direction of causality.
Thereby, since no mediating effect of perception of the employee on the relationship
between the perception of the manager and job performance of the employee is found, future
research is needed. These results are not in line with the study of inter alia Den Hartog et al
(2013). Future research is needed about this relationship to confirm or reject the findings of
this study. Since both a direct relationship between employees’ perception of HRM and job
satisfaction of the employee and indirect relationship of managers’ perception of HRM and
job satisfaction of the employee via employees’ perception of HRM is found, it would be
interesting to test more outcomes. Suggestions for future research are outcomes as
commitment, since this has been test by other studies.
34
Furthermore, in other studies it is found that the personality of the employee and the
manager is influencing the PS-fit very much (Jing & Juan-juan, 2010). Also Van Vianen et al
(2011) found support for supplementary fit on personality or values being related to employee
attitudes or contextual performance, and the effects differ dramatically for various personality
traits. In this study, personality is not been taken into account, due to time and scope
limitations. For future research, it could be valuable to add personality to the study when
studying PS-fit. Since there is very little evidence of the consequences of P-S fit in the work
environment (Maden & Kabasakal, 2014) future research about this topic is needed. This
study has been a starting point and the first results show a significant relationship between
employees’ perception of HRM and the perception of employees on the relationship between
them and the supervisor. Since the relationship between the managers’ perception of HRM
and the employees’ perception of PS-fit is only marginally significant, this asks for further
research on this topic.
Besides the limitations of this study, there are also valuable results. This research
started to study the consequences of PS-fit in the work environment and it contributes to the
existing model that the perceptions of HR practices could influence the satisfaction of the
employee and the mediating role of the perceptions of the employee of HRM on the
relationship between the perception of the manager of HRM and job satisfaction. There are
suggestions for future research and new insights, which I hope that will stimulate researchers
to further conduct research in the field of strategic human resource management.
6. References
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Seidu, E. Y., & Otaye, L. E. (2012). Impact of high-
performance work systems on individual-and branch-level performance: test of a
multilevel model of intermediate linkages. Journal of applied psychology, 97(2), 287.
Baron, R., and Kenny., D. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005) Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The
role of the 'strength' of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2),
203-221.
35
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective
fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor.
Combs, C., Yongmei, L., Hall, A. & Ketchen, D. (2006). ‘How much do high performance
Work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational
performance’. Personnel Psychology, 2006(59), 501–28.
Davis, W.D. and Gardner, W.L. (2004), “Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism:
an attributional and leader-member exchange perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, 15,
439-465.
Guest, D. (2001). Human Resource Management: when research confronts theory.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1092-1106.
Den Hartog, D.N., Boon, C. Verburg, R.M. & Croon, M.A. (2013). "HRM, Communication,
Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance A Cross-Level Test." Journal of Management
39.6, 2013, 1637-1665.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: a model and
research agenda. Applied psychology, 53(4), 556-569.
Edwards J.R. & Cable, D.M. (2009). The value of the value congruence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(3), 654.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll).
Third edition. Londen: Sage.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange
Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82(6),
827-844
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research
in organizational behavior.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Jing, L., & Juan-juan, F. (2010). The influence of person-supervisor fit on organizational
citizenship behavior: A case of service industry. Management Science and
Engineering (ICMSE), 2010, pp. 1812-1816
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The Impact of High-Performance Human Resource
36
Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2),
366–391.doi:10.1177/0149206310365901
Kim, T. Y., & Kim, M. (2013). Leaders’ moral competence and employee outcomes: The
effects of psychological empowerment and person–supervisor fit. Journal of business
ethics, 112(1), 155-166.
Kristof-Brown, A.L. Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person
-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 2005(58), 281–342.
Laurent, A. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management.
Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91-102.
Liao, S. H., Hu, D. C., & Chung, H. Y. (2009). The relationship between leader-member
relations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in international tourist hotels
in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1810-
1826.
Maden, C., & Kabasakal, H. (2014). The simultaneous effects of fit with organizations, jobs
and supervisors on major employee outcomes in Turkish banks: does organizational
support matter?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3),
341-366.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of
HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 61(3), 503-545.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.M. (2012). Human resource
management: Gaining a competitive advantage. Irwin.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human
Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Piening, E.P., Baluch, A.M. & Ridder, H.G. (2014). Mind the intended implemented gap:
understanding employees’ perceptions of HRM. Human Resource Management
2014(4), 545-567.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42, 185- 227
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance
causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal,
17(1), 3-20.
37
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J.H. Nanyang, S.A. and Shore, L.M. (2012). Leader–Member
Exchange (LMX) and Culture: A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX Across 23
Countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012, 97(6), 1097–1130
Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1994). Human resource practices: Administrative
contract makers. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 385-401.
Saunders, M., and Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business & management: An essential
guide to planning your project. Pearson Education.
Sin, H-P., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2009). Understanding Why They Don’t See
Eye to Eye: An Examination of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1048 –1057
Vianen, van A.E.M., Shen, C.T. & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–
supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2011(32), 906-926.
Van de Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well-being and the
HRM-organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies.
International Journal of Management Reviews. 14(4), 391-407.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., & Allen, M. (2005) The relationship between HR
practices and firm performance: examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58,
409- 446
7. Appendix
Appendix 1: Introduction letter for respondents
Beste (werknemer),
Allereerst, nogmaals heel erg fijn dat u wilt meewerken aan ons onderzoek! In deze e-mail
staat de link naar de online vragenlijst vermeld. Als werknemer is het de bedoeling dat u een
aantal vragen beantwoordt over uw werkomgeving, uw baan en het personeelsmanagement
(plusminus 15 minuten).
Als u de link naar de vragenlijst opent zal de eerste vraag zijn om een code in te voeren.
De code die voor u is aangemaakt is: 1011
38
Klik op de volgende link of kopieer deze in uw internet browser om de vragenlijst te starten.
https://uvafeb.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0Mt4dHCEuehaFFz
Wij willen u er nogmaals op attenderen dat uw antwoorden anoniem en vertrouwelijk zullen
worden behandeld. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname!
Voor vragen kunt u terecht bij één van de onderzoekers.
Met vriendelijke groet,
het onderzoeksteam.
Josephine Selchow
Suze Korse
Joyce Derksen
Corine Boon.
Beste (manager),
Allereerst, nogmaals heel erg fijn dat u wilt meewerken aan ons onderzoek! In deze e-mail
staat de link naar de online vragenlijst vermeld. Als manager is het de bedoeling dat u de twee
participerende werknemers beoordeelt en een aantal vragen beantwoordt over de
werkomgeving en het personeelsmanagement (plusminus 10 minuten).
De twee werknemers die u beoordeelt zijn:
Werknemer A:
Werknemer B:
Als u de link naar de vragenlijst opent zal de eerste vraag zijn om een code in te voeren.
De code die voor u is aangemaakt is: 101
Klik op de volgende link of kopieer deze in uw internet browser om de vragenlijst te starten.
https://uvafeb.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_daQY6sdcuahCffT
Wij willen u er nogmaals op attenderen dat uw antwoorden anoniem en vertrouwelijk zullen
worden behandeld. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname!
Voor vragen kunt u terecht bij één van de onderzoekers.
39
Met vriendelijke groet,
het onderzoeksteam.
Josephine Selchow
Suze Korse
Joyce Derksen
Corine Boon.
Appendix 2: Survey Manager
Thesis Project 2015: HRM implementation and job crafting
Scales for questionnaire
MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is.
2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding?
Middelbare school
MBO
HBO
Universiteit (bachelor)
Universiteit (master)
PhD
Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde
werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan
elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals
kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep.
4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit,
prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor
productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties.
40
7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en
doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf
in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier
waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen
het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te
nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden
geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk.
15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Person-Organization fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen de organisatie
belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van de organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van de organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik
belangrijk vind in het leven
Big 5
(Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006)
1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen.
3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen.
5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie.
6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen.
8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes.
12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid.
14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen.
16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen.
18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht.
41
Ratings of 2 employees:
Task performance
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
Deze medewerker…
1. Maakt de verantwoordelijkheden waar die in zijn/haar taakomschrijving staan
2. Voert de taken uit die bij zijn/haar baan horen
3. Voldoet aan de prestatienormen
4. Levert prima werk af
Human capital
(Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005)
Deze medewerker…
1. Is zeer vakkundig
2. Wordt door veel mensen gezien als de beste op zijn/haar gebied
3. Is creatief en slim
4. Is expert in zijn/haar specifieke functie
5. Ontwikkelt nieuwe kennis en ideeën
Pro‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational proactive behavior
(Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010)
At work, your subordinate personally takes the initiative to:
[organizational]
Suggesties te geven voor oplossingen van problemen die spelen in de organisatie
Kennis op te doen die nuttig is voor de organisatie
Het werk te optimaliseren om zo organisatiedoelen te bereiken
Kennis te delen met collega’s
Taken van collega’s over te nemen als het nodig is, zelfs als hij/zij dat niet verplicht is
Nieuwe collega’s op weg te helpen
Collega’s te helpen met het ontwikkelen en uitvoeren van nieuwe ideeën
Nieuwe manieren te vinden om zijn/haar taken beter uit te kunnen voeren
Kennis op te doen die hem/haar helpt in zijn/haar carrière
Zijn/haar persoonlijke doelen op het werk te realiseren
Taken op zich te nemen die zijn/haar carrière ten goede komen
1. Suggest ideas for solutions for company problems
2. Acquire new knowledge that will help the company
3. Optimize the organization of work to further organizational goals
[interpersonal]
1. Share knowledge with colleagues
2. Take over colleagues' tasks when needed even though she/he is not obliged to
3. Help orient new colleagues
4. Help colleagues with developing or implementing new ideas
[personal]
1. Find new approaches to execute his/her tasks so that she/he can be more successful
2. Acquire new knowledge that will help his/her career
3. Realize his/her personal goals at work
4. Take on tasks that will further his/her career
42
Person-supervisor fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat deze medewerker
belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van deze medewerker
3. De waarden van deze medewerker sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven
Appendix 3: Survey employee
EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is.
2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding?
Middelbare school
MBO
HBO
Universiteit (bachelor)
Universiteit (master)
PhD
Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
5. Hoe lang werkt u met uw huidige leidinggevende samen?
6. Hoeveel uur werkt u gemiddeld per week?
Person-Organization fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen mijn organisatie
belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van mijn
organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van mijn organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik
belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-supervisor fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn leidinggevende
belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn leidinggevende
3. De waarden van mijn leidinggevende sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven
Person-Team fit
43
(Cable & DeRue, 2002; DeRue & Morgeson, 2007)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn collega’s belangrijk
vinden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn collega’s
3. De waarden van mijn collega’s sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in
het leven
Person-Job fit (DA fit & NS fit)
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Er is een goede ‘match’ tussen de eisen van mijn baan en mijn persoonlijke
vaardigheden
2. Mijn vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij de eisen voor mijn huidige baan
3. Mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij wat er van mij verwacht
wordt in mijn huidige baan
4. Wat mijn baan me biedt komt overeen met wat ik in een baan zoek
5. De dingen die ik zoek in een baan worden in mijn huidige baan vervuld
6. Mijn huidige baan biedt mij alles wat ik verwacht van een baan
Big 5
(Donnellan et al., 2006)
1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen.
3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen.
5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie.
6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen.
8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes.
12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid.
14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen.
16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen.
18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht.
Proactive personality
6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes, Beheydt,
& Lemmens, 2005; Parker, 1998)
1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde
2. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren.
44
3. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn.
4. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.
5. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.
6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten
worden.
HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde
werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan
elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals
kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep.
4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit,
prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor
productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties.
7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en
doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf
in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier
waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen
het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te
nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden
geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk.
15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Job crafting
(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012)
Nooit Soms Regelmatig Vaak Heel vaak
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik mijn capaciteiten optimaal benut
2. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met personen wier problemen mij
emotioneel raken
3. Ik vraag collega's om advies
4. Ik probeer mezelf bij te scholen
45
5. Als er nieuwe ontwikkelingen zijn, sta ik vooraan om ze te horen en uit te proberen
6. Ik vraag of mijn leidinggevende tevreden is over mijn werk
7. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik zelf kan beslissen hoe ik iets doe
8. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder moeilijke beslissingen in mijn werk hoef te nemen
9. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk
10. Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren
11. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten
12. Ik zoek inspiratie bij mijn leidinggevende
13. Ik neem geregeld extra taken op me hoewel ik daar geen extra salaris voor ontvang
14. Ik probeer mezelf te ontwikkelen
15. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met mensen die onrealistische
verwachtingen hebben
16. Als het rustig is op mijn werk, zie ik dat als een kans om nieuwe projecten op te
starten
17. Ik vraag mijn leidinggevende om mij te coachen
18. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten
19. Ik probeer mijn werk wat zwaarder te maken door de onderliggende verbanden van
mijn werkzaamheden in kaart te brengen
20. Als er een interessant project voorbij komt, bied ik mezelf proactief aan als
projectmedewerker
21. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik me niet lange tijd achter elkaar hoef te concentreren
Psychological empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1995)
Meaning:
1. Het werk dat ik doe, is belangrijk voor mij.
2. Mijn werkzaamheden zijn belangrijk voor mij.
3. Het werk dat ik doe, is zinvol voor mij.
Competence:
4. Ik ben overtuigd van mijn vermogen om mijn werk goed te doen.
5. Ik ben zelfverzekerd over mijn mogelijkheden om mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren.
6. Ik beheers de vaardigheden die nodig zijn voor mijn werk.
Self-determination:
7. Ik heb een grote mate van zelfstandigheid bij het bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe.
8. Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik omga met mijn werkzaamheden.
9. Ik heb veel ruimte voor zelfstandigheid en vrijheid in de manier waarop ik mijn werk
doe.
Impact:
10. Mijn invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling, is groot.
11. Ik heb veel controle over wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling.
12. Ik heb belangrijke invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling.
Social support (colleague support & supervisor support)
(Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Günter, & Germeys, 2012), based on (Peeters, Buunk, & Schaufeli,
1995)
1. Mijn collega’s laten merken dat ze me aardig vinden
2. Mijn collega’s laten zien dat ze de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waarderen
3. Mijn collega’s geven me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
46
4. Mijn collega’s helpen me als het nodig is
1. Mijn leidinggevende laat merken dat hij/zij me aardig vindt
2. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waardeert
3. Mijn leidinggevende geeft me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
4. Mijn leidinggevende helpt me als het nodig is
Transformational leadership
(De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004)
Mijn leidinggevende praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is.
Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na
te denken.
Mijn leidinggevende heeft een visie en een helder beeld van de toekomst.
Mijn leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken.
Mijn leidinggevende is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.
Mijn leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.
Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te
ontwikkelen.
Mijn leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijk en
gemeenschappelijk doel te werken.
Mijn leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en
waarden.
Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de afdeling van de
organisatie.
Mijn leidinggevende delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.
Communication quality
(Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001)
1. Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij genoeg informatie om mijn werk goed uit te kunnen
voeren
2. Mijn leidinggevende legt uit wat de redenen zijn voor veranderingen die invloed
hebben op mijn werk
3. Ik kan gerust zeggen wat ik vind tegen mijn leidinggevende
4. Mijn leidinggevende zorgt ervoor dat ik alles wat ik moet weten te horen krijg
Intrinsic motivation
(Grant, 2008)
Waarom bent u gemotiveerd om uw werk te doen?
1. Omdat ik het werk zelf leuk vind
2. Omdat ik er plezier in heb
3. Omdat het werk plezierig is
4. Omdat ik ervan geniet
Prosocial motivation
(Grant, 2008)10
Waarom bent u gemotiveerd om uw werk te doen?
1. Omdat ik het belangrijk vind dat anderen nut hebben van mijn werk
2. Omdat ik het belangrijk vind om anderen te helpen in mijn werk
47
3. Omdat ik graag een positieve invloed wil hebben op anderen
4. Omdat het belangrijk voor me is om nuttig te zijn voor anderen door middel van mijn
werk.
Well-being
(Warr, 1990) – wordt ook gebruikt voor positive/negative affect
Hoe vaak heeft u zich in de afgelopen paar weken in uw werk als volgt gevoeld:
Schaal: Nooit- voortdurend
1. Gespannen
2. Onbehaaglijk
3. Bezorgd
4. Rustig
5. Voldaan
6. Ontspannen
7. Gedeprimeerd
8. Somber
9. Ellendig
10. Opgewekt
11. Enthousiast
Work engagement
9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), based on
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002)
De volgende uitspraken hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij
voelt. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak iedere uitspraak op u van toepassing is door steeds het best
passende cijfer (van 0 tot 6) in te vullen?
1. Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan.
2. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan.
3. Mijn werk inspireert mij.
4. Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie.
5. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig.
6. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk.
7. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk.
8. Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering.
9. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe.
Stress
(Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986)
1. Mijn werk is erg stressvol.
2. Er gebeuren zeer weinig stressvolle dingen op mijn werk.
3. Ik ben erg gestresst door mijn werk.
4. Ik voel me bijna nooit gestresst als gevolg van mijn werk.
Org commitment
(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993)
48
1. Ik heb echt het gevoel dat de problemen van mijn organisatie ook mijn problemen zijn.
2. Ik heb een sterk gevoel van "erbij horen" bij mijn organisatie.
3. Ik voel me "emotioneel gehecht" aan deze organisatie.
4. Ik voel me als "deel van de familie" in mijn organisatie.
5. Deze organisatie betekent persoonlijk veel voor mij.
Job satisfaction
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979)
1. Al met al ben ik tevreden met mijn werk.
2. In het algemeen houd ik niet van mijn werk.
3. In het algemeen ben ik blij om hier te werken.
Appendix 4: Output MODMED Syntax
Run MATRIX procedure:
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com
Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
Model = 2
Y = Jsattot
X = ZmHRMtot
M = ZeHRMtot
W = ZeFITtot
Statistical Controls:
CONTROL= Gen_e Age_e Country Tenlea
Sample size: 228
Outcome: Jsattot
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,4388 ,1926 ,8126 5,7767 9,0000 218,0000 ,0000
49
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 5,5352 ,2725 20,3159 ,0000 4,9982 6,0722
ZeHRMtot ,2825 ,0663 4,2603 ,0000 ,1518 ,4132
ZmHRMtot -,1386 ,0675 -2,0538 ,0412 -,2716 -,0056
int_1 -,0433 ,0593 -,7305 4659 -,1601 ,0735
ZeFITtot ,2674 ,0666 4,0141 ,0001 ,1361 ,3986
int_2 -,0391 ,0657 -,5957 ,5520 -,1686 ,0904
Gen_e ,1545 ,1253 1,2330 ,2189 -,0925 ,4015
Age_e ,0026 ,0053 ,4895 ,6250 -,0078 ,0130
Country ,0399 ,1362 ,2927 ,7700 -,2286 ,3083
Tenlea -,0066 ,0166 -,3976 ,6913 -,0392 ,0261
Interactions:
int_1 ZmHRMtot X ZeHRMtot
int_2 ZmHRMtot X ZeFITtot
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
ZeFITtot ZeHRMtot Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-,9453 -1,0668 -,0554 ,0971 -,5707 ,5688 -,2468 ,1359
-,9453 -,0562 -,0992 ,0920 -1,0776 ,2824 -,2806 ,0822
-,9453 ,9544 -,1429 ,1212 -1,1792 ,2396 -,3818 ,0960
,0132 -1,0668 -,0929 ,0861 -1,0789 ,2818 -,2627 ,0768
,0132 -,0562 -,1367 ,0671 -2,0368 ,0429 -,2690 -,0044
,0132 ,9544 -,1805 ,0936 -1,9272 ,0553 -,3650 ,0041
,9716 -1,0668 -,1304 ,1155 -1,1292 ,2600 -,3581 ,0972
,9716 -,0562 -,1742 ,0920 -1,8928 ,0597 -,3556 ,0072
,9716 ,9544 -,2180 ,1038 -2,0997 ,0369 -,4226 -,0134
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
50
------ END MATRIX -----
Appendix 5: Output Three way interaction Syntax
Run MATRIX procedure:
Model = 2
Y = Jsattot
X = ZmHRMtot
M = ZeHRMtot
W = ZeFITtot
Statistical Controls:
CONTROL= Gen_e Age_e Country Tenlea
Sample size
228
Outcome: Jsattot
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,4388 ,1926 ,8126 5,7767 9,0000 218,0000 ,0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 5,5352 ,2725 20,3159 ,0000 4,9982 6,0722
ZeHRMtot ,2825 ,0663 4,2603 ,0000 ,1518 ,4132
ZmHRMtot -,1386 ,0675 -2,0538 ,0412 -,2716 -,0056
int_1 -,0433 ,0593 -,7305 ,4659 -,1601 ,0735
ZeFITtot ,2674 ,0666 4,0141 ,0001 ,1361 ,3986
int_2 -,0391 ,0657 -,5957 ,5520 -,1686 ,0904
Gen_e ,1545 ,1253 1,2330 ,2189 -,0925 ,4015
Age_e ,0026 ,0053 ,4895 ,6250 -,0078 ,0130
Country ,0399 ,1362 ,2927 ,7700 -,2286 ,3083
Tenlea -,0066 ,0166 -,3976 ,6913 -,0392 ,0261
51
Interactions:
int_1 ZmHRMtot X ZeHRMtot
int_2 ZmHRMtot X ZeFITtot
R-square increase due to interaction(s):
R2-chng F df1 df2 p
int_1 ,0020 ,5337 1,0000 218,0000 ,4659
int_2 ,0013 ,3548 1,0000 218,0000 ,5520
Both ,0044 ,5974 2,0000 218,0000 ,5512
*******************************************************************
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
ZeFITtot ZeHRMtot Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-,9453 -1,0668 -,0554 ,0971 -,5707 ,5688 -,2468 ,1359
-,9453 -,0562 -,0992 ,0920 -1,0776 ,2824 -,2806 ,0822
-,9453 ,9544 -,1429 ,1212 -1,1792 ,2396 -,3818 ,0960
,0132 -1,0668 -,0929 ,0861 -1,0789 ,2818 -,2627 ,0768
,0132 -,0562 -,1367 ,0671 -2,0368 ,0429 -,2690 -,0044
,0132 ,9544 -,1805 ,0936 -1,9272 ,0553 -,3650 ,0041
,9716 -1,0668 -,1304 ,1155 -1,1292 ,2600 -,3581 ,0972
,9716 -,0562 -,1742 ,0920 -1,8928 ,0597 -,3556 ,0072
,9716 ,9544 -,2180 ,1038 -2,0997 ,0369 -,4226 -,0134
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean
.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
95,00
------ END MATRIX -----
Run MATRIX procedure:
Model = 2
Y = Perftot
X = ZmHRMtot
M = ZeHRMtot
52
W = ZeFITtot
Statistical Controls:
CONTROL= Gen_e Age_e Country Tenlea
Sample size
212
Outcome: Perftot
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,3697 ,1367 ,5529 3,5541 9,0000 202,0000 ,0004
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 5,5240 ,2312 23,8954 ,0000 5,0682 5,9799
ZeHRMtot -,0796 ,0560 -1,4217 ,1567 -,1900 ,0308
ZmHRMtot ,0951 ,0567 1,6768 ,0951 -,0167 ,2070
int_1 ,0718 ,0492 1,4590 ,1461 -,0252 ,1688
ZeFITtot ,1845 ,0569 3,2451 ,0014 ,0724 ,2967
int_2 -,0856 ,0555 -1,5405 ,1250 -,1951 ,0240
Gen_e ,2036 ,1072 1,8983 ,0591 -,0079 ,4150
Age_e ,0001 ,0045 ,0138 ,9890 -,0089 ,0090
Country ,3072 ,1165 2,6377 ,0090 ,0776 ,5368
Tenlea -,0022 ,0138 -,1596 ,8733 -,0294 ,0250
Interactions:
int_1 ZmHRMtot X ZeHRMtot
int_2 ZmHRMtot X ZeFITtot
R-square increase due to interaction(s):
R2-chng F df1 df2 p
int_1 ,0091 2,1288 1,0000 202,0000 ,1461
int_2 ,0101 2,3730 1,0000 202,0000 ,1250
Both ,0153 1,7874 2,0000 202,0000 ,1700
*******************************************************************
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
53
ZeFITtot ZeHRMtot Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-,9717 -1,1108 ,0985 ,0829 1,1881 ,2362 -,0650 ,2621
-,9717 -,0890 ,1719 ,0783 2,1946 ,0293 ,0175 ,3263
-,9717 ,9329 ,2452 ,1022 2,3995 ,0173 ,0437 ,4467
-,0053 -1,1108 ,0159 ,0729 ,2175 ,8280 -,1279 ,1596
-,0053 -,0890 ,0892 ,0563 1,5848 ,1146 -,0218 ,2002
-,0053 ,9329 ,1626 ,0779 2,0854 ,0383 ,0089 ,3163
,9611 -1,1108 -,0668 ,0975 -,6850 ,4941 -,2591 ,1255
,9611 -,0890 ,0065 ,0772 ,0846 ,9327 -,1457 ,1588
,9611 ,9329 ,0799 ,0864 ,9244 ,3564 -,0905 ,2503
Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean
.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.
------ END MATRIX -----