明新科技大學 校內專題研究計畫成果報告
計畫類別： 任務型計畫 整合型計畫 ■個人計畫
計畫編號：MUST-97-資管-06
執行期間： 97 年 3 月 1 日至 97
年 9 月 30 日
計畫主持人：賴彥如
共同主持人：王貴英
計畫參與人員：
處理方式：公開於校網頁
執行單位：資管系
中 華 民 國
97 年
10 月 30
日
工作績效的路徑模式：人力資源措施、工作負荷、工作投
入與組織承諾的效果
摘要
過去的策略人力資源管理研究中較常研究人力資源管理措施對組織績效的 影響，但是對於人力資源措施對於個人績效的影響較少提及和驗證。Guest(1997) 則是提出一個人力資源管理措施如何藉由影響員工的態度及行為進而影響組織 績效的關係。本研究則是加上工作負荷的因素，試圖去驗證 Guest (1997)的模式， 工作績效（行為）來自於員工的工作態度（工作投入及組織承諾），工作投入的 高低則來自於工作負荷，人力資源管理措施則會影響組織承諾。本研究將採用問 卷調查方式，發出 300 份問卷。研究結果發現人力資源措施有顯著正向影響組織 承諾（包括情感性承諾、持續性承諾及規範性承諾），工作負荷有顯著負向影響 工作投入，工作投入有顯著正向影響工作績效，但是組織承諾對工作績效的正向 影響則不顯著。本研究驗證了人力資源措施會影響工作態度，但是與工作績效相 關的工作態度則是工作投入，若是管理者想要增加員工工作績效，則需要安排適 量的工作負荷。 關鍵詞：人力資源措施、工作負荷、組織承諾、工作績效Abstract
Most research in strategic human resource management focused on the effect to organization performance. The impact of human resource practices on job performance was less examined. Guest (1997) provided a path model to portrait the relationship from human resource practices to employees’ attitudes to employees’ behavior. This study included workload as the cause to examine Guest’ s path model. Job performance was from employees’ attitudes, such as job involvement and organizational commitment. Workload affected job involvement. In addition, human resource practices affected organizational commitment. We conducted survey and used the questionnaire to collect data. 300 employees filled in the questionnaire. The results showed that HR practices were significantly positively related to affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment toward the organization, that workload was significantly negatively related job involvement, and that job involvement was significantly positively related job performance. In addition, organizational commitment was not significantly positively related to job performance. The implication of management is that an organization can improve employees’ attitudes, such as job involvement and organizational commitment, by executing advanced HR practices. If management expects to increase employee’s job performance, they could design the job with proper workload in order to raise employee’s job involvement for employment practices.
CONTENT
Introduction
……….01
Literature Review
……….01
Method ……….04
Discussion ……….06
Conclusion ……….07
Reference
……….08
TABLE CONTENT
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
………..11
Introduction
In the recent decades, most research in human resource management focused on the effect to organization performance. Theses HR practices might be called as “Committed” HR, “High performance work practices’, ‘HR systems’, or ‘HR bundle’. Besides that, it is an interesting topic how is the way of the impact of HR practices to organization performance. Some research indicated that it was not enough only to examine the relationship of HR practice and organization performance (Delery, 1998; Osterman, 2000). In this time point, this line of research should move beyond or beneath the HR-Performance subject (Wall & Wood, 2005). Guest (1997) indicated a series of cause-effect relationships between HR practices and organizational performance. HR practices affected HR outcomes, e.g. commitment, quality, involvement, and, therefore, HR outcomes stimulated individual-level performance outcomes, e.g. productivity, innovation. Consequently, improved individual performance would aggregately improve organization performance.
The purpose of this study is to inspect the path from HR practices to job performance. On the one hand, HR practice influents organizational commitment, and organizational commitment affects job performance. On the other hand, workload affects job involvement, and job involvement impacts on job performance.
Literature Review
HR Practices
Research in HR practices might have various perspectives. Some researchers viewed HR practices as individual practices which had their unique effect. More recently, others considered HR practice as a bundle which interacts to the outcomes. In the view of HR as a bundle, a good HR practice is not enough to produce good outcomes, such as low turnover rate, low absenteeism, high job performance. There were two approaches to view HR practice as a bundle. On the one hand, in the substitute approach, each individual HR practice might replace the other HR practice so that other thing being equal, the more advance HR practices were, the better the outcomes were .On the other hand, in complementary approach, HR practices fitted horizontally so that the extent of each HR practice would be the same.
commitment, and normative commitment. Organizational affective commitment (AC) has defined as while employees identified with, involved in, and affectively attached to their organizations. Organizational continuance commitment (CC) to the organization is related to the cost of resigning. Employees evaluate the benefit and lost for leaving. Employees with organizational normative commitment (NC) to s organizations consider that they obligate to stay in the organization.
HR practices included most of HR functions, such as training, employee development, performance system, compensation, benefits, and employee relation. According to Meyer & Allen (1991), work related experiences, which included comfort and competence, related to affective commitment. HR practices, such as skills applied to job from training, performance appraisal with development goal, made employees to persist better knowledge, skill, and abilities so that they would believe that they stay at recent organizations comfortable with existing competence. Therefore, HR practices were positively related to affective commitment. Continuance commitment toward organization was determined by the cost of leaving recent organizations (Meyer & Allen, 1991). HR practices, such as better payment, flexible benefits, or internal promotion, would increase cost of leaving. Hence, HR practices were positive related to continuance commitment. Normative commitment came from socialization or developed from “reward in advance” which is provided by organizations (Meyer & Allen, 1991). HR practices, especially training and employee development, took resource in advance to invest employees. This investment created uneven relationship between employees and organizations. When employees perceived this imbalance, they would notice the obligation to the organizations. For this reason, HR practices were positively to normative commitment.
H1: HR practices will be positively related to affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment toward the organization.
Workload
they might not enjoy in their job any more.
H2: Workload will be negatively related job involvement.
Organizational Commitment
Affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment were different from the season employee willing to stay in the organizations. Employees with affective commitment would view organization as themselves so that they would contribute more effort on their work (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). As a result, employees would perform better outcomes. Indeed, empirical research demonstrated the positive relationship between affective commitment and job performance (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004; Suliman & Iles, 2000). Meyer et al. (1989) argued that continuance commitment was negatively relative to the job performance. Employees stayed in the organization due to they forced to so that they would not perform well in their daily job, Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, (2005) reported that continuance commitment and job performance was negatively significant (95%CI=-.15~-.03) in their meta-analysis. However, empirical studies results seemed not consistent with Meyer et al.’s argument .Suliman & Iles (2000) reported that continuance commitment was positively related to job performance. Other research results showed that the relationship between continuance commitment and job performance was not significant (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Mayer & Schoorman 1992; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998).
Relative to affective commitment and continuance commitment, normative commitment was less examined in the research of organizational commitment. Normative commitment was that employees considered to staying in the organization for duty (Meyer & Allen, 1991). According social exchange theory, employees who took some benefits, such as training, from organizations, would give back to them. They would work harder and better to return the investment of the organization. Hence, normative commitment was positively to the job performance. Suliman & Iles, (2000) supported the argument that have mentioned above. In the later meta-analysis research, Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005) showed that normative commitment was positively related to job performance as well.
H3a: Affective commitment will be positively related to job performance. H3b: Continuance commitment will be negatively related to job performance H3c: Normative commitment will be positive related to job performance
The consequences of job involvement were work-related behavior, and, therefore, work-related outcomes (Brown, 1996). Employees who engaged in their jobs would put more force to completing their jobs. They had motivation to learn KSAs and solved the problems which they confronted. As a result, employees with higher job involvement would perform their job better.
In Borwn’s (1996) meta-analysis, the relationship between job involvement and job performance did not exist, and job involvement influenced job performance indirectly. However, in the later study, Diefendoreff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord (2002) discovered that job involvement had positively impact on job performance. Similarly, in Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005) meta-analysis, job involvement were positively related to job performance.
H4: Job involvement will be positively related job performance.
Method
Data collection
The survey conducted in Taiwan in 2006. Samples were from the construction industry. Firstly, twenty corporations of the member were randomly selected. Secondly, we asked the human resource professional to randomly select 15 engineers in each company. The rules of selection were that employees were distributed by diversity tenure, job-levels, and positions. 300 employees were asked to fill in the questionnaires, the content including HR practices, job involvement, organizational commitment, job performance, and personal characteristics. Otherwise, the HR professionals in 20 corporations completed the items of organizational characteristics, such as whether the corporation is a IPO, how much capital is, What is the total amount of employees, whether the HR head is full time or not, how many members in HR department are. In addition, they filled in the respondents’ performance ratings from employees’ records.
Of the 300 respondent, 280 were returned for the response rate of 93%. 255 were used to the further analyzing. The average employee respondent was 37.68 for age, 15.13 for education year, 7.24 for tenure staying in their recent companies, 13.3 for the tenure in their working career. The sample also consisted of 85% for male, 30% for engineers, 26.4% taking management positions.
Measures
HR practices
(1996), Huselid (1995), and Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak (1996). These items were slightly modified to better reflect the human resource characteristics in Taiwan. The respondent was asked to answer the extent of the agreement of each item with Likert five-point scale. The Cronbach’s alphas for training and development, performance appraisal, compensation and benefits, employee relation are, respectively, .82, .85, .87, .82.
Workload
The scale of workload was from Osipow's (1998) ‘work overload' subscale of the Occupational Stress Inventory and Beehr, Walsh &Taber(1976). There were ten items in the subscale that were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Coefficient alpha was .79
Job involvement
We employed Kanungo’s (1982) ‘job involvement’ scale, which was distinct from ‘work involvement’. There were ten items in this scale, but we use five items, which were employed in Frone, Russell, & Cooper’s (1995) study. For example, ‘The most important things that happen to me involve my present job’. The internal consistency was high (α=.82).
Organizational Commitment
The scale of organizational commitment was developed by Allen & Meyer (1990). Organizational commitment was separated by three components: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. There were three items for affective commitment, three items for continuance commitment, and three items for normative commitment. Respondents indicated the extent to which they perceived to their organization items such as ‘This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me ‘for affective commitment, ’I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization’ for continuance commitment, and ‘One of the major reasons that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain’ for normative commitment. Cronbach alphas were .86 for affective commitment, .74 for continuance commitment, and .80 for normative commitment.
Job Performance
Job performance was selected four items from the scale developed by Williams & Anderson (1991). The respondents were asked to answer the agreement for Likert five-point scale. For example’ Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description’. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for this scale in this study was .89.
Results
---
Table 1 insert here. ---
Figure 1 shows the results of structural equation modeling. The fitted indexes of our hypothesized model are chi-square=894.91, df=261, p=0.0, root mean square of approximation [RMSAE]=.098, adjusted goodness-of –fit [AGFI]=.73, normed fit [NFI]=.89, comparative fit [CFI]=.92.
The standardized parameter estimates are used to examine the above hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 is supported (b=.1.07, .46, and 1.08., respectively for AC, CC, and NC; p<.05). HR practices are positively related to AC, CC, and NC. A statistically significant parameter estimate was found for the path between workload and job involvement (b=-.46; p<.05), which indicates that workload is negatively related job involvement. Hypotheses 2 is supported, too. Hypotheses 3 is not supported, as statistically insignificant standardized parameter estimates were found for the path between AC, CC, NC, and job performance(b=.24, -.04, .85, respectively; p>.05). In addition, the statistical result indicated support for Hypotheses 4 (b=.49; p<.05)
----
Figure 1 insert here. ----
Discussion
According to the result of SEM, Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and Hypothesis 4 are supported, while all Hypotheses 3 are not supported. HR practices have positive relation with AC, CC, and NC. Better HR practices increase employees’ organizational commitment. Workload is negatively related to job involvement. Job involvement is positively related to job performance.
Conclusion
One of the limitations in this study is all variables coming from the same source (employees). This study might suffer common method bias (Podsakoff, & Organ, 1986). To examine the problem of common method variance, we used Hartman’s on factor test. The result shows that all the items into seven variables. The first factor only explains 15% variance of total variance. Hence, although all data came from the same source, the casual effect might not suffer from the common method bias seriously.
The second limitation is related to scales adopted in this study. We selected some Items rather than all items developed by the original to measure constructs so that validity of constructs might be threatened. Although there might have validity threaten in this study, we select the items which were highest loading of the constructs in past studies. The selective items represented the construct might be better than all items.
Although there are some limitations in the present study, we examine the path from HR practices to job performance. HR practices indeed affect employees’ attitudes. The implication of management is that an organization can improve employees’ attitudes, such as job involvement and organizational commitment, by executing advanced HR practices. Some employee attitudes, especially job involvement, positively related job performance. Workload is negatively related to job involvement. If management expects to increase employee’s job performance, they could design the job with proper workload in order to raise employee’s job involvement for employment practices.
Reference
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationship of Stress to Individually and Organizationally Valued States: Higher Order Needs as a Moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.
Borwn, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organization research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implication for research. Human Resource Review, 37, 289-309.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy Management Journal, 39, 802-835.
Diefendoreff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R.G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93-108.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1995). Job stressors, job involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 1-11.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263-276
Hackett, R., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three component model of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23. Houkes, I., Janssen, P. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal study. Journal of Occupation and Organizational Psychology, 76, 427-450.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate, financial performance. Academy Management Journal, 38, 635-672
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 58, 705-714.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 314-349.
Luchak, A. A., & Gellatly, I. R. (2007). A comparison of linear and nonlinear relations between organizational commitment and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 786-793.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Osipow, S. (1998). Occupational Stress Inventory Revised Edition (OSI-R) , Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Osterman, P. (2000). Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43, 179-196.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224-228.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257-266.
Rose, C. L., Murphy, L. B., Byars, L., & Nikzad, K. (2002). The role if the big five personality factors in vigilance performance and workload. European Journal of Personality, 16, 185-200.
Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, A. D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 621-634.
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 197-217.
Suliman, A., & Iles, P. (2000). Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations? Commitment-performance relationship: A new look. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 407-426.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisors, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71.
Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science. Human Relations, 58, 429-462.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfactory and organizational commitment as predictors of organization citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W. Jr. & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy Management Journal, 39, 836-866.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations¹
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Workload 3.26 .73 2. Training & Development 3.29 .65 .20 ** 3. Performance Appraisal 3.29 .64 .32 ** .51 ** 4. Compensation & Benefits 2.89 .75 .25 ** .44 ** .58 ** 5. Employee Relation 3.14 .69 .19 ** .50 ** .55 ** .59 ** 6. Job Involvement 3.63 .59 .01 .31 ** .36 ** .33 ** .42 ** 7. Affective Commitment 3.73 .70 .04 .39 ** .44 ** .41 ** .45 ** .65 ** 8. Continuance Commitment 2.96 .75 .05 .11 * .13 * .28 ** .07 .13 * .26 ** 9. Normative Commitment 3.29 .75 .12 .35 ** .39 ** .49 ** .41 .57 ** .73 ** .32 ** 10. Job Performance 3.94 .51 .07 .09 .09 .06 .23 .40 ** .32 ** .02 .28 ** 11. Gender² 1.15 .36 .21 ** -.14 * .03 -.04 -.03 -.16 * -.09 .07 -.07 .02 12. Age 37.68 6.97 -.06 .01 -.12 .04 .07 .20 ** .29 ** .16 ** .16 * .15 * -.13 * 13. Education 15.13 1.65 .09 .05 -.04 .03 .04 -.11 -.10 -.13 * -.06 .01 -.12 -.23 ** 14. Tenure in this Org. 7.24 5.70 -.13 * -.04 -.09 -.07 -.04 .06 .23 ** .15 * .10 .06 .10 .57 ** -.24 ** 15. Total Tenure 13.31 7.51 -.06 .01 -.06 .05 .08 .24 ** .32 ** .18 ** .19 ** .19 ** .06 .90 ** -.35 ** .63 ** 16. Job Positions 3.44 1.88 .09 -.03 -.12 -.10 -.10 -.09 .04 -.01 -.02 .00 .10 .28 ** .08 .27 ** .26 ** ¹n=255 ²male=1 female=2
Workload HR Practice Job Performance Job Involvement AC CC NC -.46 1.07 .46 1.08 .49 .85 -.04 .24 FIGURE 1
