Literature Review Employee Commitment 關于員工承諾的文獻綜述

員工對組織承諾的概念在文獻中備受關注。作為組織專家和管理人員，有興趣在尋找方法來提高員工的表現和保留。在文獻中，員工對組織的承諾。承諾是一種心理狀態，它的特點是員工與組織的關系和他們愿意繼續工作的組織。忠誠的雇員已被定義為：“一個在組織與我同甘共苦，參加正常工作，并在一整天，保護公司的資產，股份公司的目標，等等”根據定義，忠誠的員工比自由更可能在組織。員工的承諾是一個重要的方面，它往往是一個很好的預測員工離職與工作滿意度。

 

The concept of employee commitment to organisation has received much attention in the literature. As both organization experts and managers, are interested in looking for ways to improve employee performance and retention (Steers, 1977). In the literature, employee‟s commitment to the organisation is referred to as Organisational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). According to Meyer and Allen (1991) commitment is a psychological state, which characterizes employee's relation with the organization and their willingness to continue working in the organization. Committed employee has been defined as:"One who stays with the organisation through think and thin, attends work regularly, puts in a full day, protects company assets, shares company goal, and so on" (Meyer and Allen, 1997: 3) According to the definition, committed employees are more likely to stay in the organization than the uncommitted ones (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Employee commitment is an important aspect as according to Steers (1977), it is often a good predictor of employee turnover than is job satisfaction.

 

Organizational performance: 組織績效：

High performance work systems claim to increase organisational performance. It is crucial therefore to analyse whether or not these systems actually achieve the simple purpose they were devised to fulfil. There is a substantial and growing body of research which claims to show that enormous economic returns can be obtained through the implementation of HPWS (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). There are many indicators other than pure financial figures that indicate an increase in organisational performance (Huselid, 1995). One such indicator is the actual behaviour of employees, through the way they affect turnover and labour productivity (Huselid, 1995). Eliciting superior employee performance, which in turn increases organisational performance, comes from HPWS in the form of developing individuals to their â€?full‟ potential and motivating these individuals to apply their skills and abilities to their work-related activities (Way, 2002). This section will not delve into the issue of workforce turnover but will focus on the contentious issue of productivity. Way (2002) purports that HPWS result in an increase in labour productivity in small US firms. Further evidence comes from Delaney and Huselid (1996, p. 965), whereby it was concluded that, "the widely asserted assumption that people are the pre-eminent organizational resource and the#p#分頁標題#e#

 

labour productivity in small US firms. Further evidence comes from Delaney and Huselid (1996, p. 965), whereby it was concluded that, "the widely asserted assumption that people are the pre-eminent organizational resource and the key to achieving outstanding performance was indeed a credible observation." Thus the simple premise that HPWS improve organisational performance seems to be true. These brief results alone do not fully explain the degree to which HPWS create increased performance. The following sections will help to further answer this. The identification of HPWS adding value to an organisation through increasing performance is meaningless unless one has a grasp of exactly what the literature views as HPWS. According to Pfeffer (1996) high performance work systems embrace employment security and high wages as well as communication and involvement schemes. Furthermore, we would see HPWS incorporating some sort of combination of schemes to promote employee discretion and autonomy such as team work, quality circles or problem solving groups, systems of communication that allow for upward communication of employee suggestions as well as downward communication from management, and serious attention to developing employee skills (Edwards & Wright, 2001, p. 570). Proponents of the HPWS approach stress that its application will improve organisational performance (Ramsay et al., 2000; Harley, 2002; White et al., 2003). It was identified by Harley (2002), that there is consensus amongst researchers who have sought to demonstrate a link between HRM systems and organisational performance that the performance outcomes arise chiefly because the HRM practices improve employee orientations to work, which in turn makes them more productive. The causal path assumed by most proponents of HPWS is as follows (Edwards & Wright, 2001, p. 570). "Systems… are established; they influence workplace practice; employee attitudes change, with increased satisfaction or commitment; there is a consequent effect on behaviour; and this in turn feeds through to the performance of the work unit and eventually the company…" The assumption has been made by HPWS theoretical models that any performance gains are necessarily attributable to a positive impact on employees, chiefly through increased autonomy, satisfaction and commitment (Harley, 2002). Harley (2002, p. 421) states that two alternatives have been overlooked: (i) improved performance may be driven by factors other than HRM practice; and (ii) improved organisational performance may arise via negative outcomes for workers. Therefore, the following analysis will endeavour to identify whether employees reactions do indeed elicit increased autonomy, satisfaction and commitment. Commitment, binds the employees with the organisation, resulting in lower turn over rate (Meyer and Allen, 1997). However, Meyer and Allen (1997) argue that commitment of employees can prove to be of benefit in other ways as well. It can affect their on job behaviour rather than their willingness to stay or leave (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Redman and Snape (2005) also claim that the effectiveness of organisation will increase when employees will be more committed towards the firm as this leads to lower absence, turnover and leads to higher work effectiveness and organisational citizenship behaviour. Several studies also suggest that, employees with strong affective commitment will work harder at their jobs and perform better than those with lower levels of commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). In short, commitment is linked to performance, in a way that, when employees are commitment they tend to perform better at their job. However, according to some researchers commitment is not strongly related to performance Meyer and Allen (1997) present an argument that this could be due to a difference in the measures used to assess performance or due to differences in the characterization of commitment. For example, according to Meyer et al. (1989) cited by Meyer and Allen (1997) report negative correlations between continuance commitment and overall job performance whereas; Ashford and Saks (1996) report a positive link between, normative commitment and self-report measure of overall performance.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

HRM and Commitment 人力資源管理和承諾

According to researchers, HRM can improve the commitment of employees for the organisation. Ogilvie (1986), interviewed managers from an agriculture production company to determine their assessments of level of pay, fairness of the promotion system, fringe benefits and merit ratings and found that, HR policies of level of pay, promotion fairness and merit rating accuracy were co-related with commitment. According to Ogilvie (1986), perceptions of HRM practices contributes over and above context factors such as supervisor relations, participation in decision making, communication to describe differences in commitment. Actual promotion rate and service length were also found to be positively linked to commitment (Ogilvie, 1986). Employment security, performance based compensation and employee participation is some diverse practices included in the commitment HR bundle (MacDuffile, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998 cited by Chang, 2005). According to Chang (2005) by adopting these practices an organisation expresses its commitment towards the employees which in turn counter the commitment of employees towards the firm. Studies also show that these HR practices enhance firm performance and employee attitudes (Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995). According to Chang (2005) commitment practices adopted by the firm delivers a signal to employees that the company is concerned for the welfare of employees. Thus the employees evaluate the practices in a more positive way as it is based on the commitment HR philosophy which the employees perceived effective because, of participation in decision making, communication with supervisors, sharing of information may increase understanding and make the communication effective (Chang, 2005) .

 

Researches linking HRM, Performance and Commitment 人力資源管理、績效與承諾的研究

A large part of the literature is surrounded by debates from researchers who declare that HRM is the key area for an organisation in order to improve their performance. One of the important researches in this area is conducted by Huselid (1995), in a cross sectional study based on 968 public corporations in the US. Huselid (1995) made use of the Barney‟s resource-based theory of the firm and found that the use of HPWP such as, involvement programs, team-based work, enhanced training and development, forms of gain sharing, high wage reward systems and the internal fit with the organization leads to decreased employee‟s turnover and increased productivity resulting in an overall positive performance for all firms. This was also referred to as the â€?Universalistic approach‟. Following the study of Huselid (1995), Delaney and Huselid (1996) argue that the role of HRM is not just to tap employee knowledge and skills but also to motivate them towards organisational goals. In short, Employees feel that their needs are being met by using High Performance Work Systems through numerous ways and they are being provided with opportunities and benefits through this system and so they become more loyal and committed and perform better for the organization (Ramsey et al. 2000). According to Guest et al. (2003) the link between HRM and performance is based on two arguments. First is presented by Barney (1995) cited by Guest et al. (2003) of effective deployment, that HRM offers one of the most powerful bases of competitive and secondly effective deployment of HR depends on the unique set of practices, which is also defined as bundles or â€?best practices‟ or as HRM systems (Huselid, 1995). Delery and Doty (1996) cited by Wright et al. (2003) found that HR practices have a positive impact on profitability. Among the most noted studies in this field, is presented by Youndt et al. (1996) who uses the â€?human capital theory‟ according to which people have knowledge and skills which is of high economic value to the firm and a firm should invest in it, to make efficient use of it, he makes use of two indexes, reflecting two different bundles. The result findings report HR practices to be positively related to operational performance. Panayotopoulo and Papalaxendris (2004) base their research on the model described by, Cameron and Quinn (1999) (cited by Panayotopoulo and Papalaxendris, 2004) which has four elements, Human relations model (internal focus and flexibility), Open system model (flexibility and external focus), Internal process model (control and internal focus), Rational goal model (control and external focus), balancing the four models leads to an increase in performance. One of their interesting finding is that, the financial performance is least likely to be related to HRM and only in a negative way.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

The findings linking HRM and performance have been subject to criticisms, Purcell (1999) presents the argument of diffusion that, if HR is the core to competitive advantage then why many firms fail to understand the importance of HR and if the universalistic approach is true then there is a need to find the bundles and or HR policies, this rather leads us to a �CUL-DE-SAC‟ and ignores the internal changes in the organization. Marchington and Grugulis (2000) questions the problems associated with the methodologies used and data sets and regards them as �inter alia‟, problems in choosing the right measures of performance. Marchington and Grugulis (2000) made use of the bundle provided by Pfeffer (1998), such as employment security, selective hiring, self-managed teams, high compensation contingent on organizational performance, extensive training, reduction of status differences and sharing information. According to Guest (1992) cited by Marchington and Grugulis (2000) �these ideas might be right enough to be dangerously wrong‟. Ramsey et al. (2000) test �the linkages from HPWS to employee outcomes and hence to organizational performance‟ which was untested previously. They share their version of Labor Process (LP) approach with Braverman‟s (1974) version of LP theory, that in order to increase the labor output, managers constantly look for ways to make employees work for longer hours or work harder. They focus their attention on employee outcomes, in their research they take 24 HPWS practices and then test their results. They confirm the relationship of HPWS-style practices and a number of measures of workplace performance. But they regard the assumption �HPWS through employees to organizational performance questionable‟. Guest et al. (2003) carried out a research study on manufacturing and service firms, the result findings suggest that, greater use of HR practices can lower labor turnover and increase profitability but relationship between HR and productivity was absent. The link between HR and performance was higher in manufacturing firms than in service firms. One of the reasons being explained was that some of them were large multinationals. This study failed to form a positive link with HR practices associated with a change in performance.In the literature, HPWS do not influence firm performance directly but through a chain of different variables (Sels et al. 2006). Although the literature differs in the level of outcomes, but HPWP has direct impact on satisfaction, commitment, behaviours and performance (Sels et al. 2006). According to Ramsay et al. (2000) there is room for differences in literature regarding HPWS.

 

HPWS practices Commitment Organisational Performance ( Adopted from: Ramsey et al. (2000) p.506)

 

According to the model illustrated above, HPWS leads to commitment of employees which in turn affects organisational performance. For the proposed research project, it is suggested that the commitment of employees will be studied using the same model but in the absence of HPWS practices or HRM and conduct the same study in a firm in the presence of HR and HPWS practices and compare their results.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Key challenges for organizations in the future probably have to be more efficient while searching for competitive advantage. It is constantly highlighted that organizations best equipped to cop this challenge will be the ones that can attain and develop valuable, scarce and unique resources (Barney 1995). Human resource comes under this category, it is debated, particularly if they effectively deployed through fitting HR practices and the effective management of organizational culture (Barney and Wright 1998).

 

It has become a broadly held argument that people offer organizations with a significant source of sustainable competitive advantage (Prahalad, 1983; Pfeffer, 1994; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994) and the efficient management of human potentials, not physical capital, may be the eventual determinant of organizational performance (cf. Adler, 1988; Reich, 1991).

 

If optimal organizational performance is to be achieved, Supporting HR systems and internal fit viewpoints are mandatory, Arthur (1992, 1994) establish that HR practices intended towards enhancing employee commitment such as decentralized decision making, ample training, rewarded compensation, employee participation were associated with higher performance. On the contrary, he also found that HR practices emphasizing on control, ruthless efficiency, and above all the reduction of worker skills and discretion were linked with increased turnover and poorer performance. Similarly during studies of HPWP (high performance work practices), Huselid (1995) establish that investing in HR activities such as incentive based compensation, selective recruiting techniques, and employee involvement resulted in minor turnover, greater productivity, and improved organizational outcomes through virtues of their affect on employee skill enhancement and motivation.

 

If we have to advance our understanding of the significance of HRM on performance, we require a theory about HRM, a theory regarding performance and subsequently a theory about how they are associated (Guest 1997, 263).

 

During the last decade, evidence has gathered demonstrating an encouraging Link between Human Resource Management (HRM) and organizational Performance (Arthur 1994; Huselid 1995; Becker and Gerhard 1996). To a large degree such evidence advocates the common sense belief that improving people management certainly yields enhanced firm performance (Truss 2001, p. 1124).

 

The dominant approach linking HRM and performance has considered HRM as best set of practices (Huselid 1995; Delaney and Huselid 1996). Such practices are renowned as 'high performance', 'high commitment', or 'high involvement' practices as they are perceived to discharge untapped reserves of 'human Resourcefulness' by enhancing employee commitment, participation and Involvement (Blyton and Turnbull 1992, p. 4).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Deployment of high performance work practices should lead to positive outcomes for all types of organizations (Huselid 1995, p. 644); and evident adopting these innovative practices is related with more effective organizational outcomes (Thompson 1998, p. 40). This perception is based on normative theories of HRM in which it is anticipated that 'appropriate' HRM practices lead to

 

Improved employee motivation and commitment. Arthur (1994) and others (Walton 1985; Iles et al. 1990) advocate that 'high commitment' HR systems figure employee behaviors and attitudes by developing 'psychological Links' among organizational and employee goals. Arthur argues that managers by means of 'high commitment' HRM practices are basically endeavoring To develop committed employees trusted to use their discretion To perform job tasks in ways that are consistent with organizational goals (1994, p. 672). Likewise, Huselid (1995), Delaney and Huselid (1996) and Guest (1997) propose that managers should focus on those practices that

 

Tap worker motivation and direct individual behavior towards the Achievement of organizational goals.

 

It is therefore crucial to investigate not only what practices are being implemented, but also how they are enacted by line management and the HR department, and how they are acknowledged by employees (Truss, 2001). The question of how firm performance should be measured is also vital to this Discussion. Much research in this field adopts a shareholder perspective, focusing on

 

Output or financial performance indicators such as return on investment, assets or Equity (Arthur 1994; Huselid, 1995). These studies do not reflect on the impact of HRM on other stakeholders such as employees, trade unions and the public (Paauwe, 2004).

 

A balanced scorecard approach has been proposed to answer this development to gather financial, Customer and employee indicators of firm performance (Becker et at, 2001). Generally

 

Speaking, adopting only financial measures of success is acknowledged as limiting and more Subject to time-lag factors, while the balance scorecard approach is more instant and

 

Useful (Truss, 2001).

 

Role of HR department 人力資源部的角色

 

The extensively cited Ulrich (1997) typology is a useful starting point. The typology defines

 

People and process aspects of HR roles, and operational and strategic actions. The major Part of the corporate HR department role is the 'administrative expert', which is process orientated with a day-to-day, operational focus, based on the supervision of the firm Infrastructure. The role contrasts with other process-orientated role, 'strategic partner', which is future-focused, based on the tactical management of people and aligning HRM Strategy with business strategy. The operationally focused, people-orientated role of 'employee champion', in which HR is liable for listening and responding to employees, contrasts with the people-orientated intentional role of 'change agent', which Focuses on managing organizational transformation and change.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Connecting HR roles with organizational performance, Ulrich's (1997) model suggests that

 

All four roles should be carried out simultaneously to enhance organizational performance.

 

Though, this is a prescriptive model and currently a scarcity of empirical Evidence of how these roles are carried out (Truss et al, 2002). In his framework, Ulrich (1997) sets out a vision of a smooth, collaborative partnership between lines Managers, senior executives and the HR department. A pluralist point of view of competing Stakeholder groups, not all of whom are unified behind the corporate aim of increased Competitive advantage is not considered.

 

The last decade of empirical studies on the additional significance of HRM, also termed as the HRM and performance linkage, demonstrates facts that HRM does matter (Huselid, 1995; Wright et al, 2003). Unfortunately the interactions among them are often statistically not strong and the results uncertain.

 

How the employee perceives HR practices and whether those perceptions support values and goals of the organization. This kind of fit is known as person-organization fit, which Kristof (1996) defines as the compatibility among workforce and organizations which occurs when: (a) at least one unit provides what the other desires, or (b) they Share similar primary distinctiveness, or (c) both. Many authors in the field of HRM and performance put great emphasis on the importance of including employee's perceptions. As Van den Berg and colleagues note (1999: 302), 'an organization might have plenty of written policies regarding HRM and top management might consider it is practiced, but these policies and beliefs are worthless until the individual perceives them as something significant to her or his organizational "wellbeing"'. Wright and Boswell (2002: 263) also observe that while measuring HRM it is imperative to distinguish between policies and practices. The former are the organization's declared Intentions regarding its diverse 'employee management activities', whereas the latter

 

Are the real, functioning, evident activities, as experienced by employees? This is

 

Yet another appeal to give more thought to workers' perceptions and the magnitude of

 

Person-organization fit.

 

looking more closely on conceptualization and operationalization of under taken HR practices Or adopted systems of practices, we detect little or no attention paid to the extent of coverage Of HRM differentiation among employee groups and the percentage of employees sheltered by the practices and the concentration of HRM in terms of daily, Weekly, monthly or yearly interventions. Most of previous studies relied on simplistic Scales focusing on the execution (or lack of) of a specific practice (Guest et al, 2003) furthermore certain type of scale that is perceived to measure the deviation with which the sample Group has to do with a particular practice (Huselid, 1995).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Making it complicated, Wright and Nishii (2004) presented a compelling argument in order to distinguish between intended HR practices by top management designed on a Strategic stage, actual or executed HR practices which has to be executed by direct supervisor and apparent HR practices expected by the Employees. The bulk of previous research on HRM and performance appears to center on intended HR practices articulated at the strategic level of the firm. Very little is known about the actual performance or implementation of HR practices and Employees' sensitivity of them. Profit is the most frequent, followed by different measures for sales. This is quite tricky as financial indicators are being inclined by a whole range of factors which have nothing to do with workforce and their related skills or human Capital. As noted earlier by Kanfer (1994) and Guest (1997) the gap between few of the performance indicators like profits or market value and HR interventions are simply too large and potentially related to other business initiatives such as research and development activities and marketing strategies. Possessing smart policies for managing working capital can augment earnings substantially, but have no relation with the proclaimed effect of HR practices other than deploying selected treasury manager. Use of such indicators becomes even more severe when taking a deeper look on analysis performed by Wright et al as summarized by Wright and Haggerty (2005).

 

In earlier years scholars have given a great deal of consideration to establish the linkage between HR practices and firm productivity. Taking research data to date into consideration it is evident that the HR system is one significant constituent that can aid organizations become more efficient and attains competitive advantage (Becker & Hustled, 1998).

 

An approach taking strategic perspective on HRM into consideration, reflecting on different discussion in literature (Ferris et al., 1999). In another strategic based approach scholars have evaluated the particular fit relating various HRM practices executed and the competitive strategy of organization (Miles & Snow, 1994). Embedded in this study is the concept that organizations should horizontally align their diverse HRM practices in the direction of their strategic goal and that practices must harmonize to achieve the firm's business strategy (Wright & Snell, 1991). The guiding judgment is that a firm's HRM practices have to widen employees' skills, knowledge, and motivation so that employees perform in ways that are helpful for the implementation of a specific strategy. Likewise researchers also had taken a contingency perception, with the assumption that success of any HR system relies on contextual factors such as industry, firm size, or mechanized policies (Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996).

 

Associated approach within the strategic viewpoint on HRM highlights the appropriateness how the large set of HRM practices is usually responsible for firm productivity and competitive edge (Ferris et al., 1999). Essential here is the resource based perspective (Barney, 1991) such that, collectively a firm's HR supposed to have inference on firm performance hence providing an exclusive source of competitive advantage that is complicated to copy (Wright et al., 1994). The principle objective is that HRM practices are socially complex and related in ways which make them difficult for competitors to replicate (Boxall, 1996). The complications of HR value creation process provide HRM with a foundation of competitive advantage that is rare, unique, and nonsubstitutable (Barney, 1991).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

HRM organizational performance relationship, practices, designed systems and strategic perspectives formulate how HRM practices and their persuasion on employee attributes which lead to preferred outputs on firm level like productivity, improved financial performance and competitive edge. Still leaving unreciprocated the processes by which this takes place. Even though both perspectives take a macro approach, they presume implicit, multilevel relationships between HRM practices, individual employee capabilities, and organizational outputs (Huselid, 1995; Wright et al., 1994).

 

The core assumption is that HRM practices pilot employee skills, knowledge and abilities (KSAs) that enhance firm performance at the cooperative level (Schuler & lackson, 1995). Moreover, there exist practices which concentrate on higher order socially interactive architectures. Ferris and his colleagues (1998) refer social context theory examine out looks of the affiliation between HRM and performance. By higher order it meant social architectures that cannot be lessened to an aggregation of the perspectives of the individuals currently constituting the organization.

 

HRM environment is a fitting construct for constructing our framework, based on the recent attention on climates around long run objectives that are supposed to enhance effectiveness (Schneider, 2000). Psychological climate is an experiential based sensitivity of what people see and account happening to them since they make logic of their environment (Schneider, 1990, 2000). This sense making is relative to the goals that organization pursues like how the workforce should carry out their operational tasks, the management techniques under which employees perform, and the expectation of behaviors that management expects from them, appreciate, and rewards (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).

 

Organizational setting is a shared view point that what the organization is all about in terms of practices, policies, actions, routines, and rewards? What is imperative and what behaviors are expected and rewarded (Schneider, 2000) and is based on shared perceptions between employees within formal organizational units.

 

There is extensive support among those involved in strategic HRM for the impression that

 

How a firm manages its workforce affects its performance. This idea is strongly reflected

 

In the high performance human resource management (HPHR) debate where the outcome of HR is assumed to impact positively at the employee level (Batt, 2002).

 

The worker level in turn is well thought-out to be an important mediator of the relationship between the system and corporate performance or between the system and company manufacture level outcomes ( Horgan, 2003). While explaining the phenomena, there is extensive consensus for the idea that the main benefits come from using an articulated bundle of HR dimensions (Huselid, 1995). A core assumption of this literature is that the track of causality of human resource management runs through employee performance and consequently on to corporate#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Performance. The most instant effects of human resource management the Effects on employee performance are, however, rarely studied.

 

A core hypothesis applied in this study is based on the accepted view that the focus of a

 

HR system should be to improve employees' training, skills and Knowledge, to excite their motivation and supply opportunities for discretionary Effort (Appelbaum et al., 2000) as well as to institute work norms that sustain trust and cooperation in the firm. It is generally established that HRM help firms improve organizational behavior in such Areas as staff commitment, capability and flexibility, which leads to enhanced Staff performance (Koch and McGrath, 1996). Indeed claims about the impact of HRM On organizational performance are frequent in theoretical debate of HRM (Guest, 1997)

 

Relationship between HRM and performance specify that high commitment and high involvement HRM practices have a encouraging impact on firm performance ( Bartel, 2004)

 

It is practically impossible to come across a business periodical or newspaper wherever in the World without observing stories detailing about the accomplishment of a firm is due to how successfully it manages its workforce (Schuler, 2000). consequently, it is imperative for a company to Implement HRM practices that get the best out of its employees. Investments in HRM Practices can considerably assist a firm in improving performance (Fey and Bjo¨rkman, 2001).

 

Support of the impact of HRM on performance is quite appealing. Recent studies

 

Fabricate evidence that the efficient management of people results in better organizational

 

Performance. A study by Ahmad and Schroeder (2003) point out that HRM practices have noteworthy impact on employee turnover and operational performance of firms. Likewise, the research by Bjo¨rkman and Xiucheng (2002) on HRM and performance of Western firms in China and Bartel (2000) on branch operations of Canadian banks found a positive relationship between HRM systems and organizational outcomes. These studies propose that firms with effective HRM show significant improvement.

 

HRM practices such as extensive training, employee development, and reward Systems, accurate recruitment and selection processes, have been found to have a positive Relationship with firm performance (Bartel, 1994) HRM activities can control an Organization's performance through enhancement of employees' skills and quality in Selection, training and through the boost of employee motivation like incentive Compensation. study has shown that investment in HRM practices that aim at the staffing, development and motivation of the employees of the organization may create human assets that are valuable and rare (Becker and Huselid, 1998).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Hiltrop (1996) also argued that hiring competent employees and developing them through useful human resource practices, underpins organizational capability.

 

Explaining variations in performance is one of the more lasting themes in the study of

 

Organizations (March and Sutton, 1997). The claim that firms can realize performance

 

Improvements by implementing effective HRM practices have received much attention.

 

perhaps, the impact of HRM practices on performance has become the leading Research issue in the field (Guest, 1997). As a result, an abundance of studies have Sought to clarify the connection between HRM practices and performance (Horgan and Mu¨hlau, 2002).

 

A widespread research carried out for high-performance work systems (HPWS) as a means to optimally manage human resources toward realizing the business tactic and maximizing firm performance (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Combs, Liu, Hall & Ketchen, 2006). HPWS have been described as a coherent set of HRM practices including selective hiring, promotion from within, extensive training, performance evaluation, employee involvement, information sharing, teamwork and broad job design and have repeatedly been shown to relate positively with firm performance (Combs et al., 2006; Subramony, 2009). Furthermore, a growing amount of studies has started to examine the mechanisms that trigger the relationship between HPWS and firm performance (Chuang & Liao, 2010; Gittell, Seidner & Wimbush, 2010; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang & Takeuchi, 2007).

 

HPWS have been described to function by enhancing employee knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA's), motivation and effort which, in turn, are anticipated to lead to high productivity, low turnover, and, ultimately, superior firm performance (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000; Becker, Huselid, Pickus & Spratt, 1997).

 

Some scholars have measured the large causal distance between HRM practices and firm performance, tricky and have criticized firm level performance measures for being far detached from the local settings in which HRM practices are implemented (MacDuffie, 1995; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). As an effect, within firm business unit level studies have started to explore associations between HPWS and more proximal outcomes, such as business unit productivity and business unit service performance (Liao & Chuang, 2004; Wright, Gardner & Moynihan, 2003).

 

Strategic HRM research has characteristically evidenced the existence of a positive relationship between HPWS and organizational performance at the level of the firm (e.g., Combs et al., 2006; Guthrie, Flood, Liu & MacCurtain, 2009). As renowned earlier, more recently, actual implementation of HPWS within the firm has started to acquire attention. The awareness that there may be a gap between intended HRM policies and actual HRM practices (Wright & Nishii, 2006, p. 11) has led strategic HRM scholars to stress the need to investigate the role that first line managers play in the implementation of HPWS (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Scholars have reported on the crucial role that direct supervisors play in performance management systems, as they are charged with setting performance objectives, undertaking the performance appraisal, and giving performance feedback (den Hartog, Boselie & Paauwe, 2004). With consideration to training, research has revealed that direct supervisors are involved in identifying training needs, deciding who should be trained and creating a supportive environment for training transfer (Noe, 2007). In addition important responsibilities with respect to internal career succession and career development are vested with direct supervisors. Because of their repeated interaction with employees, direct supervisors can stay in touch with employee development and career aspirations and have a precise perception of employee performance and potential in light of internal promotions (Yarnall, 1998). Furthermore, direct supervisors are central to employee involvement, as they are the primary representatives of the organization to whom employees can voice and communicate their ideas, suggestions and concerns (Detert & Burris, 2007).

 

Relationships between HPWS, human capital, and performance have been examined at diverse levels of analysis. At the firm level of analysis, Yang & Lin (2009) establish that human capital mediates between numerous HRM techniques such as recruitment, selection, training and development, and health and safety) and organizational performance. At the institution level, Takeuchi et al. (2007) found that combined human capital mediates between HPWS and establishment performance. Finally, at the individual level of analysis, Liao and her colleagues found that individual employee human capital mediates between employee perceptions of HPWS and individual tune-up performance (Liao, Toya, Lepak & Hong, 2009).

 

High commitment management given recognized theoretical expression through the concept of human resource management (HRM) emphasizes the importance of all organizational members. mainly by outlook of resource based HRM, cutthroat advantage is derived not from the formal organization and shaping of work but the constituent workforce through Both well designed flexibility and commitment to organizational business plans and goals (Beardwell, 2001, p. 12).

 

Danford et al.'s (2004) concept of high performance work systems implies a specifically mechanistic method limiting the function of human agency. Similarly Harmon et al.'s (2003) terminology of high involvement work systems is receptive to the dimension of work organization, capturing the need for there to be improved scope for employee's decision making, exercise discretion and mobilize tacit knowledge, but again corresponding HR issues must be covered. Conversely, the expression high commitment organization (Whitfield and Poole, 1997)

 

As observed by Hollingsworth and Boyer (1997, p. 2) the chief institutional architectures or social system of production containing industrial relations system, the methods of training of workforce and managers, the inner structure of corporate firms, the ordered relationship among firms operating in same industry and their suppliers, existing financial markets local society and the architecture of the state and its pertaining policies.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Thompson (2003) the key to the successful execution of HPM is inter dependent. Which in return of employee partaking in the micro management of work and extended obligations, employers therefore must undertake commitment and trust building actions in the employment relationship? The term is for persisting investments in human capital during training, better career paths job permanence, efficiency and skill based reward procedures.

 

There is no unanimous agreed meaning for the term high performance work system (HPWS) due to its broad and varied usage (Boxall and Macky 2009). Regardless of this a HPWS can be described as a particular combination of HRM practices, work structures and processes which make the most of employee knowledge, skills, commitment and flexibility (Nadler et al, 1997).

 

Appelbaum et al (2000) describe the essential feature of HPWS as organizing the work process so that non managerial employees have the prospect to contribute discretionary effort. The HPWS emphasizes decentralization of the gathering and processing of information to non managerial employees, enabling problem solving and decision making at the location closest to the problem the principle of subsidiary. It is the execution of this principle, rather than the specific arrangements regarding what type of medium that the behavior takes place in that is important. Key features of HRM bundles are usually thought to include team working, job flexibility, the Extensive use of communication and diverse employee involvement initiatives

 

(Godard and Delaney, 2000).

 

MacDuffie (1995) highlighted the significance of bundles of employment practices by

 

Showing that car assembly plants that combined teamwork, job rotation and employee participation had higher levels of labor productivity and lower levels of product defects.

 

Subramony (2009) provides a Meta analysis of the impact of HRM bundles on firm performance, investigating the impact of three distinct bundles empowerment, motivation, and skill-enhancing on business outcomes including employee retention, operating performance, financial performance and overall performance ratings. The analysis shows that HRM bundles have magnitudes of effect considerably larger than the individual practice components which constitute the bundles.

 

Though there are multiple theoretical perspectives underpinning this research (Guest, 1997; Fleetwood and Hesketh, 2008 for metaphors of the range of perspectives the central focus has been on exploring the role of workforce as a source of competitive advantage, and developing explanatory models of the management practices and new forms of work organization that are related with higher performance levels in the firm (Boselie et al 2009)

 

The study by Appelbaum et al (2000) took a complete multi-method approach to investigating the effects of HPWS on firm's competitive advantage in 44 plants across three industries steel, apparel and medical electronics and imaging. Their study particularly explored how firms with wide ranging use of HPWS reduce costs, improve plant performance and improve employee outcomes. Their multi-level research plan included site visits, observational studies, and extensive interviews with managers, union representatives and staff, together With data in relation to plant performance and a survey of more than 4000 workers. The evidence showed that companies were more flourishing when managers shared knowledge and power with front-line workers and where workers assumed increased responsibility and autonomy.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Combs et al (2006) conclude from their analysis of 92 studies that account statistical findings that there is a general effect by HRM on performance. Wall and Wood (2005) find that 19 of 25 studies they reviewed report some statistically positive relationship between HRM and performance measures, while six failed to find any such relationship. A minority of studies based on statistical analysis find no relationship or a negative association (Wood, 1999; Capelli and Neumark, 2001). Yet, despite the inclination of research to support the existence of an HRM - performance link, there is little agreement about the theoretical basis for these findings.

 

Becker and Huselid (2006) argue that, while HRM research can clarify what HR practices and HPWS systems produce value, the underlying theory remains deficient as it has yet to articulate the mechanisms by which an organization's human resources are a basis of competitive advantage. They posit that the black box problem could be explained in terms of the role of HRM in implementing firm strategy and that more consideration should be paid to the black box between HR structural design and firm performance, and less emphasis on the black box within HR architecture.

 

Guthrie et al (2009) And Boselie et al (2009) argue that the HRM performance literature has tended to result in the marginalization of certain research concerns about employee participation as it impacts on firm performance. Wood and Wall (2007) criticize the fact that, despite their centrality to concepts of high involvement and high commitment management, systems

 

For employee involvement, work enrichment and voice have been deemphasized or indeed overlooked in much of the work.

 

Black and Lynch (2004) propose that the marked improvements in productivity growth in the US economy from the latter half of the 1990s through to early 2003 can be somewhat explained by changes in workplace organization including the increased adoption of technology and the

 

Increased adoption of participative work processes, whereby an increasing number of non-managerial workers are involved in problem solving and innovation. They find that employee voice has a larger positive effect on productivity.

 

Boselie et al (2009) highlight some primary theoretical and cultural tensions that underlie the research literature regarding the HRM performance link. They distinguish these tensions in terms of a unitarist versus pluralist perspective on the role of employees in firm competitiveness. The unitarist approach considers competitiveness and high performance primarily from the perspective of employer and shareholder value, while the pluralist approach

 

Considers a broader stakeholder perspective that also includes employee value. Boselie et al advocate that the bulk of HRM research is built on the unitarist viewpoint, but that a more balanced HRM approach takes into thought both the economic and the human side of organizing.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Contingency variables, for example company size, company age, technology, degree of

 

Unionization, industrial sector, ownership (Paauwe, 2004) restrained the effect of the independent variable (HPWS or HRM bundles) on the dependent variable (firm performance). Put another way, the contingency approach allows for potentially complex relations between variables, and allows researchers to explore the HRM performance link with view to the differing environments and contexts in which firms operate.

 

Datta et al. (2005) establish in addition to commonly positive effects of HPWS practices on

 

Productivity, significant effects associated with industry characteristics on labor productivity.

 

Sung and Ashton (2005) found confirmation of contingency effects on the implementation of HPWS bundles, whereby firms adopted different bundles of HPWS practices depending on the industry sector they were operating in.

 

There is a growing sense that there is an unresolved deficit in terms of amplification the mechanisms by which HRM impacts on firm performance Gerhart (2005) describes the problem as the black box phenomenon. As the research community, HRM practitioners and policy-makers hunt for a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between HRM/HPWS and organizational performance, the research challenges become more considerable.

 

Martin-Alcazar et al (2005) describe the density of this field of research, and declare that, given that the human being is the central element of study, it requires multidisciplinary, multi-paradigmatic and multidimensional analytical frameworks. They advise a methodology for integrating the universalistic, contingency, configurational and contextual approaches to HRM research, which recognizes the strengths and limitations of each approach.

 

The literature reveals a significant level of dispute, and indeed lack of clarity, about the mechanisms behind this relationship. There is a number of contending theoretical perspectives through which to interpret the associations. A useful feature can be made between universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual perspectives a number of key factors emerge in the literature as potentially capable of moderating the connection between HPWS and

 

Innovation. These include organizational climate, R&D strategy, dynamic environment and country of ownership, and these factors provide the basis for hypotheses tested in this study.