Negative and positive synergies: On employee development practices, motivational climate, and employee outcomes

• Date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Bård Kuvaas,Christina G.L. Nerstad,Robert Buch,Anders Dysvik
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21904

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Negative and positive synergies: On employee development

practices, motivational climate, and employee outcomes

Christina G.L. Nerstad

1

| Anders Dysvik

1

| Bård Kuvaas

1

| Robert Buch

2

1

Department of Leadership and Organizational

Behavior, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo,

Norway

2

Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet),

Faculty of Social Sciences, Oslo Business

School, Postboks 4, St. Olavs plass, Oslo,

Norway

Correspondence

Christina G. L. Nerstad, Department of

Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI

Norwegian Business School, N-0442 Oslo,

Norway.

Email: christina.nerstad@bi.no

While previous studies have increased our knowledge of how employees’perceptions of devel-

opment practices influence employee outcomes, the role of potential contingencies in this rela-

tionship remains relatively unexplored. In the present study, we set out to contribute to this

research by exploring whether congruence or lack of congruence between perceived employee

development practices and the perceived motivational climate at work influence employee per-

formance and turnover intention. A field study among 169 employees from a Norwegian finan-

cial organization revealed that lack of congruence may be detrimental in terms of work

performance and turnover intention. Implications for practice and future research are

discussed.

KEYWORDS

employee development practices, motivational climate, turnover intention, work performance

1|INTRODUCTION

Providing developmental opportunities is regarded as an effective

way to increase employees’performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).

According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees who

perceive that their organization invests in them by providing develop-

ment and career opportunities respond in kind by feeling obligated to

reciprocate the benefits provided (Chay & Aryee, 1999; Pajo,

Coetzer, & Guenole, 2010; Tansky & Cohen, 2001). Such a reciproca-

tion results in beneficial employee outcomes such as increased work

performance and decreased turnover intention (Kraimer, Seibert,

Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011; Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009, 2010a).

While prior research has provided important insights into the

relationship between employees’perceptions of development prac-

tices and employee outcomes, the role of contextual influences on

this relationship remains relatively unexplored (Kraimer et al., 2011;

Maurer & Lippstreu, 2006). In particular, calls have been made for

research on the outcomes of the extent to which employee percep-

tions of human resource (HR) practices are aligned with contextual

factors (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Kuvaas, 2008; McClean & Collins,

2011b). This may be particularly important when employees perceive

misalignment between HR practices and what is emphasized through

the expressed work climate in the organization (Bowen & Ostroff,

2004). Accordingly, a lack of attention to contextual contingencies in

prior research on the impact of perceived HR practices may have

caused researchers to either under- or overestimate the influence of

developmental HR on employee outcomes (Kraimer et al., 2011;

McClean & Collins, 2011b).

We seek to extend this area of research by exploring whether

incongruence between developmental practices and both favorable

conditions (i.e., mastery climate) and potentially unfavorable condi-

tions (i.e., performance climate) may negatively influence the relation-

ship between developmental HR practices and employee outcomes.

Specifically, we investigate whether the relationship among perceived

employee development practices (PEDPs), work performance, and

turnover intention is moderated by mastery and performance

climate(s). We define PEDPs as employees’perceptions that the orga-

nization facilitates practices and opportunities that support employee

development in terms of long-term personal and professional growth

(Kraimer et al., 2011; Tansky & Cohen, 2001). A mastery climate

refers to work situations wherein success is defined based on learn-

ing, growth, and effort, while a performance climate refers to work

situations that define success based on social comparison and norma-

tive ability (Ames, 1992). According to the achievement goal theory

(AGT; Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1989), these climates are referred to as

the perceived motivational climate. Mastery and performance cli-

mates may even exist simultaneously, and given their different value

orientations, mastery and performance climates are likely to either

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21904

Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:1285–1302. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1285

enhance or inhibit the relationship between perceived HR practices

and employee outcomes (cf. Ames, 1992).

Because we cannot expect all employees to interpret HR prac-

tices similarly, the importance of exploring employees’perceptions of

HR practices at the micro level remains uncontested (Nishii, Lepak, &

Schneider, 2008). We relate these perceptions to employee work per-

formance because it is considered essential for HRM researchers to

predict and understand work performance (O'Boyle & Aguinis, 2012).

Furthermore, turnover is a costly affair for organizations, and it is

expected to increase as turnover intention increases (Lee & Bruvold,

2003). Turnover intention is regarded as the most immediate and

direct cognitive predictor of obvious behavior (Lee & Bruvold, 2003;

Steel & Ovalle, 1984) and thus represents “the single best predictor

of turnover”(Steel & Ovalle, 1984, p. 673).

We intend to contribute theoretically to the literature that

acknowledges the importance of congruence between perceived HR

practices and organizational contexts (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Krai-

mer et al., 2011; Kuvaas, 2008) and focus specifically on the motiva-

tional climate. Such a climate represents a particularly relevant

contextual influence because it sends clear messages about what is

valued in the organization (cf. Kopleman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990;

Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). These messages may shape employee work

behavior and attitudes (cf. Parker et al., 2003). Accordingly, work rep-

resents an achievement context in which the motivational climate has

been shown to predict outcomes such as work engagement, turnover

intention, incivility, work performance, and creativity (Birkeland &

Nerstad, 2016; Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014; Nerstad,

Roberts, & Richardsen, 2013).

We also intend to make a practical contribution to the field of

HRM by informing organizations and managers of important contex-

tual influences on the relationship between perceived HR practices

and employee outcomes that could potentially distort the positive

influences of developmental HR practices.

2|THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND

HYPOTHESES

2.1 |Perceived employee development HR

practices, work performance, and turnover intention

PEDPs include aspects such as training, skill enhancement/develop-

ment, and career development opportunities (Tansky & Cohen,

2001). Developmental opportunities are typically valued by

employees (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005) because the employees are

provided with new skills, knowledge, and professional growth, giving

them the opportunity to develop and, in turn, perform more effec-

tively and remain in the organization (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008;

Kraimer et al., 2011; Tansky & Cohen, 2001). By providing such ben-

efits, organizations are likely to promote employees’positive mind-

set toward the organization (Maurer & Lippstreu, 2006).

In this study, we focus on work performance (i.e., work effort

and work quality) and turnover intention as outcomes. In line with

social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), perception of the availability of

developmental practices may increase work performance. Consistent

with the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), when employees per-

ceive the availability of developmental practices that they believe are

of value to them, they are likely to reciprocate or repay the organiza-

tion through behaviors such as working hard and delivering high-

quality work (Brandes, Dharwadkar, & Wheatley, 2004). PEDPs are

also likely to facilitate conditions in which employees believe that

their employability is cared for and that their contribution is valued

by their organization (cf. Lee & Bruvold, 2003). Accordingly, they are

more likely to behaviorally reciprocate this exchange by increasing in-

role performance (Brandes et al., 2004; Lee & Bruvold, 2003). In line

with the norm of reciprocity, we thus expect the relationship

between PEDPs and work quality to be the same as the relationship

between PEDPs and work effort. Still, it should be noted that behav-

ioral reciprocity may depend on whether employees use the facili-

tated employee development practices.

1

As for turnover intention, it may be reasonable to expect that the

availability of PEDPs will decrease turnover intention. Decreased turn-

over intention may represent ways by which employees can recom-

pense their organization for supporting and caring for employees

(Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Because

employees feel obligated to “repay”those who have helped them

(Gouldner, 1960)—for example, when the organization facilitates

employee development practices—they are likely to do so by continu-

ing their employment. Consequently, they may be less likely to leave

the organization or to seek alternative employment (D. G. Allen,

Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). Consistent with this notion, Kraimer

et al. (2011) found that when employees perceive high levels of devel-

opmental support, the organization benefits in terms of increased

performance and lower turnover. In line with Blaus’s (1964) economic-

based theorizing, it is expected that forward-looking individuals act

based on anticipated rewards that benefit them, and they tend to

choose the course of action that benefits them (Cook & Rice, 2003).

However, employees may also look backward and value what has been

rewarding to them in the past, which in turn affects their actions

(Cook & Rice, 2003). PEDPs may develop greater employee obligation

toward the organization in that both forward-looking and backward-

looking employees become more willing to invest in increased effort,

deliver high-quality work, and continue their employment to increase

the organization’s effectiveness (D. G. Allen et al., 2003; Arthur, 1994;

Lee & Bruvold, 2003). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between

PEDPs and (a) work effort and (b) work quality.

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between

PEDPs and turnover intention.

2.2 |The moderating role of the perceived

motivational climate

There are reasons to expect that the associations among PEDPs,

work performance, and turnover intention depend on additional

1

We would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing this.

1286 NERSTAD ET AL.