One HRM Fits All? A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of HRM Practices in the Public, Semipublic, and Private Sector

• Author: S. Van Thiel,P. M. Kruyen,B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden,R. Blom
• Date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18773492
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

773492ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X18773492Review of Public Personnel AdministrationBlom et al.
research-article2018
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2020, Vol. 40(1) 3 –35
One HRM Fits All? A Meta-
© The Author(s) 2018
Analysis of the Effects of
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
HRM Practices in the Public, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18773492
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18773492
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Semipublic, and Private
Sector
R. Blom1 , P. M. Kruyen1,
B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden1,2,3, and S. Van Thiel1
Abstract
For a long time, public and semipublic organizations have borrowed Human Resource
Management (HRM) practices from the private sector to enhance employee
performance. Numerous scholars argue, however, that business-like practices
are less effective outside the private sector context because of sector-specific
conditions. Based on the ability–motivation–opportunity model, we performed a
three-level meta-analysis to investigate differences in effects of HRM practices on
individual performance across sectors. Our study shows that significant differences
exist between sectors, but the expectation that the effects of HRM practices are
largest in the private sector and smallest in the public sector is not supported. More
specifically, the differences between the public, semipublic, and private sector are not
straightforward. In this respect, we encourage future scholars to further examine
these differences.
Keywords
HRM practices, individual performance, meta-analysis, cross-sectoral comparison,
private, public, semipublic sector, public management
1Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands
3Kingston University, London, UK
Corresponding Author:
R. Blom, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 141, 6525 AJ
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Email: r.blom@fm.ru.nl

---

4
Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(1)
Practitioners in public and semipublic sector organizations are obsessed by the private
sector for inspiration on how to enhance employee performance (Pollit & Bouckaert,
2011; Shim, 2001). In particular, the rise of the New Public Management ideology in
the 1980s brought about a general feeling that adopting business-like practices stimu-
lates organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Alford & Hughes, 2008). Logically,
as business administration scholars have shown that the use of Human Resource
Management (HRM) practices—like performance-based compensation and merit-
based promotion—has a significant positive impact on business performance (Combs,
Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer,
2012), HRM practices became ideal candidates for adoption in the public and semi-
public sector as well (Gould-Williams, 2003; Truss, 2008).
Numerous scholars, however, have contested whether HRM practices demonstrate
similar beneficial effects in the public and semipublic sector in comparison with the
private sector (e.g., Brown, 2004; Burke, Noblet, & Cooper, 2013). In particular,
empirical studies have highlighted characteristics specific to the public and semipublic
sector that are likely to result in lower effects of HRM practices on individual perfor-
mance, including relatively higher levels of goal ambiguity, the presence of stricter
regulations compared with private sector organizations, and the specific work motiva-
tion of public sector workers (e.g., Brewer & Walker, 2013; Daley & Vasu, 2005). That
is to say, what works for business environments does not necessarily have to do so for
other types of working organizations.
The goal of this study is to systematically analyze whether the effects of HRM
practices on individual performance differ across the public, semipublic, and private
sector using a meta-analytical approach. In line with previous research, we classify
manufacturing and service organizations with a for-profit motive as private organiza-
tions, core government organizations as public organizations, and hybrid organiza-
tions containing both private and public elements (such as semiautonomous agencies,
hospitals, and universities) as semipublic organizations (e.g., Coursey & Rainey, 1990;
Lan & Rainey, 1992; Wittmer, 1991). To compare the effects of HRM practices across
these different types of sectors, we draw on the ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO)
model of individual performance (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000;
Boxall & Macky, 2009). According to the AMO model, to enhance individual perfor-
mance, HRM practices should be designed to stimulate an employee’s ability, motiva-
tion, and opportunity to perform.
Although a handful of studies has compared the impact of specific HRM practices
between private and public sector organizations (Stavrou, Charalambous, & Spiliotis,
2007; Vanhala & Stavrou, 2013), a systematic cross-sectoral comparison of the effects
of HRM practices has not been undertaken yet. In this respect, a meta-analysis is a
powerful approach to aggregate mixed findings from previous studies to estimate a
general effect. Moreover, meta-analyses are also able to generate results that go beyond
the scope of a single study. In our study, the main objective is to add to the debate on
the potential impact of contextual characteristics on the HRM–performance link (e.g.,
Boselie, 2010; Jiang et al., 2012; Paauwe, 2009; Teo & Rodwell, 2007; B. E. Wright,
2004). Also, this scholarly work is intended to provide evidence-based advice on how

---

Blom et al.
5
to enhance individual performance for management and HRM professionals in the
public and semipublic sector who look for inspiration in the private sector.
This article is structured as follows. First, we present our hypotheses on the rela-
tionship between HRM practices and individual performance taking sectoral differ-
ences into consideration. Second, we describe the methodology, that is, the process of
identification and selection of studies, the coding procedure, and the technical details
of the meta-analysis. Third, we present the outcomes of our meta-analysis. Finally, we
discuss the implications of our study and provide suggestions for future research.
Theory
AMO Model and Individual Performance
The AMO model focuses on the effects of HRM practices on performance at the indi-
vidual level of analysis (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005).
Previous literature has defined individual performance in terms of behaviors and
actions that have an impact on the organization’s goals and are under the control of the
individual (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; P. M. Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003).
These behaviors can be either positive or negative and are often differentiated between
in-role and extra-role performance. In-role performance—also referred to as task per-
formance or job-specific task proficiency (see the review by Koopmans et al., 2011,
for more specific information)—is defined as doing what one is hired to do. Extra-role
performance—also referred to as contextual performance or organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB; see Koopmans et al., 2011)—is defined as performance that goes
beyond the call of duty for the good of the organization.
Building on social exchange theory, the AMO model posits that if employees have
the ability, motivation, and opportunity to do their job, they will demonstrate increased
effort, which, in turn, will result in a higher performance. Employees make inferences
about the intentions of the organization by interpreting its practices (Boselie, 2010).
Based on these inferences, employees will feel the obligation to reciprocate with posi-
tive work attitudes and behaviors. HRM practices that are aimed to enhance employ-
ees’ abilities, motivation, and opportunities are thought to be viewed as beneficial by
these employees and provide them the incentives to perform (D. G. Allen, Shore, &
Griffeth, 2003; R. Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). The ability dimension
is defined as employees having the skills, knowledge, and abilities to perform.
Furthermore, the motivation dimension is defined as employees’ willingness and drive
to perform. Finally, the opportunity dimension refers to employees having the respon-
sibility, authority, and opportunity to solve problems and make decisions (Appelbaum
et al., 2000).
Following the AMO model, HRM practices can be classified into ability-enhanc-
ing, motivation-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing practices (Lepak, Liao, Chung,
& Harden, 2006). Ability-enhancing HRM practices focus on increasing employee
knowledge, skills, and abilities. Examples include sensitive selection and comprehen-
sive training. Motivation-enhancing practices aim to increase employee motivation

---

6
Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(1)
and include practices such as contingent rewards, performance management, and
internal promotion opportunities. Opportunity-enhancing practices focus on employee
participation and empowerment and typical examples are direct participation, job
design, and team working.
Although previous research has demonstrated positive effects of all three types of
HRM practices in the light of employee performance, differences in effects depending
upon the type of HRM practices are to be expected (e.g., Boselie, 2010; Gardner,
Wright, & Moynihan, 2011; Jiang et al., 2012; Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, & Gould-
Williams, 2011; Mostafa & Gould-Williams, 2014). For...