Optimising human resource system strength in nurturing affective commitment: Do all meta‐features matter?

• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Author: Anna Bos‐Nehles,Edel Conway,Grace Fox
• Date: 01 April 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12320

Received: 16 July 2018

-

Revised: 9 August 2020

-

Accepted: 15 August 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12320

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimising human resource system strength in

nurturing affective commitment: Do all

meta‐features matter?

Anna Bos‐Nehles

1

|Edel Conway

2

|Grace Fox

2

1

Faculty of Behavioural, Management and

Social Sciences, University of Twente,

Enschede, The Netherlands

2

DCU Business School, Dublin City

University, Dublin, Ireland

Correspondence

Anna Bos‐Nehles, Faculty of Behavioural,

Management and Social Sciences, University

of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede,

The Netherlands.

Email: a.c.nehles@utwente.nl

Abstract

This study aims to examine three propositions of how hu-

man resource (HR) system strength meta‐features—

distinctiveness, consistency and consensus—operate

together to better understand how they relate to affective

commitment. We test a continuum proposition based on an

additive (the sum of all features) and a compensatory model

(the features as counteractive), a precursor proposition

based on a mediation model, and an equifinality proposition

based on a configurational model (distinguishing between

different profiles of the features). The findings, drawn from

a survey of 2844 part‐time employees from a Dutch home

care organisation, demonstrate that all three meta‐features

are important for generating HR management system

strength and affective commitment among employees, but

not to the same extent. We also find evidence that con-

sistency is positively and directly related, whereas distinc-

tiveness and consensus are positively and indirectly related

to affective commitment via consistency.

KEYWORDS

affective commitment, HR systems, HR system strength, part‐time

workers

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Authors. Human Resource Management Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hum Resour Manag J. 2021;31:493–513. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

-

493

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Since the seminal work of Bowen and Ostroff (2004), which identified the concept of human resource (HR) system

strength, research focussing on the process of sending signals to employees through HR systems (i.e., the mechanisms

that explain ‘how’ the system operates) has grown substantially. Our study builds on a growing body of research that

adopts a HR process over content approach to examine how HR system strength is related to outcomes (e.g., Alfes

et al., 2019; Cafferkey, Heffernan, Harney, Dundon, & Townsend, 2019; Farndale & Sanders, 2017). By doing so, we

follow the stance taken by Farndale and Sanders (2017), which is not ‘to deny the relevance of HR system content, as

this has been well‐established as important’ (p. 136), but instead to allow for a more thorough understanding of the

concept and operation of the features of HR system strength and their combination in influencing outcomes.

A strong HR system combines three meta‐features—distinctiveness, consistency and consensus—to develop a

shared interpretation among employees about which attitudes and behaviours are valued, expected and rewarded.

Distinctiveness refers to the extent to which employees perceive the HR system as visible, understandable, legitimate

and relevant. Consistency relates to the internally coherent implementation of HR practices over time, people and

context. Consensus refers to the extent to which there is agreement about what behaviours and responses lead to

desired outcomes.

The notion of HR system strength is largely rooted in attribution theory, which describes how people process

information to make attributions about a situation or event (Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Kelley, 1973). Inspired by

Kelley's (1973) covariation principle, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) determine that attributions about HR systems as

high in distinctiveness, consistency and consensus can create a ‘strong situation’ in which interpretations of the

Practitioner notes

What is currently known?

1. The process of how human resource (HR) messages are communicated is as important as the content

of HR practices

2. A HR system is strong when it is perceived as distinctive, consistent and consensual

3. The meta‐features of HR system strength can be combined through various combination models

What this paper adds?

1. An understanding of whether employees can be affectively committed to the organisation when they

perceive a weaker HR system and are managed by a ‘low‐road’ HR system based on a part‐time sample

in a home care organisation

2. An assessment of HR system strength as a continuum (from low to high levels of HR system strength),

where the presence of some meta‐features act as precursors for the development of other meta‐

features, and configurations of HR system strength that are equally effective for desired outcomes

based on tests of additive, compensatory, mediation and configurational models

The implications for practitioners

1. Organisations need to ensure that all three meta‐features are present in the design of and operation of

their HR systems, but it is consistency that leads to higher levels of affective commitment, whereas

distinctiveness and consensus are indirectly related to affective commitment via consistency.

2. Ensuring that HR systems are distinctive and consensual will lead to the development of consistency in

HR signals, which is needed for high levels of affective commitment.

494

-

BOS‐NEHLES ET AL.