The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between high‐performance work systems and employee outcomes

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Karina Van De Voorde,Susanne Beijer
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12062
• Date: 01 January 2015

The role of employee HR attributions in the

relationship between high-performance work

systems and employee outcomes

Karina Van De Voorde and Susanne Beijer, Department of Human Resource

Studies, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 1, 2015, pages 62–78

Although research has shown that the use of high-performance work systems (HPWS) is associated with

employee outcomes, our knowledge of the meanings employees attach to HPWS systems and how these

shape employee outcomes is still limited. This study examines the signalling impact of enacted HPWS

on HR well-being and HR performance attributions, and how these influence happiness- and

health-related outcomes. Using multilevel data (1,065 employees nested within 150 work units) obtained

from multiple sources (line managers and employees), our results show that coverage of HPWS was

positively associated with the two HR attributions. In addition, HR well-being attributions were

associated with higher levels of commitment and lower levels of job strain. HR performance attributions

were associated with higher levels of job strain. The findings of this study highlight the importance of

taking into account how employees attach meaning to enacted HPWS in order to predict employee

outcomes.

Contact: Karina Van De Voorde, Department of Human Resource Studies, School of Social and

Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, Warandelaan 2, Tilburg 5000 LE, the

Netherlands. Email: f.c.v.d.voorde@uvt.nl

Keywords: high-performance work systems; HR attributions; organisational commitment; job

strain; multi-level; multi-actor

INTRODUCTION

Starting in the late 1990s, there has been a growing interest in examining the effects of

high-performance work systems (HPWS) on employee attitudes and behaviours (e.g.

Appelbaum et al., 2000). Nevertheless, there is still considerable debate regarding the

precise nature of the relationship between HPWS and employee outcomes. While the

mainstream ‘optimistic’ perspective holds that HPWS have a positive effect on employee

outcomes, an alternative ‘pessimistic’ perspective posits that the adoption of HPWS has a

negative effect on employee outcomes (Peccei et al., 2013). Linked to this, while the evidence in

the area suggests that HPWS are mainly positively associated with happiness-related outcomes,

a limited body of empirical evidence also points to a negative association between HPWS and

employee health-related outcomes (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). More research is clearly needed

on the effects of HPWS on different types of work-related outcomes and, importantly, on the

processes that help to explain how HPWS influences happiness- and health-related outcomes.

As part of the attempt to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms through which

HPWS affect employee outcomes, there has been a growing focus on how employees attribute

meanings to the HPWS practices that are adopted in the organisation (e.g. Bowen and Ostroff,

2004; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Nishii and Wright, 2008). The central idea here is that

HPWS signal the organisations’ intentions and goals to employees including, in particular, (a)

the extent to which employees are seen as valuable resources and (b) the level of performance

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12062

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 201562

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Van De Voorde, K. and Beijer, S. (2015) ‘The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between

high-performance work systems and employee outcomes’. Human Resource Management Journal 25: 1, 62–78.

that is expected of them at work (Kroon et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2013). Particularly important

in this respect are employees’ attributions about management’s purpose in implementing given

practices, which in turn shape individuals’ outcomes (Nishii et al., 2008; Lepak et al., 2012).

Focusing on the two core HPWS signals identified above, this study examines the role of two

types of employee HR attributions, namely (a) that HPWS practices are motivated by a concern

for employees well-being and (b) that HPWS practices are motivated by maximising employee

performance.

This study is designed to contribute both theoretically and empirically to the literature by

examining the impact of HPWS on happiness- and health-related outcomes via the two types

of HR attributions. Specifically, the first novelty of this study is that we examine the mediating

role of HR attributions in the relationship between HPWS and employee outcomes in the

context of (HRM-specific) attribution theories (Kelley, 1967; Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Even

though HRM scholars have suggested that HPWS have an influence on employee outcomes via

employee interpretations of HRM (e.g. Nishii and Wright, 2008), there is still a limited

understanding of how employees attribute meanings to HPWS and how these meanings shape

employees’ outcomes. In particular, the HR attribution pathway has – to our knowledge – not

yet been examined in empirical research. Second, this study explicitly distinguishes two

conflicting perspectives (i.e. mainstream optimistic perspective and the critical pessimistic

perspective) on the effects of HPWS on happiness- and health-related outcomes. Previous

research has tended to investigate the former perspective, while the latter perspective and the

integration of both perspectives has received little attention in the extant literature (Peccei et al.,

2013).

The association between HPWS and employee HR attributions

HPWS comprise a group of separate but interconnected HR practices designed to enhance

employee and firm performance through enhancing employee skills, motivation and

opportunity to contribute (e.g. Appelbaum et al., 2000). While there is still no consensus on the

specific HPWS practices that should be included in measures of HPWS, recent reviews have

identified some common threads in the literature on HPWS (i.e. Gong et al., 2010; Posthuma

et al., 2013). The HPWS activities in the current study reflect the five HR activities that are

consistently identified in these two extant reviews of the literature and include selectivity in

hiring, employee development and career opportunities, rewards, performance evaluation, and

participation and communication. In line with previous research on the signalling effect of

HPWS (Kroon et al., 2009; Chuang and Liao, 2010; Jensen et al., 2013), we examine the combined

effect of HPWS practices on employee HR attributions and outcomes. In line with recent HRM

process models in which actual HPWS practices (enacted HPWS practices by line managers) are

theorised to influence employees’ interpretations of these practices, line manager reports of the

proportion of employees in their work unit covered by HPWS practices are included. This type

of measure provides an indication of the magnitude and spread of enacted HPWS activities in

a work unit (Gardner et al., 2011).

HPWS activities represent an important characteristic of the work environment and can be

viewed as important tools through which signals on what the organisation values and expects

from workers are send to employees (e.g. Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Drawing on the notion of

sense-making (Weick, 1995), we expect that as a way of making sense of their work environment,

employees will try to interpret management’s motivations for the use of these activities and HR

attributions will thus be formed. As such, the HR attributions reflect employees’ attempts to

understand the causality for a specific event (Lord and Smith, 1983). A distinction can be made

between internal and external HR attributions (Koys, 1988). Internal attributions are formed

Karina Van De Voorde and Susanne Beijer

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015 63

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.