人力资源策略和公司outcome的联系

Introduction

In recent years, scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to examining ‘black box’ links be­tween HR practices and organizational performance. Basically, a large amount of research evidence shows that a firm’s human resource strategy is one important component that can help an organi­zation become more effective and achieve a competitive advantage (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004: 203). However, there are also several factors which can impede the HR practices to achieve desirable organization outcomes. This article will focus on employee behaviourperspectiveas well asHigh Performance Work Practices perspective toanalyse both the positive effects and limitations of the links between HR practices and organizational performance.

Employee behaviour

Employee behaviour within organizations is recognized as an important link between HR practices and organizational performance. Some scholars suggest that management needs to influence individual employee ability, motivation and opportunity to perform. in order to achieve valued organizational outcomes (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 215). In addition, with the aim of making individual performances possible, management needs to build a sufficient degree of workforce organization on the collective level (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 216).

HRM practices influence employee ability through the acquisition and development of a firm's human capital. Bailey contended thatrecruiting procedures will have a substantial influence over the quality and type of skills new employees possess by providing organizations with a large amount of qualified applicants as well as a reliable and valid se­lection regimen (Huselid, 1995: 637). Moreover, in order to facilitate employees’ development, managers can provide them with formal and informal training experiences, such as basic skills training, on-the-job experience, coaching and mentoring (Huselid, 1995: 637).

HRM practices can affect employee motivation by encouraging them to work both harder and smarter. Many organizations often tend to use employee performance appraisal system as well as internal promotion system to achieve this goal. They make efforts to direct and motivate employee behaviour by assessing their individual or work group performance and further linking these appraisals tightly with incentive com­pensation programs. Meanwhile, they use internal promotion systems which focus on employee merit to improve employee morale (Huselid, 1995: 638).

However, Bailey noted that the contribution of even a highly skilled and motivated workforce will be limited if jobs are structured or programmed. In fact, employees need opportunities to use their abilities and skills to design new and better ways of performing their roles. Thus, HRM practices can also influence firm performance through provision of organizational structures that encourage participation among employees and allow them to improve how their jobs are performed. Cross-functional teams, job rotation, and quality circles are all examples of such structures(Huselid, 1995: 638).

The issues of exerting influences on employees’ behaviour

One of the most elaborated models linking HRM and performance is that proposed by Wright and Nishii. Their causal chain proposes (1) intended HR practices, leading to (2) actual HR practices, leading to (3) perceived HR practices, leading to (4) employee reactions, and leading finally, to (5) organisational performance (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 216).

Wright and Nishii’s model underlines that there can be major gaps between management intention and management action that are highly likely to damage employee behaviour and consequently to organizational performance outcomes (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 216). Other scholars recognized this problem as a gap between management rhetoric and reality. In fact, senior managers are more likely to espouse a desired way of working with employees, customers and suppliers in their organizations. However, from employees’ point of view, such statements supported by their managers are not fully manifested in reality (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 216).

Grant explored the issues involved through the theory of psychological contract. He defines four types of psychological contract between management and its workforce: the congruent contract, the mismatched contract, the partial contract and the trial contract. Based on this theory, he did a case study in the UK consumer electronics sector and found that management practices are tend to be significantly diverged from the initial rhetoric. Thus, he pointed out that it is very important to align senior management’s espoused values closely with collective actions of both senior managers and the various layers of line and specialist managers who report to them (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 217). Further, he argued that this kind of alignment or consistency is more likely to be achieved in small organizations rather than in larger organizations. This is because in small organizations trust levels tend to be higher and chance for miscommunication is much less while in large organizations policy requirements and bureaucratic initiatives change quickly (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 218).

The critical role of line managers

In order to solve the problems regarding the gaps betweenmanagement rhetoric and reality, the role of line managers is considered to be critical in maintaining consistency between employee behaviour and senior managers’ anticipation. In fact, line manager action and inaction is often responsible for the difference between espoused HR policies and their enactment. Many HR policies can only be converted to practice by line managers (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 219).This is because line managers not only have direct and frequent contact with employees but also possess a capacity to understand, motivate, control as well as respond quickly to employees’ behaviour (Anderson, Cooper & Zhu, 2007: 171). Furthermore, line managers have the obligation to make HR policies more suitable for specific work settings during the processes of execution and administration of HR practices such as performance assessment, recruitment, selection and training of employees(Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 219).

Uhl-Bien, Graen and Scandura conducted a research on relationships between line managers and their subordinates and they suggested that more effectively developed relationships are beneficial for individual and work unit functioning and have many positive outcomes related to organizational performance (Boxall & Purcell, 2008: 219). In addition, Redman and Snape argue that line managers play an important mediating role in linking HR policies and outcomes since employees perceive and experience will be heavily influenced by the quality of their relationship with their direct manager.

However, in order to play this critical role well and to achieve a benchmarked standard advocated by HR managers, line managers need to possess appropriate skills to execute HR practices competently and effectively. Meanwhile, senior HR manager needs to be a strategic partner with line managers, providing training, resources, incentive and a communication channel to ensure these HR practices are carried out in accordance with HRM policies (Anderson, Cooper & Zhu, 2007: 173).

High Performance Work Practicestheory

Huselid did some research on the links between HRM systems and organizational performance. Based on broad evidences, he argues that High Performance Work Practices will be reflected in better firm performance in terms of lower employee turnover, great productivity and corporate financial performance. Further, he pointed out High Performance Work Practices include bundles of comprehensive employee recruitment and selection procedures, incentive compensation and performance management systems as well as extensive employee involvement and training (lecture notes).

Similarly,several scholars who have recently linked data on systems of High Performance Work Practices with valued firm-level out­comes also found the widespread use of pro­gressive human resource management practices is tend to lower employee turnover or improve organizational productivity (Huselid, 1995: 641). For example, Ich­niowski, Shaw, and Prennushi, using longitudinal data from 30 steel plants, found the impact of ‘cooperative and innovative’ HRM practices to have a positive and significant effect on organizational productivity. Similarly, Arthur found in 30 steel ‘minimills’ that human resource systems with high emphasize on the development of employee commitment had lower turnover and scrap rates which contributes to high working efficiency and the reduction of labour costs. Finally, MacDuffie found that ‘bun­dles’ of internally consistent HRM practices were associated with higher productivity and quality in 62 automotive assembly plants (Huselid, 1995: 642).

Limitations ofHigh Performance Work Practicestheory

Firstly, re­search on the links between systems of work practices and corporate fi­nancial performance is much more limited. Kravetz and Schuster each matched data on global human resource management ‘pro­gressiveness’ with accounting indexes of firm profits. Although both au­thors concluded that more progressive HRM practices were associated with enhanced performance, the analyses in each study were restricted in terms of controlling for variables such as firm size or industry. In short, prior empirical literature has been lim­ited in terms of the range of practices evaluated the dependent variablesand the industry context (Huselid, 1995:642). Moreover, systems of work prac­tices affect turnover or productivity does not necessarily mean that these practices have positive effect on firm profits. In fact, systems of High Performance Work Practices affect profitability begs the important issue of the processes through which they influence firm financial per­formance (Huselid, 1995:643).

Secondly, the adoption of selected practice bundles tends to be extremely limited. It is confirmed that the performance advantages of these bundles take place in a relatively small proportion of workforce in theUS, theUK,Australiaand European countries. Furthermore, there is no consensus exists on whichpractices should comprise the bundle (Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005: 1328). More importantly, proposed bundles are more costly to introduce than one or two practices, and their pay-off is highly depend on employees rather than management or technology to add significant value to the final product or service (Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005: 1328).

Thirdly, the impact of High Performance Work Practice is contingent on both the degree of external fit and internal fit (Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005: 1329). In fact, any problems occur in either external fit or internal fit may have bad effect on the organizational performance. For instance, sometimes the external environment is extremely predictable, if HR strategies and organization practices are not well developed to deal with both the uncertainty and risks outside the organization, the level of organizational performance will to some extent be lowered. As well, from the internal fit perspective, communication is highly likely to be a problem which may damage the organizational outcomes. Lack of communication can prevent employees from understanding the connection between their work and employment prospects and high workplace performance. This will discourage them to work more effectively, thereby reducing workplace productivity (Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005: 1330).

Conclusion:

In conclusion,Employee behaviour is recognized as an important link between HR practices and organizational performance. It can lead HR practices to achieve valued organization outcomes by influencing individual employee ability, motivation and opportunity to perform. as well as provision of organizational structures. However, there can be major gaps between management intention and management action, this will prevent HR practices obtaining a high level of organization outcomes. Thus, the role of line managers in maintaining consistency between employee behaviour and senior managers’ anticipation is considered to be critical. In addition,High Performance Work Practices is proposed to have effects in better firm performance in terms of lower employee turnover, great productivity and corporate financial performance. However, this argument also has some limitations regardingthe limited links between systems of work practices and corporate fi­nancial performance,the limited adoption of selected practice bundles as well as thecontingentimpact restricted by both the degree of external fit and internal fit.