Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah

8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah

1/28

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Best Practice HRM on Worker

Outcomes in Malaysia and England Local Government.

Paper presented to Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organisation Studies, APROS12

New Delhi, India

December 9-12, 2007


2/28

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the findings of a cross-cultural comparison of the effects

of Best Practice HRM using employees from a matched sample of local

government service departments in England and Malaysia (England n= 569,

Malaysian n= 453). The paper tests the universal best practice thesis, and

also assesses the perceived level of up-take of HR practices in the two

samples. The research also considered employees perceptions of internal

climate, trust and worker responses, such as job satisfaction, motivation, stress

and quit intentions. The findings reveal that the Malaysian workers perceived

the up-take of HR practices to be higher in comparison to their England

counterparts. A less consistent pattern emerged with regards to perceptions of

climate. OLS regression revealed that consistent with the universal thesis, a

bundle of HR practices significantly predicted employee outcomes in the

hypothesised direction in both samples. Therefore, these findings provide

strong support for the universal thesis.

KEYWORDS

UNIVERSAL THESIS, BEST PRACTICE HRM, MALAYSIA, ENGLAND, LOCAL

GOVERNMENT, EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES


3/28

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Best Practice HRM on Worker Outcomes in

Malaysia and England Local Government.

Introduction

Attempts to understand the links between HRM and performance continue to dominate the

HRM literature. Early work in this area reported evidence of a positive association between

HRM and firm productivity, profitability and sales. A corollary of these findings is the

assertion that the effects of high performance management practices are real, economicallysignificant and general and thus should be adopted by [all] organizations (Pfeffer, 1998:

34). In other words it is claimed that the performance effects of best practice HRM are

universal (Delery and Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994). Much of this work is based

on empirical evidence emerging from the US (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995)

and UK (Patterson et al., 1997; Guest et al., 2000; 2003; West et al, 2002).

Early research in this area focused on organization-specific performance outcomes, but now

there is growing awareness of the need to investigate the processes through which HRM

affects organisational performance, often referred to as the black box. For instance, Boselie

et al., (2005: 77) note:

black box studies conceptualise employees perceptions and experience as the


4/28

outcomes. In an attempt to provide such evidence, this paper presents the empirical findings

of a matched comparative study of worker responses in a public sector setting namely

England and Malaysia local government organisations.

The universal best practice model

The universal or best practice model of HRM argues that it is possible to prescribe one best

way of managing employees. However, so far there is a lack of a theory about HRM, a

theory about performance and a theory about how they are linked (Guest, 1997: 263).

Nevertheless, Pfeffer (1994) advocates a list of 16 HR practices for gaining competitive

advantage through people, a list which he subsequently reduces to a set of seven core

practices (Pfeffer, 1998). Other commentators offer an eclectic range of HR practices, with

Boxall and Purcell (2003: 62) stating: it is difficult to see the underpinning logic in such a

long list of practices. Instead it is argued that a more parsimonious approach needs to be

adopted in describing best practice models of HRM. To this end, Youndt et al., (1996: 839)

observe that most [best practice models] ..focus on enhancing the skill base of employees

through HR activities such as selective staffing, comprehensive training [further they] tend

to promote empowerment, participative problem-solving, and teamwork . This

observation is consistent with a recent review undertaken by Boselie et al., (2005) in which

the identified the fo r most reported practices as: training and de elopment contingent pa


5/28

performance outcomes); ii) interactive (the effect of each practice depends on the up-take of

other practices within the bundle); and iii) synergistic (the combined effect of the bundle is

greater than the sum of the individual HR practices).

More recent commentaries are also highlighting the importance of differentiating between HR

policy and practice. The former outlines the organisations intentions whereas the latter is

based on observable, actual activities as experienced by workers (Wright and Boswell, 2002;

Van den Berg et al., 1999). Kinnie et al, (2005: 10) argue that researchers should always

endeavour to differentiate between

..the intended or espoused HR policies and the actual enactment of these policies,

usually by line managers and how they are experienced by employees. Employee

attitudes are influenced not so much by the way these policies are intendedto operate

as by the way they are actually implemented by line managers on a day-to-day

basis (italics added).

It is thought that addressing this issue will avoid problems associated with researchers relying

on organisational rhetoric rather than reality (Legge, 2005). Thus, where possible,

researchers should endeavour to capture HR practice rather than policy. This is regarded as

b i i ll i t t h i ti ti th ff t f HR ti l


6/28

significant body of research has obtained the views of managers alone, reasoning that

managers have the greatest influence over work processes and as such, their views should

have the most predictive effect on future firm performance (Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992).

Thus, the views of non-managerial workers have been excluded from many notable studies

(Peters and Waterman, 1982; Denison, 2001; Weber, 1996). However, given that managers

perceptions of organisational climate tends to be more positive than those of non-managers,

we argue that it is important to consider the views of frontline workers along with those of

managers in analysing the effects of climate on individual outcomes (Patterson et al., 2004;

Payne and Mansfield, 1973).

Further, employee outcomes have also been found to be affected by levels of trust between

employees and management, to the extent that trust influences employees responses to HR

practices (Gould-Williams, 2003; Whitener, 2001; Appelbaum et al., 2000iii). According to

Macky and Boxall (2007: 541):

Trust in management involves a reification a personalization of a collective identity

(management) based on an employees observations of the behaviour of individual

managers. trust in management, or its lack, can be seen as developing from

peoples experiences over time regarding how they have been treated or have seen

th t t d b


7/28

will not on their own add value to an organisation. Rather, it is employees behaviour and

attitudes that will ultimately determine the extent to which they are prepared to put their

abilities to use within the organisation (Park et al., 2003). In addition, there is now a growing

awareness of the need to consider the potential negative effects of HR practices (Godard,

2001), with Ramsay et al (2000) incorporating employee stress and work intensification in

their analysis.

Comparing the effects of Best Practice HRM across national contexts

Commentators continue to debate whether the adoption of HR practice is converging or

diverging across national contexts (Budhwar and Sparrow, 2002). Those adopting a

contingent or culturalist point-of-view argue that HR practices are diverging due, in part to

management styles being cultural solutions to social problems (Crozier, 1964 as quoted in

Tayeb 1998: 335). Similarly Budhwar and Sparrow note that national cultures influence the

adoption of HR practice as managers basic assumptions and values may: i) render certain HR

practices as being of no relevance whatsoever; ii) influence their preferences for specific

types of HR policy and the effectiveness of such policies; and iii) be based on unique ways of

doing things reflecting the management logic peculiar to a particular country.

Alt ti l t f th th i t t th t th i f d b


8/28

those aspects of organizations and management practices which involve human

interactions with one another, e.g. human resource management, are the areas where

transfers are rather problematical, but not necessarily impossible. (1998: 335)

On this basis it is difficult to predict whether non-Anglo Saxon countries will have a similar

up-take of universal best practice HRM, and even more challenging to predict the effects of

HR practice on workers. Empirical evidence would help inform the development of HR

theory in this area (compare Guest, 1997).

The England and Malaysian contexts

Several significant differences can be identified between the national cultures of England and

Malaysia. Relative to England, Malaysia shows a high level of collectivism and power

distance. The England sample would be typical of the Anglo-Saxon block of countries

which emphasises individualism and low power distance (Hofstede, 2001). However, due to

the historical links between England and Malaysia, many Malaysian organisational practices,

especially in the civil service and government, reflect those used in the UK due to the

influence of British policy. For instance, according to Chew (2005), HR practices in

Malaysia are an artefact of both indigenous and Westernised practices dating back to British

l i ti i th i t th t ( l Hi 1991) H f


9/28

national context, industry or occupational type. Even though there is no consensus as to what

constitutes best practice HRM, there is some agreement that HR practice should include

activities that promote employee development, rewards, teamworking and careful recruitment

and selection. Also, it appears that bundles of HR practices are more likely to have a

positive effect on employee outcomes than individual practices, with the further observation

that such outcomes are influenced more by employee perceptions of practice than HR policy

directives. Finally, organisational climate and trust in management have now become

recognised as key factors influencing the effects of best practice HRM. On this basis we

will empirically test the universal thesis by considering the following five research

hypotheses:

Hypothesis One:

Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employee motivation in both

the England and Malaysian samples.

Hypothesis Two:

Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employee job satisfaction in

both the England and Malaysian samples.

Hypothesis Three:

Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employees organisational

iti hi b h i i b th th E l d d M l i l


10/28

2004: 5, see also Gould-Williams, 2007). The survey is based on a stratified sample of 3,165

local government workers from 47 authorities in England.

The England study was replicated in Malaysia by using the same questionnaire, and methods

of distribution, and similar local government service departments. The original LGWS

questionnaire was back-translated into Malay by one of the authors and piloted using three

Malaysian research students. A few minor adjustments were made to the Malay translation of

the questionnaire to ensure uniformity of expression between the England and Malaysian

work groups (c.f. Chan et al., 2006; Alder, 1983). The questionnaires were distributed to the

Malaysian sample of local government workers in the summer, 2004.

A description of the samples

In order to achieve comparability between the Malaysian and England local government

authorities, the England sample was based on responses obtained from Unitary and County

Councils, thus reducing the number of responses to 569. The sampling frame for the current

research is based on workers from 45 service departments in England and 20 service

departments in Malaysia local government organisations. The service departments were

Waste Management, Benefits and Revenue, Leisure Services, Housing Management and

Pl i Th li it i t f f t li k i d iddl


11/28

Single item measures were used for the following explanatory variables: employee selection,

team working, performance appraisal trust and resources (see Tables 1, 2). Similarly, single

item measures were also used for the dependent variables job satisfaction, worker motivation,

organisational citizenship behaviour and intention to quit (see Table 3).

Training and development was assessed by combining two items: (i) In this department, we

are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work; and (ii) I am

provided with sufficient training and development. Three items were used as a measure of

communication: (i) We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority; (ii)

Communication within this department is good; and (iii) This department keeps me well

informed. As for the measures of rewards and compensation, these were based on two items:

(i) I feel rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job; and (ii) I feel I am paid a fair

amount for the work I do.

Organisational Climate was measured by using the following seven items: i) Our line

manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of our group; ii) When Im on a difficult

assignment I can usually count on getting assistance from my line manager/supervisor; iii)

Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things dont turn out as planned;

i ) M k t / ll i t h ) I t t d f i l b thi d t t i)


12/28

Results

Tables 1-3 provide the means, standard deviations and t-test values of the differences between

England and Malaysia of the independent and dependent variables. The results show that

Malaysian respondents consistently perceived the level of HR activity to be higher than their

England counterparts. For instance, seven of the ten HR items were statistically higher for the

Malaysian sample (t values ranged from -9.92, p .000 to -3.45, p .001). The one exception

was England respondents mean value for a rigorous selection process which was

significantly higher than the Malaysian respondents (t value, 2.94, p .003). These findings

imply that at least from the workers perspectives, the level of HR activities in Malaysian

local government is higher than that experienced in England.

A less consistent pattern emerges when comparisons are made between measures of Climate,

staff involvement and trust (Table 2) For instance, respondents in England were more likely

to receive assistance from their line manager when undertaking a difficult assignment (t

value, 3.35, p .001), were more likely to feel they were treated fairly by their respective

departments (t value, 3.10,p .002), and enjoy a supportive, friendly atmosphere amongst staff

in their departments (t value, 4.23, p .000). However, England respondents also experienced

more pressure (t value, 4.61,p .000), were more likely to work in under-staffed departments (t

l 9 53 000) h t ff l i d t b l (t l 4 20 000) Th


13/28

variable Stress England sample, with 60 per cent change in the dependent variable being

explained by the independent variables. Even though the Malaysian sample had a lower R2,

the independent variables nevertheless explained 35 per cent change in stress. The

independent variables explained a higher percentage of change in Job Satisfaction for the

England sample (Equation 2, R2 .38), whereas the same variables explained 26 per cent of

change for the Malaysian sample. Similar R2 were observed for both samples for the

remaining three equations (Dependent variables Motivation, Organisational Citizenship

Behaviour and Intention to Quit). On this basis it can be argued that the regression equations

provide an adequate explanation of variation for each of the dependent variables.

With regards to our five research hypotheses, the analyses reveal consistent results in support

of all five hypotheses. For instance, bundles of HR practice had similar, statistically

significant explanatory effects forboth the England and Malaysian samples while controlling

for the effects of organisational climate, worker involvement, trust between management and

employees and availability of resources. The size of the effects ranged from .47,p .000,

for the England sample (Equation 2, dependent variable Job Satisfaction) and .40,p .000,

for the Malaysian sample (Equation 1, dependent variable Motivation), with the smallest

effects noted in Equation 4 dependent variable Stress (Malaysia sample, -.14, p .000;


14/28

Tables 7 and 8 show the effects of the disaggregated bundle of HR practices on each of the

dependent variables. Disaggregating the HR bundle in this way reveals whether there is

consistency across the two samples between each of the individual HR practices and the

dependent variables. For instance, the explanatory effect of the HR bundle may, for instance,

be due to one or more HR practices being powerful predictors. The analyses reveal the

following patterns. First, Teamworking (England sample: .11,p .02; Malaysian sample:

.34,p .000) and Communication (England sample: .14,p .01; Malaysian sample: .

17, p .005) had consistent and statistically significant effects on worker Motivation across

both samples. Training (England sample: .28,p .000; Malaysian sample: .14,p .046)

and Rewards (England sample: .22, p .000; Malaysian sample: .17, p .003) had

consistent effects on Job Satisfaction. Rewards (England sample: .10,p .053; Malaysian

sample: .44, p .000) significantly predicted OCB for both samples. Whereas

Teamworking (England sample: -.09, p .011; Malaysian sample: -.12, p .024), and

Work-Related Pressure (England sample: .71, p .000; Malaysian sample: .48, p .000)

predicted Stress for both samples. Finally, Intention to Quit was consistently predicted by

Rewards (England sample: -.14, p .006; Malaysian sample: -.17, p .002) and Work-

related Pressure (England sample: .16,p .003; Malaysian sample: .23,p .000).


15/28

practice on employee outcomes and included potential negative effects of HR practice

(Ramsay et al., 2000). As such, it makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the

ways in which HR practice effects black box issues, namely employee attitudes and

behaviours. Most notably, of course, comparing the findings of our analyses on two

different national samples, provides further insight into the effects of HR practice on

employees outcomes.

Our results of our study suggest that best practice HR is more likely to be evident in

Malaysian local government organisations than England. However, for these findings to be

more convincing, it will be necessary for perceptions of both samples to be audited this was

beyond the scope of this research project. Nevertheless, these results are consistent with

Chew (2005) who argued that there is evidence of growing convergence between Malaysian

and Anglo-Saxon HR practice, with the levels of HR activity being even more pronounced in

Malaysian local government service departments when compared with England. However,

this cannot be stated with regards the remaining explanatory variables, in which no

observable patterns emerged from our analysis.

Fundamentally, our research supports the universal thesis, in that the effects of the HR bundle

i t t b th l d i th h th i d di ti Th i f th


16/28

thus our study provides only a limited test of the effects of national culture on HR practice.

It is possible that future studies may wish to include more countries in their analysis, perhaps

including three or four different national contexts (e.g. Asian, Anglo-Saxon, Australasian,

European). Also, it is assumed that each of the respondents in this study shared the national

cultural values, as culture was not measured at the individual level. The study did include

individual measures of organisational climate, it would also have been useful to have a

similar, individual measure of culture.

Second, our approach for this study could be criticised for having an ethnocentric bias

(Clark et al., 2000: 15). We have adopted an Anglo-Saxon perspective of HRM and imposed

it on an non-Anglo Saxon sample (Malaysian workers). As such, we have assumed, as Clark

et al., (2000) point out, that the instruments and measures developed in one culture are

believed to be equally appropriate and applicable in other nations (pp15). In so doing, we

have failed to capture many of the societal and cultural differences between the Malaysian

and England sample. Instead, we have focused on management and employee response to

HR practices between the two counties rather than using differences in cultural values to

explain these differences. Nevertheless, this research provides convincing evidence of the

universal effects of best practice HRM in a non Anglo-Saxon country.


17/28

Denison, D.R. (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational

climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management

Review 21(3), 619-654.

Faulkner, D., Pitkethly, R. and Child, J. (2002) International mergers and acquisitions in the UK

1985-1994: A comparison of national HRM practices. International Journal of HumanResource Management13(1), 106-122.

Galang, M. (2004) The transferability question: comparing HRM practices in the Philippines

with the US and Canada. International Journal of Human Resource Management15(7), 1207-

1233.

Godard, J. (2001) High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of

alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and LaborRelations Review 54(4), 776-805.

Gordon, G.G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992) Predicting corporate performance from organizational

culture. Journal of Management Studies 29(6), 783-798.

Gould-Williams, J.S. (2003) The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achievingsuperior performance: a study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human

Resource Management14(2), 1-27.

Gould-Williams, J.S. (2007) HR practices, organisational climate and employee outcomes:

evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of HumanResource Management 18 (9) .

G D d Shi ld J (2002) I h f h bj R hi l i


18/28

Ichniowski, C. and Shaw, K. (1999) The effects of human resource management systems on

economic performance: An international comparison of US and Japanese Plants. Management

Science 45(5), 704-721.

Judge, T.A., Thorsesn, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001) The job satisfaction-Job

Performance Relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin127(3), 376-407.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005) Satisfaction with HR

practices and commitment to the organisatio: why one size does not fit all. Human Resource

Management Journal15(4), 9-29.

Legge, K. (2005)Human Resource Management Rhetorics and Realities. London: Palgrave.

Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999) The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human

capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review 24(1), 31-48.

MacDuffie, J.P. (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:

organisational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and

Labor Relations Review 48(2), 197-221.

Macky, K. and Boxall, P. (2007) The relationship between 'high-performance work practices'

and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management18(4), 537-567.

McMurray, A.J. (2003) The relationship between organizational climate and organizational

culture. Journal of American Academy of Business 3(1/2), 1-8.


19/28

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage Through People. Unleashing the Power of the Work

Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1998) The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Poole, M.S. (1985) Communication and organisational climates: Review, critique and a new

perspective. In Orgniasational communication: Traditional themesand new directions, ed.McPhee, R.D. and Tomkins, P.A. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000) Employee and high-performance work

systems: testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations 38(4), 501-531.

Rogg, K.L., Schmidt, D.B., Shull, C. and Schmitt, N. (2001) Human resrouce practices,

organisational climate and customer satisfaction. Journal of Management 27, 431-449.

Spector, P.E. (1997) Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G.H. (1968) Organizational culture: A key to financial performance. In

Organizational climate and culture, ed. Schneider, b. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Truss, C. (2001) Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes.

Journal of Management Studies 38(8), 1121-1149.

Turnipseed, D. (1988) An integrated, interactive model of organisational climate, culture and

ff i L d h d O 9(5) 17 21


20/28

Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W.J. and Lepak, D.P. (1996) Human resource management,

manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 39(4), 836-

866.


21/28

Table 1: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in HRM practices between England and Malaysia local

government

Item(s)No. of

cases

Mean SD t value 2-tail sig.

HRM practices:

SelectionA rigorous selection process is used to select new

recruits/workers.[C3]

Eng 563 4.67 1.702.943 .003

Mal 452 4.36 1.65

Training

In this department, we are provided with the training needed to

achieve high standards of work. [B7]Eng 560 4.39 1.84

-1.099 .272Mal 453 4.51 1.52

I am provided with sufficient training and development. [C4]Eng 565 4.49 1.80

1.575 .116Mal 452 4.33 1.57

Team working Team working is strongly encouraged in our department. [C10]Eng 561 4.90 1.71

-6.683 .000Mal 452 5.55 1.39

Performance

appraisal

Staff are given meaningful feedback regarding their individual

performance, at least once each a year. [C12]

Eng 566 4.64 2.04

-3.791 .000Mal 452 5.07 1.58

Rewards

I feel fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job.

[C2]Eng 567 3.61 1.90

-8.641 .000Mal 452 4.54 1.53

I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do. [D5]Eng 567 3.85 1.92

-9.921 .000Mal 452 4.92 1.53

Communication

We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority.

[A16]

Eng 565 4.04 1.75-7.555 .000

Mal 453 4.82 1.51

Communication within this department is good. [C8]Eng 566 4.27 1.71

-4.445 .000Mal 452 4.72 1.53

This department keeps me well informed. [C13]Eng 566 4.40 1.71

-3.446 .001

Mal 452 4.75 1.54* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

21


22/28

Table 2: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in Organisational Climate, Involvement, Trust and Resources

between England and Malaysia local government

Item(s)No. of

cases

Mean SD t value 2-tail sig.

Organisational

Climate

Our line manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of

our group. [A5]

Eng 565 4.87 1.830.242 .809

Mal 453 4.85 1.45

When I am on a difficult assignment, I can usually count on

getting assistance from my line manager/supervisor. [A6]Eng 566 5.26 1.70

3.348 .001

Mal 453 4.93 1.46

Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things

dont turn out as planned. (Reversed score) [A14]Eng 566 3.25 1.68

-8.417 .000Mal 453 4.13 1.62

My work mates/colleagues resist change. (Reversed score) [B6] Eng 564 3.43 1.60-3.310 .001

Mal 453 3.76 1.54

I am treated fairly by this department. [C5] Eng 566 4.99 1.703.103 .002

Mal 452 4.68 1.54

Theres a friendly, supportive atmosphere amongst staff in this

department. [C6]

Eng 563 5.31 1.56

4.227 .000Mal 452 4.89 1.57

The morale in this department is very low. (Reversed score) [C7]Eng 565 3.93 1.99

4.200 .000Mal 452 3.44 1.74

Involvement

Our line manager/supervisor consults us before making decisions.

[A3]

Eng 568 4.40 1.81-2.018 .044

Mal 453 4.61 1.43

Our line manager/supervisor asks us for suggestions when faced

with service-related problems. [A4]

Eng 566 4.81 1.721.714 .087

Mal 453 4.65 1.37

Trust Line managers/supervisors and stuff trust each other. [A11] Eng 564 4.01 1.77-4.845 .000

Mal 453 4.50 1.46

Resources:

UnderstaffedThis service is understaffed. [B2]

Eng 569 5.55 1.669.530 .000

Mal 453 4.54 1.71

Work pressure

I am under too much pressure in my job. [D11] Eng 565 4.14 1.764.610 .000

Mal 452 3.64 1.67

My job involves too much work to do everything well. [D12]Eng 567 4.58 1.92

-0.433 .665Mal 452 4.63 1.53

* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

22


23/28

Table 3: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in Worker Outcomes and Perceived Organisational

Performance between England and Malaysia local government

Item(s)No. of

casesMean SD t value 2-tail sig.

Motivation I look forward to coming to work. [D8] Eng 568 4.22 1.78-16.245 .000

Mal 452 5.81 1.33

Job satisfactionOverall, Im very satisfied with my job and couldnt be

more satisfied. [D2]

Eng 567 4.10 1.75-13.292 .000

Mal 452 5.37 1.30

Organisational

citizenshipbehaviour

Im prepared to do extra work for no additional pay, just tohelp others. [D3]

Eng 565 4.27 2.01-4.479 .000

Mal 452 4.78 1.63

Stress

My workload negatively affects the quality of my life (e.g.

family or social activities). [D10]Eng 566 3.71 2.00

1.157 .247Mal 452 3.57 1.85

Some days I feel I cannot continue in this job due to workpressures. [D13]

Eng 568 3.42 2.00-2.644 .008

Mal 452 3.73 1.74

In my job, I am often confronted with problems I cannot

do much about. [D14]

Eng 568 4.29 1.877.145 .000

Mal 452 3.52 1.55

Intention to quit I would like to leave my job. [D7]Eng 567 3.23 2.02

9.759 .000Mal 452 2.12 1.64

* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

23


24/28

Table 4: Cronbach alpha scores for multiple item measures

Item (s) Cronbachs alpha

Independent variables:Eng Mal

Best practice HRM:Training In this department, we are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work.

I am provided with sufficient training and development. =.88 =.73

Rewards I feel fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job.

I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do.

=.71 =.51

Communication We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority.

Communication within this department is good.

This department keeps me well informed.

=.81 =.70

Climate Our line manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of our group.

When I am on a difficult assignment, I can usually count on getting assistance from my linemanager/supervisor.

Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things dont turn out as planned. (Reversed score)

My work mates/colleagues resist change. (Reserved score)

I am treated fairly by this department.Theres a friendly, supportive atmosphere amongst staff in this department.

The morale in this department is very low. (Reserved score)

=.80 =.76

Involvement Our l ine manager/supervisor consults us before making decisions.

Our line manager/supervisor asks us for suggestions when faced with service-related problems.

=.86 =.78

Work pressure I am under too much pressure in my job.

My job involves too much work to do everything well.

=.80 =.59

Stress My workload negatively affects the quality of my life (e.g. family or social activities).

Some days I feel I cannot continue in this job due to work pressures.

In my job, I am often confronted with problems I cannot do much about.

=.76 =.68

Perceived organisationalperformance

This department provides excellent service when compared to similar services in other authorities.This department has a good reputation.

=.85 =.89

24


25/28

Table 5 Regression analyses of the affects of HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: England sample

Independent variables

Worker Outcomes

Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4 Equation 5

Motivation Job satisfaction

Organisational

Citizenship Behaviour Stress Intention to quitStandard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF

HRM Practices .31 (.000) 1.70 .47 (.000) 1.70 .21 (.000) 1.70 -.16 (.000) 1.70 -.35 (.000) 1.70

Climate -.04 (.395) 1.43 .05 (.246) 1.43 -.03 (.587) 1.43 -.02 (.652) 1.43 .04 (.471) 1.43

Involvement .081(.122) 1.72 .04 (.395) 1.72 .16 (.003) 1.72 -.04 (.376) 1.72 -.10 (.050) 1.72

Trust .14 (.003) 1.45 .08 (.095) 1.45 .11 (.031) 1.45 -.01 (.866) 1.45 -.08 (.117) 1.45

Resources

Understaffed .04 (.440) 1.37 .03 (.497) 1.37 .05 (.312) 1.37 -.06 (.089) 1.37 -.06 (.245) 1.37

Work pressure -.16 (.002) 1.59 -.16 (.001) 1.59 -.05 (.313) 1.59 .71 (.000) 1.59 .17 (.001) 1.59

Personal characteristics

Age .01 (.883) 1.12 .07 (.064) 1.12 -.02 (.612) 1.12 .04 (.197) 1.12 -.01 (.910) 1.12

Salary .04 (.395) 1.64 -.04 (.374) 1.64 -.01 (.883) 1.64 -.02 (.566) 1.64 .09 (.081) 1.64

Gender .00 (.952) 1.16 -.08 (.045) 1.16 .01 (.844) 1.16 -.00 (.998) 1.16 .02 (.629) 1.16

Contract -.13 (.001) 1.08 -.02 (.679) 1.08 -.12 (.008) 1.08 .04 (.156) 1.08 .11 (.013) 1.08Job position -.07 (.150) 1.43 -.05 (.258) 1.43 .12 (.017) 1.43 .07 (.057) 1.43 .03 (.570) 1.43

Benefits service dept. -.20 (.001) 2.18 -.04 (.462) 2.18 -.01 (.845) 2.18 -.03 (.473) 2.18 .11 (.078) 2.18

Planning service dept. -.12 (.054) 2.33 .02 (.686) 2.33 -.05 (.456) 2.33 -.03 (.590) 2.33 .06 (.338) 2.33

Housing service dept. -.19 (.002) 2.12 -.00 (.937) 2.12 .04 (.535) 2.12 .02 (.708) 2.12 .05 (.421) 2.12

Waste service dept. -.11 (.071) 2.35 .07 (.209) 2.35 .04 (.555) 2.35 .06 (.216) 2.35 .03 (.661) 2.35

R .29 .38 .21 .60 .28

Adjusted R .27 .36 .18 .59 .25

F value (Sig. level) 12.28 (.000) 17.91 (.000) 7.61 (.000) 44.26 (.000) 11.34 (.000)

N 460 459 459 460 460

25


26/28

Table 6 Regression analyses of the affects of HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia sample


Worker Outcomes


Motivation Job satisfaction

Organisational

Citizenship Behaviour Stress Intention to quitStandard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF

HRM Practices .40 (.000) 1.60 .36 (.000) 1.60 .29 (.000) 1.60 -.14 (.006) 1.60 -.29 (.000) 1.60

Climate .16 (.003) 1.46 .19 (.000) 1.46 .12 (.023) 1.46 .00 (.009) 1.46 -.09 (.101) 1.46

Involvement -.01 (.826) 1.51 -.05 (.367) 1.51 -.02 (.706) 1.51 .06 (.216) 1.51 .09 (.079) 1.51

Trust -.03 (.608) 1.63 .01 (.825) 1.63 .07 (.219) 1.63 .02 (.770) 1.63 -.01 (.867) 1.63

Resources

Understaffed .04 (.453) 1.18 .06 (.179) 1.18 .06 (.188) 1.18 .06 (.176) 1.18 .01 (.864) 1.18

Work pressure -.07 (.119) 1.14 -.01 (.896) 1.14 .09 (.064) 1.14 .49 (.000) 1.14 .25 (.000) 1.14

Personal characteristics

Age -.06 (.258) 1.47 .08 (.114) 1.47 .07 (.193) 1.47 -.00 (.950) 1.47 .07 (.186) 1.47

Salary .04 (.503) 1.94 -.04 (.544) 1.94 .15 (.017) 1.94 -.01 (.840) 1.94 .03 (.582) 1.94

Gender -.04 (.396) 1.07 .04 (.438) 1.07 .10 (.034) 1.07 -.04 (.404) 1.07 .00 (.994) 1.07

Contract .17 (.001) 1.32 .08 (.136) 1.32 .07 (.172) 1.32 -.04 (.343) 1.32 -.19 (.000) 1.32Job position -.04 (.388) 1.38 .00 (.974) 1.38 .04 (.424) 1.38 -.04 (.390) 1.38 -.04 (.468) 1.38

Benefits service dept. .24 (.001) 2.61 .08 (.288) 2.61 -.10 (.188) 2.61 -.14 (.033) 2.61 -.23 (.001) 2.61

Planning service dept. .15 (.027) 2.51 .01 (.841) 2.51 -.07 (.342) 2.51 -.03 (.675) 2.51 -.17 (.016) 2.51

Housing service dept. .16 (.003) 1.68 .16 (.006) 1.68 -.10 (.076) 1.68 -.01 (.803) 1.68 -.19 (.001) 1.68

Waste service dept. -.15 (.024) 2.34 .12 (.072) 2.34 -.18 (.009) 2.34 .02 (.782) 2.34 -.14 (.039) 2.34

R .30 .26 .23 .35 .26

Adjusted R .27 .23 .20 .33 .23

F value (Sig. level) 10.95 (.000) 8.97 (.000) 7.68 (.000) 14.06 (.000) 9.19 (.000)

N 408 408 408 408 408

26


27/28

Table 7 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: England sample


Worker Outcomes


Motivation Job satisfactionOrganisational

Citizenship BehaviourStress Intention to quit

Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF

HRM Practices

Selection .03 (.509) 1.41 -.11 (.016) 1.41 -.02 (.712) 1.41 -.02 (.653) 1.41 -.02 (.623) 1.41

Training .08 (.189) 2.02 .28 (.000) 2.02 .02 (.695) 2.02 -.04 (.330) 2.02 -.20 (.001) 2.02

Team working .11 (.022) 1.50 .15 (.001) 1.50 .06 (.240) 1.50 -.09 (.011) 1.50 -.05 (.321) 1.50

Performance appraisal -.01 (.863) 1.69 -.06 (.245) 1.69 .10 (.073) 1.69 -.10 (.009) 1.69 .02 (.727) 1.69

Rewards .07 (.173) 1.52 .22 (.000) 1.52 .10 (.053) 1.52 -.02 (.671) 1.52 -.14 (.006) 1.52

Communication .14 (.01) 2.28 .13 (.020) 2.28 .04 (.594) 2.28 .00 (.934) 2.28 -.07 (.250) 2.28

Climate -.04 (.392) 1.49 .03 (.528) 1.49 -.03 (.547) 1.49 -.00 (.905) 1.49 .05 (.307) 1.49

Involvement .07 (.186) 1.77 .05 (.343) 1.77 .15 (.012) 1.77 -.03 (.502) 1.77 -.11 (.040) 1.77

Trust .13 (.010) 1.49 .08 (.091) 1.49 .13 (.018) 1.49 -.01 (.747) 1.49 -.08 (.099) 1.49Resources

Understaffed .03 (.539) 1.39 .04 (.318) 1.39 .05 (.319) 1.39 -.04 (.211) 1.39 -.07 (.175) 1.39

Work pressure -.17 (.001) 1.67 -.14 (.003) 1.67 -.04 (.491) 1.67 .71 (.000) 1.67 .16 (.003) 1.67

R .30 .43 .21 .62 .29

Adjusted R .26 .40 .17 .60 .25

F value (Sig. level) 9.11 (.000) 15.93 (.000) 5.62 (.000) 34.64 (.000) 8.62 (.000)

N 453 452 452 453 453

27


28/28

Table 8 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia sample


Worker Outcomes

Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4 Equation 5Motivation Job satisfaction

Organisational

Citizenship BehaviourStress Intention to quit

Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF Standard VIF

HRM Practices

Selection .01 (.851) 1.55 .06 (.305) 1.55 .11 (.036) 1.55 .04 (.483) 1.55 .16 (.003) 1.55

Training -.07 (.291) 2.42 .14 (.046) 2.42 -.14 (.031) 2.42 .00 (.983) 2.42 -.10 (.116) 2.42

Team working .34 (.000) 1.65 .07 (.200) 1.65 .02 (.751) 1.65 -.12 (.024) 1.65 -.11 (.054) 1.65

Performance appraisal -.09 (.073) 1.49 .02 (.762) 1.49 -.13 (.013) 1.49 .07 (.153) 1.49 -.03 (.508) 1.49

Rewards .16 (.003) 1.70 .17 (.003) 1.70 .44 (.000) 1.70 -.13 (.017) 1.70 -.17 (.002) 1.70

Communication .17 (.005) 2.35 .05 (.436) 2.35 .14 (.029) 2.35 -.05 (.424) 2.35 -.11 (.094) 2.35

Climate .15 (.003) 1.52 .17 (.001) 1.52 .06 (.229) 1.52 .02 (.678) 1.52 -.05 (.316) 1.52

Involvement .03 (.593) 1.58 -.04 (.521) 1.58 .01 (.880) 1.58 .03 (.507) 1.58 .06 (.280) 1.58

Trust .01 (.907) 1.72 .02 (.743) 1.72 .09 (.113) 1.72 .01 (.891) 1.72 -.01 (.921) 1.72

Resources

Understaffed .04 (.395) 1.22 .08 (.117) 1.22 .12 (.011) 1.22 .05 (.302) 1.22 -.01 (.825) 1.22

Work pressure -.06 (.200) 1.18 -.01 (.920) 1.18 .08 (.068) 1.18 .48 (.000) 1.18 .23 (.000) 1.18

R .37 .26 .33 .37 .30

Adjusted R .34 .23 .30 .34 .26

F value (Sig. level) 11.39 (.000) 6.93 (.000) 9.60 (.000) 11.24 (.000) 8.14 (.000)

N 408 408 408 408 408

28

Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah

Documents

Transcript of Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah