Upload
rosmah-mohamed
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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)
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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;
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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).
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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.
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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.
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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.
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
26/28
Table 6 Regression analyses of the affects of HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia 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 .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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
27/28
Table 7 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: England sample
Independent variables
Worker Outcomes
Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4 Equation 5
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
8/3/2019 Best Practice HRM and Worker Outcomes_APROS12_JulianRosmah
28/28
Table 8 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia sample
Independent variables
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