Employee perceptions of HR practices: A critical review and future directions

Abstract

Scholars are directing more attention to employee perceptions of human resources (HR) practices and have explored issues such as whether and how employees’ idiosyncratic or collective perceptions of HR practices shape employee outcomes. To further this area of research, we seek to determine what authors mean when they refer to “employee perceptions of HR practices”. We review 105 articles from leading human resource management journals and find that employee perceptions of HR practices is not a monolithic concept. Rather, following previous scholars, we identify three distinct components of employee perceptions of HR practices: the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’. We critically summarize extant literature on these three components of employee HR perception and propose future research directions, including enriching the theoretical foundations of HR communication, embracing cross-national contexts, and enhancing practical relevance.

Keywords:

• Employee human resource perceptions
• perceived human resource strength
• human resource attributions

Over the last decade, the strategic human resource management field has paid increasing attention to employee perceptions of human resource (HR) practices (Beijer, Peccie, Van Veldhoven, & Paauwe, in press; Hewett, Shantz, Mundy, & Alfes, 2018; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016; Sanders, Shipton, & Gomes, 2014). Human resource management (HRM) scholars largely agree that employee perceptions of HR practices play a key role in influencing the effectiveness of these practices (e.g. Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith, 2013; Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2017). At the individual level, employee perceptions of HR practices have been shown to mediate and moderate relationships between an organization’s HR practices and employees’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu, & Otaye, 2012; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009). At the organizational level, employee perceptions of HR practices have been identified as antecedents of unit-level performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

The rapidly expanding literature in this field has led to growing diversity in the way scholars conceptualize and operationalize employee HR perceptions. For example, the phrase “employee HR perceptions” has been used when discussing the perceived existence of certain HR practices within an organization as well as when discussing employees’ understanding of employers’ intentions behind HR practices. In this review, we aim to enhance clarity regarding the different approaches taken when researchers use the phrase “employee HR perceptions”. We build on Ostroff and Bowen's (2016) work and identify three approaches that have been adopted when considering employee HR perceptions: the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ of HR practices. The ‘what’ of an HR practices approach considers the content of HR practices through which an employer delivers messages to employees. The ‘how’ of an HR practices approach recognizes the possibility that the same HR content may lead to divergent outcomes depending on how such practices are framed and received by employees. The ‘why’ of an HR practices approach looks at the potential discrepancies in the way employees judge the motivations that lie behind their organization’s introduction of HR practices. We critically summarize existing research in the HR perception literature and adopt this three-fold lens to organize research in the area and to offer directions for future research.

Our study contributes to the HR perceptions field in two ways. First, we clarify the “employee perceptions of HR practices” construct and review research progress on the three different components (the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’) that have been subsumed under this umbrella construct. We critically summarize extant literature on the three components of employee HR perceptions and propose future research directions. Our review indicates that different components of employee HR perceptions address different aspects of the HR process, and rely on different theoretical assumptions and methodological approaches. Our review reveals that we lack knowledge about how the three different components of HR perceptions complement each other. In this review, we take stock on the different research streams in the field of employee perceptions of HR practices. Our review identifies the merits, limitations, and hidden assumptions of each research stream. We seek to help scholars develop integrative research across different components of employee HR perceptions.

Second, we extend prior reviews in this domain, presenting new insights. In relation to the ‘what’ component of employee perceptions of HR practices, we build on work by Beijer et al. (in press), who provide an insightful review on perceptual measures of HR practices. We extend Beijer et al.’s work by offering additional perspectives on how employee perceptions of HR are conceptualized and operationalized in the literature. Hewett et al. (2018) offered a summary of HR perception research through the lens of attribution theory. We build on this research by expanding the theoretical domain related to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ component of HR perception research. Specifically, we identify several theoretical approaches that we suggest would enrich this area. Our review also builds on, but goes beyond, Ostroff and Bowen's (2016) work in the HR strength research stream (the ‘how’ of employee perceptions). Finally, Farndale and Sanders (2017) discuss the connection between national cultures and HR strength. We build on their insights and consider the implication of cultural influences on the dynamics of employees’ HR perceptions. Below, we explain the methodology adopted in this review. We then investigate the difference between the assumptions, concepts, and measures of the three components of employee HR perceptions. Next, we critically review the empirical findings on the perceived ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ of HR practices, and offer insights into how research in these areas of inquiry should advance.

Methods

In identifying relevant articles, we used various keywords on employee perceptions of HR practices, including “HR(M) process,” “HR(M) strength,” “HR(M) attribution,” “HR(M) perception,” “HR(M) rating,” “HR(M) experience,” and “employee perceived HR(M)”. We focus on research published after 2004, when Bowen and Ostroff's (2004) landmark paper on employee HR perception appeared. However, we also considered earlier seminal books and articles that underpin this literature. As our attention is on employee perceptions of HR practices, we exclude studies on managers’ perceptions of HR (Leung, Foo, & Chaturvedi, 2013; Wright, McMahan, Snell, & Gerhart, 2001). We focus on HR systems and practices as the target of employee’s perceptions. Therefore, we exclude studies with a perceptual target other than HR practices such as the HR department (e.g. Buyens & De Vos, 2001; Stirpe, Trullen, & Bonache, 2013). Our review focuses on articles appeared in high quality journals, indicated by A* and A rankings in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) journal list. We identified 105 articles to be reviewed (see Table 1) and we grouped them into three categories: the what (HR content), the how (HR strength), and the why (HR attribution) of employee perceptions of HR. The majority (75 out of 105) examine the ‘what’ of HR perception. Nearly half (49 out of 105) of the articles were published over the last five years, indicating the growth in this research over time. In terms of outlet, International Journal of Human Resource Management (38), Human Resource Management (23) and Human Resource Management Journal (14) emerged as three most important journals for employee HR perception research.

Table 1. Review of empirical studies on employee HR perception.

Study	Conceptualization of Employee Perceptions of HR Practices	Independent Variables	Dependent Variables	Moderators	Mediators	Context	Data Analysis
Perceived HR Content
Edgar and Geare (2005) PR	Employee self-reports about HRM practice (20-item developed from studies including Guest, 1999; Johnson, 2000)	Employee perceived HRM practice	Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and fairness			Organizations in New Zealand	Multiple regression
Browning (2006) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HRM practices (seven categories)	Employee perceptions of HRM practices	Employee perceptions of service behavior		Organizational commitment	South African service organizations	Multiple regression
Macky and Boxall (2007) IJHRM	Employee scores on an high performance work system (HPWS) index (16 item developed from studies including Becker & Huselid, 1998)	Employee perceived HPWS	Commitment		Trust in management and job satisfaction	New Zealand employees	Multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA)
Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, and Takeuchi (2007) JAP	Employee ratings of HPWS (21-item adapted from Lepak & Snell, 2002)	high performance work system (HPWS)	Relative establishment performance		Collective human capital and degree of establishment social exchange	Companies in Japan	Hierarchical linear regression
Kuvaas (2008) JMS	Employee perceptions of developmental HR practices (21-item developed from Meyer & Smith, 2009)	Employee perceived developmental HR practices	Turnover intention and work performance	Employee-organization relationship (perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and justice)		Norwegian savings banks	Hierarchical linear modeling
Macky and Boxall (2008) APJHR	Employee experience of high-involvement work processes (41-item developed from Knight-Turvey, 2004; Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999)	Employee perceived high-involvement work process	Job satisfaction, stress and fatigue, and work-life balance			Organizations in New Zealand	Multivariate analysis of covariance
Conway and Monks (2009) HRMJ	Employee perspectives on high commitment-HRM (HC-HRM; 52-item developed from Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005)	Employee perceived HC-HRM	Commitment and intention to leave			Financial services firms in Ireland	Hierarchical linear modelling
Gellatly, Hunter, Currie, and Irving (2009) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of development, stability and reward - oriented HR practices (9-item from Porter, Pearce, Tripoli, & Lewis, 1998)	Employee perceptions of development, stability and reward - oriented HR practices	The membership in the four profiles where affective and continuance commitment is high vs low			Organizations in Canada	Multinomial logit analysis
Herrbach et al. (2009) HRM	Employee perceptions of HR practices that are relevant to retaining older workers in employment (14-item)	Employee perceived training opportunities, availability of new roles, flexible working conditions, and encouragement to retire early	Early retirement		Affective commitment, high-sacrifice commitment, and lack of alternatives commitment	French private firms	Hierarchical linear modeling
Kaše, Paauwe, and Zupan (2009) HRM	Experienced HR practices (47-item)	Mutual experienced HR practices (work design, incentives, and training)	Knowledge sourcing and sharing		Structural, affective, and cognitive relations	organizations in Slovenia	Regression analysis (Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure)
Liao et al. (2009) JAP	Employee perspectives of HPWS (44-item developed from Delery & Doty, 1996; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998; Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005)	Manager perceived HPWS	Employee individual service performance and customer satisfaction		Employee perceived HPWS, employee human capital, employee psychological empowerment, and employee perceived organizational support	Japanese national bank	Hierarchical linear modeling
Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, and De Lange (2010) JOB	Employee perceptions of HR practices	Employee perceptions of development and maintenance HR practices	Affective commitment and job satisfaction	Age		Articles from databases of Psychinfo and AbiInform	Meta-analysis
Shih, Chiang, and Hsu (2010) IJHRM	Employee perceived high involvement work system (HIWS 26-item from Bae, Chen, Wan, Lawler, & Walumbwa, 2003; Chen, Lawler, & Bae, 2005)	Perceived HIWS	Job satisfaction, job performance		Perceived work-family conflict	Multinational companies in Taiwan	Structural equation modeling
Veld, Paauwe, and Boselie (2010) HRMJ	Employee HRM perception (14-item from Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe (2011) for autonomy and performance management, 2-item from van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994), 2-item from Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson (2005) for communication, and 5-item from Colquitt (2001) for informing behavior)	Employee HRM perception	Ward commitment		Climate for quality and climate for safety	Wards and outpatient clinics	Multiple Regression
Boon et al. (2011) IJHRM	Employee experienced HPWS (38-item developed from studies including Cable & Edwards, 2004; Guest & Conway, 2002; Ryan & Schmit, 1996)	Employee perceived HPWS	Organizational commitment, intention to show Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), job satisfaction, and intention to leave		Person-organization (P-O) fit and person-job (P-J) fit	Retail and health care companies in the Netherlands	Hierarchical linear modeling
Chen, Zhang, and Fey (2011) IJHRM	Agent-focused collaborative HR practices (9-item)	Agent-focused collaborative HR practices and strength of ties	Sales performance	External network size and range		Insurance agents in a life insurance company in China	Regression analysis
Elorza et al. (2011) IJHRM	Employee rated the presence of AMO enhancing HR practices (22-item	Manager perceived AMO enhancing HR practices	Affective commitment, productivity, and absenteeism		Employee perceived AMO enhancing HR practices	Spanish manufacturing plants	Multilevel Structural equation modeling
Farndale, Hope-Hailey, and Kelliher (2011) PR	Employee perceptions of high commitment performance management practices (6-item)	Employee perceptions of high commitment performance management practices	commitment	Trust in employer	Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice	Four organizations in the United Kingdom (UK)	Multiple Regression
Aryee et al. (2012) JAP	Employee experienced HPWS (44-item from Liao et al., 2009)	Use of HPWS	Service performance and branch market performance	Service orientation	Experienced HPWS, empowerment climate, and psychological empowerment	Banks in Ghana	Hierarchical linear modeling
Alfes, Shantz, et al. (2013) IJHRM	Employee perceived HPWS (9-item developed from Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005)	Employee perceived HPWS	OCB and turnover intention	Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange	Employee engagement	UK service-sector organizations	Hierarchical linear modeling
Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, and Gatenby (2013) HRM	Employee perceived HR practices (9-item developed from Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005)	Employee perceived HR practices; perceived line manager behavior	Task performance and innovative work behaviour		Employee engagement	UK service-sector organizations	Structural equation modeling
Ang et al. (2013) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (30-item developed from Edgar & Geare, 2005; van Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994; Zacharatos et al., 2005)	Manager perceived HPWS	Affective commitment, intention to leave, engagement, and job satisfaction		Employee perceived HPWS	Australian hospital	Multiple linear Regression
Baluch, Salge, and Piening (2013) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HR systems (12-item in the NHS National Staff Survey)	Employee perceptions of HR systems	Patient satisfaction		Employee civility towards patients; job efficacy, and intention to leave	English public hospital services	Structural equation modeling
Den Hartog et al. (2013) JOM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (10-item)	Manager perceived HPWS	Satisfaction and perceived unit performance	Communication	Employee perceived HPWS	Restaurant chain in the Netherlands	Multilevel Structural equation modeling
Jensen et al. (2013) JOM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (15-items developed from Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Truss, 1999)	Manager Perceived HPWS	Turnover Intention	Job control	Employee perceived HPWS; Anxiety; Role overload	UK government	Hierarchical linear modeling
Kehoe and Wright (2013) JOM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (15-item developed from Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Huselid, 1995; Sun, Aryee, & Law; 2007; Way, 2002)	Employee perceived HPWS	OCB, absenteeism, and intention to remain		Organizational commitment	Food service organisation	Hierarchical linear modeling
Piening, Baluch, and Salge (2013) JAP	Employee perceptions of HR system (18-item)	a. Changes in employee rated HR system; b. Changes in financial performance; c. Changes in customer satisfaction	a. Changes in customer satisfaction and changes in financial performance; b. Changes in job satisfaction; c. changes in employee perceived HR system		a. Changes in job satisfaction; b. Changes in employee perceived HR system; c. changes in job satisfaction	English public hospital services	General method of moments (GMM) estimator
Takeuchi and Takeuchi (2013) IJHRM	Employee perceived HRM practices (11-item)	Employee perceived HRM practices	Turnover intention, affective commitment, continuant commitment, job involvement and job quality improvements		P-O fit, P-J fit	Health care organizations in Japan	Structural equation modeling
Wright & Nishii (2013) Chapter	Employee perceived HR practices						Conceptual paper
Yamamoto (2013) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HRM based on the commitment model (23-item developed from studies including Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998)	Employee perceived HRM based on the commitment model	Retention	Inter-organizational career self-efficacy and specialty commitment		Private-sector companies	Multiple regression
Boon and Kalshoven (2014) HRM	Employee perceptions of HC-HRM (22 item from Lepak & Snell, 2002)	Employee perceptions of HC-HRM	Organizational commitment	Task proficiency	Work engagement	Companies in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Greece, Switzerland, the UK, and the United States	Hierarchical linear modeling
Edgar and Geare (2014) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HC-HRM (18-item developed from Pfeffer, 1994, 1998; Wood & Albanese, 1995)	Employee perceived HC-HRM	Department task performance		Job satisfaction, affective commitment, and OCB	New Zealand tertiary institutions	Multiple linear Regression
Katou et al. (2014) HRM	Perceived HR practices (16-item, from Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, & Swart, 2005	Employee perceived HR practices	Organizational performance	Manager perceived features of HR practices	Employee reactions (e.g., motivation, commitment, engagement, OCB)	Greek organizations	Structural equation modeling
Knies and Leisink (2014) HRMJ	Employee people management activities (7-item regarding supportive HR practices)	Employee people management activities	Extra-role behaviour		Autonomy, ability, and commitment	Cooperative insurance company	Regression (take into account non-independence of observations)
Peters, Poutsma, van der Heijden, Bakker, and de Bruijn (2014) HRM	Employee experienced new ways to work (e.g., telework)	Implemented empowerment and employee perceived new ways to work	Work-related flow			Public and private organizations in the netherlands	Hierarchical linear modeling
Shen and Leggett (2014) PR	Employee perceptions of HRM practices (15-item adapted from Sun et al., 2007 and 5-item regarding recruitment and slection)	Perceptions of HRM practices	Perceived organizational justice	Hukou status		Companies in China	One-way between groups MANOVA
Vermeeren (2014) IJHRM	Employee perceived HRM (39-item adapted from Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Boon, 2008; Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Gould-Williams, 2003; Huselid, 1995; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005)	Line manager transformational leadership	Perceived unit performance		Line manager implemented and employee perceived HRM	A Dutch municipality	Hirerarchical linear modeling
Yanadori and Van Jaarsveld (2014) IR	Employee reports of HPWS (10-item developed from Mohr & Zoghi, 2008; Zatzick & Iverson, 2006)	Formal HPWS, informal HPWS, and unused HPWS	Job satisfaction and workplace profitability			Statistics Canada workplace and employee survey	Ordinal logistic regression
Foss et al. (2015) HRM	Employee perceptions of rewards for knowledge sharing developed from Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado (2006); Maurer and Tarulli (1994) (7-item)	Rewards for knowledge sharing	Autonomous motivation to share knowledge	Autonomy-promoting job design and knowledge sharing supportive climate		Knowledge-intensive firms in Denmark	Hierarchical linear modeling
Maden (2015) PR	Employee perceived high-involvement HR practices (10-item from Yang, 2012)	Employee perceived high-involvement HR practices	Individual innovation and feedback inquiry		Work engagement and learning-goal orientation	Organizations in Turkey	Structural equation modeling
Wehner, Glardini, and Kabst (2015) HRM	Employee perceptions of recruitment process outsourcing (no outsourcing, outsourcing of preselection, outsourcing of preselection and telephone interview, and complete outsourcing)	Extent of recruitment process outsourcing	Job acceptance intention	Service provider image and employer image	Employer attractiveness and satisfaction with the recruitment process	Graduate students in Business Administration and Economics	Scenario-based, between-subject experiment study
Andreeva and Sergeeva (2016) HRMJ	Teacher perceived motivation (3-item from Kianto, Andreeva, & Shi, 2011; 3-item from Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, & Reinholt, 2009), ability (3-item developed based on studies including Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012), and opportunity (7-item from Wu, Hsu, & Yeh, 2007)-enhancing HR practices	Ability and motivation-enhancing HR practices	Knowledge-sharing behavior	Opportunity-enhancing HR practices	Ability, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to share knowledge	Schools from a Russian university	Structural equation modeling
Castanheira and Story (2016) HRM	Employee perceptions of performance-oriented HR practices (14-item developed from Lepak & Snell, 2002; Takeuchi et al., 2007)	Employee perceived performance-oriented HR practices	Affective commitment	savoring strategies	Work engagement	A large retail store	Path analysis
Conway et al. (2016) HRM	Employee perceptions of performance management (3-item developed from Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Lepak & Snell, 2002); employee voice (4-item)	Employee perceived performance management and employee voice	Emotional exhaustion and engagement	Employee voice		A public-sector organization in Ireland	Structural equation modeling
Elorza et al. (2016) PR	Employee perceived HPWS (16-item developed from Delery & Doty, 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1999)	Manager perceived HPWS	Discretionary behaviour		Employee perceived HPWS	Manufacturing companies in Spain	Hierarchical linear modeling
Frenkel and Bednall (2016) HP	Employee perceptions of training opportunity (3-item developed from Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) and promotion opportunity (2-item developed from Spector, 1985)	Employee perceived Training and promotion opportunities	Discretionary work effort	Interactional justice	Procedural justice, career expectation, and felt obligation to work unit	Clerical and administrative employees at branch level in a large bank	Structural equation modeling
Kilroy, Flood, Bosak, and Chênevert (2016) HRMJ	Employee perceptions of high involvement work practices: autonomy (3-item, Spreitzer, 1995), information sharing (3-item, Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995), non-monetary recognition (3-item, Tremblay, Cloutier, Simard, Chênevert, & Vandenberghe, 2010), and training and development (6-item, Tremblay et al., 2010)	Employee perceived high involvement work practices	Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization		Role conflict, role overload, and role ambiguity	A Canadian general hospital	Structural equation modeling
Ma, Silva, Callan, and Trigo (2016) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HR practices (10-item developed from Schuster, 1982)	Employee perceived commitment and control HR practices	Turnover intention and job satisfaction			Multinational firms and domestic firms in China	Hierarchical linear modeling
Monks et al. (2016) HRMJ	Employee perceptions of training and development, performance management, participation, job rotation and mentoring (8-item)	Employee perceived learning-enhancing employment practices and task interdependent work practices	Knowledge exchange and combination		Reflexivity	Knowledge workers in Pharmaceutical and Information and communications technology sectors in Ireland and the UK	Structural equation modeling
Solberg and Dysvik (2016) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HR investment (7-item developed from Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009; Lee & Bruvold, 2003)	Employee perceived investment in employee development	Internal employability orientation and activities		Perceived social and economic exchange relationship	The Norwegian division of a multinational technology service and management consulting firm	Path analysis
Agarwal and Farndale (2017) HRMJ	Employee perceived HPWS (21 item, Takeuchi et al., 2007)	Employee perceived HPWS	Creativity implementation		Psychological capital and psychological safety	A pharmaceutical firm	Path analysis
Andreeva, Vanhala, Sergeeva, Ritala, and Kianto (2017) HRMJ	Employee perceptions of appraisal of knowledge behaviours (3-item) and rewards for knowledge behaviours (3-item)	Employee perceived rewards and performance appraisal of knowledge behaviours	Radical and incremental innovation outcomes			Finish companies	Structural equation modeling
Ang et al. (2017) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of recruitment (6-item, Zacharatos et al., 2005), training and development (6-item, Zacharatos et al., 2005), and health and safety climate (8-item, Edgar & Geare, 2005)	Leader HR practices	Member health & wellbeing and member intention to leave		Member HR practices, Member social connectedness, and leader-member exchange	Australian Mens Sheds	Hierarchical linear modeling
Dumont, Shen, and Deng (2017) HRM	Employee perceptions of HR practices that enhance positive environment outcomes (6-item)	Employee perceived green HRM	Extra-role and in-role green behaviour	Individual green values	Psychological green climate	A Chinese subsidiary of an Australian multinational enterprise	Structural equation modeling
Jiang et al. (2017) HRM	Employee perceived HR practices (13-item developed from previous research, e.g., Chuang & Liao, 2010; Lepak & Snell, 2002)	Manager and Co-worker HR perceptions	Employee HR perceptions	Dissimilarity to manager and co-workers		Chinese insurance company and governmental agency	Hierarchical linear modeling
Kilroy et al. (2017) HRM	Employee perceptions of high involvement work practices: autonomy (3-item, Spreitzer, 1995), information sharing (6-item, Lawler et al., 1995), non-monetary recognition (3-item, Tremblay et al., 2010), and training and development (3-item, Tremblay et al., 2010)	Employee perceived high involvement work practices	Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization		P-O fit	A Canadian general hospital	Structural equation modelling
Li et al. (2017) HRM	Employee perceptions of reward for creativity (3-item developed from Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003)	Employee perceived reward for creativity	Creative performance	Challenge and threat appraisal	Creativity-related intrinsic motivation	A construction group in China	Hierarchical linear modeling
Li and Frenkel (2017) IJHRM	Employee HPWS (17-item developed from Sun et al., 2007)	Supervisor perceptions of HR practices	Work engagement	Supervisor-subordinate hukou status similarity	Leader-member exchange and employee perceptions of HR practices	A private-owned hotel in China	Hierarchical linear modeling
Liu et al. (2017) AMJ	Employee perceived performance-oriented HR practices (36-item) and maintenance-oriented HR practices (12-item) developed from Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009)	Employee perceived performance-oriented HR practices	Creativity and firm innovation	Firm ownership and employee perceived maintenance-oriented HR practices	Domain-relevant skills	Metallurgical firms in China	Hierarchical linear modeling
Schopman, Kalshoven, and Boon (2017) IJHRM	Employee perceived HC-HRM (22 items developed from Lepak & Snell, 2002)	Employee perceived HC-HRM	Motivation to continue to work		Transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation	Dutch health care organizations	Path analysis
Veld and Alfes (2017) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HR system (10-item developed from Kroon, van de Voorde, & van Veldhoven, 2009)	Employee perceived HR system	Ward commitment and need for recovery		Climate for well-being and climate for efficiency	A Long-Term Care organization in the Netherlands	Hierarchical linear modeling
Bos-Nehles and Meijerink (2018) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of the presence of HRM practices (31-item from Liao et al., 2009; Takeuchi et al., 2007)	Line manager perceptions of organizational HRM support & capacity and employee perceptions of LMX	Affective commitment		Line manager motivation to implement HR practices and employee perceptions of the presence of HRM practices	Engineering firms in the Netherlands	Hierarchical linear modeling
Dello Russo, Mascia, and Morandi (2018) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HR practices (6-item)	Employee perceptions of HR practices	Individual perceptions of proactivity climate, organizational climate for proactivity, and appropriateness of care	HRM strength (department level)		Italian hospital companies	Hierarchical linear modelling
Fletcher et al. (2018) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of training and development (3-item developed from Robinson, Hooker, & Hayday, 2007)	Employee perceived training and development	Intention to stay		Employee engagement, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and change-related anxiety	Companies in the UK	Hierarchical linear modeling
Gkorezis, Georgiou, and Theodorou (2018) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (11-item from Takeuchi et al., 2007; Chang & Chen, 2011)	Employee perceived HPWS	Intention to leave	HR-related education background	Organizational cynicism	Private hospitals in Cyprus	Regression analysis
Kooij and Boon (2018) HRMJ	Employee perceptions of high-performance work practices (14-item)	Employee perceptions of high-performance work practices	Affective commitment over time	Career stage	P-O fit over time	A Dutch university	Structural equation modeling
Li, Wang, Van Jaarsveld, Lee, and Ma (2018) AMJ	Employee experienced high-involvement work system (HIWS; items from the employee survey collected by Statistics Canada)	Employee experienced HIWS	Innovation	The homogeneity of HIWS experiences, the strategic importance of innovation, and the churn in human resources		Workplaces in Canada	Ordered probit regressions
Mäkelä and Kinnunen (2018) IJHRM	Supportive HR practices developed from earlier literature (e.g., Ivancevich, Konopaske, & DeFrank, 2003; Jensen, 2014; Welch & Worm, 2006) (5-item)	Employee perceived supportive HR practices	Job exhaustion, vigor and satisfaction with travel for work	Workload & pressure, and risks of travel destination		Multinational companies and Finnish trade union members	Structural equation modelling
Makhecha et al. (2018) IJHRM	Experienced HR practices (content, process, & intent)	Intended HR practices	Employee experienced HR practices	e.g., low communication & low comprehension ability	Actual HR practices	Retail sector in India	Case study
Yousaf et al. (2018) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HC-HRM (17-item developed from Sanders, Dorenbosch, et al., 2008)	Employee perceived high commitment HRM	Organizational and occupational turnover intention	Affective occupation commitment	Affective organizational commitment	Indonesia restaurants	Hierarchical linear modeling
Bayazit and Bayazit (2019) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of availability of flexible work arrangements (4-item developed from Allen, 2001)	Employee perceived availability of flexible work arrangement	Perceived general health	Perceived family-supportive culture	Flexibility I-deals, work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict	Firms in Turkey	Path analysis
Bos-Nehles and Veenendaal (2019) IJHRM	Employee perceived HR practices (14-item from Boselie, Hesselink, Paauwe, & van der Wiele, 2001)	Employee perceived training & development, compensation, information sharing, and supportive supervision	Innovative work behavior	Innovative climate		Manufacturing companies in the Netherlands	Regression analysis
Choi (2019) APJHR	The extent to which employees agreed or disagreed that each practice was used by their personal experience and understanding of HR practices (8-item)	HR systems	Firm performance and job satisfaction		Employee perceived HR systems	South Korean manufacturing firms	Hierarchical linear modeling
Cooke et al. (2019) IJHRM	Employee perceptions of HPWS (16-item developed from Bae & Lawler, 2000; Prieto & Santana, 2012; Searle et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2007)	Employee perceptions of HPWS	engagement		resilience	Chinese banking industry	Structural equation modeling
Beijer et al. (in press) HRMJ	Critical review of the measurement of HR practices (employee vs manager) used in the papers published between 2000 and 2017						Literature review
Perceived HR Strength
Dorenbosch et al. (2006) MR	Consensus on and legitimacy of the HR message (15-item on consensus and 20-item on legitimacy developed from Boselie et al., 2005; Delery & Doty, 1996; Sanders & Van der Ven, 2004; Tsui & Wang, 2002)	Consensus and legitimacy of the HR message	Commitment strength			Dutch hospitals	Hierarchical linear modeling
Sanders, Dorenbosch, et al. (2008) PR	Distinctiveness (7-item about relevance and 10-item about authority developed from Ulrich, 1997); Consistency (within-respondent agreement on HRM items)	Distinctiveness, consistency and consensus	Affective commitment		Climate strength	Dutch hospital	Hierarchical linear modeling
Koster (2011) IJHRM	The intensity and consistency of perceived HR practices (Items about employee perceptions of HR practices from ESS and calculated)	The intensity and consistency of perceived HR practices	Organizational commitment and work effort			Organizations in 26 European countries	Hierarchical linear modeling
Li et al. (2011) IJHRM	Distinctiveness: 5-item scale (Frenkel et al., 2012); Consistency: within-respondent agreement on HRM items; Consensus: 4-item scale (Delmotte, De Winne, Gilbert, & Sels, 2007)	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus	Employee work satisfaction, vigor, and intention to quit	Climate strength		Chinese hotel	Hierarchical linear modeling
Delmotte et al. (2012) IJHRM	Distinctiveness: 10-item; Consistency: 9-item; Consensus: 12-item					Belgian private sector companies	Scale development & validation
Ehrnrooth and Bjorkman (2012) JMS	Visibility (Intensity), relevance (meaningfulness), & validity of HR system (8-item on visibility, 8-item on relevance, and 16-item on validity)	Visibility, relevance, and validity	Employee creativity, work load, and job performance		Psychological empowerment	IT consultant company in Sweden	Structural equation modeling
Frenkel, Li, et al. (2012) BJIR	Distinctive and consistency (10-item scale)	Distinctive and consistency	Negative emotions and emotional exhaustion		Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice	Manufacturing organizations	Structural equation modeling
Frenkel, Restubog, and Bednall (2012) IJHRM	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus (12-item scale)	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus	Discretionary work effort and co-worker assistance		Procedural justice, organization identification, and distributive justice	An alcoholic beverage firm and a telecommunications company	Structural equation modeling
Pereira and Gomes (2012) IJHRM	Strength of the HR system (42-item from Coelho et al., 2015)	Strength of the HR system and transformational leadership	Organizational performance		Organizational climate	A multinational company	Path analysis
De Winne et al. (2013) IJHRM	Distinctiveness: 10-item scale; Consistency: 9-item scale; Consensus: 12-item scale	Perceived effectiveness in the four HR roles; Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus	Perceived general effectiveness of the HR department			Belgian private sector companies	Multiple linear Regression
Farndale and Kelliher (2013) HRM	Justice in performance appraisal (5-item developed from Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999)	Employee perceived justice in performance appraisal	Affective commitment	Trust in senior management		Firms in the UK	Hierarchical linear modeling
Redmond (2013) HRM	Relevance and fairness (6-item)	Relevance and justice of competency model	Job performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, and employability		Exchange relationship	Norwegian consulting, banking, & property management organization	Multiple linear Regression
Bednall, Sanders, and Runhaar (2014) AMLE	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus (16-item adapted from Delmotte et al., 2012)	Performance appraisal quality	Participation in informal learning activities	Distinctiveness, consistency, & consensus		Dutch vocational education training schools	Hierarchical linear modeling
Piening et al. (2014) HRM	Employee perceived HR practices (e.g., visibility of HR practices)	Intended HR practices (e.g., agreement among HR decision-makers)	Perceived HR practices (e.g., visibility of HR practices)	Organization’s ability to leverage its resource; employee expectations of HRM	Implemented HR practices (e.g., degree of centralization of the HR function)	Health and social service organizations in Germany	Multiple case study
Sumelius et al. (2014) HRM	Visibility, validity, procedural and distributive justice of performance appraisal (PA)	e.g., top management internalization of PA, supervisor commitment to PA process, and past experience of PA	Perceived visibility, validity, procedural and distributive justice of PA			Nordic MNCs	Multiple case study
Heffernan and Dundon (2016) HRMJ	Distributive justice (9-item developed from Colquitt, 2001), procedural justice (9-item developed from Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993; Tyler & Lind, 1992) and interactional justice (10-item developed from Colquitt, 2001)	HPWS	Job satisfaction, affective commitment, work pressure		Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice	Irish firms	Hierarchical linear modeling
Sanders and Yang (2016) HRM	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus (manipulations and Delmotte et al., 2012)	High commitment-HRM	Affective commitment and innovative behaviour	Employee HRM strength		Organization in the Netherlands	Hierarchical linear modeling and scenario-based experiment
Baluch (2017) IJHRM	Perceived distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus of HRM	Employee perceived HR strength	Well-being			Non-profit organizations in the UK	Multiple case study
Bednall and Sanders (2017) HRM	Distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus (16-item adapted from Delmotte et al., 2012)	Formal learning opportunity	Short- and long-term participation in informal learning activities	Employee perceived HRM system strength		Middle schools in the Netherlands	Latent intercept models
Farndale and Sanders (2017) IJHRM	Distinctiveness, consistency, & consensus	Perceived HR strength	Employee outcome	Cultural values and cultural tightness/looseness			Conceptual paper
Hauff et al. (2017) HRM	HRM system strength (7-item developed based on Ostroff & Bowen, 2000)	HRM system strength and number of important HRM target	HRM target achievement (e.g., employee commitment, high performance)			Organizations in Germany	Regression analysis
Sanders et al. (2018) HRM	Distinctiveness, consistency & consensus (15-item, from Coelho et al., 2015)	Performance-based reward	Innovative behaviour	Employee perceived HR strength and uncertainty avoidance of the country		Organizations from different industries in 10 countries	Hierarchical lineaer modeling
Alfes et al. (2019) HRM	Employee perceptions of HR system strength (9-item from Frenkel, Li, et al., 2012)	Employee perceptions of HR system strength	Engagement in change-supportive behavior		State positive affect; perceived organizational support, and coping with organizational change	Police force in the UK	Structural equation modeling
Chacko and Conway (2019) HRMJ	Employee perceived event-signalled HRM system strength (12-item adapted from Delmotte et al., 2012)	HR event valence	Daily work engagement		Employee perceived event-signalled HRM system strength and clear expectancy perceptions	Customer-facing, administrative, and professional staff at a London local authority	Regression using cluster-robust standard errors
HR Attribution
Nishii et al. (2008) Ppsych	Employee internal (commitment-focus and control focus) and external (union compliance) HR attribution (25-item)	Employee internal and external HR attribution	Customer satisfaction		Affective commitment, satisfaction, and OCB	A service firm	Structural equation modeling
Fontinha et al. (2012) PR	Employee internal HR attribution (6-item for commitment-focus and 6-item for control focus)	Commitment-focused HR attribution and control-focused HR attribution	Affective commitment to the client organization		Affective commitment to the outsourcing company	Portuguese outsourcing companies in the information technologies sector	Structural equation modeling
Webster and Beehr (2013) JOB	Employee promotion criteria attribution (16-item for performance-base and non-performance-base mobility)	Received a promotion	Task performance and OCB	Ego-defensiveness	Promotional justice, organizational commitment, and promotion criteria attibution	Alumni, MBA and EMBA students of one large university in the Midwestern U.S.A	Structural equation modeling
Van de Voorde and Beijer (2015) HRMJ	The meanings employees attach to HPWS (10-item for employee well-being and get the most work out of employees)	HPWS	Commitment and job strain		Well-being focused and performance focused HR attributions	Dutch organizations	Hierarchical linear modeling
Shantz et al. (2016) HRMJ	Performance and cost attributions on training, selection, reward, performance appraisal, and participation (10-item developed from Nishii et al., 2008)	Performance and cost attributions	Emotional exhaustion		Job involvement and work overload	A construction and consultancy organization in the UK	Path analysis
Hewett et al. (2018) JOB	A new measure designed for HR attribution for purpose of organizational workload (18-item)	Information (perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness)	Commitment and control attributions	Belief (cynicism) and motivation (personal relevance)		Academics in the UK	Multiple linear regression

^aAMJ (Academy of Management Journal); AMLE (Academy of Management Learning and Education); APJHR (Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources); BJIR (British Journal of Industrial Relations); HP (Human Performance); HRM (Human Resource Management); HRMJ (Human Resource Management Journal); IJHRM (International Journal of Human Resource Management); IR (Industrial Relations); JAP (Journal of Applied Psychology); JMS (Journal of Management Studies); JOB (Journal of Organizational Behavior); JOM (Journal of Management); MR (Management Revue); Ppsych (Personnel Psychology); PR (Personnel Review).

Common assumptions in employee HR perception research

Before reviewing research on the three components of employee HR perceptions research, we consider the major assumptions that underlie much of this literature stream. Despite the wide range of topics addressed, we identify several common assumptions on which the extant research is built. The first assumption is that HR practices function as a communication mechanism from employer to employee. Whether by design or by accident, HR practices deliver certain messages to employees (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Messages can be embedded in HR content (the ‘what’) or in the way HR practices are implemented (the ‘how’). In this line of reasoning, employee HR perceptions encapsulate the messages employees, either individually or collectively, receive from their employers by observing or experiencing HR practices.

A second assumption is that employees may disagree with their employers regarding the types of HR practices implemented and the reason(s) behind the implementation of these practices. This premise distinguishes the HR perception literature from prior strategic HRM research. Strategic HRM studies tend to assume that top-level managers are aware of implemented HR practices. Therefore, they measure firm-level HR, often based on subjective responses from a single senior manager who is deemed to have more knowledge of HR practices than others in the organization including employees (Gerhart, Wright, Mahan, & Snell, 2000; Huselid & Becker, 2000). The employee HR perceptions literature explicitly acknowledges the potential disparity between HR practices perceived by managers and those perceived by employees, highlighting the importance of employees’ subjective experience of HR as a driver of workplace outcomes.

The third assumption underlying this field is the potential divergence among employees in their perceptions of HR practices (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Employees may have idiosyncratic observations of the HR practices available in their organization because HR practices are designed differently across different groups of employees within an organization (Liao et al., 2009), or employees may consider certain HR practices as irrelevant to themselves, and so do not make themselves aware of their potential benefits or costs. Even within the same work group, individuals may develop varied understandings about which HR practices are available to them and why such practices were introduced by the organization. This may be attributable to individual differences, such as personalities or experiences in prior jobs (Wright & Nishii, 2013), or social influences from colleagues (Jiang et al., 2017). In this line of reasoning, the interpersonal divergence of HR perception within an organization is not an error to be controlled for, but the phenomenon of interest that explains the effects of HR practices on outcomes.

The perceived ‘what’ of HR practices

Theoretical underpinning

Studies of the perceived ‘what’ of HR practices concern the content of HR practices implemented in an organization as subjectively experienced by employees (e.g. Jiang et al., 2017). If HR practices are to influence employee outcomes, they must first exist in the minds of employees (Wright & Nishii, 2013) because cognition is a crucial precursor of subsequent attitudes and behaviors (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985). Each HR practice or a set of HR practices (HR bundles) is deemed to signal its own messages to employees. For instance, high-performance work practices are assumed to convey that an employer is sincerely supportive and committed to his or her employees (Alfes, Shantz, Truss, & Soane, 2013; Choi, 2019). If such HR practices signal an employer’s goodwill, then they should induce positive employee reactions. This logic is justified by established theories of social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). The basic argument underlying this approach is that the goodwill that underlies the delivery of HR practices (such as high-performance work systems) will encourage employees to reciprocate by displaying positive workplace behaviors.

Measurement

The measurement items used in the what of HR perception literature are often similar to HR practice measures previously used to capture firm-level HR practices from senior managers. Beijer et al. (in press) report that two sets of approaches are used when designing the ‘what’ of HR perception measures. The first approach compares descriptive and evaluative measures of HR practices. Descriptive measures seek to capture the reality of HR practices as cognitively recognized and remembered by employees. Employees might be asked whether the selection process involves interview panels (Edgar & Geare, 2005) or how many hours of formal training are offered to employees (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Evaluative measures, on the other hand, ask employees about their assessment or evaluation of HR constructs. For example, researchers have asked employees to consider whether “a rigorous selection process is used to select new recruits” (Jensen et al., 2013) or whether “staff are given meaningful feedback regarding their individual performance” (Alfes, Shantz, et al., 2013). After reviewing this field, Beijer et al. (in press) concluded that evaluative HR measures appear to dominate the literature.

Based on our review, we identify additional approaches that have been used when measuring the ‘what’ of HR perception. Specifically, we distinguish observation-based versus experience-based HR measures. Observation-based HR measures capture employees’ perception of HR availability by placing respondents as third-person observers. An example of observation-based HR perception measurement asks employees whether they observe the occurrence of formal evaluation in their own work unit (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). In contrast, experience-based HR measures are designed to capture HR practices as directly experienced by the responding employees. For example, one measure asks whether respondents themselves have received formal performance evaluation (Conway, Fu, Monks, Alfes, & Bailey, 2016). Table 2 presents example questionnaire items that reflect these two distinct approaches.

Table 2. Examples of perceived “what” of HR practices measures.

	Observation-based measure	Experience-based measure
Descriptive	Selection: Interview panels are used during the recruitment and selection process in this organization (Edgar & Geare, 2005)	Selection: I am administered many assessment tools—including personality, aptitude, and skill tests—prior to employment in our firm (Liu et al., 2017)
	Development: On average, how many hours of formal training do associates in this job receive each year? (Kehoe & Wright, 2013)	Development: In the past 12 months, have you received any classroom training related to your job? (Yanadori & Van Jaarsveld, 2014)
	Performance management: At least once a year associates in this job receive a formal evaluation of their performance (Kehoe & Wright, 2013)	Performance management: I receive a formal evaluation of my performance at least once a year (Conway et al., 2016)
	Rewards: Our company rewards employees for sharing information (Andreeva et al., 2017)	Rewards: The rewards I receive include fringe benefits (bonuses) in addition to a fixed salary (Castanheira & Story, 2016)
Evaluative	Selection: A rigorous selection process is used to select new recruits (Jensen et al., 2013)	Selection: I think that the selection method of promotion is successful (Yamamoto, 2013)
	Development: This organization puts in a great deal of effort in organizing for internal career development (Kuvaas, 2008)	Development: How satisfied do you feel with the level of training you receive in your current job? (Katou et al., 2014)
	Performance management: Staff are given meaningful feedback regarding their individual performance, at least once each a year (Alfes, Shantz, et al., 2013)	Performance management: The criteria of performance appraisal are clear to me (Castanheira & Story, 2016)
	Rewards: Individuals in my work unit receive special recognition for unique contributions (Li et al., 2017)	Rewards: The rewards I get from this company are associated, at least in part, to my performance (Castanheira & Story, 2016)

We argue, based on our review, that different types of HR perception measures produce somewhat different empirical results. In general, evaluative- rather than descriptive-based measures, and experience- rather than observation-based measures, tend to show stronger relations with employee outcomes. One potential reason for such findings may be the performance-cue effect (Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010), which occurs when a measurement method provides a prompt that facilitates the rater’s retrieval of performance-related information from his or her memory. In such a situation, evaluators’ responses could be biased toward the given performance cues (Binning, Zaba, & Whattam, 1986). This indicates the need to be careful when interpreting the results of the what of HR perception studies in the literature, as they could be a product of the measures used. We would encourage future research to carefully consider whether substantive or performance cue effects are in operation when interpreting the results of their study.

Major findings

A major concern in this research stream has been demonstrating that HR content as perceived by employees may not be the same as HR content as perceived by their managers. Empirical studies confirm that HR perceptions vary across the organizational hierarchy. For instance, Liao et al. (2009) indicate that the HR practices reported by employees were not as similar to those of managers as the latter would like them to be. Across studies of perceived HR content (Ang, Bartram, McNeil, Leggat, & Stanton, 2013; Ang et al., 2017; Aryee et al., 2012; Choi, 2019; Den Hartog et al., 2013; Elorza, Aritzeta, & Ayestaran, 2011; Elorza, Harris, Aritzeta, & Balluerka, 2016; Jensen et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2017; Li & Frenkel, 2017; Liao et al., 2009; Vermeeren, 2014), the average correlation between manager and employee perceptions of HR content is moderate (r = 0.37 on average). However, the size of the HR perception gap between managers and employees may differ. For example, studies have found that managers’ communication quality (Den Hartog et al., 2013) and hukou status similarity (Li & Frenkel, 2017) may enhance the perceptual congruence between managers and employees.

Employee perceptions of the ‘what’ of HR affect a number of employee outcomes, including organizational commitment (Edgar & Geare, 2005; Macky & Boxall, 2007), turnover intentions (Kuvaas, 2008), job satisfaction (Macky & Boxall, 2008), early retirement (Herrbach, Mignonac, Vandenberghe, & Negrini, 2009), service performance (Liao et al., 2009), organizational citizenship behavior (Alfes, Shantz, et al., 2013), knowledge sharing (Foss, Pedersen, Reinholt Fosgaard, & Stea, 2015), and emotional exhaustion (Conway et al., 2016). Studies also reveal several moderators that may amplify the relationship between perceived HR content and employee outcomes such as employees’ individual characteristics (Li, Deng, Leung, & Zhao, 2017), organizational characteristics (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017), and perceived organizational support (Kuvaas, 2008).

In sum, the ‘what’ of employee HR perception literature concerns the content of HR practices as perceived by employees and the impact of these perceptions on workplace outcomes. This literature complements prior strategic HRM literature by demonstrating the mediating mechanisms through which HR practices are translated into employee outcomes. One of the limitations of this research is the inconsistency in measuring employees’ perceived HR content. Studies use a diverse array of HR perception measures (descriptive, evaluative, observation-based, and experience-based) without properly reflecting on the potential influence of the choice of measurement on study results. Another limitation of research in the area is the relative lack of interest on the determinants of the perceived content of HR, especially organizational-level antecedents. Future research should focus on the potential influence of the different types of HR content measures on study results.

The perceived ‘how’ of HR practices

Theoretical underpinnings

Employee perceptions of the ‘how’ of HR practices involve employee views of how HR practices are designed and implemented (Delmotte, De Winne, & Sels, 2012). This research stream is distinctive from the studies of the ‘what’ of HR practices in the sense that the focus is about the process through which HR messages are delivered to organizational members. A central assumption of research on the ’how’ of HR practices is that even a well-intended HR system may not produce its best possible outcomes if employees fail to make sense of it in a coherent, consistent and unified way.

The dominant concept in this literature is “HR strength”. A strong HR system ensures that employees’ collective understanding of HR practices is well aligned to the intentions of management (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). The notion of HR strength has its foundations in situational strength research (Mischel, 1973; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Katou, Budhwar, & Patel, 2014; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). In a strong situation, employees share a common understanding of the organization’s policies, practices, procedures, and goals, and the behaviors that are expected and rewarded (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). In contrast, in a weak situation, employees experience a high degree of ambiguity regarding what is being expected in their organizational lives, which produces a wide variability in the workplace attitudes and behaviors displayed (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Researchers have argued that a strong situation influences employee attitudes and behaviors, and therefore, that it is critical that features of an HR system allow for the creation of a strong situation.

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) name nine features of HR practices that can foster a strong situation in which unambiguous messages about an organization’s intended attitudes and behaviors can be sent to employees. Building on Kelley’s (1973) covariation theory, these authors suggest that an HR system will result in a strong situation when it is distinctive, consistent, and consensus generating (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Specifically, they elucidate four characteristics that can foster distinctiveness: visibility, understandability, legitimacy of authority, and relevance; three characteristics that establish consistency: instrumentality, validity, and consistent HR messages; and two characteristics that can result in consensus: agreement among principal HR decision makers and fairness. In short, HR strength is intrinsically tied to the features of organizational practices that result in employees developing shared perceptions of organizationally desired behaviors.

One of the theoretical challenges yet to be resolved in this area is the unit of analysis adopted when considering HR strength. In their seminal study, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) proposed that HR strength is an organizational-level construct that mediates between the HRM system and firm-level performance. However, most studies in this area operationalized HR strength at the individual-level and often linked it to individual-level outcomes. Ostroff and Bowen (2016: p. 198) expressed concerns about this trend and argued that the individual-level construct of “perceptions of HRM system strength”, although meaningful in its own right, should be differentiated from the collective-level construct of “HRM system strength”.

Measurement

Studies have used a variety of methods to measure HR strength as perceived by individuals, including assessing the within-person variability of HR ratings to measure consistency (e.g. Sanders, Dorenbosch, & de Reuver, 2008; Li, Frenkel, & Sanders, 2011). A study by Delmotte et al. (2012) was one of the first to design a scale to measure perceived HR strength. More recently, Coelho, Cunha, Gomes, and Correia (2015), and Hauff, Alewell, and Hansen (2017) designed scales to measure perceived HR strength. Although these scales are widely used in empirical studies, Ostroff and Bowen (2016) concluded that the field still lacks a comprehensive and sophisticated measure of HR strength (p. 199; see also Hewett et al., 2018; Sanders et al., 2014). Until a widely recognized measure of HR strength at different levels of analysis is developed, it will be difficult to systematically accumulate knowledge on the effects of the ‘how’ of HR practices (Ostroff & Bowen, 2016).

Empirical findings

In general, studies show that employee-perceived HR strength is associated with positive employee outcomes such as organizational commitment (Farndale & Kelliher, 2013), job satisfaction (Heffernan & Dundon, 2016), vigor (Li et al., 2011), well-being (Baluch, 2017), task performance (Redmond, 2013), creativity (Ehrnrooth & Bjorkman, 2012), organizational citizenship behavior (Frenkel, Restubog, & Bednall, 2012), HR effectiveness (De Winne, Delmotte, Gilbert, & Sels, 2013), and organizational performance (Pereira & Gomes, 2012) while being negatively related to turnover intentions (Li et al., 2011) and negative emotions (Frenkel, Li, et al., 2012).

While some studies have identified perceived HR strength as a moderator of relationships between HR practices and outcomes (Bednall & Sanders, 2017; Sanders & Yang, 2016; Sanders et al., 2018), other studies have identified HR strength as an outcome. For instance, Sumelius, Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, and Smale’s (2014) research indicated that employees’ prior experiences of performance appraisal influence their perception of HR strength. They also reported that how employees perceive HR strength is influenced by their relationship to managers.

In sum, while the work of Bowen and Ostroff (2004, 2016) reflects an impressive theoretical development that has moved HRM research further by emphasizing the importance of employees’ understandings of the organizational context, several concerns currently limit research in this area. In particular, the lack of consensus as to the level at which the HR strength construct should be assessed, and the lack of a comprehensive and sophisticated measure(s) of HR strength, hinders progress in the field. Future research needs to focus on building theory around HR strength at the higher (team or organizational) level while developing valid and reliable measures at all levels of analysis. In addition, while some studies have examined HR strength as a moderator, studies examining HR strength as a mediator are virtually nonexistent. As such, researchers need to consider HR strength as a mediator between HR practices and outcomes. Another limitation of research in this area is the lack of knowledge about the determinants of HR strength. Finally, with few exceptions, HR strength research follows a universalistic approach. In a theoretical article, however, Farndale and Sanders (2017) challenge this approach and propose that the effects of employee perceptions of HR strength may depend on the cultural values across nations. Building a contingency perspective, they theorize HR strength could be more effective when aligned with certain cultural values of employees. This issue needs to be theoretically and empirically considered in different cross-national contexts.

The perceived ‘why’ of HR practices

Theoretical underpinnings

Employees’ perceived ‘why’ of HR practices refers to their causal explanations regarding management’s motivations for implementing particular HR practices (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). The perceived ‘why’ of HR practices is distinctive from the perceived ‘what’ and ‘how’ of HR practices. Specifically, employees with the same perceived HR content and HR strength may disagree with each other about why those HR practices were put into place. In their seminal work, Nishii et al. (2008) propose multiple types of HR attributions. Internal HR attributions involve employees’ beliefs that their company is responsible for its HR decisions. Internal HR attributions can be further divided into those associated with a firm’s business needs and strategies (cost control or quality enhancement) or the firm’s employee-related philosophy (employee-well-being orientation or employee-exploitation orientation). External HR attributions are based on the view that the implementation of HR practices is a result of complying with pressure from outside the company (such as trade unions or labor legislation). This multi-faceted categorization of HR attribution emerged as a dominant framework to conceptualize employees’ interpretation of their company’s motives behind HR practices.

An important assumption in this research stream is employees’ personification of their organization, which refers to the phenomenon of “anthromorphism”. This phenomenon involves the process of attributing humanlike qualities to nonhuman entities (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). Through anthromorphism, employees consider their company as a humanlike agent who takes intentional actions (Ashforth, Schinoff, & Brickson, in press). When a company is personified, employees interpret its HR practices in the same way they interpret other people’s behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007). Then, HR practices are subject to employees’ attributional processes through which employees formulate their interpretation about organization’s motivation(s) to implement such HR practices.

Whether employees personify their organization is a matter of debate. Ashforth et al. (in press) suggest that the anthromorphism is a prevalent phenomenon and has been embraced by several strands of management scholarship such as literature on perceived organizational support, psychological contract theory, and employee-employer relationship. If we build on this research, then it would appear that the HR attribution literature is built on a valid assumption. However, Coyle-Shapiro and Shore (2007) warn that employees’ anthromorphism should not be taken for granted. Some employees may find it difficult to anthromorphize their organization due to personal or situational reasons. If this is the case, then the underlying assumption of the HR attribution perspective may have limited validity. We suggest that this assumption needs to be explicitly considered and tested in different organizational environments. In this way, researchers could then determine whether or when employees personify their organization.

Measurement

Nishii et al. (2008) developed the most widely used measurement tool in this stream of research. The authors discuss two archetypes: commitment HR attribution, which is composed of service quality enhancing and employee well-being attributions; and control HR attribution, which involves cost-reduction and exploitation. Although most empirical studies directly borrow the Nishii et al. scales to evaluate employee attribution, a few scholars have developed their own measures of HR attributions (e.g. Webster & Beehr, 2013).

Empirical findings

Overall, commitment attributions, compared to control attributions, have a more noticeable positive impact on employee behaviors and attitudes (Nishii et al., 2008; Shantz, Arevshatian, Alfes, & Bailey, 2016; Van de Voorde & Beijer, 2015; Webster & Beehr, 2013). For example, research indicates that commitment attributions are positively related to employee commitment to the organization (Fontinha, Chambel, & De Cuyper, 2012) and job satisfaction (Nishii et al., 2008), while control attributions are positively related to work overload and emotional exhaustion (Shantz et al., 2016). Recently, Hewett, Shantz, and Mundy (2019) examine the antecedents of HR attributions, applying attribution theory (Kelley & Michela, 1980) to the influence of information (perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness), beliefs (organizational cynicism), and motivation (perceived relevance) on employees’ interpretation of employer’s intent behind a workload model. The results of a study of 347 UK academics show that fairness and cynicism are important for the formation of HR commitment attributions; these factors also interact in such a manner that distributive fairness buffers the negative effect of cynicism.

In sum, in comparison to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of employee perceptions, research on the ‘why’ is less developed (Sanders, Guest, & Rodrigues, 2017). One area where research is especially needed is the determinants of HR attributions (Hewett et al., 2019). Many studies have identified multiple types of HR attributions and explored their impact on employee outcomes; however, knowledge is limited on how such employees HR attributions are formulated. In addition, we need to develop a more nuanced understanding about the role of culture in employee HR attribution. Some empirical findings across nations appear to contradict each other. For instance, while Nishii et al. (2008) demonstrate that an exploitation attribution has a negative effect on employee and organizational outcomes in the US, in other countries such as China, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom it has a positive effect (Sanders et al., 2018). Future research is needed to address considerations concerning the role of cultural values on the ‘why’ of HR perceptions.

Future directions

Enrich the theories of HR communication

Perhaps most crucially, research on employee perceptions of HR practices reveals that HR practices function as a mechanism of communication between employer and employees. An important direction for future research is to enrich the theoretical grounding of the literature by drawing from established theories shown to be useful in understanding the phenomenon of communication and information processing in managerial settings, particularly in the areas of information processing, signaling, and sensemaking.

Information-processing theory suggests that individuals go through a series of processes when they seek to understand their surrounding environments. Individuals first select and organize pieces of information from the environment and then attach their interpretation and judgment to the acquired information (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Sanders, Yang, & Li, in press). The selection stage involves choosing the cues, signals, and stimuli to which they will pay attention. In the organization stage, individuals assign new information to extant categories familiar to them and group information into meaningful, orderly, and useful sets. In the interpretation and judgment stage, individuals translate the organized information and give it meaning. In other words, individuals make a judgment about a person or event, and about the cause of the behavior.

Information processing theory is highly relevant to employee HR perceptions research. The selecting and organizing information stages relate to the pieces of HR information employees choose to recognize (the ‘what’ of employee perception). Experimental research can provide new insights in how and why employee perceive the same HR practices in an organization differently. In addition to personality factors and the cultural value orientations of employees, saliency of different HR practices can play a role. For instance, HR practices related to maternity leave and flexible work can be expected to be more salient for pregnant employees and/or employees with young children. Other employees may not be aware of these HR practices and thus do not perceive them. Future research can examine which HR practices are more salient for which categories of employees and why this is the case.

Interpretation and judgment of the perceptions of HR practices involve attribution processes (Kelley, 1973), and therefore are related to HR strength and HR attributions of employee perceptions of HR practices (the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of employee perceptions). Future research on employee HR perceptions can readily draw from the rich stock of knowledge in the information processing literature. For example, the motivated information processing perspective posits that individuals may see and understand different things depending on their underlying motivations (De Dreu, 2007). This suggests that employee memory and awareness of HR content may be biased depending on individuals’ personal needs or other motivations (Sanders et al., in press). The theory of information processing could inspire researchers to explore the relationship between the ‘what’ aspect of HR perception and the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of HR attributions. This requires more studies that theoretically and empirically examine the interrelationship among these three dimensions of HR perceptions. Experimental research can be especially helpful to explore relationships as it can be assumed that perceptions, interpretation and attribution occur simultaneously. Experimental research can help to untangle these relationships. However, information processing theories can be criticized as very descriptive frameworks that do not provide a clear understanding of the different elements and the moderators that influence the relationship between the different elements and outcomes. So, in addition to further theoretical development, experimental research can provide the opportunity to unravel the different elements and learn more about how they influence different employee outcomes.

Signaling theory can help us further explain the phenomenon of employee perceptions of HR practices. Signaling theory concerns ways to reduce information asymmetry between the signaler, or information senders, and information receivers by way of signaling activities (Spence, 2002). The relevance of signaling theory to management research in general has been recognized with some authors identifying this theory as relevant to HR perception research (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011; Ehrnrooth & Bjorkman, 2012; Bednall, Sanders, & Yang, 2019; Sanders et al., in press). This theory views HR practices as signals sent from managers towards employees. The theories on signals, signal senders, and signal receivers can further inspire HR perception research. For instance, future research can explore HR signaling dynamics in relation to different types of signalers, or the ‘who’ of HR perception. In today’s organization, the implementation of HR involves various actors including CEOs, HR professionals, and line managers (Op de Beeck, Wynen, & Hondeghem, 2016). In addition, the popularization of new HR delivery modes such as self-service and shared service is reshaping the sources from which employees receive HR messages (Huang & Martin-Taylor, 2013; Maatman, Bondarouk, & Looise, 2010). Future research may investigate how employees’ attitudes and behaviors could vary depending on employees’ perceptions regarding the senders of HR messages.

Future research can also draw from signaling theory when examining the ‘when’ of HR practices, or the temporal aspect of HR implementation. According to signaling theory, a high level of signal frequency creates signals that are more visible and efficacious (Connelly et al., 2011). This may suggest that the frequency of certain HR practices (for instance, the frequency of performance evaluations) may generate more positive employee responses. Signaling theory also suggests that signaler’s choice of timing and duration of signal matters (Connelly et al., 2011). Future research may build on these insights and examine how employees’ HR perceptions are influenced by the temporal aspect of HR implementation in terms of the perceived frequency of HR practice implementation.

Finally, researchers can further investigate the nature of HR message receivers, or the ‘whom’ of HR perception. Signaling theory highlights the role of the receiver in the signaling process. There are two receiver-related signaling processes, receiver attention and receiver interpretation. Receiver attention refers to “the extent to which receivers vigilantly scan the environment for signals” (Connelly et al., 2011, p. 54). Receiver attention is particularly essential when signals are weak and inconsistent. Receiver interpretation captures “[T]he processes of translating signals into perceived meaning” (Connelly et al., 2011, p. 54). Receivers have their own agency to interpret noted signals. Therefore, the same signals could be interpreted differently by individual receivers. These insights suggest that the dynamics of HR signaling are affected by employees’ attention and interpretation. For instance, employees may pay varied levels of attention to certain HR practices depending on their position, tenure, and employment status.

Sensemaking can be defined as “[T]he processes whereby organizational members translate an organizational event and construct a meaningful explanation for that event” (Greenberg, 1995, p.185). The sensemaking literature posits that employees collectively make sense of their organizational lives, which affects their attitudes and behaviors. Research explicitly acknowledges that employee perception and judgment of an organizational event are socially constructed. Therefore, it is not surprising that HR perception research recognizes the usefulness of sensemaking literature. For instance, the “strong HR climate” concept (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) is directly correlated with employees’ collective sensemaking.

The relevance of the sensemaking literature provides opportunities for future HR perception research. A promising future avenue is to examine the connections between broader institutional environments and employees’ sensemaking in relation to HR practices. Employees’ sensemaking of their organizational practice is deeply affected by how the practice is conceived, legitimated, and categorized in broader societies (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weber & Glynn, 2006). This suggests that future HR perception research can be enriched by drawing from the recent development of the micro-foundation of institutional theory.

Enlarge the empirical grounds across nations

A notable trend in the literature on employee HR perceptions is the increasing number of studies in non-Western contexts. This expansion in the range of empirical contexts is a welcome phenomenon. Such studies confirm the cross-cultural generalizability of established knowledge on HR perceptions. However, there is a great need for research that explores the possible impact of cultural and institutional environments on the dynamics of employee HR perceptions. There could be meaningful cross-cultural differences in the way employees perceive the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ of HR practices. Kim and Wright (2011) suggest that employee attributions of HR can vary across social and cultural environments. They argue that the same set of HR practices may stimulate divergent employee attributions in different contexts. Job security policies may lead to varied attributional reactions across nations. In a country with a liberal labor market, where companies have a large scope of discretion in hiring and firing, employees are likely to interpret job security as an expression of an employer’s goodwill, because it is not a legally mandated practice. However, in a country with strong employment protection regulations, employees may interpret job security as an employer’s passive action of legal compliance. This difference in attributional processes may help explain why the same practice may lead to conflicting outcomes in different countries.

Recently, Farndale and Sanders (2017; see also Sanders et al., 2018) proposed that employee perceptions of the ‘how’ of HR may lead to varied outcomes depending on the national values of cultures and countries. Building on a contingency perspective, they theorize that HR strength could be more effective when it aligns with certain cultural values of employees. It is possible HR strength may have a stronger impact on employee outcomes in a low power distance culture where employees can easily voice their concerns to managers. Future studies that test and extend such ideas on cross-cultural differences are encouraged.

A challenge for cross-national examination of employee HR perception is to make informed choices between emic and etic approaches (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). The emic approach takes the perspective of cultural insiders, highlighting the experiences unique to a cultural group. Followers of this method place a high value on qualitative methods such as ethnographic fieldwork to discover the indigenous view of the world. The etic approach takes the view of outsider and often focuses on a slice of human experience that can be legitimately compared across different cultures through standardized measures. Recognizing the difference between emic and etic approaches is especially necessary when the subject of research is related to human cognition and judgment.

Because HR perception studies center on employees’ cognitive and subjective experiences, researchers will face unavoidable methodological challenges when they set out to conduct HR perception research across different cultural settings. For instance, many studies of employee HR attribution develop their measurement items by directly borrowing from Nishii et al. (2008), which assumes that an external attribution captures union compliance. Such measurement items may have very different meanings in countries with different industrial relations systems, such as China, where the CEO can be a member of a trade union, or European countries, where national regulations dictate many high performance work practices (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). Therefore, one cannot assume that the measurements in Nishii et al. (2008) will capture the same kinds of employee perceptions across different national contexts. In fact, Nishii et al. constructed their own measures through a series of processes to come up with contextually valid items. Future research on employee HR perception will need to follow such an approach rather than uncritically borrow measurements items developed in different empirical contexts. This echoes the suggestion of Hewett et al. (2018) that emphasizes the potential benefits of qualitative inquiry in employee HR perception research.

Enhancing practical relevance

An increasing concern in HR scholarship is the practical relevance of the knowledge contained in the academic literature. Studies reveal a sizable gap between the academic community and HR practitioners (Cohen, 2007; Deadrick & Gibson, 2007; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007; Sanders, van Riemsdijk, & Groen, 2008). Nicolai and Seidl (2010) suggest the practical relevance of management knowledge can take three forms: instrumental relevance, conceptual relevance, and legitimating relevance. Instrumental relevance refers to the capacity of knowledge to solve practical problems at hand. Conceptual relevance provides practitioners theoretical frameworks with which they can better understand the reality of a workplace. Legitimating relevance is the role of scholastic knowledge as a mechanism to provide legitimacy to a person or a practice in the field. The most frequently used form of practical relevance in management literature is that of conceptual relevance, often expressed in a statement about how the findings in a study can help practitioners better understand the unintended consequences of a phenomenon (Nicolai & Seidl, 2010).

Similarly, the extant employee HR perceptions literature focuses on conceptual relevance, helping practitioners better understand which HR practices will work better under what conditions. Many articles include a note in the section on practical implications urging practitioners to recognize the potentially serious negative consequences of poorly managed employee HR perceptions, and vice versa. Kehoe and Wright (2013) warn practitioners that without consistent implementation of HR practices, a well-designed HR system may not produce best-intended outcomes. Yousaf, Sanders, and Yustantio (2018) advise practitioners to understand which HR practices influence employees in the manner intended by management. In the same vein, several studies provide supplementary advice such as conducting regular data collection on employees’ HR perceptions (Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang, & Mei, 2019; Fletcher, Alfes, & Robinson, 2018; Liao et al., 2009). In addition to conceptual relevance, researchers may claim their findings contain legitimating relevance. For instance, Kilroy, Flood, Bosak, and Chênevert (2017) state that HR professionals can use their findings to build a case for investing in HR and thus overcome the problem of employee burnout. What is missing in the HR perception literature is the issue of instrumental relevance. For a branch of social science, the limited instrumental relevance may not necessarily be a serious issue (Nicolai & Seidl, 2010). However, demand is increasing for research that provides specific solutions to problems field practitioners experience.

One way to enhance the instrumental relevance of employee HR perception research is to pay more attention to the drivers of employee HR perceptions. In our review, 82 empirical studies examined the consequences of employee perceptions of HR practices, while only 20 investigated the factors that shape employee perceptions of HR practices (Ang et al., 2013; Ang et al., 2017; Aryee et al., 2012; Bos-Nehles & Meijerink, 2018; Choi, 2019; Chacko & Conway, 2019; Elorza et al., 2011; Elorza et al., 2016; Den Hartog et al., 2013; Heffernan & Dundon, 2016; Hewett et al., 2019; Jensen et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2017; Li & Frenkel, 2017; Makhecha, Srinivasan, Prabhu, & Mukherji, 2018; Piening, Baluch, & Ridder, 2014; Sumelius, Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, & Smale, 2014; Van de Voorde & Beijer, 2015; Vermeeren, 2014; Webster & Beehr, 2013). The recent review by Hewett et al. (2018) acknowledge the lack of understanding regarding the antecedents of HR perception. Future research could provide more knowledge directly relevant to practitioners by identifying antecedents of employee HR perception that are under the discretion of managerial decisions, such as organizational structure or modern HR information technologies.

Conclusion

Scholars have called for examination of employee perceptions of HR practices so as to uncover the “black box” between HR practices and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Den Hartog et al., 2013; Wright & Nishii, 2013). In response, researchers have begun to examine employee perceptions of HR practices in a systematic and rigorous fashion. We propose that progress can be expedited by enriching the theoretical grounding of research in this area, enlarging the empirical scope to consider, for example, cross-cultural issues, and enhancing practical relevance. We hope this review sparks more studies of employee perceptions of HR practices, with a clear understanding of the multiple aspects of this construct and a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved in the formulation and evolution of employee perceptions of HR in the workplace.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71902144) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019M651594)