Does alignment matter? The performance implications of HR roles connected to organizational strategy

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics about the sample.

	HR function		Other		Total	Public funding		Private funding/other		Total
	%	N	%	N		%	N	%	N	N
2008	59.8 (76.5)	52 (19)	18.4 (23.5)	16 (19)	68 (19)	43.7 (55.1)	38 (18)	35.6 (44.9)	31 (18)	69 (18)
2009	50.9 (53.7)	29 (3)	43.9 (46.3)	25 (3)	54 (3)	49.1 (52.8)	28 (4)	43.9 (47.2)	25 (4)	53 (4)
2010	52.5 (54.4)	74 (5)	44 (45.6)	62 (5)	136 (5)	44.7 (46.3)	63 (5)	51.8 (53.7)	73 (5)	136 (5)
2011	74.4 (82.6%)	38 (5)	15.7 (17.4)	8 (5)	46 (5)	49 (56.8)	25 (7)	37.3 (43.2)	19 (7)	44 (7)
Total	–	193 (32)	–	111 (32)	304 (32)	–	154 (34)	–	148 (34)	302 (34)
Grand total										336

Notes. The values in brackets for the % represent the valid percent and for the N they represent the number of missing values.

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis for organizational performance.

Item	Loadings
(1) The organization delivers products/services fast (4)^a	.85
(2) The efficiency of the organization is high (3)	.81
(3) The productivity of the organization is high (2)	.75
(4) The waiting lists in the organization are short (5)	.71
(5) The quality of products/services in the organization is high (1)	.62

Note. N = 336.

^a Original item number in the survey.

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis for the organizational strategy.

Item		Innovation strategy	Cost strategy
Your organization wants to be first mover in market changes (9)^a	Bendoly et al. (2007), Miles and Snow (2003)	.68	.08
Your organization responds to threats and/or opportunities in the environment (12)	Dess and Davis (1984), Miles and Snow (2003)	.67	−.01
Your organization is constantly seeking new market opportunities (1)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984), Miles and Snow (2003), Porter (1980)	.67	.10
In your organization there is a focus on innovation (7)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984), Miles and Snow (2003), Porter (1980)	.67	.20
Your organization is committed to flexibility (2)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Miles and Snow (2003)	.61	.01
Your organization considers it to be important to keep a close watch on competing organizations to copy new ideas and promising ideas quickly (6)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984), Miles and Snow (2003)	.46	.31
Your organization uses a strict cost focus (10)	Dess and Davis (1984), Miles and Snow (2003), Porter (1980)	.15	.73
Your organization focuses on a low price (11)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984)	−.04	.69
Routine and efficient operation is of great importance in your organization (4)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984)	.18	.63
In your organization cost reduction in the primary process is very important (3)	Bendoly et al. (2007), Dess and Davis (1984)	.19	.62
Your organization focuses on the delivery of large quantities of standardized products or services (5)	Miles and Snow (2003), Porter (1980)	−.08	.54
In your organization successful imitation of others through market research and/or benchmarking is important (8)	Miles and Snow (2003), Porter (1980)	.29	.49

Note. Bold type indicates that the associated items loads unambiguously at .40 or greater on a single factor.

^a Original item number in the survey.

Table 4. Means, standard deviation and correlations of all variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
(1) Organizational performance	3.59	.62	–
(2) Year	2.46	1.03	.00	–
(3) Tenure	116.2	109.27	.03	.06	–
(4) Education	4.39	.59	−.05	−.00	−.18**	–
(5) Function	.33	.47	−.03	.06	.09	.21**	–
(6) Funding	.49	.50	.17**	.02	−.1	.08	−.00	–
(7) Innovation strategy	3.50	.67	.30**	.11*	.02	−.02	−.08	.27**	–
(8) Cost strategy	2.98	.70	.19**	.17**	.02	−.04	−.03	.10	.36**	–
(9) Strategic roles	3.56	.76	.28**	.02	.07	−.08	−.30**	.15**	.29**	.21**	–
(10) Operational roles	3.64	.62	.21**	.01	.01	−.09	−.26**	.12*	.25**	.21**	.62**	–

Notes. N = 336. Year ranged from 1 = 2008 to 4 = 2011; Function was coded as 0 = HR function, 1 = Other; Funding was coded as 0 = Public, 1 = Other.

* p < .05;

** p < .01.

Table 5. Results of regression analysis for organizational performance.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Year	−.00	.03	−.04	.03	−.04	.03	−.03	.03
Tenure	.05	.03	.04	.03	.02	.03	.03	.03
Education	−.05	.03	−.04	.03	−.04	.03	−.04	.03
Function	−.02	.08	−.00	.07	.06	.08	.05	.07
Funding	.22**	.07	.13*	.07	.11	.07	.13*	.07
Innovation strategy			.26**	.03	.22**	.03	.22**	.03
Cost strategy			.08	.03	.05	.03	.04	.03
Strategic role					.15*	.04	.13	.04
Operational role					.06	.04	.06	.04
Innovation strategy × Strategic role							−.14*	.03
Cost strategy × Operational role							.11	.03
R^2	.05*	.13**	.16**	.19**
∆R^2		.08**	.03**	.02**

Note. N = 336. Function was coded as 0 = HR function, 1 = Other; Funding was coded as 0 = Public, 1 = Other.

^* p < .05;

^** p < .01.

Figure 2. The interaction between the strategic HR role and innovation strategy.

Figure 3. The interaction between the operational HR role and cost strategy.

Bendoly, E., Rosenzweig, E. D., & Stratman, J. K. (2007). Performance metric portfolios: A framework and empirical analysis. Production and Operations Management, 16, 257–276.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business Classics, Stanford University Press.

 Google Scholar

Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) Generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 467–488.10.2307/256040

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.

 Google Scholar