A meta-analysis of mediating mechanisms between employee reports of human resource management and employee performance: different pathways for descriptive and evaluative reports?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the relationship between employee reports of HPWPs and employee performance.

Table 1. Classification and examples of descriptive and evaluative employee reports of HRM practices.

Report type	Description	Example item
Descriptive employee reports of HRM practices: Focused on obtaining a more or less factual/objective assessment from employees regarding the presence or use of HRM practices.
Reported presence of HRM practices	Whether the employee experiences that selected HRM practices are enacted/used	“During the past 12 months, have you had a performance appraisal?” (Kooij et al., 2013)
Reported intensity of HRM practices	Degree to which the employee experiences that HRM practices are enacted/used	“The organization offers me participation in developing strategic plans” (Boon et al., 2011)
Evaluative employee reports of HRM practices: Focused on obtaining employees’ affectively laden assessment of the effectiveness, quality or satisfaction with HRM practices.
Reported effectiveness (or utility) of HRM practices	Degree to which the employee perceives that HRM practices help in realizing a selected goal	“My performance evaluations within the past few years have been helpful to me in my professional development” (Macky & Boxall, 2008)
Reported quality of HRM practices	Degree to which the employee perceives that HRM practices are offered in a reliable, prompt and accurate fashion	“Company policies and procedures are clearly communicated to employees” (Macky & Boxall, 2008)
Satisfaction with HRM practices	Degree to which the employee perceives that HRM practices meet his/her needs	“Indicate your level of satisfaction with the amount of flexibility that you have in deciding how your job should be done” (Conway & Monks, 2007)

Table 2. Meta-analytical correlation matrix.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
Descriptive HPWP report
Evaluative HPWP report (r, rc)	.46, .50
k (N)	4 (6,850)
95% CI	.43; .58
Q, σ^2p	36.25***, .00
Job satisfaction (r, rc)	.36, .46	.47, .53
k (N)	25 (40,458)	7 (4,624)
95% CI	.32; .57	.44; .63
Q, σ^2p	3124.85***, .08	92.13***, .01
Affective organizational commitment (r, rc)	.36, .44	.37, .46	n/a, .65^a
k (N)	32 (21,364)	19 (20,225)	69 (23,656)
95% CI	.37; .49	.40; .51	n/a
Q, σ^2p	536.47***, .02	252.83***, .01	n/a, n/a
Personal/job resources (r, rc)	.49, .55	.31, .37	.52, .64^b	.49, .63^b
k (N)	15 (10,071)	10 (6,705)	53 (17,875)	31 (14,344)
95% CI	.45; .64	.28; .47	.60; .69	.56; .69
Q, σ^2p	412.65***, .03	135.42***, .02	n/a, n/a	n/a, n/a
Task performance (r, rc)	.21, .25	.26, .30	.22, .35^c	.17, .23^a	.21, .27^b
k (N)	22 (18,489)	6 (1,664)	44 (5,561)	21 (5,072)	22 (6,118)
95% CI	.17; .32	.18; .42	n/a; n/a	.07; .40	.20; .34
Q, σ^2p	495.94***, .03	29.65***, .02	214.01*, n/a	n/a, .08	n/a, n/a
Organization citizenship behavior (r, rc)	.30, .35	.23, .28	.22, 31^d	.19, .25^e	.24; .34^b	.49, .60^f
k (N)	23 (12,339)	8 (5,638)	10 (9,248)	42 (10,747)	11 (3,174)	72 (21,881)
95% CI	.26; .43	.15; .40	n/a; n/a	.09; .41	.14; .50	n/a
Q, σ^2p	482.53***, .04	97.54***, .02	n/a, n/a	n/a, .09	n/a, n/	648.36***, n/a

r = mean sample-size-weighted correlation, r_c = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability, k = number of independent samples, N = total sample size, 95% CI = confidence interval around the mean sample-size-weighted corrected correlation (heterogeneous), Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of the corrected correlation, σ²_p = variance in corrected correlation.

*p < .05, ***p < .001.

Letter superscripts indicate the source of the mean sample-size-weighted corrected correlation: ^aMeyer et al. (2002), ^bSeibert et al. (2011), ^cJudge et al. (2001), ^dLePine et al. (2002), ^eRiketta (2002), ^fPodsakoff et al. (2009).

Figure 2. Measurement model of mediator and employee performance variables. N = 8,509 employees, standardized regression coefficients are shown ***p < .001.

Table 3. Results of the differential effects of descriptive versus evaluative employee reports of HPWPs on job attitudes and job resources.

	Job attitudes			Personal/job resources
Predictors	β	S.E.	%R^2	β	S.E.	%R^2
Descriptive employee report of HPWPs	.33***	.01	42%	.49***	.01	77%
Evaluative employee report of HPWPs	.45***	.01	58%	.13*	.01	23%
R^2	.46			.32
Z-score	−12.35***			36.52***

N = 8,509 employees, standardized regression coefficients are presented.

* p < .05,

*** p < .001.

Figure 3. Alternative model 3 of the outcomes of employee reports of HPWPs. N = 8,509 employees, standardized regression coefficients are shown * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

Table 4. Model comparison and fit statistics for alternative models.

Model	χ^2	df	Δ χ^2	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Theoretical model (Figure 1)	4202.79***	10		.82	.22	.10
Alternative model 1^a	621.53***	9	3581.26***^,b	.97	.09	.03
Alternative model 2^c	457.54***	8	163.99***^,d	.98	.08	.03
Alternative model 3^e	418.29***	7	39.25***^,f	.98	.08	.02

N = 8,509 employees.

*** p < .001.

^a Adds the direct path from personal/job resources to job attitudes.

^b Model fit compared with the theoretical model (Figure 1).

^c Adds the direct path from descriptive employee reports of HPWPs to employee performance.

^d Model fit compared with the Alternative model 1.

^e Adds the direct path from evaluative employee reports of HPWPs to employee performance.

^f Model fit compared with the Alternative model 2.

Table 5. Post-hoc analysis.

	Job attitudes		Personal/job resources
Estimates	β	S.E.	β	S.E.
Intercept	.35***	.03	.40*	.17
Type of employee report of HPWPs	.05	.03	−.12*	.05
Uniform-item usage	−.08**	.03	.01	.06
Type of HPWPs bundling	.10***	.03	.15**	.06
Multi-source data	−.05	.05	−.08	.07
Research design	−.03	.09	−.14*	.07
R^2	.42		.52
τ^2	.01		.01
Q	1557.63***		355.99***

N = 8,509 employees.

* p < .05,

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Notes: For type of employee report of HPWPs: 0 = descriptive employee report of HPWPs, 1 = evaluative employee report of HPWPs. For uniform-item usage: 0 = use of mixed items; 1 = use of uniform items. For type of HPWPs bundling: 0 = average of correlations among individual HPWPs; 1 = high-performance work systems consisting of coordinated bundles of multiple HPWPs. For multi-source usage: 0 = use of single-source data; 1 = use of multi-source data. For research design: 0 = cross-sectional research design; 1 = longitudinal research design. R² = amount of heterogeneity accounted for. τ² = estimated amount of residual heterogeneity. Q = test statistic for the test of homogeneity.

*Kooij, D. T., Guest, D. E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P. G., & Dikkers, J. S. (2013). How the impact of HR practices on employee well‐being and performance changes with age. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12000

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: Examining the role of person–organisation and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.538978

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2008). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411107086542.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2007). HR practices and commitment to change: An employee‐level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00059.x

 Google Scholar

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981.

 Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(3), 257–266.

 Google Scholar

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar