Moderating Effects of Management Philosophy on High-Performance Work Practices–Firm Performance Relationship

ABSTRACT

Research evidence has signified that relationship between human resource practices and performance is contingent on the effect of a contingent variable. Nevertheless, survey of the extant literature signifies paucity of research on moderating effect of management philosophy. Thus, this study examined the moderating effect of management philosophy on the relationship between high-performance work practices (i.e. selective hiring, training & development, performance appraisal, pay-for-performance, and succession planning) and firm performance. The study employed cross-sectional research approach in which data were collected from a sample of 372 managers in Nigerian firms. Partial Least Squares Method (PLS) algorithm and bootstrapping techniques were used to test the study’s hypotheses. The overall findings confirm that selective hiring, training and development, performance appraisal and succession planning have significant positive influence on firm performance while pay-for performance has non-significant effect on firm performance. The findings also indicate that the positive effect of HR practices on organizational performance cannot be strengthened, if management philosophy of a firm is not consistent with the values, attitudes and beliefs of the employees. The findings have profound implications for both theory and practice. The findings support resource-based view (RBV) by implying that firm’s human capital can serve as a basis of competitive advantage, given that employees are of strategic importance to the success of organization. HPWPs can be used as tools in managing human capital effectively. Nonetheless, the vague process (i.e. black box) in the HPWPs-Performance nexus should be examined by the future studies.

KEYWORDS:

• Performance
• high-performance work practices
• strategic human resource management
• management philosophy
• contingency theory
• resource-based view

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.