Human resource practices and organizational commitment: The mediating role of job satisfaction in emerging economy

Figures & data

Table 1. Variables and their sources

Variables	No. of items	Source
Organizational commitment	6	Saks (2006)
Recruitment and selection	5	Edgar and Geare (2005)
Training	6	Karatepeand Vatankhah (2014)
Reward and recognition	6	Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton and Swart (2005) and Kooij et al. (2010)
Performance appraisal satisfaction	6	Kuvaas (2006)
Work environment	10	Morgesonand Humphrey (2006) and Hanaysha (2016)
Job satisfaction	4	Hanayshaand Tahir (2016)

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

Table 2. Summary of respondent profile

		Number	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	159	73
	Female	59	27
Marital status	Married	122	56
	Unmarried	96	44
Age	Below 30 years	94	43
	30–35 years	63	29
	36–40 years	39	18
	41 year and above	22	10
Education	Graduate	50	23
	Post graduate	129	59
	Above post graduate	39	18
Job designation	Manager	28	13
	Assistant/executive manager	35	16
	Customer service officer	155	71
Years of experience	3 and below	46	21
	4–6	122	56
	7–9	35	16
	10 and above	15	7

Note: N = 218.

Table 3. Reliability and validity results

	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)	Mean (SD)
Recruitment and selection	0.881	0.881	0.597	4.20(0.321)
Organizational commitment	0.909	0.909	0.625	3.95(0.214)
Performance appraisal satisfaction	0.839	0.839	0.566	3.41(0.109)
Reward and recognition	0.851	0.852	0.534	4.65(0.301)
Training	0.929	0.928	0.720	3.45(0.051)
Work environment	0.916	0.915	0.642	4.59(0.217)
Job satisfaction	0.816	0.965	0.542	3.84(0.106)

Table 4. HTMT ratio results: discriminant validity

	Recruitment and selection	Organizational commitment	Performance appraisal satisfaction	Reward and recognition	Training	Work environment
Recruitment and selection
Organizational commitment	0.712
Performance appraisal satisfaction	0.841	0.715
Reward and recognition	0.809	0.709	0.717
Training	0.195	0.331	0.187	0.202
Work environment	0.467	0.518	0.477	0.491	0.606

Table 5. Summary of confirmatory factor analysis

	Recruitment and selection	Organizational commitment	Performance appraisal satisfaction	Reward and recognition	Training	Work environment
WE1						0.875
WE2						0.845
WE3						0.751
WE4						0.817
WE5						0.768
WE6						0.743
PAS1			0.761
PAS2			0.730
PAS4			0.755
PAS5			0.763
OC1		0.781
OC2		0.796
OC3		0.760
OC4		0.843
OC5		0.785
OC6		0.778
RR1				0.729
RR2				0.744
RR4				0.740
RR5				0.711
RR6				0.731
RS1	0.780
RS2	0.788
RS4	0.760
RS5	0.785
RS6	0.751
T1					0.822
T2					0.731
T4					0.921
T5					0.903
T6					0.853

Note: WE, work environment; PAS, performance appraisal satisfaction; RR, rewards and recognition; Training; RS, recruitment and selection; OC, organizational commitment.

Table 6. Summary path analysis

	Path coeff.	St. dev	T-Stats	P-Values	Hypothesis result
Recruitment and selection → organizational commitment (H1a) Training →organizational commitment (H2a)	0.176 0.112	0.052 0.086	3.377 1.301	0.001** 0.194	Supported –
Rewards and recognition → organizational commitment (H3a)	0.208	0.104	1.995	0.047**	Supported
Performance appraisal satisfaction → organizational commitment (H4a)	0.173	0.069	2.496	0.013**	Supported
Work environment → organizational commitment (H5a)	0.184	0.100	1.831	0.068*	Supported

Note: * indicates significance at 0.001 level, **indicates significance at 0.05 level, *** indicates significance at 0.01 level, —indicates not supported.

Table 7. Mediation analysis

Recruitment and selection		β	STDEV	P-Values	Hypothesis result/mediation result
Specific indirect effects	Recruitment and selection → job satisfaction → organizational commitment (H1b)	0.07	0.06	0.03**	Supported
Indirect effects	Job satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.11	0.08	0.02**
	Recruitment and selection → job satisfaction	0.65	0.05	0.00***
	Recruitment and selection → organizational commitment	0.65	0.07	0.00***	Complimentary mediation
Training		β	STDEV	P-Values	Hypothesis result
Specific indirect effects	Training → job satisfaction → organizational commitment (H2b)	0.18	0.05	0.00***	Supported
Indirect effects	Job satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.48	0.08	0.00***
	Training → job satisfaction	0.39	0.09	0.00***
	Training → organizational commitment	0.15	0.08	0.07*	Complimentary mediation
Rewards and recognition		β	STDEV	P-Values	Hypothesis result
Specific indirect effects	Reward and recognition → job satisfaction → organizational (H3b)	0.06	0.06	0.27	–
Indirect effects	Job satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.10	0.09	0.26
	Reward and recognition → job satisfaction	0.66	0.05	0.00***
	Reward and recognition → organizational commitment	0.65	0.07	0.00***	No mediation
Performance appraisal satisfaction		β	STDEV	P-Values	Hypothesis result
Specific indirect effects	Performance appraisal satisfaction → job satisfaction → organizational commitment (H4b)	0.04	0.07	0.04**	Supported
Indirect effects	Job satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.06	0.10	0.04**
	Performance appraisal satisfaction → job satisfaction	0.69	0.05	0.00***
	Performance appraisal satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.67	0.08	0.60*	Indirect- only mediation
Work environment		β	STDEV	P-Values	Hypothesis result
Specific indirect effects	Work environment → job satisfaction → organizational commitment (H5b)	0.19	0.06	0.00***	Supported
Indirect effects	Job satisfaction → organizational commitment	0.34	0.09	0.00***
	Work environment → job satisfaction	0.57	0.07	0.00***
	Work environment → organizational commitment	0.33	0.10	0.00***	Complimentary mediation

Note: * indicates significance at 0.001, **indicates significance at 0.05 level, *** indicates significance at 0.01 level, —indicates not supported.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(7), 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169

 Google Scholar

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures–Different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534–549. doi:10.1108/00483480510612503

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karatepe, O. M., & Vatankhah, S. (2014). The effects of high-performance work practices and job embeddedness on flight attendants‘ performance outcomes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 37, 27–35. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.01.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2005). Satisfaction with HR practices and commitment to the organisation: Why one size does not fit all. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 9–29. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00293.x

 Google Scholar

Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction:A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111–1136. doi:10.1002/job.666

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504–522. doi:10.1080/09585190500521581

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hanaysha, J. (2016). Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment and organizational learning on organizational commitment. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 289–297. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.139

 Google Scholar

Hanaysha, J., & Tahir, P. R. (2016). Examining the effects of employee empowerment,teamwork and employee training on job satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 272–282. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.016

 Google Scholar