HRM implementation by multiple HRM actors: a social exchange perspective

Abstract

In this study, we understand HRM implementation as a social process that depends on the social exchange relationships between line managers and both HR professionals and employees. As such, we offer a fresh approach to understanding HRM implementation by concentrating on the social exchange among HRM actors. We do so by investigating to what extent these exchange relationships influence HRM implementation, as reflected in employees' perceptions of the presence of HRM practices and their affective commitment. We collected multilevel data from two sources (line managers and employees) and in two phases in a Dutch engineering firm, and obtained fully matched manager -employee information from 75 employees and 20 line managers. Our results show that employees perceive a larger number of HRM practices when they have a good relationship with their line managers and when their line managers are motivated to implement HRM practices. Line managers, in turn, reciprocate perceived support from the HR department with greater motivation to implement these practices. We conclude that because HRM actors engage in social interactions, HRM practices will be implemented at the organizational level because employees perceive the presence of HRM practices and then reciprocate this with affective commitment.

From Intended to Actual and Beyond: A Cross‐Disciplinary View of (Human Resource Management) Implementation

“…Line managers and employees (Bos‐Nehles and Meijerink 2018; Bos‐Nehles et al . 2013; Khilji and Wang 2006; Van Waeyenberg and Decramer 2018)…”

“…2010), and includes other multiple crucial actors such as designers, promoters, or enforcers of a practice. The most studied actors involved in implementation in the HR literature are by far line managers and HR specialists, but recent contributions are beginning to highlight the role of employees (Bos‐Nehles and Meijerink 2018), CEOs and top management (Boada‐Cuerva et al . 2019), or self‐managing teams (Renkema et al .…”

“…2014; Makhecha et al . 2018) by engaging in ‘partnerships’ (Bos‐Nehles and Meijerink 2018; Whittaker and Marchington 2003) or by sparring with the other actors to effectively implement HRM practices at the operational level (Björkman and Søderberg 2006). Each actor will be able to advance a particular view on how to use a policy or practice to a greater or lesser extent, depending on their balance of power and on how much effort/energy they are willing to devote to move the practice in their desired direction (Budjanovcanin 2018; Trullen and Valverde 2017).…”

“…(2017), there has been a broad‐based improvement in the methodological underpinnings of HRM research, which is also evident in the area of implementation. An overview of HRM implementation research articles shows a mix of quantitative (Bos‐Nehles and Meijerink 2018; Trullen and Valverde 2017; Vargas et al . 2018) and qualitative (Budjanovcanin 2018; Makhecha et al .…”

Antecedents of Well-Being at Work: Trust and People Management Policies

“…Based both on the literature that relates occupational well-being, perception of human resource management policies and organizational trust (Baptiste, 2008;Bos-Nehles & Meijerink, 2018;Gomide, Silvestrin, & Oliveira, 2015;Horta, Demo, & Roure, 2012;Perilla-Toro & Gómez-Ortiz, 2017;Tzafrir, 2005;White & Bryson, 2013;Wood, Veldhoven, Croon, & Menezes, 2012), and on new theoretical conceptions as to occupational well-being (Paschoal & Tamayo, 2008) and trust (Ianaguivara, 2011), the present study seeks to enhance investigations related to the theme. Thus, we propose to identify the predictors of well-being at work, using perception of human resource management policies and organizational trust as antecedent variables.…”