Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system strength: scale development and validation

Abstract

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

Employee perceptions of HRM and well-being in nonprofit organizations: unpacking the unintended

“…Taking these findings together, the analysis suggests that the combination of these specific HR system features (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004;Delmotte et al, 2012) -rather than increasing precariousness of the employment relationship and the decreasing support provided on behalf of the organization -are dominant in shaping workers' perceptions of HRM. Notwithstanding the perceived external equity of compensation, the legitimacy and agreement among the HR decision makers, and the high visibility and understandability of HR practices (e.g., monthly feedback), employees neither experience consistency in HR practices nor is consensus enabled by the HR system.…”

“…Furthermore, an HR system is high in consistency when there is validity of HR practices (degree of consistency between what HR practices purport to do and what they actually do) and consistency of HR messages (degree of congruency between espoused and inferred values; of internal consistency of HR practices, of the stability of practices over time). Finally, employees will accept, contribute to and utilize the HR system if there is consensus about the fairness of HRM (degree to which HR practices adhere to the principals of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) and agreement among principal HRM decision makers about the design and implementation of such practices (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004;Delmotte et al, 2012).…”

Implementing HRM Systems: The Role of Employees' Co-Production Behavior and HRM Attributions

“…HRM systems are perceived to be more distinctive when their relevance increases, which refers to the degree to which employees view them as useful (Delmotte et al, 2012) and relevant for an important goal (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Employees who co-produce HRM practices are more likely to view them as relevant, because HRM co-production allows employees to make HRM practices more instrumental for meeting their personal needs and goals.…”

“…Visibility is defined as "the degree to which internal customers have a clear idea of HR practices, know which HR programs are implemented, and what can and cannot be expected from the HR department" (Delmotte, De Winne, & Sels, 2012). By means of co-producing HRM practices, employees are likely to be exposed to HRM stimuli which make HRM practices more visible.…”

The dynamic nature of HRM implementation: a structuration perspective

“…First, the stream of HRM system strength (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Ostroff & Bowen, 2016) is characterised by studies in which HRM practices or HRM systems are distinctive and consistent, and where consensus between policy makers exists (see Sanders, Shipton, & Gomes, 2014). Influential studies in this stream are those of Delmotte, De Winne, and Sels (2012), Sanders, Dorenbosch, and de Reuver (2008), Li, Frenkel, andSanders (2011), Nishii et al (2008), and Bednall, Sanders, and Runhaar (2014). A second stream of HRM implementation researchers study the difference between HRM (practices or systems) as intended and the way it is actually applied, along with the way organisational members (most often employees) perceive it.…”