Journal of Management - Semantic Scholar

Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.com

High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure W. Randy Evans and Walter D. Davis Journal of Management 2005; 31; 758 DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279370 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/5/758

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 50 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/5/758

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 15, 2008 © 2005 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Evans, Davis ARTICLE 10.1177/0149206305279370 Journal of Management / Organizational / October Performance 2005

High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure† W. Randy Evans * Walter D. Davis

School of Business Administration, the University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS 38677-1848

This study provides a theoretical framework illustrating how the internal social structure of the organization can mediate the relationship between high-performance work systems (HPWS) and organizational performance. HPWS positively influence the internal social structure by facilitating bridging network ties, generalized norms of reciprocity, shared mental models, role making, and organizational citizenship behavior. Although HPWS are conceptualized as a system of human resource (HR) practices, each category of HR practices has a differential relationship with the mediating variables. HPWS lead to (a) financial performance via administrative efficiency and (b) sustainable performance via flexibility arising from the coordination and exploitation of knowledge resources. Keywords:

strategic human resource management; social networks; multilevel theory; firm performance

There is growing empirical evidence that high-performance work systems (HPWS) can have a significant impact on organizational performance. HPWS have been found to favorably affect turnover (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), labor productivity (Huselid, 1995), firm productivity (Guthrie, 2001), and firm financial performance (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995). †The authors would like to thank Lucy Gilson, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. *Corresponding author. Tel: 662-281-1229; fax: 662-915-7968. E-mail address: [email protected] Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, October 2005 758-775 DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279370 © 2005 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

758


Evans, Davis / Organizational Performance

759

Given these findings, HPWS are now seen as a potential source of competitive advantage (Becker & Huselid, 1998). However, several researchers have noted a need to develop a better theoretical understanding of the causal mechanisms explaining this relationship (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delery & Shaw, 2001). Various arguments have been developed to explain the relationship between HPWS and organizational performance. For instance, Pfeffer (1998) argued that HPWS reduce administrative expenses by empowering employees further down in the hierarchy, thus eliminating levels of management. Strategic perspectives argue that an organization’s employees (i.e., human capital) can be a source of competitive advantage (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Huselid, 1995) when they add value to the organization, are difficult to imitate, uniquely contribute to the organization’s success, and are not easily substituted. In this view, continual investments in firm-specific human capital qualitatively differentiate a firm’s employees, thereby decreasing the likelihood of imitation (Huselid, 1995). Despite these theoretical advancements, there remains a need to better understand the process by which HPWS lead to desired outcomes—in other words, the “how” of HPWS (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Furthermore, some scholars have noted a surprising lack of attention to the impact of human resource (HR) systems on interpersonal relationships within the firm (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Recent attention to social relationships as an organizational resource (Collins & Clark, 2003; Hansen, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000) points to the structure and quality of employee relationships as a potential mediator of the relationship between HPWS and organizational outcomes. Employee social relationships have been argued to add value to the organization by facilitating timely access to greater sources of information (Collins & Clark, 2003), reducing the need for formal controls (Adler & Kwon, 2002), facilitating collective action (Ghoshal & Moran, 1996), allowing more flexible work organizations (Leana & Van Buren, 1999), and enhancing organizational intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Overall, these benefits point to the aggregate internal social structure as a contributor to organizational effectiveness. Building from these perspectives, we develop a framework illustrating the positive influence of HPWS on social relationships and how these relationships lead to improved organizational performance.

High-Performance Work Systems Organizations using HPWS make a significant investment in their pool of human capital so that employees are well trained, skilled, and empowered to conduct their jobs (Becker & Huselid, 1998). Current perspectives on HPWS are closely aligned with research on highinvolvement work practices and high-performance management practices. In fact, researchers frequently note that various naming preferences are often used interchangeably and refer to the same phenomena of interest (i.e., a system of HR practices rather than isolated practices) (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Guthrie, 2001). We define HPWS as an integrated system of HR practices that are internally consistent (alignment among HR practices) and externally consistent (alignment with organizational strategy) that include selective staffing, self-managed teams, decentralized decision making, extensive training, flexible job assignments, open communi-


760

Journal of Management / October 2005

Table 1 Categories of Human Resource Practices Comprising HPWS HR Practice Category

Description

Examples

Staffing

Extensiveness of procedures to evaluate relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities for job fit and organization fit

Selective screening Assessment of technical and interpersonal skills, attitudes, and/or personality Performance-based promotions

Self-managed teamsa

Redistribution of power downward by granting authority and responsibility to team structures

Employee participation programs Teams with task and decision-making authority Extensive use of teams throughout the organization

Decentralized decision making

Empowering employees via greater responsibility and access to resources

Less well defined tasks Authority to make decisions Employee involvement Participative management

Training

Extensiveness of formalized programs to develop knowledge, skills, and abilities

Training for current and future skills; including technical and interpersonal Cross training Training for both new hires and experienced employees

Flexible work assignments

Opportunities to broaden individual knowledge, skills, and abilities

Job rotation; rotation across teams Ability to perform +1 job Job enrichment

Communication

Open vertical and horizontal communication channels providing access to information and opportunities to express viewpoints

Access to all levels of operating results Employee suggestion systems Explanation of business strategy

Compensation

Performance-contingent pay, group-based pay, and abovemarket pay policies

Profit/gain sharing Employee ownership Comparatively high level of pay Performance-contingent pay Team-based pay

Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems. a. We use the term self-managed teams to broadly encompass all types of teams having increased responsibility and autonomy, recognizing that there may be varied degrees of self-management.

cation, and performance-contingent compensation (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Guthrie, 2001; Pfeffer, 1998). These practices (see Table 1) represent the general categories of HR practices commonly found in most HPWS research. These practices are interdependent, such that the inclusion of one practice often necessitates the inclusion of others (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Pfeffer, 1998; Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005). Although the precise configuration of HPWS practices may vary based on organizational idiosyncrasies, most theoretical treatments of HPWS focus on the aggregate level or degree of investment in HR practices, which is often operationalized by an additive system index of practices (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Delery & Shaw, 2001). We believe, however, that the



761

Figure 1 Expanded Framework of HPWS and Organizational Performance High Performance Work Systems

Internal Social Structure

Organizational Performance

Staffing

Bridging weak ties

Organizational financial

Self-managed teams

Generalized norms of

efficiency

Decentralization

reciprocity

Organizational flexibility

Training

Shared mental models

Flexible work assignments

Role making

Communication

Organizational citizenship

Compensation

behavior

Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems.

effects of HPWS are likely to operate through processes that occur at individual, dyadic, and/ or group levels as well. Figure 1 illustrates the HPWS framework we propose. In essence, the internal social structure mediates the relationship between HPWS and organizational performance. The internal social structure can be characterized in terms of the nature of relationships (bridging weak ties, norms of reciprocity, and shared mental models) and in terms of the behaviors that are associated with those relationships (role-making and organizational citizenship behaviors). Consistent with existing perspectives on HPWS, we argue that it is the system of HR practices that influences organizational performance. However, each type of HR practice may have a differential impact on the nature of employee relationships. We break down the system of HR practices and more closely examine the influence of each HR practice on the internal social structure and ultimately organizational performance. In the interest of parsimony, we focus on the primary but not exclusive relationships between each of the constructs.

Organizational Performance Although HPWS are empirically linked to firm-level financial outcomes (e.g., Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), a richer understanding of HPWS can be developed via a theoretical linkage to proximal outcomes arising from the aggregate internal social structure of the organization. Therefore, we seek to link HPWS practices to organizational efficiency and organizational flexibility.


762


Efficiency ultimately leads to better financial performance, whereas flexibility affords the opportunity for sustained competitive advantage. Improved organizational efficiency is achieved through the reduction of administrative overhead costs. A highly skilled workforce with the responsibility and authority to make decisions reduces the need for managerial positions that “watch people who watch people who watch people who watch people who do the work” (Pfeffer, 1998: 61). In addition, employee social networks may increase access to timely information while also reducing monitoring costs (Adler & Kwon, 2002). The ability to maintain a competitive advantage may be better described in terms of organizational agility (Dyer & Shafer, 1999), flexibility (Sanchez, 1995), and the coordination and exploitation of knowledge resources (Wright et al., 2001). Flexible organizations are able to reconfigure their resources in response to environmental changes (e.g., markets, competitors, etc.). Resources may consist of financial and physical capital, but we consider organizational flexibility primarily in terms of effective knowledge management. Indeed, sustainable financial performance may depend on the ability to acquire and transfer the knowledge needed by the organization to reconfigure itself and adapt to environmental changes (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Wright et al., 2001). Tacit knowledge is especially difficult for competitors to imitate and thereby a valuable resource. Here, organizational flexibility is conceptualized in two forms: resource flexibility and coordination flexibility (Sanchez, 1995). Resource flexibility results from a greater range of alternative uses, less cost in switching a resource from one use to another, and less time required to switch to alternative resource uses. Coordination flexibility refers to the ability to synthesize, configure, and redeploy resources.

Integrating HPWS, Internal Social Structure, and Organizational Performance Our perspective for investigating HPWS and organizational outcomes is based on the assumption that HPWS fundamentally change the internal social structure of the organization. HPWS practices not only enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the human capital pool but also change the nature of employee relationships. On the basis of this perspective, we can look to theories that address questions such as Which patterns of relationships are conducive to organizational performance? What facilitates productive exchange relationships? How do management practices create a shared understanding and shared mental models among employees? What individual behaviors are necessary for the formation of these relationships? We integrate theory regarding social networks (Burt, 1997; Granovetter, 1973), exchange relationships (Blau, 1964; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), shared mental models (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001; Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000), role making (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000), and organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1997) to provide answers to these questions. Table 2 outlines the proposed relationships among HPWS practices, the internal social structure of the organization, and organizational performance (efficiency and flexibility). Each cell within the table represents a proposition that the indicated social structure variable mediates the relationship between the indicated HPWS practice and organizational performance. In the sections that follow, we define each of the social structure variables and explain their mediating functions in detail.



763

Table 2 Relationship Between Practices of HPWS, the Internal Social Structure, and Organizational Performance Outcomesa Internal Social Structure Variables Practices of HPWS

Bridging Weak Ties

Staffing Self-managed teams

Generalized Norms of Reciprocity

Shared Mental Models

Role Making

Efficiency Flexibility















Decentralized decision making Training


Flexible job assignments


Open communication Compensation

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Efficiency Flexibility Efficiency Flexibility



Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems. a. The internal social structure variables are proposed to mediate the relationship between the practices of HPWS and organizational performance outcomes (efficiency and flexibility).

Bridging Weak Ties Social network analysis (Burt, 1997; Granovetter, 1973) provides a mechanism for understanding how the pattern of relationships within an organization affects individual and organizational outcomes. Granovetter (1973) characterized interpersonal relationships as “ties” and described the distinction between “strong ties” and “weak ties.” The strength of a tie is a function of the time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocation of services invested in the relationship. A strong tie between two individuals is often characterized by largely, or even completely, overlapping networks. On the other hand, individuals with a weak-tie relationship may each have independent social networks that are largely, or completely, nonoverlapping. Thus, a “bridging weak tie” is a connection between two relatively independent social networks (Granovetter, 1973). A striking conclusion of social network theory is that weak ties with distant contacts often facilitate information and resource exchange (Granovetter, 1973; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Although more developed strong ties may be characterized by greater affect and intimacy,


764


they may also characterize closed, isolated networks with redundant contacts. A closed network may have quality exchange relationships, but the network itself may not facilitate the acquisition of novel knowledge or other resources. Weak ties facilitate the search for information and resources (Hansen, 1999) and the diffusion of information and innovation between groups (Granovetter, 1973). This flow of information between groups within an organization facilitates cohesion within the organization as a whole (Granovetter, 1973). Furthermore, weakly tied groups may be more flexible and adaptive because they are not constrained by the obligations and normative constraints associated with strong ties (Hansen, 1999). HPWS facilitate the development of bridging ties primarily through the use of flexible work and self-managed teams. Flexible work involves the relatively frequent rotation of individuals to job assignments that require different skill sets and different relationships (Way, 2002). Self-managed teams empower employees to make decisions traditionally reserved for supervisors (Manz & Sims, 1987). Self-managed teams and flexible work provide a less constraining environment that creates opportunities for individuals and groups to build networks of bridging weak ties beyond one’s immediate social unit. Self-managed teams often require members to seek ties with others possessing needed information resources (Hansen, 1999; Nonaka, 1994). For instance, teams with work and production scheduling authority may need to establish ties with those individuals who have information regarding customer orders, demand forecasts, inventory data, and quality assurance data to effectively manage their own work processes. Relatively short-term project teams, such as those often found in new product development settings, may also lead to the development of what later become bridging weak ties when individuals move on to different project teams. In settings where self-managed teams are difficult or impossible to implement, job rotation may serve the same function. The bridging ties that result from self-managed teams and flexible job assignments are likely to improve organizational efficiency. Bridging ties become conduits for the flow and exchange of information (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994), replacing traditional supervisor functions. Self-managed teams are predicated on self-regulation that minimizes or replaces traditional hierarchical control, enabling organizations to eliminate layers of management (Pfeffer, 1998). Bridging ties facilitate the flow of information among interdependent persons and departments and reduce the more costly and slower information flows up and down traditional vertical hierarchies (Galbrith, 1973). Increased access to information resulting from bridging ties may at least partially explain why self-managed teams frequently result in increased productivity and reduced product and service defects (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Increased productivity, fewer defects, and reduced managerial expenses lead directly to greater organizational efficiency and improved financial performance. Bridging ties should also facilitate greater organizational flexibility. Whereas specialization and departmentalization can result in isolated knowledge silos (Grant, 1996), social networks with a broad range of interunit ties may result in access to novel knowledge sources. Bridging ties thus serve as a conduit for information exchange. Such networks of bridging ties allow knowledge to be exploited by different individuals or groups within the organization. This should facilitate (a) the identification of threats or opportunities stimulating change and (b) access to information actually needed to make changes. In some firms, the benefits of bridging ties have been manifested in increased product innovations (Hansen, 1999; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), enabling such firms to more effectively adapt to market changes.



765

Generalized Norms of Reciprocity In organizational settings that are increasingly characterized by interdependence, the quality of interpersonal exchange relationships takes on greater importance (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a framework for understanding relationship quality at both individual and organizational levels. Exchange relationships can be characterized along a continuum of reciprocity (Sahlins, 1972; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). This “norm of reciprocity” continuum ranges from negative to balanced to generalized. These forms of reciprocity can be described in terms of the extent to which the parties are concerned with equivalence of exchange, immediacy of reciprocation, and focus of interest (self vs. mutual). High-quality relationships are characterized by generalized norms of reciprocity. Concern for equivalence of exchange is low, such that exchanges go beyond formally specified or contractual obligations. Concern for immediacy of reciprocation is also low, such that individuals are willing to wait for exchange obligations to be met. Finally, individuals within teams and the organization as a whole share mutual interests and enter exchange relationships aware of those mutual interests. HPWS use several practices that facilitate generalized norms of reciprocity. First, HPWS use selective staffing techniques to identify applicants who are uniquely compatible to the organization (Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998). Selective staffing systems often screen applicants on job-related contextual criteria such as personality and interpersonal skills that affect an individual’s capacity to socially integrate and develop quality relationships (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhart, 2002; Treadway et al., 2004). Selection for relationship potential increases the likelihood that individuals will join networks of relationships based on mutual interests and low concern for equivalence of exchange and immediacy of reciprocation (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Following organizational entry, training in both technical and interpersonal skills can lead to more competent and reliable behavior (Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998), leading to greater trust as well (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Trust is based on the expectation that others will behave in a helpful manner (Gambetta, 1988) and that such behavior is reliable and predictable (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Reliable and predictable behavior is a function of individual competence (i.e., KSAs) to perform job duties. Therefore, training that leads to greater individual competence should also lead to greater trust that individuals will perform reliably. This trust should reduce concerns over equivalence and immediacy of exchanges, resulting in generalized norms of reciprocity. Compensation practices will also affect exchange relationships, potentially enhancing generalized norms of reciprocity. HPWS companies commonly pay above-market wages (Pfeffer, 1998), which can result in greater commitment to the organization (Levine, 1993) and a felt obligation toward the collective organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, linking pay to cooperative group-oriented behavior encourages individuals to develop positive relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). For instance, team performance–based rewards, such as gain sharing or bonuses for new product developments, will lead to less self-interest and greater mutual interest (Pfeffer, 1998; Schuster, 1984), resulting in more generalized norms of reciprocity. Generalized norms of reciprocity lead to greater efficiency by reducing monitoring costs. Generalized norms are in essence a form of social control (e.g., Ouchi, 1980) that regulates


766


exchange relationships. Relationships characterized by generalized norms and trust produce a greater willingness to participate in social exchange and cooperative behaviors (Gambetta, 1988; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) and a greater frequency of cooperative interactions (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Also, these norms are a type of “goodwill” that results in a sense of solidarity among employees (Adler & Kwon, 2002). This climate of cooperative interdependence among employees can reduce unproductive behaviors and interpersonal conflict (Tjosvold & Johnson, 2000). Thus, if bridging weak ties provide the conduit for information exchange as we have argued, generalized norms of reciprocity help ease the flow of information and other resources. From an efficiency standpoint, there is less need for monitoring and control as (a) employees are less likely to engage in purely self-enhancing behaviors at the expense of others or the organization, and (b) managers devote less time and resources to resolving conflicts. The cooperative interaction characterizing generalized norms of reciprocity also has implications for organizational flexibility. The ability to transfer knowledge diminishes as its complexity increases (Hansen, 1999) and repeated interactions are required (Nonaka, 1994). The most daunting aspect of resource coordination involves instilling cooperation among individuals who may have divergent interests (Grant, 1996), especially in instances where the knowledge to be transferred is more tacit. For instance, an organization seeking to develop a sophisticated customer relationship management system would likely draw on its experts in information technology and its experts in customer relations. If the information technology experts and the customer relations experts do not integrate their respective knowledge bases, the chances for developing a customer relationship management system are quite dubious. Arduous relationships, with difficult and laborious interactions, are a significant impediment to transferring knowledge (Szulanski, 1996). However, generalized norms of reciprocity involve open-ended exchanges with less concern about immediate self-interest. It is thus expected that generalized norms should result in less arduous interactions, thereby enhancing the willingness of individuals to coordinate knowledge or other resources.

Shared Mental Models Shared mental models (SMMs) involve overlapping, similar, compatible, or distributed knowledge regarding tasks, teammates, and attitudes/beliefs that is used to coordinate behavior (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001). Individuals with SMMs have similar perceptions of the environment and compatible performance expectations that lead to more effective teamwork (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001; Mathieu et al., 2000). SMMs create a strong situation (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) that exhibits a relatively powerful influence over individual behavior (Mischel, 1997). HPWS instill SMMs by creating a strong organizational climate (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). HR practices are a means for management to communicate messages to employees. HR practices that are distinctive, consistent, and create a consensus of employee perceptions result in a strong organizational climate in which employees have “a shared perception of what the organization is like in terms of practices, policies, procedures, routines, and rewards—what is important and what behaviors are expected and rewarded” (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004: 205). HPWS use an extensive number of congruent practices (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Huselid,



767

1995), leading to an HR system that is a distinctive and salient component of the organization (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). We argue that extensive staffing, training, self-managed teams, decentralization, open communication, and performance-contingent compensation are each likely to result in SMMs. Extensive staffing procedures that include person-organization fit as a selection criterion can lead to SMMs. For instance, Rentsch and Klimoski (2001) found that allowing individuals to participate in the selection process by choosing their own team members is positively related to SMMs. Beyond selection, providing extensive training that focuses on employee expectations and KSAs necessary to function effectively results in greater fit and adjustment to the prevailing organizational climate (Cable & Parsons, 2001). Self-managed teams tend to develop productivity norms (Chatman & Flynn, 2001) and mutual beliefs of group potency (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Self-managed teams also facilitate greater participation that results in increased perceptions of fairness (Konovsky, 2000). Participative decision making (i.e., decentralization) appears likely to facilitate the development of overlapping knowledge that is characteristic of SMMs. Active participation ensures that information is openly exchanged and evaluated collectively among employees. Participation programs providing “voice” also increase perceptions of fairness (Konovsky, 2000), leading to greater consensus. Employees in HPWS companies often openly communicate and share information about business strategy, performance, and goals (Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998), a practice that is likely to increase the perceived relevance of the HR system (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). For example, open book management provides access to company financial information so that employees understand how their own goals align with organizational goals (Aggarwal & Simkins, 2001). Finally, performance-contingent compensation practices (e.g., profit sharing, gain sharing, and performance incentives) represent a distinctive and highly visible message regarding desired behavior (Schuster, 1984). Gain-sharing plans and management by objectives align individual goals with organizational goals (Rodgers & Hunter, 1991; Schuster, 1984). Furthermore, objective performance standards increase perceptions of fairness (Konovsky, 2000) that lead to greater consensus among organizational members (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). SMMs are likely to favorably affect organizational efficiency. By creating an overlapping knowledge structure among employees about expected and rewarded behaviors, SMMs function as another form of social control similar to Ouchi’s (1980) perspective of clan control. In dynamic, uncertain, and interdependent environments, which are now commonplace, traditional bureaucratic controls are inefficient. However, when employees have congruent goal perceptions (i.e., SMMs), there is an increased likelihood of cooperative interaction (Ghoshal & Moran, 1996; Ouchi, 1980). SMMs lead to greater cooperation and communication among team members (Mathieu et al., 2000) and similar beliefs about team performance goals (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). In such instances, the need for formalized controls is reduced due to less self-interested opportunistic behaviors (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Ghoshal & Moran, 1996), which in turn lowers organizational transaction costs. SMMs may therefore greatly reduce administrative overhead and improve organizational efficiency. SMMs are also likely to enhance organizational flexibility by increasing absorptive capacity, the ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and then apply the


768


information for organizational gain (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Absorption is more successful when new information is expressed in a common language relating to a preexisting knowledge base (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Grant, 1996). Overlapping or similar knowledge enables individuals to draw on their compatible knowledge bases to interpret and respond to information (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001; King & Zeithaml, 2001). Absorptive capacity facilitates both resource flexibility (i.e., less time to switch to alternative uses) and coordination flexibility (i.e., ability to reconfigure resources). Employees who understand the causeand-effect relationships embedded within critical knowledge resources are better able to synthesize resources in response to environmental changes (King & Zeithaml, 2001). Therefore, SMMs that provide a consensus understanding of the linkages among critical knowledge resources should facilitate the ability of the organization to reconfigure, redeploy, and align resources with market opportunities.

Role Making Roles are those activities that individuals define as comprising their work responsibilities (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role making is the process by which an individual actively negotiates his or her role definition with a set of role senders (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role senders are those individuals who communicate expectations regarding a focal individual’s responsibilities. In traditional organizations, the primary role sender who communicates job expectations is the supervisor. These expectations tend to be fairly static, formalized by written job descriptions, and exist independently of the job incumbent (Murphy & Jackson, 1999). However, as role expansion, ambiguity, conflict, and flexibility become inherent to today’s changing organizations (Murphy & Jackson, 1999), many individuals must necessarily engage in role making to establish their role in each relationship and in the overall organization (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Successful role making is initiated when one party offers to go beyond formally defined behaviors or responsibilities, which produces a series of role episodes involving testing, developing, and maintenance of a relationship based on increasing trust, respect, and mutual obligation (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Several HPWS practices create and nurture an environment in which employees are expected to actively define their work roles. HPWS provide an “environment in which individuals can assume a more active, rather than passive role in an organization” (Spreitzer, 1996: 499). HPWS motivate this active role behavior by empowering employees (Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998) with increased levels of autonomy, authority, and resources to act and make decisions about various aspects of their work (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Lawler, 1992). Decentralized decision making, team-based policies, participative management, and performancebased rewards are positively related to perceptions of empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996). Therefore, HPWS psychologically empower employees to assume an active work orientation and proactively define their own role within the organization. Flexible work and self-managed teams provide greater opportunities for engaging in role making (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). These practices encourage, or even require, individuals to develop relationships that might not form in traditional organizations with static, defined work roles. Flexible work and self-managed teams require employees to manage the expectations of



769

multiple constituencies, or role senders, but also allow more freedom to determine which constituencies must be served to obtain resources needed for task or project success (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Use of flexible work and teams is also likely to result in employees experiencing a greater level of on-the-job embeddedness (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holton, 2004). On-the-job embeddedness, reflecting a desire to participate in an organization, results in interpersonal behaviors such as volunteering for nonrequired activities and engaging in positive communications (Lee et al., 2004) that are consistent with role making. Selection for relationship potential should also facilitate role making because the initiation of role making depends on the perceived potential for respect, trust, and mutual interest (UhlBien et al., 2000). This potential is greater when organizational members have both relationship-building skills and compatible traits and values. After organizational entry, HPWS training practices typically focus not only on technical skills but also on interpersonal skills (Lawler, 1992) that may enable role-making behaviors (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000) and that produce higher quality relationships (Treadway et al., 2004; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). In summary, HPWS foster proactive role makers who are expected to actively develop and nurture a network of productive relationships. This is especially beneficial in instances requiring connections across departments. Role makers can be expected to establish the required cross-departmental ties (e.g., information technology and customer relations), reducing the need to funnel requests and information up and down traditional organizational hierarchies—which can be slow and ineffective (Galbrith, 1973). Role making produces tangible positive economic benefits for organizations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Mayfield and Mayfield (1998) reported that role making results in substantial increases in employee performance and job satisfaction. Higher productivity directly benefits financial performance, whereas lower turnover (resulting from greater job satisfaction) provides an indirect benefit via lower administrative expenses by reducing costly search and replacement activities. Role making also results in more open and frequent communication (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), which may minimize the need for extensive controls as well. Additional administrative savings are likely to result from the willingness of employees to take on extra tasks or assignments (Lee et al., 2004; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Role making should also lead to greater organizational flexibility. In fluid role environments, new and perhaps unexpected role demands will emerge over time (Murphy & Jackson, 1999). These emergent role demands may require job or organizational redesign. Formal changes to job descriptions or the organizational structure are time-consuming and may not occur in time for the organization to respond to environmental changes. Proactive role making enables individuals to more quickly respond to changing role demands. As a result, the organization is able to respond to emergent threats and opportunities in a timelier manner.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Many organizations are moving away from strict hierarchies to more autonomous work environments with less well defined jobs (Murphy & Jackson, 1999). Hence, behaviors such as employee cooperation and initiative are becoming more essential. Citizenship behaviors are believed to improve organizational effectiveness because they enrich the social structure of


770


the organization. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is employee behavior that indirectly contributes “to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” and that, in aggregate, promotes the performance of the organization (Organ, 1997: 91). Meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified seven dimensions of OCB: (a) helping behavior, (b) sportsmanship, (c) organizational loyalty, (d) organizational compliance, (e) individual initiative, (f) civic virtue, and (g) self-development. HPWS create an environment that is supportive of OCBs. Factors contributing to OCBs include lower task routinization, higher cohesiveness, perceived organizational support (POS) (Podsakoff et al., 2000), and perceptions of procedural justice (Konovsky, 2000). HPWS practices have been found to affect each of these factors. Flexible work roles that broaden employee skills (Way, 2002) may be expected to reduce task routinization. Self-managed teams require greater collaborative interaction, which leads to greater cohesion (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995). Participation in decision-making processes offers the opportunity for voice and is positively related to perceptions of procedural justice (Konovsky, 2000). Compensation systems tied to objective performance goals may reduce perceptions of subjectivity as the procedures for determining rewards are clear and absent of bias, resulting in higher perceptions of procedural justice (Konovsky, 2000) and POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, investments in training and development can signal an organization is supportive of its employees and values their contribution, resulting in greater POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). These findings suggest that HPWS are likely to encourage and facilitate OCBs. Empirical results are supportive of Organ’s (1997) assumption that aggregate levels of OCB favorably affect organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Much of the reasoning underlying the positive OCB–organizational performance relationship is predicated on more efficient resource utilization (Podsakoff et al., 2000). OCBs lead to efficiencies when employees offer assistance to others, exert more effort to satisfy customers, generate ideas to overcome work problems, and resources free up for more productive uses that were previously devoted to control and maintenance functions. In other words, operating efficiency is improved because of better worker productivity and lower administrative overhead expenses. OCBs are also likely to facilitate organizational flexibility by facilitating the flow of knowledge. In response to dynamic environments, employees must be able to understand changing conditions and generate appropriate responses. Coordination flexibility requires employees to understand the value and linkage between knowledge resources and organizational performance (King & Zeithaml, 2001; Teece et al., 1997), which is hindered when casual ambiguity obscures cause-and-effect factors (Szulanski, 1996). OCBs may be especially helpful for facilitating the flow of tacit knowledge. The capacity to transfer and reconfigure tacit knowledge may be especially difficult as it is frequently revealed only through its observance or implementation (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994). This often requires multiple interactions among parties exchanging information. For instance, the information technology and customer relations experts working on the customer relations management system likely have nonoverlapping KSAs that need to be integrated. OCBs are especially beneficial in such circumstances. Employees who are “good citizens” are likely to devote their time and energy to ensure knowledge is exchanged, understood, and integrated. This is manifested by both



771

greater willingness to engage in helping behaviors and more “sportsmanship” behaviors such as not complaining about inconveniences created by coworkers (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Two other categories of OCB appear suited to reduce the effects of casual ambiguity. Employees exhibiting civic virtue keep abreast of industry developments, monitor the external environment, and participate in organizational planning. Employees exhibiting self-development will continue to develop and update the KSAs needed to respond to changing role environments. These two OCBs will likely result in greater absorptive capacity, as employees who keep informed of organizational developments while also honing their KSAs should be better able to recognize, assimilate, and apply new information (cf. Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Ultimately, OCBs should improve the ability of individuals to recognize and understand threats and opportunities in the environment and respond accordingly, resulting in greater organizational flexibility.

Implications and Future Directions The framework we propose provides further illumination of the relationship between HPWS and organizational performance by specifying how HPWS influence the internal social structure of organizations. This model serves as response to the call for a deeper and more theoretical approach to HPWS research (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delery & Shaw, 2001). The resource-based view indicates human capital and social relationships may be a competitive advantage, yet this perspective does not explain the process, that is, the how or why. The resource-based view is limited by its inability to account for the informal social context (Truss, 2001) and the generation, transfer, and exploitation of knowledge (Wright et al., 2001). Recently, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) considered the impact of HR fostering a collective climate that influences organizational performance. Other works consider HR practices and their impact on social networks (Collins & Clark, 2003; Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Yet still lacking has been an in-depth theoretical consideration of the internal social structure in the context of HPWS. Thus, we believe our most significant contribution is incorporating the aggregate internal social structure into strategic human resources management research and illustrating its influential role in organizational performance outcomes. Understanding the relationship between HPWS and organizational outcomes is complicated by the need to consider multiple levels of analysis. HPWS are typically implemented at the organizational level under the assumption that their impacts will also be felt at the organizational level (e.g., flexibility or financial performance). However, an understanding of the process by which HPWS lead to firm-level outcomes must incorporate constructs at the level of the individual and relationships among individuals. Micro-level theories are useful in contexts where individual behaviors influence organizational actions (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Staw, 1991). In our framework, flexible individual behavior (i.e., role making and OCB) and the nature of the dyadic and group relationships (i.e., bridging ties, generalized norms of reciprocity, and SMMs) lead to organizational efficiency and organizational flexibility. Our model argues that HPWS are effective in dynamic environments requiring knowledge resources. Another implication is that knowledge workers supporting organizational flexibil-


772


ity are likely considered more unique and valuable than others not directly involved with the strategic core. As such, dynamic environments and reliance on knowledge management may represent boundary conditions to the proposed framework. The framework may be less applicable to organizations in stable environments and those that rely less on knowledge management. However, dynamic environments appear to be more of the norm than the exception for organizations (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003; Wright et al., 2001), limiting the applicability of this boundary condition. The issue of multiple HR management systems within organizations is more complicated. Research shows that organizations do implement differently configured HRM systems (Lepak & Snell, 2002) and that HPWS are not always implemented equally throughout an entire organization (Truss, 2001). Moreover, relational ties providing novel sources of knowledge are increasingly important to the ability of an organization to innovate and to bolster core competencies (Hansen, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994), which would seemingly blur the ability to clearly demarcate employment modes or determine which employees constitute part of core competencies. Furthermore, dynamic environments may lead to varied types of employees being strategically valuable and unique over time. If organizations use different types of HR management systems, this implies such organizations must alter their implementation. When and how such changes occur requires future study. In a related issue, many of today’s jobs lack well-defined job duties. Employee contributions to organizations are increasingly described in terms of roles rather than jobs or tasks. This suggests that traditional HR practices that focus solely on enhancing task performance may miss a greater opportunity to facilitate individual role performance. As roles become more ambiguous, fluid, and socially embedded (Murphy & Jackson, 1999), HR practices that facilitate role management are likely to take on greater importance. HPWS appear to be especially suited to affect role making. However, role making and building relationship networks may not always lead to desired outcomes. Employees occupying central network positions or connecting critical parties have greater individual social capital and may have greater power to appropriate rent from the organization (Blyler & Coff, 2003; Burt, 1997). In such a situation, organizational flexibility is not likely negatively affected, but financial efficiency could be impaired. In closing, we agree with the recent impetus for better theory to more fully understand the impact of HPWS on organizations. Without theoretical roots, the risk of improper assumptions and conjectures is magnified in both academic and practitioner circles. Ultimately, the proposed framework and related propositions should serve to guide empirical studies and to illuminate understanding of the intermediate linkage—the internal social structure—in the relationship between HPWS and organizational performance.

References Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40. Aggarwal, R., & Simkins, B. J. 2001. Open book management—Optimizing human capital. Business Horizons, 44(5): 5-13.



773

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 1998. High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 16: 53-101. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley. Blyler, M., & Coff, R. 2003. Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties the split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 677-686. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221. Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339-365. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. 2001. Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54: 123. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. 2001. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 195-202. Chatman, J., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 956-974. Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 740-751. Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. 2001. The strategic management of people in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 20: 165-197. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. 1999. From human resource strategy to organizational performance: Lessons from research on organizational agility. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, suppl. 4: 145-174. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Galbrith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gambetta, D. 1988. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21: 13-47. Graen, G., & Scandura, T. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 9: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationships based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6: 1360-1380. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109-122. Guthrie, J. P. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 180-190. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for integration of micro and macro organizational theories. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 17: 71-114. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhart, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 765-780. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley. King, A. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. 2001. Competencies and firm performance: Examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 75-99.


774


Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74. Konovsky, M. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 489-511. Lawler, E. E. 1992. The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: 538-555. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holton, B. C. 2004. The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 711-722. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Lengnick-Hall, C. A. 2003. Human resource management in the knowledge economy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 2002. Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28: 517-543. Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. 2002. The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 352-368. Levine, D. 1993. What do wages buy? Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 462-483. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 114-139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-128. Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273-283. Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. 1998. Increasing worker outcomes by improving leader follower relations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5: 72-81. Mischel, W. 1997. Personality and dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decades. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: 113-132. New York: Academic Press. Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. 1999. Managing work role performance: Challenges for twenty-first-century organizations and their employees. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation and development: 325-365. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5: 14-37. Organ, D. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 12(2): 85-97. Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141. Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513-563. Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. 2001. Why do “great minds” think alike? Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 107-120. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714. Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. 1991. Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 322-336. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone age economics. New York: Aldine. Sanchez, R. 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 135-159. Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. 2003. Levels of measurement and analysis in organizational citizenship behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 283-301. Schuster, M. 1984. The Scanlon Plan: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20: 23-38. Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. 1995. Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20: 18-38.



775

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: 522-552. Spreitzer, G. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 483-504. Staw, B. M. 1991. Dressing up like an organization: When psychology theories can explain organizational action. Journal of Management, 17: 805-819. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter): 27-43. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533. Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D. 2000. Deutsch’s theory of cooperation and competition. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work teams: Past, present and future: 131-155. Boston: Kluwer. Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. 2004. Leader political skill and employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 493-513. Truss, C. 2001. Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 1121-1149. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 464-476. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G., & Scandura, T. 2000. Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 18: 137-185. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Way, S. 2002. High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the US small business sector. Journal of Management, 28: 765-785. Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. 2001. Human resources and the resource base view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27: 701-721. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. 2005. High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 77-93.

Biographical Notes W. Randy Evans is currently a management Ph.D. student at the University of Mississippi. His research focuses on the intersection of individual characteristics and organizational performance goals, including the areas of corporate social responsibility, strategic human resource management, and employee work roles. Prior to his current studies, he worked for a number of years in the commercial lending industry. Walter D. Davis (Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology) is an assistant professor of management at the University of Mississippi, where he teaches courses in strategic human resource management, compensation, and selection. His research interests include self-management, goal orientation, role making, and strategic human resource management.


Journal of Management - Semantic Scholar

Journal of Management - Semantic Scholar

Suggest Documents