doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00151.

Trust as moderator in the relationship between

HRM practices and employee attitudes
Laura Innocenti, LUISS Business School
Massimo Pilati, Modena and Reggio Emilia University
Alessandro M. Peluso, LUISS University, Rome
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 21, no 3, 2011, pages 303317

The study contributes to the debate in the HRM literature by examining the role of trust in management
in moderating the effect of HRM practices on employee attitudes. The novelty of the study lies in our
interest in assessing this relationship not only on a system of HR practices, but also considering whether
the influence varies according to specific bundles of practices. Adopting a Structural Equation
Modelling approach, we first test the moderation using an HRM index of seven practices on a sample
of 9,000 employees from 46 Italian organisations. Then, following the AMO approach, we assess the
relationship on three bundles of practices, one oriented to increasing ability, another motivation and the
third opportunity to participate. Results confirm the moderation with the overall HRM index.
Interestingly, the effect varies depending on the HR bundles, being significant only with the motivation
practices and not relevant in the other two bundles.
Contact: Dr Laura Innocenti, LUISS Business School, Viale Pola, 12, 00198 Rome, Italy. Email:
linnocenti@luiss.it
hrmj_151

303..317

INTRODUCTION

nterest in Human Resource Management (HRM) practices and their effectiveness in

improving both employees attitudes and behaviours and organisational performance has
steadily grown in recent decades. Changes in the economic scenarios and the subsequent
impact on the labour market and on organisational strategies have increased the focus on this
issue. HRM practices, in fact, represent strong investments made by companies to boost their
competitiveness and promote employees engagement. Human capital, like any other capital,
should thus be measured in terms of return on investment, and all organisations have a vested
interest in understanding how effective the time and money they spend on people management
activities really is. Therefore, over the last decade, researchers have started to explore the
relationship between HRM practices and individual and organisational performance indicators,
with particular emphasis on the so-called black box, or intermediate set of factors that might
contribute to explaining the existence of a link between the adoption by companies of
sophisticated HRM systems and better organisational and individual outcomes. Research
conducted so far has confirmed the existence of this relationship, although there are still many
grey areas and much remains unclear about the mechanisms that might facilitate this
relationship.
Among the possible intervening factors authors have acknowledged the enhancement of
abilities, motivation and opportunity to participate, according to what is commonly defined as
the AMO approach (Becker and Huselid, 1998; Boxall and Purcell, 2003, 2008; Boselie et al.,
2005). Others have recognised the relevance of the psychological contract or trust (Guest, 1999;
Appelbaum et al., 2000). Our intention with this study is to continue in this direction, combining
two of the above-mentioned perspectives. In fact, we are interested in analysing the effect of

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

303

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Innocenti, L., Pilati, M. and Peluso, A.M. (2011) Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices
and employee attitudes. Human Resource Management Journal 21: 3, 303317.

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

trust in management as moderator between the HRM practices and employees attitudes and
behaviours. The degree of trust an employee has in his superiors has been shown to affect a
number of work outcomes, such as individual work performance, discretionary behaviour,
satisfaction and organisational commitment (Kramer and Tyler, 1999; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001;
Ferrin and Dirks, 2003) and it could therefore increase the effectiveness of HRM practices.
Furthermore, following the AMO approach, we consider the role of three distinct bundles
of practices. According to the literature, HRM practices are likely to influence positively
individual and organisational performance when: (a) employees possess knowledge and skills
to perform the task required, (b) are motivated to apply their skill and knowledge and (c) when
the organisations conditions allow them to contribute suggestions or provide input (MacDuffie,
1995). Our interest is to see whether the influence of trust in management differs for practices
grouped according to this approach.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
According to recent theoretical contributions (Purcell et al., 2009), the path linking HRM
practices and performance can be envisaged as a causal chain that moves from practices in
their different stages from intended to experienced to individual outcomes, in the form of
attitudes and behaviours and then to organisational results. A sizeable body of research has so
far examined the impact of HRM practices on various aspects of organisational performance,
which represents the more distant link of the chain (Huselid, 1995; Ichnioswski et al., 1997;
Wright and Boswell, 2002; Guest et al., 2003; Wall and Wood, 2005), while others have privileged
the analysis of employee attitudes and behaviours at work (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Ramsay
et al., 2000; Godard, 2001; Guest, 2002). Findings, even though not always consistent, confirm
the existence of a link between the use of HRM practices and various aspects of organisational
and individual outcomes (Paauwe, 2008). Thus, the focus of attention shifted to the
understanding of the factors that may intervene in the relationship between HRM practices and
the various outcomes of interest. According to Purcell and his colleagues (Purcell et al., 2009),
there is a need to develop the causal chain further in order to better understand not only the
what and the why of the impact of HRM, but also the how. The so-called black box
problem (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Guest, 1997; Ramsay et al., 2000; Boxall and Purcell, 2008)
is therefore considered as one of the key issues requiring further attention in the field of HRM.
Over the past decade or so this has led to repeated calls for more theory and research on the
intervening mechanisms that may contribute to HRM practices having the impact that they do
on organisational outcomes (Delery, 1998; Ferris et al., 1999; Ostroff and Bowen, 2000; Wright
and Gardner, 2004; Boselie et al., 2005). Following theses calls, we focus our analysis on the
closer link of the HRM-performance models, namely on the relationship between HRM
practices and employee outcomes. Specifically, our interest is in examining the underlying
mechanisms explaining how HRM practices relate to the development of positive attitudes at
work, assuming that trust in management can successfully moderate this relationship, allowing
HRM practices to increase or reduce individual attitudes.
Research so far has privileged the analysis of mediating variables, such as work experiences
(Innocenti and Pilati, 2008; Pilati and Innocenti, 2009), organisational climate (Ostroff and
Bowen, 2000; Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Peccei and Innocenti, 2008) or other employee related
attitudes (Ramsay et al., 2000; Godard, 2001). Less developed is the stream of research that
analyses possible moderation effects, and our effort goes precisely in this direction.
When looking at the employee and organisational outcomes of HRM practices, researchers
have commonly focused on the overall HRM system rather than on individual practices. This
304

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

is because employees are typically exposed to a range of HRM practices simultaneously (Becker
and Huselid, 1998; Delery, 1998; Wright and Boswell, 2002; Arthur and Boyles, 2007). To
evaluate this composite influence, we first focused our analysis on the combined effect of a set
of seven HRM practices as a whole.
However, practices may have divergent results, so that they, respectively, nullify their
influence. To this end, it may be useful to address the analysis to specific groups of practices
to better understand whether the results of the overall index are consistent across these groups.
Moreover, according to previous studies, bundles of interrelated and internally consistent HR
practices are the appropriate unit of analysis because they create reinforcing conditions to
support employees motivation and skill acquisition (Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Guthrie,
2001). Implicit in the notion of a bundle, in fact, is the concept that, as far as the impact on
outcomes is concerned, more is better because multiple practices will give overlapping and
mutually reinforcing effects.
Our choice of bundles of practices is consistent with the AMO approach, which affirms that
for practices to be effective on organisational performance they should firstly increase employee
skills and ability, then provide them with some form of motivation to persuade them to apply
their skills, and create opportunities to do so (Hutchinson and Purcell, 2003). We, in fact,
identified three different bundles, reflecting Ability, Motivation and Opportunity to participate.
As already mentioned, we focused our analysis on trust in management as moderator. Trust,
in fact, plays an important role in the relationship between HRM practices and employee
attitudes and behaviour and it has been the subject of considerable discussion in the HRM
literature. Appelbaum et al. (2000), for example, have suggested that the set of HRM practices
associated with High Performance Work Systems has a positive effect on key employee
attitudes, such as satisfaction and commitment, through their impact on employee trust and
intrinsic motivation, confirming a mediating role.
Trust is a multidisciplinary concept and it has been explained in various ways according to
different perspectives. While economists support the view of trust as the result of rational
calculation of costs and benefits, psychologists tend to consider it as an attribute of individuals,
while sociologists favour its properties of network relations (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Although
scholars have used different descriptions of trust (Kramer and Tyler, 1999), the perception or
belief by employees that their employers will act upon their words is widely recognised as a
definition of trust, which is precisely the definition we adopted in our study.
The link between HRM practices and employee attitudes has its grounds in social exchange
theory (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964). This establishes that investments in terms of opportunities
offered by the organisation aimed at improving skills and knowledge will be reciprocated by
employees in terms of positive attitudes and behaviours. But the norm of reciprocity has a
negative side as well, which includes the expectation that acts perceived as distrustful by
employees will only go towards jeopardising their positive attitude towards the organisation.
As Lewis and Weigert (1985: 971) point out: when we see others acting in ways that imply that
they trust us, we become more disposed to reciprocate by trusting in them more. Conversely,
we come to distrust those whose actions appear to violate our trust or to distrust us. Thus,
when employees perceive they cannot rely upon the behaviour of management, they may feel
more exposed and vulnerable and less disposed to let initiatives implemented by the
organisation, such as HRM practices, to enhance their positive attitude towards the company.
We therefore expect trust in management to moderate the relationship between HRM practices
and employee attitudes.
Moreover, we believe that the influence of trust in management varies across HRM practices
according to their scope. More precisely, we consider employees attitudes towards the
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011
2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

305

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model

Human Resource
Management Practices

Ability
Employee Attitude
towards the
Organisation

Motivation

Opportunity

Trust

organisation to be enhanced by the influence of trust in management mainly in the relationship

with HRM practices focused on enhancing employee motivation. In fact, we expect the degree
of reliability of managers behaviour to have a greater influence when rewards and information
are involved (Ferrin and Dirks, 2003), rather than opportunities for training and development
or improvement in working conditions
In conclusion, based on the above arguments and evidence, in this research we sought to
achieve the following goals:
1. to verify whether implementing some key human resource management practices is a way
to increase employees attitudes towards their organisations;
2. to test whether this relationship is moderated by employees trust in management; and finally
3. to examine this moderating role for trust with respect to specific bundles of HRM practices.
Therefore, our model hypothesises that individual employee attitudes towards the organisation
(EAO) are a positive function of seven key HRM practices. These seven HRM practices are
supposed to have three different dimensions regarding employee ability, motivation, and
opportunity to participate. It also hypothesises that trust in management moderates the
relationships between the constructs (Fig. 1).
METHODOLOGY
The study was based on data made available to us by the Great Place to Work Institute in Italy
and covered 46 companies, both multinationals and domestic, involving a total of 12,614
employees. Particular attention was given to identifying missing data, as this can distort the
statistical analysis, and the final sample consisted of 9,166 complete questionnaires. In order to
cover a wide range of situations, the sample included 18 companies with 100500 employees,
16 larger ones with 5001,000 employees and another 12 with 1,0005,000 employees. The size
of a company plays a significant part in employeremployee relationships, since it often has a
major effect on numerous aspects of working conditions. In small companies, the human
306

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

resources management is generally quite informal and rarely supported by structured

procedures or policies, whereas larger companies usually find it necessary to introduce
complex, highly developed personnel systems (Forth et al., 2006; Kersley et al., 2006).
Operating sector is also important, as it can have a significant influence on working
processes. Therefore, the sample was chosen to be as varied as possible, including companies
engaged in production, distribution, marketing and consultancy.
Two separate and complementary sources of information were used. The first questionnaire,
addressing the employees, considered their perceptions of trust in management and their
attitudes at work. The second, for the HR Department, focused on information concerning the
HRM practices in place in the different organisations, as well as on other structural information
such as size, industry, and level of unionism. During the research, the HR managers responsible
for the different HR processes of interest for our analyses (job evaluation, training, rewards and
recognitions, etc.) were also interviewed by telephone in order to obtain further details on the
information provided through the questionnaire. This approach, involving a number of HR
managers, was adopted in order to enhance the validity and the precision of the measures used
to assess the effect of HRM practices on employees. Self-reported methods are extensively
adopted in HRM studies and their use has been proven not to affect the validity of the findings
(Crampton and Wagner, 1994). Moreover, the use of two separate sources of information for the
independent and dependent variables contributed to reducing the risks from common method
bias (Podsakoff, et al., 2003).
VARIABLES AND MEASURES
Variables considered in the model are described as follows and specified in more details in the
Appendix.
Independent variables
HRM practices. Although there is no general consensus as to which practices constitute a
coherent system of HRM (Boselie et al., 2005; Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Purcell and Kinnie,
2007; Wright and Boswell, 2002), previous studies and research are somewhat consistent in the
HRM practices analysed. According to the literature, practices associated with recruitment
and selection, training and development, performance management and rewarding and
compensation tend to be extensively included, while other practices more related to work and
job design seem to be less analysed (Purcell and Kinnie, 2007). Consistently, Pfeffers (1998)
model identified seven practices that he felt characterised most if not all systems designed to
increase profits through people: employment security, selectivity in hiring new staff, team
self-management, comparatively high bonuses for good company performance, extensive
training, the reduction of status differences and extensive information sharing. Appelbaum
et al.s High Performance Work System (2000), on the other hand, focused on practices to
enhance workers skills and provide them with incentives to participate in decision making.
They comprised autonomy in decision making; working in self-managed teams; off-line
team participation; good communications; training, both formal and informal; security of
employment; information sharing; good promotion opportunities and work-life balance
support. Our choice of practices included a selection among those most frequently adopted in
a large number of HRM studies and widely recognised as key factors for enhancing employee
skills, motivation and empowerment (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).
The seven HRM practices were measured using dichotomous indicators [1 = the practice has
been implemented; 0 = otherwise (i.e. the practices has not been implemented yet)].
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011
2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

307

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

Dependent variable
EAO. EAO was the dependent variable of the model. The model addresses attitudes previously
analysed in several studies and considered critical for both individuals and organisations
(Huselid, 1995; Guest, 1997; Brief, 1998; Appelbaum et al., 2000). The variable covers both items
referring to work satisfaction and organisational commitment such as I am proud to tell others
that I work for this company, When I look at what we accomplish, I feel a sense of pride, and
My work has special meaning: this is not just a job . These items have strong similarity with
those included in traditional validated scales. For example, Appelbaum et al. (2000) in their
measure of Commitment included the following items: Im proud to be working for this
company and I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help this company
succeed. In the same way, Meyer and Allens (1997) scale presents the following items: I enjoy
discussing my organisation with people outside it and This organisation has a great deal of
personal meaning for me.
A preliminary reliability analysis showed these items to be unidimensional (factor loadings
0.70, with 56 per cent of total variance explained) and internally consistent (Cronbachs
a = 0.83; inter-item correlations 0.49; item-total correlation coefficients 0.63).
Moderating variable
TRUST. Trust in management was conceptualised as a potential moderating variable that
affects structural links in the model. We measured trust on a three-item scale, which included
items concerning the level of trust in management by employees (Management delivers on its
promises, Management actions match its words, and Management is honest and ethical).
These items have proved to be very close in meaning to those adopted by other validated scale,
such as WERS, Managers here can be relied upon to keep to their promises or Managers deal
with employees honestly.
The reliability analysis showed that these items were unidimensional (factor loadings 0.79,
with 72.6 per cent of total variance explained) and internally consistent (Cronbachs a = 0.89;
inter-item correlations 0.68; item-total correlations 0.74). As trust was hypothesised to play
a moderating role in the conceptual model, scores obtained on trust items were averaged to
yield a synthetic indicator of the construct (mean = 3.73; SD = 0.94; median = 4.00).
All employee-related measures adopted five-point Likert-type scales and required the
respondent to indicate the extent to which he/she considered each item to be true by using a
response scale ranging from Almost always untrue to Almost always true.1
PATH ANALYSIS: THE IMPACT OF HRM PRACTICES ON EAO
A structural equation model was built following conventional procedures and notation (cf.
Bollen, 1989), and using the maximum likelihood estimation method (Fig. 2). A HRM practices
Index (xHR) was specified as the number of these practices actually implemented within each
organisation. Operationally, xHR was computed as the sum of the corresponding seven
dichotomous variables associated with the examined practices (i.e. xHR = Sxi; see Appendix).
The latent construct x (Human Resource Management Practices) was measured through the
indicator xHR, which was treated as observed variable and assumed to directly measure the
associated latent construct without error. This was done by fixing the loading coefficient that
relates the observed variable to the construct equal to 1 (l = 1) and the measurement error
variance to zero (d = 0). The choice to use xHR as a summated scale to measure x was based on
past studies (e.g. Bandalos, 2002; Singh and Rhoads 1991; Steenkamp et al., 2003), which suggest
308

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

FIGURE 2 The basic structural model

xHR

Human Resource
Management
Practices ()

Employee Attitude
towards the
Organisation ()

y1

y2

y3

y4

Note: n = 9,166.

adopting such an item-parceling procedure as a way to obtain more parsimonious and precise
structural estimates.
Results showed the following fit statistics: Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.995; Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.984; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.991; Bentler-Bonnet
Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.991; Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.052;
while the c2/d.f. ratio was too high c2(5) = 127.338, p < 0.001; c2/d.f. = 25.468. This finding
suggested that an improvement in the model might still be possible by removing specific
constraints from the model based on modification indices greater than 4. We then allowed
specific measurement error terms to correlate based on theoretical reasoning. A modified
version of the model with correlational links among di terms was therefore estimated. Results
showed an excellent fit for the model [c2(1) = 0.096, p > 0.05; c2/d.f. = 0.096; GFI = 1.000;
AGFI = 1.000; CFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = 0.000]. The c2 difference test confirmed that the
modified model performed better that the basic one [Dc2(4) = 127.242, p < 0.001]. The observed
variables yi were substantially associated with the latent construct EAO, showing li
standardised coefficients ranging from 0.69 to 0.90, construct reliability (CR) = 0.84, and average
variance extracted (AVE) = 0.57 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Standardised structural estimates
revealed a significant effect of the Human Resource Management Practices construct (x) on
EAO (h) (b = 0.13, p < 0.01).
MULTI-GROUP ANALYSIS
A multi-group analysis was carried out to verify whether trust moderates the relationship
between x and h. Preliminary analysis, illustrated above, confirms that the three items used to
assess trust were internally consistent and represent a reliable measure of the construct. We then
averaged their scores to obtain a composite indicator of trust (M = 3.73, SD = 0.94). A median
split was performed based upon trust scores to obtain two sub-samples of subjects with a low
(low-trust sample size: nLT = 4,415) versus a high level of trust (high-trust sample size:
nHT = 4,751), respectively.
First, we estimated the model on each on the two sub-groups separately, in order to verify
whether the model reaches an acceptable fit for each group [Low-Trust Model: c2(1) = 1.243,
p > 0.05; c2/d.f. = 1.243; GFI = 1.000; AGFI = 0.998; CFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = 0.007;
High-Trust Model: c2(1) = 0.367, p > 0.05; c2/d.f. = 0.367; GFI = 1.000; AGFI = 0.998; CFI = 1.000;
NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = 0.000]. A multi-group analysis was then conducted by comparing the
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011
2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

309

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

two groups associated with different levels of trust. We compared a constrained model, where
the structural parameter associated with the link from x to h was not allowed to vary across
the two sub-groups of subjects, against an unconstrained one, where this parameter was
allowed to change across the two sub-groups. Results show that both models fit real data very
well [Constrained Model: c2(3) = 9.969, p = 0.02; c2/d.f. = 3.323; GFI = 1.000; AGFI = 0.996;
CFI = 0.999; NFI = 0.999; RMSEA = 0.016; Unconstrained Model: c2(2) = 1.604, p < 0.05;
c2/d.f. = 0.802; GFI = 1.000; AGFI = 0.999; CFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = 0.000]; however,
the c2 difference test confirmed that the unconstrained model performs significantly better than
the constrained one [Dc2(1) = 8.365, p < 0.01]. This finding supports the hypothesis of a
moderating role for trust in the model. The structural parameter b, associated with the
relationship between x and h, significantly changes intensity across the two sub-groups of
subjects (bLowTRUST = 0.09, p < 0.001; bHighTRUST = 0.03, p > 0.05; Test of equality of parameters:
t = 2.95, p < 0.05).
PATH ANALYSIS: THE IMPACT OF HRM BUNDLES ON EAO
To add clarity to our findings, the same analysis was conducted replacing the overall index of
HRM practices with specific bundles. A categorical principal component analysis was carried
out on the seven dichotomous variables to assess their dimensionality. The analysis yielded a
factorial solution composed of three components jointly capable of explaining 64 per cent of the
overall variance (Table 1). Factor loadings confirmed that, consistent with the AMO approach,
F1, F2 and F3 can be renamed as Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity, respectively. The first
bundle included practices related to job evaluation, training and information sharing that are
widely acknowledged as increasing employees skills and ability to perform. The second bundle
included both economic rewards and non-economic form of recognition that are undoubtedly
linked to employee motivation. Finally, the third factor included practices such as job design
and employee survey that are both ways to provide employees with opportunities to influence
and take part in the work design. We used the factorial scores obtained for the three dimensions
extracted as observed variables in the subsequent structural equation model.
The three HRM practice components of Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity were specified
in the model as exogenous variables (x1, x2, and x3, respectively), each of them measured by a
TABLE 1 Loadings from the categorical principal component analysis
Variable

Job evaluation
Information sharing
Training
Non monetary recognition
Economic rewards
Employee survey
Job design
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Component
F1 (Ability)

F2 (Motivation)

F3 (Opportunity)

0.80
0.77
0.72
0.04
0.08
-0.08
0.18
2.01
25.66%

-0.08
0.17
0.07
0.85
0.79
0.14
0.01
1.36
20.03%

0.23
0.07
-0.13
0.05
0.09
0.80
0.75
1.11
18.31%

n = 9,166.

310

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

FIGURE 3 The structural model

F1

F2

F3

y1

y2

y3

y4

Ability (1)

Motivation ( 2)

Employee Attitude
towards the
Organisation ()

Opportunity (3)

Note: n = 9,166.

single observed variable containing the factorial scores obtained on the corresponding
component (Fig. 3). Factorial scores were then treated as observed variables, which were
assumed to measure the associated latent construct without error. This was done by fixing the
loading coefficient that relates the observed variable to the latent construct equal to 1 (li = 1)
and the measurement error variance equal to zero (di = 0) (cf. Singh and Rhoads, 1991; Bandalos,
2002; Steenkamp et al., 2003). We specified Employee Attitude towards the Organisation as the
endogenous variable (h), which was treated as a latent construct measured by the four items
reported in the Appendix.
The model reached an acceptable fit [c2(10) = 55.351, p < 0.001; c2/d.f. = 5.535; GFI = 0.998;
AGFI = 0.995; CFI = 0.997; NFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.022] and standardised structural estimates
revealed significant effects of the three HRM practice components on EAO. More specifically,
Ability and Motivation were found to exert a positive impact on EAO (b coefficients = 0.11 and
0.14, respectively, with p < 0.01), while Opportunity exerted a negative, albeit weak, effect on
EAO (b = -0.06, p < 0.01; see Table 2).
MULTI-GROUP ANALYSIS
A multi-group analysis was carried out to verify whether trust moderates the causal
relationships in the model. A median split was performed based upon trust scores to obtain two
sub-samples of subjects with a low (low-trust sample size: nLT = 4,415) versus a high level of
trust (high-trust sample size: nHT = 4,751), respectively. First, we estimated the model on each
of the two sub-groups separately, in order to verify whether the model has acceptable fit for
each group [Low-Trust Model: c2(8) = 34.599, p < 0.001; c2/d.f. = 4.325; GFI = 0.998; AGFI = 0.992;
CFI = 0.994; NFI = 0.993; RMSEA = 0.027; High-Trust Model: c2(8) = 42.298, p < 0.001;
c2/d.f. = 5.287; GFI = 0.997; AGFI = 0.991; CFI = 0.990; NFI = 0.988; RMSEA = 0.030].
A multi-group analysis was then conducted by comparing the two groups associated with
different levels of trust. We compared a constrained model, where structural parameters were
not allowed to vary across the two sub-groups of subjects, against an unconstrained one, where
all structural parameters were allowed to change across the two sub-groups. Results show
that both models fit real data acceptably [Constrained Model: c2(19) = 94.974, p < 0.001;
GFI = 0.997; AGFI = 0.991;
CFI = 0.991;
NFI = 0.988;
RMSEA = 0.021;
c2/d.f. = 4.999;
Unconstrained Model: c2(16) = 76.897, p < 0.001; c2/d.f. = 4.806; GFI = 0.998; AGFI = 0.992;
CFI = 0.993; NFI = 0.991; RMSEA = 0.020], but the c2 difference test confirmed that the
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011
2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

311

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

TABLE 2 Standardised estimates

Measurement path

R2

Standardised coefficient (l)

1.00

1.00NA

1.00

1.00NA

Ability (x1)
F1 Ability (x1)
Motivation (x2)
F2 Motivation (x2)
Opportunity (x3)
F3 Opportunity (x3)
EAO (h1)
y1 EAO (h)
y2 EAO (h)
y3 EAO (h)
y4 EAO (h)

1.00

1.00NA

0.64
0.51
0.38
0.79

0.80*
0.72*
0.62NA
0.89*

Structural path

R2

Standardised coefficient (b)

EAO (h) Ability (x1)

EAO (h) Motivation (x2)
EAO (h) Opportunity (x3)

0.04

0.11*
0.14*
-0.06*

CR

AVE

0.85

0.58

Note: n = 9,166.
* p < 0.01.
NA
= not applicable (fixed parameter). c2(10) = 55.351, p < 0.001; c2/d.f. = 5.535; GFI = 0.998; AGFI = 0.995; CFI = 0.997;
NFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.022.
AVE, average variance extracted; CR, construct reliability; EAO, employee attitudes towards the organisation; GFI,
Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; NFI, Bentler-Bonnet
Normed Fit Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

unconstrained model performs significantly better than the constrained one [Dc2(3) = 18.077,
p < 0.001]. This finding supports the hypothesis of a moderating role for trust in the model.
Estimates and fit statistics are summarised in Fig. 4. For clarity reasons, this figure reports only
structural parameters across the two sub-groups as they are the studys focus. We computed a
difference test on structural parameters by showing that when trust is high the path from
Motivation (x2) to EAO (h) is significantly stronger than when trust is low (t = 3.0, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study confirm the importance of investigating the intermediate set of factors
that may contribute to explaining the how of the links between HRM practices and
organisational and individual performance. First, our study reinforces the optimistic view of the
role of HRM practices that affirms that progressive HRM practices, taken as a whole, have a
beneficial effect on employees related outcomes (Pfeffer, 1998; Godard, 2004; Peccei, 2004)
highlighting a strong relationship between the two variables.
Our results confirm also the need to investigate the relationship between HRM practices and
employee outcomes under particular circumstances as they highlight the fact that particular
individual conditions, such as the level of trust in management, may influence this relationship.
312

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

FIGURE 4 Multi-group standardised structural estimates

Low-Trust Sub-Group of Subjects (nLT = 4415)
Ability (1)

Motivation (2)

Opportunity (3)

.07**
.04*

Employee Attitude
towards the
Organisation ()

-.05*

High-Trust Sub-Group of Subjects (nHT = 4751)

Ability (1)

Motivation (2)

Opportunity (3)

.04**
.15***

Employee Attitude
towards the
Organisation ()

-.03*

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Multi-group fit statistics: 2(16) = 76.897, p < 0.001; 2/d.f. = 4.806; GFI = 0.998; AGFI = 0.992;
CFI = 0.993; NFI = 0.991; RMSEA = 0.020.

We consider this to be an important contribution made by our study, as HRM research so far
has mainly considered the impact of HRM practices in general. Several cases that have
introduced a differentiation have done so according to work positions, following the
suggestions of Lepak and Snell (1999). From our distinctive approach, results indicate that
people differ in their reaction to HRM according to individual conditions, and that these
conditions can modify the impact of HRM practices on employee positive attitudes towards the
organisation.
Furthermore, we have also highlighted the importance of investing in not only the role of
HRM practices as a system, but of specific bundles of practices. Our results, in fact, demonstrate
that the influence of trust in management varies according to the different scope of
the practices. Specifically, the level of managers accountability improves significantly the
effectiveness of motivational practices in promoting positive attitudes towards the
organisations, while this is lower in the relationship between practices oriented towards
developing employees ability or opportunity for participation.
This confirms the role of managers in establishing relations that might call for trust
(Fukuyama, 1995; Hosmer, 1995; Chan, 1997; Govier, 1998; Atkinson and Butcher, 2003), as they
are required first, in a walk the talk approach, to be consistent in their actions and decisions
(Creed and Miles, 1996). This clearly has serious ramifications for the way in which they relate
to their staff. Any behaviour that runs counter to perceptions of support, equity and integration
may compromise the effects of this positive chain of influence and reduce or nullify the impact
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011
2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

313

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

of a companys HRM system. This is in line with the results of several studies (Hutchinson and
Purcell, 2003; Purcell et al., 2003) showing that increase in front-line management attention to
their workforce is likely to enhance employee satisfaction, motivation and extra-role behaviour,
thereby highlighting the key role played by managers not only in effectively implementing the
organisation HRM policies and practices, but also in reinforcing their positive impact on
employees.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The results of this study should be considered in the light of some limitations. An initial
consideration regards the nature of the sample. Companies that participated in the Great Place
to Work Survey are in general advanced regarding issues of human resource management.
Although this may have resulted in inflated structural coefficients, the large size of our sample
has probably mitigated this limitation, allowing us to obtain largely significant estimates.
Future studies applying our model on more heterogeneous samples could be carried out in
order to confirm our findings.
The absence of standard validated scales of trust in management and employee attitudes
might appear to be another limitation of the study. Our decision to adopt the GPTW
questionnaire was due to the fact that the agreement with this Institute represented an excellent
opportunity for gaining access to a significant number of organisations in Italy, a country where
organisations are frequently reluctant to be involved in research for academic purposes.
Furthermore, as presented in the methodology section, the items adopted differ only in the
form but not in the content from the traditional validated measures.
Although we have clearly demonstrated the importance of analysing the mechanisms
mediating the relationship between HRM practices and employee-related outcomes, there is
still much work to be done in gaining a better understanding of these relationships. We also
perceive a need to expand the sphere of research, developing more complex models which can
embrace financial and economic indicators alongside employee-related outcomes. This would
thus enable us to look at all the links of the causal chain that tie together HRM practices
and organisational performance and assess the extent to which HRM practices, through the
mediating effects of work experiences and employee attitudes, influence organisational
performance.
Note
1. All the survey items are copyrighted by Great Place to Work and may not be used
without permission.
REFERENCES
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage. Why High
Performance Work Systems Pay off, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J.B. and Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: a levels-based
strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 1, 7792.
Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in the context of management relationships: an empirical
study. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68: 4, 2435.
Bandalos, D.L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias
in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 1, 78102.
Becker, B.E. and Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organisational
performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 4, 779801.
314

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (1998). High performance work system and firm performance: a
synthesis of research and managerial implications, in K.M. Rowland and G.R. Ferris (eds),
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 53101.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). Communalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15: 3, 6794.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-performance linkages: the role of the
strength of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 2, 202221.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management, 2nd edn, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Brief, A. (1998). Attitudes in and around Organisation, London: Sage.
Chan, M. (1997). Some theoretical propositions pertaining to the context of trust. International Journal
of Organisational Analysis, 5: 3, 227248.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research:
an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 1, 6776.
Creed, W.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996). A conceptual framework linking organisational forms,
managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs controls, in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds),
Trust in Organisation: Foundations of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 114139.
Delery, J.E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications for research.
Human Resource Management Review, 8: 3, 289309.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The role of trust in organisational settings. Organisational Science,
12: 4, 450467.
Ferrin, D.L. and Dirks, K.T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: mediating
processes and differential effects. Organisational Science, 14: 1, 1831.
Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, R.M., Harrell-Cook, G. and Frink, D.D. (1999). Human
Resource Management: some new directions. Journal of Management, 25: 3, 385415.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 1, 3950.
Forth, J., Bewley, H. and Bryson, A. (2006). Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Findings from the 2004
Workplace Employment Relations Survey, London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust, the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, London: Hamish
Hamilton.
Godard, J. (2001). High Performance and the Transformation of Work? The Implications of
alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 54: 4, 776805.
Godard, J. (2004). A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 42: 2, 349378.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25: 2, 161178.
Govier, T. (1998). Dilemmas of Trust, Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8: 3, 263276.
Guest, D.E. (1999). Human resource management the workers verdict. Human Resource
Management Journal, 9: 3, 525.
Guest, D.E. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44: 3, 335358.
Guest, D., Michie, J., Conway, N. and Sheehan, M. (2003). Human resource management and
corporate performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41: 2, 291314.
Guthrie, J.P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: evidence from
New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1, 180190.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

315

Trust in HRM practices and employee attitudes

Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: the connecting link between organisational theory and philosophical
ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 2, 379385.
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 3, 635670.
Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2003). Bringing Policies to Life: The Vital Role of Front Managers in People
Management, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Ichnioswski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997). The effect of human resource management
practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87: 3, 291313.
Innocenti, L. and Pilati, M. (2008). Human resource practices and employees attitudes: do work experiences
mediate? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Academy of Management,
Harrogate, 911 September.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dill, G. and Oxenbridge, S. (2006). Inside the
Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, London: DTI.
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1999). Trust in Organisation: Foundations of Theory and Research,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lepak, D. and Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital
allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 1, 3148.
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63: 4, 967985.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995). Human resources bundles and manufacturing performance: organisational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labour Relations
Review, 48: 2, 197221.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace, London: Sage Publications.
Ostroff, C. and Bowen, D.E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organisational
effectiveness, in K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowoski (eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in
Organisations: Foundations, Extensions and New Directions, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paauwe, J. (2008). HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects.
Journal of Management Studies, 46: 1, 129142.
Peccei, R. (2004). Human Resource Management and the Search for the Happy Workplace, Rotterdam:
ERIM/Erasmus University.
Peccei, R. and Innocenti, L. (2008). Climate Level, Consensus, and Strength as Mediators of the Relationship
Between HRM and Employee Outcomes: An Occupational Group Analysis, Paper presented to the
Institute of Work Psychology Conference, Sheffield, 1820 June.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Pilati, M. and Innocenti, L. (2009). Worker participation, organisational climate and change, Bulletin
of Comparative Labour Relations, 70: 297312.
Podsakoff, M.P., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common methods biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 5, 879903.
Purcell, J. and Kinnie, N. (2007). Human resource management and business performance, in P.
Boxall, J. Purcell and P. Wright (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Swart, J., Rayton, B. and Hutchinson, S. (2009). People Management and
Performance, London: Routledge.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the People and
Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high performance work systems:
testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38: 4, 501531.
Singh, J. and Rhoads, G.K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing-oriented positions: a
multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28: 3, 328338.
Steenkamp, J.-B., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand
value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34: 1, 5365.

316

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Laura Innocenti, Massimo Pilati and Alessandro M. Peluso

Wall, T.D. and Wood, S.J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business
performance and the case for big science. Human Relations, 58: 4, 429462.
Wright, P.M. and Boswell, W. (2002). Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and
macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28: 3, 247276.
Wright, P.M. and Gardner, T. (2004). The human resource-firm performance relationship:
methodological and theoretical challenges, in D. Holman, T. Wall, C. Clegg, P. Sparrow and A.
Howard (eds), The New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Work Practices, London:
John Wiley & Sons.

APPENDIX
Models variables and measures
Construct

Variable name

Variable/item description

Human resource management practices

Job Evaluation
x1
Information Sharing
x2
Training
x3
Non Monetary Recognition
x4
Economic Rewards
x5
x6
Employee Survey
x7
Job Design
Employee attitude towards organisation
My work has special meaning: this is not just a job
y1
y2
When I look at what we accomplish, I
feel a sense of pride
I can be myself around here
y3
Im proud to tell others I work here
y4
Trust in management
Trust1
Trust2
Trust3

Management delivers on its promises

Managements actions match its words
Management is honest and ethical

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 21 NO 3, 2011

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Measurement
type

Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Dichotomous
Likert-type
Likert-type
Likert-type
Likert-type
Likert-type
Likert-type
Likert-type

317