High Commitment HR Practices Employee Effort and Firm Performance

1099050x, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.20429 by Kohat University of Science &, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HIGH-COMMITMENT HR
PRACTICES, EMPLOYEE EFFORT,
AND FIRM PERFORMANCE:
INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS
OF HR PRACTICES ACROSS
EMPLOYEE GROUPS WITHIN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS
ELIZABETH MCCLEAN AND CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS
In this study, the authors examine the relationship between high-commitment

HR practices and firm performance in professional services firms through
the mediator of employee effort. In addition, they contribute to the debate in
the field of strategic HRM on whether high-commitment HR practices should
be used across all employee groups within a firm.Their study’s results show that
high-commitment HR practices positively relate to firm performance through
employee effort for two employee groups within professional services firms.
Further, they found that the relationship between effort and performance is con-
tingent on the value of the employee group to firm competitive advantage, sug-
gesting that companies may only want to expend the effort and resources on
building a high-commitment HR system for employee groups that are clearly
tied to creating firm competitive advantage. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: strategic HR management, high-commitment HR practices, employee

effort, firm performance, employee value, professional services firms
Introduction Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). Despite the grow-

ecent reviews of the field of strategic ing volume of correlational research support-
R human resource management (stra-

tegic HRM) provide evidence that a
positive relationship exists between
the use of high-commitment HR
practices and firm performance (Combs, Liu,
Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Wright, Gardner,
ing this relationship, scholars need to explore
mediators further to clarify how high-com-
mitment HR practices lead to higher firm
performance (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Sun,
Aryee, & Law, 2007; Takeuchi, Chen, &
Lepak, 2009). Employee behaviors represent a
Correspondence to: Elizabeth McClean, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 173 Ives Hall,
Ithaca, NY 14853, Phone: 315-391-3485, Fax: 607-255-1836, E-mail: ejm45@cornell.edu
Human Resource Management, May–June 2011, Vol. 50, No. 3, Pp. 341 – 363
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20429
1099050x, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.20429 by Kohat University of Science &, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
342 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2011
particular and specific mediating mechanism (Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-
that links high-commitment HR practices Joll, 2005).
and firm performance. In this study, we ex- Researchers within the field of strategic
amine the link between high-commitment HRM, however, have questioned whether the
HR practices and firm performance through use of high-commitment HR practices across
employee effort. employee groups truly serves as a source of
High-commitment HR practices include competitive advantage (Lepak & Snell, 1999;
various recruitment and selection practices, Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Hite, 1995). For exam-
job design, and incentive practices ple, Tsui et al. (1995) argued that the appro-
that focus on developing employ- priate employment relationship choice is
We examine the ees’ long-term investment in the based on the importance of an employee
firm (Collins & Smith, 2006). The group to the firm’s strategy, while Lepak and
mediating role of
choice of an HR system can thus Snell (1999) argued that the employment re-
employee effort either motivate or demotivate em- lationship choice is based on the value and
ployees. To affect employee moti- uniqueness of an employee group. Alterna-
between high- vation and behaviors positively, tively, other researchers follow a best practice
therefore, organizations should se- or universalistic approach and have argued
commitment HR
lect a system that encourages these that a particular system of HR practices (e.g.,
practices and firm preferred employee behaviors high commitment) is always better than al-
(Khilji & Wang, 2006; Walton, ternative systems (e.g., transactional or tradi-
performance. We 1985). High-commitment HR tional) and will be a source of competitive
practices foster a high-quality rela- advantage for firms that indeed adopt them
argue that these
tionship with employees based on (Delery & Doty, 1996).
practices impact reciprocity and interdependence Most research in the field of strategic
(Sun et al., 2007). We use social HRM was developed to test the universalistic
effort, which exchange theory (Sun et al., 2007; approach and the findings support it (Wright
Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, et al., 2005). These findings may reflect that
then positively 1997) here to argue that high- researchers compared high-commitment HR
affects customers’ commitment HR practices create a systems and an alternative system at the
mutually beneficial environment firm-level of analysis and not at the employee
perceptions of the whereby firms invest in their group level (Lepak & Snell, 2002). To appro-
employees and induce them to priately examine the possible contingent na-
service experience; reciprocate that investment by ture of investing in high-commitment HR
exerting higher levels of discre- practices across a range of employees, re-
this experience, in
tionary behaviors. searchers should examine their use across
turn, affects overall The particular behaviors that multiple individual groups, not the organiza-
drive performance will likely vary tion as a whole (Lepak, Takeuchi, & Snell,
firm performance. by context (Collins & Smith, 2003). Given recent research that suggests
2006). Employee effort is an im- that the choice and effectiveness of an em-
portant behavior in service firms, the context ployment relationship is contingent on vari-
for this study, given customer perceptions ous factors (Lepak & Snell, 2002; Lepak et al.,
and buying behaviors are affected by their 2003; Tsui et al., 1997), we tested the rela-
interactions with employees (Borucki & tionship between high-commitment HR prac-
Burke, 1999). We examine the mediating role tices (i.e., a particular type of employment
of employee effort between high-commit- relationship) and firm performance across
ment HR practices and firm performance. We two employee groups—clerical and semipro-
argue that these practices impact effort, which fessional employees—within professional ser-
then positively affects customers’ perceptions vices firms. Our study is one of the first to
of the service experience; this experience, in empirically examine the relationship between
turn, affects overall firm performance high-commitment HR practices and firm
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

HIGH-COMMITMENT HR PRACTICES, EMPLOYEE EFFORT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE 343
performance across specific employee groups, teraction with employees is often as important
rather than across an entire organization. as the goods produced (Bowen & Waldman,
The purpose of this study is thus three- 1999). Unlike manufacturing firms, custom-
fold. First, using social exchange theory, we ers interact with the production process of
examine whether employee effort mediates service firms, which means that employee
the relationship between high-commitment behavior plays a key role in shaping the cus-
HR practices and firm performance. Second, tomer’s perception of service quality and
we test whether the value of an employee customer satisfaction (Schneider et al., 2005).
group to firm competitive advantage moder- When employees deliver superior service,
ates the impact of employee effort on firm customers are more likely to be satisfied and
performance. Third, we test these relation- return for further services or recommend the
ships within a segment of the service sector, firm to others (Borucki & Burke, 1999; Bowen
professional services firms, that has not been & Waldman, 1999).
examined previously. We display our theo- There is reason to believe that context
retical model to test these relationships in impacts the specific mediators that affect per-
Figure 1. formance. Researchers should carefully exam-
ine the organizational context being studied
to identify the appropriate mediators of the
Theory and Hypotheses
HR-performance relationship (Collins &
HRM and Employee Effort Smith, 2006; Sun et al., 2007). Given the im-
portance of employee behaviors in service
Many scholars note that empirical research in firms, we chose to study the black box be-
the field of strategic HRM has done little tween using high-commitment HR practices
to test the processes through which HR prac- and firm performance with frontline service
tices impact firm performance (e.g., Becker & employees in medical and legal professional
Huselid, 2006; Wright et al., 2005). To move service firms. Thus, we focused on the semi-
the field forward, we need to develop and test professional (nurses, paralegals) and clerical
the mediating mechanisms through which (secretaries, administrative assistants) em-
high-commitment HR practices create value ployee groups. We studied frontline service
and lead to improved firm performance (Col- employees because they are often the first
lins & Smith, 2006; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, and only representatives a customer of a ser-
2001). Service firms can provide an especially vice firm encounters and thus have a large
rich context to examine employee behavior impact on customer satisfaction and resul-
and motivation mediators of the precise rela- tant firm performance. Further, we specifi-
tionship between high-commitment HR prac- cally chose not to focus on doctors and
tices and performance because customer in- lawyers within these firms (despite their im-
Clerical Value to
Competitive
Advantage
Clerical
High-Commitment HR Effort
Practices for Clerical Perceived
Firm
Performance
High-Commitment HR Semiprofessional
Practices for Effort
Semiprofessional
Semiprofessional
Value to
Competitive
Advantage
FIGURE 1. Model Linking High-Commitment HR Practices to Firm Performance for Semiprofessional and
Clerical Staff

portance to firm performance) because, based these firms need to encourage employees to
on previous exploratory field work, we found exert effort to affect customer satisfaction
that these employee groups tend to self-man- and thus their buying behavior (Susskind,
age and there was little variation in the prac- Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003).
tices they use. In this context, we identified Although employee effort in service firms
employee effort as a key mediator affects customer experiences and ultimately
because it affects customers’ per- firm performance, various factors can affect
We posit that high- ceptions of service (Bitner, Booms, that effort. For example, Schneider et al.
commitment HR & Mohr, 1994). Employee effort, (2005) found evidence that service climate
defined as the amount of time and leadership behavior affected the extent
practices impact and energy expended, is one of to which employees went out of their way for
the three dimensions of behavior the customer, which then impacted customer
the employees’ affected by motivation and is an satisfaction and unit performance. Borucki
observable indicator of employee and Burke (1999) found that managers’ con-
willingness to exert
motivation (Bandura & Cervone, cerns for employees and customers led to
extra effort and 1986; Locke, Saari, Shaw, & shared perceptions of the work climate that
Latham, 1981). stimulated sales personnel service perfor-
satisfy customers, Employee effort impacts cus- mance and ultimately store performance.
tomer perceptions and buying be- The employees at the levels we are studying
which in turn affects
havior because the transaction here within medical and legal organizations
the organization’s that occurs between them is a dy- are paid a flat wage, regardless of their behav-
adic relationship, such that a pos- ior. In the absence of traditional incentive
overall performance. itive interaction may lead to more opportunities (bonuses based on productiv-
frequent visits or increased pur- ity), therefore, some other factor (or factors)
chases (Borucki & Burke, 1999). must encourage these employees to exert
Further, Schneider and Bowen (1985) empha- extra effort to provide superior customer ser-
sized that service organizations are open sys- vice (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter,
tems “with highly permeable boundaries in 2001).
which the perception of organizational prac- We posit that high-commitment HR prac-
tices is not only possible for employees, but tices impact the employees’ willingness to
for customers as well” (p. 431). Indeed, em- exert extra effort and satisfy customers, which
ployee effort is critical to a service organiza- in turn affects the organization’s overall per-
tion’s overall performance because customers formance. High-commitment HR practices
take part in the production process and are are distinct from others practices (e.g., “con-
thus sensitive to cues indirectly related to the trol” or transactional HR practices) because
service they receive (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, they foster a high-involvement employee–
1997). For example, in a series of studies on employer relationship and motivate employ-
critical incidents during service encounters ees to contribute above and beyond their
(Bitner et al., 1994; Bitner, Booms, & Tet- job’s basic requirements (Batt, 2002; Tsui et
reault, 1990), the situations where customers al., 1995). High-commitment HR practices
were most satisfied were attributable to em- align the interests of the employer and the
ployee effort, such as unprompted and unso- employee (Tsui et al., 1995). Using social ex-
licited employee action. Further, a service change theory, we suggest that these practices
failure could become a satisfying service inci- create a mutual obligation in which the em-
dent when the employee clearly devoted ployer is committed to the employee, thus
time and effort to correcting the error, ex- resulting in greater employee commitment.
plaining the reason for the mistake, and com- This commitment is then manifested by the
pensating the customer (Bitner et al., 1994). employees behaving in a way that benefits
Customers are aware of how committed em- the firm (Tsui et al., 1995). This concept is
ployees are to providing service, and because based on the inducement-contribution model
customers drive production and performance, (March & Simon, 1958), whereby high-com-

mitment HR practices affect motivation that maximize the benefits of contributing

because they create inducements through a (Batt, 2002). Providing employees with
supportive work environment that satisfies above-market compensation and benefits
the employees’ needs. The inducements the induces employees to contribute more,
employer provides create a sense of obliga- thereby strengthening the exchange pro-
tion from the employee to contribute in a cess. Further, the practice of hiring highly
way (i.e., through increased effort) that satis- skilled employees who can con-
fies the employer’s goals and results in a high tribute significantly from the
involvement employee–employer relation- start and who “fit” with the or- These HR practices
ship (Sun et al., 2007). Social exchange offers ganization may affect employee
are particularly
a basis to understand how high-commitment effort because these HR practices
HR practices can affect employee motivation create a positive work environ- beneficial in the
by creating a positive work environment that ment of highly skilled people
induces these employees to contribute (Collins & Smith, 2006). Re- professional
through increased effort. search on person–organization
services context
High-commitment HR practices focus fit suggests that fit perception
on three broad dimensions, namely, re- affects subsequent employee at- because when
cruitment and selection, job design, and titudes toward the job and the
incentives (Batt, 2002). These HR practices organization (Greguras & Diefen- employees
are particularly beneficial in the profes- dorff, 2009). In this case, firms
perceive their
sional services context because when that use high-commitment HR
employees perceive their organization “as selection practices, such as hir- organization “as
one that facilitates performance, enhances ing based on fit, allows employ-
career opportunities, and provides positive ees to satisfy their psychological one that facilitates
supervision… they are then free to do needs because they are more
the organization’s main work of serving likely to fit with the organiza- performance,
customers” (Schneider & Bowen, 1985, tion (Greguras & Diefendorff, enhances career
p. 424). In the present study, we focus on 2009). Once these needs are sat-
the effect of high-commitment HR prac- isfied, employees will be more opportunities, and
tices on the motivation of service employ- intrinsically motivated to per-
ees. Given that employees have the time form (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These provides positive
and energy to devote to their work, em- selection practices trigger the
supervision. . . they
ployees decide what level of effort they will process of social exchange; they
exert to satisfy their customers (Schneider meet employees’ needs, and in- are then free to do
et al., 2005). Following the research on psy- duce them to reciprocate and
chological climate and employee effort, we behave in a way that benefits the organization’s
argue that when organizations accommo- the firm.
main work of serving
date employees psychological needs, em- High-commitment HR prac-
ployees will be more likely to invest time tices also include providing customers.”
and energy into their work (Brown & Leigh, career opportunities or develop-
1996). In such a case, high-commitment ment within the company that
HR practices create a “personally benefi- signals to employees that the employer is
cial” environment (James, James, & Ashe, interested in developing them and is in-
1990, p. 53) that triggers the social ex- vested in their personal progression as em-
change process. High-commitment HR ployees. These practices create a positive
practices help meet employee needs, which and supportive work environment that in-
then motivate them to reciprocate by duces employees to contribute further; the
exerting extra effort to satisfy customers. practices strengthen the employees’ emo-
For example, high-commitment HR tional attachment to and identification
practices provide employees with above- with the company, producing increased
market compensation and benefit packages employee effort (Tsui et al., 1995).

In the service environment, firm com- and this type of agility may require employ-
petitive advantage relies on superior cus- ees to be divided into groups that are core
tomer service employees provide, which versus peripheral to the organization (Dyer &
requires a high level of employee Shafer, 1999; Purcell, 1999). Owners and
effort. Because semiprofessional managers are realizing that equally investing
Owners and and clerical staff are frontline ser- in employees across the organization may
vice employees and are often the serve as a competitive disadvantage because
managers are
first to interact with customers, often an equal focus on such investment will
realizing that high-commitment HR practices lead to high overhead or sunk costs that do
will significantly impact employ- not equate to increased firm rent (Purcell,
equally investing in ees’ willingness and ability to 1999). Further, organizations should manage
serve customers and, therefore, these different groups using HR practices that
employees across
also firm performance. We note, are the most appropriate for each group and
the organization too, that previous research has the value they add to the firm (Lepak & Snell,
suggested that high-commitment 1999; Tsui et al., 1995).
may serve as HR practices affect firm perfor- Various internal and external factors will
mance by increasing both em- influence the organization’s choice of em-
a competitive
ployee human capital and ployee–organization relationships across em-
disadvantage motivation (Huselid, 1995; Wright ployee groups; thus, the HR system may vary
et al., 2001); therefore, employee across employee groups rather than be ap-
because often effort (i.e., motivation) may only plied consistently across an entire organiza-
partially mediate the relationship tion (Lepak & Snell, 1999; Tsui et al., 1995).
an equal focus on
between high-commitment HR For example, Tsui et al. (1995) identified two
such investment and firm performance. This leads prototypic employee–organization relation-
to our first hypothesis: ships: the job- and the organization-focused.
will lead to high The job-focused approach relies heavily on
Hypothesis 1: Employee effort will task performance and does not require em-
overhead or sunk ployee commitment. Rewards are based en-
partially mediate the relationship
costs that do not between high-commitment HR prac- tirely on the employee’s performance, and
tices and firm performance. neither the employee nor the employer is
equate to increased obligated to continue the contract (Tsui et al.,
1995). This employment relationship allows
firm rent. Further, Universalist Versus greater flexibility in hiring and firing of
Contingency Theories employees and requires less investment from
organizations should
the firm. Conversely, the organization-
manage these Although high-commitment HR focused relationship relies on soliciting a
practices are likely to lead to broader range of behaviors and needs a stron-
different groups higher employee effort, it is not ger commitment from employees. This
clear whether organizations employee–organization relationship is char-
using HR practices should invest in these practices acterized by a high level of commitment
for all employee groups. In the from the employee and the employer; a
that are the most
wake of unprecedented, rapid greater level of flexibility in employee skills,
appropriate for each technological and competitive assignments, and mobility; and requires
change, organizations now at- greater investment from the firm (Tsui et al.,
group and the value tempt to keep up with their
1995). It is similar to a system of high-com-
external environments through mitment HR practices.
they add to the firm.
internal changes to strategy, struc- Tsui et al. (1995) also suggested that firms
ture, and employment relation- should choose the appropriate employee–
ships (Dyer & Shafer, 1999). Flexible and organization relationship based on the extent
adaptive workforces help companies respond to which employees within a job group are
to a dynamic competitive environment, critical to implementing the organization’s

strategy and creating value. Specifically, orga- organization relationship, and

nizations should use an organization-focused Lepak and Snell (2002) found that Based on these
employment relationship with employees in the strategic value and unique-
core jobs and use the job-focused employ- ness of human capital varied conflicting
ment relationship with employees in periph- across employment modes. Un- perspectives
eral jobs. Using Tsui et al.’s (1995) argument, like the present study, however,
an employee group would be considered neither of these studies linked the and the previous
valuable if its role is critical to firm competi- results to firm performance. Lastly,
tive advantage. Lepak and Snell (1999) made Lepak et al. (2003) found that research, we
similar arguments and suggested that the using particular employment
question whether all
value to competitive advantage and modes varied with firm perfor-
the uniqueness of each employee group mance, which suggests that sev- employees should
should determine which HR system (i.e., eral ways exist to deploy employ-
high commitment vs. transactional practice) ees to impact performance be managed with
is used. Specifically, they note that firms positively; however, they did not
high-commitment
should develop an organization-focused rela- test whether the employment
tionship (i.e., high-commitment HR prac- modes were related to the value HR practices,
tices) with employee groups with skills that and uniqueness of specific human
are not easily found on the open labor mar- capital groups. given the potential
ket to foster commitment and elicit particu- Based on these conflicting per-
lar behaviors. Conversely, employee groups spectives and the previous re- differential effect
with skills easily found on the open labor search, we question whether all of each employee
market that require less firm-specific knowl- employees should be managed
edge may not justify the costs of such an with high-commitment HR prac- group’s effort on firm
investment (Lepak & Snell, 1999). tices, given the potential differen-
In contrast to the above, the universalis- tial effect of each employee group’s performance. Based
tic approach suggests that high-commitment effort on firm performance. Based on Tsui et al.’s (1995)
HR practices should be used on all employee on Tsui et al.’s (1995) framework,
groups to create a sustainable competitive we thus argue that the level of framework, we thus
advantage (Wright et al., 2001). Although employee effort is more likely re-
considerable differences exist between stud- lated to the customer experience argue that the level
ies regarding which practices constitute a and resultant firm performance
of employee effort is
high-commitment practice, in general, the when the group is more valuable
universalistic argument suggests that firms to the company’s source of com- more likely related
should involve employees in decision- petitive advantage. In this case,
making, provide specialized training, allow value is derived from the impor- to the customer
for formal participation programs, and use tance of each employee group to a
experience and
developmental practices for all employee firm’s competitive advantage. For
groups (Delery & Doty, 1996). These practices example, in this context, if a firm’s resultant firm
are meant to enhance employee skills and competitive advantage is based on
foster a mutually committed relationship superior customer service from performance when
across the entire organization, regardless of the moment a customer (patient
the importance or value of each employee or client) walks in the door, then the group is more
group (Wright et al., 2001). both clerical and semiprofessional valuable to the
Past research has generally supported the employee groups could be consid-
universalistic approach, although recent re- ered valuable. A firm’s competi- company’s source
search has started to support the frameworks tive advantage, however, may
developed by Tsui et al. (1995) and Lepak and stem from its ability to quickly of competitive
Snell (1999). For example, Tsui et al. (1997) move the patient or client through advantage.
found that employee performance varied a particular process (i.e., check-up
with different approaches to the employee– or sale of house), which more

likely emphasizes the role of the semiprofes- omy, and results from the manufacturing and
sional staff. In this case, the clerical staff may technology sectors may not easily generalize
be less pertinent to competitive advantage, to this setting given that customers are a part
and the semiprofessional staff of the production process for services firms
may be considered more valu- (Schneider et al., 2005). We chose medical
We chose medical able. and legal practices because they are the fastest
As noted, we argue that em- growing segment of our economy (U.S. De-
and legal practices
ployee effort is employees’ will- partment of Labor, 2008), and little research
because they are ingness to exert both time and on the role of HR practices for employee
energy, which is closely tied to the groups and firm performance in this impor-
the fastest growing customer experience within this tant sector exists. Further, this context is espe-
context. The effort of employees cially appropriate for examining the black
segment of our
who are more valuable to com- box—employee behavior and motivation me-
economy, and little petitive advantage will have a diators—of the HR-firm performance relation-
greater impact on firm perfor- ship because these employees are close to the
research on the mance resulting in a greater need customer and are a key driver of firm perfor-
to drive the extra-role behaviors mance (Batt, 2002; Sun et al., 2007).
role of HR practices
of these employees through high-
for employee commitment HR practices. When
Overview of the Research Process
the effect of high-commitment
groups and firm HR practices on firm performance Before gathering the data used for this study,
occurs through employee effort, we conducted a pilot study during 2005. The
performance in this the relationship between em- purpose of the pilot study was to understand
important sector ployee effort and firm perfor- the kinds of HR practices used in small medi-
mance will be stronger for those cal and legal firms and uncover the differ-
exists. employees who are more valuable ences in the use of these practices across em-
to competitive advantage. Specifi- ployee groups. To gather this information, we
cally, we posit that the relation- conducted 50 semistructured interviews with
ship between each group’s effort and firm office managers or HR managers in small
performance will be contingent on the value medical and legal practices in New York State.
of each employee group to competitive ad- The results of our pilot study provided us
vantage: with information on the particular practices
used in small medical and legal firms and
Hypothesis 2: The value of the employee group validated that firms use these practices differ-
for competitive advantage will moderate the ently across employee groups. Particularly,
relationship between employee effort and firm we found that these firms generally manage
performance, such that the magnitude of this their clerical employees differently than they
relationship will be largest when employees are do their semiprofessional employees. We de-
more valuable to competitive advantage. veloped our hypotheses based on the find-
ings from this pilot study.
In the second phase of our study, we
Method
gathered data on semiprofessional and cleri-
The Professional Services Context cal employees from small medical and legal
practices across seven states. To test our hy-
We focus here on small professional services potheses, we collected data on high-commit-
firms, specifically medical and legal offices, as ment HR practices, employee effort, and
these firms in general have been understudied value to competitive advantage for each em-
in previous strategic HRM research (Batt, ployee group and also firm-level performance
2002, p. 587). This lack of focus on services from the top manager or office manager of
firms is surprising, given that the service sec- each participating firm. The top manager or
tor is the largest contributor to the U.S. econ- office manager within these firms is respon-

sible for the HR activities within that organi- Further, we found no significant difference
zation, including recruiting, hiring, training, between participating legal and medical
managing compensation, and staffing. Addi- firms on any of the independent or depen-
tionally, due to the size of these firms, the top dent variables in the study or in terms of
manager or office manager is also responsible size or age of the firms.
for the firm’s daily operations, including
managing workflow, ensuring customer satis-
Measures
faction, and overseeing the collection of
charges and billing. Based on the size of these High-Commitment HR Practices
firms, typically only one HR or office man-
ager was responsible for the above activities. Where possible, we adapted items used in
Thus, the person in this role was the most previous research or developed items based
appropriate respondent to assess the manage- on the available theoretical and empirical
ment practices, employee effort, and perfor- literature on high-commitment HR prac-
mance of the firm. tices (see Appendix A for the specific items;
We mailed a cover letter and survey tool e.g., Batt, 2002; Huselid, 1995). The spe-
to the HR manager or office manager of each cific high-commitment HR prac-
firm explaining the purpose of our study. tices used in previous studies
Specifically, we
Specifically, we explained that our purpose varied, but they generally fo-
was to understand more fully the role of HR cused on recruitment and selec- explained that our
and employee management practices in small tion, training, compensation,
medical and legal practices. To differentiate employee development, and purpose was to
the use of high-commitment HR practices, performance management prac-
employee effort, and value to competitive tices, which are the focus of this understand more
advantage across the two employee groups of study (Collins & Smith, 2006). fully the role of
interest, we created two sets of questions for Further, we chose specific items
each measure. For example, we asked the HR based on interviews with the HR HR and employee
or office manager to respond to questions or office managers during our
related to the use of high-commitment HR pilot study. management
practices for clerical staff separately from the We conducted confirmatory
practices in small
semiprofessional staff. Additionally, we used factor analysis (CFA) to provide
proximal and methodological separation evidence of discriminant and con- medical and legal
(Podsakoff, MacKensie, Lee, & Podsakoff, vergent validity of our measures.
2003) by using different sets of instructions The CFA results indicated that a practices.
and measuring different constructs not used 2-factor model achieved accept-
in this study to reduce the possibility of com- able fit to the data (␹2 ⫽ 578.37, df ⫽ 72, IFI
mon method bias. ⫽ .92, CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .09). Each of the
We sent surveys to 601 firms across seven items of the high-commitment HR
seven states by randomly selecting metro- practices scale for clerical workers loaded sig-
politan medical and legal firms available nificantly onto one dimension (p < .01), and
through telephone listings. We initially sent each of the seven items for the high-commit-
surveys to all 601 firms, and after a period, ment HR practices scale for semiprofessional
we sent second requests to firms that did workers loaded onto a second dimension
not initially respond. Of the initial sample, (p < .01). Chi-square difference tests indicated
62 surveys were returned as undeliverable. that this 2-factor model fit the data signifi-
We received completed surveys from 180 cantly better than (1) 1-factor model (⌬␹2 ⫽
firms, consisting of 94 medical practices 313.24, df ⫽ 1, p < .01), or (2) a 6-factor
and 86 legal practices for a final response model in which we split the three components
rate of 22.9%. We found no difference be- of the high performance HR model across
tween participating and nonparticipating both employee groups (⌬␹2 ⫽ 723.42, df ⫽ 4,
firms in terms of location or practice type. p < .01). We also found good reliability for

our high-commitment HR measures for both Perceived Firm Performance

the clerical (α ⫽ 0.77) and the semiprofes-
We measured perceptual performance based
sional (α ⫽ 0.80) employee groups.
on previous perceptual measures of firm per-
We were interested in measuring the
formance (see Appendix B for specific items;
breadth of implementation for the practices
Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Dess & Robinson,
in each organization rather than just
1984; Harel & Tzafrir, 1999). Research has
whether each practice existed. Therefore,
suggested that perceptual measures of perfor-
we used an additive approach to combine
mance are significantly related to objective
the HR practices because it assumed that the
measures of performance and are appropriate
practices are interrelated. If a certain prac-
when external measures are not available
tice is not used, however, it will
(Wall et al., 2004). The measure showed good
not eliminate the effect of the
We asked each reliability (α ⫽ 0.89).
other practices (Huselid, 1995). A
high score means that firms use
respondent to
these practices to a greater ex- Control Variables
assess the extent tent, whereas a low score means
that firms use these practices to a We controlled for firm size because the re-
to which each lesser extent. search shows that as firms grow, they have
more available resources to devote to the
employee group personnel function, which may in turn affect
Employee Effort their use of certain HR practices. For exam-
goes above and
We based our measure of em- ple, the use of high-commitment HR prac-
beyond the job’s ployee effort conceptually on a tices creates higher labor costs per employee
measure used by Brown and Leigh that may not be balanced by increased em-
requirements, puts ployee output in small firms (Guthrie, 2001).
(1996; see Appendix B for specific
items). We asked each respondent Within larger firms, however, these costs will
in extra effort, and
to assess the extent to which each be recovered, making them more likely to
is willing to increase employee group goes above and use such practices due to the lower HR costs
beyond the job’s requirements, per employee (Ferris et al., 1998). We used a
workload. puts in extra effort, and is willing natural logarithmic transformation of the
to increase workload. The mea- number of full-time employees. We also con-
sures showed good reliability for both the trolled for company age for similar reasons.
clerical (α ⫽ 0.85) and the semiprofessional As companies age, their administrative prac-
employee groups (α ⫽ 0.84). tices become more organized, and they are
more likely to have mature personnel func-
tions. Firm age was calculated based on year
Employee Value to Competitive Advantage of founding as identified in the survey. We
We based this measure on the argument that also included practice type, coded as a
the choice of using high-commitment HR dummy variable to control for the potential
practices for an employee group depends on systematic differences between medical and
the extent to which that particular group is legal firms.
pertinent to firm competitive advantage
(Lepak & Snell, 1999; Tsui et al., 1995). Spe- Results
cifically, we asked the respondent from each
firm to assess the extent to which the clerical Table I displays the means, standard devia-
and semiprofessional employee groups were tions, and correlations for the variables of
an intricate part of that firm’s competitive interest.
advantage. The specific item for this measure As shown in Tables II–V, we used hierar-
was, “The employees in this position act as chical regression analyses to test each of our
an intricate part of the firm’s competitive hypotheses. Table II tests Hypothesis 1 for
advantage.” clerical employees. In this table, we included

TABLE I Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
a
1. Age 25.98 22.52 —

b
2. Size 40.78 59.42 .16* —
3. Practice Typec 1.51 .50 .20* .19 —
4. Perceptual Performance 3.92 .70 ⫺.04 ⫺.27** .12 (0.89)
d
5. HCHR Practices for Semiprofessional Employees 3.70 .68 .03 ⫺.24** .05 .45** (0.80)
d
6. HCHR Practices for Clerical Employees 3.50 .81 .07 ⫺.20** .02 .38** .44** (0.77)
7. Effort for Semiprofessional Employees 4.06 .76 ⫺.06 ⫺.02** .05 .53** .41** .25** (0.84)
8. Effort for Clerical Employees 3.69 .88 ⫺.04 ⫺.11 ⫺.04 .43** .27** .53** .51** (0.85)
9. Value of Semiprofessional Employees for 4.18 .37 .08 ⫺.17* ⫺.05 .21** .48** .19* .35** .16* —
Competitive Advantage
10. Value of Clerical Employees for Competitive 3.57 .98 ⫺.06 ⫺.11 ⫺.01 .31** .23** .48** .12 .39** .28**
Advantage
Notes: N ⫽ 180.
a
Age is calculated based on the year of founding as identified in the manager survey.
b
Size is the natural logarithmic transformation of the number of full-time employees. Mean and standard deviation values in this table are not transformed.
c
Practice- type is defined as 1 ⫽ Law Firm, 2 ⫽ Medical Practice.
d
HCHR practices refers to high-commitment HR practices.
*p < .05. **p < .01
HIGH-COMMITMENT HR PRACTICES, EMPLOYEE EFFORT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE
351
Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 1: Employee Effort Mediating the Relationship Between

TABLE II
HCHR for Clerical Employees and Firm Performance
Clerical
Employee Employee Firm Firm Firm
Effort Effort Performance Performance Performance
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Company Age ⫺.04 .03 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Company Size (log) ⫺.10 ⫺.08 ⫺.21* ⫺.15* ⫺.15*
Practice ⫺.03 ⫺.10 .13* .13* .13*
a
HCHR Practices for .51** .31** .19**
Clerical Employees
Employee Effort .36**
Adjusted R2 .01 .25 .04 0.12 0.19

⌬R 2
.24 .08 .07
F value .87 19.95** 3.03* 12.26** 11.42**
Notes: N ⫽ 180
a
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 1: Employee Effort Mediating the Relationship Between HCHR
TABLE III
for Semiprofessional Employees and Firm Performance
Semiprofessional
Employee Employee Firm Firm Firm
Effort Effort Performance Performance Performance
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Company Age ⫺.04 ⫺.02 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Company Size (log) ⫺.31** ⫺.24** ⫺.21* ⫺.24** ⫺.24**
Practice Type .06 .08 .13* .19** .19**
a
Semiprofessional
Employees
Employee Effort .38**
Adjusted R2 .09 .27 .04 0.23 0.28

⌬R 2
.18 .19 .05
F value 12.51** 14.41** 3.03* 17.31** 6.71**
Notes: N ⫽ 180
a
*p < .05. **p < .01.
our control variables (Model 1) and the di- role of effort between HR for clerical employ-
rect effect of high-commitment HR practices ees and firm performance (Model 5). Table III
on the clerical employee effort (Model 2). We reports the test results of Hypothesis 1 for
also included the direct effect of the control semiprofessional employees. We tested for
variables (Model 3) and high-commitment the same relationships as we did for clerical
HR for clerical employees (Model 4) on firm employees (reported in Table II). We also
performance. Last, we tested for the mediating tested Hypothesis 2 for clerical employees
Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 2: Employee Value to Competitive Advantage Moderating the

TABLE IV
Effort for Clerical Employees to Firm Performance Relationship
Clerical
Firm Performance Firm Performance Firm Performance Firm Performance
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Company Age .03 ⫺.02 .01 .02
Company Size (log) ⫺.21* ⫺.15* ⫺.15* ⫺.17**
Practice Type .13* .13* .12* .14*
a
HCHR Practices for .31** .19** .09
Clerical Employees
Effort for Employee .36** .32**
Group
Value of Employee .05 .04
Group
Effort * Value of .34**
Employee Group
Adjusted R 2 .04 .12 .19 .26

⌬R 2
.08 .07 .07
F Change 3.03* 11.96** 10.06** 9.58**
Notes: N ⫽ 180
a
HCHR practices refers to high-commitment HR practices
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 2: Employee Value to Competitive Advantage Moderating the Effort
TABLE V
for Semiprofessional Employees to Firm Performance Relationship
Semiprofessional
Firm Firm Firm Firm
Performance Performance Performance Performance
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Company Age .03 ⫺.02 .00 .02
Company (log) ⫺.21* ⫺.24** ⫺.20** ⫺.21
Practice .13* .19** .19** .18*
a
Semiprofessional Employees
Effort for Employee Group .38** .35**
Value of Employee Group .04 .12
Effort * Value of Employee .17*
Group
Adjusted R 2 .04 .23 .28 .30

⌬R 2
.19 .05 .02
F Change 3.03* 17.31** 6.21** 6.63**
Notes: N ⫽ 180
a
*p < .05. **p < .01.

(results reported in Table IV) and for semi- between high-commitment HR practices
professional employees (results reported in for both semiprofessional and clerical em-
Table V). In Model 1 of Tables IV and V, we ployees and firm performance would be
included the control variables. In Model 2 of mediated by employee effort. To test this
Tables IV and V, we included the hypothesis, we followed Baron and Kenny’s
effect of high-commitment HR (1986) three-step test for mediation. In the
These findings
practices for each employee group first step (see Model 4 in Table II for clerical
support Hypothesis 1, on firm performance. In Model 3 and Model 4 in Table III for semiprofes-
of Tables IV and V, we added the sionals), we found support for a significant
suggesting that main effects of each employee and positive relationship between high-
group’s effort and value to com- commitment HR practices and firm perfor-
employee effort
petitive advantage on firm performance for both clerical (␤ ⫽ 0.31, p < 0.01)
partially mediates mance. In Model 4 of Tables IV and semiprofessional employees (␤ ⫽ 0.39;
and V, we included the interac- p < 0.01). In the second step (Model 2 in
the relationship tion of each employee group’s ef- Table II for clerical and Model 2 in Table III
fort and value to competitive ad- for semiprofessionals), we found signifi-
between high- vantage on firm performance. cant relationships between our measures of
commitment HR Before examining the results high-commitment HR practices and our
of our hypotheses, we would like measures of the mediator variables of
practices and firm to note the impact of our control employee effort (␤clerical ⫽ 0.51, p < 0.01,
variables on our analyses. None of ␤semiprofessional ⫽ 0.46, p < .01). Finally, we
performance for the control variables were signifi- found that when employee effort was in-
both employee
cantly related to clerical employee cluded in the model (Model 5 in Table II
effort, and indeed, they explained for clerical and Table III for semiprofes-
groups. a marginal amount of the vari- sional), the size of the relationships between
ance (R2 ⫽ 0.01). Conversely, com- high-commitment HR practices and perfor-
pany size (log) was significantly mance dropped (␤clerical ⫽ 0.19, p < .01,
and negatively related to semiprofessional ef- ␤semiprofessional ⫽ 0.24, p < .01), and the rela-
fort (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.31, p < .01). This suggests that tionship between employee effort and per-
the relationship between firm size and semi- formance was significant (␤ clerical⫽ .36,
professional employee effort is negative, such p < .01, ␤semiprofessional ⫽ 0.38, p < .01). Fur-
that the larger the firm, the lower the per- ther, the size of the relationship between
ceived effort of semiprofessional employees. high-commitment HR practices for semi-
Together, our control variables captured a professional employees and firm perfor-
significant amount of variance in semiprofes- mance dropped by 38%, whereas the same
sional effort (R2 ⫽ 0.09). Last, company size relationship for clerical employees dropped
(log) and practice type also had a significant by 39%. These findings support Hypothesis
effect on firm performance (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.21, p < 1, suggesting that employee effort partially
.01 and ␤ ⫽ 0.13, p < .05, respectively). This mediates the relationship between high-
suggests that the relationship between firm commitment HR practices and firm perfor-
size and perceived firm performance is nega- mance for both employee groups.
tive, such that the larger the firm, the lower In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that the
the perceived performance. Further, medical value of the employee group to competitive
firms reported higher perceived performance. advantage will moderate the relationship
In combination, our control variables between employee effort and firm perfor-
explained 4% of the variance in firm performance. As shown in Model 4 of Table IV, we
mance. found that the interaction term between
First, we examine our results for clerical employee effort and the value to
Hypothesis 1 for both clerical and competitive advantage significantly related
semiprofessional employees. In Hypothesis to firm performance (␤clerical ⫽ 0.34, p < .01).
1, we predicted that the relationship Further, as shown in Figure 2, the interaction

between the value of clerical employees to to how the company creates competitive
competitive advantage and their effort is in advantage.
the predicted direction. Specifically, when As with the clerical employees, we found
examining this relationship regarding cleri- that the interaction term between semipro-
cal employees, we found the highest level of fessional employee effort and the value of
firm performance under the conditions of these employees to competitive advantage
high effort and high value to competitive significantly related to firm performance
advantage, while the lowest level of perfor- (␤semiprofessional ⫽ 0.17, p < .05; see Model 4 in
mance was under the conditions of low Table V). Further, as shown in Figure 3, the
effort and high value to competitive advan- interaction is in the direction predicted.
tage. Comparatively, when the clerical Specifically, when semiprofessional em-
employees were rated as being relatively low ployee effort was low, we found no signifi-
in value to competitive advantage, we found cant difference in firm performance be-
no significant differences between the high- tween the high and the low value to
and the low-effort conditions. Finally, after competitive advantage. Further, the only
further examining the data, we found that condition that showed a significantly dif-
the relationship between high-commitment ferent level of firm performance was the
practices for clerical employees and firm high-value, high-effort condition. Unlike
performance seems to be explained fully by clerical employees, high-commitment HR
the combination of effort and the interac- practices for semiprofessional employees
tion of effort and value to competitive remained significantly related to firm per-
advantage (i.e., the remaining direct effect formance after adding both effort and the
of high-commitment HR practices on firm effort*value interaction to the regression
performance is not significant when adding equation. Thus, although firms may receive
the other variables to the regression equa- the most return on their investment in
tion). Thus, it appears that although high- high-commitment HR practices for semi-
commitment HR practices appear to be re- professional employees most closely tied to
lated to higher levels of employee effort, creating competitive advantage, high-com-
organizations may not observe significant mitment practices may also return value for
returns from investing in this level of rela- those less tied to competitive advantage
tionship with clerical employees unless the through other means, such as increased
company’s clerical employees are essential human capital.
5
Low Value to
Competitive
4.5 Advantage
High Value to
4
Firm Performance
Competitive
Advantage
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
-1 SD +1 SD
Effort
FIGURE 2. Effects of Interaction Between Value to Competitive Advantage and Employee Effort for Clerical
Employees on Firm Performance

5 Low Value to
Competitive
4.5 Advantage
High Value to
Firm Performance
4 Competitive
Advantage
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
-1 SD +1 SD
Effort
FIGURE 3. Effects of Interaction Between Value to Competitive Advantage and Employee Effort for
Semiprofessional Employees on Firm Performance
Discussion tion demonstrates a higher level of commit-

ment and investment in them. To further
Findings and Contributions
validate our findings, we compared the ef-
In this article, we (1) examined a mediator of fect size for high-commitment HR practices
the high-commitment HR practices to firm and firm performance in our study (clerical,
performance relationship in the context of r ⫽ 0.38; semiprofessional, r ⫽ 0.45) with
professional services organizations, (2) previous results. We specifically compared
assessed whether investing equally across our results to two studies—one that focused
employee groups affects firm performance on business units and another in the service
given the differential value of each group to sector; both studies used objective perfor-
competitive advantage, and (3) used a unique mance data. First, Wright, Gardner, and
design to test our hypotheses. Moynihan (2003) collected data in business
Regarding the first contribution, we units, which in many ways served as proxies
found that high-commitment HR practices for small businesses, given a similar level of
are related to firm performance in the pro- complexity and size. Further, the HR man-
fessional services sector, demonstrating the ager was typically more familiar with the
generalizability of high-commitment HR HR practices used. The correlation between
practices to an additional sector outside of high-commitment HR practices and operat-
manufacturing, high-technology, or lower- ing expenses was ⫺0.40 (p < .01), whereas
skilled service sectors. In addition, we found the correlation between these practices and
that employee effort partially mediated the profit was 0.35 (p < .10). The effect sizes
relationship between using high-commit- from this study provide a robust compari-
ment HR practices and firm performance for son because they are predictive, such that
both clerical employees and semiprofes- the authors collected the performance mea-
sional employees. From a theoretical per- sures after they collected the high-commit-
spective, our findings are consistent with ment HR practices, which typically reduces
the social exchange theory. When firms the relationship.
invest in their employees through high- Second, we examined the magnitude of
commitment HR practices, employees recip- the results found in Sun et al. (2007) as a
rocate by exerting more effort. Specifically, comparison in the service sector. The mag-
our findings indicate that employees are nitude of the relationship between
more likely to contribute higher levels of high-commitment HR practices and perfor-
discretionary behavior when their organiza- mance was similar (0.33, p < .01) to our

result for clerical staff. This finding suggests Practical Implications

that our results for using high-commitment
HR practices on performance for a similarly The results from this study also provide sev-
skilled labor pool are in line with Sun eral practical implications for managers work-
et al.’s (2007) findings for a similarly skilled ing in a service context, particu-
labor pool in the service sector. Overall, larly those who are thinking about
First, our results
this comparison validates our results for how to best invest their resources
Hypothesis 1. in professional service employees. suggest that if
Regarding our second contribution, we First, our results suggest that if ef-
add to a growing body of research that ques- fort from clerical employees is effort from clerical
tions the universal use of high-commitment low, organizations might consider
HR practices. Overall, the findings from our implementing high-commitment employees is low,
moderation analyses suggest that the value HR practices. Our results support organizations
of each group to firm competitive advan- the existing theory regarding so-
tage moderates the relationship between cial exchange, which suggests that might consider
employee effort and firm performance. Spe- employees are more likely to re-
cifically, when each group is highly valuable ciprocate with higher levels of implementing
to firm competitive advantage, the impact discretionary behaviors when they
high-commitment
of their effort is much stronger on firm per- feel that their organization has
formance than when that group is less valu- invested in them through high- HR practices. Our
able to firm competitive advantage. Thus, commitment HR practices. Fur-
high-commitment HR practices appear to ther, investment in frontline per- results support
have a positive and significant effect on sonnel in professional services
the existing theory
firm performance through employee effort, firms may have important perfor-
but the impact will be stronger for those mance returns for the organiza- regarding social
groups that are more valuable to competi- tion, as we found that employee
tive advantage. Future researchers should effort positively and significantly exchange, which
pay closer attention to context variables relates to higher performance. As
suggests that
and not simply assume that high-commit- suggested by the existing research,
ment HR systems will contribute equally to it is likely that customers feel a employees are more
firm performance across all employee groups greater level of customer satisfac-
within an organization. tion and perceive a higher level of likely to reciprocate
Finally, to our knowledge, this is one of service when there is interaction
the first studies to examine the relationship with employees who are visible with higher levels
between high-commitment HR practices and exerting high levels of effort of discretionary
and firm performance across employee (Bitner et al., 1990; Schneider et
groups. We believe that our design, al- al., 2005). Our findings also pro- behaviors when
though used infrequently (for an excep- vide evidence that these practices
tion, see Lepak, Taylor, Tekleab, Marrone, & do relate to higher employee ef- they feel that their
Cohen, 2007), is a strength of this study fort for both clerical and semipro-
organization has
because it comes closer to presenting a fair fessional staff; therefore, if firms
test of whether using high-commitment HR find that current effort is low, invested in them
practices across employee groups positively they should consider using these
affects firm performance. Researchers practices. through high-
should not assume that these practices can Our findings may provide fur-
commitment HR
be used universally, but rather they should ther interesting insight regarding
measure high-commitment HR practices investing in front-office personnel practices.
across employee groups to examine more (i.e., clerical staff). Certain HR
fully the contingencies that affect the rela- typologies (e.g., Lepak & Snell,
tionship between these practices and firm 1999); suggest that these employee skills are
performance. more easily found in the labor market, and

therefore, high-commitment HR practices mitment HR practices for semiprofessional

should not be used. Contrary to this belief, employees based on the value received.
our study suggests that firms may benefit
from investing in high-commitment HR prac-
Limitations
tices for all types of employees, not just em-
ployees with relatively rarer skills. It is impor- Despite the importance of our findings, our
tant to note, however, that firms may only study has several limitations that we feel
want to invest in high-commitment practices should be addressed in future research. First,
for clerical workers when those we cannot draw conclusions regarding causal
workers are seen as being valuable relationships from our findings due to the
Certain HR to competitive advantage. This cross-sectional nature of our research design.
last finding has significant practi- It has been noted in previous strategic HRM
typologies (e.g.,
cal implications for firms that research that firm performance may lead to
Lepak & Snell, 1999), have limited resources because it improved ability to implement high-commit-
provides guidance as to when ment HR practices, the reverse order of the
suggest that these these firms should invest in rela- relationship that we hypothesized (Wright et
tively less skilled staff. al., 2005). As noted in other recent research,
employee skills are
Our findings also provide in- more work is needed to clearly establish the
more easily found sight into managing and invest- causal order between high-commitment HR
ing in higher-skilled, semiprofes- practices and firm performance.
in the labor market, sional staff (specifically paralegals Additionally, we collected data from a
and nurses in the context of this single source, which means that common
and, therefore, high-
study). As with the clerical em- method bias may impact the results. Research
commitment HR ployees, our data suggest that has suggested, however, that common
firms may see increased perfor- method bias can be assessed through various
practices should not mance from investing in high- statistical techniques (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
commitment HR practices for We tested for problems associated with com-
be used. Contrary their semiprofessional staff mem- mon method variance by conducting a Har-
to this belief, our bers. Similarly, professional ser- man’s single-factor test. Specifically, based on
vices firms may see the most re- CFA chi-square difference tests, we found
study suggests that turn when investing in these that a 3-factor model with HR practices, ef-
practices for semiprofessional em- fort, and performance items matched to their
firms may benefit ployees who are more highly con- distinct factor fit the data better than a single
nected to the way the firm creates factor. This test does not statistically control
from investing in
competitive advantage. Unlike for common method variance (Podsakoff et
high-commitment clerical employees, however, pro- al., 2003), but if it is a problem, one factor
fessional services firms and other would emerge that accounts for the majority
HR practices for all service firms with semiprofes- of the covariance in the measures. Because
sional employees may benefit we found that each of our individual con-
types of employees,
from investing in high-commit- structs factored separately, evidence suggests
not just employees ment HR practices through other that respondents viewed each distinctly and
mechanisms besides employee that common method variance may not sig-
with relatively rarer motivation. For example, greater nificantly impact our results. Additionally,
investments may lead to higher research on common method variance indi-
skills.
performance through higher skill cates that although highly present in organi-
levels, improved decision-making, zational research, its effect does not threaten
or intent to remain with the firm, all of the interpretation of most research results as
which are important employee drivers for to invalidate the findings (Doty & Glick,
employee groups with higher and rarer skills. 1998).
Thus, even when resources are scarce, firms We also found that the magnitude of the
may wish to continue to invest in high-com- relationships between high-commitment HR

practices and perceived firm performance in Last, we used measures of perceived fi-
this study are in line with others that use ob- nancial performance. Although objective
jective performance, which provides further measures of performance may be preferred,
evidence that common method variance is we felt that financial measures of perfor-
most likely not influencing our results enough mance would be potentially difficult to
to invalidate them. Despite this finding, we compare given the disparate nature of the
caution that the relationship between an in- firms that participated. Although medical
dependent variable and perceived perfor- and legal offices are both professional ser-
mance is usually stronger than for objective vices firms, they operate with different
performance (Doty & Glick, 1998). In our profit models (specifically medical offices,
context, the people providing the data on which work under the managed care model)
high-commitment HR practices may have a and use diverse quantitative measures of
vested interest in these practices and their performance that may not compare across
perceptions of performance may be tied to the two contexts. In addition, in contrast to
their role in HR. A broader review of the stra- large, publicly traded firms, smaller private
tegic HRM literature may suggest a similar firms are unlikely to provide truly objective
finding, but to date such a review is not avail- financial data given that they are not re-
able. Despite the potential for inflated corre- quired to publish this information (Gilley &
lations and other demand characteristics, Rasheed, 2000; Lubatkin, Simsek, Yan, &
based on the two studies above, we believe Veiga, 2006). Despite this shortcoming,
that these factors do not affect our results studies show that a high correlation exists
enough to invalidate our findings. between subjective and objective measures
Additionally, there are limitations with of performance, which allows us to draw
our unique design, specifically because we meaningful conclusions from this data (Wall
asked respondents to rate the use of high- et al., 2004).
commitment HR practices across employee
groups. Although we see this design as one of
Conclusion
this study’s strengths, it may introduce addi-
tional biases that could threaten the internal In this study, we provide evidence of em-
validity. For example, we may prompt employee effort as a mediator between high-
ployees to respond differently by asking re- commitment HR practices and firm perfor-
spondents to rate the use of high-commit- mance in professional services firms. Our
ment HR practices for multiple employee findings contribute to the ongoing debate in
groups, when in reality these differences may the field of strategic HRM on whether all em-
not exist. Future research should examine al- ployee groups should be equally invested in
ternative methods that could eliminate this or whether using these practices is contin-
bias by temporally separating the measure- gent on other factors. Given our findings, we
ment for each employee group. Despite this hope that this study spurs additional research
potential weakness of our design, we do not in the service industry on how and why the
believe that the difference in the use of high- use of high-commitment HR practices across
commitment HR practices is spurious in this employee groups impacts firm performance,
case because results from our pilot study sug- hopefully through the use of more context-
gested that these practices were used to vary- specific mechanisms that have significant
ing degrees across employee groups. practical and theoretical implications.

ELIZABETH J. MCCLEAN is a Ph.D. candidate of human resource management in the ILR

School at Cornell University. She conducts research in strategic human resource manage-
ment, the role of HR and leadership on firm performance, and employee voice.
CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS is an associate professor of human resource management

in the ILR School at Cornell University. He earned his Ph.D. in organizational behavior
and human resources from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of
Maryland. Dr. Collins conducts research in strategic human resource management, the
role of HR practices and leadership in driving employee engagement, firm innovation and
knowledge creation, and employment brand equity.
References Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at

psychological climate and its relationship to job
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential en-
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of
gagement of self-reactive influences on cognitive
Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 38(1), 92–113. doi:10.1016/0749- Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge
5978(86)90028-2 exchange and combination: The role of human
resource practices in the performance of high-tech-
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
nology firms. Academy of Management Journal,
mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
49, 544–560.
cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. much do high-performance HR practices matter?
A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human
performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–528.
resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587–597. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and
“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. (2006). Strategic human
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,
resource management: Where do we go from here?
11, 227–268.
Journal of Management, 32, 898–925.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L.
human resource management practices on percep-
(2001). A comparison of attitude, personality,
tions of organizational performance. Academy of
and knowledge predictors of service-oriented
Management Journal, 39, 949–969.
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 29–41. doi: 10.1037//0021- Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing
9010.86.1.29 in strategic human resource management: Tests
of universalistic, contingency, and configurational
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Criti-
performance predictions. Academy of Management
cal service encounters: The employee’s viewpoint.
Journal, 39, 802–835.
Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95–106.
Dess, G. G., & Robinson R. B., Jr. (1984). Measur-
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The
ing organizational performance in the absence of
service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavo-
objective measures: The case of the privately-held
rable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71–84.
firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic
Borucki, C., & Burke, M. (1999). An examination of Management Journal, 5, 265–273.
service-related antecedents to retail store per-
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common method
formance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,
bias: Does common method variance really bias re-
943–962.
sults? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.
Bowen, D. E., & Waldman, D. A. (1999). Customer-
Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (1999). From human resource
driven employee performance. In D. A. Ilgen & E. D.
strategy to organizational effectiveness: Lessons
Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance
from research on organizational agility. In G. R.
(pp. 154–191). San Francisco; CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human

resource management (Suppl. 4, pp. 145–174). interaction effects of employment mode, environ-
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. mental dynamism, and technological intensity.
Journal of Management, 29, 681–703. doi:10.1016
Ferris, G., Arthur, M., Berkson, H., Kaplan, D., Har-
/S0149-2063_03_00031-X
rell–Cook, G., & Frink, D. (1998). Towards a social
context theory of the human resource manage- Lepak, D. P., Taylor, S., Tekleab, A. G., Marrone, J. M.,
ment-organization effectiveness relationship. Hu- & Cohen, D. (2007). Examining variability in high
man Resources Management Review, 8, 235–264. investment human resource system use across
employee groups, establishments, and industries.
Gilley, K. M., & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more
Human Resource Management, 46, 223 246. doi:
by doing less: An analysis of outsourcing and its
10.1002/hrm.20158
effects on firm performance. Journal of Manage-
ment, 26, 763–790. Locke, E. A., Saari, L. M., Shaw, K. N., & Latham, G. P.
(1981). Goal setting and task-performance—1969–
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different
1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environ-
ment fit to employee commitment and perform- Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., & Veiga, J. (2006).
ance using self-determination theory. Journal of Ambidexterity and performance in small- to
Applied Psychology, 94, 465–477. doi:10.1037 medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top
/a0014068 management team behavioral interaction.
Journal of Management, 32, 646–672. doi:
Guthrie, J. (2001). High-involvement work practices,
10.1177/0149206306290712
turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zea-
land. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 180–190. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Harel, H. G., & Tzafrir, S. S. (1999). The effect of human
resource management practices on the perceptions Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact
of organizational and market performance of the of organizational citizenship behavior on organiza-
firm. Human Resource Management, 38, 185–200. tional performance: A review and suggestions for
future research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource
management practices on turnover, productivity, Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., &
and corporate financial performance. Acad- Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
emy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672. in behavioral research: A critical review of the
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199923)38:3<185::AID- literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
HRM2>3.0.CO;2-Y Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The
meaning of organizations: The role of cognition Purcell, J. (1999). High commitment management and
and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational the link with contingent workers: Implications for
climate and culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco, CA: strategic human resource management. In
Jossey-Bass. G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Suppl. 4, pp. 239–258).
Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). Intended and imple-
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
mented HRM: The missing linchpin in strategic
international human resource management Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. (1985). Employee and
research. International Journal of Human Resource customer perceptions of service in banks: Replica-
Management, 17, 1171–1189. doi:10.1080/095851906 tion and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology,
00756384 70, 423–433.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L.,
architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allo- & Niles-Joll, K. (2005). Understanding organiza-
cation and development. Academy of Management tion-customer links in service settings. Academy of
Review, 24, 31–48. Management Journal, 48, 1017.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (2002). Examining the human Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. E. (2007). High performance
resource architecture: The relationships among human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and
human capital, employment, and human resource organizational performance: A relational perspective.
configurations. Journal of Management, 28, Academy of Management Journal, 50, 558–577.
517–548. doi: 10.1177/014920630202800403
Susskind, A., Kacmar, K., & Borchgrevink, C. (2003).
Lepak, D., Takeuchi, R., & Snell, S. (2003). Employment Customer service providers’ attitudes relating
flexibility and firm performance: Examining the to customer service and customer satisfaction

in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Ap- Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J.,
plied Psychology, 88, 179–187. doi:10.1037/0021- Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W., & West, M. (2004). On
9010.88.1.179 the validity of subjective measures of company
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through performance. Personnel Psychology, 57, 95–118.
the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level Walton, R. E. (1985). Towards a strategy of eliciting em-
effects of high-performance work systems on employee commitment based on policies of mutuality.
ployees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62, 1–29. In R. E. Walton & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM: Trends
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Hite, J. P. and challenges (pp. 35–65). Boston, MA: Harvard
(1995). Choice of employee-organization relation- University Press.
ship: Influence of external and internal organi- Wright, P., Dunford, B., & Snell, S. (2001). Human re-
zational factors. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in sources and the resource view of the firm. Journal
personnel and human resource management (pp. of Management, 27, 701–721. doi:10.1177/01492063
117–151). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 0102700607
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. Wright, P. M., Gardner, T., & Moynihan, L. (2003). The
(1997). Alternative approaches to the employee- impact of human resource practices on business
organization relationship: Does investment in em- unit operating and financial performance. Human
ployees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21–36.
40, 1089–1121.
Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., & Allen, M.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2005). The relationship between HR practices and
Division of Information Sciences. (2008). Trends in firm performance: Examining causal order. Person-
industry employment 2007. Retrieved from http:// nel Psychology, 58, 409–446. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/apr/wk3/art01.htm 6570.2005.00487.x

APPENDIX A Measures of High-Commitment HR Practices
Using the scale below, please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements
regarding how your company manages its employees at the ASSISTANT PROFESSIONAL level (for
example: nurse or paralegal).
Using the scale below, please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements
regarding how your company manages its employees at the CLERICAL level (for example: support
staff, secretary, payroll, etc.).
1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 2 ⫽ moderately disagree, 3 ⫽ neutral, 4 ⫽ moderately agree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree
1. The training we provide for this position is used to promote long-term growth and develop-
ment within the company.
2. When we hire a new employee for this position, a candidate is evaluated on how well he/she
fits in with the organization.
3. These employees regularly participate in decision-making.
4. When evaluating the performance of an employee in this position, we primarily look for how
much the employee has grown and developed.
5. We motivate our employees for this position primarily with opportunities for growth and de-
velopment within the company.
6. This organization encourages and provides opportunities for employees in this position to
obtain outside training or coursework.
7. We motivate our employees in this position by providing job security and long-term employment.
APPENDIX B Measures of Employee Effort and Perceived Firm Performance
Using the scale below, please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 2 ⫽ moderately disagree, 3 ⫽ neutral, 4 ⫽ moderately agree,
5 ⫽ strongly agree
Employee Effort
1. The employees in this position go above and beyond the job requirements.
2. The employees in this position put in extra effort to do work outside their job description to
benefit the firm.
3. The employees in this position are very willing to increase workload during challenging times
for the firm.
Perceived Firm Performance
1. This company’s performance is much better than the performance of our main competitors.
2. This company is achieving its full potential.
3. People are satisfied with the level of performance of this company.
4. This company does a good job of satisfying its customers.

High Commitment HR Practices Employee Effort and Firm Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

High Commitment HR Practices Employee Effort and Firm Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Commitment HR Practices Employee Effort and Firm Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1099050x, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.20429 by Kohat University of Science &, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2023].

In this study, the authors examine the relationship between high-commitment

Keywords: strategic HR management, high-commitment HR practices, employee

Introduction Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). Despite the grow-

R human resource management (stra-

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

mitment HR practices affect motivation that maximize the benefits of contributing

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

strategy and creating value. Specifically, orga- organization relationship, and

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

our high-commitment HR measures for both Perceived Firm Performance

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 1: Employee Effort Mediating the Relationship Between

Adjusted R2 .01 .25 .04 0.12 0.19

Adjusted R2 .09 .27 .04 0.23 0.28

Regressions Predicting Hypothesis 2: Employee Value to Competitive Advantage Moderating the

Adjusted R 2 .04 .12 .19 .26

Adjusted R 2 .04 .23 .28 .30

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Discussion tion demonstrates a higher level of commit-

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

result for clerical staff. This finding suggests Practical Implications

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

therefore, high-commitment HR practices mitment HR practices for semiprofessional

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

ELIZABETH J. MCCLEAN is a Ph.D. candidate of human resource management in the ILR

CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS is an associate professor of human resource management

References Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

APPENDIX A Measures of High-Commitment HR Practices

APPENDIX B Measures of Employee Effort and Perceived Firm Performance

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

You might also like