23 last impact of shrm_316-326
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

23 last impact of shrm_316-326

on

  • 820 views

The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) , International Journals Call for papaers: http://www.iiste.org/Journals

The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) , International Journals Call for papaers: http://www.iiste.org/Journals

Statistics

Views

Total Views
820
Views on SlideShare
820
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

23 last impact of shrm_316-326 Document Transcript

  • 1. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Impact of SHRM Practices on Organizational Performance: An application of Universalistic approach Junaid Khalid (Corresponding author) MS Scholar, Department of Management Sciences The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan junaidkhalid@gmail.com Dr. Abdul Latif Professor, Department of Management Sciences The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan drabdullatif@hotmail.com Syed Usman Ali Gillani Lecturer, Department of Management Sciences The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan syedusmanaligillani@gmail.comAbstract:The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM)practices with organizational performance. The data for this study were collected through verified structuredquestionnaire from sample of 120 banks of Bahawalpur district (Pakistan). Target respondents were branchmanagers because of their expert opinion. Data were analyzed by using software SPSS-19 version by implementingthe statistical techniques, correlation and regression. In general, results of this study showed that four out of sevenSHRM practices were positively related to organizational performance. Organizations exhibited higherorganizational performance, which trained their employees extensively, provided them employment security, gavethem open mechanism for participation, and finally based the employee appraisal criteria on outcomes. HRmanagers, practitioners and firms could benefit immensely if focused on these variables to enhance theirorganizations’ performance.Key words- Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM), Human Resource Management (HRM),Universalistic Approach, Organizational Performance1. IntroductionIn this age of vulnerable environment of globalization, intense competition towards innovative products, andsuppliers’ bargaining power transformed to buyers’ bargaining power, pose major challenges for the organizations.In order to cope with all such challenges, firms have to give profound consideration to their performance and tomaintaining sustainable competitive advantage. Recent studies show that SHRM has a positive impact on 316
  • 2. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)performance and it can be used as a sustainable competitive advantage because it creates such strategic asset that isinvisible and difficult to imitate (Wan-Jing and Tung, 2005).In recent years, the major key area in HR literature is the implication of universalistic approach. According touniversalistic approach, there is a certain set of SHRM practices that are equally beneficial for every organization(Bamberger and Meshoulam 2000; Delery and Doty,1996). The present study is an important contribution to theexisting SHRM (universalistic) literature. Firstly, this study contributes in the shape of identification of universalbest SHRM practices, which is the bone of contention in the universalistic literature. Secondly, this study exploresthe difference in the relationship of SHRM practices with performance between the developed and developingcountries. The SHRM practices that are presented by Delery and Doty (1996) and used by Syed et al., (2008) areincluded in this study. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between SHRM practices andorganizational performance.2. Literature reviewClassical sources of competitive advantage have become obsolete, because they are really easy to duplicate (Wan-Jing and Tung, 2005). According to resource-based view, firms must have to work to develop such a competitiveadvantage that is difficult to imitate (Barney, 1986). Recent literature on HRM shows that firms can achievecompetitive advantage through their Human Resource and when HR is used as a strategic asset and implanted inoperational system in a value added manner that adds beauty to the whole operational system and creates aninvisible competitive advantage (Wan-Jing and Tung, 2005).Schuler, Dolan, and Jackson, (2001) describe evolution of SHRM from personnel management to traditional HRMand then from traditional HRM to SHRM. Furthermore, SHRM practices are more likely to create a more powerfulcompetitive advantage. That is why these strategies are more focused towards strategic business orientation.Literature on SHRM shows that primarily there are three school of thoughts related to implementation of SHRMpractices: Universalistic approach This is the simplest approach, which operates with a basic assumption that there is a linear relationship between variables and that can be extendable to entire population (Delery and Doty, 1996). Contingency approach Many researchers contend that contingency approach is more complex than universalistic approach because contingency approach is more inclined towards interactions rather than simple linear relationship (Schoonhoven, 1981; Van, A, and Drazin, 1985; Venkatraman, 1989). Configurational approach This is the most complex one because this approach is concerned about the synergetic effect of a certain SHRM practice (Doty, Glick, and Huber, 1994).Although there is more theoretical significance of contingency and configurational approach, but both of theseapproaches lack statistical significance, while on the other hand, universalistic approach has more empiricalsignificance (Syed et al., 2008). This study examines the implications of universalistic approach. We are using sevenbest practices of HRM that are described by Delery and Doty (1996) and further implemented by Syed et al., (2008),which are discussed below.2.1 Internal career opportunitiesInternal career opportunities refer to the tendency whether to hire employees mostly from within the organization orfrom the outside. According to Delery and Doty (1996), organizations give importance to internal hiring as 317
  • 3. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)compared to external. Pfeffe (1994) describes it as a give and take process in which managers promote theiremployees primarily from within the organization and show trust on them and in return expect greater performance.The relationship between internal career opportunities and organizational performance is empirically supported byBlackwell, Brickley, and Weisbach (1994) and Shay (2006), who found a positive correlation between thesevariables. While, on the other hand, Gaertner and Nollen (1989) relate the promotion rate with psychologicalcommitment. Furthermore, Ngo and Tsang, (1998) provide support to Gaertner and Nollen’s argument in their studyof 778 business executives in Hong Kong ,who found a positive impact on commitment.2.2 TrainingTraining refers to the quantity of official training given to employees. Organizations may choose either to provideextensive official training or to rely on attaining expertise through selection. Literature on universalistic approachshows that training has the most significant effect on organization’s performance (Pfeffer, 1998, Pfeffer and Veiga1999, Harel and Tzafrirs, 1999, Syed et al., 2008, Shay, 2006). Several researchers are of the view that training is auniversal best practice (Arthur, 1992, Delaney and Huselid, 1996, Huselid and Becker, 1996, Youndt, Snell, Dean,and Lepak, 1996).In a study of Chinese firms, Syed et al. (2008) found training as the most influencing SHRM practice that accountedfor 12.17% variance in organizational performance. Hatch and Dyer, (2004) found that extensive training causedfewer defects in products in their study of 25 semiconductor manufacturing firms. Huang (2001a, b) studied 568Taiwan’s companies and found a significant direct relationship among training and product and service quality. Thefindings of the study of managerial attitude toward HRM by Jennings, Cyr, and Moore, (1995) also found trainingand development to be the most significant SHRM practice, thereby supported the earlier studies.2.3 Employee participationSeveral researchers believe that employees participation is directly associated with organization’s performance(Arthur, 1992, Batt; Pfeffe, 1994; Colvin, and Keefe, 2002; Hodson, 2002; Kato and Morishima, 2002; Shay, 2006).Batt, Colvin, and Keefe, (2002) found an indirect relationship between employee participation in decision makingand employee turnover rate. While Hodson, (2002) found another dimension and showed that workplace conflictscould be reduced through employee participation.2.4 Result-oriented appraisalsAccording to Delery and Doty (1996), primarily appraisals are based on two types: results based and behaviorbased. Behavior-based appraisals focus on the specific behaviors that best match the job while result-orientedappraisals focus purely on the results of those behaviors. In a result-oriented appraisal system, certain incentives aregiven to employees on completion of their performance objectives (Pfeffer, 1998). Delery and Doty, (1996) found asignificant positive relationship between result-oriented appraisal and organizational performance. Furthermore, thestudy by Syed et al., (2008) also showed similar results.2.5 Profit sharingProfit sharing refers to the integration of pay with organizational performance. Delery and Doty, (1996) found apositive significant relationship of profit sharing with performance. In a study of Chinese firms Syed et al., (2008)investigated the impact of profit sharing on twofold performance measures and found a unique relation in whichprofit sharing had a positive significant relation with only financial measures of organizational performance and notsignificant relation with other dimensions of performance ( product/service quality). 318
  • 4. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)2.6 Employment securityThe importance of employment security is emphasized by Pfeffer, (1998) who holds that it is unrealistic on the partof the organizations to expect hard work, devotion and commitment from their employees in the absence ofemployment security. Syed et al., (2008) found a positive significant relationship between employment security andorganizational performance. Furthermore, Pfeffer, (1998) describes that the importance of employment securityaccording to firm’s point of view is twofold: cost; and competition. If organization does not provide its employeeswith job security then they obviously switch towards better opportunities and thus increasing cost (training, selectionetc) and competition.2.7 Job descriptionThe degree to which job duties are well defined is very important. Delery and Doty, (1996) find a moderatecorrelation between job description and a firm’s performance. Furthermore, the study by Syed et al., (2008) showsthat 8.30% variance in organizational performance is observed due to job description.3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Universalistic approach 1. Internal career opportunities 2. Training Organization 3. Employee participation Performance 4. Result-oriented appraisals 5. Profit sharing 6. Employment security 7. Job descriptionSeven variables are used to measure organizational performance as depicted in the conceptual model. Researchmodel was adopted from the studies by Delery and Doty, (1996) and Syed et al (2008).Hypotheses:H1: Training and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H2: Participation and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H3: Employment security and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H4: Job description and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H5: Profit sharing and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H6: Result-oriented appraisals and organizational performance are positively related to each other.H7: Internal career opportunities and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 319
  • 5. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)4. Methodology4.1 Sample size and sampling techniqueThis study concentrates on banking industry in order to control the issues of heterogeneity. The sampling frame ofthis study was obtained from the database of State Bank of Pakistan, which showed that there were 400 branches inBahawalpur district (Pakistan). Sample size was selected on the basis of the criteria presented by James, Joe, andChadwick (2001) for a known population. In this study, the population is known as described above that there are400 branches in Bahawalpur district and according to the criteria of James, Joe, and Chadwick (2001), minimumsample size for this population is 92. However, owing to the consideration of usable response in this study, sampleof 120 banks was taken out of which 100 usable questionnaires were returned that were used for data analysis.4.2Research InstrumentThe questionnaire adopted for the study was developed by Delery and Doty (1996) and used by Syed et al., (2008).However, a little modification was made in the questionnaire with regard to the measurement of organizationalperformance in the context of this study.4.3 Measurement of independent variablesRespondents were asked to rate their answers on multi-item scale. Training, participation, employment security, jobdescription and profit sharing were measured on four point likert scale, while ‘internal career opportunities’ wasmeasured on seven point likert scale and ‘result oriented appraisals’ was measured on two point likert scale. Highervalues on likert scale indicate strong opinions towards each independent variable.4.4 Dependent variableFive point likert scale was used to rate the response of respondents where higher values indicated high performanceand vice versa. In order to cope with the difficulty of obtaining financial data due to conservative behavior andintense competition, we adopted self-evaluation approach. According to Dess and Robinson (1984), self-reportingmeasures can be an acceptable proxy and are evenly reliable in the deficiency of objective data. Powel (1992) findsa positive correlation (0.40) between self-reported firm performance measures and objective firm performancemeasures.5. Data analysis:Data were analyzed by using software SPSS-19 version. The following statistical techniques were applied to analyzethe data: Cronbach’s alpha Descriptive statistics (Mean and Standard deviation) Correlation Linear regression5.1 Cronbach’s alphaInternal reliability of the instrument was checked by using Cronbach’s alpha. The result of cronbach alpha is 0.731which is well above the stander presented by Nummally, (1978) that is 0.70. Therefore, this is clear that theinstrument used in this study had strong internal reliability and it could be used with confidence for the applicationof further statistical analysis and interpretation. 320
  • 6. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)5.2 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysisTable 1 represents descriptive statistics and correlation between each variable. If the mean scores are observed thenit is clear that internal career opportunities have higher value 3.89; the reason behind this is that it was measured on7-point likert scale. While the first five variables were measured on 4-point likert scale and the rest of the two weremeasured on two and five point likert scale respectively. So if the ratio of their mean score is calculated then it isclear that training has the highest value of mean, and then the number of internal career opportunities; the rest of theorder is as follows: employment security; result-oriented appraisals; job description; participation; and profitsharing. Range of correlation between SHRM practices is between -0.264 to 0.630. Except result-orientedappraisals, all the variables are positively related to each other.5.3 Regression AnalysisIn order to check the impact of each independent variable unconnectedly on dependent variable and to test thehypothesis developed linear regression analysis was applied. Results of linear regression analysis are presented intable II.5.3.1 Hypothesis 1Hypothesis postulates that organizations that provide extensive training to their employees will outperform thosewho do not provide extensive training. H1: Training and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 47.1% variance in firm’s performance is explained by training, which is evident by the value of R=0.471.F=27.877 at p=0.000 describes the model’s goodness of fit. Significant positive relationship between predictor andpredicted variable is evident by the value of t=5.280. Hence, on the basis of these results it can be inferred withconfidence that H1 is accepted.5.3.2 Hypothesis 2Hypothesis postulates that organizations that provide open forum of communication to their employees will increasetheir performance. H2: Participation and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 33.1% variance in firm’s performance is explained by participation, which is evident by the value ofR=0.331. F=10.515 at p=0.002 describes the model’s goodness of fit. Significant positive relationship betweenpredictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=3.243. Hence, on the basis of these results it can beinferred with confidence that H2 is accepted.5.3.3 Hypothesis 3Hypothesis postulates that those organizations that provide their employees with job security get in return betterperformance. H3: Employment security and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 33.5% variance in firm’s performance is explained by employment security, which is evident by the valueof R=0.335. F=10.819 at p=0.001 describes the model’s goodness of fit. Significant positive relationship between 321
  • 7. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)predictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=3.298. Hence, based on the results it can be inferredwith confidence that H3 is accepted.5.3.4 Hypothesis 4Hypothesis postulates that clearly defined jobs lead organizations towards better performance. H4: Job description and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 8.9% variance in firm’s performance is explained by employment security, which is evident by the value ofR=0.089. F=0.771 at p=0.381 describes the model’s goodness of fit, which is not satisfactory. Insignificantrelationship between predictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=0.880. Hence, based on the resultsit can be inferred with confidence that H4 is not accepted.5.3.5 Hypothesis 5Hypothesis postulates that profit sharing with employees other than their salaries has a positive relationship withorganizational performance. H5: Profit sharing and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 6.4% variance in firm’s performance is explained by employment security, which is evident by the value ofR=0.064. F=0.402 at p=0.528 describes the model’s goodness of fit, which is not satisfactory. Insignificantrelationship between predictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=0.634. Hence, on the basis of theseresults it can be inferred with confidence that H5 is not accepted.5.3.6 Hypothesis 6Hypothesis postulates that organizations with result-oriented appraisal system will be able to exceed theirperformance. H6: Result-oriented appraisals and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 36.0% variance in firm’s performance is explained by employment security, which is evident by the valueof R=0.360. F=14.614 at p=0.000 describe the model’s goodness of fit. Significant positive relationship betweenpredictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=3.823. Hence, on the basis of these results we acceptH6.5.3.7 Hypothesis 7Hypothesis postulates that internal career opportunities for employees in a particular organization increase itsperformance. H7: Internal career opportunities and organizational performance are positively related to each other. 322
  • 8. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)10% variance in firm’s performance is explained by employment security, which is evident by the value of R=0.01.F=0.009 at p=0.935 describes the model’s goodness of fit, which is not satisfactory. Insignificant relationshipbetween predictor and predicted variable is evident by the value of t=-0.095. Hence, based on the results it can beinferred with confidence that H7 is not accepted.6. Discussion and conclusionThis study examines the impact of SHRM practices on organizational performance, especially universal implicationsof a set of SHRM practices presented by Delery and Doty, (1996). The results of this study are very important due totheir dual nature. Four individual SHRM practices, namely, training, participation, employment security and result-oriented appraisals have significant positive relationship with organizational performance and these results areconsistent with the literature on SHRM. While, on the other hand, the remaining three SHRM practices, namely, jobdescription, profit sharing, and internal career opportunities have no significant relationship with organizationalperformance and these results are contradictory with the literature on SHRM.Results of the present study in respect of training are consistent with the results of many previous studies (Pfeffer,1998, Pfeffer and Veiga 1999, Harel and Tzafrirs, 1999, Syed et al., 2008, Shay, 2006), which show that training hasthe most significant effect on performance; the findings of the present study also prove that training has the mostsignificant relationship with performance. ‘Result-oriented appraisals’ is the second most significant SHRM practicethat this study reveals. Furthermore, the findings of this study in respect of ‘result-oriented appraisals’ are matchedwith the findings of Delery and Doty, 1996 and Syed et al., 2008.The third most influencing variable is‘employment security’, which has a significant positive relationship with organizational performance; these resultsare consistent with the results of Pfeffer,1998 and Syed et al., 2008.The last variable that has a positive relationshipwith organizational performance is employee participation and the findings of the present study related to thisvariable also have a sound support in litrature (Arthur, 1992 Batt, Colvin, and Keefe, 2002, Hodson, 2002, Kato andMorishima, 2002, Pfeffe, 1994; Shay, 2006).The second stream of variables that are not significantly related to organizational performance are: job description;profit sharing; and internal career oppurtunities. All these three variables are showing contradictory results ascompared to the previous researchs (Delery and Doty, 1996; Syed et al., 2008; Pfeffe, 1994; Blackwell, Brickley,and Weisbach, 1994; Shay, 2006).Hence, it can be concluded on the basis of present study that training, employee participation, employment securityand result-oriented appraisals are univeralistic SHRM practices. Training, participation, result-oriented appraisalsand employment security have positive relationship with organizational performance. The HR managers,practitioners and firms can benefit immensely if they focus on these variables to enhance the organizationalperformance.7. Limitations and Future directionsDespite the importance of the contribution of this study to universalistic litrature and its valuable practicalimplication, it has some limitations. First limitation of this study is the use of self evaluation criteria of measuringperformance, which may be baised. Although, some previsoius studies are also based on the judgemental measures(Delaney and Huselid, 1996), however, Powel 1992 and Dess and Robinson, 1984 argue that in order to cope withthe difficulty of obtaining objective data, subjective measures can be used. But it would be worthewhile for futurestudies to examine the relationship between the same SHRM variables and performance by taking objectivemeasures of performance i.e. return on assets, return on equity, profit ratios, sales ratios,etc.Second limitation of thisstudy is the use of cross sectional data. In future, same study can be done with longitudenal data in order toovercome the limitations of cross sectional data.The results of this study were carried on by using the regression analysis, by using latest techniques such as DataEnvelopment Analysis. The relationship of the variables could be modified. Furthermore, the study was conductedkeeping in view the banking industry, for its effectiveness the study could be a helpful source of inter industrycomparison. 323
  • 9. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Table IDescriptive Statistics and Correlation M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81.Training 2.97 0.54 12.Participation 2.56 0.56 .630** 13.Employment Security 2.68 0.62 .551** .424** 14.Job Description 2.61 0.42 .200** .512** .445** 15.Profit Sharing 2.48 0.79 .197* -.225* .464** .446** 16.Results Oriented Appraisals 1.33 0.31 .079 -.250* -.078 -.264** -.156 17.Internal Career Opportunities 3.89 0.98 .198* .356** .395** .575** .502** -.316** 18.Organizational Performance 3.70 0.51 .471** .311** .315** .088 .063 .360** -.10 1**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Table IIRegression Analysis Variable R t-value coefficient F- value P-value1 Training 0.471 5.280 0.471 27.877 0.000 (-0.449)*2 participation 0.311 3.243 0.311 10.515 0.002 (-0.286)*3 employment security 0.315 3.298 0.315 10.819 0.001 (-0.261)*4 job description 0.089 0.880 0.089 0.774 0.381 (-0.107)*5 profit sharing 0.064 0.634 0.064 0.402 0.528 (-0.042)*6 Result oriented appraisals 0.360 3.823 0.36 14.614 0.000 (-0.6)*7 internal career opportunities 0.010 -0.095 -0.01 0.009 0.925 (-0.005)* *Unstandardized Beta Coefficients in parenthesis 324
  • 10. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)ReferencesArthur, J. B. (1992). The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steelminimills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review , 45, 488-506.Bamberger, P., and Meshoulam, I. (2000). Human Resource Strategy: Formulation,Implementation, and Impact,.Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks .Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy ofManagement Review , 11 (356-365).Batt, R., Colvin, A., and Keefe, J. (2002). Employee voice, human resource practices, and quit rates: evidence fromthe telecommunication industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review , 55 (4), 573-594.Blackwell, W. D., Brickley, A. J., and Weisbach, S. M. (1994). Accounting information and internal performanceevaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics , 17, 331-358.Delaney, T. J., and Huselid, A. M. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions oforganizational performance. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (4), 949-969.Delery, J. E., and Doty, D. H. (1996). MODES OF THEORIZING IN STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT:TESTS OF UNIVERSALISTIC, CONTINGENCY AND CONFIGURATIONALPERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (4), 802-835.Dess, G. G., and Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objectivemeasures: the case of privately held firms and conglomerate business units. Strategic Management Journal , 5, 263-273.Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., and Huber, G. P. (1994). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of twoconfigurational theories. Academy of management journal , 36, 1196-1250.Gaertner, N. K., and Nollen, D. S. (1989). “Career experiences, perceptions of employment practices,andpsychological commitment to the organization. Human Relations , 42 (11), 975-991.Harel, H. G., and Tzafrirs, S. S. (1999). The effect of human resource management practices on the perceptions oforganizational and market performance of the firm. Human Resource Management , 38 (3), 185-199.Hatch, N. W., and Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal , 25, 1155-1178.Hodson, R. (2002). Worker participation and teams: new evidence from analyzing organizational ethnographies.Economic and Industrial Democracy , 4, 491-528.Huang, T. C. (2001b). The effects of linkage between business and human resource management strategies.Personnel Review , 30 (2), 132-151.Huang, T.-C. (2001a). The relation of training practices and organizational performance in small and medium sizeenterprises. Education and Training , 39 (8/9), 437-444.Huselid, M. A., and Becker, B. E. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the HR-firm performance link. Industrial Relations , 35, 400-422.James, E. B., Joe, W. k., and Chadwick, C. H. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate SampleSize in Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, , 19 (1).Jennings, P. D., Cyr, D., and Moore, L. F. (1995). Human resource management on the Pacific Rim: Institutions,practices, and attitudes. 351–379.Kato, T., and Morishima, M. (2002). The productivity effects of participatory employment practices: evidence fromnew Japanese panel data. Industrial Relations , 41 (4), 487-520.Ngo, H. Y., and Tsang, W.-N. A. (1998). Employment practices and organizational commitment:differential effectsfor men and women? The International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 6 (3), 251-266.Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company . 325
  • 11. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Pfeffe, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press .Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review , 40 (2), 96-124.Pfeffer, J., and Veiga, F. J. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of ManagementExecutive , 13 (2), 37-48.Powel, T. C. (1992). Organization alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management journal , 13 (119-34).Schoonhoven, C. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language ofcontingency theory. administrative science quarlerty , 26, 349-377.Schuler, R. S., Dolan, S., and Jackson, S. E. (2001). Introduction. International Journal of Manpower , 22, 195-197.Shay, S. T. (2006). A universalistic perspective for explaining the relationship between HRM practices and firmperformance at different points in time. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21 (2), 109-130.Syed, A., Daniel, Z. D., and Gloria, L. G. (2008). STRATEGIC HRM PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPACT ONCOMPANY PERFORMANCE IN CHINESE ENTERPRISES. Human Resource Management , 47 (1), 15–32.van, d. v., A, H., and Drazin, R. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. In L. L. Cummingsand B. M. Staw(Eds.). Researcg in organizatoinal behavior , 7, 333-365.Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence.Academ of management review , 14, 423-444.Wan-Jing, A. C., and Tung, C. H. (2005). Relationship between strategic human resource management and firmperformance: A contingency perspective. International Journal of Manpower , 26 (5).Youndt, M. A., Snell, A. S., Dean, W. J., and Lepak, P. D. (1996). Human resource management,manufacturingstrategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (4), 836-866. 326