Organizational Behavior

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

Do quot;high commitmentquot; human resource practices affect employee commitment?:
A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling
Ellen M. Whitener
Journal of Management 2001; 27; 515
DOI: 10.1177/014920630102700502

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/515

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 38 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/27/5/515

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on December 7, 2007
© 2001 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Pergamon

Journal of Management 27 (2001) 515–535

Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect
employee commitment?
A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling
Ellen M. Whitener*
Department of Management, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22903, USA

Received 20 September 1999; received in revised form 7 September 2000; accepted 27 November 2000

Abstract
Relying on a cross-level paradigm and on social exchange theory (i.e., perceived organizational
support) I explore the relationships among human resource practices, trust-in-management, and
organizational commitment. Individual-level analyses from a sample of 1689 employees from 180
credit unions indicate that trust-in-management partially mediates the relationship between perceived
organizational support and organizational commitment. Cross-level analyses using hierarchical linear
modeling indicate that human resource practices affect the relationship between perceived organiza-
tional support and organizational commitment or trust-in-management. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In a survey of over 7500 U.S. workers, Watson Wyatt International found that companies
with highly committed employees experienced greater 3-year total returns to shareholders
(112%) than companies with low employee commitment (76%; Watson Wyatt, 1999). They
also found that human resource practices and trust in management had the strongest impact
on building commitment.
As Watson Wyatt’s survey implies, human resource practices and trust may provide two
avenues that corporate executives can use to increase the commitment of their workforce.

* Tel.: 1-434-924-7091; fax: 1-434-924-7074.
E-mail address: emw8r@virginia.edu (E.M. Whitener).

0149-2063/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 4


516 E.M. Whitener / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 515–535

Academic research conducted at the organizational level suggests that human resource
practices affect organizational outcomes by shaping employee behaviors and attitudes
(Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Wood & de Menezes, 1998). More specifically, systems
of “high commitment” human resource practices increase organizational effectiveness by
creating conditions where employees become highly involved in the organization and
work hard to accomplish the organization’s goals (Arthur, 1994; Wood & de Menezes,
1998)—in other words, by increasing their employees’ commitment to the organization.
However, ironically, these studies have provided estimates of the strength of the
relationship between high commitment human resource practices and measures of
organizational effectiveness without investigating the relationship between human re-
source practices and employee commitment.
Similarly, researchers have not systematically developed or tested theories linking trust
and commitment; however, incidental to tests of other variables or theories, they have found
significant correlations between commitment and employees’ trust in a specific individual
(e.g., their supervisor or leader) (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams,
1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996) or generalized trust-in-management (e.g.,
Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Pearce, 1993). These estimates suggest
that further study of the nature of the relationship between trust and commitment would be
fruitful, especially if theory-based.
The motivational processes of social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity (e.g.,
Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961) may explain the relationships among human resource practices,
trust-in-management and employee commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis–LaMastro,
1990; Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). A well-established
stream of research rooted in social exchange theory has shown that employees’ commitment
to the organization derives from their perceptions of the employers’ commitment to and
support of them (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Hutchison & Garstka, 1996; Settoon et al., 1996,
Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). The research suggests
that employees interpret organizational actions such as human resource practices (Settoon et
al., 1996; Wayne et al., 1997) and the trustworthiness of management (Eisenberger et al.,
1990; Settoon et al., 1996) as indicative of the personified organization’s commitment to
them. They reciprocate their perceptions accordingly in their own commitment to the
organization. Only a few studies have explored the role of human resource practices in this
model (e.g., Allen, 1992; Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994; Miceli & Mulvey, 2000; Wayne
et al., 1997) and none has explored the role of trust.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among human resource
practices, trust-in-management, perceptions of organizational support, and organizational
commitment. I rely on a “meso” paradigm recognizing that these variables exist at different
levels of analysis (organizational and individual) but nonetheless interact and affect each
other (House, Rousseau & Thomas–Hunt, 1995; Rousseau, 1985). I use a social exchange
lens relying specifically on the role of perceptions of organizational support to explore the
processes that link these factors. I test the relationships with data from a sample of over 1600
employees from 180 credit unions. I explore individual-level hypotheses using hierarchical
linear regression and cross-level hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling.


E.M. Whitener / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 515–535 517

2. High commitment human resource practices

Human resource practices can be classified as “control” or “commitment” practices
(Arthur, 1994; Walton, 1985; Wood & de Menezes, 1998). Control approaches aim to
increase efficiency and reduce direct labor costs and rely on strict work rules and procedures
and base rewards on outputs (Arthur, 1994). Rules, sanctions, rewards, and monitoring
regulate employee behavior (Wood & de Menezes, 1998). In contrast, commitment ap-
proaches aim to increase effectiveness and productivity and rely on conditions that encourage
employees to identify with the goals of the organization and work hard to accomplish those
goals (Arthur, 1994; Wood & de Menezes, 1998).
The practices that represent a high commitment strategy include sets of organization-wide
human resource policies and procedures that affect employee commitment and motivation.
They include selective staffing, developmental appraisal, competitive and equitable com-
pensation, and comprehensive training and development activities (Ichniowski, Shaw &
Prennushi, 1997; MacDuffie, 1995; Snell & Dean, 1992; Youndt, Snell, Dean & Lepak,
1996).
A review by Delery (1998) shows that early studies of human resource practices attempted
to find the universally best conduct of each independent practice. However, recently results
have also shown that high commitment practices can work well synergistically, reflective of
a general commitment strategy. Across a variety of industries (e.g., automotive assembly
plants, steel companies and minimills, not-for profit organizations), organizations with high
commitment systems experience greater productivity, financial performance, and effective-
ness than organizations with low commitment or control systems (e.g., Arthur, 1994;
Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Ichniowski et al. 1997; MacDuffie, 1995; Wood
& de Menezes, 1998; Youndt et al., 1996). The organizational context (e.g., fit) and goals
(e.g., outcomes) may impact whether particular human resource practices have synergistic or
independent effects on firm outcomes (Delery, 1998).

3. Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961) originally explained the motivation
behind the attitudes and behaviors exchanged between individuals. Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) expanded this work by proposing and establishing that the
theory of social exchange and the norm of reciprocity also explain aspects of the relationship
between the organization and its employees. They noted that employees form general
perceptions about the intentions and attitudes of the organization toward them from the
policies and procedures enacted by individuals and agents of the organization, attributing
human-like attributes to their employer on the basis of the treatment they receive (Levinson,
1965). In this way, employees see themselves as having a relationship with their employer
that is parallel to the relationships individuals build with each other.
Recognizing this tendency to personify the organization, they applied social exchange
theory to the relationship between the personified organization and its employees. In
particular, they predicted that “. . . positive, beneficial actions directed at employees by the



organization and/or its representatives contribute to the establishment of high-quality ex-
change relationships. . . that create obligations for employees to reciprocate in positive,
beneficial ways” (Settoon et al., 1996, p. 219).

3.1. Perceived organizational support, trust, and commitment

Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed the construct, perceived organizational support, to
reflect employees’ beliefs about the organization’s support, commitment, and care for them.
They proposed that perceived organizational support would be significantly related to a
variety of employee attitudes and behaviors including organizational commitment and trust
(Eisenberger et al., 1990).
Organizational commitment refers to identification with organizational goals, willingness
to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and interest in remaining with the organization
(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Employees’ commitment to the organization would be
significantly related to their perceptions of the employer’s commitment to them (perceived
organizational support) as they reciprocate their perceptions of the organization’s actions in
their own attitudes and behavior (Shore & Tetrick, 1991). Perceived organizational support
has a high and significant correlation (0.38 – 0.71) with organizational commitment; yet,
construct validity studies have verified that they are distinct though closely linked variables
(Shore & Tetrick, 1991). In this study, I expect to replicate these results:
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of organizational support will be positively and
significantly correlated with their commitment to the organization.
Trust is a complex phenomenon that has long eluded precise definition because it
encompasses many facets and levels that need to be carefully specified (Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt & Camerer, 1998; Whitener, 1997). Rousseau et al. (1998) recognized these difficulties
noting that trust can be different depending on the focal object and level (such as interor-
ganizational vs. interpersonal trust). However, they asserted that the primary components of
trust—risk, uncertainty, and interdependence—remain constant across contexts. Relying on
these elements, Rousseau et al. defined trust as a “psychological state comprising the
intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or
behavior of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). This definition suggests that employees’
trust in management reflects employee faith in corporate goal attainment and organizational
leaders, and to the belief that ultimately, organizational action will prove beneficial for
employees (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993).
Like perceived organizational support, trust develops through a social exchange process
in which employees interpret the actions of management and reciprocate in kind. “. . . The
gradual expansion of the exchange permits the partners to prove their trustworthiness to each
other. Processes of social exchange, consequently, generate trust” (Blau, 1964, p. 315).
According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), perceived organizational support embodies the social
exchange process, reflecting employees’ interpretations and perceptions of the organization’s
actions. Trust in management, who tends to be the primary purveyor of the personified
organization’s actions, is a likely response to their perceptions. On this basis, I predict a
significant relationship between perceived organizational support and trust such that:



Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perceptions of organizational support will be positively and
significantly correlated with their trust in management.
Similarly, researchers (e.g., Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Pearce,
1993) have estimated the strength of the relationship between organizational commitment
and employees’ trust in management. They have found significant correlations ranging from
0.42 to 0.61. I expect to replicate these past results such that:
Hypothesis 3: Employees’ commitment to the organization will be positively and
significantly correlated with their trust in management.
Hypotheses 1 through 3 suggest that trust, perceived organizational support, and commit-
ment are inter-related. Indeed, Eisenberger et al. recognized links among perceived organi-
zational support, trust and commitment when they noted “perceived organizational support
would also enhance calculative involvement [an aspect of commitment] by creating trust that
the organization will take care to fulfill its exchange obligations. . . ” (Eisenberger et al.,
1990, p. 52). Although they did not elaborate, they seem to be suggesting that trust in
management mediates the relationship between employees’ perceptions of the organization’s
support and commitment and their own commitment response.
Several studies looking at other kinds of perceptions (e.g., procedural fairness or individ-
uals’ support) have generated results consistent with this notion. Individuals’ trust builds as
a response to their perceptions of the actions of another and leads to an increase in their
commitment to that actor (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Pillai et al.,
1999; Podsakoff et al., 1996). These results suggest a perfectly mediated relationship in
which perceptions are associated with commitment only indirectly through trust; however, in
this context, the relationship between perceived organizational support and commitment is
likely to include a direct link as well. Because the correlations between perceived organi-
zational support and commitment found in previous research (0.38 – 0.71) are so similar to
the correlations between trust and commitment (0.42– 0.61), the relationship between per-
ceived organizational support and trust would have to be perfect (1.0) for trust to perfectly
mediate the relationship between perceived organizational support and commitment. These
previous results suggest a partially mediated model instead such that:
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perceptions of organizational support will be related to
employee commitment directly as well as indirectly through their trust in management.

3.2. Human resource practices, perceived organizational support, trust-in-management,
and commitment

Ostroff and Bowen (2000) relied on social exchange and the norm of reciprocity in
developing hypotheses about the relationships among human resource practices, attitudes,
and performance. They proposed that human resource practices shape work force attitudes by
molding employees’ perceptions of what the organization is like and influencing their
expectations of the nature and depth of their relationship with the organization. Employee
attitudes and behaviors (including performance) reflect their perceptions and expectations,
reciprocating the treatment they receive from the organization. In their multilevel model



linking human resource practices and employee reactions, they depicted relationships sug-
gesting that human resource practices are significantly associated with employee perceptions
and employee attitudes.
In the only study testing these relationships that explicitly recognizes the cross-level
nature of the research questions, Tsui and her colleagues (Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli,
1997) found that employee attitudes (specifically employee commitment) were associated
with the interaction of human resource practices and perceptions. They analyzed data from
a sample of 10 organizations and over 900 employees in 85 jobs. They conducted their
analyses at the individual-level but controlled for job-level differences in organizational
support. They found that employee commitment is associated with the interaction of human
resource practices (e.g., performance appraisal and rewards) and support.
These results are consistent with research on perceived organizational support. Sev-
eral studies have indicated that perceived organizational support interacts with organi-
zational actions (including human resource practices) in affecting employee commitment
(Allen, 1992; Guzzo et al., 1994; Miceli & Mulvey, 2000; Wayne et al., 1997).
Therefore, rather than just looking at direct relationships, I investigate the impact of the
interaction of human resource practices and perceptions on employee attitudes in the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5: Human resource practices will moderate the relationship between per-
ceived organizational support and organizational commitment such that the relationship
will be stronger under commitment human resource practices than control human
resource practices.
Hypothesis 6: Human resource practices will moderate the relationship between per-
ceived organizational support and trust-in-management such that the relationship will
be stronger under commitment human resource practices than control human resource
practices.
These hypotheses are consistent with the general notion that human resource practices
interact with perceptions of organizational support to affect employee commitment. How-
ever, some human resource practices are more likely than others to have significant rela-
tionships (Delery, 1998). Huselid (1995) suggested that human resource practices group into
two categories—those practices that improve employee skills and those that enhance em-
ployee motivation. In a study of over 900 organizations in the United States, he validated
these two categories and their effects. He found that skill-enhancing human resource
activities included selection and training activities and were associated with turnover and
financial performance and that motivation-enhancing activities included performance ap-
praisal and compensation activities and were associated with measures of productivity.
Because they can provide direct and substantial harm or benefit to employees (Mayer &
Davis, 1999), motivation-oriented human resource activities are more likely to be associated
with perceived organizational support and commitment than skill-oriented activities. Indeed,
selection and training activities may not even be very salient to employees. Although job
candidates pay close attention to selection procedures, current employees are more likely to
be focused on the job itself. Similarly training activities are infrequent occurrences. Even at



the “100 best companies to work for” employees spend only 2% of their work-year (an
average of 47 hr a year) in training (Levering & Moskowitz, 2000).
In contrast, performance appraisal and compensation processes have regular and
powerful effects on employees. Poorly designed or conducted appraisal systems can fail
to accurately evaluate the quality or quantity of performance. Compensation systems,
especially those linked to performance assessments, can miss providing salient rewards
to the right people in a timely fashion. These ﬂaws have the potential to under-reward
deserving individuals and over-reward undeserving individuals. Aware of their vulner-
ability to the vagaries of badly designed appraisal and reward systems, employees are
likely to perceive well-designed, developmental performance appraisals and internally
equitable and externally competitive compensation systems (Snell & Dean, 1992) as
indicative of the organization’s support and commitment to them. As discussed above,
employees would reciprocate their perceptions of the organization’s support and com-
mitment conveyed by appraisal and compensation practices with their own commitment
to the organization.
In the same way, employees are likely to reciprocate their perceptions of support conveyed
by appraisal and compensation activities in their trust in management. Whitener (1997) also
relied on social exchange theory to predict that trust-in-management is associated with
human resource practices through their effects on employees’ perceptions of support. In a
longitudinal, quasi-experimental study conducted at the individual level, Mayer and Davis
(1999) found that the implementation of a “more acceptable” performance appraisal system
increased employees’ trust in management. They also found that employees’ perceptions of
management’s ability, benevolence, and integrity mediated the relationship between their
perceptions of the performance appraisal system and trust-in-management. Mayer and Davis’
purpose was to test somewhat different constructs and relationships; yet, their results reﬂect
the same pattern suggested by social exchange: human resource activities are associated with
employee attitudes through their perceptions.
Hypothesis 7: The patterns of relationships among human resource practices, perceived
organizational support, trust-in-management, and organizational commitment will be
stronger for performance appraisal and compensation human resource practices than for
selection and training.

4. Summary

Taken together, these hypotheses imply a framework (depicted in Fig. 1) in which
trust-in-management mediates the relationship between perceptions of organizational
support and employee commitment and human resource practices moderate the relation-
ships between perceptions of organizational support and both trust and commitment. As
described below, the individual-level relationships in the framework are tested using
hierarchical multiple regression and the cross-level relationships are tested using hier-
archical linear modeling.



Fig. 1. Cross-level framework depicting hypotheses linking human resource practices, perceived organizational
support, trust-in-management, and employee commitment.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Sample and procedures

I worked with research associates from credit union associations to identify and contact
the sample. We drew the sample from the population of credit unions in the United States.
In 1996, the year this study was conducted, there were approximately 12,000 credit unions
in the U.S. Most of them (75%) were small, with assets of less than $25 million and fewer
than 10 employees. One percentage was large, with assets of more than $500 million and an
average of 350 employees.
The research associates generated a stratified random sample of 500 credit unions from
their database of credit unions. We excluded the small credit unions, those with assets below
$25 million, because they have too few employees. We were concerned that it would be
difficult to preserve their confidentiality and that they would not have a formal human



resource function. We slightly oversampled large credit unions, with assets over $1 billion,
because there are so few.
We mailed letters describing the study and requesting participation to the CEO of each
credit union. We also included the human resource and employee surveys. We instructed
the CEO to ask the senior human resource officer to complete the human resource
practices questionnaire and to organize the distribution, collection, and return of em-
ployee surveys in a way to preserve the anonymity of participants. We included
identification information on the human resource survey; however, the employee survey
included no identifying information. In addition, the employee survey was contained in
a booklet with an opaque cover sheet on the front and back. Employees stapled their
survey closed inside the cover sheet so that their responses were completely hidden. The
human resource contact returned all surveys unopened to the research team. The research
team was instructed to identify any surveys that had been opened and restapled. None
appeared to have been tampered with.
Of the 500 credit unions contacted, 185 returned all or part of the survey for a response
rate of 37%. Respondents varied by asset size ($27 million to $8,700 million with a mean of
$326 million), number of members (2000 to 2,000,000 with a mean of 65,912), and number
of full time equivalent employees (12 to 3035 with a mean of 133). A comparison of
respondents to nonrespondents by the credit union research affiliate provided no evidence of
response bias.
The human resource practices survey asked human resource managers to describe their
credit union’s staffing, training, compensation, and performance appraisal practices. Of the
185 organizations, 182 provided complete data on their human resource practices.
The employee survey assessed employees’ commitment to the organization, perceptions
of organizational support, and trust-in-management. Human resource managers were asked
to pick 10 employees to complete the surveys and most indeed returned 10. The number of
employees responding from each credit union averaged a mean of 9.37 and mode and median
of 10 employees per credit union. One credit union only returned one employee survey;
another made copies and returned 18. The remaining credit unions provided at least 5 and no
more than 10 employee usable responses. The two outliers were removed from the database,
yielding a total sample of 180 credit unions and 1689 employees.
The average employee respondent was 36 years old and had worked for 6.7 years at his
or her credit union. Most were full time (92.5%) and female (83%). Three percentage held
executive positions, 25% held management or supervisory positions, 43% held professional
staff positions and did not supervise subordinates, and 29% were administrative assistants or
tellers.

5.2. Measures

5.2.1. Human resource practices
The human resource practices survey contained scales developed by Snell and Dean
(1992) to measure high commitment human resource practices: selective staffing measures
the extensiveness of the firm’s selection process; comprehensive training measures the
extensiveness of the firm’s training and development process; developmental appraisal



measures whether performance appraisal is used for developing employees; externally
equitable reward systems measured the extent to which the organization’s pay levels were
competitive with similar organizations; and internally equitable reward systems measured the
extent to which the organization’s pay structure was equitably construed. Scales ranged from
1 to 5 but the anchors varied depending on the question. For example, the response for the
staffing item, “How extensive is the employee selection process for a job?” ranged from “not
extensive (1) to ”very extensive (5). The response for the comprehensive training item, “How
much priority is placed on training employees?” ranged from “very little” (1) to “a great
deal” (5).
Snell and Dean (1992) provided little evidence of the construct validity of their measures,
conducting only an exploratory factor analysis, so I replicated their procedure and took
several additional steps to explore their psychometric properties (Hinkin, 1995; 1998). First,
an exploratory factor analysis (principle components and varimax rotation) yielded five
factors consistent with those proposed by Snell and Dean. A confirmatory factor analysis,
however, did not fit the factors well yielding a 2 of 1276.78 (df. 395), with NFI 0.60
and CFI 0.68. To explore whether greater parsimony would increase the fit, I evaluated the
top four items for each scale using confirmatory factor analysis. The five factor model
(developmental appraisal, selective staffing, comprehensive training, internally equitable
rewards, and externally competitive rewards) fit the data significantly better yielding a 2 of
393.72 (df. 160), with NFI 0.79 and CFI 0.86. In addition, this five-factor model fit
the data better than a one factor model representing the whole system of high commitment
human resource practices ( 2 1006.60, df. 170, NFI 0.46 and CFI 0.50). On this
basis the four-item scales were retained to measure human resource practices. Coefficient
alpha for these scales fell within acceptable levels ranging from 0.70 (staffing) to 0.86
(training).

5.2.2. Employee attitudes
Well-established scales were used for each attitude. Perceived organizational support was
measured with Eisenberger’s scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The positively worded items
from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979) measured orga-
nizational commitment. Their items reflect the extent to which the employee is willing to put
in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected and the extent to which the employee
“talks up” the organization as a great place to work. Robinson and Rousseau (1994)
developed a scale to measure employees’ trust in their employer. Items include “I am not sure
I fully trust my employer (R)” and “In general, I believe my employer’s motives and
intentions are good.”
These items were also subjected to an exploratory factor analysis yielding three scales.
Scales comprised of the top four items were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis.
The results indicated that a three-factor model ( 2 521.72, df. 51, NFI 0.97 and
CFI 0.97) fit the data better than a one-factor model ( 2 3741.47, df. 54, NFI 0.80
and CFI 0.80). Coefficient alpha for each scale fell in acceptable and usual ranges from
0.85 (trust-in-management) to 0.90 (employee commitment).



5.3. Data analysis

5.3.1. Individual-level analyses
As indicated above, I analyzed the individual-level data using multiple regression. With
Hypothesis 4, which predicts that trust-in-management mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational support and commitment, I used hierarchical multiple regression to
assess the three conditions to demonstrate mediation: (1) a significant relationship between
the mediator and the dependent variable, (2) a significant relationship between the indepen-
dent variable and the dependent variable, and (3) the relationship between the independent
variable and the dependent variable decreasing or becoming nonsignificant when the medi-
ator is added to the step (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

5.3.2. Cross-level analyses
As indicated above, hierarchical linear modeling allows for the iterative investigation of
multiple levels of relationships with individual-level dependent variables (Hofmann, 1997;
Hoffman, Griffin & Gavin, 2000). A “level 1” analysis estimates parameters describing the
relationship(s) between independent and dependent variables within each group, that is, at
the individual level. The parameters depicting the relationships (the intercept and slope
estimates) become the dependent variables for the “level 2” analysis that assesses the role of
the higher order (e.g., group or organizational) variables. Significant coefficients on predic-
tors of the intercepts and slopes provide evidence of the cross-level relationships.
Several conditions must be established before testing specific hypotheses using hierar-
chical linear modeling. These conditions are investigated through a series of models. First,
the purpose of this study is to investigate whether employee commitment is associated with
individual-level (trust-in-management and perceived organizational support) and organiza-
tional-level (human resource practices) variables. Therefore, the first condition to be estab-
lished is the existence of within- (individual) and between- (organizational) variance in
employee commitment. This condition is evaluated by estimating the “null model,” which
partitions the variance in commitment into within and between-group components. A 2 test
on the residual variance indicates whether the level-2 (between-group) variance is signifi-
cantly different from zero.
The second model investigates the nature of the between-group variance, after controlling
for within-group variance. For example, this model explores the amount of variance in
groups’ intercepts and slopes of the regression equations representing the relationship
between the individual-level variables, organizational commitment, and perceived organi-
zational support. A t test of the parameters in the level 1 equation provides evidence of the
strength of the relationship between organizational commitment and perceived organiza-
tional support. A 2 test for the residual variances in the level 2 equations in which group
intercepts and slopes are regressed on unit vectors (no predictors) indicates whether the
variances in group intercepts and slopes are significantly different from zero.
Finally, the last set of models is only investigated if the second model indicates that there
is significant variance in the intercepts and/or slopes. If there is significant variance in the
intercepts, then the “intercepts-as-outcomes” model estimates whether this variance is
associated with the organizational-level variable (human resource practices). For example,



the level 1 equation regresses organizational commitment on perceived organizational
support as in the second model above, but the level 2 analysis of intercepts-as-outcomes adds
human resource practices as predictors to the intercept equation. The t tests on the coeffi-
cients associated with human resource practices test whether they are significantly related to
the variance in intercepts or in other words, whether human resource practices are related to
organizational commitment after controlling for perceived organizational support. If the 2
test on the residual variance is significant, it indicates that additional group-level predictors
may be associated with the group-level variance in intercepts
Similarly, if the results of the second model indicate that there is significant variance in
the slopes, then the “slopes-as-outcomes” model estimates whether this variance is associ-
ated with the organizational-level variable (tests of Hypotheses 5 and 6). This model is
similar to the intercepts-as-outcome model but adds human resource practices as a predictor
to the slopes equation in the level-2 analysis. The t test on human resource practices indicates
whether they are significantly related to the variance in slopes. Such a result is consistent, for
example, with the notion that human resource practices affect the relationship with organi-
zational commitment and perceived organizational support thus representing a cross-level
interaction effect. The 2 test indicates whether additional level-2 predictors might be
associated with the variance in slopes.
Hierarchical linear modeling provides several “centering” options to assist in the
interpretation of results concerning the intercept term in the level-2 analyses (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992; Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). “Grand-mean” centering
indicates that the intercept represents expected commitment for a person with an average
level of the predictor, perceived organizational support. “Group-mean” centering repre-
sents expected commitment for a person with his or her group’s average perceived
organizational support. The appropriate choice of centering depends on the model.
Grand-mean centering provides better estimates and interpretability with most models;
however, group-mean centering plus the addition of an aggregate measure of the mean
of the individual scores in perceived organizational support in each organization,
facilitates estimation and interpretability of cross-level moderation effects (as in the
slopes-as-outcomes model).
The data used for the hierarchical linear modeling analyses were gathered from over 180
credit unions with a median of 10 employees from each. Recent studies have provided
evidence that this data set should have sufficient power to detect differences. For example,
results indicate that a sample of 150 groups requires only five persons per group to obtain a
power of 0.90 (Hofmann, 1997). This data set surpasses this estimate.
Even though ten subjects per group may be adequate for power analyses, they may not
adequately represent a group. To establish whether recognizing them as a group is
appropriate, I calculated intraclass correlations and inter-rater agreement indices to
examine within-group agreement and between-group variation (James, Demaree & Wolf,
1984; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). ICC(1) ranged from 0.18 to 0.19, ICC(2) ranged from
0.69 to 70, and rwg ranged from 0.91– 0.93 indicating aggregating the measures of
employee commitment, perceptions of organizational support, and trust to the organi-
zational level was appropriate.



Table 1
Descriptive statisticsa
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Perceived organizational 3.60 .83 (.88)
support
2. Trust 3.86 .87 .66** (.85)
3. Organizational commitment 3.96 .85 .70** .61** (.90)
4. Appraisal 3.01 .80 .20** .13 .10 (.78)
5. External rewards 3.65 .73 .12 .08 .08 .16* (.74)
6. Internal rewards 3.41 .68 .19** .21** .11 .37** .37** (.70)
7. Staffing 3.72 .54 .05 .06 .07 .35** .17* .34** (.70)
8. Training 3.34 .90 .02 .01 .09 .42** .25** .23** .47* (.86)
a
n 180 for inter-correlations among HR practices and cross-level correlations between HR practices and
aggregated employee attitudes; n 1689 for inter-correlations among individual-level employee attitudes.
Coefficient alphas are on diagonal.
*p .05.
** p .01.

6. Results

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics across all levels. The individual level data allow for
the assessment of Hypotheses 1 through 3, which predict significant relationships among the
three attitudes: perceived organizational support, trust, and organizational commitment. The
correlations among these variables, presented in the top third of Table 1, indicate that the data
are consistent with these hypotheses. The relationships are strong, for example, the corre-
lation between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment is 0.70,
consistent with results found in prior studies.
In Hypothesis 4, I predicted that trust mediates the relationship between perceived
organizational support and organizational commitment such that perceived organizational
support is both directly and indirectly related (through trust) to organizational commitment.
Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression testing whether trust acts as a
mediator. The result is consistent with this prediction. The significant relationship between
perceived organizational support and organizational commitment declines substantially when
trust is added to the equation. However, the relationship between perceived organizational
support and organizational commitment remains significant when controlling for trust,

Table 2
Results of regressing employee commitment on perceived organizational support and trust (n 1689)
Step Independent Adj. R 2 R2 F p
variable
1 Perceived organizational .70 .49 1658.69 .000
support
2 Perceived organizational .53 .53 963.77 .000
support
Trust .26 .04 137.67 .000



consistent with the hypothesis, that trust only partially mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.
I investigated the cross-level hypotheses (5–7) using hierarchical linear modeling. How-
ever, before testing the hypotheses I needed to explore the conditions associated with
hierarchical linear modeling. The first condition, whether there is systematic within- and
between-group variance, is explored by looking at the null model. The 2 test on the null
model ( 2 377.85, df. 179, p .001) indicated that employee commitment varied
significantly by organizations, satisfying the first condition. In addition, the intraclass
correlation (Hofmann, 1997) indicated that 10.5% of the variance in organizational com-
mitment lies between organizations.
Similarly, the null model for trust indicated that there is systematic within and between-
group variance. The 2 test ( 2 331.96, df. 179, p .001) showed that trust varied
significantly by organizations. The intraclass correlation (Hofmann, 1997) indicated that
8.2% of the variance in trust lies between organizations.
The second model estimated the between-group variance in the intercepts and slopes and
the amount of variance in organizational commitment or trust explained by perceived
organizational support (R2). The results for organizational commitment replicate the findings
of previous studies indicating that organizational commitment and perceived organizational
support are strongly related ( 0.70, t 33.58, p .001; R2 0.49). They also indicate
that, after controlling for perceived organizational support, sufficient variance remains in the
intercepts and slopes to investigate their relationship with human resource practices ( 2
273.45, df. 179, p .001 for intercepts; 2 230.69, df. 179, p .001 for slopes),
satisfying the second condition.
The results also indicate that perceived organizational support and trust are significantly
related ( 0.70, t 31.86 p .001; R2 0.44). They reveal that, after controlling for
perceived organizational support, sufficient variance remains in the intercepts and slopes to
investigate their relationship with human resource practices ( 2 263.54, df. 179, p
.001) for intercepts; 2 247.75, df. 179, p .001 for slopes).
The intercepts-as-outcomes model explores whether human resource practices were as-
sociated with the variance in intercepts in organizational commitment or trust-in-manage-
ment after controlling for perceived organizational support. t tests indicated that none of the
regression coefficients representing the relationship between human resource practices and
organizational commitment were significant. Human resource practices did not explain
additional variance in organizational commitment after controlling for perceived organiza-
tional support. However, sufficient between-group variance remained in organizational
commitment after controlling for perceived organizational support that a search for alterna-
tive between-group predictors would be warranted.
I also used the intercepts-as-outcomes model to explore whether human resource practices
were associated with the variance in intercepts in trust after controlling for perceived
organizational support. t tests indicated the coefficient representing the relationship between
internal equity of rewards and trust was significant ( 0.06, t 2.05 p .001; R2 0.08).
Fairness of rewards predicts variance in trust beyond that explained by perceived organiza-
tional support. Sufficient between-group variance remained to warrant a search for additional
between-group predictors.



Table 3
Results of the level-2 analysis for slopes-as-outcomes (controlling for perceived organizational support)
Dependent Appraisal External Internal Stafﬁng Training
variable rewards rewards
Organizational .04 .06 .08 .04 .03
Commitment S.E. .03 .03 .04 .05 .03
p .209 .054 .025 .421 .364
Trust .07 .05 .05 .00 .06
S.E. .03 .03 .04 .05 .03
p .045 .157 .216 .949 .047

After exploring these conditions, I used the slopes-as-outcomes model to test Hy-
potheses 5 and 6. First I tested Hypothesis 5, whether human resource practices were
associated with the variance in slopes in organizational commitment after controlling for
perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support was added in the
level-1 equation with group-mean centering and organizational means of perceived
organizational support were added in the intercept equation in the level-2 analysis
(Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). As shown in Table 3, t tests indicated that internal equity
signiﬁcantly affects the relationship between perceived organizational support and or-
ganizational commitment such that it is stronger when organizations have high internal
equity of rewards. It accounted for 16% of the variance in the organizational commit-
ment—perceived organizational support slopes. The 2 indicated that a search for
additional between-group predictors would be warranted.
Second, I explored Hypothesis 6, whether human resource practices were associated
with the variance in slopes in trust after controlling for perceived organizational support.
Similar to the previous analysis, perceived organizational support was added in the
level-1 equation with group-mean centering and organizational means of perceived
organizational support were added in the intercept equation in the level-2 analysis
(Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). As shown in Table 3, t tests indicated that the interactions
of developmental appraisal and comprehensive training with perceived organizational
support were related to trust. The relationship between perceived organizational support
and trust is stronger in organizations with highly developmental appraisal processes but
weaker in organizations with highly comprehensive training opportunities. These human
resource practices accounted for 23.5% of the variance in the trust—perceived organi-
zational support slopes. The 2 indicated that a search for additional between-group
predictors would be warranted.
Finally, the hierarchical linear modeling analyses summarized in Table 3 provide evidence
of Hypothesis 7, that appraisal and rewards processes are more likely to be associated with
commitment and trust than selection and training. The results are only partially supportive of
this hypothesis. Appraisal and internal reward human resource practices moderated the
relationships of perceived organizational support with organizational commitment or trust.
However, comprehensive training also moderated the relationship between perceived orga-
nizational support and trust (albeit in an unpredicted, negative direction).



7. Discussion

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationships among human resource
practices, trust-in-management, and organizational commitment using social exchange the-
ory. Research on social exchange theory has shown that employees’ commitment to the
organization derives from their perceptions of the employers’ commitment to and support of
them. It also implies that employees interpret human resource practices and the trustwor-
thiness of management as indicative of the personified organization’s commitment to them.
They reciprocate their perceptions accordingly in their own commitment to the organization.
Human resource practices and trustworthiness of management exist at different levels of
analysis, organizational and individual respectively, and thus require cross-level analyses.
Hierarchical linear modeling complemented analyses conducted at the individual level using
hierarchical multiple regression to investigate these relationships.
The first set of Hypotheses (1– 4) summarized relationships among the individual-level
variables culminating in the integrating prediction (reflected in Hypothesis 4) that trust
partially mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support and organiza-
tional commitment (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1990; Settoon et al., 1996). The results of the
hierarchical linear regression were consistent with a case of partial mediation: perceived
organizational support has direct and indirect relationships, through trust-in-management,
with organizational commitment.
These results indicate that employees’ trust and commitment are stronger when they
perceive that the organization is committed to and supportive of them. Researchers exploring
employees’ perceptions of organizational support have proposed such relationships but rarely
explored them empirically. This study contributes to that literature by demonstrating the
strong relationships. However, as a cross-sectional study, it cannot more deeply contribute to
the understanding of the processes of social exchange. As Blau predicted (Blau, 1964), trust
(also commitment) grows as partners’ exchanges gradually expand. To more fully investigate
these relationships, we need to conduct longitudinal studies with multiple measurements of
perceptions and attitudes.
The second set of Hypotheses (5–7) explored the cross-level relationships between human
resource practices (an organizational-level variable) and employee perceptions and attitudes
(individual-level variables). Using hierarchical linear modeling, I explored whether employ-
ees’ attitudes (trust and commitment) were related to the organization’s human resource
practices. The analysis first established that 8% of the variance in employee trust and 10%
of the variance in commitment were associated with organizational differences. Second, it
indicated that a search for organizational-level predictors was warranted for both trust and
commitment but that only internal equity of rewards directly accounted for differences across
organizations in trust after controlling for perceived organizational support.
Finally, I used hierarchical linear modeling to explore the cross-level hypotheses. The
hypotheses represented the social exchange-based notion that employees’ attitudes reflect
their interpretation of the actions of the personified organization, including the organization’s
human resource policies. In the most specific and integrated Hypothesis (7), I predicted that
appraisal and compensation activities interact with perceived organizational support to affect
both organizational commitment and trust. The results of the analyses are partially consistent



with these predictions. Two of six predicted relationships were significant: the relationship
between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment was stronger
when organizations have high internal equity of rewards and the relationship between
perceived organizational support and trust in management was stronger when organizations
conduct developmental appraisals. I also did not find evidence to reject three of the four null
predictions (for selection and training); however, contrary to expectations, training did have
a significant, and negative, interaction with perceived organizational support. Specifically,
the relationship between perceived organizational support and trust was stronger when
organizations offer less comprehensive training opportunities.
The results of the cross-level analyses are not inconsistent with Ostroff and Bowen’s
(2000) framework suggesting that human resource practices are significantly associated with
employee perceptions and employee attitudes. Organizations’ employee groups do vary in
their attitudes— differences in organizational membership were significantly associated with
differences in trust and commitment. In addition, motivation-focused human resource prac-
tices such as developmental appraisals and equitable rewards seem to have a stronger and
more meaningful relationship with those organizational differences than selection and train-
ing. Though not representing strong effects, the results indicate that managers can be
encouraged that their commitment-oriented actions are associated with positive perceptions
and attitudes.
However, the study also yielded an unexpected result—that commitment is related to a
disordinal interaction between training and perceived organizational support. The graph of
this result indicates employees with low perceptions of organizational support expressed
higher commitment when they worked for organizations with more comprehensive training
but employees with high perceptions of organizational support expressed high commitment
when they worked for organizations with less comprehensive training. The complexities of
this result suggest that other, unmeasured variables, perhaps related to employees’ perception
of special treatment might also be interacting with perceptions of support and training
comprehensiveness in affecting commitment. For example, employees in organizations with
numerous opportunities for training may not see those opportunities as conveying the
organization’s support and commitment to them personally because the opportunity and
benefit of training are widely available. And, employees in organizations with fewer oppor-
tunities for training may see these relatively rare opportunities as special treatment that
conveys the organization’s personal support and commitment.
This result needs to be explored further to see if it is an idiosyncratic result. In similar
fashion to Mayer and Davis (1999), future researchers exploring these relationships should
measure employees’ perceptions of the characteristics of human resource practices as an
intervening variable between managers’ descriptions of human resource practices and em-
ployees’ perceptions of support.
In addition, this study addresses but does not resolve the dilemma over whether human
resource practices contribute to organizations’ effectiveness as individual practices or as
systems of high commitment versus high control practices (Delery, 1998). In this study,
specific practices (e.g., internal equity of rewards and developmental performance appraisal)
were associated with a specific employee-centered outcome— employee commitment. In
other studies, systems of practices have been associated with more global measures such as



financial performance. These results provide some support for Delery’s proposal that the
relationship between human resource practices and outcomes depends on the fit between the
practices and outcomes—a proposal, however, that needs to be tested more directly and
deliberately.
Finally, this study has several strengths, for example, sufficient power and multiple
sources of data; however, its limitations suggest that the findings should be interpreted with
caution. First, common method variance might inflate the estimates of the strength of the
relationships among the individual-level variables (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1990). However,
because the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the variables were sufficiently distinct
(Hinkin, 1995) and the intercorrelations were consistent with previous results, this threat is
probably minimal. Second, the data on human resource practices were provided by only one
source. The reliability and validity of this person’s perceptions of the credit union’s human
resource practices could not be verified. Third, I could not ensure managers randomly
selected employee respondents. Sampling bias could have artificially influenced the within
group agreement, reducing the variation among employees within each organization. Finally,
the domain of high commitment human resource practices includes a wide variety of
management and human resource activities. The survey measures do not include all possible
activities, policies, and procedures.
Future research should remedy these deficiencies. In addition, it should be designed to
capitalize on the analytic capabilities offered by hierarchical linear modeling to investigate
the relationship between organizational-level practices and employee attitudes and behavior.
This study explored only a few relationships but demonstrated the usefulness of hierarchical
linear modeling in testing cross-level relationships. For example, none of the correlations
between human resource practices and aggregated organizational commitment was signifi-
cant; but hierarchical linear modeling analyses indicated that employees’ commitment varied
by organization and that human resource practices were associated with some of that
between-organization variation. Finally, future research should continue to explore whether
human resource practices affect organizational variables synergistically (e.g., in a bundle) or
independently.
In conclusion, employees interpret human resource practices and the trustworthiness of
management (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Settoon et al., 1996) as indicative of the personified
organization’s commitment to them. The results of this study, consistent with social ex-
change theory, implies that they reciprocate their perceptions accordingly in their own
commitment to the organization.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this study was presented at the 1998 Meeting of the Southern
Management Association. Thank you to David Hofmann and Jeff Vancouver for their
assistance with hierarchical linear modeling and to John Delery, Adelaide Wilcox King, and
three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts. Thanks also to the Filene
Research Institute, the Center for Credit Union Research at the University of Wisconsin—



Madison, and the Center for Financial Services Studies at the University of Virginia for their
support of this project.

Ellen M. Whitener is a professor of management at the University of Virginia’s McIntire
School of Commerce. She earned her Ph.D. in management at Michigan State University.
Her current research interest focuses on the impact of human resource practices on employee
commitment, trust, and perceptions of organizational support.

References

Allen, M. W. (1992). Communication and organizational commitment: perceived organizational support as a
mediating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40, 357–367.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy
of Management Journal, 37, 670 – 687.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949 –969.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications for research. Human
Resource Management Review, 8, 289 –309.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis–LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –507.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: relationships
under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63– 83.
Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 617– 626.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1990). Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human resource
management: issues and applications. Journal of Management, 16, 337–360.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of
Management, 21, 967–988.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires.
Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104 –121.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of
Management, 23, 723–744.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications for
research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623– 641.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to
organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., Thomas–Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: a framework for the integration of



micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organiza-
tional behavior (pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635– 672.
Hutchison, S., & Garstka, M. L. (1996). Sources of perceived organizational support: goal setting and feedback.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1351–1366.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on
productivity. American Economic Review, 87, 291–313.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compli-
ance with multnationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502–526.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting
multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2000). 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, January 10,
82–110.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9, 370 –390.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management:
a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and
flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197–221.
Miceli, M. P., & Mulvey. P. W. (2000). Consequences of satisfaction with pay systems: two field studies.
Industrial Relations, 39, 62– 87.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224 –247.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness.
In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 211–266). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Pearce, J. L. (1993). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: their psychological involvement and
effects on employee co-workers. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1082–1096.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897–933.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 –298.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In
L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline
view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393– 404.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational
support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219 –227.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational
Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637–743.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment
and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
774 –780.



Snell, S., & Dean, J. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 467–504.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40,
1089 –1121.
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63 (2), 77– 84.
Watson Wyatt. (1999). WorkUSA 2000: employee commitment and the bottom line. Bethesda, MD: Watson
Wyatt.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange:
a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review, 7, 389 – 404.
Wood, S., & de Menezes, L. (1998). High commitment management in the U.K.: evidence from the Workplace
Industrial Relations Survey and Employers’ Manpower and Skills Practices Survey. Human Relations, 51,
485–515.
Youndt, M., Snell, S., Dean, J., & Lepak, D. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and
ﬁrm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 836 – 866.


Organizational Behavior

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior (20)

Mehr von guest5e0c7e

Mehr von guest5e0c7e (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Organizational Behavior