how employees perceive hrm practices: differences

Chapter

HOW EMPLOYEES PERCEIVE HRM PRACTICES: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Ana Veloso1*, Shay Tzafrir2 and Guy Enosh3 1

School of Psychology, University of Minho, Portugal 2 Faculty of Management, University of Haifa, Israel 3 School of Social Welfare, University of Haifa, Israel

ABSTRACT In recent years, there is a general consensus regarding the importance of Human Resource Management (HRM) practices for the success or failure of organizations (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). The contextual theory (Johns, 2006) argues that the contexts in which human activity take place– nations, organizations, industries, and professions–are crucial, and have an impact on the nature of that activity. In such cases, omnibus and discrete context can have an impact (Johns, 2006), and workers might experience the same process differently in different contexts. Implementing HRM best practices without taking into consideration various contexts (Jackson & Schuler, 1995), may produce different and sometimes conflicting perspectives from those expected (Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). Our objective is to determine if there are any differences in how employees perceive HRM in public and private organizations, and to characterize the nature of those differences if they exist.

Keywords: Human resource management; private and public organizations, employee perceptions, context, case studies

* Corresponding Author address. Email: [email protected].

2

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

INTRODUCTION In recent years, there is a general consensus regarding the importance of Human Resource Management (HRM) practices for the success or failure of organizations (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Various studies have shown a positive relationship between an HRM system, employee behavior, and organizational output (Husselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995, Zhou, Hong & Liu, 2013). For instance, Zhou, Hong & Liu (2013) refer to how HRM can have an important impact on innovation and performance within an organization. Nevertheless, scholars found that context (industry, culture, different participants, for example) plays a role in shaping the pattern of the relationship between HRM practices and company performance (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan & Allen, 2005). The contextual theory (Johns, 2006) argues that the contexts in which human activity takes place–nations, organizations, industries, and professions–are crucial, and have an impact on the nature of that activity. In such cases, omnibus and discrete context can have an impact (Johns, 2006), and workers might experience the same process differently in different contexts. In relation to the HRM system, public and private sectors have different as well as similar characteristics (Harel & Tzafrir, 2001). These characteristics can have a different effecton employees, resulting in a specific output through various work processes. Moreover, different stakeholders (general mangers, HR managers, employees) have different answers for the same practices and phenomena. In fact, implementing HRM best practices without taking into consideration various contexts (Jackson & Schuler, 1995), may produce different and sometimes conflicting perspectives from those expected (Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). To address the differences in the perceptions of stakeholders toward HRM practices (discrete context), and between sectors (omnibus context), a comparison analysis was conducted between employees from the public versus the private sectors. This chapter will discuss the contextual theory, and then focus on the HRM system and the importance of focusing on qualitative methods. We will examine the differences between employees' answers concerning HRM practices between two sectors. Although public organizations are less flexible than private organizations in choosing human resources and developing them, it was found that the there is a growing awareness of the strategic role of human resource practices in public organizations (Harel & Tzafrir, 2001). Our objective is to determine if there are any differences in how employees perceive HRM in public and private organizations, and to characterize the nature of those differences if they exist.

CONTEXTUAL THEORY Tzafrir, Enosh, Parry and Stone (2013, p. 40) noted that the organizational social environment includes any relationships between the organization and its members within the omnibus and discrete contexts. These relationships operate simultaneously at several levels (individual, team, organization, etc.), and may be analyzed from the perspective of the discrete context (Johns, 2006). The omnibus context refers to an entity that comprises many features or particulars (sectors), whereas the discrete context refers to particular variables or levers (positions) that shape behavior or attitudes (Johns 2006, p.391). This complexity requires the ability of the participants to comprehend the complexity of relationships. The participants also need the capability to create facilitating processes within the organization,

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

3

and between the organization and its external environment (Thompson & McEwen, 1958). Hence, each participant is required to decipher the development and codification of inter- and intra-relations in the external and internal environments. The contextual theory (Johns, 2006) suggests that, in order to avoid biased or skewed findings, a proper analysis of organizational behavior should be conducted within the operating context. As Jackson and Schuler, (1995) suggested, "HRM is affected by the internal and external environments of organizations" (p. 238). Along these lines, we demonstrate that looking at the different perspectives of various stakeholders, while considering the context (public or private sector), makes the analysis much more productive and helps to draw meaningful conclusions. According to Gibb (2001, p.323-324), employee perception is important because it (1) allows a different evaluation of HRM practices from that provided by management, which reflects the interests of the shareholders, the short-term costs, and performance concerns; (2) enables a deeper evaluation than one that is centered on economic theory, which limits the full understanding of the impact of HRM (Guest, (1997) also suggested that HRM practices lead to attidunial outcomes) and (3) leverages the people perspective, hence raising the importance of the individual within the organization. With the event of new public management (NPM), the importance of employee perspective regarding HRM has increased, strongly influenced by private sector management trends. Public organizations are introducing changes, and are turning to responsive, flat and flexible forms of labor (as opposed to bureaucratic and hierarchical models). These organizations are also focusing on cutting costs (Morris & Farrell, 2007) and adopting market driven mechanisms (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009). Harel and Tzafrir (2001) studied the differences and similarities between HRM practices in the public and private sectors. The results indicate that "private-sector organizations emphasize pay-for-performance while public-sector organizations invest more in the selection procedure. On the other hand, the findings indicate that the nature of the environment determines the amount of investment in training and the level of employee participation, irrespective of the sector in which the organization operates" (p. 346). The main objective of recent changes toward HRM in public organizations is to improve organizational performance, increase productivity, and provide a better service to citizens at a lower cost; in other words, to improve the efficiency and efficacy in public organizations. These changes in organizational functioning raise the question as to whether employee perception has achieved similarity through changes in employee perception in public sectors. Some authors argue that these changes have different consequences mainly because of the changes in people management (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009). In fact, changing the policies and practices at the HR level can have ramifications on the way employees perceive and relate to organizations (Boon et al. 2011), and can affect their attitudes and behavior. It can also have an effect on the organizations business performance (Gould-Williams, 2003; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, Veloso, 2010).

THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Human Resource Management can be defined as a group of activities developed for the management of people in an organization. Various policies and systems are addressed, such as a) specific practices – recruitment, training, appraisal, etc.; b) formal policies (innovation or total quality, for instance) that influence the implementation of HRM practices; and c) philosophies that specify organizational values (Jackson & Schuler, 1995, p. 238). It is

4

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

important to clarify the approaches of researchers to HRM and to be aware of the different connotations of HRM. There are different approaches to the concept of HRM, which uses terms such as descriptive, prescriptive and logical deduction. According to Storey (2007), there is confusion over the different types of classification and a lack of clear definitions for each. HRM practices involve the description of the beliefs and assumptions that some professionals have about an individual’s value and contribution to the success of an organization, the definition of priorities (prescription) as a result of HRM involvement in the definition and implementation of the organizational strategy, and the logical deduction of the consequences of some actions, such as “the investment in development and compensation produces better results” (p. 8-9). In the model (see Figure. 1) presented above, we would like to emphasize the following aspects, as they are important to this research: • The importance of HRM – not only at the intermediate level but also at top level of management – and the recognition of relevant HRM practices, contribute to organizational performance; • The need to integrate HRM practices – specifically recruitment, communication, training, compensation and development – and HRM within the organization’s business strategy; • The HRM objective of promoting the commitment of employees, their responsibility and empowerment.

Figure 1: HRM impact on Organizational performance.

System of Practices

HRM Practices implementation; Shared Interpretations

Employee performance: - Behaviors - Satisfaction - Stress - Psychological contract

HRM

System of Practices

Organizational performance (clients’ satisfaction)

Employees attitudes and Behaviours: Trust; effort; Commitment Justice

There are two fundamental dimensions in the HRM concept: hard and soft. Hard HRM focuses on the resource side, i.e. the economic aspect, which focuses on cost control. Soft

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

5

HRM is centered on the “human” aspect, i.e. communication, values, commitment, motivation, and training (Storey, 2007; Legge, 1995). The first, hard and instrumental approach of management, is where strategic fit is an important concept, i.e., the harmonization of HRM policies and practices with organizational strategic goals (external fit) and its internal coherence (internal fit). The instrumental approach, according to Truss (1999), values the management quantitative aspects, perceiving the employees as one of the various production resources. The second, soft approach, although still emphasising the need of integration between organizational strategy and HRM, stresses employee commitment, capability and motivation to reach organizational goals, and can be associated with the human relations movement – the utilization of individual talents and McGregor’s ‘Theory Y’ about individuals. Legge (2005, p. 105) called this approach “developmental humanism” because, according to this perspective, proactive and resourceful employees contribute to organizational performance and productive processes within an organization. Table 1. The Human Resource M odel The HRM model 1. Beliefs and assumptions • It is the human resource that gives competitive edge. • The aim should be not mere compliance with rules, but employee commitment. • Employees should, therefore, be carefully selected and developed. 2. Strategic qualities • Because of the above factors, HR decisions are of strategic importance. • Top management involvement is necessary. • HR policies should be integrated into business strategy – stemming from it and even contributingto it. 3. Critical role of managers • Because HR practices are critical to the core activities of the business, it is too important to be left to a personnel specialist alone. • Line managers are (or need to be) closely involved both as deliverers and drivers of HR policies. • Much greater attention is paid to the management of managers themselves 4. Key levers • Managing the culture, which is more important than managing procedures and systems. • Integrated action on selection, communication, training, reward and development. • Restructuring and job redesign to allow for devolved responsibility and empowerment. Source: Storey, 2009, p. 8-9.

All these approaches seem coherent and consistent, combining elements from both soft and hard models: HRM has an impact on organizational performance, which is leveraged when there is a high external and internal strategic fit in the company, and motivated employees are using their competence and resources to reach organizational objectives. However, what happens when changes are introduced in organizations that disturb the balance between the internal and external fit? As Legge (2005, p.106-107) points out, external fit requires a contingent design of HRM policies, and internal fit demands an absolutist

6

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

approach because it calls for HRM practices that generate a committed and motivated workforce. When HRM in public and private organizations is addressed, specifically during a period of change, it is important to look for information and to be aware of the different possible approaches (descriptive, prescriptive, hard and soft, etc.). It is also important clarify that when HRM is introduced, not only are visible aspects such as HRM practices addressed, but also policies and values that influence the perceptions of the different stakeholders involved.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION The changes taking place in public administration are oriented towards private organization management on every domain and, specifically, to HRM (Harel & Tzafrir, 2001; Morris & Farrel, 2007). It can be assumed that HRM varies according to the private or public character of the organization, among other factors, and can be characterized in public organizations as: • Paternalistic, as HRM wants to protect and promote the wellbeing of labor force; • Using standardized practice applications; • Promoting life and full time employment as well as security; • Bases the compensation and career structure on a functional and nationwide system and on classification models, which are differentiated by tenure and level of habilitations (Boyne, Jenkins & Poole, 1999). The change that is occurring tends to be a modification of focus from attention to employee needs to the needs of consumers, i.e., an emphasis on performance. Boyne, Jenkins & Poole (1999) are of the opinion that the conventional paternalistic management pattern has given way to rational management, where the needs and satisfaction of the clients are central, and standardized practices have been replaced by flexibility and differentiation. Job security is no longer guaranteed, and salary is based on tenure and hierarchy. Further, modifications can be observed in the organizational structure of public organizations, as can be seen in the diminishing of its frontiers and levels of hierarchy, and outsourcing of services. These changes havae implications on the employees, namely the scaling down of promotion opportunities, changes in career and employment stability, increase of workload and performance evaluation criteria. Hence, from the employee’s perspective, commitment and loyalty toward the organization has been decreased (Morris& Farrell, 2007). Public organizations in Portugal share the same set of HRM polices and practices. They are integrated in a sector with a high level of regulation and formality pursuing the bureaucratic principles of Weber. In public organizations in Portugal, changes are also being introduced toward a more flexible and differentiated set of practices, and are orientated toward a rational management pattern where a job is not guaranteed for life, where employment or compensation is based on tenure and/or hierarchy, and most of all, where there is a greater focus on the clients’ needs as opposed to the employees needs (Boyne, Jenkins, & Poole, 1999).

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

7

HRM ROLE The role of HRM, meaning the set of activities that HR develops within the context of the organizational structure, is characterized, according to Storey (2007), by the participation in the definition and operationalization of the organizational strategy. This also includes the management of change, the development of strategies and policies in the context of HRM, and participation in the decision process, amongst other dimensions (strategic role). So, at the top level of decision-making, one can expect to find the HR manager or a representative person who is specifically responsible for HRM issues and who has specialized knowledge in this domain. This responsibility also includes HR operational management, as middle management has an important function in developing and operating HRM practices (operational role). Besides the strategic and operational roles, it is important to recognize an administrative role, meaning all the activities of administrative management associated with HRM and social support for employees (Truss, 2009, p.717-718). The HRM role is important at all levels of management within an organization, as well as on all of the organization’s activities.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPACT ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

As mentioned, HRM has an important influence on organizational performance. Some authors argue that this is because HRM impacts employee “perception of procedural justice and organizational commitment” (Chang, 2005; Meyer & Smith, 2000), and trust (GouldWilliams, 2003; Ferreira, Keating, Silva, & Veloso, 2010; Veloso, Ferreira, Keating, & Silva, 2010). Other important factor regarding the impact of HRM on organizational performance is the perception of HRM itself: the HRM role (Storey, 2007; Truss, 2009), its ability to influence organizational strategy and create shared meaning among employees, which impacts employee behavior and common values (Sheenan, Cooper, & Holland, 2007) are some examples of the researchers approaches to this subject. HRM practices, such as recruitment, training, performance evaluation, and career management, are important to HR function. These practices operationalize the HRM policies and strategies, and the process of evaluation of HR function is based on these practices. The universalistic theory (Tzafrir, 2005) and the contingent and configuracional theories assume effective HRM practices. The former argues that there is a particular set of best practices that have a positive effect on organizational performance (Husselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995); while the second emphasises the need and importance of the strategic fit of a set of HRM practices within the organization. The impact of HRM on organizational performance depends on the ability to achieve the best fit (Wood, 1999). The configuracional theory suggests that the impact of HRM practices result from the inside synergies of bundles of practices, which interact with and have an overall effect on each other, and the adequacy of the bundles in a particular situation (Delery & Doty, 1996).

8

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

Theories apart, for those researchers whose main objective is to make evident the HRM impact on organizational performance, it is important to choose a specific set of practices (which some researchers call high involvement practices). Involvement is the criteria used to select those HRM practices; for example, flexible forms of work, training, teamwork and performance contingency payment. These practices should also promote formal participation of employees and translate specific HRM policies as security of employment (Veloso, 2008). The evaluation of HRM impact on organizational performance using a set of high involvement practices has produced consistent and important results, but demands more development (Storey, 2007). Specifically, some researchers argue that the impact of HRM on organizational performance can be explained by employee involvement, i.e., lower absenteeism, higher levels of motivation, satisfaction, autonomy and participation (MacDuffie, 1995; Godard & Delaney, 2000), as well as by higher effort and work intensification that some of these practices imply for employees (Bélanger, 2000). In addition, employee perceptions about the HR function, as pointed out by Guest (1999, 2001) and Gibb (2001), can contribute to the comprehension of the impact of HRM on organizational performance. Including these two variables in the research design operationalizes, and recognizes, two important levels in relation to HRM-Organizational performance: the strategic level, represented by the perception of the managers and the implementation and the operational level, as revealed by employee perceptions (Wright & Boswell, 2002). It also emphasizes that the commitment of employees in the organization enables changes at the HRM level (for instance, the introduction of a new practice) to occur more efficiently and, on the other hand, perceptions of unfair HRM practices imply the loss of commitment in the organization (Gratton, Hope-­‐Hailey, Stiles & Truss,1999). More recently, the research focus has changed to a more integrative approach. The impact of HRM on organizational performance is influenced by contextual factors such as, for example, the political influence of HRM (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Sheenan, C. et al, 2007) and the climate (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Other factors, centered on the HRM system, are the perceived role of HRM by the employees (Truss, 2009), the perceptions of HRM function (Veloso, 2010), and the implementation process of the HRM system (Veloso, 2008). All these factors concur to create a shared understanding of the organization and its objectives among employees, and in this way regulates their work attitudes and behavior as regards organizational objectives and performance. It becomes important to the impact of the HRM on organizational performance, not only as far as the content of HRM is concerned (the practices adopted by the organization) but also the process, i.e., the design of the system which will determine and support the sharing of common perceptions among employees (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). An important criticicism concerns the privileged source of data that the studies on this domain rely on: HR managers and HR professionals who, according to Wright and Boswell (2002), help researchers focus on the strategic role of HRM, but not a practical one. If an operational view of the impact of day-to-day HRM operations impact is required, researchers need to listen to middle management and employees. According to Guest (1999), collecting data from employees is essential in evaluating the impact of HRM on organizational performance. Guest also suggests focusing on HRM practices as a way of identifying employee knowledge about HRM, specifically those

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

9

practices which allow employees to express their satisfaction or conflicts, in a sentence, “to give voice to the employees” (Batt, Calvin & Jeffrey, 2002). In a nutshell, and as presented in Model 1, the impact of HRM on organizational performance can be explored by considering: a) how its set of practices is designed and implemented, and how shared interpretations about the practices are promoted throughout the organization and b) how employees perceive and experience the way they are managed, developing atitudes and behaviors of trust, commitment, justice. This model emphasizes the mediate role of employee related variables, such as commitement and trust (Alfes et al, 2013; Zhang & Morris, 2014), and the shared perceptions about HRM (Guest, 1987, Zhang & Morris, 2014) It is expected that HRM can obtain the best employee performance, insuring employee satisfaction, and in this way positively impacting organizational performance. Because one of the main reasons to implement changes in public organizations is to increase the performance, understanding how employees perceive HRM, and its impact on their own behavior and performance, is an important contribution to the evaluation of the need for these changes. Our main objective is to understand if there is any difference on how employees perceive HRM, its impact on public and private organizations, and what characterizes the nature of those differences, if they exist.

METHODS Participants The need to understand the basis of a phenomenon in its specific context requires the researcher to understand the definitions and perceptions of the field in which it occurs. Thus, the use of qualitative methods in this study aimed at accomplishing this. Six case studies were conducted: four in a private SME in the High Tech sector, and two case studies in governmental organizations. All the organizations had a similar number of employees, ranging from 100 to 300 employees. The sample across the organization type was a convenience sample, and the facility of access dictated who was integrated in this study. The source of data included interviews on this sensitive issue (Enosh & Buchbinder, 2005), documents (organizational reports and web pages), and observation. Forty three people were interviewed both in private and public organizations. In all SMEs, people from all levels of hierarchy were interviewed: the CEO or president, the CFO, middle management, HR managers, and other employees. Given that the sample is a convenience sample, it should be kept in mind that it is not representative of the population of employees and managers as a whole, and may be affected by selection and self-selection bias. The sample includes employees from all professional categories, with level of education between first grade (four years of school) to a Masters degree, and tenure ranging from half a year (six months) to 36 years or more. In the private SMEs, a total of 17 employees were interviewed; in governmental SMEs, eight focus groups were conducted with employees (four in each SME), involving six (minimum) to 11 (maximum) participants per focus group.

10

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

The interviews took between half an hour to two hours, and the focus group from one and a half hours to two hours. Both the interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. A template analysis was used to analyse data (King, 1998; 2006).The script used both in the interviews and the focus groups intended to explore the following: • HRM definition and characteristics as: strategic role and hierarchical position • Identification of HRM practices and HRM interventions based on evidences of HRM daily activities at an operational level. • Shared interpretation of HRM (employees’ participation on organizational processes and internal communication process) • Perception of HRM impact, specifically considering employee commitment as a result of HRM – absenteeism, intention to resign, and level of performance (GouldWilliams, 2003).

Trustworthiness and Credibility Rather than claiming access to absolute truths, qualitative research focuses on achieving trustworthiness and credibility. The focus moves from validity to a process of validation between the researcher and reader, in which one’s subjective understanding is involved (Angen, 2000; Enosh, Tzafrir & Stolovy, 2014). The use of extensive quotations in the researcher’s analysis and presentation of a case enables the reader to evaluate whether different aspects of the data collected create consistently meaningful descriptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Research Objectives Are the perceptions of HRM and its impacts on employee performance different in public and private organizations? If there are differences, how can these differences be characterized?

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS The results presented refer to the preliminary analysis of the focus group carried out in the public organizations, and the interviews carried out in the private organizations.

Perceptions of HRM (Practices, Policies and Shared Interpretation) In the perspective of the public organization employees, HRM have two distinctive components: an administrative component _ “…payments, absences, and sometimes when we are going to be absent, we don’t know if we are going to use some holidays or not, we ask HR for advice.”_ and a relational/communicational component _ “HRM helps to facilitate the contact between sectors, […]they are a kind of salvation for us in terms of rights, they facilitate the relations inside the organization” .

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

11

A mediator role is attributed to HRM, which mediates between those who have the power (the politicians) and those who operationalize the orders: managers and employees. “We [HRM] always inform the President about holidays, absenteeism, promotions…He then gives the final authorization […] He can interfere in the career, in the promotions …” HRM also has administrative and relational components as far as employees in private organizations are concerned, “Besides the fact that they [HRM] define everything about the internal norms (related to employees), they deal with the wages and compensations. They support people and try to understand if they are satisfied or not. They speak with people, they deal with bureaucracy issues related to cars and gasoline, in order to control whether they have exceeded expenses. They are also involved with recruitment and dismissal processes ….” In public organizations, the HRM function is perceived as not specialized _ “I think it is the manager …. The manager has the duty to see what is needed so that things run well […] I think […] it is more a global concern of the city, because it is the city that sends us and our managers for training…”. Regarding private organizations, HRM is a distributed function _ “…when people are integrated into project teams and are working for, for example, three months, they do not contact HR often and only do so if they need to deal with contracts, training, holidays, etc. The ones who deal with people on a daily basis, and who is there for us throughout the day, are the project team or the project manager!” And as regards the strategic role, “HRM function has been managed directly by the top management team, always.” They recognize the importance of specialized knowledge, especially when the organization reaches a certain level of maturity and dimension “ […]Probably one of the next steps is to have someone who is fully dedicated to this, …with the knowledge processes of this technical area…”.

Perception of HRM Practices and HRM Interventions The perception of HRM practices and HRM interventions is based on evidences of HRM daily activities at the operational level. The employees of public organizations recognize the principal practices of HRM, namely performance appraisal and career management, “…before, they were promoted based on time (tenure). It didn’t matter if they worked hard or not. Now, there is an evaluation for those who work and also for those who don’t work. Only in this way can we say that there are careers”. As regards training, “I have many training courses, external […] are good, I think we should have more”, and recruitment, which they think as more rigorous because of the increased formality of the process “Now, as regards the contracts, the procedure is totally different, isn’t it? […] more rigorous…”. In private organizations, employees have a clear perception of the HRM practices, also identified by the public employees. However, they added the following practices, which were not designated by public employees: induction, compensation and dismissal management.

Shared Interpretation of HRM

12

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

Shared interpretation of HRM, in the sense of how organizations build a common perception of HRM practices and interventions, was explored considering how employees describe their participation in organizational process implementation and execution (for example, the new performance evaluation process), and also on the internal communication processes. In public organizations, the communication process is dependent on the way managers relate to employees and on the informal interaction between employees. The process used by the managers can be formal _ “I can also say that our manager wrote a synthesis about the new process and sent it to us when the new process of performance appraisal was published.”_ or result from an informal and spontaneous relationship, “…it depends on how much we trust our managers. Employee participation in the organizations is perceived by them as being limited by some factors such as, for example, their individual competence and training/education. Participation, an important motivational factor, is often confused with a more or less democratic style of leadership. M: “You have to just go upstairs. He/she (manager) doesn´t ask: M., can you come upstairs or, what do you think about…? No, he/she says: go upstairs!”. However, in the public organizations, and as a result of the formalization of the management practices, employees use specific mechanisms to participate. “One month ago, I made a written complaint to the mayor, but have not received an answer until now. I don’t know if it is a political problem, but I don’t care”. In public organizations, employee participation does take place, but is centered on work processes. “…If we don’t want, we say we don’t want [to participate in the project]!... If they ask me if I can, if I want to, I will, but if I decide not to, then I can also say no.” The communication processes are important, and several actions and support mechanisms (e.g. internal journals) are developed to facilitate the circulation of information, which is mainly centered on the internal projects of the organizations. There is, however, an objective concerning the spread of information: the creation of a sense of belonging. “I think the information flows. There is a newsletter […] in which they normally publish information about the projects, changes that are occurring in the organization, participation in forums,… […] Radical weekend, that happens in September, the Christmas dinner, the “day at home” is once a week, and then we have the quality department presentations… there are lots of activities here […].

Perceptions of HRM impact on employee performance (commitment, absenteeism; intention to resign and level of performance). In public organizations, the political power has a perceived impact, at the HRM level, on employees _ “It can interfere with ones career, it’s not the case here…but it can affect promotions… the HRM responsible at the political level is the mayor”. Employees are involved in the organization. They don’t manifest any intention to leave “I wouldn’t leave. […] No, neither would I. […] Not with the same salary, I wouldn’t.” And they value both the relationship with the organization and the benefits of their internal status. “…I wonder if I were 55 years old, and had 30 years of tenure. Would I benefit there [at

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

13

another organization]? Or would it be worse? No, price by price, salary by salary, I would stay here […] the climate, I like the climate…”. In private organizations, employees are fully aware of the transactional relationship they have with the organization. While this relationship is positive, the employees stay in the organization. “And the employees need to be aware of that …they have to take care of their career and […] the organization, right? … also because of the employees.”

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Comparing Private and Public Organizations The preliminary data analysis pointed out some interesting differences between private and public organizations. The most important differences found during the preliminary analysis of data are as follows:

Public Organizations The HR function is defined by the following elements: administrative; relational/communicational and negotiation/intermediation Distributed function with reduced capacity to intervene. Reduced degree of technical specialization

Private Organizations The HR function is defined by its practices and by the promotion of motivation and satisfaction among employees. Distributed function with limited capacity to intervene; top centralized function with a capacity of strategic intervention. Degree of technical specialization varies according to lifetime and dimension of the organization.

On both public and private organizations, HRM (policies, practices and roles) are recognized by the employees, although with differences that emphasise distinctive approaches. In the public organizations, the soft model of HRM (Storey, 2007; Legge, 1995) is apparent – more centered on the behaviours where the dimensions of communication, relation and negotiation/intermediation characterize employee perception of the HRM role. Employees of private organizations, on the other hand, atribute to the HRM function a strategic role and recognize its technical specialization. They acknowledge the presence of diverse HRM pratices. Also, employee participation on the internal communication processes is centered on work and not on relationships. This seems to be in accordance with the clear effort of HRM in private organizations to build a sense of belonging, using for instance, the internal communication process. HRM policies that emphasise work instead of relationships, according to employee perception, lead to a a transitional work relationship. Employees will feel free to leave the organization if they find a better place to work. This instrumental perspective of the practices (Truss, 1999) is coherent with an emphasis of quantitiative aspects of management, i.e., management by objectives.

14

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

CONCLUSION Our research questions were: Are the perceptions of HRM and its impact on employee performance different in public and private organizations? If there are any differences, how can the differences be characterized? Differences were found between the public and private organizations presented in this study. In public organizations the nature of HRM is perceived as mainly operational, administrative, and weak considering the diversity of practices and the strategic role, with a soft emphasis. Employees recognize some HRM practices (less than in private organizations) and feel that their participation in the organization is constrained by political and communicational issues. They recognize the committment they have with the organization is diminishing by the introduction of this new model of HRM. The employees of private organizations perceive HRM as operational and also strategic, and acknowledge more diversity and specialization concerning the HRM practices. They characterize HRM as having a hard aproach, and they reveal a strong commitment to their work. They also recognize the HRM effort to increase the commitement of employees within the organizations. There are, however, some common aspects. The perception of the functional content is similar both for private and public organizations, although less sophisticated for employees in public organizations. The function is distributed for both (private and public organizations) which emphasis on the role of middle management in HRM. Employee perception of the ability of HRM to intervene is influenced by its position in the organizational hierarchy: when HRM is represented at the top level of management, it is perceived as having a higher level of intervention. Finally, we would like to emphasis that our results show that the degree of specialization and the coherence of the HR system within the organizational strategy (internal fit (Wood, 1999) contributes to the perception of utility of HR function (Veloso, 2008). These results raise the question as to the importance of context in the implementation of the so-called best HRM practices. It seems that organizations are trying to meet the best of two worlds, not taking into account the balance between the two contexts (inside/outside), i.e., using a hard model of HRM practices, and are expecting to achieve the benefits of a soft model concerning the work relationship between employees and employer.

RESEARCH PROTOCOL Interview and Focus Group Script for Employees Questions Focus Group • HRM definition and characteristics such as: strategic role and hierarchical position. What is HRM? When you have to deal with HRM issues, whom do you, contact? Do you contact your superior or the HRM department?

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

15

Identification of HRM practices and HRM interventions based on evidences of HRM daily activities at the operational level. What do people who work at HRM department? What is process of recruitment and selection in this organization? Do you participate in training? Do you work in a team? • Degree of employee participation and communication Do you participate in the decision-making process? Does your superior ask for your participation/for your opinion? When there are changes within the organization, who informs you? How did you know about changes within this organization? Specifically, how were you were informed about the new Performance Evaluation process/system? • HRM impact, specifically considering employee commitment as a result of HRM (absenteeism, intention to resign, and level of performance) (Gould-Williams, 2003). Do you perceive status differences inside the organization? Do you trust the people you work with? If you had a chance/the opportunity, would you leave the organization? Do you think employees in this organization take off work more often? Has absententeeism increasing? Do you feel that your job is safe? Do you think recruitment and selection is a fair process? •

REFERENCES** Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The Relationship Between Line Manager Behavior, Perceived HRM Practices, and Individual Performance: Examining the Mediating Role of Engagement. Human resource management, 52(6), 839-859. Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialouge. Qualitative Health research, 10, 378-395. Batt, R.; Colvin, A. & Jeffrey, K. (2002) Employee Voice, HR practices and quit rates: evidence from the telecommunications industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 2002, vol. 55, nº 4, 573-594 Battaglio Jr., R.P.& Condrey, S.E. (2009) Reforming Public Management: analyzing the impact of Public Service Reform on Organizational and Managerial Trust, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, pp. 689-707 Bélanger, J. (2000) The influence of employee involvement on productivity: a review of research, Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy Human Resources Development Canada, http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person– organisation and person–job fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(01), 138-162.

16

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

Boyne, G.; Jenkins, G. & Poole, M. (1999) Human resource management in the public and private sectors: an empirical comparison, Public Administration, vol.77 (2), pp.(407-420) Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the "strength" of the HRM System. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.29 (2), pp.203-221. Chang, E. (2005) Employees’ overall perception of HRM effectiveness, Human Relations, Vol.58 (4), pp. 523_544. Delery, J.& Doty, D. (1996) Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: test of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39 (4), pp.802-825. Enosh, G. & Buchbinder, E. (2005). The interactive construction of narrative styles in sensitive interviews: The case of domestic violence research. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 588 – 617. Enosh, G., Tzafrir, S. S., & Stolovi, T. (2014, Online). The development of the Client Violence Questionnaire (CVQ). Journal of Mixed Methods Research. DOI: 1558689814525263. Ferreira, A., Keating, J., Silva, I., & Veloso, A. (2010). Tomada de decisão em gestores de recursos humanos e confiança organizacional. Actas do VII Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia (pp. pp.2451-2466). Braga: Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. Ferris, G., & Judge, A. (1991). Personnel/Human Resources Management: A Political Influence Perspective. Journal of Management, Vol.17 (2), pp.447-488. Gibb, S. (2001) The state of human resource management: evidence from employees’ views of HRM systems and staff, Employee Relations, Vol.23 (4/5), pp. 318-336. Godard, J., & Delaney, J. (2000). Reflections on the high performance paradigm's implications for industrial relations as a field. Industrial & labor Relations Review, Vol.53 (3), pp.482 (21). Gratton, L., Hope-­‐Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (1999). Linking individual performance to business strategy: The people process model. Human Resource Management, 38(1), 17-31. Guest, D. E. (1987). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations [1]. Journal of management Studies, 24(5), 503-521. Guest, D.E. (1997), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research Agenda,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276. Guest, D. (1999) Human resource management – the employees verdict, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.9 (3), pp.5-25. Guest, D. (2001). Human resource management: when research confronts theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.12 (7), pp.1092-1106. Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 (1), February, 28-54. Harel, G. and Tzafrir, S. (2001) HRM practices in the public and private sectors: differences and similarities, Frontiers of Empirical Research and Development, PAQ Fall, pp.316355

How Employees Perceive HRM Practices

17

Huselid, M. (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.38 (3), pp.635-672. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments. Strategic Human Resource Management, 46, 237-264. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior, Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391. King, N. (1998) Template analysis in Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (Ed) Qualitative Methods and analysis in organizational research, a pratical guide, cap.6, pp.118-134, Sage publications, London. King, N. (2006) Using templates in the thematic analysis of test in Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (Ed) Essential guide to Qualitative Methods and analysis in organizational research, cap21, pp.256-270, Sage publications, London. Legge, K. (2005) Human Resource Management, Rhetorics and Realities, MacMillan Business, England. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. MacDuffie, J. (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol.48 (2), pp.197-227. Meyer, J., & Smith, C. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: test of a mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol.17 (4); pp. 319-331. Morris, J.; Farrel, C. (2007) The “post-bureaucratic” public sector organization. New organizational forms and HRM in ten public sector organizations. Int.J. of Human Resource Management, Vol.18 (9), pp. 1575-1588 Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P., and Schneider, B. (2008), ‘Employee Attributions of the “Why” of HR Practices: Their Effects on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors, and Customer Satisfaction,’ Personnel Psychology, 61, 503–545. Sheenan, C., Cooper, B., & Holland, P. &. (2007). The relationships between HRM avenues and perceived organizational performance. Human Resource Management, Vol.46 (4), 611-629. Storey, J. (2007) Human Resource Management, a critical text, Thomson, 3rd edition Thompson, J. D., & McEwen, W. J. (1958). Organizational goals and environment: Goalsetting as an interaction process. American Sociological Review, 23, 23–31. Truss, Catherine (1999) Soft and hard models of Humanr Resource Models in Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (Eds). Strategic human resource management: corporate rhetoric and human reality. Chapter 2, pp.40-58, Oxford University Press. Truss, Catherine (2009) Changing HR functional forms in the UK public sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (4), 717- 737. Tzafrir, S. S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1600-1622. Tzafrir, S. S. (2006). A universalistic perspective for explaining the relationship between HRM practices and firm performance at different points in time. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(2), 109 – 130

18

Ana Veloso, Shay Tzafrir and Guy Enosh

Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., Parry, E., & Stone, D. L. (2013). CODIFYing Social issues in organizations – Scope and perspectives. Global Business Perspective, 1(1), 39-47. Veloso, A. (2008) O impacto da Gestão de Recursos Humanos na Performance Organizacional, (Dissertação de Doutoramento em Psicologia das Organizações), Braga: Universidade do Minho. Veloso, A. (2010). The workers perceptions about human resource management function. In S. Menon, Competing values in an uncertain environment: managing the paradox (pp. 64-70). Shveport, USA: International Society for the Study of Work & Organizational Values. Veloso, A., Ferreira, T., Keating, J., & Silva, I. (2010). A confiança organizacional e a gestão de recursos humanos. Actas do VII Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia ( pp.1992-2005). Braga: Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. Wood, S. (1999), Human resource management and performance, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 1(4), pp.367, (47 p). Wright, M.& Boswell, W. (2002) Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of micro and macro Human Resource Management Research, Journal of Management, Vol.28 (3), pp.247-276. Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-446. Zhang, B., & Morris, J. L. (2014). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: testing the mediation role of employee outcomes using evidence from PR China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 68-90. Zhou, Y., Hong, Y., & Liu, J. (2013). Internal commitment or external collaboration? The impact of human resource management systems on firm innovation and performance. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 263-288.

RR