Team-level high involvement work practices

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12098

Team-level high involvement work practices: investigating the role of knowledge sharing and perspective taking Carol Flinchbaugh, New Mexico State University Pingshu Li, The University of Kansas Matthew T. Luth, Valparaiso University Clint Chadwick, The University of Kansas Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 26, no 2, 2016, pages 134–150

To assess potential boundary conditions in the relationship between HRM systems and team service quality, we examined both collective and individual-level capabilities as underlying mechanisms between team-level high involvement work practices (HIWPs) and team service quality. Using multi-level modelling with a sample of 397 employees in 25 work teams from five service organisations, we found that team HIWPs enhanced knowledge sharing, leading to improved team service climate. Moreover, the presence of individual perspective taking moderated the mediating effect of knowledge sharing such that perspective taking enhanced service climate beyond the value of team HIWPs. The results contribute to the HRM literature by examining the multi-level social and environmental influences on individual learning conceptualised in social cognitive theory, to identify the value of individual capabilities as moderators to knowledge sharing in the link between team HRM systems and service climate. Contact: Carol Flinchbaugh, New Mexico State University, College of Business, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA. Email: [email protected] Keywords: high involvement work practices; knowledge sharing; perspective taking; team-level differences INTRODUCTION

G

iven the recent growth in service sector jobs, HRM scholars have begun to systematically examine the relationship between HRM systems and both organisational-level service outcomes (e.g. Sun et al., 2007; Batt and Colvin, 2011) and employee-level service contributions (e.g. Boxall et al., 2011). Existing service sector research demonstrates a positive relationship between HRM systems and firm performance, mirroring the well-established findings in the manufacturing setting (e.g. Arthur, 1994; Guthrie, 2001). Additionally, examination of ‘black box’ mediators in the HRM systems and performance relationship has also extended to the service field. Here, research depicts how HRM systems facilitate a climate conducive to employee knowledge sharing, leading to quality service improvement, and enhanced individual and firm performance (e.g. Collins and Smith, 2006; Boxall et al., 2011). A recent review continues to highlight the wide-ranging mechanisms that stem from HRM systems to enhance performance, including service-related outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013). Although the service sector research supports the positive relationship between HRM systems, mediating variables and both firm and individual performance, little is known about the impact of HRM systems on team-level performance (Jiang et al., 2013). Understanding the impact of HRM systems on team-level performance addresses several research gaps. First, HRM systems have primarily been conceptualised and examined at individual or firm levels 134

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 26, NO 2, 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Flinchbaugh, C., Li, P., Luth, M.T. and Chadwick, C. (2016) ‘Team-level high involvement work practices: investigating the role of knowledge sharing and perspective taking’. Human Resource Management Journal 26: 2, 134–150

Carol Flinchbaugh, Pingshu Li, Matthew T. Luth and Clint Chadwick

(Jiang et al., 2013) and have neglected the analysis of individual attitudes and behaviours on team-level performance (Nishii et al., 2008; Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011). Second, HRM scholars have called for an increased understanding of the upstream influences of work climates (Kuenzi and Schminke, 2009). For instance, optimal service climate, a precursor to an organisational-level reputation for customer satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2009), infers coworker interdependence for efficient knowledge sharing and fulfilment of goals (De Dreu, 2007). While research has begun to examine the influence of HRM systems on team-level service climate (Veld et al., 2010), further examination is warranted. Third, a gap exists in understanding the mediators that influence team performance in the presence of team-level HRM systems (Jiang et al., 2013; Nyberg et al., 2014). Importantly, despite an increasing use of teams in contemporary organisations (e.g. Ilgen et al., 2005) and an increasing examination of team-level mediators in the HRM system–team performance relationship (Chuang et al., 2016), there is a dearth of research investigating the cross-level influence of individual-level mediators on team-level outcomes. By examining the effects of team-level HRM systems and collective knowledge sharing on team-level service climate, we address these voids in the HRM literature and respond to recent calls to incorporate a bottom-up approach to team-level performance (Nishii and Wright, 2008; Jiang et al., 2013). While acknowledging the value of HRM systems on team performance, we recognise that the sole examination of management practices at the team-level rarely captures the full complexity of individual capabilities. As such, further examination of boundary conditions that impact the value of HRM systems is warranted to understand the unexplained variance in study outcomes (Chadwick et al., 2013). Previous research describes contingencies, such as firm size (Chadwick et al., 2013) and industry dynamism (Datta et al., 2005), which alter the effectiveness of HRM systems. To this end, differences in employee capabilities may also serve as boundary conditions to explain differences in team-level outcomes. Consequently, we explore the possibility that individual-level characteristics influence the HRM system–team service climate relationship, beyond the value of knowledge sharing. Specifically, we examine how employees’ cognitive processes, namely, perspective taking (i.e. the ability to view a situation from another’s viewpoint), moderate the aforementioned ‘black box’ relationship. We develop a multi-level model that describes how perceptions of team-level HRM systems and individual perspective taking contribute to knowledge sharing, which in turn leads to enhanced team service climate (Figure 1). The current study adds to our existing knowledge of team and individual behaviour in three ways. First, we extend the HRM literature by examining the influence of employee perceptions of team-level HRM systems on team service climate. Second, we test a multi-level mediation framework for understanding whether the influence of FIGURE 1 Multi-level model relationships


135

Knowledge sharing and perspective taking in team-level HIWPs

team-level HRM systems on collective knowledge sharing improves team service climate. Third, utilising a moderated mediation analysis, we investigate the boundary conditions of individual cognitive processes to more fully understand the value of individual capabilities in conjunction with HRM systems on team-level outcomes through knowledge sharing. Theoretic linkages between team HRM practices and team performance

To theoretically conceptualise the multi-level influences found in team-level HRM systems, we incorporate social cognitive theory (SCT) (cf. Prussia and Kinicki, 1996) to assess the importance of ongoing social and environmental influences on individual behaviour (Wood and Bandura, 1989; Quinn and Bunderson, 2016). Our incorporation of SCT and its reciprocal relationships (e.g. context, social influences and individual learning) is well established in the collective-level literature (e.g. Prussia and Kinicki, 1996; Bandura, 2000) and underscores the importance of mutual feedback loops between individual interactions and behaviours following interpersonal exchanges (e.g. Morgeson and Hofmann, 1999). We examine a specific HRM system: high involvement work practices (HIWPs) and its effects on knowledge sharing and team service climate. HIWPs incorporate select management practices designed to increase employee involvement in new opportunities and promote coworker interdependence in order to optimise performance (e.g. Datta et al., 2005). Our conceptualisation of HIWPs at the team-level in SCT addresses the learning that arises from reciprocal feedback loops between the employee, environment (e.g. HR systems) and social (e.g. team members) and collective service behaviour. The study’s conceptualisation of team-level HIWPs and outcomes extends beyond addressing a gap in the HRM literature to highlight the potential strategic value in the service context. Supporting the principle that teams may have varying ‘realised’ HRM practices (e.g. Nishii and Wright, 2008), our model examines how team-level HIWPs influence divergent team service outcomes. Following this reasoning, we incorporate a bottom-up examination of employee perceptions of team-level HIWPs to best address the true nature of how management practices impact team service outcomes (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011). Team HRM systems, knowledge sharing and team service climate

To better examine the value of HRM systems on team service climate, this study examines employee perceptions of team-level HIWPs. HIWPs represent an employee-centred management system developed to concurrently instill high levels of employee commitment and improve individual learning in order to impart performance gains (Boxall and Macky, 2009; Kehoe and Wright, 2013). HIWPs rely on the use of reciprocal knowledge-sharing practices (e.g. routine performance feedback from multiple sources; employee receipt of strategic, financial and operating information; and opportunities for employees to provide input into operations) designed to increase employee performance through management’s delivery and receipt of a wide breadth of information, which in turn enriches performance outcomes (Datta et al., 2005). The general logic behind management’s implementation of HIWPs presumes a positive effect across all employees, which ultimately improves organisational performance. Similar to other HRM systems (i.e. high performance workplace systems), the use of HIWPs has shown positive gains at both organisational (Datta et al., 2005) and individual levels (Guthrie, 2000), with no known team-level conceptualisation. However, the predominant focus on firm and individual-level outcomes in the presence of HIWPs overshadows potential team-level learning that stems from the availability of heightened information (De Dreu, 2007). As such, examining team-level HIWPs can help uncover the meso-level processes that drive team performance. 136



Thus, we assess employee perceptions of HIWPs across unique teams to understand processes that drive divergent team service climate. Moreover, our use of HIWPs focuses on salient knowledge-sharing practices critical to heightened service climate. Knowledge sharing characterises an exchange of information among employees in order to collaborate on organisational tasks, solve problems or implement ideas (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). Previous research articulates how knowledge sharing across individuals, teams and organisations leads to enhanced performance (Wang and Noe, 2010), particularly within innovative contexts (Collins and Smith, 2006; Lin, 2007). Importantly, knowledge sharing also enhances team effectiveness in highly interactive, knowledgedependent settings (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005), analogous to the service industry. Following ongoing interactions employees develop heightened identification with colleagues (Boxall and Macky, 2009; Quinn and Bunderson, 2016) and enhanced learning (Van Der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005), which in turn facilitate an atmosphere for quality services (Mayer et al., 2009; Hong et al., 2013). Based on these relationships, we suggest that the use of HIWPs can heighten employee knowledge sharing, involvement and learning and ultimately contribute to an enhanced team service climate. An organisational climate represents employee appraisals of how conducive the environment is to a given business strategy (Schneider, 1990). More specifically, a service climate can be conceptualised as an environment laden with knowledgeable and skilled employees, who are capable of delivering excellent customer service (Schneider et al., 1998). A service climate is invaluable to the study context as quality service relies on knowledgeable employees who efficiently exchange ideas and disseminate information to address customers’ needs (Barton et al., 2006). Employee appraisals of positive service climates are associated with customer perceptions of enhanced service quality and satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2009). Existing literature depicts HRM systems as valuable antecedents to an enhanced service climate (Liao et al., 2009; Bowen and Schneider, 2014), yet less is known about the mediating influences on team-level climate (Kuenzi and Schminke, 2009). We extend the service climate literature to the team-level as we expect that the presence of team-level HIWPs will positively influence employee appraisals of team-level service climate. Drawing from SCT, we expect that the dynamic interplay found between information received from HIWPs, task interdependence between employees and the new information received through knowledge sharing creates a climate responsive to customer needs (Bandura, 2000). The interdependence and involvement from HIWPs first promote learning and knowledge exchange between employees (Van Der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005; Collins and Smith, 2006). Then, knowledge sharing enhances identification with the collective (Boxall and Macky, 2009; Quinn and Bunderson, 2016) and ultimately contributes to improved perceptions of team service climate (Wood and Bandura, 1989; Mayer et al., 2009), a vital need for organisations dependent on quality customer care (Schneider et al., 1998; Mackie et al., 2001). Based on this logic, we propose: Hypothesis 1: There is a positive association between employee perceptions of team-level HIWPs and knowledge sharing. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive association between knowledge sharing and employee perceptions of team-level service climate. Thus far, we have argued that HIWPs promote knowledge sharing, and knowledge sharing promotes service climate. As such, we have implicitly described a model in which knowledge HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 26, NO 2, 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

137


sharing mediates the HIWPs–service climate relationship. Similar research has identified a range of mediating mechanisms pertinent in the service industry, including voluntary turnover rates (Batt and Colvin, 2011) and job satisfaction (Wood et al., 2012). Unfortunately, less is known about how employee knowledge sharing contributes to team service outcomes in the presence of HRM systems. As previously described, HIWPs facilitate an interdependent and interactive context conducive to increased knowledge sharing (Guthrie, 2001). In the presence of interdependent teams, employees gain familiarity with colleagues, feel more comfortable in their obligations, learn more and are more willing to contribute information to team members (Bandura, 2000). With the necessary informational resources, employees experience teammember support, identify with colleagues (Hong et al., 2013) and feel competent during difficult and potentially unsafe customer confrontations (Mackie et al., 2001). Indeed, coworker knowledge sharing increases in the presence of highly interdependent, cohesive work groups (Wang and Noe, 2010). In this setting, we expect the presence of HIWPs heightened through knowledge sharing provides employees with required customer information and perpetuates novel service strategies as employees readily exchange details about service success and failures. Existing theoretical arguments demonstrate how team-level resources emerge from individual-level origins to create collective sources of team performance (Collins and Smith, 2006; Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011). Our focus on SCT further explicates the reciprocal linkages between individual learning and knowledge sharing in team settings (Quigley et al., 2007). In essence, the employee behaviours demonstrated in knowledge sharing coalesce to establish mutual employee learning such that employees who are capable of sharing knowledge with colleagues further contribute to the collective development of team-level abilities (Quigley et al., 2007; Nyberg et al., 2014). The receipt of information begets new learning and awareness of team members’ skill development, which ultimately contributes to enhanced perceptions of team service climate (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011; Nyberg et al., 2014). As such, we contend that team-level perceptions of HR systems, via heightened opportunities for employee interaction, broaden employee levels of knowledge sharing, which subsequently enhances team-level service climate. Based on this logic, we propose the following: Hypothesis 3: Employee knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between employee perceptions’ of team-level HIWPs and team service climate. The moderating role of perspective taking

Our logic so far has assumed that the mediating impact of knowledge sharing is the sole variable that improves the relationship between perceptions of team HIWPs and service climate. However, individual differences potentially exist as a boundary condition that constrains the effects of HIWPs (Chadwick et al., 2013; Chuang et al., 2016). As firms increasingly employ HRM systems to enhance service performance, it is imperative for management to recognise the value of employee differences in conjunction with HIWPs and how they both contribute to improved service outcomes. We posit that select individual differences, such as other-focused awareness, are critical influencers on employee knowledge sharing in the service industry. Specifically, we contend that individual perspective taking strengthens the relationships between HIWPs, knowledge sharing and service climate. In essence, we believe that the presence of perspective taking will increase employee knowledge sharing beyond the sole benefit of team HIWPs to further enhance team service climate. Perspective taking refers to a cognitive process in which an employee focuses attention on others and adopts another’s viewpoint in order to better understand their personal preferences 138



and values (Parker and Axtell, 2001; Grant and Berry, 2011). Readily characterised as a dispositional tendency (Hoffman, 1982), perspective taking serves to open one up to diverse perspectives, integrate new ideas and garner useful ideas from a given context (De Dreu et al., 2000) and is fundamental to successful performance on collaborative projects (Parker and Axtell, 2001). Of particular importance to this study’s knowledge-intensive context, employee perspective taking facilitates fruitful application of novel and useful ideas to project completion (Dougherty, 1992). Moreover, in the oft-tenuous and emotion-laden service workplace, an awareness of others supports an employee’s empathic and altruistic response (Bartunek et al., 1983; Parker and Axtell, 2001) to replace perceptions of challenging and illmannered customer actions. Thus, perspective taking widens an employee’s recognition of available information and facilitates knowledge sharing behaviours to aptly serve customers. As such, we expect that heightened levels of individual perspective taking go beyond the information present in HIWPs to enhance knowledge sharing and team service climate. Based on this logic, we hypothesise the following:

Hypothesis 4: Perspective taking moderates the mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the association between team-level HIWPs and service climate.

METHODS Participants Sample The researchers collected self-report survey data from employees in a consortium of

five non-profit agencies located throughout the US. The non-profit agencies operated residential treatment facilities for youth with significant mental health needs, who frequently exhibit volatile and aggressive behaviours. The presence of dangerous working conditions necessitates reliance on teamwork for safe, quality-service provision and supported our focus on team-level relationships. Moreover, consistent and efficient information exchange is a key requirement for service success throughout the 24 hours of client care (Barton et al., 2006). Job responsibilities existing at each agency included clinical and medical staff, educational support, direct-care youth workers, supervisory staff and administrative support staff. Researchers conducted the survey at the respective agencies’ mandatory monthly staff meetings. Employee participation in the research was optional, but no participants opted out, providing a 100 per cent response rate. The final sample included 397 employees in 25 teams. Most of the participants were full-time employees (87 per cent), with an average tenure of 5.53 years. The participants’ average age was 34.9 years. Most participants were Caucasian (81 per cent), and 72 per cent were women. The high level of female employees is the norm for the non-profit social service industry (Ruhm and Borkoski, 2002). Approximately half of the respondents (47 per cent) had a bachelor’s degree, 25 per cent held a master’s degree, 17 per cent held a high school degree or equivalent, 11 per cent had an associate’s degree and less than 1 per cent had a doctorate degree. Organisational teams To understand the study’s team-level relationships, employees were

grouped in their respective teams. Prior to conducting the surveys, the researchers contacted HR representatives to compile a list of the work teams at the respective agencies. Participants were then asked to evaluate their team from the provided list; 68 per cent teams were directcare groups, which serve customers directly. The remaining teams provide administrative and support services. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 26, NO 2, 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

139


Measures

All measures used a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored at 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree, unless otherwise noted. Team-level measures Team service climate was assessed using the Schneider et al. (1998) fouritem measure. All items were adapted to assess service climate at the work-unit level. An example item included, ‘Employees in my work unit have knowledge of the job and the skills to deliver superior work and service’. The reliability measure for this scale is α = 0.74. Employees’ Perceptions of Team High Involvement Work Practices were measured using the Datta et al. (2005) eight-item measure adapted to the work-unit level. Rather than assess a full range of HR practices, the study utilised a subset of the Datta et al. (2005) measures that explicitly assesses employee involvement in and receipt of knowledge-sharing practices, such as opportunities for routine performance feedback, participation in programmes designed to elicit employee input and receipt of organisational financial information. A sample question included ‘Employees in my work group are provided information on strategic plans’. Consistent with previous research, we used a ratio score of the HR practices (e.g. Wright et al., 2003). Employees were asked to respond with either 0 = no or 1 = yes to whether each item is present in the work unit. The number of the practices that each respondent stated were present was summed and divided by eight to form a ratio. The reliability measure for the scale is 0.84. Individual-level measures Knowledge sharing was measured using Collins and Smith’s (2006) eight-item measure adapted to assess employee perceptions of knowledge sharing at the work-unit level. An example item included ‘I feel that employees here are capable of sharing their expertise to bring new projects or initiatives to fruition’. The Cronbach α is 0.84. We measured perspective taking using four-item measures from Davis et al. (1996). A scale item included ‘On the job, I frequently try to take other people’s perspectives’. The scale’s Cronbach α is 0.84. Control variables We controlled for demographics that may influence employee knowledge sharing, including participant tenure, gender, work status and education. The tenure variable has a relatively wide distribution, so we transformed it to a natural logarithmic term. We also controlled for the influence of perceived relatedness on perspective taking. Perceived relatedness describes a need to feel connectedness to others (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and has been found to positively influence team-level performance through heightened social support (Seibert et al., 2011). To account for the potential influence on the study relationships, we assessed perceived relatedness using a five-item measure from Richer and Vallerand (1998). A representative item included ‘In my relationship with my work colleagues, I feel supported’. The scale’s Cronbach α is 0.93. In addition, at the team-level analysis, we controlled for agency differences to examine the institutional differences between teams. Level of analysis

For multi-level studies, it is important to differentiate the level of measurement and analysis from the level of theory. Kozlowski and Klein (2000) state that collective constructs, particularly shared compositional constructs such as individual members’ shared perceptions, are most appropriately measured and analysed at the individual level. This measurement depicts a referent-shift construct of team-level knowledge combination (Chan, 1998). Following this reasoning, we assessed knowledge sharing at the individual-level and modified the items to reflect employee evaluation of ‘group’ knowledge sharing behaviours. Next, we aggregated individual perceptions of HIWPs and service climate to the team level. Recent research has demonstrated the different experiences between employee and managerial perceptions of 140



HR systems (Liao et al., 2009), supporting our use of a team-level measure. To justify data aggregation of HIWPs and service climate to the team level and test whether knowledge sharing is isomorphic across different levels, we employed intra-class correlation coefficients ICC(1) and ICC(2) to examine sufficient interrater agreements and group reliability, respectively (Bliese, 2000). The ICC(1) values were above the acceptable 0.05 level and justified aggregation (Table 1) (Bliese, 2000). While the ICC(2) values ranged slightly below the commonly accepted criterion (0.70), the values are acceptable given the relatively small team size (average team size = 16 employees) (LeBreton and Senter, 2008). In sum, we found adequate support for analysis of these variables across different levels. Analytical technique

We employed multi-level structural equation modelling (MSEM) in MPLUS to analyse the multilevel relationships. MSEM has noted advantages over traditional hierarchical linear modelling (HLM). Preacher et al. (2010) argue that HLM could bias results by simply averaging individual scores to present higher-level values without simultaneously accounting for within-level and between-level variances and covariances. HLM also has limitations in estimating the bottomup effects where dependent variables are unit level outcomes. By contrast, MSEM does not require aggregation of constructs measured at individual level, nor does it require dependent variables to be at the lower level. Further, MSEM retains sample size, statistical power and information regarding variability. MSEM is also able to estimate the mediation models for variables at different levels. Therefore, MSEM is best suited for our analysis. Measurement model

Following convention, we first conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to assess the discriminant validity of our measures. The baseline model includes five constructs: HIWPs, knowledge sharing, service climate, perspective taking and perceived relatedness. Following accepted practice, we compared alternative models by fixing the correlation to 1 to show TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations M

SD

1. Knowledge sharing 2. Perspective taking 3. Perceived relatedness 4. Tenurea 5. Gender 6. Work status 7. Education

5.21 5.84 5.13 1.45 0.29 0.13 2.80

0.94 0.73 1.29 0.87 0.45 0.34 1.02

0.20** 0.55** 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.01

0.18** 0.03 0.12* 0.03 0.15**

Team-level variables 1. Team service climate 2. Knowledge sharing 3. HIWPs

M 5.02 5.19 0.64

SD 0.49 0.40 0.11

ICC(1) 0.11 0.10 0.12

ICC(2) 0.64 0.63 0.66

Individual-level variables

1

2

3

0.13** 0.03 0.03 0.05

4

0.03 0.16** 0.06

1

2

0.55** 0.15

0.31

5

6

0.06 0.06

0.04

Note. Individual-level: N = 387; team-level: N = 25. Listwise deletion. SD, standard deviation; HIWPs, high involvement work practices. a Logarithm. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two tailed).


141


whether the constructs are distinct (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Results of the chi-square difference test suggest that the baseline model was superior to any other model and indicates the variables are unique constructs. RESULTS Descriptive statistics and correlations

We report the means, standard deviations, correlations and the intra-class indices in Table 1. At the team level, service climate was positively associated with knowledge sharing (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) but was not significantly associated with HIWPs (r = 0.15, n.s.). At the individual level, knowledge sharing was positively associated with perspective taking (r = 0.20, p < 0.01) and perceived relatedness (r = 0.55, p < 0.01). Estimate for direct effects

In Table 2, we summarise the regression results for the direct and interaction effects. We employed MSEM to assess the direct relationships. First, we ran the multi-level regression from HIWPs to knowledge sharing (Model 1). We find that knowledge sharing was significantly related to HIWPs (b = 0.54, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis was supported. Next, we assessed the bottom-up effect from knowledge sharing to team service climate. As shown in Model 2, team service climate was significantly related to collective knowledge sharing (b = 0.85, TABLE 2 Regression results

Intercept Within-group variables Tenure Gender Work status Education Perceived relatedness Perspective taking Between-group variables HIWPs Knowledge sharing Cross-level interactions HIWPs × Perspective taking n n of groups 2 Within R 2 Between R

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

DV: knowledge sharing

DV: service quality climate



β

SE

10.77*

4.18

0.11 0.07 0.06 0.01

0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05

0.54**

0.17

380 25 0.02 0.81**

β 4.60**

0.08 0.85**

393 25

— 0.74**

SE

β

SE

β

SE

1.60

6.20

3.47

2.67

1.52

0.06 0.09* 0.05 0.03 0.51** 0.12**

0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03

0.05 0.08* 0.05 0.03 0.44** 0.51**

0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.16

0.56*

0.23

0.98**

0.05

0.65* 379 25 0.49** 0.98**

0.26

0.19 0.12

379 25 0.31** 0.78**

Note. Standardised coefficients are reported. Fixed effects from different agencies are controlled. DV, dependent variable; SE, standard error. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two tailed).

142



p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2. Model 3 tests the moderator variable, individual perspective taking. The results from Model 3 indicate that individual perspective taking was significantly related to employee knowledge sharing (b = 0.12, p < 0.01), while controlling for perceived relatedness. These results provide initial support for Hypothesis 4. Multi-level structural equation modelling mediation effect

As Preacher and colleagues (2010) suggest, the use of MSEM for mediation estimation has an advantage to traditional mediation techniques (e.g. Sobel test) in that MSEM mediation estimation reduces measurement bias as employee perceptions of team-level variables can be analysed without unit level aggregation. We conducted a 2–1–2 model with HIWPs and service climate tested at the team-level and knowledge sharing tested at individual level (Figure 3). The analysis reported an estimated unstandardised coefficient indirect effect of 2.27. A further assessment of the significant relationships of overall indirect effects across the three variables was conducted using the Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation (Preacher and Selig, 2012). After running the Monte Carlo simulation 20,000 times, we found that zero did not fall within a 90 per cent confidence interval (90 per cent confidence interval = [0.08, 5.17]) for all the indirect product estimate distributions. Therefore, in support of Hypothesis 3, the results confirm that a knowledge sharing mediates the positive relationship between team HIWPs and team service climate. Multi-level structural equation modelling moderation and moderated mediation effects

We report the cross-level interaction effects between individual-level perspective taking and team-level HIWPs in Model 4. Model results indicate that the interaction effect was significant (b = 0.65, p < 0.05). Moreover, the change from a positive main effect on knowledge sharing to a negative interaction effect from perspective taking and HIWPs implies a substitution effect. As Figure 2 demonstrates, higher team HIWPs substituted for lower individual perspective taking, leading to enhanced knowledge sharing and vice versa. Finally, we tested the hypothesised first-stage moderated mediation (the interaction between HIWPs and perspective taking). Following the recommendations of Preacher et al. (2007), we found that the indirect effect from HIWPs to team service climate through FIGURE 2 The interaction plot of HIWPs and perspective taking on knowledge sharing


143


knowledge sharing was magnified when perspective taking was at the higher level (+1SD) as compared with the lower level ( 1SD) (unstandardised coefficient = 1.87, p < 0.05). In other words, the relationship between HIWPs and team service climate, through knowledge sharing, is stronger in the presence of perspective taking (Figure 3). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. DISCUSSION

The purposes of this study were to examine the effectiveness of team-level HIWPs on team service climate and to determine if collective knowledge sharing in conjunction with individual capabilities improved the team-level HRM system–service climate relationship. In addition to examining the value of HRM systems on team service climate through the presence of a mediating variable, we also sought to understand the moderating impact of individual-level perspective taking on the promotion of team performance. This research is important to better understand the underlying bottom-up processes impacting team-level HRM systems (Nishii and Wright, 2008) and the resulting team-level effectiveness (Chuang et al., 2016). Moreover, we addressed recent calls to examine HRM systems and ‘black box’ mechanisms that contribute to team-level outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013). As such, our study adds value by examining whether employees perceive differences in the use of HIWPs in different teams and how individual capabilities can enhance the perceived value of team-level HIWPs on team service climate. Theoretical contributions

Our findings contribute to the existing HRM literature in several key areas. We sought to support the claim of heterogeneous team outcomes in the presence of HIWPs and collective and individual differences (Nishii and Wright, 2008). As expected, we found significant FIGURE 3 Results of multi-level mediation

144



cross-level direct effects between both team-level HIWPs and knowledge sharing (Hypothesis 1) and knowledge sharing and team service climate (Hypothesis 2). Perhaps most important in extending the HRM literature, we find support for the impact of contingencies in the use of HRM systems. Namely, individual capabilities go beyond HRM systems to influence team service climate. We show support for the differential nature of HRM systems and collective knowledge sharing to improved perceptions of team service climate. Importantly, we show how employees draw on available information from HIWPs and exchange ideas with proximal colleagues, which in turn enhance employee service climate perceptions (Hypothesis 3). Our focus on collective knowledge sharing as behaviour moves beyond the known value of psychological and motivational dimensions as mediators in the HRM systems–performance relationship (Boxall et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2012). Thus, our findings support recent claims that posit proximal work-unit colleagues are most influential to employee workplace experiences (Kehoe and Wright, 2013). Our team-level findings serve as a bridge between the individual and organisational-level HRM systems literature by showing how select knowledge-intensive HR practices at the team level facilitate team-level effectiveness (Jiang et al., 2013). In addition, we find support for the importance of perspective taking as a vital other-focused employee capability that promotes service climate in conjunction with team HIWPs. In support of Hypothesis 4, our findings demonstrate that enhanced levels of employee perspective taking serves in conjunction with HIWPs to drive increased levels of knowledge sharing and team service climate. Indeed, perspective taking mitigates low perceptions of team HIWPs and heightens knowledge sharing. While management utilises HIWPs in order to improve performance outcomes via heightened workplace involvement (e.g. Datta et al., 2005), we find that employee perspective taking also serves as a contingency effect to elicit similar positive effects on service outcomes. Our findings suggest that individual capabilities that convey an other-focused orientation to magnify the value of interdependence are also effective in influencing improved team service climate in addition to HIWPs. Our findings impart valuable considerations for the HRM literature. Importantly, we examined both mediators and moderators to further explicate the linkages between team-level HIWPs and team service climate through investigation of individual-level characteristics. Drawing on SCT, our methodological conceptualisation examined the reciprocal relationships between individual and team behaviours in an environment with HIWPs (Bandura, 2001). Instead of finding a direct behavioural link between team HIWPs and improved service climate, we demonstrate how both knowledge sharing as a collective behaviour and perspective taking as an individual behaviour influence service outcomes. As such, reliance on a strict behavioural view of direct reciprocity between management and employees as often conceptualised in the HRM literature (e.g. Sun et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2007) fails to explicate the full causal chain linkages. Our findings further support the notion that contingencies matter in this research stream (Datta et al., 2005; Chadwick et al., 2013). Finally, our findings also have theoretical implications for team research. The team effectiveness model recognises knowledge sharing as an important process that promotes team performance (Mathieu et al., 2008). Research to date has focused on the role that external factors, such leadership or reward systems play in knowledge sharing promotion (e.g. Srivastava et al., 2006). Our findings contribute to team research and suggest that team-level HIWPs can serve as an additional external factor that promotes effective team processes and team effectiveness. Furthermore, our study identifies other-focused, altruistic orientations as an important individual input into the team effectiveness model. Specifically, we find that perspective taking can strengthen the relationship between knowledge sharing and team service climate.


145


Limitations and directions for future research

Our study delivers contributions to the literature but, as with all research, is not without limitations. First, we demonstrate the value of examining individual capabilities in addition to mediators to understand the impact of team HIWPs on improved service climate. Unfortunately, our study was not designed to identify team or organisational service outcomes beyond climate. While service climate has led to improved organisational performance (Mayer et al., 2009), future research should examine the direct impact on team performance. Second, the study results in the non-profit sector may not be generalisable to other settings given that heightened employee commitment levels in the non-profit setting could bias employee perceptions (De Cooman et al., 2011) and also contribute to the heightened mean levels in the study’s core constructs. As such, future research should examine the team-level relationships in other industry settings. Third, the study design was cross-sectional, which allows us to report relationships among variables instead of causal direction. As such, the findings should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. While our study design is similar to other HRM studies that report meaningful associations between variables (e.g. Liao et al., 2009), future studies should examine the mediation processes using longitudinal data sets. Fourth, common method bias may be an issue owing to our use of employee self-report survey responses, but our assessment of multi-level modelling between teams reduces this concern (Antonakis et al., 2010). Given the limitations of the study’s same source data, future research should consider collecting data from multiple sources or through the use of longitudinal responses. Finally, our sample did not allow us the statistical power to test for differences between administrative and direct-care staff. Given the heightened level of knowledge sharing in teams and other proximal relationships (Foss, 2007), future research should consider the potential differences in knowledge sharing between employee roles at different organisational levels. Practical implications

Our study provides several key implications for management practice. This study demonstrates how team-level HIWPs in service organisations influences employee knowledge sharing in order to improve service climate. As such, management should recognise the applicability of HIWPs as a viable conduit to enhanced team service outcomes via employee exchange of information, ideas and expertise. Importantly, employees reported divergent ‘realised’ team-level perceptions of HIWPs across different teams within the same organisation. In essence, some teams reported the presence of HR practices while other teams did not. Consistent with previous research (Nishii et al., 2008), our findings underscore the importance of recognising employees’ attributions of management’s purpose behind HR systems. Specifically, organisational leaders cannot assume that implementation of a homogenous, organisation-wide HR system translates to identical team perceptions of, and response to, organisational HIWPs. Therefore, managers should periodically reassess employee perceptions of the HR practices to verify their effectiveness and how they are realised at the team level. By incorporating these efforts, managers can assure that the HR practices espoused by the organisation are, in fact, what is experienced by the employees (Nishii and Wright, 2008). Similarly, managers should be attuned to differential employee capabilities in response to the same HRM system in different work teams. Perhaps one type of communication style (i.e. face-to-face versus email) or team meeting format (i.e. formal versus informal) is better served to accentuate the presence of HIWP systems. Thus, managers should share HR practice details via different communication channels to assure that consistent messages are received irrespective of employees’ communication preferences. Moreover, managers should consider 146



the internal fit between HIWPs and distinct selection tools designed to identify job candidates who possess other-focused orientations and/or effective communication styles. Additionally, this study’s explicit focus on HIWPs geared towards enhanced information sharing, rather than a full complement of HR practices including financial rewards (e.g. annual bonuses and profit sharing) highlights the value of non-monetary HR practices to improved service outcomes. Our findings articulate how HIWPs enhances service climate through knowledge sharing without employee expectation of extrinsic rewards, an incentive type often unfamiliar to non-profit employees (Lin, 2007). In essence, the combination of information based management practices in conjunction with collective and individual capabilities serves as a cost-effective and timely method of information dissemination to instill effective team service quality.

REFERENCES Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P. and Lalive, R. (2010). ‘On making causal claims: a review and recommendations’. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 6, 1086–1120. Arthur, J.B. (1994). ‘Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover’. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 3, 670–687. Bagozzi, R.P., Li, Y.J. and Philips, L.W. (1991). ‘Assessing construct validity in organizational research’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 3, 421–458. Bandura, A. (2000). ‘Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy’. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9: 3, 75–78. Bandura, A. (2001). ‘Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective’. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Barton, K., Cunningham, C.D., Jones, G.T. and Maharg, P. (2006). ‘Valuing what clients think: standardized clients and the assessment of communicative competence’. Clinical Law Review, 13: 1, 1–65. Bartunek, J.M., Gordon, J.R. and Weathersby, R.P. (1983). ‘Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators’. Academy of Management Review, 8: 2, 273–284. Batt, R. and Colvin, A.J. (2011). ‘An employment systems approach to turnover: human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 4, 695–717. Bliese, P.D. (2000). ‘Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis’, in K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organization, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, D.E. and Schneider, B. (2014). ‘A service climate synthesis and future research agenda’. Journal of Service Research, 17: 1, 5–22. Boxall, P., Ang, S.H. and Bartram, T. (2011). ‘Analysing the “black box” of HRM: uncovering HR goals, mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment’. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 7, 1504–1532. Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2009). ‘Research and theory on high-performance work systems: progressing the high-involvement stream’. Human Resource Management Journal, 19: 1, 3–23. Cabrera, E.F. and Cabrera, A. (2005). ‘Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16: 5, 720–735. Chadwick, C., Way, S.A., Kerr, G. and Thacker, J.W. (2013). ‘Boundary conditions of the high-investment human resource systems–small-firm labor productivity relationship’. Personnel Psychology, 66: 2, 311–343. Chan, D. (1998). ‘Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 2, 234–246. Chuang, C., Jackson, S.E. and Jiang, Y. (2016). ‘Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge’. Journal of Management, 42: 2, 524–554. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 26, NO 2, 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

147


Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006). ‘Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 3, 544–560. Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P. and Wright, P.M. (2005). ‘Human resource management and labor productivity: does industry matter?’. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1, 135–145. Davis, M.H., Conklin, L., Smith, A. and Luce, C. (1996). ‘Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: a merging of self and other’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 4, 713–726. De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R. and Jegers, M. (2011). ‘A cross-sector comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40: 2, 296–317. De Dreu, C.K. (2007). ‘Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 3, 628–638. De Dreu, C.K., Weingart, L.R. and Kwon, S. (2000). ‘Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 5, 889–905. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior’. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 4, 227–268. Dougherty, D. (1992). ‘Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms’. Organization Science, 3: 2, 179–202. Foss, N.J. (2007). ‘The emerging knowledge governance approach’. Organization, 14: 1, 29–52. Grant, A.M. and Berry, J.W. (2011). ‘The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity’. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 1, 73–96. Guthrie, J.P. (2000). ‘Alternative pay practices and employee turnover: an organization economics perspective’. Group and Organization Management, 25: 4, 419–439. Guthrie, J.P. (2001). ‘High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand’. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1, 180–190. Hoffman, M.L. (1982). ‘Development of prosocial motivation: empathy and guilt’, in N. Eisenberg (ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior, New York: Academic Press. Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J. and Jiang, K. (2013). ‘Missing link in the service profit chain: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service climate’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 2, 237–267. Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005). ‘Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models’. Annual Review Psychology, 56, 517–543. Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R. and Lepak, D.P. (2013). ‘Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research’. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 8, 1448–1480. Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2013). ‘The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors’. Journal of Management, 39: 2, 366–391. Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000). ‘A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes’, in K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuenzi, M. and Schminke, M. (2009). ‘Assembling fragments into a lens: a review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature’. Journal of Management, 35: 3, 634–717. LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008). ‘Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement’. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 4, 815–852. Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D.P. and Hong, Y. (2009). ‘Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 2, 371–391. Lin, C.P. (2007). ‘To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator’. Personnel Review, 36: 3, 457–475. Mackie, K.S., Holahan, C.K. and Gottlieb, N.H. (2001). ‘Employee involvement management practices, work stress, and depression in employees of a human services residential care facility’. Human Relations, 54: 8, 1065–1092. 148



Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008). ‘Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future’. Journal of Management, 34: 3, 410–476. Mayer, D.M., Ehrhart, M.W. and Schneider, B. (2009). ‘Service attribute boundary conditions of the service climate–customer satisfaction link’. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 5, 1034–1050. Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (1999). ‘The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development’. Academy of Management Review, 24: 2, 249–265. 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: 3, 503–545. Nishii, L.H. and Wright, P.M. (2008). ‘Variability within organizations: implications for strategic human resources management’, in D.B. Smith (ed.), The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nyberg, A.J., Moliterno, T.P., Hale, D. and Lepak, D.P. (2014). ‘Resource-based perspectives on unit-level human capital: a review and integration’. Journal of Management, 40: 1, 316–346. Parker, S.K. and Axtell, C.M. (2001). ‘Seeing another viewpoint: antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking’. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 6, 1085–1100. Ployhart, R.E. and Moliterno, T.P. (2011). ‘Emergence of the human capital resource: a multilevel model’. Academy of Management Review, 36: 11, 127–150. Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007). ‘Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions’. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 1, 185–227. Preacher, K.J. and Selig, J.P. (2012). ‘Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects’. Communication Methods and Measures, 6: 2, 77–98. Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J. and Zhang, Z. (2010). ‘A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation’. Psychological Methods, 15: 3, 209–233. Prussia, G.E. and Kinicki, A.J. (1996). ‘A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 2, 187–198. Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M. (2007). ‘A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance’. Organization Science, 18: 1, 71–88. Quinn, R.W. and Bunderson, J.S. (2016). ‘Could we huddle on this project? Participant learning in newsroom conversations’. Journal of Management, 42: 2, 386–418. Richer, S. and Vallerand, R.J. (1998). ‘Construction and validation of the Perceived Relatedness Scale’. Revue Européene de Psychologie Appliquée, 48: 2, 129–137. Ruhm, C.J. and Borkoski, C. (2002). ‘Compensation in the nonprofit sector’. The Journal of Human Resources, 38: 4, 992–1021. Schneider, B. (1990). ‘The climate for service: application of the construct’, in B. Schnedier (ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B., Macey, W.H., Lee, W.C. and Young, S.A. (2009). ‘Organizational service climate drivers of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and financial and market performance’. Journal of Service Research, 12: 1, 3–14. Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998). ‘Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: tests of a causal model’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 2, 150–163. Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011). ‘Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 5, 981–1003. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006). ‘Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 6, 1239–1251. Sun, L., Aryee, S. and Law, K.S. (2007). ‘High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective’. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 3, 558–577. Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D.P., Wang, H. and Takeuchi, K. (2007). ‘An empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 4, 1069–1083.


149


Van Der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005). ‘Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification’. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 3, 532–547. Veld, M., Paauwe, J. and Boselie, P. (2010). ‘HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: does the message come across at the ward level?’. Human Resource Management Journal, 20: 4, 339–356. Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010). ‘Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future use’. Human Resources Management Review, 20: 2, 115–131. Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989). ‘Social cognitive theory of organizational management’. Academy of Management Review, 14: 3, 361–384. Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M. and de Menezes, L.M. (2012). ‘Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being’. Human Relations, 65: 4, 419–445. Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M. and Moynihan, L.M. (2003). ‘The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units’. Human Resource Management Journal, 13: 3, 21–36.

150
