Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices and employee attitudes

By Laura Innocenti, M. Pilati, Alessandro M. Peluso. 2011

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The study contributes to the debate in the HRM literature by examining the role of trust in management in moderating the effect of HRM practices on employee attitudes. The novelty of the study lies in our interest in assessing this relationship not only on a system of HR practices, but also considering whether the influence varies according to specific ‘bundles’ of practices. Adopting a Structural Equation Modelling approach, we first test the moderation using an HRM index of seven practices on a sample of 9,000 employees from 46 Italian organisations. Then, following the AMO approach, we assess the relationship on three ‘bundles’ of practices, one oriented to increasing ability, another motivation and the third opportunity to participate. Results confirm the moderation with the overall HRM index. Interestingly, the effect varies depending on the HR bundles, being significant only with the motivation practices and not relevant in the other two bundles.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b07d629385e7c8ab2a6ffbe4133d883cb8358655

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. A. Mostafa
2. J. Gould-Williams
3. Juan Tomás
4. Juan A. Marin-Garcia
5. S. Groeneveld
6. T. Ashikali

In Social Psychology

1. J. Gould-Williams
2. A. Mostafa

Citations in the corpus

• Testing the mediation effect of person–organization fit on the relationship between high performance HR practices and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector (2014, methodology): “…studies suggest that HPHRP are positively related to employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, work motivation, commitment, intention to quit and OCBs (e.g. Boselie 2010; Gould-Williams and Gatenby 2010; Katou and Budhwar 2010; Boon et al. 2011; Innocenti et al. 2011; Messersmith et al. 2011).”
• Deconstructing AMO framework: a systematic review (2016, background): “, 2000; Vermeeren, 2010) Extrinsic Incentives (An, 2009; Bainbridge, 2015; Block & Pickl, 2014; Boon et al., 2014; Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012; Innocenti et al., 2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, et al., 2012; Katou & Budhwar, 2010) Pay for Performance (Individual) (Choi, 2014; Demortier et al.”