High performance work systems and employees’ intention to leave

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to advance the research on relationship between high performance work systems (HPWS) and employees’ intention to leave by examining the mediating role of trust, motivation and organizational citizenship behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Primary data based on 563 respondents were analysed to investigate the relationship between HPWS, employee outcomes and employees’ intention to leave. Statistical techniques like confirmatory factor analysis, correlations, regression and bootstrapping were used to analyse the data. Findings The study has revealed that the application of HPWS in the form of rigorous staffing, extensive training, performance-based appraisal and compensation, employee relations, self-managed teams, flexible work arrangements and empowerment results in enhanced employee work-related outcomes and decreased intention to leave among employees. The results have indicated that the relationship between HPWS and employees’ intention to leave is serially mediated by employee outcomes. Practical implications The study gives strong indications that investments in creating bundles of high performance HR practices will enhance the value of the human capital by eliciting favourable employee attitudes and behaviours and therefore will prove beneficial for the organizations operating in India. Originality/value This study has attempted to provide new insights in the underlying mechanism existing in the relationship between HPWS and employees’ intention to leave by using multiple mediators in sequence.

Exploring the Mediating Role of Employee Attitudes in the Relationship between High-Performance Work Systems and Turnover Intention among IT Professionals in India: A Serial Mediation Approach

“…The theoretical implications that emerge from the findings of this study are manifold. First, findings of this study imply that the relationship between HPWS and employees' TI is entirely indirect (Kundu & Gahlawat, 2016) and that HPWS is unrelated to TI among employees independent of the effect of WE (Juhdi et al, 2013) and OC (Wang et al, 2011). The WE and OC, together, mediated fully the negative relationship between HPWS and employees' TI.…”

“…By opting for the PROCESS macro (Model 6), we could test for the serial mediation effects, if any, that the constructs of WE and OC exercised on the relationship between HPWS and TI. Finally, we also administered a supplementary analysis, in line with the approach adopted by Way (2002) and Kundu and Gahlawat (2016), to examine if some specific HRM 'bundles' of the AMO framework and also some individual HRM practices considered for this study exercised relatively more significant influence than other dimensions of the HPWS on WE, OC and TI. As a first step, for each of the three HRM 'bundles' of the AMO framework, we introduced, at each stage of the hierarchical regression analysis, a new control variable that constituted a unitary score of the remaining two dimensions.…”

“…Further, extant literature on strategic human resource management (SHRM), predominantly from western countries, offers compelling evidence to position HPWS as an important antecedent to different employee outcomes such as employees' TI, in particular. It is quite surprising, however, to note that studies that have examined the influence of HPWS on TI in Indian organizations are limited at best (see for an exception- Kundu & Gahlawat, 2016).…”

“…This entails the possible presence of more than one attitudinal variable as mediator in the HRM-TI causal model. In fact, Kundu and Gahlawat (2016) call for including the constructs of attitudinal variables like work engagement (WE) and OC as mediators in the HPWS-TI causal model. Given the facts that WE is a key precursor to OC (Saks, 2006), and that WE relates significantly to both HRM practices (Pradhan, Dash, & Jena, 2017) and TI (Halbesleben, 2010), Kundu and Gahlawat's call for testing serial mediation models that include multiple attitudinal constructs, such as, WE and OC certainly merit some attention.…”

A multi-attribute framework for the selection of high-performance work systems: the hybrid DEMATEL-MABAC model

“…C 1 (0.00,0.00,1.50) (1.33,2.00,3.17) (1.67,2.33,3.50) (0.50,1.33,2.50) (1.67,2.33,3.50) (1.33,2.00,3.17) (3.00,3.33,3.83) C 2 (1.33,2.00,3.17) (0.00,0.00,1.50) (2.50,3.50,4.50) (3.17,4.00,4.67) (2.50,3.50,4.50) (3.83,4.50,4.83) (1.67,2.33,3.50) C 3 (0.50,1.33,2.50) (2.83,3.67,4.33) (0.00,0.00,1.50) (3.83,4.50,4.83) (3.83,4.50,4.83) (4.50,5.00,5.00) (4.50,5.00,5.00) C 4 (0.00,1.00,2.17) (3.50,4.17,4.50) (2.33,3.33,4.00) (0.00,0.00,1.50) (3.50,4.17,4.50) (4.50,5.00,5.00) (4.50,5.00,5.00) C 5 (0.50,1.83,2.83) (3.17,4.00,4.67) (3.83,4.50,4.83) (4.50,5.00,5.00) (0.00,0.00,1.50) (4.50,5.00,5.00) (4.50,5.00,5.00) C 6 (0.00,1.00,2.17) (3. behavior, motivation, and trust (Chen et al, 2018;Heffernan & Dundon, 2016;Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2017;Kundu & Gahlawat, 2016;Zungbey et al, 2019).…”