Why Fit Doesn’t Always Matter: The Impact of HRM and Cultural Fit on Job Involvement of Kenyan Employees

Abstract

Cette e tude se demande si la correspondance des politiques de G.R.H. avec les attentes des salarie s dans les pays en voie de de veloppement de l'Afrique sub-saharienne, en particulier au Kenya, rejaillit sur l'implication professionnelle. Nous pensons que les variables contextuelles dans ces pays sont aÁ ce point complexes et diversifie es que les organisations qui interviennent dans cet environnement pourrait estimer que l'``ade quation'' telle qu'elle est pre sente e dans la litte rature concernant les e conomies de veloppe es est sans inte reà t. Nous examinons aussi le roà le de la correspondance entre les valeurs organisationnelles et les valeurs individuelles aÁ la recherche d'un lien avec l'implication professionnelle. Il semble que l'utilisation de simples scores de diffe rences pour mesurer l'ade quation soit inapproprie e et nous avons retenu la technique de la re gression d'Edwards (1994). Globalement, les re sultats indiquent que le modeÁ le de l'ade quation personne-environnement (les attentes en G.R.H. rap-porte es aÁ la politique re ellement mene e) peut partiellement pre dire l'implication au travail dans le contexte d'un pays en de veloppement, mais d'une facË on qui contredit la the orie. L'implication au travail n'est relie e fortement ni aÁ la convergence des valeurs d'un individu avec celles des autres dans l'organisation, ni aÁ la convergence des politiques de G.R.H. avec les souhaits individuels. Ce sont les valeurs elles-meà mes et non leur ade quation qui pre disent le mieux l'implication au travail.The study investigates whether fit of human resources management (HRM) policies with employees' preferences in developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, with specific reference to Kenya, impacts on levels of job involvement. We argue that the contextual variables in developing countries are varied and complex to the extent that organisations operating in these milieux might find that`fit' as presented in the literature from developed economies does not matter. Further, we examine the role of individual value orientations and organisation value fit to look for a link with job involvement. The study We are very grateful to Jeffrey Edwards of the University of Virginia, USA for his helpful comments on polynomial hierarchical regression difference scores and the resulting 3-D surfaces.{ These values are for HRM preferences. For HRM policies, the alpha coefficients of reliability are: Human Resource Involvement a = 0.89; Predictability of rewards a = 0.70; Performance-related practices a = 0.71; Human resource empowerment a = 0.71.

Comparing the Validity of Turnover Predictors in the United States and Mexico

“…Furthermore, across countries and cultures employees may have different career anchors and expectations that differentially impact voluntary turnover (Suutari and Milla, 2004). Other factors such as job involvement, work orientation and work values have been shown to relate differently to precursors of turnover in different cultures (Chandrakumara and Sparrow, 2004;Nyambegera et al, 2001;Yu and Miller, 2003). Thus, these precursors of turnover may also have different effects on turnover across cultures and therefore it is important to do international cross-country comparative research to determine which factors predict turnover in different countries, and which factors moderate the validity of turnover predictors across cultures.…”

Does HRM fit really matter to citizenship and task performance?

“…While attraction, selection, socialization, training and development, and personality and individual characteristics have been highlighted as antecedents, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes have been considered as the major outcomes. According to these models, both P and O represent multidimensional variables such as value congruence (Harris and Mossholder, 1996;O'Reilly et al, 1991;Meglino et al, 1989), goal congruence (Vancouver and Schmitt, 1991), personality-climate fit (Christiansen et al, 1997), HRM fit (Nyambegera et al, 2001), etc. Thus, the concept of HRM fit is an aspect of P-O fit seems to be representing supplementary congruence perspective.…”

“…The compatibility between individuals and organizations, an aspect of the congruency concept, is known as "person-organization fit" (P-O fit). P-O fit has been defined by various researchers in a variety of ways, including value congruence (Judge and Cable, 1997;O'Reilly et al, 1991;Meglino et al, 1989), goal congruence (Vancouver and Schmitt, 1991), need-supplies fit and demand abilities fit (Kristof, 1996), personality-climate fit (Christiansen et al, 1997), HRM fit (Nyambegera et al, 2001), etc. The results of these studies indicate that P-O fit is related to both attitudinal and behavioural outcomes (for reviews, see Hoffman and Woehr, 2006;Verquer et al, 2003;Kristof, 1996).…”

“…The results of these studies indicate that P-O fit is related to both attitudinal and behavioural outcomes (for reviews, see Hoffman and Woehr, 2006;Verquer et al, 2003;Kristof, 1996). Given the recent emphasis placed on the congruency concept (matching people and organizational characteristics) as a method of staffing organizations (Aycan et al, 2007;Chandrakumara and Sparrow, 2004;Nyambegera et al, 2001;Sparrow and Wu, 1998), and in an environment where the nature of work is changing (Borman et al, 1995;Werbel and Gilliland, 1999), a clearer picture of the correspondence between P-O fit and work behaviour is crucial (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006). Although many aspects of people (personality, values, preferences, abilities, etc.…”

“…Therefore, HRM policies in this study refer to a course or principle of action adopted by an organization in its implementation of those HRM functions. The researcher chose to focus on HRM policies because some researchers have stressed the need to adjust Western HRM policies to developing country environments (Aycan et al, 2007;Chandrakumara and Sparrow, 2004;Budhwar and Debrah, 2001;Nyambegera et al, 2001;Aycan et al, 2007;Sparrow and Wu, 1998;Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997;Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990). These researchers argue that such an adjustment will lead to organizational success in developing countries (see, for example, Jaeger, 1990).…”