HR Management Literature Review

Introduction

The purpose of this literature review is to shed light on the connection between

human resource management strategies, practices, and policies. Fundamentally, HR

strategies are crucial aspects of concerns – educational theory, individuals and

industrial relations, organizational psychology, practices, social psychology, sociology,

and much importantly, organizational ideology. Being a wide-scale topic, there are

studies conducted on HR accounting, HR planning, HR practices, etc. Basically, HRM is

the controlling, directing, and organizing of compensations, developments, integrations,

maintenances, separations, and procurements of human resources to an extent that

warrants achievement of organizational, social, and individual goals (Okoye & Ezejiofor,

2013). Being a distinctive employment management process, HRMS intends to attain

competitive gains by strategically deploying highly capable and committed workforce

with the proper application of cultural, personal, and structural techniques (Koontz,

2010). The second section of this literature review discusses the impacts of HR policies,

practices, and strategies that define organizational citizenship behaviour, employee

advocacy, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The writing finds a

significant association between business operations and HRM practices and considers

it a crucial aspect that can help businesses prosper.

HR Strategies

In the competitive business structure, the procedure of devising strategies that

explain the function, role, and practices of Human Resource Management (HRM)

surrounded by ever-changing uncertain situation has been ongoing for years. Moreover,

these processes are known to lie under the scope of Human Resource Strategies

(HRS) in a business. Attributable to its miscellaneous influences and origins, HRS

explains crucial aspects of concerns – educational theory, individuals and industrial

relations, organizational psychology, practices, social psychology, sociology, and much

importantly, organizational ideology. Vermeeren et al., (2014) demonstrated that there is

no generally-acceptable explanation for HRS and what affairs it takes care of in the

business world. However, different researchers have propounded some satisfactory

definitions. For instance, Wright & McMahan (2011) cited that HRS offers a competitive

advantage to businesses as it harnesses organization capabilities, relationships, and

resources in an efficient manner to exploit potential opportunities while preventing

threats. Nonetheless, Malheiro, Ribeiro, Jamil, Rascao & Mealha (2018) debated that

HRS practices help the business exploit potential benefits by cutting costs, by

differentiating between product and service sources, etc. However, Wright & McMahan

(2011) stressed that in order to gain an advantage in HRM, a strategic standpoint must

be adopted.

Several researches have been carried out to examine intricate aspects of HRS

practices. For instance, (a) Gabcanova (2012) studied HR accounting and attempted to

give value to HR practices, (b) Boxall & Purcell (2011) studied affairs of HR planning, (c)

Zheng, Yang, & McLean (2010) studied organizational responses that change with
strategic environmental changes, and (d) merging HRM and HRS to gain competitive

advantages (DeCenzo, Robbins, & Verhulst, 2016). Likewise, there were some other

studies that broadly studied the complexity of HRS (Buller & McEvoy, 2012; Vermeeren

et al., 2014). These studies demonstrated that HRS is a process that is multi-

dimensional having several effects. Buller & McEvoy (2012) further noted that while

being beneficial, significant costs related to HRS should be considered. These types of

costs originate from decision-making complexity, information overload, and

organizational growth commitment. Moreover, these costs are unsuited with the

conditions of a specific industry, employee commitment, job security, and organizational

policies that might make a firm less viable eventually as disregard to employee

perception over HRS policies may be expressed as organizational growth concern.

A proper evaluation of benefits and associated costs are hardly ever detailed in

HRS. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the potential benefits of specific HRS.

Moreover, it is a challenge to assess strategic solutions to HR problems or solutions to

strategic challenges corresponding with traditional HRM-based solutions to HR

problems and strategic solutions to address competitive dangers. Thus, the question

arises: why is it advantageous to integrate HRM and HRS despite these challenges?

Buller & McEvoy (2012) studied that initially, the integration will help provide broader

solutions for multifaceted organizational challenges. Secondly, the integration will help

in warranting consideration towards financial, technological, and human resources while

setting goals and examining its implementation potential. Thirdly, the integration will

assist businesses to devise strategies that are aligned with the organization's talent

pool. Finally, HRM and HRS integration will prevent the subordination of strategic
concerns to HR preferences and disregard HR as a source that determines the

business’ competence.

As studies conducted on the topics of HRS and HRM are broad and vast, it is

viable to place our assessment as an intersection between both aspects of research.

Huselid & Becker (2011) studied that there are two most important aspects in the HRS

dichotomy that is worthy of being given consideration. First, differentiation between the

organizational and functional level of strategic HR concerns, and second, differentiation

between the challenges of specific content from the overall elements of the process.

Proper understanding of these affairs can help businesses develop HRM strategies that

can be beneficial are establishing the overall competitive culture within an organization.

HRM Strategy (HRMS)

As this explanation is primarily concerned with HRM, it is rational to explain the

basics of this approach with the words of George Elton Mayo, the founding father of

HRM (Bruce, 2013). Mayo explained HRM as an approach that involves management

actions and decision affecting the nature of association involving the organization and

workforce. In this definition, the most important and notable feature is the use of the

word "action". The author was the first to assert that effective implementation of the

HRM approach is the line managers' responsibility. Another definition of the HRM

process found to be interesting was shared by Koontz (2010) stating that actions and

decision concerning workforce management at all organizational levels in relation to

implementing strategies that establish sustainable competitive advantage is known as

HRM strategy (HRMS). The definition has been deemed important in explaining the
association involving HRM and organizational performance. It is evident that Koontz

(2010) specified the relations between HRM practices and policies with performance-

based strategies in a way that can warrant competitive advantages as both affairs are

properly combined to work positively.

As defined by Okoye & Ezejiofor (2013), HRM is the controlling, directing, and

organizing of compensations, developments, integrations, maintenances, separations,

and procurements of human resources to an extent that warrants achievement of

organizational, social, and individual goals. Being a distinctive employment

management process, HRMS intends to attain competitive gains by strategically

deploying highly capable and committed workforce with the proper application of

cultural, personal, and structural techniques (Koontz, 2010). Even though there is no

consent on the characteristics or definition of HRMS, the above definition has evidently

explained that HRMS is a blend of management practices that are people-oriented and

views workforce, not as a cost but an asset. Moreover, it explains that the primary goal

of HRMS is to establish and preserve a committed and skilled workforce to warrant a

competitive gain.

Nevertheless, the distinct interpretations of HRM have nurtured two

contemplations: hard and soft HRM variants (Marchington, 2015). Essentially, the

variants mentioned above are explained as building blocks for the HRM model. Lenka,

Suar, & Mohapatra (2010) studied that soft HRM give attention to workforce training and

development, participation, and most importantly, commitment. Moreover, it is employed

to explain HR functions intended to increase commitment, value, and motivation among

employees. Alternatively, hard HRM devises strategies where human-based resources

are employed to attain organizational objectives. Furthermore, it is associated with

controlling headcount plans and cost particularly in business processes such as

lowering of wages, downsizing, and reduction in comfort breaks (Marchington, 2015).

Fundamentally, the integration of both these variants under a particular model or

theory is highly challenging as both variants are derived from dissimilar assumptions of

managerial strategies and human nature (Armstrong, 2011). Actually, a portion of these

strategies can be traced back from the findings of MacGregor (1960) who used the

expressions "soft" and "hard" to categorize managerial control affairs. McGregor's

findings laid significant attention on how organizational affairs can contribute towards

innovative practices. The author concluded that almost every management control

strategy was derived from human nature; thus, resulting in tight control from managers

under close management. This implies the hard HRM model based on strategic

management and integration of performance affairs via appraisals (Guest, 2011).

Despite being a comparatively new process, the variants should not be considered to

have its origins in older perspectives related to HRM which are better explained via HR

policies (HRPO) and are known to influence the overall organizational culture (Boxall,

Ang, & Bartram, 2011).

HR Policies (HRPO)

A couple of studies agree that a renewed sense of competitiveness in terms of

knowledge have reinforced workforce value significantly (Briscoe, Briscoe, Schuler, &

Claus, 2009; Andreeva & Kianto, 2012). Therefore, HRM assumes an important

strategic task as organizational policies are expected to reinforce organizational

potential that yields favourable outcomes. Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon (2013)

studied that a relevant focus is being assumed by businesses to support the alignment

of HRM policies with the varying demographics in the business landscape. The

surfacing of entrepreneurship, increasing competition, and the search for quality,

innovation, and efficiency has compelled businesses to restructure their HR policies.

Moreover, organizations are presently giving more attention to attract, qualify, value,

and retain a pool of talented workforce (Andreeva & Kianto, 2012); thus, transforming

the fundamental concepts of HRM policies (Guest, 2011).

HRM has the potential to adequately manage HR via policies to increase and

sustain competitive advantage over rival companies (van den Brink, Fruytier &

Thunnissen, 2013). Moreover, the author suggested that the workforce is the primary

source of organizational competency. As cited by van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen

(2013) competency is explained as the organization's potential to establish the value

that helps in differentiating the business from potential competitors. Likewise, Giauque,

Anderfuhren-Biget & Varone (2013) studied that competency is categorized via three

basic elements: competency is versatile and valuable and is applicable in distinct

markets; competency provides real advantages to consumers, and it is challenging to

imitate competency. However, a strategic perspective suggests that HRM policies can

reciprocally reinforce organizational affairs and help in attaining their objectives (Rees &

Smith, 2017). In order to distinguish these impressions, it was argued that HRM

strategies identify strategies to manage workforce; whereas, HRM policies intend on

managing practices coherently. Therefore, policies defined in strategies are actions that

show actual insight into organizational affairs.

 Studying the trends and future of HRM, French &Goodman (2012) discovered

several emerging subjects that offer greater insight into the complexity of HRM

structure. Among these findings, the influence of HRM policies on company value was

much stressed. The authors pointed towards the significance of HRM policies and

suggested that these variances built up the overall organizational culture.

Searle & Dietz (2012) proposed the needs for future research over HRM policies

while integrating them with other variables such as organizational culture and

objectives. Moreover, the author suggested integrating distinct methodological views in

order to study the influences of HRM policies over the workforce and the organization.

Hence, a consensus was developed suggesting that proper application of HRM policies

yield superior performances from a particular organization (Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg,

& Croon, 2013). van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen (2013) conducted a study

identifying that satisfaction is essential in obtaining increased performance. Basically,

this is true for all small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as identification and

incorporation of basic HRM policies are essential (Boxall, Ang, & Bartram, 2011).

Moreover, it is crucial to integrate these policies with the organization's strategic

practices in order to transform an organization as competitive and viable.

Janssens & Steyaert (2009) demonstrated that strong HRM policies positively

influence the performance of an organization which is examined via the workforce

behaviours and attitudes. In the same way, a strong association was identified between

customer satisfaction and HRM policies by (Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg & Croon

2013).The author pointed out that customer satisfaction is increased with the provision

of products and services that are high in quality. In a nutshell, the findings from these
empirical studies suggest that strong HRM policies that are properly in synchrony with

organizational strategies positively reinforce business performance and

competitiveness. Moreover, HRM policies help organizations in identifying and reflecting

upon the internal and external trends and behaviours within the industry properly

(Andreeva & Kianto, 2012); thus, suggesting for a need to change in HRM practices (if

needed) in order to remain compliant to the changing business demographics while

remaining competitive and strong.

HR Practices

Okoye, & Ezejiofor (2013) studied that effective and efficient exploitation of HR to

attain organizational goals can be termed as HRM. Nonetheless, a number of HR

practices are required to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of HR are utilized.

Basically, HR practices are the derivatives of HR processes, programs, and techniques

that are implemented in organizations to attain competitive advantage. In the present

scenario, innovative businesses constantly seek to exploit HR practices effectively in

order to successfully market new services and products. As cited by Searle & Dietz

(2012) innovation rate and human capital are interconnected; therefore, contemporary

businesses are interested in implementing radical changes to business via HR policies

that eventually transforms overall HR practices (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009). Likewise,

studies suggest that HRM practices determine an organization’s capacity to innovate or

adopt innovative changes effectively.

Essentially, innovation is a procedure that is expected to resonate to all

organizational affairs; therefore, organizations should consider innovation as a driving

force that helps them establish a firm status in the industry (Guest, 2011). Additionally, it

was demonstrated that innovative schemes are greatly dependent upon employee

behaviours (Okoye & Ezejiofor, 2013). It was stated that behaviours are the most crucial

inputs that create an organization's value and is determined by HR policies of which HR

practices are its derivate. Moreover, the findings of Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget &

Varone (2013) have widened the depth and scope of HRM practices which are known to

increase organizational innovation.

Even though there is a wide-scale acceptance about the significance of HRM

practices regarding innovation, it has been barely given significant attention in

innovative business studies. Jiang, Wang & Zhao (2012) studied that there are only a

number of studies that have openly examined the links between HRM practices and

innovation. Moreover, studies discovering the links between HRM practices and

innovation are found to be questionable owing to the lack of fundamental conceptual

structure (Abstein & Spieth, 2014). It has been noted that little to no attention is being

paid in the organization's to study the working environment, a place where innovation

and learning nurtures. Hence, a wide-range review is required on this issue to enrich

and expand the empirical and theoretical knowledge in this particular area. The

requirement for an innovative and creative pool of talent increases as organizations

adopt innovative techniques. This pool of talent is required to be risk-taking, flexible,

and tolerant of uncertain unforeseen situations and ambiguity (Pilbeam & Corbridge,

2010). Hence, it is essential for businesses to support and encourage employees with

HRM practices to increase innovation and creativity in the business landscape (Jiang,

Wang & Zhao, 2012). Moreover, the author demonstrated that HR latent abilities to
encourage and inspire creativity and innovation as workforce behaviours, skills, and

knowledge can become the foundation of performance and innovation.

The Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) theory suggests that performance is a

derivative of opportunity, motivation, and ability (Rajiani, Musa & Hardjono, 2016). From

the standpoint, it can be concluded that innovative performances – organizational or

individual – are also the derivatives of innovative abilities in terms of opportunity,

motivation, and ability. The theory proposes that HRM practices increase the human

capital in the organization by reinforcing workforce capabilities that are translated in

performance-based results like increased productivity, high work quality, reduced waste,

high profits, and much importantly, innovation and creativity. Hence, the increment in

HR commitment and motivation via suitable HR practices can introduce innovation and

creativity into the business and help the business prosper and gain traction in the

market (Abstein & Spieth, 2014).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

In an organization, the workforce is comprised of two types of individuals; one

having a minimalist approach, and the other going an extra mile for organizational

growth. A minimalist employee contributes fairly less for company progression;

whereas, a committed employee discretionally carries out extra job roles to ensure that

the company grows. Abstein & Spieth (2014) studied that the behaviour of committed

employees is examined through formal evaluations and is known as organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB). OCBs cannot be enforced forcefully as they are additional

job roles assumed with workers discretion. Moreover, the absence of OCBs cannot be
penalized too. Some examples associated with OCB are personal initiatives, peer-to-

peer collaboration, and carrying out extra work tasks. Some other instances of OCB are

helping colleagues, punctuality, volunteering, creativity, innovation, and efficient time

utilization (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009). Alternatively, minimal resource wastage,

positive representation of the business, and sharing of idea also fall under OCBs

section (Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget & Varone, 2013). Armstrong (2011) described

these behaviours as instrumental for business growth and progression.

After the introduction of the OCB concept, studies endeavoured to define the

antecedents of OCBs and its links with performance. For instance, several studies

studied the dimensions of OCB in reference to business performance (Okoye &

Ezejiofor, 2013). The studies concluded that OCBs are constructive for organizations,

management, and workforce. DeCenzo, Robbins, & Verhulst, (2016) stressed that

OCBs promote effectiveness in business operations by encouraging creativity,

innovation, resource transformations, and adaptability. Zheng, Yang, & McLean, (2010)

discovered that management values OCBs as it encourages social building in

organizations. For instance, establishing a culture that encourages cooperation helps

manager spend less time on resolving conflicts, hence, giving more space to plan and

improve prospects of business success. Provided that OCB is beneficial for

organizations, managers are expected to increase the intensity and frequency is

establishing a cooperative culture. To increase the positive influences of interventions,

Gabcanova (2012) studied that managers are required to identify associations between

several performance-based dimensions of OCB to better comprehend the foundations

of OCB. Likewise, the positive links between performance and OCB should be
explained to employees. Perfect implementation of these aspects can help managers to

precisely examine OCB practices ahead of interventions while devising strategies that

maximize the prospects of positive outcomes for the business.

Vermeeren et al., (2014) stressed that the links between performance and OCB

are more conceptual and logical than empirical. Findings of several empirical studies

contrast as they are dependent upon certain characteristics and sample of

observations. Moreover, no evidence of consistent support between performance and

OCB were discovered. In this perspective, a study revealed that evaluations by

managers are primarily influenced via OCB as they positively reinforce managerial and

organizational affairs. Hence, employs exhibiting a strong OCB behaviour are more

valued by managers than those who do not. Likewise, management supporting the links

between OCB and performance assumes hardworking employees as top performers

and asset to the business. A study shows that OCB may just be an impression of

positive behaviour which is adapted to mislead managers assessing employee

performance (Wright & McMahan, 2011). Likewise, several studies have suggested a

strong link between management evaluation, OCB, and performance.

Employee Advocacy (EAD)

Kim & Rhee (2011) cited that there are instances in organizations where

employees assume a crucial role in sharing significant organizational information

externally. This is a positive approach as external environment considers these sources

to be credible, authentic, and trustworthy (Morhart, Herzog & Tomczak, 2009). In

essence, voluntary information sharing practices help business to attract attention and
build a positive reputation. Normally, as employees share information (positive and

negative) externally about the business on social media platforms and conversations, it

is essential for businesses to establish strong links with their employees in order to

encourage them into speaking positively about the company. The indirect information

sharing process lies in the scope of employee advocacy. In simpler terms, Men (2014)

defined employee advocacy as a voluntary promotion of a business by its workforce.

Essentially, advocacy can be viewed as a derivative approach to OCB. These are the

efforts undertaken by the workforce discretionally as employees work beyond their

formal job descriptions and are not openly rewarded by businesses for such acts.

Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume (2009) demonstrated that both OCBs

and advocacy can increase organizational efficiency, productivity, and brand

satisfaction. Certainly, organizations are proposed to foster advocacy and OCB as it can

be beneficial for the business. Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume (2009) cited that

the most perfect approach is active communication and support to the workforce. As

employees feel valued in organizations, they discretionally consider it as an obligation to

promote the business by sharing positive information with external audiences. Studying

the links between OCB and employee advocacy, Men (2014) stressed upon a strong

relationship between the organization and employee which can help in promoting the

business effectively.

Employee advocacy is beneficial for businesses as employees are considered to

be a reliable source of information that has comprehensive information about the

organization. In this frame of reference, Men (2014) stated that employee advocacy can

be viewed as active participation to promote businesses. Moreover, it can be viewed as

a defence mechanism against critics. For an organization, employee advocacy

incorporates efforts to sustain and promote organizational affairs, an approach that is

considered as an extension of formal job descriptions Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff &

Blume (2009), similarly like OCBs. Employee advocacy can be viewed as a derivative of

OCB as employees voluntarily and discretionally promote business affairs. Usually, a

strong connection between the employer and employee should be established as

advocacy involves external information sharing practices that promote and defends

businesses in the wake of criticisms (Men, 2014). While studying the behaviour of

consumers Fullerton (2011) discovered that organizational commitment is directly

related to employee advocacy which in turn positively reinforces consumer perception

towards the business.

Organizational Commitment (OCM)

Commitment is the strong association between communication aspects –

interactions, information flow, information adequacy, supportiveness, and information

advocacy. Presently, employee advocacy holds grave importance as technological

advancements have assisted people being equipped with social media platforms

(Fullerton, 2011). Therefore, workforce perceptions can positively or negatively

influence the reputation of the business. Even though OCBs normally transpire in

workplaces, they are expected to stretch its reach beyond office premise.

Fullerton defined organizational commitment as the strength of workforce

involvement and identification in an organization. The author suggested that

organizational commitment plays a key role in establishing a strong association

between the organization and the business; thus, reducing the turnover rate of

employees. Essentially, organizational commitment influences employee behaviours

that restricts or bind them to stay with the organization for good. Studies suggest that

information resources, the climate of organizational communication, and interpersonal

dealings significantly influence the element of commitment (Armstrong, 2011; Bruce,

2013).

In return, there are several notable and desirable outcomes derived via

organizational commitment. Among them, increased employee participation stands off.

Organizational commitment holds grave importance as a number of scholars concluded

that organizational commitment increases organizational support. A study reveals that

information flow, information adequacy, and interaction support are the three basic

elements that encourage organizational commitment internally (Rhee & Moon, 2009).

Information flow and adequacy contribute to establishing strong relationships with

employees by granting access to individual and organizational related information.

Alternatively, interaction support encourages interpersonal sharing of information that

encourages direct support towards employees (Rhee & Moon, 2009).

Information flow is described as explicit sharing of ideas in an organization (Rhee

& Moon, 2009). While additionally contributing to support, organizations reinforce

information sharing relationships with the workforce by administering shared information

extent and quality that is relatable to the business and employee concerns (McMillan

&Albrecht, 2010). A piece of information is shared explicitly across businesses,

employees are empowered and contribute towards organizational aims; thus, increasing

commitment (ter Hoeven & Verhoeven, 2013). Basically, information flow is the sharing
of ideas and opinions. Free sharing of opinions and ideas establishes the perception of

equality among the workforce; thus, encouraging organizational commitment. Moreover,

information flow helps employees understand the value of their commitment towards the

business. In simpler terms, it builds value and trust.

Likewise, information adequacy is considered as the extent to which necessary

information is shared with employees to carry out their routine tasks and determine

employment terms (Rhee & Moon, 2009). Therefore, information adequacy makes the

workforce understand important individual and organizational aspects such as

feedbacks, and work policies. Similarly, information adequacy increases workforce

commitment and satisfaction while lowering the turnover rate. Basically, information

adequacy is the content that determines job responsibilities and organizational goals

(McMillan & Albrecht, 2010).

Interaction support is the support level determined by one party and delivered by

another (Rhee & Moon, 2009). For instance, a supervisor determining job

responsibilities for an employee can be used as an example for interaction support.

Bearing in mind that supervisors are considered to be business representatives; the

social transactions between employee and supervisors are likely expected to increase

the level of commitment within the business is interactions between both parties are

strong and robust (ter Hoeven & Verhoeven, 2013; Jian & Dalisay, 2017). Basically,

employees gaining high-quality communication, interaction, and support will likely

exhibit huge levels of commitment with their work and loyalty towards the business (Jian

& Dalisay, 2017). In this context, employee commitment and loyalty are the derivatives
of employee and representatives’ contribution towards the interactive support which

ultimately increases job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction (JSA)

In organizations, commitment assumes a critical role in naturally increasing

workforce commitment and satisfaction; thus, increasing productivity (Podsakoff,

Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume (2009). As demonstrated by Fullerton (2011),

organizational commitment is an integral component of workforce psychological

conditions as employees exhibiting higher levels of commitment are observed to show

behaviours like OCB and increased business performance and efficiency.

Organizational commitment is a psychological situation that intricately binds workforce

with organizations. McMillan and Albrecht (2010) demonstrated that organizational

commitment significantly improves productivity and sense of workforce wellbeing.

However, Kim and Rhee (2011) argue that organizational commitment is based upon

the workforce psychological state which determines whether to stay with the

organization or not. Ter Hoeven & Verhoeven (2013) defined organizational

commitment as workforce conviction towards organizational values and goals,

representation of the organization, and maintenance of membership within the

organization.

Similarly, job satisfaction can be explained as the degree to which the workforce

is satisfied with the job and the different responsibilities that come with it. In social work

and healthcare sector, females are observed to be less satisfied than males

(Marchington, 2015). Therefore, job satisfaction can be a positive or negative individual

perception regarding work. A study conducted by Pilbeam & Corbridge (2010)

demonstrated that satisfaction in terms of work, work culture, and earnings increase job

satisfaction. Hence, a worker showing a sense of commitment and obligation towards

work will exhibit job satisfaction. Alternatively, job satisfaction was defined by Kim &

Rhee (2011) as the state that cognitively or effectively evaluates job experiences.

Simply, job satisfaction can be viewed as the positive feelings an individual shows about

a particular job.

There are several factors relatable to job satisfaction. Rajiani, Musa, & Hardjono

(2016) explain that job satisfaction is related to components such as autonomy, skill

variety, feedback, and task identity and significance. Searle & Dietz (2012)

demonstrated that employee performance is related to organizational commitment.

Therefore, fairness in rewards and appraisals are known to significantly reinforce the

ideation of job satisfaction will increase commitment. In his research, Zheng, Yang, &

McLean (2010) studied the impact of cultural norms upon organizational commitment.

The study explained that globalization has transformed the business landscape,

likewise, business interactions.

Similarly, Wright & McMahan (2011) studied the influences of service efforts,

empowerment practices, and turnover ratio in a service sector industry. The author

found that job satisfaction primarily affects the overall culture of the business. Hence, it

is important to establish strong relations between employer and employees. In the same

study, Zheng, Yang, & McLean (2010) demonstrated that job satisfaction revolves

around the axis of organizational commitment and work environment. In the same way,

Rajiani, Musa, & Hardjono (2016) studied the positive association between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The study explained that job

satisfaction is based on three components: satisfaction towards work, organizational

culture, and supervision. Kim and Rhee (2011) found job satisfaction to be derived from

components such as turnover intentions, organizational commitment, and procedural

justice.

Without a doubt, HRM can be considered atypical phenomenon. Moreover, the

HRM model has remained a bone of contention for scholars and researchers since its

introduction. HRM has the ability to bring competitive advantage into business affairs

and operations. Moreover, it can help businesses increase production and efficiency.

Likewise, it can help business to establish strong relations with the workforce that can

yield favourable results such as organizational citizenship behaviour, employee

advocacy, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Moreover, it can help

managers and supervisors to devise and determine strategies that can be beneficial for

business growth. HRM models have the potential to increase organizational efficiency

and should be adopted by every business in order to gain a competitive advantage.

 References

Abstein, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). Exploring HRM meta‐features that foster employees'

innovative work behaviour in times of increasing work–life conflict. Creativity and

innovation management, 23(2), 211-225.

Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter? Linking

knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic

performance. Journal of knowledge management, 16(4), 617-636.

Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrong's handbook of strategic human resource management.

Kogan Page Publishers.

Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (3rd ed.).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boxall, P., Ang, S. H., & 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.

Briscoe, D., Briscoe, D. R., Schuler, R. S., & Claus, L. (2009). International human

resource management: Policies and practices for multinational enterprises.

Routledge.

Bruce, K. (2013). George Elton Mayo. In The Oxford handbook of management theorists.

Buller, P. F., & McEvoy, G. M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and

performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human resource management

review, 22(1), 43-56.

DeCenzo, D. A., Robbins, S. P., & Verhulst, S. L. (2016). Fundamentals of Human

Resource Management, Binder Ready Version. John Wiley & Sons.

Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M. A. (2013). HRM,

communication, satisfaction, and perceived performance: A cross-level

test. Journal of management, 39(6), 1637-1665.

French, P. E., & Goodman, D. (2012). An assessment of the current and future state of

human resource management at the local government level. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 32(1), 62-74.

Fullerton, G. (2011). Creating advocates: The roles of satisfaction, trust and

commitment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(1), 92-100.

Gabcanova, I. (2012). Human Resources Key Performance Indicators. Journal Of

Competitiveness, 4(1), 117-128. doi: 10.7441/joc.2012.01.09

Giauque, D., Anderfuhren-Biget, S., & Varone, F. (2013). HRM practices, intrinsic

motivators, and organizational performance in the public sector. Public Personnel

Management, 42(2), 123-150.

Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: still searching for

some answers. Human resource management journal, 21(1), 3-13.

Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (2011). Bridging micro and macro domains: Workforce

differentiation and strategic human resource management.

Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2009). HRM and performance: A plea for reflexivity in HRM

studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 143-155.

Jian, G., & Dalisay, F. (2017). Conversation at Work. Communication Research, 44(2),

177-197. doi: 10.1177/0093650214565924

Jiang, J., Wang, S., & Zhao, S. (2012). Does HRM facilitate employee creativity and

organizational innovation? A study of Chinese firms. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 23(19), 4025-4047.

Kim, J., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic Thinking about Employee Communication Behaviour

(ECB) in Public Relations: Testing the Models of Megaphoning and Scouting

Effects in Korea. Journal Of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243-268. doi:

10.1080/1062726x.2011.582204

Koontz, H. (2010). Essentials of management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Lenka, U., Suar, D., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2010). Soft and hard aspects of quality

management practices influencing service quality and customer satisfaction in

manufacturing-oriented services. Global Business Review, 11(1), 79-101.

MacGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise (Vol. 21, No. 166-171). McGraw‐

Hill: New York.

Malheiro, A., Ribeiro, F., Jamil, G., Rascao, J., & Mealha, O. (2018). Handbook of

research on knowledge management for contemporary business

environments (1st ed., pp. 84-106). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to

see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2),

176-187.

McMillan, K., & Albrecht, S. (2010). Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in

Organizations. Communication Methods And Measures, 4(3), 201-220. doi:

10.1080/19312450903378909
Men, L. (2014). Why Leadership Matters to Internal Communication: Linking

Transformational Leadership, Symmetrical Communication, and Employee

Outcomes. Journal Of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 256-279. doi:

10.1080/1062726x.2014.908719

Morhart, F., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-Specific Leadership: Turning

Employees into Brand Champions. Journal Of Marketing, 73(5), 122-142. doi:

10.1509/jmkg.73.5.122

Okoye, P. V. C., & Ezejiofor, R. A. (2013). The effect of human resources development

on organizational productivity. International Journal of Academic Research in

Business and Social Sciences, 3(10), 250.

Pilbeam, S., & Corbridge, M. (2010). People resourcing and talent planning: HRM in

practice. Prentice Hall.

Podsakoff, N., Whiting, S., Podsakoff, P., & Blume, B. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviours: A

meta-analysis. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. doi:

10.1037/a0013079

Rajiani, I., Musa, H., & Hardjono, B. (2016). Ability, motivation and opportunity as

determinants of green human resources management innovation. Res. J. Bus.

Manag, 10(1), 51-57.

Rees, G., & Smith, P. (Eds.). (2017). Strategic human resource management: An

international perspective. Sage.

Rhee, Y., & Moon, B. (2009). Organizational Culture and Strategic Communication

Practice: Testing the Competing Values Model (CVM) and Employee

 Communication Strategies (ECS) Model in Korea1. International Journal Of

Strategic Communication, 3(1), 52-67. doi: 10.1080/15531180802608386

Searle, R. H., & Dietz, G. (2012). Trust and HRM: Current insights and future

directions. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 333-342.

ter Hoeven, C., & Verhoeven, J. (2013). “Sharing is Caring”. Corporate Communications:

An International Journal, 18(2), 264-279. doi: 10.1108/13563281311319526

van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B., & Thunnissen, M. (2013). Talent management in

academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource

Management Journal, 23(2), 180-195.

Vermeeren, B., Steijn, B., Tummers, L., Lankhaar, M., Poerstamper, R., & van Beek, S.

(2014). HRM and its effect on employee, organizational and financial outcomes in

health care organizations. Human Resources For Health, 12(1). doi:

10.1186/1478-4491-12-35

Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (2011). Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’ back into

strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management

Journal, 21(2), 93-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00165.x

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,

strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge

management. Journal of Business research, 63(7), 763-771.