HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE · PDF fileimplications of an alternative view of the...

Social Responsibility, Professional Ethics, and ManagementProceedings of the 11th International ConferenceAnkara, Turkey, 24–27 November 20102010

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE AND

ORGANISATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY: A NEW PARADIGM

Professor Robin Kramar, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie

University

[email protected]

Melia Famiola Hariadi, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie

University

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The issues of environmental and social sustainability are firmly on the international political

agenda and these two areas of sustainability are also now claimed to be a major concern for

business organisations. The desire for long term environmental, social, as well as financial

sustainability poses a number of challenges for business organisations. It also poses

challenges for managers, for policymakers and for employees. Sustainability challenges

management concepts, such as performance, and frameworks, such as human resource

frameworks, used by managers.

This paper focuses on a particular area of management, human resource management. The

paper explores the concept of organisational performance, sustainability and the relationship

between organisational performance, sustainability and human resource management. The

analysis reveals that most of the existing research is framed within a world view that is

mechanistic and static. Such a view limits an understanding of the dynamic relationship

between human resource management, organisational performance and sustainability. An

alternative view is proposed and the implications for human resource management,

organisational performance and sustainability are explored.

Keywords: Sustainability, human resource management, performance, theory

451


INTRODUCTION

Sustainability issues are now on the international political agenda and are a serious concern

for many business organisations. The broad concept of sustainability, which encompasses

financial, environmental and social long term outcomes, requires managers, policy makers

and employees to examine and review their definitions of organisational performance and the

purpose of management practice. It also requires an evaluation of the way these long-term

outcomes are to be achieved. Human resource management practices are important for

developing capabilities and organisational culture and they therefore contribute to sustainable

outcomes. Human resource practices and the outcomes of these practices, such as creative,

risk-taking and innovative capabilities, are also an outcome of sustainable practice and a

mediator between sustainability objectives and organisational performance.

This paper will focus on the relationship between sustainability, organisational performance

and human resource management. The research question examines whether human resource

management can contribute to sustainability and organisational performance. This is a

complex question which examines relationships between concepts which are ill-defined and

shaped by assumptions about the world and the nature of organisations. Examination of the

research question requires not only an examination of the literature about the relationship

between organisational performance, human resource management and sustainability, it also

requires an evaluation of the dominant world view which informs this literature. When an

alternative world view is used to examine this relationship, the concepts of human resource

management and organisational performance are defined in broader ways.

The methodology used to examine this question involves an examination of the literature

published in journals and books. The literature falls into three main areas: the relationship

between human resource management and organisational performance, the contribution of

human resource management to sustainability and the relationship between organisational

performance and sustainability. The first part of the paper examines the connection between

human resource management and organisational performance and the processes by which

human resource management contributes to organisational performance. This section also

explores the relationship between sustainability and organisational performance and the role

of human resource management practices for furthering sustainability outcomes. The second

part examines the world view which informs most of the above literature and the concepts of

organizational performance and human resource management. The final section explores the

452


implications of an alternative view of the world and organisations for the concepts and

practice of human resource management, organisational performance and sustainability.

OVERVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMEMENT, ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND

SUSTAINABILITY

The terms organisational performance, sustainability and human resource management are the

subject of considerable debate. The definitions of these terms vary according to particular

stakeholder interests, the time frame used and the national and industry contexts being

considered. However, irrespective of these factors, organisational performance and

sustainability are inextricably linked: organisational performance contributes to the

sustainability of the organisation. For the purposes of the first part of this paper, the definition

of sustainability and organisational performance are those which are explicitly or implicitly

embodied in the operation of businesses in a neo-liberal form of capitalism and the

management theories, such as strategic human resource management (SHRM) which have

been developed to support the operation of organisations in this economic system.

Sustainability is therefore defined as the long term survival of the organisation.

Organisational performance refers to both short term and long term measurable outcomes

which contribute to the sustainability of the organisation. These outcomes could include

financial, human/social and environmental outcomes. However, the emphasis is on the way

these outcomes contribute to the long term financial survival and adaptation of the

organisation.

Human resource management (HRM) and SHRM refer to the systems of practices used to

manage people and teams who do the work of an organisation and to those practices used to

build the relationships between organisations and external stakeholders. The ultimate purpose

of HRM/SHRM is to further organisational performance and the sustainability of the

organisation. The contribution of HRM/SHRM to competitive advantage has been a dominant

theme in the literature (Boxall & Purcell, 2003, 71-88; Pfeffer, 1995).

Human resource management and organisational performance

Various approaches have been developed to support the important influence of human

resource management on organizational performance (Chew & Sharma, 2005; Combs, Liu,

Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Evans & Davis, 2005; Liu, Combs, Ketchen Jr, & Ireland, 2007; Wan

453


& Huang, 2005). Studies reveal a number of mediating factors that contribute to

organizational performance. These include HRM's capacity to influence aspects of

organisational outcomes, particularly individual capabilities and organisational capabilities

which contribute to organisational performance in the short term and long term. HRM

practices have been shown to further organisational performance by developing individual

capabilities such as knowledge, skills, abilities (Daniels, 2003; Machin & Vignoles, 2001) as

well as behaviours and attitudes (Schuler & Jackson, 1987). Studies also show HR practices

contribute to the development of inimitable cultures (Delery & Doty 1996), and

organisational capabilities such as innovation (Laursen & Foss, 2003) and knowledge

management (Goll, Johnson & Rasheed, 2007).

Although there are semantic difficulties associated with the terms HRM and SHRM, it is

possible to identify HRM and SHRM as those practices which positively impact on

organisation outcomes and organisational performance (Schuler & Jackson 1997). Central to

the notion of SHRM is the assertion that an explicit organisational strategy provides the

framework for the development of human resource management practices. A prominent body

of research indicates that high performance work practices (HPWPs), such as incentive

compensation, training, information sharing, employee participation, selective selection and

recruitment, an egalitarian culture and teamwork are practices which contribute to

organisational performance (Pfeffer 1998). SHRM theory asserts there should be a ‘strategic

fit’ between HPWPs and organisational strategy in order to improve performance (Delery &

Doty 1996; Capelli & Crocker-Hefter 1996).

A meta-analysis of research (Combs, Liu, Hall & Ketchen 2006) on the link between HPWPS

and organisational performance found that HPWPs did positively impact organisational

performance, however the practices of performance appraisal, teams and information sharing

were not shown to have a positive impact. The analysis also found systems of practices, rather

than individual practices had a stronger impact and that the positive relationship between

human resource practices and organisational performance existed irrespective of the

performance measure used. Context was found to influence the size of the impact of the

HPWPs-organisational performance relationship, with impact being double in manufacturing

than it was in services. Although Coombs et al (2006) identified organisational strategy as a

moderator between HPWPs and organisational performance, they were unable to test for this

link because of the difficulties in coding studies according to the appropriateness of the

454


“strategic fit” of the organisations in the studies and the lack of information about the

correlations between organisational performance and strategy-HPWPs .

Particular HRM practices such as training and development, effective selection, performance

feedback and performance pay can often improve employee productivity and performance so

people display the necessary capabilities to further organisational objectives. HRM practices

are also able to create a positive psychological contract between the employee and the

employer. This can result in increased trust, commitment, organisational citizenship,

engagement and a sense of fairness (Coyle-Shapiro 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans 1998; Guest &

Conway 1997; Patterson et al 1997).

Although the concept of organisational capabilities can be understood in a variety of ways, a

commonly accepted definition refers to organised activities which enable the achievement of

significant outcomes within a large scale unit of analysis with a recognisable purpose. These

activities are developed through conscious intent (Dosi, Nelson & Winter, 2000, 7) and

indicate an organisational ability to balance continuity and change in rapidly changing

circumstances (Teece et al, 516). Organisational capabilities such as innovation and

knowledge management, contribute to organisational performance. As mentioned previously,

it has been shown that a variety of human resource management practices contribute to the

development of these capabilities and to the organisational change and development resulting

from these capabilities.

Organisational performance, sustainability and human resource management

The studies referred to above have focussed on performance in terms of financial and tangible

outcomes. These are essential for the longer term survival of an organisation and its

sustainability, however, there are indications that social/human and environmental outcomes

are also important for organisational sustainability. It has been shown an organisation’s

financial performance can be improved in a number of ways. These include addressing

human/social outcomes by providing internal benefits such as developing capabilities,

providing career opportunities, work-life balance programs and an ethical culture. In addition,

addressing environmental outcomes of the business have been shown to positively influence

corporate reputation and image (Orlitzy, Schmidt & Rynes, 2003; Brammer et al 2007; Turker

2009; Branco and Rodrigues, 2006; Valentine et al 2008; Beaureguard & Henry 2009;

Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Gollan, 2005; Jabbour & Santos, 2008).

455


These practices contribute to organisational performance through improved employee

perception of the organisation, improved morale and job satisfaction, an ability to attract and

retain employees, a greater sense of organisational justice and employee commitment

(Peterson 2004; Brammer et al 2007; Kuvaas & Dysvik 2009). These outcomes contribute to

greater cost efficiencies through lower salaries, increased productivity, reduced turnover and

lower recruitment and training costs (Albinger and Freeman 2000; Greening & Turban 2000;

Bachaus et al 2002; Peterson 2004). Therefore, performing well on social, human and

environmental indicators represents a form of strategic investment that has a positive impact

on financial outcomes (Brammer, Millington, & Rayton, 2007; Daily & Su, 2001; Jin & Wei,

2009; Koh & Boo, 2004; Loi, Ngo, & Foley, 2006; Neves, 2009; Peterson, 2004; Puig,

Martin, Tena, & Llusar, 2007; Turker, 2009).

The term corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social performance (CSP) has

been used to refer to an organisations’s performance along a range of performance indicators:

financial, human/social and environmental. Although there a range of systems and debates

about what constitutes CSR (Dahlsrud 2008), a commonly held view is that organisations are

responsible to the society in which they are part (van Marrewijk, 2001). However, it is

noteworthy that the ‘economic rationale’ dominates the research on the relationship between

CSR initiatives and organisational performance (Walsh et al, 2003, 868). An analysis of

research on CSP/CSR found 121 studies empirically examined the relationship between CSR

and financial performance. The study found 100 of these studies were concerned with the

relationship between CSR and financial outcomes, rather than social performance (Walsh et

al, 2003).

It has been shown that environmental and human/ social outcomes are interrelated and

contribute to organisational sustainability. Relationships between the development and

implementation of an environmental management system, human resource policies and the

development of capabilities necessary for an organisation’s sustainability have been

demonstrated in a number of studies (Dunphy et al, 2000; Daily & Huang 2001; Wilkinson et

al 2001; Benn & Dunphy, 2004). The development and implementation of advanced

environmental policies and capabilities are dependent on the creation of HRM policies that

create trust between employees, management and the communities in which the organisation

operates.

456


The above review suggests that organisational performance and sustainability can be

furthered by moving beyond the traditional performance indicators such as financial and

marketing targets (Boudreau et al., 2005). An organisation could benefit from the use of

social and environmental measures which contribute to the future success of the organisation

and to the welfare of future generations (Benn & Baker, 2009; Hall & Vredenburg, 2003).

Although the rational for the adoption of these broader performance measures rely on their

contribution to short term and long term financial outcomes, the use of these broader

indicators require an acknowledgement that various stakeholders will have different

perceptions about sustainability, success and organisational performance. This raises

additional challenges about the need to manage a variety of stakeholders and stakeholder

relationships.

VIEWS OF ORGANISATIONS: DOMINANT VIEW AND ALTERNATIVE,

EMERGING VIEW

The research discussed in the previous sections is based on assumptions about the nature of

the economy, organisations and management processes. These assumptions frame the way

relationships between institutions, outcomes and processes are conceptualised. This research

is based on assumptions consistent with a mechanistic view of the world. This view is

encapsulated in the neo-classical view of economics, a rational view of organisations, the

‘homo-economicus view’ of individuals and a mechanisitic view of management that

underpins concepts such as strategic management. However, these assumptions limit our

understanding of organisational performance, sustainability and the influence of HRM to

outcomes in these areas.

When a different set of assumptions are adopted about the economy, institutions, outcomes

and management processes, the nature of organisational performance, sustainability and the

HRM processes required to achieve these outcomes emerge. The following section briefly and

simplisticly outlines the dominant assumptions which inform the majority of the research on

the relationship between organisation performance, sustainability and HRM. It also raises a

number of implications for these relationships when alternative assumptions are adopted.

The dominant prevailing view of organisations

The assumptions informing the dominant view of the economy, organisations and HRM

emerge from the industrial and scientific revolutions which promulgated a rational,

457


mechanistic view of the operation of markets and institutions. The neo-classical view of the

economy assumed markets operated as perfectly functioning ‘clearing mechanisms’ by

balancing price and cost. This view was based on assumptions about perfect knowledge and

equal power of the participants in the market. These market mechanisms were assumed to

allocate resources in the most efficient way.

Organisations would not have a place if markets operated perfectly, however, they are

necessary for `internalizing’ recurring economic exchanges, increasing the efficiency of

resource allocation and reducing the cost of individual transactions through standardisation

and establishing routines (Coarse 1937). Therefore in this economy, organisations are

assumed to operate in a rational way, ie by seeking to maximize efficiency and effectiveness

by reducing market costs, maximizing market returns and operating in a deliberate and

purposeful way (Barnard, 1938, p4). According to this view, organisations represent a

common purpose or a unitary frame in which conflict between stakeholders’ interests is an

aberration. The owners of organisations and managers therefore, are responsible for

maximising the interests of their shareholders by increasing the profits of the company. This

is reflected in the notions of organisational performance which are measured solely in terms

of profits, rather than social or environmental outcomes. “There is one and only one social

responsibility of business – to use its resources and use its resources to engage in activities

designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say,

engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” (Friedman, 1970).

According to this view, it is appropriate for organisations to only engage in activities that

improve social/human outcomes only if they contribute to financial outcomes. As the review

of the research on the relationship between organisational performance, human resource

management and sustainability demonstrates, the focus of the research has been on ultimately

achieving financial outcomes. Social/human and environmental outcomes have been accorded

value if they contribute to these outcomes.

HRM practices are therefore, ideally seen as contributing to the more effective operation of

the organisation by maximising financial outcomes in the short and long term. These HRM

practices also ideally contribute to shaping employee behaviour so it is efficient and effective

and the organisation operates optimally (Bourdreau and Ramstad, 2007). This view of

organisations and HRM can accommodate assumptions about people being influenced by

their feelings, emotions and social needs because these characteristics are an element in their

attempts to maximise their personal outcomes. When these aspects of people are

458


acknowledged, one of the challenges for HRM is to manage them so financial returns are

maximised.

This simple view of the purpose and nature of organisations has been challenged in a number

of ways over the years, however, it is still the dominant perspective in most organisations

(Zappala, 2010, p7) and it underpins the focus of research in this area. Among the challenges

have been the development of reporting and accounting standards that measure a range of

outcomes eg the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Accountability AA1000 standards;

moves towards responsible investment eg the United Nations Principle for Responsible

Investment (PRI) initiative; the development in global corporations of initiatives in the areas

of Corporate Citizenship, CSR and Sustainability (Zappala, 2010, 7); and the development of

measures such as human capital analysis (O’Donnell, Kramar & Dyball, 2009). Despite, these

developments, an understanding and integration of broader sustainability outcomes reflected

in the concept of CSR is still limited and fragmented (Zappala, 2010, 7-16). “The current

focus is primarily on how to operationalize CSR – how to integrate it into the corporation’s

vocabulary, policies, stakeholder communications, and reporting systems” (Pruzan, 2008,

553). This approach limits a deep review of the meaning and nature of organisational

outcomes and performance, the practice of corporate responsibility and the facets of

sustainability and what they mean for business practice.

Alternative, emerging view of organisations

In order to confront these issues and therefore the nature of the relationships between HRM,

organisational performance and sustainability, it is necessary to frame these relationships

within a different view of organisations, or as Zappala would argue, “a new world view”

(Zappala, 2010, p16). This world view can take a variety of forms, but some of its aspects

include the notion of organisations and markets consisting of stakeholders with varying

interests (Freeman 1984), an explicit acknowledgment of the exercise of power and

differential access to knowledge in the market and in organisations (Clegg 1994) and its

impact on the development and implementation of HRM practices (Kramar, 1992) and a view

that the world and organisations are complex adaptive systems (CAS) which are self

organising, unpredictable and non-linear. Incorporated as part of this world view are the

explicit acknowledgement of personal characteristics such as passion, creativity, spirituality

and the importance of meaning and connectedness with nature and ecosystems (Wheatley,

459


2006). Spirituality acknowledges the importance of mindfulness, belonging, connectedness

and relational consciousness (Zappala 2010).

When organisations are viewed as CAS, it enables a dynamic focus which acknowledges that

change involving internal and external parties is a constant aspect of organisational life.

Organisations in this world view would have broader purposes and take different forms from

those shaped by the corporations law. The purpose of organisations could be ‘to harness

private interests to serve the public interests’ and to engage a range of stakeholders in

decision making and sharing of rewards (Zappala, 2010, 19-20; Hinkley 2002). Alternatively

the purpose of organisations could be described as ‘beneficial’ or a B Corporation in which

the power of consumers, investors, government procurers and other stakeholders are engaged

to broaden corporate purpose and standards of accountability (Zappala, 2010, 21-22).

When the relationship between HRM, organisational performance and sustainability is

considered within this ‘world view’, organisational performance and outcomes are much

broader than the maximisation of profits and financial outcomes. Social/human outcomes and

environmental outcomes represent outcomes in their right, not just a means of contributing to

financial results. In addition, organisational performance could be measured in terms of

outcomes which arise from the engagement of stakeholders in the organisation, rather than

just organisationally mandated outcomes. The concept of sustainability also assumes a

broader meaning. A broader meaning would explicitly recognize that values are incorporated

in its conceptualization and that it involves the balancing of competing interests, values and

priorities of a range of stakeholders, including future generations and ecological systems.

The requirement to manage a range of internal and external stakeholders has significant

implications for HRM. Stakeholder relationships represent a ‘complex interplay of shifting,

ambiguous and contested relationships’ (Gao and Zhang, 2006, p725) and at a minimum,

stakeholder management requires communication between the stakeholders. The process of

stakeholder management involves incorporating the views of stakeholders such as employees,

customers, regulators, the community and shareholders into decision making (Freeman, 1984;

Carroll & Buchholtz, 2002). Effective stakeholder management requires particular

capabilities, such as dialogue, long-term thinking, critical reflection, systemic thinking,

conflict management and collaborative skills (Gao & Zhang 2006). The research on the links

between HRM, organisational performance and sustainability discussed in the previous

460


section and framed in terms of the traditional world view have not addressed these

capabilities.

Consequently, HRM practices and systems explicitly seek to achieve outcomes broader than

just measures of financial performance. Their focus could be on facilitating greater

understanding of the various interests of the stakeholders and the emergence of organisational

outcomes which reflect these interests. Just as the concepts of organisational performance and

sustainability became broader, so does the concept and practice of HRM. Essential elements

of HRM would include processes of individual and team development of capabilities

associated with understanding different mental models/frameworks, knowledge and power

bases of stakeholders; increased self knowledge and an understanding of values and influence

of emotions on perception and behaviour; critical reflection and systems thinking; and an

ability to understand the interconnectedness of individuals, organisations and the

environment, including the ecological system (Kramar 2009; Taylor 2007). Other essential

capabilities required of stakeholders is the ability to engage in debate, manage conflict

constructively and at the same time engage in dialogue and collaboration so new

understandings, decisions, practices and even institutions emerge.

The role and nature of leadership emerges as a process in which the purposes of organisations

and the way the organisation does business are questioned. Leadership is recognized as a

process of symbolic, emotional management involving the exercise of power. It is a process

that involves all aspects of an individual, including their spiritual and emotional lives, and

their values (Sinclair 2007). Leadership is therefore an essential component of HRM.

The previous discussion has not acknowledged the influence of national contexts on

perceptions of organisational performance, sustainability and the relationship and contribution

of HRM to these outcomes. The Rhineland model of capitalism which is evident in Germany

and Switzerland provides a framework for “a system of long-term cooperative relationships

between different parties”, including companies, trade unions, banks, suppliers and clients

(Avery, 2005, p17). Social outcomes, including egalitarian welfare distribution, social

benefits, community infrastructure and social justice are regarded as important outcomes of

the operation of business (Avery, 2005, p14-15). This suggests that governments and

regulators can play a role in shaping the ‘world view’ in which organisations operate and

HRM is practiced.

461


CONCLUSION

Sustainability requires a new way of thinking about business success. It requires a rethinking

of the notion of business success, organisational performance and a clarification about the

meaning of sustainability for the business and for the broader society. HRM could have a

significant role in furthering broader organisational outcomes and, in particular sustainability

outcomes. However, most recent attempts to further sustainability and organisational

performance have been grounded in a view of the world based on a mechanistic, incomplete

view of the market, organisations and individuals.

To more completely understand the relationship between HRM, organisational performance

and sustainability a more comprehensive, non-linear view of the world and a non-rational

view of individuals needs to be adopted. When the relationship is considered in this context,

different questions will emerge, research methods will need to be able to deal with dynamic

change and the nature of the concepts will be much broader.

REFERENCES

Albinger, H. and Freeman, S. 2000. Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an

Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3):

243-253.

Avery, G. 2005. Leadership for Sustainable Futures: Achieving success in a competitive world.

Edward Elgar.Cheltenham, UK.

Bachaus, K., Stone, B.& Heiner, K. 2002. Exploring the Relationship between Corporate

Social performance and Employer Effectiveness. Business and Society, 41 (3):319-

344.

Beaureguard, T. A. & Henry, L. C. 2009. Making the link between work-life balance

practices

and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1): 166-

175.

Benn, S. & Baker, E. 2009. Advancing Sustainability through Change and Innovation: A Co-

evolutionary perspective. Journal of Change Management, 9(4): 383 - 397.

462


Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. 2005. Talentship, Talent Segmentation, and Sustainability: A new

HR Decision Science Paradigm for a New Strategy Definition. Human Resource Management,

44(2): 129-136.

Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2003. Strategy and Human Resource Management. Palgrave, Macmillan.

Hampshire:71-88.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. 2007. The contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility

to Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10):

1701-1719.

Branco, M. and Rodrigues, L. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based

Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2):111-132.

Capelli, P. & Crocker-Hefter, A. 1996. Distinctive human resources are firms' core

competencies. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3): ?

Carroll, A. & Buchholtz, A. 2002. Business and Society with Infotrac, Ethics and Stakeholder

Management. South-Western College. Cincinatti.

Chew, I. K. H. & Sharma, B. 2005. The Effects of Culture and HRM Practices on Firm Performance.

International Journal of Manpower, 26(6): 560-581.

Clegg, S. 1994. Weber and Foucault: social theory for the study of organisations. Organization, 1(1):

149-78.

Coarse, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, new series: 386-405.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. 2006. How Much Do High-Performance Work Practices

Matter? A Meta-Analysis Of Their Effects On Organizational Performance. Personnel

Psychology, 59(3): 501-528.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., 2002. A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship

behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23: 927-946.

Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1): 1-13.

Daily, B. F. & Su, C. H. 2001. Achieving Sustainability through Attention to Human Resource Factors

in Environmental Management. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 21(12): 1539-1552.

Daniels, S. 2003. Employee training: a stratgeic approach to better return on investment. Journal of

Business Strategy, 24 (5): 39-42.

463


Delery, J. & Doty, H. 1996. Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of

Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions. Academy

Management Journal, 39(4):802-835.

Dosi, G., R.R. Nelson & G.G. Winter (eds). 2000. The Nature and Dynamics of Organisational

Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D. 2005. High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational

Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure. Journal of Management, 31(5):

758-775.

Freeman,R. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.

Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits. New York Times

magazine, September, 13: 32.

Gollan, P. J. 2005. High Involvement Management and Human Resource Sustainability: The

Challenges and Opportunities. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(1): 18-33.

Goll, I., Johnson, N. B. & Rasheed, A. A. 2007. Knowledge capability, strategic change, and firm

performance: The moderating role of the environment. Management Decision, 45 (2): 161-179.

Greening, D. & Turban, D. 2000. Corproate Social Performance As Competitive Advantage

in Attracting a Quality Workforce. Business & Society, 39(3): 254-280.

Gao, S. & Zhang, J. 2006. Stakeholder Engagement, Social Auditing and Corporate

Sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6): 722-740.

Guest, D. and Conway, N. 1997. Employee motivation and the psychological contract. Issues in

People Management, no. 21, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Hall, J. & Vredenburg, H. 2003. The Challenges of Innovating for Sustainable Development: to Foster

Sustainable Development, an Innovation Strategy must Have vision that Transcends a

Maelstrom of Complex, and Sometimes Contradictory, Demands. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 45(1): 61(68).

Hinkley, R. 2002. 28 words to redefine Corporate Duties - The Proposal for a Code for Corporate

Citizenship. The multinational monitor, 23(7/8)

Jabbour, C. J. C. & Santos, F. C. A. 2008. The Central Role of Human Resource Management in the

Search for Sustainable Organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

19(12): 2133-2154.

Jin, Z. & Wei, Z. 2009. How does Satisfaction Translate into Performance? An Examination of

Commitment and Cultural Values. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3): 331-351.

464


Koh, H. C. & Boo, E. f. H. Y. 2004. Organizational Ethics and Employee Satisfaction and

Commitment. Management Decision, 42(5): 677-693.

Kuvaas, B. & Dysvik, A. 2009. Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation

and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3): 217 -236.

Kramar, R. 1992. Strategic Human Resource Management: Are the Promises Fulfilled?. Asia Pacific

HRM, 30( 1) Autumn, 1992: 1-15.

Kramar, R. 2009. Human Resources. In Business Management and Environmental Stewardship, ed R.

Staib, 97-118. Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan.

Laursen, K. & Foss, N. J. 2003. New human resource management practices, complementarities and

the impact on organisational performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27: 243-263.

Liu, Y., Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. The Value of Human Resource

Management for Organizational Performance. Business Horizons, 50(6): 503-511.

Loi, R., Ngo, H.-y., & Foley, S. 2006. Linking employees' justice perceptions to organizational

commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support.

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79(1): 101-120.

Mackin, S. and Vignoles, A. 2001. The economic benefits of training to the individual, the firm and

the economy: the key issues. Great Britain Department for education and Skills, Cabinet Office,

London.

Neves, P. 2009. Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employee's Level of Individual Change and

Turnover Intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215-231.

O`Donnell, M., R. Kramar, & M.Dyball. 2009. “Human Capital Reporting: Should it be Industry

Specific? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol 47(3):358-373.

Orlitzy, M. Schmidt, F. & Rynes, S. 2003. Corporate Social Financial Performacne: A Meta-

Analysis. Organizational Studies, 24(3): 403-441.

Patterson, m.G., West, M. A., Lawthorn R.& Nickell, S. 1997. Impact of people management

practices on business performance. Issues in People Management, no. 22. Institute of Personnel

and Development, London.

Peterson, D. K. 2004. The Relationship between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and

Organizational Commitment. Business Society, 43(3): 296-319.

Pfeffer, J. 1995. Producing sustainable competitive advantagethrough effective people management,

Academy of Management Executive, 9(1): 55-72.

Pfeffer, J. 1998. The Human Equation. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.

465


Pruzan, P.2008. Spirituality as a firm basis for Corporate Social Responsibility. In The Oxford

Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, eds A. Crane, A.McWIlliams, D. Matten, J.

Moon & D.S. Siegal, 553. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Puig, V. R., Martin, I. B., Tena, A. B. E., & Llusar, J. C. B. 2007. Organizational Commitment to

Employee and Organizational Performance: a Simultaneous Test of Configurative and

Universalistic Propositions. Personnel Review, 36(6): 867-886.

Schuler, R. & Jackson, S. 1997. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management

practices, Academy of Management Executive, 1 (3): 207-219.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 240-261.

Taylor, B. 2007. Learning for Tomorrow: Whole Person Learning. Oasis Press. West Yorkshire.

Teece, D., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic management. Strategic

Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533. 1997

Turker, D. 2009. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment.

Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2): 189-204.

Valentine, S. & Fleischman, G. 2008. Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social

Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2): 159-172.

van Marrewijk, M. 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability:

Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3): 95-105.

Walsh, J., Weber, K. and MArgolis, J. 2003. 5 Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause.

Journal of Management, 29 (6): 89-881.

Wan, J. A. C. & Huang, T. C. 2005. Relationship betweenStrategic Human Resource Management and

an Firm Performance: A contigency Perspective. International Journal of Manpower, 26(5):

434-449.

Wheatley, M. 2006. Leadership and the new science, Discovering order in a chaotic world, 3rd ed. San

Francisco: Brett-Koehler.

Zappala, G. 2010. Beyond Corporate Responsibility: The Spiritual `Turn' and the rise of conscious

business. CSI Background Paper, no. 6, February. Centre for Social Impact.

466

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE · PDF fileimplications of an alternative view of the...

Documents

Transcript of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE · PDF fileimplications of an alternative view of the...