The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

[Link]/[Link]

MRR
36,7 Justice, trust and employee
reactions: an empirical
examination of the HRM system
674
Anastasia A. Katou
Department of Marketing and Operations Management,
University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of an integrated HRM system
(content, process and climate) on employee reactions (motivation, commitment, work engagement, and
organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)), through the mediating role of organizational justice
(distributive, procedural and interactional) and organizational trust (integrity, competence and
dependability), which has not been fully studied in the past.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a national sample of 133 organizations
from the public and private sectors in Greece and on data obtained from 1,061 employees. The
statistical method employed is structural equation modelling.
Findings – The findings of the study suggest that the HRM process has a higher impact on employee
reactions than HRM content. Additionally, the findings support the idea that procedural and
distributive justice are related more to trust dependability and integrity, and that procedural justice is
a better predictor of employee reactions than distributive justice.
Research limitations/implications – The study does not allow for dynamic causal inferences
because the data was collected using a questionnaire at a single point in time. Furthermore, the
findings of the study may not generalize across borders, because the study was applied in the Greek
context, which has different labour relations with respect to other countries.
Practical implications – The study has clear implications for both managers and decision makers,
because it suggests that employees are more committed and satisfied when the HRM system is more
consistent and distinctive, more rewarding and provides opportunities for training.
Originality/value – The theoretical significance of the study is important, because it suggests that
both the content and the process of HR practices, as perceived by employees, strongly influence
employees’ reactions, such as motivation, commitment, work engagement and organizational
citizenship behaviour OCB.
Keywords HRM content, HRM process, HRM climate, Justice, Trust, Employee reactions, Greece,
Human resource management
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
An HRM system usually consists of three parts: content, process and climate (Bowen
and Ostroff, 2004). HRM content refers to the individual HR policies and practices that
make up an HRM system (Boselie et al., 2005). HRM process refers to the method by
which HR policies and practices are communicated to employees (Li et al., 2011). HRM
climate refers to how HR policies and practices are experienced by employees
Management Research Review (Kinnie et al., 2005). HRM climate is influenced by both HRM content and process (Bowen
Vol. 36 No. 7, 2013
pp. 674-699 and Ostroff, 2004).
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited In investigating the relationship between HRM systems and employee reactions
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2012-0160 early studies concentrated on the content – reactions relationship (Boselie et al., 2005).
Later studies considered that HRM climate, or HR policies and practices as Justice and
experienced, mediate the causal relationship between content and reactions (Wright employee
and Nishii, 2004). Recent studies suggest that HRM climate mediates the causal
relationship between process and reactions (Li et al., 2011). However, Bowen and reactions
Ostroff (2004) proposed that HRM content and process must be integrated effectively in
order to investigate the HRM system – employee reactions relationship. This is the
first objective of the present paper. In other words, this study examines the existence 675
and the strength of the influence of both the content and the process of the HRM
system on employee reactions, such as employee motivation, commitment, work
engagement and organizational citizen behaviour (OCB).
Considering that the HR policies and practices regulate the relationships between
employers and employees, the content and process of an HRM system determines how HR
policies and practices are experienced by employees (Kinnie et al., 2005). Constructive
shared perceptions about HR policies and practices across employees, or a strong HRM
climate, are positively related to organizational justice, which in turn builds trust in the
organization (Zhang and Agarwal, 2009; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). However,
although research links justice, or the fairness of the HRM system, to a variety of employee
attitudes, few studies have examined the relationship between organizational justice
and employee reactions through organizational trust (DeConinck, 2010). This is the second
objective of the present paper. In other words, this study examines the existence and the
strength of the influence of various dimensions of organizational justice and
organizational trust on employee reactions.
Some studies demonstrate that distributive justice (fairness of outcomes employees
receive) does not significantly affect trust in the organization (Konovsky and Pugh,
1994). Other studies show that both distributive justice and procedural justice
(the fairness of the procedures by which decisions are made) are related to trust in the
organization (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Kumar et al., 1995; Tyler and Lind, 1992).
In particular, procedural justice seems to be a better predictor of employee reactions
(Folger and Konovsky, 1989), but the effects of distributive and procedural justice on
organizational trust give mixed results (Wong et al., 2006).
Summarizing, the purpose of this paper is two-fold. The first purpose is to investigate
the HRM system – employee reactions relationship by integrating into the HRM system,
the content, process and climate dimensions of HR policies and practices. The second
purpose is to investigate whether organizational justice and trust mediate the
relationship between the HRM system and employee reactions. This will advance our
understanding of the HRM-employee reactions relationship.

2. Research framework and hypotheses

Figure 1 presents an operational model linking HR practices and employee reactions.
The proposed operational model assumes that organizational justice mediates the
relationship between HR practices and organizational trust, whilst organizational trust
mediates the relationship between organizational justice and employee reactions.
Specifically, the model is constituted of two related systems; the HRM system and the
employee reactions system. The first system is based on the notion that HRM content
and HRM process influence HRM climate. The second system is based on the notion that
organizational justice (i.e. HRM fairness) influences employee reactions through
organizational trust.
MRR HRM Content
The unmediated HRM climate effect?
36,7 •
•
Resourcing
Training
• Rewards Organizational Employee
• Relations HRM Climate Justice Organizational Reactions
• Distributive
• Resourcing Trust
Justice • Motivation
• Training • Integrity
• Procedural • Commitment
• Rewards • Competence
• Work engagement
676 HRM Process
• Relations Justice
• Interactional
• Dependability
• OCB
• Distinctiveness Justice
• Consistency
Figure 1. • Consensus
The unmediated Organizational Justice effect?
An HRM system –
employee reactions Organizational Controls: Sector, Ownership, Size
linkage framework Individual Controls: Gender, Age, Seniority, Position

2.1 The HRM system

There are three concepts that are generally related with an HRM system: content,
process, and climate.
2.1.1 HRM content. Research on the HRM-performance relationship has moved from a
focus on individual HR practices to a set, or HRM system, of practices. The individual
practices that make up the HRM system constitute the content of the HRM system. The
content of the HRM system refers to a set of HR practices and policies through which
organizations can improve the acquisition, development, retention and utilization of their
human capital in order to achieve the strategic goals of the organization (Boselie et al.,
2005). The concept of equifinality is attached to HRM systems (Delery and Doty, 1996),
whereas identical outcomes can be achieved by a number of different HRM systems.
The HRM system is built around two fundamental approaches; the best-practice
approach ( Jackson et al., 1989; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998) and the best-fit approach (Miles and
Snow, 1984; Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Wright and Snell, 1991, 1998). The best-practice
approach, associated with the so-called universalistic model, advocates independence,
supporting the idea that context (e.g. business strategies, types of organizations, types
of employees) and HR practices are mutually independent in improving organizational
performance (Huselid and Becker, 1996). The best-fit approach, associated with the
so-called contingency model, advocates dependence, supporting the idea that HR
practices should be consistent with the context in order to maximize business
performance (Delery and Doty, 1996; Ferris et al., 1999).
2.1.2 HRM process. Over the last decade, attention in the literature has turned from
HRM content to HRM process (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Nishii et al., 2008). HRM process
refers to “the way HR policies and practices are communicated to employees” (Li et al.,
2011, p. 1826). Given the content of an HRM system, employees may find it difficult to
attach only one kind of meaning, because individuals may perceive the HRM practices
differently. This means that although employers intended to deliver HR practices in
order to achieve a specific purpose, say improved organizational performance,
employees perceive the meaning of these HR practices in diverse ways. But if the
meaning of the HRM system is not shared among employees, their collective attitudes
and behaviours needed for achieving the specific purpose will be weak and, as a result,
the purpose will not be properly achieved.
According to Bowen and Ostroff (2004), for an HRM system to be properly
communicated it must have three features: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus.
Distinctiveness refers to features that allow the event-effect relationship to stand out in Justice and
the environment, thereby capturing attention and arousing interest. Consistency refers employee
to features that allow the event-effect relationship to present itself the same over time,
people and contexts. Consensus refers to features that produce agreement among reactions
employee views of the event-effect relationship.
An HRM system may be considered to be a strong HRM system if it satisfies the
features of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. A strong HRM system produces 677
a shared meaning of the HRM system among employees, thus shaping common positive
attitudes and behaviour, which positively influence organizational goals. Thus, the
HRM process and the HRM strength may be considered to be two alternative
explanations of the same concept that reduce variability in employee attitudes and
behaviours.
2.1.3 HRM climate. The content of the HRM system influences employees’
perceptions of HR practices that in turn have an effect on employee attitudes and
behaviour. Thus, a distinction must be made between actual implementation of the HR
practices and how these practices are experienced by employees (Kinnie et al., 2005):
This suggests that the effect of HR practices is not likely to be automatic and always as
expected; instead, their effect will reside in the meanings that employees attach to those
practices (Nishii et al., 2008, p. 504; Wright and Nishii, 2004).
But employees may understand the HR practices idiosyncratically, meaning that two
employees may perceive the same practices differently (Guzzo and Nooman, 1994). Only
when perceptions are shared across employees, or when a strong HRM climate exists,
are employees expected to develop desired collective attitudes and behaviour. An HRM
system that has the features of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus may jointly
shape the perceptions of individuals, thus creating a strong HRM climate (Bowen and
Ostroff, 2004). In addition, Bowen and Ostroff (2004, p. 206) proposed that, “HRM content
and process must be integrated effectively in order for prescriptive models of strategic
HRM actually to link to firm performance”. On the basis of the above the following
hypotheses are developed:
H1. HRM content is positively related to HRM climate.
H2. HRM process is positively related to HRM climate.

2.2 The employee reaction system

There are three concepts that are regularly related with an employee reaction system:
organizational justice, organizational trust and employee reactions.
2.2.1 Organizational justice. It usually consists of three related forms of justice:
distributive justice, interactional justice and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2011; Colquitt et al., 2001, for literature reviews). Distributive justice refers to the
fairness of outcomes employees receive (e.g. pay and promotion) (Adams, 1965).
Employees’ feelings about distributive injustice are associated with dissatisfaction
(DeConinck and Stilwell, 2004). Procedural justice refers to the procedures (e.g. level of
employee voice) by which decisions are made (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Although
employees’ feelings of dissatisfaction about procedural injustice are directed toward
the organization, dissatisfaction may be alleviated if employees participate in
decision-making (DeConinck, 2010). Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal
MRR treatment in how employees are treated in the organization (e.g. personal needs and
36,7 rights) (Bies and Moag, 1986). Employees’ feelings of dissatisfaction about interactional
injustice are mainly directed toward their supervisor (Masterson et al., 2000).
HR policies and practices regulate the relationships between employers and employees.
The content and the process of an HRM system interact to influence employees in shaping
a strong HRM climate (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Employee satisfaction is reflected in a
678 strong HRM climate and is positively related to organizational justice (Zhang and
Agarwal, 2009) that in turn produces positive emotions (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
In contrast, weak HRM climates support perceptions of injustice. Thus, HRM systems are
placed within the wider domain of regulating justice in the organization (Frenkel et al.,
2011). On the basis of the above the following hypothesis is developed:
H3. A strong HRM climate is positively related to organizational justice.
2.2.2 Organizational trust. Trust is an important concept in management research
because it enables supportive behaviour and reduces disagreement at work (Wong et al.,
2006). Trust within an organization refers to the overall evaluation of an organization’s
trustworthiness as perceived by the employee and is usually categorized at two levels:
individual and organizational (Puusa and Tolvanen, 2006). At the individual level, trust is
based on interpersonal interaction (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003), involving the day-to-day
interaction between supervisors and employees (Tan and Tan, 2000). At the organizational
level, trust is a collective phenomenon (Shamir and Lapidot, 2003), involving relations with
a variety of essential groups in the organization (Tan and Tan, 2000). Because little
empirical research exists distinguishing between the two levels of trust (DeConinck, 2010),
and as individual trust is the main determinant of organizational trust (Mishra, 1996), we
will not make any specific distinction between the two in this study.
Trust is important in relationships within organizations and between organizations
(Gounans, 2005; Johnson et al., 2003; Swan et al., 1999). Within organizations trust is
influenced by employees’ perceptions of justice (Brockner and Siegel, 1996; Vanhala and
Ahteela, 2011). If employees perceive that the organization is fair, they will assume that the
organization will continue to be fair in the future (DeConinck, 2010). Employee perceptions
of justice lead to increased trust in the organization, implying that justice is an integral
part of trust (Brockner and Siegel, 1996). Empirical research supports the assumption that
there is a positive relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust
(Aryee and Chen, 2004; Aryee et al., 2002; Stinglhamber et al., 2006). Specifically, the
findings of meta-analysis indicate that all three dimensions of organizational justice
(i.e. distributive, procedural and interactional justice) may influence both levels of trust
(i.e. at the individual and organizational level) (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2011;
Colquitt et al., 2001; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). However, Wong et al. (2006) support the view
that although organizational justice and trust are closely related, previous research on the
effects of organizational justice on trust has produced mixed results. Thus, it could be
interesting to test the following hypothesis in the context of Greece:
H4. Organizational justice is positively related to organizational trust.
H3 and H4 imply that the relationship between HRM climate and organizational trust is
mediated by organizational justice (Karriker and Williams, 2009). This is because a
strong HRM climate, involving a positive experience of HR policies and practices on the
part of employees, produce dividends in terms of organizational trust in fair Justice and
organizations (Colquitt and Greenberg, 2003). employee
2.2.3 Employee reactions. The most important employee reactions within an reactions
organization are usually categorized into four types: motivation, commitment, work
engagement or satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Employee
motivation is defined as “a set of energetic forces that originates both within as well
as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its 679
form, direction, intensity, and duration” (Pinder, 1998, p. 11). Recognition, incentives and
relations constitute key energetic forces of employee motivation (Lockwood, 2010).
Employee commitment describes the extent of an employee’s identification with and
attachment to an organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Affective commitment (denoting
an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization),
continuance commitment (denoting the perceived costs associated with leaving the
organization), and normative commitment (reflecting a perceived obligation to remain in
the organization) are essential dimensions of employee commitment (Allen and Meyer,
1990; Meyer et al., 2002). Employee work engagement or satisfaction is defined as
“a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Vigour (high levels of energy and mental resilience
while working), dedication (sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and
challenge), and absorption (being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work)
are three key dimensions of employee work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Organizational citizenship behavior refers to work-related behaviour that goes above and
beyond that which is dictated by organizational policy and one’s job description (Graham,
1991; Organ, 1988). Altruism (helping other members of the organization in their tasks),
courtesy (preventing problems deriving from work relationships), sportsmanship
(accepting less than ideal circumstances), conscientiousness (dedication to the job and
desire to exceed formal requirements in aspects such as punctuality or conservation of
resources) and civic virtue (responsibly participating in the life of the organization) have
been conceptualized as the key dimensions of OCB (Dimitriades, 2007; Niehoff and
Moorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Restubog et al., 2009).
The findings of meta-analytic studies conducted by Colquitt et al. (2007) and Dirks
and Ferrin (2002) support the assumption that employee reactions such as job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior are associated with trust at the
individual level, while organizational commitment is related with organizational trust
(Cook and Wall, 1980; DeConinck, 2010). Furthermore, organizational trust has been
demonstrated to be an important predictor of organizational citizenship behavior
(van Dyne et al., 2000), while perceptions of organizational justice stimulate trust in
the organization that will improve employee reactions (Cropanzano et al., 2002;
Restubog et al., 2009). On the basis of the above the following hypothesis is developed:
H5. Organizational trust is positively related to employee reactions.
H4 and H5 imply that the relationship between organizational justice and employee
reactions is mediated by organizational trust (Karriker and Williams, 2009). This is
because feelings of trust based on organizational justice will develop positive employee
reactions as reciprocal obligations (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). In particular,
empirical research supports the assumption that organizational justice positively
influences organizational citizenship behaviour (Blakely et al., 2005; Liao and Rupp, 2005;
MRR Moorman et al., 1993; Rego and Cunha, 2010; Restubog et al., 2009; Tansky, 1993),
36,7 organizational commitment (Liao and Rupp, 2005; Rifai, 2005) and job satisfaction
(Rifai, 2005).

3. Method
3.1 Sample
680 Data for this research was collected in October and November 2011 using a
questionnaire survey, which was distributed to the employees of public and private
organizations in the manufacturing, services and trade sectors covering the whole of
Greece. The questionnaires were administered by 100 individuals pursing management
degrees at a Greek business school, who helped to collect data from their organizations
and also from their contact organizations. The survey instrument was distributed to
400 organizations with more than 20 employees. The questionnaires were completed
with help from the people who administered them, after the latter had attended a seminar
for training purposes. Following Gerhart et al. (2000) who suggest that the reliability of
HR measures will be increased by using five to ten respondents per firm, the samplers
were asked to concentrate on eight respondents from each organization; two at senior
management level (one from the HRM/Personnel Department and one from the Finance
Department if possible), two at middle management level (including line managers) and
four at other level of employment. 3,200 questionnaires were distributed altogether.
1,061 usable questionnaires were returned from the employees in 133 organizations,
a response rate of 33.25 percent at the organization level, and 33.16 percent at the
employee level. Table I shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

3.2 Measures
Table II summarizes the measuring instruments with respect to constructs used in the
study, the authors who initially developed the instruments, the subscales used and the
items used in each subscale. For all items five-point scales were used.
3.2.1 HRM content. The construct of HRM Content (i.e. HR practices) comprised of
four subscales: resourcing, development, reward and relations (Armstrong, 1996). The
items for each subscale were measured on a scale ranging from 1 – low use to 5 – high
use. Example items included, “how would you rate the level of use of the performance
appraisal policy in your organization?” and “how would you rate the level of use of the
involvement policy in your organization?”
3.2.2 HRM process. The construct of HRM process (i.e. HR practice features)
comprised of three subscales: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus (Bowen and
Ostroff, 2004). Each subscale included a number of sub-subscales as shown in Table II.
For example, distinctiveness comprised of four sub-subscales: visibility, intelligibility,
legitimacy and relevance. In developing the items in each sub-subscale we followed
Delmotte et al. (2007). The items for each sub-subscale were measured on a Likert scale
ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree. Examples of the items included
“HR practices are known to everybody in this company” (visibility) and “the HR
department in this organization has a high added value” (relevance).
3.2.3 HRM climate. The construct of HRM climate (i.e. HR practices as experienced)
was organized into four subscales: resourcing, development, reward and relations
(Armstrong, 1996). In developing the items in each subscale we followed Kinnie et al. (2005).
The items for each subscale were measured on a scale ranging from 1 – very little to
 Justice and
Number Percentage
employee
Sector reactions
Manufacturing 297 28.0
Services 437 41.2
Trade 327 30.8
Ownership 681
Public 198 18.7
Private 863 81.3
Size (in number of employees)
20-100 565 53.3
101-200 296 27.9
200 þ 200 18.9
Mean size (^ standard deviation) 113.62 (^105.14)
Sex
Male 630 59.4
Female 431 40.6
Position
Senior manager 133 12.5
Middle manager 249 23.5
Other employee 679 64.0
Age (in years)
-25 110 10.4
26-35 339 32.0
36-45 343 32.7
46 þ 269 25.4
Mean age (^ standard deviation) 38.08 (^9.87)
Seniority (in years)
1-5 378 35.6
6-10 270 25.4
11-15 175 16.5
16 þ 238 22.4
Mean seniority (^ standard deviation) 10.39 (^7.96) Table I.
Sample demographic
Note: n ¼ 1,061 measures of respondents

5 – very much. Example items included, “overall, how satisfied do you feel with your
current career opportunities?” and “how satisfied are you with your pay compared with the
pay of the other people at your work place?”
3.2.4 Organizational justice. The construct of organizational justice (i.e. fairness of
the HR system) consisted of three subscales: distributive justice, procedural justice and
interactional justice (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). The items for each subscale were
measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree.
Examples of the items included “employees consider promotions to be fair in this
organization” (distributive justice), “all job decisions are applied consistently across all
affected employees” (procedural justice), and “the general manager offers adequate
justification for decisions made about my job” (interactional justice).
3.2.5 Organizational trust. The construct of organizational trust was composed of
three subscales: integrity, competence and dependability (Paine, 2003). The items
for each subscale were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to
5 – totally agree. Examples of the items included, “this organization treats people like
MRR Percent of
36,7 Number of variance
Construct Instrument author Subscales items Cronbach’s a explained

HRM content Armstrong (2006) 0.864 71.188

Resourcing 3 0.772 68.844
682 Training 3 0.843 76.091
Rewards 3 0.873 79.843
Relations 3 0.801 71.565
HRM process Delmotte et al. 0.918 86.342
(2007)
Distinctiveness 0.929 82.374
Visibility 4 0.881 73.747
Intelligibility 3 0.888 81.666
Legitimacy 3 0.868 79.205
Relevance 3 0.889 81.908
Consistency 0.894 82.627
Instrumentality 4 0.866 71.848
Validity 3 0.875 80.057
Consistency of HR 4 0.869 72.164
messages
Consensus
Agreement among 4 0.896 76.367
message senders
HRM climate Kinnie et al. (2005) 0.924 81.419
Resourcing 3 0.869 79.501
Training 4 0.903 77.413
Rewards 4 0.906 78.257
Relations 4 0.877 72.987
Organizational Niehoff and 0.918 86.342
justice Moorman (1993)
Distributive justice 4 0.894 75.938
Procedural justice 4 0.844 68.812
Interactional justice 4 0.900 76.888
Organizational Paine (2003) 0.915 85.437
trust
Integrity 4 0.902 77.268
Competence 3 0.861 78.213
Dependability 4 0.885 74.399
Employee 0.854 70.536
reactions
Lockwood (2010) Motivation 0.924 86.880
Recognition 3 0.926 87.176
Incentives 4 0.898 76.622
Relations 4 0.912 79.141
Allen and Meyer Organizational 0.805 71.994
(1990) commitment
Affective commitment 7 0.935 72.165
Continuance 4 0.828 66.127
Table II. commitment
Summary of measuring Normative commitment 4 0.730 57.266
instruments (continued)
 Justice and
Percent of
Number of variance employee
Construct Instrument author Subscales items Cronbach’s a explained reactions
Schaufeli et al. Work engagement 0.887 82.070
(2002)
Vigor 6 0.906 68.067 683
Dedication 5 0.921 76.059
Absorption 6 0.918 71.066
Niehoff and Organizational 0.848 63.009
Moorman (1993) citizenship behaviour
Altruism 4 0.870 71.995
Courtesy 4 0.811 64.125
Sportsmanship 4 0.824 66.142
Conscientiousness 4 0.820 65.309
Civic virtue 4 0.888 75.163 Table II.

me fairly and justly” (integrity), “this organization has the ability to accomplish what it
says it will do” (competence), and “this organization can be relied on to keep its
promises” (dependability). We note here that according to Mishra’s (1996) model of
trust, these three dimensions are among the factors that determine organizational trust.
3.2.6 Employee reactions. The construct of employee reactions consisted of four
subscales: motivation (Lockwood, 2010), organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer,
1990), work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and organizational citizenship behaviour
(Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). Each subscale included a number of sub-subscales
as shown in Table II. For example, organizational commitment contained three
sub-subscales: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment. Similarly, OCB contained five sub-subscales: altruism, courtesy,
sportsmanship, conscientiousness and civic virtue. The items for each sub-subscale
were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree.
Examples of the items included, “I feel loyal to my company” (affective commitment) and
“I am always punctual” (conscientiousness).
3.2.7 Controls. Several additional organizational and individual variables were
controlled for in order to rule out alternative explanations of the findings (Turnley and
Feldman, 2000). Specifically, we used the organizational controls of sector, ownership
and size, and the individual controls of gender, age, seniority and position, as shown in
Table II. Each of the controls was estimated as a single latent variable.
In developing the constructs of the study we followed a three step approach. First,
each sub-subscale was developed as a weighted average of all the items comprising the
sub-subscale, with weights being the factor loadings of the items in a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA). Second, each subscale was developed in a similar way using as
items the sub-subscales already developed in step one. Finally, each construct was
developed in a similar way using as items the subscales developed in step two.

3.3 Consistency of the survey instrument

To investigate the consistency of the survey instrument the following procedures were
considered (Katou, 2012). The questionnaire used in the study is based on well accepted
MRR and validated items developed in the literature, thus establishing content validity.
36,7 Construct internal consistency was investigated by evaluating the computed Cronbach’ a.
The figures in Table II indicate that the survey instrument is reliable for testing the model
shown in Figure 1, as all Cronbach’s a are much higher than 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).
Construct validity was examined by evaluating the percentage of the total variance
explained by each dimension obtained by applying CFA with Varimax rotation and the
684 criterion that the eigenvalues should be greater than one. The percentage of total variance
explained is reported in Table II as greater than 50 per cent, and all items loaded well on
their respective factors (details omitted for brevity), indicating acceptable construct
validity for the survey instrument (Hair et al., 2008). Furthermore, construct validity was
examined by evaluating the average variance extracted (AVE) for each dimension
obtained by applying CFA. The AVE values reported in Table III are much higher than
0.50, indicating acceptable construct validity for the survey instrument (Hair et al., 2008).
Construct composite reliability was assessed by examining the calculated composite
reliability scores (Pavlou and Gefen, 2005). The figures in Table III indicate that the degree
of construct reliability is acceptable, since all reliability scores exceed 0.90, except the
scores for commitment and OCB, which are lower but close to 0.90. Construct discriminant
validity was assessed by examining whether the correlation coefficients between pairs of
constructs were significantly different from unity, and by examining whether the square
root of each factor’s AVE is larger than its correlations with other factors (Gefen and
Straub, 2005). Table III presents the correlation coefficients of all constructs used in the
study. It can be seen that the correlation coefficients are significantly different from unity,
and they are smaller than the square root of each factor’s AVE, providing evidence that
they are separate constructs.
Although the correlation matrix highlights some high correlations, multicollinearity
among these constructs is not a serious concern since all relevant checks, such as condition
index (largest CI ¼ 15.451, which is less than 30), tolerance values (smallest TOL ¼ 0.381,
which is greater than 0.10), and variance inflation factors (largest VIF ¼ 2.624, which is
less than 10) did not suggest evidence of significant multicollinearity (Kleinbaum et al.,
1988).
To reduce the threat of common method bias in the survey design, we asked multiple
respondents from each organization to answer the questions in the questionnaire (Lindell
and Whitney, 2001). However, taking into consideration that some correlation coefficients
were rather high, Harman’s (1967) single factor test was also used to examine the
likelihood of common method bias. According to this test, the simultaneous loading of all
items in a factor analysis, revealed four factors, and not just one, with the first factor
explaining only 28.899 percent of total variance, indicating that there was little common
method bias in the data.

3.4 Statistical analysis

To test the hypotheses developed of the proposed framework the methodology of
structural equation models (SEM) was used, using LISREL and maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE). SEM is effective when testing models that are path analytic with
mediating variables, and include latent constructs that are being measured with
multiple items. We used MLE because tests of departure from normality, skewness and
kurtosis for all variables used were within acceptable statistical limits (except for the
controls) ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2004).
 Organizational
Means Construct HRM HRM HRM Organizational Organizational Work citizenship Employee
(SD) reliabilitya content process climate justice trust Motivation Commitment engagement behaviour reactions

HRM content 3.43 (0.81) 0.908 [0.771]

HRM process 3.34 (0.85) 0.950 0.700 * * [0.863]
HRM climate 3.29 (0.88) 0.946 0.723 * * 0.768 * * [0.814]
Organizational
justice 3.37 (0.88) 0.928 0.666 * * 0.809 * * 0.801 * * [0.810]
Organizational
trust 3.61 (0.86) 0.946 0.648 * * 0.750 * * 0.815 * * 0.787 * * [0.854]
Motivation 3.44 (0.90) 0.952 0.627 * * 0.694 * * 0.785 * * 0.735 * * 0.726 * * [0.869]
Commitment 3.60 (0.78) 0.885 0.492 * * 0.552 * * 0.615 * * 0.545 * * 0.662 * * 0.597 * * [0.720]
Work
engagement 3.55 (0.80) 0.932 0.497 * * 0.548 * * 0.603 * * 0.579 * * 0.592 * * 0.609 * * 0.731 * * [0.819]
Organizational
citizenship
behaviour 3.92 (0.64) 0.895 0.329 * * 0.405 * * 0.385 * * 0.401 * * 0.452 * * 0.439 * * 0.635 * * 0.614 * * [0.627]
Employee
reactions 3.62 (0.66) 0.905 0.591 * * 0.665 * * 0.727 * * 0.685 * * 0.735 * * 0.805 * * 0.887 * * 0.889 * * 0.769 * * [0.698]
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.01;
0 12 2 0 12 3
X X
a 6 X
 7
constructreliability ¼ @ li A =4 @ li A þ 1 2 l2i 5
i i i

where li – standardized loading; diagonal figures in brackets represent AVE

correlation coefficients
reactions
employee

Means, standard
deviations, and

of the constructs used

Justice and

in the study
Table III.
685
MRR We assessed the overall model fit following Bollen’s (1989) recommendation to examine
36,7 multiple indices, since it is possible for a model to be adequate on one fit index but
inadequate on many others. We used the x 2-test (with critical significance level
p , 0.05) and the normed-x 2 ratio (with critical level no more than 3, or at most 5),
the goodness of fit index (GFI, with critical level not lower than 0.80, or 0.70 for complex
models), the normed fit index (NFI, with critical level not lower than 0.90),
686 the comparative fit index (CFI, with critical level not lower than 0.90), and the root
mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA, with critical level not more than 0.05,
0.08, and 0.10 to indicate excellent, good, and mediocre fit, respectively) (Kenny, 2011).

4. Results
Table III displays the means, standard deviations, and the bivariate correlation
coefficients between all the constructs used in the study. We observe strong, positive and
significant correlations between all structural constructs, supporting the hypotheses of
the study. However, results based on correlations, although interesting, may be
misleading due to the interactions between several variables. Therefore, in order to
isolate the possible links between the variables involved in the research framework
shown in Figure 1, the results with respect to five estimated models are reported in
Table IV. The first four models treat each of the employee reactions (i.e. motivation,
commitment, work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour) as the
ultimate dependent construct in the model, while in the fifth aggregate model the
dimensions of the ultimate dependent construct refer to the four individual employee
reactions studied previously. For each model we present two types of results. The first
refers to full mediation, where the links with question marks in the complete framework
in Figure 1 are not present, reflecting a more parsimonious model. The second refers to
the complete model presented in Figure 1 (i.e. including the links with question marks),
reflecting partial mediation.
In all cases the estimated standardized coefficients reported in Table IV are highly
significant and the GFI confirmed the validity of all models. However, it must be noted
here that the x 2 are significant and indicate that the proposed models are not adequate
representations of the entire set of relationships. Considering that x 2 statistics may be
inflated by high sample sizes and high correlation coefficients, the value of the normed-x 2
(i.e. value of x 2/degrees of freedom) was used instead. In our cases this value is less than 3,
confirming the validity of our models (Pedhazur and Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991).
Comparing the diagnostics and the number of significant links that exist between the
constructs for each model we see that the specification of the partially mediated models
is preferable to the full mediation models. Considering that both the direct and the
indirect standardized effects are significant, we may conclude that the indirect
hypotheses of the study with respect to mediation are supported. This means that
organizational justice partially mediates the relationship between HRM climate and
organizational trust, and organizational trust partially mediates the relationship
between organizational justice and employee reactions. For the partial mediation
alternative of the aggregate employee reactions model (see results in the last column
in Table IV) the mediating relationships are also shown in Figure 2. The circles represent
the related latent variables and the bold arrows indicate the structural relationships
between the corresponding variables. The numbers that are assigned to each arrow are
the estimated standardized coefficients.
 Model 3: work Model 4: organizational Model 5: employee
Model 1: motivation Model 2: commitment engagement citizenship behaviour reactions
Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial
mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation

Content ! climate 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Resourcing 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
Development 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Rewards 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Relations 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Process ! climate 0.68 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
Distinctiveness 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Consistency 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Consensus 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Climate ! justice 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.91
Climate ! trust 0.62 0.65 0.63 0.60 0.66
Resourcing 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81
Development 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Rewards 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.82
Relations 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Justice ! trust 0.94 0.28 0.91 0.27 0.92 0.28 0.91 0.31 0.92 0.26
Justice ! reactions 0.68 ns 0.39 0.09 * 0.31
Distributive 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84
Procedural 0.81 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.85
Interactional 0.77 0.78 0.77 0.79 0.77 0.79 0.77 0.79 0.77 0.79
Trust ! reactions 0.80 0.19 0.79 0.80 0.68 0.39 0.50 0.42 0.85 0.59
Integrity 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88
Competence 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Dependability 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.90
Motivation
Recognition 0.87 0.86
Incentives 0.89 0.90
Relations 0.89 0.89
(continued)
reactions
employee

Estimates of SEM
Justice and

687

Table IV.
 36,7

688
MRR

Table IV.
Model 3: work Model 4: organizational Model 5: employee
Model 1: motivation Model 2: commitment engagement citizenship behaviour reactions
Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial
mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation

Commitment
Affective 0.90 0.90
Continuance 0.60 0.60
Normative 0.69 0.69
Work engagement
Vigor 0.87 0.87
Dedication 0.88 0.88
Absorption 0.77 0.77
Organizational
citizenship behaviour
Altruism 0.69 0.69
Courtesy 0.79 0.79
Sportsmanship 0.75 0.75
Conscientiousness 0.73 0.73
Civic virtue 0.66 0.66
Employee reactions
Motivation 0.73 0.74
Commitment 0.83 0.82
Work engagement 0.81 0.81
Organizational citizen
behavior 0.65 0.64
Organizational controls
! content
Sector 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14
Ownership 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
Size 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
(continued)
 Model 3: work Model 4: organizational Model 5: employee
Model 1: motivation Model 2: commitment engagement citizenship behaviour reactions
Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial
mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation mediation

Organizational controls
! process
Sector 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Ownership 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
Size 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Individual controls !
reactions
Gender 0.06 * 0.01ns 0.11 0.11 0.11 2 0.01ns 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.09
Age 20.02ns 0.01ns 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08
Seniority 20.01ns 0.05 * 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.32 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.19
Position 20.12 0.02ns 20.02ns 20.01ns 2 0.05ns 0.28 0.06ns 0.08 * 20.03ns 0.06 *
Diagnostics
x2 415.77 390.35 377.76 365.83 409.77 396.48 454.89 444.47 489.35 480.59
df 295 293 295 294 295 293 348 346 321 319
p 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Normed x 2 1.41 1.33 1.28 1.24 1.39 1.35 1.31 1.28 1.52 1.51
RMSEA 0.051 0.046 0.042 0.039 0.049 0.047 0.042 0.042 0.057 0.056
NFI 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
CFI 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
GFI 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.83
Notes: Significant at: * p , 0.10; no star , 0.001; figures represent standardized construct coefficients; italic figures represent standardized structural
coefficients; ns – non-significant
reactions
employee
Justice and

689

Table IV.
 36,7

690
MRR

Figure 2.

reactions linkage model

Estimation results of the
HRM system – employee
0.72 0.91 0.09
Resourcing
Gender Gender
0.81
Training 0.50 0.08
Age Age
0.86
Rewards 0.19
0.77
Seniority Seniority
0.74
Relations
Sector 0.88 0.06
0.79 Position Position
0.14 HRM
Sector 0.66
Content
0.74 Motivation
Owner 0.40
0.95 0.21 0.82 Commitment
0.49 HRM 0.91 Organizational 0.26 Organizational 0.31 Employee
Owner Climate Justice Trust Reactions
0.08 Engagement
0.59 0.81
0.59 OCB
0.68 0.64
HRM
Size
0.20 Process 0.81 0.84 0.88
Resourcing Distributive Integrity
0.85
Size 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.82
Distictiveness Training Procedural Competence

0.95 0.82 0.79 0.90

Consistency Rewards Interactional Dependability

0.81 0.83
Consensus Relations

Chi-Square = 480.59 df = 319 p-value = 0.000 Normed Chi-Square = 1.51 RMSEA = 0.056 NFI = 0.96 CFI = 0.99 GFI = 0.83
The results indicate that for all cases the links within the HRM system (i.e. from HRM Justice and
content and process to HRM climate) and the link connecting the HRM system and the employee
employee reactions system (i.e. from HRM climate to organizational justice and
organizational trust) are the same in all models. In addition, the common links within the reactions
employee reaction system (i.e. from organizational justice to organizational trust) do not
differ significantly in all models. Finally, the specific links within the employee reaction
system (i.e. from organizational justice to employee reactions, and from organizational 691
trust to employee reactions) are different depending on the type of employee reaction.

5. Findings
There are five major findings of this study. First, the content and the process of HR
practices, as perceived by employees, strongly influence employees’ reactions, such as
motivation, commitment, work engagement and OCB. In particular, considering the
highest values of the standardized coefficients of the items reported in Table IV, rewards
and training and development (content) and consistency and distinctiveness (process)
are the most important drivers that produce shared perceptions among employees
(climate), which in turn influence employee reactions, such as incentives, affective
commitment, dedication and sportsmanship, through organizational justice and trust.
Second, the impact of the HRM process on employee reactions is much stronger than
the impact of HRM content. This finding is important because most studies have
investigated either the influence of HRM content on employee attitudes (Kinnie et al.,
2005; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007) or the influence of the HRM process on employee
reactions (Frenkel et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011).
Third, HRM climate, organizational justice and organizational trust serially mediate
the relationship between the content and process of the HRM system, and employee
reactions. Furthermore, in this serially mediated procedure, organizational justice
influences employee reactions through organizational trust. The findings indicate that
the impact of the HRM system is stronger for employee commitment, and less for work
engagement, motivation and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Fourth, procedural and distributive justice are related to organizational trust,
supporting the findings of Alexander and Ruderman (1987), Kumar et al. (1995) and
Tyler and Lind (1992). In addition, procedural justice seems to be a better predictor of
employee reactions, supporting Folger and Konovsky (1989) and Nikbin et al. (2012).
Fifth, considering the controls used in the study, the results indicate that motivation,
commitment, work engagement and OCB are higher in the services and trade sectors,
private organizations and larger organizations in the Greek context. In addition, the
results show that motivation, commitment, work engagement and OCB are higher
among women, older people, people who have worked longer in the organization, and
people in lower positions.

6. Discussion
6.1 Contribution
The contribution of this study can be related to its two objectives. According to the first
objective, we found that both the content and the process of the HRM system influence the
employee reactions of employee motivation, commitment, work engagement and
organizational citizenship behaviour. Thus, the study, by integrating both the HRM
content and process in investigating the HRM system – employee reactions relationship,
MRR confirms and extends empirical evidence focusing on either the content or the process
36,7 alone in investigating the HRM – reactions relationship (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).
Furthermore, the study, by establishing that the strength of the influence of HRM process
is stronger than the influence of HRM content, breaks new ground in investigating the
HRM system – employee reactions relationship. This is because it indirectly confirms that
it is more important to communicate effectively to employees the existing HR policies and
692 practices than to try to apply new ones. Specifically, for countries like Greece, which have
been affected by the economic and financial crisis, concentrating on costly HR practices,
such as rewards and training and development, is not enough unless an effort is also made
to communicate these HR policies and practices (and others) more consistently and
distinctively. Moreover, using consistent and distinctive procedures of communication
may not incur any additional costs to the organization.
According to the second objective we found that organizational justice and trust
mediate the relationship between the HRM system (content, process and climate) and
employee reactions. Specifically, in this study we traced the strength of the influence
of various dimensions of both organizational justice and organizational trust on
employee reactions. This study contributes to the growing number of studies that try to
open the black box ofthe HRM – employee reactions relationship (Paauwe, 2009;
van de Voorde et al., 2010, 2012). Accordingly, we argue in this study that researchers
can go beyond looking at the two end-points of the relationship, and illuminate the
intervening stages of the HRM-employee reactions relationship. This study supports the
view that employee reactions do not just depend on HRM content and process that may
shape the perceptions of individuals (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004), but that these
perceptions of individuals influence specific factors of organizational justice and trust,
which in turn influence employee reactions. Thus, contrary to Wong et al. (2006) who
argue that the relationship between organizational justice and trust produces mixed
results, the results of the present study indicate that procedural and distributive justice
are related to trust, dependability and integrity, which in turn influence employee
reactions. In countries like Greece, which are experiencing economic and financial crisis,
employee reactions may be very sensitive to trust and justice in the organization, due to
the uncertainties that have grown during the period of crisis.
Beyond the above, an important further contribution of this work relates to the
general findings with respect to the controls used in the investigation. We found that
organizational and individual controls do matter when examining the HRM-reactions
relationship. Specifically, although we connected organizational and individual controls
with all constructs of the model, we found significant links only between organizational
controls (sector, owner, size) and HRM content and process, and between individual
controls (gender, age, seniority, position) and employee reactions. These results add
value to the growing evidence suggesting that organizational characteristics have
differential effects on HRM systems (Katou, 2012), and individual characteristics have
differential effects on perceptions of employees ( Johnson et al., 2009; Lin, 2008).

6.2 Implications for practice

This study has clear implications for both managers and decision makers. It identifies
that employees are more committed and satisfied when the HRM system is more
consistent and distinctive, more rewarding, and when it provides opportunities
for training. This is important considering that the Greek economy is under competitive
pressure due the current economic and financial crisis. Thus, to improve employee Justice and
reactions, which may result in improved organizational performance, managers should employee
make their HRM systems more instrumental (i.e. the HR function succeeds in linking
outcomes to employee behaviour), valid (i.e. the HR initiatives match their actual effects), reactions
consistent (i.e. the HR department send compatible and stable messages across contexts
and time), and more visible (i.e. salient and readily observable), understandable (i.e. ease
of comprehension of its content), legitimate (i.e. its agents have legitimacy in shaping 693
employee actions) and relevant (i.e. helping to achieve the goals of employees) (Li et al.,
2011) (Table II). This means that managers need to develop the skills to design and
implement HRM systems that lead to desired employee attitudes. For example,
communication methods between managers and employees in relation to appraisal
procedures developed by the HR department may facilitate desired actions that will
make employees committed from their first day in the organization. In addition,
managers and practitioners need to think about the extent to which actions that the HR
department undertakes meet the needs of employees (Nishii et al., 2008).

6.3 Limitations and further research

This study has three main limitations. First, the data was collected using a questionnaire
at a single point in time. As a result, the study does not allow for dynamic causal
inferences (Cavanaugh and Noe, 1999). Future research would benefit from employing
longitudinal data. Second, although the Harman (1967) test indicated that there was little
common method bias in the data, reliance on single respondents may limit confidence in
making cause and effect inferences. Future research could minimize possible common
method bias concerns if data were gathered from independent sources (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986). Third, the study was applied in the Greek context, which has different
labour relations from other countries, and thus the findings from the Greek sample may
not generalize across borders (de Jong et al., 2009). Future research should include other
contexts such as different countries.

7. Conclusions
This study provides an empirical test of the HRM-employee reactions relationship.
We followed Bowen and Ostroff (2004) in examining the content of an HRM system,
expressed by actual HR practices (resourcing, training, rewards and relationships) and
the process of the HRM system, specifically the strength of the HRM system
(distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) and their contribution to HRM climate
(employees’ shared perceptions of the HRM system). In addition, we examined the
mediating role of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional
justice) and trust (integrity, competence and dependability) in the relationship between
employees’ shared perceptions of the HRM system and employee reactions (motivation,
commitment, work engagement and OCB).
We conclude that, in the integrated system of HRM content and process (Bowen and
Ostroff, 2004), the HRM process has a greater impact on employee reactions than the
HRM content. Furthermore, we found that organizational justice mediates the
relationship between HRM climate and trust, and that trust mediates the relationship
between organizational justice and employee reactions. In particular, we found that
procedural and distributive justice is related more strongly with trust, dependability and
integrity, and also we found that procedural justice is a better predictor of employee
MRR reactions than distributive justice. Therefore, this study provides a useful starting
36,7 point for future research that could investigate the impact of both the content and the
process of HRM systems on employee reactions, mediated by organizational justice and
trust.

References
694
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behaviour”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 177-198.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Armstrong, M. (1996), A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, Kogan Page, London.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2004), “Countering the trend towards careerist orientation in the age of
downsizing: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 321-328.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003), “Trust in managerial relationships”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 282-304.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication fairness of
communication”, in Lewicki, R.J., Shepard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research in
Negotiations in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Blakely, G.L., Andrews, M.C. and Moorman, R.H. (2005), “The moderating effects of equity
sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 259-273.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), “Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 67-94.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role
of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 203-221.
Brockner, J. and Siegel, P. (1996), “Understanding the interaction between procedural and
distributive justice: the role of trust”, in Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 390-413.
Cavanaugh, M.A. and Noe, R.A. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of relational
components of the new psychological contract”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 20, pp. 323-340.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2011), “The role of justice in organizations:
a meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86,
pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. and Greenberg, J. (2003), “Organizational justice: a fair assessment of the state
of the literature”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science,
2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlin, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H. and Ng, K.L. (2001), “Justice at the Justice and
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445. employee
Cook, J. and Wall, T.D. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment reactions
and personal need non-fulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27, 695
pp. 324-351.
DeConinck, J.B. (2010), “The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support,
and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63, pp. 1349-1355.
DeConinck, J.B. and Stilwell, C.D. (2004), “Incorporating organizational justice, role states, pay
satisfaction and supervisor in a model of turnover intentions”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 225-231.
de Jong, J., Schalk, R. and de Cuyper, N. (2009), “Balanced versus unbalanced psychological
contracts in temporary and permanent employment: associations with employee
attitudes”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Delery, J. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
test of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 802-835.
Delmotte, J., Winne, S.D., Gilbert, C. and Sels, L. (2007), “Comparing line managers’ and trade
union representatives’ assessments of HRM strength”, paper presented at the Dutch HRM
Network Conference, Tilburg, November.
Dimitriades, Z.S. (2007), “The influence of service climate and job involvement on
customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations:
a survey”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 469-491.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628.
Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell-Cook, G. and Frink, D.D. (1999), “Human
resource management: some new directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 385-415.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Frenkel, S.J., Li, M. and Restubog, S.L.D. (2011), “Management, organizational justice and
emotional exhaustion among Chinese migrant workers: evidence from two manufacturing
firms”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2005), “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS
adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-30.
Gerhart, B., Wrigth, P.M., McMaham, G.C. and Snell, S.A. (2000), “Measurement error in research
on human resource s and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it
influence effect size estimates?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 803-834.
Gounans, S.P. (2005), “Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from
business-to-business services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Graham, J. (1991), “An essay on organizational citizenship behaviour”, Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 249-270.
Guzzo, R.A. and Nooman, K.A. (1994), “Human resource practices as communications and the
psychological contract”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33, pp. 447-462.
MRR Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2008), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Prentice-Hall, London.
36,7
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Huselid, M.A. and Becker, B.E. (1996), “Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel
estimates of the human resource management – firm performance link”, Industrial
Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 400-422.
696 Jackson, S., Schuler, R. and Rivero, J.C. (1989), “Organisational characteristics as predictor of
personnel practices”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 727-786.
Johnson, J.T., Barksdale, H.C. Jr and Boles, J.S. (2003), “Factors associated with customer
willingness to refer leads to sales people”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 257-263.
Johnson, S.K., Holladay, C.L. and Quinones, M.A. (2009), “Organizational citizenship behavior in
performance evaluations: distributive justice or injustice?”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 409-418.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (2004), LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer Software], Scientific
Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL.
Karriker, J.H. and Williams, M.L. (2009), “Organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior: a mediated multifoci model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 112-135.
Katou, A.A. (2012), “Investigating reverse causality between human resource management
policies and organizational performance in small firms”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 134-156.
Kenny, D. (2011), “Structural equation modeling”, available at: [Link]
[Link] (accessed December 12, 2011).
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005), “Satisfaction with HR
practices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 9-29.
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. (1988), Applied Regression Analysis and Other
Multivariate Methods, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1995), “The effects of supplier fairness on
vulnerable resellers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 54-65.
Li, X., Frenkel, S. and Sanders, K. (2011), “Strategic HRM as process: how HR system and
organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1825-1842.
Liao, H. and Rupp, D.E. (2005), “The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: a cross-level multi-foci framework”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90,
pp. 242-256.
Lin, C.-P. (2008), “Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors,
gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 241-250.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-1349.
Lockwood, N.R. (2010), Motivation in Today’s Workplace: The Link to Performance, Research Justice and
Quarterly, Society for Human Resource Management, Berea, OH.
employee
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”, reactions
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89. 697
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1984), “Designing strategic human resources systems”,
Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 36-52.
Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M.
and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman, R.H., Neihoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6,
pp. 209-225.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizen behaviour”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 527-556.
Nikbin, D., Ismail, I., Marimuthu, M. and Armesh, H. (2012), “Perceived justice in service recovery
and switching intention: evidence from Malaysian mobile telecommunication industry”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 309-325.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR
practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 503-545.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Solider Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Paine, K.D. (2003), Guidelines for Measuring Trust in Organizations, The Institute of Public
Relations, London.
Pavlou, P.A. and Gefen, D. (2005), “Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces:
antecedents, consequences, and moderating role”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 372-399.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1991), Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work
Force, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pinder, C.C. (1998), Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, NJ.
MRR Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organization research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.
36,7
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance
698 causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Puusa, A. and Tolvanen, U. (2006), “Organizational identity and trust”, Electronic Journal of
Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 29-33.
Rego, A. and Cunha, M.P. (2010), “Organisational justice and citizenship behaviors: a study in the
Portuguese cultural context”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 404-430.
Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Bordia, S. (2009), “The interactive effects of procedural justice
and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach:
an interactionist perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 165-178.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rifai, H.A. (2005), “A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction,
affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior”, Gadjah Mada
International Journal of Business, Vol. 7, pp. 131-154.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Linking competitive strategies with human resource
management practices”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Shamir, B. and Lapidot, Y. (2003), “Trust in organizational superiors: systemic and collective
considerations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 463-491.
Stinglhamber, F., De Cremer, D. and Mercken, L. (2006), “Perceived support as a mediator of the
relationship between justice and trust”, Group of Organizational Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 442-468.
Swan, J.E., Bowers, M.R. and Richardson, L.D. (1999), “Customer trust in the salesperson: an
integrative review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 93-107.
Tan, H.H. and Tan, C.S.F. (2000), “Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 2,
pp. 241-260.
Tansky, J.W. (1993), “Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: what is the relationship?”,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 195-207.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2000), “Re-examining the effects of psychological contract
violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in group”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-192.
van de Voorde, F.C., Paauwe, J. and van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2010), “Predicting business unit Justice and
performance using employee surveys: monitoring HRM-related changes”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 44-63. employee
van de Voorde, F.C., Paauwe, J. and van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2012), “Employee well-being and reactions
the HRM-organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000), 699
“Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational
citizenship in a non-work setting”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 3-23.
Vanhala, M. and Ahteela, R. (2011), “The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational
trust”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 869-888.
Wong, Y.-T., Ngo, H.-Y. and Wong, C.-S. (2006), “Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB:
a study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 41, pp. 2344-2355.
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2004), “Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: integrating
multiple level analysis”, paper presented at the What Next for HRM? Conference,
Rotterdam, June.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1991), “Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource
management”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 203-225.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and
flexibility in strategic human resources management”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 756-772.
Zhang, H. and Agarwal, N.C. (2009), “The mediating roles of organizational justice on the
relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 676-693.

About the author

Anastasia A. Katou is a Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Operations Management
at the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research interests include human
resource management, organizational behaviour, and business strategies, with a focus on
organizational performance. She received a BA and an MBA from the University of Sunderland,
UK, and a PhD and a PgD from the Cardiff University, Wales, UK. She has published numerous
articles in academic journals, such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Thunderbird International Business Review, Employee Relations, Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, Multinational Business Review, European Journal of International
Management, European Management Journal, Personnel Review, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, Journal of World Business, and Management Research Review. Anastasia A. Katou
can be contacted at: akatou@[Link]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@[Link]

Or visit our web site for further details: [Link]/reprints