Journal of Management [Link]

com/

Causality Between High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational

Performance
Duckjung Shin and Alison M. Konrad
Journal of Management published online 31 July 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314544746

The online version of this article can be found at:

[Link]

Published by:

[Link]

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: [Link]

Subscriptions: [Link]

Reprints: [Link]

Permissions: [Link]

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 31, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
544746
research-article2014
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314544746Journal of Management / Month XXXXShin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance

Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1­–25
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314544746
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
[Link]/[Link]

Causality Between High-Performance Work

Systems and Organizational Performance
Duckjung Shin
Alison M. Konrad
Western University

Previous researchers have questioned whether the association between high-performance work
systems (HPWS) and organizational performance indicates causality. Strategic human resource
management theories, including the resource-based view of the firm and the behavioral perspec-
tive, have provided explanations linking human resource management practices to organizational
performance. We add arguments based upon general systems theory to suggest a more complex
relationship where performance provides feedback on HPWS in the form of information and
resources. This feedback generates both the data and the slack resources needed to support an
adaptive process of HPWS implementation. We test the causal associations between HPWS and
performance using a large longitudinal data set with three time points. Findings showed that past
HPWS positively contributes to later productivity as well as the reverse. The reciprocal relation-
ship supports the need to extend strategic human resource management theory by considering
productivity as an antecedent as well as an outcome of human resource management practices.

Keywords: strategic human resource management; high-performance work systems; causal-

ity; general systems theory; human resources; productivity

Scholars argue that advanced human resource management (HR) practices, known as
high-performance work systems (HPWS), high-involvement work practices, or high-
commitment HR practices, help organizations achieve better outcomes. Even with research

Acknowledgments: We appreciate the valuable comments we received from the editor and Journal of Management
reviewers. The first author appreciates support from Brock scholarship and Statistics Canada. The second author
gratefully acknowledges support from the Corus Entertainment Chair in Women in Management, Ivey Business
School, and from Insight Grant No. 54211 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Corresponding author: Duckjung Shin, Ivey Business School, Western University, 1255 Western Rd., ON N6G0N1,
Canada.
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

1
Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
2   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

efforts to demonstrate the positive effects of HPWS on performance (Becker & Huselid,
2006; Messersmith, Patel, & Lepak, 2011), organizations vary substantially in implementa-
tion of HPWS (Kaufman, 2010; Pil & MacDuffie, 1999). One explanation for the gap
between academic findings and practical implementation is the possibility that practitioners
adaptively implement HPWS based on previous performance outcomes. HPWS implementa-
tion takes time, effort, and the development of management accounts (Gondo & Amis, 2013).
Evidence of success during the early stages of adoption and implementation creates support
and generates the slack resources needed to ensure further investment in HR practices.
Because performance outcomes determine whether HPWS is continued, expanded, or recon-
sidered, the possibility of reverse causality has to be taken seriously not only to generate a
realistic estimate of the size of the HPWS effect on performance (Becker & Huselid, 2006;
Gerhart, Wright, Mc Mahan, & Snell, 2000; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005) but
also to explain why the diffusion of HPWS is still limited despite academic assertions of
effectiveness.
Although the strategic HR perspective suggests that HR needs to be considered as a sys-
tem, such consideration has been limited to synergistic interactions between HR practices
(Subramony, 2009). In our approach based on general systems theory (Von Bertalanffy,
1968), firm performance results in feedback from the internal operation and the external
environment. This feedback loop affects the flow of resources into the organization. Only
with sufficient resource inflows can the organization build and sustain its internal throughput
processes by strengthening or expanding HPWS (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).
In addition to building understanding of the antecedents of HPWS, the general systems
approach also addresses concerns that prior theorizing has treated HPWS as something that
can be implemented at will. This assumption neglects the costs associated with HPWS and
the capabilities required to implement these complex systems. A high level of previous firm
financial performance creates the slack resources needed to facilitate organizational imple-
mentation of new or complex practices (Cyert & March, 1963; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
The feedback loop in the general systems approach also suggests that HPWS is implemented
through an adaptive process (Miner, 1994). Organizations incrementally adapt HPWS as
they accumulate knowledge of and experience with these practices. Therefore, strong orga-
nizational performance based on HPWS supports further development of these systems.
Serious conceptual and empirical consideration of the possibility that performance causes
HPWS as well as the reverse is important for both theory and practice. The possibility of
reverse causality suggests that prior effect size estimates are inflated (Wright et al., 2005). If
a substantial proportion of the .28 (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006) to .43 (Subramony,
2009) meta-analytic effect sizes reported for the impact of HPWS on performance is due to
reverse causality, then the performance case for HPWS may have been oversold to practitio-
ners. Also, understanding the impact of performance on adoption of HPWS helps to explain
why some firms do not implement these systems, despite data suggesting that doing so will
drive improved performance. Finally, findings of reverse causality potentially support the
proposition that HPWS can generate competitive advantage for firms. If a substantial number
of firms that would benefit from HPWS fail to do so because of insufficient resources or
motivation, then competitors face difficulties in trying to imitate these systems. Processes
that are difficult for competitors to imitate create longer-run competitive advantage to HPWS
adopters (Barney, 1991). As such, the adaptation perspective of general systems theory
extends explanations of how HPWS creates competitive advantage for firms.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   3

Table 1
Theoretical Foundations

Theory HPWS→Performance Performance→HPWS

Resource-based view Competitive advantage

Investment in relatively inimitable
capabilities based on human capital
Behavioral theory AMO framework
Employee skills, abilities, and
motivation
Slack resources Resource availability
Long-term investment based on slack
resources
Adaptive perspective Adaptation process
Learning by doing
General systems theory Wholeness Feedback
Synergy between individual HR Performance outputs generate inputs
practices to the system

Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems; AMO = ability, motivation, and opportunity; HR = human resource
management.

The aim of this study is to test the direction of causality between HPWS and performance
using a large longitudinal data set. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the
effect of HPWS on performance as well as the effect of performance on HPWS with data
from three time points.

Background and Hypotheses

Scholars have pointed out that the accumulated evidence of the positive association between
HPWS and firm performance needs to be supplemented by a causal explanation of this relation-
ship (e.g., Guest, 2011). Theories linking HPWS to performance have included the resource-
based view (RBV) of the firm and the behavioral perspective. We add arguments for reverse
causation whereby performance leads to implementation of HPWS based on the availability of
slack resources and the adaptive implementation of HR practices. We apply general systems
theory as a framework that integrates both causal directions into a larger conceptual perspec-
tive. The theoretical foundations of these causal arguments are summarized in Table 1.

General Systems Theory and Causality

Influential theories in strategic human resource management (SHRM), such as the behav-
ioral (ability, motivation, and opportunity, or AMO) perspective and the RBV, have typically
portrayed HR practices as closed systems, focusing research on the linear processes linking
HPWS as an input to performance as an output (Wright & McMahan, 1992). General systems
theory stresses that outputs generate the inputs that are required to maintain the system (Katz
& Kahn, 1966). The theory implies that in order to understand the relationship between
HPWS and performance, it is necessary to consider the feedback loop from performance to
HPWS as well as the impact of HPWS as an input affecting performance outcomes.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
4   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

While the RBV and AMO perspectives explain the unidirectional relationship between
HPWS and firm performance, general systems theory has the potential to add an explanation
of the reverse causal effect of firm performance on the implementation of HPWS. General
systems theory stresses “wholeness,” where systems work in totality rather than in parts (Von
Bertalanffy, 1968). In this view, subsystems are synergistic in producing desirable outcomes.
Thus, systems theory provides a theoretical rationale explaining why individual HR practices
work as a bundle. Another key feature of systems theory is the input-throughput-output
model (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). As such, investment in HPWS (input) transforms
employee behaviors (throughput), resulting in desirable outcomes (output) (Wright &
McMahan, 1992; Wright & Snell, 1998). Furthermore, organizational outputs generate
responses from the environment, which affect future inputs. Within this framework, perfor-
mance is a critical determinant of future resource flows into the firm. With a strong input of
resources, the firm is able to build and strengthen its throughput processes, and one method
of doing so is to build or extend its HPWS.
General systems theory posits that feedback can be either positive or negative (Kast &
Rosenzweig, 1972; Von Bertalanffy, 1968). Under negative feedback, where increased out-
puts lead to a decrease in inputs, organizations may not reap long-term benefits from their
activities because the effects of the throughput process plateau or diminish over time (Ashmos
& Huber, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1966). Negative feedback is also consistent with criticisms
that HPWS is exploitative in nature. In this view, increases in performance will diminish over
time because stresses on employees make HPWS unsustainable (Godard, 2004).
By comparison, positive feedback indicates that outcomes amplify the impact of inputs
(Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Von Bertalanffy, 1968). Under positive feedback, where inputs
produce more outputs, which in turn produce more inputs, HPWS and performance are mutu-
ally enhancing, and the HPWS-performance linkage becomes a “virtuous cycle.” A positive
feedback loop implies that the effect of HPWS on performance is sustainable because perfor-
mance growth from HPWS is reinforced through ongoing employee participation, satisfac-
tion, and commitment (Allen & Wright, 2007; Gollan, 2005; Pfeffer, 1995).
The presence of feedback loops constitutes a distinctive feature of general systems theory,
which is the assumption of negative entropy (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Unlike closed sys-
tems, where there is a tendency toward resource depletion, in open systems, strong previous
performance drives the accumulation of resource inputs. These inputs provide organizations
with the ability to build and maintain their internal throughput systems, including investment
in HR. One possible concern for HPWS is that its benefits might deteriorate over time as
implementation efforts lapse, costs grow, or competitors mimic the system. General systems
theory implies, however, that such entropy is overcome through the regenerative process as
organizations reinvest some of the resources generated by strong performance. Thus, from a
general systems perspective, HPWS and organizational performance are likely to be mutu-
ally enhancing. By comparison, with low previous performance, discretionary resources are
reduced, limiting the ability to invest in HPWS.
In addition, general systems theory posits the equifinality of means for achieving organi-
zational goals. Pfeffer (1981) argues that departments and functions within an organization
compete for limited resources. As such, when decision makers perceive performance short-
falls after implementing HPWS, they might prioritize other means to achieve profitability
(Cyert & March, 1963; Salge, 2011). If the positive linkage from HPWS to organizational

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   5

performance is not established, decision makers may reduce their future investment in
HPWS. In summary, strong financial performance provides organizations with the slack
resources, the information, and the managerial motivation needed to make longer-term
investments in practices like HPWS.

Impact of HPWS on Firm Performance

Organizations use HPWS to develop employee knowledge, skills, and abilities and
enhance employee motivation by providing training, empowerment, and contingent rewards.
Empirical studies have linked each of the components of HPWS to performance outcomes.
For instance, investment in employee training is positively related to performance (e.g.,
Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Kalleberg & Moody, 1994). Employee involvement programs are
designed to motivate employees to voluntarily contribute to the development of the organiza-
tion. Evidence suggests that empowerment is associated with positive outcomes, such as
positive employee attitudes (Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999) and organizational innovation
(Yang & Konrad, 2011). Relatively high compensation with merit-based incentives is also a
key feature of HPWS. Way (2002) argues that the advantage of performance-based payment
is that it promotes employee skill development and motivation to produce superior outcomes.
In a study by Kalleberg and Moody (1994), high reward was positively related to perfor-
mance, and Lazear (1996) found a positive relationship between merit-based payment and
productivity.

Theoretical foundations. Moving beyond empirical evidence linking specific HR prac-

tices to performance, explanations of the effect of HPWS on performance have largely relied
on two theoretical traditions: the RBV and the behavioral perspective (Jiang, Lepak, Hu,
& Baer, 2012). The RBV posits that HR is a potential source of competitive advantage that
can create value for firms (Barney, 1991). In this perspective, HPWS is a reasonable invest-
ment in the people who constitute the organization-specific human capital driving firm per-
formance (Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). The behavioral perspective suggests that HR
practices encourage employees to engage in productive behaviors. Specifically, expectancy
theory (Lawler, 1986) posits that HPWS creates a high level of expectancy (strengthening the
effort-performance link) and instrumentality (strengthening the performance-reward link)
among employees, which enhances motivation and productivity (Guest, 1997; MacDuffie,
1995). Under these perspectives, employee AMO have been suggested as key linking mecha-
nisms that promote high performance as a result of HPWS (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, &
Kalleberg, 2000; Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006).
In addition, systems perspectives stress that complex organizational systems are valuable
for managing turbulent environments (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Scott, 2008). Organizations
with complex systems can outperform their counterparts because structural complexity
allows them to absorb environmental instability with a greater variety of managerial responses
to change (Boisot & Child, 1999). Empirical evidence supports the notion that organizational
complexity enhances performance (e.g., Ashmos, Duchon, & McDaniel, 2000; Walters &
Bhuian, 2004). HPWS is a complex system, not a single individual practice, and its effects
result from integration among the separate practices rather than the additive effects of prac-
tices in isolation (Subramony, 2009). HPWS helps organizations respond to dynamic envi-
ronments by motivating employees to identify and respond to problems and opportunities

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
6   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

arising from environmental changes. Because employees have enhanced knowledge and
skill, they are more able to respond effectively to changes. Because employees are empow-
ered and incentivized, they are more motivated to proactively respond to changes rather than
wait for instruction from management (Jiang et al., 2012).

Productivity as a performance outcome. Productivity is a commonly used measure of

firm performance in the SHRM field (Combs et al., 2006). Economists argue for the impor-
tance of productivity measures for assessing the performance of both firms (Dhawan, 2001)
and the economy as a whole (Zhu, 2012). Productivity measures reflect the efficiency of the
processes used to transform inputs into outputs and the effective use of resources for value
creation (Tangen, 2005).
HPWS generates productivity increases by providing employees with knowledge, skills,
empowerment, and incentives (Lawler, 1986). Both the RBV and the AMO (behavioral)
perspectives provide theoretical bases for predicting a positive effect of HPWS on firm pro-
ductivity. Consistent with the RBV, skill- and knowledge-building investments help employ-
ees identify ways to make their work processes more efficient (Wright, McMahan, &
McWilliams, 1994). Knowledgeable and skilled employees are more capable of generating
valuable ideas to enhance productivity. Consistent with the AMO perspective, the ability to
add value increases motivation to suggest improvements by strengthening the effort-perfor-
mance link. Empowerment motivates employees to identify improvements by giving them
the authority to act on new ideas. Such authority strengthens the effort-performance link for
employees by reducing potential barriers to idea implementation. Incentives motivate
employees to engage in the discretionary effort required to identify and act upon inefficien-
cies by strengthening the link between performance and rewards (Lawler, 1986). Also, critics
of HPWS argue that a primary effect of these systems is to increase productivity by pressur-
ing employees to work harder under increased surveillance and control (Godard, 2004). In
summary, multiple conceptual arguments support the prediction that HPWS increases
productivity.

Empirical testing. Theoretical perspectives suggesting a positive association between

HPWS and organizational performance have been supported by empirical findings in both
service and manufacturing settings. Overall, Combs et al. (2006) estimated the size of the
relationship (ρ) between HPWS and firm performance at .20. Subramony’s (2009) meta-
analysis of the effects of HR on performance outcomes showed small to moderate effect
sizes of .26 for empowerment-enhancing HR practices, .24 for motivation-enhancing prac-
tices, and .17 for skill-enhancing practices. Jiang and colleagues’ (2012) meta-analysis of
the effects of HR on financial performance showed small to moderate effect sizes of .20
for opportunity-enhancing HR practices, .27 for motivation-enhancing practices, and .26 for
skill-enhancing practices.
However, studies of HPWS have typically relied on cross-sectional data, and the positive
effect of HPWS on performance may be inflated in cross-sectional studies due to heterogene-
ity bias and measurement error (Huselid & Becker, 1996). To date, the most comprehensive
test of the direction of the causal relationship between HPWS and performance has been that
conducted by Wright and his colleagues (2005). They analyzed correlations between HR
practices and past, concurrent, and subsequent performance in a sample of 45 business units.
Even though the number of employee participants was 13,005, limited sample size at the

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   7

business unit level and the short time lag (3 to 15 months) limited the ability of the study to
determine the direction of the causal association (Wright et al., 2005). Three to 15 months
may not be a long enough time frame to observe the effects of HPWS on performance.
Huselid and Becker (1996) identified “implementation-to-benefits lags” whereby the effects
of HR systems on performance were stronger 1 and 2 years later compared to the contempo-
raneous association. This result suggests that the benefits of introducing or changing HR
practices take 1 to 2 years to be realized. Hence, an appropriate test of the causal association
between HPWS and performance should utilize a 1- to 2-year time lag between measures in
order to model the causal effect properly.
Beyond appropriate time lags, it is also important to control for prior performance when
examining the association between HPWS and later performance. A limited number of stud-
ies have done so, and some of these studies have shown no significant association between
past HPWS and current performance when past performance levels are controlled (e.g.,
Guest, Michie, Conway, & Sheehan, 2003; Wright et al., 2005). These null findings may be
due to lack of statistical power to detect a small effect after controlling for past performance.
Hence, by testing the association between earlier HPWS and later performance when earlier
performance is controlled in a large national data set, the current study adds an important test
of the causal links between HPWS and performance. However, we will not be able to assess
the mechanisms responsible for the observed effects.

Hypothesis 1: HPWS at an earlier time point is positively associated with later productivity when
productivity at the earlier time point is controlled.

Impact of Performance on Implementation of HPWS

One of the factors that may be extant in the complex causal chain linking HPWS and
performance is the impact of past performance on future investments in HR. Prior authors
have argued that HR investments are strongly affected by firm financial performance: “Firms
facing difficulties reduce their variable pay, merit increases, and training budgets” (Wright et
al., 2005, p. 419). This intuition is empirically supported by studies examining the compo-
nent practices of HPWS (Boselie, Paauwe, & Jansen, 2001).
A few studies have tested the possibility of reverse causality, where performance leads to
HPWS (e.g., Huselid, 1994; Shih, Chiang, & Hsu, 2006; Wright et al., 2005), but conceptu-
ally, the main purpose of those studies was to demonstrate the causal effects of HPWS on
performance. As such, they treated reverse causality as a possible methodological limitation
that should be overcome or controlled. Guest (2011) concludes in his recent review that there
is considerably more evidence for an association between HR practices and performance
than for a causal relation between these two constructs. He further demonstrates that past
performance strongly predicts current performance, more so than HR practices. Taking the
effects of past performance seriously, we develop conceptual arguments for why organiza-
tions with strong former performance are more likely to adopt HPWS.
Theory suggests several mechanisms linking past performance to future adoption of HR
practices. For instance, resource dependency theory emphasizes the importance of the avail-
ability of resources to enable organizational action (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). While low-
performing organizations tend to pursue control-based HR practices in order to contain costs,
high-performing organizations can adopt more advanced HR practices to recruit and retain

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
8   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

talent (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005). High-performing organizations have greater ability to
develop HPWS due to the availability of slack resources generated by strong financial out-
comes. Furthermore, implementation of HPWS is a process that occurs over time (Guest &
Bos-Nehles, 2013). Feedback regarding performance effects at earlier stages of adoption
affects management’s ability and motivation to support continued HPWS implementation.

Slack resources. Organizational performance is an indicator of organizational slack

because slack typically grows as organizational performance increases (Cyert & March, 1963;
Singh, 1986). Previous financial performance determines the level of slack resources that an
organization can invest in social domains, such as employees, community, and environment
(Waddock & Graves, 1997). While slack resources can remain unabsorbed as retained earn-
ings, they can also be absorbed by increasing investments (Singh, 1986; Tan & Peng, 2003).
Thus, slack resources enable organizations to invest in HPWS.
Although HPWS is intended to enhance performance, it “also carries a cost since HR must
itself be internally produced (e.g., by an HR department) or bought in external markets (e.g.,
HR consultants or vendors)” (Kaufman & Miller, 2011, p. 536). Because establishing HPWS
can be costly, firms may not adopt HPWS even though they would benefit from doing so
(Godard, 2004; Godard & Delaney, 2000). The beneficial effects of HPWS rely on human
capital, which is generally a long-term investment aimed at contributing to a firm’s future
profitability (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Firms with slack resources based on strong financial
performance can seek long-term investments, whereas firms having financial performance
difficulties have little discretion to make long-term investments, including investments in
people (Waddock & Graves, 1997).
Rather than investing in people and HR systems, organizations that experience declining
performance may focus on reducing labor costs. Organizations adopting cost-cutting strate-
gies are less likely to invest in long-term training and development practices (Cascio, 1993).
Reducing expenses by controlling HR costs may result in short-term profits, and companies
experiencing deficits may cut HR investments in order to demonstrate the profitability of
their businesses to investors. In addition, companies face the principal-agent problem.
Because executives are often compensated based on short-term profits, their decisions are
likely to favor short-term profits over longer-term investments (Bebchuk, Cohen, & Spamann,
2010). Executives may be particularly incentivized to forgo longer-term investments when
financial performance is poor because doing so maximizes retained earnings, and hence,
executive bonuses.
In comparison to the situation faced by decision makers in low-performing organizations,
decision makers in high-performing organizations are more likely to find that HPWS is suit-
able for their needs. High-performing organizations are able to provide competitive compen-
sation and innovative practices in order to sustain their profitability. They require HR systems
that support talented employees who will drive future performance. Thus, resource-rich
organizations tend to adopt sophisticated HR practices to recruit and retain talent
(Boselie et al., 2005).

Adaptation perspective on HPWS implementation. Relatively little research has exam-

ined the nature of HPWS implementation. Consistent with the general systems approach, we
consider the adaptation perspective on the development of managerial practices. In this view,

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   9

managerial practices develop through ongoing environmental scanning, strategic response

formulation, and structural adjustment processes whereby organizations achieve “adaptive
advantage” by adopting new practices, recombining existing practices, and achieving inter-
actions among practices (Miner, 1994). As such, organizations experience structural inertia
or path dependence, such that consistency of HPWS over time is expected (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004). Therefore, structural changes are more often incremental than radical (Salge & Vera,
2013). Little is known about the extent to which HPWS implementation is incremental or
radical; however, Pil and MacDuffie (1999) argue that organizations implement HPWS
incrementally through an adaptive process because its costs are absorbed in the short term
whereas its benefits take time to accumulate.
Providing a conceptual foundation for future work in this area, Guest and Bos-Nehles
(2013) outline four components of the implementation process, arguing that the components
are not always separate or sequential. In their view, implementation begins with a decision
by HR managers and senior leaders to introduce an HR practice. HR managers then develop
the practice at a particular level of quality, from superficial compliance with institutional
requirements (Edelman, 1992) to purposeful customization to fit organizational needs
(Gondo & Amis, 2013). Once the practice is introduced and developed by HR, the next phase
involves implementation by line managers. The final component of the implementation pro-
cess is the quality of line management implementation, which can vary widely (Kulik &
Bainbridge, 2006).
This multifaceted view implies that the process of HPWS implementation takes substan-
tial time and management effort with significant potential for implementation difficulties. As
such, the model implies that there are no guarantees of success, which is consistent with
Barney’s (2001) view that capacity to implement new practices varies between organizations
and can constitute a competitive advantage.
The four components of implementation focus attention on several potential problems.
First, HR must introduce the concept of HPWS to senior managers and persuade them to
invest in making the organizational changes needed for HPWS adoption (Guest & Bos-
Nehles, 2013). Next, HR must customize HPWS to make it fit the local context, which
requires substantial effort as well as stakeholder consultation. Gondo and Amis (2013) argue
that practices are essentially reconstituted each time they are implemented: “Practices that
diffuse widely are characterized by situated actors who continuously work at establishing
deep connections between specific situational and the more abstract ideational aspects of a
practice” (p. 231). Determining how the abstract idea of HPWS can work in a specific estab-
lishment requires organizational members to identify and develop new sets of skills, beliefs,
and collaborative routines (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001). As HR works with stake-
holders to develop HPWS practices, the organization develops its own HPWS version, which
line managers are then expected to implement. Implementation by line managers is known to
be a problem for HR practices in general (Khilji & Wang, 2006). The quality of implementa-
tion may vary across organizational units because line managers either do not know how to
or do not want to implement HPWS practices (Zbaracki, 1998). The impact of HPWS varies
due to implementation quality, which can range from thorough, to superficial, to active rejec-
tion (Wright & Nishii, 2013).
Consistent with the notion of positive feedback loops in general systems theory (Von
Bertalanffy, 1968), evidence of the early and ongoing success of HPWS is likely to be quite

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
10   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

valuable for ensuring implementation effectiveness. As the four-component model of HR

implementation implies, even in cases where senior leaders support the introduction of
HPWS, ongoing support is not guaranteed: “Senior executives may be unwilling to continue
to invest in HR practices they perceive as providing no identifiable benefit and line managers
are unlikely to persist in devoting their time to implementing practices they perceive to have
no impact” (Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013, p. 84). Guest and King (2004) documented that
senior managers often hold negative views of HR practices as transient and unnecessary
bureaucratic fads. As such, for HPWS implementation to be successful, HR managers must
build ongoing arguments for the continued provision of managerial resources and support
(Gondo & Amis, 2013). Productivity improvements are likely to be a particularly persuasive
form of evidence of the value of HPWS because they imply that efficiency has improved.
Productivity improvements reflect gains in the efficiency of the processes used to transform
inputs into outputs and the effective use of resources for value creation (Tangen, 2005).
Hence, productivity increases constitute a core source of the organizational slack needed to
sustain complex organizational changes, like the implementation of HPWS.
Evidence that productivity improvements lead to ongoing HPWS enhancements, which in
turn generate productivity gains, would indicate the existence of a positive feedback loop
between HPWS and productivity. The positive feedback loop posited by general systems
theory suggests that HPWS implementation takes place through an adaptive process. Rather
than seeing HR practices as a top-down resource allocation decision at a single point in time,
organizations develop HPWS through a learning-by-doing approach to translate the abstract
concept of HPWS into a concrete set of practices that fit the local context (Gondo & Amis,
2013). As such, organizational adaptation of HPWS is likely to be accomplished incremen-
tally as managers accumulate knowledge and experience in its operation. This logic suggests
that previous performance is a predictor of increases in HPWS implementation because orga-
nizations adopt more HPWS based on previous successes.

Hypothesis 2: Productivity at an earlier time point is positively associated with the level of HPWS
at a later time point when earlier HPWS is controlled.

Method
Sample
The Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) administered by Statistics Canada to a strat-
ified sample of Canadian businesses provided the data for hypothesis testing (Statistics
Canada, 2009). The data set is longitudinal and national in scope with more than 6,000
employers taking part. The 2001, 2003, and 2005 WES provided Time 1, 2, and 3 (T1, T2, T3)
data on performance and HPWS. The response rates to the 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys
were 83.1%, 77.7%, and 85.1%, respectively. Measures for this study were taken from the
workplace survey, with the respondent being a senior manager at each establishment.
We used data from employers who responded to the WES at all three time points to test
longitudinal effects. Considering that small organizations are likely to be operated without
advanced HR systems, companies with fewer than 20 employees were excluded from the
analysis. Respondents with missing data were excluded, for a final sample of 2,228. The
sample was weighted to reflect population estimates, as required by Statistics Canada. Means,
standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 2.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   11

Table 2
Correlation Matrix

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Productivity01a 11.67 0.99 —

2. Productivity03a 11.71 0.92 .90** —
3. Productivity05a 11.77 0.93 .86** .93** —
4. HPWS01 0.25 0.15 .27** .27** .30** —
5. HPWS03 0.24 0.15 .26** .27** .30** .71** —
6. HPWS05 0.26 0.15 .21** .24** .25** .57** .68** —
7. Sizea 3.58 0.82 .10** .10** .16** .38** .36** .28** —
8. Industry 0.41 0.49 .36** .39** .36** .04* .04* .03 .08** —
9. Unionization 0.27 0.45 .15** .14** .16** .19** .23** .17** .26** .07** —

Note: N = 2,228. Industry coded as 0 = service, 1 = manufacturing. Unionization coded as 0 = no, 1 = yes.
HPWS = high-performance work systems.
aLog transformed.

*p < .05
**p < .01

Measures
HPWS. Measures of HPWS have typically included training, incentive compensation,
employee involvement or empowerment, and participative work design (Combs et al., 2006;
Huselid, 1995). The WES contains a set of HR practices that allows researchers to study
HR practices as a system (e.g., Mohr & Zoghi, 2008; Zatzick & Iverson, 2006). Using the
WES data, HPWS is measured with five sets of practices in the areas of training, employee
empowerment, compensation, benefits, and work design (see Appendix A). We followed pre-
vious studies in using additive indices of HR practices (MacDuffie, 1995; Wright et al., 2005;
Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Each specific practice in these five areas is coded as
a dichotomous variable (1 = yes, 0 = no). Adoption of practices in each area is obtained by
calculating the mean across the specific practices. In all cases, the Kuder-Richardson formula
for calculating internal consistency reliability (α) is used for indices combining dichotomous
variables. While we have little information to test the validity of these measures, we did find
that the correlation between the training measure and separately reported costs of training
per capita indicated a medium-sized association (r = .32 at T1, r = .39 at T2, r = .41 at T3).
The training measure consists of survey questions regarding 13 types of classroom train-
ing and 13 types of on-the-job training (T1, α = .87; T2, α = .86; T3, α = .86). Items include
new employee orientation, professional training, managerial/supervisory training, appren-
ticeship training, sales and marketing training, computer hardware training, computer soft-
ware training, other office and nonoffice equipment training, group decision-making or
problem-solving training, team-building/leadership/communication training, occupational
health and safety or environmental protection training, literacy or numeracy training, and
other training.
Empowerment is measured as employee participation in 12 types of decisions: daily plan-
ning of individual work, weekly planning of individual work, follow-up of results, customer
relations, quality control, purchase of necessary supplies, maintenance of machinery and

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
12   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

equipment, setting staffing levels, filling vacancies, training, choice of production technol-
ogy, and product/service development. Survey respondents indicated who in the organization
normally makes decisions in each of these areas. If the respondent said that “nonmanagerial
employees” or “the work group” normally makes a decision, the item was coded as yes (1);
otherwise, no (0) (T1, α = .81; T2, α = .81; T3, α = .84).
The compensation measure consists of five items. Senior managers reported whether the
compensation system at their establishment includes each of the following incentives (1 =
yes, 0 = no): individual incentive systems, group incentive systems, profit-sharing plan, merit
pay and skill-based pay, and employee stock plans. Reliability estimates for this measure
were relatively low (T1, α = .60; T2, α = .64; T3, α = .54), which is consistent with compensa-
tion systems as formative constructs where practices potentially substitute for one another.
We retained the measure because of the importance of financial incentives for the motiva-
tional aspect of HPWS.
The measure of benefits includes 11 items funded solely by employers or by employers
and employees together (1 = yes, 0 = no): pension plan, life and/or disability insurance,
supplemental medical, dental care, group RRSP (a Canadian form of defined contribution
retirement savings plan), stock purchase or other savings plan, supplements to employment
insurance benefits, workers’ compensation, severance allowances, flexible benefits plan, and
other (T1, α = .78; T2, α = .76; T3, α = .76).
Six practices are included in the work design portion of the HPWS measure. Managers
reported whether each of the following practices existed at their establishment (1 = yes,
0 = no): an employee suggestion program, information sharing with employees, joint labor-
management committees, self-directed work groups, flexible job design, and problem-solv-
ing teams (T1, α = .67; T2, α = .73; T3, α = .73).

Productivity. We used the widely studied measure of productivity as a measure of finan-

cial performance. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Datta, Guthrie, & Wright, 2005;
Huselid, 1995; Konrad & Mangel, 2000), productivity was calculated as the logarithm of the
gross operating revenue divided by the number of employees.

Controls. Firm size, based on the logarithm of number of employees, was controlled
because large firms are more likely to establish HR practices due to economies of scale
(Datta et al., 2005; Huselid, 1995; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). In addition, industry category
(manufacturing and service) was controlled because industries experience different growth
and performance patterns (Datta et al., 2005). Unionization has been studied as a variable
that affects both HPWS and performance (Liu, Guthrie, Flood, & MacCurtain, 2009). To
control for unionization, an establishment was considered to be unionized (coded 1) if one
or more employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (otherwise, coded 0).

Analysis
To test causality between HPWS and performance, we tested a cross-lagged panel model,
with structural equation modeling (using AMOS), which has been suggested as the most suit-
able method for analyzing cross-lagged designs (Finkel, 1995; Little, Preacher, Selig, &
Card, 2007). Our cross-lagged model was designed to meet the three principles of causality
provided by Gollob and Reichardt (1991): considering the ordering of causes and outcomes,

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   13

Figure 1
Cross-Lagged Structural Equation Modeling Results Testing the Causal Relationships
Between High-Performance Work Systems and Productivity

Size .04*
.89*** .90*** Produc vity
Produc vity Produc vity
.47*** ’01 ’03 ’05

.03** .07***
Indu- .35***
stry .04** .05**
.01
HPWS HPWS HPWS
’01 ’03 ’05
.12*** .92*** .90***
Uni-
.18***
on

Chi-square ra o= 12.77, p=.000 CFI= .92, GFI= .92, RMSEA = .07, TLI = .90, RMR= .01

Note: HPWS = high-performance work systems; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMR = root mean square residual.
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

controlling autoregressive influences, and setting an appropriate time lag length. Auto-
correlated errors were accommodated in testing the longitudinal panel model (Little, 2013),
reflecting systematic measurement error over time (Gerhart et al., 2000). HPWS at an earlier
time point predicted performance at a later time point when performance at the earlier time
point was controlled, and performance at an earlier time point predicted HPWS at a later time
point when HPWS at the earlier time point was controlled. The 2-year time lag was based on
the “implication-to-benefits lags” suggested by Huselid and Becker (1996). Following stan-
dard guidelines in designing structural equation modeling with longitudinal data (MacCallum
& Austin, 2000), we include the cross-sectional correlation between HPWS and performance
along with the hypothesized lagged effects. The three control variables of industry, firm size,
and unionization were modeled as predictors of T1 HPWS and performance (see Figure 1).
This model fit the data better than other possible models did.

Results
To examine the validity of our measurement across different time periods, we conducted
three measurement invariance tests: metric invariance, invariant uniqueness, and invariant
factor variance (see Table 3). Although the chi-square difference test is widely used in testing

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
14   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Table 3
Tests of Measurement Invariance

χ² df Δχ² CFI ΔCFI RMSEA TLI

Initial 1014.7 72 .945 .070 .919

Metric invariance 1152.1 80 137.4*** .937 .008 .071 .917
Equal error variance 1258.9 90 106.8*** .931 .006 .070 .920
Invariant factor 1266.6 92 7.7* .931 .000 .069 .921
variance

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
*p < .05
***p < .001

Table 4
Fit Statistics for Nested Causal Models

Model χ² df CFI GFI RMSEA TLI Comparison Δχ² Preference

P1. Stability 2132.6 164 .92 .92 .07 .90

P2. Standard 2064.7 162 .92 .92 .07 .90 P1-P2 67.9*** P2
P3. Reverse 2109.6 162 .92 .92 .07 .90 P1-P3 22.9*** P3
P4. Reciprocal 2043.4 160 .92 .92 .07 .90 P2-P4 89.2*** P4
P1-P4 21.3*** P4
P3-P4 66.2*** P4

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
***p < .001

measurement invariance, this test is likely to reject measurement invariance because of its
sensitivity to a large sample size (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). A practical alternative for
testing measurement invariance with large sample sizes is to check the change in compara-
tive fit index (ΔCFI), and because ΔCFI was less than or equal to .01, measurement invari-
ance for the HPWS measure was supported (Byrne & Stewart, 2006; Cheung & Rensvold,
2002; Shek & Ma, 2010).
We present results for nested model tests in Table 4. Four competing models were consid-
ered to evaluate causality between HPWS and performance. We compared a stability model
without cross-lagged effects, a standard causal model with paths from earlier HPWS to later
performance, a reverse causal model with paths from earlier performance to later HPWS, and
a reciprocal causal model with paths from earlier HPWS to later performance and from ear-
lier performance to later HPWS. Chi-square difference tests support the reciprocal model
because adding reciprocal causation significantly improved model fit.
The overall model fit testing the relationship between productivity and HPWS is satisfac-
tory (cmin/df = 12.77, p = .000, CFI = .92, goodness-of-fit index =.92, root mean square error
of approximation = .07, Tucker-Lewis index = .90, root mean square residual = .01).

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   15

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the paths from T1 HPWS to T2 productivity (p < .01) and from T2
HPWS to T3 productivity (p < .001) are both positive and significant (see Figure 1).
Supporting Hypothesis 2, the paths from H1 productivity to H2 HPWS and from H2 produc-
tivity to H3 HPWS are also significant and positive (p < .01).

Additional Analyses
Comparison of cross-lagged to cross-sectional models. Following prior research (Huselid
& Becker, 1996), we tested the cross-sectional models to compare the size of the path coef-
ficients to those generated by the cross-lagged model. Findings indicated that the effect of
HPWS on productivity in the cross-sectional model (without controlling for previous per-
formance) was .35 at T1, .38 at T2, and .39 at T3 (p < .001), compared with the effect size
of .03 between T1 and T2 and .07 between T2 and T3 in the cross-lagged model (p < .01).
These comparisons show that effect size estimates are exaggerated in cross-sectional stud-
ies (Gollob & Reichardt, 1991; MacCallum & Austin, 2000). In addition, a lagged model
without controlling previous performance produced effect sizes of .36 between T1 HPWS
and T2 productivity, and .38 between T2 HPWS and T3 productivity, which is similar to the
cross-sectional model. These results indicate the importance of controlling for previous per-
formance when estimating the performance effect of HPWS.

Individual practice level. Some researchers have pointed out that the association between
HPWS and performance may differ across each subdimension of HPWS (Combs et al., 2006;
Jiang et al., 2012; Lepak et al., 2006). We found that all components of HPWS positively
predicted later performance either between T1 and T2 or between T2 and T3 or both (see
Appendix B). Training positively predicted productivity from T2 to T3 but not from T1 to
T2. Compensation and benefits positively predicted later productivity both from T1 to T2
and from T2 to T3. Work design showed a nonsignificant tendency (p < .10) in the predic-
tion of productivity from T1 to T2 and no significant relationship to productivity from T2 to
T3. The influence of T1 empowerment on T2 productivity was negative, but the influence of
T2 empowerment on T3 productivity was positive. In sum, most of the HPWS components
positively predicted productivity, but different practices showed different specific effects.
Productivity positively predicted later empowerment and benefits both from T1 to T2 and
from T2 to T3. Productivity predicted training from T1 to T2 but not from T2 to T3.
Productivity predicted compensation from T2 to T3 but not from T1 to T2. T1 productivity
positively predicted T2 work design, but T2 productivity negatively predicted T3 work
design. In sum, productivity positively predicted most of the HPWS components, but differ-
ent practices showed different specific effects. These findings suggest that in HPWS, indi-
vidual practices are organized as a whole, and their combined effects produce a general
pattern of reciprocal causation between HPWS and performance.

Feedback analysis. We examined the feedback effect from productivity to HPWS by ana-
lyzing T2 productivity as a mediator linking T1 HPWS and T3 HPWS (Cole & Maxwell,
2003; Little et al., 2007; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Before testing the mediation effect, we
checked whether HPWS can be considered a time-dependent process. A Sobel test showed
that T2 HPWS significantly mediated the association between T1 HPWS and T3 HPWS

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
16   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

(p < .001). In addition, the correlations between the HPWS measures are higher among adja-
cent time points than among distant points. Specifically, the associations of T1 HPWS with
T2 HPWS (r = .71) and T2 HPWS with T3 HPWS (r = .68) are stronger than the association
of T1 HPWS with T3 HPWS (r = .57).
The main effect, the effect of T1 HPWS on T2 productivity and T2 HPWS on T3 produc-
tivity, was supported. The existence of feedback was tested by examining the effect of T2
productivity on T3 HPWS, which was supported (p < .01). In addition, a Sobel test confirmed
that productivity at T2 mediated the effect of T1 HPWS on T3 HPWS (p < .05).

Discussion
Previous theorizing has focused on the potential of HPWS to have positive effects on
performance and treated the possibility of reverse causality between these two constructs
primarily as a methodological problem. This paper developed theory explaining how perfor-
mance can be a causal factor leading to implementation of HPWS. A general systems theory
perspective (Von Bertalanffy, 1968) suggests that the causal relationship between HPWS and
performance is reciprocal and that high performance subsequent to the implementation of
HPWS generates the information and slack resources needed for firms to continue strength-
ening their HR systems. SHRM theory has long considered HPWS as a system that, when
effective, evidences vertical linkage to firm strategy and horizontal linkages between its
component parts (Delery & Doty, 1996). This paper contributes to theory by emphasizing the
importance of feedback from the environment and the impact of the feedback loop, where
firm outputs affect the flow of information and resources as inputs into the organizational
system. Our findings indicate positive feedback between HPWS and productivity whereby
an increase in one results in a subsequent increase in the other, generating a virtuous perfor-
mance cycle. The positive feedback loop contributes to logic explaining why the beneficial
effects of HPWS may be difficult for competitors to imitate. As such, this model adds to
understanding of how HPWS creates competitive advantage for firms (Barney, 2001).
The framework of general systems theory (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Von Bertalanffy,
1968) suggests that performance outputs generate responses from the organizational environ-
ment that determine the future inflow of resources to the organization. When performance is
strong, inputs in the form of continued resources and support allow the organization to build
and maintain strong throughput processes, such as HPWS. This model suggests that HPWS
implementation is an adaptive process based on learning by doing. Decision makers test
HPWS and extend the application of the system based on successful experiences (Miner,
1994). Specific establishments develop their HPWS over time to improve its functioning and
fit to the needs of the local context (Gondo & Amis, 2013). Positive productivity results cre-
ate the information needed to persuade decision makers of the value of the HPWS as well as
the slack resources required to make further investments in the system. Hence, the positive
productivity effects of HPWS increase the firm’s implementation capabilities. Firm differ-
ences in implementation capabilities mean that HPWS has the potential to create sustainable
competitive advantage (Barney, 2001).
Prior research showing the association between performance and HPWS has largely relied
on cross-sectional or postpredictive studies where researchers measure the relationship
between current HPWS and past performance (Wright et al., 2005). Although some scholars

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   17

have raised methodological questions about the causality issue in HR studies, empirical
research addressing this issue has been limited. We tried to overcome prior methodological
problems by testing the associations between HPWS and performance using longitudinal
data with three points in time, a 2-year lag, and a large sample size. In alignment with previ-
ous studies (Huselid & Becker, 1996), the cross-lagged model produced smaller coefficients
for the effect of earlier HPWS on later performance than were observed in the cross-sectional
model.
However, the smaller effect size does not mean that the contribution of HPWS on organi-
zational performance is trivial. From the general systems perspective, the mutual causation
observed between HPWS and productivity implies the existence of a positive feedback loop
between these two components of the organizational input-throughput-output system (Von
Bertalanffy, 1968). The positive feedback loop detected in these data indicates that the per-
formance effects of HPWS are amplified over time. When HPWS generates productivity
improvements, firms gain slack resources, which they can invest to further develop and
strengthen the HPWS throughput system. Strengthening an existing HPWS may involve add-
ing components, such as more training; expanding the system to cover more employees; and/
or improving implementation to increase consistency across organizational units. Through a
systemic adaptation process, firms customize their HR systems by continuously adjusting
them to fit a specific, changing context, making imitation of HPWS increasingly difficult
over time (Gondo & Amis, 2013). The positive feedback loop generated between HPWS and
productivity helps to maintain performance gains over time by preventing implementation
lapses and making the system more difficult for competitors to copy (Barney, 1991). The
positive performance spiral between HPWS and performance leads to substantial differences
between organizations as the positive feedback accentuates the benefits to the firm (Boisot &
Child, 1999; Gell-Mann, 1994).
The strong autocorrelation between T1, T2, and T3 HPWS and between T1, T2, and T3
productivity reduced our ability to detect extant effects between HPWS and performance. Yet
we detected a significant lagged effect of HPWS on productivity growth despite the strong
autocorrelation between the productivity measures at different time points. As such, our find-
ings support prior theoretical claims that HPWS strengthens firm financial performance,
although the actual effect may not be as large as suggested by previous cross-sectional stud-
ies. We also detected a significant lagged effect of productivity on growth in HPWS. As such,
our findings support the claim that the effect of performance on HPWS must be considered
when theorizing the causal associations between HPWS and performance, especially when
the outcome is productivity. This finding supports the usefulness of applying general systems
theory to enhance understanding of performance as both an antecedent and an outcome of
HPWS.
Some researchers have suggested the possibility that organizations with poor performance
may adopt new HR practices as a means to overcome their performance problems (Pil &
MacDuffie, 1996). However, our findings link high performance rather than low perfor-
mance to the implementation of HPWS. We do not intend to suggest that firms cannot adopt
HPWS to solve their performance problems. Rather, these findings suggest that firms with
low productivity must overcome resource constraints in order to begin the process of adopt-
ing HPWS. One constraint is lack of knowledge regarding HPWS concepts and implementa-
tion. Bringing HR expertise into the firm by creating a senior HR position as part of the

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
18   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

executive team provides a source of HPWS knowledge and capability to link HPWS to the
business strategy. Including HR experts at the highest organizational levels means the knowl-
edge required for successful strategy implementation through HR processes is available to
strategic decision makers (Buyens & De Vos, 2001). Another constraint is enhanced competi-
tion in a globalized economy (Orlitzky & Frenkel, 2005). Firm financial performance can be
generated by coercive “low-road” HR models, particularly when the business competes by
producing a standardized product at the lowest possible cost (Arthur, 1992). Firms must
match their HR architectures to their HR needs in order to achieve financial performance
benefits (Lepak & Snell, 2002). This logic suggests that using HPWS to solve financial per-
formance problems requires consideration of strategy, the business environment, and internal
HR capabilities.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The findings of this research can be used as a basis for future work examining the causal
relationship between HPWS and performance as well as mediators and moderators of that
relationship. However, like all research, this study has its limitations.
First, we provided several reasons why firm performance leads to HPWS. We did not treat
these explanations as competing hypotheses and could not differentiate process mechanism
linking performance to HPWS. However, the finding that earlier productivity consistently
leads to later HPWS suggests that empirical testing of the conceptual mechanisms linking
performance to HPWS would be valuable.
Second, data at three time intervals allow us to examine the feedback loop between HPWS
and performance in a very limited way. A longitudinal analysis across multiple time periods
is necessary to explain the longer-term relationship between performance and HPWS. In
addition, we relied on data from three specific time points (2001, 2003, and 2005) to test for
causality by examining change during that time interval. Although there seemed to have been
no unusual social or economic events in Canada during this time, our results may be due to
the specific conditions existing between 2001 and 2005.
Third, contingent factors need to be considered to understand the impact of performance
on HPWS. Despite the suggestions of the “best-practice” perspective, all firms do not make
the same investments in HR solely based on their performance level (Purcell, 1999). An
important principle of SHRM theorizing proposes that the value of firm investments in HR
practices depends on business strategy (Arthur, 1992; Youndt et al., 1996). We tested the
interactions of both HPWS and performance as independent variables with several business
strategy measures but did not find any significant moderating effects on either performance
or HPWS in our models. Our finding that high productivity leads to an increase in HPWS
implementation suggests that performance difficulties create barriers to implementing HR
practices. As such, there may be value in future research aimed at identifying the conditions
under which firms with performance difficulties are able to overcome the liability of resource
constraints. HR expertise among strategic decision makers and fit to the business strategy are
two factors worthy of consideration, and others may exist. In addition, it would be valuable
to consider mediators that explain the relationship between performance and HPWS in order
to clarify our understanding of the mechanisms linking the two variables (Beltrán-Martín,
Roca-Puig, Escrig-Tena, & Bou-Llusar, 2008).

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   19

A full explanation of the link between HPWS and performance requires that the HPWS
measure cover the entire breadth of that construct. Our HPWS measure covered most com-
ponents of HPWS, but some components, such as selection and job security, were not
included in the WES data set. In fact, researchers have not reached a consensus on what
constitutes HPWS (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Edwards & Wright, 2001; Harley, 2002). For
example, some scholars include job security as an important component of HPWS (e.g.,
Pfeffer, 1998a, 1998b), while others disagree (e.g., Edwards & Wright, 2001). Therefore, it
is necessary for researchers to agree on the factors constituting both HPWS and organiza-
tional performance as constructs for this field.
Another limitation of our measure is the set of dichotomous yes/no indicators of the pres-
ence of specific HR practices. We have no information on how well the practices are imple-
mented, how consistently they are distributed across organizational units, or what proportion
of the firm’s employees experience HPWS. As such, our measures imply simply that “more
HR” is better for firms. This argument can be problematic because the more-HR approach
ignores its costs (Kaufman & Miller, 2011). However, the general systems approach can
answer the question of why organizations choose a specific level of HR practices given that
a firm’s previous performance level creates resources for implementation. As such, the gen-
eral systems theory approach takes the cost of HR into consideration. Future studies can
establish the validity of the causal association across multiple HPWS measures (Wright et al.,
2001).
Finally, we found that a unidirectional interpretation of causation between HPWS and
productivity can be misleading in the North American context. Whether the bidirectional
causation between HPWS and performance is generalizable to other cultural contexts is a
matter for future research.

Conclusions
The reciprocal nature of the relationship between HPWS and organizational performance
requires HR researchers and practitioners to take a systemic view of the impact of HR prac-
tices. While SHRM theory has considered HPWS as a system of horizontally integrated
practices linked to the external environment through consistency with the business strategy
(Delery & Doty, 1996), previous theorizing has neglected the impact of feedback from the
environment on the implementation of HPWS. The reciprocal relationship between HPWS
and performance suggests both the vulnerability of preserving HPWS under environmental
constraints and the importance of constant investment in HPWS in order to generate com-
petitive advantage (Barney, 2001). High investment in HPWS results in increased produc-
tivity, which allows for further investments to extend the HPWS system and refine it to fit
the local context (Gondo & Amis, 2013). The reciprocal relationship also suggests the
importance of demonstrating the value of HPWS to decision makers. When HR practitio-
ners show that HPWS creates productivity gains, decision makers are more likely to further
invest in extending or strengthening HPWS. In addition, to reap the full benefits of HPWS,
organizations need to be consistent in their HR practices over time (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004). If decision makers reduce investment in HR during difficult financial times, our find-
ings suggest that the firm could fall into a downward spiral of decreasing HPWS and
performance.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
20   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Appendix A
High-Performance Work Systems Measure

HR Practice Items

Training (26 items) Did this workplace pay for or provide any of the following types of
classroom job-related traininga? (yes/no)
Did this workplace pay for or provide any of the following types of on-the-
job training? (yes/no)
Orientation for new employees, managerial/supervisory training, professional
training, apprenticeship training, sales and marketing training, computer/
hardware, computer/software, other office and nonoffice equipment,
group decision making or problem solving, team building/leadership/
communication, occupational health/safety/environmental protection,
literacy or numeracy, other training
Empowerment (12 items) Who normally makes decisions with respect to the following activities?
(coded as 1 when decisions made by nonmanagerial employee, work
group, or work supervisor; others as 0)
Daily planning of individual work, weekly planning of individual work,
follow-up of results, customer relations, quality control, purchase of
necessary supplies, maintenance of machinery and equipment, setting
staffing levels, filling vacancies, training, choice of production technology,
product/service development
Compensation (5 items) Does your compensation system include the following incentives? (yes/no)
Individual incentive systems, group incentives systems, profit-sharing plan,
merit pay and skill-based pay, employee stock plans
Benefits (11 items) How are these benefits funded? (coded 1 when benefits are funded by
employer only or by employee and employee; otherwise coded 0)
Pension plan, life and/or disability insurance, supplemental medical
and dental care, group RRSP, stock purchase or other savings plan,
supplements to employment insurance benefits (e.g., for maternity or
layoff), workers’ compensation, severance allowances, flexible benefit
plan, other
Work design (6 items) For nonmanagerial employees, which of the following practices exist on a
formal basis in your workplace? (yes/no)
Employee’s suggestion program, flexible job design, information sharing
with employees, problem-solving teams, joint labor-management
committees, self-directed work groups

Note: HR = human resource management.

aClassroom training includes all training activities that have a predetermined format, including a predefined
objective; specific content; progress that may be monitored and/or evaluated.

Appendix B
Cross-Lagged Structural Equation Modeling Results for Component High-
Performance Work System Practices

Component Time (T) HR→P P→HR Model Fit Indices

Training T1→T2 .01 .07*** χ² = 348.7, df = 16, p = .000, CFI = .97,

T2→T3 .02** −.03 GFI = .97, RMSEA = .10, TLI = .94

(continued)

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   21

Appendix B (continued)
Component Time (T) HR→P P→HR Model Fit Indices

Empowerment T1→T2 −.03** .12*** χ² = 372.8, df = 16, p = .000, CFI = .96,

T2→T3 .03*** .18*** GFI = .97, RMSEA = .10, TLI = .92
Compensation T1→T2 .06*** −.01 χ² = 306.5, df = 16, p = .000, CFI = .97,
T2→T3 .06*** .10*** GFI = .97, RMSEA = .09, TLI = .94
Benefits T1→T2 .03** .09*** χ² = 323.5, df = 16, p = .000, CFI = .98,
T2→T3 .03*** .09*** GFI = .97, RMSEA = .09, TLI = .94
Work design T1→T2 .02† .08*** χ² = 279.9, df = 16, p = .000, CFI = .97,
T2→T3 .01 −.08*** GFI = .97, RMSEA = .09, TLI = .94

Note: HR = human resource management; P = productivity; CFI = comparative fix index; GFI = goodness-of-fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
†p < .10

**p < .01

***p < .001

References
Allen, M. R., & Wright, P. M. 2007. Strategic management and HRM. In P. F. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management: 88-107. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance
work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. 1992. The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steel minimills.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45: 488-506.
Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. 2000. Organizational responses to complexity: The effect on
organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13: 577-595.
Ashmos, D. P., & Huber, G. P. 1987. The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correcting the record and sug-
gesting the future. Academy of Management Review, 12: 607-621.
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-
based view. Journal of Management, 27: 643-650.
Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Spamann, H. 2010. The wages of failure: Executive compensation at Bear Stearns and
Lehman 2000-2008. Yale Journal on Regulation, 27: 257-282.
Becker, B. E., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational performance:
Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 779-801.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? Journal
of Management, 32: 898-925.
Beltrán-Martín, I., Roca-Puig, V., Escrig-Tena, A., & Bou-Llusar, J. C. 2008. Human resource flexibility as a
mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34:
1009-1044.
Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1999. Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: The case of China.
Organization Science, 10: 237-252.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research.
Human Resource Management Journal, 15: 67-94.
Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Jansen, P. 2001. Human resource management and performance: Lessons from the
Netherlands. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12: 1107-1125.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the
HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
22   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Buyens, D., & De Vos, A. 2001. Perceptions of the value of the HR function. Human Resource Management
Journal, 11: 70-89.
Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. 2006. Teacher’s corner: The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance
of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 13: 287-321.
Cascio, W. F. 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Perspective
7: 95-104.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9: 233-255.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. 2003. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the
use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112: 558-577.
Combs, J. G., Liu, Y., Hall, A. T., & Ketchen, D. J. 2006. How much do high-performance work practices matter? A
meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 501-528.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. 2005. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does
industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 38: 135-145.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 949-969.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of uni-
versalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39:
802-835.
Dhawan, R. 2001. Firm size and productivity differential: Theory and evidence from a panel of US firms. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44: 269-293.
Edelman, L. B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law.
American Journal of Sociology, 97: 1531-1576.
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology
implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685-716.
Edwards, P., & Wright, P. M. 2001. High-involvement work systems and performance outcomes: The strength of
variable, contingent and context-bound relationships. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
12: 568-585.
Finkel, S. E. 1995. Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gell-Mann, M. 1994. The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: Freeman.
Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., Mc Mahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. 2000. Measurement error in research on human
resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?
Personnel Psychology, 53: 803-834.
Godard, J. 2004. A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
42: 349-378.
Godard, J., & Delaney, J. T. 2000. Reflections on the “high performance” paradigm’s implications for industrial
relations as a field. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53: 482-502.
Gollan, P. J. 2005. High involvement management and human resource sustainability: The challenges and opportu-
nities. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43: 18-33.
Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. 1991. Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time lags really matter.
In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered
questions, future directions: 243-259. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gondo, M. B., & Amis, J. M. 2013. Variation in practice adoption: The role of conscious reflection and discourse.
Academy of Management Review, 38: 229-247.
Guest, D. E. 1997. Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 8: 263-276.
Guest, D. E. 2011. Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human
Resource Management Journal, 21: 3-13.
Guest, D. E., & Bos-Nehles, A. C. 2013. HRM and performance: The role of effective implementation. In J. Paauwe,
D. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges: 79-96. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Guest, D. E., & King, Z. 2004. Power, innovation and problem-solving: The personnel managers’ three steps to
heaven? Journal of Management Studies, 41: 401-423.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   23

Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. 2003. Human resource management and corporate perfor-
mance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41: 291-314.
Harley, B. 2002. Employee responses to high performance work system practices: An analysis of the AWIRS95
data. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44: 418-434.
Huselid, M. A. 1994. Documenting HR’s effect on company performance. HR Magazine, 39: 79-85.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. 1996. Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human
resource-firm performance link. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 35: 400-422.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational
outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55:
1264-1294.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Moody, J. W. 1994. Human resource management and organizational performance. American
Behavioral Scientist, 37: 948-962.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. 1972. General systems theory: Applications for organization and management.
Academy of Management Journal, 15: 447-465.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Kaufman, B. E. 2010. SHRM theory in the post-Huselid era: Why it is fundamentally misspecified. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 49: 286-313.
Kaufman, B. E., & Miller, B. I. 2011. The firm’s choice of HRM practices: Economics meets strategic human
resource management. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 64: 526-557.
Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. 2006. “Intended” and “implemented” HRM: The missing linchpin in strategic human
resource management research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17: 1171-1189.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. 1995. Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or
concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38: 787-820.
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. 2000. The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management
Journal, 21: 1225-1237.
Kulik, C. T., & Bainbridge, H. T. J. 2006. HR and the line: The distribution of HR activities in Australian organisa-
tions. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44: 240-256.
Lawler, E. E., III. 1986. High-involvement managment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lazear, E. P. 1996. Performance pay and productivity. NBER working paper, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, MA.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. 2006. A conceptual review of human resource management
systems in strategic human resource management research. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management, vol. 25: 217-271. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation
and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31-48.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 2002. Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human
capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28: 517-543.
Little, T. D. 2013. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. 2007. New developments in latent variable panel analyses
of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31: 357-365.
Liu, W., Guthrie, J. P., Flood, P. C., & MacCurtain, S. 2009. Unions and the adoption of high performance work
systems: Does employment security play a role? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 63: 109-127.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. 2000. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 201-226.
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible
production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197-221.
Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., & Lepak, D. P. 2011. Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-
performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1105-1118.
Miner, A. S. 1994. Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action. In J. A. C. Baum & J.
V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 76-89. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mohr, R. D., & Zoghi, C. 2008. High-involvement work desgin and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 61: 275-296.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
24   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Orlitzky, M., & Frenkel, S. J. 2005. Alternative pathways to high-performance workplaces. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16: 1325-1348.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 1995. Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Academy
of Management Executive, 9: 55-69.
Pfeffer, J. 1998a. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Pfeffer, J. 1998b. Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review, 40: 96-124.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New
York: Harper & Row.
Pil, F. K., & MacDuffie, J. P. 1996. The adoption of high-involvement work practices. Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, 35: 423-455.
Pil, F. K., & MacDuffie, J. P. 1999. Organizational and environmental factors influencing the use and diffusion of
high-involvement work practices. In P. Cappelli (Ed.), Employment practices and business strategy: 81-106.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879-891.
Purcell, J. 1999. Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac? Human Resource Management Journal, 9: 26-41.
Salge, T. O. 2011. A behavioral model of innovative search: Evidence from public hospital services. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 21: 181-210.
Salge, T. O., & Vera, A. 2013. Small steps that matter: Incremental learning, slack resources and organizational
performance. British Journal of Management, 24: 156-173.
Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shek, D. T. L., & Ma, C. M. S. 2010. The Chinese Family Assessment Instrument (C-FAI). Research on Social
Work Practice, 20: 112-123.
Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Hsu, C. C. 2006. Can high performance work systems really lead to better perfor-
mance? International Journal of Manpower, 27: 741-763.
Singh, J. V. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management
Journal, 29: 562-585.
Statistics Canada. 2009. Workplace and Employee Survey (WES). Retrieved August 26, 2011, from [Link]
[Link]/cgi-bin/imdb/[Link]?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=2615&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2
Subramony, M. 2009. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm perfor-
mance. Human Resource Management, 48: 745-768.
Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. 2003. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies
from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1249-1263.
Tangen, S. 2005. Demystifying productivity and performance. International Journal of Productivity & Performance
Management, 54: 34-46.
Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. 1999. Examining employee involvement in the context of participative
work environments. Group & Organization Management, 24: 271-299.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature:
Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,
3: 4-70.
Von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General system theory: Foundations, development, applications, rev. ed. New York:
George Braziller.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic
Management Journal, 18: 303-319.
Walters, B. A., & Bhuian, S. N. 2004. Complexity absorption and performance: A structural analysis of acute-care
hospitals. Journal of Management, 30: 97-121.
Way, S. A. 2002. High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the US
small business sector. Journal of Management, 28: 765-785.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. 2001. Human resources and the resource based view of the firm.
Journal of Management, 27: 701-721.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. 2005. The relationship between HR practices and
firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58: 409-446.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014
 Shin, Konrad / High-Performance Work Systems and Performance   25

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. 2001. Measurement error
in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research.
Personnel Psychology, 54: 875-901.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management.
Journal of Management, 18: 295-320.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. 1994. Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A
resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5: 301-326.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. 2013. Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels of
analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges:
97-110. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1998. Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23: 756-772.
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. 2011. Diversity and organizational innovation: The role of employee involvement.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 1062-1083.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human resource management, manufacturing
strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 836-866.
Zatzick, C. D., & Iverson, R. D. 2006. High-involvement management and workforce reduction: Competitive
advantage or disadvantage? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 999-1015.
Zbaracki, M. J. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:
602-636.
Zhu, X. 2012. Understanding China’s growth: Past, present, and future. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26:
103-124.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on October 9, 2014