Abstract
Purpose - The present article contributes to the broad debate regarding universalistic and contingency perspectives of HRM. Building on recent evidence of HRM differentiation within organisations, the present article studies variation in experienced HR practices across job level and whether the impact of HR practices on commitment, intention to quit and well-being across job level is best explained by universalistic or contingency claims.Design/methodology/approach - Data from two cross-sectional questionnaire studies are reported. The first involves a sample of UK Armed Services personnel, the second a more heterogeneous sample of UK employees. Data were collected on experience of HR practices and also affective commitment, intention to quit and well-being. Differences in HR practices across job level were analysed using ANCOVAs. Invariance testing within path analysis examined the stability of the relationships across job level. Findings - Both studies found that employees in higher job levels report a greater number of HR practices. Findings further indicated that the associations between HR practices and the three outcomes were largely invariant across job level, thus supporting universalistic notions of HRM across job levels.Research limitations/implications - Data from both studies were cross-sectional and single-source, thus limiting causal inferences. More generally, there is a need to better understand HR differentiation within organisations and whether it offers an effective HR strategy.Practical implications - The findings question the utility of differentiating HR investments based upon job level and imply that greater application of HR practices will have a positive impact on some key outcomes at all levels in the organisation. Originality/value - Few studies have examined systematic variation in HR practices across employee groups and universalistic/contingency arguments within organisations. The studies presented are among the first to offer an evaluative as well as descriptive analysis of the issues under investigation.
Purpose - The present article contributes to the broad debate regarding universalistic and contingency perspectives of HRM. Building on recent evidence of HRM differentiation within organisations, the present article studies variation in experienced HR practices across job level and whether the impact of HR practices on commitment, intention to quit and well-being across job level is best explained by universalistic or contingency claims.Design/methodology/approach - Data from two cross-sectional questionnaire studies are reported. The first involves a sample of UK Armed Services personnel, the second a more heterogeneous sample of UK employees. Data were collected on experience of HR practices and also affective commitment, intention to quit and well-being. Differences in HR practices across job level were analysed using ANCOVAs. Invariance testing within path analysis examined the stability of the relationships across job level. Findings - Both studies found that employees in higher job levels report a greater number of HR practices. Findings further indicated that the associations between HR practices and the three outcomes were largely invariant across job level, thus supporting universalistic notions of HRM across job levels.Research limitations/implications - Data from both studies were cross-sectional and single-source, thus limiting causal inferences. More generally, there is a need to better understand HR differentiation within organisations and whether it offers an effective HR strategy.Practical implications - The findings question the utility of differentiating HR investments based upon job level and imply that greater application of HR practices will have a positive impact on some key outcomes at all levels in the organisation. Originality/value - Few studies have examined systematic variation in HR practices across employee groups and universalistic/contingency arguments within organisations. The studies presented are among the first to offer an evaluative as well as descriptive analysis of the issues under investigation.