Personnel Review, 2010, Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 5-23
This article is © Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for thisversion to appear here (https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/index.jsp). Emerald does notgrant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere
without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
www.emeraldinsight.com

High Commitment Performance Management: The Roles of Justice and
Trust

Elaine Farndale (Corresponding author)
Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE
Tilburg, The Netherlands& Labor Studies & Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Email: farndale@uvt.nl
Tel.: +31 (0)13 466 2371
Dr Elaine Farndale is Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Resource Studies at
Tilburg University in the Netherlands. She is a member of the Change Management
Consortium Research team at Cass Business School, City University in the UK. Her specialist
areas of interest include: international HRM; the power, professionalism and roles of the HR
department; change management and HRM; and eHRM and new HR delivery mechanisms.
Her work has been published in refereed academic journals and practitioner publications, aswell as presented at international academic conferences.
Veronica Hope-Hailey
Cass Business School, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK
Email: veronica.hope-hailey.1@city.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)207 0408683
Veronica is Associate Dean of the MBA Programmes and Professor of HRM and Change
at Cass Business School at City University in the City of London. She has also held
Professorships at Cranfield School of Management and the University of Bath. Her researchand teaching interests centre on issues of change at both a strategic and organisational level,
and also at the level of individual managerial practice and personal development. Veronica isalso the Director of the Change Management Consortium which conducts collaborative
research with major private sector and public sector organizations.

1Clare Kelliher
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK
Email: clare.kelliher@cranfield.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1234 751122
Dr Clare Kelliher is Reader in Work and Organisation Cranfield School of Management,
Cranfield University. She is a member of the Change Management Consortium Researchteam at Cass Business School, City University. Clare's research interests centre on theorganisation of work and the management of the employment relationship in the context oforganisational change. She has particularly interests in the use and implementation of flexible
working practices. She has authored many published papers and book chapters and regularlypresents at national and international conferences.

ABSTRACT
Purpose: This paper explores the relationship between employees’ perceptions of a particularsubsystem of HRM practices (performance management) and their commitment to theorganization. In addition, the study examines the mechanisms by which these perceptionstranslate into employee attitudes and behaviours.
Methodology: 524 questionnaire responses were collected from four organizations in the UK.
Findings: The findings show the link between employee experiences of high commitment
performance management (HCPM) practices and their level of commitment is strongly
mediated by related perceptions of organizational justice. In addition, the level of employee
trust in the organization is a significant moderator.
Research limitations: This is a cross-sectional study based on self-report data which limits
the reliability of the findings. The findings may also be specific to a particular context,
however, the results by company support their generalisability.
Practical implications: The findings lead us to believe that it is essential to observe theactual experiences of HCPM practices and outcomes at employee level, and to consider thebroader organizational context, if we are to understand their effects on performance.
Originality: When exploring the impact of high commitment work practices on firm
performance, little attention has been paid to the employee perspective: employees ultimately
are the recipients of an organization’s HRM practices, and as such their perceptions of thesepractices affect their attitudes and behaviour in the workplace.
Keywords: performance management; organizational justice; trust; commitment; research
paper

2

1. INTRODUCTION
There has been intense interest within the HRM field regarding how HRM can add value toorganizations, leading to an increasing focus on high performance work systems (HPWS)(Macky and Boxall, 2007). At the same time, commentators have increasingly argued theneed to revise existing research to address some of the inherent methodological weaknesses in
the field (Guest, 1997; Wood, 1999). One issue is that many models of HRM and firm
performance are based on theoretical assumptions about the outcomes of certain HRM
practices, rather than on empirical observation (Paauwe and Farndale, 2005: 97). Guest (1999)
also argues for more attention to be paid to the employee perspective in this debate, alongside
the more common organizational level variables.
Conceptual models have started to explore the links between HRM practices and HRM
outcomes. HRM practices can take three different forms: intended, actual and perceived(Wright and Nishii, 2004). Intended HRM includes the policies and practices put together atorganization level. These practices are then enacted by line management in the process of
implementation, and may or may not be carried out as originally intended. The employee isultimately the recipient of these practices, forming his or her own perceptions of them. These
perceptions then influence employee-level outcomes by affecting the way the employee
thinks, feels or behaves (Purcell et al., 2003). This debate is often referred to as ‘opening theblack box’ between HRM and performance (Guest, 1997; Purcell et al., 2003).
One dimension of the HRM/performance debate focuses on the notion that practices can be
designed to create a particular HRM outcome, in this case high commitment – so called highcommitment work practices (HCWP). Commitment is seen as a fundamental requirement toachieve such desirable outcomes as higher job satisfaction and lower absenteeism (Mathieu
and Zajac, 1990), higher organization citizenship behaviour and employees who are willing to‘go the extra mile’ (Organ, 1990). We focus here on a sub-system of practices within HCWPs:
high commitment performance management (HCPM). HCPM includes performance
management practices which are designed to engender commitment from employees throughinvolvement and personal development, such as regular appraisal feedback, input into theprocess of target setting, choosing pay and benefit options, and appraisals leading todevelopment opportunities and new targets. HCPM is argued to affect an employee’s
perceptions of organizational actions, which leads to related employee attitudes andbehaviours (Den Hartog et al., 2004). We need, however, to look deeper into how this process
works. The approach adopted here is to consider how the extant organizational climate affects
employee reactions using theories of organizational justice and trust.
We present the argument that for performance management practices to have the effect ofachieving high commitment, this depends on the extent to which employees perceive thesepractices to be fair, both in terms of the process and the outcomes. Organizational justice is
proposed to play a key mediating role in this relationship, and has been found to explain awide range of employee behaviours (Greenberg, 1990).
In addition, the broader macro-environment of the organizational context creates theconditions under which the employee-employer relationship is formed (Den Hartog et al.,2004). This affects how employees perceive performance management practices and again
influences the related behaviour and attitudes. Particularly, the extent of trust that employees
have in the organization as represented by senior management is an important aspect oforganizational climate (McAllister, 1995; Macky and Boxall, 2007). Trust, it is argued here,3

moderates the extent to which performance management practices can lead to perceptions ofjustice and employee commitment.
In summary, this study explores the effect of employee perceptions of the fairness of
performance management practices on organizational commitment and the impact of trust insenior management on this relationship. The related issues of commitment, perceived
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and organizational trust are first discussed. A
model of HCPM and its relationship with these variables is then constructed based on extant
theory and tested in an empirical study to explore its applicability to theory and practice.
2. HIGH COMMITMENT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Employee commitment denotes a belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of anorganization, a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to
maintain membership of the organization (Mowday, et al. 1979). This HRM outcome has astrong relationship with organizational success factors such as higher job satisfaction, lower
absenteeism and organization citizenship behaviour (e.g. Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Organ,1990). It has thus been argued that individuals with high levels of commitment are more
willing to devote greater efforts towards an organization’s goals and objectives (Guest, 1987).
In order to support a desire for high commitment, certain HRM practices can therefore be put
in place in organizations.
The term ‘high commitment’ is frequently used (incorrectly) interchangeably with terms like‘high involvement’ and ‘high performance’, the former being more prominent in the UK andthe latter two in the US literature (Gould-Williams, 2004). The tendency in the ‘highperformance’ literature is to identify a set of HRM best practices which together will improvefirm performance (Guest, 1987; Whitener, 2001; Wood & de Menezes, 1998). However, thevariety of practices included in these different studies has led to confusion over which HRM
practices should be regarded as ‘high performance’. More recently, Boxall and Macky (2009)
have highlighted that high involvement and high commitment work practices are notsynonymous: although high involvement work practices tend to engender high commitment,
the reverse is not necessarily the case. For example, practices which enhance empowerment
have been found to have a significant effect on employee commitment (Gardner et al., 2001).
However, there are many studies which show that employee commitment can be achieved byroutes other than those incorporating high involvement, such as pay and job security (Boxall& Macky, 2009).
Like the ‘high involvement’ literature, the ‘high commitment’ literature focuses on desired
outcomes more than on practices themselves (Wood & de Menezes, 1998). In general, studies
of high involvement or high commitment work practices have a clearer definition of thedesired outcome (involvement or commitment) compared to the more generic highperformance literature in which ‘performance’ can have many interpretations (Boxall &Macky, 2009). High commitment HRM is about shaping employee behaviours and attitudes
by developing psychological links between organizational and individual goals to increase
effectiveness and productivity (Arthur, 1994). Correspondingly, the practices that represent ahigh commitment strategy include any sets of HRM policies and procedures that affect
employee commitment (Whitener, 2001).
Focusing in particular on the performance management dimensions of HCWPs, thesepractices are recognized as increasingly central to high performing organizations.

4Performance management itself is “an integrated process in which managers work with theiremployees to set expectations, measure and review results, and reward performance, in orderto improve employee performance, with the ultimate aim of positively affecting
organizational success” (Den Hartog et al., 2004: 557). The primary aim is to provide
guidance to employees on how to apply their resources for the benefit of the organization(Gardener et al., 2001). Performance management practices represent an important element in
the HRM process and have particular significance for notions of high commitment (Fletcher
and Williams, 1996), although as yet evidence of a direct linkage is weak (Guest et al., 2003).
We argue here that there are two types of commitment-enhancing performance management
practices. The first, as noted above, has a high involvement focus and includes personal
involvement in setting objectives, having frequent opportunities to discuss performance andreceive feedback, and having some choice over the pay and benefits received. In return forthese organizational practices, the employee reciprocates with higher commitment to theorganization in line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). The second type focuses on
employees feeling they have opportunities to develop, with the reciprocal repayment of thisinvestment again in terms of commitment and a lower intention to leave. Such practices
include appraisal discussions which result in training and development opportunities and newchallenges being set for the employee to work towards. Combined, we refer to these practices
further as High Commitment Performance Management (HCPM): a sub-system of practices
within HCWPs focusing on the three dimensions of performance management (appraisal,target setting and reward).
These HCPM practices effectively represent an intersection of the organization’s andindividual’s interests, and are fully facilitated by line managers and supervisors. Outcomes ofthese processes are generally explicit and consequently may provide a focus for employees’assessment of the organization. Equally, decisions about performance are in manyorganizations frequent, regular occurrences and so capturing employee perceptions in relation
to them may be more realisable than for other HRM activities. Therefore, the first hypothesis
is presented as follows:
H1: The more employees are the recipients of HCPM practices, the higher their level ofcommitment.
It has been suggested that there is a need to understand the broader organizational context inwhich performance management occurs to understand its outcomes (Den Hartog et al., 2004).
Organizational context is explored here further in terms of the extant organizational climate,including employee perceptions of justice in HCPM practices, and their levels oforganizational trust.
3. THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
In studying the outcomes of HCPM, it is interesting to explore not only what practices are
implemented, but also how they are experienced by employees (Gratton and Truss, 2003).
Guest (1999) argues that the way in which employees perceive and evaluate HRM practices
impacts employee behaviour and attitudes. Employee perceptions of performance
management practices are thus of crucial importance (Purcell et al., 2003; Wright and Nishii,2004), and can be explained with the help of organizational justice theories. Organizational
justice can explain a wide range of employee behaviours and highlights the importance of the5ideals of justice and fairness as a requirement for organizations to function effectively(Greenberg, 1990).
The two most prevalent forms of organizational justice discussed in the literature are
distributive and procedural justice (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990).
Distributive justice refers to the perceived equity of outcomes for individuals, for example,
whether the performance appraisal process results in what the individual perceives to be a fairevaluation. Procedural justice refers to the individual’s perception of the fairness of theprocess carried out, for example, to reach a final performance grading. An employee is said tobe more likely to find the outcomes of HRM practices fair, if the process of those practices isperceived to be equitable (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). A process which allows employee
involvement is also often perceived as being more fair (Greenberg, 1990). For example, if an
employee is able to input into the process of setting targets, he or she is more likely toperceive those targets as fair.
Extant research shows that perceptions of procedural justice in HRM are related in particular
to measures such as trust in management, job satisfaction and employee commitment (Folger
and Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). Distributive justice on the other hand ismore closely related to outcome satisfaction, such as fairness of levels of pay andperformance evaluations (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990). Procedural justiceis therefore a stronger predictor of evaluations of an organization as an institution, whereas
distributive justice relates more closely to specific personal outcomes (McFarlin and
Sweeney, 1992).
There is some debate in the literature regarding the extent to which distributive andprocedural justice can actually be measured independently. However, Greenberg (1990)
presents an overview of studies which have identified measures of distributive and procedural
justice which are statistically independent, and show that employees are intuitively aware of
the distinction, supporting the idea that these are separate, though related measures oforganizational justice.
There is also a third type of organizational justice: interactional justice. This is argued to be asubset of procedural justice (Cropanzano et al., 2002), and is described as the interpersonal
aspects of procedural justice (Greenberg, 1990). Whereas procedural justice focuses on thefairness of procedures relating an employee to an organization, interactional justice focuses on
the interpersonal treatment employees receive from their managers during these procedures(Chang, 2005).
Organizational justice can thus help explain employee attitudes and behaviour, triggering
employee commitment in organizations (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin and Sweeney,
1992; Organ, 1990; Purcell et al., 2003). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: The more employees are the recipients of HCPM practices, the more positive theirperceptions of the justice of these practices.
H2b: More positive perceptions of the justice of HCPM practices are associated withhigher levels of employee commitment.
As justice perceptions are expected to be strongly related to employee commitment (cf.
Greenberg, 1990), we also anticipate a mediating effect of justice between experiences of
HCPM and commitment:6

H2c: Employee perceptions of the justice of HCPM practices will mediate the relationshipbetween the experienced HCPM practices and employee commitment.
4. ORGANIZATIONAL TRUSTIn addition to the mediating role of organizational justice in the relationship between
performance management practices and commitment, extant literature also shows that trust
creates conditions which affect employee responses to HRM practices, including commitment(McAllister, 1995; Macky and Boxall, 2007).
There are many definitions of trust, as well as multiple types of trust which have differing
effects on organizational behaviour (McAllister, 1995). A common organizational definition
describes trust as: “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another” (Rousseau et al.,
1998: 395). Trust can be looked at from both the micro (an employee’s job and line manager)
and the macro perspective (their employer/senior management) (Ayree, et al., 2002). In orderto understand the broader organizational context in which HRM practices are carried out andhow employee perceptions of justice are formed, it is important to consider this macroenvironment. Costigan et al. (1998) claim that employee trust in senior management is (ibid:304): “based on the outcomes of organizational decisions made by these top managers andless on direct experience of their character, words and actions.” Therefore employee trust insenior management is interpreted through the company’s policies and practices, in this caseperformance management practices.
Like organizational justice, trust has also been shown to lead to higher levels of organizational
commitment (McAllister, 1995). For example, negative feedback from a trusted manager islikely to be considered as accurate by an employee, and they will try to improve theirperformance. Yet an employee is likely to doubt the accuracy of negative feedback from amanager who is not trusted, and will not attempt to improve their performance (Dirks andFerrin, 2001).
Trust is thus not only an end in itself: it facilitates the effects of other determinants on desired
outcomes such as commitment, cooperation, acceptance of decisions and higher performance,
but in this sense it remains an undeveloped area of research. Dirks and Ferrin (2001: 451)
acknowledge that there is empirical evidence that trust has a main effect, but also develop atheoretical argument that trust “moderates the relationship between an interaction partner’s
action and the trustee’s response by influencing one’s interpretation of the action”. Levels of
employee trust in their employer/senior management can therefore be seen as impacting thelink between employee experiences of HCPM practices, and their related behavioural andattitudinal outcomes in terms of commitment and perceptions of justice. This leads to the final
hypotheses for empirical investigation:
H3a: Higher levels of trust in employer/senior management are associated with higher
levels of employee commitment.
H3b: Employee levels of trust in their employer/senior management will moderate therelationship between experienced HCPM practices and employee commitment.
H4a: Higher levels of trust in employer/senior management are associated with higher
levels of perceived organizational justice.

7

H4b: Employee levels of trust in their employer/senior management will moderate therelationship between experienced HCPM practices and organizational justiceperceptions.
In summary, our exploration of the extant literature to identify the relationships between
HCPM practices and employee commitment has considered both a direct and indirect
relationship between input factors and outcomes. In order to explore these relationships
further, we present these in a model in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research model
Distributive justice
Procedural justiceInteractional justice

H2a

H2b

H2c
High commitment
performance
management
practices

Employeecommitment
H1
H4a
H3b
H4b
H3a
Trust in employer/
seniormanagement

METHODOLOGYTo test the hypotheses, four large organizations in the UK were surveyed in 2004/5. For the
purpose of corporate anonymity, the organizations are referred to here as Finance,
Automotive, Foodstuff, and Communications, representing the sectors to which they belong.
Questionnaires were distributed by internal post either to the full population of smaller
business units, or a sample was selected by the organization based on selection of the nth
employee on a non-stratified alphabetical listing (e.g. reducing a population of 800 to asample of 200 participants). This was done in order to ensure in total a maximum of 200
respondents per organization to avoid over-dominance in the dataset of a single organization.
Questionnaires were completed and returned anonymously direct to the researchers. The
average response rate was 63%. In total, 524 responses were received from the fourorganizations. The profile of respondents is presented in Table 1. Although Finance andCommunication compose the larger share of the sample, the cases were not weighted in orderto maintain the reliability of the original data.

8

Table 1: Respondent profile
Organization (n= 524)
Finance
Automotive
Foodstuff
Communication
Grade (n= 519)
Senior management
Management
Professional
Administrative
Gender (n=521 )MaleFemaleAge (n=523 )Under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 or over
Tenure (n=524 )Less than 5 years
6-15 years
16-25 years
More than 25 years

%
37
16
16
31
9
34
16
41
47
53
1
23
29
25
23
33
32
20
14

MeasuresFirstly, six items were included regarding the HCPM practices as experienced by employees,
including: appraisal frequency, outcomes of appraisal (training opportunities, targets), extent
of personal involvement in target setting, and personal choice over pay and benefits. For theremaining variables, new scales were developed based on existing work and were allmeasured using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). An
alpha factor analysis resulted in 7 factors covering justice, trust and commitment, which
together account for 61% of variance: Distributive justice was measured using eight items, including validated items from thePrice and Mueller (1986) Distributive Justice Index: ‘fair considering effort’ and ‘fair
considering responsibilities’. Two dimensions of distributive justice emerged in the factor
analysis: distributive justice in appraisal and objective setting (Cronbach α = .89) anddistributive justice in reward practices (Cronbach α = .84).
 The procedural justice measure, which included 9 items, was based on Folger andKonovsky (1989), but adapted specifically for questions regarding performance
management. The Cronbach α for this scale was .91. (Note: Three items, those pertaining
to procedural justice in reward practices, loaded highly (and with similar values) onto two
factors: interactional justice in reward, and procedural justice in appraisal and objective
setting. It was decided to group these three items with the other procedural justice items
for the purpose of clarity in the results.)
 Interactional justice considered whether the employee feels he/she has been treated with
dignity, sensitivity and consideration, and the quality of information used to reachdecisions on performance, drawing upon the work by Bies and Moag (1986) and Skarlicki
et al. (1999). In the factor analysis, two separate dimensions of interactional justice
9





emerged from the six item scale: interactional justice in appraisal and objective setting(Cronbach α = .93) and interactional justice in reward practices (Cronbach α = .93);
Based on work by Cook and Wall (1980) and Gabarro & Athos (1976), the measure fortrust in employer/senior management asked for employee perceptions of the sincerity,
equity and integrity of senior management. Eight items were included. The trust in
employer/senior management scale had a Cronbach α of .90.
Employee commitment was measured using seven items from the 15-item Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, et al., 1979). The scale was found to be reliable(Cronbach α = .83).

The data was controlled for the impact of structural and demographic variables: organization,age, tenure, and job grade. Although significant differences were found in a number ofvariables based on these divisions, the data has not been weighted as within the organizations
the respondents were found to be representative of the populations. However, it isacknowledged that such demographic variables do account for some of the variance in theoutcomes measured (see, for example: McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). Age was measured
based on five groups in ten year intervals from under 20 to over 50. Tenure was based on fourgroups in five year intervals from under 5 to over 25 years of service. Job grading was worded
specifically for each company so that it would be meaningful to the respondent. With the helpof an HR representative in each company, these specific job grades were mapped onto fivegeneral levels of job grade for comparability purposes (ranging from manual worker to senior
management).
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for all variables. A number of correlations between
variables are significant, with the highest being between procedural justice in performance
management and interactional justice in appraisal and objective setting (.649). This might be
expected given the theoretical discussion of the interrelatedness of these two concepts.
Equally, there is a high correlation (.639) between age and length of service, which again
might be expected. However, none of the correlations exceed .700: this, along with the priorresearch discussed above, indicates that the factors are sufficiently different measures ofseparate variables. Harman's single factor test was performed to test for the presence ofcommon method variance bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). All variables were entered into a
principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The results of the analysis indicatedeight factors with eigenvalues greater than one, and no single factor accounted for more than
33.1% of the covariation. The results indicate that common method variance is not expected
to affect the results.

10

Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, Spearman correlations and reliability

1. Gradea2. Age b

M

SD

1

2.89

1.04

-

3.45

1.11

-.455**
-.537

2

3

**

.639**

-

4

5

6

7

8

2.16

1.05

4. Frequency of appraisal d

3.45

1.08

.078

-.201**-.125**

-

3.56

0.92

-.306**.157**.184**

-.028

**

**

**

**

-.002

-

.190**.031.304****.046-

8. Choice over pay f
9. Interactional justice inappraisal/objective setting
10. Interactional justice inreward
11. Procedural justice inperformance management
12. Distributive justice inappraisal/objective setting
13. Distributive justice inreward

0.73

0.44

.139

0.55

0.50

-.027

10

11

12

13

14

15

-

3. Tenure c

5. Involvement in setting
objectives e
6. Personal targets set inappraisal f
7. Training opportunities
offered in appraisal f

9

-.190

-.040

-.165

-.076

.322

-

-

0.12

0.33

-.073

-.045

-.079

.046

.035

.126

3.69

0.62

-.117**

-.015

.011

.173**.159**.264**.305**

.087*

.928

3.28

0.79

-.352**.213**.164**.020.165**.005.183**.127**.495**

.926

**

**

**

**

**

**

.581**

.909

**

.010

.047

.179

.155**

3.32

0.68

-.188

3.37

0.84

-.092*-.105*-.113**

**

**

.101

*

-.013

.125

.159

.154**

.219

.315

.132

.649

.258**.253**.134**.469**.318**.481**

.888

.070

.046

.141

**

**

**

**

**

.390**

.836

2.77

0.90

-.193

.135

.267

.263

.320

14. Trust in employer

3.21

0.68

-.128**.032-.093*.021.126**.163**.189**.173**.389**.292**.383**.422**.367**.899

15. Employee commitment

3.50

0.67

-.103*.150**.011-.091*

.091*

.097*

.182**.141**.285**.187**.243**.327**.325**.591**.830

n = 524* p < .05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001a
1 = senior management, 2 = management, 3 = professional, 4 = administrativeb
1 = <20 years, 2 = 20-29, 3 = 30-39, 4 = 40-49, 5 = =>50 yearsc
1 = < 5 years, 2 = 6 to 15 years, 3 = 16-25 years, 4 = > 25 yearsd
1 = never, 2 = <1 p/a, 3 = 1 p/a, 4 = 2 p/a, 5 = 3 p/a, 6 = 4 p/a, 7 = > 4 p/ae
1 = not aware of targets, 2 = manager only, 3 = manager with me, 4 = me with manager, 5 = me onlyf
1 = yes, 0 = no11

5. RESULTSFirstly, the relationship between experienced HCPM practices and employee commitment was
explored, followed by the inclusion of the hypothesized mediating variable, organizational
justice (see Table 3). Summated scales for the organization justice factors were constructedusing mean values. Tests included control variables, which in all cases were entered first into
the equation, followed, as appropriate, by the other independent variables. It is noteworthy
that organization is frequently a significant variable. This is likely due to the fact that thereference organization selected is Communications, the only public sector organization
included in the sample. This point is discussed further below.

12

Table 3: Multiple regression results
Independent variables

Control variables
Organization: Finance
Organization: Automotive
Organization: Foodstuff
Job grade
Age
TenureHCPM practices
Frequency of appraisal
Involvement in setting objectives
Personal targets set in appraisal
Training opportunities offered in appraisal
Choice over pay and benefits
HCPM single variable

Employeecommitment

Employeecommitment
H1.270***.442***.352***-.173**.136*.024.292***.442***.325***-.176**.138*.044

Dependent variable: (Standardized )
Employee
Organization Organizationcommitment
al justiceal justice
H1
H 2a
H 2a
.256***.470***.324***-.164**
.137*
.038

.013
.045
.030
.159***.073-.059.204***.004-.220***
-.030
.018

-.078
.207***.016-.184**-.027.005

Employeecommitment
H2b

Employeecommitment
H 2c.243***.382***.299***-.086.178**.041.270***.359***.304***-.101.158**.061.192***.096*.129**.220***.074.163***

-.039
-.006
-.016
.081
.046
.389***

Organizational justiceInteractional justice in appraisal/objective setting
Interactional justice in reward
Procedural justice in performance management
Distributive justice in appraisal/objective settingDistributive justice in reward
R2
.192
.233
.217
***
***
Total F20.11912.91618.663***
2
Adjusted R
.183
.215
.205
ΔR2
.041
.025
N
514
480
480
* p < .05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Note: reference organization = Communications (the only public sector organization included).

.236
13.196***
.218
.044
482

.215
18.581***
.204
.023
482

.116*
.004
.102
.157**
.096*

.132*
.000
.081
.136**.106*.320
19.778***
.304
.128
475

.328
13.255***
.303
.095
452

13

Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relationship between HCPM as experienced by employees
and levels of employee commitment. Column 2 (H1) of Table 3 shows the results of theregression analysis. One practice shows a significant relationship – training opportunities
offered in appraisal. The variance explained increases by 4.1% above that explained by thecontrol variables alone. To test this relationship further, a single HCPM practices score wascalculated by summing the component parts; this new variable also shows a significant
relationship with commitment (Table 3, column 3). Therefore the direct link between
experienced performance management practices and employee commitment is confirmed.
Hypothesis 2 suggests (a) employee experiences of HCPM are related to their perceptions oforganizational justice; (b) there is a positive direct relationship between perceived
organizational justice and employee commitment; and (c) this will mediate the relationshipbetween experienced HCPM practices and commitment levels. Firstly, the results of H2a areshown in column 4, Table 3. In order to calculate a single organizational justice dependent
variable, the mean score across the five dimensions of organizational justice was calculated.
Four of the five HCPM practices are shown to have a significant relationship with perceived
organizational justice, explaining 24% of variance with the control variables included. These
results show that perceptions of justice of HCPM practices improve particularly the more
frequently employees experience appraisal, the more involved they are in setting their own
targets, and the more frequently appraisal discussions result in development opportunities andnew targets being set. As above, the test was also rerun using the single HCPM variable
including all five elements; this combined variable again shows a significant relationship withorganizational justice (Table 3, column 5).
Secondly, looking at column 6 (H2b) in Table 3, distributive justice in appraisal, objective
setting and reward, and interactional justice in appraisal and objective setting have asignificant positive effect on employee commitment. Only employee perceptions ofinteractional justice in reward do not affect their level of commitment to the organization.
Exploring the mediating effect of justice, column 7 (H2c) of Table 3 shows that the additionof organizational justice to the equation has increased the variance explained from 23% to33%, and the performance management practices are no longer significant at the p<.05 level,
indicating a full mediation relationship. In other words, in addition to the actual presence of
HCPM practices, these practices must be perceived to be fair in order for their full effect oncommitment levels to be observed.
Hypothesis 3 introduces the notion of the importance of trust in the employer/senior
management as an additional contextual variable which may help explain levels ofcommitment. Firstly, the relationship between trust and employee commitment was explored.
Based on ANOVA analyses, column 1 (H3a) of Table 4 shows that trust is very strongly andpositively related to employee commitment. Secondly, to explore hypothesis 3b, the single
summed experienced HCPM practices variable was used. When looking at the role of trust as
a moderator of the HCPM practices – employee commitment relationship, Table 4, column 2(H3b) shows the positive significant interaction effect of HCPM practices and trust in
employer. Support is thus found for both hypotheses: the level of trust an employee has in theemployer effects the extent to which HCPM practices are linked with higher commitment.
Although the variance in organizational justice explained (R2) increases from 47% to 53%,
there is a decrease in the adjusted R2 figure (from 42% to 36%). Given that adjusted R2
corrects for the number of variables in the model, this implies the new model (H3b) is lessefficient in its ability to predict organizational justice than the previous model (H3a).

14

Table 4: Factorial ANOVA results
Employee commitment

Organization
Job grade
Age

H3a
F
df
10.904**1
1.393
110.506**1

Tenure

.039

1

HCPM
Trust in employer

8.398***

39

HCPM x Trust in employer
R2
Adjusted R2
N


H3b
F
df
**
10.2581.451
112.694**
*
1
.111
1

2.594***
.466
.417
514

Organizational justice

.529
.358
480

H4a
F
df
4.842*
1
4.123*
1
2.105
1
.296

1

6.081***

40

124
.385
.328
515

H4b
F
df

3.352
1
3.578
1
.140
.299

1
1

2.962***

126

.549
.382
482

p < .10, * p < .05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Hypothesis 4a explores the relationship between trust and organizational justice. Table 4,column 3 (H4a) shows that there is a positive significant relationship between trust and justiceperceptions with the control variables included. Hypotheses 4b then explores the moderatingrole of trust in the relationship between experienced HCPM practices and perceived
organizational justice. Again Table 4, column 4 (H4b), shows a strong positive effect. Thisshows how trust in the employer plays a significant moderating role in the relationshipbetween HCPM practices and employee perceptions of organization justice: the more trust,the higher the chance employees will consider the HCPM practices to be fair.
6. DISCUSSION
This paper set out to look at the relationship between employee perceptions of HCPM
practices and their commitment to the organization. In addition, the study was designed to
explore the mechanisms by which these perceptions influence particular employee attitudes
and behaviours, and the effect of the broader organization context on how this mechanism
works.
All the hypotheses received some support. There is a strong positive relationship between
employee experiences of HCPM practices and perceptions of justice, and between perceived
levels of justice and employee commitment, which is in line with previous studies (Folger andKonovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). The link between HCPM
practices and commitment is fully mediated by perceptions of organizational justice,especially distributive and interactional justice. This supports the notion of the importance ofjustice in explaining employee attitudes and behaviours (cf. Greenberg, 1990). Looking at therole of employee trust in the organization, this is found to moderate the relationship between
HCPM and perceptions of justice, and between HCPM and levels of commitment. The
theoretical argument presented by Dirks and Ferrin (2001: 463) that trust moderates therelationship between an interaction partner’s action and the trustee’s response has thus beentested here and found to be supported by the empirical data.
15

Thus the main findings to emerge from the study are threefold. Firstly, at a theoretical level,
the study contributes to the growing literature on how HRM practices and their impact asperceived by employees result in HRM outcomes (cf. Guest, 1997; Purcell et al., 2003). In
particular, the findings explain some of the ‘black box’ workings: HCPM practices achieve
their aim of higher commitment provided these practices are perceived to be fair, which inturn is facilitated by high levels of trust in the organization (cf. Dirks and Ferrin, 2001).
HCWPs should thus include performance management elements which allow employee
involvement (cf. Gardener et al., 2001) and opportunities for development, but they also need
to be built on processes and interactions that are considered fair by employees.
The second main contribution of the study is a further definition of the variables whichconstitute organizational justice. Based on previous research, we would expect to see thestrongest relationship to be observed between procedural justice and employee commitment(cf. Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). Distributive justice incontrast has previously been most likely to be related to personal satisfaction outcomes, rather
than broader organization assessments such as commitment (cf. McFarlin and Sweeney,1992). The study however shows that perceptions of the distributive justice of HCPM
practices have the strongest impact on employee commitment. This may be specific to theorganizations selected, as they were all undergoing major change programmes. Further
research is required in this area to uncover whether in times of change, or other significant
organizational events, distributive justice takes on a different priority for employees. Indeed,
it is acknowledged that little is known about the differential effects of various aspects oforganizational change on different aspects of the attitudes of those individuals affected by thechange, such as levels of commitment (Fedor et al., 2006).
The significant effect of organization observed in the results may also indicate that thefindings are specific to a particular context. To explore this further, the research models were
tested in each of the four separate company datasets (see Appendix). The results indicate thatthe factors are reliable in all four cases, with Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 4a all fully
supported in each individual organization. Hypothesis 4b, suggesting the moderating role oftrust between HCPM and justice, found support in three organizations. Hypothesis 1,
suggesting a direct link between experienced HCPM practices and employee commitment,
and hypothesis 3b, suggesting the moderating role of trust between HCPM and commitment,
were supported in two organizations. In general, these results support the generalisability of
the findings, although further research would be needed in multiple settings to test thisfurther.
Finally, in continuing the discussion as to whether the three dimensions of organizational
justice identified – procedural, distributive, interactional – do indeed exist as separate
dimensions in the perceptions of employees (cf. Cropanzano et al., 2002; Greenberg, 1990),
this study has shown that separate factors did emerge in most of these dimensions. Only in thearea of reward did employee opinions on procedural and interactional justice items overlap. In
all other dimensions, distributive, interactional and procedural justice items created separate
factors.

16

7. CONCLUSIONSIn our exploration of the ‘black box’ debate on the link between HRM and performance, wehave seen how creating a set of practices for high commitment performance management thatengender feelings of perceived justice amongst employees leads to increased levels of
employee commitment, moderated by employee levels of trust in the employer.
For organizations, this study emphasizes the importance of justice and trust to achieve desired
performance outcomes. As Folger and Konovsky (1989: 128) conclude: “to be maximallyeffective in sustaining employee commitment to an organization and trust in its management,
those making allocative decisions […] must take procedural justice into account”. Ourfindings refine this statement to emphasize the moderating role of trust in achieving employee
commitment and perceptions of justice, as well as emphasizing the importance of threedifferent types of justice. The key is thus to find ways of triggering discretionary behaviour inemployees and management in order to stimulate organizational commitment (cf. Purcell etal., 2003). Particularly for the organizations involved in this study, our findings suggest that
increased focus on improving perceptions of justice, through ensuring line management arecapable of carrying out HCPM practices, may help improve commitment to the organization
during change.
Despite the interesting findings emerging from this study, it is important to note that the
research is based on self-report data on levels of commitment: future studies could try tomeasure this also from a line management perspective, for example, to help minimize possible
problems of common-method variance. In addition, we proposed a causal model for the
linkage between organizational justice and employee commitment and the role of trust, andalthough the findings from our cross-sectional study were consistent with the mediating andmoderating models proposed, alternative causal paths may be possible. A full exploration of
the causal links requires a longitudinal study.
The study presented here leads us to believe that it is essential to observe the actual employee
experience of HCPM practices and outcomes at employee level if we are to understand theireffects on firm performance.

17Appendix: Single company comparative results
Reliability (Cronbach α)Interactional justice in appraisal and objective setting
Interactional justice in reward
Procedural justice in performance management
Distributive justice in appraisal and objective settingDistributive justice in reward
Trust in employer
Commitment
Regression (standardized )
H1 (commitment)
HCPM
H2a (justice)
HCPM
H2b (commitment)
JusticeH2c (commitment)
HCPM
Justice
ANOVA (F values)H3a (commitment)
H3b (commitment)
H4a (justice)
H4b (justice)Finance

Automotive

Food

Communication

Full dataset

.935
.929
.906
.897
.838
.876
.832

.927
.930
.910
.893
.862
.862
.797

.914
.894
.886
.878
.822
.858
.753

.925
.904
.925
.865
.812
.927
.784

.928
.926
.909
.888
.836
.899
.830

.099

.363**

.191

.113

.163***.368***.392**.580***.249*.389***.332***.336**.472***.429***.359***.024.328***

.147
.266*

.063
.461***.126.453***.082.354***

3.931***
2.353***
3.451***
2.256***

3.996***
1.494
2.945**
4.400***

2.353**
1.642
3.354***
1.564

4.407***
2.124**
3.876***
3.046***

8.398***
2.594***
6.081***
2.962***

p < .10, * p < .05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

18

REFERENCES
Arthur, J. (1994), “Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance andturnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 670-687.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S. and Chen, Z. X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationshipbetween organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 267-285.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986), “Interactional justice”, in Bies, R. J. (Ed.), Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 43-55.
Blau, P. M. (1964), Exchange and power in social life, Wiley, New York.
Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2009), “Research and theory on high-performance work systems:
progressing the high-involvement stream”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.
19 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chang, E. (2005), “Employees' overall perception of HRM effectiveness”, Human Relations,Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 523-544.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need non-fulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
Costigan, R., Ilter, S. and Berman, J. (1998). “A multi-dimensional study of trust inorganizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10, pp. 303-317.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A. and Chen, P. Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procedural from interactional justice”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 27 No.3, pp. 324-351.
Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P., and Paauwe, J. (2004). “Performance Management: a research
agenda”, Applied Psychology: an International Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 556 – 569.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2001), “The role of trust in organizational settings”,
Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-467.
Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. and Herold, D. M. (2006), “The effects of organizational changes
on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, pp.
1-29.
Fletcher, C. and Williams, R. (1996), “Performance management, job satisfaction andorganizational commitment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 169-79.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice onreactions to pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp.
115-130.
Gabarro, J. J., and Athos, J. (1976), Interpersonal Relations and Communications, Prentice
Hall, New York.
Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J. and Wright, P. M. (2001), “Beginning to unlock
the black box in the HR firm performance relationship: the impact of HR practices on
employee attitudes and employee outcomes”, working paper 01-12, CAHRS, Cornell
University, USA.
Gould-Wiliams, J. (2004), “The effects of ‘high commitment’ HRM practices on employee
attitude: the views of public sector workers, Public Administration, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 6381.
Gratton, L. and Truss, C. (2003), “Three dimensional people strategy: putting human resource
policies into action”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 74–86.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Guest, D. E. (1987), “Human resource management and industrial relations”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 503-521.

19

Guest, D. E. (1997), “Human resource management and performance: a review and research
agenda”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 263276.
Guest, D. (1999), “HRM: the workers’ verdict”, Human resource Management Journal, Vol.
9, pp. 5-25.
Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N. and Sheehan, M. (2003), “Human resource management
and corporate performance in the UK”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41
No.2, pp. 291-314.
McAllister, D. J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonalcooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2429.
McFarlin, D. B. and Sweeney, P. D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictorsof satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.
Macky, K. and Boxall, P. (2007), “The relationship between 'high-performance work
practices' and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 537.
Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.
108 No. 2, pp. 171-194.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 224 – 247.
Organ, D. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, inCummings, L. L. and Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 12,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-72.
Paauwe, J. and Farndale, E. (2005), “International HRM and performance”, in Björkman, I.
and Stahl, G. (Eds.), Handbook of International Human Resource Management Research,
Edward Elgar Publishing, UK, pp. 91-111.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986), “Self-reports in organization research: problems
and prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-545.
Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1986), Handbook of organizational measurement, Pitman
Marshfield, MA.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N. J., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003), Understanding thepeople and performance link: unlocking the black box, CIPD, London.
Rousseau, D. S., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: across-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 387392.
Skarlicki, D., Folger, R. and Tesluk, P. (1999), Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No.
1, pp. 100 – 108.
Whitener, E. (2001), “Do "high commitment" human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515 - 535.
Wood, S. (1999), “Human resource management and performance”, International Journal ofManagement Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 367-413.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L. (1998), “High commitment management in the UK: Evidence
from the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey and Employers’ Manpower and Skills
Practices Survey”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 485-517.
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. H. (2004), Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: integrating
multiple levels of analysis. Paper presented at the international seminar ‘HRM: What’s
Next?’, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

20