1. "I'm doing my best, considering” the relationship between worker satisfaction with HRM practices and worker perception of individual performance in the healthcare sector Helena Martins :: Teresa Proença Polytechnic of Porto :: University of Porto

2. A polaroid of the present work Context: hospital workers (clinical and non clinical staff) of one Portuguese major hospital Question: is there an effect on performance when workers are more satisfied with HRM practices? Is this relationship mediated by constructs of the worker-organization relationship? Methodology: “quantitative festival” – procedures in validation of scales, sample description, exploratory statistics and preliminary mediation testing using SPSS; structural equations modeling (regressions, confirmatory factor analysis, moderation and mediation models) using AMOS Contributions: healthcare context; development and validation of scales; furthering the importance of perceptions in and of HR*; issues with performance in healthcare

3. The context Demands on healthcare (HC): same/more quality, less money Deliver quality improvements, better accountability, consumer choice as well as cost savings (Kabene, 2006; Grimshaw et al, 2010). HC is a knowledge intensive service industry HR is “the heart of the health system in any country” (Joint Learning Initiative, 2004) HR Research in HC is however lacking Methodological issues Contextual Issues

4. Where is this coming from? HRM practices provide employees with concrete and visual evidence of the organisation’s intent to anticipate and meet their needs (Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2010). When an organisation engages in HR practices that reflect investment in, and support of employees, it signals that the organisation is seeking to continue a social exchange relationship with them (Allen et al., 2003). According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), positive, beneficial actions directed at employees by either the organisation and/or its representatives (e.g. supervisors) contribute to the establishment of high-quality exchange relationships that create obligations for employees to reciprocate in positive, beneficial ways (Settoon et al., 1996).

5. Where is this coming from? Underpinning this type of exchange is trust (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958; Levi-Strauss, 1957; Malinowski, 1922; Simmel, 1950). Gouldner’s (1960) “norm of reciprocity”, states that this norm implies two demands “(1) people should help those who have helped them and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them” ** However, these constructs cannot simply materialize, as they evolve as a result of some form of socialization process (Axelrod, 1986; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Ford, 1980; Jones & George, 1998; Williams, 2001). ***

6. Where is this coming from? The case has been made in recent years for making a clear distinction between intended HR practices (those designed on a strategic level), actual – or implemented – HR practices (those implemented by, for example, the direct supervisor), and perceived HR practices (those perceived by the employees) (Wright & Nishii, 2004). Although the effects of a company’s overall HR practices, or HR bundle, have been extensively examined, the effects of employees’ overall perception of HR effectiveness have rarely been studied (Chang, 2005).

7. So… Could the HRM-Performance relationship be mediated by the Worker-Organization relationship? Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Extra-role Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Helping and Voice Behaviors (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998)

8. Finally, the performance issue The most crucial part in relating to the HRM and performance is of course the linkage between the two (Paauwe, 2009). Performance outcomes of HRM can be captured in a variety of ways; e.g. Dyer and Reeves (1995) mention: Financial outcomes (e.g. pro fi ts, sales, market share, Tobin’s q, GRATE); Organizational outcomes (e.g. output measures such as productivity, quality, ef fi ciency); HR-related outcomes (e.g. attitudinal and behavioural impact among employees, such as satisfaction, commitment, intention to quit).

9. Finally, the performance issue Central to these more sophisticated ways of thinking about the relationship between HRM and performance is the idea that HR practices at the organizational level affect the attitudes and behavior of employees at the individual level which, in turn, affect key aggregated level behavioral or HR outcomes such as labor productivity and turnover which, subsequently, might impact organizational or fi rm-level outcomes (Paauwe, 2009).

10. Finally, the performance issue The perception of being in control of the situation is often referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1984; 1993; 1997). Self-efficacy can be defined as a self-evaluation of one’s competence to successfully execute a course of action that is necessary to reach desired outcomes (Bandura, 1993). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that self-efficacy is rather strongly related to performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), although this connection seems to be stronger concerning state or task-specific self-efficacy rather than generalized self-efficacy (Hysong & Quinones, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

11. Finally, the performance issue Work related self-efficacy contributes to motivation by influencing the challenges people pursue, the effort they spend, and their perseverance in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1989) as well as task-related effort (Bandura, 1982). Self-efficacious employees have been found to experience higher levels of flow over time (Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006), while self- efficacious students reported higher levels of engagement (Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007).

12. Hypotheses Satisfaction with HRM WSE WOR: -JS -OC -HVB WOR: -JS -OC -HVB

13. Measuring the constructs 2 scales created SHRIMQ – Satisfaction with Human Resources Issues in Management Questionnaire PROSES – Performance Related Observations of Self-Efficacy Scale I contribute to organizational success I’m having a good performance I’m a good worker 3 scales validated Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, England, Dawis and Lofquist, 1967) Organizational Commitment Scales (Meyer and Allen, 1997) Helping and Voice Behaviors Scale (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998)

14. Sample 942 subjects Ages of respondents between 20 and 66 years old (mode=28 years and M= 38.5 years; standard deviation= 9.6) Most respondents are female (80.3%; 16.9% male respondents; 2.2% missing). In terms of seniority, values range between less than a year to up to 39 years (mode=3 years and mean= 12.38 years, standard deviation= 8.46) a significant amount of workers (71%) have an effective contract (hired with no predetermined ending date of the bond with the organization). 17% of subjects have a school level inferior to the mandatory Portuguese level (9th year), 28.8% attended or graduated from middle school, 42.8% attended or graduated from College and 19.7% have post-graduate schooling (Specializations, Masters Degree, etc.).

15. Jobs distribution

16. The official results so far… Scales: great results in all of the psychometric tests (all scale reliability equal or above α =0.70; good explained variance, communalities, item distribution; CFI and GFI above 0.90 in all scales, RMSEA below 0.70 in all cases with good confidence intervals).

17. Does this make any sense to you? Do find gaps here?

18. Other results

19. Satisfaction with HRM - WSE RS (+), teamwork (+) and pay (-)

20. Satisfaction with HRM – “I work harder than my peers” training (-), teamwork (-) and pay (+)

21. Satisfaction with HRM – “I feel that I have the conditions to do my best for the organization” Information (+), recruitment and selection (+)

22. SHRIMQ-JS

23. JS-WSE

24. SHRIMQ-OC

25. OC-WSE

26. SHRIMQ-HVB

27. HVB-WSE