Photo: Colourbox.

Perceptions of HRM: Report of results from the Global HRM project with
focus on findings from primarily small and medium-sized organisations in
Denmark

Acknowledgements
This report was written jointly by researchers Frances Jørgensen, PhD 1 and Yvonne van
Rossenberg, PhD, Aarhus University, Department of Business Administration. The results
presented in this report are from the Global HRM survey as of August 2014. The survey is
being conducted in collaboration with researchers from the Australian School of Business,
Universidade Lusiada, University of Twente, Aston University, Nottingham-Trent, and
Aarhus University. These results were communicated to the participating Danish
organisations and other interested HR managers at a seminar on the 14th of August, organised
by the researchers in collaboration with AU Career and AU Alumni.

We would like to acknowledge Karina Kallestrup and Svetlana Breum, Masters students at
Aarhus University, School of Business & Social Sciences, Jacob Jensen from the Alumni
Centre and Jane Midtgård Madsen from the Career Centre at Aarhus University, for their
invaluable support in contacting and arranging participation of the Danish organisations
included in our sample.

1 [email protected]
1
 Contents

1. Executive summary
2. Introduction
3. The ‘Danish’ model of HRM
4. Description of the data and measurement
5. Selection of global results
6. Discussion of Danish results
7. Potential implications
8. References

2
1. Executive summary

In recent years, considerable attention has been focused on capturing the effects of Human
Resource Management (HRM) practices on organisational performance. While much of the
research conducted in this area has emphasised the importance of alignment between
organisational strategy and HRM practices, there is also an growing body of academic
literature arguing that the impact of strategic HRM on performance will largely depend on
how these practices are perceived by employees within the organisations. The aim of the
Global HRM project on which this report is based was thus to investigate relationships
between implemented HRM practices, employee perceptions of HRM, and the impact of
implemented HRM practices on direct and indirect measures of individual and organisational
level outcomes. Specifically, the study was aimed at identifying the impact of what are
referred to as “High Commitment HRM” practices with job satisfaction, employee
engagement, workplace commitment, and creative and innovative work behaviours.

The findings presented in this report are primarily in relation to the Danish organisations
participating in the Global HRM project, with data from organisations from other countries
participating in the study included for the purpose of comparison. Generally, the data
analyses suggest that there are considerable gaps between managers’ reports of HRM
practices being implemented in the organisations and employees’ perceptions of HRM, and
that these gaps appear to be larger in Denmark than in other countries participating in the
study. Apparently, however, employees’ somewhat lower perceptions of HRM do not
adversely impact on their satisfaction, engagement, or commitment. Further, employees’
perceptions of HRM do not appear to influence subjective evaluations of innovation
performance. Possible explanations for the gaps between managers’ reports and employees
perceptions are discussed, and implications for managers are proposed.

3
2. Introduction
For several decades, researchers within the field of Human Resource Management (HRM)
have sought to quantify the relationship between individual HRM practices (e.g. staffing,
training, or compensation) and/or HRM systems consisting of specific bundles of HRM
practices and various measure of organisational performance. In particular, there has been
much focus on the influence of HRM systems referred to as “High Performance Work
Systems” (Huselid, 1995) and “High Commitment HRM” on organisational performance.
These HRM systems, which generally include selective staffing practices, extensive training
and development, performance management, and employee participation (Boselie, Dietz &
Boon, 2005), are expected to impact organisational performance through their collective
influence on employees’ attitudes, behaviours, and performance.

However, empirical studies have failed to provide unequivocal evidence of a relationship

between HRM systems and performance in all contexts. Bowen and Ostroff (2004) maintain
that conflicting findings from these studies can be due to an overemphasis on HRM
content—that is, the HRM practices being implemented—and what they refer to as “HRM
process”. The notion of HRM process emphasises that HRM must be effectively
communicated to employees, and that potential performance outcomes from the use of HRM
practices or systems is dependent on the strength of the HRM systems, which is determined
by the degree to which employees perceive HRM to be distinctive, consistent, and
consensual. Coelho, Cunha, Gomes and Correla (2012) developed and validated scales of
these three measures of HRM strength that can be used to measure employee perceptions of
HRM. As Sanders, Shipton and Gomes (2014:490) note, this “process-based approach
highlights the importance of the psychological processes through which employees attach
meaning to HRM in explaining the relationship between HRM and performance”.

The findings presented in this report are based on preliminary analyses of data collected in
conjunction with the Global HRM project, which was aimed at testing assumptions proposed
by Bowen and Ostroff (2004). Specifically, the Global HRM project investigates
relationships between HRM content, and in particular the High Commitment HRM practices
and HRM process (i.e. employee perceptions of HRM) and the effect of these on employee
attitudes and behaviours as well as organisational performance.

4
The overall questions underpinning the study include:

1) Which HRM practices are being implemented, according to managers?

2) How are these HRM practices perceived by employees?
3) Is there alignment between managers’ reports of implemented HRM practices and
employees’ perceptions of HRM?
4) What are the effects of implemented/perceived HRM practices on employee attitudes,
behaviours, and performance?
5) How do results vary in participating countries and organisations?

The general model underpinning the research is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: General Model

In this report, focus is primarily on data collected in Danish organisations as compared to

data collected in organisations in other participating countries. Before presenting these
findings, a brief overview of the “Danish Model of HRM” is presented.

3. The ‘Danish model’

Innovation is important for most firms today, and Denmark is generally perceived as having a
relatively strong capacity for innovation. Indeed, Denmark has been designated an
“innovation leader” in the Regional Innovation Scoreboard (2012). The role of HRM in
supporting innovation and other measures of organisational performance in Denmark is
however not clear. On the one hand, strategic HRM is describes as having low visibility

5
(Brewster, et al., 1992; Larsen & Brewster, 2003). Specifically, Danish HRM practices tend
to be less strategic, more devolved, and involve fewer personnel specialists than other
European countries (Brewster, Holt Larsen, & Trompenaars, 1992). In addition, pay
bargaining in Denmark tends to be centralized above the organizational level and integration
of HR practices with corporate strategies is low (Brewster et al., 1992).

On the other hand, findings from a large scale survey in Denmark concluded that “new
HRM” systems are increasingly used in Danish firms, including internal and external
training, planned job rotation, delegation of responsibility, functional integration, pay-for
performance, interdisciplinary work groups and quality circles, and strong linkages to
knowledge institutions including technical support institutions, consultancies or universities.
Additionally, these HRM systems are found to positively impact innovative performance
(Laursen & Foss, 2003).

Viewed together, these studies in Danish firms suggest that there may be substantive
differences in (1) how HRM is practiced in Denmark as compared to other countries, (2) how
HRM is perceived by employees in Denmark, relative to other countries, and (3) how HRM
practices influence employees’ attitudes and innovative behaviour in Danish organisations.

In addition, most of the cross-national comparative research on HRM has been conducted in
larger Danish firms, which not fully represent the Danish organisational landscape. To
address this methodological constraint, the sample included in this study is not restricted to
larger firms. Thus, the current study is expected to contribute to a clearer understanding of
HRM in Denmark.

6
4. Description of the data and measurement

Data have thus far been collected in 24 organisations in nine countries (Nigeria, Tanzania,
Oman, Malaysia, China, Portugal, UK, Norway 2 and Denmark), with a total of 1649
respondents (1490 employees and 159 managers)3. The 24 organisations include four banks,
four business services organisation, three manufacturing firms, three energy firms, one
producer of pharmaceutical products, two producers of commercial health care products, and
seven organisations active in the tourism industry.

In Denmark specifically, survey data were collected in five firms of which the details are
presented in Table 1. The HR managers or senior managers of the participating organisations
volunteered to participate in the study. Two surveys, one for managers and one for employees
were developed specifically for the Global HRM project, and data were collected through a
secured survey website. By including both employees' perceptions and managers’
perspectives from the same organisations, the data allow us to compare the HRM practices
that have actually been implemented with the employees’ awareness of those practices.
Further, we distinguish between the HRM practices, the perceptions of HRM and HRM
strength as described in the previous section.

The measurement of the constructs in the survey consisted of scales that have been validated
in previous research. Respondents rated the statements on a ‘Likert-type’ answer scale from 1
to 5, where 1 is ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 is ‘I strongly agree’.

Organisation Employees Managers

1. Energy service firm 52 7
2. Manufacturing firm 79 6
3. Small service firm 35 2
4. Cooperative energy firm 51 8
5. IT and Business Process Service firm 31 3
Total 248 26
Table 1: Overview of data collected in Denmark
HRM practices

2As of august 2014, data from Norway has not yet been merged with the data set.
3Data collection is still ongoing, and results will be updated as new data becomes
available.
7
To measure the presence and visibility of HRM practices, a list of nine HRM practices was
presented to managers and employees of the participating organisations. The objective of this
question was to identify which practices are most salient the respondents’ organisations.
When translated to Danish, the question was presented as: ‘Please check the HRM practices
which you perceive as important in your organisation. Select as many options as you consider
relevant.’

The list of HRM practices included: training and development, performance appraisal, career
development, communication, participation in decision making, bonus and incentives,
recruitment and selection, teamwork, safety in the workplace and union relations. These
practices were identified in previous research by Tsui and Wang (2002) as the most common
and internationally coherent HRM practices in organisations and are consistent with those
included in “High Commitment HRM practices”.

HRM Perceptions
High Commitment HRM practices were also used to measure the perceptions of HRM.
Specifically, five elements of High Commitment HRM were included: 1. Extensive training,
2. Internal mobility, 3. Participation, 4. Pay – performance linkage, and 5. Employee security
Each element is represented by a number of questions. For example, an example question of
the extensive training aspect is: ‘I have had sufficient job-related training’. This measurement
scale is a previously tested and validated survey scale developed by Sun, Ayree and Law
(2007). The aspects of this measure are often summed as one overall HRM perception
construct, due to their tendency to have a combined effect on employee attitudes (interaction
effects). However, the elements are included separately here to support comparative analysis
between the participating countries.

HRM Process
All question measuring the HRM process element are based on a previous test and validated
scale by Coelho et al (2012). This relatively new concept consists of eight elements:
Understandability, 2. Instrumentality, 3. Agreement, 4. Consistency, 5. Legitimacy, 6.
Relevance, 7. Fairness, and 8. Visibility. One example question of the element of consistency
is : ‘HR practices are consistently applied over time’.

8
Employee attitudes
The survey also measures of employee attitudes. These include affective commitment to the
organisation, work engagement, and job satisfaction, which all measure slightly different
concepts. Affective commitment to the organisation is an affective or emotional bond
between the employee and the organisation, which is measured according to the work of
Allen and Meyer (1990). Work engagement consists of three elements representing the
employees’ more fluent state of work energy, including vigour, dedication and absorption.
This measure is based on the work by Bakker and Schaufeli (2008). Job satisfaction measures
employees’ general satisfaction with their jobs and the measure for this concept is based on
the work of Kim, Price, Muëler and Watson (1996).

Employee behaviour
Two existing concepts labelled Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and Innovative Work
Behaviours were used to capture employees’ performance and behaviours. Organisational
Citizenship behaviours represent discretionary behaviours often described as ‘going the extra
mile’. For instance, these behaviours include eight items identified by Lee & Allen (2002):
defending, safe-guarding, and performing additional tasks for the organisation. An example
of the set of questions is ‘I complete tasks that are not required of me, but support the
organisation’s image’.

In addition to these work behaviours representing the organisation, more and more employees
are expected to contribute to improvement of existing procedures and coming up with new
ideas. Therefore, innovative work behaviours are measured in this survey, based on the work
of Scott and Bruce (1994). One of the questions included in this measure is: ‘I develop
necessary plans and schedules for implementation of new ideas’.

Organisation performance
In the managers’ version of the survey, managers were asked to rate a series of performance
indicators aimed at identifying relationships between HRM practices, perceptions and process
and their effects on organisational performance. These questions consist of two sets of
concepts that are rated by the manager comparing the situation in the organisation with
competitors in the same industry. Organisational performance was rated on product or service
to market, market share, customer satisfaction, customer retention, new customer attraction
and growth. Organisational innovation was rated on (new) work methods, process or system
9
innovation, new ways to reach goals and job content changes. A note here is that this is a
rating of how the managers compare their own organisations on the performance indicators to
their perceptions of competitors’ performance on these indicators. These indicators may
differ between country, for instance when an industry within one national context is
outperforms or is particularly innovative.

5. The results

Both employees and managers have indicated the HRM practices viewed as important in their
organisations (i.e. ‘yes’ these are important or ‘no’ these are not important in our
organisation). Figure 1 presents the percentage of managers that rated the particular HRM
practice as important per country.

100
Training and development
80
60 Performance appraisal
40 Career development
20
0 Communication
Participation in decision making
Bonus and incentives

Figure 1: Supervisors on the most salient HRM practices in their organisation

A higher percentage means more managers from that country rated that particular practice as
important in their organisation. Overall trends in the application of HRM practices as well as
country specific trends are visible.

Figure two shows the results of how this same set of HRM practices is perceived by
employees. It should be noted that the question is formulated in exactly the same way on both
versions of the survey (i.e. both managers’ and employees’).

10
 100 Training and
90 development
80
Performance appraisal
70
60
Career development
50
40
30 Communication
20
10 Participation in decision
0 making
Bonus and incentives

Recruitment and
selection

Figure 2: Employees on the most salient HRM practices in their organisation

Differences between employee and managers’ responses were evident in the data, as shown
in Figure 3. For each organisation the percentage of managers indicating each HRM practice
as salient was calculated. Then, the employees’ indication was subtracted from the
organisation managers’ average, which resulted in a difference sore. Positive difference
scores (above zero) indicate managers find a HRM practice more salient, whereas negative
(below zero) difference scores result when employees find the HRM practice more salient
than managers. Overall, the results demonstrate that employees seem to experience 1. a
difference in which particular practices are salient in their organisation, and 2. an overall
lower number of HRM practices are experienced as salient.

11
 100
Training and development
80
Performance appraisal
60
Career development
40 Communication
20 Participation in decision making
0 Bonus and incentives
United Nigeria Tanzania Malaysia Oman China Portugal Denmark Recruitment and selection
-20 Kingdom
Teamwork
-40
Safety in workplace
-60
Union relations
-80

Figure 3: Organisation managers’ average minus employees’ perceptions of HRM practices salient in their organisation

12
The perceptions of High Commitment HRM practices are presented in a similar manner,
except that this measure was rated by managers on a 1-5 Likert scale. Figure 4 presents the
managers’ ratings of the five HRM practices, where 5 represents the most positive agreement
with the statements and 1 represents the lowest and most negative reaction to the statements,
with an average score of 2.5.

5
4,5
4 United Kingdom
3,5
Nigeria
3
Tanzania
2,5
Malaysia
2
Oman
1,5
1 China
Portugal
Denmark

Figure 4: Managers’ perspective of High Performance HRM

Figure 5 presents the results of the employees for the same constructs and same questions.

5
4,5
4
3,5 United Kingdom
3 Nigeria
2,5
Tanzania
2
1,5 Malaysia
1 Oman
0,5 China
0 Portugal
Denmark

Figure 5: Employees’ perspective of High Performance HRM

13
Figure 6 represents the differences between managers and employees calculated in the same
fashion. The average per company for all managers was calculated and the average score of
the individuals working in this company was subtracted.

Figure 7 shows the results of the HRM process, in which employees rate eight distinct
element of the HRM process. The figure shows the average employee rating per country.

14
 1
0,8
0,6
0,4 External Training
0,2 Internal Mobility
0 Participation
United Nigeria Tanzania Malaysia Oman China Portugal Denmark
-0,2 Pay-Performance
Kingdom
-0,4 Employee Security

-0,6
-0,8
-1

Figure 6: Organisational average of managers’ perspective minus employees’ perspective of HPHRM per country

15
 5,00
4,50
4,00 United Kingdom
3,50 Nigeria
3,00
Tanzania
2,50
2,00 Malaysia
1,50 Oman
1,00 China
Portugal
Denmark

Figure 7: HRM process rated by employees by country

16
The following two figures display the employees’ self-report of attitudes and behaviours in
their organisations. Figure 8 presents the five employee attitudes, the three types of work
engagement, job satisfaction and affective commitment to the organisation. Figure 9 presents
the levels of organisational citizenship behaviour and innovative work behaviours.

5
4,5
United Kingdom
4
Nigeria
3,5
Tanzania
3
Malaysia
2,5
Oman
2
China
1,5
Portugal
1
Affective Job Work Work Work Denmark
Commitment Satisfaction Engagement Engagement Engagement
Organisation Absorption Dedication Vigour

Figure 8: Employee attitudes per country

4,50

4,00
United Kingdom
3,50 Nigeria

3,00 Tanzania
Malaysia
2,50
Oman
2,00 China
1,50 Portugal
Denmark
1,00
Organisation Citizenship Innovative Behaviour
Behaviour

Figure 9: Employee behaviours per country

17
Figure 10 shows insight into the organisational performance of the organisations in the
sample per country. The ratings are split up between performance and innovative
performance and are based on the ratings of managers of their organisations in comparison to
competitors.

18
 5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5 United Kingdom
2
1,5 Nigeria
1
Tanzania
Market share

Satisfaction
Product/service to

Growth

Process/systems
Customer Retention

New customer

Work Methods

New ways to reach

Job content changes

Customer

attraction

innovation
China
market

goals
Portugal
Denmark

Organizational performance compared with competitors Organizational innovation compared with

competitors

Figure 10: Organisational performance rated by managers average for the organisations per country

19
6. Discussion of Danish results
Generally, our findings show that there are differences between managers’ reporting of HRM
practices (i.e. the HRM practices managers’ reports on which HRM practices are most
salient, or “most important” in their organisations) and employees’ perceptions of these HRM
practices. Specifically, we found that Danish employees perceived bonus and incentives and
career development as more salient in their organisations than the managers of these Danish
organisations. On the other hand, Danish managers perceived training and development,
performance appraisal and safety in the workplace as most important HRM practices in their
organisation, whereas the employees of these organisations rated these practices as less
salient. The importance of communication, recruitment and selection, and union relations
where rated similarly by managers and employees.

In addition, Danish managers indicated that their firms provide sufficient and on-going
external training opportunities, whereas employees indicated a less positive perception of the
external training opportunities. This type of discrepancy is similar for internal mobility,
participation and pay-performance linkages.

As employee perceptions are highly subjective and experiential measures of HRM practices,
these major discrepancies suggest that employees are not experiencing the support and
opportunities HRM managers feel the organisations are providing. In particular, the data from
the Danish organisations demonstrate that HRM is perceived as not being wholly consistent
or coherent. This gap between managers’ reports of HRM and employees’ perceptions of
HRM was found to be significantly larger in Denmark than many of the other countries
included in the project. This finding suggest that Danish employees may be less aware of the
HRM practices implemented in their organisations and consider HRM less consistent and
coherent in their organisations than employees in other countries.

Although there did not appear to be a clear link between employees’ perceptions of HRM in
their organisations and their reported behaviours, employee engagement was also found to be
lower in Denmark than many of the other countries participating in the study. As vigor, one
of the three components of engagement, has been associated with innovative work behaviour
(e.g. Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008), the lower levels of employee engagement may be related
to the somewhat lower reported innovation performance in Danish organisations. However, it
is important to remember that Denmark is considered to have a high level of innovation
20
capacity, and therefore managers’ ratings of their innovative performance relative to their
competitors may be unintentionally biased (i.e. managers’ standards for their own
organisations’ innovative performance may be skewed due to high levels of innovation in
Denmark).

7. Potential implications

The findings presented in this report should be interpreted with caution, as they represent
only the results of the preliminary analysis. Further, the size of the sample of Danish
organisations participating in the study is quite small and can therefore not be considered
representative of all Danish organisations. Moreover, there is considerable variation between
the types of firms, including their industry affiliation, which can decrease generalizability of
the findings.

Nonetheless, the findings presented here have important implications for (HRM) managers in
that they identify a trend concerning employees’ perceptions of HRM. Given the extensive
evidence of the important role HRM plays in supporting successful organisational
performance through employee attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Boselie et al, 2005), as well as
emerging support for the notion that employee perceptions influence the HRM-performance
link (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Sanders et al, 2014), managers should seek for ways to ensure
that HRM is communicated more strongly to their employees.

21
8. References
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology,
63(1), 1-18.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2),
147-154.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67–94.
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(2), 203-
221.
Brewster, C., Holt Larsen, H., & Trompenaars, F. (1992). Human resource management in
Europe: evidence from ten countries. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 3(3), 409-434.
Coelho, J. P., Cunha, R. C., Gomes, J. F., & Correla, A. (2012). Developing and Validating a
Measure of the Strength of the HRM System: Operationalizing the Construct and
Relationships among its Dimensions: Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de
Economia.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate fi nancial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 635–670.
Kim, S.-W., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W., & Watson, T. W. (1996). The determinants of career
intent among physicians at a US Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49(7), 947-976.
Larsen, H. H., & Brewster, C. (2003). Line management responsibility for HRM: what is
happening in Europe? Employee Relations, 25(3), 228-244.
Laursen, K., & Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices,
complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of
economics, 27(2), 243-263.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131.
Sanders, K., Shipton, H., & Gomes, J. F. (2014). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Is the HRM
Process Important? Past, Current, and Future Challenges. Human Resource
Management, 53(4), 489-503.
22
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior - A Path Model of
Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-
607.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices,
citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558-577.
Tsui, A., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer's perspective:
Current research and future directions. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational psychology, 17, 77-114.

23