Sustainability HR

sustainability
Article
Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to
Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective
Commitment through Organizational Trust
Ana Teresa Ferreira-Oliveira 1, * , José Keating 2 and Isabel Silva 2
1 CISAS, Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo,
Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial Nun’Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
2 Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal;
[email protected] (J.K.); [email protected] (I.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-917740450

Received: 14 October 2020; Accepted: 8 November 2020; Published: 13 November 2020
Abstract: Human resource management system (HRMS) is an organizational instrument that sends
organizational messages to employees. If we consider that HRMS can be an indicator of organization’s
involvement towards employees’ it is relevant to understand its impact in employees’ organizational
commitment and study indicators that can help unravel the black box between HRMS and positive
results, associating an emerging approach, sustainable HRMS that relates HRMS with sustainability,
having as common features the association with positive results for employees. Recent literature has
tested organizational trust (OT) as a relevant indicator in the understanding of this process. There have
been studies that have debated and tested OT in managers as a mediator or moderator of HRMS on
affective commitment (AOC) and support for both have been found. In this study, we attempt to
contribute to the development of the field, by considering the terminological, conceptual and statistical
distinction between moderator and mediator, testing two alternative models that may elucidate
the relationship between these variables. 1328 valid responses with employees and managers from
21 Portuguese organizations were collected. A factor analysis, a cluster analysis, moderation tests
using hierarchical linear regression, pos hoc tests and mediation tests with sequential regressions
were performed. HRMS dimensions are mediated (partially or totally) by OT in manager towards
AOC. HRMS dimensions (HR relationship with employees, comprehensibility, utility, visibility and
distributive justice) influences OT in manager, which, in turn, influences AOC. Regarding moderation,
the interaction between distributive justice and OT, pos-hoc tests showed that when distributive
justice increases and levels of OT in manager is high, OAC increases rapidly. It seems that the
importance of the distributive justice of HRMS only becomes relevant on OAC, if OT in manager is
present. This empirical test of the HRMS model also suggests its reframing in two meta-dimensions:
A. the agents of HR system, the HR relationship with employees based on their competence, consistent
behavior, ability to solve problems and listening to people; and B. the effects of the system itself,
possibly Visibility is the most relevant attribute. We suggest that these interactions between HR
agents and employees are relevant and may lead to generalizations about the HRMS.
Keywords: process based approach; human resource management; trust; commitment; mediation;
moderation
1. Introduction
The human resource management system (HRMS) intends to promote positive conditions to
employees and this will probably result in more commitment towards an organization and a more
sustainable organization. An emerging approach, sustainable HRMS relates HRMS to sustainability,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443; doi:10.3390/su12229443 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443 2 of 27
having as common features the association with positive results for employees and developing
organizational sustainability through HRMS [1,2]. Following this line of reasoning, the literature
enhances the relevance of implementation processes to sustainable HRMS [1] and an organizational
climate in influencing employees’ attributions specifically through mediators [3–7]. These attributions
will have an impact on regulating employees’ behavior and producing relevant individual and
organizational results. Research has shown the relevance of HRMS in predicting organizational
outcomes such as performance [4,5,8–12]; however, little empirical work has been carried out
that addresses the link between HRMS and organizational commitment. Organizational affective
commitment (OAC) is a psychological dimension relevant in organizational dynamics and few studies
have tested the relationship between HRMS and OAC, especially within a process-based approach.
Previous research has tested climate strength as a mediator between employees’ perceptions of HRM
and affective commitment [13–15] They used Bowen and Ostroffs’ theoretical model [4,6] and found a
moderation relationship between consistency and affective commitment when the climate strength
was present [13–15]. Relying on social exchange theory, organizational trust (OT) was also tested
as a mediator between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment [16] or
moderator (for reviews, see References [17–19] These results indicated that human resource practices
affected the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment or
trust in management. More recent research has debated the role of organizational trust and its effect
as a mediator or moderator in HRMS [13,14,16,20]. Considering the relevance of trust in reducing
the perceive risk of behavior it is reasonable to expect that in addition to having a direct effect on
organization commitment, it can also act as moderator in the relationship between HRMS and OAC.
HRMS intends to promote a specific organizational climate that will enhance employees’ performance
and satisfaction, enhancing sustainability. OT in manager can act in the fortification of the link between
HRMS and a positive commitment towards organization as a mediator. Recent literature presents
results confirming the relevance of OT in sustainable HRMS [21]. This emerging approach, sustainable
HRMS, relates HRMS to sustainability, having as common features the association with positive results
for employees, developing organizational sustainability through HRMS [1,2]. This study also intends
to contribute to the literature on sustainable HRMS as it considers the relationship between HRSM and
positive outcomes as OT and AOC. The literature uses both theoretical paradigms and there is a need
for conceptual and empirical distinction in the role of OT.
RQ: Do employees’ HRMS perceptions contribute to their OAC? What is the role for OT in the link
between HRMS and OAC? Does HRMS, moderated by organizational trust in a manager, contribute to
organizational affective commitment? Or does HRMS influence trust in managers which mediates the
link between HRMS and OAC?
1.1. Sustainable HRM

Sustainable HRMS relates HRMS to sustainability, having as common features the association
with positive results for employees, developing organizational sustainability through HRMS [1,2].
Human resource management based on a content approach was the most relevant approach for at
least 40 years. In 2004, a process-based approach begun assuming that processes and the way these
are implemented mediated and moderated by relevant indicators could unravel the gap between
HRM black box and positive organizational and individual results. This process-based approach can
be associated with sustainable HRM. Sustainable HRM intends to link HRM and sustainability [1].
This study also intends to contribute to the literature on sustainable HRMS as it considers the
relationship between HRSM and positive outcomes as OT and AOC.
Sustainable HRM explicitly intends to foster the impact of HRMS not only on performance but
instead, on internal and external outcomes, not necessarily economic. In this paper, we intend to
contribute to the literature on sustainable HRM, studying relevant psychological attitudes, such as
OT and OAC, assuming the purpose of HRM as a central organizational policy that is demonstrated
through HRMS and has a positive and relevant impact on employees.
1.2. Human Resource Management System (HRMS)

HRMS is an organizational tool that intends to contribute to the development of stability, coherence
and justice in organizations through the unification of the procedures and cultural accepted behaviors in
them. The importance of the HR (Human Resource) function and HRMS in organizations is commonly
accepted as positive and crucial. However, the impact of HRMS on individual or organizational results
remains to be understood [13,14,22]. Human resource management can be a system that defines rules,
proceedings, organizational interests and structures organizational expectations between employees
and organizations. It is very difficult to research HRMS considering the ethnocentricity and complexity
of the construct. The difficulty of obtaining reasonable samples and relating data to these differences
and complexity at an empirical and theoretical level explains, at least in part, the difficulties of the
research. The difficult replication of the object of study combined with difficulties of measurement [5,12]
have contributed to the difficult clarification of HR impact. Research struggles with multiple distinct
realities, such as different functional HR forms [23], the differences on the set of practices differences
regarding different interpretations of HR function on the HR implementation processes among others.
The lack of clear theoretical and empirical dimensions that constitute the construct itself (HRMS)
are a major difficulty in measuring and associating it with relevant organizational outcomes such as
performance, commitment or psychological contract. Bosalie, Ditz and Boon [3,5] shed some light on
reviewing the HRM (Human Resource Management) literature and addressing new lines of research
as the search for moderators or mediators in the “black box,” the link between HRM and performance.
Bowen and Ostroff [4,6] built a relevant theoretical model, focusing in a process-based approach
and enhancing HRMS defined with meta-dimensions and sending clear messages to employees.
The authors also acknowledge the relevance of mediators in the link between HRMS and performance.
This research intends to contribute to HRMS “black box,” by addressing the gap between HRMS and
relevant organizational results [3,5]. This research develops these ideas by exploring the contribution
of social exchange trades, specially the reliance of OT in this process-based approach. HRMS in
this paper will be theoretically and empirically assessed through Bowen and Ostroff’s model [3,5]
that assumes three meta-features to evaluate HRMS Distinctiveness is divided in four attributes:
Visibility (of HRM practices), Comprehensibility (of HRM practices), Legitimacy of authority (of the
system and its agents, the HR function) and Relevance (importance of the system towards personal
and organizational goals). Consistency has three attributes: Instrumentality (of the HR system,
a perceived cause-effect relationship between the system and individual consequences, like incentives
or rewards.), Validity (consistency between the stated objective of the system and the day to day
routine) and Consistent HRM messages. Finally, the third dimension is Consensus and it has two
attributes: Agreement among principal HRM decision makers and Fairness (distributive, procedural
and interactional). Bowen and Ostroff [3,5] enhances the relevance of employees’ response. Until now,
there are few published researches on employees’ perception on HRMS. Quantitative studies often
ask about the presence or absence of the practices without considering the possibility that employees
can evaluate the system as a poor system [24–26] or even as useless. Literature has brought about
the relevance to understand the perceived importance of HRMS by employees and managers [27–32].
Results are clear and show the need to develop research in the gap between different representations and
impacts of HRMS for employees and managers, as it cannot be assumed that employees have the same
perspective regarding the importance of HRMS as HR managers or the top managers. This research
intends to bring about these effects studying, in a large sample, employees’ representation on HRMS
and the link between these representations and relevant organizational outcomes.
1.3. Organizational Affective Commitment

Research on the association between high commitment HRMS and work-related outcomes has
only more recently begun to address commitment. Morrow [33] defines commitment, especially OAC,
as a mature construct, as the extant literature on the topic enables us to understand the relations between
OAC and other constructs. Employees with high levels of commitment are more likely to have higher
performance and are less likely to leave [28,34–37]. Although OAC is a mature construct, there are still
areas under developed [33]. There is a scarcity of studies with significant results on the link between
HRMS and commitment. Recent literature has found a significant and direct effect between HRMS and
employee commitment [28,34–37]. Morrow [33] argues that research has still not found significant
and important effects of HRMS and OAC. This paper intends to give contributions to this dimension,
exploring significant empirical effects between HRMS and OAC, through OT. Literature suggests
that employees interpret HRMS as a product that reveals organizations commitment towards them
and they reciprocate (or not) to this perception. The result can be their personal commitment [17,38].
Recently, the literature has included a few studies that have explored HRM’s role in this theoretical
assumption [28,34–37] and OT has also been scarcely researched within this specific framework.
This study also intends to add OT as a relational dimension that interferes in the process between
HRMS and OAC as recent research suggests [9,28,34,39].
1.4. Organizational Trust in Manager

The recent literature on social exchange theory [2,17,38,40,41] regarding HRMS argues the relevance
of the relationship between employees and managers as dimensions that can influence employees’
perception of HRMS. HRMS creates the conditions and the climate in which employees and managers
build their perceptions, attributions and behaviors [4,6,13,15,34,42–44]. Organizations are built daily
on people’s relations and interactions and the existence of a HRMS mediated by “strong” human
relationships can provide the necessary climate that influences employees and managers’ attributions,
attitudes and behaviors’. OT gathers the conditions to be considered an important relational variable
that can interfere in the chain that links HRMS to organizational results. Recent research has debated
the role of OT and its effect as a mediator or moderator in HRMS [8,20]. OT assumes a willingness of
a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will
engage in an expected behavior. Despite several positions in the literature regarding antecedents of
OT, dimensions and results one of the upmost OT important aspect is the need for the acceptation
of vulnerability. This study builds from here, considering that the vulnerability acceptance allows
OT to act as a buffer towards risk and change. Therefore, OT can be a relevant indicator for quality
relationships between employee and manager. Considering the importance of OT in reducing the
perceived risk in social situations by diminishing the expectation of control it is reasonable to expect
that in addition to having a direct effect on organization commitment, it will also act as moderator or
mediator in the relationship between HRMS and OAC. The literature has begun to study OT in these
processes. Recent literature [16,20] has analyzed the effect of HRMS on OT impersonal dimensions.
They analyzed organizations based on their fairness (HRM practices, fair play and communication)
and capability (organizing activities, sustainability, top management characteristics, technological
reliability and competitiveness). Their results reveal a positive association between HRMS and OT.
These authors call for studies to explore relationships between HRMS and OT, as we continue to have
a scarcity of research that addresses these two dimensions. Recent literature focus on OT as mediator
and as moderator in HRM. Both roles of trust as a mediator or moderator in the path of HRMS and
other organizational results have found support in the literature. Next, we will review both.
1.5. Moderation Models

The literature has studied OT in management as a HRMS moderator on employees’ attitudes [15,
20,45,46]. Results confirm moderation with the overall HRMS and in a specific set of HR bundles,
the motivation practices. Fryxell, Dooley and Li [47] tested OT as a moderator for employee commitment
during a process of restructuring, assuming that in times of uncertainty the decrease of risk perceived
by high trust could act as a buffer in commitment. Their results demonstrated that trust based
on competency is a moderator of value commitment. Alfes, Shantz and Truss [48] examined the
interaction between HRMS, performance and well-being, using OT as a moderator. They used data
from employees and line managers in one service sector organization in UK. Their results demonstrate
that OT moderates performance and well-being. Farndale, Hope-Hailey and Kelliher [49] found
support for OT in a manager as a moderator towards commitment, considering justice as mediator.
Their findings demonstrate an association between employees’ perceptions of HRMS and commitment,
considering OT and justice as important variables present in the organizational climate that fosters
commitment. More recent literature has made some contributions to the role of OT as a moderator on
HRMS [15,20,45,46]; however, it remains scarce.
1.6. Mediation Models

The literature has studied the relationships between HRMS, OT in managers and organizational
commitment in employees [17]. The results showed that OT in management partially mediates the
relationship between perceived organizational support and commitment. Lehmann-Willenbrock,
Grohmann and Kauffeld [50] analyzed OT and commitment as mediators of organizational citizenship
behavior in German teams over a period of three years. Their findings showed that employees who
perceive procedural justice in organizations reciprocate in terms of OT and over time they reciprocate
with commitment. Their study was conducted in a serial mediation effect entering first OT as mediator
and second commitment. Results demonstrated that OT precedes commitment and that employees
who trusted are more likely to feel committed [50]. Mahajan, Bishop and Scott [51] studied trust
in top management as a mediator of top management communication, employee involvement and
organizational commitment. Their findings suggest that trust in manager partially mediated the
relationship between employee involvement and commitment. Literature continues to argue on the
need to conduct research that associates OT to HRMS, especially as a mediator [28,34,39] and this
paper wants to contribute to this call.
2. Method
The purpose of the current study is to test and compare two alternative models in which
trust interferes in HRMS’ link to affective commitment—a moderation model versus a mediation
model (for other examples of the same procedure see References [52,53]). Considering the important
terminological, conceptual and statistical distinction between moderator and mediator [54]. The study
is designed in a differential approach by testing two alternative models, who intend to clarify the role
of OT in HRMS and OAC.
1. To evaluate the direct impact of HRMS and OT on OAC.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Positively perceived HRMS is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Positively perceived HR relationship with employees is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Positively perceived comprehensibility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Positively perceived utility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Positively perceived visibility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 1e (H1e): Positively perceived distributive justice of HRMS is positively related to OAC.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Positively perceived OT in manager is positively related to OAC.
2. To compare two models of the effects of OT on OAC.
Model 1, the moderator model, predicted that the HRMS dimensions would interact with OT in
order to modify OAC. (see in Figure 1)
OT in manager.
Hypothesis 4c (H4c): Relationship between perceived utility and OAC is mediated by OT in manager.
Hypothesis 4d (H4d): Relationship between perceived visibility and OAC is mediated by OT in
manager.
Sustainability 2020,
Hypothesis 4e 12, 9443 Relationship between distributive justice and OAC is mediated by OT
(H4e): 6 ofin
27
manager.
Figure 1.
Figure Model 11 Moderation
1. Model Moderation model.
model.
Hypothesis 3a (H3a): OT in manager moderates the relationship between perceived HR relationship with
employees’ and commitment, such that if it is high, the relationship between the perceived HR relationship with
employees and OAC will be stronger.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): OT in manager moderates the relationship between perceived comprehensibility and
commitment, such that if it is high, the relationship between comprehensibility and OAC will be stronger.
Hypothesis 3c (H3c): OT in manager moderates the relationship between perceived utility and OAC, such that
if it is high, the relationship between perceived utility and commitment will be stronger.
Hypothesis 3d (H3d): OT in manager moderates the relationship between perceived visibility and commitment,
such that if it is high, the relationship between perceived visibility and OAC will be stronger.
Hypothesis 3e (H3e): OT in manager moderates the relationship between distributive justice and commitment,
such that if it is high, the relationship between distributive justice and commitment will be stronger.
Model 2, the mediator model, predicted that HRMS dimensions influence OT in manager, which,
in turn, influences OAC (see in Figure 2)
Sustainability 2020, 12,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443
x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 28
27
Figure 2. Model 2—Mediation model.

Figure 2. Model 2—Mediation model.
2.1. Procedure4aand
Hypothesis Sample
(H4a): Relationship between perceived HR relationship with employees and OAC is mediated
by OT in manager.
The collection of the sample was realized with the specific goal of covering the largest range of
organizations possible from all sectors and sizes, spanning multiple organizational contexts. This
Hypothesis 4b (H4b): Relationship between perceived comprehensibility and OAC is mediated by OT
study is part of a research project which has begun with micro, qualitative data. The objective of this
in manager.
paper is to explore these relations in large samples and multiple contexts. Data were collected from
21 organizations
Hypothesis in Portugal,
4c (H4c): including
Relationship between9 public sector
perceived organizations
utility and OAC isand 12 private
mediated by OTsector companies.
in manager.
The nine public sector organizations included four public sector administration agency, four city halls
and one school.
Hypothesis The private
4d (H4d): sectorbetween
Relationship companies included
perceived four
visibility andindustries (beverage,
OAC is mediated by OTpowertrain
in manager.and
automotive suppliers) three services provider (consultancy and information services) one nonprofit
organization,
Hypothesis 4eone Construction
(H4e): RelationshipCompany and three
between distributive schools.
justice and OACThe isorganizations
mediated by OT were contacted
in manager.
through a formal request to senior managers. We had online or local meetings with the HR senior
manager in order to describe the requirements to participate in the study. Organizations were
2.1. Procedure
informed aboutandtheSample
goals of the research and the degree of data confidentiality. A survey facilitator
was Theidentified in each
collection of the establishment, typicallywith
sample was realized located in the HR
the specific goaldepartment
of covering and provided
the largest rangewith
of
guidance
organizationson how to distribute
possible the surveys.
from all sectors Only
and sizes, one organization
spanning allowed the collection
multiple organizational of data
contexts. This by
study
the researcher
is part herself.
of a research In which
project order has
to overcome
begun withthis obstacle
micro, in thedata.
qualitative effective response
The objective of rate, each
this paper
organization
is to explore wasthesesent a pack in
relations of large
questionnaires
samples andin paper and an
multiple online link.
contexts. DataThewerepaper questionnaire
collected from 21
was delivered by
organizations the facilitator
in Portugal, to workers
including whosector
9 public had no access to a computer
organizations workstation.
and 12 private sectorThis survey
companies.
was delivered with an envelope addressed to the research team in order to assure
The nine public sector organizations included four public sector administration agency, four city halls the confidentiality
of
anddata.
one Workers
school. Thewhoprivate
had access tocompanies
sector a computerincluded
in the organization
four industrieswere(beverage,
sent a linkpowertrain
by email toand an
online version of the survey, guaranteeing anonymity. We sent a total of 4078
automotive suppliers) three services provider (consultancy and information services) one nonprofit questionnaires and
online links and
organization, onereceived 1677 Company
Construction responses,andwith a response
three schools.rate
Theby organization
organizations of between
were contacted 5 through
and 100
per cent. request
a formal The mean to was
senior39.20 per centWe
managers. of response
had online rate
orand
local308 receivedwith
meetings questionnaires
the HR senior were not used
manager in
due to responses with high musings or due to non-variability on the responses
order to describe the requirements to participate in the study. Organizations were informed about (all the responses on
the same of
the goals rating at the scale).
the research Thedegree
and the final result
of datawas 1369 valid surveys.
confidentiality. A survey The following
facilitator Tables
was 1 andin
identified 2
present sample characterization.
each establishment, typically located in the HR department and provided with guidance on how to
distribute the surveys. Only one organization allowed the collection of data by the researcher herself.
In order to overcome this obstacle in the effective response rate, each organization was sent a pack of
questionnaires in paper and an online link. The paper questionnaire was delivered by the facilitator to
workers who had no access to a computer workstation. This survey was delivered with an envelope
addressed to the research team in order to assure the confidentiality of data. Workers who had access to
a computer in the organization were sent a link by email to an online version of the survey, guaranteeing
anonymity. We sent a total of 4078 questionnaires and online links and received 1677 responses, with a
response rate by organization of between 5 and 100 per cent. The mean was 39.20 per cent of response
rate and 308 received questionnaires were not used due to responses with high musings or due to
non-variability on the responses (all the responses on the same rating at the scale). The final result was
1369 valid surveys. The following Tables 1 and 2 present sample characterization.
Table 1. Sample Characterization based on quantitative variables.
Mean Standard Deviation

Age 40.15 9.99
Seniority 12.80 11.08
Number of subordinates (a) 24.32 16.42
Seniority in management (a) 2.90 1.78
a Only managers answered this question. N = 209.
Table 2. Sample characterization based on qualitative variables.
Frequencies Percentage
Sex Male 582 42.7
Female 781 57.3
Educational 4th grade 91 6.7
Qualifications 6th grade 71 5.2
9th grade 177 13.0
12th grade 410 30.0
Bachelor 105 7.7
Graduation 485 35.5
Masters 26 1.9
PhD 1 0.1
Contract type Permanent 862 75.9
Fixed-term 204 18.0
Temporary 68 6.0
Other 2 0.2
Manager Yes 209 18.4
No 926 81.6
Yes 133
No 81 37.9
Public 457 34.4
Public vs. private sector
Private 872 65.6
Industry 602 45.3
Industry vs. Services Sector
Services 727 54.7
2.2. Instruments
HRMS
We used an adaptation of the HRMS Questionnaire (HRMQS) [55]. In its original version
the HRMSQ, included 42 items that assessed three meta features of Bowen and Ostroffs’
model—distinctiveness, consistency and consensus. Each item is responded to on a 6-points Likert
scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree (Item example: “The existing reward system
helps each employee to achieve greater success”). We tested and adapted this instrument based on the
specific objectives of this research. We removed some items and adapted the human resource practices
used as referents for the original items as follows. Twenty-one items were used to assess perception
of the utility, comprehensibility and visibility of the HRM system. Each item used as referent one
identifiable human resource practice (socialization, recruitment and selection, training, performance
appraisal, administrative procedures, communication and teamwork). The selected practices were
based on the with special Portuguese organizations reality, specially the high administrative load of
HR function and the lack of well implemented reward systems [56]. We removed career and bonus
and added socialization and administrative processes. The practices evaluated were socialization,
recruitment and selection, training, performance appraisal, administrative procedures, communication
and teamwork. Each item is responded on 5 points Likert scale, where 1 = it is never useful and
5 = extremely useful (Item example: “The performance evaluation is useful”).
Human Resource Relationship—Five items were developed and written based on previous
qualitative work that focused on communication and proximity as the foundation for the relationship
between HR function and employees. Previous research on the topic was considered [57]. It was
emphasized open communication and demonstration of concern for employees as the main relevant
factors in the managerial-employee relationship. Five items were developed. Each item is responded
on a Likert scale with 6 points, where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree (Item example:
“The Human Resources Department helps me to solve problems.” “Normally the Human Resources
Department tries to understand my opinion on the definition of new procedures” “The department
seems to keep informed about the best HRM practices that are used in other organizations”).
OT in direct manager: Organizational interpersonal trust in direct manager was measured using
a scale adapted to the Portuguese population [58] that is the adaption of the scale by Mayer and
Gavin [59]. The scale has consistent validity and reliability. 8 items were used considering the 3
antecedents of trust: Competence, Benevolence and Integrity. Our criterion was to select the items
that contribute the most to each dimension. Each item is responded on a Likert scale with 6 points,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree (Item example: “My manager will change his
normal way of proceeding to help me”; “My manager strives to be fair in his relations with others;
“My manager knows in depth the work that needs to be done”).
OAC: Organizational commitment was measured using a scale adapted to the Portuguese
population [60]. The scale has consistent validity and reliability and 8 items were used. Our criterion
was to select the items that contribute the most to the first factor, OAC. Each item is responded on a
Likert scale with 6 points, where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree (Item example: “I think
that my values and the organizational values are similar,” “I am proud to tell others, that I am part of
this organization”).
Control variables: In all analyses, the following control variables were entered: age, sex, seniority,
manager or subordinate, seniority in managing and training in HR, public vs. private sector, industry vs.
services sector and contract type.
2.3. Statistical Analysis Procedure

This analysis is divided into four parts. The first is the development, test and consolidation of the
measure. The second is a global analysis with the objective of testing hypothesis 1 using an exploratory
approach with a cluster analysis. The third part is the moderation and the fourth the mediation.
We followed the relevant statistical literature on the development of our analysis of correlation
patterns and to develop valid measures in which the questionnaire was based [58–68]. Principal component
analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) are two distinct statistical techniques [67] that can be used to
this effect. In PCA all the variance is analyzed, in FA shared variance (covariance) is analyzed [65–67].
According to our research goal we considered PCA a better choice following the relevant statistical
literature [61–68]. Our final instrument, with all the sub-scales integrated had 54 items. The data
were analyzed for their suitability for principal component analysis with PASW–18. A PCA was
conducted on the 54 items. Data were explored in order to maximize variance through orthogonal
(rigid) rotation using Varimax method. Although theoretically all these factors are correlated in
some manner, which would suggest the use of oblique rotations, empirically we wanted to increase
the factor loadings so the interpretation could be more accurate and less ambiguous in terms of
perceived dimensions of the system by the employees [66,67] However, in order to test our data for
significant differences in the analysis, assuming that our factors could be highly correlated and that
this could influence our results we also conducted an oblique rotation with the Oblimin method [66]
with similar results. Following previous research [62] we retained the results of Varimax rotation.
In the first analysis we did not define the number of factors enabling the items to load on any number
of factors [65]. Analyses were performed with the missing data and without them. Missing data
were replaced with the mean response for the variable in question, so that the sample size didn’t
become too small [66] However, in the reliability analysis we did not replace the missing values [66].
In all of the following analyses correlations were screened concerning singularity (variables that are
perfectly correlated) and extreme multi-collinearity (variables with high correlations; r ≥ 0.8) [62].
The Kayser-Meyer Olkin sampling statistic was adequate which indicates that the factor analysis
procedures were appropriate. We consider the following arguments to retain the factors: the point
of inflexion of the curve, in a scree plot, in more than 200 participants [66]. We also considered the
substantive importance of factor loadings by Joliffe’s (retaining factors with eigenvalues greater than
0.7) [62]. However, the final decision was made over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 [66]. In the interpretation
of the factors we decided to use a cutoff level of 0.45 [66,68] and a 20% variance overlap between
variable and factor [66]. The sample size (N = 1369) was adequate as literature [66] suggested, with a
minimum of 300 cases for factor analysis as a general rule of thumb. The frequencies of each item were
analyzed and the total range of the points of the scale was used in every item, proving the frequency of
occurrence of different behaviors. Bartlett’s test of sphericity relating to item interdependence was
examined (X2 (1431) = 39138.79; p < 0.001) indicating that the correlations between items were sufficiently
large for PCA. The Kayser-Meyer Olkin sampling statistic was KMO= 0.967 which indicates that the
principal component analysis procedures were appropriate. An initial analysis was run to obtain
eigenvalues for each component in the data. Eight components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion
of 1 and explained 64.55% of the variance. The scree plot showed two points of inflexion that could
indicate eight or twelve factors. The Jollife’s criterion showed 15 factors. We followed Field’s [68] and
according to the large sample size, the convergence of the scree plot and Kaiser’s criterion, we retained
eight components. The loadings of the items suggested the exclusion of the 12 items according to
the following principles: Item 24 did not correlate with others (r ≤ 0.30). Item 25 did not meet the
cutoff criterion of factorial loading ≥0.45 [62,66]: Items 1,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,16,18 had differences ≤0.2 in the
factorial loadings on different factors. In all of the following analysis all the remaining items showed
good correlation with the total (>0.30) and we did not find extreme multi-collinearity. We subjected the
remaining 42 items to another principal component analysis (PCA) following the same procedure as
above. Bartlett’s test of sphericity relating to item interdependence was examined (X2 (903) = 35697.681;
p < 0.001) and the Kayser-Meyer Olkin sampling statistic was KMO = 0.96. Six components had
eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 64.04% of the variance. By Jollife’s criterion of
retaining factors we would retain 13 factors. This scree plot is less ambiguous then the first but also
showed two points of inflexion that could indicate five or eight factors. The rotated component matrix
showed all items distributed along 5 factors. We performed a new analysis on the data, in which we
limited the number of factors to five. Bartlett’s test of sphericity relating to item interdependence was
examined (X2 (820) = 34312; p < 0.001) and the Kayser-Meyer Olkin sampling statistic was KMO= 0.960.
Five components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 63.24% of the variance.
The scree plot showed two points of inflexion that could indicate five or eight factors. We analyzed the
rotated component matrix and the structure was clearer. Items 2 and 7 were removed considering the
cutoff (loading ≥0.45) [64,67].
For part two, t main objective of cluster analysis is to cluster individuals based on their
characteristics research. In this initial analysis our objective was to divide our sample according to
the assessed dimensions of HRMS. With this approach we can compare different individuals who
come from different organizations, based solely on their HRMS. Clustering of cases was performed
using a k-means analysis (SPSS) with squared Euclidean distance as the index of similarity. The five
subscales from the HRMS (standardized scores) were used in the cluster analysis: HR relationship
with employees’; Comprehensibility, Utility, Visibility and Distributive Justice. The number of clusters
was determined by examining the dendrogram and the coefficients from a hierarchical cluster analysis
using Ward’s (1963) hierarchical agglomeration method. This method does not calculate distances.
The clusters are built minimizing the sum of squared errors. The clusters retained are those with the
lowest sum of squared errors [68]. The analysis led to the adoption of a two-cluster solution (in the
coefficients we have a leap from the penultimate to the ultimate (2915.72 to 4740). Because clusters
are based on maximization of differences between cases, we performed a MANOVA. Clusters were
renamed and recoded as a new variable named “HRM perception.” This new variable is composed by
two groups (1 = people who have a more positive perception on HRM) tested as the input variable
and the 5 variables used in the cluster analysis were used as the target. With this dummy variable we
conducted a linear regression testing the association between this variable and affective commitment.
In the third part of the analysis we tested the essential assumptions underlying the fixed linear
regression model [65]. 1. Sample size: Concerning the sample size various rules have been suggested.
Stevens [66] suggests 15 participants for predictor. According to this rule we should have the minimum
of 330 participants, specifically in hierarchical multiple regression [61,64,66]. It is important to have
20 participants for predictor (main effect). They present the following rule to assume the minimum
acceptable sample size in order to test the overall fit of the regression model or the individual predictors:
N ≥ 50 + 8k. We have six principal predictors, however as caution we considered the more complex
model which has 22 IV’S (including controls and interactions). In this case, following this rule the
N should be ≥226. Our final sample is 1328 so we can considerer our sample size appropriate to the
technique; 2. The power analysis literature has questioned sample size and its relationship with the
size effect [61]. The sample size required will depend on the size of the effect that we are trying to
detect. The power analysis considers sample size (N), significance criterion (ft), population effect size
(ES) and statistical power. We follow Cohen ’s [61] who determines sample size for several statistical
tests. According, in multiple regression analysis with the significance tests at a = 0.05, for the F test
of the multiple R2, with a population small effect size, that is, f2 = 0.02 and a set of six independent
variables, the required sample size is 686. Also, using G*Power 3.1 for the Ftest, assuming fixed effects,
main effects and interactions it suggests a total of 400 participants Again, our sample is 1328 so it is
appropriate to the technique; 3. Variable types: We used only continuous or categorical variables with
two categories; 4. Independent errors: Independence of the observations (absence of auto-correlation):
Durbin Watson values should be between 1 and 3 and the closer to 2 the value is, the better [68].
For these data the value is 1.95, which is very close to 2. We conclude that this assumption has
been met; 5. Outliers: We detected 41 outliers in our data, through the analysis of the Standardized
residuals and Cook’s Distance. The analyses were performed with the presence of the outliers and
without them. The presence of the outliers distorted our results, interfering significantly with the
data and decreased the total variance explained by the model. Our results show a stronger model
without the presence of the outliers, therefore all the analyses were conducted without these cases.
In the final model the minimum for the standardized residuals is −0.296 and the maximum is 2.95.
Our final results for the Cook’s Distance ranges between 0.00 and 0.02. Our initial sample was 1369,
our final sample is constituted by 1328 valid cases; 6. Essential multicollinearity [64]: We tested this
assumption with simple correlations, presented at Table 3, considering that they cannot exceed 0.90 [68];
7. Normally distributed errors: We analyzed the histogram of regression standardized residuals,
as well as the normal p-p plot of standardized residual and both show the normality of the errors;
8. Linearity: We analyzed the scatter plot representing the linear relations between the main effects and
the dependent variable and all the relationships were linear.
In order to compare both models (moderation and mediation), different statistical procedures
were performed [52,53,61–64,66,68].
Table 3. Factor loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation.
Factors
1 2 3 4 5
Socialization’s Utility 00.071 0.185 0.707 0.189 0.113
Recruitment & Selection Utility 00.112 0.197 0.687 0.125 0.133
Performance evaluation Utility 0.195 0.122 0.652 0.130 0.260
Training Utility 0.085 0.035 0.760 0.087 0.046
Administrative procedures Utility 0.206 0.192 0.662 0.130 −0.009
Communication (sharing information) Utility 0.197 0.145 0.775 0.180 −0.027
Team work Utility 0.132 0.095 0.767 0.198 0.000
Socialization’s Visibility 0.201 0.215 0.197 0.697 0.210
Recruitment & Selection’s Visibility 0.195 0.260 0.169 0.681 0.187
Performance evaluation Visibility 0.264 0.273 0.223 0.586 0.253
Training Visibility 0.220 0.286 0.210 0.589 0.175
Administrative procedures Visibility 0.326 0.297 0.231 0.577 0.003
Communication (sharing information) Visibility 0.380 0.280 0.212 0.658 0.057
Team work Visibility 0.270 0.216 0.338 0.607 0.082
Socialization’s Comprehensibility 0.195 0.692 0.169 0.295 0.186
Recruitment & Selection’s Comprehensibility 0.216 0.751 0.151 0.227 0.197
Performance evaluation Comprehensibility 0.280 0.677 0.134 0.247 0.237
Training Comprehensibility 0.196 0.736 0.136 0.204 0.164
Administrative procedures Comprehensibility 0.276 0.746 0.187 0.170 0.032
Communication (sharing information) Comprehensibility 0.358 0.707 0.216 0.255 0.054
Team work Comprehensibility 0.280 0.604 0.332 0.279 0.043
Salary increases depend on the performance appraisal results 0.250 0.083 0.102 0.154 0.656
Employees who are rewarded are those who deserve. 0.423 0.215 0.115 0.135 0.657
The existing reward system helps each employee to achieve
0.425 0.144 0.102 0.185 0.672
greater success
All employees know exactly when and what to do in order to
0.343 0.218 0.024 0.161 0.656
receive a prize.
The HRM practices are applied similarly in
0.576 0.265 0.134 0.120 0.295
various departments
The Human Resource Management practices are consistent
0.628 0.233 0.142 0.169 0.290
over time
The guidance provided by the HR Department is credible 0.714 0.270 0.142 0.131 0.184
The HRM practices contribute to a high level of
0.705 0.217 0.160 0.138 0.351
employees performance
The HRM practices contribute to a good
0.696 0.216 0.149 0.153 0.393
performance appraisal
There is a consistency between what the HR Department
0.641 0.222 0.115 0.163 0.276
diffuses and states and then what it does and apply.
All activities of HRM system complement themselves in order
0.611 0.176 0.169 0.038 0.142
to reach the objectives of my employer.
The HR department appears to be informed about the best
0.737 0.138 0.187 0.151 0.157
practices that are used in other organizations.
Our HR system is effective as to attract and retain
0.727 0.133 0.153 0.190 0.240
competent employees.
Our HR system is effective in developing skills among
0.719 0.126 0.152 0.175 0.224
our employees.
The HR Department was consistent with my expectations
0.764 0.171 0.181 0.221 0.207
regarding the role and responsibilities of HR function
The HR Department is available to listen to me whenever
0.784 0.161 0.087 0.204 −0.015
I need.
I feel that my opinions and suggestions are heard by the HR
0.773 0.188 0.098 0.218 0.073
Department.
The HR Department helps me solve problems. 0.819 0.147 0.095 0.224 0.022
Normally the Human Resources Department tries to
0.763 0.157 0.093 0.243 0.126
understand my opinion on the definition of new procedures.
Eigenvalues 23.08 4.85 4.63 3.96 3.02
% of variance 0.576 11.84 11.29 9.65 7.37
Note (N = 1369); The items are presented in the order they were administrated to participants. 1 = HR Relationship
with employees; 2 = Comprehensibility; 3 = Utility; 4 = Visibility; 5 = Distributive Justice.
Model 1: The moderator model

In order to test the moderation effects, we performed a hierarchical linear regression. We used
the method enter and the IV’S were entered cumulatively in a prespecified sequence [54] As this
research followed a PCA described above, the IV’s were the factors that resulted from this PCA.
Considering specifically the analysis of moderation with regression equations containing higher order
terms, no automatic search procedures are indicated [63,64]. The moderation model has three steps.
In the first step, the control variables were entered into the model. In the second step the main effects
were entered. Interactions entered in the third step. The control variables that weren’t continuous
were transformed into categorical with two categories: Public sector = 0, Private = 1; Industry = 0,
Services = 1; No term contract, Fixed term contract = 1. In the second step the main effects were entered
in the order indicated above. In the final step, the interactions factors were calculated (Trust x HR
Relationship with employees, Trust x Comprehensibility, Trust x Utility, Trust x Visibility and Trust x
Distributive Justice) and entered [54]. In our analysis both the moderator variable and the independent
variable are continuous. In this case “If one presumes that the effect of the independent variable
(X) on the dependent variable (Y) varies linearly or quadratically with respect to the moderator (Z),
the product variable approach should be used [66]. Non-essential multicollinearity is a typical problem
in interactions analysis. We chose to follow what is considered a good practice in recent research,
the main effects were centered before producing the interactions [63–65,69]. When both predictors are
quantitative, as in this case, the interactions must be produced with the initial predictors transformed
in centered variables [63,69,70] Pos-hoc analyses were performed and are detailed in the results section.
Model 2: The mediator model

In order to test the mediation model, we follow a strong statistic procedure [54] in which
mediation is supported if the following conditions are met: (1) regressing the dependent variable on
the independent (2); regressing the mediator on the independent variable (3) regressing the dependent
variable on the mediator (4) regressing the dependent variable on the independent and on the mediator.
Separate coefficients for each equation should be estimated and tested. We used the method enter and
IV’S are entered in the prespecified sequence, after all the control variables were entered as described
before in the moderation model. Further details of these procedures are presented in the results section.
All analysis on both models were conducted with PASW for Windows and Excel.
3. Results
3.1. Factors Interpretation on the Development of the Measures

PCA was described above and the IV’s for the model were the factors that resulted from this
PCA. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after rotation of the remaining 40 items. The items that
clustered on factor 1 suggest that it represents HR Relationship with employees, factor 2 represents
Comprehensibility of the Practices, factor 3 represents Utility of the practices, factor 4 represents
Visibility of the practices, factor 5 represents Distributive Justice. Factor 1 integrated the scale of
HR relationship, HR Department competence and items related to the Consistency of the HRMS.
As presented before, our definition of the HR relationship with employees embraces the HR competence,
therefore the factor can be called HR relationship with employees. Some items related to the consistency
of the HRMS loaded on this factor (instrumentality and consistent HRM messages). This integration
can be interpreted as the relevance of consistency (e.g., the importance of time) on the development of
this relationship, stressing the importance of the tested relationship as an instrumental one and the
relevance of communication in this relationship. Also, factors with highest loadings are those related
to the instrumentality of the relationship, especially the resolution of problems and the availability
to listen, which adds information to this interpretation. Factor 2 represents the comprehensibility of
the practices and the items loaded as predicted, in one subscale. The item with highest loading is the
comprehensibility of recruitment and selection, followed by comprehensibility of the administrative
procedures. Factor 3 represents the perceived utility of the practices and the items loaded as predicted,
in one subscale. The item with the highest loading is the utility of communication (sharing information).
Factor 4 represents the visibility of the practices and the items loaded as predicted, in one subscale.
The item with the highest loading is socialization. Factor 5 is an unexpected factor and all factors have
very similar loadings. It is specific, with clear statistics relevance and related only to distributive justice
as all the items assess the relevance of outcomes of reward systems.
3.2. Reliability Analysis for Iv’s

Item-total correlations ranged between 0.44 and 0.83 and all items correlated with the total score.
The item-item correlation ranged between 3.74 and 8.31. Each item contribution to Cronbach’s alpha
was examined and no item was removed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and distribution data for each
scale are presented in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha.
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Participants N◦ of Items

HR relationship with
0.959 1246 15
employees
Comprehensibility 0.926 1112 7
Utility 0.883 1089 7
Visibility 0.903 1095 7
Distributive justice 0.841 1335 4
Table 5. Means, minimum, maximum values and standard deviations.
Mean Min Max Standard Deviation

M Min Max SD
HR relationship with employees 60.31 15.00 90.00 14.57
Comprehensibility 27.46 7.00 42.00 6.48
Utility 26.89 7.00 35.00 4.52
Visibility 27.65 7.00 42.00 5.80
Distributive justice 12.82 4.00 24.00 12.82
As expected, the results indicate the existence of significant correlations between all dimensions,
p ≤ 0.001. Table 6 presents Pearson’s correlations. All correlations are above 0.30 and none of the
correlations is greater than 0.8 [64,66,71] which demonstrates validity of the construct and the relevance
of each dimension towards the global construct. The correlation matrix shows that the HR relationship
with employees presents the highest pattern of correlations among the factors. This brings about its
relevance in the construct. Visibility presents a high correlation with comprehensibility that is totally
consistent with the theoretical frame, since both are presented as attributes of the same meta-features
(distinctiveness). Utility has its highest correlation with visibility. Distributive justice has its highest
correlation with HR relationship with employees.
Table 6. Matrix of Pearson’s correlation coefficient between dimensions.
Dimension (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) HR relationship with employees -
(2) Comprehensibility 0.612 ** -
(3) Utility 0.482 ** 0.525 ** -
(4) Visibility 0.656 ** 0.717 ** 0.604 ** -
(5) Distributive justice 0.686 ** 0.532 ** 0.36 8 ** 0.544 **
Note: ** Values represent significant correlations at a p < 0.001 level.
3.3. Evidence from Reliability Data

The total scale score proved to have good internal consistency for this sample. Our final data
(40 item questionnaire) has good reliability on all assessed features and the total correlations composite
seem to be working together and to be measuring the same underlying construct. The implication is
that respondents understood the meaning of the items and mobilized similar representatives in order
to answer them [71].
3.4. Evidence for Validity

These results provide support for adequate content validity [69,71]. The use of practices adapted
to the Portuguese reality reduced the discrepancies between organizations and promoted content
validity. The questionnaire was the same for all organizations and participants. One of the major
concerns in the self-report studies is the comprehensibility of the message presented in the scale.
We also had major concerns regarding the clarity of the items. The information required in the scale
had to be clear to all respondents of all educational levels. Limitations concerning the educational
level were also screened. Educational level could have a negative impact because the wording of items
might not be familiar to employees (e.g., HR strategy). We got around this difficulty by presenting the
scale to the HR directors of the organization and asking them to assess the level of difficulty, objectivity
and clarity of the questionnaire. After this we instructed the facilitators in the organization. In all
organizations we asked the human resource manager to test the questionnaire in a smaller group
of employees with the lowest educational level in the organization, prior to general data collection.
In one of the organizations where the researcher collected the data personally, the only difference
detected in the respondents towards the response to the questionnaire was the response time. It was
greater for respondents with lower academic qualifications. We also consider that the features related
to utility, visibility and comprehensibility helped in this process, because they were objective and easily
understood by employees. Our final sample included 339 (24.9 %) participants with the 9th grade
or below. Our results reflect data from 1369 from 21 organizations. This large sample from different
organizations, in different evolution stages of HRMS, increases the validity of the measure.
All dimensions have significant correlations at the same level (p < 0.001). All dimensions correlate
in the same course as hypothesized in the theoretical model and no correlation is ≥0.90 [68] as you can
see on Table 7.
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson’s Correlations.
Standard
Mean N (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Deviation
(1) Afective commitment 36.8 6.33 1053 -
(2) Trust in manager 34.77 8.15 1046 0.73 ** -
(3) HR relationship with
60.77 14.32 1211 0.66 ** 0.60 **
employees
(4) Comprehensibility 27.66 6.36 1072 0.48 ** 0.50 ** 0.60 **
(5) Utility 27.00 4.41 1052 0.41 ** 0.40 ** 0.46 ** 0.52 **
(6) Visibility 27.83 5.67 1059 0.55 ** 0.51 ** 0.67 ** 0.72 ** 0.59 **
(7) Distributive justice 12.95 4.85 1295 0.49 ** 0.50 ** 0.68 ** 0.53** 0.37 ** 0.55 **
Note: ** Values on the diagonal (in bold) represent significant correlations at a p < 0.001 level.
In Table 8 there are significant multivariate differences between group 1 and group 2 at the
level of perception of the human resource management. (Wilk’s Lamba = 3.45; Pillai’s Trace = 0.655,
F(5943) = 357.62, p ≤ 0.001). Linear regression tests were performed; (R2 Aj = 0.20; R2 Aj= 0.20,
B = −5.75; SE B= 0.32 β= −0.44; t = −18.00, p ≤ 0.001. This model explains 20% of the variance of
affective commitment. H1 is confirmed, there is an association between HRM perception and affective
commitment. As group 1 is the group that has the highest means in HRMS dimensions, the results
show that people who have a more positive perception of HRMS have a higher affective commitment
towards organization. This cluster analysis was a first exploratory analysis and was conducted in an
effort to explore HRM perception based on previous suggestions in the literature [4,6].
Table 8. Cluster analysis and multivariate tests.
Cluster 1 (n = 585) Cluster 2 (n = 364) F (1947)

Standard Standard
Mean Mean
Deviation Deviation
HR relationship with employees 69.47 8.92 47.39 13.88 889.56
Comprehensibility 31.35 4.97 21.89 5.56 741.86
Utility 29.00 3.403 23.42 5.33 388.12
Visibility 31.15 4.53 22.65 5.03 726.07
Distributive Justice 15.69 3.76 8.69 3.36 843.96
Model 1: Moderation model
The next Table 9 presents the results the moderation model, specifically the regression coefficients
for each variable (including control variables) and for each hierarchical step. Every steps of the model
are significant. The model improves at each step. The final model explains 60% of the variance in
affective commitment.
Table 9. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses.
Model 1—Controls Model 2—Main Effects Model 3—Interactions

Independent variables β β B
(a) Control Variables
Sex −0.13 *** −0.07 *** −0.07 ***
Age −0.02 0.01 0.01
Dummy for Public vs. Private Sector 0.16 *** 0.07 ** 0.06 **
Dummy for Industry vs. Service Sector 0.21 *** 0.07 ** 0.06 **
Seniority −0.03 0.03 0.02
Dummy contract type 0.11 *** 0.07 *** 0.06 ***
Management function −0.12 *** −0.02 −0.02
Seniority in management −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
Number of subordinates 0.02 0.03 † 0.03 †
Seniority in management in other
0.04 0.01 0.01
organizations
Training in HR −0.02 0.02 0.02
(b) Main effects
OT in management 0.53 *** 0.51 ***
HR relationship with employees 0.20 *** 0.21 ***
Comprehensibility −0.02 −0.02
Utility 0.02 0.02
Visibility 0.14 *** 0.13 ***
Distributive Justice −0.01
(c) Interactions
HR relationship with employees X OT
−0.01
in manager
Comprehensibility X OT in manager −0.01
Utility X OT in manager 0.05
Visibility X OT in manager −0.03
Distributive Justice X OT in manager 0.09 ***
Note: Sex: 1 female, 2 male; Manager function: 1 yes, 2 no; Dummy for Public Vs Private Sector: 0 Public, 1 Private;
Dummy for Industry vs. Service Sector: 0 Industry, 1 Services; Dummy for contract type: 0 No term contract, 1 Fixed
Term contract. † p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Model 1 hypothesized that the HRMS dimensions would interact with OT in order to modify
and the DV goes to zero when the mediator is in the equation, mediation is said to be perfect. Ta
10 presents the results for the regression coefficients for each variable: The regressions w
performed independently and not sequentially. The control variables were not described h
however they entered in all the regression analysis of the model are significant. The final mo
explains 59% of the variance in affective commitment.
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, Regression 1 analyses of HRMS in OAC (R2 aj = 0.41. p ≤ 0.0
Control Variables R2= 0.34 (F(5,1312) =151.29, p ≤ 0.001) indicated that HR relationship with employees (β = 0.3
≤ 0.001) Comprehensibility (β = 0.06, p ≤ 0.10), Utility (β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), Visibility (β = 0.21, p ≤ 0.0
The control variables
and will be described
Distributive below,
Justice (β despite
= 0.07, their role inare
p ≤ 0.05), the positively
mediation model,
relatedconsidering
to OAC, thus meeting the f
that the results were similar.
mediation condition. In regression 2, analysis of HRMS in OT in manager (R2 aj = 0.37. p ≤ 0.001)
As shown in Table 10, in step 1, the model of the control variables, explained 7% of the variance
R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR relationship with employees (β = 0.25, p ≤ 0.0
of affective commitment (R2 aj = 0.07, p ≤ 0.001) (F(11,1367) = 9.38, p ≤ 0.001). The hierarchical
Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ 0.001), Visibility (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.001)
regression allowed to identify sex, public vs. private sector, industry vs. services sector, contract type,
Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), are positively related to OT, thus meeting the sec
management as significant predictors of OAC:
mediation condition. In Regression 3, analysis of OT in manager in OAC (R2 aj = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001)
R2=
Table 10. Statistics for0.46 (F(1,1316) =1294.07,
the improvement p ≤ 0.001)
of the model shows that
on hierarchical OT (βregression
multiple = 0.66, p ≤analysis.
0.001) is positively related to O
thus meeting the third mediation condition. In regression 4, analysis of HRMS dimensions and O
manager in OAC Intercept R2 (R2p Aj)
(R2 aj = 0.59, ≤ 0.001) R2= 0.52 (F F(6,1311)
Statistics
=275.53, p ≤ 0.001) indicated
R2
HR relationship
(a) Step 1: Control variables
with
40.21
employees (β
0.07 (0.07)
= 0.20, p ≤ 0.001)
0.073 ***
and Visibility (β = 0.14, p ≤ 0.001) decreased
F(11,1317) = 9.38 ***
Beta but did not
(b) Step 2: Main effects become nonsignificant,
11.38 0.59 (0.59) indicating
0.517 *** a partial mediation.
F(17,1311) = 110.91Comprehensibility
*** (β = −0.
n.s), Utility (β =11.94
(c) Step 3: Interactions 0.02, p ≤ n.s)0.60
and Distributive
(0.60) Justice
0.005 *** (βF(22,1306) = 87.09
= −0.01, n.s) become
*** nonsignificant, indica
a full or perfect mediation *** pby OT. OT is the most relevant predictor (β = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001).
< 0.001.
(1) Control Predictors with levels of significance at p level of 0.001 in the three steps of the model:
(a) The respondent’s is significant in predicting OAC ranging between β= −13 to β= −0.07 at p ≤ 0.001.
Employees from the female sex (=1) are more committed than male employees; (b) In the contract type,
the standardized Beta ranged between β = 0.11 to β = 0.06. Employees with no term contract are less
affective committed than respondents with fixed term contract.
(2) Control Predictors with Levels of significance at step1, p ≤ 0.001 that decreases to p value ≤ 0.05
in step 2 and 3 of the model: (a) Regarding the predictor “public vs. private sector” the standardized
Beta ranged between β = 0.16 in step 1 and β = 0.06 in step 3. Employees from the private sector are more
affective committed than employees on public sector; (b) Considering “industry vs. services sector”
the standardized Beta ranged between β = 0.21 to β = 0.06. Employees from services organizations are
more committed than respondents from industry organizations.
(3) Control Predictors with Levels of significance at step1, p ≤ 0.001: (a) The predictor “Management
function” only is significant at step 1 of the model and presents a β = 0.12. This means that employees
that aren’t managers are more committed than managers.
As expected all the regression coefficients of the control variables decreased in step 2 and 3.
Also a curious result is that “the number of subordinates to respondents who are managers” is not
significant in the first step, however it becomes marginally significant in the step 2 and 3, with β = 0.03
and β = 0.03.
Main effects and Interactions of the moderation model
Considering step 2, the model with the control variables and the main effects, our model explained
59% of the variance of affective commitment (R2 aj = 0.59, p ≤ 0.001) (F(17,1311) = 110,91, p ≤ 0.001).
As expected, the R2 showed an increment of 0.517. Hypothesis 1a and 1d are confirmed. The results
show that HR relationship with employees and the visibility of the system directly predicted affective
commitment. HR relationship with employees (β = 0.20) is the second in order of importance in
predicting affective commitment, followed by Visibility (β = 0.14). Hypothesis 1 b, 1c and 1e are not
confirmed. Contrary to the expected, comprehensibility, utility and distributive justice of the system in
this model, do not directly influence the affective commitment.
The HR relationship with employees’ is significant in all the steps of the model, demonstrating
an important direct effect on affective commitment (β = 0.20 to β = 0.21). Visibility of HRMS is
also significant in all the steps of the model. Its importance decreases, as expected, considering the
standardized Beta (β = 0.14 to β = 0.13).
Hypothesis 2a is confirmed. The results demonstrate that trust in manager predicts affective
commitment. Organizational trust is the predictor which most contributes to the model. The Beta
standardized value is the highest, in the second and third step (β= 0.53; β= 0.51). The regression
coefficients slightly decrease as expected.
In step 3, interactions were entered. The third model increased the variance in 0.005 and is
significant (R2 = 0.60, p ≤ 0.001) (F(22,1306) = 87.09 p ≤ 0.001). The final model shows that 60% of the
variability in affective commitment is predicted by our model.
In the third step, Hypothesis 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d were not confirmed. Contrary to what was
expected HR relationship with employees, Comprehensibility, Utility and Visibility of the system are
not moderated by trust in a manager, as these interactions were not significant. Only hypothesis 3e is
confirmed as the interaction between distributive justice and trust is significant (β = 0.09, p ≤ 0.001)
t (1306) = 3.53, p < 0.001. In other words, the slope to predict affective commitment from distributive
justice becomes more positive as trust increases.
In order to better understand the moderation between distributive justice and trust in manager,
pos-hoc analysis was performed. We analyzed the simple effects of the independent variable for
different levels of the moderator relation. Research [64] recommends that when interaction terms are
statistically significant, plots are useful for post hoc interpretations. Cohen et al. [64] recommend
plotting the regression of Y on X at three values: one standard deviation below the mean, the mean
and one standard deviation above the mean. To perform this analysis we have written a regression
equation for each of the simple regression lines and for each slope substitute the value of X2, in the
rearranged2020,
Sustainability regression
12, x FORequation: Y’= (A + B2X2) + (B1 + B3X2)X1.
PEER REVIEW 19 of 28
Regression lines for the DV (affective commitment) at: The low value of X2 y = 11.938 + (0.397 ×
26.62) + (−0.01 +lines
Regression (0.014for×the DV (affective
26.62))X1; commitment)
The medium value ofat:X2
They= low value+ of
11.938 11.938++ (−0.01
X2 y×= 34.77)
(0.397 (0.397 ×+
(0.014 × 34.77))X1; The high value of X2 y = 11.938 + (0.397 × 42.92) + (−0.01 + (0.014 × 42.92))X1.
26.62) + (−0.01 + (0.014 × 26.62))X1; The medium value of X2 y = 11.938 + (0.397 × 34.77) + (−0.01 + (0.014
× 34.77))X1;
We resolvedThe high valueequations
the three of X2 y = 11.938 + (0.397
for three values× 42.92) + (−0.01
of X1 and + (0.014 ×DV
the resulted 42.92))X1
values were plotted.
The chosen values of X1 were: X1 = 4; X1 = 14; X1 = 24. These values were chosen because
We resolved the three equations for three values of X1 and the resulted DV values were4plotted.
and 24
The chosen
represent thevalues
minimum of X1andwere: X1 = 4; X1
maximum = 14;that
values X1 =distributive
24. These values
justice were chosen
assumed. Eachbecause 4 andwas
regression 24
represent
then solved theatminimum
these three and maximum
values and thevalues that distributive
interactions plotted at justice
Figureassumed.
3. Each regression was
then solved at these three values and the interactions plotted at Figure 3.
Figure Note:XX==distributive
3. Note:
Figure 3. distributivejustice.
justice.YYrepresents
representsthe
theDV
DV(affective
(affectivecommitment).
commitment).
Figure 3 shows the the plot with differences in affective commitment at of different levels of trust
and distributive justice. An interaction effect is seen with the presence of nonparallel lines. We
observe an interaction between two factors whenever the simple effects of one changes as the levels
of the other factor changes as well. There will always be a simple effect because if plotted the other
way the lines would cross. We have nonparallel lines in all the levels of trust, as trust increases the
PEER REVIEW 20 of 28
Figure 3 shows the the plot with differences in affective commitment at of different levels of trust
and distributive justice. An interaction effect is seen with the presence
Sustainability 2020, of
12,nonparallel lines. We observe
x FOR PEER REVIEW
an interaction between two factors whenever the simple effects of one changes as the levels of the
other factor changes as well. There will always be a simple effect because if plotted the other way the
lines would cross. We have nonparallel lines in all the levels of trust, as trust increases the leap in the
levels of commitment rises. The positive sloping lines suggest that as the distributive justice increases,
the presence of trust increases more rapidly the affective commitment. In high trust, where the effect is
most pronounced, we can interpret that as distributive justice increases and levels of trust in manager
is high, the affective organizational commitment increases very rapidly. The final moderation model
Sustainability
can be observed2020, 12,
inxFigure
FOR PEER
4. REVIEW 20 of 28
re 4. Final moderation model with the significant associations.
model
e moderation model described above, Model 2 predicted that perceived OT Figure 4. Final moderation model with the signif
n HRMS and OAC. Mediation can be detected when the relationship between
ed, when the mediator is in the analysis. If the relationship between the IV 2: The mediation model
Model
when the mediator is in the equation, mediation is said to be perfect. Table
In contrast with the moderation model described above, M
for the regression coefficients for each variable: The regressions were
would intervene between HRMS and OAC. Mediation can be det
tly and not sequentially. The control variables were not described here,
the IV and DV is reduced, when the mediator is in the analysis
n all the regression analysis of the model are significant. The final model
and the DV goes to zero when the mediator is in the equation, m
ance in affective commitment. Figure 4. Final moderation model with the significant associations.
Figure 4. 10 presents theassociations.
results for the regression coefficients for ea
s 11 and 12, Regression 1 analyses of HRMS inFinal
OACmoderation
(R2 aj = 0.41.model p ≤with
0.001)the significant
Model 2: The mediation model performed independently and not sequentially. The control
=151.29, p ≤ 0.001) indicated that HR relationship with employees (β = 0.34, p
however they entered in all the regression analysis of the mo
Model 2: The mediation model
ity (β = 0.06, p ≤ 0.10), Utility (β = 0.07,
In contrast withpthe ≤ 0.05), Visibility
moderation (β = 0.21,
model p ≤ 0.001)
described above, Model
explains 59% of 2the predicted
variancethat perceived
in affective OT
commitment.
(β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), In contrast
are positively with the moderation
related to OAC, model described above, Model 2 predicted that perceived OT
would intervene between HRMS andthusOAC. meeting
Mediation the can
first be
Asdetected
shown in when
Tablesthe 11relationship between 1 analyses of HR
and 12, Regression
regression 2, analysiswould intervene between
of HRMS HRMS(R2 and OAC.
= 0.37.Mediation can be detected when the relationship between
the IV and DVinisOT in manager
reduced, when the aj mediator pis≤ in
0.001)
the analysis. If the(F(5,1312)
R2= 0.34 relationship between
=151.29, the IV indicated
p ≤ 0.001) and that HR rela
.99, p ≤ 0.001) show the IV andrelationship
that DV is reduced, when the mediator ispin the analysis. If the relationship between the IV
the DVHR goes to zero when withthe employees
mediator(βis=in0.25, ≤ 0.001)
the equation,
≤ 0.001)mediation is
Comprehensibility said to be
(β perfect.
= 0.06, p Table
≤ 0.10),10Utility (β = 0.07, p
and the
0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β =DV goes
0.10, p ≤ to zero Visibility
0.001), when the (β mediator
0.13, pis≤in0.001)
the equation, mediation is said to be perfect. Table
presents the results for the regression =coefficients for eachandvariable:
and Distributive TheJustice
regressions were pperformed
(β =regressions
0.07, ≤ 0.05), are positively rela
10 presents
= 0.12, p ≤ 0.001),independently
are positivelyandthe results
related for the regression
to OT, thus The meeting coefficients
second were not described here, however were
thevariables for each variable: The
not sequentially. control they
performed independently and not sequentially. Themediation condition.were
control variables In regression 2, analysis
not described here,of HRMS in OT in
Regression 3, analysis of OT in manager in OAC (R2 aj = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001)R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show the
entered in all the regression analysis of the model are significant. The final model explains 59% of
that HR relationship
however they entered in all the regression analysis of the model are significant. The final model
4.07, p ≤ 0.001) showsvariance
that OT in (β
affective
= 0.66, commitment.
p ≤ 0.001) is positively related to OAC,
explains 59% of the variance in affective commitment.Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ 0.00
mediation condition. In As shown in
regression Tables 11ofand
4, analysis HRMS12, Regression
dimensions1and analyses
OT inof HRMSJustice in OAC (R2 aj = 0.41. p ≤ 0.001)
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, Regression 1 analyses Distributive
of HRMS in OAC (β =(R2 0.12,
aj = p0.41.
≤ 0.001),
p ≤ 0.001)are positively relate
= 0.59, p ≤ 0.001) R2=
R2 = 0.52
0.34 (F (6,1311) ==275.53,
(F(5,1312) 151.29, pp ≤≤ 0.001)
0.001) indicated
indicated that
that HR
mediation relationship
condition. with employees
In Regression (β = 0.34,
R2= 0.34 (F(5,1312) =151.29, p ≤ 0.001) indicated that HR relationship with employees 3, (βanalysis
= 0.34, pof OT in manager
mployees (β = 0.20,pp≤≤0.001)0.001)Comprehensibility
and Visibility (β =(β0.14, p ≤ p0.001) decreased (βthe
≤ 0.001) Comprehensibility (β ==0.06,
0.06, p ≤≤0.10),
0.10), Utility (β
Utility R2= ==0.07,
0.46 pp ≤≤0.05),
0.07,(F(1,1316)
0.05), Visibility
Visibility
=1294.07,(β p ≤=
(β 0.21, ppshows
=0.001)
0.21, ≤ 0.001)
≤ 0.001) that OT (β = 0.66, p
nonsignificant, indicating
and a partial mediation.
Distributive Justice (β =Comprehensibility
0.07, p ≤ 0.05), (β positively
are = −0.020, related to OAC, thus meeting the first
and Distributive Justice (β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), are positively related to OAC, thus meeting the firstregression 4, anal
thus meeting the third mediation condition. In
n.s) and Distributive Justice (β = −0.01, n.s) become nonsignificant, indicating
mediation condition. Inregression
regression manager inmanager
OAC (R2 aj = =0.59,
ajaj= 0.37.ppp≤
≤≤0.001) R2= 0.52 (F (6,131
on by OT. OT is the mediation
most relevantcondition. In
predictor (β = 0.53,2,2, ≤analysis
0.001).ofofHRMS
panalysis HRMS ininOTOTininmanager (R2
(R2 0.37. 0.001)
0.001)
R2 = 0.32 (F(5,1312) = 134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR relationship
R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR HR relationship
relationship with with employees
employees (β =
employees (β = (β
0.25,= p0.20,
p≤ ≤ p
0.001)≤ 0.001) and Visibili
Beta but did not become
Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ 0.001), Visibility (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.001) and nonsignificant, indicating a partial medi
Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), are positively n.s), Utility
related(βto= 0.02,OT, pthus ≤ n.s) and Distributive
meeting the second Justice (β = −0.01, n.
a full or perfect
mediation condition. In Regression 3, analysis of OT in manager in OAC (R2 aj = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001) mediation by OT. OT is the most relevant predic
R2= 0.46 (F(1,1316) =1294.07, p ≤ 0.001) shows that OT (β = 0.66, p ≤ 0.001) is positively related to OAC,
thus meeting the third mediation condition. In regression 4, analysis of HRMS dimensions and OT in
explains 59% of the variance in affective commitment.
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, Regression 1 analyses andofDistributive
HRMS in OAC Justice(R2 (β aj == 0.41.
0.07,pp≤≤0.001) 0.05), are positively rela
R2= 0.34 (F(5,1312) =151.29, p ≤ 0.001) indicated that mediation HR relationship condition.withIn regression(β2,=analysis
employees 0.34, p of HRMS in OT in
≤ 0.001) Comprehensibility (β = 0.06, p ≤ 0.10), Utility (β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), Visibility (β = 0.21, p ≤ 0.001)that HR relationship
R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show
and Distributive Justice Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ 0.00
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443 (β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), are positively related to OAC, thus meeting the first 20 of 27
Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), are positively relate
mediation condition. In regression 2, analysis of HRMS in OT in manager (R2 aj = 0.37. p ≤ 0.001)
R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR relationship mediation withcondition.
employees In Regression
(β = 0.25, p3,≤ analysis
0.001) of OT in manager
Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ (F(1,1316)
0.001), Visibility (βp=≤0.13, p shows
≤ 0.001)
Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10, p ≤ 0.001), Visibility (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.001) and that OT (β = 0.66, p
R2= 0.46 =1294.07, 0.001)
and Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), are positively thus related
meeting to OT,
the third thus meeting the second
Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), are positively related to OT, thus mediation
meeting the condition.
secondIn regression 4, anal
mediation
mediation condition.
condition. In In Regression
Regression 3, 3, analysis
analysis ofofOT manager
OTininmanager
managerin in OAC
inOAC
OAC(R2 (R2
(R2ajaj =0.53,
aj= = 0.59,
0.53,p pp≤ ≤
≤ 0.001)
0.001)
0.001) R2= 0.52 (F (6,131
R2= = 0.46
R20.46 (F(1,1316)
(F(1,1316) = 1294.07,
=1294.07, p ≤ 0.001)
p ≤ 0.001) shows showsthatthat
OTOT HR
(β =(β0.66, relationship
= 0.66, p ≤ 0.001)
p ≤ 0.001) with employees
is positively
is positively (β
related
related = 0.20, p
to OAC,
to OAC, ≤ 0.001) and Visibili
thus
thus meeting
meeting thethe third
third mediation
mediation condition.
condition. In In regression
regression Beta 4,but
4, analysisdid of
analysis notof become
HRMSHRMS nonsignificant,
dimensions
dimensions and andOTindicating
OTin in a partial medi
n.s), Utility (β = 0.02, p ≤ n.s) and Distributive Justice (β = −0.01, n.
manager
manager inin OAC
OAC(R2 (R2ajaj==0.59,
0.59, pp ≤≤ 0.001)
0.001) R2==0.52
R2 0.52 (F
(F (6,1311)==275.53,
(6,1311) 275.53, pp ≤≤with
0.001)indicated
0.001) indicated thatHR
Figure 4. a full
Final or perfect
moderation mediation
model the OT. OT isthat
by significant the most relevant predic
associations.
HRrelationship
relationship with employees (β = 0.20, p ≤ 0.001) and Visibility (β =
with employees (β = 0.20, p ≤ 0.001) and Visibility (β = 0.14, p ≤ 0.001) decreased 0.14, p ≤ 0.001) decreased thethe
Beta
Beta
butbut
diddid
notnot become
become nonsignificant,
nonsignificant, indicating
indicating
Model 2: The mediation model a a partial
partial mediation.
mediation. Comprehensibility
Comprehensibility (β =(β = −0.020,
−0.020, n.s),
n.s), Utility (β = 0.02, p ≤ n.s) and Distributive Justice (β = −0.01, n.s) become
Utility (β = 0.02, p ≤ n.s) and Distributive Justice (β = −0.01, n.s) become nonsignificant, indicating a nonsignificant, indicating
a full In contrast with the moderation model= described above, Model 2 predicted that perceive
fullor
orperfect
perfectmediation
mediationby byOT.
OT. OT OT isis the
the most
most relevant
relevant predictor
predictor (β (β =0.53,
0.53,pp≤≤0.001).0.001).
would intervene between HRMS and OAC. Mediation can be detected when the relationship bet
Figure 4. Final moderation model with the significant associations.
the IV and DV is reduced, when the mediator is in the analysis. If the relationship between t
Table 11. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting organizational affective commitment
Model 2: The mediation model and the DV goes to zero when the mediator is in the equation, mediation is said to be perfect.
(OAC) from human resource management (HRM) dimensions with organizational trust (OT)
10 presents the results for the regression coefficients for each variable: The regressions
moderation tests.
In contrast with the moderation model describedindependently
performed above, Model and 2 predicted that perceived
not sequentially. OT
The control variables were not described
would intervene between HRMS and OAC.however Mediation canentered
they be detected
Regression 1 in allwhen the relationship
the regression
Regression 2 analysis
Regression between
of
3 theRegression
model are4 significant. The final m
the IV and DV is reduced, when the mediator is in59%
explains VDof
the (OAC)
analysis. If theVD
the variance (OT)
inrelationship
affective VD (OAC)
between
commitment. the IV VD (OAC)
and the DV goes to zero Independent
when the mediatorvariables is in
As the equation,
shown in mediation
Tables 11 and is
12,said to be
Regression perfect.
1 Tableof HRMS in OAC (R2 aj = 0.41. p ≤
analyses
β β β β
and mediator
10 presents the results for the regression coefficients for each=151.29,
variable: The regressions were
R2= 0.34 (F(5,1312) p ≤ 0.001) indicated that HR relationship with employees (β = 0
performed independently and HR relationship
not sequentially. 0.34 *** variables 0.25were
*** not described here, 0.20 ***
≤ 0.001) The control
Comprehensibility (β0.15
= 0.06, p ≤ 0.10), Utility (β = 0.07, p−0.02 ≤ 0.05), Visibility (β = 0.21, p ≤
Comprehensibility 0.06 † ***
however they entered in all the regressionand analysis of the Justice
Distributive model (β are= significant.
0.07, p ≤ Theare
0.05), final model related to OAC, thus meeting the
positively
Utility 0.07 ** 0.10 *** 0.02
explains 59% of the variance inVisibility
affective commitment. 0.21 *** In regression
mediation condition. 0.13 *** 2, analysis of HRMS in OT in 0.14 ***
manager (R2 aj = 0.37. p ≤ 0.001
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, Regression
Distributive JusticeR2= 0.321 analyses 0.07 of**HRMS in OAC
0.12 *** (R2 aj = 0.41. p ≤ 0.001) −0.01
(F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR relationship with employees (β = 0.25, p ≤
OT in management (mediator) - 0.66 *** 0.53 ***
R2= 0.34 (F(5,1312) =151.29, p ≤ 0.001) indicated that HR
Comprehensibility relationship
(β = 0.15, p ≤with employees
0.001), Utility (β(β= =0.10,
0.34,p p≤ 0.001), Visibility (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.001
Note: These
≤ 0.001) Comprehensibility regressions
(β = 0.06, wereUtility
p ≤ 0.10), performed =independently
(β Justice and Visibility
0.07, p(β≤ 0.05), not sequentially.
(β =are The control
0.21, variables were not
p ≤ 0.001)
Distributive = 0.12, p †≤ 0.001), positively related to OT, thus meeting the se
described here, however they entered in all the regression analysis. p < 0.10,* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
and Distributive Justice (β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), are positively
mediation condition.related to OAC, 3,
In Regression thus meeting
analysis of OT theinfirst
manager in OAC (R2 aj = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001
mediation condition. In regression 2, Table
analysisR2=Statistics
12. of0.46
HRMS(F(1,1316)
OT =1294.07,
inmultiple
for in manager p ≤ (R2
regressions 0.001)
inaj =shows
the test ofpthat
0.37. OT (β = 0.66, p ≤ 0.001) is positively related to
≤ 0.001)
mediation.
thus meeting the third mediation condition.
R2= 0.32 (F(5,1312) =134.99, p ≤ 0.001) show that HR relationship with employees (β = 0.25, p ≤ 0.001) In regression 4, analysis of HRMS dimensions and
Comprehensibility (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.001), Utility (β = 0.10,
manager p ≤Intercept
in OAC 0.001),
(R2 aj =Visibility
R2 (R2
0.59, (β
p ≤ Aj) = 0.13, p ≤R2
0.001) 0.001)
R2= 0.52and F Change=275.53, p ≤ 0.001) indicated
(F (6,1311)
Distributive Justice (β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.001), HR are relationship
positively related
with to OT,
employees thus meeting
(β = 0.20,0.34
p ≤ ***the second
0.001) and Visibility (β = 0.14, p ≤ 0.001) decrease
(a) Regression 1 (HRMS on OAC) 15.28 0.41 (0.41) F(5.1312) = 151.29 ***
mediation condition. In (b)Regression (HRMS Beta
Regression3,2 analysis but
onof OT
OT) did
innot become
manager9.43 innonsignificant,
OAC 0.37(R2 indicating
aj = 0.53,
(0.37) 0.32p *** a partial
≤ 0.001) mediation.
F(5.1312) = 134.99 Comprehensibility
*** (β = −
(c) Regression 3 (OT n.s),
on Utility
OAC) (β = 0.02, p
17.63 ≤ n.s) and
0.53 Distributive
(0.53) 0.46
R2= 0.46 (F(1,1316) =1294.07, p ≤ 0.001) shows that OT (β = 0.66, p ≤ 0.001) is positively related to OAC, Justice
*** (β = −0.01,
F(1.1316) =
n.s) become
1294.07 *** nonsignificant, indic
(d) Regression 4 (HRMS and a OT
full on
orOAC)
perfect 11.38
mediation by0.59
OT. (0.59)
OT is 0.52
the most F(6.1311)
*** relevant = 275.53
predictor (β = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001).
thus meeting the third mediation condition. In regression 4, analysis of HRMS dimensions and OT in
manager in OAC (R2 Note: aj = 0.59,
When p ≤ 0.001)
interpreting R2=
R2 0.52
note that(F (6,1311)
these =275.53,
regressions p ≤ 0.001)
were performed indicated and
independently thatnot sequentially.
The control variables were not described here, however they entered in all the regression analysis. † p < 0.10,
HR relationship with employees (β = 0.20, p ≤ 0.001) and Visibility (β = 0.14, p ≤ 0.001) decreased the
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Beta but did not become nonsignificant, indicating a partial mediation. Comprehensibility (β = −0.020,
n.s), Utility (β = 0.02, p ≤ n.s) and Distributive Justice (β = −0.01, n.s) become nonsignificant, indicating
Model
a full or perfect mediation by2,OT. hypothesized
OT is the most thatrelevant
the HRMS dimensions
predictor influences
(β = 0.53, p ≤ 0.001).OT in manager, which, in turn,
influences OAC. Hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e and 2 were totally supported. Concerning the mediation
model, Hypothesis 4b, 4c and 4e were totally supported and Hypothesis 4a and 4c were partially
supported, as observed in Figure 5.
sequentially. The control variables were not described here, however they entered in all the regression
analysis. † p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Model 2, hypothesized that the HRMS dimensions influences OT in manager, which, in turn,
influences OAC. Hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e and 2 were totally supported. Concerning the mediation
model, Hypothesis
Sustainability 4b, 4c and 4e were totally supported and Hypothesis 4a and 4c were partially
2020, 12, 9443 21 of 27
supported, as observed in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Final Mediation model with the significant associations.

Figure 5. Final Mediation model with the significant associations.
4. Discussion
Few studies have examined the gap between HRMS, OT and OAC [26]. This paper adds new
information to the research domain that investigates the impact of HRMS based on a process-based
approach [15,71]. The results found evidence of the impact of HRMS on AOC. These findings add
empirical data to the identified gap of Bowen and Ostroff’s model [4,6] and show clear effect of
HRMS on OT and OAC, through mediation and moderation processes, as proposed by the model
but scarcely demonstrated in research. This paper contributes to this gap and to the definition of the
construct itself considering especially discriminant validity. Results confirm that HRMS builds an
important frame in which it produces rules, procedures and types of relationships. These perceptions
have an impact, building climates and sending messages to employees with particular relevance
on the development of OT. Our results show that OT can be confirmed as an indicator of the
quality of the relationship between management and employees. These results are consistent with
social-exchange theory and past research [16–18,20,57,72] acknowledging organizational trust as
relevant in the development of OAC. Results emphasize the crucial role of HRMS in an organization,
functioning as a promotor for the development of OT. These findings theoretically and empirically
support recent work considering the importance of organizational trust as mediator [15,16,29,73–76]
or a moderator [20,43,48,77–79] Considering our findings, we suggest that the mediation model is
the one that offers stronger results. HRMS dimensions are mediated (partially or totally) by OT in
manager towards OAC. HRMS dimensions (HR relationship with employees, comprehensibility,
utility, visibility and distributive justice) influences OT in manager, which, in turn, influences
A special comment regarding associated variables is important. Our results show the importance
of other predictors in AOC that were screened as control variables: (1) Respondents’ sex. Employees
from the female sex are more committed than male employees confirming results in the literature [80]
that women are often more committed than men. Future studies should address not only respondents’
sex but also parenthood or family responsibilities. There is a scarcity of studies that study the
interaction effect of parents by gender on HRMS, OT and AOC. The presence of a family-friendly
culture should also be integrated in future studies so we could understand its prevalence in HRMS
impact; (2) The differentiation between public and private sector have been explored and studied in the
recent literature [23]. These results show that employees from the private sector are more affectively
committed than employees from the public sector; (3) Industries employees are less committed than
services employees. This is an expected result that confirms the literature. Possibly the nature of
HRMS related processes, in bureaucracies, such as public services or industries, tend to have a top
down strategy, combined with reduced power in HR function. Reduced relationship between HRM
function and employees may contribute to reduced levels of OAC as HRMS can be seen as difficult
to perceived or understand by employees. (4) employees that aren’t managers are more committed
than managers; and (5) the contract type influences AOC, demonstrating that employees with no term
contract are less committed than respondents with fixed term contract. Changes and breaches on
OAC can be found possibly if we have to consider that time also will have an effect on the existence
of more “ruptures” in the organization-employee relationship. If we consider the literature on OT
and the psychological contract as relevant towards the understanding of employees-organization
relationship, we can observe that time allows for the possibility of more “breaches” in the quality
of employees-organizational relationship. These “breaches” have impact in employees AOC [37].
Another interesting result is that 6) managers with a higher number of subordinates are more committed
than managers with a lesser number of subordinates. A possible explanation to this result is that
as the team increases the manager has different perceptions towards his responsibility and is more
actively engaged. Future studies should address these differences regarding different managerial
levels, exploring the number of elements of the team and the associated responsibility of the function
in the organizational structure as relevant variables towards HRSM impact on OT and AOC.
In the moderation model, it is relevant to discuss the interaction found, distributive justice x OT.
This was the only significant interaction present and pos-hoc tests showed that when distributive justice
increases and levels of OT in manager is high, OAC increases rapidly. This brings new information
to study the relation between OT and distributive justice. If we consider this interaction but also
the mediation model, distributive justice by itself did not produce results in OAC; therefore findings
suggest that OT in manager strengths the relation of distributive justice towards OAC. Perhaps the
importance of the distributive justice of HRMS only becomes relevant on OAC, if OT in manager is
present. It is important to also refer that OT and justice appear to have some similarities empirically,
therefore recent studies have tried to disaggregate them. Future studies should try to isolate the role
and unique impact of OT and distributive justice. Future studies should address this suggestion
integrating also results from this paper that brings about the relevance of distribute justice integrated
in HRSM and afterwards in the development of OT.
Coming back to HRMS dimensions it is also interesting to find that there are two dimensions in
HRMS that appear to be more important than others in predicting OAC: The HR relationship with
employees and Visibility. In both models (moderator and mediator) these two dimensions appear
with a direct effect on OAC. We can interpret these results at the light of the Bowen and Ostroff’s
model [4,6] and the attribution theory. Results show that HRMS differences between dimensions can
be established theoretically in two blocks. The first more related to the system acted by its agents,
the actors of the HRMS (HR relationship with employees) and the second the system acts by itself
(comprehensibility, visibility, utility and distributive justice of the system). Future studies should
understand if these two possible meta-dimensions can be perceived independently. Our data suggest
that there are two attributes that are especially relevant: In Meta-dimension 1 (the agents of HR system)
it is “HR relationship with employees” based on their competence, consistent behavior, ability to solve
problems and listen to people; This relationship is relevant, strategic and it’s built by HR function based
on proximity, communication and support. We suggest that these interactions between the HR agents
and employees are relevant and may lead to generalizations about the HRMS. In Meta-dimension 2
(the effects of the system itself) possibly Visibility is the most relevant attribute. Future studies should
test empirically these two meta-dimensions. Probably both meta-dimensions have significant effects in
OAC adding to the literature of a process-based approach and bringing new results to the importance
of demonstrating HRMS perception in employees individual results. Our results follow recent findings
that OT in manager is unequivocally important in the relationship between HRMS and AOC. It is
crucial for organizations to acknowledge HRMS and OT in managers as having a relevant impact on
employees’ AOC.
Limitations and Future Research

Mediating effects may provide important information about links between the model variables.
However, because of the cross-sectional nature of the current study, all proposed mediational effects
are considered exploratory. Also, the possible causal sequence of the line is due to our theoretical
framework. It is important to test other possible chains, because trust is built based on a several
antecedents, constituting a difficulty to perceive clearly where one begins and other ends. It is
recommended that future researchers replicate the use of this scale and dimensions and compare the
findings in other contexts, especially in other cultures, as the cultural context can be important in the
explanation of the importance of trust. This paper presents a perspective based on employee and
managers perceptions of HRMS as antecedents of OT and OAC. Other theoretical perspectives can be
used to explain this construct and also on the nature of characterization of employees’ perceptions of
HRMS. In this paper we also tried to associate an emergent dimension in HRM, sustainable HRM with
process-based approach, as they assume several points of contact. Other conceptual and empirical
approximations can be made in order to study relevant process implementation indicators with positive
outcomes for employees namely. We used a single perspective on employee perceptions of HRMS
but more descriptive, more qualitative data are needed for us to gain a deeper understand of HRMS
implementation processes and which indicators are the upmost relevant in the process.
5. Conclusions
The main goal of this paper is to respond to the HRM “black box” towards positive results,
namely on OT and OAC, specifically associated with sustainable HRM. Also, this paper intends to
contribute to the fostering of empirical models that test Bowen and Ostroffs model, as the model as
revealed itself complex and empirically difficult to measure. Sustainable HRM is a theoretical approach
that is used on this paper as relevant on the development of organizational sustainability through
HRMS. The process-based approach that enhances the relevance of HRMS with its implementation
processes and therefore with the relevance of mediators and moderators on the process fits perfectly
and adds relevant results to sustainable HRM. If sustainable HRM is a complex system that organizes
positive messages to employees, HRMS should be developed with a positive goal that addresses this
responsibility for sustainability. This research considers HRMS as a relevant organizational system
that is perceived by employees as an indicator of organization’s involvement. Results of this study
show that HRMS dimensions are mediated (partially or totally) by OT in manager towards OAC and
distributive justice of HRMS only becomes relevant on OAC, if OT in manager is present. This empirical
test of the HRMS model also suggests its reframing in two meta-dimensions: A. the agents of HR
system, the HR relationship with employees based on their competence, consistent behavior, ability to
solve problems and listening to people; and B. the effects of the system itself, possibly Visibility is the
most relevant attribute. We suggest that these interactions between HR agents and employees are
relevant and may lead to generalizations about the HRMS. It is crucial for organizations and research
to acknowledge HRMS and OT in managers as having relevant impact on employees’ AOC. Also,
the adoption of more sustainable HRMS constitute a relevant pathway to enhance and foster a positive
organizational development with positive and relevant results.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.T.F.-O., J.K. and I.S.; methodology, A.T.F.-O.; software, A.T.F.-O.;
validation, J.K. and I.S.; formal analysis, A.T.F.-O.; investigation, A.T.F.-O.; resources, A.T.F.-O., J.K. and I.S.;
data curation, A.T.F.-O.; Writing—Original draft preparation, A.T.F.-O.; Writing—Review and editing, J.K. and I.S.;
visualization, A.T.F.-O.; supervision, J.K. and I.S.; project administration, A.T.F.-O.; funding acquisition, A.T.F.-O.,
J.K. and I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by FCT, grant number SFRH/BD/60939/2009.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kramar, R. Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the
next approach? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1069–1089. [CrossRef]
2. Lee, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Moon, S. Enhancing employee creativity for a sustainable competitive advantage
through perceived human resource management practices and trust in management. Sustainability 2019,
11, 2305. [CrossRef]
3. Boon, C.; Den Hartog, D.N.; Lepak, D.P. A Systematic Review of Human Resource Management Systems
and Their Measurement. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2498–2537. [CrossRef]
4. Bowen, D.E.; Ostroff, C. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the
HRM system. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 203–221. [CrossRef]
5. Boselie, P.; Dietz, G.; Boon, C. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research.
Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2005, 15, 67–94. [CrossRef]
6. Ostroff, C.; Bowen, D.E. Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system
strength? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 196–214. [CrossRef]
7. Becker, B.E.; Huselid, M.A. Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? J. Manag.
2006, 32, 898–925. [CrossRef]
8. Do, H.; Budhwar, P.; Patel, C. Relationship between innovation-led HR policy, strategy, and firm performance:
A serial mediation investigation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1271–1284. [CrossRef]
9. Breswter, C.; Gooderham, P.N.; Mayrhofer, W. Human Resource Management: The promise, the performance,
the consequences. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2016, 3, 181–190. [CrossRef]
10. Delaney, J.T.; Huselid, M.A. The Impact of Human Resources Management on Organizational Performance.
Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 949–969.
11. Gould-Williams, J. The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance:
A study of public-sector organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 14, 28–54. [CrossRef]
12. Guest, D.; Conway, N. The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a “strong HR system” on
organisational outcomes: A stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 1686–1702.
[CrossRef]
13. Wang, Y.; Kim, S.; Rafferty, A.; Sanders, K. Employee perceptions of HR practices: A critical review and
future directions. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 128–173. [CrossRef]
14. Sanders, K.; De Cieri, H. Similarities and differences in international and comparative human resource
management: A review of 60 years of research. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–34. [CrossRef]
15. Sanders, K.; Dorenbosch, L.; de Reuver, R.S.M. The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of
HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. Pers. Rev. 2008, 37, 412–425. [CrossRef]
16. Vanhala, M.; Ritala, P. HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational innovativeness. J. Manag. Psychol.
2016, 31, 95–109. [CrossRef]
17. Whitener, E.M. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? J. Manag.
2001, 27, 515–535. [CrossRef]
18. Whitener, E.M.; Brodt, S.E.; Korsgaard, M.A.; Werner, J.M. Managers as inititators of trust: An exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 1998,
23, 513–530.
19. Zeffane, R.; Connell, J. Trust and HRM in the new millennium. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 14, 3–11.
[CrossRef]
20. Vanhala, M.; Dietz, G. How Trust in One’s Employer Moderates the Relationship Between HRM and
Engagement Related Performance. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2019, 49, 23–42. [CrossRef]
21. Clipa, A.-M.; Clipa, C.-I.; Danilet, , M.; Andrei, A.G. Enhancing sustainable employment relationships:
An empirical investigation of the influence of trust in employer and subjective value in employment contract
negotiations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4995. [CrossRef]
22. Boxall, P.; Purcell, J. Strategic HRM; where have we come from and where should we be going? Int. J.
Manag. Rev. 2000, 2, 183–203. [CrossRef]
23. Truss, C. Changing HR functional forms in the UK public sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 20, 717–737.
[CrossRef]
24. Guest, D.E. Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework.
Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 22–38. [CrossRef]
25. Kooij, D.T.A.M.; Guest, D.E.; Clinton, M.; Knight, T.; Jansen, P.G.W.; Dikkers, J.S.E. How the impact of HR
practices on employee well-being and performance changes with age. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2013, 23, 18–35.
[CrossRef]
26. Troth, A.C.; Guest, D.E. The case for psychology in human resource management research. Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 2020, 30, 34–48. [CrossRef]
27. Peccei, R.; Van De Voorde, K. Human resource management–well-being–performance research revisited:
Past, present, and future. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2019, 29, 539–563. [CrossRef]
28. Cafferkey, K.; Harney, B.; Dundon, T.; Edgar, F. Unravelling the foci of employee commitment. J. Organ. Eff.
2017, 4, 2–17. [CrossRef]
29. Peccei, R.; Van De Voorde, K. The Application of the Multilevel Paradigm in Human Resource
Management–Outcomes Research: Taking Stock and Going Forward. J. Manag. 2019. [CrossRef]
30. Van Beurden, J.; Van De Voorde, K.; Van Veldhoven, M. The employee perspective on HR practices:
A systematic literature review, integration and outlook. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–35. [CrossRef]
31. Van De Voorde, K.; Beijer, S. The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between
high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2015, 25, 62–78.
[CrossRef]
32. Edgar, F.; Geare, A. HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures—Different results. Pers. Rev.
2005, 34, 534–549. [CrossRef]
33. Morrow, P.C. Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal research. J. Vocat. Behav.
2011, 79, 18–35. [CrossRef]
34. Cafferkey, K.; Heffernan, M.; Harney, B.; Dundon, T. Perceptions of HRM system strength and affective
commitment: The role of human relations and internal process climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019,
30, 3026–3048. [CrossRef]
35. Costa, F.M.; Bastos, A.V.B. Comprometimento organizacional: Bases para uma abordagem processual.
Psicol. Teor. Pesqui. 2014, 30, 329–337. [CrossRef]
36. Maia, L.G.; Bastos, A.V.B.; Solinger, O.N. Which factors make the difference for explaining growth in
newcomer organizational commitment? A latent growth modeling approach. J. Organ. Behav. 2016,
37, 537–557. [CrossRef]
37. Gao-Urhahn, X.; Biemann, T.; Jaros, S.J. How affective commitment to the organization changes over time:
A longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal relationships between affective organizational commitment and
income. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 515–536. [CrossRef]
38. Brockner, J.; Flynn, F.J.; Dolan, R.J.; Ostfield, A.; Pace, D.; Ziskin, I.V. Commentary on “radical HRM
innovation and competitive advantage: The Moneyball story”. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2006, 45, 127–145.
[CrossRef]
39. Kidron, A.; Tzafrir, S.; Meshoulam, I. All we need is trust:Trust and human resource management.
Team Perform. Manag. 2016, 22, 139–155. [CrossRef]
40. Snape, E.; Redman, T. HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level
analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1219–1247. [CrossRef]
41. Takeuchi, R.; Lepak, D.P.; Wang, H.; Takeuchi, k. An Empirical Examination of the Mechanisms Mediating
Between High-Performance Work Systems and the Performance of Japanese Organizations. J. Appl. Psychol.
2007, 92, 1069–1083. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Pereira, C.M.M.; Gomes, J.F.S. The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership:
Impact on organisational performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 4301–4318. [CrossRef]
43. Farndale, E.; Sanders, K. Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens. Int. J. Hum.
Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 132–148. [CrossRef]
44. Sanders, K.; Shipton, H.; Gomes, J. Call for papers: Are HRM processes important? Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012.
Available online: http://www.eawop.org/ckeditor_assets/attachments/128/hrm_process_si.pdf?1332990184
(accessed on 7 November 2020).
45. Vieira, V.A. Moderação, mediação, moderadora-mediadora e efeitos indiretos em modelagem de equações
estruturais: Uma aplicação no modelo de desconfirmação de expectativas. Rev. Adm. RAUSP 2009, 44, 17–33.
46. Innocenti, L.; Pilati, M.; Peluso, A.M. Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices and
employee attitudes. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2011, 21, 303–317. [CrossRef]
47. Fryxell, G.E.; Dooley, R.S.; Li, W.S. The Role of trustworthiness in maintaining employee commitment during
restructuring in China. Asia Pacific J. Manag. 2004, 21, 515–533. [CrossRef]
48. Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.; Bailey, C. The link between perceived HRM practices, performance and well-being:
The moderating effect of trust in the employer. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2012, 22, 409–427. [CrossRef]
49. Farndale, E.; Hope-Hailey, V.; Kelliher, C. High commitment performance management: The roles of justice
and trust. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 5–23. [CrossRef]
50. Lehmann-Willenbrock, N.; Grohmann, A.; Kauffeld, S. Promoting multifoci citizenship behavior: Time-lagged
effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 62, 454–485. [CrossRef]
51. Mahajan, A.; Bishop, J.W.; Scott, D. Does trust in top management mediate top management communication,
employee involvement and organizational commitment relationships? J. Manag. Issues 2012, 24, 173–190.
52. Quittner, A.L.; Glueckauf, R.L.; Jackson, D.N. Chronic Parenting Stress: Moderating Versus Mediating Effects
of Social Support. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 1266–1278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Lewis, H.A.; Kliewer, W. Hope, coping, and adjustment among children with sickle cell disease: Tests of
mediator and moderator models. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996, 21, 25–41. [CrossRef]
54. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator.mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
55. Coelho, J.P.; Cunha, R.C.e.; Gomes, J.F.S.; Correia, A. Strength of the HRM system: The development of a
measure. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2015, 8, 1069–1086. [CrossRef]
56. Cabral-Cardoso, C. The evolving Portuguese model of HRM. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2004, 15, 959–977.
[CrossRef]
57. Krosgaard, M.A.; Brodt, S.E.; Whitener, E.M. Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy
behavior and organizational context. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 312–319. [CrossRef]
58. Ferreira-Oliveira, A.T.; Silva, I.; Keating, J. Desenvolvimento organizacional: O uso de confiança como
ferramenta. Conferência Investig. e Interv. Recur. Hum. 2014. [CrossRef]
59. Mayer, R.C.; Gavin, M.B. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees
watch the boss? Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 874–888. [CrossRef]
60. Carochinho, J.A.; Neves, J.G.; Jesuino, J.C. “Organizational comitment”—O conceito e sua medida: Adaptação
e validação do “ Organizational commitment questionannaire(OCQ)” para a cultura organizacional
portuguesa. Psicol. Teor. Investig. Prática 1998, 3, 269–284.
61. Cohen, J. Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Pedhazur, E.J.; Schmelkin, P.L. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach; Psychology Press:
London, UK, 2013.
63. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Luhmann, M.; Baraldi, A. Estimating and graphing interactions. In Handbook of
Research Methods in Psychology: Data analysis and Research Publication; Cooper, H., Ed.; American Psychological
Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 101–129. [CrossRef]
64. Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2003.
65. Tabachnicnk, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Multivariate Statistics; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
66. Stevens, J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002. [CrossRef]
67. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 1998. [CrossRef]
68. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009.
69. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to
Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. Int. J. Test. 2001, 1, 55–86. [CrossRef]
70. Warner, R. Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2013.
71. Byrne, B.M. Measurement and instrumentation in psychology. In Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span:
Issues and Instrumentations; Amercian Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1996. [CrossRef]
72. Levin, D.Z.; Whitener, E.M.; Cross, R. Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating
impact of relationship length. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1163–1171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Ehrnrooth, M.; Björkman, I. An Integrative HRM Process Theorization: Beyond Signalling Effects and Mutual
Gains. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1109–1135. [CrossRef]
74. Elorza, U.; Aritzeta, A.; Ayestaran, S. Exploring the black box in spanish firms: The effect of the actual and
perceived system on employees’ commitment and organizational performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.
2011, 22, 1401–1422. [CrossRef]
75. Ogbonnaya, C.; Daniels, K.; Connolly, S.; van Veldhoven, M. Integrated and isolated impact of
high-performance work practices on employee health and well-being: A comparative study. J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 98–114. [CrossRef]
76. Vermeeren, B. Variability in HRM implementation among line managers and its effect on performance:
A 2-1-2 mediational multilevel approach. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 3039–3059. [CrossRef]
77. Klaas, B.S.; Mcclendon, J.A.; Gainey, T.W. Trust and the role of professional employer organizations:
Managing HR in small and medium enterprises. J. Manag. Issues 2002, 14, 31–48.
78. Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 450–467. [CrossRef]
79. Ladeira, W.J.; Santini, F.; Araujo, C.; Sampaio, C. A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction in Tourism and Hospitality. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2016, 25, 975–1009. [CrossRef]
80. Jepsen, D.M.; Rodwell, J. Female Perceptions of Organizational Justice. Gender Work Organ. 2012, 19, 723–740.
[CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability HR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability HR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability HR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9443; doi:10.3390/su12229443 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1.1. Sustainable HRM

1.2. Human Resource Management System (HRMS)

1.3. Organizational Affective Commitment

1.4. Organizational Trust in Manager

1.5. Moderation Models

1.6. Mediation Models

1. To evaluate the direct impact of HRMS and OT on OAC.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Positively perceived HRMS is positively related to OAC.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Positively perceived comprehensibility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.

Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Positively perceived utility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.

Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Positively perceived visibility of HRMS is positively related to OAC.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Positively perceived OT in manager is positively related to OAC.

2. To compare two models of the effects of OT on OAC.

Figure 2. Model 2—Mediation model.

Table 1. Sample Characterization based on quantitative variables.

Mean Standard Deviation

Table 2. Sample characterization based on qualitative variables.

2.3. Statistical Analysis Procedure

Model 1: The moderator model

Model 2: The mediator model

3.1. Factors Interpretation on the Development of the Measures

3.2. Reliability Analysis for Iv’s

Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha.

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Participants N◦ of Items

Table 5. Means, minimum, maximum values and standard deviations.

Mean Min Max Standard Deviation

Table 6. Matrix of Pearson’s correlation coefficient between dimensions.

Dimension (1) (2) (3) (4)

3.3. Evidence from Reliability Data

3.4. Evidence for Validity

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson’s Correlations.

Table 8. Cluster analysis and multivariate tests.

Cluster 1 (n = 585) Cluster 2 (n = 364) F (1947)

Model 1: Moderation model

Table 9. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses.

Model 1—Controls Model 2—Main Effects Model 3—Interactions

Main effects and Interactions of the moderation model

re 4. Final moderation model with the significant associations.

Figure 5. Final Mediation model with the significant associations.

Limitations and Future Research

You might also like