Content uploaded by Xiaoyu Guan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xiaoyu Guan on Jul 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Personnel Review
How perceptions of training impact employee performance: Evidence from two
Chinese manufacturing firms
Xiaoyu Guan, Stephen Frenkel,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Xiaoyu Guan, Stephen Frenkel, (2019) "How perceptions of training impact employee performance:
Evidence from two Chinese manufacturing firms", Personnel Review, Vol. 48 Issue: 1, pp.163-183,
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0141
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0141
Downloaded on: 28 March 2019, At: 01:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 118 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 862 times since 2019*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"The effect of soft skills and training methodology on employee performance", European
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 41 Iss 4 pp. 388-406 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJTD-08-2016-0066">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-08-2016-0066</a>
(2018),"How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting influence employee performance",
Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 591-607 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
CMS-11-2017-0328">https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-11-2017-0328</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:498324 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
How perceptions of training
impact employee performance
Evidence from two Chinese
manufacturing firms
Xiaoyu Guan
School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China, and
Stephen Frenkel
UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of firm training on the job performance of
mainly semi-skilled manufacturing employees in the context of changes required to ensure the
competitiveness of contemporary Chinese manufacturing.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected using a survey with time-lagged method and from
multiple sources. The sample included 348 supervisor-subordinate dyads from two Chinese manufacturing
firms. PROCESS macro tool (Hayes) was used to test the mediating role of work engagement and the
moderating role of HRM strength in the training-performance relationship.
Findings –Work engagement mediates the relationship between training and in-role task performance,
while the relationships between work engagement and both task performance and organizational citizenship
behavior are moderated by HRM strength.
Research limitations/implications –Based on a time-lagged survey, causal relationships cannot be
drawn from this study. Results point to future research on the training-performance relationship that more
closely considers antecedents and the organizations’internal and external contexts.
Practical implications –Managers should pay close attention to the context and process of training and
learning from the employees’perspective. In addition, a strong HRM system will improve the benefits of
training on employee performance.
Originality/value –This study provides theoretical explanations on the mechanisms linking training and
employee performance based on the ability-motivation-opportunity framework.
Keywords Training, Quantitative, Work engagement, Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB),
Task performance, HRM strength
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Cheap labor has fueled China’s rapid economic growth based primarily on the export of
manufacturing goods (Roberts and Kynge, 2002). However, labor shortages and rising labor
protests signal a need for change: Chinese manufacturing enterprises can no longer rely on
low-skilled, low-paid and over-worked employees (Elfstrom and Kuruvilla, 2014; Li, Li, Wu
and Xiong, 2012). This is reflected in government labor market policy which has established
labor rights and benefits underpinned by a series of recent labor laws (Gallagher and Dong,
2011; Wu and Sun, 2014). Furthermore, recent government innovation policy encourages
technology upgrading, a strategy that necessitates a more knowledgeable, flexible and
skilled workforce (Dobson and Safarian, 2008; Nahm and Steinfeld, 2014). An additional
incentive for change is the growing pressure of large western retailers and brands requiring
Chinese suppliers to be globally competitive and to uphold international labor and
environmental standards (Krueger, 2008; Lund‐Thomsen and Nadvi, 2010). Together, these
developments are pushing Chinese manufacturing firms to review and improve their Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 1, 2019
pp. 163-183
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0141
Received 6 May 2017
Revised 1 February 2018
Accepted 4 June 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
The research is supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos
71802023 and 71871025).
163
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
strategies and structures. This includes changes in human resource management (HRM)
systems (Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2016), particularly training and development policies and
practices which are likely to strongly impact workforce efficiency and flexibility.
Development of employee knowledge and skills is generally regarded as a critical HRM
function (Hansson, 2007). Employees at all levels need to understand the firm’sstrategy
including their own contribution and the need to continuously improve their job performance
(Becker and Huselid, 2010), particularly in the context of rapid process and product innovation.
In the current study, training is defined as the acquisition and development of knowledge, skills
and attitudes by employees to perform their work effectively (Goldstein, 1980; Latham, 1988). In
practice,trainingmaybenarrowlyfocusedonlearningspecificskillsoritmaybebroader,
intended to develop understanding of the production process, encourage reflection on the way
the job is undertaken in relation to other functions and develop creativity to execute tasks more
effectively (Sung and Choi, 2014; Vough et al., 2017). Training has been found to have important
consequences for employees: higher job satisfaction (Chiang et al., 2005), commitment to the
organization (Ahmad and Bakar, 2003) and reduced turnover intention (Newman et al., 2011).
Improvement in these related aspects is likely to increase productivity, flexibility and quality,
thereby lifting performance. These characteristics suggest a key role for training in the modern
Chinese manufacturing enterprise.
In prior research, training is widely acknowledged as contributing to improvements in
individual and organizational performance (Tharenou et al., 2007). At the firm level, training,
particularly managerial training, has been found to be positively related to firm productivity
(Barrett and O’Connell, 2001; Zwick, 2006), financial performance (Glaveli and Karassavidou,
2011; Kim and Ployhart, 2014), innovative performance (Sung and Choi, 2014) and sustainable
development ( Ji et al., 2012). At the individual level, several studies have demonstrated a positive
relationship between training and employee performance (Bartel, 1995; Elnaga and Imran, 2013;
Khan, 2012). However, the mediating processes between training practices and employees’job
performance remain unclear (Tharenou et al., 2007). In addition, less is known about how
organization contextual factors might moderate the effectiveness of training (Arthur et al., 2003).
The current study focuses on training as perceived by employees and explains how it
influences employees’job performance in a Chinese manufacturing context. Two key concepts
in our model are work engagement, which describes a positive work-related state of mind
characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008) and the strength
of HRM system (hereafter referred to as HRM strength). HRM strength refers to the
effectiveness of HRM systems in communicating to employees the kinds of behaviors that are
expected, evaluated and rewarded by management (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). We propose that
the link between training and job performance is mediated by employee work engagement and
that this effect is strengthened where employees perceive the presence of a strong HRM system.
This study makes three contributions to the training and HRM literature. First, we
explain the impact of training on employee attitudes and performance based on the AMO
framework. This marks a departure from prior research on perceptions of HRM, which has
mainly applied social exchange theory to explain why the whole HRM system contributes to
desirable outcomes (Alfes et al., 2013; Karatepe, 2013; Meijerink et al., 2016). Relatedly, our
study is among the first to examine the mediating role of work engagement in the
relationship between training and employee performance. Training is a key HRM practice
that influences work engagement and related behavioral and performance outcomes
through organizational climate and the job demands and resources experienced by
employees in their work roles (Albrecht et al., 2015; Shantz et al., 2016). Our research findings
support the growing literature showing that high-performance HRM practices such as
training improve employee work engagement, productivity and growth (Bakker, 2017).
Second, we incorporate HRM strength as a novel moderator in the training-performance
relationship. Integrating HRM content (training) and process (strength) perspectives
164
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
provide a holistic picture enabling examination of their interaction in influencing employee
performance. The results highlight the boundary conditions of a single HRM practice in
influencing important outcomes (Boselie et al., 2005; Wall and Wood, 2005). Third, our
research provides insights into how training practices affect employee work performance in
manufacturing firms in China. In doing so, we extend the generalizability of current HRM
theories and practices that have been developed almost exclusively in western countries.
Theory and hypotheses
Training has the potential to raise individual performance through improvements in key
workplace attitudes and behaviors (Bartel, 2000; Santos and Stuart, 2003). In this study, we use
the AMO framework (Appelbaum et al., 2000) to explain the influence of training on employee
performance. Specifically, ability means employees have the right knowledge, attitude and skills
to undertake the job. Motivation refers to employees having the willingness or feeling of
obligation to do the job, and opportunity indicates the work structure and environment enabling
work to be done in the manner preferred by the employee (Boxall and Purcell, 2016, p. 155).
Cultivating worker abilities, activating worker motivation and providing workers with sufficient
opportunities to perform effectively have together been proposed as the key mechanism linking
HRM to organizational performance ( Jiang et al., 2012). Based on the AMO framework, we
propose that training is likely to develop employee capabilities and motivate employees to
engage in their work to achieve higher mandatory, in-role (task) and voluntary, extra-role
(organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)) performance (Organ, 1994; Williams and Anderson,
1991). Moreover, training is unlikely to be universally effective (Lee, 2015). We argue that where
a strong HRM climate prevails, training is more likely to have the desired benefits on improving
employee performance. Figure 1 shows the relationships between training, the mediator (work
engagement), moderator (HRM strength) and outcome variables (task performance and OCB).
In the subsequent section, we develop four hypotheses concerning these relationships.
Training and work engagement
As mentioned earlier, training is defined as the acquisition and development of knowledge,
skills and attitudes by employees to perform their work effectively (Goldstein, 1980; Latham,
1988). In this study, we are concerned with employees’perceptions of the training they have
received in the organization, including on-the-job training. We argue that training can
encourage employees’work engagement by enhancing their technical capabilities and
improving their work motivation (Fletcher, 2016). Specifically, training is likely to improve
employees’job-related knowledge and abilities. In response to rapidly changing market
demands and new technology, training is an important means of updating employees’
mindsets and skills to address new work problems that entail more demanding task
assignments (Elnaga and Imran, 2013; Mital et al., 1999). Moreover, training can improve
employees’self-efficacy on their work (Axtell and Parker, 2003; Earley, 1994). Thus,
employees tend to perceive themselves as possessing higher levels of competence and
Tas k
Performance/
OCB
Wor k
engagement
HRM strength
Training
Figure 1.
Proposed model on
the relationship
between training and
employee performance
165
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
consequently are more motivated to overcome obstacles and engage in their work (Simbula
et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In addition, training practice may primarily aim to build
the requisite skill base for employees to engage in their work but also communicate to the
employee that the organization is committed to, and prepared to investment in employees
(Wright and Kehoe, 2008). As a kind of managerial and organizational support, training
increases employees’job satisfaction and commitment and reduces job-related anxiety,
thereby eliciting employees’motivation to engage in their work (Fletcher et al.,2016;Jiang
et al., 2012). Therefore, training perceptions are directly linked with employees’engagement
levels (Salanova et al., 2005; Bakker, 2017). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Employees’perceptions of training are positively related to their work engagement.
Work engagement and its mediating role
Work engagement describes a positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor,
dedication and absorption (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Work engagement and its positive
job outcomes are among the ways that employees can repay developmental benefits provided
by the organization (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Work engagement is theorized as being related
to job performance because it signifies an energetic and involved motivational state that
directs an individual’s efforts toward the completion of work tasks and activities (Parker and
Griffin, 2011). Engaged employees are likely to devote their cognitive, emotional and physical
resources to their work roles, demonstrating high levels of energy, enthusiasm and dedication
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Consequently, employees tend to experience a strong
connectivity with task-related goals and hence achieve higher task performance (Christian
et al., 2011). In addition, engaged employees generate resources by accomplishing goals and
performing tasks efficiently. This enables them to pursue activities that are not part of their
job descriptions, i.e. participate in extra-role discretionary behaviors (Rich et al.,2010).
From a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), when the organization takes care of
employees through training, employees will engage more in their work and will improve their
job performance for the organization’s benefit (Alfes et al., 2013; Karatepe, 2013). The link
between training perceptions and work role performance is likely to be indirect because it
activates motivational processes that direct energy and effort toward goal attainment (Dysvik
and Kuvaas, 2008). Specifically, employees are likely to perceive investment in training as
evidence of the organization’s commitment to their long-term career advancement, fostering
reciprocation by providing more discretionary work effort (Frenkel and Bednall, 2016). In
addition, training provides employees with a mental map of management’s expectations and the
contributions of specific work roles to the organization’s performance. More proximate goals are
also clearly articulated by trainers or mentors, so that the employee knows the meaning of high
work performance and can engage in appropriate behaviors to efficiently achieve their work
goals. Overall, training improves employees’in-role and extra-role performance through
employee work engagement. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2a. Work engagement is positively related to employee task performance.
H2b. Work engagement is positively related to employee OCB.
H3a. Work engagement mediates the relationship between training and employee
task performance.
H3b. Work engagement mediates the relationship between training and employee OCB.
HRM strength and its moderating role
Prior research has pointed to the need to identify the conditions under which the benefits
of training to individuals and organizations are maximized (Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009;
166
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Tracey et al., 2001). In this study, we propose that HRM system strength will influence the
effects of training on employee performance. HRM strength refers to the effectiveness of
HRM systems in communicating to employees the kinds of behaviors that are expected,
evaluated and rewarded by management (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). When the HRM system
is perceived as distinctive (i.e. visible, understandable, legitimate and relevant), consistent
(i.e. instrumental, valid and consistent in transmitting messages) and consensual
(i.e. agreement among managers and fairness of practices), a strong climate will be created.
This milieux encourages employees to perceive the positive effects of training and engage in
attitudes and behaviors aligned with the organization’s high-performance goals (Bowen and
Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff and Bowen, 2016). Specifically, where a strong HRM climate exists in
an organization, employees are more aware of training and development opportunities
available to them. They are likely to more easily understand the aims of training and will be
more inclined to participate in learning activities to develop their competence and improve
their performance (Bednall et al., 2014). In addition, where HR and line managers agree on
training policies, and ensure that training content is relevant to employees’needs and
provided on a regular basis, employees will experience a more favorable context in which to
achieve higher work performance (Fletcher, 2016; Salanova et al., 2005).
Moreover, a strong HRM system indicates that HRM practices complement one another
and fit together as a whole in achieving organization goals (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Under
this condition, training practices are supported and complemented by other HRM functions
such as the incentive system and performance appraisals which foster extrinsic motivation
as a complement to the mainly intrinsic motivation provided by training. Therefore, we
propose that a strong HRM system amplifies the influence of work engagement arising from
training on employees’work performance. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:
H4a. HRM strength moderates the relationship between work engagement and
employees’task performance, such that the mediation effect of work engagement is
stronger under the condition of higher levels of HRM strength.
H4b. HRM strength moderates the relationship between work engagement and
employees’OCB, such that the mediation effect of work engagement is stronger
under the condition of higher levels of HRM strength.
Methods
Sample and procedure
Our data were collected in two Chinese garment factories supplying an Australian retailer.
The authors were introduced by the Australian retailer and obtained factory management
permission to conduct the employee survey. In total, 415 questionnaires were distributed by
among employees on a variety of semi-skilled jobs including cutting, sewing, embroidering,
ironing, trimming, inspecting and packing. Confidentiality, anonymity and choice regarding
participation in the survey were explained to the employees. The questionnaires included a
cover letter which summarized the study’s purpose and assured respondents that the data
would be used strictly for research purposes and that their identities would not be revealed.
Participants completed the survey on a voluntary basis and were given a ten-yuan pen as a
token of gratitude. Most employees completed the survey in the canteen or in the dormitory
after working hours. In addition, supervisors and subordinates were requested to complete
the survey in different locations to ensure confidentiality. In sum, the results provide a
relatively accurate reflection of the employee and supervisor experience.
The first survey mainly covered their perceptions of their organization’s training
practice (i.e. not specific training interventions). Following this, another survey including
employees’evaluation of the HRM strength in their work unit and their work engagement
167
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
was conducted one month later (Axtell et al., 1997; Taylor et al., 2005). Meanwhile,
a shorter and separate survey was completed by their supervisors who rated the work
performance of each employee under their control. All scales in the survey were translated
with a back-translation strategy into Chinese which was the language spoken by the
respondents (Brislin, 1970).
Overall, 360 questionnaires were returned, resulting in 348 valid and matched cases and a
final response rate of 83.9 percent. The sample consisted mainly of manual employees
(89.1 percent), over two-thirds (71.0 percent) of whom were female employees who had not
gone beyond high school level. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the sample were below the age of 25
and more than half (52.3 percent) had been employed in the relevant factory for at least three
years. Nearly one-third (29.0 percent) were migrant employees from rural areas of China. Their
employers had signed a written labor contract with nearly four-fifths (81.0 percent) of the
employees. The Labour Contract Law of China issued in 2008 requires employers to enter into
a written contract with employees in order to establish a legal employment relationship. This
law offers workers more employment security and income predictability in the garment
industry and in the economy more broadly (Wang et al., 2009; Li and Freeman, 2015).
Measures
Training. Training undertaken by employees was measured by three items adapted from
the extensive training subscale in Sun et al.’s (2007) high-performance human resource
practices scale. Sample items include “I have developed my work skills through formal and
informal training provided by the organization,”“I have participated in much work-related
training”and “the training I received enables me to do my work better.”The coefficient αof
this scale is 0.89.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using the short nine-item version of
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). These items reflect
three underlying dimensions assessed by three items each. Vigor (e.g. “when I get up in the
morning, I feel like going to work”); dedication (e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job”); and
absorption (e.g. “when I am working, I forget everything else around me”). This scale yielded
a Cronbach’sαof 0.91.
HRM strength. HRM strength perceived by employees was assessed with a 12-item scale
developed by Frenkel et al. (2012). The measure was designed to gauge employees’
evaluations of major elements of process relating to HR policy and practice in general.
Participants were asked to report the extent to which HR policies and practices are
characterized as distinctive, consistent and consensual. Sample items indicating
distinctiveness include: “HR practices here help me a great deal to develop my
knowledge and skills.”Sample items indicating consistency include: “HR policies are clearly
communicated to employees.”Sample items indicating consensus include: “Managers here
agree on how to implement HR policies.”The coefficient αof this scale is 0.95.
Task performance. Task performance was measured with three items adapted from Farh
et al. (1991). Supervisors were asked to rate subordinates on (1) quality of work (2) efficiency
of work and (3) accomplishment of work goals (1 ¼poor, 5 ¼superior). The Cronbach’sαof
this scale is 0.94.
Organizational citizenship behavior. OCB is evaluated by participants’supervisors who
completed a scale that included four items adapted from Farh et al. (1997). Supervisors rated
employees’extra-role performance using a five-point Likert scale that ranged from “strongly
disagree”(1) to “strongly agree”(5). A sample item is “This employee is willing to help
colleagues solve work-related problems.”This scale yielded a Cronbach’sαof 0.94.
Control variables. In accordance with relevant HRM research (e.g. Bednall et al., 2014;
Delmotte et al., 2012; Frenkel et al., 2012), several control variables were included in the
168
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
proposed relationships in order to eliminate their potential influence. These include age,
gender, tenure, education, all of which may plausibly impact employees’job performance
(e.g. Ng and Feldman, 2009; Kraimer et al., 2005). In addition, age, tenure, education and
organizations were coded into dummy variables and we also add non-training HR practices
to control for the possible effects of individual and organization factors.
Data analyses
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the discriminant validity of the measurement
model was initially tested using confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 22.0. The results
indicated that the proposed five-factor model was an adequate fit to the data: χ
2
/df ¼2.67,
RMSEA ¼0.06; NFI ¼0.90; IFI ¼0.93; TLI ¼0.91; CFI ¼0.93. As shown in Table I, the
hypothesized six-factor model also shows a significant improvement in χ
2
over other more
parsimonious models.
To test for common method bias, a single latent method factor was added to see whether
it would significantly improve the model fit (Bagozzi and Yi, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Results showed that this was not the case (Δχ
2
(Δdf ¼30, n¼438) ¼137.68, ns). Hence, our
conclusion that common method bias is unlikely to vitiate the results. Another
methodological concern is construct overlap. Following Fornell and Larcker (1981), the
scale variables were examined for distinctiveness by estimating if the scale’s average
variance extracted (AVE) is greater than their average shared variance (ASV). The AVE
and ASV for each scale variable were calculated and their values reported in Table II. This
shows that the condition was met and therefore all scales in this study were distinct from
one another.
Following Preacher and Hayes (2004), we use the PROCESS tool for SPSS for testing the
mediation hypothesis and the respective moderated mediation specifying direct and indirect
effects. In addition, this tool provides an index of moderated mediation for a direct test of the
moderated-mediation effects (Hayes, 2015). PROCESS Model 14 was used for analyzing the
mediation with a second-stage moderation. We use 5,000 bootstraps and a 95 percent
bias-corrected confidence interval for estimating respective effects. Employee age, gender,
tenure, education and organization dummies were included as control variables on the
mediators and outcomes. All interaction terms were centered to reduce multicollinearity.
Results
Table II presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among all the study
variables including the αcoefficients along the diagonal. It is evident that training is
positively correlated with work engagement (r¼0.56, po0.01) and work engagement is
positively related to task performance (r¼0.27, po0.01) and OCB (r¼0.23, po0.01). HRM
strength is also positively associated with both task performance (r¼0.24, po0.01) and
Models χ
2
/df NFI IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
One-factor model: TR +WE +HR +TP +OCB 9.54 0.61 0.63 0.56 0.63 0.16
Two-factor model: TR +WE +HR, TP +OCB 5.02 0.79 0.83 0.79 0.83 0.11
Three-factor model: TR +WE, HR, TP +OCB 3.85 0.84 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.09
Four-factor model: TR, WE, HR, TP +OCB 2.95 0.88 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.08
Full measurement model: TR, WE, HR, TP, OCB 2.67 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.06
Full mediation model 3.22 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.08
Partial mediation model 3.42 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.09
Notes: TR, training; WE, work engagement; HR, HRM strength; TP, task performance; OCB, organizational
citizenship behavior
Table I.
Fit statistics for the
measurement models
and structural models
169
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Variable Mean SD AVE MSV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 3.70 1.07
2. Gender –– −0.09
3. Tenure 2.86 1.11 0.46** −0.05
4. Education 1.04 0.19 −0.03 0.02 0.05
5. Organization –– 0.46** −0.01 0.37** −0.19**
6. Non-training HR practices 4.08 0.61 0.01 0.07 −0.04 −0.05 −0.10
7. Training 4.07 0.88 0.73 0.45 0.16** 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.59** 0.89
8. Work engagement 4.08 0.74 0.56 0.37 0.32** 0.13* 0.19** 0.07 0.25** 0.45** 0.56** 0.91
9. HRM strength 4.26 0.69 0.62 0.45 0.04 0.13* −0.03 0.00 −0.15** 0.69** 0.61** 0.52** 0.95
10. Task performance 3.96 0.77 0.83 0.80 0.20** 0.08 .23** 0.01 0.11 0.20** 0.23** 0.27** 0.24** 0.94
11. OCB 3.85 0.87 0.81 0.80 0.18** 0.07 0.19** −0.07 0.12* 0.22** 0.23** 0.23** 0.23** 0.49** 0.94
Notes: n¼348. AVE, average variance extracted; ASV, average shared variance; age: 1 ¼below 25, 2 ¼25–35, 3 ¼35–45, 4 ¼above 45; gender: 1 ¼male, 2 ¼female;
tenure: 1 ¼below one year, 2 ¼one to three years, 3 ¼four to five years; education: 1 ¼below college, 2 ¼college, 3 ¼bachelor, 4 ¼master and above. αreliabilities
are along the diagonal in italic. *po0.05; **po0.01
Table II.
Means, standard
deviations, reliability
and correlations
170
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
OCB (r¼0.23, po0.01). Thus, the correlational analysis is largely consistent with our
expectations based on the hypotheses outlined earlier.
The regression results for the moderated-mediation analysis are presented in Table III.
After controlling for employee age, gender, tenure education and the organization dummy
variables and non-training HR practices, training is positively related to work engagement
(β¼0.30, po0.01). Thus, H1 is supported. In addition, the mediator, work engagement, is
positively related to task performance ( β¼0.17, po0.05) but not significantly related to
OCB ( β¼0.15, p¼0.09), supporting H2a but not H2b. The indirect results as shown in
Table IV further indicated that the mediation effect of work engagement between training
Outcome variable Task performance Bootstrapped 95%CI OCB Bootstrapped 95%CI
Effect type Effect SE LLCI ULCI Effect SE LLCI ULCI
Mediation effect 0.04 0.02 0.001 0.095 0.02 0.03 −0.038 0.084
Moderated-mediation effect 0.04 0.02 0.003 0.092 0.07 0.03 0.015 0.142
Note: The reported coefficients are in standardized form
Table IV.
Index of mediation
effect and
moderated-mediation
effect
Predictor Coeff. SE pLLCI ULCI
Step1: mediator variable model Work engagement Bootstrapped 95%CI
Employee age 0.13 0.04 o0.01 0.048 0.202
Employee gender 0.09 0.03 o0.01 0.025 0.152
Employee tenure 0.02 0.04 0.60 −0.053 0.091
Employee education 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.146
Organization 0.13 0.04 o0.01 0.056 0.204
Non-training HR practices 0.19 0.04 o0.01 0.106 0.264
Training 0.30 0.05 o0.01 0.214 0.393
Step 2a: outcome variable model Task performance Bootstrapped 95%CI
Employee age 0.04 0.05 0.42 −0.059 0.140
Employee gender 0.05 0.04 0.23 −0.033 0.134
Employee tenure 0.15 0.05 o0.01 0.058 0.242
Employee education 0.00 0.04 0.99 −0.085 0.084
Organization −0.02 0.05 0.75 −0.122 0.088
Non-training HR practices 0.03 0.06 0.64 −0.088 0.142
Training 0.01 0.07 0.88 −0.118 0.138
Work engagement (WE) 0.17 0.08 0.03 0.014 0.332
HRM strength (HRMS) 0.19 0.09 o0.05 0.002 0.368
WE ×HRMS 0.14 0.07 o0.05 0.000 0.272
Step 2b: outcome variable model OCB Bootstrapped 95%CI
Employee age 0.04 0.06 0.52 −0.075 0.148
Employee gender 0.07 0.05 0.13 −0.021 0.165
Employee tenure 0.14 0.05 o0.01 0.039 0.244
Employee education −0.06 0.05 0.24 −0.150 0.038
Organization −0.02 0.06 0.80 −0.132 0.102
Non-training HR practices 0.08 0.07 0.21 −0.047 0.210
Training 0.01 0.07 0.88 −0.132 0.154
Work engagement (WE) 0.15 0.09 0.09 −0.026 0.329
HRM system strength (HRMS) 0.19 0.10 0.07 −0.013 0.396
WE ×HRMS 0.24 0.08 o0.01 0.089 0.392
Notes: The reported coefficients are in standardized form. The control variables age, tenure and education
are coded as dummy variables. Age: 0 ¼below and equal 25, 1 ¼above 25; gender: 1 ¼male, 2 ¼female;
tenure: 0 ¼below and equal three year, 1 ¼above three years; education: 0 ¼below and equal college,
1¼above college
Table III.
Regression results for
moderated-mediation
analysis (PROCESS,
Model 14)
171
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
and task performance is positive and significant (effect ¼0.04, 95%CI ¼0.001, 0.095), while
that effect between training and OCB is not significant (effect ¼0.02, 95%CI ¼−0.038,
0.084). Hence, H3a is supported but H3b is not supported. In addition, we compare the model
fit of alternative structural models of the full mediation and partial mediation model as
shown in Table I. The results support the full mediation of work engagement between
training and task performance.
In testing H4a and H4b, the moderator HRM strength and its interaction term with work
engagement were added and the results reveal that the interaction is positively and
significantly related to both task performance ( β¼0.14, po0.05) and OCB ( β¼0.24,
po0.01). In addition, Table IV shows the overall index as a direct test of the moderated-
mediation effect of training on employee performance. The results indicate that the
moderated-mediation effects of training on both task performance (effect ¼0.04, 95%
CI ¼0.003, 0.092), and OCB (effect ¼0.07, 95%CI ¼0.015, 0.142) were positive and
significant. Therefore, H4a and H4b were both supported. Furthermore, PROCESS output
reported the specific conditional indirect effects of training on task performance and OCB
via work engagement at different levels of HRM strength. The conventional values of one
standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator were used (Dawson and
Richter, 2006). The findings demonstrate that the conditional indirect effects of training on
task performance and OCB through work engagement were significant only at higher levels
of the moderator HRM strength (+1 SD). The results suggest that the indirect effects of
training on employee performance via work engagement are stronger when employees
experience a high level of HRM strength (Table V ).
To interpret these results, we plotted the simple slopes for the relationship between work
engagement and task performance and OCB at different levels of HRM strength (as shown
in Figures 2 and 3). Following Dawson (2014), a simple slope analysis was conducted. The
results indicate that the simple slope for high levels of HRM strength was significantly
different from zero on both task performance (t¼2.500, po0.01) and OCB (t¼2.728,
po0.01). However, the simple slope for low levels of HRM strength were not significantly
different from zero (task performance: t¼1.081, p¼0.281; OCB: t¼−0.064, p¼0.949).
Therefore, the effects of training on performance through work engagement were
significant at higher levels of HRM strength but not at lower levels. This provides additional
support for H4a and H4b.
In addition, we conducted several ad hoc analyses to test the moderation role of the three
sub-factors of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus for the HRM strength. The results
showed that the moderation effect of the three sub-factors of HRM strength on task
performance is: distinctiveness (b¼0.14, po0.05, 95%CI ¼[0.019,0.260]), consistency
(b¼0.10, p¼0.15, 95%CI ¼[−0.038,0.234]) and consensus (b¼0.13, p¼0.07, 95%
CI ¼[−0.012,0.264]. And the moderation effect of the three sub-factors of HRM strength
Conditional indirect effect (via work engagement) Effect SE LLCI ULCI
Task performance Bootstrapped 95%CI
HRM strength (−1SD¼−0.69) 0.02 0.03 −0.025 0.075
HRM strength (M¼0) 0.05 0.03 0.004 0.109
HRM strength (+1SD¼0.69) 0.08 0.04 0.018 0.158
OCB Bootstrapped 95%CI
HRM strength (−1SD¼−0.69) −0.01 0.04 −0.077 0.060
HRM strength (M¼0) 0.05 0.03 −0.008 0.108
HRM strength (+1SD¼0.69) 0.10 0.04 0.030 0.183
Note: The reported coefficients are in standardized form
Table V.
Conditional
indirect effect
172
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
on OCB is: distinctiveness (b¼0.23, po0.01, 95%CI ¼[0.099,0.369]), consistency (b¼0.20,
po0.01, 95%CI ¼[0.049,0.352]) and consensus (b¼0.22, po0.01, 95%CI ¼[0.066,0.375].
The results indicated that the sub-factor of distinctiveness plays a main role in the
relationship between training and task performance. In addition, the three sub-factors of
distinctiveness, consensus and consistency all have significant moderating effects in the
relationship between training and OCB.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of firm training on the work
performance of mainly semi-skilled manufacturing employees in the context of changes
required to ensure the competitiveness of contemporary Chinese manufacturing. This includes
a focus on variables and mechanisms that link training to performance. Our headline result
is that training enhances task performance and OCB by encouraging employees’work
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
Low work engagement High work engagement
Task performance
Low HRM
strength
High HRM
strength
Figure 2.
Interaction plot for
task performance
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
Low work engagement High work engagement
OCB
Low HRM
strength
High HRM
strength
Figure 3.
Interaction plot
for OCB
173
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
engagement, this relationship being strengthened by management maintaining a strong HRM
system. The dynamics of these relationships were interpreted using the AMO framework.
We are now in a position to discuss the implications of the current findings, acknowledge our
study’s limitations and identify directions for future research.
Our finding that employees’perceptions of training are positively related to work
engagement echoes earlier studies indicating that training elicits positive work attitudes
from employees including job satisfaction (Chiang et al., 2005), self-efficacy (Axtell and
Parker, 2003) and organizational commitment (Ahmad and Bakar, 2003). The current study
is among the first to our knowledge that examines the effects of employee’s perceptions of
training utility on work engagement. This finding supports the prevailing belief that
training encourages positive work motivation (Colquitt et al., 2000). Training perception in
our study has three elements: personal benefits derived from the availability of training;
participation in training; and training effectiveness. This extends previous research on
training perception which refers to its availability/access and positive effects on employee
attitudes, e.g. organizational commitment (Newman et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012). Although
yet to be tested it can be argued that training increases employees’job-related resources
which include both instrumental and motivational components, enabling work hindrance
obstacles to be removed and more informed problem solving to occur, both of which
reinforce work engagement (Salanova et al., 2005). By linking training to work engagement,
this study responds to the call by Christian et al. (2011) for future research to investigate
additional antecedents of work engagement. Organizations that follow a top-down approach
may implement strategic HRM systems to facilitate employee work engagement
(Bakker, 2017). Our study supports the view that training, which is a particular HR
practice, can provide job resources for employees to engage in their work.
Our study showed that work engagement fully mediates the relationship between
training and employees’task performance. Prior studies indicate that work engagement
mediates the relationship between employees’perceptions of the HRM system and their
work performance (Alfes et al., 2013; Karatepe, 2013). The current study examined a single
HR practice, namely training, and found that work engagement fully mediated the
training-task performance relationship. This raises the question of whether training is a
stronger antecedent to work engagement than other HR variables, e.g. reward systems,
work environment characteristics and job design. This is worth investigating in future
studies. In addition, our study is able to address the question of whether work engagement
simultaneously leads to task performance and contextual performance including OCBs
(Christian et al., 2011). We found work engagement to be positively and significantly related
to task performance ( β¼0.17, po0.05) but not related to OCB ( β¼0.15, p¼0.09). This
differs from previous studies in western countries which suggest that work engagement
contributes to both task performance and OCB (Karatepe, 2013; Rich et al., 2010). A plausible
interpretation of these different results is that engaged employees in our study tended to
prioritize in-role tasks rather than extra-role behaviors, in common with employees in other
Chinese manufacturing firms. Employee behaviors in these firms are likely to be dominated
by considerations of labor productivity and efficiency (Farh et al., 2004) and therefore
training is oriented toward in-role task competence. Researchers have found that the
motivational basis of OCBs in the west is different from that in China (Miao, 2011; Wang
et al., 2005). Relative to other factors, personal relationships, particularly between
subordinates and immediate supervisors, are of paramount importance in motivating OCBs
among employees in China. This can be partially explained by the Chinese culture of
“guanxi,”composed of sentiment and obligation. Supervisor-subordinate guanxi (other than
hard management practices such as HRM practices) plays an important role in determining
whether employees provide extra effort, in effect, showing more citizenship behaviors for
the good of the supervisor and the organization (Weng, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015).
174
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Our study extends the recent emphasis on employee perceptions of the strength of HRM
systems by investigating how perceptions of variations in strength influence training’s
impact on employee work outcomes. We highlight the contingent effects of organizational
context on the results of training (Arthur et al., 2003). Our finding that a strong HRM system
strengthens the relationship between work engagement arising from training and
performance is consistent with previous studies which suggest that HRM strength can
facilitate work engagement and employee performance (Frenkel et al., 2012; Li, Sanders and
Frenkel, 2012). Where a strong HRM climate prevails, employees have more training
opportunities and incentives to develop their skills and are more strongly motivated to
achieve higher task performance (Bednall et al., 2014). In addition, employees perceive that
they are more justly treated and are therefore more likely to identify with the organization
and contribute additional discretionary effort (Frenkel et al., 2012).
This study provides insights into how training practices may affect employee work
performance in manufacturing firms in China. The uniqueness of China’s state-guided,
market economy, historical background and cultural values suggest that China-based
studies may be a valuable testing ground for exploring the cross-national validity of
existing HRM theories in a non-western context (Kim et al., 2010). Previous studies of
training in Chinese firms have generated mixed findings. Newman et al. (2011) found that
learning motivation and the perceived benefits of training do not impact organizational
commitment and performance of service employees. Other studies indicate that training has
a positive influence on firm level performance (Ng and Siu, 2004; Nguyen et al., 2011). This
echoes research in developed countries which show a strong relationship between training
and firm performance (e.g. Bartel, 1995; Black and Lynch 1996; Barrett and O’Connell, 2001;
Zwick, 2006). Our study adds to this body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of
training on employee performance in Chinese manufacturing firms.
Practical implications
As part of the economic reform process, the Chinese Government introduced more than
20 laws and regulations relating to employment training (Rowley and Benson, 2002).
In addition, western retailers and brands require Chinese suppliers to be globally
competitive and through training encourage support for international labor and
environmental standards (Krueger, 2008; Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi, 2010). Meanwhile,
with growing labor shortages in large south–eastern cities and an ageing workforce,
managers in Chinese firms are increasingly valuing employee retention and investing in
employee training and development (Eloot et al., 2013; Warner, 2013).
Our study is relevant to contemporary China and has important managerial implications.
The findings provide indicative guidance for manufacturing firms wishing to enhance
employee work engagement and job performance. Our research confirms a positive
relationship between employees’perceptions of training and their work engagement.
In addition, work engagement can directly enhance their task performance. Therefore,
organizations should try to provide more training opportunities for employees and facilitate
training transfer (Dermol and Čater, 2013). Where labor turnover rates are high, as in
Southern China, managers may be reluctant to invest in training even though this may
improve worker performance. This problem can be relieved by cultivating a learning culture
where experienced workers are encouraged to mentor and provide on-the-job training to
new recruits who need to acquire task-related knowledge and skills. In this way, implicit
knowledge and creative ideas can be more easily made explicit and shared (Hinds et al.,
2001). A supportive work culture is likely to develop, encouraging employee engagement
and higher levels of discretionary effort in the broader context of modern manufacturing
which places a premium on more advanced skills and the need for continuous formal and
comprehensive training (Snell and Dean, 1992). The increased costs of training can be
175
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
justified by the expected contribution of higher skilled and more flexible employees to the
firm’s performance.
In addition, management need to maintain a strong HRM system that will increase the
benefits of training for improving employee work motivation (i.e. engagement) and behaviors
(i.e. performance). That said, there are several important decisions that managers need to make
to ensure that training effectiveness is maximized. These include the following: define clearly
the performance expectations and communicate explicitly to employees; carefully estimate the
training budget for different types of employee; decide whether training should be mainly
in-house or contract delivery; plan the content and sequencing of training in terms of broad and
narrow job-related knowledge and skills, including the role new technology can play in training
delivery and transfer; develop procedures for encouraging employees to participate in training;
and engage in continuous evaluation of the costs and benefits of training and ensure learning
from past experience. In addition, it is increasingly clear that understanding the point of view of
trainees is critical to attaining the expected training outcomes on employee performance (Hicks
and Klimoski, 1987; Santos and Stuart, 2003). Managers and practitioners need to pay close
attention to the context and process of training and learning from the employees’perspective.
Limitations and future research directions
This study has three main limitations which suggest avenues for future research. First, our
data were collected in two organizations with time-lagged, rather than longitudinal data.
These characteristics limit the generalizability of our results and do not permit causal
inferences to be drawn from the analysis. Larger, more representative, longitudinal samples
are desirable for future research to identify generalizable cause-effect relationships including
feed-back effects of earlier learning episodes on subsequent training outcomes. Second, our
argument assumes that training is appropriately designed and effectively executed (Tai, 2006;
Velada et al., 2007). In addition, employees are given sufficient time and to learn and practice
and the contents of training match their needs (e.g. on multiple skills, social relationship,
safety) (Lee, 2015). These preconditions are important for training to have positive effects and
require validation in future research. In addition, future research might usefully pursue
objective measures of training quantity and quality rather than relying on perceptions which
might be affected by a general positive or negative feeling toward employment. Objective
training data may reveal the discrete impact of training. Meanwhile, in the current study,
HRM strength focuses on perceived factors regarding distinctiveness, consistency and
consensus and we are measuring HRM strength at the individual level.To examine the impact
and effectiveness of HRM system strength, a stronger measure could be developed at the
group level, i.e. a measure of between-individual extent of agreement on HRM strength.
A third limitation is that our examination of the organizational context was restricted to
HRM system strength. Future studies could include additional organizational, cultural and
institutional factors in training models. For example, the learning culture of the organization
(internal) (Egan et al., 2004) and pressures from governments or non-government
organizations to uphold labor and environmental standards (external) (Gereffi and Lee,
2016). In addition, there is variation across the two factories in the influence of training in
our study[1]. Future studies could test how training at the organization and department
levels might exert a multi-level influence on employee work engagement and performance.
In conclusion, our study contributes to the understanding of the process linking training
to employee performance. Responding to the call for more research on the mediating and
moderating processes concerning the training-performance relationship (Tharenou et al.,
2007), we showed that work engagement mediates the relationship between perceptions of
training and employee performance, and HRM strength moderates this effect. In summary,
based on empirical evidence from semi-skilled employees workinginChinese
manufacturing firms, our study extends the literature on training effectiveness.
176
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Note
1. Further analysis indicated that the interaction between organization and training on work
engagement and performance is significant (b¼0.20, p¼0.02).
References
Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009), “Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,
organizations, and society”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 451-474.
Ahmad, K.Z. and Bakar, R.A. (2003), “The association between training and organizational
commitment among white-collar workers in Malaysia”,International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 166-185.
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee engagement,
human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013), “The link between perceived human resource
management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 330-351.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Competitive Advantage:
The Effects of High Performance Work Systems on Plant Performance and Company Outcomes,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P.S. and Bell, S.T. (2003), “Effectiveness of training in organizations: a
meta-analysis of design and evaluation features”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 234-245.
Axtell, C.M. and Parker, S.K. (2003), “Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work
redesign and training”,Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 113-131.
Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), “Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of
training”,Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 201-213.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990), “Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: the
case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5,
pp. 547-560.
Bakker, A.B. (2017), “Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement”,Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 67-75.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”,Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 147-154.
Barrett, A. and O’Connell, P.J. (2001), “Does training generally work? The returns to in-company
training”,ILR Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 647-662.
Bartel, A.P. (1995), “Training, wage growth, and job performance: evidence from a company database”,
Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 401-425.
Bartel, A.P. (2000), “Measuring the employer's return on investments in training: evidence from the
literature”,Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 502-524.
Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2010), “SHRM and job design: narrowing the divide”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 379-388.
Bednall, T.C., Sanders, K. and Runhaar, P. (2014), “Stimulating informal learning activities through
perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system
strength: a two-wave study”,Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 45-61.
177
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Black, S.E. and Lynch, L.M. (1996), “Human-capital investments and productivity”,The American
Economic Review, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 263-267.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), “Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance
research”,Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 67-94.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the
"strength" of the HRM system”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2016), Strategy and Human Resource Management, 4th ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216.
Chiang, C.-F., Back, K.-J. and Canter, D.D. (2005), “The impact of employee training on job satisfaction
and intention to stay in the hotel industry”,Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 99-118.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a
meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 678-707.
Dawson, J.F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how”,Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Dawson, J.F. and Richter, A.W. (2006), “Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple
regression: development and application of a slope difference test”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 917-926.
Delmotte, J., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2012), “Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system
strength: scale development and validation”,The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1481-1506.
Dermol, V. and Čater, T. (2013), “The influence of training and training transfer factors on
organisational learning and performance”,Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 324-348.
Dobson, W. and Safarian, A.E. (2008), “The transition from imitation to innovation: an enquiry into
China’s evolving institutions and firm capabilities”,Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 301-311.
Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2008), “The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work
motivation and employee outcomes”,International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 138-157.
Earley, P.C. (1994), “Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 89-117.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K.R. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention”,Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Elfstrom, M. and Kuruvilla, S. (2014), “The changing nature of labor unrest in China”,ILR Review,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 453-480.
Elnaga, A. and Imran, A. (2013), “The effect of training on employee performance”,European Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 137-147.
Eloot, K., Huang, A. and Lehnich, M. (2013), “A new era for manufacturing in China”,McKinsey
Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 80-93.
Farh, J.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Cheng, B.S. (1991), “Cultural relativity in action: a comparison of
self-ratings made by Chinese and US workers”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 129-147.
178
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 421-444.
Farh, J.-L., Zhong, C.-B. and Organ, D.W. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s
Republic of China”,Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-253.
Fletcher, L. (2016), “Training perceptions, engagement, and performance: comparing work engagement
and personal role engagement”,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 4-26.
Fletcher, L., Alfes, K. and Robinson, D. (2016), “The relationship between perceived training and
development and employee retention: the mediating role of work attitudes”,The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 1-28.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frenkel, S.J. and Bednall, T. (2016), “How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations,
and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort”,Human
Performance, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Frenkel, S., Restubog, S.L.D. and Bednall, T. (2012), “How employee perceptions of HR policy and
practice influence discretionary work effort and co-worker assistance: evidence from two
organizations”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 20,
pp. 4193-4210.
Gallagher, M.E. and Dong, B. (2011), “Legislating harmony: labor law reform in contemporary China”,
in Kuruvilla, S., Lee, C.K. and Gallagher, M. (Eds), From Iron Rice Bowl to Informalization:
Markets, Workers, and the State in A Changing China, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY,
pp. 36-60.
Gereffi, G. and Lee, J. (2016), “Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial
clusters: why governance matters”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Glaveli, N. and Karassavidou, E. (2011), “Exploring a possible route through which training affects
organizational performance: the case of a Greek bank”,The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 2892-2923.
Goldstein, I.L. (1980), “Training in work organizations”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 229-272.
Hansson, B. (2007), “Company-based determinants of training and the impact of training on company
performance: results from an international HRM survey”,Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 311-331.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”,Multivariate Behavioral
Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Hicks, W.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (1987), “Entry into training programs and its effects on training
outcomes: a field experiment”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 542-552.
Hinds, P.J., Patterson, M. and Pfeffer, J. (2001), “Bothered by abstraction: the effect of expertise on
knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 6, pp. 1232-1243.
Ji, L., Huang, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, H. and Cai, Z. (2012), “The effects of employee training on the relationship
between environmental attitude and firms’performance in sustainable development”,The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 14, pp. 2995-3008.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resource management influence
organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1264-1294.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the
mediation of work engagement”,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
March, pp. 132-140.
179
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Khan, M.I. (2012), “The impact of training and motivation on performance of employees”,Business
Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 84-95.
Kim, S., Wright, P.M. and Su, Z. (2010), “Human resource management and firm performance in China:
a critical review”,Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 58-85.
Kim, Y. and Ployhart, R.E. (2014), “The effects of staffing and training on firm productivity and profit
growth before, during, and after the great recession”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 3,
pp. 361-389.
Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2005), “The role of job security in
understanding the relationship between employees’perceptions of temporary workers and
employees’performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 389-398.
Krueger, D.A. (2008), “The ethics of global supply chains in China –convergences of East and West”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 113-120.
Latham, G.P. (1988), “Human resource training and development”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 545-582.
Lee, G.J. (2015), “Training match and mismatch as a driver of key employee behaviours”,Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 478-495.
Li, H., Li, L., Wu, B. and Xiong, Y. (2012), “The end of cheap Chinese labor”,The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 57-74.
Li, X. and Freeman, R.B. (2015), “How does China’s new labour contract law affect floating workers?”,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 711-735.
Li, X., Sanders, K. and Frenkel, S. (2012), “How leader–member exchange, work engagement and HRM
consistency explain Chinese luxury hotel employees’job performance”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1059-1066.
Li, Y., Zhao, Y. and Liu, Y. (2006), “The relationship between HRM, technology innovation and
performance in China”,International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 679-697.
Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J. and Huang, J.-C. (2016), “Human resource systems, employee creativity,
and firm innovation: the moderating role of firm ownership”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 1164-1188.
Lund-Thomsen, P. and Nadvi, K. (2010), “Global value chains, local collective action and corporate
social responsibility: a review of empirical evidence”,Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Meijerink, J.G., Bondarouk, T. and Lepak, D.P. (2016), “Employees as active consumers of HRM: linking
employees’HRM competences with their perceptions of HRM service value”,Human Resource
Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 219-240.
Miao, R.-T. (2011), “Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and
organizational citizenship behavior in China”,Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-127.
Mital, A., Pennathur, A., Huston, R.L., Thompson, D., Pittman, M., Markle, G., Kaber, D.B., Crumpton,
L., Bishu, R.R., Rajurkar, K.P., Rajan, V., Fernandez, J.E., McMulkin, M., Deivanayagam, S., Ray,
P.S. and Sule, D. (1999), “The need for worker training in advanced manufacturing technology
(AMT) environments: a white paper”,International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 173-184.
Nahm, J. and Steinfeld, E.S. (2014), “Scale-up nation: China’s specialization in innovative
manufacturing”,World Development, Vol. 54, February, pp. 288-300.
Newman, A., Thanacoody, R. and Hui, W. (2011), “The impact of employee perceptions of training on
organizational commitment and turnover intentions: a study of multinationals in the Chinese
service sector”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 1765-1787.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2009), “How broadly does education contribute to job performance?”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 89-134.
180
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Ng, Y.C. and Siu, N.Y. (2004), “Training and enterprise performance in transition: evidence
from China”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 Nos 4/5,
pp. 878-894.
Nguyen, T.N., Truong, Q. and Buyens, D. (2011), “Training and firm performance in economies in
transition: a comparison between Vietnam and China”,Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 103-119.
Organ, D.W. (1994), “Personality and organizational citizenship behavior”,Journal of Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 465-478.
Ostroff, C. and Bowen, D.E. (2016), “Reflections on the 2014 decade award: is there strength in the
construct of HR system strength?”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 196-214.
Parker, S.K. and Griffin, M.A. (2011), “Understanding active psychological states: embedding
engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance”,European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 60-67.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”,Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 717-731.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Roberts, D. and Kynge, J. (2002), “China: the new industrial revolution: how cheap labour, foreign
investment and rapid industrialization are creating a new workshop of the world”,Financial
Times, February 4, p. 21.
Rowley, C. and Benson, J. (2002), “Convergence and divergence in Asian human resource
management”,California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 90-109.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014), “What do we really know about employee engagement?”,Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 155-182.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiró, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-1227.
Santos, A. and Stuart, M. (2003), “Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-45.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”,Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K. and Arevshatian, L. (2016), “HRM in healthcare: the role of work engagement”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 274-295.
Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “A three-wave study of job resources,
self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers”,European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 285-304.
Snell, S.A. and Dean, J.W. (1992), “Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a
human capital perspective”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 467-504.
Sun, L.Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K.S. (2007), “High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective”,Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 558-577.
Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2014), “Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and
development investments on learning and innovation in organizations”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 393-412.
181
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Tai, W.T. (2006), “Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on trainees’
training effectiveness”,Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Taylor, P.J., Russ-Eft, D.F. and Chan, D.W. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling
training”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 692-709.
Tharenou, P., Saks, A.M. and Moore, C. (2007), “A review and critique of research on training and
organizational-level outcomes”,Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 251-273.
Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S. and Mathieu, J.E. (2001), “The influence of individual
characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes”,Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J.W., Lyons, B.D. and Kavanagh, M.J. (2007), “The effects of training
design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training”,International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 282-294.
Vough, H.C., Bindl, U.K. and Parker, S.K. (2017), “Proactivity routines: the role of social processes in
how employees self-initiate change”,Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 10, pp. 1191-1216.
Wall, T.D. and Wood, S.J. (2005), “The romance of human resource management and business
performance, and the case for big science”,Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 429-462.
Wang, H., Appelbaum, R.P., Degiuli, F. and Lichtenstein, N. (2009), “China’s new labour contract law: is
China moving towards increased power for workers?”,Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 485-501.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.X. (2005), “Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’performance and
organizational citizenship behavior”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 420-432.
Warner, M. (2013), Understanding Management in China: Past, Present and Future, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Weng, L.C. (2014), “Improving employee job performance through ethical leadership and ‘Guanxi’: the
moderation effects of supervisor-subordinate guanxi differentiation”,Asia Pacific Management
Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 321-345.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”,Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Wright, P.M. and Kehoe, R.R. (2008), “Human resource practices and organizational commitment: a
deeper examination”,Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Wu, Q. and Sun, Z. (2014), “Collective consultation under quota management: China’s government-led
model of labour relations regulation”,International Labour Review, Vol. 153 No. 4, pp. 609-633.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”,Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Yang, H., Sanders, K. and Bumatay, C.P. (2012), “Linking perceptions of training with organizational
commitment: the moderating role of self-construals”,European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 125-149.
Zhang, X.A., Li, N. and Harris, T.B. (2015), “Putting non-work ties to work: the case of guanxi in
supervisor–subordinate relationships”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Zwick, T. (2006), “The impact of training intensity on establishment productivity”,Industrial Relations:
A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 26-46.
Further reading
Čech, M., Yao, W., Samolejová, A., Li, J. and Wicher, P. (2016), “Human resource management in
Chinese manufacturing companies”,Perspectives in Science, Vol. 7, March, pp. 6-9.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999), “The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital
allocation and development”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
182
PR
48,1
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
Majchrzak, A. (1988), The Human Side of Factory Automation: Managerial and Human Resource
Strategies for Making Automation Succeed, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nikandrou, I., Apospori, E., Panayotopoulou, L., Stavrou, E.T. and Papalexandris, N. (2008), “Training
and firm performance in Europe: the impact of national and organizational characteristics”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 2057-2078.
Nishii, L.H. and Wright, P.M. (2008), “Variability within organizations: implications for strategic human
resource management”, in Smith, D.B. (Ed.), The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages
Between Individuals and Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 225-248.
Appendix. HRM strength
Distinctiveness
•HRM practices here make me feel more confident in my ability to do my job well.
•HRM practices here contribute to my work satisfaction.
•I was attracted to this company because of its good HRM practices.
•HRM practices here help me a great deal to develop my knowledge and skills.
Consistency
•HRM policies here are clearly communicated to employees.
•HRM practices here help me to achieve my goals.
•HRM practices here help me to achieve the company’s goals.
•HRM policies at this company are difficult to understand.
Consensus
•Managers here do not implement HRM policies properly.
•Managers here agree on how to implement HRM policies.
•Managers here adopt a similar approach to managing employees.
•HRM practices do not really make a difference to the way managers behave here.
Corresponding author
Xiaoyu Guan can be contacted at: guanxy@bnu.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
183
Perceptions of
training
Downloaded by Beijing Normal University At 01:22 28 March 2019 (PT)
