Content uploaded by Timo Pihkala
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Timo Pihkala
Content may be subject to copyright.
EFFECTS OF HRM PRACTICES ON EMPLOYEES’ OCB WITHIN
NETWORKS
Paper prepared for 19th Nordic Academy of Management Conference
in Bergen, Norway August 9-11 2007
Tuija Oikarinen
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit
Saimaankatu 11, 15140 Lahti, Finland
Tel. +358 3 876 910, Fax +358 3 876 9133
Email: tuija.oikarinen@lut.fi
Mirva Hyypiä
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit
Saimaankatu 11, 15140 Lahti, Finland
Tel. +358 3 876 910, Fax +358 3 876 9133
Email: mirva.hyypia@lut.fi
Timo Pihkala
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit
Saimaankatu 11, 15140 Lahti, Finland
Tel. +358 3 876 910, Fax +358 3 876 9133
Email: timo.pihkala@lut.fi
INTRODUCTION
Enterprises require abilities of quick adaptation, flexibility and proactive transformation
in order to stay competitive in ever changing and complex business environment. A
prevailing approach in enterprises to seek competitiveness is to focus on their core
competencies and outsource those activities falling outside this core. The fragmentation
of product processes leads to more complex organizational forms – such as networking,
partnership, multi-employer sites, and use of external agencies – and creates new
challenges for management. (Greenberger & Wang 2002, Hitt, Keats & DeMarie 1998,
McClendon, Klaas & Gainey 2002, Rubery, Earnshaw, Marchington, Cooke & Vincent
2002)
Concerning management in network organizations, unclear organizational boundaries and
presence of multi-employer work settings add further dimensions and complexity.
2
Traditional organizational structures have fragmented and boundaries of organizations
have become more ephemeral. Organizational effectiveness is dependent upon the
alignment of organizational subsystems with one another. Network organizations may
encompass work-settings in which individuals work physically near each other but are
not conventional employees of the same company or workers of the same parent
company work dispersed to many workplaces.
The structural changes of work are a main feature which emphasizes the necessity as well
as the importance for the human resource management (HRM) in the organizations. At
the moment different expectations, challenges as well as new interest groups are directed
to HRM. Necessity to change and adapt changes for HRM practices in organizations has
been noticed but the problem is that network organization is not a unitary phenomenon.
The amount of shared frameworks, cultures, network connections and integration can
exist in many different settings and furthermore, for range of purposes. (Cardy 2002) The
companies in the network organization differ from each other. They may embody various
industrial or service sectors and naturally, different operational and managerial principles
are represented too. Typically, a core of a network is a large company which has
outsourced support activities to smaller companies. The HRM practices in large
companies are usually more formal and sophisticated than in smaller ones. HRM
practices in SMEs are characterized by informality, emergence, non-bureaucratic culture
and absence of sophisticated management practices (Bacon and Hoque 2005, Harney &
Dundon 2006, Kinnie et al. 1999, Kotey & Sheridan 2004, Mayson & Barrett 2006,
Wilkinson 1999). MacMahon (1996) paid attention that for large companies
subcontracting out enables risk reduction, stabilization and facilitation of employee
oriented HR policies for their own core employees. But for SMEs being subcontractors
such relationship passes on the necessity to have flexible work practices and workers.
The intention to shared unitary HRM practices in networks has been criticized. Paauwe &
Boselie (2003) emphasize that a company’s human resources as well as HRM practices
evolve and reflect path dependency. A complex interplay of external structural factors
and internal dynamics shape HRM. Context is determinant. For the substance of HRM,
3
the extent of formalization or sophistication can not be considered indicative. (Harney &
Dundon 2006, Paauwe & Boselie 2003) Yet, to manage a network efficiently, common
and shared practices are required to some extent. The challenge for HRM practices in
network organizations is to find ways to emphasize the value and potential of individuals,
and align human resources and their management to the strategy of the organization and
aims of the whole network.
Even though networking trend itself has had a lot of researchers’ attention, research on
the effects of networking on HRM practices is still scarce. Little has been written about
aligning human resource systems and management with these new structures of work-
organizations. Opportunities and problems which are created by networked organizations
have not had systematic attention in development of practical work processes.
(Cleveland, Mohammed & Skattebo 2002, Lehto, Lyly-Yrjänäinen & Sutela 2005,
Pihkala et al. 2006, Viitala & Mäkipelkola 2005)
In this study the focus is on the employees of networks which are consisted of core
companies, subcontractors and temporary employment agencies. The employees’
perceptions of HRM practices and their working conditions in organization’s procedures
are linked with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB is a pattern of
employee’s behavior that is beneficial for organizational functioning, but is not part of
formal job descriptions. OCB is based on employee’s personal choice to give extra effort
at work. (Organ 1987, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach 2000) While employees
are willing to contribute extra effort it has an important impact on the effectiveness and
efficiency of work teams and organizations. Especially in complex, fragmented work
environments the OCB of employees is seen as a premise for fluent working and co-
operation. In this study the concern is how OCB can be enhanced by HRM practices in
networks. The primary research question can be clarified as follows:
How to promote OCB by HRM practices in complex networked work settings
including large companies, SMEs and leased labor?
4
OCB IN NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
The employment relationship can be examined in terms of social exchange theories. It is
assumed that employees balance their working efforts with the degree they perceive the
organization to reciprocate with desirable returns (McDonald & Makin 2000, Robinson &
Morrison 1995, Robinson & Rousseau 1994, Tsui & Wu 2005). Employees’ feelings that
the organization values their contribution and is interested in their well-being are
positively related to employees’ performance and organizational commitment. If
employees feel the organization has failed to fulfill promised obligations they are less
likely to give their best effort and less likely to engage in organizationally-directed
citizenship behavior. (Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2006, Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison &
Sowa 1986, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades 2001, Fuller, Barnett,
Hester & Relyea 2003, Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli 2001, Rhoades & Eisenberger
2002, Robinson & Rousseau 1994, Robinson & Morrison 1995)
OCB is an exceptional type of individual’s work behavior being productive to the
organization. This type of behaviour can not be recognized directly or explicitly by the
formal reward system. OCB is based on employee’s personal choice to give extra effort
at work and it is related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. (Van Dyne &
Pierce 2004) So the challenge of OCB in complex, fragmented work environments is in
the employment relationship which is not any more a permanent bond. Employees of
organizations are noticed to be in a process of differentiation into core personnel and
support personnel (Bowers & Akhlaghi 1999, Palanko-Laaka 2005, Uhmavaara et al.
2005, Viitala & Mäkipelkola 2005). Schabracq & Cooper (1997) present a categorization
of three kinds of employees:
- a (relatively small) core of regular employees with high degree of qualitative
flexibility in primary and supply companies
- a (relatively big) layer of temporary employees i.e. quantitatively flexible work
force, who execute relatively simple work tasks
5
- a (usually smaller) layer of consultants and service workers, who perform
qualitatively as well as quantitatively flexible work tasks.
In multi-employer work settings workers may find themselves subject to multiple sources
of management and control and they attempt to satisfy their obligations to many
employers – the parent organization which pays salary and the client organization in
which they work – simultaneously through the same single act of labor. This may present
contradictions not only with respect to lines of authority and workload but especially to
commitment and loyalty. (Rubery et al. 2003) Networking creates possibility of double
framing or dual commitment (Benson 1998).
In nontraditional employment relationships the importance of transactional psychological
contracts which are based on economic compensation is anticipated to increase (Alasoini
2006, Rousseau 1990, Tsui & Wu 2005). The challenge is how to promote relational
psychological contracts which are based on loyalty, commitment and appreciation in
nontraditional employment relationships. The satisfaction of needs for praise and
appreciation is an important determinant of affective attachment and commitment.
Relational psychological contract is supposed to increase the employee’s tendency to
interpret the organization’s success as one’s own and the internalization of the
organizations values and norms. If the employees are committed to the organization they
care about organization’s performance and help the organization to achieve its objectives.
(Eisenberger et al. 2001, Rhoades et al. 2001).
Proposition 1: Based on differences in employment relationships, HRM practices, and
working environments we assume that the OCB of employees of core companies, SME
subcontractors and agency temporary workers differs.
6
HRM PRACTICES IN NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS
Blurring of organizational boundaries and presence of multi-employer work settings add
further dimensions and complexity to management in networks. The division of
employees into core and peripheral temporary workers raises questions if HRM practices
of organizations have developed respectively. From enterprises point of view, it is natural
to concentrate the efforts of HRM on the enterprises’ own employees. But as has been
noticed in the case of facilities management (FM), the direct employees often represent
only a part of the work force and the contribution of other kinds of employees –
peripheral support staff, subcontractors’ workers and leased labor – may be overlooked
(Bowers & Akhlaghi 1999). Even if the collaboration between all partners at all
organizational levels is important, it is rather likely that the cooperation at operational
level is decisive for the efficiency of the co-operation. New challenges, expectations and
interest groups are now directed to HRM.
In managing complex networked work settings, two approaches can be noticed: a
concentration either on controlling and monitoring e.g. traditional practices or
encouraging and empowering of employees e.g. discretionary practices (Hayton 2003,
Rubery et al. 2002). Multi-employer situations and dividing responsibilities between
different companies have been noticed to promote a reformation of monitoring and
control systems and tightening of contractual conditions (Rubery et al. 2002). Clear
division of work and responsibilities as well as agreement on performance targets and
measures lay the foundation for effective cooperation. Contractual, traditional HRM
practices which include e.g. job analysis, job descriptions, monitoring individual
performance, individual performance appraisal and structured compensation system are
fundamental for efficient work (Greenberger & Wang 2002, Hayton 2003, Rubery et al.
2002).
However, it is challenging to try to specify all the requirements of a job and monitor the
performance of employees within formal management systems. As Greenberger & Wang
7
(2002: 21) have noticed, ‘the more a firm focuses upon its core competencies, the more
its top management similarly must relinquish ‘command and control’ not only to those
outside this top group i.e. within the organization, but also to those potentially employed
as partners’. In aspiring for competitiveness by specialization, collaboration, outsourcing
and hiring contract workers, organizations must empower and trust to a much greater
extent those outside the traditional organizational boundaries than they had previously.
The management of internal resources is not any more sufficient. Competitiveness and
effectiveness in networking is supposed to be a function of a host of unexplored ‘softer’
issues (Greenberger & Wang 2002).
Individual empowerment and extra-role behavior of employees is seen as a premise for
fluent working and co-operation in complex, fragmented work environments. The co-
operation will function effectively only if employees of various employers collaborate
with each other and forge close working relationships. (Greenberger & Wang 2002,
Hayton 2003, Rubery et al. 2002) Discretionary HR practices seek to promote employee
discretionary contributions by empowerment, incentive compensations, and participation
programs. In the study of encouragement and motivating peripheral workforce Bowers &
Akhlaghi (1999) found as most important HRM practices: communications;
empowerment and team working; performance management and reward systems; and
also training and development.
So, in the field of HRM in complex networked organizations, making more use of direct
contractual systems of control as well as increasing the autonomy of employees to take
charge of and manage complex relationships are both noticed to be necessary. But the
tension between controlling and monitoring on the one hand, and encouraging workers to
entrepreneurship, empowerment and extra-role behavior on the other hand is challenging.
The conflict may exist both between the interests of employees and their own employers
and the need for employees to act as agents for their main employers in the forging and
managing of cross-organizational relationships. However, Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2006)
found that favorable commitment attitudes toward parent employer organization and
client organization are simultaneously possible. The employer organization should ensure
8
that the values and messages sent to its employees are coherent with the client
organization. The same HRM practices that invoke favorable responses from traditional
employees are noticed to generate similar reactions among leased workers. Both contract
and direct employees are noticed to share common perceptions of the relative importance
of various aspects of HRM practices. (Bowers & Akhlaghi 1999, Coyle-Shapiro et al.
2006)
Proposition 2a: We assume that OCB of employees regardless of employer can be
enhanced by well conducted HRM practices.
Proposition 2b: We assume that traditional HRM practices and discretionary HRM
practices have diverse effects on the elements of OCB.
METHODOLOGY
We wanted to study employees’ perceptions of their working conditions and HRM
practices within three different types of organizations: core companies, subcontractors
and temporary employment agencies. The different types of organizations in the network
should be considered from the role point of view. This role differentiation means that the
three organization types (core company, subcontractor and agency of temporary workers)
are not categorized by their core competences or businesses, instead they are studied by
the role that they are carrying in the network. (Bowers & Akhlaghi 1999) Thus, in this
paper the concept of core company refers to the organization that represents the business
concept of the whole network while it simultaneously is the customer for subcontractors
and agencies of temporary workers.
Our research subjects are five different networks. Each of them is developed around a
core company working in industrial branch, outsourcing their support activities and
having leased labor. These research settings include also four SME subcontractors, and
9
three agencies of temporary workers. The target group of the study is the employees at
shopfloor level who collaborate with other employer’s employees in daily basis.
The data collection was conducted through anonymously filled questionnaires distributed
in work places by superiors. In total the sample was 373, of which we received 160
responses. Of these responses 17 were identified as superiors thus limiting the acceptable
responses to 143, making the response rate moderate 38 %. The respondent
characteristics are depicted in Table 1. The respondents are seemingly young, and the
strong majority of the respondents are men. This is not surprising as the study was
conducted within an industrial branch. Finally, 52% of the respondents were temporary
workers hired by the agency. This share well corresponds to the situation in the studied
working places.
Table 1: The respondent characteristics
n %
Age 16-25 years 61 42,7%
26-40 49 34,3%
41-57 33 23,1%
Sex Male 102 71,3%
Female 41 28,7%
Organization type Core company 30 21,9%
Subcontractor 35 25,5%
Temporary workers 72 52,3%
No response 6 4,2%
In the questionnaire we measured HRM practices with 15 Likert-scale statements. The
statements were designed to capture perceptions of employees related to work place and
employer; work environment and colleagues; personal job; and development functions of
the job.
10
EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF OCB
As indicators of OCB there were following statements in the questionnaire:
Helping behavior: ‘My workmates are ready to help if I have problems with my work
tasks’. If employees think about favorable characteristics of co-workers and consider
them as co-workers, not as workers from another company, this leads to helping
behavior. (Eisenberger et al. 2001, Greenberger & Wang 2002) Helping behavior and
altruism is noticed to be a crucial element of OCB (Podsakoff et al. 2000).
Responsibility of company’s performance: ‘I feel I am responsible for success of my
work place’. Felt obligation to care about organization’s performance and help the
organization to achieve its objectives is seen as a consequence of employees’
commitment and attachment to the organization (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Eisenberger et
al. 2001, Rhoades et al. 2001).
Appreciation: ‘I feel that the work community appreciates my work contribution’. The
satisfaction of needs for praise and approval is an important determinant of affective
attachment. Affective attachment is supposed to increase the tendency to interpret the
organization’s gains and losses as one’s own and the internalization of the organizations
values and norms i.e. commitment. (Eisenberger et al. 2001, Rhoades et al. 2001).
Self-development opportunities: ‘I have good opportunities to develop myself and learn in
my work’. Development opportunities at work are noticed to act as rewards to work
contribution and form a basis for commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Rousseau 1990).
There again, voluntary behavior of employees to engage into improving their skills and
competences is noticed to be a key dimension of OCB (Podsakoff et al. 2000).
11
Table 2: The means of the OCB-measures by organization types
Helping behavior Responsibility Appreciation Self-
development
Core company
(n = 30) 3,66 3,80 3,23 3,38
Subcontractor
(n = 35) 4,14 4,06 3,66 3,63
Agency temp
workers (n = 72) 4,34 3,53 3,22 3,35
Total
(n=137) 4,14 3,73 3,34 3,43
The employee groups differ somewhat in their feelings of helping behavior,
responsibility, appreciation and development possibilities (see Table 2). The means hint
that the employees in the subcontracting companies have the most beneficial premises for
OCB. The subcontractors’ employees rate highest in the feeling of being appreciated, in
responsibility and development opportunities. However, the leased workers rate highest
in the helping behavior. Unexpectedly, the employees of core companies have no highest
ratings of OCB and they seem to share their feelings about the appreciation and
development possibilities in the work place with the leased labor. The further analysis
however suggests that even if there are some differences in the OCB measures, they are
not statistically significant.
The ratings of OCB measures are interesting as there seems to be a stereotypical picture:
large core companies exploiting sophisticated HRM practices are usually supposed to
generate better results in employees’ contribution. SMEs working as subcontractors are
seen under the pressures of larger client companies and exercise unsophisticated HRM
practices, and thus the employees of SMEs are considered to be in an inferior position to
those of larger client companies. The leased workers are considered to be in the most
disadvantageous position. Our results do not support these presumptions.
12
EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF HRM PRACTICES
The data was then factor-analysed. The factors were constructed to embody traditional
and discretionary HRM practices (see Table 3). The factors constructed are rather
congruent with the HRM practices – performance management and reward systems;
communications; empowerment and team working; and training and development –
identified by Bowers & Akhlaghi (1999) as the most important practices to encourage
and motivate both peripheral and core employees.
Table 3: Employees’ perceptions – confirmatory factor analysis
Variable Mean Extract KMO Eigenv Variance%
F1 conduction of work .807 2.716 54.319
Occupational safety is attended in the workplace 3,70 .605
New workers are familiarized well enough 3,43 .578
New employees feel that they are welcome 3,66 .524
Clear instructions of the work are given 3,71 .511
Superiors treat all equally 3,33 .498
F2 top down communication .763 2.456 61.392
I am aware of employer‘s vision and values 3,13 .711
I am regularly informed of development of business 2,72 .667
All are invited to informative meetings 3,16 .573
Things are open for discussions at the workplace 3,18 .555
F3 autonomy .581 1.631 54.365
I have a possibility to influence on own work content 2,80 .674
I can solve problems at the workplace independently 3,63 .521
I get enough performance feedback 2,89 .436
F4 development encouragement .636 1.679 55.967
I have possibility to superior-employee discussions 3,31 .602
Courses offered at the workplace are useful 3,25 .566
If I want to change works tasks it is possible 2,95 .511
The first factor consists of the statements concerning familiarization, occupational safety,
welcoming feelings, equal treatment in work place and clarity of instructions. The factor
is named as conduction of work as it is in line with traditional practices to conduct and
manage work. (Greenberger & Wang 2002, Hayton 2003, Rubery et al. 2002)
13
The second factor consists of the statements concerning information and communication
as well as sharing common vision and values at the workplace. The factor is named as top
down communication. In multi-employer environment the coherent values and messages
sent to employees by the employer organization and the client organization are noticed to
be crucial for productive management (Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2006). We consider these two
factors (1 & 2) as traditional contractual practices which are fundamental for HRM in
networks. They form the basis for effective co-operation but they alone are considered to
be insufficient for OCB.
The third factor includes items of self-sufficiency such as skills in problem solving,
feedback and possibilities to influence into one’s work content. Therefore the factor can
be labelled as autonomy. Employees’ autonomy and empowerment are seen as a
prerequisite for OCB. (Rubery et al. 2002)
The fourth factor consist statements of encouragement of professional skills development
and superior-employee discussions. It is named as development encouragement.
Development possibilities have been noticed to act as rewards and increase work
contribution of employees (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Rousseau 1990). We consider these
two latter factors (3 & 4) as discretionary practices which increase OCB.
Table 4: The means of HRM-practices by organization types
Conduction of
work Top down
communication Autonomy Development
encouragement
Core company
(n = 30) 3,25 3,41 3,01 3,40
Subcontractor
(n = 35) 3,87 3,36 3,43 3,41
Agency temp
workers (n = 72) 3,47 2,71 2,99 2,93
Total
(n=137) 3,53 3,03 3,11 3,16
In the mean comparison of the HRM-practices, the employees of subcontracting SMEs
rate highest the most HRM practices (see Table 4). Employees feel that it is easy to start
14
as a new employee in the subcontractor company and familiarization of the work place is
conducted properly. Clear instructions of the work as well as safety issues related to
occupation are given. The atmosphere is perceived welcoming and equal. The employees
of the subcontractors feel that they have possibilities to solve problems independently and
they can influence on their own work task. Also they rate encouragement to develop
themselves highest, though the marginal to employees of core companies is minimal.
One of the most striking results of the analysis is the relatively low encounter of HRM
practices with core company employees. In terms of work conduction the core companies
received the lowest mean value. Only top down communication is rated the highest. This
may be explained with the central network position – the relevant information is easily at
hand for employees and large companies have established practices for information
sharing. But the rating of autonomy almost as low as by leased labor is surprising as the
employees of the core companies are most often permanent and experienced employees
with long attachments.
The results in table 4 for leased labor indicate that the network role is not yet totally
clarified. The temporary workers rate HRM practices seemingly low. This may indicate
that boundaries and responsibilities between organizations are unclear: leased labor is
physically working in the facilities of the core companies, but their salary is paid by
agencies of temporary workers. There may be ambiguity who is responsible for the
management of leased workers e.g. supervision and development of work, training,
communication, performance appraisal and incentive compensation. Now leased labor
seem to lack encounter with many HRM practices that would belong to an established
employment relationship.
These results support the proposition that networking has a different impact on
employees’ OCB in each organization of the network. The permanent employees of core
companies should be familiar with the company and its procedures and they should be
encountered with sophisticated HRM practices. Yet, the structural organizational changes
create uncertainty and total successful outcome is no longer managed by own individual
15
performance. The procedures between different organizations differ and the leased labor
is not in the easy position. Though, while stating that the network role is not totally
formed and it is quite difficult, the perceptions of the leased work force are not the most
unsatisfied in all regards. Merely, temporary workers are co-operating with full-
understanding of their seasonal demands. The employees of subcontracting SMEs were
contrary the presumptions the employees rating highest both the most dimensions of
OCB and HRM practices.
In table 5 the regression analysis shows the differences of HRM practices in explaining
OCB. It seems that work conduction – proper familiarization, clear instructions, equal
and welcoming atmosphere – has significant effect on helping behavior. But the intensity
of top down communication has negative effect on helping behavior. This could be
interpreted such that when employees feel that they must focus solely on their and their
company’s own performance and goals, the sensitivity to the needs for assistance by
coworkers diminishes.
Table 5: Regression patterns of OCB and HRM practices
All Helping behavior Responsibility Appreciation Self-
development
Work conduction
.601 *** .295 * .415 *** .113
Top down
communication -.206 * .063 .272 ** .004
Autonomy
.027 .241 * .230 * .227 *
Development
possibilities -.001 .285 * .029 .471 ***
Constant 2.642 *** 1.082 * .358 1.250 **
R-square .232 .230 .370 .183
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
The responsibility for the performance of the work place is explained by work conduction
and discretionary HRM practices i.e. autonomy and development possibilities but the
loadings are only moderate. This may suggest that the feeling of responsibility is more
dependent on individual characteristics and attitudes than HRM practices. This finding
16
may be associated with the review of Podsakoff et al. (2000) referring to employee
characteristics underlying employee morale, satisfaction, fairness and commitment.
Employees’ feeling of appreciation is strongly affected by traditional HRM practices.
Work conduction and communication practices emerged as important factors explaining
the satisfaction of needs for praise and approval. Also the analysis shows that the feeling
of autonomy and empowerment contributes to feelings of appreciation. The constant does
not reach significant level in explaining appreciation.
Finally, the regression analysis of self-development opportunities shows that the
discretionary HRM practices emerge as more important factors than traditional practices.
However, the R-square is relatively slow (.183).
The results of regression analysis support the proposition that OCB can be enhanced by
HRM practices. However, the results concerning diverse effects of traditional and
discretionary HRM practices are not so clear.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the present study was to analyze OCB and encounter of HRM practices
of employees working physically in the same workplaces but for different employers –
core companies, subcontractors or temporary employment agencies. OCB is seen as an
organizational citizenship behavior i.e. a pattern that arises from well conducted HRM
practices providing employees with willingness to perform above expectations. It must be
pointed out that the results are not generalizable as such, but that the objective was to
study the characteristics and the varied nature of the phenomenon.
We proposed on the basis of differences in employment relationships, HRM practices,
and working environments that the OCB of employees of core companies, SME
subcontractors and agency temporary workers will differ. On the basis of the results of
17
the present study, it can be said that the situation of the employees working in inter-
business environments differs by employer but it is not as black-and-white as is often
supposed. The employees of core companies are expected to be in superior position
concerning OCB as they have permanent long term employment attachments and they are
encountered by sophisticated HRM practices. But it was noticed that the use of
networking necessarily affects the employees of the core companies, and their level of
motivation, security and commitment to the employer may suffer seriously. However, the
results of this study indicate that the employees of subcontractor SMEs are quite satisfied.
Autonomy in their work, sense of responsibility, supervisory work as well as appreciation
of others make the situation of the employees of subcontractors better than that of the
others.
Besides, on the basis of the results, agency temporary workers are not as unhappy as
previous research has given cause to believe. Leased workers have been relatively well
integrated into the work communities. They have a feeling of unity, they feel that they
can ask for advice when needed and they trust that their co-workers will help them. It
must be pointed out that the leased workers are the youngest among the studied
employees and therefore, age might influence the results – for example, young people
might be satisfied with less.
It is obvious that the challenges that networking creates for HRM have not yet been
entirely understood. This study indicates that OCB of employees in networked
organizations can be enhanced by traditional and discretionary HRM practices. However,
the effects of different practices on the elements of OCB in various networked
organizations need to be studied more. And the approach to HRM practices should be
extended from traditional practices in a long-term employment relationship to find new
practices to motivate, empower and reward employees in atypical, temporary
employment relationships.
18
REFERENCES
Alasoini, T. (2006), ”Työnteon mielekkyyden muutos Suomessa vuosina 1992 - 2005 –
työolobarometrin aineistoihin perustuva analyysi” Tykes Report 45,
Helsinki.
Bacon, N. and Hoque, K. (2005), “HRM in the SME sector: valuable employees and
coercive networks” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 16, No. 11, pp. 1976-1999.
Benson, J. (1998), “Dual commitment: contract workers in Australian manufacturing
enterprises” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35, No. 3, 355-375.
Bowers, D. and Akhlaghi, F. (1999), “Integration of modern HRM practices across
contractor boundaries in FM”, Facilities, Vol. 17, No. 7/8, pp. 253-263
Bredgaard, T., Larsen, F. and Madsen, P.K. (2005), “The flexible Danish labour market -
a review”, Centre for Labour Market Research CARMA Research papers
2005:01, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Cardy, R.L. (2002), “HRM and the virtual workplace: some concluding observations and
future directions” In Heneman, R.L. and Greenberger, D.B. (eds.) (2002),
Human resource management in virtual organizations. Information Age
Publishing Inc, USA.
Cleveland, J.N., Mohammed, S. and Skattebo, A.L. (2002), “Performance management in
the virtual organization/workplace” In Heneman, R.L. and Greenberger,
D.B. (eds.) (2002), Human resource management in virtual organizations.
Information Age Publishing Inc, USA.
Cooper, C. and Otley, D. (1998), “The 1996 research assessment exercise for business
and management”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 73-
89.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M, Morrow, P.C. and Kessler, I. (2006), “Serving two organizations:
exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 561-583.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001),
“Reciprocation of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived
organizational support” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp.
500-507
Fuller, B.J., Barnett, T., Hester, K. and Relyea, C. (2003), “A social identity perspective
on the relationship between perceived organizational support and
organizational commitment”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 143,
No. 6, pp. 789-791.
Greenberger, D.B. and Wang, S. (2002), “The virtual organization: definition, description
and identification” In Heneman, R.L. and Greenberger, D.B. (eds.) (2002),
Human resource management in virtual organizations. Information Age
Publishing Inc, USA.
Harney, B. and Dundon, T. (2006), “Capturing complexity: developing an integrated
approach to analyzing HRM in SMEs”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 48-73.
19
Hayton, J.C. (2003), “Strategic human capital management in SMEs: an empirical study
of entrepreneurial performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42,
No. 4, pp. 375-391.
Hayton, J.C. (2005), “Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource
management practices: a review of empirical research”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 21-41.
Hunter, L. and Beaumont, P. and Sinclair, D. (1996), “ A ‘partnership’ route to human
resource management?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 235-257.
Kinnie, N., Purcell, J., Hutchinson, S., Terry, M., Collinson, M. and Scarbrough, Harry
(1999), “Employment relations in SMEs – Market driven or customer
shaped?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 218-235.
Kotey, B. and Sheridan, A. (2004), “Changing HRM practices with firm growth”, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 474-
485.
Lehto, A-M., Lyly-Yrjänäinen, M. and Sutela, H. (2005), ”Pysyvän työn toivossa –
määräaikaisten työsuhteiden käytöstä ja kokemisesta” (In Finnish) Labour
Policy Studies 291, Ministry of Labour.
McDonald, D. and Makin, P. (2000), “The psychological contract, organisational
commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff” Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 84-91.
MacMahon, J. (1996), “Employee relations in small firms in Ireland: an exploratory
study of small manufacturing firms” Employee Relations, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp. 66-80
Mayson, S. and Barrett, R. (2006), “The ‘science’ and ‘practice’ of HRM in small firms”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 447-455.
McClendon, J., Klaas, B.S. and Gainey, T.W. (2002), “HR outsourcing and the virtual
organization” In Heneman, R.L. and Greenberger, D.B. (eds.) (2002),
Human resource management in virtual organizations. Information Age
Publishing Inc, USA.
Organ, D.W. (1987), “Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome”
Lexington, Mass.
Paauwe, J. and Boselie, P. (2003), “Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the
institutional setting”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13, No.
3, pp. 56-70.
Palanko-Laaka, K. (2005), ”Määräaikaisen työn yleisyys, käytön lainmukaisuus ja
lainsäädännön kehittämistarpeet” (In Finnish) Työhallinnon julkaisu 359,
Ministry of Labour.
Pihkala, T., Oikarinen, T. and Pulkka-Stone, L. (2006), “Challenges of personnel
management in networked organization” Lahti University of Applied
Sciences Series A, part 12, Lahti.
Podsakoff, Philip, M., MacKenzie, Scltt, B., Paine, Julie Beth and Bachrach, Daniel, G.
(2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”
Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 513-563.
20
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of
the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 4 pp. 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the
organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 825-836.
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (1995), “Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect
of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 289-298
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not
the exception but the norm” Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp. 245-259
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s
obligations: a study of psychological contracts” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 389-400
Rubery, J., Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., Cooke, F.L. and Vincent, S. (2002),
“Changing organizational forms and the employment relationship”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 645-672.
Rubery, J., Cooke, F.L., Earnshaw, J. and Marchington, M. (2003), “Inter-organizational
relations and employment in a multi-employer environment”, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 265-289.
Scarbrough, H. (2000), “The HR implications of supply chain relationships”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Schabracq, M.J. And Cooper, C.L. (1997), “Flexibility of labor, well-being, and stress”,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 259-274.
Stopford, JM. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), “Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, vol 15, 521-536.
Tsui, A.S. and Wu, J.B. (2005), “The new employment relationship versus the mutual
investment approach: implications for human resource management”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 115-121.
Uhmavaara, H., Niemelä, J., Melin, H., Mamia, T., Malo, A., Koivumäki, J. and Blom, R.
2005 ”Joustaako työ? Joustavien työjärjestelyiden mahdollisuudet ja
todellisuus” (In Finnish) Labour Policy Studies 277, Ministry of Labour.
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), “Psychological ownership and feelings of
possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 439-459.
Wilkinson, A. (1999), “Employment relations in SMEs” Employee Relations, Vol. 21,
No. 3, pp. 206-217
Viitala, R. and Mäkipelkola, J. (2005), ”Työntekijä vuokrattuna – vuokratyövoiman
käytön vaikutuksista työyhteisössä” (In Finnish) Labour Policy Studies,
Ministry of Labour, Helsinki.
