Learn smart - Learn online. Upto 88% off on courses for a limited time. View Courses
Error goes here
Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.
Calculative and collaborative HRM practices, turnover and performance Evidence from Uruguay Alvaro Cristiani Universidad Católica del Uruguay, ...
Calculative and collaborative HRM practices, turnover and performance Evidence from Uruguay Alvaro Cristiani Universidad Católica del Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay and ESAI Business School, Universidad de Especialidades Espiritu Santo, Samborondon, Ecuador, and José M. Peiró Instituto de Investigación en Psicología de los RRHH, del Desarrollo Organizacional y de la Calidad de Vida Laboral (IDOCAL), Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain and Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas, Valencia, Spain Abstract Purpose–The purpose of this paper is to study the human resource management (HRM)–performance linkage by exploring alternative relationships between different HRM practices, categorised as either calculative or collaborative, and employee turnover and organisational and financial outcomes, in Uruguayan multinational companies (MNCs) and domestic companies, to better understand the implications of the Latin American context in this relationship. Design/methodology/approach–The study is performed at the firm level, using data from a representative sample of 274 firms, including both multinationals and locally owned firms in Uruguay, collected through the Cranet 2009 survey. The authors tested the hypotheses of the proposed model using structural equation modelling (SEM) and hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Findings–Empirical results show that collaborative HRM practices are significantly related to lower employee turnover rates, whereas calculative HRM practices are significantly associated with higher organisational and financial outcomes. These findings show the importance of the Latin American context in the relationships between HRM practices and firms’outcomes. Research limitations/implications–The use of survey data with single respondents might produce reliability problems. Additionally, the data used are cross-sectional, making it difficult to determine causality. Practical implications–Managers in MNCs and local firms in the context of developing economies and Latin American cultures must be aware that different types of HRM practices will influence different outputs and impacts on overall outcomes. Originality/value–The paper examines the extent to which HRM practices have a significant relationship with firm performance. In addition, it identifies the differential effects of calculative and collaborative HRM practices on performance, using data from a Latin American contextual setting rarely examined, in order to determine similarities and differences from results obtained in US and European contexts. KeywordsTurnover, HRM practices, Latin America Paper typeResearch paper Introduction There is a growing body of literature on the impact of human resource management (HRM) practices on performance, productivity and employee outcomes. Researchers have found evidence of a positive association between HRM and outcomes (Combset al.,2006) such as work productivity (Dattaet al., 2005), manufacturing quality (MacDuffie, 1995), International Journal of Manpower Vol. 40 No. 4, 2019 pp. 616-642 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7720 DOI 10.1108/IJM-11-2016-0207 Received 7 November 2016 Revised 22 June 2017 27 April 2018 27 August 2018 Accepted 16 September 2018 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm The contribution of Professor José M. Peiró to the present study has been supported by the project PSI2015-64862-R (MINECO/FEDER). 616 IJM 40,4 labour turnover (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), employee absenteeism (Guthrieet al., 2009), customer satisfaction (Batt and Colvin,2011) and financial outcomes (Collins and Smith, 2006). This impact has been identified on several levels and, in some cases, in research carried out with a multi-level approach (Van De Voordeet al. 2012). A strategic perspectiveinHRMstudiesrequirespayingattentionatthefirmleveltotheimpact of HRM practices on the firm’s outcomes. Moreover, it is important to consider bundles of HR practices, rather thanindividual practices separately, which has been the traditional approach, in order to more clearly capture the influence of HRM practices on organisational performance. Many related terms have emerged to refer to this high-performance work system (HPWS) HRM approach, such as high-performance work practices (Combset al., 2006; Karatepe and Vatankhah, 2014), high-performance HR practices (Sunet al., 2007), high involvement work systems (Wood and de Menezes, 2011) and high-performance work environment (Weinberget al., 2013). Regardless of the label used, the literature disagrees about whichcoherent set of HRM practices will produce outstanding performance effects in what situations. A literature review of HPWS practices (from 1992 to 2011) by Posthumaet al.(2013) points out that there are 61 HR practices mentioned a total of 2,042 times. The conceptualisations of these ideal HRM systems have often been characterised by a dichotomous classification that distinguishes between“hard”vs“soft”(Legge, 1995) and“control-”vs“commitment-”oriented practices (Arthur, 1994). Gooderhamet al.(1999, p. 510) referred to this“inherent duality”as a calculative vs collaborative HRM approach. Prior research in this area has mostly focussed on the USA (Batt, 2002; Collins and Smith, 2006; Combset al., 2006; Huselid, 1995; Zacharatoset al., 2005), Western Europe and other developed countries (Chuang and Liao, 2010; Gooderhamet al., 2008; Rizov and Croucher, 2009, Takeuchiet al., 2007). Unfortunately, the management of human resources and its impact on organisational performance have been understudied in Latin American contexts and other developing regions. Thus, evidence-based views of management mostly follow western models, and not much evidence is available about how these models apply to other developing regions, such as Latin American business or cultural contexts (Elvira and Davila, 2005). Thus, an important question that remains unanswered is:“Can we defend a‘universalist paradigm’ whereby strategic HRM aims at improving organizational performance through the implementation of‘best practices’that have a positive impact on organizational performance, or on the contrary, should we stress the ‘contextualist approach’and, therefore, the search for an understanding of what‘typical’rather than‘best practice’ organizations are doing?”(Sparrowet al., 2004). This paper contributes to filling this gap through the analysis and testing of the calculative and collaborative HRM practices–performance–turnover relationship (Gooderhamet al., 1999). The study is carried out in Uruguay, a Latin American country that presents a rich and complex labour relation and cultural context. This context differs from those prevailing in developed western countries, although it is also influenced by these relations, especially through multinational companies (MNCs) operating in Uruguay. This study addresses the HRM practices in the Uruguayan contextual setting and contributes to understanding not only the local realities, which are quite different from those of developed countries, but also the boundaries of the theoretical approaches from the strategic HRM literature developed in western countries. The study contributes to these theoretical approaches by explicitly incorporating evidence obtained from Uruguay, a developing Latin America country, into these models, and by showing the relevance of considering how the“typical”practices the companies implement in a given institutional context play a role in influencing behaviours and performance outcomes, thus showing boundaries to the universal approach and emphasising the importance of the national and cultural contexts stressing the role of the contextualist approach. 617 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices The Uruguayan management context It is necessary to understand HRM systems in the internal and external contexts of organisations ( Jackson and Schuler, 1995). The internal context includes structure, size, life cycle stages, technology and the business strategy. The external context includes industry characteristics, legal, social and political environments, unionisation, labour market conditions and the national culture. HRM is located in and influenced by its particular context (Brewster, 1999; Paauwe and Boselie, 2005). Based on this contextual framework, Uruguay is quite different from western and developed countries. This small Latin American country has a population of 3.4m people, 1.8m of whom are economically active, according to the National Statistical Institute (INE, 2017). It is a full member of the Southern Cone Common Market (Mercosur), along with Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. Due to its comparatively small economy, Uruguay is sensitive to external shocks, a reality recorded in the Uruguayan DNA and captured in the expression,“when Brazil and Argentina sneeze, we get a cold”. Since the mid-1970s, Uruguay has implemented significant economic and social changes, introducing reforms in the labour relations systems and changes in the management of human resources. After a period of authoritarian (1968–1973) and then military (1973–1984) regimes, characterised by the absence of civil liberties, union repression, the inexistence of collective bargaining and a continuous decline in real wages (Rodriguezet al., 2010), the country returned to a democratic political period in 1985. In this period, labour unions regained the right to bargain, and a tripartite collective bargaining system (representation of workers, the firms and the government) was re-instituted. During this period, there were few HR professionals or HR departments, and the HR agenda was controlled by lawyers located outside the managerial decision-making process. There were experienced practitioners, but not trained managers, working within the firm, applying personnel practices exclusively limited to payroll control and payment in an auxiliary role to the general administration (Labadie, 2005). From about 1991, due to structural changes in the economy and firms’ international exposure, the government abandoned the trilateral negotiation process and moved towards voluntary and decentralised bargaining practices at the firm level (Cassoni, 2000). The abandonment of the tripartite collective bargaining process called for a managerial role more oriented towards“profit-seeking”behaviour, with more innovation- prone activities, careful development of strategies and managerial practices designed to attain competitiveness in a more open economy. In this context, medium and large firms and a few state-owned companies were involved in“high-performance practices”and in establishing professional HR departments. Typically, the psychologist was the most requested HR professional profile, with specialisations in job analysis and description, recruitment and selection, performance appraisal (PA), and training and development (Labadie, 2005; Cristiani, 2008). Finally, in 2005, the government reinstated the current legal framework for collective bargaining and enforceable agreements. Contrary to international trends (Verma and Fang, 2002), trade unions and collective bargaining in Uruguay have experienced high levels of growth and importance in every labour matter. Since the national government took office in March 2005, 74 per cent of workers from the private-owned sector are covered by collective agreements, whereas in previous government periods, this figure only reached 18 per cent (Padrón and Wachendorfer, 2017; Pereira, 2005). Based on Freyssinet’s (2007) analytical framework, Uruguay has moved from a voluntarism approach during the 1990s, characterised by the free will of the actors to adopt different forms of collective organisation, as in the systems in the USA and Great Britain, to a neo-corporativism tradition, characterised by a centralised, tripartite system, as in Scandinavian countries (Cristiani and Peiró, 2015). These changes have impacted HRM practices and the role played by the HR function. Medium and large firms, as well as several small firms, have hired professionals who were not only trained in HRM systems and practices, but also qualified in business administration and 618 IJM 40,4 industrial relations. Font (2010), based on previous research (Labadie, 2005; Rodriguez-Gustá et al., 2003), confirmed that the current state of HRM in Uruguay can be clustered, depending on the level of adoption of HRM practices, in three managerial profiles: simple, professional or strategic. Congruently, in a more sociological study, Quiñoneset al.(2015) identified three Uruguayan business and HR configurations in the manufacturing sector: personalist and familiar, objective, and impersonal and professional. In sum, employment relations in Uruguayan firms experience the inherent duality (Boselieet al., 2009) and tension between industrial relations and HRM. According to Neira (2011), labour relations are seen by employees and employers as the main instance for interaction, and the collective bargaining process is the arena where each group defends its own interests. However, HRM occupied a secondary place, instrumenting and adopting the practices that are not in collision with the bargaining process. Bello-Pintado (2011) in an empirical study analysed the innovative and entrepreneurship behaviour, based on 150 manufacturer companies in Uruguay. They found that unions support the adoption of training practices; however, they opposed to practices that promote internal careers. The cultural context could have some relevance here. If we explore the culture of Uruguay through the various dimensions of the Hofstede (2001) model, Uruguay is considered a collectivist society. Employer–employee relationships are perceived in moral terms, like a family link. It is considered a relatively feminine society, where managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their working lives. An effective manager is considered a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through participation and involvement. These cultural dimensions and the higher levels of unionism support the low levels of involuntary turnover (dismissals) in Uruguayan firms. Finally, the high score on the uncertainty avoidance dimension indicates a society that has a low level of tolerance for uncertainty and adheres to rules, norms, policies and regulations (Hofstede Insights, 2017). That is, many of the transformations and changes in HRM in the Uruguayan context need to fit the local context and adapt to labour policies and trade unions’demands (Sierra and Viera, 2017). Cristiani and Peiró (2015) found that the high degree of union presence in the Uruguayan workplaces leads to adopting more collaborative HRM practices. Consistent with this finding, Elvira and Davila (2005) stated that HRM practices in Latin American organisations are rooted in a culture where personal and social relationships are very important, and jobs represent more than just a decent wage. In Latin America, the HR professional is seen as an advocate at the service of the employees (Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005), rather than an agent of the organisation. This characteristic is congruent with social exchange theory, which stresses the importance of social factors in the workplace. The calculative and collaborative HRM views are in tension, trying to balance employees’interests and culture with predominant global companies’performance demands, oriented towards an efficient use of the human resource (Davila and Elvira, 2012; Elvira and Davila, 2005). In addition, recently these authors (Davila and Elvira, 2018) revisiting the Latin American HRM model from a stakeholder-centred perspective, built on Brewster’s (1999) contextual paradigm, state that“the inclusion of multiple constituencies (employees, organized labour, managers and other stakeholders) in the management of employment relationships, might mean conflicting or contrasting interest and demands, difficult to be satisfied simultaneously”(Davila and Elvira, 2018, p. 395). This seems to be more complex than in other world regions, due to the late development of labour institutions (Davila and Elvira, 2018). Finally, building on varieties of capitalism literature, greatly expanded since Hall and Soskice’s (2001) initial work and then followed by other researchers (Hall and Gingerich, 2009; Amable, 2007; Schneider and Soskice, 2009); Uruguay differs from the conventional argument that Latin America capitalisms and political economies are converging on a single and coherent model, labelled as“Hierarchical”.InUruguay,thestateisthemain 619 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices coordinator, and the relationship between labour and business is usually conflictive and without a history of successful long-term coordination (Bogliaccini, 2012) proposes labelling this subtype of coordinated economy as“Statist-Coordinated Market Economy (CME)”. Thus, the study of the Uruguayan case is paradigmatic to shed light on the institutional and contextual relevance in the implementation of HRM practices showing the limits of the universalist and the resource-based view (RBV ) approaches to promote firm performance. HRM and firm performance The association between HRM and firm performance has been well established (Boselie et al., 2005; Combset al., 2006; Van de Voordeet al., 2012; Jensenet al., 2013; Takeuchiet al., 2007; Tregaskiset al., 2013). However, it is unclear, and there is no consensus about, which HRM practices or combinations are positively associated with outcomes, and through what mechanisms these practices might impact performance (Guest, 2011; Wrightet al., 2005; Saridakiset al., 2017). However, this outcome may be operationalised in different ways and at different levels. In the present paper, we focus on the firm level, and so it is important to identify the different types of outcomes at this level. When reviewing the literature, it is plausible that many of the existing models (Beckeret al., 1997; Boselieet al., 2005; Purcellet al., 2003; Paauwe and Richardson, 1997; Wright and Nishii, 2013) point out the multidimensionality of organisational effectiveness. Based on Dyer and Reeves’(1995) strategic HRM research, the outcomes have been categorised in three groups: HR, organisational and financial outcomes. HR outcomes are those most directly related to HRM in an organisation, such as employee skills and abilities, employee attitudes and behaviours, and turnover. Organisational outcomes are those related to the goals of an organisational operation, including productivity, product quality, quality of service and innovation. Financial outcomes reflect the fulfilment of the economic goals of organisations, such as sales growth, return on invested capital and return on assets. Moreover, the impact of HRM practices on more distal outcomes, such as productivity, product/service quality, customer satisfaction, sales, profits and market value (organisational and financial outcomes), is usually transmitted through the impact on more proximal and HR-related outcomes, such as turnover, dismissal/layoffs, absenteeism, employee involvement, trust and motivation (Crooket al., 2011). Thus, there is a common understanding that HR outcomes work as key mediators between HRM practices and organisational and financial outcomes ( Jianget al., 2012). Nevertheless, the particularity of the mediation in models depends on the theoretical perspective researchers have adopted when exploring this relationship. At a micro level, the behavioural theoretical perspective based on contingency theory ( Jackson and Schuler, 1995) proposes that organisations use HRM practices to stimulate productive behaviours that achieve better financial results and business objectives. At a macro level, some researchers focus less on the behaviours of employees and more on their competencies. They appeal to human capital theory and the RBV of the firm. The human capital perspective emphasises that the configuration of employees’skills, knowledge and abilities is a central driver of organisational and financial performance (Lepak and Snell, 1999; Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011). The RBV perspective, complementary to human capital theory, sustains that firms obtain a competitive advantage when (human) resources are rare, valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991; Wright and McMahan, 1992). Although these lenses ( behavioural perspective, human capital theory and RBV of the firm) can agree on considering HR outcomes as the critical path from HRM to organisational and financial outcomes, researchers have argued that not all HRM bundles have the same impact on outcomes. This lack of understanding about mediating variables and transmission pathways is referred as the“black box”of HRM (Boselieet al., 2005; Paauwe, 2009; Wrightet al., 2005). 620 IJM 40,4 Recent research suggests different theoretical models for opening the black box and trying to understand the causal pathways and mediating variables between HRM and performance (Boxallet al., 2016; Liaoet al., 2009; Nishiiet al., 2008). In the present study, we aim to identify, at the firm level, the mediating role of turnover in the relationships between two important HRM bundles (calculative and collaborative) and organisational performance. The use of this two-dimensional bundle framework is based on an examination of differential effects of these two HRM bundles on different outcomes. In addition, this paper pays special attention to the fact that the firms operate in a Latin American context and culture, searching for potential specificities in this set of relationships. In particular, we consider the Uruguayan context as a“Statist-CME”and the role of the unions in that context to see how it may play a role on the relationship between different types of HR practices and different indicators of performance. Moreover, we pay attention to the MNCs’strategies on the HRM practices–outcomes relationships in the Uruguay’s environment. Calculative and collaborative HRM practices and performance outcomes Organisations can effectively influence employee behaviours and motivation through different HRM practices (Wrightet al., 2001). In this regard, HR scholars refer to two types of practices based on two conceptions of human nature, with their roots in McGregor’s (1960) X and Y theory: hard and soft (Legge, 1995) and control and commitment (Walton, 1985; Arthur, 1994). The control approach to HRM pursues efficiency by enforcing employee compliance. By contrast, commitment HRM aims to shape attitudes by forging psychological links between organisational and employee goals. Gooderhamet al.(1999) redefined this HRM duality as calculative and collaborative HRM practices. It is important not to confuse this calculative term with the Walton or Arthur control factors. The calculative dimension considers HRM practices characterised by efficiency seeking rather than promoting employee compliance. This approach looks at how each employee performs individually and contributes to the organisation’s goals, as well as how the employee is rewarded based on both his/her PA and an individual-oriented reward system (Gooderhamet al., 1999). PA practice inherently encloses a performance– reward contingent relationship and a developmental side. This tension is manifested in particular in Latin American countries. The calculative and instrumental purpose, such as determining and keeping track of employees’value and contribution to the organisational goals (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991), justifies termination decisions when investment in an employee is costlier than his/her contribution. Another calculative practice, “pay-for-performance”schemes, sorts employees according to their ability to meet objective standards, and it provides objective measures that allow employers to more accurately identify poor performers and dismiss them (Batt and Colvin, 2011). However, the relationship between performance-based pay and employee attitudes and actions (voluntary turnover/quit) is not clear. Even though higher and lower performers may be paid fairly in pay-for-performance cultures, higher performers will be more satisfied, and poor performers will quit more often. They may overestimate their contribution, perceive that they are underpaid and then become dissatisfied (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003). In addition, because they find these pay schemes too intense, they quit before being fired (Batt and Colvin, 2011). By contrast, high performers under these plans will probably quit less frequently because they earn more moneythan in other options. However, they might experience a lot of stress, seeking dailyto earn their commissions in an uncertain context with many factors beyond their control (changing economic conditions, product competitiveness and customers’variability). Although they are willing to stay for a short period in a setting with a close performance– pay linkage, many of them later tend to move to a stable income plan in order to avoid uncertainty, even if the variable plan offered a higher annual pay. In summary, we believe that pay-for-performanceplans have a positive 621 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices relationship with employee turnover, either voluntary or involuntary. Training is another area that can be used by companies in a calculative way. Managers monitor the time and money invested in employee development, such as training, and they evaluate its benefits related to the overall business strategy and finances (Gooderhamet al., 1999). Training programmes in organisations that evaluate training effectiveness by measuring employee job performance with“before and after”criteria could be perceived by workers as an instrumental and utilitarian investment rather than as a developmental tool committed to employee well-being. Thus, this instrumental approach to training is considered by Gooderhamet al.(1999) to be a calculative practice. In these cases, voluntary turnover will be higher. Training can be carried out for several reasons, and according to Kosteret al.(2009), employee turnover is more related to their perception of the training objectives. The individual calculative approach treats each employee as an individual, rather than as a member of a collective entity protected by collective bargaining contracts and unionisation. The adoption of these practices is mainly possible when management has considerable autonomy, as in US firms (Gooderhamet al., 1999, 2006). However, when this autonomy is limited by regulatory pressures from labour laws and agreements, or by representative bodies, as in Uruguayan firms, calculative practices are conflictive and the relation with turnover could be weakened. Still, following the bulk of the existing theory and evidence we formulate the following: H1a.Calculative HRM practices are positively related to employee turnover. PA and pay-for-performance systems are essential in recognising and rewarding high-performing employees, practices to which Delaney and Huselid (1996) attributed an impact on firm performance. The combination of pay systems, accurate appraisal and alignment with the corporate strategy has an impact on organisationalﬁnancial and productivity measures (Huselid, 1995). Empirical research has demonstrated a positive connection between incentive compensation and organisational performance, demonstrated by productivity increases (Shawet al., 1998). Cunhaet al.(2003), in a sample of 1,301 organisations in Europe, found that performance management, composed of PA and incentive compensation, has a significant positive impact on financial outcomes (Combset al., 2006). Training processes, including activities such as needs assessment, setting goals and objectives, and the evaluation of results, are most successful at maximising the effectiveness of their training programmes, in terms of improving profitability and enhancing product or service quality (Huang, 2001). Training has been linked to organisational performance. Aposporiet al.(2008) found a positive association between training and organisational performance in Southern European countries: H1b.Calculative HRM practices are positively related to organisational performance. In the collaborative dimension, employee and employer establish a more relational psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995) where information sharing, programmes and communication policies, including communication of the mission statement and strategic, financial and work organisation briefings, reinforce a high level of trust and a culture of long-term commitment (Gooderhamet al., 1999). Previous research shows that communication and information-sharingpractices support the internalisation of organisational goals and values by employees, enhance feelings of mutual trust and make individuals feel important to the company (Meyer and Allen, 1997). They also provide a formal mechanism for employer–employee communication about work-related issues (Huselid, 1995). Guestet al.(2003) found a significant association between HRM and labour turnover in a study using data from 366 companies in the UK. Results show that high use of HRM practices across nine different areas, including communication and formal 622 IJM 40,4 information-sharing processes, was associatedwithlowerturnover.InastudyofUS-based Fortune 1,000 firms, Gibsonet al.(2007) found that more extensive information sharing throughout the organisation is associated withhigher objective financial performance. Feyet al. (2009) found support for more extensive communications being associated with higher employee motivation, which, in turn, is associated with firm performance. Moreover, these practices, in accordance with social exchange theory (Lawler, 2001), stress the importance of social factors in the workplace, such as affective attachments and feelings of group cohesion and solidarity. Uruguay is considered a collectivist society that values equality, solidarity and participation. In addition, extensive collective agreement coverage reinforces International Labour Organization (ILO) principles of information sharing between parties at the workplace. This could strengthen the role of the unions in promoting the collaborative HRM practices and at the same time, this could weaken the perceptions of the employees about the contingency of this type of practices with organisational performance in this context. Still following the existing evidence, we formulate the following hypotheses: H2a.Collaborative HRM practices are negatively related to employee turnover. H2b.Collaborative HRM practices are positively related to organisational performance. Turnover and performance The relationship between turnover rates and organisational performance has been examined from various disciplinary perspectives, includingorganisational psychology, sociology, economics and HRM (Homet al., 2017; Park and Shaw, 2013). Apart from the debate about the type of relationship between these two variables ( linear or curvilinear) (Abelson and Baysinger, 1984; Glebbeek and Bax, 2004), several empirical studies confirm the negative effect of turnover on productivity (Brown and Medoff, 1978), sales growth (Batt, 2002), customer satisfaction (Batt and Colvin, 2011), customer service (Kacmaret al., 2006), profit (Van Iddekingeet al., 2009) and return on assets (Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010; Shen and Cannella, 2002). However, otherstudies did not find negative relationships (Shawet al., 2005). Beyond this balanced view of turnover, studies have shown that, regardless of whether an employee quits or is fired, turnover is dysfunctional. It contributes to higher costs due to recruiting and training a new employee, lower short-term productivity (Hausknechtet al., 2009), operational disruptions due to shifting resources to training and socialising newcomers, and social disruption due to loss of trust and social capital (Shawet al., 2005). More recently, Park and Shaw (2013), after correcting for sampling and measurement artefacts across 300 turnover rate–organisational performance correlations in a sample of more than 300,000 organisations and units–showed that turnover rates and organisational performance are significantly and negatively related. Involuntary turnover may be reduced under Uruguay dismissal legislation (compliance of Termination of EmploymentConvention C158 form the ILO) and unions’pressure. This situation may lead to the increase of the cost of firing (directly or indirectly) compared to the one in US and Anglo-Saxon countries. Despite the multiple contextual and contingent variables, evidence shows that turnover, whether voluntary or involuntary, is negatively related to performance: H3.The employee turnover rate is negatively related to organisational performance. Theoretical models suggest that employee behaviour, attitudes and skills mediate the HRM–performance relationship ( Jianget al., 2012; Paauwe and Boselie, 2005). The impact of HR practices on more distal outcomes passes through the impact on more proximal outcomes. Studies find that employee turnover partially mediates the HRM–performance linkage (Huselid, 1995; Batt, 2002; Batt and Colvin, 2011). On the basis of previous research 623 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices that contributes to opening the“black box”of the relationship between HR practices and firm performance by specifying the intervening variables, in particular employee turnover, even considering that the direct effect of turnover on organisational performance could be weakened by the Uruguayan contextual factors mentioned above, we formulate the following: H4.The employee turnover rate partially mediates the relationship between calculative and collaborative HRM practices and organisational performance. According to Boselieet al.(2005), HR aggregated outcomes, such as labour productivity, turnover and employee satisfaction, contribute to improving internal organisational performance, such as productivity and quality, and these improvements, in turn, positively impact the financial performance of firms. Productivity and quality are positively associated with financial performance (Crooket al., 2011). In light of these findings, we propose: H5.Organisational performance is positively related to financial performance. H6.Organisational performance mediates the relationship between HRM practices and financial performance. Universalism vs contextualism in the Uruguayan case: MNCs’moderation effect The way people are managed and the way they should be managed are fundamental issues in the field of business and HR management. Two different (ideal) paradigms, the universalist and the contextual, have emerged in response to this challenge (Brewster, 1999). The Universalist paradigm takes a best practice perspective and implies a direct relationship between particular HR practices and performance across the entire context (Martín-Alcázar et al., 2005). The contextual approach proposes a shift in the point of view of the HRM analysis. Contextual research advocates highlight the significance of the context in making sense of HRM practices and their effects (Cooke, 2018; Martín-Alcázaret al., 2005). These two perspectives are particularly important in the case of MNCs. HRM in MNCs maintain a balancing act between two forces around the world, one emerging from the best practices paradigm and the other rising from the specificities of the context. MNCs operating in Latin America, and in particular in Uruguay, have to find a balance between a standardised best practice strategy and a differentiated and successful adaptation approach to a variety of features of local environments. This has been pointed out by Edwardset al.(2016) with some evidence from five developed countries (UK, Spain, Denmark, Norway and Canada) and has also been pointed out by Elvira and Davila (2005) for Latin America. MNCs subsidiaries, usually, try to implement and transfer, on a global basis, organisational and HRM practices aligned with their strategy and considered key competitive advantages (Kostova and Roth, 2002). At the same they also try to filter by a“localisation mesh”these practices in a way that ensures success (Gomez and Sanchez, 2005). That is clearly observed for MNCs in Latin America with mission-critical HR practices, utilising different approaches to HRM. HR practices are redesigned to be congruent with cultural values and institutions (Elvira and Davila, 2005; Gomez and Sanchez, 2005; Sully de Luque and Arbaiza, 2005), although this is not always the case. Osland and Osland (2005) reported that MNC branches in Central America and Panama just implement best practices of the headquarters disregarding the local realities and indigenous practices. For the case of Uruguay, Bello-Pintado (2011) evidenced more sophisticated HRM practices, either calculative or collaborative, in Uruguayan firms part of MNC groups. They observe that in MNCs, HRM practices are oriented to preserve and motivate their employees, as well as reaching financial results. Taking into account this evidence, it could be expected that the differences between the efforts to balance universalist and contextualist approaches carried on by the multinational vs national companies would lead this variable to play a moderating role in the relationships between the type of HRM 624 IJM 40,4 practices and turnover and organisational performance. Given the scarce and limited evidence of this hypothesised moderation we formulate exploratory hypotheses aiming to shed light some light on the universalism–contextualism debate: H7a.MNCs moderate the relationship between calculative HRM practices and employee turnover. H7b.MNCs moderate the relationship between calculative HRM practices and organisational performance. H8a.MNCs moderate the relationship between collaborative HRM practices and employee turnover. H8b.MNCs moderate the relationship between collaborative HRM practices and organisational performance. Figure 1 depicts an operational model and the hypotheses stated above. Methodology Data and sample Data were collected through the Cranet 2009 survey, the largest and most representative longitudinal and comparative independent survey of HRM practices and policies in the world, with more than 20 years of research (for a detailed description of the Cranet approach, see Parryet al., 2011) The questionnaire is structured in different sections, including close-ended questions about a variety of HR issues. The unit of analysis is the firm, and the respondent is the most senior HRM manager in the firm. A national public opinion firm applied a translated questionnaire to an HR/personnel manager/responsible party in Uruguayan firms. Problems related to the translation of concepts and question comprehension were overcome through the collaboration of business schools and the “forward and blind back translation process”, with the quality control supervision of the Cranet project secretariat. The sample was drawn from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) business database, a comprehensive census list of Uruguayan firms classified by industrial profile, number of employees and geographic variables, among Calculative HRM practices MNCHR Outcomes Employee Tu r n o v e r Collaborative HRM practicesOrganisational Performance (Productivity, Quality, Innovation)Financial Performance (Profitability Gross revenue) Control Variables: Size, Age, Sector, Market growth, Union presence H7b H7aH1a+H1b+ H4 H3–H6 H5+ H8bH8a H2a– H2b+ Notes: H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, H4, H5 and H6 were tested using a structural equation modelling. H7a, H7b, H8a and H8b were tested using a hierarchical regression modelling Figure 1. Operational model and hypotheses 625 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices others, from a universe of 1,171 firms. To test the models in this study, the sample was restricted to private sector companies with more than 50 employees in the services and manufacturing sectors. Our final sample consists of 274 for-profit firms in the service (57 per cent) and manufacturing (43 per cent) sectors, with a margin of error of±5.9 per cent at a 95% confidence interval. The average number of employees is 298 (SD¼545). The nature of the organisation–whether it is a headquarters or subsidiary of a foreign-owned MNC (21 per cent) or a domestic organisation (79 per cent)–is defined by the respondent and checked against the stated country location of the corporate HQ. Table I provides an overview of the sample composition and the variables’means and standard deviations. Data gathering and analyses in the present study were carried out at the firm level, which is consistent with the theoretical model considered. Measures The measurement model includes 13 measures for 5 constructs. Two of the constructs–calculative HRM practices (ξ1) and collaborative HRM practices (ξ2)–are exogenous factors. The other three are endogenous factors–employee turnover (η1), organisational performance (η2) and financial performance (η3). In addition, in light of prior research, several control variables were included in the model that may have some influence on the endogenous factors, such as firm size (ξ3), firm age (ξ4), firm sector (ξ5), market growth (ξ6) and union presence (ξ7). MSP a Reliability analysis b Scales/Items Mean SD Hwgt Corrα Calculative HRM practices scale 3.40 2.57 0.42 0.81 Performance-related pay/clerical 0.11 0.32 0.43 0.39 0.80 Performance-related pay/professional 0.14 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.80 Performance-related pay/manager 0.18 0.38 0.41 0.47 0.79 Performance-related pay/manual 0.18 0.39 0.29 0.32 0.80 Formal evaluation training: before and immediately after 0.27 0.44 0.29 0.35 0.80 Formal evaluation training: before and after few months 0.27 0.45 0.32 0.40 0.80 Performance appraisals/manager 0.33 0.47 0.46 0.59 0.77 Performance appraisals/professional 0.36 0.48 0.49 0.62 0.77 Performance appraisals/manual 0.41 0.49 0.58 0.61 0.77 Performance appraisals/clerical 0.43 0.50 0.52 0.68 0.76 Collaborative HRM practices scale 7.90 2.93 0.43 0.81 Written mission statement 0.53 0.50 0.20 0.21 0.79 Written communication direct to employees 0.27 0.44 0.23 0.23 0.79 Strategy briefing/manual 0.27 0.44 0.58 0.53 0.76 Strategy briefing/clerical 0.46 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.76 Strategy briefing/professional 0.67 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.77 Strategy briefing/manager 0.97 0.18 0.58 0.26 0.78 Financial results briefing/manual 0.14 0.35 0.67 0.50 0.77 Financial results briefing/clerical 0.22 0.41 0.57 0.53 0.76 Financial results briefing/professional 0.42 0.49 0.36 0.40 0.77 Financial results briefing/manager 0.94 0.24 0.62 0.36 0.78 Organisation of work briefing/manual 0.61 0.49 0.43 0.48 0.77 Organisation of work briefing/clerical 0.71 0.45 0.52 0.54 0.76 Organisation of work briefing/professional 0.81 0.39 0.51 0.43 0.77 Organisation of work briefing/manager 0.96 0.21 0.56 0.29 0.78 Notes: aMSP, Mokken scaling programme; mean, mean of the dichotomised items; Hwgt, Loevinger’s coefficient of homogeneity (weighted). All Hwgt coefficients are significantly different from 0 at the 0.001 level. bReliability: Corr, corrected item scale correlations at the 0.05 level;α, Cronbach’sαfor the scale and for each item the scaleαminus that item Table I. Calculative and collaborative HRM practices scalability, validity and reliability analysis 626 IJM 40,4 To operationalise calculative and collaborative HRM practices, we follow the typology of Gooderhamet al.(1999). They constructed scales for calculative and collaborative practices in organisations using Cronbach’sαand the nonparametric Mokken’s scaling procedure (MSP) (Mokken and Lewis, 1982). Mokken’s approach does not make overly restrictive assumptions, and it provides an internal scaling criterion that ensures a unidimensional scale. This is an important advantage in this case, where dichotomous items are used that do not satisfy the assumption of interval scale items (Molenaar and Sijtsma, 2000). The calculative HRM practices variable consists of ten items on a summative scale related to calculative practices: training evaluation (two), PA (four) and incentive compensation (four) practices for each of four different organisational groups of employees: managerial, professional/technical, clerical and manual employees (Gooderhamet al., 1999; Cristiani and Peiró, 2015). The collaborative HRM practices variable includes the same six dichotomous items as Gooderhamet al.’s (1999) collaborative scale. However, eight additional items were included in order to take into account the Gooderhamet al.(2008), and Stavrou and Brewster (2005) bundled research on soft practices. Therefore, a 14-item scale was developed that included a written organisational mission statement (1), a written communication policy direct to employees (1) and formal briefings about the firm’s business strategy, financial results and organisation of work at the managerial, professional/technical, clerical and manual levels (12 items) (Cristiani and Peiró, 2015). The unidimensionality of the calculative and collaborative scale was verified with the MSP (Molenaar and Sijtsma, 2000). Researchers have previously used this approach in constructing scales based on dichotomous HR practices (Gooderhamet al., 1999; Rizov and Croucher, 2009; Cristiani and Peiró, 2015).This procedure builds sub-scales based on LoevingerHcoefficients of homogeneity. A set of items constitutes a scale if all Hcoefficients are significantly greater than 0 and exceed a threshold of 0.30.H-values between 0.4 and 0.5 are medium scales, whereas values above 0.5 define strong scales. The overall LoevingerH-values provide support for the calculative and collaborative unidimensional scale, indicating medium scalability (0.42 and 0.43, respectively); nonetheless, a few items on both scales had lowerH-values. Elimination of any of the previous items with a lowHcoefficient would lower the Cronbach’sα.Cronbach’sαsfor both scales showed high levels of consistency and reliability: 0.81 for both the calculative and collaborative scales (see Table II). The endogenous factors were constructed based on Dyer and Reeves’(1995) categorisation of three levels of outcomes: HR-related outcomes (employee turnover), organisational outcomes (productivity, quality, rate of innovation) and financial outcomes (gross revenue, profitability). Employee turnover is a continuous variable, operationalised by a question asking the percentage of employees who left the organisation within a year, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The distribution of turnover is slightly positively skewed (skewness: 3.04): the frequency of organisations increases as both variables decrease. As a standard procedure to improve normality, we apply the logarithm function to the variables (Casella and Berger, 2002). Thus, the variable was transformed by adding 1 (to remove the zeros) and taking the decimal logarithm. The distribution was much closer to normal (new skewness:�0.09) Financial performance was measured by two questions asking the respondents to report the company’s perceived gross revenue over the past three years on a five-point scale (1–so low as to produce large losses; 2 –insufficient to cover costs; 3–enough to break even; 4–sufficient to make a small profit; and 5–well in excess of costs) and perceived profitability in comparison with that of competitors, on a five-point scale. The two observed variables formed the latent construct of financial performance in the AMOS confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model. 627 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices Organisational performance was assessed by three indicators: product/service quality, level of productivity and rate of innovation in comparison with competitors on a five-point scale. Specifically, participants were asked to state whether their firm is at the: 1–poor or at the low end of the industry; 2–below average; 3–average or equal to the competition; 4–better than average; or 5–superior. The three indicators were used in AMOS to measure the latent construct of organisational performance. Control variables. Five control variables were included, modelled as exogenous factors. Firm age and firm size were measured as the natural log of years of the firm and of the total number of employees. As companies may have organisational characteristics and deploy various resources depending on their size (Gilman and Raby, 2013), firm sector was operationalised as 1–manufacturer or 0–service sector; market growth was measured on a three-step ordinal scale indicating whether the firm’s market is 3–growing, 2–steady or 1–declining (Rizov and Croucher, 2009); and finally union presence was measured on a summative index with three standardised items, based on Croucheret al.(2006): proportion of unionised workers, union influence on the organisation and union recognition for collective bargaining purposes, ranging from 0 (no union presence) to 1 (high degree of union presence). Procedure and data analysis The hypotheses of the proposed model were tested using the structural equation model methodology, via AMOS (Arbuckle, 2009) and the maximum likelihood estimation analysis of the matrix of covariance among variable scores. SEM consists of two parts: the measurement model and the structural model. For the measurement model, we followed the usual steps in CFA to validate the two constructs used in our study. Subsequently, a structural equation model was employed to test our hypotheses. SEM is particularly effective when testing path analytic models with mediating variables, allowing simultaneous estimation of the relationships between the exogenous variables and the various levels of endogenous variables. We assessed the overall model fit, following Bollen’s (1989) and Hairet al.’s (1992) recommendation that various model fits be used. In order to assess model fit, we computed the normed–χ 2test (χ 2/df, CMIN/df ), the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the standardised root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and a relative index Total (n¼274)National (¼216)MNC (n¼58)(MNC �National) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) DifferenceFinancial performanceOrganisational performanceEmployee turnoverCalculative HRM practices Firm age a 43.1 (31.8) 42.5 (30.8) 45.4 (35.5)�2.90 Firm size 298 (545) 274 (550) 324 (333) 49 Manufacturing sector 0.43 0.45 0.42�0.03 Service sector 0.57 0.55 0.59�0.02 Union Presence 0.54 (0.43) 0.56 (0.43) 0.49 (0.45)�0.06 Market growth 2.59 (0.64) 2.53 (0.66) 2.81 (0.47) 0.28** Financial performance 7.08 (1.47) 6.86 (1.46) 7.78 (1.60) 0.92*** Organisational performance 11.07 (2.02) 10.83 (1.93) 11.90 (2.11) 1.06** 0.41** Employee turnover (Log 10) 0.83 (0.46) 0.84 (0.53) 0.82 (0.48)�0.02�0.053�0.11 Calculative HRM practices 3.40 (2.57) 2.99 (2.51) 5.05 (2.76) 2.05*** 0.24** 0.21**�0.049 Collaborative HRM practices 7.90 (2.93) 7.51 (2.84) 9.60 (2.72) 2.09*** 0.12 0.23**�0.21**�0.45** Notes: aFirm age: years of established until 2009 that is when data were collected. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001 Table II. Means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables 628 IJM 40,4 (the non-normed fit index (NNFI)). A normed-χ 2intherangeof3to1isindicative of an acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the sample data (McIver and Carmines, 1981). NFI should not go below 0.9 (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), and CFI values of 0.95 or above indicate a very good fit. RMSEA values of about 0.08 or less would indicate a reasonable error of approximation, and those below 0.05 indicate good fit to the data (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). A hierarchical regression model was used to test the MNC moderation role in the HRM practices–employee turnover and HRM practices–organisational performance relationships. We first entered the control variables into the model (Step 1), then the calculative and collaborative HRM practices (Step 2) and MNC (Step 3), and finally the interaction between the strategic calculative/collaborative HRM practices and MNC (Step 4). To address the possibility of multicollinearity, the variables used in the interaction terms were centred (Aiken and West, 1991). Results Table II presents the correlation matrix and variable means and standard deviations. In the measurement model, eight variables were used to measure five constructs (Table III). Results of the CFA strongly confirmed the structure of the constructs as defined above. In measurement models, one loading for each parameter is fixed to value 1, so that the construct takes the scale of the respective variable. All non-fixed loadings for each construct are statistically significant, as thet-values indicate. Indeed, all goodness-of-fit indices were higher than the usually accepted cut-off value. More specifically, the normative fit index was equal to 0.95, the CFI was equal to 0.97, and the RMSEA was equal to 0.05. The estimated model exhibits a highly satisfactory fit: normedχ 2¼1.67; NFI¼0.95; CFI¼0.97; RMSEA¼0.05. Therefore, the model can be considered valid in general terms, although some of the paths hypothesised in our model were not supported by the estimated parameters. The path coefficients obtained in the estimation of the model are reported in Figure 2. In Figure 2, we present the results of our path analysis of HRM practices, employee turnover and performance. Starting with the effects of theexogenous variables in our model, results show only partial support for our HRM practice and employee turnover relationship hypotheses. Collaborative HRM practices have a significant negative effect on employee turnover (H2a). However, even though, calculative HRM practicesshow a positive relationship with turnover, it is not significant. Thus,H1ais not supported. We also find partial support for the HRM practices and performance relationship. Calculative HRM practices were found to have a direct positive effect on organisational performance, supportingH1b; however, the direct effect of collaborative practices on organisational performance (H2b), although positive, did not reach the conventional significance level (p¼0.11).Whentestingourthirdandfourth hypotheses, that is, Indicator Construct Parameter Estimatet-value Calculative HRM practices Calculative HRM practices 1 1.00 Collaborative HRM practices Collaborative HRM practices 1 1.00 Turnover Employee turnover 1 1.00 Organisational performance Productivity 1 0.79 7.49*** Qualityλ 1 0.56 7.31*** Rate of innovationλ 2 0.57 6.65*** Financial performance Gross revenue 1 0.57 7.14*** Profitabilityλ 3 0.76 7.13*** Note:***po0.001 Table III. Measurement model: standardised factor loadings andt-value 629 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices the employee turnover–performance relationship (H3) and the turnover mediation between HRM practices and organisational performance (H4), we found no evidence supporting these hypotheses. Finally, results support the positive relationship between organisational performance and financial performance (H5). However, our data only partially support the mediation effect of organisational performance between HRM practices and financial performance (H6), as mediation only occurred for calculative HRM practices. With regard to the control variables, market growth has a positive and statistically significant effect on organisational and financial performance. Firm size has a positive and statistically significant effect only on financial performance, whereasunion presence shows a negative statistically significant effect on organisational performance. The other control variables are not statistically significant. A hierarchical regression model was employed to test the moderation role of MNC in the relationship between HRM practices and employee turnover (H7aandH8a)andHRM practices and organisational performance (H7bandH8b) (see Table IV ). In all the models, the variance inflation factors were lower than 2, well below the generally accepted threshold of 10 (Cohenet al., 2003). The findings presented in Step 4, Table IV, show that the moderation role of MNC in the relationships between either types of HRM practices or both turnover and organisational performance is non-significant in each case tested; therefore, our hypotheses were not supported. Discussion The aim of this paper is to examine the extent to which bundles of HRM practices have a significant relationship with firm performance, and identify the differential effects of calculative and collaborative HRM practices on performance, using data from a Latin American contextual setting, in order to find similarities and differences with the results obtained in the US and Western European contexts. Another objective was to test the impact of HRM practices on more distal performance outcomes (i.e. organisational performance and financial outcomes) through the impact on more proximal outcomes Calculative HRM practices Employee Tu r n o v e r Productivity Quality InnovationGross RevenueProfitability 0.010.18* 0.79*** 0.56*** 0.57*** 0.69***0.57*** 0.76*** –0.11 –0.29*** 0.14 Collaborative HRM practicesOrganisational PerformanceFinancial Performance Control Variables Firm Size Firm Age Firm Sector Market Growth Union Presence 0.10 0.11 –0.03 0.21** –0.25***0.12* –0.01 –0.1 0.16* –0.06 Notes: 2= 78.61, df = 47, p-value = 0.003, NFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 Figure 2. The estimated model using AMOS 6.0 630 IJM 40,4 (i.e. employee turnover behaviour) that would mediate the impact on these more distal outcomes. The empirical results provide partial support for our hypotheses. Although this study supports certain findings from prior work showing that HRM practices and firm performance are positively related, it provides a deeper look at this relationship by distinguishing between calculative and collaborative HRM practices and their effects on employee turnover and firm performance in the context studied. Interestingly, the effects we discovered are meaningful from both an academic and a practical standpoint. In particular, our results showed that calculative and collaborative HRM practices have different paths of influence on firm outcomes that may depend on the national and cultural context. On the one hand, our results show that collaborative practices are negatively related to employee turnover. These results are consistent with other studies in different national settings that have found that lower turnover is related to a set of HRM or employment practices that are conceptually similar to the collaborative practices considered here (Arthur, 1994; Batt, 2002; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Park and Shaw, 2013). However, similar to Rizov and Croucher (2009), we do not find support for the positive association between calculative HRM practices and turnover. A possible explanation for this result is that, due to changes in the dismissal legislation in Uruguay (compliance of Termination of Employment Convention C158 form the ILO) and unions’pressure, the cost of firing (directly or indirectly) is high compared to the US and Anglo-Saxon countries. Thus, there are low levels of involuntary turnover rates. Moreover, uncertainty may play a significant role in voluntary turnover. Uncertainty, and, in turn, turnover, is lower when the organisation properly informs and debriefs the employees (collaborative HR practices). However, it increases when calculative practices are put into place because the rewards depend on performance and outcomes, and they are not guaranteed for everybody. A similar type of influence may be present in the collectivism of Uruguay’s culture. On the other hand, we find that calculative practices are positively and directly associated with organisational performance, whereas collaborative ones are not. In Uruguay, collaborative practices could be seen as union conquests (Cristiani and Peiró, 2015), and not as an HRM strategy to obtain better performance. Firms only achieve higher performance levels by adopting calculative practices. From our results, the main purpose of Turnover Organisational performance Variables/Items Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Control variables Lnsize 0.18* 0.15**** 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.01�0.01�0.02 Lnage 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11�0.14**�0.14*�0.14*�0.13**** Manufacturing sector�0.05�0.04�0.04�0.04�0.15*�0.16*�0.16**�0.16* Market growth�0.06�0.04�0.05�0.05 0.19** 0.16* 0.14* 0.14* Union presence�0.27**�0.23**�0.22**�0.22**�0.04�0.04�0.03�0.02 Independent variables CALC 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.12* 0.11* 0.10**** COLL�0.27**�0.28**�0.26** 0.10 0.07 0.03 MNC 0.04 0.01 0.14**** 0.14**** Two-way interaction CALC×MNC�0.03�0.27 COLL×MNC 0.09 0.38 TotalR 2 0.095** 0.154*** 0.156*** 0.161** 0.089** 0.124** 0.140*** 0.155** ΔR 2 0.095** 0.060** 0.001 0.005 0.089** 0.035* 0.016**** 0.014 Notes:Service sector reference category. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001; ****po0.1 Table IV. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses (MNCs moderation effect) 631 Calculative and collaborative HRM practices collaborative practices is to avoid turnover and promote a better workplace climate, which can contribute to higher organisational performance. Even though these findings on performance may contradict Arthur’s (1994) research using data from US steel mini-mills and Collins and Smith’s (2006) study on US high-technology firms, our results are similar to recent research employing the calculative/collaborative HRM distinction (Gooderhamet al., 1999). When Gooderhamet al.(2008) examined the extent to which HRM practices have a significant impact on firm performance in 16 European countries, their findings showed that calculative HRM bundles, with exceptions, have some impact on firm performance, whereas collaborative HRM bundles do not. Moreover, Rizov and Croucher’s (2009) findings in European firms, adopting the same HRM distinction with a multidimensional measure of performance very similar to the one we used in this paper for organisational and financial performance, were in agreement with this paper and the one by Gooderhamet al.(2008). More recently, a study in the manufacturing sector in Uruguay examines the impact on manufacturing outcomes of HRM practices grouped in ability, motivation and opportunity bundles. Consistent with the current paper, Bello-Pintado (2015) found that only the motivation-enhancing HRM bundle has a significant effect on performance. However, when Rizov and Croucher (2009) regressed the HRM collaborative bundle controlled by country dummies for the specific link between HRM practices and countries’institutional settings, they found positive effects on firm performance for Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. It would seem that in most of the countries in their study, the different types of HRM calculative/collaborative practices co-exist; however, a certain type of HRM approach, depending on a country’s specific characteristics, such as the variety of capitalism, is more important in explaining variations in firm performance. In particular, they concluded that collaborative HRM practices are more likely than calculative practices to improve firm performance and reduce employee turnover in“high trust”CMEs rather than in liberal market economies (Hall and Soskice, 2001). In our study, we found a positive relationship pointing to a similar trend, although without reaching the conventional significance level, which could be due to the relatively small sample size, which limited the statistical power. Uruguay has certain characteristics of CME in the workplace, characterised by legally mandated work councils. Employers are typically required to consult with councils on different labour matters, including work reorganisation, new technologies, outsourcing, overtime scheduling, and health and safety issues. Minimum wages per worker category are mostly centralised by industry. In addition, Uruguayan industrial relations are also conflictive and competitive, and employers and employees often play a zero-sum game, with ea
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
MyAssignmenthelp.com boasts a talented team of homework help tutors who help students to write homework assignments perfectly. Students, who are searching for answers for can someone do my homework for cheap find our services worthwhile. The reason being our experts provide high quality help with homework writing at affordable prices. Despite providing reasonable academic assistance, we never compromise with the quality of the papers. Some of our popular services are Math homework help, finance homework help, finance homework help, management homework help, etc.
On APP - grab it while it lasts!
*Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app!
ONLINE TO HELP YOU 24X7
OR GET MONEY BACK!
OUT OF 38983 REVIEWS
Received my assignment before my deadline request, paper was well written. Highly