HRM Practices and Employee Commitment: Possibilities, Pitfalls and Paradoxes

TLDR

Human Resources Management is widely regarded as key to fostering employee commitment, yet empirical support is scarce and the concept of commitment is often oversimplified and conflated with job satisfaction variables. The study aims to examine how HRM policies and practices influence organizational and career commitment. The authors review their own research on HRM practices—selection, assessment, induction, and training—to assess their impact on employee commitment. Their findings highlight pitfalls of overly simplistic commitment models and paradoxical results that suggest a more nuanced understanding of the commitment process.

Abstract

SUMMARY Much recent writing on Human Resources Management (HRM) has emphasized the desirability of a committed workforce and the central role of HRM practices in establishing and maintaining such commitment. Little empirical evidence for such effects has been presented however, and the conceptualization of employee commitment has often been confused, failing to recognize its multi–dimensional nature. Researchers have sought to identify the antecedents of commitment, concentrating on personal/demographic, task, role and supervisory style variables taken from job satisfaction research. With regard to organizational and career commitment, it may be more fruitful to examine the impact of HRM policies and practices. Several studies undertaken by the authors demonstrating the impact on employee commitment of such HRM practices as selection, assessment, induction and training are reviewed, indicating the possibilities for research and practice in this area. Such studies also reveal some pitfalls in the over–simple, uncritical models of commitment often presented, and some paradoxical findings from the authors' own work are used to present a more adequate perspective on the commitment process.