HRM Practices, Attitudinal Outcomes and Turnover Intent: An Empirical Study in Indian Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Sector

Abstract

This paper presents a study, which examines the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) practices, attitudinal outcomes and turnover intent in oil and gas exploration and production sector in India. Results indicate that significant relationship exists between HRM practices, affective organizational commitment, employee satisfaction and turnover intent. All HRM practices and attitudinal outcomes have significant negative rehtionship with turnover intent. Further, it establishes that affective commitment and employee satisfaction partially mediate the rehtionship between HRM practices and turnover intent. The study has a number of important implications for HRM interventions. INTRODUCTION The role of Human Resources Management (HRM) in organizational performance and growth has been widely accepted by the researchers (Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Paul and Anantharaman, 2003; Godard, 2004; and Singh, 2004) There exists a need to prove it empirically (Wood, 1999; Wright et al, 2003; and Boselie et al, 2005). According to resource-based view propounded by some researchers (Block and Kossek, 2000; Daft, 2001; and Ulrich et al, 2001) competitors can copy technologies and strategies and they may not be the instruments of competitive advantage for organizations. However, HRM systems and practices because of their inimitability can become potential strategic lever and core strength of the organization. Though many studies have indicated positive relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance, yet direct linkage has always been a matter of concern in HRM research. Higher-level outcomes such as operational and financial performance are influenced by the increasing compiexity of factors (Boselie et al., 2005; and Paauwe and Boselie, 2005). Previous studies emphasize the need for establishing causal linkage between HRM practices and more proximal HR outcomes (Dyer and Reeves, 1995; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Delery, 1998; Agarwala, 2003; Paul and Anantharaman, 2003; and Wright et al, 2003). According to Guest (1997), HRM practices impact organizational performance through proximal measures such as commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and employee retention. However, very few studies have been carried out on examining such relationship (Agarwala, 2003; Harmon et al, 2003; and Paauwe and Boselie, 2005). Most of the research studies are based on linkage between single HRM practice and employee attitudes (e.g., effect of compensation or performance appraisal practices on job satisfaction and organizational commitment or employee turnover). There is very little evidence relating to the linkage between HRM practices, attitudinal outcomes (organizational commitment, employee satisfaction) and turnover intent. One likely reason may be the lack of firm level authentic data for validation. The second might be the lack of a systemic theory behind the linkage mechanism. The objective of this study is to test empirically the association between HRM practices and attitudinal/behavioral outcomes: Employee satisfaction, Affective organizational commitment, and Turnover intent in the context of recently deregulated oil industry in India with a focus on Exploration and Production (EP Huselid, 1995; Mac Duffie, 1995; and Ulrichetal, 2001). However, very less research has been conducted to understand and explore the black box, i.e., the process through which HRM practices impact organizational performance. Moreover, the recent studies on HRM and organizational effectiveness lack sound theoretical grounding (Pare and Tremblay, 2007) and there is no agreement on the set of HRM practices to be used for the study. Various models such as universal best practices, strategic fit, configurational and Ability, Motivation and Opportunities to participate (AMO) have been presented by different schools of thought. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.