Human Resource Strength perceived by employees


I put the relevant requirements in the document, and I marked the places that need special attention, a total of 800 words

Human Resource Management, SeptemberOctober 2017, Vol. 56, No. 5. Pp. 715729

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Human Resource Strength perceived by employees
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (


Correspondence to: Dorothea Alewell, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business Administration, Von-Melle-Park 5,

20146 Hamburg, Germany, Ph: 004940428384101, Fax: 004940428386358, [emailprotected]





S V E N H A U F F, D O R O T H E A A L E W E L L , A N D N I N A K AT R I N

For some time, HRM researchers have paid attention to the process dimensions

of HRM systems, especially to the question of how HRM system strength impacts

on HRM outcomes. However, contributions tend to be theoretical, and empiri-

cal analyses are still rare. This article contributes to the discussion on HRM sys-

tem strength by empirically analyzing the links between HRM system strength

and HRM target achievement. We differentiate between single components of

strength and their partial effects on two HRM target groups: the targets focus-

ing on employee attitudes and the targets focusing on availability and effec-

tiveness of human resources. Findings from a German data set with more than

1,000 observations indicate that HRM system strength has a positive infl uence

on average HRM target achievement. Expectations regarding the differentiated

effects of single components of HRM system strength are only partially sup-

ported. Nevertheless, our analyses give reason to consider a broader concep-

tion of HRM system strength than what has been explored to date. 2016 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: HRM system, HRM system strength, HRM target, process approach,
target achievement


esearch on strategic HRM has largely
focused on the content perspective, that
is, the question of how single HRM prac-
tices, or HRM systems as consistently
designed bundles of HRM practices, affect

HRM outcomes and firm performance ( Jackson,
Schuler & Jiang, 2014; Jiang et al., 2012 ) (for
an overview on HRM systems approaches, see,
e.g., Alewell & Hansen, 2012; Kaufman, 2013;

Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006). Some
HRM researchers have questioned this approach
and have begun to focus on the process dimen-
sions of HRM systems and, within this perspec-
tive, on how an HRM systems strength impacts
on HRM outcomes and firm performance (e.g.,
Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000)
(for an overview, see Sanders, Shipton, & Gomes,
2014). Building on Bowen and Ostroff (2004),
HRM system strength is usually referred to as a
situation in which unambiguous messages are


Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

By including

attitudinal HRM

targets as well as

availability and


targets, our analysis

highlights that HRM

system strength

is not limited to


aspects but has

important functional


latter should be more affected by aspects such as
the consistency and full implementation of HRM
practices. In addition, we also assume that the
number of important HRM targets should affect
HRM target achievement.

By analyzing the effects of HRM systems
strength on a broad spectrum of HRM targets this
study contributes to the existing literature in sev-
eral ways. First, we point out that specific compo-
nents of HRM system strength may have different
effects on different groups of HRM targets, which
has not been intensively analyzed so far. In par-
ticular, by including attitudinal HRM targets as
well as availability and effectiveness targets, our
ana lysis highlights that HRM system strength is
not limited to communication aspects but has
important functional effects, too. For instance,
fully and consistently implementing HRM prac-
tices can contribute to achieving flexibility and
cost- effectiveness, independent of employees
attitudes. Second, building on this, our study pro-
vides valuable considerations related to the mea-
surement of HRM system strength. Finally, we also
discuss and analyze the role of different HRM tar-
gets for overall HRM target achievement.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

The Concept of HRM System Strength

In their seminal work, Bowen and Ostroff ( 2004;
Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) call attention to the ques-
tion of how HRM systems should be designed and
administered in order to be effective. They inter-
pret HRM systems as complex communication
systems that signal significant information about
strategic HRM targets and behavioral expectations
to employees, and thus influence the HRM cli-
mate as shared employee perceptions about HRM.
Strong HRM systems help to send clear signals and
uniform behavioral expectations to employees,
while weak HRM systems fail to clearly commu-
nicate these. Thus, the concept of strong HRM
systems is well connected to the psychological
concept of strong situations ( Cooper & Withey,
2009; Mischel, 1977).

Building on social cognitive theory and Kelleys
( 1967) attribution theory, Bowen and Ostroff
( 2004) conceptualize HRM system strength based
on three main elements: distinctiveness, consis-
tency, and consensus: Distinctiveness is high if the
HRM systems event-effect relationship is highly
observable and well understood by employees.
This is influenced by the HRM systems visibility
and understandability as well as by the legitimacy
of authority and the perceived relevance of HRM.
Consistency is high if the event-effect relationship

communicated to employees about what is appro-
priate behavior (p. 207). The general expectation
is that stronger HRM systems have stronger effects
on outcome variables, because they send clear
signals to employees about organizational expec-
tations ( Katou, Budhwar, & Patel, 2014; Sanders
et al., 2014).

Several empirical studies have analyzed HRM
system strengths direct effects, including employ-
ees work satisfaction ( Li, Frenkel, & Sanders,
2011), commitment ( Sanders, Dorenbosch, & de
Reuver, 2008), intention to quit ( Li et al., 2011),
improvisation behavior ( Ribeiro, Pinto Coelho, &
Gomes, 2011), and organizational performance
( Cunha & Cunha, 2009). Furthermore, Katou et
al. ( 2014) have shown that HRM system strength
moderates the relationship between perceived

HRM practices and employee reac-
tions. Thus, HRM system strength
is without a doubt a very significant
concept. However, to date, empiri-
cal studies have concentrated on
specific aspects, and no study has
analyzed more broadly if and how
HRM system strength contributes
to HRM target achievement. This is
a crucial aspect for strategic HRM,
since HRM targets relate to different
HRM strategies and differing exter-
nal and internal contexts ( Jackson &
Schuler, 1995; Jackson et al., 2014).

This article seeks to close this
research gap by analyzing HRM sys-
tem strengths effects on HRM tar-
get achievement. Therefore, we first
introduce and discuss the concept of
HRM system strength. We thereby
argue that HRM system strength
refers not only to communication
but also includes functional effects
of HRM systems. Building on this
notion, we present our research

hypotheses. In line with previous literature, we
argue that HRM system strength should positively
influence HRM target achievement. However,
besides analyzing HRM system strengths general
impact, we analyze whether specific components
of HRM system strength have different effects on
different groups of HRM targets. We thereby dis-
tinguish between attitudinal HRM targets (e.g.,
motivation, commitment) on the one hand and
availability and effectiveness HRM targets (e.g.,
endowment with qualified employees, flexibility,
personnel cost reduction) on the other. Building
on Ostroff and Bowen ( 2000), we expect that
the former are influenced more by an HRM sys-
tems visibility, clarity, and acceptance, while the

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


Employee attitudes

are the most

important direct

dependent variable

in Bowen and

Ostroffs (2004)

concept, since the

influence of the HRM

systems on employee

attitudes and shared

perceptions is the

central focus in this

approach. However,

there are other HRM

targets besides

employee attitudes.

approach ( Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). To clearly ori-
entate employees by communicating employer
expectations via HRM practices is an important
effect of HRM systems. However, HRM systems
and the HRM practices they include may influ-
ence HRM outcomes via channels other than an
employers communication ( Lepak, Liao, Chung,
& Harden, 2006). For instance, an employers
control of personnel costs may heavily depend
on the work contract type and on collective or
individual agreements on wages and their fit.
This cost control may be independent of individ-
ual employees understanding of the correct legal
content of these contracts. Thus, there is a func-
tional aspect beyond the communicative aspect.
Or to give another example, human
resource flexibility will depend
on employee perceptions of the
employers flexibility signals. But
independent of these perceptions,
there may be other significant func-
tional aspects resulting from the
choice of contracts, binding agree-
ments on overtime, working time
restrictions, task allocation rules,
and the broadness of employee
skills. Thus, it seems important to
broadly consider different aspects
of strength besides communicative
issues, rather than to neglect the
functional aspects that result from
consistency and full implementa-
tion of HRM practices.

A second aspect refers to the
dimension of HRM targets and
which of these are influenced by
HRM system strength. Employee
attitudes are the most important
direct dependent variable in Bowen
and Ostroffs ( 2004) concept, since
the influence of HRM systems on
employee attitudes and shared per-
ceptions is the central focus in this
approach. However, there are other
HRM targets besides employee atti-
tudes. Most prominently, the ability-motivation-
opportunity (AMO) framework ( Appelbaum,
Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Boxall & Purcell,
2003; Lepak et al., 2006) highlights that employee
ability and opportunity are important HRM tar-
gets, besides motivation. Furthermore, Osterman
( 1987), working on HRM system content, pointed
out that companies seek to achieve flexibility,
predictability, and cost-effectiveness. Gerhart
( 2007) also highlighted that costs are an impor-
tant and independent consequence of HRM sys-
tems. However, these employers availability

is the same across differing modalities and over
time; for instance, it is the same for all employees
in an organization. Consistency is strengthened
by instrumentality of employee behaviors con-
sequences for targets, by validity of HRM prac-
tices for what they purport to do, and by differing
hierarchy levels communicating consistent HRM
messages. Consensus is high if there is strong agree-
ment among individuals views of the event-effect
relationship, for instance, between line managers,
HRM department members, and employees. It is
influenced by agreement among principal HRM
decision makers (e.g., between line managers
from differing departments) and perceived fair-
ness in distributive, procedural, and interactional

Most studies on the topic refer to this con-
ceptualization of HRM strength (see the overview
by Sanders et al., 2014). However, Ostroff and
Bowens ( 2000) initial work differs somewhat from
the newer approach. Here, the concept of HRM
system strength is embedded in a broad frame-
work linking HRM systems to firm performance.
Thereby, HRM system strength is related to the
following characteristics of an HRM system:

Visibility: Do employees know the HRM tar-
gets and practices?

Clarity: Do employees find the information
easy to understand?

Acceptability: Do employees buy into the sys-

Consistency of administration: Are practices
uniformly applied across employees and over

Effectiveness of administration and validity: Do
practices do as designed?

Internal consistency: Is there a horizontal fit
between practices and programs?

Intensity: How much time and effort is devoted
to implementing the practices?

Thus, in this conceptualization of strength,
besides the requirements that employees should
know, understand, and accept a system and its sig-
nals, there are additional conditions for a system
to be strong. These characteristics not only influ-
ence the perception of HRM systems but also have
an additional impact on an HRM systems func-
tional performance, which is independent of the
effect on employees. Accordingly, for our research
question, the older concept has specific strengths
compared to the newer concept.

First, HRM system strength as a quality of a
communication system ( Bowen & Ostroff, 2004)
is a specific and somewhat narrower interpreta-
tion of HRM system strength than in the previous


Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Different components

of HRM system

strength should

impact differently on

different HRM target


Hypothesis 1: The higher the overall HRM system
strength is, the higher the degree of overall HRM target
achievement will be.

However, building on the aforementioned argu-
ments, there are reasons to assume that differ-
ent components of HRM system strength should
impact differently on different HRM target types.
In general, there are two different HRM target
types: targets that influence employee attitudes,
and human resource availability and effective-
ness targets. Key attitudinal targets are employee
motivation, commitment, and job satisfac-
tion (e.g., Katou et al., 2014; Lepak et al., 2006).
Furthermore, employers might also try to influ-
ence their employees orientations toward quality,
innovation, or costs in order to increase perfor-
mance. Availability and effectiveness targets refer
to the endowment with qualified employees and
up-to-date knowledge, but also to flexibility in
terms of working time, task allocation, or number
of employees. Firms might also need to plan con-
fidently on labor supply and its cost ( Osterman,
1987). Thus, long-term employment perspec-
tives and predictability of central HRM variables,
for example, labor cost, could also be important
targets. Further aspects include high employee
participation, high performance levels, and the
reduction of personnel costs (e.g., Osterman,
1987; Lepak et al., 2006; Subramony, 2009).

Different components of HRM system strength
may impact on these distinctive target groups
differently. For employee attitudes, employees
knowing, understanding, and accepting of HRM
practices should be especially important. Bowen
and Ostroff (2004) summarize employees know-
ing, understanding, and accepting of HRM prac-
tices under the notion of distinctiveness. In
attribution theory, distinctiveness is seen as the
most critical dimension for attitudinal change
( Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Kelley, 1967; see also Sanders
& Yang, 2016). This is supported by the results
of Sanders et al. ( 2008) and Li et al. ( 2011), who
found that the analyzed attitudes (job satisfaction,
commitment, intention to quit) are particularly
influenced through the distinctiveness of HRM
practices. The high importance of distinctive-
ness seems plausible, since employees can change
their attitudes only if they know and understand
a specific practice; and actual attitudinal change
depends on how employees perceive the HRM
practices, that is, how they interpret and accept
them ( Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). Thus,
we hypothesize that attitudinal HRM targets are
more strongly influenced by those partial strength
characteristics that relate to employees knowing,
understanding, and accepting of HRM practices.

and effectiveness HRM targets are not explicitly
addressed in Bowen and Ostroffs ( 2004) concept.
In this respect, the previous approach ( Ostroff
& Bowen, 2000) is again broader, since it can be
applied to the whole spectrum of HRM targets.

In short, the strength concept as in Ostroff
and Bowen ( 2000) is advantageous for our research
question because it does not restrict attention to
an HRM systems communication properties but
allows one to focus on an HRM system in general
and is compatible with a broad spectrum of HRM

HRM System Strengths Infl uence on HRM
Target Achievement

The effects of HRM system strength can be
ascribed to different relationships. On the one
hand, a strong situation should have a positive
impact on target achievement because it results
in a clear and precise communication signal of
what the employer wishes to achieve and is ready
to compensate for (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;

Katou et al., 2014; Ostroff & Bowen,
2000; Sanders et al., 2014). Strong
situations have a high degree of
shared perceptions, which posi-
tively influences employees atti-
tudes and behavior: a strong HRM
system process can enhance orga-
nizational performance owing to
shared meanings in promotion of
collective responses that are con-
sistent with organizational strategic
goals ( Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p.
213). On the other hand, a strong

situation also contributes to HRM target achieve-
ment by creating structural and operational effi-
ciencies ( Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). This argument
is partially linked to the content perspective of
strategic HRM research, particularly the contin-
gency and configurational approaches ( Delery &
Doty, 1996; Martn-Alczar, Romero-Fernndez,
& Snchez-Gardey, 2005). Following these
approaches, HRM systems will have beneficial
outcomes in terms of HR target achievement if
they are (1) aligned to the internal and external
context and (2) internally coherent. In addition
to these notions of vertical and horizontal fit, the
process perspective focuses attention on imple-
mentation in terms of time, effort, and unifor-
mity. In this respect, strong HRM systems should
have a positive impact on HRM target achieve-
ment because all necessary practices are actu-
ally in place, are uniformly applied, and do as
designed. Building on these arguments, we expect
that in general HRM system strength should posi-
tively influence HRM target achievement.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


The pursuit of HRM

targets requires

effort and resources.

In addition, some

targets may conflict

with others, and

these trade-offs

should be considered.

important to an employer could also influence
target achievement because the higher the num-
ber of important HRM targets, the more likely it
is to miss at least some of them. The pursuit of
HRM targets requires effort and resources. Thus, if
there are many targets, firms might run into effort
and resource trade-offs and focus more strongly
on some targets at the expense of other targets, or,
if several targets are pursued equally, neither one
of them will be pursued effectively. In addition,
some targets may conflict with others, and these
trade-offs should be considered, too. For instance,
flexibility, in terms of flexible staffing and reli-
ance on external labor markets, and predictability
of key HRM variables may be seen as conflicting
targets as a high degree of flexibility reduces pre-
dictability of labor supply and costs ( Osterman,
1987). Another example is the pos-
sible conflict between flexible staff
adjustment and the endowment
with qualified employees: building
qualifications might need time and a
long-term perspective, possibly con-
tradicting flexible staff adjustment.
Such conflicts could influence gen-
eral target achievement because the
pursuit of one target might inhibit
the achievement of another target.
In line with these arguments, we
hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 4: The higher the number of
important HRM targets, the lower the
degree of HRM target achievement will

Data Set, Measurement, and Methods

Data Set

The following analysis is based on data collected
via highly structured computer-aided telephone
interviews with chief executives and human
resource managers of firms in Germany. Because
we are especially interested in the functional
aspects of HRM system strength as well as HRM
target achievement, responses by chief executives
and HR managers are important, as they are usu-
ally more knowledgeable concerning these issues
than employees ( Huselid & Becker, 2000). In
addition, such a research setting allows us to con-
duct interviews in a large number of firms with
different HRM systems.

The data collection was conducted in 2012
and aimed at firms with at least 20 employees
in the following sectors: chemicals and pharma-
ceuticals, mechanical engineering, banking and

Hypothesis 2: The elements of an HRM systems
strength relating to employees knowing, understand-
ing, and accepting of HRM practices impact more
strongly on the achievement of attitudinal HRM targets
than on availability and effectiveness HRM targets.

Achieving availability and effectiveness targets
may depend to a lesser degree on the knowledge,
understanding, and acceptance of employees.
In contrast, these HRM targets should be more
strongly influenced by the other characteristics of
HRM system strength (i.e., consistency of admin-
istration, effectiveness of administration, internal
consistency, and intensity) as these are crucial
for the structural and operational efficiencies
of HRM systems. Thereby, internal consistency
of HRM systems is of fundamental importance.
According to Delery (1998), HRM practices can
have either independent, substitutive, counterac-
tive, or synergetic relationships. In these terms,
consistency can be described as the absence of
counteractive effects among HRM practices.
Counteractive effects might occur if HRM prac-
tices are not implemented as intended ( Wright &
Nishii, 2013), or if their effects differ depending
on the context in which they are implemented
( Jackson et al., 2014). Accordingly, counteractive
effects may only be prevented if HRM practices are
applied consistently (i.e., consistency of admin-
istration) and actually do as designed (effective-
ness of administration). Furthermore, even if all
HRM practices are consistent, uniformly applied,
and do as designed, HRM system effectiveness is
not guaranteed. In the case of independent effects
among HRM practices, each HRM practice adds
something unique, and the use of an additional
HRM practice might be necessary to achieve a cer-
tain outcome level ( Chadwick, 2010). The same
applies to synergistic effects, since synergies can
develop only if all necessary practices are in place.
Thus, time and effort devoted to full implemen-
tation of HRM practices is important for HRM
systems effectiveness. Based on these arguments,
we assume that the achievement of availability
and effectiveness targets depends more strongly
on consistency of administration, effectiveness of
administration, internal consistency, and inten-
sity. Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 3: The elements of an HRM systems
strength relating to aspects of consistency of adminis-
tration, effectiveness of administration, internal con-
sistency, and intensity impact more strongly on the
achievement of availability and effectiveness HRM tar-
gets than on attitudinal targets.

Besides the strength of an HRM system and
its elements, the number of HRM targets that are


Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

in terms of the value production of the employees
working under this system.

Measuring Strength

Concerning our central independent vari-
able, HRM system strength, we follow Ostroff
and Bowen ( 2000) in formulating our items.
Respondents were asked to indicate to what
extent different statements applied (see Table I).
Items were presented in random order. Response
categories ranged from 1 = does not apply at all to
5 = fully applies. Single items were used in order
to have a simple measurement instrument that
applies to different organizational contexts.

Measuring the Average Achievement of
Important HRM Targets

Our data set contains a number of items on the
importance of different HRM targets and on HRM
target achievement. Six of these targets relate
to employee attitudes: (1) high employee motiva-
tion, (2) high employee commitment, (3) high
employee job satisfaction, (4) strong quality ori-
entation of employees, (5) strong innovation
orientation of employees, and (6) strong cost ori-
entation of employees. Another 10 targets relate
to availability and effectiveness of human resources:
(7) good endowment with qualified personnel, (8)
endowment with up-to-date knowledge, (9) high
flexibility in terms of working time, (10) high
flexibility in terms of task allocation, (11) flexible
adjustment of workforce to personnel require-
ments, (12) long-term employment perspectives,
(13) predictability of key HRM variables, (14) high
employee participation, (15) high performance
levels, and (16) reduction of personnel costs.

Respondents were asked to indicate the
importance attributed to, as well as the level of
achievement, of each of these 16 targets in their
organization. Concerning the importance of dif-
ferent HRM targets, answers could be chosen
from 1 = very unimportant to 5 = very important.

insurance, and professional services (legal and
accounting services, business consultancies).
Contact information was drawn from the German
Chamber of Industry and Commerce database
that all German firms (with the exception of
craft businesses, free professions, and farms) are
required by law to join. The number of randomly
sampled firms in these sectors was 5,388 out of a
population of 8,100 firms. Of the firms contacted,
1,175 took part in the study, which left us with a
satisfying response rate of 21.8 percent. However,
a first analysis of the data revealed that 76 firms
did not meet the selection criteria (size and indus-
try) or gave invalid answers. Thus, usable data is
available for 1,099 firms. For the analysis in this
article, we further excluded all cases with missing
information in our central variables, namely, HRM
system strength, importance of HRM targets, and
target achievement (see below). The final sample
therefore contains 1,009 firms.

Our sample data did not reflect the popula-
tion distribution in terms of sectors (original
distribution in parentheses): 23.9 percent (16.0
percent) chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 24.7
percent (51.8 percent) mechanical engineering,
28.0 percent (18.0 percent) banking and insur-
ance, and 23.3 percent (14.2 percent) professional
services. We therefore used a standard weighting
adjustment ( Bethlehem, 2009) to approximate the
sample data to population proportions.

The questionnaire acknowledged that firms
might operate multiple HRM systems in one
organization. If firms stated that they differenti-
ate their HRM for different employee groups, all
questions related to HRM referred to the employee
group that is most important for the firms eco-
nomic success (as suggested by Osterman, 1987;
see also Delery & Doty, 1996). If HRM was not
differentiated for different employee groups,
questions were formulated such that they encom-
passed all of a firms employees. Thus, each firm is
represented with its most important HRM system

T A B L E I Measurement of HRM System Strength

Ostroff & Bowen (2000) Our Items

Visibility Employees know the HRM targets and practices.

Clarity Employees understand HRM targets and practices.

Acceptability Employees accept HRM targets and practices.

Consistency of administration HR personnel and executive managers follow the same guidelines

in implementing HRM.

Effectiveness of administration We realize the effects we intend to achieve with our HR practices.

Internal consistency All HR practices are consistent with one another.

Intensity We invest heavily in the full implementation of our HR practices.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


On average, our


characterized the

HRM systems in their

firms as moderately

strong: average

values for the single

strength items are

between 3 and 4,

indicating a neutral

to slightly positive

characterization of

HRM system strength.

bargaining agreements/none). Since our question-
naire focused on HRM and its effects and already
contained many questions, control variables were
operationalized quite simply in order not to fur-
ther increase the complexity for interviewees.
Thereby, the use of dummy variables seemed a
good solution, as they are commonly used in stra-
tegic HRM research ( Heavey et al., 2013).


To test HRM system strengths influence on HRM
target achievement, we estimated linear regres-
sions with our three indices as different depen-
dent variables. In each case, we first calculated a
basic model that included only the control vari-
ables, and a full model that also incorporated the
HRM system strength variables as well as one vari-
able for the respective number of
important HRM targets.

To examine the chosen meth-
ods appropriateness, we conducted
several tests ( Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010). To test for multi-
collinearity, we referred to variance
inflation factors (VIFs), which all
remain below 2.1 and thus below
the recommended threshold of 10.
We used residual plots (studentized
residuals) to evaluate the normality
of residuals (linearity, homoskedas-
ticity, independence). Thereby, two
outliers were detected. After exclud-
ing these cases from the analyses,
plots did not indicate any nonnor-
mality problem. Finally, we also
used normal probability plots to test
the normality of the error term dis-
tribution. Again, no problems were
identified (For descriptive statistics
and correlations see appendix.).


HRM System Strength

On average, our respondents characterized the
HRM systems in their firms as moderately strong:
average values for the single strength items are
between 3 and 4, indicating a neutral to slightly
positive characterization of HRM system strength.
(see Table II)

Importance of HRM Targets

On average, by naming 11.7 out of 16 HRM targets,
respondents characterized a relatively high num-
ber and broad mix of HRM targets as important
or very important to their firm. With the excep-
tion of the targets reduction of personnel cost

Concerning target achievement, respondents
were asked to state, for each target, their degree of
approval to a preformulated statement expressing
full (positive) HRM target achievement (e.g., Our
payroll costs are very low), with the response cat-
egories ranging from 1 = does not at all apply to 5
= fully applies.

Based on this information, we created indices
for the average achievement of important HRM tar-
gets. Therefore, we first created dummy variables
for importance of targets. These dummy variables
contain the information whether a specific HRM
target is important (original values 4 or 5; dummy
= 1) or not (original values 1 to 3; dummy = 0).
In a second step, these importance dummies were
multiplied with the target achievement values.
Target achievement is thus accounted for only if a
specific HRM target is important to a firm. In the
last step, these values were added up for all HRM
targets per firm and then divided by the total num-
ber of important HRM targets in that firm. This
gives us a value for the average achievement of
important HRM targets. Following this procedure,
three different indices were created: one for the
average achievement of important HRM targets
(out of all 16 targets), one for the average achieve-
ment of important attitudinal HRM targets (out
of 6 attitudinal targets), and one for the average
achievement of important availability and effec-
tiveness HRM targets (out of 10 targets).

Measurement of Control Variables

Several control vari ables were


deliverable 2 The Healthcare Delivery System

please see attached doc

Deliverable 2 – The Healthcare Delivery System
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Assignment Content
Top of Form


Analyze health needs, disparities, and healthcare delivery systems within the context of cultural, social, legal, political, and economic forces.

Student Success Criteria

View the grading rubric for this deliverable by selecting the This item is graded with a rubric link, which is located in the
Details & Information pane.


You have recently been promoted to Health Services Manager at Three Mountains Regional Hospital, a small hospital located in a mid-size city in the Midwest. Three Mountains is a general medical and surgical facility with 400 beds. Last year there were approximately 62,000 emergency visits and 15,000 admissions. More than 6,000 outpatient and 10,000 inpatient surgeries were performed.
After the first series of training, your CEO decided that employees would benefit from an online self-check after completing the training. You are tasked with developing a PowerPoint presentation with a list of questions that ask about liability protections for the physicians and the facility. Correct answers should be provided in the notes so that employees can check their responses.
Please prepare a PowerPoint presentation (or feel free to use other shareable Webware/software that you prefer) with questions that check employee understanding about the liability protections for physicians and the facility.
1. The PowerPoint presentation should be a minimum of 8 slides and a maximum of 12. (Here is a

library resource
for help creating a PowerPoint presentation.)

2. On each slide, provide a question that can be utilized to ascertain basic understanding. Open-ended questions are preferable.
3. Use the notes area on each slide to provide the answer with a thorough explanation of why that answer is correct.
4. Include a slide that provides links to 3-5 resources for employees who want more information.
5. Your final slide should be the reference page for sources cited in the Notes.
Bottom of Form


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post

nursing Diagnosisnursing Diagnosis

  Module 04 Written Assignment Nursing Diagnosis Purpose of the Assignment 1. Assist students in clustering assessment data when developing a nursing diagnosis. 2. Develop students ability to write client based

Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hello 👋
Can we help you?