Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<

2 Apr
2021

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Category:ACADEMICIAN

SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers

Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341Available online at www.sciencedirect.com1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ISMC 2016.doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.040ScienceDirect12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC 2016, 28-30 October 2016, Antalya,TurkeyHigh Performance Work Systems and Organizational Values:Resource-based View ConsiderationsGaye Özçelika , Meryem Aybasb , Cavide Uyargilc, aaOkan University, İstanbul, 34959, TurkeybKafkas University, Kars, 36100, Turkeycİstanbul University, Istanbul, 34722, TurkeyAbstractHigh Performance Work Systems (HPWS) have become highly important as a source of competitive advantage intoday’s competitive business environment. Human resource management capabilities are important for attracting,selecting, retaining, motivating and developing the workforce in an organization. Meanwhile organizational culture,considered as a form of organizational capital may also be a driver for sustained competitive advantage.Organizational values, as the reflection of organization culture are asserted to influence the strategic issues such asstrategic change, management decision making and also shape employee commitment and organization’s interactionwith external stakeholders. These two firm-specific resources may complement each other and further leveragingorganizational performance. In consideration with the resource-based view, this paper seeks to identify whether highperformance human resource practices are articulated and publicly espoused via organizational values. The researchquestion of the study pertains to whether selected organizations incorporate components of HPWS in theirorganizational value statements. Summative content analysis is conducted which is supported by the NVivo softwareprogram, the findings of which are discussed in the text.© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ISMC 2016.Keywords: Reource-based view, high performance work systems (HPWS), organizational culture, organizational values1. IntroductionThe issue of firm resources has become a central issue in strategy research for a few decades. In the 1990s, theresource-based view of the firm has been considered one of the theories of strategic management. The view suggestsCorresponding author. Tel. + 90-216-6771630Email address: gaye.ozcelik@okan.edu.tr© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ISMC 2016.Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341 333that organizations compete based on their resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Lado and Wilson, 1994). Thesedynamic and infinite mechanisms help the organizations attain, develop and distribute their resources to achieve –sustained competitive advantage relative to other firms. The resource-based view, by putting people or a firm’s humanresources first, among all capabilities, suggests that human resource management (HRM) systems contribute toorganizational success by reinforcing firm-specific competencies which have been embraced by the organization’shistory, culture and value systems (Seong, 2011).The concept of ‘High Performance Work Systems’ (HPWS) can be approached from the paradigm of resourcebased view of the firm. HPWSs – also known as high performance work practices, high involvement (HI) or highcommitment (HC) practices (Armstrong, 2001; Tomer, 2001; Walton, 1999)- are defined as those human resourcemanagement practices ‘designed to attract qualified employees, enhance their skills, commitment and productivity insuch a way that employees become a source of competitive advantage’ (Datta, Guthrie & Wright, 2005; p.135). Theresource-based view implies that a resource can be qualified as a source of competitive advantage as long as theresource adds value to the firm, is rare and hard to be imitated. Accordingly, Lado and Wilson (1994) put forward thatsustainable competitive advantage can be further supported as long as human resource systems are able to developfirm specific competencies and capabilities, generate effective social interactions and also “tacit organizationalknowledge” (pg.699). Implementing HRM practices in an effective way leads to the development of a skilledworkforce (Dunford, Snell and Wright, 2001) and gives way to positive organizational outcomes in terms ofcommitment, flexibility and high quality.Organizational culture, considered as a form of organizational capital (Barney, 1985) may also be a driver forsustained competitive advantage (Chan, Shaffer and Snape, 2004). The literature contends and general agree upon thefact that culture is inherently tacit, complex and specific and therefore it is all but impossible to be imitated by otherorganizational forms (Chan et al., 2004; Reed and DeFillippi, 1990; Fitzgerald, 1988; Barney, 1985). Organizationalculture refers to the learned assumptions that hold the firm’s members and units together by providing cohesivenessamong them and that distinguish one organization from the other. Organizational culture can be evident in variousforms such as rituals, routines, habits, values, cultural networks that are cherished by the organization (Singh, 2013)which would influence its way of allocating its resources and constitute an important variable for understandingemployee behaviors. Organizational culture may enable less ambiguity and more certainty as the organization takessteps for making strategic decisions to achieve superior performance (Seong, 2011). Having consistency acrossdivisions and employees in terms of ways of behaving can help achieve both higher organizational as well as betteremployee performance (Sadri, 2014).Organizational values- as the foundation, form and reflection of organization culture is asserted to influence thestrategic issues such as strategic change, management decision making and shape organization’s interaction withexternal stakeholders (Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000) and also employee commitment (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013).Organizational values take the center of attention by being at the core of organizational topics, i.e. culture, personorganization fit (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013).Schein (2004) analyzes culture at several different levels. These levels vary from the very explicit, tangibledemonstrations such as visible organizational structures and processes that each employee can describe to the deeplyembedded, unconscious thoughts and feelings. In between these levels he argues that there are espoused beliefs andvalues which provide the employees with goals, operating principles and/or philosophies by which the topmanagement or the founder guides their behavior.Human resource management capabilities are important for attracting, selecting, retaining, motivating anddeveloping the workforce in an organization. Meanwhile organizational culture, via its rituals, behaviors, heroes,decision mechanisms, values allocate and act as an anchor on resources for organizational success. These two firmspecific resources may complement each other and further leveraging organizational performance (Chan, et al., 2004).Organizational values, as embedded within this organizational culture conceptualization are the main focal point ofthis study. In consideration with the resource-based view, this paper seeks to identify whether high performancehuman resource practices are articulated and publicly espoused via organizational values as a reflection oforganizational culture. A number of 10 multinational corporations’ (MNCs) organizational values are considered asthe documents of the study. The motive to execute the study with multinationals is that MNCs operate on a very large334 Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341scale with a bundle of resources which may indicate that organizational culture can be regarded as a strategic resourceof a multinational company (Mirosknik, 2011). Further, the role of organizational culture seems to be even moreimportant in multinational corporations which require to develop a consistent organizational culture which integratethe cultures of all country of origins in which they operate (Rozkwitalska, 2012). In addition, the degree of utilizationof high performance work systems (HPWSs) by MNC subsidiaries have been supported in literature arguing thatHPWS has been increasingly used by MNCs during the past decade (Yalabik, Chen, Lawler, & Kim, 2008; Foley,Ngo, Loi, 2009). Yet, recent research have found insignificant interaction between HPWS and organizational culturein small-sized organizations. The reason for taking values concept as central to our analysis is that, it is a powerfulconcept to be applied to the study of individuals, groups, firms, countries, etc. (Fitzgerald & Desjardins, 2004). Theorganizational culture takes a crucial role focusing on the organizational values of multinational corporations that areinscribed in text form on their websites.2. Literature Review and Hypotheses2.1. The Resource-Based View and High Performance Work Systems (HPWS)A resource is ‘anything which could be thought of as a strength or weakness of a given firm . . . whose tangibleassets which are tied semi permanently to the firm’ (Wernelfelt, 1984: 172). Barney (1991) elaborated on thisdefinition and claimed firm resources to include “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,information, knowledge, etc. controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies thatimprove its efficiency and effectiveness” (pg. 101). The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm focus on the internalresources of the firm as the major determinant of competitive success as opposed to the environmental models ofcompetitive advantage (Barney, 1991). These models pursue the assumption that firms within an industry are identicalin terms of strategic resources they possess and that they barely take notice of any idiosyncratic firm attributes (Porter,1981; Porter, 1990). However, the resource-based view of the firm assumes that firms belonging to an industry or agroup may be heterogeneous in terms of the resources they control and these firm resources are considered to beimperfectly mobile and idiosyncratic in nature.The RBV has influenced the strategic human resource management (SHRM) field as the function of humanresources have tried to prove its status and value to the firm (Dunford, et al., 2001). According to the RBV, theresources can provide sustainable competitive advantages to a firm as long as these resources are rare, valuable,imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). Due to the increased emphasis on the RBV in the literatureof strategy, HR has been able to legitimize its position that a firm’s human capital is strategically crucial to its success.Right after these assumptions, a question has arisen as to whether it is the firm’s human resources or the HRpractices that have more potential to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. While Wright, et al. (1994)have championed the firm’s employees equipped with skills and motivation, other scholars (Lado and Wilson, 1994;Snell, Youndt, & Wright, 1996) proposed that implementation of HR practices as a system – HR tools used to managethe firm’s human resources – can provide sustainable competitive advantage to a firm via developing and sustainingunique, synergistic and integrative HR practices through which firms can enhance employee commitment, skills andproductivity.These two opposing views can be incorporated into the concept of High Performance Work Systems (HPWS)which considers employees to be valuable, self-managed, self-controlled and improvement-oriented, whoseperformance can be further developed and sustained by building a set of interrelated HRM practices. These HRpractices are used to effectively select, develop and motivate the workforce by extensive training and informationsharing and involving them in decision-making processes.2.2. High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and Organizational PerformanceHPWS are defined as a combination of those HR practices that can facilitate employee involvement, skillsenhancement and stronger motivation (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Moreover, as Appelbaum asserts they are importantbecause they improve the level of trust in the workplace, foster employees’ intrinsic level of motivation and raise‘organizational commitment’.Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341 335Though there are no absolute definitions of HPWS, based on previous literature, Datta et al. (2005) generally haveimplied a list of HPWS to be comprised of practices such as careful selection procedures, internal merit-basedpromotions, grievance procedures, cross-functional and cross-trained teams, high levels of training, informationsharing, participatory mechanisms, and skill-based pay. HPWS includes three categories of HR practices: employeeskills, employee motivation and employee empowerment (Appelbaum & Berg, 2001; Wright and Boswell, 2002).a. The employee skills category includes HR practices such as selective staffing, extensive training, competitivecompensation and internal promotions, which are designed to attract highly qualified applicants with superiorknowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). They can also be deployed to develop their skills further and tomaintain their retention (Chi and Lin, 2011).b. The employee motivation category comprises HR practices such as performance contingent pay and resultsoriented appraisal that are created to elicit higher levels of work motivation (Huselid, 1995; Wright andMcMahan, 1992).c. Finally, the employee empowerment category refers to HR practices such as employee participation, formalcomplaint resolution systems and teamwork design that are designed and implemented to enable employees toexpress their opinions and perceptions, thereby empowering to make decisions which lead to higher employeeflexibility and productivity (Legge, 2005; Way, 2002).HPWS have been found by many researchers to have significant impact on employees and on the organization’sperformance (Den Hartog & Verbung, 2004; Way, 2002; Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Becker & Huselid, 1998). Thisdimension of HR practices in relation to organizational performance has been explained from the resource-based viewof the firm. Regarding which, Barney (1991) argues that firms develop competitiveness by acquiring, developing andmore effectively assigning its resources so as to add unique value. Accordingly, HPWS can improve employees’knowledge, skills and abilities and other organizational resources, which can result in competitive advantage. Inaddition to this, Evans and Davis (2005) argue that not only HPWS practices develop the knowledge, skills, andabilities (KSAs) of the employees, but they also change the nature of employee relationships as well as fosteringproactive role makers who are prepared to develop and nurture a network of productive relationships. This isespecially beneficial in instances requiring connections across departments (Evans & Davis, 2005).2.3. Organizational Culture and Organizational ValuesOrganizational culture refers to the deeply rooted values, beliefs and norms that have been cultivated over theorganization’s lifetime and that are possessed by its employees (Schein, 2004). Organizational culture providesemployees with the understanding as to the way things are done around here and it brings about norms that give formsto individual behaviors. Organizational culture is what holds firms together and as Weick (1985) claimed“organizations don’t have cultures, they are cultures.”, and therefore should be managed (as cited in Schrott, 2004).Organizational culture is also critical for attaining organizational performance (Hall, 1993). Respectively, Kandula(2006) distinguished between positive-strong and negative-weak cultures and claimed that strong cultures are the keyto effective performance. Strong organizational cultures enable employees’ adaptation of appropriate behaviors andimprove performance (Seoul, 2011; Den Hartog and Verbung, 2004). A firm’s organizational culture should directlyor indirectly support its HR practices via its shared norms and corporate values with the aim of achieving competitiveadvantage.Organizational values are one of the ways, which organizations make use of in order to operationalize theirorganizational culture. Values establish the fundamentals of organizational culture which drives performance andhence, are highly significant for firms. Values are defined as “central desires or beliefs regarding final states ordesirable conducts that transcend specific situations, guide the choice and evaluation of our decisions and, therefore, ofour conducts, becoming an integral part of our way of being and acting to the point of shaping our character.”(Argandona, 2003:16). Values guide the events and behavior of individuals at work to achieve common goals.Moreover, values are found to be salient regarding strategic issues, change concerns and positive organizationalperformance (Brinkley, 2013).336 Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341Values are dynamic in nature and may adopt distinct forms. They can be espoused values which are publiclyannounced principles by the top management on the organization’s behalf at which the organization aims to arrive.(Schein, 2004). Values can also take the form of shared values, if employees are asked about what their values are. Onthe other hand, aspirational values may arise if members say those values they believe, the organization should adopt.Fitzgerald and Desjardins (2004) argue that values provide important insights for setting the tone of the environment,and for cultivating a goal-oriented culture for achieving organizational performance.2.4. High Performance Organizational Cultures and the Importance of ValuesThe literature agrees upon the assumption that supportive organizational cultures are important for theimplementation of HPWS to end up with capable, committed and productive human capital. By making use of rituals,heroes, values, organizational culture will have an impact on strategic investment and resource allocation decisions(Seong, 2011).Scholars have often associated organizational culture with human resource management. It is through clearlyarticulated and shared norms and values that successful organizations differentiate themselves from others (Seoul,2011; Den Hartog & Verbung, 2004). In that sense, developing an environment with strong culture requires strongsupport from human resource management.As Seoul (2011) mentions high performance work practices are influential in developing and embedding culture into the organization. HPWS is a strategy that helps shape organizational culture. For, through various such practices,including selective recruitment, internal promotion, performance-contingent pay, employee participation, etc.employees are further developed in terms of their knowledge, skills and abilities, which in turn can also increase theirlevels of motivation and commitment. Consequently, HPWS help create and maintain high performanceorganizational cultures (Foley, Ngo & Noi, 2012).Figure 1. Integrated Model for High Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance on the basis of theResource-Based View (adapted from Seong, 2011 and Dunford, et al, 2001).3. Methodology3.1. Research GoalThe main objective in this study is to discover whether or not the value systems of selected organizations areactually covering components or key words of HPWS as identified in the literature. Accordingly, the research questionof the study pertains to whether selected organizations incorporate components of HPWS in their organizational valuestatements.Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341 3373.2. Sample and Data CollectionA number of 10 MNCs were selected based on convenience sampling and a summative approach to qualitativecontent analysis is utilized by quantifying certain key terms in text via NVivo, a software product for qualitative dataanalysis. Content analysis basically refers to summarizing any form of content by counting various aspects ofthe content. Accordingly, namely components of HPWS are explored within the organizational value statements on anaggregate basis. The value statements and behavioural indicators of these organizations were drawn from theirwebsites with their informed consent and these comprise the documents of the analysis. The aim is to understand thecontextual use of the words or to explore usage. Queries are used to explore and test results, and information isextracted via specific matrix-coding queries.The components of HPWS have been selected as the key words which are adapted according to the scalesdeveloped by other authors, i.e. Appelbaum, et al. (2000), Sung and Ashton (2005), and Thompson and Heron (2005).For instance, the HPWS key word or component of “employee development” was derived from Appelbaum, et al.’s(2000) explanation of ‘workers require more skills to do their jobs successfully, and many of these skills are firmspecific, from Sung and Aston’s (2005) ‘Work redesign and mentoring’ and also from Thompson and Heron’s (2005)‘Interpersonal skill development.Grouping the components of HPWSs under three categories of ‘employee skills’, ‘employee motivation’ and‘employee empowerment’ provide us with more detailed results for further discussion. The table regarding matrixcoding queries is formulated accordingly below.4. Analyses and ResultsAccording to the findings of the study, the term “employee autonomy”, “employee participation”, “informationsharing”, “quality improvement”, “teamwork design” are among the most cited items all being within the “employeeempowerment” category (see Table 1.). These are followed by the items in the “employee motivation category” suchthat “employee development” and “flexibility”, “performance-contingent pay”, “result-oriented appraisals” and“employee security” take the second lead in terms of frequency counts. Final category is “employee skills” in whichboth “internal promotions” and “selective staffing” are among the least frequently announced items. “Employmentsecurity” takes the lead in terms of the least counts within organizational value statements.
EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENTCATEGORY
EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION CATEGORY
EMPLOYEESKILLS
A : Employeeautonomy
B : Employeeparticipation
C :Informationsharing
D : Qualityimprovement
E :Teamworkdesign
F : Employeedevelopment
G :Flexibility
H :Performancecontingent
I : Resultsorientedappraisals
J :Employmentsecurity
K : Internalpromotion
L : Selectivestaffing
Company 01
3
3
1
2
2
5
4
1
2
1
2
2
Company 02
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
5
1
1
3
Company 03
4
2
3
4
3
1
3
1
5


1
Company 04
2
7
3
3
4
2
3
2
1

1
2
Company 05
3
8
5
5
4
2
1
4


1
2
Company 06
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Company 07
5
4
4
3
4
2
3
1

1

1
Company 08
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
10
3
1
1
1
Company 09
4
1
4
4
5
4
4
2
1

3
1
Company 10
1
3
5
5
5
1
1
2
1
2
2

TotalCounts
31
34
31
32
32
23
26
28
24
7
12
14
Table 1. Nvivo Matrix Coding Query (Organizational Values & Components of HPWS)The results drawn from a small set of organizations are also demonstrated in a frequency distribution (see Figure 2.)The patterns are more forcefully shown in the chart such that that among the high performance work practices,processes regarding employee autonomy with 31 counts, participation and information sharing with counts of 31 and34 respectively, quality improvement and teamwork design with equal counts of 32, as well as employee development338 Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341with 23 counts, flexibility and performance-based pay and result-oriented appraisals items with counts of 26, 28 and24 respectively are integrated into and publicly announced within the value statements. The patterns with respect toHPWS categories of empowerment and motivation seem to be noticed and settled in the organizational valuestatements. Previous studies similarly showed that in relation-with the resource-based view, which posits that a firmachieves competitive advantage by creating superior human capital skills, experience and knowledge, encouragingemployees through empowerment, autonomy, teamwork provides organizations with firm-specific capabilities thatcannot be imitated (Huselid et al., 1997; Richard and Johnson, 2001). In addition, empowerment is also considered asan ‘intrinsic’ task motivation, which end up with greater employee initiative and motivation (Conger and Kanungo,1988).‘Selective staffing’ is one of the least frequently espoused key words within the organizational values of the sampleof our study. One possible rationale for this loose display of the term can be explained by the concept of talentmanagement as studies have found a relationship between HPWS and talent management (Berber & Yaslioglu, 2014;Maślanka-Wieczorek, 2014). Talent management itself can be considered as the identification and acquisition,development, retention of talent resources in order to achieve strategic objectives. There are contradictory perspectivesto talent management as either ‘innate’ talent or ‘learned’ talent (Meyers, van Woerkom and Dries, 2013). The focuson selection and identification of talent may reflect the organizations’ concentration on the ‘innate’ perspective;whereas ‘learned’ perspective focus on the idea that people become who they are on the basis of the lessons they gainby experiencing and learning. The results seem to suggest that the sample of 10 organizations seem to more assert thetraining, learning and development of their employees, which may imply their orientation to the ‘learned’ perspectiveand it may be that they tend less to focus on the selection of the talent. In addition to that, focusing on recruitingtalented applicants may hinder a high performance work culture (Maślanka-Wieczorek, 2014), as it may demotivatethe current employees’ developmental orientation and motivation to learn and engage.Another finding is with respect to the least frequent number of counts, for employment security and also forinternal promotion (see Figure 2. Below). Not only recent but also previous studies have argued that promises withrespect to employment security are being abandoned by the employers due to the competitive environments and arebeing replaced by the concept of ‘employability’, a form of an employment relationship the value of which depends onthe usefulness to both employers and employees (Ghoshal, Moran & Bartlett, 1997; Thijssen, Van der Heijden, Rocco,2008). Though requires further and deeper exploration, it might be one of the factors for why small set oforganizations in this study even seem to keep themselves away from announcing the “long-term employmentrelationship” publicly. Another motive behind is that organizations and societies move away from the idea of anemployer for life and employees are expected to pursue self-directed careers as they are held responsible from utilizingtheir advancement opportunities.Figure 2. Chart of Total Counts by High Performance Work SystemsGaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341 3395. ConclusionThe results of the analysis indicate that the focal senior management publicly articulate and publicly announcequite many of their HPWS, which they claim to achieve- within their core value statements. Among the HPWS items,employee autonomy, participation and information sharing, quality improvement and teamwork design as well asemployee development, flexibility and performance-based pay and result-oriented appraisals are articulated as themost frequent items within the organizational value statements.As talent management is a very popular HR practice in today’s organizations, it is not surprising that companiesuse such values in order to develop and retain the talent they need for achieving their high performance strategies. It isalso interesting to find out that key words of HPWS, namely, “participation” and “autonomy” are emphasized in theorganizational value statements. This is especially crucial for the attraction and retention of knowledge workers whoput more emphasis on their individual goals and career ambitions than the organization’s goals. That is, they are morecommitted to their occupations than to their companies. They will be more attracted to organizations and jobs whichprovide them with tasks they find meaningful as well as providing them with autonomy and initiative taking openings(Gümüşlüoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün; 2010; Spreitzer, 1995). Consequently, organizations might need to considerproviding them with opportunities to develop their intellectual capital and involve them in decision-making processesregarding strategic and operating outcomes (Gümüşlüoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün; 2010).Though the study has involved a small number of organizations which do not enable us to generalize the findings,this may support the thinking that the top management of these organizations explicitly announces the philosophy of aresults-driven organization which focus on individual goal accomplishment. In addition, the encouragement foremployees to take the initiative and participate in the decision-making process and to express their opinions andperceptions seem to be embraced by top management. From these aspects, this sample of organizations seem toresemble market and adhocracy cultures, in which the adhocracy culture is also the culture with the highest positiveeffect on performance (Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez, and Sanz-Walle, 2015).The keyword related to selection has been considerably less evident as espoused within the organizational valuestatements of the sample of our study. Though we have touched upon the issue from the contradictory perspectives ontalent management- innate vs. acquired talent – talent management itself is an integrated broad process, which involvesnot only selection but also learning, development, retention processes of the employee pool and the idea to identify thetalent might actually be ingrained in the explicit statements of with regard to employee empowerment and motivation.Another finding is with respect to the least frequent number of counts for employment security is also worthconsidering for a possible reasoning that employment relationships are being in transformation from stable, long-termemployment to a more dynamic, flexible, learning and growth oriented employment relationship that is, employability.Employability is the ability to be employed, which realizes the employment-performance relationship to be based oninitiative, creativity, growth-orientation competencies of all employees; that enables organizations under dynamicframeworks to develop sustainable competitive advantage (Ghoshal, Boran & Bartlett, 1997). In consideration withthe resource-based view, because it assumes static equilibrium in a stable environment with immobile resources, thedisregard of the employment security, or may be the potential emphasis on employability for continuously changingdynamic environments may pose a theoretical deficiency for RBV. So it is not only the rarity, inimitability, the lack ofsubstitutability and value of resources but also the renewability of the resources that may help foster sustainablecompetitive advantage.The findings of this study might provide some clues with respect to the completely opposing implications of RBV.The sample organizations in general seem to be more assertive with respect to the implementation of human resourcepractices via their organizational values, which may indicate that these organizations may aim to developorganizational capabilities relevant to executing their HR systems with the ultimate objective of providing sustainablecompetitive advantage. Having valuable human capital is important for organizations; however it may be moreimportant to effectively manage people by designing and implementing effective HR systems which can contribute tothe development of a skilled human capital, through which a source of competitive advantage can also be achieved.340 Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341Whilst these values are explicitly announced by top management of many organizations in which employees areencouraged to adapt to the high performance culture, in some others what is communicated via value systems mightnot necessarily lead to employee commitment and satisfaction. This can create a tension and conflict betweenemployees and management. If values become really prominent for organizational cultures, each human resourcepractice should be embedded into the organization’s value system which have become the driving force behind forpositive organizational performance.This study has some limitations. First, the organizational values were collected from a number of only 10 MNCsbased on convenience sampling, which does not render the generalizability of the findings possible. This studyrepresenting an initial effort, is aimed to be further worked upon by researchers via incorporating more number oforganizations. Research can be conducted among organizations with domestic and foreign capital which will allow forbenchmark studies between local and multinational organizations. Future research on this topic might also beconcerned by expanding the number of MNCs for making a benchmark in HPWS utilization within organizationalvalues on the basis of country-of-origin.ReferencesAppelbaum, E. and Berg, P. (2001). ‘High-performance work systems and labor market structures’. In I. Berg and A. L. Kalleberg (eds.),Sourcebook of Labor Markets. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 271–94.Appelbaum, E, Bailey, T, Berg, P and Kalleberg, A L (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off, ILR Press,Ithaca, NY.Argandona, A (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 15–28.Armstrong, Michael (2011). Armstrong’s Handbook of Strategic Human Resource Management, 5th edition., London: Kogan Page.Barney, J. (1991) “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.Barney, J.B. (1985) ‘Organizational Culture: Can It Be A Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?’, Academy of Management Review, 11(3):656–65.Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. AcademyofManagement Journal, 39(4), 779–801.Becker, B., and Huselid, M. (1998). ‘High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications’.In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, vol. 16. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, (pp. 53–101).Bourne H. & Jenkins M. (2013). Organizational Values: A Dynamic Perspective, Organization Studies, 34 (4) 495-514. DOI:10.1177/0170840612467155.Berber & Yaslioglu, (2014). Managing High Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance, Work Organization and HumanResource Management, C. Machado and J. P. Davim (eds.), DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06376-8_2, Springer International PublishingSwitzerland.Brinkley, R. W. (2013). The case for values as a basis of for organizational culture, Front Health Services Management, 30 (1), 3-13.Chan, L. L., Shaffer, M. A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive advantage: the impact of organizational culture, competitivestrategy and human resource management practices on firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, (1). 17.Chi, N.W., and Lin, C.Y. (2011), ‘Beyond the High-Performance Paradigm: Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship Between High-PerformanceWork Systems and Organizational Performance in Taiwanese Manufacturing Firms,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49, 3, 486–514.Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482.Datta, D., Guthrie, J., & Wright, P. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of ManagementJournal, 48(1), 135–145.Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (2004). High performance work systems, organizational culture and perceived organizational effectiveness.Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 55–78.Dunford, B. B, Snell, S. A. & Wright, P. M. (2001). Human Resources and the resource based view of the firm (CAHRS Working Paper # 01-03).Ithaca NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. 2005. High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of internal socialstructure. Journal of Management, 31: 758-775.Fitzgerald, T.H. (1988) ‘Can Change in Organizational Culture Really Be Managed?’, Organization Dynamics, Autumn.Fitzgerald, G. A. and Desjardins, N. M. (2004). “Organizational Values and Their Relation to Organizational Performance Outcomes”. AtlanticJournal of Communication, 12(3), 121-145.Foley, S., Ngo, H., Loi, R. (2012). The adoption of high performance work systems in foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 47, 106-113.Ghoshal, S., Moran, P., Bartlett, C. A., (1997). Employment security, employability and sustainable competitive advantage, Insead Working PaperSeries.Gümüşlüoğlu, L., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2010). The Effects of Perceived Justice and Empowerment on Organizational, Supervisory andOccupational Commitment: An Investigation on Knowledge Workers”, Turkish Journal of Psychology, 25(66),21-36.Gaye Özçelik et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 ( 2016 ) 332 – 341 341Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal,14(8), 607–618.Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.Academy of Management, Journal, 38, 635–672.Huselid, M. (1995). ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance’.Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635–72.Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firmperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171–188.Kandula, S. R. (2006). Performance Management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India private limited.Lado, A. A. and Wilson, M. C. (1994). “Human Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive dvantage”: A Competency-Based Perspective”,Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699-727.Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Maślanka-Wieczorek, B. (2014). Talent management and high performance work system, Journal of International Studies, Vol. 7, No 1, 2014, pp.102-108. DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-1/9.Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (2013). Talent—innate or acquired? Theoretical considerations and their implications for talentmanagement. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 305–321 (this issue).Miroshnik, Victoria (2011) Transmission of organisational culture from HQs to overseas subsidiaries in Japanese MNC: a methodologicalframework. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Sanz-Walle, R. (2015). Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, andperformance in Spanish companies, Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 48:1, 30-41.Porter, M. (1981) The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6, 609-620.Porter, M. (1990) Why are firms successful. Paper presented at the Fundamental Issues in Strategy Conference, Napa, CA.Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R.J. (1990) ‘Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Academy of ManagementReview, 15(1): 88–102.Richard, O. C. and Johnson, N. B. (2001) Strategic Human Resource Management effectiveness and firm performance, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 12(2), 299-310.Rozkwitalska, M. (2012). Accepted and Strong organizational culture in multinational corporations, Journal of Intercultural Management, 4(3), 5-14.Sadri, G. (2014). High-Performance Corporate Culture, Industrial Management, 56 (16), 16-21.Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Third edition, San Francisco:Jossey-BassSchrott, G. (2004). Enhancing Performance in Virtual Knowledge Networks: A Community Engineering Approach, Dissertation, UniversitaetFrankfurt am Main, Books on Demand GmBH, Norderstedt.Seong, J. Y. (2011). “The Effects of High Performance Work Systems, Entrepreneurship and Organizational Culture on OrganizationalPerformance”, Seoul Journal of Business, 17(1), 1-36.Singh, M. R. (2013). Cultural Paradigm of High Performing Organizations: An Ethnographic Study in India Context, International Journal ofBusiness Antropology, 4(1), 92-107.Snell, S. A., Youndt, M. A., & Wright, P. M. (1996). Establishing a framework for research in strategic human resource management: Mergingresource theory and organizational learning. In G. Ferris, (ed.). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 14, 61-90.Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurment, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,38(5): 1442-1465.Sung, J. and Ashton, D. (2005). High Performance Work Practices: Linking strategy and skills to performance outcomes, DTI in association withCIPD, http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy.Thijssen, J. G. L., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Rocco, T. S. (2008). Toward the Employability—Link Model: Current Employment Transition toFuture Employment Perspectives, Human Resource Development Review, 7, 165-183, doi:10.1177/1534484308314955.Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2005) Management capability and high performance work organization, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 16 (6), pp 1029–48Tomer, J. (2001). Understanding High Performance Work Systems: The Joint Contribution of Economics and Human Resource Management,Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), 2001, vol. 30, issue 1, pages 63-73.Voss, G. B., Cable, D. M., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Linking organizational values to relationships with external constituents: A study of nonprofitprofessional theatres. Organization Science, 11, 330-347.Walton, J. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Development, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow.Way, S. A. (2002). “High Performance Work Systems and Intermediate Indicators of Firm Performance within the US Small Business Sector,”Journal of Management, 28, 765-785.Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A Resource Based View of the Firm’. Strategic Management Joumal, 5: 171-80.Wright, P. M. and Boswell, W. R. (2002). ‘Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research’.Journal of Management, 28: 247–76.Wright, P. M. and McMahan, G. C. (1992). ‘Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management’. Journal of Management, 18: 295–320.Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., and 6 McWilliams, A. (1994). ‘Human Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-basedPerspective’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2): 301-326.Yalabik, Z. Y., Chen, S.-J., Lawler, J. And Kim, K. (2008), High-Performance Work System and Organizational Turnover in East and SoutheastAsian Countries. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47: 145–152.

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

READ ALSO  Protection of human Subject Participants in nursing research