HR Attributions

Antecedents of Attributions: Information, Beliefs, and Motivation

Hypotheses Development Fairness and Organizational Cynicism: Antecedents to HR Attributions

Interactions between Antecedents to HR Attributions

Empirical Study

Participants and Procedure

Measures

Analytic Strategy

Results

Measurement Model

Hypothesis Testing

Discussion of Results and Directions for Future Research

A Model of Antecedents to HR Attributions

Theoretical Development of the HR Attributions Framework

Further Integration with Attribution Theory

Implications for Practice

Conclusion

References

Abstract

Despite significant interest in the attributions employees make about their organization’s human resource (HR) practices, there is little understanding of the antecedents of HR attributions. Drawing on attribution theory, we suggest that HR attributions are influenced by information (perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness), beliefs (organizational cynicism), and motivation (perceived relevance). We test a model through a two-wave survey of 347 academic faculty in the United Kingdom, examining their attributions of the purpose of their institution’s workload management framework. After two preliminary studies (an interview study and a cross-sectional survey) to establish contextually relevant attributions, we find that fairness and cynicism are important for the formation of internal attributions of commitment but less so for cost-saving or exploitation attributions. Fairness and cynicism also interact such that distributive fairness buffers the negative attributional effect of cynicism, and individuals are more likely to attribute fair procedures to external forces if they are cynical about their organization. This study furthers the application of attribution theory to the organizational domain while making significant contributions to our understanding of the HR-performance process.

HR Attributions

A major focus of HR scholarship is understanding the relationship between HR practices and organizational performance (Guest, 2011; Huselid, 1995). Although there is general consensus that there is a positive relationship between the two, scholars continue to search for underlying mechanism(s) to explain this process (Alfes, Shantz, & Truss, 2012; Guest, 2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). Grounded in attribution theory, Nishii and colleagues (2008) proposed that employees’ causal attributions about their organization’s underlying intention of HR practices explains variability in employee attitudes and behaviors, and as such sheds light on the relationship between HR practices and organizational performance. Nishii et al. (2008) suggested that employees’ attributions of the intent behind HR practices can be classified along several dimensions. Primarily, HR practices are attributed either to internal causes – initiated by the organization (from its senior leadership, for instance) – or implemented due to external factors (e.g., to comply with trade union requirements). This dichotomy represents Heider’s (1958) internal vs external control dimension, with the organization’s HR practices as the focus of the attribution. If the HR attribution is external, then the chain of classification stops.