Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Over the centuries ago, human resource has been key player in organizational performance (Buckingham & Goodall, 2015; Jackson, Schuler, & Jiang, 2014). Current developments in business studies have focused the effectiveness of high performance work systems (HPWS) in organizational growth and development via putting workforce efforts with its adequate involvement, restraints and obligations (Boxall & Macky, 2009; Macky & Boxall, 2007; Posthuma, Campion, Masimova, & Campion, 2013; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007; Way, 2002). During past three decades, many researches have documented the profound role of HPWS in organizational performance, globally. However, benefits originated from adoption of HPWS highly exogenous to firm context and yield may different outcome varying among firms (Huselid & Becker, 2017; Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). Therefore, several contingent factors influencing human resource (HR) effectiveness have been identified as; firms size, firm reputation, industrial scale, business strategy and strategies concerning labour deployment (Scott & Davis, 2015; Slavich, Cappetta, & Giangreco, 2014; Stirpe, Bonache, & Revilla, 2014; Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009).
Although, explaining essence of HRM, researchers have stressed on strategic management and its impact on HRM commitment, quality and flexibility which leads to mammoth contributions to soar organizational performance (Flin & O'Connor, 2017; Legge, 1995; Sayles, 2017). Recent studies reveal HRM as an important factor in organizational performance in banking sector (Masum, Azad, & Beh, 2015; Sykes, Venkatesh, & Johnson, 2014). However, over last many decades researchers did not paid colossal attention to employees’ role and its association to organizational performance in banking sector (Goleman, 2017; Purcell & Kinnie, 2007). Likewise, to pursue the adoption of HPWS and its due role in improving HRM capabilities and seeking colossal advantages in banking sector should be focused alike (Shin & Konrad, 2017).
Rather, researchers have hardly tried to connect HRM practices in individual, bundle, or system form to its performance empirically (Chang, Jia, Takeuchi, & Cai, 2014; Delery & Doty, 1996; Hammer, 2015; Huselid, 1995; Kulkarni & Ramamoorthy, 2005; Lepak, Takeuchi, & Snell, 2003). In addition, linkage between employee’s role and its significance in HRM outcomes has been studied (Guest, 1997; Helmreich & Merritt, 2017), however the importance of employees role being studied for efficient human resource management deployment (Meijerink, Bandarouk, & Lepak, 2016). Therefore, there is need to further explore the linkage of ‘black box1’ of HRM outcomes (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Helmreich & Merritt, 2017), in spite several studies have been conducted regarding this issue (Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Berg, 1999; Landy & Conte, 2016; Park, Mitsuhashi, Fey, & Björkman, 2003; Rogg, Schmidt, Shull, & Schmitt, 2001) . Moreover, researchers have theoretically revised and presented various conceptual models for HRM performance (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Nishii & Wright, 2007; Paauwe & Richardson, 1997; Purcell & Kinnie, 2007), whereas a variety of work highlights the intervention and mediating role of various factors concerning employee’s performance (Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016; Pfeffer, 2014; Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2018).