Integrationist favours the idea that human resource (HR) practices have synergic effect when implemented in a complementary and coherent manner. While an isolationist perspective favours that the HR practices have an independent effect on organizational performance. In the integrationist approach, HR practices are supposed to have complementary characteristics. When these complementary work practices are institutionalized in a consistent manner, they result in enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. On an altogether different paradigm, the isolationist approach states that individual Human Resource Management (HRM) practices have distinctive and autonomous properties. The present study is a sincere effort to answer the debate between isolationist and integrationist through exploration of ‘high-performance work practices’ (HPWPs) in the Indian financial sector. A model of HPWPs is developed with the help of explorative and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As many as nine factors comprising of twenty-seven HPWPs are reported to be a part of the model of HPWPs. The study concludes that as the usage of HPWPs increases, job satisfaction, commitment and employee well-being also increases and thereby the article concludes in favour of the integrationist approach of HRM.
AppelbaumE.BaileyT.BergP.KallebergA. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
2.
ArthurJ. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.
3.
AskenazyP. (2001). Innovative workplace practices and occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(3), 485–516.
4.
BarkerJ. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437.
5.
BarlingJ.IversonR.KellowayK. (2003). High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 276–283.
6.
BauerT. (2004). High performance workplace practices and job satisfaction: Evidence from Europe (IZA Discussion Papers 1265). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
7.
BeckerB.HuselidM.PickusP.SprattM. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39–47.
8.
Beltrán-MartínI.Roca-PuigV.Escrig-TenaA.Bou-LlusarJ. (2008). Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34(5), 1009–1044.
9.
BoxallP.AngS.BartramT. (2011). Analysing the ‘black box’ of HRM: Uncovering HR goals, mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1504–1532.
10.
BrysonA.WhiteM. (2008). Organizational commitment: Do workplace practices matter? (Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No. 881). London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.
11.
CombsJ.LiuY.HallA.KetchenD. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528.
12.
CristiniA.PozzoliD. (2010). Workplace practices and firm performance in manufacturing: A comparative study of Italy and Britain. International Journal of Manpower, 31(7), 818–842.
13.
DeleryJ. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 289–309.
14.
EdwardsM.PecceiR. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes: Testing a simultaneous multifoci model. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 17–26.
15.
GargN.LalB. (2015). Exploring the linkage between awareness and perception of high-performance work practices with employee well-being at workplace: A new dimension for HRM. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 4(1–2), 81–100.
16.
GargN.PuniaB. K. (2017). Developing high performance work system for Indian insurance industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(3), 320–337.
17.
Gould-WilliamsJ. (2004). The effects of ‘high commitment’ HRM practices on employee attitude: The views of public sector workers. Public Administration, 82(1), 63–81.
18.
GuerreroS.Barraud-DidierV. (2004). High-involvement practices and performance of French firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1408–1423.
19.
GuestD.ConwayN.DeweP. (2004). Using sequential tree analysis to search for ‘bundles’ of HR practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 79–96.
20.
HarleyB.AllenB.SargentL. (2007). High performance work practices and employee experience of work in the service sector: The case of aged care. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3), 607–633.
21.
HarringtonD. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
HerrmannD.FelfeJ. (2014). Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 209–227.
23.
HughesL.AveyJ.NormanS. (2008). A study of supportive climate, trust, engagement and organizational commitment. Journal of Business & Leadership; Research, Practice and Teaching, 4(2), 51–59.
24.
HuselidM. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–872.
25.
IchniowskiC.ShawK.PrennushiG. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 291–313.
26.
JiangK.LepakD.BaerJ. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294.
27.
KalmiP.KauhanenA. (2008). Workplace innovations and employee outcomes: Evidence from Finland. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 430–459.
28.
MacDuffieJ. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197–221.
29.
MackyK.BoxallP. (2008). High-performance work systems and employee well-being: Does employee involvement really intensify work? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 38–55.
30.
MohrR.ZoghiC. (2008) High-involvement work design and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(3), 275–296.
31.
NewmanA.ThanacoodyR.HuiW. (2011). The impact of employee perceptions of training on organisational commitment and turnover intentions: A study of multinationals in the Chinese service sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1765–1787.
32.
OgbonnayaC.DanielsK.van VeldhovenM.TregaskisO. (2013). Using HPWP to drive towards growth: The impacts of occupational health and safety leadership. In G.SaridakisC.Cooper (Eds.), How HR can drive growth (pp. 228–252). London: Elgar.
33.
PreussG. (2003). High performance work practices and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of information quality. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(4), 590–605.
34.
PuniaB. K.GargN. (2013). High performance work practices in Indian organizations: Exploration and employees’ awareness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 8(4), 509–516.
35.
RamdaniB.MellabhiK.GuermatC.KechadR. (2014). The efficacy of high performance work practices in the Middle East: Evidence from Algerian firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 252–275.
36.
SchulteM.OstroffC.KinickiJ. (2006). Organizational climate systems and psychological climate perceptions: A cross-level study of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 645–671.
37.
SunL.AryeeS.LawK. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558–577.
38.
TabachnickB.FidellL. S. (Eds.). (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. In Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed., pp. 402–407).
39.
TakeuchiR.ChenG.LepakD. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1–29.
40.
Van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.
41.
WhiteM.HillS.McGovernP.MillsC.SmeatonD. (2003). High-performance management practices, working hours and work–life balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 175–195.
42.
WhitenerE. (2001). Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Management, 27(5), 515–535.
43.
WoodS.De MenezesL. (2008). Comparing perspectives on high involvement management and organizational performance across the British economy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 639–683.
