Bond University

ePublications@bond
School of Business Discussion Papers

Faculty of Business

6-1-1992

Organisational and environmental factors related to

HRM practices in Hong Kong: a cross-cultural
expanded replication
James B. Shaw
Bond University, bshaw@bond.edu.au

Paul S. Kirkbride
Sara F. Y. Tang
Cynthia D. Fisher
Bond University, cynthia_fisher@bond.edu.au

Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/discussion_papers

Part of the Human Resources Management Commons
Recommended Citation
Shaw, James B.; Kirkbride, Paul S.; Tang, Sara F. Y.; and Fisher, Cynthia D., "Organisational and environmental factors related to HRM
practices in Hong Kong: a cross-cultural expanded replication" (1992). School of Business Discussion Papers. Paper 26.
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/discussion_papers/26

This Discussion Paper is brought to you by the Faculty of Business at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Business
Discussion Papers by an authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository
Coordinator.

BOND UNIVERSITY
School of Business

DISCUSSION
PAPERS

"Organisational and Environmental Factors

Related to HRM Practices in Hong Kong:
A Cross-Cultural Expanded Replication"
by

James B. Shaw, Paul S. Kirkbride, Sara F. Y. Tang,

Cynthia D. Fisher
DISCUSSION PAPER NO 26

JUNE 1992

University Drive,

---------------::--~ Gold Coast,QLD,4229

AUSTRALIA

Organisational And Environmental Factors Related To HRM Practices

In Hong Kong: A Cross-Cultural Expanded Replication

James B. Shaw
School of 11anagement
Bond University
Gold Coast, QLD 4229
Australia
61-75-95-2235

Paul S. Kirkbride
Ashridge 11anagement College
Berkhampsted, Hertfordshire
United Kingdom

Sara F.Y. Tang

11ass Transit Railway Corporation
Hong Kong

Cynthia D. Fisher
School of 11anagement
Bond University
Gold Coast, QLD 4229
Australia

Organisational And Environmental Factors Related To HRM Practices

In Hong Kong: A Cross-Cultural Expanded Replication

ABSTRACT
Data were collected from 151 Hong Kong organisations to determine the effect
of culture, firm size, level ofunionsation and several indices related to the presence
of an HRM department within the firm on Human Resource Management (HR)
practices. Culture was a relatively weak predictor of HR practices. Existence of an
HRM department and level of unionisation were moderate predictors while firm
size and the existence of specialised training departments within the HRM
department were the strongest preditors of HR practices.

In recent years there has been an increased interest in identifying those

organisational and environmental factors that relate to the development of Human
Resource (HR) practices in an organisation. The control perspective (Cohen &
Pfeffer, 1986; Edwards, 1979) which suggests that as the size and heterogeneity of
organisations increase, HR practices are needed to control the forces of
organisational conflict and disintegration. Balkin (1988) and Dimick & Murray
(1978) suggest that economic forces determine HR practices. Only reasonably
wealthy firms can afford many of the sophisticated HR practices that are available.
Political forces such as unions, professional associations and government have been
suggested as important determinants of HR practices (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986;
DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Grievance procedures and seniority based pay systems
are often highly favoured by union organisations, while advanced employee hiring
techniques and complex performance-based incentive wage systems may be
advocated by HR professional associations seeking to incorporate "the latest HR
technology" into their organisations. What might be referred to as an institutional
or imitation approach may also be in operation. Tolbert & Zucker (1983) and
Zucker (1987) suggest that organisations adopt HR practices which they see being
used by other organisations, not necessarily because the practices are effective or
appropriate for their organisation, but because they want to appear legitimate and
up-to-date. In multinational firms, cultural factors may play an important role in
determining HR practices. Studies have shown that multinational organisations may
carry home country HR practices to those locations abroad where they have
operations (Laurent, 1986).
There is a small but growing body of literature on the correlates of HR
practices. However, the vast majority of theorising and research has been conducted
in Anglo-American countries. Fisher and Shaw (1987) have reported the results of a
study on correlates of HR practices in Singapore. Several measures of organisational
and environmental factors thought to be related to HR practices were collected as
part of a general survey of HR activities in Singapore. Headquarters location, size,
3

level of technological change, degree of unionisation, and the existence (or nonexistence) of an HRM department within the organisation were used to predict
various aspects of HRM activity within a sample of 174 firms. In the Singapore
sample, the strongest predictors of HR practices were size and whether or not there
was a formal HRM department within the organisation. In general, the predictors
collectively accounted for relatively small amounts of the variance in HR practices
(3% to 26%).

The study presented in this paper represents a partial replication of the Fisher
and Shaw (1987) research. Some methodological problems were avoided in this
study and more detailed and varied measures of some of the other dependent and
independent variables were available. Of particular importance is the fact that the
data presented below were collected in Hong Kong rather than Singapore. Although
some might argue that the two locations have much in common --- predominantly
Chinese, large trading centers, and a multitude of local and international firms,
there is some reason to argue that Hong Kong represents a better location in which
to test some of the hypotheses originally proposed in the Singapore study. In
contrast to the long espoused "laissez faire" attitude of the Hong Kong Government
(Lethbridge, 1984), the Singapore government has taken a more active,
interventionist approach -- even extending to the realm of HR activities (Ow, 1986).
The Singapore National Productivity Board and other institutions have promoted
training and development activities within local organisations. Government wage
policies have played a major role in the highly successful economic development of
the country. One could argue that the interventionist strategy taken by the
government in Singapore may have tended to homogenise HR practices in both local
and multinational organisations. In addition, organisations included in the mailing
list were obtained primarily from the membership list of the Singapore Institute of
Personnel Management, a professional HRM association. These circumstances may
have contributed to a "restriction of range" in HR practices and may have made it
more difficult to tease out the potential impact of other factors relevant to the
4

development of HR activities. The diversity of organisations in Hong Kong along

with the long standing laissez faire approach of the Hong Kong government to most
business activities should result in minimal restriction of range. In the next section,
we will discuss the specific rationale behind each of the factors measured in the
study. A somewhat more extensive discussion of these factors can be found in Fisher
and Shaw (1987).
Determinants of HR Practices
As with the Singapore study the potential determinants of HR practices
measured included the predominant cultural background of the firm's owners (in
the Singapore study referred to as headquarters location), size, degree of
unionisation, and the existence of a specific HR department within the organisation
(and some additional characteristics of this department).
Culture. Various authors have written about the extent to which
multinational organisations tend to transfer their home country operational policies
to foreign locations -- and the wisdom of that practice (Schneider, 1988; Von Glinow
& Teagarden, 1988). While there is some evidence that HRM practices do undergo

local modifications (Dicle, Dicle & Alie, 1988; Ishida, 1986), it is likely that essential
cultural characteristics remain in the operation of Chinese firms in Hong Kong when
compared to American or British firms. Redding (1986) has suggested that Chinese
businesses are characterised by centralised decision making and control systems,
loose organisational structures, paternalistic and autocratic managerial styles,
nepotistic succession processes, intuitive planning, and personalised linkages with
the external environment. Based on Hofstede's (1984) work on the dimensions of
culture, Chinese organisations are influenced by cultural characteristics such as high
power distance and collectivism. "Face" plays a particularly important role in
Chinese culture. On the other hand, Anglo-American organisations stem from
cultures that tend to be individualistic and moderate to low in power distance.
The Chinese emphasis on collectivism focuses primarily on close family
members. Because of this emphasis on mutual obligations to family members,
5

Chinese firms are less likely to have extensive promotion-from-within policies

(except regarding family members in the firm) than their Anglo-American
counterparts. Chinese firms will be less likely to have extensive performance
appraisal and feedback systems than will Anglo-American firms due to the
importance of "face" and the Confucian emphasis on age as a measure of respect and
authority. The rationalism and individualism which typically characterises AngloAmerican organisations will focus more emphasis on the appraisal and feedback
process with these organisations being likely to use the information provided by
appraisals for a variety of purposes. Kirkbride and Tang (1992) note that Chinese
firms in Hong Kong tend to be small and have relatively little excess resources to
spend on formal training programs. They are also afraid that well trained staff will
be poached from them by other firms. Thus, Chinese firms are less likely to have
extensive in-house training programs compared to Anglo-American firms. Although
Chinese firms may engage in extensive informal socialisation of firm members, this
will primarily focus on family members rather than the entire work force. Chinese
firms will therefore be less likely to include extensive, formal, socialisation and
orientation programs into their HR system. It is expected that Chinese organisations
will make less use of formal job analysis methods than will Anglo-American firms
given, as Redding (1986) points out, their tendency towards informal structures and
procedures.
Selection in many Chinese firms tends to be based heavily on a few factors
such as family/social background and educational credentials. As a result,
recruiting and selection systems within Chinese firms will likely be much less
extensive than in their Anglo-American counterparts. Compensation practices in
Chinese firms are likely to be influenced by the Confucian emphasis on age and
seniority. Thus, incentive pay systems, complex methods of job evaluation, and
wage surveys are less likely to be found in Chinese firms. One might expect that
Chinese firms would have more extensive social welfare and other fringe benefits
due to the collective orientation of the firms compared to the more individualistic

nature of Anglo-American firms. However, because of the laissez faire attitude of

the Hong Kong government, little legal pressure has been placed upon firms to
provide extensive welfare and fringe benefit programs as compared to the u.s. or

u.K. governments. The "safety net" provided by these types of programs in other
societies is more likely to be handled by the family group of the employee rather
than his/her business group. As a result, we would expect to find Chinese firms in
Hong Kong to have less extensive welfare and fringe benefit programs than their
Anglo-American counterparts.
Size. Edwards (1979) and Glueck (1974) proposed that as the size of firms
increased there would be a strong tendency towards bureaucratisation in an effort to
control a large and diverse workforce. There has been some support for the idea that
as firms get larger they tend to develop more extensive and elaborate job analysis,
planning, training, appraisal, selection, and compensation systems (Dimick &
Murray, 1978). Given the greater diversity of resources within the organisation, the
use of internal labour markets (e.g., promotion from within practices) would also be
expected to increase. These propositions are also consistent with an economic
perspective on the determinants of HR practices in that as firm size increases, the
financial resources available for the development of extensive HR practices are
likely to increase as well. Thus, large firms may have more resources available to
spend on HR practices, including extensive social welfare and fringe benefit
systems.
Unionisation. As a potentially powerful political force in organisations,
unions may influence the nature of HR practices within firms. The impact of unions
on specific HR practices is unclear, however. Unions have traditionally placed
considerable emphasis on job security, promotion, and pay issues. Seniority-based
pay systems are a common outcome of union influence as are extensive promotionfrom-within practices. However, Pfeffer and Cohen (1984) found a significant
negative relationship between level of unionisation and the<extent of use of internal
labour markets. Glueck (1974) suggested that unions might increase the likelihood
7

of job evaluation systems, but an equally plausible argument could be made in that
collective bargaining reduces the need for any other type of wage setting system.
Cohen and Pfeffer (1986) and Dimick and Murtay (1978) found that unionisation
was negatively related to the use of sophisticated recruiting and selection systems.
In their Singapore study, Fisher and Shaw (1987) found that level of unionisation
was negatively related to the use of written HR policies. No other effects were
found. This may have resulted from the more cooperative role that unions tend to
play in Singapore as opposed to the traditional adversarial union-management
relationship found in many Anglo-American nations. Unfortunately, Hong Kong
does not provide us with a particularly advantageous location for testing the impact
of unions on HR practices. Chen (1984) notes that unions in Hong Kong tend to have
little power. However, one could argue that where Hong Kong firms do have
extensive union or other forms of employee representation (which would be
unusual), these representative bodies may have some influence on HR activities.
HRM department. The connection between a formal HRM department in the
organisation and the adoption of sophisticated HR practices may occur for several
reasons. First, HRM departments may serve as a political force within the
organisation to promote HR activities. Second, the existence of a formal department
may make it possible to attract qualified HR professionals able to develop
sophisticated practices. Third, the existence of a formal department may be an
indication of top management's commitment to HR activities and thus, the lobbying
done by HR professionals is more likely to be greeted by a receptive audience.
Cohen and Pfeffer (1986) and Pfeffer and Cohen (1984) have found that the existence
of a formal HR department coincided with more extensive use of internal labour
markets and more selective hiring standards. In the Fisher and Shaw (1987)
Singapore study, the existence of an HRM department was the most consistent
predictor of HR practices. Firms with an HRM department used more selection
methods, offered more types of training, had more extensive appraisal systems, had
a more comprehensive promotion-from-within policy, were more likely to have
8

written job descriptions, and had somewhat more extensive written HR policies. In
addition to the simple presence or absence of an HRM department, other features of
the HRM department might be predictive of HR practices as well. For example; the
size of the department, the functional specialisation within the department, the level
or training/professionalism of HRM personnel, and the relative power and
responsibility given to the HRM department by top management may relate to the
level and nature HR activities. In this Hong Kong sample, we will examine these
other features of HRM departments and their relative contribution to the prediction
of HR practices compared with our earlier simple measure of HRM department
presence/absence.
In general, studies examining the links between cultural background of
owners, firm size, level of unionisation, the presence or absence of an HRM
department, and HR practices have been equivocal in their findings. The data
collected in the present study provides us with an opportunity to retest some of
these hypotheses in a cross-cultural setting and to improve on some of the
measurement problems in our earlier Singapore study. A summary of the
hypotheses tested in this study are presented in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 About Here

METHOD
The Survevs
Data were collected in 1988 by Kirkbride and Tang as a general survey of
HRM practices in Hong Kong. A 26-page questionnaire with 159 items was mailed
to 990 firms in Hong Kong. The survey was adapted from Mackay and Torrington
(1986). Usable responses were received from 151 firms representing a 15% response
rate. While non-response bias is certainly a possibility, Kirkbride and Tang (1989a,
1989b) note that respondents represented a relatively good fit to the distribution of

companies in Hong Kong, with a slight under-representation of small sized

manufacturers.
Predictor Variables
In this section we will describe the specific measures of owner cultural
background, firm size, unionisation, and HRM department used in the study.
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations and reliability coefficients are presented in
Table 2.

Insert Table 2 About Here

Culture. Respondents were given the opportunity to indicate whether the

primary owners of their firm were from the United States, Australia, Britain,
Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Singapore, or other
countries. Respondents were assigned a code of "1" if they were from the U.s.,
Australia, Britain, or Canada, a code of "2" if they were from Hong Kong or
Singapore, and a code of "3" if they were from Japan, the PRC or had responded to
the original question as "other." The PRC was not included in the Chinese group due
to its very different political and economic structure when compared to Hong Kong
or Singapore.
Size of Firm. The original scale used to measure firm size consisted of seven
categories ranging from 1-19 to 1000+ employees. In the present study, firms with
less than 200 employees received a code of "1 ",200-499 employees a code of "2," 500999 employees a code of "3;' and firms with 1000+ employees were coded "4."
Unionisation. Respondents indicated the percentage of employees in three
different job groups (manual, clerical/supervisory, managerial) who were members
of a trade union or some form of staff association. An "employee representation"
score was developed by summing the trade union and staff association percentages
across the three job groups. This score represented the extent to which some formal
employee advocacy group was present in the firm.
10

HRM department. Respondents indicated whether there was a "specialised

personnel function at your establishment." If they responded yes, they were asked to
indicate the number of people employed in that function and the number who were
members of various HRM professional associations. A "professional membership"
score was computed by summing across the various association groups. Although a
single employee could have been a member of more than one groups, it was felt that
our measure adequately represented the overall level of professional affiliation
within the HRM department. Several items assessed the power and responsibility of
the HRM function within the firm. Respondents indicated the level of responsibility
which the HRM function had when dealing with negotiating pay and conditions,
manning/productivity levels, discipline/ grievance, collective disputes,
redundancy /redeployment, new technology, and disclosure of information. For
each of three job groups (as described earlier), respondents indicated on a 6 point
scale whether they had "complete responsibility" to "no responsibility" over these
seven areas. An employee relations responsibility score was computed by summing
across the three job groups. Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate which
of 14 safety and welfare issues the personnel function was "wholly" or "in part"
responsible for or "did not undertake." An overall safety and health responsibility
score was computed by counting the number of issues for which the HRM
department was wholly responsible for. In addition, there was a question which
asked whether a specific HRM employee was responsible for safety and welfare
issues. An overall HRM responsibility score was computed by first standardising
the employee relations and two safety and welfare items, then summing. A final
aspect of the HRM department that was measured was the extent to which there was
a specialised training department within the personnel function. Specifically,
respondents were asked to indicate whether there existed a formal training
department within the firm, the number of personnel in that department, and the
percent of staff payroll allocated to training.

11

Dependent Variables
Data were collected on each of the several HRM areas. In some cases,
multiple measures of a particular HR area were constructed. Initial analyses,
however, indicated that the different measures yielded essentially the same results.
Consequently, the different measures were combined into a single "overall" scale.
The measures actually used in the final analyses which are reported in the results
section of this paper are indicated in a bold type font. Means, standard deviations,
reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations for the dependent measures are
presented in Table 3.

Insert Table 3 About Here

Promotion, A single item was used to measure promotion from within

policies. Respondents were asked to indicate whether their firm had policies on
promotion from within and internal transfers.
Performance appraisal and feedback. Four measures related to appraisal and
feedback were initially obtained. Respondents indicated whether or not their firm
"had a system of performance appraisal," and whether feedback interviews were
held as part of the appraisal system. In addition, for each of three job groups
(manual, c1erical/ supervisory, and managerial), respondents indicated which of
seven different methods of appraisal were used to assess performance (MBO,
numerical rating scale, written report, personality trait rating, behaviourally
anchored rating scale, self"rating, and other). Respondents also indicated for which
of eight different purposes their appraisal system was used (in each of three job
groups). An overall PA Purposes score was obtained by counting the number of
purposes indicated for any of the job groups. An overall Appraisal Use score was
derived by first standardising these various measures, then summing. A firm with a
very high appraisal use score would be one which had both formal appraisal and
12

feedback systems, appraised perfonnance with multiple methods and made use of
this data for a variety of purposes. Finns with very low appraisal use score might
have had formal appraisal and feedback systems, but these were relatively simple
and were not used for any extensive number of purposes within the firm.
Tob analysis and level of fonnalisation of procedures. Respondents indicated
which of five job analysis methods were used in their finn (questionnaire, narrative
description, key task analysis, critical incidents analysis, and other). A Job Analysis
Methods score was derived by simply counting the number of methods used
(excluding "other"). The extent of formal, written procedures in the organisation was
obtained by asking respondents to indicate, for each of three job groups, whether or
not their firm had "written procedures/agreements" on each of eight issues (pay &
conditions, manning/ productivity levels, discipline/grievance, collective disputes,
redundancies, new technology, disclosure of information, and other). A Procedures
score was obtained by simply counting the number of issues for which there were
written procedures in any of the three job groups (excluding "other" responses).
Socialisation and training. Respondents were asked to indicate which of five
levels of employee orientation were conducted in their firm, ranging from the
provision of an employee handbook, to a multi-day, personal induction program.
Responses were to be made for each of three job groups. An Orientation score was
derived by counting the number of times each respondent indicated that an
orientation program longer than one day in length was conducted for any of three
categories of employees.
Respondents also indicated whether or not their firm provided in-house
training for employees. Additionally, they indicated which of 10 general methods of
training were typically used in their finn. Respondents also indica.ted, using a 4point scale (frequently, sometimes, rarely, and never), the frequency with which 12
management development methods were used. A General Training Methods score
was obtained by counting the number of methods used in any of the three employee
categories. A Management Training Methods score was obtained by counting the

13

number of management development methods that were used either frequently or

sometimes. Also associated with the issue of training, respondents were asked to
indicate which of six assessment methods were used to determine training needs
prior to training in each of three job groups (job analysis, perf. appraisal, review of
problem areas, interviews, questionnaires, other). A "not analysed" response was
also provided. A Needs Assessment score was computed by counting the number of
methods used in any of the three job categories. Respondents also indicated which
of eight criteria were used to determine whether specific managers would receive
training (promotion prospects, transfers, planned sequence of experiences,
succession planning, career planning, perf. appraisal, and other). An "automatic
training" response was also provided. A Manager Training Selection score was
derived by counting the number of criteria. used to select managers for training
(excluding "other" and "automatic' selection). Respondents indicated, for each of
three job groups, which of six methods were used to monitor 'the effectiveness of
training programs (tests, reports, log books, field supervisors, questionnaires, and
other). A "not monitored" response was provided. A Training Monitor score was
derived by counting the number of methods used to monitor training effectiveness
in any of the three job groups.
In our final analyses, two overall training-related scores were derived. The
first dealt with the extent to which training was conducted in the organisation and
the extensiveness of methods used in general and managerial training. The Overall
Training Methods score was derived by first standardising, then summing the inhouse training response, general training methods score, and management training
methods score. The second overall training measure, Training Analysis, assessed
the extent to which training in the organisation was determined by careful needs
analysis, whether participants were selected using some logical criteria, and
whether training effectiveness was assessed.
Recruiting & selection. Respondents indicated which of 16 different recruiting
methods "have been used recently." An overall Recruiting Methods score was
14

derived by simply counting the number of methods used in any of three job groups.
Two measures of selection practices were obtained. Respondents were asked to
indicate which of six selection methods were used in hiring employees (interest,
personality, mental ability, work sample, trainability, or their own job knowledge
tests). An additional item asked respondents to indicate whether reference checks
were used as part of the selection process for each of three job groups. An Overall
Selection score was derived by summing the selection methods and reference check
scores. This score could range from zero to seven) six selection methods plus
reference checks).
Compensation and benefits practices. Respondents indicated which of five
different types of incentive pay systems were used in their firm in each of seven
different employee groups. The pay systems listed were individual payment by
results (PBR), group PBR, commission, profit sharing, and discretionary bonus. The
employee groups were manual unskilled & semi-skilled, manual skilled & technical,
clerical!secretarial, supervisory, middle management & administrative, professional
specialists, and senior managers. An Incentives score was derived by counting the
number of incentive systems used collectively across the various employee
categories (scores could range from

a to 35). Respondents indicated which of 18

"welfare" programs were present in their firm (e.g., counselling service, social clubs,
subsidized meals, etc.). A Welfare score was obtained by simply counting th
number of programs indicated to exist. Respondents also indicated which of 50
different fringe benefits were provided to employees in four categories (manual,
clerical/supervisory, managerial, expatriates). A Fringe Benefits score was derived
by counting the total number of benefits indicated collectively across the employee
groups. Two measures related to compensation determination practices were
obtained. Respondents indicated which of six job evaluation methods were used in
determining the pay level in three job groups (Hay-MSL, ranking, grading or
classification, factor comparison, points rating, other). A Job Evaluation score was
derived by simply counting the number of methods used in any of the job groups.
15

Respondents also indicated which of several methods were used to monitor external
wage rates. Five of these methods were some form of wage survey, either
conducted by the firm itself or some external group. A Wage Survey score was
derived by counting the number of survey methods used collectively across three
job groups.

RESULTS

Chi-Square tests and analysis of variance were used to examine the

relationship between owner cultural background, size of the firm, existence of an
HRM department and existence of a specialised training department on HR
practices. A chi-square test was used to examine the relationship of all the four
predictor variables to promotion policies (which was a dichotomous variable),
otherwise ANOVA was used. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.

Insert Table 4 About Here

As predicted, the results of the Chi-square tests on promotion-from-within

policies indicated that larger firms and firms with formal HRM departments were
more likely to have promotion-from-within policies although therelationship
between HRM department and promotion policies was only marginally significant. .
Whereas only 7 of 13 small firms had formal promotion from within policies, 42 of
49 firms with 1000 ot more employees had such policies.
There was a significant main effect for owner culture on appraisal use, extent
of welfare and fringe benefit programs, and the use of wage surveys. As predicted,
in all cases Anglo-American firms showed a higher level of these
activities/programs than did Chinese firms. The means for the Anglo-American
firms were 1.3, 7.2, 56.6, and 4.6, while the means for Chinese firms were -.4, 5.9,
47.6, and 2.3 respectively for the four variables. Nationality had a marginally
significant effect on use of job analysis, extent of written procedures, use of
16

extensive orientation programs, and number of overall training methods. Means on

the four variables for Anglo-American and Chinese firms were 1.4, 2.2, .69, .74, and
1.1,1.6, .34, -.27 respectively. Again, as predicted, the Anglo-American firms
showed higher levels of these practices than did Chinese firms. In some cases the
means for the miscellaneous other firms fell between those of the Chinese and
Anglo-American firms, while for other variables their means were closer to one of
the other nationality groups. Given the heterogeneous nature of the miscellaneous
group, as expected, no consistent pattern of HR practices was found.
There was a significant effect of firm size on appraisal use, overall training
methods, training analysis, recruiting methods, overall selection methods, incentive
programs, and welfare programs. As predicted, except for appraisal use and
incentive programs, larger sized firms use these HR practices more extensively than
did smaller firms. In the case of appraisals, the largest firms (1000+) actually had a
lower level of appraisal use than did firms with from 500-999 employees (means are
-.04 and .73 respectively). For incentive programs, firms with 1000+ and 200-499
employees used incentive programs more extensively than did firms with 500-999
employees (means = 4.2, 4.9 and 3.1 respectively). Marginal effects of firm size on
fringe benefit programs and the use of wage surveys were also found, with larger
firms showing more extensive use of these practices than smaller firms.
As expected, the existence of an HRM department showed a significant main
effect on appra,isal use, use of job analysis methods, overall training methods,
training analysis, recruiting methods, welfare programs, and fringe benefits. A
marginal effect was found on overall selection methods. In all cases, firms with
HRM departments had more extensive levels of these HR practices than did firms
without formal HR departments. A similar effect was found for the existence (or
absence) of a formal training department within the firm. Firms with formal training
departments had significantly higher levels of appraisal use, job analysis methods,
orientation programs, overall training methods, training analysis, recruiting

17

methods, welfare programs, fringe benefits, and wage surveys than did firms
without formal training departments.
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to examine the relationship
between our other (non-categorical) predictor variables and the various dependent
variables. These results are presented in Table 5. The weakest predictor was
employee representation, which correlated significantly with only three of the
thirteen dependent variables. The percent of payroll'allocated for training correlated
with four of the thirteen variables while HRM size correlated significantly with six
and training department size correlated with seven of the dependent variables.
Level of professional HR membership and the extent of responsibility the HRM
department had over HR practices were correlated with 11 and 12 of the 13
dependent variables, respectively. In all cases, the direction of the relationship was
as expected.

Insert Table 5 About Here

In an effort to gain some measure of the overall relationship of the predictor

variables to the dependent variables as well as the unique contribution to that
relationship of each predictor, a hierarchical regression analysis procedure
developed by Alwin and Hauser (1975) was used. In this procedure, a series of
prediction equations are calculated by sequentially entering variables which are
believed to be increasingly proximal causes of the relationship and which,
themselves, may be related to more causally distal variables entered earlier in the
sequence. Variables were entered in the following order: (1) culture of owner (two
dummy coded variables. 1a=1 if Anglo-American, 0 if Chinese, 1b=O if AngloAmerican,l if Chinese, and both variables coded 0 if miscellaneous nationality), (2)
size of the organisation, (3) employee representation, (4) existence of an HRM
department (5) specific characteristics of the HRM department -- these were entered
in a hierarchical fashion (5a=HRM size, 5b=professional membership, then 5c=HRM
18

responsibility) based upon assumptions about which variables were more proximal
causes of the dependent variables, (6) existence of a specialised training department,
and (7) specific aspects of the training department ._- as with #5, entered in a
hierarchical fashion (7a=training size, then 7b=% wages allocated for training).
Actually, it was our belief that variables related to the HRM department in the firm
were the most proximal causes of HR practices. Variables relating to the specialised
training department were entered after these HRM variables, not because we
believed them to necessarily be more proximally causal, but in order to determine
whether they contributed something unique to prediction over what had already
been contributed by the HRM variables. The results of these regression analyses are
presented in Table 6. In Table 6, the row "beta as entered" indicates the beta weight
of the variable for the step at which it first entered the regression equation. The
multiple R, adjusted R2, and F (change) also relate to the step at which the variable
first entered the equation. The row "beta in final equation" indicates the beta weight
for each variable, and its significance level, in the final equation with all variables
entered.

Insert Table 6 About Here

Only one variable, professional membership, added significantly to the

prediction of internal promotion policies. The higher the level of professional
membership, the more likely the firm was to have internal promotion policies. This
variable's beta weight was only marginally significant (p < .10) in the final equation.
Cultural background, HRM department, professional membership, HRM
responsibility, training department, and percent of wages allocated to training all
significantly added to the prediction of the use of performance appraisal methods.
Anglo-American firms tended to use more appraisal methods as did those with
HRM and training departments, high levels of professional membership and HRM
19

responsibility, and a higher level of funding allocated for training purposes. In the
final equation, however, the regression coefficients for both cultural background
and professional membership were no longer significant, while firm size had a
marginally significant regression coefficient in the final equation..
As predicted, employee representation and professional membership added
significantly and positively to the prediction of the use of job analysis methods, with
only employee representation remaining significant in the final prediction equation.
Employee representation, HRM size, and HRM responsibility added significantly,
with positive beta weights, to the prediction of the extent of written procedures in
the firm. However, the regression coefficient for employee representation was not
significant in the final equation.
As predicted, firm size, HRM responsibility, training department size, and
the percent of wages allocated to training added significantly and positively to the
prediction of extensive orientation programs within the firm. The coefficient for firm
size was not significant in the final regression equation, however. Also as predicted,
firm size, the existence of HRM and training departments, and the percent of wages
allocated for training all added significantly to the prediction of training methods
used by the firm. Only training department and percent of wages allocated had
significant regression coefficients in the final equation. In addition, the regression
coefficient for HRM responsibility was marginally significant in the final prediction
equation. The extent to which training needs analyses were conducted in the firm
was predicted by firm size, employee representation, HRM department,
professional membership, HRM responsibility, training department, and percent of
wages allocated to training. The regression coefficients for HRM department, HRM
responsibility, training department, and percent of wages all remained significant in
the final regression equation.
Firm size, HRM department, HRM responsibility, and training department
all added significantly to the prediction of the number of recruiting methods used.
However, only HRM responsibility and training department remained significant in
20

the final prediction equation. The number of selection methods used by the firm was
significantly predicted by firm size and HRM responsibility with both significant in
the final equation.
Only HRM responsibility significantly added to the prediction of the use of
incentive schemes within the firm, and this variable had a significant beta weight in
the final equation. Cultural background, firm size, professional membership, and
HRM responsibility added significantly to the prediction of both welfare programs
and fringe benefits within the firm. The existence of a training department also
added significantly to the prediction of welfare programs and HRM department size
added significantly to the prediction of fringe benefits. Chinese firms had fewer
welfare programs than did Anglo-American or miscellaneous firms. For welfare
programs, culture, HRM responsibility and training department remained
significant in the final regression equation. For fringe benefits, cultural background
(Chinese firms had fewer), professional memberships, and HRM responsibility
remained significant in the final regression equation. Use of job evaluation methods
was predicted by level of employee representation and percent of wages allocated
for training, with both variables maintaining a significant beta weight in the final
prediction equation. Finally, cultural background, firm size, HRM responsibility,
and training department added significantly to the prediction of the use of wage
surveys. Chinese firms were less likely to use wage surveys than were AngloAmerican or miscellaneous firms. However, only HRM responsibility remained a
significant predictor in the final equation.

DISCUSSION

In general, the environmental and organisational factors used to predict HR

practices did seem, to relate to the types of HR activities in which the firms engaged.
One HR practice measured, selection methods used, was not significantly
predictable from the set of predictor variables. Promotion policies and use of

21

incentive pay systems were only marginally predictable. For the remaining HR
practices adjusted R squares ranged from .085 (job evaluation methods used) to .366
(training analysis methods used).
Cultural background of firm owners proved to be a relatively weak indicator
of HR practices. As predicted Anlgo-American firms were more likely to use formal
performance appraisal and feedback systems than were Chinese firms. This is
consistent with the emphasis placed upon "face" by the Chinese (Hofstede & Bond,
1988) and the subsequent avoidance of situations where formal performance
evaluations could lead to loss of face by the poorly performing employee or the
supervisor who must relate that performance information during the feedback
session. As in the Fisher and Shaw (1987) study, Anglo-American firms were more
likely to use "technical approaches to determining the pay value of jobs through the
use of formal wage surveys and job evaluation methods. This would be consistent
with the Confucian emphasis on seniority based wage systems, i.e., the importance
of and respect for age in Confucian philosophy. Anglo-American firms were more
likely to have extensive welfare and fringe benefit programs than were Chinese
firms. This may be the result of a "carryover" effect, with Anglo-American firms
bringing to Hong Kong welfare and benefit programs that are mandated by law in
their home countries. Chinese firms in Hong Kong (mostly local Hong Kong), have
operated in a laissez-faire environment where government has placed little
emphasis on welfare and benefit programs. Fisher and Shaw (1987) found that
Western organisations provided more formal training to employees than did Asian
firms. In our Hong Kong sample, cultural background was only marginally related
to formal training and orientation programs used. Anglo-American firms did show
a somewhat greater extent of formal training than their Chinese counterparts. While
not statistically significant, this was in the predicted direction and is consistent with
Kirkbride and Tang's (1992) suggestion that Chinese firms in Hong Kong have
neither the resources nor a strong motivation to formalise training procedures. We
also found that the use of formal, written procedures was marginally greater in
22

Anglo-American firms. This is consistent with Redding's (1986) research indicating

that Chinese firms prefer informal organisation control systems. The results of the
hierarchical regression analyses indicated that, while culture significantly added to
the prediction of four HR practices, this variable quickly dropped out of the
regression equation when other variables were added. Culture remained a
significant predictor in the final regression equation of only one HR practice.
Fisher and Shaw (1987) found that firm size was a significant predictor of
several HR practices. In their study, firm size was significantly related to internal
promotion policies, selection, training, job analysis, job evaluation, incentive pay
systems, and performance appraisal. In general, they found that larger firms had
more sophisticated HR practices than did smaller firms. In the present study, firm
size was significantly related to promotion policies, appraisal, training methods and
analysis, recruitment and selection procedures, the use of incentive pay systems,
and the extent of welfare programs within the firm. Firm size was marginally
related to the extent of fringe benefit programs and use of wage surveys. Our
findings concur with the Fisher and Shaw study and are also consistent with both
the control perspective (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986; Edwards, 1979) and economic
approaches (Balkin, 1988; Dimick & Murray, 1978) to the determinants of HR
practices. Large organisations tend to use more extensive and sophisticated HR
practices because they (1) need the practices to control a larger and more diverse
work force, and (2) have the financial resources available to engage in these
activities. The results of the hierarchical regression analyses, however, indicated that
firm size remained a significant predictor in only one final regression equation
(selection methods, whose overall equation was not significant). For most HR
practices, firm size dropped out of the regression equation when the size of the
HRM department, level of HRM responsibility, or existence of a specialised training
department entered the equation. This seems to indicate that the effect of firm size
on HR practices tends to work through its impact on the size and responsibility of
the HRM department in the firm and the ability of the firm to have more specialised
23

departments within the personnel function. This is certainly consistent with the
control and economic perspectives discussed above.
Level of employee representation was a relatively weak predictor of HR "
practices. Level of representation was related to the use of job analysis methods, the
extent of formal written procedures, the use of]ob evaluation methods, and the
extent of training analysis. The findings "related to job analysis and job evaluation
were opposite our hypotheses with firms with higher levels of employee
representation showing greater use of job analysis and job evaluation methods. No
prediction was made concerning the relationship between employee representation
and training. A positive relationship was found. Consistent with prediction, firms
with a higher level of employee representation showed greater use of formal,
written procedures. Employee representative groups serve as political forces within
the firm (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986; DiMAggio & Powell, 1983). Employee groups in
Hong Kong have traditionally played an almost non-existent role in influencing
organisational policies. Our findings suggest that when such groups grow to some
significant size within the firm, they tend to encourage better, not more restrictive,
HR practices. Also interesting is that although employee representation relates to
only four of the 14 HR practices, for three of the four, representation remained a
significant predictor in the final regression equation. Employee representation may
not be an extensive predictor, but it is a persistent one.
Four aspects of the presence of a formal HRM function within the firm were
used to predict HR practices. In the Fisher and Shaw (1987) study, the existence of
an HRM department was the strongest predictor of HR practices. This was not the
case in the present study. HRM existence reJated significantly to performance
appraisal and job analysis practices, the number of training methods used, and the
extent of welfare and fringe benefit programs. In all cases the relationship was in the
predicted direction. Firms with formal HRM departments engage in more
sophisticated HR practices. A formal HRM department may serve as an advocate for
the development of HR practices within the firm and is more likely to be staffed by
24

individuals capable of developing those practices. The results of the hierarchical

regression analyses indicate, however, that when culture, firm size, and level of
employee representation are taken into account. the mere existence of an HRM
department predicts just four HR practices (performance appraisal, training
methods and analysis, and recruiting). Additionally, the relationship of HRM
department to use of training ap.d recruiting methods disappears when more
specific HRM variables enter the regression equation --- specifically, the measure of
HRM responsibility. A similar situation exists for the variable HRM size. Although
HRM size correlates significantly with 6 of 14 HR practices, regression analyses
indicate that when culture, firm size, employee representation, and HRM
department enter the equation first, HRM size adds significantly to the prediction of
only two practices, level of written procedures and extent of fringe benefit
programs. HRM size remains a significant predictor in the final equation for only
the level of written procedures. In contrast, the level of HRM "professionalism" and
the amount of responsibility granted the HR1\1 function by the firm's management
correlate with 11 and 13 of the 14 HR practices, respectively. More importantly,
when these variables entered the hierarchical regression equations, they added
significantly to the prediction of 6 and 10 (respectively) of the 14 practices. Level of
professionalism remained marginally significant in 2 of the 6 final equations. Level
of HRM responsibility remained significant in 9 of the 10 final equations. These
results suggest that the existence of a large HRM function within the firm may serve
as an advocate for the development of more sophisticated HR practices. However,
the more important determinants of HR practices were the leyel of professionalism
of the HR staff and the level of responsibility granted HRM within the firm.
Finally, three variables related to a specialised training function were used to
predict HR practices. The existence of a specialised training department was
significantly related to 9 of the 14 HR practices. The relationship was, in all cases, in
the predicted direction. Training department size was related to seven HR practices,
while percent of payroll allocated to training correlated significantly with five
25

practices. Of particular interest is the fact that when the specialised training
department variable entered the hierarchical regression equations, this variable
significantly predicted 6 of 14 HR practices and remained a significant predictor of
five of these practices in the final regression equations. The size of the training
department entered significantly into the equation of one HR practice, the use of
orientation programs, and remained significant in the final regression equation.
Percent of wages allocated to training added significantly to five HR practice
equations and was the final variable entered into the equations. These results on
specialised training departments seem to confirm our notion that the mere existence
of a formal HRM function within a firm is a very rudimentary predictor of HR
practices. It would seem that in our Hong Kong sample, firms who had gone the
"extra step" to specialise training duties were more likely to develop sophisticated
HR practices. It seems that simply having an HRM function may be the result of
institutional forces or imitation as discussed by Tolbert and Zucker (1983) and
Zucker (1987). While most firms have a formal HRM department, only those firms
which have specialised those functions, allocated responsibility to the HRM
department, and provided financial resources to activities such as training are likely
to develop extensive, relatively sophisticated HR practices.
In conclusion, our study is generally supportive of previous research on the
determinant of HR practices. Our study provides an additional cross-cultural
verification of these earlier results, and points to more "specialised" variables that
must be measured in order to accurately predict the sophistication level of HR
practices wi thin firms.
REFERENCES
Alwin, D.F. & Hauser, R.M. (1975) The decomposition of effects in path analysis.
American Sociological Review, 40: 37-47.
Balkin, D.B. (1988) Compensation strategies for firms in emerging and rapidly
growing industries. Human Resource Planning, 11: 207-213.
Chen, E.K.Y. (1984) The economic setting. In D. Lethbridge (Ed.) The Business
Environment of Hong Kong (pp. 1-51). Hong Hong: Oxford University Press.

26

Cohen, Y. & Pfeffer, l. (1986) Organizational hiring standards. Administrative

Sciences Quarterly, 31: 1-24.
Dicle, U., Dicle, I.A. & Alie, RE. (1988) Human resource management practices in
Japanese organizations in the United States. Public Personnel Management,
17: 331-339.
DiMaggio, P.l. & Powell, W.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
Dimick, D.F. & Murray, V.V. (1978) Correlates of substantive policy decisions in
organizations: The case of human resource management. Academy of
Management Journal, 21: 611-623.
Edwards, R (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the
tTentieth Century. London: Heineman.
Fisher, C.D. & Shaw, J.B. Determinants of Human Resource Practices. Report
prepared for the Office of Naval Research, TRONR-12, Texas A & M
University, (1987).
Glueck, W.F. (1974) Personnel: A Diagnostic Approach. Dallas: Business Publications,
Inc.
Gomez-Meija, L.R & Welbourne, T.M. (1988) Compensation strategy: An overview
and future steps. Human Resource Planning, 11: 173-189.
Hofstede, G. (1984) Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M.H. (1988) The Confucian connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16(4): 4-21.
Ishida, H. (1986) Transferability of Japanese human resource management abroad.
Human Resource Management, 25: 103-120.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, RS. & Rivero, J.C (1989) Organizational characteristics as
predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 42: 727-786.
Kerr, J.L. (1988) Strategic control through performance appraisal and rewards.
Human Resource Planning, 11: 215-223.
Kirkbride, P.5. & Tang, S.F.Y. (1989a) Personnel management in Hong Kong. Asia
Pacific Human Resource Management, 27(2): 43-57.
Kirkbride, P.5. & Tang, S.F.Y. (1989b) The Present State of Personnel Management in
Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Vocational Training Council, Government Printer.
Kirkbride, P.5. & Tang, S.F.Y. (1992) Management development in the Nanyang
Chinese societies fo South East Asia. Journal of Management Development,
11: 51-63.
Laurent, A. (1986) The cross-cultural puzzle of human resource management.
Human Resource Management, 25: 91-102.
Lethbridge, D. (1984) The Business Environment of Hong Kong. Hong Hong: Oxford
University Press.
Mackay, L. & Torrington, D. (1986) The Changing Nature of Personnel Management.
London: IPM.
Miles, RE. & Snow, CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and processes.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ow, CH. (1986) The role of government in economic development: The Singapore
experience. In CY. Lim & P.J. Lloyd (Eds.) Singapore: Resources & Growth
(pp. 221-249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27

Pfeffer, J. & Cohen, Y. (1984) Determinants of internal labor markets in

organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 29: 550-572.
Redding, S.G. (1986) Developing managers without "management development:"
The overseas Chinese solution. Management Education and Development, 17:
271-281.
Schneider, S.c. (1988) National vs corporate culture: implications for human
resource management. Human Resource Management, 27: 231-246.
Tolbert, P.5. & Zucker, L.G. (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal
structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform.
Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 28: 22-39.
Von Glinow, M.A. & Teagarden, M.B. (1988) The transfer of human resource
technology in Sino-U.S. cooperative ventures: Problems and solutions.
Human Resource Management, 27: 201-229.
Zucker, L.G. (1987) Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of
Sociology, 13: 443-464.

28

TABLE 1
Predictions About The Relationship of Cultural Background of Firm Owners, Firm Size,
Unionisation, and The Existence of an HRM Department To HR Practices

OR PRACTICES

CULTURE

FIRM SIZE

UNIONISATION

I1RM QEPARTMENT

Promotion-FromWithin Policies

Chinese Less, Anglo-American

Larger firms more

Unionised moe

More in formal, sophisticated

HRM departmenL'

Performance Appraisal
& Feedback

Anglo-American do more,
Chinese less

Larger firms do more

Non-unioodo more

Do more in formal,
sophisticated HRM depts.

Job Analysis

Anglo-American firms usc

Large firms use more

Non-union usc morc

More in large firms

Unionised will have more

Used more in formal,

sophisticated HRM depts.
More with formal,
sophisticated HRM depts.

More extensive in larger firms

No clear prediction

more

more

Chinese less, Anglo-American

Formalisation of
Procedures

more

Training &
Socialisation

socialisation programs and

More extensive initial

More extensive in firms with

formal, sophisticated HRM

depts.

more in-house training in

Anglo-American firms
Recruiting

More extensive in AngloAmerican firms

More extensive in larger firms

More extensive in
unionsed firms

nOIl-

Selection

More extensive in AngloAmerican firms

More extensive in larger firms

More extensive in
unionised firms

OOD-

Compensation
& Benefits

More sophisticated and

extensive in Anglo-American
firms

More extensive in larger firms

Less sophisticated pay systems

but more extensive welfare and
fringe benefit systems in
unionised firms

More extensive in firms with

formal, sophisticated HRM
depts.
More extensive in firms with
formal, sophisticated HRM
depts.
More. sophisticated pay
systems and morc extensive

welfare and benefit systems in

firms with formal,
sophisticated HRM depts.

TABLE 2

Frequencies, Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities,

And Intercorrelations For All Independent Variables*

VARIABLE
1. OWNER CULTURE
Anglo-American
Chinese
Mise. Other
2. SIZE
<200
200-499
500-999
1000+
3. EMPLOYEE REP......
4. HRM DEPARTMENT
Have One
Do Not Have One
5. HRM DEPT. SIZE
6. PROF. MEMBERSHIP
7. HRM RESPONSIBILITY"
8. TRAINING DEPT.
Have One
Do Not Have One
9. TRAINING DEPT. SIZE
10. % PAYROLL FOR TRN.

Mn

SD

35
88
28

23.2
58.3
18.5

13
51
38
49
n,

8.6
3.6
25.2
32.5
n,

n,
n,
n,
2.80
n,
n,

n,
na
n,
.4
n'
n,
n,
n,
1.5

n'
n,
0.00

125
26
n,
n,
n,

82.8
17.2
n,
n,
n,

n,
n,
9.60
1.30
.01

n,
n,
16.2
2.0
2.6

53
98
n,
n,

63.7
35.3
n,
n,

n,
n,
2.40
2.00

n,
n,
6.9
3.9

.:;

lQ

04

27

46

25

35

30

32

05

10

20
27

20
29

08

32

03
26

11
15

02
-09

19
29
(56)

26
31
10

68
18
07
47

-03
03
07
19

21

* decimal points ommited, all correlations with magnitude of > .16 are significant at p < .05.
** z - scores

08

TABLE 3
Frequencies, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities
For All Dependent Variables

HR Practices Survey (N=151)

VARIABLE

MEAN

Promotion
Appraisal Use*
Job Analysis Methods
Procedures
Orientation
Overall Training Methods*
Training Analysis
Recruiting Methods
Overall Selection
Welfare
Fringe Benefits
Incentives
Job Evaluation
Wage Surveys

(130 have promote from within policy, 21 do not)

-.01
3.3
.85
1.1
1.0
nla
1.7
1.5
nla

'" Z~scores

SD

COEF.ALPHA

~a

A4
00
-.00

2.2
2A

.63
.74

6.7
3.2
6.0
51.2
3.9
1.5
2.9

2.6
1.7
3.2
18.8
3.9
2.2
3.9

nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla

TABLE 4
Chi-Square And ANOVA Results For Cultural Background,
Firm Size, HRM Department & Training Department
Significant Chi-Square Results For Promotion Dependent Variable:
Firm Size -- Chi-square = 13.16, P < .005

HRM Department -- Chi-square = 3.23, p< .07

Independent Variables

ANOVA Results:
Dependent
Variable

Culture
F

Appraisal Use
Job Analysis Meths.
Procedures
Orientation
Training Methods
Training Analysis
Recruiting Methods
Overall Selection
Incentives
Welfare
Fringe Benefits
Job Evaluation
Wage Surveys

3.65*
2.72+
2.97+
2.50+
2.76+
ns
ns
ns
ns
4.21*
4.11*
ns
4.56*

Firm Size
F

HRMDept.
F

2.74*
ns
ns
ns
7.70*
6.74*
6.51*
4.57*
2.85*
9.27*
2.42+
ns
2.39+

Training Dept.
F
15.30*
6.41*
ns
6.77*
31.10*
29.53*
12.29*
ns
ns
22.57*
6.20*
ns
8.97*

26.18*
5.75*
ns
ns
15.77*
28.52*
12.08*
2.98+
ns
9.30*
7.56*
ns
ns

+ P <.10 * P < .05

TABLE 5
Correlations Between Non-Categorical Predictor Variables And Dependent Variables*
Predictor Variables:
1. Employee Representation
4. HRM Responsibili ty
Dependent Variables
Promotion
Appraisal Use
Job Analysis Methods
Procedures
Orientation
Overall Training Methods
Training Analysis
Recruiting Methods
Overall Selection
Incentives
Welfare
Fringe Benefits
Wage Surveys

2. HRMSize
5. Training Dept. Size

3. Professional Membership
6. % Payroll For Training

24
18

22

23
22
33
20

31
29

3
22
33
29
18
19
31
37
22

35
35
21

38
24
23
31
30
40
35
24
29
37
37
24

* only significant correlations are shown p < .05, decimal points omitted

6
20

16
35
20
29

29
26
19

23
30
19

TABLE 6
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses*

DV = Promotion

la

lb

Sa

5b

5c

7a

7b

Beta as entered

11

-03
13

-D8
20
01
ns
-13

14
24
02
ns
11

-D4
24
02
ns
06

19
30
04
4.4
18

02
30

-16
32
03
ns
-16

13
34
04
ns

-01

04
30
03
ns
07

Beta in final equation

06

-01

12
18
01
ns
04

= Appraisal Use

la

lb

Sa

5b

5c

7a

7b

20

-D2
22
034
3.6

11

07
25
038
ns
-01

37
43
153
20.5
25

-Dl
43
147
ns
04

21
47
179
6.6
11

29
53
241
12.6
29

22
57
277
7.9
21

-D9
57
275
ns
-10

16
59
295
4.9
16

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square
F(Change)

DV

Beta as entered

01
ns

Multiple R

04

ns

13

Beta in final equation

12

-01

24
040
ns
-14

DV= Job Anal. Methods

la

lb

Sa

5b

5c

7a

7b

Beta as entered

20
42
136
5.3
15

13

44
143
ns
13

12
45

-01
45
144
ns

09

-13
38
110
ns
-13

-02

10
46
148
ns
10

Adjusted R Square

F (Change)

25

13

MultipleR
Adjusted R Square
F(Change)
Beta in final equation

14
23

24
34

14
36

036
3.0

090

05

9.7
22

103
3.0

20

19
022
2.7
14

DV:::: Procedures

la

lb

5a

5b

5c

7a

7b

Beta as entered

24

08
20

15
25

18
31

06
31

19
35

06
36

19
39

05
40

-07

40

10
41

026

043
3.5

070
5.2

067

088

085

106

103

098

102

ns
01

:lli

ns
05

ns

13

4.4
25

4.5

-D2

ns
-02

-07

ns
10

Multiple R
Adjusted R ScJ.uare
F (Change)

150

ns
11

Beta in fmal equation

19

3.0
03

DV = Orientation

la

lb

5a

5b

5c

7a

7b

Beta as entered

13

-06
18
020

20
27

04
27

17
31

10
32

057
3.2
-06

059

216

ns
-03

ns
03

14
43
131
2.8
-03

52

043

29
41
120
10.9
30

38
49
190

1ll

5.7

01

01
27
048
ns
-04

37

18

7b

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square
F (Change)

054
6.5

18

Beta in final equation

13

2.5
-15

DV = Training Methods

la

lb

5a

5b

5c

7a

Beta as entered

16

-D4
20

06
39
125
ns
01

21
43
158
6.7
12

03
43
ns
09

14
47
181
2.9
14

30

153

17
46
170
3.8
08

251
14.2
27

-08
55
249
ns
-10

5a

5b

5c

7a

7b

22
59

26

01

14

63
356

63
352

366

ill

ns
01

4.1
14

Beta in final equation

05

-08

33
38
128
18.7
12

DV == Training Analysis

la

lb

Beta as entered
Multiple R
Adjusted R Square
F (Change)
Beta in final equation

16

03
15
008
ns
01

34
37
120
19.8
06

21
43
162
8.2

31
52
240
16.0
19

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square
F (Change)

022

2.7

06

13

12

20

53

55

245
ns
10

272
6.3
10

306

7.7
23

54

22

25
60
305

25

64

DV = Recruiting Methods

I.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7b

Beta as entered

11

30
32
087
11

03
33
082
ns
-01

19
37
109
5.4
08

04
37
104
ns
12

10
38
IDS
ns
01

25
44
ISO
8.4
25

17
47
169
4.3
20

-12

06

-02
13
003
ns
-05

170
ns
-12

07
48
169
ns
07

1.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7b

-06

26
27
054
11.0
24

03
27
048
ns
04

06
28
045
ns
04

-07
29
043

18
33
058
4.1
18

02
33
051
ns
04

045

-09

-04
29
037
ns
-08

03
33

-05

-08
06
010
ns
-11

ns
03

01
33
038
ns
01

1.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7b

13

14
18
010
3.0
12

-02
18
004
ns
-01

01
18
003
ns
-02

-08
19
004
ns
-14

02
19
DOl
ns
-01

29
32
050
10.1
29

-10
33

12
34

051

050

ns
-13

ns
12

-03
34
044
ns
-03

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square

F (01.nge)
Beta in final equation

DV

= Selection Methods

Beta as entered

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square

F (01.nge)
Beta in final equation

DV

= Incentives Used

14.5

ns

48

F (01.nge)
Beta in final equa tion

13

06
10
001
ns
02

DV = . Welfare Programs

I.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7b

Beta as entered
Multiple R
Adjusted R Square

31

36
43
170
23.3
13

09
44
172
ns
02

14
46
184
3.2
01

12
47
190
ns
08

22
51
224
7.1
13

22
55
259
7.8
25

21
58
293
7.8
20

04
58
288
ns
04

02
58
284
ns
02

Beta as entered

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square

Beta in final equa tion

22

15
24
044
4.5
12

DV = Fringe Benefits

I.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7b

Beta as entered

01

22
32
081
7.7
-04

09
33
084
ns
01

12
35
090
ns
-04

21
39
117
5.4
11

25
45
164
2,1
17

31
53
240

13

33

08
53
240
ns
05

54
241
ns

-07

-22
23
040
4.1
-26

13

-06
54
239
ns
-06

DV = Job Evaluation Methodsla

Ib

5.

5b

50

7.

7b

12
16

25
31
070
10.2
26

01
31
064
ns
01

-11
32
066
ns
-09

.-01
32
060
ns
-04

16
35
074
3.2
14

02
35
068
ns
-02

01

18
39

061
ns
01

085

F (01.nge)

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square
F (01.nge)
Beta in fmal equa tion

21

15.1

F (01.nge)
Beta in final equa tion

20

07

07
18
011
ns
06

DV = Wage Surveys

1.

Ib

5.

5b

5c

7.

7h

Beta as entered

21

-03
24
044

19
31

07
31
074
ns
06

03
32
068
ns
-04

01
32
062
ns
-06

10
33
063
ns
02

20
37
088
4.9
21

18
40
110

11
41
108
ns
10

09
42
109
ns
09

Beta as entered

Multiple R

013
ns

Adjusted R Square

Multiple R
Adjusted R Square

F (01.nge)
Beta in final equa tion

16

4.5

075
5.8

-09

07

* underlines indicate significant at p < .05.

4.5

13

35

4.6
18

TABLE 7
Summary Of Hierarchical Regression Results
Culture
Dependent
StepFinal
Variable
Promotion
Appraisal Use
*
Job Analysis
Procedures
Orientation
Training Meths.
Training Anal.
Recruiting
Selection
Incentives
Welfare
Fringe Bens.
Job Evaluation
Wage Surveys
Dependent
Variable
Appraisal Use
Job Analysis
Procedures
Orientation .
Training Meths.
Training Anal.
Recruiting
Selection
Incentives
Welfare
Fringe Bens.
Jon Evaluation
Wage Surveys

*
*
*

*
*

Firm Size Emp. Rep. HRMDept

Step Final StepFinal Step Final

*
*

HRMSize ProfMem
Step Fimil Step Final
*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*