Measuring high performance work practice systems: the training, information, participation and autonomy (tipa) scale

International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 11, Issue 2, February 2020, pp. 248–263, Article ID: IJM_11_02_026
Available online at />Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1471 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
© IAEME Publication

Scopus Indexed

MEASURING HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK
PRACTICE SYSTEMS: THE TRAINING,
INFORMATION, PARTICIPATION AND
AUTONOMY (TIPA) SCALE
Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta*, Arantxa Gorostiaga
Faculty of Psychology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain
Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia
Higher Polytechnic School, University of Mondragon, Spain
*Correspondence Author Email:
ABSTRACT
High performance work practices (HPWPs) have shown positive effects on
organizational performance outcomes. However, valid and reliable measures of
HPWPs are lacking, as are tools that examine employee-level perceptions of HPWPs
in non-English speaking countries. Thus, the primary aim of this research was to
develop a scale for measuring HPWPs and to validate it using structural equation
modelling. The study sample comprised 3046 employees of 33 organizations in the
industry and services sectors of the Basque Country (northern Spain). Development
and validation of a measure to examine a HPWP ‘system’ was carried out over two
studies. In the first, and based on previous studies, we selected variables related to
training, information, participation and autonomy (TIPA). Items for each variable
were then developed, and their psychometric properties were analysed. In the second
study, we tested a structural equation model which hypothesized that TIPA scale
scores would predict perceived organizational support and organizational

commitment; relationships with firm size and employees´ educational level were also
analysed with the aim of providing additional validity evidence. Based on the results
of the two studies we conclude that the TIPA scale shows appropriate validity and
reliability indexes and can therefore be considered an adequate tool for assessing a
HPWP system encompassing training, information, participation and autonomy.
Keywords: High performance work practices; Training; Information; Participation;
Autonomy; TIPA Scale; organizational commitment.
Cite this Article: Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and
Damian Madinabeitia, Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training,
Information, Participation and Autonomy (TIPA) Scale, International Journal of Management
(IJM), 11 (2), 2020, pp. 248–263.
/>
/>
248




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

1. INTRODUCTION
Theories of strategic human resource management (SHRM) systems sustain that a ‗system‘
consisting of various human resource practices can have considerable positive effects on an
organization‘s performance outcomes (Beckmann & Kuhn, 2010). However, inadequate
implementation or the use of a single SHRM activity or high performance work practice
(HPWP) may show no positive effect or even have a negative influence on the organization‘s
economic performance and employee outcomes (Ichniowski, Shaw, & Prennushi, 1997).
Some HPWPs are synergistic, since the overall effect of the HPWP system is greater than the
sum of the effects of the individual practices by themselves. However, there is currently no
consensus about which practices and techniques are the most appropriate for building HPWP

activities or bundle. In fact, researchers have demonstrated that there is no such thing as the
best bundle, but rather a set of practices that are the most suitable in each case (Ones, Denis,
& Schmidt, 2017).
Most of the published research in this field has been conducted in the USA and the UK
(Guest, Michie, Conway, & Sheehan, 2003), and consequently there is a strong need for
additional evidence to support the strategic HPWP-performance relationship from different
contexts (Gerhart, 2007). In Spain, research on strategic HPWPs (i.e. HPWP systems) is still
scarce. A review of 67 studies covering HPWPs in Spain between 2001 and 2010 indicated
that although the increase in the number of publications during this period was larger in Spain
than in any other European country, no studies were conducted with the aim of creating and
validating measures of a HPWP system (Bayo-Moriones & Larraza-Kintana, 2012).
Furthermore, the majority of studies conducted in this field have focused on managers‘
perceptions or on actual or implemented HPWPs (organizational level), rather than on
employees´ perceptions of these HPWPs. In this context, some studies have shown that the
relationship between employees‘ perceptions of HPWPs and their actual behaviour is far from
constant across organizations. This means that it is the perception of the system of practices,
rather than the system itself, that is the key to understanding workers‘ behaviour (Elorza,
Harris, Aritzeta, & Balluerka, 2016). In order to address these gaps in the literature and to
further examine the process through which HPWPs impact employees´ behaviour and
perceptions, as well as organizational performance, it is important to conduct analyses in a
non-US/UK context.
Given the gap in the SHRM literature in Spain and the need for reliable and valid
measurement tools in native languages, the primary aim of the present research was to
develop and validate a scale to measure employees´ perceptions of a HPWP system defined
by four organizational practices: training, information, participation and autonomy (TIPA).
The development and psychometric validation of the TIPA scale are presented over two
empirical studies. Study 1 involved the process of developing the scale and analysing the
psychometric properties of its constituent items. In study 2, and with the aim of giving more
support to the validation process, we used a structural equation model to test the hypothesis
that TIPA scale scores would predict employees´ perceived organizational support and

organizational commitment.

2. TRAINING, INFORMATION, PARTICIPATION AND AUTONOMY
AS PART OF A HPWP SYSTEM
The SHRM literature assumes that a bundle of combined variables — rather than single
practices — affects employees' behaviour and attitudes, both of which will, in turn, contribute
to organizational performance. This suggests that it is more important to consider people‘s
perceptions of HPWPs than managers‘ HPWP reports (Arthur & Boyles, 2007). There is, in
fact, evidence that rather than the actual or implemented HPWP it is employees‘ perceptions

/>
249




Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale

of HPWPs that determine their behaviour and, therefore, outcomes (Elorza, Aritzeta, &
Ayestaran, 2011). The intended HPWP system is mostly defined by the leader‘s knowledge
and perception of the practices that will maximize employees´ positive responses to the
organization. However, not all intended HPWPs are implemented, and those that are often
differ from the leader`s initial intention, due to divergent perceptions of the leader‘s strategy
and the actual strategy implemented (Mintzberg, 1983), or simply because of non-uniform
input from the middle managers responsible for implementing HPWPs (Zohar & Luria, 2005).
In addition to these likely differences, actual HPWPs may be perceived and interpreted
differently by employees. Since employees´ perceptions of HPWPs vary depending on their
values, personality and other individual variables, employees will show different attitudinal
and behavioural reactions, which may affect organizational performance outcomes (Nishii &

Wright, 2008).
From the perspective of SHRM theory, the HPWP system should aim to enhance
employees' ability, motivation and opportunity to perform, which, in turn, would boost
performance in manufacturing organizations (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000).
In the SHRM field this is known as AMO theory and it is the most widely used SHRM theory
among those that include individual employee-level processes (Paauwe, 2009). It evokes three
different employee characteristics: (A) the ability to perform (selection, skills improvement);
(M) stimulating employee motivation by offering outstanding work conditions (career paths,
information provision, excellent rewards); and (O) providing the opportunity for performance
(stimulating teamwork, voice and employee involvement). Since its inception, this model has
become dominant in SHRM research.
The set of practices that together look to stimulate employees´ performance is also
referred to as a high-involvement work system (HIWS), with the most widely researched set
of HIWS practices being the so-called 'PIRK' bundle (based on Lawler, 1986). The acronym
PIRK refers to power (participation and autonomy of the individual to make decisions within
the company), information (different relevant data about outputs, costs, profitability, etc. for
employees), rewards (focusing their power, information and knowledge in a way that benefits
the organization) and knowledge (training and development in relation to skills and abilities)
(Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999). Although the value of the PIRK model for
employee and organizational performance alike has been widely tested in a variety of contexts
(Butts, Vandenberg, DeJoy, Schaffer, & Wilson, 2009; Riordan, Vandenberg, & Richardson,
2005; Vandenberg et al., 1999), such practices are firmly grounded in the work enrichment
and worker empowerment literature (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012; Wood, Van
Veldhoven, Croon, & de Menezes, 2012).
Since the organizational sample used in the present research does not involve any (or
barely any) job rotation the ‗abilities policy‘ cannot be improved by selecting and hiring
qualified people. Therefore, it is important to train and develop the skills and knowledge of
existing employees in order to improve this aspect. Aligning employees with the
organization's objectives will enhance motivation, which could be achieved through
participation, information, global performance-related retribution or employment security.

Finally, opportunity policies can be developed through autonomy and customer orientation
(internal or external). The main objective of these policies is to empower employees to
perform freely in pursuit of the organization's common goals. While we acknowledge that a
larger number of different practices could be implemented, the objective of this research is not
to identify all these practices but, rather, to examine employees‘ perceptions of the specific
training, information, participation and autonomy practices which are central to most theories
in SHRM (i.e. the AMO theory). Although these practices are also central to the HIWS
approach (the PIRK model) we have not considered another core practice, that is, the

/>
250




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

contingent reward. The reason for this was that most of the participants in this study were
members of cooperatives. In cooperatives the contingent reward policy is implicitly
considered, so no variability was expected in this HPWP.
It seems obvious that AMO policies should be implemented together or should enable
other HPWP policies to grow through the development of some of them. In this regard,
Garman, McAlearney, Harrison, Song, and McHugh (2011) proposed a conceptual model of
HPWPs with four practice bundles, comprising 14 management practices and nine factors
influencing the adoption and perceived sustainability of these practices, and in which
autonomy, participation, information and training practices were considered central. In a
similar vein, Boxall and Macky (2009) argued that giving employees autonomy and allowing
them to participate in decision making about their work will make them feel more motivated.
Thus, they will try to perform better and will use all the information the organization provides
them with to the benefit of common goals. In addition, receiving information about

organizational results may make them feel more attached to the organization, in which case
they will try to take advantage of all the training they receive in order to reach common
personal and organizational objectives. If they lack training they may feel frustrated at not
being able to perform at their maximum, and if they do not receive information about the
results they are obtaining through their work they may not feel involved in the project. In the
event that they lack autonomy as regards using their training in new (innovative) ways, they
may feel as if they have wasted time on training, leading them to be less motivated. If the
different HR policies are working together the outcome may be additive or even synergistic
(Macky & Boxall, 2007). However, if some policies are encouraging employees while others
are limiting their experience, the outcome may become negative rather than simply of no
benefit. This line of reasoning leads us to expect that all SHRM policies will be subsumable
under a higher-order factor which we will call the ‗system‘.

3. THE EFFECT OF THE ‘SYSTEM’ ON INDIVIDUALS
Social exchange theory is based on the idea that when employees perceive they are supported
by the organization in relation to their job performance activities they will reciprocate with an
exchange behaviour that is regarded as fair to the other party. This reciprocal exchange will
take the form of attitudes and behaviours that will benefit the organization (Blau, 1964).
In this context, research has shown a positive association between the implemented
HPWPs of AMO theory and perceived organizational support (POS). Specifically, Nishii and
Wright (2008) and Whitener (2001) suggested that employees showed high POS through the
help of HR practices. In particular, HR practices combined as a system will result in
employees having a positive perception of organizational support (Kehoe & Wright, 2013).
For their part, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades (2001) noted that
employees consider the organization to have a positive or negative orientation towards their
contribution and well-being based on the organization‘s SHRM practices. This means that the
behaviour of an employee is influenced by his/her perceived organizational support. A
positive perception of organizational support leads to commitment from employees and a
desire to repay the organization by attaining better outcomes and increased performance
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa, 1986). This relationship between HPWPs

and POS is explained by employees´ perceptions of implemented practices, because what
really affects employees´ behaviours are their perceptions of HPWPs rather than their literal
exposure to such practices (Elorza et al., 2011). In order to elicit the desired attitudes and
behaviours from employees, it is therefore more important to meet their perceptions (as far as
possible) than it is to implement more HPWPs or to seek to implement them perfectly (Lepak,
Jiang, Han, Castellano, & Hu, 2012; Van de Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012). In

/>
251




Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale

light of the above, we expect that the selected practices will strengthen employees‘
perceptions about organizational support and, therefore, we expect that the HPWPs, measured
and defined as a system, will show a positive effect on workers‘ POS.
Commitment is generally defined as ―a force that binds an individual to a course of action
of relevance to one or more targets‖ (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, p. 301). According to these
authors, commitment in the workplace can take a number of forms, such as commitment to
the organization, the job, the occupation or profession, the supervisor and co-workers. The
association between HPWPs and organizational commitment has been demonstrated in
several studies (e.g. Ang, Bartram, McNeil, Leggat, & Stanton, 2013; Kehoe & Wright, 2013;
Takeuchi & Takeuchi, 2013), the results of which have shown a positive relationship between
SHRM practices and organizational commitment. For example, a study in New Zealand by
Edgar and Geare (2005) found that HPWPs had a significant positive relationship with
employee´s organizational commitment, while Innocenti, Pilati, and Peluso (2011) showed,
using structural equation modelling, that such practices had a significant positive effect on

employees´ organizational commitment in Italy. Ang et al. (2013) found that when employees
perceived solid high-performance work systems, this had a positive and significant impact on
affective commitment. Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe (2011), using regression
analyses with cross-sectional data, found that perceived HPWPs had a significant positive
relationship with employees´ organizational commitment in The Netherlands. Based on the
aforementioned evidence, we expected to find a positive association between our HPWP
system and employees‘ organizational commitment.

4. STUDY 1
4.1. Overview
The purpose of Study 1 was to generate and refine items for measuring HPWPs and to test the
psychometric properties of the items that would then constitute the TIPA scale (i.e. those
covering training, information, participation and autonomy). The latter was done by
examining the dimensionality and convergent validity of the TIPA scale using confirmatory
factor analysis. Reliability was analysed by means of Cronbach‘s alpha, composite reliability
(CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE). Comparisons between the values of the
squared inter-dimensional correlations and the AVE values for these dimensions were used to
provide evidence of the discriminant validity of the TIPA scale.

4.2. Content Background
The initial version of the scale was developed by drawing up a set of self-rating items for four
core aspects of a HPWP system: training, information, participation and autonomy. We
examined the review conducted by Garman et al. (2011) in order to consider the key elements
associated with HPWPs. Items were written by a panel of two doctoral-level specialists,
taking into account the HPWPs and policies that are mainly used in Spanish firms. First drafts
of the items were discussed with managers and supervisors from several organizations and
were improved prior to inclusion in the final battery. The initial TIPA scale comprised 12
items, three for each of the abovementioned dimensions (see Appendix 1). All items were
designed to be answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 6 (Totally
agree).

/>
252




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

5. METHOD
5.1. Participants
Participants for this study were 3046 employees of 33 organizations from the industry (70.7
%) and services (29.3%) sectors. Overall, 87.6% of employees belonged to organizations that
were cooperatives, 11.9% to private limited companies, and 0.6% of employees did not report
any information on the type of organization; 10.8% of them worked in small organizations
(fewer than 50 employees), 50% in medium-size organizations (between 50 and 250
employees), 32.9% in large organizations (more than 250 employees), and 6.3% did not report
the size of their organization. With respect to age, 14.2% of employees were under 30, 39.9%
were aged between 30 and 45, 6.1% between 45 and 60, 6.1 % were over 60, and 18.2% did
not report their age.

5.2. Procedure
Employees were invited to complete a structured questionnaire in order to provide
information about the perceived system of HPWPs and discretionary behaviour. Employees‘
regular meetings were used to inform and invite them to complete the questionnaire. A few
days after the study was announced, employees who wished to participate reported to a
specified room in the organization, where they completed the survey. Before administering
the questionnaire, the general objectives of the study were explained and standard instructions
were given, emphasizing the confidentiality of all information provided and the voluntary
nature of participation in the study.

5.3. Data Analysis
To test the four-dimensional structure and the convergent validity of the TIPA scale, a robust
least squares factor analysis was conducted over the polychoric correlation matrix, using the
EQS v6.3 software (Bentler, 2006). This estimation method was used for two reasons: 1) the
indicators were not measured on a continuous scale, and 2) this method produces accurate test
statistics, parameter estimates and standard errors under a great variety of conditions. The
adequacy of model fit was assessed by means of the following indices: Satorra-Bentler (SB)
chi-square statistic (Satorra & Bentler, 1994); Bentler-Bonnet normed fit index (BBNFI) and
non-normed fit index (BBNNFI) (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980); comparative fit index (CFI)
(Bentler, 1990); incremental fit index (IFI) (Bollen, 1989); and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Steiger, 2000). Values for the BBNFI,
BBNNFI, CFI and IFI range from zero to 1.00, and a value above .95 indicates a good fit (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). For the RMSEA, values of less than .05 are considered a close fit, and those
of less than .08 an adequate fit (Finch & West, 1997).
Cronbach‘s alpha coefficients, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
(AVE) values were used to estimate the reliability of each dimension of the scale. As
Cronbach‘s alpha assumes that the items have been measured without error, it sometimes
overestimates reliability (Bollen, 1989). Hence, CR and the AVE constitute good
complements to this index. The conventional cut-off criterion for an acceptable alpha statistic
is .70 and above (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). The same cut-off value can be considered
acceptable for CR (Bacon, Sauer, & Young, 1995). The AVE is generally considered
acceptable at or above 50%.

/>
253

Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale

6. RESULTS
6.1. Convergent Validity and Dimensionality
The factor loadings of the items ranged between .72 and .94, except for the item ―Siento que
me falta información para hacer bien mi trabajo (I feel I need more information to do my job
properly)‖, part of the Information dimension or latent construct, whose value was .28.
Furthermore, the Lagrange multiplier suggested that this item should also be related to the
other three dimensions. Given that convergent validity is only guaranteed when all the items
have factor loadings above .60 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994) and show clear relationships
with their corresponding dimensions (Hatcher, 1994), the abovementioned item was removed
from the TIPA scale. After removing this item, all the obtained factor loadings were
statistically significant and ranged between .74 and .94, indicating that all the items were
important to the definition of their corresponding dimensions and that the scale had
convergent validity.
The four dimensions or latent constructs assessed by the TIPA scale, with indicator items,
item loadings and their statistical significance, are shown in the first four columns of Table 1.
The value of the Satorra-Bentler chi-square statistic (df = 38, n = 3,040) equal to 487.13, p =
.0001 indicated a statistically significant lack of fit of the model. However, the sensitivity of
the chi-square statistic to the violation of the assumptions on which it is based (Bollen, 1989)
and, specifically, its dependence on sample size (Floyd & Widaman, 1995) means that the
assessment of fit should be based mainly on alternative indices. Those measures of fit which
are less sensitive to sample size showed a good fit, with values of the BBNFI (.98), BBNNFI
(.97), CFI (.98) and IFI (.98) close to 1.00 and the RMSEA equal to .06.
Table 1 Reliability and convergent validity of the TIPA scale
Dimensions or
latent
constructs

Indicator

Standardized
loading

t robust

Cronbach’s α

CR

AVE

sf1
.855
69.36*
.93
.81
sf2
.914
74.98*
.93
sf3
.903
72.28*
Information
si1
.737
40.17*
.74

.75
.60
si2
.812
42.12*
sp1
.744
48.35*
Participation
.85
.67
sp2
.852
62.36*
.86
sp3
.860
62.46*
sa1
.862
58.79*
Autonomy
.93
.93
.83
sa2
.943
73.28*
sa3
.920

73.11*
S-B (df = 38, n = 3,040) = 487.13 (p < .0001); BBNFI = .98; BBNNFI = .97; CFI =. 98; IFI = .98; RMSEA
= .06
Training

* p < .05

6.2. Reliability
Cronbach‘s alpha coefficients for each dimension or latent construct are shown in the fifth
column of Table 1. The indices ranged between .74 and .93, exceeding the recommended
value of .70. Composite reliability (CR) values were above .70 for all the dimensions, ranging
between .75 and .93. The AVE values ranged between .60 and .83, exceeding the
recommended level of .50 (see the last two columns of Table 1).

/>
254




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

6.3. Discriminant Validity
The AVE values for the four dimensions were higher than the squared inter-construct
correlations (the latter values ranged between .22 and .43), which can be regarded as evidence
for the discriminant validity of the TIPA scale.

7. STUDY 2
7.1. Overview
The overall results obtained in Study 1 led us to propose a scale comprising 11 items

corresponding to the four dimensions defined in our HPWP system: training, information,
participation and autonomy. These items provide the basis for turning these four dimensions
into observed variables by averaging their indicators, thus enabling us to analyse their
predictive capacity by means of a structural equation model. Specifically, the hypothesis is
that the four dimensions of the TIPA scale, as a HPWP system, have a direct effect on
employees‘ perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. As a prior step,
we test the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measurement
model. Evidence of validity based on relationships between the TIPA scale and other relevant
variables is also provided.
The specific purpose of Study 2 was to test the psychometric properties of the TIPA scale,
in other words, to examine the components of a structural equation model in which the HPWP
system is considered as an exogenous latent construct and perceived organizational support
and organizational commitment are treated as endogenous unobserved variables. In addition
to providing evidence of validity based on the predictive capacity of this model, relationships
between HPWPs and relevant organizational variables such as size of the organization,
employee position and employees‘ level of education are analysed in order to complete the
validation process.

8. METHOD
8.1. Participants and Procedure
The sample was the same as in Study 1, and the same procedure was used for data collection.

8.2. Measures
In addition to the aforementioned TIPA scale, three additional tools were included in the pool
of instruments. The first was a questionnaire that gathered employees‘ sociodemographic data
and characteristics of the organization, and which included questions about age, department,
level of education and size of the organization, among others. Perceived organizational
support (POS) (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997) was measured by means of
three questions answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 6 (Totally
agree). A sample item is ―My organization really cares about my wellbeing.‖ The internal

consistency of this tool, measured by Cronbach‘s alpha, was .87. Finally, affective
commitment was measured using a shortened version of the instrument proposed by Meyer,
Allen, and Smith (1993). The items used were those which showed the highest factor loadings
on this dimension. Items (an example of which is ‗I feel a strong sense of belonging to my
organization‘) were answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 6 (Totally
agree). The alpha coefficient value for this variable was .91.

8.3. Data analysis
The convergent validity and the overall fit of the measurement model were analysed by means
of a robust least squares factor analysis conducted over the polychoric correlation matrix,

/>
255




Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale

using the EQS v6.3 software (Bentler, 2006). Cronbach‘s alpha coefficients, CR and AVE
were again used to estimate the reliability of the people-based management system, perceived
organizational support and organizational commitment latent constructs.
The value of the squared correlation between two latent constructs was compared with the
AVE values of these latent constructs in order to obtain evidence of the measurement model‘s
discriminant validity. The difference between the fit of the overall measurement model and
the fit of the structural model was taken as nomological validity evidence. The hypotheses
about the direct effects of a people-based management system on perceived emotional support
and organizational commitment were tested by means of the standardized B coefficient,
unstandardized t coefficient and R square statistic.

Finally, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyse whether the implementation of a
people-based management system in an organization was associated with the size of the
organization or his/her educational level.

9. RESULTS
9.1. Convergent Validity and Overall Fit of the Measurement Model
The latent constructs included in the structural model, with indicator items, item loadings and
their statistical significance are shown in the first four columns of Table 2.
Table 2 Reliability and convergent validity of the measurement model
Standardized
t robust
Cronbach’s α
CR
AVE
loading
Training
.750
40.13*
TIPA
.80
.82
.53
Information
.733
35.28*
Participation
.727
39.46*
Autonomy
.690

32.90
Pos1
.874
55.42*
POS
.89
.89
.72
Pos2
.871
47.76*
Pos3
.804
39.49*
rc1
.866
45.06*
OC
.87
.88
.64
rc2
.789
46.53
rc3
.769
36.64*
rc4
.769
36.21*

S-B (df = 42, n = 3,040) = 466.15 (p < .0001); BBNFI = .95; BBNNFI = .94; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; RMSEA =
.08
Latent
construct

Indicator

* p < .05. POS: Perceived organizational support; OC: Organizational commitment
The factor loadings of the items ranged between .69 and .75 for the TIPA latent construct,
between .80 and .87 for perceived organizational support, and between .77 and .87 for
organizational commitment, indicating that the items were important for the definition of their
corresponding constructs and that the model has convergent validity.
The value of the Satorra-Bentler chi-square statistic (df = 41, n = 3,040) equal to 466.15, p
= .0001 indicated a lack of fit of the model. However, as already noted, the sensitivity of the
chi-square statistic to sample size means that the fit assessment should be based on alternative
indices. Measures of fit less sensitive to sample size indicated that the hypothesized model
showed a good fit to the data, with BBNFI (.95), BBNNFI (.94), CFI (.96) and IFI (.96)
values close to 1.00 and a RMSEA value equal to .08.

9.2. Reliability
Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient values for TIPA, perceived organizational support and
organizational commitment were .80, .89 and .87, respectively. The corresponding CR values
/>
256




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

were .82, .89 and .88, and the AVE values .53, .72 and .64, respectively. These sets of values
allow us to conclude that the measurement model shows good reliability.

9.3. Discriminant and Nomological Validity
Except for one case, the AVE values for the three latent constructs were higher than the
squared inter-construct correlation. These results indicate that the discriminant validity of the
model is acceptable. Furthermore, as the difference between the fit of the overall
measurement model and the fit of the structural model was not statistically significant, it can
be concluded that the measurement model has nomological validity.

9.4. Predictive Capacity of the Structural Model
Upon analysing the hypothesized association between latent constructs, several significant
relationships emerged (see Figure 1). Scores on the TIPA scale had a direct and positive effect
on both perceived organizational support (B = .86, t = 30.76, p < .05, R2 = .74) and
organizational commitment (B = .75, t = 27, p < .05, R2 = .56).

9.5. Relationship with other Variables

Figure 1 Predictive capacity of the structural model

/>
257




Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale

With the aim of providing additional validity evidence for the TIPA scale, a series of

comparative analyses were conducted for sociodemographic variables associated with
HPWPs. O´Connell and Byrne (2012) found that, among other factors, education and firm
size are associated with training. Similarly, reviews in the field of SHRM indicate that the size
of the organization and employees‘ level of education are associated with HPWPs (Combs,
Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; O´Connell & Byrne, 2012). Thus, we expected that workers
belonging to firms with fewer than 50 employees would show higher levels of TIPA practices
than would those workers in firms with more than 250 employees. Testing this hypothesis by
means of the Mann-Whitney U test we found statistically significant differences between
workers in these two types of organization on all four dimensions (UT = 106026.5, p = .001;
UI = 128727.5, p = .001; UP = 102575.5, p = .001; UA = 130579, p = .001). In all cases, the
mean ranges were higher for workers in small firms than for those in the larger firms. Effect
sizes were moderate for training (r = .24) and participation (r = .24) and small for information
(r = .15) and autonomy (r = .12).
Regarding the level of education, higher scores on TIPA dimensions were expected for
employees with higher educational levels. The analysis showed that employees with
university studies presented higher levels of training, information, participation and autonomy
(UT = 104451.5, p = .001; UI = 102344, p = .001; UP = 89873, p = .001; UA = 90538.5, p =
.001). Effect sizes were small for training (r = .16) and information (r = .17) and moderate for
participation (r = .22) and autonomy (r = .24).

10. DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to develop a scale for measuring a HPWP system, one based on
the dimensions of training, information, participation and autonomy, and to validate this scale
by means of structural equation modelling. The results obtained across the two studies
conducted indicate that the proposed scale has adequate psychometric properties; specifically,
it shows good reliability, as well as factor, convergent, discriminant and nomological validity.
We therefore conclude that the TIPA scale complies with the methodological requirements for
the valid and precise assessment of employees‘ perceptions about the management system
implemented in an organization. It should be emphasized that the TIPA scale is focused on
employees´ perceptions of HPWPs and, in this sense, the present research contributes to the

literature on SHRM and, specifically, to that on HPWP systems by offering a valid and
reliable tool for use in Spanish-speaking contexts.
Consistent with previous findings (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006) the synergistic
‗bundles‘ of policies and practices that are encompassed within the TIPA scale were observed
to have a relevant influence on both perceived organizational support and the affective
organizational commitment shown by employees. These results are also in line with those
reported for other HPWPs implemented to emphasize worker training, socialization, and
rewards such as team-building, performance-based incentives, job rotation or multiskilling,
and participative decision making (Sullivan, 2004). In this respect, the HPWPs considered in
the TIPA scale may improve the internal social structure of the organization, thereby
facilitating communication and cooperation among employees (Evans & Davis, 2005).
In line with the study by Chuang, Dill, Morgan, and Konrad (2012), who found that the
only HPWP configuration that was sufficient for both high job satisfaction and quality of
work included practices from both the staff motivation and empowerment dimensions, we
conclude that incorporating actions from multiple HPWPs, as the TIPA scale does, might be
more effective than focusing on just one isolated practice.
The present study does have certain limitations. First, we only examined some of the
HPWPs proposed by Garman et al. (2011), and additional research is therefore needed to

/>
258




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

determine the relative importance of a ‗bundled‘ approach involving practices from all
dimensions. However, given that most of our participants were members of cooperatives we
expected to find no variability in other key aspects of HPWPs such as contingent reward or

employment security, which are frequently part of a HPWP system. Second, the crosssectional nature of the sample prevents us from inferring the direction of causation between
the studied variables. In addition, structural equation models are based on a linear relationship
assumption, and thus significant nonlinear associations may be overlooked. Further research
from a longitudinal perspective is now needed to examine the cause and effect relationships
between the variables considered here. Third, the present results are derived from SME
companies (mostly cooperatives co-owned by employees of Mondragon Humanity at Work)
located in a specific geographical area (the Basque Country, northern Spain). As the
validation of an instrument is an ongoing process, it would be useful in the future to collect
data from employees of public limited companies from other geographical areas with different
cultural backgrounds.

11. CONCLUSION
This research shows that the TIPA scale can be regarded as a useful instrument for measuring
a HPWP system and its effects on key employee and organizational outcomes. As we noted
earlier, and contrary to the main assumption in almost all studies in the SHRM field, the
relationship between employees‘ perceptions of the system and their discretionary behaviour
is not constant across organizations (Elorza et al., 2016). This implies that the meaning which
people ascribe to management practices may vary among different groups of employees, thus
influencing the effect that these practices may have on their discretionary behaviour. In this
respect, the availability of the TIPA scale will help to identify employees‘ perceptions of
specific HPWPs in different contexts and different groups.

REFERENCES
[1]

Ang, S. H., Bartram, T., McNeil, N., Leggat, S. G., & Stanton, P. (2013). The effects of
high-performance work systems on hospital employees' work attitudes and intention to
leave: a multi-level and occupational group analysis. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24(16), 3086-3114.

[2]

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage Why high performance work systems pay off. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy
Institute.

[3]

Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A
levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resources Management Review, 17 (1), 7792.

[4]

Bacon, D. R., Sauer, P. L. & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural
equation modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 394-406.

[5]

Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models
and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–
422). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business

[6]

Bayo-Moriones, A., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2012). Research in human resources in Spain
between 2001 and 2010: The wonder decade?. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de
Empresa [Economy and Firm Management Papers], 15, 181-191.

[7]

Beckmann, M., & Kuhn, D. (2010): Complementarities between workplace organization

and human resource management: Evidence from Swiss firm-level panel data. WWZ
Discussion Paper 2010/3, D-125, Basel.

/>
259




Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale
[8]

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238-46.

[9]

Bentler, P.M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software.

[10]

Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

[11]

Blau, P. M. (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. The micro-macro link, 71-85.

[12]

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

[13]

Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between
perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of personorganisation and person-job fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(1), 138-162.

[14]

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and Theory on High-Performance Work
Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream. Human Resource Management
Journal, 19, 3–23.

[15]

Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Wilson, M. G. (2009).
Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the role of
empowerment and perceived organizational support. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 14(2), 122-36.

[16]

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). London:
Sage Ltd.

[17]

Chuang, E., Dill, J., Morgan, J. C., & Konrad, T. R. (2012). A Configurational approach
to the relationship between High-Performance Work Practices and frontline health care
worker outcomes. Health Services Research, 47, 1460–1481.

[18]

Combs, J. G., Liu, u., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance
work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528.

[19]

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.

[20]

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.pdf. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 42–51.

[21]

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

[22]

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,

812- 820.

[23]

Elorza, U., Aritzeta, A., & Ayestarán, S. (2011). Exploring the black box in Spanish firms:
the effect of the actual and perceived system on employees‘ commitment and
organizational performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22,
1401-1422.

[24]

Elorza, U., Harris, C., Aritzeta, A. & Balluerka, N. (2016). The effect of management and
employee perspectives of high-performance work systems on employees‘ discretionary
behaviour. Personnel Review, 45(1), 121-141.

/>
260




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia
[25]

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational
performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31,
758–775.

[26]

Finch, .J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical
models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439-485.

[27]

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement
of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299.

[28]

Garman, A., McAlearney, A. Harrison, M., Song, P., & McHugh, M. (2011). HighPerformance Work Systems in health care management, Part 1: Development of an
evidence-informed model. Health Care Management Review 36, 201–213.

[29]

Gerhart, B. (2007). Modeling HRM and performance linkages. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell,
and P. Wright (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

[30]

Guest, D.E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003). Human resource
management and corporate performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 41, 291-314.

[31]

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) system for factor analysis
and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

[32]

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55.

[33]

Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource
management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American
Economic Review, 291-313.

[34]

Innocenti, L., Pilati, M., & Peluso, A. M. (2011). Trust as moderator in the relationship
between HRM practices and employee attitudes. Human Resource Management Journal,
21(3), 303-317.

[35]

Kehoe, R. R. & Wright, P. M. (2013). The Impact of High Performance Human Resource
Practices on Employees‘ Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366391.

[36]

Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies for
Improving Organizational Performance. ERIC.

[37]

Lepak, D. P., Jiang, K., Han, K., Castellano, W. G. & Hu, J. (2012). Strategic HRM
moving forward: What can we learn from micro perspectives? International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 27, 231-258.

[38]

Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007), ‗The Relationship Between ‘High-Performance Work
Practices‘and Employee Attitudes: An Investigation of Additive and Interaction Effects,‘
International. Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 537–567.

[39]

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L. & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment-Fad or Fab? A
multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4),
1231-1281.

[40]

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: toward a general
model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299–326.

[41]

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.

/>
261

Measuring High Performance Work Practice Systems: The Training, Information, Participation and
Autonomy (TIPA) Scale
[42]

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

[43]

Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for
strategic human resource management. The people make the place: Dynamic linkages
between individuals and organizations, 225-248.

[44]

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, Inc

[45]

O'Connell, P. J., & Byrne, D. (2012). The Determinants and Effects of Training at Work:
Bringing the Workplace Back in. European Sociological Review, 28, 282-300.

[46]

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2017). Realizing the full potential of
psychometric meta-analysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource

management. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 201-215.

[47]

Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and
Prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129-142.

[48]

Riordan, C. M., Vandenberg, R. J., & Richardson, H. a. (2005). Employee involvement
climate and organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44(4), 471-488.

[49]

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. En A. von Eye y C.C. Clogg (Eds.): Latent variables
analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

[50]

Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using
the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation
Modeling, 7, 149–162.

[51]

Sullivan, J. (2004). Rethinking Strategic HR: HR’s Role in Building a Performance
Culture. Chicago, IL: CCH Incorporated.

[52]

Takeuchi, N., & Takeuchi, T. (2013). Committed to the organization or the job? Effects of
perceived HRM practices on employees' behavioral outcomes in the Japanese healthcare
industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2089–2106

[53]

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee Well-being and
the HRM-Organizational Performance Relationship: A Review of Quantitative Studies.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 391-407.

[54]

Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact of high
involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 24, 300-339.

[55]

Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do ―high commitment‖ human resource practices affect
employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal
of Management, 27, 515-535.

[56]

Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & de Menezes, L. M. (2012). Enriched job
design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating
roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), 419-445.

[57]

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level
relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90 (4), 616-628.

/>
262




Nekane Balluerka, Aitor Aritzeta, Arantxa Gorostiaga, Unai Elorza and Damian Madinabeitia

APPENDIX 1
Dimensions and items of the TIPA scale
Dimension

Training

Information

Item
1. Siento que la empresa dedica recursos suficientes para potenciar mi
desarrollo profesional
(I feel that the company dedicates enough resources to enhance my
professional development)
2. Siento que la empresa me da suficiente formación para desempeñar mi
trabajo
(I feel that the company provides me with enough training to do my job)

3. Creo que la empresa da importancia y promueve mi formación
(I think the company gives importance to and encourages my training)
4. Tengo información actualizada frecuentemente sobre cómo va mi
departamento/sección (ventas, resultados, estado de proyectos, etc.)
(I receive frequent updates on how my department/section is performing
(sales, results, project status, etc.)
5. Tengo suficiente información para desempeñar bien mi trabajo
(I have enough information to do my job properly
6. Participo en la definición de los objetivos anuales de mi
departamento/sección
(I participate in defining annual objectives for my department/section)

Participation

7. Participo en la definición, control y seguimiento del plan de gestión
anualmente
(I participate in the definition, control and monitoring of the annual
management plan)
8. Tengo oportunidades de participar en las decisiones importantes sobre el
futuro de mi departamento/sección
(I have opportunities to participate in important decisions about the future of
my department /section
9. Mi puesto me permite tomar decisiones y ser proactivo a la hora de realizar
el trabajo
(My position allows me to make decisions and to be proactive when doing my
job)

Autonomy
10. Mi puesto me posibilita tomar muchas decisiones por mí mismo
(My position allows me to make many decisions by myself)

11. Mi puesto me proporciona mucha autonomía para tomar decisiones
(My position gives me a lot of autonomy as regards decision making)

/>
263