The Human Resource Practice (HRP)

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology was developed with a view to perform an analysis of the relative contribution of PA to innovation. This study consists of systematic literature reviews as well as empirical studies.
Some methodological matters (systematic literature review) related to this thesis have already been addressed in the first and second chapters, namely objective one (critically review the present body of knowledge pertaining to the link between PA and innovation), objective two (report on the magnitude of the effect of PA on innovation, based on a review of the literature) and objective three (report on the relative magnitude of the effect of PA, given other HRPs, on innovation, based on a review of the literature). More specific matters are addressed in this chapter, namely the empirical research objectives of the study. This chapter was concluded with an explanation of specifics regarding methodology as pertaining to the different empirical objectives.
 Empirical research objectives

To restate the empirical research objectives as presented in chapter one is as follows:
 Objective 4: Empirically investigate the magnitude of the effect of PA, and its individual items, relative to other organisational variables, on innovation, across employees (in general).
 Objective 5: Empirically investigate the magnitude of the effect of PA, and its individual items, relative to other organisational variables, on innovation, within (specific) organisations.
 Objective 6: Empirically investigate the relative magnitude of the effect of PA, given other HRPs, on innovation, across employees (in general).
 Objective 7: Empirically investigate the relative magnitude of the effect of PA, given other HRPs, on innovation, within (specific) organisations.
 Objective 8: Empirically test different models on the PA-innovation link, applying mediators such as WE and AC, and moderators such as PP, TL, and CE.
Achieving these empirical research objectives allowed for the realisation of the principal research aim which was to quantify the position of PA as an antecedent to innovation in the workplace, both across employees and within South African organisations.

 Population, sampling and data collection

In this study, the population was comprised of all employees and all organisations. Only employees from South African organisations formed part of the study, this being due to limiting factors such as geographic proximity, availability, and accessibility of the target population, as well as the costs and time involved in going beyond the borders of South Africa.
The sample for the organisations was not random, but rather a convenience sample. Once the organisations had been identified, respondents were selected at random from each of the organisation’s employee records.
The data in this study was collected as part of a research project led by Professor Renier Steyn. This data consisted of 3 180 employees drawn from 53 organisations within South Africa, representing the private sector, parastatals, and government departments. The data was collected in accordance with the ethics guidelines of the University of South Africa (UNISA), and permission was obtained from the UNISA Research Ethics Review Committee to use the data as secondary data.

Research approach

A cross-sectional survey design, which focused on quantitative data, was used for this objective. Bryman (2012), Punch (1998) and Punch (2005) note that a quantitative research design strategy is applicable for this type of study as it readily allows the establishment of relationships between variables.

 Measuring instruments

The PA questionnaire (Steyn, 2010), the IIB questionnaire (Kleysen, & Street, 2001), the IWB questionnaire (De Jong, & Den Hartog, 2010), the PP scale (Bateman, & Crant, 1993), a part of the Leadership scale, specifically the TL scale portion (Wolins, 2012), the CE instrument (Strydom, 2013), the Utrecht WE scale-9 (Schaufeli, & Bakker, 2004), a part of the Organisational Commitment scale, specifically the AC scale portion (Allen, & Meyer, 1990), and the HRP scale (Nyawose, 2009) were the nine instruments utilised in this study. In this study, two measures of individual innovation in the workplace were assessed, namely IIB and IWB.
 The quality of a PA system questionnaire, developed by Steyn (2010), was employed to assess the perceived effectiveness of PA systems in organisations. This questionnaire is based on human resource management literature (Cascio, 2010; Grobler, Wärnich, Carrell, Elbert, & Hatfield, 2006; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2008; Snell, & Bohlander, 2007; Swanepoel, Erasmus, & Schenk, 2008) which describes the characteristics of an effective PA system. Grobler, Wärnich, Carrell, Elbert, and Hatfield (2006) provide a full list of necessities for an effective PA system, and the majority of the literature was therefore adapted from these authors. The PA questionnaire is comprised of 18 statements designed to elicit the respondent’s views on the PA process. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix F. Respondents were invited to indicate their views for each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 (Absolutely false – this is true in +/-10% of all cases), 2 (Somewhat false – this is true in +/-35% of all cases), 3 (Neither true nor false), 4 (Somewhat true – this is true in +/- 75% of all cases), and 5 (Absolutely true – this is true in +/-90% of all cases). The lowest score that could be obtained was 18, and the highest was 90. A high score would be indicative that a customarily defined PA system was in place and functioning successfully, while a low score would indicate that the respondents were convinced that a conventionally defined PA system was not functioning in their organisation (Steyn, 2010). Furthermore, Steyn (2010) reports internal consistency to have a Cronbach alpha of 0.84 and significant correlations (in the predicted direction) with results such as turnover intentions (R=0.311; p<0.01), job satisfaction (R=0.281; p<0.01) and employee engagement (R=0.318; p<0.01).
 The Individual Innovative Behaviour (IIB) questionnaire by Kleysen and Street (2001) was chosen to quantify IIB. According to Kleysen and Street (2001), there is a lack of studies on a multi-dimensional measure of IIB. The IIB questionnaire consists of 14 questions, randomly itemised to avoid possible response order bias. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix G. Respondents were requested to indicate their views for each question on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). The lowest score that could be obtained was 14 and the highest 84. Each of the 14 items was prefaced with the following question: “In your current job, how often do you…” (Kleysen, & Street, 2001: 288). Kleysen and Street (2001) report that a measure of inter-correlation between the 14 questions resulted in a Cronbach alpha of 0.95 and good construct validity. All five factors are strongly correlated with each other, with the highest correlation being between application and formative investigation (R=0.81; p<0.01) and the lowest between championing and generativity (R=0.68; p<0.01). Kleysen and Street (2001) thus suggest that the 14 items can be combined into a single measure of innovative behaviour, and this was done for this research.
 The Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) questionnaire from De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) was additionally selected as it measures IWB. The IWB questionnaire consists of 10 questions. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix H. The existing IWB questionnaire had to be modified for the purposes of this study. No measurement scale was provided in the De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) article. A scale was therefore introduced, ranging from (0) Never to (6) Always. The lowest score that could be obtained was 0 and the highest 60. The following is a question from the original IWB questionnaire: “How often does this employee…pay attention to issues that are not part of his daily work?” (De Jong, & Den Hartog, 2010: 29). This format did not suit the study, which emphasises the views of individuals concerning their IWB. All ten items of the questionnaire were thus amended to begin “As an employee how often do you…” instead of “How often does this employee…”. De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) report that the instrument is adequately reliable (Cronbach alpha>0.7). According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), there is clear evidence that employee’s innovation outputs (R=0.35; p<0.01), participative leadership (R=0.25; p<0.01) and external work contacts (R=0.27; p<0.01) correlate with IWB and this points to good criterion validity. The adapted version of the instrument was used for this research.
 The Proactive Personality (PP) scale, developed by Bateman and Crant (1993), is comprised of 17 statements designed to elicit the respondent’s views on proactive behaviour. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix I. Respondents were invited to indicate their views for each statement on a five-point scale ranging from 0 to 4 as follows: 0 (Strongly disagree), 1 (Disagree), 2 (Not sure), 3 (Agree), and 4 (Strongly agree). Likewise, the lowest score that could be obtained was 0 and the highest 68. Bateman and Crant (1993) report internal reliability with a Cronbach alpha of 0.89. By the same token, Bateman and Crant (1993) argue that the proactive scale was significantly correlated to all three criterion variables, which is indicative of criterion validity, while discriminant validity was exposed between the proactive scale and intelligence, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, private self-consciousness, and locus of control.
 The Leadership scale questionnaire developed by Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) is used to assess transactional and transformational leadership (TL) and consists of 21 items. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix J. The focus of this portion of the study was on TL rather than on transactional leadership, as Sethibe and Steyn (2016) indicate that there is no direct relationship between transactional leadership and innovation, whereas TL is positively and significantly related to innovation. The TL scale portion of the questionnaire consists of 12 items, as described by Wolins (2012), and only this part was used for this research. Respondents were requested to indicate their views for each item on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently, if not always). The minimum score on the TL scale portion of the questionnaire would be 0 and the maximum 48. Strydom (2013) reports reliability as having a Cronbach alpha of 0.87, while Sethibe and Steyn (2016) report a Cronbach alpha of 0.94 for the TL scale portion. In a study by Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramanian (2003), these authors’ results indicate that the Leadership scale questionnaire is both reliable and valid.
 The brief CE assessment instrument by Strydom (2013) was chosen to quantify CE climate. The CE instrument consists of 20 items and respondents were requested to indicate their views for each item on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix K. The minimum score on the CE instrument would be 20 and the maximum 100. A high score would indicate that respondents are of the view that there are high levels of entrepreneurial support in the organisation, while a low score would show low support for entrepreneurship (Strydom, 2013). Strydom (2013) reports an adequate reliability score (Cronbach alpha=0.810) for the total CE instrument, while also reporting Cronbach alphas of 0.731, 0.825, 0.740, 0.689, and 0.574 for the subsections management support, work discretion, rewards, time available, and organisation boundaries respectively. Outcomes with regard to the organisation boundaries subsection should be viewed with some caution, particularly due to its Cronbach alpha being below 0.6. Entrepreneurial spirit intensifies with a rise in employee engagement, organisational commitment, and job satisfaction and this is indicative of concurrent validity (Strydom, 2013). Furthermore, Strydom (2013) reports that, when the factor analysis was concluded, all items loaded as expected, with values above 0.5 suggesting factorial validity for the CE instrument.
 According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) and Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) the Utrecht Work Engagement (WE) scale-9 includes the three founding facets of WE: vigour, dedication, and absorption. This questionnaire consists of nine statements (three vigour statements, three dedication statements, and three absorption statements) that are randomly listed to avoid potential response order bias. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix M. Respondents were requested to indicate their views for each statement on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 to 6 as follows: 0 (Never – never), 1 (Almost Never – a few times a year or less), 2 (Rarely – once a month or less), 3 (Sometimes – a few times a month), 4 (Often – once a week), 5 (Very Often – a few times a week), and 6 (Always – every day). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) report that, for all nine statements, the Cronbach alpha varies from 0.85 to 0.94 (median=0.91) across studies done in nine countries. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) further explain that the Cronbach alpha value for the total data set was 0.9. Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006: 701) state that the “factorial validity of the WE scale was demonstrated using confirmatory factor analysis and the three scale scores have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability”.
 The Organisational Commitment scale is used to measure organisational commitment and the questionnaire consists of 24 items. The focus of this portion of the study was on AC rather than normative or continuance commitment, as Lamba and Choudhary (2013), as well as Wright and Kehoe (2007), indicate that AC is far more important to HRPs and organisational performance. The AC scale portion of the questionnaire consists of eight items. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix N. Respondents were requested to indicate their views for each item on a scale as follows: 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Moderately disagree), 3 (Slightly disagree), 4 (Neither agree nor disagree), 5 (Slightly agree), 6 (Moderately agree), and 7 (Strongly agree). The minimum score on the AC scale portion of the questionnaire would be 8 and the maximum 56. A high score would indicate that respondents are of the view that there are high levels of commitment and a low score would show low commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) report that the reliability (i.e., coefficient alpha) for the AC scale is 0.87 and the internal consistency is 0.86. While, Steyn, (2012) reports a Cronbach alpha of 0.82 for the organisation commitment scale. Allen and Meyer (1990) further explain that convergent validity is evident since the Organisational Commitment scale correlated significantly with the AC scale.
 The Human Resource Practice (HRP) scale by Nyawose (2009) was employed to assess the apparent effectiveness of HRPs. This questionnaire is comprised of 21 statements, arranged according to seven HRPs (training and development, compensation and rewards, PA, supervisor support, staffing, diversity management, and communication and information sharing) and with each HRP area containing three statements. A sample of the survey is presented in Appendix L. Respondents were invited to indicate their perceptions for each item on a five-point scale as follows: 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Not sure – uncertain), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). The lowest possible score would be 3, and the highest 15, per HRP. Also, the highest score that could be obtained per HRP was 15 and the lowest 3. A high score would mean that respondents are of the view that HRPs were effective and a low score would show dissatisfaction with HRPs (Steyn, 2012). Nyawose (2009) reports reliability scores ranging from 0.74 to 0.93 for these HRPs, as well as significant correlations (in the expected direction), with outcomes such as occupational commitment and turnover intentions. Furthermore, Steyn (2012) and, Steyn and Grobler (2014) report Cronbach alphas of 0.87, 0.74, 0.81, 0.75, and 0.88 for five HRPs, namely compensation and rewards, staffing, PA, diversity management, and training and development respectively. In the same study by Steyn and Grobler (2014), these authors’ results indicate that the HRP scale is both reliable and valid.
To further support the validity of the HRP scale, Steyn (2012) found that HRPs correlated positively with job satisfaction and negatively with the intention to quit.
These instruments were selected based on their past performance regarding reliability and validity, and they fit the aims of the study.

Statistical analysis and decision making

SPSS was used to conduct all statistical analysis in this study, except for the confirmatory factor analysis, which was performed using the lavaan package which is part of the R statistical language, and the PROCESS macro for SPSS which was used for the conceptual model assessment.
The first step was to calculate frequencies in order to provide demographic characteristics of respondents. Basic descriptive statistics were computed for the independent and dependent variables. These included means and standard deviations. Then, Cronbach alphas were computed to confirm internal consistency (reliability) of all nine measurement instruments. Following the recommendations of Bhatnagar, Kim and Many (2014), Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009), Montshiwa and Moroke (2014), and Ursachi, Horodnic, and Zait (2015), the reliability of the instruments was deemed to be satisfactory when the Cronbach alpha was above 0.6.
As a prerequisite for factorial validity, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to confirm the appropriateness of factor analysis for this study. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy at close to one would indicate that a factor analysis may be appropriate for this study. Child (2006), and Field (2013) suggest that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is acceptable when above the minimum criterion of 0.5. The validity of the HRP scale for objecitves six and seven was tested using the exploratory then the confirmatory factor analysis.
In the case of the exploratory factor analysis, the rotated component matrix was employed to organise the loadings appropriately as well as to group the factors through their factor loadings to provide interpretable results. The rotation method adopted was the varimax rotation as this is the most common option. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009) suggest that loadings are acceptable when above 0.5, while loadings below 0.3 should be disregarded. According to Pallant (2007), ideally, three or more of the items should load on each of the factors.
In the case of the confirmatory factor analysis, the lavaan package was used for the analysis. A seven-factor model of training and development, compensation and rewards, PA, supervisor support, staffing, diversity management, and communication and information sharing was tested. Maximum likelihood estimation was selected and the latent factors were standardised to allow free estimation of all factor loadings. Awang (2012) and Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2009) suggest that the model fit is acceptable when the Tucker-Lewis-Index (TLI) is greater than 0.9, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is greater than 0.9, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is less than 0.05.

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH ORIENTATION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 Research problem
1.3 Research aim and objectives
1.4 Significance of the research
1.5 Research constraints
1.6 Theoretical framework
1.7 Layout of this thesis
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Foundational literature
2.2 Literature specific to each of the empirical research objectives
2.3 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Empirical research objectives
3.2 Population, sampling and data collection
3.3 Research approach
3.4 Measuring instruments
3.5 Statistical analysis and decision making
3.6 Ethical considerations
3.7 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1 Demographics of respondents
4.2 Descriptive data
4.3 Research objective four: Performance appraisal and innovation
4.4 Research objective five: Performance appraisal and innovation within organisations
4.5 Research objective six: Performance appraisal, as part of human resource practices, and innovation
4.6 Research objective seven: Performance appraisal, as part of human resource practices, and innovation within organisation
4.7 Research objective eight: Performance appraisal-innovation model with mediator and moderator variables
4.8 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Research objectives one, two and three: Literature review discussion
5.2 Research objective four: Performance appraisal and innovation
5.3 Research objective five: Performance appraisal and innovation within organisations
5.4 Research objective six: Performance appraisal, as part of human resource practices, and innovation
5.5 Research objective seven: Performance appraisal, as part of human resource practices, and innovation within organisation
5.6 Research objective eight: Performance appraisal-innovation model with mediator and moderator variables
5.7 Methodological implications
5.8 Limitations of the study and suggested future research
5.9 Summary of the chapter
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT