Abstract
The majority of current research has explored the beneficial effects of HR practices on staff members’ attitudes and actions, with minimal focus on the potential negative effects. This study fills this gap by examining the effect of high-commitment work systems (HCWS) on unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). Through employing a combinatorial perspective of construal level and social exchange theory, our study theorized a curvilinear mediated model that links HCWS to UPB through the mediating effect of organizational psychological ownership. We used three-wave survey data from 253 employees and found an indirect effect through a positive linear relationship between HCWS and organizational psychological ownership, along with an inverted U-shaped correlation between staff members’ organizational psychological ownership and UPB. This study extends HCWS research to employees’ negative behavior (specifically, UPB) and further investigates this psychological mechanism through organizational psychological ownership. The findings add to the current knowledge regarding the influence of HCWS on the UPB of staff members in an organization and provide implications for management practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687. https://doi.org/10.5465/256705
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
Boon, C., & Kalshoven, K. (2014). How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and commitment: The moderating role of task proficiency. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21569
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12048
Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035679
Chen, S. L. (2018). Cross-level effects of high-commitment work systems on work engagement: The mediating role of psychological capital. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(3), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12144
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y. J., Tang, G., & Cooke, F. L. (2018). High-commitment work systems and middle managers’ innovative behavior in the Chinese context: The moderating role of work life conflicts and work climate. Human Resource Management, 57(5), 1317–1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.219
Chen, J. X., Zhang, B., Zhan, W., Sharma, P., Budhwar, P., & Tan, H. (2022). Demystifying the non-linear effect of high commitment work systems (HCWS) on firms’ strategic intention of exploratory innovation: An extended resource-based view. Technovation, 116, 102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102499
Cheng, K., Wei, F., & Lin, Y. (2019). The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. Journal of Business Research, 102, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.044
Chiang, H. H., Han, T. S., & Chuang, J. S. (2011). The relationship between high-commitment HRM and knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 604–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721111158224
Claus, B., & Warlop, L. (2017). The tree is mine, the forest isn’t: An extended abstract on the construal level of possessions. In P. Rossi (Eds.), Marketing at the Confluence between Entertainment and Analytics (pp. 1301–1305). Springer.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2057
Fehr, R., Welsh, D., Yam, K. C., Baer, M., Wei, W., & Vaulont, M. (2019). The role of moral decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.007
Grabowski, D., Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Chrupała-Pniak, M., Mello, A. L., & Paruzel-Czachura, M. (2019). Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of unethical pro-organizational behavior: Do engaged workers break the ethical rules? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12241
Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290
Kalshoven, K., Van Dijk, H., & Boon, C. (2016). Why and when does ethical leadership evoke unethical follower behavior? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-10-2014-0314
Kim, S., & Wright, P. M. (2011). Putting strategic human resource management in context: A contextualized model of high commitment work systems and its implications in China. Management and Organization Review, 7(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00185.x
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103
Krall, J. R., & Peng, R. D. (2015). The Volkswagen scandal: Deception, driving and deaths. Significance, 12(6), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00861.x
Li, X., & Lin, C. (2020). The influence of high-commitment work system on work well-being: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and the moderating role of leader trust. Personnel Review, 50(4), 1128–1147. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2020-0034
Li, H., Chen, T., & Cao, G. (2017). How high-commitment work systems enhance employee creativity: A mediated moderation model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(9), 1437–1450. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6514
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01028.x
Luan, Y., Zhao, K., Wang, Z., & Hu, F. (2023). Exploring the antecedents of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB): A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05269-w
Matošková, J. (2023). The effectiveness of high-commitment human resource practices for employee knowledge sharing. Journal of Management & Organization. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.33
Mishra, M., Ghosh, K., & Sharma, D. (2022). Unethical pro-organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04764-w
Mo, S., Lupoli, M. J., Newman, A., & Umphress, E. E. (2023). Good intentions, bad behavior: A review and synthesis of the literature on unethical prosocial behavior (UPB) at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2617
Pak, J., & Chang, H. (2023). Personal disposition as the source of variability in the hrm-performance relationship: the moderating effects of conscientiousness on the relationship between high-commitment work system and employee outcome. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(20), 3933–3962. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2163464
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1%3C119::AID-JCLP2270380118%3E3.0.CO;2-I
Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., Deutsch, B., & Strack, F. (1985). Response scales: Effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(3), 388–395. https://doi.org/10.1086/268936
Sekhar, C. (2022). Do high-commitment work systems engage employees? Mediating role of psychological capital. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(4), 1000–1018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2020-2466
Shi, Y., & Cao, M. (2022). High Commitment Work System and Employee Proactive Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Self-Efficiency and Career Development Prospect. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 802546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.802546
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249
Wahab, M. A., Tatoglu, E., Glaister, A. J., & Demirbag, M. (2020). Countering uncertainty: High-commitment work systems, performance, burnout and wellbeing in Malaysia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1833069
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 77–84.
Wang, D., Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(5), 511–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.213
Wang, T., Long, L., Zhang, Y., & He, W. (2019). A social exchange perspective of employee–organization relationships and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3782-9
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(5), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700502
Xiao, Z., & Björkman, I. (2006). High commitment work systems in Chinese organizations: A preliminary measure. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00049.x
Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.1
Xu, T., & Lv, Z. (2018). HPWS and unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2017-0457
Yan, H., Hu, X., & Wu, C. H. (2021). When and how can organizational punishment stop unethical pro-organizational behaviors in hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102811
Yang, N., Lin, C., Liao, Z., & Xue, M. (2022). When moral tension begets cognitive dissonance: An investigation of responses to unethical pro-organizational behavior and the contingent effect of construal level. Journal of Business Ethics, 180, 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04866-5
Zhang, S. (2018). Workplace Spirituality and Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(3), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3966-3
Zhang, J., Akhtar, M. N., Zhang, Y., & Rofcanin, Y. (2019). High-commitment work systems and employee voice: A multilevel and serial mediation approach inside the black box. Employee Relations, 41(4), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2018-0218
Zhang, M., Zhao, L., & Chen, Z. (2021). Research on the relationship between high-commitment work systems and employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of balanced reciprocity beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 776904. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776904
Zhang, Y., Sun, J. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Lin, C. H. (2022). High commitment work systems and employee well-being: The roles of workplace friendship and task interdependence. Human Resource Management, 61(4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22093
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all individual participants included in the study.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 71872119).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ran, Y., Zhou, H. High-commitment work systems, organizational psychological ownership, and unethical pro-organizational behavior: a nonlinear mediation model. Curr Psychol 43, 11526–11537 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05409-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05409-z