The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm
Gender and job performance:
linking the high performance
work system with the
ability–motivation–
opportunity framework
Fiona Edgar, Nancy M. Blaker and Andre M. Everett
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
Received 29 October 2019
Revised 26 January 2020
Accepted 10 March 2020
Department of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – For some years, human resource management (HRM) scholars have sought to understand how the
high performance work system (HPWS) impacts performance. Recently, attention has turned to developing
knowledge about the more micro-level aspects of this relationship, with the ability–motivation–opportunity
(AMO) framework providing a useful lens. Empirically, these studies have produced mixed results. This study
explores whether context is useful in explaining these anomalous findings.
Design/methodology/approach – This study considered the effects of context across two levels – the
descriptive (situated demography–gender) and the analytical (societal–national culture) – on employees’
behaviour in the HPWS–job performance relationship using survey data obtained from a sample of New
Zealand organisations.
Findings – Results indicate that the employee demographic of gender may play an influential role, with ability
found to be the most significant predictor of job performance for males and opportunity the strongest predictor
of job performance for females. Given the importance of cultural context when examining employees’ gendered
behaviours, this study also considers the influence of New Zealand’s national culture.
Practical implications – By describing the interaction between trait expressive work behaviours and job
features, this study dispels the myth of universalism. In line with a contingency view, practitioners are
encouraged to ensure alignment between features of their organisational context and the behavioural outcomes
sought from their HPWS.
Originality/value – This study suggests HPWS research designs would benefit from analysing the full
effects of contextual variables, rather than considering them purely as controls.
Keywords AMO, HPWS, Performance, Context, Gender, Culture
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
New Zealand has a people management regime commonly described as progressive
(McAndrew et al., 2018). This progressiveness is demonstrated in high levels of practices that
typify the high performance work system (HPWS) (for example, autonomy, egalitarianism,
participation and empowerment) being operationalised in New Zealand workplaces (Macky
and Boxall, 2008; Markey et al., 2015). As the HPWS has been comprehensively discussed in
the HRM literature (see, for example, Shin and Konrad, 2017), it suffices to reiterate here that
its primary goal is the attainment of superior workforce outcomes (Ananthram et al., 2018;
Luna-Arocas and Camps, 2008). It achieves this through effective operationalisation of
specifically designed practices that foster employees’ knowledge, skills and capabilities,
enhance their willingness to exert effort towards organisational goals and afford
opportunities to contribute to the organisation meaningfully (Tian et al., 2016; Wright and
Snell, 1998). These three HR outcomes, captured by the ability–motivation–opportunity
(AMO) framework, influence employee performance.
How these elements combine to do so, however, remains unclear. Some consider their
effects to be additive, with each AMO element making a direct and unique contribution to
performance (that is, P 5 f(A þ M þ O)) (Boxall and Purcell, 2011; Van Iddekinge et al., 2018).
Personnel Review
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2019-0577
PR
Others see their effects as interactional with all three elements deemed necessary for
performance (that is, P 5 f(A 3 M 3 O)) (Siemsen et al., 2008). Empirically, while most studies
examining these relationships adopt the additive approach, such research has produced
mixed results (Boon et al., 2019). Bos-Nehles et al. (2013), for example, used the AMO
framework to examine line managers’ performance as it related to their implementation of
HRM and found ability to be the strongest predictor of performance, with opportunity–but
not motivation–exerting a moderating effect on this relationship. These findings are
consistent with prior research on selection that, while confirming a linear relationship
between an individual’s levels of conscientiousness/motivation and their performance, they
determined that the relationship between an individual’s ability and their performance is
stronger (see Rynes et al., 2002). In Boselie’s (2010)’ study, which explored the influence of
AMO-enhancing HRM practices on affective commitment and contextual performance
among employees in the Dutch healthcare sector, ability was found to be related to affective
commitment while opportunity was related to citizenship behaviour, with motivation not
found to be connected to either. Jiang et al.’s (2012b) meta-analytic study examining the effects
of ability-, motivation-, and opportunity-enhancing HRM practices on human capital and
employee motivation found that those practices related to capability were the ones most
strongly connected to human capital development, with the employee outcome of human
capital also mediating the relationship between the HPWS and organisational outcomes.
Contrastingly, using data from HR professionals, Katou and Budhwar’s (2010) test of
relationships among AMO-enhancing HRM practices, AMO attitudes/behaviours and
performance found employees’ skills (that is, ability), attitudes (that is, motivation) and
behaviours (that is, opportunity) fully mediating the relationship between HRM policy
and organisational performance, with motivation in this instance having the single greatest
impact on this relationship.
These studies highlight inconsistencies in how each of the AMO elements impact
employees’ job performance. So what might help explain these anomalous findings? Some
suggest the answer may reside in developing understanding about how context impacts
these relationships (Johns, 2017, 2006). Opining further on the importance of context, Cooke
claims this type of investigation is important for “making sense of what is happening at
workplaces” as well as for informing the development of “relevant solutions” (2018, p. 10).
When affording consideration to the impact of context on the AMO–performance
relationship, relevant literatures need to be viewed with a temporally-sensitive lens. This
is because context does not occur in a vacuum; contextual elements (for example, gender and
culture) are subject to influence from prevailing social and societal attitudes, and,
consequently, their research can follow an evolutionary trajectory.
The importance of a temporal lens to this study is evident when looking at thought
patterns connected to employee behaviour. For example, Bandura (1977) initially proposed
that individuals learn behaviour from observations and interactions with their social
environment (that is, social learning theory). Extending this proposition, employees’
demographics were found to influence behaviour (Morrison, 1994), with further refinement
coming from Eagly’s (2013) more recent work on social role theory – the core tenets being that
some behavioural differences are attributable to gender, with these deriving from the
tendency for men and women to conform to different socially-constructed gendered role
expectations. Typically, these gendered role expectations see men characterised as being
more “independent, masterful, and assertive” whereas women are characterised as being
more “communal” and “affiliative” (Jiang et al., 2012c, p. 1079). Related research on teamwork
demonstrated the pervasive effect of gendered norms on employees’ perceptions of ability,
with studies generally finding males ascribed higher levels of ability than females,
particularly when it comes to task-based activities (Joshi, 2014). Notably, this attribution
connected to “perceived” expertise also has a consequential effect on the opportunities
employees receive in the workplace, with males receiving more opportunities than females
(Joshi, 2014; Igbaria and Baroudi, 1995). By adopting a temporal lens when considering these
studies it becomes apparent that over the past 50 years there has been an evolution of
attitudes. The older sources focus primarily on behaviour while rarely considering the
influence of context; more recent studies exhibit increased awareness of the importance of
gender-related issues.
Although it is widely recognised that there is no place for an androcentric approach when
studying employees’ workplace behaviour (Muhonen and Torkelson, 2004), studies which
closely scrutinise differences attributable to gender are still not that commonplace (one
notable exception is Wegman et al.’s (2018) meta-analytic study about the impact of context
on job characteristics in which gender is identified as an influential predictor of task
significance and feedback.) Accordingly, this study aims to consider context by exploring
what role, if any, employee gender plays in the HPWS–AMO–job performance relationship.
Furthermore, as gendered norms are a socially constructed phenomenon, different aspects of
context can shape their development (Joshi, 2014). Understanding how New Zealand’s
cultural context might influence AMO-related behaviours is thus an important consideration
in a study of this type (Yoder and Kahn, 2003). The structure of this paper is as follows: First,
the relationships among gender, national culture and AMO behaviours are discussed, with
this informing hypotheses development. Next, the research design is outlined and key results
presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for theory and practice.
The literature
AMO and gender
The roots of attribution theory are found in the work of Heider (1958), whose seminal book
on interpersonal relations propagated the notion that human behaviour is linked to
attribution. Specifically, Heider proposed that sense-making is based around the
attributions individuals ascribe to factors that are internal (for example, their ability or
motivation) or external (for example, their work environment) to them. Some 60 years later,
HRM studies still reference Heider’s work in seeking to understand and explain workplace
behaviour (for example, Bos-Nehles et al., 2019). This continued interest also reflects Heider’s
attributional foci mirroring the ability, motivation and opportunity elements commonly
referenced in contemporary job performance frameworks (see Hewett et al. (2018) for a
review of attribution theory and HRM).
Along with Heider’s notion of internal/external ascription, also of relevance to this study is
attribution style. Attribution style refers to people’s “stable, trait-like tendencies to make
certain types of attributions that affect behaviors” (Martinko et al., 2011, p. 145). Locus of
control fits with this remit; it is the extent to which individuals believe “that events are
determined by factors within themselves or by factors external to themselves” (McCarthy and
Garavan, 2007, p. 906). Individuals with an internal locus of control assume personal
responsibility for their successes and failures, whereas individuals with an external locus of
control attribute success or failure to factors in their external environment (McCarthy and
Garavan, 2007). Research finds that employees who self-report an internal locus of control
report higher job satisfaction and job performance; the converse applies for employees with
an external locus of control (Chen and Silverthorne, 2008).
Building on these research foundations and motivated by emergent interest in the role of
context, scholars considered how employees’ demography influenced attributions. This
research found females had a tendency to attribute their success to external factors (Itzhaky
and Ribner, 1999), while males had a tendency to attribute their success to internal factors
(Beyer, 1990; Busch, 1995). For example, McNeill and Jacobs’ (1980) experimental study
identified a significant interaction effect between locus of control and gender, with males
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
attributing success or failure to internal causal sources and females attributing these
outcomes to external causal sources. Fieldwork, nuanced to the workplace, also finds support
for females’ tendency to attribute success to external rather than internal factors. For
example, Melamed’s (1995) study concluded that females had a greater inclination than did
males to attribute their workplace achievements to the favourable opportunities afforded to
them by the organization. Lending further weight to the proposition that attributions are
influenced by gender is the research on statistical discrimination. This work spanning nearly
thirty years consistently shows that while females might see opportunities as an influential
factor affecting their job performance, they actually experience fewer (Bielby and Baron,
1986) and less challenging (King et al., 2012) opportunities in the employment relationship
compared to their male counterparts. Given this situation ultimately constrains the
promotion and career prospects of females (Igbaria and Baroudi, 1995), it is not surprising the
gender pay gap remains a significant contemporary global issue (World Economic Forum
Global Gender Gap Report, 2018).
A notable conclusion drawn from this work is that males have a tendency to be “more
‘self-congratulatory’ in their responses, expressing confidence in skills they might not
possess and overconfidence in skills they do possess” (Moulton et al., 2013, p. 539). Females,
on the other hand, tend to be much more modest when reflecting on their abilities and their
performance (Moulton et al., 2013). This propensity for males to exaggerate their competence
is related to their having “heightened legitimate entitlement” in the workplace, which
corresponds with them also having heightened beliefs about their employment status (Hogue
et al., 2007, p. 573).
Put together, these findings suggest that female employees may downplay their abilities,
while male employees may overstate theirs and that male employees have a tendency to
attribute their success to their own abilities, whereas female employees have a tendency to
attribute their success to the availability of opportunities.
Affording consideration to the gendered differences highlighted in prior research, this
study predicts that for males ability will be the strongest determinant of job performance,
with ability mediating the HPWS–job performance relationship. For females, it predicts that
opportunity will be the prime determinant of job performance, with opportunity mediating
the HPWS–job performance relationship. The following hypotheses represent these ideas:
H1a. The main predictor of job performance for male employees will be ability.
H1b. For male employees, ability will mediate the relationship between HPWS and job
performance.
H2a. The main predictor of job performance for female employees will be opportunity.
H2b. For female employees, opportunity will mediate the relationship between HPWS
and job performance.
Although not included in this study, the research suggests employees’ work motivation is
influenced by gender. For example, Kanfer and Ackerman (2000) found females reported
higher scores on scales related to “a desire to learn”, “mastery” and “emotionality” than did
males. However, it is difficult to know how much we should read into this given researchers
who looked at the motivation of school students concluded that any differences found were
more likely to be related to ability and/or the structure of the learning environment than to the
gender of participants (Meece and Jones, 1996). Given the ambiguity of this research, this
study does not propose a specific hypothesis for this facet of the AMO framework.
Notwithstanding, further exploration of these constructs is encouraged (Kanfer and
Ackerman, 2000) particularly given that few of the multitude of studies on work
motivation specify gender differences as their research focus.
AMO and national culture
Schuler (2013) proposes the potential for overlap between a country’s cultural characteristics
and the need for certain HRM policies and practices to influence behaviour. Thus, national
culture influences the style of people management practised, with this having consequential
impacts for the gendered norms and workplace behaviours of employees.
Over the past hundred years, New Zealand, much like Britain, has moved away from a
reliance on welfare policies to ones that are more economically focussed. This has
significantly influenced the style of people management practiced. Employers and their
organisations have increased their influence over the employment relations framework, while
unions, on the other hand, have had theirs severely curtailed. Because New Zealand is
characterised by small- to medium-sized enterprises that tend to feature little or no in-house
specialist human resource (HR) expertise, successive governments have sought to develop a
comprehensive suite of regulations to protect both employees and their employers. It is this,
along with a liberalist psyche embedded within the cultural fabric of New Zealand society,
that has led to a progressive style of HRM being practiced (Macky and Boxall, 2008).
According to researchers connected to the Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, “national cultural values are antecedent factors
which influence leadership expectations’” (Dorfman et al., 2012, p. 510). By extension,
national cultural values will also influence employees’ behavioural expectations. Basing
on prior research, Schuler (2013) suggests that in cultures where collectivism is highly
valued (for example, Eastern as opposed to Western), organisational practices intended to
foster knowledge or information sharing may be less prevalent. This assertion similarly
implies that national culture impacts employees’ behaviours and moreover that
organisational practices reflect national culture. This means that certain behaviours are
likely to become ingrained in the psyche of individuals as a consequence of their lived
cultural experiences.
Although the frequent target of both dismissive diatribe (for example, GLOBE – see Dhiru
and Greer, 2017) and critique (McSweeney et al., 2016), as well as being in dire need of significant
revision (Minkov, 2018), the effects of national culture on behaviour are most readily illustrated
using Hofstede’s set of six culture dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010). For example, individualism
could lead employees to seek opportunities of benefit to themselves as individuals, while
collectivism would reorient their goals towards societal or organisational benefits. Indulgence
would moderate collective effects, while restraint would lessen individualism’s effects.
Masculinity would emphasise individual goal achievement and ability enhancement, while
femininity would focus on modesty and crediting a team with success. High power distance,
although tempering individual opportunity-seeking behaviours, would ally with autocratic
leadership (Dorfman et al., 2012). Low power distance, on the other hand, would facilitate selfperceptions of equality and enhance the drive to seek personally beneficial opportunities.
Long-term orientation would lead to a motivational focus on systemic and organisational
benefits, while short-term orientation would correspond to self-centred motivations. Similarly,
high uncertainty avoidance would decrease motivation to take on risk (with ensuing implications
for both individual and organisational goal achievement), while low uncertainty avoidance
would motivate innovative behaviours and willingness to tackle challenges.
Cross-cultural research has found that employees’ perceptions about ability are connected
to national culture. For example, Earley (1994) conducted research on cross-cultural
differences and self-efficacy and found that where managers were trained in a system aligned
with their country culture, they achieved higher levels of perceived self-efficacy and were
more productive than those trained in a conflicting system. This alignment is demonstrated
in New Zealand where, culturally, the country leans towards individualism and indulgence,
with mid-range masculinity and uncertainty avoidance, a short-term orientation and
low power distance (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/new-zealand/);
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
studies show operationalised HPWS practices mirror these preferences (Macky and Boxall,
2008), with individualistic cultures also being found to be associated with individuals having
an internal locus of control (Chen and Silverthorne, 2008).
Employees’ work motivation has also been found to be influenced by national culture. For
example, a study on cross-cultural differences in Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) beliefs by
Furnham et al. (1993) highlighted significant differences in PWE across the 13 countries
studied with New Zealand, alongside Britain and Germany, having the lowest scores and
India having the highest. High PWE scores were attributable, in part, to countries where
collectivism is valued and where there is a high power distance in relationships. The New
Zealand employment context is largely influenced by egalitarianism, along with high
employment rates and many small- to medium-sized enterprises (Hines, 1973). These factors
impact positively on the work motivation of employees because they create a work
environment characterised by high levels of job security, a friendly and relaxed atmosphere
and close-knit interpersonal and manager–employee relations.
It is unclear from cross-cultural studies if there is a relationship between perceptions about
opportunity and national culture. For example, one study on levels of entrepreneurial activity
found differences to be attributable to the differing perceptions of males and females towards
self-efficacy as well as opportunity; national culture, on the other hand, impacted neither
(Langowitz and Minniti, 2007).
Culturally, New Zealand is considered a “masculine society”, scoring 58 on this dimension
(https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/new-zealand/), and Hofstede suggests
that gender differences are likely to be more pronounced in masculine cultures as opposed to
feminine cultures (Costa et al., 2001). This is a feature which can negatively impact the
opportunities afforded to women as compared to those afforded to men with gender equality,
particularly in relation to the glass ceiling and pay, being a salient workplace issue for New
Zealand (Dhiru and Greer, 2017). Regarding the proverbial glass ceiling, the numbers of females
in top positions in New Zealand has been described as “woeful”, with its gender diversity
ranking slipping from “third place in 2004 to 28th place out of 35 countries” in 2015 (Meadows,
2015). This situation is somewhat surprising given the country’s history of women holding
many senior government positions (including Prime Minister, Governor-General, and Chief
Justice simultaneously throughout 2018 and 2019). In pay equality, New Zealand leads the AsiaPacific region, ranking 7th in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report
2018 (which assesses economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health
and survival, and political empowerment). Based on International Labor Organisation data, the
WEF reported that the mean monthly earnings of females was 70% that of males. In a
contemporaneous report commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry for Women, a more
refined measure indicated that the wage gap for females for comparable work was 12.71 percent
(Pacheco et al., 2017). Countries in emerging markets with gender egalitarianism have, on the
other hand, been shown to have a higher incidence of females in CEO positions, with more
opportunities presenting in the service sector (Elango, 2018). Although these statistics suggest
females encounter fewer opportunities in the workplace, with this possibly being attributable to
New Zealand’s masculine value preference, it is recognised that this cultural influence is not a
uniquely New Zealand phenomenon. Indeed, a host of countries reflecting a diverse range of
national cultural contexts report high levels of gender inequality (for example, India and China –
Jayachandran, 2015).
The intention behind this discussion is not to derive any specific hypotheses but to
highlight those areas where New Zealand’s national culture has potential to impact on
employees’ AMO-related behavioural responses to HR practices in the HPWS. Noteworthy
here is that recent research implies national cultures are somewhat fluid and thence
prevailing social norms and societal attitudes are subject to change (Minkov, 2018);
consequently, so too are desired employee behaviours and HR practices.
Methodology
A purposive sample comprising service sector organisations in New Zealand was approached
to participate. In total, 14 organisations agreed to participate, with managers distributing the
survey via email to employees. The study used items previously reported in the literature to
operationalise all constructs.
Temporality is fundamental to the interpretation of social and cultural matters so it is not
surprising that gender is considered a “slippery term” (Hollander et al., 2011, p. 13). Indeed,
some see the terms gender and sex as interchangeable, while others draw a distinction. As
this study considers employees’ behaviour and its relationship to HR practices to be informed
by nuanced social and cultural contexts, a nonessentialist characterisation of gender is
adopted. The nonessentialist perspective aligns well with social learning and social role
theory arguments as it sees gender as being a learned, as opposed to an innate, phenomenon
(Hollander et al., 2011). Consistent with this characterisation, gender is defined as the
“culturally determined behaviors and attributes that are associated with, but not determined
by, biological sex” (Hollander et al., 2011, p. 13) and is measured in this study using a male/
female classification and self-report data.
Employees’ perceptions of HPWS practices were measured in descriptive (as opposed to
evaluative) terms. Employees indicated the extent to which they agreed they experienced a
particular practice, as opposed to indicating their feelings about the practice (Boon et al.,
2019). The measure includes 12 HPWS practices (prior research shows measures comprise
7 practices on average, with a range from 2 to 16 being used – Boon et al., 2019). The HPWS
practices items were drawn from the extant literature (see Gardner et al., 2011; Jiang et al.,
2012a, b; Katou and Budhwar, 2010). AMO-behavioural outcome items were also drawn
from previous work. Self-efficacy is widely used as a proxy for ability (Maddux et al., 1986);
in this study, 4 items were drawn from Rigotti et al.’s (2008) occupational self-efficacy
measure. Motivation was measured by 7 items drawn from work motivation of Barbuto
and Scholl (1998) and Schaufeli et al’s. (2006) work engagement measures. Opportunity
used 5 items from the work role overload scale of Macky and Boxall (2008). Job
performance used self-report data (Alfes et al., 2013), with one item requesting participants
to rate their own performance, and a further 4 items drawn from the work of Griffin
et al. (2007).
281 responses were received, of which 244 were useable for this analysis (males N 5 54;
females N 5 190). As is commonplace in HRM research (Bainbridge et al., 2017), the individual
is the unit of analysis, and all data collected are perceptual. As noted, this study adopts a nonessentialist perspective when defining gender and, accordingly, it is the participants’ own
classificatory grouping of their gender that is used for the analysis. Seven-point Likert scales
with anchors ranging from 1 5 “strongly disagree” to 7 5 “strongly agree” were used for all
items unless otherwise specified. Items and their reliability statistics are presented in Table 1,
with correlations, means and standard deviations reported in Table 2.
Results
To examine the role of gender in the HPWS–AMO–performance relationship, regressions
were conducted. Prior to the regression, t-tests were conducted to determine whether there
were any significant differences between the male and female samples. Table 3 reports the
mean values for male and female employees separately, along with the result of the t-tests.
The mean values of the control variables (all dichotomous, coded 0 and 1) represent the
percentage of cases in the higher category (for example, 27% of female employees selfclassified as a manager, vs. 35% of male employees).
Of the independent variables in the main model, only motivation shows a significant
gender difference. Female employees report having higher levels of motivation compared to
their male counterparts. There is no gender difference in self-perceived ability, opportunity or
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
Construct
HPWS (a 5 0.89)
Table 1.
Survey items and
reliability statistics
Statement
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
At work I have lots of opportunity to participate in the decision-making
I have a great deal of autonomy in the way I carry out my job
I have good job security
I am rewarded well
Training and development opportunities are provided
My workplace sets very high standards and is very selective when recruiting
staff
(7) Feedback is provided for performance
(8) Career goals are addressed
(9) The ability to problem solve is highly valued by my organisation
(10) I believe my values fit well with those of my organisation
(11) My organisation values my ability to work well within a team environment
(12) I am provided with opportunities to express my ideas about how processes can
be improved in this organisation
Behaviors
Ability (a 5 0.71)
(1) I am not confident I can always successfully perform whatever is required of me
in my job (R)
(2) When faced with difficult tasks at work, I am certain I will accomplish them
(3) I don’t believe I have the necessary knowledge and skills required to do my job
effectively (R)
(4) I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my abilities
Motivation (a 5 0.81)
(1) I always put forward my best efforts to get the job done regardless of the
difficulties I experience
(2) I get very involved in my work and work extra hours if necessary
(3) If I didn’t enjoy doing my job at work I would leave
(4) At my work, I feel bursting with energy
(5) At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
(6) I am enthusiastic about my job
(7) I feel happy when I am working intensely
Opportunity (a 5 0.84)
(1) The amount of work I am asked to do is fair
(2) I have too much work to do
(3) There is too much work to do everything well (R)
(4) The performance standards on my job are too high (R)
(5) I never seem to have enough time to get everything done in my job (R)
Performance
(1) How would you rate your performance?
(a 5 0.78)
(2) I regularly accomplish my work goals
(3) I have carried out the core parts of my job well
(4) I have adapted well to changes in core tasks
(5) I have initiated better ways of doing core tasks
Note(s): (R) indicates reverse scaled
Mean
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics
and
correlations (N 5 244)
SD
1
1. HPWS
4.91
1.21
2. Job performance
5.35
1.01
0.49***
3. Ability
5.54
1.01
0.30***
4. Motivation
5.17
0.96
0.62***
5. Opportunity
4.79
1.15
0.36***
Note(s): Significance levels: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
2
3
4
0.33***
0.32***
0.31***
0.40***
0.31***
0.21**
performance. There are, however, gender differences in terms of some of the demographics,
with female employees tending to have a longer tenure at their organisation and having, on
average, a lower level of education. This shows the importance of including these control
variables as covariates in the main models.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to establish whether there are significant
interactions between ability and gender on performance and between opportunity and
gender on performance (see Figure 1). HPWS, ability, motivation, opportunity, gender, job
level, education, tenure and age were entered as main effects and ability x gender and
opportunity x gender as interaction effects. There was no significant interaction between
gender and opportunity on performance (β 5 0.06, p 5 0.114) and a marginally significant
interaction between gender and ability on performance (β 5 0.11, p 5 0.059). These results
suggest that there may indeed be a significant difference between male and female employees
with respect to the relationship between their AMO behaviour and their performance.
Figure 2 shows the standardised regression coefficients for the mediation model with
only male employees, including covariates age, job level, tenure and education. This model
shows that for male employees ability is significantly related to better job performance but
that opportunity is not related to job performance. This contrasts with the mediation
model for female employees (see Figure 3). In line with these results, for male employees
there is a significant indirect effect of the HPWS on job performance through ability (CI
95% of 0.02 to 0.33) but not through opportunity (CI 95% of 0.15 to 0.09) or motivation
(0.28 to 0.19).
HPWS
Ability
Motivation
Opportunity
Performance
Job level
Tenure
Age
Education
Female employees
Male employees
4.96 (1.11)
5.56 (1.01)
5.26 (0.94)
4.81 (1.22)
5.34 (1.01)
0.27 (0.45)
0.65 (0.48)
0.53 (0.50)
0.59 (0.49)
4.77 (1.09)
5.42 (1.01)
4.88 (0.99)
4.77 (0.96)
5.37 (0.95)
0.35 (0.48)
0.48 (0.50)
0.42 (0.50)
0.76 (0.43)
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
t-test
t 5 1.02, p 5 0.285
t 5 0.94, p 5 0.348
t 5 2.59, p 5 0.010
t 5 0.20, p 5 0.839
t 5 0.22, p 5 0.829
Table 3.
t 5 1.07, p 5 0.289 Means (and standard
t 5 2.26, p 5 0.027
deviations) for male
t 5 1.30, p 5 0.196
and female employees,
t 5 2.50, p 5 0.014
with t-tests
Figure 1.
Full mediation model
with control variables
PR
Figure 2.
Mediation model with
control variables for
male employees only
Figure 3.
Mediation model with
control variables for
female employees only
Figure 3 indicates the standardised regression coefficients for the female mediation model
with age, job level, tenure and education as covariates. There are two main differences from
the overall model. For female employees, higher ability does not significantly relate to higher
job performance, nor is there a significant indirect effect of the HPWS on job performance via
the mediator ability (95% CI of 0.01 to 0.09). However, for female employees, higher
opportunity is significantly related to better job performance, and there is a significant
indirect effect of the HPWS on job performance through the mediator opportunity (CI of 0.01
to 0.15). Finally, there is no indirect effect of the HPWS on job performance through
motivation (CI of 0.06 to 0.14).
In sum, Hypothesis 1a indicated that ability would be the main predictor of job
performance for males; this was supported. Hypothesis 2a, which indicated that the
externally oriented factor of opportunity would be the main predictor of job performance for
females, was likewise supported. Hypotheses 1b and 2b, which indicated that a mediating role
exists for ability for males and opportunity for females in the HPWS–job performance
relationship, were also supported.
Discussion and concluding remarks
The main contribution of this paper is that it highlights the significance of context in studies
involving employees. Social context refers to “any element in a person’s social environment
that can produce or constrain behaviour” (Yoder and Kahn, 2003, p. 283) and the importance
of context in activating or inhibiting behaviours is a core premise of the trait activation model
(Tett and Burnett, 2003). This model recognises the importance of situational features by
describing the interaction between trait expressive work behaviours and job features,
notably pointing to the significance of having coherence between features of context and
behavioural expression, thereby dispelling the myth of universalism (Johns, 2018).
A strong rationale can be made for the influence of employee gender on this relationship.
At the individual level, the aforementioned analysis offers support for the mediating role of
ability and opportunity in the HPWS–job performance relationship. Moreover, as predicted,
gender appears to play an influential role in this relationship, with ability found to be the
most significant performance predictor for males and opportunity to be the strongest
performance predictor for females. These findings are consistent with the gendered
differences previously reported in the attribution literature whereby males attribute their
job performance to internal factors whereas females attribute their performance outcomes to
features from the external environment in which they work. This is an important finding as
it has potential to contribute to understanding of why motivation, as an AMO element, does
not feature strongly in studies examining the AMO–performance relationship (for example,
Boselie, 2010).
Furthermore, highlighting the significance of context to the HPWS–AMO–job
performance relationship, the role of national culture is considered. The significance of
culture to gendered role development lies in social role theory that supposes that gender roles
develop from an individual’s interactions with their social context (Bandura, 2002; Eagly,
2013). This indicates that along with such factors as age, ethnicity and sexual orientation,
national culture is an aspect of social context that likely impacts the formation of gendered
behaviours. Empirically, this assertion is supported by Lam et al. (2002), for example, finding
Westerners to have “an ‘independent view’ of the self that emphasises the separateness,
uniqueness and internal attributes of individuals” while Asians “hold an ‘interdependent
view’ of the self that stresses connectedness, social context and relationships” (p. 5). In
addition, Costa et al.’s (2001) study on gender differences in personality traits found these
were more pronounced in cultures where “traditional sex roles are minimised” (for example,
the Netherlands and Finland) (p. 322). This makes it reasonable to speculate that this study’s
results are influenced by artefacts from New Zealand’s national culture (some key tenets of
which were introduced earlier).
This study contributes to the HRM literature in several important ways. In HRM studies
the influence of context is often “unrecognised or underappreciated” (Johns, 2006, p. 389), with
the bulk of HRM research being essentially context-free (Cooke, 2018). In a move away from
this trend, this study places two important aspects of context at the forefront of the
investigation, not sidelining them as controls (Johns, 2018), but rather seeing them as
potentially significant explanatory factors. To do so, this study considered the effects of
context across two levels, the descriptive (that is, situated demography–gender) and the
analytical (that is, societal–national culture), on employees’ behaviour in the HPWS–job
performance relationship (Cooke, 2018).
Second, examining the role of gender as an explanatory factor in the relationship between
HPWS, employee behaviours and job performance proffers a potential explanation for why
the empirical research to date does not fully support AMO’s conceptual framework. Contexts
can be gendered (Johns, 2018); considering both gender and national culture in the same study
addresses the androgynous and ethnocentric issues that are so often present in HRM
research. The dual context consideration of these factors has several benefits. It enables
insights to be gleaned about HPWS practices and their effects on employees’ behaviour as
well as how contextual factors might interact with each other. In offering support for the
contingency view (Wright et al., 2018), these findings importantly highlight how nuanced and
complex the HPWS–job performance relationship actually is. This type of analysis should
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
help dispel the current universalistic, “one size fits all” notions that can permeate HRM
research design as well as managerial practice.
These findings also have implications for HR policy and practice. First, this study’s findings
suggest that while the AMO framework offers HRM multiple pathways to achieve the same
goal, the current system disadvantages females. This questions whether the ability and
opportunity elements as described in the AMO framework and represented by HRM practice
are actually gender-neutral. This situation is not improbable given current pathway(s) were
likely established with masculinity-oriented values to support a system where the dominant
beneficiary was male. Consideration now needs to be afforded to how HRM can add (as opposed
to change) pathways, in order to make outcomes equivalently accessible, resulting in
equifinality. Optimistically, where practices and pathways are either gender-neutral or offer
choice, their effects could have the added benefit of reducing the pervasive gender wage gap
that continues to be evident across many countries, including New Zealand. One way
practitioners could facilitate these types of pathways would be to ensure all employees receive
explicit and unambiguous feedback with regard to their abilities and potential during the
performance review process. In addition, all employees should be aware of the opportunities
available to them in their organisations, with their uptake actively encouraged. These types of
actions might serve to reduce what Heider (1958) refers to as “errors of attribution”.
These findings further provide a timely reminder to practitioners that the cultural psyche
of employees is evolving and that while national cultures might not be converging, they are
changing. Cognisance of changes to the fabric of society along with its members’ attitudes
and values necessarily impacts HRM practices. Minkov’s (2018) study highlights that strong
shifts have occurred for some countries across several of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. This
is important because in providing the impetus to revise Hofstede’s dimensions, it will
consequently prompt practitioners to review their current HRM practices.
This study has several limitations. First, its use of cross-sectional data collected from
employees raises the issue of common method variance. Second, self-report data for job
performance were collected, and although this approach is relatively commonplace in HRM
studies (for example, Alfes et al., 2013; Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001), problems with social
response bias cannot be ruled out. Third, although this study finds the standard deviations
for the means for AMO behaviours for males and females to be reasonably small, it should not
be assumed that all males or all females in the research sample share the same gendered
behaviour or are similarly influenced by national culture. A more refined analysis on these
potential differences is required in future research. Last, this study’s focus was on gender and
national culture. The impact of industry segment (in this case the service industry) is also an
important contextual factor that could have been considered, and future studies should
endeavour to consider its effects in their analysis.
To conclude, it would seem researchers need to be more cognisant of how personal,
environmental, situational and organisational factors impact on employee behaviours – this
joins the call for more context-specific research (Blair and Hunt, 1986) in HRM. This study
also raises some interesting questions about the role demographics might play in influencing
employees’ workplace behaviours. Further research examining the influence of gender, as
well as other aspects of employees’ demography (such as age, education and tenure) is now
desirable. Context is as much about similarity as it is about difference (Johns, 2017). This
paper has highlighted, albeit speculatively, how national culture might impact on gender and
AMO behaviours in a Western developed country’s context. Future research exploring
gender difference and similarity needs to afford greater consideration to the role of social
context in this relationship (Yoder and Kahn, 2003). This requires researchers to adopt a
context-specific orientation to research design, one where context variables (such as industry
segment and/or Western/Eastern population and/or developed and undeveloped country
contexts) are studied with a more purposeful lens.
References
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E.C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2013), “The relationship between line
manager behavior, perceived HRM practices and individual performance: examining the
mediating role of engagement”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52, pp. 839-859.
Ananthram, S., Xerri, M.J., Teo, S.T. and Connell, J. (2018), “High-performance work systems and
employee outcomes in Indian call centres: a mediation approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47,
pp. 931-950.
Bainbridge, H.T., Sanders, K., Cogin, J.A. and Lin, C.H. (2017), “The pervasiveness and trajectory of
methodological choices: a 20-year review of human resource management research”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 56, pp. 887-913.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (2002), “Social cognitive theory in cultural context”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 51,
pp. 269-290.
Barbuto, J.E. Jr and Scholl, R.W. (1998), “Motivation sources inventory: development and validation of
new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 82,
pp. 1011-1022.
Beyer, S. (1990), “Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 960-970.
Bielby, W.T. and Baron, J.N. (1986), “Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical
discrimination”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp. 759-799.
Blair, J.D. and Hunt, J.G. (1986), “Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more time:
context-free and context-specific orientations in research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12,
pp. 147-166.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D.N. and Lepak, D.P. (2019), “A systematic review of human resource
management systems and their measurement”, Journal of Management, preprint, doi: 10.1177/
0149206318818718.
Boselie, P. (2010), “High performance work practices in the health care sector: a Dutch case study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31, pp. 42-58.
Bos-Nehles, A.C., Van Riemsdijk, M.J. and Kees Looise, J. (2013), “Employee perceptions of line
management performance: applying the AMO theory to explain the effectiveness of line
managers’ HRM implementation”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52, pp. 861-877.
Bos-Nehles, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Riemsdijk, M. and Looise, J. (2019), “Line management
attributions for effective HRM implementation: towards a valid measurement instrument”,
Employee Relations, available at: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/149949257/Bos_Nehles_et_al._
Employee_Relations_2019.pdf.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, 3rd ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Busch, T. (1995), “Gender differences in self-efficacy and academic performance among students of
business administration”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 39, pp. 311-318.
Chen, J.C. and Silverthorne, C. (2008), “The impact of locus of control on job stress, job performance
and job satisfaction in Taiwan”, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 29,
pp. 572-582.
Cooke, F.L. (2018), “Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: putting human resource management research
in perspectives”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1-13.
Costa, P.T. Jr, Terracciano, A. and McCrae, R.R. (2001), “Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: robust and surprising findings”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81,
pp. 322-331.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R. (2012), “GLOBE: a twenty year
journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47,
pp. 504-518.
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
Eagly, A.H. (2013), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Psychology Press,
Hillside, NJ.
Earley, P.C. (1994), “Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 89-117.
Elango, B. (2018), “When do women reach the top spot? A multilevel study of female CEOs in
emerging markets”, Management Decision, preprint, doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2017-1147.
Furnham, A., Bond, M., Heaven, P., Hilton, D., Lobel, T., Masters, J., Payne, M., Rajamanikam, R.,
Stacey, B. and Van Daalen, H. (1993). “A comparison of Protestant work ethic beliefs in thirteen
nations”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 133, pp. 185-197.
Gardner, T.M., Wright, P.M. and Moynihan, L.M. (2011), “The impact of motivation, empowerment
and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: the mediating effect of
collective affective commitment”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 315-350.
Griffin, M., Neal, A. and Parker, S. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in
uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 327-347.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York.
Hewett, R., Shantz, A., Mundy, J. and Alfes, K. (2018), “Attribution theories in human resource
management research: a review and research agenda”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 29, pp. 87-126.
Hines, G.H. (1973), “Achievement motivation, occupations, and labor turnover in New Zealand”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 313-317.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hogue, M., Yoder, J.D. and Singleton, S.B. (2007), “The gender wage gap: an explanation of men’s
elevated wage entitlement”, Sex Roles, Vol. 56, pp. 573-579.
Hollander, J.A., Renfrow, D.G. and Howard, J.A. (2011), Gendered Situations, Gendered Selves: A
Gender Lens on Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Rowman and Littlefield, Plymouth, UK.
Igbaria, M. and Baroudi, J.J. (1995), “The impact of job performance evaluations on career
advancement prospects: an examination of gender differences in the IS workplace”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 107-123.
Itzhaky, H. and Ribner, D.S. (1999), “Gender, values and the work place: considerations for immigrant
acculturation”, International Social Work, Vol. 42, pp. 127-138.
Jayachandran, S. (2015), “The roots of gender inequality in developing countries”, Economics, Vol. 7,
pp. 63-88.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A. and Winkler, A.L. (2012), “Clarifying the construct of
human resource systems: relating human resource management to employee performance”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 73-85.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resource management influence
organisational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 55, pp. 1264-1294.
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P.F., Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (2012), “When and how is job
embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 97, pp. 1077-1096.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organisational behavior”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386-408.
Johns, G. (2017), “Reflections on the 2016 decade award: incorporating context in organisational
research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42, pp. 577-595.
Johns, G. (2018), “Advances in the treatment of context in organisational research”, Annual Review of
Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 21-46.
Joshi, A. (2014), “By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and
education in science and engineering teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 59, pp. 202-239.
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P. (2000), “Individual differences in work motivation: further explorations
of a trait framework”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 470-482.
Katou, A.A. and Budhwar, P.S. (2010), “Causal relationship between HRM policies and organisational
performance: evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 28, pp. 25-39.
King, E.B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M.R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J.F. and Perkins, A. (2012), “Benevolent
sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental
experiences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38, pp. 1835-1866.
Lam, S.S., Schaubroeck, J. and Aryee, S. (2002), “Relationship between organisational justice and
employee work outcomes: a cross-national study”, Journal of Organisational Behavior,
Vol. 23, pp. 1-18.
Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), “The entrepreneurial propensity of women”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, pp. 341-364.
Luna-Arocas, R. and Camps, J. (2008), “A model of high performance work practices and turnover
intentions”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37, pp. 26-46.
Macky, K. and Boxall, P. (2008), “Employee experiences of high-performance work systems: an
analysis of sectoral, occupational organisational and employee variables”, New Zealand Journal
of Employment Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 1-18.
Maddux, J.E., Norton, L.W. and Stoltenberg, C.D. (1986), “Self-efficacy expectancy, outcome
expectancy, and outcome value: relative effects on behavioral intentions”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 783-789.
Markey, R., Harris, C., Ravenswood, K., Simpkin, G. and Williamson, D. (2015), “Employee
participation and quality of the work environment: cases from New Zealand”, New Zealand
Journal of Employment Relations, Vol. 40, pp. 52-71.
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P. and Dasborough, M.T. (2011), “Attribution theory in the organizational
sciences: a case of unrealized potential”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 144-149.
McAndrew, I., Edgar, F. and Jerrard, M. (2018), “Human resource management and employment
relations paradigms in Australia and New Zealand”, in Parker, J. (Ed.), The Big Issues in
Employment: HR Management and Employment Relations in Australasia, 2nd ed., CCH (Wolters
Kluwer), Auckland, pp. 1-19.
McCarthy, A.M. and Garavan, T.N. (2007), “Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback for
management development”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36, pp. 903-917.
McNeill, B.W. and Jacobs, M. (1980), “Effects of locus of control, sex, and failure on causal attribution”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 46, pp. 1137-1138.
McSweeney, B., Brown, D. and Iliopoulou, S. (2016), “Claiming too much, delivering too little: testing
some of Hofstede’s generalisations”, The Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 35, pp. 34-57.
Meadows, R. (2015), NZX Rules Out Imposing Gender Rules. 13 March. Stuff (New Zealand), available
at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/67320466/ (accessed 3 May 2015).
Meece, J.L. and Jones, M.G. (1996), “Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: are
girls rote learners?”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 33, pp. 393-406.
Melamed, T. (1995), “Career success: the moderating effect of gender”, Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, Vol. 47, pp. 35-60.
Muhonen, T. and Torkelson, E. (2004), “Work locus of control and its relationship to health and job
satisfaction from a gender perspective”, Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society
for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 20, pp. 21-28.
Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organisational citizenship behavior: the importance of the
employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1543-1567.
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework
PR
Moulton, C.A., Seemann, N. and Webster, F. (2013), “It’s all about gender, or is it?”, Medical Education,
Vol. 47, pp. 538-540.
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001), “Delivering customer-oriented behaviour through empowerment:
an empirical test of HRM assumptions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 831-857.
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B. and Mohr, G. (2008), “A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale:
structural and construct validity across five countries”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 16,
pp. 238-255.
Rynes, S.L., Brown, K.G. and Colbert, A.E. (2002), “Seven common misconceptions about human
resource practices: research findings versus practitioner beliefs”, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 92-103.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66, pp. 701-716.
Schuler, R.S. (2013). Opportunities abound in HRM and innovation, Journal of Chinese Human
Resource Management, Vol. 4, pp. 121-127.
Shin, D. and Konrad, A.M. (2017), “Causality between high-performance work systems and
organizational performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43, pp. 973-997.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008), “How motivation, opportunity, and ability
drive knowledge sharing: the constraining-factor model”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 26, pp. 426-445.
Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 500-517.
Tian, A.W., Cordery, J. and Gamble, J. (2016), “Staying and performing: how human resource
management practices increase job embeddedness and performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45,
pp. 947-968.
Van Iddekinge, C.H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J.D. and DeOrtentiis, P.S. (2018), “A meta-analysis of the
interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 44, pp. 249-279.
Wegman, L.A., Hoffman, B.J., Carter, N.T., Twenge, J.M. and Guenole, N. (2018), “Placing job
characteristics in context: cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since
1975”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44, pp. 352-386.
Wright, P.M., Nyberg, A.J. and Ployhart, R.E. (2018), “A research revolution in SHRM: new challenges
and new research directions”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Emerald Publishing, pp. 141-161.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility
in strategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23,
pp. 756-772.
Yoder, J.D. and Kahn, A.S. (2003), “Making gender comparisons more meaningful: a call for more
attention to social context”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 281-290.
Dhiru, V. and Greer, G. (2017), Gender Equality in New Zealand: A Report Based on a Public
Opinion Survey Completed in July-August 2017, Research NZ. Source, available at: http://
www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/2018/Research%20New%20Zealand%20Media
%20Release%20-%2014-03-18%20Gender%20Equality%20in%20New%20Zealand.pdf (accessed
19 December 2018).
Pacheco, G., Li, C. and Cochrane, B. (2017), Empirical Evidence of the Gender Pay Gap in New Zealand Report Commissioned by the Ministry for Women. NZ Work Research Institute, Auckland
University of Technology and University of Waikato, available at: https://workresearch.aut.ac.
nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/67277/Empirical-evidence-of-GPG-in-NZ-Mar2017_0.pdf (accessed
8 February 2019).
World Economic Forum (2018), The Global Gender Gap Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva,
available at: weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf (accessed 4 February 2019).
Further reading
Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M. and Janssen, M. (2017), “HRM and innovative work behaviour: a
systematic literature review”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46, pp. 1228-1253.
Gilbert, G.R., Burnett, M.F., Phau, I. and Haar, J. (2010), “Does gender matter? A review of work-related
gender commonalities”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 676-699.
Kidder, D. (2002), “The influence of gender on the performance of organisational citizenship
behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pp. 629-648.
Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S. and Lepak, D.P. (2017), “Understanding employees’ perceptions of human
resource practices: effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers and coworkers”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 56, pp. 69-91.
Corresponding author
Fiona Edgar can be contacted at: fiona.edgar@otago.ac.nz
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Gender,
performance
and the AMO
framework