Introduction
During the past few years, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reshaped employee working styles. Both the uncertainty and insecurity generated by this pandemic (e.g., business failures and layoffs) and the changes in work styles (e.g., remote working, maintaining physical distancing, and wearing personal protective equipment) bring employees more strain and less engagement, thus making human resource management (HRM) more challenging (Hamouche, Reference Hamouche2021). High-performance work system (HPWS), as a bundle of HR best practices and policies serving performance (Huselid, Reference Huselid1995), has been an active research topic in the field of HRM throughout the past three decades. One important issue is to explore the effects of HPWS on organizational and individual outcomes (e.g., Han, Sun, & Wang, Reference Han, Sun and Wang2020; Huselid, Reference Huselid1995; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, Reference Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley2000; Sun, Aryee, & Law, Reference Sun, Aryee and Law2007). Although a large amount of evidence indicates positive effects of HPWS, some researchers still warn of its negative effects, particularly on employee work-related state (Godard, Reference Godard2004; Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith, Reference Jensen, Patel and Messersmith2013; Kroon, Reference Kroon2009; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, Reference Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley2000). How to enhance the positive effects of HPWS on employee state has received increased attention in recent years (Han, Sun, & Wang, Reference Han, Sun and Wang2020).
In recent HPWS studies, researchers have focused on the vital role of work engagement between HPWS and performance (e.g., Karatepe & Olugbade, Reference Karatepe and Olugbade2016; Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, Reference Kloutsiniotis and Mihail2017; Luu, Reference Luu2019; Ogbonnaya & Valizade, Reference Ogbonnaya and Valizade2018). Work engagement as a positive work-related state (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá and Bakker2002) is associated with higher performance and lower burnout as well as turnover intentions (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, Reference Knight, Patterson and Dawson2017; Ogbonnaya & Valizade, Reference Ogbonnaya and Valizade2018; Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kamiyama, & Kawakami, Reference Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kamiyama and Kawakami2014). Managers and scholars generally agree that work engagement can benefit both employers and employees (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, Reference Knight, Patterson and Dawson2017; Ogbonnaya & Valizade, Reference Ogbonnaya and Valizade2018; Shimazu et al., Reference Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kamiyama and Kawakami2014). Considering that the aim of HPWS is to increase organizational performance, several studies have pointed out the association of HPWS with higher job strain and burnout (Kroon, Reference Kroon2009; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, Reference Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley2000), which might be negatively related to work engagement. It is necessary to explore the potential explanation mechanism of HPWS leading to work engagement. However, only a handful of studies focus on the relationship between HPWS and work engagement (Alfes, Veld, & Furstenberg, Reference Alfes, Veld and Furstenberg2021; Ang, Bartram, Mcneil, Leggat, & Stanton, Reference Ang, Bartram, Mcneil, Leggat and Stanton2013; Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang, & Mei, Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019; Huang, Ma, & Meng, Reference Huang, Ma and Meng2018; Van De Voorde, Veld, & Van Veldhoven, Reference Van De Voorde, Veld and Van Veldhoven2016).
Against this situation, organizational scholars have recently applied the lens of positive psychology to examine important HRM issues (Luthans, Reference Luthans2002). One of the important issues is to explore the relationship between HPWS and work engagement, especially the explanation mechanism of personal psychological resources (e.g., Huang, Ma, & Meng, Reference Huang, Ma and Meng2018). Perceived internal marketability is defined as the belief that one is valuable to the current employer (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003), which can be regarded as a positive psychological resource for preventing strain reactions and enhancing work motivation (Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk, & Kauffeld, Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020; De Cuyper, Raeder, Van der Heijden, & Wittekind, Reference De Cuyper, Raeder, Van der Heijden and Wittekind2012; Spurk, Kauffeld, Meinecke, & Ebner, Reference Spurk, Kauffeld, Meinecke and Ebner2015). Integrating the job demands-resources (JD-R) model with the positive psychology perspective, HPWS increases the required job resources for maintaining a belief of value in one's current employment (Feng, Li, & Xiong, Reference Feng, Li and Xiong2022), and accompanies high perception of internal marketability, which may ultimately result in work engagement (Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, Reference Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya2018). It is reasonable to assume that HPWS increases the psychological resources of perceived internal marketability, which may lead to work engagement (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). To date, these variables have not been included in empirical tests.
To fill this gap, this paper utilizes a sample of China's manufacturing state-owned enterprise (SOE) employees to examine the relationship between HPWS, employee-perceived internal marketability, and work engagement. We first test the direct relationship between HPWS and work engagement and then explore the mediating mechanism underlying employee-perceived internal marketability. The positive psychology perspectives as well as the JD-R model (Luthans, Reference Luthans2002; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006) offer insights into how HPWS may lead to positive employee outcomes (i.e., work engagement) through personal psychological resources (i.e., perceived internal marketability).
Theory and hypotheses
HPWS and work engagement
HPWS is defined as a bundle of HR best practices and policies, including recruitment, selection, training and development, incentive compensation, and performance management (Huselid, Reference Huselid1995). As a system of HR practices, HPWS is designed to contribute to organizational performance by increasing employees' discretionary effort, which is derived from the stimulation of employee ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, Reference Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg2000). The AMO model explains why HPWS might encourage employees to engage in work. According to the AMO model, HPWS not only enhances employees' KSAOs (i.e., knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics) but also stimulates motivation and offers opportunities to leverage these resources, ultimately leading to high organizational or employee performance (Delery & Roumpi, Reference Delery and Roumpi2017). Therefore, when employees perceive that their KSAOs are enhanced, their effort is valued, and they have the opportunity to participate in work decisions, HPWS can encourage employees to engage in work (Ogbonnaya & Valizade, Reference Ogbonnaya and Valizade2018; Yang, Nawakitphaitoon, Huang, Harney, Gollan, & Xu, Reference Yang, Nawakitphaitoon, Huang, Harney, Gollan and Xu2019).
Work engagement is characterized as a positive work-related state, often manifested by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006; Schaufeli et al., Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá and Bakker2002). To explain why HPWS might be a predictor of work engagement, the AMO model plays a vital role. The assumption of the JD-R model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001) is that any resource and any demand may affect employee work and health (Bakker Arnold & Demerouti, Reference Bakker Arnold and Demerouti2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004; Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). High job demands and poor job or personal resources may exhaust employees' physical and psychological resources and thus lead to burnout and disengagement. Adequate resources, in turn, reduce job demands and promote personal growth and development and may therefore lead to stronger engagement and lower burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004; Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). Prior research has pointed out that HPWS is positively related to job resources and negatively related to job demands (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, Reference Kloutsiniotis and Mihail2020). Thus, when HPWS supplements enough job resources for employees to cope with job demands, HPWS can further foster employees' engagement (Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019; Luu, Reference Luu2019). Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: HPWS is positively related to work engagement.
The mediating role of perceived internal marketability
As mentioned above, HPWS might generate negative effects because it not only provides abundant job resources for employees but also increases job demands (Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, Reference Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley2000; Zhang, Zhu, Dowling, & Bartram, Reference Zhang, Zhu, Dowling and Bartram2013). In view of this, past research on HPWS and engagement has mainly focused on the mediating mechanism and utilized the JD-R model to explain (Han, Sun, & Wang, Reference Han, Sun and Wang2020). According to the JD-R model, rich and adequate resources can reduce job demands, thereby promoting work engagement (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, Reference Knight, Patterson and Dawson2017; Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004). Some job or personal resources are considered as explanation mechanisms for this relationship, such as organizational justice, HR attributions (Alfes, Veld, & Furstenberg, Reference Alfes, Veld and Furstenberg2021), and employee resilience (Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019). It is understood that perceived internal marketability has not been used as an explanatory mechanism until now. In fact, perceived internal marketability is a kind of personal resource (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020), to which HPWS has been positively related in a recent study (Feng, Li, & Xiong, Reference Feng, Li and Xiong2022).
Perceived internal marketability is a vital indicator of career success, career mobility, and career sustainability (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020; De Vos, De Hauw, & Van der Heijden, Reference De Vos, De Hauw and Van der Heijden2011; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003), which describes an employee's belief that he or she is valuable to the present employer (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003). Perceived internal marketability is viewed as both a positive psychological resource and a motivational resource that is required to maintain continuity and bring higher in a particular organization (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020; De Vos, De Hauw, & Van der Heijden, Reference De Vos, De Hauw and Van der Heijden2011). Increasing perceived internal marketability is beneficial for both organizations and individuals. According to the motivational process within the JD-R model, many resources offered by the workplace satisfy employees' basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and foster employees' willingness to dedicate their efforts and abilities to the work task (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003; Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). Perceived internal marketability can be regarded as a motivational resource that plays an intrinsic motivational role in satisfying basic human needs for autonomy and competence (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014).
Moreover, HPWS increases some job resources that are required for maintaining a belief of value in one's current employment. Specifically, the training, development, and decision-making participation opportunities provided by HPWS might be transposed into employees' ability and motivation, increasing their added value to their current employer. Thus, HPWS promotes motivation, which is needed for employees' belief in their current employment. Therefore, we expect that HPWS may positively impact perceived internal marketability.
Hypothesis 2: HPWS is positively related to perceived internal marketability.
In general, personal achievement, as an important psychological need, may stimulate an employee's work motivation (Richard, Reference Richard2013). ‘People will engage in work they find attractive (leading to favorable consequences) and achievable’ (Richard, Reference Richard2013, p. 319). When employees believe that they can exert their own value for the current employer and achieve the desired achievement, they will be more engaged in work. Within the JD-R model, fulfilling positive personal resources may stimulate a positive work-related state of mind by reducing strain and satisfying the need for achievement (Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004; Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). Perceived internal marketability as a positive psychological resource for preventing strain reactions (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020; De Cuyper et al., Reference De Cuyper, Raeder, Van der Heijden and Wittekind2012; Spurk et al., Reference Spurk, Kauffeld, Meinecke and Ebner2015) might stimulate a positive work-related state of mind, thereby improving employees' work engagement. Thus, perceived internal marketability may stimulate work engagement.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived internal marketability is positively related to work engagement.
Past research on HPWS and work engagement has referred to job resources, job demands, and personal resources as explanatory mechanisms for this relationship, mainly increasing task-related resources, positive mood, satisfaction, and resilience (e.g., Alfes, Veld, & Furstenberg, Reference Alfes, Veld and Furstenberg2021; Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019; Huang, Ma, & Meng, Reference Huang, Ma and Meng2018; Van De Voorde, Veld, & Van Veldhoven, Reference Van De Voorde, Veld and Van Veldhoven2016). To our knowledge, perceived internal marketability has not yet been used as an explanation mechanism. However, perceived internal marketability can be viewed as work-related self-efficacy beliefs and achievement motivation to make employees engage in work (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003; Spurk et al., Reference Spurk, Kauffeld, Meinecke and Ebner2015), to which HPWS has been positively related in past research (Feng, Li, & Xiong, Reference Feng, Li and Xiong2022).
Building on this, we further reason that HPWS has significant effects on work engagement through perceived internal marketability. Arthur (Reference Arthur1994) indicated that HRM can shape desired employee behaviors and attitudes by forging psychological links between employee and organizational goals. Perceived internal marketability is a psychological resource with a clear direction and purpose, representing employees' professional beliefs and work motivation in a specific organization (Feng, Li, & Xiong, Reference Feng, Li and Xiong2022). Unlike some general personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy and resilience) applicable to various social contexts (Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019; Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2002), perceived internal marketability is contextual (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003). When HPWS focuses on employees' development and provide more opportunities, they may feel valuable for the current employer (i.e., perceived internal marketability), which further promotes their work engagement (Riaz, Reference Riaz2016). Therefore, we hypothesize that employee-perceived internal marketability is a mediator in our model:
Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between HPWS and work engagement is mediated by perceived internal marketability.
Methods
Sample and procedure
The data were collected from a survey conducted in 71 manufacturing SOEs in Chongqing, an economic center of southwest China. There are two reasons to choose this city. First, its state-owned capital volume is the first of 10 provinces in the southwestern region of China. Second, Chongqing is a traditional heavy industry base, and the transformation of the manufacturing industry has attracted much attention. This study focused on manufacturing SOEs, so we combined both purposeful and snowball sampling (Lincoln & Guba, Reference Lincoln and Guba1985) through these firms' senior HR managers to recruit participating SOEs.
Both employees (560) and senior HR managers (85) of manufacturing SOEs were invited to take part in the survey. All invited participants received a questionnaire and were informed that the study was anonymous and that participation was voluntary. The survey data were gathered at the end of 2019. In total, 288 employees and 71 senior HR managers returned questionnaires. For employees, the response rate was 51%, and for HR managers, the response rate was 84%.
Of the respondents, 45.4% were male, and 54.6% were female. The distribution of age was mainly in two periods, from 26 to 30 years old (31.8%) and from 31 to 40 years old (46.8%). Only 5.6% of the respondents ranged from 18 to 25 years old, and 1.4% were over 51 years old. The main qualification was a bachelor's degree (58.3%); 11.8% had obtained a college degree, and 30% held a master's degree. In terms of their tenure, the distribution mainly ranged from 5 to 10 years (30.9%) and over 10 years (38.2%), 1.05% were between 3 and 5 years, 12.0% were between 1 and 3 years, and only 3.9% were less than 1 year. Of these firms, 14.1% had existed for less than 5 years, only 8.5% between 10 and 20 years, 31.0% between 10 and 20 years, and 46.5% more than 20 years. In terms of firm size, 15.5% had fewer than 100 employees, 12.7% had between 100 and 300 employees, 14.1% had between 300 and 500 employees, only 9.9% had between 500 and 1,000 employees, and 47.9% had more than 1,000 employees.
Measures
Some variables in our study were constructed in English, but the questionnaires were in Chinese. All scale items in English were translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English by two bilingual (English–Chinese) speakers independently to obtain equivalent meanings (Triandis & Brislin, Reference Triandis and Brislin1984). In the present study, firm-level variable (i.e., HPWS) was filled out by senior HR managers, and employee-level variables (i.e., work engagement and perceived internal marketability) were filled out by employees. HPWS was measured at the firm level because its HRM policies and practices are crucial determinants of employees' continuous development or engagement within the organization (Feldman & Ng, Reference Feldman and Ng2007). Moreover, multilevel (both organization and individual) studies can better understand the relationship between organizational contexts and individual work-related states (Forrier, De Cuyper, & Akkermans, Reference Forrier, De Cuyper and Akkermans2018). We measured these items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Firm-level measures
HPWS were measured with 28 items from the work of Su (Reference Su2010). This scale was developed in the Chinese context and is a ‘hybrid system’ consisting of both commitment and control HR practices (Su & Wright, Reference Su and Wright2012). In this paper, the final scale was shortened from eight dimensions to five (i.e., extensive training, employee competition and discipline management, strict selection, performance appraisal, and competitive mobility and promotion). The dimension of information sharing was merged into strict selection, and three dimensions, namely, compensation, the internal labor market, and employee participation, were merged into a new dimension (competitive mobility and promotion). The Cronbach's α of this measure was .942.
Employee-level measures
Work engagement was measured using a three-dimensional scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá and Bakker2002) and Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006), which consists of nine items measuring vigor (e.g., ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’), dedication (e.g., ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’), and absorption (e.g., ‘I am immersed in my work’) at work. The Cronbach's α of this measure was .946, ICC (1) = .569.
Perceived internal marketability was measured by using Eby, Butts, and Lockwood (Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003) with a three-item scale. The items were ‘My company views me as an asset to the organization’, ‘Given my skills and experience, the company that I work for views me as a value-added resource’, and ‘There are many opportunities available for me in my company’. The Cronbach's α for the sum score was .858, ICC (1) = .477.
Based on prior research (e.g., Sun, Aryee, & Law, Reference Sun, Aryee and Law2007), we included firm age (the number of years since the founding year) and size (the log of the number of full-time employees) as control variables at the firm level. We controlled for age, gender, education, and tenure at the employee level because employee characteristics are associated with employee marketability (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003).
Statistical analysis
Given that perceived internal marketability and work engagement were captured at the employee (within-group) level and that HPWS was measured at the firm (between-group) level, our hypotheses were analyzed by multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) using Mplus 7.4. Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (Reference Preacher, Zyphur and Zhang2010) pointed out that the use of MSEM is a comprehensive system for examining mediation effects in multilevel data because it can separately estimate between-group and within-group relationships (Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, Reference Preacher, Zhang and Zyphur2011). In the MSEM, the multilevel relationships can be estimated according to the theoretical model (Hofmann, Reference Hofmann1997). Thus, we test our hypotheses using MSEM based on theoretical choices.
Results
Construct validity
In view of nested data, a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) using Mplus 7.4 was conducted to test construct distinctiveness. We adopted item-parceling procedures to reduce the number of observation indicators to a more adequate level (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, Reference Little, Cunningham, Shahar and Widaman2002). We compare the fit of the two-factor model (including perceived internal marketability and work engagement) with a one-factor model combining all variables. The MCFA results indicated that the fit of the proposed two-factor model (CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR-within = .04, SRMR-between = .04) was better than that of the one-factor model (CFI = .88, TLI = .79, RMSEA = .16, SRMR-within = .08, SRMR-between = .18). Therefore, the distinctiveness of the variables in this study was supported.
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, correlations, and intercorrelations among the measures are presented in Table 1. The correlations of the study variables were consistent with our expectations. Regarding our controls, only age was significantly correlated with work engagement (.12, p < .05). The result of the mediation model within Mplus did not differ with or without the inclusion of controls. Thus, we decided to report the results of the model without controls (Spector & Brannick, Reference Spector and Brannick2010).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among the measures
HPWS, high-performance work systems.
Gender coded ‘1’ male, ‘2’ female.
*p < .05; **p < .01, two-tailed.
Hypothesis testing
Prior to testing the hypothesized model, we needed to determine whether a multilevel analysis was necessary. We built a null model to estimate the ICC (1) (Stephen & Anthony, Reference Stephen and Anthony2002) of the dependent variables at the between-level. As noted above, the ICC (1) for perceived internal marketability and work engagement were all above .059. There were significant differences at the between level for the above two variables. Thus, we confirmed that a multilevel analysis was necessary.
The results of the multivariate relationships proposed in our model are presented in Table 2. Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that the between-level HPWS is positively related to the within-level work engagement and perceived internal marketability. The results in models 1 and 2 showed that HPWS was significantly related to perceived internal marketability (.66, p < .01) and work engagement (.59, p < .01) at the between-level. Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.
Table 2. Results of the multilevel path analysis and Monte Carlo bootstrapping
Note. Standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05; **p < .01, two-tailed.
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between perceived internal marketability and work engagement. The result in model 3 revealed that perceived internal marketability is significantly related to work engagement (.69, p < .01) at the within-level, which is in line with hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 posited that the within-level perceived internal marketability mediates the relationship between the between-level HPWS and the within-level work engagement. The result in model 4 showed that HPWS has a significant effect on perceived internal marketability (.49, p < .05), and when perceived internal marketability is considered, HPWS has no direct effect on work engagement (.25, p > .05). To cross verify the findings, we also applied the Monte Carlo bootstrapping approach (Mackinnon et al., Reference MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams2004) and used R version 3.6.1 to bootstrap 20,000 estimations of the indirect effect. The results reveal a full mediation of perceived internal marketability (.29, p > .05, 95% CI [.00, .68]) between HPWS and work engagement because zero was not included in the confidence interval. Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported.
Additional analyses
In addition to the above results, this study further assessed the indirect effect of the between-level HPWS on within-level work engagement via within-level perceived external marketability to better understand the whole mediating influence of marketability (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020). Perceived external marketability refers to another marketability type, which is viewed as the belief that one is valuable to other employers (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003).
First, we measured perceived external marketability based on the three-item scale developed by Eby, Butts, and Lockwood (Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003). The items were ‘I could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer’, ‘There are many jobs available for me given my skills and experience’, and ‘Given my skills and experience, other organizations view finding me as a value-added resource’. The Cronbach's α for the sum score was .84, ICC (1) = .23.
Second, we tested the mediating role of within-level perceived external marketability in the relationship between the between-level HPWS and within-level work engagement. Because the ICC (1) for perceived external marketability was above .059, it was necessary to employ a multilevel analysis. The results showed that the HPWS was significantly related to perceived external marketability (.38, p < .05) at the between-level and that perceived external marketability was significantly related to work engagement (.18, p < .01) at the within-level. However, when perceived external marketability was considered, the direct effect of HPWS on work engagement was significant but decreased (.41, p < .01), and there was no significant effect for within-level perceived external marketability as the mediator for the relation between HPWS and work engagement (.11, p > .05, 95% Monte Carlo bootstrap CI [−.02, .31]). Perceived external marketability could help to provide answers to questions that not all sense of value, such as high perceived external marketability, is useful for the effect of HPWS on work engagement.
Discussion and conclusion
By examining the proposed relationships in the context of China's manufacturing industry, this paper built and tested a model to demonstrate the mediating role of employee-perceived internal marketability in the relationship between HPWS and employee work engagement. Overall, the results of our empirical analyses provide support for the hypothesized model. This study found a positive relationship between HPWS and work engagement, which was in line with mainstream HPWS research (Alfes, Veld, & Furstenberg, Reference Alfes, Veld and Furstenberg2021; Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, Reference Combs, Liu, Hall and Ketchen2006; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhu, Dowling and Bartram2013). Moreover, our findings revealed that employee-perceived internal marketability plays a vital role that fully mediates the relationship between HPWS and work engagement. In addition to the expected relationships in the multilevel model, the additional analyses about the mediating role of employee-perceived external marketability revealed an interesting finding. That is, although the direct effect of HPWS on perceived external marketability and perceived external marketability on work engagement is significant, perceived external marketability has no mediation effect on the relationship between HPWS and work engagement. This finding enhances our understanding of the explanation mechanism of personal psychological resources between HRM and employee outcomes (Luthans, Reference Luthans2002; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006).
Theoretical implications
In summary, our findings make a number of contributions to the HPWS literature. First, integrating the positive psychology perspectives with the JD-R model, this empirical work adds evidence that HPWS and employee-perceived internal and external marketability are important antecedents of work engagement. According to the motivational process within the JD-R model, job and personal resources have motivational potential and may lead to work engagement (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). Our study has identified that both HPWS as extrinsic motivation and employees' perceived marketability as intrinsic motivation have motivational potential and therefore lead to work engagement. Moreover, this study also finds that the positive effect of HPWS on employees' perceived internal marketability is greater than that on their perceived external marketability. We considered that HPWS as a specific resource could meet employees' higher-order needs, such as domain-relevant skill upgrading and career development within an organization (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, Reference Liu, Gong, Zhou and Huang2017), which are more related to employees' organizational career beliefs and sense of achievement, such as their perceived internal marketability (De Vos, De Hauw, & Van der Heijden, Reference De Vos, De Hauw and Van der Heijden2011). This is an important finding because few studies have taken HRM as a job resource (Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019).
Second, this study contributes to research on HPWS effectiveness by treating perceived internal marketability as a vital mediator in the HPWS–employee outcome chain. Based on the JD-R model, perceived internal marketability is a positive psychological resource and achievement motivation that can be stimulated by organizational support and development and can further lead to positive employee outcomes. The result suggests that employee-perceived internal marketability can be developed and enhanced by the effective HPWS (Feng, Li, & Xiong, Reference Feng, Li and Xiong2022) and can further bring higher engagement (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020). This expands our understanding of the relationship between HPWS and employee outcomes, that is, perceived internal marketability could be interpreted as one of the central personal resources to promote the positive effects of HPWS.
Third, our additional analysis shows that the mediating effects of perceived internal and external marketability are significantly different. As Schaufeli and Taris (Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014) pointed out, although personal resources play a role in the work environment, how they play a role is as yet unclear. To better understand the whole explanation mechanism of employee-perceived marketability, this study provides a supplementary analysis of perceived external marketability, in which the mediating role of perceived external marketability is not significant. With perceived external marketability, one explanation might be that compared to internal marketability, it is not an organization-oriented resource but a kind of personal resource facing the whole labor market. Employees with higher external marketability are willing to invest more personal resources to improve meta-competency, such as non-specific skills and work experience, which is more valuable for future employers (De Vos, De Hauw, & Van der Heijden, Reference De Vos, De Hauw and Van der Heijden2011; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, Reference Eby, Butts and Lockwood2003; Haines, Hamouche, & Saba, Reference Haines, Hamouche and Saba2014). We can deduct from our study that HPWS might also stimulate employee-perceived external marketability and thereby lead to higher voluntary turnover.
Practical implications
Our findings have some valuable practical implications. First, the results suggest that, in the general case, HPWS will not reach a level that may have a negative impact. Considering that HPWS increases employees' perceived marketability and their work engagement, HR managers may pay attention to employee positive psychology during the HPWS implementation process and conduct surveys to measure employees' engagement and burnout to understand their psychological states. Although previous research has already highlighted the negative effects of HPWS on employee outcomes (Han, Sun, & Wang, Reference Han, Sun and Wang2020), this study lends support to the mainstream HPWS literature in which HPWS leads to positive employee outcomes, such as work engagement (Alfes, Veld, & Furstenberg, Reference Alfes, Veld and Furstenberg2021; Cooke et al., Reference Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang and Mei2019; Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, Reference Kloutsiniotis and Mihail2020).
Second, the mediating role of employee-perceived internal marketability highlights that HR managers can effectively intervene in the impact of HPWS on work engagement by improving employees' organization-oriented career belief. Our study is conducive to identifying development training needs or other HRM tools that help improve employees' organizational productivity, domain-relevant knowledge and skills, and well-being. Fostering employees' organization-oriented career beliefs is crucial to reduce job strain and increase engagement and thus enhance organizational competitiveness in the COVID-19 era. By establishing the links between particular types of HPWS practices and employees' perceived internal marketability, we are able to provide guidance for organizational HRM and employees' career development to build a healthy organization.
Finally, the results of our additional analyses suggest that employees' perceived external marketability will reduce the direct effect of HPWS on their work engagement. Managers should be aware of the importance of fostering employees' organization-oriented psychological resources in the process of implementing HPWS. More specifically, HR managers may conduct employee surveys to measure employees' perceived marketability and identify training programs or other HR interventions to enhance their career belief within the organization. HR managers may also conduct surveys to assess the effectiveness of their HPWS, with a particular focus on training and development to assess the gap between HPWS and employee expectations and to align HPWS with employee career belief and work engagement to achieve higher performance and employee well-being.
Limitations and directions for future research
This study has some potential limitations. A first limitation is that all the variables were measured simultaneously, which is not conducive to causal inferences. It is important for future studies to adopt longitudinal designs with at least three measurement points that establish causality (Chan, Reference Chan1998; Ployhart & Vandenberg, Reference Ployhart and Vandenberg2009).
A second limitation is the possibility of common method bias. The use of informant-reported measures to collect data might inflate the correlations among the variables. We evaluate HPWS and employees' perceived marketability as well as work engagement from different sources to minimize this problem (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). Our results demonstrate that method variance was unlikely to be a significant problem in the present analysis. Nevertheless, future research should collect measurements from multiple sources at multiple times to provide more rigorous empirical work on the relationship among HPWS, employee-perceived marketability, and work engagement.
A third limitation is that the indirect effect of employee-perceived marketability should be extended in future research. We chose perceived internal marketability because we believe it is a central personal career resource (Barthauer et al., Reference Barthauer, Kaucher, Spurk and Kauffeld2020) and plays an intrinsic motivational role in satisfying basic human needs (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). However, the lack of a significant indirect effect of perceived external marketability reminds us how personal resources play a role in the workplace is as yet unclear (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014). Moreover, HRM scholars argue that both demands and resources produced by HPWS should be considered simultaneously in a single model (Han, Sun, & Wang, Reference Han, Sun and Wang2020). To better understand the effect of HPWS on work engagement, we suggest integrating multiple job demands (e.g., performance demands, work pressures, and job insecurity), job resources (e.g., performance feedback, job challenge, and safety climate), and personal resources (e.g., intrinsic motivation, need satisfaction, and career belief) in future research (Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014).
Data
The data sets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Initial Scientific Research Fund for High-Level Talents of Chongqing Technology and Business University (2155006).
Conflict of interest
The author declares none.
Research involving human participants
Prior ethical approval was granted from the academic committee, Chongqing Technology and Business University, China, to pursue this study from the institution where the researcher was registered.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Xue-Yuan Xiong is a lecturer at the School of Business Administration, Chongqing Technology and Business University. He earned his PhD from Chongqing University. His research interests focus on institution and organization, strategic human resource management, and career development.
