Systematic Agreement Theory

Systematic Agreement Theory

•Organizational ethical climates (Victor & Cullen, 1988), cited in Guerci, Radaelli, Siletti, Cirella and Rami Shani (2015), deal with common perceptions of what good behaviours, feelings and attitudes are within an organisation. According to this theory, the organizational climate can be selfish (the personal interest of employees guides their behavior), benevolent (the well-being of others directing the behavior of employees) or faithful to principles (the behavior of employees is directed either by informal or formal norms and rules) (Guerci et al., 2015). Therefore, the organizational climate can strongly influence HRM`s activities by influencing staff engagement and satisfaction. (“amo framework” OR “amo model” OR “amo theory”) (“HRM” OR “man”) (Bailey) Theory of Social Exchange (Bleu, 1964) cited in (Boselie, 2010); Demortier et al., 2014; Kroon et al., 2013), highlights the relationship between the organization and its employees as an exchange of mutual investments. This theory indicates that subjective perceptions of the costs and benefits of maintaining this relationship may influence employee performance (Choi, 2014). Einsenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986), cited in (Choi, 2014); Knies & Leisink, 2014) expanded this theory by explaining that these perceptions could be influenced by workplace practices and guidelines, which can improve employees` sense of compensating the organization with appropriate behavior. The concept of explaining these subjective perceptions (which in turn explains employees` commitment to an organization) is organizational support (SOP) (Knies & Leisink, 2014). Successful work practices should send positive messages to employees and increase their willingness to provide better services in their work (Boselie, 2010; Godard, 2000). These positive messages are also called signals (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004); Ehrnrooth &Björkman, 2012), which indicate that HRM systems send messages to employees who, in turn, direct their efforts towards the company`s goals. In fact, the availability of perceived flexibility practices will improve staff motivation and performance. The reason for this is that they will see positive signals from an organization that takes care of their work-life balance (Bal & De Lange, 2015). The scientists examined the AMO framework from three different angles: multiplicative, summary, and combined. In the meantime, they did not agree on which of these perspectives best explains the interaction between the dimensions of ability, motivation and opportunity.

In fact, it is possible that AMO dimensions combine differently depending on the level of analysis (Kim et al., 2015). In addition, some authors argue that the exact relationship between the three dimensions of AMO is unknown so far (Knies & Leisink, 2014). Similarly, other authors point out that either the model has never been fully empirically tested, or the three dimensions have been independently empirically validated (Demortier et al., 2014). Opportunity can be defined as a set of circumstances that allow something to be done. The opportunity for staff to participate has several dimensions, such as participation in the decision-making process, knowledge exchange, horizontal communication and enrichment of the workplace (Schimansky, 2014). Organizations that are willing to encourage participation should provide the means to improve these dimensions by reducing the distance between staff and management. In other words, in this context, the possibility is linked to the involvement of staff in the decision-making process (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Therefore, companies need to provide opportunities for dialogue beyond organizational hierarchies and create systems for knowledge collection and exchange within the organization (Minbaeva, 2013); Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts & Kleiner, 1995). In addition, the decision-making process should be decentralized and, as a result, staff will enjoy greater autonomy in the performance of their tasks (Marín-García & De Miguel, 2001; Sarikwal & Gupta, 2013). .

. .