See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359211685

Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral

Voice: Based on the Self-determination Theory

Article in Journal of Business Ethics · March 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05082-5

CITATIONS READS

11 1,265

3 authors, including:

Hongdan Zhao Yuanhua Chen

Shanghai University Shanghai University
41 PUBLICATIONS 1,934 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hongdan Zhao on 23 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Business Ethics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05082-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee

Moral Voice: Based on the Self‑determination Theory
Hongdan Zhao1 · Yuanhua Chen1 · Weiwei Liu1

Received: 12 November 2020 / Accepted: 22 February 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
Behind the frequent occurrence of business scandals, it is often the silence and connivance of organizational immorality.
Moral voice, a kind of employee active moral behavior, inhibits and prevents the organizational unethical phenomenon.
Some researchers have sought to explore how to arouse employee moral voice. However, the limited studies mainly inves-
tigated the antecedents of leadership styles, ignoring the impact of the organizational factor on moral voice. Based on the
self-determination theory, the current study constructs a theoretical model about how socially responsible human resource
management (SRHRM) affects employee moral voice via autonomous motivation and controlled motivation and further
considering the moderating role of person–organization value fit. From a two-stage research method and the analysis of 260
valid data, we found that SRHRM promoted employee moral voice and this positive linkage was mediated by autonomous
motivation but not by controlled motivation. Besides, the findings also revealed that person–organization fit moderated the
indirect influences of SRHRM on moral voice via autonomous motivation, such that the indirect influence was stronger
for a high level of person–organization value fit than the low level of person–organization value fit. Some theoretical and
practical implications also be discussed.

Keywords SRHRM · Autonomous motivation · Controlled motivation · Person–organization value fit · Moral voice

Introduction organizations (Bonner et al., 2017). However, Huang and

Paterson (2017) found that some employees make different
The frequent occurrence of business scandals such as IKEA choices when facing the ethical issues in the team. These
“death cabinet” not only bring huge harm to the organization employers inform their leaders of the existing ethical issues
and society but also raise public doubts about the organi- in the team and the moral hazards that may result from these
zational business ethics and cause a social crisis of trust. ethical issues. In addition, this type of behavior of employees
How to reduce unethical phenomena in the organization is not only a team phenomenon but also a spontaneous moral
has become a common problem in both the practical and behavior of individuals in the organization. Lee et al. (2017)
theoretical circles (Lawrence & Kacmar, 2016). Researchers defined this kind of special active ethical behavior as ethical
found that employees may choose to ignore or keep silent voice, that is, employees discuss and make suggestions on
when facing with organizational unethical behavior, and thus unethical behavior in the workplace. As a new concept in the
unethical behavior has become a common phenomenon in field of voice, moral voice is also the application of voice in
the field of morality. Although employees who make ethical
voice may be retaliated by goals of moral voice (Morrison,
* Yuanhua Chen
[email protected] 2011), this behavior helps to discover unethical problems in
the organization and prevents organizational crises caused
Hongdan Zhao
[email protected] by unethical behavior (Zheng et al., 2019). Therefore, schol-
ars start to emphasize and explore how to motivate employee
Weiwei Liu
[email protected] moral voice in the workplace.
Although researchers have paid attention to the moral
1
School of Management, Shanghai University, voice, empirical literature on this topic is relatively lim-
No. 99 Shangda Road, Shanghai 200444, ited. Existing research mainly explores the antecedents of
People’s Republic of China

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 H. Zhao et al.

moral voice from the perspective of leadership styles, such environments (Ryan & Deci, 2000), motivation is an impor-
as ethical leadership and authoritarian leadership (Afsar & tant psychological mechanism to explain how organizations
Shahjehan, 2018; Huang & Paterson, 2017; Lee et al., 2017; influence individual behavior (Han et al., 2019; Wallace
Zheng et al., 2019), ignoring the influence of organizational et al., 2013). Additionally, the different type of HRM can
environmental factors. A lot of research has confirmed affect employee work motivation and further induce their
that human resource management (HRM) practices are the corresponding reactions (Jiang et al., 2012; Pak et al., 2019).
important organizational factor that affects employee attitude Zhang et al. (2015) also found the important role of motiva-
and behavior performance (Lee et al., 2019; Si & Li, 2012). tion in the relationship between HRM practices and positive
Besides, different orientations of HRM practices can stimu- behavior. SRHRM is employee-centered HRM practices,
late employee corresponding behavioral tendencies (Boon & which can satisfy their basic psychological need. In addi-
Kalshoven, 2014; Dumont et al., 2017; Saeed et al., 2019). tion, SRHRM incorporates employee social performance
In addition, the ethical environment in the organization into promotion and performance appraisal, and improves
changes employee attitudes towards ethical issues through the attractiveness of employees to implement social respon-
organizational commitments (Valentine et al., 2002). Ruiz- sibility. Employees will be aroused autonomous motivation
Palomo et al. (2020) pointed out that organizations adopting after the satisfaction of basic needs and the reward appeal
empowerment strategies can stimulate employee satisfac- can inspire controlled motivation of employees (Broeck
tion and improve their organizational commitment, while et al., 2016). Prior studies showed that ability‐motivation‐
employees with high organizational commitment are more opportunity (AMO) theory (e.g. motivation) and social
likely to ignore risks and adopt voice (Lapointe & Vanden- exchange theory (e.g. reciprocal obligation) were usually
berghe, 2018; Si & Li, 2012). Thus, it can be inferred that used to explain the relationship between HRM and employee
the HRM practice with moral nature may be more likely to behavior. However, since moral voice behavior is a risky
motivate employees to perform moral behavior. prosocial behavior, from both internal and external perspec-
Shen and Zhu (2011) integrated the field of HRM and tives to explore the effect of SRHRM on moral voice will
social responsibility and proposed a new HRM practice, be more comprehensive and balanced. Self-determination
i.e. socially responsible human resource management theory points out that the external environment individu-
(SRHRM). SRHRM pays attention to the interests of internal als lived in can activate and maintain their work motivation
and external, and realizes the combination of corporate and and then affect their actions (Deci & Ryan, 2008). There-
social performance. As an effective measure for organiza- fore, beyond the previous theoretical perspective, we select
tions to create shared value (Fernández-Gámez et al., 2020; self-determination theory to explain the SRHRM and moral
Porter & Kramer, 2011), SRHRM can improve organi- voice linkage.
zational performance and reputation, increase employee Moreover, self-determination theory claims that individ-
work engagement (Men, 2012), and help organizations ual factors will impact employee motivation (Deci & Ryan,
implement corporate social responsibility (CSR). Moreo- 1985), and different values affect the shaping process of
ver, SRHRM can meet the autonomy needs of employees, employee motivation in the face of specific organization situ-
empower employees, and encourage them to participate in ations (Graves & Sarkis, 2018). Previous studies have shown
decision-making. It also affects organizational commitment that value consistency between organization and employee
of employees and motivates their initiative behavior (Raub can further improve employee understanding and cognition
& Robert, 2012; Ruiz-Palomo et al., 2020). Winstanley and of organizational situations (Afsar & Shahjehan, 2018; Hal-
Woodall (2000) indicated that HRM policy and practice have busi et al., 2021). Some researchers proposed that employees
a certain moral basis and CSR can also improve the moral would be more likely to excite their work motivation when
sensitivity and moral rationality of the HRM system in the individuals have high level of value consistency with the
organization. Therefore, SRHRM is a new type of HRM organization (Posner, 2010; Saether, 2019). In a word, when
practice with moral nature, we predict that SRHRM may be employees have a high value fit with their organizations,
an important antecedent of moral voice. they can deeply understand the value concept of SRHRM
Through reviewing and combing the relevant literature on and improve their participation, and strengthen the attrac-
SRHRM, we found that previous research mainly explored tion of SRHRM reward to employees, so that SRHRM will
the internal mechanism of SRHRM to promote employee stimulate employee moral voice motivation. Therefore, we
initiative behavior from the cognitive perspective, such proposed that the person–organization value fit may be an
as organizational identity and organizational commitment important moderator influencing the relationship between
(Newman et al., 2016; Shen & Benson, 2016), ignoring the SRHRM and employee work motivation.
role of the subjective attitude of employee motivation in how This study makes several contributions. First, this study
to arouse employee initiative behavior. As an important fac- focuses on the moral attribution of SRHRM and explores the
tor influencing the individual response behavior in social effect mechanism of SRHRM on employee moral behavior

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

(moral voice) for the first time. Accordingly, this study not flexible working hours. SRHRM also encourages employ-
only enriches the impact factors of moral voice but also ees to participate in various general CSR activities to help
responds to the call of Abdelmotaleb and Saha (2019) to achieve organizational CSR goals, such as setting up “public
focus on the application of SRHRM in the field of ethics. welfare”. Through many practical activities of SRHRM, on
Second, based on self-determination theory, our study con- the one hand, the organization improves its HRM system
structs a theoretical model of SRHRM impact employee by using CSR concept, on the other hand, it promotes the
moral voice through the mediating role of autonomous moti- implementation of CSR in the organization by employees.
vation and controlled motivation. We thus provide a new Previous studies have confirmed that leaders encouraged
theoretical eye for scholars to explore the impact of SRHRM employees to have more moral voice though improving
on employees. Third, we choose person and organization moral efficacy of employees (Lee et al., 2017) and reduc-
value fit as the boundary condition between SRHRM and ing employees’ uncertain feeling (Zheng et al., 2019).
employee moral voice. This not only expands the moderat- Compared with the long-term stable influencing factors
ing factors of SRHRM but also verified the view of Gilal such as leadership styles, our study focuses on the impact
et al. (2019) that pays attention to the moderating effect of of HRM practices that are easier to operate and guide flex-
employee values on the relationship between SRHRM and ibly on employee moral voice (Sourchi & Jianqiao, 2015).
employee behavior. Moreover, Hu and Jiang (2016) proposed that employee-
oriented HRM was an important inducement factor to
arouse employee more voice behavior. As a new HRM
Theory and Hypotheses practice integrating social responsibility and ethics (Win-
stanley & Woodall, 2000), SRHRM is more likely to prompt
SRHRM and Moral Voice employee moral behavior than other HRM practices. Past
studies argued that SRHRM urged employees to perform
Voice is an employee reaction to organizational dissatisfac- more organizational citizenship behavior and improved
tion (Hanson, 1970), and it also is an initiative behavior of their support for external CSR through a series of practical
employees to put forward suggestions and beneficial ideas to activities (Shao et al., 2019b; Shen & Zhang, 2019; Zhao &
improve organizational effectiveness (LePine & Dyne, 1998; Zhou, 2021). It can be informed that SRHRM will encour-
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Moral voice is the application age employees to safeguard the interest of other stakeholders
of voice in the field of morality, Lee et al. (2017) defined it and motivate them to perform initiative behaviors such as
as an individual loudly pointing out the unethical phenom- moral voice.
ena in the workplace. Moral voice can even eliminate uneth- SRHRM not only integrates CSR into recruitment, pro-
ical behavior and prevent the crisis brought by unethical motion, assessment, training, and other aspects, but also
phenomena to the organization (Zheng et al., 2019). Moreo- encourages employees to participate in social responsibility
ver, some researchers proposed that moral voice improves activities such as charity (Abdelmotaleb & Saha, 2019; Shen
organizational ethical performance, encourages employees & Benson, 2016). On the one hand, SRHRM recruits and
to think about the ethics of their behaviors, and then reduces retains employees with a strong sense of CSR (Shen & Zhu,
unethical phenomena in the organization (Huang & Pater- 2011). These employees pay more attention to organizational
son, 2017). It follows that moral voice is beneficial for the morality and are willing to participate in environmental
organization, but this voice often carries risks. The employee protection and other moral behaviors (De Roeck & Farooq,
who proposed moral voice may be jealous and rejected by 2017; Tian & Robertson, 2017). Furthermore, enterprises
colleagues, and they are also easy to be resisted or even implementing SRHRM attach importance to raise employee
retaliated by goals of moral voice (Morrison, 2011). sense of CSR, provide CSR training for employees (Shen
SRHRM is a new type of HRM proposed by Shen and & Benson, 2016), improve their empathy, and thus further
Zhu (2011), and it refers to a series of HRM practices that shape their moral value (Shao et al., 2019a). When employ-
aim to promote the implementation of CSR policies and tar- ees face unethical behavior in the organization, their own
get the implementation of employee policies while affecting CSR awareness will urge them to tend to implement moral
the behavior and attitude of employees (Shen & Benson, voice for safeguarding the interests of the organization and
2016; Zhao et al., 2021). Shen and Benson (2016) regarded external stakeholders. On the other hand, SRHRM pays
the policy and practice of CSR for employees as SRHRM, attention to social performance in promotion and assess-
that is, organizations that implement SRHRM integrate CSR ment, thus incorporating ethics into the organizational sys-
into HRM functions. For example, the social responsibility tem. Employee perception of organizational ethics from
consciousness of employees is measured during recruitment. SRHRM practices will help employees make clear the atti-
In addition, SRHRM provides employees with better ben- tude of the organization towards unethical behavior (Abdel-
efits and working environment (Shen & Zhu, 2011), such as motaleb & Saha, 2019). What’s more, SRHRM forms a good

13
 H. Zhao et al.

CSR atmosphere within the organization (Shen & Zhang, employee awareness of social responsibility and improve
2019), which can help to reduce the risk of employee moral their empathy with external stakeholders. As the application
voice, and then promote employees to express suggestions of voice in the field of ethics, moral voice is also a kind of
for the organizational immoral phenomenon. Therefore, we employee organizational citizenship behavior (Klotz et al.,
propose the following hypothesis: 2017). As such, we can infer that moral voice will be influ-
enced by autonomous motivation. Furthermore, autonomous
H1: SRHRM positively affects employee moral voice. motivation can arouse employee enthusiasm, and promote
employees to perform behaviors consistent with their own
The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation values and interests in the organization (Chua & Ayoko,
2021). SRHRM tends to recruit and retain employees with
Self-determination theory emphasizes the interaction social responsibility awareness (Shen & Zhu, 2011), and
between individual and social environment, and it is an these employees pay attention to the interests of external
important mechanism to explain the occurrence of employee stakeholders and have certain moral values. Accordingly, in
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Graves et al., 2013). Auton- order to maintain consistency of their behavior and value,
omous motivation is a state in which individuals can act employees will point out and give suggestions to protect the
through self-will and self-choice (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Gagné interests of external stakeholders when they face organiza-
& Deci, 2005), and it can promote individuals to intend to tional unethical phenomenon. In a word, SRHRM promotes
pro-social behaviors and environmental behaviors (Gagné, employee autonomous motivation by satisfying basic psy-
2003; Graves et al., 2013). Self-determination theory further chological needs and shaping organizational ethical climate
proposes that specific factors in the social environment have and then encourages employees to take moral voice. We
effects on the formation of individual autonomous motiva- accordingly propose the following hypothesis:
tions, and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs also
strengthens employee intrinsic motivation, thus affects indi- H2: Autonomous motivation mediates the relationship
vidual work behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Previous stud- between SRHRM and moral voice.
ies have found that HRM practice is an important factor to
meet employee basic psychological needs, and it is also a The Mediating Role of Controlled Motivation
critical organizational situation for individuals to shape their
work motivation (Marescaux et al., 2012; Pak et al., 2019). Self-determination theory claims that behavior is the result
Therefore, we infer that SRHRM may stimulate employee of the interaction of autonomous motivation and controlled
moral voice motivation through satisfying their basic psy- motivation and employee work action is the choice made by
chological needs. SRHRM emphasizes employee-centered, individuals according to their psychological need and organ-
employees will have the perception of organizational support izational situations (Deci & Ryan, 2008). We accordingly
and thus excite their autonomous motivation (Chen & Shaf- suggest that controlled motivation is another motivational
fer, 2017). Furthermore, SRHRM also stresses the training mechanism to explain the relationship between SRHRM and
of employee CSR and encourages the employee to partici- moral voice. Controlled motivation refers to the motivation
pate in general CSR activities (Shen & Zhu, 2011), which of individuals to engage in a certain behavior due to exter-
improves employee CSR skills and makes the employee nal reward or internal psychological pressure. It is initiated
gain praise from external persons. In other words, SRHRM and maintained by external events (such as reward, recogni-
practices can meet employee competence and relatedness tion of others, punishment, fear), and it can further regulate
need, and thus promote employee autonomous motivation employee behaviors (Bavik et al., 2018; Tian et al., 2020).
for moral voice. Gagné and Deci (2005) also declare that In view of this, we propose that SRHRM can stimulate con-
the organizational climate is one of the important factors to trolled motivation of moral voice through external rewards.
affect employee autonomous motivation. SRHRM improves SRHRM integrates employee social performance into the
employee perception of organizational ethics and forms a system of salary, promotion, and performance appraisal, and
CSR organizational climate, which promotes the formation requires employee behavior to comply with legal require-
of autonomous motivation for moral voice. ments (Shen & Benson, 2016; Shen & Zhu, 2011). In other
Motivation is the force to stimulate employee work words, SRHRM provides the bottom line and clear ethical
behavior, and some researchers have found that autono- standards for employee behavior. When employees are faced
mous motivation has a positive effect on employee prosocial with organizational moral problems, they will get the reward
motivation and organizational citizenship behavior, and it and priority promotion opportunities if they take moral
also encourages the employee to participate in environmen- voice. Therefore, SRHRM can promote the controlled moti-
tal protection (Grant, 2008; Grant & Mayer, 2009; Graves vation of moral voice to getting some organizational reward.
et al., 2013). Therefore, autonomous motivation may inspire

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

Controlled motivation can urge employees to perform employee organizational identification (Cable & DeRue,
behaviors meeting organizational requirements to obtain 2002; Cha et al., 2013) and work engagement (Lv & Xu,
rewards or avoid punishment. Furthermore, past studies 2016), and thus helps employees deepen their cognition
have indicated that controlled motivation does not necessar- and understanding of the organizational context of HRM
ily hinder employee initiative behavior, but even promotes practice. Person–organization fit is the source and important
their knowledge sharing, organizational citizenship behavior factor that affects employee autonomous motivation or con-
for environment, and other positive behaviors (Bavik et al., trol motivation (Ren, 2010). Previous research also points
2018; Han et al., 2019). SRHRM considers employee social that person–organization value fit can stimulate employee
performance in promotion and performance appraisal, and autonomous motivation and controlled motivation in the
rewards behaviors beneficial to the organization or other organizational context (Li et al., 2015). In addition, Arvani-
stakeholders. This reward mechanism can induce employee tis and Kalliris (2019) put forward the viewpoint of moral
moral voice in the face of some organizational moral dilem- integrity in their research and found that only moral consist-
mas. Besides, motivation will be a powerful driving force ency can promote the transformation of moral rules in the
for work behavior under the condition that external motiva- organization into motivations for specific moral behaviors.
tion is consistent with individual values and goals (Mitchell When the individual and the organization have consistent
et al., 2020). SRHRM expects to recruit employees with moral values, the relevant ethical policies in the organiza-
social responsibility and improve their empathy (Shao tion can effectively motivate employees to generate ethical
et al., 2019a; Shen & Benson, 2016), and thus its reward behavior motives. Therefore, we predict that person–organi-
mechanism is consistent with employee values, which eas- zation value fit plays a supplementary role in the formation
ily promotes employee moral voice. Furthermore, Miranda of motivation in the influence mechanism of ethical environ-
et al. (2020) assert that the employee will feel guilty if they ment (i.e. SRHRM) on employee moral behavior motivation
ignore the unethical problems in the organization and keep (autonomous motivation and control motivation), and thus
silent. Hence, employees are forced to take the moral voice person–organization value fit may be the boundary condition
behavior for reason that avoiding the psychological pressure for the effect of SRHRM on employee moral voice.
from guilt feeling. Taken together, SRHRM provides behav- Specifically, when the level of person–organization value
ior standards and direction for employees with rewards and fit is high, employees tend to agree with the information
a clear system, and employees also will choose the moral delivered by the organization and improve their understand-
voice for gain reward (i.e. promotion) and avoid psycho- ing and support for SRHRM practices (Boon et al., 2011).
logical pressure (i.e. guilt). Thus, we propose the following Besides, employees will easier form the motivation of moral
hypothesis: voice from the organizational climate. Person–organiza-
tion value fit improves employee organizational identifica-
H3: Controlled motivation mediates the relationship tion and increases their engagement in SRHRM practices
between SRHRM and moral voice. (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Lv & Xu, 2016). Employees will
feel high organizational support and their basic psychologi-
The Moderating Role of Person–Organization Value cal needs are easily satisfied under this condition, SRHRM
Fit thus inspires employee autonomous motivation. Further-
more, employees with a high level of person–organization
Value orientation is an important individual factor influenc- value fit have a better understanding of organizational need
ing the formation of employee motivation (Groot & Steg, (Erdogan, 2005), they are more likely to recognize organi-
2010; Wang & Gagné, 2012). When exploring the psycho- zational rewards and behavioral requirements from SRHRM
logical mechanism of organizational factors (especially system and feel the constraints and guidance of the organi-
HRM) influencing employee behavior, past studies not only zational system on their own behavior, thereby SRHRM
pay attention to the role of individual value orientation but stimulates employee more controlled motivation.
also explore the interaction between person and organiza- In contrast, when the value of employees and the organi-
tions, emphasizing the important effect of person–organiza- zation is inconsistent, employees are difficult to understand
tion value fit (Chen et al., 2016; Halbusi et al., 2021; Ruiz- the concept of SRHRM and they are unwilling to support or
Palomino & Martínez-Cañas, 2013). Scholars have found even take negative responses (Boon et al., 2011). Employees
that person–organization value fit helps to improve employee are also difficult to integrate into the moral climate of the
understanding and awareness of their own environment, organization, and thus they will not express their suggestions
especially in the moral environment (Halbusi et al., 2021). or take moral voice when facing the unethical phenomenon
Person–organization value fit refers to the degree of con- in the organization. Besides, employees whose values are
sistency between individual values and organizational val- mismatched with the values of SRHRM practices are less
ues (Chatman, 1989). Person–organization value fit affects care about social responsibility, and they are rarely attracted

13
 H. Zhao et al.

by rewards for promotion and salary through social perfor- they are easier to meet their needs and clarify the reward and
mance. Consequently, these employees may not form the constrain of SRHRM. Hence, employees are more likely to
motivation of moral voice under the unethical organizational generate moral voice from internal spontaneous and exter-
context. Generally, the high level of person–organization nal guidance. On the contrary, employees whose values are
value fit may strengthen the positive effect of SRHRM on unfit with the organization may tend to passive participate
employee autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. in SRHRM practices and are rarely impact by organizational
We accordingly hypothesize that: climate and reward, and they thus less perform moral voice.
In sum, we propose the following hypotheses:
H4a: Person–organization value fit moderates the positive
relationship between SRHRM and autonomous motivation, H5a: Person–organization value fit moderates the indirect
such that the positive relationship is stronger when employ- effect of SRHRM on moral voice via autonomous motiva-
ees have a high (versus to low) level of person–organization tion, such that the indirect effect is stronger when employ-
value fit. ees have a high (versus to low) level of person–organization
value fit.
H4b: Person–organization value fit moderates the positive
relationship between SRHRM and controlled motivation, H5b: Person–organization value fit moderates the indirect
such that the positive relationship is stronger when employ- effect of SRHRM on moral voice via controlled motivation,
ees have a high (versus to low) level of person–organization such that the indirect effect is stronger when employees have
value fit. a high (versus to low) level of person–organization value fit
(Fig. 1).
As mentioned above, we have suggested that autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation mediate the impact of
SRHRM on moral voice. Besides, we also hypothesize that Research Methods
person–organization value fit and SRHRM may have a joint
effect on employee autonomous and controlled motivation. Sample and Representativeness
Based on the above hypotheses, we infer that person–organi-
zation value fit moderates the indirect impact of SRHRM on The Yangtze River Delta, such as Shanghai, is a rapidly
moral voice via autonomous and controlled motivation. Spe- developing economic region in China. Enterprises in this
cifically, employees with a high level of person–organization region have been exposed to foreign business models
value fit recognize SRHRM and understand its requirements, earlier, and emerging business concepts and CSR have

Fig. 1  Research model

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

developed relatively quickly. In addition, in the context evaluated the employee autonomous motivation, control
of China, state-owned enterprises pay more attention to motivation and moral voice.
CSR than private enterprises and foreign-funded enter- After the second phase of the survey, a total of 295 ques-
prises (Córdoba‐Pachón et al. 2014). The electronic infor- tionnaires were returned. We finally obtained a total of 260
mation and real estate industries have clear CSR stand- valid questionnaires after the invalid questionnaires were
ards and have held many CSR industry forums. Moreover, removed according to the standard (Fan et al., 2020). The
the society and the media pay relatively high attention to overall effective response rate of the questionnaires was
their social responsibility of these industries. Thus, the 71.43%. The sample situation of the employees of each
respondents of this study are from 4 state-owned or state- interviewed enterprise and the basic situation of the overall
controlled companies in the Yangtze River Delta region effective sample are shown in Table 1. Overall, among the
(the total employee-number of companies is more than 260 valid questionnaires, 47.7% were male, and 52.3% were
500), including 3 telecommunications companies and 1 female, and their aged 45 and below accounted for 80.8%.
real estate company. The target companies selected in this Besides, 76.2% of the employees had a tenure of fewer
study attach importance to the CSR of their employees than five years in the organization, of which the number of
and carry out SRHRM practices. The enterprises provide employees with two-year tenure was the most, accounting
employees with CSR training, develop flexible work sys- for 31.2%. Moreover, 58.5% of the employees had bachelor’s
tems, and encourage employees to participate in donations degree.
and other public welfare activities.
With the help of enterprise human resource managers, the
Measures
researchers randomly selected employees according to their
job numbers. Researchers asked 100 target employees in
Table 2 summarizes the definition, composition and refer-
each company about their willingness to investigate through
ences supporting research variables. We translated all Eng-
emails. In the end, a total of 364 employees volunteered to
lish scales into Chinese according to standard translation-
participate in the survey and filled out anonymous question-
back translation procedure and adjusted for the specific
naires. To reduce the potential impact of common method
Chinese situation (Brislin, 1970). All of measure scales
deviations, we used a two-stage research design method to
are shown in Table 2. All items were rated using the Likert
conduct online empirical survey through Sojump (http://​
5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
www.​sojump.​com), the most popular online survey website
in China. The researchers sent emails to collect data from
employees of 4 target companies who voluntarily partici- SRHRM (Time 1)
pated in the survey at the time of October 2019 and Decem-
ber 2019. The emails included the survey questionnaire link, We measured SRHRM using the six-item scales that Shen
survey purpose, and privacy and confidentiality instructions. and Benson (2016) developed based on Orlitzky and Swan-
We ensured the effective matching of recovered samples by son’s (2006) scale. Sample item is “My company provides
numbering. The numbering rule is composed of the capital CSR training for employees to promote CSR as the core
initials of the full name and the last four digits of the mobile organizational value”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this meas-
phone number (such as CYH8680). During the two-stage ure scale was 0.896.
data collection process, some questionnaires filled out by
the respondents could not accurately measure the construct.
Autonomous Motivation (Time 2)
According to the suggestion of Fan et al. (2020), some inva-
lid questionnaires were removed according to the following
A six-item scale developed by Graves et al. (2013) was
criteria: (1) the questionnaire is incomplete; (2) the answers
used to measure autonomous motivation. The sample item
to the questionnaire are all consistent and (3) the respond-
is “Engaging in moral voice is fit my values when facing
ent quickly answered all questions (less than 60 s). During
organizational unethical behavior”. The Cronbach’s alpha
the first stage of data collection, the respondents filled out
was 0.797.
questionnaires to measure the variables of SRHRM, per-
son–organization fit, and control variables such as psycho-
logical safety and gender. A total of 364 questionnaires were Controlled Motivation (Time 2)
sent in the first stage, and a total of 320 valid questionnaires
were collected. One month later, the researchers launched Following the method and suggestion of Bavik et al. (2018),
the second phase of the investigation and sent the survey we used a three-item scale developed by Guay et al. (2000)
emails to the same subject again based on the 320 valid to measure controlled motivation. A sample item is “My
questionnaires retrieved. At this stage, the questionnaire job requires me to engage in moral voice when facing

13
 H. Zhao et al.

Table 1  The descriptive statistics of sample

Variable Category Company 1 (65) Company 2 (67) Company 3(65) Company 4 (63) Total sample (260)
Value Ratio (%) Value Ratio (%) Value Ratio (%) Value Ratio (%) Value Ratio (%)

Gender Men 30 46.2 30 44.8 31 47.7 33 52.4 124 47.7

Women 35 53.8 37 55.2 34 52.3 30 47.6 136 52.3
Age 25 and below 24 36.9 21 31.3 25 38.5 28 44.4 98 37.7
26–35 14 21.6 17 25.4 16 24.6 13 20.6 60 23.1
36–45 13 20 14 20.9 13 20 12 19.1 52 20.0
46–55 8 12.3 12 17.9 9 13.8 7 11.1 36 13.8
56 and above 6 9.2 3 4.5 2 3.1 3 4.8 14 5.4
Job tenure less than 1 16 24.6 18 26.9 15 23.1 16 25.4 65 25.0
1–2 21 32.3 23 34.3 19 29.2 18 28.6 81 31.2
3–5 13 20 15 22.4 15 23.1 9 14.2 52 20.0
6–10 9 13.9 7 10.4 7 10.8 10 15.9 33 12.7
10 or more 6 9.2 4 6 9 13.8 10 15.9 29 11.1
Graduate Secondary vocational 5 7.7 8 11.9 6 9.2 5 7.9 24 9.2
school diploma or
below
Post-secondary diploma 13 20 13 19.4 12 18.5 11 17.5 49 18.8
Bachelor degree 38 58.5 40 59.7 37 56.9 37 58.7 152 58.5
Master degree and above 9 13.8 6 9 10 15.4 10 15.9 35 13.5

organizational unethical behaviors”. The Cronbach’s alpha job tenure as control variables. Moreover, Hu et al. (2018)
was 0.754. also proposed that psychological safety affected employee
voice, we added psychological safety as a control variable.
Person–Organization Value Fit (Time 1)
Statistical Methods
We used a three-item scale developed by Cable and DeRue
(2002) to measure person–organization value fit. A sample PLS-SEM is recognized as an effective multivariate analysis
item is “My personal values match the values and culture method in many fields, including HRM, organization manage-
of the organization”. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.711. ment and other fields (Anwar et al., 2020; Hair et al., 2019).
Recent years, PLS-SEM has gradually been applied by many
scholars as it can estimate complex models with multiple
Moral Voice (Time 2) structural paths and does not require an assumption of normal-
ity, and thus it has become a recognized analysis method for
Moral voice was measured by a three-item scale devel- dealing with complex model in many fields, including HRM,
oped by Lee et al. (2017). The sample items are “I express organization management (Hair et al., 2019; Memon et al.,
against when my peers do unethical actions in workplace” 2020; Ringle et al., 2018).
and “I always state my view about ethical problems”. The This research considers PLS-SEM for the following rea-
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.737. sons: first, this theoretical model is a complex model including
two mediators (i.e., autonomous motivation and control moti-
vation); second, the sample size of this study is small, and the
Control Variables (Time 1) sample does not conform to the standard normal distribution;
and third, PLS-SEM facilitates the prediction of dependent
Previous literature claimed that the gender of the indi- variables (Hair et al., 2017). According to the advantages of
vidual affected employee perception of SRHRM practices PLS-SEM, it is appropriate for us to use the PLS-SEM inspec-
(Nie et al., 2018), and some researchers suggested that tion model.
individual demographic variables also have a potential
impact on employee voice (LePine & Dyne, 1998; Si &
Li, 2012), this study thus took gender, age, education, and

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

Table 2  Measurement variables

Variable Description Measure References

SR1 My company considers person identity-CSR identity 5-Point Likert scale Shen and Benson (2016)
fit in recruitment and selection
SR2 My company provides adequate CSR training to
promote CSR as a core organizational value
SR3 My company provides CSR training to develop
employees’ skills in receptive stakeholder engage-
ment and communication
SR4 My company considers employee social perfor-
mance in promotions
SR5 My company consider employee social performance
in performance appraisals
SR6 My company relates employee social performance to
rewards and compensation
AM1 It allows me to achieve goals I consider important 5-Point Likert scale Graves et al. (2013)
AM2 It fits my own values
AM3 It is personally important to me
AM4 I enjoy it
AM5 Of the pleasure I get from doing it
AM6 It is fun
CM1 Because I am supposed to do it 5-Point Likert scale Guay et al. (2000);
CM2 Because it is something that I have to do Bavik et al. (2018)
CM3 Because I don’t have any choice
PO1 The things that I value in life are very similar to the 5-Point Likert scale Cable and DeRue (2002)
things that my organization value
PO2 My personal values match my organization’s values
and culture
PO3 My organization’s values and culture provide a good
fit with the things that I value in life
MV1 This person confronts his or her peers when they 5-Point Likert scale Lee et al. (2017)
commit an unethical act
MV2 This person goes against the group’s decision when-
ever it violates the ethical standards
MV3 This person always states his or her views about
ethical issues to me
PS1 In my work unit, I can express my true feelings 5-Point Likert scale Liang et al. (2012)
regarding my job
PS2 In my work unit, I can freely express my thoughts
PS3 In my work unit, expressing your true feelings is
welcomed
PS4 Nobody in my unit will pick on me even if I have
different opinions
CV1 Gender of the respondent 1: men; 0: women
CV2 Age of the respondent 1: 25 and below; 2: 26–35; 3: 36–45; 4: 46–55; 5: 56 and above
CV3 Job tenure of the respondent 1: less than 1; 2: 1–2; 3: 3–5; 4: 6–10; 5: 10 or more
CV4 Graduate of the respondent 1: secondary vocational school diploma or below; 2: post-secondary diploma;
3: bachelor degree; 4: master degree and above

Result problem of common method bias (CMV) though the way

of two-stage survey, the data collected way by self-reported
Measurement Checks and Statistical Tests for Bias still exist this problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Firstly,
we followed the way of Harman (1976) to test the poten-
Although we sought to adopt the procedure control to the tial influence of common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,

13
 H. Zhao et al.

2003). The results revealed that the explained variance (log-likelihood ratio test χ2 = 419.39***). The result of the
of the first factor accounted for about 39%. That is to say Harman’s single factor analysis shows that no single factor
that CMV in the current study is not significant. In addi- accounted for the majority of the variance (Podsakoff et al.,
tion, with the help of the Stata (v.16), we adopted two steps 2003) and the result two steps CFA shows that the separa-
way and verified two SEM model through confirmatory tion performance of individual factors is significantly better
factor analysis (CFA): the first step verified a single factor than the single factor model (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Taken
model and the results were not satisfactory (χ2 = 746.386, together, the above analysis results show that our study had
RMSEA = 0.107, CFI = 0.768, TLI = 0.742, AVE = 0.247). no significant effect from CMV.
The second step verified five factors model, the results Furthermore, we also tested the validity of the question-
were within the acceptable range, which the model has bet- naire. The results are as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3
ter properties (SRMR = 0.052, CD = 0.999, NFI = 0.932. shows the results of the reliability and convergent valid-
Satorra-Bentler χ2 = 310.475, RMSEA = 0.053, CFI = 0.941, ity and Table 4 shows the results of HTMT ratios and the
TLI = 0.931. OIM χ2 = 326.999, RMSEA = 0.053 [0.047, Fornell-Larcker criteria to assess discriminant validity. The
0.066], CFI = 0.938, TLI = 0.928). Further, we verified that value of composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha
the first step model is not nested in the second step model can measure internal consistency reliability (Ringle et al.,

Table 3  Convergent validity and reliability

Construct Item Mean SD λ s.e.*** α AVE CR

Socially responsible human resource management (SR) SR1 3.480 1.085 0.834 0.021 0.896 0.659 0.921
SR2 3.600 1.087 0.787 0.028
SR3 3.590 1.071 0.815 0.024
SR4 3.490 1.092 0.785 0.024
SR5 3.580 1.171 0.866 0.016
SR6 3.550 1.157 0.781 0.027
Autonomous motivation (AM) AM1 3.650 0.953 0.668 0.040 0.797 0.501 0.856
AM2 3.880 0.953 0.575 0.057
AM3 3.920 0.892 0.681 0.044
AM4 3.570 1.032 0.746 0.034
AM5 3.530 1.026 0.743 0.030
AM6 3.430 1.129 0.809 0.020
Controlled motivation (CM) CM1 3.550 1.059 0.738 0.038 0.754 0.673 0.860
CM2 3.23- 1.069 0.836 0.021
CM3 3.180 1.273 0.882 0.018
person–organization value fit (PO) PO1 3.680 1.026 0.846 0.023 0.711 0.634 0.838
PO2 3.52 1.000 0.721 0.044
PO3 3.59 0.988 0.816 0.030
Moral voice (MV) MV1 3.780 1.037 0.856 0.021 0.737 0.656 0.851
MV2 3.590 0.988 0.789 0.030
MV3 3.610 1.021 0.782 0.034
Psychological safety (PS)-control variables PS1 3.570 1.035 0.809 0.023
PS2 3.530 0.960 0.757 0.031
PS3 3.450 1.059 0.747 0.032
PS4 3.430 1.057 0.788 0.026
One-item control variables Mean SD Mean SD

Gender 1.520 0.500 Job tenure 2.540 1.295

Age 2.260 1.246 Graduate 2.760 0.799

CD = 0.999, NFI = 0.932, CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.928, SRMR = 0.052, RMSEA = 0.053[0.047, 0.066], χ2 = 326.99
SD standard deviation, λ standardized loadings, s.e. standard error, α Chronbach’s alpha, AVE average variance extracted, CR composite reliabil-
ity
***Reliability: All the loadings are significant at a p < 0.001 level

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

Table 4  Square root of AVE and correlations between latent factors show that all values are within the acceptable range (Bentler,
1 2 3 4 5
1990; Hu & Bentler, 1998), thus it further indicates the reli-
ability is acceptable. Besides, most factor loadings were up
1. SRHRM 0.812 0.648 0.680 0.748 0.573 to 0.7 and no one was below the minimum standard (0.4).
2. Autonomous motivation 0.554 0.708 0.756 0.664 0.783 The values of average variance extracted (AVE) were higher
3. Controlled motivation 0.566 0.593 0.821 0.645 0.530 than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). From these results, we
4. Person–organization value 0.601 0.504 0.598 0.796 0.631 infer that the latent variables have great convergent valid-
5. Moral voice 0.469 0.476 0.394 0.459 0.810 ity. Moreover, Table 4 shows that inter-factor correlations
Fornell–Lacker criterion: squared root of AVE on the diagonal (bold)
are lower than the squared root of AVEs and all the HTMT
and factors correlations below the diagonal. HTMT ratios over the ratios are below 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2014), which indicates
diagonal (italics) the model with discriminant validity.
SRHRM socially responsible human resource management
Hypothesis Testing

2018). From Table 3, we found that all CR and Cronbach’s We test the hypotheses with the help of Smartpls 3.0 soft-
alpha values are greater than 0.7. These results indicate that ware. The bootstrapping technique (5000 subsamples,
the internal consistency reliability is high. We also assessed two-tailed significance) was employed to estimate the sta-
reliability through CFA goodness of fit indexes. The results tistical significance of the parameter. This technique has

Table 5  The result of direct Test Path β s.e t

effect and indirect effect
Direct effects
H1 SRHRM → moral voice 0.199 0.072 2.772**
H2a SRHRM → autonomous motivation 0.216 0.073 2.954**
H2b Autonomous motivation → moral voice 0.462 0.075 6.167***
H3a SRHRM → controlled motivation 0.242 0.074 3.292**
H3b Controlled motivation → moral voice − 0.020 0.069 0.283
Indirect effects
H2 SRHRM → autonomous motivation → moral voice 0.100 0.036 2.798**
H3 SRHRM → controlled motivation → moral voice − 0.005 0.018 0.266

Bootstrap: 5000
*represents p < 0.05; ** represents p < 0.01; *** represents p < 0.001

Fig. 2  The result of direct effect and indirect effect

13
 H. Zhao et al.

a better statistical performance than traditional method including zero) for high level of person–organization value
and can deal with non-normality issues (Bollen & Stine, fit, however, this relationship was not significant (effect
2016). Table 5 and Fig. 2 shows the results of direct effect size = 0.139, boot SE = 0.072, 95% bootstrap CIs = [− 0.003,
and indirect effect. As shown in Table 5, we found that 0.281], including zero) when person–organization value fit
SRHRM was significantly positive correlated to moral was low. In a word, the effect of SRHRM on autonomous
voice (β = 0.199, P < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was sup- (controlled) motivation had a significant difference when
ported by evidence. Furthermore, SRHRM had a posi- employees had different value congruence with the organiza-
tive relationship with autonomous motivation (β = 0.216, tion. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were all supported.
P < 0.01). Besides, autonomous motivation can stimulate We also applied Bootstrap estimate to test Hypotheses
employee moral voice (β = 0.462, P < 0.001). Moreover, the 5a and 5b. Specifically, we tested the conditional effect
indirect effect of autonomous between SRHRM and moral of SRHRM on moral voice for the low and high levels of
voice was significant (β = 0.100, P < 0.01). Above all this, person–organization value fit under the bias-corrected CI
we inferred that Hypothesis 2 received support. Besides, (95%). As shown in Table 7, the indirect effect of SRHRM
SRHRM had a significantly effect on controlled motivation on moral voice via autonomous motivation was signifi-
(β = 0.242, P < 0.01). Contrary to our expectation, the effect cantly positive (effect size = 0.170, boot SE = 0.048, 95%
of controlled motivation on moral voice was insignificant bootstrap CIs = [0.092, 0.288], not including zero) under
(β =  − 0.020, P = 0.778) and the indirect effect of controlled the condition of high level of person–organization value
motivation between SRHRM and moral voice was also insig- fit, while the conditional effect of SRHRM on moral voice
nificant (β =  − 0.005, P = 0.791). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was through autonomous motivation was not significant (effect
not supported. size = 0.029, boot SE = 0.038, 95% bootstrap CIs = [− 0.041,
To examine the moderating hypotheses, we adapted 0.110], including zero) when employee had low level of per-
Hayes (2013) Process macro and Bootstrap estimate to test son–organization value fit. In other words, the mediating
Hypotheses 4a and 4b. The results in Table 6 demonstrated effect of autonomous motivation had a significant difference
that the effect of SRHRM on autonomous motivation was when employees had different levels of person–organiza-
significantly positive (Effect size = 0.415, Boot SE = 0.068, tion value fit. Therefore, Hypothesis 5a was supported.
95% bootstrap CIs = [0.180, 0.449], not including zero) However, the mediating effect of controlled motivation
under the conditional of high level of person–organiza- between SRHRM and moral voice was insignificant under
tion value fit, while the effect of SRHRM on autonomous the condition of high-level person–organization values fit of
motivation was not significant (effect size = 0.054, boot the employee (effect size =  − 0.005, boot SE = 0.026, 95%
SE = 0.054, 95% bootstrap CIs = [− 0.053, 0.161], including bootstrap CIs = [− 0.061, 0.045], including zero), and this
zero) when employee had low level of person–organization indirect effect was also insignificant under the low-level
value fit. Additionally, the relationship between SRHRM and of person–organization value fit (effect size =  − 0.002,
controlled motivation was significant (effect size = 0.427, boot SE = 0.010, 95% bootstrap CIs = [− 0.031, 0.014],
boot SE = 0.091, 95% bootstrap CIs = [0.248, 0.606], not

Table 6  Results for the moderating effect Table 7  Results for the moderated mediation effect

Depend- Level Effect Boot SE LL 95% UL 95% CI Mediat- Level Effect size Boot SE LL 95% UL 95% CI
ent vari- size CI ing vari- CI
able able

AM Low (− 1 0.054 0.054 − 0.053 0.161 AM Low (− 1 0.029 0.038 − 0.041 0.110
SD) SD)
High (+ 1 0.415 0.068 0.180 0.449 High (+ 1 0.170 0.048 0.092 0.288
SD) SD)
CM Low (− 1 0.139 0.072 − 0.003 0.281 CM Low (− 1 − 0.002 0.010 − 0.031 0.014
SD) SD)
High (+ 1 0.427 0.091 0.248 0.606 High (+ 1 − 0.005 0.026 − 0.061 0.045
SD) SD)

N = 260. Low = 1 s.d. below the mean; high = 1 s.d. above the mean. N = 260. Low = 1 s.d. below the mean; high = 1 s.d. above the mean.
Control variables include gender, age, job tenure, graduate, psycho- Control variables include gender, age, job tenure, graduate, psycho-
logical safety. Moderating variable: person–organization value fit. logical safety. Moderating variable: person–organization value fit.
Bootstrap sample size = 5000 Bootstrap sample size = 5000
LL lower limit, UL upper limit, CI confidence interval, AM autono- LL lower limit, UL upper limit, CI confidence interval, AM autono-
mous motivation, CM controlled motivation mous motivation, CM controlled motivation

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

including zero). Thus, we can infer that Hypothesis 5b was flexibility feature young employees with low job tenure
not supported. (Warner & Zhu, 2018). Firstly, these employees have good
plasticity (Bai & Liu, 2018). As a result, HRM department
can easily intervene and guide their values and beliefs. Sec-
Discussion ond, these employees are willing to learn and accept new
things (Warner & Zhu, 2018). Thus, SRHRM can input their
This article explored the intermediary mechanisms and cognitive schema without difficulty, leading to an increas-
boundary conditions of SRHRM and moral voice based on ing CSR value. Thirdly, these employees have a high level
self-determination theory. Through a two-stage investiga- of flexibility (Bai & Liu, 2018). Since moral voice has
tion, this study tested a moderating mediation model and bad consequences (Lee et al., 2017), such as physical (e.g.
the results showed that all other assumptions were supported injury) and psychological (e.g. fear and anxiety). This makes
except for H3 and H5b. This study asserted that SRHRM employees engage in moral voice with coasts of taking risks.
promoted employee moral voice, and only autonomous moti- However, if employees can adapt to different occasions, they
vation plays a mediating role when individual autonomous will minimize the costs and perform moral voice.
motivation and control motivation are stimulated together.
Moreover, we also found that the person–organization value Theoretical Implication
fit strengthened the positive influence of SRHRM on autono-
mous motivation and controlled motivation. However, the This study explores the influence mechanism of SRHRM
result about controlled motivation is different from our on moral voice and our findings have four aspects of con-
expectation. There two reasons that may lead to the false tributions for the current theoretical research. Firstly, this
assumption of controlled motivation. On the one hand, in the study confirms the stimulating role of SRHRM on moral
process of stimulating moral voice by SRHRM, controlled voice and this finding enriches the research result of moral
motivation is internalized into autonomous motivation, voice. Previous research on the antecedents of moral voice
which has an impact on moral voice. Scholars point out that only focuses on the role of leadership, such as ethical lead-
different motivations are not completely opposite dimen- ership and authoritarian leadership (Huang & Paterson,
sions. The types of motivations and motivations that may 2017; Zheng et al., 2019), ignoring the influence of organi-
exist in the process of people’s activities are transformed zational factors on employee initiative behavior. Consid-
from external to internal dynamic processes (Deci & Ryan, ering the moral nature of SRHRM, this study responds to
2000), an autonomous and supportive environment can the call of Hu and Jiang (2016) to focus on the impact of
promote this process (Gagné & Deci, 2005). SRHRM can HRM on employee voice, especially the moral voice. As
stimulate employee sense of organizational support (Shen far as we know, our study explores the antecedent factors of
& Benson, 2016). In addition, Zhao et al. (2021) pointed moral voice at the organizational level for the first time and
out that SRHRM can help employee value internalization, expands the source of inducing factors for employee moral
which strengthens the possibility of transforming controlled voice. Furthermore, this study follows Abdelmotaleb and
motivation into autonomous motivation. On the other hand, Saha (2019) attention to the moral influence of SRHRM and
different types of motivation can lead to different behavioral confirms the promoting role of SRHRM on employee moral
tendencies. Previous studies have found that different moti- behavior (moral voice).
vations lead to different attitudes toward morality (Mallia Secondly, past studies have recommended that research-
et al., 2019). Autonomous motivations are more likely to ers should explore more internal mechanism to expound
stimulate pro-social behaviors, while controlled motivations how SRHRM promotes employee initiative behavior (Shao
and antisocial behaviors are more closely related (Hodge & et al., 2019b; Shen & Benson, 2016). However, the current
Lonsdale, 2011). In addition, Malinowska et al. (2018) found empirical studies are limited and mainly focus on employee
that autonomous motivation can stimulate employee proac- cognition level, such as organizational identification, organi-
tive behavior more than controlled motivation. Moral voice zational trust, person–organization fit (Jia et al., 2019;
is a moral behavior spontaneously produced by employees. Newman et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2021). Our study fills
Therefore, compared with controlled motivation, autono- the blank of the exploration of motivation as the mediator
mous motivation has a more significant impact on this type between SRHRM and employee proactive behaviors. This
of behavior. In view of this, exploring the inner connection study verifies that autonomous motivation mediates the
and difference between autonomous motivation and con- effect of SRHRM on moral voice. This conclusion further
trolled motivation is our future research direction. proves and enriches the view of Zhang et al. (2015) regard-
Besides, another interesting finding is that the effect ing motivation as the mediating mechanism between HRM
of SRHRM on moral voice is stronger when employees practices and employee proactive behavior. Besides, our
are young and of low job tenure. Plasticity, learning, and study reveals the black box of the linkage among SRHRM

13
 H. Zhao et al.

and moral voice, which also provides a new research direc- employees can better understand SRHRM and then perform
tion and theoretical perspective for scholars to explore the moral voice. Thus, the introduction of person–organization
effect mechanism of SRHRM. fit theory complements the influence of self-determination,
Thirdly, our study demonstrates that person–organiza- thus opening up a new way for future research.
tion value fit plays a moderating role in the influencing
process of SRHRM on employee moral voice. To be our Practical Implications
knowledge, the boundary conditions of SRHRM impacting
employee attitudes and behavior only concern the single fac- This study also provides some suggestions for managers on
tor of individual characteristics or organizational situation, how to promote employee moral voice, and in turn reduce
the research on the moderating role of interaction factors and prevent some unethical phenomenon in the organization.
between employees and the organization need to be added. First, organizations should promote the implementation of
This study along this research view to explore the mod- SRHRM practice. For example, conveying CSR skills and
erating role of person–organization value fit in the effect thinking to employees in the training; assessing employee
mechanism between SRHRM and moral voice. In doing social performance. Besides, managers also emphasize and
so, we further provide empirical support for the argument deepen understand of SRHRM practices, they can encour-
that person–organization value fit is an important effect fac- age employees to participate in public welfare activities
tor in the relationship between the organizational situation and praise their kindness on external stakeholders. As the
and employee ethical behavior (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2012; proposal of Abdelmotaleb and Saha (2019) that SRHRM
Zhao et al., 2021). Moreover, our finding expands the mod- increases employee organizational morality perception,
erating mechanism of the positive effect between SRHRM organizations should make full use of SRHRM practices
and employee ethical behavior and enriches the research and create an organizational ethical climate for employees.
achievements of the interaction effect between person and It’s worth noting that SRHRM has a more significant
organization. bearing on moral voice among young employees with low
Last and most importantly, we integrate self-determi- job tenure. These employees have a high level of plastic-
nation theory and person–organization fit theory into one ity, learning and adaptability (Warner & Zhu, 2018). Thus,
theoretical framework. On the one hand, this study explores organizations can take personalized measures to motivate
the impacts of SRHRM on work motivation (i.e. autonomous these employees. For example, organizations should set up
motivation or controlled motivation) and subsequent moral public leave, establish a volunteer team and reward for envi-
voice behavior. As such, we provide empirical evidence ronmental innovation. In so doing, organizations can input
for the “source of motivation behind behaviors”, which is CSR ideas into employees, maintain their CSR enthusiasm,
posited by self-determination theory but less explored by and motivate them to positively engage in moral voice. In
prior studies (Deci & Ryan, 2008). On the other hand, pre- addition, organizations should be based on their values,
vious research has highlighted that AMO theory and social beliefs, and personalities to scientifically design CSR plans,
exchange theory have often been applied in HRM studies such as continuously invest in internal staff development,
to explain the linkage between HR practices and employee and improve the internal curriculum development system
attitudes and/or behavior (e.g. Gould-Williams & Davies, towards CSR. These further enhance their CSR involvement,
2005; Malik et al., 2021). However, our research goes participation, and recognition, thus improving willingness
beyond this scope and is the first to provide evidence for to display moral voice.
the moderating role of person–organization (P-O) value fit Secondly, SRHRM develops moral voice behavior by
in the self-determination process. The theoretical choices improving their autonomous motivation rather than con-
are for three reasons. Firstly, AMO theory is often used to trolled motivation when two type motivation exist at the
explore how HRM practices promote employee pro-organi- same time. Previous literature also more owed motivating
zational behavior (e.g. organizational citizenship behavior; influence in employee initiative behavior to autonomous
Malik et al., 2021), but this paper considers the influence motivation or internal motivation (Afsar et al., 2016).
of risk-taking moral voice which is different from general Therefore, organization adjusts the motivating methods of
pro-social behavior. Second, good social exchange relation- employees, and focuses on stimulating employee autono-
ship between employees and organizations is always driven mous motivation. This conclusion provides a guide for
by external motivations (e.g. employees to return to the managers that organizations should comprehend the need
organization). However, moral voice includes both the exter- of employees before formulating the system of SRHRM.
nal motivation, but more importantly, it also involves the Besides, organizations should grasp the yardstick of external
internal motivation. Thirdly, person–organization fit theory control to avoid excessive pressure caused by moral voice.
is a good extension of self-determination (Saether, 2019), Finally, the current findings reveal that SRHRM will
namely, when the value of employees and organization is fit, strongly activate employee moral voice motivation when

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

employee values fit organizational values. This finding formal organizational norms. On the other hand, managers
enlightens that the managers not only attach importance to will accept advice and establish corresponding rules and
the shape of SRHRM for employee moral awareness but regulations in the organization to promote SRHRM prac-
also recruit employees whose values fit organization values. tices. Therefore, we can explore the influence mechanism of
Therefore, the organization should strengthen the concern moral voice on SRHRM practices in the future.
about whether the candidates’ values match with the organi-
zation during the recruitment process. In the specific, they
can ask for applicants to fill in questionnaires about the value
and inspect their understanding of organizational values and Conclusion
culture. Besides, organizations can provide organizational
culture training for employees and shape their values con- Promoting employee ethical behaviors always be regarded
sistent with organizations, thus improve employee identifica- as an effective way to contain organizational immorality,
tion and engagement in SRHRM practices. our current study put our sight on employee moral voice,
an initiative ethical behavior, which antecedent was only
Limitations and Future Directions explored in the area of leadership. Grounded in self-deter-
mined theory, we investigated the internal mechanism of
This study also exists several main limitations in data col- SRHRM and moral voice under the condition of employee
lection. Firstly, although this article employed a two-stage motivation as mediator and person–organization value fit as
design to carry out the questionnaire survey, it is difficult to moderator. Interestingly, only autonomous motivation plays
completely avoid the influencing of common method bias a mediating role between SRHRM and moral voice when
due to the way of employee self-report to collect data. Thus, individual autonomous motivation and control motivation
future research can collect data from multiple channels, such are stimulated together. Moreover, the motivating process of
as peer review and leader evaluation. SRHRM on moral voice was moderated by person–organiza-
Secondly, this study only focuses on service-oriented tion value fit. All the above findings provide implications for
enterprises in the Yangtze River Delta regions. The source the current theory and guide managers to inspire employee
of samples from these enterprises is limited by regions and moral voice.
industries. We believe that the sample data needs to be col-
Acknowledgements Funding was provided by National Natural Sci-
lected in a larger sampling range in further research, which ence Foundation of China (71772116 and 72172086) and “Shuguang
helps improve the universality of our conclusion. Further- Program” supported by Shanghai Education Development Foundation
more, our study was implemented in the Chinese context. and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (21SG41).
It is not clear that our findings can be equally valid in the
Western context. Therefore, future research also needs to
conduct cross-culture research.
Finally, this article suggests that future research can be References
further explored from the following aspects: firstly, this study
Abdelmotaleb, M., & Saha, S. K. (2019). Socially responsible human
has not discussed whether there is a link between two kinds resources management, perceived organizational morality,
of motivation and the difference between the two mediating and employee well-being. Public Organization Review, 20(2),
effects. Future studies can test the difference and linkage 385–399.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Kiani, U. S. (2016). Linking spiritual leader-
between autonomous and controlled motivation. Secondly, it
ship and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of
is not comprehensive enough for the exploration of the inter- workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental
nal mechanism between SRHRM and moral voice, we can passion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 79–88.
try to explore the role of prosocial motivation, organizational Afsar, B., & Shahjehan, A. (2018). Linking ethical leadership and
moral voice: The effects of moral efficacy, trust in leader, and
ethical climate, and other variables as the mediator in the
leader-follower value congruence. Leadership & AMP; Organi-
future. Thirdly, future research should discuss other bound- zation Development Journal, 39(6), 775–793.
ary factors that affect the promoting process of SRHRM on Anwar, N., Nik Mahmood, N. H., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Noor
moral voice, such as moral attentiveness and ethical leader- Faezah, J., & Khalid, W. (2020). Green Human Resource Man-
agement for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the
ship. Finally, moral voice may have an impact on SRHRM
environment and environmental performance on a university
practices. In the past, scholars have proved that group ethics campus. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120401.
voice improves the ethical performance of the organization Arvanitis, A., & Kalliris, K. (2019). Consistency and moral integ-
(Huang & Paterson, 2017), regulates the behavior of col- rity: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Moral
Education, 49(3), 316–329.
leagues, and reduces ethical problems in the organization
Bai, J., & Liu, J. (2018). A study on the influence of career growth
(Lee et al., 2017). On the one hand, moral voice may form a on work engagement among new generation employees. Open
good organizational atmosphere and gradually evolve it into Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 300–317.

13
 H. Zhao et al.

Bavik, Y. L., Tang, P. M., Shao, R., & Lam, L. W. (2018). Ethical psychological green climate and employee green values. Human
leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Exploring dual- Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627.
mediation paths. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 322–332. Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. Erdogan, B. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (2016). Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel
Measures in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methods Psychology, 58(4), 859–891.
& Research, 21(2), 205–229. Fan, X., Jiang, X., Deng, N., Dong, X., & Lin, Y. (2020). Does role
Bonner, J. M., Greenbaum, R. L., & Quade, M. J. (2017). Employee conflict influence discontinuous usage intentions? Privacy con-
unethical behavior to shame as an indicator of self-image threat cerns, social media fatigue and self-esteem. Information Technol-
and exemplification as a form of self-image protection: The ogy & People, 34(3), 1152–1174.
exacerbating role of supervisor bottom-line mentality. Journal Fernández-Gámez, M. Á., Gutiérrez-Ruiz, A. M., Becerra-Vicario, R.,
of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1203–1221. & Ruiz-Palomo, D. (2020). The impact of creating shared value
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). on hotels online reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and
The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2201–2211.
employee outcomes: Examining the role of person–organisa- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with
tion and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and sta-
Resource Management, 22(1), 138–162. tistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Boon, C., & Kalshoven, K. (2014). How high-commitment HRM Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orien-
relates to engagement and commitment: The moderating role tation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation & Emotion,
of task proficiency. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 27(3), 199–223.
403–420. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. Gilal, F. G., Ashraf, Z., Gilal, N. G., Gilal, R. G., & Chaana, N.
Broeck, A. V. D., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A. (2019). Promoting environmental performance through
A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological green human resource management practices in higher edu-
needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. cation institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corporate
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discrimi- Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6),
nant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied 1579–1590.
Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory
Cha, J., Chang, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2013). Person–organization to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes:
fit on prosocial identity: Implications on employee outcomes. An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management
Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 57–69. Review, 7(1), 1–24.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire?
research: A model of person–organization fit. The Academy of Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and
Management Review, 14(3), 333–349. productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.
Chen, S., Zhang, G., Jiang, W., Shi, S., & Liu, T. (2016). Collectiv- Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
ism-oriented HRM and individual creative contribution: The Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive pre-
roles of value congruence and task interdependence. Journal dictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
of Management & Organization, 25(02), 211–223. Psychology, 94(4), 900–912.
Chen, Y. P., & Shaffer, M. A. (2017). The influences of perceived Graves, L. M., & Sarkis, J. (2018). The role of employees’ leadership
organizational support and motivation on self-initiated expatri- perceptions, values, and motivation in employees’ provenviron-
ates’ organizational and community embeddedness. Journal of mental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 576–587.
World Business, 52(2), 197–208. Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational lead-
Chua, J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2021). Employees’ self-determined moti- ership and employee motivation combine to predict employee
vation, transformational leadership and work engagement. proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental
Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 523–543. Psychology, 35, 81–91.
Córdoba-Pachón, J. R., Garde-Sánchez, R., & Rodríguez-Bolívar, Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, l. (2010). Relationships between value orienta-
M. P. (2014). A systemic view of corporate social responsibil- tions, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental
ity (CSR) in state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Knowledge and behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Process Management, 21(3), 206–219. 30(4), 368–378.
De Roeck, K., & Farooq, O. (2017). Corporate social responsibility Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assess-
and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on ment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situ-
employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business ational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3),
Ethics, 151(4), 923–939. 175–213.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A
scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling
in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. (PLS-SEM). Sage.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Busi-
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. ness Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation Halbusi, H. A., Williams, K. A., Ramayah, T., Aldieri, L., & Vinci,
and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian C. P. (2021). Linking ethical leadership and ethical climate to
Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. employees’ ethical behavior: The moderating role of person–
Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM organization fit. Personnel Review, 50(1), 159–185.
practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of

13
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Moral Voice: Based on the…

Han, Z., Wang, Q., & Yan, X. (2019). How responsible leadership Li, M., Wang, Z., You, X., & Gao, J. (2015). Value congruence and
motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship teachers’ work engagement: The mediating role of autonomous
behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sus- and controlled motivation. Personality and Individual Differ-
tainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su110​30605 ences, 80, 113–118.
Hanson, R. A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty response to decline Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological anteced-
in firms, organizations, and states. American Political Science ents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination.
Review, 64(4), 1274–1276. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Lv, Z., & Xu, T. (2016). Psychological contract breach, high-perfor-
Press. mance work system and engagement: The mediated effect of
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con- person–organization fit. The International Journal of Human
ditional process analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, Resource Management, 29(7), 1257–1284.
51(3), 335–337. Malik, S. Y., Hayat, M. Y., & Azam, T. (2021). Corporate social
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion responsibility, green human resources management, and sustain-
for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural able performance: Is organizational citizenship behavior towards
equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- environment the missing link? Sustainability, 13(3), 1044.
ence, 43(1), 115–135. Malinowska, D., Tokarz, A., & Wardzichowska, A. (2018). Job auton-
Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior omy in relation to work engagement and workaholism: Mediation
in sport: The role of coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled of autonomous and controlled work motivation. International
motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exer- Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health,
cise Psychology, 33, 527–547. 31(4), 445–458.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure Mallia, L., Lucidi, F., Zelli, A., Chirico, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2019).
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecifica- Predicting moral attitudes and antisocial behavior in young team
tion. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. sport athletes: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal
Hu, X., & Jiang, Z. (2016). Employee-oriented HRM and voice behav- of Applied Social Psychology, 49(4), 249–263.
ior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2012). HR practices and
in management. The International Journal of Human Resource HRM outcomes: The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel
Management, 29(5), 746–771. Review, 42(1), 4–27.
Hu, Y., Zhu, L., Zhou, M., Li, J., Maguire, P., Sun, H., et al. (2018). Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Mirza, M. Z., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H.,
Exploring the influence of ethical leadership on voice behavior: Ahmad, M. S., et al. (2020). Satisfaction matters: The relation-
How leader-member exchange, psychological safety and psycho- ships between HRM practices, work engagement and turnover
logical empowerment influence employees’ willingness to speak intention. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 21–50.
out. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1718. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​ Men, L. R. (2012). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputa-
fpsyg.​2018.​01718. tion, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1),
Huang, L., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Group ethical voice: Influence of 171–173.
ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Miranda, G. A., Welbourne, J. L., & Sariol, A. M. (2020). Feeling
Management, 43(4), 1157–1184. shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors
Jia, X., Liao, S., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Guo, Z. (2019). The and behavioral responses. Human Resource Development Quar-
effect of socially responsible human resource management terly, 31(4), 371–392.
(SRHRM) on frontline employees’ knowledge sharing. Interna- Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., & Jin, H. S. (2020). Gamification and the
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(9), impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making
3646–3663. work fun? Journal of Business Research, 106, 323–330.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and
resource management influence organizational outcomes? A directions for future research. The Academy of Management
meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence a bar-
Klotz, A. C., Bolino, M. C., Song, H., & Stornelli, J. (2017). Examining rier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy
the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact
629–647. of socially responsible human resource management on employ-
Lapointe, E. M., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the rela- ees’ organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role
tionships between servant leadership, organizational commit- of organizational identification. The International Journal of
ment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455.
Ethics, 148(1), 99–115. Nie, D., Lämsä, A.-M., & Pučėtaitė, R. (2018). Effects of responsible
Lawrence, E. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2016). Exploring the impact of human resource management practices on female employees’
job insecurity on employees’ unethical behavior. Business Ethics turnover intentions. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(1),
Quarterly, 27(1), 39–70. 29–41.
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. (2017). Ethical leadership Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. (2006). Socially responsible human
and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy resource management (Human resource management ethics).
and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence. Information Age.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47–57. Pak, K., Kooij, D. T. A. M., De Lange, A. H., & Van Veldhoven, M.
Lee, H. W., Pak, J., Kim, S., & Li, L. Z. (2019). Effects of human J. P. M. (2019). Human Resource Management and the ability,
resource management systems on employee proactivity and motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of
group innovation. Journal of Management, 45(2), 819–846. quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review,
LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work 29(3), 336–352.
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical

13
 H. Zhao et al.

review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Shen, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Effects of socially responsible human
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. resource management on employee organizational commitment.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
of method bias in social science research and recommendations 22(15), 3020–3035.
on how to control it. The Annual Review of Psychology, 63, Si, S., & Li, Y. (2012). Human resource management practices on
539–569. exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Organizational commitment as
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Har- a mediator. The International Journal of Human Resource Man-
vard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77. agement, 23(8), 1705–1716.
Posner, B. Z. (2010). Another look at the impact of personal and Sourchi, S. M. M. R., & Jianqiao, L. (2015). The positive impact of
organizational values congruency. Journal of Business Ethics, high performance work systems (HPWS) on employee commit-
97(4), 535–541. ment and self-sufficiency in strategic human resource manage-
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2012). Empowerment, organizational com- ment (SHRM) in kurdistan. European Journal of Business and
mitment, and voice behavior in the hospitality industry. Cornell Management, 7(3), 80–104.
Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 136–148. Tian, H., Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2020). The relationship between pro-
Ren, T. (2010). Value congruence as a source of intrinsic motivation. environmental attitude and employee green behavior: The role
Kyklos, 63(1), 94–109. of motivational states and green work climate perceptions. Envi-
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). ronmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(7), 7341–7352.
Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2017). How and when does perceived
research. The International Journal of Human Resource Man- CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environ-
agement, 31(12), 1617–1643. mental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 399–412.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Martínez-Cañas, R. (2013). Ethical culture, ethi- Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical Context,
cal intent, and organizational citizenship behavior: The moder- Organizational Commitment, and person–organization Fit. Jour-
ating and mediating role of person–organization fit. Journal of nal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 349–360.
Business Ethics, 120(1), 95–108. Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith,
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martínez-Cañas, R., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). M. B. (2013). A multilevel model of employee innovation:
Ethical culture and employee outcomes: The mediating role Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and
of person–organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42(4),
173–188. 982–1004.
Ruiz-Palomo, D., León-Gómez, A., & García-Lopera, F. (2020). Dis- Wang, Z., & Gagné, M. (2012). A Chinese-Canadian cross-cultural
entangling organizational commitment in hospitality industry: investigation of transformational leadership, autonomous motiva-
The roles of empowerment, enrichment, satisfaction and gender. tion, and collectivistic value. Journal of Leadership & Organi-
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102637. zational Studies, 20(1), 134–142.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the Warner, M., & Zhu, Y. (2018). The challenges of managing ‘new
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well- generation’employees in contemporary China: Setting the scene.
being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(4), 429–436.
Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., & Afridi, M. Winstanley, D., & Woodall, J. (2000). The ethical dimension of human
A. (2019). Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior resource management. Human Resource Management Journal,
through green human resource management practices. Corporate 10(2), 5–20.
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), Zhang, Y., Long, L., Wu, T. Y., & Huang, X. (2015). When is pay
424–438. for performance related to employee creativity in the Chinese
Saether, E. A. (2019). Motivational antecedents to high-tech R&D context? The role of guanxi HRM practice, trust in management,
employees’ innovative work behavior: Self-determined motiva- and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
tion, person–organization fit, organization support of creativity, 36(5), 698–719.
and pay justice. The Journal of High Technology Management Zhao, H., & Zhou, Q. (2021). Socially responsible human resource
Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hitech.​2019.​100350 management and hotel employee organizational citizenship
Shao, D., Zhou, E., & Gao, P. (2019). Influence of perceived socially behavior for the environment: A social cognitive perspective.
responsible human resource management on task performance International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102749.
and social performance. Sustainability, 11(11), 195. https://​doi.​ Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P., & Jiang, C. (2021). How and when does
org/​10.​3390/​su111​13195. socially responsible HRM affect employees’ organizational citi-
Shao, D., Zhou, E., Gao, P., Long, L., & Xiong, J. (2019). Double- zenship behaviors toward the environment? Journal of Business
edged effects of socially responsible human resource manage- Ethics, 169(2), 371–385.
ment on employee task performance and organizational citizen- Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J.-L., & Huang, X. (2019). The impact of
ship behavior: Mediating by role ambiguity and moderating by authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated media-
prosocial motivation. Sustainability, 11(8), 2271. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ tion model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal
10.​3390/​su110​82271. of Business Ethics, 170(1), 1–14.
Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How
socially responsible human resource management affects Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1723–1746.
Shen, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Socially responsible human resource
management and employee support for external CSR: Roles of
organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed toward
employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 875–888.

13

View publication stats