INTRODUCTION:

Performance has become a buzz word in the twenty-first century and everyone strives to maximize it. Every organization—whether public or private, irrespective of their size, time and place—works to improve performance in both qualitative and quantitative terms (Punia and Garg, 2012). Whether a firm is profit oriented or welfare motive driven, every firm aspires to excel in terms of performance. Today, performance not only inscribes productivity or profitability but also deals with human aspect of work, too. Employee satisfaction, motivation, morale, employee commitment, job involvement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior are not only the means to improve performance; these are considered as the end result, too.

In this era of Human Capital Management, more and more companies are adopting various novel approaches to elicit maximum performance from its employee. One of such novel approach is institutionalization of appropriate model of High Performance

Work Practices (HPWPs). People love to take responsibilities and work well for maximum efficiency, and that is how his needs of self-development and social belongingness are catered to effectively. Thus, an organization looks for certain innovative and unconventional practices to achieve the desired goal which may be termed as high performance work system (HPWS). HPWS tends to involve the employee in work practices, enhance skills and ability of employees and foster their loyalty for the organization. So, they approach employees with a holistic framework of building a healthy relationship between employee and organization.

Moreover, these practices help to realize conceptual framework of open, collaborative, trustful and mutually beneficial work environment and organizational culture.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

High Performance Work System:

Researches on High Performance Work System research gained mainstream prominence around the mid-1990s. Number of researchers such as Arthur (1994), Pfeffer (1994), Huselid (1995), MacDuffie (1995), Delery and Doty (1996), Becker and Gerhart (1996) and Youndt et al. (1996) and Wood (1999) have introduced the concept and domain of High Performance Work System to the world. These explorations of renowned researchers are pioneer studies in the field of High Performance Work System. The initial studies provided fundamental empirical evidence to promote organizational growth and effectiveness through employee skills development and active involvement in workplace activities (Pfeffer, 1994; Youndt et al., 1996; Wood, 1999). The earlier framework of High Performance Work System is derived from two essential and primary management principles. One of the two principles was high-commitment management propagated by Walton (1985) and other one was high-involvement management propounded by Lawler (1986).

High-commitment management establishes fundamental psychological contracts between employer and employees. Proponents of high-commitment perspective supported psychological contract between employer and employees through employee commitment and employee empowerment, discretionary job design and the enhancement of employees’ level of motivation at work (Walton, 1985; Arthur 1994; Gould-Williams, 2004, Punia and Garg, 2013). Highly committed management ensures relatively flat and less hierarchical organizational structures, reduced power distance between management and employees and thereby easy approach of employees to management, as well as increased opportunities for employees to develop valuable work-related skills. According to Arthur (1994), workers are provided with greater opportunities to explore and influence the nature and scope of their jobs. Employees are also motivated to utilize their creative, inspired and imaginative abilities at work. Such enlarged scope at workplace leads to increased feelings of trust and commitment among employees (Arthur 1994; Gould-Williams, 2004).

Similarly, high-involvement management is associated with active and voluntary involvement of employees at workplace and workplace activities (Lawler, 1986). The high-involvement management system involves discretionary work, autonomous team, team-based work arrangements, Management by Objective, Quality Circle and participative decision-making activities. All constructs of high-involvement management perspective are contrasted with control-based forms of work (Whitener, 2001; Boxall and Macky, 2009). High-involvement management comprised of four main components: power (P), information (I), rewards (R) and knowledge (K); which is generally known as the ‘PIRK’ model (Lawler 1986). Based on the PIRK model, employers are more likely to achieve organizational performance if their employees are empowered to make useful contributions to organizational processes, kept abreast with useful information regarding their jobs, and rewarded commensurately for their positive contributions towards achieving organizational goals.

As far as definition of High Performance Work System, no one has consistently defined, or even uniformly named High Performance Work System (Baker, Olson and Morisseau, 1994). The system has been referred with various names as ‘high performance work systems’, ‘alternate work practices’, ‘empowered work practices’ and ‘flexible work practices’ (Delaney and Godard, 2001). Multiplicity of nomenclature, definitions and theories are supported by various scholars (Punia and Garg, 2012). These practices have been defined as a tool of value creation and value enhancement. High Performance Work System encourages long term and substantial investment in employees by the organization (Sun et al., 2007). Employees’ personal experience of HR practices and fairness of their implementation shapes their relationships with the organization. And improved work relationship can significantly impact their work behaviors and attitudes (Guest, 1998). Tsui et al. (1997) explored the effects of different employee-organization relationship approaches on employee outcomes. The group of researchers concluded four approaches of employee-organization relationship. These four approaches are mutual investment, overinvestment, underinvestment, and quasi-spot-contract. The authors reported that the mutual investment and overinvestment approaches are more effective and long term influence than the quasi-spot-contract and underinvestment approaches. The mutual investment and overinvestment approaches are more potent in generating favorable employee outcomes in terms of better job performance and organizational citizenship and more affective commitment.

Ultimately, High Performance Work System was reported to have positive influence on organizational performance (Liu et al. 2006). Various other studies conducted by Delery and Doty (1996), Garg (2015), Punia and Garg (2017), Fan et al. (2014), Becker and Huselid, 1998; Delery and Shaw (2001) and Black and Lynch (2001) also supported an affirmative relationship between High Performance Work System and firm performance. Other researchers in the domain of High Performance Work System have concluded a positive linkage between High Performance Work System and firms’ financial performance in different industries such as Semiconductor design firms (Tsai 2006), Pharmaceutical industry (Zhang and Li 2009), hospital industry (Zhang et al. 2013) and Healthcare sector (Fan et al. 2014). Based on previous studies following hypothesis is drafted.

Hypothesis 1: High Performance Work System positively correlates with organizational performance:

Social Exchange Theory:

According to Social Exchange theory, HR practices are regarded by workers as a personalized commitment of management for its employees. Implementation of any employee friendly HPWP is seen as an effort of betterment of lives of employees of the firm. This organized organizational endeavour for the betterment of worker is reciprocated back by employees in the form of positive outlook, attitude and behaviour (Hannah and Iverson, 2004). And scholars reported that decisive consequence of pro-organizational attitude and behaviour is maximization of organizational performance. Exchange relationships between firm and workers were renowned to have a constructive effect on performance of the organization deriving support from social exchange theory (Cho et al., 2006). HPWPs enhance employee participation and involvement, facilitate team building and ensure quality management. All these processes lead to lower turnover ratio and highly satisfied and engaged work force which ensures higher level of organizational performance (Huselid, 1995, Pfeffer, 1994,). Positive perception of employees towards organizational initiatives such as HR practices results in discretionary efforts for organizational outcomes (Gould-Williams 2007). Gould Williams and Davies (2005) explained that recognition, empowerment and investment in employees will be reciprocated by them. This affiliation of mutual dependence creates an atmosphere of trust and openness between employees and management. Other scholars reported that HR practices does not affect performance directly rather through psychological links of commitmenuk0pju-io90t, engagement, motivation etc. as suggested by the social exchange theory (Whitener, 2001; Agarwala, 2003; Gould-Williams, 2003) Hence, both organizations and employees need to develop and fulfil their psychological contracts to ensure higher level of organizational performance. Based on these studies following hypothesis has been drafted.

Hypothesis 2: Social exchange theory mediates the association between High Performance Work Practices and organizational performance.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK:

The fundamental objective of the present paper is to explore the mediating effect of social exchange theory in the relationship of High Performance Work System and organizational performance. The research setting for this empirical analysis is various insurance companies located at four major metros of India. These four major metros are Delhi- NCR region, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai. The study is based upon an exploratory-cum descriptive research design. Random sampling is used to collect data from a wide range of insurance companies comprising of LIC, HDFC Ergo, Reliance, Star Health, Oriental insurance, National Insurance, New India Assurance, Bajaj finance, Royal Sundaram, L and T. Sample size of the study is 244 employees engaged in various insurance companies. Both public and private sector insurance companies contributed 50% (122 respondents each) to the present study. 60% respondents were from general insurance companies while rest of 40% respondents was from life insurance companies. Female respondents comprised of 41% of the total respondents and male employees contributed 59% of the total respondents. Primary data is collected through a structured questionnaire. Part A of the questionnaire captures the respondents' demography such as age, gender, work experience and educational qualifications and it also captures organization related information such as sector- public or private etc. Part B comprises of 21 High Performance Work Practices taken from exploratory study of Garg and Punia (2017). The authors have developed an elaborative High Performance Work System for Indian insurance industry. The present paper used the same model to investigate mediating effect of social exchange theory. Five-point rating scales ranging from highly available to unavailable and from highly effective to ineffective have been used. Part C measures social exchange with the help of scale developed by Shore et al. (2006). Part D measures organizational performance with the help of scale of Singh (2004).

Mediation analysis has been done with the help of two methods i.e. through steps as prescribed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and through Structure Equation Modeling using AMOS. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method of mediation analysis comprises of four steps.

I) Firstly, direct effect of independent variable (X) on dependent variable (Y) is explored. It could be represented through following regression equation.

Y= α + a X + e₁ (Direct effect)

II) Secondly, effect of independent variable on mediating variable (M) is observed through the following regression equation.

M= α + b X + e₂

III) Further, the effect of mediating variable (M) on dependent variable (Y) is investigated taking independent variable (X) as controlled variable. It explains effect on mediating variable on dependent variable without inclusion of any effect of independent variable.

Y= α + c X + d M + e₃

IV) Lastly, association of the dependent and independent variables is investigated after controlling the mediating variable. Equation as used in step 3 is also used here.

Now, if d=0 then the complete mediation is present and if d is significantly lower than ‘a’ then partial mediation is present.

Second method used in present study is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using AMOS. The methodology adopted here is developed by Rai and Singh (2013). Model fit is analyzed by two aspects: Overall model fit using Chi-square and SRMR and Relative model fit using TLI and RMSEA. The following criteria of goodness of-fit indices were used to assess the model fit: value of SRMR ranges from 0 to 1 and a well fit model has a very low value (less than 0.05). A value less than 0.05 of RMSEA confirms good fit and value in the range of 0.05 to 0.08 indicates reasonable fit. Values between 0.08 and 0.1 shows mediocre fit and value greater than 0.1 signifies poor fit. TLI ranges from 0 to 1 and a higher value (close or above 0.95) indicate good fit.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

Reliability of variables is tested with the help of Cronbach alpha. Result shows acceptable values of Cronbach alpha for all variables of the study. Table 1 gives mean value, standard deviation and correlation statics among all variables of the study. Result reveals that variables are significantly correlated to each others.

Table-1: Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation among Variables

Variables	Mean	SD	HPWS	SE	OP
HPWS	3.78	0.85	1 (.71)	.74*	.81*
SE	3.89	1.34	--	1 (.82)	.78*
OP	3.30	0.96	--	---	1 (.77)

HPWS- High Performance Work System, SE- Social Exchange, OP- Organizational Performance

Cronbach’s alpha is in parentheses, * p < .001, ** p < .05, *** p < .01

As reported in table-1, all values of cronbach alpha is greater than 0.70 thus reliability of the variable is confirmed. High Performance Work System is also reported to correlate positively with both Social exchange theory and also with organizational performance. This confirms acceptance of first hypothesis of the study i.e. High Performance Work System is positively associated with organizational performance.

Table-2: Direct Effect of HPWS on Organizational Performance (Model- I)


0.821
AMOS Result	Unstandardized Estimate	Standardized Estimate	SE	CR
Regression Weight	.783	0.821	0.221	2.58 **
Fit Measures	Chi-Square value	SRMR	TLI	RMSEA
	11.64	.078	.91	.047

*Significant at p< .05

Table-3: Mediating Effect of Social Exchange Theory (HPWS and Organizational Performance)


AMOS Result Regression Weight			Unstandardized Estimate		Standardized Estimate			SE		CR
HPWS SE			0.771		0.712			0.170		4.53***
SE OP			0.712		0.691			0.121		5.88***
HPWS OP			0.414		0.372			0.201		2.05*
Fit Measures			Chi-Square diff.		SRMR			TLI		RMSEA
			4.14*		0.051			0.90		0.062
SPSS results
			Reg. Coefficient		S.E			T-value		Sig.
Equation 1 :- b(YX)			0.892		0.152			8.837		**
Equation 2 :- b(MX)			0.861		0.252			7.732		**
Equation 3 :- b(YM.X)			0.729		0.026			9.982		**
Equation 4 :- b(YX.M)			0.273		0.182			2.738		**

Sobel Test			Value		S.E			Z-value
			0.732		0.152			7.363**
Bootstrapping Result ( Number of bootstrap samples= 2500)
Effect	Mean	S.E.		LL 95% CL		UL 95% CL	LL 99% CL		UL 99% CL
	0.711	0.144		0.372		0.782	0.362		0.793

* for p < .01, ** for p < .05, *** for p < .001

Table-2 represents direct effect of High Performance Work System on Organizational performance. Regression coefficient (standardized estimate) is 0.821. Critical ratio (ratio of unstandarized estimate and standard error) is significant at 0.05 level that means High Performance Work System significant positive effect organizational performance. Fit of the model is good from both aspects: - overall fit and relative fit. SRMR value is slightly above the good fit model. Value of TLI (0.91) and RMSEA (.047) also indicate good fit model. Results compliments with observations of previous studies (eg. studies of Delery and Doty (1996), Black and Lynch (2001), Tsai 2006, Zhang et al. (2013), Bonias et al. (2010) and Fan et al. (2014)).

Table-3 investigates probable mediation effect of social exchange theory. Data supports support for hypothesis no 2, however a partial mediation of social exchange theory is reported. Table suggests that direct effect of HPWS on organizational performance is significant in the presence of social exchange theory. The bracketed value is standardized regression coefficient in the absence of social exchange theory; however regression value of direct effect decreases in the absence of mediating variable. It reflects partial mediation effect of job characteristics theory. SRMR and TLI value states a good model fit, while RMSEA concludes a reasonable fit model. P value of chi-square difference for two models (model 1: regression weight is freely estimated and model 2: regression weight taken as zero) lies between 0.01 and 0.05. It signifies partial mediation of social exchange theory. SPSS data also confirms partial mediation as effect of independent variable on dependent variable on controlling mediator is also found be significant. Sobel test and bootstrapping effect report that partial mediation is significant.

DISCUSSION:

High Performance Work System positively influences organizational performance (Youndt et al., 1996; Delery and Doty, 1996 and Black and Lynch, 2001). The present study makes an important contribution effort by exploring managerial and employee aspects of High Performance Work System and organizational performance through investigating the intervention of Social exchange perspectives of High Performance Work System in Indian insurance industry. The paper confirmed partial mediation effect of social exchange theory in relationship between High Performance Work System and organizational performance. Positive perception of employees towards employers’ initiatives like HR practices elicits higher level of performance form employees and it ultimately leads to increased organizational outcomes (Gould-Williams and Davies, 2005; Wayne et al. 1997; Whitener, 2001). Paper finds empirical evidences to support exchange relationships between employer and employee and confirms social exchange theory. Friendly and supportive social relations and social networks are also reported to have positive association with organization performance.

One of the most vital and pivotal responsibility of Human Resource managers is optimization of performance of available human resources. And one of the most revered and potent mechanisms to maximize performance are effective, synergetic and gainful implementation of High Performance Work System. These practices concentrate on empowering and enriching employees through increased information flows and the devolution of decision-making. Thus they are associated with increased employee productivity and loyalty for organization (Wood, 1999). . High Performance Work System is beneficial for all: employer, employee as well as for the union also; as they create opportunities for union to revitalize their role, enabling them to discard their traditional role in favor of a new, partnership one. Thus, they help in building a constructive partnership between these three pillars (Kochan and Osterman, 1994). Researchers do not have a unified view of the mechanism through which high performance work system leads to organizational performance.

These different perspectives of High Performance Work System offer considerable explanation on the issue of intervening effect. A High Performance Work System should be designed in such a way that is leads to development of cordial relationship among employees (Relational coordination view), results into more responsibility and autonomy (Job characteristics perspective), helps to build a rare, imitable and valuable workforce (Resource based view), takes care of employees’ attitude and well-being (Psychological impact paradigm), enhances employees’ ability and motivation level (AMO model). Further, the present establishes social exchange perspective as important intervening variable that transmit effect of High Performance Work System to organizational performance. In simple words, institutionalizing of High Performance Work System leads to development of social exchange relationship between employee and employer which ultimately lead to higher level of organizational performance. Now, it is the duty of the managers to ensure that high performance practices are perceived positively by employees (Social exchange theory). A High Performance Work System which is developed with the help of social exchange perspective contributes in building a workforce, which is more committed, more satisfied with their jobs and work-life balance. This leads to enhanced performance and involvement of employees, reduced absenteeism and turnover. When employers introduce High Performance Work System that make employees come closer to each another in a purposeful way, then employee regard themselves as a part of large family and they start to put more efforts for prosperity of the organization. In addition, it should also be ensured by HR managers that effective relationship among individuals leads to creativity and problem sharing ultimately leading to better quality (Gittell 2002). By adopting an extensive range of innovative HRM practices, organizations are able to exploit existing complementarities among such practices to maximize their beneficial independent properties.

Given the preliminary nature of the study in the field of mediation analysis of social exchange perspective of High Performance Work System, further research needs to be conducted on various conceptual models of High Performance Work System, their successful implementation and their probable relationship with other non financial performance indicators like employee engagement, organizational commitment, job involvement. The present paper explored mediation effect of social exchange theory through cross-sectional approach. Causal relations and mediation effect could not be confirmed with surety and confidence on the basis of cross sectional studies only. Thus results of present studies need to be explored with the help of longitudinal exploration too. The study is marred with few limitations too. Firstly, a larger sample size would have made the study more worthwhile. Secondly owing to lack of previous observations in case of a number of theories, results of the study could not be compared for continuity or deviation. Another limitation of study is subjective organizational performance measure. Further researches could include both financial and non-financial measures to measure organizational performance. In conclusion, adequate investment in employees propels the laws of reciprocity as establishments who have embraced and embedded this concept in their culture will reap that which they have sown.

REFERENCES:

1. Adler, P. and Borys, B. (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 61-72.

2. Ahmad, M., Shahzad, N., Waheed, A. and Khan, M. (2014) High Involvement Management and Employee Performance–Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(3), 230- 243.

3. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000) Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

4. Atkinson, C. and Hall, L. (2011) Flexible working and happiness in the NHS. Employee Relations, 33 (2), 88-105.

5. Barling, J., Iverson, R. and Kelloway, K. (2003) High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 276–283.

6. Barling, J., Iverson, R. and Kelloway, K. (2003) High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 276–283.

7. Barney, J. B., and Wright, P. M. (1997). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage (CAHRS Working Paper, No. 97–09). Ithaca: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

8. Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

9. Batt, R., and Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42(2), 189–220.

10. Becker, B., and Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779–801.

11. Bhuian, S., Al-Shammari, E. and Jefri, O. (1996) Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job characteristics: An empirical study of expatriates in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 6 (3), 57–80

12. Black, S. E., and Lynch, L. M. (2001). How to compete: the impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), 434–445.

13. Boisard, P., Gollac, M., Valeyre, A. and Cartron, D. (2003) Time and work: work intensity. [online] Available at: http://damiencartron.free.fr/textes/dublint1_Vanglais.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2013].

14. Bonias, D., Bartram, T., Leggat, S. G., and Stanton, P. (2010). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between high performance work systems and patient care quality in hospitals? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 319–337.

15. Boselie, P., Dietz, G., and Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in research on human resource management and performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67–94.

16. Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high – performance work systems: progressing the high involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.

17. Bryson, A. and White, M. (2008) Organizational commitment: Do workplace practices matter? Centre for Economic Performance, Discussion Paper No. 881, the London School of Economics and Political Science.

18. Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, C. J., Härtel, C. E., and Nyland, C. (2014) Influence of high performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burnout: empirical evidence from the Chinese healthcare sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(7), 931–950.

19. Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., and Scott, K. S. (2003) Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a “great place to work” and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965–993.

20. Gittell, J. H. (2002) Relationships between service providers and their impact on customers. Journal of Service Research, 4(4), 299–311.

21. Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., and Wimbush, J. (2010) A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organization Science, 21(2), 490–506.

22. Gittell, J. H., Weinberg, D., Pfefferle, S., and Bishop, C. (2008) Impact of relational coordination on job satisfaction and quality outcomes: a study of nursing homes. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(2), 154–170.

23. Godard, J. (2001) High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54 (4), 776-805.

24. Gould-Williams, J. (2003) The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 28–54.

25. Garg, N. and Punia, B.K. (2016), “Exploring Social Exchange Theory in Indian settings”, XIBA Business Review, 2(2), 12-21.

26. Garg, N and Kardam, B. (2017), “Exploring the Linkage between Awareness and Perception of High Performance Work Practices with Employee Well-being at Work Place- A New Dimension for HRM”, Jindal Journal of Business Research, 4(1-2), 81-100.

27. Gould-Williams, J. (2004) The effects of ‘high commitment’ HRM practices on employee attitude: The views of public sector workers. Public Administration, 82 (1), 63–81.

28. Gould-Williams, J. and Davies, F. (2005) Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7 (1), 1 – 24.

29. Green, F. and McIntosh, S. (2001) The intensification of work in Europe. Labour Economics, 8, 291–308.

30. Hackman, R. and Oldham, G. (1976) Motivation through the design of Work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

31. Hannah, D.R., and Iverson, R.D. (2004) Employment Relationships in Context: Implications for Policy and Practice, in the Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives, eds. J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, L.M. Shore, M.S. Taylor and L.E. Tetrick, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Hayes, T. L. (2002) Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268.

33. Garg, N. (2014), “Employee Engagement and Individual Differences- A study in Indian Context”, Management Studies and Economics System, 1(1), 31-40.

34. Hunter, L. and Hitt, L. (2001) What makes a high-performance workplace? Evidence from retail bank branches. Financial Institutions Working Paper Series 00-30-B, the Wharton Financial Institutions Center.

35. Kroon, B., Van de Voorde, K. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2009) Cross-level effects of high-performance work practices on burnout: Two counteracting mediating mechanisms compared. Personnel Review, 38 (5), 509 – 525.

36. MacDuffie, J. (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (2), 197-221.

37. Punia, B.K. and Garg, N. (2013) High Performance Work Practices in Indian Organizations: Exploration and Employees’ Awareness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 8(4), 509-516.

38. Singh, K. (2004) Impact of HR practices on perceived firm performance in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 301–317.

39. Garg, N. and Punia, B.K (2017), “Developing High Performance Work System for Indian Insurance Industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(3), 320-337.

Received on 13.12.2017 Modified on 08.01.2018

Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1):457-463.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00071.9