Limitations and Suggestions for
Future Research
Like all research, this study has a number of
limitations. A limitation of this study is that its
sample provides a restricted basis for generaliz-
ing our findings. This study focused on firms in
two industries in Jordan. The focal setting may
limit the generalizability of the findings to or-
ganizations within this national context. In ad-
dition, the sample size was relatively small and
we investigated moderated relationships. Both
the small size of our study sample and the focus
on moderation increase the risk that significant
relationships will not be detected (McClelland
& Judd, 1993). However, we received good sup-
port for all of our hypotheses and our overall
model. Given that the detection of moderation
is particularly constrained by small sample size
(Cohen, 1988), the results indicate some ro-
bustness in our findings.
A second limitation of this study, frequently
observed in survey-based research, is bias asso-
ciated with common method variance (CMV)
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). We acknowledge that Gerhart, Wright,
Mahan, and Snell (2000) highlighted the risks
associated with single-source methods of data
collection. These authors also state, however,
that bias is more likely in large firms in which
practices and human resource systems are likely
to vary considerably. While their mean organi-
zational size was 40,000 employees, the data in
the current study was generated from smaller
organizations, the majority of which employed
between 100 and 300 people. There is support
for the argument that smaller firms are unlikely
to feature significant within-firm variation
in practices and systems, which is likely to
improve reliability (Huselid & Becker, 2000).
In addition, previous research indicates
that CMV is less of a concern for studies with
a moderation effect (Schriesheim & DeNisi,
1981). The logic is that common method
bias should be present regardless of the level
of the moderator. It follows that when the
relationship between the predictor, mediator,
and dependent construct varies depending
on the moderator, as in our study, responses
are unlikely to be the result of using the same
method—participants have not rated all items similarly as is evident when self-report
CMV threatens data validity (Schriesheim &
DeNisi, 1981). Moderation models are also
less likely to risk bias from participants’ the-
orizing about predicted relationships. This
risk is more likely in simple linear models
(Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996).
One approach advocated to minimize com-
mon method bias is to specify relationships
among the dependent and predictor variables
that are complex and therefore not likely
to be part of the individual raters’ cognitive
maps. Our moderated mediation model is,
therefore, likely to reduce the risk of bias asso-
ciated with respondents’ theorizing, because
such a complex relationship is not likely to
be part of the respondents’ theory in use
(S. J. Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010).
Finally, to address the issue of potential
common method bias empirically, we used
a CMV marker variable (Lindell & Whitney,
2001; Richardson et al., 2009). Analysis using
the CMV marker variable indicated that the
partial correlation coefficients for all predic-
tor and dependent variables remained statis-
tically significant (
p
=
.00 for all correlations)
when the marker variable was controlled. In
addition, we used a Harman one-factor test
(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). All scale items used
to measure the predictor variables were entered
into a principal components factor analysis,
and the results of the unrotated solution were
explored. Four factors were identified with an
eigenvalue greater than 1, and no single fac-
tor accounted for the majority of variance.
This suggests that common method variance
is not a significant issue in this study. If com-
mon method variance is a significant issue, it
is likely that a single factor would emerge or
one general factor would account for a major-
ity of variance (Posdakoff & Organ, 1986).
While the risk of bias is acknowledged and
has been addressed by the authors, we also
recognize that there is a growing acceptance
of research indicating that CMV is unlikely to
invalidate study findings, particularly in the
investigation of complex models (Crampton
& Wagner, 1994; Doty & Glick, 1998; Spector,
2006). We acknowledge, however, that self-
report methods may be considered a limita-
tion to this study.
Our research focused on the frequently
utilized outcome measure of organiza-
tional financial performance. While this is
a robust measure of managerial importance,
the relationship between the HR strategic
role, HPHRPs, and organizational outcomes
beyond financial performance is also war-
ranted—for example, investigating the
impact of the HR strategic role on employee-
level performance such as employee satisfac-
tion and voluntary turnover. The potential
effect of different HR roles, such as change
agent, employee champion, and adminis-
trative expert, on organization performance
also merits further exploration, as are the
potential contributions of each role to orga-
nizational performance. Finally,
while we investigated the effect of
devolvement as an important con-
tingency factor in the relationship
between the HR strategic role and
the adoption of HPHRPs, there are
other important contingencies
that may influence this relation-
ship, such as top management
support and IT support. Further
research should thus investigate
other contingencies affecting this
relationship.
Despite these limitations, the
findings reported here suggest
that there is important research
potential in investigating the role
of coupling of an HR strategic role
with the devolvement of respon-
sibility for HR execution to line
management. This study also indi-
cates that our understanding of the
impact of the HR strategic role and
HPHRPs is significantly enhanced
by investigating complex mediat-
ing pathways, and also reinforces
the merit of investigating relation-
ship contingencies. Furthermore,
the value of undertaking this
research in Jordan is considerable.
The findings provided evidence
for the applicability of theory and
previous empirical work in a non-
Western context, particularly the
Jordanian context.