The Decision to Comply With Workplace Law: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Human Resource Practitioners

Violations of labour and employment laws governing workers (e.g. workplace law) are a widespread issue in industrialized counties. While human resource (HR) practitioners play a central role in responding to workplace law in organizations, limited empirical research has explored HR and legal compliance. This mixed-methods dissertation aims to increase our understanding of how and why Canadian HR practitioners decide to comply (or not comply) with legal requirements. Drawing on the Reasoned Action Approach as a theoretical framework, Study 1 and Study 2 explore how HR practitioners beliefs, attitudes, perceived norms, perceived behavioural control (self-efficacy), perceived risk, unionization, professional HR designations, self-assessed knowledge, tenure and sector influence self-reported compliance. Study 1 identified practitioners salient behavioural, normative, and control beliefs through a Belief Elicitation Study. Using bootstrapped multiple regression, Study 2 consisted of a test of the full theoretical model. Study 2 found perceived norms, attitudes, behavioural beliefs (advantages and disadvantages of compliance), control beliefs (resources that would facilitate compliance), and perceived behavioural control directly influenced compliance. A number of indirect relationships were also significant, particularly involving perceived risk and self-assessed knowledge. Study 3 consisted of qualitative interviews with HR practitioners to gain increased insight into the lived experience of HR professionals. Study 3 was largely consistent with the quantitative findings. Practitioners also emphasized tensions between staff and line authority, the influential role played by senior leaders, that compliance is strategic, that HR has responsibility to act as an expert guide and ethical steward when promoting compliance, and that risk and knowledge act as key drivers of compliance.