HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS AND ...High Performance work systems and employee innovative behaviour 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION Due to the current globalization and economic recession, organisations

HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS

AND EMPLOYEE INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR

DOCTORAL THESIS

PRESENTED BY:

Naiara Escriba Carda

SUPERVISED BY: Dr. Mª Teresa Canet Giner

Dr. Francisco Balbastre Benavent

Valencia, 2015

DOCTORAL THESIS

High Performance work systems and employee

innovative behaviour

Presented by:

Naiara Escriba Carda

Supervised by:

Valencia, 2015

© 2015 Naiara Escriba Carda

Dr. Mª Teresa Canet Giner

Dr. Francisco Balbastre Benavent

Departamento de Dirección de Empresas

‘Juan José Renau Piqueras’

Universitat de València

To my Mother

AGRADECIMIENTOS

Quisiera aprovechar estas líneas para agradecer a todas las personas e

instituciones que han ayudado a que este trabajo de varios años se haya hecho

realidad. Son muchas las personas que han estado apoyándome en esta

aventura y dándome fuerzas en los momentos más difíciles y también

acompañándome en los momentos agradables que he tenido durante la

realización de este trabajo.

En primer lugar agradecer a la Universidad de Valencia, en concreto al

Programa “Ajudes per a la formació de personal investigador de caràcter

predoctoral, en el marc del Subprograma Atracció de Talent de VLC-

CAMPUS”, la financiación recibida que ha hecho posible el desarrollo de esta

investigación. También agradecer a Nottingham Trent University,

concretamente a Nottingham Business School, por haberme acogido en mis

diversas estancias en el Reino Unido. En concreto a la Profesora Helen Shipton

por su amabilidad y disponibilidad para ayudarme. Agradecer a la Universidad

Carlos III de Madrid, específicamente a la sección departamental de

Organización de Empresas. A Fernando, Jaime, Celia y demás compañeros por

haberme dado cobijo en esta última fase de la Tesis. Por último, pero no menos

importante, al Departamento de Dirección de Empresas “Juan José Renau

Piqueras” de la Universidad de Valencia por la formación y apoyo que me han

ofrecido durante estos años.

En segundo lugar, desatacar la labor de mis directores de tesis, Paco y Teresa,

que tanto tiempo han estado apoyándome y brindándome sus sabios consejos

tanto en el ámbito académico como en el personal. Agradecer a ambos su

disponibilidad, el haber aguantado mis momentos de agobio, por darme

siempre palabras de ánimo y por haber estimulado mi inquietud investigadora

y de mejora continua. Gracias a los dos por haber confiado en mi capacidad en

todo momento y por haberme transmitido seguridad, todo esto ha hecho

posible que hoy esté escribiendo estas palabras. También agradecer a mi

director de la Beca, Pepe Pla por haber confiado en mí y haber estado siempre

ahí para ayudarme y haberme dado siempre los mejores consejos.

Por otra parte quisiera mostrar mi gratitud a diversos profesores y compañer@s

que han estado a mi lado durante el desarrollo de este trabajo. En concreto a

Lorenzo por haberme guiado y estimulado a que siguiera este camino. A

Joaquín Aldás, por estar siempre disponible para ayudarme a resolver mis

problemas metodológicos. A Ana, Marimen, Marian, Manu, Rafa, Ximo A.,

Ximo C., Tasio y Víctor, por haberme atendido y ayudado siempre en lo que he

necesitado. A mis mejores compañeras y amigas Cristina, Marta y Ana. Que os

voy a decir a vosotras, gracias por darme siempre los mejores consejos, por

haber secado mis lágrimas en los momentos de tristeza y por los momentos de

risas y alegrías que hemos compartido, ¡os quiero mucho! También agradecer a

Ronald y José Luis el tiempo que hemos compartido en el departamento, y por

haberme ayudado siempre sin condiciones. Asimismo, agradecer a Jorge,

Anabel, José Vicente, Virginia y el resto de compañeros del departamento por

los buenos momentos vividos. Sin todos vosotros esta tarea hubiera resultado

muy difícil.

También quiero mostrar mi gratitud a mi familia y a mi pareja. Gràcies mamà

per escoltarme i recolzar-me, per estar sempre al meu costat a pesar d’estar

lluny en la distància, pels grans valors que m’has inculcat, per incentivar que

continuara estudiant, eres la millor mare que es pot tindre. Gràcies al meu pare,

a les meues germanes i cunyats per donar-me sempre ànims i saber sempre

traure’m un somriure. Gràcies familia pel vostre amor incondicional, per estar

sempre al meu costat i donar-me forçes per a continuar. Por último quisiera

agradecer a David, mi compañero de viaje, gracias por creer siempre en mí y

por haberme acompañado en esta aventura del doctorado. Gracias sobre todo

por entender las horas infinitas que he tenido que dedicar a este trabajo; sin tu

apoyo no hubiera sido posible.

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3

1.2 JUSTIFICATION AND THESIS GENERAL GOALS ....................................... 5

1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 6

1.4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 2: GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................. 15

2.1 GOALS AND CONTENT OF THE CHAPTER ................................................ 17

2.2 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 17

2.2.1 General Conceptualisation ............................................................................ 17

2.2.2 HRM models and perspectives ....................................................................... 18

2.2.3 Why High Performance Work Systems? ........................................................ 21

2.2.4 What is a HPWS? Conceptualisation and content ......................................... 23

2.2.5 HRM process .................................................................................................. 25

2.2.6 HRM process and Attribution Theory ............................................................ 28

2.2.7 How do HPWS work? .................................................................................... 31

2.2.8 AMO Framework and its relationship to HRM content and process ............. 33

2.3 EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

TO INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES ................................................................................... 35

2.3.1 Innovative Behaviour ..................................................................................... 37

2.3.2 Employee Work Engagement ......................................................................... 40

2.3.3 Knowledge Sharing and Exploratory Learning ............................................. 44

2.3.3.1 Knowledge sharing ................................................................................ 45

2.3.3.2 Exploratory Learning ............................................................................. 49

2.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....... 50

2.2 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 52

CHAPTER 3: GENERAL METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 75

3.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE GENERAL METHODOLOGY ............................ 77

3.2 SAMPLE CONTEXT AND DATA COLLECTION ......................................... 77

3.2.1 Context of Researchers’ sample ..................................................................... 77

3.2.2 Knowledge intensive workers......................................................................... 80

3.3 AFRICAN CONTEXT: CHARACTERISTICS OF NIGERIA AND

TANZANIA ................................................................................................................... 81

3.4 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................... 83

3.5 RESEARCH TOOL ........................................................................................... 83

3.6 STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED ............................................................. 85

3.6.1 Multiple Regression Analysis ......................................................................... 85

3.6.2 Structural Equation Modelling ...................................................................... 86

3.7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 87

II

CHAPTER 4: HPWS & KNOWLEDGE SHARING AS DRIVING FORCES FOR

IB: A MICRO PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................................... 91

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 93

4.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 95

4.2.1 Knowledge sharing behaviour and its relationship to innovative behaviour . 95

4.2.2 HPWS as drivers of knowledge sharing behaviour ........................................ 96

4.2.3 The mediating role of knowledge sharing in the relationship between HPWS

and Innovative Behaviour .......................................................................................... 99

4.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 100

4.3.1 Sample .......................................................................................................... 100

4.3.2 Measurement scales ..................................................................................... 101

4.3.3 Common Method Variance Test ................................................................... 101

4.3.4 Descriptives .................................................................................................. 102

4.3.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................ 102

4.4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 104

4.5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................ 107

4.6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 109

4.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 111

CHAPTER 5: EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF HPWS AND INNOVATIVE

BEHAVIOUR. THE ROLE OF EXPLORATORY LEARNING ...................................... 119

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 121

5.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW .............................................................................. 123

5.2.1 HPWS perception and employees’ innovative behaviour............................. 123

5.2.2 Employee perceptions of HPWS and its impact on exploratory learning and

IB. ……………………………………………………………………………………….126

5.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 128

5.3.1 Sample and data collection .......................................................................... 128

5.3.2 Measurement scales ..................................................................................... 128

5.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................... 129

5.4.1 Descriptive analysis ..................................................................................... 129

5.4.2 Evaluating the measurement model .............................................................. 130

5.4.3 The structural model .................................................................................... 131

5.5 RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 132

5.6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS........................................................ 134

5.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 138

CHAPTER 6: HPWS, WORK ENGAGEMENT AND INNOVATIVE

BEHAVIOUR: INSIGHTS FROM TANZANIA AND NIGERIA ..................................... 147

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 149

6.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW .............................................................................. 151

6.2.1 High performance work systems as drivers of innovative behaviours ......... 151

6.2.2 The role of HR Process in the relationship between HPWS and IB ............. 154

6.2.3 The role of work engagement in the relationship between HPWS and IB.... 156

6.3 METHOD ......................................................................................................... 158

6.3.1 Sample .......................................................................................................... 158

III

6.3.2 Measures ...................................................................................................... 159

6.3.3 Common Method Variance Test ................................................................... 160

6.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .......................................................................... 160

6.4.1 Descriptives.................................................................................................. 160

6.4.2 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 161

6.5 RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 164

6.6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................................. 167

6.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 173

CHAPTER 7: GENERAL THESIS CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 185

7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 187

7.1.1 Conclusions on Chapter 4: HPWS & Knowledge Sharing as driving forces

for IB: a micro perspective ..................................................................................... 187_

7.1.2 Conclusions on Chapter 5: Employee perceptions of HPWS and Innovative

Behaviour. The role of Exploratory Learning ......................................................... 188

7.1.3 Conclusions on Chapter 6: HPWS, Work Engagement and Innovative

Behaviour: Insights from Tanzania And Nigeria ..................................................... 189

7.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS .................................... 190

7.3 ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................... 192

7.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................ 193

7.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 195

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 199

RESUMEN ............................................................................................................................... 203

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 209

IV

V

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.1. PDI PER CAMPUS ................................................................................................ 79

TABLE 3.2. METHODOLOGIES EMPLOYED THOROUGH THE STUDIES ...................... 86

TABLE 4.1. ANALYSIS OF CORRELATIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT

VARIABLES OF THE MODEL ............................................................................................... 102

TABLE 4.2. CR, AVE AND SQUARED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FACTORS ........... 104

TABLE 4.3. RESULTS FOR H1 AND H2 ............................................................................... 105

TABLE 4.4. MEDIATION RESULTS ...................................................................................... 106

TABLE 4.5. BREAKDOWN OF THE EFFECT OF HPWS ON IB (USING THE

OUTPUT OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MEDIATED MODEL) ........................................... 107

TABLE 5.1. MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CORRELATIONS AMONG

STUDY VARIABLES ............................................................................................................... 130


TABLE 5.3. RESULTS SUPPORTING H1 AND 2 ................................................................. 132

TABLE 5.4. MEDIATION EFFECT TESTING ....................................................................... 134

TABLE 6.1. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CORRELATIONS ....................... 162


TABLE 6.3 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS (H1) ............................................... 165

TABLE 6.4. MODERATION RESULTS ................................................................................. 166

VI

VII

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1. STUDIES DEVELOPED IN CHAPTERS 4, 5 AND 6 .......................................... 7

FIGURE 1.2. THESIS STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 9

FIGURE 2.2. ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 43

FIGURE 2.3. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 48

FIGURE 4.1. MEDIATION RESULTS .................................................................................... 105

FIGURE 6.1. MODERATED MEDIATION ............................................................................ 167

VIII

1

Chapter 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

2

High Performance work systems and employee innovative behaviour

3

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Due to the current globalization and economic recession, organisations face

serious difficulties for overcoming these challenges successfully. In Management

literature, several relevant frameworks have appeared to face these complex

environmental characteristics. These frames are related to intangible assets and

refer to Human Resource Management, Innovation and Knowledge Management.

Firstly, it is well known that Human Resources are considered the most valuable

asset of organisations. Likewise, there is a general agreement on the idea that

Human Resource Management (HRM) facilitates far better end results for

companies (Pfeffer, 1998; Wimbush, 2005).

Strategic HRM perspective involves all the activities that are implemented to

affect individual behaviours to enable firms’ goals achievement (Wright and

McMahan, 1992; Nishii and Wright, 2007). According to Delery and Shaw (2001)

there are two key features that distinguish strategic HRM from the more

traditional HRM research. The strategic role of HRM for enhancing organisational

performance and, the level of analysis.

Regards the strategic role of HRM for enhancing performance, scholars have

mainly focused their emphasis on analysing the impact of HRM practices on

macro-level performance outcomes using organisational performance indicators

such as financial outcomes, productivity, return on assets (Delery and Doty, 1996;

Huselid, 1995; Rogers and Wright, 1998); or examining the impact of HRM

practices on certain individual-level outcomes as turnover, absenteeism or task

performance (Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner, 2000; Locke and Latham, 1990;

Harrison and Martocchio, 1998). The second distinctive aspect distinguished by

Delery and Shaw (2001) refers to the level of analysis; traditionally more focused

on individual-level; in comparison to strategic HRM conducted at organisational

level.

Despite that strategic HRM researchers approve the idea that employee

experiences of HRM practices are relevant for understanding the association

between HRM practices and performance, most of research has exclusively

focused on the analysis between managerial reports and organisational

Chapter 1

4

effectiveness (Nishii, and Wright, 2007; Liao, Toya, Lepak and Hong, 2009). To

this respect, recent studies suggest focusing employee perceptions of HR practices

as they are considered as antecedents of employees’ attitudes and behaviours that

will lead to organizational performance (Nishii and Wright, 2007).

Linked to strategic HRM, Knowledge Management is a logical extension of this

line of research (Wright, Dunford and Snell, 2001). HRM is fundamentally

concerned with managing human capital, it focuses on all the firm’s basic

knowledge asset (Minbaeva, Foss and Snell, 2009). Recently, some studies have

addressed the relevant role of knowledge in the relationship between HRM and the

innovation process (Collins and Smith, 2006; López-Cabrales, Pérez-Luño, Valle,

2009; Mäkelä and Brewster, 2009). Besides, companies apply governance

mechanisms such as HRM practices with the conviction that promoting individual

action will lead employees to take those decisions that, when combined, lead to

positive organisational results (Foss, 2007).

Scholars and practitioners have also increasingly recognized the importance of

developing the capacity of generating innovation for firm’s competitiveness as it is

considered a key factor for surviving in current environments (Baumol, 2004;

Danneels, 2002; Johnson, Scholes, Whittington, 2008). Thus, during the last

decade or so, there has been a rising recognition of the importance of employees’

innovative behaviour as it permit the firm to attain organisational effectiveness

and survival (Anderson and de Dreu, 2004; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Shalley, 1995;

West, Hirst, Richter and Shipton, 2004). Organisations increasingly rely on

employees’ innovative behaviour to innovate their products, processes, methods

and operations (Ramamoorthy. Flood, Slattery and Sardessai, 2005) as it has been

demonstrated that innovative behaviour has a positive effect on organisational

innovativeness (e.g. Scott and Bruce, 1994; De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010).

Therefore, scholars analysing which factors enhance employees’ innovative

behaviour have identified five categories: individual factors, job characteristics,

team factors, relationship factors and organisational characteristics (West and Farr,

1989). In this Dissertation, we focus on analysing the impact of certain managerial

actions such as HRM strategy implementation and their influence on employee


5

perceptions, attitudes and behaviours that could act as antecedent of innovative

behaviour. On analysing employee perceptions, behaviours and attitudes, we can

shed light on how employees should be managed contribute to the achievement of

the strategic organisational goals and outcomes (Chang, 2005).

1.2 JUSTIFICATION AND THESIS GENERAL GOALS

Recent research is trying to increase the knowledge on the mechanisms through

which the relationship between HRM practices and performance is produced.

Therefore, these recent research analysing the so called ‘HRM black box’ focus on

the analysis of employee perceptions of HRM practices associated to individual

performance outcomes, attitudes and behaviours (Snape and Redman, 2010).

However, these scarce limited studies have produced divergent and inconclusive

results (see: Alfes, el at 2013; Kuvaas, 2008). Consequently, more research is

needed to disentangle the behavioural and attitudinal mechanisms through which

HRM practices impact upon employees’ performance.

Regarding to the mechanisms that could explain the ‘HRM black box’ recent calls

suggested that more research is needed on the analysis of variables related to

knowledge creation and knowledge sharing and its potential impact on individual

outcomes (Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Felin and Foss, 2005; Foss and Michailova,

2009; Minbaeva, 2013), and also other perceptual and attitudinal variables as

HRM process (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004) and work engagement (Slåtten and

Mehmetoglu, 2011).

Besides, research has shown that organisational innovation performance is boosted

by individual innovative performance. From the behavioural literature this concept

is acknowledged as Innovative Behaviour (IB) (e.g. Scott and Bruce, 1994;

Janssen, 2000; De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Driven by the assumption that

employees’ IB contributes to work outcomes, several authors have increased their

attention to organisational and individual variables that potentially promote IB

(e.g. Janssen, 2000; Janssen, Van de Vliert and West, 2004; Mumford, Gaddis and

Strange, 2002). We argue that HRM practices could be considered as potential

organisational variables that could have an influence on IB.

Chapter 1

6

In this Dissertation we emphasise the study of employee perceptions on HRM and

their impact on employees’ IB, considering the latter as a kind of individual

performance. Particularly, we analyse how some attitudinal and behavioural

aspects could positively affect this relationship. These relevant aspects (variables)

refer to: work engagement, knowledge sharing, HRM Process and exploratory

learning. Thus, the main contribution of this Dissertation lies in testing the

relationship between employee perceptions of HRM and IB, as well as the impact

of other attitudinal variables that may have a relevant role on explaining this

relationship.

1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE

This Dissertation is structured in seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, in

chapter 2 a general theoretical review of the main concepts involved is developed.

The main goal of the second chapter is to introduce the concepts, its antecedents

and consequences and, the theories used in the three studies developed later in the

dissertation. Thus, the main relationships between constructs will be develop later

in each study. In Chapter 3, we describe the general details of the methodology

used in the studies that shape this Dissertation. Particularly, it describes the sample

contexts, the data collection, the process of the research tool elaboration and, to

end up we describe the statistical techniques used.

In the following chapters (4, 5 and 6) we develop the three empirical studies,

where we establish the specific theoretical models, their hypotheses and the

empirical analysis and conclusions for each study (See figure 1.1).


7

Figure 1.1. Studies developed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6

The study developed in chapter 4 tries to clarify whether employee perceptions of

HPWS and knowledge sharing lead to positive individual IB. Thus, the

overarching aim of this work is the analysis of to which extent employee

perceptions of the establishment of certain HPWS foster individual knowledge

sharing behaviour. Secondly, we test whether individual knowledge sharing

behaviour is positively linked to IB. Finally; we test the potential indirect effect of

individual knowledge sharing behaviour in the relationship between employee

perceptions of HPWS and IB. So, the main contribution of this study is to adopt a

micro perspective for analysing knowledge sharing as a mediating variable

between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB.

Regarding the study included in chapter 5, we argue that the level of individual

exploratory learning depends on employee perceptions of HPWS. Besides, based

on previous studies we consider IB as dependent on employees’ exploratory

knowledge. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to answer the question of

whether employee perceptions of HPWS are related to exploratory learning and

IB. Besides, we analyse whether exploratory learning play a mediating role in the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB.

High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and employees’ innovative behaviour

CHAPTER 4: HPWS & Knowledge

Sharing as Driving Forces for IB: a

micro perspective

(Empirical paper)

CHAPTER 6: HPWS, work

engagement and innovative

behaviour: Insights from Tanzania

and Nigeria

(Empirical paper)

CHAPTER 5: HPWS & innovative

behaviour: The role of exploratory

Learning

(Empirical paper)

Chapter 1

8

In chapter 6 we propose that employee perceptions of HPWS are linked to

employees’ IB. We further include the Process framework and work engagement,

as relevant aspects to consider in the relationship between employee perceptions

of HPWS and IB. Additionally, we test if these arguments also apply in companies

located in African countries as Tanzania and Nigeria. Thus, we analyse the

potential relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. Then, we

test the potential moderating role of HR process in the relationship between

employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. And finally, we examine if work

engagement mediates the relationship between the interaction of HPWS-HR

Process, on one hand, and IB, on the other hand.

To end up this Dissertation, Chapter 6 provides a general discussion on the

findings obtained in the studies presented in this thesis. Theoretical and practical

implications of the research findings are summarized. The chapter ends with the

limitations of this thesis, as well as with some suggestions for further research.

The following figure (Figure 1.2.) represents the general structure of the thesis.


9

Figure 1.2. Thesis Structure

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Chapter 4:

HPWS & Knowledge Sharing as

Driving Forces for IB: a micro

perspective

Chapter 7:

Conclusions

Chapter 2:

Theoretical Framework

Chapter 3:

General Methodology

Chapter 5:

HPWS & innovative behaviour:

The role of exploratory

Learning

Chapter 6:

HPWS, work engagement &

innovative behaviour: Insights

from Tanzania and Nigeria

Chapter 1

10


11

1.4 REFERENCES

Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., and Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between

perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee

behaviour: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24:2, 330-351.

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., and Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of

innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science.

Journal of organizational Behavior, 25:2, 147-173.

Arthur, J. B., and Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system

structure: A levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management

Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Baumol, W., 2004. Entrepreneurial cultures and countercultures. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 3:3, 316-326.

Bowen, D. E., and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance

linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management

Review, 29:2, 203-221.

Chang, E. (2005). Employees’ overall perception of HRM effectiveness. Human

Relations, 58:4, 523-544.

Collins, C. J., and Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination:

The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms.

Academy of Management Journal, 49:3, 544-560.

Danneels, E., (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences.

Strategic Management Journal, 23:12, 1095–1121.

De Jong, J., and Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 19:1, 23-36.

Delery, J. E., and Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human

resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational

performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39:4, 802-835.

Chapter 1

12

Delery, J. E., and Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work

organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension.

Felin, T., and Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-

foundations. Strategic Organization, 3:4, 441.

Foss, N. J. (2007). The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges

and characteristics. Organization, 14:1, 29-52.

Foss, N. J., and Michailova, S. (Eds.). (2009).Knowledge Governance: Processes

and Perspectives: Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., and Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of

antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and

research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26:3, 463-

488.

Harrison, D. A., and Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year

review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24:3, 305-

350.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on

turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 38:3, 635-672.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and

innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational

psychology, 73:3, 287-302.

Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E. and West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of

individual and group innovation: A special Issue introduction. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25:2, 129-145.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate

Strategy. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.


13

Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship

affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices

and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45:1, 1-25.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D, and Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye?

Management and employee perspectives of high performance work systems and

influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:2, 371-

391.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task

performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lopez-Cabrales, A., Perez-Luño, A., and Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a

mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource

Management, 48:4, 485.

Mäkelä, K., and Brewster, C. (2009). Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal

social capital, and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Human Resource

Management, 48:4, 591-613.

Minbaeva, D. B. (2013). Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of

organizational knowledge-based performance. Human Resource Management

Review, 23:4, 378-390.

Minbaeva, D., Foss, N., and Snell, S. (2009). Bringing the knowledge perspective

into HRM. Human Resource Management, 48:4, 477-483.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading

creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13:6, 705-750.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first.

USA, Harvard Business Press.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants

of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model.


Chapter 1

14

Rogers, E. W., and Wright, P. M. (1998). Measuring organizational performance

in strategic human resource management: Problems, prospects and performance

information markets. Human resource Management Review, 8:3, 311-331.

Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path

model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management

Journal, 37:3, 580-607.

Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on

creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38:2, 483-503.

Slåtten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged

frontline employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service

Quality, 21:1, 88-107.

Snape, E., and Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship

behaviour, and performance: A multi‐level analysis. Journal of Management

Studies, 47:7, 1219-1247.

West, M. A., and Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological

perspectives. Social Behaviour.

West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., and Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to

heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams.

European journal of work and organizational psychology, 13:2, 269-299.

Wimbush, J. C. (2005). Spotlight on human resource management. Business

Horizons, 48:6, 463-467.

Wright, P. M., and McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic

human resource management. Journal of Management, 18:2, 295-320.

Wright, P. M., and Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational

behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series,

468.

Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., and Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the

resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27:6, 701-721.


15

Chapter 2:

GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Chapter 2

16

High Performance Work Systems and employee innovative behaviour

17

2.1 GOALS AND CONTENT OF THE CHAPTER

The main objective of this chapter is to offer a general overview of the central

aspects of this Dissertation, and the particular relationships between concepts and

frameworks will be presented later in each specific study. Thus, this chapter is

structured as follows. Firstly, we present a general conceptualisation of HRM

framework. Then, a brief review about HRM models and perspectives is

presented. Thirdly, we justify the adoption of the High Performance Work

Systems (HPWS) approach. Fourthly, we conceptualise the HPWS approach and

develop the content and process perspectives. Then, we introduce the Attribution

Theory and its relationship to HRM process perspective; it is also explained how

High Performance Work Systems work and the relationship of AMO framework

to HRM content and process.

Finally, we focus on conceptualise and analyse antecedents and consequences of

specific employee’s attitudes and behaviours. Particularly, we analyse innovative

behaviour, work engagement, individual knowledge sharing behaviour and

exploratory learning.

2.2 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

2.2.1 General Conceptualisation

Human Resource Management (HRM) refers to how people are managed and

employed in organisations towards desired ends (Boxall, Purcell and Wright,

2007). The concept has evolved from a ‘labour management’ perspective to a

strategic view, also incorporating aspects from the Industrial Relations field

(Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005). This evolution provides an important and

useful perspective on the role of HR (Guest, 1987; Lengick-Hall, Lengick-Hall,

Andrade and Drake, 2009), including relevant aspects such as the consideration of

HRM as a source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991), the integration of

HRM in business strategy and, finally, the consideration of line managers as key

players for strategy implementation (Brewster and Larsen, 1992; Budhwar and

Sparrow, 1997). To sum up, the strategic vision of HRM is linked to its closer

alignment to the strategy process, the involvement of line management, and the

focus on specific HRM outcomes as commitment, flexibility and quality (Guest,

Chapter 2

18

1987). So, HRM has evolved in the last 25 years from an administrative and

reactive function to a new strategic, executive and proactive area (Boxall, 1994).

As a result of this evolution, there are many different conceptualisations about the

strategic HRM. As an example, authors as Watson (2010:919) state that ‘HRM is

the managerial utilization of the efforts, knowledge, capabilities and committed

behaviours which people contribute to an authoritatively coordinated human

enterprise as part of an employment exchange (or more than temporary contractual

arrangement) to carry out work tasks in a way which enables the enterprise to

continue into the future.’ Another relevant definition is proposed by Schuler

(1992) who postulated that strategic HRM has to do with linking people

systematically to the organization. In other words, it is about the integration of

HRM strategies into corporate strategies. Essentially, HR strategies are plans and

programs that address and solve fundamental strategic issues related to the

management of HR in organisations (íbid).

2.2.2 HRM models and perspectives

There are different models that have been postulated by the specialised literature

to describe the HRM concept. According to Armstrong (2014), some of them are

the following: The Matching Model (Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna, 1984), The

Harvard model (Beer, Spector, Paul, Lawrence, Mills and Richard, 1984), The

European Model (Brewster, 1993), the Contextual Model (Hendry and Pettigrew,

1990), the 5-P model (Schuler, 1992) and the hard and soft model (Storey, 1989).

These models have been developed and have been classified under the soft or the

hard approach of HRM. The soft version (Legge, 1998) of HRM sees employees

as ‘valued assets and as a source of competitive advantage through their

commitment, adaptability and high level of skills and performance’. The hard

version emphasizes that people are important resources through which

organisations achieve competitive advantage, considering HRM as a ‘rational’

way to obtain this advantage (Storey, 1989).

The Matching model, developed by the Michigan School, tightly connects to the

concept of strategic HRM (Fombrun et al., 1984). These authors affirm that HR

systems and the organisation structure ought to be managed congruently with


19

organisational strategy (hence the name ‘Matching model’). This model

establishes that there is an HR cycle consistent of four generic processes or

functions common in all organisations, namely, selection, appraisal, rewarding and

development.

The Harvard model (Beer et al., 1984) acknowledges the existence of multiple

stakeholders that need to be considered by the organisation. So, all these

stakeholders are equally important in influencing organisational outcomes.

Consequently, the interests of the different groups must be joined and factored in

the creation of HRM and business strategies.

The European Model was described by Brewster (1993) and is based on the

premise that European organisations operate with limited autonomy. The

European model considers the interaction among HR strategies, the business

strategy and HRM practices, as well as their interaction with the external

environment where factors as national culture, power system, legislation,

education and employee representation become fundamental (Bambir, Drozdová,

and Horvat, 2010). Based on Mabey, Salaman and Storey (1998:107) the main

characteristics of this model are the following: dialogue between social partners,

emphasis on social responsibility, multicultural organisations, participation on

decision-making and continuous learning.

The Contextual model approach (Hendry and Pettigrew, 1990) is focused on

mapping the context, identifying an inner context (within the organisation) and an

outer context (in the wider environment) and exploring how HRM adapted to

changes in context (Guest, 1997). It is described as a model that highlights the

relevance of the environmental aspects that have been underestimated in other

models (Armstrong, 2014). These external aspects include social, institutional and

political factors. So, this consideration facilitates the integration of the HRM

system in the context where it is developed. The main contribution of this

approach lies in the reconsideration of the relationship between the HRM system

and its context. Whereas many of the other perspectives, at best, considered the

context as a contingency variable, this approach proposes an explanation that

exceeds the organisational level and integrates the HRM function in a macro-

Chapter 2

20

social framework with which it interacts (Martin-Alcázar, Romero-Fernández and

Sanchez-Gardey, 2005).

Schuler’s 5-P model (1992) is based on five HR aspects: philosophies, policies,

programs, practices and processes. To this model, these activities become the

integral part of the HRM strategy to achieve organisational strategic needs. One

relevant aspect of this model has to do with the consideration of external features

as critical success factors, threats and opportunities, among others, as well as

internal organisational aspects as culture and business nature.

Storey (1989), in turn, distinguished between two opposing versions of HRM: soft

and hard. The soft perspective emphasises individuals and their self-direction, and

places commitment, trust, and self-regulated behaviour at the centre of any

strategic approach to people (Truss, Gratton, Hope-Halley, McGovern and Stiles,

1997). In contrast, the hard model emphasises the rationalism underlying the

business strategic fit and focuses on the need to manage people in ways that the

firm obtains added value from them and thus achieve competitive advantage

(Armstrong, 2001:6). However, authors as Truss (1999) and Gratton, Hope-

Halley, Stiles and Truss (1999) concluded that the distinction between the hard

and soft HRM was not as precise as some researchers have inferred, as they found

in an empirical research that there is a mixture of hard and soft approaches in

organisations.

The above revision shows some relevant HRM models that define HRM from

different perspectives, considering different aspects for describing the HRM

function. Another aspect that has been considered significant in HRM literature

refers to the relationship between HRM and Performance. The following

paragraphs present some of the perspectives used for explaining this relationship

are presented.

The HRM-Performance relationship has been approached from different

perspectives rooted in organisational behaviour, sociology, economics, industrial

relations and organisational psychology (Paauwe, 2009:22). From the mid-90’s,

literature has focused on establishing HRM perspectives leading to improve

organisational performance. Specifically, Delery and Doty (1996) identified three


21

HRM perspectives: a) the Universalist or ‘Best Practices’ perspective, b) the

Contingent or ‘Best Fit’ perspective, and c) the Configurational or ‘Bundling’

perspective, From the Universalist perspective, it is assumed that there is a set of

HRM best practices, and adopting them will lead to a better performance

regardless of the company applying them. From the Contingent or Best-Fit

perspective, there are not universal recommendations for HRM; an organisation’s

HRM policies must be consistent with other organisational aspects, particularly

with the strategy (vertical fit). Finally, the Configurational or Bundling approach

refers to the development and implementation of different HRM practices that are

inter-related and complement each other.

The underlying assumption of these approaches is that HRM systems may affect

organisational performance through its impact on employee’s attitude and

behaviour (Combs Liu, Hall and Ketchen, 2006). Thus, through these theories

authors assume that the relationship between HRM and performance is produced

directly, but considering the last statement this relationship is explained through

the impact of HRM practices to employees’ attitude and behaviour as it is

explained in the next sections.

Trying to explain the relationship between HRM and performance some authors

have used different ways considering the practices involved. Throughout the next

section, we explain the evolution of this analysis, from the consideration of single

HRM practices to the consideration of different practices as bundles or systems

and its relationship to performance.

2.2.3 Why High Performance Work Systems?

Traditional HRM literature has placed special emphasis on the identification of

Human Resources Practices and their impact on organisational performance as one

of the core principles of strategic HRM is that organisational performance is

influenced by the way employees are managed (Gittell, Seidner, and Wimbush,

2010). Thus, HRM is a distinctive element among organisations, which make

them different from a competitive point of view and hopefully enable them to face

market challenges. Also, HR must be sufficiently efficient and productive, which

can be achieved through a high state of motivation, both in and for the company.

Chapter 2

22

High Performance Work Systems (henceforth, HPWS) is an important concept in

contemporary research in workplaces (Boxal and Macky, 2007). The notion of

HPWS was originated in the United States, initially gaining power in the debate

over the failure of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and later as a part of a

larger agenda concerned with the human elements of competitive performance of

both manufacturing and service firms (Boxall, 2012).

In earlier studies, academics used to focus on how single HRM practices impact

employee-level behaviours or organisational performance. However, this view has

now changed to looking at HRM practices and strategies as a whole, as they are

more indicative of the effect on individual outcomes (Gould-Williams and

Mohamed, 2010). In this vein, Combs et al. (2006) showed in their meta-analysis

of 92 studies that single HRM practices improve organisational performance. But

this effect is more significant when HRM practices are defined as bundles applied

in a synergistic way (see also: Delery and Shaw, 2001; Dyer and Reeves, 1995).

In fact, HPWS are believed to be the mean through which organisations can gain

competitive advantage and organisational performance via employee’s responses

and shifting employees’ behaviour in ways that add value (Macky and Boxal,

2007). So, the achievement of competitive advantage and performance is possible

welcoming and developing the unique contribution of employees (Guthrie, 2001)

that are difficult for others to imitate. Furthermore, workers are capable of

continuous improvement and will perform at higher levels if they are motivated to

do so (Pfeffer, 1998).

These HRM systems have been conceptualised as ‘High Performance Work

Systems’ (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994), ‘High Involvement Work Practices’

(Lawler, 1986; Macky and Boxall, 2008; Xiao and Björkman, 2006) and ‘High

Commitment Work Practices’ (Benkhoff 1997; Agarwala 2003; Wood and

Albanese, 1995). Several researchers have used these conceptualisations

interchangeably (Wood and De Menezes, 1998; Zacharatos, Barling and Iverson,

2005); but framing on Bryson, Forth and Kirby’s (2005:460) arguments, ‘High

involvement and High commitment are less loaded terms than the notion of

HPWS: they do not assume that the particular configuration of management


23

practices is necessarily performance enhancing’. Furthermore, Boxall and Macky

(2009:11) posted that ‘HPWS are empirically grounded and much more conscious

of the need to specify how work reforms are meant to affect employee’s attitude

and behaviour’. In turn, Arthur (1992) suggested that HPWS shape desired

employee behaviour and attitude by forging psychological links between

organisational and employee goals.

Studies analysing the HRM-performance relationship have provided limited

insight into the effects of HPWS on the proximal employee’s outcomes, which are

considered to affect most directly (Dyer and Reeves, 1995). Furthermore, Batt

(2002:587) indicated, ‘prior research [in strategic HRM] is theoretically

undeveloped and has not specified the mediating employee behaviour that explain

the relationship between HR practices and performance’.

Considering the above arguments, we adopt the HPWS conceptualisation in this

Dissertation, as we want to analyse to which extent the impact of the HRM system

affects employees’ attitude and outcome and we consider innovative behaviour as

a kind of employee performance. The theoretical conceptualisation and the content

of this system are developed in the next section.

2.2.4 What is a HPWS? Conceptualisation and content

HRM systems refer to a group of separate but interconnected HRM practices

designed to enhance employees’ skills and effort (Datta, Guthrie, and Wright,

2005; Huselid, 1995; Way, 2002; Wood and Wall, 2002). The individual practices

that make up the HRM system constitute the content of the HRM system (Katou,

Budhwar and Patel, 2014). Based on Boselie, Dietz and Boon, (2005) the content

of the HRM system refers to a set of practices and policies through which

organisations can improve the acquisition, development, retention, and utilisation

of their human capital in order to achieve organisational strategic goals, e.g.

organisational performance.

The main goal of HPWS consists on increasing employees’ abilities, motivation,

and opportunity to participate in decision-making (Tsui and Wang 2002; Guest

2007; Guthrie, Spell and Nyamori, 2002; Sun, Aryee and Law 2007). Despite the

lack of agreement on a precise definition of HPWS (Arthur, 1994; Datta et al.,

Chapter 2

24

2005; Huselid, 1995; Lawler, 1992:34; Pfeffer, 1998) or the content that makes up

these HPWS (Boxall and Purcell, 2008), some definitions are widely accepted

(Way, 2002). Some of these definitions and content combinations of HR practices

are presented below.

De Cieri and Krammar (2008) and Dessler (2007) suggested that HPWS are the

policies and practices involved in carrying out the ‘HR’ aspects of a management

position. These policies and practices include human resource planning, job

analysis, recruitment, selection, orientation, compensation, performance appraisal,

training and development, and labour relations.

Huselid (1995), in turn, defined HPWS as a collection of individual, interrelated

HR practices that increase the performance of employees and organisations by

means of improving the competence, attitudes and motivation of the workforce.

Those practices include: comprehensive employee recruitment and selection

procedures, incentive compensation and performance management systems, and

extensive employee involvement and training (see also: Pfeffer, 1998).

Evan and Davis (2005:759) define HPWS ‘as an integrated system of HR

practices that is internally consistent (alignment among HR practices) and

externally consistent (alignment to organisational strategy) that include selective

staffing, self-managed teams, decentralized decision making, extensive training,

flexible job assignments, open communication, and performance-contingent

compensation (Becker and Huselid, 1998; Guthrie, 2001; Pfeffer, 1998)’.

Also, Way (2002) defines HPWS as a set of interrelated practices, which together

select, develop and motivate workers with higher skills. Moreover, motivated

workers apply these skills to work, leading to better performance and

consequently improving the performance of the whole workforce of the company.

Based on previous studies, Way (2002:767) concluded that ‘HRM practices to be

included as HPWS must be linked to selecting, developing, retaining, and/or

motivating (gaining access to) a workforce that produces superior employee

output’.

Cooke (2001) defined HPWS as a bundle of the key HR techniques essential for

high performance to take place. These systems include practices such as incentive


25

compensation, high levels of training, employee participation, rigorous selection

procedures, promotion from within, flexible work arrangements, stability in the

employment and information sharing (Huselid, 1995; Datta et al., 2005; Pfeffer,

1998; Cooke, 2001).

Therefore, as we have seen HPWS do have multiple names and definitions and

approaches, but all of them suggest that HPWS are systems of managerial

practices that increase the empowerment of employees and enhance their skills

and incentives to motivate them to take advantage of this greater empowerment

(Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg, 2000). Despite the different labels, their

common thread is that organisations can achieve high performance by adopting

practices that recognise and leverage employees’ ability to create value (Gittell et

al., 2010). Based on Horgan and Mühlau (2006), it is generally agreed that the

content of this HRM system include practices as selection, training, mentoring,

and knowledge sharing mechanisms.

With respect to the contribution of the use of HPWS, multiple studies conclude

that the use of HPWS report greater job satisfaction, lower employee turnover,

higher productivity, and better decision-making, all of which help improve

organisational performance (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, and Spratt, 1997). In this

vein, some scholars as Pfeffer (1994) believe that HPWS positively impact on

organisational and individual performance regardless of the context and industry.

To conclude this section, it is important to highlight he bundle of practices that

conform the HPWS used in this Dissertation. These practices are: training and

development, pay for performance, participation, promotion and safety at work.

The consideration of these practices is based on previous studies (see: Kehohe and

Wright, 2013; Van de Voorde and Beijer, 2015) that relate these practices with

innovation performance.

2.2.5 HRM process

Over the last decade, scholars have not only paid attention to the HRM content;

they have also paid attention to the HRM process (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004;

Chapter 2

26

Patterson, Warr and West, 2004; Neal, West and Patterson, 2005; Nishii, Lepak

and Schneider, 2008). Bowen and Ostroff (2004; see also Ostroff and Bowen,

2000) conceptualise HRM as a signalling system that sends messages to

employees. These authors distinguish two interrelated features of a HRM system-

conceptualized as HRM content and process. The HRM process refers to whether

employees have the ability to understand the HRM signals and messages sent by

the organisation and their response in a desired and appropriate way.

Framing on Bowen and Ostroff’s ideas, Haggerty and Wright (2010) suggest that

the HRM system must be theorised as a signalling function, creating powerful

messages that management send to groups and individuals within the organisation,

nurturing as a result the ideal conditions for strong situations to materialise. This

process approach focuses on the importance of the psychological processes

through which employees interpret and respond to the information conveyed in

HR practices (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Ehrnrooth and Björman, 2012).

So, bearing in mind Bowen and Ostroff’s arguments, the content of the HRM

system refers to the set of practices adopted and, ideally, should be largely driven

by the strategic goals and values of the organisation (e.g., practices to promote

innovation or autonomy). In turn, by process they refer to how the HRM system

can be designed and administered effectively by defining metafeatures of an

overall HRM system. Nonetheless, the problem is that the content approach does

not explain why the same HR practices do not always lead to the same outcomes

in terms of performance (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Sanders, Yang and Kim,

2012).

Bowen and Ostroff (2004:206) also propose that ‘HRM content and process must

be integrated effectively in order for prescriptive models of strategic HRM

actually to link to firm performance’. Following this line, the main argument of

Khilji and Wang’s (2006) investigation is that a clear distinction exists between

what it is intended by management in terms of HR practices and what is actually

experienced by employees. Furthermore, it is also argued that ‘it is difficult to

attach only one kind of meaning to an HRM system because individuals may not

uniquely interpret the same HR practices’ (Katou et al., 2014:528). Recently,


27

HRM studies found an answer for this argument. So, authors as Nishii et al.

(2008) concluded that employees’ reactions to the HRM system are far less

homogenous than was assumed in previous studies, and differ among employees

within the same organisation.

Some authors highlight that employees react differently to the same set of HR

practices. These different reactions could be explained by the process approach of

HRM, which refers to the ‘set of activities aimed at developing, communicating,

and implementing HR practices’ (Delmotte, De Winne, and Sels, 2011:1). The

HRM system sends signals, which are perceived and interpreted differently among

employees (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Wright and Nishii, 2007; Sanders et al.,

2012). Consequently, the process perspective deals with the effective design and

administration of the HRM system (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).

The way that HRM is perceived by employees can create strong or weak situations

in form of high or low-shared meaning about the content. Taking this idea as a

reference, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) introduced the concept of HRM Strength.

This concept was developed applying HRM system framework and HRM strategic

perspectives to HRM process perspective. These two perspectives together ‘help

stage how HRM practices and their influence on employee attributes can lead to

desired outcomes at the firm level, such as productivity, financial performance and

competitive advantage’ (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004:204).

The concept of situational strength was initially introduced by Mischel (1973) to

explain the influence that situations have on shaping individuals’ behaviours.

Specifically, a strong situation is expected when employees will develop desired

collective attitudes and behaviours that will have a positive effect on

organisational performance (Nishii and Wright, 2008). However, in weak

situations employees perceive the HRM messages differently and there is not a

common understanding about HRM messages. Consequently, behaviours could

neither be acceptable nor efficient for the achievement of organisational goals

(Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Sanders Dorenbosch and de Reuver, 2008).

The concept of strength is also used by other authors as climate strength (shared

perceptions about issues related to their environment, i.e. Payne, 2000) and culture

Chapter 2

28

strength (degree to which people share values and beliefs regarding their work and

organisation, i.e. Schein, 1984). Both of them can be used as proxy constructs to

evaluate situation strength (Cohelho, Cunha, Gomes and Correira, 2012).

2.2.6 HRM process and Attribution Theory

One of the theories used to explain the concept of HRM process is Attribution

Theory. This theory offers a better understanding of the HRM process framework.

The main aspects involved in this theory and how it is used to explain the process

concept are developed in this section. Finally, the three dimensions of the concept

presented by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), based on the Attribution Theory process

conception, are analysed and developed.

Attribution Theory refers to how people make attributions about what they

perceive and understand concerning their own and other people’s behaviours

(Fiske and Taylor, 1991). In other words, this theory explains how people process

information to make attributions (Kelley, 1973) about the circumstances they

perceive. The co-variation principle of Attribution Theory suggests that people try

to understand the cause of situations by considering information related to these

three characteristics: distinctiveness, consistency and consensus of the situation

(Sanders et al., 2012). When this reasoning is applied to the study of HR practices,

it follows that the relationship between HR practices and employee’s attitudes and

behaviours, and ultimately organisational performance, may depend on the

attributions employees make about the motives underlying the HR practices they

experience (Nishii et al., 2008: 505). Taking Kelley’s (1973) co-variation

Attribution Theory as a starting point, Bowen and Ostroff applied the three

characteristics mentioned before to the HRM process framework and suggested

that HRM process is captured by the following three dimensions:

a) Distinctiveness: refers to a particular situation that stands out in the

environment, thereby having the ability to capture employees’ attention

and arousing their interest (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Furthermore, these

authors elucidated four characteristics of HRM that may foster

distinctiveness dimension: visibility, understandability, legitimacy of

authority, and relevance.


29

a. Visibility: degree to which these practices are salient and readily

observable.

b. Understandability: degree of ambiguity and easiness of

comprehension of HRM practice content (Bowen and Ostroff,

2004:209).

c. Legitimacy of authority: degree to which the HR function is

perceived in terms of status, credibility and activity (Rodrigues-

Ribeiro, Pinto-Coelho and Gomes, 2011:121).

d. Relevance: degree to which employees perceive the situation as

relevant to an important goal.

b) Consistency: it refers to an HR function, which communicates regular and

consistent messages over time, people and contexts; so, it denotes the

degree to which HR messages are encoded and interpreted uniformly by

employees. Thus, some features as instrumentality, validity and consistent

HRM messages need to be considered to establish consistent relationships

over time, people and contexts (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004):

a. Instrumentality: degree to which employees perceived cause-effect

relationship in reference to the content of the HRM system and the

desired behaviours-consequences that are expected from the

application of the practices.

b. Validity: degree to which message receivers perceive the message

as valid.

c. Consistent HRM messages: degree of compatibility and stability in

the signals associated with the HR practices. A lack of consistency

could lead to different interpretations of the HRM practices.

c) Consensus: degree of agreement among employees in their view of the

event-effect relationship. Thus, this dimension refers to the likelihood that

employees behave in similar ways. For the achievement of employees’

consensus it may be agreement among the principal HRM decision makers

and employees should perceive fairness about the content of HRM

practices

Chapter 2

30

a. Agreement among the principal HRM decision makers: refers to the

degree of agreement among the message senders. This agreement

contributes to promote consensus among employees (Bowen and

Ostroff, 2004:212).

b. Fairness: is related to an employee’s perception regards the degree

up to which HR practices are coherent with the principles of

justice. Thus, fairness refers to the degree to which employees

perceive justice in HRM practices.

To enhance the likelihood that employees see the messages conveyed by HRM in

a uniform manner, employees should perceive HRM as distinctive, consistent and

consensual (Sanders, Shipton and Gomes, 2014). If HRM messages are perceived

as highly distinctive, consistent and consensual, a strong situation will take place

and employees will develop a shared interpretation of organisational policies,

procedures and goals. As a result, they will develop shared perceptions about

those behaviours, which are expected and rewarded in the organisation (Bowen

and Ostroff, 2004:207). A strong HRM system supports a robust organisational

climate where the messages that are sent by the HRM system to stakeholders are

clear, unambiguous and consistent (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; De Winne,

Delmontte, Gilbert and Sels, 2013) and, in so doing, employees will adopt the

desired attitudes and behaviours (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Wright and Nishii,

2007).

The main idea underlying this framework is that employee perceptions/attributions

about the HRM content will determine the strength of the HRM process, which

ultimately will influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Considering these

arguments, we may think that this ‘new’ process approach may shed light on the

missing links in the HRM-performance relationships.


31

2.2.7 How do HPWS work?

Research on HPWS emphasises the importance of mediating links or intervening

variables between HR systems and organisational outcomes, including critical

variables that have to do with employee’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviours (Boxall

and Macky, 2007:262). Bowen and Ostroff (2004) and Nishii and Wright (2008)

have suggested that the causal chain HPWS-performance may be more complex

than previously thought. They suggest that employee perceptions of HR practices

are likely to precede employee’s attitudes and behaviour that link the HPWS-

performance causal chain.

The HRM process that explains the link between HRM-performance (see figure

2.1) is in fact a sequence across several levels of analysis in which a) intended

practices lead to 2) actual practices, which lead to c) perceived practices, then to

d) employee reactions and, ultimately, result in e) organisational performance

(Boxall and Macky, 2007; Nishii and Wright, 2008). Based on Wright and Nishii

and Nishii and Wright (2004, 2008; respectively), intended practices refer to

practices that are designed strategically by decision-makers at the organisational

level. These intended practices influence actual or implemented practices, in other

words, those practices implemented at group level by strategy executors. Then

employees perceive these practices at the individual level. Finally, the arising

employees’ attitudes and behaviours result in organisational performance at the

organisational level.

Figure 2.1: HRM Systems and the links to organisational performance

Source: Boxall (2012)

Chapter 2

32

This figure highlights two relevant facts that affect the HPWS-performance

relationship (Boxall and Macky, 2007). The first aspect refers to the difference

between what management says and managers actually do. Sometimes, there is a

great difference between the guidelines that the company gives about HRM and

what middle or line managers do implement. With respect to the second fact, if

management requests the achievement of valuable organisational outcomes,

employee attitudes and behaviours need to be influenced. Thus, in order for HR

practices to produce their desired effect on employee attitudes and behaviours,

first these practices have to be perceived and interpreted subjectively by

employees in ways that create such attitudinal and behavioural reactions (Nishii et

al., 2008). These employees’ reactions cannot be the same as individuals tend to

interpret the reality differently (Fiske and Taylor, 1991), because not all the

employees will interpret HR messages in the same way. Consequently, the effect

of HR practices is unlikely to be automatic and as constant as expected; instead, its

effect will reside in the meaning that employees attach to those practices (Nishii et

al, 2008).

To sum up, much of the previous research has been focused on the study of

multiple HRM practices at the organisational level or on the analysis of one single

HRM practice at the individual (employee) level (Boselie et al., 2005).

Particularly, the emphasis has been placed on the impact of multiple combinations

of HR practices on a set of organisational performance indicators as financial

outcomes, turnover and productivity, among others (Paauwe, 2009). To this

respect, the specialised literature (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Combs et al.,

2006; Sun et al, 2007; among others) considers that this relationship takes place in

a direct way. However, employees and their perception of HRM practices may

acquire a primary role to mediate the impact HPWS have on organisational

performance. Even so, their reactions to these practices have been rather ignored

in HPWS research to date (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg

and Croon, 2013; Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Macky and Boxall, 2007).

To address this question, HRM researchers have called for more attention to be

placed on investigating the relationship between HRM and performance through

employee shared perceptions in reactions to HRM (Wright and van de Voorde,


33

2007). In this sense, employee perceptions of HPWS have become central to the

academic debate in recent years but its study still remains at an early stage

(Piening, Baluch and Ridder, 2014). So, authors such as Boxal and Macky

(2007:268) have claimed ‘better information on employee perceptions of, and

responses to, espoused and actual HR practices is a prerequisite to improving

HRM’s contribution to organisational effectiveness’. Furthermore, Boselie,

Brewster and Paauwe (2009) have posted that there is a lack of HRM research on

multiple HRM practices at the individual employee level in line with the

psychological contract research that affects employee perceptions and behaviours.

Taking these arguments as a basis, this dissertation is focused on employee

perceptions of HRM and how these perceptions enhance certain individual

attitudes and behaviours that ultimately may improve organisational performance.

In so doing, we will contribute to the specialist literature by shedding light on the

analysis of the intermediate mechanisms that can help to better understand the

relationship between HRM and performance.

2.2.8 AMO Framework and its relationship to HRM content and

process

The Ability–Motivation–Opportunity framework is often used in HRM-

performance research (Paauwe, 2009). The HPWS debate has fostered the

understanding of the way through which all HRM systems depend on influencing

the abilities (A), motivations (M) and opportunities (O) of individuals to perform

(Appelbaum et al., 2000; Boxall, 2012; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995). Based

on Bailey’s (1993) work, the AMO framework is a key element to explain the

effect of HRM practices on organisational (Huselid, 1995) and employee

performance (Lepak, Liao, Chung and Harden, 2006). Despite that the Resource

Based View framework has been used to explain the effect of HR practices at the

organisational level, the AMO theory has been predominant in the research on

employee-level mechanisms of HRM effects on performance (Boselie et al.,

2005).

We argue that HRM systems enhance employee abilities, motivations and

opportunities, which in turn, as is highlighted by the specialized literature,

Chapter 2

34

promote individuals to perform (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Boxall, 2012; Huselid,

1995; MacDuffie, 1995). Thus, using this theory we can explain the cause-effect

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS, how these practices

enhance abilities, motivation and opportunity to act and how this contributes to

innovative behaviour.

The behavioural perspective, the process model by Nishii and Wright (2008) and

the AMO model by Appelbaum et al. (2000), all imply that HRM has a positive

effect on organisational performance through individual level mechanisms

(Bailey, 1993; Huselid, 1995; Lepak et al., 2006; Van de Voorde, Paauwe and Van

Veldhoven, 2012). Particularly, the AMO framework represents the idea that

specific HRM practices that enhance abilities, motivation, and opportunity to

participate will lead to a discretionary effort by employees and, consequently, a

improve the firm’s performance (Boxall and Purcell, 2008).

In this vein, Cooke (2001) stated that HPWS contribute to increase employees’

performance and hence to organisational performance through three interrelated

causal routes: (a) by developing employee skills and abilities (i.e. their capability

to performance); (b) by increasing an employee’s motivation for discretionary

effort; and (c) by providing employees with the opportunity to make full use of

their knowledge, skills and other attributes in their jobs.

In turn, Boselie et al. (2009) posted that HPWS approaches, supported by the

AMO theory, are built essentially on the idea that certain HRM practices are

important for both employee and employer. These practices that form the HRM

specific content are: recruitment and selection, extensive employee development,

rewards, employee involvement in decision-making, performance evaluation and

teamwork (Boselie et al., 2009).

Ehrnrooth and Björkman (2012) linked the AMO framework to the HRM content

and process. They concluded that the adoption of a HRM system, where all

practices are combined, is more likely to promote AMO than the single practices

approach. Specifically, they argue that practices, such as selection and

development, performance appraisal and retention of talent are considered relevant

to obtain able workforce. Motivation is not only a result of compensation practices


35

and career opportunities; in addition, Ehrnrooth and Björkman (2012) argue that

motivation could also be promoted by the selection of suitable employees and the

availability of development opportunities, challenging jobs, and feedback through

performance appraisal. Finally, opportunity is not only influenced by practices that

increase autonomy and participation, but also through other practices that

contribute to develop competent and motivated employees that identify and

exploit opportunities.

These authors (Ehrnrooth and Björkman, 2012) framing on the attribution and

HRM process theories (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Boxall and Macky, 2009;

Wright and Nishii, 2007), also highlight that AMO is derived not only from a set

of practices (HRM content) but also is determined by employee perceptions of the

implementation of those practices as well as their subjective cognitions and

interpretations. They argue that the HRM process affects the signalling effect of

HRM on employees understanding (in line with Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004)

arguments); and also ‘capture de facto functional effects the of HRM content on

employee ability, opportunity and motivation which are key empowering

influence mechanisms of the HRM process’ (Ehrnrooth and Björkman, 2012:

1113).

To sum up, the AMO framework highlights the relevance of abilities, motivation

and opportunity of individuals to adopt certain behaviours that have an effect on

performance. These abilities, motivations and opportunities are fostered by HRM

systems. Thus, from the content point of view, HRM practices are enablers for

these abilities, motivations and opportunities to take place. But even more, from

the process perspective, employee perceptions about the implementation of these

practices are also going to affect employees’ ability, opportunity and motivation to

act.

2.3 EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

In order to unlock the ‘black box’ between HRM and performance, many

researchers have focused their attention on the study of employees’ attitudinal and

behavioural responses to HRM practices (Messersmith, Patel and Lepak and

Chapter 2

36

Gould-Williams, 2011; Nishii et al., 2008). To this respect, several authors have

argued that the focus should be on employee perceptions rather than organisational

intentions, as we argued before (Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Bowen and Ostroff,

2004; Den Hartog, et al. 2013). To do so, scholars have increasingly adopted a

micro perspective to unravel and understand how systems of HR practices impact

individuals as employee responses are considered the mechanisms through which

HR systems influence performance (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Wright and

Boswell, 2002). Specifically, research shows that there is a direct relationship

between employee attitudes and individual performance as an outcome (Jiang,

Lepak, Hu and Baer, 2012) as well as organisational performance (Tsai, Edwards

and Sengupta, 2010). However, there is scarce literature that analyses the impact

of HPWS on employee perceptions, and how this contributes to their innovative

outcome. The same occurs at organisational level (Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi,

and Patterson, 2006 and Shipton, West, Parkes, and Dawson, 2006b; Chen and

Wang, 2009).

Besides, authors such as Alfes, Shantz, Truss and Soane (2013:334) claim that ‘the

relationship between HRM practices and behavioural outcomes may be better

explained by a mediating variable which represents a more holistic view of an

individual’s self which includes activated components’. To this respect, in this

Dissertation it is proposed that these mediating variables, which could explain

innovative behaviour, refer to: work engagement, knowledge sharing, and

exploratory learning, as they are considered relevant to achieve performance.

Throughout the next sections, a review is elaborated to extricate the definition of

the concepts and their antecedents and consequences.


37

2.3.1 Innovative Behaviour

There are multiple definitions and innovation typologies. To this respect, Amabile,

Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron (1996) defined innovation as the development

and implementation of an idea, which is new and useful for the company.

Similarly, Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt (2005:66) define innovation as ‘a process of

turning opportunity into new ideas and of putting these into widely used practice’.

Zhuang, Williamson and Carter (1999) described innovation as an intervention,

which may be considered completely new, an improvement of an existing product

or system, or a diffusion of an existing innovation into new application. Respect to

the innovation typologies, one of the most accepted highlights that innovation

relates to developing new products and services, production methods and

procedures, production technologies, and administrative changes (OECD-

Eurostat, 2005).

As we highlighted in the introductory section, the concept of innovation is broadly

studied from a macro perspective, but more research is needed at micro level, such

as group and individual levels (West and Farr, 1989). Consequently, research on

these aspects has potentially grown during the last decade or so (For a review see:

Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad, 2004). The study of innovation at individual level

is relevant, as employees can help to attain organisational success through their

ability to generate ideas and use these ideas to develop new and better products,

services and work processes through their innovative behaviour (De Jong and Den

Hartog, 2007). Individuals are those who start and develop the innovation process.

Besides, considerable evidence highlights that individual creativity and

employees’ innovative behaviour is of great significance to organisational

innovation. As a result, organisationalal effectiveness, efficacy, firm performance

and survival will be enhanced (Amabile, 1996; Nonaka, 1991; Redmond,

Mumford and Teach, 1993; Scott and Bruce, 1994; West, Hirst, Richter and

Shipton, 2004). Therefore, the focus in this Dissertation will be on innovative

behaviour.

Previous studies focused their attention on the relevance of the individual

creativity and innovation and examined what contributes to an employee’s

Chapter 2

38

tendency to generate innovative ideas that eventually lead to innovation (Anderson

et al., 2004). Despite the fact that multiple authors have used creativity and

innovation interchangeably, they are distinct concepts (Amabile et al., 1996;

Anderson et al., 2004; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). Creativity refers to idea

generation (Scott and Bruce, 1994) whilst innovative behaviour covers a broader

range of behaviours than creativity (Parzefall, Seeck, Leppänen, 2008). Innovative

behaviour refers to idea implementation, and is expected to provide a benefit,

resulting from the innovative output (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). However,

creativity does not necessarily lead to innovation, whereas every innovation

requires a creative process (Parzefall et al., 2008).

There are multiple definitions of the concept of innovative behaviour (hereafter,

IB); some of them are presented in the paragraphs below.

West and Farr (1989) and West (1989), defined IB as the intentional creation,

introduction and application of new ideas within the work, group or organisational

contexts, in order to improve performance. This definition restricts IB to

intentional efforts to provide beneficially novel outcomes (Janssen, 2005). Farr

and Ford (1990) define IB as an individual’s behaviour that aims to achieve the

initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organisation)

of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures. Scott and Bruce

(1994) posted that IB includes generating (or adapting) novel solutions to

problems, convincing partners to adopt new approaches, and finally implementing

them within the organisation. Janssen (2000:228) defines IB as ’the intentional

creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work role, group or

organisation in order to benefit role performance, the group or organisation’. All

these definitions consider that innovative behaviour includes novelty, through the

creative process, idea promotion and idea implementation.

A great part of the literature on IB theoretically distinguishes between various

dimensions, which are often linked to different stages of the innovation process.

Majaros (1988) proposes a four-stage definition of innovation process, including:

the development of ideas (idea generation), the checking of compatibility with

company objectives (screening), commercial and technical tests (feasibility) and


39

the commercialisation process (implementation). West (2002) suggests that

innovation is a two-stage process where the first stage involves the generation of a

creative idea (exploration) and the second involves its implementation

(exploitation). Scott and Bruce (1994) framing on Kanter (1988) proposed three

phases relevant to IB, specifically, idea generation, coalition building and

implementation. Later on, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) proposed that this IB

multi-stage process is decomposed in four dimensions, and labelled them as idea

exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation.

Following Scott and Bruce (1994), we conceive IB in the workplace as a complex

behaviour consisting of a set of three different behavioural tasks: idea generation,

idea promotion, and idea implementation. IB begins with problem recognition and

the development of an idea or solution, either novel or adopted in any other

domain (Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin,

1993). In the next stage, idea promotion, individuals seek potential supporters of

an idea and attempts to build a coalition of allies who deliver the required power

behind it (Galbraith, 1982; Kanter, 1988). Finally, in the third stage of the

innovation process, idea implementation, the innovative individual completes the

idea by producing a prototype or model of the innovation that can be experienced

and ultimately applied within a work role, a group or the whole organisation

(Kanter, 1988).

Since the foundation of innovation is ideas, and it is people who ‘develop, carry,

react to and modify ideas’ (Van de Ven, 1986:592) the study of factors driving

employee IB is critical. To this respect, literature has developed rich theoretical

and empirical research on a range of individual and contextual factors that foster

creativity and IB.

Individual factors derived from the literature review that have a positive impact on

IB are: commitment (Madjar, Greenberg and Chen, 2011; Thompson and Heron,

2006; Slätten and Mehmetoglu, 2011), trust (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki and

Parker, 2002; Carmeli and Spreitzer, 2009), predisposition toward risk (Madjar et

al., 2011; Ng and Van Dyke, 1996), goal orientation (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, and

Zhou, 2009; Gong, Huang, and Farh, 2009), knowledge and abilities (Amabile,

Chapter 2

40

1996) and intrinsic motivation (Grant and Berry, 2011). However, a series of

different factors have appeared which have not been empirically tested, for

example the link between knowledge, abilities, and IB.

Studies involving contextual factors that are related to IB have focused their

attention on: organisational climate and problem solving style (Scott and Bruce,

1994), job design and complexity (West and Farr, 1990), transformational

leadership and supervision (Basu and Green, 1997; Tierney, 2008; Shin and Zhou,

2003), and social networks (Baer, 2010; Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi and Zhang,

2009). Theoretically, some Human Resource Practices have been considered as

relevant for creativity and for IB to take place (Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010;

Mumford, 2000; Dul, Ceylan and Jaspers, 2011) but empirical research is limited.

To sum up, this section highlights the relevant role of IB and its impact on

effectiveness and organisations survival. Several conceptualizations and a

description of the stages involving this process are presented. Through this

Dissertation we study IB rather than only creativity, as IB is considered the

combination of the creative process and its implementation; this facilitates the

study of individual IB as a relevant employee outcome. Later on, in the three

studies presented in the next chapters, the relationship of this relevant behaviour

with other relevant perceptions, behaviours and attitudes are specifically presented

for introducing our hypotheses.

2.3.2 Employee Work Engagement

Employee engagement is an emerging and evolving concept in the business,

management, industrial/organisational psychology, and human resource

development fields (Wollard and Shuck, 2011) as it is extremely important for

competitiveness in the contemporary business environment (Konrad, 2006). This

concept has captured the attention of business practitioners, academic researchers

and governments (Yalabik, Popaitoon, Chowne and Rayton, 2013). A meta-

analysis developed by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) shows that employee

engagement is crucial for any business as it affects productivity, employee

turnover, customer satisfaction, accidents and profits. Recently, some studies

indicates that engagement may be a primary essential mechanism in the workplace


41

that explains an extensive variety of behavioural and attitudinal outcomes

(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Rich, LePine and Crawford 2010; Christian, Garza

and Slaughter, 2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008).

There are multiple definitions of employee engagement; some of them are

presented. One of the first scholars defining this concept was Kahn (1990). He

proposed that engagement represents a state in which employees ‘bring in’ their

personal selves during work role performances, investing personal energy and

experiencing an emotional connection at work. Later on, Schaufeli, Bakker and

Salanova (2006) stated that employee engagement is a positive state, fulfilling,

and a work-related state of mind, which is considered to be the antipode of

burnout. Another definition, given by Shuck and Wollard (2010:103), defined the

term as ‘an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state

directed toward desired organisational outcomes’.

Initially some scholars stated that employee engagement overlaps with other

constructs as job involvement, job satisfaction and organisational commitment

(Newman and Harrison, 2008; Wefald and Downey, 2009). Despite that these

authors consider that employee engagement comes from other related constructs

(i.e. job satisfaction and commitment), it was demonstrated by Christian et al.

(2011) in a meta-analysis, and later, by Yalabik et al (2013) that employee

engagement, job satisfaction and commitment are different concepts. In both

studies, these scholars offered evidence of the discriminant validity of work

engagement, job satisfaction and affective commitment. From these

considerations, and from other studies (i.e. Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008: Schaufeli

and Bakker, 2010), we can conclude that employee engagement is a unique

construct with its own meaning, as it is described in the next paragraphs.

Employee engagement is a motivational–psychological state that is characterized

by three dimensions: vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova,

Gonzalez-Romá, and Bakker, 2002:74; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Salanova and

Schaufeli, 2008). This definition of employee engagement is established and

developed in the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Vigour is

characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the

Chapter 2

42

willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of

difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and

experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.

Finally, absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily

engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties

with detaching oneself from work.

Similarly, Konrad (2006) posted that employee engagement has three related

components: a cognitive, an emotional, and a behavioural aspect. The cognitive

aspect of employee engagement concerns employees’ beliefs about the

organisation, its leaders, and working conditions. The emotional aspect is about

how employees feel about each of those three factors and whether they have

positive or negative attitudes toward the organisation and its leaders. The

behavioural aspect is the value-added component for the organisation and consists

in the discretionary effort that employees bring to their work in the form of extra

time, brainpower and energy devoted to the task and the firm.

According to Schaufeli et al. (2006:702) ‘engaged employees have a sense of

energetic and effective connection with their work activities, and they see

themselves as able to deal well with the demands of their jobs’. In other words, an

engaged employee is one who is enthusiastic about his/her job, and exerts high

levels of energy in his/her job while not being able to detach from it (May, Gilson

and Harter, 2004; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

Scholars have also focused their attention analysing antecedents and consequences

of employee engagement both at an individual and organisational levels (See

figure 2.2).

Specialised literature has analysed as employee engagement antecedents:

perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support and organisational

justice (ArunKumar, and Renugadevi, 2013; Saks, 2006; Sparrow and Balain,

2009); job characteristics (Crawford, Rich, Buckman and Bergeron,

2013;ArunKumar and Renugadevi, 2013; Christian, et al., 2011, Kahn, 1992);

rewards and recognition (Kahn, 1990; Maslash, Schaufeli and Leiter, 2001),

autonomy and feedback (Christian et al., 2011; Crawford et al., 2013), leadership,


43

task significance, conscientiousness and positive affect (Christian et al., 2011;)

and opportunities for development (Crawford et al., 2013). Other organisational or

contextual antecedent of employee engagement is HRM, and as it has been

highlighted, scarce research has studied the link between HRM and engagement

(Shuck and Rocco, 2013).

Figure 2.2: Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement

The study of the consequences of employee engagement has also been linked to

positive outcomes both, for individuals and organisations (Kahn, 1992). The

positive outcome variables analysed by the literature refer to: improved job

performance (Bakker and Bal, 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben and

Wheeler, 2008; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli, 2009b; Yalabik

et al., 2013), client satisfaction (Salanova, Agut, and Peiró, 2005; Stairs and

Galpin, 2010), organisational citizenship behaviour (Alfes et al, 2013, Rasheed,

Khan, and Ramzan, 2013), lower employee turnover and intention to quit

(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2006; Saks, 2006;

Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008), lower

absenteeism, increased employee effort and productivity, improved quality and

lower error rates, increased sales, higher employee retention, and faster business

Organisational antecedents

- Rewards and recognition

- -Job Characteristics

-Autonomy

- Leadership

-Feedback

- Organizational Culture

- HRM

- Opportunities for Developement

Individual antecedents

- - Perceived Organizational Support

- Perceived Supervisor Support

- Perceived Organizational Justice

- Task Significance

- Conscientiousness

- Positive Affect

Organisational consequences

- Client Satisfaction

- Reduced employee turnover

- Financial Returns/ Increased Sales/ Grouth-Success

- Lower Absenteeism

- Higher Employee Retention

- Improved Quality And Reduced Error Rates

Individual consequences

- Job Performance

- Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

- Reduced Intention To Quit

- Increased Employee Effort And Productivity

Source: Own elaboration

Chapter 2

44

growth; and higher likelihood of business success (Stairs and Galpin, 2010) and

financial returns (Xanthopoulou et al, 2009a).

There are other variables as job satisfaction and affective commitment that have

been analysed as antecedents (Yalabik, et al., 2013) and as consequences (Saks,

2006; ArunKumar, and Renugadevi, 2013) of work engagement.

A stronger theoretical reasoning to explain employee engagement can be

established in the social exchange theory (SET). According to this framework,

employees will show different levels of engagement depending on how

appreciated and trusted the organisation makes them feel (Rich et al., 2010).

Employees develop a reciprocal relationship of trust and commitment with their

employers as long as the parties accept certain ‘rules’ of exchange (Cropanzano

and Mitchell, 2005). Hence, SET provides a theoretical foundation to explain the

level of employees’ engagement in their work and organisation. Through high

levels of engagement, employees feel more indebted to bring themselves more

deeply into their role performances as repayment for the resources they receive

from their organisation (Saks, 2006:603).

As it is shown in this section, traditionally the study of employee engagement has

been related to the theoretical development of the concept (employee engagement

dimensions, measurement issues, construct validity, among others) and later on to

the analysis of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.

However, further work is necessary. On the one hand, related to the antecedents of

employee engagement, the association between HPWS and other forms of HRM

with engagement (Alfes et al, 2012; 2013) should be analysed; and on the other

hand, the focus should be established on the relationships between work

engagement and its outcomes (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010; Halbesleben,

2010). Through this dissertation we want to shed light (study 3) on the study of

how employee perceptions of HPWS foster employee engagement and, showing

how work engagement contributes to stimulating IB.

2.3.3 Knowledge Sharing and Exploratory Learning

Knowledge is the foundation of a firm's competitive advantage and, ultimately, the

primary driver of a firm's value (Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee, 2005). Employees are


45

those who create, recognise, store, have access, and apply knowledge in carrying

out their tasks (Bock et al, 2005). Therefore knowledge resides within individuals

(Nonaka and Konno, 1998). According to Davenpont and Prusak (1998:4),

knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information,

and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new

experiences and information. Consequently, knowledge is the organisation’s

intellectual capital, of increasing importance in promoting competitive advantage

(Van de Hooff and Huysman, 2009).

Once we have justified that knowledge is relevant for organisational value

creation, the next challenge is to study how it is managed. Researchers have used

different expressions for defining knowledge management. For example,

Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined knowledge management as the process of

capturing, storing, sharing, and using knowledge. Nonaka (1994:15) defined

knowledge as a stock of expertise. Polanyi (1966) classified knowledge into

explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is codifiable and transmissible in a formal

language, while tacit knowledge is difficult to codify in formal language and is

specific to an individual.

The knowledge literature is concerned with different kinds of knowledge

processes (using, sharing, integrating, and creating knowledge) in many different

contexts (intra/ inter-firm, intra/inter-unit, inter-employee) (Foss, Husted, and

Michailova, 2010). One of the relevant aspects considered in knowledge

management literature refers to knowledge exchange and knowledge creation; this

last concept is assimilated by the literature as exploratory learning. Hence, this

dissertation is focused on knowledge exchange and exploratory learning processes

that take place in the organisation among employees.

2.3.3.1 Knowledge sharing

Significant research analyses the factors describing knowledge sharing within

organisational boundaries (i.e. Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Bock et al., 2005;

Husted and Michailova, 2002). Knowledge sharing concerns the willingness of

individuals in an organisation to share with others, the knowledge they have

Chapter 2

46

acquired or created (Gibbert and Krause, 2002). Thus, knowledge sharing is

valuable for organisations as it promotes the constant creation of new knowledge.

Review studies, as the one developed by Foss et al. (2010:458) posted that the

study of knowledge sharing is important for different reasons. Firstly, knowledge

sharing is designed to transform individual knowledge into organisational

knowledge; thus, this concept directly involves the levels issue (individual,

organisational). According to Lin (2007:3) at the individual level, knowledge

sharing takes place talking to co-workers to help them get something done better,

more rapidly, or more efficiently. From an organisational point of view,

knowledge sharing consists in capturing, organising, reusing, and transferring

experience-based knowledge that resides within the organisation and making that

knowledge available to others at a business level. Another reason showing the

outstanding role of knowledge sharing is that it is interesting per se: whilst not all

organisations engage in new knowledge creation processes, it is difficult to

imagine modern organisational life without knowledge sharing processes taking

place.

Research has revealed that sharing knowledge within organisations is a

problematic and complex issue because it involves individual-level decisions and

interactions (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). Thus, knowledge sharing is the process

where individuals mutually exchange their (tacit and explicit) knowledge and

jointly create new knowledge (Van den Hooff de De Ridder, 2004). This

definition indicates that all knowledge-sharing behaviour involves both bringing

(and donating) knowledge and getting (or collecting knowledge) (De Vries and

Van den Hooff, 2006). According to Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004),

knowledge sharing involves two central behaviours: (a) knowledge donating,

communicating one’s personal intellectual capital to others; and (b) knowledge

collecting, consulting others to get them to share their intellectual capital. In this

dissertation we adopt this conceptualisation.

Extensive discussions in literature analyse the importance of a diversity of factors

that are involved in the knowledge sharing process, and the benefits of this process


47

from an organisational perspective (see: van Wijk, Jansen and Lyles, 2008). The

next paragraph presents some of them.

Wang and Noe (2010) identify five groups of factors that influence knowledge

sharing; (1) national culture; (2) organisational context (organisational culture,

management support, incentives and organisational structure); (3) interpersonal

and team characteristics (team processes, diversity, social networks); (4)

individual characteristics; and 5) motivational factors (knowledge ownership,

perceived benefits and costs, interpersonal trust and justice, individual attitudes).

Other aspects that have been considered as drivers of knowledge sharing at

organisational levels refer to climate and culture, dynamic capabilities and

absorptive capacity, among others (for a review, see Foss et al., 2010).

The consequences or benefits on knowledge sharing analysed by the literature

refer to smaller production costs, team performance, innovation capabilities, and

firm performance including sales growth or revenue from new products and

services (Arthur and Huntley, 2005; Collins and Smith, 2006; Lin, 2007; Wang

and Wang, 2012).

Traditionally, literature has focused on analysing knowledge constructs from an

organisational perspective rather than from an individual one (Felin and Foss,

2005; Foss and Michailova, 2009). However, Foss et al. (2010) highlight that

knowledge-sharing antecedents and consequences are clearly rooted in micro-

foundations. Thus, more research is need on the analysis of knowledge sharing

antecedents and consequences at the individual level.

Micro-foundations research aims at decomposing macro-level constructs (e.g.,

organisational performance, absorptive capacity, strategic problem formulation) in

terms of actions and interactions of members at various levels in an organisation

(Foss and Pedersen, 2014). Micro-foundations concept (see figure 2.3) is

developed by Foss (2007) and is built on the work of Coleman (1990). From this

perspective a distinction is made between organisational macro level, and

individual/micro level. Foss and Pedersen (2014:3) explaining Coleman’s (1990)

micro foundations arguments highlighted additional reasons of why micro

foundations are critical. It is suggested that macro-level explanation (i.e.,

Chapter 2

48

explanation of macro phenomena in terms of other macro phenomena) cannot

discriminate between the many potential alternative lower-level explanations of

macro-level behaviour because of a fundamental problem of unobserved

mechanisms. Thus, micro-level mechanisms are the proximate foundations of

macro phenomena. Hence, framing on Coleman’s (1990) arguments, Foss and

Pedersen (2014) posted that explanations that involve the micro level are more

stable, fundamental, and general than macro level explanations.

Figure 2.3: Levels of analysis

Source: Foss et al., 2010

Consequently, it’s important to analyse the phenomenon from its fundamental

constituents, namely individuals (Felin and Foss, 2005) and their interaction, as

this focus may generate novel insights in the organisational-level phenomena

(Stinchcombe, 1991). Yet, the understanding of knowledge sharing antecedents

and consequences remains rather unclear (van Wijk, et al., 2008), and considering

the above arguments, need further development adopting a micro perspective, as it

is done in this Dissertation. In the following paragraphs we explain more in depth

how our work contributes to this end.

Van de Hooff and Huysman, (2009) differentiates between two approaches of

knowledge sharing: the emergence and the engineering perspective. From the

emergence approach, knowledge sharing is not dependent on management


49

intervention; knowledge cannot be directed from the outside (from managers), but

depends on the social capital of a group of people. Consequently, this approach

defends the idea that knowledge sharing is inherently emerging in nature.

However, the engineering perspective assumes that knowledge sharing can be

managed; the core idea of this approach is that management can play a key role by

stimulating and creating an adequate environment that facilitates the process.

From our knowledge, we agree with the engineering perspective as companies can

promote knowledge sharing through different HRM actions (e.g. working in

groups or teams, establishing group incentives, among others).

Van den Hooff and Huysman (2009) defend the idea that management’s role is not

directly influencing knowledge sharing, but it is stimulating and creating

conditions for this emergent process. Through this dissertation (Study 1) we want

to shed light on whether HPWS, as a management system, can stimulate and

create an environment where knowledge sharing process takes place; and also

analyse how this knowledge sharing process stimulates employees’ IB.

2.3.3.2 Exploratory Learning

As it is explained in the above section, exploratory learning is another relevant

knowledge-related concept. Exploratory learning is a type of individual learning

process made up of two complementary dimensions: information acquisition and

information interpretation (Flores, Zheng, Rau and Thomas, 2012). Information

acquisition refers to the process through which an individual acquires information

from internal or external sources (Huber, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992) and

through the feedback obtained from past actions (Duncan and Weiss, 1979). With

regard to the second dimension of exploratory learning (information

interpretation) it has to do with the process through which individuals make sense

of the new information that they have acquired (Levinthal and March, 1993) in

order to turn it into a new common knowledge (Daft and Weick, 1984).

Thus, exploration includes behaviours captured by terms such as search, variation,

risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation; while

exploitation includes such other aspects as refinement, choice, production,

efficiency, selection, implementation and execution (March, 1991).

Chapter 2

50

Previous literature using this concept is scarce. We base our second study on

Shipton et al. (2006), who foreground the relevance of HPWS to promote

exploratory learning as a predictor of innovation performance, studying this

relationship from an organisational level. In their work, Shipton et al. (2006)

highlighted the relevance of employees’ exploratory learning through the

acquisition of potentially applicable knowledge and skills and, in so doing,

facilitating innovation. This way, the results of this study put the emphasis on how

HPWS could affect the exploratory attitude of employees and foster, as a result,

innovation performance. However, they didn’t test these relationships empirically.

With this Dissertation we want to shed light on the importance of individuals in

the learning and development process, specifically focusing our second study on

the relevance of individual exploratory learning to foster IB. This is not to say that

the importance and influence of context is overlooked; for this reason it is

important to study the role of HRM from an individual perspective to know how

the HRM context affects individual behaviours.

2.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE GENERAL THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

In this chapter we have described the main concepts and theories involved in this

thesis. Specifically, in the first part of this chapter we have introduced the concept

of HRM, HRM models and perspectives, HRM development and the reasons for

analysing HR- related concepts as HPWS and HRM Process. We have also

defined the traditional theories related to this framework. On the one hand AMO

framework, related to both, HPWS and HRM Process; and on the other hand,

Attribution Theory for explaining HRM Process.

In the second part of the chapter we have introduced the analysis of the

relationship between employee attitudes, behaviours and outcomes. In this part we

define and, briefly discuss the main antecedents and consequences analysed by the

literature that have to do with the main attitudinal and behavioural concepts used

in this Dissertation.


51

In each of the studies developed later in this Dissertation we develop the particular

relationships between concepts and frameworks.

Chapter 2

52

2.2 REFERENCES

Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organizational

commitment: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Human




behaviour: a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Human


Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996).

Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal,

39:5, 1154-1184.


innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of‐the‐science.


Appelbaum, E., and Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY:

ILR.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing

advantage: why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.

Armstrong, M. (2001). Handbook of human resource management practice. Ed.

Armstrong, M. Kogan Page Publishers, London.

Armstrong, M. (2014). Handbook of human resource management practice. Ed.

Armstrong, M. Kogan Page Publishers, London.

Arthur, J. (1994) Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing

Performance and Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37:4, 1994, 670-

687.


53

Arthur, J. B. (1992). The link between business strategy and industrial relations

systems in American steel minimills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45:3,

488-506.



Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Arthur, J. B., and Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning

curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance

under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48:6, 1159-1170.

ArunKumar, M. K., and Renugadevi, M. R. Antecedents and Consequences of

Employee Engagement-A Hypothetical Approach. Journal of Business and

Management, 9:3, 52-57.

Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A

comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95:3,

592–601.

Bailey, T. (1993). Organizational innovation in the apparel industry. Industrial

Relations, 32, 30-48.

Bakker, A. B., and Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance:

A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 83:1, 189-206.

Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement.

Career development international, 13:3, 209-223.

Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior:

Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 29:2, 147-154.

Bambir, D., Drozdová, M., and Horvat, J. (2010). Applicability of Existing HRM

Models in Order to Develop HRIS Model for University. World.

Barney, J.B. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.

Journal of Management, 17:1, 99–120.

Chapter 2

54

Bartol, K. M., and Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The

role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 9:1, 64-76.

Basu, R., and Green, S. G. (1997). Leader‐member exchange and transformational

leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader‐member

dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27:6, 477-499.

Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit

rates, and sales growth. Academy of management Journal, 45:3, 587-597.

Becker, B. E., and Huselid, M. A. (1998). High performance work systems and

firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. In

Research in personnel and human resource management.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., and Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a

source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource


Beer, M., Spector, B., Paul, R., Lawrence, D., Mills, Q., and Richard, E. (1984).

Walton, Managing Human Assets.

Benkhoff, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish

the missing link between commitment and performance. Human relations, 50:6,

701-726.

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., and Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral

intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic

motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly,

87-111.

Boselie, P., Brewster, C., and Paauwe, J. (2009). In search of balance-managing

the dualities of HRM: an overview of the issues. Personnel Review, 38:5, 461-471.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., and Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in

HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15:3,

67-94.


55


linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of management

review, 29:2, 203-221.

Boxall, P. (2012). High‐performance work systems: what, why, how and for

whom? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50:2, 169-186.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management

(second edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2007). High-performance work systems and

organisational performance: Bridging theory and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of

Human Resources, 45:3, 261-270.

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.

Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (2007) Human Resource Management:

scope, analysis and significance in Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (eds.) The

Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Boxall, P.F. (1994). Placing HR Strategy at the Heart of Business Success.

Personnel Management, 26:7, 32–35.

Brewster, C. (1993). Developing a ‘European’ model of human resource

management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4:4, 765-

784.

Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992) Human Resource Management in Europe:

Evidence from ten countries. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 3:3, 409–433.

Bryson, A., Forth, J. and Kirby, S. (2005). ‘High-involvement management

practices, trade union representation and workplace performance in Britain’.

Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52: 3, 451–491.

Chapter 2

56

Budhwar, P. and Sparrow, P.R. (1997) Evaluating Levels of Strategic Integration

and Devolvement of Human Resource Management in India. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 8:4, 476–494.

Cabrera, A., and Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas.

Organization studies, 23:5, 687-710.

Carmeli, A., and Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving:

Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative Behavior,

43:3, 169-191.

Chen, C. J., and Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic Human Resource Practices and

Innovation Performance – The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management

Capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62:1, 104–114.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.

Personnel Psychology, 64:1, 89-136.

Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., and Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust

in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 75:4, 409-422.

Coelho, J. P., Cunha, R. C., Gomes, J. F., and Correia, A. (2012). Developing and

Validating a Measure of the Strength of the HRM System: Operationalizing the

Construct and Relationships among its Dimensions.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA, and

London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.




Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., and Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐

performance work practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on

organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59:3, 501-528.


57

Cooke, F.L. (2001). Human resource strategy to improve organizational

performance: A route for firms in Britain? International Journal of Management

Reviews, 3:4, 321–39.

Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., Buckman, B., and Bergeron, J. (2013). The

antecedents and drivers of employee engagement. In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R.

Delbridge, A. Shantz, and E. Soane (Eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and

Practice (pp. 57–81), New York: Routledge.

Cropanzano, R., and Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31:6, 874-900.

Daft, R. L., and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as

interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9:2, 284-295.

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., and Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource

management and labor productivity: does industry matter? Academy of


Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations

manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

De Cieri, H. and Kramar, R. (2008). Human Resource Management in Australia,

Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

De Jong, J. P., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees'

innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, 10:1, 41-64.

De Jong, J., and Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour.


De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., and de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining

knowledge sharing the role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and

performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33:2, 115-135.

De Winne, S., Delmotte, J., Gilbert, C. and Sels, L. (2013). Comparing and

explaining HR department effectiveness assessments: Evidence from line

managers and trade union representatives. International Journal of Human


Chapter 2

58



performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39:4, 802-835.

Delery, J. E., and Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work

organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension. Ferris, Gerald R. (Ed). Research

in personnel and human resources management, Vol 20. Research in personnel

and human resources management. Vol 20, (pp. 165-197). US: Elsevier

Science/JAI Press.

Delmotte, J., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2011). Towards an assessment of

perceived HRM system strength: Scale development and validation. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1481 – 1506.

Demerouti, E., and Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee

work engagement and job performance. Work engagement: A handbook of

essential theory and research, 147-163.

Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., and Croon, M. A. (2013). HRM,

Communication, Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance A Cross-Level Test.

Journal of Management, 39:6, 1637-1665.

Dessler, G. (2007). Human Resource Management. Prentice Hall.

Dul, J., Ceylan, C., and Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers' creativity and the

role of the physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50:6, 715-

734.

Duncan, R. B., and Weiss, A. Organizational learning: Implications for

organizational design. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.

1). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979, 75-123.

Dyer, L., and Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance:

what do we know and where do we need to go? International Journal of Human


Ehrnrooth, M., and Björkman, I. (2012): The HRM process, employee

performance and workload: A study of the mechanisms of HRM's influence.

Journal of Management Studies, 49:6, 1109–1135.


59

Evans, W. R., and Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and

organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structure.


Farr, J. L., and Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation.


foundations. Strategic organization, 3:4, 441.

Fiske, S. X, and Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New Y ork:

McGraw-Hill.

Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., and Thomas, C. H. (2012). Organizational

learning subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of

cultural antecedents. Journal of Management, 38:2, 640-667.

Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M., and Devanna, M. A. (1984). Strategic human

resource management. John Wiley and Sons New York.



Foss, N. J., and Michailova, S. (Eds.). (2009). Knowledge Governance: Processes

and Perspectives: Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Foss, N. J., and Pedersen, T. (2014). Microfoundations in strategy research.

Strategic Management Journal. doi: 10.1002/smj.2362.

Foss, N. J., Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing

in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research

directions. Journal of Management studies, 47:3, 455-482.

Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational

Dynamics, 10, 5–25.

Gibbert, M., and Krause, H. (2002). Practice exchange in a best practice

marketplace. Knowledge management case book: Siemens best practices, 89-105.

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.

Chapter 2

60

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., and Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,

transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of

employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52:4, 765-778.

Gould-Williams, J., and Mohamed, R. B. (2010). A comparative study of the

effects of ‘best practice’ HRM on worker outcomes in Malaysia and England local

government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21:5, 653-

675.

Grant, A. M., and Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of

invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity.


Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., and Truss, C. (1999). Strategic human

resource management: corporate rhetoric and human reality. Oxford University

Press.

Guest, D. E. (1987). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations.

Journal of management Studies, 24:5, 503-521.

Guest, D. E. (2007). HRM and the Worker: Towards a New Psychological

Contract? [Online]. In: Boxall, Peter (Editor); Purcell, John (Editor); Wright,

Patrick (Editor). Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, The.

Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press: 128-146. Oxford handbooks in

business and management. Availability:

<http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=990174132379510;res=IE

LBUS> ISBN: 019928251X. [Cited 21 Feb 15].

Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and

research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8:3,

263-276,

Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of

intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual capital, 2:1, 27-41.

Guthrie, J. P., Spell, C. S., and Nyamori, R. O. (2002). Correlates and

consequences of high involvement work practices: the role of competitive

strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13:1, 183-197.


61

Haggerty, J., and Wright, P. (2010). Strong situations and firm performance: A

proposed re-conceptualization of the role of the HR function, strong situations and

firm performance. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman, and S. Snell (Eds.), The

Sage handbook of human resource management (pp. 100–114). London, UK:

Sage.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work

engagement among teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43:6, 495-513.

Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships

with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A

handbook of essential theory and research, 102-117.

Halbesleben, J. R., and Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement

and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work &

Stress, 22:3, 242-256.

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.

Hendry, C. and Pettigrew, A. (1990). Human Resource Management: an agenda

for the 1990s. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1:1, 17–43.

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., and Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on

employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual

creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52:2, 280-293.

Horgan, J. and Mühlau. P. (2006). Human resource systems and employee

performance in Ireland and the Netherlands: A test of the complementarity

hypothesis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17:3, 414–

439.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the

literatures. Organization science, 2:1, 88-115.




Chapter 2

62

Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-

sharing hostility. Organizational dynamics, 31:1, 60-73.



psychology, 73:3, 287-302.

Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor

supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of occupational and

organizational psychology, 78:4, 573-579.

Jiang, K., Lepak, DP, Hu, J., and Baer, J.C. (2012). How does human resource

management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of

mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55:6, 1264-1294.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33:4, 692-724.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human

Relations, 45, 321–349.

Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and

social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw and L.L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol 10, 169-211.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katou, A. A., Budhwar, P. S., and Patel, C. (2014). Content vs. Process in the

HRM‐Performance Relationship: An Empirical Examination. Human Resource

Management, 53:4, 527-544.

Kehoe, R. R., and Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human

resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management,

39:2, 366-391.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist,

28:2, 107.

Kesting, P., and Parm Ulhøi, J. (2010). Employee-driven innovation: extending

the license to foster innovation. Management Decision, 48:1, 65-84.


63

Khilji, S. E., and Wang, X. (2006). Intended’and ‘implemented’HRM: the missing

link in strategic human resource management research. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 17:7, 1171-1189.

Konrad, A. M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work

practices. Ivey Business Journal, 70:4, 1-6.

Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies

for Improving Organizational Performance. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350.

Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Lawler, E.E.(1992). The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Legge, K (1998) The morality of HRM, in (eds) C Mabey, D Skinner and T Clark,

Experiencing Human Resource Management, Sage, London

Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S., & Drake, B. (2009).

Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human

Resource Management Review, 19:2, 64-85.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). Modes of Technology Transfer within Organizations:

Point-to-Point versus Diffusion, Harvard Business School.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., and Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review

of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management

research. Research in personnel and human resources management, 25:1, 217-

271.

Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic

management journal, 14:S2, 95-112.

Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee

knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of information science.

doi:10.1177/0165551506068174.

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., and Storey, J. (1998). Human resource management: A

strategic introduction. Blackwell Publishing.

Chapter 2

64

MacDuffie, J. P. (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.

Macey, W. H., and Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.

Industrial and organizational psychology, 1:1, 3-30.

Macky, K., and Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance

work practices’ and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and

interaction effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

18:4, 537-567.

Macky, K., and Boxall, P. (2008). High-involvement work processes, work

intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker

experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46:1, 38-55.

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., and Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity,

incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96:4, 730.

Majaro, S. (1988). Managing Ideas for Profit, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization science, 2:1, 71-87.

Martín-Alcázar, F., Romero-Fernandez, P. M. and Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2005).

Strategic human resource management: integrating the universalistic, contingent,

configurational and contextual perspectives. International Journal of Human


Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., and Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual

review of psychology, 52:1, 397-422.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., and Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions

of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit

at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77:1, 11-37.


65

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., and Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011).

Unlocking the black box: exploring the link between high-performance work

systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96:6, 1105-1118.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of

personality. Psychological review, 80:4, 252.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for

innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10:3, 313-351.

Neal, A., West, M. A., and Patterson, M. G. (2005). Do organizational climate and

competitive strategy moderate the relationship between human resource

management and productivity? Journal of Management, 31:4, 492-512.

Newman, D. A., and Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: are state and

behavioral work engagement new and useful construct “wines”? Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1:1, 31-35.

Ng, K. Y., and Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualism-collectivism as a boundary

condition for effectiveness of minority influence in decision making.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 84:2, 198-225.

Nishii, L. H. and Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations:

Implications for strategic human management (CAHRS Working Paper #07-02).

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center

for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/ 467.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., and Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the

“why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and

customer satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 61:3, 503-545.

Nishii, L.H., and Wright, P. (2008). Variability at multiple levels of analysis:

Implications for strategic human resource management. In D.B. Smith (Ed.). The

people make the place. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard business review,

69:6, 96-104.

Chapter 2

66

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organization science, 5:1, 14-37.

Nonaka, I., Konno, N., and Toyama, R. (2001). Emergence of “ba”.Knowledge

emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation,

1, 13-29.

OECD, Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and

Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition. Paris.

Ostroff, C., and Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices

and organizational effectiveness. Klein, Katherine J. (Ed); Kozlowski, Steve W. J.

(Ed), (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:

Foundations, extensions, and new directions. , (pp. 211-266). San Francisco, CA,

US: Jossey-Bass.

Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues

and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46:1, 129-142.

Parzefall, M. R., Seeck, H., and Leppänen, A. (2008). Employee innovativeness in

organizations: a review of the antecedents. Finnish Journal of Business

Economics, 2:8, 165-182.

Patterson, M., Warr, P., and West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and

company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77:2, 193-216.

Payne, R. L. 2000. Culture and climate: How close can they get? In N. M.

Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of

organizational culture and climate: 163-176. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first.

USA, Harvard Business Press.


67

Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., and Ridder, H. G. (2014). Mind the Intended‐

Implemented Gap: Understanding Employees’ Perceptions of HRM. Human


Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41:155, 1-18.

Rasheed, A., Khan, S., and Ramzan, M. (2013). Antecedents and Consequences of

Employee Engagement: The Case of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies

Quarterly, 4:4, 183-200.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., and Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to

work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55:1, 120–51.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:

Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal,

53:3, 617-635.

Rodrigues-Ribeiro, T., Pinto-Coelho, J., and Gomes, J. F. (2011). HRM strength,

situation strength and improvisation behavior. Management Research: Journal of

the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9:2, 118-136.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.

Journal of managerial psychology, 21:7, 600-619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., and Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources

and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the

mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:6, 1217.

Salanova, M., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work

engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19:1, 116-131.

Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., and de Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual

and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering

climate strength. Personnel Review, 37:4, 412-425.

Chapter 2

68

Sanders, K., Shipton, H., and Gomes, J. F. (2014). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Is

the HRM Process Important? Past, Current, and Future Challenges. Human


Sanders, K., Yang, H and Kim, S. (2012). The Moderating Effect of Employees’

HR Attribution on HRM–Employee Outcomes Linkages. In Academy of

Management Annual Meeting (pp. 1-38).

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their

relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of

organizational Behavior, 25:3, 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work

engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work engagement: A handbook of

essential theory and research, 10-24.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of

work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational

and psychological Measurement, 66:4, 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002).

The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor

analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3:1, 71-92.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan

management review, 25:2, 3-16.

Schuler, R. S. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people

with the strategic needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics, 21:1, 18-32.



Journal, 37:3, 580-607.

Shalley, C. E., and Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of

social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15:1, 33-53.


69

Shin, S. J., and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and

creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46:6, 703-

714.

Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J. F., Birdi, K., and Patterson, M. G. (2006a).

HRM as a predictor of innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 16:1,

3-27.

Shipton, H.J., West. M.A., Parkes, C.L., and Dawson, J.F. (2006b). When

promoting positive feelings pays: Aggregate job satisfaction, work design features

and innovation in manufacturing organizations. European Journal of Work and


Shuck, B., and Rocco, T. (2013). HRD and employee engagement. Employee

Engagement in Theory and Practice.

Shuck, B., and Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal

review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9:1, 89-110.

Slåtten, T., and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged


Quality: An International Journal, 21:1, 88-107.

Sparrow, P.R., and Balain, S. (2010). Engaging HR strategists: Do the logics

match the realities? In Albrecht, S. (Ed.) The handbook of employee engagement:

Models, measures and practice (pp. 263-296). London, UK: Edward-Elgar.

Stairs, M., and Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: From employee

engagement to workplace happiness. Oxford handbook of positive psychology and

work, pp. 155-172.

Stinchcombe, A. (1991). The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about

mechanisms in social science. Philosophy of Social Science, 21:3, 367–88.

Storey, J. (1989). New perspectives on human resource management. Ed J. Storey,

Routledge, London.

Chapter 2

70

Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., and Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource

practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50:3, 558-577.

Thompson, M., and Heron, P. (2006). Relational quality and innovative

performance in R&D based science and technology firms. Human Resource


Tidd, J., Bessant, J., and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating

technological, managerial organizational change. New York.

Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. In J. Zhou, and C. E.

Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 95–123). New York:

Erlbaum.

Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. (2005) Human Resource Management.

Harlow: Financial Times.

Truss, C. (1999). Soft and hard models of human resource management, In

Strategic human resource management. Ed L. Gratton, V. Hope-Hailey, P. Stiles,

and C. Truss. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997), Soft

and Hard Models of Human Resource Management: A Reappraisal. Journal of

Management Studies, 34:1, 53–73.

Tsai, C. J., Edwards, P., and Sengupta, S. (2010). The associations between

organisational performance, employee attitudes and human resource management

practices. Journal of General Management, 36:1, 1-20.

Tsui, A., and Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer's

perspective: Current research and future directions. International review of

industrial and organizational psychology, 17, 77-114.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management science, 32:5, 590-607.


71

Van De Voorde, K., and Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions

in the relationship between high‐performance work systems and employee

outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 25:1, 62-78.

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., and Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee Well‐

being and the HRM–Organizational Performance Relationship: A Review of

Quantitative Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14:4, 391-

407.

van den Hooff, B., and De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the

influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on

knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 8:6, 117-130.

van den Hooff, B., and Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing:

Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46:1, 1-8.

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., and Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter‐and intra‐organizational

knowledge transfer: a meta‐analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and

consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45:4, 830-853.

Wang, S., and Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for

future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20:2, 115-131.

Wang, Z., and Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm

performance. Expert systems with applications, 39:10, 8899-8908.

Watson, T. J. (2010). Critical social science, pragmatism and the realities of HRM.

International journal of human resource management, 21:6, 915-931.

Way, S. A. (2002). High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of

firm performance within the US small business sector. Journal of Management,

28:6, 765- 785.

Wefald, A. J., and Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement

and its relation with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 91-112.

West, M. A. (1989). Innovation among health care professionals. Social Behavior,

4, 173–184.

Chapter 2

72

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model

of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 51:3, 355–387.


perspectives. Social Behaviour.



European journal of work and organizational psychology, 13:2, 269-299.

West, M.A. and Farr, (1990), (Eds), "Innovation at work", in Innovation and

Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley,

Chichester, pp. 3-13.

Wollard, K. K., and Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to Employee Engagement A

Structured Review of the Literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources,

13:4, 429-446.

Wood, S., and Albanese, M. T. (1995). Can we speak of a high commitment

management on the shop floor? Journal of Management Studies, 32:2, 215-247.

Wood, S., and De Menezes, L. (1998). High commitment management in the UK:

Evidence from the workplace industrial relations survey, and employers'

manpower and skills practices survey. Human Relations, 51:4, 485-515.

Wood, S., and Wall, T. (2002). Human Resource Management and Business

Performance. Warr, Peter (Ed), (2002). Psychology at work (5th ed.), (pp. 351-

374). New York, NY, US: Penguin Press, xvi, 452 pp.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., and Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of

organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18:2, 293-321.

Wright, P. M. and Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational

behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis (CAHRS Working Paper #07-03).

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center

for Advanced Human Resource Studies.


73

Wright, P. M., and Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and

synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of

management, 28:3, 247-276.

Wright, P., and van de Voorde, K. (2009). Multilevel issues in IHRM: mean

differences, explained variance, and moderated relationships. Handbook of

international human resource management: integrating people, process, and

context, 29-40.

Wright, P.M. and Nishii, L.H. (2004). Strategic HRM and organizational

behaviour: integrating multiple levels of analysis. Working paper presented at the

International seminar on HRM: What’s Next? Organized by the Erasmus

University Rotterdam, June 2004.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2009a).

Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and

personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82,

183–200.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2009b).

Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work

engagement. Journal of Vocational behavior, 74:3, 235-244.

Xiao, Z., and Björkman, I. (2006). High commitment work systems in Chinese

organizations: A preliminary measure. Management and Organization Review,

2:3, 403-422.

Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., and Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work

engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The


Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., and Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-performance work

systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:1, 77–84.

Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., and Zhang, Z. X. (2009). Social

networks, personal values, and creativity: evidence for curvilinear and interaction

effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:6, 1544.

Chapter 2

74

Zhuang, L., Williamson, D., and Carter, M. (1999). Innovate or liquidate-are all

organisations convinced? A two-phased study into the innovation process.

Management Decision, 37:1, 57-71.


75

Chapter 3:

GENERAL METHODOLOGY

Chapter 3

76


77

3.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE GENERAL METHODOLOGY

In this Dissertation we follow a positivist approach, based on the principle that

meaningful phenomena can only be studied if it is based on something that can be

observed and quantified (Coolican, 2014). The rationale is that in the analysis of

the phenomenon we wish to explain, the data is collected from the real world to

test our hypothesis about that phenomenon. Through this Thesis employee’

attitudes, behaviours and perceptions can be studied and better understood.

Testing hypotheses involve building statistical models of the phenomenon of

interest, statistically valid to reach conclusions that are quantifiable and possibly

generalizable (Anderson, 2009).

The empirical part of this Dissertation is based in two different projects. Chapter 4

and 5 are based on the first project. In these studies, the sample includes

knowledge intensive employees; specifically employees working in research

institutes and in the public university of Valencia. On the other hand, Chapter 6 is

based on the results of an International Research Project in collaboration with

Nottingham Trent University’s Business School, which allowed access to a less

common sample referred to employees working in four companies located in

Nigeria and Tanzania.

In this section, several methodological aspects are developed: a general

characterization of the sample, the process used for collecting the data, an

explanation about the creation of the survey as a research tool, the variable

measurement, and the statistical techniques involved in this Thesis, as each study

presents its individual empirical analysis

3.2 SAMPLE CONTEXT AND DATA COLLECTION

3.2.1 Context of Researchers’ sample

The context of the sample used (Study 1 and 2) in this Dissertation is the

University of Valencia (henceforth, UV). Today’s UV is the outcome of more than

five centuries of history that has led to the accumulation of knowledge and unique

documentary treasures, making it one of the top Spanish universities1. UV is a

1 http://www.uv.es/uvweb/universidad/es/universitat/conocenos/historia-1285853103887.html

Chapter 3

78

public university and initially its main knowledge areas were Medicine,

Humanities, Theology and Law. However, nowadays, it is involved in almost all

academic disciplines: Arts and Humanities, Engineering, Health Science, Science,

and Social Science. It covers undergraduate studies, postgraduate courses, official

masters and PhD programs. This evolution has turned the UV into a modern and

global university. It has become a leader in the application of new technologies,

connected to important international scientific and teaching networks.

Based on the agreement (ACGUV 181/2012) adopted by UV’s government

council (UV, 2012), UV’s mission is ‘training competent professionals in Europe

and fostering a prestigious research with international impact that contributes to

the development of our society. In addition to the work also carried out in

spreading knowledge in science and culture, and the reaffirmation of democratic

values for society in general, and Valencia in particular’. From this quote we can

differentiate two relevant branches. On one hand, teaching activities are intended

to prepare students for their future professional development. For this goal it is

important to consider training and development of university staff in general, and

specifically professors. UV is also conscious of this first relevant axis and has

increased innovative mechanisms for the continuous improvement of teaching

activities. On the other hand, UV encourages research, both applied and basic.

Likewise, facilitates and stimulates intellectual activities and reviews in all fields

of culture and knowledge. Furthermore, according to its strategic plan, UV is

committed with the promotion of policies aimed at incentivising research and

increasing the optimization of Human Resources. Research activities are

developed by Academic Departments within each faculty, Research Institutes, and

the Scientific Park, among others.

Research Institutes are multidisciplinary entities whose aim is to meet the demand

of economic and social context in research transfer fields. In the Scientific Park,

apart from companies, there are six Research Institutes that stand out for their

level of collaboration with firms and institutions, as well as for their participation

in applied Projects in benefit of society.


79

As a result of its strategy, UV is one of the most prestigious universities in Spain

and is also globally recognized. According to the Academic Ranking of World

Universities (ARWU), UV is one of the top five universities in Spain and

considering the worldwide ranking (2014), it is one of the best between the 201-

300 universities in the world. ARWU uses six objective indicators to rank world

universities, including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and

Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Reuters,

number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles

indexed in Science Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index, and per

capita performance of a university.

UV is formed by 3,849 professors and researchers (hereafter, PDI), organized in a

network of 18 Faculties structured in 92 departments and more than 12 with their

own Research Institutes (UV, 2014). Faculties are organized in three campuses:

Burjassot-Paterna where Science, technological centres and the Scientific Park are

located; Blasco Ibáñez, where areas such as Health, Humanities and Education are

situated and Tarongers where we find Social Science and Law. The number of

PDI per campus is 879 in Burjassot-Paterna, 1,827 in Blasco Ibáñez and 1,143 in

Tarongers (See table 3.1).

Table 3.1. PDI per Campus

Faculty/Campus Total PDI

Superior School of Engineering 147

Faculty of Biological Science 227

Faculty of Pharmacy 140

Faculty of Mathematics 73

Faculty of Chemistry 153

Burjassot-Paterna 879

Faculty of Physics and Sports 50

Faculty of Philology 266

Faculty of Philosophy 194

Faculty of Physiotherapy 126

Faculty of Geography and History 156

Chapter 3

80

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry 626

Faculty of Psychology 255

Faculty of Nursing and Podiatry 154

Blasco Ibáñez 1,827

Faculty of Social Science 126

Faculty of Law 361

Faculty of Education 211

Faculty of Economics 445

Tarongers 1,143

Total 3,849

Source: Informe Estadístic Recull 2012

3.2.2 Knowledge intensive workers

During the last 40 years, the economic structure has changed from industrial to

knowledge economy. The concept of ‘Knowledge-based Economies’ is defined as

the production and services based on knowledge- intensive activities that

contribute to accelerate pace of technical and scientific advance, as well as rapid

obsolescence (Powell and Snellman, 2004).

According to Alvesson (2004), work and organisations that are knowledge-

intensive turn around the use of intellectual and analytical tasks, which are

typically seen as demanding a wide theoretical education and experience to be

developed successfully. Examples of knowledge intensive occupations include

consultants, lawyers, engineers, and scientists.

Based on the OECD (1996:21), it’s important to highlight that ‘Public research

institutions of higher education are at the core of the science system, which more

broadly include government science ministries and research councils, certain

enterprises and other private bodies, and supporting infrastructure. In the

knowledge-based economy, the science system contributes to the key functions of:

a) knowledge production – developing and providing new knowledge; b)

knowledge transmission – educating and developing human resources; and c)

knowledge transfer – disseminating knowledge and providing input to problem

solving.’


81

Considering the current knowledge-based economy and the relevant role that

scientists are playing providing education and research services, we focus on

knowledge intensive workers for testing the hypotheses proposed in Study 1 and 2

(Chapter 4 and 5). Besides, universities and research institutes as Knowledge

intensive entities are the key to dealing with knowledge creation, storage and

dissemination (Elmes and Kasouf, 1995). Thus, academic organisation conditions

provide most of the facilitating factors for organisational learning. Consequently,

the sample used in Study 1 and 2 (Chapter 4 and 5) is made up by Professors and

Researchers working in public research institutes and departments belonging to

UV.

3.3 AFRICAN CONTEXT: CHARACTERISTICS OF NIGERIA

AND TANZANIA

As mentioned before, the third study of this Dissertation is the result of an

international collaboration with Nottingham Business School. Researchers from

this Business School, jointly with other universities from all around the world

have created an international research group and they are developing an

International Human Resource Management Project. This project, among other

aspects, analyses the link between Human Resource Management and

performance. Data was collected in more than eight different countries involving

almost all continents. Part of the data collected in this project is from two African

countries, Nigeria and Tanzania, which is used to test the hypothesis of the third

study.

Africa has been making substantial progress in human development. The Human

Development Index shows a 1.5% annual growth and 15 countries are now

considered to have medium to very high human development (OECD, 2014).

Besides, the real GDP growth of both countries has grown above the African

average in the last decade (see graphic 3.1) According to the OECD African

economic outlook, economic growth is strong at a projected 7.2% in 2014 and

more than 7 % in 2015. Considering GDP distribution by sector in both countries,

the service industry conforms at least 50 % of the gross domestic product in 2012

(OECD, 2014). Most of the sample used for this third study corresponds to this

Chapter 3

82

sector. Regards the methods of this study, more particularities about the sector and

the companies are explained.

Developing countries are characterized by low per capita income and human

development. Nigeria and Tanzania are considered developing countries as they

are characterized by high dependence on agriculture, general poverty, and low

educational level. Another characteristic of developing countries is that they

normally have higher growth rates than developed countries. It’s important to

highlight that this is a general characterization of the term ‘developing countries’,

as it is well known that all developing countries are at different stages of economic

development (Budhwar and Debrah, 2013).

Graphic 3.1: GDP Growth of Nigeria and Tanzania compared to African average.

Source: Own elaboration based on African Economic Outlook Statistics (2014)

The existing literature on HRM in developing countries is relatively small,

however, there is an emerging interest on the part of researchers to understand the

pattern of and relevant management systems for developing countries (Budhwar

and Debrah, 2013; Debrah and Budhwar, 2004; Debrah and Ofori, 2006; among

others). Budhwar and Debrah (2013:401) highlighted the necessity to analyse

HRM practiced by firms in developing countries both for researchers and

practitioners that try to adopt the Western HRM models. However, they argue that

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Tanzania

Nigeria

Africa


83

the adoption of Western constructs to developing countries would not be sensible,

but with our third study, this argument could be refuted.

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

Regarding the sample used in Study 1 and 2, data was collected during 2013-2014.

The collection of the data was developed in different phases. Initially, the

questionnaire was previously tested with a sample of thirty-one PDI to ensure a

proper understanding of the items. After improving some items misunderstood, the

questionnaire was finally sent by email. For the distribution of the questionnaire,

we contacted each Faculty Dean and Research Institute Director by email (See

Appendix 1) and/or by telephone to obtain their approval for participating in this

investigation. A legal report from the UV Data Protection Department (See

Appendix 2) was included, as an email attachment, to ensure the confidentiality of

the replies. After this initial contact, the questionnaire was provided online by an

email link to 9 Faculties and 10 Research Institutes. Two months after the first

batch of questionnaires was distributed, a second batch was sent to improve the

response rate. Finally, a total of 304 cases were obtained with a 12% response rate.

A sizeable amount considering that the questionnaire was finally sent to 2,469

employees.

Concerning the third study of this Dissertation, the data obtained was allowed to

be used as a result of research collaboration between Nottingham Business School

and UV. African data was gathered during 2013.

3.5 RESEARCH TOOL

Data was gathered by two surveys, a survey for Study 1 and 2 and another one for

Study 3. The content of the surveys (see Appendix 3) was based on previous

literature. Both surveys have common scales for IB and HPWS. Survey used in

Study 1 and 2 was initially created in English. For the translation process we

followed Brislin’s (1980) established procedure. Two independent bilingual

translators translated the survey from English to Spanish and back to English, to

ensure the accuracy of the original scales and items. Study 1&2 used a 7 point

Chapter 3

84

Likert scale and Study 3 used a 5 point Likert scale. Likert- type scale was ranked

from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’.

Innovative behaviour

The measure for innovative behaviour is based on Scott and Bruce’s work (1994).

The measure consisted of six items. In this dissertation we propose an individual

perceptual perspective for allowing employees to self-report their own innovative

behaviour.

HR System Strength

The scale proposed by Coelho et al. (2010) was used for measuring HR strength

construct. This scale is based on Bowen and Ostroff's (2004) original nine

attributes. Based on several previous empirical validation works, Coelho et al.

(2012) came up with a short and reliable measure of HR strength, made up of 16

items. The items that form this scale are linked to the following areas: most salient

HRM practices, visibility, understand ability, legitimacy, relevance,

instrumentality, validity, consistent HRM messages, agreement among HRM

decision makers and fairness.

Work Engagement

The scale used is grounded on the short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale. The abridged version of the scale consisted in a 9-item scale proposed by

Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). According to these authors’ work engagement is

established by three factors: vigour, dedication and absorption. In this short

version, three items represent each factor.

Exploratory learning

The exploratory learning scale is adapted from Flores, Zheng, Rau and Thomas

(2012). The original learning process scale has been reduced to 8 items focusing

on information acquisition (4 items) and information interpretation (4 items) that

forms the exploratory learning concept.


85

Knowledge exchange

This variable is measured by means of an 8-item scale derived from De Vries et al.

(2006) and used by Kuvaas, Buch and Dysvik (2012). According to these authors,

this scale considers both flanks of sharing. On the one hand providing co-workers

with knowledge and on the other hand, getting knowledge from co-workers.

HPWS

HPWS scale is based on Sun, Ayree and Lau (2008). It covered five practices:

training and development (4 items), pay for performance (4 items), career

development (3 items), participation in the decision-making (4 items), and job

security (2 items).

3.6 STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED

For testing the hypothesis of the three studies that shape this Thesis, different

statistical techniques have been used. According to Hair et al. (2006), multivariate

analysis consists of a pool of methods that analyse simultaneously multiple

measures from each individual or object under study. In the different studies of

this Dissertation multiple variables are analysed simultaneously, so the adequate

method is multivariate analysis. There are multiple multivariate techniques. The

most commonly used in Management are: Multiple Regression and Correlation

analysis; Principal Components and Common Factor Analysis; Cluster analysis;

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), among others. In this section, a general

overview of the techniques used in this thesis is specified

3.6.1 Multiple Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis is a statistical procedure for estimating the relationships

among variables and is commonly used for prediction. Multiple Regression

Analysis is the appropriate method when it includes only one dependent variable

which is supposed to be related to one or more independent metric variables (Hair

et al., 2006:11). The objective of this analysis is to predict changes in the value of

the dependent variable as a result of changes in several of the predictor variables.

This technique assumes that the relationship between the dependent variable and

the predictor variables is linear. Another relevant statement is that it assumes

Chapter 3

86

normality and homoscedasticity. Finally, another relevant assumption is the non-

existence of multicollinearity. This technique is used for the empirical analysis of

the Study 3.

3.6.2 Structural Equation Modelling

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is a second-generation multivariate data

analysis method that can test theoretically supported linear and additive causal

models (Chin, Marcolin and Newsted, 1996; Haenlein and Kaplan, 2004; Statsoft,

2013). For Study 1 and 2 of this Dissertation, the adequate technique is SEM as it

allows testing different dependent relationships. According to Hair et al., (2006),

SEM is characterized by three features: (1) estimating multiple relationships and

cross dependence, (2) the ability to represent concepts not observed in these

relationships and consider measurement error, and (3) the definition of a model to

explain the full set of relationships.

Table 3.2. Methodologies employed thorough the studies

Chapter Methodology

Chapter 4: High Performance Work

Systems & Knowledge sharing as

driving forces for innovative

behaviour: a micro perspective

Structural Equation Modelling

(mediation)

Chapter 5: Employee perceptions of

HPWS & innovative behaviour. The

role of exploratory learning

Structural Equation Modelling

(mediation)

Chapter 6: High Performance Work

Systems, work engagement and

innovative behaviour: Insights from

Tanzania and Nigeria

Multiple Regression

Analysis(moderation, mediation and

moderated mediation)


87

3.7 REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford

University Press.

Anderson, V. (2009). .Research methods in human resource management.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Bowen, D. E. and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–Firm performance

linkages: The role of the “Strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management

Review, 29:2, 203-221.

Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material.

In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 1,

389–444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Budhwar, P. S., and Debrah Y.A. (2013). Eds. Human resource management in

developing countries. Routledge.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newsted, P. R. (1996). A partial least squares

latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from

a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. Paper

presented at the 17th International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland,

OH.

Coolican, H. (2014). Research methods and statistics in psychology. Psychology

Press.




Debrah, Y. A., and Ofori. G. (2006). Human resource development of

professionals in an emerging economy: the case of the Tanzanian construction

industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17:3, 440-463.

Debrah, Y. and Budhwar, P.S. (2004). Conclusion: International competitive

pressures and the challenges for HRM in developing countries, in P. Budhwar and

Chapter 3

88

Debrah Y.A. (eds). Human Resource Management in Developing countries.

London: Routledge, pp. 75-90.

Elmes, M.B., and Kasouf, C.J. (1995). Knowledge workers and organizational

learning: narratives from Biotechnology. Management Learning, 26:4, 403-422.

Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., and Thomas, C. H. (2012). Organizational

learning subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of


Gomes, J., Coelho, J., Correia, A. and Cunha, R. (2010). Development and

validation of an instrument measuring the strength of the human resource

management system, Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussion Papers

2010-10, CIEO-Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics,

University of Algarve.

Haenlein, M., and Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner's guide to partial least

squares analysis. Understanding statistics, 3:4, 283-297.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006).

Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kuvaas, B., and Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between

perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and

employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20:2, 138-156.

Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., and Dysvik, A. (2012). Perceived training intensity and

knowledge sharing: Sharing for intrinsic and prosocial reasons Human Resource

Management, 51: 2, 167-187.

OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Head of Publications Service,

OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France. Site:

http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf

OECD, UNDP (2014). African economic outlook. Retrieved from

htpp://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org;

http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/countries/;

http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/outlook/human_development/


http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/

http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/countries/



89

Powell, W., and Snellman. K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual review of

sociology, 30, 199-220.

Schaufeli, W., and Bakker, A. (2003). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.

Preliminary Manual [Version 1, November 2003]. Utrecht University:

Occupational Health Psychology Unit.

Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path


Journal, 37:3, 580-607.

Statsoft (2013). Structural Equation Modeling, Statsoft Electronic Statistics

Textbook. http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/structural-equation-modeling/



perspective Academy of Management Journal, 50:3, 558-577.

Universitat de Valencia, (2012). Pla estratègic (2012-2015). Site:

http://www.uv.es/corporate/peuv/document_public_pla_estrategic_2012_2015.pdf

Universitat de Valencia, (2014). Recull de dades estadístiques (Curs 2012-2013).

Site: http://www.uv.es/sap/docs/reculls/recull1213.pdf

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/structural-equation-modeling/

http://www.uv.es/corporate/peuv/document_public_pla_estrategic_2012_2015.pdf

http://www.uv.es/sap/docs/reculls/recull1213.pdf

Chapter 3

90


91

Chapter 4:

HPWS & KNOWLEDGE SHARING AS

DRIVING FORCES FOR IB: A MICRO

PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

This study provides new insights on the analysis of the determinants of innovative

behaviour. Adopting a micro perspective, we study whether employee perceptions

of High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and individual knowledge sharing

behaviour lead to positive innovative behaviour. Our study proposes different

mechanisms for fostering knowledge sharing and innovative behaviour. In this

sense, we propose that individual knowledge sharing is linked to innovative

behaviour. Besides, we suggest that employee perceptions of HPWS are a driver

of innovative behaviour. As a result, the central aim of this work is to suggest a

model able to explain the impact of HPWS through individual knowledge sharing

behaviour on employees’ innovative behaviour. The sample incorporated

consisted of 304 employees all working as researchers in the public sphere.

Results suggest that HPWS and knowledge sharing are key variables to explain

IB.

Chapter 4

92


93

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Empirical research on innovation has adopted a micro-level approach evaluating

what contributes to an employees’ tendency to generate innovative ideas that

eventually lead to innovations (Anderson, de Dreu and Nijstad, 2004). Innovative

behaviours are of utmost importance to organisational innovation, effectiveness

and survival (Anderson, et al, 2004; Shalley, 1995; West, Hirst, Richter and

Shipton, 2004). Through employees’ ability to generate ideas and use these ideas

to develop new and better products, services and work processes, employees

contribute to attain organisational success through their innovative behaviour (De

Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Thus, the study of innovative behaviour (IB) and

those factors or elements, which enhance it, turns out to be of great relevance for

today’s organisations.

Specially, IB rests on some particular individual skills (e.g. creative thinking,

proactivity, little risk aversion…); but also, external stimuli (e.g. governance

mechanisms, new information and knowledge) which are necessary to feed those

individual mental processes underlying IB. Further, individuals who engage in IB

must frequently manage knowledge, as it is a fundamental mechanism for making

collaboration flows effective, allowing innovators to acquire new information and

stimuli for exploring external ideas and exploiting internal knowledge (Radaelli,

Lettieri, Mura and Spiller, 2014).

In turn, Human Resources (HR) strategy and its deployment through HR practices,

as organisation governance mechanisms, play a key role in order to facilitate

employees’ IB. In addition, the use of HR practices as governance mechanisms

also plays a vital role in facilitating knowledge sharing in organisations (Collins,

and Smith, 2006; Jashapara, 2004; Mäkelä and Brewster, 2009). HRM practices

are adopted in the belief that influencing the conditions of individual actions in a

certain manner will lead employees to take those decisions that, when aggregated,

lead to favourable organisational outcomes (Foss, 2007). The development of the

individual skills mentioned above, as well as the creation of the suitable

atmosphere and context for knowledge sharing to take place drives to employees’

IB.

Chapter 4

94

Despite a great extent of literature has analysed the impact of HR practices on

different kinds of performance or the relationship between Knowledge sharing on

innovative capacity (see: Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade and Drake,

2009; Mura, Lettieri, Radaelli and Spiller, 2013), this line of enquiry continues

attracting research attention nowadays. Recent studies (e.g. Radaelli, et al., 2014)

provide novel insights on the analysis of employees’ knowledge sharing on IB.

However, the potential role of employee perceptions of HR practices as an

antecedent, on the relationship between knowledge sharing and IB remains under

theorized and empirically untested.

Bearing in mind the considerations mentioned above, we address the following

questions. To which extent the perception of a certain group of HR practices foster

knowledge sharing? Is knowledge sharing supporting employees’ IB? And, are

HR practices acting as an indirect mechanism on IB through the influence of

knowledge sharing? Our model adopts a micro perspective to elucidate how these

relationships occur, adopting an original perspective on how employee perceptions

of HR practices stimulate and positively affect both, knowledge sharing and IB.

Emphasising the conditions of individual actions is of little help to managers

(Minbaeva and Pedersen, 2010). Thus, we need to consider managerial

interventions (HRM practices) that managers adopt to influence the conditions of

individual actions and thus to facilitate individual Knowledge sharing behaviour.

To reach these goals, the manuscript has been structured as follows. Following

this introductory section, we present the theoretical foundations of this research

and the theoretical relationships to be studied. Later, we describe the

methodological tools, methods and procedures we have employed to carry out the

empirical analysis. Afterwards, we comment the most outstanding results of the

analysis and, finally, present the main conclusions of the work and its theoretical

and practical implications.


95

4.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4.2.1 Knowledge sharing behaviour and its relationship to innovative

behaviour

Knowledge in various forms and at various levels has become a central construct

in a broad range of fields in management research (Grandori and Kogut, 2002).

Knowledge is the organisation’s intellectual capital, of increasing importance in

promoting competitive advantage (Ndofor and Levitas, 2004). Furthermore, for

such capital to exist, individuals must have this knowledge available, sharing it

with their partners (Van den Hoof and Huysman, 2009). Academics and

practitioners stress the relevance of analysing what factors enable and promote

knowledge sharing since it is increasingly recognized as a source of competitive

advantage (Riege, 2005) and innovativeness (van Wijk, et al., 2008).

Hence, knowledge sharing is more than transferring knowledge, but creating it

(Van den Hoof and Huysman, 2009). Research supports the idea that knowledge

sharing behaviour has important implications for performance and innovativeness.

Innovation starts at the individual level with problem recognition and generation

of ideas or solutions, either novel or adapted (Scott and Bruce, 1994: 581). To

learn and acquire new knowledge, individuals should interact and share

knowledge for improving their capacity to define a situation or problem, and apply

their knowledge to problem solving (Nonaka, Von Krogh and Voelpel, 2006).

Also, Aulawi, Sudirman, Suryadi and Govindaraju (2009) argued that knowledge

sharing behaviour could stimulate individuals to think more critically and

creatively, so they finally can produce new knowledge. Considering that IB

requires searching for new information (Lohman, 2005), creative thinking,

proactivity (Hayton, 2005), and involves risk (Bednall, Sanders and Runhaar,

2014), knowledge sharing behaviour is an essential aspect for IB to occur. In this

sense, Lin (2007) argued that knowledge collecting and donating may lead to

superior innovation capability. In his study, the author shows the significant

positive impact of knowledge sharing on innovation capability.

As the basis of innovation are ideas and are people who ‘develop, carry, react to

and modify ideas’ (Van de Ven, 1986: 592), the study of those factors enabling

Chapter 4

96

and spurring individual IB becomes critical to better understand how innovation

takes place and innovation performance is generated. To this respect, Dougherty,

Munir and Subramaniam (2002) claim that innovation depends on the

accumulation of new knowledge in an organisation, facilitating creative solutions

as a result.

Literature has already revealed (see: Youndt, Snell, Dean and Lepak, 1996) the

existence of a positive direct relationship between employee attitudes and

organisational innovation performance. Similarly, Kamasak and Bulutlar (2009)

explored the effect of knowledge sharing on innovation using data from 246

middle level and top managers in Turkey. Results showed that knowledge sharing

has a positive effect on all types of innovation. Recently, Yesil, Koska and

Büyükbese (2013) analysed the effect of knowledge sharing on innovation

capability and innovation performance. Their results showed that knowledge

sharing positively affects innovation capability.

Although knowledge sharing is increasingly recognized as a source of innovation

(van Wijk, Jansen and Lyles, 2008), there is scarce empirical evidence that

supports the idea that individual knowledge sharing behaviour could affect IB

(see: Kamasak and Bulutlar, 2009) despite the fact that other authors have

expressed the idea that knowledge sharing is crucial for innovation at

organisational level (Tsai, 2001; Gilson and Shalley, 2004, among others).

Considering the above arguments and the relevance that literature is giving to

individual actions to explain the organisational macro phenomena, we propose the

following hypothesis:

H1: Individual knowledge sharing behaviour is positively related to innovative

behaviour.

4.2.2 HPWS as drivers of knowledge sharing behaviour

Knowledge-based scholars are gradually focusing their attention on the

organisational mechanisms that may determine, mediate, or moderate knowledge

processes (e.g., Grandori and Kogut, 2002; Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjorkman, Fey

and Park, 2003; Jansen, van den Bosch and Volberda, 2006). In this study we

focus on High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) as an organisational


97

mechanism that have an effect on employees’ behaviour and therefore could

determine knowledge processes, as individual knowledge sharing processes.

HPWS are a set of practices designed to promote firm performance through

developing employee skills, motivation and participation (Appelbaum, Bailey,

Berg, and Kalleberg, 2000; Van De Voorde and Beijer, 2015). Following well-

accepted theory (e.g., Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995), research on HPWS is

largely replacing research on individual practices (Wright and Boswell, 2002).

The joint effect of inter-related practices reaches the desired effect (Bae and

Lawler, 2000). In fact, HPWS are viewed conceptually as a superior alternative to

the individual practices’ approach (Combs, Liu, Hall and Kitchen, 2006), as the

effect of a systemic application of a set of HR practices generates better

organisational results (Combs et al., 2006). However, considering knowledge-

based literature, the content of these practices and their systemic effect on

knowledge processes as knowledge sharing is ambiguous, not sufficiently

informed by theory and there is no empirical evidence of their effects (Foss and

Minbaeva, 2009). Besides, in this study we focus on employee perceptions of the

implemented HPWS rather than intended practices rated by managers (Arthur and

Boyles, 2007), as the effect of perceptions is what really have a real impact on

employee behaviours.

As previous literature states, there is no agreement about which practices compose

a HPWS. However, our study includes five practices (training and development,

participation, job security, promotion and pay for performance) that are clearly

identified by literature as part of these systems (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Van De

Voorde and Beijer, 2015). HPWS influence individual conditions that are internal

to the individual (Elster, 1989). These conditions consist on Abilities, Motivation

and Opportunity (AMO Framework; (Huselid, 1995)) that in turn drive to an

individual action.

Considering AMO framework applied to HRM practices, and Kehoe and Wright

(2013) arguments, HPWS are employed to promote workforce ability, motivation

and opportunity. In this study, training and development is considered as an

ability-enhancing practice, because through this practice, employees’ acquire the

Chapter 4

98

ability to adopt certain actions. Pay for performance, promotion and job security

are considered motivation-enhancing practices, as they give employees extrinsic

(pay for performance) and intrinsic (promotion and job security) motivation that

enhance their positive behaviours. Participation is considered as an opportunity-

enhancing practice; through this practice employees are allowed to have the

opportunity of being part of the decisions process.

Previous literature on strategic HRM and knowledge has demonstrated that there

is a causal relationship between HRM and knowledge processes as knowledge

sharing (e.g. Collins and Smith, 2006; Mäkelä and Brewster, 2009). However, this

HRM-knowledge field has been criticized for taking a mono-level approach with

an emphasis on the collective, or aggregate, level (Minbaeva, Foss, and Snell,

2009). Specifically, recent insights (see: Foss and Minbaeva, 2009; Minbaeva,

2013) have called for a greater focus on the analysis of the relationship between

HRM practices as a system and knowledge, implying a need to theorize about

individual heterogeneity (Felin and Hesterly, 2007) and individual interactions

(Felin and Foss, 2005).

Recently, following the necessity of focusing on individuals in order to explain

higher order phenomena, Kuvaas, Buch and Dysvisk (2012) investigated the

relationship between perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing. Their

findings suggest that training intensity increases knowledge sharing. Knowledge

sharing requires that individuals are willing to do it, and so HPWS should be

oriented to facilitate the necessary cultural change so that individual knowledge is

shared with others and it is enhanced at a higher ontological level. However, in

their study they used a single practice related to individual knowledge sharing

behaviour. Thus, considering the scarce empirical research analysing HRM

practices as a system related to knowledge processes, and the relevance that

literature is giving to this topic we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Employee perceptions of HPWS are positively related to individual

knowledge sharing behaviour.


99

4.2.3 The mediating role of knowledge sharing in the relationship

between HPWS and Innovative Behaviour

As we have analysed in the previous sections, Knowledge sharing is a driver for

IB, and HPWS could determine individual knowledge sharing behaviour. Besides,

there is also an essential link between the HPWS applied in the firm and employee

outcomes, particularly IB.

HPWS seem to be related to firm innovative performance (Beugelsdijk, 2008;

Laursen and Foss, 2003) but a scarce body of research has empirically studied the

individual causal mechanisms through which HPWS lead to greater performance

(Wright and Boswell, 2002), especially innovation performance. It is also

highlighted the relevance of analysing the effects of HPWS on employee

behaviours and outcomes (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Van De Voorde and Beijer,

2015). Only some recent works have evidenced that the effect of HPWS on

organisational performance becomes more immediate and positive when employee

capabilities and behaviours (as knowledge sharing) take part in this relationship

(Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Collins and Clark, 2003).

Scarce previous studies at organisational level showed the potential mediating

effect of knowledge sharing in the relationship between management practices and

innovation performance (e.g. Collins and Smith, 2006; Huang and Li, 2009). The

main conclusion of these studies is that the process of knowledge sharing will

allow organisational members to solve new problems and generate new ideas and

products. However, recent theorization in the literature on strategic HRM

emphasizes that it is precisely the impact that knowledge exerts on individuals

what mediates the relationship with any performance-related outcome, such as

knowledge-based performance or innovative behaviour (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004;

Minbaeva, Makela, and Rabbiosi, 2012; Wright and Nishii, 2007).

To sum up, we have established in H1 the direct relationship between individual

knowledge sharing behaviour and IB. In the same way, H2 states the relationship

between employee perceptions of HPWS on individual knowledge sharing

behaviour. Prior literature (Hayton, 2003; Leede and Looise, 2005; Prieto and

Pérez-Santana, 2014) recognizes that HPWS have an influence on innovation; but

Chapter 4

100

our proposal suggests that this is not a direct relationship. Implemented HPWS

affect IB via employee perceptions of HPWS (training and development,

participation, and pay for performance), creating the necessary conditions to

stimulate individuals to share knowledge and then, to innovate.

Bearing in mind all those arguments, we can formulate our third hypothesis:

H3: Individual knowledge sharing behaviour mediates the relationship between

perceived HPWS and IB.

4.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.3.1 Sample

In order to test the proposed hypotheses and the objectives stated above, we have

applied a quantitative research methodology. We obtained data from researchers

working in a Spanish Public University, specifically, working in different

Faculties and research institutes of a Spanish public university that formed our

research population. Nowadays, in the context of knowledge economy, the science

system contributes to key functions as: knowledge creation, knowledge

transmission (educating and developing Human Resources) and knowledge

transfer or dissemination. Knowledge workers, such as scientists working in

Public Research Institutions of higher education, are considered the core of the

science system and essential for the knowledge-based economy (OECD, 1996).

A questionnaire was sent to a total of 9 Faculties and 10 research institutes,

resulting in a final sample of 304 valid questionnaires with a 12% response rate.

The questionnaire was sent by email and the information was collected between

December 2013 and late 2014.

Descriptive analysis showed that the average tenure of employees in their

workplace was 13.8 years (SD: 9.91). With respect to gender, 49.3% of the sample

was men and the remaining 50.7% women (SD: 0.5). Regarding the educational

level, 65.5% had doctoral studies, 7.5% a Master level and the remaining 27 % a

Degree level or less (SD: 0.94). With regards to their professional situation within

the university hierarchy, 73.7% were teaching and research staff, 19.7% occupied


101

the position of technical researchers and 6.6% were in-training research staff (SD:

0.59).

4.3.2 Measurement scales

Tools used to measure variables are all seven-point Likert scales. We employed

three basic scales to measure the different constructs analysed.

The scale measuring HPWS was based on the one developed by Sun, Ayree and

Lau (2007). This scale refers to five key HR practices: training and development

(4 items), pay for performance (4 items), promotion (3items), job security (2

items) and participation in decision-making processes (4 items). Sample items: ‘I

had sufficient job-related training’; ‘I am often asked to participate in decisions’.

IB measure is obtained from Scott and Bruce’s work (1994). The following is a

sample of the items used is the following: ‘I generate creative ideas’, ‘I investigate

and obtain the necessary funds to apply new ideas and to develop plans and

programs for the implementation of these new ideas’.

Additionally, the scale measuring knowledge sharing comes from De Vries, Van

den Hooff and de Ridder’s work (2006) and was used by Kuvaas et al. (2012).

According to these authors, this scale considers both sides of sharing, namely,

providing co-workers with knowledge and getting knowledge from co-workers.

Sample items: ‘I ask my colleagues about their skills when I want to learn

particular skills’, When I have learned something new, I make sure my colleagues

learn about it too’.

Based on prior studies, gender and tenure were considered as control variables,

since they may have an impact on the perception of HPWS (Alfes, Shantz, Truss

and Soane, 2013; Dysvik, Kuvaas and Buch, 2014) and on IB (Scott and Bruce,

1994; Janssen, 2005; Yuan and Woodman, 2010).

4.3.3 Common Method Variance Test

As recommended by the literature for studies that use self-reported data for

measuring dependent and independent variables, we have considered the concern

of common method bias. To this end, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test to

Chapter 4

102

address the potential common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon

and Podsakoff, 2003). The method required that an unrotated factor analysis be

performed on all of the variables studied. Consequently, we included all the items

of all the constructs in the model into a factor analysis to control whether a single

factor claimed a disproportionately large variance. The results revealed that the

variance explained by that factor is less than 30%, so we can conclude our data do

not exhibit substantial common method bias.

4.3.4 Descriptives

Table 4.1 shows descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and

correlations for each factor. The inter-factor correlations show the expected

direction of association; all correlations are positive and significant at p<0.01. As

mentioned above in the ‘Measurement scales’ section, the constructs used in the

study were reliable, with coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.88, exceeding the

minimum of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 4.1. Analysis of correlations among the different variables of the model

Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1.- Innovative behaviour 5.13 1.20

2.- Knowledge sharing 5.65 1.17 .30**

3.- HPWS 3.17 .74 .30** .25**

4.- Gender 1,51 0.50 -.04 -,03 .02

5.- Tenure 13,81 9.91 .21 ,03 ,00 -,09

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01

4.3.5 Data analysis

In order to validate our scales, we conducted a CFA using AMOS Graphics 19 and

requesting an analysis based on the covariance matrix. We calculated different fit

indices establishing how the model fitted our data (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson

and Tatham, 2006). While evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of

the model some problems occurred. Difficulties derived from two practices


103

included in the HRM system as that highly correlated with other variables from

other scales. So, our initial composition of the system had to be modified because

if we take into account all practices, we could not achieve construct validity. Thus,

for this reason we had to eliminate promotion and job security from the HRM

system.

Therefore, after all the depuration process the model presented a good fit that can

be inferred from reading the goodness-of-fit indexes (X2 /DF=2.03; TLI: 0.95; IFI:

0.96; CFI: 0.96; GFI: 0.93; RMSEA: 0.058). The x2/df values lower than 2.5

indicate a good fit (Arbuckle 2008). For the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI),

incremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index

(GFI), Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI) values greater than 0.9 represent a

good model fit (Bentler, 1990), and for the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) values less than 0.08 indicate a good model fit (Browne

and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1998). According to these values, our results

are indicative of a good model fit. We can conclude that the model fitted our data.

Furthermore, all standardized factor loadings are significant and higher than 0.7

(Hair et al., 2006).

Looking at table 4.2, we can conclude that the scales are reliable as well as valid

in convergent and discriminant terms. All scales are reliable as composite

reliability (CR) values are above 0.7. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) confirms

convergent validity. AVE values are shown in the diagonal of the table and all

values are above or equal to 0.5. Finally, we followed Fornell and Larcker’s

(1981) procedure in order to test Discriminant Validity issues; as we can see in

table 4.2, AVE values are greater than the square of the correlations between each

pair of factors.

Chapter 4

104

Table 4.2. CR, AVE and squared correlations between factors

CR 0.74 0.88 0.72

CA 0.84 0.88 0.75

AVE F.1 F.2 F.3

1.Innovative

behaviour 0.74

2. Knowledge

sharing 0.09 0.60

3. HPWS 0.09 0.06 0.50

Note: CR (shown in the first row of the matrix); AVE (shown in bold in the diagonal of the

matrix); the rest of the numbers show the squared correlations between factors.

We have employed Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with AMOS (19

version), which provides SEM and analysis of covariance structures, or causal

modelling, in order to test the hypotheses presented in our theoretical framework.

This software allows testing simultaneously a set of regressions, specifying both

parametric statistics and indices that indicate the fit of the model to the original

data. For testing the mediation effect we have followed Shrout and Bolger’s2

(2002) procedure. The effect of a variable on another is mediated if this effect

takes place through a third variable called ‘mediator’. There are two factors that

have an impact on IB, HPWS and knowledge sharing. Following this procedure,

we need to compare two models: the direct model and the mediated one. A

mediation demonstration requires a significant direct effect in the direct model, a

lower (or non-significant) direct effect in the mediated model and a significantly

improved fit of the mediated model compared to the direct model.

4.4 RESULTS

H1 proposed that Knowledge sharing is positively linked to IB, and H2 proposed

that employee perceptions of HPWS are positively linked to knowledge sharing.

Results show (see table 3) that knowledge sharing behaviour is positive and

significant associated to IB, which supports the first hypothesis proposed (H1).

2 For an application with SEM see Obadia and Vida (2011).


105

Likewise, results show that employee perceptions of HPWS are positively related

to individual knowledge sharing behaviour, thus H2 is also supported.

Table 4.3. Results for H1 and H2

Hypothesis Link Standardized

Coefficient

T value Result

H1 KNSH-IB 0.23 3.49*** Supported

H2 HPWS-KNSH 0.20 2.69** Supported

x2 = 198.313, df=108, p=0.000, GFI=0.93, NFI=0.92, TLI=0.95, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.053

*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.00. Note: Control variables are not presented in the results table as do

not have a significant effect in the studied relationships

Regarding the results of H3 (individual knowledge sharing behaviour mediates the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB), we developed a

mediation analysis to study the effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship

between HPWS and employees’ IB (see Figure 4.1). Results (see table 4.4)

confirm the first condition to mediation, that is, a positive and significant direct

effect between HPWS and IB (0.343 p<0.00).

Figure 4.1: Mediation Results

HPWS

Knowlege

Sharing

Innovative behaviour

0,20** 0,23***

Direct Model: c=.343 ***

Mediated Model: c’= .192 *

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.00

Chapter 4

106

Table 4.4. Mediation Results

DIRECT MODEL

Standardized Coefficient T value

HPWS-IB 0.343 3.56 ***


MEDIATED MODEL

Standardized Coefficient T value

HPWS-IB 0.192 2.49 *


*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.00. Note: Control variables are not presented in the results table as do

not have a significant effect in the studied relationships

Regarding the second condition, a lower direct effect in the mediated model

(0.192 p< 0.05) should take place. Comparing the effects of HPWS on IB the

effect in the direct model is stronger than the direct effect registered in the

mediated model (0.343>0.192). Furthermore, the indirect effect through

knowledge sharing is significant (0.05 p<0.05).

Finally, results show a significantly improved fit of the mediated model compared

to the direct model confirming, as a consequence, the last requirement for

mediation. This is explained comparing the number of degrees of freedom (df) of

the direct model (df=109) and the number of df of the mediated model (df=108).

For mediation to occur, the difference in chi-square of the two models should be

significant (Δx2 >3.82). Our results show the confirmation of this last assumption

(10.61>3.82) indicating that the fit of the mediated model is superior to the fit of

the direct model. Therefore, the mediated model represents better the data than the

direct model. Therefore, we can conclude that knowledge sharing partially

mediates the effect of HPWS on IB. To illustrate this phenomenon, Table 4.5

breaks down the total effect of the relationship of HPWS on IB into its direct and

indirect components.


107

Table 4.5. Breakdown of the effect of HPWS on IB (using the output of the analysis

of the mediated model)

Standardized Effect HPWS IB

Total Effect= Direct+Indirect Direct Indirect (Via Knowledge Sharing)

0.24* 0.19* 0.05*

*Significant at p<0.05

4.5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Even though growing research on antecedents and consequences of knowledge

sharing has been developed during the last decade or so, a scarce body of literature

has empirically focused on micro foundations. Following Felin and Foss (2005),

individual matter, so micro foundations are needed to explain strategic

organisation. Thus, the relationships established in this work have all been

proposed at individual level to better understand how the individual actions could

explain organisational phenomena.

Although knowledge sharing is considered as a source of innovation (van Wijk,

Jansen and Lyles, 2008), there is still insufficient empirical evidence supporting

the idea that individual knowledge sharing behaviour could affect IB (see:

Kamasak and Bulutlar, 2009). Although, these results go in the same line as

existing literature (Tsai, 2001; Gilson and Shalley, 2004), our research provides

new empirical evidence about individual actions that reveal the primary influence

that individual knowledge sharing behaviour plays on IB. Thus, our study sheds a

new light on this topic showing the relevant role that individual knowledge

sharing behaviour plays enhancing employees’ IB.

Besides, previous studies suggest that knowledge governance mechanisms as

HRM practices enhance knowledge mechanisms as Knowledge sharing (Foss,

2007; Jansen, van den Bosch and Volberda, 2006). Our results contribute to HR

management and knowledge sharing literatures by indicating that employee

perceptions of HPWS enhance individual knowledge sharing behaviour. In this

sense, our results are in line with the existing theoretical framework in this topic

(Collins and Smith, 2006; Kuvaas et al., 2012). However, with our study, we

Chapter 4

108

answer to new calls in the literature (Foss and Minbaeva, 2009) providing new

evidence on the analysis of knowledge sharing determinants, testing empirically

and analysing employee perceptions of HRM practices as a system (Minbaeva,

2013) and analysing their influence on individual knowledge sharing behaviour

from a micro perspective.

Besides, most of research examining the relationship between HPWS and

innovation has adopted a macro/managerial perspective, by analysing different

managerial interventions such as job design, the use of certain combination of

single HRM practices or the combination of knowledge management systems that

elicit innovation performance in organisations (Beugelsdijk, 2008; Dorenbosch,

van Engen and Verhagen, 2005; Laursen and Foss, 2003). However, our work

focuses on the individual level because analysing at this level, we can better

understand individual actions and relations that will allow the understanding of

higher macro level relationships.

Besides, our work builds on the study of Radaelly, et al., (2014). In their paper,

these authors called for a better understanding on the antecedents of individual

knowledge sharing behaviour for promoting employees’ IB. To this respect, our

work adds value to existent literature highlighting the relevant role played by

employee perceptions of HPWS for fostering certain behaviours (as individual

knowledge sharing behaviour) that in turn promote employees’ IB.

Limited research has analysed knowledge sharing and innovation from a human

resource perspective. Innovation is the connection of two flows, namely, the flow

of knowledge and the flow of people (Starbuck, 1992); therefore, it is expected

that HR management will play an essential role in aligning these two flows. Our

results have made a contribution in this direction showing how the relationship

between employee perceptions of HPWS on IB is generated indirectly by

individual Knowledge sharing behaviour.

The results of our work have implications not only from the academic point of

view, as has been mentioned, but also from an applied perspective. Regards the

academic implications of this paper, our work has shown theoretically the


109

relevance of some concepts as IB and knowledge sharing that are based on the

construction and sustainability of a competitive advantage adopting a micro

perspective (Felin and Foss, 2005; Foss and Minbaeva, 2009; Minbaeva and

Pedersen, 2010). Also, our work constitutes a guide for those researchers studying

individual IB; from this perspective, we recommend the joint consideration of

different but interrelated frameworks (Guthrie, 2012) such as knowledge

management, organisational learning and HR management, as their combined

effect could better explain the antecedents of innovation at the individual level.

Another contribution of this study has to do with the sample employed in the

empirical work (researchers working in the public sector). At this moment, when

governmental entities and private institutions (research institutes and centres,

private universities, etc.) are demanding higher levels of individual (and

collective) research-based performance (e.g. high-impact publications, research

projects, etc.), the study of those factors contributing to foster the individual IB of

public researchers turns out to be of essential. Our research has tried to shed light

on this issue by clarifying the role of knowledge sharing to this concern.

For practitioners, our work shows that managers should focus on employee

perceptions of HPWS that are relevant for knowledge sharing to occur. Moreover,

organisations need to consider (analyse and reveal) knowledge sharing barriers

and act to overcome them. Certain obstacles lie in the ‘soft’ and little tangible side

of the organisation (climate, culture, leadership style, etc.); others, in turn, are

related to the technical or structural side of the firm. The correct design of a set of

HR of practices, the organisation of informal meetings between unrelated

departments, the implementation of IT tools to facilitate the communication

between co-workers or the application of organisational design interventions, are

just some examples of initiatives to bring down such barriers.

4.6 CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the literature by adopting a micro perspective when

analysing HPWS and knowledge sharing as antecedents of IB. We tested our

hypothesis on a knowledge intensive context (researchers and faculty members)

Chapter 4

110

that share their knowledge to obtain better innovation results (new ways of

teaching, new scientific results, among others). Our results show that for fostering

individual knowledge sharing employees should perceive the effect of HPWS- that

directly affect IB, but indirectly HPWS affect IB through individual knowledge

sharing behaviours.

Despite the relevant contribution of this study, our work is not free of limitations

that should be addressed in future studies. Firstly, future studies should add other

practices to the HPWS that could give a better approximation to the real action of

companies or use other measures that could help to overcome the limitations

derived from the construct validity issue explained in the methods section.

Besides, another aspect that could improve knowledge regarding this topic is

related to the use of other sources or respondents as for example research teams.

Additionally, new variables could be added. On the one hand, explaining how the

relationship between HPWS and Knowledge sharing is produced and, on the other

hand, trying to shed new lights on the mediating mechanisms between Knowledge

sharing and IB. Finally, the use of longitudinal data is needed to confirm the

causality assumed in this research.


111

4.7 REFERENCES



behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human






Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Arbuckle, J. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.



Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Aulawi, H., Sudirnman, L., Suryadi, K., and Govindaraju, R. (2009). Knowledge-

sharing behavior, antecedent and their impact on the individual innovation

capability. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5:12, 2238-2246.

Bae, J., and Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea:

Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management

Journal, 43:3, 502-517.

Bednall T. C., Sanders K., and Runhaar P. (2014). Stimulating Informal Learning

Activities through Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Quality and Human

Resource Management System Strength: A Two-Wave Study. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 13:1, 45- 61.

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Beugelsdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product

innovation. Organization Studies, 29:6, 821-847.

Chapter 4

112


linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management

Review, 29:2, 203-221.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). ‘Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit,

in Testing Structural Equation Models’, in K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long (eds),

Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 136-

162.

Collins, C. J., and Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top

management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human

resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of

management Journal, 46:6, 740-751.




Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, S., and Kitchen, D. (2006). How much do high-

performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on

organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 3, 501–528.






Dorenbosch, L. W., Van Engen, M. L., and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job

innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through

production ownership. Creativity and innovation management, 14:2, 129-141.

Dougherty, D., Munir, K., and Subramaniam, M. (2002). Managing technology

flows in practice: a grounded theory of sustained innovation, in Academy of

Management Proceedings (2002), 1, E1-E6.


113

Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., and Buch, R. (2014). Perceived training intensity and

work effort: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23:5, 729-738.

Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences (pp. 32-33). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.


foundations. Strategic organization, 3:4, 441.

Felin, T., and Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested

heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus

of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32:1, 195-218.

Fornell C. and Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equations Models with

Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research,

18:1, 39-50.



Foss, N. J., and Minbaeva, D. (2009). Governing knowledge: the strategic human

resource management dimension. SMG Working Paper No. 3/2009. Available at

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1354029 or

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1354029

Gilson, L. L., and Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An

examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management,

30:4, 453-470.

Grandori, A., and Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge.

Organization Science, 13:3, 224-231.

Guthrie, J. (2012). HRM, knowledge creation and innovation. Seminar Series on

Organizational Innovation, People Management and Sustained Performance.

Aston University, October.

Chapter 4

114



Hayton, J. C. (2003). Strategic human capital management in SMEs: An empirical

study of entrepreneurial performance. Human Resource Management, 42:4, 375–

391.

Hayton, J. C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human

resource management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource

Management Review, 15:1, 21-41.

Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling:

Sensitivity to under parameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological

Methods, 3:4, 424-453.

Huang, J.W. and Li, Y. H. (2009). The mediating effect of knowledge

management on social interaction and innovation performance. International

Journal of Manpower, 30:3, 285-301


turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of


Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., and Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory

innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational

antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52:11, 1661-

1674.


supportiveness on employee innovative behavior. Journal of occupational and


Jashapara, A. (2004). Knowledge Management. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Kamasak, R., and Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on

innovation. European Business Review, 22:3, 306-317.


115



39:2, 366-391.


knowledge sharing: Sharing for intrinsic and prosocial reasons. Human Resource

Management, 51:2, 167-187.

Laursen, K., and Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices,

complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal

of economics, 27:2, 243-263.

Leede, J. and Looise J.K. (2005). Innovation and HRM: Towards and integrated

framework. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14:2, 108-117.

Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L., and Drake, B. (2009).

Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human

Resource Management Review, 19:2, 64-85.

Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical

study. International Journal of Manpower, 28:3/4, 315-332.

Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two

professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 16:4, 501-527.

MacDuffie, J. P. (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.

Mäkelä, K., and Brewster, C. (2009). Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal

social capital, and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Human Resource

Management, 48:4, 591-613.



Review, 23:4, 378-390.

Chapter 4

116

Minbaeva, D., and Pedersen, T. (2010). Governing individual knowledge-sharing

behaviour. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 2:2-3, 200-

222.



Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., and Park, H. J. (2003). MNC

knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of

international business studies, 34:6, 586-599.

Ndofor, H. A., and Levitas, E. (2004). Signaling the strategic value of knowledge.


Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., and Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge

creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization studies,

27:8, 1179-1208.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychomtietrictheory (second edition). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Obadia, C., and Vida, I. (2011). Cross-border relationships and performance:

Revisiting a complex linkage. Journal of Business Research, 64:5, 467-475.

OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Head of Publications Service,

OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France. Site:


Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).

Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the

Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:5,

879–903.

Prieto, I., and Pilar Perez-Santana, M. (2014). Managing innovative work

behavior: the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43:2, 184-208.

Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., and Spiller, N. (2014). Knowledge Sharing

and Innovative Work Behaviour in Healthcare: A Micro‐Level Investigation of



117

Direct and Indirect Effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23:4, 400-

414.

Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must

consider. Journal of knowledge management, 9:3, 18-35.


model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management

Journal, 37:3, 580-607.

Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on

creativity and productivity. The Academy of Management Journal, 38:2, 483-503.

Shrout, P. E., and Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and

nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological

methods, 7:4, 422-445.

Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by Knowledge‐Intensive Firms. Journal of

management Studies, 29:6, 713-740.




Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of

network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44:5, 996-1004.

Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32:5, 590-607.

Van de Voorde, K. and Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions in

the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes.

Human Resource Management Journal 25:1, 62–78.

Van den Hooff, B., and Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing:

Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46:1, 1-8.

Chapter 4

118

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., and Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter‐and Intra‐

Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of

its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45:4, 830-

853.


perspectives. Social Behavior, 4:1, 15-30.



European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13: 2, 269-299.

Wright, P. M., and Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and

synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of

Management, 28:3, 247–276.

Yeşil, S., Koska, A., and Büyükbeşe, T. (2013). Knowledge sharing process,

innovation capability and innovation performance: an empirical study. Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75:3, 217-225.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., and Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human

resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of

management Journal, 39:4, 836-866.

Yuan, F., and Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The

role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management

Journal, 53:2, 323-342.

.


119

Chapter 5:

EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF HPWS

AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR. THE

ROLE OF EXPLORATORY LEARNING

Abstract

This study analyses the influence of employee perceptions of High Performance

Work Systems (HPWS) on employees’ exploratory learning and innovative

behaviour. Furthermore, we analyse the mediating role of exploratory learning in

this relationship. To achieve these objectives, a quantitative analysis is conducted

with a sample of 304 researchers from the Spanish public sphere. Results show the

relevance of employee perceptions of HPWS in promoting exploratory learning

and employee’s innovative behaviour. The mediating role of exploratory learning

in the relationship is confirmed. Thus, this study points out the importance of

workers perceptions of HPWS implementation, and its impact on employees’

behaviours. We propose practical and theoretical implications.

Chapter 5

120


121

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Human Resource Management (HRM) literature has focused on examining, from

a macro perspective, the relationship between HRM practices and organisational

performance (e.g. Huselid, 1995); however how HRM practices affect

performance outcomes is not clearly addressed (Den Hartog, Verburg and Croon,

2012). To this end, researchers have increasingly adopted a micro perspective to

disentangle the mechanisms through which HRM systems influence performance

(Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Nishii, Lepak and Schneider, 2008). From this micro

viewpoint, employee reactions (attitudinal and behavioural responses) to HRM

practices have been analysed (e.g. Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, and Kalleberg, 2000;

Baluch, Salge, and Piening, 2013; Nishii, et al., 2008) as are seen the means

through which this relationship is produced. Particularly, it is highlighted that

employees play an essential role in explaining this relationship, and consequently

some authors emphasize the need to include employee perceptions in HR research

(e.g. Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Nishii and Wright, 2008;

Van de Voorde and Beijer, 2015). Chang (2005) defines employees’ perception of

HRM as the expression of the beliefs an employee has about the HRM practices of

an organisation. Even though employee reactions were reflected to be central in

clarifying the mediating mechanism in the HRM-performance relationship, this

relevance is not clearly evident in empirical research (Nishii and Wright, 2008;

Wood, 2009). Following the above arguments, in this work we focus on employee

perceptions of HRM practices as more proximal predictors of individual attitudes

and behaviours (e.g. Khilji and Wang 2006; Nishii et al., 2008). Analysing

employee perceptions provides a framework for studying how employees

experience or perceive their employers’ HRM strategies and how the latter

influence their attitudes and behaviours (Alfes, Shantz, Truss and Soane, 2013).

We focus on innovative behaviour (IB), which is of great significance to

organisational effectiveness, efficacy, and survival (Scott and Bruce, 1994; West,

Hirst, Richter and Shipton, 2004). Employees’ IB refers to the ability to generate

ideas, develop new and better products, services and work processes (De Jong and

Den Hartog, 2007). Bearing in mind that the creation of innovation lies on the

Chapter 5

122

ideas and people ‘develop, carry, react to, and modify them’ (Van de Ven 1986:

592), the analysis of those aspects in facilitating IB becomes critical. Many works

have analysed those factors affecting employees’ IB. In many cases, they have

been focused on studying the influence of the role of supervisor’s support (Dysvik,

Kuvaas and Buch, 2014; Janssen, 2005; Yuan and Woodman, 2010), work

characteristics (Farr and Ford, 1990; Oldham and Cummings, 1996), or

organisational climate and culture as well as how problems are sorted out (Scott

and Bruce, 1994). Despite this, there is scarce empirical evidence to explain how

several aspects of individual and contextual nature (e.g. employee perceptions of

HRM systems) may have an effect on employees’ IB (Shalley, Zhou and Oldham,

2004).

Another relevant issue for IB is exploratory learning. Exploratory learning is a

type of individual learning formed by two complementary dimensions;

information acquisition and information interpretation (Flores, Zheng, Rau and

Thomas, 2012). Authors such as Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi and Patterson

(2006) consider that this IB is fostered through the application of certain HRM

practices. From a conceptual perspective, exploration implies the generation of

new ideas through the active search of viewpoints, alternatives and different

perspectives (Danneels, 2002). The implementation of HRM practices requires the

participation of middle managers and supervisors in order to be adequately

perceived by the employees. Thus, we argue that the level of individual

exploratory learning depends on how HRM practices are perceived by employees.

Besides, innovation is dependent on employees’ exploratory knowledge. Thus, the

individual analysis of this kind of knowledge, how it is fostered by HRM practices

and its impact on IB is highly relevant for companies’ effectiveness. For these

reasons, we base our study on the perceptions of employees about aspects related

to HRM practices and their effect on exploratory learning and IB.

Also, Guthrie (2012) supports our research line stating that specialized

academicians in HRM are needed to contribute on knowledge creation and

innovation management topics. Bearing in mind the above-mentioned arguments,

with this manuscript we contribute to the literature by adopting a twofold

approach and analysing new unexplored relations based on two basic arguments:


123

firstly, IB and exploratory learning are triggered through employee perceptions of

HPWS and, secondly, exploratory learning is a sine qua non condition for

employees’ IB to take place. Thus, considering these preliminary arguments we

have the following basic goals for the research presented here. First of all, we

want explore whether employee perceptions of HPWS are associated to IB and

exploratory learning. And, secondly, we want to analyse the mediating role of

exploratory learning in the relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS

and IB. The results obtained contribute to the literature on learning and innovation

micro-foundations, showing the relevance of employee perceptions of HPWS for

exploratory learning and IB. We further contribute to HRM literature by showing

how employee perceptions of HRM systems are linked to employee positive

attitudes and behaviours.

To achieve the goals stated above, this manuscript is structured as follows. After

this introductory section, we present a theoretical review related to the main

relationship studied in this work. Next, we explain the research methods and

procedures we have used to carry out the empirical analysis. Lastly, we show the

main results of the research, as well as the main conclusions and implications.

5.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

5.2.1 HPWS perception and employees’ innovative behaviour

Traditional literature on HRM has focused on the analysis of HRM practices and

performance from different perspectives. One of the most outstanding approaches

has been the system approach (Delery and Doty 1996; Combs, Liu, Hall and.

Kitchen, 2006). From this viewpoint, some sets or configurations of practices

defined as high performance or high commitment practices (HPWS) are

considered. These sets of practices are designed to promote employee skills and

behaviours (Huselid, 1995; Way, 2002). As this approach is considered by the

specialist literature as conceptually superior (see: Combs, et al., 2006) compared

to the other perspectives (e.g. individual practices approach), we have adopted this

conceptualization in the work presented here.

Researchers have analysed the effects of HPWS on different kind of outcomes,

such as profitability or productivity, financial performance, commitment and

Chapter 5

124

satisfaction (e.g. Huselid, 1995; Verburg, Den Hartog, and Koopman, 2007), or

more recently, innovation performance (e.g. Beugelsdijk, 2008; Lau and Ngo,

2004). However, specialized literature draws the attention on the analysis of the

effects of HPWS on employee behaviours (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Macky and

Boxall, 2007; Grant and Shields, 2002). The assumption is that HPWS affect

organisational performance as workers change their attitudes and behaviours in

response to their experience of HR practices (Gould-Williams and Mohamed,

2010).

However, only some recent works have evidenced that the effect of HPWS on

organisational performance becomes more immediate and positive when employee

behaviours and attitudes are considered in this relationship (Boxall and Macky,

2009; Nishii, et al., 2008; Takeuchi, Chen and Lepak, 2009), as employees are

motivated to behave in line with organisational goals, a vital aspect to achieve

good levels of firm performance (e.g. Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007). Growing

interest in employee perceptions of HRM has arisen because it is assumed that

employee perceptions of HRM may affect their work behaviours and outcomes

(Takeuchi and Takeuchi, 2013), such as IB. In line with the prior argument, the

fact that employees adopt a behaviour oriented to innovation becomes a key

matter when analysing the relationship between HPWS and performance. Combs

et al. (2006) stated that HPWS affect organisational performance through three

different mechanisms: a) the increase of employees’ knowledge and skills; b) the

increase of employees’ actions; and c) the motivation of employees to carry out

such behaviours (Becker, Huselid, Pickus and Spratt, 1997; Delery and Shaw,

2001). These three aspects have an influence on employee discretional behaviours,

creativity and productivity (Becker, et al., 1997) and, consequently, on their IB.

Other authors (Agarwala, 2003; Alfes, et al., 2013) highlight that there are few

studies analysing how individuals experience HRM interventions. Particularly,

employee attitudes and behaviours as a response to the HRM system depend on

the HRM practices that the employees perceive to exist in their working context

(Bowen and Ostroff, 2004), rather than on what the manager says has been

implemented. In this respect, some works have shown that employee perceptions

of HRM practices are significantly different from the reports about those HRM


125

practices actually employed by the firm (Liao, Toya, Lepak and Hong, 2009). In

the research presented here we emphasize on employee perceptions.

Also, recent contributions of the literature about employees’ IB (Zhou, Hong and

Liu, 2013) suggest that HPWS create an environment where individuals feel

committed to organisational objectives. To facilitate the attainment of

organisational objectives linked to innovation, some of the practices that have

been analysed are training and development, pay for performance, and practices in

order to encourage participation, promotion and safety at work. Due to their link to

innovation performance, such practices may be considered as relevant HPWS.

At an individual level, insights from the social exchange theory (Eisenberger,

Fasolo and Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) implicitly

posit that HRM promotes the discretionary behaviours that are conducive to

innovation (Hayton, 2004). But surprisingly, scant studies analyse empirically the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB at the individual

level. Despite this lack, certain previous research is in line with this assumption. In

this vein, Bednall, Sanders and Runhaar (2014) confirm that the quality of some

HRM practices (e.g. performance appraisal) positively affects the level of

knowledge sharing and employees’ IB. Besides, Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010)

demonstrated that employee perceptions of HPWS lead employees to show higher

task-related performance, more organizational citizenship behaviours are less

prone to quit. Recently, Prieto and Pérez-Santana (2014) have analysed the role of

high- involvement HRM practices on employees’ innovative behaviour. However,

in their study they use a small organisational level sample for testing the

association proposed and use other set of practices.

Consequently, we argue that employee perceptions of HPWS enhance their ability,

motivation and opportunities to participate (Takeuchi, et al., 2009; Searle, Den

Hartog, Weibel, Gillespie, Six, Hatzakis and Skinner, 2011) on innovation

activities, as employees’ ideas and contributions are crucial for innovation.

Considering the arguments put forward above and the fact that no previous

research has analysed employee perceptions of HPWS as drivers of IB yet, we

hypothesize the following:

Chapter 5

126

H1: Employee perceptions of HPWS are positively associated to employees’

innovative behaviour.

5.2.2 Employee perceptions of HPWS and its impact on exploratory

learning and IB.

Much of the literature on organisational learning agrees on the individual nature of

learning. Individual learning is defined as an individual competence, capability,

and motivation to undertake the required tasks (Bontis, Crossan and Hulland,

2002:443). Also, it is agreed that individuals are the ones who learn and not

organisations (Miner and Mezias 1996). However, most of the works analysing

learning variables have been developed from an organisational perspective. Thus,

individual-level and interpersonal-level micro foundations (Felin and Hesterly,

2007), have rarely been tested (Minbaeva, Foss and Snell, 2009; Minbaeva,

Mäkelä and Rabbiosi, 2012).

Framing on Flores et al., (2012) conceptualization, we define exploratory learning

as a type of individual learning composed by two complementary dimensions;

information acquisition and information interpretation. Information acquisition

refers to the process through which an individual acquires information from

internal or external sources (Huber, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992) and through

feedback from past actions (Duncan and Weiss, 1979). With regard to the second

dimension of exploratory learning (information interpretation) it has to do with the

process through which individuals make sense of new information that they have

acquired (Levinthal and March, 1993) in order to convert it into a new common

knowledge (Daft and Weick, 1984). Thus, human resources and the relationships

between individuals are key elements in these processes (Jiménez-Jiménez and

Sanz-Valle, 2012), as learning has a human nature.

Recent research has increased our understanding on the impact of HRM practices

on different knowledge-related aspects as knowledge creation, knowledge transfer

and absorptive capacity (Chen and Huang, 2009; Minbaeva et al., 2009) and its

effect on several performance outcomes as innovation or organisational

performance (López-Cabrales, Pérez-Luño and Valle-Cabrera, 2009). However,

these studies employed aggregate collective-level relationships (López-Cabrales et


127

al, 2009). As Minbaeva et al. (2009) highlighted, more work needs to be done to

uncover the underlying mechanisms through which HRM practices influence the

development of knowledge as a result of the learning process. Given that HRM is

a crucial mechanism through which organisations are able to exert influence on

such individual-level conditions and processes (Minbaeva, et al, 2012), we need a

better understanding of how and why HRM practices affect employees’

exploratory learning and, consequently their IB.

Authors such as West (2002), states that innovation consists of two phases where

knowledge exploration and exploitation are present. In the first phase

(exploration), the creative idea is generated and, in the second one it is

implemented (exploitation). In this sense, the exploration stage is characterized by

risk taking, experimentation and flexibility of employees in order to discover new

and different phenomena of interest (Shipton et al, 2006), so it becomes directly

linked to employees’ IB. We argue that exploratory learning implies the

generation of new ideas through the active search for different viewpoints,

alternatives and perspectives (Danneels, 2002). On the other hand, IB includes the

generation (or adaptation) of novel solutions to problems, persuading mates to

adopt new approaches and applying them to the organisation (Scott and Bruce

1994). Thus, as a result of the comparison of both concepts, we may derive that IB

is reinforced by employees’ exploratory learning, and that’s why it may be

considered that exploratory learning becomes an antecedent or determinant of

employees’ IB.

In this sense, Shipton et al. (2006) foreground the relevance of HPWS to promote

exploratory learning as a predictor of innovation performance, through the study

of this relationship from an organisational level. In their work, (Shipton et al.,

2006) highlighted the relevance of employees’ exploratory learning through the

acquisition of potentially applicable knowledge and skills and, in so doing,

facilitating innovation. This way, the results of this study put the emphasis on how

HPWS could affect the exploratory approach of employees and foster, as a result,

innovation performance. Thus, taking this research line as a starting point, we

argue that employee perceptions of HPWS may foster exploratory learning.

Besides, we assert that exploratory learning mediates the relationship between

Chapter 5

128

employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. Considering that individuals are the basis

of innovations; we may assume that the existence of IB requires individuals’

exploratory learning which is enhanced through employee perceptions of HPWS.

Hence, we may hypothesize the following:

H2: Employee perceptions of HPWS are positively associated to exploratory

learning

H3: Exploratory learning will mediate the relationship between employee

perceptions of HPWS and IB

5.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.3.1 Sample and data collection

To achieve the proposed objectives and to test the hypotheses formulated

previously we have applied quantitative methodology. We obtained data from

researchers working in a Spanish university and from research institutes belonging

to the same university, which formed our research population. The questionnaire

was sent to 2,469 employees, resulting in a final sample of 304 valid

questionnaires with a 12% response rate. Participation was voluntary for all

employees, and confidentiality was assured. The questionnaire was sent by email,

as all employees had access to computers. The e-mail contained additional

information to motivate and inform the respondent about the questionnaire. Data

was collected between December 2013 and mid-2014.

Descriptive analysis shows that the average age of employees in the workplace is

13.8 years (SD: 9.91), with respect to gender 49.3% of the sample were men and

the remaining 50.7% women (SD: 0.5). Regarding the educational level, 65.5%

have doctoral studies, 7.5% Masters and 27 % a degree or less (SD: 0.94). With

respect to their professional situation in the university hierarchy, 73.7% are P&R

(academic position: professors and researchers), 19.7 % occupy the position as

technical researchers and 6.6 % are in-training research staff (SD: 0.59).

5.3.2 Measurement scales

The proposed scales were adapted from the previous literature. The survey used

was initially created in English and then translated into Spanish following


129

Brislin’s established procedure (1980) to ensure the accuracy of the original scales

and items. We used 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to

‘strongly agree’.

Innovative behaviour: the scale has been adjusted from the one developed by Scott

and Bruce (1994). A sample of the items used is the following: ‘I generate creative

ideas; I investigate and obtain the necessary funds to apply new ideas and to

develop plans and programs for the implementation of these new ideas’.

Exploratory Learning is an adaptation of the proposed scale included in the work

of Flores, et al. (2012). The original scale has been reduced to 8 items, focusing on

those items related to the acquisition of information (4 items) and the

interpretation of that information (4 items), sub-processes within the learning

process that form part of the concept ‘exploratory learning ‘.

High Performance Work System (HPWS): The scale consists of 17 items. These

include five sub-scales referring to five key HR practices: training and

development (4 items), pay for performance (4 items), career development (3

items), participation in decision-making processes (4 items) and job security (2

items). This measure has been developed by Sun, Ayree and Lau, (2007).

Educational level, gender and tenure in the organisation were used as control

variables. The inclusion of these variables is based on previous studies, as they can

have an impact on the perception of HPWS (Alfes, et al., 2013; Dysvik et al.,

2014) and on IB (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2005).

5.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.4.1 Descriptive analysis

Table 5.1 presents mean, standard deviations (SD) and correlations for each

variable used in this study. Correlations between scales show the expected

direction; they are positive and significant (p<0.01). Regarding the correlations

between constructs and control variables, we found significant correlations

between some key study variables and some demographic variables.

Chapter 5

130

Table 5.1: Mean, standard deviations and correlations among study variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. - IB 5.03 1.24

2. - HPWS 4.44 1.09 .24**

3. - Exploratory learning 5.70 .75 .55** .21**

4. - Gender 1.51 .50 -.03 -.10 -.01

5. - Tenure 13.80 9.91 .03 .25** .06 -.09

6. - Educational level 2.36 .94 .20** .11 .08 -.19** .37**

Note: To calculate the correlation coefficients, we worked with the mean of the items that make up

each dimension. *p<0.05; **p<0.01

5.4.2 Evaluating the measurement model

The structural model was estimated through Partial Least Squares Path Modelling

(PLSPM) using SmartPLS 3.2. Our study used reflective constructs. Employee

perceptions of HPWS and exploratory learning are measured as second order

variables, however IB, was measured as first order factor.

Measurement model properties have been evaluated according to Hair, Sarstedt,

Ringle, and Mine (2012) recommendations for PLSPM. All indicators are

significantly associated to their respective constructs (p<.01) with standardized

loadings greater than 0.7 (Barroso, Carrión and Roldán. 2010) proving a high

indicator reliability. Table 5.2 shows values for internal consistency and

discriminant validity. For assessing internal consistency, we evaluated Cronbach’s

Alphas (CA), composite reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). All

constructs had alpha values greater than 0.7 and CR values of the constructs

ranged from 0.89 to 0.90, all greater than the threshold of 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi,

1988). AVE values for each construct are equal or higher than the 0.50 threshold

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981) confirming the convergent validity of the

measurement model.


131

Finally, we followed Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) procedure in order to test

Discriminant Validity issues; as we can see in table 5.2, AVE values are greater

than the square of the correlations between each pair of factors. We also checked

that each item had a greater load on the factor it measured than its cross loadings

with the rest of the latent variables (Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics, 2009).

For assessing common method variance we have followed Podsakoff and others

(2003) recommendations. We have used Harman's single factor test to analyse

potential biases. Results showed that the variance explained by this factor is lower

than 30%, so we can conclude that there are no problems arising common method

biases in this study.

Table 5.2. CR, AVE and squared correlations between factors

CR 0.89 0.90 0.89

CA 0.83 0.74 0.78

AVE F.1 F.2 F.3

1.Innovative behaviour 0.68

2. HPWS 0.06 0.50

3. Exploratory Learning 0.30 0.04 0.82

5.4.3 The structural model

Predictive relevance of the two dependent variables of the model was assessed

using Stone-Geisser’s Q2 (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1975), which can be measured

using blindfolding procedures. As is shown in Table 5.3 all dependent latent

variables exhibited Q2 higher that 0 suggesting the predictive relevance of the

model (Chin, 1998). Power analysis was performed using G*Power 3 (Faul,

Erdfelder, Buchner, and Lang, 2009) to test if our sample assured a power for the

R2 deviation from zero test greater than 80%. Achieved power was greater than

96%.

The R2 value of the dependent latent variables was used to determine the amount

of variance explained by the model (See Table 5.3). According to Falk and Miller



Chapter 5

132

(1992), this index must be higher than 0.1. As Table 5.3 shows, although R2 for IB

achieve this threshold (R2=0.10), exploratory learning R2 is smaller (R2=0.04) than

that threshold. However, as Hair et al. (2012) indicate, acceptable R2 depend on

the research context and we assume that many other determinants of exploratory

learning are external to our model.

5.5 RESULTS

To test the hypotheses proposed in our model we used Smart-PLS 3.2. For testing

mediation we followed Preacher and Hayes’ (2004 and 2008) recommendations.

Bootstrapping was used to generate standard errors and t-statistics.

Table 5.3 shows results related to hypotheses 1 and 2. The first hypothesis

proposed a positive effect of employee perceptions of HPWS on IB. To this

respect, results show that employee perceptions of HPWS are positively associated

to IB(r=0.24; p<0.00), which supports this first hypothesis (H1). Similarly,

regarding the influence of the control variables in this relationship, the variable

level of education also has a positive and significant influence on IB (r= 0.22;

p<0.00). Hypothesis 2 suggested that employee perceptions of HPWS are

positively related to exploratory learning. Results show that employee perceptions

of HPWS have a positive and significant effect on exploratory learning (r= 0.20;

p<0.00). Hence, our second hypothesis is also supported. However, none of the

control variables have an influence on exploratory learning.

Table 5.3. Results supporting H1 and 2

Relationships proposed Estimate t-value

H1: HPWS- IB 0.24*** 4.10

H2: HPWS-Exploratory Learning 0.20*** 3.12

R2 (IB)= 0.10; R2(EL)=0.04 /Q2 (IB)= 0.05; Q2(EL)=0.02

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.00

Regards the third hypothesis proposed (H3: Exploratory learning will mediate the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB), we developed a

mediation analysis to study the effect of exploratory learning on the relationship

between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. The first condition for mediation


133

to take place is the existence of a positive and significant effect in the direct model

(employee perceptions of HPWS and IB). Results from the direct model show the

existence of a direct relationship (β = 0.24 p <0.001); therefore, the first condition

is met for mediation. Following Preacher and Hayes’ (2004, 2008) approach, the

sampling distribution of the indirect effect was bootstrapped (5,000 samples).

Results show a significant indirect effect (βHPWS⋅βEL=0.11; t=3.20 p<.00). The

smaller significant link between HPWS and innovative behaviour and a variance

accounted for (VAF) of 50% confirm the partial mediating role of exploratory

learning. Table 5.4 summarizes the mediation analysis performed in this

investigation.

Chapter 5

134

Table 5.4. MEDIATION EFFECT TESTING

Model Relationships proposed Parameter

Identification

Standardized Path

coefficients

t-value

(Bootstrap)

A HPWS- Innovative Behaviour c’ 0.24*** 4.10

B

HPWS- Innovative Behaviour c 0.11* 2.14

HPWS-Exploratory Learning a 0.20*** 3.41

Exploratory Learning- Innovative

Behaviour b 0.53*** 12.02

Indirect Effect a*b 0.11*** 3.20

Note: Model A= Only direct effect of HPWS on IB; Model B=Full model, HPWS on IB

controlling by EL *p<.05; ***p<0.00; VAF= (a*b)/(a*b+c)=0.50

5.6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The study of employees’ IB has become crucial in recent years, as IB contributes

to attain organisational success through the generation of new and useful ideas and

their translation into new and better products, services and work processes (De

Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). As individuals are who start and develop the

innovation process, it is of primary importance to study which contextual and

individual factors foster IB. Also, the study of IB needs to be carried out from

knowledge and HRM perspective to be better understood (Guthrie, 2012). Thus,

the aim of this article is to answer the question whether employee perceptions of

HPWS are related to exploratory learning and IB, trying to reveal the mediating

function of exploratory learning in this relationship.

As shown before, the first hypothesis we have formulated poses the positive

association of employee perceptions of HPWS on IB. In this respect, our empirical

results confirmed this hypothesis in line with certain prior studies, both

theoretically (Hayton 2004) and empirically (e.g. Bednall et al, 2014; Beugelsdijk,

2008; Laursen and Foss, 2003; Prieto and Pérez-Santana, 2014). These prior

works have focused on the study of single practices (e.g. performance quality

appraisal) (Bednall et al., 2014) or have done so from an organisational

perspective (Beugelsdijk, 2008; Laursen and Foss, 2003; Prieto and Pérez-


135

Santana, 2014). Our study contributes to HPWS and innovation literature by

analysing this relationship from an individual stand point and considering the

systemic nature of HPWS.

Our second hypothesis proposed a positive and significant association of

employee perceptions of HPWS on exploratory learning. It is highlight that HPWS

are antecedents of certain kind of knowledge variables (Chen and Huang, 2009;

Minbaeva et al., 2009). However, as we stated before, scarce literature has

analysed the relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS on learning

variables at the individual level (see: Minbaeva, et al., 2009; Minbaeva, et al.,

2012), and specifically focusing on exploratory learning. However, only of

Shipton et al. (2006) suggested from a macro perspective the effect of HPWS on

exploratory learning, but in that study they were unable to test this assertion. Thus,

with our study we contribute to HPWS and learning literature showing that

employee perceptions relate to their exploratory learning.

With regard to the third hypothesis which proposed the mediating effect of

exploratory learning in the relationship between HPWS and IB, our results also

supported this relationship. Shipton, Sanders, Bednall, Ling and Escriba-Carda,

(2016) theoretically proposed that exploratory learning could be considered as an

antecedent of IB. Furthermore, as mentioned above a similar prior study by

Shipton and others (2006) studied from an organisational perspective how HR

practices promoting exploratory learning and HR practices to develop knowledge,

skills and attitudes are related to technical and product innovation. In this research

(which was at macro, rather than micro, level), the role of exploratory learning

was not explicitly tested. Hence, the contribution of our study lies in analysing the

intermediate role of exploratory learning between employee perceptions of HPWS

and IB. Moreover, our results confirmed the existence of partial mediation. This

fact implies that the existence of exploratory learning is a necessary condition for

IB to take place, and HPWS clearly stimulate the existence of exploratory learning

at the individual level which in turn generates a positively oriented behaviour.

Considering the implications, from a theoretical perspective this manuscript

provides a different standpoint on the analysis of HPWS. Particularly, our work

Chapter 5

136

puts the emphasis on the individual level and focuses on analysing employee

perceptions of how HPWS have been applied. The study of the link between

HPWS and IB from an individual point of view may pave the way to future

research on the micro and subjective nature of learning and the effect that HPWS

may have on it. Also, the analysis of the effect of HPWS based on the responses of

managers (intended practices) has been widely criticized due to its subjective

character (Arthur and Boyles, 2007). However, our work places the emphasis on

how employees perceive the application of those practices in their working

context, in this way somewhat overcoming this drawback. By studying employee

perceptions of HPWS implementation we take a step further by focusing on the

receivers of managerial actions.

The results of our work also have implications from a practical perspective. The

joint implementation of a set of practices related to training, promotion,

participation, pay for performance and safety at work, will encourage exploratory

learning based on the adoption of new viewpoints, risk taking and flexibility,

providing a greater orientation to innovation by employees. In addition, our work

has revealed that the top management team of the firm must give importance not

only to the application of HPWS, but also to how such practices are perceived by

employees. In this way, an effective HRM strategy for innovation needs to be

correctly designed by the managers of the firm (intentions) as well as needs to be

adequately perceived by employees’ (perceptions). This fact implies that the

measurement of HPWS effectiveness needs to be expressed as a difference

between intentions and perceptions (I-P) if the individual IB is sought. A positive

gap in I-P for HPWS implies that part of the power of HPWS has been lost and,

consequently, the firm will have to make a greater effort to better communicate its

HRM intentions. When the difference in I-P is zero, the firm may assume that its

HPWS are going to cause the intended effect on employees’ IB. But only when

this gap is negative (I<P) the company will have highly motivated employees’

and, as a result will create sources of IB that can contribute to organisational

performance.

To conclude, the main limitations of this work may derive from the use of a single

source of information and the cross sectional nature of the study. However, some


137

authors (e.g. Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Minbaeva, 2013) highlighted the necessity

of conducting research on HPWS and learning at the individual level. Besides, we

open up the potential for a new stream of work that considers HRM’s role not in

controlling and directing employees but rather in fostering exposure to new and

different experiences and perspectives through exploratory learning. Combined

with our focus on employee perceptions of HRM and any relationship with

innovation, we believe that our paper makes a significant theoretical contribution

to the field.

It is worth pointing out that conducting the research within the same organisation

may reduce common methods bias. Future research could be focused on gathering

and analysing longitudinal data. Also, as suggested above, supervisor’s intention

underlying the development of HPWS and employee perceptions should be

measured and compared in an empirical work. Additionally, this future research

should also measure the effect of IB on individual as well as organisational

innovation performance. This way we could assess the real effectiveness of IB.

Furthermore, the consideration of other contextual variables as culture and climate

could be born in mind in the analysis of the relationship between HPWS and IB,

as these variables may actually affect the working context of employees as well as

the implementation of HPWS.

Chapter 5

138

5.7 REFERENCES

Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative Human Resource Practices and Organizational

Commitment: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Human

Resource Management 14:2, 175-197.





Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., and Berg, P. P., A. Kalleberg, (2000). Manufacturing

Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off.



Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.

Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16:1, 74-94.

Baluch, A. M., Salge, T. O., and Piening, E. P. (2013). Untangling the relationship

between HRM and hospital performance: the mediating role of attitudinal and

behavioural HR outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24:16, 3038-3061.

Barroso, C., Carrión, G. C., and Roldán, J. L. (2010). Applying maximum

likelihood and PLS on different sample sizes: studies on SERVQUAL model and

employee behavior model. In Handbook of partial least squares, Springer Berlin

Heidelberg (pp. 427-447).

Becker B.E., Huselid M.A., Pickus P.S., and Spratt M.F. (1997). HR as a source of

shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource

Management 36:1, 39–47.

Bednall T.C.; Sanders K.; and Runhaar P. (2014). Stimulating Informal Learning



139

Resource Management System Strength: A Two-Wave Study. Academy of

Management Learning and Education 13:1, 45–61.

Beugelsdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product


Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., and Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational

learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies,

39:4, 437-469.

Bowen, D. E., and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–Firm performance

linkages: The role of the Strength of the HRM system. Academy of Management

Review, 29:2, 203-221.

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.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written

material. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2, 349-444.

Chang, E. (2005). Employees’ overall perception of HRM effectiveness. Human

Relations, 58:4, 523-544.

Chen, C. J., and Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and

innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity.

Journal of Business Research, 62:1, 104-114.

Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation

modeling. In: G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research,

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 295–358).

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, S., and Kitchen, D. (2006). How much do high-

performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on

organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59:3, 501–528.

Daft, R. L., and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as

interpretation systems. Academy of management review, 9:2, 284-295.

Chapter 5

140

Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences.

Strategic Management Journal, 23:1, 1095-1121.


innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10:1, 41-64.

Delery J.E, and Shaw J.D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work

organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension. In Ferris GR (Ed.), Research in

personnel and human resources management. Stamford, CT: JAI Press pp. 165–

197.



performance predictions. Academy of management Journal, 39:4, 802-835.

Den Hartog, B. Verburg, and Croon (2012). Den Hartog, DN, Boon, C., Verburg,

RM, and Croon, MA (2012). HRM, communication, satisfaction, and perceived

performance: A cross-level test. Journal of Management, 39:6, 1637-1665.

Duncan and Weiss, (1979). Organizational learning: implications for organization

design. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 1, 75–123




Eisenberger,R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived

organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:1, 51-59.

Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of

Akron Press, Akron, OH.

Farr, J. L., and Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J. L.

Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational

strategies. Chichester: Wiley.


141

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., and Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power

analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Behavior research methods, 41:4, 1149-1160.

Felin, T., and Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested

heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus

of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32:1, 195-218.

Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., and Thomas, C. H. 2012. Organizational

learning: Sub process identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of


Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of

marketing research, 18, 382-388.

Foss, N. J., Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2010). Governing Knowledge Sharing

in Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research

directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47:3, 455-482.

Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal

of the American Statistical Association, 70:350, 320-328.

Gottschalg, O., and Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive

advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32:2, 418-437.

Gould-Williams, J., and Mohamed, R. B. (2010). A comparative study of the

effects of ‘best practice’ HRM on worker outcomes in Malaysia and England local

government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21:5, 653-

675.

Grant, D., and Shields, J. (2002). In search of the subject: Researching employee

reactions to human resource management. The Journal of Industrial Relations,

44:3, 313-334.

Guthrie, J. (2012). HRM, knowledge creation & innovation. Seminar Series on



Chapter 5

142

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., and Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of

the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40:3, 414-433.

Hayton, J. (2004). Strategic human capital management in SMEs: An empirical

study of entrepreneurial performance. Human Resource Management, 42:4, 375–

391.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least

squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International

Marketing (AIM), 20, 277-320.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the

literatures. Organization science, 2:1, 88-115.





supportiveness on employee innovative behavior. Journal of occupational and


Jimenez-Jimenez, D., and Sanz-Valle, R. (2012). Studying the effect of HRM

practices on the knowledge management process. Personnel Review, 42:1, 28-49.



39:2, 366-391.

Khilji, S. E., and Wang, X. (2006). Intended’and ‘implemented’HRM: the missing

linchpin in strategic human resource management research. International Journal


Kuvaas, B., and Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between

perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and

employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20:2,138-156.


143

Lau, C., and Ngo, H. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product

innovation. International Business Review, 13:6, 685-703.

Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in

managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.

Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic

Management Journal, 14:S2, 95-112.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D, and Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye?

Management and employee perspectives of high performance work systems and

influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:2, 371-

391.

Lopez‐Cabrales, A., Pérez‐Luño, A., and Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a

mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource

Management, 48:4, 485-503.

Macky, K., and Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance

work practices’ and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and

interaction effects. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:4,

537-567.



Review, 23:4, 378-390.

Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., and Rabbiosi, L. (2012). Linking HRM and

knowledge transfer via individual‐level mechanisms. Human Resource

Management, 51:3, 387-405.



Miner, A. S., and Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures

of organizational learning research. Organization science, 7:1, 88-99.

Chapter 5

144


“Why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and

customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61:3, 503-545.

Nishii, L. and Wright, P.(2008). Variability within organizations: implications for

strategic human resource management, in D.B.Smith (ed.), The People Make the

Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations, New York:

Taylor and Francis Group.

Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and

contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39:3, 607–634.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).

Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the

Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:5,

879–903.

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating

indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods,

instruments, and computers, 36:4, 717-731.

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40:3, 879-891.



Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a

review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:4, 698.

Scarbrough, H. (2003). Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation

process. International Journal of Manpower, 24:5, 501-516.



Journal, 37:3, 580-607.


145

Searle, R., Den Hartog, D. N., Weibel, A., Gillespie, N., Six, F., Hatzakis, T., and

Skinner, D. (2011). Trust in the employer: the role of high-involvement work

practices and procedural justice in European organizations. International Journal


Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., and Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and

contextual characteristics on creativity. Where should we go from here? Journal of

Management, 30:6, 933–958.

Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J. F., Birdi, K., and Patterson, M. G. (2006).


3-27.

Shipton,H.; Sanders,K.; Bednall,T.; Cai-Hui, V. and Escriba-Carda, N. (2016).

Beyond creativity: Implementing innovative ideas through Human Resource

Management. In (Miha Škerlavaj, Arne Carlsen, Anders Dysvik, Matej Černe,) in

Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd (eds.), Capitalizing on Creativity at Work: Fostering

the Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations.

Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Journal of

Management Studies, 29:6, 713-740.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical

predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological),

111-147.

Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S., and Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource


perspective. Academy of Management Journal 50:3, 558-577.

Takeuchi, N., and Takeuchi, T. (2013). Committed to the organization or the job?

Effects of perceived HRM practices on employees' behavioral outcomes in the

Japanese healthcare industry. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24:11, 2089-2106.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., and Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a

social system cross level effects of HPWS on employees attitudes. Personnel

Psychology, 62:1, 1-29.

Chapter 5

146





outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 25:1, 62-78

Verburg, R. M., Den Hartog, D. N., and Koopman, P. L. (2007). Configurations of

human resource management practices: a model and test of internal fit.


Way, S. A. (2002). High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of

firm performance within the US small business sector. Journal of Management,

28:6, 765-785.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model

of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology,

51:3, 355-387.



European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13:2, 269-299.

Wood, S. (2009). HRM and organizational performance. In: Human Resource

Management: A critical approach In D.G. Collings, and G. Wood (Eds.). London:

Routledge Tayor & Francis Group, pp. 55-74.

Zhou, Y., Hong, Y. and Liu, J. (2013). Internal Commitment or External

Collaboration? The Impact of Human Resource Management Systems on Firm

Innovation and Performance. Human Resource Management, 52:2, 263–288.


147

Chapter 6:

HPWS, WORK ENGAGEMENT AND

INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR: INSIGHTS

FROM TANZANIA AND NIGERIA

Abstract

It is argued that HR content (HR systems) in combination with HR process (HR

implementation) is conducive to positive employee attitudes that in turn promote a

variety of performance outcomes such as innovative behaviour. Work engagement

is considered as a necessary employee attitude, to adopt activities that involve

taking risks, proactivity and enthusiasm facilitating, as a result, innovative

behaviours. This study investigates how HPWS work in a different social context.

Using data from 411 employees from four organisations located in Tanzania and

Nigeria, we found that western HPWS are positively related to African

employees’ innovative behaviours. Contrary to our expectations, there was no

interaction effect of HPWS and HR process on the HPWS-Innovative behaviour

relationship. Finally, we employed a moderation mediation effect to unravel the

relationships. Results confirmed that the relationship between HPWS and

innovative behaviours is mediated by work engagement.

Chapter 6

148


149

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Organisations are increasingly dependent upon members’ innovative behaviours

(IBs) as they deal with the complex and unpredictable challenges that

characterise modern life (Janssen, 2005; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Shalley, 1995;

West, Hirst, Richter and Shipton, 2004). IBs provide the basis for organisational

innovation (Amabile, 1988), which is in turn associated to competitive

advantage, firm performance and long term survival (Nystrom, 1990). Existing

research suggests that IB is dependent not only on individual talents, but also on

the wider context within which daily activities and tasks are performed

(Mumford, Scott, Gaddis and Strange, 2002; Shalley, Zhou and Oldham, 2004).

Despite this interest in IBs, there is still a considerably lack of knowledge

regarding how such behaviours can be stimulated in modern organisations.

There is wide and growing recognition of the potential contribution of human

resource (HR) management and High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) to

the achievement of strategically valuable organisational outcomes (Sun, Zhang,

Qi and Chen, 2012, Jiang, Wang and Zhao, 2012). Initially, discussion focused

on the content of HR systems, i.e. the optimum combination of HR practices,

including targeted training and development, flexible working practices, and

performance-related reward systems (Wright, Gardner, Moyniham and Allen,

2005, Peccei, 2004). Recently, attention has been focused on the HR process,

i.e. the implementation of HR practices (Haggerty and Wright, 2009) and the

attendant consequences for employee perceptions of HR (Bowen and Ostroff,

2004; Sanders, Shipton and Gomes, 2014). HR process might involve clear and

consistent conveyed signals about what the practice is intended to deliver, and

how strategic values align with the underlying beliefs and values of employees

(Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Since both the HR content and the HR process are

argued to affect individual and organisational performance, it is therefore

reasonable to suggest that, taken together, will create even more powerful

conditions to boost individual and organisational performance (Sanders et al.,

2014).

Chapter 6

150

Several authors highlighted the relevance of analysing the potential mediating

effects of variables of an attitudinal nature (e.g. IB), which connect HPWS to

employee behaviours (Alfes, Shantz, Truss and Soane, 2013; Nishi, Lepak and

Schneider, 2008). For example, work engagement is related to high levels of

performance, profitability and productivity and to low levels of intention to quit,

individual health, well-being and sickness absence (MacLeod and Clarke,

2009). In this vein, work engagement can be seen as a mediator variable, since

engagement will be a necessary employee state to carry out activities that

involve taking risks, proactivity and enthusiasm, that is, to adopt IB and can be

influenced by HPWS.

The goals of this study are threefold. Firstly, we analyse the relationship

between HPWS and IB. Secondly, we test the potential moderating role of HR

process in the relationship between HPWS and IB. And thirdly, we examine if

work engagement mediates the relationship between the interaction of HPWS-

HR Process, on one hand, and IB, on the other hand. With this investigation we

contribute to the literature by building and testing a model that links perceptions

of HPWS with an important behavioural outcome: IB. Likewise, we intend to

shed light on the relevance of considering content and process jointly to achieve

IB. We further propose that work engagement is an important element that

fosters this relationship, as it provides the passion and energy for task

fulfilment, while HR content brings safety for employees taking risks and being

proactive. Finally, another contribution of this study is the context in which it

was conducted. Katou and Budhwar (2009) suggested to spread HR research

into other geographical contexts; hence, according to their suggestion, we have

tested these relationships in firms located in Nigeria and Tanzania. Articles

dealing with African countries are under-represented in international

employment relations journals (Wood and Dibben, 2006). Furthermore, in both

countries, the economy is projected to grow more than 7% in 2014 and 2015

(OECD, UNDP, 2014). Hence, there is a need for analysing how western

HPWS affect attitudes and relevant employees’ behaviours in developing

countries as Nigeria and Tanzania.


151

The remaining part of this text is organised as follows: after this introductory

section we present the theoretical foundations of this research and the

theoretical relationships to be explored. Then, we describe the methodological

tools, methods and procedures we have employed to carry out the empirical

analysis. Finally, we comment the most outstanding results of the analysis and

present the main conclusions of the work and its theoretical and practical

implications.

6.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

6.2.1 High performance work systems as drivers of innovative

behaviours

On the question of IB, regardless of insightful studies (e.g. Zhou, Hong and Liu,

2013), HRM literature has had a surprisingly quiet voice. Encompassing both

idea generation (creativity) and the application of the new ideas within a group

or organisation, innovative performance is often viewed as a multi-stage process

comprising problem identification, engendering novel insights that resolve the

problem, building support for ideas, and working with others to enable their

implementation. Similarly, IB can be conceived as a process, which starts with

problem recognition and generation of ideas or solutions, either novel or

adopted. Then, it proceeds to sponsorship seeking and idea supporting, and

finally the innovative individual turns his idea into a ‘prototype or model of the

innovation’ (Kanter, 1988; Scott and Bruce, 1994). Scholars suggest that IB

might be achieved by ensuring that all members of the organisation are

receptive to, and have the necessary skills and motivation to support change

(Paton and McCalman, 2000). The argument is that change and innovation

frequently fall outside the remit of technical specialists such as R&D

professionals and involve those who have most knowledge of the task and the

technology required to ensure its effective completion. Thus, employees at all

levels should play an important role in either putting forward suggestions for

improvements themselves, or supporting others as they do so.

In this regard, individual skills and motivation are necessary conditions to IB;

but they are not enough to guarantee that innovation-oriented behaviours are

Chapter 6

152

materialised. As in many other areas in organisation studies, the context also

plays an important role in creating and promoting the expression of IBs. In this

vein, HR practitioners are faced with the challenge of developing and

implementing the practices necessary to facilitate the IB process described

above (Laursen and Foss, 2003; Michie and Sheehan, 2003). In fact, recent

insights suggest that HR systems create an environment where employees are

committed to organisational goals, while simultaneously open to external

collaboration (Zhou et al., 2013). This means establishing a framework whereby

employees are clear about their tasks and willing to refine the skills necessary

for operational performance as required (Boxall, 1996; Purcell, 1999). Given

that both internal commitment and external collaboration are necessary for

innovation (Zhou et al., 2013); research on HR needs to target both potentially

conflicting agendas.

As yet, there is no commonly agreed frame of reference about what exactly

constitutes an HR ‘system’ (Wood, 1999). Many scholars, however, agree that a

typical system encompasses training, appraisal/performance management and

sophisticated selection and socialisation as well as practices designed to

promote participation and involvement, such as team-work and reward (Bae and

Lawler, 2000; Dyer and Reeves, 1995; Huselid, 1995; Macduffie, 1995; Purcel,

Hutchinson, Kinnie, Rayton and Swart, 2003). Traditionally, works have been

focused on analysing the effects of HR practices on organisational performance

in terms of profitability or productivity (Huselid and Becker, 1996). In this

respect, Jiang, Lepak, Hu and Baer (2012), following the AMO (ability-

motivation-opportunity) framework, conclude that the three dimensions of HR

systems (acquisition of abilities, motivation, and providing opportunities to

apply them) were related to financial outcomes both directly and indirectly.

Other recent works focus on different measures like innovation performance

(Beugeisdijk, 2008; Lau and Ngo, 2004).

Research on HR emphasises the importance of mediating links or intervening

variables between HPWS and organisational outcomes, such as employee

beliefs, attitudes and behaviours (Boxal and Macky, 2007: 262). Bowen and

Ostroff (2004) and Nishii and Wright (2008) make a point, when they suggest


153

that the HR content-performance causal chain, may be more complex than

previously thought. They suggest that employee perceptions of HR practices are

likely to precede attitudes and behaviours, which in turn affect performance.

Despite some specialised literature drawing the attention on the effects of HR

systems on employee behaviours (Kehoe and Wright, 2010), few works have in

fact shown that the effect of HR systems on organisational performance

becomes clearer and stronger when employee behaviours and attitudes are taken

into account (Boxall and Macky, 2009; Nishii et al., 2008; Takeuchi, Chen and

Lepak, 2009).

From a theoretical and psychological perspective, a direct relationship between

employee attitudes and organisational performance seems to have been

established (Tsai, Edwards and Sengupta, 2010). Hence, HPWS should help

shaping employees’ required behaviours and attitudes, by establishing

psychological links between organisational and employees’ goals (Dorenbosch,

Van Engen and Verhagen, 2005); key HPWS practices include participation,

training and development, promotion, job security and pay for performance; and

the expected result is that employees engage in IBs. When organisations focus

on innovation, it is likely to expect that employees respond with behaviours

directed at creativity and innovation, i.e. innovative behaviour (Camelo-Ordaz,

García-Cruz, Sousa-Ginel & Valle-Cabrera, 2011).

Similarly, the results of the study conducted by Bednall, Sanders and Runhaar

(2014) confirm that the quality of some HR practices (e.g. performance

appraisal) affect positively the degree of knowledge sharing and employees’

IBs. Likewise, Hayton (2005) states that HR practices can create an

organisational environment that encourages learning, cooperation, risk

acceptance and knowledge creation, that is, IB.

From a qualitative viewpoint, some works have investigated the relationship

between HR practices and IB (Leede and Looise, 2005), looking at different

levels of influence: the strategic level, the innovation activity level, and the

interaction between them. Recently, Prieto and Pérez-Santana (2014) have

analysed the relationship between High Commitment work Practices and

Chapter 6

154

innovative behaviour, however, they analysed the relationship from a macro

perspective and using a small sample.

Thus, we argue that through employee perceptions of HPWS, employees

abilities, opportunities and motivation are enhanced, which, in turn, enact

employees’ IBs. Furthermore, no previous quantitative works have analysed the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS on employees’ innovative

behaviour.

Bearing in mind all these considerations we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Employee perceptions of HR practices (i.e., HR content) are

positively related to employees’ innovative behaviours.

6.2.2 The role of HR Process in the relationship between HPWS and

IB

Recently, HR researchers have focused their attention on the HR process

perspective. Bowen and Ostroff (2004; see also Ostroff and Bowen, 2000) were

amongst the first academics to introduce this perspective, criticising at the same

time the one-sided focus of the traditional content-based approach. Their ideas

are inspired by the co-variation principle of attribution theory (Kelley, 1967;

1973), applied to the HR field. Their motivation was to develop a framework

that would foster a better understanding of how HR as a system ‘can contribute

to organisational performance by motivating employees to adopt desired

attitudes and behaviours that, in the collective, help to achieve the

organisation’s strategic goals’ (p. 204).

Individuals can make confident attributions about cause-and-effect relationships

depending on the degree of distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus of the

situational aspects (Sanders, Dorenbosch and De Reuver, 2008). Distinctiveness

suggests that the HR system is salient, understandable, legitimate and relevant

(people perceive that the HR practices will contribute to achieve organisational

goals) (Gomes, Coelho, Correia and Cunha, 2010); consistency refers to an HR

function which communicates regular and consistent messages over time,

people and contexts; and consensus indicates an agreement among employees in


155

their view of the event-effect relationship. Considering the aspects that form the

HR-Process framework, managers should communicate HR practices

appropriately to enhance the likelihood that employees interpret the messages

delivered by HR in a uniform manner (Sanders et al., 2014; Gomes et al., 2010).

In such cases employees will have a better and shared understanding of the

kinds of behaviours that managers expect, support and reward (see also

Schneider, Brief and Guzzo, 1996); such situations are called ‘strong’ by

Bowen and Ostroff, whereas ‘weak’ situations are those in which employees

diverge substantively with regards to the behaviours required by their

organisation.

Whilst content-based approach scholars focus on the intrinsic features

associated to the content of HR to explain performance, promoters of the

process-based approach highlight the importance of the psychological processes

through which employees attach meaning to HR, and the influence of this

meaning in the relationship between HR and performance (Scott and Bruce,

1994; Sanders et al., 2014).

Recent research has partially supported Bowen and Ostroff’s contentions.

Katou, Budhwar and Patel (2014) found that employees’ perception of

distinctiveness, consistency and consensus moderate the relationship between

perceived HR practices and employees reactions. Based on this new empirical

evidence and the above reasons, we argue that HR practices perceived to be

distinctive, consistent and consensual, will be more likely to engender positive

employee outcomes, including IB, than those which are (or are perceived to be)

less clear or in conflict with one another.

Hence, an HR system that considers both HR content and HR process may

represent the optimum scenario to affect employee attitudes, and in turn their

IBs. Indeed, recent findings suggest that content and process are two

inseparable facets of a HR system that reveal a comprehensive picture of the

HR-organisational performance relationship (Sanders et al., 2014; Katou et al.,

2014). This assertion leads us to our second hypothesis:

Chapter 6

156

Hypothesis 2: HR Process will significantly and positively moderate the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and innovative behaviour.

6.2.3 The role of work engagement in the relationship between

HPWS and IB

Previous research shows that HPWS play a critical role in the relationship

between employer and employees (Gould-Williams, 2007). Of the various

phenomena describing relationships between the employer and employees,

work engagement occupies an important position. Engaged employees work

hard, are involved, and feel happily engrossed in their work (Bakker and

Schafeuli, 2008: 190). These authors conceptualised work engagement as being

a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being

which is characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. There is an

agreement about the consideration of engagement as a state experienced by

individuals in relation to their work that involves investing intellectual energy

into thinking about the task, physical energy and absorption into the task, and

emotional energy and enthusiasm in relation to task fulfilment (Truss, Mankin

and Kelliher, 2012: 225).

Several scholars have analysed work engagement antecedents and

consequences. Following Truss et al. (2012), these antecedents are divided into

several groups: individual level, job related/contextual variables, line-manager

behaviour, and employer-organisational factors. Related to these antecedents,

there are two popular theoretical frameworks. The most common theoretical

framework has been the social exchange theory. This theory argues that

employees show different levels of engagement, depending on their level of

appreciation and trust in the organisation (Rich, Le Pine, Crawford, 2010). On

the other hand, the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory, proposes that HPWS

should be designed to develop the abilities required for the execution of

different roles, to motivate employees to apply their abilities in desired ways,

and subsequently, to provide them with opportunities to actually use their

abilities in their job roles (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, and Kalleberg, 2000). We

argue that employee perceptions of HPWS foster the motivational aspect, which


157

in this case refers to work engagement (Jiang et al., 2012), which finally leads

to IB.

It is also suggested that HR practices shape required employee behaviours and

attitudes by forging psychological links between organisational and employee

goals (Arthur, 1992). Similarly, Evans and Davis (2005) suggest that HPWS

generate a positive influence in the internal social structure of the firm, enabling

networking, reciprocity, and organisational citizenship behaviour, which are

considered positive behaviours for organisational goals’ achievement.

Thus, as a contextual antecedent of work engagement, literature highlighted that

HRM can develop the positive beliefs and attitudes associated with employee

engagement. However, little research exists about the link between HRM topics

and engagement (Shuck and Rocco, 2013), and also about how these practices

can generate the kind of discretionary behaviours that lead to enhanced

performance (Konrad, 2006), and innovation (Hayton, 2005).

As discussed earlier, there is strong support in recent studies that suggest that

work engagement may be a vital factor that provides explanations to various

employee attitudes and behaviours (Christian Garza and Slaughter, 2011; Rich

et al., 2010), since work engagement is able to capture the cognitive, emotional

and behavioural elements of the workforce (Biswas and Bhatnagar, 2013).

We argue that one work engagement consequence is IB, which involves risk

(Janssen, van de Vliert and West, 2004) and proactivity Furthermore, employee

innovative behaviour can also be achieved through employee perceptions of

HPWS, which helps employees feel safe and consequently accept the possibility

of failing (Parzefall, Seeck and Leppänen, 2008). Moreover, work engagement

could be an important internal factor to maintain IBs (Agarwal, Datta, Blake-

Beard and Bhargava, 2012) as this attitude could help to overcome or reduce

employee’s bad feelings of some fruitless idea implementation.

In recent studies, researchers have explored the relationship between work

engagement and IB. Slåtten and Mehmetoglu (2011) found that employee

engagement is closely linked to employees’ IB in frontline jobs in service firms.

Other studies as Agarwal et al. (2012), examined the mediating role of work

Chapter 6

158

engagement in the relationship between leader-member exchange, IB, and

intention to quit, using six service sector organisations in India. The results

showed that work engagement mediates the linkage between leader-member

exchange and IB, and partially mediates intention to quit.

Some empirical research supports the notion that engagement mediates the

relationship between HR practices and positive outcomes for individuals and

organisations (Alfes et al., 2013; Katou et al., 2014). Yalabik, Popaitoon, Chowne

and Rayton (2013) found that work engagement mediates the relationship between

affective commitment and job performance. Similarly, Schaufeli and Bakker

(2003) proposed that work engagement may play a mediating role between job

resources (e.g. participation in decision making), on one hand, and positive work

attitudes and work behaviours (i.e. IB), on the other hand. Based on data from

service organisations in the UK, Alfes et al. (2013) concluded that the perception

of HR practices on employee behaviour (Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

and turnover intention) is mediated by work engagement. As scarce literature has

analysed the impact of employee perceptions of HPWS on WE (Shuck and Rocco,

2013) and its role in promoting discretionary behaviours, such as innovative

behaviour, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3:(a) Employee perceptions of HPWS positively influence IB

through work engagement (mediation); and (b) the strength of the work

engagement -IB association depends on the level of HR Process (moderation),

so that the stronger the perceptions of the Process, the stronger the relationship

between work engagement and IB.

6.3 METHOD

6.3.1 Sample

Data were collected from employees of four organisations located in Nigeria

and Tanzania. Three of these companies are from the financial services sector

(76% of the sample) and the fourth (24% of the sample) is a manufacturing unit

which is part of a large conglomerate. With respect to ownership criteria, two of

the companies were public firms and the others were privately owned. All of

them are considered to big companies (more than 1,000 employees).


159

411 respondents formed the final sample, and questionnaires were collected

during 2013. 61.8% of the sample were men; with an average age of 33.7 years

(SD = 8.13). With respect to the level of education and training, 83.1%

(SD=0.4) of the employees had a degree or a higher education diploma

(postgraduate). Regarding the current position in the firms (SD=1.08), the

47.2% of the employees held a professional position, 20% carried out middle

management tasks; 24.1% were technical and administrative employees; 2.4%

of the respondents were manual workers, and, 3.5% of the sample were top

managers.

6.3.2 Measures

All items in the questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale.

HPWS scale is based on Sun, Ayree and Lau (2007). Also, this scale is

grounded on the work of Tsui and Wang (2002). It covered five practices:

training and development (4 items), pay for performance (4 items), career

development (3 items), participation in the decision-making (4 items), and job

security (2 items). Sample items: ‘I had sufficient job-related training’; ‘I am

often asked to participate in decisions’. Internal consistency was 0.84.

Human Resource Management Process is based on a 15-item scale developed

by Gomes et al. (2010). Sample items: ‘HR practices are clear in my

organisation; HR practices are well known by everybody in my organisation’.

The items that compose this scale are linked to the following areas: most salient

HR practices, visibility, understand ability, legitimacy, relevance,

instrumentality, validity, consistent HR messages, agreement among HR

decision makers and fairness. These areas form part of the three HR Process

dimensions: consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.81), consensus (Cronbach’s

Alpha: 0.82) and distinctiveness (Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.80). Internal consistency

of HR Process was 0.89.

Innovative Behaviour: adapted from Scott and Bruce (1994). Sample item: ‘I

develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas’ (5

Items). Internal consistency was 0.80.

Chapter 6

160

Work engagement: the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale was used: a 9-item

scale proposed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). Sample item: ‘When I get up in

the morning I feel like going to work’. Internal consistency was 0.84.

Based on previous studies, we used age, education and gender in the regression

analyses as control variables, as they can have an impact on IB and perception

of HR practices (Alfes et al., 2013, Dysvik, Kuvaas and Buch, 2014; Kinnie,

Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton and Sward, 2005; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Yuan and

Woodman, 2010). Additionally, we controlled for country and the organisation

to which employees belonged, with dummy variables (coded 1/0). We created

four dummy variables considering as the reference company a Nigerian

company (a financial company: coded 0), and country variable is coded

(Nigeria 1, Tanzania 0).

6.3.3 Common Method Variance Test

The common method bias was controlled with established recommendations

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon and Podsakoff, 2003). We conducted

Harman’s single-factor test to address the potential bias. The procedure required

that an unrotated factor analysis be performed on all of the variables studied.

Therefore, we included all the items of all the constructs in the model for a

factor analysis to determine whether a single factor claimed a disproportionately

large variance. The results showed that the variance explained by that factor is

less than 30%, and thus we can conclude that common method bias is not

present in our study.

6.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

6.4.1 Descriptives

Table 6.1 shows descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and

correlations for each variable. The inter-scale correlations show the expected

direction of association; all correlations are positive and significant at p<0.001.

As mentioned in the measures description, the constructs used in the study were

reliable, with coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.89, exceeding the minimum of

0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Besides, all the correlation coefficients between scales


161

are below 0.7 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996), which reduces the probability of

multicollinearity in a regression.

With regard to the associations between main and control variables, significant

relationships were found between demographic variables and some of the key

aspects under study. Age is related with IB, WE and HPWS (r=0.11 p<. 05,

r=0.15 p<. 01, r=-0.11 p<. 05). Education is related to WE and HR process (r=-

0.19 p<. 01; r=-0.10 p<. 05). Gender is related to IB and process (r=-0.11 p<. 05;

r=-0.11 p<. 05) (see Table 6.1).

6.4.2 Data Analysis

In order to validate our scales, we conducted a CFA using AMOS Graphics 19

and requesting an analysis based on the covariance matrix. We calculated

different fit indices establishing how the model fitted our data (Hair, Black,

Babin, Anderson and Tatham, 2005). The established model presents a

satisfactory fit which can be inferred from reading the goodness-of-fit indices (X2

/DF=1.88; TLI: 0.94; IFI: 0.95; CFI: 0.95; GFI: 0.91; RMSEA: 0.046). X2/df

values less than 2.5 indicate a good fit (Arbuckle, 2006). For the Tucker-Lewis

index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI), goodness

of fit index (GFI), and Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI), values greater than

0.9 represent a good model fit (Bentler, 1990), and for the root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA) values of less than 0.08 indicate a good model fit

(Browne and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1998). According to these values, our

results are indicative of a good model fit; and, we can conclude that the model

fitted our data. Furthermore, all standardised factor loadings are significant and

higher that 0.7 (Hair et al., 2005).

From Table 6.2, we can conclude that the scales are reliable, as well as that they

are valid in convergent and discriminant terms. All scales are reliable as composite

reliability (CR) values are above 0.7. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) confirms

convergent validity. AVE values are shown in the diagonal of the table and all

values are above or equal to 0.5.

Chapter 6

162

TABLE 6.1. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CORRELATIONS

Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

1. IB 3.71 .69

2. WE 3.78 .76 .35***

3. HPWS 3.68 .67 .28*** .30**

4. PROC 3.62 .72 .27*** .33*** .68***

5. Distinctiveness 3.61 .90 .16** .17*** .53*** .85***

6. Consistency 3.73 .73 .32*** .37*** .55*** .85*** .58***

7. Consensus 3.51 .89 .24*** .31*** .66*** .87*** .57*** .65***

8. Age 33.7 8.13 .11* .15** -.11* .02 .07 .04 -.07

9. Gender 1.33 .46 -.11* -.00 -.06 -.11* -.08* -.12* -.10 -.13**

10. Education 1.82 .40 -.01 -.19*** -.08 -.10* -.07** -.11* -.09 .13** -.02

11. ORG_1 .092 .10* -.3*** -.31*** -.16** -.18*** -.43*** .30*** .08 .04

12. ORG_2 -.05 .05 .12* .24*** .17*** .19*** .25*** 26*** -.11* -.16** -.33

13. ORG_3 -.08 -.15** .14** -.02 -.09 -.07 .11* -.31** -.00 .03 -.34** -.32**

14. COUNTRY .08 .15** -.14** .02 .09 .07 -.11* .31** .01 -.03 .34** .32** -.99**

Note: n=411, *p<0.05 **p<0.01; *** p<.00


163

TABLE 6.2. CR, AVE AND SQUARED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FACTORS

CR 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.90

AVE F.1 F.2 F.3 F.4

1.Innovative Behaviour 0.57

2. Work Engagement 0.12 0.63

3. HPWS 0.08 0.10 0.51

4. Process 0.07 0.11 0.46 0.74



Finally, in order to test Discriminant Validity issues, we followed Fornell and

Larcker’s (1981) procedure. As we can see in table 6.2 AVE values are greater

than the square of the correlations between each pair of factors.

We used multiple regressions for testing H1. To test moderation (H2) and

moderated mediation (H3) we used Hayes SPSS macro (2013). By testing an

interacting effect (H2), also conceptualised as moderating effect, we want to

demonstrate that HPWS have an effect on IBs and its effect and size depends on

the value that employees attribute to HR process (how they perceived the HR

implementation as distinctive, consensual and consistent). The interacting effect is

tested including the product between HPWS and HR process as other predictor

variable in the model. For the interacting effect calculation products were centred

and standardised. To test H3 (moderated mediation effect), as a preliminary

analysis, we tested the simple mediation. Process Macro uses Bootstrapping to test

the strength and significance of the indirect effect. Bootstrapping is a non-

parametric method to assess indirect effects that overcome several problems

related to non-normally distributed samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Preacher,

Rucker and Hayes, 2007). Using this procedure, the standard deviation of the

estimate of the indirect effect obtained over 5,000 bootstrapped resamples is the

estimated standard error of the mean indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).

Based on this information, bootstrap confidence intervals were generated for the

indirect effect. After this preliminary mediating analysis, we applied the Macro

(Hayes, 2013) to test moderated mediation effect. According to Hayes (2012),

Chapter 6

164

using Process Macro moderation of an indirect effect can be probed in a manner

analogous to the probing of interactions in moderation analysis. This is tested by

estimating the conditional indirect effect of HPWS on IB through work

engagement at various values of HR Process and conducting an inferential test of

the conditional indirect effect at those values.

6.5 RESULTS

Hypothesis 1 specified that perceived HR practices are positively related to IB

(H1); in hypothesis 2 HR Process moderates the relationship between HR

practices and IB (H2); and Hypothesis 3 proposed a moderated mediation, that is,

analysing (a) if HPWS influence IB through work engagement (mediation); and

(b) the strength of the work engagement-IB association depends on the level of

HR Process (moderation).

Table 6.3 reports the results of multiple regressions analysis used to test H1.

Model 2 analyses the relationship between HPWS and IB. As expected, we found

a positive and significant relationship between HPWS and IBs (β=0.37, p<0.001).

Therefore, the results support the first hypothesis.


165

TABLE 6.3 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS (H1)

Independent

variables: H1: Innovative Behaviour

Model 1 Model 2

β Coefficient

0.109ᶧ

-0.106*

-0.40

0.001

-0.121ᶧ

-0.218

β Coefficient

0.116*

-0.94*

-0.019

0.086

-0.14*

-0.138

AGE

GENDER

EDUCATION

Org_1

Org_2

Org_3

Country -0.137 -0.034

HPWS .346***

R2 0.36 0.144

R2 ADJUSTED 0.02 0.127

∆R2 0.036 0.108

F change 2.176 50.548

Significance F Change .035* .00***

VIF 1.11

Note: n=411, ᶧp<0.10; *p<0.05 **p<0.01; *** p<.0.00

H2 results show that, contrary to expected, values for the interacting effect are not

significant (see table 6.4). HR Process does not moderate the relationship between

HPWS and IB. Another aspect to consider in the moderation analysis refers to the

confidence interval, which in this case includes zero value (see table 6.4); so we

can conclude that there is no moderating effect and hence there is no support for

H2. Though, we have tested if there is a direct effect between Process and each of

the components of process with IB and there is a positive and significant

relationship between HR Process (considered as second order factor), consistency

and consensus, with IB (β=0.16, p<0.05; β=0.21, p<0.01 and β=0.14, p<0.05,

respectively). However, distinctiveness is not significant (β= -0.01 n/s).

Chapter 6

166

Table 6.4. MODERATION RESULTS

Variables/ Models Dependent variable IB (H2)

B SE B t p

HPWS .25

(.11-.39) .07 3.58 p<0.001

HRM Process .16

(.01-.32) .08 2.05 p<0.05

HPWS * Process .03

(-.14-.20) .09 .32 n/s

Age .01

(-00-.02) .00 1.95 n/s

Gender -.13

(-.27-.01) .07 -1.80 n/s

Education -.02

(-.19-.15) .09 -.21 n/s

Org_1 .18

(-.02-.37) .10 1.80 n/s

Org_2 -.23

(-.41--.05) .10 -2.54 p<0.05

Org_3 -.25

(-7.90-7.40) 3.90 -.06 n/s

Country -.11

(-7.76-7.53) 3.90 -.03 n/s

Note: n=411, *p<0.05 **p<0.01; *** p<.001;

Regards H3 we want to test both the mediation effect of work engagement and

whether the effect of mediation changes for different levels of the moderator

variable (HR Process) (Wiedemann, Schüz, Sniehotta, Scholz and Schwarzer,

2009). Results from bootstrapping yielded (preliminary mediating analysis) a

significant indirect effect of HPWS on IB through work engagement β=0.09

(p<0.00), BCa CI (0.05 to 0.15). Work engagement only partially mediates the

HPWS-IB relationship, as HPWS still had a significant direct effect on IB β=0.26

(p<0.00).


167

Figure 6.1 shows H3 (b) results using Model 8 of Process Macro (Hayes, 2013).

IB (DV) was regressed on HPWS (IV β=0.20, p<0.01); HR Process (Mo; β=0.11,

n/s); WE (Me; β=0.22, p<0.00), and the interaction between Process and HPWS

(Mo*IV; using mean centred variables; β=0.02, n/s). A significant interaction

effect (Mo*IV) on IB will only be indicative of moderated mediation if HPWS

(IV) also affect work engagement. In the present case the interacting effect is not

significant, regardless of the significant indirect effect through the mediation.

Furthermore, with respect to results from the moderated mediation model, the

moderated mediation index is not significant (Index=0.01; LCCI-ULCI -0.2 to

0.6). From this analysis, we conclude that there is no moderated mediation. Thus,

H3 is partially supported.

Figure 6.1: Moderated Mediation

6.6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although considerable resources have been devoted to understanding the scientific

and technical aspects of innovation especially from an R&D perspective, there is

limited, although growing, understanding of any role that HR might play. IBs are

precursors for innovation; yet, companies find it difficult to innovate on a

sustained basis (Katila and Ahuja, 2002). As several works highlighted innovation

HPWS

Work Engagement

HRM

Process

Innovative

Behaviour

HRM Process*

HPWS

Org_2 Gender

.24**

.24**

.02 n/s

.20*

.11 n/s

.02 n/s

.22**

-.19* -.14*

Note: n=411, *p<0.05 **p<0.01; *** p<.001

Chapter 6

168

is the process of idea generation and its implementation has become a source of

distinct competitive advantage (Anderson, De Dreu, and Nijstad, 2004; Zhou and

Shalley, 2003).

Following previous studies (Bednall et al., 2014, Hayton, 2004 and 2005; Leede

and Looise, 2005), we proposed that employee perceptions of HPWS are linked to

employees’ IB. We further have included the Process framework (Bowen and

Ostroff, 2004), as a relevant aspect to consider jointly with the perception of HR

practices to foster IB (Sanders et al., 2014). Additionally, we wanted to test if

these arguments were also confirmed in companies located in African countries as

Tanzania and Nigeria where human development is on the rise (OECD, 2014).

Our results confirm a positive and significant relationship between employee

perceptions of HPWS and IB in companies located in Nigeria and Tanzania. These

results reinforce the idea that was proposed in the theoretical framework, that is,

employee perceptions of HPWS are positively related to IB and this link also

applies in developing economies. As previous studies highlighted, HPWS play a

key role in the success of innovative activities (Brockbank, 1999; Looise and Van

Riemsdijk 2004; Hayton, 2004). However, previous studies focused on analysing

this relationship at the level of the organisation (e.g. Laursen and Foss, 2003;

Prieto and Pérez-Santana, 2014), or, alternatively, analysed the effect of single

practices on employees’ IB (Bednall et al., 2014). Despite the fact that the

relationship has been proposed from a theoretical point of view (Hayton, 2004 and

2005), Van de Voorde and Beijer (2015) recently claimed that more research is

needed regarding the effects of HPWS on employees’ work-related outcomes.

Through this study, we contribute to HRM and innovation literature by showing

that employee perceptions of HPWS play an important role in enabling innovative

behaviour.

Authors as Ehrnrooth and Björkman (2012) found evidence of significant direct

relationship between process and creativity and core job performance. We also

confirmed a direct relationship between Process, consistency and consensus and

IB. Bowen and Ostroff (2004) pointed out that consistency and consensus are

distinct but interrelated concepts, so when individuals experience consistency in


169

HR practices consensus is more likely to be fostered (p.212). These arguments

could explain why there is no evidence about the direct relationship of

distinctiveness, probably because the concept of distinctiveness (that means

perceived legitimacy of HPWS and relevance for organisational goals) leaves

individuals with few options about how to perform a task, thereby constraining

rather than enhancing IB.

However, results show that Process and none of the three aspects that compose

HR Process (distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) moderate the relationship

between HPWS and IB. These results are partially similar to other studies

(Sanders et al., 2008; Li, Frenkel and Sanders, 2011) where not all the components

of Process showed the expected moderating effect. Specifically, in our case,

probably the cultural questions related to external circumstances on the countries

analysed may influence the way HPWS are perceived by employees.

Furthermore, with the moderated mediation, we tested if work engagement played

a mediating role between HPWS and IB. We found evidence of partial mediation.

These results suggest that work engagement is an essential aspect for IBs to take

place. Results of our study are in line with previous research, i.e., work

engagement mediates the relationship between HPWS and positive outcomes for

individuals and organisations (Alfes et al., 2013; Katou et al., 2014); in the current

case IBs stood for such positive employee outcomes. For this reason, the results

support the idea that employees should be engaged for adopting IBs that involve

risk taking (Ellinger, 2005), thus, work engagement is necessary for explaining the

effect of HPWS on IB.

For organisations that compete in turbulent and uncertain environments as the

companies that form our sample, IB, defined as the developing, carrying, reacting

to, and modifications of ideas (Van de Ven, 1986) becomes a critical engine for

growth, prosperity and viability. We focus on IB as a process in which employees

develop novel and useful solutions to challenges and problems encountered in goal

pursuit. The study contributes to innovation literature by suggesting avenues that

go beyond variables such as HPWS (Kang, Morris and Snell, 2007; Kehoe and

Wright, 2010), individual behaviours and attitudes (Hayton, 2004; Alfes et al.,

Chapter 6

170

2013; Sanders et al., 2014), which are frequently referred to in innovation

research. In sum, data from 411 employees from four companies located in

Tanzania and Nigeria supported some of our hypotheses. The results also provide

some theoretical and practical implications that we develop in the following

paragraphs.

Our work has shown the relevance of some concepts that are emerging in the

literature on HR, as work engagement and the influence of this concept on some

work outcomes as IB. As previous studies expected (Alfes et al., 2013; Agarwal,

2012), employees’ attitudes as work engagement play an essential role for

encouraging employees’ positive behaviour; and IB is considered to be a desired

requirement in today’s firms.

Additionally, we further contribute to the literature by testing these arguments in

companies located in two African countries, where human development is on the

rise (OECD, 2014). In fact, our results confirm a positive and significant

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IBs in companies in

Nigeria and Tanzania. Such findings reinforce the idea proposed in the theoretical

framework that employee perceptions of HPWS are positively related to IBs

(Brockbank, 1999; Looise and Van Riemsdijk, 2004; Hayton, 2004), but this idea

has been mainly explored in the western world and this research now shows that it

holds similar empirical proof in developing African economies.

For practitioners, our study has implications not only for the HRM field, but also

for that of innovation. Innovation is a central tenet in modern organisations, which

are challenged to continuously launch new products and services to keep the pace

in a global highly competitive world. But innovation does not come easily.

Organisations develop several practices and techniques to boost their innovation

capabilities and outcomes, such as implementing R&D departments and

establishing partnerships with external entities involved in innovation. However,

as our research has shown, there is much to gain if companies also look inwards,

into their employees’ innovative potential and behaviours. In order to stimulate

such behaviours, the HRM function through its HPWS can play an important role.

Employees will tend to display more innovative behaviours if they perceive that


171

their companies’ HPWS support such strategies. Managers in HR departments

should be aware of their role in supporting innovation-oriented strategies, and

should, therefore, develop and implement practices that will influence employee

perceptions towards exhibiting proactive innovative behaviours. Practices such as

training, participation, career and promotion, pay for performance, and job

security are some of the examples that can be used to directly manage employees’

views and behaviours.

Moreover, the study also suggests that HPWS need to be designed and

implemented in a way that stimulates engagement at work level. Engaged

employees are more prone to respond to their work, but also to their companies’

wishes and needs. Taken together, these results show that HPWS can have both a

direct and an indirect effect (through work engagement) on employees’ innovative

behaviour.

A final practical implication concerns the national context in which the research

took place. Despite the fact that most existing knowledge in human and social

sciences has been produced in the Anglo-Saxon world, the current findings clearly

show that such knowledge can be extended to other national contexts which have

been much less studied. Such contexts still hold many risks and issues for business

and management, but at the same time, they bring opportunities and new ways for

generating income for more adventurous organisations. The fact that the

relationships under observation all support the Western literature is a guarantee for

prospective investors and managers that individual and organisational results

follow known and predicted patterns.

In conclusion, our research suggests that HR content and perceptions of

implementation affects employees’ IBs. This dual-channelled influence indicates

that IB could be achieved through specific HPWS, and if these implemented

practices are perceived by employees as consistent, and there is a consensus about

the way HPWS is applied, IB will be achieved. Furthermore, our study shows that

work engagement is a relevant condition for this relationship as it partially

mediates the relationship between HPWS and IB.

Chapter 6

172

Our study is not free of limitations. Firstly, this study has a cross sectional design

and used self-reports. However, following Arthur and Boyles’ (2007)

recommendations, the use of single-informant designs is correct for measuring HR

practices, as HPWS are conceptualised as the shared or configurational properties

of individual experiences and perceptions (p.85). For future studies, it is necessary

to include other organisational variables (e.g. innovation performance or culture).

Moreover, additional efforts should be done at the individual level, including

relevant aspects related to knowledge management, such as the role of knowledge

sharing or employee exploratory learning in relation to employees’ outcomes,

especially with innovative behaviour. As Minbaeva (2013) recently suggested,

explicating the micro-foundations of the relationship between HRM and

knowledge-related performance is a necessary condition for dealing with the

puzzle of aggregating from individual actions into collective-level outcomes.

Finally, research using longitudinal data is needed to confirm the causality

assumed in this research.


173

6.7 REFERENCES

Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, B. (2012). Linking

LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of

work engagement. Career Development International, 17:3, 208-230.

Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013). The link between




Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In

B.M. Shaw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,

123-167.

Anderson, N.R., De Dreu, C. and Nijstad, B.A. (2004). The routinization of


Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:2, 147-203.


Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca: ILR Press.

Arbuckle, J.L. (2006). AMOS (Version 20.0) [Computer Program], Chicago, IL:

SPSS.

Arthur, J.B. (1992). The link between business strategy and industrial relations

systems in American steel minim ills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,

45:3, 488-506.

Arthur, J.B., and Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system


Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Bae, J. and Lawler, J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea:

Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management

Journal, 43:3, 502-517.

Chapter 6

174

Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior:

Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 29:2, 147-154.

Bednall T.C., Sanders K. and Runhaar P. (2014). Stimulating informal learning

activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human

resource management system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 13:1, 45-61.

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Beugeisdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product


Biswas, S. and Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement:

Role of perceived organizational support, PO fit, organizational commitment and

job satisfaction. Vikalpa, 38:1, 27-40.

Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance


Review, 29:2, 203-221.

Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the

firm. Human Resource Management Journal, 6:3, 59-75.

Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2007). High‐performance work systems and

organisational performance: Bridging theory and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of

Human Resources, 45:3, 261-270.

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.

Brockbank, W. (1999). If HR were really strategically proactive: Present and

future directions in HR’s contribution to competitive advantage. Human Resource

Management, 38:4, 337–352.


175

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.

In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury

Park, CA: Sage (pp. 136-162).

Camelo-Ordaz C., Garcia-Cruz J., Sousa-Ginel E. and Valle-Cabrera R. (2011).

The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and

innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:7, 1442-1463.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work Engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relation with task and contextual performance.

Personnel Psychology, 64:1, 89-136.

Dorenbosch, L. W., van Engen, M. L. and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job

innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through

production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14:2, 129-141.

Dyer, L. and Reeves, T. (1995). HR strategies and firm performance: What do we

know and where do we need to go. International Journal of Human Resource





Ehrnrooth, M. and Björkman, I. (2012). An integrative HRM process theorization:

Beyond signalling effects and mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies 49:6,

1109-1135.

Ellinger, A.D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a

workplace setting: The case of ‘reinventing itself company. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 16:3, 389-415.

Evans, W.R. and Davis, W.D. (2005). High-performance work systems and

organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structure.


Chapter 6

176

Fornell C. and Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,

18, 39-50.

Gomes, J., Coelho, J., Correia, A. and Cunha, R. (2010). Development and

validation of an instrument measuring the strength of the human resource

management system. Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussion Papers

2010-10, CIEO-Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics,

University of Algarve.

Gould-Williams, J. (2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee

outcomes: Evaluating social exchange relationships in local government.


Haggerty, J. and Wright, P. (2009). Strong situations and firm performance: A

proposed reconceptualization of the role of the HR function (pp 100-114). In A.

Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman and S. Snell (Eds), The Sage Handbook of

Human Resource Management, London: Sage.



Hayes, A.F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper].

Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional

process analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayton, J. (2004). Strategic human capital management in SMEs: An empirical

study of entrepreneurial performance HRM. Human Resource Management, 42:4,

375-391.

Hayton, J. C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through HRM

practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review,

15:1, 21-41.

http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf


177

Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:

Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods,

3, 424-453.

Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on



Huselid, M.A. and Becker, B.E. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-sectional

and panel estimates of the Human Resource-firm performance link. Industrial

Relations, 35:3, 400-422.


supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and





Jiang, J., Wang, S. and Zhao, S. (2012). Does HRM facilitate employee creativity

and organizational innovation? A study of Chinese firms. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 23:19, 4025-4047.

Jiang, K., Lepak D.P., Hu J. and Baer J.C. (2012). How does human resource

management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of

mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55:6, 1264-1294.

Kang, S.-C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007). Relational archetypes,

organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource

architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32:1, 236-256.

Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and

social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw and L.L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol 10, 169-211.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=es&user=o_GPYZkAAAAJ&citation_for_view=o_GPYZkAAAAJ:IjCSPb-OGe4C



Chapter 6

178

Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal

study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management

Journal, 45:6, 1183-1194.

Katou, A. and Budhwar, P. (2009). Causal relationship between HRM policies and

organisational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector.

European Management Journal, 28:1, 25-39.

Katou, A., Budhwar, P. and Patel, C. (2014) Content vs. Process in the HRM-

Performance relationship: An empirical examination. Human Resource

Management, 53:4, 527-544.

Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2010). The impact of high-performance human

resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Journal of

Management, 39:2, 366-391.

Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation: 192-240. Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press.

Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist,

28:2, 107-128.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005),

Satisfaction with HR Practices and commitment to the organisation: Why one size

does not fit all. Human Resource Management Journal, 15:4, 9-29.

Konrad, A.M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work

practices. Ivey Business Journal, 70:4, 1-6.

Lau,C.‐M. and Ngo,H.‐Y. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and

product innovation. International Business Review, 13:6, 685-703.

Laursen, K. and Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices,


of Economics, 27:2, 243-263.

Leede, J. and Looise J.K. (2005). Innovation and HRM: Towards and integrated

framework. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14:2, 108-117.


179

Li, X., Frenkel, S.J. and Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process: How HR

system and organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes.


Looise, J.K. and van Riemsdijk, M. (2004). Innovating organisations and HRM: A

conceptual framework. Management Revue, 15:3, 277-287.

Macduffie, J.P. (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.

MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009). The MacLeod Review – Engaging for

Success: Enhancing Performance though Employee Engagement. Department for

Business Innovation and Skills, London, Crown Copyright.

Michie, J. and Sheehan, M. (2003). Labour market deregulation, flexibility and

innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27:1, 123-143.

Minbaeva, D.B. (2013). Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of


Review, 23:4, 378-390.



Quarterly, 13:6, 705-750.

Nishii, L.H. and Wright, P. (2008). Variability at multiple levels of analysis:

Implications for strategic human resource management. In D.B. Smith (Ed.), The

people make the place. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the



Nunally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nystrom, H. (1990). Organizational innovation. In M.A. West and J.L. Farr

(Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 143-161). New York: John Wiley

and Sons Ltd.

Chapter 6

180




http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/outlook/human_development/;

Ostroff, C. and Bowen, D.E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: Human

resource practices and organizational effectiveness. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J.

Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp.

211-266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parzefall, M-R., Seeck, H. and Leppänen, A. (2008). Employee innovativeness: A

review on the antecedents. Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja. Finnish Journal of

Business Economics, 2:8, 165-182.

Paton, R.A. and McCalman. J. (2000). Change management: A guide to effective

implementation (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.

Peccei, R. (2004) Human Resource Management and the Search for the Happy

Workplace, Inaugural Address to the Rotating Chair for Research in Organisation

and Management in the Faculty of Economics, Erasmus University.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature

and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:5, 879-903.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating

indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,

Instruments, & Computers, 36:4, 717-731.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated

mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 42:1, 185-227.



Purcell, J. (1999), Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac? Human

Resource Management Journal, 9:3, 26-41.





181

Purcell, J., Hutchinson, S., Kinnie, N., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003).

Understanding the people and performance link: unlocking the black box.

London: CIPD.

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents

and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53:3, 617-635.

Sanders, K, Dorenbosch, L. and De Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual

and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment. Personnel

Review, 37:4, 412-425.

Sanders, K., Shipton, H. and Gomes, J.F.S. (2014), Guest Editors’ introduction: Is

the HRM process important? Past, current, and future challenges. Human


Schaufeli, W. and Bakker, A. (2003). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.

Preliminary Manual [Version 1, November 2003]. Utrecht University:

Occupational Health Psychology Unit.

Schneider, B., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture

for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24:4, 7-19.

Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path


Journal, 37:3, 580-607.

Shalley, C.E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on

creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38:2, 483-503.

Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham G.R. (2004). Effects of personal and

contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of

Management, 30:6, 933-958.

Shuck, B., and Rocco, T. (2013). HRD and employee engagement. Employee

Engagement in Theory and Practice.

Slåtten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged


Quality, 21:1, 88-107.

Chapter 6

182

Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource



Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J. and Chen, Z.X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity:

A cross-level investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23:1, 55-65.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, New

York: HarperCollins.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G. and Lepak, D.P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a

social system: Cross level effects of high-performance work systems on

employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62:1, 1-29.

Truss, C., Mankin, D. and Kelliher, C. (2012) Strategic Human Resource

Management. Oxford University Press.

Tsai, C-J., Edwards, P. and Sengupta, S. (2010). The associations between

organizational performance, employee attitudes, and human resource management

practices: An empirical study of small businesses. Journal of General


Tsui, A. and Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s

perspective: Current research and future directions. International Review of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, 77-114.





outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 25:1, 62-78.

West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A. and Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven:

Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European



183

Wiedemann, A.U., Schüz, B., Sniehotta, F., Scholz, U. and Schwarzer, R. (2009).

Disentangling the relation between intentions, planning, and behaviour: A

moderated mediation analysis. Psychology and Health, 24:1, 67-79.

Wood, G. and Dibben, P. (2006). Coverage of Africa-related studies in

international journals: Greater exposure for public intellectuals in sociology and

industrial relations. African Sociological Review, 10:1, 180-192.

Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 1:4, 367-413.

Wright, P.M., Gardner, T., Moyniham, L.M. and Allen, M. (2005) The HR

performance relationship: Examining causal direction. Personnel Psychology,

58:2, 409-446.

Yalabik Z.Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne J.A. and Rayton B.A. (2013). Work

engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The


Yuan, F. and Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The

role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management

Journal, 53:2, 323-342.

Zhou, J. and Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical

review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in

personnel and human resource management (pp. 165-217). Oxford, England:

Elsevier.

Zhou, Y., Hong, Y. and Liu, J. (2013). Internal commitment or external

collaboration? The impact of human resource management systems on firm

innovation and performance. Human Resource Management, 52:2, 263-288.

Chapter 6

184


185

Chapter 7:

GENERAL THESIS CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 7

186


187

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Through this dissertation we intend to shed additional light to the HRM literature

by analysing the mechanisms through which HPWS influence performance, as this

phenomenon has been mainly analysed adopting a macro perspective. However,

recent insights suggest that macro phenomena should be explained adopting a

micro perspective approach (Felin and Foss, 2005; Minbaeva, 2013; Arthur and

Boyles, 2007). For this reason, we focused on the analysis of individuals to

understand how the relationship between HPWS and performance takes place.

Specially, we focused on innovative behaviour as a kind of performance measure.

Besides, we have focused on the analysis of individual attitudes and behaviours as:

work engagement, knowledge sharing, HRM process and exploratory learning as

individual mechanisms that have an impact on this relationship.

7.1.1 Conclusions on Chapter 4: HPWS & Knowledge Sharing as

driving forces for IB: a micro perspective

In this study we try to clarify whether employee perceptions of HPWS and

knowledge sharing lead to positive individual IB. Thus, the overarching aim of

this work is related to the analysis of to which extent the employee perceptions

about the establishment of certain HPWS will foster individual knowledge sharing

behaviour. Secondly, we test whether individual knowledge sharing behaviour is

positively linked to IB. Finally, we analyse the indirect effect of employee

perceptions of HPWS on IB through individual knowledge sharing behaviour. So,

one of the contributions of this study is the consideration and analysis of

individual knowledge sharing as a mediating variable between employee

perceptions of HPWS and IB, from a micro perspective.

Accordingly, our results showed a positive and significant relationship between

employee perceptions of HPWS and individual knowledge sharing behaviour.

Another result from our study is that knowledge sharing is positively linked to

employees’ IB. Finally, the most outstanding result of this study is the partial

mediation of knowledge sharing in the relationship between employee perceptions

of HPWS and IB. The mediating role of individual knowledge sharing behaviour

is an interesting contribution as employee perception of HPWS is related to IB,

Chapter 7

188

indirectly through individual knowledge sharing behaviour. That is, HPWS

encourage IB if knowledge is actively shared between employees into the

organisation; in this situation IB takes place more easily.

7.1.2 Conclusions on Chapter 5: Employee perceptions of HPWS and

Innovative Behaviour. The role of Exploratory Learning

In this second study we argue that the level of individual exploratory learning

depends on employee perceptions of HPWS. Besides, as we reasoned in earlier

chapters of this Dissertation, IB is considered dependent on employees’

exploratory knowledge. Thus, we consider now the individual analysis of this kind

of knowledge, how it is fostered by HPWS and its impact on IB and how this

process is highly relevant for companies’ effectiveness. We base our study on the

analysis of employee perceptions of HPWS and their effect on exploratory

learning and IB.

Consequently, the aim of this second study is to answer the question whether

employee perceptions of HPWS are related to exploratory learning and IB.

Besides, we test whether exploratory learning plays a mediating role in the

relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. To this respect, our

results show a positive and significant relationship between employee perceptions

of HPWS on IB and on employee exploratory learning. That is, perceptions of

employees about how HR practices are developed and applied are the key variable

that influences innovative behaviour and exploratory learning. So, the firm has to

put their efforts on analysing employees’ sensitivities and satisfaction on HR

practices. Additionally, firms should adopt an open and clear communication

strategy, as this will be the best way to make people understand the main goals of

their HR policies, and only then will have an influence on employees’ behaviour.

Lastly, we demonstrated that the existence of exploratory learning is a necessary

condition for IB to take place, and employee perceptions of HPWS clearly

stimulate the existence of exploratory learning at the individual level, which in

turn generates a positively oriented behaviour. Consequently, firms should not

only encourage communication processes on HR practices, but should also create

the adequate environment to foster exploratory learning, with adequate


189

performance appraisal methods and reward systems that facilitate risk adoption ant

the information flows among individuals in the organisation.

7.1.3 Conclusions on Chapter 6: HPWS, Work Engagement and

Innovative Behaviour: Insights from Tanzania And Nigeria

In the third study presented in this Dissertation we propose again that employee

perceptions of HPWS are linked with employees’ IB. In this case we also include

the Process framework and work engagement, as relevant aspects to consider in

the relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. Additionally, we

test if these arguments were also confirmed in companies located in African

countries as Tanzania and Nigeria where human development is on the rise

(OECD, 2014).

First, we analyse the relationship between HPWS and IB in this new context.

Then, we test the potential moderating role of HR process in the relationship

between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB. And finally, we examine if work

engagement mediates the relationship between the interaction of HPWS-HR

Process, on one hand, and IB, on the other hand. Hence, our results confirm a

positive and significant relationship between HPWS and IB in companies located

in Nigeria and Tanzania. This fact confirms our results in the different studies

presented, also in this new geographical context, showing that the way HR

practices are applied and the influence of HR practices on IB are similar to the

results obtained in a European context. However, results show that Process and

none of the three aspects that compose HR Process (distinctiveness, consistency

and consensus) moderate the relationship between HPWS and IB. But we found a

direct relationship between Process, consistency and consensus and IB. That

means, if employees perceive that HR practices are consistent with the values and

way of doing of top management, they will have an influence on employee’s

behaviour.

Furthermore, with the moderated mediation we test if work engagement played a

mediating role between HPWS and IB. We found evidence of partial mediation.

These results suggest that work engagement is an essential aspect for IBs to take

place, but HRM Process does not moderate this mediation.

Chapter 7

190

7.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS

HR practices have been found to play a role in the success of innovative activities

(Beugelsdijk, 2008; Brockbank, 1999; Lau and Ngo, 2004; Laursen and Foss,

2003; Looise and Van Riemsdijk 2004). However, this assumption has always

been tested from a macro perspective. To this respect, recent research highlights

the relevance of explaining organisational macro phenomena adopting a micro

perspective (Felin and Foss, 2005; Minbaeva, 2013; Arthur and Boyles, 2007).

Our studies follow this recent micro perspective and results confirm a positive and

significant relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS and IB in both

samples. These results are in line with the specialist literature (Bednall, Sanders

and Runhaar. 2014; Hayton, 2005; Prieto-Pérez Santana, 2014). However, these

prior works have focused on the study of single practices (e.g. performance quality

appraisal) (Bednall et al., 2014), have proposed these relationships from a

theoretical perspective (Hayton, 2005) or have analysed it from a macro

perspective (Prieto and Pérez-Santana, 2014).

Furthermore, results of study 1 (Chapter 4) highlight the relevant mediating role of

individual knowledge sharing behaviour in this relationship. Limited research has

analysed innovation from an HRM perspective. Previous studies (e.g. Collins and

Smith, 2006) analysed the relationship between HRM-KNSH-performance; others,

as the one of Kuvaas, Buch and Dysvik (2012) analysed the relationship between

training and individual knowledge sharing behaviour. However, existing literature

has not analysed the relationship HPWS-KNSH-IB at an individual level of

analysis.

In study 2 (Chapter 5), results provide evidence about the mediating role of

exploratory learning in the relationship between employee perceptions of HPWS

and IB, stressing the relevant role of exploratory learning for IB. This result is

aligned with prior specialised literature (e.g. Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi, and

Patterson, 2006) where the existence of exploratory learning is a necessary

condition for IB to take place, and HPWS clearly stimulate the existence of

exploratory learning at the individual level. However in their study they did not

empirically test the main assumed relationship (HPWS-exploratory learning). In


191

this sense, our contribution to existing literature is the result obtained in this

second study, showing that exploratory learning acts as a mediating variable in the

HPWS-IB relationship..

Finally, results from study 3 (Chapter 6) show the relevant mediating role of work

engagement in the HPWS-IB relationship. Also, results of our study are in line

with previous research (e.g. Alfes, Shantz, Truss and Soane, 2013; Katou,

Budhwar and Patel, 2014) concerning the mediating role of work engagement in

the relationship between HPWS and positive individual and organisational

outcomes. However, in these studies they use other variables as outcome

(organisational citizenship behaviour or organisational performance) instead of IB.

Consequently, we show the relevance of WE also for encouraging innovation.

Authors as Ehrnrooth and Björkman (2012) found evidence of a significant direct

relationship between HRM Process, creativity and core job performance. We also

confirmed a direct relationship between Process, consistency and consensus and

IB. As Bowen and Ostroff (2004) pointed out, consistency and consensus are

distinct but interrelated concepts, so when individuals experience consistency in

HR practices, consensus is more likely to be fostered (p.212). These arguments

could explain why there is no evidence of the direct relationship of distinctiveness,

probably because the concept of distinctiveness (that means perceived legitimacy

of HPWS and relevance for organisational goals) leaves individuals with few

options about how to perform a task, thereby constraining rather than enhancing

IB.

Generally, through this Dissertation we contribute empirically by showing that

employee perceptions of HPWS matter, as they are relevant for engaging positive

employees’ outcomes. Therefore, this thesis contributes to literature empirically

showing that employee perceptions of HPWS are linked to employees’ IB, being

this relationship fostered by other attitudinal and behavioural aspects as individual

knowledge sharing behaviour, exploratory learning and work engagement.

Besides, the results obtained in Study 1 and 2 contribute to the literature on

learning and innovation micro-foundations, showing the relevance of employee

perceptions of HPWS for exploratory learning, knowledge sharing and IB.

Chapter 7

192

Following Guthrie (2012), there is a need for a greater contribution of HRM

perspective to the areas of knowledge creation and innovation management. In

study 1 and 2 of this dissertation, we put forward that the application of a HRM

perspective facilitates the understanding and effectiveness of exploratory learning

and individual knowledge sharing as antecedents of IB at an individual level.

7.3 ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

From an academic perspective, the focus of this Dissertation considerably differs

from the traditional standpoint in the relevant literature. Particularly, our work

emphasises the individual level and focuses on analysing employee perceptions of

HPWS (Nishii, Lepak and Schneider, 2008; Wright and van de Voorde, 2007) and

their impact on IB. We also propose new attitudinal and knowledge-related

variables that act as mediating mechanisms through which this relationship occurs.

These variables are knowledge sharing, exploratory learning and work

engagement. On one hand, this Dissertation highlights that employee perceptions

of HPWS are relevant for stimulating employee attitudes and knowledge related

behaviours. On the other hand, for scholars studying IB our work could act as a

guide. We recommend (See: Guthrie, 2012) the joint consideration of different but

interrelated areas of knowledge (as we try to do in this study) including concepts

from HRM literature and other concepts from knowledge Management area for

better explain IB.

Likewise, practitioners may find in our work a guide to design their HRM policies

in a way that contribute to achieve strategic goals. The implementation of a set of

practices as training and development, promotion, participation, pay for

performance and job security will encourage positive employee behaviours that

enhance IB. As revealed by our research, employee perceptions of HPWS become

of utmost importance to facilitate the achievement of high levels of employee IB,

what is ultimately linked to innovation and organisational success. Besides, what

is also relevant is that managers should foster HRM to promote certain attitudes

and behaviours as work engagement, individual knowledge sharing and

exploratory learning, since these variables are the mean through which IB takes

place. That is, HR practices should facilitate training activities that help employees


193

to work in group (oriented to the development of abilities), systems to participate

in the decision making processes that take place in the firm, performance appraisal

systems that reinforce risk taking and knowledge sharing or rewards systems that

include team results. HR practices that will contribute to the creation of an open

communication climate, with shared values oriented to innovation should be

developed in order to foster innovation.

7.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the relevant contributions of this Dissertation, our studies are not free of

limitations. These limitations should be addressed in future studies. Firstly, this

study had a cross sectional design and used self-reports. However, some authors

(e.g. Arthur and Boyles, 2007; Minbaeva, 2013) highlighted the necessity of

conducting research on HPWS and learning at the individual level. To this respect

following Arthur and Boyles’ (2007) recommendations, the use of single-

informant designs is correct for measuring HR practices, as HPWS are

conceptualised as the shared or configurational properties of individual

experiences and perceptions (p.85). Besides, several authors recently suggested

that clarifying the micro-foundations of the relationship between HRM and

knowledge-related performance is a necessary condition for dealing with the

puzzle of aggregating from individual actions into collective-level outcomes (e.g.

Felin and Foss, 2005; Minbaeva, 2013). With regard to using self-reports for

measuring IB, recently, Prieto and Pérez Santana (2014) suggested that studies

analysing this kind of individual level variables should be developed and tested

considering as data source employee perceptions.

Respect to the samples used, for Study 1 and 2 is worth pointing out that

conducting the research within the same organisation may reduce common

methods bias. With regard to our recommendations for future studies we believe

that is necessary that further studies should add other practices to the HPWS to

give a better approximation to the real action of companies. Besides, other aspect

that could improve the knowledge regarding to this topic is related to the use of

other respondents as suggested above, including supervisor’s intention underlying

the development of HPWS and employee perceptions that should be measured and

Chapter 7

194

compared in an empirical work. To this respect, is important to study the

variability of between middle manager and employees or even variability in

employee perceptions among departments.

Hence, it is also needed research adding further variables. For example, constructs

related to contextual and group variables. Culture and climate could be

contemplated in the analysis of the relationship between employee perceptions of

HPWS and IB, as these variables may actually affect the working context of

employees as well as the implementation of HPWS. Besides, it is necessary to

include other attitudinal and behavioural variables (e.g. job satisfaction or

organisational citizenship behaviour) that could have an impact on IB. Moreover,

additional efforts should be done at the individual level, including other relevant

aspects related to knowledge management as absorptive capacity, knowledge

sharing between teams and with external actors.

Additionally, future research should also measure the effect of IB and its

antecedents on organisational innovation performance and on general

performance. This way we could assess the real effectiveness of IB on

organisational performance. Finally, research using longitudinal data is needed to

confirm the causality assumed in this research.


195

7.5 REFERENCES

Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013). The link between






Review, 17:1, 77-92.

Bednall T. C., Sanders K., and Runhaar P. (2014). ‘Stimulating Informal Learning


Resource Management System Strength: A Two-Wave Study’ Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 13:1, 45- 61.

Beugeisdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product


Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance


Review, 29:2, 203-221.

Brockbank, W. (1999). If HR were really strategically proactive: Present and

future directions in HR’s contribution to competitive advantage. Human Resource

Management, 38:4, 337–352.

Collins, C. J., and Smith, K. G. (2006). ‘Knowledge exchange and combination:

The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology

firms” Academy of Management Journal, 49:3, 544-560.

Ehrnrooth, M. and Björkman, I. (2012). An integrative HRM process theorization:

Beyond signalling effects and mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies 49:6,

1109-1135.


foundations. Strategic organization,3:4, 441.

Chapter 7

196

Guthrie, J. (2012). HRM, knowledge creation & innovation. Seminar Series on



Hayton, J. C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through HRM

practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review,

15:1, 21-41.

Katou, A., Budhwar, P. and Patel, C. (2014) Content vs. Process in the HRM-

Performance relationship: An empirical examination. Human Resource

Management, 53:4, 527-544.


knowledge sharing: Sharing for intrinsic and prosocial reasons. Human Resource

Management, 51:2, 167-187.

Lau,C.‐M. and Ngo,H.‐Y. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and

product innovation. International Business Review, 13:6, 685-703.

Laursen, K. and Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices,


of Economics, 27:2, 243-263.

Looise, J.K. and van Riemsdijk, M. (2004). Innovating organisations and HRM: A

conceptual framework. Management Revue, 15:3, 277-287.



Review, 23:4, 378-390.

Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the











197

Prieto, I., and Pérez-Santana, M.P. (2014). Managing innovative work behavior:

the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43:2, 184-208.

Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J. F., Birdi, K., and Patterson, M. G. (2006).


3-27.




context, 29-40.


198


199

SUMMARY

Introduction

Traditional Human Resource Management (HRM) literature has devoted

significant efforts on analysing the causal association between HRM practices and

organisational performance outcomes. HRM practices are considered the mean

through which companies can influence and shape employees’ skills and

behaviours, and thus achieve organisational goals (Collins and Smith, 2006; Chen

and Huang, 2009). Even though multiple empirical studies proved the positive

relationship between HRM and organisational performance, research on how and

why this relationship takes place is still scarce. To this respect several scholars

have called for more research analysing the mechanisms (the so called ‘HRM

black box’) through which HRM systems affect performance (e.g. Becker and

Huselid, 2006).

Recent research is trying to increase the knowledge on this assertion, which is,

analysing the mechanisms through which the relationship between HRM practices

and performance is produced. Therefore, recent research analysing the ‘HRM

black box’ focus on the analysis of employee perceptions of HRM practices

associated to individual performance outcomes, attitudes and behaviours (Snape

and Redman, 2010). However, these scarce limited studies have produced

divergent and inconclusive results (see: Alfes, Shantz, Truss, and Soane, 2013;

Kuvaas, 2008). Consequently, more research is needed to disentangle the

mechanisms through which HRM practices impact upon employees’ performance.

On the other hand, innovation performance is considered a relevant aspect for

companies’ effectiveness and survival. Besides, research has shown that individual

innovative performance enhances organisational innovation performance.

Individual innovative performance is referred within the behavioural perspective

as Innovative Behaviour (IB) (e.g. Scott and Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000; De Jong

and Den Hartog, 2007). Driven by the assumption that employees’ IB contributes

to work outcomes several authors have oriented their attention to organisational

and individual variables that potentially promote IB (e.g. Janssen, 2000; Janssen,

Summary

200

Van de Vliert and West, 2004; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis and Strange, 2002). We

argue that HRM practices could be considered as potential organisational variables

that could have an influence on IB.

Thus, our main goal is to study whether employee perceptions of HRM are linked

to individual IB, considering the latter as a kind of individual performance.

Besides, in the different studies developed in this Thesis, we analyse the role of

some attitudinal and behavioural mechanisms that could positively affect this

relationship. Particularly, we focus on employees work engagement, HRM

process, knowledge sharing and exploratory learning as relevant individual

mechanisms that could shed new lights in explaining HRM black box. Therefore,

the main contribution of this Dissertation lies on testing the relationship between

employee perceptions of HRM and IB as well as the impact of other attitudinal

and behavioural variables that may have an impact on this relationship.

Thesis Structure and Research Methodology

The structure employed in this dissertation is the following: in chapter 2 we

develop a general theoretical review of the main concepts. In chapter 3 we

describe the general details of the methodology used in this dissertation. The

following chapters (4, 5 and 6) contain three empirical studies, where we

established the specific theoretical models, its hypothesis and the empirical

analysis and conclusions for each study. To end up with in Chapter 7: a general

discussion on the findings of the studies is presented; theoretical and practical

implications of the research findings are developed; and, the chapter ends up with

the limitations as well as with some suggestions for further research.

The empirical part of this dissertation is based in two different projects. Chapter 4

and 5 are based on the first project. In these studies, the sample includes

knowledge intensive employees; specifically employees working in research

institutes and Faculties of the University of Valencia. On the other hand, Chapter 6

is based on an International Project result of research collaboration with

Nottingham Trent University, specifically with Nottingham Business School,

which allowed the access to a less common sample referred to employees working

in four companies located in Nigeria and Tanzania.


201

For testing the hypothesis of the three studies that shape this dissertation, different

statistical techniques had been used. In chapter 4 and 5 we use Structural

equations modelling and, in chapter 6 we test our model using multiple regression

analysis.

Conclusions

Generally, through this Dissertation we contribute empirically showing that

employee perceptions of HRM practices matter, as they are relevant for engaging

positive employees’ outcomes. Therefore, the results of our research contributes to

the literature empirically showing that employee perceptions of HPWS are linked

to employees’ IB, being this relationship indirectly explained by other attitudinal

and behavioural aspects as individual knowledge sharing behaviour, exploratory

learning and work engagement.

From an academic side, the main approach of this Dissertation considerably

differs from the traditional standpoint in the relevant literature. Principally, our

work gives emphasis to the individual level and focuses on analysing employee

perceptions of HRM practices (Nishii, Lepak and Schneider, 2008; Wright and

van de Voorde, 2007) and their impact on IB. We also propose the mediating role

of knowledge sharing, exploratory learning and work engagement in this link.

Likewise, practitioners may find in our work a guide to design their HRM policies

in a way that contribute to achieve strategic goals. As revealed by our research,

employee perceptions of HRM practices become of utmost importance to facilitate

the achievement of high levels of employee IB, what is ultimately linked to

innovation and organisational success. Besides, what is also relevant is that

managers should foster HRM that promote certain attitudes and behaviours as

work engagement, individual knowledge sharing behaviour and exploratory

learning as these variables are the mean through which IB take place.

Summary

202


203

RESUMEN

La literatura tradicional sobre los Recursos Humanos (RH), ha dedicado

importantes esfuerzos a analizar la relación entre las prácticas de RH y los

resultados organizativos. Las prácticas de RH se consideran el medio a través del

cual las empresas pueden influir en las habilidades y comportamientos de los

empleados, y así lograr los objetivos organizativos (Collins y Smith, 2006; Chen y

Huang, 2009). Varios estudios empíricos han demostrado la existencia de la

relación positiva entre la gestión de los RH y el desempeño organizativo. Sin

embargo, la investigación sobre cómo y por qué esta relación se produce es

todavía escasa. En esta línea, varios autores han destacado la necesidad de generar

más investigaciones centradas en analizar los mecanismos ('caja negra de los RH’)

a través de los cuales los sistemas de RH influyen en el rendimiento (p. ej. Becker

y Huselid, 2006).

En este sentido, estudios recientes están tratando de aumentar el conocimiento

sobre el análisis de los mecanismos a través de los cuales se produce la relación

entre las prácticas de RH y el rendimiento organizativo. Estas recientes

investigaciones se centran en analizar las percepciones de los empleados sobre las

prácticas de HR y sus efectos sobre los distintos resultados de desempeño,

actitudes y comportamientos (Snape y Redman, 2010). No obstante, estos estudios

son limitados y han producido resultados divergentes e inconcluyentes (ver: Alfes,

Shantz, Truss y Soane, 2013; Kuvaas, 2008). En consecuencia, se necesita más

investigación para dilucidar los mecanismos mediante los cuales las prácticas de

RH inciden sobre el rendimiento de los empleados.

Por otra parte, los resultados de innovación se consideran un aspecto relevante

para la eficacia y la supervivencia de las empresas. Además, diversos estudios han

demostrado que la innovación organizativa viene impulsada por el

comportamiento innovador (CI) de los individuos (p. ej: Scott y Bruce, 1994;

Janssen, 2000; De Jong y Den Hartog, 2007). Considerando que el CI impulsa los

resultados de innovación, diversos autores han centrado su atención en estudiar

qué variables organizativas e individuales potencialmente promueven CI (p. ej:

Summary

204

Janssen, 2000; Janssen, Van de Vliert y West, 2004; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis y

Strange, 2.002). En esta tesis consideramos que las prácticas de RH podrían ser

consideradas como potenciales variables organizativas que podrían tener una

influencia en el CI de los empleados.

Nuestro principal objetivo es analizar si las percepciones de las prácticas de RH de

los empleados están vinculadas al CI del individuo, considerando este último

como un tipo de rendimiento individual. Además, en los diferentes estudios

desarrollados en la tesis, se analiza el papel de algunos mecanismos actitudinales y

de comportamiento que pueden afectar positivamente a esta relación. En

particular, nos centramos en el compromiso de los empleados, el proceso de

implementación de los sistemas de HR, el intercambio de conocimientos y el

aprendizaje exploratorio como mecanismos individuales relevantes que podrían

arrojar nuevas luces en la explicación de la caja negra de los RH. Por lo tanto, la

principal aportación de esta tesis radica en probar empíricamente la relación entre

las percepciones de los empleados sobre las prácticas de RH y su CI, así como el

impacto de otras variables actitudinales y de comportamiento que pueden tener un

impacto en esta relación.

Estructura Tesis y Metodología de la Investigación

La estructura empleada en esta tesis es la siguiente: en el capítulo 2 se desarrolla

un marco teórico general de los principales conceptos y teorías. En el capítulo 3 se

describen los detalles generales de la metodología utilizada en esta tesis. En los

capítulos siguientes (4, 5 y 6) se desarrollan tres estudios empíricos, donde se

establecen los modelos teóricos específicos, sus hipótesis, el análisis empírico y

las conclusiones de cada estudio. Para terminar, en el capítulo 7 se desarrolla una

discusión general de los principales resultados; las implicaciones teóricas y

prácticas de los resultados de las investigaciones; y, el capítulo termina con las

limitaciones, así como con algunas sugerencias para futuras líneas de

investigación.

La parte empírica de esta tesis se basa en dos proyectos diferentes. Capítulo 4 y 5

se basan en el primer proyecto. En estos estudios, la muestra incluye empleados

intensivos en conocimiento; específicamente a los empleados que trabajan en


205

centros de investigación y en facultades de la Universidad de Valencia. Por otra

parte, el capítulo 6 se basa en un resultado del Proyecto Internacional de

investigación en colaboración con la Universidad de Nottingham Trent,

específicamente con Nottingham Business School, que permitió el acceso a una

muestra menos común. La muestra recoge empleados que trabajan en cuatro

empresas ubicadas en Nigeria y Tanzania.

Para testar las hipótesis de los tres estudios que dan forma a esta tesis, se han

utilizado diferentes técnicas estadísticas. En el capítulo 4 y 5 usamos ecuaciones

estructurales y, en el capítulo 6 analizamos nuestro modelo mediante análisis de

regresión múltiple.

Conclusiones

A través de esta tesis contribuimos a la literatura mostrando empíricamente que las

percepciones de los empleados sobre las prácticas de RH importan y son

relevantes para la obtención de resultados positivos por parte de los empleados.

Por lo tanto, nuestra investigación contribuye a la literatura que muestra

empíricamente que las percepciones de los empleados de las prácticas de RH están

vinculadas al CI empleados, siendo esta relación indirectamente explicada por

otras variables actitudinales y de comportamiento como intercambio de

conocimiento, el aprendizaje exploratorio y el compromiso.

Desde un punto de vista académico, el enfoque principal de esta tesis se diferencia

considerablemente del punto de vista tradicional. Principalmente, nuestro trabajo

da énfasis al nivel individual y se centra en el análisis de las percepciones de los

empleados de las prácticas de RH (Nishii, Lepak y Schneider, 2008; Wright y van

de Voorde, 2007) y su impacto en el CI. También proponemos el papel mediador

del intercambio de conocimientos, el aprendizaje exploratorio y el compromiso en

esta relación. Del mismo modo, los profesionales pueden encontrar en nuestro

trabajo una guía para diseñar sus políticas de gestión de RH que les permita

alcanzar sus objetivos estratégicos. Según lo revelado por nuestra investigación,

las percepciones de los empleados sobre las prácticas de RH son de suma

importancia para facilitar el logro de altos niveles CI de estos empleados, lo que

en última instancia lleva a la innovación organizativa y el éxito de la organización.

Summary

206

Además, también es relevante que los gerentes fomenten ciertas prácticas de RH

para promover actitudes y comportamientos deseados como el compromiso, el

intercambio de conocimiento y el aprendizaje exploratorio, ya que estas variables

son la media a través del cual el CI tiene lugar.


207

References





Becker, B. E., and Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management:

where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32:6, 898-925.




Chen, C. J., and Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and

innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity.

Journal of Business Research, 62:1, 104-114.

Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship

affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices

and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45:1, 1-25.


“Why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and




Journal, 37:3, 580-607.



psychology, 73:3, 287-302.




Summary

208



Quarterly, 13:6, 705-750.




context, 29-40.



Snape, E., and Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship

behaviour, and performance: A multi‐level analysis. Journal of Management

Studies, 47:7, 1219-1247.

Appendices

209

APPENDICES


210

Appendices

211

APPENDIX 1: CONTACT EMAIL

Estimad@ compañer@,

Mi nombre es Naiara Escribá, soy Personal Investigador en Formación en el

departamento de Dirección de Empresas. Actualmente estoy realizando mi Tesis

Doctoral dirigida por los Profesores Mª Teresa Canet y Francisco Balbastre. La

temática de mi tesis consiste en analizar cuáles son los determinantes de ciertos

comportamientos o actitudes del Personal Docente investigador. Básicamente trato

de analizar qué acciones de Recursos Humanos, tales como la formación y

desarrollo, participación, promoción, entre otras, afectan a la transferencia de

conocimiento, a la capacidad de aprendizaje exploratorio y al comportamiento

innovador del PDI.

A través de este mail solicito su colaboración respondiendo al cuestionario a

través del link que se encuentra más abajo. Considerando las cuestiones

relacionadas con la protección de datos, se garantiza el anonimato (ver informe

adjunto) y confidencialidad de las respuestas. Además, los datos obtenidos van a

ser tratados de forma agregada, exclusivamente por el equipo de investigación por

lo que se garantiza su uso únicamente con fines investigadores. La encuesta se ha

realizado a través de una herramienta libre, en principio no requiere del registro de

Gmail, pero en el caso de que se solicitara se ha creado un usuario y contraseña

ficticia para asegurar el anonimato.

http://goo.gl/forms/SjvIRhNQEB

Ususario: cuestionariopdi

Contraseña: pdiuv2014

Como resultado del estudio, se ofrecerá a la comunidad Académica un informe

con los principales resultados obtenidos por el estudio.

Muchas gracias de antemano.

Naiara Escribá Carda

Personal Investigador en Formación

Departamento de Dirección de Empresas

Facultad de Economía

Ext: 83354

http://goo.gl/forms/SjvIRhNQEB


212

Appendices

213

APPENDIX 2: DATA PROTECTION


214

Appendices

215

APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE

Prácticas de RRHH y sus efectos sobre el comportamiento

Por favor, conteste a todas las cuestiones. Las respuestas son estrictamente

confidenciales y la información que nos suministre permanecerá en el anonimato.

Las respuestas de los cuestionarios sólo serán analizadas por el equipo de

investigación. Para resolver cualquier duda o ampliar cualquier tipo de

información relacionada con el contenido del estudio o de la información

contenida en este documento le atenderemos a través del correo electrónico:

[email protected]

Le agradecemos de antemano su participación en este estudio.

Para responder a este cuestionario, lea con atención las diferentes cuestiones y

marque la opción que considere más oportuna. En cada bloque se presentan una

serie de afirmaciones para las que deberá indicar su grado de acuerdo o

desacuerdo en una escala de 1 al 7, teniendo en cuenta que 1 = muy en desacuerdo

(no se corresponde en ningún modo con su percepción) y 7 = muy de acuerdo (se

corresponde totalmente con su percepción):


216

Appendices

217

RECURSOS HUMANOS

En este apartado se presentan una serie de afirmaciones relativas a las Prácticas de

Recursos Humanos que su organización aplica. Dadas las peculiaridades de las

Universidades y centros de investigación, algunas de estas prácticas pueden no verse

explícitamente reflejadas. En diferentes preguntas del cuestionario se han hecho

aclaraciones al respecto a través de ejemplos. Por favor, indique su grado de acuerdo

/desacuerdo con las mismas:

Valore los siguientes conceptos entre 1 y 7.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.- La organización me brinda la oportunidad de mejorar mis

habilidades a través de programas de formación(p.ej. Cursos

del Servicio de Formación Permanente, u organizados por el

Departamento)

2.-Tengo suficiente formación relacionada con mi trabajo

3.- Recibo formación continuada que me permite desempeñar

mejor mi trabajo

4.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos en esta organización

me ayudan mucho a desarrollar mi conocimiento y mis

habilidades(Formación, sistemas de evaluación del

rendimiento como el sexenio)

5.- Esta organización prefiere la promoción interna

6.- Esta organización siempre intenta cubrir vacantes con

promoción interna

7.- Los empleados de esta organización reciben información

sobre ofertas de vacantes internas antes que se acuda al

mercado para contratar

8.-En mi trabajo se me permite tomar decisiones relacionadas

con mi tarea por mí mismo

9.- Se me da la oportunidad real de sugerir mejoras en la

forma de hacer las cosas

10.- Los supervisores mantienen una comunicación abierta

conmigo en el trabajo (supervisor referido al director de

proyecto, coordinador de la asignatura o máster, director del

departamento…)

11.- A menudo se me pide que participe en las decisiones

relacionadas con mi puesto de trabajo


218

12.- Hay un fuerte vínculo entre el rendimiento de mi equipo y

la probabilidad de recibir reconocimiento y elogios

13.- Hay un fuerte vínculo entre lo bien que realizo mi trabajo

y la probabilidad de recibir un aumento de sueldo

14.- Hay un fuerte vínculo entre lo bien que realizo en mi

trabajo y la probabilidad de recibir buenas calificaciones de

evaluación del rendimiento (trabajo docente, y su relación con

la evaluación de los alumnos y los quinquenios de docencia;

trabajo de investigación y su relación con la memoria de

investigación y los sexenios)

15.- Hay un fuerte vínculo entre el rendimiento de mi equipo y

la probabilidad de recibir un aumento de sueldo

(Complementos específicos)

16.- Empleados como yo pueden tener la esperanza de

permanecer en esta empresa tanto tiempo como lo deseen

17.- En mi organización la seguridad en el empleo está casi

garantizada a los empleados como yo

Indique las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos que son aplicadas en su organización. Seleccione

tantas opciones como considere adecuado.

18. Formación y desarrollo 23.- Bonos e incentivos

19. Evaluación del Rendimiento 24. Reclutamiento y selección

20.- Desarrollo de carrera profesional 25.- Trabajo en equipo

21. Comunicación 26.- Seguridad en el trabajo

22.- Participación en la toma de

decisiones

27.- Relaciones con los sindicatos

28. Otras

________________________________________________________________________

________

Por favor, indique su grado de acuerdo o de desacuerdo con cada una de las siguientes

afirmaciones. El investigador que responde puede encontrar paralelismos entre políticas

como la evaluación del rendimiento y la evaluación de docencia e investigación. El

Appendices

219

desarrollo de carrera está relacionado con la posibilidad de cambiar de plaza en función

del mérito y las acreditaciones obtenidas. El reclutamiento y selección es lo más

específico para las universidades: se basa principalmente en concurso de méritos y prima

el reclutamiento interno. El trabajo en equipo se vincula tanto al trabajo en las asignaturas

(docente) como al trabajo en los proyectos de investigación.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos son bien conocidas

por todo el mundo en mi organización

30.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos son claras en mi

organización

31.- El departamento de recursos humanos contribuye a la

definición de la estrategia de mi organización

32.- Las prácticas de Recursos Humanos en mi organización

contribuyen a su competitividad

33.- Las prácticas de Recursos Humanos en mi organización

contribuyen a que los empleados estén altamente cualificados

34.- Creo que los criterios utilizados para la evaluación del

rendimiento de esta organización reflejan lo que los empleados

hacen en su trabajo

35.- Los objetivos de las prácticas de Recursos Humanos en mi

organización son coherentes entre sí

36.- Los directivos de mi organización están de acuerdo sobre

la forma de afrontar las directrices del Departamento de

Recursos Humanos

37.- Los supervisores se esfuerzan en tratar al personal

justamente

38.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos contribuyen a

mejorar el resultado de la organización

39.- En mi organización las habilidades y competencias

adquiridas a través de la formación se aplican al trabajo que

desarrollamos

40.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos se complementan

entre sí y contribuyen a alcanzar los objetivos organizativos


220

41.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos se aplican de manera

uniforme en todos los departamentos de mi organización

42.- En mi organización, las recompensas se dan al que

realmente lo merece

43.- Las Prácticas de Recursos Humanos se aplican de

manera coherente a través del tiempo

COMPORTAMIENTOS

A continuación se presentan una serie de afirmaciones relativas a la percepción que usted

tiene sobre su comportamiento innovador y apoyo del supervisor (por ejemplo, el director

del proyecto en un equipo de investigación, o el director de departamento en el ámbito de

la docencia). Por favor, indique su grado de acuerdo o de desacuerdo con cada una de las

siguientes afirmaciones.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44.- Investigo nuevas tecnologías, procesos, técnicas y/o ideas

de producto

45.- Genero ideas creativas

46.- Promociono y alabo ideas de otros

47.- Investigo y obtengo fondos necesarios para implementar

nuevas ideas

48.- Desarrollo planes y programas para la implementación de

nuevas ideas

49.- Soy innovador

50.- Mi supervisor se preocupa por mis opiniones

51.- Mi supervisor en el trabajo realmente se preocupa por mi

bienestar

52.- Mi supervisor muestra muy poco interés por mí

53.- Mi supervisor considera en gran medida mis metas y

valores

Los siguientes ítems miden su compromiso con la organización y su voluntad de permanecer

en ella.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Appendices

221

54.- Casi todos los días estoy entusiasmado con mi trabajo

55.- En mi trabajo, me siento lleno de energía

56.- Estoy entusiasmado con mi trabajo

57.- Encuentro placer en mi trabajo

58.- Estoy metido de lleno en mi trabajo

59.- En mi trabajo, me siento fuerte y vigoroso/a

60.- En general estoy satisfecho con mi trabajo

61.- Me dejo llevar cuando estoy trabajando

62.- Mi trabajo me inspira

63.- Cuando me levanto por la mañana, tengo ganas de ir a

trabajar

64.- Me siento feliz cuando estoy trabajando intensamente

65.- No siento un fuerte sentimiento de "pertenencia" a mi

organización

66.- No me siento 'emocionalmente ligado' a mi organización

67.- No me siento como "parte de la familia" en mi

organización

68.- Esta organización tiene un gran significado personal para

mí

69.- Estoy orgulloso del trabajo que hago

Estos ítems miden aspectos relacionados con el intercambio de conocimiento y

aprendizaje exploratorio. Por favor, indique su grado de acuerdo o de desacuerdo con

cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones. (Por compañeros se entiende el grupo de trabajo

más cercano)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

70.- Me gusta que se me mantenga plenamente informado de lo

que mis compañeros saben

71.- Cuando necesito un cierto conocimiento, les pregunto a


222

mis compañeros al respecto

72.- Informo regularmente a mis compañeros sobre lo que

estoy trabajando

73.- Cuando he aprendido algo nuevo, me aseguro de que mis

compañeros lo aprendan también

74.- Comparto información que he adquirido con mis

compañeros.

75.- Les pregunto a mis compañeros sobre sus habilidades

cuando quiero aprender determinadas habilidades

76.- Creo que es importante que mis compañeros sean

conscientes de aquello en lo que estoy trabajando.

77.- Cuando un compañero es bueno en algo, le pido a él / ella

que me enseñe

78.- Soy capaz de romper con los esquemas mentales

tradicionales y ver las cosas de forma nueva y diferente

79.- Aprendo de nuestros clientes, proveedores, y/u otros

compañeros

80.- Constantemente me comparo con otros para aprender

buenas prácticas

81.- Dispongo de procesos para adquirir información

relevante de fuera de mi empresa

82.- Creo nuevo conocimiento derivado del existente

83.- Estoy preparado para replantear decisiones cuando

aparece información nueva y relevante

86.- Trato de comprender en profundidad temas/cuestiones y

conceptos

87.- Me atrevo a cuestionar las cosas que no entiendo

88.- No sólo estoy interesado en saber que hacer sino también

en por qué hacerlo

Appendices

223

INFORMACIÓN SOBRE EL EMPLEADO/A

Sexo: Hombre Mujer Años en la Universidad: ______

Posición: PDI Nivel de

Estudios:

Doctorado

PIF Máster

Prof. Asociado Licenciatura

Diplomatura

Facultad: ________________________

Departamento:____________________

¿Pertenece a algún Instituto de Investigación?

_____

En caso afirmativo indique

cual__________________

¡MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN!

Si desea recibir los resultados del estudio indíquenos un correo electrónico y

persona de contacto.


224

Documents

HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS AND ...High Performance work systems and employee innovative behaviour 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION Due to the current globalization and economic recession, organisations