The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 23, No. 19, November 2012, 40254047

Does HRM facilitate employee creativity and organizational

innovation? A study of Chinese firms
Jianwu Jianga*, Shuo Wangb and Shuming Zhaoc
a
College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, P.R.China; bBusiness School, Dublin City
University, Dublin, Ireland; cSchool of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, P.R.China
Using a sample of 106 firms in China, we examined how human resource management
(HRM) practices relate to employee creativity and organizational innovation. In order
to avoid common method bias, the data were collected from three different groups of
respondents separately. Our results showed that four HRM practices, hiring and
selection, reward, job design and teamwork, were positively related to employee
creativaity while training and performance appraisal were not. Employee creativity
fully mediated the relationships between those four HRM practices and organizational
innovation. Results suggest that HRM practices can play an important role in managing
people to promote innovation in Chinese organizations.
Keywords: administrative innovation; employee creativity; human resource
management; technological innovation

1. Introduction
Recent years, there is a broad consensus that employees creativity and innovation will
contribute to organizational performance (e.g. Hirst, Knippenberg and Zhou 2009;
Nadkari and Herrmann 2010; Baron and Tang 2011). Scholars have identified many
factors that may either stimulate or suppress creativity and innovation. At the
organizational level, these include top level leadership (e.g. Makri and Scandura 2010;
Zhang and Bartol 2010), organizational culture (e.g. Rice 2006), investment in R&D
activities (e.g. Petroni, Venturini and Verbano 2012), and organizational structure and
design (e.g. Lin 2011; Wei, Liu and Herndon 2011). At the job level, leadership at the
supervisory level (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009; Liu, Liao and Loi, in press) and co-
worker support (e.g. Shalley, Zhou and Oldham 2004) also play a role. Earlier Kozlowski
(1987) argued that human resource management (HRM) can play a proactive role in
facilitating innovation within a changing environment. Recently, scholars have begun to
consider the role of HRM for creativity and innovation (e.g. Jimenez-Jimeneza and Sanz-
Vallea 2008; Lin 2011).
A number of research studies have established a positive relationship between HRM
and firm performance (e.g. Huselid 1995; Collins and Clark 2003; Collins and Smith 2006;
Sun, Aryee and Law 2007; Guthrie, Flood, Liu and MacCurtain 2009). Many researchers
suggest that specific HR practices promote performance, such as human resource planning
(Koch and McGrath 1996), profit sharing and result-oriented appraisals (Delery and Doty
1996) and selectivity in staffing, training as well as incentive compensation (Delaney and
Huselid 1996). Others relate certain types of bundles, systems or configurations of

*Corresponding author. Email: jwjiang@szu.edu.cn

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.690567
http://www.tandfonline.com
4026 J. Jiang et al.

HRM practices to different indicators of organizational performance (Guesta and Conway

2011). Some of these integrated systems of HRM practices have been labelled high-
involvement work systems or high-performance work systems (HPWSs). These findings
contribute substantially to our understanding of the relationship between HRM and
performance; however, our knowledge about the extent to which HRM promotes
employee creativity and organizational innovation is still relatively scarce. Of particular
interest is that the relationship of HRM to employee creativity directly and to
organizational innovation indirectly has been assumed and not tested.
The importance of HRM to employee creativity and organizational innovation cannot
be understated and may be a key factor in understanding. Mumford (2000) argues that
HRM activities may relate to organizational innovation from two aspects: how to select,
develop and motivate employees to formulate ideas, and how to help employees to
implement their new ideas. HRM may facilitate the exploration of problems and promote
employees to explore existing knowledge, which consequently stimulates organizational
innovation (Shipton, West, Dawson, Birdi and Patterson 2006). In particular, firms can
hire new employees with high level of creative capability, offer training programs and
re-design reward system in order to encourage and reinforce employees creative
behaviors. Building on this argument, we suggest that HRM may foster organizational
innovation through influencing employee creativity. The purpose of this study is to explore
the systematic relationship between HRM practices, employee creativity and
organizational innovation in the context of China. There are at least three reasons for
examining the relationship in the context of China. Firstly, China has experienced an
accelerated rate of economic growth and social development, as well as dramatic
developments in strategic HRM practices in Chinese enterprises (Syed, Daniel and Glorial
2008). Secondly, Chinese government considers that innovation is one of three priorities
(along with entrepreneurship and harmony) for national development (Tsui, Zhao and
Abrahamson 2007) in the next few decades. Finally, increasingly western companies have
business relations or establish branches in China and those western firms have great
interests in how to stimulate employee creativity and organizational innovation. Although
existing literature indicates that there is positive association between strategic HRM
practices and firm performance across different organizational settings in Anglo-American
samples (Jimenez-Jimeneza and Sanz-Vallea 2008; Guesta and Conway 2011), few recent
studies have examined the linkage between HRM practices and employee creativity in
China. In particular, questions remain as to whether western practices have been adapted
when applied in the Chinese context? Do western HRM practices matter in terms of the
influence on company innovation and performance in China? These questions should be
examined in the context of the newly emerging market economy of China by starting with
an existing model and analyzing how nations may differ on the phenomenon being studied
(Tsui, Nifadkar and Ou 2007).
Therefore, this study contributes to the Chinese national agenda and foreign
enterprises understanding of the role of HRM practices in organizational innovation.
Utilizing the mediator of employee creativity, we examine the impact of HRM practices
on organizational innovation, thereby contributing to the existing literature.

2. Conceptual background and hypothesis development

There are many definitions of creativity. It has been defined as a context-specific
subjective judgment of the novelty and value of an outcome of an individuals or a
collectives behavior (Ford and Gioia 2000). Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4027

(1996) define creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or a
small group of individuals working together. Individual creativity is useful for generating
new ideas or analyzing problems (Zhou, Hirst and Shipton 2012). It is a function of the
employees personal characteristics, the characteristics of the context in which he or she
works, and also the interactions among these characteristics (Shalley and Gilson 2004).
While creativity is the development of new ideas, innovation is the process of actually
putting the new ideas into practice. Innovation is the intentional introduction and
application of new ideas, processes, products or procedures that will benefit the job, the
work team or the organization (West, Hirst, Richter and Shipton 2004). Innovation may
include technological changes resulting in new products, new production processes, or the
introduction of advanced technology or new services (Birkinshaw, Hamel and Mol 2008;
Damanpour, Walker and Avellaneda 2009).
The literature on HRM practices indicates that motivational practices are important in
promoting employee creativity (Parker 2000). If the HRM practices can motivate
employees to have a sense of autonomy, then employees will become more effective to
solve problems and create new ideas to cope with job demands (Dorenbosch, Engen and
Verhagen 2005). Based on the social exchange theory (Blau 1964), Dorenbosch et al.
(2005) argue that employees perceptions of a high-commitment HRM system have a
positive impact on employee creativity. Moreover, Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall,
Waterson and Harrington (2000) find that employees perceptions of individual, group and
organizational factors can affect their innovation processes. Employee creativity enhances
companys innovative ability, thereby organizational innovative capability can help the
organization to identify opportunities and improve organational performance (Oldham and
Cummings 1996; Guan 2003).
According to Avermaete, Viaene, Morgan and Crawford (2003), there are four types of
innovation, such as product, process, organizational and market innovation. Product
innovation refers to the organizational capacity to make and adapt new products or
services. Process innovation represents adaption of a new infrastructure and the
implementation of new technology. Therefore, the product and process innovations are
categorized as technological innovation, which includes a companys ability to adapt new
technology and basic work activities. Organizational innovation, also known as
administrative innovation, includes a series of basic activities in the organization,
such as administration, management, marketing, purchases, sales and staff policy
(Damanpour et al. 2009). Finally, market innovation refers to the exploitation of
territorial areas and penetration of market segments (Avermaete et al. 2003, p. 10). As
previous studies demonstrate, administrative (e.g. Jimenez-Jimeneza and Sanz-Vallea
2008) and technological innovations (e.g. Li, Zhao and Liu 2006) are influenced by HRM
practices.
Some previous studies investigate innovation as the dependent variable and find that
the HRM practices have association with organizational innovation. For instance, utilizing
the data of 684 Danish manufacturing firms and 1216 private service companies, Laursen
and Foss (2003) found that HRM practices determine the likelihood of organizational
innovation in terms of product and process innovations. Shipton et al. (2006) conducted a
longitudinal study of 22 British manufacturing companies, which includes postal survey
and interviews with senior managers. They find that the effective HRM system, including
training, induction, team working and evaluation, can predict the organizational
innovation in terms of products and production technology. Furthermore, some HRM
scholars notice that effective HRM practice has a positive impact on organizational
innovation. Earlier, utilizing the British Workplace Industrial Relations Survey dataset
4028 J. Jiang et al.

Hiring and Administrative

selection H1 + innovation

H2 +
Training
H7a +
Performance H3 +
appraisal
Employee
H4 + creativity
Reward
H5 +
H7b +
Job design

H6 + Technological
Team work innovation

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

and interview-based survey, Michie and Sheehan (1999) suggest that there are positive
associations between HRM practice and organizational innovation activities. Based on a
survey of 332 firms in Hong Kong, Lau and Ngo (2004) demonstrate that HRM practices,
especially training, are significantly related to firms innovation performance. Similarly,
Wang and Zang (2005) conducted a survey of local Chinese enterprises with 358 managers
from 75 companies and indicated that strategic HRM practices positively affect innovation
performance. More recently, Jimenez-Jimeneza and Sanz-Vallea (2008) find that HRM
pratices enhance organizational innovation, consequently contributing to firm
performance.
Considering the definitions, the foundation of innovation is ideas and it is people who
develop, carry out, react to and modify ideas (Van de Ven 1986). At the root of
organizational innovation is employee creativity. It is people who develop ideas and have
the courage to propose, support and implement them in the face of possible resistance by
their colleagues. Given the role of HRM in relation to attracting and improving the quality
of the human capital of the firm, the study of which HRM practices may attract, motivate
or retain creative people is critical. Mumford (2000) presented several propositions about
the kind of HRM practices that are likely to influence the likelihood of innovation and
creativity. The current study is intended to provide some empirical evidence on the
propositions. Figure 1 shows the studys hypothesized model. As shown, these HRM
practices are expected to impact the organizations administrative innovation and
technological innovation through enhancing the overall level of employee creativity in
the organization.

2.1 Hiring and selection

Since employee creativity is a form of human capital, staffing can be considered an
important approach to improve employee creativity (Jimenez-Jimeneza and Sanz-Vallea
2008). Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) demonstrate that organizational innovation is
dependent upon the organizations knowledge base, which begins by recruiting talented
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4029

people into the organization. The careful recruitment and selection of talented people may
play a key role in creating the conditions needed for innovation. As a result, it is not
surprising that successful firms establish recruiting networks to systematically seek out
new talent to build a pool of creative employees for the organization.
Organizations can focus on screening prior to selection to try to identify employees
task expertise, intrinsic motivation and cognitive skills necessary for creativity.
A comprehensive selection and hiring procedure by using more recruiting sources,
rigorous interviews, screening tests and so on will increase the amount of information
gathered about each applicant before making a hiring decision (Raghuram and Arvey
1994). Extensive and intensive search, careful screening and rigorous hiring procedures
should allow the firm to identify and select the most creative candidates (Youndt 1998).
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Extensive search and intensive selection and hiring procedures will
relate positively to the overall level of employee creativity in the
organization.

2.2 Training
Creative work requires progressive acquisition of skills and expertise (Mumford 2000).
Training can enhance employees knowledge and skills that are critical to increase creative
thought processes and provide opportunities that enhance task domain expertise (Lau and
Ngo 2004). It also facilitates learning in organizations. Training in divergent thinking and
creative problem-solving skills will promote employee creativity. For example, Licuanan,
Dailey and Mumford (2007) demonstrate that training about the value of creativity in team
settings can facilitate the generation of original ideas. By offering training opportunities
that can increase individuals knowledge base or their creativity relevant skills, employees
will try to be more creative in their work (Shalley and Gilson 2004). By encouraging
employees to seek training outside of work and to pursue higher educational degrees, their
work will benefit from increased knowledge base. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 2: Training will relate positively to the overall level of employee creativity
in the organization.

2.3 Performance appraisal

The impact of performance appraisal on employee creativity is less clear. Some
researchers indicated that when employees expect evaluation, they may be less creative
due to the anxiety associated with the evaluation (Byron, Khazanchi and Nazarian 2010).
Others have connected evaluation to increased levels of motivation and creativity
(Harackiewicz and Elliot 1993; Egan 2005). However, when feedback and mistake
toleration are an integral part of performance appraisal, the process may facilitate the
development of creativity. Developmental, error-embracing systems and environments
may be fundamental drivers of learning (Nonaka 1994). Feedback given during the
appraisal process leads to a recognition of the gaps between performance and targets
(Shipton et al. 2006), thereby motivating employees to work creatively. Appraisals
conducted in a way that foster learning and growth may help employees to acquire
the confidence necessary to use opportunities presented for higher-level learning
4030 J. Jiang et al.

(Stiles, Gratton, Truss, Hope-Hailey and McGovern 1997). Supportive and informative
evaluation can enhance the intrinsic motivation state that is most conducive to creativity.
Zhou (1998) argued that a controlling feedback style may diminish a sense of control over
future outcomes and may reduce a sense of intrinsic motivation while an informational
feedback style that does not threaten the feedback recipient will maximize the likelihood
that individuals will maintain their sense of intrinsic motivation and attempt future tasks
with an orientation toward creative ideas. Employees receiving feedback regarding job
improvement may form a more constructive perspective, developing new and creative
approaches to their work activities. They see the need to initiate new ways of working in
order to fill the performance gaps. Even though developmental performance appraisal does
not increase job skills and creative ability directly, it increases employees intrinsic
motivation and encourages employees to be creative. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 3: Performance appraisal with developmental feedback and mistake
toleration will relate positively to the overall level of employee
creativity in the organization.

2.4 Reward
Similar to performance appraisal, the reward system affects employee motivation to be
creative, offers new ideas and be willing to experiment with new behaviors. The
innovating organization needs an incentive system to motivate creativity. Bae, Chen, Wan,
Lawler and Walumbwa (2003) found that a HPWS which has an emphasis on pay for
performance and profit sharing is critical for the financial performance of firms in several
Asian countries. The functions of the reward system are threefold: first, the rewards can
attract creative people to the company and retain them (Starkey, Tempest and Mckinlay
2004). Second, the rewards provide motivation for the extra effort needed to innovate
(Shipton et al. 2006). Third, reward systems mix several types of internal motivators, such
as the opportunity to pursue ones ideas, promotions, recognition, merits and special
compensation (Amabile et al. 1996). An early study of 3M company showed that a
creative individual contributor can be promoted and can earn salary increases without
taking on managerial responsibility (Tan 2002). When the organization wants to signal the
importance of innovation, special compensation is added to the system. Some reward
programs, such as profit sharing, may encourage employee creativity by linking the profit
to new ideas proposed and adopted. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Innovation-linked incentive rewards will relate positively to the overall
level of employee creativity in the organization.

2.5 Job design

The design of jobs is an important contributor to employee creativity through increasing
the intrinsic motivation to be creative (Shalley and Gilson 2004). People can be attracted
and motivated intrinsically by giving the opportunity and autonomy to pursue their own
ideas. According to the intrinsic motivation principle of creativity (Conti, Amabile and
Pollack 1995), people will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily by the
intrinsic enjoyment, satisfaction and challenge of the work itself, but not by external
pressures. Oldham and his colleagues (1996) examined the influence of job characteristics,
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4031

such as autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task feedback and task significance on
creativity in manufacturing facilities. They found a composite index of job characteristics
to predict creativity. In R&D labs, Bailyn (1984) observes that there are two approaches
that can improve employee creativity: on the one hand, employees have relatively high
autonomy in the daily work; on the other hand, employees feel that they can control their
work, particularly by inputting their ideas into their daily operations. In another recent
study, Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that job characteristics of autonomy and task
identity contribute to creativity. When individuals work on complex jobs (e.g. those
characterized by high levels of autonomy, feedback, significance, identity and variety)
(Hackman and Oldham 1980), they are likely to experience high levels of intrinsic
motivation and respond to this motivation by developing creative ideas. Specially,
complex jobs should enhance individuals excitement about their work activities and their
interest in completing these activities, and this excitement should foster creativity.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5: Job design that provides autonomy, feedback, significance, variety and
identity will relate positively to the overall level of employee creativity
in the organization.

2.6 Teamwork
Creativity and innovation in work groups is dependent on how these work groups are led
and managed. In a recent meta-analysis, researchers found that team process variables of
support for innovation, vision, task orientation and external communication displayed the
strongest relationships with creativity (Hulsheger, Anderson and Salgado 2009).
Particularly, team process variables were more strongly related to creativity and
innovation measured at the team than at the individual level. In a better managed team,
members can be motivated to perform at higher levels of creativity by social comparison
processes providing group members and teams with a comparison standard and providing
feedback on individual or team performance (West 2002). Team cooperation,
communication and conflict resolution are critical dimensions in teams with an innovation
expectation (Beer and Eisenstat 2000). Many scholars assert that the management of
competing perspectives is fundamental to the generation of creativity and innovation
(Nemeth, Owens and West 1996; Ernst 2004). Teamwork and collaboration are the
foundation of creativity since the presence of team work could lead to internal constructive
conflict with regard to attention and use of creative energy (Barczak, Lassk and Mulki
2010). When there is a high level of interaction among team members, the cross-
fertilization of perspectives can produce creativity and innovation is more likely to occur.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 6: Teamwork that encourages exchange and collaboration will relate
positively to the overall level of employee creativity in the organization.

2.7 Employee creativity and organizational innovation

If creativity is a necessary first step or precondition for technological innovation and
administrative innovation, it is the missing link between context as the antecedent
(i.e. HRM practices) and innovation as the outcome (Amabile et al. 1996). Creative
employees provide an organization with important inputs for subsequent development and
4032 J. Jiang et al.

implementation of new products and service, and new work processes and procedures
(Bharadwaj and Menon 2000). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 7: The overall level of employee creativity in the organization will relate
positively to both administrative and technological innovations in the
organization.

3. Methods
3.1 Sample and data collection
As this study is at the firm level, we sampled firms in regions of China with a high level of
economic development focusing on industries where innovation is important. These
regions include the Yangtze Delta Area (Central part of China, surrounding Shanghai) and
the Pearl River Delta Region (southern part of China, surrounding Guangzhou).
Concerning survey administration, we contacted those CEOs who attended the Executive
MBA programme at Nanjing University in China with the assistance of academic staff in
that university. After introducing the purpose of this study, we asked 167 CEO candidates
for their permission to participate in the investigation on behalf of their firms. After
confirmation, questionnaires were mailed out to 135 CEOs who indicated a willingness to
assist the administration of the survey in the firm.
In order to overcome the single-source bias in the survey responses (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff 2003), we collected data from multiple sources in each
firm. The respondents in each firm include the human resource manager, the production
(for manufacturing firms) or the operations manager (for non-manufacturing companies),
and employees. The human resource manager responded to the survey on HRM practices
questionnaire, the production or operations manager completed the survey on
technological innovation and administrative innovation questionnaire, and other
employees were randomly selected to answer the employee creativity questionnaire. All
participants were assured anonymity of their responses and were given the opportunity to
receive a professional report about the results of the study. Given that participation was
voluntary and anonymous, participants were not asked to sign an informed consent form.
To maximize the response rate, we contacted the CEOs by phone or sent emails 2 weeks
after the initial distribution of the survey.
Data were collected in China in 2007 and 2008. We received 825 questionnaires from
125 firms. Those organizations in which data were available from the human resource
managers, the production (for manufacturing firms) or the operations manager
(for non-manufacturing companies) and employees were used in the analysis. Because
of missing data and the exclusion of firms with fewer than five employees, our final sample
included 106 firms and 754 respondents. The response rate was 87.3%, while valid
response rate was 79.79%. Among the 106 firms, 49 were manufacturing firms, 18 IT
firms, 11 financial firms and the remaining 28 firms were in transportation, real estate and
other areas. Regarding firm size, 75.4% had 100 2000 employees; the smallest company
had , 100 and the largest had . 10,000 employees. The firms average age was in the
range of 5 10 years. Concerning firm ownership, 67% were state-owned enterprises,
16.3% private firms, 6.3% foreign-invested and 10.4% were joint ventures.
Among the 754 individual respondents, 106 were production or operations managers,
106 human resource managers and 542 employees (with an average of five employees per
firm, ranging from 5 to 7). Females comprised 62.8% of the sample. The average age
ranged from 25 to 35 years, average work experience was 8.1 years and average
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4033

organizational tenure was 4.7 years. About 70% of respondents held the bachelor degree or
above.

3.2 Measures
3.2.1 HRM practices
This scale consisted of six sub-scales involving 21 items: hiring and selection, training, job
design, teamwork, performance appraisal and reward. Items in the six sub-scales were
adopted from Youndts (1998) HRM practices scale. Hiring and selection was measured
with three items. An example item was we use many different recruiting sources.
The Cronbachs a was 0.83. Training was measured with five items. An example item was
we provide continuous developmental opportunities for our employees. The Cronbachs
a was 0.88. Five items measured job design. An example item was our jobs encourage
empowerment and participation. The Cronbachs a was 0.83. Teamwork was measured
with three items. An example item was our jobs involve a lot of teamwork.
The Cronbachs a was 0.71. Two items measured performance appraisal. An example
item was our employees receive a lot of developmental appraisal feedback.
The Cronbachs a was 0.76. Reward was measured by three items. An example item
was we utilize profit-sharing incentives. The Cronbachs a was 0.82. All sub-scales use
five-point Likert scaling for responses (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree).
The human resource manager in the HR department in each firm reported the extent to
which they agreed with the statements describing their firms HRM practices.

3.2.2 Employee creativity

We used a 10-item scale to measure employee creativity. Five items were adopted from
Tsai (1997) and Torrance (1963) to measure the creative thinking ability, and the
remaining five items were adopted from Amabile (1996) and West (1997) to measure the
creative personality and motivation. Two example items were I can often find new ideas
and new ways to do my work and I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to
me. On a five-point scale ranging from 1, fully disagree to 5, fully agree, the
employees indicated, on a five-point scale, the extent to which they agreed with the
statements. The Cronbachs a was 0.85. We averaged the 10 items to obtain a measure of
employee creativity at the individual level. Since there was an average of five employees
from each firm, we checked between-person variation within each firm before aggregating
their responses to obtain an overall level of employee creativity in the firm. Because of the
small group size in each firm, we computed the rwg index of agreement (James, Demaree
and Wolf 1984), rather than ICC1 and ICC2 (Bliese 2000). The values of rwg ranged from
0.76 to 0.92, with a mean of 0.88, which showed evidence to support aggregating the
employee creativity scores to the firm level.

3.2.3 Technological innovation

Technological innovation was measured with five items adapted from Tsai (1997). Two
example items were our company often offers new products or services to the customers
and new products and services contribute a lot to our companys profit. The production
or operations manager in each firm responded as to the extent to which they agreed with
the statements describing their firms technological innovation. This scale ranged from 1,
fully agree to 5, fully disagree. The Cronbachs a was 0.83.
4034 J. Jiang et al.

3.2.4 Administrative innovation

Administrative innovation was measured with an 11-item scale adapted from Tsai (1997).
Six items measured administrative innovation related to the recruitment of personnel, the
allocation of resources and the structuring of tasks, and five items measure the
administrative innovation related to an organizations structure or administrative
processes. Two example items were our company often adopts and implements new
management system to make the organization more efficient and our company often
restructures and redesigns the organizational structure to adapt to the environment
change. This scale ranged from 1, fully agree to 5, fully disagree. The production
manager or operations manager in each firm responded with the extent to which they
agreed with the statements describing their firms administrative innovation.
The Cronbachs a was 0.93.

3.3 Control variables

We collected data for control variables were likely to influence creativity and innovation
as suggested by previous research (Damanpour 1991; Oldham and Cummings 1996).
We controlled for firm size, firm age, firm ownership, the industry and firm profitability.
The human resource manager of each firm provided the data for these variables.
In addition, we controlled for average employee age, average employee educational level
and the percentage of females since demographic factors can influence individual
creativity (Jaskyte and Kisieliene 2006).

3.3.1 Firm size

Earlier studies have found that firm size positively relates to innovation (Camison-
Zornoza, Lapiedra-Alcami, Segarra-Cipres and Boronat-Navarro 2004). Increasing size
may create uncertainties that demand innovative behavior. Furthermore, large firms may
have access to a wider range of knowledge and human capital skills than small firms,
allowing higher rates of innovation. We measured firm size using the number of
employees, in five categories, with 1 , 100 employees, 2 100 500 employees,
3 500 2,000 employees, 4 2000 10,000 employees and 5 . 10,000 employees.

3.3.2 Firm age

The probability of innovation may decrease with firm age (Huergo and Jaumandreu 2004)
with young firms more prone to innovate while older ones are less innovative. Firm age
was measured in years, in five categories, with 1 , 1 year, 2 1 3 years, 3 3 5
years, 4 5 10 years and 5 . 10 years.

3.3.3 Firm ownership

Ownership may influence innovative activity because it implies particular forms of risk
and profit sharing, particularly in the Chinese context where state-owned and non-state-
owned firms (both domestic and foreign) face very different institutional environments
(e.g. rules, regulations and control). Empirical studies have shown that ownership type
affects organizational innovation (Lee 2005). We categorized firms into four ownership
types: state-owned firm, private firm, foreign-invested firm and joint venture. In data
analysis, we re-coded firm ownership into a dichotomous variable, with 0 designating
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4035

state-owned firms and 1 designating non-state-owned firms (i.e. private firm,

foreign-invested firm and joint venture).

3.3.4 Industry
Empirical evidence has shown that innovation varies significantly by industry (Lee 2005).
Therefore, we controlled the industry effect on organizational innovation by using the
National Standard Industrial Classification of China to categorize firms. Because nearly
half of the firms (49 firms) in our sample were manufacturing firms, we re-coded industry
into a dichotomous variable, with 0 designating manufacturing firms and 1 designating
non-manufacturing firms.

3.3.5 Firm profitability

Profitable firms may have more resources available to facilitate and achieve innovation.
Profitability was measured by a dichotomous variable, with 0 designating firms in profit
and 1 designating no profit. The human resource manager in each firm was asked
whether the firm was profitable in the last fiscal year.

3.4 Data analysis

Prior to hypothesis testing, we checked the validity of the measurement model for the nine
latent variables used in this study: hiring and selection, training, job design, teamwork,
performance appraisal, reward, employee creativity, technological innovation and
administrative innovation. The measurement model to be tested is shown in Figure 2.
We first performed confirmatory factor analysis on the data from each group of
respondents. Based on data from the HR managers, we compared a six-factor model (for

AI6 AI7 AI8 AI9 AI10 AI11

0.72 0.64 0.76 0.71 0.79 0.60 0.77 0.66
EC1 EC4
0.64 Employee 0.73
EC2 creativity EC5 Technological Administrative
0.59 0.85 innovation innovation
EC3 EC6
0.88 0.81 0.69 0.45 0.76 0.65 0.73 0.740.74 0.84 0.85 0.66 0.600.64

EC7 EC8 EC9 EC10 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TI5 AI1 AI2 AI3 AI4 AI5

Hiring and Training Job design

selection

0.99 0.79 0.53 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.76 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.64 0.67

HS1 HS2 HS3 TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4 TR5 JD1 JD2 JD3 JD4 JD5

Teamwork Performance
Reward
appraisal

0.75 0.74 0.79 0.95 0.84 0.90 0.72 0.70

TW1 TW2 TW3 PA1 PA2 RW1 RW2 RW3

Figure 2. Measurement model for CFA at firm level.

4036 J. Jiang et al.

the six HR practices) to a three-factor model (combining recruiting and training into one
factor, combining performance appraisal and reward into one factor, and combining
teamwork and job design into another factor). Then, we performed a one-factor model
(loading the items for all the six practices onto one factor). We compared a two-factor
model (for the two types of innovation) to a one-factor model based on data from the
production managers. We performed a CFA on the one-factor model for employee
creativity using data from the employees. After this, we aggregated employee data on
creativity to the firm level, and compared the base nine-factor model with total 47 items at
the firm level (six HR practices, two innovations and employee creativity) with four
alternative models. The first alternative model 1 is a one-factor model that assumes all
items are loaded on one general factor. The second alternative model 2 is a three-factor
model that assumes items of hiring and selection, training, job design, teamwork,
performance appraisal and reward are loaded on one factor; items of administrative and
technological innovations are loaded on another factor, and the remaining items are loaded
on employee creativity. The third alternative model 3 is a four-factor model that combines
hiring and selection, training, job design, teamwork, performance appraisal and reward
into one factor, while employee creativity, technological innovation and administrative
innovation are other three separate factors. The alternative model 4 is an eight-factor
model that combines technological innovation and administrative innovation into one
factor, while hiring and selection, training, job design, teamwork, performance appraisal,
reward and employee creativity remain separate factors as in the basic model. The results
of the CFA and the model comparisons are summarized in Table 1. The fit indices for the
measures from each group of respondent are satisfactory. Comparing the models at the
firm level, the theorized measurement model (base model) represents the best fit. All item
loadings in the base model are significant, ranging from 0.45 to 0.99, with an average
loading of 0.75 (see Figure 2).
Given that we have a sample of 106 organizations, it is reasonable to use a path
analysis with observed variables, rather than a full latent model with indicators (Bollen
1989). We averaged items in each scale to create a measure of each latent variable. Tests
for hypotheses were conducted using structural equation modeling within Lisrel 8.52. We
allowed the error terms for the two endogenous latent constructs of technological and
administrative innovations to correlate in order to account for the covariance between
these two constructs.
In testing the theoretical framework, we fitted several alternative models to the data,
each incorporating different assumptions about the model parameters. Comparisons with
reasonable alternative models are recommended as a means of showing that a
hypothesized model is the best representation of the data, and are considered to be an
important part of assessing model fit (Bollen 1989; Kelloway 1998). The first alternative
model specifies only the direct paths from the control variables to the organizational
innovation variables. This control-variables-only model provided a baseline fit for an
assessment of the incremental contribution of the additional paths in the theoretical model.
The hypothesized model specifies both the control variable paths and the set of paths
hypothesized in this study.
With the remaining alternative models, we compared the fully mediated hypothesized
model with the partially mediated and non-mediated models, as recommended by
Kelloway (1998). We examined two partially mediated models that assess both the direct
and indirect effects between our sets of constructs. The partially mediated models are tests
of whether hypothesized mediated effects are better represented as direct and indirect
effects. We also examined one non-mediated model in order to assess whether the effects
Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for latent variables in the study.

Level Model Factors x2 df Dx 2 RMSEA CFI NFI

Individual level HR practices (HR manager data)
Six-factor model HS; TR; JD; TW; PA; RE 297.6 153 0.095 0.95 0.93
Three-factor model Combine HS and TR, 742.06 186 444.46** 0.169 0.87 0.84
combine JD and TW;
combine PA and RE
One-factor model All items load on one factor 838.52 189 540.92** 0.181 0.86 0.83

Innovation (production or
operations manager data)
Two-factor model Administrative and technological 163.22 89 0.089 0.97 0.94
One-factor model All items loaded on one factor 406.94 104 243.72** 0.167 0.90 0.87

Creativity (employee data)

One-factor model All items load on one factor 7.81 6 0.024 1.0 1.0

Firm level Base model

Nine-factor model Six HR practices, 2800.74 998 0.085 0.90 0.89
employee creativity, and
two innovation factors
One-factor model All items loaded on one factor 4131.75 1034 1331.01** 0.169 0.82 0.77
Three-factor model AI and TI combined into one factor; 3253.04 1036 438.2** 0.143 0.84 0.80
HS, TR, JD, TW, PA and
RE combined into one factor; EC
Four-factor model HS, TR, JD, TW, PA and RE 3251.14 1028 450.40** 0.144 0.84 0.80
combined into one factor; EC; AI; TI
Eight-factor model AI and TI combined into one 2801.83 1006 1.09 0.130 0.86 0.82
The International Journal of Human Resource Management

factor; HS; TR; JD; TW; PA; RE; EC

**p , 0.01.
4037
4038 J. Jiang et al.

of HRM practices on organizational innovation were only direct, with no indirect effects
through employee creativity. All of those alternative models included the control
variables. We compared the hypothesized model to the alternative models using the
change in x 2 test (Bentler and Bonett 1980) and comparing the CFI value. Cheung and
Rensvold (2002) suggest that changes in CFI values of , 0.01 indicate differences
between models that do not exist.

4. Results
Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations and Cronbachs a for all scales are presented
in Table 2. The correlations show that the six HRM practices are correlated. This is not
surprising given the possibility of an internal coherent overall HRM system
(Macduffie 1995) and consistency bias by the respondents. All six HRM practices are
positively correlated with the employee creativity and the two innovation measures, even
though these data were from different groups of respondents. Creativity is correlated with
innovation also. These correlation patterns satisfied the conditions for mediation
(Baron and Kenny 1986). Furthermore, non-state-owned firms as well as manufacturing
firms have higher innovation, suggesting the attention to innovation by the private and
foreign firms and by firms in manufacturing industries where innovation is more important
to be competitive.
Our hypothesized model fit the data well (x 2 34.41, df 21; root mean square error
of approximation [RMSEA] 0.084; normed fit index [NFI] 0.97; comparative fit
index [CFI] 0.99; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] 0.96) (see Table 3). The first
comparison showed that the hypothesized model provided a significantly better fit than did
the control-variables-only model with Dx 2 28.91 (Ddf 8, p , 0.001) and difference
in CFI of 0.33. Second, we compared the hypothesized model with the first partially
mediated model (partially mediated model 1) and the second partially mediated model
(partially mediated model 2). Partially mediated model 1 specified the paths in the
hypothesized model as well as the direct paths from the HRM practices (hiring and
selection, training, performance appraisal, reward, job design and teamwork) to
technological innovation. Partially mediated model 2 specified the paths in the
hypothesized model as well as the direct paths from the six HRM practices to
administrative innovation. The change in x 2 tests revealed that partially mediated models
1 and 2 were not significantly better than the hypothesized model. Lastly, the
non-mediated model test comparison was conducted. The results indicated that the
hypothesized model had a significantly better fit than did the non-mediated model
(Dx 2 32.92, Ddf 2, p , 0.001; difference in CFI of 0.06).
The path coefficients of the hypothesized model are shown in Figure 3. Examination of
the standardized parameter estimates indicated that six of the eight hypothesized
relationships were significant and in the predicted directions when control variables were
accounted for.
Specifically, the statistically significant parameter estimate (b 0.12; p , 0.01)
between hiring and selection and employee creativity indicated support for Hypotheses 1.
The path coefficient of training and employee creativity was not significant; therefore, H2
was not supported. The path coefficient of performance appraisal and employee creativity
was also negative and not significant; H3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 was supported
as a statistically significant parameter estimate (b 0.16; p , 0.01) was found for the
path between reward and employee creativity. The path coefficients of job design and
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations.a
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Firm size 2.68 0.91
2. Firm age 4.14 0.92 0.32**
3. Firm ownership 0.33 0.47 0.05 0.13
4. Industry 0.57 0.50 2 0.45** 2 0.18 2 0.36**
5. Profitability 0.20 0.40 2 0.11 2 0.36** 2 0.18 0.22**
6. Percentage of female 0.64 0.59 0.01 2 0.06 2 0.12 2 0.01 0.00
7. Employee age 2.22 0.71 0.16 0.06 0.03 2 0.17 0.14 2 0.01
8. Employee 16.0 1.84 2 0.11 2 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.01 2 0.11 0.01
educational level (years)
9. Hiring 3.75 0.77 2 0.06 0.03 2 0.15 0.13 2 0.12 0.20* 2 0.09 2 0.03 0.83
10. Training 3.32 0.87 0.12 2 0.21** 0.23** 2 0.34** 2 0.01 2 0.08 2 0.03 2 0.04 0.32** 0.88
11. Job design 3.07 0.75 0.08 2 .23** 0.24** 2 0.13 2 0.09 0.01 2 0.11 0.04 0.47** 0.66** 0.83
12. Teamwork 3.42 0.66 0.00 2 0.11 0.22** 2 0.28** 2 0.01 2 0.03 0.03 2 0.11 0.33** 0.59** 0.56** 0.71
13. Performance 2.94 0.93 0.04 2 0.17 0.38** 2 0.32** 2 0.08 2 0.08 2 0.11 2 0.01 0.23** 0.74** 0.66** 0.72** 0.76
14. Reward 3.29 0.82 2 0.08 2 0.19 0.26** 2 0.14 2 0.01 2 0.04 2 0.02 2 0.05 0.31** 0.76** 0.64** 0.47** 0.59** 0.82
15. Creativity 3.41 0.57 2 0.08 0.14 0.20** 2 0.15 2 0.26** 2 0.07 2 0.17 2 0.03 0.28** 0.44** 0.45** 0.43** 0.43** 0.45** 0.85
16. Technological innovation 3.03 0.74 0.11 2 0.07 0.21** 2 0.25** 2 0.02 0.03 0.01 2 0.09 0.37** 0.66** 0.64** 0.58** 0.52** 0.62** 0.67** 0.83
17. Administrative innovation 3.01 0.81 2 0.01 2 0.06 0.26** 2 0.20 2 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.50** 0.63** 0.69** 0.67** 0.61** 0.65** 0.56** 0.74** 0.93

Firm size: 1, ,100 employees; 2, 100500 employees; 3, 500 2000 employees; 4, 200010,000 employees; 5, .10,000 employees. Firm age: 1, ,1 year; 2, 1 3 years; 3, 35 years;
4, 510 years; 5, .10 years. Firm ownership: 0, state-owned; 1, non-state-owned. Industry: 0, manufacturing; 1, non-manufacturing. Profitability: 0, profitable last year; 1, not profitable
last year. Employee age: 1, ,25 years; 2, 2535 years; 3, 3545 years; 4, 4555 years; 5, .55 years.
*p , 0.05, **p , 0.01.
a
n 106. Cronbachs a are shown on the diagonal for all scales.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
4039
4040 J. Jiang et al.

Table 3. Model comparison based on SEM results.

Model x2 df Dx 2 CFI NFI RMSEA

Hypothesized model (full mediation) 34.41 21 0.99 0.97 0.084
Control variables only 63.32 13 28.91*** 0.66 0.63 0.20
Alternative model 1 (partially 25.74 15 8.67 0.99 0.98 0.089
mediated model 1)a
Alternative model 2 (partially 25.01 15 9.4 0.99 0.98 0.086
mediated model 2)b
Alternative model 3 (non-mediated 67.33 19 32.92*** 0.93 0.94 0.17
model 3)c

***p , 0.001.
a
Partially mediated model 1 specified the paths in the hypothesized model as well as the direct paths from the six
HRM practices (hiring and selection, training, performance appraisal, reward, job design and teamwork) to
technological innovation.
b
Partially mediated model 2 specified the paths in the hypothesized model as well as the direct paths from the six
HRM practices to administrative innovation.
c
Non-mediated model 3 specified that the effects of six HRM practices on organizational innovation were only
direct, with no indirect effects through employee creativity.

Hiring and Firm age 0.08

selection 0.12**
0.09 Administrative
Ownership
innovation
Training 0.04
Industry 0.03
0.13** 0.03
Employee age
Firm profit
Performance 0.06
appraisal 0.04 0.50**
Firm size
Employee
0.16** creativity 0.13**
Reward 0.48**
0.02 0.15**
0.16** 0.02

Job design Educational level

Technological
innovation
Percentage of female
0.06 0.03

Team work 0.20** Industry Ownership

0.06
Firm age

Figure 3. Results of structural equation model (**p , 0.01).

employee creativity, and of teamwork and employee creativity were 0.16 and 0.20,
respectively. Both effects were significant ( p , 0.01), therefore H5 and H6 were
supported. Lastly, statistically significant parameter estimates were found for the paths
between employee creativity and administrative innovation (b 0.50; p , 0.01), and
between employee creativity and technological innovation (b 0.48; p , 0.01) showing
support for H7.
Consistent with previous findings in the organizational innovation literature, several of
the control variables were significantly ( p , 0.05) related to organizational innovation.
Technological innovation was predicted by firm size (b 0.15) and firm profitability
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4041

(b 0.13). Administrative innovation was predicted by firm profitability (b 0.13). Firm

ownership, firms industry and firm age had no significant impact on technological and
administrative innovations while average employee age, educational level and percentage
of female were not significantly related to employee creativity.

5. Discussion
Previous studies suggest that if an organization intends to be creative, it should adopt
practices that encourage employee to behave creatively (Amabile et al. 1996). Our results
showed that four HRM practices, such as hiring and selection, reward, job design and
teamwork have a positive relationship with employee creativity. However, the HRM
practices of training and performance appraisal were not associated with employee
creativity. The relationships between the four HRM practices and the organizational
innovation were mediated by employee creativity. These results are persuasive since the
three sets of measures came from three different sources with no common method
problem. Also, firm size, firm age, firm ownership, firm industry and profitability were
included as control variables for the two innovation scales, meanwhile average employee
age, education and gender were included as control variables for the employee creativity.
The four HRM practices (i.e. hiring and selection, reward, job design, and teamwork)
influence both the ability and the motivation of the employees to be creative. In particular,
extensive search and intensive selection allow the organizations to increase the candidate
pool and select the more creative ones. This increases the overall creativity of the
employees in the firm. Job design that increases autonomy through empowerment and
increases variety through job rotation influences employees motivation to contribute and
be creative. According to both the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and the equity
theory (Adams 1963), employees evaluate the exchange relationship with the organization
in terms of the rewards they receive. When employees perceive that the organization values
them by sharing profits (incentive rewards) and gives them interesting and important work,
they reciprocate the organizations by making more efforts on their jobs, more willingness
to provide suggestions and to experiment with new ways of doing their jobs.
Teamwork facilitates employee creativity, which can be explained by the social
comparison process (Festinger 1954) and the social facilitation (Triplett 1898). As a social
process, creativity involves communicating with others to develop alternative ideas and
solutions to problems. Teamwork gives employees more opportunities to communicate
with each other and to exchange information as well as ideas. The increased information
sharing in team facilitates social comparison. Creativity is improved when people work
together and observe the creative behaviors of their peers. In brief, HRM practices can
increase the overall creativity of an organizations workforce through influencing both the
ability and the motivation to be creative at the individual level.
The relationship between overall employee creativity and the organizational
innovation (i.e. administrative and technological innovations) is consistent with previous
studies (e.g. Paton and McCalman 2008). When employees are creative, they would like to
propose novel and useful ideas. Shalley and Gilson (2004) suggest that creative
employees new ideas are transferable to other employees in the organization for their own
use and development. Consequently, the creativity at the individual level may lead to the
development of innovative products at the organizational level.
The literature is unclear about the impact of the performance appraisal on employee
creativity (Zhou and Shalley 2003). In this study, statistics demonstrate that there was no
relationship between the performance appraisal and employee creativity. Performance
4042 J. Jiang et al.

appraisal may undermine intrinsic motivation, because most performance appraisals are
used for determining the amount of payment. While performance appraisals could be used
to focus on what people have done wrong, employees could gain a clearer view of how
they can improve through developmental feedback that motivates them to improve in
future performance and apply new ideas to do a better job. Those two forces (i.e. evaluation
apprehension and developmental feedback) may counterbalance each other, resulting in no
significant influence on employee creativity. The role of performance appraisal for
creativity deserves further systematic analysis, both theoretically and empirically.
Similar to the performance appraisal, there was no association between training and
employee creativity. This finding was consistent with earlier observation. For example,
Walz and Wynekoop (1994) found that training does not enhance students creativity.
Kabanoff and Bottger (1991) noticed that the trained and untrained subjects (MBA
candidates) do not differ in originality. The possible explanation is that in many firms,
training tends to focus on routine knowledge or skills and performance of current jobs.
However, creativity not only requires the ability to understand task-relevant techniques,
but also to transcend logical and sequential thinking, making the leap to innovation.
The items in the training scale in this study focused on task-relevant skills.
Overall, these results suggest that HRM can elevate the overall creativity of an
organizations workforce by hiring employees with creative potential and then use reward
systems and job design to increase the employees motivation to be creative. The HRM
function of the organization in China can possibly play an important role in facilitating
organizational innovation through hiring creative employees, rewarding creative behavior
and designing work that increases intrinsic motivation and social facilitation.

6. Conclusions, limitations and future research

The current study examined how HRM practices relate to employee creativity and
organizational innovation. Specifically, our results showed that four HRM practices, such
as hiring and selection, reward, job design and teamwork, were positively related to
employee creativity while training and performance appraisal were not.
Concerning theoretical contributions, this paper contributes to the literature on the
integration of HRM and employee creativity. This research indicated that western theories
of HRM can be utilized in the Chinese context, and employee creativity can be developed
by HRM practices. In particular, while a bundle of HRM practices is considered an
important predictor of creativity and innovation in the existing literature (Lau and Ngo
2004), this study demonstrated that hiring and selection, reward, job design and teamwork
practices were found to be the most important practices to facilitate creativity.
Another contribution of this paper lies in developing a mediation model that helps to
explain the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance.
Although the literature suggests that the link between HRM practices and organizational
performance is positive (Becker and Huselid 1998), there is a gap in understanding the
relationship between HRM practice and organizational performance. The current study
revealed that employee creativity fully mediated the relationship between HRM practices
and organizational innovation. Results also suggest that HRM practices can play an
important role in managing people to promote innovation in organizations.
Regarding empirical contribution, this study utilized three different respondents from
one company, which avoided single-source bias of the investigation. From a practical
perspective, our study strengthens managers understanding of the role of HRM practices,
such as hiring and selection, reward, job design and teamwork on promoting employee
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4043

and organizational creativity, consequently improving organizational performance.

In addition, our research provides suggestions for the practicing manager and Chinese
government that the innovation can be stimulated by effective HRM practices. These
findings could have potential benefits for organizational and policy decisions.
This study is not without limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional design reduced our
confidence in making causal inferences between the variables in our model. Future
research should employ a longitudinal design with creativity and innovation observed at
least a year or longer after measuring a firms HRM practices. Another limitation is that
the study relies on participants descriptions of HRM activities and innovativeness.
In particular, it is more persuasive if the dependent variables (i.e. administrative and
technological innovation) were examined by objective indicators that are meaningful for
the company and the industry. Although there is no widely accepted instrument of the
organizational innovation (Armbruster, Bikfalvi, Kinkel and Lay 2008), future research
needs to develop the measurement of the organizational innovation from practical
perspective (e.g. new products, percentage of revenues based on new products and new
services). Industry-specific studies may be necessary to allow the use of objective
indicators of innovation.
This study provides preliminary insights into the relationship between individual HRM
practices, employee creativity and the organizational innovation in a set of firms in China.
However, scholars have suggested that it is more appropriate to consider a firms HRM
practices as internally aligned or bundled (Macduffie 1995). Rather than evaluating each
practice, it may be more appropriate to consider a bundle or a configuration as
demonstrated in previous research (Meyer, Tusi and Hinings 1993; Delery and Doty
1996). Future research can use the configuration approach to examine the interaction
among HRM practices and the effect on organizational innovation.

Acknowledgements
This paper has been accepted for presentation at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
8 13 August 2008 in Anaheim, CA, USA. The authors would like to thank Prof. Anne Tsui,
Assistant Prof. Amy Ou and Prof. Betty Coffey for their very helpful comments on the earlier
versions of this manuscript. This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Project Numbers: 71002080, 70732002 and 71172063) and Humanities and Social Sciences
Project of The Education Department of Guangdong Province of China (Project numbers:
wym09027).

References
Adams, J.S. (1963), Toward an Understanding of Inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422 436.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996), Assessing the Work
Environment for Creativity, The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154 1184.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., and Lay, G. (2008), Organizational Innovation:
The Challenge of Measuring Non-Technical Innovation in Large-Scale Surveys,
Technovation, 28, 644 657.
Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E.J., and Crawford, N. (2003), Determinants of Innovation in
Small Food Firms, European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 8 17.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., and Harrington, E. (2000),
Shopfloor Innovation: Facilitating the Suggestion and Implementation of Ideas, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265 285.
Bae, J., Chen, S.J., Wan, T.W.D., Lawler, J.J., and Walumbwa, F.O. (2003), Human Resource
Strategy and Firm Performance in Pacific Rim Countries, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14, 1308 1332.
4044 J. Jiang et al.

Bailyn, L. (1984), Autonomy in the Industrial R&D Lab, Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., and Mulki, J. (2010), Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of
Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture, Creativity and Innovation
Management, 19, 332 345.
Baron, R.M., and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173 1182.
Baron, R.A., and Tang, J. (2011), The Role of Entrepreneurs in Firm-Level Innovation: Joint Effects
of Positive Affect, Creativity, and Environmental Dynamism, Journal of Business Venturing,
26, 49 60.
Becker, B.E., and Huselid, M.A. (1998), High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance:
A Synthesis of Research and Managerial Applications, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 16, 53 101.
Beer, M., and Eisenstat, R.A. (2000), The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning,
Sloan Management Review, 41, 29 40.
Bentler, P.M., and Bonett, D.G. (1980), Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of
Covariance Structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Bharadwaj, S., and Menon, A. (2000), Making Innovation Happen in Organizations: Individual
Creativity Mechanisms, Organizational Creativity Mechanisms or Both? Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 17, 424 434.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M. (2008), Management Innovation, Academy of Management
Review, 33, 825 845.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P.D. (2000), Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implications
for Data Aggregation and Analyses, in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in
Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, eds. K.J. Klein and
S.W.J. Kozlowski, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 349 381.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., and Nazarian, D. (2010), The Relationship Between Stressors and
Creativity: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 201 212.
Camison-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcami, R., Segarra-Cipres, M., and Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004),
A Meta-Analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size, Organization Studies, 25, 331361.
Cheung, G.W., and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing
Measurement Invariance, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
9, 233 255.
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, 740 751.
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, The Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 544 560.
Conti, R., Amabile, T.M., and Pollack, S. (1995), Enhancing Intrinsic Motivation, Learning, and
Creativity, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1107 1116.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of Effects of Determinants and
Moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555 590.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M., and Avellaneda, C.N. (2009), Combinative Effects of Innovation
Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations,
Journal of Management Studies, 46, 650 675.
Delaney, J., and Huselid, M. (1996), The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on
Perceptions of Organizational Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949 970.
Delery, J.E., and Doty, D.H. (1996), Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource
Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance
Predictions, The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802 835.
Dorenbosch, L., 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, 129 141.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4045

Egan, T.M. (2005), Factors Influencing Individual Creativity in the Workplace: An Examination of
Quantitative Empirical Research, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 160 181.
Ernst, H. (2004), Virtual Customer Integration, in Cross-Functional Innovation Management,
eds. S. Albers and K. Brockhoff, Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 191 208.
Festinger, L. (1954), A Theory of Social Comparison Processes, Human Relations, 7, 117 140.
Ford, C.M., and Gioia, D.A. (2000), Factors Influencing Creativity in the Domain of Managerial
Decision Making, Journal of Management, 26, 705 732.
Guan, J. (2003), Innovative Capability and Export Performance of Chinese Firms,
Technovation, 23, 737 747.
Guesta, D., and Conway, N. (2011), The Impact of HR Practices, HR Effectiveness and a
Strong HR System on Organizational Outcomes: A Stakeholder Perspective,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1686 1702.
Gumusluoglu, L., and Ilsev, A. (2009), Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and
Organizational Innovation, Journal of Business Research, 62, 461 473.
Guthrie, J.P., Flood, P.C., Liu, W., and MacCurtain, S. (2009), High Performance Work Systems
in Ireland: Human Resource and Organizational Outcomes, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20, 112 125.
Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harackiewicz, J.M., and Elliot, A.J. (1993), Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904 915.
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D.V., and Zhou, J. (2009), A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee
Creativity: Goal Orientation, Team Learning Behavior, and Individual Creativity, The Academy
of Management Journal, 52, 2, 280 293.
Huergo, E., and Jaumandreu, J. (2004), How Does Probability of Innovation Change with Firm
Age? Small Business Economics, 22, 193 207.
Hulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J.F. (2009), Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at
Work: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1128 1145.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance, The Academy of Management Journal,
38, 635 672.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., and Wolf, G. (1984), Estimating Within-Group Interrater Reliability
With and Without Response Bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85 98.
Jaskyte, K., and Kisieliene, A. (2006), Determinants of Employee Creativity: A Survey of
Lithuanian Nonprofit Organizations, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 128 136.
Jimenez-Jimeneza, D., and Sanz-Vallea, R. (2008), Could HRM Support Organizational
Innovation? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1208 1221.
Kabanoff, B., and Bottger, P. (1991), Effectiveness of Creativity Training and its Relation to
Selected Personality Factors, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 235 248.
Kelloway, E.K. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling a Researchers Guide,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Koch, M., and McGrath, R.G. (1996), Improving Labor Productivity: Human Resource
Management Policies do Matter, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 335 354.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1987), Technological Innovation and Strategic Human Resource Management:
Facing the Challenge of Change, Human Resource Planning, 10, 69 79.
Lau, C.M., and Ngo, H.Y., (2004), The HR System, Organizational Culture, and Product
Innovation, International Business Review, 13, 685 703.
Laursen, K., and Foss, N.J. (2003), New Human Resource Management Practices,
Complementarities and the Impact on Innovation Performance, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 27, 243 263.
Lee, P.M. (2005), A Comparison of Ownership Structures and Innovations of US and Japanese
Firms, Managerial and Decision Economics, 26, 39 50.
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., and Liu, Y. (2006), The relationship between HRM, technology innovation and
performance in China, International Journal of Manpower, 27, 679 697.
Licuanan, B.F., Dailey, L.R., and Mumford, M.D. (2007), Idea Evaluation: Error in Evaluating
Highly Original Ideas, Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 1 27.
4046 J. Jiang et al.

Lin, L.H. (2011), Electronic Human Resource Management and Organizational Innovation: the
Roles of Information Technology and Virtual Organizational Structure, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 235 257.
Liu, D., Liao, H., and Loi, R. (in press), The Dark Side of Leadership: A Three-Level Investigation
of the Cascading Effect of Abusive Supervision on Creativity, Academy of Management
Journal, http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/liao/docs/Liao_AMJinpress.pdf.
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, 197 221.
Makri, M., and Scandura, T.A. (2010), Exploring the Effects of Creative CEO Leadership on
Innovation in High-Technology Firms, The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 75 88.
Meyer, A.D., Tusi, A.S., and Hinings, C.R. (1993), Configuration Approaches to Organizational
Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175 1195.
Michie, J., and Sheehan, M. (1999), HRM Practices, R&D Expenditure and Innovative Investment:
Evidence From the UKs 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (WIRS), Industrial and
Corporate Change, 8, 211 234.
Mumford, M.D. (2000), Managing Creative People: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation,
Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313 351.
Nadkari, S., and Herrmann, P.O.L. (2010), CEO Personality, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm
Performance: The Case of the Indian Business Process Outsourcing Industry, The Academy of
Management Journal, 53, 1050 1073.
Nemeth, C., Owens, P., and West, M.A. (1996), Making Work Groups More Effective: The
Value of Minority Dissent, in Handbook of Work Group Psychology, ed. M.A. West,
Chichester: Wiley, pp. 125 142.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,
Organization Science, 5, 14 37.
Oldham, G.R., and Cummings, A. (1996), Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at
Work, The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607 634.
Parker, S. (2000), From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role
Orientations and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy, Applied Psychology, 49, 447 469.
Paton, R.A., and McCalman, J. (2008), Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation,
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Petroni, G., Venturini, K., and Verbano, C. (2012), Open Innovation and New Issues in R&D
Organization and Personnel Management, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23, 147 173.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., 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, 879 903.
Raghuram, S., and Arvey, R.D. (1994), Business Strategy Links With Staffing and Training
Practices, Human Resource Planning, 17, 55 73.
Rice, G. (2006), Individual Values, Organizational Context, and Self-Perceptions of Employee
Creativity: Evidence From Egyptian Organizations, Journal of Business Research,
59, 233 241.
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, 33 53.
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, 933 958.
Shipton, H., West, M.A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., and Patterson, M. (2006), HRM as a Predictor of
Innovation, Human Resource Management Journal, 16, 3 27.
Starkey, K., Tempest, S., and Mckinlay, A. (2004), How Organizations Learn: Managing the Search
for Knowledge, London: Thomson.
Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope-Hailey, V., and McGovern, P. (1997), Performance
Management and the Psychological Contract, Human Resource Management Journal, 7, 57 66.
Subramaniam, M., and Youndt, M.A. (2005), The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of
Innovative Capabilities, The Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450463.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4047

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, 558 577.
Syed, A., Daniel, Z.D., and Gloria, L.G. (2008), Strategic HRM Practices and Their Impact on
Company Performance in Chinese Enterprises, Human Resource Management, 47, 15 32.
Tan, G. (2002), Managing Creativity in Organizations: A Total System Approach, Creativity and
Innovation Management, 7, 23 31.
Torrance, E.P. (1963), Creativity, Washington, DC: Association of Classroom Teachers of the
American Education Association.
Triplett, N. (1898), The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition, The American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507 533.
Tsai, C.T. (1997), Organizational Factors, Creativity of Oragnizational Members and
Organizational Innovation, Dissertation/Thesis, unpublished, National Taiwan University.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S., and Ou, Y. (2007), Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational
Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations, Journal of Management,
3, 426 478.
Tsui, A.S., Zhao, S., and Abrahamson, E. (2007), What to Study in China? Choosing and Crafting
Important Research Questions, Management and Organization Review, 3, 171 181.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1986), Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management
Science, 32, 590 607.
Walz, D.B., and Wynekoop, J.L. (1994), Creativity and Software Design: Is Formal Training
Helping or Hurting? in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, ed. J. Wynekoop, San Antonio: IEEE
Conference Publications, pp. 842 846.
Wang, Z., and Zang, Z. (2005), Strategic Human Resources, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Fit:
A Cross-Regional Comparative Model, International Journal of Manpower, 26, 544 559.
Wei, L.Q., Liu, J., and Herndon, N.C. (2011), SHRM and Product Innovation: Testing the
Moderating Effects of Organizational Culture and Structure in Chinese Firms, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 19 33.
West, M.A. (1997), Developing Creativity in Organizations, Leicester: British Psychological
Society.
West, M.A. (2002), Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and
Innovation Implementation in Work Groups, Applied Psychology, 51, 355387.
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, 269 299.
Youndt, M.A. (1998), Human Resource Management Systems, Intellectual Capital, and
Organizational Performance, Dissertation/Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
Zhang, X., and Bartol, K.M. (2010), Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity:
The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process
Engagement, The Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107 128.
Zhou, J. (1998), Feedback Valence, Feedback Style, Task Autonomy, and Achievement
Orientation: Interactive Effects on Creative Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 261 276.
Zhou, J., and Shalley, C.E. (2003), Research on Employee Creativity: A Critical Review and
Directions for Future Research, in Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management
(Vol. 22), Oxford, England: Elsevier, pp. 165 217.
Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., and Shipton, H. (2012), Promoting Creativity at Work: The Role of
Problem-Solving Demand, Applied Psychology, 61, 56 80.
Copyright of International Journal of Human Resource Management is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.