Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:32:31.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collectivism-oriented HRM and individual creative contribution: The roles of value congruence and task interdependence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2016

Silu Chen ,
Guanglei Zhang ,
Wanxing Jiang ,
Shengping Shi  and
Tao Liu
Silu Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Business Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, P.R. China
Guanglei Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China
Wanxing Jiang
Affiliation:
School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Shengping Shi
Affiliation:
College of Economics and Management, Southwest University, Chongqing, P.R. China
Tao Liu
Affiliation:
College of Economics and Management, Southwest University, Chongqing, P.R. China
*
Corresponding author: wanxing.jiang@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study deals with the issue whether collectivism-oriented human resource management (HRM) system influences individual creative contribution to research teams in particular in an Asia-Pacific context. It is argued that, given certain environmental factors, such as high person-organization value congruence among team members and task interdependence, the collectivism-oriented HRM system should have a positive effect on individual creative contribution to the research teams. A multi-level theoretical model is proposed accordingly, which is then tested with data from 40 research teams and 168 individuals in Chinese universities. The results demonstrated that collectivism-oriented HRM helps to enhance individual creative contribution through the path of value congruence. Moreover, the relationship between value congruence and individual creative contribution was moderated by task interdependence. These findings offer novel insight into how an organization can develop its HRM system and improve individual creative contribution in research teams.

Keywords

collectivism-oriented HRM (CHRM)value congruencetask interdependenceindividual creative contributionresearch teams
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 211 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Andreassi, J. K., Lawter, L., Brockerhoff, M., & Rutigliano, J. (2014). Cultural impact of human resource practices on job satisfaction. Cross Culture Management, 21(1), 55–77.Google Scholar
Baron, R.A., & 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(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
Boon, C., DenHartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: Examining the role of person-organisation and person-job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138–162.Google Scholar
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.Google Scholar
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637.Google Scholar
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32–54.Google Scholar
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.Google Scholar
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L, Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.Google Scholar
Chen, S. L., Zhang, G. L., Zhang, A. F., & Xu, J. Y. (2016). Collectivism-oriented human resource management and innovation performance: An examination of team reflexivity and team psychological safety. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(4), 535–548.Google Scholar
Choi, J. N. (2004). Personal-environment fit and creative behavior: Differential impacts of supplies-values and demands-abilities versions of fit. Human Relations, 57(5), 531–552.Google Scholar
Erez, M., & Nouri, R. (2010). Creativity: The influence of culture, social, and work context. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 351–370.Google Scholar
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630.Google Scholar
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624–641.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). Across-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.Google Scholar
Hofmann, D., & Gavin, M. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.Google Scholar
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256.Google Scholar
Li, J., Tang, G. Y., Wang, X. R., Yan, M., & Liu, Z. Q. (2012). Collectivistic-HRM, firm strategy and firm performance: An empirical test. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(1), 190–203.Google Scholar
Li, Y. Q., Zhang, G. L, Yang, X., & Li, J. (2014). The influence of collectivist human resource management practices on team-level identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(4), 1791–1806.Google Scholar
Ling, Y, & Zhao, H. (2007). Influence of founder-CEOs’ personal values on firm performance: Moderating effects of firm age and size. Journal of Management, 33(5), 673–696.Google Scholar
Ngo, H. Y., Jiang, C. Y., & Loi, R. (2014). Linking HRM competency to firm performance: An empirical investigation of Chinese firms. Personal Review, 43(6), 898–914.Google Scholar
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.Google Scholar
Petroni, G., Venturini, K., & Verbano, C. (2012). Open innovation and new issues in R&D organization and personnel management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(1), 147–173.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biased in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
Ramamoorthy, N, & Flood, P. C. (2004). Individualism/collectivism, perceived task interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: A test of the main and moderating effects. Human Relations, 57(3), 347–366.Google Scholar
Rice, G. (2006). Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of employee creativity: Evidence from Egyptian organizations. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 233–241.Google Scholar
Sargent, L. D., & Sue-Chan, C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32(4), 426–450.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & 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.Google Scholar
Staples, D.S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.Google Scholar
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330.Google Scholar
Tierney, P, Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relations. Personal Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.Google Scholar
VanDer Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & VanDe Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personal Psychology, 54(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. (2003). Work congruence and excellence in human resource management. Review of Public Personal Administration, 23(3), 192–216.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.Google Scholar
Werbel, J. D., & DeMarie, S. M. (2005). Aligning strategic human resource management and person-environment fit. Human Resource Management Review, 15(4), 247–262.Google Scholar
Wei, L. Q., Liu, J., & 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(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
Yang, F., Qian, J., Tang, L., & Zhang, L. (2016). No longer take a tree for the forest: A cross-level learning-related perspective on individual innovative behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(3), 291–310.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & 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(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y., Hong, Y., & 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.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & Su, Y. (2010). A missing piece of the puzzle: The organizational context in culture patterns of creativity. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 391–413.Google Scholar