International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

The HR system, organizational culture,

and product innovation
Chung-Ming Lau*, Hang-Yue Ngo
Management Department, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT., Hong Kong, China
Received 5 February 2004; received in revised form 6 July 2004; accepted 20 August 2004

Abstract
This paper outlines the critical role of organizational culture in the link between the HR system
and development of new products and services. While it has been generally accepted that an
innovation-oriented HR system would lead to higher level of innovation, the literature does not lend
full support to this link. This paper is to point out the inadequacy of such simplified view. It is
suggested that a developmental culture is the missing link in-between HR system and innovation
outcomes. An HR system which emphasizes extensive training, performance-based reward, and
team development is necessary to create an organizational culture that is conducive to product
innovation. The empirical findings from a survey of 332 firms in Hong Kong confirmed that
organizational culture acted as a mediator between a firms HR system and product innovation.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Firm performance; Innovation; Organizational culture; Strategic human resource management

1. Introduction
For some years now, the notion of best practices in human resource management
(HRM) has received a lot of attention. It has been suggested that there is a universal set of
human resource (HR) best practices that can enhance a firms performance (Pfeffer, 1998).
However, this notion of HR best practices is not well supported in the research literature
(Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Wright & McMahan, 1992), including in studies using
international samples (Lui, Lau, & Ngo, 2004). Marchington and Grugulis (2000) called

* Tel.: C852 2609-7803; fax C852 2603-5104.

E-mail addresses: cmlau@cuhk.edu.hk (C.-M. Lau), hyngo@baf.-msmail.cuhk.edu.hk (H.-Y. Ngo).
0969-5931/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.08.001

686

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

this the illusion of best practice. They claimed that in order to determine the effectiveness
of HR, the context in which HR is practiced must be included in the analysis.
McMahan, Virick, and Wright (1999) reviewed the theoretical development of strategic
human resource management (SHRM) and concluded that SHRM could be viewed as a
configuration of HR practices, which must be internally and externally consistent, and
hence integration and fit is needed. It is understandable that HR practices seldom lead
directly to a high level of firm performance (Delery, 1998). Instead, they influence firm
resources, which are ultimately linked to performance. Moreover, different types of HR
practices commonly employed by organizations may bring about different outcomes for
organizations (Ulrich, 1997). We contend that the simple relationship between HR and
firm performance as suggested in some literature is inadequate.
The current literature indicates that it is not fruitful to examine just a single type of HR
practice and its influence on a firms performance. Instead, bundles of HR practices and
their contingent effects have to be analyzed (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delery & Doty,
1996; Wright & Boswell, 2002). In this paper, therefore, the effect of HR on organizational
outcomes is examined by considering the integration of complementary HR practices as an
HR system, and the fit of HR practices with organizational culture. Since developing
innovative products and services is critical for a firms competitiveness in the market, we
therefore focus on product (and services) innovation as an important indicator of firm
outcomes.
Innovation represents an orientation fundamentally different from traditional financial
or market-based outcomes of a firm. Muffatto (1998) suggested that in the innovation
process, the creation of an innovative climate and related professional knowledge and
capabilities are needed to support innovation activities. Hence, there is a need to change
organizational arrangement and culture in order to foster innovation. This argument is in
line with human capital theory used to explain an organizations competitiveness in
innovation outcomes (Chacko & Wacker, 2001; Chan, Schaffer, & Snape, 2004;
McMahan et al., 1999). For innovation-oriented firms, HR must then be practiced with
innovation-enhancing HR policies (Searle & Ball, 2003). These policies may differ from
conventional HR practices in stable environment (Ulrich, 1997).
We first review the link between HR and firm outcomes in Section 2. The review
identifies a missing critical process variable in the link in the current literature. The
necessary components of a HR system for innovation are then presented, followed by a
discussion of the critical role of organizational culture in this link. Two hypotheses are first
developed according to the conventional arguments, a third hypothesis focusing on the
mediating role of organizational culture is then suggested as a better alternative. It is
suggested that there must be an integration of HR systems and organization cultures in
order to have effects on innovation performance. The empirical findings of a study testing
the proposed relationships are reported with some suggestions for further research.
A firm-level conceptual framework is developed in this study to explain how HR is
related to innovation performance, as a response to the call for more theoretical
development in HR research (Ferris et al., 1998). Two issues about the relationship
between HR practices and firm effectiveness are explored. First, several HR practices are
suggested as the necessary components of an innovation-oriented HR system.
These practices are identified and their impacts on product innovation are evaluated.

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

687

Second, we also examine whether organizational culture acts as an intervening factor

between the HR system and product innovation. Prior studies suggested that an internally
consistent HR system which emphasizes investing in human capital, compensating people
for performance, and committing to team development is critical for the success of
innovation-oriented firms (Lado & Wilson, 1994; McMahan et al., 1999; Muffatto, 1998).
By building such a HR system, a firm would be able to develop an organizational culture
with an innovative and entrepreneurial orientation. With such an innovative culture in
place, a higher level of innovation would result. It follows that to achieve performance in
product innovation, an innovation-oriented organizational culture must be supported by
an HR system that facilitates the development of new products and services.
A primary contribution of this study lies in developing a mediation model that helps to
explain the relationship between HR and firm performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;
Delery, 1998). Additionally, the study focuses on some macro-level variables and
constructs across industries, which helps to clarify the cross-level analysis issues in HR
studies (Wright & Boswell, 2002). Further, the international sample used in this study
enhances the validity of HRfirm outcome research in other cultural contexts (Bae &
Rowley, 2001).

2. HR practices and firm outcomes

The relationship between HR practices and firm outcomes and performance is
discussed best in the SHRM literature. What HR practices are and how they impact on firm
performance are the central themes in the discussion of a strategic HR system. Regarding
what HR practices are relevant, the literature often focuses not on an individual HR
practice, but rather on bundles of HR practices as determinants of firm performance
(Delery & Doty, 1996; Wright & Boswell, 2002; Wright, McCormick, Sherman, &
McMahan, 1999; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Not only are different HR
configurations needed to achieve a high level of firm performance (Sheppeck & Militello,
2000), but also different types of HR practices generate different firm outcomes. For
example, Ulrich (1997) suggested that some HR practices are related to financial
outcomes, while some others may relate more to staff turnover.
Although the literature suggests that the link between HR practices and firm
performance is quite positive (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Ulrich, 1997), it is nevertheless
not necessarily a direct relationship. Some HR practices are more appropriate for
implementing some business strategies than others, and sometimes in certain contexts only
(Bae & Rowley, 2001; Delery, 1998; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994). Guest (1997)
presented a model that provides the theoretical linkages between HR and firm
performance. He suggested that there are different types of fit among HR practices. The
fit or integration of these practices leads to different HR outcomes and subsequent firm
performance. Similarly, MacDuffie (1995) and Wright and Snell (1998) suggested that in
order to have effects on firm performance, there must be a certain alignment of different
components of an organization, including different HR practices (as an HR system), the
necessary skills and knowledge possessed by employees, a motivated workforce, and a
value-added strategy.

688

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

From a resource-based view, De Saa-Perez and Garcia-Falcon (2002) demonstrated

that an appropriate HR system creates and develops organizational capabilities that
become sources of competitive advantage. The internal fit concept is particularly salient
when we examine the organizational processes leading to good firm performance
(Wright & McMahan, 1992). In this regard, there is a need to examine closely the missing
link between HR practices and performance. It is likely that some intervening process
factors are at work.
Along this line of enquiry, Harris and Ogbonna (2001) found that HR practices have an
indirect effect on firm performance through market orientation. Hoque (1999), using hotel
samples, further suggested that the relationship between HR and performance depends on
business strategy. It was found that an HR system with a quality focus performs best in that
industry. Similarly, Wood (1999) reviewed several SHRM studies and noted that previous
empirical works focused mainly on the link between HR practices and performance, but
not on the mechanisms linking them. Additionally, in a recent study of HRM and corporate
performance, Guest, Michie, Conway, and Sheehan (2003) found that although there was
an association between HRM and firm performance, the causation effect was not
established.
To recapitulate, HR system is likely to contribute to competitive success when it is
introduced as an integrated package (or bundle of practices) and fits into the context of the
organization concerned. The following sections first identify those HR practices needed to
build up an innovation-oriented HR system, and then suggest organizational culture as the
necessary intervening factor between the HR system and performance in innovation.

3. The HR system for innovation

Three sets of HR practices have been highlighted in the literature that would support an
innovation-oriented HR system. They are: (1) training-focusedan emphasis on skills
enhancement and human capital investment; (2) performance-based rewardan emphasis
on rewarding employees contributions and outcomes; and (3) team development
leadership and team-based activities are extensively developed and carried out. In
particular, cross-functional team is often suggested as a critical organizational design for
fostering creativity and innovation. Many innovative companies extensively utilize crossfunctional teams (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1995). The above three sets of HR
practices are critical for developing cross-functional teams in innovation-oriented
organizations and they are often inter-related and reinforce each other (McDonough,
2000; Norrgren & Schaller, 1999).
In analyzing the alignment of different operations in a technology firm to improve
innovation performance, Leede, Looise, and Alders (2002) found that high-performing
organizations spend more time on education and trainingnot just on technical, taskrelated skills, but also on communication and team skills. In the implementation of
innovation, firms have to create an organizational climate that fosters innovation by
ensuring employee skills, providing incentives, and removing obstacles (Klein & Sorra,
1996). Such an organizational climate must fit with the cultural values of a growth or
developmental orientation. With the cultural values of innovation, firms would likely have

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

689

innovation performance and outcomes (Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; West, 2002).
Hempel and Chang (2002) observed that some traditional Chinese cultural values are not
consistent with the type of innovation culture needed in Taiwans high-tech firms. As a
result, HR practices have been changed to accommodate the needs of transition from a
traditional business model to a hi-tech model by providing more responsibility for
workers, better person-organization fit, and more focus on conflict resolution. By so doing,
a new organizational culture is developed that encourages innovation in these Taiwanese
firms.
3.1. A focus on training
The first element of an innovation-oriented HR system is a focus on employee
training. Training can enhance employees knowledge and skills that are critical to
new product development. It also facilitates learning in organizations. Spell (2001)
examined technology-based firms and found that technology influences the cognitive
complexity (i.e. one kind of skill needed) of individuals, which calls for employers
emphasis of developmental activities, and hence more extensive training. Valle,
Martin, Romero, and Dolan (2000) found that HR training should be congruent with
firm strategy and work processes in order to achieve organizational effectiveness.
Further, Leede et al. (2002) reported that high-performing organizations tend to spend
more time on education and training, especially on communication and team skills.
Training also enhances the knowledge management systems of firms. For example,
Sparkes and Miyake (2000) found that training is an integral part of knowledge
transfer for Japanese firms in Brazil and Mexico. It is also found that training is
critical in the knowledge transfer and learning of Singaporean MNCs operating in
China (Tsang, 1999).
From a strategic management view, a commitment to employees leads to a higher level
of firm performance (Lee & Miller, 1999). Such a commitment could be exemplified by
what the firm cares about, including investing in competence development. Consistent
with the human capital perspective, training-focused HR practices develop the necessary
human resources to achieve competitive advantage (De Saa-Perez & Garcia-Falcon, 2002;
McMahan et al., 1999). We therefore suggest that training-focused HR practices should be
linked to innovation performance.
3.2. Performance-based reward
Training provides the opportunity to develop appropriate competencies for individuals
and organizations. In order to sustain competitiveness, learning behaviors have to be
rewarded, particularly when individual performance has improved. Arguably, performance-based reward represents a commitment to employees (Lee & Miller, 1999). It
provides incentives for creativity and innovation, and hence reinforces innovative
performance (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994). Guest (1997) suggested that high
individual performance is related to individualized reward. Further, Bae, Chen, Wan,
Lawler, and Walumbwa (2003) found that a high-performance work system (HPWS)
which has an emphasis on pay for performance and gain-sharing is critical for

690

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

the financial performance of firms in several Asian countries. In a study of Japanese

multinationals subsidiaries, Park, Mitsuhashi, Fey, and Bjorkman (2003) confirmed that
a HR system with performance-linked rewards have impacts on firm performance,
mediated by employees skills, attitudes, and behaviors. Hence, the link between
performance-based HR system and firm performance is generally supported in the
literature.
In the study of new product development, performance-based reward has been believed
to be a significant compensation tool (Feldman, 1996). Various compensation packages
are designed to reward total quality management and employee involvement, which are
the focuses of many innovation-oriented firms (Ledford et al., 1995). In other words, payfor-performance is often found in HR systems that would support innovations (Searle &
Ball, 2003).
3.3. Team development
It has been suggested that future HR leaders must emphasize team-based work
redesign so that firms can become more innovative (Mirvis, 1997). Several technologybased studies have revealed that teamwork plays an important part in eliciting
innovation. In particular, some studies have highlighted the role of training and the
development of leadership in cross-functional teams (cf. Leede et al., 2002;
McDonough, 2000). For example, Claver, Llopis, Garcia, and Molina (1998) noted
that the HR system needed to generate an innovative culture includes teamwork,
autonomy, and an inclination towards technological innovation. Norrgren and Schaller
(1999) found from a study of cross-functional product development projects that
leadership co-varied significantly with a teams innovative learning as well as with the
work climate in developing new products. It is further suggested that team leadership is
critical in R&D teams because of its effect in managing the emotional dimension of
teamwork and knowledge work (Pirola-Merlo, Hartel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). This is
echoed by the review of West (2002) that creativity and innovation in work groups is
dependent on how these work groups are led and managed. In sum, training activities
tailored to developing leadership in cross-functional teams are necessary to create an
appropriate work culture.
Hoque (1999) discovered that an HR system with a quality focus performs best, and
hence it is likely that a quality-focused team development is instrumental in the creation of
a culture for innovation. Team cooperation, communication, and conflict resolution are
also critical dimensions in teams with an innovation expectation (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000;
McDonough, 2000). Team development with a self-leadership focus makes the highest
contribution to innovation (Dunphy & Bryant, 1996). Chacko and Wacker (2001)
analyzed the competitiveness of Russian firms after glasnost and perestroika and
suggested that team development is one of the major elements for the firms to compete in
the new economy. Thus, it is expected that team development with the above focuses is a
necessary component of an innovation-oriented HR system.
In view of the above, an innovation-oriented HR system that consists of practices of
extensive training, performance-based reward, and team development should be

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

691

associated with a higher level of innovation performance. We thus propose the following
hypothesis according to this conventional understanding:
H1: HR practices that emphasize extensive training, performance-based reward, and
team development, when configured as an HR system, have positive effects on a
firms innovation performance.

4. The role of organizational culture

Jackson and Schuler (1995) reviewed the contexts of HRM from various theoretical
perspectives. They suggested several important contextual factors, including both internal
factors (such as technology, size, structure, and strategy) and external factors (such as
labor market, unionization, and national culture) have to be considered in order to gain a
better understanding of HRM. They further argued that organizational culture and HRM
are not separable in an organization. Ferris et al. (1998) developed a social-context theory
of HRM that locates organizational culture as an antecedent of employee attitudes and
behaviors. In addition, Ogbonna and Whipp (1999) highlighted the important role played
by culture in the link between organizational strategy and HRM. Since organization
culture is a valuable resource for companies, it has a key role to play in the HR and firm
performance link (Chan et al., 2004). More recently, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) suggested
that the strength of organizational climate is an important mediator between HRM system
and firm performance. They argued that a strong climate affects how individuals share a
common interpretation of what behaviors are expected and rewarded, and hence a situation
is created for higher organizational effectiveness. This strong climate is essentially similar
to a shared organizational culture.
Brockbank (1999) noted that a strategically proactive HR creates a corporate culture of
innovation and creativity, not one that is only necessary for executing business strategies. In
the organizational innovation model developed by Glynn (1996), innovation culture is an
important link between intelligences and innovation outcomes. Claver et al. (1998) further
suggested that there is a need to develop a technology-based culture in order to create
competitive advantage in technology-intensive industries. It was found that only with a
shared culture that is oriented towards innovation can a firm be competitive in new product
development. Such an innovation culture involves taking risks, worker participation,
creativity, and shared responsibility. An HR system that can foster this type of culture must
possess a predisposition towards constant learning, teamwork, a considerable degree of
work autonomy, and an inclination towards technological innovation.
Supporting this argument, Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1994) found that a firm
strategy which stresses innovation would entail a strong culture that rewards results,
focuses on short-term performance, provides extensive training, and emphasizes the
relational contract and teamwork. Similarly, Khatri and Budhwar (2002) found that HR
system, strategy, and culture had to be better aligned in order to increase performance in
some Asian firms.
All in all, a certain type of culture is needed to effect changes in organizations so that
innovative and entrepreneurial behaviors could be encouraged. This requires changing

692

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

organizational systems to support an innovative culture (Higgins & McAllaster, 2002).

The development of core values and linking them to business strategies is a major task of
HR professionals (Gennard & Kelley, 1994). Miron et al. (2004) reported that these
innovation cultural values do not compromise the pursuit of quality and efficiency. Lau,
Kilbourne, and Woodman (2003) suggested that cultural change involves changes in the
shared perceptions and interpretations of certain domains of an organization by
organizational members. Socialization in the workplace is viewed as one process by
which to shape shared schemas. This type of organizational process affects individual
dispositions so that their schemas become homogenous (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, &
Fleenor, 1998). In addition, people tend to choose to stay in a particular setting when the
schemas are shared. Thus, a change of schemas related to culture and innovation can elicit
behaviors related to innovation (Heracleous, 2001). By focusing on developing this
culture, a more homogenized view of innovation can be formed among organizational
members. Thus, organizational culture, rather than HR practices, should have a more
direct relationship with a firms innovation performance. We state the second hypothesis
as follows:
H2: Organizational culture with a development and innovation orientation has direct
effect on a firms innovation performance.
These two hypotheses are developed along the conventional thinking of direct
relationships between HR practices and organizational culture with innovation
performance. However, the role of culture between HR practices and innovative
performance deserves more discussion. Since HR practices provide information and shape
the behaviors of employees, they become the means of creating certain organizational
culture (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999). A strong HR system can develop shared meanings in
promotion of collective responses that are consistent with firm strategies, and hence the
formation of organizational climate (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Developing a culture that
emphasizes innovation and entrepreneurship could be an important target for the HR
system. Therefore, an HR system that consciously aims at altering employees schemas
towards innovation would lead to an innovative culture. It follows that organizational
culture would be an intervening factor between HR system and the firms innovation
performance.
In the organizational culture literature, it has been suggested that a developmental
culture emphasizes flexibility and change and concerns growth, creativity, and external
adaptation (Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). Organizations with a developmental culture should have positive effects on new product development since innovation
is a major value underlying developmental culture. Lau and Ngo (1996) found that
different types of culture have different outcomes; for example, group culture and
developmental culture are related to employees affective organizational commitment
more strongly than are other types of culture. Organizations with a developmental culture
also have higher valence attached to change and employees are more satisfied (Lau, Tse, &
Zhou, 2002). Accordingly, an HR system which is designed to create a developmental and
innovative culture is more likely to achieve positive outcomes in innovation.
Taking the above together, it is apparent that a focus on training, performance-based
reward, and team development are the three basic and inter-related components of

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

693

Fig. 1. Conceptual model showing the effects of the HR system on innovation through organizational culture.

an innovation-oriented HR system. An HR system with an orientation towards innovation

plays a salient role in creating the necessary culture that promotes innovation.
Organizational culture, in turn, is expected to have a significant and direct impact on
firm performance. In particular, a developmental culture should contribute to a higher
level of innovation and new product development. Arguably, a developmental culture
serves as the necessary intervening factor between the HR system and innovation. This can
be conceptualized as a mediating relationship (see Delery, 1998) in the sense that
developmental culture acts as the mediator between the HR system and innovation
performance (See Fig. 1). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Organizational culture is a mediator between the HR system and a firms
innovation performance.

5. Methods
5.1. Data and sample
The sample of this study was taken from a larger mail survey on HR and organization
development practices, based on a business directory of leading companies in Hong Kong
This survey was sent to 1700 firms. The respondents were human resource directors of the
companies. A total of 332 valid responses were received, giving an effective response rate
of 19.5%. The firms that participated in the mail survey were randomly chosen, the only
criteria being that they had more than 50 employees and annual sales greater than US$7
million. The responding firms included local Chinese firms and foreign firms. The mean
employee size was 663.7 and the mean value of assets was US$1.49 million. They also
represented different industries.
5.2. Measures and analyses
The dependent variable was measured by a single-item question, Please indicate your
firms performance in the area of development of new products or services over the last
3 years as compared to your industrys average, on a Likert scale of 1 (bad) to 5
(very good). It has been suggested that this comparative method is more effective at
eliciting responses than is directly asking respondents to provide exact figures

694

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

(Tomaskovic-Devey, Leiter, & Thompson, 1994). Self-reported measures are commonly

used in other SHRM studies (cf. Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Youndt et al., 1996). Although
there is a danger of self-reported bias, research has found that perceptual measures
correlate positively with objective measures (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 1994). The
correlations of this innovation performance variable with other financial and non-financial
measures in the same survey were between 0.43 and 0.48. With this high correlation, it is
comfortable to use this item to represent a firms performance. Hence, the firms
innovation outcomes can be assessed by this item.
The three HR system independent variables were measured by multi-item scales. The
scales were adapted from a battery of items used to tap HR practices in previous surveys
(Peck, 1994) and validated in similar settings (Lau & Ngo, 2001; Ngo, Turban, Lau, & Lui,
1998). The internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbachs alpha) of relevant
items in the original scale were between 0.57 and 0.69 (Peck, 1994). Training-focused HR
was measured by three items on a five-point Likert scale in this study with a reliability
coefficient of 0.63. Performance-based reward was also measured by three items on a fivepoint scale, with an a of 0.54. Team development was measured by five items, with an a of
0.84. The respective items for these scales are listed in the appendix.
Organizational culture with an emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship was
measured by the developmental culture scale of the Michigan competing values
framework (Quinn, 1988). This four-item scale covers the firms current climate,
leadership, strategic emphasis, and bondage of members. It has been proven to be
reflective of a culture with a growth and innovative orientation. In Quinn and Spreitzers
(1991) validation study, this scale had an a of 0.79. Dosoglu-Guner (2001) also employed
this scale among American firms with an a of 0.75. The scale has been validated
previously in the context of Hong Kong (Lau & Ngo, 1996, aZ0.81) and China (Lau et al.,
2002, aZ0.91). Thus, an a of 0.74 in this study was acceptable, though slightly lower than
other samples.
In addition, firm size, capital origin, and industries of the firms were controlled. Firm
size was represented by the natural logarithm of employee number. Since asset value is
highly correlated with employee number, it was not used in the analysis to avoid multicollinearity. Industry was represented by a dummy, with 1 indicating that it is in the
manufacturing business (32% of the sample) and 0 otherwise. Capital origin was measured
by two dummies. Since Chinese and American are the two largest ownerships (totaling
56% of the sample), each one of them was represented by a dummy, with 1 indicating
either Chinese or American ownership. All other ownerships were used as the reference
group.
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the effect of developmental culture
on innovation outcome, and the effect of the HR system on developmental culture. The
direct effect of the HR system on innovation outcome was also examined. The effects of
different categories of variables on innovation outcome were assessed separately.
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), if the original contribution of an independent
variable were replaced or reduced by another independent variable, then the second
independent variable would have a mediating effect on the dependent variable. Thus,
analyzing the path coefficients through hierarchical regressions would be sufficient to test
the mediation relationships (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Harris & Ogbonna, 2001).

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

695

Further, three interaction terms were created to test the possible moderating effects of
organizational culture. These terms were the products of developmental culture and the
respective focus on training, performance-based reward, and team development. This
provided an additional test for the mediation prediction.
The problem of common method variance is often found in self-reported surveys.
Harmans one-factor test was therefore conducted to ascertain the reliability of the
measures (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The four independent variables were factor
analyzed using principal component analysis and varimax rotation. It was found that the
items were correctly loaded in the respective factors. The issue of common method
variance does not pose a serious threat to this study.

6. Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables used in
the analyses. The percentages for Chinese origin and American origin of the sample were
31 and 25%, respectively. Thirty-one percent of the firms were in the manufacturing
industries. This was roughly in line with the general composition of firms in Hong Kong.
Table 2 reports the hierarchical regression results of the analysis. Model 1 shows the
effects of control variables on new product development. Only Chinese capital origin had a
significant and negative effect on it.
The direct effect of the HR system on new product development, without
developmental culture, is shown in Model 2. The effects of the HR practices as a whole
were significant, indicating that the HR system was related to new product development.
However, only training-focused HR was significant at the 0.01 level; performance-based
reward and team development were marginally significant at the 0.1 level. The control
variables were not statistically significant in this model. The effect of developmental
culture alone on new product development is shown in Model 3. Compared to Model 1, the
incremental change in R-squared was significant and large. This implies that
developmental culture had a direct effect on new product development. Thus, Hypothesis
1 was partially supported while Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.
The combined effects of the HR system and organizational culture were then analyzed.
When both developmental culture and the HR system were entered into the equation, only
developmental culture had a significant effect on new product development, as shown in
Model 4. The main effects of the HR system were now captured by developmental culture.
This indicated the possibility that developmental culture was a mediator between the HR
system and new product development. Following the procedures suggested by Baron and
Kenny (1986), the role of developmental culture in the equation was then analyzed by
regressing developmental culture on the HR system variables. Model 5 shows that all three
HR system variables had significant effects on developmental culture. Thus, using both
hierarchical regression and path analysis concepts, the mediating role of developmental
culture between the HR system and new product development was confirmed. This
supported Hypothesis 3.
The possibility of developmental culture being a moderator was further analyzed by
entering the three interaction terms in the equation after the direct effects were controlled

696

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

American capital
Chinese capital
Manufacturing business
Employee number (ln)
Developmental culture
Training-focused HR
Performance-based reward
Team development
New product development

Mean

SD

0.25
0.31
0.32
5.49
12.31
3.30
3.52
2.52
3.42

0.435
0.465
0.467
1.166
2.941
0.710
0.599
1.147
0.886

K0.393***
0.181*** 0.025
K0.068
0.140*
0.029
0.138* K0.207*** K0.012
0.118* K0.198*** 0.100
0.155** K0.165**
0.052
0.220*** K0.209*** 0.132*
0.091
K0.150**
0.023

Note. NZ332; *p!0.05; **p!0.01; ***p!0.001.

0.118*
0.183***
0.095
0.110*
0.039

0.433***
0.345***
0.427***
0.494**

0.381***
0.539***
0.301**

0.323***
0.233**

0.289**

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of key variables

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

697

Table 2
Hierarchical regression results
Dependent variables

Controls
American capital
Chinese capital
Manufacturing business
Employee number (ln)
Main effects
Training-focused HR
Performance-based reward
Team development
Developmental culture
Interactions
Culture!training-focused HR
Culture!performance-based
reward
Culture!team development
R2
Adjusted R2
F values

Model 1
(new
product
development)

Model 2
(new
product
development)

Model 3
(new
product
development)

Model 4
(new
product
development)

Model 5
(developmental
culture)

Model 6
(new
product
development)

0.020
K0.170**
0.018
0.118

K0.013
K0.092
K0.011
0.051

K0.012
K0.070
0.032
0.049

K0.018
K0.056
0.022
0.034

0.015
K0.098C
K0.080
0.049

K0.016
K0.054
0.025
0.032

0.182**
0.098C
0.118C
0.482***

0.071
0.027
0.023
0.435***

0.234***
0.165**
0.230***

0.104
0.135
0.007
0.616C
-0.061
-0.215

0.041
0.028
3.22*

0.129
0.109
6.37***

0.256
0.244
20.90***

0.263
0.244
13.39***

0.292
0.275
17.93***

0.020
0.264
0.237
9.68***

Note. NZ332; Cp!0.1; *p!0.05; **p!0.01; ***p!0.001.

for. Model 6 presents the results of the additional analysis. The change in R-squared
between Model 4 and Model 6 was very small and non-significant. None of the interaction
terms were significant and hence no moderating effect was detected. Moreover, all the
variables in the model were non-significant, except for developmental culture, which
remained marginally significant. Thus, it can be concluded that the model which included
interaction terms was not meaningful at all, and the interaction form of fit did not hold in
this study (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985).
7. Discussion
The current study examined the role of developmental culture and the HR system in the
innovation process of a firm. The relationship between developmental culture and
innovation performance is expected to be more complicated than most previous studies
suggested. It was confirmed that organizational culture plays a mediation role between HR
system and firms innovation outcomes. Conceptually, it was verified that an HR system
which emphasizes training, performance-based reward, and team development is critical
for creating a developmental culture. This culture was found to have a direct effect on the
development of new products and services. Hence, this study provides evidence that
the HR system has effects on innovation outcomes only through certain organizational
processes, such as organizational culture.

698

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

The study showed that although developmental culture alone is significant in affecting
new product development, it nevertheless needs to be supported by an innovation-oriented
HR system. The HR system consists of three inter-related practices, with an emphasis on
building up human capital with necessary skills and knowledge in an innovation
environment, rewarding employees performance, and team development. Our findings
were consistent across industries and capital origin (since the controls had no significant
coefficients), and hence are generalizable. Thus, in an innovation-oriented organization, it
is important to focus on developing an innovative and entrepreneurial culture by managing
the HR functions properly. This internal fit is critical for achieving the necessary
organizational outcomes (Guest, 1997; Ulrich, 1997; Wood, 1999). This also confirms the
claim in SHRM literature that certain fits and alignments are necessary to effect a high
level of firm performance, but not a universalistic set of HR practices (Bae et al., 2003;
Brockbank, 1999; Lui et al., 2004; Marchington & Grugulis, 2000).
There are, however, some other issues that remain unsolved in this line of investigation.
First, the concept of fit is not fully understood, either conceptually or empirically (Becker &
Huselid, 1998; Guest, 1997). Second, some studies are still not consistent in their level of
analysis of the theoretical models and measures used (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994;
Wood, 1999; Wright & Boswell, 2002). In this study, our theoretical model suggested a
macro-level process guiding the empirical verification. However, as discussed, there are
some other ways to conceptualize complementarity and fit. It is possible that developmental
culture can interact with other sets of HR practices to produce other kinds of organizational
outcomes. For example, employee selection and internal labor markets were not addressed
in this study. Would there be a moderator effect of developmental culture on staff selection
to achieve higher market return? This requires the conceptual development of a multiplecontingencies model that is beyond the scope of a single study. The current study, to a
certain extent, is limited to an HR system related to innovation performance only.
In addition, our data was collected in Hong Kong. Although the effect of capital origin
was not found, the cultural context of this study warrants further investigation. A certain
cultural context affects the design of HR system and has effects on organizational culture,
and subsequently may affect the relationships between these management practices and firm
performance (Lau & Ngo, 2001). However, there is always a tension of global integration
and local differentiation, even in HR systems (Chen & Wilson, 2003). Bae et al. (2003)
suggested that HR strategies and firm performance in the Pacific Rim countries are
consistent across different countries, and to some extent, a stronger relationship was found
in local firms. Hence, there is a need to examine the extent to which the innovation culture
has impact on various performance indicators and across different types of firms.
Some researchers have suggested organization-level models in hypothesizing SHRM or
HR relationships with organizational outcomes (Wright & Boswell, 2002). These
empirical studies, however, were not conducted at the organization level, but rather at the
unit level or individual level, or were limited to a single industry (cf. Becker & Huselid,
1998; Delery & Doty, 1996; MacDuffie, 1995). Hence, the results are not all comparable.
The current study focused only on organization-level variables and hence was consistent
in its theorizing and testing of relationships. Nevertheless, the data were from single
informants in each organization. Organizational culture, for example, is a collective
construct that may require a certain level of abstraction and aggregation within an

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

699

organization (Lau et al., 2003; Schneider et al., 1998). This would also call for a much
larger study with the participation of individual members of many organizations.
The response rate of this study, though only around 20%, was an acceptable rate for
firm-level analysis. As Becker and Huselid (1998) pointed out, the average response rate
among several major surveys is less than 20%. Cycyota and Harrison (2002) also noted
that although the current method of soliciting a higher response rate is already very
successful, there are a lot of difficulties in improving response rate at the executive level.
Hence, a relatively lower response rate than that of an individual-level survey is
acceptable. Lastly, the single-item performance measure and the relatively lower
reliability coefficient of the performance-based reward scale were not ideal, which
could have limited the generalizability of the current findings.

8. Conclusions
To summarize, the current study proposed a macro-level mediation framework to
explicate the HRinnovation performance relationship by introducing organizational
culture as the key vehicle for channeling the effects of HR practices on innovation
performance. This facilitates the development of macro-level models (Ferris et al., 1998;
Wright & Boswell, 2002) to aid future research in three directions. Firstly, it helps to
improve the interaction view of organizational systems. In particular, the interactions
among different HR practices (such as compensation and training) and their impacts on
firm outcomes have not been explicitly investigated. The current study supports the fit as
bundles view, and future HR research may explore more closely the other interaction
views of fit (Guest, 1997).
Secondly, the links among organizational culture, HR system, and other organizational
components (such as strategy) are not yet fully understood (Ogbonna & Whipp, 1999).
Although in this study the interaction of HR practices with organizational culture was not
supported empirically, the possible interactions between innovation-oriented HR practices
with other practices (such as employee participation and self-managing teams) and other
management techniques (such as empowerment) have not been examined. Further, the
longitudinal impact of the HR system (or any other structural variables) on innovation
outcome is not yet fully determined. Future studies should develop a longitudinal
framework to assess the impact of HR on firm innovation.
Thirdly, the impacts of the HR process on individuals have not been adequately
theorized (see Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994; Wright & Boswell, 2002). This involves
a cross-level conceptual development and empirical testing with sophisticated research
design. The macro-micro link seems to be a fruitful avenue for future studies.
For practitioners, the current study points out that a simple relationship between HR
systems or organizational culture and innovation outcomes should not be assumed. An
innovation-oriented HR system has to rely on an appropriate organizational culture in order
to have impacts on innovation. HR system alone may not be able to elicit innovation
performance. Thus, the need to build up shared schemas and mindsets around innovation in
organizations is critical for new product development. More emphasis could also be given to
the fit of this type of culture with HR system in order to develop an effective organization.

700

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

Appendix A. Items of the HR system and organizational culture scales

Training-focused HR (aZ0.63)
We provide a considerable amount of training.
We provide very little management training (reversed).
Employee transfers to new functional areas and/or new units are used as a development
activity in our firm.
Performance-based reward HR (aZ0.54)
Our performance appraisals emphasize outcomes.
In determining compensation, we emphasize the individuals contributions more than
job title.
We intend to keep a large salary difference between high and low performers in the
same position.
Team development HR (aZ0.84)
Problem-solving sessions are practiced in my organization.
Team building is practiced in my organization.
Quality circles are practiced in my organization.
Quality improvement teams are practiced in my organization.
Leadership training is practiced in my organization.
Developmental culture (aZ0.74)
Our firm is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place.
The head of our firm is generally considered to be an entrepreneur, an innovator, or a
risk-taker.
The glue that holds our firm together is commitment to innovation and development.
Our firm emphasizes growth and acquiring new resources.

References
Bae, J., Chen, S., Wan, T. W. D., Lawler, J. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2003). Human resource strategy and
firm performance in Pacific Rim countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
13081332.
Bae, J., & Rowley, C. (2001). The impact of globalization on HRM: the case of South Korea. Journal of World
Business, 36, 402428.
Baron, R. M., & 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, 11731182.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1998). High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesis of
research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 16, 53101.

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

701

Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan
Management Review, 41(4), 2940.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the strength of
the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203221.
Brockbank, W. (1999). If HR were really strategically proactive: present and future directions in HRs
contribution to competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 38, 337352.
Cabrera, E. F., & Bonache, J. (1999). An expert HR system for aligning organizational culture and strategy.
Human Resource Planning, 22(1), 5160.
Chacko, T. I., & Wacker, J. G. (2001). An examination of strategic goals and management practices of Russian
enterprises. International Business Review, 10, 475490.
Chan, L. L. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive advantage: the impact of
organizational culture, competitive strategy, and human resource management practices on firm performance.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 1735.
Chen, S., & Wilson, M. (2003). Standardization and localization of human resource management in Sino-Foreign
joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 397408.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D., & Molina, H. (1998). Organizational culture for innovation and new
technological behavior. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 9, 5568.
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2002). Enhancing survey response rates at the executive level: are employeeor consumer-level techniques effective? Journal of Management, 28, 151176.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949969.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications for research. Human
Resource Management Review, 8, 289309.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: test of
universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal,
39, 802835.
De Saa-Perez, P., & Garcia-Falcon, J. M. (2002). A resource-based view of human resource management
and organizational capabilities development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13,
123140.
Dosoglu-Guner, B. (2001). Can organizational behavior explain the export intention of firms? The effects of
organizational culture and ownership type. International Business Review, 10, 7189.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30, 514539.
Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance? Human
Relations, 49, 677699.
Feldman, L. (1996). The role of salary and incentives in the new product function. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 13, 216229.
Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1998). Toward a
social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human
Resource Management Review, 8, 235264.
Gennard, J., & Kelly, J. (1994). Human resource management: the views of Personnel Directors. Human
Resource Management Journal, 5, 1532.
Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to
innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 10811111.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263276.
Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003). Human resource management and corporate
performance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 291314.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2001). Strategic human resource management, market orientation, and
organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 51, 157166.
Hempel, P. S., & Chang, C. D. (2002). Reconciling traditional Chinese management with high-tech Taiwan.
Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 7795.

702

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

Heracleous, L. (2001). An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 426446.
Higgins, J. M., & McAllaster, C. (2002). Want innovation? Then use cultural artifacts that support it.
Organizational Dynamics, 31, 7484.
Hoque, K. (1999). Human resource management and performance in the UK hotel industry. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 37, 419443.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of
organizations and their environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237264.
Khatri, N., & Budhwar, P. S. (2002). A study of strategic HR issues in an Asian context. Personnel Review, 31,
166188.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management, 21,
10551080.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: a competence
based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19, 699727.
Lau, C. M., & Ngo, H. Y. (1996). One country many cultures: organizational culture of firms of different country
origins. International Business Review, 5, 469486.
Lau, C. M., & Ngo, H. Y. (2001). Organization development and firm performance: a comparison of
multinational and local firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 95114.
Lau, C. M., Tse, D. K., & Zhou, N. (2002). Institutional forces and organizational culture in China: effects
on change schemas, firm commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of International Business Studies, 33,
533550.
Lau, C. M., Kilbourne, L. M., & Woodman, R. W. (2003). A shared schema approach to understanding
organizational culture change. Research in Organization Change and Development, 14, 225256.
Ledford, G., Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1995). Reward innovations in Fortune 1000 companies.
Compensation and Benefits Review, July/August, 7680.
Lee, J., & Miller, D. (1999). People matter: commitment to employees, strategy and performance in Korean firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 20, 579593.
Leede, J., de Looise, J. C., & Alders, B. C. M. (2002). Innovation, improvement and operations: an exploration of
the management of alignment. International Journal of Technology Management, 23, 353368.
Lui, S. S., Lau, C. M., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). Global convergence, human resource best practice, and firm
performance: a paradox. Management International Review, 44(2 SI), 6786.
MacDuffie, J. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible
production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197221.
Marchington, M., & Grugulis, I. (2000). Best practice human resource management: perfect opportunity or
dangerous illusion? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 11041124.
McDonough, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 17, 221235.
McMahan, G. C., Virick, M., & Wright, P. M. (1999). Alternative theoretical perspectives for strategic human
resource management revisited: progress, problems, and prospects. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Suppl. 4, 99122.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation,
quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175199.
Mirvis, P. H. (1997). Human resource management: leaders, laggards, and followers. Academy of Management
Executive, 11, 4356.
Muffatto, M. (1998). Corporate and individual competencies: how do they match the innovation process?
International Journal of Technology Management, 15, 836853.
Ngo, H. Y., Turban, D., Lau, C. M., & Lui, S. Y. (1998). Human resource practices and firm performance of
multinational corporations: influences of country origin. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 9(4), 632652.
Norrgren, F., & Schaller, J. (1999). Leadership style: its impact on cross-functional product development. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 16, 377384.
Ogbonna, E., & Whipp, R. (1999). Strategy, culture and HRM: evidence from the UK food retailing sector.
Human Resource Management Journal, 9, 7590.

C.-M. Lau, H.-Y. Ngo / International Business Review 13 (2004) 685703

703

Park, H. J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C. F., & Bjorkman, I. (2003). The effect of human resource management
practices on Japanese MNC subsidiary performance: a partial mediating model. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 13911406.
Peck, S. R. (1994). Explaining the link between organizational strategy and the employment relationship: the role
of human resources policies. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 715736.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Hartel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on
team climate and performance in R&D teams. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561581.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531544.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore, The psychometrics of the
competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life.
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 5) (pp. 115142). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource practices: how employee
and customer contracts are created. Human Resource Management, 33, 463489.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: a test of the
homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462470.
Searle, R. H., & Ball, K. S. (2003). Supporting innovation through HR policy: evidence from the UK. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 12, 5062.
Sheppeck, M. A., & Militello, J. (2000). Strategic HR configurations and organizational performance. Human
Resource Management, 39, 516.
Sparkes, J. R., & Miyake, M. (2000). Knowledge transfer and human resource development practices: Japanese
firms in Brazil and Mexico. International Business Review, 9, 599612.
Spell, C. S. (2001). Organizational technologies and human resource management. Human Relations, 54,
193213.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational survey nonresponses. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39, 439457.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1999). The knowledge transfer and learning aspects of international HRM: an empirical study of
Singapore MNCs. International Business Review, 8, 591609.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Measuring human resources: an overview of practice and a prescription for results. Human
Resource Management, 36, 303320.
Valle, R., Martin, F., Romero, P. M., & Dolan, S. L. (2000). Business strategy, work processes and human
resource training: are they congruent? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 283297.
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, 355387.
Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews,
1, 367413.
Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and macro human
resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247276.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management.
Journal of Management, 18, 295320.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic
human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23, 756772.
Wright, P. M., McCormick, B., Sherman, W. S., & McMahan, G. C. (1999). The role of human resource
practices in petro-chemical refinery performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10,
551571.
Youndt, M., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing
strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 836866.