Effects of Human Resource Management Systems On Employee Proactivity and Group Innovation

680029
research-article2016
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206316680029Journal of ManagementLee et al. / HRM, Proactivity, and Innovation
Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1–28
DOI: 10.1177/0149206316680029
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Effects of Human Resource Management

Systems on Employee Proactivity
and Group Innovation
Hun Whee Lee
Michigan State University
Jongwook Pak
Sahmyook University
Seongsu Kim
Seoul National University
Long-Zhen Li
Hongik University
Proactivity is vital to innovative changes in the workplace. However, existing research on pro-
activity has rarely addressed how human resources management (HRM) systems induce proac-
tive behavior and influence group innovation. Indeed, HRM systems are considered primary
tools that organizations utilize to derive specific behaviors from their employees. Thus, examin-
ing the relationship between HRM systems and proactivity and its link to subsequent outcomes
is a worthwhile pursuit. To examine how HRM systems influence proactive behavior, we inves-
tigated the effects of HRM systems on three psychological states, namely, role breadth self-
efficacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in management. Furthermore, we suggested
that, facilitated by members’ proactive behaviors, group creative processes can spur group
innovation. We conducted two multilevel studies to test our hypotheses, and the results generally
supported our theoretical arguments. Exploring the process through which HRM influences
proactive behavior and subsequent innovation outcomes, this study contributes to the literatures
on HRM, proactivity, and innovation by elucidating the HRM–innovation relationship and sug-
gesting HRM systems as meaningful antecedents to proactivity.
Acknowledgments: The first two authors equally contributed to this work. This work was supported by Sahmyook
University, the Institute of Management Research at Seoul National University, and the 2014 Hongik University
Research Fund. Hun Whee Lee thanks Boshin Lee, Kyoungsook Kim, and Goo Hyeok Chung for their support while
preparing the manuscript.
Corresponding author: Seongsu Kim, Graduate School of Business, Seoul National University. Gwanak–ro 1,
Gwanak–gu, Seoul, Korea.
E-mail: sk2@snu.ac.kr
1
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016
2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Keywords: change-oriented HRM systems; proactivity; group innovation; multilevel analysis
Proactivity, which is defined as self-starting and change-oriented action in organizations

(Bindl & Parker, 2010; Grant & Ashford, 2008), is vital to the promotion of an innovative
workplace. Increasingly, employees are expected to work on their own initiative as organiza-
tions are now relatively decentralized (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). They have intimate
knowledge of what is happening in the field, what customers want, and what inefficiencies
lie in the system (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Thus, many organizations rely on employee
proactivity to identify areas of development and make constructive changes at work
(Unsworth & Parker, 2003).
Proactivity as a potential driver of workplace innovation has received considerable atten-
tion. Research has demonstrated that proactive behaviors are likely to occur when employees
have role breadth self-efficacy (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington,
2000; Parker, 1998), when they feel responsible for making constructive changes (Fuller,
Marler, & Hester, 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and when their perceptions of the orga-
nization are favorable (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002; Grant & Sumanth,
2009). Moreover, contextual factors, such as transformational leadership (Belschak & Den
Hartog, 2010; Rank, Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 2009), work characteristics (e.g., job autonomy,
job complexity, and control), and interpersonal climate (e.g., coworker support and trust),
have been suggested as antecedents to proactive behaviors (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010;
Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006; Raub & Liao, 2012).
Despite this progress, the question remains as to how management practices can foster
group innovation through employee proactivity. Studies on strategic human resources
management (SHRM) documented that a coherent set of HRM practices as part of formal
management programs can shape employee attitudes and behaviors to increase the com-
petence, motivation, and empowerment of employees to achieve strategic goals (e.g.,
Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009; Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). Furthermore, schol-
ars of SHRM suggested that the effects of HRM systems are fundamentally multilevel
phenomena, influencing individual outcomes and subsquently affecting group perfor-
mance (Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). Thus, HRM
systems can be a powerful driver toward constructive change in the workplace; change-
oriented behaviors can facilitate group innovation (e.g., Chi, Huang, & Lin, 2009; Collins
& Smith, 2006).
The purpose of this study is to shed new light on how HRM practices aimed at enhancing
change-oriented behaviors can engender workplace innovation by increasing employee pro-
activity. We first explicate how such HRM systems are related to three psychological states—
role breadth self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in management—which, in
turn, are related to proactive behavior. We draw on the ability–motivation–opportunity
(AMO) framework (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000) to propose that change-
oriented HRM systems can support the selection and training of proactive individuals, incen-
tivize and reward proactive behaviors, and provide opportunities to take advantage of their
potential (Boxall & Purcell, 2003).

Lee et al. / HRM, Proactivity, and Innovation 3
Figure 1
Proposed Model of This Study
We further propose that individual proactive behaviors aggregated at the group level facil-
itate group creative processes, thereby influencing group innovation. Although the relation-
ship between proactivity and innovation is presumably strong, it has rarely been tested
empirically (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). The underlying process by which individual proac-
tivity spurs group innovation is also unknown. Proactive behaviors have largely been con-
ceptualized and examined at the individual level, but in most organizations, collaborative
groups are the most basic units for generating meaningful outcomes. Thus, understanding the
process by which individual proactive behaviors contribute to group innovation is important
for our understanding of the relationship between individual proactivity and group innova-
tion. In this article, we explore how HRM systems affect proactive behavior and subsequent
group innovation, describing the mechanism underlying the HRM–innovation relationship.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of this study.
Literature Review
Proactivity and Innovation
Scholars of proactivity have identified several antecedents of individual proactivity. Early
researchers on proactivity adopted a trait approach, conceiving proactivity as a stable indi-
vidual disposition called proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993). A behavioral
approach emerged later on in which proactive behavior was recognized as a consequence of
individual motivation in a particular context (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Parker et al., 2010).
Individual psychological states have been particularly well examined, and the findings of
empirical studies suggested that individuals are highly proactive when they have role breadth
self-efficacy (Parker, 1998), felt responsibility for change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and
positive perceptions of the organization (Clegg et al., 2002; Grant & Sumanth, 2009).
The extant literature showed that the proactive behavior of employees at work is affected
by contextual variables (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Parker et al., 2010). One impor-
tant contextual factor likely to affect employees’ psychological states is management initia-
tives, particularly as it is reflected in HR practices (Takeuchi et al., 2009; Unsworth & Parker,
2003). A coherent set of HR practices can help employees develop proactive skills, encourage

feelings of responsibility in making constructive changes, and build their trust in management.
However, existing research focused on work characteristics such as job enrichment, job auton-
omy, job complexity, and control (e.g., Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Fuller et al.,
2006; Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker, 1998; Parker et al., 2006), and studies considering HRM
systems as potential antecedents of proactivity-oriented psychological states are scarce.
We propose that HRM systems are key drivers of three psychological states that promote
proactivity. Our selection of the three psychological states—role breadth self-efficacy, felt
responsibility for change, and trust in management—as outcomes of HRM systems was
based on empirical findings in the proactivity research and implications from the HRM lit-
erature. First, among the psychological states that have been suggested to predict proactive
behaviors, we selected these variables for their malleability and clarity as outcomes of con-
textual antecedents. Some proactivity-related variables (e.g., proactive personality) are
innate and therefore unsuitable for use as outcomes influenced by contextual factors, such as
HRM systems. Second, the associations of our selected variables with HR practices are par-
ticularly important. Because we examine the effects of HRM systems, it makes sense to
choose variables that may be influenced by workplace characteristics related to HRM sys-
tems. For example, Parker (1998) found that increased job enrichment and improved com-
munication enhanced role breadth self-efficacy. Fuller et al. (2006) suggested that work
characteristics are particularly conducive to increased felt responsibility for change. Finally,
we included trust in management rather than affective organizational commitment because of
the strong association between opportunity-enhancing HR practices and trust in manage-
ment. Opportunity-enhancing HR practices are concerned with management–employee com-
munication and transparent, continuous sharing of information. Researchers suggested that
information-sharing processes increase trust in management (Butler, 1999; Mayer & Gavin,
2005; Whitener, 2001).
HRM Systems as Antecedents of Proactivity-Relevant Psychological States

According to Schuler and Jackson (1987), the basic premise behind the behavioral per-
spective is that organizations can use HR practices to align employee behavior with the
interests of the firm. Research in the SHRM literature (e.g., Liao et al., 2009; Takeuchi et al.,
2009) documented the strategic importance of well-designed HRM systems as drivers of
individual attitudes and behaviors. Here, we adopted the widely used AMO framework
(Appelbaum et al., 2000; Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016; Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan,
2011; Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006) to identify three broad subdimensions of HRM
systems that influence employee proactivity. Ability-enhancing HR practices ensure that
individuals with proactive tendencies are hired and trained, motivation-enhancing HR prac-
tices motivate employees to work in a proactive manner, and opportunity-enhancing HR
practices support employees to exercise their proactive potential fully.
For HRM systems to promote proactivity, they are expected to address the following three
characteristics: creativity, innovativeness, and communication skills. The self-starting com-
ponent of proactivity is relevant to creative abilities, particularly, identifying problems and
generating novel solutions (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). The change-oriented component is
particularly relevant to the implementation of ideas that require willingness to adopt an inno-
vative approach (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Both the suggestion and implementation of
novel ideas require high-level communication skills for employees to effectively deliver their

messages and to mobilize support for innovative ideas (Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Janssen,
2000).
Ability-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

For a workforce to be proactive, staffing and training systems must be effective. This is
accomplished by selecting employees who are already exhibiting proactive tendencies or
training employees to learn to be proactive. Staffing practices can aid in selecting individuals
who demonstrate creativity, innovativeness, and good communication skills (Grant & Ashford,
2008). Training can improve the skills required to allow employees to exercise their proactive
tendencies. Competencies can be developed by training employees to come up with novel and
useful ideas and to implement and communicate these ideas so that they can make changes in
practice (Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007). In the process, individuals gradually come to believe
in their own capacity to demonstrate proactive behaviors (Axtell & Parker, 2003).
Motivation-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

Performance appraisals and rewards based on proactivity can influence employee will-
ingness to behave proactively. When employees are evaluated and rewarded based on their
suggestions for improvement, initiatives for driving change, and communication with oth-
ers to generate and implement creative ideas, they are likely to feel more obliged to make
changes in their workplace (Fuller et al., 2006). Rewards and performance appraisals for
change-oriented behaviors increase employees’ sense of personal accomplishment and sat-
isfaction in accomplishing organizational goals (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Similarly,
research on reward contingencies suggested that external rewards help to align employee
performance with organizational goals (Gerhart & Rynes, 2003). Eisenberger and Rhoades
(2001) found a positive relationship between extrinsic rewards and creativity.
Opportunity-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

Investing resources and effort into proactivity is futile if the environment does not allow,
encourage, or support proactive behaviors. We herein identified participative HR practices
that promote the environment for change-oriented behaviors. These HR practices include
providing the maximum amount of information to employees, encouraging employees to
provide information or input in collective decision-making processes, and allowing them to
assume a variety of work roles through job rotation (Cooke, 1994). In organizations with
participative HR practices, employees believe that their voices count and that their efforts
make a difference. Thus, they become more motivated to make contributions by initiating
change in the workplace (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Seibert,
Wang, & Courtright, 2011).
Integrated Perspective on Change-Oriented HRM Systems

Although we conceptually categorized HR practices according to the AMO framework,
we did not expect that these dimensions of HRM systems operate independently (e.g.,
Chuang et al., 2016). We therefore adopted a system-level approach in which the effects of

HR practices are best understood when examined as a whole (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Lepak
et al., 2006). We define an HRM system as a set of specific practices within an organization
that are internally consistent and mutually reinforcing (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Liao et al., 2009),
the effects of which are stronger than the collective impact of individual HR practices
(Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). We examine the positive influence of HR practices
targeted toward specific outcomes, as influenced by the three aforementioned proactivity-
relevant psychological states. We use the term change-oriented HRM systems to elucidate
how HRM practices induce self-starting and change-oriented behaviors and innovative
changes in organizations.
Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Role Breadth Self-efficacy

To begin with, we expect to see an effect of change-oriented HRM systems on role breadth
self-efficacy, which is the perceived ability to carry out a range of proactive, interpersonal,
and integrative activities beyond the prescribed technical core (Parker, 1998). Proactive
behavior often involves overcoming barriers and challenges, and high self-efficacy is critical
to persistence in handling difficult tasks (Bandura, 1997). Thus, employees with high role
breadth self-efficacy have higher expectations of success as a result of proactive behavior,
thereby making them more likely to choose this behavior (Parker et al., 2006). Positive rela-
tionships have been identified between role breadth self-efficacy and implementing proac-
tive ideas (Parker et al., 2006), taking personal initiative (Griffin et al., 2007), suggesting
improvements (Axtell et al., 2000), proactively solving problems (Parker et al., 2006), and
taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
According to social cognitive theory, individual self-efficacy is malleable and can be
developed (Bandura, 1997). People process external informational cues to form efficacy
beliefs primarily through vicarious learning and mastery experience. Change-oriented HRM
systems can help individuals to develop role breadth self-efficacy by providing social role
models they can learn from and encouraging them to engage in change-relevant activities
(Axtell & Parker, 2003). In organizations with change-oriented HRM systems, employees
are selected who are already capable of generating creative ideas, taking an innovative
approach, and communicating effectively, and a variety of training programs are offered for
those who are not. Performance appraisals and rewards based on creative, innovative, and
communicative behaviors in such organizations motivate employees to participate regularly
in experimental and integrative activities. Participative HR practices foster sharing of infor-
mation, collaborative decision making, and mastery of new roles and responsibilities, which
enables employees to develop a sense of control and competence in a broad range of tasks
and skills (Parker, 1998). Participative HR practices are conducive to the development of role
breadth self-efficacy and assuming of responsibilities both within and beyond the prescribed
job requirements. We therefore suggest that role breadth self-efficacy is a mediator through
which change-oriented HRM systems induce employee proactivity. Thus, we propose the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Change-oriented HRM systems are positively related to role breadth self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 1b: Role breadth self-efficacy is positively related to proactive behavior.
Hypothesis 1c: The effect of change-oriented HRM systems on proactive behavior is mediated by
role breadth self-efficacy.

Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Felt Responsibility for Change

Next, we examine the effect of change-oriented HRM systems on felt responsibility for
change, which is the belief that one is personally obligated to bring about environmental
change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). It is associated with employee initiative (Frese et al.,
1996) and the motivation to take charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Individuals with high
levels of felt responsibility are likely to exhibit more proactive behaviors because they tend
to attach positive valence to taking initiative (Graham, 1986). Felt responsibility for change
has been found to predict willingness to take charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), voice, and
continuous improvement (Fuller et al., 2006).
Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics theory and Parker and colleagues’
updated work design model (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001) both advocated a structural
approach to increasing felt responsibility. Change-oriented HRM systems may enhance felt
responsibility for change in the following ways. First, change-oriented HRM systems consis-
tently encourage employees to be creative and innovative. Staffing and training emphasize
employee competence in making changes, and employees are rewarded and evaluated based
on their behaviors and performance related to creativity and innovation. Moreover, employ-
ees are given sufficient autonomy, empowerment, and informational resources to take
responsibility for initiating and implementing workplace changes. Consistent with job char-
acteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), decision-making power and autonomy were
demonstrated to enhance a sense of responsibility (Frese et al., 1996). In addition, Fuller
et al. (2006) demonstrated that access to resources and information was positively related to
felt responsibility for change. We herein propose felt responsibility for change as an impor-
tant mediator in the effect of change-oriented HRM systems on proactive behaviors.
Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Change-oriented HRM systems are positively related to felt responsibility for
change.
Hypothesis 2b: Felt responsibility for change is positively related to proactive behavior.
felt responsibility for change.
Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Trust in Management

There are several explanations about why trust in management may be essential to proac-
tivity. When employees trust management, they transcend their own self-interest for the sake
of the collective. Trust entails “a state of perceived vulnerability or risk derived from indi-
viduals’ uncertainty regarding the motives, intentions, and prospective actions of others on
whom they depend” (Kramer, 1999: 571). With the belief that the actions of a company will
ultimately be beneficial to employees, trust in management develops into organizational
commitment and willingness to take risks (Clegg et al., 2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Macky
& Boxall, 2007). Moreover, trust in management is positively related to supportive percep-
tion of work environments (Whitener, 2001). Employees with high levels of trust in manage-
ment perceive the organizational climate to be nonthreatening, which may encourage them to
suggest improvements and take initiative with no fear of vulnerability or threat (Macky &
Boxall, 2007). Clegg and colleagues (2002) revealed that trust in the organization predicted
the innovative behaviors of employees.

Through the lens of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), implementation of change-ori-
ented HRM systems can be suggested to foster trust in management (Lepak et al., 2006).
Establishment of participative HR practices is conducive to the development of employee
trust in management. Information sharing conveys to employees that they are trusted (Butler,
1999; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Provided with information on organizational issues and
planned changes on a regular basis, employees become aware of the larger picture of work
processes and operations (Ichniowski & Shaw, 1999) and develop the perception of being
supported by the organization (Paré & Tremblay, 2007). According to Lawler (1986), infor-
mation sharing is one of the most effective means of fostering employee involvement within
organizations. The accumulation of organizational knowledge and perceived organizational
support enhances employee trust in management (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Whitener, 2001).
Moreover, employees who can use their discretion and make decisions in the workplace
have higher levels of trust in management. Participative policies that are perceived by
employees as procedurally fair increase trust in management (Brockner & Siegel, 1995).
Appelbaum et al. (2000) suggested that HR practices that provide employees with opportuni-
ties to participate in decision making increase trust in management (e.g., see also Macky &
Boxall, 2007). When participative HR practices are in place, employees’ trust in management
and commitment toward organizational goals increase, which may galvanize them to look at
their work roles and situations in new ways (Lepak et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose that
change-oriented HRM systems are associated with the trust of employees in management,
thereby influencing their proactive behavior. We also propose that trust in management medi-
ates the effect of opportunity-enhancing HR practices on proactive behavior.
Hypothesis 3a: Change-oriented HRM systems are positively related to trust in management.
Hypothesis 3b: Trust in management is positively related to proactive behavior.
trust in management.
Individual Proactivity, Group Creative Processes, and Group Innovation

Proactive behavior is an important driver of innovation. We suggest that group creative
processes may link input resulting from aggregated individual proactivity and output result-
ing from group innovation (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Group creative processes are
defined as “members working together in such a manner that they link ideas from multiple
sources, delve into unknown areas to find better or unique approaches to a problem, or seek
out novel ways of performing a task” (Gilson & Shalley, 2004: 454). Creative processes are
often theorized as necessary preconditions for innovation (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993). When proactive employees work in groups, more suggestions are offered for improve-
ments to work procedures, more creative ideas are put forward for problem solving, and
employees take more initiative to realize their ideas. Thus, retaining highly proactive indi-
viduals within groups enables higher levels of informational processing and fosters creative
solutions. In the process of continuous generation and implementation of novel ideas, inno-
vation is achieved within groups. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: Aggregated individual proactive behavior is positively related to group creative
processes.

Hypothesis 4b: Group creative processes are positively related to group innovation.
Hypothesis 4c: The effects of aggregated individual proactive behavior on group innovation are
mediated by group creative processes.
Overview of the Present Research

We conducted two field studies in Korea to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, we collected
data from 285 group members working with 48 different group leaders. In Study 2, we con-
structively replicated this test of our hypotheses in a sample of 213 group members working
with 54 different group leaders. For Study 2, we separated variables in time to infer the direc-
tional association between change-oriented HRM systems and the outcome variables.
Furthermore, we obtained supervisor ratings of employee proactivity as well as employee
ratings of group creative processes to avoid common source effects.
In Studies 1 and 2, we conducted surveys in groups that met the following criteria. Groups
were responsible for unique tasks working with a common group leader. These complex
tasks required collaboration. Groups performed specific functions within the organization
(e.g., planning, HR, engineering, accreditation). In addition, groups were exposed to continu-
ous change initiatives in areas of products/services and work processes. For the purposes of
our study (i.e., to examine the effects of HR practices), we also required participating manag-
ers or leaders to have a certain amount of authority and discretion in enacting espoused HR
policies as agents for the organization (Pak & Kim, in press).
Study 1
Sample
Our data were collected from 11 Korean companies through both printed and online sur-
veys. In the cover letter, we briefly described the purpose of our research and emphasized the
anonymity of the responses. Data on psychological states, such as role breadth self-efficacy,
felt responsibility for change, trust in management, and proactive behavior, were collected
from group members, whereas data on HR practices, group creative processes, and group
innovation, were gathered from group leaders.
The original sample comprised 52 groups, from which 292 group members and 50 group
leaders initially responded to our survey (96% response rate at the group level). We achieved
a good response rate because we contacted companies that we already had strong ties with and
had good management support. Also, we requested group leaders to encourage their members
to actively participate in surveys. Data were excluded from the sample if neither the group
leader nor the group members responded or fewer than two group members responded. Thus,
the final sample comprised 285 group members working with 48 different group leaders. The
within-group response rate ranged from 14% to 100% (average: 64%). The average age and
tenure of respondents in years in our final sample were 38 (SD = 8.2) and 10.1 (SD = 8.1),
respectively. Groups had 11.9 group members on average (SD = 7.5). In addition, men com-
posed 81% of the respondents, and the average education level of employees in years was 16.4
(SD = 1.4). Finally, respondents worked in a variety of job sectors, including management/
administration (56.3%), production/engineering (12.5%), R&D (22.9%), and service (2.1%).

Measures
All responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = completely
disagree to 5 = completely agree.
Change-oriented HRM systems. Change-oriented HRM systems consist of three ele-

ments, namely, ability-, motivation-, and opportunity-enhancing HR practices. Group leaders
evaluated HR practices and their responses described HRM systems as reflected in real-life
situations rather than merely in formal policies (Chuang et al., 2016; Pak & Kim, in press;
Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, Park, Gerhart, & Delery, 2001).
We developed the items for ability- and motivation-enhancing practices in the survey by
adapting the items and approaches of other researchers who outlined the alignment of HRM
systems with the specific interests of firms. Examples include flexibility-oriented HRM sys-
tems (Chang, Gong, Way, & Jia, 2012), human capital–enhancing HRM systems (Teo, Le
Clerc, & Galang, 2011), HRM systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork (Chuang et al.,
2016), and high-performance work systems for occupational safety (Zacharatos, Barling, &
Iverson, 2005), to name a few. The items for ability-enhancing HR practices pertained to the
extent to which (a) staffing practices emphasize creative skills, communication abilities, and
innovative approaches and (b) training is offered to improve employees’ abilities to generate
novel ideas, communicate with others, and implement new ideas. Motivation-enhancing HR
practices, such as performance appraisals and rewards, were similarly measured as the extent
to which (a) performance appraisals evaluate employee behaviors related to suggesting new
ideas and improving procedures, effectively communicating with others, and implementing
novel solutions and (b) employees are incentivized and rewarded based on creative perfor-
mance, suggestion of novel ideas, and innovative outcomes.
Items for opportunity-enhancing HR practices involved empowering employees to make
decisions, encouraging them to participate in group decision making, and sharing informa-
tion. Moreover, job rotation practices were included because they allow employees to assume
different roles, thereby improving their adaptive skills through exposure to diverse tasks. We
adapted items from Sun, Aryee, and Law (2007); Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman
(1999); and Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, and Takeuchi (2007) (see appendix for items included
in the survey on change-oriented HRM systems).
Given our focus on HRM systems, we used a unitary HRM index based on the whole set
of HR practices (Collins & Smith, 2006; Gittell, Seidner, & Wimbush, 2010). This index has
been extensively used in strategic HRM research, which suggests that the influence of HR
practices is best understood by investigating the system of HR practices as a whole rather
than examining HR practices individually (e.g., Liao et al., 2009). We conducted a principal
components factor analysis of all items related to change-oriented HRM systems, extracting
four factors in an exploratory factor analysis. The eigenvalue for Factor 1 was 7.42, and the
eigenvalues for Factors 2, 3, and 4 were 2.1, 1.59, and 1.18, respectively. Although multiple
factors were extracted, consistent patterns were detected. Training (ability-enhancing HR
practices), compensation (motivation-enhancing HR practices), and participative HR prac-
tices (opportunity-enhancing HR practices) were classified separately, whereas selection and
performance appraisals were combined into one factor. Except for selection and performance
appraisals, items were relatively well classified according to the AMO framework of HR
practices. We found an average item-to-total correlation score of .65 for the items in the HR
practices index, suggesting that it met the standards for convergent validity (Gittell et al.,

2010). Considering all of the constructs used in previous studies for measurement of change-
oriented HRM systems, and following the protocol in prior studies advocating a system
approach to HR practices (Huselid, 1995; Gittell et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2007), we created an
index specific to change-oriented HRM systems.
Role breadth self-efficacy. The role breadth self-efficacy of employees was assessed
based on 10 items obtained from Parker (1998). A sample item is “How confident would you
be if you were asked to design new work procedures for your work area?” The alpha coef-
ficient for measurement of this variable was .93.
Felt responsibility for change. The felt responsibility for change of employees was
assessed using three items obtained from Morrison and Phelps (1999). An illustrative item
is “I feel a personal sense of responsibility to bring about change at work.” The alpha coef-
ficient for measurement of this variable was .88.
Trust in management. Employee trust in management was measured using the six-item
scale of Cook and Wall (1980). This scale measures employees’ faith and confidence in the
intentions and abilities of management. A sample item is “I feel quite confident that the man-
agement of our firm will always try to treat me fairly.” The alpha coefficient for measurement
of this construct was .94.
Individual proactivity. Proactive behavior (i.e., taking charge) was measured with a
10-item questionnaire obtained from Morrison and Phelps (1999). This measure has also
been used in other studies (e.g., Parker & Collins, 2010). Taking charge is “discretionary
behavior intended to effect organizationally functional change” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999,
p. 403). Taking charge was shown to be strongly related to other measures of proactive work
behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). The items were worded in such a way that indi-
vidual behavioral tendencies were assessed. The items were also completed by self-report. A
sample item is “I make constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the
organization.” The alpha coefficient for measurement of this variable was .93.
Group creative processes. To measure group creative processes, we adapted three items
from Gilson and Shalley (2004), whose scale measures the propensity to approach problem
solving, which may be accomplished in either a more creative or a more routine, methodical
manner. A sample item is “My group searches for novel approaches not required at the time.”
The alpha coefficient for measurement of this variable was .89.
Group innovation. To measure group innovation, we adapted a four-item scale obtained

from Somech (2006). The items reflected the extent to which, in the previous 6 months, the
efforts of the group had resulted in innovative outcomes in each of the following job areas:
work objectives, working methods, work strategies, and development of skills. The alpha
coefficient for measurement of this construct was .96.
Control variables. We controlled certain variables at both the group and individual levels.
At the group level, we controlled for the frequency of group meetings per week (as reported

by group leaders) because face-to-face meetings may provide opportunities for making sug-
gestions and enhance individual learning from others (Chuang et al., 2016). Group size (the
actual number of group members, as reported by HR directors) was also included among the
control variables because it can influence intrateam interaction patterns and opportunities
for employees to participate in group decision making (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Finally,
the job group was considered a control variable because the need for novel solutions and
improved procedures may differ according to characteristics of assigned tasks. The groups in
our target firm worked in five broad areas: management/administration, production/engineer-
ing, sales, R&D, and others. Therefore, four dummy variables were created and included as
control variables. At the individual level, education level and tenure were measured in years
and included as control variables because they could affect individual efficacy or responsibil-
ity to initiate changes in organizations (Fuller et al., 2006; Tierney & Farmer, 2002).
Analyses
Our model is multilevel in nature, consisting of variables at both the group level (i.e.,
change-oriented HRM systems, group creative processes, and group innovation outcomes)
and the individual level (i.e., role breadth self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, trust in
management, and taking charge). Thus, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM;
Raudenbush, 2004) to test our hypotheses.
Results
We conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the discriminant
validity of our constructs. Given that we had a large number of items in the survey on change-
oriented HRM systems (17 items), the constructs were modeled as latent variables with three
item parcels, including ability-enhancing HR practices (six items), motivation-enhancing HR
practices (six items), and opportunity-enhancing HR practices (five items). Moreover, we
created five item parcels for role breadth self-efficacy (10 items) and individual proactivity
(10 items), respectively, because these two variables also had many items. A CFA that
included individual-level role breadth self-efficacy (five item parcels), felt responsibility for
change (three items), trust in management (six items), and individual proactivity (five item
parcels) as well as group-level change-oriented HRM systems (three item parcels), group
creative processes (three items), and group innovation (four items) revealed acceptable fit of
the multilevel model: χ2(502) = 640.82, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .03. Moreover, the hypothesized model had better
fit than all the other alternative models in which any two of the factors at the individual or
group level were combined (chi-square differences: all p < .01). These findings verified the
discriminant validity of our measures. The means, standard deviations, and correlations are
presented in Table 1.
Tests on HRM Systems Influencing Psychological States

Prior to conducting our HLM analyses, we examined the degree of between-group vari-
ance between role breadth self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables (Study 1)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Individual level
1. Tenure 10.10 8.08
2. Education 16.35 1.36 .20**
3. Role breadth self- 3.66 0.62 .31** .11
efficacy
4. Felt responsibility for 3.74 0.71 .25** .01 .61**
change
5. Trust in management 3.34 0.82 .09 −.15** .48** .48**
6. Individual proactivity 3.71 0.61 .28** .07 .74** .72** .54**
Group level
1. Group meeting 3.46 3.30
frequency
2. Group size 11.85 7.50 −.02
3. Job Group 1 0.56 0.50 .12 −.49**
4. Job Group 2 0.13 0.33 −.21 −.12 −.43**
5. Job Group 3 0.23 0.42 .14 .50** −.62** −.21
6. Job Group 4 0.02 0.14 −.07 −.04 −.17 −.06 −.08
7. Change-oriented HRM 3.80 0.54 .19 .15 −.20 .03 .21 −.15
systems
8. Group creative processes 3.75 0.69 .03 .04 −.06 .23 .01 −.30* .63**
9. Group innovation 3.79 0.81 .32* .10 −.01 .05 .07 −.19 .72** .71**
Note: HRM = human resources management. Individual level, n = 285; group level, n = 48. Job Group
1 = management/administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, and Job Group 4 = sales.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
management. The results of null models revealed a 3% variance in role breadth self-efficacy,
a 6% variance in felt responsibility for change, and a 13% variance in trust in management.
The chi-square tests revealed significant between-group variance for the variables role
breadth self-efficacy (p < .05), felt responsibility for change (p < .01), and trust in manage-
ment (p < .01) across groups. In the subsequent step, we included control variables. At Level
1, we controlled for the education level and organizational tenure of employees. At Level 2,
we included group meeting frequency, group size, and job group as control variables. Finally,
we used an intercepts-as-outcome model with change-oriented HRM systems as the Level 2
predictor and role breadth self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in manage-
ment as the Level 1 outcomes to test Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a, respectively. Table 2 shows
a positive and significant relationship between change-oriented HRM systems and role
breadth self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1a, γ̂ = .20, p < .05), felt responsibility for change
(Hypothesis 2a, γ̂ = .28, p < .05), and trust in management (Hypothesis 3a, γ̂ = .42, p < .01).
We compared our final model including change-oriented HRM systems to the model without
change-oriented HRM systems while controlling for tenure and education level at the indi-
vidual level and group meeting frequency, group size, and job group at the group level.

Table 2
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results Predicting Three Psychological States
(Study 1)
Dependent Variable
Role Breadth Felt Responsibility

Variable Self-efficacy for Change Trust in Management
Level 1
Intercept 3.33 (0.19)** 3.51 (0.24)** 2.88 (0.27)**
Tenure (control) .02 (.01)** .01 (.01)* .01 (.01)
Education (control) .00 (.03) −.04 (.04) −.12 (.04)**
Level 2
Group meeting frequency (control) .00 (.01) .01 (.02) −.02 (.02)
Group size (control) .01 (.01) .02 (.01) −.01 (.01)
Job Group 1 (control) .42 (.21) .28 (.26) .63 (.30)*
Job Group 2 (control) .11 (.24) .26 (.29) .19 (.34)
Change-oriented HRM systems .20 (.09)* .28 (.11)* .42 (.13)**
Note: HRM = human resources management. Employees, n = 285; groups, n = 48. Job Group 1 = management/
administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, and Job Group 4 = sales. Values in
parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Including change-oriented HRM systems resulted in significant model improvements (for

role breadth self-efficacy, Δχ2[1] = 6.94, p < .01; for felt responsibility for change, Δχ2[1] =
9.77, p < .01; and for trust in management, Δχ2[1] = 15.96, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1a, 2a,
and 3a were supported.
Tests on the Effects of Psychological States on Individual Proactivity

As reported in Table 3, the results of the analysis revealed that the three psychological
states were significantly related to individual proactivity (for role breadth self-efficacy
[Hypothesis 1b], γ̂ = .71, p < .01; for felt-responsibility for change [Hypothesis 2b], γ̂ = .62,
p < .01; and for trust in management [Hypothesis 3b], γ̂ = .39, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1b,
2b, and 3b were supported.
Tests on the Mediation Effects

Hypotheses 1c, 2c, and 3c predicted an indirect positive relationship between change-
oriented HRM systems and individual proactivity via role breadth self-efficacy, felt respon-
sibility for change, and trust in management, respectively. We followed procedures
recommended by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) to calculate the random indirect effects.
This involved estimating the indirect effects and conducting a Monte Carlo simulation with
20,000 replications to obtain a confidence interval around them (Preacher & Selig, 2012).

Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results Predicting Individual Proactivity (Study 1)
Dependent Variable
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Individual Individual Individual Individual

Variable Proactivity Proactivity Proactivity Proactivity
Level 1
Intercept 3.33 (0.12)** 3.26 (0.13)** 3.31 (0.17)** 3.35 (0.10)**
Tenure (control) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .01 (.00)* .00 (.00)
Education (control) −.03 (.02) .00 (.02) .02 (.03) −.01 (.02)
Role breadth self-efficacy .71 (.04)** .41 (.04)**
Felt responsibility for change .62 (.03)** .36 (.04)**
Trust in management .39 (.04)** .09 (.03)**
Level 2
Group meeting frequency .01 (.01) .00 (.01) .01 (.01) .00 (.01)
(control)
Group size (control) .00 (.00) .00 (.01) .01 (.01)* .00 (.00)
Job Group 1 (control) .44 (.13)** .53 (.14)** .45 (.18)* .41 (.11)**
Job Group 2 (control) .38 (.14)* .26 (.16) .34 (.20) .29 (.12)*
Job Group 3 (control) .36 (.11)** .48 (.13)** .34 (.16)* .38 (.10)**
Job Group 4 (control) .46 (.24) .47 (.26) .67 (.33)* .41 (.20)*
administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, and Job Group 4 = sales. Values in
parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Examining our mediators separately, the estimates for the indirect effects were significant
(for role breadth self-efficacy, indirect effect = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.016,
0.268]; for felt responsibility for change, indirect effect = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.039, 0.309]; and
for trust in management, indirect effect = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.064, 0.269]). Thus, Hypotheses
1c, 2c, and 3c were supported.
Tests on the Relationship Between Individual Proactivity and Group

Innovation
Hypothesis 4a posited that aggregated individual proactivity is positively related to
group creative processes. As we used average values for individual proactivity at the group
level, we tested this hypothesis using the ordinary least squares regression method and
controlled for group size, job group, and group meeting frequency. The results indicated
that aggregated individual proactivity was significantly related to group creative processes
(see Table 4; β = .40, ∆R2 = .13, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was supported.
Hypothesis 4b suggested that group creative processes are positively related to group inno-
vation. After controlling for group size, group meeting frequency, and job group, we found
a positive and significant relationship between group creative processes and group

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Results Predicting Group Creative Process and Group
Innovation (Study 1 and Study 2)
Dependent Variables (Study 1) Dependent Variables (Study 2)
Group Creative Group Group Creative Group

Process Innovation Process Innovation
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Step 1: Controls
Group meeting frequency .06 .03 .33* .29** .20 .05 .32* .22
Group size .08 .01 .15 .10 −.32* −.24 −.18 −.01
Task interdependence .05 .09 .12 .09
Job Group 1 .08 −.26 .08 .02 −.17 .19 −.27 −.18
Job Group 2 .28 .15 .16 −.04 .04 .16 −.10 −.12
Job Group 3 .04 −.17 .02 −.02 .15 .44 −.15 −.23
Job Group 4 −.26 −.37* −.14 .05 −.04 .10 −.06 −.04
Job Group 5 −.24 .02 −.42 −.29
Step 2: Main effect
Individual proactivity .40* .58**
(aggregated)
Group creative process .72** .53**
∆F 1.15 6.93* 1.24 43.55** 1.44 23.22** 2.02 18.76**
∆R2 .14 .13 .15 .45 .20 .28 .26 .22
R2 .14 .27 .15 .60 .20 .48 .26 .48
Note: Groups, n = 48 (Study 1) and n = 54 (Study 2). Entries are standardized coefficients. Job Group
1 = management/administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, Job Group 4 = sales,
and Job Group 5 = service.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
innovation (see Table 4; β = .72, ∆ R2 = .45, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was supported.
Hypothesis 4c proposed group creative processes as a mediating variable between aggre-
gated individual proactivity and group innovation. We used the bootstrap sampling method
(bootstrap sample size = 5,000) to generate asymmetric CIs for measurement of this indi-
rect relationship, as recommended by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004).
Values for the indirect effect of aggregated individual proactivity on group innovation
through group creative processes were significant (point estimate = .61, 95% bias-cor-
rected CI = [0.125, 1.148]). Thus, Hypothesis 4c was supported.
Discussion
The results of this study offered initial evidence for the association of HRM systems with
employee proactivity and group innovation. Although these results are promising, they are
subject to at least two important limitations. These limitations will be addressed in Study 2.
First, the cross-sectional design of our study limits our ability to infer causality. In particular,

we suggested HRM systems as key drivers of employee proactivity and group innovation. To
unpack the directional association between HRM systems and outcome variables, it is impor-
tant to bring a longitudinal element to the study. Thus, in Study 2, we separated the measures
of change-oriented HRM systems and outcome variables in time.
Second, Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b, and 4b were tested using self-report measures, which
raises concerns about the results being influenced by same-source common-method bias. At
the individual level, employees reported on both the three psychological states and individual
proactivity. At the group level, group leaders reported on both group creative processes and
group innovation. Therefore, it is likely that the relationships found in this study were inflated
by common-source effects. Thus, it is important to move beyond self-reports and to replicate
the current findings using different sources.
Study 2
Sample
To address these two issues, we conducted a second study. We collected data from 19
Korean companies. Data were collected in two waves. Our research design therefore reflects
the time lag between independent and dependent variables because we predicted a directional
impact of HRM systems on outcome variables over time (Mitchell & James, 2001). During
the first wave of data collection, group leaders completed surveys related to change-oriented
HRM systems. Approximately 4 weeks later, group members provided data on role breadth
self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, trust in management, and group creative pro-
cesses, and group leaders rated individual proactivity and group innovation.
The initial survey was sent to 64 groups. After removal of instances of missing and
unmatched data, the final sample comprised 213 group members working with 54 different
group leaders (84% response rate at the group level). They worked in 54 groups that operated
in various job groups, including management/administration (46.3%), engineering/production
(9.3%), sales (16.7%), R&D (5.6%), and service (16.7%). The within-group response rate
ranged from 22% to 100% (average 71%). Men composed 63.8% of the respondents, 71.8%
held at least a bachelor’s degree, and most participants (74.1%) were between the ages of 20
to 39 years. The average tenure of respondents in years in our final sample was 6.8 (SD = 5.8).
Measures
Several measures had to be shortened to keep the survey length to a minimum. In this
process, we took extra care to ensure that the selected items would be familiar and meaning-
ful for Korean employees (Lonner, 1990). Unless indicated, all responses were scored on a
5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Change-oriented HRM systems. We created an index of change-oriented HRM systems

using the same scale (17 items) that was utilized in Study 1. The results of a principal com-
ponents analysis revealed five relevant factors. The eigenvalue for Factor 1 was 6.88, and the
eigenvalues for Factors 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 2.37, 1.56, 1.17, and 1.10, respectively. Similar to
Study 1, we found consistent patterns among factors. For example, compensation and perfor-
mance appraisals were combined into a single factor (motivation-enhancing HR practices), and

four out of the five items in opportunity-enhancing HR practices were classified under another
factor. Items from selection and training were separated into two different factors. Overall, the
items fit the AMO framework of HR practices. An average item-to-total correlation score of .63
was obtained for the items in the HR practices index. The alpha coefficient was .90.
Role breadth self-efficacy. We selected four items from Study 1 to include in Study 2 for
measurement of this variable. The alpha coefficient was .85.
Felt responsibility for change. The same scale (three items) used in Study 1 was applied
in Study 2. The alpha coefficient was .85.
Trust in management. We selected four items from Study 1. The alpha coefficient was .87.
Individual proactivity. We selected five items from Study 1. Group leaders assessed the
proactive behaviors of each employee in the group. An example item is as follows: “This
employee makes constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the orga-
nization.” The alpha coefficient was .93.
Group creative processes. The same three-item scale used in Study 1 was applied in
Study 2. In Study 2, group members assessed group creative processes. We calculated the
within-group agreement index, rwg(j), and the intraclass correlations, ICC(1) and ICC(2), to
determine the appropriateness of aggregating the scores for group creative processes reported
by individual members. The median value of rwg(j) for group creative processes was 0.92, and
the ICC(1) and ICC(2) values were 0.27 and 0.59, respectively (F = 2.44, p < .001). These
statistics showed that the empirical properties of our analysis were acceptable to aggregate
the individual member ratings to the group level of analysis. The alpha coefficient was .90.
Group innovation. The same scale (four items) used in Study 1 was applied in Study 2.
The alpha coefficient was .92.
Control variables. At the group level, we controlled for group meeting frequency per
week (as reported by group leaders) and group size (the actual number of group members, as
reported by group leaders). We also controlled for the level of task interdependence, which
either intensifies or mitigates the effects of other variables in groups (Stewart & Barrick,
2000). Group leaders assessed task interdependence using two items (α = .73) adapted from
Van Der Vegt, Emans, and Van De Vliert (2000). Finally, groups operated in six broad areas,
such as management/administration, production/engineering, sales, R&D, service, and oth-
ers; five dummy variables were created and included as controls. At the individual level,
we included education level (1 = high school or less, 2 = vocational school, 3 = a bachelor’s
degree, 4 = master’s or doctoral degree) and tenure in years as controls.
Results
Measurement Issues
A multilevel CFA was conducted that included individual-level responses regarding role
breadth self-efficacy (four items), felt responsibility for change (three items), trust in

management (four items), individual proactivity (five items), and group creative processes
(three items) as well as group-level responses, such as change-oriented HRM systems (three
item parcels), task interdependence (two items), and group innovation (four items). All items
showed acceptable fit to the multilevel measurement model, as follows: χ2(464) = 571.12;
CFI = .98; and RMSEA = .02. This model demonstrated significantly better fit than all the
other alternative models in which any two factors were combined (chi-square differences: all
p < .01). The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all of the measures are pre-
sented in Table 5.
Tests on HRM systems influencing psychological states. We first examined the degree
of between-group variance in values for role breadth self-efficacy, felt responsibility for
change, and trust in management. The results of null models revealed an 8% variance in role
breadth self-efficacy (p < .05), a 16% variance in felt responsibility for change (p < .01), and
a 26% variance in trust in management (p < .01) between groups. We then used an intercepts-
as-outcome model to test Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a. As presented in Table 6, the results
demonstrated positive relationships between change-oriented HRM systems and role breadth
self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1a, γ̂ = .30, p < .05), felt responsibility for change (Hypothesis 2a,
γ̂ = .30, p < .05), and trust in management (Hypothesis 3a, γ̂ = .34, p < .05). We also found
significant model improvements for role breadth self-efficacy, Δχ2(1) = 7.36, p < .01; for felt
responsibility for change, Δχ2(1) = 8.48, p < .01; and for trust in management, Δχ2(1) = 8.49,
p < .01, compared to the model that excluded change-oriented HRM systems while control-
ling for tenure, education level, group meeting frequency, group size, task interdependence,
and job group. Thus, the results supported Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a.
Tests on the effects of psychological states on individual proactivity. As presented in

Table 7, the results demonstrated significant relationships between the three psychological
states and individual proactivity (for role breadth self-efficacy, γ̂ = .29, p < .01; for felt respon-
sibility for change, γ̂ = .35, p < .01; and for trust in management, γ̂ = .17, p < .01). When the
three psychological states were tested together as predictors of individual proactivity, trust in
management was not significantly related to individual proactivity ( γ̂ = .04, ns). However,
given the significant correlations between the three psychological states, it is plausible to
attribute this unexpected finding to the multicollinearity among predictors. Overall, however,
the results supported Hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 3b.
Tests on the mediation effects. We followed the same procedures as those in Study 1 to
obtain CIs around the indirect effect. We included our mediators in separate analyses; the
results showed that the estimates for the indirect effects were significant (for role breadth
self-efficacy, indirect effect = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.011, 0.164]; for felt responsibility for change,
indirect effect = 0.1, 95% CI = [0.019, 0.195]; for trust in management, indirect effect = 0.05,
95% CI = [0.004, 0.111]). Thus, Hypotheses 1c, 2c, and 3c were supported.
Tests on the relationship between individual proactivity and group innovation. As
shown in Table 4, the results demonstrated significant relationships between aggregated
individual proactivity and group creative processes (β = .58, ΔR2 = .28, p < .01) and between
group creative processes and group innovation (β = .53, ΔR2 = .22, p < .01). The results of
the analysis using the bootstrap sampling method (bootstrap sample size = 5,000) indicated

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables (Study 2)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Individual level
1. Tenure 6.81 5.76
2. Education 2.75 .61 .12
3. Role breadth self- 3.63 .65 .12 .13
efficacy
4. Felt responsibility 3.79 .69 .05 .25** .55**
for change
5. Trust in 3.30 .77 −.05 −.12 .25** .43**
management
6. Individual 3.66 .76 .11 −.06 .30** .35** .23**
proactivity
Group level
1. Group meeting 2.50 1.89
frequency
2. Group size 6.13 2.22 .28*
3. Task 3.76 .69 .30* −.02
interdependence
4. Job Group 1 .46 .50 −.20 −.26 .35**
5. Job Group 2 .09 .29 .15 .36** .07 −.30*
6. Job group 3 .17 .38 −.03 .00 −.46** −.42** −.14
7. Job Group 4 .06 .23 .11 .17 .03 −.23 −.08 −.11
8. Job Group 5 .17 .38 −.07 −.03 −.21 −.42** −.14 −.20 −.11
9. Change-oriented 3.74 .52 .32* .09 .52** .15 .22 −.27* .18 −.33*
HRM systems
10. Group creative 3.56 .52 .17 −.21 .04 −.08 .03 .24 −.03 −.21 .37**
processes
11. Group innovation 3.52 .71 .37** −.06 .27* .04 .06 .00 .08 −.30* .63** .59**
Note: HRM = human resources management. Individual level, n = 213; group level, n = 54. Job Group
1 = management/administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, Job Group 4 = sales,
and Job Group 5 = service.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
that the indirect relationship between aggregated individual proactivity and group innovation
through group creative processes was significant (point estimate = .19, 95% bias-corrected
CI = [.001, .412]). Thus, the results supported Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c.
General Discussion
Our framework contributes to the literature on both proactivity and strategic HRM. First,
we showed that the psychological states of employees were involved in the connection
between HR practices and proactive behaviors. Drawing on the behavioral perspective and
the AMO model of HRM, we suggested that HRM systems (i.e., change-oriented HRM sys-
tems) can elicit proactive behaviors by influencing employees’ competence and motivation

Table 6
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results Predicting Three Psychological States
(Study 2)
Dependent Variable
Role Breadth Felt Responsibility Trust in

Variable Self-efficacy for Change Management
Level 1
Intercept 3.91 (0.31)** 4.13 (0.15)** 3.69 (0.22)**
Tenure (control) .00 (.01) −.01 (.01) −.01 (.01)
Education (control) .18 (.11) .38 (.09)** −.02 (.08)
Level 2
Group meeting frequency (control) −.02 (.02) −.02 (.03) .01 (.03)
Group size (control) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) −.07 (.03)*
Task interdependence (control) −.16 (.09) −.22 (.09)* −.16 (.09)
Job Group 1 (control) −.24 (.31) −.38 (.17)* −.44 (.24)
Job Group 2 (control) −.39 (.30) −.30 (.26) −.57 (.29)
Job Group 5 (control) −.41 (.33) −.51 (.20)* −.33 (.27)
Change-oriented HRM systems .30 (.13)* .30 (.12)* .34 (.13)*
administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, Job Group 4 = sales, and Job Group 5
= service. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
and their perceptions of management. Our results pointed to the importance of considering
psychological states as intermediaries between HRM systems and proactive behaviors. HRM
systems initially achieve their behavioral objectives (e.g., induce proactive behaviors) by
influencing the motivational or cognitive states of employees. The findings of this study
extended those of the literature on both proactivity and strategic HRM by suggesting new
antecedents of proactivity-relevant psychological states as well as illuminating the mecha-
nism through which change-oriented HRM systems influence proactive behaviors.
Second, our findings implied that HRM systems can foster group innovation by influenc-
ing individual proactivity. The relationship between HRM practices and innovation has been
suggested as an important topic of research (e.g., Chi et al., 2009; Collins & Smith, 2006).
However, individual proactivity has not been considered as an intermediate pathway in the
relationship. Moreover, scholars in multilevel HRM studies have argued that the influence of
HRM systems on group performance is a fundamentally multilevel phenomenon (Bal, Kooij,
& De Jong, 2013; Jiang et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2009; Snape & Redman, 2010). That is, HRM
systems initially influence individual outcomes, which, in turn, are aggregated through emer-
gent processes to impact unit-level outcomes (Jiang et al., 2013; Nishii et al., 2008). However,
this basic assumption has rarely been tested in empirical settings (for one exception, see
Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu, & Otaye, 2012). By identifying the link between HRM systems
and group innovation through individual proactive behaviors, we filled the gap in research on

Table 7
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results Predicting Individual Proactivity (Study 2)
Dependent Variable
Individual Individual Individual Individual

Variable Proactivity Proactivity Proactivity Proactivity
Level 1
Intercept 4.19 (0.11)** 4.15 (0.14)** 4.21 (0.16)** 4.12 (0.11)**
Tenure (control) .02 (.01) .03 (.01)* .02 (.01) .02 (.01)*
Education (control) .03 (.09) −.04 (.09) .09 (.09) −.04 (.09)
Role breadth self-efficacy .29 (.06)** .15 (.07)*
Felt responsibility for change .35 (.08)** .25 (.10)*
Trust in management .17 (.07)** .04 (.06)
Level 2
Group meeting frequency (control) .07 (.03)* .07 (.03)** .07 (.03)* .07 (.03)*
Group size (control) −.03 (.02) −.03 (.02) −.02 (.02) −.03 (.02)
Task interdependence (control) −.02 (.11) .00 (.10) −.06 (.11) .00 (.09)
Job Group 1 (control) −.60 (.15)** −.53 (.17)** −.59 (.20)** −.51 (.14)**
Job Group 2 (control) −.24 (.22) −.25 (.23) −.26 (.26) −.21 (.20)
Job Group 3 (control) −.61 (.19)** −.62 (.20)** −.66 (.22)** −.57 (.18)**
Job Group 4 (control) −.38 (.21) −.46 (.21)* −.46 (.22)* −.40 (.20)
Job Group 5 (control) −.51 (.21)* −.44 (.20)* −.59 (.23)* −.41 (.19)*
administration, Job Group 2 = production/engineering, Job Group 3 = R&D, Job Group 4 = sales, and Job Group
5 = service. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
HRM systems and increased our understanding of the relationship between HRM systems
and group innovation.
Third, we proposed group creative processes as intermediaries between individual proac-
tivity and group innovation. That is, the proactive behaviors of employees as group inputs
may facilitate group creative processes, which, in turn, generate group innovative outcomes
(Marks et al., 2001). To alleviate the lack of empirical research on the link between proactiv-
ity and innovation (Unsworth & Parker, 2003), we conducted an initial empirical examina-
tion of how individual proactivity influences group innovation through group creative
processes, paving the way for future research on other intermediate processes linking proac-
tivity and innovation.
Last, although we examined the microfoundational effects of HRM systems on innova-
tion, our research framework has clear implications for innovation research from a more
macro perspective. Tushman and Nadler (1986) noted that HRM systems are formal organi-
zational arrangements that transform resources and strategy into expected innovative out-
comes. Klein, Conn, and Sorra (2001) also confirmed that policies and practices for
implementation of innovations predict innovation effectiveness. Thus, prior studies

acknowledged the intermediary role of HRM systems in organizational inputs translating

into innovation performance. However, HRM systems have received, to date, relatively little
attention in empirical investigations of organizational innovation. Academic interest remains
for such determinants of innovation as strategy, organizational structure, culture, leadership,
resource availability, and both external and internal communication (Anderson, De Dreu, &
Nijstad, 2004; Damanpour, 1991). We added to the innovation literature by emphasizing the
important role of HRM systems in achieving innovation. In our opinion, HRM systems must
be taken more seriously in future research.
Practitioners can also benefit from our study in two respects. First, for change initiatives
to bear fruit, existing HRM systems should be redesigned so as to facilitate the emergence of
change-relevant employee behaviors. As our results suggested, HRM systems that encom-
pass change-oriented HR practices contribute to the development of role breadth self-effi-
cacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in management, which are potential preconditions
for proactive behaviors. Organizations must prioritize HR practices that increase change-
specific human capital, provide rewards for pertinent behaviors and subsequent achievement,
and foster an environment in which employees are provided with sufficient information and
autonomy, freely participate in decision making, and rotate jobs for maximum exposure and
job satisfaction. Second, group creative processes cannot be isolated from the attitudes of
individual group members toward change; a group is more likely to engage in creative pro-
cesses when its members are proactive during the course of implementing change initiatives.
Therefore, organizations in need of innovative work outputs should foster proactivity in their
employees.
This study has a few limitations, which provide promising avenues for future research.
Although we incorporated a longitudinal element in Study 2 by separating HRM systems and
outcome variables in time in order to mitigate concerns about reverse causality, our study is
still limited because we did not collect time-series, longitudinal data from the same firms
along the same dimensions as previously. Thus, we could not ascertain whether change has
occurred. Moreover, the other hypothesized relationships were tested cross-sectionally. For
example, we used variables measured at the same time to test the relationships between the
three psychological states and proactive behaviors as well as the pathway through which
aggregated individual proactivity influences group innovation via group creative processes.
According to cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and sensemaking theory (Weick,
1979), people form their attitudes by observing their own behaviors. For example, engaging
in proactive behavior may develop commitment to organizational goals, thereby enhancing
psychological states, including felt responsibility for change, role breadth self-efficacy, and
trust in management. Similarly, highly innovative outcomes can create positive perceptions
of group processes. Thus, quasi-experimental or longitudinal research is required to clarify
the direction of causality.
Second, our study was conducted based on survey data from Korean companies. Thus, the
generalizability of our findings may be limited. The cultural context in Korea may affect our
results because Korean society emphasizes conformity rather than proactivity (Hofstede,
1991; Kang, Matusik, & Barclay, in press). Therefore, future research should validate the
current framework in other industrial and cultural samples.
Third, although the individual HR policies we included in change-oriented HRM systems
were loaded on several factors, we used a unitary HRM index. This indexed approach is

widely adopted in the literature (Collins & Smith, 2006; Gittell et al., 2010). Our HR prac-
tices index yielded average item-to-total correlation scores of .65 and .63 in Study 1 and
Study 2, respectively. However, in adopting the indexed approach, researchers implicitly
assume that each HR policy or subdimension embedded in HRM systems has equal effects
on outcomes, which is rather unrealistic. For instance, Gardner et al. (2011) found that moti-
vating and empowering HR practices were positively associated with retention, whereas
skill-enhancing HR practices were not. In addition, the overjustification effect in attribution
theory suggests that the use of extrinsic rewards is likely to crowd out intrinsic motivation;
thus, motivation may be attributed to external stimuli instead of interest or joy resulting from
action (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). Recently, some authors called for research that
distinguishes the effects of individual HR policies or HR practice dimensions (e.g., Jiang
et al., 2013). In the current study, we did not differentiate between the impacts of HR dimen-
sions on employees’ psychological states or proactive behaviors. Future research can deepen
our understanding of the influence of HRM systems on proactivity by considering HR poli-
cies or subdimensions separately in research models.
Appendix
Scale Items in Survey of Change-Oriented HRM Systems
Ability-enhancing HR practices
When new group members are being selected for my group, their creative ability is weighted heav-
ily in the decision making.
The process of group member selection in this group emphasizes members’ communication skills.
In the process of group member selection in this group, candidates who take an innovative approach
are highly preferred.
In this group, training is offered and employees can learn ways of bringing about new work proce-
dures, methods, and ideas.
This group provides training to improve the communication skills of group members.
In this group, training is offered and employees can learn ways of implementing new ideas.
Motivation-enhancing HR practices
In this group, performance appraisals include evaluation of creative solutions and innovative work
procedures and methods.
In this group, performance appraisals include evaluation of how new ideas are implemented.
In this group, performance appraisals include effective communication with other group members.
In this group, employees’ incentive plans are based on creative outcomes.
In this group, employees’ rewards are closely linked to the generation of innovative outcomes.
The group recognizes and rewards group members who suggest new ideas.
Opportunity-enhancing HR practices
In this group, employees are involved in job rotation.
In this group, employees are empowered to make decisions in completing their tasks.
Group members can have open communications with their group managers.
In this group, policies and procedures are clearly communicated to employees.
Group members are given sufficient notice prior to making changes in policies and procedures.

References
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. A. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively
critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147-203.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. 2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work
systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Seidu, E. Y., & Otaye, L. E. 2012. Impact of high-performance work systems on indi-
vidual- and branch-level performance: Test of a multilevel model of intermediate linkages. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97: 287-300.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. 2000. Shopfloor inno-
vation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. 2003. Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work design, and
training. Human Relations, 56: 112-131.
Bal, P. M., Kooij, D. T., & De Jong, S. B. 2013. How do developmental and accommodative HRM enhance
employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC strategies. Journal of
Management Studies, 50: 545-572.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and corre-
lates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated
mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11: 142-163.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2010. Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour:
Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 475-
498.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. 2010. Proactive work behaviour: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in
organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2: 567-598.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. 2003. Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. 1995. Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role
of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 391-
413. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Butler, J. K., Jr. 1999. Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and
efficiency. Group and Organization Management, 24: 217-238.
Chang, S., Gong, Y., Way, S. A., & Jia, L. 2012. Flexibility-oriented HRM systems, absorptive capacity, and market
responsiveness and firm innovativeness. Journal of Management, 39: 1924-1951.
Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. 2009. A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between
organizational tenure diversity and group innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices.
Group & Organization Management, 34: 698-726.
Chuang, C.-H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. 2016. Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the
roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42: 524-554.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. 2002. Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 409-422.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in
the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 544-560.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. 2006. How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-
analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 501-528.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-
fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53: 39-52.
Cooke, W. N. 1994. Employee participation programs, group-based incentives, and company performance: A
union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47: 594-609.

Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555-590.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. 2007. Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and
practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Festinger, L. A. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. 1984. Communication and innovation implementation. Academy of Management
Review, 9: 704-711.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. 1996. Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West
Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 37-63.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:
1089-1120.
Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. 2011. The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-
enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment.
Personnel Psychology, 64: 315-350.
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. 2003. Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of groups’ engagement in
creative processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453-470.
Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., & Wimbush, J. 2010. A relational model of how high-performance work systems work.
Organization Science, 21: 490-506.
Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In L. L. Gummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8: 1-52. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,
28: 3-34.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspec-
tives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317-375.
Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. 2009. Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees
depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 927-944.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncer-
tain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 327-347.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672.
Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. 1999. The effects of human resource management systems on economic performance:
An international comparison of US and Japanese plants. Management Science, 45: 704-721.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of
Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. 2013. Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in
strategic human resource management research. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 1448-1480.
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., & Barclay, L. A. in press. Affective and normative motives to work overtime in Asian
organizations: Four cultural orientations from Confucian ethics. Journal of Business Ethics.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. 2013. The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’
attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39: 366-391.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. 2001. Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 811-824.
Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 50: 569-598.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. 2006. A conceptual review of human resource management
systems in strategic human resource management research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 25: 217-271.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. 1973. Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards:
A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. 2009. Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives
of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94: 371-391.
Lonner, W. J. 1990. An overview of cross-cultural testing and assessment. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-
cultural psychology: 56-76. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of
the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 99-128.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. 2007. The relationship between “high-performance work practices” and employee attitudes:
An investigation of additive and interaction effects. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
18: 537-567.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356-376.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employ-
ees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 874-888.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen.
Academy of Management Review, 26: 530-547.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects
on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503-545.
Pak, J., & Kim, S. in press. Team manager’s implementation, high performance work systems intensity, and perfor-
mance: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Management.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. 2007. The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural jus-
tice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover
intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32: 326-357.
Parker, S. K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational inter-
ventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 835-852.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal
of Management, 36: 827-856.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. 2010. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
Journal of Management, 36: 633-662.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated
model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 413-440.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91: 636-652.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive,
13: 37-48.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. 2012. Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects.
Communication Methods and Measures, 6: 77-98.
Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. 2007. Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 70: 297-311.
Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. 2009. Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance:
Subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Raub, S., & Liao, H. 2012. Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general
self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 651-
667.
Raudenbush, S. W. 2004. HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software
International.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices.
Academy of Management Executive, 1: 207-219.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team
empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 981-1003.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. 2010. HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-
level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1219-1247.
Somech, A. 2006. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally
heterogeneous groups. Journal of Management, 32: 132-157.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam
process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135-148.
Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and
organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 558-577.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. 2009. Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of
high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1-29.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. 2007. An empirical examination of the mechanisms medi-
ating between high-performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 1069-1083.
Teo, S. T., Le Clerc, M., & Galang, M. C. 2011. Human capital enhancing HRM systems and frontline employees
in Australian manufacturing SMEs. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 2522-2538.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1137-1148.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. 1986. Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28: 74-92.
Unsworth, K., & Parker, S. K. 2003. Proactivity, creativity, and innovation: Promoting a new workforce for the new
workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The new workplace:
A handbook and guide to the human impact of modern working practices: 175-196. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. 1999. The impact of high involvement work processes on
organizational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group & Organization Management,
24: 300-339.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. 2000. Group members’ affective responses to patterns of intra-
group interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26: 633-655.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Whitener, E. M. 2001. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-
level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27: 515-535.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of
Management Review, 18: 293-321.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. 2001. Measurement error
in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research.
Personnel Psychology, 54: 875-901.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. 2005. High-performance work systems and occupational safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 77-93.

Effects of Human Resource Management Systems On Employee Proactivity and Group Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Human Resource Management Systems On Employee Proactivity and Group Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

680029

Effects of Human Resource Management

Keywords: change-oriented HRM systems; proactivity; group innovation; multilevel analysis

Proactivity, which is defined as self-starting and change-oriented action in organizations

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

HRM Systems as Antecedents of Proactivity-Relevant Psychological States

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Ability-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

Motivation-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

Opportunity-Enhancing HR Practices for Change-Oriented Behaviors

Integrated Perspective on Change-Oriented HRM Systems

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Role Breadth Self-efficacy

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Felt Responsibility for Change

Change-Oriented HRM Systems and Trust in Management

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Individual Proactivity, Group Creative Processes, and Group Innovation

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Overview of the Present Research

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Change-oriented HRM systems. Change-oriented HRM systems consist of three ele-

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Group innovation. To measure group innovation, we adapted a four-item scale obtained

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Tests on HRM Systems Influencing Psychological States

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Role Breadth Felt Responsibility

Including change-oriented HRM systems resulted in significant model improvements (for

Tests on the Effects of Psychological States on Individual Proactivity

Tests on the Mediation Effects

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Individual Individual Individual Individual

Tests on the Relationship Between Individual Proactivity and Group

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Dependent Variables (Study 1) Dependent Variables (Study 2)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Group Creative Group Group Creative Group

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Change-oriented HRM systems. We created an index of change-oriented HRM systems

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Tests on the effects of psychological states on individual proactivity. As presented in

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Role Breadth Felt Responsibility Trust in

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Individual Individual Individual Individual

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

acknowledged the intermediary role of HRM systems in organizational inputs translating

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at SUNY BINGHAMTON on December 8, 2016

You might also like