knowledge as a mediator between hrm practices and ... · 1 knowledge as a mediator between hrm...
TRANSCRIPT
1
KNOWLEDGE AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN HRM PRACTICES AND
INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY
(PAPER EN PRENSA: REVISTA HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
Dr. Álvaro López Cabrales
Assistant Professor.
Universidad Pablo de Olavide
Departamento de Dirección de Empresas
Ctra. Utrera, Km. 1 – 41013 Sevilla
Tel. 954349180
Fax: 954348353
Dr. Ana Perez-Luño
Assistant Professor.
Universidad Pablo de Olavide
Departamento de Dirección de Empresas
Ctra. Utrera, Km. 1 – 41013 Sevilla
Tel. 954348977
Fax: 954348353
Dr. Ramón Valle Cabrera
Professor.
Universidad Pablo de Olavide
Departamento de Dirección de Empresas
Ctra. Utrera, Km. 1 – 41013 Sevilla
Tel. 954349276
Fax: 954348353
Correspondence must be sent to Dr. Alvaro Lopez- Cabrales
2
KNOWLEDGE AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN HRM PRACTICES AND
INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to test how HRM practices and employees’ knowledge
influence the development of innovative capabilities, and by extension, firm’s
performance. Results confirm that HRM practices are not directly associated with
innovation unless they take into account employees’ knowledge. Specifically, our
analyses establish a mediating role for the uniqueness of knowledge between
collaborative HRM practices and innovative activity, a positive influence of knowledge-
based HRM practices on valuable knowledge and a positive contribution of innovations
to the company’s profit. Hypotheses are tested in a sample of firms from the most
innovative Spanish industries through structural equation modelling.
KEYWORDS
HRM practices, valuable and unique knowledge, innovation.
3
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the literature analysing
innovation and organisational change (Anand et al., 2007). This broad body of research
has generated growing interest in identifying how companies can improve their
innovative activity and what internal and external factors have positive effects on such
behaviour (Damanpour, 1991; Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Zhou, 2006).
Based on the resource-based view (RBV), authors such as Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney
(1991) proposed that the crucial research question concerns what kinds of corporate
resources lead to sustainable competitive advantages. Following these arguments, the
types of knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) of employees have been considered key
resources for the improvement of existing products and services or for the generation of
new ones (innovations), which by extension help to achieve competitive advantages
(Donnellon, 1996; Jackson, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Thompson, 2003). In
addition, it is argued that there must be coherence between an organisation’s human
resources management (HRM) practices and the strategies that it adopts, and this
requirement would also be applicable to an innovation strategy (Balkin et al., 2000;
Gupta & Singhal, 1993; Kang et al., 2007; Laursen 2002; López-Cabrales et al., 2006;
Schuler & Jackson, 1987). Therefore, the research question we seek to address is to what
extent the contribution of HRM practices to product innovation and performance is
conditioned by the employees’ knowledge. In order to answer this question, the purpose
of this study is to analyse, in the R&D department of innovative companies, the
mediating role of the knowledge possessed by the employees between HRM practices,
innovative activity and performance.
4
Explaining how the coherence between HRM practices and knowledge enhances
innovation and performance could extend the RBV, HRM and innovation literatures.
Specifically, this paper is expected to make three main contributions. The first
contribution is related to the relationship, on the whole, between HRM practices,
knowledge and the innovative activity in R&D departments. In this sense, our findings
improve the innovation literature providing new predictors of innovative capability. The
second contribution, which enriches the HRM literature, concerns the consequences of
HRM practices. We assume that HRM practices are directly associated with employees’
knowledge, in a similar way as proposed by Lepak and Snell (1999, 2002). Furthermore,
we add to the traditional Lepak and Snell arguments that these practices are indirectly
related to the innovative activity of organisations. The third contribution is related to the
lack of systematic empirical support received for the RBV (Newbert, 2007). For this
reason, having demonstrated that a bundle of resources (knowledge) and capabilities
(innovative activity) can be seen as good drivers of competitive advantages, this study is
an attempt to extend the empirical support for such a theoretical approach.
The structure adopted in the article, consistent with its objectives, is as follows. After
this introduction, we present a theoretical review that enables us to delimit the
relationships between knowledge, HRM practices, innovation and profits. As a result of
this analysis, several hypotheses are formulated and tested empirically, using a survey of
firms from the most innovative Spanish industries, and applying structural equation
modelling. Finally, conclusions, contributions, limitations and future lines of research
are presented.
5
THE ROLE OF EMPLOYEES’ KNOWLEDGE IN PRODUCT INNOVATION
There is a great diversity of concepts used to define the term “innovation”. Kimberly &
Evanisko (1981) explained that this term could have three different uses. Firstly, they
stated that innovation can be understood as a discrete element that includes the
development of products, programs or services. Secondly, they pointed out that
innovation can be considered a process; that is to say, they refer to different stages of the
innovation process. Finally, they mentioned that innovation can be understood as an
organisational capability (innovativeness and/or innovative capability). Conceptually
these three elements are mutually compatible. When a firm is described as innovative
(innovation as an organisational capability), it generally means that it develops or
frequently adopts products, services, programs or innovative ideas (innovation as
discrete elements) that need a series of stages (innovation as a process) in order to be
sources of competitive advantages. While these three uses of the term “innovation”
could be broadly debated, this paper will only focus on the use of innovation as an
organisational capability. The reason is that, as we have just mentioned, an innovative
company generally develops all the stages needed to give rise to new products.
Therefore, this use of the term “innovation” includes the other two. This “innovation” is
understood as a broad term that defines the ability of a firm to introduce new products or
lines (ranges) into the market (Pérez-Luño et al., 2007). That is, it is the degree to which
a company strays from existing practices in the creation of new products that are
successfully marketed (Capon et al., 1992).
It is accepted that a firm’s ability to obtain new products and other aspects of
performance are inextricably linked to the knowledge of their human resources (Foss,
6
2007; Laursen, 2002). In this sense, the most distinctive and inimitable resource
available to firms is people-embodied knowledge, which enables them to manipulate and
transform other organisational resources effectively (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Foss,
2007; Kogut & Zander, 1992). Furthermore, knowledge-based resources may be
particularly important for providing a sustainable competitive advantage (McEvily &
Chakravarthy, 2002), playing an essential role in the firm’s ability to innovate (Galunic
& Rodan, 1998), and improving performance (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003). Therefore, it
can be inferred that competitive advantages are increasingly derived from knowledge
and technological skills, and experience in the creation of new products (Alegre et al.,
2006; Teece et al., 1997).
The previous assumptions lead us to wonder which characteristics of knowledge enable
product innovation. It is known that knowledge can be analysed from different
perspectives. Taking into account the intellectual capital literature, it distinguishes three
different aspects of knowledge: human, organisational and social capital (Subramaniam
& Youndt, 2005). Human capital is defined as the knowledge, skills, and abilities
residing with and utilised by individuals (Schultz, 1961). Organisational capital is the
institutionalised knowledge and codified experience residing within and utilised through
databases, patents, manuals, structures, systems, and processes (Youndt et al., 2004).
Finally, social capital is the knowledge embedded within, available through, and utilised
by interactions among individuals and their networks of interrelationships (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998). As Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) pointed out, each one of these
components accumulates and distributes knowledge in a different way: human capital
through individuals, organisational capital through firm structures and processes, and
7
social capital through relationships and networks. Based on these conceptual issues, we
focus on the impact of employees’ knowledge (human capital) on product innovation.
Considering the human capital approach, the value and uniqueness of employees’
knowledge are the most relevant features for product innovation, as Figure 1 explains
(Lepak & Snell, 1999; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005).
------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------------
The value of knowledge refers to its potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the firm, exploit market opportunities, and/or neutralise potential threats (Lepak and
Snell, 2002: 519). As Barney and Wright (1998) suggested, any resource creates value
through either decreasing product/service costs or differentiating product/service in a
way that allows the firm to charge a premium price, so a valuable knowledge will yield
high returns in markets increasing the ratio of benefits to customers relative to their
associated costs (Snell et al., 1999; Wernerfelt, 1984). Nevertheless, to be good at doing
something does not mean that knowledge is valuable, as Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-
Hall (2002) pointed out. The cited authors defined value as “the degree to which the
human capital lowers costs or provides increased services or product features that matter
to customers” (2002: 50). An example is the case of Sony, which possesses valuable
knowledge in designing, manufacturing and selling miniaturised electronic technology,
and such knowledge provides it with a competitive advantage (Barney, 1995). The
second feature is the uniqueness of a person’s knowledge and skills. This means that an
8
employee must be irreplaceable and idiosyncratic with rare and firm-specific KSA
(Barney, 1991), difficult to transfer to other positions or even difficult to be duplicated
by other firms (Lepak & Snell, 1999).
Given the fact that creative people must deal with novel and ambiguous problems, they
tend to display strong, valuable and irreplaceable knowledge and skills (Mumford,
2000). Additionally, product innovation consists of successful exploitation of new ideas.
Therefore, it implies two conditions: novelty and use (Alegre et al., 2006). These
conditions can only be produced by useful or valuable knowledge. Valuable knowledge
is positively associated with product innovations because it contributes to identification
of new market opportunities, and employees with such knowledge are willing to
experiment and apply new knowledge (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Taggar, 2002).
Moreover, scholars studying innovative activity have addressed the importance of
individuals’ expertise and valuable knowledge that allows them to obtain novel ideas
and gives rise to innovations (Anand et al., 2007). Nevertheless, it must be said that
valuable knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for developing product
innovations. That is, R&D departments will take advantage of the valuable knowledge
owned by their employees, but they will also need other features such as creativity,
entrepreneurship, unique knowledge, etc. to develop product innovations. Based on
these arguments, we propose our first hypothesis.
H1. Valuable knowledge is positively associated with innovation.
The second characteristic of knowledge associated with innovation is uniqueness. This
unique knowledge can create a competitive differentiation because valuable but common
(i.e. not rare) resources and capabilities are sources of competitive parity (Barney, 1995;
9
Snell et al., 1999). Furthermore, uniqueness refers to the degree of content specificity of
the knowledge and its difficulty in being transferred to other organisations (Lengnick-
Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2002). That could be the reason why it is very difficult to be
innovative based on generic knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), so people with
unique KSA are considered “rainmakers”, and their specialised knowledge contributes to
the development of new ideas or products (James, 2002). Amar (2002) suggested that
these employees possess rare KSA that are not commonly distributed in the labour
market. Therefore, their knowledge is also new to any competitor firm and is an
intangible resource for firm innovation. Based on these arguments, we propose our
second hypothesis.
H2. Unique knowledge is positively associated with innovation.
HRM PRACTICES AS FACILITATORS OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRODUCT
INNOVATION
Based on the RBV, some authors note that not only should a firm’s resources be
valuable and unique to facilitate superior performance but also the firm must have an
appropriate organisation in place to take advantage of these resources (Barney & Wright,
1998; Foss, 2007; Peltokorpi & Tsuyuki, 2006). Empirical studies have mainly focused
on the direct link between individual strands or configurations of resources and
performance, while less attention has been devoted to how management can use their
resources more effectively (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003). Therefore, as Figure 2 shows,
HRM practices can explain, in part, the managerial processes that allow firms to obtain
valuable and unique knowledge and, by extension, how this valuable and unique
knowledge leads to innovative activity and higher performance.
10
------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
------------------------------------------
These valuable and unique characteristics of employees’ knowledge create a “human
capital advantage” (Boxall, 1996). Nevertheless, any human capital advantage may
decrease in the long term. Therefore, organisations must define and apply appropriate
HRM practices for managing people and link them to the core capabilities of the firm
(Amit & Belcourt, 1999; Peltokorpi & Tsuyuki, 2006; Purcell, 1996). As Paauwe &
Boselie (2005: 72) indicated, “the search for the Holy Grail in HRM is the search for
those best practices or best-fit practices that ultimately result in sustained competitive
advantage for the organization.” In our case, as we focus on innovative firms, their core
capabilities and competitive advantage are related to innovations. In other words, HRM
practices can (a) increase the value and uniqueness of the knowledge through internal
development and (b) influence employee behaviour in the desired direction, in this case,
to improve firm innovation. Lepak et al. (2006) argued that HRM practices directly
influence employees’ ability to perform by affecting their knowledge, skills and abilities.
The next step is to assess the extent to which HRM practices increase the value and
uniqueness of knowledge.
One way of obtaining valuable and unique knowledge is through a system of HRM
practices called knowledge-based practices, which enable the internal development of
human resources (Lepak & Snell, 2002). This system implies a specific orientation of
selection, training, development, appraisal and compensation practices. The aim of
selection is to attract the best people to the company, in terms of their inherent potential
11
(Doorewaard & Meihuizen, 2000; Huselid, 1995). Informal contacts that favor
socialising among the workforce are encouraged (Arthur, 1994), and advantageous
conditions are offered in terms of firm-specific training and career development within
the company (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Individuals receive feedback concerning what they
do and how performance can be improved, thus promoting autonomy. It is also
convenient to make use of incentives as a form of reward (Huselid, 1995).
This model of HRM practices enables valuable and firm-specific knowledge to be
generated by means of internal development. In addition, developing HRM practices
internally helps firms to obtain the benefits of employees in terms of their value-creating
potential and firm-specific human capital (Lepak & Snell, 1999; 2002; Youndt et al.,
2004; Youndt et al., 1996). All the above are HRM practices that have been shown by
previous authors to motivate employees to develop opportunities and improve their
personal stocks of knowledge and skills (Lepak et al., 2006; Snell & Dean, 1994; Ulrich
& Lake, 1991). Thus, we try to confirm the Lepak and Snell (2002) proposition by
means of our third hypothesis.
H3a. Knowledge-based HRM practices are positively associated with the value of
knowledge.
H3b. Knowledge-based HRM practices are positively associated with the uniqueness of
knowledge.
There is another system of HRM practices, named collaborative or partnership/alliances
(Lepak & Snell, 1999; 2002), in which the HRM practices have a group orientation,
different from the orientation of the knowledge-based practices studied above. The
literature also stresses the importance of working in groups or teams to enhance the
12
uniqueness of the knowledge possessed by the members of these groups (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995; Lepak & Snell, 1999; 2002). In the collaborative system, skills for
teamwork are necessary to pass any selection procedure, and such skills are the objective
of training initiatives. In addition, evaluation and remuneration processes always comply
with group criteria (Helleloid & Simonin, 1994; Lepak & Snell, 1999). Therefore, a
teamwork design is critical for disseminating specialised knowledge throughout the
organisation.
These collaborative HRM practices have been found to be an efficient means of
increasing the uniqueness of knowledge (Lepak & Snell, 1999; 2002). Communication
mechanisms, exchange programs, group-based rewards, appraisals and the like may be
established to facilitate information sharing and to equip the members of these groups
with knowledge that is very firm specific (Lepak et al., 2003). The fourth hypothesis is
as follows.
H4. Collaborative HRM practices are positively associated with the uniqueness of the
knowledge.
The above arguments suggest two critical points for this research. Firstly, HRM
practices may facilitate valuable and unique knowledge. Secondly, valuable and unique
knowledge may mediate the relationship between HRM practices and innovative
capability. Therefore, in order to close the cycle, we explore the possibility of a direct
impact of HRM practices on product innovation, independently of the characteristics of
employees’ knowledge.
As we pointed out before, Paauwe & Boselie (2005) suggested that one way that HRM
practices can generate core capabilities is by influencing employee behaviour in the
13
desired strategic direction. According to this reasoning, any firm may adopt concrete
HRM practices in the areas of job design, training, development and/or appraisal
compensation to improve the firm’s innovation.
Regarding job design, in cases where jobs are broadly defined and discretion and self-
direction are allowed, employees are able to find new solutions to problems and
opportunities that arise in the workplace (Kang et al., 2007; Lepak & Snell, 1999). It is
also claimed that empowerment practices increase the level of decentralisation, and such
an environment may better allow new solutions to be found at the shop-floor level
(Laursen, 2002). In other words, increased delegation may better facilitate the discovery
of new design and products that top levels were unable to see before (Drucker, 1999).
Firm-specific training is necessary because it improves technical abilities to solve
problems (Barton & Delbridge, 2001; Beatty & Schneier, 1997; Gupta & Singhal, 1993;
Laursen & Foss, 2003). Training activities must be reorganised by the firm in ways that
generate new understandings and new ideas. Thus, training in core skills is useful for
product innovation (Mumford, 2000).
Another practice that is strongly recommended entails employee development. It
maximises employees’ commitment to innovation and their potential to learn (Mak &
Akhar, 2003; Schuler & Jackson, 1987). Employee development includes HRM
practices such as career management, mentoring, and coaching. Employees should be
provided with guidance in establishing career paths that help them experience various
job opportunities beyond the boundaries of a single expertise in order to innovate (Kang
et al., 2007). In addition, to promote the growth of requisite skills, the organisation must
establish and manage effective mentoring relationships for new employees (Mumford,
14
2000). In addition, managers should provide coaching and feedback to overcome
performance problems (London & Smither, 1999). This is an effective way to foster
ongoing knowledge development and assessment of new solutions (Zhou, 1998).
Compensation practices must also include incentives in order to reward the search for
new solutions (Balkin & Montemayor, 2000; London & Smither, 1999; Mumford,
2000). As the behaviours required for innovating are difficult to identify a priori (Adler
& Kwon, 2002), result- or output-based incentives are more useful in managing and
rewarding joint contributions (Snell & Dean, 1994). In addition, incentives need to be
accompanied by the acquisition of knowledge or new ideas; for example, by paying for
knowledge or reputation, which may motivate employees to develop innovations
continuously.
In summary, all these HRM practices can be included in the knowledge-based system,
and they positively affect firm innovation. As a result, we may formulate the fifth
hypothesis as follows.
H5. Knowledge-based HRM practices are positively associated with innovation.
One of the organisational variables traditionally related to innovation is the use of work
teams. The basic argument is simple: innovation normally commences in the mind of a
creative individual, and that initial idea is analysed and developed collectively in a work
team (Tang, 1998). Furthermore, such groups are considered a powerful means of
creating and circulating innovative ideas (Denison et al., 1996; Griffin, 1997). Work
groups represent one of the most important recent trends in organisational design and are
considered a key element in the creation and improvement of products and services
(Donnellon, 1996; Jackson, 1992; Thompson, 2003).
15
From the list of HRM practices that could be considered with a team orientation, we
focus on selection of individuals according to their group competences, training
activities explaining how to work in teams, and team-based appraisals and compensation
practices (collaborative HRM practices). Team design requires reciprocal
interdependence among employees who work together and seek new solutions to
existing problems (Kang et al., 2007). As a consequence of designing jobs around work
groups, the organisation must value a candidate’s capacity for working in a team during
the staffing process (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Another option, also included in the
collaborative model, is training individuals with the object of developing interpersonal
skills. This type of training has a positive effect on innovation because it facilitates
interaction of the employee with colleagues and encourages the flow of new ideas and
perspectives within work groups (Lepak et al., 2003; Ulrich, 1998).
Regarding team-based appraisals and compensation practices, they are known to have a
powerful motivating role on the innovation behaviour of individuals (Eisenberger &
Armeli, 1997; Kunkel, 1997). Thus, Barczak & Wilemon (2003) demonstrated that
members of work teams have a strong interest in being remunerated as a function of the
results generated by their innovation activity. In this context, Balkin et al., (2000)
empirically demonstrated a positive relationship between long-term incentives and
innovation in companies.
In conclusion, because we consider these HRM practices to be collaborative practices
and they are related to innovations, the sixth hypothesis can be formulated as follows.
H6. Collaborative HRM practices are positively associated with innovation.
16
FROM PRODUCT INNOVATION TO HIGHER PERFORMANCE
The final stage of our discussion is to learn whether those firms with the appropriate
stocks of knowledge and HRM practices obtain not only innovations but also the best
performance in the market. According to the literature, innovation is one of the main
sources of competitive advantages (Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2001). From an RBV
perspective, if a company develops innovations based on valuable, rare, inimitable and
non-substitutable resources such as value and unique knowledge, they will lead to higher
levels of competitive advantages (Barney, 1991). Firms that offer products that are
adapted to the needs and wants of target customers and that market them faster and more
efficiently than their competitors are in a better position to obtain higher performances
and create sustainable competitive advantages (Alegre et al., 2006; Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Furthermore, given that organisational capabilities such
as innovative capability can be seen as a “proxy” of competitive advantages (López-
Cabrales et al., 2006), there is a very close link between innovative activity, competitive
advantages and performance.
It has been proposed that the development of an innovation contributes to the
performance of a company (Capon et al., 1992; Damanpour, 1991; Pérez-Luño et al.,
2007). That is, innovators have the potential to create markets, shape customer
preferences, and even change the basic behaviour of consumers (Zhou, 2006), which in
summary leads to higher profits. From the above, we argue that innovative activity
represents an important capability that enhances the company’s performance. These
assumptions lead us to establish our last hypothesis.
H7. Innovation is positively associated with a higher level of performance.
17
Figure 3 summarises the main relationships and hypotheses outlined in this paper.
------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
------------------------------------------
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLE
In order to examine the innovative capability of R&D departments, we needed a sample
of firms that were actually involved in these activities to some extent. We therefore
started out with a sampling frame covering the most innovative companies in Spain.
There were two criteria for the selection of the population: presence in innovative
industries and a minimum number of employees. The industries with the most patents,
according to data of the Spanish Office of Patents, are the following: manufacture of
machinery, manufacture of motor vehicles, manufacture of radios, TV and
telecommunications equipment, and the chemical industry. The 2004 edition of the Duns
50,000 database was used to obtain a list of the companies in those industries with more
than 50 employees. By this procedure, a total valid population of 619 companies was
obtained. To obtain the best information about the companies’ innovative activities, we
used the R&D departments of such firms as our unit of analysis.
The methodology of contacting, then mailing the questionnaire and following up, as
proposed in the literature, was adopted (Dillman, 1991). We identified the R&D
departments of the companies in our population, and the manager responsible for this
unit was telephoned. In these phone calls, we explained the study, requested
18
collaboration, and discussed the mailing of the questionnaire. Over six months,
periodical reminders were sent to those participating companies that had not returned the
questionnaire. In total, 88 firms responded to this questionnaire, from which 86 were
considered valid. This corresponds to a response rate of 14% of the firms in our target
population. To check for non-response bias, we compared the respondents with the non-
respondents, via mean difference, based on their general features (industry membership,
number of employees, and revenue), which were available in the DUNS 50,000
database. This test showed no significant differences between the two groups
(respondents vs. non-respondents)
MEASURES
As we mentioned in the previous section, the instrument used to collect the required
information was a questionnaire with over 40 items, intended to obtain information
about the R&D department of the companies in our population. Responses for the
different items were obtained using a seven-point Likert scale except for performance,
for which we used objective data, and the size and R&D expenditures, for which we
used direct questions. To assess content validity, after a thorough review of the
literature, a panel of 12 academic experts was formed. Once their suggestions were
incorporated into the questionnaire, it was sent to the R&D manager of each company.
Dependent variables
Firm performance may be assessed in terms of how effectively the firm functions in
achieving a variety of financial benchmarks (an objective measure), or by the firm’s
position on various indicators of effectiveness and success relative to competitors’
19
ratings for these indicators (a subjective measure). In our case, we used the objective
measure to reduce the common method variance error. That is, we use the ratio of total
revenues divided by total assets as an objective measure of profits.
After conducting a full literature review of the scales used to measure the product
innovative activity of an organisation (Avlonitis et al., 2001; OECD/Eurostat, 1997), and
based on the recommendations put forward by Churchill (1979), a scale of measurement
was devised with eight items, of which the last two constitute a direct measure for
determining the convergent validity of the scale (see Table 1).
The measure of valuable and unique knowledge was adapted from the work of Lepak &
Snell (2002). Following the recommendations of our 12 academic experts and keeping
the content validity conditions, we used a scale of nine items from the 22 proposed by
the original authors. The first five items measure valuable knowledge while the
remaining four items measure unique knowledge (see Table 1).
Independent variables
The measures of HRM practices were adapted from those developed by Lepak & Snell
(2002) in their analysis of human capital architecture (1999; 2002). The items
specifically utilised were those forming their knowledge-based employment system and
their collaborative system with respect to group work. The reason for using such items is
that both models include HRM practices that have been shown in the literature to be
generators of an innovative behaviour and closely linked to the value and uniqueness of
human capital.
20
Control variables
We use size and internal and external R&D expenditures as control variables. The
reasons for choosing such variables are explained next.
Research has demonstrated that a company’s size may be linked to a greater or lesser
tendency for innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). Some scholars have established that
an increase in the size of the organisation implies a higher number of resources and
higher innovative potential, while other scholars argued that small organisations can be
more innovative because they have more flexibility, a higher ability to adapt and less
difficulty in accepting and implementing changes (Damanpour, 1991). Following these
arguments, we assume that the firm’s size has an influence on the innovative activity of
organisations. The organisation size variable was measured by the number of employees
in the firm. The value of this variable ranges from 50 to 5,000 workers. Because of its
wide dispersion, a Napierian logarithm of the number of workers in the firm has been
used to estimate it, in order to avoid the scale effect.
Following several authors (Bierly & Chakrabarti, 1996; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), we
decided to include internal and external R&D expenditures as control variables in our
study. These variables were measured by two items, in which the respondents were
asked for information on the internal and external expenditure on R&D as average
percentages of the sales turnover of the company for the previous three years.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
The hypotheses were tested using the structural equation modelling method. We
followed the two-stage procedure recommended by Anderson & Gerbing (1988). In the
first stage, after conducting exploratory factor analysis (EFA), we estimated the
21
measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to test the
goodness of fit of the measurement scales (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). CFA has been used to test the psychometric properties of measurement
scales in a number of studies (Alegre et al., 2006; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) and is
recommended by Montoya-Weiss & Calantone (1994) in order to assess the construct
validity and reliability of subjective measurement instruments. The purpose of CFA was
also to test the unidimensionality of multi-item constructs and to eliminate unreliable
items. Items that loaded on multiple constructs and had low item-to-construct loadings
were deleted. The individual measurement items for the study’s dependent, independent,
and control variables are listed in Table 1.
------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------------------
The results presented in Table 1 were obtained as follows. We began by analysing the
establishment of scale dimensionality by checking the factorial structure of each of the
concepts we wanted to measure. We then tested the scale reliability. To do so, we
assessed both the individual reliability of each indicator (R² > 0.5) and the composite
reliability of each factor (CR > 0.7). Finally we analysed the scale validity by focusing
on content validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. As we explained
above, we reviewed previous literature in depth and used 12 experts to ensure content
validity. Convergent validity is accepted when factorial loads are higher than 0.4 and t
coefficients are significant. We also took into account the fact that the CFI, robust CFI,
22
GFI and AGFI statistics were above 0.9, the p-value for the Satorra–Bentler χ² was not
significant (p > 0.05) and the robust RMSEA was significant (RMSEA < 0.05). With
exception of the AGFI, which is sensitive to sample size and GFI, all fit indices had
optimum values. We could therefore assume that our measurement scales had
convergent validity (Hair et al., 1999) and that the goodness-of-fit of our causal
approach was acceptable (Bagozzi, 1994; Bakker et al., 2004). Following Fornell and
Larcker, we also demonstrated discriminant validity given that the average variance
extracted (AVE) of the constructs is higher than their squared multiple correlations with
the rest of the constructs (see Table 2).
------------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------------------
The scale developed to measure innovative activity was devised with eight items.
However, after conducting CFA, we were forced to eliminate three of the items because
their standardised loadings were too low. These eliminations did not harm the content
validity of the scale. Our CFA achieved a five-item solution for the valuable knowledge
scale, as was proposed, and a three-item solution for unique knowledge. That is, we had
to eliminate one of the proposed items of the unique knowledge scale because its
standardised loadings were too low. Finally, our measurement of HRM practices
comprised two different factors, one being the HRM practices of the knowledge-based
system, corresponding to the indicators HRK1 to HRK12, and the other being the
practices of the collaborative system, indicators HRC1 to HRC9, as established by the
23
measurement proposed by Lepak and Snell (2002). However, after conducting CFA, our
results provided a five-item scale for measuring knowledge-based HRM practices. The
items remaining included internal promotions, tutoring and mentoring activities,
socialisation programs, and performance appraisals. After conducting CFA,
collaborative HRM practices were measured with a four-item scale, through selection
processes based on interpersonal abilities, training focus on team building, and
appraisals based on team performance and/or employees’ ability to work in groups. It
should be mentioned that the original study was devised with the organisation as the unit
of analysis, while our study takes as its unit of analysis the R&D department. This
difference in the unit of analysis could be a reason for the differences between Lepak
and Snell’s (2002) results and ours.
The two-stage procedure recommended by Anderson & Gerbing (1988) identified the
structural model that best fitted the data and tested the hypothesised relationships
between the constructs. As shown in Table 3, we used two structural models to test the
hypothesised relationships between the constructs. In Model 1, we presented all the
possible equations. In the adjusted Model 1, we only employed the equations that best
match the data.
------------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
------------------------------------------
With respect to hypotheses 1 and 2, in which we related valuable and unique knowledge
with higher innovative activity, it has to be mentioned that only unique knowledge
24
positively and significantly influences innovative behaviour (t value, 2.181), supporting
hypothesis two. In hypothesis 3, we proposed that knowledge-based HRM practices
would positively influence valuable and unique knowledge. In this case, we only found
partial support, because such practices only influence the value of knowledge (t value,
3.531). On the other hand, we found support for hypothesis 4. That is, collaborative
HRM practices significantly and positively influence unique knowledge (t value, 1.648),
although the significance is only at p ≤ 10%. In addition, we did not find support for
hypotheses 5 and 6. That is, none of the HRM practices directly influences innovative
activity.
Lastly, as we can see in Model 1 Adjusted, innovative activity has a significant positive
influence on the company’s profits (t value, 2.638). This result supports our hypothesis
7. The only significant control variable is external R&D expenditures. Such R&D
expenditures have a negative influence on the innovative activity (t value, –8.333) and a
positive influence on the company’s performance (t value, 3.212).
CONCLUSIONS
Although innovation has attracted substantial attention in the literature, only a few
studies have analysed how employees’ knowledge and HRM practices can, on the
whole, enhance the innovative activity of organisations. Therefore, this paper contributes
to the literature by theoretically and empirically investigating such relationships.
Our analyses showed that neither of the two systems of HRM practices (knowledge-
based and collaborative) had a significant direct effect on innovative activity.
Nevertheless, when we analysed the relationships of HRM practices through employees’
knowledge, then some significant effects on innovative activity appeared. Thus,
25
although knowledge-based HRM practices contribute to the value of knowledge, this
characteristic of knowledge had no impact on innovation. On the other hand,
collaborative HRM practices increase the uniqueness of knowledge, and this firm-
specific knowledge is positive and significantly associated with innovative activity. As a
result, it can be said that the contribution of collaborative HRM practices to innovative
capability is mediated by the uniqueness of knowledge.
For scholars researching the RBV, this finding is consistent with the literature
confirming that with the appropriate management of a key resource (unique knowledge),
firms enhance their innovative capability, and by extension their competitive advantage
and performance (Barney, 1991; 1995; Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2002; López-
Cabrales et al., 2006; Pérez-Luño et al., 2007). Furthermore, in a similar manner to that
proposed by Barney & Wright (1998), the firm must also have an appropriate
managerial strategy to take advantage of these resources, as collaborative HRM
practices do in our study. Our results also confirm the thesis that HRM practices are
facilitators of knowledge. Specifically, HRM practices based on knowledge are very
important for the procurement of valuable knowledge, while collaborative HRM
practices influence unique knowledge. This result is interesting because it confirms that
there is no “universalistic HRM model” for improving both the value and the uniqueness
of knowledge. Each of the two knowledge characteristics is associated with a different
and specific design of HRM practices.
With respect to the control variables, only external R&D expenditures have a significant
effect on our dependent variables. These expenditures have a double and opposite
influence. That is, they significantly and negatively affect innovative activity, and
26
significantly and positively influence performance. These findings are not surprising if
we consider that to be innovative, a company should be able to develop new products or
services by itself, departing from the internal development of new ideas (for example:
those from their R&D department, etc.). For this reason, we consider it appropriate that
these external expenditures harm such innovative behaviour because they are a way of
externalising the innovative activity. However, it is presumably expensive to develop
internal ideas. Therefore, the positive influence of external R&D expenditures on
performance can be an indication of the utility, in terms of efficiency, of outsourcing
such expenses.
Finally, it is interesting to remember that our study was focused and conducted on R&D
units. According to our results, unique knowledge from these employees is the most
outstanding resource for innovation. On the other hand, we found that certain
knowledge-based and collaborative HRM practices are not relevant in such contexts
(such as empowerment, participation in decision-making processes or job rotations), as
they were eliminated from the original HRM practice measurement scales.
These results also have practical implications. Firstly, the type of knowledge possessed
by employees in R&D departments is a key factor for product innovation. Managers
interested in developing innovations must identify and procure employees with unique
and firm-specific knowledge that is hard to copy, and determine its competitive
advantage. Secondly, managers must manage these employees by means of collaborative
HRM practices such as selection processes based on interpersonal abilities, training
activities focused on team building, and appraisals based on team performance and/or
employees’ ability to work in groups. These practices drive the skills and attitudes that
27
allow the interactions among employees and knowledge sharing that are necessary for
product innovation. Thirdly, with respect to the positive relation of external R&D
expenses with performance and the negative one with innovative activity, we propose
that companies should balance their R&D expenditures to take advantage of their effects
on performance but should not forget their damage to innovative behaviour. Finally, it is
very important to recall that we found a positive relation between innovative capability
and performance. While this finding is useful for academics analysing the role of
organisational capabilities on performance, it is even more important in its practical
implications. That is, supporting the view that investing in innovation is profitable can
motivate managers to devote resources to this activity.
Despite the above-cited contributions, this study does have certain limitations. Even
when we had enough data to conduct our research with sufficient robustness, the sample
size was not ideal to test relationships with structural equation modelling (Hair et al.,
1999) and did not allow for segmentation according to the industries considered in the
population. However, a certain homogeneity among firms exists because they were all
from innovative sectors according to the Spanish Office of Patents. Secondly, we
conducted a transactional study. In the future, it would be interesting to analyse data in a
longitudinal way to gather information about the different cycles that the innovative
activity requires. Finally, only one person in each firm, the manager responsible for the
R&D units, answered our questionnaire. Nevertheless, as we focused our research on
R&D units, the pre-test and expert panel conducted before sending the questionnaires
ensured that this manager is the person most qualified to assess the knowledge of his/her
28
employees and the HRM practices of the department. In addition, we used an objective
measure of profits to reduce common method variance error.
We also assumed that all hypotheses that were not supported could be considered
limitations but also future lines of research. For that reason, it could be interesting to
investigate thoroughly each of the relations that did not appear to be significant. It is also
important to analyse why valuable knowledge has no influence on innovative capability,
although such knowledge is considered relevant for sustaining human capital. Lastly,
although we focused on two groups of HRM practices, it would be interesting to
complete this analysis by including other groups of practices. It would also be
interesting to open a new line of research based on the findings about the usefulness of
investing in internal or external R&D expenditures, depending on the ultimate aim of the
companies (innovation or performance).
In conclusion, this study demonstrated the existence of two objectives that HR
management should pursue to achieve innovative capability. On the one hand,
management should incorporate HRM practices as selection processes based on
interpersonal abilities and training activities, and appraisals based on employees’ ability
to work in groups. On the other hand, organisations should bear in mind that the success
of these practices, in terms of innovation and performance, depends on the unique
knowledge of their employees.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S. (2002). ‘Social capital: Prospects for a new concept’.
Academy of Management Review, 27: 17–40.
29
Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R. and Chiva, R. (2006). ‘A measurement scale for product
innovation performance’. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 333–
346.
Amar, A. D. (2002). Managing Knowledge Workers: Unleashing Innovation and
Productivity. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Amit, R., & Belcourt, M. (1999). Human resource management processes: A value
creating source of competitive advantage. European Management Journal, 17,
174–181.
Anand, N., Gardner, H. K., & Morris, T. (2007). Knowledge-based innovation:
Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms.
Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), 406–428.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3),
411–423.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage
in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resources systems on manufacturing performance
and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 670–687.
Avlonitis, G. J., Papastathopoulou, P. G., & Gounaris, S. P. (2001). An empirically-
based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and
failure scenarios. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (5), 324–
342.
30
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural Equation Models in Marketing Research: Basic
Principles. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.). Principles of Marketing Research. Oxford,
England: Blackwell Publishers.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004) Using the job demands-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43 (1),
83–104.
Balkin, D., Markman, G. and Gomez-Mejia, L. (2000) Is CEO pay in high technology
firms related to innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1118–1129.
Balkin, D., & Montemayor, E. (2000). Explaining team-based pay: A contingency
perspective based on the organizational life cycle, team design and organizational
learning literatures. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (3), 249–269.
Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does
the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal,
10 (Special Issue), 107–124.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of
Management Executive, 9(4), 49–60.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of
human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource
Management, 37 (1), 31–46.
Barton, H., & Delbridge, R. (2001). Development in the learning factory: Training
human capital. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, 465–472.
31
Barczak, G., & Wilemon, D. (2003). Team members’ experiences in new product
development, views from the trenches. R & D Management, 33, 463–479.
Beatty, R. W., & Schneier, C. E. (1997). New HR roles to impact organizational
performance: From partners to players. Human Resource Management, 36, 29–50.
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S.
pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special
Issue), 123–135.
Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource based view of the firm.
Human Resource Management Journal, 6 (3), 59–75.
Capon, N., Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., & Hulbert, J. M. (1992). Profiles of product
innovators among large U.S. manufacturers. Management Science, 38, 157–169.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, M. D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1 Special Issue:
Technology, Organizations, and Innovation), 128–152.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Editorial
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64–73.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of
determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555–590.
Denison, D., Hart, S., & Kahn, J. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional work
teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1005–1024.
32
Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review
of Sociology, 17 (1), 225–249.
Donnellon, A. (1996) Cross-functional teams in product development: Accommodating
the structure to the process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 377–
392.
Doorewaard, H., & Meihuizen, H. (2000). Strategic performance options in professional
service organizations. Human Resource Management Journal, 10 (2), 39–57.
Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge worker productivity, the biggest challenge. California
Management Review, 41, 79–94.
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient rewards increase creative performance
without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 652–663.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (3), 7.
Foss, N. J. (2007). The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and
characteristics. Organization, 14(1), 29–52.
Galunic, C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge
structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management
Journal, 19 (12), 1193–1201.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25 (2), 186–192.
33
Griffin, A. (1997). The effect of project and process characteristics on product
development cycle time. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 24–35.
Gupta, A., & Singhal, A. (1993). Managing human resources for innovation and
creativity. Research Technology Management, 36 (3), 41–48.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Multivariate data
analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Helleloid, D., & Simonin, B. (1994). Organizational learning and a firm’s core
competence. In G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-based competition.
New York: Wiley.
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.
Jackson, S. (1992) Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing and
increasing diverse force group. In S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. Simpson (Eds.),
Group Processes and Productivity, Newbury Park: Sage.
James, W. (2002). Best HR Practices for Today’s Innovation Management. Research
Technology Management, 45 (1), 57–60.
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational
learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy
of Management Review, 32 (1), 236–256.
34
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational Innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on Hospital Adoption of
Technological and Administrative Innovations. Academy of Management Journal,
24 (4), 689–713.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), Focused Issue:
Management of Technology, 383–397.
Kunkel, G. (1997). Rewarding product development success. Research Technology
Management, 40, 29–31.
Laursen, K. (2002). HRM Practices for Innovation Performance. International Journal of
the Economic Business, 9 (1), 139–166.
Laursen, K and N. Foss (2003), New HRM practices, complementarities and the impact
on innovation performance, Cambridge Journal of Economics 27: 243–63.
Lengnick-Hall M, & Lengnick-Hall, C (2002). Human Resource Management in the
Knowledge Economy: new challenges, new roles, new capabilities. BK Publishers.
San Francisco.
Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Snell, S. A. (2003). Employment flexibility and firm
performance: Examining the interaction effects of employment mode,
environmental dynamism and technological intensity. Journal of Management, 29
(5), 681–703.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The
relationships among human capital, employment and human resource
configuration. Journal of Management, 28, 517–543.
35
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory
of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review,
24, 31–48.
Lepak, D., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, 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.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance
of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6),
1123–1134.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1999): Empowered self development and continuous
learning. Human Resource Management 38 (1): 3–15.
López-Cabrales, A., Valle, R., & Herrero, I. (2006). Contribution of core employees to
organizational capabilities and efficiency. Human Resource Management, 45 (1),
81–100.
Mak, S., & Akhar, S. (2003). HRM practices, strategy orientations and company
performance: A correlation study of publicly listed companies. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, 2 (2), 510–515.
McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002). The persistence of knowledge-based
advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological
knowledge Strategic Management Journal, 23 (4), 285–305.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product
performance: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11 (5), 397–417.
36
Mumford, M. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.
Human Resource Management Review, 10 (3), 313–351.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28
(2), 121–135.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
OECD/Eurostat. (1997). Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting
Technological Innovation Data (Synthesis Report No. 2: Country Studies). Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance, what next? Human Resource
Management Journal, 15 (4), 68–83.
Peltokorpi, V., & Tsuyuki, E. (2006). Knowledge governance in a Japanese project-
based organization. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 36–45.
Pérez-Luño, A., Valle Cabrera, R., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Innovation and imitation as
sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Management Research, 5 (2), 67–
79.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68 (3), 79–91.
Purcell, J. (1996). Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac? Human Resource
Management Journal, 9, 26–41.
37
Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (1987). Linking competitive advantage with human resource
management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207–219.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51, 1–
17.
Snell, S., & Dean, J. (1994). Strategic compensation for integrated manufacturing: The
moderating effects of jobs and organizational inertia. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 1109–1140.
Snell, S., Lepak, D., & Youndt, M. (1999). Managing the architecture of intellectual
capital: implications for Strategic Human Resource Management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management. Supplement 4. 175–193
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the
types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 450–
463.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative
resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2), 315–
330.
Tang, H. K. (1998). An integrative model of innovation in organizations. Technovation,
18 (5), 297–309.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533.
Thompson, L. (2003) Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy
of Management Executive, 17, 96–111.
38
Ulrich, D. (1998). Intellectual capital = competence × commitment. Sloan Management
Review, 39 (2), 15–26.
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1991). Organizational capability: Creating a competitive
advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 77–92.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5, 171–180.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial
orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic
Management Journal, 24 (13), 1307–1314.
Youndt, M., Snell, S., Dean, J., & Lepak, D. (1996). Human resource management,
manufacturing strategy and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,
39 (4), 836–866.
Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An
examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 335–
362.
Zhou, J (1998): Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement
orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2): 261–276.
Zhou, K. Z. (2006). Innovation, imitation, and new product performance: The case of
China. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 394–402.
39
TABLES AND FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Knowledge and innovative activity relationship
Performance
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Performance
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
40
FIGURE 2: From HRM practices to innovative activity, using knowledge as a
mediator
Performance
Knowledge basedHRM Practices
Collaborative HRM Practices
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Performance
Knowledge basedHRM Practices
Collaborative HRM Practices
Knowledge basedHRM Practices
Collaborative HRM Practices
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Product Innovative Activity
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
Valuable Knowledge
Unique Knowledge
41
FIGURE 3: Model of theoretical relationships
Performance
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Innovative
Activity
Valuable
Knowledge
Unique
Knowledge
H7
H3a
H4
H3b
H5
H6
H1
H2
Performance
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Knowledge based
HRM Practices
Collaborative
HRM Practices
Innovative
Activity
Valuable
Knowledge
Unique
Knowledge
Innovative
Activity
Valuable
Knowledge
Unique
Knowledge
Valuable
Knowledge
Unique
Knowledge
H7
H3a
H4
H3b
H5
H6
H1
H2
H5
H6
H5
H6
H1
H2
H1
H2
42
TABLE 1: Measurement model
Performance
Total sales divided by total assets
F1: Product innovative activity (CR 082.) I1. Market introduction of technologically new products developed by the company (totally or in part).
I2. Market introduction of technologically improved products developed by the company (totally or in
part).
(I3) Extensions of existing product lines (that do not only entail changes to aesthetic aspects).
(I4) Changes introduced to existing products, entailing significant improvements.
I5. Development of new lines/ranges of products.
I6. Frequency of replacement of old products by others with important changes.
(I7) Proportion of technologically new or improved products in the turnover of the company.
I8. Product innovation performed by the company.
F2: Value (Lepak & Snell, 2002) (CR 0.92) V1. Employees have skills that contribute to development of new market/product/services/opportunities.
V2. Employees have skills that create customer value.
V3. Employees have skills that are instrumental in creating innovations.
V4. Employees have skills that are needed to maintain high-quality products/services.
V5. Employees have skills that enable our firm to provide exceptional customer value.
F3: Uniqueness (Lepak & Snell, 2002) (CR 0.80) U1. Employees have skills that are not available to our competitors.
(U2) Employees have skills that are developed through on-the-job experiences.
U3. Employees have skills that are difficult for our competitors to buy away from us.
U4. Employees have skills that are difficult for our competitors to imitate or duplicate.
F4: Knowledge HRMP (Lepak & Snell, 2002) (CR 0.95) (HRK1) Employees perform jobs that have a high degree of job security.
(HRK2) Employees perform jobs that empower them to make decisions.
(HRK3) Employees participate in the decision-making process.
(HRK4) Selection process focuses on selecting the best all-round candidate.
(HRK5) Selection process places priority on employee potential to learn.
(HRK6) Training activities strive to develop firm-specific skills/knowledge.
HRK7. Firm emphasises promotion from within.
HRK8. Firm emphasises tutoring and mentoring activities.
HRK9. Firm possesses a socialisation program for newcomers.
HRK10. Performance appraisals include developmental feedback.
HRK11. Performance appraisals emphasise employee learning.
(HRK12) Compensation/rewards provide incentives for new ideas.
F5: Collaborative HRMP (Lepak & Snell, 2002) (CR 0.91) (HRC1) Employees perform jobs that require them to participate in cross-functional teams and networks.
(HRC2) Employees perform jobs that involve job rotations.
(HRC3) Selection process assesses industry knowledge and experience.
HRC4. Selection process assesses the ability to collaborate and work in a team.
HRC5. Training activities focus on team building and interpersonal relations.
HRC6. Appraisals are based on team performance.
HRC7. Appraisals focus on employees’ ability to work with others.
(HRC8) Compensation/rewards place a premium on employee’s industry experience.
(HRC9) Compensation/rewards have a group-based incentive.
Internal R&D Internal expenditure on R&D as average % of the sales turnover of the company for the previous three
years
External R&D External expenditure on R&D as average % of the sales turnover of the company for the previous three
years
43
Size LN. Workers
Note: CR = Composite reliability (analogous to Cronbach’s alpha); () = Eliminated items appear in bold in
brackets
44
TABLE 2: Squared correlation matrix
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1: Product innovative
activity 0.50
F2: Value 0.005 0.56
F3: Uniqueness 0.062 0.012 0.59
F4: Knowledge HRMP 0.003 0.217 0.002 0.67
F5: Collaborative HRMP 0.031 0.212 0.022 0.393 0.56 CR 0.82 0.92 0.80 0.95 0.91 Significant at p < 0.05; AVE is represented in the principal diagonal; CR is composite reliability
45
TABLE 3: Estimated coefficients and model fit indices
Latent factors
Dependent variables Independent variables Model 1
Coeff1a(t value) Model 1*
Coeff1a*(t value) Product innovative activity 0.191 (2.285) 0.173 (2.638)
Value 0.022 (0.234) –
Uniqueness –0.056 (–0.598) –
Knowledge HRM practices 0.036 (0.218) –
Collaborative HRM practices –0.055 (–0.268) –
Size –0.046 (–0.838) –
Internal R&D expenditures –0.017 (–1.016) –
Performance
External R&D expenditures 0.023 (3.810) 0.020 (3.212)
Value 0.199 (1.201) –
Uniqueness 0.385 (1.904) 0.379 (2.181)
Knowledge HRM practices –0.604 (–1.450) –
Collaborative HRM practices 0.801 (1.492) –
Size –0.185 (–1.514) –
Internal R&D expenditures 0.027 (0.817) –
Product innovative
activity
External R&D expenditures –0.060 (–1.538) –0.061 (–8.333)
Knowledge HRM practices 0.276 (1.069) 0.331 (3.531)
Collaborative HRM practices 0.148 (0.438) –
Size 0.040 (0.525) –
Internal R&D expenditures –0.001 (–0.026) –
Value
External R&D expenditures –0.007 (–1.538) –
Knowledge HRM practices –0.182 (–0.705) –
Collaborative HRM practices 0.276 (0.822) 0.183 (1.648)
Size 0.044 (0.640) –
Internal R&D expenditures 0.021 (0.818) –
Uniqueness
External R&D expenditures 0.011 (1.572) –
Overall fit index Model 1 Model 1* χ² (df) 399.632 (276) 255.055 (248)
p value 0.00000 0.36553
Satorra–Bentler χ² 368.1039 255.4539
p value 0.00017 0.35895
GFI 0.755 0.824
AGFI 0.689 0.770
CFI 0.870 0.993
Robust CFI 0.862 0.989
RMSEA (90% CI) 0.072 (0.055, 0.086) 0.018 (0.000, 0.047)
Robust RMSEA (90% CI) 0.062 (0.044, 0.078) 0.019 (0.000, 0.048)
coeff1a = Model 1 parameters; * = adjusted
If t value > 1.64 relation is significant at 10%; if t value > 1.96 relation is significant at 5%; if t value >
2.576 relation is significant at 1%
46
ALVARO LOPEZ-CABRALES, Ph.D is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource
Management in the Business Administration Department, Universidad Pablo de Olavide
(Seville, Spain), where he obtained his Ph.D in 2003. His current research focuses on
human capital, employment relationships, organizational capabilities and innovation,
working on several research projects and publishing his research in several Spanish and
international journals. He teaches human resource management courses to
undergraduate, MBA and Ph.D students
ANA PEREZ-LUÑO, Ph.D, is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Business
Administration Department, Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Seville, Spain), where she
obtained her PhD in 2007. Her current research focuses on innovation, knowledge,
competitiveness and resource based theory. She is working on several research projects,
publishing her research in several Spanish and international journals. She teaches
Organization Theory and Business Administration to undergraduate, and
Entrepreneurship and Innovation to MBA and Ph.D students.
RAMON VALLE is a Professor of Human Resource Management in the Business
Administration Department, Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Seville, Spain). He got his
Ph. D at the Universidad de Sevilla in 1983. His teaching and research interests focus on
strategic human resource management and innovation. He is heading several research
projects on innovation, organizational capital and employment relationships and is co-
author of several HRM text books and papers in international journals.