Annoted bibliography

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Collectivism-oriented human resource management on team creativity: effects of interpersonal harmony and human resource management strength

Silu Chen, Youqing Fan, Guanglei Zhang & Yu Zhang

To cite this article: Silu Chen, Youqing Fan, Guanglei Zhang & Yu Zhang (2021) Collectivism- oriented human resource management on team creativity: effects of interpersonal harmony and human resource management strength, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32:18, 3805-3832, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1640765

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1640765

Published online: 22 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1049

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Collectivism-oriented human resource management on team creativity: effects of interpersonal harmony and human resource management strength

Silu Chena, Youqing Fanb,c, Guanglei Zhangd and Yu Zhanga

aSchool of Economics and Business Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China; bSchool of Business, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia; cInstitute of Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia; dSchool of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China

ABSTRACT This study examines the mechanism through which collect- ivism-oriented human resource management (CHRM) pro- motes team creativity and how this relationship differs across interpersonal harmony. Drawing on social exchange theory, we investigate 177 research and development teams across China. The findings indicate, as expected, that CHRM, which in China relates to guanxi, has a positive effect on radical creativity. Harmony enhancement partially mediates the relationship between CHRM and radical cre- ativity. Meanwhile, disintegration avoidance fully mediates the relationship between CHRM and incremental creativity. In addition, HRM strength positively moderates the relation- ship between CHRM and harmony enhancement. Finally, HRM strength moderates the mediating effect between CHRM and radical creativity. This study helps unpack the ‘black box’ between culture-specific HRM and team out- comes, providing important implications for human resource managers.

KEYWORDS Collectivism-oriented human resource management; interpersonal harmony; HRM strength; team creativity; social exchange theory

Introduction

In the face of growing globalization and the proliferation of dynamic business environments, organizations worldwide are increasingly relying on teams and team-based structures to generate creative ideas and solu- tions (Donate, Pe~na, & Sanchez de Pablo, 2016). As the resources most essential to an organization, personnel and organizational structures cre- atively contribute to organizational outcomes (Barney & Wright, 1998; Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004; Reutzel, Belsito, & Collins, 2016). In particular, human resource (HR) systems such as high

CONTACT Guanglei Zhang zhangguanglei@whut.edu.cn School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. � 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2021, VOL. 32, NO. 18, 3805–3832 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1640765

performance work systems (HPWSs) are designed and implemented to boost employee and team performance (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017; Wombacher & Felfe, 2017). HPWSs, as separate but interconnected human resource manage-

ment (HRM) practices designed to enhance employees’ skills and efforts, have been extensively studied (Fan, Cui, Zhang, Zhu, H€artel, & Nyland, 2014; Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, & Gould-Williams, 2011; Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). However, empirical evidence suggests limits to the applicability of Western corporate HRM practices such as HPWSs to workplaces in which a collectivist culture dominates, such as Chinese local subsidiaries (e.g. Bj€orkman & Lu, 1999). Additionally, research findings show that the construct of HRM practices in China is contextually different from that in the West (Xiao & Bj€orkman, 2006). China, a collectivist culture with a fast-growing economy, is moving from its role as the world’s manufacturer to that of the world’s innovator (Casey & Koleski, 2004). Hence, examinations of the channel of the impact of collectivism-oriented HRM (CHRM) on team creativity in China are critical. Research shows that uniquely Chinese characteristics such as a collect-

ivist culture, guanxi relationships, and seniority-based systems (Zhou, Zhang, & Liu, 2012) influence the cultural context and background of institutional transformation in that country. Collectivist cultural elements such as guanxi have their cultural roots in Chinese Confucian thought, which states that the foundation of a society’s functionality is based on structured and hierarchical social relations (e.g. Zhang, Long, Wu, & Huang, 2015). For instance, in Western countries, people are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, and rights as well as the transactional contracts they have established with others (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994). Additionally, relationships and group memberships are temporary and lack intensity (Kim & Coleman, 2015). By contrast, in collective cultures such as China, people see themselves as part of one or more collectives (e.g. family, firm, tribe and nation), and group member- ships are considered to be both important and fixed (Kim & Coleman, 2015; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Researchers claim that the effectiveness of HRM practices must align

with the social and organizational contexts (Aycan, 2005). Indeed, the majority of previous studies of strategic HRM or HPWSs are based on Western contexts. Unlike their Western counterparts, however, Chinese firms operate under a socialist market system, and the Chinese market economy is dominated by state intervention, public ownership and state- owned enterprises (Ding, 2009). These features give rise to market imperfections that cause uncertainties that firms must address when undertaking economic and enterprise reforms (Wei & Lau, 2005).

3806 S. CHEN ET AL.

In line with the discipline of cross-cultural management, which focuses on the extent to which culture influences HRM practices compared with other institutional and structural forces (e.g. size, industry, ownership status, workforce characteristics, unionization and labour laws) (Aycan, 2005), this study examines the influencing mechanism of a set of cul- ture-specific HRM practices (i.e. CHRM herein). CHRM comprises HR policies and practices that cultivate collectivist cultural values in organi- zations (Li, Tang, Wang, Yan, & Liu, 2012). One of the major outcomes of CHRM on which we focus is team creativity, which is ‘the production of novel and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes and procedures by a team of employees working together’ (Shin & Zhou, 2007, p. 1715). The effect of CHRM on team creativity remains theoret- ically underexplored despite the fact that studying employees’ perceptions of HRM practices provides valuable insights into their impact (Zhang, Zhang, Dallas, Xu, & Hu, 2018). Additionally, individuals’ overall atti- tudes towards HRM practices are shaped by their understanding of the objective of such practices; this can have consequences on employees’ attitudes and behaviours in the workplace (Fishbein, 1963; Shen, Dumont, & Deng, 2018). Employees can have different views of HRM practices, and such divergence can lead to one of two dispositional orien- tations of harmony, namely harmony enhancement and disintegration avoidance (Chen, Leung, Li, & Ou, 2015). In turn, the type of harmony in the workplace can give rise to both

radical and incremental creativity (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). Identifying the differences between an organization’s intended and implemented HRM practices is thus central to understanding employees’ reactions to HRM practices (Piening, Baluch, & Ridder, 2014). For this reason, the current study draws on Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) concept of HRM strength, which proposes that ‘strong’ HRM systems clearly sig- nal to employees their organization’s values, priorities and expectations. In this way, employees with diverse individual experiences can all be embedded in a common context that provides cues for sense-making (Russo, Mascia, & Morandi, 2018). Based on the above discussion, we develop our arguments through

social exchange theory, which views the organization–employment rela- tionship as social and/or economic exchanges (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). When employees perceive that organizations value and deal equit- ably with them, they reciprocate these ‘good deeds with positive work attitudes and behaviors’ (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005, p. 3). The context of this study provides a valuable opportunity to illuminate

the differing circumstances in which culture-specific HRM operates. First, by considering the cultural differences between Western and

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3807

Eastern cultures, this study demonstrates a broad conceptualization of CHRM in collectivist Chinese cultures including interpersonal benefit, value inheritance and collective corporate. Second, we advance social exchange theory and the ‘creativity at work’ literature by integrating the twin concept of radical creativity and incremental creativity in team cre- ativity as well as the two orientations of interpersonal harmony into a social exchange process framework for different paths in the relationship between CHRM and team outcomes. Finally, we extend the boundary effect between CHRM and interpersonal harmony to shed light on the processes through which HRM practices are effective. Such findings are critical to HR managers in particular. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we describe

the concept of social exchange theory and outline the key concepts of CHRM, team creativity, interpersonal harmony and HRM strength. We then present and discuss the results of our empirical study, while detail- ing the associated methods. From there, we present the theoretical con- tributions and practical implications of this research. Finally, we summarize the current study by outlining its limitations and potential future research directions.

Theory and hypotheses

Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory views organizations as forums in which transac- tions can occur (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). Individuals form perceptions about the fairness of these transactions (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). Social exchanges promote feelings of personal obligation, grati- tude, and trust; in turn, these feelings facilitate the acceptance of role requests beyond the employment contract (Nzoka & Rotich, 2015). According to certain researchers (e.g. Ko & Hur, 2014; Lee & Hong 2011; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002), social exchange theory comprises two types of social exchanges. One is perceived organizational support, which focuses on the exchange relationship between the employee and organization. The other is leader–member exchange, which emphasizes the quality of exchange between the employee and supervisor and is based on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources. Research findings show that employees are willing to embrace a larger number of HRM practices when they have a good relationship with their line managers and when their line managers are motivated to implement HRM practices. Line managers, in turn, will reciprocate the

3808 S. CHEN ET AL.

perceived support from the HR department by showing a greater motiv- ation to implement these practices (Bos-Nehles & Meijerink, 2018). Much of the social exchange literature is based on Hofstede’s (1980)

cultural framework and centres on individualist Western cultures (particu- larly that of the USA). This raises questions about the extent to which their findings can be generalized to Eastern collectivist cultures (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). Parikh and Garg (1990) noted that in India’s collectivist culture, each individual has a distinct role and that relatedness is defined by caste, community and neighbour bonds. Similarly, as the prominent dimension of the Chinese culture, the effect of collectivism on HRM practices and team creativity remains underexplored. By following the logic that underpins social exchange theory, the cur-

rent study leverages this theory as its theoretical background to discuss how CHRM could utilize a supportive environment and high-quality leader–member relations to facilitate mutual exchange and build an effi- cient relationship between employees and their organization.

CHRM

Individuals spend much of their lifetime working in various organiza- tions, all of which are embedded in and profoundly influenced by their national background (Hong, Hou, Zhu, & Marinova, 2018). Collectivism is the main cultural dimension that influences Chinese people. Various studies address the effect of culture on HRM practices and how it plays a crucial role in shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviours. For example, Sartorius, Merino, and Carmichael (2011) examined how Western-based HRM can be modified to embrace cultural diversity in Africa. Triguero-S�anchez, Pe~na-Vinces, and S�anchez-Apell�aniz (2011) presented a management model that considers the role of the organiza- tional culture and HR system as mediator constructs and assessed their impact on workgroups. CHRM comprises a set of HRM policies and practices that cultivate col-

lectivist cultural values in organizations (Li, Tang, Wang, Yan, & Liu, 2012). Collectivist cultural values are deeply rooted in the Confucian trad- ition and can be readily observed in Eastern Asian societies. Many organi- zations within these societies stress collectivism in every HRM dimension, including recruitment, training, evaluation, rewards, compensation and promotion (e.g. Chen, Zhang, Jiang, Shi, & Liu, 2019; Li, Zhang, Yang, & Li, 2015). For example, CHRM mainly rewards teams of individuals rather than single individuals; employee training and development emphasize teamwork rather than individual performance and promotions go to those who can work well with others (Chen, Zhang, Zhang, & Xu, 2016).

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3809

Collectivist group values reduce social loafing and increase cooperation (Wagner, 1995), and people in collectivist organizational cultures tend to identify more strongly with their workgroups (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998) than do their counterparts in non-collectivist cultures. Generally speaking, CHRM focuses on the abilities of workplace groups to enhance communication and coordination among team members. Teamwork and collaboration frequently provide the foundation for organizational creativity, as they can lead to constructive internal conflict over attention and the use of creative energy (Andreassi, Lawter, Brockerhoff, & Rutigliano, 2014). Previous studies provide evidence of the relationship between CHRM and team-level outcomes (Chen, Zhang, Zhang, & Xu, 2016). By improving teamwork, CHRM can increase employees’ sense of collective belonging to their team and hence improve collective creativity within the team.

Team creativity

Although collectivist values may promote feelings of harmony and cooperation, they can also extinguish the creative ‘spark’ essential to cre- ativity (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Thus, investigations into whether people in collectivist cultures may also be creative are warranted. Studies of cre- ativity goals have examined creativity on its own, while neglecting inves- tigations into activities of varying levels of complexity that are associated with generating different kinds of creativity (Gong, Wu, Song, & Zhang, 2017). In the broader literature, scholars have started to distinguish radical and incremental creativity: the former refers to ideas that sub- stantially alter existing products, processes or services, while the latter denotes ideas that offer only minor modifications (Gilson, Lim, D’Innocenzo, & Moye, 2012; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). For example, Jaussi and Randel (2014) found a positive relationship between creative self-efficacy and radical creativity. Further, internal scanning (i.e. scanning within the organization for new ideas) is positively related to both incremental and radical creativity, whereas external scanning is only related to radical creativity. Compared with incremental creativity, radical creativity offers more unique pathways. For a research and development (R&D) company, creativity (especially radical creativity) determines its development and competitiveness (Tang & Ye, 2015). However, while individuals often acknowledge the collective nature of their creative accomplishments, research on creativity has cen- tred primarily on individuals (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). The current study, however, focuses on team-based creativity and the factors that pre- cipitate it. Individuals within an organization or team, many of whom

3810 S. CHEN ET AL.

represent a diversity of perspectives, can combine their knowledge, efforts and abilities (Eisenhardt, 1990; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006).

Mediating role of interpersonal harmony: harmony enhancement and disintegration avoidance

Scholars agree that appropriately designed HRM practices such as HPWSs, high-commitment approaches, strategic HRM, strategic fit approaches and motivational practices can influence employees’ behav- iours and enhance organizational performance (Guest, 2002; Jiang & Messersmith, 2018; Jiang, Wang, & Zhao, 2012). The principle of reci- procity suggests that employees demonstrate more gratitude in their rela- tionships with colleagues and leaders when they feel respected by their organization. In this case, the effects of CHRM could evoke in employees two dispositional orientations of interpersonal harmony, namely har- mony enhancement and disintegration avoidance. These two motives of interpersonal harmony are concerned with orientations towards how interpersonal disagreements and transgressions should be managed (Wang, Leung, & Zhou, 2014). According to Leung and his colleagues (Leung, 1997; Leung & Brew, 2013), harmony enhancement refers to an active approach to different opinions and disagreements by ‘engaging in behaviors presumed to strengthen the relationships among the interac- tants’; disintegration avoidance, on the contrary, refers to a passive approach to interpersonal disagreement in which one avoids ‘actions that will strain a relationship and lead to its weakening and dissolving’ (Leung, 1997, p. 644). Additionally, Chen, Leung, Li, and Ou (2015) found that the harmony enhancement (disintegration avoidance) motive has a positive (negative) relationship with creativity mediated by cre- ative effort. Since most creative ideas within organizations are the outcomes of

exchanges within a collective space, interaction can trigger ideas through collaboration, dialogue and debate (Catmull, 2008; Cirella, Canterino, Guerci, & Shani, 2016). Employees are involved in social exchange rela- tionships at work (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), and HRM practices may have different impacts on employees’ creativity. Specifically, harmony enhancement increases mutual communication among team members and helps them overcome the difficulties inherent in R&D processes. Moreover, conflicts can often give birth to novel ideas and frameworks that are considered to be more creative. By contrast, dis- integration avoidance tries to avoid risks relating to strained relation- ships, including potential threats to other employees. Employees with an orientation towards disintegration avoidance will avoid deviating from

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3811

established policies and procedures within the R&D process to increase conformity. For these reasons, we argue that CHRM may increase har- mony enhancement and have positive effects on radical creativity. On the contrary, it may increase disintegration avoidance and have negative effects on incremental creativity. We thus put forward the following hypotheses.

H1: Harmony enhancement positively mediates the relationship between CHRM and radical creativity.

H2: Disintegration avoidance negatively mediates the relationship between CHRM and incremental creativity.

Moderating effect of HRM strength

Strategic HRM researchers have examined why and how organizations achieve their goals through the application of HRM practices (Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). It remains unclear how HRM practices send signals to employees that allow them to understand the desired purpose of the organization and form a collective sense of what is expected of them. Recent research has used environmental characteristics as contin- gency variables to examine the boundary conditions of the effects of HRM. For instance, HRM strength has direct and indirect effects (through culture) on employees’ improvisation behaviours (Rodrigues Ribeiro, Pinto Coelho, & Gomes, 2011). Strong HRM systems should contribute to firm performance by facilitating relationships among HRM practices, employees’ attitudes and individual performance (Delmotte, De Winne, & Sels, 2012). Workplaces with high HRM strength are highly distinctive and con-

sistent, featuring a broad range of HRM practices (Piening, Baluch, & Ridder, 2014). In these settings, CHRM systems clearly signal to employ- ees that the organization prioritizes collective benefits and encourages cooperation. In turn, this motivates team members to develop interper- sonal harmony. By contrast, in workplaces with low HRM strength, the effect of CHRM systems on employees’ understanding of their work situ- ation is limited. However, in pursuing personal interests, team members tend to exhibit negative behaviours such as disintegration avoidance. For these reasons, we propose the following hypothesis.

H3: HRM strength moderates the relationship between CHRM and interpersonal harmony to strengthen the relationship in settings with higher, rather than lower, HRM strength.

Taken together, the above considerations describe a model in which interpersonal harmony mediates the relationship between CHRM and team creativity (H1 and H2) and HRM strength moderates the

3812 S. CHEN ET AL.

relationships between CHRM and interpersonal harmony (H3). In sum- mary, these hypotheses specify a mediated moderation model, in which the direct effect of CHRM on interpersonal harmony and the indirect effect of CHRM on team creativity are greater under conditions of high HRM strength. Therefore, we also put forward the following hypothesis.

H4: HRM strength moderates the indirect relationship between CHRM and team creativity to strengthen the relationship in settings with higher, rather than lower, HRM strength.

Figure 1 presents the model proposed in the current study.

Methods

Sampling and data collection

China’s rapid economic growth has greatly increased its need for creativ- ity and has created fierce competition among companies. The data sam- ple used in the current study comprises creativity-oriented companies from the manufacturing, technical information, new energy and new material industries in the Hubei, Guangdong and Sichuan provinces of China. Each of these creativity-oriented companies has R&D teams and we investigated how they manage and encourage their members to undertake creativity-oriented behaviours. Before the questionnaires were distributed, we contacted the HR managers of each of the participating companies to seek their help in distributing questionnaires and informed the teams about the survey. Data were collected from these R&D team leaders and their subordinates in March 2017. Two sets of questionnaires were used in the study: one for subordinates and another for their immediate supervisors. With the assistance of their respective companies’ HR departments, we distributed at Time 1 the subordinate questionnaire, which captured demographic information on employees, their perceived

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3813

HRM strength and interpersonal harmony. Three months later (at Time 2), we distributed questionnaires to their immediate supervisors that cap- tured general company information, including that on CHRM and team creativity. Respondents were informed that the aim of the survey was to examine their experience with their company’s HRM practices and they were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Completed ques- tionnaires were returned in sealed and coded envelopes. After deleting records with unmatched supervisor–subordinate pairs and incomplete information, 177 supervisor–subordinate dyads (177 supervisors and 1542 subordinates) remained and comprised the sample for this study (response rate: 43.5%). Of the 177 teams, 45 were from the manufacturing industry (25.4%),

42 were from the technical information industry (23.7%), 48 were from the new energy industry (27.1%), 37 were from the new material indus- try (20.9%) and five from other industries (2.8%). Most teams had ten- ures of two to four years (41.2%) and six to eight members (37.9%). Just over two-third (67.2%) of the teams had high levels of union member- ship (i.e. more than 50% of the team were union members). Among the overall sample of 1542 subordinates, 996 were men (64.6%). Three per- cent of the subordinates held junior diplomas or certificates, 32.6% of them held Bachelor’s degrees, 43.2% of them held Master’s degrees and 21.2% of them held doctoral degrees. Table 1 provides the characteristics of the sample such as team tenure, size, union membership and industry.

Measures

With the exception of CHRM, the measures of the variables were origin- ally constructed in English. We used the back-translation procedure of Brislin (1980) to ensure that the measures in the Chinese version were

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample (N¼ 177). Classifications Frequency Percentage (%)

Team tenure <1 62 35.03 2–4 73 41.24 5–7 29 16.39 >8 13 7.34

Team size <5 55 31.07 6–8 67 37.85 9–10 38 21.47 >11 17 9.61

Union membership High level 119 67.23 Low level 58 32.77

Industry Manufacturing 45 25.42 Technical information 42 23.73 New energy 48 27.12 New material 37 20.90 Others 5 2.83

3814 S. CHEN ET AL.

equivalent to those in the original English version. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed that each statement item reflected their feelings about their experience on their team. All of the variables were measured using a seven-point Likert scale range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree).

CHRM Based on House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) and the grounded theory procedure (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), we further devel- oped this scale to suit the Chinese context. First, we asked the supervi- sors in our sample to provide typical examples of HRM practices they had adopted in their daily workplace routine. After summarizing their responses, we found that some supervisors had carried out HRM practi- ces that featured collectivist-oriented characteristics. Second, we selected typical HRM practices and extracted key words from their expression, with 12 measurement items initially. Third, we used the Varimax with Kaiser normalization method of principle component analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009), based on the assumption that any extracted factors relevant to CHRM should be correlated. The result of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin testing was 0.695, while that of the Bartlett test was significant (v2/df ¼ 455.853/36, p < .001). These results suggest that this variable is suitable for factor analysis. We excluded items with loadings less than 0.50 as well as those that

cross-loaded on two or more factors at 0.05 or higher (Roesch & Rowley, 2005). Finally, we identified a three-factor structure based on the mean- ing of items (i.e. interpersonal benefit, value inheritance and collective corporate), with the extracted factors explaining 67.1% of the total vari- ance. Specifically, interpersonal benefit means that the organization val- ues and cares for employees’ personal and work lives. Value inheritance means the organization attaches great importance to cultivating employ- ees’ collectivist values. Collective corporate means the organization encourages employees to help and cooperate with each other. The Cronbach’s a of this nine-item scale was 0.749. Table 2 summarizes the factor loadings for the CHRM scale.

Interpersonal harmony We selected five high-loading items from each of the harmony scales developed by Leung, Brew, Zhang, and Zhang (2011) to assess harmony enhancement and disintegration avoidance. We asked team members the extent to which they believed each item applied to their relationships with other team members. The sample item in harmony enhancement

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3815

was ‘having an ability to interact with others harmoniously is vital for achieving major successes’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.877. The sample item in disintegration avoidance was ‘as you often have to ride with the tide, it is better not to worry about what is unacceptable or unfair’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.860. Overall, the Cronbach’s a of this 10-item scale was 0.835.

HRM strength We used the 16-item scale validated by Bednall, Sanders, and Runhaar (2014), which contains three dimensions: HRM distinctiveness, HRM consistency and HRM consensus. The sample item in HRM distinctive- ness was ‘when one asks the HR department for help, it provides clear answers’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.786. The sample item in HRM consistency was ‘the HR instruments for staff appraisal succeed in reinforcing the desired behaviours’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.789. The sample item in HRM consensus was ‘if employees perform well, they receive the necessary recognition and rewards’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.680. Overall, the Cronbach’s a of this 16-item scale was 0.823.

Team creativity We used the 12 items developed by Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, and Veiga (2006) to ask supervisors about the extent to which they perceived cre- ativity in their teams. This scale measures team creativity from two per- spectives: radical orientation and incremental orientation. The six items consistent with radical orientation describe a team as one that ‘bases its

Table 2. Constructs and measurement items of CHRM.

Measurement items

Constructs

1 2 3

1. Take care of employees’ personal life 0.851 – – 2. Offer long-term employment security 0.844 – – 3. Senior employees often help young employees in workplace 0.733 – – 4. Focus on ethical education during training – 0.807 – 5. Loyalty is more important than his/her performance

when selecting, evaluating, and promoting – 0.807 –

6. Encourage value congruence through group broadcast – 0.788 – 7. Pay attention to employees who have gregarious personality

and communication ability – – 0.803

8. The main method of incentive is collective performance bonus – – 0.791 9. Participation in collective work is an important indicator

of performance evaluation – – 0.786

Cronbach’s a 0.772 0.751 0.718 Variance ratio of explanation 23.111% 22.474% 21.471% Factor name Interpersonal

benefit Value

inheritance Collective corporate

3816 S. CHEN ET AL.

success on its ability to explore new technologies’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.884. Similarly, the six items consistent with incre- mental orientation describe a team as one that ‘commits to improve quality and lower cost’. The Cronbach’s a of this dimension was 0.903. Overall, the Cronbach’s a of this 12-item scale was 0.835.

Control variables Given the potential effects of the demographic variables on the quality of HRM–performance relationships (Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2017), we chose team tenure, team size and the degree of union representation as control variables. Team tenure was self-reported in years, team size was the number of members therein, and the degree of unionization was measured as a dummy variable (0¼ fewer than 50% members in the union, 1¼more than 50% members in the union).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a confirmatory factor ana- lysis to evaluate the discriminant validity of our model, using AMOS20.0. As Table 3 shows the fit indexes revealed that the proposed six-factor model had a better fit than any of the alternative nested mod- els. This finding supports the distinctiveness of the study’s constructs.

Aggregation of the group-level variables

Analyses of data measured at different levels should be based on models that explicitly acknowledge the existence of these different levels and

Table 3. Result of CFA for the measures of variables. Model v2 df v2/df RMSEA CFI IFI

Six-factor model 1567.26 992 1.58 0.06 0.85 0.85 Five-factor model 1: CHRM, HRM strength, harmony

enhancement þ disintegration avoidance, radical creativity, incremental creativity

1869.46 997 1.88 0.07 0.77 0.78

Five-factor model 2: CHRM, HRM strength, harmony enhancement, disintegration avoidance, radical creativity þ incremental creativity

2148.48 997 2.16 0.08 0.70 0.71

Four-factor model: CHRM, HRM strength, harmony enhancement þ disintegration avoidance, radical creativity þ incremental creativity

2449.20 1001 2.45 0.09 0.62 0.63

Three-factor model: CHRM þ HRM strength, harmony enhancement þ disintegration avoidance, radical creativity þ incremental creativity

2484.46 1004 2.48 0.09 0.61 0.62

Two-factor model: CHRM þ HRM strength þ harmony enhancement þ disintegration avoidance, radical creativity þ incremental creativity

2626.73 1006 2.61 0.10 0.58 0.59

One-factor model 2981.24 1007 2.96 0.11 0.50 0.49

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3817

attempt to formulate interactions among the levels in producing the out- come variable (Schnake & Dumler, 2003). In the current study, the out- come variable was team creativity measured at the group level. Hofmann’s (2002) suggestion is to aggregate the independent variables to the group level and carry out an ordinary least squares regression ana- lysis of the aggregated data. Thus, we computed rwg, ICC(1) and ICC(2) to check the viability of the group-level variables. We obtained average values of 0.95 and 0.92 for HRM strength and interpersonal harmony, respectively. All these rwg values exceeded the acceptable value of 0.70 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). Additionally, the values of ICC(1) and ICC(2) were 0.25 and 0.70 for HRM strength and 0.32 and 0.66 for interpersonal harmony. These ICC(1) and ICC(2) values were within the range of acceptable norms of 0.05 and 0.50, respectively (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The ICC(1) and ICC(2) values in our study provide evidence that justifies data aggregation. Accordingly, we used our group-level variables in the analysis that follows.

Descriptive analysis and validity

Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables. Team tenure, team size and the degree of unionization positively related to radical creativity and incremental creativity. Value inheritance positively related to disintegration avoidance (b ¼ 0.244, p < .01). Interpersonal benefit positively related to harmony enhance- ment (b ¼ 0.292, p < 0.01), disintegration avoidance (b ¼ 0.336, p < .01), and radical creativity (b ¼ 0.229, p < .01). Collective corporate positively related to disintegration avoidance (b ¼ 0.257, p < .01) and radical creativity (b ¼ 0.150, p < .05). In addition, the correlations among all the variables were less than 0.75. This finding implies that multicollinearity was not a problem in our study (Tsui, Ashford, Clair, & Xin, 1995). We also tested the variance inflation factors of the variables, and found all the factor values to be between 1 and 3, indicating nomul- ticollinearity issue. The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values in Table 4 indicate the validity of each of the second-order constructs in meeting the requirements of Fornell and Larcker (1981) (i.e. AVE > 0.50, CR > 0.70).

To assess discriminant validity, a series of two-factor models, recom- mended by Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips (1991), was estimated in which the individual factor correlations, one at a time, were restricted to unity. The fit of the restricted models was compared with that of the original model. Three models were evaluated by analysing the moment structures in AMOS20.0. As Table 5 shows, the v2 change in each model,

3818 S. CHEN ET AL.

Ta bl e 4.

D es cr ip tiv e an al ys is of

va ria bl es .

Va ria bl es

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13

1. Te am

te nu

re 1

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

2. Te am

si ze

0. 28 6� �

1 –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

3. D eg re e of

un io ni sa tio

n 0. 04 6

0. 02 7

1 –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– 4.

Va lu e in he rit an ce

�0 .0 71

0. 05 5

0. 14 4

1 –

– –

– –

– –

– –

5. In te rp er so na lb

en ef it

�0 .1 12

0. 07 2

0. 18 6�

0. 36 9� �

1 –

– –

– –

– –

– 6.

Co lle ct iv e co rp or at e

0. 09 3

0. 27 9� �

�0 .2 10 ��

0. 20 9� �

0. 18 2�

1 –

– –

– –

– –

7. H RM

di st in ct iv en es s

0. 04 6

0. 22 1� �

0. 11 1

0. 27 0� �

0. 26 4� �

0. 27 3� �

1 –

– –

– –

– 8.

H RM

co ns is te nc y

�0 .1 36

0. 07 1

0. 10 1

0. 21 7� �

0. 31 5� �

0. 07 6

0. 32 7� �

1 –

– –

– –

9. H RM

co ns en su s

0. 01 3

0. 21 5� �

0. 11 4

0. 14 4

0. 29 2� �

0. 16 2�

0. 31 6� �

0. 32 7� �

1 –

– –

– 10 .H

ar m on

y en ha nc em

en t

�0 .1 23

0. 07 9

0. 19 9� �

0. 06 0

0. 29 2� �

0. 06 6

0. 31 4� �

0. 15 8�

0. 31 5� �

1 –

– –

11 .D

is in te gr at io n av oi da nc e

�0 .1 03

0. 00 8

�0 .0 42

0. 24 4� �

0. 33 6� �

0. 25 7� �

0. 37 4� �

0. 21 7� �

0. 29 5� �

0. 23 2� �

1 –

– 12 .R

ad ic al cr ea tiv ity

0. 25 7� �

0. 22 4� �

0. 23 0� �

0. 12 8

0. 22 9� �

0. 15 0�

0. 36 6� �

0. 15 2�

0. 27 6� �

0. 42 4� �

0. 14 4

1 –

13 .I nc re m en ta lc re at iv ity

0. 16 2�

0. 16 5�

0. 20 0� �

�0 .0 37

�0 .0 60

�0 .0 74

0. 03 8

0. 08 3

0. 06 3

�0 .0 49

�0 .2 08 ��

0. 09 4

1 M ea n

2. 56 0

2. 40 0

0. 67 0

5. 09 6

4. 95 1

4. 49 7

4. 67 9

4. 87 4

5. 08 3

4. 61 6

5. 36 2

4. 56 1

2. 59 6

SD 1. 25 1

1. 02 9

0. 47 1

0. 82 8

0. 96 3

0. 90 9

0. 87 5

0. 97 8

0. 74 7

1. 18 4

0. 87 3

1. 15 9

1. 03 2

CR –

– –

0. 76 0

0. 78 4

0. 75 3

0. 85 7

0. 85 6

0. 80 1

0. 86 9

0. 88 6

0. 90 4

0. 88 9

AV E

– –

– 0. 51 5

0. 55 6

0. 50 4

0. 50 6

0. 50 1

0. 50 3

0. 57 3

0. 61 5

0. 61 2

0. 57 6

N ot e: N ¼ 17 7.

� p < .0 5,

tw o- ta ile d te st s.

�� p < .0 1,

tw o- ta ile d te st s.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3819

constrained and unconstrained, was significant (v2 change >3.84), sug- gesting that the constructs demonstrated discriminant validity.

Hypothesis testing

Based on Hofmann’s (2002) suggestion, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the mediating effect of interpersonal harmony between CHRM and team creativity. Additionally, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure to test the mediating effect of interper- sonal harmony between CHRM and team creativity. Table 6 shows the results of the regression analysis for the mediator model (harmony enhancement). Firstly, CHRM was positively related to harmony enhancement (b ¼ 0.171, p < .05, Model 2). Secondly, CHRM was posi- tively related to radical creativity (b ¼ 0.218, p < .01, Model 4). Finally, when adding harmony enhancement as the mediator variable, both CHRM and harmony enhancement had positive effects on radical cre- ativity (b ¼ 0.151, p < .05; b ¼ 0.397, p < .001, Model 5). Therefore, harmony enhancement partly mediated the relationship between CHRM and radical creativity. Further, the changeable R2 and F values were stat- istically significant, supporting H1. Similarly, Table 7 shows the results of the regression analysis for the medi-

ator model (disintegration avoidance). Firstly, CHRM was positively related to disintegration avoidance (b ¼ 0.406, p < .001, Model 2). Secondly, the

Table 5. Discriminant analysis of the construct measures.

Constructs Unconstrained

v2/df Constrained

v2/df Dv2

CHRM () Interpersonal harmony 757.390/151 876.883/152 119.493 CHRM () Team creativity 1067.899/189 1192.965/190 125.066 Interpersonal harmony () Team creativity 1218.668/209 1328.739/210 110.071

Table 6. Results of regression analysis for mediator model (harmony enhancement).

Variables Harmony

enhancement, M1 Harmony

enhancement, M2 Radical

creativity, M3 Radical

creativity, M4 Radical

creativity, M5

Control Team tenure �0.167� �0.149 0.201�� 0.224�� 0.283��� Team size 0.121 0.083 0.161� 0.113 0.080 Degree of unionisation 0.203�� 0.194�� 0.216�� 0.204�� 0.127 Independent CHRM – 0.171� – 0.218�� 0.151� Mediator Harmony enhancement – – – – 0.397��� R2 0.071 0.098 0.137 0.183 0.324 �R2 0.071�� 0.027� 0.137��� 0.046�� 0.141��� F 4.385�� 4.694�� 9.176��� 9.605��� 16.422��� Note: N¼ 177; M ¼ model.� p< .05.�� p< .01.��� p< .001.

3820 S. CHEN ET AL.

relationship between CHRM and incremental creativity was not signifi- cant (b ¼ �0.117, n.s., Model 4). Finally, after adding disintegration avoidance as the mediator, the relationship between CHRM and incre- mental creativity remained insignificant (b ¼ 0.047, n.s., Model 5). Additionally, disintegration avoidance was negatively related to incre- mental creativity (b ¼ �0.174, p < .05, Model 5). Thus, disintegration avoidance fully mediates the relationship between CHRM and incremen- tal creativity. Again, the changeable R2 and F values were statistically sig- nificant, partially supporting H2. We applied Hayes’ (2013) bootstrapping approach to obtain an accur-

ate estimate of the indirect effect of interpersonal harmony. Based on 5000 re-samples, the results in Table 8 confirm the significant indirect effect of CHRM on radical creativity via harmony enhancement (b ¼ 0.145, bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.048, 0.297]). After controlling for harmony enhancement, the direct effect of CHRM on radical creativity was still significant and the bias-corrected 95% CI did not include zero. This finding implies that harmony enhancement partially mediates the relationship between CHRM and radical creativity, which further supports H1. Similarly, the indirect effect of CHRM on incremental creativity via

disintegration avoidance was significant (b ¼ �0.134, bias-corrected 95%

Table 7. Results of regression analysis for mediator model (disintegration avoidance).

Variables Disintegration avoidance, M1

Disintegration avoidance, M2

Incremental creativity, M3

Incremental creativity, M4

Incremental creativity, M5

Control Team tenure �0.113 �0.069 0.117 0.105 0.093 Team size 0.042 �0.048 0.126 0.152 0.144 Degree of unionisation �0.038 �0.060 0.191� 0.197�� 0.187� Independent CHRM – 0.406��� – �0.117 0.047 Mediator Disintegration avoidance – – – – �0.174� R2 0.014 0.170 0.078 0.091 0.116 �R2 0.014 0.156��� 0.078�� 0.013 0.025� F 0.792 8.820��� 4.884�� 4.313�� 4.497�� Note: N¼ 177; M ¼ model.� p< .05.�� p< .01.��� p< .001.

Table 8. Bootstrap approach on mediator (interpersonal harmony). Path Effect SE 95% CI

Indirect effect CHRM!Harmony enhancement! Radical creativity

0.145 0.061 0.048, 0.297

Direct effect CHRM! Radical creativity 0.295 0.126 0.047, 0.542 Indirect effect CHRM!Disintegration

avoidance! Incremental creativity �0.134 0.062 �0.286, �0.037

Direct effect CHRM! Incremental creativity 0.002 0.131 �0.256, 0.260

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3821

CI [�0.286, �0.037]). After controlling for disintegration avoidance, the direct effect of CHRM on incremental creativity was not significant and the bias-corrected 95% CI included zero. This finding implies that disin- tegration avoidance fully mediates the relationship between CHRM and incremental creativity, which further supports H2. Based on Aiken and West (1991), we conducted a moderated regres-

sion analysis to examine the moderating influence of HRM strength on the relationships between CHRM and interpersonal harmony. As Table 9 shows, the interaction term was positively related to harmony enhance- ment (b ¼ 0.169, p < .05, Model 3), while the relationship with disinte- gration avoidance was not significant (b ¼ �0.061, n.s., Model 6). As before, the changeable R2 and F values were statistically significant, sup- porting H3. To interpret the moderated effect, based on Cohen and Cohen (1983), we defined the high and low values as plus and minus one standard deviation, respectively, from the mean. In Figure 2, the plots of the interaction term show that the positive relationship between CHRM and harmony enhancement was significant when HRM strength was higher. This finding further supports H3. In addition, following the method suggested by Preacher, Rucker, and

Hayes (2007), we tested the mediated moderation model by leveraging the boot strapping approach. Based on 5000 resamples, the results in Table 10 further show that under the condition of high HRM strength, the indirect effect of CHRM on radical creativity was significant (b ¼ 0.221, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.087, 0.427]). This finding sup- ports H4.

Table 9. Results of regression analysis for moderator model.

Variables

Harmony enhancement,

M1

Harmony enhancement,

M2

Harmony enhancement,

M3

Disintegration avoidance,

M4

Disintegration avoidance,

M5

Disintegration avoidance,

M6

Control Team tenure �0.167� �0.149 �0.116 �0.113 �0.069 �0.049 Team size 0.121 0.083 0.034 0.042 �0.048 �0.091 Degree of

unionisation 0.203�� 0.194�� 0.134 �0.038 �0.060 �0.086

Independent CHRM – 0.171� 0.106 – 0.406��� 0.279��� Moderator HRM strength – – 0.226�� – – 0.307��� Interaction CHRM�HRM

strength – – 0.169� – – �0.061

R2 0.071 0.098 0.179 0.014 0.170 0.241 �R2 0.071�� 0.027� 0.081��� 0.014 0.156��� 0.071�� F 4.385�� 4.694�� 6.158��� 0.792 8.820��� 8.995��� Note: N¼ 177; M¼model.�p< .05.��p< .01.���p< .001.

3822 S. CHEN ET AL.

Discussion and theoretical implications

One of the main contributions of this study is that it identifies the dimension and content of CHRM in the Chinese collectivist cultural con- text. While scholars have documented the concept of CHRM (Li, Tang, Wang, Yan, &Liu, 2012; Li et al., 2015), CHRM measurements in those studies have been adapted from the Western context. However, CHRM is related to guanxi in China, a specific personal connection between two or more parties that shapes management practices and interpersonal interactions (Chen & Chen, 2004, 2012). Few empirical studies have examined CHRM because of the absence of a systematic and valid instrument for measuring the culture-specific concept. In the current study, we developed a theoretically grounded and empirically validated instrument to measure CHRM in the Chinese context, based on previous studies and the results of an on-site survey. We found that CHRM includes three dimensions (i.e. interpersonal benefit, value inheritance and collective corporate) that shape employees’ attitudes and behaviours with regard to team benefits. We hence contribute to the CHRM litera- ture by providing evidence of, and insights into, the nature of the con- cept in China’s collectivist culture. In the current study, we found that CHRM has a direct effect on rad-

ical creativity, but not on incremental creativity. As radical creativity

Figure 2. The interactive effects of CHRM and HRM strength on harmony enhancement.

Table 10. Bootstrap approach to mediated moderation. Groups of moderators Effect SE 95 % CI

Low HRM strength �0.051 0.076 �0.229, 0.076 Medium HRM strength 0.085 0.054 �0.012, 0.204 High HRM strength 0.221 0.086 0.087, 0.427

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3823

requires more novel and constructive ideas to generate breakthroughs (Gilson et al., 2012), collaborative and trust-based relationships can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge exchange and transfer (Hong, Zhao, & Snell, 2019). Accordingly, CHRM could enhance task absorption and persistence among team members, and stimulate their intrinsic motivation with respect to exploration, spontaneity and interest in their surroundings. Moreover, CHRM has indirect effects on both radical and incremental creativity, which means a different role for interpersonal harmony in the CHRM–team creativity relationship. The results are extended to show the effect of interpersonal harmony on the mechanism between CHRM and team creativity: harmony enhancement is more likely to increase radical creativity, as it tends to be more pro- active and favour making breakthroughs; on the contrary, disintegration avoidance is more likely to decrease incremental creativity, as it tends to be more protective and go against improving existing knowledge. Additionally, this study’s findings concur with those of Wei, Su,

Carrera, Lin, and Yi (2013), who found that individuals from inter- dependent Eastern cultures (e.g. the Chinese culture) tend to value emo- tional suppression in the name of preserving interpersonal harmony. We also agreed with the study of Chen, Leung, Li, and Ou (2015) and cate- gorized interpersonal harmony into two orientations that may influence the outcomes of different types of creativity. This study is one of the first to establish the relationship between CHRM and interpersonal harmony. The integration of the dualistic model of interpersonal harmony thus extends our understanding of the antecedents in the creativity literature. Finally, we followed Bowen and Ostroff (2004) by examining HRM

strength and its moderating effect on the CHRM–team creativity rela- tionship to determine whether it influences the HR function and if so, how. Our findings confirm the impact of HRM strength on individual- level interpersonal harmony as well as on team-level CHRM and creativ- ity. As such, the current study contributes to the contingency perspective of strategic HRM by using HRM strength as a tool to help employees better understand the HRM practices within a unit.

Managerial implications

Our findings can broaden managers’ understanding of effective HRM practices. Managers should consider all the CHRM dimensions tested in this study. For example, they should hire employees with high collective value and loyalty. Such prospective employees are more sensitive to team- work and may demonstrate strong corporate citizenship behaviour in the workplace. In addition, managers should evaluate employees’ performance

3824 S. CHEN ET AL.

by considering individual-level team contributions and outcomes, which could stimulate employee motivation with respect to teamwork. Moreover, the importance of interpersonal harmony helps shed light

on group process research. In line with previous research (e.g. Chen, €Unal, Leung, & Xin, 2016), harmony captures the social capital within a group, and employees should be encouraged to participate in mentoring programmes to increase socialization within the organization. Finally, HRM strength is effective at promoting the positive effect of CHRM on harmony enhancement. For this reason, certain strategies (e.g. clarifying realizing the goals for which HRM practices were designed) should be adopted to maintain high levels of radical creativity, especially for R&D teams.

Limitations and future research directions

The current study has several limitations that suggest directions for meaningful future research. First, our surveyed firms were drawn from a convenience sample to help ensure a high survey response rate. We ana- lysed companies from the manufacturing, technical information, new energy and new material industries in the Hubei, Guangdong and Sichuan provinces of China. For the most part, we were unable to collect data from companies in other industries, and similar data from other provinces were unavailable. Future research may find ways to conduct randomized sampling among employees from various industries and regions to test the relationships hypothesized in our research. Second, this study focused on HRM strength as an important bound-

ary condition for the relationship between CHRM and interpersonal harmony. However, other types of boundary conditions may also influence this relationship, such as organizational climate and identity. Thus, it would be useful to employ more boundary conditions to exam- ine in greater detail the relationship between CHRM and interper- sonal harmony. Finally, while this study relates to an East Asian collectivist cultural

context (e.g. guanxi) and the research was conducted in China, its find- ings on the effects of CHRM and harmony motives may be useful in other countries that feature a collectivist culture. Future studies may extend this research to other cultural contexts, which would allow for evaluations of the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, compar- ing the cross-cultural context is a key future research direction.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3825

Funding

This research was financially supported by Self-determined Research Funds of CCNU from the Colleges’ Basic Research and Operation of MOE [CCNU19QN007; CCNU19TD009]; Humanities and Social Science Fund of China Ministry of Education [19YJA630108]. Western Sydney University Academic Development Program Funding 2018; Western Sydney University School of Business Professional Development Funding 2018; Western Sydney University School of Business Priority Research Initiatives 2019.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter- action. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Andreassi, J. K., Lawter, L., Brockerhoff, M., & Rutigliano, J. (2014). Cultural impact of human resource practices on job satisfaction. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(1), 55–77. doi:10.1108/CCM-05-2012-0044

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267–285. doi:10.1002/job.138

Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingen- cies in human resource management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1083–1119. doi:10.1080/09585190500143956

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organiza- tional research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458. doi:10.2307/2393203

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. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199821)37:1<31::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-W

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator–mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bednall, T. C., Sanders, K., & Runhaar, P. (2014). Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource manage- ment system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 45–61. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0162

Bj€orkman, I., & Lu, Y. (1999). A corporate perspective on the management of human resour- ces in China. Journal of World Business, 34(1), 16–25. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(99)00004-8

Bos-Nehles, A. C., & Meijerink, J. G. (2018). HRM implementation by multiple HRM actors: A social exchange perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(22), 3068–3092. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1443958

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. doi:10.2307/20159029

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Baconq.

Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team compos- ition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001

3826 S. CHEN ET AL.

Casey, J., & Koleski, K. (2004). Backgrounder: China’s 12th five-year plan, US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Catmull, E. (2008). Collective creativity. Harvard Business Review, 86, 65–72. Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet

feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 749–780. doi:10.2307/2393615

Chen, C. C., €Unal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the work- place: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 903–934. doi:10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0

Chen, S. L., Zhang, G. L., Jiang, W. X., Shi, S. P., & Liu, T. (2019). Collectivism-oriented HRM and individual creative contribution: The roles of value congruence and task interdependence. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(2), 211–223. doi:10. 1017/jmo.2016.68

Chen, S. L., Zhang, G. L., Zhang, A. F., & Xu, J. Y. (2016). Collectivism-oriented human resource management and innovation performance: An examination of team reflexiv- ity and team psychological safety. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(4), 535–548. doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.50

Chen, T., Leung, K., Li, F., & Ou, Z. (2015). Interpersonal harmony and creativity in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 648–672. doi:10.1002/job.2001

Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. (2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 305–324. doi:10.1023/B:APJM.0000036465.19102.d5

Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. (2012). Chinese guanxi: The good, the bad, and the contro- versial. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behav- iour: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp. 415–435). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Cirella, S., Canterino, F., Guerci, M., & Shani, A. B. (2016). Organizational learning mechanisms and creative climate: Insights from an Italian fashion design company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(2), 211–222. doi:10.1111/caim.12161

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hills Dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organiza- tional politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2<159::AID-JOB795>3.0. CO;2-D

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management, 27(3), 324–351. doi:10.1177/1059601102027003002

Delmotte, J., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2012). Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system strength: Scale development and validation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1481–1506. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.579921

Ding, X. (2009). The socialist market economy: China and the world. Science & Society, 73(2), 235–241. doi:10.1521/siso.2009.73.2.235

Donate, M. J., Pe~na, I., & Sanchez de Pablo, J. D. (2016). HRM practices for human and social capital development: Effects on innovation capabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(9), 928–953.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making. California Management Review, 32(3), 39–54. doi:10.2307/41166616

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3827

Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, C. J., H€artel, C. E., & Nyland, C. (2014). Influence of high performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burn- out: Empirical evidence from the Chinese healthcare sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(7), 931–950. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.876740

Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–240. doi:10.1177/ 001872676301600302

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable varia- bles and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980

Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21–28. doi:10.1037/ a0017863

Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., D’Innocenzo, L., & Moye, N. (2012). One size does not fit all: Managing radical and incremental creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 168–191. doi:10.1002/jocb.12

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109. doi:10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.11.003

Gong, Y., Wu, J., Song, L. J., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Dual tuning in creative processes: Joint contributions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 829–844. doi:10.1037/apl0000185

Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/1471903042000339392

Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335–358. doi:10.1111/1472-9296.00053

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed., pp.121–126). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0200

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved December, 12.

Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Issues in multilevel research: Theory development, measure- ment, and analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in indus- trial and organizational psychology (pp. 247–274). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related val- ues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hong, J. F., Zhao, X., & Snell, R. S. (2019). Collaborative-based HRM practices and open innovation: A conceptual review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(1), 31–62. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1511616

Hong, J., Hou, B., Zhu, K., & Marinova, D. (2018). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and employee creativity: The moderation of collectivism. In Chinese Context, Chinese Management Studies, 12(2), 268–286. doi:10.1108/CMS-11-2016-0228

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

3828 S. CHEN ET AL.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reli- ability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.69.1.85

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309. doi:10.1037// 0021-9010.78.2.306

Jaussi, K. S., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, knowledge retrieval, and incremental and radical creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 400–410. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.961772

Jiang, J., Wang, S., & Zhao, S. (2012). Does HRM facilitate employee creativity and organizational innovation? A study of Chinese firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(19), 4025–4047. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.690567

Jiang, K., & Messersmith, J. (2018). On the shoulders of giants: A meta-review of stra- tegic human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(1), 6–33. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1384930

Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2017). Understanding employees’ perceptions of human resource practices: Effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers and coworkers. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 69–91. doi:10.1002/hrm.21771

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource manage- ment influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. doi:10.5465/amj. 2011.0088

Kim, M., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(1), 117–140. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90008-6

Kim, R., & Coleman, P. T. (2015). The combined effect of individualism–collectivism on conflict styles and satisfaction: An analysis at the individual level. Peace and Conflict Studies, 22(2), 137–159.

Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and man- agerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 176–187. doi:10.1111/puar. 12160

Lee, S. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 870–879. doi:10. 1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02416.x

Leung, K., & Brew, F. P. (2013). A cultural analysis of harmony and conflict: Toward an integrated model of conflict styles. Understanding culture (pp. 412–429). New York: Psychology Press.

Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In: P. C. Early & M. Erez (Ed.), New perspectives on international industrial and organizational psych- ology (pp. 640–675). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington.

Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 795–816.

Li, J., Tang, G. Y., Wang, X. R., Yan, M., & Liu, Z. Q. (2012). Collectivistic-HRM, firm strategy and firm performance: An empirical test. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(1), 190–203. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.561231

Li, Y. Q., Zhang, G. L., Yang, X., & Li, J. (2015). The influence of collectivist human resource management practices on team-level identification. The International Journal

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3829

of Human Resource Management, 26(14), 1791–1806. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014. 938677

Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J. C. (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0230

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, V. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and perform- ance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behav- ioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. doi:10.1177/0149206306290712

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743. doi:10.1037/a0022416

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748. doi:10.2307/1556364

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and per- formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118. doi:10.1037/a0024710

Nzoka, R., & Rotich, G. (2015). Employee perceptions on human resource practices and employee job performance among micro and small enterprises in the manufacturing sector in Kenya. Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 2(1), 1000–1043.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3

Parikh, I. J., & Garg, P. (1990). Indian organizations: Value dilemmas in managerial roles. In A. M. Jaeger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Management in developing countries (pp. 175–190). New York: Routledge.

Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H. G. (2014). Mind the intended- implemented gap: Understanding employees’ perceptions of HRM. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 545–567. doi:10.1002/hrm.21605

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support a predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 159–174. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<159::AID-JOB881>3.0.CO;2-7

Reutzel, C. R., Belsito, C. A., & Collins, J. D. (2016). Human resource management executive presence in top management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(5), 985–1001. doi:10.1108/IJOA-10-2015-0916

Rodrigues Ribeiro, T., Pinto Coelho, J., & Gomes, J. F. (2011). HRM strength, situation strength and improvisation behavior. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9(2), 118–136. doi:10.1108/1536-541111155245

Roesch, S. C., & Rowley, A. A. (2005). Evaluating and developing a multidimensional, dispositional measure of appraisal. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(2), 188–196. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_11

Russo, S. D., Mascia, D., & Morandi, F. (2018). Individual perceptions of HR practices, HRM strength and appropriateness of care: A meso, multilevel approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(2), 286–310. doi:10.1080/ 09585192.2016.1165276

3830 S. CHEN ET AL.

Sartorius, K., Merino, A., & Carmichael, T. (2011). Human resource management and cultural diversity: A case study in Mozambique. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1963–1985. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.573973

Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 283–301. doi:10.1348/096317903769647184

Shen, J., Dumont, J., & Deng, X. (2018). Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green employee work outcomes: The social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 594–622.

Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a mod- erator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6. 1709

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce- dures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social sys- tem: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1–29. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01127.x

Tang, C., & Ye, L. (2015). Diversified knowledge, R&D team centrality and radical cre- ativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 123–135.

Triguero-S�anchez, R., Pe~na-Vinces, J. C., & S�anchez-Apell�aniz, M. (2011). HRM in Spain its diversity and the role of organizational culture: An empirical study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(3), 389–407.

Tsui, A. S., Ashford, S. J., Clair, Y. S. T., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Dealing with discrepant expectations: Response strategies and managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1515–1543. doi:10.2307/256842

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects of cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–172. doi:10.5465/256731

Wang, J., Leung, K., & Zhou, F. (2014). A dispositional approach to psychological cli- mate: Relationships between interpersonal harmony motives and psychological climate for communication safety. Human Relations, 67(4), 489–515. doi:10.1177/ 0018726713495423

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3. 590

Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. (2005). Market orientation, HRM importance and competency: Determinants of strategic HRM in Chinese firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10), 1901–1918. doi:10.1080/09585190500298586

Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S. P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 625–633. doi:10.1037/a0033413

Wombacher, J., & Felfe, J. (2017). The interplay of team and organizational commitment in motivating employees’ interteam conflict handling. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1554–1581. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0718

Xiao, Z., & Bj€orkman, I. (2006). High commitment work systems in Chinese organiza- tions: A preliminary measure. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 403–422. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00049.x

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3831

Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Dallas, M., Xu, S., & Hu, J. (2018). How perceived empowerment HR practices influence work engagement in social enterprises – A moderated medi- ation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20), 2971–2999. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1479874

Zhang, Y., Long, L. R., Wu, T. Y., & Huang, X. (2015). When is pay for performance related to employee creativity in the Chinese context? The role of guanxi HRM prac- tice, trust in management, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 698–719. doi:10.1002/job.2012

Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Liu, J. (2012). A hybridism model of differentiated human resource management effectiveness in Chinese context. Human Resource Management Review, 22(3), 208–219. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.01.003

3832 S. CHEN ET AL.