Contemporary Management: Issues and Challenges

The Indirect Effects of Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System on Task Performance through Creativity

Author(s): Inju Yang, Jee Young Seong and Doo-Seung Hong

Source: Journal of Asian Sociology , September 2020, Vol. 49, No. 3 (September 2020), pp. 351-370

Published by: Institute for Social Development and Policy Research (ISDPR)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26940214

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26940214?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Institute for Social Development and Policy Research (ISDPR) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Asian Sociology

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Indirect Effects of Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System on Task Performance through Creativity: Exploring a Moderated Mediation Model*

inJu Yang | RmiT uniVeRSiTY Jee Young Seong | JeonBuK naTional uniVeRSiTY** Doo-Seung Hong | Seoul naTional uniVeRSiTY

The present study explores the interaction effects of ethical leadership (EL) and high performance work system (HPWS) on creativity and task performance in a Korean public sector firm. Data were collected in two stages, first from team members on the perceptions of EL and HPWS (Stage 1), followed by their leaders’ evaluations of team members’ creativity and performance (Stage 2). This study found the interaction effects of EL and HPWS, such that their effects are negative on creativity and positive on task performance. We argue that compensatory effects of HPWS and EL on creativity exist, such that HPWS is the most effective on task performance via creativity when EL is low. In the presence of a low EL level, creativity is significantly enhanced, mainly when HPWS is high, which leads to a high level of task performance. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords: Ethical leadership, high performance work system, creativity, task performance

Journal of asian sociology Volume 49 | number 3 | september 2020, 351-370 Doi 10.21588/dns.2020.49.3.004 Article

* This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5A8029361).

** All correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Jee Young Seong.

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

352 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Introduction

Over the years, ethical concerns in the work environment (Stouten, van Dijke, and De Cremer 2012) and the occasional exposure of corporate scandals have drawn attention to ethical leadership (EL). EL addresses how leaders use their social power by demonstrating personal morality and using communication and reward systems to guide ethical behavior (Brown and Treviño 2006; De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008).

Alongside leadership, which is an essential organizational procedure, high performance work system (HPWS) has become widespread, especially in the interactions between supervisors and subordinates. HPWS has appeared to be the most widely accepted human resource management (HRM) policy worldwide, although it originated in the United States and Great Britain (Lawler, Chen, Wu, Bae, and Bai 2011).

Most studies on EL and HPWS independently have reported their positive effects on organizational processes and outcomes (e.g., Boxall and Macky 2009; Brown, Treviño, and Harrison 2005; Chughtai, Byrne, and Flood 2015; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, and Folger 2010; Harney and Trehy 2016; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). However, as it seems likely that the effects of explicit (e.g., HPWS) and implicit (e.g., EL) organizational processes co-occur, knowledge about how their effects interact to influence employees’ attitudes and behavior would be beneficial. Therefore, by integrating consideration of explicit (e.g., HRM) and implicit (e.g., leadership) organizational processes into a single analysis, this study provides insight into their interactive effects that may be detrimental to work-related attitudes and outcomes of employees. It challenges conventional wisdom that mainly highlights their individual (positive) effects.

This study contributes to HRM and leadership literature, both of which have emphasized contextual features of organizations. Although research shows that organizational processes affect employees most (Folger, Cropanzano, and Goldman 2005), studies that investigate HRM and leadership together have been somewhat limited, especially those concerning creativity and performance. The present study illustrates the importance of the context in which a negative interaction is likely to occur between EL and HPWS, despite the fact that they are perceived as positive organizational practices in general.

This study also complements the discussion on the substitute for leadership (Kerr and Jermier 1978) as our research shows that HPWS and EL

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

353Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

did not replace each other per se. HPWS and EL ‘interact negatively’ and HPWS ‘compensates’ rather than replaces EL, particularly when it comes to their effects on creativity. Finally, while our study was conducted using data from a Korean public sector firm, this study joins in the call for more research using non-US contexts to examine practices and theories developed mostly in the contexts of private corporations and individualistic culture (Aycan, Kanungo, Mendonca, Yu, Deller, Stahl, and Kurshid 2000).

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we will examine the interaction effects of EL and HPWS on creativity and task performance in a Korean firm. Second, by adopting the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli 2001) as an overarching framework for the moderated mediation effects between EL and HPWS on task performance via creativity, we discuss whether the interaction patterns compensate or complement each other in leading to creativity and task performance. Third, we explore the feasibility of theories and practices first developed in private firms and/or individualistic culture in other contexts such as public sector firms and/or collectivistic cultural environments.

Literature Review

The Importance of Interaction Effect between EL and HPWS

HRM and organizational culture/leadership are two leading practices influencing human factors, and it is suggested that HRM is, at least in part, determined by a leader’s values and behaviors (Blakeley and Higgs 2014). Over and above psychological attitudes (e.g., well-being), employees’ creativity, and task performance are discretionary behaviors that require skill, motivation, and effort. Therefore, by adapting the JD-R theory (Demerouti et al. 2001), which suggests that certain work contexts are associated with job stress demanding (personal) resources, we argue that the contrasting interacting effects of EL and HPWS could demand or protect employee’s resources. In the present study, we look at perceptions of HPWS, in line with the view that performance does not stem from HR practices per se but rather from how they are perceived by employees (Jiang, Takeuchi, and Lepak 2013).

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

354 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Creativity and Task Performance in Public Sector Firms

Looking at the relationship with creativity and performance, research has shown that HPWS or EL has positive direct effects on them. Creativity refers to the generation of new and useful ideas by individual workers (Amabile 1983). Job p erformance describ es the individual’s activities in the organization over a defined period (Borman and Motowidlo 1993).

Creativity is said to be the source of innovation that facilitates competitiveness (Liu et al., 2017). In today’s world, organizations, including public firms, compete in a dynamic and uncertain environment where creativity is highly valuable (Zhou and Hoever 2014). Previous studies have suggested that leadership and HRM influence the creative behavior of employees (Zhang and Bartol 2010). Skills (e.g., actual competence and belief in one’s ability) and attitudes (e.g., motivation and psychology safety) were suggested to be crucial in the link between HRM and leadership to creativity and performance.

When it comes to skills and beliefs, for example, ethical leaders' altruistic behavior and credible feedback can facilitate growth and confidence in employees’ job-related skills (Brown et al. 2005; Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, Workman, and Christensen 2011). Ethical leaders also influence followers’ behaviors through a role-modeling process (Brown et al. 2005) and create an environment where individuals can actively offer new ideas to improve performance (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). Moreover, trust in a supervisor produced by EL (Chughtai et al. 2015) can reduce burnout and deviant behavior (Mo and Shi 2017), strengthen a sense of self-efficacy (Renzl 2008), and improve work engagement (Chughtai et al., 2015), all of which further influence task performance (Mo and Shi 2017). In a similar vein, HPWS, such as training, can develop broader competencies, including novel thinking, problem-solving ability, and divergent thinking skills in employees, which could further increase their self-efficacy to perform (Evans and Davis 2015).

Individuals' behavior within a public organization is critical and has a high magnitude of consequence, and public sectors are becoming more sensitive to ethical issues (Stouten et al., 2012; Zhang, Fletcher, Gino, and Bazerman 2015). Research has found more substantial effects of EL in public sector organizations than their private sector counterparts (Bedi, Alpaslan, and Green 2016). However, some argue that bureaucracies such as political control, red tape, and low levels of managerial autonomy (Boyne 2002) would make leadership (i.e., transformational leadership) less effective in public

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

355Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

sector organizations than private sector organizations (Moynihan, Wright, and Pandey 2012). On the other hand, public service motivation literature argues that HPWS with performance pay could be detrimental to public sector employees who are more likely to be intrinsically motivated (Alonso and Lewis 2001). It may cause a crowding-out effect on employee motivation, resulting in perceived stress, demotivation, or even burnout (Kellough and Nigro 2002). Some have also found negative attitudes toward performance appraisal by supervisors and employees (Kim and Rubianty 2011) with low confidence in its efficacy, integrity, and fairness (Kellough and Nigro 2002). These studies and the discussions earlier (about EL and HPWS) suggest that the possible boundary or interactive systems would be even more complex in public organizations where the relationships between leadership or HPWS and employee outcomes are not straightforward.

The Interaction Effect of EL and HPWS on Creativity

In proposing our first hypothesis, we consider the interaction effects between EL and HPWS on creativity. As creativity is cognitively demanding and time- consuming (Shalley and Gilson 2004), psychological resources become crucial as described in the broaden and build theory (Fredrickson 2001). The broaden and build theory further emphasizes the importance of expanding and building capacities and resources that are required for creativity. Connecting it with the JD-R theor y, work environments that protect individuals’ resources would contribute to creativity, whereas work environments that demand resources would undermine creativity. Therefore, environmental factors such as pressure could negatively influence the creativity process (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Heandrron 1996) as it drains psychological resources.

Here, we should note that what differentiates EL from other leadership styles (e.g., transformational and authentic leadership) is the hands-on approach that characterizes the moral manager dimension emphasizing compliance (Brown et al., 2005; Piccolo et al. 2010). Taken EL and HPWS together then, we also note that HPWS tends to recommend high levels of employee involvement (Tzafrir 2005), leading to increased workloads and reduced quality of work-life (White et al. 2003). When HPWS is seen to enhance workers’ demands without increasing their sense of empowerment (Macky and Boxall 2008), work practice may be perceived to focus on managerial compliance, and employees will experience HPWS as coercive and punitive (Wouters and Wilderon 2008). Such perceptions of HPWS lead

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

356 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

to emotional exhaustion or the lack of work engagement (Zhang, Zhu, Dowling, and Bartram 2013) and lower creativity-related intrinsic motivation (Avey, Luthans, Hannah, Sweetman, and Peterson 2012).

Therefore, the interaction effects of EL and HPWS would produce a stressful context that reduces attention and lower intrinsic motivation, which limits individual creativity (Avey et al. 2012). Their interaction effects would impose physiological and psychological costs (JD-R theory: Demerouti et al. 2001) and increase employee pressure, stress (Yang 2014), and emotional exhaustion (Lawler et al. 2011), which further reduce creativity. Moreover, along with HPWS, a signal by EL emphasizing compliance with rules and procedures would lead employees to contain their acts within set-boundaries. That is, they think inside the box rather than outside of the box, which is detrimental to creativity. Thus, E L’s p ot e nt i a l f or c re at i v it y c a n b e activated among individuals with low HPWS because they are not strongly constrained by normative pressures to comply with current practices. Thus, HPWS will negatively moderate the relationship between EL and individual creativity, such that the relationship will be stronger when HPWS is low than when it is high. Based on the discussion so far, we present the first hypothesis for the negative interaction effect between EL and HPWS on creativity as follows:

Hypothesis 1. HPWS will moderate the relationship between EL and creativity such that the relationship is stronger when HPWS is low than when it is high.

The Effect of EL on Task Performance through Creativity

The Mediating role of Creativity

Researchers have shown that employee creativity is critical for organizations’ competitiveness, innovation, and success (Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou 2014). It is also positively related to various work outcomes, such as overall job performance (Gong, Huang, and Farh 2009; Zhang and Bartol 2010; Zhou and Hoever 2014). Previous studies' findings revealed that creativity can improve task performance (Liu, Gong, Zhou, and Huang 2017; Zhu, He, Treviño, Chao, and Wang 2015). Based on earlier theoretical arguments and empirical findings, we propose that creativity mediates ethical leadership’s effects on task performance. EL may engender high-level task performance

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

357Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

by inducing employees to refine existing procedures and to discover improved methods to deliver ser vices and products. Ethical leaders encourage their followers to incorporate novel and beneficial ideas, eventually leading to creativity and innovation (Chen and Hou 2016; Gilson 2008; Humphrey et al. 2007). This increased level of creativity may facilitate the path towards the successful performance of a task.

The Moderating role of HPWS

This study presents HPWS as a moderator of the EL–creativity–performance relationship. For employees who perceive a low level of HPWS, EL may stimulate their creative minds to a greater extent than those who sense a high level of HPWS. Employee creativity can foster the individual learning process through which employees grasp new skills, make fewer mistakes, and improve routine tasks (Bandura 1997).

Given such differences in achieving creativity and task performance, we consider how the interaction effects between EL and HPWS affect task performance. Contrary to their impact on creativity, we suggest that the impact of EL on task performance will be stronger when HPWS is high than when it is low. Looking back to our earlier discussion about EL and HPWS, their interactive effects would further ‘reinforce and converge’ employees’ behaviors toward set requirements.

While people perform better in response to their workload when they believe that they have been rewarded fairly for their efforts (Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, and Ng 2001), and employees work on the norms of reciprocity with HPWS (Hansen and Alewell 2013), high EL signals that such expectations will be met. That is, EL magnifies the influence of direct incentives and rewards that help employees to work toward specific work roles by HPWS (Lepak, Liao, Chung, and Harden 2006) and extensive training to increase the knowledge and skills of employees contributing to task performance (Jiang et al. 2013). Such interactive forces would focus and protect employees’ resources toward task performance (Demerouti et al. 2001).

Although there may be different mechanisms for creativity and task performance, especially in the short term, we expect that creativity will have positive influences on performance. Prior empirical research supports the connection between engaging in the creative process and task performance with significant correlations between them assessed by co-workers and supervisors (e.g., Gong et al. 2009; Ng and Feldman 2009).

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

358 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Specific antecedents such as domain-relevant skills could determine what employees can do in the creative process (Amabile and Pillemer 2012) and task performance. Also, the removal of uncertainty, anxiety, and fear by EL and HPWS is associated with promoting innovation and increased outcomes (e.g., Agarwal and Farndale 2017; Detert et al. 2007; Ng and Lucianetti 2016). Therefore, there is a direct connection between creativity and task performance. We consider the interaction effects between EL and HPWS on task performance through creativity. Thus, we present the second hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 2. HPWS moderates the relationship between EL and task performance through the mediating effect of creativity. EL influences task performance through creativity; the indirect effect will be stronger when HPWS is high rather than it is low.

Methods

Data and Sample Data were collected from a public sector firm in Korea, one of the largest electric power companies. The survey was carried out in two stages. In Stage 1, individual team members were asked to fill out an online questionnaire about their perceptions of EL and HPWS. In Stage 2, a month after the survey of te am me mb e rs, te am l e a d e rs were aske d to f i l l out t wo s e t s of questionnaires, one for evaluating their team as a whole and the other for assessing individual team members' performance. A total of 177 individual team members filled out the questionnaire. As some leaders did not evaluate the performance of their team members, and some teams consisted of less than two members, these cases were excluded, leaving 106 dyads for analysis. The mean age of team members was 35.64 (s.d. = 9.59) years, with an average team tenure of 4.16 (SD = 3.42). Males comprised 90.4% of the sample. Education levels were high school (12.3 %), two-year college (8.5%), bachelor’s degree (70.8%), and graduate degree (8.5%).

Measures

Ethical leadership (EL): A ten-item scale (α = .98) assessing the team members’ perception of EL by Brown et al. (2005) was adopted in our study. A sample item includes the following: “Our team leader disciplines

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

359Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

employees who violate ethical standards.” High performance work system (HPWS): Five different HR practices

were conceptualized and measured using Delery and Doty’s (1996) method. The five dimensions are training programs, results-oriented appraisal, profit sharing, staffing, and employee participation. Since there is little consensus regarding which HPWS practices should be included, previous research has provided several theoretical and methodological arguments for why a systems approach is preferable in HPWSs research (Delery 1998; Huselid and Becker 1997). This paper adopts the notion of a “unitary index” used in Way’s (2002) research. The unitary index was created by adding the standardized scores of the five equally weighted components of the HPWSs by team members’ ratings.

Creativity: Creativity was assessed by team leaders using four items (α = .96) from Zhou and George (2001). A sample item is: “This team member comes up with new and practical ideas to improve team performance.”

Task performance: Team leaders measured task performance with a two- item scale (α = .79) adapted to Williams and Anderson (1991). Team leaders completed items such as, “This team achieves its goals.”

Control variables: Studies show that age and team tenure are essential factors that influence individual outcomes, such as creativity (Seong and Choi 2019). Therefore, they were used as control variables in the analyses.

Results

We first performed confirmatory factor analyses to examine our scales' distinctiveness for EL, HPWS, creativity, and task performance using AMOS 23.0. To reduce the number of parameters, we used the item parceling method recommended by Bagozzi and Edwards (1998) on two variables: EL and HPWS. We compared this four-factor model with plausible alternative models. Overall, these results demonstrated that the expected four-factor model provides substantially improved fit over these relevant alternative models (χ2 (df = 98) = 188.06, p < .001; comparative fit index = .96, Tucker– Lewis Index (TLI) = .95, Standardized root mean squared residual = .069).

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables.

Since crucial study variables were measured by different sources (i.e., EL and HPWS by team members and creativity and task performance by team leaders), we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush and Bryk

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

360 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

2002) to remove the leaders’ effect for testing hypotheses, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 provides a summary of the HLM results for testing all the hypotheses simultaneously. The results of our analysis using the Preacher, Ruker, and Hayes (2007) macro are shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows the indirect effect of EL on task performance through creativity at high and low levels of HPWS. In testing Hypothesis 1, as shown in Table 2, after controlling for age and team tenure, EL and HPWS interacted with each other (γ = -.15, p

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Age 35.64 9.59 - 2 Team tenure 4.16 3.42 .18 - 3 Ethical leadership 5.28 1.40 .29** -.09 (.98) 4 HPWS 4.67 1.43 .22* .02 .62** (.95) - 5 Creativity 6.56 .65 -.08 -.16 -.06 .02 (.96) 6 Task performance 6.72 .53 .01 -.14 .04 -.00 .31** (.79)

Notes.― n = 106. The alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. HPWS = High performance work system. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 2 Hierarchical linear models: individual-level relationships between

ethical leadership, HPWS, creativity, and task performance Creativity Task Performance

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Intercept 6.56***(.07) 6.56***(.07) 6.56***(.07) 6.72***(.05) 6.73***(.02) 6.72***(.05) 6.73***(.05) Age .03(.01) .03(.02) .03(.02) -.01(.01) -.01(.01) -.01(.01) -.02(.02) Team tenure -.01(.03) -.02(.03) -.01(.03) -.01(.02) -.01(.02) -.01(.02) .00(.01) Ethical leadership (EL)

-.09(.12) -.22(.13) -.05(.05) -.05(.05) .03(.07)

HPWS .04(.12) .04(.12) .11(.06) .11* (.06) .10 (.06) EL × HPWS -.15*(.07) -.01(.02) .03(.03) Creativity .54***(.10)

ơ2 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.19 Peudo r2 change Δ.02 Δ.04 Δ.00 Δ.01 Δ.30

Notes.― n = 106. *p < .05. HPWS = High performance work system. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

361Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

< .05). Creativity was, in turn, positively related to task performance (γ = .54, p < .001). These findings meet an important condition for Hypothesis 2, which predicts a moderated mediation effect (Preacher et al. 2007). The interactive effect of EL and HPWS is indirectly related to task performance through creativity.

Therefore, we proceeded to test the conditional indirect effects of EL through creativity on task performance at different levels of HPWS (Hypothesis 2). We used a bootstrapping procedure to probe the indirect effect to varying levels of the moderator variable, such as HPWS. As shown in Table 3, when HPWS is high, EL had an indirect effect on task performance (b = -.08, boot SE = .039). The 95% bias-corrected confidence interval around the bootstrapped indirect effect excludes zero [CI = -.178, -.017]. When HPWS is low, EL did not have an indirect effect on task performance (b = -.02, boot SE = .027). The 95% bias-corrected confidence interval includes zero [CI = −.084, .031]. Thus, Hypotheses 2 was supported.

Discussion

This study sheds light on the interaction effects between EL and HPWS on creativity, which indirectly influence performance. A leader is closely involved in HPWS processes, which can be ambiguous; having a more objective HPWS should benefit both employee creativity and performance. This study suggests that an organization should pay attention to the HR system and leadership at the same time to develop and preserve employees' resources. The study illustrated the importance of considering interaction effects between EL and HPWS since both are fundamental work contexts for employees concerning organizational processes, including creativity, which requires psychological resources. In this study, we found a negative interaction effect of EL and HPWS on creativity.

In contrast, the indirect interaction effect of EL and HPWS on task

Table 3 Conditional indirect effects of ethical leadership on task

performance at the level of HPWS Path Moderator Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Simple path for low HPWS 3.24 -.02 .0273 -.0839 .0312 Simple path for high HPWS 6.10 -.08 .0389 -.1780 -.0174

Notes.― 95% bias-correlated CI.

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

362 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

performance was significantly positive through creativity. That is, EL, together with HPWS ‘cost and reverse’ individuals’ resources on creativity and ‘protect and magnify’ individuals’ resources on task performance at the same time. With the findings in this study, we point out the paradoxical effects of EL and caution against the universalistic approach toward EL or HPWS, which has emphasized each system’s positivity without considering the possible interactions they have with each other.

Regarding our finding that the effects of EL are conditional upon HPWS, we suspect this is because stand-alone-well-functioning EL may not be apparent to employees as it may pass undetected by employees. This is because EL with integrity and morality are some of the fundamental elements of a leader (Brown et al. 2005), which is one of the employees’ basic needs at work (cf. Hygiene factor: Herzberg 1964) and is taken for granted (e.g., like the air we breathe). One may only notice it when the expectation of fairness is violated (cf. Yang 2013). This may be even more the case for employees of public organizations as they are less vulnerable to the influence of leadership directly (with a high level of job security). Our stand is reflected in studies showing that relations between EL and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) disappear when perceived organizational politics (POP) is low for a state government (Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, and Zivnuska 2011).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

This study’s longitudinal research design answers the call in HRM research to collect data at different time points to test better causal effects (e.g., Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, and Allen 2005). However, while using supervisors' judgment is an accepted approach in creativity research (Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004), future research may want to measure creativity and task performance using more objective data.

Despite its strengths, this paper has several limitations. First, the data used in this study were collected from a Korean public sector firm. To test whether the negative interaction effects of EL and HPWS on creativity can be generalized across different cultural and organizational contexts, we need further comparative studies (Detert, Treviño, Burris, and Andiappan 2007; Ng and Feldman 2015; Piccolo et al. 2010; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). High power distance or power centrality in Korean culture and rule- based HPWS, which are different from traditional relations-based HRM in Korea, may have amplified the burden from EL and HPWS on Korean employees (Ng and Feldman 2015).

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

363Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

Second, as the methods adopted in this study are based on the JR-D theory, the negative interaction effects between EL and HPWS on creativity may not be culturally or organizationally specific. Also, firm ownership (state versus private) could be fundamental to a firm's operations and moderate the impact of HR systems, including performance-oriented HR systems (Liu, Gong, Zhou, and Huang 2017). With a growing appreciation for EL and HPWS across different cultures and organizations, more studies are needed to examine subtle nuances and variations in recognition of them.

Third, the small sample size of the teams used in this study inhibits bold generalization. An extensive research design expanding the number of sample teams is needed in future research. The use of small samples for testing hypotheses may create some interpretative problems (e.g., Caldwell and O’Reilly 1990). Prior research has also reported problems of linking small sample size to more elaborated statistical tests (Hollenbeck, DeRue, and Mannor 2006; Mone, Mueller, and Mauland 1996; Peterson, Smith, Martorara, and Owen 2003).

Fourth, this study has cross-industrial and cross-cultural implications in that it focuses on a public sector firm in Korea. It is generally believed that Koreans are more collectivism-oriented than Westerners. Scales based on individualism versus collectivism as people’s traits have been used to measure societies’ cultural dimensions (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Christie, Kwon, Stoeberl, an d B au m h ar t 2 0 0 3 ) . In ge n e r a l, c ol l e c t iv i st c u ltu re st re ss e s t h e interdependence between people, while individualist culture emphasizes the independent roles and functions of individuals (Triandis 2001). Our study found significant interaction effects of EL and HPWS on creativity and task performance. These interactive relationships might be more likely to be an essential factor in determining creativity and task performance in private sector firms. Stated in this way, we conclude that EL and HPWS are highly influential among employees in other cultures, such as individualistic Western cultures. We suggest that future studies conduct comparative research so as to encompass other industrial sectors (e.g., manufacturing, service, etc.) and other cultural contexts to verify the tentative conclusion drawn in this study.

(Submitted: August 9, 2020; revised: September 28, 2020; Accepted: September 28, 2020)

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

364 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

References

Agarwal, Promila, and Elaine Farndale. 2017. “High Performance Work Systems and Creativity Implementation: The Role of Psychological Capital and Psychological Safety.” Human resource Management Journal 27(3): 440-458.

Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. “Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector.” American review of Public Administration 31(4): 363-380.

Amabile, Teresa M. 1983. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(2): 357–376.

Amabile, Teresa M., Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jefferey Lazenby, and Michael Heandrron. 1996. “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity.” Academy of Management Journal 39(5): 1154–1184.

Amabile, Teresa M., and Julianna Pillemer. 2012. “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 46(1): 3–15.

Anderson, Neil, Kristina Potočnik, and Jing Zhou. 2014. “Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A state-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework.” Journal of Management 40(5): 1297-1333.

Avey, James B., Fred Luthans, Sean T. Hannah, David Sweetman, and Christopher Peterson. 2012. “Impact of Employees’ Character Strengths of Wisdom on Stress and Creative Performance.” Human resource Management Journal 22(2): 165– 181.

Aycan, Zeynep, Rabindra Kanungo, Manuel Mendonca, Kaicheng Yu, Jürgen Deller, Günter Stahl, and Anwar Kurshid. 2000. “Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Countr y Comparison.” Applied Psychology: An International review 49(1): 192-221.

Bagozzi, Richard P., and Jeffrey R. Edwards. 1998. “A General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research.” Organizational research Methods 1(1): 45–87.

Bandura, Albert. 1977.  Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. . Bedi, Akanksha, Can M. Alpaslan, and Sandy Green. 2016. “A Meta-analytic Review

of Ethical Leadership Outcomes and Moderators.” Journal of Business Ethics 139(3): 517-536.

Blakeley, Karen, and Malcolm Higgs. 2014. “Responsible Leadership Development – Crucible Experiences and Power Relationships in a Global Professional Services Firm. Human resource Development International 17(5): 560–576. 

Borman, Walter C., and S. M. Motowidlo. 1993. “Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance.” In Neil Schmitt and Walter C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, pp. 71-98.

Boxall Peter, and Keith Macky. 2009. “Research and Theory on High-performance Work Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream.” Human resource

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

365Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

Management Journal 19(1): 3-23. Boyne, George A. 2002. “Public and Private Management: What's the Difference?”

Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 97-122. Brown, Michael.E., and Linda K. Treviño. 2006. “Ethical Leadership: A Review and

Future Directions.” Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 595–616. Brown, Michael E., Linda K. Treviño, and David A. Harrison. 2005. “Ethical

Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing.” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 97(2): 117- 134.

Caldwell, David F., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1990. “Measuring Person-job Fit with a Profile-comparison Process.” Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6): 648-657.

Chen, Angela Shin-Yih, and Yu-Hsiang Hou. 2016. “ The Effects of Ethical Leadership, Voice Behavior and Climates for Innovation on Creativity: A Moderated Mediation Examination.” Leadership Quarterly 27(1): 1-13.

Christie, P. Maria Joseph, Ik-Whan G. Kwon, Philipp A. Stoeberl, and Raymond Baumhart. 2003. “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ethical Attitudes of Business Managers: India, Korea, and the United States.” Journal of Business Ethics 46(3): 263-287.

Chughtai, Aamire, Marann Byrne, and Barbara Flood. 2015. “Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Well-being: The Role of Trust in Supervisor.” Journal of Business Ethics 128(3): 653-663.

Colquitt, Jason A., Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter, Donald E. Conlon, and K. Yee Ng. 2001. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 425-445.

De Hoogh, Annebel H.B., and Deanne N. Den Hartog. 2008. “Ethical and Despotic Leadership, Relationships with Leader's Social Responsibility, Top Management Team Effectiveness and Subordinates' Optimism: A Multi-method Study.” Leadership Quarterly 19(3): 297–311.

Delery, John E. 1998. “Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications for Research.” Human resource Management review 8(3): 289-309.

Delery, John.E., and D. Harold Doty. 1996. “Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t : Te s t s o f Un i v e r s a l i s t i c , C o n t i n g e n c y, a n d Configurational Performance Predictions.” Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 802-835.

Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job Demands‐Resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 499‐512.

Detert, James R., Linda K. Treviño, Ethan R. Burris, and Meena Andiappan. 2007. “Managerial Modes of Influence and Counterproductivity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Business-Unit-Level Investigation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 993-1005.

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

366 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Evans, W. Randy, and Walter D. Davis. 2015. “High Performance Work Systems as an Initiator of Employee Proactivity and Flexible Work Practices.” Organization Management Journal 12(2): 64-74.

Folger, Robert, Russell Cropanzano, and Barry Goldman. 2005. “What Is the Relationship between Justice and Morality?” In Jerald Greenberg and Jason A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 215-245.

Fredrickson, Barbara L. 2001. “The Role of Positive Emotion in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” American Psychologist 56(3): 218–226.

Gilson, Lucy L. 2008. “Why Be Creative: A Review of the Practical Outcomes Associated with Creativity at the Individual, Group, and Organizational Levels.” In Jing Zhou & Christina E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 303–322.

Gong, Yaping, Jia-Chi Huang, and Jiing-Lih Farh. 2009. “Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-efficacy.” Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 765–778.

Hansen, Nina Katrin, and Dorothea Alewell. 2013. “Employment Systems as Governance Mechanisms of Human Capital and Capability Development.” International Journal of Human resource Management 24(11): 2131-2153.

Harney, Brian, and John Trehy. 2016. “Resource-based View.” In Adrian Wilkinson and Stewart Johnstone (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human resource Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 377-378.

Herzberg, Frederick. 1964. “The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of Manpower.” Personnel Administrator 27(1): 3-7.

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hollenbeck, John R., D. Scott DeRue, and Michael Mannor. 2006. “Statistical Power and Parameter Stability When Subjects Are Few and Tests Are Many: Comment on Peterson, Smith, Martorana, and Owen (2003).” Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1): 1-5.

Humphrey, Stephen E., Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson. 2007. “Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1332–1356.

Huselid, Mark A., and Brian E. Becker. 1997. “The Impact of High Performance Work Systems, Implementation Effectiveness, and Alignment with Strategy on Shareholder Wealth.” Paper presented at the 1997 Academy of Management Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

Jiang, Kaifeng, Riki Takeuchi, and David P. Lepak. 2013. “Where do We Go from Here? New Perspectives on the Black Box in Strategic Human Resource

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

367Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

Management Research.” Journal of Management Studies 50(8): 1448-1480. Kacmar, K.Michele, Daniel G. Bachrach, Kenneth J. Harris, and Suzanne Zivnuska.

2011. “Fostering Good Citizenship through Ethical Leadership: Exploring the Moderating Role of Gender and Organizational Politics.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 633-642.

Kellough, J. Edward, and Lloyd G. Nigro. 2002. “Pay for Performance in Georgia State Government: Employee Perspectives on Georgia Gain after 5 Years.” review of Public Personnel Administration 22(2): 146-166.

Kerr, Steven, and John M. Jermier. 1978. “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22(3): 375-403.

Kim, Seok Eun, and Dian Rubianty. 2011.“Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisals in the Federal Government: Does It Matter?” review of Public Personnel Administration 31(4): 329-348.

Lawler, John J., Shyh-jer Chen, Pei-Chuan Wu, Johngseok Bae, and Bing Bai. 2011. “High-performance Work Systems in Foreign Subsidiaries of American Multinationals: An Institutional Model.” Journal of International Business Studies 42(2): 202–220.

Lepak, David P., Hui Liao, Yunhyung Chung, and Erika E. Harden. 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.

Liu, Dong, Yaping Gong, Jing Zhou, and Jia-Chi Huang, J. 2017. “Human Resource Systems, Employee Creativity, and Firm Innovation: The Moderating Role of Firm Ownership.” Academy of Management Journal 60(3): 1164–1188.

Macky, Keith, and Peter Boxall. 2008. “High-involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and Employee Well-being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of Human resources 46(1): 38–55.

Mo, Shenjiang, and Junqi Shi. 2017. “Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Burnout, Workplace Deviance and Performance: Testing the Mediating Roles of Trust in Leader and Surface Acting.” Journal of Business Ethics 144(2): 293–303.

Mone, Mark A., George C. Mueller, and Wade Mauland. 1996. “The Perceptions and Usage of Statistical Power in Applied Psychology and Management Research.” Personnel Psychology 49(1): 103–120.

Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. “Working within Constraints: Can Transformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red Tape?” International Public Management Journal 15(3): 315-336.

Ng, Thomas W.H., and Daniel C. Feldman. 2009. “Occupational Embeddedness and Job Performance.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(7): 863–891.

Ng, Thomas W.H., and Daniel C. Feldman. 2015. “Felt Obligations to Reciprocate to the Employer, Preferences for Mobility across Employers, and Gender: Three- way Interaction Effects on Subsequent Voice Behaviour.” Journal of Vocational

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Monf:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

368 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Behavior 90: 36-45. Ng, Thomas W.H., and Lorenzo Lucianetti. 2016. “Within-individual Increases in

Innovative Behavior and Creative, Persuasion, and Change Self-efficacy over Time: A Social-Cognitive Theory Perspective.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101(1): 14-34.

Peterson, Randall S., D. Brent Smith, Paul V. Martorana, and Pamela D. Owens. 2003. “The Impact of Chief Executive Officer Personality on Top Management Team Dynamics: One Mechanism by Which Leadership Affects Organizational Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 795-808.

Piccolo Ronald.F., Rebecca Greenbaum, Deanne N. den Hartog, and Robert Folger. 2 0 1 0 . “ T h e R e l at i on s h ip b e t w e e n Et h i c a l L e a d e r s h ip a n d C ore Jo b Characteristics.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2-3): 259-278.

Preacher, Kristopher J., Derek D. Ruker, and Andrew F. Hayes. 2007. “Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions.” Multivariate Behavioural research 42(1): 185-227.

Raudenbush, Stephen.W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Renzl, Birgit. 2008. “Trust in Management and Knowledge Sharing: The Mediating Effects of Fear and Knowledge Documentation.” Omega 36(2): 206−220.

Shalley, Christina.E., and Lucy L. Gilson. 2004. “What Leaders Need to Know: A Review of Social and Contextual Factors That Can Foster or Hinder Creativity.” Leadership Quarterly 15(1): 33-53.

Shalley, Christina.E., Jing Zhou, and Greg R. Oldham. 2004. “Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here?” Journal of Management 30(6): 933-958.

Stouten, Jeroen, Marius van Dijke, and David De Cremer. 2012. “Ethical Leadership: An Overview and Future Perspectives.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 11(1): 1-6.

Seong, Jee Young, and Jin Nam Choi. 2019. “Is Person–Organization Fit Beneficial for Employee Creativity? Moderating Roles of Leader–Member and Team–Member Exchange Quality.” Human Performance 32(3-4): 129-144.

Triandis, Harry C. 2001. “Individualism and Collectivism: Past, Present, and Future.” In Matsumoto, David (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 35-50.

Tzafrir, Shay S. 2005. “The Relationship between Trust, HRM Practices and Firm Performance.” International Journal of Human resource Management 16(9): 1600-1622.

Walumbwa, Fred O., David M. Mayer, Peng Wang, Hui Wang, Kristina Workman, and Amanda L. Christensen. 2011. “Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Performance: The Roles of Leader-Member Exchange, Self-efficacy and Organizational Identification.” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

369Ethical Leadership and High Performance Work System

Processes 115(2): 204–213. Walumbwa, Fred O., and John Schaubroeck. 2009. “Leader Personality Traits and

Employee Voice Behavior: Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Work Group Psychological Safety.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94(5): 1275-1286.

Way, Sean A. 2002. “High Performance Work Systems and Intermediate Indicators of Firm Performance within the US Small Business Sector.” Journal of Management 28(6): 765-785.

White, Michael, Stephen Hill, Patrick McGovern, Colin Mills, and Deborah Smeaton. 2003. “'High-performance' Management Practices, Working Hours and Work– Life Balance.” British Journal of Industrial relations 41(2): 175–195.

Williams, Larry J., and Stella E. Anderson. 1991. “Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-role Behaviors.” Journal of Management 17(3): 601-617.

Wouters, Marc, and Celeste Wilderom 2008. “Developing Performance-Measurement Systems as Enabling Formalization: A Longitudinal Field Study of a Logistics Department.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(4-5): 488-516.

Wright, Patrick M., Timothy M. Gardner, Lisa M. Moynihan, and Mathew R. Allen. 2005. “ The Relationship between HR Practices and Firm Performance: Examining Causal Order.” Personnel Psychology 58(2): 409-446.

Yang, Conna. 2014. “Does Ethical Leadership Lead to Happy Workers? A Study on the Impact of Ethical Leadership, Subjective Well-being, and Life Happiness in the Chinese Culture.” Journal of Business Ethics 123(3): 513–525.

Yang, Inju. 2013. “When Team Members Meet in a New Team: An Exploration of a Team Development.” Human Systems Management 32(3): 181-197.

Zhang, Mingqiong, Cherrie J. Zhu, Peter J. Dowling, and Timothy Bartram. 2013. “Exploring the Effects of High-performance Work Systems (HPWS) on the Work-related Well-being of Chinese Hospital Employees.” International Journal of Human resource Management 24(16): 3196–3212.

Zhang, Ting, Pinar O. Fletcher, Francesca Gino, and Max H. Bazerman. 2015. “Reducing Bounded Ethicality: How to Help Individuals Notice and Avoid Unethical Behaviour.” Organizational Dynamics 44(4): 310-317.

Zhang, Xiaomeng, and Kathryn M. Bartol. 2010. “The Influence of Creative Process Engagement on Employee Creative performance and Overall Job Performance: A Curvilinear Assessment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5): 862-873.

Zhou, Jing, and Jennifer M. George. 2001. “When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 682-696.

Zhou, Jing, and Inga J. Hoever. 2014. “Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection. Annual review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1): 333–359.

Zhu, Weichun, Hongwei He, Linda K. Treviño, Melody M. Chao, and Weiyue Wang. 2015. “Ethical Leadership and Follower Voice and Performance: The Role of

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

370 Journal of asian sociology, Vol. 49 no. 3, september 2020

Follower Identifications and Entity Morality Beliefs.” Leadership Quarterly 26(5): 702–718.

iNJu YANG is a lecturer in the School of Management at RMIT University. Her research interests include business ethics, diversity management practices, human resource management, leadership, and social networks. Her research has appeared in Work, Employment and Society, Organization, International Journal of Human resource Management, International Journal of Manpower, Employee relations, European Management Journal, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, and others. [Email: [email protected]]

JEE YOuNG SEONG is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration at Jeonbuk National University. Her research interests include person-environment fit and diversity within organizations, work-life balance, and cultural differences in the organization. Her research has appeared in Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Human resource Management Journal, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and Group and Organization Management, among others. [Email: [email protected]]

DOO-SEuNG HONG is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Seoul National University. His research interests include social stratification, sociology of work and occupations, and militar y sociology. He has published articles in American Sociological review, Work and Occupations, Current Sociology, Social Indicators research, Journal of Management, and Human resource Management Journal. [Email: [email protected]]

This content downloaded from ������������131.170.21.110 on Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:53:11 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms