Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties and Acoustic Emission Characteristics of Dry and Water-Saturated Soft Rocks under Different Dynamic Loadings
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Supply Chain Risk Management in a Climate-Changed World: Review of Extant Literature, Trend Analysis, and Guiding Framework for Future Research
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation on the Sustainable Innovation Capabilities of New Ventures: From the Perspective of Ambidextrous Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/su151713200
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Initiates Creativity in an Organization?: A Two-Horse Carriage of HRM and PO Fit

by
Jee Young Seong
1,*,
Inju Yang
2 and
Linyuan Zhang
3
1
Department of Business Administration, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Republic of Korea
2
School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne 3001, Australia
3
Society and Law School, Shandong Women’s University, Jinan 250300, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(17), 13200; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713200
Submission received: 20 July 2023 / Revised: 26 August 2023 / Accepted: 30 August 2023 / Published: 2 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategy Formulation and Performance Management for Corporate Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the effect of a corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system (CC-oriented HPWS) and the interactive influence of CC-oriented HPWS and person-organization fit (PO fit) on creativity at the individual level. Our analysis of field data collected from 303 employees in two branch companies with a two-phase collection method provides empirical support for our theoretical model. The results indicate that HPWS reflecting corporate citizenship (CC) correlates positively with individual creativity. In addition, the moderating effect of PO fit is significant in the relationship between CC-oriented HPWS and creativity at the individual level. On this basis, this paper discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for future research.

1. Introduction

A popular proposition in the field of strategic human resource management (SHRM) has been described as bundles of human resource practices (HRPs) that can bolster to increase performance and heighten competitive advantage for organizations [1]. Such bundles are known as high-performance work systems (HPWS), referring to an integrated set of HRPs focusing on skill development, motivation-enhancing, effective productivity, and high levels of participation in decision-making, which aims at positioning employees as a source of attaining competitive advantage [2]. Research on HPWS has particularly emphasized providing decision-making power and problem-solving chances [3] to employees to release employee potential to conduce to excellent performance [1] and superior competitive strength [2]. HPWS is known for offering and encouraging discretionary power to employees [4] that affects their attitudes and behaviors [2], thereby promoting realizing goals.
With the viewpoints of “global village” and “a human community with a shared future” being raised, enterprises should pursue not only traditional finance performance and economic objectives but also notice additional orientations such as societal, sustainable goals and stakeholders’ well-being (i.e., corporate citizenship; CC) [5,6]. CC has been proven to benefit organizations by satisfying employees’ demands and supporting their positive attitudes and behaviors toward work [7,8]. As burgeoning topics of SHRM, CC and HPWS are both concerned with individual attitudes and behaviors of employees and share a common purpose of promoting organizational development. We hope the two can harmonize as complementary HRPs and strengthen each other’s effectiveness.
Given that, our research first discusses HPWS based on CC. Specifically, to adapt to today’s challenging economic environment, we propose a positive relationship of CC-oriented HPWS on creativity at the individual level. Researchers have shown increasing interest in how HRPs stimulate creativity [9,10]. However, a limitation of existing research is that we know little about the research results at the individual level since most studies have been conducted at the organizational and team levels [11,12]. Investigating the link between the individual-level CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity is beneficial in responding to this omission.
Notably, little research theorizes and examines the context in which HPWS has a more (or less) positive effect on individual creativity [13]. Context is described as “situational opportunities or constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables” [14] (p. 386). In contemporary research, studies at the individual level can be more immediate and directly reflect the employees’ attitudes, behaviors, and active involvement in the workplace. Therefore, we regard individual-level PO fit, which refers to the exchange relationship between employees and organizations and reflects the level of fulfilled aspirations and expectations of employees [15], as a context variable in the theoretical framework. Previous research has implied that studies on the relationships between PO fit, creativity, and various HRPs should be clarified [16]. Depending on the social cognitive theory [17] and person-environment (PE) fit theory [18], the extent of perception, acceptance, and actual realization of CC-oriented HPWS will vary with individuals in different social environments. Alternatively, different degrees of fit may affect individuals’ work attitudes and behaviors [17,18]. Empirically examining individual-level PO fit as a moderating contingency offers a more comprehensive understanding of individual attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, that is, the effect of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity.
Overall, this study makes a few contributions. First, we tackle a longstanding vacancy by researching HPWS based on corporate citizenship, which seeks to open a new research landscape for HPWS. Second, we explore the positive relationship of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity, which assuages increasing worry over the lack of empirical evidence for individual-level HRPs-creativity research. Third, we provide new insights into the call for the contingency perspective of SHRM and creativity literature by focusing on the boundary influence of PO fit on the CC-oriented HPWS-individual creativity relationship. Finally, we exploit and test the hypothesized moderation model through traditional hierarchical regression analysis. Hayes introduced the PROCESS SPSS macro, which helped to test the moderation model more effectively and comprehensively [19]. Accordingly, our study adds a post hoc analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS method. Similarly, future research involving these models can use this approach to draw more convincing conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis

With the proposal that corporations and organizations should assume some social responsibilities in addition to their economic and legal obligations [20,21], a broader range of topics, including ethical, philanthropic, sustainable, and discretionary responsibilities, is gradually coming into view. The conception of the CC was revealed. CC underlines that organizations should use their competencies and resources to improve broad social ends instead of simply for the economic bottom line [8], which is critical in consequences [7,22].
Compared to single human resource practice (HRP), a system of HRPs such as HPWS has more superiority in enhancing employees’ skills, commitment, and productivity, turning employees into a source of competitive advantage [23]. HPWS encompasses mutually supportive bundles of practices leading to more effectiveness than each component [24]. HPWS is concerned that employees could fit their work requirements (i.e., ability-enhancing courses, including training and skill development), are motivated to use their abilities (i.e., motivating-enhancing practices, including high pay, career development, and information sharing), and have opportunities and freedom to effectively use those abilities (i.e., opportunity-enhancing practices, including employee involvement [24,25]. It can be regarded as an essential and practical approach and weapon in encouraging employees to excel and achieve better results [26,27].
As the two hot and booming topics in SHRM, this study considers their characteristics. Then it proposes the corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system (CC-oriented HPWS), which explains the effects of HPWS based on CC. According to Vlachos, Panagopoulos and Rapp [5] and Datta, Guthrie and Wright [23], CC-oriented HPWS refers to a set of HRPs designed for better economic, societal, sustainable performance and stakeholders’ well-being through enhancing employees’ abilities, motivation, and opportunities. We found no empirical evidence in the literature on this proposal. Nevertheless, considering that the studies on CC and HPWS have primarily been devoted to organizational and team levels [11,22], this paper focuses on the influences of CC-oriented HPWS at the individual level. It can also be regarded as a response to Rana and Javed’s suggestion that HRPs can positively change employee attitudes and behaviors at work [28].

2.1. CC-Oriented HPWS and Individual Creativity

Creativity is described as generating novel and valuable ideas on organizations’ work processes and outcomes [29,30], which is indispensable for the survival and prosperity of organizations and firms in a turbulent environment [3,31]. Individual creativity refers to generating new and valuable ideas by an employee to develop novel and improved ways of practice and performance [32]. Creativity involves diversified parts and stages [33], of which the most widely recognized is the classic three-component models of creativity focused on individual properties, applying intrinsic motivation, domain-relevant skills/expertise, and creative thinking processes [30].
Previous academic efforts have argued that HPWS can be regarded as an antecedent predictor of creativity and mainly centralizes organizational comprehension [31]. As we have seen, few studies have directly explored the mechanism through which HPWS inspires individual creativity [32]. To well-operationalize the analysis of HPWS and creativity, this study examines the influence of CC-oriented HPWS on creativity at the individual level.
According to social cognitive theory [33], social exchange theory [34], and the norm of reciprocity [35], HPWS can provide cues that facilitate workers’ efficacy belief [36,37,38], and foster employees’ information exchange behavior [39]. As a result, individual creativity will be boosted [40,41].
Specifically, CC-oriented HPWS provides work resources and a supportive climate conducive to individual creativity, such as autonomy, extensive training, participation in decision-making, performance appraisal processes, and the pursuit of stakeholders’ well-being. Based on social cognitive theory [42], autonomous employees perceive greater self-efficacy, leading to confidence in professional knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) instead of pressure and anxiety. Under the circumstances, more novel ideas will be aroused, and the domain-relevant skills/expertise can be secured. Additionally, employees can acquire new KSAs by participating in training and decision-making. For example, extensive training can amplify employees’ KSA base beyond that demanded current work and thus aids individuals in accomplishing their job. This is beneficial for enhancing efficacy belief. An individual’s efficacy belief may encourage them to take risks and adjust coping strategies, activating a high level of creativity [13].
Similarly, autonomy, performance appraisal processes, and the pursuit of stakeholders’ (i.e., employees’) well-being may stimulate employees to prefer to share their knowledge, information, and experience and utilize what they learn subsequently in their work [43]. It will promote the creative process and the extent of acquiring domain-relevant skills/expertise. Moreover, these characteristics of CC-oriented HPWS will likely give employees a sense of being valued by their organizations. In line with social exchange theory [34] and the norm of reciprocity [35], when individuals feel valued by their organizations, they tend to engage in work by putting in more energy and effort [44,45]. This contributes to heightening employees’ willingness and intrinsic motivation. In this case, individuals would like to brainstorm new ideas and develop new routines, taking advantage of individual creativity. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
CC-oriented HPWS will be positively associated with individual creativity.

2.2. The Moderating Effect of PO Fit

Prior research appeals that human resource systems (HRS) cannot work in a vacuum setting or a one-size-fits-all pattern. Researchers have called for additional studies on contextual conditions [3,13]. The importance of individual-level moderators is evident at a glance. Individual-level moderation predictors are more proximal to employees, so they will likely increase potential and power in conditioning employee reaction to CC-oriented HPWS. To better understand the complicated process of CC-oriented HPWS leading to creativity at the individual level, this paper examines the moderating effect of individual-level PO fit.
PO fit is described as “the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both” [46] (pp. 4–5). While various researchers have broadly defined the concept as compatibility between individuals and organizations, the fit can be conceptualized in multiple ways [47]. Generally, the complementary fit will occur when “the strength of the individual offsets a weakness or need of the environment, and vice versa” [48] (p. 271). Supplementary fit is achieved when “a person supplements, embellishes, or processes characteristics which are similar to other individuals in the environment” [48] (p. 269).
On the one hand, we reason that employees have different responsibilities and arrangements in the workplace [49]. PO fit can affect employees’ intrinsic motivation by matching individual competence and organizational needs [50]. Korman (1970), through self-consistency theory, predicted that work behavior is based on the implementation of a self-concept [51]. In the case of the capabilities of employees being well matched to the organization’s needs, individuals will perform better when they perceive themselves as knowledgeable, skilled, or qualified for specific work [52]. Those who meet their organization’s demands exhibit positive work attitudes and behaviors [53,54].
On the other hand, PO fit presents value congruence [18,45]. The basic proposition of PO fit literature is the similarity in values and goals between individuals and their organizations [48]. In line with social identity theory [55,56,57], individuals prefer organizations similar to themselves, facilitating their trust, psychological safety, and a strong emotional bond and attachment with their organizations. As a result, positive employee attitudes and behaviors in the workplace will be promoted [58,59]. We assume that PO fit positively moderates the positive effects of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity because of positive individual attitudes and behaviors.
HPWS supplies resources and support to employee creativity yet also signals performance expectations [13,60]. In other words, CC-oriented HPWS can be considered an active driving force and a heavy pressure for individual creativity. However, in line with the social cognitive theory [33] and social exchange theory [34], PO fit provides valuable resources and support to individuals engaging in the cognitive processing of contextual cues [18,54]. Individuals with a high level of PO fit tend to interpret CC-oriented HPWS as assistance for obtaining a high level of individual creativity rather than cognitively construing CC-oriented HPWS as pressuring. Their fitness stimulates them to be confident in their creative capacities and encourages them to challenge the status quo with a desire for a better organization. For instance, training can successfully boost employees’ mastery experience and vicarious experience because of positive synergies based on high PO fit [58]. Likewise, in the case of high PO fit, participation in decision-making is more likely to be regarded as an autonomous opportunity rather than excessive pressure or anxiety, thus contributing to greater efficacy belief and information sharing. This autonomous, efficacy belief and information sharing can inspire more personal ideas and help reduce individuals’ resistance to novel ideas. As a result, individual creativity will be increased. In this regard, PO fit helps organizations with CC-oriented HPWS establish a context that motivates employee creativity.
Conversely, when PO fit is low, the conflicts and objections of creativity under HPWS, because of the lack of support, creativity can be slowed or even prevented [59,60]. According to the attraction-selection-attrition process [61,62]. Those who fit organizations are apt to be attracted and selected, whereas those who do not are inclined to leave, which further homogenizes employees’ perceptions, thus impeding creativity. In addition, a low level of PO fit cannot offer constructive and supportive feedback, which conveys an encouraging tone. Based on social exchange theory [34] and the norm of reciprocity [35], the lack of support and inspiration may make individuals lose their motivation and expectation to do better, leading to weaker efficacy belief and willingness of information sharing. As a result, the positive influence of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity will be hindered. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
PO fit will positively moderate the relationship between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity, such that the relationship will be more positive when PO fit is high than when it is low.
The theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Data Collection Procedure

Since the data were collected at two different time points, we may infer the causality that ordinary cross-sectional research design cannot [63,64,65]. Through two-period surveys, data were collected from employees of two companies (A and B) of a South Korean business group. The first survey (Time 1) that measured independent and moderating variables was conducted for seven days, with 433 employees. After two weeks, a follow-up survey (Time 2) measuring the dependent variable was conducted; 303 (70.0%) replied to the first and second surveys. To examine the causal relationship between individual CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity and the moderating effect of PO fit, this study analyzed the data from 303 employees who participated in both surveys.
Of the total respondents, 201 (69.3%) and 93 (30.7%) were affiliated with companies A and B, respectively. Business areas of Company A cover steel, plant, infrastructure, and building works, while Company B has been involved in such projects as energy, steel, and global food supply worldwide. Of the total sample, females comprised 11.2%. The average age was 42.5 years. Their education levels were high school (6.0%), bachelor’s degree (69.0%), and graduate degree (25.1%). The respondents consisted of managerial-clerical (37.6%), marketing (21.8%), professional (19.8%), R&D (6.3%), production-technical (6.3%), and others (8.3%).

3.2. Measures

Since the voice that pays attention to both economic development and social responsibility simultaneously is growing, the focus on sustainable economic, social development, and human well-being from the perspective of HRPs has become a widespread issue [5,6,7,8,20,21]. The importance of human capital has been recognized. To further leverage individual initiative and harness human capital for economic value-added and social responsibility, this analysis concerns the relationship between CC-oriented HPWS, individual creativity, and PO fit. To test our hypotheses, we used items developed and validated in previous studies whose reliability and feasibility have been verified [66,67,68]. All variables except for control variables used a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) (See Appendix A).
CC-oriented HPWS. CC-oriented HPWS refers to a comprehensive bundle of HRPs, including skills development, effective productivity, and motivation enhancement, aimed at corporate citizenship-related outcomes such as economic improvement, society, sustainable performance, and the well-being of stakeholders. CC-oriented HPWS was evaluated using a 13-item scale modified from the existing HPWS items [68,69,70]. The items of CC-oriented HPWS were recomposed through the interview regarding SHRM with the management of the companies based on CC. This scale consisted of extensive training, results-oriented assessment relevant to quantitative appraisal, results-oriented assessment associated with qualitative appraisal, decision-making participation, and selective recruitment. A sample item is “Our company offers employees an extensive corporate citizenship training program yearly”. The scale’s reliability was indicated by Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.96).
Individual creativity. Individual creativity is defined as a group member’s generation of valuable and novel ideas [32]. Individual creativity was measured by adopting a four-item scale from Zhou and George [67]. The following items (α = 0.95) were included: “I come up with new and practical ideas to improve my performance”, “I suggest new ways to increase the quality of my work”, “I come up with a new way of performing my work”, “I come up with creative solutions to problems”.
PO fit. PO fit represents the compatibility between individuals and organizations [46]. This compatibility generally occurs when a weakness or requirement of the environment is counteracted by the strength of the individual knowledge, abilities, and skills, and vice versa [47], or starts in the case that a person supplements, embellishes, or possesses traits, such as value, which are similar to other individuals in the environment [48]. Thus, we measured the PO fit from both perspectives. We revised the items used in Cable and DeRue [66] to the PO fit domain and used a 2-item measure of person-job fit (PJ fit), and two items of PO fit to assess the degree of matching between individual’s specific attributes and their organization’s particular traits (e.g., ability and value). The four-item scale included “My values fit well with the values of our company’s corporate citizenship”, “My values coordinate well with the values of the corporate citizenship that our company promotes”, “My abilities and education level fit well with the way of the perspectives and policies of corporate citizenship”, and “My abilities fit well with the policies in company’s corporate citizenship philosophy and related business requirements”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.96.
Control variables. Our analysis for hypothesis testing included several control variables. We controlled gender and age because these demographic variables impact the relationship between fit perceptions and creativity [68,71]. Additionally, given that education and tenure have been controlled in most prior research on creativity because they can affect employee creativity, we also regard education and tenure as control variables [58,72].

4. Results

We first evaluated the distinctiveness of our scales for CC-oriented HPWS, individual creativity, and PO fit by using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) performed via AMOS 23.0. Following standard practice, overall model fit was examined by various fit indices such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) [73]
CC-oriented HPWS was modeled as a higher-order factor, consisting of five dimensions as the first-order factors, which built the theoretical model with two layers of potential factors. The second-order factor models are mainly used in higher-order factor models [47,70]. The three-factor model fit our data reasonably well, χ2 (df = 181) = 3.50, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.09, and SRMR = 0.06. We compared this model with plausibly alternative models, including (a) a one-factor model with CC-oriented HPWS, individual creativity and PO fit combined as one construct, and (b) a two-factor model with CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity combined as one construct (see Table 1). The results indicate that the expected three-factor model supports a significantly better fit than alternative models. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations between research variables.

5. Hypothesis Testing

We tested the hypotheses using hierarchical regression analysis. H1 predicts that CC-oriented HPWS is positively related to individual creativity. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis provide initial support for H1 (see Table 3).
In Model 2, we found that CC-oriented HPWS positively affects individual creativity by controlling for such demographic variables as gender, age, education, and tenure (β = 0.43, t = 8.67, p < 0.001). In Model 3, we also discovered that the positively moderating effect of PO fit affects the relationship between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity (β = 0.17, t = 3.14, p < 0.01). Specifically, when individuals with high-level PO fit, the direct positive relationship between employees’ CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity was strongly reinforced (see Figure 2). Thus, H2 was also supported.

Post Hoc Analysis

We conducted a post hoc analysis with Hayes’ PROCESS Model 1 approach to further explore these results [19]. As expected, <Table 4> shows a statistically significant positive moderating effect of PO fit on the relationship between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity (LLCI = 0.03, ULCI = 0.15, p < 0.01).
A simple slope analysis allows a better understanding of this moderating effect [74]. To explain these moderating relationships, we plotted the two-way interaction based on our hypothesis model. According to Aiken and West (1991), we employed one standard deviation above and below the mean on the independent variables while we held the control variables at their means [74]. The results of the simple slope tests were consistent with our theoretical hypothesis. The pattern in Figure 3 proposes the simple effects of PO fit on individual creativity at high and low levels (±1 SD) of CC-oriented HPWS. Individual creativity is significantly improved when PO fit and CC-oriented HPWS are high compared to other conditions, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.

6. Discussion

The primary purpose of this paper was to investigate how CC-oriented HPWS and its interaction with PO fit predict creativity at the individual level. Empirical results supported the theoretical hypotheses regarding the major and interaction effects. As shown in Figure 2, as the level of CC-oriented HPWS enhances, the extent of individual creativity could increase. Moreover, the impact of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity is more vital when employees’ PO fit is high than when it is low. When CC-oriented HPWS is high and PO fit is also high, the creativity of individuals is most vital. In contrast, individual creativity is weakest when the levels of CC-oriented HPWS and PO fit are low.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This research makes three significant theoretical contributions. First, the findings suggest a positive impact of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity. This substantial and positive relationship emphasizes and demonstrates the previous perspectives that HRPs could serve as antecedents for creativity [11,75]. Our study explores the antecedent of individual creativity, that is, HPWS, based on the context of CC. CC and HPWS of SHRM have become two popular and significant strategies to achieve organizational, team, and individual goals and performance. However, the field to coordinate and integrate the two is blank. To fill this gap, this paper innovatively incorporates both, researching HPWS in the context of CC. That is, we study HPWS with CC as the orientation and basis. The positioning of CC-oriented HPWS as a new characteristic of HRPs has implications for the enrichment and evolution of SHRM and HRPs.
Second, it has been widely acknowledged that organizations can use HRPs to promote desirable employee attitudes and behaviors [76,77,78,79,80]. Nevertheless, researchers need to pay more attention to the effects of HRPs on employees’ creativity and more attention to the organization and team level [3,32,81]. Our study calls for this deficiency and extends the research to cover the individual creativity of employees as an outcome through a positive link between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity. This analysis transcends beyond examining effects at the organization and team level implications of HPWS. It reveals how HRPs affect individual employees, enriching and completing human research management (HRM) and creativity literature.
Third, this paper highlights boundary conditions at the individual level in which CC-oriented HPWS can be more or less effective in promoting employees’ creativity. Prior research on HPWS and creativity has focused more on boundary conditions at the organizational and team level [3,32], whereas it misses the more immediate individual-level contextual effects. Our investigation fills this gap and broadens this line of research by explicitly debating and inspecting the moderating effect of individual-level PO fit. Our study argues that HPWS is not a one-size-fits-all HRP approach and does not take effect in a vacuum manner [13,82]. Therefore, we introduced a moderation factor (i.e., PO fit) into our theoretical model. We complement prior research on HPWS and creativity by showing individual factors that amplify the effect of CC-oriented HPWS at the individual level.

6.2. Practical Implications

This study also offers several practical implications. Our results indicate practical insights into the strategic value of HRM by certifying the significant benefits of CC-oriented HPWS for individual creativity. By starting with CC-oriented HPWS, organizations can move towards higher employee creativity and cultivate a creative culture. When pursuing employee creativity, organizations should consider SHRM, such as CC-oriented HPWS. Organizations and managers should focus on nurturing and improving creative performance based on CC-oriented HPWS, such as organizing creativity-relevant training and selection and guaranteeing employees’ decision-making participation.
In addition, the conditional effect of PO fit is considerable. When the level of PO fit of employees is high, the positive impact of CC-oriented HPWS on individual creativity is sharply strengthened. As a result, organizations and leaders can improve employees’ creativity by promoting a strong sense of the match between individuals and their organizations through diverse coaching efforts. Moreover, team-building activities and the establishment of harmonious and friendly internal communication platforms are conducive to improving PO fit and individual creativity due to more communication and information exchange.
Note, that we expected CC as a vital attribute of SHRM could have far-reaching effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. According to previous research, CC assists organizations in attracting candidates, increasing individuals’ job satisfaction, and retaining excellent staff [7]. This provides human resources for developing creativity and motivates employees to explore new ideas and paths to improve firm operations. It is beneficial for the improvement of creativity. Accordingly, organizations need to formulate and implement HPWS based on CC strategies. Organizations and managers should be concerned with the CC of individuals beginning in hiring and recruitment and endeavor to strengthen integration and alignment between CC and HPWS. Furthermore, organizations and leaders should also give full play to PO fit, contributing to creativity and even societal, sustainable performance.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Our findings of the current study have to be interpreted subject to some limitations, each leading to opportunities for future research. First, a potential limitation regarding the generalizability of our results should be noted. Our sample collected from members of two branches of the same organization was highly homogeneous. The present data collected from a single organization are conducive to eliminating extraneous sources of confounding. However, the relatively high homogeneity across branches in our investigation may reduce the extent of the certainty that the findings reported here can generalize to other samples. Hence, additional surveys need to be replicated with more participants to see if these results apply to other organizations.
Second, we note a few measurement issues. This study used a time-lag design by collecting data in two phases. It can reduce the likelihood that the findings are affected by common method bias and thus supply confidence in the validity of the results. However, this design is a cross-sectional study, which may not allow us to conclude the causality in our modeled relationships. Future research can employ a longitudinal design to establish and unravel causal directions between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity.
Additionally, our survey gathered data using self-reports. Individuals can provide more examples [83] and better detect differences in their behaviors as a reaction to specific situations [84]. Given that, self-report measurement has its benefits and rationalization. Yet, the self-report measure may entail a risk of common method bias, which can affect outcomes [85]. Consequently, we encourage future studies to utilize multi-source design by including different sources of ratings (e.g., leaders and HR managers) and attempt to use objective indices.
Third, we focused on CC-oriented HPWS, an orientation in HRPs. Prior research argued that differential configurational HRPs influence individual outcomes [13]. Therefore, it can be valuable to examine and analyze other nuanced HR architecture or other types of HPWS and show how they interact with other creativity factors. Moreover, the “black boxes” between CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity were ambiguous, and the attention to other contextual factors was also inadequate. Different mediators and moderators should be tested in future studies.
Despite these limitations, our research has extended our understanding of the role of CC-oriented HPWS for individual creativity in the PO fit context.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Y.S., I.Y. and L.Z.; methodology, L.Z. and J.Y.S.; validation, I.Y.; formal analysis, L.Z. and J.Y.S.; investigation, I.Y. and L.Z.; writing, L.Z., J.Y.S. and I.Y.; original draft preparation, J.Y.S. and L.Z.; writing—review and editing, J.Y.S. and I.Y.; project administration, J.Y.S.; funding acquisition, J.Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was supported by international research funds for humanities and social science of Jeonbuk National University in 2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to an official survey by the organization for its own purpose.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original data were provided by the corresponding author. If there are relevant research needs, the data can be obtained by sending an email to the corresponding author. Please indicate the purpose of the research and the statement of data confidentiality in the email.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

(Questionnaire Items of Key Variables)
CC-oriented HPWS [68,69,70] Six items selected.
  • Our company offers employees an extensive corporate citizenship (CC) training program yearly.
  • Our company provides a formal CC training program necessary for the job performance of recruits.
  • Our company evaluates employees’ performance based on quantifiable CC performance outcomes.
  • Our company evaluates employees’ performance based on qualitative CC performance outcomes.
  • Employees in our company can participate in CC-related activities and decision-making processes voluntarily.
  • Our company pays meticulous attention to recruiting new employees who better fit the company’s CC-oriented management philosophy.
Individual creativity [67]
  • I come up with new and practical ideas to improve my performance.
  • I suggest new ways to increase the quality of my work.
  • I come up with a new way of performing my work.
  • I come up with creative solutions to problems.
PO fit [46,47,48,66]
  • My values fit well with the values of our company’s corporate citizenship.
  • My values coordinate well with the values of the corporate citizenship that our company promotes.
  • My abilities and education level fit well with the way of the perspectives and policies of corporate citizenship.
  • My abilities fit well with the policies in company’s corporate citizenship philosophy and related business requirements.

References

  1. Jiang, K.; Lepak, D.P.; Jia, H.U.; Baer, J.C. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 1264–1294. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, F.; Chow, I.H.; Zhu, W.; Chen, W. The paradoxical mechanisms of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) on perceived workload: A dual-path mediation model. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2020, 30, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, D.; Gong, Y.; Zhou, J.; Huang, J.C. Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1164–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Agarwal, P.; Farndale, E. High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 440–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lin, C.; Lyan, N.; Tsai, Y.; Chen, W.; Chiu, C. Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 517–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lin, Y.T.; Liu, N.C. Corporate citizenship and employee outcomes: Does a high-commitment work system matter? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 156, 1079–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bauman, C.W.; Skitka, L.J. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Res. Org. Behav. 2012, 32, 63–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nyberg, A.J.; Moliterno, T.P.; Hale, D., Jr.; Lepak, D.P. Resource-based perspectives on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 316–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schilke, O. On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strat. Manag. J. 2014, 35, 179–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caniëls, M.C.J.; Veld, M. Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 565–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zacher, H.; Robinson, A.J.; Rosing, K. Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance. J. Creat. Behav. 2016, 50, 24–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ma, Z.; Gong, Y.; Long, L.; Zhang, Y. Team-level high-performance work systems, self-efficacy and creativity: Differential moderating roles of person–job fit and goal difficulty. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 478–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Johns, G. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vigoda-Gadot, E.R.A.N.; Meiri, S. New public management values and person-organization fit: A socio-psychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel. Public Admin. 2008, 86, 111–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oakman, J.; Wells, Y. Working longer: What is the relationship between person-environment fit and retirement intentions. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2015, 54, 207–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Reilly, C.A., III; Chatman, J.; Caldwell, D.F. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 487–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. McGuire, J.W. Business and Society; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  21. Backman, J. Social Responsibility and Accountability; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  22. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Datta, D.K.; Guthrie, J.P.; Wright, P.M. HRM and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiang, K.; Messersmith, J. On the shoulders of giants: A meta-review of strategic human resource management. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 6–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Appelbaum, E.; Bailey, T.; Berg, P.; Kalleberg, A.L. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abbasi, S.G.; Shabbir, M.S.; Abbas, M.; Tahir, M.S. HPWS and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of psychological empowerment and organizational identification in public sector banks. J. Public Aff. 2020, 21, e2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sung, S.Y.; Choi, J.N. Effects of training and development on employee outcomes and firm innovative performance: Moderating roles of voluntary participation and evaluation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1339–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rana, F.A.; Javed, U. High-performance work systems, job demands, and employee well-being in Pakistan’s insurance industry. Glob. Bus. Org. Excel. 2017, 37, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Anderson, N.; Potočnik, K.; Zhou, J. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 1297–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Amabile, T.M. Amabile, T.M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI: Stamford, CT, USA, 1988; pp. 123–167. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chang, S.; Gong, Y.; Shum, C. Promoting innovation in hospitality companies through human resource management practices. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gong, Y.; Kim, T.-Y.; Lee, D.-R.; Zhu, J. A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 827–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Perry-Smith, J.E.; Mannucci, P.V. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2017, 42, 53–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wattoo, M.A.; Zhao, S.; Xi, M. High-performance work systems and work–family interface: Job autonomy and self-efficacy as mediators. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2020, 58, 128–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wright, P.M.; Snell, S.A. Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Taggar, S.; Ellis, R.J. The examination of creative, teamwork, and collective efficacy beliefs in creative teams. Acad. Manag. Annu. Meet. Proc. 2017, 2017, 16416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chiang, Y.H.; Hsu, C.C.; Shih, H.A. Experienced high performance work system, extroversion personality, and creativity performance. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015, 32, 531–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, S.S.; Huang, Y.W.; Chen, P.Y. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate. Knowl. Sys. 2012, 31, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.D.; Truss, C.; Soane, E.C. The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 330–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rich, B.L.; Lepine, J.A.; Crawford, E.R. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 617–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kristof, A.L. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers. Psychol. 1996, 49, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Seong, J.Y.; Kristof-Brown, A.L. Testing multidimensional models of person–group fit. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 536–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hornung, S.; Rousseau, D.M.; Glaser, J. Why supervisors make idiosyncratic deals: Antecedents and outcomes of I-deals from a managerial perspective. J. Manag. Psychol. 2009, 24, 738–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Korman, A.K. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 1970, 54, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Weiner, Y. Task ego-involvement and self-esteem as moderators of situationally devalued self esteem. J. Appl. Psychol. 1973, 58, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Greguras, G.J.; Diefendorff, J.M. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organisation, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Haslam, S.A. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  56. Turner, J.C.; Hogg, M.A.; Oakes, P.J.; Reicher, S.D.; Wetherell, M.S. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 1982, 33, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seong, J.Y.; Choi, J.N. Is person-organization fit beneficial for employee creativity? Moderating roles of leader-member and team-member exchange quality. Hum. Perform. 2019, 32, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cha, J.; Chang, Y.; Kim, T.-Y. Person-organization fit on prosocial identity: Implications on employee outcomes. J. Bus. Ethic. 2014, 123, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jensen, J.M.; Patel, P.C.; Messersmith, J.G. High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 1699–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nishii, L.H.; Wright, P. Variability within organisations: Implications for strategic human resource management. In The People Make the Place; Smith, D.B., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 229–252. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schneider, B. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 1987, 40, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cable, D.M.; DeRue, D.S. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Livne-Ofer, E.; Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M.; Pearce, J. Eyes wide open: Perceived exploitation and its consequences. Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 62, 1983–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fang, R.T.; Saks, A.M. Class advantage in the white-collar labor market: An investigation of social class background, job search strategies, and job search success. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 1695–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ni, D.; Zheng, X.; Liang, L.H. Rethinking the role of team mindfulness in team relationship conflict: A conflict management perspective. J. Org. Behav. 2022, 43, 878–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhou, J.; George, J.M. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 682–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Delery, J.E. Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1998, 8, 289–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Delery, J.E.; Doty, D.H. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 802–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Huselid, M.A.; Becker, B.E. The impact of high performance work systems, implementation effectiveness, and alignment with strategy on shareholder wealth. In Proceedings of the 1997 Academy of Management Annual Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 10–13 August 1997. [Google Scholar]
  71. Spanjol, J.; Tam, L.; Tam, V. Employer–employee congruence in environmental values: An exploration of effects on job satisfaction and creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, X.; Bartol, K.M. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ngo, H.Y.; Foley, S.; Loi, R. Family friendly work practices, organizational climate, and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong Kong. J. Org. Behav. 2009, 30, 665–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  75. Gahan, P.; Theilacker, M.; Adamovic, M.; Choi, D.; Harley, B.; Healy, J.; Olsen, J.E. Between fit and flexibility? The benefits of high-performance work practices and leadership capability for innovation outcomes. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2021, 31, 414–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hai, S.; Wu, K.; Park, I.J.; Li, Y.; Tang, Y. The role of perceived high-performance HR practices and transformational leadership on employee engagement and citizenship behaviors. J. Manag. Psychol. 2020, 35, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Marescaux, E.; Winne, S.D.; Forrier, A. Developmental HRM, employee well-being and performance: The moderating role of developing leadership. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2018, 16, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kehoe, R.R.; Wright, P.M. The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. J. Manag. 2013, 36, 366–391. [Google Scholar]
  79. Snape, E.; Redman, T. HRM practices, organisational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1219–1247. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wright, P.M.; Gardner, T.M.; Moynihan, L.M.; Allen, M.R. The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 409–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Martinaityte, I.; Sacramento, C.; Aryee, S. Delighting the customer: Creativity oriented high-performance work systems, frontline employee creative performance, and customer satisfaction. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 728–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wright, P.M.; Nishii, L.H. Strategic HRM and organisational behaviour: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. In HRM & Performance: Achievements & Challenges; Paauwe, J., Guest, D.E., Wright, P.M., Eds.; Wiley: West Sussex, UK, 2013; pp. 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  83. Parker, S.K.; Collins, C.G. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 633–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lance, C.E.; Teachout, M.S.; Donnelly, T.M. Specification of the criterion construct space: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 1992, 77, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 15 13200 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical Model. Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit.
Figure 1. Theoretical Model. Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit.
Sustainability 15 13200 g001
Sustainability 15 13200 g002
Figure 2. Research Model. Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; Unstandardized errors are in parentheses. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Research Model. Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; Unstandardized errors are in parentheses. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 13200 g002
Sustainability 15 13200 g003
Figure 3. The Moderating Effect of PO Fit on CC-oriented HPWS and Individual Creativity. Note, N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit.
Figure 3. The Moderating Effect of PO Fit on CC-oriented HPWS and Individual Creativity. Note, N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high-performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit.
Sustainability 15 13200 g003
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
ModelDescriptionx²dfx²/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
11-factor model1 12003.2918410.890.760.730.180.13
22-factor model 21571.301838.590.820.790.160.27
33-factor model 3633.501813.500.940.930.090.06
Note. CFI = Comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean squared residual. 1 CC-oriented HPWS, individual creativity and PO fit combined as one construct. 2 CC-oriented HPWS and individual creativity combined into a single factor. 3 Theoretical model.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables.
MeanSD1234567
1. Gender1.110.31
2. Age42.558.45−0.31 **
3. Education3.180.55−0.31 **0.20 **
4. Tenure5.285.44−0.18 **0.30 **0.02
5. CC-oriented HPWS5.431.15−0.040.100.01−0.05(0.96)
6. Individual creativity5.780.99−0.120.29 **0.080.11 *0.45 **(0.95)
7. PO fit5.741.130.030.16 **−0.01−0.060.73 **0.51 **(0.96)
Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. Cronbach’s alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis on Individual Creativity.
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis on Individual Creativity.
VariablesModel 1Model 2Model 3
Step 1: Controls intercept
Gender−0.04 (0.19)
Age0.03 *** (0.01)
Education0.04 (0.11)
Tenure0.01 (0.01)
Step 2: Main effect
CC-oriented HPWS 0.38 *** (0.04)
Step 3: Interactive effect
PO fit 0.40 *** (0.07)
CC-oriented HPWS × PO fit 0.09 ** (0.03)
Adjusted R²0.080.260.34
Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; Unstandardized errors are in parentheses. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Results of PROCESS.
Table 4. Results of PROCESS.
CoeffSEtpLLCIULCI
Constant4.620.479.860.00 ***3.705.54
Gender−0.130.16−0.800.43−0.450.19
Age0.020.013.710.00 ***0.010.04
Education0.060.090.600.55−0.120.23
Tenure0.010.011.380.17−0.010.03
CC-oriented HPWS0.150.062.470.01 *0.030.27
PO fit0.390.076.040.00 ***0.270.52
Moderating effect0.090.033.140.00 **0.030.15
Note. N = 303. Gender, age, education and tenure are controlled. Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are applied. Mean center is applied for all variables and covariates of this study. Moderating effect = HPWS × PO fit. CC-oriented HPWS = corporate citizenship-oriented high performance work system; PO fit = person-organization fit. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seong, J.Y.; Yang, I.; Zhang, L. What Initiates Creativity in an Organization?: A Two-Horse Carriage of HRM and PO Fit. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713200

AMA Style

Seong JY, Yang I, Zhang L. What Initiates Creativity in an Organization?: A Two-Horse Carriage of HRM and PO Fit. Sustainability. 2023; 15(17):13200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seong, Jee Young, Inju Yang, and Linyuan Zhang. 2023. "What Initiates Creativity in an Organization?: A Two-Horse Carriage of HRM and PO Fit" Sustainability 15, no. 17: 13200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713200

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop