Understanding New Zealand firm innovation: exploring human resource factors by firm size and strength

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study model.

Table 1. Study measures and details.

Measures + Details	Details +Factor Loadings
Product Innovation (Li et al. 2010), coded 1 = no change, 5 = radical change.	α = .71, CR = .82, AVE = .54
To what extend does your organisation engage in the following:
increasing the variety of product/service	.822
2. improving qualities of product/service	.618
3. extending the market coverage of product/service	.781
4. enhancing the manufacture technology of new products	.700
Process Innovation (Prajogo and Sohal 2006), coded 1 = much less than competitors, 5 = much more than competitors.	α = .84, CR = .90, AVE = .68
1. The technological competitiveness of our company	.825
2. The speed with which we adopt the latest technological innovations in our processes	.804
3. The updatedness or novelty of the technology used in our processes	.846
4. The rate of change in our processes, techniques, and technology	.828
Innovation Speed (based on Prajogo and Sohal 2006), coded 1 = much slower than competitors, 5 = much faster than competitors.	α = .81, CR = .87, AVE = .63
About your organization and the speed with which …
1. we adopt the latest technological innovations in our processes	.813
2. the product/service design is moved to the prototype/service stage	.777
3. we drop outdated products/services	.795
4. we encourage new ideas for products and services within our whole organisation	.801
Workforce KSAs (3-items from Yang and Lin 2009 + one additional), coded 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree	α = .74, CR = .84, AVE = .56
1. The qualifications of our employees (human resources) are the best among all our competitors	.669
2. Our employees are skilful in their jobs	.728
3. Our employees have high technical skills [additional]	.819
4. Our employees continuously acquire new job-related knowledge	.776
Workforce Retention (2-items designed for this study), coded 1 = much less than competitors, 5 = much more than competitors. Workforce retention is defined as a firm’s retention of their most skilled and productive people, there are high costs associated with turnover (Lee and Bruvold 2003) and their retention is critical (Guthrie 2001).	α = .69, CR = .86, AVE = .76
Rate your organisation compared to our closest competitors on the following …
1. the retention of top talent	.871
2. the retention of other employees (excluding top talent)	.871
Workforce Attraction (2-items designed for this study), coded 1 = much less than competitors, 5 = much more than competitors. Typically, the literature focuses on what makes workplaces attractive (e.g. Walker et al. 2009) and here we build items off workforce retention (e.g. Guthrie 2001) and similarly include a top talent focus.	α = .78, CR = .90, AVE = .82
Rate your organisation compared to our closest competitors on the following …
1. the attraction of employees who are top talent	.904
2. the attraction of a skilled workforce	.904
Firm Size was calculated by total number of full-time employees, coded: 1 = small-sized (50 employees or less) and 0 = medium-large-sized (51 + employees).

Table 2. Correlations and descriptive statistics of study variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Firm Age	5.24	2.67	–
2. Workforce Unionisation	42.8	31.8	.08	–
3. Covid Challenges	2.44	.85	-.05	-.03	–
4. Workforce KSAs	3.92	.62	-.08	.16**	-.08	–
5. Workforce Attraction	3.64	.84	.03	.36**	-.09	.43**	–
6. Workforce Retention	3.64	.76	.06	.24**	-.07	.42**	.59**	–
7. Product/Services Innovation	3.84	.64	-.07	.35**	-.03	.49**	.46**	.41**	–
8. Process Innovation	3.58	.77	.11*	.41**	-.05	.52**	.66**	.59**	.66**	–
9. Innovation Speed	3.52	.73	.01	.38**	-.07	.51**	.65**	.58**	.59**	.81**	–

N = 402, *p < .01, **p < .01.

Table 3. Results of regression analyses.

	Product/Service innovation		Process innovation		Innovation speed
Variable Relationships	β(SE)	p-value	β(SE)	p-value	β(SE)	p-value
Step 1: Control Variables
Firm Age	-.02(.01)	p = .033	.02(.01)	p = .113	-.01(.01)	p = .535
Workforce Unionisation	.01(.00)	p < .001	.01(.00)	p < .001	.01(.00)	p < .001
Covid Challenges	.00(.04)	p = .845	-.01(.04)	p = .829	-.04(.04)	p = .300
Industries:
FIS	.31(.09)	p < .001	.48(.10)	p < .001	.35(.10)	p < .001
PSTS	-.08(.09)	p = .387	-.13(.10)	p = .223	-.05(.10)	p = .620
Manufacturing	.01(.10)	p = .905	-.04(.11)	p = .761	-.00(.11)	p = .969
R2 Change	.16	p < .001	.23	p < .001	.18	p < .001
Step 2: Direct Effects
Workforce KSAs	.20(.03)	p < .001	.19(.03)	p < .001	.17(.03)	p < .001
Workforce Attraction	.11(.03)	p = .002	.26(.03)	p < .001	.25(.03)	p < .001
Workforce Retention	.08(.03)	p = .022	.17(.03)	p < .001	.17(.03)	p < .001
R2 Change	.21	p < .001	.36	p < .001	.37	p < .001
Step 3: Moderator Effects
Firm Size (Size)	-.08(.03)	p = .010	-.11(.03)	p < .001	-.06(.03)	p = .051
R2 Change	.01	p = .010	.01	p < .001	.00	p = .051
Step 4: Interaction Effects
Workforce KSAs × Size	-.05(.03)	p = .041	-.09(.03)	p < .001	-.08(.03)	p = .003
Workforce Attraction × Size	.02(.03)	p = .631	.06(.03)	p = .075	-.01(.03)	p = .823
Workforce Retention × Size	-.07(.03)	p = .021	-.04(.03)	p = .224	-.04(.03)	p = .178
R2 Change	.02	p = .011	.01	p = .003	.02	p < .001
Total R2	.40		.61		.57
Total Adjusted R2	.38		.60		.56
F Statistic	19.667	p < .001	47.376	p < .001	39.498	p < .001

Unstandardized path coefficients.

Note: FIS = Financial and Insurance Services, PSTS = Professional, Scientific and Technical Services.

Figure 2. Workforce KSAs × firm size towards innovation approaches.

Table 4. Results of dominance analyses on innovation outcomes.

Antecedents:		Product/Services innovation	Process innovation	Innovation speed
Workforce KSAs	β	.20	.18	.16
	%	42.2%	30.9%	29.4%
Workforce Attraction	β	.14	.18	.21
	%	29.9%	31.4%	38.8%
Workforce Retention	β	.13	.22	.17
	%	27.9%	37.7%	31.8%

Note: Small = Small-Sized firms, Med-Large = Medium-to-Large-Sized firms. Bold = Dominant.

Table 5. Results of T-Tests by firm size.

Variables:	Small-sized firms	Larger-sized firms	Difference
Sample size	N = 166	N = 236
Workforce KSAs	M = 3.83 (SD = .64)	M = 3.98 (SD = .60)	t = −2.372 (p = .018)
Workforce Attraction	M = 3.29 (SD = .82)	M = 3.90 (SD = .77)	t = −7.583 (p < .001)
Workforce Retention	M = 3.42 (SD = .78)	M = 3.80 (SD = .71)	t = −4.963 (p < .001)
Product/Services Innovation	M = 3.61 (SD = .64)	M = 4.00 (SD = .59)	t = −6.268 (p < .001)
Process Innovation	M = 3.20 (SD = .73)	M = 3.86 (SD = .69)	t = −9.194 (p < .001)
Innovation Speed	M = 3.23 (SD = .67)	M = 3.73 (SD = .69)	t = −7.190 (p < .001)

Table 6. Dominance analyses on innovation outcomes by firm size.

Antecedents:		Product/Services innovation		Process innovation		Innovation speed
		Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large
Workforce KSAs	β	.09	.23	.08	.27	.05	.24
	%	49.3%	47.2%	19.4%	40.9%	16.4%	36.4%
Workforce Attraction	β	.06	.12	.20	.19	.16	.22
	%	30.5%	23.9%	49.9%	28.8%	49.3%	33.7%
Workforce Retention	β	.04	.14	.12	.20	.11	.20
	%	20.2%	28.9%	30.7%	30.3%	34.3%	29.9%

Note: Bold = Dominant.

Li Y, Su Z, Liu Y. 2010. Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product innovation? Technovation. 30(5-6):300–309.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prajogo DI, Sohal AS. 2006. The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance––the mediating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research. 168(1):35–50.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yang CC, Lin CYY. 2009. Does intellectual capital mediate the relationship between HRM and organizational performance? Perspective of a healthcare industry in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 20(9):1965–1984.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee CH, Bruvold NT. 2003. Creating value for employees: investment in employee development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 14(6):981–1000.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guthrie JP. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal. 44(1):180–190.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walker HJ, Feild HS, Giles WF, Armenakis AA, Bernerth JB. 2009. Displaying employee testimonials on recruitment web sites: effects of communication media, employee race, and job seeker race on organizational attraction and information credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology. 94(5):1354–1364.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar