Team-level high-performance work systems, self-efficacy and creativity: differential moderating roles of person–job fit and goal difficulty

Abstract

Research has examined firm- or unit-level high-performance work systems (HPWS) and impacts on firm, unit, or individual outcomes. Relatively few works have examined how team-level HPWS works together with individual-level factors to shape individual creativity. Grounded in social cognitive theory and the interactionist model of creativity, this study posits and tests the thesis that team-level HPWS and individual-level job characteristics jointly influence individual creativity via individual self-efficacy. We collected multi-source and multi-level data from 321 employees of 75 teams and their direct managers in China. Results show that team-level HPWS interacts with individual-level person–job fit and goal difficulty to influence self-efficacy and, subsequently, creativity. Specifically, individual employee’s person–job fit (P–J fit) and goal difficulty moderate the positive indirect relationship of team-level HPWS with creativity through employee self-efficacy, such that it is stronger when P–J fit is high or when goal difficulty is low. We extend research on HPWS and creativity by revealing P–J fit and goal difficulty as individual-level boundary conditions for the effect of team-level HPWS.

Keywords:

• High-performance work systems
• self-efficacy
• person–job fit
• goal difficulty
• creativity

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

Data that support the findings of this study can be made available upon reasonable request.

Notes

1 We identified firms with established HR systems for the following reasons which would not cause a range restriction problem. Firstly, HPWS represent HR systems. Prior research suggests that some firms manage HR in an ad hoc manner and do not have established HR systems. Secondly, previous research suggested that range restriction occurs by direct selection of the predictor (i.e. only those with a score which exceeds the specific cut -off value of X are selected) (Aguinis, 1995; Millsap, 1989). We selected firms with established HR systems, which is not a selection based on the predictor (HPWS in this study) and its score. As such, range restriction in HPWS is not a significant issue. Indeed, prior empirical research concerning HPWS and creativity published in top-tier journals has also stressed the necessity of sampling firms with established HR systems. For example, Pak and Kim (2018) conducted interviews to ensure that the company’s HR practices are generally designed in accordance with the principle of HPWS. Chuang et al. (2016) emphasised the importance of sampling firms with well-established HR systems. Gong et al. (2013) sampled firms with formally established HR systems. Finally, because theoretically HPWS enhance creativity, our empirical results (estimates) should be more conservative if the sampling strategy creates restriction in range for and thus less variance in HPWS.

2 Among the 22 firms, most (16 firms) have over 100 employees. We include several firms (6 firms) that have fewer than 100 employees because we identified that these companies have formal HR systems and full-time HR executives via interviews. The magnitude and significance level of the results with and without these few firms were almost identical. We retained these firms when reporting results.

3 These envelopes helped enhance confidentiality at the site and were then used to match their questionnaires.

Additional information

Funding

We acknowledge the financial support from the Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Team Building project of Shandong University (No.11030082035306), the Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University (No. 11030079614099), the Competitive General Research Fund of Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (No.16514016, No.16501418), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.71772072, No. 71832004, No.71671077).