V. Oltra and J. Alegre HR practices, innovation and learning – OLKC 2011
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Abundant research shows substantial evidence on the positive link between human
resource (HR) practices and organizational performance (e.g. Datta et al., 2005; Delery
and Doty 1996; Huselid 1995). Hence, it seems natural to assume that the impact of
(high-commitment, contingent, strategic…) HR practices on innovation performance
ought to be also positive. Such a specific link has also been explored (e.g. Beugelsdijk,
2008; Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle, 2008; Shipton et al., 2006a; Walsworth and
Verma, 2007): innovation-triggering HR practices would include employee
empowerment, task rotation, employment security or the use of participative decision
making systems, among others. However, satisfactory consensus and insight have not
been reached on: (i) the choice of innovation-triggering HR practices, (ii) their ultimate
impact on innovation outcomes, and (iii) the underlying processes and mediating
variables that would help explain how such a link is developed – similar to what
happens with the broader HR-performance literature (cf. Boselie et al., 2005; Wall and
Wood, 2005; Wood, 1999).
The aim of this theoretical paper is twofold: (i) to deepen into the connections between
HR practices and innovation performance, and (ii) to shed light on the underlying
processes and mediating variables that explain these connections. Having these
concerns in mind, organizational learning (OL) can be easily linked to innovation
outcomes and, more specifically, to the process dynamics that foster them. Innovation,
as the culmination of the complex interplay between multiple – individual and
collective – learning processes aimed at finding new ways of solving problems, depends
on the company’s capability to learn – i.e. to develop, distribute and use new knowledge
(McKee, 1992; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
Furthermore, Hult et al. (2004) observed that, if a firm is to be innovative, management
must devise organizational features that embody a clear learning orientation. Some
cultural factors, such as decentralization in decision making, error tolerance, or social
relations, have been shown to affect knowledge and innovation outcomes through OL
(Chang, 2003; Lemon and Sahota, 2004). Interestingly, Chiva et al. (2007) measured
OL capability (OLC) by understanding it as a multidimensional concept, including
experimentation, risk taking, interaction with the external environment, dialogue and
participative decision making – essential enablers of the OL dynamics. Indeed, research
evidence places OLC as a relevant predictor of innovation performance (Alegre and
Chiva, 2008). Moreover, Scarbrough (2003) explored how connections between HR
management (HRM) and knowledge management (KM) processes, if neglected, pose
strong barriers to successful innovation. Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2007)
studied the complex relationships among HR practices, KM and technical innovation.
More recently, Chen and Huang (2009) have highlighted the role of ‘KM capacity’ in
linking strategic HR practices with innovation performance.
In this paper, a number of related concepts such as learning orientation, OLC or KM
(capacity) inspire our proposal of ‘OL processes’ as the fundamental mediating variable
between HR practices and innovation performance. We emphasize in purpose the
distinction between (HR) practices and (OL) processes: the former are formal business
policies, whereas the latter are resulting (middle) outcomes, more behavioural in nature
and not so directly controlled by management. This distinction is often blurry in the
literature, considering that HRM and OL(C)/KM constructs frequently include some
elements (even questionnaire items) that are very similar. But this distinction is, to our
view, essential to clearly differentiate between policy/intentional variables and