Results (
Arabic) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
V. Oltra and J. Alegre HR practices, innovation and learning – OLKC 201121. INTRODUCTIONAbundant research shows substantial evidence on the positive link between humanresource (HR) practices and organizational performance (e.g. Datta et al., 2005; Deleryand Doty 1996; Huselid 1995). Hence, it seems natural to assume that the impact of(high-commitment, contingent, strategic…) HR practices on innovation performanceought 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 andVerma, 2007): innovation-triggering HR practices would include employeeempowerment, task rotation, employment security or the use of participative decisionmaking systems, among others. However, satisfactory consensus and insight have notbeen reached on: (i) the choice of innovation-triggering HR practices, (ii) their ultimateimpact on innovation outcomes, and (iii) the underlying processes and mediatingvariables that would help explain how such a link is developed – similar to whathappens with the broader HR-performance literature (cf. Boselie et al., 2005; Wall andWood, 2005; Wood, 1999).The aim of this theoretical paper is twofold: (i) to deepen into the connections betweenHR practices and innovation performance, and (ii) to shed light on the underlyingprocesses and mediating variables that explain these connections. Having theseconcerns in mind, organizational learning (OL) can be easily linked to innovationoutcomes and, more specifically, to the process dynamics that foster them. Innovation,as the culmination of the complex interplay between multiple – individual andcollective – learning processes aimed at finding new ways of solving problems, dependson 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, managementmust devise organizational features that embody a clear learning orientation. Somecultural factors, such as decentralization in decision making, error tolerance, or socialrelations, have been shown to affect knowledge and innovation outcomes through OL(Chang, 2003; Lemon and Sahota, 2004). Interestingly, Chiva et al. (2007) measuredOL capability (OLC) by understanding it as a multidimensional concept, includingexperimentation, risk taking, interaction with the external environment, dialogue andparticipative decision making – essential enablers of the OL dynamics. Indeed, researchevidence places OLC as a relevant predictor of innovation performance (Alegre andChiva, 2008). Moreover, Scarbrough (2003) explored how connections between HRmanagement (HRM) and knowledge management (KM) processes, if neglected, posestrong 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’ inlinking 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 variablebetween HR practices and innovation performance. We emphasize in purpose thedistinction between (HR) practices and (OL) processes: the former are formal businesspolicies, whereas the latter are resulting (middle) outcomes, more behavioural in natureand not so directly controlled by management. This distinction is often blurry in theliterature, considering that HRM and OL(C)/KM constructs frequently include someelements (even questionnaire items) that are very similar. But this distinction is, to ourview, essential to clearly differentiate between policy/intentional variables and
Being translated, please wait..
