High‐performance work systems and creativity implementation: the role of psychological capital and psychological safety

• Published date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12148
• Date: 01 July 2017

High-performance work systems and creativity

implementation: the role of psychological capital

and psychological safety

Promila Agarwal ,Human Resource Management Area, Indian Institute of

Management Ahmedabad

Elaine Farndale ,Human Resource Management, Center for International Human

Resource Studies, School of Labor andEmployment Relations, The Pennsylvania State

University

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 27, no 3, 2017,pages 440–458

Unimplemented creative ideas are potentially wasted opportunities for organisations. Although it is largely

understood how to encourage creativity among employees, how to ensure this creativity is implemented

remains underexplored. The objective of the current study is to identify the underlying mechanisms that

explain the relationship between high-performance work systems and creativity implementation. Drawing

from the job demands–resources model, we explore a model of psychological capital and psychological safety

as mediators in the relationship between high-performance work systems and creativity implementation.

Based on 505 employee survey responses, the findings show support for the mediating relationships,

highlighting the importance of psychological mechanisms. The study has important implications for

HRM, uncovering how people management practices can encourage creativity implementation in the

workplace.

Contact: Promila Agarwal, Assistant Professor, Human Resource Management Area, Indian

Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015, India. Email:

promila@iima.ac.in

Keywords: high-performance work systems; psychological capital; psychological safety; creativity

implementation

INTRODUCTION

Creativity refers to generating novel, valuable ideas or solutions to problems

(Amabile, 1983), while creativity implementation (CI) is the process of converting

creativity or ideas into new and improved products, services or ways of doing

things (Woodman et al., 1993; West, 2002). The body of research in the field of creativity

and innovation provides great insight, but creative ideas are not automatically

implemented (Baer, 2012). The relationship between creative ideas and their

implementation is loosely coupled with the ratio between creative idea generation and its

implementation low at best (West, 2002). Although research acknowledges the difference

between creativity and CI and their unique antecedents (Axtell et al., 2006; Gong et al.,

2013), there is neither a conceptual framework nor empirical analysis of CI’s nomological

network (Yuan and Woodman, 2010), yet creativity not implemented is as good as not

generated.

Previous studies have examined the impact of human resource management (HRM) on

creativity (Rice,2006; Zhang and Bartol, 2010; Petroniet al., 2012). For example, HRM systems

440 HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL27, NO 3, 2017

©2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

Please cite thisarticle in press as: Agarwal, P. and Farndale,E. (2017) ‘High-performance worksystems and creativity implementation: the role of

psychologicalcapitaland psychologicalsafety’.Human ResourceManagementJournal 27: 3, 440–458

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12148

bs_bs_banner

are suggested to enhance employee ability, motivation and opportunity to participate in

proactively adapting and modifying work processes (Evans and Davis, 2015). HRM

interventions, such as selection, development, defining job expectations, discretion in

structuring work activities, career tracks for advancement, and high-performance policies,

have also been found to contribute to innovation (Mumford, 2000). Given the correspondence

between creativity, innovation and CI, HRM is therefore relevant to explore as a factor that

might influence CI.

Several commentators have explained how a system of HRM practices, rather than

individual HRM practices, is more applicable for understanding organisational outcomes

(Huselid, 1995; Evans and Davis, 2005; Lepak et al., 2006). High-performance work systems

(HPWSs) are defined “as an integrated system of HR practices that are internally consistent

(alignment among HR practices) and externally consistent (alignment with organizational

strategy)”(Evans and Davis, 2005: 759). Although HPWSs outcomes in organisations are

somewhat debated (Becker and Huselid, 2006), empirical studies have identified a positive

relationship with employee attitudes and behaviours (Huselid, 1995; Lepak et al., 2006).

Similarly, research on positive psychology emphasises the examination of conditions that

account for positive experiences leading to favourable organisational outcomes rather than

deficiencies (Luthans et al., 2004).

We examine here the mechanisms through which HPWSs foster CI, focusing on

psychological capital (PsyCap) and psychological safety. Based on cognitive evaluation

theory (Deci, 1975), we argue that favourable outcomes of HPWSs will impact intrinsic

motivation to the extent that HPWSs will influence perceived competence (PsyCap and

psychological safety) to engage in CI. HPWSs are likely to facilitate an internal perceived

locus of causality and psychological competence, thus positively influencing CI. PsyCap and

psychological safety are therefore important mediators because they are fundamental

characteristics of the work environment that can influence an individual’s ability to execute

creative ideas (Edmondson, 2004).

Psychological capital is the positive and developmental state of an individual as

characterised by high self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience (Luthans and Youssef,2004;

Luthans et al., 2008). We posit that PsyCap could be of great value in understanding the

relationship between HPWSs and CI (Luthans et al., 2005). For example, HPWSs are

associated with providing autonomy to the employee, which may increase CI due to an

associated enhanced feeling of competence (self-efficacy) (Ryan, 1982). CI also requires a

‘safety net’provided by a sense of psychological safety as CI in a low psychological safety

environment may lead to negative personal outcomes (Kark and Carmeli, 2009).

Psychological conditions can thus influence performance (Rosso et al., 2010), while social and

environmental factors facilitate or thwart self-motivation to perform and implement creative

ideas (Ryan and Deci, 2000a).

Drawing from the job demands–resources (JD-R) model,we theorise that HPWSs will lead

to PsyCap and psychological safety by increasing the availability of psychological and social

resources. The JD-R model(Demerouti et al., 2001) categorises the work environment into two

general categories: job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to sustained physical,

psychological and social aspects required to perform a task resulting in physiological and

psychological costs. Job resources are physical, psychological,social or organisational features

of the job that facilitate goal achievement and reduce the adverse physiological and

psychological consequences.

Overall, we propose and test a model in which PsyCap and psychological safety act as

critical mechanisms through which HPWSs influence CI based on JD-R theorising. Hereby,

Promila Agarwaland Elaine Farndale

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL27, NO 3, 2017 441

©2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.