Internal Commitment or External Collaboration? The Impact of Human Resource Management Systems on Firm Innovation and Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complementing previous research that showed a positive effect of general human resource management (HRM) systems on general firm performance, this article undertakes an integrative approach to compare the main effects and examine the interaction effects of two particular HRM systems on influencing firm innovation and performance. Using data from 179 organizations in China, we found that both the commitment‐oriented system, which emphasized internal cohesiveness, and the collaboration‐oriented system, which was intended to build external connections, contributed to firm innovation and, subsequently, bottom‐line performance. We also found an attenuated interaction between the two HRM systems in predicting firm innovation. We employed a mediated‐moderation path model to extricate the relationships. Results suggested that organizations that implemented both HRM systems to promote innovation might face ambidexterity challenges. Ideas for future research and practical implications are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it