3. Governance, employment and human resource management
Unlike other organizations, social enterprises pursue social missions while simultaneously engaging in economic activities. Social enterprises try to adopt innovative solutions to address thorny social issues with limited resources (Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014; Mair & Marti, 2006). Therefore, for social enterprises to succeed, employees’ intentional behaviors in generating and implementing creative ideas (i.e., innovative behaviors) are essential (Kerlin, 2009; Miller, Wesley, & Williams, 2012). In other words, innovative behavior, which refers to intentional generation and implementation of novel and useful ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994), not only desirable but critical for employees in social enterprises. However, scant evidence and limited understanding exist on how to foster innovative behavior in social enterprises.
To fill this research gap, we draw upon discussions on human resource management (HRM), and explore the role of high-performance work practices (HPWP) in social enterprises. HPWP is a bundle of HR practices (e.g., extensive training, performance appraisal, rewards, employee relations, and participation), which are separate but interconnected and work in concert in the workplace (Huselid, 1995). Recently, scholars in the HRM field found the positive effects of HPWP on employees' innovative behavior (e.g., Ma Prieto & Pérez-Santana, 2014), and we surmise that this effect may be generalized to social enterprise contexts as well because HPWP’s philosophies are consistent with and fit into what social enterprises value.
In addition, we explore the role of employees’ perceptions of social missions in moderating the effects of HPWP on their innovative behaviors. Since social enterprises prioritize social missions, the possible influences of social missions on employees has been emphasized in previous literature (e.g., Battilana & Dorado, 2010). In this study, drawing mainly from social identity theory, we examine the effects of two facets of social missions: 1) whether employees perceive that the firm pursues social missions (pursuit of social missions) and 2) whether the firm has effectively performed missions (success of social missions). We argue that when organizations actively pursue and successfully achieve socially desirable goals, they will increase employees' use of resources and opportunities gained through HPWP, leading to innovative behaviors.
Using survey data collected from 321 employees from social enterprises in Korea, this study yields several meaningful results. HPWP triggered positive impacts on both employee idea generation and implementation. Regarding the moderation effects of social missions, perception of organizations' pursuit of social missions significantly moderated the effects of HPWP on both idea generation and idea implementation, while perception of organizations' past success in carrying out social missions significantly moderated the effect of HPWP on idea implementation but not the effect of HPWP on idea generation.
These findings provide theoretical and practical implications and contribute to existing social enterprise and HRM literature. First, we contribute to social enterprise literature by highlighting the important role of HRM, which has been emphasized but neglected in previous studies. That is, we provide evidence that HPWP is beneficial in a social enterprise context, especially in boosting employees' innovative behavior. Moreover, we introduce social missions as an important variable in augmenting the effects of HPWP on employees’ behaviors. By emphasizing the motivating role of social missions, our research answers calls to investigate ways to manage resource constraints in social enterprises (e.g., Austin et al., 2006).
References
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei‐Skillern, J. 2006. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1): 1-22.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419-1440.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4): 417-436.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1): 36-44.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal, 38(3): 635-672.
Kerlin, J. A. (Ed.). 2009. Social enterprise: A global comparison. Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press.
Ma Prieto, I., & Pilar Perez-Santana, M. 2014. Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2): 184-208.
Miller, T. L., Wesley, C. L., & Williams, D. E. 2012. Educating the minds of caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of social entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 349-370.
Ohana, M., & Meyer, M. 2010. Should I stay or should I go now? Investigating the intention to quit of the permanent staff in social enterprises. European Management Journal, 28(6): 441-454.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3): 580-607.
3. Governance, employment and human resource management
