A Cross-Level Examination of the Relationship of Strengths-Based Human Resource System With Employee Performance

Abstract

Given the great significance of employees’ strengths to employees’ optimal functioning, strengths-based human resource (HR) system has gradually reaped HR researchers’ attention. However, to date, there remains a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of strengths-based HR system. Therefore, this article aimed to bridge the gap in the literature by empirically testing the cross-level relationships between strengths-based HR system, employee strengths use, and supervisor-rated employee performance (i.e., task performance and innovative behavior). Data from 205 employees working in 56 organizations in China were collected at three points in time from different sources. The results of multilevel path analysis showed that strengths-based HR system has a positive relationship with employee strengths use, and employee strengths use is positively related to supervisor-rated employee task performance and innovative behavior. More importantly, strengths-based HR system had a positive relationship with employee task performance and innovative behavior via employee strengths use.

Keywords

strengths-based human resource system employee strengths use performance task performance innovative behavior cross-level investigation

There is a consensus that strategic human resource (HR) management plays a crucial role in shaping sustained competitive advantage to organizations (Harvey & Turnbull, 2020). In order to boost organizational effectiveness, HR scholars have developed various types of strategic HR management, such as high performance work system (Han et al., 2019), high commitment work system (Lin & Liu, 2019), and high involvement work system (Li et al., 2018), and considerable empirical research has also revealed that these bundles of HR practices can positively influence performance of employees and organizations indeed (Boon et al., 2019).

It is worth noting that most of the previous research on strategic HR management builds on the assumption that correcting employees’ deficits has the most potential to gain improvements in performance (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015). However, these studies neglected an important fact that the most successful individuals always work on their strengths (Rath & Conchie, 2008). Many empirical studies have shown that strengths use is more likely to result in positive influence on individuals compared to deficit correction (e.g., Ding, Lin, & Su, 2021; Mphahlele et al., 2018). For example, Van Woerkom et al. (2016) found that strengths use, rather than deficit correction, has a positive association with employee performance. Given that, driven by the argument that HR systems as a dynamic bundle of HR practices are more effective in predicting performance of employees and organizations compared to individual HR practices (Jiang et al., 2012), Ding, Yu, and Xu (2021) developed strengths-based HR system construct by integrating strengths-based approach into HR system theory.

Strengths-based HR system was defined as a series of interconnected HR practices aimed at promoting employee strengths use (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021). It was developed in the Chinese context. Nowadays, China is pursuing high-quality development. Since individual strengths have close relationship with high performance of individual (Wood et al., 2011), strengths-based HR system is in line with the needs of the times. However, some key issues about strengths-based HR system have yet to be addressed.

First, by definition, strengths-based HR system aims to facilitate employees to utilize their strengths at work and then improves performance of employees and organizations (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021). Unfortunately, the positive association of strengths-based HR system with employee strengths use has not yet been tested by empirical research. According to ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) model, when individuals have the ability, motivation, and opportunity to exhibit a given behavior, they are more inclined to perform the behavior (Pak et al., 2019). Based on this logic, strengths-based HR system may have a positive relationship with employee strengths use in that strengths-based HR system can improve employees’ capacities to leverage strengths, stimulate employees’ motivation to make the most of their own strengths at work, and provide employees with opportunities to deploy strengths. Accordingly, the first purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between strengths-based HR system and employee strengths use, and in doing so, this study contributes to a better understanding of the connotation of strengths-based HR system.

Second, even though previous research has revealed the positive relationship of perceived strengths-based HR system with employee performance (i.e., task performance and innovative behavior; Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021), little is known about the potential process mechanism underlying the relationship. Based on AMO model, we can postulate strengths-based HR system to positively correlate with employee strengths use. Further, when employees execute more strengths use behaviors, their job performance will be improved, mainly because employees who capitalize on strengths at work experience higher levels of well-being and authentic self (Bakker & Van Woerkom, 2018), such positive subjective feelings can stimulate employees’ intrinsic work motivation, thereby leading to increased job performance. Therefore, it is feasible to believe that strengths-based HR system contributes to improved job performance through the mediating mechanism of employee strengths use. The second purpose of this article is to test the mediating role of employee strengths use in the relationship between strengths-based HR system and job performance. By doing so, this study contributes to helping us better understand why strengths-based HR system has a positive association with employee performance.

Third, the view that HR system should be regarded as a multilevel construct in nature has been widely recognized by researchers in the field of strategic HR management (Arthur & Boyles, 2007). Strengths-based HR system is a latest specific form of HR systems. Until now, there remains a paucity of research exploring the multilevel effects of strengths-based HR system at the organizational level. To narrow this gap, our third purpose is to investigate the cross-level relationship between strengths-based HR system and job performance and to consider the mediating effect of employee strengths use on the association of strengths-based HR system with employee job performance. By doing so, this study provides a nuanced view that is closer to the strengths-based HR system reality and then advances strengths-based HR system theory and research.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Strengths-Based HR System and Employee Strengths Use

Strengths-based HR system highlighting the importance of employee strengths use is a type of strategic HR management (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021). In accordance with the argument of strategic HR management, organizations design and implement strengths-based HR system to achieve a high level of performance of employees and organizations and then achieve sustained competitive advantage (Delery & Roumpi, 2017). Strengths-based HR system is comprised of strengths-based recruitment, task allocation, job autonomy, performance appraisal, motivation, and training and development (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021). These strengths-based HR practices cover acquisition, utilization, evaluation, motivation, and development of HR.

Concretely, strengths-based recruitment is able to help organizations acquire high-quality HR by emphasizing the fit between candidates’ strengths and job requirements (Bibb, 2016). Strengths-based task allocation and job autonomy aims to make the most of employees’ strengths by enabling employees to do what they are good at or allowing employees to perform their work in a manner that best suits their strengths (Van Woerkom et al., 2016). The purpose of strengths-based performance appraisal is to guide employees to play to their strengths at work (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011). Further, strengths-based performance appraisal highlights excellent performance of employees in that achieving near-perfect performance is the main feature of individual strengths (Dubreuil et al., 2014). Strengths-based motivation serves as a critical role in reinforcing or motivating employee strengths use by recognizing good activities of employees or praising excellent performance of employees (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015). Strengths-based training helps employees further develop their strengths by designing and implementing training programs relevant to employees’ strengths (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), so that employees are able to continuously achieve greater performance.

Although strengths-based HR system aims to promote employee strengths use (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021), no empirical research is found to provide support for this claim. Employee strengths use reflects “initiative that employees many take to use their strengths at work” (Van Woerkom et al., 2016, p. 962). The positive relationship of strengths-based HR system with employee strengths use can be explicated by AMO model suggesting that when individuals have the ability, motivation, and opportunity to exhibit a given behavior, they are more inclined to perform the behavior (Pak et al., 2019). First, strengths-based recruitment, training, and development ensure that employees have the ability to utilize their strengths at work (Bibb, 2016; Boon et al., 2019; Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015). For instance, when the organization encourages employees to further develop their strengths (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), employees’ ability to strengths use will be enhanced partly because strengths development is the proximal antecedent to strengths use (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011).

Second, strengths-based performance appraisal and motivation are able to trigger employees’ motivation to use their strengths (Jiang et al., 2012). Specifically, for one thing, strengths-based performance appraisal focusing on excellent performance of employees (Bibb, 2016; Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011) sends an important signal to employees that strengths use is appreciated by the organization (Connelly et al., 2011), which present a clear direction for what employee should do. For another, strengths-based motivation is conductive to reinforcing employees’ strengths use behaviors by praising excellent performance of employees (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015).

Third, organizations that adopt strengths-based task assignment and job autonomy enable employees to do what they are good at and allow employees to freely use their own strengths to accomplish job responsibilities (Kong & Ho, 2016; Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016), which provides important opportunities to deploy strengths at work for employees. Taken together, strengths-based HR system acts as a crucial role in boosting employee strengths use. As such, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Strengths-based HR system is positively associated with employee strengths use.

Employee Strengths Use, Task Performance, and Innovative Behavior

A considerable body of research has revealed that employee strengths use could bring out a variety of positive outcomes such as increased job satisfaction (Pang & Ruch, 2019), work engagement (Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016), organizational citizenship behavior (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017), and decreased absenteeism (Van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii, 2016). In addition, this article postulates that employee strengths use is also related to increased task performance and innovative behavior.

Task performance involves activities that are formally required by the organization (Debusscher et al., 2017). Job demands-resources theory suggests that personal resources like job resources can trigger employee motivational process and then enables employee to engage more at work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Employee strengths use has been identified as an important personal resource because it helps employees attain goals, decreases employees’ feelings of job demands, and promotes employees’ learning, growth, and development (Bakker & Van Wingerden, 2021; Van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii, 2016). Based on the above rationale, employee strengths use can inspire employees’ intrinsic motivation that, in turn, makes employees engage more at work (Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016). Given that work engagement has a predictive value for task performance (Bakker et al., 2012), employee strengths use may boost task performance. Previous empirical research has provided support for the positive nexus of employee strengths use with task performance (Kong & Ho, 2016; Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017). Thus, we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Employee strengths use is positively associated with task performance.

Employee innovative behavior refers to “an employee’s intentional introduction or application of new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to his or her work role, work unit, or organization” (Yuan & Woodman, 2010, p. 324). It includes generation, promotion, and realization of new idea, and these three processes are not continuous (Janssen, 2011). Innovative behavior has been regarded as an important type of employee performance (i.e., extra-role performance), especially in today’s rapidly changing business environment (Panaccio et al., 2015). It is worth noting that innovative behavior is risky (Scott & Bruce, 1994). In this regard, when employees innovate at work, a large number of resources of employees will be depleted such as personal, psychological, and job resources (Hunter et al., 2017). Strengths use itself is a specific form of personal resources (Kwok & Fang, 2021), and it therefore can provide important resource support for innovation.

In addition, employees who capitalize on their own strengths at work tend to feel stronger authentic self (Ghielen et al., 2018) and intrinsic motivation (Linley et al., 2009) and higher person-job fit such as fit between employee interest and job tasks (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011), such positive feelings reflect employees’ intrinsic interest in their tasks. Scholars have pointed out that employees’ intrinsic interest in their tasks would positively influence their innovative behaviors (T. Chen et al., 2016; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). As such, it is reasonable to believe that employee strengths use contributes to innovative behavior. Prior research has also indicated that employee strengths use has a positive association with innovative behavior (Bakker & Van Woerkom, 2018). Based on the above reasoning and empirical findings, we derived the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Employee strengths use is positively associated with innovative behavior.7

The Mediating Effect of Employee Strengths Use

Combining Hypothesis 1 with Hypotheses 2 and 3, we anticipated that employee strengths use serves as a mediator in the relationship of strengths-based HR system with task performance and with innovative behavior. According to AMO model, employees who have the ability, motivation, and opportunity to execute a given behavior are more apt to perform the behavior, such behavior will further impact employees’ job performance (Cui & Yu, 2021). Based on this logic and Hypotheses 1–3, it is reasonable to expect that strengths-based HR system positively influences employee strengths use and, in turn, task performance and innovative behavior of employee. Previous research revealing that organizational support for strengths use influences employees primarily through employee strengths use also provides preliminary evidence for this argument in that strengths-based HR system can be viewed as an important manifestation of organizational support for strengths use (Van Woerkom et al., 2016). In sum, we proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Employee strengths use mediates the relationship between strengths-based HR system and employee task performance.

Hypothesis 5: Employee strengths use mediates the relationship between strengths-based HR system and employee innovative behavior.

Method

Sample and Procedures

This study adopted convenient sampling to obtain participants working in various organizations (e.g., manufacturing, energy, consulting, and public service industries) in China. The first author of the current study contacted 96 employees from different organizations through his social network and invited them to participate in this study. After informed them of the purpose and data collection procedures of this study, 85 employees were willing to help us gather data. In addition, we asked the 85 employees to invite their colleagues in the same organization to participate in the current study. Each employee was requested to invite five colleagues at least to join us. We promised that information related to participants is confidential strictly and ensured anonymity. To obtain paired data, each participant was distributed a fixed code.

Data from participants and their supervisors were collected at three points in time, spaced by a 2-week interval. In the first phase, we asked participants to complete questionnaire comprising demographic variables, organizational size, and strengths-based HR system scale. A total of 367 questionnaires were received. In the second phase, participants who responded in the first phase were asked to complete employee strengths use measure. We received 318 questionnaires, showing 86.65% response rate relative to the first phase. Finally, we requested participants who responded in the second phase to send task performance and innovative behavior scales to their supervisors so as to obtain supervisor-rated task performance and innovative behavior. A total of 284 questionnaires were received. By the fixed code, we derived 205 valid paired data from 56 organizations.

Among 205 participants, 49.80% were male and 50.20% were female; 66.30% had bachelor’s degree or below, 33.30% had master’s degree, and .50% had doctor’s degree; 75.60% were leaders; and 24.40% were nonleaders. The average age of participants was 32.72 years old, standard deviation (SD) was 6.72. The average organizational tenure of participants was 6.41 years (SD = 5.56). As for position type, 13.70% employees were production position, 63.40% management position, and 22.90% research and development position. Among 56 organizations, with respect to organizational size, 32.70% were less than 251 employees, 11.70% were 251–500 employees, 12.20% were 501–1,000 employees, 16.10% were 1,001–2,500 employees, 7.80% were 2,501–4,000 employees, and 19.50% were more than 4,000 employees.

Measures

Well-established English-based scales were used to measure employee strengths use, task performance, and innovative behavior. To make these scales suitable for employees whose native language is Chinese, we achieved Chinese version of employee strengths use, task performance, and innovative behavior scales following the translation–back translation procedure suggested by Brislin (1970). All items of research variables were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = extremely disagree to 5 = extremely agree.

Strengths-based HR system

We measured strengths-based HR system with a Chinese version of strengths-based HR system scale developed by Ding, Yu, and Xu (2021). An example item was “This organization develops and implements employees training programs based on strengths of employees.” The scale showed a Cronbach’s α of .96 and correlated with work engagement (r = .72, p < .001) and with perceived organizational support (r = .63, p < .001) in Ding, Yu, and Xu (2021). In this article, Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was .97 at the individual level. Because this article analyzed strengths-based HR system at the organizational level, we need to carry out aggregation tests. Interrater agreement was evaluated by R_wg. The mean R_wg of strengths-based HR system was 0.97 with a range from 0.78 to 1, more than 0.70 (Y. Chen et al., 2018). In addition, we computed the values of intraclass correlation (ICC 1) and ICC (2). ICC (1) and ICC (2) values of strengths-based HR system were .30 and .61, respectively, which are acceptable (Bliese, 2000). Accordingly, it is appropriate to nest employees’ perceptions of strengths-based HR system at the individual level within organization.

Employee strengths use

Employee strengths use was measured with a 5-item scale used by Ding, Lin, and Su (2021). The scale has been widely used in a Chinese context and exhibited good reliability (e.g., Ding & Lin, 2020). An example item was “In my job, I make the most of my strong points.” In this article, Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was .88.

Task performance

Task performance was evaluated using a 5-item scale used by Bachrach et al. (2007). The work of Bachrach et al. (2007) indicated that the scale has an adequate reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficient = .79). An example item was “This employee adequately completes assigned duties.” In this article, Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was .94.

Innovative behavior

Innovative behavior was assessed with a 6-item scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994). The scale showed a Cronbach’s α of .93 and correlated with intrinsic interest (r = .30, p < .001) and with supervisor relationship quality (r = .22, p < .001) in Yuan and Woodman (2010). An example item was “This employee develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.” In this article, Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was .90.

Control variables

According to previous studies (Chan & Lai, 2017; Guillén & Kunze, 2019), gender and age of employees might influence employees’ task performance and innovative behavior. Therefore, we treated employees’ gender and age as control variables. Gender was coded as follows: 1 = male, 2 = female. Participants were asked to indicate their age in years. In addition, consistent with research of Cooper et al. (2019), organizational scale was treated as control variable, and it was coded as follows: 1 = less than 251 employees, 2 = 251–500 employees, 3 = 501–1,000 employees, 4 = 1,001–2,500 employees, 5 = 2,501–4,000 employees, and 6 = more than 4,000 employees. Based on Becker’s (2005) suggestion, we examined research hypotheses both with and without the control variables. The results did not have changes in nature, which was supportive of robustness of our findings.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs)

We first carried out CFA to test focal research variables at the individual level (i.e., employee strengths use, task performance, and innovative behavior). Analytical results (see Table 1) of CFA showed that the three-factor measurement model has a better fit to the data than two-factor model and single-factor model. As such, these three research variables at the individual level had good discriminant validity.

Table 1.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Comparison of Measurement Models.

Models	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	▵χ²(▵df)
Three-factor model (baseline)	237.79	101	2.35	.08	.94	.93	—
Two-factor model^a	748.06	103	7.26	.18	.71	.66	510.27***(2)
One factor model^b	1,168.75	104	11.24	.22	.52	.44	930.96***(3)

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.

^a Task performance and innovative behavior combined into one factor. ^bAll combined into one factor.

***p < .001.

Subsequently, following the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003), a single unmeasured latent common method factor method was deployed to examine common method variance of research data. A latent common method factor was established and loaded on all items of employee strengths use, task performance, and innovative behavior. The four-factor measurement model comprising the common method factor and three focal research variables at the individual level (χ² = 228.84, df = 100, χ²/df = 2.29, root mean square error of approximation = .08, comparative fit index = .94, Tucker–Lewis index = .93) reported a better fit to the data than the three-factor model concerning three focal research variables at the individual level. However, the common method factor only explicated 14.21% of variance, less than 25% suggested by Williams et al. (1989). Accordingly, common method variance of this study did not give rise to a serious threat to our results.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Analyses

Table 2 displayed means, SD, and correlational coefficients of all research variables. At the individual level, strengths use had a positive correlation with task performance (r = .35, p < .01) and innovative behavior (r = .37, p < .01), and task performance had a positive correlation with innovative behavior (r = .38, p < .01).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Correlations.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
Individual level
1. Gender	1.50	0.50	—
2. Age	32.72	6.72	−.12	—
3. Strengths use	3.94	0.52	.02	.13	—
4. Task performance	4.23	0.50	.11	−.01	.35**	—
5. Innovative behavior	3.70	0.60	−.09	−.01	.37**	.38**	—
Organizational level
6. Organizational size	3.11	1.89						—
7. Strengths-based human resource system	3.92	0.49						.26

**p < .01.

Hypotheses Testing

To test research hypotheses, a multilevel path analysis with Bayes estimation was conducted with Mplus 7.0 software. Moreover, in order to determine the significance of multilevel mediation effects, we adopted the Monte Carlo method with 20,000 random replications to estimate confidence intervals (CIs) of multilevel mediation effects. In this article, Level 1 variables were gender, age (control variables), employee strengths use (mediator variable), task performance, and innovative behavior (dependent variables), while Level 2 variables were organizational size (control variable) and strengths-based HR system (independent variable). Path coefficients were reported in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 1 postulated that strengths-based HR system has a positive relationship with employee strengths use. The relationship of strengths-based HR system with employee strengths use was significant (b = .29, SE = .09, p < .01), supporting for Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 assumed that employee strengths use has a positive relationship with task performance. The relationship between employee strengths use and task performance was significant (b = .23, SE = .05, p < .001), providing support for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 anticipated that employee strengths use is positively related to innovative behavior. The association of employee strengths use with innovative behavior was significant (b = .31, SE = .06, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 received support.

Hypothesis 4 assumed that employee strengths use mediates the relationship between strengths-based HR system and task performance of employee. The mediational effect of employee strengths use on the linkage between strengths-based HR system and task performance was significant (b = .06, SE = .03, p < .01, 95% CI [.03, .11]). Thus, Hypothesis 4 obtained support. Hypothesis 5 anticipated that employee strengths use acts as a mediator between strengths-based HR system and innovative behavior of employee. The mediational effect of employee strengths use on the strengths-based HR system–innovative behavior relationship was significant (b = .09, SE = .03, p < .01, 95% CI [.04, .14]). Hence, Hypothesis 5 received support.

Discussion

This article sought to investigate the cross-level relationship of strengths-based HR system with employee performance (i.e., supervisor-rated employee task performance and on supervisor-rated employee innovative behavior) via employee strengths use. Data from 205 employees working in 56 organizations in China were applied to test our hypotheses. All of claims received support for research data. First, the results showed that strengths-based HR system has a positive relationship with employee strengths use. This finding dovetails with previous research revealing that organizational support for strengths use is able to significantly facilitate employee strengths use (Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016). AMO model (Pak et al., 2019) can be used to elaborate on the positive relationship of strengths-based HR system with employee strengths use. Specifically, strengths-based HR system cultivates employees’ ability to strengths use, stimulates employees’ motivation to use strengths, and provides employees with more opportunities to leverage strengths at work. This article is the first to empirically examine the association of strengths-based HR system with employee strengths use, which deepens our understanding of the connotation of strengths-based HR system and provides a piece of important evidence for effectiveness of strengths-based HR system.

Second, this article extends previous strategic HR management research by revealing the indirect relationship between strengths-based HR system and supervisor-rated employee performance via employee strengths use. High-performance work system, high-involvement work system, and high-commitment work system have been the main research themes for researchers in the field of strategic HR management (Boxall & Macky, 2009; Harvey & Turnbull, 2020). However, these bundles of HR practices are thought to be deficits-based HR management strategy (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015). Driven by positive organizational behavior that aims to investigate positive subjective experiences, positive individual traits, and positive institutions (Luthans, 2002), strengths-based HR principle has gradually attracted scholars’ attention (Avey et al., 2012; Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015). Nevertheless, there remains a paucity of empirical literature on effectiveness of strengths-based HR principle. This study confirmed that strengths-based HR system contributes to employee strengths use and then to employee performance (i.e., task performance and innovative behavior), which not only reveals the underlying mechanism of the relationship between strengths-based HR system and employee performance but provides a new perspective of understanding of effectiveness of strategic HR management and opens a new door for strategic HR management research.

Third, although extant literature has shown that employees’ perceptions of strengths-based HR system is beneficial to work engagement (Ding, Yu, & Xu, 2021) and positive affect (Van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), research on strengths-based HR system as a latest HR system construct is still in its initial phase. Very little empirical literature investigated the effects of strengths-based HR system at the organizational level. Therefore, this article enriches empirical research on effects of strengths-based HR system and provides a new pathway for improving employee performance by revealing the cross-level relationships between strengths-based HR system, employee strengths use, and supervisor-rated employee performance.

Practical Implications

Practical implications of this article were threefold. First, in today’s rapidly changing business environment, in order for enhancing effectiveness of strategic HR management, HR managers should transfer their focuses from on employees’ deficits correction to on employees’ strengths use in that strengths use enables employees to consistently achieve near-perfect performance (Bakker & Van Woerkom, 2018). Scholars have found out a large number of ways of stimulating employees to deploy their strengths at work. For instance, perceived organizational support for strengths use has been demonstrated to have important role in motivating employees’ intrinsic motivation to use strengths (Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016). Allan et al. (2021) pointed out that helping individuals recognize their strengths is also a vital method of inspiring strengths use. Second, this article confirmed the effectiveness of strengths-based HR system in improving employee strengths use and employee performance, which means that organizations should attempt to design and implement strengths-based HR system to improve organizational effectiveness. Some scholars have provided important practical guides for successfully applying strengths-based HR practices. For example, Bouskila-Yam and Kluger (2011) displayed the detailed procedures for designing strengths-based performance appraisal. Bibb (2016) clearly demonstrated what are the crucial factors should be considered in the process of implementing strengths-based recruitment and development. Third, from the employees’ perspective, employees should proactively identify their own strengths so as to play to strengths at work. The Values in Action tool, Clifton StrengthsFinder, and R2 Strengths Profiler can help employees identify strengths (Biswas-Diener et al., 2016).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This article had several limitations. First, a relatively small sample might limit the robustness of our findings. Specifically, merely five employees or less for each organization might enlarge interrater agreement and ICC of each organization. Therefore, future research should collect data from more employees for each organization to improve the robustness of our findings. Second, we adopted employee-rated strengths-based HR system. Arthur and Boyles (2007) have indicated that organization-level HR leaders might have more comprehensive understanding of their organizational HR system. Therefore, future research should use HR leader–rated strengths-based HR system to further examine the effectiveness of strengths-based HR system. Third, previous research has illustrated that employees with different cultural orientations might have different responses to strengths-based practices (Meyers et al., 2019). For example, employees with a high level of individualism orientation might benefit more from strengths-based HR system (Meyers et al., 2019). However, the current study did not focus on this point rather than merely investigate the mediating role of employee strengths use in the effects of strengths-based HR system. As such, researchers should attempt to test whether the effectiveness of strengths-based HR system is contingent on employees’ cultural orientations in the future research.

Conclusion

Drawing from AMO model, this article empirically investigated the effectiveness of strengths-based HR system by developing and testing a cross-level mediation model regarding strengths-based HR system, employee strengths use, and supervisor-rated employee performance (i.e., task performance and innovative behavior) and found that strengths-based HR system could facilitate employee strengths use and then improves supervisor-rated employee performance. Our findings help us better understand the connotation of strengths-based HR system, reveal the process mechanism underlying the relationship between strengths-based HR system and employee performance, and contribute to advancing strategic HR management theory and research.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the North China Electric Power University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The data that support the findings of this study are available from HD (believedh@126.com), upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the employees who participated in this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2020MS046).”

ORCID iD

Enhai Yu

References

Allan

B. A.

Owens

R. L.

Kim

Douglass

R. P.

Hintz

(2021). Strengths and satisfaction in first year undergraduate students: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(1), 94–104.

Arthur

J. B.

Boyles

(2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77–92.

Avey

J. B.

Luthans

Hannah

S. T.

Sweetman

Peterson

(2012). Impact of employees’ character strengths of wisdom on stress and creative performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 165–181.

Bachrach

D. G.

Wang

Bendoly

Zhang

(2007). Importance of organizational citizenship behaviour for overall performance evaluation: Comparing the role of task interdependence in China and the USA. Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 255–276.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Lieke

(2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 555–564.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Wingerden

(2021). Do personal resources and strengths use increase work engagement? The effects of a training intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(1), 20–30.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Woerkom

(2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Canadian Psychology, 59(1), 38–46.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.

10.

Bibb

(2016). Strengths-based recruitment and development: A practical guide to transforming talent management strategy for business results. Kogan Page.

11.

Biswas-Diener

Kashdan

T. B.

Lyubchik

(2016). Psychological strengths at work. In Oades

L. G.

Steger

M. F.

Delle Fave

Passmore

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work (pp. 34–47). Wiley-Blackwell.

12.

Biswas-Diener

Kashdan

T. B.

Minhas

(2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.

13.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

14.

Boon

Den Hartog

D. N.

Lepak

D. P.

(2019). A systematic review of human resource management systems and their measurement. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2498–2537.

15.

Bouskila-Yam

Kluger

A. N.

(2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 137–147.

16.

Boxall

Macky

(2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.

17.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

18.

Chan

S. H. J.

Lai

H. Y. I.

(2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 70, 214–223.

19.

Chen

Leung

(2016). When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 123–158.

20.

Chen

Jiang

Y. J.

Tang

Cooke

F. L.

(2018). High-commitment work systems and middle managers’ innovative behavior in the Chinese context: The moderating role of work-life conflicts and work climate. Human Resource Management, 57(5), 1317–1334.

21.

Connelly

B. L.

Certo

S. T.

Ireland

R. D.

Reutzel

C. R.

(2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.

22.

Cooper

Wang

Bartram

Cooke

F. L.

(2019). Well-being-oriented human resource management practices and employee performance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and resilience. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 85–97.

23.

Cui

(2021). A cross-level examination of team-directed empowering leadership and subordinates’ innovative performance: an AMO theory perspective. International Journal of Manpower. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2020-0099

24.

Debusscher

Hofmans

De Fruyt

(2017). The multiple face (t) s of state conscientiousness: Predicting task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 78–85.

25.

Delery

J. E.

Roumpi

(2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: Is the field going in circles? Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 1–21.

26.

Ding

Lin

(2020). Exploring the relationship between core self-evaluation and strengths use: The perspective of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 1–5.

27.

Ding

Lin

(2021). Employee strengths use and innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 15(2), 350–362.

28.

Ding

(2021). Development and validation of perceived strengths-based human resource system scale. International Journal of Manpower. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2020-0466

29.

Dubreuil

Forest

Courcy

(2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 335–349.

30.

Ghielen

S. T. S.

van Woerkom

Christina Meyers

(2018). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 573–585.

31.

Guillén

Kunze

(2019). When age does not harm innovative behavior and perceptions of competence: Testing interdepartmental collaboration as a social buffer. Human Resource Management, 58(3), 301–316.

32.

Han

J. H.

Kang

I. S.

Kehoe

R. R.

Lepak

D. P.

(2019). The goldilocks effect of strategic human resource management? Optimizing the benefits of a high-performance work system through the dual alignment of vertical and horizontal fit. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1388–1412.

33.

Harvey

Turnbull

(2020). Ricardo flies Ryanair: Strategic human resource management and competitive advantage in a single European aviation market. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(4), 553–565.

34.

Hunter

S. T.

Cushenbery

L. D.

Jayne

(2017). Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1183–1195.

35.

Janssen

(2011). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

36.

Jiang

Lepak

D. P.

Han

Hong

Kim

Winkler

A. L.

(2012). Clarifying the construct of human resource systems: Relating human resource management to employee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 73–85.

37.

Kong

D. T.

V. T.

(2016). A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining its determinant and performance implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(1), 15–25.

38.

Kwok

S. Y.

Fang

(2021). A cross-lagged panel study examining the reciprocal relationships between positive emotions, meaning, strengths use and study engagement in primary school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(3), 1033–1053.

39.

Wang

Van Jaarsveld

D. D.

Lee

G. K.

D. G.

(2018). From employee-experienced high-involvement work system to innovation: An emergence-based human resource management framework. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 2000–2019.

40.

Lin

Y. T.

Liu

N. C.

(2019). Corporate citizenship and employee outcomes: Does a high-commitment work system matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1079–1097.

41.

Linley

P. A.

Woolston

Biswas-Diener

(2009). Strengths coaching with leaders. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37–48.

42.

Littman-Ovadia

Lavy

Boiman-Meshita

(2017). When theory and research collide: Examining correlates of signature strengths use at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 527–548.

43.

Luthans

(2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 57–72.

44.

Meyers

M. C.

Adams

B. G.

Sekaja

Buzea

Cazan

A. M.

Gotea

Stefenel

van Woerkom

(2019). Perceived organizational support for the use of employees’ strengths and employee well-being: a cross-country comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(6), 1825–1841.

45.

Mphahlele

Els

De Beer

L. T.

Mostert

(2018). Investigating strengths and deficits to increase work engagement: A longitudinal study in the mining industry. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 1–16.

46.

Pak

Kooij

D. T.

De Lange

A. H.

Van Veldhoven

M. J.

(2019). Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review, 29(3), 336–352.

47.

Panaccio

Henderson

D. J.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Cao

(2015). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657–675.

48.

Pang

Ruch

(2019). Fusing character strengths and mindfulness interventions: Benefits for job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 150–162.

49.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

50.

Rath

Conchie

(2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams and why people follow. Gallup Press.

51.

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.

52.

Van Woerkom

Bakker

A. B.

Nishii

L. H.

(2016). Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 141–150.

53.

Van Woerkom

Meyers

M. C.

(2015). My strengths count! effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 81–103.

54.

Van Woerkom

Mostert

Els

Bakker

A. B.

De Beer

Rothmann

Jr . (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975.

55.

Van Woerkom

Oerlemans

Bakker

A. B.

(2016). Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 384–397.

56.

Williams

L. J.

Cote

J. A.

Buckley

M. R.

(1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468.

57.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

Kashdan

T. B.

Hurling

(2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15–19.

58.

Yuan

Woodman

R. W.

(2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.