Amid the drive for high-quality innovative development, Chinese local governments are prioritizing talent attraction as a means to boost regional innovation. However, attracting talent does not equate to fostering innovation. Whether talent subsidies can truly motivate employees to innovate remains underexplored, leading to gaps in understanding the theoretical and empirical links between the two. Existing research has primarily examined the impact of talent subsidies on innovation at the enterprise or regional level, yielding mixed results. Delving into the micro-mechanisms of how talent subsidies drive employee innovation can not only enrich macro-level research but also offer practical insights for governments and enterprises in leveraging talent subsidy policies effectively. Meanwhile, the literature on social identity in organizational contexts highlights the need to investigate how social policies and socialized identities influence employees' social identity and motivation. Talent subsidies typically involve monetary subsidies, yet its role in motivating innovation is debated. Beyond financial benefits, receiving a subsidy confers a "talent" status, creating a sense of in-group identity that can enhance employees' self-esteem and learning motivation, ultimately stimulating innovative behavior. Thus, this paper employs social identity theory to analyze how talent subsidies trigger social identity and incentivize innovation, addressing the deficiencies in prior studies.
The measurement data for model variables was collected through a structured questionnaire survey, and full-time employees who received government talent subsidies were recruited via the academic research platform "Credamo" in November 2023. The participants were from 30 provinces, cities, and autonomous regions across China, including major economic hubs such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shandong. The respondents represent diverse industries, including manufacturing, electronic information, renewable energy, finance, and others. To mitigate common method bias, the questionnaire was administered in three distinct phases. A total of 468 valid responses were collected, yielding an overall response rate of 89.5%. Following the completion of variable measurements, a series of analyses were conducted, including tests for common method bias, confirmatory factor analysis, and assessments of main effects and mediating effects. The findings indicate that employees' receipt of government talent subsidies does not directly increase their innovative behavior. Instead, the subsidies enhance innovative behavior indirectly by significantly boosting employees' self-efficacy. External motivation plays a significant moderating role in this relationship. When employees' external motivation is high, the positive effects of talent subsidies on self-efficacy and innovative behavior diminish, and the capacity to motivate innovation is lost. Additionally, compared to the perceived value of talent subsidies, the implementation of human resource management (HRM) practices—such as the amount of talent subsidies provided—has a weaker incentive effect on employees' self-efficacy and innovative behavior.
In terms of theoretical contributions, firstly, this paper provides a micro-mechanical explanation of the impact of government talent subsidy policies on employees' innovative behavior; secondly, this paper uses talent subsidies as a social policy as a social identity antecedent, responding to the academic community's call to strengthen research on the social identity of groups outside the organization and its impact; thirdly, this paper verifies the negative moderating effect of external motivation, expanding the boundaries of social identity in motivating employee behavior; finally, it verifies the difference in the motivational effect and boundary between the amount of talent subsidies and employees' perception of them, contributing to the implementation of human resource management practices and the perception literature.
In practice, companies can help employees achieve "social recognition" and boost innovation by publicly recognizing their achievements, offering additional rewards, and providing knowledge and skills training. To mitigate the negative impact of external motivation, companies could tie subsidies to skill development tasks in performance evaluations. Employees not receiving subsidies may experience psychological disadvantages or feelings of unfairness due to social comparisons, and thus companies should address this by increasing salary, showing more care, and organizing team-building activities to motivate all employees to participate in innovation. Governments should optimize talent subsidy policies by expanding their scope, increasing intensity, and directing them strategically. This includes extending subsidies to more employees, providing group subsidies for research teams and enhancing overall innovation efficiency.
[1] 陈小平, 陈萍, 徐辉. 人才政策与科创企业创新绩效:人才创新行为及工作敬业度的双中介作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023,40(20): 131-140.
[2] 金智, 彭辽. 地方人才引进政策与公司人力资本[J]. 金融研究, 2022,65(10): 117-134.
[3] 赵全军, 季浩. 创新驱动背景下的地方政府人才政策竞争:效能测度与对策研究——基于Z省11个地级及以上城市的分析[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2023,39(5): 64-73.
[4] 薛楚江, 谢富纪. 政府人才政策、人力资本与区域创新[J]. 系统管理学报, 2022,31(5): 920-930.
[5] 陈丽君, 胡晓慧. 政策感知、组织创新氛围与人才创新绩效——人才自我创新期待的中介作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2024,41(3): 142-151.
[6] 冉建宇, 胡培, 童洪志. 创客政策感知对其创新行为的影响机理——知识获取的中介与创新自我效能感的调节[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2020,37(13): 1-9.
[7] 孙鲲鹏, 罗婷, 肖星. 人才政策、研发人员招聘与企业创新[J]. 经济研究, 2021,56(8): 143-159.
[8] 陈新明, 萧鸣政, 张睿超. 城市“抢人大战”的政策特征、效力测度及优化建议[J]. 中国人力资源开发, 2020,37(5): 59-69.
[9] ZHANG Y, LONG L, WU T, et al. When is pay for performance related to employee creativity in the Chinese context? the role of guanxi HRM practice, trust in management, and intrinsic motivation[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2015,36(5): 698-719.
[10] OGBONNAYA C, DANIELS K, NIELSEN K. Does contingent pay encourage positive employee attitudes and intensify work[J]. Human Resource Management Journal, 2017,27(1): 94-112.
[11] GRECO L M, PORCK J P, WALTER S L, et al. A meta-analytic review of identification at work: relative contribution of team, organizational, and professional identification[J]. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 2021,107(5): 795-830.
[12] WEISMAN H, WU C, YOSHIKAWA K, et al. Antecedents of organizational identification: a review and agenda for future research[J]. Journal of Management, 2022,49(6): 2030-2061.
[13] VOUGH H, CARDDOR M, CAZA B, et al. The identity conflict process: appraisal theory as an integrative framework for understanding identity conflict at work[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2025,110(2): 149-176.
[14] ASHFORTH B. Distinguished scholar invited essay: exploring identity and identification in organizations: time for some course corrections[J]. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2016,23(4): 361-373.
[15] 〖JP+1〗ASHFORTH B E, MAEL F A. Back to the future: what we′d change in "social identity theory and the organization"[J]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2024,33(4): 1-7.
[16] ASHFORTH B E, SCHINOFF B S. Identity under construction: how individuals come to define themselves in organizations[J]. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2016,3(1): 111-137.
[17] TAJFEL H, BILLIG M G, BUNDY R P, et al. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour[J]. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1971,1(2): 149-178.
[18] CHARNESS G, CHEN Y. Social identity, group behavior, and teams[J]. Annual Review of Economics, 2020,12: 691-713.
[19] COOPER D, THATCHER S. Identification in organizations: the role of self-concept orientations and identification motives[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2010,35(4): 516-538.
[20] ASHFORTH B, HARRISON S, CORLEY K. Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions[J]. Journal of Management, 2008,34(3): 325-374.
[21] HENNESSEY B A, AMABILE T M. Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity[J]. American Psychologist, 1998,53(6): 674-675.
[22] SELENKO E, MAKIKANGAS A, STRIDE C B. Does job insecurity threaten who you are? introducing a social identity perspective to explain well-being and performance consequences of job insecurity[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2017,38(6): 856-875.
[23] HASLAM S A, CORNELISSEN J P, WERNER M D. Metatheories and metaphors of organizational identity: integrating social constructionist, social identity, and social actor perspectives within a social interactionist model[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2017,19(3): 318-336.
[24] SLUSS D M,ASHFORTH B E,GIBSON K R.The search for meaning in (new) work: task significance and newcomer plasticity[J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2012,81(2): 199-208.
[25] TAMS S.Constructing self-efficacy at work: a person-centered perspective[J]. Personnel Review, 2008,37(2): 165-183.
[26] KALIN M, SAMBANIS N. How to think about social identity[J]. Annual Review of Political Science, 2018,21: 239-257.
[27] SPEARS R. Social influence and group identity[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2021,72: 367-390.
[28] MUMFORD M D, MEDEIROS K E, PARTLOW P J. Creative thinking: processes, strategies, and knowledge[J]. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2012,46(1): 30-47.
[29] BANDURA A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited[J]. Journal of Management, 2012,38(1): 9-44.
[30] HIRST G, VAN DICK R, VAN KNIPPENBERG D. A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2009,30(7): 963-982.
[31] GERHART B, FANG M. Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: revisiting long-held beliefs[J]. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2015,2: 489-521.
[32] 张勇, 龙立荣, 贺伟. 绩效薪酬对员工突破性创造力和渐进性创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014,46(12): 1880-1896.
[33] RIKETTA M,VAN DICK R,ROUSSEAU D M.Employee attachment in the short and long run[J]. Zeitschrift Für Personalpsychologie, 2006,5(3): 85-93.
[34] NISHII L H, WRIGHT P M. Variability within organizations: implications for strategic human resource management[M]//SMITH D B. The people make the place: dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations. Psychology Press, 2008: 225-248.
[35] PHILLIPS L A. Challenging assumptions about habit: a response to Hagger (2019)[J]. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2020,47: 101502.
[36] 刘凌瑜, 柳志. 乡村治理视域下可回收垃圾市场化处置的村民意愿及行为研究——以湖南省为例[J]. 湖南社会科学, 2022,56(4): 127-133.
[37] TREMBLAY M, BLANCHARD C, TAYLOR S, et al. Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: its value for organizational psychology research[J]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 2009,41(4): 213-226.
[38] SCHWARZER R, BALER J, KWIATEK P, et al. The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: comparison of the german, spanish, and chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale[J]. Applied Psychology, 1997,46(1): 69-88.
[39] SCOTT S G, BRUCE R A. Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1994,37(3): 580-607.
[40] MORGESON F P, HUMPHREY S E. The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91(6): 1321-1339.
[41] KONG D, PARK S, PENG J. Appraising and reacting to perceived pay for performance: leader competence and warmth as critical contingencies[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2023,66(2): 402-431.
[42] ZHANG Y, HE W, LONG L, et al. Does pay for individual performance truly undermine employee creativity? the different moderating roles of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations[J]. Human Resource Management, 2022,61(1): 21-38.
[43] 马君, 赵红丹. 任务意义与奖励对创造力的影响——创造力角色认同的中介作用与心理框架的调节作用[J]. 南开管理评论, 2015,18(6): 46-59.
[44] 胡斌, 毛艳华. 中国情境下高绩效人力资源实践对工作幸福感的跨层影响[J]. 管理评论, 2017,29(7): 163-173.
[45] 高中华. 工匠精神对员工主动性行为的影响机制研究[J]. 管理学报, 2022,19(6): 851-860.
WeChat Service Account
WeChat Official Account
WeCom Customer Service