Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learninga structural perspective

  1. Mirta Díaz-Fernández 1
  2. Susana Pasamar-Reyes 1
  3. Ramón Valle-Cabrera 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Revista:
Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444,  2340-9436

Ano de publicación: 2017

Volume: 20

Número: 1

Páxinas: 63-77

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1016/J.BRQ.2016.03.002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Business Research Quarterly

Resumo

Organisational learning has become increasingly important for strategic renewal. Ambidextrous organisations are especially successful in the current environment, where firms are required to be efficient and adapt to change. Using a structural approach, this study discusses arguments about the nature of ambidexterity and identifies the kinds of human capital that better support specific learning types and HRM practices suited to these components of human capital. Results highlight learning differences between marketing and production units, as well as different HRM practices and human capital orientations. This study points out that human capital mediates between HRM practices and learning.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financial support for this article was provided by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Plan Nacional de I + D + I (ECO2010-14939).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Atuaene-Gima, K.A., Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J. Mark. 69:4 (2005), 61–83.
  • Bae, J., Lawler, J.J., Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Acad. Manag. J. 43:3 (2000), 502–517.
  • Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Person. Social Psychol. 51:6 (1986), 1173–1182.
  • Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L., Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28:2 (2003), 238–256.
  • Birkinshaw, J., Gibson, C., Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 45:4 (2004), 47–55.
  • Birkinshaw, J., Gupta, K., Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27:4 (2013), 287–298.
  • Burgelman, R., Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2002), 325–357.
  • Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. 1998, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
  • Danneels, E., The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strateg. Manag. J. 23:12 (2002), 1095–1121.
  • Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strateg. Manag. J. 21:10–11 (2000), 1105–1121.
  • Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Structure and process of diversification, compensation strategy and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 13:5 (1992), 381–397.
  • Guthrie, J.P., High involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (2001), 180–190.
  • Hammady, A.D.R., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Martinez-Costa, M., Managing knowledge for a successful competence exploration. J. Knowl. Manag. 17:2 (2013), 195–207.
  • He, Z., Wong, P., Exploration and exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15:4 (2004), 481–494.
  • James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:2 (1995), 306–309.
  • Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20:4 (2009), 797–811.
  • Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., Tarba, S., Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27:4 (2013), 299–312.
  • Jansen, J.J.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag. Sci. 52:11 (2006), 1661–1674.
  • Kang, S.C., Snell, S.A., Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. J. Manag. Stud. 46:1 (2009), 65–92.
  • Katila, R., Ahuja, G., Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manag. J. 45:6 (2002), 1183–1194.
  • Lepak, D.P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., Harden, E., A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25:1 (2006), 217–271.
  • Lepak, D.P., Snell, S.A., Examining the human resource architecture: the relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. J. Manag. 28:4 (2002), 517–543.
  • Levinthal, D.A., March, J.G., The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 14:S2 (2003), 95–112.
  • López-Cabrales, A., Real, J.C., Valle, R., Relationships between human resource management practices and organizational learning capability: the mediating role of human capital. Pers. Rev. 40:3 (2011), 344–363.
  • Lopez-Cabrales, A., Pérez-Luño, A., Cabrera, R.V., Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48 (2009), 485–503.
  • Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J.F., Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J. Manag. 32:5 (2006), 646–972.
  • March, J.G., Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2:1 (1991), 71–87.
  • O'Reilly, C., Tushman, M., Organizational ambidexterity: past, present and future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27:4 (2013), 324–338.
  • O'Reilly, C.A. III, Tushman, M.L., Capabilities at IBM. Calif. Manag. Rev. 49:4 (2007), 20–43.
  • Prange, C., Schlegelmilch, B.B., The role of ambidexterity in marketing strategy implementation: resolving the exploration–exploitation dilemma. Bus. Res. 2:2 (2009), 215–240.
  • Prieto, I.M., Revilla, E., Rodriguez-Prado, B., Managing the knowledge paradox in product development. J. Knowl. Manag. 13:3 (2009), 157–170.
  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Manag. 34:3 (2008), 375–409.
  • Satorra, A., Bentler, P.M., A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66:4 (2001), 507–514.
  • Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., A quarter-century review of human resource management in the U.S.: the growth in importance of the international perspective. Manag. Rev. 16:1 (2005), 11–35.
  • Smith, W., Tushman, M., Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16:5 (2005), 522–536.
  • Subramaniam, M., Youndt, M.A., The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad. Manag. J. 48:3 (2005), 450–463.
  • Tiwana, A., Keil, M., Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 2:6 (2007), 623–634.
  • Tremblay, M., Cote, J., Balkin, D.B., Explaining sales pay strategy using agency, transaction cost and resource dependence theories. J. Manag. Stud. 40:7 (2003), 1651–1682.
  • Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A., Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38:2 (1996), 8–29.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet