Human resource strategies for organizational ambidexterity
| Date | 03 June 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2017-0228 |
| Published date | 03 June 2019 |
| Pages | 678-693 |
| Author | Andrea Kim |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Human resource strategies for
organizational ambidexterity
Andrea Kim
Department of Organization and Human Resources,
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to propose a comprehensive framework that delineates how human
resource (HR) practices are differentially configured for exploitative and explorative innovation as well as
how the sets of HR practices support these two types of innovation.
Design/methodology/approach –Based on the structuralambidexterity approach and a bottom-up process in
the multilevel theories, this research derives the need for the differential managerial structures for exploitation and
exploration at the unit level. In addition, the Input–Process–Outcome model of team effectiveness and multilevel
theories are employed to discuss the internal nature (e.g. resources, work styles) of exploiting and exploring units.
Finally, building on strategic HR management literature, this research configures exploitation-targeted and
exploration-targeted HR systems and delves into how these differentiated HR systems generate differential inputs
of human capital resources and thereby foster exploitative and explorative innovation processes.
Findings –This research proposes several factors for exploitation and exploration, including: necessary
inputs (i.e. commitment, narrowness, and cohesion for exploitation vs thoughtfulness, breadth, and
openness for exploration), idiosyncratic innovation processes (i.e. convergent collective cognition vs divergent
collective cognition), and differentiated HR systems comprised of different forms of unit staffing
(homogeneity vs heterogeneity), performance appraisal, incentives, and training and development(short-term
vs long-term orientation).
Originality/value –The proposed theoretical framework contributes to an improved understanding of the
psychological foundation of organizational ambidexterity and systematizing how diverse HR practices work
together to elicit exploitative and explorative innovation from employees.
Keywords Exploitation, Ambidexterity, Strategic human resource management
Paper type Conceptual paper
Organizational ambidexterity, defined as the organizational capability to simultaneously achieve
exploitation and exploration (Gupta et al., 2006; March, 1991), has been investigated in diverse
disciplines (Marín-Idárraga et al., 2016). In the innovation management literature, researchers
have distinguished exploitative innovation involving incremental change and explorative
innovation resulting in radical change. Given the fact that most large firms are faced with a
challenge “to achieve breakthrough innovations while also making steady improvements to an
existing business”(O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004, p. 74), organizational ambidexterity has been
acknowledged as a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008).
As O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) noted, prior research has widely reported evidence for the
positive linkages between organizational ambidexterity and diverse outcomes(e.g.salesgrowth,
perceptual performance, innovation, market valuation). Furthermore, those positive linkages
have been confirmed by meta-analytic reviews ( Junni et al., 2013; Mueller et al.,2013).
Despite the growing consensus on the positive ambidexterity-performance linkage at the
organization level, the existing literature lacks a systematic understanding on the ambidextrous
processes within organizations (Marín-Idárraga et al., 2016; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008).
Prior research has provided meaningful implications for creating ambidextrous organizations
by identifying the role of human resource (HR) management and other contextual
(e.g. organizational and inter-organizational) factors (Junni et al., 2015). However, still more
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 4, 2019
pp. 678-693
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-09-2017-0228
Received 27 September 2017
Revised 8 February 2018
5June2018
Accepted 15 June 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
An earlier version of this research was presented at the 31st Strategic Management Society Annual
International Conference, Miami, FL.
678
ER
41,4
research is required to examine the origins of exploitation and exploration and thereby how
those determinants specifically equip organizations with the capability to conduct exploitation
and exploration (Gupta et al., 2006; Junni et al., 2015). While innovation researchers have
increasingly examined concrete foundations such as the cognitive styles of CEOs (de Visser and
Faems, 2015), past studies have been fragmented by focusing on a single aspect ( Junni et al.,
2015) and many antecedents of the developmental process of organizational ambidexterity are
still unknown (Cantarello et al., 2012).
This research aims to theorize an integrated framework that explains how organizational
ambidexterity is shaped at the unit level. Based on a bottom-up process of the multilevel
theories (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000) and the structural ambidexterity approach (Tushman
and O’Reilly, 1996), this theoretical framework begins with the premise that sub-units in
organizations are separated and aligned with exploitation and exploration, constituting that
organizational ambidexterity leads to organizational performance. Then, the Input–
Process–Outcome (IPO) model of team effectiveness (Mathieu et al., 2008; McGrath, 1964) is
employed to elaborate on the specific components of unit level exploitative and explorative
innovation. The IPO model is a useful framework in distinguishing the components of both
types of innovation and determining variation between the two (Simsek, 2009). Finally,
extending the internal fit perspective ( Jiang, Lepak, Hu and Baer, 2012; Jiang, Lepak, Han,
Hong, Kim and Winkler, 2012) in the strategic HR management literature, this research
attempts to theoretically identify and locate specific HR practices regarding the inputs,
processes and outcomes of exploitation and exploration at the unit level.
The comprehensive framework, illustrated in Figure 1, makes meaningful contributions to
management literature. First, this research provides insights into the differentiated nature of
human capital resources for exploitative and explorative innovation. Human capital resources
are defined as collective knowledge, skills, abilities and traits at the unit level (Nyberg et al., 2014;
Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011). This research identified unique qualitative aspects of human
capital resources for different types of innovation, which include commitment, narrowness
and cohesion as collective traits of employees in the work unit for exploitation as well as
thoughtfulness, breadth and openness required for employees of the exploration work unit.
Furthermore, this research develops the dual mechanisms through which these idiosyncratic
human capital resources are processed and thereby result in innovative outcomes. The core ideas
of this research promote our understanding of how exploitation and exploration operate and
how they are realized at the unit level (Cantarello et al., 2012). Second, this research derives some
of the HR practices that can be instrumental in promoting organizations to be ambidextrous and
Homogeneity-based staffing
Short-term oriented
training and development
Short-term oriented
performance appraisal/incentives
Long-term oriented
performance appraisal/incentives
Long-term oriented
training and development
Heterogeneity-based staffing
A Unit Level HR System Targeted
for Exploration
Organizational performance
Processes Outcomes
Convergent
collective
cognition
Exploitative
innovation
Commitment
narrowness
cohesion
Inputs
A Unit Level HR System Targeted
for Exploitation
Divergent
collective
cognition
Explorative
innovation
Thoughtfulness
breadth
openness
Organizational ambidexterity
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
679
Human
resource
strategies
To continue reading
Request your trial