Human Resource Management
Call for Papers
AMBIDEXTERITY IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Guest Co-Editors:
Cary Cooper, Distinguished Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health, Lancaster University and Chair of Academy of Social Sciences, c.cooper1@lancaster.ac.uk
and
Shlomo Tarba, Lecturer of Entrepreneurship and Global Strategic Alliances, The Open University, Raanana, Israel, tarba2003@gmail.com
The study of organizational design-despite its critical importance for organizational performance-has been unduly neglected in the recent years. Pointing to the daunting complexity of the subject, Greenwood and Miller (2011) argue that the organizational design topic can be successfully investigated through the conjoint application of theories from strategic management and organization theory to different types of organizations.
In this context, organizational ambidexterity (OA), broadly defined as the ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation (exploration and exploitation) and change resulting from hosting multiple contradictory structures and processes within the same firm (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2004), is hence an important attribute of a successful company in the 21st century.
Recently, several scholars have examined how top management team (TMT) characteristics and actions directly impact OA (Simsek, 2009). For example, OA has been argued to be enhanced by TMT cognitive frames that take both exploitation and exploration into account (Smith & Tushman, 2005), as well as TMT behavioral integration and unity (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006). In the same vein, Jansen, George, van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2008) explored the role of senior team attributes and leadership behavior in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members and achieving organizational ambidexterity, and they reached the conclusion that transformational leadership increases the effectiveness of senior team attributes in ambidextrous organizations and moderates the effectiveness of senior team social integration and contingency rewards.
The challenge of ambidexterity lies in matching the organization's strategy with its resources (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008), such as human resource management practices (Cartwright and Cooper, 2000; McClean and Collins, 2011), leadership (Nemanich & Vera, 2009), team exploratory and exploitative learning (Kostopoulos and Bozionelos, 2011), strategic alliances formation and management (Lin, Yang, & Demirkan, 2008; Tiwana, 2008), marketplace agility (Dyer & Ericksen, 2005; Shafer, Dyer, Kilty, Amos, & Ericksen, 2001), manufacturing flexibility (Jin, Hopkins, and Wittmer, 2010), and the interaction between CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance (Nadkarni and Herrmann, 2010), and so on.
However, in spite of the increasing interest in organizational ambidexterity, empirical studies on how OA impacts performance remain scarce (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), and studies examining the aforementioned relationship have used a variety of outcome measures, at different levels of analysis, which has generated inconclusive findings (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Some studies have found a positive OA–performance relationship (e.g., Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004), whereas others have found a contingent effect (e.g., Lin, Yang, & Demirkan, 2007).
Thus, while research on OA antecedents is growing, the argument concerning whether and under what conditions OA leads to improved organizational performance remains poorly developed. In addition, as pointed by Simsek (2009), the antecedent conditions and explanations given in prior research on ambidexterity have been discussed independently with little conceptual cross-fertilization, and there is an absence of any efforts to synthesize the existing literature.
The aim of this Special Issue is to extend our understanding on the impact of HRM strategy and practices on ambidexterity phenomenon in the organizational settings.
We especially welcome contributions from multiple theoretical perspectives and seek cross-fertilization between the various approaches to comprehending organizations as ambidextrous systems.
We welcome empirical contributions that aim to elucidate the existing theory and enhance our understanding of the dynamic nature of ambidexterity, and explore the causal relationships between the ambidexterity, human resource management practices, and group and organizational performance.
We are open to quantitative approaches employing longitudinal or multi-level methods, as well as qualitative approaches based on case studies and discourse analysis.
However, in all papers authors should explicitly address the managerial implications of their research study.
We especially encourage submissions that address, but are not limited to, the following questions:
1. How can we conceptually redesign our view of the ambidexterity at group and
organizational level? How can we build both theory and methodology that allow
for a dynamic rather than static understanding of organizational ambidexterity in
general and in the HRM realm in particular?
2. What skills, personal competencies, and behaviors do the incumbent managers and
employees need to learn and practice, and how? What are the structural elements
of ambidexterity, and how they can be applied in different (high-tech vs. traditional
industries)?
3. What actions the company's management can and/or should take to cultivate the
appropriate behaviors and acquire, develop, and hone the much-needed skills to
transform the nowadays firms into a truly ambidextrous entity?
4. How do we conceptualize ambidexterity across different levels of analysis?
Are some groups and/or organizations more ambidextrous than others?
If so, how may groups and organizations create and sustain their ambidexterity
over time?
5. How can an organization develop an ambidexterity core competence in order to
build a unique knowledge network worldwide that its competitors find it hard
to imitate?
6. What is the impact of human resource practices (recruitment, selection, training
systems, talent attraction,career management mechanisms, compensation, etc.)
on attaining and sustaining the organizational ambidexterity?
7. What is the impact of organizational design and organizational culture on achieving
the organizational ambidexterity?
8. How can the existing knowledge about interorganizational partnerships be extended
(e.g., strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions) to the
concept of organizational ambidexterity? What are the antecedents, elements, and
consequences of ambidexterity in such partnerships?
9. How can we expand the ambidexterity phenomenon in order to integrate the
psychological, behavioral, cultural anthropology, and industrial sociology's aspects?
Manuscript Submission and Review
All papers must be based on original material and must not be under consideration by any other journal. Papers intended for the HR Science Forum will undergo a rigorous, double-blind review process to ensure relevance and quality. Papers suited for the HR Leadership Forum (more practitioner-focused pieces, case studies, interviews, etc.) will be single-blind reviewed by subject matter experts. Please see HRM's Publishing Cues for a complete description of each section. Submitted papers must also follow the HRM Style Guidelines, found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/32249/home/ForAuthors.html
The deadline for submitting papers is November 30, 2012. Direct questions about content and ideas to guest editor Dr. Shlomo Tarba at tarba2003@gmail.com. Direct all logistical questions about submitting and review to Managing Editor Ellen McCarthy at emcc@umich.edu .
Manuscripts must be submitted electronically using the Journal's web-based submission and review website called Manuscript Central: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hrm. Electronic submission through Manuscript Central is required. Manuscript Central is configured to be very intuitive; therefore, you should have little difficulty creating an account and submitting your manuscript. The online system will guide you through each step of the process.
When submitting through Manuscript Central, please submit the following documents:
1. Document 1: A "blind" copy of your manuscript. Delete all author identification from this primary document. This document may include your tables and figures, or you may include tables and figures in a separate document.
2. Document 2: Submit a separate document with information that would typically appear on the document's title page (author names, addresses, affiliations, contact information, etc.). This document may also include author biographies.
In addition:
§ Answer "Yes" to the question regarding special issue submission and clearly label your submission for the "Special Issue on Ambidexterity In HRM" in the text box provided.
§ Include a paragraph in your cover letter specifically identifying how the paper fits within the special issue theme.
§ Direct logistical questions about submitting your manuscript through Manuscript Central to Managing Editor Ellen McCarthy at emcc@umich.edu or 734-355-8788.
All other questions should be directed to Shlomo Tarba at tarba2003@gmail.com
References:
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). HR know-how in mergers and acquisitions.London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Dyer, L., & Ericksen, J. (2005). In pursuit of marketplace agility: Applying precepts of self-organizing systems to optimize human resource scalability. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 183–188.
Greenwood, R., and Miller, D. (2011). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, November, 78–88.
He, Z.-L., & P.-K. Wong. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008).
Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007.
Jin, Y., Hopkins, M. M., & Wittmer, J. L. C. (2010). Linking human capital to competitive advantages: Flexibility in a manufacturing firm's supply chain. Human Resource Management, 49(5), 939–963.
Kostopoulos K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36, 385–415.
Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53, 1645–1658.
Lubatkin, M. H., Z. Simsek, Y. Ling, & J. F. Veiga. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
McClean, E., & Collins, C. J. (2011). High-commitment HR practices, employee effort, and firm performance: Investigating the effects of HR practices across employee groups within professional services firms. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 341–363.
Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073.
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard
Business Review, April, 74–81.
Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.
Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, 40(3), 197–211.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.
Smith, W. K., & M. L. Tushman. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.