Download Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration – Challenges of

Master's Thesis Human Resource Studies
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration –
Challenges of Ambidexterity and their Solutions
Yvonne Beurskens (842781)
Subject: Ambidexterity
prof. dr. Jaap Paauwe
dr. Christina Meyers
January 2016 – November 2016
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 7
Strategic Human Resources Management ................................................................................. 7
Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 7
Human Resource Management and the AMO model ................................................................ 8
Comparing Human Resource Management for Exploitation and Exploration .......................... 9
Coping with the Challenge of Ambidexterity .......................................................................... 13
Organizational Factors ............................................................................................................. 14
METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 16
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 19
Need for Innovation ................................................................................................................. 19
The Influence of HR on Innovation ......................................................................................... 20
Is Ambidexterity recognized? .................................................................................................. 21
Tensions in a Combined HR Policy ......................................................................................... 22
Profession Dependency ............................................................................................................ 24
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration related HR Practices .................................... 25
General Coping Mechanisms ................................................................................................... 38
Organizational Factors ............................................................................................................. 41
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 43
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 44
Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 47
Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................................................. 48
Implications for Practitioners ................................................................................................... 49
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 51
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................. 56
3
ABSTRACT
Operating in a market with increasing international competition, organizations nowadays
need to try to achieve the objectives of their business goals as well as innovate in order to survive
and create a sustained competitive advantage. This study explored the widely discussed concept
of ambidexterity that combines organizational resource exploitation and exploration. In order to
get to know more about the concept of ambidexterity and its consequences, an explorative
qualitative research was conducted. Within this research, first, a literature study was performed,
followed by semi-structured interviews with sixteen HR professionals, representing fourteen
different organizations operating in various sectors. The results of this study show some tensions
that may arise on organizational level while combining exploitation of current knowledge, skills
and abilities with exploration of new possibilities. A high workload, internal disagreement
between organizational actors and friction in the organizational climate were found as tensions
caused by this combination. Furthermore, the results of this study show that some slight tensions
may arise when exploitation and exploration related HR practices are applied. These tensions,
related to HR practices focusing on the ability, motivation and opportunity of employees, are
discussed, together with the coping mechanisms used by the organizations included in this study.
Furthermore, overall coping mechanisms used to deal with the concept of ambidexterity are
discussed. Tensions resulting from the combination of exploitation and exploration partly differed
per organization studied, which was also the case for the mechanisms used by the organizations
to cope with these experienced tensions. Important topics for organizations trying to become and
remain ambidextrous found in this study are inspiring business leaders, a supportive
organizational climate, a focus on both short and long term, a continuous dialogue between
organizational actors, strategic workforce planning and sustainable employability. This study
showed that ambidexterity is especially challenging for organizations with an ageing population
since personal development is linked to explorative behavior and is more difficult for older
employees. The purpose of this study was to create awareness on the concept of ambidexterity
and to serve as a guideline for organizations on how to deal with the challenge of today’s
innovative business market. Furthermore, the purpose of this study was to explore the concept of
ambidexterity in practice in order to see whether ambidexterity really is a relevant topic in today’s
business market. Several theoretical and practical implications will be discussed, as well as
suggestions for future research.
Key words: Innovation, ambidexterity, exploitation, exploration, tensions, AMO model, coping
mechanisms.
4
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizations are involved in an increasing worldwide competition. They have
to survive in an environment with “changing customer’s demands and rapid technical changes”
(Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2008, p. 1208). How can organizations manage to survive and
be profitable in such environments? Within the literature of Strategic Human Resource
Management (SHRM), a lot of research is devoted to the critical sources for survival and
competitive advantage (Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Schuler & MacMillen, 1984). There has been a
shift in approaches from outside-in to inside-out with regards to the sources that are critical for
survival and can create a competitive advantage for organizations. The outside-in approach, on
the one hand, emphasizes environmental opportunities and threats as critical sources (Barney,
1995). The inside-out approach on the other hand stresses that internal strengths can be a starting
point for organizational success (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). Today, the Resource Based View
(RBV) of a firm is an influential inside-out approach that emphasizes on internal resources of a
firm as sources that can create a competitive advantage when they are valuable, rare and difficult
to imitate or substitute (Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Internal resources include physical,
human and organizational resources (Barney, 1991). In this study, the focus is on human
resources, also called human capital. According to the definition provided by Wright et al. (2001),
“human capital refers to the stock of employee knowledge and skills that exist within a firm at
any given point in time” (p. 704).
Every organization has its own business goal, and uses a certain strategy to reach this
business goal. Examples of such strategies are a quality enhancement strategy, cost reduction
strategy or innovation strategy (Schuler & Jackson, 2014). In order to achieve the objectives of
their business strategies, organizations need to make sure that they exploit their existing
competencies (human capital). This exploitation of existing competencies is where Human
Resource Management (HRM) is involved. HRM includes practices and policies that are used to
manage the organization of work and the employees to do the work (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The
Human Resource strategy manages the human capital in such a way that the individual behavior
of the employees supports the achievement of the business goal. An optimal organizational
performance is achieved when the HR strategy is aligned with the organization’s business goal.
This alignment is called a strategic fit (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). In today’s business market,
however, besides trying to achieve the objectives of the business goal, organizations also need to
innovate in order to survive and create a sustained competitive advantage (Jiménez-Jiménez &
Sanz-Valle, 2008). They need to think about ways in which they can meet future demands for
products and services to enhance their future firm competitiveness (Patel, Messersmith, & Lepak,
5
2013). Organizations thus need to exploit their existing competencies, while at the same time
exploring new possibilities with limited resources to allocate. This can create a challenge for the
organization, hence also for HRM, because it needs to be linked to the objectives of the business
goal via the concept of strategic fit, but at the same needs to be agile via stimulating explorative
behavior. A challenge may arise because “the capabilities of exploitation and exploration are often
thought to compete against one another as scarce resources are divided to meet the demands of
both” (Patel et al., 2013, p. 1420). If an organizations’ business goal is entirely focused on
innovation, no challenge needs to arise because then exploitation includes the exploration of new
possibilities and therefore scarce resources meet the demands of both concepts.
The previously mentioned tension between exploitation and exploration is indicated by the
concept of ambidexterity (Patel et al., 2013; He & Wong, 2004). Literature on this concept states
that organizations need to strive for a balance between exploitation and exploration (He & Wong,
2004). They need to become ambidextrous (Patel et al., 2013; He & Wong, 2004). However, what
happens if organizations cannot find the right balance? Little empirical work is devoted to the
(mis)balance of exploitation and exploration. Therefore, this study investigated the possible
tensions between the exploitation of existing competencies and the exploration of new
possibilities. These possible tensions are studied with the use of a model that combines ability,
motivation and opportunity to determine employee performance (the AMO model) (Appelbaum,
2000; Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The subsequent research question is: What are the possible
tensions between exploitation and exploration for organizations aiming for ambidexterity and
how can they cope with these? Sub-questions formulated in order to answer this research question
are: Do organizations need to innovate?, What is the influence of HR on innovation?, Is
ambidexterity recognized?, Which general tensions do organizations experience between
exploitation and exploration?, Which tensions do organizations experience when the exploitation
and exploration related HR practices focused on ability, motivation and opportunity are applied?,
and How can organizations cope with these tensions?. A final sub-question examines the
organizational factors that influence the exploitation of existing competencies and the exploration
of new possibilities and therefore is: Which organizational factors are important when discussing
the concept of ambidexterity?. The aim of this study is to clarify the possible tensions between
exploitation and exploration in order to create awareness, and provide answers on how to cope
with these tensions, allowing organizations to use this study as a tool in trying to become or remain
ambidextrous. Furthermore, this study wants to explore the concept of ambidexterity in practice
to see whether or not today’s organizations actually strive for a combination of exploitation and
exploration.
6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Strategic Human Resource Management
This study is concerned with the strategic importance of organizing work and labor to
enhance the survival and possible competitive advantage of organizations, therefore it fits the field
of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Within the field
of SHRM, the Resource Based View has been a dominating concept (Wright et al., 2001). Today,
internal resources are thought to be one of the most critical components for strategic success
(Martell & Carroll, 1995). Therefore, “organizations nowadays are encouraged to link Human
Resource Management programs to strategic outcomes” (Martell & Carroll, 1995, p. 253).
Human Resource Management has gained strategic importance, therefore more attention
is paid to the Human Resource strategy (HR strategy) within an organization. An HR strategy
consists of multiple HR systems (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). These systems are designed for specific
employee groups and are concerned with the organization of work and the management of
employees (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). HR systems are important for the survival of organizations,
as well as for the sustained competitive advantage that organizations are striving for. HR systems,
in their turn, consist of bundles of several HR practices (e.g. recruitment and selection, and
performance management) that are designed in order to reinforce the individual behavior needed
to achieve the actual business goal and survive, as well as to create a competitive advantage
(Boxall & Purcell, 2011). This individual behavior can be focused on exploitation respectively
exploration, combined in the concept of ambidexterity. In order to provide clarity on these
concepts, next, short definitions will be given on exploitation, exploration and ambidexterity.
Definitions
What is Exploitation? Within an organization, a stable performance is achieved through
the exploitation of existing competencies (He & Wong, 2004). These existing competencies are
the current work-related knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of the organization’s human
capital (Wright et al., 2001). Exploitation includes the use and refinement of these human
resources’ current KSAs (Greve, 2007). Exploiting existing competencies can lead to, among
other things, greater employee efficiency and an extension of the employees’ current knowledge
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). It is about aligning your internal resources to the existing business
market (Patel et al., 2013).
What is Exploration? The business environment is changing rapidly. Therefore,
organizations need to be agile and explore new possibilities (Patel et al., 2013). They need to
foster innovativeness to bring forth the products and services that will enhance future firm
7
competitiveness (Patel et al., 2013). Exploration is about using the human capital’s KSAs to
search for new knowledge, products, technologies, and possibilities, and therewith adapting the
internal resources to the future business market (Greve, 2007).
The Concept of Ambidexterity. Past research has revealed that organizations can create a
sustained competitive advantage when they efficiently combine exploitation and exploration
(Patel et al., 2013). However, if organizations are forced to combine both concepts, a problem
might arise, because human resources are needed for both concepts and these are limited. They
have to divide their time and effort between exploiting their current knowledge, skills, and abilities
and exploring new possibilities. This way, no single concept can be executed optimally. A focus
on exploitation of current competencies, on the one hand, can lower an organizations’ capability
to adapt to new possibilities and future changes in the environment. A focus on the exploration of
new possibilities, on the other hand, may delay the improvement of existing competencies (He &
Wong, 2004). Ambidexterity captures this tension between exploitation and exploration within an
organization. Ambidexterity should be every organization’s strategy if they want to achieve longterm success (Lackner, Garaus, Güttel, Konlechner, & Müller, 2011). Earlier literature
emphasized the tradeoff between exploitation and exploration as insuperable (Raisch, Birkinshaw,
Probst, & Tushman, 2009). More recent literature however, points out that organizations need to
combine the two concepts at the same time (Raisch et al., 2009; Parker, 2014). Organizations that
are able to create an optimal balance between the two concepts are called ambidextrous
organizations (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). It is expected that these ambidextrous organizations
will have a superior performance because they can deal with the current business market but are
also prepared for the future (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Since the research question of this study
fits the field of Strategic Human Resource Management, next the influence of HRM on human
resources that are important for survival and can create a competitive advantage is discussed.
Human Resource Management and the AMO model
As mentioned, SHRM is concerned with the strategic importance of organizing work and
labor to enhance the survival and possible competitive advantage of organizations (Boxall &
Purcell, 2011). How exactly does HRM influence the exploitation of current KSAs or the
exploration of new possibilities? Within HRM, an HR system is created that manages the human
resources that are important for survival and competitive advantage (Boxall & Purcell, 2011).
Such an HR system enhances the employees' skills and effort and thereby their performance. An
example of such an HR system is the High Performance Work System in which a combination or
bundle of certain HR practices is used which creates “synergetic benefits through an interactive
8
and mutually reinforcing impact” (Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000, p. 502; Becker, Huselid,
Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). Within this system,
performance enhancing human resources practices are combined, which are called High
Performance Work Practices (HPWPs) (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). Literature on
Strategic Human Resource Management points out three important factors on which HPWPs have
an influence: employee knowledge, skills and abilities, employee motivation, and employee
empowerment to act (Combs et al., 2006). As already mentioned in the introduction, these three
factors can be better understood in combination with the AMO model that states that human
resources’ performance is a combination of three factors: ability, motivation and opportunity
(Appelbaum, 2000; Boxall & Purcell, 2011). If organizations can influence their employees’
abilities, motivation and opportunity, they ultimately can improve the human resources’
performance, hence the performance of the organization. When creating certain HPWPs, the
AMO model can be used as a guideline in order to choose the right practices that fit to the
organization’s objectives (Bos-Nehles, van Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2013). In order to align the HR
strategy with the AMO model, organizations need to divide their HPWPs into three categories:
ability-enhancing, motivation-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing practices (Lepak, Liao,
Chung, & Harden, 2006). All three domains, including the associated HR practices, will be
discussed for both exploitation and exploration next in order to show the possible effect of HRM
on both concepts, together with possible tensions resulting from a comparison of both.
Human Resource Management for Exploitation and Exploration
Ability
In order to enhance the ability of human resources, HR practices need to be organized in
such a way that they influence the knowledge and skills of the human resources (Prieto & Pilar
Pérez Santana, 2012). Organizations can influence the employees’ ability by hiring the right
people to do the work (with the right KSAs), and by training these ‘hired KSAs’. Therefore, two
HR practices are discussed: recruitment and selection, and learning and development.
In the case of exploitation, recruitment and selection of new employees needs to be focused
on bringing employees into the organization that have the desired KSAs that fit the existing
business market (Combs et al., 2006). Additionally, line managers can improve these ‘hired
KSAs’ with the use of training programs focused on the employees’ existing KSAs to develop
their full potential (Combs et al., 2006). Contradictory, if organizations want to explore new
possibilities, they need to make sure that they hire creative and innovative employees (Shipton,
Fay, West, Patterson, & Birdi, 2005). The selection and recruitment of new employees should
9
focus on employees that possess KSAs, or have the potential to develop KSAs, that can enhance
organizational creativity (Shipton et al., 2005). Additionally, the HR system can include a training
to improve the innovative ability of the employees (Shipton et al., 2005). The focus of this training
should be on developing new KSAs. This can, for example, be done by designing training
programs that expose the employees to new experiences which encourages them to think
differently about existing ways of working (Shipton et al., 2005).
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration. As can be noticed in the previous
paragraph, the recruitment and selection methods necessary to enhance exploitation and
exploration are contradictory since different KSAs, and therefore different human resources, are
needed for both processes. Tensions arise because organizations need to search for different
potential employees while only a limited amount of resources is required. Recruiters need to
consider which potentials to hire while preferably they want to hire all of them. Furthermore, the
focus of the training that these human resources need to develop themselves is conflicting. On the
one hand, training to exploit existing competencies is focused on developing currently possessed
KSAs. Training focused on exploration, on the other hand, is focused on enhancing creativity and
developing new KSAs. Line managers may experience a tension and need to compromise on what
KSAs to train. Therefore, the first proposition of this study is: high performance HR practices
designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to exploit existing competencies are (partly)
contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to explore
new possibilities. For example, different employees are needed and different training programs
should be offered. This contradiction leads to tensions between both HR systems, experienced by
management.
Motivation
Within the motivational domain, HR practices need to be organized in such a way that
employees want to use their KSAs for the benefit of the organization (Combs et al., 2006). Two
HR practices that focus on the human resources’ motivation are discussed: compensation and
benefits, and performance management.
In order to motivate employees to exploit their current competencies, the remuneration of
human resources can best be output-based (for example: performance related pay: PRP) (Booth
& Frank, 1999). Literature reveals that PRP (for routine tasks) increases employees’ effort and
thereby enhances productivity and performance (Ederer & Manso, 2013). Performance appraisal
is based on the assessment of competencies and, in the case of exploitation, should be based on
the employees’ exploitation of existing competencies to achieve the objectives of the business
10
goal (Fletcher, 2001). If employees receive positive feedback about their current performance,
they will be motivated to at least continue with this use of their current KSAs. In the case of
exploration, again certain compensation and appraisal methods can be applied. Literature reveals
that, when organizations want to enhance employees’ creativity, financial incentives can
sometimes be detrimental (Ederer & Manso, 2013). Furthermore, output-based pay (PRP), can
partly undermine the employees’ effort if the compensation per unit is too little (Ederer & Manso,
2013). However, if certain conditions are met, PRP can be suitable to increase creativity and
innovation (Ederer & Manso, 2013). These conditions include that the PRP scheme should tolerate
early failure and should reward long-term success (Ederer & Manso, 2013). If these conditions
are met, employees will engage in creative behavior, leading to innovation (Ederer & Manso,
2013). Besides the right compensation, organizations should also engage in suitable performance
appraisal. If employees receive positive feedback on their explorative behavior, this can create
feelings of achievement and therefore motivates people to continue with their effort (Chen &
Huang, 2007).
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration. According to the literature, compensation
and benefits in the case of exploitation is monetary, focused on output and based on the short
term. Compensation and benefits for exploration, however, should not necessarily be monetary,
focused on input and is based on long term success. The combination of the two HR systems
creates a dilemma for management on how to reward employees to make sure that they engage in
both exploitation and exploration. Furthermore, both HR systems make use of performance
appraisal to encourage employees to continue with at least the same amount of effort. (Fletcher,
2001; Chen & Huang, 2007). Both systems prefer positive appraisal but the behaviors that are
evaluated are different from each other (exploitative versus explorative behavior). Line managers
can experience problems with this because they need to encourage hard work on current tasks, but
also creative and innovative behaviors for new possibilities. This leads to the second proposition
of this study: high performance HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’
motivation to exploit existing competencies are (partly) contradictory to the HR practices
designed to stimulate the human resources’ motivation to explore new possibilities. For example,
compensation and benefits and the focus of performance management differ. This difference leads
to tensions between both HR systems, experienced by management.
Opportunity
Within the opportunity domain, line managers need to provide employees with the
opportunity to participate and use their KSAs (Liu, Combs, Ketchen, & Ireland, 2007). According
11
to Subramony (2009), opportunity-enhancing practices influence the beliefs of the human
resources on the extent to which the organization cares about their welfare. These beliefs can lead
to reciprocal behavior because employees develop a positive emotional bond with the organization
and therefore are willing to put in extra effort (Subramony, 2009). Employee involvement
increases the human resources’ feelings of commitment to the organization and satisfaction, and
this ultimately can lead to less absenteeism, a higher productivity and a better performance
(Subramony, 2009; Madhavan, 2014).
In the case of exploitation, organizations need to decide on the amount of opportunity that
they want to provide to their employees. In order to keep the employees focused on their current
tasks and KSAs, line managers need to limit the amount of opportunities because otherwise
employees will engage in more activities than necessary. Contradictory, line managers need to
increase the opportunity of employees in order to enhance exploration. Increasing employee
involvement can create an intrinsically motivating workplace in which employees feel encouraged
to show creative performance, which includes the generation of new ideas, products or procedures
(Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006).
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration. The amount of provided opportunity that
is desired by an organization depends on what business strategy this organization strives for. If
organizations focus on quality enhancement, they want their employees to achieve the highest
quality possible. In order to reach this performance, employees need to focus on their current
KSAs and the use of those KSAs. Opportunity in the case of exploitation then needs to be at a
certain level but not too high. In the case of exploration, however, opportunity can enhance
employees’ creativity and needs to be enlarged. The amount of opportunity provided to the
employees therefore creates a tension between exploitation and exploration. This tensions is
experienced by management because they need to decide on the degree of opportunity provided
to the employees. A tradeoff needs to be made between limiting opportunity and therefore
enhancing current competencies, or increasing opportunity and therefore enhancing innovation.
The third proposition of this study states: the design of high performance HR practices to stimulate
the human resources’ opportunity to exploit existing competencies is (partly) contradictory to the
design of HR practices to stimulate the human resources’ opportunity to explore new possibilities.
The amount of opportunity provided to employees differs in both systems and this can create a
dilemma for management on the degree of opportunity to permit.
12
Coping with the Challenge of Ambidexterity
How can organizations deal with the above mentioned tensions? According to theory, a
first way in which organizations can deal with the challenge of ambidexterity is by cycling through
periods of exploitation and periods of exploration (Raisch et al., 2009). Second, organizations can
make use of outsourcing (Parker, 2014; Glass & Saggi, 2001). Outsourcing is an external strategy
for achieving the dual outcomes of exploitation and exploration (Parker, 2014). The idea behind
outsourcing is that you pay other people or organizations to do a part of your business so that you
can focus on the other part (Glass & Saggi, 2001). Furthermore, organizations can also create a
joint venture, in which they cooperate with an external organization in order to achieve
exploitation and exploration at the same time. A joint venture is a strategic alliance in which two
or more organizations cooperate as co-owners of a producing organization (Park & Russo, 1996).
In this way, organization can fully focus their own processes on one part of the ambidexterity
concept while at the same time focusing this joint venture on the other part.
All the above mentioned solutions are ways in which organizations internally only engage
in one of the two activities, exploitation or exploration. However, some literature states that
exploitation and exploration cannot be seen as two distinct activities and therefore organizations
need to combine the two concepts internally in order to become an ambidextrous organization
(Patel et al., 2013). One way in which organizations can do this is by segmentation (Raisch &
Birkinshaw, 2008). Within segmentation different departments carry out different activities
(Parker, 2014). One unit focuses on exploitation and therefore tries to achieve the objectives of
the business goal. The other unit focuses on innovation to create future opportunities (Parker,
2014). This segmentation is included in the concept of structural ambidexterity. Structural
ambidexterity is achieved by “developing structural mechanisms to cope with the competing
demands faced by the organization for fit and innovation” (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004, p. 211).
These mechanisms can have the form of spatial separation or parallel structures (Parker, 2014).
Spatial separation implies the two activities of exploitation and exploration should be physically
separated in two distinct units (Markides, 2013). Parallel structures, on the other hand, includes
two structures between which employees can switch. For example a primary structure in which
employees can do the routine part of their jobs, combined with a secondary structure (e.g.
network) in which non routine tasks can be executed.
Besides the structural ambidexterity, organizations can also make use of contextual
ambidexterity (Parker, 2014). Contextual ambidexterity is defined as “the behavioral capacity to
simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit” (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004, p. 209). Important factors in the achievement of contextual ambidexterity are
13
business leaders. These business leaders create a supportive organizational climate within the
organization that enhances the capacity to be ambidextrous (Parker, 2014). Contextual
ambidexterity is achieved when individual employees get the opportunity to judge for themselves
how they want to divide their time between on the one hand exploitation and on the other hand
exploration (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). The last proposition of this study is: cyclical periods
(external), outsourcing (external), joint ventures (external), and structural and contextual
ambidexterity (internal) are coping mechanisms that can solve the inherent tensions related to
ambidexterity.
Organizational Factors
The before mentioned High Performance Work Practices can all contribute to the
performance of employees in that they, on the one hand, can enhance the exploitation of existing
KSAs, and on the other hand, can enhance the (new and creative) KSAs needed for the exploration
of new possibilities. However, for these practices to be fully utilized, some organizational factors
are influential, as already mentioned before when discussing contextual ambidexterity. These
organizational factors are, for example, organizational climate and leadership style. (Burton,
Lauridsen, & Obel, 2004; Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado,
2009).
First of all, the organizational climate has an influence on the degree of exploitation or
exploration in which employees engage (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Literature on
organizational climate shows that there should not only be a fit between the HR strategy and the
business strategy (strategic fit), but also between the organizational climate and the business
strategy (Burton et al., 2004). Organizational climate refers to “a contextual situation at a point in
time and its link to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of organizational members” (Bock,
Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005, p. 89). According to Bock et al. (2005), the organizational climate often
is manipulated directly by powerful people (for example business leaders). Questions about the
organizational climate could be: To what extent do people feel free to express themselves? and
Do people dare to take risks?. According to Parker (2014), a climate that is based on the
exploitation of existing competencies is control-oriented. It is inwardly focused and well suited if
the focus within the organization lies on the process (Burton et al., 2004). In contrast, an
organization that focuses on the exploration of new possibilities has a climate that is flexibilityoriented (Parker, 2014). Employees in such flexibility-oriented climates, feel that creativity and
change is desired and stimulated, and therefore are encouraged to solve problems. They feel
inspired to take risks and be more innovative overall (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007).
14
Furthermore, literature reveals that a flexibility-oriented climate improves the amount of help
employees ask and accept from their colleagues when they are working on a problem (Burke &
Weir, 1978). This increases the interaction between employees and enhances the innovative
behavior of employees (Hunter et al., 2007).
Besides the influence of the organizational climate, another important organizational topic
that has an influence on the amount of exploitation or exploration is leadership style (Rosing et
al., 2011). As mentioned before, business leaders often directly manipulate the organizational
climate (Bock et al., 2005). Two contrary leadership styles are present when looking at
organizations that pursue respectively exploitation or exploration, transactional leadership and
transformational leadership (Rosing et al., 2011). Transactional leadership, on the one hand, is a
form of leadership in which management controls the employees’ performance and takes
corrective action when this performance does not meet certain standards (Bass, 1999).
Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is a form of leadership in which the management
inspires the employees to raise their interest in the execution of their jobs (Rosing et al., 2011).
According to Parker (2014), exploitation of existing competencies is associated with a controloriented perspective and therefore the management style of exploitative organizations is often
transactional. Furthermore, Parker (2014) shows that the perspective of explorative organizations
is often flexibility-oriented and therefore strongly suggested to be related to transformational
leadership.
15
Figure 1: Heuristic Model Ambidexterity
Organization
- Climate
- Leadership style
Exploitation
Business
objectives
HRM
Exploration
HR Practices
AMO for
exploitation
Tensions
Tensions
HR Practices
AMO for
exploration
Solutions?
Organization
- Climate
- Leadership style
METHOD
This is an explorative qualitative research in which a literature study was performed and
semi-structured interviews were executed. Qualitative research was used because it “reveals a
much more detailed contextual illustration of the organization” (Hope Hailey, Farndale, & Truss,
2005, p. 53). Multiple organizations were investigated in order to contrast the different cases in a
visible and understandable way. This contrast concerns organizations that have a different
emphasis on the balance between exploitation and exploration. In this study, fourteen
organizations were included, which were aiming for ambidexterity in that they combined the
exploitation of existing competencies with the exploration of new possibilities. An overview of
the characteristics of the organizations and key figures is shown in Table I. The organizations
operate in different sectors, namely retail, financial and facility services, technology and industry.
Within the fourteen organizations, one or two key representatives were asked to participate in this
study, on the basis of an introduction letter, which can be found in Appendix I. In total, sixteen
HR professionals participated in this research. The roles of the different participants included HR
manager, HR business partner, HR advisor and HR director. These people were key informants
because they possess knowledge on the degree of exploitation and exploration within the
organization and they have a thorough understanding of related HR practices. Therefore, they
could provide information on the concept of ambidexterity and how the organization is dealing
with it.
16
Table I Characteristics of the Organizations and Key Figures
Sector
Number of Employees
Job Title Key Figure(s)
Profit/Non-profit
Retail
59.500
HR Manager
Profit
Retail
400
HR Manager
Profit
Facility services
7.500
HR Advisor
Profit
Public transport services
34.000
HR Business Partner
Profit
Financial services/Insurance
35.000
HR Manager
Profit
1.650
HR Director
Profit
company
Retail
TA Manager
Technology
12.000
HR Director
Profit
Technology
12.000
Global Talent Manager
Profit
Financial services/Insurance
12.500
HR Advisor/Business Partner
Profit
Public transport services
34.000
HR Manager
Profit
Steel industry
11.000
HR Director
Profit
Oil industry
90.000
Vice President HR
Profit
Healthcare industry
90.000
HR Manager
Profit
Fast moving consumer goods
172.000
HR Business Partner
Profit
Technology
37.000
HR Director Benelux
Profit
company
Data was gathered with the use of document analysis and semi-structured interviews
containing questions developed on forehand based on existing theory. After the data was
collected, it was analyzed with the help of themes into which the respondents’ answers could be
divided. This is called a thematic analysis (Joffe, 2012). With the help of these themes, the data
could be interpreted, in order to answer the propositions established above and finally to answer
the main research question of this research: What are the possible tensions between exploitation
and exploration for organizations aiming for ambidexterity and how can they cope with these?
The content of the interview questions can be found in Appendix II. The interviews were
conducted together with a fellow researcher but only the questions relevant to this study are
included in the Appendix. The primarily focus of the interview questions was on how the
organization is managing the exploitation of existing KSAs, how the organization is managing
explorative behavior, how these two things possibly create tensions between HR practices, and
how organizations are currently dealing with these tensions. For each key informant, the interview
questions found in Appendix II were adjusted so that they matched the respondent. Example
questions used are: How is the HR practice of recruitment and selection designed and executed?,
How is the HR practice of compensation and benefits designed and executed?, How is the HR
17
practice of performance management designed and executed?, What are (possible) tensions
between the practices to exploit and the practices to explore (that are discussed before)?, Why
are you able to combine exploitation and exploration so well/not so well? Based on the key
informants’ answers, follow-up questions were used in order to dive deeper and get to know more
about the topic of interest. The length of the interviews was about one and a half hours. After the
interviews had been conducted, they were transcribed in order to create a clear overview of all the
interviews. After the transcription, the interviews were analyzed and interpreted. In order to
analyze the interviews, a matrix was created in which the answers could be divided between
certain important themes (thematic analysis). These themes were chosen with the help of the
heuristic framework in combination with the respondents’ answers. Examples of such themes are:
innovation, individual practices (ability, motivation, and opportunity), organizational factors,
tensions between exploitation and exploration, and solutions for these tensions. On the basis of
this matrix, conclusions were drawn on the influence of HRM on exploitation and exploration,
after which possible tensions between exploitation and exploration became clear together with
ways in which organizations are dealing with those tensions. Based on these conclusions, an
answer was provided to the main research question of this study.
This study was conducted by first identifying organizations that were useful for
investigation. Relevant criteria for identifying those organizations were: the presence of (at least
a small amount of) innovation and the presence of an HR department or professional. Next, those
organizations were approached with the question whether there was an HR professional within
the organization who was willing to participate in this study. This was done by sending the
organizations an invitation (Appendix I) with a short explanation about the research, together with
a small description of the researcher’s background. After the appropriate actors (with sufficient
knowledge of the business and the subject of ambidexterity in combination with knowledge on
HR practices that could represent their colleagues’ ideas) were approached, a meeting was
scheduled to conduct the semi-structured interviews. The interviews took place during a threemonth time span, and were conducted in Dutch. The interviews were all conducted face to face.
At the beginning of the interviews, a short introduction was provided on the topic and the process
of the interview. Furthermore, permission for recording the interview was asked and
confidentiality and anonymity were assured. After finishing the interviews, they were transcribed
and processed with the help of a matrix, as described before. This matrix served as a framework
to process all the information gathered within the interviews into certain themes. Next, the
processed data was analyzed and the findings were written down, after which an answer was
provided to the research question of this study.
18
FINDINGS
This study was conducted in order to investigate the widely discussed topic of
ambidexterity. Within this topic, the focus was on the interplay between exploitation and
exploration and possible tensions arising out of the application of exploitation and exploration
related HR practices. Table II summarizes the findings on this interplay. These findings will be
discussed below following the different sub-questions formulated in the introduction.
Need for Innovation
The first sub-question formulated in this study was: Do organizations need to innovate?
The representatives of all organizations that have been studied indicated that innovation is
something extremely necessary. The following quotes are some examples of the respondents’
answers to the question: To what extent does the organization need to innovate?
One day without innovation is a day lost relative to your competitors – Retail
We are always working on innovation – Retail
Innovation is an absolute necessity - Fast moving consumer goods
If you do not innovate, you are standing still and you could also just quit – Steel industry
Without any form of innovation, the organizations cannot survive in modern society. However,
the amount in which innovation is necessary within the organizations depends heavily on the
business goal of the organization. Organizations can have innovation as main business goal (the
core business is innovation – Technology),
while in other organizations innovation is something
additional to the main business goal of, for example, cost reduction or quality enhancement (you
just need to innovate because otherwise your competitors will catch up with you – Financial services).
Furthermore, the organizations differ in the way in which they achieve innovation. Some
organizations create innovative products, like the retail and industrial organizations.
Contradictory, the other organizations innovate in their services, like the financial and facility
services organizations.
A view that is prevalent in twelve of the organizations investigated is that organizations
first need to have a license to operate, before they can even think of innovation. Once you achieve
your daily business goals, for example a certain revenue, you will have the possibility to innovate.
You should have a solid base in which you execute the daily activities, and at the same time you should start to think
about what innovation means for your organization – Steel industry.
The two other organizations
investigated, both operating in technology, focused exclusively on innovation and therefore their
daily business goals were already linked to innovation.
19
A next consensus is found in the fact that thirteen respondents indicated that one should
not be acting on the daily business for too long before starting to think about innovation, because
then it will be too late to seriously compete with other organizations. Organizations need to create a
new mindset to look at the developments of tomorrow. If you do not introduce those developments to your
organizations, you will be too late – Technology.
In order to act on the need for innovation, the respondents’ answers show that it is
important to adapt your workforce to this innovation. On the one hand, employees need to be attracted
that can reinforce organizational innovation – Retail. Those employees need to have competencies that enable them
to function in an innovative world – Technology.
new competencies – Healthcare industry.
On the other hand, current employees possibly need to develop
This workforce adaptation is where the concept of
ambidexterity gets interesting. When investigating the organizations’ behavior on the need for
innovation, it turned out that multiple organizations linked their employees’ personal development
to the amount of possible innovation that they were able to achieve. This is particularly the case
within organizations that deliver services. According to the respondents’ answers, an important
aspect in creating new, innovative services is the development of the organization’s employees.
Making the employees sustainable employable, is an important first step in generating explorative
behavior. HR interventions that focus on keeping the workforce sustainable employable, create a
situation in which people experience less stress, feel healthy, and are able to continue their job in
an optimal way. People live in an environment in which they try to keep everything equally, on their job and in
private. So you need to make sure that people remain vital and rested, experience less stress, but keep employable –
Steel industry. If organizations can keep their workforce sustainable employable, employees are able
to develop themselves and therefore possibly become more effective in their jobs. This increased
effectivity may lead to time left which can be invested in other activities that eventually may
improve employees’ explorative behavior. Managers and employees also wonder how they can link their
personal development with what they are doing or what they want to go to do. In essence, if you are working on
personal effectiveness, then you are not doing your job, but on the long term you can do your job better because of
this personal effectiveness – Financial services. You could see that certain people did not have the right competencies.
So then I return to the story of a large group of managers that was not able to make a link between what the business
wants, what the people should be able to do, and what that means for the way in which people need to develop
themselves – Technology.
The Influence of HR on Innovation
The second sub-question formulated in this study was: What is the influence of HR on
innovation? An organizations’ workforce is an important asset in competing with other
organizations and creating a sustained competitive advantage. As mentioned above, organizations
20
need to adapt their workforce to today’s innovation. HR plays an important role in this adaptation.
According to the data, HR professionals serve multiple purposes in adapting the organizational
workforce to the innovational setting of today and tomorrow. First of all, HR professionals need
to attract the right people that can enable the innovation within the organization. Besides attracting
new employees, HR also needs to focus on the current employees and their competencies. They
need to create interventions that focus on the education and training of current employees to make
sure that they develop themselves. This personal development is necessary in order to keep up
with the changes that innovation brings along. If employees continue to execute their current
activities without the possibility to develop themselves, the amount of innovation may stagnate.
HR professionals thus play an important role in adapting the workforce’s ability to the changing
environment. Furthermore, HR professionals play an important role in challenging the business.
They frequently need to ask business leaders: Where is the organization going? How is innovation
going so far? What tools do you need to make innovation possible? In this way they help the
business (leaders) to stay focused on both short and long term activities and decisions.
It can be concluded that, according to the respondents’ answers, HR is a stimulator and
facilitator of innovation. HR professionals set the conditions necessary for innovation. HR is an
enabler of innovation. Because without the right people, without the right employment conditions, without the right
culture, and without the right flow rate and development opportunities, you will not get them inside and you will also
not keep them inside – Oil industry. In order to do this, HR also needs to innovate itself, by creating new
ways of thinking and new tools that match the innovation of the organization. HR can serve as an
example for the rest of the organization. HR needs to create a climate in which innovation is possible. Think
along and facilitate. At the same time, HR also needs to innovate itself – Fast moving consumer goods.
Is Ambidexterity recognized?
As mentioned before, all HR professionals indicated that innovation is an important topic
on today’s agenda. The third sub-question formulated in this study was: is ambidexterity
recognized? According to the data, only one organization out of fifteen was familiar with the term
ambidexterity. However, after explaining the concept, it turned out that all organizations
understood the concept, and that for twelve organizations it even was something they were dealing
with on a daily base. It is an interesting concept for HR professionals because: The organization needs
to perform today, but they also need to think about the future of the organization – Financial services. If you want to
be a successful organization, you continuously need to do both – Steel industry.
As described in the theoretical framework, different HR policies are needed for the
execution of the two concepts included in ambidexterity, exploitation and exploration. These HR
policies are focused on different attitudes and different behaviors. Twelve of the investigated
21
organizations however, indicated that those two HR policies cannot be seen as something distinct.
You cannot pull today and tomorrow apart – Retail.
Therefore, an HR policy that integrates exploitation
and exploration is most optimal in achieving organizational performance. This means that one HR
policy should address the different attitudes and behaviors of exploitation and exploration
simultaneously. I agree that both concepts need to be combined in one policy – Technology. The trick is to combine
short term and long term – Oil industry. You need to work on today and tomorrow. Do not let your revenue (today)
or innovation (tomorrow) stop – Retail.
Among the other three organizations, there were two
organizations (operating in technology) that had an explorative business goal. This means that
there daily focus was on innovation and therefore exploitation and exploration were the same.
One organization (facility services) was focusing mainly on exploitation of current KSAs and
therefore had an exploitative HR policy, but it was expected that a more explorative focus should
be necessary in the near future.
Tensions in a Combined HR Policy
According to a majority of the investigated organizations, one HR policy should be present
in which exploitation of current KSAs and exploration of new KSAs is combined. The fourth subquestion of this study included: Which general tensions do organizations experience between
exploitation and exploration? According to the data, a combined HR policy does create some
tensions. Multiple respondents indicated that they always need to make a consideration between
surviving in today’s competition and investing in the future. Having an HR policy that is focused
on exploitation and exploration at the same time, needs to combine short term (current KSAs) and
long term (new KSAs), and therefore it is always a tradeoff that can be at the expense of other
outcomes, because the amount of time (and thus money) in which things can be done is scarce
and therefore not enough to execute both, exploitation and exploration. It is a contradiction between
the goals of today’s business and innovation towards the future – Steel industry. You should continuously indicate
what is necessary in order to combine those two concepts with the least amount of tensions – Healthcare industry.
First of all, trying to combine short and long term (enhancing current KSAs and developing
new KSAs), can result in a high workload, because there is not enough time in which all activities
(those for today and tomorrow) need to be done. Organizations expect more from employees than
before in the same amount of time. We expect more and more from employees – Technology. This tension
is specifically the case for older employees. As the data turned out, employees that enter the job
market nowadays, are often distinct from employees that entered the job market years ago. Today,
people are more flexible oriented and eager to learn and develop themselves, while employees
that already have been in their jobs for years care less about learning new KSAs and therefore
22
developing themselves. Young people are more convenient with the use of innovative methods – Financial
services. We are always focusing on attracting graduates, they are necessary for innovation – Oil industry. We need
people with other capabilities, skills and another mind-set. They are present of course, because millennials take that
with them automatically – Fast moving consumer goods. We are working on getting current employees moved, to
make them more aware of their mobility, their work capacity and the role they can take themselves – Public transport
services. A tension is also present in not being able to fire underperformers – Technology.
This finding makes
sustainable employability an essential topic for HR professionals. They do not only need to focus
on attracting talents, but they also need to make sure that the current workforce is agile enough to
perform in the future. When concentrating on the current workforce, HR is also capable of
noticing people that cannot cope with the changing environment and therefore are
underperforming. In these cases, HR needs to decide on whether to put extra effort into the
performance of this employee or to fire this employee.
The above mentioned tension that is present because of the limited amount of time
available in which both exploitation and exploration needs to be executed, leads to an additional
tension, namely an internal tension between HR professionals and line managers. HR
professionals and line managers may not agree on which policy to implement. According to the
data, multiple line managers are focused on fixing short term problems. For example, if they have
a vacancy, their focus is on filling this vacancy as soon as possible. It is very natural, for a line manager,
to focus on solving the short term problem, namely filling the gap – Retail.
However, if organizations also
want to survive in the future, they need to think about long term solutions as well. HR
professionals often need to challenge line managers to not only act on today but also think about
tomorrow. We are there to challenge the line by asking whether it is the best for the future, hence also for the long
term – Retail. Therefore, a tension can be present between several actors within the organization on
how to execute the (new) integrated policy.
Besides the high workload and the internal tension between HR and the line, a third tension
was also mentioned by the respondents. This is a tension that can arise when two policies are
combined into one, and it includes the fact that the climate of the organization sometimes is
adapted to one of the two policies and therefore does not fit with the new, integrated, policy. A
climate that is adapted to an exploitative HR policy, for example, does not stimulate or enable
explorative behavior. Multiple organizations indicated that a tension was present between the
actors in the organization trying to innovate and the organization ‘going in another direction’ (old
policy). Which indicates that a new climate is necessary in order to fit the environment to the new
integrated policy. If activities stay as they were and then you select people with a certain profile and a certain
way of thinking, they will be disappointed – Healthcare industry.
23
Finally, two organizations, both operating in retail, mentioned that the concept of
ambidexterity only results in tensions on the individual level. People that do not perform well on
today’s activities but do have potential for the future have a problem, just as people that do
perform well today but do not have any potential. According to these two organizations, tensions
are only present within the individual that is missing one of the two: current performance or future
potential. The higher the position of the individual within the organization, the more effect the tensions have on the
performance of the organization – Retail.
Figure II General Tensions caused by the Application of Ambidexterity
TODAY
TENSIONS
TOMMOROW
Time and Money
 High Workload
Exploitation
Actors
Exploration
Climate
* Only tensions present on organizational level are included in this figure.
Profession Dependency
The above mentioned tensions that can be present in organizations are not necessarily the
case for all professions within an organization. An interesting difference can be noticed between
office functions and production functions. Office functions are often more compelled to combine
today and tomorrow than production functions. Production staff is focused on producing goods
that are necessary for today’s business. Some functions are only focused on execution – Retail. Office
people, however, should also focus on what is important for the future. Therefore, the tensions are
more present for people with office functions compared to people with production functions. There
is a big difference between, for example, commerce and maintenance and repair. People are much more focused on
following their task description there – Public transport services. It is included within the profession, whether or not
it is necessary to innovate – Retail.
24
Table II Findings
Org.
1
Ambidexterity?
Yes
(Possible) Tensions
Solutions
Focus on long term
Individual tension
Important factor: leadership
2
Yes
Individual tension
Continuous dialogue/Good
communication
3
Not yet
Organization not yet designed for exploration
Still unknown
High workload
4
No
-
Importance of guidance from supervisor
5
Yes
Limited time
Manager plays important role
6
Yes
Groups do not understand each other/Not
Cyclical periods
enough time in between/Between actors
7
No
-
Focus on exploration
8
Yes
Lower employee engagement
Ongoing dialogue
Different directions/Climates
Importance of management/Create
change climate
9
Yes
Limited time  Too much focus on
More focus on innovation and the
exploitation
execution of innovative ideas
10
Yes
Limited time/Innovation does not happen
Ongoing dialogue
11
Yes
Limited time
Importance of management/
Differentiation per location/Strategic
workforce planning/Ongoing dialogue/
Focus on long term
12
Yes
Limited time/money
Focus on long term
Less motivated employees
Ongoing dialogue
13
Yes
Limited time/money
Importance of management
14
Yes
Different climate
Importance of management
15
No
Limited time
Differentiation
Tensions between Exploitation and Exploration related HR Practices
According to the data, it can be concluded that some tensions are present when the HR
policies of exploitation and exploration are combined. The necessity to combine exploitation and
exploration can create a high workload (due to limited time available), an internal tension between
HR professionals and line managers, and a friction in the current organizational climate. These
tensions discussed are general tensions emerging on organizational level when the concept of
ambidexterity is applied. The fifth sub-question of this study was: which tensions do organizations
experience when the exploitation and exploration related HR practices focused on ability,
motivation and opportunity are applied? Tensions arising out of this application of exploitation
and exploration related HR practices will be discussed next, in order to dive deeper into the nature
of the tensions. The related HR practices are divided in subtopics derived from the AMO model:
25
ability, motivation and opportunity. Furthermore, coping mechanisms for the tensions resulting
from the AMO model that were described by the respondents will be discussed in order to (partly)
answer the sixth sub-question of this study: how can organizations cope with these tensions?
Ability
The first proposition that was formulated in this study stated that high performance HR
practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to exploit existing competencies are
(partly) contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to
explore new possibilities. In order to investigate this proposition, two HR practices that influence
the workforce’s ability were discussed during the interviews: recruitment and selection, and
learning and development. The outcomes on these two HR practices are reviewed below.
Tensions in Recruitment and Selection. According to the first proposition, different
employees need to be searched and selected in order to fulfil the needs of exploitation and
exploration. The results of the interviews, however, show something different. These results can
be found in Table III. A dominant view (twelve out of fifteen organizations) on the recruitment
and selection practice is present in that organizations do not use different recruitment and selection
practices to fulfil the concept of exploitation respectively exploration. The organizations indicated
that a tradeoff does not need to be made in order to find someone that is productive from now on
but also is able to contribute to innovation – Retail. You look at the current abilities of someone but also at their
firmness – Retail. We do not hire someone for a function, we hire someone for a career – Retail. You look for people
that fit the organization and therefore are functional for short and long term – Technology. We need to search for
people that are already good but also able to develop themselves – Steel industry.
The challenge is to recruit
and select the people that already have enough knowledge to execute the function but on the same
time have a high potential to develop themselves and create innovative behavior. These people
often were described as ‘talents’. Only attract top talents. The people that are already good and also
developable – Oil industry.
Data shows that the organizations studied are well capable of recruiting and selecting
employees that are employable in both short and long term. I do not see a tension within recruitment and
selection; until now we are successful in filtering the right profiles – Financial services.
However, some other
tensions regarding the recruitment and selection process were mentioned. A first tension that is
prevalent in some of the investigated organizations with regards to recruitment and selection, is a
disagreement between HR and line managers on which people to select. As already mentioned
above, this is a tradeoff between short and long term and different actors within the organization
prefer different methods for recruiting and selecting people. Often managers prefer someone that comes
26
in directly with the right diplomas – Financial services. It can create tensions between HR and the line. Because the
line wants to fix the short term problem – Retail.
A second tension that was mentioned when discussing the recruitment and selection
process included a tension in recruiting and selecting innovative people who subsequently are not
able to reach their full potential because the environment in which they operate does not have
enough capabilities to develop and execute innovative ideas. A squeeze exists if people that are willing
to change are placed in a non-changing department – Financial services. People are hired with certain expectations,
a certain ambition, but the organization does not grow along – Healthcare industry.
Employees that are
recruited as potentials to enhance innovation can only function optimal in an environment that
stimulates innovative behavior. If a mismatch exists between the recruited employee and the
climate of the organization, the employee cannot reach his full potential and eventually may get
frustrated or even leave the organization.
A third tension prevalent in the recruitment and selection process is the fact that sometimes
organizations can be in downturn but still need to focus on attracting people that can be beneficial
within the future. Ambidexterity is actually the example I just gave; attracting graduates, even when you are in
downturn – Oil industry. This means that money needs
to be invested in the recruitment and selection
of potential talents, while at the same time costs need to be reduced in order to achieve the daily
business goals. This tension in organizational funds often leads to internal tensions between
several organizational actors again.
Figure III Tensions between Recruitment and Selection for Exploitation and Exploration
TODAY
TENSIONS
TOMMOROW
Disagreement
between actors
Exploitation
Environment
(climate)
Money
27
Exploration
Table III Tensions between Recruitment and Selection for Exploitation and Exploration
Org.
R&S Design
R&S based on
Tensions in
Method?
Other Tensions?
Solution
1
Recruitment
Short term and long
No
No
Combining today and future
center
term
Responsibility of
Short term and long
No
No
Combining today and future
HR manager
term
Short term
No
No
R&S based on exploitation
Recruitment
Short term and long
No
No
Combining today and future
center
term
No
Between line and
Combining today and future
HR
Awareness manager
Between line and
Combining today and future
HR
Contracting conversation
No
No
Combining today and future
No
No
Combining today and future
No
Innovative people
Combining today and future
Create climate of change
2
Personality
3
Responsibility of
line manager
4
Personality
5
Recruitment
Short term and long
center
term
Personality
6
7
Responsibility of
Short term and long
line manager
term
Standardized
Short term and long
No
term
Specialism
8
Recruitment
Short term and long
center
term
Experience
9
10
Recruitment
Short term and long
center
term
cannot reach
Willingness to change
potential
Recruitment
Function
No
No
Combining today and future
Recruitment
Short term and long
No
No
Combining today and future
center
term
No
R&S even when in
Combining today and future
downturn
Create sympathy for tension
Innovative people
Combining today and future
cannot reach
Change leadership style
center
11
Personality
12
13
Recruitment
Short term and long
center
term
Central
Short term and long
recruitment
term
No
manager
14
15
Outsourced
Recruitment
center
potential
Short term and long
Old methods to
term
attract talents
Function
Between HR and
recruitment
center
28
No
Combining today and future
Change methods
No
Combining today and future
Clear communication
Coping Mechanisms for Tensions in Recruitment and Selection. As already mentioned in
the previous paragraph, no tradeoff is necessary between the recruitment and selection method for
exploitation and exploration. Data shows that most important in the recruitment and selection
practice of today’s innovative organizations is combining short and long term when attracting new
employees. Fifteen respondents indicated that they always combine today and tomorrow when
attracting new employees. It is about combining what organizations want to achieve today, with
their agility for the future. If organizations constantly focus on the present and the future, both the
exploitation of existing competencies and the exploration of new possibilities can be achieved.
Within organizations that have a clear distinction between exploitative and explorative functions,
this can be different because organizations then can focus on short or long term only to find the
best candidate. Besides combining short and long term, data shows that it is also important to look
at cognition and personality, instead of skills when recruiting and selecting employees for both
short and long term. Organizations need to search for people that have a certain way of thinking –
Healthcare industry.
The combination of focusing on today and tomorrow and focusing on cognition and
personality in the recruitment process, ensures that organizations nowadays are able to deal with
the need for exploitation and exploration simultaneously, without experiencing large tensions.
However, some other tensions having to do with the recruitment and selection process were
mentioned during the interviews. These tensions included an internal tension between HR and
line managers, a tension between recruited employees and the organizational environment, and a
tension with regards to the organizational funds. Coping mechanisms used to deal with these
tensions mentioned during the interviews will be discussed next.
A coping mechanism for the internal tension between HR and line managers is the
preparatory phase including the contracting conversation. This phase is an important phase in the
process of hiring new people because then organizations are able to specify the criteria that a new
employee must meet, which can be a combination of both short and long term. Of all conversations,
the contracting conversation, the conversation with the line before everything starts, is the most important – Retail.
During the contracting conversation, several actors within the organization are able to reach a
consensus on the profile that they are searching for. When extensively discussing the preferred
profile, internal tensions between several actors can be reduced. An important role for HR is to
challenge the business (and line managers) to not only hire people that are productive for the short
term but think about hiring people that are also going to be productive and innovative on the long
term. They need to recruit and select for the employee profile that is needed in three years – Healthcare industry.
29
Data showed that organizations that experience a tension between the recruited employees
and the organizational environment have two ways of coping with it. One way of coping with it
includes a change of the organizational climate, to make sure the organizational climate (or
environment) enables the employee to reach his full potential. This means that the climate and the
employees acting within this climate need to be focused on change and innovation instead of
dealing with daily exploitative activities. Another way of coping with this tension mentioned is a
change in leadership. Business leaders that focus on exploitation primarily need to be replaced by
business leaders that focus on exploration as well. They can create a setting in which the newly
attracted employee can be both exploitative and explorative. This suitable business leader also
might play an important role in the establishment of an appropriate climate (change the
organizational climate as described before).
The third tension, present in the amount of funds available, can lead to a disagreement
between several actors in the organization on saving or investing money. A coping mechanisms
proposed by one respondent is creating sympathy for the tension – Oil industry. This respondent indicated
that it is important that all organizational actors understand the importance of continuing attracting
talents, to make sure that they understand that money still needs to be spend on recruitment and
selection for the benefit of the organization. Communication plays an important role to diminish
the tension between several actors within the organization. By clearly communicating the
importance of continuing to invest on attracting talents, HR professionals can create sympathy
among other organizational actors, which reduces the internal disagreement.
Tensions in Learning and Development. The first proposition, high performance HR
practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to exploit existing competencies are
(partly) contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to
explore new possibilities, also stated that the training methods for exploitation respectively
exploration could be contradictory because different knowledge and skills could be subject of the
training. When analyzing the data, a dominant view arose that two different training programs are
not needed to at the same time succeed in exploitation and exploration. The results on the HR
practice of learning and development can be found in Table IV. Learning and development that is
focused on knowledge of the profession (current KSAs) is often mandatory and, depending on the
profession, provided on a regularly basis in the form of formal learning (training, course, et
cetera). Subject specific learning is often formal and mandatory – Financial services. Mandatory courses is just
something you do. Further development is on the job and also partly in your own time (in combination with the new
way of working in which you can schedule your own time) – Public transport services.
Learning and
development that is focused on generating new knowledge and skills and therefore on innovation
30
(new KSAs), is often occurring in the job. A principle that was often cited is the 70-20-10 rule,
which states that 70 percent of learning happens on the basis of experiencing, 20 percent happens
while interacting with other people, and only 10 percent happens in a formal form of learning,
like a training. A big part of learning and development is designed as learning on the job – Retail. 70-20-10; a lot
of learning on the job – Retail. A lot of learning in role, 70-20-10. The biggest part of learning happens while doing
the job – Oil industry. We have a philosophy; 70-20-10. Learning offerings are all based on that – Technology. This
dominant view shows that a tension between the two types of learning and development is not
necessary present because one can also learn lots while doing todays’ business.
A tension that was nonetheless mentioned by some of the organizations’ representatives,
is that employees are often not aware of the fact that informal learning can have many benefits.
Personal understanding still needs to come, general understanding is already present – Retail. People need to see
the usefulness of the change. You need to guide them – Retail. This
means that employees often only think
about formal ways of learning, which is not always possible, and therefore probably learn less
than could be possible, or experience a higher workload because they think they have to do more
formal training in the same amount of time to keep up with the innovation. This tension is
especially present among older employees because they do not want to change since they are used
to their way of working for a long period of time already. A tension in not seeing the necessity (that is
especially the case with older employees because they do not want to change) – Fast moving consumer goods.
Even though multiple respondens indicated that learning can be done mainly on the job,
some organizations still experienced a tradeoff between time to spend on executing the daily
activities and time to spend on, for example, learning to do those activities in a new way. As
mentioned before, sometimes the amount of time available can be limited, which can create a
tension between exploitation and exploration. A tension is time pressure; we can do as many courses as we
want but we also need to act on today’s business – Financial services. The tensions is present in the time that you do
or do not have. I need to be educated, but I also do not have time for that – Fast moving consumer goods.
A last tension mentioned by the respondents included an individual tension in personality.
Some employees only want to elaborate on their knowledge mandatory for their function while
other employees are eager to learn as much as possible and take every opportunity to learn
something new. Some people want to do courses to innovate while others only want to do subject-specific courses
– Financial services. This
again is a difference that is especially visible between younger and older
employees. Younger employees are enthusiastic to learn a lot of new things that do not necessarily
have something to do with their function, while older employees more often only want to learn
things that are function specific.
31
Figure IV Tensions between Learning and Development for Exploitation and Exploration
TODAY
TENSIONS
TOMMOROW
(Un)awareness
Exploitation
Time
Exploration
Person
Dependency
Table IV Tensions between Learning and Development for Exploitation and Exploration
Org.
L&D Design
L&D based on
Tensions in Method?
Solution
1
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
No
70-20-10 rule
2
Based on internal and
Exploitation and exploration
People are not aware of
Handle each case separately
external developments
3
usefulness exploration
Now: formal
Now: Exploitation
Not yet. Possible tension:
70-20-10 rule
Future: informal
Future: exploration
time pressure
4
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
No
70-20-10 rule
5
Focus on informal
Exploration
No
70-20-10 rule
6
Formal and informal
Focus on exploration
Time pressure
70-20-10 rule
7
Formal and informal
Focus on exploration
Time pressure
70-20-10 rule
8
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
Time pressure
Manage expectations
9
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
Person dependency
70-20-10 rule
10
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
No
Change work to provoke
learning
11
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
No
70-20-10 rule
12
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
No
70-20-10 rule
13
Focus on formal
Exploitation and exploration
Time pressure
Create innovative ways of
learning
14
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
Time pressure
Create right climate
Aware of usefulness
15
Formal and informal
Exploitation and exploration
32
No
70-20-10 rule
Coping Mechanisms for Tensions in Learning and Development. When discussing the
learning and development practice, it turned out that the training programs for exploitation and
exploration do not need to be distinct from each other. A coping mechanism that was repeatedly
mentioned was the 70-20-10 rule, already described in the previous paragraph. According to this
rule, exploitative learning is often done by formal training. This formal training, focused on
current KSAs, is the 10 percent in the 70-20-10 rule. It includes courses that employees need to
follow in order to be able to perform their job. Explorative learning, however, is often done by
informal training happening while executing today’s activities. This is the 20 and 70 percent
included in the 70-20-10 rule. By applying this rule, organizations do not need to make a tradeoff
between exploitative and explorative learning, and therefore no different learning and
development practices are necessary in order to meet the demands of both concepts.
Even though no big tensions existed between the HR practices of learning and
development for exploitation and exploration, some other tensions regarding this HR practice
were mentioned. These tensions included the employees’ unawareness of informal ways of
learning and person dependency. Coping mechanisms mentioned for these tensions were:
handling each case separately (only possible in a small organization), managing the expectations
of employees, and creating the right climate.
Discussing the Proposition. Proposition one stated that high performance HR practices
designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to exploit existing competencies are (partly)
contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ ability to explore
new possibilities. For example, different employees are needed and different training programs
should be offered. This contradiction leads to tensions between both HR systems, experienced by
management. The findings show that a contradiction between the HR practices of recruitment and
selection and learning and development is not necessary to achieve both exploitative and
explorative results. The organizations use HR practices that simultaneously focus on today and
tomorrow and therefore no big tension needs to exist between the HR practices focused on the
exploitation or exploration of the human resources’ ability. Some other tensions, experienced in
the recruitment and selection, and learning and development process were mentioned during the
interviews together with coping mechanisms used to deal with these tensions.
Motivation
The second proposition formulated in this study stated that high performance HR practices
designed to stimulate the human resources’ motivation to exploit existing competencies are
(partly) contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ motivation
33
to explore new possibilities. This proposition was investigated by extensively discussing two HR
practices during the interviews that influence the workforce’s motivation: compensation and
benefits, and performance management. These HR practices are discussed next.
Tensions in Compensation and Benefits. According to the data (which can be found in
Table V), the first thing that is striking is the fact that most of the respondents indicated that
compensation is often not seen as a motivator for certain behavior. They believe that
compensation is only a dissatisfier, not a satisfier. Reward is not a motivator. It is just a dissatisfier, no
satisfier – Retail. Innovators are driven by other things that rewards. Intrinsic motivation. It can be a de motivator if
it is not okay – Oil industry. If you ask whether people are going to innovate more if you pay them more, then no –
Technology. I do not believe that, if you are going to compensate in a certain way, people will become stronger in
innovation – Retail. This
means that the monetary reward employees receive should always be at a
certain level, in order to be satisfying, but beyond that point it does not motivate them to do more.
If monetary rewards do not motivate explorative behavior, what else will? Data showed that
instead of money, other benefits can motivate explorative behavior. Other incentives (not necessary
money) can work motivating – Financial services. If you give them more ownership, they will work on their
development. Reward in this case leads to exploration – Steel industry. If they win the award system, it really is a
motivator – Fast moving consumer goods. You need to create a setting in which creative people can be creative. That
is what they work for, that is what they get their energy from – Technology. Examples
of these non-monetary
motivators given are flexible working hours, ownership within the job (the possibility to make
your own decisions on what to do and when), reward systems linked to innovative ideas,
innovative environments, and employee competition. Furthermore, the data showed that all
organizations pay their employees for performance, which in most cases should be a combination
between exploitative and explorative behavior. What is crucial in regulating the amount of
explorative behavior, according to the respondents, is including innovation goals in the goalsetting
of employees. This means that managers and employees should together form some goals at the
beginning of the year (part of performance management) in which innovation is included. These
goals define the performance on which the employee will be evaluated at the end of the year. Data
showed that a combination of goals set for today (execution of certain pre-defined activities) and
goals set for the future, for innovation, (the amount of time or effort one puts into exploring new
possibilities) is preferred in order to regulate the employees’ behavior. You are rewarded for your
performance, which is defined in your goalsetting meeting – Retail. The amount of innovation you should do is
translated into targets, on which you will be evaluated – Oil industry. Goals are defined in the beginning of the year
(three business goals and one development goal) – Fast moving consumer goods.
If organizations do not do
this, employees can, on the one hand, lose focus on their daily activities because they are only
focused on innovation to receive an extra reward. On the other hand, employees can focus on the
34
daily activities only because they will not get rewarded for their innovative contribution.
Managers play an important role in the execution of both types of goals, for today and for
tomorrow. Organizations that indicated that innovation was not necessarily included in the
employees’ goals at the beginning of the year, stated that it is important to be in a continuous
dialogue, in order to regulate the amount of exploitative and explorative behavior. Goals are not
clearly defined but they are continuously discussed – Technology. I am in a conversation with employees on what I
expect in the basis and what they could do additionally – Financial services. We are going to define what you want
to achieve and we are going to discuss this continuously – Public transport services.
Table V Tensions between Compensation and Benefits for Exploitation and Exploration
Org.
Collective
Agreement?
Based on
Input or
Output?
Tensions in Method?
Solution
1
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
2
No
Performance
Output
Yes, between employees
Communicate that extra reward is
+ development
possible for everyone
3
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
4
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
5
Yes
Performance
Output
No
Continuous dialogue
+ development
6
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
7
No
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
8
Yes
Performance
Output
Yes, more is expected
Reward management for
9
Yes
+ behavior
innovation
component
Continuous dialogue
Performance
Output
No
Combine exploitation and
exploration in goalsetting
10
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
11
Yes
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance*
12
No
Performance
Output
No
Combine exploitation and
exploration in goalsetting
13
No
Performance
Output
Yes, idea management
Continuous dialogue
14
Yes
Performance
Output
No
Continuous dialogue
15
No
Performance
Output
No
C&B based on performance *
* Performance is a combination of exploiting current KSAs and exploring new KSAs
Tensions in Performance Management. As mentioned before, the second proposition
stated that high performance HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ motivation
to exploit existing competencies are (partly) contradictory to the HR practices designed to
stimulate the human resources’ motivation to explore new possibilities. This means that the
35
behavior evaluated in performance appraisal differs with regards to exploitation and exploration.
The findings on this proposition can be found in Table VI. In contrast to the proposition, data
shows that no tensions arise from a combination of performance appraisal for both exploitation
and exploration. Within thirteen organizations, the performance appraisal was at the same time
focused on the performance of today and on the employees’ activities for exploration. Your goals
(a combination of exploitation and exploration) are defined and you are monitored on these goals – Retail. Goals
are defined. Within a conversation with an employee you can improve the employee’s performance – Retail. Goals
are combined in the profiles – Oil industry.
Employees’ performance is often assessed on the basis of
goals that are defined, together with the line manager, at the beginning of the year. At that moment,
employees and line managers need to define goals that are both based on the daily execution of
the employees’ function, and on the effort that should be put on exploration. When goals for
exploitation and exploration are clearly formulated, no tensions needs to exist between
performance appraisal for exploitation and exploration. Eleven respondents indicated that
performance appraisal should not only be a yearly cycle but a continuous dialogue between
manager and employee, in order to regulate the employee’s behavior in an optimal way. Which
means that the employee executes his or her daily activities and at the same time is spending
enough time on development and innovation. You notice how valuable it is to be in dialogue with your
employees – Facility services. More often feedback, a continuous dialogue would be better – Financial services. It
should be a continuous dialogue – Oil industry. New generations want continuous feedback. A continuous dialogue
with each other, how am I performing? – Fast moving consumer goods. It just happens every day. Everyone in the
team knows where he or she is standing – Technology.
36
Table VI Tensions between Performance Appraisal for Exploitation and Exploration
Org.
PA design
PA based on
Tensions?
Solution
1
Yearly cycle
Performance and potential
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
2
Yearly cycle
Performance and additional
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
effort
3
Control systems
Performance
No, focus on exploitation only
Focus on exploitation only
4
Yearly cycle
Performance and additional
Yes, higher workload
New ways of working:
output
(especially older employees)
output-based
5
Yearly cycle
Performance
No, focus on function only
Continuous dialogue
6
Yearly cycle
Performance and potential
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
7
Yearly cycle
Performance and behavior
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
8
Yearly cycle
Performance and behavior
Yes, short term and long term
Continuous dialogue
contradict
9
Yearly cycle
Performance and
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
innovation
10
Yearly cycle
Performance and
innovation
11
Yearly cycle
Performance and potential
No, goals are clear
Extensive PM system
12
Yearly cycle
Performance and
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
innovation
13
Yearly cycle
Performance and potential
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
14
Yearly cycle
Performance and potential
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
15
Yearly cycle
Performance and
No, goals are clear
Continuous dialogue
innovation
Coping Mechanisms for Tensions in the Motivation Domain. Within the exploitation and
exploration related HR practices focused on motivation, only subtle tensions were found.
According to the respondents, organizations have a compensation system and a performance
management system that is focused on both the employee’s performance of today and the
employees’ potential to develop and execute innovative ideas in the future. The combination of
both today and tomorrow assures that no big tensions exist. Additionally, an important aspect to
make sure that the tensions remain small is setting clear goals at the beginning of the year and
being in a continuous dialogue with your employees on how they are performing regarding these
established goals (on which their compensation is also based).
Discussing the Proposition. The second proposition of this study stated: high performance
HR practices designed to stimulate the human resources’ motivation to exploit existing
competencies are (partly) contradictory to the HR practices designed to stimulate the human
resources’ motivation to explore new possibilities. For example, the reward systems, focus of
performance appraisal and provision of benefits and promotion differ. This difference leads to
37
tensions between both HR systems, experienced by management. HR practices that stimulate
human resources’ motivation investigated within this study show that no different practices are
needed to at the same time motivate people to exploit existing competencies and explore new
possibilities and therefore the second proposition is not supported.
Opportunity
In order to investigate the last component of the AMO model, opportunity, questions were
asked about the amount of employee involvement within the organizations. Outcomes on these
questions are discussed next.
Tensions in Employee Involvement. The third proposition stated that the design of high
performance HR practices to stimulate the human resources’ opportunity to exploit existing
competencies is (partly) contradictory to the design of HR practices to stimulate the human
resources’ opportunity to explore new possibilities. The amount of opportunity provided to
employees differs in both systems and this can create a dilemma for management on the degree
of opportunity that they permit. According to this proposition, a tradeoff needs to be made between
limiting opportunity and therefore enhancing current competencies, or increasing opportunity and
therefore enhancing innovation. Employee involvement has an influence on the amount of
opportunity employees experience within their jobs. According to the studied cases, employee
involvement is a crucial element for organizational performance. It is crucial to have enthusiastic and
committed employees – Retail. Employee involvement is important because the workload gets higher – Public
transport services. Committed employees more often wonder how they can make things better and faster for the client
– Financial services. If people get less attention, they get less engaged, and the absenteeism percentage will grow –
Retail. Committed and enthusiastic employees are willing to
go the extra mile and therefore create
an advantage for the organization. With regard to the third proposition, the data showed that no
tradeoff needs to be made between limiting and enhancing the amount of opportunity in the form
of employee involvement, because a high employee involvement is good for both exploitation and
exploration. The more enthusiastic and committed your employees are, the better it is for your organization –
Retail.
Therefore, the third proposition was not confirmed by the results of this study. Because no
tension was found within the opportunity domain, also no coping mechanisms were discussed.
General Coping Mechanisms
Previously, possible tensions between exploitation and exploration related HR practices
have been discussed, together with their coping mechanisms in order to partly answer the sixth
sub-question of this study: how can organizations cope with these tensions? Next, general coping
38
mechanisms mentioned during the interviews will be discussed in order to complete the answer
to this sixth sub-question. According to proposition four, organizations can use multiple coping
mechanisms to deal with the concept of ambidexterity. The results of this study show that
organizations indeed have several ways of coping with the concept of ambidexterity, that are
partly the same as the coping mechanisms mentioned in the theoretical framework, and partly
different from those coping mechanisms. The coping mechanisms mentioned during the
interviews will be discussed next, starting with coping mechanisms that are corresponding with
proposition four, followed by additionally mentioned coping mechanisms.
Two respondents (from one organization) mentioned cyclical periods as a coping
mechanism for the concept of ambidexterity. Both respondents of this organization indicated that
first a certain period with operational excellence should be established, after which exploration
can start. Next, again operational excellence should be focused on, before continuing on
exploration. The point is; you first need to find the point at which you have twelve months of operational excellence
– Retail.
A next aspect when dealing with the concept of ambidexterity, mentioned by the
respondents, is leadership style (and additionally the organizational climate). This is previously
mentioned as contextual ambidexterity. Business leaders need to create the setting in which
employees are inspired to act on today while simultaneously inspired to act on tomorrow. They
have a meaningful role because they inspire employees and create the environment with the way
in which they manage the workforce and the organization. Managers are key in the whole story –
Technology. Inspiring leadership is probably the key word for a good organization – Healthcare industry.
Besides these two coping mechanisms that were also mentioned in the fourth proposition,
the respondents also mentioned some other ways in which they cope with the concept of
ambidexterity. First of all, three organizations mentioned that if you want to combine the concept
of exploitation with the concept of exploration, one should create a focus on long term actions.
This means that every decision needs to be taken with the influence for the long term in mind.
Organizations should create a solid base while at the same time making decisions that also enable
them to survive in the future business market. The key is to remain calm and think on the long term about
what is really key for the strategy of the organization – Oil industry. It is a choice on what you are focusing –
Technology. You have to dare and be able to look through the cycles – Oil industry.
A second additionally mentioned crucial concept for dealing with the concept of
ambidexterity that relates to combining short and long term is strategic workforce planning.
Strategic workforce planning should play a major role on today’s agenda. It means assuring
yourself that the right people are in the right place in order to improve and maintain organizational
performance for the upcoming years. If organizations elaborately arrange their workforce, they
39
constantly consider whether or not they possess the right people (on the right profession) and
therefore are able to create a workforce that is optimally matched to the challenging environment
included in the concept of ambidexterity. That means, how should your policy be to continue your
organization and guarantee your organization for the upcoming 15 years? – Steel industry.
A third way of coping with the challenge of ambidexterity is by enhancing sustainable
employability. As already mentioned before, organizations often link the personal development
of employees to the possibility of executing explorative behavior and therefore the successfulness
of the concept of ambidexterity. Sustainable employability influences the amount in which
employees are able to develop themselves by keeping them healthy, without stress and able to
continue their jobs in the most optimal way. This focus on keeping the workforce sustainable
employable, therefore influences the degree to which organizations are able to cope with the
concept of ambidexterity.
A final way in which the organizations deal with the concept of ambidexterity is by
constantly engaging in dialogue. Almost all HR professionals indicated the importance of a
continuous dialogue between management and the workforce when managing your workforce to
the changing environment of today’s competitive market. Not only a dialogue between
management and the workforce, but also a continuous dialogue between HR and the line
managers, to constantly challenge them to act on the future, not only on the present. This
continuous dialogue between management and the workforce and between HR and the line
managers, can be seen as the most important tool to deal with the concept of ambidexterity,
because all above mentioned coping mechanisms can be included in it. If organizational actors
engage into continuous dialogue, they are able to constantly review their policy and therefore they
can be more focused on both short and long term, which enables strategic workforce planning to
succeed. Furthermore, engaging in continuous dialogue, creates an enabling climate and
leadership style which improves the combination of exploitation and exploration. Being in a
continuous dialogue offers clarity for organizational actors and understanding for the actions taken
within the organization.
Grasping back on the four above mentioned solutions, the respondents indicated that being
in a continuous dialogue is the first and most important step in dealing with the concept of
ambidexterity. I think that continuously having a conversation with your people is very important. It is about
signaling dissatisfaction or fears on time – Retail. That means that there always will be discussions on what do we
invest and what projects do we stop – Oil industry. Those are the strategic discussions in which you need to find a
consensus – Technology.
Extensive conversations with the organizations’ key figures revealed another compelling
result. They indicated that employees that enter the business market today are already combining
40
operational output with development and innovation. Therefore, they are better able at combining
exploitation and exploration. New generations feel the need to get continuous feedback and
constantly develop themselves. The interplay between exploitation and exploration, therefore,
becomes less of a problem with a new generation entering the market. The problem specifically
lies in the current workforce that experiences difficulties with the changing environment. They
experience more obstacles in the integrated HR policy because they are used to a certain way of
working for already multiple years, and are less interested in learning new things beyond their
own profession. This would suggest that an ageing population is especially the problem for the
concept of ambidexterity. This makes sustainable employability an important concept in the
(future) field of HR. We need people with other capabilities, skills and another mind-set. They are present of
course, because millennials take that with them automatically – Fast moving consumer goods. Younger people
experience less problems with it – Retail.
Discussing the Proposition. Discussing proposition four of this study, cyclical periods
(external), outsourcing (external), joint ventures (external), and structural and contextual
ambidexterity (internal) are coping mechanisms that can solve the inherent tensions related to
ambidexterity, some relevant topics that HR professionals can apply were revealed that can act as
coping mechanisms for the concept of ambidexterity. Cyclical periods and contextual
ambidexterity were ways of coping with ambidexterity mentioned during the interviews.
Outsourcing, joint ventures and structural ambidexterity were not mentioned during the
interviews. With regards to contextual ambidexterity, data showed the importance of business
leaders in creating a setting that allows exploitation and exploration to happen. Besides these
previously proposed coping mechanisms, some other mechanisms were mentioned during the
interviews: being in a continuous dialogue, combining short term and long term (with elaborate
goalsetting), strategic workforce planning and sustainable employability. With regards to the
fourth proposition, it can be stated that indeed some of the coping mechanisms mentioned in
theory are used in practice, while some coping mechanisms were not found in practice.
Additionally, some coping mechanisms were found that add to the existing literature.
Organizational Factors
The last sub-question of this study included: which organizational factors are important
when discussing the concept of ambidexterity? Two topics were discussed during the interviews:
leadership style and organizational climate. The respondents indicated that both factors have an
influence on the workforce and therefore are an important aspect on today’s HR agenda. The
results will be discussed next.
41
Leadership Style. According to the data, business leaders are important actors within an
organization. First of all, they influence the behavior of the employees. Leaders influence the behavior
of employees for eighty percent – Retail.
A business leader can create a committed and enthusiastic
workforce with a higher engagement to the organization. Do you give people chances, do you give people
attention, and how do you react if things go wrong? It does matter how you feel as an employee, and with that you
also determine whether the employee is committed, enthusiastic, does he or she like to work for the organization? –
Retail.
Furthermore, multiple respondents indicated that a business leader’s personality can
influence the amount of exploitative or explorative behavior. A leader that is focused on the
execution of daily tasks, and not very much focused on innovation, encourages employees to focus
on exploitation. A leader that especially focuses on innovation, on the other hand, encourages
employees to think beyond their daily tasks and be creative and innovative. That means it differs per
leader – Technology.
This is in line with theory discussed before on transactional and
transformational leadership. Data furthermore showed that business leaders create the climate
(exploitative of innovative) that is present within an organization. Inspiring leadership is probably the
key word for a good organization – Healthcare industry.
If business leaders are able to influence the
behavior of the workforce and the organizational climate, they play an important role in the
concept of ambidexterity. They can manage their people in a way that fits the combined HR policy
and furthermore, they can create an environment that stimulates people to execute their daily
activities while at the same time focusing on the development of new knowledge and skills.
Business leaders set the conditions for contextual ambidexterity to happen. An important action
for business leaders to enhance ambidexterity is being in a continuous dialogue with the rest of
the organization, as discussed before.
According to the data, besides business leaders, HR professionals also have an important
influence on how the workforce is regulated. It was indicated that HR needs to support, facilitate,
and advise the business. Furthermore, they need to continuously challenge the business. An
example: they need to challenge the line managers to not only think about the short term solution
but also about the long term solution. The HR department plays an important role in assuring that
business leaders and employees continue working on the concept of ambidexterity.
Organizational Climate. Climate is also an essential concept in the discussion on
exploitation and exploration. It defines the behavior of the group but also the performance – Healthcare
industry.
The present climate determines the amount in which employees engage in respectively
exploitation or exploration. Organizational climates were described as informal, open, loyal,
friendly, innovative and progressive. These kinds of climates can best be classified as flexibilityoriented climates that were discussed within the theoretical framework. The respondents linked
42
these climates to environments in which innovation is possible and an environment in which
employees feel free to explore new possibilities. You need to create a climate of change – Financial
services. Climates
that mainly promote exploitation were not mentioned within the data.
CONCLUSION
In this study, insights on the concepts of exploitation and exploration and the ways in
which organizations are coping with the necessary combination of both, have been discussed, in
order to unravel the answer to the research question: What are the possible tensions between
exploitation and exploration for organizations aiming for ambidexterity and how can they cope
with these?
The first conclusion of this study is that all organizations studied experienced the necessity
to act on the innovative business market of today. Data showed that indeed exploitation and
exploration in the majority of the studied cases need to be combined in order to survive and create
a competitive advantage in today’s market. Ambidexterity therefore is a compelling topic in
organizational performance and organizations are dealing with it on a daily base. However, this
study revealed that this is only the case if organizations pursue a business goal that is not
exclusively focused on innovation. Organizations with, for example, a cost reduction strategy or
a quality enhancement strategy, need to focus on both exploitation and exploration, and therefore
the concept of ambidexterity, if they want to succeed in the innovative business market of today.
Within organizations that have innovation as their primary goal, exploitation and exploration are
interwoven and therefore the concept of ambidexterity is not relevant for them.
Furthermore, this study revealed that ambidexterity may cause some tensions within
organizations, mainly because time and money needs to be divided between both exploitation and
exploration. Focusing on one of the two concepts (exploitation of current KSAs or exploration of
new possibilities) eventually may lead to derogation of the other. However, the amount to which
this creates tensions within organizations differs from what was expected on forehand. Theory on
the subject of ambidexterity stated that two different HR policies would be necessary in order to
ensure both exploitation and exploration. These two HR policies should be combined in order for
organizations to become ambidextrous. Furthermore, theory stated that these two HR policies
could contradict each other in that scarce resources are divided between them and both policies
have a different purpose for these resources. However, this study showed that in real life it is not
the case that two different HR policies are needed to achieve both exploitation and exploration.
Organizations already combine exploitation and exploration into one HR policy and apparently
are quite succeeding in executing this integrated HR policy. Some minor tensions were mentioned
43
during this study but these tensions do not imply that different HR policies should be needed to
achieve both exploitation and exploration. With regards to the research question of this study:
What are the possible tensions between exploitation and exploration for organizations aiming for
ambidexterity and how can they cope with these?, it can be concluded that only small tensions are
a result of the combination of exploitation and exploration and organizations nowadays are
handling the concept of ambidexterity well.
With regards to theory on organizational factors influencing the concept of ambidexterity,
the findings of this study confirmed the importance of business leaders and the organizational
climate that they (partly) shape in dealing appropriately with the concept of ambidexterity. This
study included organizations that particularly have a focus on contextual ambidexterity. Business
leaders, therefore were mentioned as really important in dealing with the challenging combination
of exploitation and exploration.
DISCUSSION
This study has explored a topic highly relevant in today’s innovative business market.
Some interesting issues that add to theory were found, which will be discussed next.
Personal Development and Explorative Behavior. A compelling result of this study that
adds to the existing literature, is the fact that organizations often link the explorative behavior of
employees to the personal development of these employees. During the interviews the question
was asked how organizations are dealing with today’s insuperable necessity to innovate. On
forehand, it was expected that organizations would come up with answers including the
development of new knowledge, products and technologies as described in the definition of
exploration before. However, multiple respondents linked the personal development of the human
resources to the amount in which innovation is possible. They indicated that innovation is a result
of individual employees developing themselves, and therefore becoming more effectively which
leaves time left that can be invested in explorative behavior. Exploring new possibilities for
oneself, thus is linked to exploring new possibilities for the organization. Accordingly,
organizations should make sure that employees have enough possibilities to work on their
personal development, in order to improve their performance on their daily tasks and hence create
an opportunity for innovation to occur. HR can play an important role in facilitating this personal
development of employees. For example, HR can support the personal development of employees
with suitable practices that focus on learning and development. This link between personal
development and explorative behavior is especially interesting for organizations dealing with an
aging workforce. As mentioned before, specifically older employees have problems with the
44
increasing demands placed in today’s professions. This makes ambidexterity of substantial
relevance for organizations that have a lot of older employees in their workforce. Because younger
employees often already bring along the capability to continuously develop themselves and
combine exploitation and exploration, the problem of ambidexterity is less a problem for
organizations with a high amount of young employees. Organizations dealing with an aging
workforce should be aware of the link between personal development and exploration and invest
enough time in the development of their older employees. This finding that the interplay between
exploitation and exploration becomes less of a problem with a new generation entering the
business market and the knowledge that tensions accompanying the concept of ambidexterity are
already largely dealt with, might make ambidexterity a less important topic within the future. The
respondents interrogated in this study recognized the concept and indicated that they were
working on it on a daily base, but they also indicated that the combination of exploitation and
exploration is something that is already happening in real life and not the main topic on HRM’s
agenda today.
Ability. This study adds to existing literature in linking the AMO model to the concept of
ambidexterity and hence making a distinction between ability, motivation and opportunity. When
considering the findings on tensions between exploitation and exploration related HR practices
focused on ability, motivation and opportunity, one can see that in particular HR practices focused
on the ability of the workforce experience some tensions from the (necessary) combination of
exploitation and exploration. It shows that organizations experience the most tensions in the
process of attracting and developing the right KSAs that simultaneously exploit existing
competencies and explore new possibilities. Employee motivation to combine exploitation and
exploration, and the amount of opportunity provided creates less tensions when combining
exploitation and exploration. This finding shows that the challenge of becoming and remaining
ambidextrous lies especially in the competencies of the workforce, and less in the workforce’s
motivation or the opportunity they receive. This is probably why tensions arising in HR practices
focused on ability, show obvious similarities with general tensions experienced on organizational
level when the concept of ambidexterity is applied. The problem lies in the limited time and
limited funds that needs to be invested in resources that are needed to combine both exploitation
and exploration. The finding that especially HR practices focused on ability experience some
tensions can be associated with the link that the respondents described between personal
development and explorative behavior. It could indicate that the ability part of the AMO model is
most influential on the successfulness of combining exploitation and exploration because the
strong link between personal development and explorative behavior. Again, it can be noticed that
45
this ability part is specifically challenging for organizations with an ageing workforce. Tensions
mentioned in, for example, the learning and development practice were unawareness of other
ways of learning and person dependency. It might be the case that older people are not aware or
not in favor of other or new ways of learning and therefore develop themselves less. Future
research could dive deeper into this link between personal development and explorative behavior
in order to found out more about the amount of influence the three parts of the AMO model have,
and to see whether this actually especially is the case for the older employees present within
organizations.
Preconditions for a Combined HR Policy. This study furthermore shows that business
leaders play an important role in the organizations’ ability to become and remain ambidextrous.
As mentioned before, business leaders that are able to influence the behavior of the workforce and
the organizational climate, play an important role in the concept of ambidexterity. They can
manage their people in a way that fits the combined HR policy and furthermore, they can create
an environment that stimulates people to execute their daily activities while at the same time
focusing on the development of new knowledge and skills (contextual ambidexterity). The way
in which business leaders manage their employees can be seen as a precondition for a successful
realization of a combined HR policy. If business leaders fail to manage their people in a way that
fits both the conditions of exploitation and exploration, human resource management cannot be
fully utilized. Human resources practices are only relevant if the management of the workforce
and the environment surrounding the workforce are thoroughly supporting the HR policy.
Leadership style and the organizational climate should have primary focus in attempting to
become ambidextrous. Once an appropriate leadership style and organizational climate are
established, that match with the combination of exploitation and exploration, the execution of the
combined HR policy can be successful. If those preconditions are not met, HRM can try to create
an ambidextrous organization as much as they want but they will probably not fully succeed. An
important aspect in creating a climate that supports both exploitation and exploration is
communication. Business leaders need to engage in a continuous dialogue with the rest of the
organization to make sure that every organizational actor knows why things are done in the way
they are done.
Comparing Theory with Practice. Theory and practice are difficult to compare with
regards to the concept of ambidexterity. According to the SHRM literature, ambidexterity is a
challenging concept for today’s organizations because “the capabilities of exploitation and
exploration are often thought to compete against one another as scarce resources are divided to
meet the demands of both” (Patel, Messersmith & Lepak, 2013, p. 1420). Previously found
46
literature on the interplay between exploitation and exploration indicated that those two things
can be seen as something independent and distinct from each other. Different HR policies were
described for the execution of both exploitation and exploration, which could hinder each other
because of the scarce resources. However, in practice it turned out that the concepts of exploitation
and exploration were not easily separated from each other. Creating a distinction between both
concepts in practice turned out to be challenging since organizations either combine both concepts
or focus on just one of the two. The organizations in this study aiming for ambidexterity already
used HR policies that combined the necessities of exploitation and exploration and therefore show
that what was expected on forehand, to find two different policies that contradict each other, is
not exactly present in real life. This study adds to the literature in showing that integrated HR
policies adapted to the challenging business market of today, and therefore adapted to the concept
of ambidexterity, are existing.
Limitations
This research was subject to a number of limitations which possibly could have reduced
the generalizability. First of all, some limitations may have developed while gathering data. While
conducting the interviews, an interviewer bias may have occurred. Within an interviewer bias, the
researcher’s opinions and prejudices can influence the results (Kvale, 1994). Even though
unintentionally, the thoughts and feelings of the researcher may have influenced the outcomes,
because it is hard to control the expectations of the researcher (Kvale, 1994). During the
interviews, the interviewer may have used leading questions that force the respondent into a
certain answer direction. Especially during the last interviews, this could have been the case,
because the interviewer was biased by all answers given in the previous interviews. It is important
to be aware of the existence of this interviewer bias because leading questions may have (partly)
formed the content of the answers given by the respondents. In order to keep this bias as small as
possible, the researcher used open-ended questions which allowed the key figures to answer
however they wanted.
A second limitation that may have occurred during the interviews is that the respondents
may have given social desirable answers. This would mean that the answers can be more positive
than the reality would show and therefore data can be influenced. For example, this research
studied possible tensions within the HR policy. Tension is often a negative thing, and therefore it
could have been the case that the respondents did not want to be honest about it, in order to avoid
getting a negative image. This may have influenced their answers and subsequently the result of
this study. The respondents already knew the topic of the study, because they received the
47
invitation letter, and therefore could have prepared answers to the questions on the possible
tensions. In order to reduce this possible bias, the researcher assured confidentiality and promised
the respondents that their names and the names of the organizations would be kept anonymous.
Third, the interpretation of the data may have been biased as well. The respondents’
answers may have suffered from interpretative validity. Interpretation of the answers was done by
one single interviewer and therefore the findings are subject to the interpretations of this
interviewer. As a result, the validity of the findings may have been lower.
A fourth limitation of this research includes the fact that data was only gathered among
HR professionals. Seven HR managers, four HR advisors/business partners and five HR directors
were interviewed, in contrast to zero line managers or other employees within the organization.
HR professionals may have a certain way of looking at human resources within an organization
that can be contrasting to other employees’ views. By only interviewing HR professionals, other
points of view may have been ignored. Including the other actors within organizations could be
an interesting thing to do within future research, in order to find out whether they think the same
as the HR professionals.
A last limitation of this study is that it may have lost some depth because two researchers,
with different interests, were present during the interviews. Because the researchers both had a
different topic that needed to be discussed, time had to be divided and sometimes this led to
answers not being answered as thoroughly as preferred. Furthermore, sometimes it also happened
that one of the researchers had a question with some sub-questions in mind but the other researcher
followed on the subject with a slightly different direction. Therefore, answers were sometimes
hard to interpret. A recommendation for future research should be to conduct the interviews with
one researcher only, in order to make sure that the topic is investigated as optimal as possible.
Suggestions for Future Research
It could be interesting to repeat this study on the concept of ambidexterity in a couple of
years, in order to see how ambidexterity and its consequences develops over time. If current, older
employees indeed are the ones with the biggest issues towards ambidexterity, could it be the case
that ambidexterity becomes less of a problem within the future? If it really is the case that
employees that enter the business market today (or tomorrow) bring different competencies into
the business market, and are more eager to learn and develop themselves, could ambidexterity
then become a problem of the past? Repeating this study in the future could help to find an answer
to these questions. Future research can also place an emphasis on different employee groups in
48
order to find out more about which people are most prone to the challenges caused by the interplay
between exploitation and exploration.
Having the knowledge that especially ability related HR practices create tensions
concerning the topic of ambidexterity, future research can devote additional time to investigating
this ability part of the AMO model in combination with the concept of ambidexterity. Instead of
investigating all three topics of the AMO model (ability, motivation and opportunity), future
research could focus solely on the tensions in time and money spend on the workforce’s abilities,
caused by the combination of exploitation and exploration. Further research on this ability part of
the AMO model could provide organizations with more specific ways of dealing with the concept
of ambidexterity.
Finally, future research can take a look at the execution of the coping mechanisms
mentioned in this study. Focusing on, for example sustainable employability, personal
development, and strategic workforce planning, future researchers can possibly dive deeper into
the actions taken by organizations and business leaders to deal with the concept of ambidexterity,
and thereby act as a guideline for others. Furthermore, future research could focus more on the
importance of business leaders in dealing with the concept of ambidexterity, since especially
contextual ambidexterity was found as a coping mechanism in this study.
Implications for Practitioners
This study also has some practical implications. Ambidexterity is an essential topic in
today’s business market. Numerous organizations need to think about ways in which they can
combine their exploitative activities with the exploration of new possibilities. This study can serve
as a tool to deal with the difficulties associated with the concept of ambidexterity. First of all by
showing the possible tensions that can be felt when trying to achieve ambidexterity, and
furthermore by showing the most important coping mechanisms that can be used to defend the
organizations to these possible tensions. By showing these tensions and coping mechanisms, this
study can create awareness. It can warn organizations that they need to do an investment to make
sure that they are able to deal with the concept of ambidexterity. Already during the interviews, it
could be noticed that the respondents started to think about the importance of ambidexterity more.
Hopefully, reading about it will achieve the same. Organizations that are not yet dealing with the
concept of ambidexterity can use this study as a tool to prepare themselves for the future in which
they possibly need to innovate. They can already make some slight changes to their HR policy
(forming a new combined policy) in order to be prepared for the future.
49
Second, this study can serve as an eye-opener for HR professionals and other
organizational actors in showing the importance of human resources’ personal development.
Within this study a link was demonstrated between personal development and explorative
behavior. This means that practitioners should place an emphasis on the abilities of the employees
and therewith their personal development in order to assure their survival in today’s competitive
business market.
A third practical implication resulting from this study includes the finding that business
leaders are very important when dealing with today’s innovative business market. They, among
other things, influence the workforce and continuously need to be in a dialogue with them, create
the organizational climate, and need to combine today and the future to make sure the organization
is able to deal with the interplay of exploitation and exploration. Business leaders need to be aware
of their importance when handling the innovative business market of today. The actions and the
personality of business leaders serve as a precondition in the challenge of becoming ambidextrous.
Creating awareness among business leaders with the use of this study may be a first step in helping
organization to become and remain ambidextrous.
50
REFERENCES
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in
organizations: empowering creative and extra role performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 221.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational
ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696717.
Appelbaum, E. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay
off. Cornell University Press.
Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self‐and
follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 35-59.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management
Executive, 9(4), 49-61.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of
shareholder
value:
Research
and
recommendations. Human
resource
management, 36(1), 39-47.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
Booth, A. L., & Frank, J. (1999). Earnings, productivity, and performance‐related pay. Journal
of Labor Economics, 17(3), 447-463.
Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management: A balanced approach. Tata
McGraw-Hill Education.
Bos-Nehles, A. C., Van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Kees Looise, J. (2013). Employee perceptions of
line management performance: applying the AMO theory to explain the effectiveness
of line managers' HRM implementation. Human resource management, 52(6), 861877.
Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource‐based view of the firm. Human
resource management journal, 6(3), 59-75.
51
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and human resource management. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1978). Organizational climate and informal helping processes in
work settings. Journal of Management, 4(2), 91-105.
Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2004). The impact of organizational climate and
strategic fit on firm performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 67-82.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation
performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of
business research, 62(1), 104-114.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work
practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance.
Personnel psychology, 59(3), 501-528.
Ederer, F., & Manso, G. (2013). Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management
Science, 59(7), 1496-1513.
Ehrich, L. C., & Hansford, B. (1999). Mentoring: Pros and cons for HRM. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 37(3), 92-107.
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda.
Journal of Occupational and organizational Psychology, 74(4), 473-487.
Folkestad, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Teamwork for innovation: A content analysis of the
highly read and highly cited literature on innovation. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 12(1), 115-136.
Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation,
empowerment, and skill‐enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The
mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2),
315-350.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Glass, A. J., & Saggi, K. (2001). Innovation and wage effects of international outsourcing.
European Economic Review, 45(1), 67-86.
Greve, H. R. (2007). Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 16(5), 945-975.
Hailey, V. H., Farndale, E., & Truss, C. (2005). The HR department's role in organisational
performance. Human resource management journal, 15(3), 49-66.
52
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the
ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation
at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal
of Applied psychology, 94(5), 1128.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity research journal, 19(1), 69-90.
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.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management
influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating
mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2008). Could HRM support organizational
innovation? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 12081221.
Joffe, H. (2012). Thematic analysis. Qualitative research methods in mental health and
psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners, 1, 210-223.
Kang, S. (2015). Exploring the link between high performance work systems and innovation
(Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick).
Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of
phenomenological psychology, 25(2), 147-173.
Lackner, H., Garaus, C., Güttel, W., Konlechner, S., & Müller, B. (2011). Different
ambidextrous learning architectures and the role of HRM systems. DRUID,
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: are they
compatible? The Academy of Management Executive, 8(1), 68-76.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human
resource management systems in strategic human resource management research.
Research in personnel and human resources management, 25(1), 217-271.
Liu, Y., Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). The value of human resource
management for organizational performance. Business horizons, 50(6), 503-511.
Madhavan, N. (2014). Employees empowerment towards innovation. Reviews of Literature
Volume, 2(2), 1.
53
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: what can the ambidexterity literature
teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313-323.
Martell, K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). How strategic is HRM? Human Resource
Management, 34(2), 253-267.
Orpen, C. (1979). The effects of job enrichment on employee satisfaction, motivation,
involvement, and performance: A field experiment. Human Relations, 32(3), 189-217.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the
institutional setting. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 56-70.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource
Management Journal, 15(4), 68-83.
Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history
analysis of joint venture failure. Management science, 42(6), 875-890.
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health,
ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-691.
Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment
of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420-1442.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., & Wall, T. D. (2004). Integrated manufacturing,
empowerment, and company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5),
641-665.
Prieto, I. M., & Pilar Pérez Santana, M. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human
resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource
Management, 51(2), 189-211.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes,
and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.
Organization science, 20(4), 685-695.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high-performance work
systems: testing inside the black box. British Journal of industrial relations, 38(4), 501531.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadershipinnovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5),
956-974.
54
Shipton, H., Fay, D., West, M., Patterson, M., & Birdi, K. (2005). Managing people to
promote innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 118-128.
Schuler, R., & E. Jackson, S. (2014). Human resource management and organizational
effectiveness: yesterday and today. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People
and Performance, 1(1), 35-55.
Schuler, R. S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1984). Gaining competitive advantage through human
resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241-255.
Subramony, M. (2009). A meta‐analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM
bundles and firm performance. Human resource management, 48(5), 745-768.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical examination of
the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the
performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 10691083.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organizations: managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-30.
Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International journal of
management reviews, 1(4), 367-413.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource
based view of the firm. Journal of management, 27(6), 701-721.
55
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Introduction Letter
A critical analysis of the concept of fit & ambidexterity (exploitation versus exploration)
Geachte heer / mevrouw,
Wij zijn Marco van Ruremonde en Yvonne Beurskens, Master studenten van de opleiding Human
Resource Studies aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Op het moment zijn wij bezig met een Master
thesis met als onderwerp Strategisch Human Resource Management oftewel de koppeling tussen
bedrijfsstrategie en HRM, hoe krijgt die gestalte en hoe verloopt de afstemming tussen beide.
Onze afstudeerscriptie wordt begeleid door Prof. dr. Jaap Paauwe.
Meer specifiek gaat ons scriptie-onderzoek in op de volgende vragen:
- Is er sprake van een goede afstemming tussen bedrijfsstrategie en HRM beleid?
- Hoe krijgt die afstemming in concreto gestalte?
- Is een goede afstemming (‘fit’) ook merkbaar in het beter presteren van de organisatie of is dat
eigenlijk niet zo van belang?
- Uitgaande van het verschil tussen exploitatie (business as usual) en exploratie (innovatie van
nieuwe producten, diensten en/of markten), leidt dat dan tot andere vereisten aan het te voeren
HRM beleid?
- Zijn de eisen die aan het HRM beleid worden gesteld ingeval van exploitatie dan wel exploratie
goed met elkaar te combineren?
Stuk voor stuk relevante vragen, die we door middel van onderzoek bij een aantal bedrijven willen
beantwoorden. In dat kader vragen we dan ook uw deelname hieraan in de vorm van één of
meerdere interviews. De resultaten zullen anoniem verwerkt worden en uiteraard zullen we zorg
dragen voor terugkoppeling van de verkregen inzichten, waarmee uw organisatie haar voordeel
kan doen. Ons onderzoek en de terugkoppeling daarvan aan uw organisatie zou bijvoorbeeld
kunnen leiden tot een betere afstemming/fit van uw HRM beleid bij de interne - en
sectorkenmerken van uw organisatie.
Graag zouden wij dan ook met u in gesprek treden over uw ervaring en mening over deze
onderwerpen.
Wij hopen dat dit schrijven uw interesse heeft gewekt en we willen graag met u in contact treden
voor een nadere toelichting. Ook voor uw vragen of opmerkingen houden we ons aanbevolen.
Bij voorbaat dank voor uw medewerking, met vriendelijke groet,
Marco van Ruremonde en Yvonne Beurskens
56
Appendix II: Content of Semi-Structured Interviews
Preparatory Phase and Documentary Analysis
Information/documents about the organization were gathered: HR policy, mission, vision, general
information. This information was used to concretize the interview questions for every
organization. Each interview question formulated below was adjusted to the key informant that
was interviewed in order to get the best results.
General Questions
Can you shortly introduce yourself and your career/function?
What is the strategic goal of the organization?
What is the organization’s mission and vision?
Innovation
To what extent does the organization need to innovate?
How does the organization handle this need for innovation?
What is the role of HR in this innovation?
HR Function
What is the role of HR within the organization?
How would you describe the HR strategy?
To what extent is the HR department involved in formulating the strategic goal?
What is HR’s influence on the execution of the strategy?
Is the HR department involved in every management level, and how?
HR Practices
Can you describe the following HR practices:
1) How is the design of recruitment and selection designed and executed?
What is the balance between the objectives of exploitation and exploration?
Is a different policy needed for exploitation and exploration, and does this create tensions?
What are those tensions?
How does the organization deal with those possible tensions?
2) How is the design of learning and development designed and executed?
What is the balance between the objectives of exploitation and exploration?
57
Is a different policy needed for exploitation and exploration, and does this create tensions?
What are those tensions?
How does the organization deal with those possible tensions?
3) How is the design of compensation and benefits designed and executed?
What is the balance between the objectives of exploitation and exploration?
Is a different policy needed for exploitation and exploration, and does this create tensions?
What are those tensions?
How does the organization deal with those possible tensions?
4) How is the design of performance management designed and executed?
What is the balance between the objectives of exploitation and exploration?
Is a different policy needed for exploitation and exploration, and does this create tensions?
What are those tensions?
How does the organization deal with those possible tensions?
Tensions
After discussing all HR practices, do you think any tensions exist between exploitation and
exploration?
How are these tensions reflected in the organization? What are the results of these tension?
Solutions
What is the best way to achieve ambidexterity within the organization?
58