Human Resource Strategy

Ambidexterity and Unit Performance: Intellectual Capital Antecedents and Cross‐Level Moderating Effects of Human Resource Practices

“…Beyond this basic pattern of relationships, we further propose that the effect of each facet of intellectual capital on unit ambidexterity is not given but rather is subject to the moderating impact of organizational‐level HPHR practices. Following Bamberger and Meshoulam () and other related work (e.g., Huselid, ; Patel et al, ; Sun, Aryee, & Law, ), we consider HPHR practices as an integrated measure of people management methods that are reflected in three main HR subsystems: (1) people flow, comprising selective staffing, extensive skills training, internal mobility, and guaranteed job security; (2) appraisal and rewards, comprising long‐term‐‐oriented and results‐focused appraisal, and extensive and open‐ended rewards; and (3) employment relations, comprising broad job descriptions, flexible job assignments, and encouragement of employee participation. We argue that HPHR practices enhance unit members’ ability, motivation and opportunity (Appelbaum et al, ; Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, ) to share and reflect on contradictory information and, by so doing, shape the influence of the three facets of intellectual capital on ambidexterity.…”

How Top Management HR Beliefs and Values Affect High‐Performance Work System Adoption and Implementation Effectiveness

“…Next, we turn to the question of the specific cause‐effect and value‐based beliefs that are expected to be positively associated with strategic decisions by top managers to invest in an HPWS. Regarding cause‐effect beliefs, a basic premise of an HPWS is that employees are viewed as assets to be developed as opposed to simply variable costs to be minimized (Bamberger & Meshoulam, , p. 42). As part of viewing employees as assets, we propose that an underlying managerial cause‐effect belief in a profit‐making enterprise is that there will be some positive financial return to the firm for investments made in human resources and HR programs.…”

“…For example, organizational leaders with low HPWS values may choose to invest (or maintain investments) in some HR programs such as rigorous selection, or pay based on performance, but not in other HPWS programs that may be seen as directly affecting employee welfare such as those that provide employees with employment security, internal promotion opportunities, formal training, information sharing, or participation in decision making. These additional employee‐oriented HR programs, however, are integral parts of the HPWS and the social‐exchange relationship that underlies this HR system (Bamberger & Meshoulam, ; Hom et al, ; White & Bryson, ). Because an HPWS is defined as consisting of a broad‐based set of HR investments across a range of employee‐focused HR programs, we propose that high levels of systematic HPWS program investment are more likely to be found in firms with both high HR cause‐effect belief and high HPWS value‐based beliefs among top managers.…”

Turnover and balance between exploration and exploitation processes for high-performance teams

“…Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000) propose the need to segment workers into two work systems; however, there are also several proposals that suggest that segmentation into only two work systems is insufficient. We propose that the more working systems there are, the more accurate the assessed impact of turnover on high-performance teams will be.…”

“…This potential duality of working group efficiency may be the reason for the inverted U-shaped relationship between such efficiency and the signings and trades that we see at the macro level. Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000) suggested that organisations and, by extension, work groups can have multiple work systems. Two archetypal systems are the commitment system and the secondary system, also known as the control or support system.…”