How Ambidextrous Human Resource System Affect Employee Creativity? A Study in the Pakistani Context

Abstract

Strategic human resource management scholars have devoted substantial research to determine the relationship between human resource management (HRM) and creativity. It has focused primarily on HRM architecture at the macro level: exploring the effect of the HRM system on performance related to capacity building, skills and competencies. In framing that HRM architecture, this macro focus informs organisations about how to promote creativity. However, literature on how a creativity-targeted HRM system, for instance, the ambidextrous HR system, influences employees’ perceptions and experiences to be more creative at the individual level is still limited. The multilevel perspective on how the HRM system can potentially promote the creativity of employees is still limited. The multilevel data from 100 HR heads and 400 faculty employees of public and private sector universities show that the top-down effect of the ambidextrous HR system on employee creativity is partially mediated by ambidextrous learning and organisation-based self-esteem. Based on the findings, the study offers practical and theoretical implications.

Untitled

“…During the selection process, articles under database categories other than management, business, operations research management science (WoS), as well as business, management and accounting (Scopus), including papers written in languages other than English, were eliminated from the study. At the stage of abstract evaluation, documents addressing the issue of ambidexterity in the academic dimension, yet dealing not with the areas of strategy, system and organizational structure, but with, inter alia, the use of ambidexterity in teaching processes (Rezende et al, 2016), HR ambidextrous systems (Yasmeen et al, 2022), IT ambidexterity (Taleb, Pheniqi, 2022), tactics of ambidextrous model building for university lifelong learning (Zuo et al, 2014) or inclusion of ambidexterity at the level of academics (Kobarg et al, 2017), were additionally excluded from the sample.…”