Intellectual capital role in ambidexterity emergence

Abstract

Purpose Considering the inconclusive results in the literature on the way organizations create ambidextrous organizational capabilities, the purpose of this paper is to present an alternative theoretical model of three different paths through which ambidexterity is built. From a multilevel perspective, the model describes how specific combinations of the facets of intellectual capital – human, social and organizational capital – can synergistically work to reach ambidexterity. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on main arguments from multilevel and intellectual capital literature. The multilevel approach allows the authors to consider a broader perspective to define three specific modes to create ambidextrous capabilities. Additionally, the intellectual capital literature completes the model, with the input (human capital), mechanisms (social capital) and the infrastructure (organizational capital) needed to develop ambidexterity. With the integration of both frameworks, the model explains how different types of ambidexterity are generated at diverse firm levels – individual, group and organizational, following different and complementary paths. Findings This research goes beyond the traditional arguments on how organizations develop simultaneously exploration and exploitation activities, proposing an integrative model of three complementary modes: path 1 (ambidexterity based on individual human capital); path 2 (ambidexterity through social capital) and path 3 (ambidexterity through organizational capital). These paths link organizational levels in organizations, showing the accumulative process of ambidexterity from a multilevel perspective. Originality/value The paper offers an alternative view expanding the ongoing discussion in the ambidexterity field. There is a lack of configurational models in the literature that describe, from a synergistic point of view, these complementary paths to achieving organizational ambidexterity. This approach contributes to explaining that not only individual ambidextrous human capital is needed to generate organizational ambidexterity, but also that specialist human capital could be a source of ambidexterity.

Intellectual capital, organizational culture and ambidexterity in Colombian firms

“…The results show that these relationships between intellectual capital, organizational culture and ambidexterity are complex, given the different types of intellectual capital and organizational culture. The evidence found is consistent with the previously analyzed literature (Kang and Snell, 2009; Gupta, 2011; Naranjo-Valencia et al , 2011, 2017; Turner et al , 2013; Kostopoulos et al , 2015; Fu et al , 2016; Fernández-Pérez de la Lastra et al , 2017; Mubarik et al , 2019; Gürlek, 2021; Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020). Nevertheless, this work goes further by specifically considering the theoretical gap identified around the role played by the types of organizational culture proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2011) as factors mediating the relationship between intellectual capital and ambidexterity, where the indirect effect of market culture is highlighted.…”

“…Third, this study presents new evidence on the antecedents of ambidexterity in the Latin American context, which has been scarcely analyzed by previous research. Many of the empirical studies on intellectual capital and ambidexterity have been developed in contexts of developed economies such as North America (Kostopoulos et al , 2015), Europe (Naranjo-Valencia et al , 2011; Fu et al , 2016; Fernández-Pérez de la Lastra et al , 2017; Naranjo-Valencia et al , 2017) and some emerging economies in Asia (Fu et al , 2016; Duodu and Rowlinson, 2019; Mubarik et al , 2019; Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020; Gürlek, 2021). However, no similar previous studies have been identified in Latin American countries such as Colombia.…”

“…For example, it has been argued specialist human capital, cooperative social capital (dense social networks) and mechanistic structural capital support exploitation learning; whereas generalist human capital, entrepreneurial social capital (flexible social networks) and organic structural capital support exploration learning (Kang and Snell, 2009). Similarly, it has been argued that individual human capital, social capital and structural capital may be reflected in various levels of ambidexterity: individual, group and organizational (Fern andez-P erez de la Lastra et al, 2017).…”

“…Transforming the intellectual capital on the lines of ambidexterity may enable firms to effectively maintain a balance between exploration and exploitation activities (Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020). Some theoretical and empirical works have identified interesting links between intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity (Kang and Snell, 2009; Turner et al , 2013; Fu et al , 2016; Fernández-Pérez de la Lastra et al , 2017; Mubarik et al , 2019; Gürlek, 2021; Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020) since each type of intellectual capital can influence ambidexterity in multiple ways.…”

“…In this context, this research analyzes the impact of intellectual capital on organizational ambidexterity, assessing the mediating role organizational culture plays in this relationship. This research intends to fill a gap in the literature since some authors have studied the link between intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity (Kang and Snell, 2009; Turner et al , 2013; Fu et al , 2016; Fernández-Pérez de la Lastra et al , 2017; Mubarik et al , 2019; Gürlek, 2021) and mediating variables of this relationship such as high-performance human resource management practices (Kostopoulos et al , 2015) and technology absorptive capacity (Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020), but empirical evidence of the mediating role of organizational culture has yet to be specifically identified. Culture is considered a mediating variable in this relationship because the organization's intellectual capital assets can affect the internal or external focus of the culture and its orientation toward flexibility or control.…”