Drawing on the knowledge-based theory of the firm and organisational learning theory, the present study chiefly examines the impact of firm-specific human capital on organisational ambidexterity and the subsequent effect of organisational ambidexterity on productivity by integrating human capital theory with the theory of transaction cost. The data were garnered from 197 managers in Sri Lanka with self-reported questionnaires in a time-lagged approach. The results disclose strong significant relationships between the variables investigated: a chain of positive relationships between firm-specific human capital and organisational ambidexterity, organisational ambidexterity and productivity, and productivity and firm performance; and mediated relationships between firm-specific human capital and productivity through organisational ambidexterity, and between organisational ambidexterity and firm performance via productivity. The findings of the study push back the frontiers of human resource management literature in many ways. Notably, managers should be cognizant of the effects of firm-specific human capital, organisational ambidexterity, and productivity on firm performance.
AdlerP. S.BennerM.BrunnerD. J.MacDuffieJ. P.OsonoE.StaatsB. R.TakeuchiH.TushmanM.WinterS. G. (2009). Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.01.004
2.
AhammadM. F.LeeS. M.MalulM.ShohamA. (2015). Behavioral ambidexterity: The impact of incentive schemes on productivity, motivation, and performance of employees in commercial banks. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), S45–S62. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21668
3.
AndersénJ. (2019). Resource orchestration of firm-specific human capital and firm performance—the role of collaborative human resource management and entrepreneurial orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579250
4.
AsiaeiK.JusohR. (2015). A multidimensional view of intellectual capital: The impact on organizational performance. Management Decision, 53(3), 668–697. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0300
5.
AuhS.MengucB. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
6.
BeckerG. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5, Part 2), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/258724
7.
BendicksonJ. S.ChandlerT. D. (2019). Operational performance: The mediator between human capital developmental programs and financial performance, Journal of Business Research, 94, 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.049
8.
BollenK. A.StineR. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002004
9.
BollenK.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
10.
BurgelmanR. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094808
11.
ByrneB. M. (2016). Structural Equation modelling with AMOS. Routledge.
12.
CampanellaF.Del GiudiceM.ThrassouA.VrontisD. (2016). Ambidextrous organizations in the banking sector: An empirical verification of banks’ performance and conceptual development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239122
13.
CaniëlsM. C.NeghinaC.SchaetsaertN. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: The role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5), 1098–1119. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0440
14.
CastaniasR. P.HelfatC. E. (1991). Managerial resources and rents. Journal of Management, 17(1), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700110
15.
CheungG. W.LauR. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
16.
CoffR.RaffieeJ. (2015). Toward a theory of perceived firm-specific human capital. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(3), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0112
17.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best Practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
18.
CousinsC. R.TangN. (2004). Working time and work and family conflict in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 18(3), 531–549.
19.
CrookT. R.ToddS. Y.CombsJ. G.WoehrD. J.KetchenD. J. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022147
20.
DessG. G.RobinsonR. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050306
21.
DewarR. D.DuttonJ. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422
22.
DooleyL. M.LindnerJ. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1052
23.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
24.
FitzRoyF.KraftK. (2005). Co-determination, efficiency and productivity. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00353.x
25.
FloydS. W.LaneP. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791608
26.
FrankD. H.OblojT. (2014). Firm-specific human capital, organizational incentives, and agency costs: Evidence from retail banking. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1279–1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2148
27.
FreezeR. D.RaschkeR. L. (2007). An assessment of formative and reflective constructs in IS research. ECIS Proceedings, 1481–1492.
28.
GibsonC. B.BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
29.
GlennA.McGarrityJ. P.WellerJ. (2001). Firm-specific human capital, job matching, and turnover: Evidence from major league baseball, 1900–1992. Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2001.tb00052.x
30.
GrantR. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(SI), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
31.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. (7th ed.). Pearson
32.
HansenN. K.GüttelW. H.SwartJ. (2019). HRM in dynamic environments: Exploitative, exploratory, and ambidextrous HR architectures. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 648–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1270985
33.
HatcherL. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the sas system for factor analysis and Structural Equation Modelling. SAS Institute Inc.
34.
HeZ. L.WongP. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
35.
HittL. M.BrynjolfssonE. (1996). Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/249475
36.
JovanovicB. (1979). Firm-specific capital and turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(6), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10.1086/260834
37.
JunniP.SaralaR. M.TarasV.TarbaS. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015
38.
KangS. C.SnellS. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00776.x
39.
KengatharanN. (2019). A knowledge-based theory of the firm: Nexus of intellectual capital, productivity and firms’ performance, International Journal of Manpower, 40(6), 1056–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2018-0096
40.
KesslerA. S.LülfesmannC. (2006). The theory of human capital revisited: On the interaction of general and specific investments. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 903–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01116.x
41.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
42.
KostopoulosK. C.BozionelosN.SyrigosE. (2015). Ambidexterity and unit performance: Intellectual capital antecedents and cross-level moderating effects of human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 54(SI), s111–s132. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21705
43.
LazearE. P. (2009). Firm-specific human capital: A skill-weights approach. Journal of Political Economy, 117(5), 914–940. https://doi.org/10.1086/648671
44.
LeuvenE.OosterbeekH. (2001). Firm-specific human capital as a shared investment: Comment. American Economic Review, 91(1), 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.342
45.
LittleT. D.LindenbergerU.NesselroadeJ. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When ‘good’ indicators are bad and ‘bad’ indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192
46.
LubatkinM. H.SimsekZ.LingY.VeigaJ. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
47.
MalikA.BoyleB.MitchellR. (2017). Contextual ambidexterity and innovation in healthcare in India: The role of HRM. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1358–1380. http://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2017-0194
48.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
49.
MathewJ.OgbonnaE.HarrisL. C. (2012). Culture, employee work outcomes and performance: An empirical analysis of Indian software firms. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.04.006
50.
MayerK. J.SomayaD.WilliamsonI. O. (2012). Firm-specific, industry-specific, and occupational human capital and the sourcing of knowledge work. Organization Science, 23(5), 1311–1329. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0722
51.
MiaoC.QianS.MaD. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12240
52.
MomT. J.BoschF. A. van. den.VolberdaH. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x
53.
NafukhoF. M.HairstonN.BrooksK. (2004). Human capital theory: Implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000299843
54.
NealD. (1995). Industry-specific human capital: Evidence from displaced workers. Journal ofLabor Economics, 13(4), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1086/298388
55.
NemanichL. A.VeraD. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.002
56.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
57.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
58.
PatkyJ.PandeyS. K. (2020). Does flexibility in human resource practices increase innovation? mediating role of intellectual capital. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093720934243-
59.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.Jeong-YeonL.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: Critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
60.
RaffieeJ.CoffR. (2016). Micro-foundations of firm-specific human capital: When do employees perceive their skills to be firm-specific? Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 766–790. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0286
61.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
62.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ.ProbstG.TushmanM. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
63.
RichardP. J.DevinneyT. M.YipG. S.JohnsonG. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560
64.
RichardsonH. A.VandenbergR. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 561–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.329
65.
SharabatiA. A. A.Naji JawadS.BontisN. (2010). Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan. Management Decision, 48(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014481
66.
SheldonP.LiY. (2013). Localized poaching and skills shortages of manufacturing employees among MNEs in China. Journal of World Business, 48(2), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.003
67.
StevensJ. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68.
StubnerS.BlarrW. H.BrandsC.WulfT. (2012). Organizational ambidexterity and family firm performance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2012.10593570
69.
SubramaniamM.YoundtM. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407911
70.
VelicerW. F.FavaJ. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231
71.
VenugopalA.KrishnanT. N.KumarM.UpadhyayulaR. S. (2019). Strengthening organizational ambidexterity with top management team mechanisms and processes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 586–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1277369
72.
WallT. D.MichieJ.PattersonM.WoodS. J.SheehanM.CleggC. W.WestM. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x
73.
WallaceR. O.MellorC. J. (1988). Nonresponse bias in mail accounting surveys: A pedagogical note. The British Accounting Review, 20(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-8389(88)90036-4
74.
WangH.BarneyJ. B.ReuerJ. J. (2003). Stimulating firm-specific investment through risk management. Long Range Planning, 36(1), 49–59.
75.
WangH.ZhaoS.ChenG. (2017). Firm-specific knowledge assets and employment arrangements: Evidence from CEO compensation design and CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1875–1894. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2604
76.
WangJ. F. J.TarnD. D. (2018). Are two heads better than one? Intellectual capital, learning and knowledge sharing in a dyadic interdisciplinary relationship. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1379–1407. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2017-0145
77.
WooldridgeB.FloydS. W. (1989). Strategic process effects on consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100308
78.
XingY.LiuY.TarbaS.WoodG. (2020). A cultural inquiry into ambidexterity in supervisor–subordinate relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(2), 1203–1231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137619
79.
XuJ.HuangY. T. (2020). Effects of social support on English reading amount in Hong Kong primary schools: The mediating role of reading confidence. Educational Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1729096
80.
YoundtM. A.SubramaniamM.SnellS. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00435.x
81.
YoundtM.SnellS. (2004). Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(3), 337–360. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604485
82.
YuanK. H.MarshallL. L.BentlerP. M. (2002). A unified approach to exploratory factor analysis with missing data, nonnormal data, and in the presence of outliers. Psychometrika, 67(1), 95–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294711
83.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.JrChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
