Search results

This paper aims to conceptualize organizational ambidexterity and intellectual capital in the haute cuisine sector, describing their interrelation. Specifically, the study draws on the dimensions of intellectual capital as a lens to understand ambidextrous capabilities.

Three research questions were addressed using a qualitative methodology. The researchers conducted ten interviews with sector experts from haute cuisine restaurants.

The paper identifies the constituents of organizational ambidexterity and intellectual capital in the haute cuisine sector. It also frames how these elements interrelate each other to allow the generation of ambidextrous capabilities.

The investigation was conducted in only one country and a single sector.

The study provides guidance for haute cuisine restaurant managers to simultaneously develop innovation and efficiency in everyday activities, without having to choose between these two strategic objectives. Results show they must focus on human capital, which is one of the most important strategic resources in haute cuisine restaurants. This paper can help managers to design the organizational structures, processes and routines that allow haute cuisine restaurants to be ambidextrous.

The understanding of organizational ambidexterity and intellectual capital, and their integration, is critical for successful hospitality operations; however, research in this area is still limited. This integration can help haute cuisine restaurants to develop ambidextrous capabilities through their intellectual capital, establishing mechanisms to integrate individuals and group capabilities within the organizations.

There is an emerging literature on scientists in the principal investigator (PI) role that identifies them as central and key actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems. PIs in leading large-scale public research programmes and teams require an array of skills and abilities to be effective in this role. The purpose of this paper is to propose a human capital (HC) measurement scale that can unearth their competencies at the micro level, since there is no specific measurement scale specifically for PIs.

The proposed model was reached relying on both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, to then apply exploratory factor analysis (EPT) and confirmatory factor analysis (AFC) to verify its suitability, as well as its internal consistency and reliability using appropriate indices.

The proposed model is composed of six PI's HC factors, such as research knowledge, open-mind research ability, research perform ability, stoic research skill, innovation skill and critical skill.

In proposing this, this paper advances micro-level understanding of the competencies that PIs require to be effective in the role, and answers the call for deeper research on these crucial actors. Shedding light on this issue is beneficial for not only the administrators of the universities, the research centres or the funding agencies to obtain further essential information in selecting the best-qualified person, but also to self-evaluate their skills, abilities and knowledge so that they can direct their efforts towards improving the weak aspects of their HC. Furthermore, it can be an additional useful criterion for defining the career plans of PIs or their promotion policies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite the strong influence of Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) seminal work, the effects of top management team (TMT) characteristics on strategic processes remain unclear. This study aims to go beyond the traditional upper echelon theory and to propose a human capital taxonomy of TMTs from the perspective of top human resources managers.

The research integrates arguments from the strategic human capital and strategic issue diagnosis literatures. An exploratory cluster analysis was conducted in an attempt to describe different human capital typologies in TMTs in a sample of 120 Spanish companies.

The exploratory analysis showed three distinct human capital profiles: “technocratic teams”, “highly skilled teams” and “operational teams”. In addition, this paper provides preliminary results about the effects of each profile in the above taxonomy on strategic issue diagnostic processes, suggesting that “highly skilled teams” present the most appropriate combination of human capital attributes.

This analysis provides a guide for top managers regarding the human capital needs they may face when interpreting strategic issues in strategy formation processes.

This paper makes a twofold contribution to the extant literature: proposing an analysis of TMTs’ human capital from a synergistic perspective (“human capital profiles”) instead of using the traditional “more is better” approach and providing preliminary explanations about how those human capital combinations contribute to success in the strategic issue diagnosis process.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and validation of an instrument for measuring intellectual capital in the academic research context. The current research context describes a new paradigm of scientific production characterized by interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and the intensification of the relations between the generators of knowledge. In this scenario, traditional measures of intellectual capital do not capture all the variables that make up the environment in which the research activities are carried out. This transformation of research processes suggests the need to bring theories of organizational behavior, more appropriate to an organizational context, to the study of scientific context. Thus, the paper contextualizes the intellectual capital approach, thereby explaining how the different attributes that build it influence scientific productivity and providing a measurement instrument to evaluate relative levels of intellectual capital in an academic research context.

The scale was designed through a double qualitative–quantitative scale development process. The literature on intellectual capital does not provide strong theoretical support for the definition of a specific set of items to be applied in the specific academic research context. Consequently, the scale constructs and observable variables were initially conceptualized through a Delphi panel. This initial set of indicators was empirically validated through a second quantitative stage to a sample of 1,798 Spanish academics. Given that no prior published studies have examined the construct validity of the proposed scale, and the proposed scale is not based on other previously validated scales, the authors used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to assess the internal consistency, using Cronbach’s α to determine reliability.

Drawing on the evidence obtained from a double qualitative–quantitative process, a scale consisting of 47 items was proposed to measure the three dimensions of intellectual capital, namely, the researcher’s human capital, as well as the nature of the social capital and organizational capital of the team in which the scholar is integrated. The process of identifying and validating indicators of intellectual capital allowed the authors to identify certain intangible elements that are key in the research process and that, therefore, determine scientific productivity. Thus, the proposed scale contributes by conceptualizing new variables that could be used to deepen and broaden the study of the determinants of research performance. The contextualization of intellectual capital approach can also help to assess the value of intangibles, offering an external reporting tool and making universities’ social contributions more visible to public and private stakeholders, justifying the efforts made by societies in the generation of academic knowledge.

The empirical analysis was carried out with an initial sample of 1,798 Spanish scholars. The validation of the scale should therefore be confirmed in different national contexts, with larger data sets. Likewise, the use of longitudinal data sets could help to study the effects of intellectual capital in academic research, thereby contributing to the ongoing debate on the determinants of research performance.

From a practical perspective, the instrument could be considered both as a management and an external reporting tool, providing a self-assessment instrument of the levels of intellectual capital. As a management tool, a specific measure of intellectual capital in an academic context could help to identify training needs, the implementation of practices that encourage the capability for building research networks and the development of reports with intellectual capital-related inputs for the justification of the resources received. At an institutional level, the proposed set of indicators also identifies the attributes of scholars linked to higher scientific performance, and the scale could be used as an instrument for selection processes in academic institutions, to develop practices related to the distribution of workload or the publication of intellectual capital indicators of its researchers in a healthy exercise of transparency.

While previous human resources management (HRM) studies have focused on human resources (HR) practices to explain the strategic HRM-performance link, organizational communication is studied as a key HRM process and an alternative perspective explains the factors influencing communication implementation and subsequently internal HRM system consistency. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

HR decision makers’ human capital is examined as a determinant of communication implementation by applying the partial least squares approach to a sample of 120 Spanish HR managers.

The results confirm the relevance of HR decision makers’ cognitive skills, showing that communication of HRM strategy does not appear to require a particular cognitive approach but rather a balance of creative and rational skills. Additionally, the findings suggest that appropriate communication implementation improves the internal consistency of the HRM system by creating coherent HR messages about the implemented practices.

This study presents three main contributions: analyzing conditions that promote more appropriate communication implementation; providing a process perspective instead of the traditional content focus to explain HRM, and deepening the ways in which communication affects the internal consistency of the HRM system.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.

This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.

In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.

This study aims to examine the connection between scholars' research performance and the multidisciplinary nature of their collaborative research. Furthermore, in response to mixed results regarding the effects of multidisciplinarity on research performance, this study explores how human resource management (HRM) practices may moderate this link.

The authors built a model based on the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence found in the review of diversity and HRM literature. The authors also performed a quantitative study based on a sample of scholars in the field of management. Different econometric estimations were used to test the proposed model.

The results of this empirical analysis suggest that multidisciplinary research has a non-linear effect on research performance. Certain HRM practices, such as development and collaboration, moderated the curvilinear relationship between multidisciplinarity and performance, displacing the optimum to allow higher performance at higher levels of multidisciplinary research.

The paper provides advances on previous works studying the curvilinear relationship between multidisciplinarity and the researchers' performance, confirming that multidisciplinarity is beneficial up to a threshold beyond which these benefits are attenuated. In addition, the findings shed light on important issues related to team-oriented HRM practices associated with the outcomes of multidisciplinary research.

Although several previous studies were focused on examining the determinants of research productivity, the knowledge of the competences and motives that lead researchers to achieve relevant scientific performance remains unclear. This paper is aimed at contributing to this gap in the research by proposing a typology to understand academic researchers' traits and extending the traditional “more is better” approach, which assumes that higher levels of competence and motivation are always preferable.

Cluster analysis was applied to a sample of 471 Spanish academics to examine diverse combinations of human capital attributes – knowledge, skills, and abilities – and two sources of motivation – intrinsic and extrinsic.

Four researcher profiles were identified: (1) high vocational academics; (2) motivated academics; (3) self-starter academics and (4) reactive academics. Based on these preliminary findings, we present conclusions about the functioning and productivity of academic researchers.

This paper contributes a novel typology of researchers to the extant literature based on the variables of academic human capital and motivation. The findings indicate that a required and specific combination of attributes better fits the reality of research activities.

The knowledge‐based theory argues that the strategy of internal diversification reflects a process of branching‐out, combination and transformation of the organization’s traditional knowledge bases. From this theory, this paper has the purpose to describe the cycles and phases in the process of knowledge creation that lead to the creation of new knowledge and consequently new product and business in a diversified Spanish firm. From the case study findings a theoretical proposition is derived in order to support the theoretical argument of the theory of knowledge creation.