Intellectual capital role in ambidexterity emergence

Abstract

PurposeConsidering 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/approachThe 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.FindingsThis 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/valueThe 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.