Research Proposal HRM and OA v PDF

Preview

Summary

A proposal for research on the shaping of organisational context...

Description

18. Dec. 2014

The role of HR practices and processes in influencing and shaping the organisational context to foster organisational ambidexterity Matriculation No.: 40179927

Research Proposal for Research Methods SOE 11133

Session 2014/2015 Lecturer Moira Hughes (module leader)

Word count: 4.382

18. Dec. 2014

Declaration I agree to work within Edinburgh Napier University’s Academic Conduct Regulations which require that any work that I submit is entirely my own. The regulations furthermore require me to use appropriate citations and references in order to acknowledge where I have used any materials from any sources. I am providing my student Matriculation Number (above and in the footer) – in place of a signed declaration – in order to comply with Edinburgh Napier University’s assessment procedures.

Acknowledgement Throuout the report references about the ‘research organisation’ are made. This is because I’m currently involved in two hiring processes and no final decision has been made yet. Thus there is also no section on a specific organisation as they both operate in different sectors. I hope to receive a final decision soon as to start on the research as planned (approach and time table).

Matr.: 40179927

Page I

18. Dec. 2014

Table of Content Declaration .......................................................................................................................... I Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. I Table of Content................................................................................................................. II List of Figures ................................................................................................................... III List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... IV Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Aims and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 2 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Organisational Ambidexterity ............................................................................................... 4 2.2 Organisational Context and Dimensions of Contextual Ambidexterity............................ 6 2.3 HR Practices & Processes .................................................................................................... 8

3. Research Methodology and Approach ...................................................................... 11 3.1 Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Research Method ................................................................................................................. 13 3.4 Research Analysis ...............................................................................................................14 3.5 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................................ 14

4. Research Plan .............................................................................................................. 15 References........................................................................................................................... i Appendices......................................................................................................................... v Appendix A.1: The Resource-Based View (RBV) ...................................................................... v Appendix A.2: Research Plan as a Gantt chart ........................................................................ vi

Matr.: 40179927

Page II

18. Dec. 2014

List of Figures Figure 2.1: The two dimensions of contextual ambidexterity ............................................. 7 Figure 2.2: Linkage between HR philosophy, HR practices, HR processes and employee attitudes and behaviour ................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2.3: Elements of a HR system and the interrelation with the wider organisational context .......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3.1: The four stages of the research process ........................................................ 11

Matr.: 40179927

Page III

18. Dec. 2014

List of Tables Table 2.1: Structural and contextual ambidexterity ............................................................. 5

Matr.: 40179927

Page IV

18. Dec. 2014

Introduction Economic uncertainty, political turmoil, increased competition from around the world and incremental or disruptive technological advancement are just some forces that shape the environment of companies nowadays (Peng and Meyer, 2011). Companies, thus, need to be adaptive otherwise they might lose current business or miss out on future opportunities (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). But what makes the difference between two businesses? Why do some survive over years while others vanish? In 1985, Tushman and Romanelli formulated their theory of punctuated equilibrium change. It proposes that through punctuated changes and realignment of a company’s structure and processes, firms evolve in time. This describes a sequential process. However, as a study conduced by Nadler and Tushman (1995) indicates, most organisations not just only face episodes of discontinuous, transformative but also incremental changes. Furthermore, this change patterns (transformative-incremental) repeat themselves regularly and the velocity of change increased within the last years. It can be concluded that changing and realigning the structures and process therefore, becomes a constant effort. Since the publication of March’s seminal paper (1991) organisational ambidexterity emerge as a viable and contradictory concept in organisation theory. He argues that the fundamental problem of organisations is to “engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its future viability” (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2011, pp. 5). Despite significant ambiguity about the concept of organisational ambidexterity, it is generally agreed that a company is ambidextrous when it simultaneously engages in exploitation/alignment and exploration/adaptability activities and that it has a positive impact on a firm’s performance and competitiveness (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004; Cao et al., 2009; Raisch et al., 2009). Albeit, both abilities are important for organisation survival, researchers recognise the inherent tension between exploration and exploitation based on the concept of March, since they compete for scarce resources (Gupta et al., 2006; March, 1991; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2011).

Matr.: 40179927

Page 1

18. Dec. 2014

The motivation of this research is to understand (a) the concept and limitations of ambidextrous organisations and (b) explore how human resource management (HRM) can help to enable characteristics of ambidexterity. Therefore, in this proposal, the aims and objectives for the dissertation will be outlined first. Following this, an initial literature review will be given to outline the concepts associated with this research and to highlight some ambiguities. Based on this the research approach will be described. This is an important part of every research conducted in order to ensure ethical behaviour, intended methods of data collection and assumptions as well as believes of the researcher. Concluding this proposal, a research plan will be provided to outline the timescale and important milestones.

1. Aims and Objectives As briefly outlined both organisational ambidexterity and HRM are by themselves assumed to provide either competitive advantage or enable companies to survive in the volatile and dynamic environment of today’s world (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004; Boxall, 1996). Thus, linking both concepts seems to be a reasonable undertaking. Since HRM is a very broad construct, like marketing or management, the focus of the research is on HR practices. On that account, the major aim of the dissertation is to ‘explore how HR practices and processes can support characteristics of an ambidextrous organisation’. To be able to explore this the following research objectives will guide the study: •

Critically reviewing the relevant literature in the appropriate areas of human resource management and organisational ambidexterity,

•

Exploring how HRM practices and processes could shape and influence the organisational context to display ambidextrous characteristics, by undertaking primary research in form of semi-structured interviews and reviewing key documents,

•

Using thematic analysis to investigate possible relationships between HR practices and processes and organisational ambidexterity based on the research findings,

•

Providing recommendation for the research organisation to enhance HR practices and processes to improve organisational ambidexterity.

In order to support a logic flow the objectives have been developed in such a way that they build on each other. The more thorough review of relevant literature is conduced in order Matr.: 40179927

Page 2

18. Dec. 2014

to build a deeper understanding of the key concepts and to identify possible themes that may guide the semi-structured interviews. These interviews are then used to further explore how HRM practices and processes could shape and influence the organisational context. The subsequent analysis of the primary data is assumed to help identifying additional themes and characteristics in order to generate deeper insights. In the end, all elements act as basis for the establishment of recommendations for the research organisation.

2. Literature Review Significance and Scope of the Research As indicated earlier, organisational ambidexterity can be defined as a company’s ability to engage in explorative and exploitative activities at the same time (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004; Cao et al., 2009; Raisch et al., 2009). Exploitation refers to the capability of a company to use its current assets (e.g. knowledge base or capital) in order to get better at what it is currently doing whereas exploration is a future related activity and concerned with learning and innovation to enable future competitiveness (Gupta et al., 2006, March, 1991; Patel et al., 2013). O’Reilly and Tushman (2013, p. 20) point out “organisational ambidexterity is a topic of immense practical importance and great theoretical opportunities”. Since March’s article in 1991, a growing body of academic research has examined the concept of organisational ambidexterity and the linkage to firm performance, including theoretical papers, special issues of journals and symposia at professional meetings (cf. Cao et al. 2009, O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). In spite of this proliferation of interest, however, Gupta et al. (2006) point out that central questions of the concept of organisational ambidexterity remain incomplete, contradictory or ambiguous. Currently, only one report was identified to explicitly linking HRM to organisational ambidexterity. Patel et al. (2013) assess the relationship between high-performance work systems and organisational ambidexterity. For their research they used data from 215 small and medium enterprises (SME) in the United States. Nevertheless, they do not work out specific HR practices to support exploitation and exploration and thus providing a research gap on how HR practices can support ambidextrous traits.

Matr.: 40179927

Page 3

18. Dec. 2014

Therefore the scope of the study is to explore how HR practices and processes can support organisational ambidexterity by means of influencing an organisational context that fosters both exploitation and exploration.

2.1 Organisational Ambidexterity As pointed out earlier, the concept of organisational ambidexterity is still blurred. Besides this, however, several studies have shown that it is positively associated with different indicators of organisational performance (e.g. O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). As O’Reilly and Tushman (2011, pp. 7) remark “if companies embark on exploitation and exploration at the same time, the question is ‘how to best set up’ since naturally there is a tension between this two traits”. Two constructs that are generally discussed in the literature are trying to solve this exploit-explore dilemma. These are structural and contextual ambidexterity. Structural ambidexterity assumes that ambidexterity is achieved by means of structural separation of exploiting and exploring activities (Cao et al., 2009; March, 1991; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013; Raisch et al., 2009). It is argued that structural separation is important since both traits require different and contradictory structures and processes and demand a dissimilar culture (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). This could mean, for example, to set up a separate task force to focus on exploration while the operating business concentrate on exploiting current assets. However, as Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) remark, separation could lead to isolation. They comment that “many R&D and business-development groups have failed to get their ideas accepted because of their lack of linkages to the core business” (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004, p. 49). Thus, despite the management of the trade-offs between exploitation and exploration, managing the connection and coordination of the structurally separate entity and the core business becomes a critical task. On the other hand, contextual ambidexterity is seen as the “behavioural capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability” (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). Contrary to the structural concept, contextual ambidexterity seeks to solve the tension by means of establishing an organisational context supportive of both traits. As Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue, a supportive organisational context does not emphasise specific actions but it rather creates the environment that inspires and encourages ambidextrous behaviour at the individual level. Matr.: 40179927

Page 4

18. Dec. 2014

Nevertheless, Kauppila (2010, p. 286) critiques the contextual concept since “it does not really consider how a firm can simultaneously conduct radical forms of exploration and exploitation. It simply assumes that exploratory knowledge is produced somewhere and is available for use”. Table 2.1 compares structural and contextual ambidexterity regarding key aspects. Structural Ambidexterity

Contextual Ambidexterity

Alignment-focused and adaptability-focused activities are done in separate units or teams

Individual employees divide their time between alignment-focused and adaptability-focused activities

At the top of the organisation

On the front line – by salespeople, plant supervisors, office workers

Role of top management

To define the structure, to make trade-offs between alignment and adaptability

To develop the organisational context in which individuals act

Nature of role

Relatively clearly and defined

Relatively flexible

Skills of employee

More specialists

More generalists

How is ambidexterity achieved?

Where are decisions made about the split between alignment and adaptability?

Table 2.1: Structural and contextual ambidexterity (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004, p. 50)

Despite the differences in both concepts they rely on the basic assumption posed by March (1991) that exploitation and exploration are inherently conflicting and compete for scarce organisational resources and require a different organisational set-up by means of structure, processes and culture. But lately, researchers began to characterise both traits not as contradictory but as orthogonal (Cao et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2009). The contradictory perspective is based on the stance that exploration and exploitation are the opposing ends of a continuum and compete for scarce resources, thus a company cannot pursue both extensively and need to balance their activities. The orthogonal stance sees exploration and exploitation as complementary and independent of each other, allowing companies to engage in high levels of both activities and hence no tension to be managed (Cao et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2006). Regardless of the remaining ambiguity, tensions and conceptual blur, contextual ambidexterity will be the scope of the research. This does not mean that structural separation is negligible but that the attention of the study is on contextual/behavioural rather than strucMatr.: 40179927

Page 5

18. Dec. 2014

tural characteristics. As Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004, p. 55) note, “structural separation may at times be essential, but it should also be temporary”.

2.2 Organisational Context and Dimensions of Contextual Ambidexterity At the heart of contextual ambidexterity is an organisational context that stimulates and facilitates alignment and adaption (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). In their article they rely heavily on context as characterised by Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994) and condense the four attributes into two dimensions. Organisational context can be defined as “the often invisible set of stimuli and pressures to motivate people to act in a certain way” (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004, p. 50). As proposed by Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994), the four attributes that can notably alter the organisation’s context and thus the behaviour and actions of every person in the company are discipline, stretch, trust and support. They propose that discipline is the attribute that emerges with (a) defined standards for performance and behaviour, (b) open, honest and timely feedback and (c) fairness and consistency in applying sanctions. This all contributes to the endeavour of a company’s employees to meet the expectations (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994). In addition, stretch is related to collective commitment and identity. Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994) intend that stretch is constituted by (a) a shared ambition that translates into emotional commitment, (b) the development of a collective identity and (c) to give individual meaning to the contribution of each employee. Furthermore, trust is concerned with the reliance on the commitment of each other. It comes into appearance when there is (a) perceived fairness and equity in the decisionmaking processes, (b) involvement in decisions and core activities and (c) matching of competent people with the capabilities required by the position as well as training to increase overall competence (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994). The final attribute constituting an organisation’s context is support. It is related to the behaviour and willingness to assist and support fellow employees regardless of their hierarchical position (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994). As they claim, support is collectively enacted by (a) availability of resources at all levels, (b) distribution of autonomy for initiatives to lower levels and (c) guidance and help provided by senior employees.

Matr.: 40179927

Page 6

18....