تأثیر سرمایۀ فکری بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی: نقش تعدیل‌گر فرهنگ نوآورانه (مورد مطالعه: ‌صنعت برق در کشور)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی - کمی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه خوارزمی،تهران، ایران

2 استادیار دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف این تحقیق تبیین نقش سرمایۀ فکری بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی با توجه به نقش تعدیل­گر فرهنگ نوآورانه است. این تحقیق از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش توصیفی- همبستگی می‌باشد. جامعۀ آماری تحقیق 370 شرکت‌ تولیدی فعال در صنعت برق است که به شیوۀ نمونه‌گیری در دسترس،90 شرکت به­عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. ابزار جمع­آوری داده­ها، سه پرسشنامة استاندارد شامل ۴۲ آیتم بوده است. برای سنجش متغیرها از مقیاس سرمایۀ فکری بونتیس (۱۹۹۸)، مقیاس دوسوتوانی سازمانی جانسن و همکاران (۲۰۰۶) و مقیاس فرهنگ نوآورانۀ دشپاند و همکاران (1993) استفاده شد. برای تحلیل داده‌ها، از مدل معادلات ساختار به روش حداقل مربعات جزئی (SmartPLS 3) استفاده شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که سرمایۀ فکری تأثیر مثبت و قوی بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی دارد. به‌علاوه، سرمایۀ انسانی و سرمایۀ سازمانی و سرمایۀ ارتباطی بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی تأثیر مثبت داشتند. فرهنگ نوآورانه نیز تأثیر سرمایۀ فکری بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی را تعدیل می­ کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The effect of intellectual capital on organizational ambidexterity: Explanation of moderating role of innovative culture (Electricity Industry in the country)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Usef Vakili 1
  • soltanali shahriari 2
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of intellectual capital on Organizational Ambidexterity dimensions (exploration and exploitation) as well as the moderating effect of Mediating innovative culture in electricity industry. The research method is descriptive - correlation. the research statistical population constitute 90 manufacturing company’s managers in the electricity industry in the country select as the subjects. Data were collected via three standard questionnaires with 42 questions. to assess dimensions, Organizational Ambidexterity Scale proposed by jansen et al (2006), intellectual capital Scale was developed by Bontis (1998), and innovative culture Scale was developed by Deshpandé, Farley‌ & Webster (1993) was employed. This study applies SmartPLS3 to investigate the research model. The results showed that intellectual capital and intellectual capital demensions has positive effects on Organizational Ambidexterity. In addition to, this study finds that innovative culture is the moderating factor between intellectual capital and Organizational Ambidexterity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Organizational Ambidexterity
  • Intellectual Capital
  • Innovative Culture

 

ابراهیم پور، مصطفی، مرادی، محمود و ممبینی، یعقوب (1393). تأثیر دوسوتوانی سازمانی بر عملکرد صنایع تولیدی: بررسی نقش پویایی‌های محیطی، فصلنامه علوم مدیریت ایران، سال نهم، شماره ۳۶­، صص.۵۳-۷۵.

حقیقی، محمد، دهقانی سلطانی، مهدی و فارسی­زاده، حسین. (1396). تبیین نقش دوسوتوانی سازمانی در تأثیرگذاری فرهنگ نوآور و حافظه سازمانی بر عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید. فصلنامه پژوهش­­های مدیریت عمومی، سال دهم، شماره ۳۸، 223-197.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K., (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27) 4(, pp. 287-298.

Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36 )42(, 63-76.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H., (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects, Organization Science, 20 (4), 781-796.

Dobni, C. B., (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations: The development of a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis, European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 539-559.

Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E., (1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23-37

Fu, N., Ma, Q.­,  Bosak, J.,  Flood, P., (2016). Intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity in Chinese and Irish professional service firms, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(2), 94-114.

Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J., (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E., (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.

Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F., (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.

Jansen, J.J.P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q., (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1286-1303.

Jansen, J.J.P., van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W., (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.

Jaskyte, K., (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 153-68.

Jiang, K., Lepal, D. P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A., & Wrinkler, A., (2012). Clarifying the construct of human resource systems: Relating human resource management to employee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 73–85.

Kang, S. C., & Snell, S.A., (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65-92.

Kang, S. C., Snell, S.A., & Swart, J., (2012). Options-based HRM, intellectual capital, and exploratory and exploitative learning in law firms’ practice groups. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 461-485.

Ketkar, S. & Sett, P.K., (2009). HR flexibility and firm performance: Analysis of a multi-level causal model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5), 1009–1038.

Kostopoulos, K. C., Bozionelos, N., & Syrigos, E., (2015). Ambidexterity and unit performance: Intellectual capital antecedents and cross-level moderating effects of human resource practices, Human Resource Management, 54(1), 111–132.

March, J.G., (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Martın-de-Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., Lopez-Saez, P., Navas-Lo´pez, J.E., (2011). Towards ‘An Intellectual Capital-Based View of the Firm’: Origins and Nature, Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 649–662.

Martínez-Pérez, Á., Martínez-Pérez, Á., García-Villaverde, P. M., García-Villaverde, P. M., Elche, D., & Elche, D., (2016). The mediating effect of ambidextrous knowledge strategy between social capital and innovation of cultural tourism clusters firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(7), 1484-1507.

McGrath, R.G., (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 118-131.

Morris, S.S., & Snell, S.A., (2011). Intellectual capital configurations and organizational capability: An empirical examination of human resource subunits in the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(6), 805–827.

Mura, M., Radaelli, G., Spiller, N., Lettieri, E., & Longo, M., (2014). The effect of social capital on exploration and exploitation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15, (4), 430-450.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S., (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.

Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P., (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation, 25(10), 1141-1157.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.

Quintane, E., Casselman, M. R., Reiche, S. B., & Nylund, P. A., (2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928-947.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J., (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Simsek, Z., (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624.

Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A., (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities, Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

Swart, J., & Kinnie, N., (2010). Organisational learning, knowledge assets and HR practices in professional service firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(1), 64–79.

Wright, P.M., & Snell, S.A., (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756–772.

Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S.A., (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and Returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 335–362.