The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Innovation in
Continuous innovation the hotel
in the hotel industry industry

The development of organizational

ambidexterity through human capital and 3609
organizational culture in Spanish hotels
Received 5 June 2017
Mercedes Úbeda-García, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Revised 12 September 2017
7 December 2017
Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, Francisco García-Lillo Accepted 30 January 2018

and Patrocinio Carmen Zaragoza-Sáez

Department of Management, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the use of high-performance work systems
(HPWSs) facilitates the development of organizational ambidexterity directly or through a mediating variable
such as ambidextrous organizational culture.
Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical model and the hypotheses proposed were tested
using a sample of 100 Spanish hotels. The data analysis method used was the partial least squares.
Findings – The results of the research confirm that HPWSs exert a direct influence on organizational
ambidexterity. HPWSs shape and integrate exploitative and exploratory activities through the construction of
a culture that promotes organizational diversity and shared vision, which are needed to shape a suitable
context for ambidexterity. Therefore, ambidextrous organizational culture emerges as a mediating variable
between HPWSs and organizational ambidexterity. Finally, the ambidexterity of hotels has a positive impact
on their performance.
Originality/value – The present paper presents new alternatives when undertaking research on
organizational ambidexterity. More specifically, this research incorporates a mediator variable called
ambidextrous organizational culture between HPWSs and organizational ambidexterity, which has not been
considered before.
Keywords Performance, High performance work system, Organizational ambidexterity,
Ambidextrous organizational culture
Paper type Research paper

Highlights

We analyze the relationship between HPWSs, ambidextrous organizational culture,

and organizational ambidexterity.

HPWSs directly and indirectly influence the development of ambidexterity through
the mediation of ambidextrous organizational culture.

Organizational ambidexterity positively influences hotel performance.
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
1. Introduction Vol. 30 No. 12, 2018
pp. 3609-3631
Tourism in Spain is based on the hotel sector with an atomized structure where small- and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
medium-sized enterprises prevail. Moreover, the hotel sector has recently undergone a rapid DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0326
IJCHM transformation due to various factors (competition from new destinations, excess supply in
30,12 the sector and more demanding clients). Accordingly, innovation in the hotel sector has
become a critical factor for success. In our view, both the peculiarities of the hotel sector as a
whole and the features which characterize Spain make it necessary to do research about
innovation in this industry through one of the increasingly important concepts for this
innovating process: organizational ambidexterity (OA).
3610 Benner and Tushman (2003) classify innovation into two types: exploratory innovation
and exploitative innovation. The former revolves around developing new knowledge to
serve new markets or to use new distribution channels, with the aim of meeting new market
demands; in turn, exploitative innovation is based on existing business knowledge
structure, placing the emphasis on achieving greater efficiency and improving innovation
capacity from the already available capabilities (improving existing services or processes)
for the purpose of satisfying current market needs. Innovation denotes intricate knowledge
management processes (and learning processes) of identifying and utilizing ideas, tools and
opportunities to create new or enhanced products or services (Subramaniam and Youndt,
2005). Therefore, in the literature on innovation, the terms exploitative learning or
exploitative innovation and exploratory learning or exploratory innovation are used
indiscriminately.
Focusing on the hotel industry, Tang (2014) points out that as hotels face greater
competitive pressure from globalization and customization, they need to meet their
customers’ demand for unique and memorable experiences (Chathoth et al., 2013) and
provide an effective, high-quality service to those customers (Wang et al., 2012) to survive in
the industry. In response to inquiries regarding customer service, hotels must create new
services (exploratory innovation) and improve the quality and prices of existing services
(exploitative innovation) (Martinez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes, 2009). The development of new
services and the improvement of current services were typically considered trade-offs (Olsen
and Sallis, 2006) and difficult to achieve at the same time, because the development of
service innovation and improvement capabilities requires distinct perspectives and decision-
making methods, together with operating processes and resources (Olsen and Sallis, 2006).
In this sense, OA serves to describe the ability of organizations to exploit their current
competences (exploitative learning) while they simultaneously explore new opportunities for
the development of new capabilities (exploratory learning) (March, 1991; Gibson and
Birkinshaw, 2004; Simsek et al., 2009; O’Reilly and Tushman, 1997; Johnson et al., 2016;
Zhang et al., 2016). This concept has been the focus of attention for a large number of
research works, many of them related to product/service innovation (Mei et al., 2014;
Mihalache and Mihalache, 2016; Martínez-Pérez et al., 2016).
The key question that research into ambidexterity has been trying to answer is: how do
organizations manage to achieve a balance – and synchrony – between exploitation and
exploration activities? Several scholars have argued that this is made possible through the
creation of a specific organizational context. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) suggested that
organizational performance can be enhanced by developing:
[. . .] a carefully selected set of systems and processes which collectively define a context that
allows the meta-capabilities of alignment and adaptability to simultaneously flourish, and thereby
sustain business unit performance (p. 210).
However, there is scarce empirical work to identify organizational systems that facilitate the
understanding of contextual ambidexterity.
Although a number of research papers have studied the role played by human resource
management, and more precisely the utilization of high-performance work systems
(HPWSs) to develop OA from a contextual point of view (Patel et al., 2013; Garaus et al., Innovation in
2016), and others have focused on analyzing the extent to which organizational culture is the hotel
relevant for ambidexterity development (Wang and Rafiq, 2014), these two antecedent
factors of OA have hitherto not been studied jointly.
industry
The present work seeks to jointly analyze two of the antecedent factors of OA: human
resource management systems and organizational culture. More precisely, this study
addresses the following research questions:
3611
RQ1. Is strategic human resource management, and more specifically HPWSs, an
antecedent factor of OA?

RQ2. Does an ambidextrous organizational culture (AOC) influence the development of

the appropriate context for OA?

RQ3. Is organizational culture a mediating variable in the relationship between HPWSs

and OA?

RQ4. Does OA contribute to organizational performance?

These questions identify important managerial problems facing hotels in carrying out
continuous innovation and balancing exploration and exploitation learning.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Organizational ambidexterity
March (1991) refers to terms such as variation-seeking, risk-taking and experimentation-
oriented learning activities as exploration (radical innovation) and variety-reducing and
efficiency-oriented learning activities as exploitation (incremental innovation).
The traditional literature on organizational learning often highlights the importance of
exploratory learning for organizational transformation and assumes a normative approach
that emphasizes this as opposed to exploitation learning. However, March (1991) points out
that an organization which only engages in exploration learning fails to appropriate the
profitability of the knowledge that it possesses, while the organization that focuses solely on
exploitation learning ends up falling into obsolescence. The dilemma posed by March (1991)
about the contradictions involved in exploration and exploitation learning gave rise to the
emergence of the “OA” concept to define organizations which are able to develop
exploitative and exploratory learning at the same time (Lubatkin et al., 2006; Heavy and
Sinsek, 2017). Therefore, maintaining a balance between both types of learning becomes the
key factor for long-term business survival. Three alternatives have been suggested to
achieve a balance between the exploratory and exploitative types of learning:
(1) Structurally separated or partitional ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;
Simsek et al., 2009; Benner and Tushman, 2003; Simsek, 2009; Raisch and
Birkinshaw, 2008): From this perspective OA is achieved by locating the
exploration and exploitation processes in separate organizational units.
(2) Cyclical or sequential ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009): Exploration and
exploitation can take place in the same business unit but through a cyclical
process: first exploration (with an suitable structure) and then exploitation (with
the consequent structural change).
IJCHM (3) Contextual ambidexterity or harmonic ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;
30,12 Simsek, 2009): This envisages exploration and exploitation as supplementary
activities. Contextual ambidexterity consists in integrating exploration and
exploitation into a single business unit, thus allowing effort in both activities.
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004, p. 209) define ambidexterity “as aligned and
efficient in their management of today’s business demands, while also adaptive
3612 enough to changes in the environment that will still be around tomorrow.”

Contextual ambidexterity differs from the previous types in its emphasis on individuals
rather than on units when it comes to achieving the fit between exploration and exploitation
activities. Contextual ambidexterity arises when an organization designs social and
behavioral mechanisms which allow employees to follow both learning types. Instead of
generating dual structural mechanisms as suggested by structural ambidexterity, this
perspective stresses the importance of creating a specific organizational context for the
systems, processes, and beliefs that comprise the individual behaviors within an
organization (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994). This context should encourage all the members of
the organization to judge and decide for themselves how to simultaneously practice
exploitation and exploration (Griffin et al., 2007).
It should be noted that the organizational context reflects a combination of structural and
cultural context. While the former refers more to specific systems and processes such as
human resource management policies, the latter focuses on the underlying belief in the
systems and values of the individuals belonging to the organization, which can influence
their judgment about how to allocate efforts between exploration and exploitation and how
to integrate them both in organizational routines. Therefore, contextual ambidexterity
requires, on the one hand, the participation of employees in the organization and its
appropriate management (Simsek et al., 2009) and, on the other hand, the adequate values
and norms reflected in an AOC that helps employees to properly direct their efforts toward
exploration and exploitation and infuse them into general routines (Miller and Friesen,
1984).
The following sections will be dedicated to discussing HPWSs and AOC, along with their
influence on OA.

2.2 High-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity

A large number of studies have examined the way in which firms use human resource
management to balance exploratory and exploitative learning (Kang and Snell, 2009;
Patel et al., 2013; Garaus et al., 2016). Some of these research papers suggest that human
resource policies differ according to whether an exploratory or an exploitative type of
learning is sought (Kang and Snell, 2009; Huang and Kim, 2013). Other studies argue that
the same practice can simultaneously favor exploitation and exploration (Parker et al.,
2006). Research in the field of human resources has shown that the application of certain
management practices does not by itself provide a competitive advantage; however,
increased performance arises when considering the synergistic effect of several practices
(Wright et al., 2001). By the same logic, this research will consider that such systems
(contemplated as a set of horizontally and vertically aligned human resource practices,
HPWS) will be the input to create a suitable context that can promote the development of
OA, even though no consensus has been reached on what the practices should be (Patel
et al., 2013; Heffernan and Dundon, 2016). Unanimity does seem to exist around the
opinion that these systems must contain at least three dimensions (Aryee et al., 2012),
namely:
 (1) practices oriented to skill improvement, including rigorous selection and training; Innovation in
(2) practices to enhance motivation, such as a suitable pay system and performance the hotel
assessment; and industry
(3) practices aimed at increasing opportunities, such as participation.

These dimensions synergistically combine to ensure that employees have not only the
adequate knowledge, skills and abilities but also the necessary motivation and opportunity 3613
to become involved in strategically appropriate behaviors that can lead to a sustained
competitive advantage (Gardner et al., 2011). Therefore, contextual ambidexterity could be
achieved through the flexibility of allocating the time and attention of human resources to
both exploration and exploitation (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004) using an HPWS.
Focusing on the utilization of HPWSs in the context of service sector firms, and
especially within the hotel industry, such systems should enable employees to acquire the
necessary knowledge, skills and abilities for an effective interaction with customers. By way
of example, to be able to meet customers’ needs, employees need not only to understand the
attributes of their product or service but also to have a deep knowledge of their customers’
needs, as well as the necessary skills and knowledge to adapt service or product attributes,
so that they can satisfy customers’ expectations (Liao et al., 2009). In other words, they
should develop their employees’ ability to both diagnose problems and to think creatively,
as well as to find new solutions to unique customer needs, which entails enhancing their
ability for both exploratory and exploitative learning.
This paper aims to test whether HPWSs contribute to contextual ambidexterity as a
means to establish a supportive organizational context (Flickinger et al., 2013) seeking to
simultaneously achieve exploration and exploitation; hence we pose the following
hypothesis:

H1. HPWS utilization is positively related to OA.

2.3 The role of ambidextrous organizational culture as a mediator variable between high-
performance work systems and innovation ambidexterity
The culture of an organization comprises a dynamic mix of values, ideas, habits and
traditions, which are shared by the members of the organization and regulate their actions
and define the expected behavior of each individual (Schein, 1992).
Numerous research works have related organizational culture to innovation and the role
that it develops in the degree of success achieved by means of innovative processes.
Connecting the topic of organizational culture with contextual ambidexterity, Gibson and
Birkinshaw (2004) identify four dimensions of the organizational context necessary for
ambidexterity: discipline, stretch, support and trust. Khanzanchi et al. (2007) suggest
considering alignment and adaptability as functions of a culture that fosters both flexibility
and control within the unit as an alternative way to conceptualize contextual ambidexterity.
Other studies confirm that the alignment and adaptability attributed to contextual
ambidexterity represent products of a culture focused on encouraging flexibility and control
(Chatman et al., 2013).
Seeking to provide a somewhat more specific description of the organizational culture required
to promote contextual ambidexterity, we decided to follow the arguments of Rink and Ellemers
(2007) and Wang and Rafiq (2014) that AOC should be based on two sets of organizational values
and norms – organizational diversity (OD) and shared vision (SV) – starting from the
aforementioned duality of organizational culture needed to achieve both control and flexibility.
IJCHM Wang and Rafiq (2014, p. 62) define OD “as the set of organizational values and norms
30,12 that encourage and tolerate differences, also recognizing and rewarding individuals’
different viewpoints, skills and knowledge.” This concept incorporates values which
stimulate people to think creatively, to be autonomous and innovative and to generate
multiple perspectives and viewpoints. Diversity consequently helps the organization to
move away from the tendency to apply already-known solutions to new problems. This is
3614 the way to encourage exploratory learning, and also exploitative learning, insofar as the
implementation of new ideas can improve organizational systems and processes.
SV is defined by Wang and Rafiq (2014, p. 62) “as the set of organizational values and
norms that promote the overall active involvement of organization members in the
development, communication, dissemination, and implementation of organizational goals.”
This concept relates to the theory of organizational learning, insofar as it fosters a “bottom-
up” process in the development of an SV inside a business unit – as opposed to the
traditional top-down approach – and will consequently develop a context suited to OA.
The cohesion between organizational and individual values generates a compromise effect
on the trust relations between the members of the organization, as it influences the reduction
of conflicts and facilitates a consonance of interests.
To this must be added that OD and SV reinforce each other. A firm with SV is more likely
to link multiple points of view with existing knowledge in accordance with the
organization’s objectives. Specifically, in the context of exploration, the SV allows the
organization to select the most useful new ideas, guided by organizational goals. If OD does
not exist, an organizational unit could be restricted to family solutions, which would lead to
scarce exploration. Without an SV to guide exploration of new knowledge, a business unit
could be controlled by highly enthusiastic and committed individuals who would take it in
different directions with a great amount of underexploited or unexploited ideas.
It is our intention in this research to ascertain which type of organizational culture is
more helpful in achieving OA; the following hypothesis can thus be proposed:

H2. AOC has a positive impact on OA.

While an AOC may lead to OA, it is important to answer the following question: How is that
culture shaped? Guest (1994) suggests in this regard that HRM will probably contribute both
to the emergence and to the reinforcement of rules, shared behavior patterns, values and
informal rules inside organizations. Thus, HPWSs are likely to impact on organizational
culture (thus, organizational culture is considered to be a dependent variable). However, we
should bear in mind the dominant organizational culture management practices, although
our study is based on the first perspective.
HPWSs thus play an important role in shaping culture. As Chow (2012, p. 3119) points out,
“a strong, well-designed HPWS brings greater homogeneity of perception, which in turn gives
rise to shared meaning in terms of organizational culture.” Hartog and Verburg (2004) assessed
the relationship between HPWSs and organizational culture using FOCUS (a competing values
model). These authors concluded that an innovative culture correlated positively with five out
of eight HPWS measures. The following hypothesis can therefore be stated:

H3. HPWSs have a positive impact on the development of an AOC.

It is also worth highlighting that no research studies have verified the mediating effect of
organizational culture in the relationship between HPWSs and OA. Nevertheless, some
studies such as those of Collins and Smith (2006), Gelade and Ivert (2003), Chuang and Liao
(2010) demonstrate a mediating effect of labor climate and service climate in the relationship
between HRM and organizational performance. Lee et al. (2015) find a positive relationship Innovation in
between ambidextrous culture and work performance. the hotel
Considering the works cited above, organizational culture seems to be an important
mediating variable between HPWS and organizational performance. In this sense, this
industry
research proposes that an AOC acts as the mediation mechanism that links HPWS and OA,
which leads to the formulation of our next hypothesis:

H4. AOC mediates the relationship between HPWSs and OA. 3615

2.4 Organizational ambidexterity and performance

Conceptually, OA should improve organizational performance, as an ambidextrous
organization will be more creative, more innovative and more flexible without losing the
benefits linked to exploitation such as efficiency and continuity (Simsek, 2009). Numerous
studies confirm this positive relationship between ambidexterity and various performance
indicators, including subjective performance measures (Cao et al., 2009) or market measures
such as Tobin’s Q (Wang and Li, 2008). According to O’Reilly and Thusman (2013), despite
the heterogeneity of the ambidexterity measures used, the business performance variables
utilized, the different levels of analysis and the various sectors analyzed, the results linking
OA and performance are robust. These arguments give rise to the following hypothesis.

H5. OA is positively related to hotel performance.

Figure 1 shows the theoretical model together with the hypotheses.

3. Research method
3.1 Sample and data collection
The theoretical model and the hypotheses proposed were tested using a sample of Spanish
hotels; more precisely, the population under study comprised a total of 415 establishments.
A questionnaire addressed to the human resource manager of the company or the CEO
(for smaller hotels) was designed for the purpose of obtaining all the necessary information.
A consensus was previously reached on the questionnaire with six experts in human
resource management, as well as with five tourism sector professionals. All these
professionals are associated with the university context, as they belong to the teaching staff
of post-graduate courses, which leads us to believe that they constitute an ideal connecting
link between academic knowledge and the reality of the hotel sector. A pre-test carried out
with 15 hotels allowed us to define the questions that were finally included in the
questionnaire (Appendix 1).
A total of 100 questionnaires considered valid were collected. This sample can be
considered adequate in size as, according to Reinartz et al. (2009), this number of
observations reaches acceptable levels of statistical power using the partial least squares
(PLS) technique.
Variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS) was the technique used for data
analysis. As this technique does not allow us to directly represent second-order factors,
they are created by previously calculating the factor scores of first-order constructs
(latent variable scores)  subsequently regarded as indicators of second-order factors
(Chin, 2010). Therefore, the first-order factors which constitute HPWSs, OA and AOC,
were included in the model separately with their respective indicators at an initial stage
(Figure 2 shows the first-order model), after which an estimate was made of a model
IJCHM
30,12

3616

Figure 1.
Theoretical model
and hypotheses

which used the factor scores (latent variable scores) previously calculated for each of
the first-order components.
To check if the means of the reflective constructs of the sample are similar to the population
mean, we proceeded to calculate the standard error of the mean at 95 per cent confidence
interval in which the population mean is probably found; Appendix 2 shows the results, which
suggest that the construct sample means are comparable to the population average.
To test for non-response bias, we examined differences between respondents and non-
respondents. t-Test revealed no significant differences based on control variables (size and
type of management).
The hotels in the sample have 48 employees on average, with an average number of 277
beds; 48 per cent of them belong to a hotel chain, and 43 per cent are three-star hotels; the
 Innovation in
the hotel
industry

3617

Figure 2.
First-order
structural model

remaining 57 per cent are four- and five-star hotels. As for respondents, human resource
managers account for 85 per cent of the sample, the remaining 15 per cent corresponding to
CEOs; 58 per cent are men, the average age is 46 years and the average length of
employment in the current hotel is 5 years.

3.2 Measurement of variables

Variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS) was used to test the proposed
relationships. Three reasons made us consider it appropriate to use such structural
equations (Sosik et al., 2009):

It is an emergent theoretical approach (no studies have so far jointly analyzed AOC
to explain the link between HPWSs and OA).

The work is carried out with a small sample.

Subjective construct assessment constitutes our starting point.

HPWSs. The references for our measurements of HPWSs can be found in the scales
developed by Beltrán-Martín et al. (2008) and Huselid (1995), which contain items related to
the aforesaid areas of selective staffing, comprehensive training, developmental
performance appraisal, equitable reward system and participation system. This paper sees
HPWS as a second-order construct shaped by five first-order reflective constructs.
OA. This variable was measured by means of the scales developed by Jansen et al. (2006,
2009), adapting them to our study population and treating these two scales, referred to as
exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation, as orthogonal variables (Gibson and
Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009). The same as in the previous case, this second-order
construct consists of two first-order reflective constructs (exploratory and exploitative
innovation).
AOC. The same as in the two preceding cases, this variable was regarded as a second-
order construct shaped by two first-order reflective constructs: OD and SV. OD measuring
was performed using three items extracted from the works of Rink and Ellemers (2007) and
IJCHM Wang and Rafiq (2014). In turn, SV was measured by means of four items, for which the
30,12 study undertaken by Wang and Rafiq (2014) served as a reference.
Hotel performance. Perception measures have been used to capture organizational
performance in this study. Eight items were used to capture, on the one hand, general
performance criteria (growth of market share, brand recognition, image of the company in
the market, and growth of sales) and, on the other hand, performance variables more in line
3618 with hotel sector companies (income per room, average occupancy, customers’ level of
satisfaction and that of employees).
Control variables. This study also monitors possible alternative explanations for the
relationships set forth in the theoretical model through the inclusion of relevant control
variables, more precisely, hotel size and hotel management type. First, because large
organizations are likely to own more resources but also may lack the flexibility required to be
ambidextrous, it was decided to include the number of full-time employees as an indicator of
firm size, insofar as greater size has traditionally been associated with inertia and difficulties in
processing information – these being aspects related to change of resources and the failure to
adapt to ever-changing conditions (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). Second, hotel management
type (independent hotel or belonging to a hotel chain) is used as a control variable because
some studies have found that belonging to a hotel chain improves the chances of survival
(Chung and Kalnins, 2001), and this can consequently affect their adaptability and/or flexibility.
To avoid common method bias, we follow the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003),
guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity to our respondents. We have also performed
confirmatory factor analysis, and the results show that there is no single factor and that
none of the factors found explain more than 40 per cent of the variance. Therefore, in this
study, we eliminate the problem of common method bias.

4. Results
The final model (Figure 1) was evaluated through the two basic stages of evaluation in PLS
models: evaluation of the measurement model and evaluation of the structural model.

4.1 Measurement model assessment

For reflective constructs in the PLS context, this first stage is evaluated through the analysis
of individual reliability in the indicators and scale reliability and validity. The evaluation of
individual reliability in indicators was performed through the value of their loadings (l ); as
shown in Figure 2, all loadings exceed the minimum value of 0.7. This first phase should
also include scales evaluation through Cronbach’s a index and composite reliability index,
as well as Dijktra–Hernseler’s (rho_A) indicator. The existence of convergent validity could
also be verified through the analysis of the extracted mean variance (AVE). As seen in
Table I, both the alpha values, composite reliability and rho_A exceeded the critical value of
0.7 in all variables, and the AVE value is situated above 0.5 (Fornell and Lacker, 1981).
Finally, the analysis of the measurement model requires verifying the existence of
discriminant validity. In this sense, the most accepted method in PLS is the verification

Variables Cronbach’s a rho_A Composite reliability AVE

AOC 0.829 0.834 0.921 0.854

Table I. HPWS 0.852 0.870 0.894 0.631
Summary of OA 0.829 0.851 0.921 0.853
measurement model PERFORMANCE 0.959 0.960 0.965 0.776
between the AVE value corresponding to each construct, through the squared correlation of Innovation in
that same construct with each one of the variables. Thus, if AVE is greater than the squared the hotel
correlation, it can be accepted that each construct is related more strongly to its own
measures than to other variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In addition, the heterotrait-
industry
monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion has a threshold of 0.90 (Gold et al., 2001). Table II shows
the findings which confirm discriminant validity.

4.2 Structural model assessment

3619
The evaluation of the structural model is carried out through the observation of R2; in this
case, an R2 of 0.653 was obtained for the organizational performance variable, with 0.698 for
the OA construct and 0.578 for the ambidextrous culture variable (See Table III).
The algebraic sign, magnitude and relevance of the path coefficients show the estimates
of structural model relationships, that is, the hypothesized relationships between constructs.
To assess the significance of such coefficients, the non-parametric bootstrapping technique
of 5,000 samples was used to obtain t statistics and confidence intervals (Table III). The four

AOC HPWS OA PERFORMANCE

Fornell–Larcker’s criterion
AOC 0.924
HPWS 0.761 0.795
OA 0.714 0.781 0.924
PERFORMANCE 0.632 0.747 0.770 0.881
HTMT ratio
OAC
HPWS 0.886
OA 0.847 0.859 Table II.
PERFORMANCE 0.705 0.819 0.854 Discriminant validity

Direct t-Value Percentile 95% confidence Hypothesis

Effects on endogenous variables effect (bootstrap) interval (Bias-corrected) confirmation

OA
R2 = 0.698/Q2 = 0.552
HPWS 0.667*** 8.813 [0.409;1.146]
H1. HPWS > AO Yes
AOC 0.207*** 2.659 [0.086;0.232]
H2. AOC > AO Yes
OAC
R2 = 0.578/Q2 = 0.473
HPWS 0.761*** 21.214 [1.009;2.091]
H3. HPWS > AOC Yes
2 2
PERFORMANCER = 0.653/Q = 0.459
AO 0.645*** 13.756 [0.689;1.464]
H5. AO > PERFORMANCE Yes
Size 0.055 1.117 [0.000;0.092]
Table III.
Type management 0.293*** 3.861 [0.119;0.467]
Effects on
Notes: t(0.05, 4999) = 1.645; t(0.01, 4999) = 2.327; t(0.001, 4999) = 3.0912; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < endogenous
0.001 variables
IJCHM direct effects shown in Figure 1(b) are significant because they exceed the minimum level of
30,12 a student’s t distribution with a tail and n-1 (n = number of resamples) degrees of freedom.
The same result occurs in 95 per cent confidence intervals. Therefore, an HPWS system
positively influences OA, an ambidextrous culture positively affects OA, an HPWS
intervenes in the formation of an ambidextrous culture and, finally, OA has a positive
impact on hotel performance. H1, H2, H3 and H5 are accordingly confirmed (Table III).
3620 The structural model was also evaluated using the Stone–Geisser test (Q2) following a
blindfolding procedure (Chin, 2010). A Q2 value greater than 0 implies that the model has
predictive relevance. The findings shown in Table III confirm that the suggested model has
a satisfactory predictive relevance for all dependent variables.
In relation to control variables, management type exerts a significant positive influence on
organizational hotel performance. Belonging to a hotel chain impacts positively on performance.

4.3 The mediation analysis

Considering the research model [Figure 1(b)], H4 represents a mediation hypothesis which
posits how, or by what means, the independent variable HPWS affects a dependent variable
(OA) through a mediator variable (AOC) (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Figure 1(a) describes the
total effect of HPWSs on OA, c being the path coefficient. This total effect may be reached via
several direct and indirect forces. More specifically, the total effect of HPWSs on OA shown in
Figure 1(b) can be expressed as the sum of the direct and indirect effects, the latter being
estimated by multiplying the path coefficients by each of the paths in the mediational chain.
Thus, c = c’ þ ab, with the last term representing the specific indirect effect, while c’ is the
direct effect of HPWSs on OA, controlling for the mediator (AOC). To evaluate the significance
of the indirect effects, we use a bias-corrected bootstrap (Hayes and Scharkow, 2013).
Both the total effect and the direct effect (H1: c’) of the independent variable (HPWS) on
the dependent variable (OA) were examined. Chin (2010) proposes a two-stage process to
test mediation in PLS:
(1) using the specific model with the inclusion not only of the direct effect but also of
the indirect effects, performing N bootstrap resampling and explicitly calculating
the product of the direct paths that form the indirect path under assessment; and
(2) estimating significance by means of a percentile bias-corrected bootstrap.

This generates a 95 per cent confidence interval for the mediator variable (AOC). If the
interval created does not contain the value 0, it can be said that the indirect effect, at a
confidence level of 95 per cent, is different from zero.
Figure 1(a) and Table IV allow us to see that HPWSs have a significant total effect on
OA. When the mediator variable is introduced [Figure 1(b)], HPWSs continue to impact
significantly on the dependent variable OA (H1:c’). Consequently, there is mediation of
ambidextrous culture in the relationship between HPWSs and OA. To know if the mediation
is partial or total, we calculated the variance accounted for[1] that presents a value of
0.304 # 0.8, showing that the mediation is partial and complementary, as a, b and c’ show
the same positive direction.

5. Conclusions and discussion

5.1 Conclusions
This research study focused on the role played by HPWSs and AOC in the creation of a
context suited to the development of OA in the hotel industry, as well as their impact on
performance.
Total effect of HPWS on AO (c) Direct effect of HPWS on AO Indirect effect of HPWS on AO
Percentile bootstrap 95% þ
Bias confidence interval
Coefficient T value Coefficient T value Point estimate Inferior Superior

0.825*** 30.449 H1 = c’ 0.667 8.813 Total 0.667 0.409 1.146

H4 = a1b1 0.158 0.015 0.234

Notes: ***p < 0.001, t(0.05, 4999) = 1.645158499, t(0.01, 4999) = 2.327094067), t(0.001, 4999) = 3.091863446

Table IV.
the hotel

3621
Innovation in

Summary of the
mediating effect test
industry
IJCHM H1 proposed that HPWSs have a positive impact on OA. This was corroborated (path
30,12 estimate = 0.667, p < 0.001), a finding that fits in with the conclusions drawn from other
studies (Kang and Snell, 2009; Patel et al., 2013; Garaus et al., 2016) which stress the relevant
function that HPWSs fulfill in achieving OA.
H2 proposed a direct positive relationship between AOC and OA. This was confirmed
(path estimate = 0.207, p < 0.001). In this case, culture was operated with two variables: OD
3622 and SV. Both are necessary to develop the appropriate context for OA (Wang and Rafiq, 2014).
H3 poses a direct and positive relationship between HPWSs and AOC. This was
confirmed (path estimate = 0.761, p < 0.001), obtaining empirical evidence that illustrates
how HPWSs influence the presence of cultural values related to OD and SV (Chow, 2012).
This research also found that HPWSs have an indirect effect on OA, which is partially
mediated by AOC (H4). These results provide new knowledge which improves our
understanding about the variables involved in the development of an organizational context
suitable for OA. In this sense, this research yields two basic contextual variables for the
simultaneous achievement of exploration and exploitation learning  which to date have
not been investigated jointly. AOC influences OA, but it needs to be supported and
developed by strategic human resource management.
H5 predicted that OA has a direct positive relationship with hotel performance. This was
supported (path estimate = 0.645, p < 0.001), a result in keeping with those obtained in
previous studies that corroborate the positive effect of OA on business results (Cao et al.,
2009; Wang and Li, 2008; Úbeda-García et al., 2016).

5.2 Theoretical implications

From the academic point of view, the results of this study extend the literature in several
ways. First, evidence was found to confirm the hypothesis that it is possible to develop OA in
a sector like that of hotels which differs from industry sectors (high-tech firms) where this
phenomenon tends to be analyzed and, consequently, exploration and exploitation activities
can take place simultaneously in a single business unit. In this regard, ambidexterity in the
hospitality industry ensures constant innovation through the search for a learning synchrony
between exploration and exploitation learning. Moreover, the present paper helps to shed
light on research into contextual ambidexterity through the identification of the specific
human resource practices associated with HPWSs which make exploratory and exploitative
learning easier, thus establishing a variable that can be considered an antecedent of OA.
Therefore, contextual ambidexterity requires the participation of employees in the
organization and its opportune management and the adequate values and norms reflected in
an AOC that helps employees to properly direct their efforts toward exploration and
exploitation. In this respect, our attention was focused on the joint effects that OD and SV
have on the construction of what has been termed here as AOC and its impact on OA. The
results obtained allow us to conclude that a suitable context for the combination of
exploratory and exploitative learning arises in organizations with values and rules that
bring together the two aforementioned components of organizational culture.
This study can also have implications for research into HPWSs and organizational culture
in terms of identifying the human resource management practices that should be combined to
develop an AOC. With regard to the role of organizational culture as a mediator variable in
the relationship between HPWSs and innovation ambidexterity, it was possible to show that
the hotel sector will only be able to develop OA if the traditional top-down management
model evolves toward a “bottom-up” model that recognizes the individual role played by
employees in developing the ability to achieve exploratory and exploitative learning and if
this system additionally rests upon an organizational culture which combines OD and SV.
This AOC promotes knowledge-sharing through the removal of communication barriers, an Innovation in
increased willingness to assist others for the provision of better services and an expansion of the hotel
the communication benefits enjoyed by individuals. These results are in tune with those
industry
obtained in previous works such as those of Hon (2012) or Tang et al. (2015), where it was
demonstrated that a hotel’s organizational culture has key effects on its service innovation.
The mediating effect that AOC has on the relationship between HPWSs and OA suggests
that it is through the development of a distinctive AOC that HPWSs  as a causally
3623
ambiguous resource  create OA. This responds to the call made by Simsek (2009) for
further research, so that a better understanding can be obtained both about the antecedents
to contextual ambidexterity and about its outcomes.

5.3 Practical implications

The research offers practical contributions that can ensure constant innovation in the hotel
industry. Human resource managers should adopt a management approach based on the
following policies.
Selective staffing. Selection practices should be aimed at identifying individuals capable
of contributing to the organization’s knowledge and learning through their knowledge and
values, in other words, select staff based on their potential development in the organization
and not just on their current suitability for the post.
Comprehensive training. Extensive training is not only useful to improve employees’
skills but also to enhance their mutual interactions, which in turn favors the development of
a shared language and closer personal relationships that also facilitate knowledge
transmission/creation, as well as the strengthening of cultural values. Therefore, training
should be about both short-term needs and future knowledge needs of employees.
Developmental performance appraisal. A performance assessment not oriented toward
control, but rather toward employees’ development and encouragement, will increase their
predisposition to share ideas and knowledge, as it allows them to develop personally and
professionally within tolerant, safe and non-judging work contexts, which are best suited to
the exploration and exploitation of new and current knowledge.
Equitable reward system. It is very important to design a reward system based on equity
to favor a predisposition toward learning amongst workers as they know that they will be
rewarded on a fair basis as their performance improves, thus favoring exploitative and
exploratory learning.
Finally, managers should use personnel participation schemes to stimulate the search for
new opportunities and foment a combination of effort and knowledge.
Furthermore, managers must try to ensure that organizational culture incorporates
values for the development of OD (encouraging individuals to think in an original,
autonomous, and innovative way) and other values related to SV (promoting coherence
between individual and organizational values which help create trust-based relationships).
In relation to the implications for society and for the hotel industry, the present research
work shows that OA and, for that matter, innovation and performance, largely depend on
internal capabilities. Two essential factors have emerged in this respect to which special
attention should be paid: human capital and AOC.
Concerning the former, hotel firms would need to undertake a transformation of the
traditional approach to human resource management focused on cost containment, also
known as the hard approach (Marco-Lajara and Úbeda-García, 2013), moving toward a
strategic human resource management with more advanced people management practices
integrated into an HPWS including the above-mentioned policies.
IJCHM Most hotel firms still lack an organizational culture suited to continuous innovation (Cotec,
30,12 2007), perhaps due to the fact that traditional structures and management (top-down
approach) continue to predominate in the sector (at least in Spain). This is another of the
challenges which need to be tackled by this industry, the modernization of management
systems toward a “bottom-up” approach where the values inherent to OD and SV can flourish.
Finally, many organizations see innovation as a goal, as a specific milestone for the firm at a
3624 specific given time. The present paper can help to change this conception of innovation which
currently prevails in a large number of hotel firms. We had the chance to verify that the
development of OA (by means of two contextual elements such as human resource management
and organizational culture) can make innovation become a constant element in the hotel industry.

5.4 Limitations and future research

Despite the contributions mentioned above, the present study has some limitations. First, we are
aware of the fact that some variables traditionally seen as antecedents to OA – above all when
the contextual ambidexterity approach is assumed – have been omitted. The management team’s
behavioral integration, which becomes evident in collaborative behavior and in the exchange of
information, as well as in joint decision-making, arises as a critical factor for ambidexterity
because it favors a better understanding of the team’s current knowledge base and encourages an
enlargement of the knowledge base through the promotion of everyone’s trust and involvement
(Lubatkin et al., 2006), or a transformational leadership style characterized by charismatic
behavior, inspiring motivation, intellectual stimulation and an individual consideration of
followers, which can help facilitate a simultaneous search for seemingly contradictory collective
outcomes such as exploratory and exploitative learning. Therefore, future research works should
pay attention to leadership as a variable which is likely to influence the creation of an AOC; after
all, a number of researchers have already stressed that the creation of a learning culture depends
on the strategic leader (Sinkula et al., 1997; Lin and McDonough, 2011).
Second, the dynamic nature of contextual ambidexterity was not taken into account in
this research. Consequently, future studies should analyze how HPWSs co-evolve with OA.
Third, data were obtained from only one interviewee in each sample firm. Future research
should take into account information from a wider range of sources. In addition, it would be
interesting to be able to verify, using multilevel analysis, if contextual ambidexterity at the
business level is moderated by organizational-level variables such as corporate R&D effort or
by individual-level variables such as employees’ ambidextrous behavior.
Fourth, the cross-sectional nature of this study prevents us from discounting reverse
causality. Future studies should adopt longitudinal approaches to determine the real effect
of HRM on OA performance (as well as the simultaneity issues).
Finally, the research was performed with a sample of medium–small-sized Spanish
hotels. Size served as a control variable and no significant results were obtained about its
influence on performance. However, membership of a hotel chain was shown to have a
significant effect. This leads us to think that perhaps hotels belonging to chains find it easier
to integrate exploitative and exploratory learning, not only of the knowledge created in a
particular establishment but also the joint learning achieved by all the hotels belonging to
the chain in question. In this sense, another line of research for the future could consist in
analyzing OA within hotel chains and the circulation of exploratory and exploitative
knowledge between enterprises belonging to those chains and to study the degree of
proactivity of the HRM departments in terms of creating an AOC. To this must be added
that the study was developed in a sample of Spanish hotels, which is why the country’s
cultural context should also be taken into consideration when interpreting the results
obtained. Future research could test the proposed model in other cultural contexts.
Note Innovation in
1. Variance accounted for = ab/(c’ þ ab) = (Indirect effect)/(Total effect). the hotel
industry
References
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Seidu, E.Y. and Otaye, L.E. (2012), “Impact of high-performance work
systems on individual-and branch-level performance: test of a multilevel model of intermediate 3625
linkages”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, p. 287.
Beltrán-Martín, I., Roca-Puig, V., Escrig-Tena, A. and Bou-Llusar, J.C. (2008), “Human resource
flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 1009-1044.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-256.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009), “Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions,
contingencies, and synergistic effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 781-796.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F. and Chan, E.S. (2013), “Co-production versus co-
creation: a process based continuum in the hotel service context”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32, pp. 11-20.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Application, Springer, Germany, pp. 645-689.
Chow, I.H.S. (2012), “The roles of implementation and organizational culture in the HR–performance
link”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 15, pp. 3114-3132.
Chuang, C.H. and Liao, H.U.I. (2010), “Strategic human resource management in service context: taking
care of business by taking care of employees and customers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 153-196.
Chung, W. and Kalnins, A. (2001), “Agglomeration effects and performance: a test of the Texas lodging
industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 969-988.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource
practices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Cotec, F. (2007), Libro Blanco “Las Relaciones en el Sistema Español de Innovacion”, España.
Flickinger, M., Gruber-Mücke, T. and Fiedler, M. (2013), “The linkage between human resource
practices and organizational ambidexterity: an analysis of internal labor market dynamics in a
port-of-entry context”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 83 No. 8, pp. 923-946.
Fornell, C. and Lacker, D. (1981), “Valuation structural quation models with unobservable variables and
measurement”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18.
Garaus, C., Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S., Koprax, I., Lackner, H., Link, K. and Müller, B. (2016),
“Bridging knowledge in ambidextrous HRM systems: empirical evidence from hidden
champions”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 355-381.
Gelade, G.A. and Ivert, M. (2003), “The impact of human resource management and work climate on
organizational performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 383-404.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1994), “Linking organizational context and managerial action: the
dimensions of quality of management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. S2, pp. 91-112.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
IJCHM Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
30,12 No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Guest, D.E. (1994), “Organizational psychology and human resource management: towards a
european approach”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 251-270.
3626 Hartog, D.N. and Verburg, R.M. (2004), “High performance work systems, organisational culture and
firm effectiveness”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Hayes, A.F. and Scharkow, M. (2013), “The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect
effect in statistical mediation analysis does method really matter?”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24
No. 10, pp. 1918-1927.
Heffernan, M. and Dundon, T. (2016), “Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS)
and employee well-being: the mediating effect of organisational justice”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Hon, A.H. (2012), “Shaping environments conductive to creativity the role of intrinsic motivation”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 53-64.
Huang, J. and Kim, H.J. (2013), “Conceptualizing structural ambidexterity into the innovation of human
resource management architecture: the case of LG Electronics”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 922-943.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 635-672.
Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental
moderators”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661-1674.
Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2009), “Structural differentiation
and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms”, Organization Science, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 797-811.
Johnson, L., Becker, S.A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. and Hall, C. (2016), “NMC horizon
report: 2016 higher education edition”, The New Media Consortium, pp. 1-50.
Kang, S.C. and Snell, S.A. (2009), “Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework
for human resource management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 65-92.
Lee, J.Y., Kozlenkova, I.V. and Palmatier, R.W. (2015), “Structural marketing: using organizational
structure to achieve marketing objectives”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 73-99.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. and Hong, Y. (2009), “Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee
perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 371-391.
Lin, H.E. and McDonough, E.F. (2011), “Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture
in fostering innovation ambidexterity”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 497-509.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance in small-to
medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Marco-Lajara, B. and Úbeda-García, M. (2013), “Human resource management approaches in spanish hotels:
an introductory analysis”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 339-347.
Martínez-Pérez, Á., Martínez-Pérez, Á., García-Villaverde, P.M., García-Villaverde, P.M., Elche, D. and Innovation in
Elche, D. (2016), “The mediating effect of ambidextrous knowledge strategy between social
capital and innovation of cultural tourism clusters firms”, International Journal of Contemporary
the hotel
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1484-1507. industry
Martinez-Ros, E. and Orfila-Sintes, F. (2009), “Innovation activity in the hotel industry”, Technovation,
Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 632-641.
Mihalache, M. and Mihalache, O.R. (2016), “Organizational ambidexterity and sustained performance in
the tourism industry”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 56, pp. 142-144. 3627
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984), “A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle”, Management
Science, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1161-1183.
Olsen, N. and Sallis, J. (2006), “Market scanning for new service development”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 466-484.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1997), “Using culture for strategic advantage: promoting innovation
through social control”, Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings,
pp. 200-216.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013), “Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 324-338.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, p. 636.
Patel, P.C., Messersmith, J.G. and Lepak, D.P. (2013), “Walking the tightrope: an assessment of the
relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1420-1442.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Rink, F. and Ellemers, N. (2007), “Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: the norm
congruity principle”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. s1, pp. S17-S27.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Simsek, Z. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 597-624.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F. and Souder, D. (2009), “A typology for aligning organizational
ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 864-894.
Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), “A framework for market-based organizational
learning: linking values, knowledge, and behaviour”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-318.
Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Piovoso, M.J. (2009), “Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the
partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-36.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
IJCHM Tang, T.W. (2014), “Becoming an ambidextrous hotel: the role of customer orientation”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 39, pp. 1-10.
30,12
Tang, T.W., Wang, M.C.H. and Tang, Y.Y. (2015), “Developing service innovation capability in the
hotel industry”, Service Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Tushman, M.L. and Romanelli, E. (1985), “Organizational evolution: interactions between external and
emergent processes and strategic choice”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 171-222.
3628 Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B. and Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2016), “Toward
organizational ambidexterity in the hotel industry: the role of human resources”, Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 367-378.
Wang, C.H., Chen, K.Y. and Chen, S.C. (2012), “Total quality management, market orientation and hotel
performance: the moderating effects of external environmental factors”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 119-129.
Wang, C.L. and Rafiq, M. (2014), “Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and
new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-76.
Wang, H. and Li, J. (2008), “Untangling the effects of over exploration and over exploitation on
organizational performance: the moderating role of environmental dynamism”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 925-951.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource based view of
the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-721.
Zhang, J.A., Edgar, F., Geare, A. and O’Kane, C. (2016), “The interactive effects of entrepreneurial
orientation and capability-based HRM on firm performance: the mediating role of innovation
ambidexterity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 131-143.

Further reading
Heavey, C. and Simsek, Z. (2017), “Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational
ambidexterity: the influence of transactive memory systems”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43
No. 3, pp. 919-945.
Orfila-Sintes, F. and Mattsson, J. (2009), “Innovation behavior in the hotel industry”, Omega, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 380-394.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization, Currency
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Skaggs, B.C. and Youndt, M. (2004), “Strategic positioning, human capital, and performance in service
organizations: a customer interaction approach”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 85-99.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.

Appendix 1. Items for measurement of variables

High performance work system

Selective staffing

S1. How extensive is the employee selection process for a job in this department? (1 = not
extensive: use of few staffing techniques; 7 = very extensive: use of many different techniques).

S2. In this business unit internal promotion is used when possible (1 = I totally disagree;
4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

S3. In this business unit the selection processes are rigorous observing both the Innovation in
adequacy of the person-job and its future development potential (1 = I totally disagree; the hotel
4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).
industry
Comprehensive training

CT1. How many different kinds of training does a typical member of your work unit
receive per year? (1 = very few; 7 = a wide variety). 3629

CT2. How much money is generally spent on training individuals, as a percentage of the
firm’s profits? (1 = very little; 4 = a moderate amount; 7 = a great deal).

CT3. The aim of training is to keep the skills up to date and develop new knowledge for
the future (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

Developmental performance appraisal

DPA1. To what extent do employees participate in goal setting and appraisal? (1 = very
little; 4 = moderately; 7 = a great deal).

DPA2. Do discussions focus on present performance or future performance? (1 = present;
7 = future).

DPA3. How closely are pay rises, promotions, etc. related to performance appraisal? (1 =
not closely; 4 = moderately; 7 = very closely).

Equitable reward system

RS1. How would you rate pay levels in this unit relative to other firms? (1 = low; 4 = the
same; 7 = high).

RS2. Pay incentives tied to job performance (1 = very little; 4 = moderately; 7 = a great
deal ).

RS3. In this business unit exit internal equity in compensation (1 = I totally disagree; 4 =
I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

Participation and communication system

P1. Employees in this job are allowed to make many decision (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I
neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

P2. In this business unit we use frequently task group to solve problems (1 = I totally
disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

P3. In this business unit we use communication networks and reporting form
information sharing (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally
agree).

Ambidextrous organizational culture

Organizational Diversity (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I
totally agree).

OD1. In this business unit we respect everyone’s different viewpoints.

OD2. In this business unit we value people from diverse backgrounds with diverse
experiences and skills.
IJCHM
OD3. In this business unit we encourage all employees to generate as many alternative
30,12 solutions to problems as possible.

Shared Vision (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally agree).

SV1. All employees view themselves as partners in charting the direction of this
business unit.

SV2. The future direction of this business unit is clearly communicated to everyone.
3630
SV3. Everyone who works here is well aware of the long-term plans and direction of this
business unit.

SV4. There is a strong sense of where this business unit is going.

Organizational ambidexterity

Exploitative Innovation (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally
agree).

Exploitative1. We frequently carry out small adjustments in our existing products and
services.

Exploitative2. We improve efficiency in our product and service provision.

Exploitative3. We increase economies of scales in existing markets.

Exploitative4. Our organization expands services for existing clients.

Exploratory Innovation (1 = I totally disagree; 4 = I neither agree nor disagree; 7 = I totally
agree).

Exploratory1. Our organization accepts demands that go beyond the existing products
and services.

Exploratory2. We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our
organization.

Exploratory3. We frequently take advantage of new opportunities in new markets.

Exploratory4. Our organization regularly uses new distribution channels.

Appendix 2

95% confidence intervals

Construct Mean SD S.E. Mean Lower bound Upper bound
Table AI.
Confidence intervals OA 0.702 0.043 0.0043 0.617 0.710
for population AOC 0.585 0.054 0.0054 0.574 0.596
means (95%) Performance 0.659 0.056 0.0056 0.648 0.769

About the authors

Mercedes Úbeda-García holds PhD in Economics and is a Senior Lecturer of Business Organization at
the University of Alicante. She is a member of the Tourism Research Institute at the University of
Alicante. Her research interests are in the areas of organizational design, human resource
management, knowledge management and tourism management. She has taken part in several
public projects highlighting the public competitive project for the creation of the Tourist Observatory
of the Valencian Community and other private projects. She is the author of several books, book
chapters and international articles related to teaching methodology, human resource management Innovation in
and strategy. She is the Director of Official Master in Tourism at University of Alicante. Mercedes
Úbeda-GarcÍa is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mercedes.ubeda@ua.es the hotel
Enrique Claver-Cortés (PhD, University of Alicante) is a Professor of Business Administration and industry
Strategic Management Organization at the University of Alicante (Spain). He holds PhD in Business
and Economics. His doctoral dissertation focused on corporate social responsibility, but his primary
areas of research cover tourism management and strategic management also. Likewise, he is a
member of the Tourism Research Institute at UA. He is the author of several books, book chapters
and international articles related to strategic, tourism and human resource management. He has
3631
taken part in various public projects highlighting, amongst many others, the public competitive
project for the creation of the Tourist Observatory of the Valencian Community area in Spain. He also
is the Director of the Department of Business Administration at the Alicante University.
Bartolomé Marco-Lajara is a Senior Lecturer of Business Organization at the University of
Alicante (Spain). He holds PhD in Economics, and his doctoral dissertation focused on strategic
alliances management. His research interests are strategic management and tourism management. He
is the author of several books, book chapters and international articles related to teaching
methodology and the areas above mentioned. On the other hand, he is a member of the Tourism
Research Institute at the University of Alicante since its foundation. He is the main investigator of a
public competitive project for the creation of the Tourist Observatory of the Valencian Community
(Spain), but he has taken part in others public and private projects, such as the development of the
strategic plan of the Alicante province for the period 2010-2020. He is the Assistant Dean of the
Economics Faculty at the University of Alicante.
Francisco García-Lillo is a Senior Lecturer of Business Organization at the University of Alicante
(Spain). He holds PhD in Economics, and his doctoral dissertation focused on entrepreneurship. His
research interests are strategic management and tourism management. He is the author of several
books, book chapters and articles related to teaching methodology, human resource management and
strategy. On the other hand, he is a member of the Tourism Research Institute at the University of
Alicante since its foundation. He has taken part in several public projects highlighting the public
competitive project for the creation of the Tourist Observatory of the Valencian Community and
other private projects.
Patrocinio Carmen Zaragoza-Sáez (PhD, University of Alicante, Spain) has research interests in
several topics of knowledge management, intellectual capital and international management, such as
knowledge creation and transfer in multinationals and the knowledge management process. She has
published research papers in international journals including Journal of Business Research,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Intangible Capital and International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com