The role of HRM in facilitating team ambidexterity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the role of HRM in supporting ambidexterity has been loosely conceptualised, little is known about how HRM contributes to exploitative and explorative activities in practice. Further, whereas research has linked HRM to innovation broadly at individual and organisational levels, there has been minimal focus on how HRM supports innovation in teams. Using qualitative case studies in two software development firms, we examine how different approaches to HRM support different types of ambidexterity in teams. The findings demonstrate that there is no one best way for HRM to facilitate team ambidexterity, but it is critical to align the HRM practices with the team context. Additionally, our findings suggest that while an integrated HRM system that exploits synergies between HRM practices can encourage ambidexterity for some organisations, an approach aimed at emphasising the independent effects of a few key HRM practices may be an effective alternative for others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it