Technological innovation is becoming an increasingly significant driving force of firm competitiveness; however, only a few scholars have attempted to investigate the specific relationship between technological innovation and human resource (HR). In this study, we test the relationships among high-commitment human resource management (HCHRM) system, HR capability and ambidextrous technological innovation, as well as the mediating role of HR capability in the relationship between the other two. For this purpose, we derive HR capability based on two dimensions: (a) factors (skills vs. behaviors) and (b) nature (component vs. combinative capability). Juxtaposing these dimensions enables us to generate the following four elements of HR capability for ambidextrous technological innovation: (a) T-shaped skills (component skills), (b) technology brokering (combinative skills), (c) personal initiative (component behaviors), and (d) cooperation (combinative behaviors). Empirical results based on data collected from the HR and technology planning managers of 105 corporate research and development centers indicate that HCHRM positively affects HR capability and ambidextrous technological innovation. In addition, we find that HR capability fully mediates the relationship between the HCHRM system and ambidextrous technological innovation. We discuss theoretical contributions and practical implications of these findings.

Purpose: Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, in particular, how the relationship between employees’ own i-deals and organizational justice is affected by employees' job performance as well as their perceptions of coworkers’ i-deals.Design/methodology/approach: The authors tested the theoretical model using survey data from 182 hotel employees.Findings: Results show that i-deals are positively related to employees’ perceptions of organizational justice and that such effects are stronger among high performing employees. The effect of i-deals on organizational justice was also more pronounced among employees who viewed coworkers as having successfully negotiated i-deals.Practical implications: The authors' findings suggest that organizations can benefit from providing i-deals through employees’ enhanced perceptions of organizational justice. The paper thus recommends that organizations understand the impact of providing more flexible human resources (HR) practices and customized work arrangements that are aligned with individual goals and needs. This may be particularly relevant to high performers. Furthermore, the findings suggest that organizations may want to make i-deals available to employees more widely than to just a few selected individuals.Originality/value: This study is one of a few attempts that empirically investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational justice. The findings of this study shed light on the possibility that employees develop positive justice perceptions toward employeesʼ organization based on the appreciation of the customized work arrangements granted to both themselves and others.

This study extends strategic human resource management research by focusing on the effects of high-involvement work practices (HIWPs) on relational outcomes with customers (patients). The authors provide evidence that relational dynamics among employees act as a mediating mechanism for the relationship between workplace practices and these outcomes. In particular, we propose that human resource management practices designed to increase employees' involvement at work reduce the level of organizational conflict among employees, which, in turn, affect employees' conflict with patients and their families. Using a two-wave longitudinal survey of 378 patient care providers at 20 nursing homes, the authors argue that the effect of HIWPs on conflict between nursing home staff and patients and their family members is mediated by task and relationship conflict among employees. The results provide strong support for the mediating role of organizational conflict among employees by documenting that the negative effect of HIWPs on employees' conflict with patients and their families is mediated by the reduced levels of task conflict and relationship conflict among employees. The study's findings shed new light on the relational mechanism through which HR practices affect employees and customers. Scholarly and practical implications are discussed.open

Drawing on expectation states theory and expertise utilization literature, we examine the effects of team members’ actual expertise and social status on the degree of influence they exert over team processes via perceived expertise. We also explore the conditions under which teams rely on perceived expertise versus social status in determining influence relationships in teams. To do so, we present a contingency model in which the salience of expertise and social status depends on the types of intragroup conflicts. Using multiwave survey data from 50 student project teams with 320 members at a large national research institute located in South Korea, we found that both actual expertise and social status had direct and indirect effects on member influence through perceived expertise. Furthermore, perceived expertise at the early stage of team projects is driven by social status, whereas perceived expertise at the later stage of a team project is mainly driven by actual expertise. Finally, we found that members who are being perceived as experts are more influential when task conflict is high or when relationship conflict is low. We discuss the implications of these findings for research and practice.

Employees may not always seek and give help when needed in the dyadic context because of status disparity. Drawing on the cost and benefit framework in social exchange, we examine the effects of relative status on help seeking and giving willingness and behaviors among dyads. We argue that low-status individuals tend to provide more help but seek less help from their high-status counterparts. We further consider two moderators that can help restore the balance in cross-status helping relationships: employees’ past helping history and low power distance (PD) value. Additionally, we investigate the mediating roles of perceived entitlement and perceived obligation in the relationships between relative status and help seeking and giving, respectively. We tested our hypotheses in three studies using both dyadic field studies and experiments with employee participants. Our findings consistently demonstrate that low-status employees had a disadvantage in dyadic help-seeking and help-giving relationships. We also find that past helping history mitigated the effects of relative status in predicting help giving, whereas low PD value attenuated the effects of relative status in predicting help seeking. Finally, we find support for the mediated effects of perceived entitlement and obligation in the hypothesized relationships.