This study tested and linked theories between human resource management practices with intellectual capital development and organizational ambidexterity. After reviewing vast amount of relevant literature and finding a research gap in this field of study, the research was done to gain better understanding between theory and practice. The study sought answers for how a company can obtain organizational ambidexterity through human resource practices and why intellectual capital affects it. Mixed research method was used to conduct this study, which included two different qualitative methods. Data was collected from the case study company thought survey and interviews. The study found that human resource practices can be linked to types of intellectual capital and findings showed that there is a correlation between these practices on supporting exploitation and exploration. This research made also some contributions and suggestions for future research avenues. As a unique case study it tested theory that has not been tested in Taiwan, this is a major contribution to this field of study.

This study tested and linked theories between human resource management practices with intellectual capital development and organizational ambidexterity. After reviewing vast amount of relevant literature and finding a research gap in this field of study, the research was done to gain better understanding between theory and practice. The study sought answers for how a company can obtain organizational ambidexterity through human resource practices and why intellectual capital affects it. Mixed research method was used to conduct this study, which included two different qualitative methods. Data was collected from the case study company thought survey and interviews. The study found that human resource practices can be linked to types of intellectual capital and findings showed that there is a correlation between these practices on supporting exploitation and exploration. This research made also some contributions and suggestions for future research avenues. As a unique case study it tested theory that has not been tested in Taiwan, this is a major contribution to this field of study.

1.Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43-68.
2.Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 502–517.
3.Bamberger, P. & Meshoulam, I. (2000). Human Resource Strategy. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.Benner M. J. & Tushman M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28: 238–256.
5.Burns, T. & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
6.Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of com- petition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.Cao, Q., E. R. Gedajlovic, H. Zhang. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 20(4) 781–796.
8.Christessen, C. M. (1998). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
9.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.
10.Delery, J.E. & Doty, D.H. (1996). Theoretical frameworks in strategic human resource management: Universalistic, contingency and configurational perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 802-835.
11.Doty, H. D., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1196-1250.
12.Doorewaard, H. & Meihuizen, H. (2000). ‘Strategic performance options in professional service organizations’. Human Resource Management Journal, 10, 39-57.
13.Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R.H. Killman, L.R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.), The management of organization, 1, 167-188. NY: North Holland.
14.Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (2002). Multinational Teams: New Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
15.Erikkson, P & Kovalainen, A. (2008). The business qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
16.Gibson, C. B., J. Birkinshaw. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47 209–226.
17.Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality in management. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 91-112.
18.Goldstein, S. G. (1985). Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of Management Review, 10: 504-517.
19.Gong, Y., Law, K. S,Chang, S & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resource management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263-275.
20.Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 180– 190.
21.Hargadon,A. & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749.
22.Holland, J. H. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
23.Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672.
24.Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science 52: 1661–1674.
25.Kang, S., Morris, S., Snell, S. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and values creation: Extending human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32, 236-256.
26.Kang S. & Snell, S. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 65-92.
27.Katila, R. & Ahuja, G. (2002). ‘Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of research behavior and new product innovation’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183-1195.
28.Kuran, T. (1988), “The Tenacious Past: Theories of Personal and Collective Conservatism”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 10, 143-171.
29.Leana, C. R. & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). ‘Organizational social capital and employment practices’. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 538-555.
30.Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal. 13 111–125.
31.Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31–48.
32.Lewis, M., W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Towards a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-777.
33.Lubatkin, M. H., Z. Simsek, Y. Ling, J. F. Veiga. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. J. Management 32 1–17.
34.March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87
35.McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 118–132.
36.Mello, J., A. (2006). Strategic management of human resources, 3nd ed., South-Western: Cengage Learning
37.Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242–266.
38.Osterman, P., (1984). Internal Labor Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.Patel, P. C, Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D., P. (2012). Walking the Tight-rope: An assessment of the relationship between high performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 24,
40.Prieto, I. & Peres Santana, P. (2012). Building Ambidexterity: The Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of Firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2) 189-212
41.Raisch S. & Birkinshaw J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34: 375–409.
42.Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
43.Smith, W. K., M. L. Tushman. (2005). Managing strategic contra- dictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16 522–536.
44.Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of ad- ministrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 292–327.
45.Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. (2005). ‘The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities’. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450-463.
46.Sun, L., Aryee, S., Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal 2007, Vol. 50, No. 3, 558–577.
47.Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.Taylor, A. & Greve, H. R. (2006). ‘Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams’. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723-740.
49.Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.
50.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed), 9, 38-39, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51.Yin, R. K (2002). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.Youndt, M. A., S. A. Snell, J. W. Dean, and D. P. Lepak. (1996). Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4): 836-65.