nach oben

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Erschienen in:

26.03.2020

A double-edged sword: the effects of ambidextrous leadership on follower innovative behaviors

verfasst von: Shuanglong Wang, Nathan Eva, Alexander Newman, Haihua Zhou

Erschienen in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Despite growing work on the positive outcomes resulting from ambidextrous leadership, limited research has examined whether ambidextrous leadership always has desirable consequences on followers. In order to achieve explorative and exploitative innovation, ambidextrous leaders are required to perform two styles of leadership behaviors, namely opening and closing leadership behaviors. The present study argues that as followers are reliant on their leaders to provide them with information and clarification about the tasks, by engaging in ambidextrous leadership behaviors to try and foster innovative behaviors amongst their followers, the leader may unintendedly increase the follower’s job stress and role ambiguity. Drawing on a sample of 416 leader–follower dyads, we established that while ambidextrous leadership contributes to the innovative behaviors of followers, it also increases followers’ job stress and role ambiguity, which subsequently reduces innovative behaviors. The results suggest that ambidextrous leadership has two faces, enabling and burdening, which can both enhance and stifle innovative behaviors.

Vorheriger Artikel The triggering effect of office design on employee creative performance: an exploratory investigation based on Duffy’s conceptualization

Nächster Artikel The co-evolution of institutions and entrepreneurship

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg values: Leader opening behaviors (.04, .70, .55 (rwg range .32–.64)), Leader closing behaviors (.07, .56, .48(.37–.56)), role ambiguity (.06, .62, .43(.31–.56)), job stress (.08, .67, .46(.37–.59)), innovative behaviors (.07 .66, .49(.24–.60)).

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting results. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. 2007. Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1542–1556.CrossRef

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Beal, D. J. 2012. Industrial/organizational psychology. In M. R. Mehl, & T. S. Conner (Eds.). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life: 601–619. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256.CrossRef

Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-Independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 249–381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology, 2: 389–444.

Buijs, J. 2007. Innovation leaders should be controlled schizophrenics. Creativity and innovation management, 16(2): 203–210.CrossRef

Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2017. Leading to stimulate employees' ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied Psychology, 66(4): 517–552.CrossRef

Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. 2012. Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1): 1–17.CrossRef

Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. 2017. The impact of ambidextrous leadership on the internationalization of emerging-market firms: The case of India. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(3): 421–436.CrossRef

Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. 2014. CEO s’ transformational leadership and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31: 2–17.CrossRef

Cheong, M., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Yun, S. 2016. Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4): 602–616.CrossRef

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. 2006. Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 917–926.CrossRef

Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. 1995. Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5): 524–540.CrossRef

Dobreva-Martinova, T., Villeneuve, M., Strickland, L., & Matheson, K. 2002. Occupational role stress in the Canadian forces: Its association with individual and organizational well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 34(2): 111.CrossRef

Eissa, G., & Wyland, R. 2018. Work-family conflict and hindrance stress as antecedents of social undermining: Does ethical leadership matter? Applied Psychology, 67(4): 645–654.CrossRef

Eva, N., Meacham, H., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Tham, T. 2019a. Is co-worker feedback more important than supervisor feedback for increasing innovative behaviour. Human Resource Management., 58(4): 337–449.CrossRef

Eva, N., Newman, A., Miao, Q., Cooper, B., & Herbert, K. 2019b. Chief executive officer participative leadership and the performance of new venture teams. International Small Business Journal, 37(1): 69–88.CrossRef

Feenstra, S., Jordan, J., Walter, F., Yan, J., & Stoker, J. I. 2017. The hazard of teetering at the top and being tied to the bottom: The interactive relationship of power, stability, and social dominance orientation with work stress. Applied Psychology, 66(4): 653–673.CrossRef

Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. 2012. Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1): 155–187.CrossRef

Ford, C. M. 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1112–1142.CrossRef

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

Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. 2015. Managing by design-editorial: Academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 1–7.CrossRef

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. 2009. Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of business research, 62(4): 461–473.CrossRef

Hackman, J. R. 1980. Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3): 445.CrossRef

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. 2011. Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1): 90.CrossRef

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4): 481–494.CrossRef

House, R. J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 323–352.CrossRef

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. 1972. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational behavior and human performance, 7(3): 467–505.CrossRef

Hunter, S. T., Thoroughgood, C. N., Myer, A. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). Paradoxes of leading innovative endeavors: Summary, solutions, and future directions. Psychology of Aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 5(1), 54.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1985. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 36(1): 16–78.CrossRef

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98.CrossRef

Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. 1999. Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3): 349–361.CrossRef

Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. R. 2018. Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Applied Psychology, 67(1): 186–224.CrossRef

Keller, T., & Weibler, J. 2014. What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1): 54–71.CrossRef

Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. 2005. Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(4): 223–235.CrossRef

Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. 2004. Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 934–945.CrossRef

Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.CrossRef

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815–852.CrossRef

Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. 2017. Never too much? The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and task performance. Group & Organization Management, 42(1): 11–38.CrossRef

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1): 319–338.CrossRef

Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. 1999. Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5): 519–534.CrossRef

Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53(10): 1645–1658.CrossRef

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 114–121.CrossRef

Luo, B., Zheng, S., Ji, H., & Liang, L. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and tmt-member ambidextrous behavior: The role of tmt behavioral integration and tmt risk propensity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-22.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2): 115.CrossRef

Maddison, K., & Eva, N. 2019. Social exchange or social learning: A theoretical fork in road for servant leadership researchers. In S. Sendjaya (Ed.). Leading for high performance in Asia: Contemporary research and evidence-based practices: 133–158. Singapore: Springer.CrossRef

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. 2006. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. INFORMS, 52(12): 1865–1883.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. 1986. Porter's (1980) generic strategies and performance: An empirical examination with American data: Ii. Performance implications. Organization Studies, 7(1): 37–55.CrossRef

Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2011. The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 740–760.CrossRef

Moyle, P. 1998. Longitudinal influences of managerial support on employee well-being. Work & Stress, 12(1): 29–49.CrossRef

Mumford, M. D. 2000. Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3): 313–351.CrossRef

Newman, A., Donahue, R., & Eva, N. 2017. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3): 521–535.CrossRef

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. 2008. The effects of transformational leadership on followers' perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1): 16–32.CrossRef

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2): 313–338.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. 2012. Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2): 77–98.CrossRef

Robinson, A. 2012. Ambidextrous leadership: Using leaders’ opening and closing behaviours to predict employee innovation. Ambidextrous Leadership., 1(1): 1–24.

Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. 2011. Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5): 956–974.CrossRef

Rothaermel, F. T. 2001. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 687–699.CrossRef

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. 2001. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4): 763–797.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1): 68–78.CrossRef

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3): 580–607.

Şenol-Durak, E., Durak, M., & Gençöz, T. 2006. Development of work stress scale for correctional officers. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 16(1): 153–164.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 33–53.CrossRef

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational research methods, 13(3): 456–476.CrossRef

Tang, Y. T., & Chang, C. H. 2010. Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6): 869–881.

Trong Tuan, L. 2017. Reform in public organizations: The roles of ambidextrous leadership and moderating mechanisms. Public Management Review, 19(4): 518–541.CrossRef

Tung, F. C. 2016. Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion focus. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8): 1250–1263.CrossRef

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. 2005. Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6): 1171–1182.CrossRef

Wang, W., Hernandez, I., Newman, D. A., He, J., & Bian, J. 2016. Twitter analysis: Studying US weekly trends in work stress and emotion. Applied Psychology, 65(2): 355–378.CrossRef

Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. 2015. Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1): 54–68.CrossRef

Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. 2014. A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(4): 813–820.CrossRef

Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. 2016. Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1): 24–46.CrossRef

Titel: A double-edged sword: the effects of ambidextrous leadership on follower innovative behaviors
verfasst von: Shuanglong Wang
Nathan Eva
Alexander Newman
Haihua Zhou
Publikationsdatum: 26.03.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0217-4561
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9958
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09714-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

The co-evolution of institutions and entrepreneurship

Influence Capital in Boards: a study of ex-bureaucrats in India

Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture resource acquisition: why context matters

Working hard or hardly working? How supervisor’s liking of employee affects interpretations of employee working overtime and performance ratings

Does dual Embeddedness matter? Mechanisms and patterns of subsidiary ambidexterity that links a Subsidiary’s dual Embeddedness with its learning strategy

Firm performance and the adoption of a co-CEO structure: Evidence from Korea

Premium Partner