Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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)).

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

    Shuanglong Wang

  2. Monash Business School, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia

    Nathan Eva

  3. Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

    Alexander Newman

  4. Law School, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

    Haihua Zhou

Authors
  1. Shuanglong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Eva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haihua Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuanglong Wang.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Eva, N., Newman, A. et al. A double-edged sword: the effects of ambidextrous leadership on follower innovative behaviors. Asia Pac J Manag 38, 1305–1326 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09714-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09714-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation