In order to achieve sustainable and competitive advantages, enterprises must develop mainstream and new stream innovation simultaneously so as to achieve the short-term performance as well as the long-term competitive advantage. However, the funding and time resources owned by enterprises are often restricted, which make the tensions and competitive demands pervasive in the process of developing the mainstream and new stream innovation. Furthermore, the relationship between tensions and organizational innovation remains controversial and related empirical researches are rare.
OBJECTIVE:
Based on the paradox theory and ambidexterity innovation theory, we divide organizational innovation into mainstream- and new stream innovation, aiming to discuss the different influences of experiencing tensions on the two different types of organizational innovation. In addition, we aimed to explore the role of leaders’ paradox mindset in the relationship of experiencing tension and mainstream- and new stream innovation.
METHODS:
Our research uses regression analysis to perform hypothesis testing. The survey data of 226 small and medium-sized enterprises are used to conduct empirical tests on the hypothesis proposed in our research.
RESULTS:
The results display that resource scarcity is the source of organizational tensions, and leaders’ paradox mindset moderate the effects experiencing tensions on mainstream- and new stream innovation and moderate the indirect effect of resource scarcity through tensions on mainstream- and new stream innovation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Organizations will encounter a lot of contradictions and competitive demands in the process of developing mainstream- and new stream innovation. Effective leaders must learn to get comfort from their discomfort and effectively manage tensions. This study promotes movement in this direction and contributes to the resolution of the paradox of organizational innovation. We hope that our research fuels additional investigations to uncover approaches to tensions.
SmithWK, LewisMW. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review. 2011;36(2):381–403.
2.
HahnT, et al., Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review. 2014;39(4):463–87.
3.
IngramAE, et al. Paradoxes and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 2014:1-16.
4.
LewisMW. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(4):760–76.
5.
LüscherLS, LewisMW. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal. 2008;51(2):221–40.
6.
VinceR, BroussineM. Paradox, defense and attchement: Accessing the working with emotions and relations under lyong organizational change. Organizational Studies. 1996;17(1):1–21.
7.
ShalleyCE, ZhoJ, OldhamGR. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?[J]. Journal of Management. 2004;30(6):933–58.
8.
AndriopoulosC, LewisMW. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science. 2009;20(4):696–717.
9.
SmithWK. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal. 2014;57(6):1592–623.
10.
ZhangY, et al., Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal. 2015;58(2):538–66.
11.
ChenM. Transcending paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2002;19, 179–99.
12.
Spencer-RodgersJ, WilliamsMJ, PengK. Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010;14(3):296–312.
13.
GuptaAK, GovindarajanV. Cultivating a global mindset. Academy of Management Executive. 2002;16(1):116–26.
14.
RothenbergA. The emerging goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
15.
BartunekJM, BoweBE. The transformational management of conflict: A perspective from the early Christian church. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal. 1988;1(2):151–62.
16.
KellerJ, LoewensteinJ, YanJ. In press. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organizational Studies.
17.
KanterRM. Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research. 1988;15(5):509–23.
18.
KanterRM. Swimming in new streams: Mastering innovation dilemmas. California Management Review. 1989;31(4):45–69.
19.
LawsonB, SamsonD. Developing innovation capability in organizations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2001;5(3):377–400.
20.
TerziovskiM. The relationship between innovation management practice and innovation performance in the mainstream and the newstream: An empirical study of Australian organisations. Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management. 2010;10, 1–22.
21.
TerziovskiM. Building innovation capability in organizations: An international cross-case perspective. World Scientific Books. 2007;276.
22.
ZhuB, WUJY. Exploration of independent innovation process: Dynamic evolution of mainstream and new stream——based on cases study of twomanufacturing firms in fujian province. Studies in Science of Science. 2011.
23.
BinZhu, OuWQ. Mainstream and new-stream patterns for indigenous innovation in China. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China. 2013.
24.
BinZ, WuJY. Evolvement Mechanism of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Element- Oriented Innovation Pattern——Case Study of Fujian Haiyuan Automatic Equipments Co., Ltd, 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science. 2010.
25.
BinZ, OuWQ. Mainstream and new-stream patterns for indigenous innovation in China. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China. 2013.
26.
BinZ, JiaW. Evolvement Mechanism of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Element- Oriented Innovation Pattern——Case Study of Fujian Haiyuan Automatic Equipments Co., Ltd, 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science. 2010.
27.
SunSH, FreseM. Multiple goal pursuit.[M]// New Developments in goal setting and task performance. 2013;177-94.
28.
KanferR, AckermanPL. Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989;74(4):657–90.
29.
NohriaN, GulatiR. Is slack good or bad for innovation?Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39(5):1245–64.
30.
VossGB, SirdeshmukhD, VossZG. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal. 2008;51(1):147–64.
31.
BledowR, et al., A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2009;2(3):305–37.
PooleMS, Van de VenAH. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review. 1989;14(4):562–78.
34.
RothmanN, MelwaniS. Feeling mixed, ambivalent and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review. 2016.
35.
SmithWK, TushmanML. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science. 2005;16, 522–36.
36.
ZhangY, WaldmanDA, HanYL. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. [J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2015;58(2):538–66.
37.
SmithWK, ChertokM. A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2012;11(3):463–78.
38.
OuyangTH. Study on the combination of multilevel dual capabilities to promote the strategic transformation of high-tech enterprises – a case study of lenovo mobile. 2016.
AmabileTM, et al., Assesing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39(5):1154–84.
41.
ScottSG, BruceRA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal. 1994;37(3):580–607.
42.
Miron-SpektorE, et al., Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal. 2017;61(1):1–50.
43.
AikenLS, WestSG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New bury Park, CA: Sage. 1991.
44.
HayesAF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Aregression-based approach. The Guilford Press: New York, 2013.
45.
MadjarN, GreenbergE, ChenZ. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, non creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011;96(4):730–43.
46.
MehtaR, ZhuM. Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. Journal of Consumer Research. 2015;767-82.
47.
VroomVH, JagoAG. The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist. 2007;62(1):17–24.
48.
ArgenteroP, CorteseCG, FerrettiMS. An evaluation of organizational citizenship behavior: Psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of podsakoff et al.’s scale[J]. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology. 2008;15(2):61–75.
49.
HannahST, et al., The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013;98(3):393–411.
50.
KhanSZ, et al., Entrepreneurship posture and new venture performance in Pakistan. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(1):55–72.
51.
AbbasW, WuW. Employee innovativeness, fairness and organizational support: An empirical assessment. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(2):169–77.
