Influence of entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership on ambidextrous innovation: An integrated model construction of ‘cognitive/affective’ composite perspective in Chinese context
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July 14, 2022
Influence of entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership on ambidextrous innovation: An integrated model construction of ‘cognitive/affective’ composite perspective in Chinese context
China’s 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035 clearly points out that it is necessary to implement innovation driven strategy, promote enterprise technological innovation, and better play the important role of entrepreneurs in enterprise technological innovation. Therefore, it is of great significance to explore the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on enterprises’ technological innovation.
OBJECTIVE:
From the perspective of technological innovation stream, we divide ambidextrous innovation into mainstream innovation and new stream innovation. Integrating ambidexterity theory, innovation streams theory and cognitive affective personality system theory (CAPS), we explore the mediating mechanism of entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership on ambidextrous innovation from cognitive path, affective path and cognitive-affective compound path.
METHODS:
Based on the data collected from 254 top managers in 12 provinces in China, we conducted descriptive statistical analysis, reliability and validity analysis, regression analysis and bootstrap mediating effect test on the sample data.
RESULTS:
Our empirical results revealed that: 1) entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership positively related with the ambidextrous innovation; 2) organizational paradoxical cognition plays a partly mediating role between ambidextrous leadership and ambidextrous innovation; 3) organizational affective conflict plays a partly mediating role between ambidextrous leadership and ambidextrous innovation; 4) organizational paradoxical cognition negatively related with organizational affective conflict; 5) organizational paradoxical cognition and organizational affective conflict play a chain mediating role between entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership and ambidextrous innovation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Combined with the cognitive affective personality system theory, our research explores the mediating mechanism of entrepreneurial ambidextrous leadership on ambidextrous innovation from cognitive path and affective path and “cognitive-affective” compound path, which not only have great theoretical contributions, but also have important significance in enterprise management practice.
LavieD, StettnerU, TushmanML. ‘Exploration and exploitationwithin and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals. 2010;4:109–155.
2.
LuoJL, GuanJS, ZhongJ, et al. Choice in the fog: research onpolicies and path research of enterprise manager’s paradox ininnovation context. Academy of Management World. 2018;34(11):150–161.
3.
LuoJL, TangHJ, LiSW, et al. Research on innovation paradox andits coping effect of science and technology innovation firms. Management World. 2021;37(3):18.
4.
Miron-SpektorE, IngramA, KellerJ, SmithWK, LewisMW. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how wethink about the problem. Academy of Management Journal. 2018;61(1):26–45.
5.
SchadJ, LewisMW, RaischS, SmithWK. Paradox research inmanagement science: Looking back to move forward. Academy ofManagement Annals. 2016;10(1):5–64.
6.
KanterRM. Three tiers for innovation research. CommunicationResearch. 1988;15(5):509–523.
7.
KanterRM. Swimming in New streams: Mastering Innovation Dilemmas. California Management Review. 1989;31(4):45–69.
8.
LawsonB, SamsonD. Developing Innovation Capability inOrganizations: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach. InternationalJournal of Innovation Management. 2001;5(3):377–400.
9.
TerziovskiM. The relationship between innovation managementpractice and innovation performance in the mainstream and thenewstream: an empirical study of Australian organisations. Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management. 2010;10:1–22.
10.
TerziovskiM. Building Innovation Capability in Organi1zations: An International Cross-Case Perspective. World Scientific Books. 2007;276.
11.
ZhuB, WUJY. Exploration of independent innovation process: dynamic evolution of mainstream and new
stream——based on cases study of two manufacturing firms in fujian province. Studies in Science of Science. 2011.
12.
ZhuB, WuCL. Innovating the dynamic mechanism of business owners’new stream technology leapfrogging. Science in Science. 2020;38(6):1142–1152.
13.
ZhuB, ChenYH. “Conflict and coordination: Research on thebalanced evolution mechanism of enterprise mainstream innovation andnew stream innovation. Research and Development Journal. 2021;33(04):131–151.
14.
CoolsE, BroeckVD. The Hunt for the Heffalump Continues: Can Trait and Cognitive Characteristics Predict Entrepreneurial Orientation? Journal of Small Business Strategy. 2007;18.
15.
DaneE, BaerM, PrattMG, OldhamG R. Rational versus intuitiveproblem solving: How thinking “off the beaten path” can stimulatecreativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2011;5(1):3–12.
16.
SagivL, ArieliS, GoldenbergJ, GoldschmidtA. Structure andfreedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposedstructure and personal cognitive style. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior. 2010;31(8):1086–1110.
17.
LuoW, WangYB, ZhongC. Study on the relationship between employeecognition and innovation behavior - the employee psychologicalinnovation atmosphere as a mediation variable. Research andDevelopment Management. 2010;22(2):1–8.
18.
FiedlerFE, GarciaJ E. New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: JohnWiley & Sons. 1987.
19.
AllinsonCW, HayesJ. The cognitive style index: A measure ofintuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal ofManagement Studies. 1996;33(1):119–135.
20.
GeYQ, LiuY. The Double edged Sword Effect of Top management TeamCognitive Conflict on Innovation. Journal of Management. 2018;15(11):1663–1670.
21.
MarupingLM, VenkateshV, ThatcherS. Folding under pressure orrising to the occasion ?Perceived time pressure and the moderatingrole of team temporal leadershiAcademy of Management Journal. 2015;58(5):1313–1333.
22.
ZhaoK, XianST. How to solve the team’s innovative paradox? Basedon member cognitive style “group” and “configuration”perspective. Psychological Progress,. 2021;29(01):1–18.
23.
SmithWK, LewisMW. Toward a dynamic theory of paradox: a dynamic of equilibrium model of organizing. (Report). 2011.
24.
AntonakisJ, DayD V, SchynsB. Leadership and individualdifferences: At the cusp of a renaissance. Leadership Quarterly. 2012;23(4).
25.
NemanichLA, VeraD. Transformational Leadership and Ambidexterityin the Context of an Acquisition [J]. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;20(1):19–33.
26.
LevinthalD A, MarchJ G. The myopia of learning. StrategicManagement Journal. 2010;14(S2):95–112.
27.
Luo, Han, Zhong Chao. Research on the Impact of Dual Leadership onTeam Innovation - Based on routine Perspective. Management Science. 2016;29(001):70–85.
28.
HeinzU, BagaTD, Gebert, et al. Leadership and cooperation assuccess factors in innovative R&D projects on electronic platforms. Team Performance Management. 2006;12(4):66–76.
29.
ZhangY, WaldmanDA, HanYL, LiXB. Paradoxical leader behaviors inpeople management: antecedents and consequences. Academy ofManagement Journal. 2015;58(2):538–566.
30.
LewisMW. Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(4):760–776.
31.
LüscherLS, LewisMW. Organizational change and managerialsensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal. 2008;51(2):221–240.
32.
PloyhartRE, WeekleyJA. “The Structure and Function of HumanCapital Emergence: A Multilevel Examination of the Attraction-selection-attrition Model”, Academy of Management Journal. 2006;49(4):661–677.
33.
CoomanR. D, SD, GieterR, PetermansS. “Person-organization Fit:Testing Socialization and Attraction-selection-attritionHypotheses”. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009;74:102–107.
34.
MischelW, ShodaY. ACognitive–Affective System Theory of Personality. Psychological Review. 1995;102.
35.
RothenbergA. The emerging goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1979.
36.
PooleMS, VanDe AH. Using paradox to build management andorganization theories. Academy of Management Review. 1989;14(4):562–578.
37.
RothmanN B, MelwaniS. Feeling Mixed, Ambivalent, and In Flux: TheSocial Functions of Emotional Complexity for Leaders. Academy ofManagement Review. 2017;42(2):259–282.
38.
Tetlock, Philip, PetersonE. Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993.
39.
SchneiderE. Pattern of physical therapist students’ burnout withinan academic semester. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 1999;13(1):12–17.
40.
SmithW K, TushmanML. Managing strategic contradictions: A topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. OrganizationScience. 2005;16(5):522–536.
41.
YanJ, YunF, ZhangX. The influence of employees’ psychological attachment on their behavior: An Empirical Study Based on Chinese SMEs. Management review. 2016.
42.
SwannWB, PolzerJ T, KoS. Finding Value in Diversity: Verificationof Personal and Social Self-Views in Diverse Groups. The Academy ofManagement Review. 2004;29(1):9–27.
43.
PrasadB, JunniP. Understanding top management team conflict,environmental uncertainty and firm innovativeness: Empiricalevidence from India [J]. International Journal of ConflictManagement. 2017;28(1):122–143.
44.
LiAN, TanHH. What happens when you trust your supervisor?mediators of individual performance in trust relationships. Journalof Organizational Behavior. 2013;34(3):407–425.
45.
JinT. Research on the relationship between team paradoxical leadership and creativity [D]. Nanjing University. 2017.
46.
LiAN, LiaoH. How do leader–member exchange quality anddifferentiation affect performance in teams? An integratedmultilevel dual process model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99(5):847–866.
47.
Luo, ZhongC. Study on the relationship between the double-endedleadership and team innovation performance based on team dualbehavior. Management review. 2017;06:31–39.
48.
KanferR, AckermanP L. Motivation and cognitive abilities: anintegrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skillacquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989;74(4):657–690.
49.
Zacher, Hannes, Rosing, et al. Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation [J]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2015.
50.
LiH, LiJ. Top Management Team Conflict and EntrepreneurialStrategy Making in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2009;26(2):263–283.
51.
Milé, Terziovski. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 2010.
52.
MomT J M, van den BoschFAJ, VolberdaHW. Understanding variationin managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interactioneffects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science. 2009;20:812–828.
53.
Podsakoffv. Self-reports in organizational research: problems andprospects. Journal of Management. 1986;12(4):531–544.
54.
LidenRC, WayneSJ, StilwellDA. longitudinal study on the earlydevelopment of leader-member exchanges. Journal of AppliedPsychology. 1993;78(4):662–674.
