Extending the Ambidextrous Leadership Theory : Investigating the Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Its Effect on Employee Innovation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose – This research aims to extend the Ambidextrous Leadership Theory by investigating its psychological mechanisms on employee innovation. It consists of two separate studies, each intended to fill gaps in the literature. Study 1 uses the proactive motivation model to investigate how motivating factors mediate the relationship between ambidextrous leader behaviors (opening and closing) and employee explorative-exploitative activities. The goal is to identify three distinct motivational states ("reason to", "can do", and "energize to") as potential mediators driving individuals toward different innovative activities. Study 2 employs polynomial regression with response surface methodology to explore the linear and nonlinear correlations between various forms of ambidextrous leadership and employee innovation through the lens of paradox theory. Furthermore, the study analyzes the mediating effect of the individual paradox mindset and the moderating role of flexibility to clarify potential mechanisms and boundary conditions.

Methodology – To conduct the research analysis, three waves of employee data were collected across various industries in China through online survey questionnaires. A total of 336 valid data were utilized for hypothesis testing, employing methodologies such as structural equation modeling, polynomial regression, and response surface analysis.

Findings – Study 1 indicates that opening leader behavior promotes employees' explorative activities through the augmentation of intrinsic motivation, learning goal orientation, and affective commitment. Conversely, closing leader behavior stimulates employees' exploitative activities by bolstering extrinsic motivation and performance goal orientation. The outcomes of Study 2 demonstrate that increased congruence between the leaders’ opening and closing behaviors is linked to greater levels of employee innovation. Furthermore, combining high- opening and low-closing behaviors leads to greater innovative behavior compared to situations where there are low-opening behaviors combined with high-closing ones. Interestingly, incongruence between opening and closing leader behaviors, characterized by one being high while the other is low, prompts employees to demonstrate higher levels of innovative behavior than in situations where both behaviors are congruent, contrary to the initial hypothesis. Additionally, the study confirmed that employee paradox mindset serves as a mediator between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovation, and that employee cognitive flexibility strengthens this mechanism.

Value – By investigating the unexplored underlying psychological mechanisms between ambidextrous leader behaviors and employees' innovative activities, this research broadens the comprehension of ambidextrous leadership. It Employs polynomial regression with response surface analysis to investigate the relationships between various styles of ambidextrous leadership and employee innovation, addressing current methodological limitations and offering new insights and directions for future research.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract vi
• 1. Introduction 1
• 1.1 Research Background 1
• 1.2 Research Objectives 4
• 1.3 Research Contribution 5
• 2. Theoretical Background 6
• 2.1 Ambidextrous Leadership Theory 6
• 2.1.1 Conceptual Background 6
• 2.1.2 Review of Empirical Research 8
• 2.1.3 Measurement of ambidextrous leadership 11
• 2.2 Proactive Motivation Model 12
• 2.2.1 “Reason to” and Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation 13
• 2.2.2 “Can do” and Achievement Goal Orientations 14
• 2.2.3 “Energize to” and Organizational Commitment 15
• 2.3 Paradox Theory 16
• 2.3.1 Paradox Mindset 17
• 2.4 Flexibility 18
• 2.4.1 Leader Behavioral Flexibility 19
• 2.4.2 Employee Cognitive Flexibility 20
• 3. Hypotheses Development and Research Model 21
• 3.1 Hypotheses Development 21
• 3.1.1 Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Exploration-Exploitation 21
• 3.1.2 “Reason to” and Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation as a Mediator 23
• 3.1.3 “Can do” and Achievement Goal Orientations as a Mediator 25
• 3.1.4 “Energize to” and Organizational Commitment as a Mediator 27
• 3.1.5 Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Innovative Behavior 30
• 3.1.6 Mediating Role of Paradox Mindset 34
• 3.1.7 Moderating Role of Flexibility 35
• 3.2 Research Model 37
• 4. Methodology 39
• 4.1 Procedure and Sample 39
• 4.2 Measures 41
• 4.3 Analysis Method 43
• 5. Results 44
• 5.1 Study 1 Results 44
• 5.1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses 44
• 5.1.2 Descriptive Statistics 46
• 5.1.3 Hypothesis Tests 47
• 5.2 Study 2 Results 51
• 5.2.1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses 51
• 5.2.2 Descriptive Statistics 53
• 5.2.3 Hypothesis Tests 54
• 6. Conclusions 64
• 6.1 Research Findings 64
• 6.2 Theoretical Contributions 66
• 6.3 Practical Contributions 68
• 6.4 Limitations and Future Research 70
• References 72
• Appendix 88
• Survey-Questionnaire (English version) 88
• Table Contents
• Table 1. Examples of opening and closing leader behaviors 12
• Table 2. Demographic information of respondents 40
• Table 3. Composition of questionnaire 43
• Table 4. Reliability and validity analysis results (Study 1) 45
• Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (Study 1) 47
• Table 6. Results of direct effect analysis 49
• Table 7. Results of indirect effect analysis 50
• Table 8. Reliability and validity analysis results (Study 2) 52
• Table 9. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (Study 2) 53
• Table 10. Polynomial regressions results predicting paradox mindset and innovative behavior 56
• Table 11. Results of mediation tests for ambidextrous leadership on innovative behavior through paradox mindset 58
• Table 12. The moderating effect of leader behavioral flexibility 59
• Table 13. The moderating effect of employee cognitive flexibility 60
• Table 14. Polynomial regressions results under different levels of employee cognitive flexibility 62
• Figure Contents
• Figure 1. The model of ambidextrous leadership theory 8
• Figure 2. Combinations of opening and closing leader behaviors 31
• Figure 3. Research model of Study 1 38
• Figure 4. Research model of Study 2 38
• Figure 5. Congruence and incongruence effect of opening and closing leader behaviors on employee innovative behavior 57
• Figure 6. The effect of ambidextrous leadership on employee innovative behavior (via paradox mindset) under different levels of employee cognitive flexibility 63