Conceptualization of Ambidextrous Leadership Effect: Emotional And Cognitive Pathway

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 187 - 199, 30.07.2024

Çağla Güven

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on how ambidextrous leaders impact their employees' innovative actions by introducing a conceptual framework that illustrates this dynamic through emotional and cognitive routes. The research on ambidexterity has brought the concepts of exploitation and exploration to the forefront of organizational research, focusing on innovation, adaptation, and competitive advantage. As the advancements in technology and changes in work practices developing, organizations have been prompted to embrace ambidexterity, effectively balancing exploitation and exploration. Thereby, organizations need leaders, who can generate the both sides harmonically, to catch the rapid change and be more innovative.
Ambidextrous leadership is characterized by two distinct behaviors. Opening behaviors encourage employees to explore new ideas, while closing behaviors focus on refining and implementing these ideas to their fullest potential. Although it is acknowledged that such leadership behaviors promote organizational innovation, there is a notable gap in research at the individual level of ambidexterity. This gap signifies a limited understanding of how ambidextrous leaders specifically influence employees to engage in innovative behaviors. This study suggests that leaders' opening behaviors foster creativity by generating a positive environment and encouraging autonomous thinking. Meanwhile, closing behaviors encourage employees to set proactive goals, leading to innovative outcomes through emotional engagement and cognitive pathways. The study contributes to the fields of ambidextrous leadership and innovative behavior by delineating the mechanisms through which these leadership behaviors influence innovation, offering new insights into the interplay between leadership and innovation in organizational settings.

Keywords

Ambidextrous Leadership, Leadership, Emotional and Cognitive

Conceptualization of Ambidextrous Leadership Effect: Emotional And Cognitive Pathway

Abstract

Bu çalışma, çok yönlü liderlerin çalışanlarının yenilikçi iş davranışlarını nasıl etkilediğini açıklamayı amaçlamakta ve bu dinamiği duygusal ve bilişsel yollar üzerinden gösteren kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Çift yönlülük üzerine yapılan araştırmalar, kullanma ve keşfetme kavramlarını ön planına çıkarmış, yenilik, adaptasyon ve rekabet avantajına odaklanmıştır. Teknolojideki ilerlemeler ve iş uygulamalarındaki değişikliklerle birlikte, örgütler çok yönlülüğü benimsemeye, kullanma ve keşfetmeyi etkin bir şekilde dengelemeye teşvik edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, organizasyonlar hızlı değişime uyum sağlayabilen ve her iki yönü de uyumlu bir şekilde yönetebilen liderlere ihtiyaç duymaktadır.
Çok yönlü liderlik, iki farklı davranışla karakterizedir. Serbest bırakma davranışları, çalışanları yeni fikirler keşfetmeye teşvik ederken, sınırlama davranışları var olan bu fikirleri en üst düzeye çıkararak uygulamaya odaklanır. Liderlik davranışlarının organizasyonel yenilikçiliği teşvik ettiği kabul edilse de çok yönlülüğün bireysel düzeydeki araştırmalarında önemli bir boşluk bulunmaktadır. Bu boşluk, çok yönlü liderlerin çalışanları yenilikçi davranışlara nasıl yönlendirdiğine dair sınırlı bir anlayışı işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma, liderlerin serbest bırakma davranışlarının pozitif bir ortam yaratarak ve bağımsız düşünmeyi teşvik ederek çalışanları yaratıcılığa yönlendirdiğini öne sürmektedir. Çalışma, liderlik davranışlarının yenilikçiliği nasıl etkilediğine dair mekanizmaları belirleyerek çok yönlü liderlik ve yenilikçi iş davranışı literatürüne katkıda bulunmakta ve liderlik ile yenilikçilik arasındaki etkileşime farklı bir bakış açısı getirmektedir.

Keywords

Çok Yönlü Liderlik, Liderlik, Duygusal ve Bilişsel

References

• Anderson, N., Potocnik, K. & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
• Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
• Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.24286163
• Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K., Marks, M. A. & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00043-0
• Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A. & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–329. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893937
• De Jong, J. & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behavior. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
• Foss, L., Woll, K. & Moilanen, M. (2013). Creativity and implementations of new ideas: do organizational structure, work environment, and gender matter?. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 298–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-09-2012-0049
• George, J.M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700538001
• Gollwitzer, P. M. & Schaal, B. (2001). How goals and plans affect action. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 139–161). Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
• Grant, A. M. & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
• Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press.
• 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), 54-66.
• Huy, Q.N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
• Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-rewards fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
• Javed, B., Khan, A. K., & Quratulain, S. (2021). Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior: examination of LMX perspective in small capitalized textile firms. In A. Rokach (Ed.), Leadership and Supervision (pp. 103-121). Routledge.
• Kafetzopoulos, D. (2022). Ambidextrous leadership: a narrative literature review for theory development and directions for future research. Baltic Journal of Management, 17(2), 206-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2021-0001
• Kafouros, M. I. & Forsans, N. (2012). The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others? Journal of World Business, 47, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.004
• Kang, J. H., Solomon, G. T. & Choi, D. Y. (2015). CEOs' leadership styles and managers' innovative behavior: Investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 531-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12125
• Locke, E. A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 408–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00023
• Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
• Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.
• Montani, F., Odoard, C. & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work behavior: Proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12066
• Montani, F., Odoard, C. & Battistelli, A. (2015). Envisioning, Planning and Innovating: A Closer Investigation of Proactive Goal Generation, Innovative Work Behaviour and Boundary Conditions. Business Psychology, 30, 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9371-8
• Mumford, M.D., Watts, L.L. & Partlow, P.J. (2015). Leader cognition: Approaches and Findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.005
• O'Reilly III, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
• Oldham, G. R. & Baer, M. (2012). Creativity and the work context. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 387–420). Elsevier.
• Rosing, K., Frese, M. & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership innovation relationship: ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
• Shipton, H., Sanders, K., Bednall, T., Lin, C. & Escriba-Carda, N. (2016). Beyond creativity: implementing innovative ideas through human resource management. In M. Skerlavaj, M. Cerne, A. Dysvik, & A. Carlsen (Eds.), Capitalizing on creativity at work: Fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations (pp. 230-244). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Strange, J. M. & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.006
• Tse, H., To, M. & Chiu, W. (2018). When and why does transformational leadership influence employee creativity? The roles of personal control and creative personality. Human Resources Management, 57, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21855
• Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. Ph., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H. & Blonk, R. W. B. (2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.10.003
• Vessey, W. B., Barrett, J. & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Leader cognition under threat: “Just the facts”. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 710–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.011
• Wood, R. E., Whelan, J., Sojo, V. & Wong, M. (2012). Goals, goal orientations, strategies, and performance. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 90–114). Routledge.
• Zacher, H. & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141
• 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, 813–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12070
• Zhou, J. & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: A review of different approaches to creativity research. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 275–302). American Psychological Association.