平衡式创新能有效规避单一行为模式的创新风险并引起学界重视,然而多元领导对平衡式创新的影响机制仍有待明晰。基于社会信息加工理论,分析53个团队301名员工的两阶段数据,探析愿景-忧患双元领导影响下属平衡式创新的心理过程。结果表明：愿景-忧患双元领导正向影响下属平衡式创新;愿景-忧患双元领导具有通过下属悖论思维影响平衡式创新的中介效应;环境动态性在愿景-忧患双元领导影响下属悖论思维时起增强调节作用,在通过悖论思维影响平衡式创新的中介路径中起调节中介效应。结论丰富和发展了多元领导和平衡式创新的理论建设。
Abstract
Today’s world is experiencing the greatest changes in a century. Management practitioners are generally struggling with the difficult choice of “change or stay the same”. We believe that in the era of digital economy, where new technologies emerge in endlessly and product iteration deepens, organizations should not only carry out radical innovation but also consider incremental innovation. Therefore, we argue that balanced innovation, which balances both radical innovation and incremental innovation, is of great significance in the business activities of enterprises. However, previous studies on balanced innovation usually stay at the organizational level and fail to analyze the micro-psychological mechanism of balanced innovation at the individual level, which may not seem to take effect immediately, but it is still equally important. At the same time, analyzing the impact of a single leadership on balanced innovation often has limitations, because a single leadership may focus on different aspects of innovation activities. Therefore, we focus on two types of complementary change-oriented leadership, visionary leadership and vigilant leadership, and explore the psychological mechanism of the joint effect of the two types of leadership on the subordinate’s balanced innovation behavior.
Based on previous studies depicting the theoretical connotations of visionary leadership and vigilant leadership, we argue that the two have complementary relationships in terms of goals and behavioral logic. Referring to the existing definition of ambidextrous leadership, we combine the complementary relationship between visionary leadership and vigilant leadership to propose a visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership composed of the two. Furthermore, based on the social information processing theory, we take subordinates’ paradoxical mindset as the mediator and the environmental dynamics as the moderator to study the impact mechanism of visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership on subordinates’ balanced innovation. We tested our hypothesis by conducting a two-stage study with 301 participants in 53 teams. Data were collected using a visionary scale, a vigilant leadership scale, a paradoxical mindset scale, an environmental dynamics scale, a radical innovation scale, and an incremental innovation scale. The mechanism is analyzed by using the two-level structure equation model.
The results show that: (1) Visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership has a positive effect on subordinates’ balanced innovation. (2) Subordinates’ paradoxical mindset plays a mediating role in the process of visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership influencing balanced innovation. (3) Environmental dynamics plays a moderating role in the process of visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership influencing subordinates’ paradox mindset. The higher the environment dynamics, the stronger the positive effect of visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership on subordinates’ paradoxical mindset is. (4) Environmental dynamics also play a moderating role in the mediation process of visionary-vigilant ambidextrous leadership influencing balanced innovation through the paradoxical mindset.
The study makes important contributions. First, we revealed the mechanism of the joint influence of multiple leadership on subordinate balanced innovation, which fills the gap in existing research that focuses on the relationship between balanced innovation and single leadership. Second, based on the social information processing theory, we achieved a micro psychological portrayal of the trickle-down process in which leaders’ diversified change behaviors affect subordinates’ balanced innovation, making up for the lack of individual psychology in previous studies in the field of balanced innovation. Finally, we explored the interaction between vigilant leadership and other leadership, enriched and developed the theoretical construction of vigilant leadership. Vigilant leadership, as a new type of leadership proposed in recent years, has received little research attention. Previous studies have suggested that there may be complementary theoretical relationships between this type of leadership and other leadership, and have called for further research to explore this possibility. One contribution of this study is its response to existing studies. The conclusion of this paper can also provide action directions for organizational leaders to lead subordinates to perform balanced innovation, and guide managers to adopt a ambidextrous leadership that balances vision and vigilance when appropriate.
关键词
愿景型领导 /
忧患型领导 /
平衡式创新 /
双元领导 /
社会信息加工理论
Key words
visionary leadership /
vigilant leadership /
balanced innovation /
ambidextrous leadership /
social information processing theory
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 岑杰, 盛亚. (2018). 回顾过去,展望未来?企业时间深度、知识搜索与二元创新平衡的关系研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 39(6), 21-33.
[2] 陈慧, 杨颖思, 王小华. (2022). 愿景型领导行为与下属绩效的关系: 积极情绪与愿景整合的链式中介作用. 商业经济与管理, 5, 46-56.
[3] 邓新明, 刘禹, 龙贤义, 林晓真, 杨赛凡, Khishigdelger, M. (2021). 管理者认知视角的环境动态性与组织战略变革关系研究. 南开管理评论, 24(1), 62-73.
[4] 方杰, 温忠麟, 吴艳. (2018). 基于结构方程模型的多层调节效应. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 781-788.
[5] 高中华, 赵晨, 付悦, 刘永虹. (2020). 团队情境下忧患型领导对角色绩效的多层链式影响机制研究. 管理世界, 36(9), 186-201, 206.
[6] 王道金, 吕鸿江, 周应堂. (2020). 渐进式、突破式和平衡式创新对组织绩效的影响研究——正式网络支持与非正式网络帮助的调节作用. 研究与发展管理, 32(6), 165-176.
[7] 徐燕, 高中华, 刘琪, 丁佳琦. (2023). 团队从失败中学习的激活机制: 团队过程视角下领导印象管理策略的作用及其多重边界条件. 技术经济, 42(10), 142-153.
[8] 杨倩, 焦特, 雷亚萍. (2022). 团队心理资本对个体双元创新行为的影响研究. 科技管理研究, 42(15), 139-147.
[9] 张宏宇, 李文, 郎艺. (2019). 矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用. 心理科学进展, 27(4), 711-725.
[10] 赵红丹, 郭利敏. (2017). 组织中的双面娇娃: 双元领导的概念结构与作用机制. 中国人力资源开发, 4, 55-65.
[11] 竺李乐, 李雪, 毛毅翀. (2023). 员工持股计划、融资约束与国有企业双元创新产出. 技术经济, 42(2), 90-99.
[12] Alblooshi M., Shamsuzzaman M., & Haridy S. (2021). The relationship between leadership styles and organisational innovation: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 338-370.
[13] Aryee S., Walumbwa F. O., Zhou Q., & Hartnell C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.
[14] Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
[15] Bhave D. P., Kramer A., & Glomb T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 145-158.
[16] Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241-264.
[17] Bouncken R. B., Fredrich V., Ritala P., & Kraus S. (2018). Coopetition in new product development alliances: Advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(3), 391-410.
[18] Chen J. L., Jiang F., & Lin S. (2020). How coping combination affects innovation ambidexterity in business failure situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: Article 1409.
[19] Chen, J. W., & Liu, L. L. (2020). Reconciling temporal conflicts in innovation ambidexterity: The role of TMT temporal leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1899-1920.
[20] Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
[21] Fu L. H., Liu Z. Y., & Liao S. Q. (2018). Is distributed leadership a driving factor of innovation ambidexterity? An empirical study with mediating and moderating effects. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(3), 388-405.
[22] Gao Z. H., Liu Y. H., Zhao C., Fu Y., & Schriesheim C. A. (2024). Winter is coming: An investigation of vigilant leadership, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(6), 850-870.
[23] Gebert D., Boerner S., & Kearney E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593-608.
[24] Gong L., Liu Z. Y., Rong Y. Z., & Fu L. H. (2021). Inclusive leadership, ambidextrous innovation and organizational performance: The moderating role of environment uncertainty. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42(5), 783-801.
[25] Griffin, R. W. (1983). Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 184-200.
[26] Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., & Shalley C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
[27] Jansen J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
[28] Jansen J. J. P., Vera D., & Crossan M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18.
[29] Kearney E., Shemla M., van Knippenberg D., & Scholz F. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20-30.
[30] Kohles J. C., Bligh M. C., & Carsten M. K. (2012). A follower-centric approach to the vision integration process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 476-487.
[31] Kortmann, S. (2015). The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 666-684.
[32] Lei H., Ha A. T. L., & Le P. B. (2019). How ethical leadership cultivates radical and incremental innovation: The mediating role of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(5), 849-862.
[33] Lennerts S., Schulze A., & Tomczak T. (2020). The asymmetric effects of exploitation and exploration on radical and incremental innovation performance: An uneven affair. European Management Journal, 38(1), 121-134.
[34] Makri, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2010). Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership on innovation in high-technology firms. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 75-88.
[35] Mendes M., Gomes C., Marques-Quinteiro P., Lind P., & Curral L. (2016). Promoting learning and innovation in organizations through complexity leadership theory. Team Performance Management, 22(5-6), 301-309.
[36] Meyer, G. W. (1994). Social information processing and social networks: A test of social influence mechanisms. Human Relations, 47(9), 1013-1047.
[37] Miron-Spektor E., Ingram A., Keller J., Smith W. K., & Lewis M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
[38] Park O., Bae J., & Hong W. (2019). High-commitment HRM system, HR capability, and ambidextrous technological innovation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(9), 1526-1548.
[39] Pieterse A., van Knippenberg D., Schippers M., & Stam D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
[40] Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.
[41] Schneider B., White S. S., Paul M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150-163.
[42] Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
[43] Stam D., van Knippenberg D., & Wisse B. (2010). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 457-468.
[44] Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.
[45] van Knippenberg, D., & Stam, D. (2014). Visionary leadership. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 241-259). Oxford University Press.
[46] Yu, M., & Choi, J. N. (2022). How do feedback seekers think? Disparate cognitive pathways towards incremental and radical creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 470-483.
[47] Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54-68.
[48] Zhao C., Gao Z., Liu Y., & Fu Y. (2018). Watch out for icebergs: An investigation of vigilant leadership, antecedents, and consequences. The proceedings of the 78th annual meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM), Academy of Management.
基金
*本研究得到国家自然科学基金（72172017, 72272148）、北京市自然科学基金（9222023）、教育部人文社会科学青年基金（21YJC630170）和中国社会科学院登峰战略企业管理优势学科建设项目（DF2023YS25）的资助
PDF(1194 KB)
