Innovation climate mediating complexity leadership and ambidexterity
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2018-0445 |
| Published date | 04 November 2019 |
| Pages | 1782-1808 |
| Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Author | Rick Diesel,Caren Brenda Scheepers |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
Innovation climate mediating
complexity leadership
and ambidexterity
Rick Diesel and Caren Brenda Scheepers
Gordon Institute of Business Science, University Pretoria, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this pape r is to investigate the relationship between complexity le adership and
contextual ambidext erity as well as the mediating effect of or ganisational innovation climate in this link.
This study is an answer t o a call on which leadersh ip approach and mediating factors can meet to day’s
seemingly contradic tory challenges of eff iciently managing busi ness demands, while s imultaneously
searching for new opport unities.
Design/methodology/approach –The researchers analysed 1,204 usable survey responses from
employees of South African organisations. Analysis was in the form of structural equation modelling.
Mediation analysis was carried out on estimates of the indirect effect.
Findings –Results show that complexity leadership was a strong predictor of innovation climate; in turn,
innovation climate positively impacts exploratory innovation by 64 per cent; complexity leadership and
innovation climate positively affect exploitation by 57 per cent. The innovation climate plays a total mediator
role between complexity leadership and exploratory innovation and a partial effect on exploitation.
Practical implications –This study gives human resource management (HRM) insight into strategically
directing leadership recruitment and development towards creating an organisational climate to enhance
ambidexterity. HRM must conduct regular climate surveys to ascertain whether current leadership is creating
an environment that enables exploratory and exploitative innovation.
Originality/value –The authors’contribution includes a theoretical contribution to the emerging field of
complexity leadership by offering conceptual as well as empirical evidence of its role in ambidexterity. This
study extends previous research in highlighting organisational climate’s mediating role of being open to new
ideas to enable exploratory innovation.
Keywords Innovation, Leadership, Quantitative, Ambidexterity, Exploratory innovation,
Exploitative innovation, Organizational climate
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organisations must be efficient in dealing with today’s business demands, exploiting
current innovations while searching for new opportunities with exploratory innovation
(Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). Organisations therefore need to be ambidextrous, i.e. the
ability to simultaneously conduct exploratory and exploitative innovation (Lavie et al., 2010;
Luo et al., 2018). Leadership plays a fundamental role in developing and promoting
ambidexterity, yet O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) advise that there is a paucity of research
analysing how leaders can achieve ambidexterity. Zuraik and Kelly (2019) also confirm a
recurrent theme in the literature of a need for a supportive environment for innovation.
These realities prompted the current study to investigate the research question:
RQ1. How might leadership create a supportive climate for innovation to achieve
ambidexterity in their organisations?
Today’s business landscape shows increasing aspects of complexity (Clarke, 2013;
Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017), which has led to an interest in leadership theories that deal
with this complexity (Dinh et al., 2014; Havermans et al., 2015). Literature has thus called
for new models for developing and researching leadership (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2017), as
older models, such as top-down bureaucratic leadership, are ineffective in today’s
knowledge-based economies (Day et al., 2014; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Although the value of
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 7, 2019
pp. 1782-1808
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-11-2018-0445
Received 5 November 2018
Revised 15 February 2019
26 April 2019
Accepted 19 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1782
PR
48,7
complexity leadership in these complex environments has been recognised (Clarke, 2013),
further research in the complexity leadership field is needed to advance and develop the
theory (Avolio et al. , 2009; Schneider and Somers, 2006). Because complexity leadership
theory (CLT) is an emerging theoretical concept, the objective of the present paper is to
enrich and extend the theory of complexity leadership, by offering conceptual and
empirical evidence of its relationship with ambidexterity.
Literature also calls for studies that investigate the contextual factors that mediate the
leader’s influence on ambidexterity (Avolio et al., 2009; Berson et al., 2006). The mediating
role of organisational innovation climate is supported by literature (Schneider et al., 2016),
yet that role in complexity leadership is lacking. We argue that there is thus a gap in the
literature to explain how complexity leadership and climate interact and have an impact on
innovation. We therefore decided to include innovation climate in this study and thus
formulated the purpose of the current study, namely, to investigate the relationship between
complexity leadership and contextual ambidexterity as well as the mediating effect of
organisational innovation climate in this link. The paper is therefore structured as follows:
the theoretical foundation of the study is offered, referring to how complexity leadership and
ambidexterity are conceptually linked and related to the role of innovation climate. This is
followed by methodology, results and discussion of implications and finally
recommendations for future studies.
Literature review
Complexity leadership
The role of context has been emphasised within the psychological leadership research
domain, for example, in Osborn et al.’s (2014) “The Context and Leadership”and in a special
issue of Human Relations (Liden and Antonakis, 2009). Johns (2006) offered a seminal
typology for depicting context in management and behavioural studies, yet there is a dire
lack of empirical studies with construct operationalisation within the leadership domain.
Leadership theories are luckily moving towards a more systemic perspective that
incorporates the social context in which the leader operates (Clarke, 2013; Dinh et al., 2014;
Havermans et al., 2015; Kutz and Bamford-Wade, 2013; Osborn et al.,2002).Emergingsystems
research has resulted in a systems thematic theory of leadership (Dinh et al.,2014).Complex
adaptive leadership, later called CLT, fallsunder this systemic theme and is a contextualised
leadership theory (Osborn and Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Richardson and Cilliers
(2001) state that organisations are complex systems, “Complexity theory has implications for
the way we conceivethe structure of an organization,as well as for the way in which complex
organizations should be managed”(Richardson and Cilliers, 2001, p. 23). This shows the
important role of leadership in managing complexity in organisations.
Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) presented a framework for CLT in 2007 as “three entangled
leadership roles (i.e. adaptive/entrepreneurial leadership, administrative/operational
leadership, and enabling leadership) that reflect a dynamic relationship between the
bureaucratic, administrative functions of the organisation and the emergent, informal
dynamics of complex adaptive systems (CAS)”(p. 298). Uhl-Bien and Arena (2017) define the
types of leadership as follows: operational leadership deals with the alignment of systems
and processes, to execute ideas and produce outcomes. This is likened to exploitative
innovation. A key role is to convert emergent ideas into structures that produce innovation
and ongoing results.
By contrast, entrepreneurial leadership creates new ideas, products, services and
innovative solutions, motivated by complex pressures. It is likened to exploratory
innovation. Therefore, we argue that this complexity leadership framework is ideally suited
to bringing the two together in enhancing both exploitative and exploratory innovation
called ambidexterity and we formulated our hypotheses based on this argument.
1783
Innovation
climate
To continue reading
Request your trial