Existing contingency leadership approaches lack precision and action orientation (Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, & Green, 2002; Schindler, 2015). Therefore, in order to expand previous understandings (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Yukl, 2009) and outline concrete leadership actions, in this study, it is proposed that ambidextrous leadership is related to two leadership styles, transformational and transactional leadership
2007; Junni et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2016; Tung, 2016), based on the premise that ambidexterity has do with the simultaneous use of two contradictory, yet complementary leadership styles (Avolio et al., 2009; Bledow et al., 2011; Burns, 1978; Elenkov et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2016).
This is in line with Bass' (1985) assumption that all leaders exhibit characteristics of both transformational and transactional leadership styles, where individual leaders tend to put higher emphasis on one of these styles more than on the other (Smith et al., 2017), while the best leaders are those who display both transformational and transactional behaviors (Halevi et al., 2015; Vera & Crossan, 2004). Accordingly, Gratton & Erickson (2007) have also argued, in their study, that at the early stages, leaders were using transactional leadership (task-oriented), and at a certain point, they switched to transformational leadership (relationship-oriented) (see also Blake & Mouton 1964). Transformational leadership is found to be more likely associated with explorative innovation, whereas transactional leadership is more associated with exploitative innovation (Baskarada et al., 2016; Jansen et al., 2009; Luo et al., 2016; Wong, Lee, & Chang, 2017).
More specifically, transformational leadership has been suggested to highly relate to creativity and innovation (Bryant, 2003; Elenkov et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2008; Jiang & Chen, 2016; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Nijstad, Berger-Selman, & De Dreu, 2014; Rosing et al., 2011). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate employees to produce creative ideas and implement them in innovative products, while choosing what activities will be rewarded and what behaviors will be encouraged (Bryant, 2003). Therefore, transformational leaders are characterized by four separate
components: idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (the 4-i organizational knowledge framework) (Baskarada et al., 2016; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bryant, 2003; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). They motivate followers to achieve superior performance by
transforming followers’ attitudes, beliefs, and values (Owens & Hekman, 2016; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Zacher, Robinson, & Rosing, 2016). At the same time, they inspire and motivate people that work with them, by communicating high expectations, using symbols, and expressing important purposes in simple ways (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
On the other hand, transactional leadership is associated with the exploitation of the existing knowledge (Bryant, 2003; Rosing et al., 2011). Transactional leaders demand task completion within a specific timeline, with employees following strict rules in order to achieve specific product goals (Baskarada et al., 2016; Tung, 2016). Transactional leaders clarify goals, reward goal achievement, and intervene only when necessary. They do not encourage experimentation, risk-taking, and tolerance for mistakes, and thus they are not expected to relate to creativity and innovation (Bass, 1999; Kang, Solomon, & Choi, 2015; Rosing et al., 2011). These leaders provide contingent rewards and are involved in active management by exception, so that individuals concentrate on efficiency and become better at performing current routines (Vera & Crossan, 2004). In this way, they contribute to high-level coordination of organizational activities (Jansen et al., 2009).
Levine, 1999; Good & Michel, 2013; Keller & Weibler, 2014; Rosing et al., 2011). On the collective level, leaders must show both kinds of leadership capabilities to facilitate innovative performance among employees. When employees must be creative and generate ideas, then transformational leadership could promote innovation. In other situations, when efficiency and consciousness is called for, transactional leadership is more suitable (Zacher et al., 2016). On the individual level, leaders must be able to balance current and new activities, combine short-term and long-term thinking (Angwin et al., 2009), and develop emotionally engaging visions while staying focused on execution (Probst, Raisch, & Tushman, 2011). An illustration of the above concept is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below:
Figure 4.1: Ambidextrous leadership framework
Despite the above assumption that transformational leadership only relates to exploration and transactional leadership only relates to exploitation, research on the explicit relationship between transformational leadership–exploration and transactional leadership–exploitation remains limited and mixed. Thus, to be able to draw reliable conclusions, more studies are needed to investigate this link, as well as
In their theoretical study on ambidextrous leadership, Rosing et al. (2011) have proposed that even through these two leadership styles show positive relationship with innovation, they are still too broad in nature as they encompass a multitude of behaviors that may in fact both promote or hinder innovation (Avolio et al., 2009; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998). For this reason, they proposed opening and closing leadership behaviors that specifically match the requirements that teams and individuals face within the innovation process and the flexibility to switch between these, as the situation requires.
Particularly, opening leader behaviors that promote exploration are a set of leader behaviors that include encouragement for doing things differently and experimenting, thinking independently, and acting and challenging established approaches. Contrarily, closing leadership behaviors that promote exploitation are a set of leader behaviors that include taking corrective action, setting goals, and monitoring goal achievement. In their study, Rosing et al. (2011) distinguished between the two processes of innovation based on previous studies, which are idea generation or creativity (exploration) and idea implementation (exploitation). In Table 4.1 follows the adaption of transformational and transactional leadership styles to opening and closing leadership behaviors, where the term “behavior” emphasizes the higher situational ability in contrast with the term “ style” or “role” (see also Zacher & Rosing, 2015).
Table 4.1: Adaption of transformational/transactional leadership styles to opening/closing leadership behaviors (developed from Schindler, 2015, p.32)
Opening leadership behaviors Closing leadership behaviors Transformational leadership • A vision that motivates exploratory behavior
• Stimulation of thought in new directions • Communication of the values of openness and
tolerance
• A vision that motivates confirmatory behavior
• Stimulation of small improvements and enhancement of efficiency
• Communication of the values of conscientiousness and rules adherence Transactional leadership • Rewarding experimentation
• Focus on errors to learn from errors • Setting and monitoring exploration goals
• Rewarding efficiency
• Focus on errors to avoid errors
In light of the above table, we must admit that leadership is a complex issue (Bass, 1999; Morrell & Hartley, 2006a). There are so many significant variables in establishing what is a good leadership that it becomes impossible to develop an experiment that will generate conclusive evidence on the topic (Avolio et al., 2009; Grint, 2001; Rogan & Mors, 2014). Today, the field of leadership focuses not only on the leader, but also on followers, peers, supervisors, work setting/context, culture, as well as a much broader array of individuals that include a whole system of variables. Therefore, leadership is no longer considered as an individual characteristic, rather it is described in various models as dyadic, shared, relational, global, strategic, and a complex social dynamic (Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 2013). Still, we can prioritize some of the most important characteristics about successful leadership. In this regard, successful leaders may have some of the basic characteristics that are present in all leaders, in addition to more specific characteristics that are dependent on their personal traits and behaviors (Blake & Mouton, 1964).
In sum, ambidextrous leaders must generate a clear and a relatively simple answer to what they want to achieve. The most important factor in ambidextrous leadership deals with the management of exploration and exploitation for the best possible outcome in terms of supreme organizational performance. Therefore, ambidextrous leadership is closely associated with high performance, and it depends on the extent to which leaders make their vision clear to their subordinates (Hambrick & Pettigrew, 2001; Probst et al., 2011), who must believe that they are capable of achieving highly imposed targets (Bledow et al., 2011; Grint, 2001). Success is both
2005), and thus it is equally important for ambidextrous leaders to work along with their ambidextrous teams (Luo et al., 2016) toward a mutually agreed direction that embraces contradictory, yet complementary issues of exploration and exploitation
(Carmeli & Halevi, 2009; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011; Rosing et al., 2011). In Table 4.2, some key studies are presented that show the relationship between ambidexterity and transformational and transactional leadership styles.
Table 4.2: Key studies showing the relationship between ambidexterity and leadership styles Author(s) Year Exploration/exploitation Leadership styles Key findings
Ambidexterity linked to both leadership styles Bryant 2003 • Exploration of knowledge • Exploitation of knowledge Transformational/ Transactional behaviors
Managing knowledge includes three key processes of creating, sharing, and exploiting knowledge effectively. Leaders are central to each of these processes of managing knowledge at multiple levels of the firm. In this work, it is argued that transformational leadership may be more effective at creating and sharing knowledge at the individual and group levels, while transactional leadership is more effective at exploiting knowledge at the organizational level.
Jansen et al. 2009 • Exploratory innovation • Exploitative
innovation
Transformational/ Transactional behaviors
This study advances prior research by linking transformational leadership with explorative innovation and transactional leadership with exploitative innovation. In addition, environmental dynamism is also taken into account, which promotes the effectiveness of the strategic leaders.
Opening/closing leader behaviors
are linked to opening and closing leader behaviors.
Baskarada et al. 2016 • Exploratory innovation • Exploitative innovation Ambidextrous leadership through: Transformational/ Transactional behaviors
This study provides support for ambidextrous leadership construct and links transformational leadership style with exploratory innovation and transactional leadership style with exploitative innovation.
Kauppila & Tempelaar 2016 Employees’ ambidextrous behavior Paradoxical leadership
This research demonstrates that both psychological factors and leadership style predict employees’
ambidextrous behavior. Luo et al. 2016 Ambidextrous behavior of
top management teams (TMTs)
Ambidextrous leadership of chief executive officers (CEOs)
The purpose of this study is to investigate how the ambidextrous leadership of chief executive officers (CEOs) influences TMT members.
Transformational leadership style linked to exploration/exploitation Jansen et al. 2008 • Exploratory innovation
• Exploitative innovation
Transformational leadership
This study explores the role of senior teams, attributes and leadership behavior in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members, and achieving organizational ambidexterity. This study also shows that
transformational leadership increases the effectiveness of senior team members in ambidextrous organizations. Nemanich & Vera 2009 Ambidexterity through: • Exploration of new capabilities • Exploitation of existing capabilities Transformational leadership behaviors
This study explores the role of transformational leadership and values in a learning culture that promotes ambidexterity in teams in acquisition integrations. The researchers find support for the association between transformational leadership and learning cultures.
Nijstad et al. 2014 Dissent-innovation relation in TMTs
CEO
transformational leadership
In this study, the researchers link CEO transformational leadership with innovations implemented by TMTs. Results show that only under high levels of transformational leadership these innovations are radical Jiang & Chen 2016 • Within-team
knowledge sharing (exploitation) • External team knowledge acquisition (exploration) Transformational leadership
This study explores how transformational leadership affects team’s innovative performance. Results indicate that transformational leadership promotes within–team knowledge sharing and team’s innovative performance.
Transactional leadership style linked to exploration/exploitation
organizational learning Transactional leadership
model of the impact of CEO and top manager’s
leadership styles and practices on organizational learning. The researchers describe how strategic leaders influence each element of the learning system. They link transformational leadership with organizational learning, while also exploring the value of transactional leadership.
Kang et al. 2015 • Exploration of new knowledge
• Exploitation of existing one
Ambidextrous learning
This study identifies two distinctive architectures of intellectual capital that facilitate ambidextrous learning. These architectures are defined as refined interpolation or specialist human capital and disciplined extrapolation or generalist human capital.
Zacher et al. 2016 Employees’ exploration
and exploitation behaviors
Ambidextrous leadership through: Opening/closing behaviors
The purpose of this study is to provide an initial testing
where leaders’ opening and closing behaviors can be positively associated with employees’ exploration and
exploitation behaviors and portray the influence on employees’ innovative performance in exploitation activities.
More specifically, the above table is divided into three parts that present research where (a) ambidexterity is linked to both transformational and transactional leadership styles, (b) transformational leadership style is linked to ambidexterity, and (c) transactional leadership style is linked to ambidexterity.
The analysis of some current studies follows in order to explain what are the latest findings in the field of ambidextrous leadership. For example, one recent study where ambidexterity is linked with both transformational and transactional leadership styles is that of Luo et al., (2016), in which the researchers analyze the ambidextrous behavior of top management teams (see also the similar latest work of Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Tung, 2016). In this work, the main goal of the researchers is to investigate how ambidextrous leadership of chief executive officers (CEOs) influences the ambidextrous behavior of TMT-members. They use a multisource survey, which reveals that TMT-members’ ambidextrous behavior can be predicted by CEOs’ ambidextrous leadership with the mediation of TMT behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity. TMT-members’ behavior can be
defined as the manager’s behavior orientation in combining explorative and exploitative activities (Mom et al., 2009), whereas TMT behavioral integration refers to the mutual and collective interactions of the team members, and TMT risk propensity refers to the indirect relationship among group members.
In the latest study of Jiang & Chen (2016), transformational leadership style is linked to ambidexterity. The researchers conducted two studies to analyze how team members interact in order to understand how transformational leadership affects teams’ innovative performance. In the first study, they used temporally assembled
teams working on innovative projects, where they found that transformational leadership promoted knowledge sharing inside these teams and in turn enhanced the team’s innovative performance. In the second study, the researchers used permanent teams in various functional areas and found that transformational leadership along with external team knowledge acquisition promoted the team’s innovative performance even further. They concluded the study by pointing the importance that transformational leadership has on enhancing collective innovation.
Finally, it must be stressed upon that only few studies link transactional leadership style with exploitation (Baskarada et al., 2016). One of the most well-known studies that links transactional leadership with exploitative innovation is that of Jansen et al. (2009). Recently, Kang et al. (2015), in their study, linked disciplined extrapolation with transactional leadership style, as they investigated how intellectual capital architectures interact with ambidextrous learning, while building a framework for human resource management. More specifically, the researchers identified two different architectures of intellectual capital, which they defined as refined interpolation and disciplined extrapolation. Refined interpolation is an architecture that includes specialist human capital, cooperative social capital, and organic organizational capital. Contrarily, disciplined extrapolation is an architecture that is comprised of generalist human capital, entrepreneurial social capital, and mechanistic organizational capital. The researchers also included two alternative HR configurations in their study that facilitate ambidextrous learning. They concluded that ambidextrous learning comes from intellectual capital architectures that in turn underlie unique human, social, and organizational capital configurations.