| 双元、悖论式领导对绩效的影响 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 尹奎,支前闯,代向阳,李培凯,钱婧.双元、悖论式领导对绩效的影响[J].科研管理,2022,43(8):165-173. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 尹奎 支前闯 代向阳 李培凯 钱婧 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1.北京科技大学 经济管理学院，北京100083；
2.中国人民大学 劳动人事学院，北京100872;
3.乌得勒支大学 社会行为学院，荷兰 乌得勒支1102cs;
4.北京师范大学 经济与工商管理学院，北京100875 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家自然科学基金项目：“双元领导对双元绩效、领导幸福感的影响：后效拓展、作用机制与多层次检验”（71802019, 2019.01—2021.12）。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 组织发展面临的张力越来越普遍，双元领导、悖论式领导日益引起理论界关注。然而双元领导、悖论式领导与创新绩效、任务绩效之间的关系如何？两种领导行为对两种绩效的影响是否存在差异？两种领导行为对创新绩效的影响是否会受到领导者层级的影响？上述问题亟待解答。对50项研究共13 232个样本进行元分析，分析结果发现：双元领导、悖论式领导分别对创新绩效、任务绩效有正向影响；双元领导、悖论式领导对创新绩效、任务绩效的影响不存在显著差异；双元领导、悖论式领导对创新绩效的影响不受领导者层级的调节作用。研究证实了两种相近领导行为影响不存在差异，为未来研究中的变量选择提供了依据，对实践中不同层级领导力开发提供了启示。
|
| 关 键 词： | 双元领导 悖论式领导 创新绩效 任务绩效 元分析 |
| 收稿时间： | 2021-08-26 |
| 修稿时间： | 2022-01-26 |
The effects of ambidextrous leadership and paradoxical leadership on performance |
| |
| Yin Kui,Zhi Qianchuang,Dai Xiangyang,Li Peikai,Qian Jing.The effects of ambidextrous leadership and paradoxical leadership on performance[J].Science Research Management,2022,43(8):165-173. |
| |
| Authors: | Yin Kui Zhi Qianchuang Dai Xiangyang Li Peikai Qian Jing |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China;
2. School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China;
3. School of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht 1102cs, The Netherlands;
4. School of Economics and Business Administration, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; |
| |
| Abstract: | Under the volatile, uncertainty, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, organizations are facing paradoxical demands to achieve fast and steady growth. To achieve the above goals, organizational leaders play crucial roles in setting and leading the paradoxical goals. Earlier studies have mainly focused on one particular type of leadership in setting organizational goals (e.g., empowering leadership; authoritarian leadership) that may restrict the paradoxical organizational goals as they put more focus on one single aspect. Hence, leadership that can satisfy different even paradoxical organizational goals gained more research and practical attention.
To achieve the paradoxical demands, two newly developed leadership behaviors have gained much attention: ambidextrous leadership and paradoxical leadership. Ambidextrous leadership is defined as leaders who adjust their leadership behaviors to adopt two contradictory leadership behaviors based on the situations. Paradoxical leadership, however, is mostly studied in the Chinese context, which is rooted in the Yin-Yang philosophy. Paradoxical leadership is mostly shown as leaders taking two contradictory leadership behaviors to satisfy the paradoxical work goals. Although the root of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership is different, both revealed that leaders should adopt their leadership behaviors even two contradictory leadership behaviors to satisfy the organizational competing goals.
Studies on ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership have consistently shown that both leadership behaviors can have positive relationships with innovation and task performance. However, there remains three main questions to be answered: first, research have shown different findings about the effect of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership on task performance. For instance, studies on the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and task performance has ranged from negative to positive, and the relationship between paradoxical leadership and task performance has ranged from nonsignificant to significant. Second, since both ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership share similarities in their definition, understanding about which leadership style is more powerful in predicting employee performance is unknown. Third, it is also unknown about the role of leaders′ hierarchical level in affecting the effectiveness of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership. For instance, prior studies have suggested that middle level managers′ paradoxical leadership are more likely to achieve effectiveness; and the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership will also vary across different levels. Based on the above questions, we conducted our study with meta-analysis approach.
Different with the single-sample quantitative study, meta-analysis approach has several advantages. First, meta-analysis can resolve research dispute by integrating different research findings. With a large sample size, it can achieve more accurate estimation. Second, meta-analysis can also achieve sub-group analysis to show the different impact of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership. Third, meta-analysis can also identify the conditional factors. As such, it can answer our third question about how leaders′ hierarchical level may affect their leadership effectiveness.
Before conducting meta-analysis, we firstly searched the database (i.e., CNKI, Web of Science, and ProQuest) on ambidextrous leadership and paradoxical leadership. We restricted the timeline to May, 2021. This led to a total of 249 papers. Second, we screened the literature and only included studies that meet our standards. For instance, we excluded conference paper and dissertation and excluded papers that did not report the correlations between leadership and performance outcomes. This led to 43 papers that satisfying all our requirements. Based on the 43 papers, we conducted our meta-analysis. Before coding the data, we trained all the coders about how to code the data to reduce misunderstandings and bias. According to the 43 papers, we got 50 samples with a total sample size of 13232. Applying R software, we found that: first, both ambidextrous leadership and paradoxical leadership had positive relationships with innovation and task performance. Second, subgroup comparison analysis results revealed the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and innovation performance was not significantly different from that between paradoxical leadership on innovation performance; and the relationship between paradoxical leadership and task performance was not significantly different from that between ambidextrous leadership and task performance. Third, subgroup analysis also showed that there was no moderating effect of leaders′ hierarchical level on the above relationships.
Our study has the following theoretical implications: First, through meta-analysis, it revealed the "real" effect of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership on innovation and task performance, which could resolve the puzzle about the different impact of these two leaderships on the innovation and task performance outcomes. Second, through the comparative analysis between ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership and their outcomes, it could show the unique role of paradoxical leadership, which can offer further evidence on the studies about paradoxical leadership. Third, by focusing on the conditional factors in affecting the effectiveness of ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership, it offered insights for future studies to explore when and why these two leadership behaviors can have different impacts. Overall, our study contributed to the ambidextrous and paradoxical leadership studies by offering an integrated picture, which can also offer insights for future studies on these two leadership behaviors. |
| |
| Keywords: | ambidextrous leadership paradoxical leadership innovation performance task performance meta-analysis |
|
| 点击此处可从《科研管理》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《科研管理》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
