Abstract
Innovation research is full of paradoxes. Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, and Farr (2009) summarize several kinds of conflicting demands inherent to the innovation process and demonstrate the commonness of tensions within this process. The main paradoxes of innovation are probably achieving a balance of new and old activities, of structured and chaotic activities, and of uncertain and reliable activities. All these activities map onto ambidexterity – the ability to achieve a balance of exploration and exploitation. In this chapter, we will argue that ambidexterity is required within the innovation process, not only on the organizational level but also for each individual person involved in an innovation process. Leaders in the context of innovation need to be able to support subordinates in their attempts to act ambidextrously – by ambidextrous leadership.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Bledow et al. (2009).
- 2.
For example He and Wong (2004).
- 3.
Lewis (2000).
- 4.
Katsuki Watanabe in Stewart and Raman (2007, p. 81).
- 5.
Takeuchi, Osono, and Shimizu (2008).
- 6.
Stewart and Raman (2007).
- 7.
Hamel (2006).
- 8.
Watanabe in Stewart and Raman (2007).
- 9.
Farr, Sin, and Tesluk (2003).
- 10.
For example Anderson, De Dreu, and Nijstad (2004).
- 11.
Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002).
- 12.
Bass (1999, p.11).
- 13.
Bass (1999).
- 14.
Jansen, Vera, and Crossan (2009).
- 15.
Fleishman (1953).
- 16.
Keller (2006).
- 17.
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995).
- 18.
Rosing and Frese (2009).
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Baer and Frese (2003).
- 21.
Frese, Teng, and Wijnen (1999).
- 22.
Van Dyck, Frese, Baer, and Sonnentag (2005).
References
Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147–173.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research, and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N. R., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(3), 305–337.
Farr, J. L., Sin, H.-P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2003). Knowledge management processes and work group innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 574–586). NY, USA: Elsevier Science.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1–6.
Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1139–1155.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209–226.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of Leader-member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 140–140.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5–18.
Keller, R.T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489–501.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Martin, R. L. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2009). Leadership in the Innovation Process: The Importance of Ambidexterity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Stewart, T. A., & Raman, A. P. (2007). Lessons from Toyota’s long drive. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 74–83.
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 96–104.
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 545–568.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a research grant by the Volkswagen Foundation (II/82 408). We would like to thank our colleagues Andreas Bausch, Nataliya Baytalskaya, Ronald Bledow, James Farr, Verena Mueller, Alexander Schwall, and Shaker Zahra for discussions on initial ideas from which this chapter emerged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N., Frese, M. (2010). Ambidextrous Leadership in the Innovation Process. In: Gerybadze, A., Hommel, U., Reiners, H., Thomaschewski, D. (eds) Innovation and International Corporate Growth. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10823-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10823-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10822-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10823-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)