Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The benefits of ambidextrous leadership behavior for the workplace well-being of leaders

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ambidextrous leadership behavior, which refers to the use of complementary behaviors (i.e., opening leadership behavior and closing leadership behavior) to foster both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers, has been found to generate beneficial outcomes to organizations and their members by helping them meet competing demands during organizational innovation. However, knowledge about how this leadership behavior impacts the leaders themselves is limited. Drawing on the theory of conservation of resources, we expect that the balance of opening leadership and closing leadership relates to the workplace well-being of leaders via leadership efficacy. To test our predictions, we collected multiwave and multisource data from 151 work units and conducted polynomial regression analysis along with response surface methodology. Consistent with our predictions, the results showed that the balance of opening and closing leadership was positively associated with leadership efficacy, which in turn increased leader workplace well-being. Moreover, this relationship was stronger when leaders engaged in high (versus low) levels of both opening and closing leadership. This study contributes to an improved understanding of the benefits of ambidextrous leadership by shifting the focus from a recipient perspective to an actor perspective, and it provides practical implications to help organizations improve their leaders’ workplace well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the following link (https://osf.io/986s4/?view_only=42ec645c045b4ee0b45d059db8aa4e7e).

Notes

  1. We used self-rated leader efficacy because meta-analysis comparing self-reports to other-reports of sensitive data demonstrate that self-reported data are more accurate than data collected from other-reports (Berry et al., 2012). Specifically, leader self-reports of efficacy are more accurate because coworker and employees are often unaware of leaders’ inner cognition. Accordingly, previous research has usually used self-assessment to measure efficacy (e.g., Gielnik et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2009; Jones, 1986).

References

  • Alghamdi, F. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M., Bennett, R. J., & Martinko, M. J. (2016). Understanding the high-performance workplace: The line between motivation and abuse. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., Dewall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2010). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773–1802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 305–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific subjective efficacy. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 59, 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune China. (2010). Senior Chinese managers in the post-financial crisis era–Psychological status investigation report. http://www.fortunechina.com/magazine/c/2010-02/03/content_30512.htm

  • Fortune China. (2015). The report of Chinese senior managers stress survey in 2014. http://www.fortunechina.com/career/c/2015-02/10/content_236196.htm

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielnik, M. M., Bledow, R., & Stark, M. S. (2020). A dynamic account of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 487–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., & Paustianunderdahl, S. C. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). Leader efficacy questionnaire. Published by Mind Garden Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). Conservation of resources: A rejoinder to the commentaries. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 419–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, W., Luo, J., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leaders helping newcomers get on board: Achieving adjustment and proaction through distinct pathways. Journal of Business Research, 118, 406–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor–strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 401–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomer’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiazad, K., Holtom, B. C., Hom, P. W., & Newman, A. (2015). Job embeddedness: A multifoci theoretical extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 641–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59(3), 454–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 825–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2017). Ambidextrous leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, and operational performance: Organizational social capital as a moderator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., Zhou, X., Chen, R., & Dong, X. (2019). Does ambidextrous leadership motivate work crafting? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 234–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., Bakker, A. B., & Ghislieri, C. (2015). Do recovery experiences moderate the relationship between workload and work-family conflict? Career Development International, 20(7), 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J., Fourné, S. P., & Jansen, J. J. (2015). Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

  • Peng, J., Chen, X., Zou, Y., & Nie, Q. (2021). Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance. Human Relations, 74(11), 1864–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951–1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. G., Van de Ven, A. H., Scudder, G. D., & Polley, D. (1989). The development of innovation ideas. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies (pp. 7–134). Oxford University Press.

  • Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(4), 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104(1), 66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence-higher order construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1208–1244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tee, E. Y., Paulsen, N., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2013). Revisiting followership through a social identity perspective: The role of collective follower emotion and action. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 902–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung, F. C. (2016). Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion focus. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8), 1250–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561–1584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., & Hoegl, M. (2018). Authentic leadership and leaders’ mental well-being: An experience sampling study. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 813–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwingmann, I., Wolf, S., & Richter, P. (2016). Every light has its shadow: A longitudinal study of transformational leadership and leaders’ emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71,902,048).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China

    Nan Hou

  2. School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China

    Jian Peng

  3. School of Business, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China

    Qi Nie

Authors
  1. Nan Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Nie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qi Nie.

Ethics declarations

Consent to participate

The authors obtained informed consent from all participants involved in the study.

Ethical approval

We conducted this study in accordance with the ethical standards of the first author’s University. This questionnaire-based study followed the principle of voluntary participation and had no harm to participants. 

Conflict of interest

Nan Hou, Jian Peng, and Qi Nie declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Ambidextrous leadership scale (rated by followers at Time 1)

Opening leader behaviors

1

Allowing different ways of accomplishing a task

2

Encouraging experimentation with different ideas

3

Motivating to take risks

4

Giving possibilities for independent thinking and acting

5

Giving room for own ideas

6

Allowing errors

7

Encouraging error learning

Closing leadership behaviors

1

Monitoring and controlling goal attainment

2

Establishing routines

3

Taking corrective action

4

Controlling adherence to rules

5

Paying attention to uniform task accomplishment

6

Sanctioning errors

7

Sticking to plans

Leadership efficacy scale (rated by leaders at Time 2)

As a Leader, I can…

1

Energize my followers to achieve their best.

2

Develop agreements with followers to enhance their participation.

3

Coach followers to assume greater responsibilities for leadership.

4

Inspire followers to go beyond their self-interests for the greater good.

5

Get my followers to meet the requirements we have set for their work.

6

Utilize the forms of rewards and punishments that work best with each follower.

7

Get followers to identify with the central focus of the mission.

Workplace well-being scale (rated by leaders at Time 3)

1

I am satisfied with my work responsibilities

2

In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job

3

I find real enjoyment in my work

4

I can always find ways to enrich my work

5

Work is a meaningful experience for me

6

I feel basically satisfied with my work achievements in my current job

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hou, N., Peng, J. & Nie, Q. The benefits of ambidextrous leadership behavior for the workplace well-being of leaders. Curr Psychol 42, 28783–28798 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03900-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03900-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation