|
|
Research about the Mechanism of Paradox Leadership Behavior on R&D Team Innovation based on Knowledge Power′s Perspective |
Hua Changhua1,Luo Jinlian2,Yan Liping1 |
(1.School of Business Administration, Shanghai Lixin University of Accountingand Finance, Shanghai 201209, China;2.School of Economics and Management, Tongji University,Shanghai 200092, China) |
|
|
Abstract The organizational environment is increasingly dynamic, complex and competitive, meanwhile leaders are confronting with many seemingly contradictory requirements in management. The exiting research on leadership fails to fully explain the present difficulties in the organization, and thus the researchers pay close attention to a new type of leadership model based on the paradox-paradox leadership style.#br#Paradox leadership is emerging in management research and practice in recent years as a hot issue. From the perspective of theoretical roots, paradox leadership belongs to the category in the theoretical study of the paradox of leadership, which refers to seemingly competitive, yet interrelated behaviors to meet the followers' demand simultaneously. From the perspective of management practice, the reality faced by paradoxical leaders in the process of team innovation has gradually attracted people's attention. A flexible leadership optimizes the group decision and promotes the integration of knowledge innovation. Although paradox leadership in the team practicing is getting fast development, the related research field is at the initial stage. Under the background of the current team management and the paradox of leadership, it is necessary to deeply study the team innovation process from the perspective of leadership paradox, especially in the complex team innovation process. It is worthy of further exploration on how to play a role and influence the process and result of team innovation.#br#This study focuses on the subject of research and development teams with the paradox leadership and team innovation. It relies on related theories, such as the model of leadership, knowledge management and innovation, combined with management practices to build links between paradox leadership and team innovation. Because the team members are engaged in work of scientific research innovation, research and development and the design of knowledge innovation, it is appropriate to select knowledge research and development innovation team as the research object; Secondly, this research analyzes intermediary role of the concentration of knowledge power, knowledge creation and knowledge integration between the paradox leadership and team innovation. It also tests the moderating effect between paradox leadership and knowledge power concentration, thus effectively identifying the boundary conditions of paradox leadership.#br#Through correlation and hierarchical regression analysis about paradox leadership and team innovation, the empirical test shows that paradox leadership has significant positive effect on team innovation, confirming that paradox leadership, as a kind of flexible and efficient style of leadership, has a positive impact on team innovation. This conclusion shows that innovation teams need to strain a possible leadership style while shortening the development cycle. The innovation task makes the reality of the situation complicated. At the same time, the conclusion helps to better understand the paradox leadership style, and make innovation team give full play to the results that have a certain reference value. Compared with the innovative team, creative team in the process of innovation often face more conflicting innovation needs. If leaders want to make the right decisions in dilemmas, they have to have a more profound understanding and practice about paradox leadership.#br#Based on the knowledge management and knowledge power theory, concentration of knowledge power and knowledge creation and knowledge innovation in the process of innovation are assumed as the intermediary bridge between the paradox leadership and team innovation. Empirical study results show that the concentration of power and knowledge creation, knowledge innovation, as a link in the relationship between the paradox leadership and team innovation, plays an intermediary role completely. Research conclusion clarifies the mechanism of the paradox leadership. In order to provide more revelation of innovation team performance, the leader should eliminate the barriers, break the rules of hierarchy, make innovation-driven knowledge workers as the main body, actively create an intellectual and power-oriented innovation atmosphere for the team, and promote the team to achieve innovative performance breakthroughs.#br#In the process of transformation and continuity between leadership power and knowledge power, high competitive values enhance the effect of paradoxical leadership on knowledge power concentration, while low competitive values weaken the effect of paradoxical leadership on knowledge power concentration. The results of this study provide a further exploration and supplementation to the related research results in the field of paradoxical leadership and team innovation.#br#
|
Received: 10 January 2021
|
|
|
|
|
[1] ZHANG Y, WALDMAN D A, HAN Y L, et al. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(2): 538-566.[2] SMITH W K, BINNS A, TUSHMAN M L. Complex business models: managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously[J]. Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(2-3): 448-461.[3] SMITH W K, LEWIS M W. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing[J]. Academy of management Review, 2011, 36(2): 381-403.[4] 姚柱,罗瑾琏,张显春,等.时间压力一致性与新生代员工创新绩效[J].研究与发展管理,2020,32(2):48-62.[5] ZHANG M J, LAW K S, ZHANG Y. Reconciling the innovation paradox: a multllevel study of paradoxical leadership and ambidexterity[C]//Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management, 2016(1): 17687.[6] KAISER R B, LINDBERG J T, CRAIG S B. Assessing the flexibility of managers: a comparison of methods[J]. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2007, 15(1): 40-55.[7] 罗瑾琏,花常花,钟竞.谦卑型领导对知识员工创造力的影响及作用机制研究:一个被中介的调节模型——基于社会认知的视角[J].研究与发展管理,2016,28(4):106-116.[8] NONAKA I, TOYAMA R. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process [J]. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2003, 1(1): 2-10.[9] HARTNELL C A, OU A Y, KINICKI A. Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, 96(4): 677-694.[10] GEBERT D,BOERNER S,KEARNEY E.Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies[J]. Organization Science, 2010, 21(3): 593-608.[11] WEST M A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups[J]. Applied psychology, 2002, 51(3): 355-387.[12] JANSEN J J P, VAN DEN BOSCH F A J, VOLBERDA H W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents[J]. Schmalenbach Business Review, 2005, 57(4): 351-363.[13] RAVEN, BERTRAM H. A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later[J]. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 1992, 7(2):217-244.[14] CARLUCCIO J, BAS M. The impact of worker bargaining power on the organization of global firms[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2015, 96(1): 162-181.[15] LACKOVIC N,KERRY R,LOWE R,et al.Being knowledge, power and profession subordinates: students' perceptions of twitter for learning[J]. The Internet and Higher Education, 2017, 33: 41-48.[16] TAFTI M M, MAHMOUDSALEHI M, AMIRI M. Critical success factors, challenges and obstacles in talent management[J]. Industrial and Commercial Training, 2017, 49(1): 15-21.[17] HAYEK F A. The use of knowledge in society[J]. The American Economic Review, 1945, 35(4): 519-530.[18] RAY T, CLEGG S, GORDON R. A new look at dispersed leadership: power, knowledge and context[M]//Leadership in organizations. Routledge, 2003: 332-349.[19] CARSON J B, TESLUK P E, MARRONE J A. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(5): 1217-1234.[20] FOUCAULT M.Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977[M].Pantheon, 1980.[21] MUDAMBI R,NAVARRA P.Is knowledge power? knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs[J].Journal of International Business Studies,2004, 35(5):385-406.[22] VARMA A, RUSSELL L.Women and expatriate assignments: exploring the role of perceived organizational support[J].Employee Relations, 2016, 38(2): 200-223.[23] ANDRIOPOULOS C, LEWIS M W.Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies[J].Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(1): 104-122.[24] BENGER V, DAFT R L, CONLON E J, et al.Competing values in organizations: contextual influences and structural consequences[J].Organization Science, 1996, 7(5): 557-576.[25] CAMERON K S, QUINN R E, DEGRAFF J, et al. Competing values leadership[M]. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.[26] SASAKI H, YONEMOTO N, MORI R, et al. Assessing archetypes of organizational culture based on the competing values framework: the experimental use of the framework in Japanese neonatal intensive care units[J]. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2017, 29(3): 384-391.[27] JUDGE T A, COLBERT A E, ILIES R. Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(3):542-52.[28] KOSTAKIS V, ROOS A, BA UWENS M. Towards a political ecology of the digital economy: socio-environmental implications of two competing value models[J]. Environmental Innovation & Societal Transitions, 2016, 18(5):82-100.[29] CORMAN S, TANASESCU C. The competitive values approach through the organizational management[J]. SEA-Practical Application of Science, 2014, 2(3): 257-260.[30] STEVANOVIC M, PERAKYLA A. Three orders in the organization of human action: on the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations[J]. Language in Society, 2014, 43(2): 185-207.[31] CHEN M J. Reconceptualizing the competition—cooperation relationship:a transparadox perspective[J]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2008, 17(4): 288-304.[32] MATHESON C. Understanding the policy process: the work of henry mintzberg[J]. Public Administration Review, 2009, 69(6):1148-1161.[33] CASTELLS M. A network theory of power[J]. International Journal of Communication, 2011, 5(1):773-787.[34] WESTLEY F, MINTZBERG H. Visionary leadership and strategic management[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1989, 10(S1): 17-32.[35] DRORY A, VIGODA GADOT E. Organizational politics and human resource management: a typology and the Israeli experience[J]. Human Resource Management Review, 2010, 20(3): 194-202.[36] LANKSHEAR S, KERR M S, LASCHINGER H K S, et al. Professional practice leadership roles: the role of organizational power and personal influence in creating a professional practice environment for nurses[J]. Health Care Management Review, 2013, 38(4): 349-360.[37] WANG C, RODAN S, FRUIN M, et al. Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2014, 57(2): 484-514.[38] VIDYARTHI P R, ANAND S, LIDEN R C. Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? the moderating role of task interdependence and power distance[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2014, 25(2): 232-244.[39] 许科, 韩雨卿, 于晓宇, 等. 快速信任与临时团队绩效: 共享心智模型与团队互依性的角色[J]. 管理评论, 2016, 28(9): 238-249.[40] LIN B W. Knowledge diversity as a moderator: inter-firm relationships, R&D investment and absorptive capacity [J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2011, 23(3): 331-343.[41] SHEREMATA W A. Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25(2): 389-408.[42] GRANT R M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm[J]. Strategic management journal, 1996, 17(S2): 109-122.[43] NONAKA I,TAKEUCHI H.The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation [M]. Oxford University Press, 1995.[44] GRIMPE C, KAISER U. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: the gains and pains from R&D outsourcing[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2010, 47(8): 1483-1509.[45] VACCARO I G, JANSEN J J P, VAN DEN BOSCH F A J, et al. Management innovation and leadership: the moderating role of organizational size[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2012, 49(1): 28-51.[46] BERCHICCI L. Towards an open R&D system: internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(1): 117-127.[47] DRIVA H, PAWAR K S, MENON U. Performance evaluation of new product development from a company perspective[J]. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2001, 12(5): 368-378.[48] 张光磊. 知识转移视角下的企业组织结构对研发团队创新绩效的影响研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2010.[49] JOHNSEN R E, FORD D. Developing the concept of asymmetrical and symmetrical relationships:linking relationship characteristics and firms′ capabilities and strategies[C]//Proceedings from the 18th Annual IMP Conference. Graduate School of Business and Management, 5th–7th September, Dijon France, 2002.[50] 谢永平, 孙永磊, 张浩淼. 资源依赖, 关系治理与技术创新网络企业核心影响力形成[J]. 管理评论, 2014,26(8):117-126.[51] 袁晓婷. 企业 R&D 团队内部社会网络与团队知识创造关系研究[D].广州: 华南理工大学, 2010.[52] DENISON D R, HOOIJBERG R, QUINN R E. Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership[J]. Organization Science, 1995, 6(5): 524-540.[53] WAGEMAN R. How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: design choices versus hands-on coaching[J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(5): 559-577.[54] CAMPION M A, MEDSKER G J, HIGGS A C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(4): 823-847. |
|
|
|