Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ein ambidextres Führungsklima – Erfolgsfaktor in der neuen Arbeitswelt

Ambidextrous leadership climate – a success factor in the new working world

  • Hauptbeiträge - Thementeil
  • Published:
Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag der Zeitschrift „Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)“ stellt eine Studie zum ambidextren Führungsklima in der neuen Arbeitswelt vor. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, dass eine ambidextre, also beidhändige, Führung entscheidend für die Team- und individuelle Leistung in der neuen Arbeitswelt ist. Wenig ist jedoch darüber bekannt, ob und unter welchen Bedingungen eine ambidextre Führung den Erfolg ganzer Unternehmen beeinflusst. Basierend auf Studien zur Ambidextrie von Unternehmen, führen wir das Konstrukt eines ambidextren Führungsklimas ein und untersuchen, welchen Einfluss der Wettbewerbsdruck auf die Beziehung zwischen Führungsklima und Unternehmensleistung hat. Hypothesen werden anhand einer Stichprobe von über 16.000 Personen aus 94 Unternehmen getestet. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass zwar ein positiver Zusammenhang zwischen einem ambidextren Führungsklima und der Unternehmensleistung besteht, der Wettbewerbsdruck jedoch eine starke moderierende Wirkung auf diese Beziehung hat. Die Wirkung einer ambidextren Führung auf die Unternehmensleistung wird bei einem Kontext mit geringem Wettbewerbsdruck aufgehoben, d. h. sie tritt nur unter der Bedingung eines mittleren bis starken Wettbewerbsdrucks auf. Unsere empirischen Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass Unternehmen, die sich in einer dynamisch und rasant verändernden Arbeitswelt mit zunehmendem Wettbewerbsdruck konfrontiert sehen, ihre Unternehmensleistung durch die Entwicklung eines ambidextren Führungsklimas steigern können.

Abstract

This contribution to the magazine “Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)” presents a study on the ambidextrous leadership climate in the new working world. Ambidextrous leadership has been proposed to be crucial for team and individual performance in the new world of work. However, little is known about whether and under what conditions ambidextrous leadership influences the success of entire companies. Based on prior research in the field of organizational ambidexterity, we introduce an ambidextrous leadership climate and examine the influence of competitive pressure on the relationship between leadership climate and organizational performance. Hypotheses are tested on a sample of over 17,000 people from 94 companies. The results show that while there is a positive relationship between an ambidextrous leadership climate and organizational performance, competitive pressure has a strong moderating effect on this relationship. The effect of ambidextrous leadership on organizational performance is canceled in a context of low competitive pressure, i.e., it occurs only under the condition of medium to strong competitive pressure. Our empirical results indicate that companies facing increasing competitive pressure in a dynamically and rapidly changing work environment can improve their performance by developing an ambidextrous leadership climate.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  • Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science, 10(1), 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652–1661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 493–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Hrsg.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (S. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2013). Spotlight on Age-diversity climate: the impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 901.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Hrsg.), Research in multilevel issues: multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Bd. 3, S. 273–303). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs, J. G., Crook, T. R., & Shook, C. L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational performance and its implications for strategic management research. In D. J. Ketchen & D. D. Bergh (Hrsg.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Bd. 2, S. 259–286). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T. A., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Personnel psychology, 58(3), 613–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 413–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: a review in context. The leadership quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization science, 6(5), 524–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic management journal, 21(10/11), 961–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning: the contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effect of organizational ambidexterity on performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013, 17601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppila, O.-P., & Tempelaar, M. P. (2016). The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1019–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2017). Ambidextrous leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, and operational performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38, 229–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leadership climate: performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 893–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J., Chang, Y. Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. (2019). A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7), 3009–3034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: an assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 326–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robie, C., Ryan, A. M., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., & Smith, P. C. (1998). The relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 23(4), 470–495.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: individual preferences and organizational realities revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 459–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. (1980). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2002). Winning through innovation: a practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Brighton, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W., & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational leadership: an empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 765–782.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Schweiz

    Julian Szlang & Heike Bruch

Authors
  1. Julian Szlang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heike Bruch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Szlang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szlang, J., Bruch, H. Ein ambidextres Führungsklima – Erfolgsfaktor in der neuen Arbeitswelt. Gr Interakt Org 51, 187–197 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-020-00511-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-020-00511-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation