A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 813-820

  Zacher, Hannes ^a   Wilden, Ruth G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ambidexterity; Ambidextrous leadership; Creativity; Daily diary study; Innovation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911947552     PISSN: 09631798     EISSN: 20448325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joop.12070     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). MLQ - multifactor leadership questionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
2. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779-806. doi:10.1037/a0012815
3. Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
4. Binnewies, C., & Wörnlein, S. C. (2011). What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 589-607. doi:10.1002/job.731
5. Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357-1367. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357
6. Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 865-877. doi:10.1002/job.1803
7. Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21, 593-608. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0485
8. Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X.-Y. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90-105. doi:10.1037/a0018556
9. Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 423-468). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10. Hunter, S. T., Thoroughgood, C. N., Myer, A. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). Paradoxes of leading innovative endeavors: Summary, solutions, and future directions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 54-66. doi:10.1037/a0017776
11. Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405-416. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00251-7
12. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
13. Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011). Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit transformational leadership behaviors? An experience sampling method study on the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 344-352. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.009
14. Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565. doi:10.1002/job.633
15. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
16. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685-695. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
17. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956-974. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
18. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121-131. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011
19. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555. doi:10.2307/256941
20. 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, UK: John Wiley.
21. Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (in press). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.