How managers cope with ambidexterity:
Linking managers’ style
and cultural dimensions
Dominika Maninova
10437452
Semester I, Block 3
2015/2016
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...3 I Introduction ...4 II Literature review ...7 Ambidexterity ...7 Leadership ...9Cultural differences, Hofstede’s four dimensions ...11
Research model ...13 III Methodology ...14 Research design ...14 Sample ...15 Dependent variable ...16 Independent variable ...17 Moderating variable...18 Control variable ...20 IV Results ...21 Reliability analysis ...21 Descriptive statistics ...22 Correlations ...23 Regression analysis ...24 Moderation analysis ...25 Factor analysis ...29 V Discussion ...30
Theoretical and practical implications ...31
Additional findings ...32
Limitations ...33
VI Conclusion ...34
Appendix ...35
3 Abstract
This study explores the roles of transformational and transactional leadership on the perceptions of ambidexterity in different organizations. In order to account for the macro-variables that may have an impact on this relationship, the values incorporated in different cultures were also added to the model. Especially, the differences on the power distance dimension between the two European countries, namely the Netherlands and Slovakia were compared. Data obtained from the sample of more than 260 companies supported the hypotheses that both transformational and transactional leadership have a positive impact on managerial ambidexterity. Yet, rather mixed results were found for the interaction effect between power distance and the two leadership styles and their impact on ambidexterity. As this study further describes, it is suggested that how
different cultures perceive the authority may be in different ways related to how leaders and managers cope with ambidexterity. Though, future research may provide more fruitful insights into how those concepts actually interact.
Keywords: transformational leadership, transactional leadership, ambidexterity, cultural dimensions, power distance, masculinity, femininity
4
Introduction
As also indicated by the above mentioned quote, the last decades have been associated with almost conventional wisdom that innovation is crucial to a company’s survival. Despite the variety of rankings and lists of the top innovative companies, the theory has generally agreed that successful firms are those that combine explorative and exploitative innovative behavior to align in business demands and to adapt to changes in the environment (Rodriguez & Hechanova, 2014). While exploration has been associated with experimentation, divergent thinking, and creativity, exploitation has been related to efficiency, refinement, and improvement (March, 1991; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Yet, in the search for competitive advantage, the key
dilemma of an organization is to simultaneously pursue both, exploration and exploitation, so as to exploit learning process and explore new possibilities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). This idea of balancing the forces between the two has been termed ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976).
While in the past the theory was not united on whether it is possible to meet the needs of both exploration and exploitation, simultaneously (Hannah & Freeman, 1984), the growing body of literature has specified several different approaches in which organizations can achieve the required balance. For instance, some of studies conceptualize ambidexterity as an organizational level dynamic capability and argue that organizations need to coordinate and integrate dispersed contradictory efforts across differentiated exploratory and exploitative units (Jansen, Tempelaar,
5 Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009, O’Reilly & Tushman, 1996). Opposing to that is the view that concentrates on contextual ambidexterity and contextual factors which enable individuals to deal with the inherent tensions of exploration and exploitation (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Whereas the first research stream is defined at the organizational level, the latter conceptualizes ambidexterity rather at the individual or group level.
Although both of the approaches have been valued as very important by scholars, the need to take the individual approach into account has been recently emphasized more frequently. According to some of the previous studies, it is actually the individuals who are the main
contributors with regard to ambidexterity and one of the main drawbacks of the firm level analysis is that it assumes homogeneity at the individual level, neglecting the influence of managers’ decisions (Chang, 2015; Bonesso, Gerli, & Scapolan, 2013). Similarly, O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) defined ambidextrous managers as those who engage in complex cognitive processes, like integrative or paradoxical thinking, in order to reconcile the tensions that may emerge in their pursuit of a range of different organizational opportunities, goals, and needs. Following this approach, this study also takes the managers’ perspective on achieving ambidexterity into account.
Yet to be noted, what influences individuals in how and why they perceive with
ambidexterity in a certain way spans across multiple levels of analysis. While some of the studies showed that the individuals’ characteristics or personality traits are important antecedents of the development of organizational capabilities (Good & Michel, 2013, Migliore, 2011, Steel, et al., 2012; Keller & Weibler, 2015), others pointed out that the culture from which the individuals come from may also play its role by influencing their behavior (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996; Smith, 1992).
6 Therefore, not only understanding the culture of a given environment, but also the role of cultural differences on managers’ behavior can be critical to an organization’s success (Kumar, 2014; Rees-Caldwell & Pinnington, 2013). Accordingly McCrae (2001) suggested that those concept should not be separated as the relationship between the organizational or cultural environment may be twofold – environment may shape the individual and/or the individual may shape the events in the environment (McCrae, 2001).
Yet, how those different concepts interact with each other and impact on ambidexterity has not yet been further accessed in the literature. Therefore, this study takes this into account and aims at answering the question: “How do the different leadership styles influence
ambidexterity in an organization? As a sub-question, this paper will also access “How do those differ based on the culture from which the leaders come from?” Specifically, two countries that differ fundamentally on Hofstede’s scores on cultural dimensions have been chosen for this study, namely Netherlands and Slovakia.
While further reasons for choosing those countries will be described further in this paper, it is to be noted here how this study contributes to the current literature. Firstly, it helps to operationalize the framework between the previously unrelated concepts of ambidexterity, leadership style, and cultural dimensions. Such framework might help future studies to explain why some leaders cope with ambidexterity better than others, as a function of their leadership style or cultural background. Moreover, since many of the studies concerned rather western cultures, the contrast with an eastern-European country is to provide additional fruitful insights as well. This can also ease selecting cultural groups in the future studies, according to their positioning on relevant cultural dimensions.
7 Regarding the overview of the study, this paper is structured as follows. In the next section, the overview of literature on ambidexterity, leadership styles, and cultural dimensions is provided. Afterwards, hypothesis are introduced and data collection process and research
methods are described. The fourth section provides results which are then summarized in the last sections – discussion and conclusion. Finally, limitations and ideas for future studies are also acknowledged.
Literature review
AmbidexteritySuccessful organizations are ambidextrous, meaning, they are equally dexterous at exploiting and exploring activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). On the one hand, the elements of exploration are associated with divergent thinking, risk-taking, generation of new ideas, and conceptualization. On the other hand, high levels of exploitation need to be attained as well, explained mostly by convergent thinking and efficiency (Turner and Lee-Kelley, 2013). Despite the fact that earlier research regarded the trade-off between the two, the concept of ambidexterity has been defined as the ability of a firm to pursue both paths simultaneously (March, 1991).
Although the increased attention of researchers has refined and extended this concept, theory still differs on areas such as (a) the levels of measurement, (b) environmental contexts, or (c) combination of concepts (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, Tushman, 2009). For instance, some of the studies relate to adaptability and alignment (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004), and innovation and efficiency (Wang & Rafiq, 2014), while others mention rather differentiation and integration (Jansen, Tempelaar, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008), and incremental or revolutionary
8 change (Lin and McDonough, 2011). Moreover, the differences can be found also between behavioral, structural, or contextual ambidexterity (Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).
However valuable, some of the previous concepts have been criticized for concentrating on mechanisms for achieving ambidexterity at the organizational level, although, it is actually at the next organizational level where the tensions of ambidexterity are resolved (Turner, Swart, Maylor, & Antonacopoulou, 2015). As Raisch et al. (2009) described, even though a single plant may become ambidextrous by creating two different teams in charge of either exploration or exploitation, those teams usually allocate different roles to individuals. Therefore, even though the structural models enable ambidexterity, it is actually the individual role of a manager to make sure that both, exploration and exploitation are executed equally well (Rogan and Mors, 2014; Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013).
Similarly, Floyd and Lane (2000) described ambidextrous managers as being able to manage contradictions and conflicting goals, to engage in paradoxical thinking, and fulfill multiple roles. Besides, they are skilled in motivating others, but also have the motivation to engage in different kinds of learning activities in order to both refine and renew their knowledge and skills (Mom et al., 2015). Furthermore, they are able to shift attention quickly between different behaviors and roles, depending on the situation and the broader interest of the
organization (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman, O’Reilly, 1996). Yet, those aspects relate to how managers take on different tasks, rather than explaining why they may actually do so or what spurs them. Answering this may require exploring managers’ individual characteristics. Therefore, based on the above mentioned reasons, the focus of this study will be towards
9 managerial ambidexterity, rather than the ambidexterity at the organizational level. Hence, some of the relevant aspects are to be discussed next.
Leadership
Leadership is defined as a process by which a leader influences others toward collective goal attainment (Stogdill, 1950). Though, in order to encourage the successful use of innovative and goal-pursuing strategies, the leaders need to be ambidextrous, meaning they need to mediate the forces between exploration and change, and inertial forces for exploitation of the status quo (Lin and McDonough, 2011). Besides, those leaders not only define their subordinates’ tasks, they also direct and guide them in conformity with the organization’s strategies to ensure that they meet the demands of the external environment. For that, the leaders also need to adapt their behaviors, draw on their competencies, and rethink what has been formerly exploited in order to replace it with alternatives that they consider to be more successful. Accordingly, ambidextrous managers are defined as multitasking persons who need to deal with contradictions (Keller & Weibler, 2015). Based on that, two different leadership styles have been distinguished by the theory.
Firstly, transformational leaders are described as intellectually stimulating, directing others to look at things from new perspectives, focusing on progress, having high expectation and setting visionary goals for the collective (Chang, 2015). Moreover, they motivate, inspire, and provide their followers with freedom and autonomy to organize their own behavior when pursuing goals (Hamstra, Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014).
10 In contrast to that are transactional leaders who exercise rather bureaucratic authority and legitimate power in the firm, by emphasizing task assignments, work standards, and employee compliance. Moreover, they specify rewards contingently to achievements and tend to rely on punishment to influence employee behavior. Apart from making sure that the followers understand that organization-focused ideation is an important work goal, some of the theory suggests that a leader with transactional behavior may actually be effective in explaining how that goal may be reached. Interestingly, there is also evidence that suggests that transactional leadership is positively related to motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
While both of these styles can be effective under different circumstances, the research on ambidexterity sheds the positive light on rather transformational leadership as those leaders are able to influence others to commit to overarching goals and challenge existing thinking and knowledge to provide new meanings for the tasks (Iscan, Ersari, & Naktiyok, 2014). Besides, Nemanich and Vera (2009) suggested that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership in the situations of uncertainty or crisis. On the other hand, Deichmann and Stam (2015) suggested that over time, transactional leadership may stimulate follower commitment by communicating expectations and rewarding people when they meet those objectives. This can be due to the fact that while transformational leaders may be drawn to manage diversity because it enhances the well-being of the organization and its members, transactional leaders, on the other hand, place a strong emphasis on following the rules (Ng & Sears, 2012).
For the above mentioned reasons, this paper suggests that both, transformational and transactional leadership style are expected to have a positive impact on ambidexterity. Accordingly, the first two hypotheses predict the following:
11
H1: Managers implementing transformational leadership style will have a positive impact on ambidexterity.
H2: Managers implementing transactional leadership style will have a positive impact on ambidexterity.
Cultural differences, Hofstede’s four dimensions
As elaborate as the concept of ambidexterity is, the theory has generally agreed that some of the important antecedents of ambidexterity include not only the context within which it
occurs, but also the individuals by whom the innovation is carried out (Lin & McDonough, 2011). Yet, as those individuals and organizations also operate in variety of environments, certain cultural characteristics may cause differences on how organizations perceive ambidexterity (Pandey and Sharma, 2009). Therefore, it is suggested that leaders in an organizations may support one or the other more, either exploiting or exploring future opportunities, based on the culture from which they come from.
In general, culture has been broadly defined as values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns of a group (Leung, et al., 2005). Similarly, Hofstede and McCrae (2004) view the culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category from another. On the basis of the Hofstede’s previous study of a large American multinational company, the author distinguished between four cultural dimensions, which are to be used and described next.
First of all, the power distance dimension is defined by the extent to which power is distributed unequally in the society. In high power distance cultures, leaders tend to be autocratic and subordinates expect to be told what to do. Accordingly, Pandey and Sharma (2009) argued
12 that organizations in those settings are less likely to be exploratory, but more likely to be
exploitative. On the other hand, individualism-collectivism refers to the extent to which the identity of members of a given culture is shaped primarily by personal choices and achievements or by the groups to which they belong. In contrast to individualistic cultures where task prevail over relationships, collectivist societies are associated with a greater value of interdependence and harmony.
Continuing with the masculine cultures, values such as competition, success, and
performance are more prevalent. Opaque to that are feminine cultures that put more emphasis on values such as warm social relationships, quality of life, and care of the weak (Smith, Dungan, & Trompenaars, 1996). Lastly, the fourth dimension uncertainty avoidance alludes to the degree to which members of a culture are uncomfortable with uncertainties in life. Societies high on this dimension prefer structured rather than unstructured situations, with the clear guidelines for behavior.
Following Hofstede’s line of research, subsequent studies posited that the differences in these values could explain the differences in innovation as well (Dwyer, Mesak, & Hsu, 2005). Nevertheless, Hofstede also acknowledged in his later work that there is a correlation between national levels of personality scores and national value systems (Hofstede & McRae, 2004). As Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House (2012) explained, individuals begin to learn the ultimate authority in the family, when father has the respect of others to make decisions for the good of the family. Similarly, as adults and employees in different organizations, certain values and cultures can be embedded in individuals, and hence, impact on their perceptions of accepting different leadership styles in the workplace.
13 Therefore, acknowledging that cultural differences exist and that the leaders are willing to acknowledge, learn and respect those differences is important, especially when one is considered with how ambidexterity is perceived. As suggested by the previous research,
countries with high power distance values desire leaders who behave in a rule oriented, secretive manner and who are highly cognizant of status differences among themselves and their followers (Dorfman, et al., 2012). Therefore, it can be suggested that in those countries, transactional leadership style may be more supported than the transformational leadership style. Based on those theoretical propositions, the following hypothesis has been developed.
H3: High score on the power distance dimension weakens the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity.
H4: High score on the power distance dimension further strengthens the relationship between transactional leadership and ambidexterity.
Research model
As outlined in Figure 1, the first two hypotheses represent the main model of this study as they refer to the direct relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity and transactional leadership and ambidexterity. Yet, those relationships are expected to be further moderated by one of the cultural dimensions, namely power distance. Lastly, it is to be noted that the type of industry and firm size are used as control variables in this model.
14 Figure 1
Methodology
In the following section, research approach will be explained together with the description of the sample and the data collection method. Also, the measurement instruments used will be presented and the research process will be outlined.
Research design
This study is of an explanatory character and provides insights into how transformational and/or transactional leadership styles impact on ambidexterity, moderated by the cultural
dimensions. In order to access these relationships, survey questionnaire was used, so as to allow Transformational leadership Managerial ambidexterity Transactional leadership Cultural dimensions: - Power distance Control variables - firm size - industry type
15 for easily comparable responses across different locations and time-frames via standardized questions (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Due to the limited time-frame, this study is of cross-sectional nature as only a 2 month period was available for collecting the questionnaires from variety of companies in the Netherlands and Slovakia. The surveys were distributed in three different languages – Dutch and English within Netherlands and Slovak language version in Slovakia.
Besides, it is to be mentioned that before distributing the actual survey, a pilot test survey was sent out, based on a convenience sample of different international companies. Afterwards, the survey questions were reviewed and corrected, and only then were they distributed to the intended sample of the Dutch and Slovak companies.
Sample
Initial sample size consisted of about 1700 of companies, in which the leaders or managers of a team on a leading position were contacted and asked to fill in the survey
questions. All of the surveys were distributed between the two month period (April – May 2016), resulting in a total of 266 responses, and hence, a response rate of about 16 %.
The reason for the research taking place in two different countries, naming Netherlands and Slovakia, was to allow for comparison on different cultural dimensions. While the
Netherlands was a primary option due to the nature of this study, Slovakia was chosen for the contrast of eastern- and western- European cultures. The sample size of the Dutch companies was taken out from the database provided by the University of Amsterdam with cooperation with
16 Integrand Nederland. For the sample of Slovak companies, the official Commercial register was used, supported by the online server called zoznam.sk.
Besides the fact that all of the respondents were assured of a high confidentiality of their answers and data provided, it is to be acknowledged that there are some limitations regarding the sample. Especially, it is to be noted that the results might not be generalizable to all European countries, as only two countries were chosen in the sample. Also, even though the population sample covered rather broad range, it could be the case that some extreme examples might have been left out.
Dependent variable
Regarding the dependent variable, namely managerial ambidexterity, it is expected that the different leadership styles will have different impact on this variable. In order to access the odds, respondents were asked to evaluate variety of questions about their perceptions on exploration, exploitation, risk taking, and innovation. Examples of the items included are “Our organization responds to demands that go beyond existing products and services” versus “Our organization frequently expands services for existing clients.” Besides the more elaborate version questionnaire being available in Appendix 3, some of the definitions are provided in the Table 1 below.
17 Table 1: Dependent variable: Definitions
Variable Definition Reference
Ambidexterity The capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability
Successful organizations are
ambidextrous – aligned and efficient in their management of today’s business demands while also adaptive to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow
Gibson & Birkinshaw, (2004)
(Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996)
Exploration Search, discovery, autonomy, innovation March (1991) Exploitation Efficiency, control, certainty, and
variance reduction
March (1991)
Independent variable
As acknowledged by theory, different leadership styles may have different impact on how leaders cope with ambidexterity (Iscan, et al. 2014). Therefore, transformational and transactional leadership are both considered in the analysis. While the transformational leaders have the capacity to implement diverse actions, create an open and innovate culture, motivate, and stimulate others, transactional leaders are characterized rather as being essential for keeping the organization functioning by meeting peoples’ needs for the leadership, yet, falling short of being inspiring (Bealer & Bhanugopan, 2014). Moreover, whereas the transformational leadership has been found to have positive impact on organizational performance and
ambidexterity (Change, 2011; Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz, 2009), transactional leadership tends to emphasize task-specific, short-term success, and hence, may encourage followers to be very detail-oriented as they construe their tasks in a local, concrete way (Hamstra, et al., 2014).
18 In order to access those differences, a short measure of transformational leadership developed by Carles, Wearing, and Mann (2000) is used to access the perceptions of the respondents on this leadership style. As the authors argued, the shortened version of the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) is of a satisfactory reliability and validity when assessing and selecting tool in a leadership research. For measuring the impact of transactional leadership, the scale developed by Birkinshaw & Gibson (2004) is used in order to access the odds of this leadership style. While more elaborate operationalization of the measures can be found in the Appendix 3b, some of the key definitions are outlined in the Table 2.
Table 2: Independent variable: Definitions
Variable Definition Reference
Leadership A process by which a leader influences others toward collective goal attainment
Stogdill (1950) Transformational
leadership
Leaders who positively envision the future scenarios, engage primarily in improving employees’ self-confidence by help them to realize their potential, communicate an achievable mission and vision, and participate with employees to identify their needs and working out collaboratively to satisfy their needs
Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz (2009)
Transactional leadership
Emphasizing task-specific, short-term success and scrutinizing minutiae of followers’ performance. They aim at followers’ compliance with normative standards and encourage them to view their work in terms of responsibilities and obligation to which they should live up.
19 Moderating variable
In order to enrich the theory, the concepts used in this study (leadership styles and ambidexterity) are to be on compared to the scores of the Netherlands and Slovakia on different cultural dimensions. Specifically, power distance dimension is being taken into account. As the general definitions and arguments for choosing this dimension over the others have already been mentioned above, more specific country characteristics are to be explained here.
Firstly, Netherlands scores low on power distance, which means that the hierarchy is for convenience only, everyone has equal rights, superiors are accessible, management facilitates and empowers. Therefore, it is suggested that leaders in those type of countries are charismatic and inspire others by demonstrating the purpose of work and emphasizing the organization’s mission and vision (Deichmann & Stam, 2015). In contrast to that is Slovakia with the full score on the power distance dimension (100 out of 100 points). This means that it is perfectly accepted that some people have more power than others and in order to obtain more material things, one needs to work hard. Accordingly, this can relate to the transactional leadership style which emphasizes rewarding people based on the met objectives (Deichmann & Stam, 2015). Figure 2: Scores on the power distance dimension
Source: Hosftede centre: https://geert-hofstede.com/netherlands.html 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Power distance Netherlands Slovakia
20 With regard to the validity of the cultural dimensions measure, it is to be noted that Hofstede’s cultural classifications have been used in many subsequent studies. For instance, Dwyer, Mesak, and Hsu (2005) used Hofstede’s multidimensional approach to examine the influence of culture on cross-national diffusion of innovations. Similarly, Lin (2009) found that while some of the cultural dimensions positively influence innovation, others may also enhance the management processes. Although it is not without its critics for falling short on some other cultural aspects, it is by far the most widely adopted conceptualization of culture (Van
Everdingen & Waarts, 2003), and hence, will be used in this study as well.
Table 3: Moderating variable: Definitions
Variable Definition Reference
Culture values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns of a group
Leung, et al. (2005) Power distance The extent to which power is
distributed unequally in the society
Hofstede, & McRae, (2004)
Control variables
The relationships suggested in this study will be controlled for the type of the industry in which the firms operate and also the size of the firm. Those items were included as some of the last questions in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix 2).
Type of the industry was included as a control variable as previous studies have indicated that there is indeed differences with regard to the innovation and type of he industry in which a firm operates (Aas, Breunig, Hydle, & Pedersen, 2015; Chun, Chung, & Bang, 2015). Moreover, the differences on how companies perceive with innovation were found not only with regard to
21 different sectors in which they operate, but also with regard to the size of those individual
companies (Brouwer, 1998; Shefer & Frenkel, 2005; Voss & Voss, 2013; Wagner & Hansen, 2005).
Results
In the following section, the results of this research will be reported. Firstly, the reliability analysis for the dependent and independent variables is provided. Subsequently, descriptive statistics and correlations are also reported. Lastly, the results of the linear regression analysis performed will be explained, together with the moderating and control effect.
Reliability analysis
For the purpose of this research, the dependent variable ambidexterity was captured by using 8 questions relating to either explorative or exploitative behaviors with regard to the product and service development. As the analysis revealed, the Cronbach’s alpha for this variable is rather high (α = 0.842), which indicates high internal consistency. Similarly, the leadership measurement scales have also been found to have a high internal consistency. For transformational leadership, the scale consisted of 6 items (α = 0.882), similar as the subscale of transactional leadership which consisted of 3 items (α = 0.626). As it can be also seen in Table 4, only the scale measuring transactional leadership had rather lower reliability (<.7). This can be due to the fact the scale consisted of only 3 items, yet, it will not be dropped out of analysis as
22 some of the previous research argues that the threshold >0.6 can still be acceptable for smaller scales (Hulland, 1999).
Table 4: Reliability analysis
Variable Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha on standardized items Number of items Ambidexterity 0.842 .846 8 Leadership Transformational 0.882 .884 6 Transactional 0.626 .638 3 Descriptive statistics
For the purpose of this study, three different continuous variables were used, as already mentioned above. While the ambidexterity measure included questions regarding exploitation and exploration, the leadership style was also accessed on two dimensions, namely
transformational and transactional leadership. As all of the variables were measured on a 7-point answering scale, descriptive analysis was used to obtain the summary statistics, such as mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation. Moreover, the descriptive statistics of control variable are also included (see Table 5).
Besides that, the frequencies were also accessed for the control variable industry. As the analysis revealed, the majority of the respondents claimed to operate in “other industry” (43%), selling & distribution (41%), manufacturing (38%), and finance & banking (31%) were also marked frequently between the respondents (see also Appendix 6).
23 Table 5: Descriptive statistics
Variable Level N Min Max Mean SD
Ambidexterity 264 1.13 7 5.1107 0.97813
Leadership
Transformational 264 1 7 5.2574 1.14418
Transactional 264 1 7 4.5088 1.07509
Cultural
dimension Power distance
263 0 1 .2900 .45600
Firm size 264 0 1 .0709 .25713
Most industries 264 0 1 .8843 .32043
Other industries 264 0 1 .1007 .30156
Correlations
As it can be seen in Table 6, the results from the bivariate correlation analysis are outlined. The relationships were investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, which is a measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between two variables. The most significant correlations have been marked with an asterix (*).
Firstly, regarding the correlation between the dependent and the independent variable, it was found that ambidexterity is positively correlated with transformational leadership (Pearson correlation coefficient = .452, N=264, Sig. = 0.000) and also with transactional leadership Pearson correlation coefficient = .382, N=264, Sig. = 0.000). Moreover, positive correlation between transformational and transactional leadership was also found to be present (Pearson correlation coefficient = .575, N=264, Sig. = 0.000). Yet, no direct correlation was found between the power distance and ambidexterity or between the power distance and the two leadership styles.
24 Table 6: Correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. size of the firm .0709 .2571 2. Most industries .8843 .3204 -.082 3. Other industries .1007 .3016 -.092 -.925** 4. Power distance .29 .456 .331** -.030 .030 - 5. ambidexterity 5.111 0.978 .016 .221** -.221** -.044 (.842) 6. transf. leadership 5.257 1.144 .039 .146* -.146* -.041 .452** (.882) 7. trans. Leadership 4.509 1.075 .143** .183** -.183** .060 .382** .575** (.626) Statistical significance *p< 0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 Regression analysis
In order to test the hypothesis suggested in the theoretical framework of this paper, a regression analysis was used. To perform those analysis, the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. As no items needed to be reversed, regression analysis could be undertaken. In total, the regression analysis was conducted for 4 different variables, naming ambidexterity, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and cultural dimensions.
In the first step, the direct relationship between the dependent and independent variables was examined. For that, a simple linear regression was calculated (Appendix 8). As also
presented in Table 7, a positive significant relationship was found between the transformational leadership and ambidexterity (β = .348, t =5.226, p <0.001) and also between the transactional
25 leadership and ambidexterity (β = .182, t =2.730, p < 0.01). Therefore, it can be concluded that the Hypotheses 1 and 2 which predicted that the transformational and transactional leadership would both have a positive impact on ambidexterity have been supported (see also Appendix 8).
Table 7: Results of linear regression analysis
Ambidexterity R R2 B SE β t Model summary .476 .227 Transformational leadership .297 .057 .348*** 5.226 Transactional leadership .165 .061 .182** 2.730
Dependent variable: Ambidexterity
Statistical significance *p< 0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Moderation analysis
In order to analyze the moderating effect of power distance cultural dimension on the relationship between the two leadership styles and ambidexterity, step-wise regression analysis was used to assess the effects and changes in values. Firstly, the mean-centered values were computed for the independent variables. Afterwards, the interaction effect between the
transformational leadership and power distance and transactional leadership and power distance, separately was calculated.
The Hypothesis 3 predicted that the high score power distance dimension will weaken the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity. As the results from the regression analysis were indeed significant, Hypothesis 3 was supported (β = .169, t =2.264, p
26 <0.05). In contrast, the Hypothesis 4 predicted that the high score on power distance dimension will further strengthen the relationship between transactional leadership and ambidexterity. As also shown in the Table 8 below, no support was found for this hypothesis (β = -.124, t = -1.668, p > 0.05).
Table 8: Results of the moderation analysis
Ambidexterity B SE β T MODEL 1 Transformational leadership .297 .057 .348*** 5.214 Transactional leadership .163 .061 .178** 2.676 MODEL 2 Transformational leadership .319 .058 .373*** 5.520 Transactional leadership .136 .062 .148* 2.198 Transf. leader* power distance .311 .138 .169* 2.264 Transact. leader* power distance -.244 .146 -.124 -1.668 Statistical significance *p< 0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Yet, in order to confirm those results, control variables were added to the model. For that, the firm size and industry type were coded as dummy variables and only then were they entered into the regression analysis. While the firm size was coded 1 or 0 based on whether the firm had less than 10 or more than 10 managers, the industry type was coded as 1 or 0 based on how often it occurred in the respondents answers.
As it can be seen in the Table 9, adding at first, firm size to the model does not influence the moderating effect of power distance on either transformational or transactional leadership
27 and their impact on ambidexterity. According to the results, the interaction between
transformational leadership and power distance still has a significant influence on ambidexterity (β = .169, t = 2.241, p<0.05). Though, the interaction between the transactional leadership and power distance does neither in this case have a significant impact on ambidexterity. Interestingly, this relationship points rather negative direction (β = -.125, t = -1.615, p >0.05).
In the last step, both of the control variables were added to the regression analysis. Similar to the above mentioned results, the interaction between the transformational leadership and power distance confirmed to have a significant impact on ambidexterity, when controlled for both, the firm size and the industry type as well (β = 163, t = 2.184, p <0.05). However, the opposite was found to be true for the interaction between transactional leadership and power distance. As the results revealed, this combined effect does not influence ambidexterity significantly (β = -.117, t = -1.528, p > 0.005).
Finally, the results obtained from this analysis were also plotted on an interaction plot. As it can be in Figure 3, the higher the score on the power distance dimension and transformational leadership, the more impact does this effect on the dependent variable, namely ambidexterity (see also Appendix 8).
28 Table 9: Results of the moderation analysis after adding the control variables
Ambidexterity B SE β T MODEL 1 Transformational leadership .297 .057 .348*** 5.214 Transactional leadership .163 .061 .178** 2.676 MODEL 2 Transformational leadership .319 .058 .373*** 5.520 Transactional leadership .136 .062 .148* 2.198 Transf. leader* power distance .311 .138 .169* 2.264 Transact. leader* power distance -.244 .146 -.124 -1.668 MODEL 3 Transformational leadership .319 .058 .373*** 5.483 Transactional leadership .135 .063 . 148* 2.136 Transf. leader* power distance .312 .139 .169* 2.241 Transact. leader* power distance -.246 .152 -.125 -1.615 Firm size .010 .250 .002 .040 MODEL 4 Transformational leadership .310 .058 .363*** 5.375 Transactional leadership .118 .063 . 130** 1.881 Transf. leader* power distance .301 .138 .163* 2.184 Transact. leader* power distance -.230 .151 -.117 -1.528 Firm size -.028 .248 -.006 -.114 Industry type -.453 .177 -.141* -2.536
29 Figure 3: Interaction plot
Factor analysis
In addition, the factor analysis was also conducted so as to access the variance among the observed, correlated variables. As it can be seen in Table 10 below, most of the variance is being explained by the first four factors, namely ambidexterity, transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and the interaction effect between transformational leadership and power distance. Together, those account for more than 80% variance of the model.
Moreover, when comparing the reproduced correlation matrix to the original correlation matrix, the values based on the extracted factors seem to be close to the original ones (see Appendix 9). This means that the factors that were extracted did indeed account for a great deal of variance in the original correlation matrix. In other words, those factors are well representative of the original data.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low Transformational High Transformational
D EPE N D EN T V A R IA BLE
Low power distance
30 Table 10: Factor analysis: total variance explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % 1 2.498 31.220 31.220 2.498 31.220 31.220 2 1.751 21.893 53.114 1.751 21.893 53.114 3 1.443 18.038 71.152 1.443 18.038 71.152 4 .967 12.084 83.236 5 .620 7.752 90.988 6 .469 5.868 96.856 7 .252 3.144 100.000 8 -1.112E-16 -1.390E-15 100.000
Discussion
This research was set out to test how transformational and transactional leadership styles influence ambidexterity, as moderated by the cultural differences between two of the European countries. The results obtained from the variety of companies in the Netherlands and Slovakia were compared especially on the dimension on which those countries differ fundamentally, namely power distance. Overall, the results support the hypothesis that transactional and
transformational leadership styles have positive impact on ambidexterity. Though, rather mixed results were found for the moderating effect of the power distance dimension. Therefore, the following section will explain not only the results obtained, but also provide some implications for the theory and practice.
31 Theoretical and practical implications
In line with the previous research (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen, et al., 2008; Nemanich and Vera, 2009), the results of this study revealed that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity as well as between transactional
leadership and ambidexterity. Although most of the previous studies point out more to the importance of transformational leadership when coping with both, exploration and exploitation simultaneously (Tushman, & O’Reilly, 1996; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mom, et al., 2007; Nemanich and Vera, 2009), some of the recent findings suggest that the role of transactional leadership is also not to be neglected. This is mostly due to the fact that while transformational leadership inspires and creates overarching goals, transactional leadership is useful for
developing different structural mechanisms that enable coping with the variety of competing demands (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Ng & Sears, 2012; Hamstra, et al., 2014). Similarly, in order to successfully achieve ambidexterity, the elements of change and learning as well as risk taking and efficiency are all equally needed, and neither of the concepts should prevail, so as to achieve the required balance. Therefore, this study contributes to the previous theory by providing further evidence on the positive relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and ambidexterity.
From the practitioners perspectives, those results can have useful implications for the companies that use the ideation programs, are aiming at improving the organizational structure or processes, or would like to bring any other change to the organizational environment . Being able to implement such changes requires leaders who are very motivating and inspiring, but also engage others by requiring commitment. As both of the leadership styles describe different
32 characteristics of how leaders or managers cope with those every-day situations, it is suggested that companies can make a use of either of the two styles in their strategic decision making process, as long as they account for the differences between the two.
Regarding the innovation perspective, both of the leadership styles were found to have a positive impact on ambidexterity, and hence, the way that the organization copes with
exploratory as well as exploitative activities. Even though it has been acknowledged that the two leadership styles may be more or less functional in certain environments, concluding that one is better than the other would not be in a place in this research.
Additional findings
As the theory has generally agreed, leadership is considered a crucial process in achieving ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Yet, although the leaders or managers strive for high exploration and exploitation concurrently, the optimum balance of exploration and exploitation is not always continuously equal. Rather, the optimum is in part dependent on the demands of the context (Havermans, Den Hartog, Keegan, & Uhl-Bien, 2015).
Similarly, this research suggested that there may be differences in how managers implementing either transformational or transactional leadership style cope with ambidexterity, based on the culture from which they come from. Although some of the previous studies
suggested the relationship between the leadership styles and different cultures (Rees-Caldewell, & Pinnington, 2013), more clarity is still to be brought to the theory.
According to the results of this study, power distance moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity. In other words, the higher the country scores on
33 the power distance dimension, the weaker the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity. This holds true even after including the control variables into the model. In contrast, power distance was not found to have a significant impact on the relationship between transactional leadership and ambidexterity, and hence, the hypothesis 4 is the only one not being supported in this paper.
In conclusion, those results imply that although high scores on power distance dimension may be detrimental to the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity, not necessarily the same implies for the transactional leadership style. In line with Brodbeck, et al. (2000), it can be assumed that the leadership concepts are culturally endorsed, yet, one needs to pay attention to the variety of dimensions on which those concepts may relate or differ.
Limitations and future research
The results of this study suggest that the power distance dimension may, together with the transformational leadership style, have a weakening impact on how organizations cope with ambidexterity. Though, as no significant results were found for the interaction effect between power distance and transactional leadership style, future research should try to uncover the odds of other control variables, such as managers’ personality traits or individual characteristics including age or gender. Yet, the possible influences may not be limited only to the managers’ individual personalities but also to some other contextual factors. For instance, other cultural dimensions or the culture of an organization itself could also be taken into account in order to enrich these perspectives.
34 On the positive side, this research is one of the very few to connect the concepts of leadership styles, ambidexterity, and cultural dimensions. Although it is acknowledged that future work can validate the results obtained in this research by either conducting a longitudinal study in order to access the effects of time change, or even expand the scope of the sample to other (European) countries. This may be a more proper way for generalizing the results and the concepts suggested in this study.
Conclusion
This study was of an exploratory character and aimed at answering research question with regard to how transformational and transactional leadership styles impact on ambidexterity, moderated by the power distance cultural dimension. As the results revealed, transformational and transactional leadership styles were both found to have a positive impact on ambidexterity in an organization. Moreover, power distance was found to have a significant weakening effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity. This implies that even though transformational leadership style may be profitable to be implemented, when coping with ambidexterity, this effect may be weakening for the leaders who come from the cultures where the power distance is a perfectly accepted norm. Although no support was found for the
moderating effect of power distance on the relationship between transactional leadership and ambidexterity, it can be concluded that the concepts of leadership styles, ambidexterity, and power distance are indeed related, as long as one keeps an attention to different dimensions on which they interact or other variables that may influence those interactions as well.
35
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION
[Dutch version]
Geachte heer/mevrouw ...,
Wij zijn master studenten van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) en wij doen, in samenwerking met Integrand Nederland, onderzoek uit naar innovatie management. U zou ons enorm helpen door deze e-mail door te sturen naar minstens één collega die in het senior management team (senior managers die verantwoordelijk zijn voor het maken van belangrijke beslissingen in uw organisatie, maar bij voorkeur niet de CEO zelf) zit. Door middel van dit onderzoek proberen wij er achter te komen hoe organisaties omgaan met innovatie en hoe het hogere management van een organisatie dit proces ondersteunt. Hierbij onderzoeken wij interne en externe factoren die van invloed zijn op de prestaties en innovaties van een bedrijf. Voor de uitkomst van dit onderzoek zijn wij afhankelijk van de input van senior managers. Deze input wordt verzameld aan de hand van een survey. Het invullen van de survey kost hooguit tien tot vijftien minuten. We hopen dat u ook een bijdrage wilt leveren aan dit onderzoek en daarom willen wij u vragen om de survey in te vullen voor 30 april 2016.
Hier vindt u de survey: ....
Waarom zou u meedoen met dit onderzoek?
1. U helpt een groep studenten met het afronden van hun master thesis. 2. U ondersteunt de wetenschap in innovatie management
3. Wij voorzien u van een raport met onze onderzoeksresultaten, die hoogstwaarschijnlijk ook van waarde zullen zijn voor uw bedrijf.
Wij willen graag benadrukken dat alle informatie, die in dit onderzoek wordt verzameld, strikt
vertrouwelijk wordt behandeld. De contact gegevens zullen niet openbaar worden gemaakt en alle
informatie, die door onze survey wordt verzameld, zal niet terug te traceren zijn naar individuen. Mocht u nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben over onze enquête, of ons onderzoek in het algemeen, neem dan gerust contact met ons op via research.strategy.uva@gmail.com.
Wij danken u enorm voor uw tijd en uw hulp.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Dominika, Nadine, Nicolaas, Paul, Solka, en Verena
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School, P.O. Box 15953, 1001 NL Amsterdam T: +31 (0)20 525 4327. E-mail: ABS@uva.nl¨
Integrand Nederland, Maliebaan 70, Postbus 13133, 3581 CV Utrecht T: +31 (0)30 23 42 111. E-mail: info@integrand.nl
36 [English version]
Dear Mr./Ms. …,
We are a group of Master’s students at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) carrying out a research on innovation in cooperation with Integrand Nederland. We would be very happy if you could support our research project and forward this e-mail to at least one of the members of your organization’s senior management team (senior executives who are responsible for taking important decisions within your organization, but preferably not to the CEO).
Our study aims at testing how organizations cope with innovation and how higher management supports this process. Moreover, we investigate internal and external factors influencing an organization’s innovative behavior as well as its performance outcomes.
To be able to draw insightful conclusions, we are dependent on input from senior managers which we collect by means of a survey. The completion of the survey only takes 10 to 15 minutes and we kindly ask you to complete this survey before April 30, 2016.
Please find our survey here: …
Why should you take part in this study?
1. You support a group of students with the accomplishment of their Master’s theses. 2. You help advance science in the innovation field.
3. We will provide you with a report of our study results which might be of high interest for your company.
Please be assured that all information is treated as strictly confidential. We will not disclose any contact information and data gathered through our survey cannot be traced back to individual responses.
If you have any questions or comments to the survey or our research project in general, please feel free to contact us at research.strategy.uva@gmail.com.
We highly appreciate your time and are very thankful for your help. Dominika, Nadine, Nicolaas, Paul, Solka, en Verena
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School, P.O. Box 15953, 1001 NL Amsterdam T: +31 (0)20 525 4327
E-mail: ABS@uva.nl¨
Integrand Nederland, Maliebaan 70, Postbus 13133, 3581 CV Utrecht T: +31 (0)30 23 42 111
37 [Slovak version]
Vážený pán/vážená pani,
V rámci magisterkého štúdia na University of Amsterdam v Holandsku sa momentálne venujeme výskumu inovácií firiem. V spolupráci s Integrand Nederland by sme boli veľmi vďační, keby ste podporili náš výskum a zodpovedali na dotazník, ktorého link je uvedený nižšie v tomto emaily. Osoba vyplňujúca dotazník nemusí byť majiteľ, môže to byť manažér alebo zodpovedný vedúci na akejkoľvek úrovni. Naším záujmom je zistiť ako firmy pristupujú k novým
možnostiam na trhu.
Vyplnenia dotazníka trvá približne 10 minút a boli by sme vám srdečne vďační, keby to mohlo byť skompletizované do 30. aprila 2016.
Prosím, buďte si istý že všetky odpovede sú anonymné a nebudú zdieľané so žiadnými ďalšími osobami.
Nasledujte prosím tento link:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
V prípade akýchkoľvek otázok ma prosím neváhajte kontaktovať na dominika.maninova@student.uva.nl
Srdečne ďakujem za vašu pomoc a čas a prajem príjemný deň
S pozdravom
Dominika Maninova
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School, P.O. Box 15953, 1001 NL Amsterdam T: +31 (0)20 525 4327
E-mail: ABS@uva.nl¨
Integrand Nederland, Maliebaan 70, Postbus 13133, 3581 CV Utrecht T: +31 (0)30 23 42 111
38
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONS
Part I: Product and service development
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements regarding the development of products and services in your organization.
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Our organization responds to demands that go beyond existing products and services
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our
organization
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We frequently seek out new opportunities in new markets
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our organization regularly uses new distributions channels
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We frequently make small adjustments to our existing products and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We continuously improve our production’s efficiency of products and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We continuously increase economies of scale in existing markets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our organization frequently expands services for existing clients
39 Part II: Inspirational leadership
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements regarding inspirational leadership in your organization
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree My manager provides a clear vision of whom and what our team is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My manager is driven by higher purposes or ideals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My manager shows enthusiasm for my efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My manager encourages me to rethink ideas which had never been questioned
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My manager
encourages me to go above and beyond what is normally expected of one
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part III: Transactional leadership
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree My manager holds people accountable for their performances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40 My manager
encourages and rewards hard work through incentive compensation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My manager devotes considerable effort to developing subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part IV: General questions
Please indicate the industry in which your organization primarily operates. o Primary (farming, fishing, mining, etc.)
o Manufacturing
o Selling, distribution & retailing o Finance & banking
o Other service industries
o Civil service & local government o Armed forces
o Professionals in private practice o Education
Please indicate how many managers does your company currently have? ………
41
APPENDIX 3: DEFINITIONS & OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE
VARIABLES
Table A: Dependent variable – Ambidexterity: Definitions and operationalization
Variable Definition Reference
Ambidexterity The capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability Successful organizations are
ambidextrous – aligned and efficient in their management of today’s business demands while also adaptive to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow
Gibson & Birkinshaw, (2004)
(Tuhsman & O’Reilly, 1996)
Exploration Search, discovery, autonomy, innovation
March (1991) Exploitation Efficiency, control, certainty, and
variance reduction
March (1991)
Variable Definition Reference
Exploration Our organization responds to demands that go beyond existing products and services
Jansen, van den Bosch and Volberda (2006). We commercialize products and
services that are completely new to our organization
We frequently seek out new opportunities in new markets
Our organization regularly uses new distributions channels
Exploitation We frequently make small adjustments to our existing products and services We continuously improve our
production’s efficiency of products and services
We continuously increase economies of scale in existing markets
Our organization frequently expands services for existing clients
42
Table B: Independent variable – Transformational leadership: Definitions and operationalization
Variable Definition Reference
Leadership A process by which a leader influences others toward collective goal attainment
Stogdill (1950)
Transformational leadership
Leaders who positively envision the future scenarios, engage primarily in improving employees’ self-confidence by help them to realize their potential, communicate an achievable mission and vision, and participate with employees to identify their needs and working out collaboratively to satisfy their needs
Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz (2009)
Variable Definition Reference
Vision My manager provides a clear vision of
whom and what our team is
Carless, S., Wearing, A., & Mann, L. (2000). Staff development My manager is driven by higher
purposes or ideals
Empowerment My manager shows enthusiasm for my efforts
Innovative thinking My manager encourages me to rethink ideas which had never been questioned
Charisma My manager encourages me to go
above and beyond what is normally expected of one
Table C: Moderating variable – cultural dimensions: Definitions and operationalization
Variable Definition Reference
Culture Values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns of a group
Stogdill (1950) Power distance The extent to which power is
distributed unequally in the society
Hofstede, & McRae, (2004)
Variable Definition Reference
Performance management
My manager holds people accountable for their performance
Birkinshaw & Gibson, (2004)
43 Incentives and
compensation
My manager encourages and rewards hard work through incentive
compensation.
Structure and authority My manager devotes considerable effort to developing subordinates.
APPENDIX 4: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Table D: Reliability analysis
Variable Cronbach’s alpha Number of items
Ambidexterity 0.842 8
Leadership Transformational 0.882 6
Transactional 0.626 3
APPENDIX 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS
Table E: Descriptive statistics
Variable Level N Min Max Mean SD
Ambidexterity 264 1.13 7 5.1107 0.97813
Leadership
Transformational 264 1 7 5.2574 1.14418
Transactional 264 1 7 4.5088 1.07509
Cultural
dimension Power distance
263 0 1 .2900 .45600
Firm size 264 0 1 .0709 .25713
Most industries 264 0 1 .8843 .32043
44
APPENDIX 5b: FREQUENCY OF THE SECTORS
Table F: Frequency of the industry
DATA
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Primary (farming, fishing, mining) 13 4.9% 4.9%
Manufacturing 38 14.3% 19.2%
Selling, distribution, retailing 41 15.5% 34.7%
Finance and banking 31 11.7% 46.4%
Other service industries 114 43% 89.4%
Civil service & local government 7 2.6% 92.1%
Armed forces 2 0.8% 92.8%
Professionals in private practice 3 1.1% 94%
Education 15 5.7% 99.6%
TOTAL 265 100% 100%
45
APPENDIX 5c: CORRELATIONS
Table G: Correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. size of the firm .0709 .2571 2. Most industries .8843 .3204 -.082 3. Other industries .1007 .3016 -.092 -.925** 4. Power distance .29 .456 .331** -.030 .030 5. ambidexterity 5.111 0.978 .016 .221** -.221** -.044 (.842) 6. transf. leadership 5.257 1.144 .039 .146* -.146* -.041 .452** (.882) 7. trans. Leadership 4.509 1.075 .143** .183** -.183** .060 .382** .575** (.626)APPENDIX 8: REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Appendix 8: Linear regressionDescriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
AMBIDEXTERITY_total 5.1107 .97813 264
MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM .0000 1.14418 264
46 Model Summary M od el R R Squar e Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Chan ge df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .476a .227 .221 .86348 .227 38.24 0 2 261 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), TRANSACTIONAL_leadership, TRANSFORMATIONAL_leader
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 57.022 2 28.511 38.240 .000b
Residual 194.599 261 .746
Total 251.621 263
a. Dependent Variable: AMBIDEXTERITY
b. Predictors: (Constant), TRANSACTIONAL_leadership, TRANSFORMATIONAL_leader
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 2.802 .270 10.382 .000 TRANSFORMATION_lea der .297 .057 .348 5.226 .000 TRANSACTION_leadershi p .165 .061 .182 2.730 .007
47
APPENDIX 9: MODERATION ANALYSIS
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N AMBIDEXTERITY 5.1149 .97758 263 MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM .0048 1.14371 263 MEAN_CENTER_TRANSACTION .0070 1.07109 263 NEWinteraction1 -.0214 .52951 263 NEWinteraction2 .0290 .49738 263 firm_size .0532 .22492 263 Most_industries .8973 .30410 263 other_industries .1027 .30410 263 Model Summary M od el R R Squar e Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Chan ge df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .473a .224 .218 .86471 .224 37.42 9 2 260 .000 2 .489b .239 .227 .85951 .015 2.579 2 258 .078 3 .489c .239 .224 .86118 .000 .002 1 257 .968 4 .508d .258 .240 .85199 .019 6.570 1 256 .011
a. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_CENTER_TRANSACTION, MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM b. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_CENTER_TRANSACTION, MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM, NEWinteraction2, NEWinteraction1
c. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_CENTER_TRANSACTION, MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM, NEWinteraction2, NEWinteraction1, firm_size
d. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_CENTER_TRANSACTION, MEAN_CENTER_TRANSFORM, NEWinteraction2, NEWinteraction1, firm_size, other_industries
ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
