The Role of Emotional Intelligence as an Antecedent to Ambidextrous Leadership

The Role of Emotional Intelligence as an Antecedent

to Ambidextrous Leadership

Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen.

June 11

₂₀₁₇

DHARA VEDD

Student Number: 3190315

Donderslaan 156-118

9728KX, Groningen, The Netherlands

Tel: +31683285416

Email: d.vedd@student.rug.nl

Supervisor:

ABSTRACT

The understudied concept of ambidextrous leadership has been identified as a key factor for increasing innovation within a team. This study investigates whether the emotional intelligence of a leader acts as an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership, and whether the requirement for innovation within the team moderates this relationship. Using an online survey, 78 leaders were asked to rate their emotional intelligence, with followers assessing their leader’s use of ambidextrous behaviours. Results suggest that emotional intelligence does not antecede ambidextrous leadership, although it does directly result in team innovation. Requirement for innovation was found to moderate the use of leader opening behaviours when low, yet does not moderate leader closing behaviours. The outcomes of this research will aid organisations in developing training programs for developing emotional intelligence, or using this as a factor when selecting leaders for teams requiring innovation. More importantly, this study contributes knowledge to the recently developed field of ambidextrous leadership.

INTRODUCTION

Ambidextrous leadership is a recently emerging concept within leadership research, aiming to address the ever-increasing need for innovation within organisations and teams. It is an approach to leadership that refers to the ability of leaders to facilitate innovation through their ability to flexibly switch between two different leadership styles in response to conflicting demands or needs within a team. That is to say, leaders need to be able to use both leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours in order to foster exploration and exploitation behaviours respectively, thereby ensuring that followers are best facilitating the innovation process (Rosing, 2011). As there is no fixed model that suggests when each behaviour is most appropriate to use in each situation, being able to flexibly switch between these two behaviours on a case-by-case basis is a skill leaders need to have.

With this evolving body of research and enhanced need for ambidextrous leaders in the workplace who are able to flexibly switch between leadership styles in order to generate maximum innovation within their team, it becomes essential to identify key traits and skills that antecede ambidextrous leadership. In doing so, these attributes can be used in the selection, training and development of leaders that are to be assigned to innovative teams. To date, previous research has highlighted transformational leadership as an antecedent of ambidextrous leadership (Keller and Weibler, 2015). Rosing et al. (2011) proposed that potential antecedents of ambidextrous leadership could include “behavioural and cognitive complexity, integrative thinking, emotional intelligence, and forecasting skills”. However, these remain speculations and have yet to be tested within research. By investigating the area of antecedents, we can see the traits needed to be flexible in leadership style across situations in order to enhance both creativity and innovation.

others across various situations to being flexible in leadership styles due to an understanding of the situation. Understanding this relationship is thus essential for ambidextrous leadership both theoretically, and practically. From a theoretical perspective, a sensitivity to the needs of others should reflect through the leader’s ability to demonstrate behaviours consistent to their nature, thus predicting effective leadership. Furthermore, a deeper understanding on how to promote ambidextrous leadership within organisations for the purpose of fostering innovation can be achieved. In a practical sense, the way in which emotional intelligence is a measurable trait makes it ideal for organisations to consider it as a factor when recruiting, selecting and positioning leaders (Schutte et al., 1998). Hence, this study aims to explore these relationships in order to determine whether emotional intelligence precedes leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours, with the outcome of team innovation.

Furthermore, existing research has also found links between the required innovation levels with the level of ambidexterity needed (Levinthal and March, 1993; Lewin et al., 1999), although this has yet to be applied to the team level. In terms of ambidextrous organisations, it is the case that those experiencing high levels of environmental dynamism (and therefore require constant innovation) require heightened ambidexterity in order to balance exploration and exploitation activities for innovation (Lewin et al., 1999). Therefore, applying this to the team level suggests that teams with a high requirement of innovation need to be more adaptable due to the rapidly changing external environment it operates in (Shalley et al., 2009). Consequently, teams should be able to exploit and explore new opportunities equally well, which should be facilitated by leaders through an ambidextrous leadership style, to best obtain innovation outcomes. It is proposed that the requirement for innovation within a team should act as a moderator between emotional intelligence and ambidexterity. As a higher level of emotional intelligence allows greater understanding of the situation at hand, it follows that in a rapidly changing environment with multiple situations to deal with, leaders with high emotional intelligence would be best suited to respond to their follower’s needs through their use of ambidextrous leadership.

by aiming to answer the proposed research question: “Is a leaders’ emotional intelligence an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership and if so, is this effect moderated by the requirement for innovation within the team?”

In order to address the matters at hand, the theoretical background of the topics at hand will be presented first, wherein existing literature and relationships shall be explained in-depth. From these findings, a conceptual model will be presented, along with hypotheses. In order to test this model and hypotheses, a field study shall be conducted, the results of which shall be analysed and discussed before conclusions are drawn.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Ambidextrous Leadership

Ambidextrous leadership as a concept was formally introduced into leadership research by Rosing et al. (2011). Building on the concept of organisational ambidexterity, ambidextrous leadership refers to the ability of a leader to flexibly switch between leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours equally well based on situational task demands and the needs of followers (Gerybadze et al., 2010; Zacher et al., 2016), leading to exploration and exploitation activities within the team. Through leader opening behaviours, exploration is utilised through the increase of variance in followers’ behaviours. Leader opening behaviours involve encouraging followers to break routines and think in new directions with a focus on allowing employees to explore, supports independent thinking and acting, experimenting and doing things differently, and challenging existing approaches. These behaviours can be primarily used in situations where creativity is required for the innovative task at hand, though are also needed in the implementation phase of innovation.

the level of innovation required. As emphasised by Rosing et al., (2011, p.967) “there is no systematic model indicating when it is useful to exploit and when to explore”. The use of both behaviours instigates a relationship such that innovation will be highest when the both exploration and exploitation are high, as facilitated through leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours.

When considering this dyad of leadership styles, it is argued that usage of one style is insufficient in impacting innovation to its full extent (Rosing et al., 2011). Leadership is required to respond to the concept of duality (Bledow et al., 2011) and moreover, must take a functional approach to match the pace and complexity of innovation (Ancona et al., 2001). Leaders need to be able to fully understand this duality between exploration and exploitation in order to balance the opposing requirements of innovation through its generation and implementation stage, and adaptively respond in their approach with followers (Ancona et al., 2001). Thus, it lies within the leaders’ traits and abilities to detect when and to which extent it is most appropriate to use each behaviour, a feat that could potentially be assisted if the leader possesses a trait that allows them to be sensitive to the needs of others. It is for this reason that this study suggests that emotional intelligence can be an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership, such that leaders with high emotional intelligence will be able to demonstrate ambidexterity to a higher level.

Emotional Intelligence

emotional intelligence. For example, Schutte et al.’s (1997) more recently developed scale of emotional intelligence still echoed that of Mayer and Salovey’s (1990) findings - appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and others and utilization of emotions in solving problems were identified as components of emotional intelligence.

The ability to understand people and human interactions has been suggested to become effective for performance in organisations to the point of surpassing even cognitive intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Harvey et al., 2006). Furthermore, emotional intelligence has been proposed as a leader characteristic that facilitates innovation through the ability to understand and channel the emotions of followers (Zhou and George, 2003). Zhou and George (2003) summarise the findings of Mayer and Salovey (1990) to describe the four primary dimensions of emotional intelligence: (1) perceiving emotions, (2) use of emotions, (3) knowledge of emotions and (4) management of emotions. The first of these refers to the ability to accurately perceive, appraise and express not just their own emotions, but those of others too. Secondly, the use of emotions entails the ability to use emotions to facilitate cognitive processes. In doing so, recognised emotions can be used to direct and focus followers on specific areas, thus allowing a higher level of processing and adaptation to the environment. The third dimension, knowledge of emotions, relates to the understanding of emotions and their subsequent consequences as experienced by themselves and others, and the way in which these change and evolve over time. Finally the fourth dimension, management of emotions is a critical feature for leaders as an inability to manage emotions can be detrimental to effective information processing (e.g. anger). From previous research into the topic, we can see how emotional intelligence can be essential to a leader in order to facilitate creativity and innovation in their followers (Rego et al., 2007; Zhou and George, 2003). These aforementioned dimensions of emotional intelligence can be applied as a framework to explain the how the trait of emotional intelligence can act as an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership, thereby resulting in innovation within the team.

This allows them to best judge which leadership style that followers will both need and respond to. By adapting to the momentary needs of the situation, as opposed to having one fixed leadership style throughout the task, team members can be constantly encouraged to perform to their maximum abilities through appropriate guidance from leaders. In this manner, leaders should be able to demonstrate ambidextrous leadership, particularly in high innovation states. Use of emotions. Within the use of emotions comes the need to prioritise information, changing perspectives of individuals (i.e. from pessimistic to optimistic), and encourage multiple problem approaches through emotional states (The EI Institute, 2015). It is here that leaders high in emotional intelligence should utilise their knowledge of emotions to best deploy leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours dependent on their followers’ needs. Using emotions to direct and focus followers in such a way that they are able to adapt and process the environment through ambidextrous leadership is key in both sustaining and developing innovation within the team. It is at this subset of emotional intelligence that leader opening behaviours can be most beneficial, as leaders that are able to generate positive emotions in their followers thereby encourage creativity (George, 2000).

Understanding emotions. Through the understanding of emotions, complex needs of followers must be understood. More importantly, the likely transitions of emotions of followers should be recognised and understood by leaders. This implies that leaders should be able to consider this alongside the transitions in the external environment to apply the best leader behaviours (The EI Institute, 2015). It is here that leaders should be able to find the best time and method in which to switch between leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours. In understanding the causes and consequences of emotions, ambidextrous leaders will be able to anticipate how their followers will react to different leadership styles based on the circumstances at hand, making it a highly important factor for generating innovation in the team. For instance, a leader should be able to judge when followers are no longer responsive to leader opening behaviours, in which case, they can deploy leader closing behaviours to provide a more guided approach and thereby enabling innovation.

faced within the team, yet should feel confident and optimistic about resolving them through their own volition (George, 2000). Ambidextrous leaders will need to be able to integrate logic and emotions together for effective decision making, as they must not rely solely on emotions for deciding which leadership style is appropriate, but also on the logic too. Mayer and Salovey (1990) concluded that a positive mood enables a greater deal of flexibility, preparation and creative thinking, thereby making it ideal for ambidextrous leaders to capitalise on the management of emotions in order to enhance innovation.

Emotional intelligence has specifically been chosen to be investigated as an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership due to the ability to understand and respond to the emotions of others. It is assumed that this understanding will also allow leaders to be receptive to the needs of their followers and thus be able to apply the most appropriate leader behaviour, whether that be leader opening or closing behaviours. In doing so, creativity and innovation will be at their optimal levels. Existing research has found that the most effective leaders integrate multiple leadership styles together, substituting one for another more appropriate style depending on the leadership situation (Batool, 2013). This ability echoes that of ambidextrous leadership through the ability to flexibly switch between leadership styles dependent on the situational needs at hand. This provides a basis for the assumption that emotional intelligence can predict ambidextrous leadership, allowing us to gain a deeper insight and understanding into the workings of the theory, as well as theoretical and practical implications to be derived.

Thus, this paper predicts that there will be a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and team innovation. Emotional intelligence is further thought to be positively related to leader opening behaviours, as well as with leader closing behaviours. It is the hope that through this relationship, a leader’s emotional intelligence will be able to predict ambidextrous leadership in terms of the ability to switch between both leader opening and leader closing behaviours at equal and high levels. This research aims to show that this relationship does exist and being emotionally intelligent will allow the ability to switch between leadership styles, thereby leading to heightened team innovation. Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Emotional Intelligence will have a direct positive relationship with Team Innovation.

Hypothesis 2b: Emotional Intelligence will have a positive relationship with Leader Closing Behaviour.

Hypothesis 3a: Leader Opening Behaviours will have a positive relationship with Team Innovation.

Hypothesis 3b: Leader Closing Behaviours will have a positive relationship with Team Innovation.

Hypothesis 4: Leader Opening Behaviours and Leader Closing Behaviours will mediate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Team Innovation.

Requirement for Innovation

Very few moderators of ambidextrous leadership and innovation have been identified to date, let alone investigated. Organisational social capital has been found to moderate the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and performance (Luu, 2017). Yet other research has focused only on ambidexterity in general, finding environmental dynamism (Lewin et al., 1999) and resource endowment (Cao et al., 2009) as moderators between ambidexterity and performance. In order to understand factors that influence the emotional intelligence and ambidextrous leadership relationship, it is vital to investigate moderators of ambidextrous leadership in more depth. Focusing on the team-level of ambidexterity, requirement for innovation within a team is being proposed as a moderator between emotional intelligence and ambidextrous leadership as it is thought to lead to greater use of leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours.

Furthermore, the requirement for innovation in a team has been linked with emotional intelligence, with emotional intelligence affecting team innovation through team-working, trust, collaboration and cooperation (Barczak et al., 2010; Goleman, 1995). As these factors are all aspects of creativity, it follows that the greater the need for these due to an organisations’ innovation focus, the greater the requirement for emotionally intelligent leaders. Goyal and Akhilesh (2007) further explain the way in which emotional capability is necessary for the facilitation of creativity within an organisation. When looking at ambidexterity of leaders and innovation, Markides and Chu (2008) highlight the way in which autonomy, a facet of innovative environments, leads to a higher level of ambidexterity in leaders. This was echoed by Jansen et al. (2005), who proposed that the local environmental conditions shape the way in which both exploration and exploitation is used. They supported this proposition which empirical evidence showing that high dynamism and competitiveness in an organisation’s environment leads to higher ambidexterity. Therefore, teams that require higher innovation would also require ambidexterity from their leaders for success.

Due to these findings, it is such that the requirement for innovation within a team becomes a key factor for consideration when exploring the relationship between emotional intelligence and ambidextrous leadership. This paper proposes that the requirement for innovation within a team will act as a moderator between the antecedent, in this case emotional intelligence, and ambidextrous leadership relationship through the pathways of leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours. Hence, it is hypothesised that:

Hypothesis 5a: Requirement for Innovation within a team will moderate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Leader Opening Behaviours, such that this relationship is more pronounced when the requirement for innovation is high rather than low. Hypothesis 5b: Requirement for Innovation within a team will moderate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Leader Closing Behaviours, such that this relationship is more pronounced when the requirement for innovation is high rather than low. Hypothesis 6: Requirement for Innovation within a team will moderate the indirect relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Team Innovation through Leader Opening Behaviour and Leader Closing Behaviour, such that these indirect relationships are more pronounced when requirement for innovation is high rather than low.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model

METHODOLOGY Participants and Procedure

To conduct the study at hand, 512 members of AIESEC were contacted to fill in an online Qualtrics survey over a three-week period through either email or personal messaging. A snowballing technique was also used to increase the number of participants reached by asking leaders to pass on the survey to fellow members of their Executive Board (thereby gathering more leaders) and to members of their team (to ensure follower responses). Prior to filling out the survey, the content and purpose of the study was explained to the participants. Confidentiality was assured and instructions on how to complete the survey were provided. The survey took around 15 minutes in length to complete for each respondent.

206 responses were collected, resulting in a participation rate of 42.4%. However, 34 responses from those collected were invalid or incomplete and thus were excluded from the data analysis. Within the remaining 174 responses, 78 leader responses (45.4%) and 96 follower responses (54.6%) were obtained. Each leader had a minimum of one follower response, although some leaders were able to gather up to 4 follower responses. Within the leaders, 36.7% were males and ages of participants ranged from 18-25, with a mean of 20.96 years (SD = 1.63). Followers ranged in ages from 18-24, with a mean age of 20.35 years (SD = 1.59) and 42.1% of respondents were male. All participants are currently in higher education due to AIESEC being a student organisation. Leaders had worked within the organisation between 12 and 36 months, with a mean of 19.59 months (SD = 5.14). Followers had an organisational tenure of 0 to 19 months, with a mean of 9.02 months (SD = 3.18).

Measures

Leaders completed self-report scales to assess their Emotional Intelligence and Team Innovation. Both leaders and followers completed the section of the online survey involving the moderator, Requirement for Innovation. Followers were asked to rate their leaders on Leader Opening Behaviours and Leader Closing Behaviours.

Alpha of these items was .818 in both leaders and followers, indicating that internal consistency is high.

Emotional Intelligence. The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) was used to measure the emotional intelligence of leaders. The scale has a reported reliability rating of 0.90 and consists of 33 items, rated on a 5 point Likert Scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’). 3 items of the scale are reversed, which were consequently recoded for the analysis. Some example items from this scale include “By looking at their facial expressions, I recognise the emotions people are experiencing”, “I help other people feel better when they are down” and “I know why my emotions change”. The internal consistency of these items were high, with a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .85.

Leader Opening Behaviours and Leader Closing Behaviours. Leader Opening Behaviours and Leader Closing Behaviours were assessed using two scales based on Rosing et al’s. (2011) paper. Each scale consisted of seven items, rated on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 = ‘not at all’ and 5 = ‘frequently, if not always’. Sample items for leader opening behaviours include “My leader allows different ways of accomplishing a task”, “My leader gives room for our own ideas” and “My leader encourages error learning”. Leader closing behaviours were assessed through items such as “My leader has established routines” and “My leader sticks to plans”. The Cronbach’s Alpha for these scales was .825 and .821 respectively, thus showing satisfactorily high internal consistency.

Team Innovation. Leaders rated team innovation based on a self-reported innovative performance scale used in De Drue’s (2002) paper. The scale consists of four items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’), one of which was reverse-coded and consequently rereverse-coded for analysis. Some example items from the scale are “Team members often implement new ideas to improve the quality of our work” and “This is an innovative team”. A Cronbach’s alpha of .751 was obtained for this scale, thus internal consistency was sufficiently high.

Data Analysis

an  score of above .70 indicated that the scale can be considered reliable. All scales used met this criteria. Following this, the descriptives of each variable were calculated and presented. The means and standard deviations for each variable were obtained, alongside correlations between each variable as calculated using a zero-order Pearson analysis.

In order to test the proposed hypotheses, a multiple regression analysis was conducted using SPSS. The relationships between hypotheses 1 through to hypotheses 4 were all tested together, using a mediation analysis (model 4) conducted using PROCESS (available from www.afhayes.com), a bootstrap procedure developed by Hayes (2013). Hypotheses 5a and 5b, investigating whether the requirement for innovation in a team moderated the relationship between emotional intelligence and leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours, were tested using a moderation analysis (model 1), again using PROCESS. When examining the moderation effect, the leader-reported requirement for innovation was used since it is the leader’s perceptions of innovation requirements that will influence their use of leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours. These results were further presented using a graph for a visual depiction of the interaction effect. Finally, a moderated-mediation analysis was conducted on the conceptual model as a whole in order to test hypothesis 6. This was conducted using PROCESS (model 7), and was further presented as a graph to display the interaction effects obtained.

RESULTS Descriptive Statistics

higher innovation outcomes. However, significant effects were found for the tenure of leaders, with positive correlations existing between leader closing behaviours team requirement for innovation (r=.25, p<.01) and not unexpectedly, the age of a leader (r=.53, p<.05). A leader’s tenure was additionally negatively correlated with leader opening behaviours (r=-.23, p<01). Due to these correlations, all variables will be retained during hypotheses testing, aside from the leader demographics (i.e. age, gender and tenure), which shall be discussed later in the paper. Additionally, only the leader-reported requirement for innovation results shall be used in the analysis, for the aforementioned reason.

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Emotional Intelligence 3.87 0.33 1

2. Leader Opening Behaviours 4.17 0.56 .09 1

3. Leader Closing Behaviours 3.49 0.76 .149 .04 1 4. Requirement For Innovation

(Leader-Reported) 4.24 0.41 .23* .08 .10 1 5. Requirement For Innovation

(Follower-Reported) 4.32 0.73 .09 .35** .10 .02 1 6. Team Innovation 3.61 0.72 .27* -.002 .15 .39** -.02 1

7. Leader’s Age 20.96 1.72 -.06 .01 -.07 .04 -.09 .05 1 8. Leader’s Gender 1.63 0.49 .05 .05 .10 .05 .13 .24* .09 1 9. Leader’s Tenure (Months) 19.97 5.33 .17 -.01 -.23* .25* -.12 .21 .53** .01 1

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1 suggests that emotional intelligence will have a direct effect on team innovation. This relationship was examined through a mediation analysis, as seen in Table 2. The direct relationship between emotional intelligence and team innovation was confirmed both positively and significantly (β = .18, p < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1 can be accepted.

Hypothesis 2b further stated that emotional intelligence of a leader would result in higher levels of leader closing behaviours. Again, a mediation analysis was used to examine this relationship. The results of this analysis, as presented in Table 2, depict an insignificant correlation and consequently hypothesis 2b cannot be confirmed.

Hypothesis 3a proposed that leader opening behaviours will have a positive higher innovation at the team level. However as seen in Table 2, the mediation analysis presented a negative relationship was found in this case, albeit to an insignificant level. Therefore hypothesis 3a must be rejected.

Hypothesis 3b similarly proposes that leader closing behaviours will have a positive relationship on team innovation. A mediation analysis was conducted to obtain the findings of this relationship. Contrary to predictions, no significant effect was found for the relationship between leader closing behaviours and team innovation. Hence, hypothesis 3b cannot be accepted.

Hypothesis 4 suggested that emotional intelligence would lead to team innovation, as mediated by the ability to use leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours both equally and at a high level. In order to test this hypothesis, a mediation analysis was conducted through PROCESS, a bootstrap procedure developed by Hayes (2013). Table 2 shows the results of the multiple regression model whereby emotional intelligence was used as the independent variable, team innovation as the outcome variable, and leader opening and closing behaviours simultaneously being used as mediators. The results further indicate through the dependent variable model that mediator of leader opening behaviours is not significantly associated with the dependent variable of team innovation (β -.02, ns). This effect is also found with the mediator of leader closing behaviours with team innovation (β = .08, ns). Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, the indirect effect of emotional intelligence on team innovation through leader opening behaviours was not significant (indirect effect = -.00, at a 95% confidence interval). Table 2 further shows that the indirect effect of emotional intelligence on team innovation through leader closing behaviours was also insignificant (indirect effect = .01, at a 95% confidence interval). Due to the results of this mediation analysis, hypotheses 4 cannot be supported and thus, is rejected.

to be significant but was negative in nature, contradicting the hypothesis (β = -.12, p = .04). This effect was mostly significant at a low level of requirement for innovation (β = .20, p=.04), as opposed to middle or high levels of requirement for innovation, where no significant effects were found. The interaction effect from this analysis is additionally depicted in Figure 2, visualising the moderation effect. Hypothesis 5a can be partially confirmed in this case, such that a significant relationship exists, but it is negative in nature.

Hypothesis 5b, that emotional intelligence is more positively related to the use of leader closing behaviours when the team’s requirement for innovation is high instead of low was also tested through a moderation regression analysis using PROCESS. This hypothesis was not found to be significant, at any level of requirement for innovation. Figure 3 visually depicts the interaction effect of this analysis. Therefore, hypothesis 5b cannot be confirmed and must be discarded.

TABLE 2

Mediation Analysis of Emotional Intelligence on Team Innovation through Leader Opening Behaviours and Leader Closing Behaviours

Model β SE t p R2

Mediator variable model:

Leader Opening Behaviours .01

Constant .00 .11 .00 1.00

Emotional Intelligence .09 .11 .79 .43

Mediator variable model:

Leader Closing Behaviours .02

Constant .00 .11 .00 1.00

Emotional Intelligence .15 .11 1.31 .19

Dependent Variable Model:

Team Innovation .08

Constant 3.61* .08 45.58 .00

Leader Opening Behaviours -.02 .08 -.26 .79

Leader Closing Behaviours .08 .08 .97 .34

Emotional Intelligence .18* .08 2.23 .04

Indirect Effect _{Indirect Effect} Bootstrap Bootstrap _SE Bootstrap _LLCI Bootstrap _ULCI

Leader Opening Behaviours -.00 .01 -.04 .12

Leader Closing Behaviours .01 .02 -.00 .07

Note: N = 78. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. 95% level of confidence for all confidence interval outputs. * p < .05.

FIGURE 2

Moderation Effect (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader

Opening Behaviours)

FIGURE 3

Moderation Effect (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader

TABLE 3

Results of Moderation Analysis (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader Opening Behaviours)

TABLE 4

Results of Moderation Analysis (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader Closing Behaviours)

Predictor Dependent variable: Leader Opening Behaviours

β SE T P R2

Model .07

Constant 4.19* .06 65.97 .00

Requirement for Innovation .07 .07 1.00 .32

Emotional Intelligence .08 .07 1.15 .25

Requirement for Innovation x

Emotional Intelligence -.12* .06 -2.11 .04

Moderation Effect of

Requirement for Innovation β P 95% LLCI 95% ULCI

Low Requirement for

Innovation .20* .04 .00 .40

Medium Requirement for

Innovation .08 .25 -.06 .21

High Requirement for

Innovation -.05 .53 .20 .11

Note: N = 78. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. 95% level of confidence for all confidence interval outputs. * p < .05.

Predictor Dependent variable: Leader Closing Behaviours

β SE T P R2

Model .03

Constant 3.49* .09 39.48 .00

Requirement for Innovation .06 .09 .63 .53

Emotional Intelligence .11 .09 1.14 .23

Requirement for Innovation x

Emotional Intelligence -.02 .08 -.18 .85

Moderation Effect of

Requirement for Innovation β P 95% LLCI 95% ULCI

Low Requirement for

Innovation .12 .39 -.15 .39

Medium Requirement for

Innovation .11 .26 -.08 .299

High Requirement for

Innovation .09 .40 -.12 .30

DISCUSSION

In conducting this study, the aim was to answer the question of whether a leader’s emotional intelligence acts as an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership for greater team innovation and whether this effect was moderated by the requirement of innovation within the team. Unfortunately this relationship was not found, with results demonstrating that emotional intelligence did not have any significant relationship with either leader opening behaviours or leader closing behaviours and thereby, with ambidextrous leadership. However, the results did show that the emotional intelligence of a leader was significantly and positively related with team innovation when considering a direct effect, confirming hypothesis one. It was further hypothesised that emotional intelligence would have a positive relationship with both leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours; the results indicated that this was the case but not at a significant level. Leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours were further thought to act as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team innovation, though this was again unconfirmed by the results. Moreover, whilst it was predicted that the requirement for innovation within a team would positively moderate the relationship between emotional intelligence and leader opening behaviours and leader closing behaviours, this effect was not found. No relationship was obtained for emotional intelligence and leader closing behaviours, as moderated by requirement for innovation. Surprisingly, a significant negative relationship was found between emotional intelligence and leader opening behaviours, as moderated by requirement for innovation, contracting the hypothesised expectations. This relationship suggests that when the requirement for innovation within a team is high, as

FIGURE 4

Interaction Effect (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader

Opening Behaviours)

FIGURE 5

Interaction Effect (Emotional Intelligence, Requirement for Innovation and Leader

perceived by leaders, the emotional intelligence of a leader is irrelevant as high levels of leader opening behaviours are utilised, regardless of their level of emotional intelligence. However, when requirement for innovation is low, leaders with high levels of emotional intelligence will demonstrate greater use of leader opening behaviours than those leaders low on emotional intelligence, making emotional intelligence a significant predictor. Thus, it is such that the hypothesis concerning requirement for innovation as a moderator between emotional intelligence and leader opening behaviours is supported when requirement for innovation is low, rather than in cases where innovation requirements are high. This is the opposite effect than predicted, as it was thought that the emotional intelligence and leader opening behaviours relationship would be stronger when requirement for innovation was high, as opposed to low. The reason for this finding could be due to the fact that when in a high requirement for innovation team, there is no option but to use leader opening behaviours in order to facilitate much needed innovation from team members. Therefore, the emotional intelligence of a leader does not come into play as innovation results are essential. However, in low requirement for innovation teams, leaders have a choice in utilising leader opening behaviours in order to encourage their team members, disregarding the need for innovation. It makes sense that in these cases, the more emotionally intelligent leaders would adapt their leadership style to use more leader opening behaviours for followers.

Thus, the results provided only evidence for the hypothesised direct relationship between leader emotional intelligence and team innovation. Regrettably, none of the other proposed hypotheses could be confirmed by the results. This indicates that, on the whole, emotional intelligence was not an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership and that this relationship was not moderated by a team’s requirement for innovation.

Theoretical Implications

relationships. Barbuto et al. (2014) aimed to explore whether emotional intelligence would act as an antecedent for servant leadership, finding that emotional intelligence indicated the leaders’ servant-leader ideology, as opposed to their servant-leader behaviour itself. Aside from this, transformational leadership has been examined as the primary leadership style that could be predicted by emotional intelligence. Research in this field has produced mixed results on whether emotional intelligence is related to transformational leadership. Some researchers (Follesdal and Hagtvet, 2013; Lindenbaum and Cartwright, 2010) found no correlation between emotional intelligence scores of leaders and transformational leadership, yet other studies have produced a correlation (Barling et al, 2000; Butler and Chinowsky, 2006; Palmer et al., 2001). The reason for this consistent lack of findings could be attributed to the self-report nature of a leader’s emotional intelligence. Through this, it could be that a leader is portraying their desired leadership style or ideology through social desirability, as opposed to their actual leader behaviour, as rated by others (Barbuto et al, 2014). In terms of this particular study, the null findings for a leader’s ambidextrous leadership could be attributed to the contextual issues with the sample used. As AIESEC is a student organisation, continuity in roles is lacking, with leadership roles only lasting for around one year. With organisational tenure being linked with the use of leader opening behaviours, it may be the case that a stronger and more pronounced relationship between the variables could exist if this study is conducted in organisations that have longer leadership timelines. Furthermore, as a leadership development organisation, the focus of leaders may be less on achieving innovation and more on developing leadership skills within members, explaining why leaders may not be displaying as many ambidextrous leadership behaviours that foster innovation.

the gap between emotional intelligence and ambidextrous leadership. Investigating whether any mediators or moderators are present within this relationship could aid in a better understanding about why emotionally intelligent leaders are able to foster innovation in their team members and furthermore, why some emotionally intelligent leaders are able to foster more innovation than others. Both charismatic authority and transformational influence have been proposed as mediators between emotional intelligence and team performance (Prati et al., 2003), yet this still needs to be confirmed by research. Wong and Law (2002) further found emotional labour to be a moderator of the emotional intelligence and job performance relationship. Exploring other mediators and moderators can help reduce the complexity of the emotional intelligence and innovation relationship, which can in turn have an impact on the emotional intelligence and leadership relationship.

Practical Implications

Although the results of the study did not confirm all of the expectations, many practical implications can arise from the findings for the organisational context. Firstly, knowing that the emotional intelligence of a leader can lead to heightened innovation within a team can lead to the development of recruitment and development practices. Taking the view that emotional intelligence is an ability, it follows that it can be learnt and developed by individuals over time, making it an ideal factor to focus on during training and development programmes. Measuring the emotional intelligence of potential employees or team leaders prior to their placement can help in selecting those that will best encourage innovation within the team, leading to greater success of the team. Knowing that emotional intelligence relates to innovation can therefore help in the advancement of leadership training and development schemes by HR, thus improving organisational performance through the selection of more effective leaders.

It is evident from the findings that ambidextrous leadership is challenging for leaders, with leaders within this study utilising more leader opening behaviours than leader closing behaviours. The ability to balance these behaviours could be essential in further developing team members, allowing them to achieve optimum levels of creativity. Therefore, the HR department of an organisation should play an active role in both promoting and developing ambidextrous leaders, as previously suggested by Probst et al., (2011). Perhaps by making leaders aware of the importance and benefits of utilising both behaviours, leaders will be further encouraged to practice them in a team environment. However, further research should be conducted in this field so that a deeper understanding of ambidextrous leadership is uncovered, particularly in the form of antecedents or moderators.

Strengths, Limitations and Future Research

in nature. Despite being argued to be generalizable to the general population (Greenberg, 1987), a bias in age and background is still present. Hence, conducting this research in a wider variety of organisations could explore whether differences in ages or educational and work backgrounds have an impact on the levels of ambidextrous leadership displayed.

Another limitation also arises with the absence of control variables used when conducting the analysis. Although there was little significance of leader demographics such as age and gender, tenure had significant correlations with the variables of leader closing behaviours and leader-reported requirement for innovation. Thus, this should be taken into account in the future by controlling for significant demographic variables within data analysis. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the study conducted only takes a snapshot sample of the respondents in that moment in time. This could limit the comparability and applicability of results as causal inferences regarding the hypothesised variable relationships cannot be made. In future, conducting a longitudinal study could counter this limitation.

Nevertheless, to my knowledge this study is the first to investigate an antecedent to ambidextrous leadership, and the first to investigate emotional intelligence in that role. Hence, light is shed on this field, helping the understanding of how to improve or change a leader’s approach to ambidextrous leadership. Moreover, the examination of moderators in the relationship between emotional intelligence ambidextrous leadership can aid in forming a platform for future research to be conducted when further developing the ambidextrous leadership concept.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES "About AIESEC". aiesec.org. 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.

Amabile, T. Creativity In Context. 1st ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996.

Ancona, D., Goodman, P., Lawrence, B., & Tushman, M. (2001). Time: A New Research Lens. The Academy Of Management Review, 26(4), 645.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations. Journal Of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

Ashkanasy, N. and Dasborough, M. (2003). Emotional Awareness and Emotional

Intelligence in Leadership Teaching. Journal Of Education For Business, 79(1), 18-22. Barbuto Jr, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of emotional

intelligence as an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315-323.

Barbuto, J., & Burbach, M. (2006). The Emotional Intelligence of Transformational Leaders: A Field Study of Elected Officials. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 146(1), 51-64. Barczak, G., Felicia L., and Jay M. (2010) Antecedents Of Team Creativity: An Examination

Of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust And Collaborative Culture. Creativity and Innovation Management 19.4: 332-345.

Barling, J., Slater, F., and Kelloway, K.E. (2000). Transformational Leadership and

Emotional Intelligence: An Exploratory Study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161.

Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I): A Test of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn emotional quotient inventory. Multi-health systems.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(1), 13-25.

Batool, B. F. (2013). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(3), 84.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., and Farr, J. (2009). A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337.

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1246.

Butler, C.J., and Chinowsky, P.S. (2006) Emotional Intelligence And Leadership Behavior In Construction Executives. Journal of Management in Engineering 22.3: 119-125.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009), Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 781-796.

Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional Intelligence And Its Relationship To Transformational Leadership And Key Project Manager Competences. Project Management Journal 41(2). 5-20.

Crowne, K. (2013). An empirical analysis of three intelligences. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 45(2), 105-114.

DeCoths, T.A. (1977). An Analysis Of The External Validity And Applied Relevance Of Three Rating Formats. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19.2: 247-266.

Dreu, C. K. D. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 11(3), 285-298.

Duncan, R. B. (1976). The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures For Innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy and D. Slevin (eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation. New York: North Holland: 167-188.

Eisakhani, A. (2008). Organizations with Better Performance, Tadbir Journal, 192, 2

Feyerherm, A.E., and Rice, C.L. (2002) Emotional Intelligence And Team Performance: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. The International Journal of Organizational

Analysis 10.4: 343-362.

Føllesdal, H., & Hagtvet, K. (2013). Does emotional intelligence as ability predict

transformational leadership? A multilevel approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 747-762.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

George, J.M. (2010). Emotions And Leadership: The Role Of Emotional Intelligence. Human Relations 53.8 (2000): 1027-1055.

Gerybadze, A. (2010). Innovation and international corporate growth (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.

Gibson, C. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, And Mediating Role Of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy Of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York:

Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard business review, 78(2), 4-17. Goyal, A. and Akhilesh, K. (2007). Interplay Among Innovativeness, Cognitive Intelligence,

Emotional Intelligence And Social Capital Of Work Teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 13(7/8), 206-226.

Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 157-159.

Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Consequences of employee attributions in the workplace: The role of emotional intelligence. Psicothema, 18(Suplemento), 145-151. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Higgs, M., and Paul, A. (2003). An Exploration Of The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence And Leadership Potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18.8: 814-823.

Hoffman, B. and Frost, B. (2006). Multiple Intelligences Of Transformational Leaders: An Empirical Examination. International Journal Of Manpower, 27(1), 37-51.

Hurt, H. T., and Teigen, C.W. (1977). The Development Of A Measure Of Perceived Organizational Innovativeness. In B. R. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp.377-385). New Brunswick , NJ: Transaction Books.

Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?. Academy of management journal, 48(6), 999-1015.

Jansen, J. J., Volberda, H. W., & Van Den Bosch, F. A. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents.

Johnson, P.R., and Indvik, J. (1999). Organizational Benefits Of Having Emotionally Intelligent Managers And Employees. Journal of Workplace Learning 11.3: 84-88. Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-Factor Model Of Personality And Transformational

Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85.5: 751-765.

Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters (1st ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Keller, T, and Weibler, J. (2015). What It Takes And Costs To Be An Ambidextrous

Manager: Linking Leadership And Cognitive Strain To Balancing Exploration And Exploitation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 22.1: 54-71.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.

Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P., and Carroll, T. N. (1999). The Co-Evolution Of New Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 10, 535-550.

Lindebaum, D. and Cartwright, S. (2010). A Critical Examination Of The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence And Transformational Leadership. Journal of Management Studies 47.7: 1317-1342.

Luu, T.T. (2017). Ambidextrous Leadership, Entrepreneurial Orientation, And Operational Performance: Organizational Social Capital As A Moderator. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 Issue: 2, pp.229-253.

March, J. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Markides, C., and Chu, W. (2008). Innovation Through Ambidexterity: How To Achieve The Ambidextrous Organization. Handbook of research on strategy and foresight, 324. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a

standard intelligence. Emotion, 1(3), 232-242.

Melita Prati, L., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21-40.

Melita Prati, L., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21-40.

O'Sullivan, D. and Dooley, L. (2009). Applying Innovation (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective

leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10. Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence

Questionnaire. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, and J. D. Parker, Advances in the assessment of emotional intelligence. New York: Springer.

Probst, G., Raisch, S., and Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 326-334. PROCESS Macro. (2013). Andrew F. Hayes. http://afhayes.com/

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A., & Saur‐Amaral, I. (2007). Leader Self‐ reported emotional intelligence and perceived employee creativity: an exploratory study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 250-264.

Rosing, K., Frese, M., and Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining The Heterogeneity Of The Leadership-Innovation Relationship: Ambidextrous Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22.5: 956-974.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Schutte, D. N. The Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT). Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations Available from: http://www. eiconsortium. org/measures/sreis. html.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional

intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177.

Shalley, C., Gilson, L., and Blum, T. (2009). Interactive Effects of Growth Need Strength, Work Context, and Job Complexity On Self-Reported Creative Performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 52(3), 489-505.

The Emotional Intelligence Institute - What Is Emotional Intelligence?. Theeiinstitute.com. 2015. Web.

Van de Ven, A. (2016). The Innovation Journey: You Can't Control It, But You Can Learn To Maneuver It. Innovation, 1-4.

Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., and Schakel, L. (2002). The Relationship Of Emotional Intelligence With Academic Intelligence And The Big Five. European Journal of Personality 16.2 (2002): 103-125. Web.

Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. The Academy Of Management Review, 29(2), 222.

Weinberger, L.A. (2003). An Examination Of The Relationship Between Emotional

Intelligence, Leadership Style And Perceived Leadership Effectiveness. PhD. University of Minnesota.

Yoshida, D., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does Servant Leadership Foster Creativity And Innovation? A Multi-Level Mediation Study Of Identification And Prototypicality. Journal Of Business Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.

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

Zacher, H., Robinson, A., and Rosing, K. (2014). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employees' Self-Reported Innovative Performance: The Role of Exploration and Exploitation Behaviors. The Journal Of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

Zhou, J. (2003). When The Presence Of Creative Co-Workers Is Related To Creativity: Role Of Supervisor Close Monitoring, Developmental Feedback, And Creative

Personality. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422. Zhou, J. and George, J. (2003). Awakening Employee Creativity: The Role Of Leader Emotional