Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution

Abstract

Summary Using conservation of resources theory, we challenge traditional unity of command models of leadership and propose that a dual‐leadership framework can serve as a potential solution to the inherent challenges of innovation. Leading for innovation demands are depicted as uniquely disparate from other forms of leadership, resulting in several types of conflict and resource depletion for individual leaders. We contend that this exploration–exploitation role conflict and the resulting need to manage incongruent role identities produce stress, strain, and resource depletion that in turn hamper innovative goal achievement for both a single leader directly and via subordinates more indirectly. We propose, however, that as an extension of the resource investment tenet of the conservation of resources theory, a dual‐leadership approach may alleviate many of these challenges for innovation. Specifically, the addition of a second leader can add resources to innovation and in turn decrease the role conflict inherent in managing the generation and implementation of creative ideas. Limitations and areas for future research are offered.

Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences

“…Extensions beyond stress and strain have also helped advance theory and practice in different contexts, including interpersonal relationships at work. In that regard, recent attention has been paid to leadership, in part because of its implications not just for the leader but also for others who work with the leader (e.g., Chi & Liang 2013, Hunter et al 2017, Schmitt et al 2016. For example, Lam et al (2017) report the results of two studies that find support for a nuanced response to emotional exhaustion whereby supervisors appear more likely to engage in abusive behavior toward subordinates (measured through the subordinates' evaluations of abusive supervisor behavior) when the supervisor is experiencing exhaustion, is relatively lower in self-monitoring, and the subordinate is performing lower than average.…”

Empirical analysis of shared leadership promotion and team creativity: An adaptive leadership perspective

“…When such ties and identification are strong, team creativity is benefitted. For instance, team members often come from diverse backgrounds, which creates barriers to communication (Ren, Chen, & Riedl, 2015), increases turnover (Jackson et al, 1991), creates conflicts (Daniel, Agarwal, & Stewart, 2013), and affects psychological attachment (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992) In addition, an individual leader cannot possess all of the skills and abilities necessary to satisfy creativity demands (Hunter, Cushenbery, & Jayne, 2017). Shared leadership, in contrast, is characterized by sharing responsibilities among team members, which cultivates overall team capacity by leveraging the skills and abilities of all members (Pearce, 2004).…”

How does proactive personality promote creativity? A multilevel examination of the interplay between formal and informal leadership

“…Formal leadership behaviours have been shown to exert a critical influence on employees’ creativity (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, ) based on their contribution to the extent to which employees perceive their work environment as being suitable for creativity (see Mainemelis et al ., for a review). While early research emphasized formal leaders’ unidirectional influence on employees and their creativity (e.g., Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, ; Sarin & McDermott, ), more recent research has shifted towards a more comprehensive viewpoint by taking the interactions between leaders and their employees, as well as among employees, into consideration (e.g., Hunter, Cushenbery, & Jayne, ; Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, ; Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, ; Zhang & Zhou, ). Aligned with this research trend, we examine the role of formal leaders’ visionary behaviours in informal leaders’ creativity (Greer et al ., ).…”