PurposeThe ambidextrous leadership model specifically describes opening and closing leader behaviors in the innovation process. This paper aims to emphasize the relevance of the ambidextrous leadership model with respect to leadership in innovation processes.Design/methodology/approachIn this longitudinal research design, 54 employees rated the ambidextrous leader behaviors and innovation performance concerning an innovation project over a period of six weeks. Traditional leadership styles (i.e. transformational, transactional, instrumental leadership, leader–member exchange) were assessed at a between-person level to identify their effects with respect to innovation performance.FindingsMultilevel regression analysis results showed that instrumental leadership as well as opening and closing leader behaviors were positively related to innovation performance. By contrast, transformational and transactional leadership as well as leader–member exchange (LMX) did not show significant associations with innovation performance.Originality/valueThe findings support the relevance of specific leader behaviors to the innovation process and therefore underline the importance of the ambidextrous leadership model.

In an experimental study, we explored the relationships between team regulatory focus and temporal patterns of innovative activities as well as innovative performance. We manipulated regulatory focus in 44 student teams and assessed idea generation and implementation activities over time based on video data. External raters assessed innovative performance. Latent growth curve models revealed that higher team promotion focus increased idea generation at the beginning of an innovative project but decreased this activity over time. High levels of idea generation at the beginning of a project were related to lower levels of originality, whereas a decline in idea generation over time was related to higher levels of originality. Unexpectedly, relationships between team prevention focus, idea implementation, and quality were not significant. Our findings contribute to a comprehensive perspective on team regulatory focus and innovation, emphasizing the importance of differentiating between activities and performance.

No abstract

No abstract