Abstract:Ambidextrous leadership is key to solving organizational tension and complex problems. This type of leadership has gained attention in the field of organizational behavior in recent years. Ambidextrous leadership refers to a set of two complementary leadership behaviors and the flexibility switch between two different behaviors. Existing studies noted the extensive benefits of ambidextrous leadership to employees and organizations. These advantages include enhancement of the psychological empowerment of employees, exploratory and exploitative behaviors, innovation, and organizational change. Prior studies focused on ambidextrous leadership from the Western context. These studies include opening-closing leadership and transformational-transactional leadership. However, the consequences of indigenous ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context remain poorly understood. A particular ambidextrous leadership embedded in Chinese culture was identified, namely, authoritarian-benevolent leadership. The present study focuses on the combination of authoritarian and benevolent leadership, which is regarded as a type of indigenous ambidextrous leadership. The researchers aimed to investigate the effect of different combination modes of benevolent and authoritarian leadership on the work outcome of subordinates and its underlying mechanism. The researchers identified four scenarios by combining the two kinds of leadership, namely, high authority-high benevolence, low authority-low benevolence, high authority-low benevolence, low authority-high benevolence. This approach was based on the level of authoritarian and benevolent leadership. The former two forms of leadership fall under the congruence category, whereas the latter two fall under the incongruence category. By drawing on followership theory, the researchers expected that the active implementation of subordinates was high when leaders were at a high level of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership than when at a low level of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership. The researchers also found that the active implementation of subordinates was high when the benevolent leadership of leaders exceeded authoritarian leadership rather than when authoritarian leadership exceeded benevolent leadership. Third, the active implementation of subordinates carried the joint effect of benevolent and authority leadership to the job performance of followers. A multiwave, multiresource survey was used to test the hypotheses. Surveys were given to 204 voluntary subordinates at Time 1. They were required to report their leaders' benevolent leadership and authoritarian leadership and demographic information. The researchers obtained 183 effective survey responses. After one month, the researchers conducted Time 2 survey, which required leaders to rate the job performance of their subordinates. The subordinates were then required to rate their active implementation. A total of 130 effective survey responses were obtained. The researchers used polynomial regression combined with response surface analysis based on the two-wave data. The results supported the hypotheses. The findings offered several contributions to literature. First, different combination modes of benevolent and authoritarian leadership have different effects on the work outcome of subordinates. Second, the researchers uncovered the dynamics between authoritarian-benevolent leadership and work outcome of subordinates. These findings can aid Chinese scholars to gain an improved understanding of indigenous ambidextrous leadership. These findings advance the understanding on how authoritarian leadership combined with benevolent leadership affects the performance of followers. The findings also provide further practical insights to practitioners.

Matching leadership to circumstances? A vignette study of leadership behavior adaptation in an ambiguous context

Switching gears: How teams co-construct adaptive leadership style transitions in dynamic contexts

How Do Leaders Cope with the Paradoxical Situations? the Development of Paradoxical Leadership

Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences

Facilitating Change: The Role of Adaptability and LMX for Change Support

On becoming a leader: Effects of gender and cultural differences on power distance reduction

More is not always merrier: does leader-team perceptual distance on context influence leadership training transfer?

The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making.

Authoritarian-benevolent Leadership, Active Implementation and Job Performance: an Investigation on the Effectiveness of Ambidextrous Leadership in the Chinese Context

Ambidexterity and Public Organizations: A Configurational Perspective

Not the Time to Be Humble: the Dark Side of Humble Leader Behavior in Uncertain Environments

Managerial Discretion and Constraints: A Bounded Leadership Model

Matching leadership styles with employment modes: strategic human resource management perspective

Key variations in organizational culture and leadership influence: A comparison between three children’s mental health and child welfare agencies

An empirical taxonomy of leadership situations: Development, validation, and implications for the science and practice of leadership.

Enhancing Managerial Mindfulness: A Way for Middle Managers to Handle the Uncertain Situations

What Does Leadership Do to the Leader? Using a Pattern-Oriented Approach to Investigate the Association between Daily Leadership Profiles and Daily Leader Well-Being

Do humble leaders build more flexible teams?

Dancing on the Razor’s Edge: How Top-Level Women Leaders Manage the Paradoxical Tensions between Agency and Communion

The Benefits of Ambidextrous Leadership Behavior for the Workplace Well-Being of Leaders

Why is managerial shared leadership in creative organizations a more resilient, transparent, open, and generous constellation? A case analysis approach