Luận án Các nhân tố tác động đến đổi mới sáng tạo của nhóm trong lĩnh vực dịch vụ bán lẻ: Bằng chứng từ Việt Nam

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM PHD THESIS HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM Major: Business Administration Code: 9340101 PHD THESIS SUPERVISOR: ASSOC. PROF. NGUYEN DINH THO HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In completing my thesis for PhD research, I was very fortunate to have support from many people to whom I am greatly indebted. Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, for his invaluable support and guidance. This work would never have been possible without his insightful comments and advice. Secondly, I would like to thank all of my teachers from ISB PhD program for their important assistance concerning to methodologies, philosophy of science, research and life issues during my research period. I also would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, my PhD friends and many related people for supporting me to undertake this research. Finally, I am extremely grateful to my parents and my family members for their endless love, care and patience. Without my family’s support and encouragement, I would not become who I am today. Ho Chi Minh City, July 2022 ABSTRACT Team innovation can help contemporary organizations create competitive advantage, making them survive, and subsequently growing in the fast-changing and unpredictable market. This thesis aimed to explore different antecedents of team innovation through three studies conducted in retail services in Vietnam. Firstly, drawing upon the ambidextrous leadership for innovation, Study 1 investigates the role of opening and closing leadership behaviors in both team exploratory and exploitative learning, and subsequently in team innovation. Results based on a survey data set collected from 296 team leaders show that opening leadership behavior positively affects team exploratory learning and closing leadership behavior underlies team exploitative learning. Further, the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors positively affects both team exploratory and exploitative learning. Finally, these two types of team learning enhance team innovation. Secondly, employing social exchange theory in teams, Study 2 examines the role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation. Results, based on a survey dataset collected from 300 team leaders in retail services in Vietnam, demonstrated that shared team psychological contract fulfillment mediated the above relationship. Interestingly, team proactive personality positively moderated the effect of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment. Finally, using the psychological capital (PsyCap) theory, Study 3 investigates the impact of team PsyCap on team innovation. Further, Study 3 also examines the mediating role of team learning, including exploratory and exploitative learning, in team innovation. A sample of 272 team leaders of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis and to test the model and hypotheses using structural equation modeling. The results demonstrate that team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation. Further, team exploratory learning mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation; however, team exploitative learning does not. Although team exploitative learning is explained by team PsyCap, it does not enhance team innovation. The overall findings of this thesis provide a number of theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation. Firstly, Study 1 extends the current research on ambidextrous leadership, team learning and team innovation. Secondly, the findings of Study 2 provide further evidence to confirm the predictive power of inclusive leadership at the team level by verifying the role of inclusive leadership in shared team psychological contract fulfillment and innovation. Finally, Study 3 further confirms the predictive power of PsyCap at the team level by verifying the role of team PsyCap in team learning and innovation. This finding of Study 3 signals that to achieve innovation, teams should pursue explorative learning. The findings of this thesis suggest a number of implications for practitioners. Firstly, the findings of Study 1 identify the importance of firms investing in training team leaders to improve both opening and closing leadership behaviors in order to foster exploratory and exploitative learning activities in their teams. Secondly, the results of Study 2 point to the potential for leadership training interventions to improve inclusive leadership behaviors in order to foster the needs and attitudes of their team members. Finally, the results of Study 3 highlight the importance of fostering team PsyCap to enhance team-level outcomes including team learning and innovation. Firms should create a social context that could help in interacting and communicating among team members, which in turn leads to share the perceptions regarding psychological state of development. Study 3 believes that the effect of team PsyCap in shaping agreement between employees in team could help teams get through difficult times and respond more positive to today’s more complex job requirements and increasing demand for change and idea generating and idea implementing. Keywords – ambidextrous leadership, inclusive leadership, team psychological capital, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, team innovation, Vietnam. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations Meaning AVE Average variance extracted B Unstandardized regression weight β Standardized regression weight BC Bias-corrected bootstrap estimate CAGR Compound annual growth rate CFA Confirmatory factor analysis CFI Comparative fit index CR Composite reliability EFA Exploratory factor analysis GFI Goodness of fit index HCMC Ho Chi Minh City M Means p p-value PsyCap Psychological capital RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation SD Standard deviations SE Standard error SEM Structural equation modeling SET Social exchange theory LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Table 1. A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between leadership styles and team innovation 15 Table 2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (l) of items of Study 1 26 Table 3. Correlations between constructs of Study 1 26 Table 4. SEM results of Study 1 29 Table 5. A brief summary of empirical studies on the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation 39 Table 6. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (l) of items of Study 2 49 Table 7. Correlations between constructs of Study 2 51 Table 8. SEM results of Study 2 53 Table 9. A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between team PsyCap and team outcomes 60 Table 10. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (l) of items of Study 3 68 Table 11. Correlations between constructs of Study 3 69 Table 12. SEM results of Study 3 72 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i ABSTRACT ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES vi CONTENTS vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Research gaps 1 1.2 Research objectives 4 1.3 Research context 5 1.4. Data collection 6 1.5 Structure of the thesis 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL 8 2.1 Theoretical background 8 2.1.1 The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation 8 2.1.2 Social exchange theory in groups 9 2.1.3 Psychological capital theory 11 2.2 Conceptual model 11 CHAPTER 3 13 STUDY 1. TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: THE ROLE OF AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP AND TEAM LEARNING 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 14 3.2.1 Theoretical background 14 3.2.2 Conceptual model and hypotheses 17 3.3 Research methods 22 3.3.1 Research context 22 3.3.2 Design and sample 22 3.3.3 Measurement 23 3.3.4 Control variables 24 3.3.5 Measurement refinement 24 3.3.6 Sample characteristics 24 3.4 Data analysis and results 25 3.4.1 Measurement validation 25 3.4.2 Structural results and hypothesis testing 27 3.5 Discussion and implications 31 3.5.1 Theoretical implications 31 3.5.2 Practical implications 32 3.5.3 Limitations and future directions 33 CHAPTER 4 35 STUDY 2. INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF SHARED TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT FULFILLMENT AND TEAM PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 35 4.1 Introduction 35 4.2. Theoretical background and hypotheses 36 4.2.1 SET in teams 36 4.2.2 Conceptual model and hypotheses 41 4.3. Research methods 45 4.3.1 Design and sample 45 4.3.2 Measures 46 4.3.3 Control variables 47 4.4. Data analysis and results 47 4.4.1 Measure validation 47 4.4.2 Common method bias 49 4.4.3 Structural results and hypothesis testing 51 4.5. Discussion and implications 53 4.5.1 Theoretical implications 54 4.5.2 Practical implications 55 4.5.3 Limitations and future directions 56 CHAPTER 5 58 STUDY 3. TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND INNOVATION: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM LEARNING 58 5.1 Introduction 58 5.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 59 5.2.1 Team PsyCap 59 5.2.2 Conceptual model 61 5.3 Research method 65 5.3.1 Design and sample 65 5.3.2 Measures 66 5.3.3 Control variables 66 5.4 Data analysis and results 67 5.4.1 Measure validation 67 5.4.2 Common method bias 68 5.4.3 Structural results and hypothesis testing 69 5.5 Discussion and Conclusions 72 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION 75 6.1. Summary 75 6.2 Theoretical implications 76 6.3 Practical implications 79 6.4 Limitations and future directions 81 6.5 Conclusion 82 PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO THE THESIS 83 REFERENCES 84 APPENDIXES 100 Appendix 1A. Vietnamese questionnaire of focus group 100 Appendix 1B. Result of focus group 106 Appendix 2A. English questionnaire for Study 1 112 Appendix 2B. Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 1 114 Appendix 3A. English questionnaire for Study 2 116 Appendix 3B. Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 2 119 Appendix 4A. English questionnaire for Study 3 123 Appendix 4B. Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 3 125 Appendix 5. Data analysis for Study 1 128 Appendix 6. Data analysis for Study 2 143 Appendix 7. Data analysis for Study 3 161 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research gaps Team innovation largely refers as “including both the development and implementation of novelty” (van Kinppenberg, 2017, p. 212). Team innovation can help contemporary organizations create competitive advantage, making them survive, and subsequently growing in the fast-changing and unpredictable market (Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019). Some main perspectives in team innovation research were the knowledge integration perspective, the team climate perspective, the aggregation of individual inputs perspective, and the leadership perspective (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011; Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017). Leadership-innovation has long been a fruitful area for exploring and exploiting our existing knowledge especially at the team level of analysis (Rosing et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2018). Prior empirical research linking leadership and team innovation has implicated a variety of leadership styles such as transformational leadership (Jiang & Chen, 2018), authentic leadership (Černe, Jaklič, & Škerlavaj, 2013), shared leadership (Hoch, 2013), servant leadership (Yoshida et al., 2014), and ambidextrous leadership (Zacher & Rosing, 2015), to name a few. Each leadership style may enhance some social processes (e.g., team learning), and thus facilitate or inhibit team innovation in some specific boundary conditions. These empirical studies with specific leadership styles, however, fail to identify some meaningful gaps. First, to the best of our knowledge, research on the role of ambidextrous leadership in team learning and team innovation, not only in transitioning economies like Vietnam but also in advanced economies, has largely been ignored. In addition, a new trend in the retail service industry is to shift its focus on building long-term customer relationships instead of short-term sales. Retail service teams may be able to go out of their way to enhance their service quality such as providing individualized attention to their customers, thus, opening opportunities for team innovation (Subramony & Pugh, 2015). The concept of ambidextrous leadership is introduced as “the ability to foster both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers by increasing or reducing variance in their behavior and flexibly switching between those behaviors” (Rosing et al., 2011, p. 957). Some prior studies that link ambidextrous leadership behaviors with innovation have shown a variety of mediating ways through employee exploration and exploitation behaviors when analyzed at the individual level (Zacher et al., 2016). Others have explored how differences in team performance can be explained by team leadership, team learning and team psychological safety (e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Zacher & Rosing, 2015) with some attempting to explain team innovation by team social processes and leadership (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Rosing et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017). Second, inclusive leaders might also play an important role in motivating our diversified employees to innovate (Randel et al., 2018). Inclusive leadership is aset of positive leader behaviors characterized by openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness and uniqueness in interactions with followers (Carmeli et al., 2010; Randel et al., 2018).. Inclusive leadership directly enhances several job outcomes, such as taking charge behavior (Zeng et al., 2020), voice behavior (Guo et al., 2020), prosocial rule breaking (Wang & Shi, 2021), and psychological distress (Ahmed et al., 2020). The role of inclusive leadership in creativity and innovation at different levels in organizations (organizational, team, and individual) has also been investigated by some researchers (e.g., Choi et al., 2017; Gong et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2018; Javed et al., 2019; Siyal et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2019). However, research on the role of inclusive leadership and innovation at the team level is still scarce. In addition, a special issue of inclusive leadership indicated that there is a lack of research related to inclusive leadership at the team level and called for more studies (Van Knippenberg and Van Ginkel 2021). In response to this call, a number of studies have investigated some several mediators and moderators. For example, Ye, Wang, and Guo (2019) examined the mediating role of team voice and the moderating role of performance pressure in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation. Leroy et al. (2021) investigated the mediating role of team-derived inclusion in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team creativity. Ashikali, Groeneveld, and Kuipers (2020) explored the moderating role of inclusive leadership in the relationship between team ethnic-cultural diversity and inclusive climate. However, although shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality play crucial roles in team outcomes (Laulié and Tekleab 2016; Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk 2016; Gibbard et al. 2017), their roles in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation are still unknown. Employing the social exchange theory (SET) in teams, this thesis examines whether shared team psychological contract fulfillment – “the convergence of team members’ perception of the degree of fulfillment of the obligations that an organization promised to the team” (Laulié & Teakleab, 2016, p. 662) – may play the mediator role in the above relationship. Further, teams with more proactive personality individuals tend to be more willing to identify new ideas, implementing them and persevering until getting meaningful benefits at the workplace (Chiu, Owens, & Tesluk, 2016; Crant & Bateman, 2000; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Wang et al., 2017). According, this thesis also examines the moderating role of team proactive personality in the relationship between inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Xu, Jiang, & Wang, 2019). Third, to date there is a lack of understanding about how team psychological capital (PsyCap) enhance both learning and innovative outcomes at the team level of analysis. PsyCap refers as “an individual’s state of development characterized by the psychological resources of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience” (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 3). Originally, PsyCap was conceptualized at the individual level (Luthans et al., 2015) and research on the area has mainly focused on this level (e.g., Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Miao, Bozionelos, Zhou, & Newman, 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012). In recent years, in line with the need for research on team processes and performance (Chou et al., 2008; Gundlach et al., 2006), researchers have shifted their attention to the team level of the concept. PsyCap at the team level refers to the “agreement among team members in regard to the team’s shared (team-referent) PsyCap perception” (Dawkins et al., 2015, p. 936). Prior research has investigated the role of team PsyCap in several team outcomes such as team organizational citizenship behavior (Bogler & Somech, 2019; Heled, Somech, & Waters, 2016), team performance and team satisfaction (Dawkins et al., 2018), service quality and customer satisfaction (Mathe, Scott-Halsell, Kim, & Krawczyk, 2017), and organizational commitment and team creativity (Wu & Chen, 2018). Regrettably, although team innovation plays a critical role in the survival and growth of contemporary organizations (Hughes et al., 2018; van Knippenberg, 2017), the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation has been largely ignored. In addition, the process of learning and creating knowledge within organizations primarily take place in teams (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009), our understanding of the relationship between team PsyCap, team learning and innovation is still limited. Accordingly, this thesis, employing the theory of psychological capital (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013) in team (Dawkins et al., 2015), investigated the impact of team PsyCap on team innovation. Also, it examined the mediating role of team learning, including team exploratory and exploitative learning, in the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation. 1.2 Research objectives There are three main objectives in this thesis: Objective 1: The impact of ambidextrous leadership on both team exploratory and exploitative learning and, subsequently, on team innovation (Study 1). Objective 2: The impact of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment and, subsequently, on team innovation, and the impact of team proactive personality on the relationship between inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment (Study 2). Objective 3: The impact of team PsyCap on team exploratory and exploitative learning and, subsequently, on team innovation (Study 3). Based on three main objectives, this thesis directly answers some specific research questions: 1. What is the nature of relationship between two types of leadership (i.e., ambidextrous leadership and inclusive leadership) and innovation at the team level of analysis? 2. What is the mediating mechanisms (i.e., team learning, shared tea