literature review leadership

REVIEW article

Participative leadership: a literature review and prospects for future research.

• 1 School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China
• 2 College of Business Administration, Gachon University, Seongnam, South Korea
• 3 School of Management, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China

Changes in the external market environment put forward objective requirements for the formulation of organizational strategic plans, making it difficult for the organization’s leaders to make the right and effective decisions quickly on their own. As a result, participative leadership, which encourages and supports employees to participate in the decision-making process of organizations, has received increasing attention in both theory and practice. We searched the literature related to participative leadership in databases such as Web of Science, EBSCO, ProQuest, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Based on this, we clarify the concept of participative leadership, propose a definition of participative leadership, summarize measurement scales for this type of leadership, and compare participative leadership with other leadership styles (empowering leadership and directive leadership). We also present a research framework for participative leadership that demonstrates its antecedents; the mechanisms for its development based on social exchange theory, conservation of resources theory, social cognitive theory; social information processing theory, and implicit leadership theory; and outcomes. Finally, we identify five potential research areas: Connotation, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators, and study of participative leadership in China.

Introduction

In the digital age, companies are actively taking accurate decisions such as using advanced technology to enhance their competitive advantage in the marketplace ( Su et al., 2021 ). But where do good measures and perfect solutions come from? The answer comes from the masses. With the dramatic changes in the competitive business environment, it is difficult for organizational leaders to make timely and effective decisions on their own, which has led to the active presence of employees in organizational decision-making today ( Peng et al., 2021 ). At the same time, due to the use of modern information technology such as computer networks and system integration, there is a bottom-up flow of information within the enterprise, and these cross-level, multi-dimensional “employee opinions” play an increasingly important role in leadership decision-making. Improving a company’s competitive advantage, sustainable development goal and performance is increasingly dependent on the active participation of the organization’s employees in decision-making ( Chang et al., 2021 ; Jia et al., 2021 ). In particular, Peter Drucker, the master of manageme, also considered that “encouraging employee involvement” is an important part of effective leadership in his influential study “Management by Objective.” In practice, some well-known companies have gradually started to call for employee participation behaviors in decision-making to varying degrees. For example, leaders in the R&D department of Volvo Cars actively use shared open rights and encourage diversity initiatives to promote employee participation in decision-making to facilitate organizational innovation ( Jing et al., 2017 ). It is easy to see that employee participation, a key component of organizational decision-making, is an important influencing factor for business organizations to adapt to the dynamic business environment and improve the effectiveness and science of leaders’ decisions. Therefore, it is an important issue that leaders need to focus on in real-time, especially in organizations with a high power distance culture, to promote the participation of their subordinates in organizational decision-making ( Huang et al., 2010 ). This requires leaders to adopt a supportive, democratic leadership style, known as participative leadership. A large number of scholars also agree that organizational leaders are increasingly relying on highly engaged employees to meet the challenges of a competitive marketplace, so participative leadership, which seeks to promote behaviors that support employee participation in organizational decision-making, is gaining attention in many organizations ( Huang et al., 2006 ). Participative leadership exists in organizations of any size, of any type and at any stage, where openness and empowerment of employees in the organizational decision-making process are core characteristics that distinguish it from other leadership styles ( Huang et al., 2021 ). When making strategic decisions, participative leaders are able to share decision-making power and fully consult employees to jointly deal with the work problems ( Chan, 2019 ).

In summary, participative leaders encourage and support employees to participate in the decision-making process in order to make effective organizational decisions and to solve work problems together through a range of measures ( Kahai et al., 1997 ). However, there is still much space for theoretical research on participative leadership, and the organizational practice with the current call for “employee participation in decision-making” needs to be optimised and improved, and there is an urgent need to balance the organizational practice and theoretical research on “employee participation” and “scientific decision-making” from the leadership level. In order to accelerate the exploration of participative leadership and promote the research on the effectiveness of participative leadership, we systematically review the literature on participative leadership, summarise and outline its concept, measurement scales and conceptual comparisons, antecedents, mechanisms and outcomes, and present future research perspectives.

Literature Collection

We searched the literature on participative leadership published in databases such as Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). To perform the search, we used the keywords “participative leadership,” “participative management,” “participative behavior,” and “participative leader.” We also used a snowballing approach to identify relevant literature by searching the list of references we found in our research. Also, to better examine the similarities and differences in leadership styles in our work, we had collected literature related to directive leadership and empowering leadership in these databases. And we only used the keywords “directive leadership,” and “empowering leadership.”

Literature Processing

Literature was included in our research if it met the following criteria. First, we collected research on the topic of participative leadership, excluding leadership research unrelated to participative management. Second, the literature we collected on participative leadership had to be written in either English or Chinese, excluding relevant research in other languages. Third, the literature included both quantitative and qualitative research and did not impose any restrictions on where the research was conducted or the industry in which it was conducted. Fourth, the information we collected on participative leadership included published journal articles, conference papers, master’s and doctoral dissertations, and so on. In addition, compared to participative leadership, we collected mostly review-based literature on empowering leadership and directive leadership, including some empirical researches, to better understand both types of leadership. Also, the literature must be written in Chinese or English.

The Concept of Participative Leadership

According to literature review, participative leadership is a democratic leadership that involves subordinates in organizational decision-making and management, with the aim of effectively enhancing employees’ sense of ownership and actively integrating their personal goals into organizational goals. Therefore, in the daily leadership process, leaders actively implement “participation management” for their subordinates, such as conveying meaningful values, actively organizing reporting and other flexible promotion strategies ( Jing et al., 2017 ). The American scholar Likert (1961) , after extensive experimental research on democratic leadership, formally introduced the concept of participative leadership in his book “A New Model of Management” and revealed the three main principles of participative leadership theory, including the mutual support principle, the group decision principle and the high standards principle. Since the introduction of participative leadership, it has received much attention from a large number of researchers. Based on previous research, Kahai et al. (1997) redefined it as participative leadership, which refers to a leadership style in which leaders ask employees for their opinions before making decisions, delegate decision-making authority to subordinates in practice, and encourage active participation by employees to make decisions together. The literature also reflects two core characteristics of participative leadership: first, employees are consulted before decisions are made in order to solve problems together; second, employees are given resources to support them in the work process ( Kahai et al., 1997 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Li et al., 2018 ).

Participative leadership is also characterised in practice by the following features: first, in the process of employee participation in decision-making, leaders and subordinates are on an equal footing and trust each other completely, and organizational issues are resolved through democratic consultation. Second, in general, although participative management involves a wide range of employees in decision-making, the final decision is still made by the leaders. Huang et al. (2010) also explored participative leadership in-depth and argued that participative leadership requires more encouragement and support for employees in the decision-making process and sharing of information and ideas, which has been recognized by many scholars ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Li et al., 2018 ). It is easy to see that the core of participative leadership is to encourage employees to participate in organizational decision-making, and the key to the leadership process is to make a series of management tasks such as consulting employees before making decisions ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). Thus, based on many previous studies and practical experience, we consider participative leadership as a set of leadership behaviors that promote subordinates to participate in decision-making by giving them a certain degree of discretionary powers, effective information and other resources, as well as care and encouragement, so that they can be consulted enough before making decisions to solve work problems together( Huang et al., 2010 ; Chan, 2019 ).

Measurement of Participative Leadership

The current measurement of participative leadership is mainly in the form of questionnaires in quantitative research and consists of the following measurement scales. First, Vroom (1959) psychological participation questionnaire, which evaluates the frequency with which leaders demonstrate a participative leadership style and reflects the overall ability of members to influence decisions and provide input and advice to leaders, consists of four questions (α = 0.63), sample item: “If you had a suggestion to improve your work or change a process in some way, how easy would it be for you to communicate the idea to your leader.”

Second, the empowering leadership scale (ELS) developed by Arnold et al. (2000) in which subjects score perceived leadership behaviors, with several items in the participation in decision-making section becoming a measure of participative leadership (α = 0.86), and is currently recognized by most scholars, with a total of six questions, and a sample item is “Encourages work group members to express ideas/suggestions.” The measurement scale developed by Arnold et al. (2000) has been widely used in empirical research ( Huang et al., 2010 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Peng et al., 2021 ).

Third, the participative management questionnaires. In research of participative management in education, Somech (2002) designed a participative management scale with a total of thirty-five items, which includes five dimensions: decision domain (10 items; α = 0.83), degree of participation (4 items; α = 0.79), structure (3 items; α = 0.79), rationale (9 items; α = 0.77), and participation target (9 items; α = 0.69). Decision domain refers to determine if, after a decade of explicit attention to and advocacy of enhanced participative leadership, principals prefer to involve teachers not only in the technical domain, but also in the managerial, and a sample item is “Setting and revising the school goals.” Degree of participation refers to differentiating the extent of participation from the degree of participation, and a sample item is “Makes decisions on his or her own.” Structure refers to the extent to which a formal structure for validating decisions exist in the school and their relationship to other dimensions of participation, and a sample item is “To what extent explicit procedures existed at the school concerning who participated in the decision-making process.” Rationale is to determine, through an exploratory method, the main motives that inspired principals to participate in management and their relationship with the degree of participative management, and a sample item is “Encourage teacher’s acceptance of the decision.” Participation target refers to examine principals’ considerations in choosing which teacher to involve in the decision-making process, and a sample item is “The teacher expressed an independent thinking style.” The measurement scale developed by Somech (2002) has been found to have a good use in research ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ).

Fourth, some scholars had adapted or developed participative leadership scales by themselves, but the use is limited. For example, Kahai et al. (2004) used group-level responses (3 items) about how frequently participants observed the leader to implement participative management. A sample item is “Incorporating their suggestions into the final decision.” And Li et al. (2018) adapted from Oldham and Cummings (1996) and Kahai’s studies ( Kahai et al., 2004 ), which asked employees to rate their team leaders’ participative leadership behaviors on a four-item scale (α = 0.81), with typical questions such as “Puts suggestions from our group members into the final decision.” The individual responses were aggregated to the team level. Mean r wg was 0.90. And Zhao et al. (2019) developed a five-item scale, with typical questions such as “Leaders encourage team members to be active in suggesting ideas” (α = 0.80). In addition, there are also some studies that utilize the case method in qualitative research. For example, Jing et al. (2017) used an embedded case approach to provide an in-depth analysis of the role played by participative leadership. Finally, we summarize the major ways and references of previous measurements in the form of tables, as shown in Table 1 .

Table 1. Summary of measurements.

Comparison Between Participative Leadership and Other Leadership Styles

A review of the recent literature reveals that some scholars usually discuss participative leadership together with empowering leadership and directive leadership, but they are only mentioned, without in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences between them ( Lonati, 2020 ; Zou et al., 2020 ). At present, the lack of comprehensive comparative analysis of the three leadership styles. Therefore, we analyze the similarities and differences between participative leadership and empowering leadership and directive leadership to varying degrees and compares them in terms of key characteristics, behavioral approaches and behavioral motives to highlight the unique research value of participative leadership, as shown in Table 2 .

Table 2. Contrast of different leadership styles.

Empowering Leadership

The situational empowerment perspective emphasizes the practice of empowerment in organizational situations and defines empowering leadership as a series of management practices that empower subordinates. The psychological empowerment perspective emphasizes the psychological experience of empowerment and defines it as a motivational tool to eliminate employees’ internal feelings of disempowerment by raising their level of motive. And the integration of situational perspective and psychological perspective emphasizes the leaders’ behavior toward power sharing and employees’ perceptions of empowerment, illustrating the process of achieving power sharing between leaders and employees ( Tang et al., 2012 ). It is easy to see that both empowering leadership and participative leadership denote the delegation of leadership authority, but the focus are different. Specifically, participative leadership refers to the sharing and delegation of decision-making power, which means that subordinates are able to participate in the leaders’ decisions and express their views, while empowered leadership is more concerned with the delegation of personal authority and job responsibilities, so that subordinates have a certain degree of autonomy in deciding how to work, in order to achieve self-motive ( Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014 ). In addition, empowering leaders have a certain degree of positivity when they delegate their power, but they also tend to make employees feel that the leader is not willing to manage, which reduces the effectiveness of leadership. However, the participative leaders only share decision-making power with subordinates, retaining the authority and responsibility for leadership work and effectively avoiding employees’ perceptions of laissez-faire management. Thus, participative leadership is unique in that it not only achieves performance goals but also reduces the corresponding negative impacts ( Zou et al., 2020 ).

Directive Leadership

Directive leadership is about providing specific instructions to employees and clarifying policies, rules and procedures designed to organize the work of subordinates by providing obvious instructions and expectations regarding compliance with instructions ( Li et al., 2018 ; Lonati, 2020 ). In short, directive leadership is the use of leadership authority to tell subordinates what to do by way of orders, instructions, etc., in order to successfully achieve organizational goals. In other words, directive leadership is the procedure and method by which the leader assigns organizational tasks to subordinates and accomplishes them by means of one-way communication, and there is a relationship of command and obedience, instruction and execution between the leader and subordinates. Not only that, organizations with directive leadership are more likely to have normalized work processes, and employees are likely to obey the precise orders of the leader, allowing themselves to be fully focused on completing specific work tasks ( Lorinkova et al., 2013 ). Consequently, social messages such as clear work objectives, specific work procedures and supervision by organizational leaders create a sense of rules and responsibility among subordinates, but undermine employee creativity. Participative leaders, however, actively engage in interpersonal interaction with their employees in order to make decisions together. And, participative leadership, characterised by autonomy, collaboration and openness, encourages the employees to work innovatively by providing creative ideas and solutions that lead to the best decisions ( Lam et al., 2015 ). Therefore, participative leadership is more effective in stimulating employee creativity than directive leadership.

Research Framework for Participative Leadership

Changes in the external marketplace put forward objective demands on the development of the organization’s strategic solutions, making it difficult for the organization’s leaders to make the right and effective decisions quickly on their own ( Li et al., 2018 ; Zhao et al., 2019 ). Based on a review of previous research, we develop a research framework for participative leadership (shown in Figure 1 ) including the antecedents, mechanisms (mediator and moderator), and consequences of this type of leadership, with a view to clearly showing the lineage of empirical research on participative leadership for scholars’ subsequent exploration.

Figure 1. Empirical research on participative leadership. Data sources were reviewed according to relevant literature; “-”represents the existing research path and variables; “*”represents the path and variables proposed in future research.

The Antecedents of Participative Leadership

The antecedents of participative leadership can provide positive guidance for the development of this leadership research. Currently, the antecedents of participative leadership can be divided into individual-level antecedents and organizational-level antecedents. A lot of studies on antecedents focus on the individual level, such as individual experience, assessment model and leader-member individual difference ( Somech, 2002 ; Li et al., 2018 ). These factors promote leaders to show more participative management behaviors. In contrast, greater organizational control over participative behaviors tends to push leaders to highlight the significance of employee participation in organizational decision-making. As proof, organizational culture and organizational size have great influence on leaders’ participative management behaviors.

Individual-Level Antecedents

Some scholars pointed out that the implementation of participative management is related to personal factors. For example, experienced leaders may be more inclined to engage in participative management ( Somech, 2002 ). Among the specific research on individual influences, the influence of personality tendencies on leadership style has become a key theoretical concern. In particular, based on the regulatory model theory, Li et al. (2018) found that the assessment model refers to the fact that individuals are more concerned with obtaining the best solution during self-regulation, and it is more likely to develop a participative leadership style, while the locomotion model is more concerned with state change and more likely to develop a directive leadership style. At the same time, the leader’s awareness of participative management is key to influencing his or her participative management style and is seen as a determinant of participative leadership. For example, in a research on leaders in business and government, Black (2020) showed that leaders’ self-awareness has a significant impact on their leadership style, and the higher the level of self-reported individual awareness, the more pronounced the participative leadership style. In addition, Somech’s (2003) research (2003), in conjunction with the leader-member exchange model, suggests that individual differences between leaders and subordinates also influence leadership style, the greater the differences, the less likely the leader is to implement participative management. In other words, the quality of the relationship between the leaders and the subordinates may influence the leaders’ management style. On this basis, Chen and Tjosvold (2006) also confirmed the idea that leader-member exchange quality is a key influence on participative management. The study further points out that cooperation, compared with competitiveness and independence, is an important basis for high-quality leader-member exchange, and the resulting leader-member relationships improve individual confidence and overcome cross-cultural differences, thus effectively enhancing participative management.

Organizational-Level Antecedents

Based on existing research, it is easy to understand the important role that personal factors play in predicting leadership styles in managerial roles. However, there can be significant differences in the way individuals lead in different contexts, as individuals in different situational organizations actively socialize by choosing to behave in a way that matches the context in which they are placed. There is no doubt that organizational context becomes a key factor in influencing leadership behaviors and styles ( Schneider, 1983 ). For example, leaders in small-scale societies living in primitive nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies were particularly focused on participative decision-making management, whereas in the era of intensive agricultural societies, as group size increased, participative decision-making management in small-scale societies often became ineffective, while increased social complexity and distortions in the distribution of power made organizational leaders rarely demonstrate participative management and instead gave rise to directive leadership ( Lonati, 2020 ). At the same time, an organizational culture that is acceptable and supportive of participative management in the workplace is also key to the development of participative leadership ( Huang et al., 2011 ). Bullough and De (2015) also analysed this in-depth and state that the social environment significantly increases the effectiveness of participative leadership based on the implicit leadership theory of cultural identity.

Mechanisms of Participative Leadership

We find that participative leadership, based on different theories from the social sciences, has significantly different effects on organizational employees through different mechanisms (mediators and moderators). First, based on social exchange theory, participative leadership influences employees by promoting their job prosperity and mutual help behavior ( Usman et al., 2021 ). Second, conservation of resources theory suggests that participative leadership would change employee behaviors in two different ways, increasing employee workload and improving organizational self-esteem ( Peng et al., 2021 ). Third, research based on social cognitive theory confirms that participative leadership increases employees’ self-efficacy and psychological security, which in turn affects employees’ innovation and performance ( Zou et al., 2020 ). Fourth, social information processing theory implies that the process of participative leadership affecting employee behaviors may be influenced by cultural values and other aspects ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). Fifth, drawing on implicit leadership theory, leaders’ information-sharing behaviors can moderate the relationship between participative leadership and employee performance ( Lam et al., 2015 ).

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory has become an essential theory in researching the relationship between leaders and subordinates’ work attitudes and behaviors ( Miao et al., 2014 ). Some scholars had pointed out that Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is to some extent reciprocal, and that supportive behaviors by the leader in an exchange relationship makes the subordinate feel obliged to reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors. In this way, social exchange theory, to a certain extent, provides a powerful explanation for participative leadership research. Because participative leaders encourage employees to express their personal views and opinions, actively give them the power to make decisions about their work, more respect and information resources to facilitate their participation in organizational decision-making, these signals of concern and support lead employees to perceive favors from their leaders, which in turn leads them to adopt a series of behaviors in return for their leaders ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ). Despite the uncertainty of social exchange, most subordinates will respond positively to the participative management behaviors of their leaders based on the normative principle of reciprocity. Because the process of leaders consulting employees before making decisions makes a positive social exchange relationship, employees tend to perform better at work. Based on social exchange theory, Usman et al. (2021) also confirmed that employees encouraged by participative leadership behaviors performed better in terms of job prosperity and took the initiative to offer help to others.

Conservation of Resources Theory

COR recognizes that individuals have limited resources and that personal resources must be acquired, preserved and maintained on an ongoing basis. “Resources” is a broad term that includes not only the objects (e.g., pay), conditions (e.g., organizational status) and energy that individuals value in achieving their goals, but also individual characteristics. Of these, individual characteristics are seen as important resources that further influence how employees deal with other changes in their resources ( Hobfoll and Shirom, 2001 ). For example, participative management may lead to higher performance goals for highly committed employees and less effort for less committed employees to conserve resources ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). That is, different individuals hold different amounts and types of available resources and respond differently to the problems they face in work. It is important to note that, according to resource conservation theory, individuals are naturally motivated to acquire and maintain the resources that are more important to them. And as a result of this motive, individual resources may undergo two distinct changes in resource gain or resource loss, where resource gain indicates that the initial resource gainer is more capable of acquiring the resource, and resource loss refers to an initial threat to the resource that tends to lead to increased resource loss ( Halbesleben et al., 2014 ). Therefore, Peng et al. (2021) specifically highlighted that, according to resource conservation theory, participative leaders may have different impacts on employee resources through the two pathways described above. First, participative management provides employees with certain resources, resulting in various degrees of increase in employees’ sense of value and self-esteem, thus triggering resource gains. Second, participative management adds extra workloads to employees, thus triggering resource losses. In conclusion, resource conservation theory reasonably explain the effect of participative leadership on subordinates’ work behaviors.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory has found that the external environment, cognitive factors and individual behavior interact with each other, and individuals adjust their cognition according to the information they receive from the external environment, so as to display and maintain behavior patterns that match their own cognition ( Bandura, 1978 ). That is, people can learn indirectly by observing, accurately perceiving the behavior of others and extracting information from it. And in leadership research, employee behavior is a product of perceptions of the environment. As a specific external environment, the messages conveyed by participative leadership style are an important part of employees’ daily contact in the workplace, and by observing and interpreting such messages, employees would change their perceptions of their own abilities and thus adopt behaviors that are consistent with them ( Zou et al., 2020 ). For example, research by Fatima et al. (2017) based on social cognitive theory finds that participative leadership, as one of the important environmental factors, is easier for employees with higher achievement needs to access environmental information and to apply and transform it during the influence of participative leadership on the creativity of their subordinates. Furthermore, within the research framework of the environment-cognition-behavior, participative leadership has been found to be effective in enhancing employees’ self-efficacy (perceptions of self-efficacy) and psychological security (perceptions of the interpersonal environment), contributing significantly to employees’ innovation and performance ( Zou et al., 2020 ). There is no doubt that social cognitive theory provides a new theoretical perspective and research framework for understanding the influence of participative leadership on employee behavior.

Social Information Processing Theory

SIP is concerned with the influence of the work environment on individual behaviors and work outcomes. It aims to reveal that individuals in organizations with a high degree of environmental adaptability actively or passively acquire information from the internal environment and process it according to certain rules to control their own attitudes and behaviors ( Gao et al., 2021 ). And SIP effectively explains individual behavioral change and provides a solid theoretical basis for describing participative leaders’ implementation of participative management. For example, research based on social information processing theory emphases that subordinates’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes are influenced by information about their surroundings, such as values, norms and expectations from society ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). Leaders, in turn, are a key source of information for employees to access, and this information will collectively shape employees’ beliefs. That is, from a social information processing perspective, repeated observations of the leader’s style can enable employees to construct participative decision-making behaviors that the leader appreciates and encourages ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ). Further, research on this theory has found that participative decision-making not only informs employees about the occurrence of behaviors, but even facilitates the transformation of attitudes toward work ( Somech, 2010 ). It is important to note, however, that when cultural values differ, individuals may weigh information that encourages participation in decision-making and thus increase or decrease the impact of such information on their work ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). In particular, the impact that participative management by leaders may have on employees is particularly significant in large-power-distance cultures. It is easy to see that participative management messages originating from the leader are likely to be socially constructed among group members so that employees will agree on the process of working in a particular domain environment and thus adopt organizationally supported behaviors ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ).

Implicit Leadership Theory

The implicit leadership theory, derived from cognitive psychology, emphasizes the expectations and beliefs of employees about the competencies that leaders should possess, and is an “internal label” that distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, effective leaders from ineffective leaders ( Lu et al., 2008 ). In summary, leadership effectiveness in the study of implicit leadership theory does not emphasis the outcome of leadership behavior or focus on the control of situations, but exists in the minds of subordinates as a schema of their perceptions of the leader. Furthermore, if the participative leadership does not send out strong enough signals to stimulate employees to participate in decision-making in line with expectations of participative management, this can prevent the activation of the “participation model” in subordinates. In such cases, employees are more inclined to stick with the status quo and do not respond positively to the participative leader until they perceive that the leader’s participative behaviors have reached a certain threshold level ( Lam et al., 2015 ). It has also been suggested that organizational culture is likely to change the effectiveness of participative leadership, as individuals influenced by their environment shape leader’s expectations, while research based on implicit leadership theory provides insight into how individual perceptions influence effective leader’s behaviors ( Bullough and De, 2015 ). This not only reflects the important role of the theory in participative leadership research, but also provides a sound framework for a better understanding the cross-cultural organizational behavior ( Huang et al., 2011 ).

The Consequences of Participative Leadership

Compared to the antecedents of participative leadership, the consequences can also be divided into the individual level and the organizational level. A lot of studies have focused on employee organizational commitment and voice behavior and so on at an individual level ( Miao et al., 2014 ). In particular, some scholars had found that the participative leadership is positively related to employee mental health, voice behavior, and creativity ( Somech, 2010 ; Fatima et al., 2017 ; Usman et al., 2021 ). In addition, the participative leadership improves performance and innovation at the organizational levels ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ).

Individual-Level Outcomes

The impact of participative leadership on subordinates stems from the leader’s empowerment and the consequent changes in psychology, attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of employees. First, on the psychological front, numerous studies have shown that participative leadership is beneficial to the psychological well-being of an organization’s employees. However, over-reliance on participative management by leaders can also have a negative impact on employees to some extent. In particular, the increased work challenges and responsibilities associated with participative management at work can be more or less burdensome for some employees, resulting in psychological stress ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). Second, in terms of attitude, because participative leadership makes subordinates feel psychologically empowered, it increases the organizational commitment of some employees and even shows complete emotional trust in the leader ( Miao et al., 2014 ). However, it is essential to note that participative leadership has no significant role in influencing employees’ perceived trust. Then, in terms of behavior, Sagnak (2016) noted that leaders who implement participative management significantly increase employees’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors by motivating their subordinates, such as helpfulness among employees at work ( Usman et al., 2021 ). In addition, participative leadership has been a significant contributor to the organizational focus on employee innovation and voice building, and has been supported by numerous scholars ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ). Finally, in terms of outcomes, existing research suggests that participative leadership plays an important role in both the increase in employee performance and the improvement of individual competencies. In terms of current research on job performance, there has been a great deal of scholarly attention paid to subordinate work outcomes and indirectly related job prosperity ( Somech, 2010 ; Usman et al., 2021 ). And on individual employee competencies, creativity has become the focus of the work of some scholars in participative leadership research ( Fatima et al., 2017 ).

Organizational-Level Outcomes

Overall, participative management is gradually becoming an important management initiative for current organizational management practitioners, and participative leadership is undoubtedly a key leadership style that cannot be ignored in leadership research. And most scholars agree that participative leadership has a catalytic effect on organizations. For example, some scholars had analyzed that participative leadership significantly improves organizational performance and innovation ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ). Further, and this is confirmed by Somech’s (2010) research (2010) based on the education sector, participative management has a clear driving effect on the organizational performance in higher education. However, the positive effects of participative leadership are inevitably accompanied by some negative effects ( Peng et al., 2021 ). In this regard, Li et al. (2018) argued, by comparing research on directive leadership, that while participative leadership has a positive impact on organizational creativity, it reduces organizational effectiveness to a certain extent. It is easy to see that the impact of participative leadership style on the organizational level is somewhat unique and complicated. In addition, numerous studies have shown that there may be a series of mediating or interacting effects of participative leadership on organizational performance and corporate capabilities ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ). Among the various research on the effects of participative leadership, it’s particularly critical to emphasize that the fact that participative leadership affects organizations by influencing employees at the individual level has become a consensus in current theoretical research and has prompted a large number of scholars to conduct in-depth studies on the subject ( Kim and Schachter, 2015 ).

Future Research

At present, whether in management practice or theoretical research, there is still a large research space for participative leadership, which needs to be further explored by scholars. Therefore, we prospecte and incorporate some views into the analysis framework (shown in Figure 1 ).

First, most of the existing literature on this leadership style is based on some of the questions in research on empowered leadership, and is still in use today ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). However, the measurement of participative leadership is rather general, focusing on characteristics and behaviors, and lacks a deeper exploration of the psychological dimension ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). With the development of the information technology and the continuous changes in leadership practice, the existing research has not formed a new understanding of the content of the participative leadership style, either in terms of the form of participative leadership or its measurement, so that the development of the theory is difficult to match the current leadership management practice, and some scholars had even appeared to be critical of participative leadership ( Gwele, 2008 ). In other words, previous interpretations of participative leadership have hindered the future research and application of this theory. It is easy to see that the conceptual content of participative leadership theory still has a lot of space to be added and optimised, and that subsequent research needs to take a more comprehensive view of the theory. Therefore, there is an urgent need for theoretical research on participative leadership to be further summarised through more scientific and rigorous analytical methods, such as experimental methods, in order to effectively classify the dimensions of participative leadership according to its modern manifestations and to develop a more mature scale for the measurement of constructs.

Second, previous research suggests that participative leadership might be seen as a rational response by leaders to organizational decisions and employee needs ( Zhao et al., 2019 ). However, participative leaders may also be subject to both internal and external pressures to implement participative management. As research in self-determination theory has shown, individual motivation is divided into autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Whereas autonomous motivation refers to the individual’s action as a result of matching the activity with his or her values, goals, etc., control motivation emphasizes the behavioral activities that the individual is forced to take as a result of external pressures ( Gagné and Deci, 2005 ). Therefore, the antecedents of participative leadership can be studied in detail in the future based on self-determination theory. On the one hand, the influence of individual values, goals and interests on their own management behaviors is analyzed in the light of autonomous motivation; on the other hand, the dual pressure of the internal environment (e.g., professional managerial system) and the external environment (e.g., market uncertainty) places high demands on the scientific and accurate decision-making of leaders, which undoubtedly increases their motivation to control and thus to take part in management in order to avoid the risk of dictatorship that could lead to major risks or losses. At the same time, the theory of planned behavior suggests that individual behavior is determined by their own intentions and perceptual behavioral control ( McEachan et al., 2011 ). Some scholars have found that individual behavioral intentions are positively influenced by their behavioral attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, respectively. That is, they are more likely to engage in participative management if leaders maintain an optimistic attitude toward it, have the support of their employees and believe they can successfully implement it. This suggests that the theory of planned behavior also plays a key role in the antecedents of participative leadership research.

Third, throughout the current research on the results of participative leadership, many scholars have paid attention on the effects at the individual level, such as happiness at work, employee performance, etc. ( Chen and Tjosvold, 2006 ). And there is still more room for research on the analysis of results relative to the organizational level, especially on aspects such as organizational change. As a particular form of group decision-making, participative leadership may have a beneficial effect on smaller organizational changes. However, when faced with large organizational changes, employees may be concerned about career risks and may be a deterrent to smooth organizational change in the process of participation in decision-making. Moreover, much of existing research has focused on the positive effects of participative leadership. However, the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect (TMGTE) also plays a key role in organizational leadership research and cannot be ignored. This effect suggests that over-implementation of a behavior is likely to have potentially negative influences. From this perspective, leaders who practice high levels of participative leadership and over-empower employees to participate in organizational decision-making can lead to the TMGTE. In particular, the dual-task processing effect, whereby participative leaders delegate more power or tasks to subordinates in organizational decision-making, significantly increases the amount and variety of work performed by employees, and reduces employee well-being ( Peng et al., 2021 ). Therefore, a deeper analysis of the formation mechanism of the negative effects of participative leadership can be carried out, and a theoretical framework on the motives, concrete manifestations and path mechanisms of its behavior can be systematically constructed, with a view to providing strategies and suggestions for leaders to make scientific and practical decisions.

Fourth, both management practice and academic studies suggest that participative leaders’ management may be more likely to attract individuals with higher motivation and values to join the organization and, by effectively enhancing the identity of the organization’s members, to successfully implement participative management initiatives, which in turn may evolve into a more integrated and holistic decision-making mechanism covering all employees of the organization ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ). Thus, future research could analyze the mediating effect of organizational identity in the relationship between participative leadership and influence effects based on social identity theory, and further explore other aspects of mediation mechanisms. It’s also worth noting that the relationship between participative leadership and subordinates’ behavioral performance is also influenced by a number of variables, in particular the organizational context (e.g., systems and culture) and individual differences (e.g., subordinates’ regulatory orientation characteristics). As most organizations are now actively building workplaces that attract and retain employees, and as organizations flatten, the culture and systems are more participative, the idea of employee participation in organizational decision-making is being accelerated at all levels of the organization ( Somech, 2010 ; Lythreatis et al., 2019 ). In addition, if employees exhibit promotion focus (prevention focus), they may maintain a positive (negative) attitude toward the leader’s participative management, which also affects to a certain extent the effectiveness of the leadership participative management when implemented. In conclusion, the exploration of the intrinsic mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of the effects of participative leadership is conducive to revealing the operational mechanisms and mechanisms of action of participative management, promoting the integration of relevant factors into a more unified framework and enriching the theoretical research of participative leadership.

Finally, as a type of democratic leadership style, although participative management has attracted the attention of some Chinese scholars. However, influenced by China’s thousands of years of history and culture, long-term authoritarian rule has caused individuals to lack a sense of independence, and employees have shown dependence and submissiveness to their leaders. Therefore, participative leadership has not received much attention from Chinese scholars. However, as the new generation of employees, such as the post-90s generation and post-00s generation, is flooding into various positions in enterprises and institutions, more and more employees are showing strong values of independence and freedom. The practice has also shown that the new generation of employees is active, receptive to information and innovative, and that participation in management not only helps to avoid the negative emotions of employees due to the dictatorship of the leader, but also facilitates the absorption of new ideas and information by the leader, and produces innovative results, which proves the urgent need for participation in leadership in the Chinese society. This is an important signal for Chinese scholars to localize the researches of participative leadership in the context of Chinese society, as western thought is constantly impacting on traditional Chinese culture and organizations in western countries are placing more emphasis on participation in decision-making than China, and are actively taking several measures to this end. Although empirical research on participative leadership has started to gradually increase in recent years, there is still more room for development ( Zou et al., 2020 ). For example, research related to differential leadership based on the question of whether there are differences in the rights of participative leaders to involve different subordinates in organizational decision-making. In particular, leaders who have long been influenced by traditional Chinese culture are prone to self-perception based on closeness of relationships and classify subordinates as insiders and outsiders, resulting in significant differences in access to decision-making authority for different employees.

As the market becomes increasingly competitive, it is difficult for leaders to make effective decisions independently. As a result, participative leadership is becoming an important element in leadership research. Scholars are also aware of the need to implement participative management in organizational decision-making. In terms of current theoretical research, there are elements of participative leadership that can be further developed and explored. From the perspective of management decisions in practice, participative leadership has dramatically improved the effectiveness of leadership decisions. This study systematically sorts out the concept and measurement of participative leadership and compare it with empowering leadership and directive leadership. We not only discuss the antecedents and outcomes of participative leadership, but also provide an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms by which participative leadership influences employees based on social exchange theory, social cognitive theory, resource conservation theory, implicit leadership theory, and social information processing theory. Finally, we propose a framework for future research on participative leadership that encompasses five potential research areas, including connotation, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators, and study of participative leadership in China.

Through a systematic review of research related to participative leadership, this study makes several contributions to the development of participative leadership as follows. First, we clarify the concept, measurement, antecedents, theoretical foundations, and results of participative leadership to lay the foundation for subsequent participative leadership research. Second, we systematically compare participative leadership with directive and empowering leadership, distinguish the similarities and differences among the three, and clarify the unique research value of participative leadership. Third, by reviewing previous research on participative leadership and taking into account current leadership trends, we propose several future research perspectives, thus exploring what is currently neglected by scholars.

Author Contributions

QW mainly made important contributions in clarifying the idea of the article, selecting the research method, literature collection, and article writing. HH made substantial contributions to literature collection, article revision, and optimization. ZL mainly played a crucial role in literature collection. All authors made outstanding contributions to this research.

This research was supported by the State Key Program of National Social Science of China (Project Number # 20AZD095).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Amundsen, S., and Martinsen, O. L. (2014). Empowering leadership: construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadersh. Q. 25, 487–511. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., and Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 249–269. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3<249::AID-JOB10>3.0.CO;2-\#

Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1, 139–161. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4

Benoliel, P., and Somech, A. (2014). The health and performance effects of participative leadership: exploring the moderating role of the big five personality dimensions. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 23, 277–294. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689

Black, G. (2020). The Vital Connection of Self-Awareness to Ethical and Participative Leadership:in the Decision Making Processes. San Diego: Alliant International University.

Google Scholar

Bullough, A., and De, L. M. S. (2015). Women’s participation in entrepreneurial and political leadership: the importance of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories. Leadersh 11, 36–56. doi: 10.1177/1742715013504427

Chan, S. (2019). Participative leadership and job satisfaction: the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 40, 319–333. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0215

Chang, Y. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chen, Y. C. K., Seih, Y. T., and Chang, S. Y. (2021). Participative leadership and unit performance: evidence for intermediate linkages. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 19, 355–369. doi: 10.1080/14778238.2020.1755208

Chen, Y. F., and Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in china:the role of relationships. J. Manage. Stud. 43, 1727–1752. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00657.x

Fatima, T., Safdar, S., and Jahanzeb, S. (2017). Participative leadership and employee creativity: moderating role of need for achievement. NUML Int. J. Bus. Manage. 12, 1–14.

Gagné, M., and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322

Gao, P., Xue, P., and Xie, Y. (2021). Influence of self-monitoring personality on innovation performance from information processing perspective. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 38, 151–160. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2020040203

Gwele, N. S. (2008). Participative leadership in managing a faculty strategy. South Afr. J. Higher Educ. 22, 322–332. doi: 10.4314/sajhe.v22i2.25788

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., and Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “cor”: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manag. 40, 1334–1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130

Hobfoll, S. E., and Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and management in the workplac. Public Policy Adm. 87, 57–80.

Huang, S. Y. B., Li, M. W., and Chang, T. W. (2021). Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and participative leadership in predicting counterproductive work behaviors: evidence from financial technology firms. Front. Psychol. 12:658727. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658727

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., and Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? the differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 122–143. doi: 10.1002/job.636

Huang, X., Rode, J. C., and Schroeder, R. G. (2011). Organizational structure and continuous improvement and learning: moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42, 1103–1120. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2011.33

Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., and Cheung, Y. L. (2006). The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure. Asia. Pac. J. Manage. 23, 345–367. doi: 10.1007/s10490-006-9006-3

Jia, S., Qiu, Y., and Yang, C. (2021). Sustainable development goals, financial inclusion, and grain security efficiency. Agron 11:2542. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11122542

Jing, Z., Jianshi, G., Jinlian, L., and Yao, T. (2017). A case study of the promoting strategies for innovation contest within a company. Sci. Res. Manage. 38, 57–65. doi: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2017.11.007

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Pers. Psychol. 50, 121–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00903.x

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (2004). Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organ. Manage. 29, 67–105. doi: 10.1177/1059601103252100

Kim, C., and Schachter, H. L. (2015). Exploring followership in a public setting: is it a missing link between participative leadership and organizational performance? Am. Rev. Public. Adm. 45, 436–457. doi: 10.1177/0275074013508219

Lam, C. K., Huang, X., and Chan, S. C. H. (2015). The threshold effect of participative leadership and the role of leader information sharing. Acad. Manage. J. 58, 836–855. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0427

Li, G., Liu, H., and Luo, Y. (2018). Directive versus participative leadership: dispositional antecedents and team consequences. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 91, 645–664. doi: 10.1111/joop.12213

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

Lonati, S. (2020). What explains cultural differences in leadership styles? on the agricultural origins of participative and directive leadership. Leadersh. Q. 31:101305. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.003

Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., and Matthew, J. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad. Manage. J. 56, 573–596. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0132

Lu, H. Z., Liu, Y. F., and Xu, K. (2008). Implicit leadership theory: a new development of cognitive revolution in leadership research. Psychol. Sci. 31, 242–244. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.01.058

Lythreatis, S., Mostafa, A. M. S., and Wang, X. (2019). Participative leadership and organizational identification in smes in the mena region: testing the roles of csr perceptions and pride in membership. J. Bus. Eth. 156, 635–650. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3557-8

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., and Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 5, 97–144. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.521684

Miao, Q., Newman, A., and Huang, X. (2014). The impact of participative leadership on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: distinguishing between the mediating effects of affective and cognitive trust. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25, 2796–2810. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.934890

Odoardi, C., Battistelli, A., Montani, F., and Peiró, J. M. (2019). Affective commitment, participative leadership, and employee innovation: a multilevel investigation. Rev. Psicol. Trabajo. Organ. 35, 103–113. doi: 10.5093/jwop2019a12

Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manage. J. 39, 607–634. doi: 10.2307/256657

Peng, J., Zou, Y. C., Kang, Y. J., and Zhang, X. (2021). Participative leadership and employee job well-being: perceived co-worker support as a boundary condition. J. Psychol. Sci. 44, 873–880. doi: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210415

Sagnak, M. (2016). Participative leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship: the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Egit. Arast. 103, 717–722. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2012.12.002

Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 5, 1–31. doi: 10.21236/ada113432

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: an investigation of multiple dimensions. Educ. Admin. Q. 38, 341–371. doi: 10.1177/00161X02038003004

Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 1003–1018. doi: 10.1002/job.225

Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools:a mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educ. Admin. Q. 46, 174–209. doi: 10.1177/1094670510361745

Su, Y., Li, Z., and Yang, C. (2021). Spatial interaction spillover effects between digital financial technology and urban ecological efficiency in China: an empirical study based on spatial simultaneous equations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:8535. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168535

Tang, G. Y., Li, P. C., and Li, J. (2012). A review of frontier research of foreign empowering leadership and future prospects. For. Econ. Manage. 34, 73–80. doi: 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2012.09.010

Usman, M., Ghani, U., Cheng, J., Farid, T., and Iqbal, S. (2021). Does participative leadership matters in employees’ outcomes during COVID-19? role of leader behavioral integrity. Front. Psychol. 2021:646442. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646442

Vroom, V. H. (1959). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 59, 322–327. doi: 10.1037/h0049057

Xiang, C. R., and Long, L. R. (2013). Participative leadership and voice: the mediating role of assertive impression management motive. Manage. Rev. 25, 156–166. doi: 10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2013.07.009

Yan, J. (2011). An empirical examination of the interactive effects of goal orientation, participative leadership and task conflict on innovation in small business. J. Dev. Entrep. 16, 393–408. doi: 10.1142/S1084946711001896

Zhang, Z., Wang, M., and Fleenor, J. W. (2011). Effects of participative leadership: the moderating role of cultural values. Acad. Manage. Proc. 30, 1–6. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2011.65869732

Zhao, C., Tang, C. Y., Zhang, Y. S., and Niu, C. H. (2019). Task conflict and talent aggregation effect in scientific teams: the moderating effects of participative leadership. Sci. Manage. Res. 37, 56–60. doi: 10.19445/j.cnki.15-1103/g3.2019.05.010

Zou, Y. C., Peng, J., and Hou, N. (2020). Participative leadership and creative performance: a moderated dual path model. J. Manage. Sci. 33, 39–51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0334.2020.03.004

Keywords : participative leadership, employee, participation, leadership, organization, decision, effectiveness

Citation: Wang Q, Hou H and Li Z (2022) Participative Leadership: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Front. Psychol. 13:924357. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924357

Received: 20 April 2022; Accepted: 11 May 2022; Published: 03 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Wang, Hou and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Hong Hou, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Leadership: A Comprehensive Review of Literature, Research and Theoretical Framework

2020, Leadership: A Comprehensive Review of Literature, Research and Theoretical Framework. In: Journal of Economics and Business, Vol.3, No.1, 44-64.

This paper provides a comprehensive literature review on the research and theoretical framework of leadership. The author illuminates the historical foundation of leadership theories and then clarifies modern leadership approaches. After a brief introduction on leadership and its definition, the paper mentions the trait theories, summarizes the still predominant behavioral approaches, gives insights about the contingency theories and finally touches the latest contemporary leadership theories. The overall aim of the paper is to give a brief understanding of how effective leadership can be achieved throughout the organization by exploring many different theories of leadership, and to present leadership as a basic way of achieving individual and organizational goals. The paper is hoped to be an important resource for the academics and researchers who would like to study on the leadership field.

Related Papers

Sonali Sharma

Shanlax International Journal of Commerce

vivek deshwal

Journal of Leadership and Management; 2391-6087

Betina Wolfgang Rennison

The theoretical field of leadership is enormous-there is a need for an overview. This article maps out a selection of the more fundamental perspectives on leadership found in the management literature. It presents six perspectives: personal, functional, institutional, situational, relational and positional perspectives. By mapping out these perspectives and thus creating a theoretical cartography, the article sheds light on the complex contours of the leadership terrain. That is essential, not least because one of the most important leadership skills today is not merely to master a particular management theory or method but to be able to step in and out of various perspectives and competently juggle the many possible interpretations through which leadership is formed and transformed.

Fila Bertrand, Ph.D.

Leadership and the numerous concepts on leadership styles have been subjects of both study and debate for years. Every leader approaches challenges differently, and his or her personality traits and life experiences greatly influence his or her leadership style and the organizations they lead. Furthermore, leadership is a notion resulting from the interaction between a leader and followers, and not a position or title within the organization. This essay examines some of the contemporary theories of leadership, the leadership qualities and traits necessary to be successful in today's competitive environment, the impact of leadership to the organization, and the importance of moral leadership in today's world.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE

Vivian A . Ariguzo , Michael okoro

Diverse views have emerged on leadership definitions, theories, and classification in academic discourse. The debate and conscious efforts made to clarify leadership actively has generated socio-cultural and organizational research on its styles and behaviours. This study seeks to identify the theoretical views of various academic scholars on some of the main theories that emerged during the 20 th century include: the Thomas Carlyle's Great Man theory, Gordon Allport's Trait theory, Fred Fiedler's Contingency theory, Hersey and Blanchard Situational Theory, Max Weber's Transactional theory, MacGregor Burns' Transformational theory, Robert Houses' Path-goal theory, and Vroom and Yetton's Participative theory. Empirical discourse that revealed findings of academic scholars have enshrined the import of leadership in organizations. Various academic literature that already have been subject to validity and reliability tests were reviewed and used to arrive at the findings. The study postulated the Mystical-man theory after a rich discourse and recommended it as the ideal theory for all Christian leaders to adopt as it is assumed to provide above average performance at all times, irrespective of followership behaviour.

Neil D . Walshe

The three topics of this volume—leadership, change, and organization development (OD)—can be viewed as three separate and distinct organizational topics or they can be understood as three distinct lenses viewing a common psycho-organizational process. We begin the volume with a comprehensive treatment of leadership primarily because we view leadership as the fulcrum or crucible for any significant change in human behavior at the individual, team, or organizational level. Leaders must apply their understanding of how to effect change at behavioral, procedural, and structural levels in enacting leadership efforts. In many cases, these efforts are quite purposeful, planned, and conscious. In others, leadership behavior may stem from less-conscious understandings and forces. The chapters in Part I: Leadership provide a comprehensive view of what we know and what we don’t know about leadership. Alimo-Metcalfe (Chapter 2) provides a comprehensive view of theories and measures of leadershi...

Transylvanian review of administrative sciences

Cornelia Macarie

The paper endeavors to offer an overview of the major theories on leadership and the way in which it influences the management of contemporary organizations. Numerous scholars highlight that there are numerous overlaps between the concepts of management and leadership. This is the reason why the first section of the paper focuses on providing an extensive overview of the literature regarding the meaning of the two aforementioned concepts. The second section addresses more in depth the concept of leadership and managerial leadership and focuses on the ideal profile of the leader. The last section of the paper critically discusses various types of leadership and more specifically modern approaches to the concept and practices of leadership.

An organization constitute of a diverse group of individuals, working together towards a specified common goal. A robust organizational framework is based upon specified values, believes and positive culture accompanied by effective leaders and managers that are expected to understand their roles and responsibilities towards both the employees and the management of the organization. Culture is recognized as "the glue" that binds a group of people together (Martin and Meyerson, 1988). Therefore, organizational culture entails intelligent and great leaders who value and believe in nurturing employees and appreciate their active participation in the progression of the company (Balain & Sparrow 2009). With that said, management is also one of the crucial organisational activities that is necessary to ensure the coordination of individual efforts as well as the organization's resources and activities. Lastly, leadership in itself is a vital bond that connects effective management and splendid organizational culture. However, for a long time, there has been a disconnect and inconsistency on what entails leadership and management. We identify with scholars who questioned the overlying issues regarding the significant concepts of leadership and management (Schedlitzki & Edwards,2014). It is therefore paramount to understand how leadership and management play critical roles in shaping up contemporary organizations, fundamentally appreciating the applicability that arises with the various leadership styles and management theories while apprehending their link to organization culture.

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development

Prof. Dr. Satya Subrahmanyam

This research article was motivated by the premise that no corporate grows further without effective corporate leaders. The purpose of this theoretical debate is to examine the wider context of corporate leadership theories and its effectiveness towards improving corporate leadership in the corporate world. Evolution of corporate leadership theories is a comprehensive study of leadership trends over the years and in various contexts and theoretical foundations. This research article presents the history of dominant corporate leadership theories and research, beginning with Great Man thesis and Trait theory to Decision process theory to various leadership characteristics. This article also offers a convenient way to utilize theoretical knowledge to the practical corporate situation.

Public Administration Review

Montgomery Van Wart

RELATED PAPERS

Juan Martinez

Zurab Bragvadze

Experiências em Ensino de Ciências

Ticiane Dias

Eduardo Henrique Baltrusch de Gois

Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad

María Verónica Alderete

Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Bidang Pertanian

Siti Julaiha

IMIB Journal of Innovation and Management

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Satish Joshi

Pensamiento. Revista de investigación e información filosófica

Obdulio Banda

jayapal subramaniam

Gabriela Smarrelli

Anttoni Kervinen

Tourism & Management Studies

Regina Leite

SSRN Electronic Journal

Frank Pasquale

Gestão e Desenvolvimento

Luis Farinha

mandeep Chadha

Swapnajeet Das

Pediatric Research

Peggy McCardle

Numerical Methods and Applications

Zarif Sharipov

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Carmem Hara

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Supply chain transformational leadership and resilience: the mediating role of ambidextrous business model

• Taiwen Feng 1   na1 ,
• Zhihui Si 1   na1 ,
• Wenbo Jiang 2 &
• Jianyu Tan 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  628 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

220 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

The global prevalence of COVID-19 has caused many supply chain disruptions, which calls for firms to build resilient supply chains. Prior research primarily examined the effects of firm resources or capabilities on supply chain resilience (SCR), with limited attention given to the critical role of supply chain transformational leadership (SCTL). Based on social learning theory, we explore how SCTL impacts SCR via an ambidextrous business model and the moderating role of paradox cognition. We employ hierarchical regression analysis to verify the hypotheses with data from 317 Chinese firms. The results show that SCTL has a positive impact on proactive and reactive SCR, and the ambidextrous business model mediates this relationship. Furthermore, paradox cognition strengthens the effect of SCTL on the ambidextrous business model. This study contributes to literature and practices in the field of transformational leadership and SCR by providing unique insights into how to improve SCR from a leadership perspective.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

The environmental price of fast fashion

Introduction.

Affected by the global prevalence of COVID-19, frequent supply chain disruptions have occurred (Nikolopoulos et al., 2021 ; Jiang et al., 2023 ; Shen and Sun, 2023 ). Since supply chains are increasingly complex, firms are more likely to suffer from supply chain disruptions (Lechler et al., 2019 ; Spieske and Birkel, 2021 ; Xi et al., 2024 ). It will be difficult for a firm lacking resilient supply chains to survive and compete within a dynamic and uncertain condition. Supply chain resilience (SCR) reflects the capability of a system to maintain desirable functions before/during disruptions and/or timely recover to its normal functions after disruptive events (Gu et al., 2021 ). Understanding the enablers of SCR would help the firm better respond to potential risks caused by supply chain disruptions (Vanpoucke and Ellis, 2020 ).

Firm leaders could play critical roles in reducing disruption risk in supply chains and building a more resilient supply chain (Khunwishit et al., 2018 ). However, little research has checked the effect of transformational leadership within the supply chain context. We define supply chain transformational leadership (SCTL) as a continual influence that the focal firm demonstrates modeling values and reformative behaviors, which motivates its supply chain partners to act similarly with inspiration and close relationships.

While previous studies mainly focused on the roles of specific resources or capabilities on SCR, such as agility, redundancy, and collaboration (Al Naimi et al., 2021 ; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015 ), the strategic role of SCTL has largely been ignored. Previous studies suggest that transformational leadership encourages employees’ reaction to changes in a firm (Peng et al., 2021 ) and increases team resilience (Dimas et al., 2018 ). Hence, high levels of SCTL could operate as role-modeling behaviors for the focal firm’s partners and foster a more resilient supply chain. According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ; Brown et al., 2005 ), the focal firm with high levels of SCTL acts as a reliable role model whom its followers trust and attempt to emulate. That is to say, supply chain partners can learn transformative behaviors by observing the focal firm. As a result, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL acts as a benchmark for its supply chain followers to build a resilient supply chain. Therefore, we propose that SCTL may strengthen SCR.

Firms throughout supply chains often face conflicting objectives while implementing organizational learning to improve SCR (Lee and Rha, 2016 ). That is, they must balance different types of learning strategies, such as exploring potential opportunities to transform supply chains while also exploiting current resources to optimize supply chains. The tension of balancing exploitation and exploration is termed organizational ambidexterity (Kristal et al., 2010 ). According to an ambidexterity perspective (Aslam et al., 2022 ; Eng et al., 2023 ), the focal firm with high levels of SCTL prefers to deal with supply chain disruptions through both exploring external opportunities and exploiting internal resources. However, little is known about how SCTL affects SCR via organizational ambidexterity.

Our research devotes to filling this research gap through clarifying the mediating effect of an ambidextrous business model that encompasses both novelty and efficiency within the SCTL–SCR link. We define an ambidextrous business model as a firm’s boundary-spanning transaction mode developed to create and capture value by both balancing activities of redesigning a novel business model and reorganizing elements of an existing one. Specifically, a novelty-centered business model could help firms explore a new value proposition to meet changing demands in disruptions, whereas an efficiency-centered business model improves inter-organizational transaction efficiency by facilitating supply chain visibility and reducing transaction cost (Wei et al., 2017 ; Zott and Amit, 2008 ). Drawing on social learning theory (Ojha et al., 2018 ), the focal firm with high levels of SCTL may demonstratively build an ambidextrous business model by fostering a supportive organizational context. Then, the ambidextrous business model in the focal firm motivates other supply chain partners to emulate and actively take a similar business model, improving SCR through shared supply chain ambidexterity. In this manner, an ambidextrous business model may mediate the SCTL–SCR relationship.

Furthermore, the focal firm with paradoxical thinking and cognition could also influence its learning strategies (Brusoni and Rosenkranz, 2014 ). That is, paradoxical thinking and cognition would affect the focal firm’s attitude and identification towards tensions (explore or exploit) arising from its contrasting strategic agendas (Smith and Lewis, 2011 ). When the focal firm possesses high levels of paradox cognition, it is more likely to recognize and embrace tensions, making well-balanced strategic decisions through developing transformational leadership. Hence, we propose that paradox cognition enhances the impact of SCTL on an ambidextrous business model.

In sum, this study explores three questions to uncover the impact of SCTL on SCR. First, whether SCTL is positively related to SCR? Second, does ambidextrous business model mediate the SCTL–SCR relationship? Third, does paradox cognition strengthen the role of SCTL on ambidextrous business model? By answering the above questions, this study makes a contribution to research and practices in the field of transformational leadership and SCR.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Supply chain resilience.

Resilience, a multidisciplinary construct originating from engineering, ecology, and psychology (Holling, 1973 ; Novak et al., 2021 ). Although most scholars have viewed resilience as an ability to resist and/or rebound from disruptive events (El Baz and Ruel, 2021 ; Namdar et al., 2018 ), there still lacks a normative definition widely accepted. Later, resilience is extended and applied to the field of social sciences, such as supply chain management and operational management. Due to the prevalence of COVID-19, resilience is particularly valued in global supply chains as supply chains become increasingly complex (Spieske and Birkel, 2021 ).

The major divergences of SCR concentrate on two aspects: influencing scope and attributive level. With regard to the influencing scope, some authors only treat SCR as a reactive capability (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014 ; El Baz and Ruel, 2021 ), while others propose that both reactive and proactive components are indispensable (Gu et al., 2021 ). With regard to the attributive level, SCR is often viewed as a firm’s capability (Ambulkar et al., 2015 ); however, it is more acceptable to belong to a whole supply chain system (Scholten et al., 2020 ). Hence, we define SCR as the capability of a system to maintain its expected functions before disruptions and timely recover to its normal functions during facing interruptions.

SCR has been segmented into various dimensions corresponding to different nodes, disruptive phases, or sub-capabilities. For example, Pournader et al. ( 2016 ) argue that SCR could be divided by the organizational boundary into supplier, internal, and customer resilience. Han et al. ( 2020 ) suggest that SCR could be classified into stages of readiness, response, and recovery. Jüttner and Maklan ( 2011 ) propose that flexibility, velocity, visibility, and collaboration are essential sub-capabilities comprising SCR. Following Cheng and Lu’s study ( 2017 ), we divide SCR into two dimensions: proactive and reactive SCR. Proactive SCR is the capability of a supply chain system to mitigate shocks and keep its normal state before/during possible disruptions. Reactive SCR means the capability of a supply chain system to quickly respond and return to its normal state after experiencing disruptions.

Although previous research has revealed diverse factors in formulating SCR (Razak et al., 2023 ; Scholten and Schilder, 2015 ), transformational leadership is rarely discussed. Prior studies mainly examine the roles of four groups of resources and capabilities in building SCR, including reengineering, collaboration, agility, and risk management culture (Belhadi et al., 2022 ). First, supply chain reengineering is positively related to SCR. Resources and capabilities, such as network structure, security, redundancy, efficiency, innovation, contingency planning, and market position, usually contribute to the realignment of structures and processes within supply chains (Han et al., 2020 ; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017 ), which could help firms deal with new changes. Second, supply chain collaboration is valuable to build SCR. By developing information sharing, risk and revenue sharing, trust, communication, coordination, and integration, the cooperation among different supply chain partners becomes mutually high-quality (Ali et al., 2017 ; Dubey et al., 2021 ; Zhu et al., 2024 ). Third, supply chain agility facilitates the construction of SCR. Flexibility, velocity, visibility, ambidexterity, market sensitiveness, and disruption mitigation (El Baz and Ruel, 2021 ; Gu et al., 2021 ; Jain et al., 2017 ; Kochan and Nowicki, 2018 ) can increase the responsiveness of a supply chain system when facing dynamic business environment. Fourth, supply chain risk management culture, which involves risk awareness, knowledge management, and training and development of a risk management team, can create a proper culture atmosphere in favor of SCR (Belhadi et al., 2022 ).

Beyond four fostering factors, some research has also identified the interactive effects of mixed resources or capabilities on SCR, like industry 4.0 technologies, social capital, leadership, and business model (Belhadi et al., 2024 ; Gölgeci and Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Shashi et al., 2020 ; Shin and Park, 2021 ). However, we still lack knowledge about the strategic role of transformational leadership in fostering SCR. Antecedents of SCR in existing literature are shown in Table 1 .

Supply chain transformational leadership and supply chain resilience

Transformational leadership refers to leaders’ suitable behaviors that drive their followers’ reformative behaviors through continuous motivation and partnership (Bass, 1985 , 1999 ). Existing literature demonstrates that transformational leadership could affect employee attitude (Peng et al., 2021 ) and team resilience in a firm (Dimas et al., 2018 ), while the strategic role of transformational leadership across an entire supply chain system needs more explanation. According to social learning theory (Brown et al., 2005 ), we regard the focal firm with high levels of SCTL as a credible role model whom other supply chain partners respect, trust, and emulate. In this manner, other supply chain partners are likely to learn transformative behaviors by observing the focal firm.

We view the development of SCTL as a role modeling-learning process. That is, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL has an exemplary influence on other supply chain partners via observing and learning from benchmarks. Specifically, SCTL includes three elements: inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Defee et al., 2010 ). Inspiration implies that the focal firm with high levels of SCTL often articulates a compelling vision about a desirable future for the supply chain system. The focal firm, with intellectual stimulation, tends to stimulate other supply chain partners to solve issues by adopting creative and innovative methods. Individualized consideration helps the focal firm understand differentiated demands of supply chain followers, and assists them respectively. Based on social learning theory (Bommer et al., 2005 ), the focal firm’s transformative behaviors benefit its followers by the conveyance of competence. Before/during disruptive events, the focal firm clarifies a reliable vision and motivates followers to observe what it does to improve firm resilience. Targeted support makes it easier for other supply chain partners to master and emulate the focal firm’s resilient actions. In addition, coordination and trust among firms are developed in the social learning process (Mostafa, 2019 ), constructing closer supply chain relationships. Therefore, SCTL could enhance the proactive dimension of SCR.

The focal firm with high levels of SCTL would not only strengthen the proactive dimension of SCR, but also contribute to the reactive dimension of SCR. Drawing on social learning theory (Bommer et al., 2005 ), the focal firm’s transformative behaviors increase the self-efficacy of other supply chain partners. After supply chain disruptions, the focal firm demonstrates its response and encourages followers to achieve quick recovery through their differentially new insights. Besides, as firms in the supply chain are closely connected, all members’ resilient actions would transform into SCR when there are common goals and effective interactions (Gölgeci and Kuivalainen, 2020 ). In this manner, SCTL contributes to the reactive aspect of SCR. Hence, we hypothesize:

H1: SCTL has a positive influence on (a) proactive dimension and (b) reactive dimension of SCR.

Supply chain transformational leadership and ambidextrous business model

Ambidexterity is a special dynamic ability balancing exploration and exploitation simultaneously (Kristal et al., 2010 ; Lee and Rha, 2016 ). Previous literature has identified that different leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, could foster ambidexterity in firms (Jansen et al., 2008 ; Tarba et al., 2020 ). Ambidextrous business model means a firm’s boundary-spanning transaction mode developed to create and catch business value by balancing activities of redesigning novel governance, content, and structure and reorganizing elements of an existing business model. Miller ( 1996 ) identifies that novelty and efficiency are classic themes of designing business models. Specifically, a novelty-centered business model aims to create value and catch potential opportunities by redesigning a new business model, while an efficiency-centered business model devotes to increasing efficiency and decreasing operational cost by reconstructing the current business model (Feng et al., 2022 ; Wei et al., 2017 ; Zott and Amit, 2008 ). Under the context of plurality, change, and scarcity, leaders in firms have more intentions to make decisions from an ambidexterity perspective (Smith and Lewis, 2011 ). According to social learning theory (Wang and Feng, 2023 ), leaders in the focal firm with high levels of SCTL tend to express a committed attitude and take exemplary actions to maintain balancing operations. In other words, employees would be guided to conduct certain transformative behaviors, raising a flexible organizational culture with their leaders’ values.

SCTL, which is viewed as a role model-building process, includes three components: inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Defee et al., 2010 ). First, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL often articulates a compelling vision and sets high-quality standards. Inspiration by the focal firm’s leaders shows necessary confidence in their subordinates’ abilities and encourages employees to recognize the importance of individual effort in creating and capturing value through exploring and exploiting business opportunities. Additionally, the focal firm’s leaders promote collective goal-setting and collaboration among employees based on a shared vision, creating a supportive organizational context characterized by discipline, stretch, and trust (Ojha et al., 2018 ; Xi et al., 2023 ). Second, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL pays much attention to meeting emerging challenges. Intellectual stimulation by the focal firm’s leaders demonstrates transformative ideas and stimulates their employees to provide new insights under a challenging but supportive atmosphere, increasing organizational creativity and contributing to a stretch context (Elkins and Keller, 2003 ). Third, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL actively understands and helps its internal members. Individualized consideration by the focal firm’s leaders offers differentiated support via one-to-one knowledge exchange and creates a heartwarming condition that promotes more assistance among employees, fostering a culture of support and trust (Bommer et al., 2005 ). While a supportive organizational context is developed (Pan et al., 2021 ), a firm with high levels of SCTL prefers to design an ambidextrous business model. Thus, we hypothesize:

H2: SCTL has a positive influence on an ambidextrous business model.

Ambidextrous business model and supply chain resilience

The development of an ambidextrous business model could be recognized as a role model-engaging process. According to social learning theory (Wang and Feng, 2023 ), the focal firm with high levels of ambidextrous business model would serve as an example that provides a flexible business model for its followers. Then, supply chain followers are likely to trust and attempt to emulate the focal firm’s business model when sensing or experiencing frequent supply chain disruptions.

In detail, the focal firm with a high level of ambidextrous business model shows its supply chain partners how to maintain agility before/during disruptions through a proper organization arrangement. A novelty-centered business model could help other firms realize that they must create and capture value through designing new activities of governance, content, and structure to predict/respond to changing environments before/during disruptions. An efficiency-centered business model guides followers to continuously change the current supply chain into a more robust system (Wei et al., 2017 ; Zott and Amit, 2008 ). Besides, when all firms with high levels of ambidextrous business models tend to balance novelty and efficiency simultaneously, they would contribute to a more robust supply chain by preventive supply chain ambidexterity. Therefore, the ambidextrous business model enhances the proactive dimension of SCR.

The focal firm with high levels of the ambidextrous business model provides other supply chain members a valuable frame to quickly react after disruptions as well. Specifically, a novelty-centered business model stimulates other firms to adopt new ideas and norms in solving issues after disruptive events, improving their adaptability and responsiveness. An efficiency-centered business model helps followers achieve greater transaction efficiency and lower transaction costs, facilitating the adjustment of actions and strategies to rapidly respond to disruptions. In addition, firms with high levels of ambidextrous business models jointly balance novelty and efficiency, establishing a more resilient supply chain through responsive supply chain ambidexterity. SCTL contributes to the reactive dimension of SCR. Hence, we hypothesize:

H3: Ambidextrous business model has a positive influence on (a) proactive dimension and (b) reactive dimension of SCR.

In sum, the ambidextrous business model serves as a proper mediator within the role modeling-learning process. Drawing on social learning theory, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL demonstrates an ambidextrous business model through fostering a supportive organizational context. And then other supply chain partners would actively learn and emulate the focal firm’s typical business model based on their trust and common values, improving SCR by supply chain ambidexterity. An ambidextrous business model could transform SCTL into proactive and reactive dimensions of SCR. Thus, we hypothesize:

H4: Ambidextrous business model mediates the relationship between SCTL and (a) proactive dimension and (b) reactive dimension of SCR.

The moderating role of paradox cognition

Paradox cognition refers to an epistemic framework and process recognizing and juxtaposing contradictory demands, which could make latent tensions within organizations more explicit (Smith and Tushman, 2005 ). The focal firm with paradoxical thinking and cognition could influence learning strategies (Brusoni and Rosenkranz, 2014 ; Sheng et al., 2023 ). That is, paradox cognition may affect the focal firm’s attitude and identification towards tensions (explore or exploit) arising from its contrasting strategic agendas (Smith and Lewis, 2011 ). Based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ), when the focal firm possesses high levels of paradox cognition, it is more likely to recognize the importance of ambidexterity. In this manner, leaders’ transformative behaviors in the focal firm with high levels of SCTL would be more easily accepted and emulated by employees to balance both explorative and exploitive learning activities (Han et al., 2022 ), which may help build an ambidextrous business model. By contrast, when the focal firm has low levels of paradox cognition, it tends to choose either novelty or efficiency in designing a business model. The SCTL-ambidextrous business model relationship becomes less important because contradictions in the focal firm are latent. Hence, we hypothesize:

H5: Paradox cognition enhances the impact of SCTL on an ambidextrous business model.

Combining the hypotheses above, we build a conceptual model to check the influence of SCTL on SCR (including proactive and reactive SCR), the mediating role of the ambidextrous business model within the SCTL–SCR relationship, and the moderating effect of paradox cognition. The conceptual model is illustrated in Fig. 1 .

This figure represents the hypothetical relationships among constructs.

Research design

Procedures and data collection.

We gathered data from Chinese manufacturers. Affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturing firms in China suffered from many supply chain disruptions, prompting leaders to realize the necessity of keeping a resilient supply chain (Lin et al., 2021 ; Shen and Sun, 2023 ). It is a challenging objective for manufacturing firms in China as they account for a large share of total exports in the global supply chains. Thus, China provided an appropriate context to explore the antecedents of SCR.

Due to the regional imbalanced characteristic of the Chinese economic force and transportation network (Feng et al., 2019 ; Hosseini et al., 2019 ), we selected sampling firms in five typical provinces: Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, Henan, and Inner Mongolia. Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Shandong, in the eastern coastal areas of China, had relatively high levels of economic force and transportation networks. Henan, in the middle area of China, had average levels of economic force and transportation network. By contrast, Inner Mongolia, in the north and west of China, had relatively low levels of economic force and transportation network.

We adopted three steps to design a questionnaire. First, 12 firm executives, including the chief executive officer, general manager, or vice president, were interviewed to confirm the content validity of our study issue. All these individuals were required to be knowledgeable about their firms’ internal operations as well as external partnerships. Second, an initial questionnaire was developed through literature and expert review, translation, and back-translation. Third, a pre-test with another 20 executives was conducted to provide useful suggestions for modification, forming the formal questionnaire.

We randomly chose 200 firms in each province above and sought cooperation via a cover letter introducing the research intention. All participants were ensured confidentiality. Invitations were sent through emails or telephones, and 435 firms agreed to join our survey total. To mitigate common method bias (CMB), we split each questionnaire into two parts (including parts A and B) and invited different respondents in each firm to complete one part respectively. Part A featured demographic characteristics, competitive intensity, SCTL, novelty-centered business model, and SCR, whereas part B included paradox cognition and efficiency-centered business model.

We distributed and received back the questionnaires through emails from May 2020 to December 2020. 317 valid questionnaires were gathered, with an effective response rate of 72.9%. The final sample included 72 firms in Guangdong, 62 firms in Jiangsu, 67 firms in Shandong, 56 firms in Henan, and 60 firms in Inner Mongolia. The average working experience of 634 respondents was 7.19 years. 64.8% of our respondents held the posts of chief executive officer, general manager, or vice president, and 35.2% were operations directors. The detailed features of sampled firms are presented in Table 2 .

We utilized two steps to verify non-response bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1977 ). First, firm size and ownership were compared for the nonresponding and responding firms. Second, differences in firm size, firm age, industry, and ownership between the early and late responses were also examined. These results of the independent t -test suggested that non-response bias in this study was not a serious issue.

We selected the seven-point Likert scale adopted or adapted from previous studies to measure all constructs in the questionnaire (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Supply chain transformational leadership

A refined seven-item scale from Defee et al. ( 2010 ) was applied to measure SCTL. SCTL was operationalized as respondents’ perceptions of their firms’ influences, which are often the outcome of behavioral factors, including inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Paradox cognition

A seven-item scale from Smith and Lewis ( 2011 ) was used to measure paradox cognition. Respondents were requested to evaluate the degree of their own firms’ dual awareness when making strategic decisions in the last three years.

Ambidextrous business model

A ten-item scale and a nine-item scale were adjusted by Zott and Amit ( 2007 ) to measure the novelty-centered business model and efficiency-centered business model in turn. Additionally, the average value of these two variables was calculated to measure the ambidextrous business model. This approach not only kept convenience to reserve and made logical interpretations for the useful information from both parts but reflected the nature of ambidexterity–seemingly contradictory yet coexisting tensions (Lubatkin et al., 2006 ; Zhang et al., 2015 ).

Following Cheng and Lu ( 2017 ), SCR was divided into two dimensions: proactive and reactive SCR Two altered four-item scales were adopted for proactive and reactive SCR separately (Ambulkar et al., 2015 ; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014 ; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013 ).

Control variables

To mitigate the roles of other factors on analytical results as much as possible, we controlled five demographic characteristics, including firm size, firm age, industry, ownership, and competitive intensity (Ambulkar et al., 2015 ; Gölgeci and Ponomarov, 2015 ). Firm age and firm size were measured by the natural logarithm of the number of years since foundation and the natural logarithm of the number of employees, respectively (Li et al., 2008 ). One dummy variable was to control industry (1 = high-tech firm, 0 = otherwise), and two dummy variables (including state-owned and collective firms and private firms) were to control ownership. A four-item scale was adjusted by Jaworski and Kohli ( 1993 ) to measure competitive intensity.

Reliability and validity

First, we did a reliability test and explorative factor analysis (EFA). All constructs revealed high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha value of more than 0.7 (Flynn et al., 1990 ). Seven principal components were extracted, which was consistent with constructs in the scales (Table 3 ). Second, we made a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by AMOS 24.0 to ensure validity. The results indicated that the measurement model had good fit indices: χ ²/d f  = 2.034; RMSEA = 0.057; CFI = 0.928; NNFI = 0.923; SRMR = 0.038. All constructs’ composite reliability (CR) was more than 0.7, with item loadings varying from 0.760 to 0.939, and all average variance extracted (AVE) values were more than 0.5 (Table 3 ). Thus, the results indicated sufficient convergent validity. Besides, the comparison between shared variances of constructs and the square root of AVE demonstrated that all correlations were less than the corresponding square roots of AVEs (Table 4 ), identifying acceptable discriminant validity. Tables 3 and 4 reported the measure items, reliability, and validity assessment.

Common method bias

We utilized three means to test CMB. First, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, revealing that there were seven principal components (Table 3 ), and no single factor accounted for most variances in these measures. Second, the fit indices of CFA between the actual seven-factor model and the one-factor model were compared, indicating that the one-factor model got significantly worse fit indices. Third, another common method factor was supplemented to the seven-factor CFA model above and it discovered that the fit indices did not change significantly. As a result, there was no serious CMB.

We adopted hierarchical regression analysis and the bootstrapping method by SPSS 23.0 to examine the research hypotheses. First, the effect of SCTL on SCR was examined. Then, the influence of SCTL on the ambidextrous business model, the effect of the ambidextrous business model on SCR, and the mediating impact of the ambidextrous business model within the SCTL–SCR link were tested. Finally, the moderating effect of paradox cognition in the SCTL–ambidextrous business model relationship was examined. Table 5 reports the results of the hierarchical regression model.

To minimize possible multicollinearity, we generated an interaction with mean-centering of both the independent variable and the moderating variable (Aiken and West, 1991 ). The maximal value of the variance inflation factor (VIF) is 1.739, which is much less than the recommended cut-off of 10. Thus, the multicollinearity is not serious.

H1a and H1b predict the positive impact of SCTL on both dimensions of SCR. Models 5 and 9 in Table 5 show that SCTL has a significantly positive effect on the proactive dimension ( β  = 0.122, p  < 0.05) and reactive dimension ( β  = 0.166, p  < 0.01). Therefore, H1a and H1b are supported.

H2 predicts the positive influence of SCTL on the ambidextrous business model. Model 2 in Table 5 indicates that SCTL has a significantly positive impact on ambidextrous business models ( β  = 0.140, p  < 0.05). Hence, H2 is supported.

H3a and H3b predict the positive role of the ambidextrous business model on both dimensions of SCR. Models 6 and 10 in Table 5 suggest that the ambidextrous business model has a positive effect on the proactive dimension ( β  = 0.241, p  < 0.001) and reactive dimension ( β  = 0.256, p  < 0.001). Therefore, H3a and H3b are supported.

H4a and H4b hypothesize that the ambidextrous business model mediates the relationships between SCTL and two dimensions of SCR. According to Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ), Models 2, 5, and 7 in Table 5 jointly demonstrate that the ambidextrous business model ( β  = 0.228, p  < 0.001) fully mediates the relationship between SCTL ( β  = 0.090, p  > 0.1) and proactive dimension, which supports H4a. Similarly, Models 2, 9, and 11 in Table 5 collectively exhibit that the ambidextrous business model ( β  = 0.237, p  < 0.001) partially mediates the relationship between SCTL ( β  = 0.133, p  < 0.05) and reactive dimension, which supports H4b.

To ensure the robustness of the results, we further used the PROCESS macro to conduct a bootstrapped mediation analysis. As depicted in Table 6 , the results keep consistency with the corresponding results in Table 5 , ensuring the effectiveness of analytical findings before.

H5 hypothesizes that paradox cognition strengthens the impact of SCTL on the ambidextrous business model. Model 3 in Table 5 presents that the interaction of SCTL and paradox cognition is significantly positive ( β  = 0.094, p  < 0.1), which supports H5. Moreover, we applied a simple slope analysis to verify the moderating effect of paradox cognition so that a clearer explanation could be given. As illustrated in Fig. 2 , when levels of paradox cognition are higher, the role of SCTL in the ambidextrous business model becomes stronger. Hence, the result further supports a strengthened effect of paradox cognition in the SCTL–ambidextrous business model relationship.

This figure reflects the moderating effect of paradox cognition on the relationship between supply chain transformational leadership and ambidextrous business model.

Discussions and implications

Discussions.

This study intends to verify the impact of SCTL on both dimensions of SCR (including proactive and reactive SCR) through the ambidextrous business model and the moderating role of paradox cognition. Our results exhibit that SCTL has a positive influence on proactive and reactive SCR. This finding is similar to studies that explore the effect of leader–member exchange on network resilience performance in the supply chain context (Shin and Park, 2021 ) or the effect of transformational supply chain leadership on operational performance (Defee et al., 2010 ). However, these studies only emphasize the necessity of inter-organizational relationships and capabilities within the influential process of supply chain leadership on supply chain performance. Our results show that SCTL contributes to proactive and reactive SCR in a social learning process where both firm resilience and supply chain collaboration are indispensable parts.

Our results demonstrate that an ambidextrous business model mediates the impact of SCTL on SCR. This finding is inconsistent with existing studies about the antecedents or consequences of business models (Schoemaker et al., 2018 ; Shashi et al., 2020 ). One possible explanation is that the ambidextrous business model aims at designing new business models to capture and create value while also reconfiguring new combinations to improve transaction efficiency. Our results also indicate that the ambidextrous business model fully mediates the relationship between SCTL and proactive SCR while partially mediates the relationship between SCTL and reactive SCR. That is, the ambidextrous business model occupies a more important position in the SCTL-proactive dimension link. A possible reason could be that compared with intellectual stimulation, the influence of inspiration and individualized consideration is more dispersive within a longer time, improving the necessity of an ambidextrous business model. These results provide new insights to realize how SCTL enhances SCR.

In addition, we identify that paradox cognition strengthens the effect of SCTL on an ambidextrous business model. When the focal firm has high levels of paradox cognition, it tends to recognize the importance of ambidexterity. In this manner, the focal firm’s transformative behaviors would be more easily accepted and emulated by employees to balance both explorative and exploitive learning activities (Han et al., 2022 ), building an ambidextrous business model. This outcome verifies our research hypothesis, indicating the importance of paradox cognition in the SCTL–ambidextrous business model link.

Theoretical contributions

This study contributes to managerial research in three aspects. First, we enrich the antecedents of SCR by confirming the role of SCTL. Existing studies emphasize the impacts of specific resources or capabilities on SCR, such as agility, redundancy, and collaboration (Al Naimi et al., 2021 ; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015 ), while the strategic effect of SCTL is rarely discussed. Previous literature has identified that transformational leadership could improve employee attitude (Peng et al., 2021 ) and team resilience (Dimas et al., 2018 ) at the firm level. Our research extends the concept of transformational leadership to the whole supply chain system and proposes that the focal firm with high levels of SCTL can improve proactive and reactive SCR. Hence, we contribute to the field of SCTL and SCR.

Second, we reveal the ‘black box’ of how SCTL impacts SCR by examining the mediating role of the ambidextrous business model. Existing studies reveal the influence of transformational leadership on organizational ambidexterity (Eng et al., 2023 ) and the impact of organizational ambidexterity on SCR (Aslam et al., 2022 ), while we still lack understanding of how SCTL affects SCR. Previous literature has demonstrated that redesigning a supply chain with high levels of concentration plays a significant role in protecting firm performance when suffering from disruptions (Liu et al., 2023 ). Hence, we contribute to the SCTL and SCR literature by showing a partial mediating effect of the ambidextrous business model in the SCTL–proactive SCR relationship and a fully mediating effect of ambidextrous business model in the SCTL–reactive SCR relationship.

Third, we clarify the boundary condition for the SCTL–ambidextrous business model relationship by examining the moderating effect of paradox cognition. Existing studies show that the efficiency of the learning process would be influenced by external stakeholders (Song et al., 2020 ; Wang and Feng, 2023 ), while the interactive role of internal factors is largely ignored. Previous literature has argued that organizational learning may be influenced by paradoxical thinking and cognition (Brusoni and Rosenkranz, 2014 ). Our findings suggest that paradox cognition would affect the focal firm’s attitude and identification towards tensions (explore or exploit) arising from its contrasting strategic agendas. Under high levels of paradox cognition, the focal firm is more likely to recognize and embrace tensions, making well-balanced decisions. Thus, the efficiency of social learning from SCTL to ambidextrous business model improves, which further emphasizes the necessity of developing paradox cognition within the learning process.

Managerial implications

This study offers three suggestions for managerial practice. First, managers should undertake leading roles and encourage member firms within the supply chain to improve SCR. In a dynamic and uncertain context, the focal firm with high levels of SCTL is effective to motivate its supply chain partners’ transformative behaviors. Managers should develop a reliable role model whom their followers trust and attempt to emulate. They should also develop two types of SCR, including proactive and reactive SCR. Additionally, they should articulate a compelling vision for all supply chain members, providing individualized training to meet the differentiated needs of firms and stimulating supply chain partners to create new insights with a supportive and challenging atmosphere.

Second, managers should establish an ambidextrous business model in firms. The focal firm with high levels of SCTL often demonstrates an ambidextrous business model by fostering a supportive organizational context. Managers should design an ambidextrous business model balancing both novelty and efficiency. Furthermore, they are suggested to motivate other supply chain followers to learn and emulate the focal firm’s transformative behaviors through a shared system vision, promoting communication and coordination among supply chain members.

Third, managers should foster a paradox cognition framework within their firms. Under high levels of paradox cognition, the focal firm is more likely to recognize the importance of ambidexterity and solve tensions from an ambidexterity perspective. Transformative behaviors of the focal firm would be more easily accepted and emulated by its employees. Managers should provide a proper organizational context for employees to improve their paradoxical thinking and cognition to quickly respond to disruptions.

Conclusion and limitations

Drawing on social learning theory, this study clarifies the impact of SCTL on SCR. Our findings reveal that SCTL has a positive influence on both proactive and reactive SCR. In addition, the ambidextrous business model fully mediates the relationship between SCTL and proactive SCR while also partially mediating the relationship between SCTL and reactive SCR. Paradox cognition strengthens the effect of SCTL on the ambidextrous business model.

This study has a few limitations, of course. First, we must demonstrate the effect of SCTL on SCR. Future research could try investigating the roles of other factors, such as transactional leadership to enrich antecedents of SCR. Second, this study only explores the mediating role of the ambidextrous business model between SCTL and SCR. In the future, other possible realization paths from the configurational perspective should be verified (Feng and Sheng, 2023 ). Third, we must identify the moderating impact of paradox cognition within the SCTL–ambidextrous business model relationship. Scholars are suggested to discover more possible boundary conditions like dynamic environment, and build a moderated mediation model to further explore the roles of potential moderators.

Data availability

All data generated and analyzed during the current study are included in this article and a supplementary Excel spreadsheet called ‘Dataset’ which contains all items’ values from questionnaires and other control variables’ values.

Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

Google Scholar  

Al Naimi M, Faisal MN, Sobh R, Uddin SMF (2021) Antecedents and consequences of supply chain resilience and reconfiguration: an empirical study in an emerging economy. J Enterp Inf Manag 34(6):1722–1745

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali A, Mahfouz A, Arisha A (2017) Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 22(1):16–39

Ambulkar S, Blackhurst J, Grawe S (2015) Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale development and empirical examination. J Oper Manag 33-34(1):111–122

Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402

Aslam H, Syed TA, Blome C, Ramish A, Ayaz K (2022) The multifaceted role of social capital for achieving organizational ambidexterity and supply chain resilience. IEEE Trans Eng Manag https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3174069

Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. General Learning Press, New York

Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press, New York

Bass BM (1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 8(1):9–32

Belhadi A, Kamble S, Fosso Wamba S, Queiroz MM (2022) Building supply-chain resilience: an artificial intelligence-based technique and decision-making framework. Int J Prod Res 60(14):4487–4507

Belhadi A, Mani V, Kamble SS, Khan SAR, Verma S (2024) Artificial intelligence-driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the effect of supply chain dynamism: an empirical investigation. Ann Oper Res 333:627–652

Bommer WH, Rich GA, Rubin RS (2005) Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. J Organ Behav 26(7):733–753

Brandon-Jones E, Squire B, Autry CW, Petersen KJ (2014) A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. J Supply Chain Manag 50(3):55–73

Brown ME, Treviño LK, Harrison DA (2005) Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 97(2):117–134

Brusoni S, Rosenkranz NA (2014) Reading between the lines: learning as a process between organizational context and individuals’ proclivities. Eur Manag J. 32(1):147–154

Cheng JH, Lu KL (2017) Enhancing effects of supply chain resilience: Insights from trajectory and resource-based perspectives. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 22(4):329–340

Chowdhury MMH, Quaddus M (2017) Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and scale development using dynamic capability theory. Int J Prod Econ 188:185–204

Defee CC, Stank TPT, Esper T (2010) Performance implications of transformational supply chain leadership and followership. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 40(10):763–791

Dimas ID, Rebelo T, Lourenço PR, Pessoa CIP (2018) Bouncing back from setbacks: on the mediating role of team resilience in the relationship between transformational leadership and team effectiveness. J Psychol 152(6):358–372

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Childe SJ, Fosso Wamba S, Roubaud D, Foropon C (2021) Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. Int J Prod Res 59(1):110–128

El Baz J, Ruel S (2021) Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. Int J Prod Econ 233:107972

Elkins T, Keller RT (2003) Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework. Leadersh Q 14(4-5):587–606

Eng TY, Mohsen K, Wu LC (2023) Wireless information technology competency and transformational leadership in supply chain management: implications for innovative capability. Inf Technol People 36(3):969–995

Feng T, Sheng H (2023) Identifying the equifinal configurations of prompting green supply chain integration and subsequent performance outcome. Bus Strateg Environ 32(8):5234–5251

Feng T, Wang D, Lawton A, Luo BN (2019) Customer orientation and firm performance: the joint moderating effects of ethical leadership and competitive intensity. J Bus Res 100:111–121

Feng T, Yang S, Sheng H (2022) Supply chain integration and novelty-centered business model design: an organizational learning perspective. Eur Manag J https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.12.002

Flynn BB, Sakakibara S, Schroeder RG, Bates KA, Flynn EJ (1990) Empirical research methods in operations management. J Oper Manag 9(2):250–284

Gölgeci I, Ponomarov SY (2015) How does firm innovativeness enable supply chain resilience? The moderating role of supply uncertainty and interdependence. Technol Anal Strat Manag 27(3):267–282

Gölgeci I, Kuivalainen O (2020) Does social capital matter for supply chain resilience? The role of absorptive capacity and marketing-supply chain management alignment. Ind Mark Manag 84:63–74

Gu M, Yang L, Huo B (2021) The impact of information technology usage on supply chain resilience and performance: an ambidextrous view. Int J Prod Econ 232:107956

Han G, Bai Y, Peng G (2022) Creating team ambidexterity: the effects of leader dialectical thinking and collective team identification. Eur Manag J 40(2):175–181

Han Y, Chong WK, Li D (2020) A systematic literature review of the capabilities and performance metrics of supply chain resilience. Int J Prod Res 58(15):4541–4566

Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1):1–23

Hosseini S, Ivanov D, Dolgui A (2019) Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transp Res Part E 125:285–307

Jain V, Kumar S, Soni U, Chandra C (2017) Supply chain resilience: model development and empirical analysis. Int J Prod Res 55(22):6779–6800

Jansen JJ, George G, Van den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. J Manag Stud 45(5):982–1007

Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 57(3):53–70

Jiang Y, Feng T, Huang Y (2024) Antecedent configurations toward supply chain resilience: the joint impact of supply chain integration and big data analytics capability. J Oper Manag 70(2):257–284

Jüttner U, Maklan S (2011) Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 16(4):246–259

Khunwishit S, Choosuk C, Webb G (2018) Flood resilience building in Thailand: assessing progress and the effect of leadership. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 9(1):44–54

Kochan CG, Nowicki DR (2018) Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review and typological framework. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 48(8):842–865

Kristal MM, Huang X, Roth AV (2010) The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance. J Oper Manag 28(5):415–429

Lechler S, Canzaniello A, Rossmann B, von der Gracht HA, Hartmann E (2019) Real-time data processing in supply chain management: revealing the uncertainty dilemma. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 49(10):1003–1019

Lee SM, Rha JS (2016) Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a resilient supply chain. Manag Decis 54(1):2–23

Li JJ, Poppo L, Zhou KZ (2008) Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strat Manag J 29(4):383–400

Lin Y, Fan D, Shi X, Fu M (2021) The effects of supply chain diversification during the COVID-19 crisis: evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp Rev 155:102493

Liu F, Liu C, Wang X, Park K, Fang M (2023) Keep concentrated and carry on: redesigning supply chain concentration in the face of COVID-19. Int J Logist Res Appl https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2175803

Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32(5):646–672

Miller D (1996) Configurations revisited. Strat Manag J 17(7):505–512

Mostafa AMS (2019) Transformational leadership and restaurant employees customer-oriented behaviours: the mediating role of organizational social capital and work engagement. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31(3):1166–1182

Namdar J, Li X, Sawhney R, Pradhan N (2018) Supply chain resilience for single and multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks. Int J Prod Res 56(6):2339–2360

Nikolopoulos K, Punia S, Schäfers A, Tsinopoulos C, Vasilakis C (2021) Forecasting and planning during a pandemic: COVID-19 growth rates, supply chain disruptions, and governmental decisions. Eur J Oper Res 290(1):99–115

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Novak DC, Wu Z, Dooley KJ (2021) Whose resilience matters? Addressing issues of scale in supply chain resilience. J Bus Logist 42(3):323–335

Ojha D, Acharya C, Cooper D (2018) Transformational leadership and supply chain ambidexterity: mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and moderating role of uncertainty. Int J Prod Econ 197:215–231

Pan Y, Verbeke A, Yuan W (2021) CEO transformational leadership and corporate entrepreneurship in China. Manag Organ Rev 17(1):45–76

Peng J, Li M, Wang Z, Lin Y (2021) Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change: evidence from a meta-analysis. J Appl Behav Sci 57(3):369–397

Pournader M, Rotaru K, Kach AP, Razavi Hajiagha SH (2016) An analytical model for system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 21(5):589–609

Razak GM, Hendry LC, Stevenson M (2023) Supply chain traceability: a review of the benefits and its relationship with supply chain resilience. Prod Plan Control 34(11):1114–1134

Schoemaker PJ, Heaton S, Teece D (2018) Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. Calif Manag Rev 61(1):15–42

Scholten K, Schilder S (2015) The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 20(4):471–484

Scholten K, Stevenson M, van Donk DP (2020) Dealing with the unpredictable: supply chain resilience. Int J Oper Prod Manag 40(1):1–10

Shashi, Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Ertz M (2020) Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus Strategy Environ 29(3):1215–1246

Shen ZM, Sun Y (2023) Strengthening supply chain resilience during COVID-19: a case study of JD.com. J Oper Manag 69(3):359–383

Sheng H, Feng T, Liu L (2023) The influence of digital transformation on low-carbon operations management practices and performance: does CEO ambivalence matter? Int J Prod Res 61(18):6215–6229

Shin N, Park S (2021) Supply chain leadership driven strategic resilience capabilities management: a leader-member exchange perspective. J Bus Res 122:1–13

Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ Sci 16(5):522–536

Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):381–403

Song M, Yang MX, Zeng KJ, Feng W (2020) Green knowledge sharing, stakeholder pressure, absorptive capacity, and green innovation: evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Bus Strategy Environ 29(3):1517–1531

Spieske A, Birkel H (2021) Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0: a systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comput Ind Eng 158:107452

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tarba SY, Jansen JJ, Mom TJ, Raisch S, Lawton TC (2020) A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: critical review and research directions. Long Range Plan 53(6):102048

Tukamuhabwa B, Stevenson M, Busby J (2017) Supply chain resilience in a developing country context: a case study on the interconnectedness of threats, strategies and outcomes. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 22(6):486–505

Tukamuhabwa BR, Stevenson M, Busby J, Zorzini M (2015) Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. Int J Prod Res 53(18):5592–5623

Vanpoucke E, Ellis SC (2020) Building supply-side resilience-a behavioural view. Int J Oper Prod Manag 40(1):11–33

Wang J, Feng T (2023) Supply chain ethical leadership and green supply chain integration: a moderated mediation analysis. Int J Logist Res Appl 26(9):1145–1171

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wei Z, Song X, Wang D (2017) Manufacturing flexibility, business model design, and firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 193:87–97

Wieland A, Wallenburg CM (2013) The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a relational view. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 43(4):300–320

Xi M, Fang W, Feng T (2023) Green intellectual capital and green supply chain integration: the mediating role of supply chain transformational leadership. J Intellect Cap 24(4):877–899

Xi M, Liu Y, Fang W, Feng T (2024) Intelligent manufacturing for strengthening operational resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a dynamic capability theory perspective. Int J Prod Econ 267:109078

Zhang Y, Waldman DA, Han YL, Li XB (2015) Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Acad Manag J 58(2):538–566

Zhu J, Feng T, Lu Y, Jiang W (2024) Using blockchain or not? A focal firm’s blockchain strategy in the context of carbon emission reduction technology innovation. Bus Strategy Environ 33(4):3505–3531

Zott C, Amit R (2007) Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ Sci 18(2):181–199

Zott C, Amit R (2008) The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strateg Manag J 29(1):1–26

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72172040), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (HIT.HSS.ESD202333), and the Taishan Scholar Project of Shandong Province (tsqn201909154).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Taiwen Feng, Zhihui Si.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Economics and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology (Weihai), Weihai, China

Taiwen Feng & Zhihui Si

School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Wenbo Jiang

College of New Energy, Harbin Institute of Technology (Weihai), Weihai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Taiwen Feng: Conceptualization, investigation, data curation, funding acquisition, supervision, writing-review and editing. Zhihui Si: Methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing-original draft, and editing. Wenbo Jiang: Investigation, data curation, writing-review, and editing. Jianyu Tan: Data curation, writing-review, and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenbo Jiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The survey process and procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was obtained from the Professor Committee at the School of Economics and Management of Harbin Institute of Technology (Weihai), China. The ethical approval protocol number 2020-01.

Informed consent

The data collection process was conducted with strict adherence to ethical considerations. Informed consent was given to all respondents, and respondents were assured that data would be treated confidentially and used only for research purposes. They were also informed that all private information, including their names and companies’ names, would be anonymized in the study results.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feng, T., Si, Z., Jiang, W. et al. Supply chain transformational leadership and resilience: the mediating role of ambidextrous business model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 628 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03099-x

Download citation

Received : 21 November 2023

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03099-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wolters Kluwer - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10227853

Leadership Development Recommendations for Clinical Nurse Managers to Bolster the Postpandemic Workforce

The postpandemic atmosphere has created a perfect storm that has necessitated a renewed prioritization to bolster support for the role of the clinical nurse manager. Role transition, competencies, mentorship, and ongoing development for the clinical nurse manager have been solidly supported in nursing leadership literature for decades. Preparing competent, ready-to-respond, people-oriented, transformational nurse leaders for these positions is essential to survival of our health care workforce. This article includes a summative review of comprehensive published findings related to nurse manager competency, development, and support. Findings have been correlated with one health system's postpandemic internal surveys, focus groups, reaction panels, and gap analysis to validate historic recommendations and prepare for program development. The purpose of this project was to endorse manager support and development recommendations and implement an evidence-based program to better prepare clinical nurse managers in today's health care leadership reality.

FRONTLINE CLINICAL NURSE MANAGERS (CNMs) are vital to operations, safe patient care delivery, and clinical effectiveness in health systems. Historically, clinical knowledge and experience have been adopted as primary preparation for these mid-level manager roles. Over the last 10 years, patient acuity and complexity have caused the health care environment to become increasingly challenging. This paired with uncertainties related to workforce changes and the recent global pandemic have magnified the level of required knowledge, skills, and abilities for the CNM. Health care systems have an imperative to elevate preparation, training, and support for nursing leaders for sustainability. With the current average CNM tenure of 2 to 3 years, 1 the task of maintaining a cadre that is prepared for the future appears daunting. This project was designed to validate prepandemic best practices for nursing leader development and describes one health care system's design, development, and implementation plan for nu-rse manager postpandemic support including

• American Organization for Nursing Leadership (AONL)–based competency tool and transition pathway;
• structured, guided, and accountable mentorship;
• evergreen leadership development sessions focused on experiential, application, and reflective learning; and
• recommendation for a foundational vendor-led workshop for novice nurse managers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A systematic, critical literature review was performed to assess pertinent competency and transition support recommendations. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed publications in the last 5 years. Electronic databases of PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar, and Cochran were searched. Ancestry search was also conducted to resource additional, relevant publications. Search terms included “clinical nurse manager,” “nursing leader,” “nurse leader orientation,” “nurse leader competencies,” and “transition to role.”

CNM competencies and development program content

The AONL program and competencies were most frequently referenced and supported in the literature. 1 – 5 Most development programs focused on goals and desired outcomes to drive content and competencies. More specifically, staff engagement, patient experience, and excellence in nursing were noted to be important to most health systems. 3 Decision making, communication, and relationship building were the most reported stand-alone competencies. 6 In reviewing literature for personal leader benefits, Warshawsky and Cramer 1 correlate confidence in role to competency procurement. McGairty et al 7 further underscore the importance of defined competencies and implications on confidence, ability, and culture when building development programs around core competencies.

CNM program design

Program designs varied in all studies. Most averaged 1 year of targeted support time with a recommendation to then transition to an ongoing structured leadership or mentorship program. McBride et al 6 provide specific details on the design and varying pathways of mentorship as part of a support program. Warshawsky et al 8 recommend simulation as an added strategy to practice response skills that are required for success in the role. Bryant et al 9 describe the effectiveness of experiential learning and project work used in the Robert Wood Johnson Executive Nurse Fellows Program to provide opportunities for real-time application. Experiential, hands-on learning program designs were the most reported learning strategies for optimal outcomes.

Transition to practice support and timing recommendations

Several programs included elements of ongoing development and mentorship to support transition to practice. Pedersen et al 10 describe leader retention and enculturation as benefits of a full immersion pipeline program and underscore the importance of succession planning and mentorship. Recommendations about when nurse leaders should complete a structured competency-based transition to practice program ranged from starting development in preleadership informal leader roles to continuing focused support for CNMs with less than 3 years of experience (novice) in the role. 1 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 10 Literature suggests that it takes a CNM 5 years to achieve competency and 7 years to become proficient in leadership operations. 1 Building a structured, comprehensive program to guide nurse leaders as they make the role transition from clinical expert to leadership novice is essential to strengthening the nurse leader's future and current workforce.

Summary of literature review

Improved engagement scores, higher leader retention rates, improvements in patient measures and outcomes, and confidence as a leader were among the most frequently reported positive outcomes of CNM development and support programs. 3 , 4 , 10 The literature review yielded recommendations for a structured transition to practice program with defined AONL-driven competencies as outcomes for ongoing learning. Program length and design varied across all studies, signaling that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for leadership development training. Program benefits and positive outcome data were reported in all studies. A majority of the CNM competency areas highlighted relational skills. Clinical nurse managers who are “competent in relationship building are better prepared to develop strong cohesive teams who deliver high-quality care.” 7 (p281) Several studies recommended that competency definition was pivotal to building confidence and success in frontline nursing leaders. 1 , 3 , 4 , 11 Most programs provided elements of transition to practice support through development pathways leading up to CNM roles, navigation through the onboarding period, defined competencies, and guided ongoing mentorship. 3 , 6 , 8 , 11 A comprehensive program that includes competency and mentorship and is focused on support and relational skills for CNMs is recommended.

To validate the summative literature and recommendations for postpandemic validation, this multihospital mid-Atlantic health care system conducted surveys, focus groups, and reaction panels. Project sponsors reviewed human resources systems data and cross-walked internal and external nurse leader development programs and competencies. The health care system prioritized support of the CNM role as 1 of 4 nursing strategic imperatives for 2022. This allowed laser focus and resourcing to arrive at program recommendations and a plan for implementation.

Nurse manager composite

A composite of the health care system's CNM was pulled from the internal human resources information system. The data sample included hospital-based CNMs in March 2022 (n = 196). The average nursing experience of CNMs was 13.9 years. Average CNM tenure was 3.6 years with a range spanning novice (0.2 years) to experienced leader (20.7 years). The sample and inclusion in the survey, focus groups, and reaction panel include all CNM roles within 12 acute care inpatient hospitals and 3 free-standing emergency departments. These data follow prepandemic literature trends, which describe nurse managers as experienced clinical experts who are promoted into leadership based on success in direct care nursing roles.

Survey of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

A survey of all current CNMs was conducted across the health care system and results were organized into a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) format. The survey response rate was 32% (n = 63). All 12 hospitals across the health care system were represented in the survey data. Clinical nurse managers from all unit types except behavioral health and pediatrics responded. A slight majority of CNMs (55.6%) reported having less than 15 years total nursing experience before stepping into the CNM role. The average tenure in the CNM position was 3.6 years with 76.5% of CNMs reporting less than 5 years' experience in nursing leadership. Perception of lack of training, preparation, and resources available during the transition to the CNM role and challenges identified in the current state SWOT analysis were opportunities identified in this survey. Responses and trends from the survey about leadership preparation and development closely aligned with national status reports (ie, American Nurses Association [ANA], Advisory Board, AONL).

The SWOT analysis survey format included open-ended questions and utilized a Likert scale to provide revealing detail about CNM role preparation, ongoing development needs, and perception of current state of role quality. The Likert scale of 0 (Unprepared) to 5.0 (Fully Prepared) revealed an average rating of 2.5 (Somewhat Prepared) when inquiring about leadership development preparation for the current CNM role. A majority of 87.3% responded that a formal mentoring relationship with structured dialogue would have been helpful when starting the role. Of CNMs surveyed, 65% did not have a defined succession plan. Resource support and leadership development were identified as opportunities in gap analysis questions. Top ranked needs included regulatory navigation, safety, and clinical performance improvement support. The survey also validated Warshawsky and Cramer 1 who structured that orientation and mentorship would be valuable best practice for successful role transition.

Focus groups

Focus groups were organized and facilitated to gain additional insight to needs and concerns. Focus group participant CNMs (n = 23) represented all health care system hospitals and a variety of general nursing and specialty areas. The CNM role experience ranged from 4 months to 16 years. The focus groups provided more detailed, personal, and health care system–specific insight, additional current state analysis, and success driver requests than the survey and SWOT. Clinical nurse managers also voiced the need for ongoing learning for continued role development. Items identified for initial orientation were echoed in requests for ongoing professional development.

Themes from the focus groups included the following:

• Orientation and ongoing professional development : Most participants revealed a lack of specific preparation or training before entering the CNM role. This theme aligns with literature indicating that nursing leaders are commonly promoted because of clinical nursing expertise. 8 The focus groups confirm a shift from expert back to novice without the support of orientation or transition to role. The sentiment that “I learned by myself day by day” was a common refrain from the groups when recalling formative years in the role. The need for more preparation and training for transition to the role included the following:
• Technical skills : Budget and health care finance, payroll, identification of and access to critical applications, productivity, standardized list of expectations for role clarity, and use of technology applications.
• People-centered soft skills : Employee performance management, feedback, crucial conversations, employee conflict, and prioritization.

Review of internal resources and external programs and competencies

A crosswalk of internal resources and external nurse leadership development programs and competencies was leveraged as a framework for recommendations and program development. Best practice for CNM role transition, development, and competencies were requested via interview from comparable external health systems. Responding systems stated similar perceived or identified gaps for competency, development, and support of the CNM role. Most health systems had some form of checklist or pathway to guide CNM with orientation but did not have a standardized CNM competency tool. Given the solid benefits of competency completion from the literature, competency tool definition and development became a priority gap identified by this project.

Leadership development programs offered by nursing vendors were reviewed and crossed for content, cost, frequency of program sessions, setting of offering (virtual, in-person, asynchronous, etc), and availability of contact hours awarded on completion. At the time of the program crosswalk, a variety of programs were offered through AONL, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), ANA, and Lippincott.

Competency tool development

The literature review, internal surveys, and focus groups identified that CNMs have a very unique set of experiences and challenges to achieving excellence in the role. Although there is a strong presence of leadership development for general manager roles within the health care system, the lack of a comprehensive competency tool specifically for CNMs was a gap. Without support of a role-specific competency tool, CNMs are at risk for uncontrolled scope, undefined expectations, and inability to successfully function. Role clarity and intentional movement toward competency will work toward building confidence and satisfaction in role. 1 , 3

An AONL-based competency tool was developed by the clinical education department team of the health care system. The tool was reviewed by internal CNMs and nurse executive sponsors. The tool was designed to be independently driven with periodic review and validation from a peer or leader. It is organized to identify beginner and advanced competencies to guide leader progression. A transition pathway was developed to complement the competency tool. This pathway takes the CNM through the first week, 30 days, and 90 days to help the leader prioritize, reach milestones, and limit the overwhelming feelings that can come along with learning such an expansive role.

Mentorship program

The most requested item by the CNMs in the health care system was a formal structured mentorship. Correlating studies identify mentorships as a cornerstone for the progression, development, and support of CNMs. 8 , 11 The mentorship program includes a formalized relationship with a matched mentor with scheduled meeting sessions. A mentorship tool kit supports guided dialogue and reflective exercises to enhance the sessions. The program has been designed to include an accountability plan to support sustainability.

Leadership program development

This project verified the continued postpandemic need for CNM competencies, mentorship, and ongoing leadership development to support the role. In-person simulation-based classes were developed to reinforce competencies and provide guided practice. Specific content was selected on the basis of feedback from internal and evidence-based input drivers and focuses on relational, experiential, and application learning. Because the health care system spans the mid-Atlantic region, classes will be offered on a rotating basis in the 2 major geographic regions.

The planned personal connection and networking are intentional and important core characteristics of the development classes. Nawaz, 12 in a recent Harvard Business Review article, underscores the value of creating a sense of belonging and facilitating connection in the post-COVID workplace. The classes will help model and support connection as a key attribute of success for CNMs and will allow leaders to connect on a personal level with each other.

Foundational vendor workshop for novice nurse managers

The crosswalk analysis performed as part of the design phase of the comprehensive recommendations revealed several nurse leader or manager programs offered by nursing vendors. The AONL: Transition to Nurse Manager Practice and ANA: New Nurse Manager Basics Workshop programs were selected as preferred programs for novice nurse managers. Enrollment targets CNMs who have less than 3 years' experience in any leadership role. These programs are meant to provide a solid foundation for general people-centered and technical skills required for the role.

Implementation plan

The CNM pathway begins with new to role CNMs and includes a warm welcome from the health care system's clinical education team during the first week to introduce the program, competency tool, internal classes, foundational vendor workshop options, and resources for successful mentor identification and mentorship program introduction. The formalized mentorship program is required for all new CNMs and is fully supported with accountability tracking. Novice CNMs are supported to attend a nurse manager foundational vendor workshop. Existing novice CNMs with less than 3 years' experience are encouraged to attend all internal classes, and current CNMs beyond novice experience are invited to choose and attend any internal classes that support personal and professional development gaps.

Evaluation of program outcomes is measured by direct and indirect methods. Evaluation of content and quality of sessions will be achieved using postsurveys given to program participants. Interim pulse check surveys have been designed to monitor perceived effectiveness, progress, and accountability. Evaluation of direct outcomes is focused on measuring self-confidence. The Van Dyke Nurse Manager Confidence Survey (NMCS) was selected as a valid and reliable tool to assess this outcome data with permission of use from the author received by the health care system. The 15 items in the survey concentrate on manager skills and behaviors that influence confidence. The NMCS is given to the participants before attending their first internal class and is administered again 1 month after completion of the class series. Several indirect data points and trends are included for evaluation within the health care system. Staff turnover; manager retention; staff, manager, and patient satisfaction; safety events; and quality outcome data will be compared between hospital units of CNM program participants and nonparticipants.

Barriers to success and future recommendations

Although the project served to validate and describe effective postpandemic recommendations for development of CNMs, there are some potential barriers to success that should be noted. Warshawsky et al 8 (p255) warn, “Despite recognition of the need for more competent nurse managers, nurse leaders cited fiscal constraints and operational demands” continue to present as barriers to implementing sustainable CNM development programs. They add, “The blueprint for successful nurse manager role transition begins with policies that promote nurse manager competency when assuming the role.” 8 (p260) Although these are real concerns, health systems will need to prioritize and push through steadfast support for role transition, mentorship, and ongoing leadership development to stabilize the mid-level manager workforce. Including return on investment as part of program evaluation can mitigate historic barriers and influence sustainability.

Another area of concern elevated by the literature and the postpandemic internal snapshot assessment performed for this project was span of control (SOC). Even with intentional transition, mentorship, and development, too wide of a SOC can lead to persistent negative impacts on key performance indicators, staff and manager satisfaction, safety, and engagement. 13 – 21 New-generation CNMs want more than just resources and training. They want work-life balance, flexible scheduling, and administrative support. 22 Assessment of SOC and ensuring a balance of work time and time away from work must also be considered and corrected to achieve the level of success that is required in today's increasingly demanding health care environment. Expanded and applied inquiries around the intersection of SOC, work-life balance, and adequate leadership development and training are needed to better understand outcome relationships.

The authors disclose that they have no significant relationship with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article.

Leadership and the Process of Internationalization of Family Businesses: A Systematic Review of Literature

• First Online: 17 May 2024

Cite this chapter

• Juliana R. Baltazar 6  

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

The leaders of family businesses have a great impact on the decision-making that the company decides to make, so the leadership presented by these managers impacts the company’s processes, one of which is the internationalization of companies. The aim of this research is to discover how leadership influences the process of internationalization of family businesses, and in order to achieve this objective, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, using the Web of Science database. The 96 articles selected in the database were analyzed with the VOSviewer software , which shows the dispersion of the theme of leadership and internationalization of family businesses. This research contributes to the construction of an agenda on the process of internationalization of family businesses, and how this is influenced by leadership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abdellatif, M., Amann, B., & Jaussaud, J. (2010). Family versus nonfamily business: A comparison of international strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1 (2), 108–116.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barac, M., & Moner-Colonques, R. (2022). Leadership in internationalization strategies . Manchester School.

Book   Google Scholar  

Baranyai, T., & Kozma, M. (2019). Family firms with new leaders in the global market- A potential success story? Acta Oeconomica, 69 , 131–162.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.

Belderbos, R., Lykogianni, E., & Veugelers, R. (2008). Strategic R&D location by multinational firms: Spillovers, technology sourcing, and competition. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17 (3), 759–779.

Google Scholar  

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms. Family Business Review, 25 (3), 258–279.

Boubaker, S., Nguyen, P., & Rouatbi, W. (2016). Multiple large shareholders and corporate risk taking: Evidence from French family firms. European Financial Management, 22 (4), 697–745.

Cesinger, B., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2014). The alchemy of family enterprises’ internationalisation: Dexterous movers or prodigal laggards? European Journal of International Management, 8 (6), 671–696.

Chhotray, S., Sivertsson, O., & Tell, J. (2018). The roles of leadership, vision, and empowerment in born global companies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16 (1), 38–57.

Cho, J., & Lee, J. (2018). Internationalization and performance of Korean SMEs: The moderating role of competitive strategy. Asian Business & Management, 17 (2), 140–166.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 29 (5), 555–576.

Christensen-Salem, A., Mesquita, L. F., Hashimoto, M., Hom, P. W., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2021). Family firms are indeed better places to work than non-family firms! Socioemotional wealth and employees’ perceived organizational caring. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12 (1), Article 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100412

Cruz, C., & Justo, R. (2017). Portfolio entrepreneurship as a mixed gamble: A winning bet for family entrepreneurs in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 55 (4), 571–593.

Cruz, C., Firfiray, S., Makri, M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2015). Socioemotional wealth: An obstacle or a springboard to creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship in family firms? In C. E. Shalley, M. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship: Multilevel linkages (pp. 509–521). Oxford University Press.

Cui, L., Li, Y., Meyer, K. E., & Li, Z. J. (2015). Leadership experience meets ownership structure: Returnee managers and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Management International Review, 55 (3), 355–387.

D’Angelo, A., Majocchi, A., & Buck, T. (2016). External managers, family ownership and the scope of SME internationalization. Journal of World Business, 51 (4), 534–547.

Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34 (6), 1093–1116.

De Massis, A., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Advancing family business research: The promise of microfoundations. Family Business Review, 31 (4), 386–396.

Demirtas, O. (2015). Ethical leadership influence at organizations: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 126 , 273–284.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (4), 355–391.

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage Publications Ltd.

Donckels, R., & Fröhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS. Family Business Review, 4 (2), 149–160.

Dung, L. T., & Giang, H. T. T. (2022). The effect of international intrapreneurship on firm export performance with driving force of organizational factors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37 (11), 2185–2204.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10–11), 1105–1121.

Esteban-Jardim, P., & Urraca- Ruiz, A. (2018). Does internationalization matter? Comparing the innovative performance of Brazilian multinational and non-multinational companies. Transnational Corporations Review, 10 (4), 33–358.

Fernández, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2005). Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family businesses: Some influential factors. Family Business Review, 18 (1), 77–89.

Ferraris, A., Giachino, C., Ciampi, F., & Couturier, J. (2021). R&D internationalization in medium-sized firms. The moderating role of knowledge management in enhancing innovation performances. Journal of Business Research, 128 , 711–718.

Ferreira, J. J. M., Ferreira, F. A. F., Fernandes, C. I. M. A. S., Jalali, M. S., Raposo, M. L., & Marques, C. S. (2015). What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12 (3), 713–733.

Fries, A., Kammerlander, N., & Leitterstorf, M. (2021). Leadership styles and leadership behaviors in family firms: A systematic literature review. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12 (1), 100374.

Gao, G. Y., Murray, J. Y., Kotabe, M., & Lu, J. Y. (2010). A strategy tripod perspective on export behaviors: Evidence from domestic and foreign firms based in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (3), 377–396.

García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65 (7), 1040–1050.

Giang, H. T. T., & Dung, L. T. (2021). Transformational leadership dimensions and dimensions and job-based psychological ownership as facilitators in international intrapreneurship of family firms. South East Asian Journal of Management, 15 (2), 188–211.

Glinkowska, B. (2017). Features of the international manager-leader of the near future-findings of the research. Management-Poland, 21 (1), 120–132.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Makri, M., & Kintana, M. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (2), 223–252.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C. C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1), 653–707.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Patel, P. C., & Zellweger, T. M. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44 (4), 1369–1397.

Gonçales Filho, M., de Campos, F. C., & Assumpção, M. R. P. (2016). Revisão sistemática da literatura com analise bibliométrica sobre estratégia e Manufatura Enxuta em segmentos da indústria. Gestão & Produção, 23 (2), 408–418.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 193.

Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 767–798.

Hoskisson, R., Eden, L., Lau, C., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 , 249–267. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556394

Huang, X. Y., Chen, H. Q., Wang, L. Y., & Zeng, S. X. (2020). How does leader narcissism influence firm internationalization? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67 (3), 683–696.

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 49–63.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 23–32.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9), 1411–1431.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63 (2), 96–110.

Khan, Z., & Lew, Y. K. (2018). Post-entry survival of developing economy international new ventures: A dynamic capability perspective. International Business Review, 27 (1), 149–160.

Kim, J., & McLean, G. N. (2015). An integrative framework for global leadership competency: Levels and dimensions. Human Resource Development International, 18 (3), 235–258.

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2), 124–141.

König, A., Graf-Vlachy, L., & Schöberl, M. (2021). Opportunity/threat perception and inertia in response to discontinuous change: Replicating and extending Gilbert (2005). Journal of Management, 47 (3), 771–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320908630

Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1 (2), 97–107.

Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Besler, M., Stieg, P., & Martinez-Ciment, C. (2018). The influence of leadership styles on the internationalisation of ‘born-global’ firms and traditionally global-expanding firms. European Journal of International Management, 12 (5–6), 554–575.

Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K., & Cadogan, J. W. (2004). The effect of environmental turbulence and leader characteristics on international performance: Are knowledge-based firms different? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne des Sciences de L Administration, 21 (1), 35–50.

Lee, S. B., Kotabe, M., Yoon, A. H., & Kwon, K. H. (2013). Export strategies and performance of Small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Korean manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Korea Trade, 17 (1), 1–24.

Lim, S. L., & Wu, M. F. (2010). Family ownership and risk-taking: Exploring nonlinear effects in financial industry. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (17), 3738–3751.

Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 565–586.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4), 481–498.

Martin, G., Campbell, J., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2016). Family control, socioemotional wealth and earnings management in publicly traded firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (3), 453–469.

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 902–906.

Morgan, T., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2014). Hooked on a feeling: The affective component of socioemotional wealth in family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5 , 280–294.

Muralidharan, A., & Pathak, S. (2017). Informal institutions and international entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 26 (2), 288–302.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45–64.

Pearson, A. W., & Marler, L. E. (2010). A leadership perspective of reciprocal stewardship in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (6), 1117–1124.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors . Free Press.

Prasetyo, A. H. (2016). What drives international competitiveness? An empirical test in emerging Indonesian market. Journal of Competitiveness, 8 (4), 124–139.

Pulido, L. S., Gene, J. M., & Larraz, J. L. G. (2021). Internationalization of family firms: The effect of CEO attributes. Journal of Management & Governance.

Ramon-Llorens, M. C., Garcia-Meca, E., & Durendez, A. (2017). Influence of CEO characteristics in family firms internationalization. International Business Review, 26 (4), 786–799.

Ratajczak-Mrozek, M. (2015). The aspect of time in research on the internationalization of companies, Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, GNPJE 2015, 278 (4), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.33119/GN/100821

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (9), 867–897.

Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2022). Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13 (3), 100422.

Shen, C., Nguyen, D. T., & Hsu, P.-Y. (2019). Bibliometric networks and analytics on gerontology research. Library Hi Tech, 37 (1), 88–100.

Sirmon, D., & Hitt, M. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27 (4), 339–358.

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4), 265–269.

Smith, L. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30 (1), 83–106.

Smuttrasen, K., & Heo, D. (2020). The impact of leader roles on cross-border knowledge management and the development of boundaryless business models: A case study of Thai construction companies. Knowledge and Process Management, 27 (1), 53–62.

Sullivan, D. (1994). Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (2), 325–342.

Szymanski, M., Villar, F. V., & Zepeda, M. C. (2021). Multicultural individuals and theirs potential to become international entrepreneurs. Thunderbird International Business Review, 63 (6), 735–749.

Teece, D. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Platforms (Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 37) , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220170000037008

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222.

Wang, X. T., & Jiang, M. S. (2018). Learning alongside and learning apart: Successor nurturing styles in family business succession. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16 (2), 258–266.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–180.

White, H., & McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (4), 327–355.

Xie, L. (2019). Leadership and organizational learning culture: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Training and Development, 43 (1/2), 76–104.

Yoon, J., & Suh, M. G. (2021). The key elements of strategic leadership capabilities to the latecomer firm: The case of RT Mart’s success in the Chinese retail industry. Asia Pacific Business Review, 27 (1), 29–52.

Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 341–363.

Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (5–6), 469–492.

Zahra, S. A., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17 (4), 331–346.

Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30 (1), 333–351.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidade da Beira Interior & NECE Research Unit Portugal, Covilhã, Portugal

Juliana R. Baltazar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliana R. Baltazar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Almazov National Medical Research Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Evgeny Schlyakhto

School of Business Engineering, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Atlantica Insituto Universario, Barcarena, Portugal

Tessaleno Devezas

University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

João Carlos Correia Leitão

University of Verona, Verona, Italy

Serena Cubico

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Baltazar, J.R. (2024). Leadership and the Process of Internationalization of Family Businesses: A Systematic Review of Literature. In: Schlyakhto, E., Ilin, I., Devezas, T., Correia Leitão, J.C., Cubico, S. (eds) Innovations for Healthcare and Wellbeing. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53614-4_22

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53614-4_22

Published : 17 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-53613-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-53614-4

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research