CÁC NHÂN tố tác ĐỘNG đến đổi mới SÁNG tạo của NHÓM TRONG LĨNH vực DỊCH vụ bán lẻ BẰNG CHỨNG từ VIỆT NAM

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM PHD THESIS HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM Major: Business Administration Code: 9340101 PHD THESIS SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF NGUYEN DINH THO HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In completing my thesis for PhD research, I was very fortunate to have support from many people to whom I am greatly indebted Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, for his invaluable support and guidance This work would never have been possible without his insightful comments and advice Secondly, I would like to thank all of my teachers from ISB PhD program for their important assistance concerning to methodologies, philosophy of science, research and life issues during my research period I also would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, my PhD friends and many related people for supporting me to undertake this research Finally, I am extremely grateful to my parents and my family members for their endless love, care and patience Without my family’s support and encouragement, I would not become who I am today Ho Chi Minh City, July 2022 ABSTRACT Team innovation can help contemporary organizations create competitive advantage, making them survive, and subsequently growing in the fast-changing and unpredictable market This thesis aimed to explore different antecedents of team innovation through three studies conducted in retail services in Vietnam Firstly, drawing upon the ambidextrous leadership for innovation, Study investigates the role of opening and closing leadership behaviors in both team exploratory and exploitative learning, and subsequently in team innovation Results based on a survey data set collected from 296 team leaders show that opening leadership behavior positively affects team exploratory learning and closing leadership behavior underlies team exploitative learning Further, the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors positively affects both team exploratory and exploitative learning Finally, these two types of team learning enhance team innovation Secondly, employing social exchange theory in teams, Study examines the role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation Results, based on a survey dataset collected from 300 team leaders in retail services in Vietnam, demonstrated that shared team psychological contract fulfillment mediated the above relationship Interestingly, team proactive personality positively moderated the effect of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment Finally, using the psychological capital (PsyCap) theory, Study investigates the impact of team PsyCap on team innovation Further, Study also examines the mediating role of team learning, including exploratory and exploitative learning, in team innovation A sample of 272 team leaders of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis and to test the model and hypotheses using structural equation modeling The results demonstrate that team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation Further, team exploratory learning mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation; however, team exploitative learning does not Although team exploitative learning is explained by team PsyCap, it does not enhance team innovation The overall findings of this thesis provide a number of theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation Firstly, Study extends the current research on ambidextrous leadership, team learning and team innovation Secondly, the findings of Study provide further evidence to confirm the predictive power of inclusive leadership at the team level by verifying the role of inclusive leadership in shared team psychological contract fulfillment and innovation Finally, Study further confirms the predictive power of PsyCap at the team level by verifying the role of team PsyCap in team learning and innovation This finding of Study signals that to achieve innovation, teams should pursue explorative learning The findings of this thesis suggest a number of implications for practitioners Firstly, the findings of Study identify the importance of firms investing in training team leaders to improve both opening and closing leadership behaviors in order to foster exploratory and exploitative learning activities in their teams Secondly, the results of Study point to the potential for leadership training interventions to improve inclusive leadership behaviors in order to foster the needs and attitudes of their team members Finally, the results of Study highlight the importance of fostering team PsyCap to enhance team-level outcomes including team learning and innovation Firms should create a social context that could help in interacting and communicating among team members, which in turn leads to share the perceptions regarding psychological state of development Study believes that the effect of team PsyCap in shaping agreement between employees in team could help teams get through difficult times and respond more positive to today’s more complex job requirements and increasing demand for change and idea generating and idea implementing Keywords – ambidextrous leadership, inclusive leadership, team psychological capital, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, team innovation, Vietnam LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations AVE B β BC CAGR CFA CFI CR EFA GFI HCMC M p PsyCap RMSEA SD SE SEM SET Meaning Average variance extracted Unstandardized regression weight Standardized regression weight Bias-corrected bootstrap estimate Compound annual growth rate Confirmatory factor analysis Comparative fit index Composite reliability Exploratory factor analysis Goodness of fit index Ho Chi Minh City Means p-value Psychological capital Root mean square error of approximation Standard deviations Standard error Structural equation modeling Social exchange theory LIST OF FIGURES Figure Overall model of thesis .12 Figure Conceptual model of Study .18 Figure Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploratory learning 30 Figure Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploitative learning 30 Figure Conceptual model of Study .41 Figure Conceptual model of Study .62 LIST OF TABLES Table A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between leadership styles and team innovation 15 Table Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 26 Table Correlations between constructs of Study 26 Table SEM results of Study 29 Table A brief summary of empirical studies on the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation 39 Table Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 49 Table Correlations between constructs of Study 51 Table SEM results of Study 53 Table A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between team PsyCap and team outcomes 60 Table 10 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 68 Table 11 Correlations between constructs of Study .69 Table 12 SEM results of Study .72 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i ABSTRACT .ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES vi CONTENTS .vii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION .1 1.1 Research gaps .1 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Research context 1.4 Data collection 1.5 Structure of the thesis CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL 2.1 Theoretical background 2.1.1 The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation 2.1.2 Social exchange theory in groups 2.1.3 Psychological capital theory .11 2.2 Conceptual model .11 CHAPTER 13 STUDY TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: THE ROLE OF AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP AND TEAM LEARNING 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 14 3.2.1 Theoretical background 14 3.2.2 Conceptual model and hypotheses .17 3.3 Research methods .22 3.3.1 Research context 22 3.3.2 Design and sample .22 3.3.3 Measurement 23 VULa OLa FBLb AVLa ACLa Estimate S.E C.R 1.000 1.150 099 11.608 950 097 9.816 1.040 089 11.738 1.130 103 11.004 < - ILx < - ILx < - ILx < - ILx < - ILx P Label *** *** *** *** Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number Default model) PCFx TIx ACLa AVLa FBLb OLa VULa TRSa TRAa ROa TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TPP10 TPP8 TPP7 TPP3 TPP2 ILmbxTPPm ILx TPPx SIZE TENURE SEX PCFx TIx 016 001 016 025 001 023 024 001 027 021 001 027 013 001 016 147 221 870 003 016 001 014 139 238 878 003 016 001 015 143 257 870 003 015 001 015 144 242 870 003 Statistics SEX N Valid Missing SIZE EDU AGE TENURE 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 SEX Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Male 105 35.0 35.0 35.0 Female 195 65.0 65.0 100.0 Total 300 100.0 100.0 155 SIZE Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 2.00 7 3.00 17 5.7 5.7 6.3 4.00 36 12.0 12.0 18.3 5.00 29 9.7 9.7 28.0 6.00 32 10.7 10.7 38.7 7.00 19 6.3 6.3 45.0 8.00 26 8.7 8.7 53.7 9.00 11 3.7 3.7 57.3 10.00 21 7.0 7.0 64.3 11.00 3.0 3.0 67.3 12.00 17 5.7 5.7 73.0 13.00 2.3 2.3 75.3 14.00 10 3.3 3.3 78.7 15.00 10 3.3 3.3 82.0 16.00 2.7 2.7 84.7 17.00 7 85.3 18.00 1.7 1.7 87.0 19.00 7 87.7 20.00 2.3 2.3 90.0 22.00 3 90.3 23.00 3 90.7 24.00 7 91.3 25.00 1.0 1.0 92.3 27.00 3 92.7 30.00 10 3.3 3.3 96.0 32.00 1.0 1.0 97.0 35.00 7 97.7 39.00 3 98.0 40.00 1.3 1.3 99.3 51.00 3 99.7 60.00 3 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 Total EDU 156 Cumulative Frequency Valid Some high school Complete high school Undergraduate university Percent Valid Percent Percent 3 24 8.0 8.0 8.3 252 84.0 84.0 92.3 23 7.7 7.7 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 degree Postgraduate university degree Total AGE Cumulative Frequency Valid under 30 Percent Valid Percent Percent 220 73.3 73.3 73.3 30-40 72 24.0 24.0 97.3 41-50 2.0 2.0 99.3 over 50 7 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 Total TENURE Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 4.00 3 6.00 21 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.00 16 5.3 5.3 12.7 8.00 13 4.3 4.3 17.0 9.00 1.7 1.7 18.7 10.00 2.0 2.0 20.7 11.00 2.7 2.7 23.3 12.00 39 13.0 13.0 36.3 13.00 12 4.0 4.0 40.3 14.00 1.7 1.7 42.0 15.00 2.3 2.3 44.3 16.00 1.3 1.3 45.7 17.00 1.7 1.7 47.3 18.00 18 6.0 6.0 53.3 19.00 3 53.7 20.00 2.0 2.0 55.7 21.00 3 56.0 157 23.00 3 56.3 24.00 41 13.7 13.7 70.0 25.00 3 70.3 26.00 1.3 1.3 71.7 27.00 7 72.3 28.00 1.3 1.3 73.7 30.00 2.0 2.0 75.7 32.00 1.0 1.0 76.7 35.00 7 77.3 36.00 29 9.7 9.7 87.0 40.00 7 87.7 42.00 3 88.0 46.00 3 88.3 48.00 12 4.0 4.0 92.3 60.00 10 3.3 3.3 95.7 70.00 7 96.3 72.00 2.3 2.3 98.7 84.00 3 99.0 88.00 3 99.3 108.00 3 99.7 156.00 3 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 Total 158 Appendix Data analysis for Study CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 36 223.974 100 000 2.240 Saturated model 136 000 Independence model 16 1962.768 120 000 16.356 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI 055 904 869 665 000 1.000 392 294 200 259 Baseline Comparisons NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 Default model 886 863 933 919 933 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 Model 159 RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model 068 056 080 008 Independence model 238 229 247 000 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 42 136 CMIN 224.284 000 DF 94 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.386 16 2412.471 120 000 20.104 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 055 000 GFI 911 1.000 AGFI 871 PGFI 629 435 272 175 240 Baseline Comparisons 160 Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 907 1.000 RFI rho1 881 IFI Delta2 944 1.000 TLI rho2 927 000 000 000 000 CFI 943 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 072 LO 90 060 HI 90 084 PCLOSE 002 266 256 275 000 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 41 136 CMIN 224.829 000 DF 95 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.367 16 2412.471 120 000 20.104 161 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 056 000 GFI 910 1.000 AGFI 872 PGFI 636 435 272 175 240 NFI Delta1 907 1.000 RFI rho1 882 IFI Delta2 944 1.000 TLI rho2 928 000 000 000 000 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model CFI 943 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 071 LO 90 059 HI 90 083 PCLOSE 002 266 256 275 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) ERLv EIBv TIv TIv TIv ERL1 ERL2 ERL3 ERL4 EIL5 EIL4 EIL3 EIL2 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - PCAP PCAP ERLv EIBv PCAP ERLv ERLv ERLv ERLv EIBv EIBv EIBv EIBv TIv TIv TIv TIv PCAP Estimate 946 734 614 051 353 1.000 1.061 1.181 1.056 1.000 1.065 854 1.138 1.000 1.008 779 848 1.000 S.E .101 080 098 114 153 C.R 9.336 9.222 6.256 451 2.309 P *** *** *** 652 021 Label par_17 par_19 par_18 par_20 par_21 076 096 087 14.029 12.253 12.183 *** *** *** par_1 par_2 par_3 101 081 120 10.501 10.522 9.497 *** *** *** par_4 par_5 par_6 075 066 089 13.384 11.860 9.558 *** *** *** par_7 par_8 par_9 162 TRE < - PCAP THO < - PCAP TSE < - PCAP Estimate 1.051 867 887 S.E .067 060 089 C.R 15.593 14.457 9.998 P *** *** *** Label par_11 par_12 par_13 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 30 78 12 CMIN 97.551 000 1830.93 DF 48 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.032 66 000 27.741 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 043 000 GFI 946 1.000 AGFI 912 PGFI 582 513 283 153 240 NFI Delta1 947 1.000 RFI rho1 927 IFI Delta2 972 1.000 TLI rho2 961 000 000 000 000 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model 163 CFI 972 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 062 LO 90 044 HI 90 079 PCLOSE 131 314 302 327 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) ERLv TIv TIv ERL1 ERL2 ERL3 ERL4 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP TRE THO TSE < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - PCAP ERLv PCAP ERLv ERLv ERLv ERLv TIv TIv TIv TIv PCAP PCAP PCAP PCAP Estimate 970 615 400 1.000 1.061 1.180 1.052 1.000 999 769 841 1.000 1.063 887 939 S.E .105 099 122 C.R 9.210 6.208 3.283 P *** *** 001 Label par_13 par_14 par_15 075 096 086 14.049 12.287 12.185 *** *** *** par_1 par_2 par_3 074 065 088 13.429 11.837 9.574 *** *** *** par_4 par_5 par_6 073 064 093 14.667 13.926 10.107 *** *** *** par_7 par_8 par_9 CMIN 164 Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 30 133.458 48 000 2.780 Saturated model 78 000 Independence model 12 1597.898 66 000 24.211 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI 055 926 880 570 000 1.000 361 338 218 286 Baseline Comparisons NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 Default model 916 885 945 923 944 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 Model RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model 081 065 098 001 Independence model 293 280 305 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) EIBv TIv TIv EIL5 EIL4 EIL3 EIL2 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP TRE THO TSE < - PCAP < - EIBv < - PCAP < - EIBv < - EIBv < - EIBv < - EIBv < - TIv < - TIv < - TIv < - TIv < - PCAP < - PCAP < - PCAP < - PCAP Estimate S.E C.R P Label 738 080 9.237 *** par_13 020 129 155 877 par_14 956 146 6.539 *** par_15 1.000 1.062 101 10.513 *** par_1 856 081 10.549 *** par_2 1.132 119 9.485 *** par_3 1.000 998 080 12.486 *** par_4 818 069 11.800 *** par_5 877 093 9.418 *** par_6 1.000 1.043 068 15.361 *** par_8 868 060 14.434 *** par_9 886 089 9.960 *** par_10 Statistics 165 54 Gender: N Valid 55 Age: 56 Education: 57 Team size: 58 Team ……………… tenure: 272 272 272 272 272 0 0 Missing 54 Gender: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Male 106 39.0 39.0 39.0 Female 166 61.0 61.0 100.0 Total 272 100.0 100.0 55 Age: Cumulative Frequency Valid under 30 Percent Valid Percent Percent 196 72.1 72.1 72.1 30-40 69 25.4 25.4 97.4 41-50 2.6 2.6 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 56 Education: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Some high school 1.8 1.8 1.8 Complete high school 2.9 2.9 4.8 250 91.9 91.9 96.7 3.3 3.3 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Undergraduate university degree Postgraduate university degree Total 57 Team size: ……………… Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.00 4 2.00 1.1 1.1 1.5 3.00 13 4.8 4.8 6.3 4.00 26 9.6 9.6 15.8 5.00 18 6.6 6.6 22.4 6.00 27 9.9 9.9 32.4 166 7.00 13 4.8 4.8 37.1 8.00 22 8.1 8.1 45.2 9.00 13 4.8 4.8 50.0 10.00 22 8.1 8.1 58.1 11.00 2.2 2.2 60.3 12.00 13 4.8 4.8 65.1 13.00 1.5 1.5 66.5 14.00 1.5 1.5 68.0 15.00 16 5.9 5.9 73.9 16.00 1.1 1.1 75.0 17.00 7 75.7 18.00 1.8 1.8 77.6 19.00 4 77.9 20.00 2.6 2.6 80.5 21.00 4 80.9 22.00 2.9 2.9 83.8 23.00 1.1 1.1 84.9 24.00 4 85.3 25.00 2.6 2.6 87.9 27.00 2.2 2.2 90.1 28.00 1.1 1.1 91.2 30.00 3.3 3.3 94.5 32.00 7 95.2 33.00 4 95.6 35.00 7 96.3 38.00 7 97.1 40.00 1.5 1.5 98.5 42.00 4 98.9 50.00 7 99.6 60.00 4 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 58 Team tenure: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 3.00 4 6.00 19 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.00 2.6 2.6 9.9 8.00 14 5.1 5.1 15.1 167 9.00 2.2 2.2 17.3 10.00 3.3 3.3 20.6 11.00 4 21.0 12.00 55 20.2 20.2 41.2 13.00 7 41.9 14.00 2.6 2.6 44.5 15.00 2.9 2.9 47.4 16.00 1.8 1.8 49.3 17.00 1.1 1.1 50.4 18.00 19 7.0 7.0 57.4 20.00 4 57.7 22.00 4 58.1 24.00 33 12.1 12.1 70.2 25.00 1.1 1.1 71.3 26.00 1.5 1.5 72.8 27.00 4 73.2 28.00 7 73.9 29.00 7 74.6 30.00 1.1 1.1 75.7 32.00 4 76.1 35.00 7 76.8 36.00 21 7.7 7.7 84.6 40.00 7 85.3 42.00 4 85.7 45.00 4 86.0 48.00 14 5.1 5.1 91.2 50.00 4 91.5 60.00 2.2 2.2 93.8 62.00 4 94.1 72.00 1.5 1.5 95.6 84.00 1.5 1.5 97.1 96.00 1.5 1.5 98.5 120.00 4 98.9 144.00 4 99.3 156.00 4 99.6 300.00 4 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 168 ... ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree), borrowed from Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into Vietnamese by an... questionnaire for Study 116 Appendix 3B Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 119 Appendix 4A English questionnaire for Study 123 Appendix 4B Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 125 Appendix... (CAGR) of Vietnam’s retail sector from 2013 to 2018 is about 10.97% with the total revenue of around US$ 142 billion in 2018 (Deloitte, 2019), and around US$ 214.8 billion in 2019 Vietnam has recently