CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ: BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.

CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.CÁC NHÂN TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO CỦA NHÓM TRONG LĨNH VỰC DỊCH VỤ BÁN LẺ BẰNG CHỨNG TỪ VIỆT NAM.

The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation

The theory of ambidextrous leadership emphasizes the importance of both opening and closing behaviors of team leaders in driving innovation within teams (Rosing et al., 2011) Opening leadership behaviors encourage experimentation, independent thinking, and challenging established norms, thereby promoting exploration activities Conversely, closing leadership behaviors aim to minimize variations in team member actions through corrective measures, setting clear guidelines, and monitoring progress towards goals (Rosing et al., 2011) This interplay between opening and closing behaviors is crucial for fostering a culture of innovation in teams.

The ambidextrous leadership theory has gained traction in business research, particularly in examining team innovation A study by Zacher and Rosing (2015) in the architecture industry revealed that while closing leadership behaviors did not significantly impact team innovation, opening leadership behaviors and their interaction with closing behaviors positively influenced innovation outcomes.

In a 2016 study, researchers examined the impact of ambidextrous leadership theory on employee innovation performance, highlighting the interplay between exploration and exploitation behaviors Their findings revealed that leaders who exhibited open behaviors positively influenced employee exploration, while those who demonstrated closing behaviors enhanced exploitation Furthermore, the study established a positive correlation between employee exploration and exploitation behaviors and their self-reported innovative performance.

The ambidextrous leadership theory emphasizes the importance of direct interactions between team leaders and members, particularly in retail service settings (Rosing et al., 2011) Retail team leaders exhibit two key leadership behaviors—opening and closing—which foster innovation among team members By engaging with customers as frontline service employees, these leaders motivate their teams to leverage their insights on daily operations and customer needs for effective goal-setting This interaction allows service teams to gather valuable knowledge about evolving customer preferences and persistent service challenges, creating a unique competitive advantage (Ye et al., 2012) Furthermore, store leaders enhance communication and collaboration among team members, facilitating goal achievement and promoting team learning to boost overall performance This dual approach effectively captures and transforms knowledge, ultimately maximizing team performance (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).

According to Ye et al (2012), this thesis utilizes the ambidextrous leadership theory to emphasize the significance of leaders' opening and closing behaviors, along with their interplay, in fostering both exploratory and exploitative learning within retail service teams, ultimately aiding in the pursuit of innovation.

Social exchange theory in groups

Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a key framework in management and organizational behavior research, utilized to understand and forecast employee attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Kutaula et al., 2020; Lavelle et al., 2007; Tse et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020) SET distinguishes between economic exchanges, which involve short-term, tangible resource transactions, and social exchanges, which emphasize long-term, intangible resource exchanges, such as socioemotional resources, mutual trust, commitment, and support (Blau, 1964; Lavelle et al., 2007; Shore et al., 2006).

Social Exchange Theory (SET) primarily focuses on individual employee attitudes and behaviors, yet it acknowledges that employees often collaborate in teams Through interactions and information-sharing, employees may develop shared perceptions regarding their contributions and rewards When employees perceive support, they cultivate high-quality social exchange relationships with their teams and various organizational members This perception fosters feelings of gratitude, obligation, and trust, which in turn inspire employees to reciprocate with positive workplace attitudes and behaviors, such as creativity, innovation, and both in-role and extra-role contributions.

The Social Exchange Theory (SET) has been extensively utilized to elucidate the connections between inclusive leadership and its effects on attitudes and behaviors at both organizational and individual levels (Ahmed et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2020; Gong et al.).

Recent studies have explored the impact of inclusive leadership on creativity and innovation, highlighting its potential outcomes (Choi et al., 2017; Javed et al., 2018; Siyal et al., 2021) Key mediators and moderators in this relationship include person-job fit, psychological empowerment, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, psychological capital, and intrinsic motivation Furthermore, inclusive leadership has been shown to positively influence creativity and innovation at the team level (Leroy et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2019).

Psychological capital theory

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is an individual's positive psychological development, encompassing confidence (efficacy) to tackle challenging tasks, optimism about future success, hope in persevering and adapting toward goals, and resilience in overcoming adversity (Luthans et al., 2015) Research indicates that PsyCap is significantly linked to favorable employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance, as well as fostering innovation in the workplace (Avey et al., 2011; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012; Luthans et al., 2011; Hsu & Chen, 2017).

At the team level, team PsyCap is defined as “a collective psychological state that is characterized by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience” (Heled, Somech, & Waters,

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) can be understood at both individual and team levels Individual PsyCap refers to the psychological resources that individuals cultivate throughout their work and life experiences In contrast, team PsyCap is the collective perception of these psychological resources, shaped by the direct interactions among team members during their collaborative efforts This dual perspective highlights the importance of both personal and shared psychological strengths in the workplace.

Conceptual model 11

This thesis presents a conceptual model illustrating the relationships between ambidextrous and inclusive leadership behaviors and various social processes, including team psychological capital (PsyCap), team exploratory and exploitative learning, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, and team proactive personality, all of which contribute to team innovation Additionally, the model incorporates team leaders' gender, team size, and team tenure as control variables for analysis Detailed hypotheses for each study will be discussed in the subsequent chapters.

Figure 1 Overall model of thesis

13

AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP AND TEAM LEARNING

Understanding team innovation is essential for the survival and growth of modern organizations, sparking ongoing interest from both academic researchers and practitioners This focus is reflected in a wide range of studies addressing various aspects of team dynamics, including structure, composition, climate, processes, knowledge integration, and leadership.

Recent studies on team innovation have increasingly concentrated on the role of leadership, particularly emphasizing ambidextrous leadership as a key factor in fostering innovation within teams (Rosing et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2014; Zacher & Rosing, 2015; van Knippenberg, 2017).

Ambidextrous leadership refers to the capacity to encourage both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers by adjusting their behavioral variance and seamlessly transitioning between these behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011) Previous research has linked ambidextrous leadership to innovation, highlighting various mediating factors such as individual employee exploration and exploitation behaviors (Zacher et al., 2016) At the team level, studies have examined how team performance is influenced by leadership, learning, and psychological safety, with a focus on social processes that drive team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017) Notable investigations include Edmondson's (1999) exploration of team learning behavior's impact on performance, Kostopoulos and Bozionelos's (2011) analysis of exploratory and exploitative learning, and Zacher and Rosing's (2015) study on the interplay of opening and closing leadership behaviors and their effect on team innovation.

TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: THE ROLE OF

Introduction 13

Understanding team innovation is essential for the survival and growth of modern organizations, leading to significant interest from both academic researchers and practitioners This area of research encompasses a wide range of topics, including team structure, composition, climate, processes, knowledge integration, and leadership.

Recent studies on team innovation have increasingly concentrated on the role of leadership, particularly the concept of ambidextrous leadership, as a key driver of innovation within teams (Rosing et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2014; Zacher & Rosing, 2015; van Knippenberg, 2017).

Ambidextrous leadership is defined as the ability to promote both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers by adjusting their behavioral variance and flexibly switching between these behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011) Research has shown that ambidextrous leadership positively influences innovation through various mediating mechanisms, including employee exploration and exploitation behaviors at the individual level (Zacher et al., 2016) At the team level, studies have linked team performance to factors such as team leadership, learning, and psychological safety, with a focus on how social processes and leadership contribute to team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017) Notable investigations include Edmondson's (1999) analysis of team learning behavior's impact on performance and Kostopoulos and Bozionelos's (2011) exploration of team learning types However, research on ambidextrous leadership's role in team learning and innovation, particularly in both transitioning economies like Vietnam and advanced economies, remains limited Additionally, the retail service industry is increasingly prioritizing long-term customer relationships over short-term sales, which may enable retail teams to enhance service quality and foster team innovation (Subramony & Pugh).

Study 1 explores the influence of ambidextrous leadership on team learning and innovation within the retail service sector, utilizing the ambidexterity theory of leadership for innovation (Rosing et al., 2011) Analyzing survey data from 296 team leaders in Vietnam, the study confirms significant relationships among team leadership, exploratory and exploitative learning, and team innovation These findings enhance the understanding of team innovation by identifying new facilitators and provide empirical support for the ambidexterity theory's predictive capability in a transitioning economy The paper further details the theoretical framework, research methodology, data analysis, results, discussions, implications, and future research directions.

Theoretical background and hypotheses 14

Recent studies have explored the critical role of leadership in fostering innovation, highlighting its significance at the team level (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Hoch, 2013; Hughes et al., 2018) Research has consistently shown a strong correlation between different leadership styles and team innovation outcomes Among various styles—such as ambidextrous, authentic, transformational, and transactional leadership—the ambidextrous leadership style has garnered comparatively less attention Table 1 presents a summary of key empirical studies examining the relationship between leadership styles and innovation within teams.

Table 1 A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between leadership styles and team innovation

Authors Sample Main findings Černe et al (2013)

Twenty three team leaders and 289 team members of a Slovenian manufacturing and processing firm in Slovenia

Perceived authentic leadership was positively related to team innovation, but self-ascribed authentic leadership was not.

Ninety five research and development team

(R&D) leaders and 428 team members of 33 firms from various industries in China

Transformational leadership was positively related to support for innovation climate, but was not significantly related to team innovation Support for innovation climate was positively related to team innovation.

Thirty three R&D team leaders and 188 team members of one research institute and four international R&D companies engaged in the automotive, semiconductor, packaging, and scientific instruments industries (country was not reported)

Transformational leadership was positively related to support for innovation, which in turn interacted with climate for excellence to enhance team innovation

Forty three team leaders and 184 team members of 43 teams in the fields of product development and training in two different companies (country was not reported)

Shared leadership and vertical transformational and empowering leadership were positively related to team innovative behavior

Sample 1: 44 teams in a biopharmaceutical firm in China

Sample 2: 76 teams (76 team leaders and

414 team members) in 29 companies from various industries in China

An integrative mechanism (i.e., cooperative norms  within-team knowledge sharing) mediated the influence of transformational leadership on team innovative performance.

(2011) Eighty five team leaders and 450 team members of eight organizations from various fields in China

The interaction between transactional leadership and emotional labor negatively affected team innovativeness

Fifty two team leaders and 301 team members of 52 firms from various industries in Taiwan

Team knowledge sharing intention fully mediated the impact of transformational leadership climate on team innovation.

A study involving sixty team leaders and 280 team members in the UK healthcare sector revealed that inspirational leadership positively influences team innovation when professional salience is high However, this effect diminishes when professional salience is low, indicating that a positive mood alone is insufficient to drive innovation in such contexts.

Sample 1: 41 team leaders and 163 team members in the fields of medical devices and banking in China.

Sample 2: 66 team leaders and 406 team members in the field of software development in China

Inclusive leadership significantly enhances team innovation, particularly when combined with performance pressure The relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation is strengthened through team voice, which serves as a full mediator in this dynamic.

Yoshida et al (2014) One hundred and fifty four team leaders and

425 team members in the fields of finance, heavy manufacturing, and telecommunications in Indonesia and China

Prototypicality fully mediated the impact of servant leadership on team innovation.

Thirty three team leaders and 90 team members in the fields of architectural and interior design firms in Australia

Research indicates that closing leadership behavior does not significantly impact team innovation In contrast, opening leadership behavior, along with the interaction between closing and opening leadership behaviors, shows a positive correlation with team innovation.

The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation suggests that the interplay of opening and closing behaviors by team leaders significantly influences team innovation (Rosing et al., 2011) Opening behaviors encourage experimentation, independent thinking, and challenging the status quo, promoting exploration activities Conversely, closing behaviors focus on minimizing variations among team members through corrective actions, guidelines, and goal monitoring, which enhance exploitation activities Recent research, such as Zacher and Rosing (2015), applied this theory in the architecture industry, revealing that while opening leadership behaviors and their interaction with closing behaviors positively impact team innovation, closing behaviors alone do not significantly affect innovation outcomes.

In 2016, a study utilizing ambidextrous leadership theory examined the impact of exploration and exploitation behaviors on employee innovation performance The research revealed that leaders who exhibited open behaviors fostered employee exploration, while those demonstrating closed behaviors enhanced exploitation Furthermore, the interplay between these behaviors was found to positively correlate with employees' self-reported innovative performance.

The ambidextrous leadership theory emphasizes the significance of frequent interactions between team leaders and members, particularly in retail service settings (Rosing et al., 2011) Team leaders are capable of executing complementary behaviors—opening and closing—that foster innovation among staff By engaging directly with customers, these leaders not only fulfill frontline service roles but also motivate team members to align with store objectives, leveraging their insights from daily operations This direct interaction allows frontline teams to gather valuable knowledge about customer needs and service challenges, creating a unique competitive advantage (Ye et al., 2012) As a result, store leaders can enhance communication and collaboration among team members, facilitating goal-setting and team learning to boost overall performance This dual approach of opening and closing behaviors is crucial for fostering exploratory and exploitative learning, ultimately driving innovation in the retail service environment (Wyer et al., 2010; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Ye et al., 2012).

The conceptual model illustrated in Figure 2 highlights the connections between leadership behaviors and team learning, encompassing both exploratory and exploitative learning Team exploratory learning plays a crucial role in fostering an environment conducive to innovation within the team.

Team exploratory learning involves activities that encourage a team to search for, experiment with, and develop new ideas and skills, while team exploitative learning focuses on refining and implementing existing knowledge and capabilities (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011) The model suggests that opening leadership behavior positively influences team exploratory learning, whereas closing leadership behavior enhances team exploitative learning Furthermore, the interplay between these two leadership behaviors fosters both types of learning, ultimately driving team innovation.

Figure 2 Conceptual model of Study 1

Opening leadership behaviour*Closing leadership behavior

3.2.2.1 Opening leadership behavior and team exploratory learning

According to the ambidextrous leadership theory, team leaders who exhibit open leadership behaviors can inspire their teams to innovate and transform new knowledge from frontline services into valuable explicit knowledge (Ye et al., 2012) In the retail sector, such behaviors from store leaders enhance exploratory learning, providing a competitive edge Leaders with strong open leadership traits equip their teams with effective strategies to acquire knowledge through customer interactions (Ye et al., 2012) As both frontline employees and authority figures, store leaders face the challenge of continuously improving to meet customer expectations, necessitating a proactive approach to seek out new knowledge and enhance team performance.

H1 Opening leadership behavior has a positive effect on team exploratory learning.

3.2.2.2 Closing leadership behavior and team exploitative learning

Teams that excessively focus on exploring evolving customer needs may incur experimentation costs without tangible benefits A leader's closing behaviors can prompt team members to prioritize routine tasks, relying on existing knowledge and skills while avoiding risk-taking In retail services, store leaders exhibiting strong closing behaviors tend to promote exploitative learning within their teams These leaders are more inclined to provide efficient learning strategies that enhance knowledge acquisition through the effective combination of existing skills Consequently, such leaders often express satisfaction with current knowledge and demonstrate a reluctance to embrace mistakes.

H2 Closing leadership behavior has a positive effect on team exploitative learning.

3.2.2.3 The interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors

The ambidextrous leadership theory emphasizes the importance of specific leadership behaviors that align with the complex nature of innovation processes Our model suggests that the interplay between opening and closing leadership behaviors can enhance both explorative and exploitative activities among followers Team leaders must adeptly alternate between these behaviors to address varying innovation demands This blend of opening and closing behaviors reflects the concept of ambidexterity, which has been associated with heightened innovation levels in team analyses.

H3 The interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors has a positive effect on team exploratory learning.

H4 The interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors has a positive effect on team exploitative learning.

3.2.2.4 Team exploratory learning and innovation

Innovation is defined as the intentional introduction and application of new ideas, processes, or products within a group or organization, aimed at benefiting individuals and society (West & Farr, 1990) Team innovation encompasses both the generation of creative ideas and their practical implementation to achieve positive outcomes (Zacher & Rosing, 2015) In retail settings, store leaders are pivotal in assessing the originality of team members' ideas and fostering an environment conducive to creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004) Their prior knowledge and training in store services enable them to effectively evaluate and leverage customer insights, such as evolving needs, to enhance team innovation (Crevani et al., 2011; Ye et al.).

2012) Thus, by articulating and updating two distinct forms of the above knowledge through learning activities (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011), store leaders are in an ideal position to work as ambidextrous leaders.

Teams are essential for learning and knowledge creation in modern organizations According to Kostopoulos and Bozionelos, team learning involves two key activities: exploratory and exploitative learning Teams that excel in exploratory learning are more inclined to challenge established routines and seek new knowledge from external sources In the uncertain environment of retail services, store leaders are encouraged to prioritize the advantages of exploratory learning over potential risks.

Store leaders can leverage their acquired knowledge to better understand changing customer needs, ultimately improving customer satisfaction, service efficiency, and revenue generation This approach not only benefits the stores directly but also fosters long-term advantages for their operations.

Research methods 22

Vietnam's retail sector is experiencing significant growth, driven by the development of modern trade channels, including both physical outlets like commercial centers and convenience stores, and digital platforms From 2013 to 2018, the sector achieved a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 10.97%, generating around US$ 142 billion in revenue by 2018 Forecasts indicate that Vietnam will emerge as the fastest-growing market for convenience stores in Asia by 2021, with a remarkable CAGR of 37.40% Key cities such as Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi contribute to about 33% of total retail sales, characterized by store expansion, intense competition between local and foreign retailers, and the rising popularity of mini-supermarkets, positioning their convenience markets for substantial growth.

Study 1 adopted a phased approach by undertaking a pilot study and a main survey in

Ho Chi Minh City, the major business center, and in Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam Survey respondents were team leaders with at least 6 months’ experience in the current position.

In a pilot study conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, we began with in-depth interviews with store leaders to assess the relevance of ambidexterity leadership and team learning measures in the retail service context of Vietnam Following this qualitative phase, we engaged 100 team leaders in face-to-face interviews to refine our measurement scales, utilizing Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis for initial evaluation The main survey involved 302 team leaders from the retail sector in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, aimed at validating the measures and testing the structural model and hypotheses Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were employed to rigorously assess the theoretical framework.

In Study 1, the constructs analyzed included ambidextrous leadership, characterized by opening and closing leadership behaviors, alongside team exploratory and exploitative learning, and team innovative performance as assessed by team leaders Team innovation was evaluated using three items on a 7-point scale, adapted from Welbourne et al (1998), while opening leadership behavior was measured through three items and closing leadership behavior through six items, based on Rosing et al (2011), both utilizing a 7-point scale Additionally, team exploratory and exploitative learning were assessed with four items each, employing a 7-point Likert scale, as per Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011).

The questionnaire was first developed in English and subsequently translated into Vietnamese by a bilingual academic to accommodate team leaders in Vietnam who may not be proficient in English To ensure the accuracy and equivalence of both versions, a back translation was performed, allowing for the identification and resolution of any discrepancies between the English and Vietnamese texts.

Previous studies indicate that factors such as team leader gender, team size, and team tenure can predict team innovation To address this, Study 1 controls for these characteristics by employing dummy coding for team leader gender (1 for male, 0 for female), measuring team size by the number of employees, and assessing team tenure in months of operation.

In a pilot study involving 100 team leaders, the measures were evaluated for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) The EFA, conducted with principal components and promax rotation, identified five factors that accounted for 70.48% of the variance, with an eigenvalue of 1.03 The reliability scores for the scales were notably high, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.91 for opening leadership behavior, 0.85 for closing leadership behavior, 0.82 for team exploratory learning, 0.84 for team exploitative learning, and 0.84 for team innovation Additionally, all factor loadings exceeded 0.50, confirming that the scales met reliability standards Consequently, these validated measures were utilized in the main survey.

The screening process resulted in the removal of 6 questionnaires due to over 10% missing values, leading to a final sample size of 296 team leaders, comprising 182 females (61.49%) and 114 males (38.51%) Among them, 198 (66.89%) were based in HCM City, while 98 (33.11%) were in Hanoi Age distribution showed that 213 team leaders (71.96%) were under 30 years old, and 83 (28.04%) were over 30 In terms of education, 271 leaders (91.55%) held an undergraduate degree, 10 (3.38%) had a postgraduate degree, and 15 (5.07%) had completed only high school Additionally, 150 teams (50.68%) consisted of 10 or fewer members.

Among the surveyed employees, 9 had teams with fewer than 10 members, while 146 (49.32%) were part of larger teams Regarding team tenure, 149 (50.34%) teams had been operating for over 18 months, while 147 (49.66%) teams had been active for 17 months or less In terms of retail service types, 107 (36.15%) were convenience stores, 85 (28.72%) focused on food and beverages, and 40 (13.51%) specialized in electronics, with the remaining 64 (21.62%) encompassing pharmacies, women's and children's apparel, fashion, and cosmetics.

Data analysis and results 25

This study examined five key constructs: opening leadership behavior, closing leadership behavior, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation The measurement scales for these constructs were refined through Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a pilot study sample of 100 participants Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using a larger dataset of 296 participants from the main survey to validate these scales.

The saturated model, developed from the CFA model of five first-order constructs—opening leadership behavior, closing leadership behavior, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation—demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the data, with χ² (157) = 292.17, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.05 High factor loadings (≥ 0.65) and significant values (p < 0.001) were observed for the items measuring these constructs, alongside high composite reliability (≥ 0.79) The average variance extracted for each construct exceeded 0.50, confirming convergent validity Additionally, the correlation between any pair of constructs remained below the square root of the average variance extracted, thus supporting discriminant validity among the constructs Detailed CFA loadings, composite reliability, and average variance extracted are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 1

As a team leader, I allow different ways of accomplishing a task 4.51 2.086 0.70

As a team leader, I encourage experimentation with different ideas 5.00 1.928 0.93

As a team leader, I give room for own ideas 5.39 1.869 0.74

As a team leader, I monitor and control goal attainment 6.37 1.030 0.80

As a team leader, I establish routines 6.30 1.036 0.66

As a team leader, I take corrective action 6.27 1.066 0.73

As a team leader, I control adherence to rules 6.35 1.024 0.71

As a team leader, I pay attention to uniform task accomplishment 6.39 0.907 0.78

As a team leader, I stick to plans 6.36 0.910 0.65

Team members were systematically searching for new possibilities 5.73 1.207 0.75

Team members offered new ideas and solutions to complicated problems 5.74 1.208 0.82

Team members experimented with new and creative ways for accomplishing work 5.66 1.281 0.82

Team members evaluated diverse options 5.71 1.153 0.81

In our team, we primarily performed routine activities 6.06 1.078 0.69

Our team implemented standardized methodologies and regular work practices 6.28 0.826 0.70

Team members improved and refined their existing knowledge and expertise 6.18 0.915 0.77

Team members mainly used their current knowledge and skills for performing their tasks 6.24 0.936 0.71

My team comes up with new ideas 5.46 1.178 0.75

My team finds improved ways to do things 5.92 0.995 0.77

My team creates better processes and routines 5.67 1.328 0.67

Table 3 Correlations between constructs of Study 1

Note: CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; numbers on the diagonal are square roots of average variances extracted; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; NS : non- significant.

Study 1 used a survey data set collected from a single respondent (i.e., team leaders),which may raise the problem of common method biases To assess this problem, we followed a procedure proposed by Podsakoff et al (2003) We first conducted a CFA

Harman's single factor model test revealed a poor fit to the data, with a Chi-square value of 1612.93 and a GFI of 0.60, compared to the trait model, which showed a much better fit with a Chi-square of 292.17 and a GFI of 0.91 Additionally, the unmeasured latent variable test indicated that none of the item loadings on the unmeasured latent variable were significant, and the loadings in the final confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model remained nearly identical with or without the unmeasured latent variable Consequently, common method bias was not a significant concern in Study 1, as supported by Podsakoff et al (2003).

3.4.2 Structural results and hypothesis testing

3.4.2.1 Testing the proposed model against its rivals

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to evaluate the theoretical model and hypotheses In accordance with Bollen and Long (1993), Study 1 developed two competing models for analysis The first model posited that the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors does not influence team exploratory and exploitative learning, representing a more restrictive approach Conversely, the second model suggested a direct impact of this interaction on team innovation, indicating a less restrictive framework, as supported by previous research from Zacher and Rosing.

A study conducted in 2015 revealed that the interplay between opening and closing leadership styles significantly influences team innovation Following the framework established by Ping (1995), a single indicator was utilized to assess this interaction Since opening and closing leadership behaviors are considered unidimensional constructs, summated indicators—derived from the total of all items measuring each construct—were employed to calculate their interaction, specifically through the product of these behaviors (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) To prevent multicollinearity, mean-deviated variables were applied in the interaction analysis (Cronbach, 1987).

In Study 1, a Chi-square difference test was utilized to evaluate the proposed model against its competitors, following the methodology of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) The structural equation modeling (SEM) results indicated that all three models, including the proposed and two competing models, demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data Specifically, the proposed model showed a Chi-square value of χ²(240) = 426.013, with a χ²/df ratio of 1.775, a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of 0.896, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.934, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.051 In comparison, the more restrictive model yielded a Chi-square value of χ²(242) = 436.45, with a χ²/df ratio of 1.804.

The analysis revealed that the proposed model demonstrated a better fit to the data compared to the more restrictive model, with fit indices showing GFI = 0.893, CFI = 0.931, and RMSEA = 0.052 The chi-square difference test indicated a significant improvement (Δχ² = 10.44, Δdf = 2; p < 0.01) for the proposed model Conversely, the less restrictive model did not exhibit a better fit (Δχ² ~ 0, Δdf = 1; p ~ 1.00) while consuming an additional degree of freedom Importantly, the interaction between open and closing leadership behaviors and team innovation was not significant (p > 0.99) A correlation between team exploratory and exploitative learning was established, yielding a significant result (0.46, p < 0.001) All models showed no improper solutions, with no Heywood cases present, all error-term variances significant, and standardized residuals remaining below |2.58|.

The SEM results confirmed that all paths in the proposed model were significant, validating all hypotheses presented However, leader gender, team size, and team tenure did not significantly impact team innovation Detailed metrics, including unstandardized estimates, standard errors, standardized estimates, t-values, and p-values of the structural paths, are provided in Table 4.

Table 4 SEM results of Study 1

H1 Opening leadership behavior  Team exploratory learning 0.11 0.040 0.18 2.76 0.006

H2 Closing leadership behavior  Team exploitative learning 0.33 0.072 0.37 4.62 0.000

H3 Opening leadership behavior* Closing leadership behavior  Team exploratory learning

Opening leadership behavior* Closing leadership behavior  Team exploitative learning 0.07 0.027 0.20 2.67 0.008

H5 Team exploratory learning  Team innovation 0.60 0.074 0.62 8.13 0.000H6 Team exploitative learning  Team innovation 0.31 0.086 0.23 3.66 0.000

Note: B: unstandardized regression weight; SE: standard error; β: standardized regression weight; t: t-statistic; p: p-value.

On closer investigation of the results one can see that the relationship between opening leadership behavior and team exploratory learning was positive and significant (p

The study confirmed several hypotheses regarding leadership behaviors and team learning outcomes Specifically, a significant positive relationship was found between closing leadership behavior and team exploitative learning (p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H2 Additionally, the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors positively influenced both team exploratory learning (H3) and team exploitative learning (H4), with results showing significance (p < 0.01) Notably, team exploratory learning peaked when both leadership behaviors were high, while team exploitative learning also reached its highest levels under the same conditions Furthermore, a strong positive correlation was established between team exploratory learning and team innovation (p < 0.001), validating hypothesis H5, and team exploitative learning was similarly linked to team innovation (p < 0.001), confirming hypothesis H6.

Figure 3 Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploratory learning

T ea m e xp lo ra to ry le ar n in g

Figure 4 Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploitative learning

T ea m e xp lo it at iv e le ar n in g

Discussion and implications 31

Study 1 utilized the ambidexterity theory of leadership to explore how team leaders' opening and closing behaviors influence team exploratory and exploitative learning, ultimately affecting team innovation The research was based on survey data collected from 296 team leaders within the retail service industry.

Research in Vietnam indicates that open leadership behavior fosters team exploratory learning, while closing leadership behavior supports team exploitative learning Furthermore, the interplay between open and closing leadership behaviors positively influences both types of team learning Ultimately, these dual learning approaches contribute to enhanced team innovation These insights provide valuable implications for theory, research, and practical applications in leadership and team dynamics.

Study 1 offers significant theoretical insights into ambidextrous leadership and team innovation, addressing a gap in existing literature that has predominantly concentrated on organizational and individual levels, particularly in advanced economies.

A 2019 study investigates ambidextrous leadership, team learning, and innovation within Vietnam's retail services sector during its economic transition The research highlights the significance of leaders' opening behaviors in fostering exploratory learning and closing behaviors in promoting exploitative learning It further establishes the critical role of both learning types in driving team-level innovation Ultimately, the study suggests that team leaders who adopt a blend of opening and closing leadership behaviors can effectively stimulate their team's learning activities, thereby enhancing overall innovation.

Study 1 explores the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors and their impact on team exploratory and exploitative learning, aligning with ambidextrous leadership theory The research reveals that high levels of both leadership behaviors enhance team learning outcomes, supporting calls for further investigation into this area Additionally, the study uncovers a direct effect of these leadership behaviors on team innovation, although it challenges previous findings by Zacher and Rosing, which indicated a significant interaction effect on innovation Ultimately, the results emphasize the complexity of leadership dynamics in fostering team performance and innovation.

Zacher and Rosing's (2015) study did not investigate any mediators, suggesting that factors such as team exploratory and exploitative learning may play a significant role in the inconsistent findings observed in Study 1.

Research indicates that both team exploratory and exploitative learning positively impact team innovation, supporting the notion that these activities are distinct yet complementary (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011) This suggests that teams should engage in both types of learning to enhance innovation Moreover, the roles of these learning approaches align with findings from Kostopoulos and Bozionelos, which highlight their significance in driving team performance Additionally, the results from Study 1 validate the relevance of ambidextrous leadership theory for fostering innovation in transitioning economies such as Vietnam.

Study 1 highlights the critical need for firms to invest in training team leaders to enhance both opening and closing leadership behaviors, which are essential for promoting exploratory and exploitative learning within teams Organizational trainers should focus on fostering an environment that embraces errors, encourages individual ideas, and supports experimentation—key aspects of opening leadership behavior Simultaneously, they must also stress the importance of monitoring goal attainment, establishing routines, and adhering to plans as part of closing leadership behavior This dual approach not only helps team members refine and implement existing knowledge but also boosts overall team innovation by enabling a flexible transition between exploratory and exploitative learning activities.

Study 1 has notable limitations, primarily its cross-sectional design, which restricts causal interpretation Future research should explore how ambidextrous leadership influences team exploratory and exploitative learning, ultimately affecting team-level outcomes over time.

The retail service team operates differently from other teams, such as pipeline operation teams, which must adhere to strict regulations for safety and environmental protection This difference highlights the need for further research comparing service teams with other types Additionally, factors like team psychological capital, psychological safety, and psychological contract breach may influence the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and team innovation, warranting further investigation While our study's sample is specific to Vietnam and may not be applicable elsewhere, it lays the groundwork for future research in other transitioning markets like China Ultimately, despite its limitations, Study 1 enhances our understanding of team innovation processes, particularly how leadership behaviors foster exploratory and exploitative learning, enabling team members to develop and implement innovative ideas in the evolving retail service sector.

35

Inclusive leadership encompasses positive behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and a sense of belonging, which significantly impact job outcomes like taking charge behavior, voice behavior, and prosocial rule breaking Research indicates that inclusive leadership fosters creativity and innovation at various organizational levels; however, studies specifically focusing on its influence at the team level are limited Investigations have identified mediators and moderators in the relationship between inclusive leadership and its outcomes, such as team voice and performance pressure, as well as team-derived inclusion and ethnic-cultural diversity Despite the recognized importance of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and proactive personality in team dynamics, their specific roles in the context of inclusive leadership and team innovation remain largely unexplored.

This study, drawing upon social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) and extending it to the team level, investigated a moderated mediation model in which shared team

INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF

Introduction 35 4.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 36

Inclusive leadership encompasses positive behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and a sense of belonging, which significantly impact job outcomes like taking charge behavior, voice behavior, and prosocial rule breaking Research highlights its importance in fostering creativity and innovation across organizational, team, and individual levels, though studies specifically addressing the link between inclusive leadership and team-level innovation are limited Various studies have explored mediators and moderators in this relationship, with findings indicating that team voice and performance pressure can influence team innovation, while team-derived inclusion affects team creativity Additionally, the role of inclusive leadership in relation to team ethnic-cultural diversity and inclusive climate has been examined, but the impact of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and proactive personality on team innovation in the context of inclusive leadership remains underexplored.

This study explores the application of social exchange theory (SET) at the team level, examining a moderated mediation model where shared team psychological contract fulfillment mediates the link between inclusive leadership and team innovation Additionally, it identifies team proactive personality as a moderator in the relationship between inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment Based on survey data from 300 team leaders in Vietnam's retail services sector, the findings confirm these relationships and highlight new facilitators of team innovation, specifically shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality This research provides empirical support for SET in understanding team innovation within Vietnam's transitioning economy.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) suggests that establishing exchange relationships benefits individuals and groups alike (Befu, 1977; Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976) An exchange relationship involves the direct exchange of resources between two parties, where resources given by one party (A) are returned by the other party (B) (Befu, 1977, p 266) At the individual level, SET posits that individuals engage in resource exchanges to maximize rewards while minimizing costs (Cropanzano & Mitchell).

In the context of social exchange theory (SET), the principle of reciprocity highlights that individuals who receive resources are expected to reciprocate to those who provide them (Gouldner, 1960) This concept is particularly relevant in business settings, where psychological contracts define the mutual obligations between employees and employers These contracts represent individual beliefs regarding the reciprocal responsibilities that exist within the workplace (Rousseau, 1990).

The psychological contract encompasses key types such as fulfillment, breach, and violation (Kutaula, Gillani, & Budhwar, 2020) Research indicates a positive correlation between the psychological contract and important outcomes like employee commitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and performance (Birtch et al., 2016; Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Kiazad, Kraimer, & Seibert, 2019; Solinger et al., 2016; Turnley et al., 2003) Conversely, it is negatively linked to employee turnover intention and counterproductive work behavior (Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018; Kraak et al., 2017).

The Social Exchange Theory (SET) posits that social interactions and information sharing among employees foster shared perceptions within teams, particularly regarding psychological contracts (Gong, Chang, & Cheung, 2010; Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) This dynamic influences the reciprocity between teams and organizations, which is contingent on the fulfillment of promised resources (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Individual psychological contracts represent the exchange beliefs between employees and employers, while team psychological contracts emerge from the collective perceptions formed through social interactions among team members (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Previous studies have explored the impact of psychological contracts on various team outcomes, including team output (Gibbard et al., 2017), performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (Schreuder et al., 2019), and contributions (Tekleab et al., 2020).

In the context of the SET, leaders serve as essential resources for their team members, helping to meet their needs (Bordia et al., 2017; Nielsen et al., 2017) Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv (2010) noted that inclusive leaders foster high-quality relationships by providing necessary resources, enhancing relational support, and shaping a positive team climate Nishii and Mayer (2009) emphasized that when leaders demonstrate acceptance of diverse backgrounds through strong relationships, they promote norms of equality and inclusion, facilitating power sharing and improving reciprocal exchanges among team members Recent studies have explored various mediators and moderators affecting the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation outcomes at both individual and team levels, including factors such as person-job fit, psychological empowerment, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, psychological capital, team voice, and performance pressure, as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.A brief summary of empirical studies on the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation

Authors Antecedents Moderators Mediators Outcomes Theories/

None Person-job fit Innovative behavior and well-being

Individual 207 employees in 5 telecommunication companies in Vietnam

Inclusive leadership was positively related to employee well-being and innovative behavior Person-job fit mediated these above relationships.

Individual 150 supervisors and 150 employees working in textile industry in Pakistan

Leader member exchange was partially mediated the impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior.

Individual 390 employees working in the information technology and cargo sectors within the United Kingdom and Canada

Psychological empowerment was partially mediated the impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative work behavior.

Individual 180 supervisors and 180 employees working in textile industry in Pakistan

Psychological safety was partially mediated the impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative work behavior.

Not mentioned Individual 351 employees working in

Psychological capital mediated the impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior.

Authors Antecedents Moderators Mediators Outcomes Theories/

Team Sample 1: Fifty-five team leaders and 230 team members of 55 teams in 2 companies from 2 industries, medical device and banking, in China

Sample 2: Sixty-six team leaders and 406 team members of 66 R&D software development teams in 5 companies in China

Team voice partially mediated the impact of inclusive leadership on team innovation The interaction between inclusive leadership and performance pressure affected team voice and, subsequently, leading to team innovation.

The moderated mediation model illustrated in Figure 5 explores the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation, highlighting shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediating factor and team proactive personality as a moderating variable Additionally, the model accounts for team leaders’ gender, team size, and team tenure as control variables in its analysis.

4.2.2.1 Inclusive leadership and team innovation

Research identifies several key factors influencing team innovation, including team structure, composition, climate, processes, and leadership (Anderson et al., 2014) Leadership plays a crucial role in fostering innovation, as effective leaders cultivate strong relationships with their team members They enhance innovation by providing necessary resources, offering relational support, creating a supportive team climate, and addressing the functional needs of the team.

(Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Choi et al., 2017; Randel et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020).

Teamwork creates the opportunity to bring diverse expertise and perspectives from team members to achieve team innovation (Thayer, Petruzzelli, & McClurg,

To maximize the advantages of innovative ideas within teams, leaders must effectively navigate the challenges posed by the diverse backgrounds, tenures, knowledge, and skills of their members Addressing these challenges requires leaders to meet two essential needs of their team: fostering a sense of belonging and recognizing the uniqueness of each member.

Inclusive leadership fosters a sense of belonging while respecting individual uniqueness, empowering team members psychologically and enhancing their identification with the work group (Randel et al., 2018) This support is crucial during the idea implementation phase, which often involves frustration, psychological stress, and uncertainty, ultimately helping team members to thrive and recover in their roles According to the Social Exchange Theory (SET), when teams recognize the benefits of resources provided by their leaders, they feel compelled to reciprocate through increased effort and collective behaviors aimed at achieving organizational goals (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Consequently, as teams perceive advantages from their inclusive leaders, they are more likely to collaborate in developing and executing diverse ideas to meet workplace objectives.

H1 Inclusive leadership has a positive effect on team innovation.

4.2.2.2 The mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment

The psychological contract within work teams significantly influences team members' willingness to go above and beyond in their tasks, especially when organizations honor their commitments to the teams (Laulié and Tekleab, 2016) This concept encompasses two types of fulfillment: shared team psychological contract fulfillment and shared individual psychological contract fulfillment (Laulié).

Multiple social interactions and information sharing among team members can foster a shared understanding of psychological contract fulfillment At the team level, this shared fulfillment is described as the alignment of team members' perceptions regarding the extent to which an organization has met its obligations to the team.

Shared team psychological contract fulfillment significantly influences team innovation, as teams that experience high levels of fulfillment are more motivated to achieve their goals and contribute to their collective success (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016; Schreuder et al., 2019; Tekleab et al., 2020) According to Social Exchange Theory (SET), the reciprocity between teams and organizations is contingent upon the fulfillment of promised resources, meaning that greater fulfillment leads to increased contributions from teams (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Research by Schreuder et al (2019) supports this, indicating that shared individual psychological contract fulfillment correlates positively with both team performance and organizational citizenship behaviors Conversely, when teams perceive unmet promises from their organization, their contributions may diminish (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016).

& Tekleab, 2016) Following this logic, shared team psychological contract breach was negatively related to team output (Gibbard et al., 2017) Accordingly, shared team psychological contract fulfillment is associated with team innovation.

Effective leadership styles play a crucial role in fostering shared psychological contract fulfillment within teams Inclusive leaders significantly shape their team members' perceptions of tasks and goals, enhancing workplace dynamics By addressing fundamental human needs, these leaders are more inclined to engage in discussions about expectations for resource exchanges, ensuring that individual needs are met as part of their commitments.

Research methods 45

Study 2 conducted a survey targeting retail service stores in two metropolitan cities of Vietnam, HCM City and Hanoi, to test the model and hypotheses Survey respondents were carefully chosen with at least 6 months’ experience as team leaders in the current position (i.e., the use of key informants suggesting by Kumar, Stern, and Anderson, 1993) To ensure the appropriateness of the contents of the measures to the retail service context in Vietnam, Study 2 also conducted three in- depth interviews with experienced store leaders working in both local and foreigner companies in HCM city to evaluate and examine how real respondents may described existing inclusive leadership, team proactive personality, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, and team innovation Further, the questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into Vietnamese by an academic fluent in both languages This procedure was carefully undertaken because English is not well understood by all team leaders in Vietnam Back translation was followed to ensure that English and Vietnamese versions were comparable and any discrepancies were resolved Note that the questionnaire was designed based on scale items modified to measure at the team level so that we need to assess their understandability, clarity, and relevance in the retail service store context Some sample items in the questionnaire were “As a team leader, I support individuals as group members”, “The opportunities that my team members have to grow and advance”, “Wherever my team members have been, they have been a powerful force for constructive change”, and “My team members come up with new ideas” to measure inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation, respectively Through these in-depth interviews, experienced store leaders contributed by ensuring the wording and meaning of the modified items in the retail service store market in Vietnam.

Between October 24, 2019, and January 1, 2020, a total of 300 team leaders completed questionnaires, with no submissions excluded during the screening process The final sample comprised 195 female team leaders (65.00%) and 105 male team leaders (35.00%).

The study involved 300 participants, equally divided between HCM City and Hanoi, with 73.33% of them under 30 years old A significant majority, 84%, of team leaders held an undergraduate degree, while 8.33% had only a high school education, and 7.67% possessed a postgraduate degree Team sizes varied, with 53.67% having 8 or fewer employees, and 52.67% of teams operated for 18 months or longer The types of retail service stores included 32% convenience stores, 27.33% in food and beverages, and 10.67% in electronics, with the remaining 30% comprising fashion, pharmacy, and cosmetics outlets.

Study 2 explored four key constructs: inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation Inclusive leadership, defined as a second-order construct, consists of five components: openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness, and uniqueness It was assessed using twelve items from Carmeli et al (2010) and Randel et al (2018), utilizing a seven-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a large extent) Shared team psychological contract fulfillment, another second-order construct, includes transactional, training, and relational obligations, measured by eleven items on a seven-point scale, adapted from Lester et al (2007) Team proactive personality, a first-order construct, was evaluated through five items modified from Seibert et al (1999), using a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and employed a referent-shift approach for measurement Lastly, team innovation, also a first-order construct, was assessed with four items on a seven-point scale.

1 (needs much improvement) to 7 (excellent), modified from Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998) for use with the team.

Study 2 controls these team characteristics (i.e., the gender of team leaders,team size, and team tenure) which may be sources to predict team innovation(Hülsheger et al., 2009) The gender of team leaders refers to dummy coding (1:male; 0: female) Team size refers to the number of employees in a team Team tenure refers to the number of months in operation.

This study employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the measures of four key constructs: inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation Initially, CFA was applied to validate the measures for inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment, both of which are second-order constructs Following this, the CFA models for the two first-order constructs were assessed to ensure their validity.

(team proactive personality and team innovation) were incorporated into the CFA model of inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment to form a saturated model (final measurement model).

The CFA model of inclusive leadership demonstrated a good fit to the data, with χ² (47) = 89.65 (χ²/df = 1.91), GFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.06 All factor loadings were significant and above 0.50 The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the components of inclusive leadership were as follows: belongingness (CR = 0.67, AVE = 0.52), availability (CR = 0.73, AVE = 0.48), accessibility (CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.67), opening (CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.57), and uniqueness (CR = 0.63, AVE = 0.46) Similarly, the CFA model for shared team psychological contract fulfillment also showed an acceptable fit: χ² (41) = 90.81 (χ²/df = 2.22), GFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.06, with all factor loadings above 0.70 The CR and AVE for shared team psychological contract fulfillment components were: transactional obligation (CR = 0.82, AVE = 0.61), training obligation (CR = 0.90, AVE = 0.69), and relational obligation (CR = 0.87, AVE = 0.63) The saturated model also indicated a good fit: χ² (108) = 251.17 (χ²/df = 2.33), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07, with significant factor loadings above 0.50 Two composite measures were created by averaging the items for each component of inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment in the saturated model.

The study demonstrated satisfactory composite reliability and average variance extracted for team proactive personality (CR = 0.82, AVE = 0.47) and team innovation (CR = 0.86, AVE = 0.61) Additionally, the correlation between any pair of constructs remained below the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct, confirming the discriminant validity of inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation, as outlined by Fornell & Larcker (1981).

Study 2 used a survey data set collected from a single respondent (i.e., team leaders), which may raise the problem of common method bias To lessen this problem, in the design phase, Study 2 employed different scaling methods (i.e., Likert and rating scales) In this analysis phase, a CFA Harman’s single factor model test was undertaken The Harman’s test demonstrated that the model yielded a very poor fit to the data [ 2 = 1,103.71, df = 119 ( 2 /df = 9.28), GFI = 0.61, CFI 0.53, and RMSEA = 0.17], compared to the trait (saturated) model Accordingly, common method bias, if existed, was not a pervasive problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003) Table 6 presents key constructs’ and items’ statistics and Table 7 displays the correlations among constructs together with their square roots of AVEs.

Inclusive leadership: Accessibility: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.80; Average variance extracted (AVE)

As a team leader, I encourage my team members to access me on emerging issues 6.17 0.902 0.72

As a team leader, I am accessible for discussing emerging problems 6.10 0.989 0.91

Inclusive leadership: Availability: CR = 0.73; AVE = 0.48

As a team leader, I am available for consultation on problems 6.17 0.968 0.74

As a team leader, I am an ongoing "presence" in my team 6.45 0.834 0.74

As a team leader, I am available for professional questions from my team members 6.15 1.002 0.57

Inclusive leadership: Belongingness: CR = 0.67; AVE = 0.52

As a team leader, I support individuals as group members 6.30 1.071 0.50

As a team leader, I ensure justice and equity 6.35 0.865 0.88

Inclusive leadership: Openness: CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.57

As a team leader, I am open to hearing new ideas 6.15 0.951 0.76

As a team leader, I am attentive to new opportunities to improve work processes 6.07 0.977 0.74

As a team leader, I open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to achieve them 6.04 1.051 0.76

Inclusive leadership: Uniqueness: CR = 0.63; AVE = 0.46

As a team leader, I encourage diverse contributions 5.96 0.961 0.72

As a team leader, I help group members fully contribute 5.98 0.928 0.63

Shared team psychological contract fulfillment: Transactional obligation: CR = 0.82; AVE = 0.61

A competitive salary for my team (a salary comparable to that paid by similar organizations) 5.06 1.256 0.73

A fair salary for my team (a salary that is reasonable for the jobs my team do) 5.28 1.179 0.89

Pay tied to the level of my team performance 5.35 1.168 0.70

Shared team psychological contract fulfillment: Training obligation: CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.69

My team members have excellent opportunities for growth and advancement, with a rating of 5.48 Career development is also highly valued, scoring 5.46, indicating strong support for professional growth Additionally, the chances for promotions are notable, with a rating of 5.50, reflecting a positive environment for career progression.

The career guidance and mentoring opportunities my team members receive 5.30 1.195 0.77

Shared team psychological contract fulfillment: Relational obligation: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.63

The amount of job security my team members have 5.64 1.064 0.73

The extent to which my team members are treated with respect and courtesy 5.92 0.959 0.83

The quality of working conditions for my team 5.83 0.983 0.83

The extent to which my team members are treated fairly 5.85 0.993 0.79

Team proactive personality: CR = 0.82; AVE = 0.47

Wherever my team members have been, they have been a powerful force for constructive change 5.50 1.166 0.68

Nothing is more exciting than seeing ideas of my team members turn into 5.47 1.186 0.58

My team members excel at identifying opportunities 4.82 1.318 0.76

My team members are always looking for better ways to do things 5.19 1.241 0.72

My team members can spot a good opportunity long before others can 4.82 1.332 0.68

My team members come up with new ideas 4.82 1.375 0.76

My team members work to implement new ideas 5.01 1.347 0.83

My team members find improved ways to do things 5.46 1.219 0.80

My team members create better processes and routines 5.19 1.388 0.73

1 Shared team psychological contract fulfillment 0.77 0.53 0.73

Note: Numbers on the diagonal are square roots of average variances extracted; all correlations are significant at p < 001.

This study utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the theoretical model and hypotheses regarding the mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation Employing the bias-corrected bootstrap method, known for its accuracy in establishing confidence intervals, two models were analyzed: Model M0, which included shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator alongside three control variables, tested the direct effects of inclusive leadership on team innovation and the indirect effects of the mediator Model M1 further examined the mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment while incorporating team proactive personality as a moderator Importantly, no improper solutions, such as Heywood cases, were identified in either model.

The results produced by SEM revealed that Model M0 received an acceptable fit to the data: χ 2 (86) = 158.34 (χ 2 /df = 1.84), GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA

The analysis revealed that inclusive leadership did not significantly impact team innovation (βstandardized = 0.15, p > 0.05), failing to support hypothesis H1 However, the bias-corrected bootstrap method with 1000 samples indicated a positive and significant indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation through shared team psychological contract fulfillment (βstandardized = 0.16, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.07, 0.29]) Additionally, factors such as team leaders’ gender, team size, and team tenure showed no significant effects on team innovation (βgender = -0.02, βsize = -0.08, βtenure = -0.05, p > 0.05).

The SEM analysis revealed that the model incorporating shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator (M1) exhibited a good fit to the data, with χ² (176) = 339.87, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.92, and RMSEA = 0.06 Significant paths were identified from inclusive leadership to shared team psychological contract fulfillment and from this fulfillment to team innovation (p < 0.001) Furthermore, the bias-corrected bootstrap method, utilizing 1000 samples, confirmed a positive and significant indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation through shared team psychological contract fulfillment (βstandardized = 0.08, p < 0.01; 95% CI [0.08, 0.33]), thereby supporting hypothesis H2 Additionally, the interaction between team proactive personality and inclusive leadership significantly influenced shared team psychological contract fulfillment (βstandardized = 0.20, p < 0.01), validating hypothesis H3.

Model M0 (overall model): Testing H1 and control variables

Direct effect: Inclusive leadership  Shared team psychological contract fulfillment 0.65 0.095 0.51 0.000

Direct effect: Shared team psychological contract fulfillment  Team innovation 0.49 0.127 0.32 0.000

Indirect effect: Inclusive leadership  Shared team psychological contract fulfillment  Team innovation BC 0.32 0.120 0.16 0.001

Leader gender (male)  Team innovation -0.04 0.130 -0.02 0.738

Model M1: Shared team psychological contract fulfillment was the mediator: Testing H2, H3

Direct effect: Inclusive leadership  Shared team psychological contract fulfillment 0.54 0.100 0.45 0.000

Direct effect: Shared team psychological contract fulfillment

Indirect effect: Inclusive leadership  Shared team psychological contract fulfillment  Team innovation BC 0.33 0.139 0.17 0.001

H3 Inclusive leadership*Team proactive personality  Shared team psychological contract fulfillment 0.05 0.015 0.20 0.001

Note: B: unstandardized regression weight; SE: standard error; β: standardized regression weight; p: p-value; BC : bias-corrected bootstrap estimate.

Discussion and implications 53

Study 2 explored the connection between inclusive leadership and team innovation through the lens of the Social Exchange Theory (SET), focusing on the mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment Analyzing survey data from 300 retail service team leaders in Vietnam revealed that inclusive leadership did not directly influence team innovation However, shared team psychological contract fulfillment was found to mediate this relationship Notably, the interaction between team proactive personality and inclusive leadership positively impacted shared team psychological contract fulfillment These findings provide valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical applications in organizational settings.

Recent findings underscore the significant impact of inclusive leadership on team dynamics, particularly in enhancing shared team psychological contract fulfillment and fostering innovation This aligns with prior research, such as Ye et al (2019), which identified a strong positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation, while also noting the role of team voice as a mediator The results highlight how inclusive leadership behaviors are crucial for understanding the psychological characteristics of teams, emphasizing the importance of such leadership in strengthening team cohesion and commitment to shared goals.

Leaders who exhibit strong inclusive leadership behaviors are more inclined to foster a shared psychological contract within their teams, which subsequently enhances team contributions and drives innovative outcomes Previous research suggests that certain leadership styles, such as transformational and servant leadership, are linked to fulfilling this shared psychological contract, ultimately boosting team performance (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016).

In addition, Study 2 addresses the calls to test the two new components of inclusive leadership (i.e., belongingness and uniqueness) suggested by Randel et al.

A 2018 study explored an enhanced model of inclusive leadership characterized by five key components: openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness, and uniqueness This research expands our understanding of inclusive leadership and highlights its components, indicating their potential to foster positive outcomes (Randel et al., 2018).

The study highlights that fulfilling a shared team psychological contract is crucial for fostering innovation within teams To enhance innovative activities, teams must focus on developing this shared understanding However, this finding contrasts with earlier research by Gibbard et al (2017), which suggested that person-team fit acted as a mediator between psychological contract breaches and team performance These discrepancies indicate that there may be additional mediators influencing the relationship between shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team innovation.

Study 2 findings also highlight the moderating role that team proactive personality plays in explaining shared team psychological contract fulfillment. Team proactive personality can be a substitute source of resources for team leaders to influence the perceptions of their team members about the promised obligation fulfillment of organization, enabling them to strengthen the effect of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment The role of team proactive personality has also been verified by past research in team outcomes and related areas For instance, Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk (2016) found that team proactive personality positively moderates the impact of leader humility and shared leadership Wang et al (2017) found that team proactive personality mean moderates the positive relationship between employee proactive personality and work engagement, while team proactive personality diversity does not The findings of Study 2 further confirm the explaining power of SET in teams in a transitioning market, Vietnam, encouraging further research on this specific leadership style – inclusive leadership – in such a market.

Fostering inclusive leadership is crucial for enhancing team outcomes such as shared psychological contract fulfillment and innovation Our findings, aligned with Ye et al (2019), suggest that leadership training interventions can significantly improve inclusive leadership behaviors, addressing the needs and attitudes of team members Trainers should emphasize the importance of providing resources, supporting relationships, and facilitating a sense of belonging while honoring individual uniqueness Additionally, focusing on fulfilling the psychological contract at the team level may yield greater benefits than concentrating solely on individual contracts The positive impact of inclusive leadership on shared psychological contract fulfillment is further amplified in teams with proactive personalities, highlighting how inclusive leaders can cultivate a supportive social environment that fosters positive relationships and drives team innovation.

Study 2 has notable limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which restricts causal interpretations; future research should explore how inclusive leadership influences shared team psychological contract fulfillment and subsequent team outcomes over time Additionally, focusing solely on retail service teams suggests a need for studies across diverse team types to validate these findings Other factors, such as team positive psychological resources and working contexts, may also mediate or moderate the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation, warranting further investigation Furthermore, the study's Vietnamese context limits generalizability, highlighting the importance of research in various countries for broader insights Despite these limitations, Study 2 enhances our understanding of team innovation processes, emphasizing the positive impact of inclusive leadership on fostering quality relationships between teams and organizations, thereby promoting innovation in the retail service sector within a transitioning economy.

58

MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM LEARNING

In today's highly competitive global environment, both workers and firms across developing and developed economies must develop the necessary capabilities to remain relevant in their markets (Tho et al., 2018) A crucial capability for achieving optimal performance is psychological capital (PsyCap), which consists of self-efficacy, hope, resiliency, and optimism (Dawkins et al., 2015; Luthans et al., 2015) Initially focused on individuals (Luthans et al., 2015), research on PsyCap has predominantly examined this level (Luthans et al., 2008; Miao et al., 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012) However, recent studies have shifted towards understanding PsyCap at the team level, emphasizing its importance in team processes and performance (Chou et al., 2008; Gundlach et al., 2006).

“agreement among team members in regard to the team’s shared (team-referent) PsyCap perception” (Dawkins et al., 2015, p 936)

Previous studies have highlighted the significance of team psychological capital (PsyCap) in influencing various team outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, performance, and satisfaction Research has shown that team PsyCap positively impacts service quality and customer satisfaction, as well as organizational commitment and team creativity Despite its importance, the role of team innovation remains underexplored, even though it is crucial for the survival and growth of modern organizations.

TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND INNOVATION: THE

Introduction 58

In today's highly competitive global landscape, both workers and organizations in developing and developed economies must cultivate the right capabilities to remain relevant (Tho et al., 2018) Among these capabilities, psychological capital (PsyCap) plays a crucial role in achieving optimal performance (Dawkins et al., 2015; Luthans et al., 2015) PsyCap is a multifaceted construct that includes self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism Initially focused on individuals (Luthans et al., 2015), research has predominantly explored this level (Luthans et al., 2008; Miao et al., 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012) However, recent studies have begun to examine PsyCap at the team level, reflecting the growing interest in team dynamics and performance (Chou et al., 2008; Gundlach et al., 2006).

“agreement among team members in regard to the team’s shared (team-referent) PsyCap perception” (Dawkins et al., 2015, p 936)

Previous studies have highlighted the importance of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) in various outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, team performance, and satisfaction, as well as service quality and customer satisfaction Despite its significance, the link between team PsyCap and team innovation remains underexplored, even though team innovation is vital for the survival and growth of modern organizations Furthermore, the process of learning and knowledge creation predominantly occurs within teams, emphasizing the need for further investigation into this relationship.

Despite previous research, the connection between team psychological capital (PsyCap), team learning, and innovation remains underexplored Study 3 utilized the theory of psychological capital to assess how team PsyCap influences team innovation, specifically within the retail service industry It also analyzed the mediating effects of team learning—both exploratory and exploitative—on the relationship between team PsyCap and innovation outcomes.

A survey of 272 team leaders in Vietnam's retail service sector revealed that team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) significantly influences team innovation, with team exploratory learning serving as a mediating factor, while team exploitative learning does not This study enhances the understanding of team PsyCap and its role in fostering innovation, providing empirical evidence of PsyCap's predictive power in team-level innovation within a transitioning economy The article further outlines the theoretical framework, research methods, data analysis, results, discussions, implications, and concludes with limitations and future research directions.

Theoretical background and hypotheses 59

PsyCap, a vital individual-level psychological resource, encompasses a positive psychological state characterized by four key components: confidence (efficacy) to tackle challenging tasks, optimism for future success, hope to persevere and adjust goals as needed, and resilience to overcome adversity Research indicates a strong correlation between PsyCap and favorable employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance, as well as fostering employee innovation.

Team PsyCap refers to a collective psychological state encompassing self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, as defined by Heled, Somech, and Waters (2016) Unlike individual PsyCap, which is a personal psychological resource, team PsyCap emerges from the shared perceptions and interactions among team members (Dawkins et al., 2015) Recent studies have explored the impact of team PsyCap on various team outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, performance, satisfaction, service quality, customer satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity.

Table 9 A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between team PsyCap and team outcomes

Eighty-two team leaders and 313 team members of 82 management teams in educational organizations in Israel

The interactions between team PsyCap and team learning values and team leader optimism positively affected team organizational citizenship behavior.

Eighty-nine team members of 26 small retail stores in a family-owned company in the

Trust in management fully mediated the impact of team PsyCap on unit sales growth, and partially mediated the impact of authentic leadership on unit sales growth.

A study by Dawkins et al (2018) involved 193 team members across 43 teams from 10 different organizations, representing diverse industries including energy and resources, employment and recruitment, financial services, counseling, and childcare.

Team PsyCap was positively related to team performance and team satisfaction but was not related to either team task or relationship conflict

(2016) Eighty-two team leaders and 313 team members of 82 school management teams in educational organizations (country was not reported)

Team PsyCap mediated the impacts of learning climate on both team organizational citizenship behavior and employee job satisfaction.

Mathe et al (2017) One hundred and sixty-eight team members of 67 quick service restaurant units in one company in the United States

Collective psychological capital (PsyCap) is positively associated with service quality, customer satisfaction, and unit revenues Furthermore, service quality and customer satisfaction serve as complete mediators in the relationship between collective PsyCap and unit revenues.

Eighty-two team leaders and 332 team members of 82 teams in 41 organizations in

Portugal from various industries such as footwear, retailing, clothing, accounting services, city council, and health care

Leader humility positively influences team PsyCap, with team humility serving as a partial mediator in this relationship Furthermore, the interaction between leader humility and its strength is linked to increased team humility, which, when combined with the strength of team humility, further enhances team PsyCap.

(2019) Sample 1: 97 team members of 23 teams in a business school in Singapore

Sample 2: 229 team members of 74 teams in two business schools in Portugal

Sample 3: 70 team leaders and 282 team members of 70 teams in 41 organizations in

Portugal from diversified sectors such as healthcare, logistics, consulting, ceramics, retailing, telecommunications, hospitality, banking, automative industry, and insurance

Sample 4: 53 team leaders and 203 team members of 53 teams in 10 different organizations in China

Leader humility was positively related to team psychological capital, which in turn enhanced team task allocation effectiveness and, subsequently, leading to enhance team performance.

Two hundred and sixty-seven team members in 52 international tourist hotels in Taiwan

Collective psychological capital partially mediated the impacts of shared leadership on both team organizational commitment and team creativity.

The conceptual model illustrated in Figure 6 suggests that team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) positively influences team innovation Additionally, the model posits that both team exploratory and exploitative learning serve as mediators in the relationship between team PsyCap and innovation outcomes Furthermore, team leader, team size, and team tenure are identified as control variables within this framework.

Innovation is defined as the intentional introduction and application of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures within a group or organization, aimed at benefiting individuals and society (West & Farr, 1990) At the team level, team innovation involves the introduction of new concepts or methods that are beneficial to the team (De Dreu & West, 2001) This innovative process can occur through individual cognitive efforts and collaborative social interactions within the workplace (Rank et al., 2009; Rosing et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2014).

Teamwork fosters collaboration among individuals with diverse expertise and perspectives, enabling the development and implementation of innovative ideas, including new products, processes, and solutions that drive organizational success (Thayer, Petruzzelli, & McClurg, 2018).

Team members often face significant psychological pressure when dealing with the frustrations that arise from failure while generating and implementing innovative ideas in the workplace.

Team psychological capital (PsyCap) is crucial for successful innovation processes, as it fosters shared perceptions among team members through communication and information exchange, as suggested by social contagion theory This theory emphasizes the collective identity of the team over individual identities, leading to a social context where members adopt each other's attitudes and beliefs Consequently, team members are more likely to share perceptions of their psychological development, enhancing the team's functions and operations This shared understanding ultimately contributes to the generation of innovative outcomes within team-based structures.

H1 Team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation.

5.2.2.2 The mediating role of team learning

Team learning encompasses two key activities: exploratory and exploitative learning Exploratory learning focuses on developing new capabilities, while exploitative learning aims to refine and enhance existing knowledge and skills.

Teams engage in ambidextrous learning, which encompasses both exploratory and exploitative practices (Diaz-Fernandez et al., 2017; Xiong, 2020) This dual approach allows teams to generate innovative knowledge while effectively utilizing existing standardized knowledge, highlighting the complementary nature of exploratory and exploitative learning (Diaz-Fernandez et al., 2017; Gilson et al., 2005; Kostopoulos &).

Balancing ambidextrous learning is crucial for enhancing team performance, as it fosters both exploration and exploitation, which are vital for successful innovation (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Xiong, 2020) Innovation involves both idea generation, which leans towards exploration, and implementation, which relies on exploitation; thus, these two processes must work in tandem (Rosing et al., 2011) Teams that engage in both exploratory and exploitative learning are proactive in seeking new knowledge while effectively utilizing existing skills, leading to improved innovation outcomes (Rosing et al., 2011; Serrano-Bedia et al., 2018) Ultimately, fostering team innovation is a key indicator of high-performance teamwork, linking exploratory and exploitative learning directly to enhanced innovation capabilities.

The exploration process is often fraught with uncertainty and the risk of incorrect conclusions (Kark & Cameli, 2009) However, Team PsyCap can alleviate fears of negative evaluations from others, promoting an environment conducive to experimenting with innovative ideas, which enhances team exploratory learning Teams exhibiting high levels of PsyCap foster a shared psychological state among members, positively influencing their collaborative functions and operations (Dawkins et al.).

In a supportive team environment, strong interpersonal relationships can enhance exploitative learning, allowing members to overcome fears of opportunism This atmosphere encourages open sharing of knowledge and skills, ultimately driving the team towards achieving its goals.

(Choo, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2007; Dawkins et al., 2018) Accordingly, team PsyCap may be positively related to team exploratory and exploitative learning. Formally,

H2 Team exploratory learning positively mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation.

H3 Team exploitative learning positively mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation.

Research method 65

Two steps of Study 3 were utilized including a pilot study and a main survey.

In a pilot study involving in-depth interviews with five team leaders in Ho Chi Minh City, the aim of Study 3 was to validate the constructs within the context of Vietnam's transitioning economy The main survey targeted team leaders with a minimum of six months of experience in their roles, focusing on Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi Conducted by a research agency with offices in both cities, the survey sought to gather data for measure validation and hypothesis testing Utilizing a partial self-administered method, interviewers distributed questionnaires to willing store leaders and collected them upon completion, ensuring any missing values were addressed by inviting participants to fill them in.

The sample included 272 team leaders In terms of gender, the sample comprised 166 (61.03%) female and 106 (38.97%) male team leaders There were

In a recent study, 67.65% of team leaders were based in Ho Chi Minh City, while 32.35% operated from Hanoi The majority, 72.06%, were under 30 years old, and 91.91% held an undergraduate degree Team sizes were evenly split, with 50% having nine or fewer employees and the other half exceeding that number Regarding team tenure, 49.63% had been operational for over 18 months, while 50.37% had been active for 17 months or less In terms of retail service types, 36.03% were convenience stores, 28.31% focused on food and beverages, and 13.97% dealt with electronics, with the remainder comprising pharmacies, women’s and children’s apparel, fashion, and cosmetics.

Study 3 examined four key constructs: team PsyCap, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation Team PsyCap, a second-order construct, consists of four components: self-efficacy, hope, resiliency, and optimism, each measured by four items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), following the approach of Dawkins et al (2018) and utilizing a referent-shift method (Chan, 1998) In contrast, team innovation, along with exploratory and exploitative learning, were treated as first-order constructs, with team innovation assessed through four items from Welbourne et al (1998) using a 7-point scale (1 = needs much improvement, 7 = excellent) Both team exploratory and exploitative learning were evaluated with four items each on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), based on the work of Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011).

The questionnaire included two screening questions (team leader with at least

The study utilized a questionnaire developed in English and translated into Vietnamese to accommodate team leaders in Vietnam who may not be proficient in English To ensure the accuracy of the translation, the Vietnamese version was back-translated into English by a second bilingual academic, allowing for a comparison of both English versions to confirm the equivalence of meanings The questionnaire included items measuring constructs in a random order, alongside three control variables and essential demographic data, ensuring a comprehensive assessment with six months of experience.

Study 3 included team size, team tenure and team leaders’ gender in the model as control variables This is because prior research has demonstrated that these team characteristics had effects on team innovation (e.g., Cady & Valentine, 1999;Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Laughlin et al., 2006) Team size was measured by the number of employees in a team, team tenure was measured by months in operation and dummy coding (1: male, 0: female) was used for team leaders’gender.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate the measures of four constructs: team PsyCap, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation In Study 3, CFA was initially used to validate the measure of team PsyCap as a second-order construct Subsequently, the CFA models for the three first-order constructs—team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation—were integrated into the CFA model of team PsyCap, resulting in a comprehensive saturated model that serves as the final measurement model.

The CFA model for team PsyCap demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the data, with χ²(100) = 223.97 (χ²/df = 2.24), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07 All item factor loadings were substantial (≥ 0.60) and statistically significant (p < 0.001) The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the team PsyCap components were as follows: team self-efficacy (CR = 0.81, AVE = 0.51), team hope (CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.50), team resiliency (CR = 0.78, AVE = 0.47), and team optimism (CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.51) Additionally, the saturated model also showed an acceptable fit with χ²(94) = 224.28 (χ²/df = 2.39), GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.07, with all item factor loadings remaining high (≥ 0.60) and significant (p < 0.001) A composite measure was used in the saturated model, averaging the items for each team PsyCap component.

The composite reliability and average variance extracted of team exploratory learning (CR = 0.86, AVE = 0.61), team exploitative learning (CR = 0.81, AVE 0.51), and team innovation (CR = 0.83, AVE = 0.54) were also satisfactory (Table

11) Further, the correlation between any pair of constructs was always less than the square root of the average variance extracted of each construct in the pair (Table

11), supporting discriminant validity of team PsyCap, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning and team innovation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)

Study 3 used a survey data set collected from a single respondent (i.e., team leaders), which may raise the problem of common method bias To lessen this problem, in the design phase, Study 3 employed different scaling methods (i.e., Likert and rating scales) together with a random assignment of items into the questionnaire In this analysis phase, a CFA Harman’s single factor model test was undertaken The Harman’s test demonstrated that the model yielded a very poor fit to the data [ 2 = 645.19, df = 100 ( 2 /df = 6.45), GFI = 0.73, CFI = 0.76, and RMSEA = 0.14], compared to the trait (saturated) model Accordingly, common method bias, if existed, was not a pervasive problem in Study 3 (Podsakoff et al.,

2003) Table 10 presents key constructs’ and items’ statistics and Table 11 displays the correlations among constructs together with their square roots of AVEs

Team PsyCap: Team self-efficacy: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.81; Average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.51

Our team is confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution 5.79 1.060 0.71 Our team is confident in representing my work area in meetings with management 5.81 1.027 0.68

Our team is confident contributing to discussion about the organizations’ strategy 5.55 1.259 0.71

Our team is confident helping to set targets/goals in our work area 5.78 1.229 0.76

Team PsyCap: Team hope: CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.50

If our team gets in a jam at work, we can think of many ways to get out of it 6.18 0.899 0.73

At the present time, our team is energetically pursuing team’s work goals 6.11 0.832 0.68 Our team feels there are a lot of ways around any problem 6.05 0.946 0.76

Right now our team is pretty successful at work 5.98 0.939 0.67

Team PsyCap: Team resiliency: CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.47

When our team has a setback at work, we have no trouble recovering from it, moving on 6.07 0.984 0.68

Our team usually takes stressful things at work in stride 5.73 1.126 0.67 Our team can get through difficult times at work because as a team we have experienced difficult before 5.89 1.030 0.69

Our team can handle many things at a time at this job 5.89 1.066 0.71

Team PsyCap: Team optimism: CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.51

Our team maintains a positive outlook on our work and is optimistic about our future prospects.

Our team feels in this job, things always work out the way we want them to 5.72 1.131 0.60

Our team approaches this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining” 6.25 0.853 0.76

Team exploratory learning: CR = 0.86; AVE = 0.61

Team members were systematically searching for new possibilities 5.72 1.228 0.72 Team members offered new ideas and solutions to complicated problems 5.75 1.207 0.78 Team members experimented with new and creative ways for accomplishing work 5.68 1.272 0.82

Team members evaluated diverse options 5.71 1.146 0.81

Team exploitative learning: CR = 0.81; AVE = 0.51

In our team, we primarily performed routine activities 6.03 1.095 0.69 Our team implemented standardized methodologies and regular work practices 6.27 0.828 0.69

Team members improved and refined their existing knowledge and expertise 6.18 0.922 0.77

Team members mainly used their current knowledge and skills for performing their tasks 6.23 0.946 0.71

Our team comes up with new ideas 5.46 1.174 0.79

Our team works to implement new ideas 5.56 1.154 0.81

Our team finds improved ways to do things 5.93 0.999 0.72

Our team creates better processes and routines 5.70 1.312 0.60

Note: Numbers on the diagonal are square roots of average variances extracted; all correlations are significant at p < 001.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to evaluate the theoretical model and hypotheses regarding the mediating effects of team exploratory and exploitative learning on the relationship between team psychological capital (PsyCap) and team innovation Study 3 implemented the bias-corrected bootstrap method to ensure accurate confidence intervals Three models were analyzed: Model M0 examined the overall effect of team PsyCap on team innovation, incorporating both mediators and control variables, while also assessing the indirect effects of team exploratory and exploitative learning Model M1 focused on team exploratory learning as a mediator for hypothesis H2, and Model M2 explored team exploitative learning as a mediator for hypothesis H3 Importantly, no improper solutions, such as Heywood cases, were identified in any of the models.

The SEM analysis indicated that the overall model (M0) exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data, with χ²(143) = 286.17 (χ²/df = 2.02), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.06 Notably, team PsyCap positively influenced team innovation (βstandardized = 0.25, p < 0.001), thus confirming hypothesis H1 Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap method, utilizing 1000 samples, revealed a significant indirect effect of team PsyCap on team innovation through both team exploratory and exploitative learning (βstandardized = 0.44, p < 0.01, 95% CI).

CI [0.22, 0.69]; Table 12) Team leaders’ gender, team size and team tenure,however, did not have any significant effect on team innovation (βgender = 0.00, βsize -0.04, βtenure = -0.05, p > 0.05; Table 12)

5.4.3.2 Testing the mediating effect of team exploratory learning (M1) of Study 3

The results produced by SEM demonstrated that the model with team exploratory learning as a mediator (M1) received an acceptable fit to the data: χ 2 (48)

The study reported a model fit with a chi-square value of 97.55 (χ²/df = 2.03), GFI of 0.95, CFI of 0.97, and RMSEA of 0.06 Significant paths were identified from team psychological capital (PsyCap) to team exploratory learning and from team exploratory learning to team innovation (p < 0.001) Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap method, utilizing 1000 samples, confirmed a positive and significant indirect effect of team PsyCap on team innovation through team exploratory learning, with a standardized beta of 0.41 (p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.23, 0.58]).

12), thus, supporting H2 That is, team exploratory learning mediated the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation

5.4.3.3 Testing the mediating effect of team exploitative learning (M2) of Study 3

The results produced by SEM demonstrated that the model with team exploitative learning as a mediator (M2) received an acceptable fit to the data: χ 2 (48)

The analysis revealed a chi-square value of 133.46 (χ²/df = 2.78), with goodness-of-fit indices including GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.08 A significant positive relationship was found between team psychological capital (PsyCap) and team exploitative learning (βstandardized = 0.72, p < 0.001) However, the connection between team exploratory learning and team innovation was positive yet not statistically significant (βstandardized = 0.02, p > 0.05) Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap method indicated that the indirect effect of team PsyCap on team innovation through team exploitative learning was also positive but not significant (βstandardized = 0.01, p > 0.05, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19]) Consequently, hypothesis H3 was rejected, indicating that team exploitative learning did not mediate the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation Detailed results, including unstandardized estimates, standard errors, standardized estimates, t-values, and p-values for the structural paths, are presented in Table 12.

Model M0 (overall model): Testing H1 and control variables

The analysis reveals significant direct effects of Team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) on both Team exploratory learning (β = 0.95, p < 0.001) and Team exploitative learning (β = 0.74, p < 0.001) Additionally, Team exploratory learning positively influences Team innovation (β = 0.61, p < 0.001), while the effect of Team exploitative learning on Team innovation is negligible (β = 0.07, p = 0.572) Notably, there is a significant indirect effect of Team PsyCap on Team innovation through both exploratory and exploitative learning (BC = 0.63, p = 0.003) Control variables, such as leader gender, show no significant impact on Team innovation (β = -0.01, p = 0.948).

Model M1: Team exploratory learning was the mediator: Testing H2

Direct effect: Team PsyCap  Team exploratory learning 0.97 0.105 0.70 0.000

Direct effect: Team exploratory learning  Team innovation 0.62 0.099 0.58 0.000

Indirect effect: Team PsyCap  Team exploratory learning  Team innovation BC 0.60 0.150 0.41 0.003

Model M2: Team exploitative learning was the mediator: Testing H3

Direct effect: Team PsyCap  Team exploitative learning 0.74 0.080 0.72 0.000

Direct effect: Team exploitative learning  Team innovation 0.02 0.129 0.02 0.877

Indirect effect: Team PsyCap  Team exploitative learning  Team innovation BC

Note: B: unstandardized regression weight; SE: standard error; β: standardized regression weight; p: p-value; BC : bias-corrected bootstrap estimate

Study 3 investigated the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation together with the mediating role of both team exploratory and exploitative learning in the above relationship The results based on a sample of 272 team leaders in the retail service in Vietnam, revealed that team PsyCap was positively associated with team innovation Further, team exploratory learning mediated the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation but team exploitative learning did not These findings offer a number of implications for theory, research and practice.

Study 3 reinforces the significance of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) at the team level, highlighting its positive impact on team learning and innovation The findings indicate that teams with high PsyCap are more likely to engage in both exploratory and exploitative learning, which are essential for enhancing team performance However, the study reveals that only team exploratory learning contributes to increased innovation, while exploitative learning does not This underscores the necessity for teams to prioritize exploratory learning to drive innovative outcomes.

Fostering team psychological capital (PsyCap) is crucial for enhancing team outcomes such as learning and innovation Our findings, consistent with Dawkins et al (2018), suggest that training interventions aimed at improving team PsyCap can offer more benefits than those focused on individuals alone Companies should cultivate a supportive social environment that promotes interaction and communication among team members, thereby enhancing shared perceptions of psychological development (Dawkins et al., 2015) Additionally, implementing leader-subordinate mentoring programs can strengthen team psychological capacities, aiding teams in navigating challenges and pressures associated with generating and executing innovative ideas Study 3 indicates that a strong team PsyCap can foster agreement among team members, enabling them to better adapt to complex job demands and the necessity for change and innovation.

A significant limitation of Study 3 is its sample, which is derived from a Vietnamese context, restricting its generalizability to other cultures Future research should aim to replicate and critically assess the findings in other transitioning markets, such as China, to enhance our understanding Despite this limitation, Study 3 offers valuable insights into the innovation process within teams, highlighting the positive influence of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) in fostering the generation and implementation of innovative ideas in today’s challenging work environment.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore different antecedents of team innovation This thesis conducted three studies in retail services in Vietnam.

This study explores the impact of ambidextrous leadership on innovation by examining opening and closing leadership behaviors in team exploratory and exploitative learning Analyzing survey data from 296 team leaders, the findings reveal that opening leadership behavior significantly promotes team exploratory learning, while closing leadership behavior supports team exploitative learning Additionally, the interaction between these two leadership styles positively influences both types of learning Ultimately, enhanced team exploratory and exploitative learning contributes to increased team innovation.

In Study 2, the role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality was examined in the context of inclusive leadership and its impact on team innovation Analyzing data from 300 team leaders in Vietnam's retail services sector, the findings revealed that shared team psychological contract fulfillment serves as a mediator in this relationship Additionally, the study found that team proactive personality positively moderates the influence of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment.

Tiêu đề	Antecedents Of Team Innovation In Retail Services: Evidence From Vietnam
Tác giả	La Anh Duc
Người hướng dẫn	Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Dinh Tho
Trường học	University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City
Chuyên ngành	Business Administration
Thể loại	Phd thesis
Năm xuất bản	2022
Thành phố	Ho Chi Minh City

Định dạng
Số trang	180
Dung lượng	4,16 MB