Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
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.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM PHD THESIS HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY LA ANH DUC ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM VIETNAM Major: Business Administration Code: 9340101 PHD THESIS SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF NGUYEN DINH THO HO CHI MINH CITY - 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In completing my thesis for PhD research, I was very fortunate to have support from many people to whom I am greatly indebted Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, for his invaluable support and guidance This work would never have been possible without his insightful comments and advice Secondly, I would like to thank all of my teachers from ISB PhD program for their important assistance concerning to methodologies, philosophy of science, research and life issues during my research period I also would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, my PhD friends and many related people for supporting me to undertake this research Finally, I am extremely grateful to my parents and my family members for their endless love, care and patience Without my family’s support and encouragement, I would not become who I am today Ho Chi Minh City, July 2022 i ABSTRACT Team innovation can help contemporary organizations create competitive advantage, making them survive, and subsequently growing in the fast-changing and unpredictable market This thesis aimed to explore different antecedents of team innovation through three studies conducted in retail services in Vietnam Firstly, drawing upon the ambidextrous leadership for innovation, Study investigates the role of opening and closing leadership behaviors in both team exploratory and exploitative learning, and subsequently in team innovation Results based on a survey data set collected from 296 team leaders show that opening leadership behavior positively affects team exploratory learning and closing leadership behavior underlies team exploitative learning Further, the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors positively affects both team exploratory and exploitative learning Finally, these two types of team learning enhance team innovation Secondly, employing social exchange theory in teams, Study examines the role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation Results, based on a survey dataset collected from 300 team leaders in retail services in Vietnam, demonstrated that shared team psychological contract fulfillment mediated the above relationship Interestingly, team proactive personality positively moderated the effect of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment Finally, using the psychological capital (PsyCap) theory, Study investigates the impact of team PsyCap on team innovation Further, Study also examines the mediating role of team learning, including exploratory and exploitative learning, in team innovation A sample of 272 team leaders of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis and to test the model and hypotheses using structural equation modeling The results demonstrate that team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation Further, team exploratory learning mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation; however, team ii exploitative learning does not Although team exploitative learning is explained by team PsyCap, it does not enhance team innovation The overall findings of this thesis provide a number of theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation Firstly, Study extends the current research on ambidextrous leadership, team learning and team innovation Secondly, the findings of Study provide further evidence to confirm the predictive power of inclusive leadership at the team level by verifying the role of inclusive leadership in shared team psychological contract fulfillment and innovation Finally, Study further confirms the predictive power of PsyCap at the team level by verifying the role of team PsyCap in team learning and innovation This finding of Study signals that to achieve innovation, teams should pursue explorative learning The findings of this thesis suggest a number of implications for practitioners Firstly, the findings of Study identify the importance of firms investing in training team leaders to improve both opening and closing leadership behaviors in order to foster exploratory and exploitative learning activities in their teams Secondly, the results of Study point to the potential for leadership training interventions to improve inclusive leadership behaviors in order to foster the needs and attitudes of their team members Finally, the results of Study highlight the importance of fostering team PsyCap to enhance team-level outcomes including team learning and innovation Firms should create a social context that could help in interacting and communicating among team members, which in turn leads to share the perceptions regarding psychological state of development Study believes that the effect of team PsyCap in shaping agreement between employees in team could help teams get through difficult times and respond more positive to today’s more complex job requirements and increasing demand for change and idea generating and idea implementing Keywords – ambidextrous leadership, inclusive leadership, team psychological capital, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, team innovation, Vietnam iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations AVE B β BC CAGR CFA CFI CR EFA GFI HCMC M p PsyCap RMSEA SD SE SEM SET Meaning Average variance extracted Unstandardized regression weight Standardized regression weight Bias-corrected bootstrap estimate Compound annual growth rate Confirmatory factor analysis Comparative fit index Composite reliability Exploratory factor analysis Goodness of fit index Ho Chi Minh City Means p-value Psychological capital Root mean square error of approximation Standard deviations Standard error Structural equation modeling Social exchange theory iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Overall model of thesis 10 Figure Conceptual model of Study 16 Figure Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploratory learning .27 Figure Interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploitative learning .28 Figure Conceptual model of Study 37 Figure Conceptual model of Study 58 v LIST OF TABLES Table A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between leadership styles and team innovation 13 Table Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items of Study 24 Table Correlations between constructs of Study .24 Table SEM results of Study 26 Table A brief summary of empirical studies on the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation 35 Table Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items of Study 45 Table Correlations between constructs of Study .47 Table SEM results of Study 49 Table A summary of empirical studies on the relationship between team PsyCap and team outcomes .56 Table 10 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items of Study 64 Table 11 Correlations between constructs of Study 65 Table 12 SEM results of Study 68 vi CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i ABSTRACT .ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES .vi CONTENTS .vii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION .1 1.1 Research gaps .1 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Research context 1.4 Data collection 1.5 Structure of the thesis CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL 2.1 Theoretical background 2.1.1 The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation 2.1.2 Social exchange theory in groups 2.1.3 Psychological capital theory 2.2 Conceptual model .10 CHAPTER .12 STUDY TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: THE ROLE OF AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP AND TEAM LEARNING 12 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 13 3.2.1 Theoretical background 13 3.2.2 Conceptual model and hypotheses 16 3.3 Research methods .20 3.3.1 Research context 20 3.3.2 Design and sample .21 vii 3.3.3 Measurement 21 3.3.4 Control variables 22 3.3.5 Measurement refinement 22 3.3.6 Sample characteristics 22 3.4 Data analysis and results 23 3.4.1 Measurement validation .23 3.4.2 Structural results and hypothesis testing .25 3.5 Discussion and implications .28 3.5.1 Theoretical implications .29 3.5.2 Practical implications 30 3.5.3 Limitations and future directions 30 CHAPTER 32 STUDY INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF SHARED TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT FULFILLMENT AND TEAM PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 32 4.1 Introduction 32 4.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 33 4.2.1 SET in teams 33 4.2.2 Conceptual model and hypotheses 37 4.3 Research methods 41 4.3.1 Design and sample .41 4.3.2 Measures 42 4.3.3 Control variables 43 4.4 Data analysis and results 43 4.4.1 Measure validation .43 4.4.2 Common method bias 45 4.4.3 Structural results and hypothesis testing .47 4.5 Discussion and implications 49 4.5.1 Theoretical implications .50 4.5.2 Practical implications 51 viii Valid Some high school Complete high school Undergraduate university 3 24 8.0 8.0 8.3 252 84.0 84.0 92.3 23 7.7 7.7 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 degree Postgraduate university degree Total AGE Cumulative Frequency Valid under 30 Percent Valid Percent Percent 220 73.3 73.3 73.3 30-40 72 24.0 24.0 97.3 41-50 2.0 2.0 99.3 over 50 7 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 Total TENURE Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 4.00 3 6.00 21 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.00 16 5.3 5.3 12.7 8.00 13 4.3 4.3 17.0 9.00 1.7 1.7 18.7 10.00 2.0 2.0 20.7 11.00 2.7 2.7 23.3 12.00 39 13.0 13.0 36.3 13.00 12 4.0 4.0 40.3 14.00 1.7 1.7 42.0 15.00 2.3 2.3 44.3 16.00 1.3 1.3 45.7 17.00 1.7 1.7 47.3 18.00 18 6.0 6.0 53.3 19.00 3 53.7 20.00 2.0 2.0 55.7 21.00 3 56.0 23.00 3 56.3 154 24.00 41 13.7 13.7 70.0 25.00 3 70.3 26.00 1.3 1.3 71.7 27.00 7 72.3 28.00 1.3 1.3 73.7 30.00 2.0 2.0 75.7 32.00 1.0 1.0 76.7 35.00 7 77.3 36.00 29 9.7 9.7 87.0 40.00 7 87.7 42.00 3 88.0 46.00 3 88.3 48.00 12 4.0 4.0 92.3 60.00 10 3.3 3.3 95.7 70.00 7 96.3 72.00 2.3 2.3 98.7 84.00 3 99.0 88.00 3 99.3 108.00 3 99.7 156.00 3 100.0 300 100.0 100.0 Total 155 Appendix Data analysis for Study CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 36 223.974 100 000 2.240 Saturated model 136 000 Independence model 16 1962.768 120 000 16.356 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI 055 904 869 665 000 1.000 392 294 200 259 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 886 863 933 919 933 1.000 1.000 1.000 156 NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 Model RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model 068 056 080 008 Independence model 238 229 247 000 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 42 136 16 CMIN 224.284 000 2412.471 DF 94 120 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.386 000 20.104 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model RMR 055 000 GFI 911 1.000 AGFI 871 157 PGFI 629 Model Independence model RMR 435 GFI 272 AGFI 175 PGFI 240 NFI Delta1 907 1.000 000 RFI rho1 881 IFI Delta2 944 1.000 000 TLI rho2 927 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model 000 000 CFI 943 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 072 266 LO 90 060 256 HI 90 084 275 NPAR 41 136 CMIN 224.829 000 DF 95 PCLOSE 002 000 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model 158 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.367 Model Independence model NPAR 16 CMIN 2412.471 DF 120 P 000 CMIN/DF 20.104 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 056 000 435 GFI 910 1.000 272 AGFI 872 PGFI 636 175 240 NFI Delta1 907 1.000 000 RFI rho1 882 IFI Delta2 944 1.000 000 TLI rho2 928 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model 000 000 CFI 943 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 071 266 LO 90 059 256 HI 90 083 275 PCLOSE 002 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) ERLv EIBv TIv TIv TIv ERL1 ERL2 ERL3 ERL4 EIL5 EIL4 EIL3 EIL2 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - PCAP PCAP ERLv EIBv PCAP ERLv ERLv ERLv ERLv EIBv EIBv EIBv EIBv TIv TIv TIv TIv PCAP Estimate 946 734 614 051 353 1.000 1.061 1.181 1.056 1.000 1.065 854 1.138 1.000 1.008 779 848 1.000 S.E .101 080 098 114 153 C.R 9.336 9.222 6.256 451 2.309 P Label *** par_17 *** par_19 *** par_18 652 par_20 021 par_21 076 096 087 14.029 12.253 12.183 *** par_1 *** par_2 *** par_3 101 081 120 10.501 10.522 9.497 *** par_4 *** par_5 *** par_6 075 066 089 13.384 11.860 9.558 *** par_7 *** par_8 *** par_9 159 TRE < THO < TSE < - PCAP PCAP PCAP Estimate 1.051 867 887 S.E .067 060 089 C.R 15.593 14.457 9.998 P Label *** par_11 *** par_12 *** par_13 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 30 78 12 CMIN 97.551 000 1830.934 DF 48 66 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.032 000 27.741 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 043 000 513 GFI 946 1.000 283 AGFI 912 PGFI 582 153 240 NFI Delta1 947 1.000 000 RFI rho1 927 IFI Delta2 972 1.000 000 TLI rho2 961 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model 000 RMSEA 160 000 CFI 972 1.000 000 Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 062 314 LO 90 044 302 HI 90 079 327 PCLOSE 131 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) ERLv TIv TIv ERL1 ERL2 ERL3 ERL4 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP TRE THO TSE < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - PCAP ERLv PCAP ERLv ERLv ERLv ERLv TIv TIv TIv TIv PCAP PCAP PCAP PCAP Estimate 970 615 400 1.000 1.061 1.180 1.052 1.000 999 769 841 1.000 1.063 887 939 S.E .105 099 122 C.R 9.210 6.208 3.283 P Label *** par_13 *** par_14 001 par_15 075 096 086 14.049 12.287 12.185 *** par_1 *** par_2 *** par_3 074 065 088 13.429 11.837 9.574 *** par_4 *** par_5 *** par_6 073 064 093 14.667 13.926 10.107 *** par_7 *** par_8 *** par_9 CMIN Model Default model Saturated model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF 30 133.458 48 000 2.780 78 000 161 Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Independence model 12 1597.898 66 000 24.211 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI 055 926 880 570 000 1.000 361 338 218 286 Baseline Comparisons NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 Default model 916 885 945 923 944 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 Model RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model 081 065 098 001 Independence model 293 280 305 000 Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) EIBv TIv TIv EIL5 EIL4 EIL3 EIL2 TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TOP TRE THO TSE < - PCAP < - EIBv < - PCAP < - EIBv < - EIBv < - EIBv < - EIBv < - TIv < - TIv < - TIv < - TIv < - PCAP < - PCAP < - PCAP < - PCAP Estimate S.E C.R P Label 738 080 9.237 *** par_13 020 129 155 877 par_14 956 146 6.539 *** par_15 1.000 1.062 101 10.513 *** par_1 856 081 10.549 *** par_2 1.132 119 9.485 *** par_3 1.000 998 080 12.486 *** par_4 818 069 11.800 *** par_5 877 093 9.418 *** par_6 1.000 1.043 068 15.361 *** par_8 868 060 14.434 *** par_9 886 089 9.960 *** par_10 Statistics 57 Team size: 54 Gender: 55 Age: 56 Education: 162 ……………… 58 Team tenure: N Valid 272 272 272 272 272 0 0 Missing 54 Gender: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Male 106 39.0 39.0 39.0 Female 166 61.0 61.0 100.0 Total 272 100.0 100.0 55 Age: Cumulative Frequency Valid under 30 Percent Valid Percent Percent 196 72.1 72.1 72.1 30-40 69 25.4 25.4 97.4 41-50 2.6 2.6 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 56 Education: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Some high school 1.8 1.8 1.8 Complete high school 2.9 2.9 4.8 250 91.9 91.9 96.7 3.3 3.3 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Undergraduate university degree Postgraduate university degree Total 57 Team size: ……………… Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.00 4 2.00 1.1 1.1 1.5 3.00 13 4.8 4.8 6.3 4.00 26 9.6 9.6 15.8 163 5.00 18 6.6 6.6 22.4 6.00 27 9.9 9.9 32.4 7.00 13 4.8 4.8 37.1 8.00 22 8.1 8.1 45.2 9.00 13 4.8 4.8 50.0 10.00 22 8.1 8.1 58.1 11.00 2.2 2.2 60.3 12.00 13 4.8 4.8 65.1 13.00 1.5 1.5 66.5 14.00 1.5 1.5 68.0 15.00 16 5.9 5.9 73.9 16.00 1.1 1.1 75.0 17.00 7 75.7 18.00 1.8 1.8 77.6 19.00 4 77.9 20.00 2.6 2.6 80.5 21.00 4 80.9 22.00 2.9 2.9 83.8 23.00 1.1 1.1 84.9 24.00 4 85.3 25.00 2.6 2.6 87.9 27.00 2.2 2.2 90.1 28.00 1.1 1.1 91.2 30.00 3.3 3.3 94.5 32.00 7 95.2 33.00 4 95.6 164 35.00 7 96.3 38.00 7 97.1 40.00 1.5 1.5 98.5 42.00 4 98.9 50.00 7 99.6 60.00 4 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 58 Team tenure: Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 3.00 4 6.00 19 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.00 2.6 2.6 9.9 8.00 14 5.1 5.1 15.1 9.00 2.2 2.2 17.3 10.00 3.3 3.3 20.6 11.00 4 21.0 12.00 55 20.2 20.2 41.2 13.00 7 41.9 14.00 2.6 2.6 44.5 15.00 2.9 2.9 47.4 16.00 1.8 1.8 49.3 17.00 1.1 1.1 50.4 18.00 19 7.0 7.0 57.4 20.00 4 57.7 22.00 4 58.1 24.00 33 12.1 12.1 70.2 25.00 1.1 1.1 71.3 26.00 1.5 1.5 72.8 27.00 4 73.2 28.00 7 73.9 29.00 7 74.6 30.00 1.1 1.1 75.7 32.00 4 76.1 35.00 7 76.8 165 36.00 21 7.7 7.7 84.6 40.00 7 85.3 42.00 4 85.7 45.00 4 86.0 48.00 14 5.1 5.1 91.2 50.00 4 91.5 60.00 2.2 2.2 93.8 62.00 4 94.1 72.00 1.5 1.5 95.6 84.00 1.5 1.5 97.1 96.00 1.5 1.5 98.5 120.00 4 98.9 144.00 4 99.3 156.00 4 99.6 300.00 4 100.0 272 100.0 100.0 Total 166 ... exploitative learning were measured by items each with a 7-point Likert scale ranging 21 from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree), borrowed from Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) The questionnaire was... (resiliency) to attain success” (Luthans et al., 2015, p 2) Prior research has shown that PsyCap was strongly related to desired employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance (e.g., Avey et al., 2011;