Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution

• Author: Lily D. Cushenbery,Bradley Jayne,Samuel T. Hunter
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2195

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the

exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of

resources solution

Samuel T. Hunter

1

|Lily D. Cushenbery

2

|Bradley Jayne

1

1

Industrial & Organizational Area,

Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

2

College of Business, Stony Brook University,

Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Samuel T. Hunter, Industrial & Organizational

Area, Pennsylvania State University, University

Park, Pennsylvania 16802, U.S.A.

Email: samhunter@psu.edu

Summary

Using conservation of resources theory, we challenge traditional unity of command models of

leadership and propose that a dual‐leadership framework can serve as a potential solution to

the inherent challenges of innovation. Leading for innovation demands are depicted as uniquely

disparate from other forms of leadership, resulting in several types of conflict and resource deple-

tion for individual leaders. We contend that this exploration–exploitation role conflict and the

resulting need to manage incongruent role identities produce stress, strain, and resource deple-

tion that in turn hamper innovative goal achievement for both a single leader directly and via sub-

ordinates more indirectly. We propose, however, that as an extension of the resource investment

tenet of the conservation of resources theory, a dual‐leadership approach may alleviate many of

these challenges for innovation. Specifically, the addition of a second leader can add resources to

innovation and in turn decrease the role conflict inherent in managing the generation and imple-

mentation of creative ideas. Limitations and areas for future research are offered.

KEYWORDS

conservation ofresources theory, dual leadership,dyads, innovation, leadership,shared leadership

1|INTRODUCTION

Managing and promoting innovation present leaders with a series of

disparate demands that are difficult to resolve as single leaders

(Alvarez, Svejenova, & Vives, 2007; Mumford & Hunter, 2005),

resulting in increased levels of leader role conflict and resource demand

conflict (Eckman, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Hunter, Thoroughgood, Myer,

& Ligon, 2011). The notion of competing demands in innovation is well

documented by scholars who have explored the tensions (Lewis,

Welsh, Dehler, & Green, 2002), contradictions (Benner & Tushman,

2015; King, Anderson, & West, 1991), paradoxes (Miron, Erez, &

Naveh, 2004, 2011; Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015), and dilemmas

(Abernathy, 1978; Benner & Tushman, 2003, 2015) that characterize

the innovation process (see Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr,

2009, for summary). The leader's dilemma in producing innovation is

further exacerbated by the persistent risk of failure and the need to

support others while maintaining a steadfast belief in the innovative

vision. Specifically, the tension between exploring new opportunities

and exploiting existing successes is the fundamental dilemma in lead-

ing for innovation.

Drawing on the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989,

2001) that posits individuals are motivated to limit the loss of

resources (e.g., cognitive, time, and emotional) and gain additional

resources to achieve their goals, we offer an unconventional approach

to the management of innovation paradox: dual leadership. The para-

dox presented by the competing nature of exploration and exploitation

results in tensions that limit the availability of key resources, thereby

constraining innovation performance from the leader and subordi-

nates. Application and extension of the conservation of resources the-

ory reveal that a viable solution to managing such paradox is to limit

the loss of resources via acquisition of additional support mechanisms.

Specifically, we propose the addition of a second leader with a clear

role of either exploration or exploitation as a means to share the work-

load and successfully lead for innovation.

A growing body of literature suggests that the application of dual

leadership is increasing (de Voogt, 2006; Eckman & Kelber, 2010;

Fosberg, 2004; Harris& Gronn, 2008; Krause, Priem, & Love, 2014). In

an investigation ofcoprinciples in schools, for example, Eckman (2006)

found that dual leadership was linked to increased satisfaction, also

observing that “many of the respondents noted that they experienced

Received: 25 February 2015 Revised: 1 March 2017 Accepted: 7 March 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2195

J Organ Behav. 2017;38:1183–1195. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1183