Ambidextrous Leadership and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Commitment

The increasingly complex, competitive, and dynamic business environment places leaders under conflicting and often mutually exclusive demands. Ambidextrous leadership, which integrates participative (loose) and directive (tight) leadership styles, offers a potential approach for navigating these challenges. This study examined the direct and indirect effects of ambidextrous leadership on organizational performance, with employee commitment as a mediating variable, within four major manufacturing firms in Nairobi, Kenya: Bidco, Kenya Breweries Limited, Tononoka Steel, and Brookside Dairy Limited. Using an explanatory cross-sectional research design, data were collected from 320 employees sampled via stratified random sampling from a target population of 2,709. Structured questionnaires measured loose and tight leadership, affective, continuance, and normative commitment, and organizational performance. Confirmatory factor analysis verified construct validity, while Cronbach’s alpha confirmed reliability. Pearson correlation analyses indicated significant positive associations between loose leadership (r = 0.71, p < 0.001), tight leadership (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), employee commitment dimensions (affective: r = 0.65, p < 0.001; continuance: r = 0.65, p < 0.001; normative: r = 0.67, p < 0.001), and organizational performance. Multiple linear regression results showed that high loose–high tight leadership had the strongest positive effect on performance (β = 0.43, p < 0.001), while high loose–low tight (β = 0.31, p < 0.001) and low loose–high tight (β = 0.18, p = 0.026) also improved outcomes. Employee commitment dimensions positively predicted performance (affective: β = 0.35, p < 0.001; continuance: β = 0.22, p = 0.003; normative: β = 0.25, p = 0.002) and partially mediated the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and organizational outcomes (total indirect effect = 0.35, 95% CI [0.26, 0.45]). These findings underscore the practical importance of fostering both leadership flexibility and employee commitment to enhance performance. Organizations are advised to implement leadership development and employee engagement strategies to achieve sustained productivity and growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

Ambidextrous Leadership, Organizational, Employee Commitment, Explanatory Cross-section Research Design, Manufacturing Sector, Kenya

1. Abasilim, U. D., Gberevbie, D. E., & Osibanjo, O. A. (2018, October 18-19). Canonical analysis of perceived leadership styles and employees’ commitment in Nigeria. Paper presented at the 14th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance at HU University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmad, A., & Rainyee, R. A. (2014). Which is a better predictor of employee turnover intentions: Job satisfaction or organizational commitment? A literature review. International Journal of Information, Business, and Management, 6(1), 2-10. http://ijibm.elitehall.com/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ahmed, M., & Shaffiq, S. (2014). The impact of organizational culture on organizational performance: A case study of telecom sector. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Administration and Management, 14(3), 20-30. http://globaljournals.org-4-The-impact-of-Organizational-Culture.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alghamdi, F. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0081-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull., 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Anwar, K., & Balcioglu, H. (2016). The relationship between transformational leadership characteristics and effectiveness: A case study of construction companies in Erbil. International Journal of Science Technology and Management, 5(2), 250-256. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice, Tenth Edition. Kogan Page Publishing, 264-293. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bandula, P., & Jayatilake, L. (2016). Impact of employee commitment on job performance: Based on leasing companies in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 5(8). www.ijac.org.uk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bashaer, A., Sanjay, S., & Sherine, F. (2016). Determinants of organizational performance: a proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 844 – 859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 3(3), 26-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bhargavi, S., & Yaseen, A. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational performance. Strategic Management Quarterly, 4(10), 87-117. Doi: 10.15640/smq.v4n1a5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bonds, A. (2017). Employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intentions [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Burgess, N., Strauss, K., Currie, G., & Wood, G. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity and the hybrid middle manager: The case of patient safety in UK hospitals. Human Resource Management, 54, s87–s109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Chatterjee, S., & Simonoff, J.S. (2012). Handbook of regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781118532843. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Clark, R., Hartline, M., & Jones, K. (2009). The effects of leadership style on hotel employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50, 209. http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/2/209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th edition. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Cunha, M., Fortes, A., Gomes, E., Rego, A., and Rodrigues, F. (2019). Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: evidence from Angola. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., 30, 702–727. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1201125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Cunha, M. P. E., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strat. Organ., 17, 95–106. doi: 10.1177/1476127017739536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Dariush, L., Choobdar, G., Valadkhani, P., & Mehrali, E. (2016). Leader facilitating organizational commitment of employees (Tehran). International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 4, 640-655. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Dawson, J. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29 (1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Duncan, R.B. (1976). The Ambidextrous: Designing dual structures for innovation. Manag. Organ. Des., 1, 167–188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, 202–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Gallup (2013). Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Glaister, K. W., Ahammad, M. F., & Junni, P. (2015). Special issue of International Journal of Human Resource Management: Organizational ambidexterity and human resource practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1785–1789. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. GoK (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. https://www.planning.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Vision_2030_-_2007.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Greene, W.H. (2008). Econometric Analysis 6th ed. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Gujral, H., & Singh, S. (2019). Psychological contract and organizational commitment: A study on IT sector. International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM), 5(9), 302-307. Doi: 10.35291/2454-9150.2019.0580. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and employee work outcomes: A paradox theory perspective. Front. Psychol. 11, 1661. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01661 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hamann, P., & Schiemann, F. (2021). Organizational performance as a set of four dimensions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Research, 127, 45-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., and Prussia, G. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. J. Manag. Psychol., 28, 133–146. doi: 10.1108/02683941311300252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Hou, N., and Peng, J. (2019). Employment of both kindness and severity, positive implementation, and job performance — exploring the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context. J. Psychol., 51, 121–131. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 982–1007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Jenatabadi, H. S. (2015). An overview of organizational performance index: Definitions and measurements. ResearchGate. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4298.3849. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275659514 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Jia, J., Yan, J., Jahanshahi, A., Lin, W., & Bhattacharjee, A. (2020). What makes employees more proactive? Roles of job embeddedness, the perceived strength of the HRM system and empowering leadership. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour., 58, 107–127. doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12249 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Khan, R., Naseem, A., & Masood, S. A. (2016). Effect of continuance commitment and organizational cynicism on employee satisfaction in engineering organizations. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 7, 141-146.doi:10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.661 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Luo, B., Zheng, S., Ji, H., & Liang, L. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership and TMT member ambidextrous behavior: The role of TMT behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., 29, 338–359. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1194871 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Ma, J., Zhou, X., Chen, R., & Dong, X. (2019). Does ambidextrous leadership motivate work crafting? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci., 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Mendy, J. (2020). Staff preferences in four SMEs experiencing organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2017-0206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Merriam-Webster (2023). Ambidexterity definitions & meaning. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambidexterity [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Miller, K. (2003). Values, attitudes and job satisfaction. In Robbins, S.P., Odendaal A. & Roodt, G. (eds), Organizational behavior: Global and Southern African perspectives. Pearson Education South Africa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.M., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee organizational linkage. Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Noordzij, M., Tripepi, G., Dekker, F., Zoccali, C., Tanck, M., & Jager, K. (2010). Sample size calculations: Basic principles and common pitfalls. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 25, 1388-1393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Nwankwo, S., Orga, J., & Ugwu, F. (2019). Effects of employee commitment on organizational performance (a study of Innoson Technical and Industrial Company Ltd). International Journal of Management, Social Sciences, Peace and Conflict Studies (IJMSSPCS), 2(3), 27 – 37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A. (2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational performance: A survey of selected small-scale enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu Council Development Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1, 100-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Acad. Manag. Ann., 10, 65–171. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Radosavljevic, Z., Cilerdzic, V., & Dragic, M. (2017). Employee Organizational Commitment. International Review, 1(2), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695. Doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718-804. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’Eni, D., and Schwartz, D. (2002). An empirical assessment of the loose–tight leadership model: quantitative and qualitative analyses. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 303–320. doi: 10.1002/job.153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Sapra, R.L. (2022). How to calculate an adequate sample size? In S. Nundy, A., Kakar, & Z. Bhutta (Eds.), How to practice academic medicine and publish from developing countries? (pp. 81-93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Sencherey, R., Kamil, N., Zakari, M., & Ameza – Xemalordzo, E. (2022). The role of employee commitment on organizational performance and the intention to stay. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities,19(5), 163-175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Shao, Y., Nijstad, B., and Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: the double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 155, 7–19. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Shrestha, A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Leadership styles, employees' commitment to organizational change, and organizational performance: A study in a Nepali technology-based organization [Paper presented at the 11th South Asian Management Forum (SAMF) organized by Association of Management Development Institutions in South Asia (AMDISA)]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235692190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Simo, P., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Fernandez, V. (2014). Relations between organizational commitment and focal and discretionary behaviors. The Service Industries Journal, 34, 422-438. doi:10.1080/02642069.2014.871534 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Somers, M.J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of Work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Tushman, M., & O’Reilly III, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management review, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. VerLinden, J. (2010). A beginner’s guide to communication research. https://www.users.humboldt.edu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Wang, L., Sun, Y., Li, J., Xu, Y., Chen, M., Zhu, X., & Wang, D. (2022). Effects of ambidextrous leadership on employees’ work behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Front. Psychol. 13, 862799. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862799 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Wiguna, P., Martini, N., Qomariah, N., Satoto, E., & Thamrin, M. (2022). The role of leadership, employee commitment and organizational citizenship behavior on employee performance improvement. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 6(10), 122-131. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Wu, M., Wang, R., He, P., Estay, C., & Akram, Z. (2020). Examining how ambidextrous leadership relates to affective commitment and workplace deviance behavior of employees: The moderating role of supervisor–subordinate exchange Guanxi. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17, 5500. doi:10.3390/ijerph17155500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Wynen, J., & Kleizen, B. (2017). Improving dynamics or destroying human capital? The nexus between excess turnover and performance. Review of Managerial Science, 13, 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0249-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Yasir, M., Imran, R., Irshad, M. K., Mohamad, N. A., & Khan, M. M. (2016). Leadership styles in relation to employees’ trust and organizational change capacity: Evidence from non-profit organisations. SAGE Open, 6(4). doi:10.1177/2158244016675396 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., and Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Acad. Manag. J., 58, 538–566. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Understanding Academic Leadership: Theory, Practice and Future Horizons
• A Literature Review on Leadership and Cultural Evolution of Adventism in East Africa Region
• Unlocking Employee Creativity Through Empowering Leadership: The Dynamic Interplay of Trust and Engagement
• The Integration of Preachers’ Leadership Competencies in Empowering Preachers for the Orang Asli Community in Malaysia
• Traditional Authority vs. Legacy Leadership: A Comparative Literature Review from the Arab World