(LUẬN án TIẾN sĩ) các NHÂN tố tác ĐỘNG đến đổi mới SÁNG tạo của NHÓM TRONG LĨNH vực DỊCH vụ bán lẻ BẰNG CHỨNG từ VIỆT NAM

INTRODUCTION

Research gaps

Team innovation encompasses both the development and implementation of new ideas, playing a crucial role in helping organizations gain a competitive advantage in today's fast-paced and unpredictable market (van Knippenberg, 2017; Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019) Key perspectives in team innovation research include knowledge integration, team climate, individual input aggregation, and leadership (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011; Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017) The relationship between leadership and innovation has been a significant area of study, particularly at the team level, providing valuable insights into enhancing team performance (Rosing et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2018).

Prior empirical research linking leadership and team innovation has implicated a variety of leadership styles such as transformational leadership (Jiang & Chen,

Various leadership styles, including authentic leadership, shared leadership, servant leadership, and ambidextrous leadership, influence social processes like team learning, which can either foster or hinder team innovation under certain conditions However, existing empirical studies on these leadership styles reveal significant gaps that have yet to be addressed.

Research on ambidextrous leadership's impact on team learning and innovation has been largely overlooked, both in transitioning economies like Vietnam and in advanced economies.

A growing trend in the retail service industry emphasizes the importance of cultivating long-term customer relationships over short-term sales By prioritizing personalized attention and enhancing service quality, retail teams can foster innovation and create valuable opportunities for improved customer engagement (Subramony & Pugh, 2015).

Ambidextrous leadership refers to the ability to encourage both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers by adjusting their behavioral variance and seamlessly transitioning between these behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011) Research has indicated that ambidextrous leadership impacts innovation through individual employee exploration and exploitation behaviors (Zacher et al., 2016) Additionally, studies have examined how variations in team performance can be attributed to factors such as team leadership, learning, and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Zacher & Rosing, 2015), while others have linked team innovation to social processes and leadership dynamics within teams (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Rosing et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017).

Inclusive leaders are crucial in inspiring diverse employees to foster innovation, as highlighted by Randel et al (2018) These leaders exhibit positive behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and a sense of belonging and uniqueness in their interactions with team members (Carmeli et al., 2010).

Randel et al., 2018) Inclusive leadership directly enhances several job outcomes, such as taking charge behavior (Zeng et al., 2020), voice behavior (Guo et al.,

Recent studies have explored the impact of inclusive leadership on creativity and innovation across various organizational levels, including individual, team, and organizational dynamics (Choi et al., 2017; Gong et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2018; Javed et al., 2019; Siyal et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2019) Additionally, topics such as prosocial rule breaking (Wang & Shi, 2021) and psychological distress (Ahmed et al., 2020) have also been examined within this context.

Research on the impact of inclusive leadership on team-level innovation remains limited, highlighting a significant gap in the literature (Van Knippenberg and Van Ginkel, 2021) Several studies have begun to address this issue by examining mediators and moderators in these relationships For instance, Ye, Wang, and Guo (2019) identified the mediating effect of team voice and the moderating influence of performance pressure on the link between inclusive leadership and team innovation Similarly, Leroy et al (2021) explored how team-derived inclusion mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and team creativity Additionally, Ashikali, Groeneveld, and Kuipers (2020) focused on the moderating role of inclusive leadership in the context of team ethnic-cultural diversity and inclusive climate Despite these advancements, the roles of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality in the dynamics between inclusive leadership and team innovation remain unexplored.

This thesis explores the application of social exchange theory (SET) in teams, specifically investigating how shared team psychological contract fulfillment—defined as the alignment of team members' perceptions regarding the organization’s commitments—serves as a mediator in this dynamic Additionally, it highlights that teams composed of individuals with proactive personalities are more inclined to generate and implement innovative ideas, ultimately leading to significant workplace benefits Furthermore, the research examines the moderating effect of team proactive personality on the relationship between inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment.

There is currently a limited understanding of how team psychological capital (PsyCap) influences learning and innovation outcomes at the team level PsyCap is defined as an individual's developmental state that encompasses psychological resources such as self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience.

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) was initially defined at the individual level, as noted by Luthans et al (2007, p 3) and further elaborated in 2015 Most research in this field has predominantly concentrated on individual factors influencing PsyCap (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Miao, Bozionelos, Zhou).

Newman, 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2012) In recent years, in line with the need for research on team processes and performance (Chou et al., 2008; Gundlach et al.,

2006), researchers have shifted their attention to the team level of the concept.

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

Prior research has highlighted the significance of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) in various outcomes, including team organizational citizenship behavior, performance, satisfaction, service quality, customer satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity However, despite the essential role of team innovation in the survival and growth of modern organizations, the connection between team PsyCap and team innovation has been largely overlooked.

The process of knowledge creation and learning in organizations predominantly occurs within teams (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009) However, our understanding of how team psychological capital (PsyCap) influences team learning and innovation remains insufficient This thesis utilizes the theory of psychological capital (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013) to explore these relationships within teams (Dawkins et al.).

A study conducted in 2015 explored how team psychological capital (PsyCap) influences team innovation It also analyzed the mediating effects of team learning, specifically focusing on both exploratory and exploitative learning, in the connection between team PsyCap and innovative outcomes.

Research objectives

There are three main objectives in this thesis:

Objective 1: The impact of ambidextrous leadership on both team exploratory and exploitative learning and, subsequently, on team innovation (Study 1).

Objective 2: The impact of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment and, subsequently, on team innovation, and the impact of team proactive personality on the relationship between inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment (Study 2).

Objective 3: The impact of team PsyCap on team exploratory and exploitative learning and, subsequently, on team innovation (Study 3).

Based on three main objectives, this thesis directly answers some specific research questions:

1 What is the nature of relationship between two types of leadership (i.e., ambidextrous leadership and inclusive leadership) and innovation at the team level of analysis?

2 What is the mediating mechanisms (i.e., team learning, shared team psychological contract fulfillment) between two types of leadership and innovation of team level of analysis?

3 How does team proactive personality influence the inclusive leadership- shared team psychological contract fulfillment relationship?

Research context

Vietnam's retail sector is rapidly evolving, focusing on modern trade channels, both physical and digital From 2013 to 2018, the sector experienced a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.97%, with total revenues reaching approximately US$ 142 billion in 2018 and US$ 214.8 billion in 2019 By 2021, Vietnam was projected to become the fastest-growing market for convenience stores in Asia, boasting a CAGR of 37.40% Key cities like Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi contribute around 33% of total retail sales, characterized by store expansion and fierce competition between local and foreign retailers, positioning their convenience markets for significant growth.

Research in retail services is crucial for unlocking the market's potential in Vietnam, as contemporary firms can benefit from innovation by training their team leaders and members Effective store leaders play a vital role in enhancing team activities, such as learning, which can lead to a competitive advantage By equipping their teams with efficient learning strategies, store leaders facilitate the acquisition of valuable customer knowledge through interactions As frontline employees with authority, store leaders face the challenge of meeting customer expectations, necessitating their commitment to seek new knowledge and improve team performance.

Data collection

Data collection was conducted by a research agency based in Ho Chi Minh City, with a representative office in Hanoi, under the guidance of the thesis author The focus was on gathering information from retail services to validate measures and test hypotheses Target respondents included store leaders with a minimum of six months of experience in their current roles, ensuring they had a comprehensive understanding of store operations and could effectively communicate with their teams A partial self-administered method was utilized, where interviewers distributed and later collected completed questionnaires from willing store leaders.

If any questionnaires contained missing values, interviewers invited store leaders to complete them.

Structure of the thesis

This thesis includes six Chapters with Figures, Tables and Appendixes, as follow:

Chapter 1 presents research gaps, research objectives and research context.

Chapter 2 discusses about literature review and overall model, including theoretical background, conceptual model, design, sample and measurement.

Chapter 3 investigates the role of ambidextrous leadership and team learning in team innovation.

Chapter 4 examines the role of inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality in team innovation.

Chapter 5 investigates the role of team PsyCap and team exploratory and exploitative learning in team innovation.

Chapter 6 discusses about conclusion, including summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations and future directions.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL

Theoretical background

This thesis investigates the factors influencing team innovation through a conceptual framework that aligns with various theories, including ambidextrous leadership for innovation, Social Exchange Theory (SET) in teams, and Psychological Capital (PsyCap) theory.

2.1.1 The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation

The theory of ambidextrous leadership highlights the critical role of team leaders' opening and closing behaviors in driving team innovation (Rosing et al., 2011) Opening behaviors, which encourage experimentation, independent thinking, and challenging the status quo, promote exploration activities essential for innovation Conversely, closing behaviors, characterized by corrective actions, specific guidelines, and goal monitoring, focus on reducing variability among team members and fostering exploitation activities Understanding the balance between these behaviors is vital for enhancing team creativity and effectiveness in innovative endeavors.

The ambidextrous leadership theory has gained traction in business research, particularly in exploring its impact on innovation Zacher and Rosing (2015) investigated this theory within the architecture sector, revealing that while closing leadership behaviors did not significantly influence team innovation, opening behaviors and their interaction with closing behaviors were positively associated with it Furthermore, Zacher et al (2016) examined how the interplay between exploration and exploitation behaviors affects employee innovation performance, finding that leaders' opening and closing behaviors corresponded positively with employees' exploration and exploitation activities This interaction ultimately led to enhanced self-reported innovative performance among employees.

The ambidextrous leadership theory emphasizes the importance of direct and frequent interactions between team leaders and their members, particularly in retail service stores (Rosing et al., 2011) This theory posits that retail team leaders can effectively engage in two complementary leadership behaviors: opening and closing By leveraging these behaviors, team leaders can significantly foster innovation within their teams, ultimately enhancing overall performance in retail environments.

Frontline service employees not only engage directly with customers but also motivate their teams to achieve store goals by leveraging their insights into daily operations Their interactions provide valuable knowledge about evolving customer needs and persistent service issues, creating a unique competitive advantage (Ye et al., 2012) Store leaders can enhance communication and foster teamwork, facilitating goal-setting and team learning to boost performance This dual approach enables effective knowledge capture and transformation, maximizing team outcomes (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Ye et al., 2012) By applying ambidextrous leadership theory, this thesis highlights how leaders' behaviors and their interactions significantly influence team learning and innovation in the retail service environment.

2.1.2 Social exchange theory in groups

Social Exchange Theory (SET) is extensively utilized in management and organizational behavior studies to analyze and forecast employee attitudes and behaviors, as highlighted by various researchers (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Kutaula et al., 2020; Lavelle et al., 2007; Tse et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020).

SET explains the difference between economic and social exchanges (Blau, 1964;

Economic exchange involves short-term transactions of tangible resources between employees and employers, whereas social exchange emphasizes long-term interactions that involve intangible resources such as socioemotional support, mutual trust, and commitment.

While Social Exchange Theory (SET) primarily addresses individual employee attitudes and behaviors, it is essential to recognize that employees often collaborate in teams to accomplish their tasks Frequent interactions and information sharing among team members can create shared perceptions regarding their contributions and rewards SET suggests that when employees perceive support, they cultivate high-quality social exchange relationships with their teams and various organizational stakeholders This perception fosters feelings of gratitude, obligation, and trust, which, in turn, inspire employees to exhibit positive workplace behaviors such as creativity, innovation, and both in-role and extra-role contributions.

Recent studies have utilized Social Exchange Theory (SET) to explore the impact of inclusive leadership on various outcomes, particularly attitudes and behaviors within organizations (Ahmed et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2021) Notably, creativity and innovation have emerged as significant results of this leadership style (Choi et al., 2017; Javed et al., 2018; Siyal et al., 2021) Additionally, research has identified several mediators and moderators influencing the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation, such as person-job fit, psychological empowerment, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, psychological capital, and intrinsic motivation Furthermore, inclusive leadership has been found to foster creativity and innovation at the team level (Leroy et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2019).

PsyCap refers to an individual's positive psychological state, encompassing four key components: confidence (efficacy) to tackle challenging tasks, optimism regarding current and future success, hope in persevering toward goals while adjusting paths as needed, and resiliency to overcome adversity and achieve success (Luthans et al., 2015).

Prior research has shown that PsyCap was strongly related to desired employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance (e.g., Avey et al., 2011; Nguyen & Nguyen,

2012), as well as employee innovation (e.g., Luthans et al., 2011; Hsu & Chen, 2017).

Team PsyCap refers to a collective psychological state encompassing self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, as defined by Heled, Somech, and Waters (2016) While individual PsyCap is a personal psychological resource cultivated by individuals in their work and life, team PsyCap emerges from the shared perceptions and interactions among team members, reflecting their collective psychological strengths (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017; Dawkins et al., 2015).

Conceptual model

This thesis presents a conceptual model that outlines the connections between ambidextrous and inclusive leadership behaviors and various social processes, including team psychological capital (PsyCap), exploratory and exploitative learning, shared psychological contract fulfillment, and proactive personality within teams, ultimately driving 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

AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP AND TEAM LEARNING

Understanding team innovation is essential for the survival and growth of modern organizations, leading to significant interest from both academic researchers and practitioners Research in this area covers a wide range of topics, including team structure, composition, climate, processes, knowledge integration, and leadership Recently, the focus has shifted towards ambidextrous leadership as a key approach to fostering innovation within teams.

Ambidextrous leadership is the capacity to encourage both explorative and exploitative behaviors in followers by adjusting their behavioral variance and flexibly transitioning between these behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011) Research linking ambidextrous leadership to innovation has identified several mediating factors, including individual employee exploration and exploitation behaviors (Zacher et al., 2016) At the team level, studies have shown that variations in team performance can be attributed to team leadership, team learning, and psychological safety, with efforts made to connect team innovation to social processes and leadership dynamics (Hülsheger et al., 2009).

Anderson et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2017) For example, Edmondson (1999) investigated the effect of team learning behavior on team performance Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) investigated the role of team exploratory and exploitative

TEAM INNOVATION IN RETAIL SERVICES: THE ROLE OF

Introduction

Understanding team innovation is essential for the survival and growth of modern organizations, leading to significant interest from both researchers and practitioners This topic encompasses various aspects, including team structure, composition, climate, processes, knowledge integration, and leadership Recently, the focus has shifted towards ambidextrous leadership in relation to team innovation, highlighting its critical role in fostering innovative practices within teams.

Ambidextrous leadership refers to the capability to encourage both explorative and exploitative behaviors among followers by adjusting their behavior variability and seamlessly transitioning between these approaches (Rosing et al., 2011) Research linking ambidextrous leadership to innovation highlights various mediating factors, including individual employee exploration and exploitation behaviors (Zacher et al., 2016) At the team level, studies have examined how team leadership, learning, and psychological safety contribute to performance differences, with efforts to connect team innovation to social processes and leadership dynamics (Hülsheger et al., 2009).

Research has highlighted the significance of team learning behaviors on performance (Edmondson, 1999) and the impact of exploratory and exploitative learning (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011) Additionally, the interplay between opening and closing leadership behaviors has been linked to team innovation (Zacher & Rosing, 2015) However, the role of ambidextrous leadership in fostering team learning and innovation remains underexplored, particularly in both transitioning economies such as Vietnam and advanced economies.

A growing trend in the retail service industry emphasizes the importance of cultivating long-term customer relationships over merely achieving short-term sales Retail service teams are increasingly dedicated to improving service quality by offering personalized attention to customers, which in turn fosters opportunities for team innovation (Subramony & Pugh, 2015).

Study 1 explores the influence of ambidextrous leadership on team exploratory and exploitative learning, and subsequently on team innovation in the retail service sector Utilizing data from 296 team leaders in Vietnam, the study confirms significant relationships among team leadership, learning, and innovation These findings enhance the understanding of team innovation by identifying exploratory and exploitative learning as key facilitators Additionally, the study reinforces the ambidexterity theory of leadership's predictive capability regarding team innovation in transitioning economies The paper further details the theoretical framework, research methods, data analysis, results, discussions, implications, and outlines future research directions.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

The role of leadership in innovation has been investigated by a number of researchers during the past several years (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Hoch, 2013;

Research has established a connection between leadership styles and team innovation, highlighting various styles such as ambidextrous, authentic, transformational, and transactional leadership Notably, ambidextrous leadership has been less explored in this context Key empirical studies examining the relationship between these leadership styles and innovation at the team level are summarized in Table 1.

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.

(2013) 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.

Sixty team leaders and 280 team members in the healthcare industry in United Kingdom

Inspirational leadership enhances team innovation by fostering a positive mood, but this effect is significant only when professional salience is high Conversely, when professional salience is low, inspirational leadership does not influence team innovation through positive mood.

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 fosters team innovation by encouraging open communication and collaboration The relationship between inclusive leadership and performance pressure enhances this innovation through the promotion of team voice Notably, team voice serves as a complete mediator, fully channeling the effects of inclusive leadership on driving team innovation.

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 while closing leadership behavior does not significantly impact team innovation, opening leadership behavior and the interplay between closing and opening leadership behaviors positively influence team innovation.

The theory of ambidextrous leadership for innovation suggests that the interplay between opening and closing behaviors of team leaders significantly influences team innovation (Rosing et al., 2011) Opening behaviors involve encouraging experimentation, promoting independent thinking, and supporting challenges to established norms, which enhances exploration within teams Conversely, closing behaviors focus on minimizing behavioral variation among team members through corrective actions, setting clear guidelines, and monitoring progress toward goals.

The ambidextrous leadership theory has gained traction in business research, particularly in its application to team innovation and employee performance Zacher and Rosing (2015) found that while closing leadership behavior did not significantly impact team innovation in the architecture industry, opening leadership behavior and the interplay between closing and opening behaviors positively influenced innovation Furthermore, Zacher et al (2016) demonstrated that the interaction between exploration and exploitation behaviors was positively associated with employee exploration and exploitation, which in turn correlated with self-reported innovative performance.

The ambidextrous leadership theory emphasizes the importance of regular interactions between team leaders and their members (Rosing et al., 2011) According to Study 1, retail service store leaders are capable of executing two complementary leadership behaviors—opening and closing—which can significantly boost innovation among their team members.

Frontline service employees play a crucial role in both customer interaction and team motivation, leveraging their insights from daily activities to set store goals Their direct engagement with customers allows them to identify evolving needs and persistent service issues, providing a unique competitive advantage By fostering effective communication and collaboration among team members, store leaders can enhance goal-setting and promote team learning, ultimately improving overall performance This dual strategy facilitates the capture and transformation of valuable knowledge, maximizing team effectiveness.

According to Ye et al (2012), the ambidextrous leadership theory highlights the significance of leaders' opening and closing behaviors, as well as their interaction, in fostering both exploratory and exploitative learning within retail service teams This dynamic is crucial for enabling teams to effectively pursue innovation in their workplace.

The conceptual model illustrates the connections between leadership behaviors and team learning, highlighting both exploratory and exploitative learning, as well as the impact of team learning on innovation Team exploratory learning is characterized by the pursuit of new ideas and approaches, fostering an environment that encourages creativity and adaptability within the team.

Team exploratory activities involve searching, experimenting, and developing new ideas and capabilities related to tasks, while team exploitative activities focus on refining, recombining, and implementing existing knowledge and skills.

(Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011, p 388-389) Specifically, this model proposes that opening leadership behavior has a positive impact on team exploratory learning and closing leadership behavior has a positive impact on team exploitative learning.

The interplay between opening and closing leadership behaviors significantly enhances both team exploratory and exploitative learning, which are essential drivers of 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 exhibiting open leadership behaviors can inspire their teams to innovate and transform frontline insights into valuable explicit knowledge (Ye et al., 2012) In retail, such behaviors by store leaders enhance exploratory learning, providing a competitive edge Leaders who embrace openness are more adept at equipping their teams with effective strategies to gather knowledge from customer interactions (Ye et al., 2012) As both frontline employees and influential figures, store leaders face the challenge of meeting customer expectations, compelling them to seek 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 prioritize exploration of evolving customer needs may incur experimentation costs without tangible benefits A leader's closing behaviors can encourage team members to focus on routine tasks, relying on existing knowledge and skills while avoiding risk-taking In retail services, store leaders exhibiting strong closing behaviors tend to foster exploitative learning within their teams, promoting efficient learning strategies that enhance knowledge acquisition through the combination of existing skills These leaders often express satisfaction with current knowledge and show 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 tailored to the complexities of innovation processes Our model suggests that the interplay between opening and closing leadership behaviors can boost followers' explorative and exploitative activities Team leaders must adeptly alternate between these behaviors to effectively address varying innovation needs.

Research methods

Vietnam's retail sector is rapidly evolving, with a focus on modern trade channels, including both physical locations like commercial centers and convenience stores, as well as digital platforms From 2013 to 2018, the sector experienced a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 10.97%, generating around US$ 142 billion in revenue by 2018 Forecasts suggest that Vietnam will emerge as the fastest-growing market for convenience stores in Asia by 2021, boasting a remarkable CAGR of 37.40% Key cities such as Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi play a crucial role, accounting for about 33% of total retail sales and exhibiting characteristics such as store expansion and fierce competition between local and foreign retailers, positioning them for significant growth in the convenience market.

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 the pilot study, we first conducted two in-depth interviews with store leaders in Ho Chi Minh City to evaluate the contents of the measures and to examine how respondents described existing ambidexterity leadership and team exploratory and exploitative learning Although the measures of all constructs in Study 1 were available in the literature, this step was crucial to ensure the appropriateness of the measures to the retail service context in Vietnam In the subsequent quantitative phase of the pilot study, face-to-face interviews with 100 team leaders were undertaken to refine the scales Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used for preliminary assessment of the scales The main survey was also undertaken by using face-to-face interviews A sample of 302 team leaders working in the retail service industry in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi were interviewed to validate the measures and to test the structural model and hypotheses Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to assess the measures and structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the theoretical model and hypotheses.

Study 1 examined key constructs such as ambidextrous leadership, which encompasses both opening and closing leadership behaviors, alongside team exploratory and exploitative learning, and team innovative performance as assessed by team leaders These constructs were identified as first-order variables, with team innovation evaluated using a 7-point scale based on three items from Welbourne et al (1998), ranging from 1 (needs much improvement) to 7 (excellent) Opening leadership behavior was assessed through three items, while closing leadership behavior was evaluated using six adapted items.

Rosing et al (2011) utilized a 7-point scale to measure various items, with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (frequently) Team exploratory and exploitative learning were assessed using four items each, employing a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), based on the work of Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011).

The questionnaire was first created in English and subsequently translated into Vietnamese by a bilingual academic This step was necessary to accommodate the fact that not all team leaders in Vietnam have a strong understanding of English.

Back translation was conducted to ensure that English and Vietnamese versions were comparable and any discrepancies were resolved.

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

The measures were refined through Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using data from 100 team leaders in a pilot study EFA, employing principal components with promax rotation, identified five factors that accounted for 70.48% of the variance, with an eigenvalue of 1.03 The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scales were 0.91 for opening leadership behavior, 0.85 for closing leadership behavior, 0.82 for team exploratory learning, and 0.84 for both team exploitative learning and team innovation All factor loadings were substantial, exceeding 0.50 Overall, the preliminary assessment confirmed that all scales met reliability standards, leading to their application in the main survey.

Through the screening process, 6 questionnaires were removed because they contained more than 10% of missing values Consequently the final sample size was

The study analyzed 296 team leaders, comprising 182 females (61.49%) and 114 males (38.51%) A majority, 198 leaders (66.89%), operated in Ho Chi Minh City, while 98 (33.11%) were based in Hanoi Age-wise, 213 leaders (71.96%) were under 30, 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 only a high school education Regarding team size, 150 teams (50.68%) had 9 or fewer employees, while 146 teams (49.32%) had more than 9 In terms of tenure, 149 teams (50.34%) had been operational for over 18 months, compared to 147 teams (49.66%) with 17 months or fewer The types of retail services included 107 convenience stores (36.15%), 85 food and beverage outlets (28.72%), 40 electronics stores (13.51%), and 64 stores (21.62%) in other categories such as pharmacy, women’s and children’s apparel, fashion, and cosmetics.

Data analysis and results

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

The saturated model, which represents the final measurement model, integrates the CFA model comprising five first-order constructs: opening leadership behavior, closing leadership behavior, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation This final CFA model demonstrated a good fit to the data, with statistics indicating χ²(157) = 292.17 (χ²/df = 1.69), GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.05 The factor loadings for the items assessing these constructs were notably high (≥ 0.65) and statistically significant (p < 0.001), while the composite reliability for each construct also reached high levels (≥).

The analysis demonstrated that the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded 0.50, indicating strong convergent validity (Table 3) Additionally, the correlations between any pairs of constructs were consistently lower than the square root of their respective AVEs, confirming the discriminant validity among opening leadership behavior, closing leadership behavior, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) Comprehensive data on the CFA loadings, composite reliability (CR), and AVE for all scales 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 and then undertook an unmeasured latent variable test (i.e., to allow an unmeasured latent variable to load on all items in the trait model) The results of the Harman’s test showed that the CFA Harman’s single factor model yielded a very poor fit to the data (χ 2 (167) 1612.93, GFI = 0.60, CFI = 0.46, and RMSEA = 0.17), compared to the trait model (χ 2 (157) = 292.17, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.05) The results from the unmeasured latent variable test indicated that all item loadings on the unmeasured latent variable were not significant and that each item loading in the final CFA model with and without the unmeasured latent variable was nearly identical Thus, common method bias was not a pervasive problem in Study 1 (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: the first suggested that the interaction of opening and closing leadership behaviors has no effect on team exploratory and exploitative learning, while the second indicated a direct impact of this interaction on team innovation, aligning with findings from Zacher & Rosing (2015) To assess this interaction, one indicator was utilized based on Ping (1995), with summated indicators calculated for the unidimensional constructs of opening and closing leadership behaviors, as per Gerbing & Anderson (1988) Mean-deviated variables were implemented to mitigate multicollinearity issues, following Cronbach (1987).

In Study 1, a Chi-square difference test was utilized to evaluate the proposed model against competing models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) The SEM analysis indicated that all three models, including the proposed and two rival models, demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, with the proposed model showing χ²(240) = 426.013 and χ²/df = 1.775.

The analysis revealed a strong fit for the proposed model with a chi-square value of χ²(242) = 436.45, yielding a chi-square per degree of freedom (χ²/df) of 1.804, a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of 0.893, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.934, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.051 In contrast, the more restrictive model showed a chi-square value of χ²(239) = 426.013, with a χ²/df of 1.782, GFI of 0.896, CFI of 0.933, and RMSEA of 0.052 Chi-square difference tests indicated that the proposed model provided a significantly better fit to the data than the more restrictive model, with a change in chi-square (Δχ²) of 10.44.

The proposed model was favored over the more restrictive model, as indicated by a significant difference in fit (Δdf = 2; p < 0.01) In contrast, the less restrictive model did not demonstrate a better fit compared to the proposed model (Δχ² ~ 0, Δdf = 1; p ~ 1.00), despite utilizing an additional degree of freedom Furthermore, the interaction between open and closing leadership behaviors and its impact on team innovation was found to be insignificant (p > 0.99), reinforcing the choice of the proposed model It is important to note that team exploratory and exploitative learning may coexist, as suggested by Kostopoulos & Bozionelos.

A significant correlation (0.46, p < 0.001) was established between the residuals, indicating a potential relationship Importantly, no improper solutions were identified in any model, as Heywood cases were absent, all error-term variances were significant, and all standardized residuals remained below |2.58|.

The SEM analysis confirmed the significance of all paths in the proposed model, supporting each hypothesis Notably, leader gender, team size, and team tenure did not significantly influence team innovation Detailed results, including unstandardized estimates, standard errors, standardized estimates, t-values, and p-values for the structural paths, are presented 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

Opening leadership behavior* Closing leadership behavior  Team exploratory learning 0.09 0.033 0.17 2.61 0.009

Opening leadership behavior* Closing leadership behavior  Team exploitative learning

H5 Team exploratory learning  Team innovation 0.60 0.074 0.62 8.13 0.000 H6 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.

The results indicated a significant positive relationship between opening leadership behavior and team exploratory learning (p < 0.01), confirming hypothesis H1 Similarly, hypothesis H2 was supported with a strong positive correlation between closing leadership behavior and team exploitative learning (p < 0.001) Additionally, the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors positively influenced both team exploratory learning (H3) and team exploitative learning (H4), with significant results (p < 0.01) Specifically, team exploratory learning peaked when both leadership behaviors were high, while team exploitative learning also reached its highest levels under the same conditions Lastly, a significant positive relationship was found between team exploratory learning and team innovation (p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H5, and hypothesis H6 was likewise validated, indicating a positive effect of team exploitative learning on team innovation.

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

Study 1, grounded in ambidexterity theory, examined the impact of team leaders' opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploratory and exploitative learning, as well as team innovation Survey data from 296 team leaders in Vietnam's retail service sector revealed that opening leadership behavior fosters team exploratory learning, while closing leadership behavior supports team exploitative learning Additionally, the interplay between these behaviors positively influences both types of learning Ultimately, the study concludes that enhanced team learning significantly drives team innovation, providing valuable insights for theory, research, and practical applications.

Study 1 offers significant theoretical insights into ambidextrous leadership and its impact on team innovation, addressing a gap in existing literature that predominantly examines these concepts at the organizational and individual levels, particularly within advanced economies (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Rosing et al., 2011; Hunter et al.).

In the context of retail services within Vietnam's transitioning economy, Study 1 enhances the understanding of ambidextrous leadership, team learning, and innovation The research highlights the significance of leaders’ opening behaviors in fostering exploratory learning and closing behaviors in promoting exploitative learning These findings underscore the critical role that both types of learning play in driving team-level innovation Ultimately, the study suggests that team leaders who effectively balance opening and closing behaviors can stimulate their team members' learning activities, thereby enhancing overall team innovation.

In addition, Study 1 verifies the effect of the interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team exploratory and exploitative learning.

According to the ambidextrous leadership theory, team exploratory and exploitative learning are maximized when both opening and closing leadership behaviors are high This highlights the need for further investigation into the theoretical and empirical aspects of these learning types Notably, Study 1 revealed a direct interaction effect between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team innovation, which contradicts prior research that identified a significant interaction effect The inconsistency with Zacher and Rosing’s findings suggests that mediators, such as team exploratory and exploitative learning, may play a crucial role in understanding this dynamic.

Positive and direct impacts of both team exploratory and exploitative learning on innovation reinforce the idea that these two learning activities are distinct yet complementary.

Bozionelos, 2011) This implies that teams should pursue both for team innovation.

Team exploratory and exploitative learning play crucial roles in enhancing team performance, as highlighted by Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) The results of Study 1 validate the relevance of ambidextrous leadership theory for fostering innovation in transitioning economies, such as Vietnam.

The findings of Study 1 provide a number of implications for practitioners.

Investing in training team leaders is crucial for enhancing both opening and closing leadership behaviors, which in turn fosters exploratory and exploitative learning within teams Organizational trainers should emphasize the significance of creating an environment that allows for errors, encourages individual ideas, and promotes experimentation, all of which contribute to team exploratory learning Simultaneously, trainers must highlight the importance of monitoring goal attainment, establishing routines, and adhering to plans to support team exploitative learning The ability to fluidly transition between opening and closing leadership behaviors can significantly elevate team learning and drive innovation.

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

Study 1 specifically examined retail service teams, which differ from other teams like pipeline operation teams that adhere to strict regulations for safety and environmental protection This distinction highlights the need for future research comparing service teams with other team types Additionally, factors such as team psychological capital, psychological safety, and psychological contract breach may mediate or moderate the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and team innovation, warranting further investigation It's important to note that our findings are based on a sample from Vietnam, limiting their generalizability to other contexts.

This study lays the groundwork for future research to replicate and critically assess transitioning markets, such as China, enhancing our understanding of the innovation processes within teams Despite its limitations, Study 1 offers valuable insights that pave the way for continued exploration in this area.

Opening and closing leadership behaviors significantly influence team exploratory and exploitative learning, fostering an environment where team members can generate and implement innovative ideas This dynamic is particularly crucial in the modern retail service sector, especially within a transitioning economy By promoting these leadership styles, organizations can enhance creativity and adaptability among their teams.

Inclusive leadership embodies positive behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and a focus on belongingness and uniqueness in interactions with team members This leadership style significantly improves job outcomes, including proactive behaviors among employees.

2020), voice behavior (Guo et al., 2020), prosocial rule breaking (Wang & Shi,

Research has explored the impact of inclusive leadership on creativity and innovation across various organizational levels, including individual, team, and organizational contexts (Choi et al., 2017; Gong et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2018; Javed et al., 2019; Siyal et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2019) However, there is a notable gap in studies specifically addressing the connection between inclusive leadership and team-level innovation (Van Knippenberg & Van Ginkel, 2021) Some researchers have examined mediators and moderators in this relationship; for instance, Ye et al (2019) identified team voice as a mediator and performance pressure as a moderator affecting team innovation Leroy et al (2021) found that team-derived inclusion mediates the link between inclusive leadership and team creativity, while Ashikali et al (2020) focused on the moderating effect of inclusive leadership on the relationship between team ethnic-cultural diversity and inclusive climate Additionally, shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality are critical for enhancing team outcomes (Chiu et al., 2016; Gibbard et al., 2017; Laulié & Tekleab, 2016).

INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF

Introduction

Inclusive leadership embodies positive behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and a focus on belongingness and uniqueness in interactions with team members This leadership style significantly boosts various job outcomes, including proactive engagement and taking charge behavior.

2020), voice behavior (Guo et al., 2020), prosocial rule breaking (Wang & Shi,

Research has explored the impact of inclusive leadership on creativity and innovation across various organizational levels, yet the connection between inclusive leadership and team-level innovation is still under-examined (Van Knippenberg & Van Ginkel, 2021) Several studies have identified mediators and moderators in this relationship, such as Ye et al (2019), who highlighted the roles of team voice and performance pressure in team innovation, while Leroy et al (2021) focused on team-derived inclusion's impact on creativity Additionally, Ashikali et al (2020) investigated how inclusive leadership moderates the effects of team ethnic-cultural diversity on inclusive climate Despite the recognized importance of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and proactive personality in team outcomes, their specific influence on the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation remains unexplored.

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

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Social Exchange Theory (SET) posits that establishing exchange relationships benefits individuals and groups (Befu, 1977; Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976) This relationship involves the exchange of resources between two parties, where A provides resources to B, and B reciprocates directly to A (Befu, 1977, p 266) At the individual level, SET suggests that people engage in resource exchanges to maximize rewards while minimizing costs (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) Additionally, the principle of reciprocity dictates that recipients of resources feel a moral obligation to return the favor to those who provided them (Gouldner, 1960) In the business context, SET informs the concept of the psychological contract, which outlines the social exchange relationships between employees and employers in the workplace.

Psychological contracts are defined as individual beliefs regarding the reciprocal obligations between employees and employers (Rousseau, 1990) Key types of psychological contracts include fulfillment, breach, and violation (Kutaula, Gillani, & Budhwar, 2020) Research indicates that a strong psychological contract is positively associated with increased employee commitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and overall performance (Birtch et al., 2016; Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Kiazad, Kraimer, & others).

Seibert, 2019; Solinger et al., 2016; Turnley et al., 2003) Psychological contract was negatively associated with employee turnover intention and counterproductive work behavior (e.g., Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018; Kraak et al., 2017).

The Social Exchange Theory (SET) posits that frequent social interactions and information sharing among team members can foster shared perceptions, such as a collective psychological contract, enhancing group cohesion and collaboration (Gong, Chang, & Cheung, 2010; Laulié &).

Tekleab, 2016) In turn, the reciprocity between teams and organizations are likely to occur based on the degree of fulfillment of promised resources (Laulié &

The individual psychological contract refers to the belief in an exchange agreement between an employee and their employer, while the team psychological contract is a collective understanding formed through social interactions among team members (Tekleab, 2016; Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Research has shown that psychological contracts significantly influence various team outcomes, including team output, performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and overall team contributions (Gibbard et al., 2017; Schreuder et al., 2019; Tekleab et al., 2020).

In the SET, leaders could play as a source of resources that their team members can refer to fulfill their team needs (Bordia et al., 2017; Nielsen et al.,

Inclusive leadership fosters high-quality relationships between leaders and followers by providing essential resources, enhancing relational support, and shaping a positive team climate (Carmeli et al., 2010) Nishii and Mayer (2009) emphasize that leaders who embrace diversity and build strong relationships can promote norms of equality and inclusion, leading to improved power sharing and reciprocal exchanges among team members Recent studies have explored various mediators and moderators that influence the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation outcomes at both individual and team levels, highlighting factors such as person-job fit, psychological empowerment, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, psychological capital, team voice, and performance pressure.

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

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 connection between inclusive leadership and team innovation, highlighting the role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator and team proactive personality as a moderator Additionally, the model includes team leaders' gender, team size, and team tenure as control variables for comprehensive analysis.

Figure 5 Conceptual model of Study 2

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 stands out as a crucial determinant, as effective leaders foster strong relationships with team members to boost innovation They achieve this by providing necessary resources, offering relational support, cultivating a positive team climate, and addressing the operational 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 benefits of innovative ideas within diverse teams, leaders must navigate challenges arising from differences in members' backgrounds, tenure, knowledge, and skills Successfully addressing these challenges requires leaders to fulfill two essential needs of their group: the sense of belonging and the recognition of each member's uniqueness (Randel et al., 2018).

Inclusive leaders foster a sense of belonging while respecting individuality, which enhances psychological empowerment and work group identification among team members (Randel et al., 2018) This support is crucial during the implementation of ideas, a phase often marked by frustration, psychological pressure, and uncertainty, enabling team members to thrive and recover at work According to the Social Exchange Theory (SET), when teams recognize the benefits of resources provided by their leaders, they feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate through collective efforts to achieve organizational goals (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Consequently, as teams perceive advantages from their inclusive leaders, they are more likely to develop and implement diverse ideas and strategies 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 members' willingness to exceed their responsibilities, particularly when organizations honor their commitments to the team (Laulié and Tekleab, 2016).

There are two distinct psychological contract fulfillment: shared team psychological contract fulfillment and shared individual psychological contract fulfillment (Laulié

Multiple social interactions and information sharing among team members can foster shared perceptions of psychological contract fulfillment At the team level, this shared understanding is defined as the convergence 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 this fulfillment exhibit a collective commitment to achieving their goals and enhancing their contributions to the team's success (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016).

The Social Exchange Theory (SET) suggests that the reciprocity between teams and organizations is influenced by the fulfillment of promised resources Higher fulfillment of these promises leads to increased contributions from teams to the organization Research by Schreuder et al (2019) indicates that when individual psychological contracts are fulfilled, team performance and organizational citizenship behaviors improve Conversely, when teams perceive a lack of fulfillment of promises from the organization, their contributions may decline.

& 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.

Leadership styles play a crucial role in fostering shared psychological contract fulfillment within teams (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016) Inclusive leaders significantly impact how team members perceive their tasks and objectives in the workplace (Randel et al., 2018) By addressing two essential human needs, these leaders are more inclined to engage in discussions with their team about expectations regarding resource exchanges, ensuring that individual needs are met as part of their commitments.

Inclusive leaders improve communication within teams, fostering a shared understanding among members about the fulfillment of commitments related to team functions and operations By encouraging team members to express their thoughts and feel like integral parts of the group, inclusive leaders enable individuals to contribute their unique perspectives, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the team.

Research methods

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.

A total of 300 team leaders participated in a questionnaire study conducted from October 24, 2019, to January 1, 2020, with no questionnaires discarded during the screening process The final sample comprised 195 female team leaders (65%) and 105 male team leaders (35%).

The study involved 300 participants, equally divided between HCM City and Hanoi, with 73.33% under 30 years old and 26.67% over 30 Among the team leaders, 84% held an undergraduate degree, while 8.33% had only a high school education and 7.67% possessed a postgraduate degree In terms of team size, 53.67% had eight or fewer employees, whereas 46.33% had more than eight Regarding team tenure, 52.67% had been operational for 18 months or more, while 47.33% had been active for less than 18 months The types of retail service stores included 32% convenience stores, 27.33% food and beverage outlets, and 10.67% electronics, with the remaining 30% consisting of fashion, pharmacy, and cosmetics stores.

Study 2 explored four key constructs: inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation Inclusive leadership, characterized as a second-order construct, consists of five essential components: openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness, and uniqueness.

Inclusive leadership 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) Additionally, shared team psychological contract fulfillment is a second-order construct consisting of three key components: transactional obligation, training obligation, and relational obligation.

The fulfillment of shared team psychological contracts was assessed using eleven items on a seven-point scale, adapted from Lester et al (2007), ranging from 1 (much less than promised) to 7 (much more than promised) Team proactive personality, also a first-order construct, was evaluated through five items modified from Seibert et al (1999), utilizing a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) A referent-shift approach, as proposed by Chan (1998), was applied to measure both shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality Additionally, team innovation, another first-order construct, was measured using 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.

Data analysis and results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate the measurement of four key constructs: inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation Initially, CFA was used to validate the measures for inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment, which are identified as second-order constructs Subsequently, CFA models were applied to assess the two first-order constructs.

(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 for inclusive leadership demonstrated a satisfactory 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 inclusive leadership components 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 showed an acceptable fit, with χ²(41) = 90.81 (χ²/df = 2.22), GFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.06, where all factor loadings exceeded 0.70 The CR and AVE for shared team psychological contract 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 fit the data well, with χ²(108) = 251.17 (χ²/df = 2.33), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07, where all factor loadings were significant and above 0.50 Two composite measures were created by averaging the items for each component in the inclusive leadership and shared team psychological contract fulfillment models.

The 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) indicate satisfactory measurement quality Additionally, the correlation between any pair of constructs remained below the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct, thereby confirming the discriminant validity of inclusive leadership, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, team proactive personality, and team innovation, as outlined by Fornell and 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.

Table 6 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 2

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 high rating of 5.48 They also benefit from strong career development prospects, scoring 5.46, and have favorable chances for promotions, reflected in a score of 5.50.

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 reality 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

Table 7 Correlations between constructs of Study 2

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.

4.4.3 Structural results and hypothesis testing

This study utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the theoretical model and hypotheses, focusing on the mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation To achieve the most precise confidence intervals, the research adopted the bias-corrected bootstrap method, as recommended by Cheung and Lau (2008).

The study conducted by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004) analyzed two models, M0 and M1, to explore the impact of inclusive leadership on team innovation Model M0 incorporated one mediator, shared team psychological contract fulfillment, along with three control variables to assess the direct effects of inclusive leadership and the control variables on team innovation, as well as the indirect effects of the mediator In contrast, Model M1 utilized shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator and team proactive personality as a moderator to test additional hypotheses 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 study found that inclusive leadership did not significantly impact team innovation (βstandardized = 0.15, p > 0.05), failing to support hypothesis H1 However, the analysis using a bias-corrected bootstrap method with 1000 samples revealed 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 structural equation modeling (SEM) results indicated that the model incorporating shared team psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator (M1) exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data, with χ²(176) = 339.87 (χ²/df = 1.93), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.92, and RMSEA = 0.06 Significant pathways were identified, showing that inclusive leadership positively influenced shared team psychological contract fulfillment, which in turn significantly affected team innovation (p < 0.001) Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap method with 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 < 0.001).

The study found that shared team psychological contract fulfillment significantly mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation (0.01; 95% CI [0.08, 0.33]; Table 8), supporting hypothesis H2 Additionally, there was a notable interaction between team proactive personality and inclusive leadership, which positively influenced shared team psychological contract fulfillment (βstandardized = 0.20, p < 0.01), thus validating hypothesis H3.

Table 8 SEM results of Study 2

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 

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

Study 2 explored the connection between inclusive leadership and team innovation, emphasizing the mediating role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment A survey involving 300 team leaders in Vietnam's retail services revealed that inclusive leadership alone did not directly impact team innovation However, shared team psychological contract fulfillment was found to mediate this relationship Notably, a positive interaction between team proactive personality and inclusive leadership behavior enhanced shared team psychological contract fulfillment These findings provide valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical applications in team dynamics.

Recent findings underscore the significant role of inclusive leadership in enhancing team innovation and fulfilling shared team psychological contracts This aligns with previous research, such as Ye et al (2019), which demonstrated a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation, while also identifying team voice as a mediator The positive impact of inclusive leadership on shared psychological contract fulfillment highlights the connection between team leader behaviors and the psychological dynamics within teams These insights emphasize the critical importance of inclusive leadership in fostering a collaborative and innovative team environment.

Team leaders who exhibit strong inclusive leadership behaviors are more inclined to foster a shared psychological contract within their teams This collaborative environment enhances team contributions, ultimately leading to improved innovative outcomes.

Previous studies suggest that certain leadership styles, such as transformational and servant leadership, are linked to the fulfillment of shared psychological contracts within teams, ultimately enhancing 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.

In 2018, Study 2 explored an enhanced model of inclusive leadership, highlighting five key components: openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness, and uniqueness This research deepens our comprehension of inclusive leadership and its elements, indicating their potential to foster positive outcomes (Randel et al., 2018).

Research indicates that fulfilling a shared team psychological contract is crucial for driving innovation within teams To foster innovation, teams must prioritize the development of this shared fulfillment However, this conclusion contrasts with earlier studies, such as Gibbard et al (2017), which identified person-team fit as a mediator between psychological contract breaches and team performance These discrepancies suggest that other mediators might influence 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.

A team's proactive personality serves as a vital resource for leaders, influencing team members' perceptions of organizational commitment and enhancing the impact of inclusive leadership on fulfilling shared psychological contracts Previous research has demonstrated the importance of team proactive personality in various outcomes; for example, Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk (2016) found that it positively moderates the effects of leader humility and shared leadership Additionally, Wang et al (2017) revealed that team proactive personality mean strengthens the link between individual proactive personality and work engagement, while its diversity does not The findings from Study 2 further validate the significance of Social Exchange Theory (SET) in teams within transitioning markets like Vietnam, highlighting the need for more research on inclusive leadership in such contexts.

Fostering inclusive leadership is crucial for enhancing team outcomes, such as shared psychological contract fulfillment and innovation Our findings align with Ye et al (2019), suggesting that leadership training interventions can effectively improve inclusive leadership behaviors, addressing the needs and attitudes of team members Organizational trainers should focus on providing resources, supporting relationships, and promoting a sense of belonging while valuing individual uniqueness Additionally, emphasizing the fulfillment of the team's psychological contract can yield greater benefits than focusing solely on individual contracts Notably, the impact of inclusive leadership on shared psychological contract fulfillment is amplified in teams with high proactive personality, as inclusive leaders create a supportive environment that encourages positive relationships and drives team innovation.

Study 2 has notable limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which restricts causal interpretation; future research should explore the impact of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment and its subsequent effects on team outcomes over time Additionally, while the study focused on retail service teams, further investigations across various team types could validate these findings Other mediating or moderating factors, such as team positive psychological resources and working environments, should also be examined in relation to inclusive leadership and team innovation Furthermore, as the sample was limited to the Vietnamese context, additional research in diverse settings is necessary to enhance generalizability Despite these limitations, Study 2 significantly advances our understanding of the innovation processes within teams, highlighting the crucial role of inclusive leadership in fostering strong relationships between teams and organizations, thereby promoting team innovation in the evolving retail service landscape of a transitioning economy.

MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM LEARNING

In today's highly competitive global landscape, 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 encompasses four key components: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism (Dawkins et al., 2015; Luthans et al., 2015; Tho et al., 2018).

PsyCap, initially conceptualized at the individual level (Luthans et al., 2015), has been the primary focus of research in this area, with studies highlighting its significance in personal development and performance (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Miao, Bozionelos, Zhou, & Newman, 2020; Nguyen & ).

In recent years, there has been a growing focus on researching team processes and performance, prompting scholars to explore the concept of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) at the team level This shift in attention highlights the importance of understanding how PsyCap influences team dynamics and outcomes.

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

Previous studies have explored the impact of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) on various team outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, performance, satisfaction, service quality, customer satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity Despite the essential role of team innovation in the survival and growth of modern organizations, the connection between team PsyCap and team innovation remains under-researched.

TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND INNOVATION: THE

Introduction

In today's highly competitive global landscape, both workers and companies, whether in developing or developed nations, must develop the necessary skills and capabilities to remain relevant in their markets (Tho et al., 2018) A critical factor for achieving optimal performance is psychological capital (PsyCap), which encompasses four key components: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism (Dawkins et al., 2015; Luthans et al., 2015; Tho et al., 2018).

PsyCap, initially conceptualized at the individual level by Luthans et al (2015), has been the primary focus of research in this field Studies, including those by Luthans, Norman, Avolio, and Avey (2008) and Miao et al (2020), have primarily examined PsyCap's impact on individuals, highlighting its significance in personal development and performance.

Recent studies have increasingly focused on team processes and performance, highlighting the importance of examining Psychological Capital (PsyCap) at the team level This shift in research underscores the significance of understanding how PsyCap influences team dynamics and outcomes.

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

Previous research has highlighted the significance of team psychological capital (PsyCap) in various team outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, performance, satisfaction, service quality, customer satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity However, the crucial link between team PsyCap and team innovation remains underexplored, despite team innovation being vital for the survival and growth of modern organizations Furthermore, knowledge creation and learning predominantly occur within teams, emphasizing the need to investigate this relationship further.

Despite previous research, the connection between team psychological capital (PsyCap), team learning, and innovation remains underexplored To address this gap, Study 3 utilized the theory of psychological capital, as proposed by Youssef-Morgan and Luthans (2013), to examine how team PsyCap influences team innovation, building on insights from Dawkins et al (2015).

Also, it examined the mediating role of team learning, including team exploratory and exploitative learning, in the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation in the retail service industry

A survey conducted with 272 team leaders in Vietnam's retail service sector revealed that team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) significantly influences team innovation Additionally, the study found that team exploratory learning serves as a mediator in the relationship between team PsyCap and innovation, while team exploitative learning does not have a mediating effect.

Study 3 reveals new facilitators of team innovation, specifically team PsyCap and team exploratory learning, thereby addressing a gap in the literature It offers empirical evidence for the role of PsyCap in predicting team-level innovation within a transitioning economy The paper further elaborates on the theoretical background, hypotheses, research methods, data analysis, results, discussions, implications, and concludes with limitations and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

PsyCap, defined as an individual's positive psychological state, encompasses four key components: confidence (efficacy) to tackle challenging tasks, optimism about future success, hope in persevering toward goals, and resilience in overcoming adversity Research indicates that PsyCap is significantly linked to favorable employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance, as well as fostering innovation within the workplace.

Team PsyCap is defined as a collective psychological state characterized by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, where each component is assessed at the collective level Unlike individual PsyCap, which is a personal psychological resource, team PsyCap emerges from shared perceptions developed through direct interactions among team members 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 United States

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 total of 193 team members across 43 teams from 10 diverse organizations participated, representing various industries including energy and resources, employment and recruitment, financial services, as well as 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

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) has a positive correlation with service quality, customer satisfaction, and unit revenues Furthermore, service quality and customer satisfaction serve as full mediators in the relationship between collective PsyCap and unit revenues, highlighting the importance of fostering a strong team PsyCap to enhance overall business performance.

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 correlates positively with team humility, which subsequently interacts with the strength of team humility to further enhance 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, it posits that team exploratory and exploitative learning serve as mediators in the relationship between team PsyCap and innovation Furthermore, the model identifies team leader, team size, and team tenure as control variables that impact this dynamic.

Figure 6 Conceptual model of Study 3

Innovation is defined as the intentional introduction and application of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures within a specific group or organization, aimed at benefiting individuals and society (West & Farr, 1990) At the team level, team innovation involves the introduction of novel concepts or methods that are new to the team and intended to be useful (De Dreu & West, 2001).

Innovation in the workplace emerges from various mechanisms, including individual cognitive processes and collaborative social interactions.

Teamwork fosters collaboration by integrating diverse skills and viewpoints, leading to the generation and execution of innovative ideas, including new products and processes, that drive organizational success (Thayer, Petruzzelli, & McClurg, 2018).

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

Team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) can significantly contribute to the success of the innovation process by fostering a collective identity among members According to social contagion theory, effective communication and information exchange within a team promote shared perceptions, enhancing collaboration and cohesion (Degoey, 2000) This emphasis on team identity over individual identities strengthens the overall dynamics and performance of the group (Broad & Luthans, 2017; Terrion & Chen, 2017; Huang & Luthans, 2014).

Effective communication among team members fosters a social environment where individuals are influenced by each other's attitudes and beliefs (Dawkins et al., 2015) This shared perception of psychological development enhances the understanding of team functions and operations (Dawkins et al., 2018), ultimately driving innovative outcomes within team-based structures (Anderson et al., 2014; Rosing et al., 2011).

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 emphasizes refining existing knowledge and skills This distinction highlights the dual approach teams can take to enhance their overall effectiveness and adaptability.

2011, p 386) Teams can participate in both exploratory and exploitative learning practices, named, ambidextrous learning (Diaz-Fernandez, Pasamar-Reyes, &

Exploratory and exploitative learning are complementary processes that enable teams to generate new knowledge while effectively utilizing existing, standardized information This dual capability enhances innovation and efficiency within organizations, allowing for the simultaneous exploration of novel ideas and the exploitation of established knowledge.

Bozionelos, 2011) Employing and balancing ambidextrous learning will help teams to maximize overall performance (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Xiong, 2020)

Research method

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

In a pilot study, in-depth interviews were conducted with five store leaders in Ho Chi Minh City to ensure the relevance of measurement items within a transitioning economy The main survey involved team leaders with a minimum of six months of experience in their roles, focusing on Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, Vietnam's capital A research agency, operating in both cities, facilitated the survey under the guidance of a researcher The objective was to validate the measures and test hypotheses, utilizing a partial self-administered method where interviewers distributed and collected questionnaires from participating store leaders, ensuring completion even in cases of missing values.

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 in Hanoi The majority, 72.06%, were under 30 years old, with only 27.94% over that age Educationally, 91.91% held an undergraduate degree, 3.31% had a postgraduate degree, and 4.78% completed only high school Team sizes were evenly split, with 50% having nine or fewer employees and the other 50% 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 The types of retail service stores included 36.03% convenience stores, 28.31% food and beverage outlets, 13.97% electronics, and the remaining 21.69% comprised pharmacies, women’s and children’s apparel, fashion, and cosmetics.

Study 3 examined four key constructs: team Psychological Capital (PsyCap), team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation Team PsyCap, a second-order construct, includes components such as team self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism, each assessed using four items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), following the methodology of Dawkins et al (2018) A referent-shift approach was utilized for measuring team PsyCap In contrast, team innovation, along with exploratory and exploitative learning, were categorized as first-order constructs Team innovation was evaluated using four items from Welbourne et al (1998) on a 7-point scale (1 = needs much improvement, 7 = excellent), while team exploratory and exploitative learning were each measured with four items 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 involved a questionnaire designed to measure various constructs, incorporating three control variables alongside essential demographic factors Initially crafted in English, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese by a bilingual academic, followed by a back-translation into English by another fluent individual to ensure the accuracy of meanings This meticulous process was necessary due to the limited English proficiency among some team leaders in Vietnam.

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;

In a study by Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) alongside Laughlin et al (2006), team size was quantified by the number of employees within each team, while team tenure was assessed based on the number of months the team had been operational Additionally, team leaders' gender was categorized using dummy coding, with male represented as 1 and female as 0.

Data analysis and results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate the measurement of four constructs: team PsyCap, team exploratory learning, team exploitative learning, and team innovation In Study 3, CFA was initially used to validate the second-order construct of team PsyCap 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 for final measurement.

The CFA model for team PsyCap demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, with χ²(100) = 223.97 (χ²/df = 2.24), GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07 All factor loadings were significant and high (≥ 0.60, p < 0.001) The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for 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: χ²(94) = 224.28 (χ²/df = 2.39), GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.07, with all factor loadings remaining high and significant (≥ 0.60, p < 0.001) A composite measure averaging the items for each team PsyCap component was utilized in the saturated model.

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

Table 10 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standardized CFA loadings () of items of Study 3

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

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

Table 11 Correlations between constructs of Study 3

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

5.4.3 Structural results and hypothesis testing

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 In Study 3, the bias-corrected bootstrap method was applied, as it offers the most precise confidence intervals, enhancing the reliability of the findings (Cheung & Lau, 2008; MacKinnon, Lockwood, &).

Williams, 2004) In so doing, Study 3 analyzed three models: M0, M1, and M2.

Model M0 examined the impact of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) on team innovation, incorporating two mediators—team exploratory and exploitative learning—along with control variables This model also assessed the influence of three control variables on team innovation and the indirect effects of both learning types on the PsyCap-innovation relationship Model M1 focused on team exploratory learning as a mediator to test hypothesis H2, while Model M2 analyzed team exploitative learning as a mediator for hypothesis H3 Importantly, all models yielded valid solutions without any improper cases, such as Heywood cases.

The SEM analysis indicated that the overall model (M0) fit the data well, with χ² (143) = 286.17, χ²/df = 2.02, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.06 It was found that team PsyCap positively influenced team innovation (βstandardized = 0.25, p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis H1 Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap method with 1000 samples confirmed a significant positive 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 revealed a strong 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 pathways were identified, with team psychological capital (PsyCap) positively influencing team exploratory learning, which in turn significantly impacted team innovation (p < 0.001) Additionally, the bias-corrected bootstrap analysis with 1000 samples confirmed a positive and significant indirect effect of team PsyCap on innovation through 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 study's findings indicate that the model fit was acceptable with χ² (133.46), GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.08 A significant positive relationship was observed between team 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 indirect effect of team PsyCap on team innovation through team exploitative learning was found to be positive but not significant (βstandardized = 0.01, p > 0.05, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19]), leading to the rejection of hypothesis H3 Consequently, team exploitative learning did not serve as a mediator in the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation, as detailed in Table 12, which presents the unstandardized estimates, standard errors, standardized estimates, t-values, and p-values of the structural paths.

Table 12 SEM results of Study 3

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

The analysis reveals significant relationships between team dynamics and innovation outcomes Specifically, Team PsyCap has a strong positive direct effect on Team exploratory learning (β = 0.95, p < 0.001) and Team exploitative learning (β = 0.74, p < 0.001) Furthermore, Team exploratory learning positively influences Team innovation (β = 0.61, p < 0.001), while the direct effect of Team exploitative learning on Team innovation is negligible (β = 0.07, p = 0.572) Additionally, there is a noteworthy indirect effect of Team PsyCap on Team innovation through both exploratory and exploitative learning (BC = 0.63, p = 0.003) Notably, the control variable of leader gender (male) shows 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.

Discussion and Conclusions

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

Study 3 reinforces the significance of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) at the team level, highlighting its impact on team learning and innovation The research indicates that teams with high PsyCap are more likely to engage in both exploratory and exploitative learning, which are crucial for achieving innovative outcomes This underscores the importance of team PsyCap as a psychological resource that enhances learning processes Additionally, previous studies have established a link between both types of learning and improved team performance, emphasizing the value of fostering team PsyCap for better results.

Research indicates that team exploratory learning significantly boosts team innovation, while team exploitative learning does not contribute to this outcome Therefore, to foster innovation, it is essential for teams to focus on exploratory learning practices.

In terms of practice, the results highlight the importance of fostering team PsyCap to enhance team-level outcomes including team learning and innovation.

Our findings align with Dawkins et al (2018), highlighting the effectiveness of training interventions that enhance team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) rather than just focusing on individuals Companies should foster a collaborative social environment that encourages interaction and communication among team members, ultimately promoting shared perceptions of psychological development (Dawkins et al., 2015).

Firms can enhance team performance by establishing leader-subordinate mentoring programs that foster psychological capacities, aiding teams in navigating frustrations associated with failure during the generation and implementation of innovative ideas Research indicates that team psychological capital (PsyCap) plays a crucial role in promoting consensus among team members, enabling them to effectively tackle challenges and adapt to the complexities of modern job demands, ultimately driving positive responses to change and facilitating idea generation and execution.

A significant limitation of Study 3 is its sample, which is drawn from a Vietnamese context, limiting the ability to generalize findings to other cultures Future research should aim to replicate and extend these findings while critically evaluating them in other transitioning markets.

In conclusion, Study 3 enhances our understanding of the team innovation process, highlighting the significant positive impact of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) This research underscores how PsyCap aids team members in both generating and implementing innovative and practical ideas, particularly in today's challenging work environment.

CONCLUSION

Summary

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

Study 1 explores the impact of ambidextrous leadership on innovation by examining opening and closing leadership behaviors in team exploratory and exploitative learning A survey of 296 team leaders reveals that opening leadership behavior fosters team exploratory learning, while closing leadership behavior supports team exploitative learning Additionally, the interplay between these two leadership styles enhances both types of learning, ultimately driving team innovation.

Study 2 explores the impact of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and proactive personality on the connection between inclusive leadership and team innovation, using the Social Exchange Theory (SET) An analysis of survey data from 300 team leaders in Vietnam's retail sector reveals that shared team psychological contract fulfillment serves as a mediator in this relationship, highlighting its significance in fostering innovation within teams.

Interestingly, team proactive personality positively moderated the effect of inclusive leadership on shared team psychological contract fulfillment.

Study 3 explores the influence of team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) on innovation within teams, while also investigating how team learning—encompassing both exploratory and exploitative learning—mediates this relationship.

A study involving 272 team leaders from Vietnamese firms employed confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to validate measures and test hypotheses The findings reveal that team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) positively influences team innovation Additionally, team exploratory learning serves as a mediator between team PsyCap and innovation, while team exploitative learning does not have a mediating effect Although team exploitative learning is influenced by team PsyCap, it fails to contribute to enhanced team innovation.

Theoretical implications

This thesis contributes significantly to the literature on leadership and innovation by shifting the focus from individual and organizational levels in advanced economies to team-level dynamics in the context of retail services in Vietnam, a transitioning economy It explores the interplay between ambidextrous and inclusive leadership, learning, psychological contract fulfillment, and innovation, thereby enriching the understanding of these concepts in a new setting.

Study 1 highlights the significance of leaders' opening behaviors in fostering exploratory learning and closing behaviors in promoting exploitative learning, emphasizing their crucial roles in team innovation The research confirms that when team leaders exhibit both opening and closing behaviors, they enhance learning activities among team members, ultimately driving innovation Furthermore, the study validates the interaction effect of these leadership behaviors on team learning, aligning with ambidextrous leadership theory, which posits that optimal exploratory and exploitative learning occurs when both leadership behaviors are practiced at high levels.

The findings reinforce the necessity for additional research to assess the theoretical and empirical foundations of team exploratory and exploitative learning (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011) Notably, Study 1 reveals a direct impact of the interplay between opening and closing leadership behaviors on team innovation However, when comparing a competing, less restrictive model to the proposed model, no significant relationship was identified.

This study's findings contrast with earlier research, notably by Zacher and Rosing (2015), which identified a significant interaction between opening and closing leadership behaviors impacting team innovation However, Zacher and Rosing's study did not explore any mediating factors These discrepancies suggest the possibility of mediators, such as team exploratory and exploitative learning, influencing the relationship between leadership behaviors and innovation in this context.

Research indicates that both team exploratory and exploitative learning significantly contribute to team innovation, reinforcing the notion that these two learning activities are distinct yet complementary.

Bozionelos, 2011) This implies that teams should pursue both for team innovation.

Team exploratory and exploitative learning play a crucial role in enhancing team performance, as demonstrated by Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) The results from Study 1 validate the relevance of ambidextrous leadership theory in fostering innovation, particularly in transitioning economies such as Vietnam.

Study 2 reinforces the significance of inclusive leadership within teams, demonstrating its predictive ability in fostering shared psychological contract fulfillment and driving innovation.

Study 2 revealed no link between inclusive leadership and team innovation, contradicting earlier research by Ye et al (2019), which identified a significant positive effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation It is important to note that Ye et al included a mediator, team voice, in their analysis These conflicting results suggest the potential presence of mediators, such as shared team psychological contract fulfillment, that may influence the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation.

Inclusive leadership positively impacts the fulfillment of shared team psychological contracts, highlighting the connection between team leader behaviors and team psychological characteristics This underscores the significance of inclusive leadership in fostering an environment where teams can thrive Leaders who exhibit strong inclusive behaviors actively promote shared psychological contract fulfillment, which can enhance team contributions and drive innovative outcomes Previous research suggests that various leadership styles, such as transformational and servant leadership, may also influence shared team psychological contracts and subsequently improve team performance (Laulié & Tekleab, 2016).

The research highlights that fulfilling a shared team psychological contract is crucial for fostering innovation within teams To drive innovation effectively, teams must focus on enhancing their shared psychological contract Furthermore, Study 2 responds to the need for testing the new components of inclusive leadership—belongingness and uniqueness—proposed by Randel et al (2018).

This study explores an enhanced model of inclusive leadership, comprising five key elements: openness, accessibility, availability, belongingness, and uniqueness It deepens our comprehension of inclusive leadership and its components, which are linked to positive outcomes (Randel et al., 2018) Additionally, findings from Study 2 emphasize the moderating effect of team proactive personality on shared team psychological contract fulfillment A proactive team personality allows leaders to shape team members' perceptions regarding the organization's commitment fulfillment, thereby amplifying the impact of inclusive leadership on shared psychological contract satisfaction.

Research has established the significant role of team proactive personality in influencing team outcomes Chiu et al (2016) demonstrated that a team's proactive personality enhances the effects of leader humility and shared leadership Additionally, Wang et al (2017) revealed that the average level of team proactive personality strengthens the positive link between individual employee proactivity and work engagement, while team proactive personality diversity does not have the same effect This study supports the relevance of Social Exchange Theory (SET) in team dynamics within Vietnam's evolving market, highlighting the need for further exploration of inclusive leadership in this context.

Study 3 confirms the significant role of team PsyCap in fostering team learning and innovation, highlighting its positive impact on both exploratory and exploitative learning styles Teams with high PsyCap are more likely to engage in these learning activities, which are crucial for achieving innovative outcomes Previous research has established a link between team learning and performance, yet this study reveals that only exploratory learning directly enhances team innovation, indicating that teams should prioritize explorative learning to drive innovation effectively.

Practical implications

The findings of the thesis provide a number of implications for practitioners.

Study 1 highlights the critical role of investing in training for team leaders to enhance their opening and closing leadership behaviors, which is essential for promoting both exploratory and exploitative learning within teams Organizational trainers should emphasize the significance of fostering an environment that permits mistakes, values individual contributions, and encourages experimentation These opening leadership behaviors are pivotal in cultivating a culture where team members feel empowered to explore, innovate, and generate new ideas during exploratory learning activities.

Organizational trainers highlight the importance of monitoring and controlling goal achievement, establishing routines, and adhering to plans, which are essential aspects of closing leadership behavior These strategies foster an environment where team members can enhance, reconfigure, and apply their existing knowledge and skills during exploitative learning activities The ability to seamlessly transition between opening and closing leadership behaviors can significantly boost both exploratory and exploitative learning within teams, ultimately driving innovation.

Study 2 emphasizes the significance of promoting inclusive leadership to improve team outcomes such as shared psychological contract fulfillment and innovation Aligning with Ye et al (2019), our findings suggest that leadership training interventions can enhance inclusive leadership behaviors, addressing the needs and attitudes of team members Organizational trainers should focus on the importance of providing resources, nurturing relationships, facilitating team members' feelings of belonging, and celebrating their individuality.

Organizational trainers should prioritize the fulfillment of the team's psychological contract as a collective, rather than focusing solely on individual contracts, as this approach yields greater benefits Additionally, the impact of inclusive leadership on the shared psychological contract within teams is amplified when team members exhibit high proactive personalities This underscores the ability of inclusive leaders to foster a supportive environment that encourages contributions, nurtures positive relationships among team members, and ultimately drives team innovation.

The results of Study 3 emphasize the significance of enhancing team Psychological Capital (PsyCap) to improve team learning and innovation outcomes Aligning with Dawkins et al (2018), our findings suggest that training interventions designed to strengthen team PsyCap may offer greater benefits than those focused solely on individual development Organizations should cultivate a supportive social environment that fosters interaction and communication among team members, facilitating the sharing of perceptions related to psychological development (Dawkins et al., 2015).

Companies can establish leader-subordinate mentoring programs to enhance team psychological capacities, which are crucial during challenging times marked by frustration and failure in generating and implementing innovative ideas Such programs can alleviate psychological pressures and improve innovative performance Additionally, research suggests that team psychological capital (PsyCap) fosters consensus among team members, enabling them to navigate difficulties and adapt positively to the complexities of modern job demands and the increasing need for creativity and change.

Limitations and future directions

We are aware of the limitations of our three studies.

Future research should focus on the impact of leadership styles, such as ambidextrous or inclusive leadership, on team learning and the fulfillment of shared psychological contracts within teams This investigation could provide valuable insights into how these factors influence team-level outcomes over time, addressing the limitations of current cross-sectional studies that cannot establish causality.

This study specifically examines retail service teams, which differ from other team types, such as pipeline operation teams that adhere to strict regulations for safety and environmental protection Unlike pipeline leaders, who discourage risk-taking, retail service leaders may foster a more innovative environment Future research should explore the distinctions between these team types and investigate additional factors that may influence the relationship between leadership and team innovation, including team psychological capital, psychological safety, and psychological contract breach.

Future research should explore the relationship between team innovation and customer behavior in the retail services industry, particularly under uncertain conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic Additionally, incorporating successful case studies of retail service companies through in-depth interviews will provide valuable insights into their innovation activities.

This study's findings are specific to the Vietnamese context, limiting their generalizability to other regions Additionally, the varying leadership styles between Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City were not accounted for as a control variable, suggesting that future research in Vietnam should consider this aspect Despite these limitations, this research lays the groundwork for further studies to replicate, expand, and critically assess similar transitioning markets, such as China, to enhance understanding in this field.

Conclusion

In summary, our research enhances the understanding of team innovation processes by highlighting the beneficial impacts of leadership behaviors on learning Specifically, we found that both opening and closing leadership styles foster team exploratory and exploitative learning Additionally, inclusive leadership cultivates strong relationships between teams and organizations, while team psychological capital (PsyCap) supports exploratory learning among members Collectively, these factors empower teams to generate and implement innovative ideas within the evolving retail service landscape.

PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO THE THESIS

Paper 1 - (2020) Team innovation in retail services: The role of ambidextrous leadership and team learning Service Business, 14(1), 167-186.

Paper 2 - (2020) Inclusive leadership and innovation: The role of shared team psychological contract fulfillment and team proactive personality Submitted to UEH International Conference on Business and Finance 2020

Paper 3 - (2020) Team psychological capital and innovation: The mediating role of team exploratory and exploitative learning

Accepted by Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(7), 1745-1759.

Acar, O A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D (2019) Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review Journal of

Ahmed, F., Zhao, F., & Faraz, N A (2020) How and when does inclusive leadership curb psychological distress during a crisis? Evidence from the

COVID-19 outbreak Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01898Anderson, J C., & Gerbing, D W.

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

Ashikali, T., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B (2020) The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams Review of

Avey, J B., Reichard, R J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K H (2011) Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive PsyCap on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.

Baker, W E., & Bulkley, N (2014) Paying it forward vs rewarding reputation:

Mechanisms of generalized reciprocity Organization Science, 25(5), 1493- 1510.

Befu, H (1977) Social exchange Annual Review of Anthropology, 6(1), 255-281.

Birtch, T A., Chiang, F F., & Van Esch, E (2016) A social exchange theory framework for understanding the job characteristics–job outcomes relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(11), 1217-1236.

Blau, P M (1964) Exchange and power in social life New York: John Wiley.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A (2019) Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship behavior Journal of Psychology, 153(8), 784-802.

Bollen, K A., & Long, J S (1993) Introduction In K A Bollen & J S Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp 1-9) Newbury Parks, CA:

Bordia, P., Restubog, S L D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R L (2017) Effects of resource availability on social exchange relationships: The case of employee psychological contract obligations Journal of Management, 43(5), 1447-1471.

Broad, J D., & Luthans, F (2017) Leading and developing health and safety through collective psychological capital In E K Kelloway, K Nielsen, & J.

K Dimoff (Eds.), Leading to occupational health and safety: How leadership behaviours impact organizational safety and well-being (pp 255-279), Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Son

Cady, S H., & Valentine, J (1999) Team innovation and perceptions of consideration: What difference does diversity make? Small Group Research,

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E (2010) Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260.

Authentic leadership significantly influences positive psychological capital and fosters trust within groups, as demonstrated by Clapp-Smith et al (2009) This trust acts as a crucial mediator, enhancing group dynamics and overall performance Additionally, Černe et al (2013) highlight the relationship between authentic leadership and creativity, suggesting that leaders who exhibit authenticity can drive innovation across multiple levels within an organization Together, these studies underscore the importance of authentic leadership in cultivating a supportive environment that promotes both psychological well-being and creative problem-solving.

Chan, D (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models Journal of

Chen, G., Farh, J L., Campbell-Bush, E M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X (2013) Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018-1027.

Cheung, G W., & Lau, R S (2008) Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models.

Chiu, C.-Y (C.), Owens, B P., & Tesluk, P E (2016) Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability Journal of Applied Psychology,

Cho, I., Park, H., & Choi, J (2011) The impact of diversity of innovation channels on innovation performance in service firms Service Business, 5(3), 277-294.

Choi, S B., Tran, T B H., & Kang, S W (2017) Inclusive leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of person-job fit Journal of

Choo, A S., Linderman, K W., & Schroeder, R G (2007) Method and psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement projects Management Science, 53(3), 437-450.

Chou, L F., Wang, A C., Wang, T Y., Huang, M P., & Cheng, B S (2008).

Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness Human Relations, 61(12), 1713-1742.

Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G R., & Avey, J B (2009) Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227- 240.

Conway, N., & Coyle‐Shapiro, J A M (2012) The reciprocal relationship between psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating role of perceived organizational support and tenure Journal of

Crant, J M., & Bateman, T S (2000) Charismatic leadership viewed from above:

The impact of proactive personality Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Crevani, L., Palm, K., & Schilling, A (2011) Innovation management in service firms: A research agenda Service Business, 5(2), 177-193.

Cronbach, L J (1987) Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414-417.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M S (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J & Sanderson, K (2015) Advancing conceptualization and measurement of psychological capital as a collective construct Human Relations, 68(6), 925-949.

Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., Sanderson, K., & Schüz, B (2018) A cross-level model of team-level psychological capital (PsyCap) and individual-and team- level outcomes Journal of Management & Organization, 1-20.

De Dreu, C.K., & West, M A (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making Journal of Applied

Degoey, P (2000) Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51-102

Deloitte (2019) Retail in Vietnam: navigating the digital retail landscape, 1-32. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/vn/Documents/consumer- business/vn-cb-vietnam-consumer-retail-2019.pdf

Diaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., & Valle-Cabrera, R (2017) Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning:

A structural perspective BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 20(1), 63-77.

Doloreux, D., Turkina, E., & Van Assche, A (2019) Innovation type and external knowledge search strategies in KIBS: Evidence from Canada Service

Edmondson, A C (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Edmondson, A C., & Nembhard, I M (2009) Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits Journal of product innovation management, 26(2), 123-138.

Eisenbeiss, S A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S (2008) Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

Emerson, R M (1976) Social exchange theory Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335-362.

Eva, N., Newman, A., Miao, Q., Wang, D., & Cooper, B (2020) Antecedents of duty orientation and follower work behavior: The interactive effects of perceived organizational support and ethical leadership Journal of Business

Fang, Y., Chen, J Y., Wang, M J., & Chen, C Y (2019) The impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behaviors: The mediation of psychological capital Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1803.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D F (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error Journal of Marketing

Fuller, B., & Marler, L E (2009) Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329-345.

Gerbing, D W., & Anderson, J C (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment Journal of

Gibbard, K., Griep, Y., De Cooman, R., Hoffart, G., Onen, D., & Zareipour, H.

(2017) One big happy family? Unraveling the relationship between shared perceptions of team psychological contracts, person-team fit and team performance Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1966.

Gilson, L L., Mathieu, J E., Shalley, C E., & Ruddy, T M (2005) Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?

Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S Y (2010) High performance work system and collective OCB: A collective social exchange perspective Human Resource

Gong, L., Liu, Z., Rong, Y., & Fu, L (2021) Inclusive leadership, ambidextrous innovation and organizational performance: The moderating role of environment uncertainty Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

Gouldner, A W (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.

Guo, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, L (2020) Inclusive leadership, leader identification and employee voice behavior: The moderating role of power distance Current

Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00647-xGriep, Y., &

Vantilborgh, T (2018) Let's get cynical about this! Recursive relationships between psychological contract breach and counterproductive work behaviour.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 421-429.

Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J (2006) Understanding the relationship between individualism–collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model Human relations, 59(12), 1603-1632.

Heled, E., Somech, A., & Waters, L (2016) Psychological capital as a team phenomenon: Mediating the relationship between learning climate and outcomes at the individual and team levels Journal of Positive Psychology,

Hoch, J E (2013) Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159-174.

Hsu, M L & Chen, F H (2017) The cross‐level mediating effect of psychological capital on the organizational innovation climate–employee innovative behavior relationship Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(2), 128-139

Huang, L., & Luthans, F (2014) Toward better understanding of the learning goal orientation–creativity relationship: The role of positive psychological capital.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(2), 444-472

Hughes, D J., Lee, A., Tian, A W., Newman, A., & Legood, A (2018).

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569.

Hunter S., Allen J B., Heinen R., & Cushenbery L (2018) Proposing a multiple pathway approach to leading innovation: single and dual leader approaches.

In: Reiter-Palmon R, Kennel VL, Kaufman JC (Eds), Individual creativity in the workplace (pp 269-292) Academic Press

Hülsheger, U R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J F (2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.

Javed, B., Abdullah, I., Zaffar, M A., ul Haque, A., & Rubab, U (2019) Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of psychological empowerment Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 554-571.

Javed, B., Khan, A K., & Quratulain, S (2018) Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior: Examination of LMX perspective in small capitalized textile firms The Journal of Psychology, 152(8), 594-612.

Javed, B., Naqvi, S M M R., Khan, A K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H H (2019).

Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 117-136.

Jiang, Y., & Chen, C C (2018) Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: Effects of transformational leadership Journal of Management,

Jin, M., Lee, J., & Lee, M (2017) Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector Leadership & Organization Development

Kark, R., & Carmeli, A (2009) Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785-804

Kiazad, K., Kraimer, M L., & Seibert, S E (2019) More than grateful: How employee embeddedness explains the link between psychological contract fulfillment and employee extra-role behavior Human Relations, 72(8), 1315- 1340.

Kim, T Y., Hon, A H., & Crant, J M (2009) Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93-103.

Kim, T T., Karatepe, O M., & Lee, G (2018) Psychological contract breach and service innovation behavior: Psychological capital as a mediator Service

Kostopoulos, K C., & Bozionelos, N (2011) Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance Group &

Kraak, J M., Lunardo, R., Herrbach, O., & Durrieu, F (2017) Promises to employees matter, self-identity too: Effects of psychological contract breach and older worker identity on violation and turnover intentions Journal of

Kumar, N., Stern, L W., & Anderson, J C (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633- 1651.

Kutaula, S., Gillani, A., & Budhwar, P S (2020) An analysis of employment relationships in Asia using psychological contract theory: A review and research agenda Human Resource Management Review, 30, 1-22.

Laughlin, P R., Hatch, E C., Silver, J S., & Boh, L (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 90(4), 644-651.

Laulié, L., & Tekleab, A G (2016) A multi-level theory of psychological contract fulfillment in teams Group & Organization Management, 41(5), 658-698.

Lavelle, J J., Rupp, D E., & Brockner, J (2007) Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model Journal of Management, 33(6), 841-866.

Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A W., Newman, A., & Knight, C (2020).

Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35.

Leroy, H., Buengeler, C., Veestraeten, M., Shemla, M., & Hoever, I J (2021).

Fostering team creativity through team-focused inclusion: the role of leader harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs.

Lester, S W., Kickul, J R., & Bergmann, T J (2007) Managing employee perceptions of the psychological contract over time: The role of employer social accounts and contract fulfillment Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X (2011) Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282-298.

Liu, Y., & Phillips, J S (2011) Examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspective International

Luthans, F., Avolio, B J., Avey, J B., & Norman, S M (2007) Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction Personnel psychology, 60(3), 541-572.

Luthans, F & Youssef-Morgan, C M (2017) Psychological capital: An evidence- based positive approach Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Luthans, F., Norman, S M., Avolio, B J., & Avey, J B (2008) The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate: Employee performance relationship Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219- 238.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C M., & Rawski, S L (2011) A tale of two paradigms: The impact of psychological capital and reinforcing feedback on problem solving and innovation Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 31(4), 333- 350.

Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C.M., & Avolio, B.J (2015) Psychological capital and beyond New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ma, J., Zhou, X., Chen, R., & Dong, X (2019) Does ambidextrous leadership motivate work crafting? International Journal of Hospitality Management,

MacKinnon, D P., Lockwood, C M., & Williams, J (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.

Makoba, J W (1993) Toward a general theory of social exchange Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 21(3), 227-240.

March, J G (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Maruyama, M., & Le, V T (2012) Modern retailers in transition economies: The case of Vietnam Journal of Macromarketing, 32(1), 31-51.

Mathe, K., Scott-Halsell, S., Kim, S., & Krawczyk, M (2017) Psychological capital in the quick service restaurant industry: A study of unit-level performance Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(7), 823-845.

McKinsey (2019) Seizing the fast-growing retail opportunity in Vietnam, 1-22. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our

%20insights/how%20companies%20can%20seize%20opportunity%20in

%20vietnams%20growing%20retail%20market/seizing-the-fast-growing- retail-opportunity-in-vietnam.ashx

Miao, R., Bozionelos, N., Zhou, W., & Newman, A (2020) High-performance work systems and key employee attitudes: The roles of psychological capital and an interactional justice climate International Journal of Human Resource

Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B (2019) Inspirational leadership, positive mood, and team innovation: A moderated mediation investigation into the pivotal role of professional salience Human Resource Management, 58(3), 269-283.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N (2017) Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521- 535.

Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F., & Hirst, G (2014) Psychological capital: A review and synthesis Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 120-138.

Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M B., Ogbonnaya, C., Kọnsọlọ, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K.

(2017) Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis Work & Stress, 31(2), 101-120.

Nishii, L H., & Mayer, D M (2009) Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412- 1426.

Nguyen, T D & Nguyen, T T M (2012) Psychological capital, quality of work life, and quality of life of marketers: Evidence from Vietnam Journal of

Ping, R A (1995) A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 336-347.

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Qi, L., & Liu, B (2017) Effects of inclusive leadership on employee voice behavior and team performance: The mediating role of caring ethical climate Frontiers in Communication, 2, 8.

Randel, A E., Galvin, B M., Shore, L M., Ehrhart, K H., Chung, B G., Dean, M.

A., & Kedharnath, U (2018) Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness Human

Rank, J., Nelson, N E., Allen, T D., & Xu, X (2009) Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates’ self‐esteem and self‐ presentation as moderators Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Rego, A., Owens, B., Leal, S., Melo, A I., e Cunha, M P., Gonỗalves, L., &

Ribeiro, P (2017) How leader humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more effective: A moderated mediation model.

Rego, A., Owens, B., Yam, K C., Bluhm, D., Cunha, M P E., Silard, A., & Liu,

W (2019) Leader humility and team performance: Exploring the mediating mechanisms of team PsyCap and task allocation effectiveness Journal of

Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership The Leadership

Rousseau, D M (1990) New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts Journal of Organizational

Schreuder, F., Schalk, R., & Batistič, S (2019) Goal congruence in teams and performance: The role of (shared) psychological contract fulfilment Journal of Management & Organization, 1-17 doi:10.1017/jmo.2019.52

Seibert, S E., Crant, J M., & Kraimer, M L (1999) Proactive personality and career success Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416-427.

Serrano-Bedia, A M., López-Fernández, M C., & García-Piqueres, G (2018).

Complementarity between innovation knowledge sources: Does the innovation performance measure matter? BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21(1), 53- 67.

Shalley, C E., & Gilson, L L (2004) What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity The

Shore, L M., Tetrick, L E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K (2006) Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation Journal of

Siyal, S., Xin, C., Umrani, W A., Fatima, S., & Pal, D (2021) How do leaders influence innovation and creativity in employees? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation Administration & Society, 53(9), 1337-1361.

Solinger, O N., Hofmans, J., Bal, P M., & Jansen, P G (2016) Bouncing back from psychological contract breach: How commitment recovers over time.

Subramony, M., & Pugh, S D (2015) Services management research: Review, integration, and future directions Journal of Management, 41(1), 349-373.

Tekleab, A G., Laulié, L., De Vos, A., De Jong, J P., & Coyle-Shapiro, J A.

(2020) Contextualizing psychological contracts research: A multi-sample study of shared individual psychological contract fulfilment European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(2), 279-293.

Terrion, J L., & Ashforth, B E (2002) “From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group Human

Thayer, A L., Petruzzelli, A., & McClurg, C E (2018) Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations American

Tho, N D., Phong, N D., Quan, T H M., & Trang, N T M (2018) Marketers’ human capital resources and job performance Marketing Intelligence &

Thompson, J A (2005) Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011-1017.

Tse, H H M., Huang, X., & Lam, W (2013) Why does transformational leadership matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 763-776.

The fulfillment of psychological contracts significantly influences employee performance, enhancing both in-role duties and organizational citizenship behaviors (Turnley et al., 2003) Additionally, fostering team innovation is crucial for organizational success, as it drives creativity and collaboration within teams (van Knippenberg, 2017).

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W.P (2021) A diversity mindset perspective on inclusive leadership Group & Organization Management, 1-19.

Wang, F., & Shi, W (2021) Inclusive leadership and pro-social rule breaking: The role of psychological safety, leadership identification and leader-member exchange Psychological Reports, 124(5), 2155-2179.

Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Thomas, C L., Yu, J., & Spitzmueller, C (2017) Explaining benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of engagement, team proactivity composition and perceived organizational support Journal of

In their 2020 study published in Frontiers in Psychology, Wang et al explore the connection between ethical leadership and subordinates' proactive behavior, proposing a moderated mediation model that incorporates social exchange and power distance dynamics Additionally, Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998) contribute to the understanding of performance measurement by validating a theory-based role performance scale in the Academy of Management These studies highlight the importance of ethical leadership and performance metrics in organizational behavior and management practices.

West, B J., Patera, J L., & Carsten, M K (2009) Team level positivity:

Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes.

West, M A., & Farr, J L (1990) Innovation at work In M A West & J L Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp 3-13) Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Wirtz, J., & Jerger, C (2016) Managing service employees: Literature review, expert opinions, and research directions The Service Industries Journal,

Wu, C.-M., & Chen, T.-J (2018) Collective psychological capital: Linking shared leadership, organizational commitment, and creativity International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 75-84.

Wyer, P., Donohoe, S., & Matthews, P (2010) Fostering strategic learning capability to enhance creativity in small service businesses Service Business,

Xiong, L (2020) Improvise to win: the relationship between entrepreneurial improvisation and start-up competitive advantage Asian Business &

In their 2019 study, Xu, Jiang, and Wang explore the essential elements for fostering innovation within teams They propose a cross-level mediation model that highlights the significance of team personality and the climate for innovation in enhancing creativity Additionally, the research emphasizes the role of job crafting as a vital process that enables team members to adapt their work roles, ultimately driving innovative outcomes This comprehensive framework provides valuable insights for organizations aiming to build effective teams that thrive on creativity and innovation.

Ye, J., Marinova, D., & Singh, J (2012) Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines: Conceptualization, processes, and consequences Journal of the

Ye, Q., Wang, D., & Guo, W (2019) Inclusive leadership and team innovation: the role of team voice and performance pressure European Management Journal,

Yoshida, D T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B (2014) Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395- 1404.

Youssef-Morgan, C M., & Luthans, F (2013) Psychological capital theory:

Toward a positive holistic model In Advances in positive organizational psychology (pp 145-166) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Zacher, H., Robinson, A J., & Rosing, K (2016) Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.

Zacher, H., & Rosing, K (2015) Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation.

Zeng, H., Zhao, L., & Zhao, Y (2020) Inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior: Roles of psychological safety and thriving at work Frontiers in

Psychology https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00062

Data analysis for Study 1

Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi …

1 Cho phép các cách khác nhau để hoàn thành một tác vụ

2 Khuyến khích thử nghiệm những ý tưởng khác nhau

3 Khuyến khích những ý tưởng mạo hiểm

4 Tạo điều kiện cho phát huy khả năng tư duy độc lập và hành động

5 Tạo điều kiện cho những ý tưởng riêng

7 Khuyến khích học hỏi từ sai sót

8 Theo dõi và kiểm soát mục tiêu đề ra

9 Thiết lập các quy trình làm việc

10 Thực hiện hành động khắc phục

11 Kiểm soát tuân thủ các quy tắc trong công việc

12 Chú ý để chuẩn hóa việc hoàn thành các tác vụ

13 Xử lý các lỗi/ sai sót

14 Gắn liền công việc với các kế hoạch đã định

Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

15 Tự tin phân tích vấn đề mang tính phát triển trong dài hạn để tìm ra giải pháp

16 Tự tin đại diện và trình bày công việc của cửa hàng với ban giám đốc

17 Tự tin đóng góp ý kiến khi thảo luận về chiến lược phát triển của công ty

18 Tự tin đưa ra các mục tiêu/ mục đích trong lĩnh vực hoạt động của cửa hàng

19 Tự tin liên hệ với nhà cung cấp và khách hàng

20 Tự tin trình bày thông tin cho các cửa hàng khác

21 Nếu cửa hàng gặp khó khăn trong công việc, chúng tôi cùng nhau nghĩ ra nhiều cách để vượt qua

22 Vào thời điểm hiện tại, các nhân viên cửa hàng hăng hái theo đuổi các mục tiêu công việc do tôi đặt ra

23 Các nhân viên cửa hàng cho rằng có nhiều cách để giải quyết vấn đề tôi đặt ra

24 Hiện tại các nhân viên cửa hàng khá thành công trong công việc

25 Các nhân viên cửa hàng nghĩ về nhiều cách để đạt mục tiêu công việc hiện tại

26 Đáp ứng các mục tiêu công việc đã đặt ra vào thời điểm này

27 Khi các nhân viên cửa hàng không hoàn thành nhiệm vụ đặt ra, chúng tôi gặp rắc rối trong việc tiếp tục theo đuổi mục tiêu đó

28 Thường quản lý rủi ro phát sinh trong công việc bằng nhiều cách khác nhau

29 Có thể làm việc độc lập nếu được yêu cầu

30 Thường gặp những điều căng thẳng trong công việc

31 Có thể vượt qua những thời điểm khó khăn bởi vì cửa hàng chúng tôi đã từng trải qua những lúc khó khăn trước đó

32 Có thể xử lý nhiều việc cùng một lúc đối với các hoạt động tại cửa hàng

33 Khi mọi công việc tại cửa hàng gặp vấn đề trục trặc, chúng tôi thường mong đợi điều tốt nhất

34 Cảm nhận chung rằng nếu có vấn đề gì sai sót có thể xảy ra thì nó sẽ xảy ra ngay sau đó

35 Luôn nhìn vào mặt tích cực của những công việc được giao

36 Lạc quan về công việc tương lai của cửa hàng

37 Cảm thấy trong công việc, mọi thứ không xảy ra theo ý muốn của chúng tôi

38 Tiếp cận công việc với tinh thần lạc quan

Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

39 Đã tìm kiếm một cách có hệ thống những khả năng và cách thức tiếp cận mới trong công việc

40 Đã đưa ra những ý tưởng và giải pháp mới cho những vấn đề phức tạp

41 Thử nghiệm những cách mới và sáng tạo để hoàn thành công việc

42 Đã đánh giá các lựa chọn đa dạng trong quá trình thực hiện công việc

43 Phát triển nhiều kỹ năng mới trong công việc

44 Sử dụng hiệu quả kiến thức hiện có để hoàn thành công việc

45 Chủ yếu thực hiện những công việc thường nhật

46 Áp dụng các phương pháp làm việc đã chuẩn hóa và cách thức thực hiện công việc thông thường

47 Đã cải tiến và sử dụng hiệu quả kiến thức và kỹ năng của họ.

48 Chủ yếu sử dụng kiến thức và kỹ năng của họ để thực hiện nhiệm vụ

49 Cửa hàng của tôi thành công như thế nào so với các cửa hàng trong cùng ngành và cùng quy mô?

50 Cửa hàng của tôi đưa ra những ý tưởng mới

51 Cửa hàng của tôi làm việc để thực hiện những ý tưởng mới

52 Cửa hàng của tôi tìm kiếm những cách cải tiến/cải thiện khi thực hiện các công việc

53 Cửa hàng của tôi sáng tạo nên những quy trình làm việc tốt hơn

Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi …

54 sẵn sàng lắng nghe những ý tưởng mới

55 chú ý đến những cách thức mới để cải thiện quy trình làm việc

56 sẵn sàng thảo luận về các mục tiêu mong muốn của cửa hàng và những cách làm mới để hoàn thành mục tiêu đề ra

57 sẵn sàng đưa ra cách thức giải quyết cho các vấn đề phát sinh trong công việc

58 luôn quan tâm tới các hoạt động của cửa hàng

59 sẵn sàng trả lời các câu hỏi liên quan đến công việc từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng

60 sẵn sàng lắng nghe các đòi hỏi từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng

61 khuyến khích các nhân viên cửa hàng báo cáo về các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

62 sẵn sàng thảo luận để tìm ra nguyên nhân của các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

63 không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhân viên của cửa hàng

64 đảm bảo xử lý công việc hợp lý và công bằng

65 tham khảo ý kiến của mọi người trong quá trình ra quyết định trong công việc

66 khuyến khích bất kỳ ý kiến cải tiến nào cho công việc của cửa hàng

67 giúp các nhân viên của cửa hàng thực hiện ý tưởng cải tiến cho công việc của cửa hàng

68 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương cạnh tranh so với mức lương các công ty cùng ngành trả

69 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương hợp lý tương ứng với các công việc mà các nhân viên cửa hàng thực hiện

70 trả lương gắn với kết quả hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng

71 thưởng dựa trên mức độ hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng

72 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng toàn bộ chế độ phúc lợi chung của công ty

73 có chính sách chăm sóc sức khỏe định kỳ cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng

74 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm y tế

75 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm sức khỏe bổ sung (ví dụ: chăm sóc nha khoa, chăm sóc mắt, bảo hiểm thương tật)

76 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ nghỉ lễ, nghỉ phép, nghỉ bệnh

77 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ hưu trí

78 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi nhiều thách thức

79 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi trách nhiệm cao

80 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc thú vị

81 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi sự tự quyết định cao

82 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc có cơ hội để học hỏi các kỹ năng mới

83 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để phát triển bản thân

84 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để phát triển sự nghiệp

85 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để thăng tiến

86 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội được huấn luyện kỹ năng tại công ty

87 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng lộ trình phát triển nghề nghiệp và cơ hội phấn đấu

Cung cấp cho nhân viên cửa hàng cơ hội đào tạo ngoài giờ là một cách hiệu quả để nâng cao kỹ năng và kiến thức của họ Ví dụ, công ty có thể hỗ trợ chi phí học phí cho nhân viên tham gia các khóa học, giúp họ phát triển bản thân và đóng góp tốt hơn cho công việc.

89 đánh giá kết quả công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng khách quan và trung thực

90 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ nguyên liệu, tài liệu và thiết bị cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

91 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các nguồn lực cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

92 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các công cụ cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

93 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có việc làm ổn định

94 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử tôn trọng và lịch sự

95 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có môi trường làm việc chất lượng

96 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử công bằng trong công việc

97 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được hỗ trợ thêm từ ban giám đốc

98 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được giao tiếp cởi mở từ ban giám đốc

99 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng liên tục tìm kiếm những cách làm mới để cải thiện cuộc sống của họ

100 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng là lực lượng đi đầu cho những cải tiến trong công việc

101 Không có gì thú vị hơn là thấy những ý tưởng của các nhân viên của cửa hàng được triển khai trong thực tế

102 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng cảm thấy điều gì đó họ không thích, họ sẽ thay đổi nó

103 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin tưởng điều đó là đúng, họ sẽ làm mọi thứ để thực hiện nó

104 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng tự nguyện thực hiện những ý tưởng của họ, bất chấp sự phản đối của những người khác

105 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng rất giỏi trong việc nhận diện các cách thức cải tiến công việc

106 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng luôn tìm kiếm những cách làm tốt hơn trong công việc

107 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin vào một ý tưởng, không có trở ngại nào ngăn cản họ thực hiện nó

Nhân viên tại cửa hàng này có khả năng phát hiện và áp dụng các phương pháp cải tiến công việc nhanh chóng hơn so với nhân viên ở các cửa hàng khác trong cùng hệ thống.

Appendix 1B Result of focus group

After conducting focus group, we revised our draft questionnaires to the final one

Here is our focus group’s result:

Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi …

1 Cho phép thực hiện theo các cách khác nhau để hoàn thành công việc

2 Khuyến khích thử nghiệm những ý kiến khác nhau

3 Khuyến khích chấp nhận rủi ro

4 Cho phép suy nghĩ và hành động độc lập

5 Cho phép đưa ra những ý tưởng riêng

7 Khuyến khích học hỏi từ sai sót

8 Theo dõi và kiểm soát tiến độ hoàn thành mục tiêu

9 Thiết lập các quy trình làm việc

10 Thực hiện hành động khắc phục lỗi

11 Kiểm soát việc tuân thủ các quy tắc trong công việc

12 Chú ý những quy chuẩn để hoàn thành công việc

14 Bám sát các kế hoạch

Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

15 Tự tin trong phân tích và tìm giải pháp cho vấn đề trong công việc

16 Tự tin khi trình bày công việc với cấp trên

17 Tự tin đóng góp ý kiến về chiến lược phát triển của công ty

18 Tự tin đưa ra các mục tiêu công việc của cửa hàng

19 Tự tin khi tiếp xúc với khách hàng của công ty

20 Tự tin khi thảo luận với đồng nghiệp về công việc

21 Nếu công việc của cửa hàng gặp trục trặc, chúng tôi có nhiều cách để vượt qua

22 Vào thời điểm hiện tại, các nhân viên cửa hàng hăng hái theo đuổi các mục tiêu công việc

23 Có nhiều cách để giải quyết vấn đề đang vướng mắc trong công việc

24 Hiện tại các nhân viên cửa hàng khá thành công trong công việc

25 Có nhiều cách để theo đuổi mục tiêu công việc hiện tại

26 Hiện tại, các nhân viên cửa hàng đạt được mục tiêu công việc đã đề ra

27 Khi gặp khó khăn trong công việc, chúng tôi vẫn tiếp tục theo đuổi mục tiêu công việc đã đề ra

28 Thường quản lý vấn đề phát sinh bằng nhiều cách khác nhau

29 Có thể làm việc độc lập nếu thực tế yêu cầu

30 Thường giải quyết các công việc phức tạp một cách chủ động, bình tĩnh

31 Có thể vượt qua những giai đoạn khó khăn trong công việc bởi vì chúng tôi đã từng trải qua khó khăn tương tự trước đó

32 Có thể xử lý nhiều việc cùng một lúc đối với các hoạt động tại cửa hàng

33 Khi gặp khó khăn trong công việc, chúng tôi luôn tin điều tốt nhất sẽ xảy ra

34 Thường cảm thấy không có sai sót trong công việc

35 Luôn nhìn vào mặt tích cực của những công việc được giao

36 Lạc quan về tương lai của cửa hàng

37 Cảm thấy công việc luôn luôn xảy như kỳ vọng

38 Tiếp cận công việc với tinh thần lạc quan

Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

39 Đã không ngừng tìm kiếm những cách làm mới trong công việc

40 Đã đưa ra những ý tưởng và cách thực hiện ý tưởng trong công việc

41 Thử nghiệm những cách mới, sáng tạo để hoàn thành công việc

42 Đã so sánh các cách làm khác nhau để thực hiện công việc

43 Quan tâm phát triển nhiều kỹ năng mới trong công việc

44 Ứng dụng hiệu quả kiến thức hiện có để hoàn thành tốt công việc

45 Chủ yếu thực hiện những công việc thường nhật

46 Thường xuyên thực hiện công việc theo quy chuẩn của công ty

47 Có ý thức nâng cao, đào sâu kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có

48 Chủ yếu sử dụng kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có để thực hiện công việc

49 Mức độ thành công của cửa hàng của tôi khi so sánh với các cửa hàng trong cùng ngành và cùng quy mô?

50 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi đưa ra những ý tưởng mới

51 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi làm việc để thực hiện những ý tưởng mới

52 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tìm các cách làm tốt hơn để thực hiện công việc

53 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tạo ra quy trình làm việc tốt hơn

Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi …

54 sẵn sàng lắng nghe những ý tưởng mới

55 chú ý đến những cách thức mới để cải thiện quy trình làm việc

56 sẵn sàng thảo luận về các mục tiêu mong muốn của cửa hàng và những cách làm mới để hoàn thành mục tiêu đề ra

57 sẵn sàng đưa ra cách thức giải quyết cho các vấn đề phát sinh trong công việc

58 luôn quan tâm tới các hoạt động của cửa hàng

59 sẵn sàng trả lời các câu hỏi liên quan đến công việc từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng

60 sẵn sàng lắng nghe các đòi hỏi từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng

61 khuyến khích các nhân viên cửa hàng báo cáo về các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

62 sẵn sàng thảo luận để tìm ra nguyên nhân của các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

63 không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhân viên của cửa hàng

64 đảm bảo xử lý công việc hợp lý và công bằng

65 tham khảo ý kiến của mọi người trong quá trình ra quyết định trong công việc

66 khuyến khích bất kỳ ý kiến cải tiến nào cho công việc của cửa hàng

67 giúp các nhân viên của cửa hàng thực hiện ý tưởng cải tiến cho công việc của cửa hàng

68 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương cạnh tranh so với mức lương các công ty cùng ngành trả

69 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương hợp lý tương ứng với các công việc mà các nhân viên cửa hàng thực hiện

70 trả lương gắn với kết quả hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng

71 thưởng dựa trên mức độ hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng

72 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng toàn bộ chế độ phúc lợi chung của công ty

73 có chính sách chăm sóc sức khỏe định kỳ cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng

74 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm y tế

75 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm sức khỏe bổ sung (ví dụ: chăm sóc nha khoa, chăm sóc mắt, bảo hiểm thương tật)

76 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ nghỉ lễ, nghỉ phép, nghỉ bệnh

77 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ hưu trí

78 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi nhiều thách thức

79 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi trách nhiệm cao

80 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc thú vị

81 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi sự tự quyết định cao

82 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc có cơ hội để học hỏi các kỹ năng mới

83 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để phát triển bản thân

84 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để phát triển sự nghiệp

85 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để thăng tiến

86 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội được huấn luyện kỹ năng tại công ty

87 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng lộ trình phát triển nghề nghiệp và cơ hội phấn đấu

Cung cấp cho nhân viên cửa hàng cơ hội đào tạo ngoài giờ là một cách hiệu quả để nâng cao kỹ năng và kiến thức Ví dụ, công ty có thể hỗ trợ chi phí học phí cho nhân viên tham gia các khóa học Điều này không chỉ giúp nhân viên phát triển bản thân mà còn góp phần nâng cao chất lượng dịch vụ của cửa hàng.

89 đánh giá kết quả công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng khách quan và trung thực

90 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ nguyên liệu, tài liệu và thiết bị cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

91 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các nguồn lực cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

92 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các công cụ cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

93 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có việc làm ổn định

94 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử tôn trọng và lịch sự

95 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có môi trường làm việc chất lượng

96 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử công bằng trong công việc

97 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được hỗ trợ thêm từ ban giám đốc

98 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được giao tiếp cởi mở từ ban giám đốc

99 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng liên tục tìm kiếm những cách làm mới để cải thiện cuộc sống của họ

100 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng là lực lượng đi đầu cho những cải tiến trong công việc

101 Không có gì thú vị hơn là thấy những ý tưởng của các nhân viên của cửa hàng được triển khai trong thực tế

102 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng cảm thấy điều gì đó họ không thích, họ sẽ thay đổi nó

103 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin tưởng điều đó là đúng, họ sẽ làm mọi thứ để thực hiện nó

104 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng tự nguyện thực hiện những ý tưởng của họ, bất chấp sự phản đối của những người khác

105 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng rất giỏi trong việc nhận diện các cách thức cải tiến công việc

106 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng luôn tìm kiếm những cách làm tốt hơn trong công việc

107 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin vào một ý tưởng, không có trở ngại nào ngăn cản họ thực hiện nó

Các nhân viên của cửa hàng này có khả năng phát hiện và áp dụng các phương pháp cải tiến công việc nhanh chóng hơn so với nhân viên tại các cửa hàng khác trong cùng công ty.

Appendix 2A English questionnaire for Study 1

We are the research group at UEH, focusing on employee experiences in the workplace We kindly request you to take a moment to complete our questionnaire, as your insights are crucial to our study Remember, there are no right or wrong answers; every opinion is important Please read each statement carefully and share your thoughts.

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (frequently)

1 Allow different ways of accomplishing a task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Encourage experimentation with different ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Give possibilities for independent thinking and acting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Give room for own ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 Monitors and controls goal attainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Pays attention to uniform task accomplishment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)

15 Team members were systematically searching for new possibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Team members offered new ideas and solutions to complicated problems (were inventive) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Team members experimented with new and creative ways for accomplishing work

18 Team members evaluated diverse options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 The members of our team developed many new skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 The members of our team recombined existing knowledge for accomplishing work

21 In our team, we primarily performed routine activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Our team implemented standardized methodologies and regular work practices

23 Team members improved and refined their existing knowledge and expertise

24 Team members mainly used their current knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and skills for performing their tasks

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (needs much improvement) to 7 (excellent)

25 Coming up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Working to implement new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 Finding improved ways to do things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Creating better processes and routines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 Education:  Some high school  Completed high school

 Undergraduate university degree  Postgraduate university degree

32 Team size: ……… (please indicate how many people in your current work team)

33 Team tenure: ……… (please indicate approximately how long have you worked in your current work team)

Appendix 2B Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 1

Chúng tôi là nhóm nghiên cứu từ trường ĐH Kinh tế TP.HCM, hiện đang tiến hành nghiên cứu về công việc của nhân viên tại các cửa hàng Chúng tôi rất mong bạn dành thời gian để trả lời bảng câu hỏi, và xin lưu ý rằng không có câu trả lời đúng hay sai; mọi ý kiến của bạn đều có giá trị đối với nghiên cứu của chúng tôi Chúng tôi hy vọng nhận được những ý kiến trung thực từ bạn.

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng với: 1 (=không bao giờ) đến 7

(=thường xuyên) Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi …

1 Cho phép thực hiện theo các cách khác nhau để hoàn thành công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Khuyến khích thử nghiệm những ý kiến khác nhau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Khuyến khích chấp nhận rủi ro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Cho phép suy nghĩ và hành động độc lập 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Cho phép đưa ra những ý tưởng riêng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Khuyến khích học hỏi từ sai sót 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 Theo dõi và kiểm soát tiến độ hoàn thành mục tiêu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Thiết lập các quy trình làm việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Thực hiện hành động khắc phục lỗi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Kiểm soát việc tuân thủ các quy tắc trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Chú ý những quy chuẩn để hoàn thành công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 Bám sát các kế hoạch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng: 1 (=hoàn toàn không đồng ý) đến 7 (=hoàn toàn đồng ý) Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

15 Đã không ngừng tìm kiếm những cách làm mới trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Đã đưa ra những ý tưởng và cách thực hiện ý tưởng trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Thử nghiệm những cách mới, sáng tạo để hoàn thành công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Đã so sánh các cách làm khác nhau để thực hiện công việc

19 Quan tâm phát triển nhiều kỹ năng mới trong công việc

20 Ứng dụng hiệu quả kiến thức hiện có để hoàn thành tốt công việc

21 Chủ yếu thực hiện những công việc thường nhật 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 chuẩn của công ty

23 Có ý thức nâng cao, đào sâu kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có

24 Chủ yếu sử dụng kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có để thực hiện công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng với: 1 (=cần cải thiện nhiều) đến 7 (=xuất sắc)

25 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi đưa ra những ý tưởng mới 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi làm việc để thực hiện những ý tưởng mới 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tìm các cách làm tốt hơn để thực hiện công việc

28 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tạo ra quy trình làm việc tốt hơn

31 Học vấn:  Dưới cấp 3  Tốt nghiệp cấp 3  Trung cấp/Cao đẳng/Đại học  Trên đại học

32 Số lượng nhân viên của cửa hàng: …………

33 Thời gian làm việc tại cửa hàng của tôi:…….

CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN SỰ HỢP TÁC CỦA BẠN!

Appendix 3A English questionnaire for Study 2

We are the research team from UEH, focused on studying employees in the workplace We kindly request you to take a moment to complete our questionnaire Your insights are crucial, and there are no right or wrong answers—every opinion matters to our research Please review each statement carefully and share your thoughts.

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from

1 (not at all) to 7 (to a large extent)

As a team leader, I … (from item 1 to 14)

1 am open to hearing new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 am attentive to new opportunities to improve work processes

3 am open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to achieve them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 am available for consultation on problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 am an ongoing “presence” in my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 am available for professional questions from my team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 am ready to listen to requests from my team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 encourage my team members to access me on emerging issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 am accessible for discussing emerging problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 support individuals as group members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 help group members fully contribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (needs much improvement) to 7 (excellent)

15 My team members come up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 My team members work to implement new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 My team members find improved ways to do things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 My team members create better processes and routines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from

1 = (much less than promised) to 7 = (much more than promised)

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

20 A fair salary for my team (a salary that is reasonable for the jobs my team do)

21 Pay tied to the level of my team performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Rewards based on the level of my team performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 The overall benefits package that my organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 provides for my team

24 The health-care benefits that my organization provides for my team

25 The major medical insuarance that my organization provides for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 The supplemental health coverage provided for my team (e.g., dental care, eye care, disability coverage) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 The paid time off benefits (e.g., vacation, holidays, sick leave) that my organization provides for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 The retirement benefits that my organization provides for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 A job that is challenging for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 A job that has high responsibility for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 A job that is interesting for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 A job that provides a high level of autonomy for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 A job that provides the opportunity for my team to learn new skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 The opportunities that my team members have to grow and advance

35 The opportunities my team members have for career development

36 The opportunities that my team members have to receive promotions

37 The job training opportunities that my team members receive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 The career guidance and mentoring opportunities my team members receive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39 Off-the-job training opportunities for my team (e.g., tuition reimbursement) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40 Constructive feedback regarding development on performance reviews for my team

41 The materials and equipment needed to perform our job

42 The resources necessary to perform our job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43 The tools needed to perform our job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44 The amount of job security my team members have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45 The extent to which my team members are treated with respect and courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46 The quality of working conditions for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47 The extent to which my team members are treated fairly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48 The amount of personal support my team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receive from management

49 The open communication that my team members receive from management

Please choose one number, ranging from 1 = (strongly disagree) to 7 = (strongly agree)

50 My team members are constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve their life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51 Wherever my team members have been, they have been a powerful force for constructive change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52 Nothing is more exciting than seeing ideas of my team members turn into reality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

53 If my team members see something they don’t like, they fix it

54 No matter what the odds, if my team members believe in something they will make it happen

55 My team members love being a champion for their ideas, even against others’ opposition

56 My team members excel at identifying opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57 My team members are always looking for better ways to do things

58 If my team members believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent them from making it happen

59 My team members can spot a good opportunity long before others can

60 Using social media enables me to get re-connected with people that matter to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

61 I find social media useful in my personal life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

62 Using social media enhances my effectiveness to stay in touch with others

63 Using social media makes it easier to stay in touch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

64 Using social media makes it easier to stay informed with my friends and family

66 Team size: ………… (please indicate how many people in your current work team)

67 Education:  Some high school  Completed high school  Undergraduate university degree  Postgraduate university degree

69 Team tennure: ……… (please indicate approximately how long have you worked in your current work team)

Appendix 3B Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 2

Chúng tôi là nhóm nghiên cứu từ trường ĐH Kinh tế TP.HCM, đang tiến hành khảo sát về công việc của nhân viên tại các cửa hàng Chúng tôi rất mong bạn dành thời gian để hoàn thành bảng câu hỏi Xin lưu ý rằng không có câu trả lời đúng hay sai; mọi ý kiến của bạn đều có giá trị và chúng tôi rất trân trọng sự trung thực trong phản hồi của bạn.

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng với: 1 (= không bao giờ) đến 7

(= thường xuyên) Trong vai trò là cửa hàng trưởng, tôi … (từ câu 1 đến câu 14)

1 sẵn sàng lắng nghe những ý tưởng mới 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 chú ý đến những cách thức mới để cải thiện quy trình làm việc

3 sẵn sàng thảo luận về các mục tiêu mong muốn của cửa hàng và những cách làm mới để hoàn thành mục tiêu đề ra

4 sẵn sàng đưa ra cách thức giải quyết cho các vấn đề phát sinh trong công việc

5 luôn quan tâm tới các hoạt động của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 sẵn sàng trả lời các câu hỏi liên quan đến công việc từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 sẵn sàng lắng nghe các đòi hỏi từ các nhân viên của cửa hàng

8 khuyến khích các nhân viên cửa hàng báo cáo về các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

9 sẵn sàng thảo luận để tìm ra nguyên nhân của các vấn đề mới phát sinh trong công việc

10 không phân biệt đối xử giữa các nhân viên của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 đảm bảo xử lý công việc hợp lý và công bằng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 tham khảo ý kiến của mọi người trong quá trình ra quyết định trong công việc

13 khuyến khích bất kỳ ý kiến cải tiến nào cho công việc của cửa hàng

14 giúp các nhân viên của cửa hàng thực hiện ý tưởng cải tiến cho công việc của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng với: 1 (= cần cải thiện nhiều) đến 7 (= xuất sắc)

15 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi đưa ra những ý tưởng mới

16 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi làm việc để thực hiện những ý tưởng mới

17 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tìm các cách làm tốt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hơn để thực hiện công việc

18 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tạo ra quy trình làm việc tốt hơn

Xin vui lòng chọn một số (từ 1 đến 7) tương ứng với ý kiến của bạn:

1 (= công ty thực hiện ít hơn rất nhiều so với hứa hẹn);

2 (= công ty thực hiện ít hơn nhiều so với hứa hẹn);

3 (=công ty thực hiện ít hơn so với hứa hẹn);

5 (=công ty thực hiện hơn so với hứa hẹn);

6 (=công ty thực hiện hơn nhiều so với hứa hẹn);

7 (=công ty thực hiện hơn rất nhiều so với hứa hẹn) Công ty hứa … (từ câu 19 đến câu 49)

19 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương cạnh tranh so với mức lương các công ty cùng ngành trả 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một mức lương hợp lý tương ứng với các công việc mà các nhân viên cửa hàng thực hiện

21 trả lương gắn với kết quả hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 thưởng dựa trên mức độ hoàn thành công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng toàn bộ chế độ phúc lợi chung của công ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 có chính sách chăm sóc sức khỏe định kỳ cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm y tế 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ bảo hiểm sức khỏe bổ sung (ví dụ: chăm sóc nha khoa, chăm sóc mắt, bảo hiểm thương tật)

27 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ nghỉ lễ, nghỉ phép, nghỉ bệnh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 trả cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng chế độ hưu trí 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi nhiều thách thức

30 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi trách nhiệm cao

31 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc thú vị

32 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc đòi hỏi sự tự quyết định cao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 giao cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng một công việc có cơ hội để học hỏi các kỹ năng mới 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 phát triển bản thân

35 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để phát triển sự nghiệp

36 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội để thăng tiến 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng những cơ hội được huấn luyện kỹ năng tại công ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 đưa cho các nhân viên của cửa hàng lộ trình phát triển nghề nghiệp và cơ hội phấn đấu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cung cấp cho nhân viên cửa hàng cơ hội đào tạo ngoài giờ là rất quan trọng, chẳng hạn như công ty sẵn sàng chi trả học phí cho nhân viên để họ có thể tham gia các khóa học Điều này không chỉ nâng cao kỹ năng của nhân viên mà còn giúp cải thiện hiệu suất làm việc và sự hài lòng trong công việc.

40 đánh giá kết quả công việc của các nhân viên của cửa hàng khách quan và trung thực 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ nguyên liệu, tài liệu và thiết bị cần thiết để thực hiện công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các nguồn lực cần thiết để thực hiện công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng đáp ứng đủ các công cụ cần thiết để thực hiện công việc

44 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có việc làm ổn định 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử tôn trọng và lịch sự 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng có môi trường làm việc chất lượng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được đối xử công bằng trong công việc

48 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được hỗ trợ thêm từ ban giám đốc

49 với các nhân viên của cửa hàng được giao tiếp cởi mở từ ban giám đốc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng: 1 (=hoàn toàn không đồng ý) đến 7 (=hoàn toàn đồng ý)

50 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng liên tục tìm kiếm những cách làm mới để cải thiện cuộc sống của họ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng là lực lượng đi đầu cho những cải tiến trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52 Không có gì thú vị hơn là thấy những ý tưởng của các nhân viên của cửa hàng được triển khai trong thực tế 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

53 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng cảm thấy điều gì đó họ không thích, họ sẽ thay đổi nó

54 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin tưởng điều đó là đúng, họ sẽ làm mọi thứ để thực hiện nó

55 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng tự nguyện thực hiện những ý tưởng của họ, bất chấp sự phản đối của những người khác 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng rất giỏi trong việc nhận diện các cách thức cải tiến công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57 Các nhân viên của cửa hàng luôn tìm kiếm những cách làm tốt hơn trong công việc

58 Nếu các nhân viên của cửa hàng tin vào một ý tưởng, không có trở ngại nào ngăn cản họ thực hiện nó

Nhân viên cửa hàng có khả năng phát hiện và áp dụng các phương pháp cải tiến công việc nhanh hơn so với nhân viên tại các cửa hàng khác trong cùng công ty.

60 Sử dụng các công cụ trực tuyến cho phép bạn kết nối với những người quan trọng với bạn

61 Bạn thấy các công cụ trực tuyến hữu ích trong cuộc sống cá nhân của bạn

62 Sử dụng các công cụ trực tuyến giúp nâng cao hiệu quả của bạn để giữ liên lạc với những người khác

63 Sử dụng các công cụ trực tuyến giúp giữ liên lạc dễ dàng hơn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

64 Sử dụng các công cụ trực tuyến giúp cập nhật thông tin với bạn bè và gia đình của bạn dễ dàng hơn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

66 Số lượng nhân viên của cửa hàng: ………… (người)

67 Học vấn:  Dưới cấp 3  Tốt nghiệp cấp 3  Trung cấp/Cao đẳng/Đại học  Trên đại học

69 Thời gian làm việc tại cửa hàng của tôi: ……… (tháng)

CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN SỰ HỢP TÁC CỦA BẠN!

Appendix 4A English questionnaire for Study 3

We are the research group at UEH, focusing on employee experiences in the workplace We kindly request your participation in our questionnaire, which is designed to gather your valuable insights Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers; every opinion is important for our research We appreciate your time and ask you to thoughtfully consider each statement before sharing your views.

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)

1 My team is confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution

2 My team is confident in representing my work area in meetings with management

3 My team is confident contributing to discussion about the organization’ strategy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 My team is confident helping to set targets/goals in our work area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 My team members are confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g supplier, customers) to discuss problems

6 My team is confident presenting information to other colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 If my team gets in a jam at work, we can think of many ways to get out of it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 At the present time, my team is energetically pursuing my work goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 My team feels there are a lot of ways around my problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Right now my team is pretty successful at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 My team thinks of many ways to reach our current work goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 At this time, my team is meeting the work goals we have set for ourselves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 When my team has a setback at work, we have no trouble recovering from it, moving on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 My team usually manages difficulties one way or another at work

15 My team members can be “on their own” (work independently) so to speak, if they have to

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)

16 My team usually takes stressful things at work in stride 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 My team can get through difficult times at work because as a team we have experienced difficult before

18 My team can handle many things at a time at this job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 When things are uncertain for my team at work, we usually expect the best

20 My team generally feels that nothing can go wrong for us work-wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 My team always looks on the bright side of things regarding our job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 My team is optimistic about what will happen to our team in the future as it pertain to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 My team feels in this job, things always work out the way we want them to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 My team approaches this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining”

25 Team members were systematically searching for new possibilities

26 Team members offered new ideas and solutions to complicated problems (were inventive)

27 Team members experimented with new and creative ways for accomplishing work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Team members evaluated diverse options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 The members of our team developed many new skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 The members of our team recombined existing knowledge for accomplishing work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 In our team, we primarily performed routine activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 Our team implemented standardized methodologies and regular work practices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 Team members improved and refined their existing knowledge and expertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 Team members mainly used their current knowledge and skills for performing their tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please choose one number which is most appropriate for your opinion, ranging from 1 (needs much improvement) to 7 (excellent)

35 Coming up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36 Working to implement new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 Finding improved ways to do things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 Creating better processes and routines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39 Gender: Male Female 40 Age:  under 30  30-40  41-50  over 50

41 Education:  Some high school  Completed high school

 Undergraduate university degree  Postgraduate university degree

42 Team size: …… (please indicate how many people in your current work team)

43 Team tenure: ……… (please indicate approximately how long have you worked in your current work team) THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Appendix 4B Vietnamese questionnaire for Study 3

Chúng tôi là nhóm nghiên cứu từ trường ĐH Kinh tế TP.HCM, đang tiến hành nghiên cứu về công việc của nhân viên tại các cửa hàng Chúng tôi rất mong bạn dành thời gian để trả lời bảng câu hỏi Xin lưu ý rằng không có câu trả lời đúng hay sai; mọi ý kiến của bạn đều có giá trị và chúng tôi rất trân trọng sự trung thực trong phản hồi của bạn.

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng: 1 (=hoàn toàn không đồng ý) đến 7 (=hoàn toàn đồng ý) Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi …

1 Tự tin trong phân tích và tìm giải pháp cho vấn đề trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Tự tin khi trình bày công việc với cấp trên 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Tự tin đóng góp ý kiến về chiến lược phát triển của công ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Tự tin đưa ra các mục tiêu công việc của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Tự tin khi tiếp xúc với khách hàng của công ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 Tự tin khi thảo luận với đồng nghiệp về công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Nếu công việc của cửa hàng gặp trục trặc, chúng tôi có nhiều cách để vượt qua

8 Vào thời điểm hiện tại, các nhân viên cửa hàng hăng hái theo đuổi các mục tiêu công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Có nhiều cách để giải quyết vấn đề đang vướng mắc trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Hiện tại các nhân viên cửa hàng khá thành công trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Có nhiều cách để theo đuổi mục tiêu công việc hiện tại 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Hiện tại, các nhân viên cửa hàng đạt được mục tiêu công việc đã đề ra

13 Khi gặp khó khăn trong công việc, chúng tôi vẫn tiếp tục theo đuổi mục tiêu công việc đã đề ra

14 Thường quản lý vấn đề phát sinh bằng nhiều cách khác nhau

Nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi có khả năng làm việc độc lập khi thực tế yêu cầu, với thang điểm từ 1 (hoàn toàn không đồng ý) đến 7 (hoàn toàn đồng ý) Họ có thể tự quản lý công việc và đưa ra quyết định phù hợp trong các tình huống cần thiết.

16 Thường giải quyết các công việc phức tạp một cách chủ động, bình tĩnh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Có thể vượt qua những giai đoạn khó khăn trong công việc bởi vì chúng tôi đã từng trải qua khó khăn tương tự trước đó

18 Có thể xử lý nhiều việc cùng một lúc đối với các 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hoạt động tại cửa hàng

19 Khi gặp khó khăn trong công việc, chúng tôi luôn tin điều tốt nhất sẽ xảy ra

20 Thường cảm thấy không có sai sót trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Luôn nhìn vào mặt tích cực của những công việc được giao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Lạc quan về tương lai của cửa hàng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 Cảm thấy công việc luôn luôn xảy như kỳ vọng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tiếp cận công việc với tinh thần lạc quan là rất quan trọng Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ từ 1 đến 7, trong đó 1 là hoàn toàn không đồng ý và 7 là hoàn toàn đồng ý Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi thể hiện thái độ tích cực và sẵn sàng hợp tác trong công việc.

25 Đã không ngừng tìm kiếm những cách làm mới trong công việc

26 Đã đưa ra những ý tưởng và cách thực hiện ý tưởng trong công việc

27 Thử nghiệm những cách mới, sáng tạo để hoàn thành công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Đã so sánh các cách làm khác nhau để thực hiện công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 Quan tâm phát triển nhiều kỹ năng mới trong công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 Ứng dụng hiệu quả kiến thức hiện có để hoàn thành tốt công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 Chủ yếu thực hiện những công việc thường nhật 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 Thường xuyên thực hiện công việc theo quy chuẩn của công ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 Có ý thức nâng cao, đào sâu kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 Chủ yếu sử dụng kiến thức và kỹ năng hiện có để thực hiện công việc

Xin vui lòng chọn một số từ (1 đến 7), tương ứng với: 1 (=cần cải thiện nhiều) đến 7 (=xuất sắc)

35 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi đưa ra những ý tưởng mới

36 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi làm việc để thực hiện những ý tưởng mới

37 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tìm các cách làm tốt hơn để thực hiện công việc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 Các nhân viên cửa hàng của tôi tạo ra quy trình làm việc tốt hơn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41 Học vấn:  Dưới cấp 3  Tốt nghiệp cấp 3  Trung cấp/Cao đẳng/Đại học

42 Số lượng nhân viên của cửa hàng: …………

43 Thời gian làm việc tại cửa hàng của tôi:…….

CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN SỰ HỢP TÁC CỦA BẠN!

Appendix 5 Data analysis for Study 1

Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)

The analysis reveals significant correlations among various variables The relationship between OLB and CLB is notably strong at 385, while OLB shows a weaker correlation with ERLv at 089 and EIBv at -.010 Conversely, CLB exhibits a robust connection with EIBv at 323 and a significant correlation with ERLv at 136 The ties between ERLv and TIv are particularly strong at 732, highlighting a crucial link, while EIBv also shows a substantial correlation with TIv at 518 Additionally, the relationships involving demographic factors, such as SEX_D, indicate varying influences across the variables, with OLB and SEX_D showing a negative correlation of -.084, while EIBv and SEX_D present a positive correlation of 084 Overall, these findings underscore the intricate interdependencies among the studied variables.

EIBv < > TENURE 051 TIv < > SEX_D 029 TIv < > SIZE 015 TIv < > TENURE -.082

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

3 e10 569 061 9.292 *** par_64 e11 497 061 8.120 *** par_65 e12 407 050 8.178 *** par_66 e13 419 043 9.809 *** par_67 e14 357 046 7.819 *** par_68 e15 337 034 9.973 *** par_69 e16 606 068 8.875 *** par_70 e17 614 068 9.009 *** par_71 e19 349 046 7.583 *** par_72 e20 906 092 9.823 *** par_73 e21 308 034 9.130 *** par_74 e22 475 043 11.10

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Data analysis for Study 2

ACLa AVLa OLa VULa FBLb

COMPUTE ILmb=0.9*(AVLa-6.2578)+0.83*(ACLa-6.1333)+0.85*(OLa- 6.0889)+0.78*(FBLb-6.3233)+0.87*(VULa-5.9717).

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

90 PCLOSE Default model 057 039 075 237 Independence model 261 250 273 000

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

COMPUTE ILmb=0.9*(AVLa-6.2578)+0.83*(ACLa-6.1333)+0.85*(OLa- 6.0889)+0.78*(FBLb-6.3233)+0.87*(VULa-5.9717).

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate Transac < > Relation 598 Transac < > Training 441 Relation < > Training 661

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) Relation Transac Training Relation 0.873 0.632 0.437 0.878 0.795

Cfa psycont 3 fac revised CMIN

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)

EstimateTPPx < > TIx 567TPPx < > PCFx 449

Estimate TPPx < > ILx 411 TIx < > PCFx 350 TIx < > ILx 295 PCFx < > ILx 509 e3 < > e4 105 e2 < > e3 -.338 e2 < > e5 -.284 e1 < > e2 147 e1 < > e3 -.245

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

EstimateTPP2 < - TPPx 681TPP3 < - TPPx 579TPP7 < - TPPx 764TPP8 < - TPPx 720TPP10 < - TPPx 678TI4 < - TIx 729TI3 < - TIx 796TI2 < - TIx 835TI1 < - TIx 757ROa < - PCFx 823TRAa < - PCFx 741TRSa < - PCFx 604

Estimate VULa < - ILx 685 OLa < - ILx 774 FBLb < - ILx 634 AVLa < - ILx 792 ACLa < - ILx 726

CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) PCFx TPPx TIx ILx

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

TLI rho2 CFI Default model 857 829 925 910 924 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Independence model 186 179 192 000

Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

TIx < - SEX -.032 128 -.250 802 TIx < - TENURE -.003 003 -1.004 315 TIx < - SIZE -.010 007 -1.389 165 TIx < - ILx 259 150 1.730 084 TPP2 < - TPPx 1.000

Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

ILmbxTPPm ILx TPPx SIZE TENURE SEX PCFx TIx

ILmbxTPPm ILx TPPx SIZE TENURE SEX PCFx TIx TRAa 024 001 027

SEX SIZE EDU AGE TENURE

Data analysis for Study 3

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

TLI rho2 CFIDefault model 886 863 933 919 933Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000Independence model 000 000 000 000 000

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Independence model 266 256 275 000 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E C.R P Label ERLv < - PCAP 946 101 9.336 *** par_17 EIBv < - PCAP 734 080 9.222 *** par_19 TIv < - ERLv 614 098 6.256 *** par_18 TIv < - EIBv 051 114 451 65

ERL2 < - ERLv 1.061 076 14.029 *** par_1 ERL3 < - ERLv 1.181 096 12.253 *** par_2 ERL4 < - ERLv 1.056 087 12.183 *** par_3 EIL5 < - EIBv 1.000

EIL4 < - EIBv 1.065 101 10.501 *** par_4 EIL3 < - EIBv 854 081 10.522 *** par_5 EIL2 < - EIBv 1.138 120 9.497 *** par_6 TI1 < - TIv 1.000

Estimate S.E C.R P Label TI4 < - TIv 848 089 9.558 *** par_9 TOP < - PCAP 1.000

TRE < - PCAP 1.051 067 15.593 *** par_11 THO < - PCAP 867 060 14.457 *** par_12 TSE < - PCAP 887 089 9.998 *** par_13

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Independence model 314 302 327 000 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E C.R P Label ERLv < - PCAP 970 105 9.210 *** par_13 TIv < - ERLv 615 099 6.208 *** par_14 TIv < - PCAP 400 122 3.283 00

ERL2 < - ERLv 1.061 075 14.049 *** par_1 ERL3 < - ERLv 1.180 096 12.287 *** par_2 ERL4 < - ERLv 1.052 086 12.185 *** par_3 TI1 < - TIv 1.000

TI2 < - TIv 999 074 13.429 *** par_4 TI3 < - TIv 769 065 11.837 *** par_5 TI4 < - TIv 841 088 9.574 *** par_6 TOP < - PCAP 1.000

TRE < - PCAP 1.063 073 14.667 *** par_7THO < - PCAP 887 064 13.926 *** par_8TSE < - PCAP 939 093 10.107 *** par_9

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Delta1 RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI Default model 916 885 945 923 944 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model 000 000 000 000 000 RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model 081 065 098 001Independence model 293 280 305 000Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E C.R P Label EIBv < - PCAP 738 080 9.237 *** par_13 TIv < - EIBv 020 129 155 877 par_14 TIv < - PCAP 956 146 6.539 *** par_15 EIL5 < - EIBv 1.000

EIL4 < - EIBv 1.062 101 10.513 *** par_1 EIL3 < - EIBv 856 081 10.549 *** par_2 EIL2 < - EIBv 1.132 119 9.485 *** par_3 TI1 < - TIv 1.000

TI2 < - TIv 998 080 12.486 *** par_4 TI3 < - TIv 818 069 11.800 *** par_5 TI4 < - TIv 877 093 9.418 *** par_6 TOP < - PCAP 1.000

TRE < - PCAP 1.043 068 15.361 *** par_8 THO < - PCAP 868 060 14.434 *** par_9 TSE < - PCAP 886 089 9.960 *** par_10