Psychological safety as a moderator in the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and leader wellbeing

Abstract

Leaders face increased demands, higher workloads, and rapid organisational changes, which can influence their wellbeing. However, limited research has investigated the effects of leader-specific behaviours on the leader-specific wellbeing of ambidextrous leaders. As leader-specific wellbeing is linked to performance and organisational outcomes, addressing this research gap is pertinent. This study applies the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory to investigate whether ambidextrous leadership practices affect leader wellbeing and whether psychological safety moderates this relationship. Purpose: This study examines the relationship between ambidextrous leadership, defined as balancing and alternating between opening and closing leadership behaviours, and leader wellbeing. It considers whether the cognitive effort required by alternating between these leadership behaviours may result in increased cognitive load or emotional exhaustion, particularly in environments with lower psychological safety. The study examines the associations between ambidextrous leadership behaviours and leader wellbeing and seeks to determine whether psychological safety moderates these links. Methodology: A quantitative approach was utilised, surveying potential ambidextrous leaders using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed based on items from previously validated research, with participants drawn from workplace leadership roles. Implications: This research reinforces that effective, sustainable leadership depends on balancing ambidextrous leadership behaviours within an environment of psychological safety. Leader wellbeing is an important organisational outcome, achieved through targeted interventions and supportive environments. Future research is proposed to refine models by exploring additional contextual moderators and the differentiated impacts of leadership behaviours on leader-specific physical and emotional wellbeing. Research Limitations: Findings are based on the sampled population. Results may be applicable to similar groups within South Africa but may not be generalisable to ii populations with different characteristics. Additionally, the participants' high self-reported wellbeing may have resulted in a ceiling effect. Originality: This study contributes new insights from South Africa, a context in which related research is limited, and examines the interplay between leader behaviour, psychological safety, and leader wellbeing.