Next Article in Journal
Optimal Modeling and Feasibility Analysis of Grid-Interfaced Solar PV/Wind/Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Based Hybrid System
Next Article in Special Issue
Roadmap Incorporating Data Management Perspective for Platform Business Model Innovation
Previous Article in Journal
Characterizing Current THD’s Dependency on Solar Irradiance and Supraharmonics Profiling for a Grid-Tied Photovoltaic Power Plant
Previous Article in Special Issue
Information Retrieval Technologies and Big Data Analytics to Analyze Product Innovation in the Music Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/su15021219
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Leadership Influences Open Government Data (OGD)-Driven Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment

by
Mingle Zhou
1,2,
Yu Wang
2,
Hui Jiang
3,
Min Li
1 and
Gang Li
1,*
1
Shandong Computer Science Center (National Supercomputer Center in Jinan), Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250000, China
2
Institute of Science and Technology for Development of Shandong, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250000, China
3
School of Information Management and Artificial Intelligence, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 1219; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021219
Submission received: 24 October 2022 / Revised: 24 December 2022 / Accepted: 5 January 2023 / Published: 9 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Big Data in Sustaining Open Innovation Strategies)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Open government data (OGD) are considered a sustainable driver of firm innovation. Leadership is a crucial decision-maker for firms to employ OGD in innovation. The present study focuses on two of the most prominent leadership styles: transformational and transactional. Drawing on the Organizational Commitment Theory, we claim that affective and normative commitment are the two parallel mechanisms that explain how leadership promotes OGD-driven innovation in firms. Our results show that transformational leadership promotes OGD-driven radical innovation through affective commitment. In contrast, transactional leadership promotes OGD-driven incremental innovation through normative commitment. More importantly, we suggest that the OGD application stage moderates the effect of leadership on organizational commitment. Specifically, in the initial stage of the OGD application, higher transformational leadership triggers higher affective commitment in employees. In contrast, in the mature stage of OGD application, higher transactional leadership triggers higher normative commitment in employees.

1. Introduction

Open government data (OGD) are commonly recognized to assist firm innovation [1,2,3]. For example, Opower, a pioneer in OGD-driven innovation, builds an analytics engine through open and transparent U.S. government data (i.e., home energy data), which flexibly promotes citizens to save energy and reduce consumption. Because OGD are so intertwined with our everyday lives, it has significantly motivated firms to develop new goods and business strategies [4]. We define OGD-driven innovation as firms employing OGD to gain fresh insights for developing and nurturing products and services.
There are various obstacles to firms implementing OGD-driven innovation. For example, there is a lack of OGD application culture and a lack of knowledge, technology, and ability to use OGD [5,6,7]. Active and effective leadership is a strong driver to overcome these obstacles and improve a firm’s OGD application skills [8,9]. Leadership is classified into two categories: transformational and transactional leadership [10]. The former focuses on motivating and inspiring employees [11], while the latter focuses on providing contingent employee incentives [12]. Scholars have extensively researched the impact of leadership on firm innovation. According to certain studies, transformational and transactional leadership have variable degrees of positive influence on firm innovation [13,14,15]. However, the research results of Afsar et al. [16] discovered that transformational leadership positively impacts innovation performance, whereas transactional leadership has a negative impact. The influence of leadership on firm innovation is still debatable. As OGD-driven innovation is a new form of firm innovation, the following issues must be addressed: (a) Do transformational and transactional leadership impact OGD-driven innovation? (b) If so, what are the underlying mechanisms for transformational and transactional leadership to influence OGD-driven innovation? (c) What are the boundary conditions of the preceding effects?
The present study aims to fill the research above gaps. In doing so, we draw on the Organizational Commitment Theory [17], which claims that an individual has a psychological contract with the organization. We contend that transformational leaders tend to trigger employees’ affective commitment by strengthening their emotional connection to the organization [11,18], which activates their abstract mindset (high-level construal) and drives them to develop new products and services (e.g., OGD-driven radical innovation) [19]. In contrast, transactional leaders trigger employees’ normative commitment through a contract-based exchange relationship [20], which activates their concrete mindset (low-level construal) and drives them to focus on improving existing products and services (e.g., OGD-driven incremental innovation) [21].
Furthermore, based on the firm’s experience with the OGD application, we established the notion of the OGD application stage. We divided it into two stages: the initial stage and the mature stage. The former indicates that the firm has less experience with OGD applications. In contrast, the latter indicates that the firm has more experience with OGD applications. Our results show that the OGD application stage moderates the effect of leadership on organizational commitment and OGD-driven innovation. Specifically, in the initial stage of OGD application, transformational leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ affective commitment and promoting OGD-driven radical innovation. Meanwhile, in the mature stage of OGD application, transactional leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ normative commitment and promoting OGD-driven incremental innovation.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. OGD-Driven Innovation

Massive data will be incorporated into the economic and social production system if the government, as the owner of public data, opens up its holdings [22]. In this scenario, astute entrepreneurs might seize these chances to create valuable products and services from OGD [2,3], supporting firm innovation. Jetzek et al. [1] propose that firms can generate new knowledge from OGD to assist firm innovation, a concept known as OGD-driven innovation. We split OGD-driven innovation into radical and incremental innovation based on Chandy and Tellis’ [23] taxonomy of innovation. OGD-driven radical innovation is the action by which firms employ OGD to bring about significant changes (e.g., new products and services) [24,25]. OGD-driven incremental innovation, in contrast, refers to the action by which firms employ OGD to improve and enhance their existing products and services [24,25,26].

2.2. Leadership and OGD-Driven Innovation

2.2.1. Transformational Leadership and OGD-Driven Innovation

Transformational leadership, according to Bass [27], is a leadership style composed of four distinct leadership traits: (a) idealized attributes (i.e., a charismatic image that gains respect and trust), (b) inspirational motivation (i.e., conveying high expectations to employees), (c) intellectual stimulation (i.e., stimulating employees’ intelligence and creativity), and (d) individual consideration (i.e., providing employees’ with personal attention, coaching, and opportunities). When a firm engages in OGD-driven innovation, leaders who possess these four traits may help employees comprehend the OGD-based vision and encourage them to perform well in OGD-driven innovation (e.g., researching new products and services), resulting in OGD-driven radical innovation.
Several reasons support this assertion. First, transformational leadership projects a charismatic image of respect and trust by explaining, modeling, and implementing the OGD-based vision [28,29,30]. Employees are more aware of the importance and value of accomplishing the firm’s OGD-based goal due to this “charismatic image” [28,31]. Meanwhile, transformational leadership uses “inspirational motivation” to transfer such awareness into an internal incentive for outstanding performance [27,29]. For example, transformational leadership motivates their employees with the lofty goal of revolutionizing people’s lives and becoming a model for the industry if they put more effort into OGD-driven innovation.
Second, as OGD are a new innovation resource, it drives employees to try new ways to implement OGD-driven innovation. In this procedure, the consequence of not caring about failure is more favorable to employees producing high-performance innovation. Transformational leadership fosters creative workplaces through “intellectual stimulation,” encouraging employees to strive for high performance [10,32,33]. On the one hand, transformational leadership’s intellectually stimulating conduct inspires people to think “beyond the box” about OGD-driven innovation [34,35]. For example, organizing brainstorming sessions on OGD-driven innovation enables employees to improve exploratory thinking [10,36] and envision future OGD-based products and services. On the other hand, transformational leaders’ intellectually motivating attitude (i.e., encouraging employees to try more novel ways in OGD-driven innovation without fear of failure [10,37]) stimulates employees to bring OGD-driven radical innovation to the firm.
Finally, transformational leadership reinforces employees’ intrinsic motivation and creativity to achieve high performance in OGD-driven innovation through “individual consideration.” On the one hand, leaders with individual consideration focus more on realizing employees’ values in the OGD-driven innovation process and giving them more opportunities to realize themselves in this process, guiding them to seek high-level needs. Employees’ OGD-driven innovative behaviors become radical when guided by this intrinsic motivation to pursue high-level needs because intrinsic motivation drives employees to explore new ways of thinking [38]. On the other hand, transformational leadership enhances employees’ professional abilities and knowledge in OGD through coaching, enabling high levels of creativity (i.e., radical innovation) in OGD-driven innovation. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.  
Transformational leadership positively influences OGD-driven radical innovation.

2.2.2. Transactional Leadership and OGD-Driven Innovation

According to Bass [27], transactional leadership consists of two leadership traits: (a) contingent reward (i.e., contract-based exchange) and (b) management by exception (i.e., intervention on deviation). In OGD-driven innovation, these two leadership traits allow employees to sustain inventive performance inside the contract while not inspiring further high-level innovation performance. In other words, employees will enhance existing products and services on a contract-based basis, resulting in OGD-driven incremental innovation rather than OGD-driven radical innovation of new products and services.
The potential reasons rely on as follows. First, transactional leadership considers the leader–employee interaction as a contract-based exchange process in which employees achieve a certain level of OGD-driven innovation performance in exchange for rewards [20,27,34]. In other words, the contract guides employees’ behavior, emphasizing facilitating the achievement of the goals agreed to by the employees in the contract [39]. As a result, employees’ performance on OGD-driven innovation is restricted to contracts that bring OGD-driven incremental innovation.
In addition, the “management by exception” trait of transactional leadership implies that transactional leaders intervene when employees deviate from the norm and do not actively and deliberately enhance employee creativity [10]. This leadership trait prevents employees from contributing high performance (e.g., radical innovation) to OGD-driven innovation. As a result, employees choose to execute OGD-driven incremental innovation with updates to existing products and services instead of investing significant time and effort in OGD-driven radical innovation. Moreover, transactional leaders do not make active and deliberate efforts to provide professional skills and expertise coaching [10] in the OGD-driven innovation process. Although employees will fulfill their leaders’ performance expectations for OGD-driven innovation based on their contracts, employees will struggle to lead OGD-driven radical innovation [40]. Instead, employees find it easy to perform OGD-driven incremental innovation based on existing products and services. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. 
Transactional leadership positively influences OGD-driven incremental innovation.

2.3. Organizational Commitment as a Mediator

The psychological contract between leaders and employees impacts whether or not the leader is effective [41]. Organizational commitment is a crucial psychological contract phenomenon [17]. The existing literature emphasizes the importance of organizational commitment in psychological contracts and concentrates on two dimensions: affective and normative commitment [42,43].

2.3.1. The Mechanism of Affective Commitment

Employees’ emotions drive affective commitment, which manifests as a sense of dependence, identification, and involvement in the organization [43,44,45]. The relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment has been extensively researched in the literature [46,47,48]. Jackson et al. [48] discovered a significant relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and affective commitment. According to Chan and Mak [47], transformational leadership was favorably connected with pride in being a follower of the leader and affective commitment. This favorable link results from transformational leaders’ positive motivation of employees’ values, beliefs, and attitudes [49]. Transformational leaders value their employees’ aspirations and values, push them to achieve higher levels of needs in their work, and foster an environment of trust between leaders and employees [47,50]. Employees feel recognized and trusted by their leaders in this way, which leads to affective commitment. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. 
Transformational leadership positively influences affective commitment.
Employees with affective commitment can lead to OGD-driven radical innovation. Under the impact of affective commitment, employees have a strong sense of identification with OGD-based vision and strive to achieve it [31]. Employees are drawn to distant-future events because OGD-based vision depicts the desired future state of the firm [31]. Individuals who focus on events in the distant future, according to CLT (Construal Level Theory), will induce an abstract mindset (i.e., a high-level, goal-oriented, and superordinate thought process) [21,51,52]. Such an abstract mindset stimulates high creativity among employees in OGD-driven innovation because it pushes them to think “beyond the box” [19,21]. They seek to use OGD to create new products and services that do not exist in the current market (i.e., OGD-driven radical innovation) [24,25,26,53]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4.  
Affective commitment positively influences OGD-driven radical innovation.

2.3.2. The Mechanism of Normative Commitment

Normative commitment arises from an employee’s moral conscience and is expressed as a responsibility and obligation to the organization [43,45,54,55]. We argue that transactional leadership values contract-based exchange relationships and is more likely to trigger employees’ normative commitment. Transactional leadership rewards employees for accomplishing goals based on contracts [20]. Employees who receive these awards acquire a sense of responsibility and obligation to contribute to the firm due to their moral conscience [54,56,57]. As a result, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5.  
Transactional leadership positively influences normative commitment.
Employees with normative commitment can lead to OGD-driven incremental innovation for the following reasons. First, under normative commitment, employees experience guilt prompted by moral conscience if their desire to give back to the organization is not met within a given time frame [56]. As a result, employees tend to complete near-future work to assuage their guilt. According to construal level theory (CLT), they focus on near-future events and trigger a concrete mindset (i.e., a low-level, detail-oriented, and subordinate thought process) [21,51]. Employees with such a concrete mindset focus on refining and enhancing existing products and services rather than developing new ones, resulting in OGD-driven incremental innovation. For example, suppose an employee is tasked with increasing the firm’s market share by utilizing OGD. In that case, the employee’s problem-solving thinking revolves around current products and services. Employees prefer to focus on current products and seldom on things that do not exist since the “concrete mindset” involves thinking about problems in concrete detail [21].
Second, employees with a normative commitment feel responsible and obligated to do the work required by the contracts in OGD-driven innovation. In other words, they regard the work as something they should rather than want to do [58]. Employees are therefore lacking in intrinsic motivation to engage in OGD-driven radical innovation. Furthermore, because they are not contractually compelled to do so, they will not aggressively seek coaching and brainstorming sessions to improve their innovation capabilities. Therefore, employees’ normative commitment is more likely to lead to OGD-driven incremental innovation under the contracts. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6.  
Normative commitment positively influences OGD-driven incremental innovation.

2.4. OGD Application Stage as a Moderator

OGD are a new resource for innovation, and the application of OGD by firms is a process from novice to skilled [59]. We further investigate whether leadership styles change at different stages of OGD application and the impact on organizational commitment and OGD-driven innovation. According to the experience of firms applying OGD, we divide OGD application into two stages: the initial and the mature stage. The former is a stage in which firms have insufficient experience in OGD-driven innovation, while the latter is a stage with rich experience. We propose the OGD application stage as a moderator, which determines when leadership is associated with organizational commitment and OGD-driven innovation.
In the initial stage of OGD application, the research and development organization based on OGD (termed OGD-based R&D organization) is still immature. Because members of this newly formed organization are new and unfamiliar with each other, collaboration in OGD-driven innovation is inefficient. Therefore, such a newly formed organization requires leaders who can effectively integrate and bond with employees. As previously mentioned, transformational leadership can strengthen the emotional connection within an organization and trigger employees’ affective commitment [60].
According to recent research, employees with strong affective commitment are willing to exhibit high-performance levels [61]. Employees influenced by affective commitment are willing to go above and beyond to accomplish OGD-driven innovation. They are more likely to engage in radical innovation activities [31,62]. Moreover, since employees are newbies to OGD applications at this stage, they are more open-minded and likely to generate fresh ideas without being constrained by previous experience [19,21]. In summary, in the initial stage of OGD application, transformational leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ affective commitment to the organization and bringing OGD-driven radical innovation to the firm.
In the mature stage of OGD application, the OGD-based R&D organization gradually matures. As the organization grows, the relationships among its members become more complicated. Transformational leaders have limited time and energy in such a situation to build emotional relationships with all employees. Furthermore, building emotional bonds with some employees may result in imbalance and injustice inside the organization. A clear contract-based reward and punishment system must be implemented to ensure the fairness and justice of organizational management [20]. In this stage, transactional leadership that stresses contractual relationships meets the demands, triggering employees’ normative commitment [20,63].
Employees affected by normative commitment prefer to improve existing products and services through OGD-driven innovation since it fulfills both contractual and ethical standards [56]. Furthermore, in this stage, employees within the organization have sufficient experience with OGD applications. They are skilled at employing OGD to improve products and services. As a result, in the mature stage of OGD application, transactional leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ normative commitment and delivering OGD-driven incremental innovation to the firm. As a consequence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 7.  
OGD application stage moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. Specifically, in the initial (mature) stage of OGD application, higher transformational leadership leads employees to trigger higher (lower) affective commitment.
Hypothesis 8. 
OGD application stage moderates the indirect effect of transformational leadership on OGD-driven radical innovation through affective commitment.
Hypothesis 9. 
OGD application stage moderates the relationship between transactional leadership and normative commitment. Specifically, in the mature (initial) stage of OGD application, higher transactional leadership leads employees to trigger higher (lower) normative commitment.
Hypothesis 10. 
OGD application stage moderates the indirect effect of transactional leadership on OGD-driven incremental innovation through normative commitment.
Figure 1 depicts our theoretical model.

3. Data and Measures

3.1. Data Collection

First, our research’s geographical focus is on two China provinces: Zhejiang and Shandong, as the China Open Data Index reveals that these two provinces have a relatively high index of OGD utilization [64]. Second, the empirical data for this study were collected online through the largest online survey website in China (https://www.wjx.cn/ (accessed on 5 March 2022)). We used the paid sample collection service provided by Sojump.com (a popular online survey platform in China), which provided us with 198 firms with experience in OGD-driven innovation and collected 250 questionnaires from middle and senior-level employees of these firms. Finally, we obtained 239 valid responses after deleting 11 invalid questionnaires with missing data. The effective completion rate was 95.6%. Table 1 shows the demographics of the sample. In addition, respondents were asked to judge the firm’s experience with OGD application, which resulted in the division of firms into two categories: firms in the initial stage of OGD application (122) and firms in the mature stage of OGD application (76).

3.2. Measures

Leadership. We adapted and combined the leadership scales of Waldman et al. [41] and Avolio et al. [60] to measure transformational and transactional leadership. A sample item that measures transformational leadership was “He/she communicates high expectations to me”. A sample item that measures transactional leadership was “He/she reinforces the link between goals and rewards.” Complete measurement items are in Appendix A.
Organizational commitment. The Organizational Commitment Scale developed by Meyer et al. [65] was used to assess affective and normative commitment. The scale measures employee’s affective commitment (six items, e.g., “I would be pleased to spend my career with this firm”) and normative commitment (six items, e.g., “This firm is worthy of my loyalty”). Complete measurement items are in Appendix A.
OGD-driven innovation. We adapted and combined the innovation scales of Chandy and Tellis [23] and Jansen et al. [66] to measure OGD-driven radical and incremental innovation. A sample item that measures OGD-driven radical innovation was “New products and services are generated through OGD”. A sample item that measures OGD-driven incremental innovation was “Minor improvements to existing products and services through OGD.” Complete measurement items are in Appendix A.
OGD application stage. Based on the respondents’ judgment of the status of OGD application in their firms, we obtained 122 firms in the initial stage of OGD application (assigned a value of “0”) and 76 firms in the mature stage of OGD application (assigned a value of “1”).
Control variables. First, the firm’s age was controlled because younger firms may have a higher incentive for innovation than older firms [67]. We also controlled the firm’s size, as size typically leads to economies of scale, allowing larger firms to gain a competitive advantage over smaller firms [68,69]. Third, the knowledge of OGD-related policies also affects a firm’s willingness to engage in OGD-driven innovation. Hence, we chose a binary control variable to measure whether employees are aware of OGD-related policies: yes received a value of “1,” and no received a value of “0”. Fourth, we additionally controlled for the industry category, assigning a value of “1” to the primary industry, a value of “2” to the secondary industry, and a value of “3” to the tertiary industry. The goal was to examine the influence of predictors on firm OGD-driven innovation after allowing for potential cross-industry disparities. Fifth, as Slevin and Covin [70] point out, hostility can threaten organizational survival and growth. It may affect the organization’s innovation decisions and performance. We chose hostility as another control variable and measured it by adapting the two-item scale of Slevin and Covin [70]. The reliability of this scale was 0.75. Sixth, innovation capacity was also treated as a control variable because a firm’s innovation capacity reflects the firm’s competitiveness and need for innovation [71]. The innovation capacity was measured using a scale developed by Li and Atuahene-Gima [72]. The reliability of this scale was 0.74. Last, differences in employees of different age groups due to enthusiasm and experience may impact OGD-driven innovation. Differences between provinces can likewise affect OGD-driven innovation. As a result, we selected the sample’s age and the province as control variables.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity

We tested the reliability of all measures by examining their Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR). As shown in Table 2, all results had statistical values above 0.8, indicating good reliability. We assessed convergent validity based on factor loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE). The result shows that the values of factor loadings for each item were higher than 0.6, and AVE values were higher than 0.5. Therefore, all measures have enough convergent validity. We tested the discriminant validity by comparing the square root of AVE and the correlations between the variables. Table 3 shows that the square root of AVE (in parentheses) for each variable is greater than its correlation with another variable. Therefore, all measures have acceptable discriminant validity. In addition, Table 3 shows the M (Mean) and SD (Standard Deviation) of the samples and the correlations among the variables in the model. The results showed that the correlations among the variables were moderate and suitable for the hypothesis analysis.
We additionally tested the common method bias test by performing Harman’s single-factor test. The results showed that the percentage of variance explained by the unrotated first factor was 25.04%, indicating that the common method bias in our study was not serious.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

We tested all hypotheses by conducting the PROCESS macro (PROCESS Template 7) [73]. First, Table 4 shows that transformational leadership positively influences affective commitment (B = 0.19, p < 0.05) and OGD-driven radical innovation (B = 0.20, p < 0.01), and affective commitment positively influences OGD-driven radical innovation (B = 0.43, p < 0.01). Thus, the results supported Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4. Table 5 shows that transactional leadership positively influences normative commitment (B = 0.17, p < 0.05) and OGD-driven incremental innovation (B = 0.22, p < 0.05), and normative commitment positively influences OGD-driven incremental innovation (B = 0.39, p < 0.01). Thus, the results supported Hypotheses 2, 5, and 6.
Moreover, Table 4 reveals that the interaction between transformational leadership and the OGD application stage was significantly associated with affective commitment (B = −0.53, p < 0.01). Table 5 reveals that the interaction between transactional leadership and the OGD application stage was significantly associated with normative commitment (B = 0.37, p < 0.05). To understand the nature of the interaction effects above, we performed a simple slope analysis for the initial and mature stages of OGD application. Figure 2 suggests that transformational leadership significantly influenced affective commitment in the initial stage of OGD application (slope = 0.45, t = 6.06, p < 0.01). However, it failed to significantly influence affective commitment in the mature stage of OGD application (slope = −0.08, t = −0.46, p = 0.65). Figure 3 suggests that transactional leadership significantly influenced normative commitment in the mature stage of OGD application (slope = 0.36, t = 3.33, p < 0.01). However, it failed to significantly influence normative commitment in the initial stage of OGD application (slope = −0.01, t = −0.08, p = 0.94). Hence, the results supported Hypotheses 7 and 9.
Finally, we conducted the PROCESS macro (PROCESS Template 7) [73] to test Hypotheses 8 and 10. The result shows that transformational leadership positively affected OGD-driven radical innovation through affective commitment in the initial stage of OGD application (indirect effect = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.29], p < 0.01), but the effect was not significant in the mature stage of OGD application. Meanwhile, transactional leadership positively affected OGD-driven incremental innovation through normative commitment in the mature stage of OGD application (indirect effect = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.26], p < 0.01), but the result was not significant in the initial stage of OGD application. Therefore, the results support Hypotheses 8 and 10 (see Table 6).

5. Discussions and Implication

In today’s rapidly evolving digital business environment, OGD are critical for firms to gain insight into business opportunities and achieve innovative performance. However, the literature has concentrated chiefly on OGD value generation, and few papers examine firms’ OGD-driven innovation [3]. The present research does not understand the organizational factors that encourage OGD-driven innovation in firms [1,26,74]. Recent research has shown the impact of leadership on employees’ organizational commitment and firm innovation [46,63,75]. However, little research has been conducted on how leadership influences firms’ OGD-driven innovation through employees’ organizational commitment.
Based on this, this study uses organizational commitment as an influencing mechanism to examine the effect of leadership on firms’ OGD-driven innovation. Our study demonstrates how affective and normative commitment are parallel mechanisms via which leadership promotes OGD-driven innovation. Specifically, transformational leadership promotes OGD-driven radical innovation by triggering employees’ affective commitment. In contrast, transactional leadership promotes OGD-driven incremental innovation by triggering employees’ normative commitment. The results of this study contribute to the existing research on the factors and mechanisms influencing OGD-driven innovation, as well as provide empirical evidence for the influence of leadership on OGD-driven innovation in firms.
Furthermore, by introducing the OGD application stage, our study explores the stage-specific influence of leadership on organizational commitment and OGD-driven innovation. Previous research has shown the impact of leadership on different types of organizational commitment and innovation [63,75]. According to Avolio et al. [60], leaders are a combination of transformational and transactional leadership, and leadership behaviors are not fixed. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate if leadership shifts at different stages of OGD application, which has varied implications on organizational commitment and OGD-driven innovation. According to the findings of this study, transformational leadership triggers employees’ affective commitment in the initial stage of OGD application, resulting in OGD-driven radical innovation. Transactional leadership triggers employees’ normative commitment in the mature stage of OGD application, leading to OGD-driven incremental innovation.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Several theoretical implications are concluded as follows. First, the prior literature argues that transformational leadership positively influences radical or incremental innovation [75]. In contrast, transactional leadership and firm innovation have remained unclear [76,77]. Our empirical findings show that transformational and transactional leadership positively influence OGD-driven innovation but are contingent on innovation types. In line with previous research, we find that transformational leadership facilitates OGD-driven radical innovation. Transactional leadership traits (e.g., contingent reward and management by exception) benefit OGD-driven incremental innovation. Because these traits prevent employees from behaving beyond expected performance, creativity occurs at a modest level, resulting in incremental innovation in the firm [10]. This finding fills a research gap in the leadership-innovation relationship.
Second, the present study considers organizational commitment as an underlying mechanism that theoretically links leadership and OGD-driven innovation. As an attitudinal component, organizational commitment is a good predictor of employees’ innovative behaviors [78], influencing OGD-driven innovation. Most investigations have found that transformational leadership positively affects organizational commitment. In contrast, transactional leadership has a negative or insignificant effect [48,79,80]. For example, Lee [81] noted that transformational leadership strongly influences affective commitment, which is consistent with our empirical results. Theoretically, this positive association may be explained by the fact that transformational leaders stress valuing employees’ aspirations and values and creating favorable working conditions to enhance employees’ emotional attachment to them [49,50]. According to Lee [81], transactional leadership negatively impacts loyalty (i.e., normative commitment). Our findings reveal the opposite result. Transactional leaders rely on contractual relationships to meet the needs and desires of employees who complete their tasks, creating organizational loyalty and responsibility [10,54].
Furthermore, we investigate employees’ innovative behavior under affective and normative commitment. According to our results, employees with affective commitment significantly promote OGD-driven radical innovation. In contrast, employees with normative commitment significantly promote OGD-driven incremental innovation. These findings theorize the mechanism underlying underpinning leadership’s influence in OGD-driven innovation.
Third, we investigate whether transformational and transactional leadership affect OGD-driven innovation differently at different stages of OGD application. The empirical results suggest that transformational leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ affective commitment and facilitating OGD-driven radical innovation in the initial stage of OGD application (i.e., OGD-based R&D organization is new and inexperienced). Transactional leadership has more benefits for triggering employees’ normative commitment and facilitating OGD-driven incremental innovation in the mature stage of OGD application (i.e., OGD-based R&D organization is old and experienced). These findings define the boundaries of leadership influence on OGD-driven innovation.

5.2. Practical Implications

The current study also provides several practical implications as follows. First, we found that transformational and transactional leadership support different types of OGD-driven innovation in the different stages of OGD application. As stated by Avolio et al. [60], the best leaders exhibit both transformational and transactional leadership traits. Therefore, to support OGD-driven innovation, it is essential to be flexible in choosing leadership styles according to the developmental orientation of the firm. Second, employees’ organizational commitment mediates the link between leadership and OGD-driven innovation. Therefore, leaders must learn how to use emotion, rewards, and punishment to guide employees’ OGD-driven innovation behaviors to achieve the desired performance. Third, leaders should focus on the changing stages of OGD-driven innovation and adapt their leadership strategy and innovation based on a given management environment to encourage their subordinates to enhance OGD-driven innovation.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite our extensive examination of how and when leadership impacts OGD-driven innovation, the following limitations remain: First, the present study examines the research model using cross-sectional data. Potential changes in long-term causation are hard to assess. A long-term study is encouraged in the future to strengthen the robustness of our findings. Second, we collected data from employees’ evaluations of their direct leaders’ conduct and utilized it to explore the associations among the constructs. In future research, we suggest that data from employees’ opinions of leaders at various hierarchies should be collected to understand the relationships between the constructs further. Finally, the data for our study came mainly from two provinces in mainland China with a high OGD utilization index. Future research could include provinces with a low index for comparison purposes.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study investigates how and when leadership influences OGD-driven innovation. Drawing on organizational commitment, we illustrate the significance of affective and normative commitment in mediating the relationship between leadership and OGD-driven innovation. This finding adds to prior studies on the relationship between leadership, organizational commitment, and OGD-driven innovation [63,82]. Furthermore, we suggest the OGD application stage as a moderating variable to explore when leadership influences OGD-driven innovation. The findings revealed that transformational leadership fosters OGD-driven radical innovation in the initial stages of OGD application through affective commitment. Transactional leadership, on the other hand, fosters OGD-driven incremental innovation in the mature stage of OGD application through normative commitment. These findings assist firms in promptly adapting their leadership strategies to OGD applications to increase performance.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W.; writing—review and editing, H.J.; validation, M.L.; data curation, G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, grant number ZR2020MG075; National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers 71704153, 71701180 and 71801187; and Postdoctoral Research Foundation of China, grant number 2018M642472.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in [FigShare] at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19705909.v2 (accessed on 10 December 2022).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the firms that took part in the survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Measures and items.
Table A1. Measures and items.
MeasureItem
Transformational and
transactional leadership (Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam [36] and Avolio, Bass and Jung [51])		TFL1: He/she articulates a compelling vision of the future.
TFL2: He/she has my trust and respect.
TFL3: He/she communicates high performance expectations to me.
TFL4: He/she seeks differing perspectives when solving problems.
TFL5: He/she gets me to look at problems from many different angles.
TFL6: He/she spends time teaching and coaching.
TFL7: He/she considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.
TAL1: He/she provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts.
TAL2: He/she makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.
TAL3: He/she reinforces the link between goals and rewards.
TAL4: He/she expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations.
TAL5: He/she takes action if mistakes are made.
TAL6: He/she focuses attention on irregularities, exceptions, or deviations from what is expected.
TAL7: He/she shows a firm believer in “If not broke, don’t fix it.”
Affective and normative
commitment (Meyer, Allen and Smith [53])		AC1: I would be pleased to spend the rest of my career with this firm.
AC2: I really feel as if this firm’s problems are my own.
AC3: I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my firm. (R)
AC4: I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this firm. (R)
AC5: I do not feel like “part of the family” at my firm. (R)
AC6: This firm has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
NC1: I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer. (R)
NC2: Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my firm now.
NC3: I would feel guilty if I left my firm now.
NC4: This firm deserves my loyalty.
NC5: I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
NC6: I owe a great deal to my firm.
OGD-driven radical innovation and incremental innovation (Chandy and Tellis [17] and Jansen, Van Den Bosch and Volberda [54])OGD_ RI1: Introduces products that are radically different from existing product through OGD.
OGD_ RI2: New products and services are generated through OGD.
OGD_ RI3: Commercialize products and services that are completely new through OGD.
OGD_ RI4: Search and approach new clients in new markets through OGD.
OGD_ II1: Refine the provision of existing products and services through OGD.
OGD_ II2: Minor improvements to existing products and services through OGD.
OGD_ II3: Introduce improved but existing products and services for local markets through OGD.
OGD_ II4: Increase economies of scales in existing markets through OGD.
Notes: TFL = Transformational leadership, TAL = Transactional leadership, AC = Affective commitment, NC = Normative commitment, OGD_RI = OGD-driven radical innovation, OGD_II = OGD-driven incremental innovation.

References

  1. Jetzek, T.; Avital, M.; Bjorn-Andersen, N. Data-driven innovation through open government data. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2014, 9, 100–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Leviäkangas, P.; Molarius, R. Open government data policy and value added-Evidence on transport safety agency case. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Magalhaes, G.; Roseira, C. Open government data and the private sector: An empirical view on business models and value creation. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, Z.; Frankwick, G.L.; Ramirez, E. Effects of big data analytics and traditional marketing analytics on new product success: A knowledge fusion perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1562–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gascó-Hernández, M.; Martin, E.G.; Reggi, L.; Pyo, S.; Luna-Reyes, L.F. Promoting the use of open government data: Cases of training and engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Janssen, M.; Charalabidis, Y.; Zuiderwijk, A. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf. Syst. Manage. 2012, 29, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Barry, E.; Bannister, F. Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Inf. Polity 2014, 19, 129–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Zhang, J.-C.; Chen, Y.-C. Enhancing open government information performance: A study of institutional capacity and organizational arrangement in China. Chin. J. Commun. 2015, 8, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ruijer, E.; Meijer, A. Open government data as an innovation process: Lessons from a living lab experiment. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2019, 43, 613–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Jung, D.I. Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativ. Res. J. 2001, 13, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ullah, Z.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Sial, M.S.; Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Omhand, K. Achieving organizational social sustainability through electronic performance appraisal systems: The moderating influence of transformational leadership. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bass, B.M. Leadership: Good, better, best. Organ. Dyn. 1985, 13, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prasad, B.; Junni, P. CEO transformational and transactional leadership and organizational innovation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 1542–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vaccaro, I.G.; Jansen, J.J.P.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. J. Manage. Stud. 2012, 49, 28–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chang, J.; Bai, X.; Li, J.J. The influence of leadership on product and process innovations in China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 50, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Afsar, B.; Badir, Y.F.; Saeed, B.B.; Hafeez, S. Transformational and transactional leadership and employee’s entrepreneurial behavior in knowledge–intensive industries. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 307–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Becker, H.S. Notes on the concept of commitment. Am. J. Sociol. 1960, 66, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Arshad, M.A.; Shabbir, M.S.; Mahmood, A.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Khan, S. Holistic human resource development model in health sector: A phenomenological approach. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 20, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jia, L.; Hirt, E.R.; Karpen, S.C. Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 1127–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Förster, J.; Friedman, R.S.; Liberman, N. Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ahmadi Zeleti, F.; Ojo, A.; Curry, E. Exploring the economic value of open government data. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chandy, R.K.; Tellis, G.J. Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J. Mark. Res. 1998, 35, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Souto, J.E. Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tour. Manag. 2015, 51, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dewar, R.D.; Dutton, J.E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 1422–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Susha, I.; Grönlund, Å.; Janssen, M. Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Inf. Polity 2015, 20, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bass, B.M. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 1990, 18, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. House, R.J.; Spangler, W.D.; Woycke, J. Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 364–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gardner, W.L.; Avolio, B.J. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 32–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dvir, T.; Eden, D.; Avolio, B.J.; Shamir, B. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. James, K.; Lahti, K. Organizational vision and system influences on employee inspiration and organizational performance. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2011, 20, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Howell, J.M.; Avolio, B.J. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rampa, R.; Agogué, M. Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the effects of training employees for creativity and innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2021, 30, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hater, J.J.; Bass, B.M. Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tan, A.B.; Van Dun, D.H.; Wilderom, C.P. Innovative work behavior in Singapore evoked by transformational leaders through innovation support and readiness. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2021, 30, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sosik, J.J.; Avolio, B.J.; Kahai, S.S. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Diehl, M.; Stroebe, W. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 61, 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Amabile, T.M.; Hill, K.G.; Hennessey, B.A.; Tighe, E.M. The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 66, 950–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. House, R.J. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadersh. Q. 1996, 7, 323–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Amabile, T.M. How to kill creativity. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 77–87. [Google Scholar]
  41. Waldman, D.A.; Ramirez, G.G.; House, R.J.; Puranam, P. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wiener, Y. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Steers, R.M. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Adm. Sci. Q. 1977, 22, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meyer, J.P.; Stanley, D.J.; Herscovitch, L.; Topolnytsky, L. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 61, 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cho, Y.; Shin, M.; Billing, T.K.; Bhagat, R.S. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and affective organizational commitment: A closer look at their relationships in two distinct national contexts. Asian. Bus. Manag. 2019, 18, 187–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chan, S.C.; Mak, W. Transformational leadership, pride in being a follower of the leader and organizational commitment. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2014, 35, 674–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jackson, T.A.; Meyer, J.P.; Wang, X.-H. Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta-analysis. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2013, 20, 84–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xie, Y.P.; Xue, W.; Li, L.; Wang, A.M.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Q.L.; Wang, Y.Y.; Li, X.J. Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: An empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2018, 135, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y.; McCrea, S.M.; Sherman, S.J. The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 43, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Liberman, N.; Sagristano, M.D.; Trope, Y. The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 38, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Meyer, J.P.; Parfyonova, N.M. Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. González, T.F.; Guillen, M. Organizational commitment: A proposal for a wider ethical conceptualization of ‘normative commitment’. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 78, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Meyer, J.P.; Herscovitch, L. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2001, 11, 299–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Scholl, R.W. Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1981, 6, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Berg, M.B.; Janoff-Bulman, R.; Cotter, J. Perceiving value in obligations and goals: Wanting to do what should be done. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 982–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhao, Y.; Fan, B. Effect of an agency’s resources on the implementation of open government data. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Avolio, B.J.; Bass, B.M.; Jung, D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 72, 441–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Wang, Q.; Weng, Q.; Jiang, Y. When does affective organizational commitment lead to job performance?: Integration of resource perspective. J. Career. Dev. 2020, 47, 380–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tansky, J.W.; Cohen, D.J. The relationship between organizational support, employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2001, 12, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Keskes, I. Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions. Intang. Cap. 2014, 10, 26–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. China Open Data Index. Available online: http://ifopendata.fudan.edu.cn/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  65. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J.; Smith, C.A. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jansen, J.J.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.; Volberda, H.W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 999–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Balasubramanian, N.; Lee, J. Firm age and innovation. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2008, 17, 1019–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Autio, E.; Sapienza, H.J.; Almeida, J.G. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 909–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hansen, J.A. Innovation, firm size, and firm age. Small Bus. Econ. Group 1992, 4, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  70. Slevin, D.P.; Covin, J.G. Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Prasad, B.; Junni, P. A contingency model of CEO characteristics and firm innovativeness: The moderating role of organizational size. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 156–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, H.; Atuahene-Gima, K. The adoption of agency business activity, product innovation, and performance in Chinese technology ventures. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 469–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling [White Paper]. 2012. Available online: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  74. Kaasenbrood, M.; Zuiderwijk, A.; Janssen, M.; de Jong, M.; Bharosa, N. Exploring the factors influencing the adoption of open government data by private organisations. Int. J. Public Adm. Digit. Age 2015, 2, 75–92. [Google Scholar]
  75. Le, P.B. How transformational leadership facilitates radical and incremental innovation: The mediating role of individual psychological capital. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2020, 12, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Zeng, X. Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness? The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2011, 24, 282–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pieterse, A.N.; van Knippenberg, D.; Schippers, M.; Stam, D. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 609–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Riketta, M. Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bučiūnienė, I.; Škudienė, V. Impact of leadership styles on employees’ organizational commitment in lithuanian manufacturing companies. South East Eur. J. Econ. Bus. 2008, 3, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bycio, P.; Hackett, R.D.; Allen, J.S. Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 1995, 80, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lee, J. Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2005, 26, 655–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hughes, D.J.; Lee, A.; Tian, A.W.; Newman, A.; Legood, A. Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 2018, 29, 549–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 01219 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 01219 g001
Sustainability 15 01219 g002 550
Figure 2. Interaction effect of transformational leadership and OGD application stage on affective commitment.
Figure 2. Interaction effect of transformational leadership and OGD application stage on affective commitment.
Sustainability 15 01219 g002
Sustainability 15 01219 g003 550
Figure 3. Interaction effect of transactional leadership and OGD application stage on normative commitment.
Figure 3. Interaction effect of transactional leadership and OGD application stage on normative commitment.
Sustainability 15 01219 g003
Table
Table 1. Sample demographics.
Table 1. Sample demographics.
ItemsNumber (N = 239)Percentage (%)
Gender
Male14259.41%
Female9740.59%
Age
<25 years93.77%
26–35 years15163.18%
36–45 years6928.87%
>45 years104.18%
Education Level
Senior high school or below10.42%
Bachelor’s degree18175.73%
Master’s degree or above5723.85%
Position Level
Senior level8033.47%
Middle level15966.53%
Role in the OGD-Driven Innovation
R&D9841%
Sales4820.08%
Administration9338.91%
Source: authors’ calculations.
Table
Table 2. Reliability and validity.
Table 2. Reliability and validity.
MeasureSample ItemLoadingCronbach’s
Alpha		Composite
Reliability		Average Variance Extracted
Transformational LeadershipTFL10.750.890.900.56
TFL20.72
TFL30.72
TFL40.73
TFL50.74
TFL60.80
TFL70.76
Transactional LeadershipTAL10.650.870.890.54
TAL20.68
TAL30.70
TAL40.74
TAL50.79
TAL60.83
TAL70.75
Affective CommitmentAC10.740.910.910.63
AC20.81
AC30.78
AC40.78
AC50.82
AC60.82
Normative CommitmentNC10.660.860.890.57
NC20.74
NC30.84
NC40.76
NC50.79
NC60.74
OGD-Driven Radical InnovationOGD_RI10.740.910.810.52
OGD_RI20.72
OGD_RI30.73
OGD_RI40.68
OGD-Driven Incremental InnovationOGD_II10.810.900.900.68
OGD_II20.81
OGD_II30.81
OGD_II40.87
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations and square root of AVE.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations and square root of AVE.
VariableMSD1234567
1. TFL5.770.77 1 (0.75)
2. TAL4.680.81 0.24 **1 (0.73)
3. AC5.550.90 0.37 **0.15 *1 (0.79)
4. NC5.040.88 −0.010.17 **−0.011 (0.75)
5. OGD_RI5.710.82 0.47 **0.24 **0.67 **0.121 (0.72)
6. OGD_II4.620.93 0.080.30 **0.17 *0.42 **0.25 **1 (0.82)
7. OGD_AS0.490.50 0.020.08−0.070.36 **−0.010.28 **1
Notes: The values in parentheses are the square root of AVE. N = 239. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation. TFL = Transformational leadership, TAL = Transactional leadership, AC = Affective commitment, NC = Normative commitment, OGD_RI = OGD-driven radical innovation, OGD_II = OGD-driven incremental innovation, OGD_AS = OGD application stage. For the OGD application stage, 0 = Initial stage of OGD application, 1 = Mature stage of OGD application. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Mediated moderation model analysis with affective commitment as a mediator.
Table 4. Mediated moderation model analysis with affective commitment as a mediator.
VariablesDV = Affective CommitmentDV = OGD-Driven Radical Innovation
BSEBSE
(Constant)2.53 **0.652.55 **0.54
Firm’s age−0.120.07−0.010.05
Firm’s size0.130.08−0.050.07
Know0.050.13−0.070.10
Industry−0.040.10−0.110.08
Hostility0.030.04−0.010.03
Capacity0.47 **0.090.27**0.08
Sample’s age0.120.07−0.080.05
Province−0.090.10−0.070.07
TFL0.19 *0.090.20 **0.07
OGD_AS−0.24 *0.11
TFL × OGD_AS−0.53 **0.17
AC 0.43 **0.08
R^20. 39 **0.56 **
Notes: DV = Dependent Variable. TFL = Transformational leadership, OGD_AS = OGD application stage, AC = Affective commitment. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Mediated moderation model analysis with normative commitment as a mediator.
Table 5. Mediated moderation model analysis with normative commitment as a mediator.
VariablesDV = Normative CommitmentDV = OGD-Driven Incremental Innovation
BSEBSE
(Constant)4.40 **0.711.47 *0.72
Firm’s age0.030.070.070.07
Firm’s size0.000.10−0.070.08
Know−0.230.140.040.14
Industry−0.040.12−0.020.11
Hostility0.010.040.070.05
Capacity0.070.080.18 *0.08
Sample’s age0.130.09−0.090.10
Province0.030.110.160.11
TAL0.17 *0.080.22 *0.08
OGD_AS0.56 **0.12
TAL × OGD_AS0.37 *0.14
NC 0.39 **0.07
R^20.20 **0.28 **
Notes: DV = Dependent Variable. TAL = Transactional leadership, OGD_AS = OGD application stage, NC = Normative commitment. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 6. Conditional indirect effect of leadership on OGD-driven innovation.
Table 6. Conditional indirect effect of leadership on OGD-driven innovation.
Indirect effect of TFL ×
OGD_AS on OGD_ RI via OC		Indirect effect of TAL ×
OGD_AS on OGD_II via OC
MOGD_ASEffectSEBoot LLCIBoot ULCIEffectSEBoot LLCIBoot ULCI
ACInitial Stage0.200.040.120.290.010.02−0.010.06
Mature Stage−0.030.07−0.190.08−0.000.01−0.060.01
NCInitial Stage0.000.01−0.010.04−0.000.04−0.080.07
Mature Stage−0.020.02−0.080.010.140.050.060.26
Notes: M = Mediator, TFL = Transformational leadership, TAL = Transactional leadership, OGD_AS = OGD application stage, AC = Affective commitment, NC = Normative commitment, OC = Organizational commitment, OGD_RI = OGD-driven radical innovation, OGD_II = OGD-driven incremental innovation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, M.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Li, M.; Li, G. How Leadership Influences Open Government Data (OGD)-Driven Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021219

AMA Style

Zhou M, Wang Y, Jiang H, Li M, Li G. How Leadership Influences Open Government Data (OGD)-Driven Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021219

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Mingle, Yu Wang, Hui Jiang, Min Li, and Gang Li. 2023. "How Leadership Influences Open Government Data (OGD)-Driven Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021219

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop