Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agile Leadership and Bootlegging Behavior: Does Leadership Coping Dynamics Matter?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Agile Coping in the Digital Workplace

Abstract

Considering the rapid pace of change in the digital economy, agile leadership is undeniably crucial for organizational sustainability. Within this modern business context, the critical contribution of subordinates is equally pertinent to enhance organizational competitiveness and innovation. However, whether employee underground efforts, known as bootlegging behavior, are instrumental to positive innovative objectives remains a controversial issue. Extant literature fails to account for how agile leadership impacts employees’ bootlegging behavior through the mechanisms of leadership coping dynamics. Therefore, expanding prior research, this conceptual paper aims to provide a framework through which to understand the influence of agile leadership and leadership coping dynamics on bootlegging behavior. The aim of this paper is to propose an integrative framework illustrating the linkage between agile leadership and bootlegging behavior with leadership coping dynamics as the mediator. This paper contributes to entrepreneurial behavior management by giving an insight of the significance of agile leadership and leadership coping dynamics in fostering positive outcomes of bootlegging behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Åberg, C., Kazemargi, N., & Bankewitz, M. (2017). Strategists on the board in a digital era. Business and Management Research, 6(2), 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aberg, C. and Shen, W. (2020). Can board leadership contribute to board dynamic managerial capabilities? An empirical exploration among Norwegian firms. Journal of Management and Governance, 24(1), 169–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, S. H., Calla, R., Desautels, D., & Hasan, L. N. (2017). The challenges of organizational agility: Part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(2), 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy, 34(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augsdorfer, P. (2008). Managing the unmanageable. Research-Technology Management, 51(4), 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augsdorfer, P. (2012). A diagnostic personality test to identify likely corporate bootleg researchers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aylett, R.S., Louchart, S., Dias, J., Paiva, A., and Vala, M. (2005). FearNot! – An experiment in emergent narrative. International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R., & Grove, A. S. (2007). Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos – Repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 965–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, R., & Weidner, G. (2020). A qualitative investigation on combined effects of distant leadership, organizational agility and digital collaboration on perceived employee engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(4), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerne, M., Hernaus, T., & Skerlavaj, M. (2017). Actual-wanted task identity incongruence and innovative work behavior: The moderated polynomial regression effects of creative bootlegging. AOM Conference, 4–8 August, Atlanta, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Going underground: Bootlegging and innovative performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1287–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Smet, A., Lurie, M., & St. George, A. (2018). Leading agile transformation: The new capabilities leaders need to build 21st-century organizations. McKinsey & Company. October 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, R., & Deflem, M. (2003). Anomie and strain: Context and consequences of Merton’s two theories. Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 471–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 21(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Globocnik, D. (2019). Taking or avoiding risk through secret innovation activities – The relationships among employees’ risk propensity, bootlegging, and management support. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M.F. (2020). How businesses have successfully pivoted during the pandemic. Harvard Business Review, July 07 2020. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/amp/2020/07/how-businesses-have-successfully-pivoted-during-the-pandemic

  • Hamenoo, S. V. Q., Adjei, P. O. W., & Obodai, J. (2018). Households’ coping dynamics in response to large-scale land acquisition for jatropha plantations: Evidence from Asante Akim North district of Ghana. Global Social Welfare, 5(4), 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, N., and O’Shea T. (2009). Matrix organizations: Design for collaboration and agility. Agility Consulting & Training. Retrieved from: http://agilityconsulting.com/resources/Agility%20Org/Matrix%20Organizations.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2020.

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R., Kinder, A., & Cooper, C. L. (2019). The wellbeing workout: How to manage stress and develop resilience. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joiner, B. (2019). Leadership agility for organizational agility. Journal of Creating Value, 5(2), 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Developing agile leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (2000). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The social science view (pp. 167–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. E. (1967). A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 478–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, R., & Leitner, K. H. (2008). The dynamics and functions of self-organization in the fuzzy front end: Empirical evidence from the Austrian semiconductor industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thomke, S., & Worline, M. (2004). The mixed effects of inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15(3), 310–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, M. (2015). The age of agile leadership. Retrieved from www.CLOmedia.com. Accessed 20 June 2020.

  • Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2006). Information system development agility as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. (2013). The case for stealth innovation. Harvard Business Review, 91(3), 90–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, R., Tarling, A., & Wade, M. (2017). Redefining leadership for a digital age (pp. 1–28). IMD International Institute for Management Development (Global Center for Digital Business Transformation) and metaBeratung GmbH. Available at https://www.imd.org/contentassets/25fdd7355de14eb3a157d3b712222ef1/redefining-leadership.

  • OI Global Partners (2018). Future of work: OIGP Global Research Study 2018. Retrieved from https://innovateicc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/future-of-work-updated-1.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2020.

  • Parker, D. W., Holesgrove, M., & Pathak, R. (2015). Improving productivity with self-organised teams and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(1), 112–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkin, N., & Abraham, P. (2017). Building the agile business through digital transformation. New York: Kogan Page Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008). An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Information and Software Technology, 50(4), 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I. J. (2013). Appraisal in the emotion system: Coherence in strategies for coping. Emotion Review, 5, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakhdari, K., & Bidakhavidi, E. J. (2016). Underground innovation: How to encourage bootlegging employees to disclose their good ideas. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenmakers, E. C., van Tilburg, T. G., & Fokkema, T. (2015). Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping options and loneliness: How are they related? European Journal of Ageing, 12(2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D., & Yeung, A. (2019). Agility: The new response to dynamic change. Strategic HR Review, 18(4), 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brande, W., Baillien, E., Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., & Godderis, L. (2019). Coping styles and coping resources in the work stressors-workplace bullying relationship: A two-wave study, Work & Stress. An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678373.2019.1666433?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=twst20.

  • Wiraeus, D., & Creelman, J. (2019). Agile strategy management in the digital age: How dynamic balanced scorecards transform decision making, speed and effectiveness. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidner, M., & Endler, N. S. (1996). Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, College of Management, Christian University, Chang Jung, Taiwan

    Lai Wan Hooi

  2. Faculty of International Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages – Information Technology, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam

    Nguyen Nhat Tan

Authors
  1. Lai Wan Hooi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nguyen Nhat Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lai Wan Hooi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Resource Management, University of South Africa, Gauteng, South Africa

    Nadia Ferreira  & Ingrid L. Potgieter  & 

  2. Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Gauteng, South Africa

    Melinde Coetzee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hooi, L.W., Tan, N.N. (2021). Agile Leadership and Bootlegging Behavior: Does Leadership Coping Dynamics Matter?. In: Ferreira, N., Potgieter, I.L., Coetzee, M. (eds) Agile Coping in the Digital Workplace. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70228-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation