Hybrid organizations, characterized by their multifaceted governance structures and overlapping institutional logics, present a unique challenge for fostering innovation. A recent study delves into the dynamics of coordinated innovation within such complex environments, specifically examining an apprenticeship system jointly managed by educational institutions and enterprises. The research, conducted among 2,156 apprentices at Geely, a prominent automotive enterprise, reveals that transformational leadership and organizational identification play crucial roles in driving both managerial and technological advancements, albeit with distinct patterns of influence. The proliferation of hybrid organizations, from university-industry partnerships to public-private service delivery models, is a hallmark of contemporary economies. These collaborations are often lauded as fertile ground for innovation, bringing together diverse expertise and resources. However, they frequently grapple with inherent coordination problems stemming from fragmented authority, conflicting role expectations, and a plurality of institutional norms. This research seeks to unravel how effective innovation can emerge despite these structural complexities, moving beyond macro-level governance to explore micro-level processes driven by leadership and employee identification. Background: The Challenge of Hybridity in Innovation Hybrid organizations are defined by their unique organizational forms, often spanning traditional boundaries between sectors, institutions, or professional domains. In these settings, actors are embedded in multiple institutional logics—the guiding principles and norms of different fields—which can create ambiguity and tension. For instance, an apprenticeship program co-governed by a vocational college and a manufacturing firm means apprentices are simultaneously students and employees, subject to educational standards and workplace demands. This dual embeddedness is a fertile ground for innovation, as it fosters the cross-pollination of ideas and skills. Yet, it also creates significant coordination hurdles. When authority is dispersed across different governing bodies (e.g., university departments and corporate management), and when individuals navigate multiple, potentially conflicting, identities (e.g., learner, technician, company employee), aligning efforts toward a common innovation goal becomes a substantial undertaking. Prior research has often focused on the structural and institutional design of hybrid organizations, such as governance mechanisms and strategies for managing competing logics. While these approaches are vital for understanding the stability and architecture of hybrid forms, they often overlook the day-to-day relational processes through which innovation is enacted. This study posits that leadership, particularly transformational leadership, and the resultant organizational identification are critical, yet often under-examined, micro-level mechanisms that can bridge these structural divides and facilitate coordinated innovation. The Geely Apprenticeship System: A Case Study The study’s empirical focus is on Geely, a leading global automotive enterprise in China, which has actively engaged in industry-education integration through extensive apprenticeship programs. These programs are designed to cultivate skilled talent by combining theoretical education with practical, on-the-job training within the company. Geely’s initiative represents a large-scale, deeply integrated hybrid model, where vocational colleges and universities collaborate closely with the enterprise to shape curricula, training methodologies, and career pathways for apprentices. This context is particularly relevant because it embodies the core challenges of hybridity: shared governance, role asymmetry, and sustained interaction among individuals operating under distinct institutional logics. The Geely apprenticeship system, established through a phased approach over several years, exemplifies the evolving landscape of vocational training and workforce development in innovation-intensive industries. By partnering with over 300 educational institutions, Geely has created a mature ecosystem where apprentices are immersed in both academic learning and the dynamic environment of a cutting-edge automotive manufacturer. This dual exposure makes them uniquely positioned to observe and contribute to innovation, but also places them at the nexus of potentially competing expectations. Leadership as a Catalyst for Shared Identity and Innovation The research proposes a model where transformational leadership acts not just as a direct driver of innovation, but also indirectly by fostering organizational identification. Transformational leaders, through their ability to articulate an inspiring vision, provide intellectual stimulation, and offer individualized consideration, can shape followers’ sense of belonging and commitment to the organization. This is particularly crucial in hybrid settings where individuals may feel pulled in different directions by their affiliations with educational and enterprise domains. Social identity theory, a cornerstone of the study, explains that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. In the context of a hybrid organization, this means an apprentice’s identity can be influenced by their affiliation with their vocational college, their specific professional role within Geely, and the broader enterprise identity. Transformational leaders can help integrate these fragmented identities by emphasizing a common purpose and shared organizational values that transcend specific roles or institutional affiliations. This process of "identity integration" can reduce ambiguity and foster a cohesive sense of "we-ness," which is vital for coordinated action. The study’s findings strongly support this theoretical linkage. Transformational leadership was found to be positively and significantly associated with organizational identification among apprentices. This suggests that leaders who effectively inspire, motivate, and consider their apprentices individually contribute to a stronger sense of belonging and alignment with the enterprise. This enhanced identification, in turn, was found to be a key mediator in the relationship between leadership and innovation. Organizational Identification: A Coordination Infrastructure Beyond mere psychological attachment, organizational identification in hybrid organizations serves as a critical "coordination infrastructure." When apprentices strongly identify with Geely, they are more likely to prioritize collective goals, engage in discretionary effort, and collaborate across functional and institutional boundaries. This shared identity helps to overcome the challenges posed by fragmented authority and pluralistic role expectations. It creates a common ground for understanding organizational objectives and a willingness to contribute to shared innovation efforts. The research indicates that organizational identification is a robust predictor of both managerial and technological innovation. Apprentices who feel a stronger sense of oneness with Geely are more likely to contribute to improvements in management practices, administrative processes, and the adoption or development of new technologies and products. This underscores the critical role of fostering a strong, shared organizational identity as a strategic imperative for hybrid organizations aiming for innovation. Differentiating Managerial and Technological Innovation A key nuance of the study lies in its differentiation between managerial and technological innovation. While both are crucial for organizational success, they possess distinct coordination demands. Managerial innovation typically involves changes to organizational structures, processes, and management practices, often initiated and driven by leadership. Technological innovation, on the other hand, frequently requires greater cross-functional collaboration, experimentation, and knowledge sharing, making it more dependent on the collective engagement and shared understanding fostered by organizational identification. The findings reveal that organizational identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation more strongly for technological innovation than for managerial innovation. This suggests that for cutting-edge technological advancements, which demand sustained collaborative problem-solving and risk-taking, a strong shared identity is particularly vital. It helps to bridge the gaps between different institutional logics and professional perspectives that apprentices might embody, facilitating the integration of diverse ideas. Conversely, the direct association between transformational leadership and innovation is found to be stronger for managerial innovation. This implies that leaders can more directly influence changes in administrative practices and organizational routines, perhaps through clear directives, policy changes, or role modeling, even within the complex hybrid structure. This distinction highlights that while leadership is foundational for both types of innovation, the mechanisms through which it operates can differ. For technological innovation, the path is more indirect, relying heavily on the fertile ground of shared identification. For managerial innovation, a more direct leadership influence appears prominent. Implications for Practice and Future Research The study’s findings offer significant practical implications for organizations operating in hybrid environments, especially those reliant on collaborative models like apprenticeships. Leaders in these settings must recognize that their influence extends beyond direct control; they are crucial architects of shared meaning and identity. Investing in leadership development programs that focus on sensemaking, vision articulation, and fostering a collective identity can be instrumental in unlocking innovation potential. Managers and supervisors need to be equipped with the skills to bridge institutional divides and cultivate a unified sense of purpose among individuals who may have multiple affiliations. Furthermore, organizations should tailor their innovation strategies to the specific demands of different innovation domains. For technological advancements, fostering organizational identification through team-building initiatives, cross-functional projects, and open communication channels should be prioritized. For managerial innovations, while leadership can exert a more direct influence, ensuring that these changes are communicated effectively and integrated into the broader organizational identity remains important. The study acknowledges limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which precludes definitive causal claims, and its reliance on self-reported data. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to track the evolution of leadership influence, identification, and innovation over time. Incorporating multi-source data, such as feedback from mentors and educational institution representatives, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play. Additionally, comparative studies across different national and sectoral contexts would help determine the generalizability of these identity-based mechanisms in hybrid organizations. Conclusion This research provides compelling evidence that in hybrid organizations, coordinated innovation is deeply intertwined with leadership’s ability to foster organizational identification. In the complex landscape of apprenticeship systems, where fragmented authority and plural identities are the norm, transformational leadership acts as a critical enabler by constructing shared meaning and a cohesive organizational identity. This, in turn, drives both managerial and technological innovation, with identification playing a particularly crucial role in the success of technological advancements. As hybrid organizational forms continue to shape industries and economies, understanding these identity-based mechanisms is paramount for unlocking their full innovative potential. The study underscores that effective leadership in these settings is not just about directing tasks, but about building a shared sense of purpose that transcends institutional boundaries and unites diverse actors towards common goals. Post navigation How university physical education instructors’ political literacy shapes student values: the mediating role of teacher educative efficacy in the Chinese context Comparative analysis of psychological competitive abilities in South Korean, Chinese, and Japanese youth soccer players.
