Top

Journal of Business and Psychology

Published in:

08-08-2023 | Original Paper

Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange

Authors: Ning Yang, Hui Chen, Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang

Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Issue 3/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Creative deviance is a creative activity that an individual privately engages in that has the contradictory characteristics of high risk and high reward. Drawing on social learning theory, the authors examine the impact of paradoxical leadership behavior (PLB) on employee creative deviance through two studies. Study 1 was a preliminary test of the hypotheses. Study 2 repeated the findings of Study 1 to verify the reliability of the findings. The results showed that PLB was positively related to employee creative deviance and that employee paradox mindset mediated the positive relationship between PLB and creative deviance. Furthermore, leader–member exchange (LMX) moderated the effect of PLB on a paradox mindset and the mediation effect of a paradox mindset, such that the two effects were stronger when LMX was high. The implications and limitations of our research are discussed.

previous article Fiends and Fools: A Narrative Review and Neo-socioanalytic Perspective on Personality and Insider Threats

next article Determining the Hierarchical Structure and Nature of Servant Leadership

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Two PLB dimensions, maintaining both distance and closeness (DC) and treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization (UI), may have conceptual overlaps with LMX. Thus, we conducted additional CFAs test if LMX is distinctive from the DC and UI subscales. The results showed that, in both studies, the three-factor model (LMX, DC, UI) fit the data significantly better than the other alterative models. Study 1: the three-factor model (χ² = 398.878, df = 186, χ² / df = 2.10, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06) fit the data better than the two-factor model A (LMX + DC vs. UI) (Δχ² = 67.67, p < 0.001), the two-factor model B (LMX + UI vs. DC) (Δχ² = 61.62, p< 0.001), and one-factor model (LMX + DC + UI) (Δχ² = 90.46, p< 0.001). Study 2: the three-factor model (χ² = 436.23, df = 186, χ² / df = 2.35, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06 fit the data better than the two-factor model A (LMX + DC, UI) (Δχ² = 161.33, p < 0.001), the two-factor model B (LMX + UI, DC) (Δχ² = 295.947, p < 0.001), and one-factor model (LMX + DC + UI) (Δχ² = 381.194, p < 0.001).

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.631648.CrossRef

Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy, 34(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010.CrossRef

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470.CrossRef

Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Liu, J. T. (2017). Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(12), 1869–1901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1308414.CrossRef

Bai, Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., & Li, F. (2019). Learning from supervisor negative gossip: The reflective learning process and performance outcome of employee receivers. Human Relations, 73(12), 1689–1717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719866250.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.CrossRefPubMed

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory (1 vol.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socialcognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053.CrossRef

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.CrossRef

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.CrossRef

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654.CrossRef

Chen, S., Zhang, Y., Liang, L., & Shen, T. (2021). Does paradoxical leadership facilitate leaders’ task performance? A perspective of self-regulation theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073505.CrossRef

Cheng, M. W., Leung, M. L., & Lau, J. C. H. (2021). A review of growth mindset intervention in higher education: The case for infographics in cultivating mindset behaviors. Social Psychology of Education, 24(5), 1335–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09660-9.CrossRef

Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201.

Dai, Y. D., Zhuang, W. L., Yang, P. K., Wang, Y. J., & Huan, T. C. (2020). Exploring hotel employees’ regulatory foci and voice behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2020-0211.CrossRef

Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1980.4288758.CrossRef

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242.CrossRef

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.CrossRef

Fürstenberg, N., Alfes, K., & Kearney, E. (2021). How and when paradoxical leadership benefits work engagement: The role of goal clarity and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(3), 672–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12344.CrossRef

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0485.CrossRef

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.CrossRef

Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00051-4.CrossRef

Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12215.CrossRef

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025217.CrossRefPubMed

Han, G. H., & Bai, Y. (2020). Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(5), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-02-2019-0106.CrossRef

Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2016). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640843.CrossRef

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.311.CrossRefPubMed

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/26670.CrossRef

Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2022). The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(10), 1706–1724. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000980.CrossRefPubMed

Kang, D., & Stewart, J. (2007). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(6), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710780976.CrossRef

Kark, R., Preser, R., & Zion-Waldoks, T. (2016). From a politics of dilemmas to a politics of paradoxes. Journal of Management Education, 40(3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916634375.CrossRef

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Benefits of transformational behaviors for leaders: A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000052.CrossRefPubMed

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712.CrossRef

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322.CrossRef

Lian, H., Huai, M., Farh, J. L., Huang, J. C., Lee, C., & Chao, M. (2022). Leader unethical pro-organizational behavior and employee unethical conduct: Social learning of moral disengagement as a behavioral principle. Journal of Management, 48(2), 350–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320959699.CrossRef

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1.CrossRef

Lin, B., Mainemelis, C., & Kark, R. (2016). Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.001.CrossRef

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1.CrossRef

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu, F., & Zhou, K. (2021). Idiosyncratic deals and creative deviance: The mediating role of psychological entitlement. R & D Management, 51(5), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12430.CrossRef

Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and job performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships and traditionality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 564–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12027.CrossRef

Liu, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C. H., Shi, J., Zhou, L., & Shao, R. (2015). Work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038387.CrossRefPubMed

Liu, Y. J., Xu, S. Y., & Zhang, B. N. (2020). Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267.CrossRef

Liu, Z., Pan, X., & Zhu, T. (2021). Status-striving orientation, creative deviance engagement and employee creativity: Perspective of structural strain. Chinese Management Studies, 15(4), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-09-2020-0413.CrossRef

Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x.CrossRef

Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. (2009). Linking leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00149.x.CrossRef

Lomranz, J., & Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence: Aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. Journal of Adult Development, 23(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4.CrossRef

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sense making: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217.CrossRef

Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok558.CrossRef

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954.CrossRef

Martinaityte, I., & Sacramento, C. A. (2013). When creativity enhances sales effectiveness: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 974–994. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.CrossRef

Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.697.CrossRefPubMed

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002.CrossRef

McCornack, R. L. (1956). A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40(5), 343–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045635.CrossRef

Michel, J. W., & Tews, M. J. (2016). Does leader–member exchange accentuate the relationship between leader behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815606429.CrossRef

Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006.CrossRef

Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594.CrossRef

Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How environments lay theories shape people’s cognition, affect and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209347380.CrossRefPubMed

Muthén, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323217.CrossRef

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786079.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefPubMed

Qin, X., Huang, M., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325.CrossRef

Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior. Human Relations, 66(7), 951–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713481633.CrossRef

Rigotti, T., Korek, S., & Otto, K. (2020). Career-related self-efficacy, its antecedents and relationship to subjective career success in a cross-lagged panel study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(20), 2645–2672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1460858.CrossRef

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422.CrossRef

Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008.CrossRef

Shukla, J., & Kark, R. (2020). Now you do it, now you don’t: The mixed blessing of creative deviance as a prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sleesman, D. J. (2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.008.CrossRef

Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2017). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826.CrossRef

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223.CrossRef

Song, D., Liu, H., Gu, J., & He, C. (2018). Collectivism and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12253.CrossRef

Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1194–1208. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478645.CrossRef

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Knippenberg, D., & Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2449.CrossRef

Tenzer, H., & Yang, P. (2019). Personality, values, or attitudes? Individual-level antecedents to creative deviance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2), 1950009. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919619500099.CrossRef

Tenzer, H., & Yang, P. (2020). The impact of organizational support and individual achievement orientation on creative deviance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 2050020. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500206.CrossRef

Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90056-3.CrossRef

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.711.CrossRef

Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090.CrossRef

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067.CrossRef

Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2059.CrossRef

Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000063.CrossRefPubMed

Xue, Y., Li, X., Liang, H., & Li, Y. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect employees’ voice behaviors in workplace? A leader-member exchange perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 806–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022464.CrossRefPubMed

Yang, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle manager leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 654–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00902.x.CrossRef

Yang, Y. F., Lee, P. K. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2017). Leveraging selected operational improvement practices to achieve both efficiency and creativity: A multi-level study in frontline service operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 191, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.023.CrossRef

Yin, J. (2023). Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: The mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning. Current Psychology, 42, 2708–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01597-8.CrossRef

Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007.CrossRef

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.CrossRef

Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001.CrossRef

Title: Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange
Authors: Ning Yang
Hui Chen
Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang
Publication date: 08-08-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Electronic ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

Understanding Coping at Work During Socio-Environmental Jolts: A Person-Centered Investigation

Is It #okaytosay I Have Anxiety and Depression? Evaluations of Job Applicants Who Disclose Mental Health Problems on LinkedIn

Early Career Nurses' Need Fulfillment Profiles: A Longitudinal Person-Centered Perspective on their Nature, Stability, Determinants and Consequences

Correction to: Is It #okaytosay I Have Anxiety and Depression? Evaluations of Job Applicants Who Disclose Mental Health Problems on LinkedIn

Representation Matters: Review and Examination of Demographic Matching Effects on Organizational Outcomes

Determining the Hierarchical Structure and Nature of Servant Leadership