Does Paradoxical Leadership Facilitate Leaders’ Task Performance? A Perspective of Self-Regulation Theory

Abstract

As an emerging Chinese indigenous leadership style, paradoxical leadership has received considerable attention from researchers. Many studies have demonstrated the positive impact of paradoxical leadership on employees, teams, and organizations; however, there is less information on how paradoxical leaders influence their own work outcomes. On the basis of self-regulation theory, in this study, we examined the impact of paradoxical leadership on leaders’ task performance. In addition, we investigated the mediating effects of job crafting and career resilience on this relationship. Through a survey of 120 leaders and 271 of their immediate followers, our empirical analysis found the following: (1) paradoxical leadership was positively related to leaders’ task performance, (2) job crafting mediated the relationship between paradoxical leadership and leaders’ task performance, and (3) career resilience positively moderated the relationship between paradoxical leadership and job crafting, and had an indirect effect on task performance through job crafting. Our model offers novel insights into the paradoxical leadership literature and implications for improving leaders’ job crafting and task performance.

Paradoxical leader behavior and leader effectiveness: moderating role of structural and job-related uncertainty

“…The study contributes to the research in several ways. First, as stated, there is abundant research that has looked at the positive side of paradoxical leadership (Chen et al , 2021; Li et al , 2018; Sparr et al , 2022; Zhang et al , 2021; Zhang and Han, 2019; Zheng et al , 2018). Similarly, some recent research also looks at the drawbacks of the paradoxical leadership on the leader (Bashir, 2021; Julmi, 2021; Shao et al , 2019) as well as the followers (Ishaq et al , 2021; She et al , 2020; Yang et al , 2021; Zhang et al , 2022).…”

The lens of Yin-Yang philosophy: the influence of paradoxical leadership and emotional intelligence on nurses’ organizational identification and turnover intention

“…As shown in Appendices 1 and 2, the coefficients of R 2 and △R 2 values are all statistically significant, and then it reveals evidence of sensitivity (see Appendix 1 and 2) (Christopher Frey and Patil, 2002). Following previous research studies, all items across five dimensions form an overall measurement and provide a comprehensive view of paradoxical leadership for subsequent analyses (Zhang et al , 2015; Li et al , 2018; She et al , 2020; Xue et al , 2020; Chen et al , 2021). Thus, all dimensions of sources regarding nurses’ perceptions of paradoxical leadership in the workplace were noted.…”

Someone Must be Mindful: Trait Mindfulness as a Boundary Condition for Paradoxical Leader Behaviors

“…Since leaders face contradictory and competing demands (Clegg et al, 2002), PLB is argued to be beneficial for organizations and employes. Leaders engaging in paradoxical behaviors can fulfill conflicting organizational needs and address the followers’ individual needs at the same time (Chen et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2015). As beneficiaries of leader paradoxical behaviors, it has been shown that followers are motivated to work more proficiently and proactively (Fürstenberg et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2015), give more voice (Li et al, 2020), and demonstrate more ambidextrous behaviors (i.e., both exploration and exploitation) at work (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Klonek et al, 2021).…”

“…Second, when developing PLB theory, Zhang et al (2015) cautioned about the potential boundaries of the functioning of PLB. Empirical investigations to date have mainly focused on follower characteristics as boundary conditions (for an exception, see Chen et al, 2021). For example, Ishaq et al (2021) found that followers' psychological capital reinforced the positive relationship between PLB and follower performance.…”