Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences

Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem

“…We considered constructs more frequently associated with Western thinking, including tolerance for ambiguity (Lorsch & Morse, 1974), need for closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), integrative complexity (Tetlock et al, 1993), and preference for consistency (Cialdini et al, 1995). We also considered constructs more often associated with Eastern thinking, including tolerance of contradictions (Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2001), attitude toward contradictions (Choi et al, 2007), and a self-rated version of the paradoxical leadership scale developed among Chinese participants (Zhang et al, 2015). In addition, we examined correlations with openness to experience from the Big 5 (Saucier, 1994).…”

“…They contended that individuals who view tensions as paradoxes rather than either/or dilemmas gain a deeper understanding of opposing elements and seek more integrative solutions. Accumulating empirical studies, however, have focused on investigating the nature of and responses to these tensions at the organizational level (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) and among senior leadership (Smith, 2014;Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015). Although this work offers valued insights at the macro-level, we know little about individual variations among employees within the organization (Schad, et al, 2016).…”

Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development

“…For instance, by exploring the microfoundations of paradox, researchers have started to leverage experimental methods to establish and test scales (Keller, Loewenstein, and Yan, 2017;Miron-Spektor et al, 2018;Zhang et al, 2015). Future research could use case vignettes to complement the scales' insights.…”

Antecedents and outcomes of breadth and depth of absorptive capacity: An empirical study

“…Before the regression analysis, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis to ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs (Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015;Wang, Yin, & Huang, 2016). According to Zhang et al (2015), we split the sample into subsamples: subsample 1 (data from 109 firms) and subsample 2 (data from 109 firms).…”

“…According to Zhang et al (2015), we split the sample into subsamples: subsample 1 (data from 109 firms) and subsample 2 (data from 109 firms). We performed factor analyses using all multi-item scales and retained items for each theoretical construct according to the following criteria (Nerur, Rasheed, & Natarajan, 2008): (1) the item must load to the correct theoretical construct and the factor loading for the item must be >0.4, and (2) no double loadings (the item loaded to two constructs with factor loadings >0.4).…”