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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
References
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.
Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy, 34(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71972015 & 71472179) awarded to Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang.
Additional supplementary materials may be found here by searching on article title https://osf.io/collections/jbp/discover.
Appendix
Appendix
To further examine the relationship between PLB and employee paradox mindset, we conducted a cross-lagged panel study, in order to show that the direction of the effect is from PLB to paradox mindset, not vice versa. The panel design can simultaneously test possible bidirectional effects between PLB and paradox mindset. In our panel design, the same participants were asked to complete the same measures (i.e., PLB and paradox mindset) at two separate points in time. The results from a panel design provide a stronger test of the direction of effects between PLB and paradox mindset and thus help us unravel the puzzle of which variable leads to the other. Specifically, strong evidence would be provided for the predictive effect of PLB on a temporal change in paradox mindset if a significant effect was found between Time 1 PLB and Time 2 paradox mindset after T1 paradox mindset was controlled for (Bai et al., 2019; Rigotti et al., 2020).
We collected data from China with the assistance of Credamo. The participants were full-time employees of private companies. At T1, the participants were asked to report PLB and paradox mindset using the same scale items as in the two main studies. At T2 (two months after T1), the participants reported PLB and paradox mindset again. The reliability was very good for all the scales (T1 PLB α = 0.91; T2 PLB = 0.92; T1 paradoxical mindset α = 0.84; T2 paradoxical mindset α = 0.86). The final sample included 131 men and 118 women, with an average age of 32.34 years. Their average organizational tenure was 6.10 years, and their leader tenure was 4.02 years. In addition, 71% of the employees had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
As shown in the Table 5 below, the hierarchical linear regression results showed that T1 PLB was positively related to a temporal change in paradox mindset (B = 0.23, p < 0.01) when T1 paradox mindset was controlled for. More importantly, T1 paradox mindset was not significantly related to a temporal change in PLB (B = 0.08, p > 0.05) when T1 PLB was controlled for. These results suggested the leader’s PLB at T1 had a significant lagged effect on the employee’s paradox mindset, whereas employees’ paradox mindset at T1 did not result in a temporal change in their perception of leader PLB.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, N., Chen, H. & (Frank) Wang, XH. Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange. J Bus Psychol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x