Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate (a) impact of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior (PLB) on employee creativity, (b) the mediating roles of employee exploration and exploitation in the above mentioned relationship, and (c) the moderating role of employee mindfulness in influencing the mediation effects. Data were collected from 262 respondents using a questionnaire. Structural equation modeling was used and the results indicate that employees working under a paradoxical leadership show more creativity by engaging in explorative and exploitative work activities. However, employee’s mindfulness does not moderate the proposed relationship. Implications and limitation of the study have been discussed.

Keywords

paradoxical leader behavior employee creativity employee exploration employee exploitation

Introduction

A plethora of studies suggest that the paradoxical nature of organizational challenges (Berti & Simpson, 2019) require unconventional leadership style as traditional leadership behaviors have failed to provide meaningful solution to these challenges (Naim, 2021). It seems that studies will have to shift attention toward some novice leadership behaviors which specifically can handle organizational paradoxes (Shao et al., 2019). Among the emerging leadership styles, Paradoxical Leadership Behavior (PLB) provide a promising venue to face these challenges. Zhang et al. (2015) coined the term Paradoxical Leadership after getting inspired by Yin-Yang’s philosophy of unity of opposites. According to them, PLB may seem inconsistent and contradictory, but it achieves a balance by equally paying attention to the individual needs of employees and taking care of organizational growth and development. Paradoxical leadership is defined as a combination of opposing yet interlinked behaviors aimed at simultaneously fulfilling organizational demands and employee demands (Zhang et al., 2015). Paradoxical leaders engage in varying but interlinked behaviors such as: (a) practicing self-centeredness along with other-centeredness, (b) establishing a distant yet close relationship with employees, (c) considering employees equal while taking into account individualism as well, (d) imposing work tasks while giving flexibility as well, and (e) taking control of decisions while giving autonomy to employees as well (Zhang et al., 2015).

The PLB is known for keeping employees satisfied without compromising the organizational rules and policies (Franken et al., 2020). Studies have delineated Paradoxical Leadership theoretically and practically from similar leadership styles such as ambidextrous leadership and transformational leadership (Zhang et al., 2015) as ambidextrous leaders focus on enhancing employee’s exploitative and explorative behaviors (Alghamdi, 2018) while ignoring the organizational interests, which is an important component of PLB (Shao et al., 2019). Similarly, transformational leaders focus more on employee (Zhang et al., 2015). So, we can say that ambidextrous leadership involves exploitation and exploration; transformational leadership involves organizational growth through employee’s growth, and PLB involves people’s management through the fulfilment of employee’s demands and organizational policies (Zhang et al., 2015).

The extant literature on PLB is limited to obvious and relatively typical employee outcomes such as job performance, work engagement and employee’s voice behavior (Fürstenberg et al., 2021; She et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2020) while ignoring other equally important outcomes such as employee creativity. Employee creativity is defined as creation of unique products, services, procedures, ideas, and processes by employees that can contribute to organizational growth and development (Tierney et al., 1999).

Researchers agree that employee creativity has emerged as a crucial component for the survival and growth of organizations. Despite increased research interest in a leadership role in enhancing employee creativity, little is known about the relationship between PLB and employee creativity (Yang et al., 2021). According to meta-analyses conducted on employee creativity from time to time, there is still a need to identify those factors which promote employee creativity in the current organizations (Byron et al., 2010; Da Costa et al., 2015). The current study fills the theoretical gaps in the existing literature by investigating the role of PLB enhancing employee creativity.

We believe that the relation between PLB and employee creativity is not that simple; instead, it also involves underlying mechanisms. Multiple studies support our claim by identifying important workplace factors that explain the relationship between PLB and employee outcomes (Yang et al., 2021). Researchers have also highlighted the need to extend research on PLB by investigating unique underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions that come into play between PLB and employee outcomes (Fürstenberg et al., 2021; Shao et al., 2019; Xue et al., 2020).

This study is supported by social exchange theory (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964) as it is based on social behaviors, where both parties are mutually involved in these exchanges and expect value and reward from each other (Wan & Antonucci, 2016). In line with this theory, when leaders show flexibility in their behaviors and treat their employees paradoxically, they enable and create social bonds and motivate them to initiate and involve themselves in exploration and exploitation activities. Employees feel more encouraged, self-motivated to engage themselves with their leader and perform explorative and exploitative activities, leading to creativity. Employees’ emotional presence leading to creative work has also been supported with Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). With support from the social exchange theory, the current study aims to respond two important serious omissions in the literature. First, by incorporating the role of employees’ ambidexterity in the relationship between PLB and employee creativity, this study provides paradigm shift in thinking of researchers about what makes employees to show creativity, and secondly, using role of employee mindfulness as a boundary condition, this study sheds the light on what are the individual traits that further motivates the employees to show creativity.

To summarize, with support from the social exchange theory, the current study investigates the impact of PLB on employee creativity through the underlying mechanism of employee ambidexterity characterized by exploitative behavior and explorative behavior. This study further proposes that employee mindfulness strengthens the positive relationship between (i) PLB and employee exploitation and (ii) PLB and employee exploration.

Hypotheses Development

Overarching Theory

The current study used social exchange theory to support the proposed theoretical framework (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). Social exchange theory has emerged as one of the frequently used theories that better explain the mechanisms in action during interpersonal interactions (Zoller & Muldoon, 2018). This theory is based on the notion that social behavior results from a thought-provoking exchange process in which individuals engage in cost-benefit analysis and compare the alternatives before engaging in any behavior (Cook et al., 2013). According to this theory, individuals maintain an exchange relationship with each other in which they compare the cost and reward of reciprocating the behavior of others and act accordingly (Stafford & Kuiper, 2021). Individuals avoid behaviors that can cost them money, time, effort, or any other resource, whereas they prefer behaviors that can reward them in any monetary or non-monetary way. This means that individuals engage in positive behavior to reciprocate the positive behavior shown by the other person. Similarly, they engage in negative behavior if the other person has shown negative behavior toward them.

The social exchange theory claims that social behaviors result from the exchange process (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958), which is also an important part of our proposed theoretical framework. PLB consists of maintaining a balance between fulfilling the organization’s obligations and employee expectations simultaneously. Since leaders engage in diverse behaviors by taking care of employees and the organizations, employees tend to reciprocate this behavior by engaging in equally positive and equally diverse set of behaviors, namely exploitation and exploration. This is the result of an exchange process based on cost-benefit analysis. When paradoxical leaders take care of their employees and their organization, employees also feel the need to reciprocate this positive behavior in the form of exploitation and exploration. Like their leader, they go the extra miles to benefit the organization by exploiting existing resources and exploring new ways of doing things to benefit the organization, which ultimately benefits the organization in the form of increased creativity. An important component of social exchange theory is cost-benefit analysis and review of alternatives before displaying social behavior. This is where employee mindfulness comes into action. Employee mindfulness refers to attention toward current events without judgment. In other words, it involves a cost-benefit analysis. Those employees who are high in employee mindfulness are better able to understand that their leader is working for the benefit of the organization and employees. Attention to the present events and non-judgmental processing helps them display positive behavior and exchange the PLB.

Paradoxical Leader Behavior Is Linked With Employee Creativity

The research on PLB has highlighted its positive outcomes for employees (She et al., 2020). Paradoxical leaders are flexible in their actions, giving room to employees to share their views and opinions (Fürstenberg et al., 2021). Also, these leaders give employees autonomy, which can prove to help enhance employee creativity (Shao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021). Paradoxical leaders maintain their autonomy, but they are also willing to share their responsibility with employees (Zhang et al., 2015). This autonomy can help them in developing creativity (Yang et al., 2021). Paradoxical leaders bound employees to follow organizational rules, but they also show flexibility, which helps them think outside the box (Xue et al., 2020). Researchers believe that PLB are good at maintaining a distance from employees, but they show closeness when and where needed which is why employees perform properly under a PLB (Franken et al., 2020). We believe that Paradoxical leaders enhance employee creativity among employees by providing flexibility, autonomy, and individualized consideration. The Social Exchange Theory also supports this notion (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). This theory states that employees maintain an exchange relationship with the leader such that they reciprocate the positive behavior of their leader by displaying positive behavior in return. When a Paradoxical leader gives autonomy and flexibility, employees return that by showing creativity. PLB gives extra attention to organizational matters and employees’ issues, giving employees the message that they equally value their employees. As a result, employees reciprocate their leader’s positive behavior by showing a higher level of creativity. Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis1: There is a positive link between Paradoxical Leader Behavior and Employee Creativity.

Mediating Role of Employee Exploration and Employee Exploitation

Paradoxical leaders are known for displaying opposing but interrelated behaviors (Zhang et al., 2015). For instance, they enforce work requirements but also offer flexibility to employees. Similarly, they control decisions but also provide autonomy to employees. These contradictory but interrelated behaviors develop exploitative and explorative behavior among employees (Yi et al., 2019). Flexibility and autonomy enable employees to engage in explorative activities that involves experimentation and search (Papachroni & Heracleous, 2020). On the other hand, decision control and enforcing work requirements develop exploitative behavior among employees characterized by implementation and execution (Klonek et al., 2021). In other words, PLB simultaneously encourage exploitative and explorative behavior among employees in which they not only engage in routine job tasks expected of them but also show openness to experimentation and search (Zhaohui, 2018). The extant research also supports the notion that positive leadership styles promote employee ambidexterity in the form of exploitative and explorative behavior (Klonek et al., 2021; Papachroni & Heracleous, 2020; Yi et al., 2019; Zhaohui, 2018). PLB create a context where employees can balance between conflicting demands of exploration and exploitation (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008) as employees are the primary source of ambidexterity (Good & Michel, 2013) and origin of creativity.

Contextual ambidexterity has been defined by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) as the behavioral capacity of employees to demonstrate exploitative (meeting existing goals) and explorative (adaptability/flexibility) behaviors simultaneously. These behaviors reinforce each other, and employees engage in ambidextrous activities by balancing both (Caniëls & Veld, 2019). Structural ambidexterity refers to an organization’s structural separation of explorative and exploitative units where both are competing for diverse resources, have separate goals and demand a different set of skills (Caniëls & Veld, 2019; Junni et al., 2015). Temporal or Punctuated Equilibrium is the third dimension of ambidexterity which focuses on switching between exploitation and exploration activities. These are abrupt and short bumps of exploration and exploitation over a period of time. In this study, contextual ambidexterity is focused as it has been linked with individual efforts to keep balance, and its explorative content is linked with creativity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

Employee ambidexterity is associated with a wide range of positive employee outcomes (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2018). According to researchers, explorative and exploitative behavior promote innovation among employees (Caniëls & Veld, 2019; Rosing & Zacher, 2017). Exploration focuses on thinking outside the box, engaging in experiments, and looking for new ways of doing things that altogether increase creativity (Radomska & Wołczek, 2020). On the other hand, exploitation involves risk avoidance and rules following, encouraging employees to display creativity. To summarize, employee ambidexterity comprises exploration and exploitation, which promote employee creativity (Caniëls & Veld, 2019). Hence, we propose that PLB promotes Exploitative Employee Behavior and Employee Explorative Behavior, resulting in Employee Creativity. The Social Exchange Theory also supports this Mediation Hypothesis (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). According to this theory, employee reciprocates the positive behavior of leaders. When PLB provide flexibility, autonomy, and individual attention to employees, employees display ambidexterity in exchange, leading to creativity (Radomska & Wołczek, 2020; Yi et al., 2019; Zhaohui, 2018). Employee ambidexterity can contribute to giving solutions to the organizations’ dual challenges which lead to creativity. Ambidexterity requires paradoxical thinking (Junni et al., 2015); therefore, we can assume that PLB can create and foster Employee Exploration and Employee Exploitation.

According to this theory, individuals critically evaluate the positive behavior shown toward them and the benefits associated with that behavior as it helps them reciprocate the behavior shown toward them. Since Paradoxical leadership treats employees equally but considers individualization, takes control, gives autonomy, fulfils the organizational goals, and meets the expectations of employees, employees also reciprocate the paradoxical behavior of the leader by engaging in opposed yet interlinked positive behaviors in the form of exploration and exploitation. Exploration and exploitation are both positive behaviors because of an exchange process that binds employees to display positive behavior because of the positive behavior shown by Paradoxical leaders. They do not stop here; they further show creativity which is also a positive behavior. Exploration and exploitation help employees show positive behavior in the form of creativity in exchange for paradoxical behavior displayed by the leader. Displaying a higher level of creativity through exploration and exploitation is an employee’s way of reciprocating the positive behavior shown by paradoxical leaders.

H2: Paradoxical Leader Behavior enhances employee creativity through Employee Exploration.

H3: Paradoxical Leader Behavior enhances employee creativity through employee exploitation.

Moderating Role of Employee Mindfulness

In pursuance of paradox theory, leaders’ paradoxical behaviors may cause tensions and stress in employees, which can be controlled in the presence of Employee Mindfulness (Qu, Todorova, & Dasborough, 2018). Mindfulness helps keep employees focused, controlled and alert during their work and is linked with positive outcomes at organizational and individual levels (Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Mindful employees understand the reason behind the opposing behavior of Paradoxical leader (Zhaohui, 2018), which encourages them to engage in exploitative and explorative behavior. Mindful employees focus on the present and avoid biases and judgment (Raza et al., 2018), enabling them to view the PLB Behavior as beneficial. PLB and employee mindfulness boost employee ambidexterity through employee exploitation and exploration (Klonek et al., 2021).

Mindfulness reconstructs the environment, draw novel distinctions, and divert the mind to control and manipulate the situation consciously (Carson & Langer, 2006; Langer, 1989). Mindfulness gives employees exposure to new ideas and helps them think differently and helps increase the awareness of handling multiple perspectives (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000), that is, being ambidextrous. We believe that employees having a higher level of mindfulness are better able to focus on the positive behavior of Paradoxical leader without any judgment, which encourages them to reciprocate this positive behavior by engaging in exploration and exploitation in the form of experimentation, search, implementation, and execution (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958).

Social Exchange Theory states that social interactions are the outcome of the exchange process in which individuals do a cost-benefit analysis and evaluate the alternatives, which helps them engage in the beneficial behavior (Cook et al., 2013). Employee mindfulness involves cost-benefit analysis as it allows employees to focus on the current events, learn from others, and remain non-judgmental. Employee mindfulness acts as a third eye for the employees as it enables them to focus on the positive side of their leader without judging them. It makes employees realize that the leader’s paradoxical behavior is for the benefit of employees as these leaders equally give importance to their employees. This revelation promotes exploration and exploitation among employees to reciprocate the positive behavior of the leader. Hence, we propose:

H4: Employee mindfulness moderates the relation between PLB and employee exploration such that the relation is stronger when Employee Mindfulness is higher.

H5: Employee mindfulness moderates the relation between PLB and Employee exploitation such that the relation is stronger when employee mindfulness is higher.

Figure 1 shows theoretical framework for the study

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Methodology

Data Collection and Sample

The nature of this study was quantitative. We collected data from managers and directors (as leaders) and their subordinates in 2019. The unit of analysis for the current study was a dyad; questionnaires filled by mangers and subordinates both. The questionnaire for PLB, Employee Mindfulness, employee exploitation, and exploration was filled by the subordinates while questionnaire for employee creativity was filled by the managers. Permission was taken to fill out the questionnaires by visiting different public and private sector organizations (IT, R&D, Project, and banks). IT and service sectors were selected for data collection as due to employees working in these sectors always find a challenge to meeting the complex needs of customers, for this purpose, they needed to largely emphasize the larger part of their role on exploration and exploitation of new ideas to meeting the diverse needs.

The aim of the study was explained to the participants in detail, and the questionnaires were distributed personally by the researcher. Survey respondents were informed about the objectives of the study and assured of the confidentiality and applicability of the information. Initially, 300 questionnaires were distributed among 25 leaders to evaluate the creativity of their employees. Employees were approached individually to rate the paradoxical behavior of their leaders and their exploratory and exploitative activities and mindfulness. A total of 23 managers filled the questionnaires regarding employee creativity of 262 subordinates for the final analysis, as 262 responses were found complete in all respects. Each leader’s and employee’s response was associated with the assigned codes behind the questionnaires.

The sample consists of white-collar and blue-collar employees. The bilateral relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate was examined. Self-Reported Questionnaires were distributed. A Convenient Sampling Technique was used. Leaders/managers and employees who have served for 1 year or more were selected for the subject study. Employees with undergraduate/graduate qualifications were selected for the study. About 55% of the respondents were working in managerial positions and 45% in non-management positions. Other demographic features like age of the leader and employee (60% was between 40 and 50 years old), the gender of the leader (94% was male) and the gender of the employee (80% was male), the quality of the leader and employee (80% graduate), tenure in the industry (7–10 years—40%, 3–6 years—32%), and tenure with the leader (3–6 years vs. 54%, 1–2 years vs. 35%). Employee Qualification was the only control variable in this study.

Measures

PLB was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). We have used 22 items scale developed by Zhang et al. (2015) (study 1) to measure PLB, Sample Items were: “Uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals.”“Put all subordinates on an equal footing, but considers their individual traits or personalities.”“Manages subordinates uniformly, but considers their individualized needs.”

The explorative and exploitative work-related behaviors of employees were measured using the 5-items and 6-items scale, respectively introduced by Mom et al. (2007). Sample items included: “To what extent did you, last year, engage in work related activities that can be characterized as follows: (1) searching for new possibilities with respect to products/services, processes, or markets. (2) Evaluating diverse options with respect to products/services, processes, or markets.

Employee mindfulness was measured with the 15 items instrument called mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2009) using a 6-point Likert scale. Sample items included:

“I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until sometime later” and “I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else”

Lastly, a 9-item scale is used to measure employee creativity developed by Tierney et al. (1999). Leaders were asked to report how often each of their employees could be described according to the items. Sample items were: “Promotes and champions ideas to others” and “Serves as a good role model for creativity.” All scales were above the threshold alpha values and have been given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Bivariate Correlations, and Alpha Reliabilities.

No.	Variable	α values	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.	Paradoxical leader behavior	.947	6.62	0.501	1
2.	Exploration	.822	4.75	0.416	.470**	1
3.	Exploitation	.831	2.49	0.492	.228**	.251**	1
4.	Mindfulness	.965	3.52	0.649	.396**	.486**	.306**	1
5.	Employee creativity	.890	4.82	0.497	.472**	.509**	.049	.295**	1

Note. N = 262.

p < .01.

Analysis and Results

The Statistical Analysis were conducted to verify whether objectives of the study have been achieved. Since nature of study is correlational and to test the hypothesis, Bivariate Correlation Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling was used to relate results with study objectives. Bivariate Correlations among the variables have been listed in Table 1. All variables were significantly correlated with each other. The Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS was used to run the model consisting of five latent variables: PLB, employee exploitation and exploration, employee creativity, and employee mindfulness. We used different model fit indices to assess the model fit and a strong fit has been observed (χ²/df = 1.50, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.912, RMSEA = 0.043, GFI = 0.802, and CMIN = 2.545). The TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) of 0.92 suggests a relatively good fit of the model to the data. Generally, a TLI above 0.90 is considered acceptable. These values are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Measurements Model.

Model	χ²	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	GFI	CMIN
	1.50	0.043	0.942	0.912	0.802	2.545

Hypothesis Testing

Before proceeding to Mediation Analysis, we run Harman’s Single Factor Test to examine the potential common method variance. In Harman’s Single Factor Test, the percentage of variance associated with the first component was 32.14 which is far less than threshold of 0.5. Thus there is no issue of Common Method Variance in data.

The results of mediating roles of employee exploitation and exploration with PLB and employee creativity are displayed in Table 3. Hypothesis 1 has stated that PLB is positively related to Employee Creativity. The results also supported this as indicated by the Regression Coefficients and associated significance levels (β = .465, p = .006); thus, hypothesis 1 is accepted. Hypothesis 2 and 3 states that “Employee exploration mediates the relationship between PLB and employee creativity” and “Employee exploitation mediates the relationship between PLB and employee creativity.” A 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of [0.134, 0.262] (hypothesis 2) and [−0.056, −0.008] (hypothesis 3) proved mediation, as shown in Table 3. The Regression Coefficient of the standardized direct effect of PLB on employee creativity while controlling the effect of exploration is β = .303, p = .009 has been reduced to β = .179 when employee creativity Creativity was regressed over PLB and employee exploitation and exploration has partially mediated with PLB and employee creativity. Similarly, the Regression coefficient of the standardized direct effect of PLB on employee creativity while controlling the effect of exploitation is β = .325, p = .007 has been reduced to −0.028 when employee creativity was regressed over PLB and Employee Exploitation. Employee Exploitation has partially mediated PLB and employee creativity negatively as when employees are more conversant with routines, they affect/halt the process of generating new ideas.

Table 3.

Results on the Mediating Roles of Employee Exploration and Employee Exploitation With PLB and Employee Creativity.

	Indirect effects	BC [95% CI]
Bootstrapping
PLB → employee exploration → employee creativity	0.179	[0.134, 0.262]
PLB → employee exploitation → employee creativity	−0.028	[−0.056, −0.008]

Table 3 shows the results of mediation analyses.

To test hypothesis 4, we added the interaction effect of PLB × employee mindfulness on Employee exploration, which is significant but negative (B = −0.109, p = .047). Along with negative bootstrap values [−0.191, −0.42]. A steeper upward slope of the Moderation graph has been drawn, reflecting the show’s upward movement was drawn which hypothesis 4 is accepted. To test hypothesis 5, we added the interaction effect of PLB × employee mindfulness on Employee Exploitation which is:

We have used Moderated Regression Analysis to test the interaction effect of PLB × employee mindfulness on employee exploration. All related variables, that is, independent and moderating variables, were centered. Hypothesis 4 states that employee mindfulness moderates the relation between PLB and employee exploration such that the relation is stronger when employee mindfulness is higher. Results have indicated that the direct effect of employee mindfulness on exploration is significant and positive (B = 0.344, p = .001), but the interaction effect of PLB × employee mindfulness is significantly negative (B = −0.109, p = .047), such that exploratory activities of employees tend to decline at a higher-level of employee mindfulness which is contrary to the proposed model. The graph of the interaction is shown in Figure 2. To illustrate the nature of two-way interaction between PLB and employee exploration, we conducted Simple Slope Analysis (Aiken et al., 1991). As shown in Figure 2, when employee mindfulness was high, the relationship between PLB and Employee Exploration was weakened than the one when employee mindfulness was low.

Figure 2.

Moderating effect of Employee mindfulness on the relationship of PLB and employee exploration.

The results of Moderation Analyses are shown on Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4.

Moderation Effects for Employee Exploration.

	B	p-Value	Bootstrap results for indirect effects [LL 95% CI, UL 95% CI]
Effect of PLB on Emp Exlr	0.291	.001	[0.185, 0.375]
Effect of Emp Mnd on Emp Exlr	0.344	.001	[0.263, 0.452]
Effect of PLBxEmp Mnd on Emp Exlr	−0.109	.047	[−0.191, −0.042]

Table 5.

Moderation Effects for Employee Exploitation.

	B	p-Value	Bootstrap results for indirect effects [LL 95% CI, UL 95% CI]
Effect of PLB on Emp Explt	0.140	.038	[0.019, 0.268]
Effect of Emp Mnd on Emp Explt	0.259	.001	[0.156, 0.356]
Effect of PLB × Emp Mnd on Emp Explt	0.037	.559	[−0.074, 0.164]

Hypothesis 5 describes that employee mindfulness moderates the relation between PLB and Employee Exploitation such that the relation is stronger when employee mindfulness is higher. Results indicate insignificant values (B = 0.037, p = .559); hence hypothesis is rejected. The graph in Figure 2 below is showing interaction plot.

Discussion

The organizational paradoxes are part of extant literature for almost four decades but as organizational environments becomes more vibrant and competitive, leaders are likely to exhibit seemingly paradoxical behaviors. In this context our study provides new directions in studying PLB. We found a significant direct relationship between PLB and employee creativity in accordance with the available literature. Our Structural Equation Model has proven the partial mediation of employee exploitation and exploration in the relationship of PLB to creativity which is another novel theoretical contribution in the literature of PLB.

The results of this study are in line with the past literature, which has shown that PLB promotes ambidexterity among employees and enhances their level of innovation as well as creativity (Radomska & Wołczek, 2020; Yi et al., 2019; Zhaohui, 2018). A leader’s opening and closing behaviors affect employees’ behavior because these behaviors not only allow the employee to work by taking advantage of previous experiences but also motivate them and increase their participation in the discovery of new ideas. PLB creates chaos and contradictions that force employees to leave their comfort zones and expose their energies, experiences, and knowledge in a new way to meet the changing demands of the leader (Kim & Zhong, 2017). Exploitative behaviors affect exploration and ultimately affect the creativity of employees (Seo et al., 2015). Based on this evidence, our results for hypothesis 3 seem consistent with the past literature as PLB adversely affects Employee Creativity through worker exploitation. Exploitative behavior hinders creativity, and employees who engage in such behavior cannot produce creative ideas, but they do well with both. Pakistan is a high-powered distance society where leaders have a variety of behavior.

This study also proposed that mindfulness strengthens the positive relationship between PLB and (a) employee exploitative behavior and (b) employee explorative behavior. The results did not support the moderation hypothesis. Considering the moderation model, why would mindfulness not moderate the relationship? First, it is known that mindfulness helps employees to remain alert which helps them to understand the reason behind the opposing behavior of paradoxical leader (Zhaohui, 2018). Now when leader is either moving toward exploitative/explorative behavior, we feel that higher level of mindfulness guides employees to monitor the situation. Thus the best strategy they adopt in such situations is to adopt a passive behavior and not to engage in any activity which they feel can be potentially harmful for them. Since mindfulness signifies the presence of mind (Bodhi, 2000, 2011), attentiveness to present, thoughtful action, and awareness (Langer et al., 1978), we feel that contrary to expectations, employee mindfulness will not strengthen or weaken the relationship between PLB and its outcomes and thus wont moderate the relationship.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

There are paradoxes in organizations, and leaders have more cognitive and behavioral abilities to act paradoxically (Denison et al., 1995). We expanded the PLB literature and its link with employee creativity by introducing a new mediation mechanism where managers can encourage Employee Creativity. This work provides a practical basis for how leaders’ consistent yet flexible behavior can involve employees in parallel creative tasks, taking help from existing routines and processes. Leaders can encourage creativity in their organizations. It encourages and helps employees to adapt well to exploration and exploitation activities to achieve goals. Leaders link rules and regulations while providing employees with autonomy at the individual level (Zhang et al., 2015).

This study provides a deep insight into how leaders practicing PLB can encourage creative behavior by engaging in the exchange relationship. Organizations should also focus on launching such programs that promote PLB in leaders and be prepared to accept such behaviors that can only be possible in exchange relationships, as employees feel an obligation to respond to their leaders through innovative behavior, that is, engaging in exploratory and exploitative activities. Leaders should be aware that managing employees through PLB is difficult and tricky, and they need to develop a mechanism to develop such skills and behaviors. The true essence of the paradox is that instead of treating them separately, as in the eastern mindset, they should be dealt with jointly, and the same should be implemented by leaders who adopt the “both/and” strategy (Zhang et al., 2015). Employee Mindfulness has been added as a moderator that shows insignificant results and a declining slope with a negative relation (see Figure 1). Employee mindfulness does not affect the relationship between PLB and employee exploitation, the unique findings of this study.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Future researchers can benefit from considering the limitations of this study and our suggestions for advancing the literature. This study was conducted in Pakistan, which may further be tested in other Asian and European countries that how leaders exhibit contradictory but inter-related behaviors and how these will benefit employees in exploration and exploitation and other relevant outcomes. Employee creativity was assessed by the managers (as suggested by Zatcher & Wilden, 2014) based on their last six months tasks, and subordinates assessed the PLB, so there may not be a possibility of common method bias. Future studies may further collect data of leaders who have gone through certain developmental programs to practice PLB. This study has focused explicitly on the IT and service sector; however, future studies may collect data from other sector employees, that is project employees. Construct of PLB may not be applicable at each supervisory level, but it may work well for certain levels, that is, top or middle level, which needs to be explored. We collected data from the IT sector and service industry which may limit the generalizability of the study. Future researchers may expand this selection. Data were collected by using the convenience sampling method, which may affect the findings of the study. Mindfulness was taken as a moderator in the current study, and this hypothesis was rejected, but it may be hypothesized as an antecedent of exploration. The relationship between employee mindfulness and employee exploration leading to employee creativity was significant, further exploring future researchers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sajid Bashir

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Alghamdi

(2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1–14.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Berti

Simpson

(2019). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Social exchange theory. Retrieved September, 3(2007), 62.

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

(2003). The mindfulness attention awareness scale (MAAS). In Ciarrochi

Bilich

(Eds.), Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package (pp.82–85). University of Wollongong.

Byron

Khazanchi

Nazarian

(2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201.

Caniëls

M. C.

Veld

(2019). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 565–585.

Carson

S. H.

Langer

E. J.

(2006). Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy, 24, 29–43.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874–900.

10.

Da Costa

Páez

Sánchez

Garaigordobil

Gondim

. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173.

11.

Denison

D. R.

Hooijberg

Quinn

R. E.

(1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization science, 6(5), 524–540.

12.

Franken

Plimmer

Malinen

(2020). Paradoxical leadership in public sector organisations: Its role in fostering employee resilience. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(1), 93–110.

13.

Fürstenberg

Alfes

Kearney

(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.

14.

Gibson

C. B.

Birkinshaw

(2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

15.

Good

Michel

E. J.

(2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of psychology, 147(5), 435–453.

16.

Homans

G. C.

(1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606.

17.

Junni

Sarala

R. M.

Tarba

Liu

Cooper

(2015). The role of human resource and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54(Suppl. 1), 1–28.

18.

Klonek

F. E.

Volery

Parker

S. K.

(2021). Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages. International Small Business Journal, 39(1), 40–63.

19.

Langer

E. J.

(1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137–173). Academic Press.

20.

Langer

E. J.

Moldoveanu

(2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 129–139.

21.

Mom

T. J.

Van Den Bosch

F. A.

Volberda

H. W.

(2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.

22.

Naim

M. F.

(2021). Responding to the challenge of employee engagement during uncertain times: Adaptive leadership is the answer. In Global perspectives on change management and leadership in the post-COVID-19 era (pp. 188–198). IGI Global.

23.

Papachroni

Heracleous

(2020). Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(2), 143–165.

24.

Pertusa-Ortega

E. M.

Molina-Azorín

J. F.

(2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21(2), 84–98.

25.

Todorova

Dasborough

(2018, July). Trait mindfulness and paradoxical leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings,2018(1), 11244.

26.

Radomska

Wołczek

(2020). Integrative perspective on ambidexterity, creativity and networking: Literature overview. European Research Studies Journal, XXIII(Issue 3), 31–49.

27.

Raisch

Birkinshaw

(2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375–409.

28.

Raza

Ali

Naseem

Moeed

Ahmed

Hamid

(2018). Impact of trait mindfulness on job satisfaction and turnover intentions: Mediating role of work–family balance and moderating role of work–family conflict. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1542943.

29.

Rosing

Zacher

(2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694–709.

30.

Seo

Y. W.

Chae

S. W.

Lee

K. C.

(2015). The impact of absorptive capacity, exploration, and exploitation on individual creativity: Moderating effect of subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 68–82.

31.

Shao

Nijstad

B. A.

Täuber

(2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19.

32.

She

Yang

(2020). Paradoxical leadership and hospitality employees’ service performance: The role of leader identification and need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102524.

33.

Stafford

Kuiper

(2021). Social exchange theories: Calculating the rewards and costs of personal relationships. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 379–390). Routledge.

34.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Vogus

T. J.

Dane

(2016). Mindfulness in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 55–81.

35.

Tan

J. X.

Cham

T. H.

Zawawi

Aziz

Y. A.

(2019). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior and the mediating effect of organization commitment in the hotel industry. Asian Journal of Business Research, 9(2), 121.

36.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

Graen

G. B.

(1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.

37.

Wan

W. H.

Antonucci

T. C.

(2016). Social exchange theory and aging. Encyclopaedia of Geropsychology, 1(1), 1–9.

38.

Xue

Liang

(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.

39.

Yang

Liang

Zhang

(2021). Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology, 40, 1911–1922.

40.

Mao

Wang

(2019). How paradoxical leadership affects ambidextrous innovation: The role of knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(4), 1–15.

41.

Zacher

Wilden

R. G.

(2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(4), 813–820.

42.

Zhang

Waldman

D. A.

Han

Y. L.

X. B.

(2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.

43.

Zhaohui

(2018). How does paradoxical leadership enhance individual ambidexterity? The composite multiple mediating role of psychological safety and thriving at work. Foreign Economics & Management, 40(03), 107–120.

44.

Zoller

Y. J.

Muldoon

(2018). Illuminating the principles of social exchange theory with Hawthorne studies. Journal of Management History, 25(1), 47–66.

Impact of the Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Creativity: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Hypotheses Development

Overarching Theory

Paradoxical Leader Behavior Is Linked With Employee Creativity

Mediating Role of Employee Exploration and Employee Exploitation

Moderating Role of Employee Mindfulness

Methodology

Data Collection and Sample

Measures

Analysis and Results

Hypothesis Testing

Discussion

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References