Investigating the Effect of Paradoxical Leadership on Employees' Creativity Given the Mediation of Identification with the Leader and Creative Self-efficacy, and Moderation of Workload Pressure and Employees' Need for Cognitive Stability

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Fatemeh Ghorbani ¹
• Ghasem Eslami ²
• Hossein Afkhami Rohani ³

¹ Master's degree in Public Administration, Human Resources Development, Department of Management, Faculty of Administrative and Economic Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

² Assistant Professor of Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

³ Assistant Professor, Research Institute of Islamic Studies in Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22067/tmj.2024.84785.1489

Abstract

 
1- INTRODUCTION
In the current era, where organizations face a globally competitive environment, the need for changes and innovative work is strongly felt in the workplace. Organizations should not insist on old methods that fail to respond to current organizational needs for survival in this competitive environment and should use new ones to perform their tasks. Paradoxical leadership is one of the new leadership styles that can affect the employees' creativity and is one of the challenges managers face in their work environment.
 
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Paradoxical leadership is defined as "seemingly competing, yet related, behaviors to meet structural and follower demands simultaneously and over time." Employees' need for cognitive stability is defined as a person's willingness to give a decisive answer on a given issue and avoid confusion and ambiguity. Identification with the leader means the employees' values are the same as their leaders, are proud to cooperate with their leader, and are upset if their leader is criticized. Workload pressure refers to the extent to which employees have to work quickly and have a lot to do. Self-efficacy is a constructive ability representing the employees' cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral skills to achieve various goals effectively. Employees with high creative self-efficacy deal with issues and problems more effectively due to their confidence in their abilities. Creativity means using the capabilities of the mind to create a new thought. Few Persian researchers have investigated the concept of paradox in leadership and organization management and its possible outcomes, such as creativity.
 
3- METHODOLOGY
This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of its nature and descriptive method. The data collection tool is a questionnaire, and the statistical population of the research is the employees of government organizations in Mashhad. To determine the sample size, ten questionnaires were considered for each item, and after removing the incomplete questionnaires, the required data were collected from 384 people by stratified random method. The appropriateness of the data was determined by checking its validity and reliability. Then, the structural equation modeling technique was used to test the research hypotheses.
 
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
All hypotheses were tested and confirmed, including the positive impact of Paradoxical leadership on identifying with the leader and creative self-efficacy, creative self-efficacy on employee creativity, and identifying with the leader on employee creativity. The mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and identifying with the leader were also proven, and the positive moderation of work pressure and the negative moderation of employees' need for cognitive stability were also confirmed.
 
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
Considering the significant impacts that creativity may have on the improvement of organizational processes, one of the most important points that should be considered is the development of a security culture in the workplace. To create this environment, managers can take actions, such as encouraging cooperation and interaction between employees, creating a safe space for expressing creative ideas, holding training courses to strengthen creativity, positive evaluation, and providing rewards for creative performance, etc. Considering that contradictory leadership can be effective on creative self-efficacy and identification with the leader, managers should be able to create a balance between conflicting behaviors and have sufficient expertise in achieving goals. Considering the positive relationship between paradoxical leadership and identification with the leader, organizations should prioritize strong relationships between leaders and employees by providing opportunities for employees to get to know their leaders and feel connected to them. Finally, it is suggested that the managers find out about the employees' need for cognitive closure and treat the employees accordingly.

Keywords

• Paradoxical Leadership
• Creativity
• Creative Self-efficacy
• Identification with the Leader
• Work Pressure
• Employee Need for Cognitive Stability

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School.‏

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological review, 109(4), 619.‏

Anderson, N.; Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5), 1297-1333.‏

Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of marketing research, 33(2), 174-187.‏

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717.‏

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39.‏

Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands‐resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83-104.‏

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.‏

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(1), 116.‏

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.‏

Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of applied psychology, 94(3), 654.‏

El Shikieri, A. B., & Musa, H. A. (2012). Factors associated with occupational stress and their effects on organizational performance in a Sudanese University. Creative Education, 3(01), 134.‏

Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of management journal, 40(4), 988-1010.‏

Farmer, S. M.; Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.‏

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review, 21(4), 1112-1142.‏

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211.‏

Gong, Y.; Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.‏

Gu, Q.; Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of business ethics, 126, 513-529.‏

Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological review, 64(2), 110.‏

Hirst, G.; Van Knippenberg, D.; Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation–creativity relationships. Academy of management journal, 54(3), 624-641.‏

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and social psychology review, 5(3), 184-200.‏

Jung, K. B.; Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and involvement in creative task via creative self-efficacy: a moderated mediation role of task complexity. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 377.‏

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:" Seizing" and" freezing.". Psychological review, 103(2), 263.‏

Lang, J.; Thomas, J. L.; Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2007). Job demands and job performance: the mediating effect of psychological and physical strain and the moderating effect of role clarity. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(2), 116.‏

Liang, J.; Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management journal, 55(1), 71-92.‏

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.‏

Liu, W.; Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The leadership quarterly, 21(1), 189-202.‏

Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53-65.‏

Moeini, B.; Shafii, F.; Hidarnia, A.; Babaii, G. R.; Birashk, B., & Allahverdipour, H. (2008). Perceived stress, self-efficacy and its relations to psychological well-being status in Iranian male high school students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 36(2), 257-266.‏

Moideenkutty, U.; Blau, G.; Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2001). Perceived organisational support as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors to affective organisational commitment. Applied Psychology, 50(4), 615-634.‏

Müceldili, B.; Turan, H., & Erdil, O. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership on creativity and innovativeness. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 673-681.‏

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human resource management review, 10(3), 313-351.‏

Nijstad, B. A.; De Dreu, C. K.; Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European review of social psychology, 21(1), 34-77.‏

Reid, E., & Ramarajan, L. (2016). Managing the high intensity workplace. Harvard Business Review, 94(6), 84-90.‏

Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and individual differences, 50(1), 90-94.‏

Sacramento, C. A.; Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 121(2), 141-157.‏

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19(6), 807-823.‏

Sluss, D. M.; Ployhart, R. E.; Cobb, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). Generalizing newcomers' relational and organizational identifications: Processes and prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 949-975.‏

Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147-160.‏

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.‏

Sowden, P. T.; Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & reasoning, 21(1), 40-60.‏

Shalley, C. E.; Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of management, 30(6), 933-958.‏

Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19-47.‏

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.‏

She, Z.; Li, Q.; Yang, B., & Yang, B. (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.‏

Shiu, S. C.; Lin, S. Y., & Chien, H. O. (2012). The relationship between learning motivation and innovative behavior in the university students: From the perspective of creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(5), 33.‏

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.‏

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of management, 30(3), 413-432.‏

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 277.‏

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Non-test ways of identifying the creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 6(3), 71-75.‏

Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(2), 137-147.‏

Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25(2), 243-295.‏

Van Knippenberg, D.; Van Knippenberg, B.; De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.‏

Voydanoff, P. (2005). Work demands and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 707-726.‏

Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.‏

Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self‐efficacy. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 84(1), 153-172.‏

Wayne, S. J.; Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management journal, 40(1), 82-111.‏

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(6), 1049.‏

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.‏

Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261.‏

Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in personnel and human resources management, 165-217.‏

Zhu, W.; He, H.; Treviño, L. K.; Chao, M. M., & Wang, W. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower voice and performance: The role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 702-718.‏