Can Paradoxical Leadership Be the Game Changer in Driving Organisations against Negative Practices?
Article Category: Research Article
Publié en ligne: 31 janv. 2024
Pages: 252 - 265
Reçu: 04 juin 2023
Accepté: 20 nov. 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2023-0020
Mots clés
© 2023 Uju Violet Alola et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Due to varying customer preferences, such as hospitality customers who are attached to their private space and enjoy demanding services from hotel staff, and contrasting job requirements, such as the necessity to create an equilibrium between providing formal or custodial services, paradoxical leadership (PL) is highly promising in the hospitality sector (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2019). In a more competitive business climate, with rapid shifts in consumer expectations, effective leadership has become extensively acknowledged as a vital component for achieving positive work results (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2019). According to Zhang et al. (2015), paradoxical Leadership (PL) entails leaders participating in acts that are both inconsistent and interrelated, with the goal of addressing institutional and follower fears concurrently throughout time. PL, according to previous studies in the general management literature, is important in fostering employee attitudes and behaviours such as innovation, personal growth and achievement (Lewis et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018). Several studies have found that PL has positive effects on workers, including opinion-taking (Li et al., 2018), optimistic attitudes and work participation (Zhang et al., 2015).
According to Zhang et al. (2015), paradoxical leaders make use of ‘both-and’ tactics, where they continue to make use of their current positive behaviours even as they explore new ones, to balance and incorporate competing demands, while acting holistically and dynamically (Smith & Lewis, 2011; Smith et al., 2016). They efficiently overcome inconsistencies and direct workers to deliver delighted service to clients in this situation. Therefore, paradoxical leaders have a strong urge to fulfill workers' position standards, resulting in positive feedback on their role-based identity from employees. Furthermore, paradoxical leaders serve as effective role models for employees in a variety of challenging and uncertain situations, encouraging them to explore and accept inconsistencies (Lewis, 2000). In the hospitality and tourism industry, leaders are critical in inspiring workers to achieve long-term quality excellence. According to our model, PL has a negative effect on job insecurity. Job instability is a valuable resource that can be jeopardised by a leader's incivility. Employees who are subjected to leader incivility are more likely to experience another resource known as work insecurity, which is linked to lower results (Shin et al., 2019). The current research, on the other hand, uses job insecurity or instability as a very important source that is either revealed by a leader's incivility or prevented by a leader's positive behaviours and actions, such as paradoxical leadership behaviours. Employees who view their leader's conduct and actions as paradoxical are less likely to perceive negative work insecurity. Amotivation can be reduced by PL. Amotivation is described as an employee's lack of motivation to participate in an action or perform job tasks; in other words, an amotivated employee would be particularly hesitant to complete their job tasks in a responsible and committed manner (Deci & Ryan, 2002). We also suggest that PL and organisational tolerance for workplace incivility have a positive relationship. Employee incivility is accepted in the workplace when leaders are paradoxical in their acts and conduct. As a result, workers view it only as acceptable workplace behaviour, but not as validated, which affects employee attitudes and behaviours (Megeirhi et al., 2020). Furthermore, by unwittingly tolerating or failing to react to incivility, management and leaders can be seen as instigators of incivility, and employees will perceive this as tolerance for their uncivil actions (Estes & Wang, 2008). Incivility at work is considered when employees' lack of respect for their fellow colleagues and supervisors (Pearson & Porath, 2005) has been validated to directly impact job stress (Andersson, 1996). Incivility is viewed as a low-intensity tension, comparable to the frustrations people face on a daily basis (Lim & Lee, 2011). Although workplace incivility has recently been included in a narrative analysis that is comprehensive (Schilpzand et al., 2016), management's responses to incivility are considered to be ‘limited’ (Pearson & Porath, 2005). Furthermore, it is expected that PL would have an effect on employee psychological safety. Employee psychological protection applies to employees' perceptions of their workplace as being healthy for interpersonal risk-taking (Carmeli, 2007).
A paradox occurs when opposing ideas coexist and interact in a coherent way. An example of this in organisations involves leaders. Leaders are bound to allow their teams and employees to have autonomy, but on the other hand, they also monitor them. How can they achieve both aspects? Providing more autonomy was thought to be optimal, but it was not the most effective solution for everyone. Leaders then turned towards control. They found that swaying towards both extremes was not successful. Getting an equilibrium between them will lead to more productivity, especially in organisations and in dealing with subordinates (Rescalvo-Martin et al., 2021).
Some companies have understood how paradoxes are interwoven into their culture. Any manager who implements this type of leadership has to exhibit more than one role at a time and sometimes these roles seem to be in opposition to each other.
The concept is intended to imply that workers would not be embarrassed, rejected, or punished for speaking up; in other words, it is an environment in which employees feel free to be themselves and express their opinions and suggestions to the best of their knowledge and ability (Edmondson, 1999). Researchers have paid a lot of attention to PL in their studies. This is seen in some small and medium enterprises (Megeirhi et al., 2020), full-service hotels (She et al., 2020) in China, and the reasons and effects of PL in people management in Eastern thinking and traditions, in China, Zhang et al. (2015). PL behaviour has been verified in the Chinese context to boost employee creativity by growing employee thriving at work, with this relationship moderated by psychological protection (Yang et al., 2019; Cop et al., 2020). In China, a significant amount of research on paradoxical leadership behaviour has been conducted. As a consequence, the findings of these studies cannot be applied to other situations. More specifically, studies on the effect of a leader's paradoxical behaviour on negative employee outcomes need further work. Past studies have addressed the lack of PL research in hospitality leadership. The study by Rescalvo-Martin et al. (2021) examined how PL affected workers' learning and communication habits alongside their extra-role service. The authors contend that extra-role service is just one of the behaviours that help hotels compete, and they may have contradictory effects on staff members. The above study was conducted in hotels in Spain. Extant literature has broadly focused on the theoretical and conceptual development of PL. Later, research has focused on the macro aspects; however, the micro-level paradoxes and their influences are still overlooked, especially in hospitality and in relation to employees. Recent studies are examining the positive impact of PL behaviour on followers, not considering how this behaviour will have negative effects at the same time on different levels (Batool et al., 2023). Therefore, our study will contribute to the existing literature by investigating the impact of both positive and negative employee outcomes of PL in the hospitality industry, specifically, in restaurants in the United States. In line with the above discussion, our study has the following objectives:
The impact of paradoxical leadership on job insecurity, amotivation, organisational tolerance for work incivility, and employee psychological safety. The impact of job insecurity on amotivation, organisational tolerance for rudeness at the workplace, and employee psychological safety. The mediating impact of job instability on the impact of paradoxical leadership on amotivation, organisational tolerance for work incivility, and employee psychological safety.
Individuals tend to categorise themselves into different social groups. According to the theory of social identity, this method of arrangement supports individuals in locating or classifying themselves in their different social contexts (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This is assuming that leadership styles strongly and significantly impact employees' self-concepts and how they see themselves (Liu et al., 2010). Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) proposed that the degree to which employees identify themselves concerning personal affiliation with leaders is a critical factor in associating leadership styles to specific outcomes. Identification with the leaders, according to Sluss and Ashforth (2008), typically consists of task- and individual-based identity. A task-based identity refers to the role's objectives, values, views, and customs, while an individual-based identity is the role occupant's special characteristics that influence the role-based identity's performance. According to social identity theory, leader identification happens when a leader's role- and person-based identities are both positively evaluated (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Furthermore, optimistic behaviours, work motivation and job performance have all been linked to high levels of association with the leader (Van Knippenberg, 2012; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). Social identity theory helps in understanding how some leadership styles form employees' relational self-identities, which in turn influence their attitudes. According to social identity theory, people's self-concepts are formed by their relationships with social groups or by the similarities they share with organisations (Tajfel, 1982). Staff who believe they and their boss are a good match are more likely to share self-definitional characteristics with them. Their positive reactions are strengthened by their shared traits.
The current study investigates how enhanced leader identification, as a result of PL, can aid staff in achieving better results and avoiding negative actions and behaviours. Employees tend to be inclined to align their concerns with their leader's when they consider their shared interests, resulting in a robust aspiration to support to the leader's objectives and accomplishments (Qu et al., 2015).
Leaders are confronted with a growing array of managerial paradoxes in organisations, such as normalisation and individualisation, as well as concentration and delegations of actions, as the competitive climate becomes more intense (Knight & Paroutis, 2017; Lavine, 2014; Smith et al., 2016). Active leadership, such as ethical leadership, has become extensively acknowledged as a vital component for achieving positive worker results (Tarkang Mary & Ozturen, 2019). Hence, Zhang et al. (2015) anticipated the concept of ‘PL,’ which they described as a ‘both-and’ style used by leaders to maintain a behavioural equilibrium and fit in competing difficulties in organisations. PLB stands for paradoxical leader behaviour, which refers to leaders' activities that appear to be competitive but are actually interconnected to satisfy many workplace demands at the same time (Zhang et al. 2015). Job dissatisfaction is a major source of stress for workers (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007), and it has a negative impact on factors such as job attitudes and employee psychological safety and well-being (De Witte et al., 2015).
Previous researchers have validated PL as an impact factor exerting positive influences on employees, such as perspective-taking (Li et al., 2018) and proactive behaviours (Zhang et al., 2015). Grounded in the social identity theory, when employees categorise themselves into the same social groups as their direct supervisors, they identify themselves with respect to personal affiliation with leaders. This makes it a critical factor in associating leadership styles with specific positive outcomes. People who work in uncertain conditions and environments are faced with growing levels of job insecurity, which indicates not only the loss of one's job but also the effect of other emotional impacts associated with this insecurity (Demirbağ et al., 2021). When employees believe they belong to the same social class as their leaders, they develop a feeling of motivation and autonomy to act and express their ideas. This both-and leadership style gives them a feeling of security in their job environment. Given that work insecurity is a risk factor that leads to workers engaging in risky behaviours as a result of negative psychological responses (Chirumbolo, 2015), as well as lowering employee morale and increasing amotivation, this study sought to empirically investigate how leaders' paradoxical leadership behaviours influence employee job insecurity. As a result of the social identity theory, we believe that paradoxical leadership would reduce employee work insecurity.
H1. Paradoxical leadership has a negative impact on employee job insecurity
Paradoxical leaders have a longing to be role models to others but still have the will to share the burden and are at ease in a situation where subordinates have significant independence (Zhang et al. 2015). Rooted in the social identity theory, as the theoretical backbone of the present study, leaders' paradoxical behaviour would have an effect on employee morale and, as a result, a negative impact on their amotivation. In their research, Pearson et al. (2000) discovered that 75% of workers who witnessed incivility were dissatisfied with how their leaders dealt with the situation, so they chose not to file a formal complaint. Similarly, such leadership blindness may have a negative effect on witnesses and colleagues who are upset when their company tolerates workplace incivility or refuses to punish uncivil actions and instigators. Employees view incivility as appropriate behaviour when it is accepted in the workplace, which has an effect on workplace attitudes and behaviours. As a consequence, PL actions may have a positive impact on workplace incivility tolerance, with the explanation that these practices by leaders would result in unintended tolerance for workplace incivility inspiring others, but they are also enthusiastic about sharing this burden with others with ease in situations where subordinates have a high level of self-control, enhancing their psychological protection. In line with the social theory, leaders and followers believe they belong to a social class. This gives room for leaders not to validate incivility, but to overlook it for the sake of the development of the organisation in the short run, provided this incivil expression is not abused by employees. Employees' perceptions of safety when engaging in dangerous tasks at work are referred to as psychological safety. Employees who perceive that they are working in a psychologically safe environment recurrently testify and express their feelings of safety, trust and mutual respect (Edmondson, 1999). Moreover, when employees feel psychologically safe, they are less self-aware when expressing themselves in situations around the job environment. This will only be possible when leaders express paradoxical behaviours to motivate employees who may unintentionally sometimes express uncivil actions. Employees who perceive their leaders' paradoxical attitudes will have a high degree of psychological protection. As a result, they will be able to openly share their opinions without fear of repercussions (Kahn, 1990). Based on the above discussion we hypothesise that:
H2a. Paradoxical leadership has a negative impact on amotivation. H2B. Paradoxical leadership has a positive effect on organisational tolerance for workplace incivility. H2C. Paradoxical leadership has a positive effect on employee psychological safety.
The supposed inability to retain anticipated stability in an endangered job situation is how job insecurity is regarded (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Organisational factors such as trimming of employee numbers and specific factors such as limited period of service and exterior locus of control have been established as causes of job insecurity in research related to the backgrounds of job insecurity. Nevertheless, an emerging body of evidence suggests that personal factors can also contribute to work insecurity (Glambek et al., 2018). In line with the above theory, the paradox is developed through seemingly conflicting but actually linked aspects that coexist and persist across time (Keller et al., 2021). The theory bridges a relationship between leaders and subordinates. This is due to the fact that managers have a significant impact on workers' perceptions and views of organisational activities and phenomena (Colbert, 2004). Insecurity in the workplace has a positive effect on amotivation. Different types of motivation are related to the sensation of independence connected to decisions about behaviour, according to this model (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The greater the sense of personal accountability for conduct, the more intrinsically driven workers become. Internal elements, including happiness and enjoyment, are linked to this type of motivation. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, occurs when an individual is driven by outside factors, such as the need to accomplish a goal or flee from punishment. Finally, people are often unable to see the connection between their behaviours and the outcomes they achieve. They assume that their actions are the result of forces beyond their control, and they are thus unmotivated to carry them out. This is referred to as amotivation. PL style has been implemented as a progressive strategy for promoting motivation and innovation (Yang et al., 2019). A lack of desire to participate in action is referred to as amotivation. To put it another way, an unmotivated individual would be hesitant to complete their work tasks in a responsible and dedicated manner. ‘Amotivation is a total lack of self-determination that can occur when a person lacks competence, devalues an operation, or is unable to achieve desired results. Previous research has investigated the unfavorable effects of job insecurity on life-related occurrences like life satisfaction. A few of these studies were carried out in Africa, Central Europe and Scandinavia. To name a few, this research includes the effect of job insecurity on life satisfaction among workers in Ghana (Sulemana et al., 2020), Germany (Helbling & Kanji, 2018), Finland (Griep et al., 2016), and Belgium (Silla et al., 2009), respectively. Accordingly, all the above studies confirmed that job insecurity was detrimental to life satisfaction. Satisfaction in life goes alongside motivation in all aspects of life. If job insecurity can be detrimental to life satisfaction, then it suffices to say that job insecurity will positively affect amotivation.
As workers feel uncomfortable in their careers, it is reassuring to know that incivility is accepted by their bosses. Employees' feelings of fear, on the other hand, would reduce their psychological protection as a result of the feeling that they could lose their jobs at any moment. In line with the above theory, we suggest the following hypothesis: We believe that interpersonal relationships with managers are an important source of work insecurity, based on this line of research. This leadership style maintains control while letting go of control, which is a paradox (Waldman & Bowen, 2016). This means that leaders can impose and exercise control to target shared goals while motivating followers to think out of the box and be autonomous in their behaviour (Kearney et al., 2019). Thus, when followers perceive their tasks as being more meaningful, they will feel psychologically empowered and safe.
H3a. Job insecurity has a negative influence on amotivation. H3b. Job insecurity has a negative influence on organisational tolerance for work incivility. H3c. Job insecurity has a negative influence on employee psychological safety.
Job insecurity could be dated back to the studies of Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984). According to these authors, job insecurity is one's impression of risk and worries of being fired from his/her job. More than that, insecurity in the workplace can also be defined as the absence of control to safeguard their job in an unstable work environment (Hui & Lee, 2000, p. 356).
The perceptions of job insecurity are likely to inculcate amotivation and will further have a negative impact on organisational tolerance for work incivility. Glambek et al. (2018) discovered that bullying at work is a strong and positive predictor of workers' job insecurity. In contrast with the above statement, and in line with our study and the theory of social identity, we suggest that PL will negatively affect job insecurity. The impact of PL on job insecurity has a related effect on the outcome variables: amotivation, organisational tolerance for work incivility and employee psychological safety.
Grounded in the social identity theory and referencing the work of Kim and So (2022), PL seems a disparate, and conversely a connected, series of steps for concurrently and gradually attending to the structural requirements of the organisation and its adherents. PL fosters greater respect for one another's points of view among team members while enabling each party to voice their diverse ideas and viewpoints (Shore et al., 2018). As a result, PL creates a team where all members concentrate on a common goal, not minding individual differences (Zhu et al., 2020). We, therefore, suggest that job insecurity will have a mediating effect on the impact of PL on the three outcome variables. A considerable number of researchers have defined job insecurity as the employees' potential to continue in their present job (De Witte, 1999), despite the fact that some other schools of thought consider job insecurity as employees' insights vis-à-vis the likelihood of losing their job in crucial times (Mohr, 2000). Therefore, the feeling of employees losing their jobs can be reduced by the paradoxical leader's behaviours. Furthermore, this feeling of insecurity plays a role in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and the three outcome variables. We therefore conceptualise the following:
H4a. The detrimental effect of paradoxical leadership on amotivation is mediated by job insecurity. H4b. The positive impact of paradoxical leadership on organisational tolerance for workplace rudeness is mediated by job insecurity. H4c. Job insecurity acts as a mediator in the positive relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee psychological safety.
This study explores the relationship between paradoxical leadership, job insecurity, amotivation, organisational tolerance for workplace incivility, and psychological safety in restaurant employees. Data were gathered from restaurant employees in California, USA. A convenience sample strategy was used in the study to increase access to the workers. The supervisors received the questionnaires manually and then gave them out to the employees for completion. According to earlier research, this strategy could be more advantageous in situations when the study population lacks access to a laptop or does not frequently work online. This type of questionnaire distribution boosts the response rate (Echebiri & Amundsen, 2021). Before the research was carried out, a pilot study with 5 restaurant employees was conducted to ensure that the questions were understandable and had no ambiguity (Alola et al., 2019). There was no need for any change based on the results. A total of 300 questionnaires were completed, with 200 remaining after removing incomplete ones. This yielded a response rate of 66.6%.
Figure 1:
Model Diagram
The data were collected using a single survey instrument, therefore, there is concern for common method bias. Following this assumption, we conducted a Harman one-factor test to evaluate if common method bias influenced our result. The procedure involves performing a factor analysis on the study variables using a varimax principal axis. The analysis outcome is a five-factor solution based on the eigenvalue with the criteria of > 1.0. It shows an account of 21.20 percent of the variance. This falls below the cutoff of 25 percent, indicating that there was no issue with the common method variance (Williams et al., 1989).
Table 1 shows a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), on the five constructs of PL, JI, AM, OTWI, and EPS. This was done to check the internal consistency, discriminant, and convergent validity of the constructs. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested a threshold of 0.60 for composite reliability (CR). The study revealed that the composite reliability construct ranges from 0.87 to 0.95; this exceeds the threshold. This gives evidence of internal consistency reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE), was used to check the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The finding reveals that all the constructs range from 0.83 to 0.700, exceeding the threshold of 0.50, which confirms that the convergent validity is accepted.
Respondents' Profile (n= 200)
| 18–24 | 50 | 25.0 |
| 25–34 | 140 | 70.0 |
| 35 and Above | 10 | 5.0 |
| Total | 200 | 100.0 |
| Male | 113 | 56.5 |
| Female | 87 | 43.5 |
| Total | 200 | 100.0 |
| 0–3 years | 95 | 47.5 |
| 4–6 years | 52 | 26.0 |
| 6 years and above | 53 | 26.5 |
| Total | 200 | 100.0 |
In Table 1 above, a considerable proportion of people (140) are between the ages of 25 and 34, accounting for 70.0% of the entire sample. With 50 responses, the 18–24 age group accounted for 25.0% while the remaining respondents, aged 35 and up, on the other hand, constitute a lower share, with only 10 persons accounting for 5.0% of the overall sample. For the gender characteristics of the respondents, 56.5% of them are male, totaling 113 people, while 87 are female (43.5%). Respondents are classified according to their length of employment within their respective organisations in the Organisational Tenure category. The largest sector of this group, accounting for 47.5% of the overall sample, consists of 95 respondents with 0–3 years of experience. Those with 4–6 years of experience make up 26.0% of the sample, which consists of 52 employees. Finally, respondents with 6 years or more of organisational tenure were 26.5%, totaling 53 respondents.
Table 2 shows a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the five constructs of PL, JI, AM, OTWI and EPS. This was done to check the internal consistency, discriminant and convergent validity of the constructs. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested a threshold of 0.60 for composite reliability (CR). The study revealed that the composite reliability construct ranges from 0.87 to 0.95, which exceeds the threshold. This gives evidence of internal consistency reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) was used to check the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The finding reveals that all the constructs range from 0.83 to 0.700, exceeding the threshold of 0.50, which confirms that the convergent validity is accepted.
Coefficient of the Five Factor Measurement Model
| PL1 | 0.82 | - | |||
| PL2 | 0.87 | 15.02*** | |||
| PL3 | 0.94 | 16.54*** | |||
| PL4 | 0.86 | 19.42*** | |||
| PL5 | 0.75 | 16.32*** | |||
| PL6 | 0.90 | 12.86*** | |||
| PL7 | 0.91 | 17.81*** | |||
| PL8 | 0.85 | 17.99*** | |||
| JIS9 | 0.77 | - | |||
| JIS10 | 0.93 | 13.50*** | |||
| JIS11 | 0.86 | 18.67*** | |||
| JIS12 | 0.86 | 16.05*** | |||
| AMT13 | 0.89 | - | |||
| AMT14 | 0.99 | 16.40*** | |||
| AMT15 | 0.81 | 19.01*** | |||
| OTWI16 | 0.78 | - | |||
| OTWI17 | 0.87 | 13.41*** | |||
| OTWI18 | 0.87 | 15.69*** | |||
| EPS19 | 0.84 | - | |||
| EPS20 | 0.96 | 10.87*** | |||
| EPS21 | 0.70 | 11.43*** |
Note the n=200, correlation significant at 0.001 at two-tailed (***)
The correlation of the variables was tested as shown in Table 3, with the standard deviations and the mean of the study variables. The mean scores for each item were within the range of 3.9 to 2.6 and the standard deviation is 1.063 to .8936. The correlations for paradoxical leadership and job insecurity were positive (r=−.276**, p<0.1.); for amotivation there was no correlation. This might indicate that leadership style might not have been related to how employees were affected. Also, there was a correlation between paradoxical leadership and organisational tolerance for workplace incivility (OTWI) (r=.345**, p<. 0.1) and for employee psychological safety (r=.565**, p<.0.1).
Correlation of the Variables, Mean, and Standard Deviations.
| Paradoxical Leadership | 2.623 | 1.063 | |||||
| Job Insecurity | 1.063 | −.276** | - | 3.338 | .9866 | ||
| Amotivation | −.104 | .533** | - | 3.912 | 1.055 | ||
| OTWI | −.345** | .724** | .391** | - | 3.480 | .8936 | |
| Employee Psychological Safety | .565** | −.127 | −.113 | .004 | −3.143 | .9659 |
S/D= Standard deviation; OTWI=Organisation tolerance for workplace incivility;
correlation is significant at the p <.01 at (two tailed)
There is a positive correlation between job insecurity and amotivation (r=.533**, p<.01) and OTWI (r=.724**, p<.0.1) but no correlation between the later EPS. Amotivation was positively related to OTWI (r=.391**, p<.0.1) but there was no correlation on EPS.
Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the hypothesised linkages. Based on our findings as shown in Table 4, the path coefficient from PL to JIS has a positive significant correlation (β= −.254, z=3.23, p<.01). Therefore, H1 is empirically supported. The findings show that the path coefficient from PL to AMT (β= −.308, z=3.97, p<.01) and to EPS (β= −.428, z=5.52, p<.01) were all positively related supporting H2a and H2c. On the other hand, we failed to find any empirical support for PL to OTWI (β=.032, z=.558, p<.01), therefore we reject H2b.
Results of the Hypothesized Relationship
| H1 PL ↔ JIS | −.254 | 3.231 | 0.01 | Supported |
| H2a PL ↔ AMT | −.308 | 3.965 | 0.01 | Supported |
| H2b PL ↔ OTWI | .032 | .558 | .437 | Not Supported |
| H2c PL ↔ EPS | .428 | 5.517 | 0.01 | Supported |
| H3a JIS ↔ AMT | −.509 | 7.186 | 0.01 | Supported |
| H3b JIS ↔ OTWI | −.719 | 5.792 | 0.01 | Supported |
| H3c JIS ↔ EPS | .017 | .819 | .763 | Not Supported |
p<0.01,
p<0.001
Results of the direct and indirect effect of the mediating variable
| Paradoxical Leadership ↔ Job Insecurity ↔ Amotivation | 0.089 | 0.053 | 0.154 | 0.001 |
| Paradoxical Leadership ↔ Job Insecurity ↔ Organisation Tolerance for Workplace Incivility | −0.098 | −0.162 | −.0042 | 0.001 |
| Paradoxical Leadership ↔ Job Insecurity ↔ Employee Psychological Safety | There was no direct effect and no need for mediation | |||
Also, based on our findings on the path coefficient, there is a positive significant relationship between JIS and AMT (β= −.509, z=7.19, p<.01), and also the path coefficient is significant from JIS to OTWI (β= −.719, z=5.79, p<.01). But the path coefficient was felt to show a significant relationship between JIS and EPS (β=.017, z=.819, p<.01). We reject H3c.
Bootstrapping with 5000, sample size at 95%. ULL=Upper Lower Level, LLCI=Lower Level Confidence Interval
The main objective of this study is to explore the negative effect associated with organisation negligence regarding employee feelings. As proposed, organisation paradoxical leadership style will have a negative effect on job insecurity and employee amotivation, and a negative effect on organisation tolerance for incivility, while exerting a positive effect on employee psychological safety. Also, job insecurity has a positive effect on amotivation, OTWI and a positive effect on EPS. Organisational leaders are constantly confronted with the issue of employee dissatisfaction with the organisational practices described by Knight and Paroutis (2017). According to the study of Zhang et al. (2015), the concept of PL has been conceptualised to maintain a balanced leadership style. Also, the study of Ladd and Henry (2006) maintained that managers' behaviour is connected to employee psychological constraint.
Motivation of employees is a yardstick for effective organisational functioning. According to Graves and Sarkis (2018), motivation is a determining factor of how employees work and what they do. We expect that leadership style will balance the tension, allowing control yet allowing employee autonomy. Our study clearly demonstrates that paradoxical leadership has a negative effect on employee amotivation. Secondly, we argue that PL will have an effect on OTWI, as posited by Franken et al. (2019) and Zhu et al. (2010). PL is contradictory leadership behaviour that meets the workplace requirements at the same time. Since PL possesses several features (Luscher, 2018), such as allowing the employee to express their opinion, fighting for unity in the organisation, and allowing the employees to plan their time, Jia et al. (2018) emphasises the need for leaders to be realistic concerning the behaviour in the organisation.
It is clear that since PL allows for employee autonomy, incivility will have a lesser effect on employees. Our study demonstrates that job insecurity mediates the relationship between PL and amotivation and also for OTWI, but there was no mediation between PL and EPS. Organisational dynamics greatly influenced paradoxical leadership style, particularly in the areas of psychological safety, job insecurity, demotivation and organisational tolerance for rudeness at work. Employee amotivation may be as a result of job insecurity, which brings external consequences like economic uncertainty or industry upheavals. Employees who lack motivation are thus more inclined to neglect their duties and, occasionally, add to the uncivil behaviour at work. The corporate policy on workplace incivility, whether it is condoned or prohibited, has a big impact on how safe people feel psychologically. This dynamic interaction underlines the significance of paradoxical leadership in developing a harmonious work-place where leaders skillfully manage these conflicts, offer consistency in the face of change and promote psychological safety. According to Zhang et al. (2015), leaders who are able to handle the role of a paradoxical leadership well can increase trust and decrease job insecurity as well as incivility at work.
Tajfel and Turner (1979) pointed out the importance of social identity in influencing a person's perspective of themselves within various social groups. By balancing opposing characteristics, paradoxical leadership may affect how people relate with their employees and the company. To build trust and a feeling of community among their teams, leaders who are adept at handling paradoxes are more likely to construct positive social identities with employees (Shemla et al., 2020). When employees have positive relationships with their leaders, they are more at ease sharing their ideas and worries, which can ultimately lead to increased psychological safety. Job insecurity, however, might undermine this positive social identity because employees may sense a lack of support from their leaders. This might result in amotivation, in which individuals feel alienated from their job and lose connection with their responsibilities in the organisation. Employees who distance themselves due to employment uncertainty are less likely to actively engage in the workplace, which can contribute to incivility (Hershcovis et al., 2007).
However, tolerance for workplace incivility might worsen the problem. Employees may see the corporate identity as one that does not promote a respectful and helpful work environment if the organisation tolerates uncivil behaviour without addressing the issue. Cortina et al. (2001) ascertained that tolerance of uncivil behaviour can erode social identity. In contrast, organisations that promote psychological safety help employees develop a strong sense of social identity. These work settings promote employee expression, teamwork, and a sense of belonging. Psychological safety may be developed by leaders who embrace paradoxical leadership by striking a balance between authority and approachability (Edmondson, 1999). Leaders who manage these qualities well can have a positive impact on their teams' social identities, increasing psychological safety and decreasing the likelihood of workplace incivility (Alola et al., 2019). Restaurant managers and leaders must adopt paradoxical leadership strategies, address job insecurity issues, promote psychological safety, and implement zero-tolerance policies for workplace incivility to ensure the well-being and productivity of restaurant staff. This will help to create an environment that is encouraging, motivating and respectful.
Despite the contribution of this result, it is not without limitations. One of the issues is the lack of/limited number of employees used for the study; this is as a result of Covid 19. The questionnaire was collected during the season when the pandemic was at its peak in the USA. Also, we used the theory of social identity; further studies can consider using another theory. Another limitation of our study was that it focused only on employees in the USA. Another study can consider other countries, looking into other Western cultures. We also used the longitudinal method in collecting the questionnaire; another study could employ another method.
Finally, our research shed light on the complex interplay between paradoxical leadership, job insecurity, amotivation, organisational tolerance for workplace incivility and psychological safety in the setting of the restaurant business. The findings highlight the vital relevance of good leadership in building a harmonious and inventive work environment that will eventually boost restaurant employees' well-being and performance. Job uncertainty, on the other hand, remains a substantial problem that might negate these favorable impacts, leading to increasing amotivation. On the other hand, tolerating workplace incivility can maintain a hostile environment and reduce psychological safety, stifling open communication and employee participation. To boost restaurant employees' well-being and productivity, leaders and managers must use paradoxical leadership styles, address job insecurity and enforce zero-tolerance policies. This complete strategy produces a helpful, inspiring and courteous working culture, thereby improving the restaurant industry's overall profitability and sustainability.