The so-called paradoxical leadership is a new type of leadership that uses contradictory and integrated thinking to balance and coordinate environmental changes, and it is complex in thinking and action by coping with organization conflicts. At present, the increasingly complex business environment not only poses new challenges to managers, but also puts forward new requirements for employees. On the one hand, employees can no longer adapt to the current workplace ecology simply by completing instructional tasks and routine work, and organizations need employees change from being " passive” to " proactive”. On the other hand, the dominant or injunctive leadership in organizations will restrict employees’ proactive behavior. Therefore, how to effectively motivate employees’ proactive behavior has become a " paradox” problem. Different from traditional leadership, paradoxical leadership breaks through the limitations of the previous leadership behavior, which can give consideration to the " both-and” two acts, and play an irreplaceable role in the effective solution of the organization dilemma. Past research indicates that paradoxical leadership has an effect on employees’ proactive behavior, but the underlying mechanism of paradoxical leadership on employees’ proactive behavior is still unclear. Based on the matched field data collected from 58 direct supervisors and 209 employees, this paper examines the specific mechanism of internal interaction between paradoxical leadership and employees’ proactive behavior from the perspective of social network relations, and further examines the influence of supervisor-subordinate Guanxi on the relationship between team internal network strength and employees’ proactive behavior. The results of the hierarchical linear model revealed that paradoxical leadership has a significant positive impact on the employees’ proactive behavior. The study of mediating effects shows that the impact of paradoxical leadership on employees’ proactive behavior is mainly through team internal network strength. Moreover, the relationship between team internal network strength and employees’ proactive behavior is influenced by supervisor-subordinate Guanxi, that is, the stronger the supervisor-subordinate Guanxi is, the less the influence of the internal network strength on employees’ proactive behavior is. The above conclusions have some significance for both theory and practice. In theory, first, they help enrich the theoretical research of paradoxical leadership in Chinese cultural context; second, they explain the impact results of paradoxical leadership from the perspective of social network relations, and also provide a new perspective for interpreting the formation mechanism of employees’ proactive behavior; finally, the results also expand the research thinking of supervisor-subordinate Guanxi in the field of leadership. In practice, the above conclusions not only strengthen the guiding significance of paradoxical leadership for practice, but also provide references for enterprises to effectively improve employees’ proactive behavior.
The Influence Mechanism of Paradoxical Leadership on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: The Role of Team Internal Network Strength and Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 40, Issue 07, pp. 142 - 154 (2018) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.07.011
Cai Yahua, Jia Liangding, You Shuyang, et al. The influence of differentiated transformational leadership on knowledge sharing and team creativity: A social network explanation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, (5):585-598.
Liu Hui, Wang Xiaozhuang. Supervisor-subordinate guanxi: Concept, measurement, influence factors and results[J]. Psychological Research, 2016, (5):69-75.
Luo Jinlian, Hua Changhua, Zhong Jing. The influence and mechanisms of paradoxical leadership and team viability on team innovation[J]. Science Technology Progress and Policy, 2015, (11):121-125.
Luo Jinlian, Hu Wenan, Zhong Jing. The mechanisms of paradoxical leadership and team viability on team innovation[J]. Management Review, 2017, (7): 122-134.
Pang Dalong, Xu Liguo, Xi Youmin. Paradox management: Origins of thoughts, characteristic implication, and future perspectives[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2017, (2):168-175.
Peng Wei, Jin Dandan, Zhu Qingwen. A literature review of team social network and prospects[J]. Human Resources Development of China，2017, (3): 57-68.
Wang Duanxu, Guo Weixiao, Liu Xiaoli. Study on the impact of group internal social network on group creativity[J]. Soft Science, 2009, (9):25-28.
Wang Zhaohui. How does paradoxical leadership enhance individual ambidexterity? The composite multiple mediating role of psychological safety and thriving at work[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, (3):107-120.
Wu Yajun. “Strategic framework thinking”, “paradox integration” and enterprise competitive advantage——Ren Zhengfei’s cognitive model analysis and management inspiration[J]. Management World, 2013, (4):150-167.
Xu Weiqin, Tan Xiaobin, Feng Xiaobin, Chen Liqiong. Review and prospect of team social network research abroad: From the perspective of knowledge transfer[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2011, (11):29-38.
Zhang Guiping, Liao Jianqiao. An analysis on the new progress of foreign employees’ proactive behavior[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2011, (3):58-64.
Zhang Juncheng, Ling Wenquan. An analysis of leader-follower matching research from the perspective of paradox[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2013, (1):55-62.
Zhao Hongdan, Guo Limin. The best of both worlds: The conceptual structure and influencing mechanisms of ambidextrous leadership[J]. Human Resources Development of China, 2017, (4):55-65.
Zhao Juan, Zhang Wei. Team social network effects on team creativity: The mediation effect of learning[J]. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 2015, (9):148-157.
 Carter D R, DeChurch L A, Braun M T, et al. Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review[J].
Journal of Applied Psychology，2015, 100（3）: 597-622.
Chang M L. On the relationship between intragroup conflict and social capital in teams: A longitudinal investigation in Taiwan[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior，2017, 38（1）: 3-27.
Chung Y, Jackson S E. The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness[J].
Journal of Management，2013, 39（2）: 442-468.
Den Hartog D N, Belschak F D. When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of
autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology，2012, 97（1）: 194-202.
Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness[J]. American Journal of Sociology，1985,91（3）: 481-510.
Grant A M, Gino F, Hofmann D A. The hidden advantages of quiet bosses[J]. Harvard Business Review，2010, 88（12）: 28.
Griffin M A, Neal A, Parker S K. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent
contexts[J]. Academy of Management Journal，2007, 50（2）: 327-347.
Hobfoll S E. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings[J]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology，2011, 84（1）: 116-122.
Lewis M W, Andriopoulos C, Smith W K. Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility[J]. California Management
Review，2014, 56（3）: 58-77.
Parker S K, Bindl U K, Strauss K. Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation[J]. Journal of Management，2010,36（4）: 827-856.
Probst G, Raisch S, Tushman M L. Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR leaders[J].
Organizational Dynamics，2011, 40（4）: 326-334.
Pullés D C, Lorens Montes F J, Gutierrez-Gutierrrez L. Network ties and transactive memory systems: Leadership as an
enabler[J]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal，2017, 38（1）: 56-73.
Shao Y, Nijstad B A, Täuber S. Paradoxical leader behavior and creativity: The role of employee cognitive complexity[J].
Academy of Management Proceedings，2017, 2017（1）: 10522.
She Z L, Li Q. Paradoxical leader behaviors and follower job performance: Examining a moderated mediation model[J].
Academy of Management Proceedings，2017, 2017（1）: 13558.
Smith W K, Lewis M W. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing[J]. Academy of
Management Review，2011, 36（2）: 381-403.
Sonnentag S, Starzyk A. Perceived prosocial impact, perceived situational constraints, and proactive work behavior: Looking
at two distinct affective pathways[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior，2015, 36（6）: 806-824.
Tripathi N. Hindrance or challenge: Dynamics of paradoxical leadership and subordinate’s work motivation[J]. Academy of
Management Proceedings，2017, 2017（1）: 10611.
Wang X H, Fang Y L, Qureshi I, et al. Understanding employee innovative behavior: Integrating the social network and
leader-member exchange perspectives[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior，2015, 36（3）: 403-420.
Zhang L, Deng Y L. Guanxi with supervisor and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction[J].
Journal of Business Ethics，2016, 134（3）: 413-427.
Zhang Y, Waldman D A, Han Y L, et al. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and
consequences[J]. Academy of Management Journal，2015, 58（2）: 538-566.
Cite this article
Peng wei, Li hui. The Influence Mechanism of Paradoxical Leadership on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: The Role of Team Internal Network Strength and Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, 40(7): 142-154.
Previous: Mandarins or Trifoliate Oranges: A Controversy in the Foreign Dual-Class Structure Research from a Contingency Perspective