Complementing theory and evidence for the positive effects of paradoxical leadership, we argue that paradoxical leadership can also result in tensions from the awareness it raises of conflicting paradoxical demands and the expectation that subordinates strive to maximize on these demands even when they are conflicting. Such tensions may result in counterproductive behavior. This gives rise to the question of how these negative effects of paradoxical leadership may be attenuated. Addressing this issue, we argue that higher consistency of paradoxical leadership reduces uncertainty and thus attenuates experienced tensions and counterproductive behavior following from these tensions, and more so for male subordinates who, on average, have less experience dealing with work-related conflicting demands than female subordinates. We found support for this moderated mediation model in a repeated-measures survey (N = 107 individuals; N = 1027 weekly observations). We discuss implications of our findings for theory and practice.
AbadeerA. S. (2015). Cognitive dissonance and gender discrimination. In Norms and gender discrimination in the arab world (pp. 115-125). Palgrave Macmillan US.
2.
AshforthB. E.RogersK. M.PrattM. G.PradiesC. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453-1478. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
3.
AveryD. R.TracyD. K. B.DumasT. L.GeorgeE.JoshiA.LoydD. L.van KnippenbergD.WangM.XuH. (2022). Racial biases in the publication process: Exploring expressions and solutions. Journal of Management, 48(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211030561
4.
BackhausL.ReuberA.VogelD.VogelR. (2022). Giving sense about paradoxes: Paradoxical leadership in the public sector. Public Management Review, 24(9), 1478-1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1906935
5.
BairdB. M.LeK.LucasR. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 512-527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.512
6.
BatoolU.RaziqM. M.SarwarN. (2023). The paradox of paradoxical leadership: A multi-level conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 33(4), 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100983
7.
BealD. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 383-407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335
8.
Bernhard-OettelC.EibC.GriepY.LeineweberC. (2020). How do job insecurity and organizational justice relate to depressive symptoms and sleep difficulties: A multilevel study on immediate and prolonged effects in Swedish workers. Applied Psychology, 69(4), 1271-1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12222
9.
CleggK. A.MoskowitzD. S.MinersC. T.AndrevskiG.SadikajG.ZuroffD. C. (2021). Interpersonal perception and interpersonal spin. Journal of Personality, 89(3), 483-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12594
10.
CourtrightS. H.GardnerR. G.SmithT. A.McCormickB. W.ColbertA. E. (2016). My family made me do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1630-1652. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1009
11.
DalalR. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
12.
DalalR. S.LamH.WeissH. M.WelchE.HulinC. L. (2009). A dynamic approach to organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Behavioral co-occurrence and switching, and dynamic relationships with mood and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051-1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44636148
13.
DiebigM.BormannK. C. (2020). The dynamic relationship between laissez-faire leadership and day-level stress: A role theory perspective. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(3), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219900177
14.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders, Vol. 11. Harvard Business School Press.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
17.
EvansM. G. (1985). A monte carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
18.
FigeljR. R.BiloslavoR. (2015). Organisational dualities: An integrated review. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 9(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBSR.2015.071828
19.
FisherC. D.ToM. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1803
20.
FleesonW.NoftleE. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667-1684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00122.x
21.
FoldyE. G. (2006). Dueling schemata: Dialectical sensemaking about gender. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306290309
22.
FoxS.SpectorP. E.MilesD. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
23.
FritzJ.PiccirilloM. L.CohenZ. D.FrumkinM.KirtleyO.MoellerJ.BringmannL. F. (2024). So you want to do ESM? 10 essential topics for implementing the experience-sampling method. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(3), 25152459241267912. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241267912
24.
GabrielA. S.PodsakoffN. P.BealD. J.SpleacottB. A.SonnentagS.TrougakosJ. P.ButtsM. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969-1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626
25.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel hierarchical models, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.
26.
GerpottF. H.RivkinW.DiestelS. (2023). Keep it steady? Not only average self-control demands matter for employees’ work engagement, but also variability. Work & Stress, 37(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2180784
27.
GielnikM. M.BledowR.StarkM. S. (2020). A dynamic account of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 487-505. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000451
28.
HobfollS. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
29.
HobfollS. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In FolkmanS. (Ed.), Oxford Library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127-147). Oxford University Press.
30.
HofmannD. A.GavinM. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504.
31.
JavidanM.BulloughA.DibbleR. (2016). Mind the gap: Gender differences in global leadership self-efficacies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0035
32.
JohnsonR. E.VenusM.LanajK.MaoC.ChangC. H. (2012). Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1262-1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029043
33.
KarkR.Waismel-ManorR.ShamirB. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 620-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.012
34.
KearneyE.ShemlaM.van KnippenbergD.ScholzF. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.001
KhattabJ.van KnippenbergD.PieterseA. N.HernandezM. (2020). A network utilization perspective on the leadership advancement of minorities. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 109-129. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0399
37.
KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass.
38.
KnightE.ParoutisS. (2016). Expanding the paradox-pedagogy links: Paradox as a threshold concept in management education. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions (pp. 529–546). Oxford University Press.
39.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616-642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
40.
KulichC.IacovielloV.Lorenzi-CioldiF. (2018). Solving the crisis: When agency is the preferred leadership for implementing change. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.003
41.
LeeA.LyubovnikovaJ.ZhengY.LiZ. F. (2023). Paradoxical leadership: A meta-analytical review. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 1, 1229543. https://doi.org/10.3389/forgp.2023.1229543
42.
LeungA. K. Y.LiouS.Miron-SpektorE.KohB.ChanD.EisenbergR.SchneiderI. (2018). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 443-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000160
43.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204
44.
LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322
45.
LiaoE. Y.WangA. Y.ZhangC. Q. (2021). Who influences employees’ dark side: A multi-foci meta-analysis of counterproductive workplace behaviors. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(2), 97-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962554
46.
LongB. C.HallW. A.BermbachN.JordanS.PattersonK. (2008). Gauging visibility: How female clerical workers manage work-related distress. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1413-1428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308322604
47.
LordR. G.DayD. V.ZaccaroS. J.AvolioB. J.EaglyA. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434-451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
48.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217
49.
MarcusB.SchulerH. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647
50.
MastersonC.SunJ.WayneS. J.KluemperD. (2021). The roller coaster of happiness: An investigation of interns’ happiness variability, LMX, and job-seeking goals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103654
51.
MattaF. K.ScottB. A.ColquittJ. A.KoopmanJ.PassantinoL. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743-770. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0455
52.
MattaF. K.ScottB. A.GuoZ. A.MatusikJ. G. (2020). Exchanging one uncertainty for another: Justice variability negates the benefits of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000425
53.
McCleanS. T.BarnesC. M.CourtrightS. H.JohnsonR. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 479-508. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0081
54.
MeisterA.SinclairA.JehnK. A. (2017). Identities under scrutiny: How women leaders navigate feeling misidentified at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 672-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.009
55.
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594
NortonM. I.MoninB. B.CooperJ.HoggM. A. (2003). Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change from the inconsistency of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.47
58.
PearceC. L.WassenaarC. L.BersonY.Tuval-MashiachR. (2019). Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.003
59.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
60.
PreacherK. J.SeligJ. P. (2012). Advantages of monte carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
61.
PutnamL. L.AshcraftK. L. (2017). Gender and organizational paradox. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions (pp. 333-352). Oxford University Press.
62.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
63.
QuY.TodorovaG.DasboroughM. T. (2022). Someone must be mindful: Trait mindfulness as a boundary condition for paradoxical leader behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 29(4), 486-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221115487
64.
QuinnR. E.RohrbaughJ. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363
65.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, Vol. 1. Sage.
66.
RobinsonS. L.BennettR. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: Multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/256693
67.
SamuelsonH. L.LevineB. R.BarthS. E.WesselJ. L.GrandJ. A. (2019). Exploring women's leadership labyrinth: Effects of hiring and developmental opportunities on gender stratification. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(6), 101314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101314
68.
SchockA. K.GruberF. M.ScherndlT.OrtnerT. M. (2019). Tempering agency with communion increases women's leadership emergence in all-women groups: Evidence for role congruity theory in a field setting. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.003
69.
ShaoY.NijstadB. A.TäuberS. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008
70.
SmithW. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932
71.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
72.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W.TushmanM. L. (2016). Both/and” leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 1-8.
73.
SparrJ. L.van KnippenbergD.KearneyE. (2022). Paradoxical leadership as sensegiving: Stimulating change-readiness and change-oriented performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0161
74.
SpectorP. E.FoxS. (2005). The stressoremotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In FoxS.SpectorP. E. (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). American Psychological Association.
75.
van KnippenbergD.PearceC. L.van GinkelW. P. (2025). Shared leadership – vertical leadership dynamics in teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 15(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241292341
76.
VinceR.BroussineM. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700101
77.
VolmerJ.SchulteE. M.FritzC. (2023). Facilitating employee recovery from work: The role of leader-member-exchange. Occupational Health Science, 7(2), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00132-w
78.
WaldmanD. A.PutnamL. L.Miron-SpektorE.SiegelD. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.006
79.
WangY. R.FordM. T.WangY.JinJ. (2019). Shifts and variability in daily interpersonal justice are associated with psychological detachment and affect at home. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.004
80.
WangM.HuW.ChenS. (2024). The double-edged sword of ambidextrous leadership for leaders themselves: A conservation of resources perspective. Human Systems Management, 43(6), 919-931. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-230197
81.
WinklerE.BuschC.ClasenJ.VowinkelJ. (2015). Changes in leadership behaviors predict changes in job satisfaction and well-being in low-skilled workers: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814527771
82.
WoodW.LundgrenS.OuelletteJ. A.BuscemeS.BlackstoneT. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323-345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323
ZhangY.WaldmanD. A.HanY. L.LiX. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995
85.
ZhengW.KarkR.MeisterA. L. (2018a). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 584-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001
86.
ZhengX.NieberleK. W.BraunS.SchynsB. (2023). Is someone looking over my shoulder? An investigation into supervisor monitoring variability, subordinates’ daily felt trust, and wellbeing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 818-837. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2699
87.
ZhengW.SurgevilO.KarkR. (2018b). Dancing on the razor’s edge: How top-level women leaders manage the paradoxical tensions between agency and communion. Sex Roles, 79(11-12), 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0908-6
