Can Paradoxical Leadership Be the Game Changer in Driving Organisations against Negative Practices?

Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Age
18–24	50	25.0
25–34	140	70.0
35 and Above	10	5.0
Total	200	100.0
Gender
Male	113	56.5
Female	87	43.5
Total	200	100.0
Organisational Tenure
0–3 years	95	47.5
4–6 years	52	26.0
6 years and above	53	26.5
Total	200	100.0

Table 2:

Coefficient of the Five Factor Measurement Model

Constructs	Cronbach α	CFA	t-value
Paradoxical Leadership	0.95	0.75	0.96
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***
Job Insecurity	0.91	0.73	0.92
JIS9		0.77	-
JIS10		0.93	13.50***
JIS11		0.86	18.67***
JIS12		0.86	16.05***
Amotivation	0.86	0.83	0.94
AMT13		0.89	-
AMT14		0.99	16.40***
AMT15		0.81	19.01***
OTWI	0.80	0.72	0.88
OTWI16		0.78	-
OTWI17		0.87	13.41***
OTWI18		0.87	15.69***
EPS	0.92	0.70	0.87
EPS19		0.84	-
EPS20		0.96	10.87***
EPS21		0.70	11.43***

[i] Note the n=200, correlation significant at 0.001 at two-tailed (***)

Table 3:

Correlation of the Variables, Mean, and Standard Deviations.

Constructs	2	3	4	5	Mean	S/D
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)

Table 4:

Results of the Hypothesized Relationship

Standardised Hypothesis Relationship	Std. Estimates	t-Values	P-Value	Results
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

Table 5:

Results of the direct and indirect effect of the mediating variable

Constructs	Estimates	ULL	LLCI	P
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

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2023-0020 | Journal eISSN: 2182-4924 | Journal ISSN: 2182-4916

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 252 - 265

Submitted on: Jun 4, 2023

Accepted on: Nov 20, 2023

Published on: Jan 31, 2024

Published by: Polytechnic Institute of Leiria

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

Paradoxical leadership,

Job insecurity,

Incivility,

Amotivation,

Employee psychological safety

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Business management, other,

Industries,

Tourism, hospitality, travel,

Event industry, leisure industry,

Sports and recreation,

Sports and recreation, other

© 2024 Uju Violet Alola, Rawan Alafeshat, Marymagdaline Enowmbi Tarkang, Soolmaz Azarmi Lafmajani, published by Polytechnic Institute of Leiria
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 13 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Can Paradoxical Leadership Be the Game Changer in Driving Organisations against Negative Practices?

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Paradigm

My account