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

Figures & Tables

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***

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

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

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