Paradoxical Leadership and Proactive Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety in the Hotel Industry

Abstract

This study aims to identify the influence of paradoxical leadership on proactive work behavior mediated through psychological safety in the hotel industry. This study employs survey data of five-star deluxe hotels in South Korea using convenience sampling. The number of 270 cases was used for analysis and the hypotheses were analyzed with structural equation modeling and AMOS 20. Paradoxical leadership includes five sub-variables of self-centeredness with other-centeredness (SO) distance and closeness (DC), uniformly and individualization (UI), work requirements and flexibility (RF), and decision control and autonomy (CA). The results indicate that DC, UI, and CA positively influence psychological safety. Further, RF and CA make a positive impact on proactive work. Psychological safety fully mediates the effect of DC and UI on proactive work behavior and partially mediates the effect of CA on it. The findings of this study suggest that the impact of paradoxical leadership on proactive work behavior can be strengthened when this relationship is accompanied with psychological safety and other mediation variables for the relationship need to be further investigated. This study suggests how hotel managers enhance the level of proactive work behavior by training themselves to be paradoxical leaders and making psychologically safe environment.

1. Introduction

A paradox refers to the two contradictory elements that are considered to be opposite sides from each other and unreasonable when they are compatible (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Every organizational leader confronts the cases of managing the contradictory elements and needs to decide of which side they should be in, so called either-or decision. However, either-or decision is ineffective in such an organization where each element is interdependent (Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015).

For example, organizations tend to like the leaders to control their subordinates to make regulations and stable work outputs while the employees like to have more autonomy for their job (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). The hotel organizations particularly control their employees’ work process because standard operation process (SOP) and mistake reduction have been believed to be sustained through control. On the other hand, organizational performance beyond work manual cannot be expected if hotel organizations merely depend on control itself. For example, hotel employees’discretionary efforts based on autonomy can resolve exceptional customer needs and control may block their discretion to make better service performances. On the other hand, autonomy without control is not ideal to manage primary service consistency. Therefore, the hotel leaders need to allow the subordinates to have autonomy while control from leaders always exist. The leader behavior embracing paradox which should coexist is paradoxical leadership.

Likewise, each department in the hotel business is interdependent and the leaders in the hotel industry need to make their subordinates have ownership to make synergy effect with other departments. Employees need to be psychologically safe about their ownership behaviors and this can be possible when leaders comprehend and embrace all possible issues regarding organizational behaviors (Xue, Li, Liang, & Lee, 2020).

Further, paradoxical challenges in people management have not been scrutinized enough to understand how to resolve or integrate both poles of contradiction (Zhang et al., 2015). Based on the research background, this study intends to examine whether paradoxical leadership can lead the hotel organizations to better employees’ performances in the hotel industry. Performances are measured from the perspective of employees’ proactive behaviors.

Proactive behaviors elicit the hotel employees’ self-initiated work behaviors based on their initiative and discretion. These can bring in flexible services beyond guest expectations and improve current situations. People make proactive behaviors when they are psychologically safe from possible disadvantage (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012). Therefore, this study examines how paradoxical leadership influences proactive work behaviors through psychological safety in the hotel industry.

Based on the research background, this study aims to examine how paradoxical leadership integrates with psychological safety and proactive work behaviors in the hotel industry. This study hypothesizes the significant impact of paradoxical leadership on psychological safety and proactive behaviors. Further, this study investigates the mediation effect of psychological safety for the relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive work behavior. The theoretical and practical implications are to be provided on the basis of the study results.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Paradoxical Leadership

An organization functions with finite resources and stakeholder’s various interests. This brings about contradictory tensions and competing demands, and conflicts (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). Since the 1980s, such a tension has been conceptualized as “organizational paradoxes” (Smith & Lewis, 2011), and Western scholars have increasingly scrutinized organizational contradictions (e.g., Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003).

A “paradox” encompasses “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time. Such elements seem logical when considered in isolation but irrational, inconsistent, and even absurd when juxtaposed” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p386). Paradoxical challenges have not been scrutinized enough to understand how to integrate contradiction (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). For example, organizations prefer for supervisors to control their subordinates while employees want to have own discretion to perform their tasks. This causes a paradox. Accordingly, this addresses supervisory-level leader’s challenge of how to manage paradoxes in the organizations.

Previous research indicated that leaders need to bring behavioral complexity and flexibility to improve organizational system constantly and leaders need to support the opposing forces and regulate the tension between them (e.g., Smith & Lewis, 2011).

The leadership literature on paradoxical leadership refers to integration of paradox and builds up creative and long-term strategy to survive better (Zhang et al., 2015). For example, leaders need to control employee accomplishment to give a reward and promotion system (Vroom & Jago, 2007). On the other hand, employees’ autonomy is required to encourage high work performances. As such, empowerment is needed to allow employees autonomy in their work roles (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Paradoxical leaders integrate and balance tensions associated with control and autonomy over time.

Zhang et al. (2015) characterized the two sides of leadership behaviors with “both-and” terminology to posit five dimensions of paradoxical leadership: combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness (SO), maintaining both distance and closeness (DC), treating subordinates uniformly (UI) while allowing individualization, enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility (RF), and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy (CA).

SO is characterized by a combination of the two sides of leader behaviors when supervising employees (Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012). This means leaders exist with authority in the center of task while they accept subordinates’ ideas and occasionally share leader roles through empowerment.

DC refers to the balance between leader-follower closeness and distance. Both keeping distance with employees and close relationship are needed to supervise and manage positive organizational behaviors (Galvin et al., 2010). Therefore, leaders can simultaneously use both relationship characters for subordinates.

UI means paradoxical leader behavior, which integrate both traits when treating them. According to Lewis (2000), uniformity in a social group can be conducted through leaders’ identical assignment regarding each subordinate’s right and status without having any favoritism. On the other hand, individualization refers to leaders’ acceptance of subordinates’ traits (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006).

RF is based on loose-tight theory. Sagie’s (1997) loose-tight principle refers to the existing paradox in the organizations like empowerment and control when treating employees. ‘Enforcing and flexibility’ indicate paradoxical leadership behavior in terms of employees’ organizational behaviors (Lewis, 2000). For example, leaders force employees to accomplish work requirement, while they admit exception like minor mistakes and new challenges.

CA refers to integrating both paradoxes in leadership behavior. Paradoxical leaders juxtapose the contradictions through maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy simultaneously (Zhang et al. 2015). For example, in management-related issues, leaders take control over decision-making, while they admit autonomy in decision-making in a micro issue like individual work process.

This study uses Zhang et al. (2015)’s five sub-variables of paradoxical leadership behaviors indicated above because this clarifies paradoxical leader behaviors from the organizational perspectives and commonly used in the studies on paradox management.

2.2. Psychological Safety

Schein and Bennis (1965) discussed psychological safety as individuals’ emotional serenity regardless of confronting organizational changes. Schein (1985) argued that psychological safety is helpful to maintain individuals’ stability when they specifically experience disconformity of expectations.

Edmonson (1999) posited employees feel psychologically safe when their new challenges are authentically allowed by the leaders. The individuals with psychological safety are willing to express their ideas and take up the challenge without fear of disadvantage in their career (Edmondson, 1999: 2003).

In short, psychological safety in the organization helps individuals feel safe from potential disadvantage when they express their ideas and make a challenge in the work place. Thus, psychological safety is needed to enhance employees innovative and proactive behaviors.

2.3. Proactive Work Behavior

Being proactive is constant self-control to make what to accomplish rather than passively watching things processed (Grant & Ashford, 2008). It involves individuals’ willingness to bring in change in their circumstances and inspiration to make better future. Proactivity includes key elements of self-initiative, change orientation, and future-focus. Frese and Fay (2001) further described proactive behaviors as self-initiated, long-term oriented, and barrier overcoming actions to achieve individual goals. Proactive work behavior is a behavior intended to influence their work environment and themselves and improve them (Nurjaman, Marta, Eliyana, Kurniasari, & Kurniasari, 2019). Proactive work behavior includes four constructs of problem prevention, individual innovation, voicing ideas, taking charge (Parker & Collins, 2010). Particularly, “taking charge focuses on the internal means for accomplishing organizational goals, such as work methods, policies, and procedures” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p404). This study utilizes taking charge because it encompasses active extra-role behavior as well as in-role and meets the study purpose of the relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive organizational behavior.

In summary, proactive work behaviors refer to employees’ proactivity in the organizations with the purpose of positive impact on themselves and their organizations. This study utilizes taking charge as a proactive work behavior because it is considered to meet the study purpose.

2.4. Paradoxical Leadership and Psychological Safety

The importance of leadership role for enhancing psychological climate has been noticed (e.g., Kawiana, Dewi, Hartati, Setini, & Asih, 2021). Further, both leadership and psychological safety play important role in opinion generation (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).

Treviño, Brown, and Hartman (2003) elicited ethical leadership was a significant antecedent of high-quality leader member exchange (LMX) and make employees feel psychological safety because of trust in leadership. It was also indicated that ethical leadership fostered psychological safety in the organizations.

Yang, Li, Liang, and Zhang (2019) suggested paradoxical leadership develop autonomous environment because holistic concept of both paradoxes develops integrative complexity, which makes employees feel equal. As a result, the employees may speak up their ideas and reach out for help without fear of negative feedback based on psychological safety.

Psychological safety can be encouraged by personal traits and work climate in the organizations. Particularly, leadership makes the difference in level of psychological safety to generate ideas and make innovative actions without negative emotions. Authenticity in ethical leadership helps them to feel safe from any challenge and further holistic concept of paradoxical leadership enhances work climate of fairness in the organization. This climate builds up psychological safety. Based on the existing findings, the following hypotheses have been drawn.

H1: Paradoxical leadership makes a significantly positive impact on psychological safety (PS).

H1-1: SO makes a significantly positive impact on PS.

H1-2: DC makes a significantly positive impact on PS.

H1-3: UI makes a significantly positive impact on PS.

H1-4: RF makes a significantly positive impact on PS.

H1-5: CA makes a significantly positive impact on PS.

2.5. Paradoxical Leadership and Proactive Work Behavior

Yang et al. (2019) verified that employees who perceived paradoxical leadership make creative work performances mediated through proactivity in learning and vitality, which was ‘thriving at work.’ They added that the relationship between thriving at work and creative performance were strengthen through psychological safety. That is, organizational creativity can be brought up by employees’ proactive thriving at work. This means paradoxical leadership motives employees to proactively make a performance with discretion.

Zhang et al. (2015) proved the significant impact of paradoxical leadership on employees’ proactive performances. This indicates that the employees exposed to paradoxical leadership make proactive application of novel ideas and/or challenge to their work process and these activities result in positive performance in the organizations.

Li, She, and Yang (2018) scrutinized the effect of paradoxical leadership focused on the organization consisting of the employees with various majors and careers. The study results indicate that paradoxical leadership positively influences the employees’ innovative work performances. For example, diversity in an organization causes paradox and contradiction, however, paradoxical leaders utilize paradox to develop organizational creativity and innovation.

Based on the literature, the relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive work behavior has been hypothesized as follows.

H2: Paradoxical leadership (PS) makes a significantly positive impact on proactive work behavior (PWB).

H2-1: SO makes a significantly positive impact on PWB.

H2-2: DC makes a significantly positive impact on PWB.

H2-3: UI makes a significantly positive impact on PWB.

H2-4: RF makes a positively significant impact on PWB.

H2-5: CA makes a significantly positive impact on PWB.

2.6. Psychological Safety and Proactive Work Behavior

Stable work climate for risk-taking and generating novel ideas is imperative to build up innovative behaviors. Employees with high levels of psychological safety may voice their thoughts and request necessary resources to conduct better performance without anxiety of negative feedback, which leads them to increase creative activities (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010).

Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, and Vracheva (2016) further indicated that, in a psychologically safe climate, employees were more likely to make creative endeavors because the perception of psychological safety makes them work on their own initiatives without fear of failure. Jiang and Gu (2016) also found the significant impact of psychological safety on employees’ creativity.

Proactively creative employees would concern that their proactive behavior could cause conflict with their colleagues and leaders (Duan, 2011). Particularly, the higher employees feel psychological safety, the more they will get over risks and be willing to implement their initiatives (Liang et al., 2012). Nguyen and Ngo (2020) further indicated the significance of optimal psychological status for employee job performance.

In summary, proactive work behaviors associate with extra efforts, creative actions, innovative behaviors. Psychological safety has been proved to be the antecedent of those behaviors including proactive behaviors. Based on the previous research findings, the following hypothesis has been drawn.

H3: Psychological safety makes a significantly positive impact on proactive work behavior.

2.7. Psychological Safety as Linking Mechanism

Edmondson (1999) supports the idea that psychological safety has a mediation effect for the relationship between organizational support and performance in learning behaviors. A mediation role of psychological safety between superior-subordinate LMX and voice behavior has been supported as well (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). These studies also proved that psychological safety mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and transformational leadership and voice behavior.

Yang et al. (2019) found that, when the psychological safety was not strong enough, paradoxical leader behavior did not make an indirect impact on creativity through thriving at work. More recently, Xue et al. (2020) proved the mediation effect of psychological safety on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and promotive voice behavior. Siswanti and Muafi (2020) also support the idea of mediation effect of psychological empowerment for the relationship between leadership and creative behaviors.

In summary, psychological safety positively plays a role of mechanism for the relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and employee proactive behaviors like creative challenge and voice behavior in the organization because psychological condition makes people decide whether to perform their ideas. Based on the previous studies, the following hypotheses have been proposed.

H4: Psychological safety mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive work behaviors.

H4-1: PS mediates the relationship between SO and PWB.

H4-2: PS mediates the relationship between DC and PWB.

H4-3: PS mediates the relationship between UI and PWB.

H4-4: PS mediates the relationship between RF and PWB.

H4-5: PS mediates the relationship between CA and PWB.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Settlement of Proposed Model

Based on the propositions developed from the literature review and consumption, a conceptual model has been proposed to explain the relationship among paradoxical leadership, psychological safety, and proactive as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Structural Model

3.2. Instruments

Paradoxical Leadership: Paradoxical leadership refers to leader behavior of developing coexistence of organizational paradoxes through integrity of both sides. Paradoxical leadership was measured based on Zhang et al.’s (2015) items. Total number of 22 items include subvariables of SO, DC, UI, RF, and CA. A sample item is “Uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals” and the respondents rated their immediate superiors using 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree).

Psychological Safety: Psychological safety is a belief of feeling safe from disadvantage due to idea generation and voice behaviors. A 4-item scale developed by Ning and Jin (2007) was used. Sample item is “There is a threatening environment at work.” A 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree), was used.

Proactive Work behavior: Proactive Work behaviors in this study elicit taking charge in the hotel organizations. Respondents’ supervisor rated their proactive behavior using 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). It was measured by nine items from the measure developed by Morrison and Phelps (1999). A sample item for ratings is “He/she often tries to bring about improved procedures for the work unit or department.”

3.3. Data Collection and Sample Frame

This study surveyed five-star deluxe hotel employees as sampling. A preliminary study was conducted sampling fifty respondents currently working for JW Marriot, Sheraton, and The Shilla in Seoul. This was undertaken from Jun 1 to 10 in 2020 and it showed a reasonable fit. The respondents were also asked to mark unclear items to make main survey understood better.

Convenience sampling was used for main survey, which includes JW Marriot, Grand Hyatt, The Shilla, Hilton, Lotte in Seoul, Westin, and Paradise in Busan, and Marriot in Daegu, South Korea. In order to observe quarantine guidelines of COVID 19, online survey link was sent to each manager of the selected hotels. The managers in each hotel were explained about the study objectives through e-mail and they were asked to send the link to their subordinates and other departments which vary from front of the office and back office. This main survey was taken from August 22 to September 5 in 2020 once the managers approved the process. They were asked to send the link to the employees with at least one year of work experience and full-time position if possible. The respondents’ proactive work behaviors were asked to be assessed by their managers; based on the respondents’ departments and name, they could assess their proactive behaviors and the results have been kept confidential.

In order to fulfill the study ethics on human rights, each respondent was informed of the confidentiality of the survey and whenever they felt like discontinuing the survey, they could withdraw it at any time. A total number of 291 responses had been collected out of 350 cases requested. Further, after the cases with missing values were subsequently dropped from the collected data, the number of 270 cases has been analyzed.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Information

As presented in Table 1, out of the 270 respondents, the result shows that 46.3 % of them are males (125 persons) and 53.7% of them are females (145 persons). The majority of the respondents (20 to 29–62.2% and 30 to 39–27.0%) are in the age group of 20–39. Moreover, the majority of the respondents have bachelor’s degrees (66.2%). Also, 139 respondents (51.4%) have 1 to 3 year(s) of work experience, 59 people (21.8%) have 4 to 6 years, 43 people (15.9%), and 29 people (10.7%) have over 10 years’ experiences in the hotel industry. Most of the respondents, 197 persons (73.0%) are full-time employees. Their current department ranges from room division (32.9%), back office (26.3%), food and beverage (24.0%), catering (13.7%); clerk (58.1%), caption (21.9%), manager (11.8%) to director or higher position (8.9%).

Table 1: Result of the Demographic Analysis of the Respondents

4.2. Result of Validity and Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine reliability of the measurement. As indicated in Table 2, Conbach’s alpha for each construct in measurement model ranges from 0.647 to 0.903 and, thus, fulfills cutoff; this value is adequate at ≧0.60 (Lee, 2006). If construct reliability reaches above 0.7, convergent validity or internal consistency is secured (Kim, 2007). Also, convergent validity is procured as long as standardized factor loading of all measures and average variance extracted (AVE) are recommended to be above 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In terms of construct reliability, the values of seven constructs range from 0.766 to 0.861 (see Table 2). A couple of items in each variable were eliminated since standardized factor loading were not fit enough to satisfy the cut-off value of 0.5. Then, standardized factor loading of all measures were moderate ranging in value from 0.566 to 0.869. In addition, AVE of each construct is above 0.509 and meets the condition.

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Discriminant Validity

***: 0.000 (r): reversed score, CCR: Composite construct reliability, AVE: Average variance extracted.

x² (df = 307) = 721.081 (p = 0.000), CMIN/df = 2.349, GFI = 0.842, AGFI = 0.791, RMR = 0.080, NFI = 0.839, TLI = 0.900, CFI = 0.910, RMSEA = 0.071.

These show that relevant measurement items adequately explained the designated underlying construct because it exceeds cutoff of above 0.5, explaining construct validity (Kim, 2007). Further, each average variance extracted (AVE) reaches from 0.509 to 0.728. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures can confirm whether the scales of psychometric properties are reasonable fit to extend beyond exploratory analytic technique (Noar, 2003). Further, CFA can add further information about dimensionality of scale by testing a variety of models against one another (Noar, 2003). The confirmatory factor analysis was completed with maximum likelihood estimation in this study. CFA was applied to all the items and chi-square of 721.081, degree of freedom of 307, and p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.001). Further, the value in chi-square/df should be less than three to secure overall goodness of fit (Kim, 2007). The value of chi-square/df shows 2.239 so that overall goodness of fit is secured. In assessing model fit, the following indices should be fulfilled (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008): GFI (Goodness-of-fit index – desirable at ≧0.90), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of fit Index–desirable at ≧0.90), RMR (Root Mean Square Residual–desirable at ≤0.05, acceptable at ≤0.08), NFI (Normed fit index–desirable at ≧0.90), CFI (Comparative fit index – desirable at ≧0.90), χ2 (chi-square–desirable at < 0.05), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index – desirable at ≧0.90), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation – very desirable at ≤0.05 or moderately desirable at <0.08). Table 2 presented these as follows; NFI (0.839), and AGFI (0.791), RMR (0.080), GFI (0.842), CFI (0.910), TLI (0.900), and RMSEA (0.071). The relatively small sample sizes limit the possibility of reaching the 0.9 cutoff value for some fit indices and they are not dependable as “a stand-alone index” (Hooper et al., 2008). Further, an acceptable model could be rejected if researchers strictly adhere to suggested cutoff values (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). As a result, the relationship among the suggested variables is to be a reasonable fit.

4.4. Correlation Matrix

Correlation coefficients presented in Table 3 vary from 0.281 to 0.722. Discriminant validity is secured when squared correlation reaches below AVE (Lee, 2006). The results of each squared correlation is below AVE so that discriminant validity is fulfilled.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix Between the Constructs

*Significant at *p < 0.05, S.D.: Standard Deviation.

4.5. Test of Hypotheses Testing

Results of Overall Measurement Model Testing: Table 4 illustrates the strength of the relationships among the constructs with path coefficients and overall goodness of model fit indices. The model presents an acceptable fit; χ2 (df: 308) = 738.786 (p = 0.000), CMIN/df = 2.349, GFI = 0.840, AGFI = 0.789, RMR = 0.080, NFI = 0.835, TLI = 0.899, CFI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.072.

Table 4: Parameter Estimate in Structural Model

Significant at ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05, S.C.: Standardized Coefficient, S. E.: Standard Errors.

Results of Hypothesis Testing: The path coefficients of each direct effect were computed to analyze the proposed hypotheses; First, hypothesis 1–1, the impact of SO on PS has been rejected. Hypothesis 1–2, the impact of DC on PS has been accepted; the result of the study shows path coefficient of 0.476 (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 1–3, the impact of UI on PS has been accepted; the study result shows a path coefficient of 0.304 (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 1–4, explaining the impact of RF on PS has been rejected. Hypothesis 1–5, the impact of CA on PS has been accepted with path coefficient of 0.223 (t > 1.96, p < 0.05). H1 for the relationship between paradoxical leadership and psychological safety has been partially supported (Table 4). The length of service and the job characteristics of the hotel business are likely influence the results. For example, the employees with relatively short experience may not feel the needs of leader roles and hotel service based on manual makes it hard to connect flexibility into psychological safety.

Hypothesis 2–1, 2–2, and 2–3, the impact of SO, DC, UI on PWB were rejected. H2–4 for the impact of RF on PWB has been accepted with path coefficient of 0.481 (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). H2–5, the impact of CA on PWB has been accepted with path coefficient of 0.325 (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). H2 is partially supported. SO, DC, and UI do not directly influence proactive behaviors but they may need a mediating variable to make a significant relationship (Table 4).

Hypothesis 3, the relationship between PS and PWB has been accepted with path coefficient of 0.348 (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). The psychologically safe employees make proactive work behaviors in the hotel industry (Table 4).

In summary, paradoxical leadership is verified as a significant antecedent of psychological safety in the hotel industry because the impact of DC, UI, and CA on psychological safety have been supported. Further, RF and CA in paradoxical leadership make direct impacts on proactive work behavior so that paradoxical leadership partially influences proactive work behavior in the hotel industry. Psychological safety significantly predicts the variance of proactive work behavior in the hotel industry. These outcomes indicate that both paradoxical leadership and psychological safety are effective for enhancing proactive work behavior.

Table 5 presents the mediation effect of psychological safety for the relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive work behavior. It is estimated as follows.

Table 5: Result of Mediation Effect

Significant at ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.

For example, X and Y represent the independent variable and the dependent measure, respectively. The significance of both direct effect of X on Y and indirect effect through mediation variable need to be examined in order to examine mediation effect (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011). If indirect effect through mediation variable is significantly supported regardless of insignificant direct effect of X on Y, the mediation variable fully mediates the relationship between X on Y (Rucker, et al., 2011), In contrast, if the direct effect of X on Y remains significant when the indirect effect is supported, the mediating variable makes a partial mediation effect for the relationship between X and Y (Rucker et al., 2011).

Bootstrapping was employed to analyze direct impact. The result of this study indicates that both direct and indirect effects of SO on proactive work behavior have been rejected. This means SO does not make an impact on proactive behavior although the hotel employees feel psychologically safe. Further, DC and UI make a significantly positive impact on proactive work behavior when those relationships are mediated through psychological safety although each direct impact is insignificant as shown in Table 5; path coefficient of indirect effect of DC on proactive work behavior is 0.165 (p < 0.05) and the effect of UI on proactive work behavior is 0.106 (p < 0.05). This indicates psychological safety fully mediates the impact of DC and UI on proactive work behavior.

In addition, CA not only make a significantly direct impact on proactive work behavior with path coefficient of 0.325 (p < 0.001) and but also makes a significantly indirect impact on proactive work behavior mediated through psychological safety with path coefficient of indirect impact like 0.078 (p < 0.05). The results indicates that psychological safety makes a partial mediation effect for the relationship between CA and proactive work behavior.

As a result, DC and UI positively influence proactive work behavior when they are accompanied with psychological safety. On the other hand, the effect of CA on proactive work behavior is enhanced when psychological safety exists.

5. Discussion

This study presents the empirical evidence to foster proactive work behavior through paradoxical leadership and psychological safety in the hotel organization. Through this investigation, the study results provide a fundamental understanding of importance of paradox management as a facilitator to help the hotel organizations as well as the employees to grow further. This study provides the following theoretical implications.

First, paradoxical leadership makes organizations proactively respond to dynamic, complex, and global business circumstance through integration of both sides of paradox in actual management strategy and proves to be the antecedent of high organizational performance (Lewis, Andriopoulos, & Smith, 2014). Paradoxical leadership also significantly predicts promotive voice behavior in the organizations (e.g., Xue et al., 2020). This study further extends the existing study models of relationship between paradoxical leadership and proactive work behavior, particularly focused on the hotel industry, which faces unpredictable business environment. The results indicate that paradoxical leadership is a significant antecedent of proactive work behavior but the mediation variable for the relationship with SO, DC, and UI needs to be further investigated. This reveals that job and/or organizational characteristics could influence the structural relationship among the variables.

Psychological safety is a significant factor to increase potential possibility for organizational performance. Researchers have constantly found the antecedents of psychological safety and raised the needs to extend related study models (e.g., Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009: Aranzamendez, James, & Toms, 2015). Few studies were conducted to verify the impact of paradoxical leadership on psychological factors. This study extends the study models with the positively significant impact of paradoxical leadership on employees’ psychological stability in the hotel industry.

Further, the relationship between paradoxical leadership and creative challenge and voice behavior in the organizations has been found be more encouraged when the employees feel psychological safety (e.g., Xue et al., 2020). This study particularly confirms that together with psychological safety, DC, UI, and CA can make a difference in variance of proactive work behavior in the hotel industry. This indicates psychological variable needs to be considered in order to foster synergy effect of the leadership influence on team.

The practical implications are as follows. First, the study results imply for the hotel managers how paradoxical leadership behavior can be applied to the hotel organizations to motivate psychological safety of subordinates. The findings reveal that, when hotel leaders are balanced with paradox in relationship with subordinates (DC), fairness (UI), and decision-making (CA), the employees feel psychologically safe about their voice behavior. As such, the managers need to train themselves to be paradoxical leaders.

Second, the results reveal how to influence proactive work behaviors using paradoxical leadership in the hotel industry. For example, the managers in practice need to accept proper level of autonomy of their subordinates and minor mistakes, which happen in the process of making better work performance while the managers should be behind of them to control problems and indicate required work objectives.

Third, this study found psychological safety enhances the impact of CA of paradoxical leadership on proactive work behavior in the hotel industry. Further, DC and CA can be effective to tone up proactive work behavior when psychological safety is accompanied. To this end, the hotel practitioners need to present the objective and plausible criteria to evaluate employees work performances and proactive work behavior is to be embraced as a part of developmental stages in the organizational culture.

Finally, the study results posit paradoxical leadership perceived by employees is effective to bring about their proactive work behavior. The leaders in the hotel industry may have their own leadership to which they are accustomed and it must be extremely hard to change leadership propensity. Therefore, how to integrate paradox needs to be regularly trained to leaders. The leaders also need to be aware of current leadership behaviors and need to transform to paradoxical leadership as constantly improving current organizational strength and make innovation. It is further suggested that the managers can study how to establish both/ and approach that leverages each benefit of paradox based on real case studies in various industries.

6. Conclusion

The present study was conducted to examine how the sub-variables of paradoxical leadership influence proactive work mediated through psychological safety in the hotel industry. The findings show that DC, UI, and CA are positive antecedents of psychological leadership and RF and CA are those of proactive work behavior. Psychological safety is an effective mediator for the impact of DC, UI, and CA on proactive work behavior. The characteristics of the hotel industry and the employees may influence these results. They indicate that paradoxical leadership is an opportunity for development and innovation for the hotel industry and psychological safety needs to be valued from the perspectives of organizational culture.

The paradoxical leadership employed in this study was limited to the leadership behavior focused on paradox regarding treatment of subordinates. Future studies are suggested to investigate how wider perspectives of paradoxical management like long-term sustainability vs short-term profit, social responsibility vs cost reduction, and conservation vs innovation influence proactive behaviors. The impact of paradoxical leadership on organizational behaviors may vary depending on industrial traits. Thus, the extended study model in any other industries is expected for future study.