• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.167-178
• /
• 2021

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.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.165-175
• /
• 2023

In venture creation research, studying 'entrepreneurial leadership' is important for uncovering and comprehending the underlying causal process in innovative behavior performance. Although previous studies provide that entrepreneurial leadership enhances followers' innovative behavior, there is few research on entrepreneurial leadership and followers' characteristics interaction. The present study's focus is paradoxical effects of entrepreneurial leadership on self-efficacy and innovative behavior. On the basis of individual regulatory focus, this study suggests that interaction effects of entrepreneurial leadership and followers' regulatory focus differed in promotion view and prevention view followers' innovative behavior. To strengthen the casual mechanism, this study conducted in priming experiment method using employees in SMEs. This study used a 2(entrepreneurial leadership vs. control) x 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) between-participants design. The results of this study provide that (1) Individuals in promotion focus especially benefited from entrepreneurial leadership in terms of its effect on their self-efficacy and innovative behavior; (2) whereas entrepreneurial leadership was negatively related to self-efficacy and innovative behavior of followers' prevention focus. In sum, results of the present study supporting evidence for hypotheses, combined effect of entrepreneurial leadership and regulatory focus on innovative behavior through self-efficacy. Experimental results confirmed hypotheses of this study, revealing that promotion focus show more innovative behavior than prevention focus when their leaders' leadership style is entrepreneurial leadership. Also, the paradoxical effect of entrepreneurial leadership and regulatory focus of followers on innovative behavior was mediated by followers' self-efficacy. This study helps explain how leaders' entrepreneurial leadership boost followers' innovative behavior, particularly for those employees who have promotion focus. The current study contributes to the theory of entrepreneurial leadership and regulatory focus and innovation literature. Findings of this study shed light on the organizational processes that shape innovative behavior in venture/startup corporations and provide contributions for venture business field.