The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on Adaptive Performance of New-Generation Employees in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Role of Harmonious Work Passion and Core Self-Evaluation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Paradoxical Leadership and Adaptive Performance
2.2. Mediating Role of Harmonious Work Passion
2.3. Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluation
3. Method
3.1. Study Sample
3.2. Measurement Tools
4. Results
4.1. Common Method Bias
4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.4. Empirical Results
5. Discussion
6. Research Implications and Prospects
6.1. Theoretical Implication
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Research Limitations and Prospects
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variables | Items |
---|---|
Paradoxical Leadership | 1. He/She uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals. |
2. He/She puts all subordinates on an equal footing, but considers their individual traits or personalities. | |
3. He/She communicates with subordinates uniformly without discrimination, but varies communication styles depending on their individual characteristics or needs. | |
4. He/She manages subordinates uniformly, but considers individualized needs. | |
5. He/She assigns equal workloads, but considers individual strengths and capabilities to handle different tasks. | |
6. He/She shows a desire to lead, but allows others to share the leadership role. | |
7. He/She likes to be the center of attention, but allows others to share the spotlight as well. | |
8. He/She insists on getting respect, but also shows respect toward others. | |
9. He/She has a high self-opinion, but shows awareness of personal imperfection and the value of other people. | |
10. He/She is confident regarding personal ideas and beliefs, but acknowledges that he/she can learn from others. | |
11. He/She controls important work issues, but lets subordinates handle details. | |
12. He/She makes final decisions for subordinates, but lets subordinates control specific work processes. | |
13. He/She makes decisions about big issues, but delegates lesser issues to subordinates. | |
14. He/She maintains overall control, but gives subordinates appropriate autonomy. | |
15. He/She stresses conformity in task performance, but allows for exceptions. | |
16. He/She clarifies work requirements, but does not micro-manage work. | |
17. He/She is highly demanding regarding work performance, but is not hypercritical. | |
18. He/She has high requirements, but allows subordinates to make mistakes. | |
19. He/She recognizes the distinction between supervisors and subordinates, but does not act superior in the leadership role. | |
20. He/She keeps distance from subordinates, but does not remain aloof. | |
21. He/She maintains position differences, but upholds subordinates’ dignity. | |
22. He/She maintains distance from subordinates at work, but is also amiable toward them. | |
Harmonious Work Passion | 23. This work allows me to live a variety of experiences. |
24. The new things that I discover with this work allow me to appreciate it even more. | |
25. This work allows me to live memorable experiences. | |
26. This work reflects the qualities I like about myself. | |
27. This work is in harmony with the other activities in my life. | |
28. For me, it is a passion that I still manage to control. | |
29. I am completely taken with this work. | |
Adaptive performance | 30. Adapted well to changes in core tasks. |
31. Coped with changes to the way I have to do my core tasks. | |
32. Learned new skills to help me adapt to changes in my core tasks. | |
33. Dealt effectively with changes affecting my work unit (e.g., new members). | |
34. Learnt new skills or taken on new roles to cope with changes in the way my unit works. | |
35. Responded constructively to changes in the way my team works. | |
36. Responded flexibly to overall changes in the organization (e.g., changes in management) | |
37. Coped with changes in the way the organization operates. | |
38. Learnt skills or acquired information that helped me adjust to overall changes in the organization. | |
Core Self-Evaluations | 39. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. |
40. Sometimes I feel depressed. | |
41. When I try, I generally succeed. | |
42. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. | |
43. I complete tasks successfully. | |
44. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. | |
45. Overall, I am satisfied with myself. | |
46. I am filled with doubts about my competence. | |
47. I determine what will happen in my life. | |
48. I do not feel in control of my success in my career. | |
49. I am capable of coping with most of my problems. | |
50. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. |
References
- Lu, X.Q.; Wijayaratna, K.; Huang, Y.F.; Qiu, A.M. AI-Enabled Opportunities and Transformation Challenges for SMEs in the Post-pandemic Era: A Review and Research Agenda. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allworth, E.; Hesketh, B. Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 1999, 7, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A.; Parker, S.K. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 327–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, S.M.; Hoffman, B.J.; Lance, C.E. Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulakos, E.D.; Arad, S.; Donovan, M.A.; Plamondon, K.E. Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 612–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shoss, M.K.; Witt, L.A.; Vera, D. When does adaptive performance lead to higher task performance? J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 910–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jundt, D.K.; Shoss, M.K.; Huang, J.L. Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, S53–S71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.C.; Chen, J.Y.; Zhang, X.D.; Dai, X.X.; Tsai, F.S. The Impact of Inclusive Talent Development Model on Turnover Intention of New Generation Employees: The Mediation of Work Passion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 6054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.B.; Wang, X.H.; Li, J.R. Is new generation employees’ job crafting beneficial or detrimental to organizations in China? Participative decision-making as a moderator. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2018, 24, 543–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, B.; Karatepe, O.M. Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2075–2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltiainen, J.; Hakanen, J. Fostering task and adaptive performance through employee well-being: The role of servant leadership. BRQ-Bus. Res. Q. 2022, 25, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques-Quinteiro, P.; Curral, L.A. Goal Orientation and Work Role Performance: Predicting Adaptive and Proactive Work Role Performance Through Self-Leadership Strategies. J. Psychol. 2012, 146, 559–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marques-Quinteiro, P.; Vargas, R.; Eifler, N.; Curral, L. Employee adaptive performance and job satisfaction during organizational crisis: The role of self-leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, H.; Ye, B.H.B.; Xu, X.Y. The Cross-Level Effect of Shared Leadership on Tourism Employee Proactive Behavior and Adaptive Performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Waldman, D.A.; Han, Y.L.; Li, X.B. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 538–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, W.K.; Lewis, M.W. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2011, 36, 381–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, M.W.; Andriopoulos, C.; Smith, W.K. Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2014, 56, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Jiang, Y.; Tang, J. Research on the Dimensionand Typology of Counterproductive Work Behavior of Chinese New Generation Knowledge Workers. China Soft. Sci. 2021, 3, 175–182. [Google Scholar]
- Li, G.; Chen, Y.a. The influence of perceived overqualification on the innovation behavior of the new generation of employees in the post-1990s. Sci. Res. Manag. 2022, 43, 184–191. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.; Yang, S. Distributed leadership, organizational support, and new generation employees’ proactive-reactive innovation behavior: Based on the moderate of supervisor-subordinate guanxi and values fit. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2020, 34, 10–19. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Li, Z.Q.; Liang, L.; Zhang, X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 1911–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.Y.; Xue, Y.; Liang, H.; Yan, D. The Impact of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Voice Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ren, H.; Yang, R. Paradoxical Leader Behaviors and Followers Overall Justice and Citizenship Behaviors: The Role of Renqing Perception and Trait Agreeableness. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 1303–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.E. Paradoxical Leadership and Proactive Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety in the Hotel Industry. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkeland, I.K.; Buch, R. The dualistic model of passion for work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement and workaholism. Motiv. Emot. 2015, 39, 392–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubreuil, P.; Forest, J.; Courcy, F. From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. J. Posit. Psychol. 2014, 9, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridekirk, J.; Turcotte, J.; Oddson, B. Harmonious passions support cognitive resources. Motiv. Emot. 2016, 40, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Edward, L.D. An Effective Path for Promoting Work Motivation: The Self-determination Theory Perspective. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 18, 752–759. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, S.G.; Pattie, M.W. When Does Ethical Leadership Affect Workplace Incivility? The Moderating Role of Follower Personality. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Judge, T.A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J.E.; Thoresen, C.J. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Pers. Psychol. 2003, 56, 303–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usman, M.; Liu, Y.X.; Li, H.H.; Zhang, J.W.; Ghani, U.; Gul, H. Enabling the engine of workplace thriving through servant leadership: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 27, 582–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunha, M.P.E.; Fortes, A.; Gomes, E.; Rego, A.; Rodrigues, F. Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: Evidence from Angola. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 702–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miron-Spektor, E.; Ingram, A.; Keller, J.; Smith, W.K.; Lewis, M.W. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 26–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schad, J.; Lewis, M.W.; Raisch, S.; Smith, W.K. Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2016, 10, 5–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurbean, L.; Dospinescu, O.; Munteanu, V.; Danaiata, D. Effects of Instant Messaging Related Technostress on Work Performance and Well-Being. Electronics 2022, 11, 2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Park, S. Employee Adaptive Performance and Its Antecedents: Review and Synthesis. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2019, 18, 294–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.L.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, L.L.; Shen, T. Does Paradoxical Leadership Facilitate Leaders’ Task Performance? A Perspective of Self-Regulation Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C.; Chen, X.P. Negative externalities of close guanxi within organizations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2009, 26, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, M.F.Y.; Wu, W.P.; Chan, A.K.K.; Wong, M.M.L. Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi and Employee Work Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics. 2009, 88, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Friedman, R.; Yu, E.H.; Fang, W.H.; Lu, X.P. Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi: Developing a Three-Dimensional Model and Scale. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2009, 5, 375–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, J.J.P.; Kostopoulos, K.C.; Mihalache, O.R.; Papalexandris, A. A Socio-Psychological Perspective on Team Ambidexterity: The Contingency Role of Supportive Leadership Behaviours. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 939–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauppila, O.P.; Tempelaar, M.P. The Social-Cognitive Underpinnings of Employees’ Ambidextrous Behaviour and the Supportive Role of Group Managers’ Leadership. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 1019–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M. The Additive Value of Positive Psychological Capital in Predicting Work Attitudes and Behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukerjee, J.; Montani, F.; Vandenberghe, C. A dual model of coping with and commitment to organizational change: The role of appraisals and resources. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2021, 34, 1144–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiaburu, D.S.; Lorinkova, N.M.; Van Dyne, L. Employees’ Social Context and Change-Oriented Citizenship: A Meta-Analysis of Leader, Coworker, and Organizational Influences. Group Organ. Manag. 2013, 38, 291–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, J.F.; Yan, J.Q.; Cai, Y.H.; Liu, Y.P. Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ followership behaviors: Moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human resource management system. Asian. Bus. Manag. 2018, 17, 313–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabiu, A.; Pangil, F.; Othman, S.Z. Does Training, Job Autonomy and Career Planning Predict Employees’ Adaptive Performance? Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 21, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dospinescu, O.; Dospinescu, N. Workaholism in IT: An Analysis of the Influence Factors. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallerand, R.J.; Blanchard, C.; Mageau, G.A.; Koestner, R.; Ratelle, C.; Leonard, M.; Gagne, M.; Marsolais, J. Les passions de l’Ame: On obsessive and harmonious passion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 756–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Perrewe, P.L.; Hochwarter, W.A.; Ferris, G.R.; McAllister, C.P.; Harris, J.N. Developing a passion for work passion: Future directions on an emerging construct. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallerand, R.J.; Salvy, S.J.; Mageau, G.A.; Elliot, A.J.; Denis, P.L.; Grouzet, F.M.E.; Blanchard, C. On the role of passion in performance. J. Pers. 2007, 75, 505–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, J.M.; Zhou, J. Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Vianen, A.E.M.; Shen, C.T.; Chuang, A.C. Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 906–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Furstenberg, N.; Alfes, K.; Kearney, E. How and when paradoxical leadership benefits work engagement: The role of goal clarity and work autonomy. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2021, 94, 672–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franken, E.; Plimmer, G.; Malinen, S. Paradoxical leadership in public sector organisations: Its role in fostering employee resilience. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2020, 79, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumford, T.V.; Campion, M.A.; Morgeson, F.P. The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.; Permpongaree, S.; Kim, N.; Choi, Y.; Sohn, Y.W. The Double-Edged Sword of a Calling: The Mediating Role of Harmonious and Obsessive Passions in the Relationship between a Calling, Workaholism, and Work Engagement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 6724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, V.T.; Pollack, J.M. Passion Isn’t Always a Good Thing: Examining Entrepreneurs’ Network Centrality and Financial Performance with a Dualistic Model of Passion. J. Manag. Stud. 2014, 51, 433–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgunduz, Y.; Alkan, C.; Gok, O.A. Perceived organizational support, employee creativity and proactive personality: The mediating effect of meaning of work. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 34, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, V.T.; Wong, S.S.; Lee, C.H. A Tale of Passion: Linking Job Passion and Cognitive Engagement to Employee Work Performance. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zigarmi, D.; Nimon, K.; Houson, D.; Witt, D.; Diehl, J. A Preliminary Field Test of an Employee Work Passion Model. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2011, 22, 195–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Law, K.S.; Hackett, R.D.; Wang, D.X.; Chen, Z.X. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, C.H.; Ferris, D.L.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Tan, J.A. Core Self-Evaluations: A Review and Evaluation of the Literature. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 81–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, R.; McAllister, D.J.; Duffy, M.K. Down but not out: Newcomers can compensate for low vertical access with strong horizontal ties and favorable core self-evaluations. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 70, 517–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kacmar, K.M.; Collins, B.J.; Harris, K.J.; Judge, T.A. Core Self-Evaluations and Job Performance: The Role of the Perceived Work Environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1572–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferris, D.L.; Rosen, C.R.; Johnson, R.E.; Brown, D.J.; Risavy, S.D.; Heller, D. Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 137–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judge, T.A.; Hurst, C. Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1212–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, W.; Sun, L.Y. A Self-Regulation Model of Zhong Yong Thinking and Employee Adaptive Performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2018, 14, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griffin, M.A.; Parker, S.K.; Mason, C.M. Leader Vision and the Development of Adaptive and Proactive Performance: A Longitudinal Study. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, A.F. An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2015, 50, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kantabutra, S.; Ketprapakorn, N. Toward an Organizational Theory of Resilience: An Interim Struggle. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, T.; Figge, F.; Pinkse, J.; Preuss, L. A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects. J. Bus. Ethics. 2018, 148, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmine, S.; De Marchi, V. Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics. 2022, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Statistical Variables | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 247 | 47.59% |
Female | 272 | 52.41% | |
Age | Less than 26 | 156 | 30.06% |
26–30 years old | 160 | 30.83% | |
31–35 years old | 122 | 23.51% | |
35–40 years old | 81 | 15.60% | |
Education | Junior college | 59 | 11.37% |
Undergraduate | 188 | 36.22% | |
Master | 197 | 37.96% | |
Doctor | 75 | 14.45% |
Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.524 | 0.500 | ||||||
Age | 2.247 | 1.049 | 0.022 | |||||
Education | 2.555 | 0.875 | −0.039 | 0.067 | ||||
Paradoxical leadership | 3.260 | 0.777 | 0.046 | −0.017 | 0.096 * | |||
Harmonious work passion | 3.353 | 0.796 | −0.026 | −0.037 | 0.061 | 0.447 ** | ||
Core self-evaluation | 3.237 | 0.817 | −0.001 | −0.009 | 0.096 * | 0.565 ** | 0.447 ** | |
Adaptive performance | 3.234 | 0.883 | −0.052 | −0.020 | 0.066 | 0.449 ** | 0.410 ** | 0.371 ** |
Model | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | NFI | CFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Four-factor model | 1.239 | 0.022 | 0.903 | 0.894 | 0.916 | 0.983 |
Three-factor model | 2.008 | 0.044 | 0.797 | 0.778 | 0.864 | 0.927 |
Two-factor model | 2.824 | 0.059 | 0.721 | 0.695 | 0.809 | 0.867 |
Single-factor model | 3.052 | 0.063 | 0.703 | 0.676 | 0.793 | 0.850 |
Variables | Adaptive Performance | Harmonious Work Passion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | |
Gender | −0.049 | −0.072 | −0.060 | −0.039 | −0.023 | −0.046 | −0.038 | −0.018 |
Age | −0.024 | −0.013 | −0.005 | −0.007 | −0.040 | −0.030 | −0.029 | −0.036 |
Education | 0.066 | 0.021 | 0.016 | 0.040 | 0.063 | 0.019 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
Paradoxical leadership | 0.450 *** | 0.335 *** | 0.447 *** | 0.288 *** | 0.338 *** | |||
Harmonious work passion | 0.258 *** | 0.407 *** | ||||||
Core self-evaluation | 0.283 *** | 0.293 *** | ||||||
Interactive item | 0.231 *** | |||||||
R2 | 0.007 | 0.207 | 0.260 | 0.172 | 0.006 | 0.203 | 0.258 | 0.307 |
∆R2 | 0.007 | 0.200 | 0.053 | 0.165 | 0.006 | 0.197 | 0.055 | 0.049 |
F | 1.275 | 33.617 *** | 36.114 *** | 26.629 *** | 1.027 | 32.779 *** | 35.631 *** | 37.856 *** |
the moderated mediating effect | moderator variable | level | effect | SE | Boot 95% CI | INDEX | SE | Boot 95% CI |
core self-evaluation | low | 0.047 | 0.028 | [−0.001, 0.106] | 0.064 | 0.023 | [0.024, 0.114] | |
high | 0.151 | 0.043 | [0.076, 0.244] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, N.; Ding, M. The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on Adaptive Performance of New-Generation Employees in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Role of Harmonious Work Passion and Core Self-Evaluation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114647
Li N, Ding M. The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on Adaptive Performance of New-Generation Employees in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Role of Harmonious Work Passion and Core Self-Evaluation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114647
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Naiwen, and Mingming Ding. 2022. "The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on Adaptive Performance of New-Generation Employees in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Role of Harmonious Work Passion and Core Self-Evaluation" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114647