Search results

In this study the authors investigate the relationship of both social (SLMX) and economic (ELMX) leader–member exchange with innovative work behaviour (IWB) and the potential moderating effect of having a paradox mindset. A paradox mindset facilitates the recognition of tensions and the integration of competing demands and goals, which may fuel IWB.

At two points in time the authors gathered survey data from employees working in the mid and back office of a Dutch bank.

SLMX associates with innovative behaviour, whilst ELMX does not. However, when paradox mindset is included as a moderator, the authors find negative interaction effects of paradox mindset with both ELMX and SLMX.

The findings indicate that management should be aware of the impact that having a paradox mindset has on the innovative work behaviour of employees. Managers are well advised to assess the extent to which an employee entertains a paradox mindset and adjust the type of leadership appropriate to the situation, and in particular adjust the intensity of their exchange relationship with these employees.

Paradox mindset acts as a substitute for an employee's social relationship with the leader, as paradox mindset captures most of the variation in IWB, thereby drawing influence away from SLMX. This finding complements studies showing that a person's mindset can greatly influence innovative work behaviour.

This paper is one of the first studies to examine specificities, including limits of mindfulness at work in an African organisational context, whilst dealing with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It specifically addresses the role of organisational and managerial support systems in restoring employee wellbeing, social connectedness and attachment to their organisations, in order to overcome the exclusion caused by the ongoing pandemic.

The study uses a qualitative research methodology that includes interviews as the main data source. The sample comprises of 20 entrepreneurs (organisational leaders) from Ghana and Nigeria.

The authors found that COVID-19-induced worries restricted the practice of mindfulness, and this was prevalent at the peak of the pandemic, particularly due to very tough economic conditions caused by reduction in salaries, and intensified by pre-existing general economic and social insecurities, and institutional voids in Africa. This aspect further resulted in lack of engagement and lack of commitment, which affected overall team performance and restricted employees’ mindfulness at work. Hence, quietness by employees even though can be linked to mindfulness was linked to larger psychological stress that they were facing. The authors also found leaders/manager’s emotional intelligence, social skills and organisational support systems to be helpful in such circumstances. However, their effectiveness varied among the cases.

This paper is one of the first studies to establish a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and mindfulness limitations. Moreover, it is a pioneering study specifically highlighting the damaging impact of COVID-19-induced concerns on leader–member exchange (LMX) and team–member exchange (TMX) relationships, particularly in the African context. It further brings in a unique discussion on the mitigating mechanisms of such COVID-19-induced concerns in organisations and highlights the roles of manager’s/leader’s emotional intelligence, social skills and supportive intervention patterns. Finally, the authors offer an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of organisational interventions and supportive relational systems in restoring social connectedness following a social exclusion caused by COVID-19-induced worries.

The purpose of this study is to sort out the potential dark sides of shared leadership so as to promote a more comprehensive and balanced views of the impact of shared leadership and provide directions for future research.

Through extensive database and manual searches, 766 literature records were obtained. After three rounds of literature screening, 17 studies were retained. On this basis, the 17 studies were coded and analyzed.

From the perspectives of individual motivation, hierarchical functionalism and leadership role configuration, the existing studies have explored the negative impacts of shared leadership on team members, formal team leaders and the overall work teams. Specifically, for team members, shared leadership may cause negative consequences like power struggle, role stress and knowledge hiding. For formal team leaders, shared leadership may cause negative consequences like psychological territorial loss, leadership motivation declines and the dualistic paradox of self and group. For the overall work teams, shared leadership may cause negative consequences like team performance inhibition, low decision-making efficiency, team responsibility dispersion and team creativity decline. Meanwhile, contextual factors play a key role in determining the effects of shared leadership.

Through a systematic review of the negative impact of shared leadership, this study responds to the research calls for exploring the dark sides of shared leadership, provides the academic community with a more comprehensive and balanced view of the impact of shared leadership and identifies several directions for future research.

Constructive deviance is a behavior that can contribute to the effectiveness of an organization despite its problematic nature. Too few studies have examined the correlates of this behavior. The purpose of this study is to examine variables that represent exchange and organizational culture and their relationship to supervisor-reported and self-reported constructive deviance.

The survey data were collected from 602 employees (a response rate of 67 per cent) in a large municipality in central Israel. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were performed for each of the dependent variables (three self-reported constructive deviances and three supervisor-reported constructive deviance) controlling for divisions and departments.

The findings showed that self-reported constructive deviance was explained much better by the independent variables than supervisor-reported deviance. Organizational justice and moral identity had a strong direct effect on constructive deviance (self-reported). The mediation effect showed that an organizational climate for innovation had the strongest mediation effect among the mediators. Psychological contract breach was found to have a limited effect on constructive deviance.

Organizations should encourage procedural justice to encourage their employees to act in support of the organization, whether openly (formal performance) or more secretly (constructive deviance). Also, organizations should support innovation climate if they want to increase constructive deviance of their employees.

In a time when innovation and creativity are gaining increasing importance as behaviors that contribute to organizational success, more research on constructive deviance is expected. This study increases our understanding of this important concept stimulates additional studies of it.