WHEN AND HOW PARADOXICAL LEADERSHIP DISTINGUISHES FROM AMBIDEXTROUS LEADERSHIP? A MIXED-METHODS COMPARISON STUDY

Abstract

Paradoxical leadership and ambidextrous leadership have been documented as effective leadership approaches in handling managerial tensions. However, little has been known about how paradoxical leadership is distinguished from ambidextrous leadership. In this paper, I integrate the contingency perspective into paradox theory to establish their distinctions in five studies. A meta-analytic study (Study 1) finds that paradoxical leadership outperforms ambidextrous leadership in promoting creativity and preventing job strain. However, the findings cannot be replicated in an experience sampling method study (Study 2) and a critical incident technique study (Study 3). The mixed findings beget two possible explanations: (a) the advantage of paradoxical leadership over ambidextrous leadership could be theoretically bounded to specific conditions, and/or (b) the flaw in measuring the paradoxical leadership may amplify its advantage over ambidextrous leadership. To test the theoretical boundary explanation, two experiments (Study 4a, Study 4b) are conducted and reveal that paradoxical leaders handle structural tensions (versus contextual tensions) better (versus worse) than ambidextrous leaders. To test the methodological explanation, a face validity assessment study (Study 5) is carried out and shows that the current double-barreled measure of paradoxical leadership virtually magnifies its advantage over ambidextrous leadership in fostering creativity and preventing job strain in employees.