Someone Must be Mindful: Trait Mindfulness as a Boundary Condition for Paradoxical Leader Behaviors

The Moderating Effect of Follower Trait Mindfulness

Paradoxical leadership may present a challenge for followers. On one hand, conflicting leader behaviors might inspire followers to rethink existing polarities and to recognize more complicated interrelationships, thus enabling them to observe a more comprehensive picture of the context (Lewis, 2000). Previous studies have examined when PLB is more likely to be associated with positive follower outcomes (e.g., She et al., 2020). Yet, paradoxical behaviors may also have a negative impact because followers might experience discomfort when they observe the dissonant leader behaviors. This reaction is based on the logic of vicarious cognitive dissonance, and it is stronger when the observers admire or have a significant relationship with the focal person (such as leader-follower relationship) (Norton et al., 2003).

The negative impact of vicarious cognitive dissonance has been examined in the paradox literature. In a series of empirical studies, Norton et al. (2003) demonstrated that one person’s discrepant behaviors can spur vicarious discomfort in observers. Following this line of research, we suggest that followers will experience vicarious cognitive dissonance by thinking about the contradictory behaviors of the leader and the corresponding conflicting goals that are being signaled by those behaviors.

Being high on trait mindfulness might decrease the vicarious cognitive dissonance experienced by followers of leaders demonstrating high PLB, and thus enable followers to perform their job more effectively and efficiently than followers who are low on trait mindfulness. Guided by a paradoxical leader who presents seemingly conflicting behaviors across situations, highly mindful followers are constantly aware of their leaders’ behaviors and the varying situations their leaders face (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg, 2015). With more elements taken into account they are more likely to develop a relatively complicated repertoire of understandings about their leader’s behaviors that reflect organizational intricacies (e.g., Denison et al., 1995; Knight & Paroutis, 2017), compared with those followers who are low on trait mindfulness; thus enabling the positive influence of PLB on follower performance.

Followers who are high on trait mindfulness have keen awareness and acceptance, which enables them to perceive and process psychological discomfort arising from any experienced vicarious dissonance more clearly than less mindful followers (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Shapiro et al., 2018). Their wide attention helps them to see a complete picture (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007), including not only their own discomfort, but also their leaders’ exhibited actions and tensions from the changing environment. As such, instead of thinking about “what if”, highly mindful followers are more likely to accept their emotional discomfort that may arise when they observe paradoxical behaviors, nonjudgmentally (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Kabat-Zinn, 1990), in comparision to followers with low trait mindfulness. As a result, they are more capable of understanding the sources of the discomfort, such that the negative feelings are less likely to affect how they process information at work and thus reinforces a more objective and transcendent lens to interpret the PLB. From this perspective, the potential positive effects associated with PLB can be enhanced when followers have higher trait mindfulness. Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Follower trait mindfulness moderates the relationship between PLB and follower performance; the relationship between PLB and follower performance is more positive when follower trait mindfulness is high.

The Moderating Effect of the Leader’s Trait Mindfulness

Leader trait mindfulness may have a moderating effect on the relationship between PLB and follower performance. With high awareness of the current moment, highly mindful leaders can attend to the internal stimuli (e.g., their thoughts and feelings) and external stimuli (e.g., the opposing demands from the environment) in a registering of the facts observed (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Fiol & O’Connor, 2003), in comparison to leaders who are low on trait mindfulness. High mindfulness thus helps leaders to be aware of the dissonance and accept their opposing behaviors as they are (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). As such, with high trait mindfulness, leaders can concentrate on the complexity of the environmental tensions, enabling them to execute PLB in a more timely and effective manner. In this case, PLB is more likely to have positive effects on follower performance.

High trait mindfulness also allows leaders to “let go” of potential emotional discomfort (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Hülsheger et al., 2013), such as anxiety or frustration, that can arise from cognitive dissonance (Schneider, 1990; Smith & Lewis, 2011). By clearly understanding where their discomfort comes from (i.e., their paradoxical leader behaviors), leaders high on trait mindfulness are more capable of decoupling themselves from the paradoxical behavioral episodes than low trait mindful leaders. In this vein, for highly mindful leaders, such psychological discomfort is less likely to negatively affect their information processing and the effective execution of PLB as compared to less mindful leaders. Therefore, leaders high on trait mindfulness are more likely to implement seemingly conflicting behaviors that impact followers consciously and appropriately. Taken together, we propose:

Hypothesis 2: Leader trait mindfulness moderates the relationship between PLB and follower performance; the relationship between PLB and follower performance is more positive when leader trait mindfulness is high.

Paradoxical Leader Behaviors and Follower Performance: the Joint Moderating Effects of Followers’ Trait Mindfulness and Leader’s Trait Mindfulness

To further consider the relationships between PLB and follower performance, we investigate the roles of both leader and follower mindfulness simulatenously. We expect that the attention and awareness of both leader and follower are likely to predict whether PLB benefits or harms follower performance. If the leader is mindful and executes PLB effectively, PLB is more likely to benefit follower performance; however, when leader mindfulness is low, follower mindfulness is critical to determine whether PLB is beneficial or detrimental. We therefore propose a three-way interaction between PLB, leader trait mindfulness, and follower trait mindfulness, in predicting follower performance.

Under conditions when leaders are high in trait mindfulness, PLB is more likely to be executed effectively and thus is more likely to benefit the performance of followers with both high and low trait mindfulness. More specifically, highly mindful leaders are aware of and accept the tensions of the paradoxical behavioral episodes. That is, they not only are more capable of avoiding judgments and counterfactual thoughts associated with their competing behaviors (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Smith et al., 2012), but also accept that their followers’ reactions can be both positive and negative (Reb et al., 2014). Noticing that less mindful followers cannot accurately interpret their behaviors, highly mindful leaders could communicate and accordingly tailor their behaviors to help their followers perform (Shapiro et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2012). As such, in the case of a leader with high trait mindfulness, we expect that PLB has a positive impact on follower performance for followers with both high and low trait mindfulness.

In contrast, when leader trait mindfulness is low, PLB is less likely to be timely and effectively implemented. Also, leaders could have a difficult time overcoming their psychological discomfort associated with exhibiting conflicting behaviors. Thus, PLB may have a negative effect on follower performance. In this situation, follower trait mindfulness is likely to be critical in determining PLB’s impact on follower performance.

More specifically, we argue that low follower mindfulness is more likely to enable the negative impact of low mindful leaders’ PLB on follower performance. In comparison to high mindful followers who are aware of the PLB and the environmental tensions that call for the paradoxical behaviors, low mindful followers may find it difficult to apprehend the rationales of the intricate and seemingly contradictory behaviors of their leaders (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Zhang et al., 2013). Over time, low mindful followers are less likely to understand and accept the intended influence from PLB, and thus exacerbate the negative effects of PLB executed by low mindful leaders.

Further, with low levels of both awareness and non-judgmental acceptance (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Hülsheger et al., 2013), low mindful followers are less capable of dealing with the emotional discomfort associated with observing paradoxical behaviors, especially when such behaviors are implemented by low mindful leaders. In contrast to high mindful followers whose monitoring and adjustment of the situation fosters their response flexibility (Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006), low mindful followers are less capable of accepting their emotional discomfort and thus may allow their negative feelings to interrupt their information processing and inhibit cooperative responses to their paradoxical leaders. As such, we argue that when leader trait mindfulness is low, PLB is more likely to hurt followers’ performance when follower trait mindfulness is low rather than high. Taken together, we propose:

Hypothesis 3: There is a three-way interaction between PLB, leader’s trait mindfulness, and followers’ trait mindfulness, in predicting follower performance such that: (a) when leader trait mindfulness is high, the relationship between PLB and follower performance is positive, regardless the levels of follower trait mindfulness; (b) when leader trait mindfulness is low, the positive relationship between PLB and follower performance becomes negative when the levels of follower trait mindfulness are relatively low rather than high.

Sample and Data Collection Procedures

We collected multilevel, multisource, multiphase field data from 561 employes working in 54 work teams at a state-owned truck manufacturing organization in China. Teams of employes are the basic work unit, where team members coordinate with each other to complete work assignments. Due to the high level of interaction required, team leaders and members work together in close physical proximity. All team members regularly observe how their leader treats other team members at work. To ensure confidentiality, we asked all leaders and followers to return their completed surveys in sealed envelopes. We sent out surveys at two points in time, separated by two weeks.

At time 1, we sent 788 surveys to all members of the 98 teams. All followers were asked to answer questions with respect to their demographic characteristics, PLB, and trait mindfulness; all leaders were required to evaluate their own trait mindfulness. Two weeks later, we asked the leaders to rate their individual followers’ performance. At time 1, we received usable responses from 643 followers (response rate of 81.60%) from 66 teams; at time 2, we collected performance evaluations from 71 team leaders (response rate of 72.45%). We then combined surveys from time 1 and time 2. After removing teams with response rates lower than 40% (Timmerman, 2005), our final sample comprised of 561 followers (response rate of 71.19%) from 54 teams (response rate of 55%).

In these 54 teams, the leaders averaged 31.20 years (SD = 5.69) of age, and 8.49 years (SD = 5.90) of tenure. 24% of the leaders were women. The followers averaged 29.58 years (SD = 6.21) of age, and 6.07 years (SD = 4.01) of tenure. 29% of the follower participants were women. Teams averaged 11 members, ranging from 2 to 31 members.

Measures

All items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Our surveys were written in Chinese. We followed the translation and back-translation procedures as suggested by Brislin (1980) for all our measures.

Paradoxical Leader Behaviors (PLB). To measure PLB at time 1, we used the 22 item scale developed by Zhang et al. (2015). Followers were asked to rate their team leaders’ paradoxical behaviors, based on descriptions such as “My leader uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals” (α = .94). The items on this scale assess the 5 dimensions of PLB: (1) combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness; (2) maintaining both distance and closeness; (3) treating subordinates uniformly, while allowing individualization; (4) enforcing work requirements, while allowing flexibility; and (5) maintaining decision control, while allowing autonomy (Zhang et al., 2015). Consistent with prior work in the field, we assessed overall PLB by first computing the mean for each of the five dimensions and then calculating the average of the five dimensions.

As indicated by Zhang et al. (2015), “PLB is theoretically meaningful as a supervisory - or group-level phenomenon.” (p. 556). In a team setting, leadership behaviors, including PLB, are observed by all team members and affect all team members as a collective due to the interdependency of teamwork (Chen et al., 2007). Further, the specific dimensions of PLB, such as treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization, frame this construct at a team leader level, in which team members observe and compare if their leader treats all members the same (Zhang et al., 2015). As such, it is critical to consider PLB as a team leader level construct (see Ishaq et al., 2021; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Li et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021; who also adopted a team leader level approach).

We aggregated the individual evaluations of PLB to the team leader level. PLB had an ICC (1) of .10 (F = 1.97, p < .001). Following the suggestions of James et al. (1984), we calculated a quasi-confidence interval of Rwg_(j). Biemann et al. (2012) explain that followers tend to have a leniency bias when rating their leaders’ behaviors, thus a slightly negative skew in the null distribution is most likely. Accordingly, we chose a slight skew as an alternative null distribution. Overall, our Rwg_(j) value was .89 (SD = 0.20) when adopting uniform as an alternative null distribution and was .71 (SD = 0.34) for the slight skew as an alternative null distribution. We anticipate that true agreement is most likely to fall within this range (Demaree et al., 1984).

The Rwg_(j) value (bigger than the standard .70) and our significant F test of the ICC(1) supported data aggregation (Cohen et al., 2001). Although the ICC(2) of .49 was lower than the traditional criterion of .70 (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), scholars suggest proceeding with aggregation if theory points to a team leader level construct (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Similar approaches have been adopted by previous studies (see also Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Li et al., 2018). As such, we adopted PLB at the team leader level.

Trait Mindfulness. We used the 15-item scale developed by Brown and Ryan (2003) to measure trait mindfulness of leaders (α = .91) and their followers (α = .86) at time 1. They were asked to rate items, for instance, to what extent they “could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until sometime later” (reverse coded).

Performance. At time 2, leaders were instructed to evaluate their followers’ performance over the past two weeks. Performance was measured using the 4-item scale developed by Welbourne et al. (1998). One sample item is “This follower achieves a high quantity of work output” (α = .89).

Control Variables. Controls must be carefully selected and justified (see Bernerth et al., 2018). Given that paradoxical leader behaviors might have some degree of variability across followers, which could limit our case for the aggregation of PLB to the team leader level, we controlled for the group mean centered PLB at the individual level. Additionally, team size should be controlled when predicting individual performance in teams, due to its potential impact on interactions (e.g., Carter et al., 2013). It is also important to exclude the influence of followers’ gender and age on performance (e.g., Reb et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2013). Therefore, we controlled for team size, follower gender and age.

We also need to consider leader gender. Alispahic and Hasanbegovic-Anic (2017) have found that women leaders are higher on the “observing” aspect of mindfulness, whereas men are higher on the “acting” aspect. Also, gender might confound with leader mindfulness to impact follower performance (Reb et al., 2014). To exclude this possibility, we also added leader gender as an additional control.

Data Analytical Strategy

To examine the discriminant validity of our key constructs, we used confirmatory factor analyses with Maximum Likelihood Estimation at the follower/individual level (MPlus 8.0). The results revealed that the hypothesized three-factor model (a second-order latent PLB factor with five first-order latent factors reflecting each of the PLB dimensions, follower trait mindfulness with 15 indicators, and follower performance with four indicators) (χ²(771) = 1627.97 p < .001; CFI = .89, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05) yielded a better fit than the alternative two-factor and one-factor models.

We choose a multilevel analysis approach to test our hypotheses because leaders’ behaviors exert multilevel influences on followers in teams (Chen et al., 2007). We employed Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) 7 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to test our hypotheses. Team PLB, leader trait mindfulness, team size, and leader gender were entered at the team leader level (level 2). At the individual level (level 1), we incorporated follower gender, age, individual PLB, and trait mindfulness as independent variables. Following the suggestions of Hofmann and Gavin (1998), we grand mean centered all the other variables to reduce potential collinearity concerns.

Theoretical Implications

We contribute to the scholarly literature in the following ways. Our study contributes to the growing literature on paradoxical leadership and organizational paradox (e.g., Ishaq et al., 2021; Schad et al., 2016; Shao et al., 2019), by enriching our current understanding of how to manage the competing demands of being a leader. Prior studies of paradox show that mismanaged paradox leads to organizational decline (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). Leadership behaviors that integrate complex and contradictory elements of the organization and environment, such as PLB, represent one of the promising approaches to managing paradox (Havermans et al., 2015).

We respond to scholars’ calls for investigations of trait mindfulness within the context of leadership. Although previous studies, such as those by Eisenbeiss and van Knippenberg (2015), Liang et al. (2016) and Reb et al. (2014), have articulated the association between trait mindfulness and authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and abusive supervision, to our knowledge no attention has been paid to the relationship between trait mindfulness and PLB. The application of trait mindfulness to PLB is essential because high trait mindfulness enables individuals to excel in dynamic contexts (see Dane, 2011). Our study provides support for this notion, by unraveling how high trait mindfulness helps paradoxical leaders promote follower performance, and how low trait mindfulness of both paradoxical leaders and their followers interferes with follower performance.

Moreover, expanding the previous literature on trait mindfulness and leadership, we are the first to look at both sides of the coin (i.e., trait mindfulness of both leaders and followers), and to do so within a team context. Prior research has emphasized the benefits of individual trait mindfulness, such as better emotional regulation (Hülsheger et al., 2013), less negative reactions to workplace injustice (Long & Christian, 2015), and more helping behaviors (Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg, 2015). However, leadership occurs in teams, and the effectiveness of leader behaviors depends on the traits of both the leader and the followers within the teams (e.g., Qu et al., 2019). We discovered that follower trait mindfulness may act as a substitute for leader trait mindfulness. PLB is associated with higher follower performance when followers have very high trait mindfulness. Furthermore, PLB does not damage follower performance, as long as either the leaders and/or the followers have high trait mindfulness. Thus, in contrast to prior research that has largely focused on individuals, we introduce a more nuanced multilevel perspective of trait mindfulness in the workplace. We call for scholars to investigate these findings regarding trait mindfulness—of both leaders and followers simultaneously—within the context of other leadership styles.

Practical Implications

Waldman and Bowen (2016) called for the development of paradox-savvy leaders, and they provide initial guidance for managers with regard to this. Our findings indicate that it is necessary and important for managers to be aware of the boundary conditions of PLB - a relatively new style of leadership behavior - so they do not promote it blindly without realizing its potential negative effects. While it has been theorized that PLB stimulates positive follower behaviors in dynamic environments with conflicting demands (Zhang et al. 2015), we caution that PLB is not encouraged when neither leaders nor followers are mindful.

Based on our findings, we suggest that to enable their followers to benefit from PLB, leaders should select and work with highly mindful followers. Also, to avoid the possible negative consequences of PLB, the trait mindfulness of leaders and/or followers needs to be high. We argue that before encouraging PLB within organizations, leaders and followers should both be assessed in terms of their trait mindfulness. As suggested by Brown, Ryan, and Creswell (2007), as evidence for the beneficial effects of trait mindfulness accumulates, organizations might include trait mindfulness as a core trait to be evaluated during the recruitment and selection of team members and leaders. For example, interviews and other selection tools may include assessments of trait mindfulness to aid decision-making (see Qu et al., 2015). The focus on attracting and hiring mindful followers and leaders will particularly benefit complex dynamic organizations where PLB is most suitable.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite our contributions, this study has limitations to be acknowledged. First, we focus on the boundary conditions (i.e., trait mindfulness of leaders and followers) on the effects of PLB, and we did not examine the underlying processes that connect the cross-level three-way interaction with follower performance. PLB has been found to be associated with positive employe outcomes via mechanisms such as goal clarity, work autonomy, leader identification, self-efficacy, psychological safety, employe thriving, paradoxical mindset, personal service orientation, and individual and team ambidexterity (Fürstenberg et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Pan, 2021; She et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). For instance, Yang et al. (2019) demonstrated that PLB reinforced employe creativity via increasing employe thriving at work. More recently, Fürstenberg et al. (2021) specified goal clarity and work autonomy as two mechanisms for the relationship between PLB and employe work engagement. In addition, Zhang et al. (2021) revealed that PLB enhanced team members’ individual innovation through individual ambidexterity and boosted team innovation through team ambidexterity. These studies have advanced our understanding of why PLB may foster positive follower outcomes. Given that our findings demonstrate the importance of leader and follower trait mindfulness, we call for future research to examine how these individual differences impact the previously studied mechanisms.

Our sample was based in China; this is where the PLB construct was first proposed and measured (Zhang et al., 2015), and thus our sample extends this earlier work. We are aware that results from a Chinese state-owned organization have limited external generalizability and may not apply similarly to private companies in western countries. However, the means and standard deviations of the constructs in our study were not significantly different to those in studies using other types of organizations and within other cultures (e.g., Cunha et al., 2019; Shao et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2015). To investigate if cultural context influences the functioning of trait mindfulness and PLB, we call for cross-cultural investigations.

To reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we collected survey data with a temporal separation of two weeks and we used different respondents (leaders and followers). However, we are unable to make causal inferences from this design. Also, the use of self-report measures of trait mindfulness introduces possible measurement error (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). As shown in Table 1, the reliabilities of all our measures were above .86, which significantly supports the accuracy of the measures. However, to reduce measurement errors even further, we encourage future studies to develop more reliable self-report measures of mindfulness or to use neuroscientific techniques instead (see Wheeler et al., 2017).