How Paradoxical Leadership Influences Employees’ Innovation Behavior: Based on Person-Environment Fit Theory Perspective

How Paradoxical Leadership Influences Employees’ Innovation Behavior: Based on Person-Environment Fit Theory Perspective | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article How Paradoxical Leadership Influences Employees’ Innovation Behavior: Based on Person-Environment Fit Theory Perspective Qing Yang, Jing Cai, Xiaofan Liu, Jianji Zeng This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose Although many studies have explored the effects of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behaviors of enterprise employees, few studies address the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. Therefore, this study draws on the person-environment fit theory to investigate whether paradoxical leadership in pharmaceutical enterprises affects employees’ innovation behaviors through innovation self-efficacy （ISE） and the moderating role of leadership member exchange（LMX). Methods Using the Paradoxical Leadership Scale, the Innovation Behavior Scale, the Innovation Self-efficacy Scale, and the Leadership member Exchange Scale, a questionnaire survey was conducted with a total of 303 valid data from employees of pharmaceutical enterprises in the Pearl River Delta region, Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai areas within China. Results (1) Paradoxical leadership positively affects the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises; (2) ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ innovation behaviors; (3) LMX has a moderating effect between paradoxical leadership and employee ISE; and paradoxical leadership has an indirect effect on employees’ innovation behavior indirectly. Conclusion Leaders in pharmaceutical enterprises should strengthen paradoxical leadership to enhance employees’ ISE and thus improve their innovation behaviors. paradoxical leadership innovation behavior innovation self-efficacy person-environment fit theory pharmaceutical enterprises Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1 Introduction Pharmaceutical enterprises are an important part of the pharmaceutical innovation system(Ni et al., 2017). Pharmaceutical enterprises should do their best to make contributions to balance the needs of employees, patients, society, and other stakeholders(Yang & Maresova, 2020). With the increase in the number of pharmaceutical enterprises (as of the end of 2023, the number of pharmaceutical manufacturing industry enterprises is 9412), the high degree of product homogenization and fierce competition in the market have brought challenges to the development of pharmaceutical enterprises. In the face of the opportunities and challenges brought by market changes, pharmaceutical enterprises want to maintain a foothold in the highly competitive market environment, to maintain high-quality development, we must take “innovation” as the core driving force, “Employee innovation” is considered an important source of market competitiveness(Ding et al., 2019). In the innovation process of pharmaceutical enterprises, employees are the key element of pharmaceutical enterprises’ innovation input, the core lies in whether the employees remain active, absorb and create new knowledge, and adopt innovation behaviors(Yan & Loang, 2024; Yang et al., 2021). Research has shown that employee innovative behavior often requires mindset, motivation, and work environment support, such as a paradoxical mindset and perceived leadership support(Liu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2016; Amabile et al., 2004). Research has confirmed that the organizational climate, leadership, work groups, and problem-solving style influence employees’ innovation behavior[9]. The existing literature indicates that leadership behavior significantly influences employee and enterprise development and impacts employee engagement in innovation(Castillo Apraiz & Matey de Antonio, 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Darwish et al., 2020). Previous studies have examined the effects of paradoxical leadership on innovativeness among various groups, including employees of state-owned enterprises(Liu et al., 2021), hospital nurses(Li et al., 2023), digital marketers[14], and IT companies[15]. However, the impact of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior among employees of pharmaceutical enterprises has not been explored. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most competitive industries in the world[16], and whether or not employees implement innovation behaviors is a key factor in driving the success of pharmaceutical enterprises[17]. Importantly, leaders play a critical role in fostering innovation among their subordinates[18]. In addition, because pharmaceutical enterprises operate in a market environment full of uncertainty and complexity[19], paradoxical leaders who can balance the complexity of the work environment are essential to pharmaceutical enterprises. The interaction between a “paradoxical” leader and his/her employees will have a positive impact on employee behavior and results[20]. For example, in the process of team management, paradoxical leadership, a “both-and” leadership strategy, creates a guiding, supportive, and open work environment, serving as a role model and fostering a conducive atmosphere for organizational change and innovation in team management, which encourages employees to not only fulfill normative task requirements but also actively participate in organizational change and innovation efforts(Dashuai & Bin, 2020; Qiang et al., 2023; Yang, 2022). In addition, paradoxical leaders respect each team employee’s point of view, encourage employees to express innovative opinions and ideas, and provide the necessary guidance to achieve innovation goals[23]. Therefore, this study examines whether employees’ motivation to engage in innovation is enhanced under the influence of paradoxical leadership, leading to more innovation behaviors. Innovation self-efficacy(ISE) describes the evaluation of employees’ confidence in their ability to overcome the difficulties and challenges they face in their work assignments[24]. Employees’ confidence in their abilities affects their creativity[25], innovation behavior(Michael et al., 2011), and innovation performance[27]. The extent to which leaders identify with their employees affects their attitudes toward innovation, their values of innovation, and their willingness to try and adopt risk-taking behaviors[28]. Leaders who possess “paradox” traits can control employees’ behavior and decision-making in the workplace(Yang et al., 2021), also granting them certain autonomy, offering support when needed, allowing them to set their schedules and priorities, and enabling employees to be confident in their work(Li et al., 2020). Innovation work is frequently challenging and complicated, so having a high level of ISE will encourage workers to take on more difficult assignments, choose more challenging tasks, and find solutions to all of the issues that arise during the innovation process(Teng et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2022; Su et al., 2019; Iqbal et al., 2022). Therefore, this study examines the mediating role that ISE plays between paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior. A good hierarchical relationship is conducive to Leader-member Exchange (LMX) among employees, which means that leaders and subordinates establish relationships of different qualities(Dansereauet et al., 1975). Past research has confirmed that leader-member exchange plays an important role in the workplace[36]. A close exchange between leaders and employees creates a sense of belonging and connection to the organization and development opportunities for the organization to engage in challenging tasks. When employees perceive emotional support from their superiors, employees will be inspired to innovate in their work(Mumford et al., 2002). Paradoxical leaders inspire employees to dedicate themselves to their work, learn passionately about job-related knowledge and skills, gain more innovative experience, and strengthen their belief in innovation by building positive supervisor-subordinate guanxi and maintaining a close relationship with employees while maintaining a certain distance(Zhang & Long, 2013). Meanwhile, employees feel better about their superiors and develop deeper bonds with them if they feel that the leader is acting in a decentralized manner, thus increasing the level of exchange between leaders and employees. The interaction between employees and leaders broadens the horizon of employees’ thinking, increases positive emotions and behavioral performance, and enhances their confidence in their innovation[39]. Therefore, this study concludes that to improve employees’ innovation self-efficacy and to foster employees’ engagement in innovative behaviors, companies should consider the important factor of LMX. The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows: First, this study investigates whether paradoxical leadership affects employees’ innovation behavior in the context of Chinese pharmaceutical enterprises. Second, based on the person-environment fit theory, we explore the mediating role of ISE in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ innovation behavior in pharmaceutical enterprises. Third, the LMX moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ ISE, as well as the indirect effects of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. Specifically, we argue that the degree of LMX affects the resources employees receive from paradoxical leadership as well as their level of self-confidence. There have been studies exploring the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ innovation behavior, but few studies have taken pharmaceutical enterprise employees as their subjects, and this study provides guidance on how pharmaceutical enterprises can promote the innovation behavior of pharmaceutical enterprise employees through paradoxical leadership. 2 Theory and hypothesis 2.1 Person-environment fit theory The person-environment fit theory was first proposed by Frank Parsons in 1909 in his book CHOOSING A VOCATION, which elaborated on the idea of fitting between individual and occupation from the perspective of personal and organizational interaction[40]. In management, Murray (1938) and Lewin (1935) proposed that individual behavior is shaped by both the person and the environment, with individual factors including needs, abilities, values, and environmental factors including supplies, demands, and values[43]. When individuals are aligned with the work environment in which they work, especially when they are aligned with the organization in terms of values, goals, and culture, this can have a positive impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviors(Saraç et al., 2014; Chatman, 1989), such as higher job satisfaction[46], reduced burnout(Tong et al., 2015), better job adaptation[48], and higher performance(Kieffer et al., 2004) and quality of work. Studies have shown that an individual’s desired innovation environment and his/her actual innovation ability affect innovation behavior[50]. It has also been shown that a high degree of matching brings a good psychological feeling to employees(Tierney et al., 1999), which in turn increases their creativity. Therefore, this study analyzes whether paradoxical leadership affects employees’ innovation behaviors based on person-environment fit theory, ISE as a mediator, and leader-member exchange as a moderator variable. 2.2 Paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior Economist Schumpeter (1934) was the first scholar to propose the term Innovation, based on the concept of Entrepreneurship, he considered innovation as a creative activity or behavior. Employee innovation behavior refers to the conscious generation of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures by employees in a group or organization, it is one of the main mechanisms for organizations to improve their competitiveness and ensure long-term survival[53]. Innovation behavior can be classified in terms of the stage[54] (opportunity exploration, generativity, formative investigation, championing, application), degree(Mom et al., 2007) (exploratory and exploitative employee innovation behavior), and organizational requirement(Yang & Yang, 2018) (proactive and reactive employee innovation behavior). No matter which dimension is used, for business organizations, employee ideas, whether based on individual or organizational standpoints, should be effective in contributing to the organization’s operations to solve the problems they face. Therefore, employee innovation behavior has a significant impact on the long-term development of the organization. The concept of “paradox” first originated from the philosophical category, when two contradictory opposites are mutually reinforcing on another level, paradoxes are created. The attitude of the West towards the problem of paradox is different from that of China; the West chooses a contradiction to focus on or allows two different departments to manage the two sides of the paradox to alleviate the pressure brought about by the contradiction[57]. In contrast, China tries to look at paradoxes in a dialectical way, seeing the two sides of a paradox as interdependent, interacting, and evolving to form a harmonious, inseparable whole(Chen et al., 2022). “Paradox” is also prevalent in organizational management - managers expect strict control of standards to achieve organizational goals, and employees expect a certain degree of autonomy in their work to achieve their own goals[59]. However, Paradoxical leadership actively responds to the complex contradictions and paradoxes in the organizational environment through an open and inclusive attitude, abandoning the traditional “either/or” leadership style and adopting a “both/and” strategy, thus effectively integrating the “paradox” in organizational management to meet the tension between the organization and the employees’ competing needs(Zhang et al., 2015). In the context of Chinese culture, Zhang et al. (2015) defined Paradoxical leadership as “behaviors that appear to compete with each other but are interrelated to satisfy the needs of both the structure and the followers” and proposed five dimensions of Paradoxical Leader: (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. Each of these five dimensions addresses a different paradox in people management for leaders at the grassroots level. Paradoxical leadership has similarities to transformational leadership in that it allows for individuality; this permissive attitude allows employees to showcase unique individuals and talents[61] and creates an atmosphere of freedom. The atmosphere of freedom provided by paradoxical leadership is consistent with the environment needed for employees to innovate, and according to person-environment fit theory, the degree of fit between people and their work environments can have a significant impact (e.g., satisfaction, performance, stress, productivity, turnover), and the better the fit, the better the results[62]. In addition, the emergence of employee innovation behavior requires leaders to be open to new ideas from employees(Dong et al., 2017). At the same time, paradoxical leadership maintains organizational flexibility and allows employees to adjust their work style according to their work needs, matching the attitudes of leaders and employees, which is conducive to keeping employees’ motivation[64]. Paradoxical leadership is employee-centered and personalized, which can bring out the strengths of employees and stimulate their passion for their work, thus promoting the generation of innovation(Huang et al., 2023). Currently, many studies have proved that paradoxical leadership behaviors can promote employee innovation(Yang et al., 2024; Devi, 2024; Shao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021). The study proposes the following hypotheses based on the above discussion: Hypothesis 1: Paradoxical leadership is positively related to employees’ innovation behavior. 2.3 Mediating Role of ISE Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of self-efficacy in 1977 based on social learning theory. In 2002, based on the research on self-efficacy, Tierney & Farmer (2002) introduced the concept of ISE, which is defined as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to achieve a creative outcome, which is essentially an individual’s prediction of his or her ability. The essence is the individual’s prediction of his or her ability. For R&D staff, Wang defines ISE as an individual's subjective belief that he or she possesses the relevant innovation knowledge and technology to carry out innovation activities and accomplish innovation goals(Wang, 2020). Individuals with high ISE believe they can creatively complete a task[24]. Research has shown that different leadership styles can lead to different levels of ISE(Jing et al., 2022; Hon & Chan, 2013; Zhou & Hoever, 2014; Zhao et al., 2022) and that ISE is a key driver of individual innovation[74]. The demand-supply fit model of the person-environment fit theory emphasizes that the environment provides resources (economic, physical, and psychological) and growth opportunities that satisfy an individual’s needs, desires, or preferences[75], and help to increase an employee’s expectations of his or her capabilities. Firstly, paradoxical leadership is adept at handling contradictory situations such as organizational development and survival, innovation, and rules(Zhang et al., 2015). It can successfully complete work tasks and enhance the overall creativity and innovation vitality of the team(Luo et al., 2015), thereby winning the trust and recognition of employees through role models, providing them with rich psychological resources, and enhancing their ISE. Secondly, paradoxical leadership emphasizes both organizational norms and employee personalities, as well as providing employees with clear job responsibilities and goals in the work context. This can significantly enhance the psychological security of knowledge workers(Wu, 2017), reduce their uncertainty, encourage them to actively express innovative ideas, and thereby improve their internal motivation and confidence in completing innovative tasks. Finally, paradoxical leadership enhances employee interaction, facilitates the integration and flow of team resources, and enhances individual innovation capabilities through resource sharing(Xue et al., 2023). Employees with high ISE are usually more confident in their innovation ability, willing to engage in innovative activities, and have more confidence in overcoming innovation difficulties and challenges[24]. They are also better able to cope positively with negative emotions arising from difficulties and continue to innovate(Li et al., 2019). Paradoxical leadership satisfies individual needs and enhances employees' innovative self-efficacy by providing resource support, role models, and a sense of security[75], thereby encouraging employees to actively participate in work, choose more difficult and challenging tasks, and motivate them to generate more innovation behavior(Liu & Zheng, 2016). Based on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: Innovation self-efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ innovation behavior. 2.4 The moderating role of the LMX LMX reflects the high and low levels of leader-employee exchange, which is an expression of a social exchange relationship[81]. High-quality LMX is compatible with employee innovation and is the driving force behind employees' courage to innovate(Qu et al., 2013). When the quality of LMX is low, the similarity between employees and leaders in terms of future benefits is small, and employees are unwilling to invest more time and energy in innovation activities, resulting in less creative behavior[83]. Paradoxical leadership can give full play to their interpersonal and hierarchical distance management skills in the execution of team tasks(Wang, 2023), creating a fair organizational environment that takes into account the dignity of the employees, a good atmosphere that allows employees to let down their guard and shorten the distance between superior and subordinate rights. High-quality LMX employees are more likely to obtain supportive resources from their superiors, helping them overcome most risks and alleviate the psychological burden caused by mistakes(Zhang et al., 2021). With the reduction of psychological burden, employees' innovative beliefs and willingness are enhanced, thereby improving their ISE[86]. At the same time, high-quality LMX can ensure that members receive positive support, encouragement, and constructive feedback when fulfilling their responsibilities(Martin et al., 2016), which will establish and expand employees' beliefs, making them believe that they can solve more difficult and complex problems, and enhance ISE. Based on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 3: There is a moderating effect of LMX between paradoxical leadership and employees’ ISE. Based on the above speculations and discussions, the study hypothesized that LMX would moderate the mediating effect of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. Specifically, we hypothesize that the innovation behavior of employees with higher LMX will be more strongly influenced indirectly by paradoxical leadership than the innovation behavior of employees with lower LMX. Based on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 4: LMX moderates the indirect effect of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovative behavior, that is, the higher the LMX, the stronger the indirect effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior through ISE. The model proposed in this study is shown in Figure 1. Based on the literature review and discussion of the results of previous studies, four hypotheses are proposed. First, paradoxical leadership is positively related to employees’ innovation behavior. Second, we hypothesized that ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior. Finally, we hypothesized that LMX moderated the relationship between paradoxical leadership and ISE, as well as the indirect effect of LMX moderating ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. 3 Method 3.1 Participants and Procedure The data of this study mainly came from the employees of pharmaceutical enterprises in the Pearl River Delta region, Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai areas. A total of 336 questionnaires were returned, and 303 valid questionnaires were obtained after excluding invalid questionnaires with obvious conflicts between positive and negative questions, the same choice for several questions in a row, and the background statistics of insufficient time to fill in the questionnaires. The ratio of men and women in this study is 31.68% and 68.32% respectively, and there were 232 people under the age of 30, and only 71 people in the age group above 30. Among them, there were 13 people with specialized education, 195 people with bachelor’s degrees, and 88 people with postgraduate education (including master’s degrees and doctor’s degrees). The number of survey respondents with less than 3 years of experience was 98, with 139 employed for 3-5 years and 66 for more than 5 years ( Table 1 ). Table 1 Characteristics of demographic variables in the sample Variables Item Quantity Percentage Gender Man 96 31.68% Woman 207 68.32% Age Over 30 years old 71 23.43% Below 30 years old 232 76.57% Educational High school or vocational high school and below 7 2.31% Junior 13 4.29% Undergraduate 195 64.36% Postgraduate 88 29.04% Years of experience 5 years 66 21.78% 3.2 Measures To guarantee the reliability and scientificity of the measurement tool, this study adopts the classic scales with mature applications both at home and abroad and makes appropriate revisions to consider the Chinese cultural context and the survey respondents. The main variables in this study include paradoxical leadership, ISE, LMX, and innovation behavior. In addition to the basic demographic variables, the items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Paradoxical leadership was measured using a scale developed by Zhang et al. (2015) with 22 items. Sample items include “Uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in this study was 0.96. Innovation behavior was measured by the classic “Innovation Behavior Scale” developed by Scott & Bruce (1994a). Sample items include “I often come up with creative ideas and thoughts”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91 in this study was 0.91. Innovation self-efficacy was adopted the measurement scale proposed by Wang (2019). This scale has been validated in the context of high innovation levels, so this study chose it as a tool to examine ISE, with a total of 6 items, such as “I can adopt new methods and approaches to overcome difficulties”. The leader-member exchange relationship was based on a one-dimensional scale developed by Gerstner & Day (1997), which is widely used in academia and has been shown to have good reliability in the Chinese context. Sample items include “I understand how I get along with my leader, and I also understand whether my leader is satisfied with my performance”. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.91. This study included employees’ gender, age, education, and years of experience in the field as control variables. 4 Results 4.1 Common Method Variance (CMV) The research data of this study came from a questionnaire survey with some of the common method variance. To safeguard the scientific validity of the findings, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the research data using the Harman one-factor method. The results showed that the first of the unrotated factors explained 33.25% of the variance, which did not exceed the recommended value of 50%, indicating that the problem of common method variance in the study was not serious. 4.2 Reliability and Validity In this study, SPSS 23.0 statistical analysis software was used to analyze the reliability of paradoxical leadership, innovation behavior, ISE, and leader-member exchange relationship variables ( Table 2 ). As can be seen from Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha for each variable was greater than the usual criterion of 0.7. The KMO values were 0.96, 0.91, 0.95, and 0.91, respectively, and the reliability of the research data was good. Table 2 Results of reliability and validity analyses for each variable Variables Cronbach’s alpha KMO 1. PL 0.96 0.95 2. IB 0.91 0.89 3. ISE 0.95 0.92 4. LMX 0.91 0.91 NOTE: PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange. In structural equation modeling, fitting degree is an important indicator to test whether the model can be accepted. The confirmatory factor analysis fitting index table made by Amos software is shown in Table 3 . In the model fit index, the smaller the Chi square degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF), the better the fit. The CMIN/DF value in the table is 2.545, which is less than 3, indicating a good model fit. The asymptotic residual mean square (RMSEA) between 0.05-0.08 indicates a good model fit, while between 0.08 and 0.10 indicates an acceptable range. The RMSEA in the table is 0.081, and the model fit is acceptable. In the model fitting indicators, the comparative fitting index (CFI), value-added fitting index (IFI), and non-standard fitting index (TLI) are all limited to the range of 0-1. The closer they are to 1, the better the fit of the model. It is generally believed that a fit of 0.8 or higher between the data and the theoretical model is acceptable[90]. This research model is a good fit. Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Index Table Index CMIN/DF CFI IFI TLI RMSEA Value 2.983 0.848 0.849 0.839 0.081 Standard ＜3 ＞0.8 ＞0.8 ＞0.8 ＜0.1 After conducting a model fit test, the convergent validity is further examined. This study used factor loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values of variables to comprehensively evaluate the convergent validity of the scale. The AVE values of all variables in the scale should be ≥ 0.5. The composite reliability (CR) value is the structural reliability of the test data, and a CR value greater than 0.7 indicates good composite reliability. The reliability analysis of scale aggregation and combination is shown in Table 4 , with the standards for each item in the table. The factor loading coefficients are all greater than 0.4, AVE values are all greater than 0.5, and CR values are all greater than 0.7, indicating good convergent validity of the scale. Table 4 Summary of convergent validity indicators for each scale Variables Standardized factor loadings p AVE CR 1.PL 0.530-0.23 *** 0.52 0.9591 2. IB 0.702-0.867 *** 0.62 0.9069 3. ISE 0.849-0.91 *** 0.76 0.9497 4.LMX 0.709-0.842 *** 0.60 0.9246 NOTE：*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange. 4.3 Correlation Analysis of Major Study Variables The research correlation analysis is presented in Table 5 . As can be seen from Table 5, there was a significant positive correlation between innovation behavior and ISE (r = 0.72, p < 0.01), paradoxical leadership (r = 0.44, p < 0.01), and LMX (r = 0.55, p < 0.01); There was a significant positive correlation between ISE and paradoxical leadership (r = 0.44, p < 0.01) and LMX(r = 0.57, p < 0.01); and there was a significant positive correlation between paradoxical leadership and LMX (r = 0.70, p < 0.01). It shows that the data obtained in this study meets the need for model validation in the next step of the research. Table 5 Correlation coefficients of each variable and Cronbach’s α. （ N=303 ） Mean SD 1 2 3 4 1. IB 3.18 0.76 1 2.ISE 3.11 0.82 0.72** 1 3. PL 3.56 0.70 0.44** 0.44** 1 4. LMX 3.22 0.77 0.55** 0.57** 0.70** 1 NOTE：*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange. 4.4 Hypothesis Testing 4.4.1 The mediating role of ISE According to Baron & Kenny (1986) mediation effect test, a variable is recognized as a mediator only if it satisfies the following four basic conditions simultaneously, i.e., (i) the independent variable (X) significantly predicts the dependent variable (Y); (ii) X significantly predicts the mediator (M); (iii) M significantly predicts Y; (iv) the effect of X on Y should be equal to zero or significantly reduced after the placement of M or significantly reduced. The mediation effect test is divided into three models step-by-step, i.e., Model 1: Y=cX+e 1 ; Model 2: M=αX+e 2 ; Model 3: Y=cX+bM+e 3 . According to Model 1 ( Table 6 ), the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on employees’ innovation behavior (β=0.43, p<0.01) is significant, and Hypothesis 1 is valid, and satisfying (i). In model 3, after adding the mediating variable M (ISE) to this regression, the predictive effect of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior is still significant (β=0.16, p<0.01), at this point, compared with the mediator variable not added, the effect of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior was significantly reduced, and the effect coefficient was reduced from 0.44 (p<0.01) to 0.16 (p<0.01), which satisfies (iv). Model 4 shows that paradoxical leadership has a significant positive effect on ISE (β=0.51, p<0.01), satisfying (ii), and model 2 shows that ISE has a significant positive effect on innovation behavior (β=0.66, p<0.01), satisfying (iii). It is inferred that there is a partial mediating effect of ISE in paradoxical leadership and employees of pharmaceutical enterprises, and Hypothesis 2 is valid. To test Hypothesis 2 further, the Bootstrap method (sample size selected 5000, confidence interval selected 95%) was used. The 95% confidence interval effect value obtained from the sample test is 0.306, and the confidence interval is [0.210, 0.359], this interval does not contain 0, which indicates that there is a partial mediating effect of ISE in paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior, and the partial effect of ISE accounts for 65.45% of the total effect, and Hypothesis 2 is again verified. Table 6 Results of hierarchical regression analysis （ N=303 ） Variables IB ISE Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Gender -0.008 0.071 0.028 -0.098 -0.12 Age -0.091 -0.093 -0.061 -0.013 -0.056 Education 0.037 0.048 0.044 0.13 -0.051 Working Years 0.070 0.011 0.010 0.018 0.071 PL 0.43** 0.16** 0.51** 0.46** ISE 0.66** 0.60** LMX 0.093 PL*LMX 0.18** R ² 0.21 0.53 0.54 0.21 0.36 ⊿R ² 0.19 0.51 0.53 0.19 0.33 F 15.22** 46.63** 43.77** 10.95** 22.74** NOTE：*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. NOTE: PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange. 4.4.2 Moderating effect of the LMX To test Hypothesis 3, the study conducted a moderating mediation analysis. According to Model 5 (Table 6), the relationship between the paradoxical leadership *LMX interaction term and ISE was significant (β=0.18, p <0.01), thus there was a significant moderating effect of LMX between paradoxical leadership and ISE, and Hypothesis 3 was established. Figure 2 shows these interaction patterns. At high levels of LMX, paradoxical leadership was positively related to ISE; at low levels of LMX, paradoxical leadership was negatively related to ISE. Research hypothesis 4, LMX moderates the relationship between ISE in paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior, this study used the SPSS22.0 Process plug-in to test whether LMX moderates the above indirect relationship. Bootstrap results are shown in Table 7 . When the LMX orientation is low (M- 1SD), the indirect effect value is 0.064 with a confidence interval of [0.003, 0.135], which does not contain 0. When the LMX orientation is high (M+1SD), the corresponding indirect effect value is 0.130 with a confidence interval of [0.039, 0.220], which does not contain 0. This indicates that regardless of whether the LMX orientation is high or low, the indirect effect value is 0.064 with a confidence interval of [0.003, 0.135], which does not contain 0. LMX takes a high or low value, the indirect effect of ISE on paradoxical leadership to innovation behavior is significant. As the level of LMX orientation increases, paradoxical leadership is more likely to induce innovation behavior by increasing ISE, and thus, hypothesis H4 is tested. Table 7 Results of LMX on Indirect Effect Predictors β BootLLCI BootULCI M- 1SD 0.064 0.003 0.135 M+1SD 0.130 0.039 0.220 M 0.066 0.036 0.085 5 Discussion This study explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. The results showed that there is a strong positive correlation between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior, and LMX moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and ISE, with high-quality LMX having a stronger indirect effect on employee innovation behavior (through ISE) than low-quality LMX, as it plays a key moderating role in the relationship. 5.1 Theoretical implications First, this study verified the effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior in pharmaceutical enterprises. While previous research has explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior(Liu et al., 2021), most of the studies selected employees of hotels, high-tech companies, and other enterprises as the subjects of study(Kim, 2021; Yang et al., 2021), and few studies have focused on paradoxical leadership styles in the specific industry of pharmaceutical enterprises. This study deepens indigenous research on paradoxical leadership and empirically investigates Zhang et al. (2015) proposal to explore the applicability of paradoxical leadership to work populations in other industries. Furthermore, this study responded to Zhu et al. (2019) claim to explore how paradoxical leaders, as role models, can cope with paradoxes in complex environments and promote innovative behaviors of employees. Second, previous studies have used self-concept theory(Wang et al., 2022), self-determination theory(Yang et al., 2021), social cognition theory(Shao et al., 2019), social exchange theory(Younis et al., 2023), and other theories to study the impact of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation, and based on the person-environment fit theory, this study explored the mechanism of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. It was found that ISE is the mediating mechanism of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. Paradoxical leadership in pharmaceutical enterprises promotes employee innovation behavior by constructing an organizational climate that is both inclusive and innovative, increasing employees’ adaptability, stimulating employees’ spirit of innovation and motivation, and influencing employees’ ISE. Finally, this study examined the boundary conditions between paradoxical leadership, ISE, and innovation behavior. The supervisor’s supportiveness affects employee innovativeness(Livingstone et al., 1997). Therefore, we identified LMX as a moderator between paradoxical leadership and ISE and the indirect effect that paradoxical leadership can have on employees’ innovation behavior through ISE. Findings suggest that LMX moderates both relationships. Higher-quality LMX had a stronger effect on both relationships. That is, when the quality of LMX is higher, employees receive more opportunities, information, and resources through their superiors. As a result, it is more likely that the paradoxical leadership style displayed by superiors is perceived as appropriate and effective, resulting in higher levels of ISE and facilitating innovation behaviors. This further suggests that LMX is a key boundary condition for paradoxical leadership to have a positive impact on employees. 5.2 Practical implications First, “paradox” runs through the whole process of organizational development. With the increasing complexity of the organizational environment and fierce competition in the market, pharmaceutical enterprises should think about how to break the paradoxical dilemma in the new situation. As a driving force, paradoxical leaders can grasp the “grey scale” balance point in the dynamic, help employees and the organization to resolve conflicts in the complex and changing market environment and development process, and thus enhance the organization’s core competitiveness and environmental resilience. The results of this study show that paradoxical leadership can promote the emergence of employee innovation behavior. Therefore, for pharmaceutical enterprises, leaders with paradoxical thinking should be cultivated in daily management, and managers who are fault-tolerant and allow employees to take risks should be preferred when leaders are hired. Second, the role of ISE employees in pharmaceutical enterprises should be emphasized. In the context of Chinese pharmaceutical enterprises, managers should help their subordinates and believe that they can solve problems, help employees enhance their self-confidence, and at the same time, appropriately empower their professional skills and encourage them to participate in a variety of learning exchanges to enable them to obtain new knowledge and enhance their sense of ISE. For example, paradoxical leadership plays up their leadership traits, giving them more autonomy, providing the employee with development opportunities, encouraging them to make trial and error, and increasing their level of self-confidence in innovation to enhance the level of innovation. Third, team leaders should establish positive supervisor-subordinate guanxi with their subordinates by using flexible communication skills to shape internal interpersonal relationships through the charisma of their management style and understanding of their subordinates’ psychological state. The daily work of employees of pharmaceutical enterprises is to participate as a research team, medical team, or work team to assist the leadership in completing projects such as scientific research or to complete the specified labor output. Some of these pharmaceutical enterprise employees are also involved in clinical diagnosis and treatment in hospitals, which makes the relationship with multiple superiors more complex. Therefore, paradoxical leadership should adopt a combination of control and decentralization to help their subordinates and encourage them to actively participate in their work tasks. In addition, paradoxical leaders should maintain good relationships with their employees and treat each subordinate fairly. The impact of paradoxical leadership behaviors on subordinates will be stronger when subordinates feel the friendly behaviors of their superiors. 5.3 Limitations and Future Research There are some limitations to this study. First, the data source of this study is mainly cross-sectional data and lacks tracking data collection. Therefore, future research could expand the sampling range, consider the possible effects of regional differences, race, religious beliefs, and other factors, and adjust the selection of control variables accordingly. Second, the number of pharmaceutical enterprise units investigated in this study is relatively insufficient and limited to individual cities and regions, and the findings may have limitations. Subsequent research needs to investigate more industries and enterprises for hypothesis verification and analysis. Third, ISE and LMX were selected for this study and were preliminary validated. In future research, scholars can continue to explore other mediating or moderating variables. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University (Approval number: 20230501). We confirm that the procedure complied with the ethical guidelines outlined in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. On the first page of the questionnaire, we provided the objectives of this study. We cordially solicited participants’ willingness to participate in the survey, assuring them of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Consent for publication All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript. Availability of data and materials The data supporting this study's findings are available on request from the corresponding author. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Fundings Guangdong Planning Project of Philosophy and Social Science, GD21CJY02 2024 Guangdong Pharmaceutical University “Discipline Training, Innovation and Quality Improvement” Team Project, 2024ZR01 Authors' contributions JJ Z managed the project, acquired funding, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the submitted version. Q Y performed the data analysis and wrote sections of the manuscript. J C wrote sections of the manuscript. XF L collected the data. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References J N, J Z, C.o.l U, Y H, H H, Y W. Obstacles and opportunities in Chinese pharmaceutical innovation. UM 2017;13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0244-6. Yang M, Maresova P. Adopting Occupational Health and Safety Management Standards: The Impact on Financial Performance in Pharmaceutical Firms in China. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2020;13:1477–87. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S261136. Ding G, Liu H, Huang Q, Gu J. Enterprise social networking usage as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Information & Management 2019;56:103165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.04.008. Yan WY, Loang OK. Building a Research Model for the Relationship Between Enterprise Innovation Values and Employees’ Innovation Behavior: With Innovation Self-efficacy as a Mediator. In: El Khoury R, editor. Technology-Driven Business Innovation: Unleashing the Digital Advantage, Volume 1, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024, p. 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51997-0_5. Yang M, Lin Q, Maresova P. Does Employee Care Trigger Innovation Under a Healthy and Safe Working Environment? Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry in China. Healthcare 2021;9:194. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9020194. Yanjun L, Xu S, Zhang B. Thriving at Work: How a Paradox Mindset Influences Innovative Work Behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2019;56:002188631988826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267. Liu D, Jiang K, Shalley CE, Keem S, Zhou J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2016;137:236–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001. Amabile TM, Schatzel EA, Moneta GB, Kramer SJ. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. AMJ 1994;37:580–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701. Castillo Apraiz J, Matey de Antonio J. The mediating role of personnel training between innovation and performance: Evidence from the German pharmaceutical industry. Cuadernos de Gestión 2020. Darwish S, Ahmed U, Pahi M. Innovative Work Behavior during COVID-19 for Medical Representatives in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Test of a Moderation Model in Bahrain. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.04.277. liu Y, Xu S, Zhang H. Neck and Neck:The Effect of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Innovative Behavior. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS 2021:34–44. https://doi.org/10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2021.09.003. Li Q, Yang X, Yang W, Liu H, Wang Y. Research on the current status of parodoxical leadership among the head nurse and its influence on nurses’ innovative behavior. Journal of Nursing Administration 2023;23:444–7. NurFajar A, Widiasih P. The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on the Creativity of Digital Marketing Employees in Jakarta, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-7-2023.2343391. Devi NC. Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding as mediators. Journal of Knowledge Management 2024;28:312–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0779. Le M-H, Lu W-M. An integrated multiple objective decision making approach for exploring the competitiveness of pharmaceutical multinational enterprises. Ann Oper Res 2024;341:401–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04743-y. Choi SB, Tran TBH, Park BI. Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2015;43:931–44. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931. Randel AE, Galvin BM, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, et al. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review 2018;28:190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002. Takawira B, Kanyangale M, Mutambara E. Competencies of strategic leadership towards business sustainability in emerging pharmaceutical business of South Africa: A case of Alpha distribution. Cogent Social Sciences 2023;9:2275443. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2275443. Xue Y, Li X, Liang H, Li Y. How Does Paradoxical Leadership Affect Employees’ Voice Behaviors in Workplace? A Leader-Member Exchange Perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041162. Dashuai R, Bin Z. How does paradoxical leadership affect innovation in teams: An integrated multilevel dual process model. Human Systems Management 2020;39:11–26. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190593. Qiang Q, Xiaohong W, Qianru S. Does paradoxical leadership influence employees’ proactive work behavior? A study based on employees in Chinese state-owned enterprises. Front Psychol 2023;14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269906. Li Q, She Z, Yang B. Promoting Innovative Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Roles of Paradoxical Leadership and Team Perspective Taking. Front Psychol 2018;9:1083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01083. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance. AMJ 2002;45:1137–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429. Jaiswal NK, Dhar RL. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2015;51:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002. Michael L a. H, Hou S-T, Fan H-L. Creative Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behavior in a Service Setting: Optimism as a Moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior 2011;45:258–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x. Choi JN. Individual and Contextual Predictors of Creative Performance: The Mediating Role of Psychological Processes. Creativity Research Journal 2004;16:187–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452. Barsh J, Capozzi MM, Davidson J. Leadership and innovation n.d. Yang Y, Li Z, Liang L, Zhang X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology 2021;40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1. Li X, Xue Y, Liang H, Yan D. The Impact of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Voice Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front Psychol 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.537756. Teng C-C, Hu C-M, Chang J-H. Triggering Creative Self-Efficacy to Increase Employee Innovation Behavior in the Hospitality Workplace. The Journal of Creative Behavior 2020;54:912–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.419. Wan X, He R, Zhang G, Zhou J. Employee engagement and open service innovation: The roles of creative self-efficacy and employee innovative behaviour. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921687. Su W, Lin X, Ding H. The Influence of Supervisor Developmental Feedback on Employee Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front Psychol 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581. Iqbal A, Nazir T, Ahmad MS. Entrepreneurial leadership and employee innovative behavior: an examination through multiple theoretical lenses. European Journal of Innovation Management 2022;25:173–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2020-0212. Dansereau F, Graen G, Haga WJ. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1975;13:46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7. Schyns B, Day D. Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2010;19:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903024922. Mumford MD, Scott GM, Gaddis B, Strange JM. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 2002;13:705–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3. Zhang Y, Long L. The effects of person-job fit, job insecurity on employee creativity - a mediated moderated effects model test. Nankai Business Review 2013;16:16-25+50. Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004. Parsons F. Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA, US: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; 1909. Murray HA. Explorations in personality. Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press; 1938. Lewin K. A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill; 1935. Vianen AEM van. Person–Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2018;5:75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702. Saraç M, Efil I, Eryilmaz M. A study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity. Management Research Review 2014;37:479–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0025. Chatman JA. Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit. AMR 1989;14:333–49. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279063. Mount MK, Muchinsky PM. Person-environment congruence and employee job satisfaction: a test of Holland’s theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1978;13:84–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(78)90074-X. Tong J, Wang L, Peng K. From person-environment misfit to job burnout: theoretical extensions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 2015;30:169–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2012-0404. De Cooman R, Vleugels W. Person–Environment Fit: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptualizations, and Outcomes 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377. Kieffer KM, Schinka JA, Curtiss G. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. Journal of Counseling Psychology 2004;51:168–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.168. Choi JN. Person–Environment Fit and Creative Behavior: Differential Impacts of Supplies–Values and Demands–Abilities Versions of Fit. Human Relations 2004;57:531–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044308. Tierney P, Farmer SM, Graen GB. An Examination of Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships. Personnel Psychology 1999;52:591–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x. Schumpeter J, Schumpeter J, Schumpeter JP, Schumpeter J, Schumpeter J, Opie R, et al. The theory of economics development, 1934. Farr JL, Ford CM. Individual innovation. Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies, Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1990, p. 63–80. Kleysen RF, Street CT. Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2001;2:284–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005660. Mom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies 2007;44:910–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x. Yang W, Yang S. Proactive-Reactive Innovation Behavior of the Employee: An Analysis Based on the Challenge-Hindrance Stressors Dual-Path. Science of Science and Management of S& T 2018;39:130–44. Lewis MW. Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review 2000. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712. Chen L, Wen T, Wang J, Gao H. The Impact of Spiritual Leadership on Employee’s Work Engagement–A Study Based on the Mediating Effect of Goal Self-Concordance and Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 2022;24:69–84. https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2022.018932. Vera D, Crossan M. Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review 2004. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736080. Zhang Y, Waldman DA, Han Y-L, Li X-B. Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. AMJ 2015;58:538–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995. McCleskey J. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014;5:117–30. Rounds JB, Tracey TJ. From Trait-and-Factor to Person-Environment Fit Counseling: Theory and Process. Career Counseling, Routledge; 1990. Dong Y, Bartol KM, Zhang Z-X, Li C. Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2017;38:439–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134. Chen X, Yin M, Yang B. The Influence of the Matching of Leader’s Authorization Behavior and Employee’s Authorization Expectation on Employee’s Active Behavior: Based on the Theory of Personal-Environmental Matching. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies 2022;10:824–45. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2022.104048. Huang Y-F, Lin H-C, Lee H-M. Innovation in manufacturing SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic: How does environmental dynamism reinforce employee proactive behavior? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2023;187:122247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122247. Yang N, Chen H, (Frank) Wang X-H. Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange. J Bus Psychol 2024;39:697–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x. Shao Y, Nijstad BA, Täuber S. Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2019;155:7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 1977;84:191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. Wang T. A study of the effect of paradoxical leadership on the dual innovation of R&D team members. Master. Wuhan University of Technology, 2019. https://doi.org/10.27381/d.cnki.gwlgu.2019.001040. Jing J, Wang S, Yang J, Ding T. The influence of empowering team leadership on employees’ innovation passion in high-tech enterprises. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928991. Hon AHY, Chan WWH. Team Creative Performance: The Roles of Empowering Leadership, Creative-Related Motivation, and Task Interdependence. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2013;54:199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512455859. Zhou J, Hoever IJ. Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2014;1:333–59. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226. Zhao H, Su Q, Lou M, Hang C, Zhang L. Does authoritarianism necessarily stifle creativity? The role of discipline-focused authoritarian leadership. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1037102. Ford CM. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. The Academy of Management Review 1996;21:1112–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/259166. Edwards JR. Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1991, Vol. 6., Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1991, p. 283–357. Luo J, Hua C, Zhong J. A study of the impact of paradoxical leadership on the innovation of knowledge teams and the mechanism of its action. Science & Technology Progress and Policy 2015;32:121–5. Wu L. A Study of the Mechanism of Paradoxical Leadership on the Innovative Behaviour of Knowledge-based Employees. Thesis. Wuhan University, 2017. Xue J, Zhang J, Zhang M, Chao L. A study of the effect of time pressure, paradoxical leadership on employee creativity. Science Research Management 2023;44:119. https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2023.10.013. Li X, Xu Z, Huo W. The Influence of Creative Deviant Behavior to Creativity: Moderating Effect of Leadership Feedback and the Mediating Effect of Creative Self-Efficacy. Science & Technology Progress and Policy 2019;36:138–45. Liu Z, Zheng Q. Uncertainty Avoidance and Employee Innovation Behavior:the Mediating Role of Self-efficacy. Science & Technology Progress and Policy 2016;33:149–55. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 1995;6:219–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5. Qu R, Wang Z, Jiao L, Shi K. The Contingent Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Researchers Creativity. Science of Science and Management of S& T 2013;34:156–65. He F, Wang C. Impact of Paternalistic Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Behaviour in China’s Entrepreneurial Enterprises - Leader-Member Exchange Relationship as a Mediating Mechanism. Economic Research Guide 2024:129–32. Wang Q. Research on the influence mechanism of paradoxical leadership on employees’ follow-up behavior. Master. NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023. https://doi.org/10.27242/d.cnki.gnjlu.2022.000183. Zhang A, Li X, Guo Y. Proactive Personality and Employee Creativity: A Moderated Mediation Model of Multisource Information Exchange and LMX. Front Psychol 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.552581. Ma L, Zhang Z. The Influence of Authoritarian Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Behavior. Science & Technology Progress and Policy 2018;35:139–45. Martin R, Guillaume Y, Thomas G, Lee A, Epitropaki O. Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology 2016;69:67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Creating innovative behavior among R&D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation. Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference - IEMC ’94, 1994, p. 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.1994.379952. Gerstner CR, Day DV. Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997;82:827–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827. Zhao X. A study on the behavioural intention of urban walking tourists based on the theory of heart flow. Qufu Normal University, 2024. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986;51:1173–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. Kim JE. Paradoxical Leadership and Proactive Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety in the Hotel Industry. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 2021;8:167–78. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no5.0167. Zhu Y, Zhang W, Liao J, Wang X. You Can Have It Both Ways:Paradoxical Leadership’s Concept, Measurement and Mechanism. Human Resources Development of China 2019;36:31–46. https://doi.org/10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2019.08.003. Wang M, Zhang J, He J, Bi Y. Paradoxical leadership and employee innovation: Organization-based self-esteem and harmonious passion as sequential mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2022;50:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11634. Younis S, Bashir S, Irshad M, Javed B. Impact of the Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Creativity: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Sage Open 2023;13:21582440231182615. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231182615. Livingstone LP, Nelson DL, Barr SH. Person-environment fit and creativity: An examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management 1997;23:119–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90040-4. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6327213","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":468107080,"identity":"1b65b343-d275-4667-a0c6-060acd285a47","order_by":0,"name":"Qing Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangdong Pharmaceutical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qing","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":468107081,"identity":"f4db207a-d331-489e-85b5-35324d84e06f","order_by":1,"name":"Jing Cai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangdong Pharmaceutical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jing","middleName":"","lastName":"Cai","suffix":""},{"id":468107082,"identity":"877e5b3c-131f-4564-9437-1423c3490ceb","order_by":2,"name":"Xiaofan Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangdong Pharmaceutical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaofan","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":468107083,"identity":"5dbcb278-2239-4045-9791-aecdf71dd510","order_by":3,"name":"Jianji Zeng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangdong Pharmaceutical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jianji","middleName":"","lastName":"Zeng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-28 10:23:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84206517,"identity":"260b9dcb-d554-4667-9c2c-73ccf6d3ccdd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-09 09:11:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized moderated mediation model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6327213/v1/f44c7928a2a3d316d0d19b3f.png"},{"id":84206516,"identity":"a0add9c9-adf7-4d14-aa7b-6e0d7993324d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-09 09:11:38","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17063,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInteraction of LMX and PL on ISE.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6327213/v1/024cf88599f4001bac772cd1.png"},{"id":86620117,"identity":"9f6a5c13-1193-488f-9b05-c5b7dc1f57d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 03:01:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1007225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6327213/v1/db4eff64-4c6a-4fa0-a620-2951be778315.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"How Paradoxical Leadership Influences Employees’ Innovation Behavior: Based on Person-Environment Fit Theory Perspective","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePharmaceutical enterprises are an important part of the pharmaceutical innovation system(Ni et al., 2017). Pharmaceutical enterprises should do their best to make contributions to balance the needs of employees, patients, society, and other stakeholders(Yang \u0026amp; Maresova, 2020). With the increase in the number of pharmaceutical enterprises (as of the end of 2023, the number of pharmaceutical manufacturing industry enterprises is 9412), the high degree of product homogenization and fierce competition in the market have brought challenges to the development of pharmaceutical enterprises. In the face of the opportunities and challenges brought by market changes, pharmaceutical enterprises want to maintain a foothold in the highly competitive market environment, to maintain high-quality development, we must take \u0026ldquo;innovation\u0026rdquo; as the core driving force, \u0026ldquo;Employee innovation\u0026rdquo; is considered an important source of market competitiveness(Ding et al., 2019). In the innovation process of pharmaceutical enterprises, employees are the key element of pharmaceutical enterprises\u0026rsquo; innovation input, the core lies in whether the employees remain active, absorb and create new knowledge, and adopt innovation behaviors(Yan \u0026amp; Loang, 2024; Yang et al., 2021). Research has shown that employee innovative behavior often requires mindset, motivation, and work environment support, such as a paradoxical mindset and perceived leadership support(Liu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2016; Amabile et al., 2004). Research has confirmed that the organizational climate, leadership, work groups, and problem-solving style influence employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior[9].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe existing literature indicates that leadership behavior significantly influences employee and enterprise development and impacts employee engagement in innovation(Castillo Apraiz \u0026amp; Matey de Antonio, 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Darwish et al., 2020). Previous studies have examined the effects of paradoxical leadership on innovativeness among various groups, including employees of state-owned enterprises(Liu et al., 2021), hospital nurses(Li et al., 2023), digital marketers[14], and IT companies[15]. However, the impact of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior among employees of pharmaceutical enterprises has not been explored. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most competitive industries in the world[16], and whether or not employees implement innovation behaviors is a key factor in driving the success of pharmaceutical enterprises[17]. Importantly, leaders play a critical role in fostering innovation among their subordinates[18]. In addition, because pharmaceutical enterprises operate in a market environment full of uncertainty and complexity[19], paradoxical leaders who can balance the complexity of the work environment are essential to pharmaceutical enterprises. The interaction between a \u0026ldquo;paradoxical\u0026rdquo; leader and his/her employees will have a positive impact on employee behavior and results[20]. For example, in the process of team management, paradoxical leadership, a \u0026ldquo;both-and\u0026rdquo; leadership strategy, creates a guiding, supportive, and open work environment, serving as a role model and fostering a conducive atmosphere for organizational change and innovation in team management, which encourages employees to not only fulfill normative task requirements but also actively participate in organizational change and innovation efforts(Dashuai \u0026amp; Bin, 2020; Qiang et al., 2023; Yang, 2022). In addition, paradoxical leaders respect each team employee\u0026rsquo;s point of view, encourage employees to express innovative opinions and ideas, and provide the necessary guidance to achieve innovation goals[23]. Therefore, this study examines whether employees\u0026rsquo; motivation to engage in innovation is enhanced under the influence of paradoxical leadership, leading to more innovation behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInnovation self-efficacy(ISE) describes the\u0026nbsp;evaluation of employees\u0026rsquo; confidence in their ability to overcome the difficulties and challenges they face in their work assignments[24]. Employees\u0026rsquo; confidence in their abilities affects their creativity[25], innovation behavior(Michael et al., 2011), and innovation performance[27]. The extent to which leaders identify with their employees affects their attitudes toward innovation, their values of innovation, and their willingness to try and adopt risk-taking behaviors[28]. Leaders who possess \u0026ldquo;paradox\u0026rdquo; traits can control employees\u0026rsquo; behavior and decision-making in the workplace(Yang et al., 2021), also granting them certain autonomy, offering support when needed, allowing them to set their schedules and priorities, and enabling employees to be confident in their work(Li et al., 2020). Innovation work is frequently challenging and complicated, so having a high level of ISE will encourage workers to take on more difficult assignments, choose more challenging tasks, and find solutions to all of the issues that arise during the innovation process(Teng et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2022; Su et al., 2019; Iqbal et al., 2022). Therefore, this study examines the mediating role that ISE plays between paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA good hierarchical relationship is conducive to Leader-member Exchange (LMX) among employees, which means that leaders and subordinates establish relationships of different qualities(Dansereauet et al., 1975). Past research has confirmed that leader-member exchange plays an important role in the workplace[36]. A close exchange between leaders and employees creates a sense of belonging and connection to the organization and development opportunities for the organization to engage in challenging tasks. When employees perceive emotional support from their superiors, employees will be inspired to innovate in their work(Mumford et al., 2002). Paradoxical leaders inspire employees to dedicate themselves to their work, learn passionately about job-related knowledge and skills, gain more innovative experience, and strengthen their belief in innovation by building positive supervisor-subordinate guanxi and maintaining a close relationship with employees while maintaining a certain distance(Zhang \u0026amp; Long, 2013). Meanwhile, employees feel better about their superiors and develop deeper bonds with them if they feel that the leader is acting in a decentralized manner, thus increasing the level of exchange between leaders and employees. The interaction between employees and leaders broadens the horizon of employees\u0026rsquo; thinking, increases positive emotions and behavioral performance, and enhances their confidence in their innovation[39]. Therefore, this study concludes that to improve employees\u0026rsquo; innovation self-efficacy and to foster employees\u0026rsquo; engagement in innovative behaviors, companies should consider the important factor of LMX.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical contributions of this study are as follows: First, this study investigates whether paradoxical leadership affects employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior in the context of Chinese pharmaceutical enterprises. Second, based on the person-environment fit theory, we explore the mediating role of ISE in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior in pharmaceutical enterprises. Third, the LMX moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; ISE, as well as the indirect effects of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. Specifically, we argue that the degree of LMX affects the resources employees receive from paradoxical leadership as well as their level of self-confidence. There have been studies exploring the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior, but few studies have taken pharmaceutical enterprise employees as their subjects, and this study provides guidance on how pharmaceutical enterprises can promote the innovation behavior of pharmaceutical enterprise employees through paradoxical leadership.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Theory and hypothesis","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Person-environment fit theory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe person-environment fit theory was first proposed by Frank Parsons in 1909 in his book CHOOSING A VOCATION, which elaborated on the idea of fitting between individual and occupation from the perspective of personal and organizational interaction[40]. In management, Murray (1938) and Lewin (1935) proposed that individual behavior is shaped by both the person and the environment, with individual factors including needs, abilities, values, and environmental factors including supplies, demands, and values[43]. When individuals are aligned with the work environment in which they work, especially when they are aligned with the organization in terms of values, goals, and culture, this can have a positive impact on employees\u0026rsquo; attitudes and behaviors(Sara\u0026ccedil; et al., 2014; Chatman, 1989), such as higher job satisfaction[46], reduced burnout(Tong et al., 2015), better job adaptation[48], and higher performance(Kieffer et al., 2004) and quality of work. Studies have shown that an individual\u0026rsquo;s desired innovation environment and his/her actual innovation ability affect innovation behavior[50]. It has also been shown that a high degree of matching brings a good psychological feeling to employees(Tierney et al., 1999), which in turn increases their creativity. Therefore, this study analyzes whether paradoxical leadership affects employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behaviors based on person-environment fit theory, ISE as a mediator, and leader-member exchange as a moderator variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEconomist Schumpeter (1934) was the first scholar to propose the term Innovation, based on the concept of Entrepreneurship, he considered innovation as a creative activity or behavior. Employee innovation behavior refers to the conscious generation of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures by employees in a group or organization, it is one of the main mechanisms for organizations to improve their competitiveness and ensure long-term survival[53]. Innovation behavior can be classified in terms of the stage[54] (opportunity exploration, generativity, formative investigation, championing, application), degree(Mom et al., 2007) (exploratory and exploitative employee innovation behavior), and organizational requirement(Yang \u0026amp; Yang, 2018) (proactive and reactive employee innovation behavior). No matter which dimension is used, for business organizations, employee ideas, whether based on individual or organizational standpoints, should be effective in contributing to the organization\u0026rsquo;s operations to solve the problems they face. Therefore, employee innovation behavior has a significant impact on the long-term development of the organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of \u0026ldquo;paradox\u0026rdquo; first originated from the philosophical category, when two contradictory opposites are mutually reinforcing on another level, paradoxes are created. The attitude of the West towards the problem of paradox is different from that of China; the West chooses a contradiction to focus on or allows two different departments to manage the two sides of the paradox to alleviate the pressure brought about by the contradiction[57]. In contrast, China tries to look at paradoxes in a dialectical way, seeing the two sides of a paradox as interdependent, interacting, and evolving to form a harmonious, inseparable whole(Chen et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Paradox\u0026rdquo; is also prevalent in organizational management - managers expect strict control of standards to achieve organizational goals, and employees expect a certain degree of autonomy in their work to achieve their own goals[59].\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHowever, Paradoxical leadership actively responds to the complex contradictions and paradoxes in the organizational environment through an open and inclusive attitude, abandoning the traditional \u0026ldquo;either/or\u0026rdquo; leadership style and adopting a \u0026ldquo;both/and\u0026rdquo; strategy, thus effectively integrating the \u0026ldquo;paradox\u0026rdquo; in organizational management to meet the tension between the organization and the employees\u0026rsquo; competing needs(Zhang et al., 2015).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn the context of Chinese culture, Zhang et al. (2015)\u0026nbsp;defined Paradoxical leadership as \u0026ldquo;behaviors that appear to compete with each other but are interrelated to satisfy the needs of both the structure and the followers\u0026rdquo; and proposed five dimensions of Paradoxical Leader: (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. Each of these five dimensions addresses a different paradox in people management for leaders at the grassroots level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership has similarities to transformational leadership in that it allows for individuality; this permissive attitude allows employees to showcase unique individuals and talents[61] and creates an atmosphere of freedom. The atmosphere of freedom provided by paradoxical leadership is consistent with the environment needed for employees to innovate, and according to person-environment fit theory, the degree of fit between people and their work environments can have a significant impact (e.g., satisfaction, performance, stress, productivity, turnover), and the better the fit, the better the results[62]. In addition, the emergence of employee innovation behavior requires leaders to be open to new ideas from employees(Dong et al., 2017). At the same time, paradoxical leadership maintains organizational flexibility and allows employees to adjust their work style according to their work needs, matching the attitudes of leaders and employees, which is conducive to keeping employees\u0026rsquo; motivation[64]. Paradoxical leadership is employee-centered and personalized, which can bring out the strengths of employees and stimulate their passion for their work, thus promoting the generation of innovation(Huang et al., 2023). Currently, many studies have proved that paradoxical leadership behaviors can promote employee innovation(Yang et al., 2024; Devi, 2024; Shao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study proposes the following hypotheses based on the above discussion:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 1: Paradoxical leadership is positively related to employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Mediating Role of ISE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBandura (1977) introduced the concept of self-efficacy in 1977 based on social learning theory. In 2002, based on the research on self-efficacy, Tierney \u0026amp; Farmer (2002) introduced the concept of \u0026nbsp;ISE, which is defined as an individual\u0026rsquo;s confidence in his or her ability to achieve a creative outcome, which is essentially an individual\u0026rsquo;s prediction of his or her ability. The essence is the individual\u0026rsquo;s prediction of his or her ability. For R\u0026amp;D staff, Wang defines ISE as an individual\u0026apos;s subjective belief that he or she possesses the relevant innovation knowledge and technology to carry out innovation activities and accomplish innovation goals(Wang, 2020). Individuals with high ISE believe they can creatively complete a task[24]. Research has shown that different leadership styles can lead to different levels of ISE(Jing et al., 2022; Hon \u0026amp; Chan, 2013; Zhou \u0026amp; Hoever, 2014; Zhao et al., 2022) and that ISE is a key driver of individual innovation[74].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe demand-supply fit model of the person-environment fit theory emphasizes that the environment provides resources (economic, physical, and psychological) and growth opportunities that satisfy an individual\u0026rsquo;s needs, desires, or preferences[75], and help to increase an employee\u0026rsquo;s expectations of his or her capabilities. Firstly, paradoxical leadership is adept at handling contradictory situations such as organizational development and survival, innovation, and rules(Zhang et al., 2015). It can successfully complete work tasks and enhance the overall creativity and innovation vitality of the team(Luo et al., 2015), thereby winning the trust and recognition of employees through role models, providing them with rich psychological resources, and enhancing their ISE. Secondly, paradoxical leadership emphasizes both organizational norms and employee personalities, as well as providing employees with clear job responsibilities and goals in the work context. This can significantly enhance the psychological security of knowledge workers(Wu, 2017), reduce their uncertainty, encourage them to actively express innovative ideas, and thereby improve their internal motivation and confidence in completing innovative tasks. Finally, paradoxical leadership enhances employee interaction, facilitates the integration and flow of team resources, and enhances individual innovation capabilities through resource sharing(Xue et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployees with high ISE are usually more confident in their innovation ability, willing to engage in innovative activities, and have more confidence in overcoming innovation difficulties and challenges[24]. They are also better able to cope positively with negative emotions arising from difficulties and continue to innovate(Li et al., 2019). Paradoxical leadership satisfies individual needs and enhances employees\u0026apos; innovative self-efficacy by providing resource support, role models, and a sense of security[75], thereby encouraging employees to actively participate in work, choose more difficult and challenging tasks, and motivate them to generate more innovation behavior(Liu \u0026amp; Zheng, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 2: Innovation self-efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 The moderating role of the LMX\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLMX reflects the high and low levels of leader-employee exchange, which is an expression of a social exchange relationship[81]. High-quality LMX is compatible with employee innovation and is the driving force behind employees\u0026apos; courage to innovate(Qu et al., 2013). When the quality of LMX is low, the similarity between employees and leaders in terms of future benefits is small, and employees are unwilling to invest more time and energy in innovation activities, resulting in less creative behavior[83].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership can give full play to their interpersonal and hierarchical distance management skills in the execution of team tasks(Wang, 2023), creating a fair organizational environment that takes into account the dignity of the employees, a good atmosphere that allows employees to let down their guard and shorten the distance between superior and subordinate rights. High-quality LMX employees are more likely to obtain supportive resources from their superiors, helping them overcome most risks and alleviate the psychological burden caused by mistakes(Zhang et al., 2021). With the reduction of psychological burden, employees\u0026apos; innovative beliefs and willingness are enhanced, thereby improving their ISE[86]. At the same time, high-quality LMX can ensure that members receive positive support, encouragement, and constructive feedback when fulfilling their responsibilities(Martin et al., 2016), which will establish and expand employees\u0026apos; beliefs, making them believe that they can solve more difficult and complex problems, and enhance ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 3: There is a moderating effect of LMX between paradoxical leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above speculations and discussions, the study hypothesized that LMX would moderate the mediating effect of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. Specifically, we hypothesize that the innovation behavior of employees with higher LMX will be more strongly influenced indirectly by paradoxical leadership than the innovation behavior of employees with lower LMX.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above discussion the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 4: LMX moderates the indirect effect of ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovative behavior, that is, the higher the LMX, the stronger the indirect effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior through ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe model proposed in this study is shown in Figure 1. Based on the literature review and discussion of the results of previous studies, four hypotheses are proposed. First, paradoxical leadership is positively related to employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior. Second, we hypothesized that ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior. Finally, we hypothesized that LMX moderated the relationship between paradoxical leadership and ISE, as well as the indirect effect of LMX moderating ISE on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Participants and Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data of this study mainly came from the employees of pharmaceutical enterprises in the Pearl River Delta region, Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai areas. A total of 336 questionnaires were returned, and 303 valid questionnaires were obtained after excluding invalid questionnaires with obvious conflicts between positive and negative questions, the same choice for several questions in a row, and the background statistics of insufficient time to fill in the questionnaires. The ratio of men and women in this study is 31.68% and 68.32% respectively, and there were 232 people under the age of 30, and only 71 people in the age group above 30. Among them, there were 13 people with specialized education, 195 people with bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees, and 88 people with postgraduate education (including master\u0026rsquo;s degrees and doctor\u0026rsquo;s degrees). The number of survey respondents with less than 3 years of experience was 98, with 139 employed for 3-5 years and 66 for more than 5 years (\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Characteristics of demographic variables in the sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.68%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWoman\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.32%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOver 30 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.43%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBelow 30 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.57%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;High school or vocational high school and below\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.31%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJunior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.29%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e195\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.04%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears of experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;3 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.35%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.87%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.78%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Measures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo guarantee the reliability and scientificity of the measurement tool, this study adopts the classic scales with mature applications both at home and abroad and makes appropriate revisions to consider the Chinese cultural context and the survey respondents. The main variables in this study include paradoxical leadership, ISE, LMX, and innovation behavior. In addition to the basic demographic variables, the items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParadoxical leadership was measured using a scale developed by\u0026nbsp;Zhang et al. (2015)\u0026nbsp;with 22 items. Sample items include \u0026ldquo;Uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates uniformly, but also treats them as individuals\u0026rdquo;. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for this scale in this study was 0.96.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInnovation behavior was measured by the classic \u0026ldquo;Innovation Behavior Scale\u0026rdquo; developed by\u0026nbsp;Scott \u0026amp; Bruce (1994a). Sample items include \u0026ldquo;I often come up with creative ideas and thoughts\u0026rdquo;. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for this scale was 0.91 in this study was 0.91.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInnovation self-efficacy was adopted the measurement scale proposed by\u0026nbsp;Wang (2019). This scale has been validated in the context of high innovation levels, so this study chose it as a tool to examine ISE, with a total of 6 items, such as \u0026ldquo;I can adopt new methods and approaches to overcome difficulties\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe leader-member exchange relationship was based on a one-dimensional scale developed by\u0026nbsp;Gerstner \u0026amp; Day (1997), which is widely used in academia and has been shown to have good reliability in the Chinese context. Sample items include \u0026ldquo;I understand how I get along with my leader, and I also understand whether my leader is satisfied with my performance\u0026rdquo;. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for this scale was 0.91.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThis study included employees\u0026rsquo; gender, age, education, and years of experience in the field as control variables.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Common Method Variance (CMV)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research data of this study came from a questionnaire survey with some of the common method variance. To safeguard the scientific validity of the findings, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the research data using the Harman one-factor method. The results showed that the first of the unrotated factors explained 33.25% of the variance, which did not exceed the recommended value of 50%, indicating that the problem of common method variance in the study was not serious.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Reliability and Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, SPSS 23.0 statistical analysis software was used to analyze the reliability of paradoxical leadership, innovation behavior, ISE, and leader-member exchange relationship variables (\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e). As can be seen from Table 2, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for each variable was greater than the usual criterion of 0.7. The KMO values were 0.96, 0.91, 0.95, and 0.91, respectively, and the reliability of the research data was good.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of reliability and validity analyses for each variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. PL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. IB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. ISE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. LMX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNOTE: PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn structural equation modeling, fitting degree is an important indicator to test whether the model can be accepted. The confirmatory factor analysis fitting index table made by Amos software is shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e. In the model fit index, the smaller the Chi square degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF), the better the fit. The CMIN/DF value in the table is 2.545, which is less than 3, indicating a good model fit. The asymptotic residual mean square (RMSEA) between 0.05-0.08 indicates a good model fit, while between 0.08 and 0.10 indicates an acceptable range. The RMSEA in the table is 0.081, and the model fit is acceptable. In the model fitting indicators, the comparative fitting index (CFI), value-added fitting index (IFI), and non-standard fitting index (TLI) are all limited to the range of 0-1. The closer they are to 1, the better the fit of the model. It is generally believed that a fit of 0.8 or higher between the data and the theoretical model is acceptable[90]. This research model is a good fit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Index Table\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMIN/DF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.983\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.848\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.849\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.839\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.081\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter conducting a model fit test, the convergent validity is further examined. This study used factor loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values of variables to comprehensively evaluate the convergent validity of the scale. The AVE values of all variables in the scale should be \u0026ge; 0.5. The composite reliability (CR) value is the structural reliability of the test data, and a CR value greater than 0.7 indicates good composite reliability. The reliability analysis of scale aggregation and combination is shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e, with the standards for each item in the table. The factor loading coefficients are all greater than 0.4, AVE values are all greater than 0.5, and CR values are all greater than 0.7, indicating good convergent validity of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Summary of convergent validity indicators for each scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardized factor loadings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.PL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.530-0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9591\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. IB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.702-0.867\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9069\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. ISE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.849-0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9497\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.LMX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.709-0.842\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9246\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNOTE：***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, **\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, * \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05. PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Correlation Analysis of Major Study Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research correlation analysis is presented in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u003c/strong\u003e. As can be seen from Table 5, there was a significant positive correlation between innovation behavior and ISE (r = 0.72, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01), paradoxical leadership (r = 0.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), and LMX (r = 0.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01); There was a significant positive correlation between ISE and paradoxical leadership (r = 0.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and LMX(r = 0.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01); and there was a significant positive correlation between paradoxical leadership and LMX (r = 0.70, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). It shows that the data obtained in this study meets the need for model validation in the next step of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Correlation coefficients of each variable and Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN=303\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. IB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.ISE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. PL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. LMX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNOTE：***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, **\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, * \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05. PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 Hypothesis Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.4.1 The mediating role of ISE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to\u0026nbsp;Baron \u0026amp; Kenny (1986)\u0026nbsp;mediation effect test, a variable is recognized as a mediator only if it satisfies the following four basic conditions simultaneously, i.e., (i) the independent variable (X) significantly predicts the dependent variable (Y); (ii) X significantly predicts the mediator (M); (iii) M significantly predicts Y; (iv) the effect of X on Y should be equal to zero or significantly reduced after the placement of M or significantly reduced. The mediation effect test is divided into three models step-by-step, i.e., Model 1: Y=cX+e\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e; Model 2: M=\u0026alpha;X+e\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e; Model 3: Y=cX+bM+e\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Model 1 (\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6\u003c/strong\u003e), the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior (\u0026beta;=0.43, p\u0026lt;0.01) is significant, and Hypothesis 1 is valid, and satisfying (i). In model 3, after adding the mediating variable M (ISE) to this regression, the predictive effect of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior is still significant (\u0026beta;=0.16, p\u0026lt;0.01), at this point, compared with the mediator variable not added, the effect of paradoxical leadership on innovation behavior was significantly reduced, and the effect coefficient was reduced from 0.44 (p\u0026lt;0.01) to 0.16 (p\u0026lt;0.01), which satisfies (iv). Model 4 shows that paradoxical leadership has a significant positive effect on ISE (\u0026beta;=0.51, p\u0026lt;0.01), satisfying (ii), and model 2 shows that ISE has a significant positive effect on innovation behavior (\u0026beta;=0.66, p\u0026lt;0.01), satisfying (iii). It is inferred that there is a partial mediating effect of ISE in paradoxical leadership and employees of pharmaceutical enterprises, and Hypothesis 2 is valid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test Hypothesis 2 further, the Bootstrap method (sample size selected 5000, confidence interval selected 95%) was used. The 95% confidence interval effect value obtained from the sample test is 0.306, and the confidence interval is [0.210, 0.359], this interval does not contain 0, which indicates that there is a partial mediating effect of ISE in paradoxical leadership and innovation behavior, and the partial effect of ISE accounts for 65.45% of the total effect, and Hypothesis 2 is again verified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of hierarchical regression analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN=303\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eISE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking Years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eISE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLMX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; 0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePL*LMX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR \u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⊿R \u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.22**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.63**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.77**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.95**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.74**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNOTE：***\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, * \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05. NOTE: PL: Paradoxical Leadership; IB: Innovation Behavior; ISE: Innovation Self-efficacy; LMX: Leader-member Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.4.2 Moderating effect of the LMX\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test Hypothesis 3, the study conducted a moderating mediation analysis. According to Model 5 (Table 6), the relationship between the paradoxical leadership *LMX interaction term and ISE was significant (\u0026beta;=0.18, p \u0026lt;0.01), thus there was a significant moderating effect of LMX between paradoxical leadership and ISE, and Hypothesis 3 was established. Figure 2 shows these interaction patterns. At high levels of LMX, paradoxical leadership was positively related to ISE; at low levels of LMX, paradoxical leadership was negatively related to ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch hypothesis 4, LMX moderates the relationship between ISE in paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior, this study used the SPSS22.0 Process plug-in to test whether LMX moderates the above indirect relationship. Bootstrap results are shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 7\u003c/strong\u003e. When the LMX orientation is low (M- 1SD), the indirect effect value is 0.064 with a confidence interval of [0.003, 0.135], which does not contain 0. When the LMX orientation is high (M+1SD), the corresponding indirect effect value is 0.130 with a confidence interval of [0.039, 0.220], which does not contain 0. This indicates that regardless of whether the LMX orientation is high or low, the indirect effect value is 0.064 with a confidence interval of [0.003, 0.135], which does not contain 0. LMX takes a high or low value, the indirect effect of ISE on paradoxical leadership to innovation behavior is significant. As the level of LMX orientation increases, paradoxical leadership is more likely to induce innovation behavior by increasing ISE, and thus, hypothesis H4 is tested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of LMX on Indirect Effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"573\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM- 1SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.064\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM+1SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"5 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. The results showed that there is a strong positive correlation between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior. ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior, and LMX moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and ISE, with high-quality LMX having a stronger indirect effect on employee innovation behavior (through ISE) than low-quality LMX, as it plays a key moderating role in the relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Theoretical implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, this study verified the effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior in pharmaceutical enterprises. While previous research has explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation behavior(Liu et al., 2021), most of the studies selected employees of hotels, high-tech companies, and other enterprises as the subjects of study(Kim, 2021; Yang et al., 2021),\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;few studies have focused on paradoxical leadership styles in the specific industry of pharmaceutical enterprises. This study deepens indigenous research on paradoxical leadership and empirically investigates Zhang et al. (2015) proposal to explore the applicability of paradoxical leadership to work populations in other industries.\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, this study responded to Zhu et al. (2019) claim to explore how paradoxical leaders, as role models, can cope with paradoxes in complex environments and promote innovative behaviors of employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, previous studies have used self-concept theory(Wang et al., 2022), self-determination theory(Yang et al., 2021), social cognition theory(Shao et al., 2019), social exchange theory(Younis et al., 2023), and other theories to study the impact of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation, and based on the person-environment fit theory, this study explored the mechanism of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. It was found that ISE is the mediating mechanism of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. Paradoxical leadership in pharmaceutical enterprises promotes employee innovation behavior by constructing an organizational climate that is both inclusive and innovative, increasing employees\u0026rsquo; adaptability, stimulating employees\u0026rsquo; spirit of innovation and motivation, and influencing employees\u0026rsquo; ISE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, this study examined the boundary conditions between paradoxical leadership, ISE, and innovation behavior. The supervisor\u0026rsquo;s supportiveness affects employee innovativeness(Livingstone et al., 1997). Therefore, we identified LMX as a moderator between paradoxical leadership and ISE and the indirect effect that paradoxical leadership can have on employees\u0026rsquo; innovation behavior through ISE. Findings suggest that LMX moderates both relationships. Higher-quality LMX had a stronger effect on both relationships. That is, when the quality of LMX is higher, employees receive more opportunities, information, and resources through their superiors. As a result, it is more likely that the paradoxical leadership style displayed by superiors is perceived as appropriate and effective, resulting in higher levels of ISE and facilitating innovation behaviors. This further suggests that LMX is a key boundary condition for paradoxical leadership to have a positive impact on employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 Practical implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, \u0026ldquo;paradox\u0026rdquo; runs through the whole process of organizational development. With the increasing complexity of the organizational environment and fierce competition in the market, pharmaceutical enterprises should think about how to break the paradoxical dilemma in the new situation. As a driving force, paradoxical leaders can grasp the \u0026ldquo;grey scale\u0026rdquo; balance point in the dynamic, help employees and the organization to resolve conflicts in the complex and changing market environment and development process, and thus enhance the organization\u0026rsquo;s core competitiveness and environmental resilience. The results of this study show that paradoxical leadership can promote the emergence of employee innovation behavior. Therefore, for pharmaceutical enterprises, leaders with paradoxical thinking should be cultivated in daily management, and managers who are fault-tolerant and allow employees to take risks should be preferred when leaders are hired.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, the role of ISE employees in pharmaceutical enterprises should be emphasized. In the context of Chinese pharmaceutical enterprises, managers should help their subordinates and believe that they can solve problems, help employees enhance their self-confidence, and at the same time, appropriately empower their professional skills and encourage them to participate in a variety of learning exchanges to enable them to obtain new knowledge and enhance their sense of ISE. For example, paradoxical leadership plays up their leadership traits, giving them more autonomy, providing the\u0026nbsp;employee with development opportunities, encouraging them to make trial and error, and increasing their level of self-confidence in innovation to enhance the level of innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, team leaders should establish positive supervisor-subordinate guanxi with their subordinates by using flexible communication skills to shape internal interpersonal relationships through the charisma of their management style and understanding of their subordinates\u0026rsquo; psychological state. The daily work of employees of pharmaceutical enterprises is to participate as a research team, medical team, or work team to assist the leadership in completing projects such as scientific research or to complete the specified labor output. Some of these pharmaceutical enterprise employees are also involved in clinical diagnosis and treatment in hospitals, which makes the relationship with multiple superiors more complex. Therefore, paradoxical leadership should adopt a combination of control and decentralization to help their subordinates and encourage them to actively participate in their work tasks. In addition, paradoxical leaders should maintain good relationships with their employees and treat each subordinate fairly. The impact of paradoxical leadership behaviors on subordinates will be stronger when subordinates feel the friendly behaviors of their superiors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3 Limitations and Future Research\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are some limitations to this study. First, the data source of this study is mainly cross-sectional data and lacks tracking data collection. Therefore, future research could expand the sampling range, consider the possible effects of regional differences, race, religious beliefs, and other factors, and adjust the selection of control variables accordingly. Second, the number of pharmaceutical enterprise units investigated in this study is relatively insufficient and limited to individual cities and regions, and the findings may have limitations. Subsequent research needs to investigate more industries and enterprises for hypothesis verification and analysis. Third, ISE and LMX were selected for this study and were preliminary validated. In future research, scholars can continue to explore other mediating or moderating variables.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University (Approval number: 20230501). We confirm that the procedure complied with the ethical guidelines outlined in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. On the first page of the questionnaire, we provided the objectives of this study. We cordially solicited participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to participate in the survey, assuring them of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting this study\u0026apos;s findings are available on request from the corresponding author.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFundings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuangdong Planning Project of Philosophy and Social Science, GD21CJY02\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2024 Guangdong Pharmaceutical University \u0026ldquo;Discipline Training, Innovation and Quality Improvement\u0026rdquo; Team Project, 2024ZR01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJJ Z managed the project, acquired funding, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the submitted version. Q Y performed the data analysis and wrote sections of the manuscript. J C wrote sections of the manuscript. XF L collected the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJ N, J Z, C.o.l U, Y H, H H, Y W. Obstacles and opportunities in Chinese pharmaceutical innovation. UM 2017;13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0244-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang M, Maresova P. Adopting Occupational Health and Safety Management Standards: The Impact on Financial Performance in Pharmaceutical Firms in China. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2020;13:1477\u0026ndash;87. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S261136.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDing G, Liu H, Huang Q, Gu J. Enterprise social networking usage as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Information \u0026amp; Management 2019;56:103165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.04.008.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYan WY, Loang OK. Building a Research Model for the Relationship Between Enterprise Innovation Values and Employees\u0026rsquo; Innovation Behavior: With Innovation Self-efficacy as a Mediator. In: El Khoury R, editor. Technology-Driven Business Innovation: Unleashing the Digital Advantage, Volume 1, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024, p. 55\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51997-0_5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang M, Lin Q, Maresova P. Does Employee Care Trigger Innovation Under a Healthy and Safe Working Environment? Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry in China. Healthcare 2021;9:194. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9020194.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYanjun L, Xu S, Zhang B. Thriving at Work: How a Paradox Mindset Influences Innovative Work Behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2019;56:002188631988826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu D, Jiang K, Shalley CE, Keem S, Zhou J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2016;137:236\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmabile TM, Schatzel EA, Moneta GB, Kramer SJ. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:5\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. AMJ 1994;37:580\u0026ndash;607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCastillo Apraiz J, Matey de Antonio J. The mediating role of personnel training between innovation and performance: Evidence from the German pharmaceutical industry. Cuadernos de Gesti\u0026oacute;n 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDarwish S, Ahmed U, Pahi M. Innovative Work Behavior during COVID-19 for Medical Representatives in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Test of a Moderation Model in Bahrain. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.04.277.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eliu Y, Xu S, Zhang H. Neck and Neck:The Effect of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Innovative Behavior. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS 2021:34\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2021.09.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi Q, Yang X, Yang W, Liu H, Wang Y. Research on the current status of parodoxical leadership among the head nurse and its influence on nurses\u0026rsquo; innovative behavior. Journal of Nursing Administration 2023;23:444\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNurFajar A, Widiasih P. The Influence of Paradoxical Leadership on the Creativity of Digital Marketing Employees in Jakarta, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-7-2023.2343391.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDevi NC. Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding as mediators. Journal of Knowledge Management 2024;28:312\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0779.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLe M-H, Lu W-M. An integrated multiple objective decision making approach for exploring the competitiveness of pharmaceutical multinational enterprises. Ann Oper Res 2024;341:401\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04743-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoi SB, Tran TBH, Park BI.\u0026nbsp;Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2015;43:931\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRandel AE, Galvin BM, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, et al. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review 2018;28:190\u0026ndash;203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTakawira B, Kanyangale M, Mutambara E. Competencies of strategic leadership towards business sustainability in emerging pharmaceutical business of South Africa: A case of Alpha distribution. Cogent Social Sciences 2023;9:2275443. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2275443.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXue Y, Li X, Liang H, Li Y. How Does Paradoxical Leadership Affect Employees\u0026rsquo; Voice Behaviors in Workplace? A Leader-Member Exchange Perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041162.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDashuai R, Bin Z. How does paradoxical leadership affect innovation in teams: An integrated multilevel dual process model. Human Systems Management 2020;39:11\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190593.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQiang Q, Xiaohong W, Qianru S. Does paradoxical leadership influence employees\u0026rsquo; proactive work behavior? A study based on employees in Chinese state-owned enterprises. Front Psychol 2023;14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269906.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi Q, She Z, Yang B. Promoting Innovative Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Roles of Paradoxical Leadership and Team Perspective Taking. Front Psychol 2018;9:1083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01083.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTierney P, Farmer SM. Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance. AMJ 2002;45:1137\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJaiswal NK, Dhar RL. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2015;51:30\u0026ndash;41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMichael L a. H, Hou S-T, Fan H-L. Creative Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behavior in a Service Setting: Optimism as a Moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior 2011;45:258\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoi JN. Individual and Contextual Predictors of Creative Performance: The Mediating Role of Psychological Processes. Creativity Research Journal 2004;16:187\u0026ndash;99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarsh J, Capozzi MM, Davidson J. Leadership and innovation n.d.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang Y, Li Z, Liang L, Zhang X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology 2021;40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi X, Xue Y, Liang H, Yan D. The Impact of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Voice Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front Psychol 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.537756.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeng C-C, Hu C-M, Chang J-H.\u0026nbsp;Triggering Creative Self-Efficacy to Increase Employee Innovation Behavior in the Hospitality Workplace. The Journal of Creative Behavior 2020;54:912\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.419.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWan X, He R, Zhang G, Zhou J. Employee engagement and open service innovation: The roles of creative self-efficacy and employee innovative behaviour. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921687.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSu W, Lin X, Ding H. The Influence of Supervisor Developmental Feedback on Employee Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front Psychol 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIqbal A, Nazir T, Ahmad MS.\u0026nbsp;Entrepreneurial leadership and employee innovative behavior: an examination through multiple theoretical lenses. European Journal of Innovation Management 2022;25:173\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2020-0212.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDansereau F, Graen G, Haga WJ. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1975;13:46\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchyns B, Day D. Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2010;19:1\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903024922.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMumford MD, Scott GM, Gaddis B, Strange JM. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 2002;13:705\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang Y, Long L. The effects of person-job fit, job insecurity on employee creativity - a mediated moderated effects model test. Nankai Business Review 2013;16:16-25+50.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:33\u0026ndash;53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParsons F. Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA, US: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; 1909.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMurray HA. Explorations in personality. Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press; 1938.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLewin K. A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill; 1935.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVianen AEM van. Person\u0026ndash;Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2018;5:75\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSara\u0026ccedil; M, Efil I, Eryilmaz M. A study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity. Management Research Review 2014;37:479\u0026ndash;501. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0025.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChatman JA. Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit. AMR 1989;14:333\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279063.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMount MK, Muchinsky PM. Person-environment congruence and employee job satisfaction: a test of Holland\u0026rsquo;s theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1978;13:84\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(78)90074-X.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTong J, Wang L, Peng K. From person-environment misfit to job burnout: theoretical extensions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 2015;30:169\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2012-0404.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Cooman R, Vleugels W. Person\u0026ndash;Environment Fit: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptualizations, and Outcomes 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKieffer KM, Schinka JA, Curtiss G. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. Journal of Counseling Psychology 2004;51:168\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.168.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoi JN. Person\u0026ndash;Environment Fit and Creative Behavior: Differential Impacts \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;of Supplies\u0026ndash;Values and Demands\u0026ndash;Abilities Versions of Fit. Human Relations 2004;57:531\u0026ndash;52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044308.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTierney P, Farmer SM, Graen GB. An Examination of Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships. Personnel Psychology 1999;52:591\u0026ndash;620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchumpeter J, Schumpeter J, Schumpeter JP, Schumpeter J, Schumpeter J, Opie R, et al.\u0026nbsp;The theory of economics development, 1934.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFarr JL, Ford CM. Individual innovation. Innovation and creativity at work: \u0026nbsp;Psychological and organizational strategies, Oxford, England: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons; 1990, p. 63\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKleysen RF, Street CT. Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2001;2:284\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005660.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. Investigating managers\u0026rsquo; exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies 2007;44:910\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang W, Yang S. Proactive-Reactive Innovation Behavior of the Employee: An Analysis Based on the Challenge-Hindrance Stressors Dual-Path. Science of Science and Management of S\u0026amp; T 2018;39:130\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLewis MW. Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review 2000. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen L, Wen T, Wang J, Gao H. The Impact of Spiritual Leadership on Employee\u0026rsquo;s Work Engagement\u0026ndash;A Study Based on the Mediating Effect of Goal Self-Concordance and Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 2022;24:69\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2022.018932.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVera D, Crossan M. Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review 2004. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736080.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang Y, Waldman DA, Han Y-L, Li X-B. Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. AMJ 2015;58:538\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCleskey J. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014;5:117\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRounds JB, Tracey TJ. From Trait-and-Factor to Person-Environment Fit Counseling: Theory and Process. Career Counseling, Routledge; 1990.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDong Y, Bartol KM, Zhang Z-X, Li C. Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2017;38:439\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen X, Yin M, Yang B. The Influence of the Matching of Leader\u0026rsquo;s Authorization Behavior and Employee\u0026rsquo;s Authorization Expectation on Employee\u0026rsquo;s Active Behavior: Based on the Theory of Personal-Environmental Matching. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies 2022;10:824\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2022.104048.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuang Y-F, Lin H-C, Lee H-M. Innovation in manufacturing SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic: How does environmental dynamism reinforce employee proactive behavior? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2023;187:122247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122247.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang N, Chen H, (Frank) Wang X-H.\u0026nbsp;Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader\u0026ndash;Member Exchange. J Bus Psychol 2024;39:697\u0026ndash;713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShao Y, Nijstad BA, T\u0026auml;uber S. Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2019;155:7\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 1977;84:191\u0026ndash;215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang T. A study of the effect of paradoxical leadership on the dual innovation of R\u0026amp;D team members. Master. Wuhan University of Technology, 2019. https://doi.org/10.27381/d.cnki.gwlgu.2019.001040.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJing J, Wang S, Yang J, Ding T. The influence of empowering team leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; innovation passion in high-tech enterprises. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928991.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHon AHY, Chan WWH. Team Creative Performance: The Roles of Empowering Leadership, Creative-Related Motivation, and Task Interdependence. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2013;54:199\u0026ndash;210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512455859.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhou J, Hoever IJ. Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2014;1:333\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao H, Su Q, Lou M, Hang C, Zhang L. Does authoritarianism necessarily stifle creativity? The role of discipline-focused authoritarian leadership. Front Psychol 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1037102.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFord CM. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. The Academy of Management Review 1996;21:1112\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.2307/259166.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEdwards JR. Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1991, Vol. 6., Oxford, England: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons; 1991, p. 283\u0026ndash;357.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLuo J, Hua C, Zhong J. A study of the impact of paradoxical leadership on the innovation of knowledge teams and the mechanism of its action. Science \u0026amp; Technology Progress and Policy 2015;32:121\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWu L. A Study of the Mechanism of Paradoxical Leadership on the Innovative Behaviour of Knowledge-based Employees. Thesis. Wuhan University, 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXue J, Zhang J, Zhang M, Chao L. A study of the effect of time pressure, paradoxical leadership on employee creativity. Science Research Management 2023;44:119. https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2023.10.013.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi X, Xu Z, Huo W. The Influence of Creative Deviant Behavior to Creativity: Moderating Effect of Leadership Feedback and the Mediating Effect of Creative Self-Efficacy. Science \u0026amp; Technology Progress and Policy 2019;36:138\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu Z, Zheng Q. Uncertainty Avoidance and Employee Innovation Behavior:the Mediating Role of Self-efficacy. Science \u0026amp; Technology Progress and Policy 2016;33:149\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGraen GB, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 1995;6:219\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQu R, Wang Z, Jiao L, Shi K. The Contingent Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Researchers Creativity. Science of Science and Management of S\u0026amp; T 2013;34:156\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHe F, Wang C. Impact of Paternalistic Leadership on Employees\u0026rsquo; Innovative Behaviour in China\u0026rsquo;s Entrepreneurial Enterprises - Leader-Member Exchange Relationship as a Mediating Mechanism. Economic Research Guide 2024:129\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang Q. Research on the influence mechanism of paradoxical leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; follow-up behavior. Master. NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023. https://doi.org/10.27242/d.cnki.gnjlu.2022.000183.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang A, Li X, Guo Y. Proactive Personality and Employee Creativity: A Moderated Mediation Model of Multisource Information Exchange and LMX. Front Psychol 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.552581.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMa L, Zhang Z. The Influence of Authoritarian Leadership on Employees\u0026rsquo; Innovative Behavior. Science \u0026amp; Technology Progress and Policy 2018;35:139\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMartin R, Guillaume Y, Thomas G, Lee A, Epitropaki O. Leader\u0026ndash;member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology 2016;69:67\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScott SG, Bruce RA.\u0026nbsp;Creating innovative behavior among R\u0026amp;D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation. Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference - IEMC \u0026rsquo;94, 1994, p. 48\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.1994.379952.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGerstner CR, Day DV. Meta-Analytic review of leader\u0026ndash;member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997;82:827\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao X. A study on the behavioural intention of urban walking tourists based on the theory of heart flow. Qufu Normal University, 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator\u0026ndash;mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986;51:1173\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim JE. Paradoxical Leadership and Proactive Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety in the Hotel Industry. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 2021;8:167\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no5.0167.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhu Y, Zhang W, Liao J, Wang X. You Can Have It Both Ways:Paradoxical Leadership\u0026rsquo;s Concept, Measurement and Mechanism. Human Resources Development of China 2019;36:31\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2019.08.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang M, Zhang J, He J, Bi Y. Paradoxical leadership and employee innovation: Organization-based self-esteem and harmonious passion as sequential mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2022;50:1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11634.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYounis S, Bashir S, Irshad M, Javed B. Impact of the Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Creativity: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Sage Open 2023;13:21582440231182615. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231182615.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLivingstone LP, Nelson DL, Barr SH. Person-environment fit and creativity: An examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management 1997;23:119\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90040-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"paradoxical leadership, innovation behavior, innovation self-efficacy, person-environment fit theory, pharmaceutical enterprises","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough many studies have explored the effects of paradoxical leadership on the innovation behaviors of enterprise employees, few studies address the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises. Therefore, this study draws on the person-environment fit theory to investigate whether paradoxical leadership in pharmaceutical enterprises affects employees’ innovation behaviors through innovation self-efficacy （ISE） and the moderating role of leadership member exchange（LMX).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing the Paradoxical Leadership Scale, the Innovation Behavior Scale, the Innovation Self-efficacy Scale, and the Leadership member Exchange Scale, a questionnaire survey was conducted with a total of 303 valid data from employees of pharmaceutical enterprises in the Pearl River Delta region, Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai areas within China.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) Paradoxical leadership positively affects the innovation behavior of employees in pharmaceutical enterprises; (2) ISE mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employees’ innovation behaviors; (3) LMX has a moderating effect between paradoxical leadership and employee ISE; and paradoxical leadership has an indirect effect on employees’ innovation behavior indirectly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeaders in pharmaceutical enterprises should strengthen paradoxical leadership to enhance employees’ ISE and thus improve their innovation behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Paradoxical Leadership Influences Employees’ Innovation Behavior: Based on Person-Environment Fit Theory Perspective","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-09 09:11:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6327213/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ff1aff59-d37c-4f43-bdb6-0e5b9472111c","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-14T02:53:45+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-09 09:11:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6327213","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6327213","identity":"rs-6327213","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}