Unpacking the Paradox: How Paradoxical Leadership Drives Team Innovation through Efficacy and Job Crafting

Unpacking the Paradox: How Paradoxical Leadership Drives Team Innovation through Efficacy and Job Crafting | 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 Unpacking the Paradox: How Paradoxical Leadership Drives Team Innovation through Efficacy and Job Crafting JiaMing Hu, MyeongCheol Choi, KyuHee Joo, Hann Earl Kim This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/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 Background In increasingly complex and paradoxical organizational environments, paradoxical leadership—a leadership style that integrates competing demands—has gradually become an important approach for fostering team innovation. Grounded in social cognitive and team dynamics theories, this study constructs and empirically tests a moderated mediation model to examine how paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy and the moderating role of job crafting. Method This study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical regression analysis methods to conduct an empirical analysis of a sample of 344 employees from China, in order to verify the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovative performance, exploring the mediating role of team effectiveness and the moderating role of job crafting. Results The results indicate that paradoxical leadership significantly enhances team efficacy and innovation performance. Team efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and innovation performance. In addition, job crafting strengthens the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and amplifies the impact of team efficacy on team innovation performance. Conclusions This study reveals the pathways through which paradoxical leadership fosters team innovation, examines both psychological mechanisms and contextual boundary conditions, and offers new theoretical insights and practical implications for enhancing leadership effectiveness and promoting team innovation performance in Chinese organizations. Clinical Trial registration Not applicable. Paradoxical Leadership Team Efficacy Job Crafting Team Innovation Performance Social Cognitive Theory Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction In recent years, organizations have been confronted with increasingly complex and paradoxical operational environments, making the effective management of diverse demands and tensions within organizations a critical topic in management research [13]. As an emerging leadership approach, paradoxical leadership has garnered widespread attention from both academia and practice by simultaneously adopting seemingly contradictory yet interrelated behavioral strategies to balance and integrate conflicting organizational demands [9],[6]. Unlike traditional leadership styles that emphasize either-or (非此即彼) thinking, paradoxical leadership advocates an integrative mindset of both-and (两者兼而有之) thinking, effectively addressing opposing organizational dimensions such as self-centeredness versus other-centeredness and control versus flexibility, thereby achieving higher levels of organizational effectiveness and innovation [26]. Recent studies have preliminarily confirmed the positive effects of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and innovation performance [43]. Team efficacy, defined as the collective belief and confidence of team members in their team’s capability to execute specific tasks successfully, is widely recognized as a key predictor of enhanced team performance [41]. Team innovation performance reflects a team’s ability and outcomes in generating, promoting, and implementing innovative ideas, processes, or products, and plays a crucial role in improving organizational competitiveness [29][2]. Although previous research has explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team performance from various perspectives, the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions need to be further investigated and clarified [21]. From a theoretical perspective, social cognitive theory [7][8] emphasizes the predictive role of individual and collective efficacy beliefs on behavioral outcomes, whereas team dynamics theory highlights the significant influence of leadership behaviors and the psychological states of teams on team innovation activities [42]. These theories provide a solid theoretical foundation for exploring how paradoxical leadership affects team innovation performance through team efficacy. Job crafting, defined as employees’ proactive behavior in adjusting and redesigning their work, has received increasing attention from scholars in recent years [45][35]. Existing research suggests that high levels of job crafting can effectively stimulate employees’ intrinsic motivation and creativity [23]. Under the influence of paradoxical leadership, job crafting may further enhance team members’ perceptions of collective capability and active engagement in innovation activities, thereby significantly improving team innovation performance [19]. Although previous studies have provided evidence that paradoxical leadership positively affects team performance [49], a significant gap remains in the literature. On the one hand, the specific psychological mechanism by which paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy is yet to be systematically and empirically tested. However, the moderating role of job crafting in the relationships among paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and team innovation performance lacks clear theoretical explanations and empirical support [54]. Therefore, this study aims to integrate social cognitive and team dynamics theories to construct a theoretical model that posits team efficacy as a mediator and job crafting as a moderator. It seeks to deeply explore the influence pathways and mechanisms of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance. This study empirically aims to reveal the internal mechanisms through which paradoxical leadership enhances team innovation performance. Moreover, by introducing team efficacy as a critical psychological bridge, this study clarifies the indirect effects of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance. Job crafting is incorporated as an important moderating variable. This facilitates examining how proactive individual behaviors influence the relationship between leadership style and team performance, thereby enriching the research on moderating mechanisms in organizational behavior and offering new theoretical and practical insights. Literature review Paradoxical Leadership and Team Efficacy Paradoxical leadership emphasizes leaders’ simultaneous adoption of seemingly contradictory yet interrelated behaviors to address complex and conflicting demands within organizations [52][27]. This leadership approach requires leaders to shift from an either-or mindset to a both-and integrative thinking mode, balancing opposing dimensions, such as self-centeredness versus other-centeredness, distance versus closeness, uniformity versus individuality, and control versus flexibility, thereby achieving the dual goals of organizational objectives and employee needs [21]. Research has demonstrated that paradoxical leadership enhances employee adaptability, innovativeness, and team performance [26]. Team efficacy refers to the shared belief and confidence among team members about their team’s ability to execute specific tasks successful [19]. Originating from Bandura’s collective efficacy theory, this concept emphasizes a team’s collective perception of capability rather than merely aggregating individual abilities [16]. Empirical studies have demonstrated that team efficacy is closely related to team performance by enhancing team cohesion, communication efficiency, and task completion [15]. Moreover, team efficacy is considered an effective emergent state that reflects a team’s collective confidence and resilience in the face of challenges [5]. Paradoxical leadership fosters a supportive and inclusive psychological safety climate, significantly enhancing team members’ trust and sense of belonging, which, in turn, stimulates team creativity and proactive behaviors [26][1]. Psychological safety, defined as the shared belief that a team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, is a crucial psychological mechanism for fostering team efficacy. Team efficacy reflects members’ confidence in their collective capabilities and acts as a key driver in achieving team goals and improving performance [31]. A growing body of empirical evidence confirms that paradoxical leadership not only promotes individual employee innovation behaviors but also substantially enhances psychological safety [48]. Based on social cognitive theory[7] and team dynamics theory, paradoxical leadership positively and directly enhances team efficacy by modeling behaviors and resource suppor [30]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H1: Paradoxical leadership positively impacts team efficacy. Paradoxical Leadership and Team Innovation Performance Team Innovation Performance refers to a team’s ability and outcomes in generating, promoting, and implementing new ideas, processes, or products (West & Anderson, 1996 [25]. High levels of team innovation performance not only enhance organizational competitiveness but also facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration among team members [17]. Research indicates that multiple factors influence team innovation performance, including leadership style, team efficacy, and psychological safety [38]. Paradoxical leadership creates a dynamic balancing environment that supports innovation by simultaneously managing and integrating contradictory demands and behaviors within a tea [10]. This leadership style can stimulate team members’ cognitive flexibility and behavioral adaptability, thereby enhancing their capacity to respond to complex environments [4]. Previous studies have shown that paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance by fostering a context in which psychological safety and structural discipline coexist and encourage team members to balance risk-taking with normative compliance, which in turn drives the realization of innovative outcome [53]. Moreover, leaders’ clear strategic visions provide directional support for team innovation activities, further strengthening innovation output [14]. Based on the above theoretical and empirical evidence, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H2: Paradoxical leadership has a significant positive impact on team innovation performance. Team Efficacy and Team Innovation Performance Team efficacy refers to the shared belief among team members in their team’s overall capability to successfully complete tasks [8] and is recognized as an important predictor of team motivation and performance [16][34]. It can enhance members’ confidence and persistence, promoting positive cooperative behaviors that in turn improve team performance [53]. In recent years, as organizational structures have shifted toward more flexible and task-diverse self-managed teams, the facilitating role of team efficacy in promoting team innovation performance has become increasingly critical [39]. Team members with high efficacy are more likely to proactively engage in innovation tasks, overcome challenges, and pursue goals persistently, resulting in superior innovation outcomes [36]. Research indicates that team efficacy fosters innovation performance by enhancing team cohesion and work engagement [28]. Moreover, as the collective belief in the team’s overall capability to complete tasks, team efficacy tends to exert a positive influence on team innovation performance, thereby contributing to improved innovation outcomes [33]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H3: Team efficacy positively affects team innovation performance. Mediating Effects of Team Efficacy Paradoxical leadership influences team innovation performance through distinctive cognitive and behavioral strategies; however, this effect often operates via a team’s internal psychological capital [32]. Team efficacy, defined as team members’ shared belief about their collective capabilities, enhances cooperation within the team and improves members’ motivation and perseverance in addressing innovation challenges [51]. Empirical evidence suggests that team efficacy partially explains the process by which leadership behaviors translate into innovation performance, serving as a critical psychological bridge linking leadership and innovation outcome [31]. Specifically, regarding paradoxical leadership, increased team efficacy helps mitigate the adverse effects triggered by paradoxical tensions during innovation, facilitating flexible switching and collaboration among team members across multiple objectives, thereby optimizing innovation performance [53]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H4: Team efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. Moderating Effects of Job Crafting Job crafting refers to employees’ proactive efforts to adjust and redesign their job tasks, relationships, and cognitive frameworks to better align with their interests, skills, and values, thereby enhancing their sense of job meaningfulness and satisfaction [47]. Through such proactive behaviors, employees increase job autonomy and control, and optimize job resources and challenges, which in turn improve job performance, work engagement, and innovative behaviors [46]. Job crafting not only facilitates individual adaptation to change but also strengthens organizational flexibility and innovation capability [19]. As a form of proactive adjustment and redesign of work content and interpersonal relationships, job crafting enhances individuals’ perception and utilization of job resources and challenges [17], and stimulates team members’ initiative and creativity, thereby promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration efficiency within teams [37]. This proactive behavior increases employees’ intrinsic motivation, optimizes resource allocation and collaboration patterns within teams, and strengthens the impact of leadership behavior on team efficacy [3]. Under paradoxical leadership, team members with higher levels of job crafting are more likely to respond actively to leaders’ paradoxical management strategies and enhance their confidence in team goals and capabilities [24]. Conversely, low job crafting may constrain the positive motivational effects of paradoxical leadership, thereby weakening the enhancement of team efficacy [18]. The moderation of job crafting makes teams more flexible and efficient in dealing with innovation challenges, which can amplify the positive impact of team efficacy on innovation performance [40]. Specifically, high levels of job crafting can optimize collaboration among team members, improve team resource utilization efficiency, and enhance the quality and quantity of innovation outcomes [50], whereas low levels of job crafting may limit the moderating effect of team efficacy on innovation performance. H5: Job crafting positively moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy. H6: Job crafting positively moderates the relationship between team efficacy and innovation performance. Methods Sample and Data Collection This study employed a questionnaire survey to collect data to examine the effects of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and team innovation performance as well as the moderating role of job crafting in these relationships. Data were collected over two months, from March 4, 2025, to May 4, 2025. A total of 400 online questionnaires were distributed and 344 valid responses were collected. To ensure that respondents possessed relevant work experience, invalid questionnaires were excluded during data cleaning, including those with incomplete responses and abnormal or random answering patterns, as well as questionnaires from participants who did not engage in team innovation activities or had no experience with the relevant leadership style. The effective response rate was 86%. The respondents represented a diverse range of genders, age groups, educational backgrounds, work experience, industry types, and organizational positions. The sample comprised 54.7% males and 45.3% females, reflecting a relatively balanced gender distribution. Age was mainly concentrated in the 26–30 year (28.2%) and 31–35 year (35.2%), corresponding to the critical stages of career development. Regarding educational attainment, the majority held bachelor’s degrees (55.2%) and associate degrees (17.2%), followed by master's degrees (16.6%), doctoral degrees (4.1%), and high school education or below (6.9%), indicating an overall high level of education. Work experience was primarily distributed between 1–5 years (31.7%) and 6–10 years (43%), demonstrating substantial practical experience. Job positions were mainly distributed among general employees (32.3%), frontline managers (31.1%), and middle managers (29.9%). Organizational size was fairly evenly spread, with 9% of enterprises having fewer than 50 employees, 25.9% from organizations with 51–100 employees, 23.5% from those with 101–200 employees, 24.1% from enterprises with 201–500 employees, and 17.4% from organizations with over 500 employees. This distribution reflects a diverse mix of small to large enterprises, with a larger proportion of small and medium-sized organizations. Overall, the sample structure comprehensively reflects the basic characteristics of the target population, providing a solid foundation for subsequent data analysis. Measures This study employed measurement scales derived from well-established constructs validated in previous empirical studies. Chinese versions were developed using translation and back-translation to ensure consistency with the original English scales (Brislin, 1980). Apart from the demographic variables, all items were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This study utilized a 14-item scale developed by Zhang et al. [52] to measure Paradoxical Leadership (PL). Sample items include: “The leader can simultaneously meet the diverse demands of different teams within the organization,” “The leader can find a balance amid contradictions,” and “The leader maintains control while granting employees freedom.” Team Efficacy (TE) was measured using a 4-item scale developed by Gully et al. [16]. Sample items include: “Our team can complete the current tasks,” “Team members believe that we can achieve the expected goals,” and “Our team can overcome difficulties and challenges.” Team Innovation Performance (TIP) was assessed using a 6-item scale developed by De Jong and Den Hartog (2010). Sample items include: “I actively propose new solutions to improve problems at work,” “I frequently try new methods or processes in my work,” and “I encourage team members to experiment with innovative ways of working.” Job Crafting (JC) was measured using a 7-item scale developed by Tims et al. [44]. Sample items include: “I have adjusted the boundaries of my job to fit my interests better,” “I have increased interactions with colleagues to enhance social relationships at work,” and “I have changed the way I perform tasks to make them more efficient.” Results Common method bias Considering that all the scales used in this study were self-reported, Harman’s single-factor test was employed to examine whether a significant standard method bias existed. The results indicated that for the entire sample, the first factor accounted for 26.64% of the total variance. Similarly, for the samples of paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, team innovation performance, and job crafting, the first factor explained 15.3%, 17.9%, 17.7%, and 25.6% of the variance, respectively. All of these values are below the commonly accepted threshold of 40%, suggesting that there is no evidence of significant standard method bias across all data groups. Measurement Reliability and Validity Assessme nt Based on 344 valid samples, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement model of four latent variables: paradoxical leadership, job crafting, team efficacy, and team innovation performance, aiming to assess the reliability and validity of the scales. The standardized factor loadings (β) for all measurement items ranged from 0.666 to 0.817, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.600, indicating strong associations between the items and their corresponding latent constructs and confirming good construct validity. The average variance extracted (AVE) values were 0.601 for PL, 0.632 for JC, 0.507 for TE, and 0.604 for TIP, all above the 0.50 criterion, demonstrating adequate convergent validity by indicating that the latent variables effectively explain the variance of their indicators. The composite reliability (CR) values were 0.939 for PL, 0.943 for JC, 0.799 for TE, and 0.871 for TIP, all exceeding the 0.70 threshold, reflecting good internal consistency and reliability of the scales. The overall model fit indices indicated an excellent fit. Specifically, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) was 1.012, well below the recommended maximum of 3; and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.006, far below the acceptable threshold of 0.08, indicating an excellent fit. Additional fit indices included GFI = 0.928, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, IFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.943, and RFI = 0.938, all of which met or exceeded the recommended criterion of 0.90. In summary, the CFA results demonstrate that the measurement scales employed in this study possess good reliability and validity and that the measurement model structure is reasonable, providing a solid foundation for subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis Hypothesis Testing Before hypothesis testing, we conducted a correlation analysis of the primary research variables. The results are presented in Table 2. The analysis was based on data from 344 participants and examined the relationships between the control variables (gender, age, and tenure) and key research variables: paradoxical leadership (PL), job crafting (JC), team efficacy (TE), and team innovation performance (TIP). The results indicated that the control variables exerted a limited influence on the core constructs. Gender showed a significant negative correlation with job crafting (r = -0.154, p < 0.01), suggesting gender differences in job crafting behaviors. Age and tenure were highly positively correlated (r = 0.600, p < 0.01), consistent with the expected career development patterns. Among the core variables, paradoxical leadership was strongly and positively correlated with job crafting (r = 0.639, p < 0.01), team efficacy (r = 0.632, p < 0.01), and team innovation performance (r = 0.714, p < 0.01), reflecting the positive impact of leadership behavior on employee behavior and team outcomes. Job crafting was significantly correlated with team efficacy (r = 0.491, p < 0.01) and team innovation performance (r = 0.646, p < 0.01), indicating that employees’ job crafting increase team performance. Team efficacy and team innovation performance also exhibited a significant positive correlation (r = 0.683, p < 0.01), supporting their theoretical roles as key mediators of innovation performance. In summary, the correlation analysis confirmed the theoretical relationships among the variables and provided a solid empirical foundation for subsequent hypothesis testing. Correlation Analysis Variables Mean S.D. Gender Age Tenure PL JC TE TIP Gender 1.45 0.499 1 Age 3.03 1.276 -0.037 1 Tenure 2.09 1.047 0.005 .600** 1 PL 2.9863 0.93281 -0.093 0.043 -0.011 1 JC 1.897 0.70676 -.154** 0.072 0.015 0.639** 1 TE 2.0938 0.80661 -0.001 0.039 0.014 0.632** 0.491** 1 TIP 2.609 0.95636 -0.042 .133* 0.091 0.714** 0.646** 0.683** 1 Notes. N = 344 *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance, JC = Job Crafting Based on 344 valid samples, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to conduct a path analysis for Hypotheses 1 through 3. The results are presented in Table 3. The path coefficient from paradoxical leadership to team efficacy was 0.608, with a standard error of 0.056, a critical ratio (C.R.) of 10.779, and a significance level of p < 0.001, indicating a significant positive effect and supporting Hypothesis 1. The direct effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance had a path coefficient of 0.417, a standard error of 0.070, and a C.R. of 5.963 and was significant at p < 0.001, supporting Hypothesis 2. The effect of team efficacy on team innovation performance yielded a path coefficient of 0.625, standard error of 0.092, and C.R. of 6.769. This was significant at p < 0.001 (***), demonstrating that team efficacy positively promotes innovation performance, supporting Hypothesis 3. The overall model fit was satisfactory, with a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) of 0.991, p < 0.001; fit indices CFI, TLI, and IFI were nearly perfect at 1.000, 1.001, and 1.000, respectively; RFI was 0.947, NFI was 0.956, and RMSEA was 0.036, indicating excellent model fit. In summary, the path analysis results fully support the three hypotheses proposed in this study, empirically confirming that paradoxical leadership enhances team innovation performance by improving team efficacy. The Results for Hypotheses 1-3 Hypothesized path Estimate S.E. C.R. P H1.PL➝ TE 0.608 0.056 10.779 *** H2.PL➝ TIP 0.417 0.070 5.963 *** H3.TE➝ TIP 0.625 0.092 6.769 *** Model fit: CMIN/DF = 0.991, p < 0.001, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.001, IFI = 1.000, RFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.036 Notes. N = 344 *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001 . PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance. This study constructed three hierarchical regression models for a stepwise analysis to examine the mediating role of team efficacy in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. The results are presented in Table 4. In Model 1, paradoxical leadership had a significant positive effect on team efficacy, with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.623 (p < 0.001), explaining 40.3% of the variance in team efficacy. Model 2 showed that paradoxical leadership also had a significant direct effect on team innovation performance, with a coefficient of 0.808 (p < 0.001), explaining 52.3% of the variance. The direct effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance decreased (β = 0.572, p < 0.001) when team efficacy was included as a mediator in Model 3. In contrast, team efficacy significantly positively affected innovation performance (β = 0.555, p < 0.001). The explanatory power of the model increased to 61.0%. Additionally, the control variables, including gender, age, and work experience, showed no significant effects on the model. The change in R² (ΔR²) was 0.120 for Model 2 relative to Model 1 and 0.087 for Model 3 relative to Model 2, indicating that including team efficacy significantly enhanced the model’s explanatory power for team innovation performance. The overall model F-values were highly significant (p < 0.001), further supporting the robustness of the models. In summary, team efficacy partially mediates the effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance, thus supporting Hypothesis 4 and indicating that enhancing team efficacy is an important mechanism for promoting innovation performance. Mediating Effects of TE H4 Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 (TE) (TIP) (TIP) Gender 0.229 0.194 0.138 Age 0.067 0.121 0.114 T e nur e 0.094 0.136 0.122 PL 0.623*** 0.808*** 0.572*** TE 0.555*** R2 0.403 0.523 0.610 Δ R2 \ 0.120 0.087 F value 57.204*** 92.983*** 105.840*** Notes. N = 344 *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance. This study constructed two hierarchical regression models (Models 1 and 2) for stepwise analysis to examine the moderating role of job crafting in the relationships between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, as well as between team efficacy and team innovation performance. The results are presented in Table 5. In Model 1, paradoxical leadership had a significant positive effect on team efficacy (β = 0.522, p < 0.01), and job crafting also exhibited a significant positive effect on team efficacy (β = 0.266, p < 0.001). Notably, the interaction term between paradoxical leadership and job crafting (PL × JC) was significant (β = 0.174, p < 0.001), indicating that job crafting significantly moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, with a positive interaction effect. In Model 2, paradoxical leadership (β = 0.431, p < 0.001), job crafting (β = 0.685, p < 0.001), and team efficacy (β = 0.693, p < 0.001) all had significant positive effects on team innovation performance. Additionally, the interaction term between team efficacy and job crafting (TE × JC) was significant (β = 0.071, p < 0.001), demonstrating that job crafting also plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between team efficacy and innovation performance. Both models demonstrated high explanatory power, with R² values of 0.422 for Model 1 and an increased 0.652 for Model 2. The F-statistics for both models were highly significant (p < 0.001), indicating a good overall model fit and robust moderation effects. In summary, job crafting strengthens the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and enhances the positive influence of team efficacy on team innovation performance, thereby supporting Hypotheses 5 and 6. These findings underscore the critical moderating role of employees’ job crafting in enhancing team performance Regulatory effects of JC Regulatory effects of JC Variables Model 1 Model 2 (H5) (H6) Gender 0.253 0.187 Age 0.065 0.101 T e nur e 0.091 0.120 PL 0.522** 0.431*** JC 0.266*** 0.685** TE 0.693*** PL*JC 0.174*** TE*JC 0.071*** R2 0.422 0.652 F value 40.965*** 89.787*** Notes. N = 344 *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance, JC = Job Crafting. This study used simple slope plots generated with R (Figures 2 and 3) to visually illustrate the moderating effects of job crafting on the relationships between team efficacy and team innovation performance as well as paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. Figure 2 illustrates the significant moderating effect of job crafting on the path from team efficacy to innovation performance. When job crafting is high, the positive influence of team efficacy on innovation performance is substantially enhanced, as evidenced by a steeper regression slope. Conversely, at low levels of job crafting, the positive effect remains but is markedly weakened. The results indicate that job crafting, as an employee’s proactive behavior in adjusting and optimizing work tasks, can effectively amplify the positive role of team effectiveness in improving innovation performance, emphasizing the key role of employee initiative in the team innovation process. Figure 3 reveals the moderating role of job crafting in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. The results indicate that under high job crafting conditions, the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance is significantly strengthened, as manifested in a steeper regression slope. This effect is weakened at low levels of job crafting, which shows that job crafting promotes adaptation and adjustment between individual team members and the team, strengthens the ability to transform leadership behavior into innovative performance, and highlights the important mediating mechanism of job crafting in improving leadership effectiveness. In summary, the moderation analyses demonstrate that job crafting, as a form of proactive behavior among team members, significantly strengthens the positive effects of leadership and team efficacy on team innovation performance. Conclusion Result and discussion Based on data from 344 valid samples, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to thoroughly investigate the influence pathways of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and team innovation performance, as well as the mediating role of team efficacy and the moderating effect of job crafting. The study found that paradoxical leadership has a significant positive impact on team efficacy (path coefficient = 0.608, p < 0.001), confirming that paradoxical leadership can enhance team members’ cognition and confidence in their overall capabilities by effectively managing the contradictory demands within the organization. Paradoxical leadership also significantly promotes team innovation performance (path coefficient = 0.417, p < 0.001), indicating that this leadership style effectively stimulates the team’s innovative vitality and innovation results. Team efficacy demonstrates a significant positive effect on team innovation performance (path coefficient = 0.625, p < 0.001), reinforcing the theoretical assertion that collective efficacy is a crucial psychological mechanism for improving team innovation performance. Further mediation analysis reveals that team efficacy partially mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. This indicates that team efficacy not only directly fosters innovation, but also acts as a psychological bridge through which the positive effects of paradoxical leadership are transmitted to team innovation performance. This is the first study to verify the moderating role of job crafting in these relationships. The analysis demonstrates that job crafting significantly moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy (interaction coefficient = 0.174, p < 0.001) and between team efficacy and team innovation performance (interaction coefficient = 0.071, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypotheses H5 and H6. These findings highlight the importance of employees’ proactive adjustment and optimization of work content and methods. A high level of job crafting strengthens the interaction between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, enhancing team innovation performance more effectively. In summary, this study elucidates the internal mechanism by which paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy, and clarifies the boundary condition of job crafting as a moderator. It provides important theoretical foundations and practical guidance for managers, emphasizing the critical role of fostering employee proactivity. Theoretical contribution This study constructs a multi-dimensional path theoretical framework by integrating the action mechanisms of paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and job crafting, enriching the research on the impact of leadership on team innovation performance. It reveals how paradoxical leadership motivates team innovation behavior through a direct path and explains the dual mediating and moderating roles of team efficacy and job-crafting behavior, thus providing a more complex and systematic perspective for theoretical research. Furthermore, this study extends the application scope of team efficacy theory. While team efficacy as a psychological state has been studied extensively, this study clarifies the mediating effect of paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. This provides new theoretical support for applying efficacy theory to organizational behavior, thereby deepening the understanding of how efficacy theory drives internal team motivation and behavioral mechanisms [15]. Additionally, this study contributes a novel perspective to job crafting and team behavior research by identifying job crafting as a key moderating factor in the relationship between leadership and team innovation performance. This finding addresses the existing gap in the literature concerning the impact pathways of job crafting. It reveals how employees proactively reshaping their work enhances the facilitative effects of leadership on team innovation capability and willingness [20]. It fills a research void regarding the synergistic influence of leadership styles and employees’ proactive behavior on team performance. Previous research has often examined leadership and individual behaviors separately, whereas this study demonstrates how leadership promotes team innovation performance through indirect pathways by introducing the bridging mechanisms of team efficacy and job crafting. The integrated theoretical model constructed herein lays the foundation for future scholars to expand this research domain. Practical contribution This study provides clear guidance for enterprise management practices that promote team innovation performance. It proposes a management intervention path centered on team efficacy and job crafting behavior by verifying the direct and indirect effects of paradoxical leadership on team behavior. This finding provides theoretical support for the incentive mechanism and optimization of management processes in practice, effectively improving the adaptability and participation of team members in innovation tasks, thus enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises in a dynamic environment. It reveals the core role of team efficacy in team management, and provides managers with specific methods to motivate teams effectively. By studying the mediating role of team efficacy, this study points out that managers can enhance a team’s innovation and proactive behavior by enhancing its self-confidence and collective beliefs. This study provides practical suggestions for enterprises to build an efficient team culture and a basis for employees to find intrinsic motivation in team collaboration. It clarifies the importance of job crafting in improving a team’s overall effectiveness, especially regarding how to optimize work content and methods under the guidance of leadership. The results demonstrate that job crafting can improve a team’s innovation ability and support the realization of organizational goals through individual proactive behaviors. Therefore, companies can gain an advantage in market competition by encouraging employees to actively engage in job shaping and by ensuring that individual work patterns are closely aligned with organizational needs. This study also provides directions for new leadership training and company talent development. By revealing the role of paradoxical leadership in promoting team innovation performance, this study suggests that companies should strengthen their leadership development training for managers, especially when using team effectiveness incentive strategies and job-shaping tools. This will help improve managers’ leadership effectiveness and promote the cultural transformation of the entire organization and the construction of an innovative atmosphere. Limitations and future re sear c h Although this study has made certain contributions to both theoretical construction and practical enlightenment, it still has some limitations that need to be improved and expanded in subsequent research. The data collection in this study was mainly concentrated in specific regions and industrial backgrounds, which, to a certain extent, limited the ability to extrapolate the research conclusions. Organizational behavior is strongly influenced by cultural norms, industrial structures, and the economic environment. The relationship between paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and job-crafting behavior in different contexts may be heterogeneous. Therefore, future research should conduct cross-context comparisons in different cultures, regions, and industries to test the robustness of the model and explore the possible moderating role of situational factors in it so as to enhance the universality and adaptability of the theoretical model. This study adopted a cross-sectional design that can only reveal the static correlation between variables, making it the identification of the evolution path and causal mechanism of variables in the time dimension difficult. The existing literature shows that the manifestation of leadership influence has a certain time delay, and the psychological state of the team and the behavior of its members are often gradually formed in the process of continuous interaction. Therefore, it is recommended that future research introduce a longitudinal design or follow-up surveys to systematically analyze the dynamic mechanism between leadership behavior, team perception, and innovation performance, and more comprehensively reveal the process logic behind organizational behavior. Although all the variables selected in this study are theoretically supported, some variables that may have a key impact on actual organizational situations were inevitably omitted. For example, organizational culture, external environmental uncertainty, employee personality traits, and innovation support atmosphere may play important roles in employees’ cognition, attitude, and the behavioral performance of the leadership style. These excluded factors may play mediating or moderating role in the research model. Future research can introduce multi-level variables into the theoretical construction to further enrich the explanatory power of the model and build a more systematic and comprehensive analytical framework. This study uses quantitative research methods to verify hypotheses. Although it has strong statistical validity in empirical analysis, it is difficult to extensively reveal the subjective experience and social interaction process behind organizational behavior. As highly complex social phenomena, organizational behavior and team innovation often cannot be fully captured by structured questionnaires. Therefore, future research can attempt to integrate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or case studies, to obtain a more detailed situational understanding and behavioral insights. Declarations Acknowledgements We would like to provide our appreciation and thanks to all the respondents in this study. Authors’contributions Jiaming Hu, MyeongCheol Choi and KyuHee Joo wrote the main manuscript text. Jiaming Hu was responsible for investigation, formal analysis and reseources. MyeongCheol Choi was responsible for supervision, investigation, ceptualization and methodology. KyuHee Joo prepared figures and table, was responsible for investigation and reseources. Hann Earl Kim was responsible for methodology and formal analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study according to Article 34 of Gachon University Institutional Review Board Standard Operating Guidelines. Consent for publication Not applicable. Data availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2023S1A5A2A01082822) Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations. References Afzal, H. F., Khalid, F., Khan, H. N., & Riaz, H. (2025). Lead bold, creative fearless: The paradoxical leaders path to creative performance: The intervening role of psychological safety. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 9 (2), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2025(9-II)33 Ahinful, A. A., Opoku Mensah, A., Koomson, S., Cobblah, C., Takyi, G., & Kwarteng, A. H. (2025). Achieving banking industry innovation performance using total quality management: An empirical study. The TQM Journal, 37 (5), 1292–1319. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2023-0327 Akhtar, N., & Riaz, A. (2024). The role of occupational self-efficacy as a mediator between paradoxical leadership and job crafting from the lens of proactive motivation theory. Journal of Innovative Research in Management Sciences, 5 (2), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.62270/jirms.v5i2.72 Alexiou, A., Meinster, F. B., Khanagha, S., & Volberda, H. W. (2024). Unlocking innovation in self‑managing teams: The power of leaders’ paradox mindset in overcoming negative peer pressure [Preprint]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807863 Attah, R. U., Garba, B. M. P., Gil‑Ozoudeh, I., & Iwuanyanwu, O. (2024). Cross‑functional team dynamics in technology management: A comprehensive review of efficiency and innovation enhancement . Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5 (12), 3248–3265. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i12.1756 Backhaus, L., Reuber, A., Vogel, D., & Vogel, R. (2022). Giving sense about paradoxes: Paradoxical leadership in the public sector. Public Management Review, 24 (9), 1478–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1906935 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Batool, U., Raziq, M. M., & Sarwar, N. (2023). The paradox of paradoxical leadership: A multi‑level conceptualization . Human Resource Management Review, 33 (4), Article 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100983 Boemelburg, R., Zimmermann, A., & Palmié, M. (2023). How paradoxical leaders guide their followers to embrace paradox: Cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of paradox mindset development. Long Range Planning, 56 , Article 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2023.102319 Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 De Jong, J. P. J., & den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19 (1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2024). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (10th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003381556 Gammel, J. H. (2020). Leading followers and teams in innovation processes: An empirical investigation and extension of ambidextrous leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München). https://doi.org/10.5282/edoc.26807 Guo, X., Huang, K., Liu, J., Fan, W., Vélez, N., Wu, Q., … Wang, M. (2024). Embodied LLM agents learn to cooperate in organized teams [Preprint]. arXiv . https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12482 Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819 Hou, Z., & Wang, D. (2023). Paradoxical leadership in engineering management, uncertainty tolerance, and promotion job crafting [Conference paper]. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information, Control and Automation (ICICA 2022) . EAI. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.2-12-2022.2328032 Ingusci, E., Spagnoli, P., Zito, M., Colombo, L., & Cortese, C. G. (2019). Seeking challenges, individual adaptability and career growth in the relationship between workload and contextual performance: A two-wave study. Sustainability, 11 (2), 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020422 Jaleel, A., Rabbani, S., & Sarmad, M. (2025). Unlocking the effects of joyous exploration and deprivation sensitivity on employees’ job crafting behavior: A moderating and mediating mechanism. Career Development International, 30 (3), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI‑11‑2023‑0412 Kahn, S. (2024). Reinvent Yourself: Psychological Insights That Will Transform Your Work Life. Kogan Page Publishers. Khan, M. T., & Ullah, S. (2025). Balancing innovation: The role of paradoxical leadership and ambidexterity in fostering team creativity . International Journal of Innovation Science . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS‑07‑2024‑0206 Khan, M. T., Ullah, S., Sami, A., Kukreti, M., & Shaukat, M. R. (2025). Cultivating a paradoxical mindset: Enhancing transformative learning through paradoxical leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 46 (2), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‑04‑2024‑0223 Kilic, E., & Kitapci, H. (2022). Cognitive job crafting: An intervening mechanism between intrinsic motivation and affective well‑being. Management Research Review, 46 (7), 1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR‑08‑2021‑0605 Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2020). Job crafting mediates how empowering leadership and employees’ core self-evaluations predict favorable and unfavorable outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29 (1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1697237 Kumar, M., Mamgain, P., Pasumarti, S. S., & Singh, P. K. (2022). Organizational IT support and knowledge sharing behaviour affecting service innovation performance: Empirical evidence from the hospitality industry. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 54 (2), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-07-2021-0124 Li, M., & Ye, H. (2021). Temporal leadership and bootlegging behavior of employees: The mediating effect of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 633261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633261 Lin, C., Zhou, X., & Hou, D. E. (2024). Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: The roles of harmonious work passion and proactive personality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45 (6), 1063–1082. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‑10‑2023‑0600 Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2023). Design thinking teams and team innovation performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12 (1), Article 025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00325-9 Liu, Z., Liu, X., & Zhang, X. (2021). How to solve the time dilemma? The influence of team temporal leadership on team innovation performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , Article 634133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634133 Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Antecedents of daily team job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26 (3), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1289920 Mastrorilli, A., Santarpia, F. P., & Borgogni, L. (2024). Team collective efficacy as a mediator of coaching leadership effects on exhaustion: A multilevel investigation. Team Performance Management, 31 (1–2), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM‑03‑2024‑0029 Meng, W., Xu, Z., Abuliezi, Z., Lyu, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2023). Paradoxical leadership, team adaptation and team performance: The mediating role of inclusive climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 14 , Article 1052732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052732 Miao, G., Chen, G., & Yao, Y. (2024). Team pro-social rule breaking and team innovation performance: An information processing theory perspective. PLOS ONE, 19 (7), e0303800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303800 Nusraningrum, D., Rahmawati, A., Wider, W., Jiang, L., & Udang, L. N. (2024). Enhancing employee performance through motivation: The mediating roles of green work environments and engagement in Jakarta’s logistics sector. Frontiers in Sociology, 9 , Article 1392229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1392229 Park, S., & Park, S. (2023). Contextual antecedents of job crafting: Review and future research agenda. European Journal of Training and Development, 47 (1–2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD‑06‑2021‑0071 Purtul, T. (2019). Antecedents of better performing teams: Test of perceived team job crafting model (Master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University. Rafiq, M., Farrukh, M., Attiq, S., Shahzad, F., & Khan, I. (2023). Linking job crafting, innovation performance, and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement. Work, 75 , 877–886. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-211363 Ren, L., & Shen, H. (2024). The relationship between servant leadership and team innovation performance: Mediating effect of self‑efficacy. Heliyon, 10 (6), e27723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27723 Rodríguez‑Sánchez, A. M., Hakanen, J., & Salanova, M. (2021). Building efficacy beliefs through team task engagement and past task performance in contemporary teams. Business Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420924404 Saleem, S., Humayun, S., Raziq, M. M., Iqbal, M. Z., & Ahmad, M. (2024). Proactive personality and performance in the hospitality industry firms: Mediating role of job crafting . Current Psychology, 43 (3), 2516–2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04356-z Soon, C. C., & Salamzadeh, Y. (2020). The impact of digital leadership competencies on virtual team effectiveness in MNC companies in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 8(2), 219-253. Su, W., & Hahn, J. (2025). Self‑leadership and psychological capital as mediators in the influence of leader motivating language on everyday innovative behavior. International Journal of Business Communication, 62 (2), Article 23294884221119453. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221119453 Tan, L., Hao, P., Gao, H., & Wojtczuk‑Turek, A. (2024). How does paradoxical leadership affect employee adaptive performance? A moderated mediation model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37 (7), 1535–1558. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2024-0152 Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009 Tims, M., Twemlow, M., & Fong, C. Y. M. (2022). A state‑of‑the‑art overview of job‑crafting research: Current trends and future research directions. Career Development International, 27 (1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI‑08‑2021‑0216 Turek, D., Klein, H. J., & Wojtczuk‑Turek, A. (2024). Overcoming organizational constraints: The role of organizational commitment and job crafting in relation to employee performance. European Management Journal, 42 (6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.001 Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011 Yang, N., Chen, H., & Wang, X. H. F. (2024). Stealth innovation: The dance of paradoxical leadership behavior, leader trustworthiness, and psychological safety in fueling employee bootlegging behavior . European Management Journal, 43 (1), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2024.03.007 Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., & Zhang, X. (2021). Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impacts employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology, 40 (5), 1911–1922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1 Yu, Y., Kim, H., Lu, Q., & Qu, H. (2025). Effects of paradoxical leadership on Generation Y employees’ voice behavior: Exploring the chain mediating role of employees’ psychological safety and job crafting. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management . https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2025.2478886 Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. Academy of Management Journal, 65 (5), 1652–1679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1265 Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995 Zou, M., Liu, P., Wu, X., Zhou, W., Jin, Y., & Xu, M. (2023). Cognitive characteristics of an innovation team and collaborative innovation performance: The mediating role of cooperative behavior and the moderating role of team innovation efficacy. Sustainability, 15 (14), 10951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410951 Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, Z., & Zhu, H. (2024). How does empowering leadership promote employee creativity? The sequential mediating mechanism of felt obligation for constructive change and job crafting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 148 , Article 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103955 Table 1 Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.docx 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-7698291","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542162557,"identity":"0a257db8-3cc0-4a36-b45d-47b9a1b14145","order_by":0,"name":"JiaMing Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gachon University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"JiaMing","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":542162558,"identity":"cb7c7111-3e13-45a1-af67-a935fff539f1","order_by":1,"name":"MyeongCheol Choi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gachon University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"MyeongCheol","middleName":"","lastName":"Choi","suffix":""},{"id":542162559,"identity":"82b4facf-dc9d-4ce1-9c06-f6284adcf102","order_by":2,"name":"KyuHee Joo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seoul National University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"KyuHee","middleName":"","lastName":"Joo","suffix":""},{"id":542162560,"identity":"fc3ee3f4-5035-4262-a982-38f426f00597","order_by":3,"name":"Hann Earl Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gachon University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hann","middleName":"Earl","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-24 01:23:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95662163,"identity":"748c8dd6-423f-4f6d-bfef-f239a27748d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:37:14","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":143462,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1002UnpackingtheParadoxHowParadoxicalLeadershipDrivesTeamInnovationthroughEfficacyandJobCrafting.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/dab2494fe258fdc75d332715.docx"},{"id":95661768,"identity":"487b1443-37e3-4305-b151-e37cd50930a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:52","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6602,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3c4f8a7a5d2e4978add61e17c9914a94.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/88ec100b06af86bd9b7ad187.json"},{"id":95661879,"identity":"9ce8e134-4482-45d9-a522-d06611f614cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:58","extension":"eps","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1348332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage1.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/94a74f31543beca24a306729.eps"},{"id":95661904,"identity":"2e0364a0-d4a6-4c5e-9678-b6046b3bb40c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:37:00","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":132126,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/f9b22f1b7ef315d1bc203424.jpeg"},{"id":95661886,"identity":"d41a8e6a-b2ed-403c-9108-f0077c81c2fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:59","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":373,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/f452cdd30d9388ea18fd0d1c.png"},{"id":95661889,"identity":"24551364-ed77-4356-ba7e-315628e6deb2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:59","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1152062,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/edc4617b8fe1817ffa3ea8ea.jpeg"},{"id":95661717,"identity":"b7504ff1-d2d5-4a88-be1a-c0083624bddd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:45","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1374,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/32d17143d782e2601496dc39.jpeg"},{"id":95661880,"identity":"d213d9fe-a0a3-4034-a5c8-40c41ef19e48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:58","extension":"emf","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":44984,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.emf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/43001d941a6dae0de219dea0.emf"},{"id":95661725,"identity":"4e6ad4bb-b089-4b46-b42f-bc19e68829b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":30667,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/36d18aecae7d33ab2d8ce272.jpeg"},{"id":95662069,"identity":"9c4249a8-1682-4427-b580-00041929e4c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:37:08","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":31215,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/e8011dffd4cb0325a49a398f.jpeg"},{"id":95661742,"identity":"c1704a13-ea8a-473d-88ff-ecd4955ec4fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:49","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":20228,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/3fdb6494f7bceb29ff8ce76b.png"},{"id":95661859,"identity":"bb23af0c-25b3-4482-bdf7-6df29b446f53","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:56","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":441,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/ab0fd8862bedc3bfb723e355.png"},{"id":95661772,"identity":"bed7ac3f-92ef-4789-9bf0-3cc822dd69c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:53","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":220867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/a7a73ffed8f42cdf8ae804a0.png"},{"id":95661773,"identity":"c93c9b9e-b8d3-49ca-950d-138fb7a6de90","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:53","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/bbbb4dc435379ae7bb6c8d32.png"},{"id":95661770,"identity":"c4c76d36-abad-4025-8af2-ca3fd16def6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:53","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":116648,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/55440fedc24b2126b818180a.png"},{"id":95798404,"identity":"2a061a06-0e91-44cb-b02a-b1d0ca70a94d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:16:42","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":21054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/acb190237c2ae95d0dadf793.png"},{"id":95661595,"identity":"62bfaaf3-c9e6-4678-b2a5-17b3e3d28128","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:31","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":22133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/4945a689aafc890d3751b8d3.png"},{"id":95662024,"identity":"c95499b9-57f1-40e3-a74d-af9c2b8cd1d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:37:04","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57465,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized research model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote:PL,Paradoxical Leadership; TE,Team Efficacy; TIP,Team Innovation Performance; JC,Job Crafting.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/b820fe2733279c30abebc266.png"},{"id":95661699,"identity":"8111422f-63e2-44b8-8061-b7505bf84bdf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:43","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":254467,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe moderating effect of job crafting on the relationship between team efficacy and team innovation performance.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/8f6f71795e487113e5a21a07.png"},{"id":95661856,"identity":"d14c7c2a-15d1-482d-92c1-4638211946c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:36:56","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":264459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe moderating effect of job crafting on the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/a15e51b9c5cc2303891a73bc.png"},{"id":97639790,"identity":"214ce7f8-88ef-4157-935b-d713e0834b5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 02:39:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1604014,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/88d137ef-4918-4f2d-a17c-ca9e9709a83e.pdf"},{"id":95661899,"identity":"4602d5fc-e0b9-472d-874c-5ebe1f520bce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:37:00","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19647,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7698291/v1/e400cfd9a7d3932154e0b78f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Unpacking the Paradox: How Paradoxical Leadership Drives Team Innovation through Efficacy and Job Crafting","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, organizations have been confronted with increasingly complex and paradoxical operational environments, making the effective management of diverse demands and tensions within organizations a critical topic in management research [13]. As an emerging leadership approach, paradoxical leadership has garnered widespread attention from both academia and practice by simultaneously adopting seemingly contradictory yet interrelated behavioral strategies to balance and integrate conflicting organizational demands [9],[6]. Unlike traditional leadership styles that emphasize either-or (非此即彼) thinking, paradoxical leadership advocates an integrative mindset of both-and (两者兼而有之) thinking, effectively addressing opposing organizational dimensions such as self-centeredness versus other-centeredness and control versus flexibility, thereby achieving higher levels of organizational effectiveness and innovation [26].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent studies have preliminarily confirmed the positive effects of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and innovation performance [43]. Team efficacy, defined as the collective belief and confidence of team members in their team\u0026rsquo;s capability to execute specific tasks successfully, is widely recognized as a key predictor of enhanced team performance [41]. Team innovation performance reflects a team\u0026rsquo;s ability and outcomes in generating, promoting, and implementing innovative ideas, processes, or products, and plays a crucial role in improving organizational competitiveness [29][2]. Although previous research has explored the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team performance from various perspectives, the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions need to be further investigated and clarified [21].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective, social cognitive theory [7][8] emphasizes the predictive role of individual and collective efficacy beliefs on behavioral outcomes, whereas team dynamics theory highlights the significant influence of leadership behaviors and the psychological states of teams on team innovation activities [42]. These theories provide a solid theoretical foundation for exploring how paradoxical leadership affects team innovation performance through team efficacy. Job crafting, defined as employees\u0026rsquo; proactive behavior in adjusting and redesigning their work, has received increasing attention from scholars in recent years [45][35]. Existing research suggests that high levels of job crafting can effectively stimulate employees\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation and creativity [23]. Under the influence of paradoxical leadership, job crafting may further enhance team members\u0026rsquo; perceptions of collective capability and active engagement in innovation activities, thereby significantly improving team innovation performance [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough previous studies have provided evidence that paradoxical leadership positively affects team performance [49], a significant gap remains in the literature. On the one hand, the specific psychological mechanism by which paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy is yet to be systematically and empirically tested. However, the moderating role of job crafting in the relationships among paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and team innovation performance lacks clear theoretical explanations and empirical support [54]. Therefore, this study aims to integrate social cognitive and team dynamics theories to construct a theoretical model that posits team efficacy as a mediator and job crafting as a moderator. It seeks to deeply explore the influence pathways and mechanisms of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance. This study empirically aims to reveal the internal mechanisms through which paradoxical leadership enhances team innovation performance. Moreover, by introducing team efficacy as a critical psychological bridge, this study clarifies the indirect effects of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance. Job crafting is incorporated as an important moderating variable. This facilitates examining how proactive individual behaviors influence the relationship between leadership style and team performance, thereby enriching the research on moderating mechanisms in organizational behavior and offering new theoretical and practical insights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParadoxical Leadership and Team Efficacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership emphasizes leaders’ simultaneous adoption of seemingly contradictory yet interrelated behaviors to address complex and conflicting demands within organizations [52][27]. This leadership approach requires leaders to shift from an either-or mindset to a both-and integrative thinking mode, balancing opposing dimensions, such as self-centeredness versus other-centeredness, distance versus closeness, uniformity versus individuality, and control versus flexibility, thereby achieving the dual goals of organizational objectives and employee needs [21]. Research has demonstrated that paradoxical leadership enhances employee adaptability, innovativeness, and team performance [26]. Team efficacy refers to the shared belief and confidence among team members about their team’s ability to execute specific tasks successful [19]. Originating from Bandura’s collective efficacy theory, this concept emphasizes a team’s collective perception of capability rather than merely aggregating individual abilities [16]. Empirical studies have demonstrated that team efficacy is closely related to team performance by enhancing team cohesion, communication efficiency, and task completion [15]. Moreover, team efficacy is considered an effective emergent state that reflects a team’s collective confidence and resilience in the face of challenges [5].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership fosters a supportive and inclusive psychological safety climate, significantly enhancing team members’ trust and sense of belonging, which, in turn, stimulates team creativity and proactive behaviors [26][1]. Psychological safety, defined as the shared belief that a team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, is a crucial psychological mechanism for fostering team efficacy. Team efficacy reflects members’ confidence in their collective capabilities and acts as a key driver in achieving team goals and improving performance [31]. A growing body of empirical evidence confirms that paradoxical leadership not only promotes individual employee innovation behaviors but also substantially enhances psychological safety [48]. Based on social cognitive theory[7] and team dynamics theory, paradoxical leadership positively and directly enhances team efficacy by modeling behaviors and resource suppor [30]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1: Paradoxical leadership positively impacts team efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Paradoxical Leadership and Team Innovation Performance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeam Innovation Performance refers to a team’s ability and outcomes in generating, promoting, and implementing new ideas, processes, or products (West \u0026amp; Anderson, 1996 [25]. High levels of team innovation performance not only enhance organizational competitiveness but also facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration among team members [17]. Research indicates that multiple factors influence team innovation performance, including leadership style, team efficacy, and psychological safety [38].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership creates a dynamic balancing environment that supports innovation by simultaneously managing and integrating contradictory demands and behaviors within a tea [10]. This leadership style can stimulate team members’ cognitive flexibility and behavioral adaptability, thereby enhancing their capacity to respond to complex environments [4]. Previous studies have shown that paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance by fostering a context in which psychological safety and structural discipline coexist and encourage team members to balance risk-taking with normative compliance, which in turn drives the realization of innovative outcome [53]. Moreover, leaders’ clear strategic visions provide directional support for team innovation activities, further strengthening innovation output [14]. Based on the above theoretical and empirical evidence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH2: Paradoxical leadership has a significant positive impact on team innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Team Efficacy and Team Innovation Performance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeam efficacy refers to the shared belief among team members in their team’s overall capability to successfully complete tasks [8] and is recognized as an important predictor of team motivation and performance [16][34]. It can enhance members’ confidence and persistence, promoting positive cooperative behaviors that in turn improve team performance [53]. In recent years, as organizational structures have shifted toward more flexible and task-diverse self-managed teams, the facilitating role of team efficacy in promoting team innovation performance has become increasingly critical [39]. Team members with high efficacy are more likely to proactively engage in innovation tasks, overcome challenges, and pursue goals persistently, resulting in superior innovation outcomes [36]. Research indicates that team efficacy fosters innovation performance by enhancing team cohesion and work engagement [28]. Moreover, as the collective belief in the team’s overall capability to complete tasks, team efficacy tends to exert a positive influence on team innovation performance, thereby contributing to improved innovation outcomes [33]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3: Team efficacy positively affects team innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediating Effects of Team Efficacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxical leadership influences team innovation performance through distinctive cognitive and behavioral strategies; however, this effect often operates via a team’s internal psychological capital [32]. Team efficacy, defined as team members’ shared belief about their collective capabilities, enhances cooperation within the team and improves members’ motivation and perseverance in addressing innovation challenges [51]. Empirical evidence suggests that team efficacy partially explains the process by which leadership behaviors translate into innovation performance, serving as a critical psychological bridge linking leadership and innovation outcome [31]. Specifically, regarding paradoxical leadership, increased team efficacy helps mitigate the adverse effects triggered by paradoxical tensions during innovation, facilitating flexible switching and collaboration among team members across multiple objectives, thereby optimizing innovation performance [53]. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH4: Team efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Moderating Effects of Job Crafting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob crafting refers to employees’ proactive efforts to adjust and redesign their job tasks, relationships, and cognitive frameworks to better align with their interests, skills, and values, thereby enhancing their sense of job meaningfulness and satisfaction [47]. Through such proactive behaviors, employees increase job autonomy and control, and optimize job resources and challenges, which in turn improve job performance, work engagement, and innovative behaviors [46]. Job crafting not only facilitates individual adaptation to change but also strengthens organizational flexibility and innovation capability [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a form of proactive adjustment and redesign of work content and interpersonal relationships, job crafting enhances individuals’ perception and utilization of job resources and challenges [17], and stimulates team members’ initiative and creativity, thereby promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration efficiency within teams [37]. This proactive behavior increases employees’ intrinsic motivation, optimizes resource allocation and collaboration patterns within teams, and strengthens the impact of leadership behavior on team efficacy [3]. Under paradoxical leadership, team members with higher levels of job crafting are more likely to respond actively to leaders’ paradoxical management strategies and enhance their confidence in team goals and capabilities [24]. Conversely, low job crafting may constrain the positive motivational effects of paradoxical leadership, thereby weakening the enhancement of team efficacy [18]. The moderation of job crafting makes teams more flexible and efficient in dealing with innovation challenges, which can amplify the positive impact of team efficacy on innovation performance [40]. Specifically, high levels of job crafting can optimize collaboration among team members, improve team resource utilization efficiency, and enhance the quality and quantity of innovation outcomes [50], whereas low levels of job crafting may limit the moderating effect\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003eof team efficacy on innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH5: Job crafting positively moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH6: Job crafting positively moderates the relationship between team efficacy and innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample and Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a questionnaire survey to collect data to examine the effects of paradoxical \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eleadership on team efficacy and team innovation performance as well as the moderating role of job crafting in these relationships. Data were collected over two months, from March 4, 2025, to May 4, 2025. A total of 400 online questionnaires were distributed and 344 valid responses were collected. To ensure that respondents possessed relevant work experience, invalid questionnaires were excluded during data cleaning, including those with incomplete responses and abnormal or random answering patterns, as well as questionnaires from participants who did not engage in team innovation activities or had no experience with the relevant leadership style. The effective response rate was 86%. The respondents represented a diverse range of genders, age groups, educational backgrounds, work experience, industry types, and organizational positions. The sample comprised 54.7% males and 45.3% females, reflecting a relatively balanced gender distribution. Age was mainly concentrated in the 26\u0026ndash;30 year (28.2%) and 31\u0026ndash;35 year (35.2%), corresponding to the critical stages of career development. Regarding educational attainment, the majority held bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees (55.2%) and associate degrees (17.2%), followed by master\u0026apos;s degrees (16.6%), doctoral degrees (4.1%), and high school education or below (6.9%), indicating an overall high level of education. Work experience was primarily distributed between 1\u0026ndash;5 years (31.7%) and 6\u0026ndash;10 years (43%), demonstrating substantial practical experience. Job positions were mainly distributed among general employees (32.3%), frontline managers (31.1%), and middle managers (29.9%). Organizational size was fairly evenly spread, with 9% of enterprises having fewer than 50 employees, 25.9% from organizations with 51\u0026ndash;100 employees, 23.5% from those with 101\u0026ndash;200 employees, 24.1% from enterprises with 201\u0026ndash;500 employees, and 17.4% from organizations with over 500 employees. This distribution reflects a diverse mix of small to large enterprises, with a larger proportion of small and medium-sized organizations. Overall, the sample structure comprehensively reflects the basic characteristics of the target population, providing a solid foundation for subsequent data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Measures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed measurement scales derived from well-established constructs validated in previous empirical studies. Chinese versions were developed using translation and back-translation to ensure consistency with the original English scales (Brislin, 1980). Apart from the demographic variables, all items were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study utilized a 14-item scale developed by Zhang et al. [52] to measure Paradoxical Leadership (PL). Sample items include: \u0026ldquo;The leader can simultaneously meet the diverse demands of different teams within the organization,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;The leader can find a balance amid contradictions,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;The leader maintains control while granting employees freedom.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeam Efficacy (TE) was measured using a 4-item scale developed by Gully et al. [16]. Sample items include: \u0026ldquo;Our team can complete the current tasks,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Team members believe that we can achieve the expected goals,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Our team can overcome difficulties and challenges.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeam Innovation Performance (TIP) was assessed using a 6-item scale developed by De Jong and Den Hartog (2010). Sample items include: \u0026ldquo;I actively propose new solutions to improve problems at work,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I frequently try new methods or processes in my work,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I encourage team members to experiment with innovative ways of working.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob Crafting (JC) was measured using a 7-item scale developed by Tims et al. [44]. Sample items include: \u0026ldquo;I have adjusted the boundaries of my job to fit my interests better,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I have increased interactions with colleagues to enhance social relationships at work,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I have changed the way I perform tasks to make them more efficient.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommon\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003emethod\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003ebias\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering that all the scales used in this study were self-reported, Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test was employed to examine whether\u0026nbsp;a significant standard method bias existed. The results indicated that for the entire sample, the first factor accounted for 26.64% of the total variance. Similarly, for the samples of paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, team innovation performance, and job crafting, the first factor explained 15.3%, 17.9%, 17.7%, and 25.6% of the variance, respectively. All\u0026nbsp;of these values are below the commonly accepted threshold of 40%, suggesting that there is no evidence of significant standard method bias across all data groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Measurement Reliability and Validity Assessme\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on 344 valid samples, this study conducted\u0026nbsp;a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement model of four latent\u0026nbsp;variables: paradoxical leadership, job crafting, team efficacy, and team innovation performance, aiming to assess the reliability and validity of the scales. The standardized factor loadings (\u0026beta;) for all measurement items ranged from 0.666 to 0.817, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.600, indicating strong associations between the items and their corresponding latent constructs and confirming good construct validity. The average variance extracted (AVE) values were 0.601 for PL, 0.632 for JC, 0.507 for TE, and 0.604 for TIP, all above the 0.50 criterion, demonstrating adequate convergent validity by indicating that the latent variables effectively explain the variance of their indicators. The composite reliability (CR) values were 0.939 for PL, 0.943 for JC, 0.799 for TE, and 0.871 for TIP, all exceeding the 0.70 threshold, reflecting good internal consistency and reliability of the scales. The overall model fit indices indicated\u0026nbsp;an excellent fit. Specifically, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) was 1.012, well below the recommended maximum of 3;\u0026nbsp;and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.006, far below the acceptable threshold of 0.08, indicating an excellent fit. Additional fit indices included GFI = 0.928, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, IFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.943, and RFI = 0.938, all\u0026nbsp;of which met or exceeded the recommended criterion of 0.90. In summary, the CFA results demonstrate that the measurement scales employed in this study possess good reliability and validity and\u0026nbsp;that the measurement model structure is reasonable, providing a solid foundation for subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore hypothesis testing, we conducted a correlation analysis of the primary research variables. The results are presented in Table 2. The analysis was based on data from 344 participants and examined the relationships between the control variables (gender, age, and tenure) and key research variables: paradoxical leadership (PL), job crafting (JC), team efficacy (TE), and team innovation performance (TIP). The results indicated that the control variables exerted a limited influence on the core constructs. Gender showed a significant negative correlation with job crafting (r = -0.154, p \u0026lt; 0.01), suggesting gender differences in job crafting behaviors. Age and tenure were highly positively correlated (r = 0.600, p \u0026lt; 0.01), consistent with the expected career development patterns. Among the core variables, paradoxical leadership was strongly and positively correlated with job crafting (r = 0.639, p \u0026lt; 0.01), team efficacy (r = 0.632, p \u0026lt; 0.01), and team innovation performance (r = 0.714, p \u0026lt; 0.01), reflecting the positive impact of leadership behavior on employee behavior and team outcomes. Job crafting was significantly correlated with team efficacy (r = 0.491, p \u0026lt; 0.01) and team innovation performance (r = 0.646, p \u0026lt; 0.01), indicating that employees\u0026rsquo; job crafting increase team performance. Team efficacy and team innovation performance also exhibited a significant positive correlation (r = 0.683, p \u0026lt; 0.01), supporting their theoretical roles as key mediators of innovation performance. In summary, the correlation analysis confirmed the theoretical relationships among the variables and provided a solid empirical foundation for subsequent hypothesis testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u0026gt;\u003c/strong\u003e Correlation Analysis\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS.D.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTenure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTIP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.499\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTenure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.600**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9863\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93281\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.897\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.154**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.639**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0938\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80661\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.632**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.491**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTIP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95636\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.133*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.714**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.646**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.683**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\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\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes. N = 344 *p\u0026lt; .05, **p\u0026lt; .01, ***p\u0026lt; .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance, JC = Job Crafting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on 344 valid samples, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to conduct a path analysis for Hypotheses 1 through 3. The results are presented in Table 3. The path coefficient from paradoxical leadership to team efficacy was 0.608, with a standard error of 0.056, a critical ratio (C.R.) of 10.779, and a significance level of p \u0026lt; 0.001, indicating a significant positive effect and supporting Hypothesis 1. The direct effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance had a path coefficient of 0.417, a standard error of 0.070, and a C.R. of 5.963 and was significant at p \u0026lt; 0.001, supporting Hypothesis 2. The effect of team efficacy on team innovation performance yielded a path coefficient of 0.625, standard error of 0.092, and C.R. of 6.769. This was significant at p \u0026lt; 0.001 (***), demonstrating that team efficacy positively promotes innovation performance, supporting Hypothesis 3. The overall model fit was satisfactory, with a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) of 0.991, p \u0026lt; 0.001; fit indices CFI, TLI, and IFI were nearly perfect at 1.000, 1.001, and 1.000, respectively; RFI was 0.947, NFI was 0.956, and RMSEA was 0.036, indicating excellent model fit. In summary, the path analysis results fully support the three hypotheses proposed in this study, empirically confirming that paradoxical leadership enhances team innovation performance by improving team efficacy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u0026gt;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe Results for Hypotheses 1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesized path\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.E.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1.PL➝ TE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.608\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2.PL➝ TIP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.417\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.963\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3.TE➝ TIP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.625\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel fit: CMIN/DF = 0.991, p \u0026lt; 0.001, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.001, IFI = 1.000, RFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes. N = 344 *p\u0026lt; .05, **p\u0026lt; .01, ***p\u0026lt; .001\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study constructed three hierarchical regression models for\u0026nbsp;a stepwise analysis\u0026nbsp;to examine the mediating role of team efficacy in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance.\u0026nbsp;The results are presented in Table 4. In Model 1, paradoxical leadership had a significant positive effect on team efficacy, with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.623 (p \u0026lt; 0.001), explaining 40.3% of the variance in team efficacy. Model 2 showed that paradoxical leadership also had a significant direct effect on team innovation performance, with a coefficient of 0.808 (p \u0026lt; 0.001), explaining 52.3% of the variance. The direct effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance decreased (\u0026beta; = 0.572, p \u0026lt; 0.001) when team efficacy was included as a mediator in Model 3. In contrast, team efficacy significantly positively affected innovation performance (\u0026beta; = 0.555, p \u0026lt; 0.001). The explanatory power of the model increased to 61.0%. Additionally,\u0026nbsp;the control variables, including gender, age, and work experience, showed no significant effects on the model. The change in R\u0026sup2; (\u0026Delta;R\u0026sup2;) was 0.120 for Model 2 relative to Model 1 and 0.087 for Model 3 relative to Model 2, indicating that including team efficacy significantly enhanced the model\u0026rsquo;s explanatory power for team innovation performance. The overall model F-values were highly significant (p \u0026lt; 0.001), further supporting the robustness of the models. In summary, team efficacy partially mediates the effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance, thus supporting Hypothesis 4 and indicating that enhancing team efficacy is an important mechanism for promoting innovation performance.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u0026gt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMediating Effects of TE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(TE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(TIP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(TIP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.229\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.138\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003enur\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.623***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.808***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.572***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.555***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.403\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.523\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026Delta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;R2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\\\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.204***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.983***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105.840***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes. N = 344 *p\u0026lt; .05, **p\u0026lt; .01, ***p\u0026lt; .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study constructed two hierarchical regression models (Models 1 and 2) for stepwise analysis to examine the moderating role of job crafting in the relationships between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, as well as between team efficacy and team innovation performance. The results are presented in Table 5. In Model 1, paradoxical leadership had a significant positive effect on team efficacy (\u0026beta; = 0.522, p \u0026lt; 0.01), and job crafting also exhibited a significant positive effect on team efficacy (\u0026beta; = 0.266, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Notably, the interaction term between paradoxical leadership and job crafting (PL \u0026times; JC) was significant (\u0026beta; = 0.174, p \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating that job crafting significantly moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, with a positive interaction effect. In Model 2, paradoxical leadership (\u0026beta; = 0.431, p \u0026lt; 0.001), job crafting (\u0026beta; = 0.685, p \u0026lt; 0.001), and team efficacy (\u0026beta; = 0.693, p \u0026lt; 0.001) all had significant positive effects on team innovation performance. Additionally, the interaction term between team efficacy and job crafting (TE \u0026times; JC) was significant (\u0026beta; = 0.071, p \u0026lt; 0.001), demonstrating that job crafting also plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between team efficacy and innovation performance. Both models demonstrated high explanatory power, with R\u0026sup2; values of 0.422 for Model 1 and an increased 0.652 for Model 2. The F-statistics for both models were highly significant (p \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating a good overall model fit and robust moderation effects. In summary, job crafting strengthens the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and enhances the positive influence of team efficacy on team innovation performance, thereby supporting Hypotheses 5 and 6. These findings underscore the critical moderating role of employees\u0026rsquo; job crafting in enhancing team performance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u0026gt;\u003c/strong\u003e Regulatory effects of JC Regulatory effects of JC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(H5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(H6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003enur\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.120\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.522**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.431***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.266***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.685**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.693***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePL*JC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.174***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTE*JC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.422\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.652\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.965***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.787***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes. N = 344 *p\u0026lt; .05, **p\u0026lt; .01, ***p\u0026lt; .001. PL = Paradoxical Leadership, TE = Team Efficacy, TIP = Team Innovation Performance, JC = Job Crafting.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study used simple slope plots generated with R (Figures 2 and 3) to visually illustrate the moderating effects of job crafting on the relationships between team efficacy and team innovation performance as well as paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. Figure 2 illustrates the significant moderating effect of job crafting on the path from team efficacy to innovation performance. When job crafting is high, the positive influence of team efficacy on innovation performance is substantially enhanced, as evidenced by a steeper regression slope. Conversely, at low levels of job crafting, the positive effect remains but is markedly weakened. The results indicate that job crafting, as an employee\u0026rsquo;s proactive behavior in adjusting and optimizing work tasks, can effectively amplify the positive role of team effectiveness in improving innovation performance, emphasizing the key role of employee initiative in the team innovation process. Figure 3 reveals the moderating role of job crafting in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. The results indicate that under high job crafting conditions, the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team innovation performance is significantly strengthened, as manifested in a steeper regression slope. This effect is weakened at low levels of job crafting, which shows that job crafting promotes adaptation and adjustment between individual team members and the team, strengthens the ability to transform leadership behavior into innovative performance, and highlights the important mediating mechanism of job crafting in improving leadership effectiveness. In summary, the moderation analyses demonstrate that job crafting, as a form of proactive behavior among team members, significantly strengthens the positive effects of leadership and team efficacy on team innovation performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion Result and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on data from 344 valid samples, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to thoroughly investigate the influence pathways of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and team innovation performance, as well as the mediating role of team efficacy and the moderating effect of job crafting. The study found that paradoxical leadership has a significant positive impact on team efficacy (path coefficient = 0.608, p \u0026lt; 0.001), confirming that paradoxical leadership can enhance team members\u0026rsquo; cognition and confidence in their overall capabilities by effectively managing the contradictory demands within the organization. Paradoxical leadership also significantly promotes team innovation performance (path coefficient = 0.417, p \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating that this leadership style effectively stimulates the team\u0026rsquo;s innovative vitality and innovation results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeam efficacy demonstrates a significant positive effect on team innovation performance (path coefficient = 0.625, p \u0026lt; 0.001), reinforcing the theoretical assertion that collective efficacy is a crucial psychological mechanism for improving team innovation performance. Further mediation analysis reveals that team efficacy partially mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. This indicates that team efficacy not only directly fosters innovation, but also acts as a psychological bridge through which the positive effects of paradoxical leadership are transmitted to team innovation performance. This is the first study to verify the moderating role of job crafting in these relationships. The analysis demonstrates that job crafting significantly moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy (interaction coefficient = 0.174, p \u0026lt; 0.001) and between team efficacy and team innovation performance (interaction coefficient = 0.071, p \u0026lt; 0.001), thus supporting Hypotheses H5 and H6. These findings highlight the importance of employees\u0026rsquo; proactive adjustment and optimization of work content and methods. A high level of job crafting strengthens the interaction between paradoxical leadership and team efficacy, enhancing team innovation performance more effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study elucidates the internal mechanism by which paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy, and clarifies the boundary condition of job crafting as a moderator. It provides important theoretical foundations and practical guidance for managers, emphasizing the critical role of fostering employee proactivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Theoretical contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study constructs a multi-dimensional path theoretical framework by integrating the action mechanisms of paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and job crafting, enriching the research on the impact of leadership on team innovation performance. It reveals how paradoxical leadership motivates team innovation behavior through a direct path and explains the dual mediating and moderating roles of team efficacy and job-crafting behavior, thus providing a more complex and systematic perspective for theoretical research. Furthermore, this study extends the application scope of team efficacy theory. While team efficacy as a psychological state has been studied extensively, this study clarifies the mediating effect of paradoxical leadership and team innovation performance. This provides new theoretical support for applying efficacy theory to organizational behavior, thereby deepening the understanding of how efficacy theory drives internal team motivation and behavioral mechanisms [15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, this study contributes a novel perspective to job crafting and team behavior research by identifying job crafting as a key moderating factor in the relationship between leadership and team innovation performance. This finding addresses the existing gap in the literature concerning the impact pathways of job crafting. It reveals how employees proactively reshaping their work enhances the facilitative effects of leadership on team innovation capability and willingness [20]. It fills a research void regarding the synergistic influence of leadership styles and employees\u0026rsquo; proactive behavior on team performance. Previous research has often examined leadership and individual behaviors separately, whereas this study demonstrates how leadership promotes team innovation performance through indirect pathways by introducing the bridging mechanisms of team efficacy and job crafting. The integrated theoretical model constructed herein lays the foundation for future scholars to expand this research domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Practical contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides clear guidance for enterprise management practices that promote team innovation performance. It proposes a management intervention path centered on team efficacy and job crafting behavior by verifying the direct and indirect effects of paradoxical leadership on team behavior. This finding provides theoretical support for the incentive mechanism and optimization of management processes in practice, effectively improving the adaptability and participation of team members in innovation tasks, thus enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises in a dynamic environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt reveals the core role of team efficacy in team management, and provides managers with specific methods to motivate teams effectively. By studying the mediating role of team efficacy, this study points out that managers can enhance a team\u0026rsquo;s innovation and proactive behavior by enhancing its self-confidence and collective beliefs. This study provides practical suggestions for enterprises to build an efficient team culture and a basis for employees to find intrinsic motivation in team collaboration. It clarifies the importance of job crafting in improving a team\u0026rsquo;s overall effectiveness, especially regarding how to optimize work content and methods under the guidance of leadership. The results demonstrate that job crafting can improve a team\u0026rsquo;s innovation ability and support the realization of organizational goals through individual proactive behaviors. Therefore, companies can gain an advantage in market competition by encouraging employees to actively engage in job shaping and by ensuring that individual work patterns are closely aligned with organizational needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study also provides directions for new leadership training and company talent development. By revealing the role of paradoxical leadership in promoting team innovation performance, this study suggests that companies should strengthen their leadership development training for managers, especially when using team effectiveness incentive strategies and job-shaping tools. This will help improve managers\u0026rsquo; leadership effectiveness and promote the cultural transformation of the entire organization and the construction of an innovative atmosphere.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Limitations and future re\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003esear\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study has made certain contributions to both theoretical construction and practical enlightenment, it still has some limitations that need to be improved and expanded in subsequent research. The data collection in this study was mainly concentrated in specific regions and industrial backgrounds, which, to a certain extent, limited the ability to extrapolate the research conclusions. Organizational behavior is strongly influenced by cultural norms, industrial structures, and the economic environment. The relationship between paradoxical leadership, team efficacy, and job-crafting behavior in different contexts may be heterogeneous. Therefore, future research should conduct cross-context comparisons in different cultures, regions, and industries to test the robustness of the model and explore the possible moderating role of situational factors in it so as to enhance the universality and adaptability of the theoretical model. This study adopted a cross-sectional design that can only reveal the static correlation between variables, making it the identification of the evolution path and causal mechanism of variables in the time dimension difficult. The existing literature shows that the manifestation of leadership influence has a certain time delay, and the psychological state of the team and the behavior of its members are often gradually formed in the process of continuous interaction. Therefore, it is recommended that future research introduce a longitudinal design or follow-up surveys to systematically analyze the dynamic mechanism between leadership behavior, team perception, and innovation performance, and more comprehensively reveal the process logic behind organizational behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough all the variables selected in this study are theoretically supported, some variables that may have a key impact on actual organizational situations were inevitably omitted. For example, organizational culture, external environmental uncertainty, employee personality traits, and innovation support atmosphere may play important roles in employees\u0026rsquo; cognition, attitude, and the behavioral performance of the leadership style. These excluded factors may play mediating or moderating role in the research model. Future research can introduce multi-level variables into the theoretical construction to further enrich the explanatory power of the model and build a more systematic and comprehensive analytical framework. This study uses quantitative research methods to verify hypotheses. Although it has strong statistical validity in empirical analysis, it is difficult to extensively reveal the subjective experience and social interaction process behind organizational behavior. As highly complex social phenomena, organizational behavior and team innovation often cannot be fully captured by structured questionnaires. Therefore, future research can attempt to integrate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or case studies, to obtain a more detailed situational understanding and behavioral insights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to provide our appreciation and thanks to all the respondents in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo;contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJiaming Hu, MyeongCheol Choi and KyuHee Joo wrote the main manuscript text. Jiaming Hu was responsible for investigation, formal analysis and reseources. MyeongCheol Choi was responsible for supervision, investigation, ceptualization and methodology. KyuHee Joo prepared figures and table, was responsible for investigation and reseources. Hann Earl Kim was responsible for methodology and formal analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study according to Article 34 of Gachon University Institutional Review Board Standard Operating Guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no\u0026nbsp;competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2023S1A5A2A01082822)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublisher\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfzal, H. F., Khalid, F., Khan, H. N., \u0026amp; Riaz, H. (2025). Lead bold, creative fearless: The paradoxical leaders path to creative performance: The intervening role of psychological safety. \u003cem\u003ePakistan Social Sciences Review, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 423\u0026ndash;443. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2025(9-II)33\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhinful, A. A., Opoku Mensah, A., Koomson, S., Cobblah, C., Takyi, G., \u0026amp; Kwarteng, A. H. (2025). Achieving banking industry innovation performance using total quality management: An empirical study. \u003cem\u003eThe TQM Journal, 37\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1292\u0026ndash;1319. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2023-0327\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkhtar, N., \u0026amp; Riaz, A. (2024). The role of occupational self-efficacy as a mediator between paradoxical leadership and job crafting from the lens of proactive motivation theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Innovative Research in Management Sciences, 5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 22\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.62270/jirms.v5i2.72\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlexiou, A., Meinster, F. B., Khanagha, S., \u0026amp; Volberda, H. W. (2024). \u003cem\u003eUnlocking innovation in self‑managing teams: The power of leaders\u0026rsquo; paradox mindset in overcoming negative peer pressure\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807863 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAttah, R. U., Garba, B. M. P., Gil‑Ozoudeh, I., \u0026amp; Iwuanyanwu, O. (2024). \u003cem\u003eCross‑functional team dynamics in technology management: A comprehensive review of efficiency and innovation enhancement\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eEngineering Science \u0026amp; Technology Journal, 5\u003c/em\u003e(12), 3248\u0026ndash;3265. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i12.1756\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBackhaus, L., Reuber, A., Vogel, D., \u0026amp; Vogel, R. (2022). Giving sense about paradoxes: Paradoxical leadership in the public sector. \u003cem\u003ePublic Management Review, 24\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1478\u0026ndash;1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1906935\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review, 84\u003c/em\u003e(2), 191\u0026ndash;215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBatool, U., Raziq, M. M., \u0026amp; Sarwar, N. (2023). \u003cem\u003eThe paradox of paradoxical leadership: A multi‑level conceptualization\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review, 33\u003c/em\u003e(4), Article 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100983\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoemelburg, R., Zimmermann, A., \u0026amp; Palmi\u0026eacute;, M. (2023). How paradoxical leaders guide their followers to embrace paradox: Cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of paradox mindset development. \u003cem\u003eLong Range Planning, 56\u003c/em\u003e, Article 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2023.102319 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 83\u003c/em\u003e(2), 234\u0026ndash;246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Jong, J. P. J., \u0026amp; den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. \u003cem\u003eCreativity and Innovation Management, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFolger, J. P., Poole, M. S., \u0026amp; Stutman, R. K. (2024). \u003cem\u003eWorking through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations\u003c/em\u003e (10th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003381556 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGammel, J. H. (2020). \u003cem\u003eLeading followers and teams in innovation processes: An empirical investigation and extension of ambidextrous leadership\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\u0026auml;t M\u0026uuml;nchen). https://doi.org/10.5282/edoc.26807\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, X., Huang, K., Liu, J., Fan, W., V\u0026eacute;lez, N., Wu, Q., \u0026hellip; Wang, M. (2024). \u003cem\u003eEmbodied LLM agents learn to cooperate in organized teams\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint]. \u003cem\u003earXiv\u003c/em\u003e. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12482\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., \u0026amp; Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 87\u003c/em\u003e(5), 819\u0026ndash;832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHou, Z., \u0026amp; Wang, D. (2023). \u003cem\u003eParadoxical leadership in engineering management, uncertainty tolerance, and promotion job crafting\u003c/em\u003e [Conference paper]. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information, Control and Automation (ICICA 2022)\u003c/em\u003e. EAI. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.2-12-2022.2328032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIngusci, E., Spagnoli, P., Zito, M., Colombo, L., \u0026amp; Cortese, C. G. (2019). Seeking challenges, individual adaptability and career growth in the relationship between workload and contextual performance: A two-wave study. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020422\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaleel, A., Rabbani, S., \u0026amp; Sarmad, M. (2025). Unlocking the effects of joyous exploration and deprivation sensitivity on employees\u0026rsquo; job crafting behavior: A moderating and mediating mechanism. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development International, 30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 326\u0026ndash;344. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI‑11‑2023‑0412\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahn, S. (2024). Reinvent Yourself: Psychological Insights That Will Transform Your Work Life. Kogan Page Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, M. T., \u0026amp; Ullah, S. (2025). \u003cem\u003eBalancing innovation: The role of paradoxical leadership and ambidexterity in fostering team creativity\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Innovation Science\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS‑07‑2024‑0206\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, M. T., Ullah, S., Sami, A., Kukreti, M., \u0026amp; Shaukat, M. R. (2025). Cultivating a paradoxical mindset: Enhancing transformative learning through paradoxical leadership. \u003cem\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal, 46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 334\u0026ndash;350. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‑04‑2024‑0223\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKilic, E., \u0026amp; Kitapci, H. (2022). Cognitive job crafting: An intervening mechanism between intrinsic motivation and affective well‑being. \u003cem\u003eManagement Research Review, 46\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1043\u0026ndash;1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR‑08‑2021‑0605\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, M., \u0026amp; Beehr, T. A. (2020). Job crafting mediates how empowering leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; core self-evaluations predict favorable and unfavorable outcomes. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 126\u0026ndash;139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1697237\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, M., Mamgain, P., Pasumarti, S. S., \u0026amp; Singh, P. K. (2022). Organizational IT support and knowledge sharing behaviour affecting service innovation performance: Empirical evidence from the hospitality industry. \u003cem\u003eVINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 256\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-07-2021-0124\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, M., \u0026amp; Ye, H. (2021). Temporal leadership and bootlegging behavior of employees: The mediating effect of self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 633261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633261\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, C., Zhou, X., \u0026amp; Hou, D. E. (2024). Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: The roles of harmonious work passion and proactive personality. \u003cem\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal, 45\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1063\u0026ndash;1082. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‑10‑2023‑0600 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLisak, A., \u0026amp; Erez, M. (2023). Design thinking teams and team innovation performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00325-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, Z., Liu, X., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2021). How to solve the time dilemma? The influence of team temporal leadership on team innovation performance. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 12\u003c/em\u003e, Article 634133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634133\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026auml;kikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Antecedents of daily team job crafting. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 421\u0026ndash;433. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1289920\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMastrorilli, A., Santarpia, F. P., \u0026amp; Borgogni, L. (2024). Team collective efficacy as a mediator of coaching leadership effects on exhaustion: A multilevel investigation. \u003cem\u003eTeam Performance Management, 31\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 38\u0026ndash;62. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM‑03‑2024‑0029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeng, W., Xu, Z., Abuliezi, Z., Lyu, Y., \u0026amp; Zhang, Q. (2023). Paradoxical leadership, team adaptation and team performance: The mediating role of inclusive climate. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 14\u003c/em\u003e, Article 1052732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052732\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiao, G., Chen, G., \u0026amp; Yao, Y. (2024). Team pro-social rule breaking and team innovation performance: An information processing theory perspective. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 19\u003c/em\u003e(7), e0303800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303800\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNusraningrum, D., Rahmawati, A., Wider, W., Jiang, L., \u0026amp; Udang, L. N. (2024). Enhancing employee performance through motivation: The mediating roles of green work environments and engagement in Jakarta\u0026rsquo;s logistics sector. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sociology, 9\u003c/em\u003e, Article 1392229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1392229\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, S., \u0026amp; Park, S. (2023). Contextual antecedents of job crafting: Review and future research agenda. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Training and Development, 47\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 141\u0026ndash;165. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD‑06‑2021‑0071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurtul, T. (2019). Antecedents of better performing teams: Test of perceived team job crafting model (Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis). Middle East Technical University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRafiq, M., Farrukh, M., Attiq, S., Shahzad, F., \u0026amp; Khan, I. (2023). Linking job crafting, innovation performance, and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement. \u003cem\u003eWork, 75\u003c/em\u003e, 877\u0026ndash;886. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-211363\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRen, L., \u0026amp; Shen, H. (2024). The relationship between servant leadership and team innovation performance: Mediating effect of self‑efficacy. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon, 10\u003c/em\u003e(6), e27723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27723 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez‑S\u0026aacute;nchez, A. M., Hakanen, J., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2021). Building efficacy beliefs through team task engagement and past task performance in contemporary teams. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Research Quarterly, 24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 129\u0026ndash;142. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420924404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaleem, S., Humayun, S., Raziq, M. M., Iqbal, M. Z., \u0026amp; Ahmad, M. (2024). \u003cem\u003eProactive personality and performance in the hospitality industry firms: Mediating role of job crafting\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology, 43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2516\u0026ndash;2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04356-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoon, C. C., \u0026amp; Salamzadeh, Y. (2020). The impact of digital leadership competencies on virtual team effectiveness in MNC companies in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 8(2), 219-253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSu, W., \u0026amp; Hahn, J. (2025). Self‑leadership and psychological capital as mediators in the influence of leader motivating language on everyday innovative behavior. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Business Communication, 62\u003c/em\u003e(2), Article 23294884221119453. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221119453\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan, L., Hao, P., Gao, H., \u0026amp; Wojtczuk‑Turek, A. (2024). How does paradoxical leadership affect employee adaptive performance? A moderated mediation model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Change Management, 37\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1535\u0026ndash;1558. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2024-0152\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTims, M., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior, 80\u003c/em\u003e(1), 173\u0026ndash;186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTims, M., Twemlow, M., \u0026amp; Fong, C. Y. M. (2022). A state‑of‑the‑art overview of job‑crafting research: Current trends and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development International, 27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 54\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI‑08‑2021‑0216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurek, D., Klein, H. J., \u0026amp; Wojtczuk‑Turek, A. (2024). Overcoming organizational constraints: The role of organizational commitment and job crafting in relation to employee performance. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Management Journal, 42\u003c/em\u003e(6), 944\u0026ndash;956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWrzesniewski, A., \u0026amp; Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 26\u003c/em\u003e(2), 179\u0026ndash;201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, N., Chen, H., \u0026amp; Wang, X. H. F. (2024). \u003cem\u003eStealth innovation: The dance of paradoxical leadership behavior, leader trustworthiness, and psychological safety in fueling employee bootlegging behavior\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Management Journal, 43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 286\u0026ndash;296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2024.03.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2021).\u003cem\u003e Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impacts employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology, 40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1911\u0026ndash;1922. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, Y., Kim, H., Lu, Q., \u0026amp; Qu, H. (2025).\u003cem\u003e Effects of paradoxical leadership on Generation Y employees\u0026rsquo; voice behavior: Exploring the chain mediating role of employees\u0026rsquo; psychological safety and job crafting. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospitality Marketing \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2025.2478886\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., \u0026amp; Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 65\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1652\u0026ndash;1679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1265\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., \u0026amp; Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538\u0026ndash;566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZou, M., Liu, P., Wu, X., Zhou, W., Jin, Y., \u0026amp; Xu, M. (2023). Cognitive characteristics of an innovation team and collaborative innovation performance: The mediating role of cooperative behavior and the moderating role of team innovation efficacy. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 15\u003c/em\u003e(14), 10951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410951\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, Y., Cheng, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, Z., \u0026amp; Zhu, H. (2024). How does empowering leadership promote employee creativity? The sequential mediating mechanism of felt obligation for constructive change and job crafting. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior, 148\u003c/em\u003e, Article 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103955\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\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, Team Efficacy, Job Crafting, Team Innovation Performance, Social Cognitive Theory","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e In increasingly complex and paradoxical organizational environments, paradoxical leadership—a leadership style that integrates competing demands—has gradually become an important approach for fostering team innovation. Grounded in social cognitive and team dynamics theories, this study constructs and empirically tests a moderated mediation model to examine how paradoxical leadership promotes team innovation performance through team efficacy and the moderating role of job crafting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethod\u003c/strong\u003e This study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical regression analysis methods to conduct an empirical analysis of a sample of 344 employees from China, in order to verify the relationship between paradoxical leadership and team innovative performance, exploring the mediating role of team effectiveness and the moderating role of job crafting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e The results indicate that paradoxical leadership significantly enhances team efficacy and innovation performance. Team efficacy mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and innovation performance. In addition, job crafting strengthens the positive effect of paradoxical leadership on team efficacy and amplifies the impact of team efficacy on team innovation performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e This study reveals the pathways through which paradoxical leadership fosters team innovation, examines both psychological mechanisms and contextual boundary conditions, and offers new theoretical insights and practical implications for enhancing leadership effectiveness and promoting team innovation performance in Chinese organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial registration\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Unpacking the Paradox: How Paradoxical Leadership Drives Team Innovation through Efficacy and Job Crafting","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-11 16:14:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7698291/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":"7e8617fb-f005-48ba-9772-cbca0c894f46","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-08T02:38:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-11 16:14:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7698291","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7698291","identity":"rs-7698291","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}