ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment.

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 22 Oct 2024
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

This study delves into the intricate interplay among paradoxical leadership (PL), employees’ proactive work behaviour (PAB), and perceived psychological contract fulfilment (PPCF). PL, characterized by its simultaneous emphasis on apparently contradictory behaviours, has garnered attention due to its potential to foster innovation, adaptability, and creativity. The study’s main objective is to thoroughly explore the complexities of PL, its influence on PAB, and whether the PPCF serves as a mediator.

Methods

A survey was distributed to 338 hotel and travel agency employees to gather data. The data was analysed using structural equation modelling through a SmartPLS program.

Results

The results reveal a positive correlation between PL and PAB. Additionally, PPCF partially mediates this relationship, indicating its vital role in exploring the positive impact of PL on boosting proactive behaviours.

Conclusions

This research brings forth meaningful contributions to both theoretical and practical dimensions. Theoretically, it enhances our comprehension of how PL manifests in the distinctive landscape of the hospitality and tourism domain, substantiating its potential to drive proactive behaviours among employees. The mediation of PPCF enriches our grasp of the underlying mechanisms, accentuating the significance of maintaining harmonized and consistent leadership practices. From a practical vantage point, these findings offer valuable insights for hospitality and tourism establishments aspiring to optimize their leadership strategies for cultivating proactive work behaviour among their workforces.

Keywords

Paradoxical leadership; proactive behavior; hotel industry; tourism industry; psychological contract.

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The entire paper has been proofread; the research purpose and objectives were added and highlighted in the introduction section, the study variables were highlighted in the introduction section, the theoretical contributions is clearly articulated, the managerial suggestions was strengthening. A limitation and future study opportunity section was added at the end on the manuscript.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yuping Dai
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Marymagdaline Enow Mbi Tarkang Mary

1. Introduction

The tourism and hospitality sector has been significantly shocked by the COVID-19 pandemic, presenting a range of challenges for businesses and hotels due to decreased global mobility (Raki et al., 2021). In order to survive, firms and hotels have focused on short-term gains, which has sometimes resulted in questionable practices that put consumer well-being at risk (He and Harris, 2020). Providing innovative products and services to meet the diverse demands of customers is crucial for success in the highly competitive tourism and hospitality industry (Horng et al., 2016). Employee creativity and proactivity play a main significant key role in an organization’s competitive advantage, and therefore, companies should seek to increase employee proactivity to gain an edge (Horng et al., 2016). Saleem et al., (2023) found that job agility, reorganization, and heiproactiveands entail a proactive behavior from individuals, presenting significant opportunities for high performance in organizations. Callanan et al. (2017) emphasized that significant structural changes in organizational settings necessitate a relatively high level of employee contribution, knowledge, initiative, and proactivity. As a result, there is now a greater dependence on proactive employee behaviors (PAB) (Matsuo, 2022) in response to these changes.

In the hospitality and tourism business, which is both highly competitive and constantly changing, employees must display proactive work behavior to fulfill the evolving demands of customers and the industry (Wang and Yang, 2021). Proactive work behavior (PAB) involves taking initiative and engaging in self-starting actions to enhance work performance and contribute to a corporation’s success (Hou and Huang, 2021). This behavior includes anticipating, identifying, and acting on opportunities or challenges before being prompted or asked to do so (Bilal et al., 2021). Proactive employees exhibit characteristics such as taking responsibility, suggesting innovations, seeking feedback, and exceeding job requirements to achieve goals (Cui and Li, 2021). According to Bilal et al. (2021), employees who display proactive work behavior take the initiative to identify and address problems, propose innovative solutions, and actively seek opportunities for improvement. Wu et al. (2018) have conceded that proactive work behavior is advantageous for corporations as it leads to increased organizational effectiveness, innovation, and performance. ZHANG et al. (2022) found that PAB is associated with positive results such as enhanced job performance, creativity, job satisfaction, and career success. Proactive work behavior is particularly crucial in the hospitality and tourism business, where customer demands and market trends are constantly changing (Wang and Yang, 2021). Soomro et al. (2016) indicated that employees who exhibit proactive behavior can anticipate and respond to changing customer needs, identify service improvement opportunities, and further contribute to the corporation’s competitiveness and success.

PL is a style of leadership that involves interrelated yet seemingly competing behaviors to highlight competing workplace pressures over time and simultaneously (Volk et al., 2022). According to Zhang et al. (2021), PL has gained extensive consideration in recent years due to its effectiveness in managing complex environments and dealing with organizational paradoxes. Amason (1996) emphasized that leaders who practice PL integrate opposing behaviors rather than choosing one over the other to navigate contradictory demands. This leadership style requires leaders to balance competing priorities, perspectives and approaches to achieve desired outcomes (Derksen et al., 2019). Research indicates that PL can have positive consequences on various outcomes, including leaders’ task performance, adaptive performance of employees, and employee task performance (Chen et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Li and Ding, 2022). Derksen et al. (2019) point out that PL can enhance employee task performance by strengthening employees’ sense of responsibility, motivation, and engagement. In the hospitality and tourism industry, where managing competing demands, adaptability, and flexibility are essential, it can argue that PL may play a significant role in encouraging PAB among employees (Qiang et al., 2023). By balancing competing demands and embracing contradictions, leaders who practice PL can create an environment that encourages employees to take the initiative, think innovatively, and proactively contribute to the organization’s success (Zhang et al., 2022a). This may also enhance PPCF.

PPCF refers to the degree to which employees feel that their company appreciates their inputs and contributions and consequently prioritizes their well-being (Yu, 2022). When employees believe that their expectations are being met and that their employer values their contributions, they are more likely to exhibit proactive behaviour and engage in discretionary activities that have value to the organization (Topa et al., 2022). The psychological contract is an unwritten concept that describes employees’ expectations and beliefs about what they will receive from their employer in exchange for their contributions (Patrick, 2008). These expectations may include job security, opportunities for development and advancement, fair treatment, recognition, and a positive work environment (Wu and Chen, 2015). In the tourism and hospitality industry, perceived psychological contract fulfilment is particularly crucial because it plays a significant role in shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviours at the workplace (Yu, 2022), which can ultimately impact the quality of service provided to customers.

Based on what has been presented above, we can argue that paradoxical leaders strive to satisfy employees’ psychological contract expectations to motivate them to engage in proactive behaviors. Accordingly, the purposes of the study are to practically investigate 1) the relationship between PL and PAB, 2) the impact of PL on PPCF, 3) the correlation between PPCF and PAB, and the potential mediating role of PPCF in the relationship between PL and employee PAB in the hospitality and tourism business. Concepts from social cognitive theory, psychological contract theory, and social exchange theory (SET) propose that employees’ work behavior is shaped by their perceptions of the employment relationship and how well their organization fulfills its commitments. Therefore, social cognitive theory was adopted to justify the connection between PL and PAB, psychological contract theory was used to link PL and PPCF, and social exchange theory was used to determine the relationship between PPCF and PAB. How these theories are used will be explained in detail in the literature review section.

2. Theoretical concepts and development of hypotheses

2.1 PL and PAB

PL refers to a leadership style that focuses on skillfully managing the inherent paradoxes within leadership and/or organizations (Julmi, 2021). It is characterized by leader actions that appear to be in competition with each other yet are interconnected both concurrently and across time (Sparr et al., 2022). In other words, paradoxical leaders are able to balance competing demands and find creative solutions to complex problems. PL is envisioned as a developing viewpoint aimed at comprehending how leaders assist followers in navigating paradoxes (Zhang and Han, 2019). PL is a relatively new concept in leadership research, and it has attracted increasing attention in recent years. One of the key features of PL is handling paradoxes and tensions inherent in leadership and organizations by using seemingly competing yet interrelated behaviors to make choices that do justice to both sides of the coin. It can be used as a sense giving tool for fostering readiness for change and performance oriented towards change, and it involves the ability to enact these behaviors simultaneously and over time (Zhang et al., 2015; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Sparr et al., 2022), some of the paradoxes that paradoxical leaders may need to manage include the following: Balancing accountability with rapport: Leaders must find a equilibrium between upholding accountability and nurturing positive relationships. Prioritizing rapport without enforcing accountability can hinder achieving peak performance (Boemelburg et al., 2023). Balancing autonomy with monitoring: Leaders must allow their teams to have autonomy, yet they must also monitor their employees (Julmi, 2021). Balancing control with autonomy: Leaders needs to balance the need for control and direction with the need for empowerment and autonomy (Julmi, 2021).

The majority of studies on PL have concentrated on its favorable impact within organizations, leading to enhancements in various areas such as performance, creativity, commitment, competitiveness, workplace environment, and career success, as demonstrated by different researchers (Amason, 1996; Smith, 2014; Knight and Harvey, 2015; Knight and Paroutis, 2017; Derksen et al., 2019). Moreover, studies have demonstrated that PL yields favorable outcomes for employees, including enhanced work attitudes, heightened work engagement, improved work role performance, increased creativity, and more innovative behaviors, as documented by multiple researchers (Zhang et al., 2015, 2022a; Garg, 2016; FĂĽrstenberg et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). In essence, due to its effectiveness in navigating the complex environments faced by contemporary organizations, PL has widely been regarded as a potent leadership style (Zhang et al., 2015; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). Paradoxical leadership entails balancing five dimensions that integrate opposing behaviors, focusing on harmonizing competing demands rather than choosing between them (Zhang et al., 2015). Effective paradoxical leaders must blend self-centeredness with other centeredness, maintain a balance between distance and closeness, treat employees uniformly while allowing for individualization, enforce work requirements while allowing flexibility, and retain decision control while fostering autonomy (Stynen and Semeijn, 2023). These dimensions encompass central aspects such as shared leadership, hierarchical differences, harmony between uniformity and individuality, and the balance between control and empowerment in the workplace (Hahn and Knight, 2021). The minority of research on PL has studied its influence on employee Proactive Work Behavior (PAB). In our paper, we suggest a positive relationship between PL and PAB based on its beneficial impact on different aspects of employees work attitudes and performance.

PAB can be defined as “the act of taking initiative to improve current circumstances or create new ones, challenging the status quo instead of passively adapting to present conditions (Bilal et al., 2021). It encompasses self-starting work behavior, implementing changes, and taking action to achieve goals (Parker et al., 2010). Proactive behavior refers to an employee taking initiative in bringing about self-directed and future-focused changes in their work environment or job responsibilities (Cui and Li, 2021). According to this definition, proactive behavior is characterized by three characteristics: “self-initiation, future focus, and change orientation”. Grant and Ashford (2008) illustrated that when employees are proactive at work, they Think, observe, strategize, fore-cast, and proactively act. According to Urbach (Urbach et al., 2021), the PABs are differentiated by various types such as personal initiative, taking charge, voice, and individual innovation. Essentially, research has consistently revealed significant correlations between PABs and individual characteristics, such as cognitive ability and self-efficacy, as well as job characteristics, such as job control, and organizational factors, such as leadership that promotes transformation and an organizational environment that encourages change and forgives mistake (Fay and Hüttges, 2017; Strauss et al., 2017; Zacher et al., 2019).

As mentioned previously, there is no studies that examined a direct relationship between PL and PAB in the field of tourism and hospitality, but there are some studies that tested the rapport between PL and PAB indirectly and in other fields other than tourism and hospitality. some of the relevant papers are as follows. Sparr et al. (2022) have proposed that PL improves employee task performance by strengthening their proactivity. A study by Kundi et al. (2023) have indicated that PL exerts both immediate and mediated impacts on employee performance. This encompasses job performance within designated roles, alongside supplementary behaviors like innovative work conduct and expressing opinions. These effects are predominantly channeled through employee work engagement. A study by He and Yun (2022) has suggested that PL significantly contributes to positive outcomes in terms of unethical pro-supervisor behavior. The connection between PL and immoral pro-supervisor actions is partly intermediated by the supervisor-subordinate dynamic.

According to social cognitive theory, the behavioral patterns of leaders, directly impact how employees assess situations and form expectations, leading them to identify and support their leaders. Moreover, the emotional states and attitudes of leaders have a significant effect on the job performance of employees (Volk et al., 2022). PL influences how PAB through various aspects such as inclusivity and equity, balanced relationships, uniformity with flexibility, clarity with leeway, and control with autonomy, fostering increased proactive involvement (Qiang et al., 2023). Drawing from the social cognitive theory, it is suggested that employees often imitate the actions of their leaders (Bandura, 1978). Therefore, when leaders emphasize and demonstrate empathy and thoughtfulness, it can serve as a stimulant, motivating employees to engage proactively in their tasks (Hoch et al., 2018).

Based on what was previously mentioned, this study could provide evidence that demonstrates the link between PL and PAB. Accordingly, researchers would like to propose that

H1.

PL is positively associated with PAB.

2.2 PL and PPCF

Psychological contract theory is built upon the principles of social exchange theory, which is a social psychological concept that explains how individuals engage in social interactions based on mutual benefits and obligations (Aranda et al., 2018). Psychological contract fulfilment encompasses an individual’s personal convictions regarding the mutual commitments and advantages forged within a give-and-take association, such as employment within an organizational context (Topa et al., 2022; Hammouri et al., 2022; Rodwell et al., 2015). According to Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2019), it involves shared beliefs, perceptions, and implicit obligations between an employer and an employee, which shape the practicality of the work to be performed and establish the dynamics of the relationship. Hafez Mahmoud Gharib and Ahmed Khairy (2019) declared that the psychological contract is an informal agreement that is not typically documented in writing. Its contents and obligations are fulfilled through employees’ interactions with their organization. Ultimately, psychological contract fulfilment is a crucial factor in the employee-employer relationship, which can influence the quality of the relationship and the employee’s outcomes.

The available literature indicates that there is a dearth of research on the association between PL and PPCF in the tourism and hospitality domain. Nevertheless, some relevant studies suggest that there could be an indirect correlation between these two constructs. For instance, Huertas-Valdivia et al. (2019) investigated the impact of various leadership styles on the job performance of hospitality employees and observed that PL exhibited a positive correlation with employees’ psychological empowerment. Although this research did not directly explore the relationship between PL and PPCF, it implies that PL could potentially influence employees’ attitudes and perceptions in a favourable manner. The findings of a study by He and Yun (2022) emphasized that PL has a direct positive effect on Employee Loyalty, and this effect is partially explained by the role of job satisfaction in mediating the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee loyalty. While this study did not investigate the link between PL and PPCF directly, being Employee loyalty can be considered a component of psychological contract fulfilment as explained by Hart and Thompson (2007) may imply that there is an indirect correlation between PL and PPCF. Oorschot et al. (2021) suggest that leaders, and leadership styles in particular, have the ability to impact the psychological contracts of employees. Given that PL is widely recognized as an effective style of leadership styles navigating the complex environments encountered by modern organizations (Zhang et al., 2021), this could suggest a potential correlation between PL and PPCF.

Considering the significance of both PL and PPCF in the service industry, it would be beneficial to explore the potential relationship between these constructs in the context of tourism and hospitality. The tourism and hospitality sector are renowned for its exceptional quality of service and consumer satisfaction, and effective leadership is crucial for managing employee expectations and obligations in this industry. Therefore, research in this field could shed light on the role of PL in enhancing PPCF in tourism and hospitality, which could contribute to improving job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance in this sector.

As previously noted, there is a gap in research regarding the specific relationship between PL and PPCF in the tourism and hospitality industry. Social Exchange Theory could be applied to address this gap. According to Ahmad et al. (2023), this theory posits that individuals are motivated by their expectations of rewards and outcomes. In the context of PL and PPCF in tourism and hospitality, this theory could be used to examine how PL behaviours influence employee expectations of rewards and outcomes, and how these expectations impact PPCF. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed

H2.

PL is positively associated with PPCF.

2.3 PPCF and PAB

The search results reveal that there is a scarcity of research that explicitly investigates the connection PPCF and PAB within the tourism and hospitality industry. Nonetheless, a very few studies have indirectly highlighted the relationship between PPCF and work behaviour more broadly, as well as in other sectors. Here are some relevant academic papers:

One study by Noble-Nkrumah et al. (2022) investigated the interplay between job autonomy and employee trust in relation to the connection between PPCF and work behaviour within international non-governmental organizations. The research revealed a favourable correlation between PPCF and work behaviour, with job autonomy and employee trust functioning as moderators in enhancing this positive association. According to Hetet et al. (2023) and Bilal et al. (2021), work behaviour can be categorized as either in-role behaviour or extra-role behaviour, with proactive work behaviour falling under the latter category. Proactive work behaviour entails self-initiated and forward-looking actions aimed at enhancing existing conditions or establishing new ones. With this in mind, it can be deduced that there exists an indirectly positive correlation between PPCF and proactive PAB.

Another study by Yu (2022) investigated the effects of PPCF on employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviours (specifically work engagement, innate motivation, and emotional commitment) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that psychological contract fulfilment positively influenced employees’ work behaviour during the pandemic. While this study does not directly refer to the relationship between PPCF and PAB, it may be concluded that psychological contract fulfilment positively influences proactive work behaviour, given that proactive work behaviour is a specific type of work behaviour.

Social exchange theory (SET), explains the significance of reciprocity in relationships, highlighting that employees tend to reciprocate favourable actions through Positive Psychological Contract Fulfilment (PPCF) with positive work behaviour, and vice versa (Blau, 2017). Consequently, as employers increase PPCF, employees are more likely to respond with positive work behaviour (Noble-Nkrumah et al. 2022). For example, employees might reciprocate well-structured welfare packages and strong career support from employers by enhancing their commitment to the organization through improved in-role performance. Therefore, while there may not be specific studies directly examining the relationship between PPCF and PAB in the tourism and hospitality business, the existing research attempts to bridge the gap and explore the relationship between PPCF and PAB more comprehensively. These points lead to the following hypothesis:

H3.

PPCF is positively associated with PAB.

2.4 PPCF as a mediator in the relationship between PL and PAB

Prior research within the tourism and hospitality sector has not delved into the interplay among Positive Psychological Contract Fulfilment (PPCF), Paradoxical Leadership (PL), and Proactive Work Behaviour (PAB). However, by considering the dynamics of PL, PAB, and PPCF, the relationship between PL and employees’ PAB can be better understood with the mediating role of PPCF. Paradoxical Leadership can yield both positive and negative effects on employee conduct. While it can inspire employees to embrace ambiguity, think critically, and challenge conventions, thus fostering PAB, its contradictory nature can also introduce tension and confusion. In this context, PPCF acts as a mediator: when employees perceive that their organization upholds the terms of their psychological contract, it cultivates trust and reciprocity, bolstering their commitment and motivation for proactive behaviors. Consequently, heightened levels of PPCF enhance the positive association between PL and PAB, elucidating how PL influences employee behavior and promotes proactive work engagement. By introducing PPCF as a mediating factor between PL and PAB, a more comprehensive understanding emerges regarding how leadership practices shape employees’ proactive work behaviors, underscoring the significance of organizational fulfillment of psychological contracts in fostering favorable employee outcomes. This framework suggests a potential hypothesis for further exploration.

H4.

PPCF mediates the association between PL and PAB.

Based on a review of previous literature and the study hypotheses that were proposed, a model for the study was designed, as shown in Figure 1.

c13cbf3a-6d65-4101-aa02-50ec38c9418c_figure1.gif

Figure 1. The proposed research framework.

The figure shows the study hypotheses: H1. Paradoxical Leadership (PL) is positively associated with Employee Proactive Work Behavior (PAB); H2. PL is positively associated with Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PPCF); H3. PPCF is positively associated with PAB; H4. PPCF mediates the association between PL and PAB.

3. Method

3.1 Participants and data collection

To examine hypotheses, we gathered data from employees of hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh and Tourism companies and travel agencies in Cairo, Egypt, using a questionnaire tool. Because they had sufficient understanding to answer the survey questions, employees with at least 3-years of experience were qualified to participate. We instructed our postgraduate colleagues enrolled in our colleges and working in the study’s sample hotels and companies to connect with their HRMs to help us complete the questionnaire. We conducted “multi-wave and multi-source surveys” using the questionnaires, which reduced typical technique bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). A time-lagged study process was operated, with two data waves collected from our sample employees during two-month intervals. Data were assembled from February to April 2023, performing “convenience sampling and drop-and-collect” methods. Employees measured paradoxical leadership (PL) and demographic data in the first wave survey. The second was conducted one months later, and the Psychological Contract Fulfilment (PPCF) and employee proactive work behaviour (PAB) variables were measured. In both two waves of surveys, 500 questionnaire forms were distributed. After eliminating the incompetent responses, 338 were considered, with an efficient reply rate of 67.6%. The study sample consisted of 62 females (18.3%) and 276 males (81.7%). The participants’ ages ranged mostly between 24 and 52. The full set of data is available on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/records/11400950) and is freely available for non-commercial users (Zenodo, 2023).

3.2 Measures

The literature was consulted and used to create questionnaires for all variables. All variables were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. The 22 items suggested by Zhang et al. (2015) were used to operationalize the PL variable. The PL scale items are broken down into five dimensions, 5-items for each of “Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization,” “Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness,” and 4-items for each of “Maintaining decision control while allowing for autonomy,” “Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility,” and “Maintaining both distance and closeness.” The PAB was measured by a 13-item suggested by Parker and Collins (2010) distributed on four dimensions; 3 items for each of “Taking charge,” “Problem prevention,” and “Individual innovation,” and four items for “Voice.” For the PPCF, seven items were used from the study of Tseng and Wu (2017). Additionally, to increase their clarity and comprehension, the survey questions were transcriptions and edited. Nineteen individuals, including nine academics and ten business executives, tested the validity of the survey to verify its reliability. There was no alteration made to the survey’s content during these procedures.

3.3 Data Analysis

Partial least squares (PLS) were used by operating the smartPLS version 4.0 (https://www.smartpls.com/) to perform structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the suggested model (the software offer a trail free full version for one month). The PLS technique is fitting when the main investigation’s aim is to foresee one or more tested variables rather than to validate a formerly established theoretical model (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore, this method is suitable for the current study because it tests relationships between the PL and PAB, considering the mediating effect of the PPCF. Additionally, the PLS is a productive tool across a broader range of sample sizes, and also it helps to construct a more complex and advanced model with fewer data constraints (Hair et al., 2011). The PLS-SEM processing, according to Leguina (2015), passes across two steps, namely, (2) measurement modelling or outer model assessment and (1) structural modelling or inner model assessment.

4. The Results

4.1 Assessment of outer model

The measuring model assesses the “convergent validity” (CV) and “discriminant validity” (DV) to determine the quality of the data. The CV evaluates the connections between the study’s indicators by performing “Cronbach’s alpha” and must exceed the threshold of 0.50 (Leontitsis and Pagge, 2007), “composite reliability (CR)”, which is greater than 0.60 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), “Average Variance Extracted” (AVE), which should not be less than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2011), and “factor loading”, also, preferably greater than 0.50 (Afthanorhan, 2013) as assessment standards. Additionally, DV claims that when using various methods to measure other factors, the measured results must be distinguishable. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), If a factor’s AVE is greater than the association between that factor and other factors in the suggested model, the factor meets the statistical requirements for “discriminant validity.” In addition, a number of scholars evaluated the “Heterotrait-Monotriat” ratio of correlation (HTMT) to determine the “discriminant validity” in response to the many criticisms made of “Fornell and Lacker’s criterion” (Gold et al., 2001).

Table 1’s CV values display that every specified minimum and/or maximum level was accepted, proving the validity of the proposed outer model. Also, the values of AVE and HTMT, which are portrayed in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively, also met the recommended norms, proving that their “discriminant validity” is adequate. Also, Table 2 shows that “an item’s loading within its factors is greater than any cross-loadings with other factors, guaranteeing the DV”.

Table 1. Validity metrics.

Loadingsa.C.R.AVE.
Paradoxical leadership (PL)0.9520.9570.501
“Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization” (UI)0.8820.9140.680
PL10.768
PL20.840
PL30.846
PL40.811
PL50.854
“Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness” (SOC)0.8660.9040.653
PL60.764
PL70.847
PL80.856
PL90.813
PL100.757
“Maintaining decision control while allowing for autonomy” (DCA)0.8040.8720.630
PL110.743
PL120.811
PL130.807
PL140.812
“Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility” (WRF)0.8550.9020.697
PL150.791
PL160.850
PL170.848
PL180.849
“Maintaining both distance and closeness” (DC)0.8700.9110.720
PL190.843
PL200.822
PL210.855
PL220.873
Proactive Behavior (PAB)0.9210.9320.514
“Taking Charge” (TC)0.8680.9190.791
PAB10.897
PAB20.885
PAB30.885
“Problem Prevention” (PP)0.8540.9110.774
PAB40.873
PAB50.888
PAB50.878
“Individual Innovation” (II)0.7690.8680.689
PAB70.726
PAB80.895
PAB90.860
“Employee Voice” (EV)0.8620.9070.709
PAB100.865
PAB110.857
PAB120.878
PAB130.763
“Perceived psychological contract fulfillment” (PPCF)0.9070.9260.643
PPCF10.809
PPCF20.798
PPCF30.797
PPCF40.810
PPCF50.788
PPCF60.821
PPCF70.788

Table 2. loadings and Cross-loadings.

UISOCDCAWRFDCTCPPIIEVPPCF
PL_10.7680.5920.5880.5520.5730.3570.2940.4180.3960.515
PL_20.8400.6400.5750.6040.6310.4200.2860.3580.3460.582
PL_30.8460.5680.5670.4670.4440.3380.3610.3600.3150.591
PL_40.8110.6580.5070.5090.4650.4030.3330.3290.3110.578
PL_50.8540.6460.5950.5200.5580.3690.3320.3400.3540.612
PL_60.6350.7640.5300.4340.5590.4070.1880.2810.1980.484
PL_70.6700.8470.6150.5530.5820.4890.3360.3780.3540.542
PL_80.5780.8560.5880.5530.5290.4610.3110.3340.3100.471
PL_90.5480.8130.6060.5780.4940.4410.3500.3720.3270.475
PL_100.6160.7570.5930.5390.4970.4130.3440.3620.2730.454
PL_110.5630.5680.7430.4220.4620.2980.2960.2780.3040.365
PL_120.5500.6010.8110.5020.5470.3800.3800.3350.3330.394
PL_130.4820.5640.8070.3990.5840.3370.2110.1670.1750.387
PL_140.5860.5740.8120.5500.6720.4450.2890.2000.2480.489
PL_150.5280.4850.5070.7910.5030.4120.4010.3330.3120.467
PL_160.5350.6090.4610.8500.4860.5640.5080.3960.3530.508
PL_170.5170.5520.5380.8480.5690.5470.4450.3730.3640.519
PL_180.5770.5520.4780.8490.5990.5850.4600.4060.3960.522
PL_190.5570.5160.5800.5260.8430.4150.1910.2130.2010.332
PL_200.5090.5380.5710.5980.8220.4170.2540.1950.1900.405
PL_210.5840.5830.6430.5730.8550.4720.2410.2290.2800.438
PL_220.5580.5970.6350.4980.8730.4390.2530.3140.2810.413
PAB_10.4350.5020.4500.5840.5030.8970.5720.5250.4710.565
PAB_20.3630.4470.3370.5050.4110.8850.5370.5410.4220.474
PAB_30.4250.5130.4480.6010.4570.8850.5850.4560.4430.527
PAB_40.3590.3210.3180.4580.2360.5210.8730.6130.5260.479
PAB_50.3340.3630.2930.5130.2300.6080.8880.5970.5000.517
PAB_60.3320.3160.3740.4620.2670.5450.8780.5680.4420.456
PAB_70.3230.3410.3260.4200.2350.4940.6830.7260.3970.375
PAB_80.4230.4030.2810.4020.2710.4980.5180.8950.6350.439
PAB_90.3380.3180.1620.3030.1910.4270.4840.8600.5990.356
PAB_100.3990.3260.2400.3300.2530.4380.4350.5970.8650.397
PAB_110.3240.2840.3000.3380.2040.4010.4650.5830.8570.351
PAB_120.3660.3020.3280.3960.2150.3860.4970.5410.8780.403
PAB_130.3190.3130.2570.3770.2780.4650.4790.4980.7630.405
PPCF_10.6230.5310.5030.4960.4760.4340.4350.4340.4460.809
PPCF_20.5810.4870.4340.5110.4330.3850.3860.3810.3860.798
PPCF_30.5380.4160.3080.4320.2210.3970.3950.3540.3630.797
PPCF_40.5590.4430.3240.4210.2980.4690.5190.4070.3980.810
PPCF_50.6500.4670.4190.4750.3280.4410.4650.3960.3620.788
PPCF_60.5250.5460.4010.4310.3920.5080.3760.3100.2570.821
PPCF_70.4410.4730.4850.6040.4480.6460.5030.3530.3660.788

Table 3. “Fornell and Larcker criterion” scores.

SOCWRFIIDCDCAPPCFPPTCUIEV
“Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness” (SOC)0.808
“Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility” (WRF)0.6590.835
“Individual innovation” (II)0.4280.4520.830
“Maintaining both distance and closeness” (DC)0.6590.6470.2810.848
“Maintaining decision control while allowing for autonomy” (DCA)0.7270.5940.3090.7170.794
“Perceived psychological contract fulfillment” (PPCF)0.6010.6040.4720.4690.5180.802
“Problem prevention” (PP)0.3790.5440.6740.2770.3720.5510.880
“Taking charge” (TC)0.5480.6340.5700.5140.4630.5880.6350.889
“Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization” (UI)0.7540.6460.4380.6510.6880.6990.3890.4590.824
“Employee Voice” (EV)0.3640.4280.6600.2820.3340.4620.5570.5010.4190.842

Table 4. HTMT values.

SOCWRFIIDCDCAPPCFPPTCUIEV
“Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness” (SOC)
“Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility” (WRF)0.765
“Individual innovation” (II)0.5240.558
“Maintaining both distance and closeness” (DC)0.7590.7500.343
“Maintaining decision control while allowing for autonomy” (DCA)0.8710.7130.3950.852
“Perceived psychological contract fulfillment” (PPCF)0.6760.6810.5620.5190.597
“Problem prevention” (PP)0.4400.6350.8380.3220.4490.622
“Taking charge” (TC)0.6310.7330.7000.5910.5510.6580.737
“Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization” (UI)0.8630.7420.5310.7400.8160.7800.4490.523
“Employee Voice” (EV)0.4200.4980.8070.3250.4020.5200.6490.5810.480

4.2 Hypotheses evaluation

The “variance inflation factor” (VIF) is utilised in this study to examine the collinearity regards to ascertain the presence of collinearity issues among variables and to stop the impact of variables on the offered model’s contribution. According to Hair et al. (2011), reducing multicollinearity is unnecessary for VIF values under 5. Additionally, the “coefficient of determination” (R2) and “Stone-Geisser’s” (Q2) were operated to gauge how satisfactorily the regression model explained the data. R2 results of 0.20 are regarded as adequate level in behavioural studies (Hair et al., 2011). The Q2 scores also met the suggested norm value of 0.0 (Hair et al., 2014). The VIF, R2, and Q2 findings are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. VIF, R2, and Q2 outcomes.

ElementVIF valueElementVIF valueElementVIF valueElementVIF valueElementVIF value
PL_11.835PL_101.640PL_192.084PAB_62.153PPCF_22.327
PL_22.223PL_111.627PL_201.901PAB_71.262PPCF_32.234
PL_32.394PL_121.832PL_212.209PAB_82.443PPCF_42.512
PL_42.188PL_131.978PL_222.442PAB_92.276PPCF_52.130
PL_52.660PL_141.970PAB_12.341PAB_102.350PPCF_62.405
PL_61.699PL_151.690PAB_22.228PAB_112.512PPCF_72.096
PL_72.294PL_162.105PAB_32.230PAB_122.510
PL_82.675PL_172.068PAB_42.012PAB_131.624
PL_92.194PL_182.054PAB_52.182PPCF_12.248
Proactive behavior (PAB)R20.430Q20.217
“Perceived psychological contract fulfillment” (PPCF)R20.463Q20.292

Unlike “covariance-based structural equation modelling” (CBSEM), the PLS approach lacks a range of statistical parameters for validating models, such as X2 and other indicators of model fit (Henseler and Sarstedt, 2013). To solve this problem, “Goodness of Fit” (GoF) has been proposed as a successful model validation technique (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). According to Mital et al. (2018) and Tenenhaus et al. (2005), the GoF can be calculated by taking the value of the square root of the average variance extracted multiplied by the R square value.

As per Tenenhaus et al. (2005), GoF scores of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.36, respectively, denote modest, medium, and high GoF. The GoF value for the model constructed in this study is 0.558, indicating a notably high GoF index. The “Standardised Root Mean Square Residual” (SRMR), which compares variances in observed correlations, was used to further assess the model’s validity. Model fit is considered acceptable when the SRMR value is less than 0.1 (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The proposed model’s SRMR value is 0.095, which indicates a satisfied model fit.

Upon validating both the external and internal models, the study progressed to judge the formulated hypotheses. Utilizing SmartPLS v.4, a bootstrapping process with 5000 iterations was conducted to calculate (β) the regression weights, t-scores, and P-values associated with the direct, the indirect, and the mediating paths. The analysis encompassed four main hypotheses, comprising of 3 direct hypotheses and 1 mediating hypothesis, as presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Hypotheses evaluation (inner model outcomes).

HypothesesβtpDecision
Direct Paths
H1- PS âž” PAB0.2933.3880.001Sustained
H2- PL âž” PPCF0.68013.3280.000Sustained
H3- PPCF âž” PAB0.4205.6370.000Sustained
Indirect mediating Paths
H4- PL âž” PPCF âž” PAB0.2864.8000.000Sustained

Data portrayed in Table 6 and Figure 2 demonstrated that the PL has a positive significant influence on PAB (β = 0.293, t = 3.388, p<.001) and PPCF (β = 0.680, t = 13.328, p< .001), confirming H1 and H2. The results further supported H3 by showing that the PPCF variable positively influenced PAB at β= 0.420, t=5.637, and p.001. Furthermore, at β= 0.286, t = 4.800, and p< .001, the PPCF variable mediated the link between PL and PAB, supporting H4.

c13cbf3a-6d65-4101-aa02-50ec38c9418c_figure2.gif

Figure 2. The study tested model.

Note: UI ➔ “Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization”; SOC ➔ “Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness”; DCA ➔ “Maintaining decision control while allowing for autonomy”; WRF ➔ “Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility”; DC ➔ “Maintaining both distance and closeness”.

5. Discussion & Implications

This study endeavors to answer the call for more investigations on paradoxical leadership in the contemporary workplace and demonstrate how it influences proactive and innovative work behavior (Waldman and Bowen, 2016; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022b). Our research operates data collected from the hospitality and tourism industry in Egypt, a developing country, to 1) investigate the relationship between PL and PAB; 2) study the role of PL on PPCF; 3) analyze the correlation between PPCF and PAB; and explore the potential mediating role of PPCF in the relationship between PL and employee PAB in the hospitality and tourism industry. As a result, our empirical investigation effectively achieved its goals and aims, contributing to the ongoing discourse in paradoxical leadership literature and advancing theoretical frameworks through the introduced model. The study’s findings demonstrated a positive impact of PL on PAB (H1). Furthermore, this leadership style bolstered employee task performance by fostering greater proactivity (Sparr et al., 2022). Most studies on paradoxical leadership have concentrated on its favorable impact on organizations by enhancing performance, creativity, commitment, competitiveness, workplace environment, and career success (Amason, 1996; Smith, 2014; Knight and Harvey, 2015; Knight and Paroutis, 2017; Derksen et al., 2019). Moreover, numerous empirical studies within the domain of tourism and hospitality have explored the beneficial effects of paradoxical leadership on employees, encompassing aspects such as work attitudes, engagement, job performance, creativity, and innovative behavior (Zhang et al., 2015, 2021; Garg, 2016; Fürstenberg et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Accordingly, PL succeeded in positively influencing the PAB.

Similarly, the study discovered that PL positively affects PPCF (H2). In general, paradoxical leader behaviors seek to accommodate all contradictions to achieve balance within the hotel’s work environment, which leads to satisfaction with the expected terms of the employees’ psychological contract (Oorschot et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). This is also supported by the findings of Ebrahimi et al. (2019) study, which showed that paradoxical leadership could potentially influence employees’ attitudes and perceptions in a favourable manner.

Likewise, the results proved that the PPCF positively affected PAB (H3). Consistent with this result, the study of Yu (2022) revealed that perceived psychological contract fulfillment affects employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (i.e., work engagement, intrinsic motivation, and affective commitment) (Yu, 2022). In other contexts, studies indicated that psychological contract breach leads employees to reduce their proactive behaviours and diminish both prosocial and proactive work behaviours (ZHAO et al., 2007; Bal et al., 2011).

One of the primaries aims of our study was to investigate how perceived psychological contract fulfillment (PPCF) acts as a mediator between paradoxical leadership (PL) and proactive employee behavior (PAB). The study’s results indicate that PPCF effectively mediated the relationship between PL and PAB (H4). The mediation relationship was a result of the significant direct correlation between the study variables that proved the significant link between PL, EWB, and PPCF and between PPCF and EWB.

6. Conclusion

Employing the PLS-SEM methodology, this article has highlighted the influence of PL on PAB, with a specific emphasis on the intermediary functions of PPCF. The results of this study suggest that the connection between paradoxical leadership and proactive employee behavior in the hospitality and tourism sector is partially mediated by perceived psychological contract fulfillment. Paradoxical leadership has a positive influence on perceived psychological contract fulfillment, which in turn affects employee proactive behavior. A positive correlation has been identified between perceived psychological contract fulfillment and proactive employee behavior within the hotel and tourism industry. Paradoxical leadership can have implications for hospitality and tourism industry employees, and some behaviors that help hotels and tourism businesses compete may have paradoxical implications for employees. It is essential to acknowledge that the precise outcomes and implications regarding the intermediary function of perceived psychological contract fulfillment within the interplay of paradoxical leadership and proactive employee work behavior may necessitate additional research and exploration, especially within the context of the hospitality and tourism industry.

7. Theoretical and practical implications

The theoretical implications of this study contribute significantly to the existing literature on paradoxical leadership by providing a deeper understanding of its effects on proactive and innovative work behavior. The research highlights the positive relationship between paradoxical leadership (PL) and proactive employee behavior (PAB), as well as the mediating role of perceived psychological contract fulfillment (PPCF) in this relationship. By integrating these concepts, the study advances theoretical frameworks related to paradoxical leadership and its influence on employee attitudes and behaviors, thereby enriching the discourse on how leaders can effectively navigate contradictions within the workplace. Furthermore, the findings support the notion that paradoxical leadership can enhance employee adaptability and performance by fostering a balanced approach that accommodates competing demands, which is essential in today’s dynamic work environments.

From a practical standpoint, the study offers valuable insights for management within the hospitality and tourism industry. It emphasizes the importance of fostering an environment where perceived psychological contract fulfillment is prioritized, as this can enhance proactive work behavior among employees. Leaders are encouraged to adopt paradoxical leadership practices that strike a balance between control and empowerment, thereby creating a supportive atmosphere that encourages employees to voice their opinions and engage proactively. Additionally, the findings suggest that organizations should implement training and development programs to cultivate leaders who can effectively manage paradoxes and contradictions, ultimately leading to improved employee outcomes and organizational performance. By focusing on these practical implications, organizations can better navigate the complexities of modern workplaces and leverage the benefits of paradoxical leadership to drive innovation and adaptability.

8. Limitations and future studies

The study was conducted in a specific context (hospitality and tourism industry in Egypt). The generalizability of the findings to other industries or cultural contexts remains to be tested. Cross-cultural comparisons would be valuable to understand the boundary conditions of the proposed relationships. The study’s reliance on data from a specific industry in a developing country may restrict the breadth of the conclusions drawn, emphasizing the need for further research with more diverse samples.

It is essential to acknowledge that the precise outcomes and implications regarding the intermediary function of perceived psychological contract fulfillment within the interplay of paradoxical leadership and proactive employee work behavior may necessitate additional research and exploration, especially within the context of the hospitality and tourism industry. Comparative studies across different countries or regions could shed light on how cultural factors influence the effectiveness of paradoxical leadership. Investigating potential moderating variables that could influence the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee outcomes would enhance the understanding of these dynamics further.

Ethics and consent

“Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research Ethical Committee, King Faisal University (project number: grantA167, date of approval: 25 April 2022)”.

“Informed Consent Statement: A written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study”. This was done by accepting the following statement at the beginning of the data collection process “I agree to take part in this study, and understand that my participation is voluntary, that I can choose not to participate in part or all of the project, and that I can withdraw at any stage of the project without being penalized or disadvantaged in any way”.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Jun 2024
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Elshaer I, Azazz AMS, Abdulaziz TA and Fayyad S. Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:622 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.144963.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 22 Oct 2024
Revised
Views
3
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Feb 2025
Adnan Riaz, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 3
Introduction
Please provide more clarification about a gap in the study. Also, tell the reader which approach is "gap spotting" or "problematization." The introduction lacks theoretical contribution and should be written throughout this section. What are the research objectives?? ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Riaz A. Reviewer Report For: Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:622 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172307.r345315)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
4
Cite
Reviewer Report 11 Nov 2024
Yuping Dai, Hebei North University (Ringgold ID: 261761), Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China;  City University of Macau, Taipa, Macao 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 4
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript again and offer the following suggestions for improvement:
1. To maintain alignment with the title and abstract, I would recommend adjusting the keywords to reflect the specific focus of your study. Specifically, could ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Dai Y. Reviewer Report For: Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:622 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172307.r333834)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 11 Jun 2024
Views
22
Cite
Reviewer Report 05 Sep 2024
Marymagdaline Enow Mbi Tarkang Mary, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Turkey 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 22
Comment For F100000
Dear Editor, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript titled " Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment". I will also like to thank you for your ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Tarkang Mary MEM. Reviewer Report For: Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:622 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158835.r310527)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 22 Oct 2024
    Ibrahim Elshaer, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, 380, Saudi Arabia
    22 Oct 2024
    Author Response
    1- We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have stated the research purpose and objectives of the study in the introduction section

    2- According to your advice, the entire paper ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 22 Oct 2024
    Ibrahim Elshaer, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, 380, Saudi Arabia
    22 Oct 2024
    Author Response
    1- We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have stated the research purpose and objectives of the study in the introduction section

    2- According to your advice, the entire paper ... Continue reading
Views
13
Cite
Reviewer Report 15 Jul 2024
Yuping Dai, Hebei North University (Ringgold ID: 261761), Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China;  City University of Macau, Taipa, Macao 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 13
I read your paper excitedly. employees’ proactive work behavior is an important issue in tourism and hospitality sector. Overall, the structure of this article is complete, the logic is coherent, and it shows a certain degree of innovation. The data ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Dai Y. Reviewer Report For: Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Proactive Work Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Role of Perceived Psychological Contract Fulfillment. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:622 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158835.r300309)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 22 Oct 2024
    Ibrahim Elshaer, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, 380, Saudi Arabia
    22 Oct 2024
    Author Response
    Thank you for these comments. We have fully complied with all your constructive comments.
    1- We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have stated the research purpose and objectives of ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 22 Oct 2024
    Ibrahim Elshaer, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, 380, Saudi Arabia
    22 Oct 2024
    Author Response
    Thank you for these comments. We have fully complied with all your constructive comments.
    1- We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have stated the research purpose and objectives of ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Jun 2024
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.