the creative team exhibits paradoxical characteristics

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Resolving the Paradox of Group Creativity

• Andre Walton

What makes teams work better also makes them less creative.

Researchers have been studying creativity for more than 150 years, yet it still remains  elusive . We’re not much closer to understanding what it is exactly that sparks unique ideas. One reason for this lack of insight may be that so much research has looked at the wrong things . Until quite recently, creativity has been studied from the assumption that it is a function of particular individuals and their characteristics . Researchers have asked, “What is it about certain people that causes unique ideas to emerge from their minds?” But some students of creativity are now beginning to realize that this question ignores other critical factors that can promote or inhibit novel thought patterns that lead to unique, creative works.

• Andre Walton is a visiting professor of creativity and entrepreneurship at the University of South Wales. He’s also the author of Embracing the New Era: Managing oneself and others into the era of creativity .

Partner Center

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, diversity and creativity in teams: how leaders and group members manage the inherent paradoxes.

Innovation Leadership in Practice: How Leaders Turn Ideas into Value in a Changing World

ISBN : 978-1-83753-397-8 , eISBN : 978-1-83753-396-1

Publication date: 7 December 2023

Creativity is a strongly context related, collective and collaborative task across multiple boundaries that are of immaterial and material nature. Numerous factors play a role in the emergence of creativity. Leadership styles and diversity have undoubtedly an impact on team creativity. Creative teams face many processes inherent paradoxes which leaders and members need to balance and overcome together. According to the observations and research findings discussed in this chapter, effective management of diversity for creativity requires a ‘humble leadership’ style as well as different communication competencies and strategies. This book chapter provides theoretical and practical insights for those responsible for diversity management in creative teams, based on two empirical studies conducted between 2019 and 2022. Competencies and strategies are presented that may help leaders and teams navigate through highly dynamic, paradoxical interaction processes and, thus, turn their diversity into a creativity asset. In addition, a glimpse of the Team Creativity Navigator (TCN) is offered, which is a new assessment and development tool that supports leaders’ and team members’ learning processes for inclusive, creativity enhancing collaboration. As such, our chapter is an empirically based conceptual contribution with the objective of providing practitioners (and researchers) with insights into appropriate strategies to boost creativity in diverse teams.

Stalder, P. , Nussbaum, J. and Glăveanu, V. (2023), "Diversity and Creativity in Teams: How Leaders and Group Members Manage the Inherent Paradoxes", Jensen, K.R. , Kaudela-Baum, S. and Sheffield, R. (Ed.) Innovation Leadership in Practice: How Leaders Turn Ideas into Value in a Changing World , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-396-120231007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024 Pia Stalder, Julien Nussbaum and Vlad Glăveanu

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

“lubricant” or “stumbling block”: the paradoxical association between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance.

• 1 Evergrande School of Management, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
• 2 School of Economics and Management, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao, China
• 3 School of Labor Relations and Personnel, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Recently, creative deviance has been lauded to be an innovation-enhancing approach with applications in many new and high-tech domains. Previous study on antecedents to creative deviance remains scattered and vague. Our research conceptualizes creative deviance from the perspective of independent innovation and explores its antecedents, mechanisms, as well as conditions. Team authoritarian leadership is conceptualized as a contradictory unity as it mixes advantages and disadvantages. However, it is surprising to find that there are very few researches that have examined its relevant influence mechanisms and boundary conditions for authoritarian leadership. Contributing to an advanced understanding of authoritarian leadership in research and development teams, we investigated whether team authoritarian leadership is positively or negatively related to creative deviance. Drawing on social information processing theory and regulatory focus theory, we supposed that team authoritarian leadership facilitates creative deviance when the degree is low and inhibits it when the degree is high; dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus play mediation roles between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance respectively, both variables play a chain mediation role in that relationship; and the mindfulness characteristic of an individual moderates the inverted-U team authoritarian leadership-creative deviance association, such that this association is weaker with low individual mindfulness. With two-phase questionnaire data collected from 433 members in 82 R&D teams of high-tech enterprises in electronic information technology, new material technology, new medical technology, resource and environment technology and advanced manufacturing technology randomly selected from five provinces in eastern China, these hypotheses are supported empirically. Overall, we find that, our study broadens antecedents and the relevant occurrence mechanisms of creative deviance when studied through a leadership management lens. Moreover, our research enriches the cognate studies on authoritarian leadership by empirically demonstrating that team authoritarian leadership may function as an double-edged sword of creative deviance in the R&D workplace. These above findings offer insightful thoughts to scholars in the field of authoritarian leadership and bring practical suggestions for team superiors who seek to implement best innovation practice.

Introduction

Xiaochuan Wang insisted on the development of Sogou browser against the background of strong opposition from the senior management, and finally achieved a “myth” with a market value of $35 billion.

   - https://www.sohu.com/a/161478919_172964

The creator of Pontiac’ s successful Fiero model was repeatedly compelled to stop working; the designer of HP’ s highly profitable electrostatic displays was ordered by David Packard himself to stop the project immediately.

   -from Mainemelis’ s research in 2010

The aforesaid are interesting issues. In the era when high-tech enterprises increasingly face a complex environment, R&D employees’ agility and flexibility become more essential to innovation competitiveness than ever before. Recently, innovation researchers emphasized an emerging phenomenon, where innovational activities are guided by the pro-organization vision, rather than exclusively by those in higher leadership positions ( Oettingen et al., 2001 ; Zhang and Arvey, 2009 ; Spagnoli et al., 2020 ). Scholars have realized that R&D employees’ resistance toward formal norms and rules is not necessarily a terrible thing—sometimes, it can build a powerful basis for long-term improvement instead ( Vadera et al., 2013 ; Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). For example, R&D personnel, e.g., Xiaochuan Wang, who had adopted unconventional ways of innovating by deviating from universal ways of working (such as functional disobedience) were found to be able to implement pioneering ideas in terms of ignoring managerial instructions selectively ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). Mainemelis (2010) and Lin et al. (2016) named this innovative behavior that violates referent norms to benefit the organization “creative deviance.” However, few studies explored the antecedents and occurrence mechanisms of creative deviance from the leadership perspective ( Lin et al., 2016 ; Javed et al., 2017 ). Conceptually, authoritarian leadership is a power-centric phenomenon ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ) whereby leaders “provide a clear, unambiguous, and direct prototype” ( Wang and Guan, 2018 , p. 357), and “centralize decision-making” ( Spagnoli et al., 2020 , p. 620310). Given the controlling nature of this construct ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ; Cheng et al., 2004 ), we focus on one typical antecedent of creative deviance through the lens of breaking controlling shackle—how team authoritarian leadership influences the emergence of creative deviance. The team authoritarian leadership–creative deviance relationship exhibits a dynamic influence process among authoritarian superiors and subordinates whose objective is to foster team achievement or product development or both. However, our understanding of this theme is still limited in at least three fundamental aspects.

First, leadership scholars have worked to assess what influences authoritarian leadership brings to organizations. Table 1 reveals the details of relevant studies visually. Many empirical studies have demonstrated that authoritarian leadership, as “toxic” leadership ( Spagnoli et al., 2020 ), yields harmful outcomes ( Chen and Kao, 2009 ; Chan et al., 2013 ; Chen et al., 2014 ; Dedahanov et al., 2016 ; Rui and Qi, 2021 ). However, we should caution that these are not always the truths. Authoritarian leadership is also confirmed to be positively related to employee responses ( Cheng et al., 2004 ), subordinates’ welfare ( Aycan, 2006 ), subsequent revenue growth ( Huang et al., 2015 ), procedural/interactional fairness perception and tacit knowledge sharing intention ( Chen et al., 2018 ), learning goal orientation ( Wang and Guan, 2018 ), quality of communication ( Karakitapoglu-Aygün et al., 2021 ). These conclusions suggest the need for multidimensional perspectives on the impacts from authoritarian leadership. Therefore, the first purpose of our research is to examine the team authoritarian leadership–creative deviance relationship.

Table 1. Theories and impacts of authoritarian leadership.

Second, although there is a growing interest in the creative deviance domain, researches concentrating on the leadership-level antecedents are still under-developed ( Lin et al., 2016 ). Creative deviance has been widely proved to occur under a range of preconditions, e.g., task autonomy ( Masoudnia and Szwejczewski, 2012 ), information acquisition ( Galperin, 2012 ), human resource management practices ( Malik and Lenka, 2019 ), Machiavellianism ( Galperin, 2012 ), prosocial motivation ( Vadera et al., 2013 ; Shukla and Kark, 2020 ), psychological capital ( Gao et al., 2020 ), and personal overqualification ( Dar and Rahman, 2020 ). However, there is still a dearth of explorations relating to team leadership. While R&D teams have clear expectations and task assignments based on the development planning of the organizations ( Cheung et al., 2016 ), and the current high-tech workplace is becoming increasingly team-centric ( Hülsheger et al., 2009 ), there remain very little study focusing on creative deviance within a team management context. Therefore, this study utilizes a broad perspective-team authoritarian leadership to creative deviance.

Last but not least, as Appelbaum et al. (2007) noted, creative deviance indicates a fundamental shift away from the notion of conventional, routine innovation, to the idea that R&D staff pursue pioneering, valuable and promising originalities through illegitimate means. In particular, creative deviance is closely related with violation concerns, such as whether the decision to depart from the referent team norms to maximize innovative achievements is warranted at the expense of violating R&D team obligations ( Judge et al., 2006 ; Chan et al., 2013 ). Since the pro-team essence of creative deviance is implicit, it can be mistaken as a “team misbehavior” unless the value it creates is detected by the leaders ( Perry et al., 2016 ). For these reasons, the engagement in creative deviance, even with good motives, needs to be given serious considerations ( Chan et al., 2013 ; Lin et al., 2016 ). According to Cheng and Wang (2015) , the focus of authoritarian management changes in terms of a continuum ranging from low to high, which signifies that the core issue of concern is not a rigid framework, but undergoes transformations at different extents of leaders’ authority ( Zhang and Xie, 2017 ). Accordingly, it remains uncertain whether team-based authoritarian leadership plays a “facilitator” or “obstacle” role in the constructive deviance for innovation.

We follow LePine et al. (2004) ; Dooley et al. (2020) , and Kronenwett and Rigotti (2020) , who considered the incremental occupational stress from dual and opposite aspects: challenge occupational stress and occupational hindrance stress. Challenge occupational stress refers to the constructive pressure supporting personal growth (or even achievement) ( Kronenwett and Rigotti, 2020 ) while hindrance occupational stress is a terrible pressure state to threaten individuals’ development and to constrain personal career progress ( Dooley et al., 2020 ). Specifically, team authoritarian leadership can influence dual occupational stress associated with working circumstance, after which team members would rationally re-examine whether their deviance is appropriate. We also propose that prevention regulatory focus, defined as “fulfilling duties and obligations through responsible behaviors” ( Wallace et al., 2013 , p. 984), can be elicited by authoritarian management and ultimately, influence employees’ deviant behaviors. Therefore, our paper constructs two independent mediating paths between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance to verify the mediating effect of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus, respectively. Furthermore, we believe social information processing theory can be an effective explanation to the process in which employees make behavioral decisions when facing authoritarian management. The theory suggests that, when confronted with the specific social environment surrounding them, employees’ perceptions are triggered from these situational cues ( Zhu et al., 2019 ; Boudrias et al., 2021 ). Studies along this line found that one’s distinct subjective interpretations of various social cues can become a source of individual behaviors ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Zhu et al., 2019 ; Li et al., 2020 ). Meanwhile, according to regulatory focus theory, occupational stress factors can trigger the change of individual regulatory focus from progressive, explorative strategies to traditional, unadventurous strategies ( Brockner and Higgins, 2001 ; Brenninkmeijer and Hekkert-Koning, 2015 ; González-Cruz et al., 2019 ). As dual occupational stress represents the information appraisal of stressors at work and prevention regulatory focus represents individuals’ attentions to avoiding mismatches and risks, we then we construct a chain mediating path to investigate the internal mechanism of team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance based on social information processing theory and regulatory focus theory.

There is a definite need to investigate the psychologically relevant moderators (i.e., the psychologically boundary conditions regarding when team authoritarian leadership is more or less influential to creative deviance). Researchers have emphasized that creative deviance is a disobedient, well-intentioned, pioneering construct ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ) that is affected by external environment ( Dahling and Gutworth, 2017 ; Shukla and Kark, 2020 ) and mental characteristics ( Ng and Yam, 2019 ; Dar and Rahman, 2020 ). Therefore, conscious judgments from individual mindfulness ( Nübold et al., 2019 ) could influence the occurrence of creative deviance as well as its relationship with authoritarian leadership. Previous study has revealed that employees might form distinct understandings of creative deviance with mindfulness awareness—particularly, when individuals are with high mindfulness trait, the pro-social motivation of creative deviance can be easily valued ( Brown and Ryan, 2003 ; Eisenbeiss and Van Knippenberg, 2015 ); a mindful subordinate thus can concentrate on the current goals, build a psychological environment for judging the significance of creative deviance, and ultimately, diminish the negative effects of external leadership on creative deviance. Therefore, we explore the moderation effect of individual mindfulness on the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance, as well as the chain-mediating effect. That is, mindful subordinates justify the occurrence of creative deviance as a pro-organizational act rationally, although they may face the threat of damage to the well-behaved self-image and severe punishments.

Previous studies obtain numerous valuable conclusions, but there are still some deficiencies. Firstly, these studies only examine the impact effects and processes of authoritarian leadership on employee behaviors based on the dual opposition between bad or good, ignoring the possible curve relationships. Secondly, the impacts of authoritarian leadership is not formed instantly. More comprehensive and systematic impact mechanisms of authoritarian leadership should be considered under the influences of internal individual factors. Lastly, research model variables in line with Chinese national situations is relatively lacking. Chinese employee characteristics such as confucianism need to be included into the future study, so as to provide practical guidance according to local conditions. Taken together, the research issue of this paper is to explore the underlying mechanism model of team authoritarian leadership affecting members’ creative deviance, comprehensively adopting the perceptive tactical chain path research paradigm, and exploring the specific impact of employees’ value concept on the relationship between leadership and their deviant behaviors. This research specifically explains how team authoritarian leadership can finally present the form of inverted-U to promote or inhibit team members’ prosocial deviant innovations by stimulating members’ occupational pressure with inspiring, benignant or threatening, disturbing attributes, and affect these members’ construction deviant behaviors while simultaneously guarding against possible risks from exploratory activities in varying degrees. The study conducted cross-level statistical tests ( Dollard and Bakker, 2010 ) and HLM approach ( Zhang et al., 2009 ) so as to check the measurement models. We used a nonparametric percentile Bootstrap technique with deviation correction ( Simar and Wilson, 2007 ) to measure the chain mediation effect and the moderating effect of individual mindfulness in this chain-mediating path. In addition, the moderating effect of individual mindfulness in the curvilinear relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance is intuitively reflected by estimating the slopes of the curves and drawing an interaction effect diagram.

Theory Review and Hypotheses

Team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance.

Creative deviance is a representative type of constructive deviance that contributes to the benefit of an organization. By nature, creative deviance has dual attributes ( Mainemelis, 2010 ): on the bright side, it is beneficial since it is intended to scoop out the creative potential ( Masoudnia and Szwejczewski, 2012 ; Chowdhury, 2015 ); on the dark side, however, it is risky since it violates managerial norms or rules, causes administration dilemmas, and challenges the current management system ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ; Neves and Champion, 2015 ).

As suggested by Cheng et al. (2004) , authoritarian leadership shapes a father-like role in front of employees via the consolidation of traditional culture such as the value system of Confucianism and Legalism, which can, subsequently, form a centralized management structure. Wang and Guan (2018) , in a longitudinal examination of 211 supervisor-subordinate dyads who engaged in high-tech activities, also proposed that when leaders exercise authoritarian control to followers, they put forward higher standards for innovation tasks, spur more efforts, and motivate followers to perform better. Low levels of authoritarian leadership facilitate subordinate loyalty to the organization ( Karakitapoglu-Aygün et al., 2021 ), which is a intangible facilitator of creative deviance. These standpoints align with several empirical studies (see Table 1 ). For instance, Tian and Sanchez (2017) , in a study of 60 technology-based organizations, demonstrated that authoritarian leadership is a significant predictor of employee breakthrough behaviors for their demanding and yet selfless stance. More specially, leaders with low levels of authority establish an explicit goal-orientation, and then, encourage altruistic employee behaviors ( Aycan, 2006 ). Meanwhile, prior research has documented that unambiguous goals rationalize individuals’ understanding of deviant behaviors ( Vadera et al., 2013 ). Collectively, when authoritarian leaders set clear goals, team functioning is improved as high levels of concentration and initiative are evidenced among members. According to this logic, when team authoritarian leadership is low, creative deviance is more likely to be viewed as an innovation “lubricant” due to its beneficial attribute.

By contrary, as Jiang et al. (2017) suggested, high levels of authoritarian leadership exerts a series of negative impacts on subordinates’ reactions: it brings high levels of organizational cynicism, heavy workload, role conflict, role ambiguity and psychological contract violation, as well as low levels of job satisfaction. Similarly, Rui and Qi (2021) also demonstrated that leaders with high authority emphasize complete dominance, asymmetric power, and slavish obedience. This may lessen creative deviance as members in R&D teams experience increased shackles, more non-autonomy, and thus they sense greater levels of dissatisfaction. Additionally, when there is absolute and undemocratic domination over team members fulfilling creative responsibilities, it is harder for them to exploit the potential opportunities of breakthrough-type innovation. In this situation, individuals engaging in creative deviance can be considered as “black sheep” because their implicit pro-organization motivation can be neglected. Team authoritarian leadership can diminish members’ creative deviance through reframing this questionable behavior as unacceptable and elevating the worry or anxiety of being punished. As a consequence, creative deviance, which violates leadership and breaks out traditional fences, could be weakened. Taken together, these double lines of reasoning underpin an inverted U-shaped relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance. That is, the intermediate level of team authoritarian leadership would yield superior creative deviance as compared to low and high levels, separately. Based on these discussions, we therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: A curvilinear, namely, an inverted U-shaped, relationship is between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance, such that R&D teams with low or high authoritarian leadership result in less creative deviance than teams with appropriate authoritarian leadership.

The Mediating Role of Dual Occupational Stress and Prevention Regulatory Focus

As pointed out by LePine et al. (2004) ; Edwards et al. (2014) , and Dooley et al. (2020) , dual occupational stress is considered in terms of two separate, theoretically deduced attributes: challenge occupational stress and hindrance occupational stress. This classification conforms to the classic research of LePine et al. (2004) , who advocated that a comprehensive assessment of dual occupational stress should capture both conducive occupational stress (i.e., furthering one’s career) and inconducive occupational stress (i.e., hindering one’s current and future development). A process of qualitative change allows people to transfer stress from the challenge attribute to the hindrance attribute, and heightens the threat to their self-realization selves ( Ganster and Rosen, 2013 ).

Researchers further found that one such situational element—leadership style—can significantly impact individuals’ dual occupational stress ( Dartey-Baah and Ampofo, 2015 ; Quade et al., 2019 ). Dual occupational stress refers to different levels of pressure boosting or interfering with personal capability to achieve valued goals ( Rodell and Judge, 2009 ). Indeed, employees in a less authoritarian environment arise enthusiasm, initiative and agility from challenge occupational stress to make sure that the work expectations can be accomplished splendidly ( Yang et al., 2018 ). In such a situation, the positive aspect of challenge occupational stress, therefore, accelerates creative deviance, since both constructs well respond to the call for team interests. On the contrary, a team operating under highly authoritarian management undergoes strong constraints in job contents and details. Meanwhile, Criscuolo et al. (2014) and Javed et al. (2017) noted that individuals who formerly engaged in well-intentioned deviant conducts might turn to implement cautiously obedient deeds later, for scholars have theorized that leadership-level behaviors can increase subordinates’ hindrance occupational stress by strengthening norms and punishments ( Decoster et al., 2014 ). According to the aforementioned discussion, the dual occupational stress-creative deviance relationship should follow an inverted U-shaped function. Taken these together, this research proposes:

Hypothesis 2a: Dual occupational stress mediates the inverted U-shaped effect of team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance, such that the indirect effect will be positive when dual occupational stress is low and negative when it is high.

Much is already realized about individuals’ prevention regulatory focus and its compulsion, a series of studies have probed the sources, such as intrapersonal pressure, reputational concerns, autonomy support management, and so forth (e.g., Worthy et al., 2009 ; Pfattheicher, 2015 ; Lai et al., 2018 ; Oiknine et al., 2021 ). Conclusions from numerous researches demonstrated that people with prevention regulatory focus invest time, energy and efforts fully into their duties and obligations and subsequently, beget a sense of security ( Worthy et al., 2009 ; Lai et al., 2018 ). This prevention-focus state is consistent with an “ought” self—valuing the own responsibility extremely ( Wallace et al., 2013 ; Pfattheicher, 2015 ), which construes that employees, who view the salient goal as a “non-loss” or “loss,” are likely to utilize high levels of prevention focus when facing superiors with high authoritarian management style.

As discussed before, previous research has revealed that a key premise premise of creative deviance is a path-breaking consciousness (i.e., shaking off objective shackles) for the innovation target ( Mainemelis, 2010 ; Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). That is, employees’ focus point determines the possibility of subsequent deviance ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). More specifically, individually preventive focus serves as a lens which reflects the authority of managers; when team authoritarian leadership is relatively low (e.g., emphasizing the goal-achievement rather than maintaining a control-obedience working environment to the members merely), high performance expectations can effectively activate members’ inner enthusiasm to complete their missions and nourish pro-social deviance beneficial to the team ( Lin et al., 2016 ; Sarpong et al., 2018 ; Malik and Lenka, 2019 ). However, as creative deviance stealthily challenges supervisors’ orders, such behavior cannot be forgiven or justified when the team environment is absolutely authoritarian. In this case, prevention-focus individuals are reluctant to perform creative deviance due to their risk aversion and concern about career prospects. This dialectic process reveals the mediation effect of prevention regulatory focus. Namely, prevention regulatory focus mediates the inverted U-shaped association between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance. By inference, we put forward the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2b: Prevention regulatory focus mediates the inverted U-shaped effect of team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance, such that the indirect effect will be positive when prevention regulatory focus is low and negative when it is high.

Social information processing theory ( Brown et al., 2017 ) proposes that individuals get information cues from the external environment where the events occurred and form intentions of subsequent actions. In other words, a person perceives and decodes the information clues so as to further explain and respond to them ( Zhu et al., 2019 ). Specific to the case of creative deviance, individuals will recognize whether to perform it or not, subjective to various environmental cues—typically, leadership factors play remarkable roles in the willingness of creative deviance ( Kell, 2018 ). Based on regulatory focus theory, as Bélanger et al. (2013) mentioned, individuals’ subjective initiative is limited when occupational stress changes from the challenge attribute to the hindrance attribute and strengthens the focus on avoiding negative outcomes and fulfilling the basic job requirements. In conclusion, team authoritarian leadership can advance prevention regulatory focus by stimulating the members’ dual occupational stress, and ultimately influence the individual behavior (creative deviance). Considering the two hypotheses (Hypothesis 2a and 2b) together, we expect that dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus can act as a chain mediator between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance. In light of this, we suggest:

Hypothesis 2c: Dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus play a chain-mediating role between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance; that is, team authoritarian leadership can foster individuals’ prevention regulatory focus by aggravating their dual occupational stress, thereby affect creative deviance in an inverted U-shaped pattern.

The Moderating Role of Individual Mindfulness

Notwithstanding the fact that exploring the team authoritarian leadership-creative deviance correlation brings meaningful insights into the understanding of authoritarian leadership in R&D teams, there is an omission regarding its psychological moderating roles on such a correlation. In an attempt to open this black box, we aim to test a potential moderator, namely individual mindfulness, and forecasts that the inverted U-shaped association between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance will be weaker with high levels of mindfulness trait at work. This is because mindfulness represents a compelling force that develops individuals’ open and receptive attitudes ( Kiken and Shook, 2011 ; Reb et al., 2015 ; Walsh and Arnold, 2020 ). The key concern of R&D teams is toward pioneering and forward-looking innovation ( Hülsheger et al., 2009 ; Cheung et al., 2016 ), where team members with mindfulness are more willing to engage in unconventional innovation as they take initiative to execute constructive behaviors ( Brown and Ryan, 2003 ). Mindfulness thus allows employees to stay calm and attentive, be free from distractions, and keep relative calm emotions. Moreover, if two explanations about the current act compete against each other (e.g., accomplishing a job task because of superior directives versus because of pro-organizational motivations), a mindful awareness (e.g., “I understand the essences of superior orders”) can validate the altruistic one ( Brown and Ryan, 2003 ; Dane, 2011 ; Kiken and Shook, 2011 ; Hülsheger et al., 2013 ; Eisenbeiss and Van Knippenberg, 2015 ; Walsh and Arnold, 2020 ). Collectively, these consequences impact the levels of creative deviance.

Furthermore, as mindful individuals are more conscious and inclusive ( Kiken and Shook, 2011 ), they are able to overcome fixed thought as well as to pay receptive attentions to their authoritarian leader, and subsequently neglect obvious or potential distractions from the superior ( Hülsheger et al., 2013 ; Jamieson and Tuckey, 2017 ). Inferentially, when leaders’ authority upgrades to high levels, a highly centralized management system is set up ( Chan et al., 2013 ). Mindful ones need to place less priority on processing authoritarian leaders’ negative messaging, keep creative enthusiasm and accomplish R&D missions attentively ( Walsh and Arnold, 2020 ). As such, any influence derived from team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance would be more difficult to realize when subordinate are mindfulness ( Eisenbeiss and Van Knippenberg, 2015 ). We also believe that our research has a moderated chain-mediating effect. Subordinates who are meditators will respond to pressure events in relaxed ways. Meanwhile, mindful employees are more likely to treat stressors with a more receptive attitude and perspective; thus, mindfulness can effectively reduce the level of stress, anxiety and other emotional problems associated with stress. Therefore, we assume that:

Hypothesis 3a: individual mindfulness moderates the curvilinear relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance in such a way that the inverted U-shaped manner becomes weaker for those members with intense mindfulness as compared with those with faint mindfulness.

Hypothesis 3b: individual mindfulness moderates the positive effect of team authoritarian leadership on dual occupational stress, thus moderating the chain mediating influence of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus on the curvilinear relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative creative deviance.

Combining these hypotheses together, we summarize all research variables and hypotheses in one conceptual framework (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. The research conceptual model.

Materials and Methods

Research setting and procedure.

As suggested by Rui and Qi (2021) , authoritarian leadership is more influential in the organizations composed of knowledge-based staff. Employees with high levels of professional knowledge and specialties seek autonomy during a R&D process and thus, need more opportunities to get rid of the shackles of traditional management modes. Knowledge employees have the possibility of leveraging their expertise to make leapfrog innovations by taking constructive deviance. This perspective thus whips up the academic debate on the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance and extends the externalities of authoritarian leadership theory into R&D teams. Our study chose a Chinese member sample, whereby the conceptualization and evolution of authoritarian leadership is predominantly developed in diverse Chinese cultural settings (see Table 1 ).

Our research collected data from full-time employees in high-tech companies in electronic information technology, new material technology, new medical technology, resource and environment technology and advanced manufacturing technology located in five provinces in eastern China. We purposely chose our interviewees from such teams as research and development in those types of high and new tech enterprises. The respondents are front-line R&D staff, leadership-contact employees who have considerable interactions with superiors of their team. Since temporal disconnection in a variable correlation analysis can effectively prevent social desirability as well as reverse causation, we conducted this survey in two phases. Specifically, the items for the first phase contained the contents on team authoritarian leadership, individual mindfulness, and control variables; the second phase (1 month later) questionnaire asked all participants regarding their dual occupational stress, prevention regulatory focus and creative deviance. With the assistance from the HR departments, the respondents of these two phases were paired with the last six digits of their cell phone numbers so as to assure coherence. We also gave every respondent a 1–10 yuan random Wechat red envelope after completion in order to ensure a certain response rate. All scales were presented in Chinese after scientific translations and back-translations from the English originals when necessary ( Chen and Boore, 2010 ). We invited two Ph.D. students and a professor majoring in human resources management to inspect the contents of these scales. 5-point Likert scales were used to measure all items but demographic factors, where 1, means “not at all,” and 5, represents “absolutely.” Initially, a pilot testing was conducted with 65 employees from 10 R&D teams. In accordance with the feedback provided, minor corrections were made. We collected 489 completed responses from 90 R&D teams with more than three individuals out of 556 photocopies distributed among 103 teams in the first phase (response rate 87.95%) and 457 completed photocopies in 84 teams in the second phase out of the 489 responses retrieved from the first phase (response rate 93.46%). After pairing each participant in this two-phase survey and carefully inspecting all responses, we deleted the completed questionnaire which were unmatched or unscientific. This finally left us with a valid sample of 433 participants in 82 R&D teams (an average of 5.3 selected members of each team). The specific participant demographics and team characteristics are outlined in Table 2 .

Table 2. Sample characteristics (Ind.: 433; Team: 82).

Team Authoritarian Leadership

We adapted a nine-item scale verified by Cheng et al. (2004) to a 5-point scale to follow the principle of consistency of all our main measures. Team authoritarian leadership was measured via 9 items containing two theoretically separate properties: “zhuanquan” and “shangyan.” A sample item is “My supervisor determined all decisions in the team whether they are important or not.” This research adopted a cluster aggregation approach to assess the nature of team authoritarian leadership. This aggregation technique is an intrinsically cross-level method that advocates a holistic theoretical and analytical technique to simulating the entirety of the objects rated ( Koo and Li, 2016 ). To justify whether the aggregation is appropriate, we adopted the most common indices of cluster aggregation analysis to explicitly assess the extent to which the same set of members are non-independent on or clustered by a specific team ( Biemann et al., 2012 ). Generally speaking, the intra-class correlations, ICC (s) and the interrater agreement statistic, r wg , were calculated to identify inter-rater reliability, internal consistency reliability and within-group variance ( Koo and Li, 2016 ). The results revealed that the ICC (1) value of 0.452 demonstrated that response variability at the membership level that is attributed to being part of a group reached a high degree. The ICC (2) value of 0.813 suggested that the group-level mean is reliable. The mean r wg value of 0.882 was much larger than the accepted cut-off value of 0.70 ( Lance et al., 2006 ), which implied that there is a high degree of consistency among distinct raters in the selected R&D teams. Given strong supports for the employed measurement approach, thus, this study aggregated these individual-level scores to generate a single variable to reflect team authoritarian leadership. Team ratings were then calculated by summing each of the response from team members divided by the total amount of respondents ( Castro, 2002 ; LeBreton and Senter, 2008 ). The values of rating ranged from 1.750 to 4.167, where higher scores indicate higher degrees of authoritarian leadership within a team. The reliability coefficient of team authoritarian leadership was 0.838.

Creative Deviance

Following Lin et al. (2016) , this research assessed the level of creative deviance by requiring the team membership to rate each of his/her deviant behaviors on a following example: “Besides working on ideas that were approved by my supervisor, I also exerted effort in improving the rejected ideas by collecting information and trying again.” It measures the degree to which team subordinates insisted on some of the novel but rejected ideas. The reliability coefficient of creative deviance was 0.787.

Dual Occupational Stress

We modified a 14-item questionnaire developed by González-Ramírez and Hernández (2007) to measure dual occupational stress. The duality symbolize the occupational stress from quantitative change to qualitative change. The increasing pressure formation process forms the transformation of opposite attributes. In this vein, the reversal point of stress imply that the attribute interconversion take place with the changeable levels of stress. To emphasize the R&D team context, we adapted the original items in this questionnaire. For example, we changed the item “Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them” to “Have you felt difficulties in your team R&D work were piling up so high that you could not overcome them.” It includes reverse consideration questions (a sample item is “Have you dealt successfully with day to day innovations”), these data collected were then reassigned inversely, where the value of 1 or 2 is recoded as 5 or 4, and 3 remains unchanged. The reliability coefficient of this scale was 0.902.

Prevention Regulatory Focus

Prevention regulatory focus was assessed using nine items derived from Neubert et al. (2008) . These consist of the extent of a subordinate’s concern for costs of loss, failure, or punishment, the prudence to choosing behavior manners, as well as the inclination to avoiding the risk of errors. In accordance with previous research, we included the management contexts of authoritarian leadership in the measurement of prevention regulatory focus ( Lin and Johnson, 2018 ). For example, we changed the item “At work, I am often focused on accomplishing tasks that will support my need for security” in the original prevention regulatory focus scale to “At work, I am often focused on accomplishing tasks that will meet the strict requirements of my authoritarian superior.” The reliability coefficient of this scale was 0.820.

Individual Mindfulness

Similar to the study of Lau et al. (2006) , this scale contains items on the present-centered, non-elaborative, and non-judgmental aspects of the mindul quality. We added individual mindfulness as the moderator for two reasons. First, research has presented that mindful subordinates’ attention to the authoritarian management mode is intentionally open ( Bartlett et al., 2021 ); second, although creative deviance is risky, members with high individual mindfulness are more willing to take this risk to enhance team benefit ( Reb et al., 2015 ). A sample of 13 items is “I experienced my thoughts more as events in my mind than as a necessarily accurate reflection of the way things ‘really’ are.” The reliability coefficient of this individual mindfulness scale was 0.887.

Control Variables

The study controlled gender, highest education, and team tenure at the individual level and size at the team level. Especially, team members’ power distance was also controlled, together with team culture and team strategy for the analysis of this present research. First is power distance, as it has been proposed to be positively related to the emergence of deviant behaviors ( Lian et al., 2012 ) and negatively to the relationship between leader-member exchange and employee self-ratings of constructive actions ( Anand et al., 2018 ). The second control variable is team culture (i.e., the value all members have followed to achieve a specific vision). It was included as it reflects the consensus formed by team members which may influence team deviance ( Liao et al., 2004 ) and authoritarian leadership because team shared values affects the codes of conduct, senses of mission and team consciousness among all members ( Joo et al., 2012 ). Third is team strategy, since the team’s ethical strategy has been demonstrated to mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and team identification ( Cheng and Wang, 2015 ). The three Cronbach α coefficients for power distance, team culture and team strategy were 0.803, 0.781, and 0.840, respectively, all above the standard of 0.70. Furthermore, as team culture and team strategy are team-level phenomena, the consistency among these respondents’ ratings was also measured thus proving sufficient intra-team reliability [for team culture, mean r wg = 0.901, ICC(1) = 0.427, ICC(2) = 0.797; for team strategy, mean r wg = 0.868, ICC(1) = 0.273, ICC(2) = 0.665]. As pointed out by previous research ( Liu et al., 2020 ), when team size is small, a remarkable inter-team difference can be employed as an aggregation criterion in practice. Although team strategy is not up to the best reliability of intra-team average, the result of One-Way ANOVA showed that team strategy in different R&D teams reached significant difference [ F (81,351) = 2.988, p < 0.01].

Validity Test and Common Method Bias Testing

A disproportion between the number of measurement indicators and sample size could be an issue for our research study that contains large amounts of parameters to be estimated. Hence, following Yang et al.’s (2010) suggestion, we first conducted high-low combinations of factor loadings and correlation analyses. The independent variable (team authoritarian leadership), dependent variable (creative deviance), mediators (dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus), and moderator (individual mindfulness) in our present study were all parceled and shortened into 5, 3, 7, 3, and 7 combined items and consequently, reduced the communalities of these variables.

This study performed confirmatory factor analyses estimated by the maximum-likelihood procedure for the five main factors. All model fit indices are shown in Table 3 . The hypothesized model was tested by loading the items on their corresponding latent variables. This five-factor model fits the data well: χ 2 (265) = 402.244, p < 0.001, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.035, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.950, non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.943, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.044. Indeed, our hypothesized model was superior to the other alternatives. For instance, the four-factor model combining dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus fits significantly worse than the five-factor model, using the chi-square difference test [Δχ 2 (4) = 474.965, p < 0.001]. We also examined the three-factor model [e.g., M3: Δχ 2 (7) = 910.700, p < 0.001], the two-factor model [Δχ 2 (9) = 1069.684, p < 0.001], and the single-factor model [Δχ 2 (10) = 1232.081, p < 0.001]. In order to prevent the sample size from interfering with the above judgment conclusions, we compared the variations of Akaike information criterion (ΔAICs) according to the suggestions of Burnham and David (2002) . The AIC value of the five factor model (522.244) is the minimum, and ΔAICs (135.288–1212.081) are all greater than 10, which reveals that the time-delay data in this study no longer support other competitive models.

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Furthermore, specifically, the factor loadings (i.e., the factor-measurement item correlations) for were strong (i.e., Std. Estimate > 0.70, p < 0.001) for team authoritarian leadership items, 0.667–0.909; creative deviance items, 0.771–0.823; dual occupational stress items, 0.648–0.815; prevention regulatory focus items, 0.714–0.799; individual mindfulness items, 0.742–0.801. With regards to the average variances extracted (AVE) of all scales, each of them (0.510, 0.553, 0.570, 0.604, and 0.532 for team authoritarian leadership, creative deviance, dual occupational stress, prevention regulatory focus, and individual mindfulness) reached the proposed level, i.e., greater than the acceptable minimum of 0.50 ( Koufteros, 1999 ), indicating that the measures had ideal convergent validity, together with the adequate discriminant validity of the default model.

In order to check the existence and magnitude of common method variance, we adopted a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) developed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) . Results of the test of a controlled six-factor model [χ 2 = 400.593, df = 264, χ2/df = 1.517, RMSEA = 0.035, CFI = 0.950, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.943; SRMR = 0.039, Δχ 2 /Δdf = 1.651, ns] showed that the more complicated model, in which all items loaded both on their respective construct as well as a a latent method factor, did not show a significantly better fit yet (ΔRMSEA, ΔCFI, ΔTLI, ΔSRMR are all less than 0.02). Meanwhile, we adopted a principal component with a varimax rotation analysis. Comparing with the variance explanation of the eigenvalues greater than 1-factor (61.14%), Harman’s single-factor test yielded the first factor explaining only 29.76% of the total variance. Therefore, we can legitimately concluded that there was not significant common method bias in the present measurement.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4 quantifies the means, standard deviations (SDs), and zero-order correlations for each of the constructs. For example, as illustrated, team authoritarian leadership at the team level is negatively and significantly correlated to dual creative deviance (γ = –0.257, p < 0.01); dual occupational stress is positively and significantly associated with team authoritarian leadership (γ = 0.363, p < 0.01) at the individual level, and prevention regulatory focus (γ = 0.318, p < 0.01), but is negatively and significantly with creative deviance (γ = –0.233, p < 0.01); prevention regulatory focus has a significantly negative association with creative deviance (γ = –0.219, p < 0.01); and meanwhile, individual mindfulness has a significantly negative correlation to dual occupational stress (γ = –0.227, p < 0.01), but a significantly positive correlation with creative deviance (γ = 0.208, p < 0.01), which provided preliminary evidence to support the hypotheses in the present study.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Hypothesis Testing

Figure 2 , a box-and-whisker plot for each sample team, visually depicts the significant variations of creative deviance at individual level as well as team level. This study employed cross-level statistical tests ( Dollard and Bakker, 2010 ; Preacher, 2015 ; Tremblay, 2017 ). Led by the procedure delineated in Zhang et al. (2009) ’s research, in hierarchical linear modeling, the centralized group mean of each individual-level predictor, dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus, was implemented in this study; these centralized variables as control variables were then included into the intercept equations. Table 5 depicts the results of the multilevel analyses.

Figure 2. The box-and-whisker plot of member creative deviance for 82 independent R&D teams (Sorting by the team identifier).

Table 5. HLM analysis results.

Null Models

A substantial inter-group variation of each dependent variable in a null model is an important prerequisite. For dual occupational stress, we found that the inter-group variation (τ00) and intra-group variation (σ 2 ) were 0.149 (χ 2 = 110.239, p < 0.001) and 0.764, and the inter-group variation accounted for 16.3% of the total variation; for prevention regulatory focus, the τ00 and σ 2 value was 0.186 (χ 2 = 121.250, p < 0.001) and 0.792, and the τ00 value accounted for 19.0% of the total variation; for creative deviance, we found the inter-group variation (0.251, χ 2 = 137.464, p < 0.001) accounted for 22.6% of the total variation. These results provided compelling evidence that the legitimacy of our multilevel analyses is acceptable.

Mediating Effect of Dual Occupational Stress and Prevention Regulatory Focus

As shown in Table 5 , the square of team authoritarian leadership is significantly as well as negatively associated with creative deviance (γ = –0.326, p < 0.01, Model 3), supporting Hypothesis 1. The square of dual occupational stress is significantly and negatively related to creative deviance (γ = –0.287, p < 0.01, Model 5). The effect of team authoritarian leadership on dual occupational stress is significant and positive (γ = 0.352, p < 0.01, Model 1), which is consistent with Hypothesis 2a. In addition, the relationship between the squared term of prevention regulatory focus and creative deviance is negative (γ = –0.265, p < 0.01, Model 6). Team authoritarian leadership has an significantly positive effect on prevention regulatory focus (γ = 0.304, p < 0.01, Model 2) and consistent with our Hypothesis 2b.

To better illustrate the chain-mediating role of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus, we utilized a nonparametric percentile Bootstrap technique with deviation correction following Simar and Wilson’s (2007) approach—with MPLUS 7.4 (Muthn, L. K. and Muthn, B. O., Los Angeles, CA, United States). The complete model linked up with a chain mediation has a high fitness (χ 2 = 175.182, df = 129, RMSEA = 0.031, SRMR = 0.038, CFI = 0.954, NNFI = 0.949). More specifically, Table 6 suggests that when the branched mediation path follows “Team authoritarian leadership→Dual occupational stress→Creative deviance,” team authoritarian leadership positively affects dual occupational stress; then, the effect of dual occupational stress on creative deviance presents inverted U-shaped; that is to say, the necessary condition of an independent mediating effect is met (β = –0.097, 95% CI [–0.134, –0.057]). By the same token, when the branched mediation path is “Team authoritarian leadership→Prevention regulatory focus→Creative deviance,” team authoritarian leadership has a significantly positive effect on prevention regulatory focus; prevention regulatory focus has a significantly inverted-U effect on creative deviance; this meant that, prevention regulatory focus can independently mediate the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance (β = –0.070, 95% CI [–0.105, –0.033]). When the chain terms entered the relationship, its chain-mediating effect on creative deviance is still significant but is slightly weakened (β = –0.038, 95% CI [–0.042, –0.031]). Percentages of mediating effects were used to quantify the effect quantity of each mediation path and to lay the foundation for estimating the total effect of authoritarian leadership on team members’ creative deviance. Therefore, the proposed Hypothesis 2a, 2b, and 2c were supported.

Table 6. Model-Fit test and mediating effects test.

Moderating Effect of Individual Mindfulness

We explored the processes by which team authoritarian leadership and individual mindfulness interact to influence the proposed chain-mediating effect and creative deviance, separately ( Table 7 ). We first tested this moderated chain-mediating effect. We used a mean benchmark, where members with a value of individual mindfulness equal to 1.258 (Mean – 1 SD) defined as a low level and the value equal to 3.200 (Mean + 1 SD) was a high level. Accordingly, the chain mediating effect of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus on an inverted-U relationship existing between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance is –0.055 ( p < 0.05, 95% CI [–0.068, –0.039]) with a low level of individual mindfulness, whereas it is –0.018 (ns, 95% CI [–0.026, –0.008]) when individual mindfulness is high. Hence, the chain mediating effect is no longer significant. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference between the effect values of the chain-mediating path (Estimate = –0.037, p < 0.05, 95% CI [–0.049, –0.022]). Therefore, Hypothesis 3a received supported.

Table 7. Cross-level moderated chain-mediating effect analysis.

As previously revealed in Table 5 , comparing with Model 3, the direct inverted U-shaped effect of team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance is still significant but evidently reduced (γ = –0.090, p < 0.1, Model 4). The interactive effect is statistically negative on creative deviance (γ = –0.129, p < 0.05, Model 4). This means that individual mindfulness can negatively moderate the relationship between team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance. We next plotted the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance as moderated by individual mindfulness according to the steps recommended by Mai et al. (2021) . To do this, a slope estimation was created. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the inverted-U relationship between team authoritarian leadership on creative deviance with low individual mindfulness vs. high mindfulness. The radians and inflection points symbolize the moderating effects. We see that an inverted-U relationship is stronger with low individual mindfulness, when compared to the individual characteristic of high mindfulness. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was fully supported in this research.

Figure 3. The moderating role of individual mindfulness on the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance.

By integrating the concepts from team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance literature, this current study sheds light on our understanding of whether and when team authoritarian leadership is positively or negatively related to creative deviance. More specifically, this current research therefore demonstrated that an inverted-U association between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance holds up in Chinese R&D teams, thus providing cogent work in the antecedents and conditions of creative deviance. Especially, our cross-level approach furnished empirical evidence that team authoritarian leadership impacts members’ creative deviance through the chain mediation effect of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus. This research also demonstrated that the trait of individual mindfulness moderates the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance as well as the chain-mediating effect; where the inverted-U association is indeed weaker with high levels of individual mindfulness. Now, this research further discusses the theoretical contributions and practical implications of these findings, along with some limitations of the present work and possible directions for future study. Overall, our study not only enriches the empirical literature on creative deviance, but also sheds light on how to practice authoritarian leadership in the workplace realistically.

Theoretical Contributions

First of all, authoritarian leadership has been mostly shown to be adverse for employees’ beneficial behaviors in practice as well as in the extant literature ( Chen and Kao, 2009 ; Zhang et al., 2011 ; Chan et al., 2013 ; Dedahanov et al., 2016 ; Duan et al., 2018 ; Spagnoli et al., 2020 ; Rui and Qi, 2021 ). Although these studies have confirmed the disadvantages of authoritarian leadership, there are still several disagreements and controversies surrounding it ( Aycan, 2006 ; Huang et al., 2015 ; Chen et al., 2018 ). By joining a handful of researchers in the field of the positive effects of authoritarian leadership (e.g., Cheng et al., 2004 ; Wang and Guan, 2018 ; Karakitapoglu-Aygün et al., 2021 ), we further confirm that authoritarian leadership can play a driving role in facilitating constructive team behaviors. Despite previous study pointing out that creative deviance seems related to superior management ( Chan et al., 2013 ; Lin et al., 2016 ), it has rarely been conceptualized as a leadership-related decision issue, and little is known about how different types of leadership styles systematically shape creative deviance. Specifically, this study extended this line of research and linked team authoritarian leadership with creative deviance (defined in terms of its nature of an ethical trade-off between deontological and pragmatistic methodology; Appelbaum et al., 2007 ). Our results explicitly addressed the ethical nature of creative deviance and expanded its antecedents and mechanisms from a leadership perspective. Moreover, our research also responds to the appeal of Cheng et al. (2004) by clarifying the process by which authoritarian leadership influences subordinates’ behaviors.

At the same time, we also shed a light on the specific psychological mechanisms through which team authoritarian leadership is related to creative deviance. Our findings confirmed that under different attributes of dual occupational stress, team authoritarian leadership has opposite effects on creative deviance. This result of the investigation is consistent with the theory on the dynamic essence of dual occupational stress. On the one hand, as Dooley et al. (2020) noted, dual occupational stress is not a static, but an accumulative and a qualitative change process, wherein challenge stress and hindrance stress alternate as the degree of pressure changes. Specifically, R&D team members, whose focus is on the strategy generation to overcome difficulties with the challenge attribute of occupational stress, proactively participate in constructive innovation process. It thus provides a positive environment to nourish creative deviance. Our results extend the occupational stress theory by identifying challenge stress as an underlying motivation to encourage radical innovations. Our study also contributes to the understanding of prevention regulatory focus in the workplace. Previous study regarded the attention to organizational interests as the major source of employees’ good deeds (such as ethical behaviors and constructive behaviors, etc.) ( Mainemelis, 2010 ; Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). Our work suggests that prevention regulatory focus can impact creative deviance by its nature of avoiding harm. Moreover, this finding also supports the proposition proposed by Pfattheicher and Sassenrath (2014) who asserted that risk-avoidance strategies generated in a prevention-focused orientation pay more attention to fulfilling the basic work needs. Last but not least, we provided empirical evidence for the chain-mediating effect of dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus as one route through which creative deviance increases or decreases.

Another fold of the significant theoretical contributions is that the current study provides new insights into an important boundary condition of authoritarian leadership effects. We investigated and demonstrated that the individual trait of mindfulness (considered in terms of the awareness to accept each thought, feeling, or sensation as it is and to keep a present-centered intellect) moderates the team authoritarian leadership-creative deviance association and the chain mediating effect; such relationship and influence are weaker with high levels of mindfulness. This finding agrees well with previous researches that suggested that individual mindfulness fosters a non-elaborative and non-judgmental pattern of cognitive reactivity. For example, Reb et al. (2015) suggested that employees with mindfulness experience less emotional distress, lower vulnerability, and higher spiritual well-being. Walsh and Arnold (2020) proposed that individual mindfulness exerts positive impacts on one’s curiosity, acceptance, and openness to reality as mindfulness inherently advocates greater inclusiveness. Such high levels of mindfulness shown by individuals helps to cultivate an intentional self-regulation of attention, which could sequentially be beneficial and evolve into effective results. Therefore, as demonstrated in this current study, R&D team members who are mindful, show increased acceptance, higher levels of openness, and a greater sense of concentration.

Practical Implications

As a matter of fact, creative deviance has become a new normalcy for R&D teams ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). It dynamically seeks an optimal balance between maintaining teams’ innovative capability and violating managerial orders when ingenious ideas are rejected ( Criscuolo et al., 2014 ). Creative deviance becomes increasingly significant in businesses today, that is, it can be advantageous to improve innovation performance ( Chowdhury, 2015 ). For example, Galperin (2012) have suggested that R&D staff engaging in nonconforming innovations resulting from unsanctioned bottom-up pioneering initiatives, sometimes bring about revolutionary ideas of potentially great benefit. Thus, based on our study findings, we would like to enable team managers and leaders to focus on the formation of creative deviance in practice. Most notably, the inverted-U team authoritarian leadership–creative deviance relation indicates that authoritarian leadership can be a useful way to promote team innovation. This suggests that R&D team managers seeking to motivate members should specify the overall objectives within the teams and take steps to encourage the members to undertake R&D roles actively and provide them with adequate opportunities to give scope for their professional abilities.

Moreover, this research provides a benchmark with individual-environment relation perspective to reveal subordinates’ violation of a managerial order, in order to determine the extent to which dual occupational stress and prevention regulatory focus are reinforcing or relieving the formation of creative deviance as a chain influence process. Therefore, on the one hand, managers cannot directly encourage subordinates to engage in creative deviance given its particularity and complexity. They should build or support a goal-oriented but not repressive working climate ( Vadera et al., 2013 ). For instance, low authoritarian leaders can indirectly promote employees’ creative deviance through facilitating occupational challenge stress by setting clear career goals. On the other hand, some individuals’ basic self regulatory orientations, such as prevention regulatory focus, can influence creative deviance by navigating their valued standards and raising the sensitivity to the presence of negative outcomes ( Wallace et al., 2013 ). Thus, managers should employ proper authoritarian means to stimulate creative deviance and utilize the amplification effect of prevention regulatory focus in the loss-averse process. Besides, this study emphasizes the need for individual members to cultivate a mindful awareness particularly in an authoritarian environment in order to minimize negative impacts. Gong et al. (2009) also argued that the effects of leadership have a close connection with individual sensations, thoughts, as well as emotions. Combining these arguments with our results, R&D teams should shape mindful team value to enhance members’ open awareness, attenuate adverse effects of authoritarian leadership, and facilitate team benefits concurrently.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As is the case for any research, we would be evasive if we did not acknowledge some limitations related to this current study that are worthy of being addressed in future. First, since the measurements used in our research were taken from the same source and all self-reported, there could be common method bias influencing the effects. We have adopted several methods to minimize its possible effects. This study ensured all responses’ confidentiality by requiring participants to answer questionnaires anonymously, while the entire data were collected in two phases and some were analyzed by a cluster aggregation method. We also adopted a MTMM approach and a cross-level design to detect common method bias. As such, common method bias was mitigated to some extent. In addition, the sample of our experimental study consisted of 82 R&D teams, however, there is still a need to revalidate our hypotheses from more multiple sources so as to achieve more robust statistical power.

Second, while the definition of creative deviance (measured in terms of order-violation innovations and covert innovations) is multidimensional in nature, it does not take every possible aspect into consideration, e.g., effectiveness of innovation. In other words, there can be more consequences of team authoritarian leadership that have not been accounted for, especially outcomes from a team-level perspective, e.g., comprehensive advantages of team innovation. Therefore, future research can make meaningful contributions by examining the relationship between team authoritarian leadership and its outcomes from a wider variety of research backgrounds. Furthermore, we also cannot exclude other reasonable theoretical explanations for these confirmed hypotheses. One such explanation could be that team authoritarian leadership and creative deviance might share a same common origin. For instance, external competition of enterprises could be another reason that team authoritarian leadership has an influence on creative deviance. Conclusions of past researches have revealed that intense industry competition environment can promote the occurrence of authoritarian leadership ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ) and constructive deviance ( Galperin, 2012 ). Considering the fact that the aforesaid possibilities could contaminate this research, we employed a two-phase method to collect data and followed a logical reasoning with rigor to prove the rationality of our results. Even so, future study should still pay attention to those alternative explanations more cautiously.

Third, an obvious finding of our investigation, regarding how team authoritarian leadership influences creative deviance with the increase of degree, shows the double-edged effects of team authoritarian leadership. Its impacts are likely to be affected by cultural contexts (e.g., high or low collectivism); as well as work settings (e.g., environmental uncertainties). Scholars, like Tian and Sanchez (2017) , have sought more attention to be paid to explaining whether its theoretical models change along with distinct contextual effects. Unfortunately, the design of this current research did not directly examine these factors that could stimulate or impede the external effects of team authoritarian leadership. It thus would be a promising research direction. We call for future research to provide a more integral explanations of the boundary conditions, particularly for external environment-related moderators. Examples like industrial complexity thus open up new horizons for future studies. Moreover, the potential individual perceptual indicators should also be examined considering the effects of authoritarian leadership are cognitive evaluation processes in nature. This would serve as another promising research direction. Our research suggests future studies on authoritarian leadership take an interdiscipline perspective. For instance, study with a neuroscience design that captures event-related potential (ERP) of authoritarian leadership, to explore how it guides or drives throughout the brain information processing, is another fruitful avenue for future research.

Fourth, creative deviance is an environmentally sensitive and emerging creative behavior. We tested its conceptual model only in high-tech industries since the measure of creative deviance that we adopted reflected some characteristics of these enterprises. However, team members working in other industries such as service might engage in different types of creative deviance from that of technical employees. Therefore, this study encourages future research to develop an optimum scale to measure creative deviance in a wider scope. Creative deviance, as a new innovatiaon pattern that has been demonstrated to facilitate innovation performance in research institutions. However, we do not assert that creative deviance is a panacea for all innovative woes. It is argued that there may be several circumstances where creative deviance causes penalties, e.g., wastage of resources and deteriorated leader member exchange ( Shukla and Kark, 2020 ). Meanwhile, many researchers have also pointed out that the practice of creative deviance simultaneously includes positive and negative components, so it is essential to explore whether it benefits R&D teams. In light of this, study concerning whether creative deviance is beneficial when R&D team members experience varying degrees of authoritarian leadership should thus be another interesting research avenue.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ethics Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

JX contributed to conducting analysis and editing the final manuscript as submitted. Y-ZL generated the study idea with the theoretical development of the research. D-QZ was responsible for the structure and content, and revised all versions of the manuscript. J-ZL collected all the data as well as did the data analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by grants from the National Social Science Fund of China (14BGL017).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Anand, S., Vidyarthi, S., and Rolnicki, S. (2018). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: contextual effects ofleader power distance and group task interdependence. Leadersh. Quart. 29, 488–500. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appelbaum, S. G., Iaconi, G. D., and Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impact, and solutions. Corp. Govern. 7, 586–598. doi: 10.1108/14720700710827176

Aycan, Z. (2006). “Paternalism: towards conceptual refinement and operationalization,” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context , eds U. Kim, K. S. Yang, and K. K. Hwang (New York, NY: Springer), 445–466.

Google Scholar

Bartlett, L., Buscot, M.-J., Bindoff, A., Chambers, R., and Hassed, C. (2021). Mindfulness is associated with lower stress and higher work engagement in a large sample of MOOC participants. Front. Psychol. 12:724126. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724126

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bélanger, J. J., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Vallerand, R. J., and Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Driven by fear: the effect of success and failure information on passionate individuals’ performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 180–195. doi: 10.1037/a0029585

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., and Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: on the use (and misuse) of rwg and rwg(j) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. Leadersh. Quart. 23, 66–80. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.006

Boudrias, J. S., Rousseau, V., and Lajoie, D. (2021). How lack of integrity and tyrannical leadership of managers influence employee improvement-oriented behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 172, 487–502. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04494-5

Brenninkmeijer, V., and Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft or not to craft: the relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Dev. Int. 20, 147–162. doi: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162

Brockner, J., and Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86, 35–66. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2972

Brown, K. W., and Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 822–848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown, M., Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., and Metz, I. (2017). Understanding the change-cynicism cycle: the role of HR. Hum. Resour. Manage. 56, 5–24. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21708

Burnham, K., and David, A. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. New York: Springer Press.

Castro, S. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: a comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling. Leadersh. Quart. 13, 69–93. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00105-9

Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., and Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 108–128. doi: 10.1002/job.1797

Chen, H., and Kao, H. S. (2009). Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates’ psychological health. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 20, 2533–2546. doi: 10.1080/09585190903363839

Chen, H. Y., and Boore, J. R. (2010). Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing research: methodological review. J. Clin. Nurs. 19, 234–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02896.x

Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., and Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J. Manag. 40, 796–819. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410604

Chen, Z. J., Davison, R. M., Mao, J. Y., and Wang, Z. H. (2018). When and how authoritarian leadership and leader renqing orientation influence tacit knowledge sharing intentions. Inform. Manag. 55, 840–849. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.03.011

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., and Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 7, 89–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x

Cheng, M. Y., and Wang, L. (2015). The mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and team identification: a team-level analysis in the Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 129, 639–654. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2189-5

Cheung, S. Y., Gong, Y., Wang, M., Zhou, L., and Shi, J. (2016). When and how does functional diversity influence team innovation? The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of affect-based trust in a team. Hum. Relat. 69, 1507–1531. doi: 10.1177/0018726715615684

Chowdhury, D. (2015). Deviant citizenship behavior: a comprehensive framework towards behavioral excellence in organizations. East. Asian J. Bus. Manag. 5, 13–26. doi: 10.13106/eajbm.2014.vol5.no1.13

Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., and Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Going underground: bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 25, 1287–1305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0856

Dahling, J. J., and Gutworth, M. B. (2017). Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of constructive deviance. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 1167–1182. doi: 10.1002/job.2194

Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. J. Manag. 37, 997–1018. doi: 10.1177/0149206310367948

Dar, N., and Rahman, W. (2020). Two angles of overqualfication-the deviant behavior and creative performance: the role of career and survival job. PLoS One 15:e0226677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226677

Dartey-Baah, K., and Ampofo, E. Y. (2015). Examining the influence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on perceived job stress among Ghanaian banking employees. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 10, 161–170. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p

Decoster, S., Stouten, J., Camps, J., and Tripp, T. M. (2014). The role of employees’ OCB and leaders’ hindrance stress in the emergence of self-serving leadership. Leadership. Quart. 25, 647–659. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.02.005

Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., Rhee, J., and Yoon, J. (2016). Entrepreneur’s paternalistic leadership style and creativity: the mediating role of employee voice. Manage. Decis. 54, 2310–2324. doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2015-0537

Dollard, M., and Bakker, A. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a recursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 83, 579–599. doi: 10.1348/096317909X470690

Dooley, L. M., Alizadeh, A., Qiu, S., and Wu, H. (2020). Does servant leadership moderate the relationship between job stress and physical health? Sustainability 12, 6591. doi: 10.3390/su12166591

Du, J., Li, N. N., and Luo, Y. J. (2020). Authoritarian leadership in organizational changeand employees’ active reactions: have-to and willing-to perspectives. Front. Psychol. 10:3076. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076

Duan, J., Bao, C., Huang, C., and Brinsfield, C. T. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in China. J. Manage. Organ. 24, 62–80. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.61

Edwards, B. D., Franco-Watkins, A. M., Cullen, K. L., Howell, J. W., and Acuff, R. E. Jr. (2014). Unifying the challenge-hindranceand sociocognitive models of stress. Int. J. Stress. Manag. 21, 162–185. doi: 10.1037/a0034730

Eisenbeiss, S. A., and Van Knippenberg, D. (2015). On ethical leadership impact: the role of follower mindfulness and moral emotions. J. Organ. Behav. 36, 182–195. doi: 10.1002/job.1968

Farh, J. L., and Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organization. Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chinese Soc. 13, 127–180. doi: 10.1057/9780230511590_5

Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2988–3025. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x

Ganster, D. C., and Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: a multidisciplinary review. J. Manag. 39, 1085–1122. doi: 10.1177/0149206313475815

Gao, Q., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Liu, L., and Wu, C. (2020). Exploration and analysis on the psychological capital of entrepreneurship and the deviant innovation behavior of employees. Front. Psychol. 11:1880. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01880

Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., and Farh, J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manage. J. 52, 765–778. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.43670890

González-Cruz, T. F., Botella-Carrubi, D., and Martínez-Fuentes, C. M. (2019). Supervisor leadership style, employee regulatory focus, and leadership performance: a perspectivism approach. J. Bus. Res. 101, 660–667. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.065

González-Ramírez, M., and Hernández, R. (2007). Factor structure of the perceived stress scale (PSS) in a sample from Mexico. Span. J. Psychol. 10, 199–206. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600006466

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc. Equ. Mod.: A Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C., and Farh, J. L. (2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Acad. Manage. Discov. 1, 180–200. doi: 10.5465/amd

Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., and Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 310–25. doi: 10.1037/a0031313

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysisspanning three decades of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1128–1145. doi: 10.1037/a0015978

Jamieson, S. D., and Tuckey, M. R. (2017). Mindfulness interventions in the workplace: a critique of the current state of the literature. J. Occup. Health. Psychol. 22, 180–193. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000048

Javed, B., Khan, A. A., Bashir, S., and Arjoon, S. (2017). Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: the role of psychological empowerment. Curr. Issues. Tour. 20, 839–851. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2016.1188894

Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., and Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: the mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Front. Psychol. 8:732. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732

Joo, B. K. B., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., and Yoon, S. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team cohesion. Inter. J. Tra. Dev. 16, 77–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00395.x

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., and Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 126–138. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.126

Karakitapoglu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Erturk, A., and Scandura, T. A. (2021). Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. J. Bus. Res. 128, 473–485. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034

Kell, H. J. (2018). Unifying vocational psychology’s trait and social-cognitive approaches through the cognitive-affective personality system. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 22, 343–354. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000146

Kiken, L. G., and Shook, N. J. (2011). Looking up: mindfulness increases positive judgments and reduces negativity bias. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2, 425–431. doi: 10.1177/1948550610396585

Koo, T. K., and Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 15, 155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manu-facturing research using structural equation modeling. J. Oper. Manag. 17, 467–488. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00002-9

Kronenwett, M., and Rigotti, T. (2020). All’s well that ends well!? Moderating effects of goal progress on the relation between challenge and hindrance appraisal and well-being. J. Manag. Psychol. [Epub online ahead of print]. doi: 10.1108/JMP-11-2019-0618

Lai, C. Y., Hsu, J. S. C., and Li, Y. (2018). Leadership, regulatory focus and information systems development project team performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36, 566–582. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.11.001

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., and Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria. Organ. Res. Methods. 9, 202–220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919

Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., et al. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: development and validation. J. Clin. Psychol. 62, 1445–1467. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20326

LeBreton, J. M., and Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods. 11, 815–852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642

LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., and Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 883–891. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883

Li, Z., Li, X., Tang, R., and Zhang, L. (2020). Apriori algorithm for the data mining of global cyberspace security issues for human participatory based on association rules. Front. Psychol. 11:582480. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582480

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., and Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends onthe outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 107–123. doi: 10.1037/a0024610

Liao, H., Joshi, A., and Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Pers. Psychol. 57, 969–1000. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00012.x

Lin, B., Mainemelis, C., and Kark, R. (2016). Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. Leadership. Quart. 27, 537–556. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.001

Lin, S. H., and Johnson, R. E. (2018). Opposing affective and cognitive effects of prevention focus on counterproductive work behavior. J. Bus. Psychol. 33, 283–296. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9493-x

Liu, T., Chen, Y., Hu, C., Yuan, X., Liu, C.-E., and He, W. (2020). The paradox of group citizenship and constructive deviance: a resolution of environmental dynamism and moral justification. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 17:8371. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228371

Mai, Y., Yang, H., and Zhang, G. (2021). Does business model innovation enhance the sustainable development of new ventures? Understanding an inverted-u relationship. Sustainability 13:262. doi: 10.3390/SU13010262

Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Acad. Manage. Rev. 35, 558–578. doi: 10.5465/amr.35.4.zok558

Malik, P., and Lenka, U. (2019). Exploring the impact of perceived AMO framework on constructive and destructive deviance mediating role of employee engagement. Int. J. Manpower 40, 994–1011. doi: 10.1108/IJM-05-2018-0164

Masoudnia, Y., and Szwejczewski, M. (2012). Bootlegging in the R&D departments of high-technology firms. Res. Technol. Manage. 55, 35–42. doi: 10.5437/08956308X5505070

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., and Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1220–1233. doi: 10.1037/a0012695

Neves, P., and Champion, S. (2015). Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance: the role of resources and self-regulation. Eur. Manag. J. 33, 381–391. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2015.06.001

Ng, T. W., and Yam, K. C. (2019). When and why does employee creativity fuel deviance? Key psychological mechanisms. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 1144–1163. doi: 10.1037/apl0000397

Nübold, A., Van Quaquebeke, N., and Hülsheger, U. R. (2019). Be(com)ing real: a multi-source and an intervention study on mindfulness and authentic leadership. J. Bus. Psychol. 35, 469–488. doi: 10.1007/s10869-019-09633-y

Oettingen, G., Pak, H. J., and Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 736–753. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.5.736

Oiknine, A., Pollard, K. A., Khooshabeh, P., and Files, B. T. (2021). Need for cognition is positively related to promotion focus and negatively related to prevention focus. Front. Psychol. 12:606847. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.606847

Perry, S. J., Hunter, E. M., and Currall, S. C. (2016). Managing the innovators: organizational and professional commitment among scientists and engineers. Res. Policy. 45, 1247–1262. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.009

Pfattheicher, S. (2015). A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: the impact of prevention-focused self-regulation. Motiv. Emot. 39, 932–942. doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9501-2

Pfattheicher, S., and Sassenrath, C. (2014). A regulatory focus perspective on eating behavior: how prevention andpromotion focus relates to emotional, external, and restrained eating. Front. Psychol. 5:1314. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01314

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: a survey and synthesis of new developments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 825–852. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258

Quade, M. J., Perry, S. J., and Hunter, E. M. (2019). Boundary conditions of ethical leadership: exploring supervisor-induced and job hindrancestress as potential inhibitors. J. Bus. Ethics. 158, 1165–1184. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3771-4

Reb, J., Narayanan, J., and Ho, Z. W. (2015). Mindfulness at work: antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness 6, 111–122. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4

Rodell, J. B., and Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1438–1451. doi: 10.1037/a0016752

Rui, J., and Qi, L. X. (2021). The trickle-down effect of authoritarian leadership on unethical employee behavior: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 11:550082. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550082

Sarpong, D., Bi, J., and Botchi, D. (2018). In direct breach of managerial edicts: a practice approach to creative deviance in professional service firms. R. Manag. 48, 1–11. doi: 10.1111/radm.12315

Shukla, J., and Kark, R. (2020). Now you do it, now you don’t: the mixed blessing of creative deviance as a prosocial behavior. Front. Psychol. 11:313. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00313

Simar, L., and Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J. Econom. 136, 31–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009

Spagnoli, P., Molino, M., Molinaro, D., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., and Ghislieri, C. (2020). Workaholism and technostress during the COVID-19 emergency: Tthe crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Front. Psychol. 11:620310. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620310

Tian, Q., and Sanchez, J. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 235–246. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12431

Tremblay, M. (2017). Humor in teams: multilevel relationships between humor climate, inclusion, trust, and citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Psychol. 32, 363–378. doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9445-x

Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., and Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: integrating and moving forward. J. Manag. 39, 1221–1276. doi: 10.1177/0149206313475816

Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., and Smith, M. B. (2013). A multilevel model of employee innovation: understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. J. Manage. 42, 982–1004. doi: 10.1177/0149206313506462

Walsh, M. M., and Arnold, K. A. (2020). The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: leadership style and employee well-being. Stress. Health. 36, 287–298. doi: 10.1002/smi.2926

Wang, H., and Guan, B. (2018). The Positive Effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: the moderating Role of Power Distance. Front. Psychol. 9:357. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357

Worthy, D. A., Markman, A. B., and Maddox, W. T. (2009). What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16, 344–349. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.344

Yang, C., Nay, S., and Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Appl. Psychil. Meas. 34, 122–142. doi: 10.1177/0146621609338592

Yang, T., Ma, M., Zhu, M., Liu, Y., Chen, Q., Zhang, S., et al. (2018). Challenge or hindrance: does job stress affect presenteeism among Chinese healthcare workers? J. Occup. Health 60, 163–171. doi: 10.1539/joh.17-0195-OA

Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., and Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: the role of group processes. Leadership Quart. 22, 851–862. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007

Zhang, Y., and Xie, Y. H. (2017). Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manag. Organ. Rev. 13, 147–166. doi: 10.1017/mor.2016.36

Zhang, Z., and Arvey, R. D. (2009). Rule breaking in adolescence and entrepreneurial status: an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 436–447. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.009

Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., and Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: problems and solutions. Organ. Res. Methods. 12, 695–719. doi: 10.1177/1094428108327450

Zhu, Y., Zhang, S., and Shen, Y. (2019). Humble leadership and employee resilience: exploring the mediating mechanism of work-related promotion focus and perceived insider identity. Front. Psychol. 10:673. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00673

Keywords : team authoritarian leadership, creative deviance, dual occupational stress, prevention regulatory focus, individual mindfulness

Citation: Xu J, Li Y-Z, Zhu D-Q and Li J-Z (2022) “Lubricant” or “Stumbling Block”?: The Paradoxical Association Between Team Authoritarian Leadership and Creative Deviance. Front. Psychol. 13:835970. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.835970

Received: 15 December 2021; Accepted: 21 February 2022; Published: 31 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Xu, Li, Zhu and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jing-Zhi Li, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange

• Original Paper
• Published: 08 August 2023

Cite this article

• Ning Yang 1 ,
• Hui Chen 1 &
• Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang 2  

1023 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Creative deviance is a creative activity that an individual privately engages in that has the contradictory characteristics of high risk and high reward. Drawing on social learning theory, the authors examine the impact of paradoxical leadership behavior (PLB) on employee creative deviance through two studies. Study 1 was a preliminary test of the hypotheses. Study 2 repeated the findings of Study 1 to verify the reliability of the findings. The results showed that PLB was positively related to employee creative deviance and that employee paradox mindset mediated the positive relationship between PLB and creative deviance. Furthermore, leader–member exchange (LMX) moderated the effect of PLB on a paradox mindset and the mediation effect of a paradox mindset, such that the two effects were stronger when LMX was high. The implications and limitations of our research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

I am not proactive but I want to speak up: A self-concept perspective

Effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior in a Confucian context

How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity the mediating role of leader–member exchange and the moderating role of power distance orientation.

Two PLB dimensions, maintaining both distance and closeness (DC) and treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization (UI), may have conceptual overlaps with LMX. Thus, we conducted additional CFAs test if LMX is distinctive from the DC and UI subscales. The results showed that, in both studies, the three-factor model (LMX, DC, UI) fit the data significantly better than the other alterative models. Study 1: the three-factor model ( χ 2  = 398.878, df =  186, χ 2 / df  = 2.10, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06) fit the data better than the two-factor model A (LMX + DC vs. UI) (Δ χ 2  = 67.67, p < 0.001), the two-factor model B (LMX + UI vs. DC) (Δ χ 2  = 61.62, p < 0.001), and one-factor model (LMX + DC + UI) (Δ χ 2  = 90.46, p < 0.001). Study 2: the three-factor model ( χ 2  = 436.23, df =  186, χ 2 / df  = 2.35, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06 fit the data better than the two-factor model A (LMX + DC, UI) (Δ χ 2  = 161.33, p < 0.001), the two-factor model B (LMX + UI, DC) (Δ χ 2  = 295.947, p < 0.001), and one-factor model (LMX + DC + UI) (Δ χ 2  = 381.194, p < 0.001).

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance , 25 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.631648 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy , 34 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010 .

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 55 (5), 1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470 .

Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Liu, J. T. (2017). Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 30 (12), 1869–1901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1308414 .

Bai, Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., & Li, F. (2019). Learning from supervisor negative gossip: The reflective learning process and performance outcome of employee receivers. Human Relations , 73 (12), 1689–1717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719866250 .

Bandura, A. (1977a). 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 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory (1 vol.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socialcognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 (2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053 .

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1 (3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 .

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 97 (2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 .

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal , 22 (3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654 .

Chen, S., Zhang, Y., Liang, L., & Shen, T. (2021). Does paradoxical leadership facilitate leaders’ task performance? A perspective of self-regulation theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (7), 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073505 .

Cheng, M. W., Leung, M. L., & Lau, J. C. H. (2021). A review of growth mindset intervention in higher education: The case for infographics in cultivating mindset behaviors. Social Psychology of Education , 24 (5), 1335–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09660-9 .

Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (4), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201 .

Dai, Y. D., Zhuang, W. L., Yang, P. K., Wang, Y. J., & Huan, T. C. (2020). Exploring hotel employees’ regulatory foci and voice behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 33 (1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2020-0211 .

Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review , 5 (2), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1980.4288758 .

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review , 11 (3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242 .

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry , 6 (4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 .

Fürstenberg, N., Alfes, K., & Kearney, E. (2021). How and when paradoxical leadership benefits work engagement: The role of goal clarity and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 94 (3), 672–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12344 .

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science , 21 (3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0485 .

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 .

Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 65 (1), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00051-4 .

Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (4), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12215 .

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 (2), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025217 .

Han, G. H., & Bai, Y. (2020). Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 35 (5), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-02-2019-0106 .

Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2016). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies , 38 (3–4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640843 .

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 (2), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.311 .

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44 (4), 764–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/26670 .

Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2022). The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 107 (10), 1706–1724. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000980 .

Kang, D., & Stewart, J. (2007). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 28 (6), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710780976 .

Kark, R., Preser, R., & Zion-Waldoks, T. (2016). From a politics of dilemmas to a politics of paradoxes. Journal of Management Education , 40 (3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916634375 .

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Benefits of transformational behaviors for leaders: A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 (2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000052 .

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review , 25 (4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712 .

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 50 (2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322 .

Lian, H., Huai, M., Farh, J. L., Huang, J. C., Lee, C., & Chao, M. (2022). Leader unethical pro-organizational behavior and employee unethical conduct: Social learning of moral disengagement as a behavioral principle. Journal of Management , 48 (2), 350–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320959699 .

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management , 24 (1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1 .

Lin, B., Mainemelis, C., & Kark, R. (2016). Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. The Leadership Quarterly , 27 (4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.001 .

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 9 (2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1 .

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods , 18 (3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liu, F., & Zhou, K. (2021). Idiosyncratic deals and creative deviance: The mediating role of psychological entitlement. R & D Management , 51 (5), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12430 .

Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and job performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships and traditionality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 86 (4), 564–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12027 .

Liu, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C. H., Shi, J., Zhou, L., & Shao, R. (2015). Work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Applied Psychology , 100 (3), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038387 .

Liu, Y. J., Xu, S. Y., & Zhang, B. N. (2020). Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 56 (3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267 .

Liu, Z., Pan, X., & Zhu, T. (2021). Status-striving orientation, creative deviance engagement and employee creativity: Perspective of structural strain. Chinese Management Studies , 15 (4), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-09-2020-0413 .

Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly , 30 (1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x .

Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. (2009). Linking leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review , 5 (3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00149.x .

Lomranz, J., & Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence: Aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. Journal of Adult Development , 23 (2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4 .

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sense making: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217 .

Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review , 35 (4), 558–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok558 .

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41 (9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 .

Martinaityte, I., & Sacramento, C. A. (2013). When creativity enhances sales effectiveness: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 (7), 974–994. https://doi.org/10.1002/job .

Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.697 .

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 108 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 .

McCornack, R. L. (1956). A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods. Journal of Applied Psychology , 40 (5), 343–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045635 .

Michel, J. W., & Tews, M. J. (2016). Does leader–member exchange accentuate the relationship between leader behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 23 (1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815606429 .

Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 116 (2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006 .

Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal , 61 (1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594 .

Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How environments lay theories shape people’s cognition, affect and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209347380 .

Muthén, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user’s guide . Muthén & Muthén.

Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly , 23 (2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323217 .

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786079 .

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management , 12 (4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408 .

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 .

Qin, X., Huang, M., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal , 61 (5), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325 .

Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior. Human Relations , 66 (7), 951–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713481633 .

Rigotti, T., Korek, S., & Otto, K. (2020). Career-related self-efficacy, its antecedents and relationship to subjective career success in a cross-lagged panel study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 31 (20), 2645–2672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1460858 .

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals , 10 (1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 .

Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 155 , 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 .

Shukla, J., & Kark, R. (2020). Now you do it, now you don’t: The mixed blessing of creative deviance as a prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00313 .

Sleesman, D. J. (2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 155 , 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.008 .

Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2017). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly , 64 (1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826 .

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review , 36 (2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223 .

Song, D., Liu, H., Gu, J., & He, C. (2018). Collectivism and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. Creativity and Innovation Management , 27 (2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12253 .

Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (6), 1194–1208. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478645 .

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Knippenberg, D., & Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 41 (6), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2449 .

Tenzer, H., & Yang, P. (2019). Personality, values, or attitudes? Individual-level antecedents to creative deviance. International Journal of Innovation Management , 23 (2), 1950009. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919619500099 .

Tenzer, H., & Yang, P. (2020). The impact of organizational support and individual achievement orientation on creative deviance. International Journal of Innovation Management , 24 (4), 2050020. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500206 .

Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 19 (1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90056-3 .

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 (6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.711 .

Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4), 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090 .

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review , 14 (3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067 .

Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 (3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2059 .

Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 (3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000063 .

Xue, Y., Li, X., Liang, H., & Li, Y. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect employees’ voice behaviors in workplace? A leader-member exchange perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (4), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041162 .

Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 (4), 806–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022464 .

Yang, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle manager leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies , 47 (4), 654–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00902.x .

Yang, Y. F., Lee, P. K. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2017). Leveraging selected operational improvement practices to achieve both efficiency and creativity: A multi-level study in frontline service operations. International Journal of Production Economics , 191 , 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.023 .

Yin, J. (2023). Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: The mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning. Current Psychology , 42 , 2708–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01597-8 .

Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 155 , 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007 .

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 .

Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly , 29 (5), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China

Ning Yang & Hui Chen

Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 XinJieKouWai St., Haidian District, Beijing, 100875, China

Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71972015 & 71472179) awarded to Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang.

Additional supplementary materials may be found here by searching on article title https://osf.io/collections/jbp/discover .

To further examine the relationship between PLB and employee paradox mindset, we conducted a cross-lagged panel study, in order to show that the direction of the effect is from PLB to paradox mindset, not vice versa. The panel design can simultaneously test possible bidirectional effects between PLB and paradox mindset. In our panel design, the same participants were asked to complete the same measures (i.e., PLB and paradox mindset) at two separate points in time. The results from a panel design provide a stronger test of the direction of effects between PLB and paradox mindset and thus help us unravel the puzzle of which variable leads to the other. Specifically, strong evidence would be provided for the predictive effect of PLB on a temporal change in paradox mindset if a significant effect was found between Time 1 PLB and Time 2 paradox mindset after T1 paradox mindset was controlled for (Bai et al., 2019 ; Rigotti et al., 2020 ).

We collected data from China with the assistance of Credamo. The participants were full-time employees of private companies. At T1, the participants were asked to report PLB and paradox mindset using the same scale items as in the two main studies. At T2 (two months after T1), the participants reported PLB and paradox mindset again. The reliability was very good for all the scales (T1 PLB α = 0.91; T2 PLB = 0.92; T1 paradoxical mindset α = 0.84; T2 paradoxical mindset α = 0.86). The final sample included 131 men and 118 women, with an average age of 32.34 years. Their average organizational tenure was 6.10 years, and their leader tenure was 4.02 years. In addition, 71% of the employees had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

As shown in the Table  5 below, the hierarchical linear regression results showed that T1 PLB was positively related to a temporal change in paradox mindset ( B  = 0.23, p < 0.01) when T1 paradox mindset was controlled for. More importantly, T1 paradox mindset was not significantly related to a temporal change in PLB ( B  = 0.08, p > 0.05) when T1 PLB was controlled for. These results suggested the leader’s PLB at T1 had a significant lagged effect on the employee’s paradox mindset, whereas employees’ paradox mindset at T1 did not result in a temporal change in their perception of leader PLB.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yang, N., Chen, H. & (Frank) Wang, XH. Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Employee Creative Deviance: The Role of Paradox Mindset and Leader–Member Exchange. J Bus Psychol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x

Download citation

Accepted : 18 July 2023

Published : 08 August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09902-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paradoxical leadership behavior
• Creative deviance
• Leader–member exchange
• Paradox mindset
• Social learning theory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

The creativity paradox: what makes a good team?

Differences in collaborative groups are not all bad.

Team South Africa huddle prior to the Men's Hockey - Semi-Final match between India and South Africa, on day nine of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, on August 06, Birmingham, England. Getty

“The experience was magical. I had enjoyed collaborative work before, but this was something different,” said Daniel Kahneman of the beginnings of his years-long partnership with fellow psychologist Amos Tversky that culminated in a Nobel Prize in economic sciences three decades later.

What Kahneman did not dwell on in his account was how different the two men were. One was confident, optimistic and a night owl; the other was a morning lark, reflective and constantly looking for flaws. Yet their partnership flourished.

“Our principle was to discuss every disagreement until it had been resolved to mutual satisfaction,” recalled Kahneman, author of the best-selling book, Thinking, Fast and Slow . “Amos and I shared the wonder of together owning a goose that could lay golden eggs – a joint mind that was better than our separate minds.”

The legendary collaboration could well have been a case study of the secret of team creativity. In a new paper, we show how teams are more creative when members recognise and embrace differences, and systematically explore members’ opposing perspectives.

Our work builds on our past research on the paradox mindset. The paradox approach, in a nutshell, helps us switch from an “either/or” to “both/and” framing of competing demands. In doing so, we recognise that tensions – between autonomy and control, or creativity and discipline – are contradictory but also interrelated, even mutually reinforcing.

That in turn spurs us to find a dynamic equilibrium in navigating the demands, rather than prioritising one or the other, with surprisingly positive payback. My colleagues and I showed that people who adopt paradoxical frames – or recognise and embrace the simultaneous existence of contradictory elements – could be very creative, even radically creative.

In our latest paper, we focused on creativity in teams – as opposed to individual creativity – with an emphasis on diverse teams marked by different, even contradictory, perspectives. When teams adopt paradoxical frames, we hypothesised, they collectively recognise the contradictions inherent in the task at hand, yet understand that the contradictions could feed off each other to the team’s benefit.

However, we suspected that the paradox approach might not be enough to elevate team creativity. After all, teams contend with both tensions between competing task demands and different roles and perspectives among team members. An engineer is likely to prioritise functionality whereas a designer may focus on aesthetics. Such representational gaps are also likely to occur in cross-cultural teams.

We theorised that, to be really creative, the paradox mindset must go hand in hand with what we call epistemic motivation. Put simply, team members must be motivated to thoroughly understand the task and their competing perspectives and demands, as well as how these are interconnected, and then integrate their ideas in the best way possible. The middle-ground solution – the easy way out – is not an option for such teams.

We call this painstaking creative process “idea elaboration”. Picture Kahneman and Tversky animatedly building on each other’s ideas, debating every idea and every word in every paper they ever wrote together, synthesising them in the best way possible, until they were satisfied with the result.

Our hypotheses were borne out by two experiments. In the first, about 500 undergraduates at a college in the US were randomly assigned to teams of three to design an “original, creative, useful and low-cost” model toy vehicle. Each team was then randomly primed for one of four different conditions: paradoxical framing with high or low (control) epistemic motivation, and low or high epistemic motivation without paradoxical framing.

Teams in the paradox condition were asked to write down and discuss three contradictory perspectives or interests that they needed to address, and to think of how these perspectives or interests could complement each other. Teams in the control group were instructed to simply review their various perspectives and ideas without recognising and embracing their contradictions.

To induce the high epistemic motivation, we told teams that they would be interviewed on the strategies they used during brainstorming by researchers after the experiment. Teams in the control condition were not told that they would be interviewed about their strategies.

We found that teams with paradoxical frames and high epistemic motivation were more creative and better able to balance the conflicting demands for novelty and usefulness. Their products were assessed by two independent judges as more novel and useful than the other teams, who tended to focus on novelty or usefulness, and to settle for subpar compromises.

The second study was similar to the first, except we accentuated epistemic motivation (or the lack thereof). In the paradoxical frame-high epistemic motivation condition, we instructed team members to share and review opposing perspectives, clarify the differences, and integrate them into solutions. In short, they were primed to scrutinise their contradictory ideas and perspectives.

By contrast, in the paradoxical frame-low epistemic condition, participants were instructed to share their opposing perspectives, but then go for middle-of-the-road compromise solutions without deeply exploring their different perspectives.

Just as in the first study, we found that teams in the paradoxical frame-high epistemic motivation condition were significantly more creative and able to balance novelty and usefulness better than other teams. These teams were more creative because they engaged in idea elaboration. They built on each other’s ideas and searched for a truly synergetic solution that fully addressed contradictory demands and reflected their collective effort.

As Kahneman recalled: “Some of the greatest joys of our collaboration – and probably much of its success – came from our ability to elaborate each other’s nascent thoughts: if I expressed a half-formed idea, I knew that Amos would be there to understand it, probably more clearly than I did, and that if it had merit he would see it.”

Conversely, the paradoxical frame-low epistemic motivation teams were only as creative as teams in the control group, in which members simply shared their different perspectives and ideas without recognising and embracing contradictions or exploring their ideas.

Our world is facing global challenges that require extraordinary creativity from diverse teams. But forming diverse teams is not enough to foster creativity. It is only when team members embrace their contradictions, and are willing to openly discuss their opposing perspectives, that they can integrate them into innovative solutions.

If we were able to prime teams to adopt paradoxical frames and be epistemically driven with simple instructions in the laboratory, managers of creative teams can also do so in real-world settings.

Tell your team: "What we really care about is to learn where each one of us comes from, what our differences are. Let’s surface as many possible and different perspectives. Ensure that we consider all the interests, all the competing elements. Explore them deeply and separately. Only then shall we integrate our opposing perspectives to find the best, most creative solution.”

The paradox mindset will help team members surface their latent differences, in the form of representational gaps, and acknowledge the tension while seeing the differences as a strength and an opportunity to come up with good ideas. Being epistemically motivated ensures that they explore those ideas thoroughly before deciding on the best solution.

While few of us can aspire to a Nobel Prize, we can all strive to collaborate like Tversky and Kahneman, whose collaboration was “impossibly incongruous and yet perfectly complementary”.

A version of this article was first published in Insead Knowledge

Ella Miron-Spektor is an Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Insead

Kyle Emich is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Delaware

Linda Argote is the Thomas Lord Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Theory at Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

Wendy Smith is the Emma Morris Smith Professor of Management at the University of Delaware

8 paradoxes of creative people.

• BY Anne Bogel
• IN Personality/MBTI , The Examined Life
• 28 Comments | Comment

I heard Penn researcher and Ungifted author Scott Barry Kaufman speak recently about redefining intelligence at Idea Festival, a local conference. Kaufman is a brilliant researcher who spent years in special ed because his kind of intelligence didn’t align with his teachers’ traditional view of what intelligence looked like.

Traditional intelligence tests measure skills located in the brain’s executive control network: working memory, processing speed, vocabulary, reasoning skills. But creative people have messy minds, and these tests are often poor at recognizing their intelligence. They don’t assess the brain’s imagination network, which is distinct from but just as important as the brain’s executive functions, and is responsible for a whole catalog of skills that traditional intelligence tests ignore.

The imagination network is associated with things like self-awareness, daydreaming, and imagining the future, and it is crucial to our best thinking. When you seek empathy, pull meaning out of your experiences, and reason about moral dilemmas, your imagination network is at work.

(When you read fiction, you rely on and strengthen your imagination network, because you must transport your mind into the mind of someone else.)

In creative types, the lines between discrete mental skills aren’t neat and tidy; they tend to blur. According to Kaufman, “They are really good at mixing and matching all sorts of seemingly contradictory emotions, ideas, and personality traits to produce something truly original and meaningful.”

Because of their ability to blur the lines, creative people are excellent at dreaming up new possibilities and envisioning alternate realities across domains. Being this kind of possibility thinker is a strong predictor of success across the board.

If you feel like your mind is messy, have no fear—that’s not a bad thing. It’s characteristic of creative minds, which are untidy and characterized by paradox.

8 paradoxes of creative people

1. MINDFUL DAYDREAMERS. Creative types don’t view daydreaming as a waste of time. Letting their minds wander often results in their best ideas seemingly striking from out of the blue.

2. IMAGINATIVELY GRITTY. Creative people can persevere against all obstacles when pursuing an issue they care deeply about.

3. PASSIONATELY INTROVERTED. Creative thinkers may spend copious amounts of time alone, because solitude is a requirement for their best work.

4. OPENLY SENSITIVE.  These individuals are open to new experiences, ideas, and emotions. They also have sensitive nervous systems, and score highly on the Highly Sensitive Person scale .

5. PLAYFULLY SERIOUS. Creative people can be playful and silly, embracing the absurdity of life, yet are highly focused on and serious about the issues that most concern them.

6. LOGICALLY INTUITIVE. They heed their intuition, but can also think rationally when necessary. 

7. VULNERABLY RESILIENT. They are able to bounce back from trauma, learning from their hardships and channeling that new knowledge for creative growth.

8. REBELLIOUS EXPERTS. These individuals are serious experts and  rabble-rousers.  

Kaufman will unpack these ideas further in his forthcoming book Wired to Create: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Human Mind , due out December 29. As someone who relates all too well to his “messy minds” description, I can’t wait to learn more.

Do you have a “messy mind?” Tell us if these paradoxes ring true for you. 

P.S. I wrote a book about personality! In  Reading People: How Seeing the World through the Lens of Personality Changes Everything , I walk you through 7 different frameworks, explaining the basics in a way you can actually understand, sharing personal stories about how what I learned made a difference in my life, and showing you how it could make a difference in yours, as well.

28 comments

Goodness! Reading those different personality types, I have absolutely no idea where I would fall. I guess I’ll have to read the book! Adding it to my Amazon wishlist now 🙂

“Creative types don’t view daydreaming as a waste of time. Letting their minds wander often results in their best ideas seemingly striking from out of the blue.”

Yes. So, so yes.

Oh yes, this is me. All of it.

PASSIONATELY INTROVERTED.

Yep, you’re calling my name, Anne …

“Openly sensitive” is a perfect way to explain it, oh my word!

Mindful daydreamer. Passionately introverted. Logically intuititve. Check, check, and check. These all resonated with me.

I recognize myself in some of those characteristics, Anne. When it comes to #8, I think I’d be more likely to fit the description if my job were not the antithesis of a rabble rousing profession.

But do all black muumuu wearers make cracks about the uniform and blog on the side about questioning (at least at times) the status quo? 😉

Yes to all of it. Anne, this really answers my life-long question of “where do I belong?” Thanks for posting this.

Something that didn’t make it into the post: he said that creative people are often comfortable being “a minority of one,” and that this trait is a strong predictor of creativity AND lifelong success across the board.

Oh that speaks to me on so many levels! Thank you for this post, it was the personal reaffirmation I needed today ?.

Yes, Anne, I am all of these things, especially #1, #3 and # 6.

I am definitely passionately introverted. I love spending big chunks of time alone. It is great thinking and creative time and makes some of the other things ( like #1 and # 6) possible. I am attending a Writer’s Retreat in a few weeks and it turns out I will not be able to carpool with anyone because of logistics. I was thrilled to know that I would have 5 hours each way in the car alone…great thinking and talking out loud to myself time : ).

I relate to this. 🙂 Have a great retreat!

While I identify with all of these characteristics, I’m finding it ironic that someone is trying to characterize a creative person. That feels like putting a box around creative personalities, and isn’t that what creatives are supposed to think outside of?I think it’s possible to be a deeply creative person, and also live well in a world of logic and technical test questions.

I’m hoping that his forthcoming 80,000 word book will be able to flesh out these ideas in much more detail.

I love the concept of being “openly sensitive”. I am very open to new experiences and ideas, but I also score very high on the HSP scale. It always seemed like such a contradiction, but I love that it is associated with being creative. Cool list!

Anne, I clicked on this post because I am a creative, and I’m also very messy. I struggle with clutter and messiness every stinkin’ day. With all the trendiness now being about minimalism, and my tendencies toward the other end of the spectrum . . . THIS is what I need to be reminded of. We are not all created to be exactly the same. There are people who are more comfortable with sparse, tidy environments. And then there are people like me, who create and thrive in a (cough) looser environment entirely. Not that I want to live in a pile of junk. . . but I’ll anxiously await the chance to read this book!

• Pingback: Wordy Weekend Links and Spiffy Greeting Cards | Fine Art, Calligraphy, and Coloring Pages
• Pingback: October 2015 Loves - Learning to Love
• Pingback: Friday Favorites, October 30 - Blessed by Brenna
• Pingback: Weekend’s Best | Every Day's Best
• Pingback: 8 paradoxes of creative people. – Modern Mrs. Darcy | dancing for an audience of One –
• Pingback: Tuesday Inspiration: All things Creative | Flora Dwellings

Every single one of these describes me! Characteristics like “vulnerably resilient” used to throw me for a loop because I couldn’t understand how it was possible to be both at once. Now I think of it as my superpower 😉 I’ve accepted that I’m always going to be a minority, and I’m fine with it, but it’s still nice to read that other people experience the same things I do. 🙂

I’m late to the conversation, but so glad I read this post- it describes me to a “T”! I’m grateful you wrote it and may have to check out the book. Im also happy to read that someone else can not do minimalism. When I am creating something, that means physical clutter and a messy brain.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We appreciate a good conversation in the comments section. Whether we’re talking about books or life, differing opinions can enrich a discussion when they’re offered for the purpose of greater connection and deeper understanding, which we whole-heartedly support. We have begun holding all comments for moderation and manually approving them ( learn more ). My team and I will not approve comments that are hurtful or intended to shame members of this community, particularly if they are left by first-time commenters. We have zero tolerance for hate speech or bigotry of any kind. Remember that there are real people on the other side of the screen. We’re grateful our community of readers is characterized by kindness, curiosity, and thoughtfulness. Thank you for helping us keep it that way.

Modern Mrs Darcy® participates in affiliate marketing programs, where we receive a small commission when products are purchased through links on the site. We have an affiliate relationship with the following retailers: Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, Bookshop, Libro.fm, Target.com, and others. We appreciate it so much when you support Modern Mrs Darcy® by clicking on these links to make your purchases.

© 2023 Anne Bogel | Website by Contemplate Design

summer reading starts May 16th

Grab your Summer Reading Guide and join us for the best book party of the year!

Find your next read with:

100 book recommendations for every mood.

Plus weekly emails with book lists, reading life tips, and links to delight avid readers.

Grammar with Connie

고교 내신 || 모의고사 자료/고 2 영어 모의고사 (3, 6, 9, 11월)

고등) 2021년 9월 고2 모의고사 어법/어휘 선택, 빈칸 연습

★   2021년 9월 고2 모의고사 어법/어휘 선택, 빈칸 연습, (21-24, 29-42번).

The creative team exhibits [ironical/paradoxical] characteristics. It shows tendencies of thought and action [that/in which] we’d assume to be [mutual/mutually] exclusive or [ controversary/ contradictory] . [Hence/For example] , to do its best work, a team needs deep knowledge of subjects [relevant/relative] to the problem it’s trying to solve, and a mastery of the processes [involving/involved] . But [simultaneously/at the same time] , the team needs fresh perspectives [× / that are] unencumbered by the [prevailing/prevailed] wisdom or [establishing/established] ways of [doing/to do] things. Often [calling/called] a “beginner’s mind,” this is the newcomers’ perspective: people [who/who are] curious, even playful, and [willing/willingly] to ask anything — no matter [how/what] naive the question may seem — because they don’t know [that/what] they don’t know. [Likewise/Thus] , [bring/bringing] together contradictory characteristics can [accelerate/ exacerbate] the process of new ideas.

* unencumbered: 방해 없는

Too many officials in [troubling/troubled] cities wrongly imagine [that/what] they can lead their city back to its former glories with some massive construction project ― a new stadium or light rail system, a convention center, or a housing project. With very [few/a few] exceptions, no public policy can slow the tidal forces of urban change. We mustn’t ignore the needs of the poor people who live in the Rust Belt, but public policy should help poor people , not poor places. Shiny new real estate may dress up a [declining/reclining] city, but it doesn’t solve [its/their] underlying problems. The hallmark of declining cities is [that/whether] they have too much housing and infrastructure [relevant/relative] to the strength of their economies. With all that supply of structure and so [little/a little] demand, [it/that] makes no sense to use public money to build more supply. The folly of building­centric [rural/urban] renewal reminds us [that/of what] cities aren’t structures; cities are people.

Many marine species [include/including] oysters, marsh grasses, and fish [was/were] deliberately [introducing/introduced] for food or for erosion control, with [little/a little] knowledge of the impacts they could have. Fish and shellfish have been intentionally introduced all over the world for aquaculture, [providing/provided] food and jobs, but they can escape and become a threat to native species, ecosystem function, or livelihoods. Atlantic salmon are [raised/reared] in ocean net­pens in Washington State and British Columbia. Many escape each year, and they have [recovered/been recovered] in both saltwater [and/or] freshwater in Washington State, British Columbia, and Alaska. Recreational fishing can also spread invasive species. Bait worms from Maine are popular throughout the country. They are [common/commonly] packed in seaweed which contains many other organisms. If the seaweed is discarded, it or the organisms on it can colonize new areas. Fishing boots, recreational boats, and trailers can pick up organisms at one location and move [it/them] elsewhere.

* aquaculture: 양식 ( 업 )

Before the fancy high­rises, financial headquarters, tourist centers, and souvenir peddlers made their way to Battery Park City, the area behind the World Trade Center was a giant, gross landfill. In 1982, artist Agnes Denes decided to return that landfill back to its roots, although temporarily. Denes was commissioned by the Public Art Fund to create one of the most significant and fantastical pieces of public work Manhattan has ever seen. Her concept was not a traditional sculpture, but a living installation that changed the way the public looked at art. In the name of art, Denes put a beautiful golden wheat field right in the shadow of the gleaming Twin Towers. For Wheatfield — A Confrontation , Denes and volunteers removed trash from four acres of land, then planted amber waves of grain atop the area. After months of farming and irrigation, the wheat field was thriving and ready. The artist and her volunteers harvested thousands of pounds of wheat to give to food banks in the city, nourishing both the minds and bodies of New Yorkers.

Organisms [living/lived] in the deep sea have [adopted/adapted] to the high pressure by storing water in their bodies, some [consisting/consisted] almost entirely of water. Most deep­sea organisms lack gas bladders. They are cold­blooded organisms that [adjust/adjusts] their body temperature to their environment, [allowing/allowed] [them/themselves] to survive in the cold water while [maintaining/remaining] a low metabolism. Many species lower their metabolism so much that they are able to survive without food for long periods of time, as finding the sparse food that is available [expending/expends] a lot of energy. Many predatory fish of the deep sea [is/are] equipped with [numerous/enormous] mouths and sharp teeth, [enabling/enabled] them to hold on to prey and overpower [it/them] . Some predators [hunting/hunt] in the residual light zone of the ocean [has/have] excellent visual capabilities, while [others/the others] are able to create their own light to [attract/attach] prey or a mating partner.

* bladder: ( 물고기의 ) 부레

Human innovation in agriculture has [locked/unlocked] modifications in apples, tulips, and potatoes that never would have [realized/been realized] through a plant’s natural [productive/reproductive] cycles. This cultivation process has created some of the recognizable vegetables and fruits consumers [look/looking] for in their grocery stores. [Hence/However] , relying on only [a few/a little] varieties of [culitivating/cultivated] crops can leave humankind [vulnerable/vulnerably] to starvation and agricultural loss if a harvest [destroys/is destroyed] . [For example/In a nutshell] , a million people died over the course of three years [during/while] the Irish potato famine because the Irish relied [primary/primarily on potatoes and milk to create a [nutritional/nutritionally] balanced meal. In order to continue [its/their] symbiotic relationship with [cultivating/cultivated] plants, humanity must allow for biodiversity and [recognize/to recognize] the potential drawbacks [that/what] [monocultures/multicultures] of plants can introduce. [Planting/Plant] seeds of all kinds, [as if/even if] they don’t seem [immediate/immediately] useful or [profitable/profitably] , can ensure the longevity of those plants for generations to come. A balance must be [striking/struck] between nature’s capacity for wildness and humanity’s desire for control. [3 점 ]

* symbiotic: 공생의

[Relation/Relativity] works as a general mechanism for the mind, in many ways and across many different areas of life. [Such as/For example] , Brian Wansink, author of Mindless Eating , [showing/showed] that [it/they] can also [affect/effect] our waistlines. We decide [how/how much] to eat not simply as a function of [how/how much] food we actually consume, [and/but] by a comparison to its [alternates/alternatives] . Say we have to choose between three burgers on a menu, at 8, 10, and 12 ounces. We are likely to pick the 10­ounce burger and be [perfect/perfectly] satisfied at the end of the meal. But if our options are [instead/instead of] 10, 12, and 14 ounces, we are likely again to choose the middle one, and again [feel/feeling] equally [happy/happily] and [satisfying/satisfied] with the 12­ounce burger at the end of the meal, even though we ate more, [what/which] we did not need in order to get our daily nourishment or in order to feel [full/fully] .

Philosophical activity is based on the recognition of [ignorance/knowledge] . The philosopher’s [thirst/richness] for knowledge is shown through attempts to find better answers to questions [because/even if] those answers are never found. [Simultaneously/At the same time] , a philosopher also knows [that/which] being [too sure/sure enough] can [support/hinder] the discovery of other and better possibilities. In a philosophical dialogue, the participants are [wary/aware] [that/what] there are things they do not know or understand. The goal of the dialogue is to arrive at a conception [that/which] one did not know or understand [beforehand/later] . In traditional schools, [in which/where] philosophy is not present, students often work with [factual/ficticious] questions, they learn [general/specific] content [listing/listed] in the curriculum, and they [don’t require/are not required] to solve philosophical problems. [Likewise/However] , we know that awareness of [that/what] one does not know can be a good way to [acquire/require] knowledge. Knowledge and understanding are developed through thinking and talking. Putting things into words [make/makes] things [clearer/more clearly] . [Furthermore/Therefore] , students must not be afraid of saying something wrong or [talking/talk] without first [ being/to be] sure [that/what] they are right.

The most powerful emotional experiences are [that/those] that bring joy, inspiration, and the kind of love that [make/makes] suffering [bearable/bearably] . These emotional experiences are the result of choices and behaviors that [result/results] in our feeling happy. When we look at happiness through a spiritual filter, we realize that [it does/they do] not mean the [absence/presence] of pain or heartache. [Sitting/Sit] with a sick or injured child, every parent gets to know the profound joy that [bubble/bubbles] over when a son or daughter begins to [heal/healing] . This is a simple example of [what/how] we can [flood/be flooded] with happiness that becomes more intense as we [compare/contrast] it with [previous/later] suffering. Experiences such as this go into the chemical archives of the limbic system. Each time you experience true happiness, the [storing/stored] emotions [activate/are activated] as you are flooded with [even/still] deeper joy than you remembered. Your spiritual genes are, in a sense, your [biological/psychological] treasure map to joy. [3 점 ]

* limbic system: 변연계 ( 인체의 기본적인 감정 · 욕구 등을 관장하는 신경계 )

Deep­fried foods are tastier than bland foods, and children and adults develop a taste for [so/such] foods. Fatty foods cause the brain [release/to release] oxytocin, a powerful hormone with a calming, antistress, and [relaxing/relaxed] influence, [saying/said to be the opposite of adrenaline, into the blood stream; [hence/moreover] the term “comfort foods.” We may even be genetically [programming/programmed] to eat [much enough/too much] . For thousands of years, food was very [scarce/rich] . Food, along with salt, carbs, and fat, [was/were] hard to get, and ______ more you got, _______ better. All of these things are necessary nutrients in the human diet, and when their availability was limited, you could never get too much. People also had to hunt down animals or [gather/gathering] plants for their food, and that [had/took] a lot of calories. It’s different these days. We have food at every turn ― lots of those fast­food places and grocery stores with carry­out food. But that [ingraining/ingrained] “caveman mentality” says that we can’t ever get [much enough/too much] to eat. So [crave/craving] for “unhealthy” food may actually be our body’s attempt to stay [health/healthy] . [3 점 ]

Nurses hold a pivotal position in the mental health care structure and [place/are placed] at the centre of the communication network, partly [because/because of] their high degree of contact with patients, but also [because/because of] they have well­developed relationships with other professionals. [Because/Because of] this, nurses play a crucial role in [disciplinary/interdisciplinary] communication. They have a [meditating/mediating] role between the various groups of professionals and the patient and carer. This involves [translating/translated] communication between groups [for/into] language that is acceptable and [comprehensible/reprehensible] to people who have different ways of understanding mental health problems. This is a [high/highly] sensitive and skilled task, [requiring/requires] a high level of attention to alternative views and a high level of understanding of communication.

When trying [sustaining/to sustain] an independent ethos, cultures face a problem of critical mass. No single individual, [acts/acting] on his or her own, can produce an ethos. [In a sense/Rather] , an ethos results from the interdependent acts of many individuals. This cluster of [producing/produced] meaning may require some degree of insulation from larger and wealthier [inside/outside] forces. The Canadian Inuit [maintain/retain] their own ethos, [as though/even though] they number no more than twenty­four thousand. They manage this feat through a combination of trade, [support/to support] their way of life, and geographic [connection/isolation] . The Inuit occupy [neigboring/remote] territory, [removing/removed] from major population centers of Canada. If cross­cultural contact [was/were] to become sufficiently close, the Inuit ethos [will/would] [appear/disappear] . [Distinct/Similar] cultural groups of similar size do not, in the long run, [resist/persist] in downtown Toronto, Canada, [which/where] they come in contact with many outside influences and [pursues/pursue] essentially Western paths for their lives. [3 점 ]

* ethos: 민족 ( 사회 ) 정신 ** insulation: 단절

Heat is lost at the surface, so _______ more surface area you have relative to volume, _______ harder you must work to stay warm. That means [that/what] [little/few] creatures have to produce heat more rapidly than large creatures. They must [then/therefore] lead [complete/completely] different lifestyles. An elephant’s heart beats just thirty times a minute, a human’s sixty, a cow’s between fifty and eighty, but a mouse’s beats six hundred times a minute — ten times a second. Every day, just to survive, the mouse must eat about 50 percent of [its/their] own body weight. We humans, [in comparison/by contrast] , need to consume only about 2 percent of our body weight to supply our energy requirements. One area [which/where] animals are [curious/curiously] uniform is with [a/the] number of heartbeats they have in a lifetime. [In spite of/Despite] the vast differences in heart rates, [near/nearly] all mammals have about 800 million heartbeats in them if they live an average life. The [exemption/exception] is humans. We pass 800 million heartbeats after twenty­five years, and just keep on going for [another/other] fifty years and 1.6 billion heartbeats [and/or] so. [3 점 ]

Interest in ideology in children’s literature [rises/arises] from a belief [which/that] children’s literary texts are culturally [formative/informative] , and [with/of] massive importance educationally, intellectually, and socially. Perhaps more than any other texts, they reflect society as [it wishes/they wish] to be, as [it wishes/they wish] to be seen, and as it [unconscious/unconsciously] reveals [it/itself] to be, at least to writers. Clearly, literature is not the only socialising agent in the life of children, even among the media. It is possible to argue, [for example/similarly] , [that/which] , today, the influence of books [is/are] [variously/vastly] overshadowed by [that/those] of television. There is, [though/however] , a [considerable/considerate] [agree/degree] of interaction between the two media. Many so­called children’s [literary/literal] [classics/classicals] are televised, and the [consequent/resultant] new book editions [strong/strongly] suggest [that/what] viewing can encourage [consequent/subsequent] reading. [In conclusion/Similarly] , some television series for children are published in book form.

* resultant: 그 결과로 생긴

The United Nations [ask/asks] that all companies [should remove/remove] their satellites from orbit within 25 years after the end of their mission. This is tricky to enforce, [although/though] , because satellites can (and often do) fail. To [tackle/deal with] this problem, several companies around the world [has/have] come up with novel solutions. These include removing dead satellites from orbit and [drag/dragging] them back into the atmosphere, [which/where] [it/they] will burn up. Ways we could do this [include/includes] using a harpoon to grab a satellite, [catch/catching] it in a huge net, [to use/using] magnets to grab it, or even firing lasers to heat up the satellite, [increase/increasing] its atmospheric drag so that it falls out of orbit. [What’s more/However] , these methods are only useful for large satellites [orbiting/orbited] Earth. There isn’t really a way for us to pick up smaller pieces of debris such as bits of paint and metal. We just have to wait for them to [natural/naturally] re­enter Earth’s atmosphere. [3 점 ]

* harpoon: 작살

Music is used to [mold/molding] customer experience and behavior. A study [conducted/was conducted] that explored [whether/what] impact it has on employees. Results from the study [indicate/indicates] [that/what] participants who listen to rhythmic music [was/were] inclined to [cooperate/coordinate] more [irrepectable/irrespective] of factors like age, gender, and academic background, [comparing/compared] to [that/those] who listened to [less/more] rhythmic music. This positive boost in the participants’ [willingness/reluctance] to cooperate was [reduced/induced] regardless of [whether/if] they liked the music or not. When people are in a more positive state of mind, they tend to become more agreeable and creative, while [the people/those] on the opposite spectrum [ tend/tends] to focus on their [individual/shared] problems rather than giving attention to [solve/solving] group problems. The rhythm of music has a strong [pull/push] on people’s behavior. This is [because/why] when people listen to music with a steady pulse, they tend to match their actions to the beat. This translates to better teamwork when making decisions because everyone [is/are] following one tempo.

According to the study, the music [playing/played] in workplaces can lead employees to be cooperative [because of/because] the beat of the music creates a [individual/shared] rhythm for working.

In this day and age, it is difficult to imagine our lives without email. But how often [we do/do we] consider the environmental impact of these virtual messages? [For instance/At first glance] , digital messages appear to save resources. [Disklike/Unlike] traditional letters, no paper or stamps [is/are] needed; nothing has to be packaged or transported. Many of us tend to assume [that/what] using email [requiring/requires] [a little/little] more than the electricity [is used/used] to power our computers. It’s easy to overlook the invisible energy usage [involving/involved] in running the network ― particularly when it comes to [send/sending] and [store/storing] data. Every single email in every single inbox in the world [is/are] stored on a server. The [unbelievable/incredible] quantity of data [requiring/requires] huge server farms ― gigantic centres with millions of computers [which/where] store and transmit information. These servers consume massive amounts of energy, 24 hours a day, and [require/acquire] countless litres of water, or air conditioning systems, for cooling. ______ more messages we send, receive and store, ______ more servers are needed ― which [mean/means] more energy [consuming/consumed] , and more carbon emissions. [Shortly/Clearly] , sending and receiving electronic messages in an environmentally conscious manner [is/are] [never/by no means] enough to stop climate change. But with [few/a few] careful, mindful changes, unnecessary CO2 emissions can easily [avoid/be avoided] .

21년 9월_고2_어법, 어휘 선택.pdf 0.20MB

' 고교 내신 || 모의고사 자료 > 고 2 영어 모의고사 (3, 6, 9, 11월) ' 카테고리의 다른 글

'고교 내신 || 모의고사 자료/고 2 영어 모의고사 (3, 6, 9, 11월)'의 다른글.

• 현재글 고등) 2021년 9월 고2 모의고사 어법/어휘 선택, 빈칸 연습
• 고등) 2021년 9월 고2 모의고사 어휘 2021.09.07
• 고등) 2021년 9월 고2 모의고사 좌지문 우해석 2021.09.05
• 고등) 2021년 6월 고2 모의고사 어휘 2021.06.10
• 고등) 2021년 6월 고2 모의고사 좌지문 우해석 2021.06.08

블로그 마켓 판매자의 이력 관리를 위해 블로그 주소 변경이 불가합니다.

블로그에서 진짜 나를 기록하고 다양한 이웃과 소식을 만나보세요. 지금 시작해볼까요?

• 설정한 아이디는 나중에 변경할 수 없으니 신중하게 입력해주세요.
• 변경 전 공유된 블로그/글/클립 링크는 연결이 끊길 수 있습니다.
• 네이버 아이디 또는 개인정보가 포함된 문자 사용 은 피해주세요.
• 블로그 도움말에서 아이디 변경 유의사항을 확인해보세요.

1. 이전 주소로 공유된 글은 3개월간 새로운 주소로 연결을 지원하며 이후 언제든 연결이 끊길 수 있습니다.

2. 블로그 아이디는 한번 변경하면 다시 변경이 불가능 합니다.

블로그 아이디는 한번 정하면 다시 변경이 불가능합니다.

이 아이디로 블로그를 만들까요?

환영합니다! 블로그 아이디가 만들어졌어요.

기본정보를 입력해주세요..

나중에 언제든지 변경할 수 있어요.

주제를 선택해 주세요.

선택한 주제의 글과 이웃을 추천받을 수 있어요.

인기블로거와 이웃을 맺으세요.

이웃을 맺으면 이웃새글에서 글을 받아볼 수 있어요.

서재 안에 글이 없습니다.

이 블로그의 저작물은 별도 표시가 없는 한 아래 조건에 따라 사용 가능합니다

안녕하세요. 이 포스트는 네이버 블로그에서 작성된 게시글입니다. 자세한 내용을 보려면 링크를 클릭해주세요. 감사합니다.

글 보내기 서비스 안내

2009년 6월 30일 네이버 여행 서비스가 종료되었습니다. 네이버 여행 서비스를 이용해 주신 여러분께 감사드리며, 더 좋은 서비스로 보답할 수 있도록 노력하겠습니다.

악성코드가 포함되어 있는 파일입니다.

백신 프로그램으로 치료하신 후 다시 첨부하시거나, 치료가 어려우시면 파일을 삭제하시기 바랍니다.

고객님의 PC가 악성코드에 감염될 경우 시스템성능 저하, 개인정보 유출등의 피해를 입을 수 있으니 주의하시기 바랍니다.

작성자 이외의 방문자에게는 이용이 제한되었습니다.

{ALERTMESSAGE}

이용제한 파일 : {FILENAME}

네이버는 블로그를 통해 저작물이 무단으로 공유되는 것을 막기 위해, 저작권을 침해하는 컨텐츠가 포함되어 있는 게시물의 경우 글보내기 기능을 제한하고 있습니다.

상세한 안내를 받고 싶으신 경우 네이버 고객센터로 문의주시면 도움드리도록 하겠습니다. 건강한 인터넷 환경을 만들어 나갈 수 있도록 고객님의 많은 관심과 협조를 부탁드립니다.

주제 분류 제한 공지

네이버는 블로그를 통해 저작물이 무단으로 공유되는 것을 막기 위해, 저작권을 침해하는 컨텐츠가 포함되어 있는 게시물의 경우 주제 분류 기능을 제한하고 있습니다.

작성하신 게시글 에 사용이 제한된 문구가 포함 되어 일시적으로 등록이 제한됩니다.

이용자 분들이 홍보성 도배, 스팸 게시물로 불편을 겪지 않도록 다음과 같은 경우 해당 게시물 등록이 일시적으로 제한됩니다.

• 특정 게시물 대량으로 등록되거나 해당 게시물에서 자주 사용하는 문구가 포함된 경우
• 특정 게시물이 과도하게 반복 작성되거나 해당 게시물에서 자주 사용하는 문구가 포함된 경우

스팸 게시물이 확대 생성되는 것을 방지하기 위하여 문구 및 사용 제한기간을 상세하게 안내해 드리지 못하는 점 양해 부탁 드립니다. 모두가 행복한 인터넷 문화를 만들기 위한 네이버의 노력이오니 회원님의 양해와 협조 부탁드립니다.

더 궁금하신 사항은 고객센터 로 문의하시면 자세히 알려드리겠습니다.

수정하신 후 다시 등록해 주세요.

회원님의 안전한 서비스 이용을 위해 비밀번호를 확인해 주세요.

다시 한번 비밀번호 확인 하시면 이용중인 화면으로 돌아가며, 작성 중이던 내용을 정상적으로 전송 또는 등록하실 수 있습니다.

공감을 삭제하시겠습니까?

이 글의 공감수도 함께 차감됩니다.

작성하신 에 이용자들의 신고가 많은 표현이 포함 되어 있습니다.

다른 표현을 사용해주시기 바랍니다. 건전한 인터넷 문화 조성을 위해 회원님의 적극적인 협조를 부탁드립니다.

블로그 마켓 가입 완료

내 상품 관리에서 배송비 설정 후 상품 판매를 시작해보세요!

ZNAMYA-NOGINSK - FSSH-VOSTOK-ELEKTROSTAL head to head game preview and prediction

Oops! We detected that you use AdBlocker...

Please disable adblocker to support this website. Thank you!

I disabled all my adblockers for this website. Reload...

Open Modalf