Mõnikord on kuulda, et ülemused ei ole rahul alluvate loomingulisusega, õigemini selle puudumisega. “Mis teid takistab …?” kuulub sedalaadi ülemuste igapäevasõnavarasse. Siinviidatus võib leida huvitavat see, kes huvitatud töötajate loomingulisuse arendamiseks keskkonna loomisest. Aga see ei ole lihtne, küll aga huvitav. Siin üks täiendav lugemissoovitus eesti keeles. Teadusfilosoof Enn Kasak on kirjutanud väga sisuka ja haarava raamatu Paradoksid. Must auk mõtlemises.
Employees must act creatively to navigate the dynamic contexts of work environments, including competing goals, shifting priorities, and fluid role requirements (Lewis, 2000; Rothman and Melwani, 2017). The creative strategies help employees to accomplish challenging tasks and address in-flux work requirements (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014; Ilgen et al., 2005; Zhang and Bartol, 2010).
Paradokside kaudu juhtimine:
Paradoxical leader behaviour implies that paradoxical leaders create seemingly contradictory expectations amongst employees. These paradoxical demands of both ‘A’ and ‘B’ may seem antithetical and cause employees to experience tension and ambivalence, which refers to competing attitudinal reactions towards leader behaviour (Ashforth et al., 2014).
… aga paradoksidega tuleb olla ettevaatlikd:
One complication of the paradoxical leader behaviour is that the mechanism of subjective ambivalence (which links paradoxical leadership to creative processes) is not experienced by employees equally. Subjective ambivalence originates from the tension between two antithetical outcomes, indicating that both A and B are simultaneously considered.
Autorid seavad sihte:
Our aim is thus to investigate whether more-than responses present a boundary condition that 1) restricts employees from perceiving ambivalence toward paradoxical leader behaviour and 2) constrains ambivalent employees from being creative. We propose that holistic thinking in individual employees exhibits a more-than response to paradoxical leadership and subjective ambivalence.
Some thinking styles may indicate an individual’s cognitive variation in reacting to paradoxical leader behaviour. For example, holistic thinking is closely related to how individuals make sense of paradoxical information. High holistic thinkers tend to see complex interconnectedness within the field (Choi and Nisbett, 2000; Masuda and Nisbett, 2001; Monga and John, 2006; Nisbett et al., 2001) and to reconcile contradictions to find inner truth (Choi et al., 2007).
Vihjed lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:
First, managers may consider using paradoxical leader behaviour to drive creativity amongst their non-holistic thinking employees who are most likely to benefit from ambivalence. However, they should implement this approach with caution. […] Second, managers should encourage employees who experience subjective ambivalence to solve their work problems by generating new and valuable ideas, although low holistic thinkers may benefit the most from this encouragement.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K., & Zhou, J. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership, Subjective Ambivalence, and Employee Creativity: Effects of Employee Holistic Thinking. Journal of Management Studies.