1.

Description of the Research Work

Nowadays, leadership is an important management tool for organizations because, if used
properly, it can increase performance by enhancing the firm environment and employees
relationship (Barnes, 2013). It’s a fascinating factor for organizations because every
organization has a different and unique technique for doing work and every sector face the
different type of issues, paradoxical leader behavior is one of them (Boyd, 2015). Without
leaders’ effective skill and attitude sectors face the failure in business because human assets
act like a backbone for organizations (Evans, 2000). The paradoxical term stated by Zhang,
(2019), they manage the organization as well as employee’s demand at the same time.
Paradoxical Leaders definitely go up against logical inconsistencies and coming about
pressures in overseeing people (C, 2017). For example, they relied upon to treat followers
consistently and reliably, while thinking about the individual need and at times making
exceptions, they should keep up control by implementing organization rules and
techniques, while permitting followers flexibility or self-rule (Shung Jae Shin, 2003). There
has been needed to clarify that what will be the effect of PL on employee contextual
performance at work, where the problem of employee performance and behavior exists
such as in the hospitality sector of Pakistan. The capacity to react to such paradoxical
difficulties is fundamental for successfully overseeing individuals (Bergeron, 2007).
Paradoxical leaders increase the employee’s performance, self-confidence, and satisfaction
with their work (Zhang, 2019). One key component of achievement for the hospitality
sector is for the manager to motivate their followers or workers to arrive at their most
extreme potential, change embrace and make a good practical decision (Avolio, 2004). As
an effective leader encourages employees to take the good decision that can enhance the
organization's and employee’s performance, employees take ownership of the task to think
out of the box and go beyond the job identified activities for resolving the business problem
(Raza-Ullah, 2018).
Leadership style should be similarly soft and gentle, but also persistent and powerful
because its directly linked to personality (Lee, 2008). Paradoxical Leaders definitely stand
up to logical inconsistencies and coming about strains in overseeing individuals, they treat
employees as a family. Employee performance and management is still a key to
organization (Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015). According to the Pradhan, Jena, and
Bhattacharyya (2018), Contextual performance refers to those activates who never
identified particularly in a job because that includes cooperating and helping to each.
Because in every organization, managers want or expecting that their employees were more
involved in work, positively engaged with goal completions activities and put the extra-
role effort with trust on the leaders (Van Scotter, 1996). Kirkpatrick, (1996) state that Trust

(Page 1 of 19)
 create a dynamic and interpersonal relationship between peoples because one person relies
on the other person words and actions.
In the hospitality sector sometimes leaders do or act in a way that is harmful for
organization and follower-leader relationship because leader behavior encourages
employees who are highly skilled and capable of doing the specific activities and also
capable of solving the problems (Gulak-Lipka, 2017). In this sector, employees try to
develop a significant relationship with the customer, to enhance the confidence, flexibility
of employees and trust on the leader (Iqbal, Nawaz, & Younas, 2019).
Due to the involvement of voluntary and discretional behavior in contextual performance,
some researchers argued that personality factors are the most useable predictor of
contextual performance (Van Scotter, 1996). Merriman, 2018 defined that agreeableness,
emotional stability, and conscientiousness as are highly predictor of contextual
performance. Conscientiousness and emotional stability are similar for task and contextual
performance but agreeableness had higher validities with the relational help of execution
for the measurement of contextual performance (Shum et al., 2019). Those types of
individuals who have a higher level of agreeableness focus on the less competitive and
mostly concentrated on harmony oriented values (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).
Agreeableness and extraversion both are dealing with social impact but in some situations,
agreeableness deals with maintaining and explore the positive relationship between people
and employees (Boone, 1995). Agreeableness allow employees that they negotiate the
negative impact of conflicts and minimized selfishness (Merriman, 2018).
Different studies conducted on leadership styles but only a few research done on
paradoxical leadership and contextual performance relationship (Bergeron, 2007). The
purpose of this study is to understand the impact of paradoxical leadership on contextual
performance for employee-follower outcomes and also identified that employee put own
trust on leaders or not with agreeableness factor.
2. Need and Significance of the Research
2.1. Problem Statement
In this modern era organizations are focusing on organizational effectiveness many
organizations ignore the relationship of leader and their employees, due to this
employee often not build a significant relationship with customer. Similarly, leadership
style and employee’s behavior issue is prevailing in the hospitality sector of Pakistan
(Ansari, 2016). Zhang and Han. (2019) define that relationship of leader and follower
have become the key for the organization because leader specifically control decision
and freedom related to employees and employee performance affect organizational
outcomes. A possible factor of trust is linked to a leader’s character and organizational
citizenship behavior (Donald. 2002). Li. ( 2008) suggested that a social exchange

(Page 2 of 19)
 relationship encouraged the employees that they go beyond job identified activities for
communicating with the customer and try to meet their demands but also spend more
time on the required task. High competition and turnover are the most challenging issue
which one prevailing in the hospitality sector, organizations are focusing on the
shortage of skilled labor in the hospitality sector, because service quality commitment,
performance, and trust are influenced by the relation of employee and customer
(Holston-Okae, 2018). The hospitality literature suggests that with increasing
competition, product and service innovations have become of utmost important in
Pakistan (Ahmad & Scott, 2014) and frontline employees have become the key, who
are encouraged by leaders, and trust on management can create the effective customer
relation and employees will change their personality traits for maximize the
performance (Li, 2016). Management behavior, low pay and physical demanding
negatively relate to the performance of employees (Hania, 2010). The general business
problem addressed in this study was that employee, customer relationship and
employee turnover are determining profitable for an organization in the hospitality
sector. The specific problem is that in the hospitality industry leaders do not know
about the relationship of employee`s trust, employee engagement, employee role
clarity, and employee compensation. If employees fairly treated in an organization,
employees put the extra-role effort toward creating the relationship and encourage the
other colleagues to show the countless performance with trust element on leaders
(Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015). Zhang. (2019) demonstrated that paradoxical
leader behavior positively associated with a long-term orientation and short-term
efficiency through maintaining organizational stability. But significantly with all
efforts that relation is still not fully understood. According to the Leader-member
exchange theory employees' behavior associates with high-value exchange, create the
benefits for leaders and employees because they go beyond the job duties for significant
relationship (Liden, 1980). Leaders may not identify the ways in which they manage
both demands (organization and employees). So, this study will identify that how
paradoxical leadership in the hospitality sector it’s the effect on the contextual
performance of employees in existences of trust and agreeableness because if
employees have the flexibility for doing the work, they can create the operational
relationship with the customer according to organizational structure.

2.2. Research Questions

This study answer following questions:
i. What is the effect of paradoxical leadership on contextual performance?

(Page 3 of 19)
 ii. What is the effect of paradoxical leadership on trust?
iii. What is the effect of trust on contextual performance?
iv. What is the mediating role of trust in the relationship between paradoxical
leadership and contextual performance?
v. What is the moderating role of agreeableness on the relationship between
paradoxical leadership and contextual performance?
2.3. Research Objectives
The objectives of this study are
i. To find out the impact of paradoxical leadership on contextual performance.
ii. To find out the impact of paradoxical leadership on trust?
iii. To find out the impact of trust on contextual performance?
iv. To find out the mediating role of trust in the relationship between paradoxical
leadership and contextual performance?
v. To find out the moderating role of agreeableness on the relationship between
paradoxical leadership and contextual performance?
2.4. Significance of Study
This study will investigate an issue that has been less understood and least explored:
the role of trust and agreeableness between paradoxical leadership and contextual
performance in hospitality sectors of Punjab Pakistan. This study contributes to the
literature review in different ways: this study contributes to the literature by extending
the knowledge of Paradoxical leaders’ behavior and its effect on employee
performance at a workplace in the hospitality industry of Pakistan (Raza-Ullah, 2018).
Secondly, this study contributes to investigating the mediating role of employees trust
on leaders for pro-social behavior of employees (Gulak-Lipka, 2016). Furthermore, this
study will specifically contribute in review, agreeableness as a moderator among
paradoxical leadership and contextual performance because no study has tested this
relationship before (Shum et al., 2019).
Practically this study will helpful for the hospitality sector in Pakistan where there
exists the problem of leader and follower relationship and shortage of highly skilled
labor due to low level of trust in leader and agreeableness factor (Raza-Ullah, 2018).
Consequently, empowered employees work independently and more willing to put
extra effort towards creating a significant relationship with a customer. While
empowering leadership having the main effect on employee’s performance because in
targeted sector service of employees go beyond the job identified activities due to the
customer expectation.
This study will help for managers in hospitality sectors, that’s they manage the distance
and familiarity of organization and followers, maintain the decision control with giving

(Page 4 of 19)
 flexibility to employees in workplace for efficiency, emerging the self-centeredness
with other-centeredness and control the employee’s outcomes (Zhang, Waldman, Han,
& Li, 2015). Employees generally achieve effective performance when leaders treat
them as a family and give priority (Barnes, 2013). This study will help the employees
in going beyond the scope of job activities to create a significant relationship with
customers for satisfying them. According to this perspective if employees have a good
relationship with leader and trust on them they will perform extra-role behavior because
they will change own personality traits according to the leader (Kurt, 2002). Trust and
agreeableness have a strong relationship that affects follower outcomes (Organ &
Moorman, 1993).

3. Review of Literature
3.1. Paradoxical Leadership
Zhang et al. (2015) proposed the concept of “paradoxical leader behavior as seemingly
competing yet interrelated and meeting structural and follower demands
simultaneously and over time”. Paradoxical leadership is characterized as leader
behavior that may be opposing yet interrelated, to satisfy competing work environment
needs at the same time and after some time (Yan Shao, 2019). Paradoxical leader’s
behavior is that type of leader who is responsible for firm revenue and growth but at
the same time, they facilitate the employees for work engagement (Lewis, 2000).
Paradoxical leadership behavior in long term corporate development antecedents and
significances is conducted in which Paradoxes defined as conflicting yet interconnected
elements that appear logical in separation but illogical and irrational when seeming
simultaneously are universal in organization’s functioning and expansion processes
(Zhang & Han, 2019) he also state that the paradoxes itself require the method to
inconsistency. So precise paradoxes should be identified to explore, how contraries are
intrinsically connected. By concentrating on a set of paradoxes, they improve
understandings concerning interconnections within specific paradoxes. CEOs in search
of long term corporate expansion, namely frequent development in organizational
efficiency; must repeatedly address tactical paradoxes (Bennis, 1969). Absurd directors
maintain both organizational stability and flexibility. To continue consistent corporate
performance over time, they make straight management practices with business
strategies and processes (Jason Jay, 2017). The limitations of Zhang and Han, ( 2019),
that their measure evidently demonstrate how paradoxical leaders can link and
participate with recognized opposites, but the recent measurement cannot wholly
capture the active process of paradox management. Directors must regulate their
activities according to various situations.

(Page 5 of 19)
Furthermore, to avoid large scale inefficiency, paradoxical administrators must sustain
organizational solidity to ensure trustworthy and consistent short term performance
(Boone, 1995; Kelly, 1991; Slack, 2004). They must increase organizational flexibility
by inspiring deviations from existing knowledge and performs (Science 2006), for
improved receptiveness to future doubts (Hitt, 1999). Andreas, (2013) identified that
Paradoxical directors both adapt and shape cooperative environmental forces. By
means of complying with official constraints and social prospects, and changing some
structural characteristics to imitate to collective forces; they guarantee that their
companies have a sincere place in the business eco-system.

Zhang et al., (2015a) further underwrite to the paradoxical leadership literature by

donating senior leaders a quantitative demonstration of ambidextrous. Our study offers
insights into crucial but difficult to study long term corporate development; particularly
management effects. Measurement involves highly changing subjective decisions
concerning what is meaning of the long term. CEO’s occupancy is generally short
compared to long term development. CEO’s practices may be compulsory when the
CEO is in duty. But successive CEOs mutually contribute to long term performance
making it tough to identify precise contributions.

Another study (Yang, Li, Liang, & Zhang, 2019) said that front-runners can regulate
the behavior for choices their staffs on work, although open-handed staffs, freedom to
perform with rigidity and self-sufficiency. Empowerment recognizes, attentiveness of
personnel by encouraging independence, elasticity and can permit employers to
progress pro-active problematic resolving strategies. Leaders who involve in
paradoxical behavior they treat assist equivalently though authorizing
individualization. Through this technique, it’s possible to take worker interests and
services into explanation once assigning tasks (Zhang et al., 2015a). Using this
procedure, workers will most probably accept the task that matches with their
capabilities and interests (C, 2017). In accordance with self-determination theory,
worker creativity will be improved (Deci, 2002).

According to Zhang, Y. (2019) five measurements of paradoxical leadership behavior

can satisfy workers with their basic wants and increase energy. Self-determination
philosophy originates that all people have three significant needs, which are: (1)
autonomy (2) competence (3) relatedness needs (Gagné, 2005). The principal ever-
important thing is autonomy in which states the element that person has the right to act
according to their specific choices and continuance of their definite autonomy; second
need competence discusses the essential to feel accomplishment of assembling the

(Page 6 of 19)
 requirement linked with the desired behavior; the last need is pro-social connectedness
discussed the essential to feel associated and valued by substantial others (Hancox,
2018). In the research of (Zhang & Han, 2019) use a Likert scale to measure the
paradoxical leader behavior impact on employee creativity who concluded that it has a
positive effect of PL on EC. Researchers have also beforehand highlighted the
reputation of operative leadership for administrations (Crossan, 2010; Flynn, 2004).
While distinct research demonstrates to the effect that leaders can have upon employee
behavior, authentic, empowering and transformational leadership all have been
providing as key specimens in this regard (Gerstner, 1997; Cerne, 2011). Although
paradoxical leadership is an innovative type of leadership and its effect upon personnel
and organizations has given through a considerable literature (Zhang, 2010; Shung Jae
Shin, 2003).

3.2. Contextual Performance

According to Borman W. (1997), Contextual performance behavior is steadiness and
energy, volunteering to do extra undertaking exercises, helping and participating with
others, volunteering for tasks, adhering to rules and techniques in addition to
embracing, supporting and safeguarding organizational objectives. Geier, (2016) also
maintained that Contextual performance discusses to arrangements that are not
accountabilities or goals particular but that create persons, groups and managements
more operative and fruitful. Contextual performance includes: (a) cooperating and
helping others, (b) willingly performing extra-role activities, determined with interest
and (c) extra willpower to complete projects successfully, (d) protecting the
organizational objectives, and (e) obeying to organizational strategies even once this is
inopportune (Mandana Heshmati Manesh, 2018). These non-traditional contextual
performance behaviors have developed even more important, with the arrival of virtual
teams and project-based work (Sherwani, 2018). Certainly, the notion of cooperation
itself integrates contextual behaviors of organizations (Reilly et.al, 2018). Motowidlo,
(2000) concluded that the association between contextual behavior and organizational
commitment, reflecting the connection between the individuals and the organizations,
has produced varied results. Contextual behaviors can influence performance
assessments in at least two methods. First, created on the norm of mutuality,
administrators might seek to refund employees for CP by giving more satisfactory
evaluations. Second, if executives have a scheme, or a mental illustration, of a good
employee that contains high contextual performance, then employees who establish
high levels of CP will be more probable to be rated constructively (Borman W. a.,
1997). Impelman, (2007) also defines that, Contextual performance effects and

(Page 7 of 19)
 maintenances the social and psychological environment of the organization; the
environment in which practical core operates. Contextual performance behavior is
flexible behavior that is less likely to be prearranged (Borman, 1993; Motowidlo,
1994). Iqbal et al., (2019) said that Contextual define as worker doings are directly
maintained for certain responsibilities or liability but also sympathetic inefficiency.
Organizational contextual is to regulate mutual values, principles and the ideologies
that disturb the method of employee thoughtfulness, awareness, and accomplishment
in the place of work (Nelson, 2013).
3.3. Trust
Trust in leaders refers to faith employees in leaders, and they have a belief that the
supervisor will act for their benefits and treat equally (Podsakoff, 2000). Li, (2008) said
that as planned in a new conceptualization of trust it is extremely useful to assume a
typological method to trust. All trust associated elements can be accessed as typologies.
The fiction meets toward a four-component typology of trust dimensions: (a) a trustor’s
real hesitation of a trustee’s trustworthiness; (b) a trustor’s supposed or real
susceptibility in the addiction on a trustee owing to either nonappearance or inadequacy
of control modes; (c) a trustor’s anticipation of a trustee’s reliability as the trustor’s
awareness of the trustee’s reliability; and (d) a trustor’s inclination of addiction on the
representative as a conclusion to be “trustful” to the trustee. The first two measurements
address the circumstances of trust, whereas the last two discourse the functions of trust.
Kramer and Cook, (2006) examine that Attention in faith as a significant measurement
of organizational functioning was originally inspired by a quantity of “influential
works” on societal trust, counting best particularly. Roberts, (1974) provoking findings
associating trust as a dangerous factor in explaining the beginnings of civic engagement
and the expansion of democratic regimes in the Italian group of people. Even though
much of the preliminary evidence concerning the benefits of trust, as a social resource
pertained, strictly speaking, to social systems write large, the organizational inferences
of these opinions and experimental findings did not go unobserved (Colquitt, 2007).
3.4. Agreeableness
Agreeableness is a character attribute showing itself an individual to conduct qualities
that are seen as kind, thoughtful, cooperative, warm, and accommodating (Shum et al.,
2019). Gatling, Book, & Bai, (2019) deliberated about the agreeableness in associations
and its influence on work performance in the organizations. Emotions play an essential
role in the adaptable individual presentation. Creativity denotes the dimensions to
produce advanced and theoretically useful ideas and also help in finding ways to solve
problems, or vision (Hirt, 1997). The traditional work in the emotions creativity link
designates that positive emotions bring inspired benefits and negative emotions basket

(Page 8 of 19)
 creative performance (Davis, 2009). Though, recent advances in the emotions
creativity link have established that negative emotions may improve creative
performance (Forgas, 2013). For example, anger brings more creative opinions when
themes are solving problems (Yang et al., 2019).
The principle of congruency between a given emotional condition and the nature of
attribute construal (Leung, 2014), postulates that the undergoing trait steady emotions
should be relaxed and stand in the attainment of performance goals, whereas suffering
trait inconsistent feelings should be unwanted and counter-productive. Along with that
notion, they developed the disagreement that the effect of anger on creative
performance is connected to an individual’s character, mostly in their level of
agreeableness. Individuals with a higher level of agreeableness are motivated to be
thoughtful, to be less modest, and favor harmony oriented values (Shum et al., 2019).
Suffering anger is carefully related to aggression, fears, and struggles (Lerner, 2001)
which are mismatched with a delightful individual’s partiality for agreement (Van
Kleef, 2010). Therefore, facing anger should be fewer operative in initiating
motivation, intellectual determination, and task appointments for friendly individuals
(Yang et al., 2019).
Shum et al., (2019) found that friendly individuals achieved worse on an inspiration
task after suffering anger versus neutral emotion, Whereas less friendly individuals
achieved better and creatively after anger versus neutral emotion was persuaded.
Block, J. (1993) said that Extraversion has a dissimilar cast from the social behavior
linked with Agreeableness Theoretically, Extra-version contracts with social impact,
although Agreeableness deals with objects for preserving positive relations with others.

3.5. Paradoxical Leadership and Contextual Performance

According to the leadership theories, leadership it’s just a phenomenon in which
defines the relationship of leaders and led, personal qualities of leaders and his/her
skills who relate to the task assigned (Zhang et al., 2015b). Therefore leader-member
exchange theory shows that employee behavior associated to be high-quality exchange
tend, who further create benefits for supervisor and go beyond the job duties for extra-
role behavior (Liden, 1980). The most probable causes of performance are
organizational justice, Trust on Leaders and leaders' behavior (Smith, Besharov,
Wessels, & Chertok, 2012). Job performance behavior specifically function of
knowledge skills and ability, but on the other hand, contextual performance more likely
to the function of other attributes like motivation, personality and helpful behavior with
employees go beyond the job identified activities. Hence it can be stated that there is a
positive relationship between Paradoxical leadership and contextual performance,

(Page 9 of 19)
 because if leaders have known that’s how to manage the follower and organization
demand at the same time then the contextual performance of employees will be
increased.
H1: There is a direct relationship between Paradoxical leadership and contextual
performance.
3.6. Paradoxical Leadership and Trust
Trust on a leader refers to an employee's faith in the supervisor, and to believe that he
will work for employees benefits (Organ & Moorman, 1993). Different research argues
that organizational justice perception is related to trust in leaders (Fleischmann,
Lammers, Conway, & Galinsky, 2019). Dirks.F, (2002) states that there is a positive
relationship between procedural and distributive justice and also trust in upper-level
management. Fairness and role clarity are the most important antecedents for building
trust and creating trust on the organization (Motowidlo, 1994). In Dirks. F, (2002)
study found that a strong relationship between trust in supervisor and organizational
citizenship behavior or perceptual work behavior.
Furthermore, according to society dominated collectivistic culture, if employees have
the trust on leaders they directly connect with organizational structure and built a
relationship with the organization, employees would be motivated due to enhancing the
trust (Ertu¨rk, 2006). Probably if employees engage with organizational citizenship
behavior that does not mean they observe the fair surroundings infirm, they do so
because they have a belief in leaders plus management, who treat and look after them
like a family and also think about their benefits (Van Kleef, 2010).
Therefore, it is expected that paradoxical leadership and trust have a direct relationship.
Thus it is hypothesized that:
H2: Paradoxical leadership has a direct relationship with Trust.
3.7. Trust and Contextual Performance
Trust, role clarity and fairness increase the employee’s confidence and they contribute
to an organization for getting rewards in the future. If employees have the faith that
supervisors work for their benefits, they perform the extra-role behavior and develop
profits for the organization. Through the performance appraisal system, evaluating the
employee's behavior in the organization and perform according to the firm provided
culture (Pradhan et al., 2018). In the beginning employee’s inputs would be
emphasized, but at the time passed researcher's interest would be diverted. So that’s
way organization citizenship behavior emerged. This type of behavior can be offered
the extra-role assignment and observed in interpersonal helping behavior (Griffin,
2010).

(Page 10 of 19)
 Social-equity theory provides the framework for this relationship between trust and
contextual performance. According to this theory, individual performance increases or
he/she would be motivated by receiving the ratio of input and output from the
organization as compared to others.
H3: Trust has a direct relationship with contextual performance.

3.8. Mediating Role of Trust

A trust might be affected by performance and behavior. Specifically, leaders have the
authority to make a decision and they show an effect on follower work assignment
although perception about the trustworthiness of leaders comes to be important (C,
2017). Because employee's work engagement also based on leader trust (Dennis Organ,
1993). Dirks and Ferrin, (2002) suggest that due to the lack of leaders' integrity when
employees never believe them so they will convert their own energy for covering
his/her back which undermines their work performance. in a collectivistic culture,
followers treated like a family member and they will act like extra-role behavior in an
organization (Cerne, 2011). Fairness environment will increase the job satisfaction who
affected the peoples and employees willing to help the other colleagues and work
associate and also they maintain the organization structure (Delfin, 2012).
Trust will be strengthening the relationship of paradoxical leadership and contextual
performance. Because fairness increases the trust in the supervisor and role clarity of
employees in an organization can enhance the extra-role behavior of employees.
H4: Trust mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and contextual
performance.
3.9. Moderating role of Agreeableness
According to Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, (2001) conflict considered the negative
event but in this research conflict important for social development. Because through
conflict individual can enhance and understand themselves & interconnectedness with
others. Agreeableness associated with social behavior because of agreeableness deal
with different types of motives who enable to leaders for maintaining a positive
relationship with others like customer and subordinates (Hui Li, 2019). Generally,
personality marks have been utilized to depict an essential component of character as
social interest that is showed in participation and compassion, well-disposed
consistency and likability (Bartram, 2007). If the trust element of employees will be
high on leaders so the level of agreeableness would be increased and they do all those
activities who maintain the organization structure and they perform the pro-social
behavior. And moderate positively between paradoxical leadership and contextual
performance. But if trust never falls on the leader, agreeableness level will below.

(Page 11 of 19)
 Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H5: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and
contextual performance.
3.10. Conceptual Framework

Trust

H3
H2
H4

H1
Paradoxical Contextual
Leadership performance
H5

agreeableness
4. Methodology
The research methodology of this study starts to define the population and sample design,
also describe the data collection method which includes develop the survey questionnaire
and different measurement scales. This is a quantitative study where data gathering method
is the primary method on the bases of formally authenticated scales. The convenience
sampling technique used for collecting data
4.1. Population
In this study target population is Hospitality sectors of Punjab Pakistan. This sector has
three primary areas. The first one is Accommodations, which includes, breakfast and
hotels. Second is food and beverage, which involve fast food and restaurants that are
the largest segment of the hospitality sector. Third is travel and tourism, in this area
includes trains, airlines, and ships, etc.

4.2. Sample
4.2.1. Sampling Design
Data will be collected from middle-level/upper-level managers and managerial
employees in hospitality sector existing in Punjab Pakistan. This study will use cluster
sampling techniques because of hotel geographical location matters. The respondent
were choose the managers and managerial employees because it is excepted that
paradoxical leadership behavior would be more deceptive in leaders and they have the
power for doing the specific work and make the decision, control the activities and give
autonomy to managerial employees for high and effective performance and usually
they compensate them (Griffin, 2010). Employees are representative of the

(Page 12 of 19)
 organization because they directly communicate with a customer so they are like a
market and brand for organizations (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008).
A sample is based on tourism need hotels and restaurants.
4.2.2. Sample Size
Population (N) of the present study is unknown because there would be hundreds of
managers and employees in this sector. The respondent are managers and under
employees at various levels. So, the sample of the study will be determined by using
the Mensah (2014) formula:
𝑧 2 ∗ 𝑝(1 − 𝑝)
𝑛=
ɛ²

Assumptions 95% confidence level, level of significance p values p=.05

4.3. Unit of Analysis
In this study unit of analysis is individual, because all over the hospitality sector work
base on individual work.
4.4. Data collection procedure
Use a questionnaire for gathering data on individual bases. Designed/structured
questionnaire was sent online to targeted population and also directly visit the HRM
department for better understanding the HR activities, role of leaders, HR management
and working system of organization.

4.5. Measures
All the scales have been adopted from literature and previous studies and are measured
on a five-point Likert Scale.
4.5.1. Paradoxical leadership
Paradoxical leadership will be measured using the different scales but the scale
developed by the Zhang (2019) will be used in this research. This scale covers
the five Dimensions of Paradoxical leadership. This scale depends upon the 24
items. The reported reliability of this scale was 0.85 to 0.90.
4.5.2. Contextual Performance
Several different scales exist to measure Contextual Performance. But the scale
developed by Linda Koopmans (2002) will be used in this research to measure
contextual performance. This one-dimensional scale contains 16 items. The
reliability score for the scale was found to be 0.84.
4.5.3. Trust
Trust and fairness enhance organizational citizenship behavior (organ, 1990).
Different scales used to measure the trust element with the perspective of leaders
and performance. But Scale developed by Donald and Kurt T. (2002) will be

(Page 13 of 19)
 used. This scale is divided into three sections 1) performance, 2) leadership and
3) trust on leaders. A five-point Likert scale will be used to measure each item.
4.5.4. Agreeableness
Agreeableness will be measured with the scale developed by Costa and Mccrea
(1991). Responses ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
The reported reliability of this measure was 0.91.
4.6. Data Analysis
Use the two software’s in our study SPSS (statistical package for social sciences) and
AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure). Two steps SEM technique will be used
wherein the first step we will run CFA to check the validity of the measures. In the
second step, structured regression will be used in order to test the hypotheses of this
study. SEM will be performed by using SPSS and AMOS. The two-step approach to
SEM has been recommended by (Hair, William, Anderson, & Barry, 2014). In order to
check the mediation bootstrapping technique in AMOS will be used whereas
moderation will be checked by using Preacher and Hayes technique in SPSS.

References

Andreas Georg Scherer, G. P. (2013). Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous

Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World. journal of
management study, 50(2).
Bennis, W. (1969). Organization development: Its nature, origins, and prospects. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
Bergeron, D. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good
citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078-1095.
Boone, C. &. (1995). Industrial organization and organizational ecology: The potentials for
cross-fertilization. organization science, 16, 265-298.
Borman, W. B. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy
of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 965–973.
By, S., Khan, I. U., & By, S. the role of organizational justice and culture in and employees ’
performance Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Borman, W. C. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. B. a. Associates (Eds.). Personnel Selections in
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D. A. (2016). Learning to Be a Paradox-Savvy Leader. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.

(Page 14 of 19)
Boyd, N. M. (2015, 8 1). Introducing thriving at work to the field of community psychology.
Journal of Community Psychology, 43(6), 794-809.
C, D. Y. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team
knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(33), 439-458.
C, D. Y. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team
knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 3, 439-458.
Cerne, M. J. (2011). Authentic leadership creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective.
leadership, 1, 63–85.
Crossan, M. M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A
systematic review of the literature. journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
Davis, M. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 25-38.
Debbie Marianne Tromp, R. J. (2014). Leadership style and negative work-home interference
in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral Disengagement in Ethical
DecisionvMaking: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 374–391.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628
Deci, E. L. (2002). The“what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 227-268.
Evans, P. A. (2000). The dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox. In S. Chowdhury. management
21 century.
Eisenberg Nancy, W. G. G. (1964). Agreeableness : Adimension of personality.
Finch, J. F. (n.d.). Predicting depression from temperament, personality, and patterns of social
relations. journal of personality.
Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Conway, P., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Paradoxical Effects of
Power on Moral Thinking: Why Power Both Increases and Decreases Deontological and
Utilitarian Moral Decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110–
120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617744022
Flynn, F. J. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external
support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 453-464.
Forgas, J. (2013). ). Don’t worry, be sad! On the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal
benefits of negative mood. current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 225-232.
Gagné, M. &. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gulak-Lipka, P. (2017). The Role of Trust for Leadership in Team Sports. Journal of Corporate
Responsibility and Leadership, 3(3), 39. https://doi.org/10.12775/jcrl.2016.015

(Page 15 of 19)
Gerstner, C. R. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates
and construct issues. journal of applied psychology, 82, 827–844.
Greg L. Stewart, S. H. (2019). Self-Leadership: A Paradoxical Core of Organizational
Behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
6, 46-67.
Griffin, M. A. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive
performance: a longitudinal study. journal of applied psychology, 95 (1), 174.
Hancox, J. E.-N. (2018). Putting self-determination theory into practice: Application of
adaptive motivational principles in the exercise domain. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise, and Health, 10(1), 75-91.
HaniaJanta, P. (2010). Employment experiences of Polish migrant workers in the UK
hospitality sector. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1006-1019.
Hirt, E. M. (1997). Processing goals, task interest, and the mood-performance relationship: A
mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 245-261.
Hitt, R. D. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century:
The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 139.
Hui Li, N. S. (2019,). Influence of Transformational Leadership on Employees' Innovative
Work Behavior in Sustainable Organizations: Test of Mediation and Moderation
Processes. mbpi.
Iqbal, F., Nawaz, K., & Younas, W. (2019). Evaluating the Effect of Leadership Behavior and
Organizational Contextual Performance on Employee Turnover Intentions. International
Journal of Recent Innovations in Academic Research, 3(6), 35–47.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a Moderator of
Interpersonal Conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00148
Jason Jay, S. S. (2017). Navigating the Paradoxes of Sustainability. (M. W. Wendy K. Smith,
Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox.
Kelly, D. &. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic
change. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 591-612.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2006). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and
Approaches Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, edited by
KramerRoderick M. and CookKaren S. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
368 pp. $39.95 cloth. ISBN: 0-87154-485-. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of
Reviews, 35(1), 36–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610603500125
Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51.
Kjeldsen, J. (2018). Visual and Multimodal Rhetoric and Argumentation in Organizations and
Organizational Theory. The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and communication.
359-372.
Lee, Y. T. (2008). Daoist leadership, theory and application. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.),.
Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices, 83-107.

(Page 16 of 19)
Lerner, J. &. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
146-159.
Leung, A. L. (2014). The role of instrumental emotion regulation in the emotions–creativity
link: How worries render individuals with high neuroticism more creative. emotion, 14,
846–856.
Li, P. P. (2008). Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust.
Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-
8784.2008.00120.x
Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 760-776.
Li, M. &. (2016). a review of employees innovative behavior in service. International journal
of contemporary hospitality management, 2820-2841.
Liden, R. C. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy
of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Meyer, J. a. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-
conceptualization. Human resource management review, 20(4), 283-294.
Motowidlo, S. &. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinct from contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Merriman, K. K. (2018). Leadership today. Connecticut Medicine, 82(2), 125–128.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31036-7
Nelson, D. a. (2013). Organizational behavior: Science, the real world, and you. Cengage
learning.
organ. (1990). “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, Research in
organizational behavior. organizational behavior, 12, 43-72.
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior:
What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6(1), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048730
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Porath, C. S. (2012). thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and
theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 250-275.
Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L., Berson, Y., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2019). Toward a theory of
meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
(March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.003
Pradhan, S., Jena, L. K., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2018). Transformational leadership and
contextual performance: Role of integrity among Indian IT professionals. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(2), 445–462.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2016-0186

(Page 17 of 19)
Quick, J. (2013). Understanding Organizational behavior. Belmont, CA: Cengage South-
Western.
*Roberts, K. &. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible
culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 205-215.
Science, M. (Ed.). (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:
Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Jansen J Van Den
Bosch F Volberda H, 52(11), 1661-1674.
Shareef, R. a. (2019). The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’
organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: Mediating role of intrinsic
motivation. Management Decision, 57(3), 583-605.
Shum, C., Gatling, A., Book, L., & Bai, B. (2019). The Moderating Roles of Follower
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on the Relationship Between Peer Transparency
and Follower Transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 483–495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3471-0
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership
model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for
managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 11(3), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0021
Shung Jae Shin, J. Z. (2003). Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity:
Evidence From Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.
Slack, N. C. (2004). Operations management. Harrow, UK Pearson Education.
Van Kleef, G. H. (2010). On Angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions
and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological
Science, 21, 1827–1834.
Van Scotter, J. a. (1996). “Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. journal of applied psychology, 81(5), 525-531.
Wallace, J. C. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects
of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of
Management, 4, 982–1004.
Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., & Zhang, X. (2019). Why and when paradoxical leader behavior
impacts employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1
Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate
development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, (March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015a). 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
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015b). 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

(Page 18 of 19)
Zhang, X. &. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence
of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement.
Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.

(Page 19 of 19)