當代企業在全球化與科技迅速發展的情境下，所面對的不確定性與複雜性愈加提升。為了因應這樣的挑戰，悖論領導行為已成為領導者推動組織創新與持續發展的關鍵策略。此類領導方式強調領導者在面對矛盾的目標與需求時，能夠靈活調整並取得平衡，不僅展現出高度的自我覺察與調節能力，亦能有效激勵員工投入創新活動。
本研究旨在探討悖論領導行為對部屬創新工作行為的影響，並進一步檢視複雜整合力在其中所扮演的中介角色，以及信任主管是否具備調節效果。面對高度競爭與環境劇變的企業現實，悖論領導行為的實施有助於組織兼顧穩定與靈活性，進而強化其創新能力與適應力。
本研究以台灣企業為對象，採用主管與部屬配對問卷的方式，共獲得202份有效樣本進行實證分析。結果顯示，悖論領導對部屬創新工作行為具有顯著正向影響，且複雜整合力在兩者之間扮演顯著的中介角色。然而，信任主管未能如預期發揮調節作用，顯示其效力可能受到產業特性或工作環境等因素的影響。整體而言，研究結果強調悖論領導行為在提升創新行為上的重要性，並對未來領導實務提供實質建議與省思。

In the context of rapid globalization and technological advancement, contemporary enterprises are increasingly confronted with uncertainty and complex challenges. To address these issues, paradoxical leadership behavior has emerged as a critical strategy for leaders to drive organizational innovation and sustainable development. This leadership approach emphasizes the leader’s ability to flexibly balance conflicting goals and demands, demonstrating a high level of self-awareness and regulatory capacity while effectively motivating employees to engage in innovative activities.
The purpose of this study is to examine how paradoxical leadership behavior influences subordinates’ innovative work behavior, with a particular focus on the mediating role of complex integration and the moderating role of trust in supervisors. In a highly competitive and dynamic business environment, the implementation of paradoxical leadership can help organizations maintain both stability and flexibility, thereby enhancing their adaptability and innovation capabilities.
This research collected data from matched supervisor-subordinate pairs in Taiwanese enterprises, yielding 202 valid responses for empirical analysis. The findings confirm a significant positive effect of paradoxical leadership on subordinates’ innovative work behavior. Moreover, complex integration plays a significant mediating role in this relationship. However, trust in supervisors did not exhibit the expected moderating effect, suggesting that its influence may vary depending on industry characteristics or work environments. Overall, the results underscore the importance of paradoxical leadership in promoting innovative behavior and provide practical insights and reflections for future leadership practices.

Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities.
Strategic management journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The leadership quarterly, 24(1), 270–283.
Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of
organizational effectiveness. Management science, 32(5), 539–553.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2014). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity research journal, 26(1), 59–69.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909–927.
De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and innovation management, 19(1), 23–36.
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.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111–132.
Fang, Y., Chen, J., Wang, M., & Chen, C. (2019). The combined effects of inclusive leadership and relational silence on innovative behavior: The mediating role of psychological safety. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2511.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693–706.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hassan, M. U., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. International journal of human resource studies, 1(2), 84–97.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European review of social psychology, 11(1), 223–255.
Holland, P. W., & Koning, R. H. (2013). Complexity and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of management, 39(5), 1231–1261.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
Kohler, C., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2021). The interplay of organizational structure, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability. Research policy, 50(6), 104242.
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2021). Digital transformation and entrepreneurship: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of small business management, 59(1), 1–44.
Li, M., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, J. L. (2020). Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on creativity at work: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance. Journal of applied psychology, 105(8), 862–874.
Liu, F., & Wang, W. (2019). Paradoxical leadership and innovation: The mediating role of team cooperation. Leadership & organization development journal, 40(5), 616–629.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24–59.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513–563.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The leadership quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580–607.
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.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8–30.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590–607.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research, 122, 889–901.
Vince, R., & Bontis, N. (1996). Exploring the paradox of managing knowledge and learning in organizations. Journal of management studies, 33(4), 595–607.
Wu, L. Z., Kwan, H. K., Yim, F. H., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2020). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of business ethics, 125(4), 687–698.
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.