Çalışan Performansı Üzerinde Paradoksal Liderlik Davranışının Etkisi: Sesin Aracılık Rolü

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 88, 497 - 513, 29.01.2026

Elif Ebru Kaya

Öz

Bu çalışma, son zamanlarda incelenmeye başlayan, nispeten yeni bir kavram olan paradoksal liderliğe odaklanmaktadır. İki çelişkili seçenek arasında denge kuran paradoksal liderin çalışanlar üzerinde çeşitli sonuçlar doğurduğu sınırlı sayıda olsa da önceki çalışmalarda ortaya konmuştur. Bu çalışma kapsamında ise Türkiye’de paradoksal liderlik davranışının çalışan performansına etkisi, çalışan sesi aracılığıyla incelenmektedir. Paradoksal liderliğin, performansı artırıcı bir etki yaratacağı düşünülmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, paradoksal liderin çalışan üzerindeki etkisini tespit etmektir, bu ilişkide ses davranışının etkisi de tespit edilmek istenmektedir. Anket uygulaması ile toplanan veri 161 gözlemli veri, SPSS ve AMOS programları aracılığıyla test edilmiştir. Bulgular, paradoksal liderlik davranışının çalışan performansını olumlu yönde değiştirdiğini ortaya koyarken bu ilişkide çalışan sesinin kısmi aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Paradoksal liderlik davranışı , Çalışan performansı , Ses , Teşvik edici ses , Engelleyici ses

The Effect of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior on Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Voice

Öz

This study focuses on paradoxical leadership, a relatively new concept that has only recently begun to receive scholarly attention. Although limited in number, previous studies have shown that the paradoxical leader — who balances two seemingly contradictory options — produces various outcomes for employees. Within the scope of this study, the effect of paradoxical leadership behavior on employee performance is examined through the mediating role of employee voice in Türkiye. It is proposed that paradoxical leadership will have a performance-enhancing effect. The aim of the study is to identify the influence of the paradoxical leader on employees and to determine the role of voice behavior in this relationship. Data collected through a survey that has 161 participations were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. The findings indicate that paradoxical leadership behavior positively affects employee performance, and that employee voice acts as a partial mediator in this relationship.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Paradoxical leadership beha1vior , Employee performance , Voice , Promotive voice , Prohibitive voice

Kaynakça

• Afzal, H. F., Ishaque, S., ve Habib, D. (2025). Lead Bold, creative fearless: The Paradoxical leaders path to creative performance: The intervening role of Psychological Safety. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 9(2), 423-443.
• Ashiru, J. A., Erdil, G. E., ve Oluwajana, D. (2022). The linkage between high-performance work systems on organizational performance, employee voice, and employee innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(1), 1–17.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
• Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 464–469.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.
• Carmine, S., ve Smith, W. K. (2021). Organizational paradox. In Oxford bibliographies in management. Oxford University Press.
• Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., ve LePine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1544–1561.
• Chen, Y., He, X., Lu, L., ve Gao, X. (2022). In a team forgiveness climate, the influence of paradoxical thinking of leaders on the team voice behavior: Mediated by team cooperation. PLOS ONE, 17(3),1-17.
• Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., ve Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.
• Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”.Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334.
• Çayalan, H. (2023). Paradoksal liderliğin yenilik performansına etkisinde stratejik çevikliğin aracı rolü: Iğdır OSB'de bir karma yöntem araştırması [Doktora tezi, Kafkas Üniversitesi].
• Çöl, G. (2008). Algılanan güçlendirmenin işgören performansı üzerine etkileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 35–46.
• Cunha, M. P. E., Fortes, A., Gomes, E., Rego, A. ve Rodrigues, F. (2019). Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: evidence from Angola. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 702-727.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1(20), 416-436.
• Detert, J. R., ve Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
• Dong, Y., ve Peng, C.-Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2, 222.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Elsehrawy, M. G., El-Ashry, A. M., ve Abou Zeid, M.-A. G. (2025). The effect of paradoxical leadership on nurses’ job performance: The mediating role of thriving at work. BMC Nursing, 24, 1140.
• Evans, P. A. L. (2000). The dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Management 21C: New visions for the new millennium: 66-82.
• Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., ve Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
• Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., ve Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173–182.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3. Basım). Sage.
• Ghasemi, A., ve Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489.
• Graen, G. B., ve Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
• Güney, S. (2021). Dünden Bugüne Liderlik. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., ve Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and employee work outcomes: a paradox theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1661.
• Hahn, T., ve Knight, E. (2021). The ontology of organizational paradox: A quantum approach. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 362-384.
• Handy, C. B. (1994). The age of paradox. Harvard Business School Press.1-150.
• He, S., ve Yun, X. (2022). Research on the influencing mechanism of paradoxical leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 12(7), 231.
• Heracleous, L., ve Wirtz, J. (2014). Singapore Airlines: Achieving sustainable advantage through mastering paradox. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 150–170.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
• Holley, E. C., Wu, K., ve Avey, J. B. (2019). The impact of leader trustworthiness on employee voice and performance in China. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 179–189.
• Hu, B., Fletcher, D., Jowett, S., ve Arnold, R. (2025). Paradoxical leadership, athlete well-being, and performance satisfaction: The mediating role of the coach-athlete relationship. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-11.
• Huang, S., Shu, J., ve Liu, C. (2018). Employee work performance mediates empowering leader behavior and employee voice. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(12), 1997–2008.
• Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y., ve Liu, Y. (2018). Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ followership behaviors: Moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human resource management system. Asian Business & Management, 17(5), 313–338.
• Kamil, N. L. M., Stillwell, E., Nordin, W. N. A. W. M., ve Zhao, K. (2024). The longitudinal effect of psychosocial safety climate and employee voice behaviour: Does job crafting and paradoxical leadership matter? In Opportunities and risks in AI for business development: Volume 1 (pp. 875–885). Springer Nature Switzerland.
• Khan, R. U. (2025). Voices unleashed: How paradoxical leadership sparks employee expression through relational energy and proactive personality traits. Annual Methodological Archive Research Review, 3(8), 32–46.
• Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54.
• Kirkman, B. L., ve Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
• Kuş, Y. (2023). İş bağlamında çalışan ve yönetici düzenleyici odaklarının çalışanın ses davranışı üzerindeki etkisinde yönetici duygulanımı ve lider üye etkileşiminin rolü (Doktora tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı.
• Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Zheng, Y., ve Li, Z. F. (2023). Paradoxical leadership: A meta-analytical review. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 1, 1229543.
• Li, X., Xue, Y., Liang, H., ve Yan, D. (2020). The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice behavior: a moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 537756.
• Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management journal, 55(1), 71-92.
• Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., ve Lee, C. (2020). The paradox of paradoxical leadership: The moderating role of follower cognitive complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 323–347.
• Luo, G., Zhu, G., ve Guo, Y. (2023). Effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovation behavior in a Confucian context. Asian Business & Management, 22(5), 2249–2279.
• Madaan, K., Jain, D., ve Sharma, H. (2025). Does paradoxical leadership predict employee job performance in hospitality? A sequential mediation of harmonious work passion and innovative work behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(4), 1458-1477.
• Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
• Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.
• Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 79–107.
• Obied, H. K., ve Elsaeed, Z. Z. (2023). Influence of supervisor’s paradoxical leadership and organizational learning capability on nurses’ voice behavior: Comparative study. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal, 11(38), 216–226.
• Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L., Berson, Y., ve Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2019). Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 31–41.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., ve Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
• Quinn, R. E., ve Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co./Harper & Row Publishers.
• Ramy, H., Yassin, S., ve Yacoub, A. (2024). The impact of paradoxical leadership behavior on employee task performance and the mediating roles of employee creativity and job satisfaction within Egypt’s telecommunications sector, 15(4), 565–617.
• Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., ve Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
• Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research, 8(1), 3-15.
• Smith, W. K., ve Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
• Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., ve Tushman, M. L. (2021). “Hem o hem de o” liderliği (T. Gezer, Çev.). İçinde HBR’s 10 must reads: Liderlik 2 (s. 75–92). Optimist. (Orijinal çalışma 2016’da yayımlanmıştır; yeniden basım 2020).
• Su, X., Liu, Y., ve Hanson-Rasmussen, N. (2017). Voice behavior, supervisor attribution and employee performance appraisal. Sustainability, 9(10), 1829.
• Sulphey, M. M., ve Jasim, K. M. (2022). Paradoxical leadership as a moderating factor in the relationship between organizational silence and employee voice: An examination using SEM. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(3), 457–481.
• Sulphey, M. M., ve Jasim, K. M. (2025). Can paradoxical leadership revert silence imposed by corporate hypocrisy and organizational inertia bring in voice behavior: An examination using SEM. SAGE Open, 15(2), 21582440251341673.
• Sundaramurthy, C., ve Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.
• Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Weiss, H. M., ve Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI Press.
• Xiao, X., Zhou, Z., Yang, F., ve Wang, S. (2023). I am not proactive but I want to speak up: A self-concept perspective. Current Psychology, 42(13), 11234–11249.
• Xue, Y., Li, X., Liang, H., ve 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.
• Ye, Q., Wang, D., ve Guo, W. (2019). Inclusive leadership and team innovation: The role of team voice and performance pressure. European Management Journal, 37(4), 468–480.
• Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., ve Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.