Tư duy nghịch lý và áp lực học tập thúc đẩy sự sáng tạo và kết quả công việc của nhân viên: Nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực dịch vụ ngân hàng tại Việt Nam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24311/jabes/2020.31.10.1249Keywords:
Learning tension, Paradox mindset, Employee creativity, In-role performanceAbstract
Applying paradox theory, this study investigates the impact of learning tension, paradox mindset, and the interaction between them on employee creativity, subsequently leading to enhance in-role performance. Based on a data set of 430 service employees in the banking industry, this study found that employee creativity mediated the relationship between learning tension and in-role performance. Additionally, employee creativity mediated the relationship between paradox mindset and in-role performance. The interaction between learning tension and paradox mindset on employee creativity, however, was not significant. These results contributed to the literature on employee creativity by finding two antecedents, learning tension and paradox mindset. The findings of this study confirm the applicability of the paradox theory to explain employee creativity in emerging markets like Vietnam.
References
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.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.
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.
Cấn Văn Lực, & Nhóm tác giả Viện Đào tạo và Nghiên cứu BIDV. (2021). Những điểm sáng của ngành Ngân hàng Việt Nam năm 2020 và triển vọng năm 2021. Tạp chí Ngân hàng, 3–4. Truy cập ngày 19/02/2021, từ http://tapchinganhang.gov.vn/nhung-diem-sang-cua-nganh-ngan-hang-viet-nam-nam-2020-va-trien-vong-nam-2021.htm
Černe, M., Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2),
296–325.
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(6), 931–943.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344.
Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2014). Toward better understanding of the learning goal orientation–creativity relationship: The role of positive psychological capital. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(2), 444–472.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569.
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T., & Rhee, S.-Y. (2016). Exploring the relationships between compassion at work, the evaluative perspective of positive work-related identity, service employee creativity, and job performance. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 103–114.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4),
657–690.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785–804.
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.
Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65.
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.
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.
Ngo, L. V., Nguyen, N. P., Lee, J., & Andonopoulos, V. (2020). Mindfulness and job performance: Does creativity matter?. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(3), 117–123.
Park, I.-J., Shim, S.-H., Hai, S., Kwon, S., & Kim, T. G. (2021). Cool down emotion, don’t be fickle! The role of paradoxical leadership in the relationship between emotional stability and creativity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–31.
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, 155, 31–41.
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.
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.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
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.
Statista. (2020). GDP contribution of the financial, banking and insurance sector in Vietnam from 2015 to 2020. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1047750/vietnam-gdp-contribution-of-financial-banking-and-insurance-sector/
Tai, H. T., & Mai, N. Q. (2016). Proactive personality, organizational context, employee creativity and innovative capability: Evidence from MNCs and domestic corporations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(3), 370–389.
Thuan, L. C., & Thanh, B. T. (2020). Mediating mechanisms linking developmental feedback with employee creativity. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(2), 108–121.
Tuan, L. T. (2020). Can managing employee diversity be a pathway to creativity for tour companies?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 81–107.
Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., & Zhang, X. (2019). Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology, 40, 1911–1922.
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395–1404.
Waldman, D. A., Putnam, L. L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Siegel, D. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1–6.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (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.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel And Human Resources Management, In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22 (pp. 165–217), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JOURNAL OF ASIAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC STUDIES
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
