Although there is a growing interest toward the topic of leader humility, extant research has largely failed to consider the underlying mechanisms through which leader humility influences team outcomes. In this research, we integrate the emerging literature of leader humility and social information processing theory to theorize how leader humility facilitates the development of collective team psychological capital, leading to higher team task allocation effectiveness and team performance. While Owens and Hekman (2016) suggest that leader humility has homogeneous effects on followers, we propose a potential heterogeneous effect based on the complementarity literature (e.g., Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007) and the principle of equifinality (leaders may influence team outcomes through multiple pathways; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). In three studies conducted in China, Singapore, and Portugal, including an experiment, a multisource field study, and a three-wave multisource field study, we find support for our hypotheses that leader humility enhances team performance serially through increased team psychological capital and team task allocation effectiveness. We discuss the theoretical implications of our work to the leader humility, psychological capital, and team effectiveness literatures; and offer suggestions for future research.

The idea that interdependent and persistent tensions are intrinsic to organizing is now well accepted. Organizational paradox theory has further stressed the importance of accepting such paradoxes, to convert them into generative forces. However, this recommendation assumes actors have full agency in responding to paradoxes and, therefore, overlooks the role of power dynamics. We expand on paradox theory by drawing attention to organizational pragmatic paradoxes: contradictory demands received within the context of an intense managerial relationship, such as when a subordinate is ordered to 'take initiative'. Our model highlights how organizational pragmatic paradoxes derive from power relations restricting actors' capacities for enacting legitimate responses to tensions. Specifically, we link different organizational power dimensions to various manifestations of pragmatic paradoxes. We further outline concrete actions for mitigating the occurrence of these pathological phenomena. Our conceptualization contributes to a critical reading of paradox theory that is sensitive to power inequalities. The capacity to manage paradoxical tensions-for example, exploitation and exploration, or competition and collaboration-has been described as the "ultimate advantage and challenge for organizations" (Andriopoulos & Lewis 2009, p. 709). Organizational paradox literature (see Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart 2016; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith 2016 for reviews) has demonstrated that paradoxes, defined as "persistent contradictions between interdependent elements" (Schad et al. 2016, p. 10), are an unavoidable consequence of organizing (Lewis 2000; Smith & Lewis 2011). The conceptual core of the theory, summarized in the "dynamic equilibrium model of organizing" formulated by Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 389), maintains that acknowledging the interconnectedness of opposite poles can promote organizational learning and transformation (Chen 2002; Farjoun 2010; Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote 2011). Challenging the assumption that organization is synonymous with order and linearity, paradox theory highlights the dynamic, complex nature of organizing (Lewis & Smith 2014). Despite the success of paradox theory, demonstrated by the growing number of publications it inspires (Fairhurst et al. 2016), preserving the vitality of this theory requires challenging its assumptions (Cunha & Putnam 2019; Schad, Lewis, & Smith 2019). In this paper, we focus on two of its limitations. First, we question the presupposition that individuals are free and able to choose how to engage with paradoxical tensions. Actors faced with organizational paradoxes have been observed to respond in various ways (Jarzabkowski & Lê 2017), with those who accept tensions demonstrating enhanced performance and innovation (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis 2018). Therefore, accepting, rather than denying, the existence of paradoxes is believed essential in achieving sustainable outcomes (Smith & Lewis 2011). However, this view ignores the observation that, sometim...

We assess the perceived impact of leaders humility (both self and other-reported) on team effectiveness, and how this relationship is mediated by balanced processing of information. Ninetysix leaders (plus 307 subordinates, 96 supervisors, and 656 peers of those leaders) participate in the study. The findings suggest that humility in leaders (as reported by others/peers) is indirectly (i.e., through balanced processing) related to leaders' perceived impact on team effectiveness. The study also corroborates literature pointing out the benefits of using other-reports (rather than self-reports) to measure humility, and suggests including humility into the authentic leadership research agenda.Keywords: balanced processing, leader humility, leader' perceived impact on team effectiveness. * We are very grateful to both reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations.

Crises and tragedies befalling individuals, teams, organizations, or communities call for leadership that builds resilience in the face of danger. The COVID-19 pandemic, full of both known and unknown unknowns, is no exception and variable national responses to it epitomize the importance of resilient leadership. In such situations there is always the expectation that 'something has to be said' in response to commentators and authorities calling for a clear unambiguous direction (in politics, in business, and in communities) and that it is best said by 'the leader'. Saying something and dealing with a reality unravelling in the midst of uncertainty and ambiguity can lead to paradoxical situations. In the words of Deloitte Global CEO Punit Renjen (2020), COVID-19 has challenged leaders with 'fixing the plane while it flies'. For passengers to remain calm while doing so requires the tension-laden goal of 'building recovery on a foundation of trust'. The balance between saying something reassuring and responding to something threatening in process is difficult to weigh. While to lead means to guide, to resile means to respond or be guided by circumstances through a process of adaptation and growth within a risky environment. In this commentary, we discuss resilient leadership as paradox work, i.e., guiding while being guided by contingencies. RESILIENT LEADERSHIP: BUILDING WALLS AND WINDMILLS As highlighted in Lewin, Li, and Välikangas's (2020: 225) call for commentaries, the COVID-19 pandemic 'will be a test of resilience and responsible leadership at the global, country, industrial, firm, family and individual level'. We interpret that challenge in light of an interesting proverb: 'When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills'. Resilient leadership

The compassion of healthcare workers towards patients is widely recognized, but research suggests a dearth of compassion among co-workers. Indeed, workplace bullying and negative employee outcomes are over-represented in the healthcare sector (including burnout and substantial staff turnover). In this paper, we discuss the cultivation of compassion for healthcare workers, using the lens of positive organizational scholarship. Our concern is not only with the individual level compassion (i.e. between employees), we also consider how compassion can be cultivated systemically across healthcare institutions at the organizational level. More specifically, we present a proposed Noticing, Empathising, Assessing and Responding Mechanisms Model of Organizational Compassion as a tool for consciously cultivating workplace compassion in healthcare organizations.

We explore the intrinsic ambiguity of speaking up in a multinational healthcare subsidiary. A culture change initiative, emphasizing learning and agility through encouraging employees to speak up, gave rise to paradoxical effects. Some employees interpreted a managerial tool for improving effectiveness as an invitation to raise challenging points of difference rather than as something 'beneficial for the organization'. We show that the process of introducing a culture that aims to encourage employees to speak up can produce tensions and contradictions that make various types of organizational paradoxes salient. Telling people to 'speak up!' may render paradoxical tensions salient and even foster a sense of low PsySafe.

Abstract:In this empirical paper we present a model of the dynamic legitimizing processes involved in the receiving and giving of compassion. We focus on the idea of being 'worthy of compassion' and show how ideas on giving and receiving compassion are highly contestable. Recognition of a worthy recipient or giver of compassion constitutes a socially recognized claim to privilege, which has ethical managerial and organizational implications. We offer a model that assists managers in fostering ethical strength in their performance by encouraging reflection on the ethical complexity involved in compassion relations. The model emphasizes the dynamics of both the givers and receivers of compassion and so 2 can also be used by organizations to both assess how others may view the legitimacy of their compassion relations and also to develop a positive organizational ethic of compassionate conduct.

While organizational compassion has attracted increased scholarly interest over the past two decades, inherent paradoxical tensions have been largely overlooked. Transcendence of oppositions is widely recognized as the most effective paradox response. To gain insight about the transcendence of the paradoxical tensions in organizational compassion, we turn to the cultural context of Bhutan, where for centuries compassion has been held as a central virtue informing governance and daily life. Our analysis contributes to the literature on organizational compassion and on organizational paradoxes by (a) theorizing the application of Bhutan’s compassion transcendence strategies to the organizational context, (b) thereby engaging in cross-cultural analysis hereto overlooked in the organizational compassion literature, (c) highlighting paradoxes in compassion relations, and (d) providing a generalizable sociomaterial model for studying paradox transcendence.