Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership Daniel R. Denison * Robert Hooijberg * Robert E. Quinn University of Michigan, School of BusinessAdministration, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Rutgers University, Faculty of Management, 180 UniversityAvenue, Newark, New Jersey 07102-1895 University of Michigan, School of Business Administration, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 T his paper explores the paradoxes and competing values inherent in leadership behavior. Scales for eight leadership roles are developed, providing empirical data about 176 executives. The article contributes to the theoretical understanding of the paradoxes of leadership and introduces the concept of behavioral complexity to understand leader behavior and integrate theoretical findings in the leadership literature Richard L. Daft Abstract The concept of paradox has received increasing attention in the study of leadership, but these new ideas have not yet had much influence on empirical leadership research. This paper examines the development of these ideas in the literature and attempts to clarify what influence they might have on empirical research. One general implication of the paradox perspectives that more effective leaders generally display a more complex atnd varied set of behaviors, is then examined empirically with respect to Quinn's (1984, 1988) model of leadership roles. This model is one of few that allows for an empirical test of some of the central ideas developed by the paradox perspective. The paper also contrasts the recent emphasis on cognitive complexity in the organizational literature (Weick 1979, Kiesler and Sproull 1982, Streufert and Swezey 1986), with the relative lack of attention given to behavioral complexity. Cognitive complexity, the paper argues, may well be a neces- sary condition for the effective practice of leadership. Behav- ioral complexity, however, must certainly be the sufficient condition. Leadership must inevitably be performed through action, not cognition, and it would thus appear to be time for leadership researchers to begin to develop theories of behav- ioral as well as cognitive complexity. The paper also examines several existing leadership theories that are consistent with this point of view (Mintzberg 1973, 1975, Yukl 1981; Bass 1981), and have (in effect) already offered useful definitions of behavioral complexity. The empirical results of this study come from a study of 176 executives whose leadership role behavior is rated by their subordinates, and whose effectiveness is rated by their superiors. The analysis relies upon a nontraditional analysis technique based on multidimensional scaling that is well suited to this unorthodox analytic problem. The results show that the more effective executives exhibit a greater variety of leadership roles than their less effective counterparts, and that these roles are much clearer to their subordinates. The results also show that more effective executives show much more of the underlying structure of leadership roles pro- posed by the Quinn model than do less effective executives. Finally, this paper suggests that the concepts of paradox and behavioral complexity are instrumental to a fuller under- standing of managerial leadership, and concludes with a discussion of the future research agenda in this area. (Leadership; Paradox; Complexity; Effectiveness) Traditional management theories have often presented organizational phenomena in terms of discrete, oppos- ing categories such as loose or tight, formal or infor- mal, and creative or routine (Bobko 1985). Many of the most compelling theories of leadership have also di- vided the domain into contrasting categories. Classic examples from the leadership literature include McGregor's (1960) suggestion that managers view their 524 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/ Vol. 6, No. 5, September-October 1995 1047-7039/95/0605/0524/$01.25 Copyright ? 1995. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences This content downloaded from 141.217.20.120 on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:07:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms