A Review of Employees’ Social Courage Behavior from a Paradox Perspective: Conceptual Evolution, Theoretical Integration, and Mechanism of Action

Changmin Hou; Xingchi Zhou

doi:10.54691/x0gng466

Authors

Changmin Hou
Xingchi Zhou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/x0gng466

Keywords:

Social Courage Behavior; Paradoxical Leadership; LMX.

Abstract

In organizational settings, social courage behavior refers to employees’ willingness to voice concerns or correct errors for collective goals or organizational integrity while consciously taking on reputational, status, and relational risks. This paper systematically reviews existing research and distinguishes social courage from related constructs such as moral courage and voice behavior. Drawing on social risk theory, positive organizational behavior, moral cognition and motivation theory, and social exchange theory, it integrates the generation logic of four dimensions-risk, resources, values, and relationships-and conceptualizes social courage as a state-like behavior that can be situationally activated and managed. Furthermore, the paper proposes a theoretical model in which paradoxical leadership functions as the antecedent, leader–member exchange (LMX) quality serves as the mediating mechanism, social courage behavior is the outcome, and organizational support climate acts as the moderating variable. The model reveals the interactive effects of leadership, relationship quality, and organizational climate, enriching theoretical understanding and offering practical insights for fostering employees’ willingness to “speak up” and “act courageously” within organizations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Detert J R, Bruno E A. Courage as a Skill: Understanding and Developing Managers’ Courage to Act [J]. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2017, 13: 54-59.

[2] Worline M C. Courage in Organizations: A Relational Perspective [D]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004.

[3] Scarre G. On Courage [M]. London: Routledge, 2010.

[4] Fowers B J, Carroll J S, Lawrence E. The Virtue of Courage in Work and Family [J]. Review of General Psychology, 2021, 25(1): 49-64.

[5] Harris P L. The Work of the Imagination [M]. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999.

[6] Geller E S. Courage, Risk-Taking and Leadership [J]. Professional Safety, 2009, 54(9): 41-46.

[7] Vuori T, Huy Q N. Distributed Attention and Shared Emotions in the Innovation Process: How Nokia Lost the Smartphone Battle [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2016, 61(1): 9-51.

[8] Finkelstein S, Hambrick D C, Cannella A A. Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

[9] Lester P B, Hannah S T, Harms P D, Vogelgesang G R, Avolio B J. Courage in the Military: Fighting and Leading in Extreme Situations [C]//In Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 125-140.

[10] Howard M C, Farr J L, Grandey A A. Is Social Courage a Real Construct? A Theoretical Review and Empirical Analysis [J]. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2017, 12(5): 471-482.

[11] Detert J R, Edmondson A C. Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(3): 461-488.

[12] Rate C R, Clarke J A, Lindsay D R, Sternberg R J. Implicit Theories of Courage [J]. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2007, 2(2): 80-98.

[13] Luthans F, Youssef C M. Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior [J]. Journal of Management, 2007, 33(3): 321-349.

[14] Carmeli A, Brueller D, Dutton J E. Learning Behaviors in the Workplace: The Role of High-quality Interpersonal Relationships and Psychological Safety [J]. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2010, 26(1): 81-98.

[15] Sekerka L E, Bagozzi R P. Moral Courage in Organizations: Vision, Skill, and Habit [J]. Business Ethics: A European Review, 2007, 16(2): 132-149.

[16] Graen G B, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory over 25 Years [J]. Leadership Quarterly, 1995, 6(2): 219-247.

[17] Lee A, Martin R, Thomas G, Guillaume Y, Maio G R. Conceptualizing Leadership Perceptions as Attitudes: Using Attitude Theory to Further Understand the Leadership Process [J]. Leadership Quarterly, 2019, 30(1): 101-113.

[18] Smith W K, Lewis M W. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2): 381-403.

[19] Zhang Y, Waldman D A, Han Y L, Li X B. Paradoxical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness: The Role of Leader Behavioral Complexity [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(2): 538-566.