日漸複雜且多元化的環境之下，悖論領導藉由華人文化中的陰陽哲學，提出領導者應以兩者兼備的方式來因應組織內相依且互斥的悖論需求，後續相關研究亦指出悖論領導行為於組織管理中的有效性，但對於其主要影響機制仍處於眾說紛紜的階段。基於此，本研究欲在華人文化中探討悖論領導行為的影響機制及可能的調節因素，採用跨層次架構瞭解主管悖論領導行為與部屬工作效能間的關係，討論主管忠誠的中介機制與真誠領導的調節效果。本研究以台灣全職工作者為研究對象，透過團隊問卷調查獲得77組工作團隊問卷，其中包含77位主管與231位部屬，研究結果指出悖論領導行為與主管忠誠有顯著的正向關聯，並且主管忠誠中介悖論領導行為與部屬工作績效間的關係。此外，真誠領導調節悖論領導行為與主管忠誠間的關係，且對工作績效亦有顯著的調節式中介效果。最後，本研究針對研究結果討論理論貢獻、研究限制以及提供未來研究方向。

In recent years, increased attention has been given to the paradox in organizational behavior studies (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). In 2015, Zhang et al. drew on the Eastern philosophy of yin-yang to propose the concept of paradoxical leadership. In the yin-yang philosophy, yin and yang are complete opposites but also complement each other and remain interdependent, forming a harmonious whole (Chen, 2002; Fang, 2005). Zhang et al. (2015) suggested that supervisors who embrace opposite perspectives perform better when facing contradictory demands and complex situations. Paradoxical leaders tend to fulfill both the organization's structural needs and the employee's individual needs and apply holistic thinking to manage both long-term and short-term goals. The ambidextrous behaviors of paradoxical leadership allow supervisors to deal flexibly with uncertainty and effectively lead subordinates to accomplish job assignments (Zhang et al., 2015). Research has also indicated that paradoxical leadership fosters subordinates' work-related performance, and several studies have attempted to explain the mechanisms using Western theories (Shao et al., 2019; She et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). However, Zhang et al. (2015) constructed the paradoxical leadership theory based on the Eastern yin-yang philosophy in Chinese society, and most follow-up studies were also conducted in Chinese organizations (e.g., She et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Using Western perspectives to explain Chinese organizational behaviors might have its biases and limitations (Cheng & Huang, 2019). Therefore, this study focuses on the culture-specific mechanisms underlying the relationship between paradoxical leadership and work-related performances. Chinese culture values the rules of interaction within vertical relationships (Chuang & Yang, 1997). In an organization, the leader-subordinate relationship is the vertical relationship, in which loyalty is the critical attitude and behavioral standard for both roles. Supervisors are expected to execute organizational policies and achieve organizational goals while providing subordinates with assistance and encouraging them to complete their work tasks effectively (Cheng & Jiang, 2005). The more expectations and demands the supervisor fulfills, the more the subordinate sees the supervisor as worth following (Cheng et al., 2015). The core concept of paradoxical leadership is the yin-yang ambidexterity of leadership behaviors (Zhang et al., 2015). As the paradoxical leader can meet multiple demands expected by subordinates, subordinates may increase their psychological attachment and willingness to be loyal to the supervisor. Further, loyalty may prompt subordinates to accept the supervisor's paradoxical values, adapt to the dynamic environment, and be willing to follow contradictory work instructions to meet different work demands. Moreover, loyal subordinates may internalize the supervisor's paradoxical mindset and learn to build connections between conflicting opinions to produce novel output. Subordinates who are willing to show their loyalty to their supervisor may actively take risks to offer creative ideas or products. Therefore, we proposed the following mediation mechanism: paradoxical leadership positively affects subordinates' loyalty to their supervisor, enhancing their job and creative performance. In addition, we hypothesized that authentic leadership moderates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and loyalty. Authentic leaders have an explicit self-concept and positive moral standards and make work decisions without being affected by external expectations. They share information with subordinates, allowing them to make suggestions and participate in decision-making (Walumbwa et al., 2008). We proposed that paradoxical leaders perform authentic leadership behaviors to a high extent. They may offer sufficient information to subordinates to enable the latter to understand contradictory demands and to convey their own positive inner beliefs and thoughts to subordinates. When paradoxical leaders adopt more authentic leadership behaviors, subordinates may become more loyal to these leaders. This study recruited work teams from various Taiwanese companies, each comprising one supervisor and three subordinates. We distributed 91 questionnaires and obtained a response rate of 89.01%. After excluding the questionnaires with missing data and assessing ICC(1) and r_(wg) (Cohen, 1988; James et al., 1984), the final sample comprised 77 work teams with 77 supervisors and 231 subordinates. The supervisors' questionnaire consisted of measures of leader-member exchange (serving as a control variable; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and of each subordinate's job performance and creative performance (Farh & Cheng, 1997; George & Zhou, 2001). The subordinates' questionnaire consisted of measures of paradoxical leadership (Zhang et al., 2015), loyalty to supervisor (Jiang et al., 2007), authentic leadership (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 1993), power distance (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), and creative self-efficacy (Gong et al., 2009; the latter three served as control variables). Previous researchers had well examined all of the measures used, and the Cronbach's αs ranged from .76 to .95. We used Mplus 7.4 to conduct data analyses and applied Monte Carlo simulations to examine the mediation and moderated mediation effects. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the nine-factor model was a good fit for the data (χ^2 (304) = 648.44, CFI = .90, TLI = .89, SRMRw = .07, SRMRb = .06, RMSEA = .07) and a better fit than the eight competing models. The results of the multilevel path analyses showed that there were positive relationships between paradoxical leadership and loyalty to supervisor (β = .21, p < .05), and between paradoxical leadership and job performance (β = .36, p < .001). Loyalty to supervisor mediated the positive relationship between paradoxical leadership and job performance (indirect effect = .06, 95% CI [.012, .132]). Authentic leadership had a positive moderation effect (β = .12, p < .05), such that the positive relationship between paradoxical leadership and job performance was stronger when authentic leadership was higher. The moderated mediation effect on job performance was also supported (estimate = .008, 95% CI [.002, .018]). The results suggested a positive relationship between paradoxical leadership and creative performance (β = .57, p < .001), but the mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation hypotheses related to creative performance were not supported. Future research may consider other variables valued in Chinese culture (e.g., zhong-yong thinking, loyalty to the organization) to explore further mechanisms underlying the relationship between paradoxical leadership and subordinate creative performance. In conclusion, this study contributed to understanding the culture-specific mechanisms of paradoxical leadership. The results indicated that loyalty could build a connection between the paradoxical supervisor and their subordinates in Chinese organizational vertical relationships. Going beyond Western perspectives of interpersonal relationships, we provided evidence supporting indigenous approaches to broaden the understanding of Chinese organizational behaviors. Moreover, this study pointed out that the proper use of multiple leadership behaviors could result in more managerial benefits. In practice, supervisors could adopt both paradoxical leadership and authentic leadership behaviors to enhance their subordinates' loyalty and job performance.