SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

THE ADAPTATION OF THE PARADOXICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR SHORT SCALE (PLB-5) INTO TURKISH: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

PARADOKSAL LİDERLİK DAVRANIŞI KISA ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN (PLB-5) TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: BİR GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Hakan Çayalan(Iğdır Üniversitesi)0000-0002-8333-2638
Pages
511–530
Publication Date
2026-03-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that the PLB-5 scale exhibits a high level of internal consistency (α = .836) and that the model fit indices are within acceptable ranges.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Paradoxical leadership emerges as a strategic leadership style essential for maintaining the organizational capacity for transformation within today’s volatile and uncertain work environments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to adapt the short version (PLB-5), developed by Fürstenberg et al. (2021) based on the Paradoxical Leader Behavior Scale (PLB-22) originally designed by Zhang et al. (2015), into Turkish and to conduct its validity and reliability analyses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the PLB-5 scale exhibits a high level of internal consistency (α = .836) and that the model fit indices are within acceptable ranges.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Paradoksal Liderlik Davranışı · Ölçek Uyarlama · Örgütsel İletişim

Abstract

Paradoxical leadership emerges as a strategic leadership style essential for maintaining the organizational capacity for transformation within today’s volatile and uncertain work environments. This leadership approach fosters the active participation of employees in transformation processes through the dynamism it imparts to organizational communication. This study aims to adapt the short version (PLB-5), developed by Fürstenberg et al. (2021) based on the Paradoxical Leader Behavior Scale (PLB-22) originally designed by Zhang et al. (2015), into Turkish and to conduct its validity and reliability analyses. In the adaptation process, Brislin’s (1973) five-stage translation method was followed, and the obtained data were tested via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the AMOS software. The findings indicate that the PLB-5 scale exhibits a high level of internal consistency (α = .836) and that the model fit indices are within acceptable ranges. While the initial Turkish adaptation of the long version resulted in the exclusion of several items, the second version adapted by Çayalan (2023) was finalized without any item removal. However, it is posited that the unidimensional short version of the scale may yield more efficient results in research processes. Consequently, the scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring paradoxical leadership behaviors within the Turkish sample.

Özet

Paradoksal liderlik, günümüzün değişken ve belirsiz çalışma ortamlarında örgütlerin dönüşüm kapasitesini sürdürebilmesi açısından stratejik bir liderlik biçimi olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu liderlik yaklaşımı, örgütsel iletişime kazandırdığı dinamizm ile dönüşüm süreçlerinde çalışanların aktif katılımını desteklemektedir. Bu araştırma kapsamında, Zhang ve arkadaşları (2015) tarafından geliştirilen Paradoksal Liderlik Davranışı Ölçeği’nin (PLB-22) vasıtasıyla Fürstenberg ve arkadaşları (2021) tarafından oluşturulan kısa versiyonunun (PLB-5) Türkçeye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Uyarlama sürecinde Brislin’in (1973) beş aşamalı çeviri yöntemi izlenmiş, elde edilen veriler AMOS programı aracılığıyla Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular PLB-5 (α=.836) ölçeğinin yüksek düzeyde iç tutarlılığa sahip olduğunu ve model uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Uzun versiyonunun Türkçeye ilk uyarlamasında birçok maddenin ölçekten çıkarıldığı görülmüş, Çayalan (2023) tarafından uyarlanan ikinci versiyonunda madde çıkarılmadan uyarlanmıştır. Ancak ölçeğin tek boyutlu kısa versiyonunun araştırma süreçlerinde daha verimli sonuçlar yansıtabileceği düşünülmektedir. Sonuç olarak ölçek Türk örnekleminde paradoksal liderlik davranışlarını geçerli ve güvenilir biçimde ölçebilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çayalan, H. (2026). THE ADAPTATION OF THE PARADOXICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR SHORT SCALE (PLB-5) INTO TURKISH: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 511–530. https://doi.org/10.19145/e-gifder.1808307

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Akça, İ., & Tuna, M. (2019). Paradoksal liderlik davranışı: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. İşletme Araştırma Dergisi, 11(4), ss. 2972-2989.
  2. Al Hasnawi, H. H., & Abbas, A. A. (2020). Workplace ostracism as a mediating variable in the relationship between paradoxical leader behaviours and organizational inertia. Organizacija, 53(2), ss. 165-181.
  3. Backhaus, L., Reuber, A., Vogel, D., & Vogel, R. (2022). Giving sense about paradoxes: paradoxical leadership in the public sector. Public Management Review, 24(9), ss. 1478-1498.
  4. Bashir, F. (2021). Dark Side of Paradoxical Leadership: Social Comparision Theory Perspective. NICE Research Journal, 14(1), ss. 107-130.
  5. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf Publishing Co.
  6. Brislin, R. (1973). Questionnaire wording and translation. Cross-cultural research methods, ss. 32-58.
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (10. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  8. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational Paradox and Transformation. R. E. Quinn, & K. S. Cameron (Ed.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management (ss. 1-18). Cambridge MA: Ballinger.
  9. Chen, S., Zhang, Y., Liang, L., & Shen, T. (2021). Does Paradoxical Leadership Facilitate Leaders’ Task Performance? A Perspective of Self-Regulation Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3505.
  10. Çayalan, H. (2023). Paradoksal Liderliğin Yenilik Performansına Etkisinde Stratejik Çevikliğin Aracı Rolü: Iğdır OSB’de Bir Karma Yöntem Araştırması (Yayın No. 828135) [Doktora tezi, Kafkas Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  11. Devi, N. C. (2024). Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding as mediators. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(2), ss. 312-340.
  12. Fürstenberg, N., Alfes, K., & Kearney, E. (2021). How and when paradoxical leadership benefits work engagement: The role of goal clarity and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(3), ss. 672-705.
  13. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (2. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  14. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A Review Of Scale Development Practices In The Study Of Organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), ss. 967-988.
  15. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), ss. 103-128.
  16. Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ followership behaviors: moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human resource management system. Asian Business & Management, 17, ss. 313-338.
  17. Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility. California Management Review, 56(3), ss. 58-77.
  18. Lorcu, F. (2015). Örneklerle Veri Analizi Spss Uygulamalı. Detay Yayıncılık.
  19. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
  20. Pan, Z. (2021). Paradoxical leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: the serial mediating effect of a paradoxical mindset and personal service orientation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(6), ss. 869-881.
  21. Ren, H., & Yang, R. (2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors and followers overall justice and citizenship behaviors: the role of renqing perception and trait agreeableness. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, ss. 1303-1313.
  22. Sample Size Calculator (2025, Ağustos 15). Sample Size Calculator: https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm adresinden alındı
  23. Shi, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2019). A Mediation Model of Paradoxical Leader Behavior and Employee Performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 17330.
  24. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), ss. 381–403.
  25. Sulphey, M. M., & Jasim, K. M. (2022). Paradoxical leadership as a moderating factor in the relationship between organizational silence and employee voice: an examination using SEM. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
  26. Yücel, D., & Yücel, R. (2021). The Impact Of Open Innovation On R&D Costs. In Proceeding Books. 2, (ss. 427-435). Antalya/Türkiye: 13th International Conference of Strategic Research on Scientific Studies and Education.
  27. Zhang, Y., & Liu, S. M. (2022). Balancing employees’ extrinsic requirements and intrinsic motivation: A paradoxical leader behaviour perspective. European Management Journal, 40(1), ss. 127-136.
  28. Zhang, Y., Waldman, A. D., Han, L. Y., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), ss. 538–566.
  29. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf Publishing Co.
  30. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.