彭坚, 曹兵兵()

广州大学管理学院, 广州 510006

收稿日期:2020-05-27出版日期:2021-06-15发布日期:2021-04-25
通讯作者:曹兵兵E-mail:bbcao_neu@163.com

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目(71902048)

The bottom-up effect of followers' proactive work behavior: An implicit followership perspective

PENG Jian, CAO Bingbing()

School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

Received:2020-05-27Online:2021-06-15Published:2021-04-25
Contact:CAO Bingbing E-mail:bbcao_neu@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 主动工作行为, 作为推动组织与时俱进、健康发展的重要保障, 已成为组织行为研究领域的热点主题。然而, 以往研究在探索追随者主动工作行为的上行影响时, 却出现了悖论: 一些研究发现主动工作行为能激发领导者的积极评价, 另一些研究却指出主动工作行为会招致领导者的负面对待。为解释此矛盾现象, 基于内隐追随理论建构了一个主动工作行为的上行影响模型。该理论模型指出, 领导者的内隐追随信念决定了追随者主动工作行为究竟引发领导者的何种反应。先介绍领导者主动型内隐追随的概念与测量, 然后论证追随者主动工作行为与领导者主动型内隐追随的契合程度对领导者的影响, 在此基础上提出领导者核心情绪(高兴、紧张、沮丧与满足)的中介作用。文章为后续主动工作行为实证研究提供了一个理论分析框架。

图/表 2

图1基于内隐追随的主动工作行为上行影响模型
图1基于内隐追随的主动工作行为上行影响模型



图2理论模型拓展
图2理论模型拓展

参考文献 54

[1]	曹元坤, 祝振兵. (2015). 内隐追随理论: 概念, 测量, 前因及后果. 心理科学进展, 23(2), 280-288.
[2]	陈鹏宇, 孙剑, 贾铖. (2020). 越级指挥的代价: 高管越级指挥对中层领导多重交换关系的影响. 中国人力资源开发, 37(3), 43-57.
[3]	段锦云, 凌斌. (2011). 中国背景下员工建言行为结构及中庸思维对其的影响. 心理学报, 43(10), 1185-1197.
[4]	刘超, 刘军, 陈星汶, 李巧, 朱丽. (2020). 本土组织情境下上下级匹配模型的构建与探讨. 中国人力资源开发, 37(3), 58-77.
[5]	刘德鹏, 贾良定, 尤树洋, 赵广军. (2020). 下属更加偏爱与自己相似的上级吗? 中国情境下同乡与同龄的差异化作用. 中国人力资源开发, 37(2), 34-52.
[6]	彭坚, 王霄. (2015). 追随力认知图式: 概念解析与整合模型. 心理科学, 38(4), 822-827.
[7]	彭坚, 王震. (2018). 做上司的“意中人”:负担还是赋能?追随原型-特质匹配的双刃剑效应. 心理学报, 50(2), 216-225.
[8]	隋杨, 王辉, 岳旖旎, Fred Luthans. (2012). 变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响: 心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用. 心理学报, 44(9), 1217-1230.
[9]	陶厚永, 曹伟. (2019). 基于对偶心理定位的领导-追随行为模式及其实证研究. 珞珈管理评论, 21(1), 91-108.
[10]	陶厚永, 李薇, 陈建安, 李玲. (2014). 领导-追随行为互动研究: 对偶心理定位的视角. 中国工业经济, (12), 104-117.
[11]	周婉茹, 周丽芳, 郑伯埙, 任金刚. (2010). 专权与尚严之辨: 再探威权领导的内涵与恩威并济的效果. 本土心理学研究, 34, 223-284.
[12]	周琰喆, 李原. (2020). 基于人格特质视角的员工建言行为研究: 回顾与展望. 中国人力资源开发, 37(10), 33-51.
[13]	Bai, Y., Dong, Z., Liu, H., & Liu, S. (2017). We may be different, but I can help you: The effects of leaders' political skills on leader-follower power distance value incongruence and withdrawal behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(2), 216-229.
[14]	Benson, A. J., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. (2016). Contextualizing leaders' interpretations of proactive followership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 949-966. doi: 10.1002/job.2077URL
[15]	Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0562URL
[16]	Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015URL
[17]	Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, Calif: Berrett-Koehler Publications.
[18]	Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600304URL
[19]	de Vos, A., de Clippeleer, I., & Dewilde, T. (2009). Proactive career behaviours and career success during the early career. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 761-777. doi: 10.1348/096317909X471013URL
[20]	Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. pmid: 12090614
[21]	Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858-881. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005URL
[22]	Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202URL
[23]	Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. doi: 10.1037/h0061470URL
[24]	Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp.133-187). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
[25]	Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6), 879-898. doi: 10.1177/0018726714548235URL
[26]	Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611-1633. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380250URL
[27]	Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31-55. doi: 10.1111/peps.2009.62.issue-1URL
[28]	Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
[29]	Hakimi, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Giessner, S. (2010). Leader empowering behaviour: The leader's perspective. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 701-716. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00703.xURL
[30]	House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7URL
[31]	Junker, N. M., Stegmann, S., Braun, S., & Dick, R. V. (2016). The ideal and the counter-ideal follower — Advancing implicit followership theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(8), 1205-1222.
[32]	Keller T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00033-8URL
[33]	Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.
[34]	Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2016). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2801-2826. doi: 10.1177/0149206316653930URL
[35]	Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2011). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 27-52.
[36]	Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
[37]	Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662URL
[38]	Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M., & Graham, K.A (2017). I just can't control myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1482-1503. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0409URL
[39]	Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554URL
[40]	Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636URL
[41]	Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145-172. pmid: 12529060
[42]	Sun, J., Li, W.-D., Li, Y., Liden, R. C., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2020). Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000494
[43]	Sun, S., & van Emmerik, H. I. (2015). Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 966-975. doi: 10.1037/a0037833URL
[44]	Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001URL
[45]	Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
[46]	Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Park, H. M., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person-environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343-1368. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0163URL
[47]	van Gils, S., van Quaquebeke, N., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 333-363. doi: 10.1080/13594320902978458URL
[48]	Wang, X., & Peng, J. (2016). The effect of implicit-explicit followership congruence on benevolent leadership: Evidence from Chinese family firms. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 812.
[49]	Wei, X., Zhang, Z.-X., & Chen, X.-P. (2015). I will speak up if my voice is socially desirable: A moderated mediating process of promotive versus prohibitive voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1641-1652. doi: 10.1037/a0039046URL
[50]	Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior (Vol 18, pp.1-74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
[51]	Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders' conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822-834. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006URL
[52]	Zhang, W., Hui, W., & Pearce, C. L. (2014). Consideration for future consequences as an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior: The moderating effects of perceived dynamic work environment. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 329-343. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.002URL
[53]	Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2014). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0995URL
[54]	Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111-130. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0865URL

相关文章 15

[1]	张辉华. 社会网络视角的团队情绪智力[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1381-1395.
[2]	李晓明, 邹是, 高友明. 失望情绪在不作为惯性产生中的作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1396-1401.
[3]	张珊珊, 王婧怡, 李昱汝. 情绪自旋及其心理健康功能[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1430-1437.
[4]	曾宪卿, 许冰, 孙博, 叶健彤, 傅世敏. EMMN受偏差-标准刺激对类型和情绪类型影响: 来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(7): 1163-1178.
[5]	王晓田, 王娜, 何金波. 前瞻性情绪作为社会风险的信息源假说：公共场景下风险决策的情绪及文化机制探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 959-966.
[6]	何蔚祺, 李帅霞, 赵东方. 群体面孔情绪感知的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 761-772.
[7]	尹俊婷, 王冠, 罗俊龙. 威胁对创造力的影响：认知与情绪双加工路径[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 815-826.
[8]	王学思, 李静雅, 王美芳. 父母婚姻冲突对儿童发展的影响及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 875-884.
[9]	丁琳洁, 李旭, 尹述飞. 工作记忆中的积极效应：情绪效价与任务相关性的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 652-664.
[10]	关旭旭, 王红波. 抑制引起的遗忘及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 665-676.
[11]	张衍, 王俊秀, 席居哲. 幸灾乐祸的重新审视和互动过程模型的构想[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 505-519.
[12]	赵小红, 童薇, 陈桃林, 吴冬梅, 张蕾, 陈正举, 方晓义, 龚启勇, 唐小蓉. 敬畏的心理模型及其认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 520-530.
[13]	霍鹏辉, 冯成志, 陈庭继. 注视者及观察者因素对注视知觉的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 238-251.
[14]	黄挚靖, 李旭. 抑郁症患者工作记忆内情绪刺激加工的特点及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 252-267.
[15]	王博韬, 魏萍. 道德情绪:探寻道德与创造力关系的新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 268-275.

PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5455