) 1 中山大学岭南学院, 广州 510275
2 佛罗里达大学沃灵顿商学院, 盖恩斯威尔 FL32611 美国
3 中山大学国际金融学院, 珠海 519082
4 浙江大学管理学院, 杭州 310058
收稿日期:2019-05-14出版日期:2020-03-25发布日期:2020-01-18通讯作者:莫申江E-mail:mosj@zju.edu.cn基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目资助(No. 771772158);国家自然科学基金项目资助(No. 71425004)The impact of conflict on performance: The moderating effects of individual and team agreeableness
WEI Wei1, FANG Yanran2, LI Jiannan3, SHI Junqi4, MO Shenjiang4() 1 Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2 Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, US
3 International School of Business & Finance, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
4 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Received:2019-05-14Online:2020-03-25Published:2020-01-18Contact:MO Shenjiang E-mail:mosj@zju.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 以往个体和团队冲突研究主要考察了个人特征或团队特征对冲突结果的影响, 而尚未充分关注冲突管理过程中个体特征与团队特征间的交互效应。基于个人-团队匹配理论, 本研究探讨了个体层面宜人性与团队层面宜人性异质性对团队中个体冲突(关系冲突、任务冲突)和工作绩效间关系的影响。基于来自64个银行服务团队(包含339名下属和64名主管)的多来源、多时点纵向数据, 本研究所得结果显示：(1)关系冲突显著负向影响工作绩效, 任务冲突对工作绩效的影响不显著。(2)个体宜人性能够显著减弱关系冲突对工作绩效的负面影响, 而增强任务冲突对工作绩效的正向影响。(3)关系/任务冲突、个体宜人性和团队宜人性异质性间存在着三重交互效应, 共同影响工作绩效。具体而言, 当团队宜人性异质性水平较低时, 个体宜人性对关系/任务冲突与工作绩效间关系的调节作用更加显著。
图/表 7
图1研究假设模型
图1研究假设模型表1研究变量的平均值、标准差、信度和相关系数
| 变量名 | 均值 | 组内SD | 组间SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 个体层面 | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 性别 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.25 | - | |||||||||
| 2 | 教育水平 | 15.79 | 1.61 | 0.83 | 0.04 | - | ||||||||
| 3 | 婚姻状况 | 1.81 | 0.53 | 0.31 | -0.08 | -0.04 | - | |||||||
| 4 | 团队任期 | 46.50 | 47.68 | 26.41 | -0.05 | -0.14** | 0.21** | - | ||||||
| 5 | 关系冲突 | 1.62 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.04 | -0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | (0.88) | |||||
| 6 | 任务冲突 | 1.95 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.10 | 0.06 | 0.40** | (0.86) | ||||
| 7 | 个体宜人性 | 5.82 | 0.81 | 0.43 | 0.07 | -0.03 | 0.06 | 0.09 | -0.05 | -0.02 | (0.94) | |||
| 8 | 工作绩效 | 5.27 | 1.36 | 0.89 | -0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | -0.27** | -0.04 | 0.10 | (0.93) | ||
| 团队层面 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 团队宜人性 | 5.82 | - | 0.43 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.08 |
| 10 | 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.75 | - | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
表1研究变量的平均值、标准差、信度和相关系数
| 变量名 | 均值 | 组内SD | 组间SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 个体层面 | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 性别 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.25 | - | |||||||||
| 2 | 教育水平 | 15.79 | 1.61 | 0.83 | 0.04 | - | ||||||||
| 3 | 婚姻状况 | 1.81 | 0.53 | 0.31 | -0.08 | -0.04 | - | |||||||
| 4 | 团队任期 | 46.50 | 47.68 | 26.41 | -0.05 | -0.14** | 0.21** | - | ||||||
| 5 | 关系冲突 | 1.62 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.04 | -0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | (0.88) | |||||
| 6 | 任务冲突 | 1.95 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.10 | 0.06 | 0.40** | (0.86) | ||||
| 7 | 个体宜人性 | 5.82 | 0.81 | 0.43 | 0.07 | -0.03 | 0.06 | 0.09 | -0.05 | -0.02 | (0.94) | |||
| 8 | 工作绩效 | 5.27 | 1.36 | 0.89 | -0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | -0.27** | -0.04 | 0.10 | (0.93) | ||
| 团队层面 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 团队宜人性 | 5.82 | - | 0.43 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.08 |
| 10 | 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.75 | - | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
表2任务冲突、关系冲突、个体宜人性与团队宜人性异质性对工作绩效影响的非标准化回归系数
| 变量名 | 工作绩效 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型一 | 模型二 | 模型三 | |||||||
| 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | |
| 截距 | 5.29** | 0.07 | 0.00 | 5.29** | 0.07 | 0.00 | 5.27** | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| 控制变量 | |||||||||
| 性别 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.99 |
| 教育水平 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.17 |
| 婚姻状况 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.58 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.38 |
| 团队任期 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36 |
| 团队宜人性 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.23 |
| 自变量 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 | -0.34* | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.34* | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.37* | 0.16 | 0.02 |
| 任务冲突 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.23 |
| 调节变量 | |||||||||
| 个体宜人性 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.40 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.43 |
| 团队宜人性异质性 | -0.36 | 0.27 | 0.18 | -0.41 | 0.26 | 0.12 | -0.35 | 0.27 | 0.20 |
| 二重交互项 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 | 1.23** | 0.29 | 0.00 | 1.27** | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.77** | 0.25 | 0.00 |
| 任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 | 1.15** | 0.27 | 0.00 | 1.07** | 0.26 | 0.00 | 1.18** | 0.28 | 0.00 |
| 关系冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.71 | 0.94 |
| 任务冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.90 | 0.01 | 0.69 | 0.99 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.60 |
| 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.60 | 0.32 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.49 |
| 三重交互项 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | -3.52** | 1.16 | 0.00 | -4.00** | 1.01 | 0.00 | |||
| 任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | -0.79 | 0.96 | 0.41 | -2.25** | 0.84 | 0.01 | |||
| 残差 | 1.55** | 0.12 | 0.00 | 1.55** | 0.12 | 0.00 | 1.59** | 0.12 | 0.00 |
表2任务冲突、关系冲突、个体宜人性与团队宜人性异质性对工作绩效影响的非标准化回归系数
| 变量名 | 工作绩效 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型一 | 模型二 | 模型三 | |||||||
| 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | 估计值 | 标准误差 | p值 | |
| 截距 | 5.29** | 0.07 | 0.00 | 5.29** | 0.07 | 0.00 | 5.27** | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| 控制变量 | |||||||||
| 性别 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.99 |
| 教育水平 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.17 |
| 婚姻状况 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.58 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.38 |
| 团队任期 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36 |
| 团队宜人性 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.23 |
| 自变量 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 | -0.34* | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.34* | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.37* | 0.16 | 0.02 |
| 任务冲突 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.23 |
| 调节变量 | |||||||||
| 个体宜人性 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.40 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.43 |
| 团队宜人性异质性 | -0.36 | 0.27 | 0.18 | -0.41 | 0.26 | 0.12 | -0.35 | 0.27 | 0.20 |
| 二重交互项 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 | 1.23** | 0.29 | 0.00 | 1.27** | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.77** | 0.25 | 0.00 |
| 任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 | 1.15** | 0.27 | 0.00 | 1.07** | 0.26 | 0.00 | 1.18** | 0.28 | 0.00 |
| 关系冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.71 | 0.94 |
| 任务冲突 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.90 | 0.01 | 0.69 | 0.99 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.60 |
| 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.60 | 0.32 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.49 |
| 三重交互项 | |||||||||
| 关系冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | -3.52** | 1.16 | 0.00 | -4.00** | 1.01 | 0.00 | |||
| 任务冲突 × 个体宜人性 × 团队宜人性异质性 | -0.79 | 0.96 | 0.41 | -2.25** | 0.84 | 0.01 | |||
| 残差 | 1.55** | 0.12 | 0.00 | 1.55** | 0.12 | 0.00 | 1.59** | 0.12 | 0.00 |
图2个体宜人性对“关系冲突-工作绩效”关系的调节作用示意图
图2个体宜人性对“关系冲突-工作绩效”关系的调节作用示意图
图3个体宜人性对“任务冲突-工作绩效”关系的调节作用示意图
图3个体宜人性对“任务冲突-工作绩效”关系的调节作用示意图
图4关系冲突、个体宜人性、团队宜人性异质性三重交互对工作绩效的影响作用示意图
图4关系冲突、个体宜人性、团队宜人性异质性三重交互对工作绩效的影响作用示意图
图5任务冲突、个体宜人性、团队宜人性异质性三重交互对工作绩效的影响作用示意图
图5任务冲突、个体宜人性、团队宜人性异质性三重交互对工作绩效的影响作用示意图参考文献 56
| [1] | Afzalur Rahim M . (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235. |
| [2] | Amason A. C., Thompson K. R., Hochwater W. A., & Harrison A. W . (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35. |
| [3] | Antonioni D . (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355. |
| [4] | Ayub N., AlQurashi S. M., Al-Yafi W. A., & Jehn K . (2017). Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(5), 671-694. |
| [5] | Barrick M. R., Stewart G. L., Neubert M. J., & Mount M. K . (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391. |
| [6] | Beersma B., & de Dreu C. K. W . (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 227-252. |
| [7] | Behfar K. J., Peterson R. S., Mannix E. A., & Trochim W. M . (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188. |
| [8] | Bradley B. H., Klotz A. C., Postlethwaite B. E., & Brown K. G . (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385-392. |
| [9] | Brislin R. W . (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(pp. 398-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. |
| [10] | Carnevale P. J., & Probst T. M . (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1300-1309. |
| [11] | Choi D., Oh I. S., & Colbert A. E . (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542-1567. |
| [12] | Cohen P., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S . (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [13] | DeChurch L. A., & Marks M. A . (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4-22. |
| [14] | de Dreu, C. K. W . (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107. |
| [15] | de Dreu C. K. W . (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5-18. |
| [16] | de Dreu C. K. W., & van Vianen A. E. M . (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328. |
| [17] | de Wit F. R. C., Greer L. L., & Jehn K. A . (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390. |
| [18] | Dijkstra M. T. M., van Dierendonck D., Evers A., & de Dreu C. K. W . (2005). Conflict and well-being at work: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 87-104. |
| [19] | Edwards J. R . (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265-287. |
| [20] | Ehrhart M. G., & Naumann S. E . (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974. |
| [21] | Enders C. K., & Tofighi D . (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121-138. |
| [22] | Forsyth D. R . (1983). An introduction to group dynamics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole. |
| [23] | Gonzalez-Mulé E., DeGeest D. S., McCormick B. W., Seong J. Y., & Brown K. G . (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988-999. |
| [24] | Graziano W. G., & Eisenberg N . (1997) Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795-824). San Diego: Academic Press. |
| [25] | Graziano W. G., Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Hair E. C . (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835. |
| [26] | Harrison D. A., & Klein K. J . (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228. |
| [27] | Huang X., Iun J., Liu A., & Gong Y. P . (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 122-143. |
| [28] | Humphrey S. E., Hollenbeck J. R., Meyer C. J., & Ilgen D. R . (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885-892. |
| [29] | Jansen K., & Kristof-Brown A . (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212. |
| [30] | Janssen O., & van Yperen N. W . (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384. |
| [31] | Jehn K. A . (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. |
| [32] | Jehn K. A . (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557. |
| [33] | Jehn K. A., de Wit F. R. C., Barreto M., & Rink F . (2015). Task conflict asymmetries: Effects on expectations and performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(2), 172-191. |
| [34] | Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763. |
| [35] | Jensen-Campbell L. A., Gleason K. A., Adams R., & Malcolm K. T . (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1059-1086. |
| [36] | Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Graziano W. G . (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362. |
| [37] | Kristof A. L . (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. |
| [38] | Kristof-Brown A. L., Zimmerman R. D., & Johnson E. C . (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta- analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. |
| [39] | Lovelace K., Shapiro D. L., & Weingart L. R . (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793. |
| [40] | Ma J. P., Cai D., Xu W. T., & Cai Y. H . (2018). The power of seeking common ground while keeping difference: Literature review and future research directions for “person-team fit”. Human Resources Development of China, 35(1), 6-18. |
| [ 马金鹏, 蔡地, 徐伟涛, 蔡亚华 . (2018). 求同存异的力量: “个人-团队匹配”的研究述评与未来展望. 中国人力资源开发, 35(1), 6-18.] | |
| [41] | Moberg P. J . (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47-68. |
| [42] | Mooney A. C., Holahan P. J., & Amason A. C . (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 733-758. |
| [43] | Muchinsky P. M., & Monahan C. J . (1987). What is person- environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277. |
| [44] | Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O . (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén. |
| [45] | Olson B. J., Parayitam S., & Bao Y. J . (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196-222. |
| [46] | Saucier G . (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516. |
| [47] | Schulz-Hardt S., Brodbeck F. C., Mojzisch A., Kerschreiter R., & Frey D . (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1080-1093. |
| [48] | Simons T. L., & Peterson R. S . (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. |
| [49] | Somech A., Desivilya H. S., & Lidogoster H . (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378. |
| [50] | Tao A. H., Liu Y. H., & Wang P . (2018). Moderating effects of conflict types on disappointment in interpersonal conflict. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(2), 235-242. |
| [ 陶爱华, 刘雍鹤, 王沛 . (2018). 人际冲突中失望的个人效应及冲突类型的调节作用. 心理学报, 50(2), 235-242.] | |
| [51] | Tekleab A. G., Quigley N. R., & Tesluk P. E . (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205. |
| [52] | Tsui A. S., & O'reilly C. A . (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423. |
| [53] | Walumbwa F. O., & Schaubroeck J . (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286. |
| [54] | Wiesenfeld B. M., Raghuram S., & Garud R . (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27(2), 213-229. |
| [55] | Wilkowski B. M., & Robinson M. D . (2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 3-21. |
| [56] | Zhou L., Wang M., Chen G., & Shi J. Q . (2012). Supervisors’ upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 668-680. |
相关文章 12
| [1] | 刘超, 刘军, 朱丽, 武守强. 规则适应视角下辱虐管理的成因机制[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 966-979. |
| [2] | 李晔;张文慧;龙立荣. 自我牺牲型领导对下属工作绩效的影响机制 ——战略定向与领导认同的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(5): 653-662. |
| [3] | 于海波;郑晓明. 生涯适应力的作用：个体与组织层的跨层面分析[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(6): 680-693. |
| [4] | 姚若松;陈怀锦;苗群鹰. 公交行业一线员工人格特质对工作绩效影响的实证分析[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(10): 1163-1178. |
| [5] | 柯江林,孙健敏,李永瑞. 心理资本: 本土量表的开发及中西比较[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(09): 875-888. |
| [6] | 王登峰,崔红 . 领导干部的人格特点与工作绩效的关系：QZPS与NEO PI-R的比较[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(07): 828-838. |
| [7] | 冯冬冬, 陆昌勤,萧爱铃. 工作不安全感与幸福感、绩效的关系：自我效能感的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(04): 448-455. |
| [8] | 韩翼. 工作绩效与工作满意度、组织承诺和目标定向的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(01): 84-91. |
| [9] | 仲理峰. 心理资本对员工的工作绩效、组织承诺及组织公民行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(2): 328-334. |
| [10] | 李宁,严进,金鸣轩. 组织内信任对任务绩效的影响效应[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(05): 770-777. |
| [11] | 肖玮,王剑辉,车文博,苗丹民. 军事飞行员工作绩效结构的分析[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(03): 420-426. |
| [12] | 王辉,牛雄鹰,Kenneth S Law. 领导-部属交换的多维结构及对工作绩效和情境绩效的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(02): 179-185. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4661
