本研究基于资源保存理论,探讨了双元领导对下属工作投入的双刃剑效应。对218位员工的两阶段调查数据进行路径分析,结果表明：双元领导一方面通过增加下属对领导的情感承诺,提升员工工作投入,另一方面通过增强员工的工作压力,降低员工工作投入。对高权力距离的员工而言,双元领导通过增强领导情感承诺对员工工作投入产生更强的积极影响;对于低权力距离的员工而言,双元领导通过增加工作压力对员工工作投入产生更强的消极影响。
Abstract
In a complex and competitive market environment, organizations are faced with a variety of contradictory demands. Enterprises often fall into the dilemma of exploration and exploitation or pursuing short-term interests and long-term goals. Leaders need to be flexible and adaptive, and to take ‘both-and' leader behaviors. Therefore, ambidextrous leadership, which is considered as effective leader behavior, has attracted increasing attention from scholars. Ambidextrous leadership refers to a leader's ability to foster exploitation and exploration in followers while flexibly switching between opening and closing leader behaviors. Ambidextrous leadership plays an important role in promoting individual ambidexterity and team innovation and helping organizations deal with contradictory goals.
Previous studies have documented the positive effect of ambidextrous leadership on subordinates, such as self-efficacy, work passion, task performance and innovation. However, recent research indicates the potentially detrimental effects of ambidextrous leadership. For example, subordinates experience cognitive strain when leaders display inconsistent behaviors. This research integrates the contradictory viewpoints and proposes a dual-process model based on the conservation of resource theory. Specifically, we deduce that, on the one hand, ambidextrous leadership elicits affective commitment to supervisor in followers, which promotes followers' work engagement; on the other hand, ambidextrous leadership increases followers' job stress, which in turn may weaken followers' work engagement. Moreover, as a personal characteristic, employee's power distance could moderate the dual process of ambidextrous leadership.
Based on a two-stage questionnaire survey of 218 employees, the results of path analysis supported our hypotheses. The results showed that ambidextrous leadership could improve employees' work engagement by enhancing affective commitment to supervisor while weakening employees' work engagement by increasing job stress. Moreover, employees' power distance moderated the positive or negative effect of ambidextrous leadership. In particular, the positive relationship between ambidextrous leadership and affective commitment to leaders is stronger when employees have a high level of power distance. Ambidextrous leadership is more likely to induce job stress for employees who are low in power distance.
Our study investigated both benefits and drawbacks of ambidextrous leadership, which could advance our understanding of the double-edged sword effect of ambidextrous leadership more comprehensively. Moreover, by revealing the mediating role of affective commitment to supervisor and job stress and the moderating role of power distance, this study reveals the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and employee work engagement. Furthermore, our findings also provide implications for managerial practice. Managers need to pay attention to subordinates' psychological reactions and attitudes and provide more resource support to relieve the tension or stress of employees when engaging in ambidextrous leadership. In addition, leaders should pay attention to the individual differences of employees. Leaders may strengthen ambidexterity for employees who are in high power distance to amplify the positive effects of ambidextrous leadership. In contrast, ambidextrous leadership leaders should convey clear goals and communicate with employees with low power distance to relieve the negative effects of ambidextrous leadership.
关键词
双元领导 /
领导情感承诺 /
工作压力 /
工作投入 /
权力距离
Key words
ambidextrous leadership /
affective commitment to supervisor /
job stress /
work engagement /
power distance
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 侯楠, 彭坚, 尹奎, 杨皎平. (2019). 领导者恩威并施的阴暗面及其治理机制——基于不确定性管理的视角. 南开管理评论, 22(6), 77-87.
[2] 罗瑾琏, 管建世, 钟竞, 赵莉. (2017). 基于团队双元行为中介作用的双元领导与团队创新绩效关系研究. 管理学报, 14(6), 814-822.
[3] 罗瑾琏, 胡文安, 钟竞. (2016). 双元领导对新员工社会化适应与创新的双路径影响研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 37(12), 161-173.
[4] 彭坚, 邹艳春, 康勇军, 张旭. (2021). 参与型领导对员工幸福感的双重影响: 感知同事支持的调节作用. 心理科学, 44(4), 873-880.
[5] 王震, 龙昱帆, 彭坚. (2019). 积极领导的消极效应: 研究主题、分析视角和理论机制. 心理科学进展, 27(6), 1123-1140.
[6] 严紫瑜, 汤旭, 付景涛. (2021). 你的压力不该我来背: 领导绩效压力对员工不合规任务感知的影响. 中国人力资源开发, 38(2), 71-83.
[7] 赵红丹, 郭利敏, 罗瑾琏. (2021). 双元领导的双刃剑效应——基于认知紧张与工作活力双路径. 管理评论, 33(8), 211-223.
[8] Abdelmoteleb, S. A. (2019). A new look at the relationship between job stress and organizational commitment: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 321-336.
[9] Bakker A. B., Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P., & Taris T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
[10] Cai Y., Li Q., Cao T., & Wan Q. Q. (2021). Nurses' work engagement: The influences of ambidextrous leadership, clinical nurse leadership and workload. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Advance online publication.
[11] Castanheira, F. (2016). Perceived social impact, social worth, and job performance: Mediation by motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 789-803.
[12] Cheong M., Spain S. M., Yammarino F. J., & Yun S. (2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602-616.
[13] Chughtai, A. A. (2013). Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(6), 606-627.
[14] Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127-150.
[15] Farh J. L., Hackett R. D., & Liang J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715-729.
[16] Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134-1145.
[17] Halbesleben J. R. B., Neveu J. P., Paustian-Underdahl S. C., & Westman M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
[18] Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
[19] 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), 103-128.
[20] Keller, R. T. (1984). The role of performance and absenteeism in the prediction of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 176-183.
[21] Li X. Y., Xue Y., Liang H., & Yan D. (2020). The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 537756.
[22] Lubatkin M. H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., & Veiga J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
[23] Ma J. F., Zhou X., Chen R., & Dong X. (2019). Does ambidextrous leadership motivate work crafting? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 159-168.
[24] Rivkin W., Diestel S., & Schmidt K. H. (2018). Which daily experiences can foster well-being at work? A diary study on the interplay between flow experiences, affective commitment, and self-control demands. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 99-111.
[25] Rosing K., Frese M., & Bausch A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
[26] Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B, & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
[27] Schaufeli W. B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., & Bakker A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
[28] Tung, F. C. (2016). Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion focus. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8), 1250-1263.
[29] van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571-584.
[30] Vandenberghe C., Bentein K., & Stinglhamber F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 47-71.
[31] Wee E. X. M., Liao H., Liu D., & Liu J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2352-2380.
基金
*本研究得到国家社会科学基金项目（17BGL102）、国家自然科学基金青年项目（72002154）和教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目（20YJC630042）的资助
PDF(1192 KB)
