当前主动变革行为的后果研究重点关注了积极影响,忽视了对领导行为可能带来的消极影响。基于自我损耗理论,探讨了领导主动变革行为何时通过自我损耗对辱虐管理产生影响。通过对103位领导者和360位员工的两阶段配对问卷调研,实证研究发现,上司支持感和主动变革效能感在领导主动变革行为与自我损耗之间,以及领导主动变革行为通过自我损耗影响辱虐管理的过程中均发挥了显著的调节作用。当上司支持感或主动变革效能感较低时,领导主动变革行为通过自我损耗对辱虐管理产生正向间接作用;当上司支持感或主动变革效能感较高时,该间接作用不成立。研究结果揭示,获得上司支持和提高主动变革效能感,能够有效防范主动变革引发的辱虐管理。
Abstract
In the era of the digital economy, organizational members need to be more proactive in embracing change. As a change-oriented work behavior, taking charge is defined as “voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Taking charge has received much attention because it benefits organizations in many ways, such as increasing work engagement and enhancing business performance. However, few studies have explored the impact of taking charge on leadership, particularly the potential negative effects. Compared to employees, leaders are a key force in organizational decision-making, and they have a deeper understanding of the importance of taking charge for the organization. Characterized by challenges and risks, taking charge can cause leaders to deplete both psychological and physiological resources. Continued depletion of these resources can result in a state of ego depletion, leading to a significant decline in self-control ability and subsequent negative behaviors, such as abusive supervision. Drawing on the theory of ego depletion, this study conducted a moderated mediation model to explore whether leader taking charge affected abusive supervision through ego depletion, as well as the moderating roles of perceived supervisor support and taking charge efficacy.
We conducted a multi-wave and multi-source field study to test the hypotheses. Data were collected from six companies located in Jiangsu, China, and the final sample consisted of 103 leaders and their 360 subordinates. At Time 1, subordinates were asked to rate leaders’ taking charge behavior, while leaders reported their perceived supervisor support and taking charge efficacy. At Time 2(one month later), leaders reported their ego depletion, while subordinates were asked to rate leaders’ abusive supervision. Leaders and their subordinates in both waves were required to report demographic information. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicated good measurement reliability. The results of the aggregation test showed that the variables of leader taking charge and abusive supervision, which were based on individual-level data collection could be aggregated into the group level. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis, regression analysis, and the bootstrap method via Mplus 7.4 to analyze the data.
The empirical results showed that: both perceived supervisor support and taking charge efficacy moderated the relationship between taking charge and ego depletion, as well as the mediated relationship between taking charge and abusive supervision via ego depletion. When perceived supervisor support or taking charge efficacy was low, leader taking charge not only had a positive impact on ego depletion, but also had a positive impact on abusive supervision through ego depletion. When perceived supervisor support or taking charge efficacy was high, the effect of leader taking charge on ego depletion and the mediating effect of ego depletion were not significant. To conclude, the dark side of leader taking charge was conditional, and lower levels of perceived supervisor support or taking charge efficacy were driving factors for ego depletion and the subsequent abusive supervision caused by leader taking charge.
This study made several contributions. First, it expanded the understanding of the consequences of taking charge, especially negative consequences, by examining the impact of leader taking charge on abusive supervision. Second, this study focused on the taking charge behavior of leaders, rather than employees or subordinates in the "leader-subordinate" dyadic roles, thereby effectively broadening the research perspective. Third, based on ego depletion theory, this study attempted to reveal the mediating role of ego depletion between leader taking charge and abusive supervision, thus providing a new theoretical mechanism for understanding the dark side of leader taking charge. The study also provided important practical implications. Organizations could reduce ego depletion and the risk of abusive supervision by taking some measures, such as rewarding leaders for their efforts and achievements during the process of taking charge and providing necessary resources. On the other hand, leaders themselves should perform self-affirmation, emotional regulation and conduct mindfulness training to effectively enhance their self-efficacy and reduce ego depletion.
关键词
主动变革行为 /
辱虐管理 /
上司支持感 /
主动变革效能感 /
自我损耗理论
Key words
taking charge /
abusive supervision /
perceived supervisor support /
taking charge efficacy /
ego depletion theory
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 戴云, 田晓明, 李锐. (2024). 员工主动变革行为对工作-家庭关系的双刃剑效应. 管理科学, 37(1), 27-39.
[2] 李朋波, 王帅康, 黄子欣, 陈涛. (2023). 员工主动担责行为的研究述评与展望. 首都经济贸易大学学报, 25(2), 97-112.
[3] 李锐, 凌文辁, 方俐洛. (2010). 上司支持感知对下属建言行为的影响及其作用机制. 中国软科学, 4, 106-115.
[4] 李锡元, 伍林, 陈思, 肖贝. (2016). 真实型领导对下属建言行为的影响——上司支持感的中介作用. 技术经济, 35(3), 38-44, 115.
[5] 李志成, 祝养浩, 占小军. (2019). 创造力与职场不文明行为——基于自我损耗理论的视角. 当代财经, 9, 72-81.
[6] 马君, 张锐. (2022). 权重望寡: 如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为? 心理学报, 54(5), 566-581.
[7] 王晓辰, 石梦圆, 张卉佳. (2020). 组织公民行为到不道德行为的衍变——一个被调节的中介模型. 财经论丛, 10, 96-104.
[8] 张军伟, 谢锟, 张亚军, 王桃林, 朱其权. (2023). 自我损耗理论视角下领导宽恕对领导辱虐行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 20(8), 1160-1168.
[9] 张磊, 于洋航. (2022). 组织行为学视域下主动担责行为的概念、整合模型及研究展望. 国外社会科学前沿, 5, 15-30.
[10] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
[11] Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D., & Tice D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.
[12] Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
[13] Cangiano F., Parker S. K., & Ouyang K. (2021). Too proactive to switch off: When taking charge drains resources and impairs detachment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(2), 142-154.
[14] DeWall C. N., Baumeister R. F., Mead N. L., & Vohs K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47-65.
[15] Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchison S., & Sowa D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
[16] Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307-326.
[17] 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.
[18] Fischer P., Greitemeyer T., & Frey D. (2007). Ego depletion and positive illusions: Does the construction of positivity require regulatory resources? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1306-1321.
[19] Fuller J. B. Jr., Marler L. E., & Hester K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1053-1070.
[20] Gino F., Schweitzer M. E., Mead N. L., & Ariely D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203.
[21] Goh Z., Ilies R., & Wilson K. S. (2015). Supportive supervisors improve employees’ daily lives: The role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life satisfaction via work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 65-73.
[22] Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.
[23] 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.
[24] Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
[25] Kim, T.-Y., & Liu, Z. Q. (2017). Taking charge and employee outcomes: The moderating effect of emotional competence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 775-793.
[26] Klotz A. C., He W., Yam K. C., Bolino M. C., Wei W., & Houston III L. (2018). Good actors but bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1145-1154.
[27] Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079.
[28] McAllister D. J., Kamdar D., Morrison E. W., & Turban D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200-1211.
[29] Mead N. L., Baumeister R. F., Gino F., Schweitzer M. E., & Ariely D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 594-597.
[30] Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
[31] Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
[32] Müceldili, B., & Erdil, O. (2016). Finding fun in work: The effect of workplace fun on taking charge and job engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 304-312.
[33] Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.
[34] Ouyang, K. (2016). Taking charge as a double-edged sword: Understanding its benefits and costs from a resource perspective (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
[35] Peng J., Chen Y. S., Xia Y., & Ran Y. X. (2017). Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange and creativity: The cross-level moderating role of leader compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 104(1), 510-515.
[36] Preacher K. J., Zyphur M. J., & Zhang Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233.
[37] Schaubroeck J., Lam S. S. K., & Xie J. L. (2000). Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping responses to stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 512-525.
[38] Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
[39] Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
[40] Twenge J. M., Muraven M., & Tice D. M. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability, validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University.
[41] Vohs K. D., Baumeister R. F., Schmeichel B. J., Twenge J. M., Nelson N. M., & Tice D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 883-898.
[42] Waldman D. A., Wang D. N., Hannah S. T., Owens B. P., & Balthazard P. A. (2018). Psychological and neurological predictors of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 399-421.
[43] Yam K. C., Fehr R., Keng-Highberger F. T., Klotz A. C., & Reynolds S. J. (2016). Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 292-301.
基金
*本研究得到国家自然科学基金项目（72171053,71974140,72202109）的资助
PDF(1274 KB)
