How the Two Faces of Charismatic Leadership Affect Subordinates ' Citizenship Fatigue: Exploring the Mechanisms

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230511

Abstract

Abstract: Because organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) contribute substantially to organizational progress, managers encourage employees to engage in OCBs. However, an overemphasis on OCBs can potentially lead to a state known as ‘citizenship fatigue' among employees. This condition, characterized by feelings of exhaustion, edginess, or fatigue directly linked to OCB engagement, may ultimately result in diminished work engagement and reduced job performance. Citizenship fatigue has received a great deal of attention from scholars and practitioners. Despite that theoretical perspectives have proposed predictors of citizenship fatigue, there remains a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the effect of leadership style on subordinates' citizenship fatigue.
Over the past three decades, charismatic leadership has been hailed as one of the most efficacious leadership styles, attracting considerable scholarly attention. Yet, it's a misconception to equate charismatic leadership directly with ‘effective leadership'. Unfortunately, current understanding of its potential downsides remains limited. As recent investigations have started probing into the negative effects of charismatic leadership, the present study aims to delve deeper, exploring how charismatic leadership affects employees' citizenship fatigue. Based on Howell's framework of the two faces of charismatic leadership, this study distinguishes between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership from different power motivations.
The Self-determination Theory (SDT) offers a comprehensive paradigm for deciphering the factors that either foster or hamper intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as the innate psychological needs that propagate these mechanisms. As a theory that scrutinizes individual motivation, the SDT is inherently well-suited to elucidate how the two faces of charismatic leadership affect employees' work motivation and behavior. Furthermore, the SDT underlines the profound influence of environmental factors on the genesis of individual motivation. Within an organizational context, citizenship pressure is a significant environmental determinant that shapes employee motivation. Therefore, drawing on Howell's framework of the two faces of charismatic leadership and the SDT, this study investigated the influential mechanism of socialized charismatic leadership and personalized charismatic leadership on subordinates' citizenship fatigue through the mediating mechanism of the OCB motivation and the moderating effect of citizenship pressure based on the three-wave data from 320 employees.
The results indicated that: (1) Socialized charismatic leadership diminished subordinates' citizenship fatigue, while personalized charismatic leadership amplified it. (2) Socialized charismatic leadership heightened subordinates' prosocial value motives and impression management motives. (3) Citizenship pressure moderated the relationship between prosocial value motives/impression management motives and citizenship fatigue. As citizenship pressure escalated, the mitigating effect of prosocial value motives on citizenship fatigue intensified, while the exacerbating effect of impression management motives on citizenship fatigue attenuated. (4) Citizenship pressure strengthened the indirect relationship between socialized charismatic leadership and subordinates' citizenship fatigue through prosocial value motives. Conversely, citizenship pressure mitigated the indirect relationship between both socialized and personalized charismatic leadership and subordinates' citizenship fatigue through impression management motives.
This study provides several significant theoretical contributions. First, the exploration of the effects of socialized and personalized charismatic leadership on citizenship fatigue deepens our understanding of this phenomenon and enriches the antecedents of OCB motives. Second, this study extends the research on the effectiveness of charismatic leadership by revealing the “black box” between charismatic leadership and citizenship fatigue. This aids in a more profound comprehension of ‘how' and ‘under what circumstances' charismatic leadership influences citizenship fatigue. Finally, this study extends the application of SDT in the workplace context through its exploration of both socialized and personalized charismatic leadership. Simultaneously, this study offers several managerial implications. First, organizations should adopt a dialectical approach to charismatic leadership, to discern the concealed socialized or personalized motives behind a leader's charisma. Second, leaders ought to judiciously advocate for OCBs to avert excessive citizenship pressure and citizenship fatigue among subordinates. Finally, organizations should also focus on nurturing and preserving employees' prosocial value motives, as these are the most advantageous to both the organizations and the employees themselves.

Key words: charismatic leadership, prosocial values motives, impression management motives, citizenship fatigue, citizenship pressure

摘要： 基于自我决定理论,探索了公/私权魅力领导对下属公民疲劳的影响机制。结果发现：（1）公/私权魅力领导负向（正向）影响下属公民疲劳;（2）公权魅力领导促进下属亲社会价值观动机和印象管理动机;（3）公民压力调节亲社会价值观动机和印象管理动机对公民疲劳的影响;（4）公民压力会增强公权魅力领导通过亲社会价值观动机对下属公民疲劳的间接影响,也会减弱公/私权魅力领导通过印象管理动机对下属公民疲劳的间接影响。以上发现拓展了魅力领导与公民疲劳的研究,为企业减少员工的公民疲劳提供了启示。

关键词: 魅力领导, 亲社会价值观动机, 印象管理动机, 公民疲劳, 公民压力

Liu Xiaoyu, Fu Jingyu, Liu Jun. How the Two Faces of Charismatic Leadership Affect Subordinates ' Citizenship Fatigue: Exploring the Mechanisms[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(5): 1114-1122.

刘小禹, 付静宇, 刘军. 魅力领导的两面性对下属公民疲劳的影响机制研究 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1114-1122.

References

[1] 姜荣萍, 何亦名. (2018). 做好事, 你疲倦了吗?——组织公民疲劳的研究前沿探析与展望. 外国经济与管理, 40(10), 81-93.
[2] 刘军, 刘小禹, 刘松博. (2010). 组织中的公权与私权领导研究思路探讨. 外国经济与管理, 32(3), 46-51.
[3] 刘小禹, 周爱钦, 刘军. (2018). 魅力领导的两面性——公权与私权领导对下属创造力的影响. 管理世界, 34(2), 112-122.
[4] 汤丹丹, 温忠麟. (2012). 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 43(1), 215-223.
[5] 张春虎. (2019). 基于自我决定理论的工作动机研究脉络及未来走向. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1489-1506.
[6] Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599-670.
[7] Bolino M. C., Hsiung H. H., Harvey J., & LePine J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56-74.
[8] Bolino M. C., Klotz A. C., Turnley W. H., & Harvey J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542-559.
[9] Bolino M. C., Turnley W. H., Gilstrap J. B., & Suazo M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What's a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835-855.
[10] De Clercq D., Suhail A., Azeem M. U., & Haq I. U. (2021). Citizenship pressure and job performance: Roles of citizenship fatigue and continuance commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(3), 482-505.
[11] Deci E. L., Olafsen A. H., & Ryan R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.
[12] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
[13] Eisenbeiβ, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54-68.
[14] Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2018). When good deeds hurt: The potential costs of interpersonal helping and the moderating roles of impression management and prosocial values motives. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 25(3), 339-352.
[15] Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
[16] Horn D., Mathis C. J., Robinson S. L., & Randle N. (2015). Is charismatic leadership effective when workers are pressured to be good citizens? The Journal of Psychology, 149(8), 751-774.
[17] House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
[18] Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). Jossey-Bass.
[19] Lanaj K., Johnson R. E., & Wang M. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1097-1110.
[20] Lemoine G. J., Parsons C. K., & Kansara S. (2015). Above and beyond, again and again: Self-regulation in the aftermath of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 40-55.
[21] Lin K. J., Savani K., & Ilies R. (2019). Doing good, feeling good? The roles of helping motivation and citizenship pressure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(8), 1020-1035.
[22] Lopes, S., & Chambel, M. J. (2017). Temporary agency workers' motivations and well-being at work: A two-wave study. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(4), 321-346.
[23] Qiu Y., Lou M., Zhang L., & Wang Y. Q. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior motives and thriving at work: The mediating role of citizenship fatigue. Sustainability, 12(6), Article 2231.
[24] Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
[25] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
[26] Shamir B., House R. J., & Arthur M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
[27] van den Broeck A., Ferris D. L., Chang C. H., & Rosen C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory' s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195-1229.
[28] Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
[29] Zhang X., Liang L., Tian G. Y., & Tian Y. Z. (2020). Heroes or villains? The dark side of charismatic leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), Article 5546.