威权领导对员工反馈规避行为的影响研究

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.04.019

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以心理契约理论为基础，探究威权领导对员工反馈规避行为的影响及其作用机制。对283名员工的问卷数据进行分析，结果发现：威权领导能够正向预测反馈规避行为；基于组织的自尊在威权领导与反馈规避行为之间起部分中介作用；员工心理弹性负向调节威权领导与基于组织的自尊之间的关系，即员工心理弹性水平越高，二者之间的负向关系越弱；员工心理弹性还会进一步调节基于组织的自尊这一中介效应。即员工心理弹性水平较高时，威权领导通过基于组织的自尊对反馈规避行为的间接影响会被削弱。

关键词: 威权领导, 基于组织的自尊, 心理弹性, 反馈规避行为

Abstract:

Based on the theory of psychological contract, this study investigated the impact of authoritative leadership on employees’ feedback avoidance behavior and its underlying mechanism. The questionnaire data from 283 employees were analyzed. The results showed that authoritative leadership had a significant positive influence on feedback avoidance behavior. This relationship was partially mediated by organization-based self-esteem. Additionally, employee psychological resilience played a crucial role in moderating the negative association between authoritative leadership and organization-based self-esteem, such that higher level of psychological resilience weakened this relationship. Furthermore, employee psychological resilience also served as an additional moderator in the mediating effect of organization-based self-esteem on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and feedback avoidance behavior. Specifically, when the level of psychological resilience was high for employees, the indirect impact of authoritarian leadership on feedback avoidance behavior through organization-based self-esteem was attenuated.

Key words: authoritarian leadership, organization-based self-esteem, psychological resilience, feedback avoidance behavior

石冠峰, 闫文波. 威权领导对员工反馈规避行为的影响研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 570-576.

Guanfeng SHI, Wenbo YAN. The Effects of Authoritarian Leadership on Employee Feedback Avoidance Behavior[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(4): 570-576.

图/表 5

参考文献 0

	常育榕, 王忠军. 不合规任务对新生代员工反生产行为的影响: 组织自尊的中介作用及年龄的调节作用. 心理研究, 2021, 14 (4): 330- 340. DOI
	杜鹏程, 潘梦, 宋锟泰, 刘升阳. 领导非权变惩罚行为对员工适应性绩效的影响研究. 管理学报, 2023, 20 (5): 684- 694. DOI
	樊子立, 马君. 情感事件理论视角下个性化工作协议对员工主动化职业行为的影响. 软科学, 2022, 36 (6): 85- 92.
	高中华. 平台化转型中员工主动变革行为激发机制研究——战略共识的调节作用. 经济管理, 2023, 45 (8): 106- 122.
	侯楠, 彭坚, 尹奎, 杨皎平. 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, 2019, 22 (6): 77- 87. DOI
	黄海艳, 苏德金, 李卫东. 失败学习对个体创新行为的影响——心理弹性与创新支持感的调节效应. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2016, 37 (5): 161- 169.
	蒋瑞, 林新奇. 威权领导对员工非伦理行为的影响: 社会交换和社会学习视角. 科研管理, 2020, 41 (10): 248- 257.
	李嘉, 杨忠. 威权领导对团队建言氛围的影响机制研究. 经济管理, 2018, 40 (6): 53- 68.
	李朋波, 高静, 黄子欣, 王润娜. 心理契约视角下不合规任务对员工离职倾向的影响机制研究. 管理学报, 2023, 20 (5): 705- 714. DOI
	李英武, 张雪儿, 钟舒婕. 威权领导对员工反生产工作行为的影响: 下属负性情绪和传统性的作用. 经济与管理研究, 2021, 42 (5): 122- 132.
	李宗波, 王明辉. 威权领导对员工沉默行为的影响: 一个有调节的中介效应模型. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16 (5): 713- 719. DOI
	刘巨钦, 宗博强. 职场排斥与员工建言行为: 组织自尊的中介效应和主动性人格的调节效应. 首都经济贸易大学学报, 2019, 21 (4): 65- 73.
	苗彬, 索月月, 梁英杰, 王国涛. 辱虐型领导对员工工作投入的影响研究——基于下属公平感和权力距离取向的作用. 管理评论, 2023, 35 (8): 244- 254.
	申传刚, 杨璟. 上司辱虐管理与员工反馈规避行为: 有中介的调节模型. 管理评论, 2020, 32 (2): 244- 253.
	宋萌, 王震, 孙健敏. 辱虐管理对下属反馈规避行为的影响: 积极归因与工作意义的作用. 预测, 2015, 34 (5): 22- 27, 66.
	王长峰, 刘柳. 团队虚拟性对员工沉默行为的跨层影响——职场孤独感和心理弹性的作用. 科研管理, 2023, 44 (3): 179- 186.
	王磊, 宋惠宇, 徐洁. 基于响应面分析的双元威权领导对员工创新行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 2023, 20 (4): 530- 542. DOI
	章凯, 吴志豪, 陈黎梅. 领导与权力分界视野下威权领导本质的探索研究. 管理学报, 2022, 19 (2): 187- 196. DOI
	Arain, G. A., Bukhari, S., Khan, A. K., & Hameed, I. The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ feedback avoidance and subsequent help-seeking behaviour: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Management & Organization, 2020, 26 (5): 850- 865.
	Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92 (1): 191- 201. DOI
	Bankins, S. A process perspective on psychological contract change: Making sense of, and repairing, psychological contract breach and violation through employee coping actions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2015, 36 (8): 1071- 1095. DOI
	Bankins, S., Griep, Y., & Hansen, S. D. Charting directions for a new research era: Addressing gaps and advancing scholarship in the study of psychological contracts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2020, 29 (2): 159- 163. DOI
	Brown, J. A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Dunn, P. Moral salience and the role of goodwill in firm-stakeholder trust repair. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2016, 26 (2): 181- 199. DOI
	Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 2014, 40 (3): 796- 819. DOI
	Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2004, 7 (1): 89- 117. DOI
	Chiang, J. T. J., Chen, X. P., Liu, H. Y., Akutsu, S., & Wang, Z. We have emotions but can’t show them! Authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Human Relations, 2021, 74 (7): 1082- 1111. DOI
	Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84–127). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
	Haslberger, A. & Brewster, C. Capital gains: Expatriate adjustment and the psychological contract in international careers. Human Resource Management, 2009, 48 (3): 379- 397. DOI
	Kutaula, S., Gillani, A. & Budhwar, P. S. An analysis of employment relationships in Asia using psychological contract theory: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 2020, 30 (4): 100707. DOI
	Moss, S. E., & Sanchez, J. I. Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2004, 18 (1): 32- 44. DOI
	Moss, S. E., Song, M., Hannah, S. T., Wang, Z., & Sumanth, J. J. The duty to improve oneself: How duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ feedback-seeking and feedback-avoiding behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 2020, 165 (4): 615- 631. DOI
	Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 1989, 32 (3): 622- 648. DOI
	Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y. M., & Chong, S. N. H. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2017, 102 (2): 203- 214. DOI
	Siu, O. L., Hui, C. H., Phillips, D. R., Lin, L., Wong, T. W., & Shi, K. A study of resiliency among Chinese health care workers: Capacity to cope with workplace stress. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009, 43 (5): 770- 776. DOI
	Wang, L., Cheng, M. Y., & Wang, S. Carrot or stick? The role of in-group/out-group on the multilevel relationship between authoritarian and differential leadership and employee turnover intention. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 152 (4): 1069- 1084. DOI
	Xue, J. L., Zhu, M. T., Guo, Y. N., & Kong, D. M. The double-edged sword of underdog expectations in organizations in Shanghai, China: The mediating role of feedback-avoiding behaviors and proving others wrong and the moderating role of regulatory focus. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2022, 15, 2205- 2218. DOI
	Yang, K. S. (1996). The psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 479–498). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
	Zhang, Y. J., Wang, J. J., Akhtar, M. N., & Wang, Y. Q. Authoritarian leadership and cyberloafing: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13, 1010845. DOI
	Zhu, Y., Nong, M. L., Mei, W. J., & Wang, Y. F. From self-avoidance to help others: Exploring why and when feedback avoiding behavior promotes volunteering. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 166, 114117. DOI

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.性别	1.42	0.46
2.年龄	3.06	0.66	−0.07
3.学历	3.43	0.82	−0.08	−0.07
4.与上级领导共事时间	2.77	1.10	−0.05	0.28**	−0.05
5.工龄	3.48	1.02	−0.03	0.73**	−0.25**	0.36**
6.组织形式	3.54	1.67	0.02	0.05	0.17**	−0.07	−0.07
7.威权领导	4.23	1.28	−0.06	−0.02	0.01	−0.04	−0.02	−0.07
8.基于组织的自尊	4.73	0.81	−0.05	0.08	−0.14*	0.10	0.10	−0.04	−0.17**
9.反馈规避行为	2.85	1.32	0.01	−0.08	0.14*	−0.12*	−0.10	0.08	0.40**	−0.31**
10.心理弹性	2.97	0.85	0.12*	−0.02	0.04	−0.13*	−0.01	0.03	−0.19**	−0.19**	0.14*

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.性别	1.42	0.46
2.年龄	3.06	0.66	−0.07
3.学历	3.43	0.82	−0.08	−0.07
4.与上级领导共事时间	2.77	1.10	−0.05	0.28**	−0.05
5.工龄	3.48	1.02	−0.03	0.73**	−0.25**	0.36**
6.组织形式	3.54	1.67	0.02	0.05	0.17**	−0.07	−0.07
7.威权领导	4.23	1.28	−0.06	−0.02	0.01	−0.04	−0.02	−0.07
8.基于组织的自尊	4.73	0.81	−0.05	0.08	−0.14*	0.10	0.10	−0.04	−0.17**
9.反馈规避行为	2.85	1.32	0.01	−0.08	0.14*	−0.12*	−0.10	0.08	0.40**	−0.31**
10.心理弹性	2.97	0.85	0.12*	−0.02	0.04	−0.13*	−0.01	0.03	−0.19**	−0.19**	0.14*

变量	基于组织的自尊					员工反馈规避行为
变量	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
性别	−0.05	−0.06	−0.04	−0.03	0.01	0.04	−0.03	0.02
年龄	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.04	−0.06	−0.06	−0.05	−0.05
学历	−0.14*	−0.14*	−0.12*	−0.11	0.13*	0.12*	0.09	0.09
与上级领导共事时间	0.07	0.06	0.03	0.04	−0.10	−0.08	−0.08	−0.07
工龄	−0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02
组织形式	−0.02	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09
威权领导		−0.17**	−0.21***	−0.17**		0.40***		0.37***
基于组织的自尊							−0.28***	−0.22***
反馈规避行为
心理弹性			−0.21***	−0.18**
威权领导×心理弹性				0.28***
F	1.60	2.61**	3.96***	6.52***	1.80	9.71***	5.06***	10.97***
R²	0.03	0.06	0.10	0.178	0.04	0.20	0.11	0.24
Adj-R²	0.01	0.04	0.08	0.15	0.02	0.18	0.09	0.22

变量	基于组织的自尊					员工反馈规避行为
变量	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
性别	−0.05	−0.06	−0.04	−0.03	0.01	0.04	−0.03	0.02
年龄	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.04	−0.06	−0.06	−0.05	−0.05
学历	−0.14*	−0.14*	−0.12*	−0.11	0.13*	0.12*	0.09	0.09
与上级领导共事时间	0.07	0.06	0.03	0.04	−0.10	−0.08	−0.08	−0.07
工龄	−0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02
组织形式	−0.02	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09
威权领导		−0.17**	−0.21***	−0.17**		0.40***		0.37***
基于组织的自尊							−0.28***	−0.22***
反馈规避行为
心理弹性			−0.21***	−0.18**
威权领导×心理弹性				0.28***
F	1.60	2.61**	3.96***	6.52***	1.80	9.71***	5.06***	10.97***
R²	0.03	0.06	0.10	0.178	0.04	0.20	0.11	0.24
Adj-R²	0.01	0.04	0.08	0.15	0.02	0.18	0.09	0.22

调节变量	量值	Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
心理弹性	2.12	0.10	0.04	0.03	0.18
	2.98	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.08
	3.83	−0.02	0.02	−0.08	0.02