領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的心理與行為反應(yīng)*

郭玉冬 歐琪雯 段錦云

領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的心理與行為反應(yīng)*

郭玉冬1歐琪雯2段錦云1

(1華東師范大學(xué)心理與認(rèn)知科學(xué)學(xué)院, 上海市心理健康與危機(jī)干預(yù)重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室, 上海 200062) (2漳州衛(wèi)生職業(yè)學(xué)院, 福建 漳州 363000)

員工主動(dòng)行為因有利于個(gè)人和組織的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展而受到學(xué)界和業(yè)界的廣泛關(guān)注。以往的研究主要關(guān)注主動(dòng)行為對(duì)員工本人的人際內(nèi)影響, 而較少考慮對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的人際間影響; 同時(shí), 考慮到員工在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程中扮演的重要角色, 對(duì)員工的主動(dòng)行為如何影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的心理與行為反應(yīng)做理論性整理將極大豐富對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的認(rèn)識(shí)。學(xué)界基于歸因理論、內(nèi)隱追隨理論、自我?他人評(píng)價(jià)一致性理論等對(duì)上述自下而上的影響過程進(jìn)行了初步探索, 發(fā)現(xiàn)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的態(tài)度評(píng)價(jià)和行為反應(yīng)受到多重邊界條件的影響。未來研究可具體化員工主動(dòng)行為所誘發(fā)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者心理與行為反應(yīng), 探索員工主動(dòng)行為與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方式的循環(huán)關(guān)系, 以及深挖主動(dòng)行為與績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)之間的內(nèi)在機(jī)理。

員工主動(dòng)行為, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)反應(yīng), 邊界條件, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方式, 追隨研究

1 引言

主動(dòng)行為是個(gè)體為獲得更有利的結(jié)果而持續(xù)改善環(huán)境或完善自我的行為, 它具有未來導(dǎo)向、變革取向和自我啟動(dòng)的特征(Parker et al., 2010)。根據(jù)主動(dòng)行為的目的, 可將其分為主動(dòng)工作行為(如建言行為、創(chuàng)新行為)、主動(dòng)戰(zhàn)略行為(如問題推銷)和主動(dòng)個(gè)人?環(huán)境匹配行為(如反饋尋求、工作重塑)三大類(Parker & Collins, 2010)。員工的主動(dòng)行為能夠幫個(gè)人和組織更好地適應(yīng)動(dòng)態(tài)環(huán)境, 獲取競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì), 從而受到學(xué)界和業(yè)界的廣泛關(guān)注(Parker & Bindl, 2017)。

關(guān)于主動(dòng)行為的前因的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 在團(tuán)隊(duì)層面上, 團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的特質(zhì)或能力構(gòu)成、團(tuán)隊(duì)內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)和人力資源政策等會(huì)改變團(tuán)隊(duì)主動(dòng)狀態(tài)和行為(Harris & Kirkman, 2017); 在個(gè)體層面上, 主動(dòng)行為的前因變量又分為個(gè)體因素(人格、價(jià)值觀、知識(shí)技能以及情緒等)和情景因素(領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格、人際氛圍、社會(huì)過程、工作特征以及工作壓力等)兩類, 它們通過影響個(gè)體的內(nèi)在動(dòng)機(jī)狀態(tài)而激發(fā)員工主動(dòng)行為(Parker et al., 2010)。而主動(dòng)行為的結(jié)果變量也多基于水平層級(jí)(個(gè)體、團(tuán)隊(duì)、組織水平)或影響性質(zhì)(積極影響或消極影響)進(jìn)行分類(Bolino et al., 2017; Harris & Kirkman, 2017; 李玲玲, 黃桂, 2021)。整體來說, 關(guān)于員工主動(dòng)行為的研究主要集中于其對(duì)員工本人的影響, 而對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何看待和應(yīng)對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為缺乏清晰的認(rèn)識(shí)。

傳統(tǒng)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)理論認(rèn)為員工只是被動(dòng)接受領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的影響, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程的有效性完全取決于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者, 而追隨研究以員工(追隨者)為重點(diǎn), 研究員工在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程中的能動(dòng)作用, 認(rèn)為員工能夠影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的心理與行為(Oc & Bashshur, 2013; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; 羅文豪等, 2021)。在追隨研究的觀點(diǎn)的啟發(fā)之下, 我們認(rèn)為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何應(yīng)對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為具有重要的理論和實(shí)踐意義。鑒于缺乏對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)的系統(tǒng)梳理, 加之追隨研究的相關(guān)實(shí)證證據(jù)有限(羅文豪等, 2021), 我們認(rèn)為有必要對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為引發(fā)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者心理與行為反應(yīng)進(jìn)行回顧與梳理, 從而豐富對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的認(rèn)識(shí), 為追隨研究的發(fā)展提供實(shí)證支持與啟示(羅文豪等, 2021), 也為實(shí)踐者如何踐行有效的主動(dòng)行為提供理論指導(dǎo)(Parker et al., 2019)。

2 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)

每個(gè)人對(duì)既定角色的構(gòu)想、行為規(guī)范都持有自己的標(biāo)準(zhǔn), 這種內(nèi)在的認(rèn)知框架將影響個(gè)體對(duì)角色扮演者的判斷與反應(yīng)(Katz & Kahn, 1978)。由于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和員工對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的認(rèn)知既存在共性, 又存在差異(Campbell, 2000), 因此, 面對(duì)員工的主動(dòng)性行為時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者可能會(huì)有不同的反應(yīng)。

2.1 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的態(tài)度反應(yīng)

領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者傾向于依據(jù)員工主動(dòng)行為對(duì)自身有益與否而表現(xiàn)出積極或消極的態(tài)度。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的工作目標(biāo)與責(zé)任通常需要員工的支持與協(xié)助才能有效完成, 積極主動(dòng)的員工能夠幫助領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者發(fā)現(xiàn)問題、提供解決方案、減少阻礙和促進(jìn)目標(biāo)實(shí)現(xiàn)(曹元坤等, 2019; Carsten et al., 2018)。因此, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為, 例如促進(jìn)性建言行為(Whiting et al., 2008)、積極反饋尋求 (Ashford & Tsui, 1991)等, 多持積極態(tài)度(Chamberlin et al., 2017; Thompson, 2005; Wu et al., 2018)。研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠體現(xiàn)其對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者及組織的關(guān)心與支持(曹元坤等, 2019; Carsten et al., 2018), 這可以激發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的積極情感體驗(yàn)(Schneider et al., 2014), 增加領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)此類主動(dòng)行為及其行為者的喜愛(Allen & Rush, 1998; Whiting et al., 2012), 并在雙方之間形成情感紐帶, 加強(qiáng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)?成員交換關(guān)系(Yukl & Michel, 2006), 促進(jìn)雙方的深入了解和關(guān)系發(fā)展(Han et al., 2019)。同時(shí), 那些對(duì)組織有益、展現(xiàn)員工能力水平的主動(dòng)行為, 能夠體現(xiàn)員工的發(fā)展?jié)摿蛡€(gè)人魅力(Crant & Bateman, 2000; Gross et al., 2021), 從而增加領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的認(rèn)同和親近趨向, 并將該行為發(fā)出者歸為內(nèi)群體成員(孫柯意, 張博堅(jiān), 2019)。例如, 支持性建言能夠深化上下級(jí)關(guān)系(Yukl & Michel, 2006), 體現(xiàn)員工對(duì)組織的忠誠(chéng), 獲得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的肯定, 從而幫助該員工獲得更高的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)(Burris, 2012)。

而那些具有威脅或自利取向的主動(dòng)行為則通常會(huì)遭到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的否定(Burris, 2012; Duan et al., 2021)。例如, 當(dāng)員工建議改變組織現(xiàn)行政策、流程或戰(zhàn)略方向時(shí), 其中隱含對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者當(dāng)前決策與行為的反對(duì), 甚至是批評(píng), 這就會(huì)誘發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的地位威脅感(Burris, 2012)。而具有明顯自利取向的主動(dòng)行為可能會(huì)破壞組織內(nèi)部交換關(guān)系的平衡, 容易招致領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的厭惡和反對(duì)(Duan et al., 2021)。此外, 元分析表明, 抑制性建言更容易誘發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的消極態(tài)度(Chamberlin et al., 2017)。

可以看出, 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠幫助領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者預(yù)防及解決工作問題, 加強(qiáng)與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者良好的人際互動(dòng), 因而受到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的認(rèn)可; 但其內(nèi)在的變革趨向也可能會(huì)挑戰(zhàn)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的個(gè)人權(quán)威和地位(Bolino et al., 2017), 從而激起領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的反對(duì)(Campbell, 2000; Parker et al., 2010)。

2.2 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的行為反應(yīng)

憑借積極或消極態(tài)度, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)采取行動(dòng)來強(qiáng)化或懲罰員工主動(dòng)行為。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者傾向于賦予那些能力強(qiáng)、與自己目標(biāo)一致、具有良好人際關(guān)系的員工更多工作自主性(Yukl & Fu, 1999)。員工主動(dòng)行為能夠體現(xiàn)個(gè)人能力水平, 增加上下級(jí)之間的良性互動(dòng)(曹元坤等, 2019; Han et al., 2019), 優(yōu)化雙方協(xié)作(Zhang et al., 2012), 最終促進(jìn)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的目標(biāo)進(jìn)展(Carsten et al., 2018)。因此, 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠顯著預(yù)測(cè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該員工的賦能行為(Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; 李紹龍等, 2018)。但主動(dòng)行為內(nèi)含的挑戰(zhàn)性也會(huì)激發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的威脅感知(Burris, 2012; 陳伍洋等, 2017), 從而誘發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的自我關(guān)注取向和防御動(dòng)機(jī), 使領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者做出自利行為(Williams, 2014)。例如, 當(dāng)權(quán)力感受到威脅時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)更加強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人權(quán)力, 采取諸如隱藏關(guān)鍵的工作信息、排斥高能力的員工等行為削弱員工的影響力(Maner & Mead, 2010)。此外, 這種情景容易造成上下級(jí)間的人際沖突, 導(dǎo)致領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該員工的辱虐行為(Tepper et al., 2011)。

可以看出, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)主要基于主動(dòng)行為后果對(duì)自身的影響性質(zhì)。當(dāng)員工主動(dòng)行為能夠?yàn)轭I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者排憂解難, 推動(dòng)任務(wù)進(jìn)展時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)產(chǎn)生積極態(tài)度并采取行動(dòng)進(jìn)一步激勵(lì)員工行為發(fā)展(曹元坤等, 2019; Han et al., 2019)。如果員工主動(dòng)行為對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的管理職責(zé)或未來發(fā)展造成威脅, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)并打擊(Burris, 2012; Duan et al., 2021)。

3 員工主動(dòng)行為影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的機(jī)制的理論解釋

前文已對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的反應(yīng)進(jìn)行了總結(jié), 本部分將結(jié)合有關(guān)研究的理論基礎(chǔ)(主要包括歸因理論、內(nèi)隱追隨理論和自我?他人評(píng)價(jià)一致性理論), 對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的作用機(jī)制進(jìn)行闡述與分析, 以期幫助人們系統(tǒng)地理解員工主動(dòng)行為的影響過程。

3.1 歸因理論

為了更好地適應(yīng)周圍環(huán)境, 人們傾向于推斷事件間的因果關(guān)系, 對(duì)自己或他人的行為進(jìn)行分析推論, 或?qū)ξ磥硎录M(jìn)行預(yù)測(cè), 并據(jù)此決定自己的心理與行為反應(yīng)(Heider, 1958)。個(gè)體的某種行為動(dòng)機(jī)是由內(nèi)部因素驅(qū)使, 還是由外部因素誘發(fā), 可以通過該行為的社會(huì)期望性、自由選擇性等加以判斷(Jones & Davis, 1965)。內(nèi)部因素包括人格特征、能力水平、情緒反應(yīng)等, 外部因素有物理環(huán)境、當(dāng)前情景等。一般情況下, 人們傾向于對(duì)他人行為作特質(zhì)歸因, 對(duì)自身行為作情景歸因, 當(dāng)遭遇失敗的情況下, 這種傾向性更加明顯(Heider, 1958)。當(dāng)事件偏離正常行為規(guī)范或個(gè)人預(yù)期時(shí), 人們進(jìn)行歸因的動(dòng)機(jī)更加強(qiáng)烈(Wong & Weiner, 1981)。

主動(dòng)行為的特征是自我發(fā)起、變革取向(Parker et al., 2010), 這種具有自由選擇性且違反傳統(tǒng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者期望的行為(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014), 容易激發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不同的歸因動(dòng)機(jī)(Wong & Weiner, 1981)。主動(dòng)行為的變革性質(zhì)使領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該行為的歸因存在積極和消極兩種情況(Lam et al., 2007; 嚴(yán)瑜, 何亞男, 2016)。當(dāng)員工主動(dòng)行為指向組織現(xiàn)行流程規(guī)范時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者傾向于將其視為挑戰(zhàn)行為而激活防御心理, 較少將該行為歸因于員工的親社會(huì)動(dòng)機(jī), 并持有消極態(tài)度(Su et al., 2017)。當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者認(rèn)為員工的主動(dòng)行為是基于印象管理以獲得個(gè)人利益, 會(huì)降低對(duì)這種具有欺騙意圖的行為的好感程度, 因此對(duì)該員工態(tài)度消極甚至直接懲罰; 相反, 當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者認(rèn)為主動(dòng)行為是員工出于提升績(jī)效做出的成就導(dǎo)向行為時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該員工的回應(yīng)將更加積極(Lam et al., 2007)。不僅如此, 員工的特征也會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的歸因過程。具有親社會(huì)價(jià)值觀的員工會(huì)長(zhǎng)期從事有利于他人或組織的行為, 面對(duì)這種始終關(guān)心他人的員工, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更愿意將該其主動(dòng)行為歸為親社會(huì)動(dòng)機(jī), 并給予更高的評(píng)價(jià)與支持(Grant et al., 2009)。

3.2 內(nèi)隱追隨理論

內(nèi)隱追隨理論是在追隨研究興起的背景下發(fā)展出的一種角色認(rèn)知理論, 它認(rèn)為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者持有的員工行為規(guī)范是“員工能否及如何作用于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者心理與行為”的關(guān)鍵。具體而言, 該理論認(rèn)為, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在社會(huì)化過程中逐漸形成一套關(guān)于員工應(yīng)當(dāng)如何思考與行為的相對(duì)穩(wěn)定的認(rèn)知模式, 即領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者持有的理想員工的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(Sy, 2010; 曹元坤, 祝振兵, 2015)。這種內(nèi)在的認(rèn)知框架包含積極和消極兩個(gè)方面, 它們會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何看待下屬的各種行為, 以及對(duì)下屬采取何種互動(dòng)模式, 最終作用于上下級(jí)之間的關(guān)系質(zhì)量和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的管理模式(Sy, 2010)。如果員工的特質(zhì)或行為契合領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者關(guān)于員工的積極認(rèn)知框架, 符合領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的期望, 該員工會(huì)獲得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的信任和積極評(píng)價(jià); 相反, 當(dāng)員工行為偏離領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的內(nèi)在理想標(biāo)準(zhǔn), 接近領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者持有的消極員工原型, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)對(duì)該員工作出消極評(píng)價(jià)(Sy, 2010)。

實(shí)證研究表明, 當(dāng)員工行為傾向與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者內(nèi)在的積極員工標(biāo)準(zhǔn)一致, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工的行為期望得到滿足時(shí), 會(huì)對(duì)該員工產(chǎn)生更高水平的人際信任, 提高關(guān)系質(zhì)量(Sy, 2010), 并表現(xiàn)出更多的賦能行為(Han et al., 2019; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015)。倘若員工主動(dòng)行為偏離領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者預(yù)期, 該行為會(huì)給領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者帶來威脅感和不確定性, 啟動(dòng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的防御認(rèn)知, 從而制造上下級(jí)的沖突(陳伍洋等, 2017), 損害領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工的信任, 降低其對(duì)下屬的賦能行為(彭堅(jiān)等, 2016), 甚至導(dǎo)致辱虐管理的發(fā)生(祝振兵, 曹元坤等, 2017)。

3.3 自我?他人評(píng)價(jià)一致性理論

行為者和觀察者對(duì)同一行為的認(rèn)知可能存在差異。學(xué)者認(rèn)為, 當(dāng)行為者的評(píng)價(jià)高于觀察者時(shí), 行為者可能會(huì)盲目自大, 看低他人, 忽視自身缺點(diǎn), 最終導(dǎo)致一系列消極后果; 如果行為者的評(píng)價(jià)低于觀察者, 他們同樣會(huì)誤判自身的優(yōu)勢(shì)與劣勢(shì), 但會(huì)更加積極主動(dòng)地完成工作任務(wù)(Yammarino & Atwater, 1997)。特別是在觀察者能夠?yàn)樾袨檎邘硪欢ɡ鏁r(shí), 行為者會(huì)努力實(shí)現(xiàn)雙方評(píng)價(jià)的一致性, 滿足積極的社會(huì)期望(Yammarino & Atwater, 1997)。雙方對(duì)行為評(píng)價(jià)的一致性表明雙方在該問題上達(dá)成共識(shí), 能夠相互理解, 降低沖突(Yammarino & Atwater, 1997), 之后涉及該行為的互動(dòng)也更易開展。

領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在員工的績(jī)效、晉升等評(píng)價(jià)中具有重要作用, 上下級(jí)雙方對(duì)員工行為表現(xiàn)的差異性評(píng)價(jià)可能帶來不同后果。當(dāng)上下級(jí)雙方對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的認(rèn)知評(píng)價(jià)保持一致時(shí), 員工具有較高主動(dòng)性, 意味著領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者承認(rèn)員工為組織作出了重要貢獻(xiàn), 并對(duì)該員工持有積極態(tài)度和情感(Burris et al., 2013)。雖然主動(dòng)行為具有變革現(xiàn)狀的含義, 能夠個(gè)人和組織帶來積極影響(Parker et al., 2010), 但是當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的評(píng)估低于員工對(duì)自身的認(rèn)知, 這意味著領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者認(rèn)為部分主動(dòng)行為是無效甚至具有破壞性的, 員工重復(fù)此類行為是對(duì)組織現(xiàn)狀的抱怨, 強(qiáng)調(diào)自身利益而忽略組織整體利益, 于是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)對(duì)該員工的態(tài)度更加消極(Burris et al., 2013)。與之相反, 當(dāng)員工認(rèn)為自身的主動(dòng)性不夠時(shí), 為了彌補(bǔ)不足, 員工會(huì)努力增加個(gè)體的主動(dòng)行為, 面對(duì)這種超越自身期望的行為表現(xiàn), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)增加對(duì)該員工的喜愛程度和積極評(píng)價(jià)(Burris et al., 2013)。

4 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)的邊界條件

除前文提到的主動(dòng)行為本身的影響之外, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)還受到員工、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和情景三方面因素的調(diào)節(jié)作用(Bolino et al., 2017; 李玲玲, 黃桂, 2021), 從而增強(qiáng)或削弱員工主動(dòng)行為的影響。

4.1 員工方面的因素

員工的人口學(xué)特征、個(gè)人能力和特質(zhì)等會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)其主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)。關(guān)于人口學(xué)特征, 員工的種族、地位、雇傭方式等都會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)其主動(dòng)行為的判斷(Howell et al., 2015; Whiting et al., 2012)。研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 員工的人口學(xué)特征會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的信息加工深度, 對(duì)那些屬于多數(shù)族裔、具有較高地位或被全職雇傭的員工, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者持有更積極的歸因傾向, 對(duì)其主動(dòng)行為具有更積極的認(rèn)知加工和評(píng)價(jià)(Howell et al., 2015)。此外, 員工能力也會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的判斷。有效的行為策略, 例如主動(dòng)行為的頻率(Huang et al., 2018), 建議的及時(shí)性、專業(yè)性、呈現(xiàn)的積極性(Whiting et al., 2012), 以及本人的可信度等(Lam et al., 2019), 能夠激發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的積極歸因和認(rèn)知信任, 增加領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的積極態(tài)度和對(duì)該員工的喜愛程度, 并相應(yīng)地給予更高的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)。而那些具有較高政治技能水平、情景敏感性或情緒調(diào)節(jié)能力的員工能夠在適當(dāng)?shù)那榫跋伦龀鲋鲃?dòng)行為, 優(yōu)化自己與上級(jí)的人際互動(dòng), 激發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的積極情緒與良性評(píng)價(jià)(Chan, 2006; Grant, 2013; Sun & van Emmerik, 2015)。例如, 當(dāng)員工在工作中采取建設(shè)性溝通而非籠統(tǒng)拒絕的互動(dòng)方式時(shí), 其主動(dòng)行為更容易獲得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的理解與支持(Brett et al., 2016)。如果員工在以往工作中表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不僅會(huì)對(duì)其工作失誤更加寬容(Cuddy et al., 2011), 還會(huì)對(duì)該員工的主動(dòng)行為意圖進(jìn)行積極歸因, 給予更高的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)(Ashford & Northcraft, 1992)。相反, 當(dāng)員工缺乏相應(yīng)能力但迫于形勢(shì)做出主動(dòng)行為時(shí), 這種非自愿且“偽裝”的行為容易被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者歸因于個(gè)體的自我服務(wù)動(dòng)機(jī)(Bolino et al., 2010), 從而對(duì)該行為持有消極態(tài)度, 對(duì)該員工的喜愛也會(huì)減少(Duan et al., 2021), 并懲罰員工的這種自利取向(Sun & van Emmerik, 2015)。另外, 也有個(gè)別研究探索了員工個(gè)人價(jià)值觀和特質(zhì)性消極情緒在員工主動(dòng)行為和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者反應(yīng)之間的關(guān)系。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者傾向于認(rèn)為具有較高親社會(huì)價(jià)值觀或較低的特質(zhì)性消極情緒的員工做出的主動(dòng)行為是出于對(duì)組織的關(guān)心, 并傾向于給出更積極的評(píng)價(jià)(Grant et al., 2009)。

4.2 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者方面的因素

領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的人格特征、認(rèn)知評(píng)價(jià)和資源豐富程度等會(huì)影響其如何看待和應(yīng)對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的不同人格特質(zhì)會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)性的評(píng)價(jià)。例如, 主動(dòng)性高或者具有學(xué)習(xí)目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更喜歡變革和新奇取向的想法與行為, 將問題和困難視為學(xué)習(xí)與自我提升的機(jī)會(huì), 能夠主動(dòng)且頻繁地與下屬進(jìn)行溝通、接納員工主動(dòng)行為, 因此在設(shè)置和協(xié)調(diào)目標(biāo)上所需花費(fèi)的時(shí)間與精力更少, 更容易與員工建立一致的工作目標(biāo), 最終對(duì)該員工產(chǎn)生更高水平的喜愛與信任(Zhang et al., 2012), 并對(duì)該員工的主動(dòng)行為持有積極態(tài)度(Fuller et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012)。而人格特質(zhì)表現(xiàn)為高權(quán)力距離的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者則強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人權(quán)威和上下級(jí)間的地位差異, 認(rèn)為下屬應(yīng)當(dāng)服從自己的領(lǐng)導(dǎo), 對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的接受程度更差(Grant et al., 2011; Wang & Kim, 2013)。倘若員工不顧領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者反對(duì)而進(jìn)行主動(dòng)行為, 會(huì)強(qiáng)烈威脅領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的控制感, 并增加其感知到的不確定性(陳伍洋等, 2017)。該研究還發(fā)現(xiàn), 為了恢復(fù)個(gè)人的掌控感, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)對(duì)目標(biāo)員工進(jìn)行隱蔽式報(bào)復(fù), 如辱虐、破壞其個(gè)人形象等。與之相反, 那些權(quán)力距離較低的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更加注重工作職責(zé)的差異而不是權(quán)力的獲取和對(duì)下屬的控制, 強(qiáng)調(diào)員工的工作能力和對(duì)目標(biāo)的貢獻(xiàn), 將主動(dòng)行為視為員工個(gè)人責(zé)任感的體現(xiàn), 樂于接受員工這種具有成就導(dǎo)向的行為, 并表現(xiàn)出對(duì)該員工的喜愛(王淑紅等, 2019)。

其次, 關(guān)于員工的行為規(guī)范, 不同的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者具有不同的主觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(即內(nèi)隱追隨原型), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者通?；谶@一主觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)評(píng)判下屬行為的好壞(Sy, 2010)。當(dāng)員工的主動(dòng)行為契合領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者所持有的員工行為規(guī)范, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)給予充分的肯定(Burris et al., 2013), 減少對(duì)該員工的辱虐行為(祝振兵, 曹元坤等, 2017), 增加彼此的親密程度并維持良好的互動(dòng)關(guān)系(Sy, 2010), 特別是那些權(quán)力高但地位低的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者, 他們具有更強(qiáng)的物化他人傾向, 依據(jù)他人對(duì)自己的有利程度采取不同的人際行為, 因此會(huì)將該主動(dòng)型員工視為有價(jià)值的資源(Williams, 2014), 對(duì)該員工表現(xiàn)出更多積極、仁慈的管理行為(Wang & Peng, 2016; 彭堅(jiān)等, 2016)。但是當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者評(píng)價(jià)的員工主動(dòng)性水平低于員工自評(píng)的主動(dòng)性水平時(shí), 說明部分主動(dòng)行為被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者否認(rèn), 甚至歸于牢騷、抱怨, 特別是當(dāng)主動(dòng)行為的目標(biāo)缺乏價(jià)值時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該主動(dòng)行為的態(tài)度將更加消極(Burris et al., 2013)。隨著上下級(jí)之間認(rèn)知差異的深化, 雙方對(duì)工作的看法和相關(guān)行為將存在嚴(yán)重分歧, 容易激活領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)心態(tài)和歧視性認(rèn)知, 誘發(fā)雙方的關(guān)系沖突, 最終導(dǎo)致領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)該員工的辱虐行為(Tepper et al., 2011)。

最后, 員工主動(dòng)行為通常需要領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者消耗大量資源進(jìn)行認(rèn)知加工或變革執(zhí)行, 當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者資源貧乏時(shí), 他們會(huì)為了避免變革和不確定性而啟動(dòng)防御機(jī)制, 以維持現(xiàn)狀并減少資源損耗, 因此抵制員工的主動(dòng)行為(Fast et al., 2014; McClean et al., 2013; Sessions et al., 2020)。特別是在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者影響力低或主導(dǎo)動(dòng)機(jī)強(qiáng)的情況下(Fast et al., 2014; Maner & Mead, 2010), 面對(duì)主動(dòng)行為帶來的地位不安全感和自我懷疑, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)基于心理防御而做出自利行為(Fast et al., 2014; Williams, 2014)。權(quán)力感作為一種重要的心理資源, 在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)中具有重要的調(diào)節(jié)作用(Chamberlin, 2017; Sessions et al., 2020)。權(quán)力感較高的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者持有積極的自我認(rèn)知和豐富的心理資源, 傾向于將員工的主動(dòng)行為視為積極的挑戰(zhàn)行為(Sessions et al., 2020), 從而產(chǎn)生積極的態(tài)度與情緒反應(yīng)(Schneider et al., 2014), 從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看, 還能促進(jìn)團(tuán)隊(duì)成員間的信息交換與深入加工, 引發(fā)管理創(chuàng)新(Guzman & Espejo, 2019)。另外, 當(dāng)面臨較低的工作要求時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者有豐富的資源對(duì)工作中的問題進(jìn)行認(rèn)知加工, 對(duì)符合自己期望的員工主動(dòng)行為, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)積極加工, 表現(xiàn)出更多的喜愛(祝振兵, 羅文豪等, 2017)。

4.3 情景因素

情景因素也會(huì)引起領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為產(chǎn)生差異化反應(yīng)。組織會(huì)向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者提出不同的工作目標(biāo), 當(dāng)員工主動(dòng)行為對(duì)實(shí)現(xiàn)此目標(biāo)或獲取資源有重要價(jià)值時(shí), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)增加對(duì)該員工的依賴程度, 努力緩和雙方之間的人際關(guān)系, 并減少辱虐型管理行為(Wee et al., 2017)。當(dāng)組織需要變革現(xiàn)狀時(shí), 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠促進(jìn)變革目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn), 對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者具有更高的價(jià)值和意義(Fuller et al., 2015), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)因此增加對(duì)該員工的喜愛, 并在資源分配時(shí)減少自私行為(Oc et al., 2015; Whiting et al., 2012)。關(guān)于組織公民行為的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 組織公民氛圍較低時(shí), 員工的組織公民行為具有更高的可識(shí)別性, 易引起領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的注意, 而且此類主動(dòng)行為由于缺乏正式的組織獎(jiǎng)賞而體現(xiàn)出更強(qiáng)的利他傾向, 更容易獲得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的積極評(píng)價(jià)(Bommer et al., 2007)。此外, 具體的問題情景以及不同的文化背景, 也會(huì)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng)(Brockner et al., 2001; Burris et al., 2017; Urbach et al., 2021)。在權(quán)力距離、未來取向、個(gè)人主義等方面不同的文化背景下, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)發(fā)展出不同的內(nèi)隱追隨原型, 即員工的行為處事標(biāo)準(zhǔn), 這些固有的內(nèi)在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)進(jìn)一步影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何對(duì)待員工主動(dòng)行為(Urbach et al., 2021)。例如, 在低權(quán)力距離背景下, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更加強(qiáng)調(diào)關(guān)系平等, 較少將員工主動(dòng)行為視為威脅或挑戰(zhàn), 從而給予支持和肯定(Brockner et al., 2001)。

5 討論及未來研究方向

可以看出, 面對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在態(tài)度和行為等方面會(huì)有不同反應(yīng), 這些反應(yīng)又因邊界條件的不同而變得愈加積極或消極。基于現(xiàn)有研究的不足, 我們認(rèn)為未來研究可從以下幾方面開展。

首先, 細(xì)化員工主動(dòng)行為與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者態(tài)度之間關(guān)系的研究, 厘清其內(nèi)在機(jī)制。多數(shù)研究者以領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者主觀評(píng)價(jià)的員工績(jī)效推斷領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的態(tài)度反應(yīng)(Morrison, 2014), 但主觀的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)包含對(duì)多種因素(任務(wù)績(jī)效、反生產(chǎn)行為、角色外行為等)的綜合考量(He et al., 2021; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002)。而且, 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠預(yù)測(cè)個(gè)人客觀績(jī)效(劉密等, 2007), 因此, 我們無法清晰鑒別領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者是基于員工的客觀績(jī)效還是基于其對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的態(tài)度而給出績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果。員工的績(jī)效評(píng)定結(jié)果不能準(zhǔn)確反映領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的心理反應(yīng)過程。另外, 員工以往的績(jī)效水平能夠影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的意圖推斷(De Stobbeleir et al., 2010), 增加領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的寬容態(tài)度(Cuddy et al., 2011)。所以, 未來研究需要細(xì)化員工主動(dòng)行為與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)間的關(guān)系, 厘清員工主動(dòng)行為通過何種影響機(jī)制作用于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)過程, 探索領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)背后的認(rèn)知過程, 豐富我們對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的理解與認(rèn)識(shí)。

其次, 深化領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的心理與行為反應(yīng)研究。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何看待和應(yīng)對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的研究已有一定成果, 但主要局限于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的態(tài)度和行為反應(yīng)等, 未來研究還需要拓展深化對(duì)其它反應(yīng)的研究, 如基于經(jīng)驗(yàn)取樣法的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者瞬時(shí)情緒反應(yīng)、基于自我擴(kuò)展理論的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者個(gè)人能力變化等。追隨研究認(rèn)為, 員工與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者雖然角色不同, 但都是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程的重要組成部分, 員工并非被動(dòng)接受領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的影響, 而是能夠主動(dòng)影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的態(tài)度、情感和行為(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014)。對(duì)比領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何影響員工主動(dòng)行為的豐富研究成果(Den Hartog & Belschak, 2017), 員工主動(dòng)行為對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的影響仍有較大的探索空間?；诒疚恼? 我們發(fā)現(xiàn), 關(guān)于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的具體情緒反應(yīng)的研究屈指可數(shù), 這是未來研究可以探索的一個(gè)重要方向。例如, 情緒喚起會(huì)影響個(gè)人的認(rèn)知加工過程, 面對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的挑戰(zhàn)或威脅, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)產(chǎn)生何種瞬時(shí)情緒及行為反應(yīng); 在上下級(jí)的相互適應(yīng)過程中, 員工穩(wěn)定的主動(dòng)行為是否能夠擴(kuò)展領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的自我概念和個(gè)人能力。

再次, 探索員工主動(dòng)行為與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)行為的雙向因果關(guān)系及其發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。從前文可以看出, 員工主動(dòng)行為在不同情況下能夠引發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不同的心理與行為反應(yīng)。作為員工與組織間的橋梁, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的心理和行為反應(yīng)又會(huì)顯著影響員工主動(dòng)行為的發(fā)生與發(fā)展(Den Hartog & Belschak, 2017; 段錦云等, 2016), 但現(xiàn)有研究對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者反應(yīng)之間的雙向因果關(guān)系的探索相對(duì)滯后。例如, 員工主動(dòng)行為能夠引發(fā)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的賦能行為(Han et al., 2019; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015), 而賦能型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)又促進(jìn)員工主動(dòng)行為的發(fā)展(Schilpzand et al., 2018), 但兩者間的雙向因果關(guān)系, 以及兩者是相互促進(jìn)、螺旋上升還是逐漸達(dá)到一種平衡狀態(tài), 尚未經(jīng)受實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)。此外, 近期研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 員工會(huì)采取排斥和敵意行為對(duì)抗那些做出傷害行為的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者(Tepper et al., 2015; Walsh et al., 2019)。因此, 關(guān)于主動(dòng)行為與積極領(lǐng)導(dǎo)行為的良性循環(huán), 以及與消極領(lǐng)導(dǎo)行為的惡性循環(huán)等研究有助于我們深入理解主動(dòng)行為帶來的廣泛后果, 考察主動(dòng)行為的動(dòng)態(tài)發(fā)展過程, 并為如何打破組織中現(xiàn)存的惡性互動(dòng)模式, 踐行有效的主動(dòng)行為, 促進(jìn)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程的有效互動(dòng)和最佳結(jié)果提供理論和實(shí)踐啟示(Parker et al., 2019; Wee et al., 2017)。

最后, 拓展領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為反應(yīng)的多水平研究。追隨研究強(qiáng)調(diào)有效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過程中上下級(jí)的雙重作用(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014), 為實(shí)現(xiàn)既定的團(tuán)隊(duì)目標(biāo), 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者需要與團(tuán)隊(duì)成員互動(dòng)協(xié)作。但現(xiàn)有研究主要集中于二元互動(dòng)關(guān)系中的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)員工主動(dòng)行為的反應(yīng), 較少關(guān)注領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何應(yīng)對(duì)團(tuán)體層面的員工主動(dòng)行為(Sessions et al., 2020)。相對(duì)于個(gè)體層面研究, 團(tuán)隊(duì)層面具有構(gòu)成和涌現(xiàn)等方面的獨(dú)特屬性, 如成員之間的親密度(Wee et al., 2017)、同一行為的頻率差異(Sessions et al., 2020)等等, 以及團(tuán)隊(duì)行為對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的獨(dú)特影響, 這些獨(dú)特屬性都有待未來研究進(jìn)一步探索, 以促進(jìn)追隨研究的發(fā)展以及我們對(duì)主動(dòng)行為的認(rèn)識(shí)。

曹元坤, 周青, 劉善仕, 祝振兵. (2019). 勇敢追隨行為研究述評(píng)與展望.,(9), 47–60.

曹元坤, 祝振兵. (2015). 內(nèi)隱追隨理論: 概念、測(cè)量、前因及后果.,(2), 280–288.

陳伍洋, 葉茂林, 陳宇帥, 彭堅(jiān). (2017). 下屬越軌創(chuàng)新對(duì)主管阻抑的影響——地位威脅感和權(quán)威主義取向的作用.,(3), 670–677.

段錦云, 張晨, 田曉明. (2016). 員工建言行為的發(fā)生機(jī)制:來自領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的影響.(5), 16–26.

李玲玲, 黃桂. (2021). 組織中個(gè)體主動(dòng)性行為“利與弊”.(8), 1484–1496.

李紹龍, 孫芳, 朱思. (2018). 追隨者如何獲得授權(quán)型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的垂青: 一項(xiàng)混合策略研究.(3), 100– 114.

劉密, 龍立榮, 祖?zhèn)? (2007). 主動(dòng)性人格的研究現(xiàn)狀與展望.,(2), 333–337.

羅文豪, 劉東, 章凱. (2021). 追隨研究的演進(jìn)及其在中國(guó)情境下的未來發(fā)展方向探索.(2), 214–224.

彭堅(jiān), 冉雅璇, 康勇軍, 韓雪亮. (2016). 事必躬親還是權(quán)力共享?——內(nèi)隱追隨理論視角下的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者授權(quán)行為研究.,(5), 1197–1203.

孫柯意, 張博堅(jiān). (2019). 下屬建設(shè)性建言與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)發(fā)展性反饋關(guān)系探討——基于圈內(nèi)人和圈外人視角.(10), 69–74.

王淑紅, 龍立榮, 王玉同. (2019). 員工主動(dòng)行為對(duì)上下級(jí)及同事關(guān)系的影響研究.,(4), 105–113.

嚴(yán)瑜, 何亞男. (2016). 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)對(duì)建言反應(yīng)的動(dòng)機(jī)感知作用機(jī)制: 基于歸因理論的闡釋.,(9), 1457–1466.

祝振兵, 曹元坤, 彭堅(jiān). (2017). 積極追隨原型-特質(zhì)匹配對(duì)辱虐管理的影響——基于多項(xiàng)式回歸與響應(yīng)面分析的探索.,(6), 1405–1411.

祝振兵, 羅文豪, 曹元坤. (2017). 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)會(huì)視誰為圈內(nèi)人?內(nèi)隱追隨與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)-成員交換關(guān)系研究.,(11), 140–146.

Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment.,(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247

Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression- management in feedback-seeking.,(3), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90068-I

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking.,(2), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.5465/256442

Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively.,(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X493134

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Anderson, H. J. (2017). The dark side of proactive behavior: When being proactive may hurt oneself, others, or the organization. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.),(pp. 499–529). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance.,(6), 1481–1494. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28226149

Brett, J. F., Uhl-Bien, M., Huang, L., & Carsten, M. (2016). Goal orientation and employee resistance at work: Implications for manager emotional exhaustion with the employee.,(3), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop. 12144

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice.,(4), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp. 2000.1451

Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice.,(4), 851–875. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Romney, A. C. (2013). Speaking up vs. Being heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice.,(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0732

Burris, E. R., Rockmann, K. W., & Kimmons, Y. S. (2017). The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice.,(6), 2099–2125. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0320

Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative.,(3), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4468066

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior.,(6), 731–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017720306

Chamberlin, M. (2017).(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University.

Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions.,(1), 11–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185

Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes.,(2), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.91.2.475

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality.,(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002) 21:1<63::AID-JOB8>3.0.CO;2-J

Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations.,, 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011. 10.004

den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2017). Leadership and employee proactivity. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.),(pp. 411–433). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & De Luque, M. F. S. (2010). Proactivity with image in mind: How employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviours.,(2), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 096317909X479529

Duan, J., Xu, Y., Wang, X., Wu, C.-H., & Wang, Y. (2021). Voice for oneself: Self-interested voice and its antecedents and consequences.(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/joop.12334

Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice.,(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393

Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity.,(8), 1053–1070. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.1780

Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due.,(6), 879–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714548235

Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice.,(6), 1703–1723. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity.,(3), 528–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61968043

Grant, A. M., Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel.,(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2008.01128.x

Gross, C., Debus, M. E., Liu, Y., Wang, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2021). I am nice and capable! How and when newcomers’ self-presentation to their supervisors affects socialization outcomes.,(7), 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000817

Guzman, F. A., & Espejo, A. (2019). Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation.,(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2319

Han, S., Harold, C. M., & Cheong, M. (2019). Examining why employee proactive personality influences empowering leadership: The roles of cognition- and affect-based trust.,(2), 352–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12252

Harris, T. B., & Kirkman, B. L. (2017). Teams and proactivity. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.),(pp. 530–558). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

He, W., Li, S.-L., Feng, J., Zhang, G., & Sturman, M. C. (2021). When does pay for performance motivate employee helping behavior? The contextual influence of performance subjectivity.(1), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018. 1408

Heider, F. (1958).. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/10628-000

Howell, T. M., Harrison, D. A., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2015). Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition.,(6), 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10. 1037/apl0000025

Huang, X., Xu, E., Huang, L., & Liu, W. (2018). Nonlinear consequences of promotive and prohibitive voice for managers’ responses: The roles of voice frequency and LMX.,(10), 1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000326

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception., 219–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60107-0

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978).(2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lam, C. F., Lee, C., & Sui, Y. (2019). Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement.,(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10. 1037/apl0000358

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor- attributed motives matter?,(2), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634440

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest.,(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018559

McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice lead to exit? It depends on leadership.,(2), 525–548. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2011.0041

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence.,(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- orgpsych-031413-091328

Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence.,(6), 919–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.006

Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. (2015). Speaking truth to power: The effect of candid feedback on how individualswith power allocate resources.,(2), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038138

Parker, S. K., & Bindl, U. K. (2017).. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation.,(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206310363732

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.,(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554

Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior.,(1), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- orgpsych-012218-015302

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach.,(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality.,(6), 2367–2387. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0936

Schneider, A., Gardner, W. L., Hinojosa, A., & Marin, A. (2014). Emotional responses of leaders to passive versus active members.,(4), 412–436. https://doi. org/10.1177/1742715013504424

Sessions, H., Nahrgang, J. D., Newton, D. W., & Chamberlin, M. (2020). I’m tired of listening: The effects of supervisor appraisals of group voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance.,(6), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000455

Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research.,(2), 193–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601115574906

Su, X., Liu, Y., & Hanson-Rasmussen, N. (2017). Voice behavior, supervisor attribution and employee performance appraisal.,(10), 1829–1842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101829

Sun, S., & van Emmerik, H. I. (2015). Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator.,(3), 966–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037833

Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories.,(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001

Tepper, B. J., Mitchell, M. S., Haggard, D. L., Kwan, H. K., & Park, H.-m. (2015). On the exchange of hostility with supervisors: An examination of self-enhancing and self-defeating perspectives.,(4), 723–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12094

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.,(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011. 60263085

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.,(5), 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.90.5.1011

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda.,(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

Urbach, T., Den Hartog, D. N., Fay, D., Parker, S. K., & Strauss, K. (2021). Cultural variations in whether, why, how, and at what cost people are proactive: A followership perspective.(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620960526

Walsh, B. M., Matthews, R. A., Toumbeva, T. H., Kabat-Farr, D., Philbrick, J., & Pavisic, I. (2019). Failing to be family-supportive: Implications for supervisors.,(7), 2952–2977. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0149206318774621

Wang, J., & Kim, T.-Y. (2013). Proactive socialization behavior in China: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of supervisors' traditionality.,(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1811

Wang, X., & Peng, J. (2016). The effect of implicit-explicit followership congruence on benevolent leadership: Evidence from Chinese family firms.,, 812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 00812

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.,(6), 2352–2380. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0866

Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior.,(1), 159–182. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0024871

Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings.,(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125

Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior.,(5), 1365–1395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525203

Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask "why" questions, and the heuristics of attributional search.,(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.650

Wu, C.-H., Deng, H., & Li, Y. (2018). Enhancing a sense of competence at work by engaging in proactive behavior: The role of proactive personality.,(3), 801–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902- 016-9827-9

Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1997). Do managers see themselves as other see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management.,(4), 35–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90035-8

Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers.,(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1379(199903)20:2<219::AID-JOB922>3.0.CO;2-8

Yukl, G., & Michel, J. W. (2006). Proactive influence tactics and leader member exchange. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.),. (pp. 87–103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange.,(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2009.0865

Psychological and behavioral responses of leaders toward proactive behaviors from subordinates

GUO Yudong1, OU Qiwen2, DUAN Jinyun1

(1Shanghai Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Psychological Crisis Intervention, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China) (2Zhangzhou Health Vocational College, Zhangzhou 363000, China)

Employee proactive behaviors have received extensive attention from scholars and practitioners for its benefits to the actors and their organizations. Previous studies more focused on its effect on employees, and left interpersonal effect (leaders’ responses) underdeveloped. Given theactive role of subordinates in the leadership process, it is necessary to review how, when and why employees’ proactive behaviors shape their leader’s psychological responses and enrich our understanding about proactive behaviors accordingly. Drawing upon attribution theory, implicit followership theory, and self-other rating agreement theory, scholars had initially explored the function mechanisms and found that employees’ proactive behaviors can stimulate leaders’ various responses at different conditions. It is worthwhile to further explore leaders’ responses to proactive behaviors from subordinate, the reciprocal relationships between employee proactive behaviors and leadership styles, and psychological processes linking proactive behaviors with performance appraisal, in the future.

employee proactive behaviors, leaders’ responses, boundary conditions, leadership style, followership research

2021-02-11

* 國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金(72072058)資助。

段錦云, E-mail: mgjyduan@hotmail.com

B849: C93