心理科学进展, 2019, 27(4): 711-725 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00711

研究前沿

矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用

张宏宇1, 李文1, 郎艺,2

1中央财经大学商学院, 北京 100081

2北京外国语大学国际商学院, 北京 100089

Regulatory focus in leadership research: From the perspective of paradox theory

ZHANG Hongyu1, LI Wen1, LANG Yi,2

1 Business School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China

2 International Business School, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100089, China

通讯作者: 郎艺, E-mail: langyi@bfsu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2018-01-18   网络出版日期: 2019-04-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金青年项目“‘求有功’还是‘求无过’:CEO调节焦点的前因及结果变量研究”.  71502186
中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金“中国情境中的矛盾领导力研究”.  QL18011
中央财经大学科研创新项目和中央财经大学商学院重点支持科研方向资助

Received: 2018-01-18   Online: 2019-04-15

摘要

根据调节焦点理论, 个体在追求目标和选择行动策略的过程中存在两种调节焦点:促进型调节焦点的个体以利益最大化为目标, 倾向用“接近式”的方式达成目标; 防御型调节焦点的个体以损失最小化为目标, 倾向用“避免式”的方式达成目标。近年来, 调节焦点理论在领导力领域的研究中得到了广泛应用, 但关于两种调节焦点之间的关系及两者共同作用的研究却十分稀少。在回顾调节焦点在领导力领域研究的应用现状的基础上, 本文指出了矛盾视角的必要性和可行性, 并基于矛盾理论, 提出了未来研究的发展方向。

关键词: 调节焦点 ; 领导力 ; 矛盾理论

Abstract

People generally have two kinds of regulatory focus, i.e., motivational orientations, which are promotion focus and prevention focus. Regulatory focus influences individuals’ choices of goals (promotion focus sensitizes individuals to maximizing gains, whereas prevention focus sensitizes individuals to minimizing losses), and directs their attention toward different action preferences (promotion focus directs individuals’ attentions toward “approach” style, whereas prevention focus directs individuals’ attentions toward “avoidance” style). Regulatory focus theory has been widely applied in the leadership research, but one of the important yet seldom studied questions is the relationship between two regulatory foci and their joint impacts. By integrating the paradox perspective, the current study points out the importance and feasibility to study the “profile” of two regulatory foci and their joint influence.

Keywords: regulatory focus ; leadership ; paradox theory

PDF (787KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

张宏宇, 李文, 郎艺. (2019). 矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用. 心理科学进展, 27(4), 711-725

ZHANG Hongyu, LI Wen, LANG Yi. (2019). Regulatory focus in leadership research: From the perspective of paradox theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(4), 711-725

1 引言

个体在追求目标的过程中会对自我情绪、认知和行为等进行调节和管理(Johnson, Chang, & Lord, 2006)。根据调节焦点理论, 这种调节和管理可以分为两种方向, 分别被称作促进型调节焦点(promotion focus) (以下简称促进焦点)和防御型调节焦点(prevention focus) (以下简称防御焦点) (Higgins, 1997)。促进焦点体现了个体追求理想自我(ideal self-guides)、成长和自我实现的需求, 高促进焦点的个体对“获取”和“没有获取”更敏感, 为了接近理想状态而敢于尝试或冒险(Higgins & Spiegel, 2004); 防御焦点则体现了个体追求应该自我(ought self-guides)、安全和稳定的需求(Higgins, 1997), 高防御焦点的个体对“失去”和“没有失去”更敏感(Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994), 往往通过遵守规则或惯例来获得安全感(Higgins & Spiegel, 2004)。

调节焦点被认为是一种基于动机的个人特质, 与其他个人特质相比, 更强调个体的行动策略及其对个体目标取得的影响, 因此对行为的影响更为直接(Gamache, McNamara, Mannor, & Johnson, 2015), 也因而成为近年来组织管理领域的研究热点。管理学家借用这一心理学概念, 试图解释诸如个体信息感知、冒险倾向、创造力、互助行为(毛畅果, 2017)以及员工追随行为(许晟, 2018)等现象, 尤其在领导力领域, 调节焦点被认为对领导风格(Hamstra, Sassenberg, & Van Yperen, 2014; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007)、领导战略决策(Adomako, Opoku, & Frimpong, 2017; Gamache et al., 2015)、领导和下属间关系(Johnson, Lin et al., 2017)以及团队氛围和团队绩效等均有影响(李磊, 尚玉钒, 2011)。

但是, 这些研究大多单独探讨促进焦点或防御焦点的影响, 较少涉及两者的共同作用。事实上, 这两种倾向并不是非此即彼的, 个体可以在追求更高目标、更大成就的同时, 也注重规避风险或避免错误, 即“谨慎地开拓”。在最初提出调节焦点理论时, Higgins (1997, 1998)就指出两种调节焦点是相互独立的, 是两个不同的概念, 而不是同一概念的两端。在最近的一项元分析中, Gorman等人(2012)也发现两种调节焦点存在较弱的相关关系, 是两个相互独立的概念。事实上, 组织中的员工可以最优化促进焦点和防御焦点的组合, 同时具有促进焦点和防御焦点可能会让员工更有效地应对不同环境或任务的要求(Wallace & Chen, 2006)。未来的研究应该尝试找出两种调节焦点的共存模式或调节焦点的“组合” (profile), 而不是将其合并为一个人格特质(Wallace & Chen, 2006)。本文从矛盾理论(paradox theory)出发, 以领导力研究为例, 试图为研究两种调节焦点的共同影响奠定基础。促进焦点和防御焦点看似是方向相反的两种个体导向, 却相互联系、相互影响(Gorman et al., 2012), 因而将两者结合起来, 在矛盾理论的框架下探讨二者的共同作用对发展调节焦点理论具有重要的理论和实践意义。

不同利益相关者的需求导致了相互竞争的战略和目标(Smith & Lewis, 2011), 这些看似冲突的因素相互联系、相互作用(Smith, 2014), 构成了矛盾(paradox)。企业的管理者和员工都面临着如何应对矛盾的挑战, 这也成为了大多数组织的“新常态” (“new normal”, Smith, 2014)。成功的组织往往具备双元性(ambidexterity), 能够平衡矛盾的双方, 兼顾看似冲突的需求(Lewis, 2000)。相应的, 这些组织中的领导者和员工需要具备应对张力(tension)、处理矛盾需求(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004)和达到动态平衡(Smith, 2014)的能力。目前针对如何应对矛盾的研究有多个视角, 例如从组织结构(Duncan, 1976; Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016)以及领导价值观、认知和行为复杂性的视角(Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Johnson, 2016), 但是几乎没有从领导或团队动机出发的视角。因此本文对矛盾理论也有所扩充。

本文将从以下几方面探讨如何采用矛盾的视角在领导力领域开展调节焦点的相关研究:(1)两种调节焦点的对立性。从促进焦点和防御焦点的概念、作用机制和触发情境三个方面, 指出二者构成矛盾的第一个重要特点, 即“对立”; (2)两种调节焦点共存的可能性。指出二者构成矛盾的第二个重要特点, 即“共存”, 并指出二者共存的策略和形式; (3)两种调节焦点共存的前因研究展望。从个体层次的认知、组织层次的结构、环境和文化等方面, 指出领导如何形成矛盾的调节焦点; (4)两种调节焦点共存的结果研究展望。本文提出矛盾调节焦点可以带来高水平的管理灵活性、应对危机的能力、创新性等。总而言之, 本文指出了从矛盾视角研究调节焦点的重要性和可行性, 并为未来的研究提出了新颖可行的研究方向。

2 调节焦点在领导力领域的研究现状

2.1 调节焦点概念的提出

调节焦点概念的提出基于享乐主义原则。个体在趋近快乐和回避痛苦的过程中有两种不同的动机系统进行自我调节, 分别为促进焦点(promotion focus)和防御焦点(prevention focus) (Higgins, 1997)。促进焦点体现了个体追求成长和自我实现的需求, 侧重“如果目标达成, 我将得到什么”; 而防御焦点体现了个体追求安全和稳定的需求, 侧重“如果目标没有达成, 我将失去什么”。调节焦点拥有两种存在状态, 即长期调节焦点(chronic regulatory focus)和情境调节焦点(situational regulatory focus)。其中, 长期调节焦点表现为一种相对稳定的个体差异, 主要受个体早期成长经历影响(Keller & Bless, 2006), 在研究过程中一般采用自我报告式量表进行测量, 既包括一般性的调节焦点量表(Higgins et al., 2001; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002), 也包括适用于工作情境的调节焦点量表(Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008)。而情境调节焦点表现为一种相对短暂的临时状态, 主要受情境要素激活, 会随着环境变化而发生变化(Higgins, 2001; Fransen & ter Hoeven, 2013), 在研究过程中一般采用实验操纵的方式进行, 常用的实验操纵包括自传式记忆任务、任务描述框架和自我指导类型三种形式(例如, Jin, Wang, & Dong, 2016; Wang, Wang, Liu, & Dong, 2017; 郑雯, 汪玲, 方平, 李迪斯, 2015)。

2.2 调节焦点在领导力领域的应用:现有理论视角的回顾

调节焦点所具有的长期稳定性和情境可激活性特征, 使其近年来成为组织管理研究的热点(曹元坤, 徐红丹, 2017; 毛畅果, 2017)。在领导力领域, 国内外的研究均发现, 不同调节焦点的领导会表现出不同的领导风格和行为, 并且, 调节焦点还会和情境共同作用, 影响领导的有效性。

一方面, 基于调节焦点理论, 不同调节焦点的领导会表现出不同的领导风格和行为。高促进焦点的领导更倾向于鼓励下属寻求发展、晋升、改变等, 从而表现为魅力型或变革型领导; 而高防御焦点的领导更倾向于提醒下属关注标准和要求, 寻求确定性和稳定性, 从而表现为交易型领导(Hamstra, Sassenberg et al., 2014; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007)。在对领导行为的影响方面, 由于高促进焦点的个体在信息处理过程中会进行较高水平抽象解释, 且对未来的成功和所得更加敏感, 所以高促进焦点的领导者更倾向于参与探索性活动(exploration activities; Ahmadi, Khanagha, Berchicci & Jansen, 2017; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015), 更易开展收购行为, 且收购的数量和规模也更大(Das & Kumar, 2011; Gamache et al., 2015); 而高防御焦点的个体对于未来的失败和损失更加敏感, 因此更倾向于借助现有能力开展开发性活动(exploitation activities; Ahmadi et al., 2017; Tuncdogan et al., 2015), 并且对潜在收购行为的评估更加谨慎, 这有助于提高决策质量, 且收购的数量和规模均较小(Gamache et al., 2015)。

另一方面, 基于调节匹配理论, 情境会和领导的调节焦点共同作用影响领导的有效性。调节匹配理论(regulatory fit theory)认为情境与个体调节焦点达成匹配时, 会使个体对其行为形成一种正确感和重要性的体验, 产生“匹配的价值” (value from fit), 从而进一步提高和改善其动机水平、工作态度和行为表现等(Simmons, Carr, Hsu, & Shu, 2016)。比如Ahmadi等人(2017)发现在强调晋升和成长机会, 鼓励追求和获得的组织情境中, 高促进焦点的领导者会与之形成匹配, 表现出更多的探索性活动; 而在强调责任和潜在损失的组织情境中, 高防御焦点的领导者会与之形成匹配, 表现出更少的探索性活动。此外, 领导的言语和行为本身也可能作为一种情境, 和下属的调节焦点共同作用以影响领导的有效性。比如李磊和尚玉钒(2011)指出领导的语言框架风格可以与下属的不同调节焦点产生调节匹配效应, 激发员工的不同态度。雷星晖及其同事(雷星晖, 单志汶, 苏涛永, 杨元飞, 2015)指出, 谦卑型领导欣赏他人的行为所引发的接近策略与员工的促进焦点相匹配; 谦卑型领导能够勇于承认自己的错误和不足, 使员工感受到领导对错误和失败的包容, 这有利于员工使用规避策略, 因而与员工的防御焦点相匹配。据此他们发现, 员工的防御焦点倾向越突出, 谦卑型领导行为对员工心理安全的影响越强; 员工的促进焦点倾向越突出, 谦卑型领导行为对员工自我效能的影响越强。Stam, Van Knippenberg和Wisse (2010)发现愿景型领导在描述未来愿景时, 若强调积极、理想等促进性吸引, 高促进焦点的下属会表现出更高的绩效水平; 相反, 若强调避免消极和不理想结果等防御性吸引, 高防御焦点的下属会表现出更高的绩效水平。

2.3 调节焦点在领导力领域的应用:矛盾视角的提出

通过上述对调节焦点在领导力领域研究现状的梳理, 我们可以发现目前学者们已经广泛探索了领导调节焦点的作用机制和情境等内容。尽管有一部分研究从权变的角度分析了在不同情境下两种调节焦点作用的差异, 强调调节焦点和情境匹配带来的积极效应, 即在何种情境中促进焦点或防御焦点会产生更为积极的效果(例如, Ahmadi et al., 2017; Stam et al., 2010), 但是, 大多数的研究将两种调节焦点割裂开来, 较少探究二者的共存。

然而在现实中, 领导往往需要承担不同的管理角色且面临较为复杂的管理情境。比如在组织中, 领导需要同时扮演变革推动者和行为监督者的角色(Bass, 1985)。其中, “变革推动者”角色要求领导者树立并有效传达组织愿景, 激发、鼓舞员工的工作动机, 以引导其追求更高层次的工作期望, 鼓励其尝试不同的视角和方法(Kark, Dijk, & Vashdi, 2018; Saeidipour, Kazemi, & Mohamadabadi, 2016); “行为监督者”角色则要求领导者为下属澄清工作角色、建立工作目标, 通过奖惩手段监督下属行为, 防止其违背既有工作要求和规范(Kark et al., 2018; Tung, 2016)。受促进焦点驱动的领导会鼓励下属不断尝试, 追求成长和进步, 从而有助于“变革推动者”角色的履行, 但可能牺牲组织活动的一致性; 而受防御焦点驱动的领导更强调对规范的遵守, 鼓励下属追求稳定和安全, 从而有助于“行为监督者”角色的履行, 能够确保组织活动的一致性, 但可能会抑制下属的创新活动, 导致组织惰性。此外, 企业经营环境复杂性和动态性的不断提高, 也使得领导者经常需要面对不同甚至对立的管理要求。比如, 对于处于初创期的企业而言, 领导者需具有树立并传达组织愿景的能力, 富有激情, 并能够容忍和克服组织中的混乱现象(Freeman & Siegfried, 2015); 而当企业进入成熟期后, 受传统和规则的约束, 领导者对现状的质疑和变革可能会被视作一种难以保持组织稳定性和持续性的表现(Freeman & Siegfried, 2015)。受促进焦点驱动的领导会参与更多探索性活动和收购行为(Ahmadi et al., 2017; Gamache et al., 2015), 从而有助于初创企业实现突破和成长, 却可能破坏企业的稳定性; 而受防御焦点驱动的领导倾向于参与开发性活动(Ahmadi et al., 2017), 对收购的风险评估也更加谨慎(Gamache et al., 2015), 从而有助于维持组织稳定, 却可能由于过于“谨慎”而抑制组织的开拓进取。

因此, 单一聚焦任何一种调节焦点, 都不可能实现管理的有效性。虽然促进焦点和防御焦点表面看来是两种相反的动机, 但是如果能从矛盾的视角, 探讨这两种调节焦点共存的可能性, 将会更好地帮助领导者提高管理效率。一些新近的研究已经间接支持了矛盾视角的优势。比如基于优势互补理论, Memmert等人(2015)发现, 在可分割的任务中, 同时拥有高促进焦点成员和高防御焦点成员的团队具有更高的团队绩效水平。基于此, 我们尝试从矛盾的视角来探讨调节焦点在领导力领域的应用。

3 矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域应用的理解

3.1 矛盾视角

“矛盾” (Paradox)指同时且持续存在的相互对立(contradictory)但又彼此依赖(interdependent)的成分(Smith & Lewis, 2011), 其主要来源于张力(tension) (Lewis, 2000)。张力是组织中固有的、普遍存在的成分, 尤其在面对联系日益紧密且多变的外部环境时表现更为明显(Lewis & Smith, 2014)。根据张力的不同来源, 组织管理领域研究中涉及的主要矛盾有四类, 分别为学习矛盾(learning paradoxes)、组织矛盾(organizing paradoxes)、归属矛盾(belonging paradoxes)和绩效矛盾(performing paradoxes) (Smith & Lewis, 2011)。其中, 学习矛盾是利用或者打破过去的知识和实践来构建新的系统、规范等所导致的矛盾, 主要源于组织中的新-旧张力(Lewis, 2000); 组织矛盾是在鼓励承诺、信任和创造性的同时维持效率、纪律和规范所导致的矛盾, 主要源于组织中的控制-灵活性张力(Lewis, 2000); 归属矛盾是组织中的个体与集体既追求一致性目标, 又追求差异性目标所导致的矛盾, 主要源于组织中的自我-他人张力(Lewis, 2000); 而绩效矛盾是组织的多元利益相关者追求竞争性战略和目标所导致的矛盾, 主要源于内部和外部利益相关者不同、甚至冲突的需求(Smith & Lewis, 2011)。

人类天生对于保持自身认知、态度、行为等的一致性具有强烈偏好, 且在面对不一致或对立情况时会产生焦虑情绪(Schneider, 1990)。因此, 传统上有关组织张力的研究多从权变理论(contingency theory)的角度切入, 强调管理变量与情境的互动过程(Qiu, Donaldson, & Luo, 2012)。采用权变的方式应对张力, 主要是将其视为组织中待解决的问题, 再基于“如何-则”式的思维, 根据组织所处的不同环境, 从对立成分中选择与当下情境最匹配的一个(Lewis & Smith, 2014)。虽然采用权变的应对方式在短期内有助于减少组织张力所带来的沮丧、焦虑等消极情绪, 提高绩效水平, 但这种为追求一致性而过于强调对立成分其中一方的方式, 会带来组织惰性, 给另一方造成压力, 导致潜在张力的进一步扩大, 最终形成向下的恶性循环(Smith & Lewis, 2011), 不利于维持组织的长期绩效。因此, 近年来有学者呼吁从“矛盾”的视角, 基于“都/和(both/and)”思维来考虑组织中的张力, 主动寻求对持续性张力进行协调的方式, 鼓励学习、寻找和发现新的可能性(Lewis, 2000; Smith, Lewis, & Tushman, 2016)。由此可见, 矛盾视角的两个核心要素分别是“对立”和“共存”。因此, 本文将围绕促进焦点和防御焦点如何在“对立”的同时实现“共存”来展开。

3.2 促进焦点与防御焦点的对立

3.2.1 概念内涵的对立

促进焦点和防御焦点是个体在趋近快乐、回避痛苦过程中两种不同的自我调节系统(Higgins, 1997), 其中促进焦点使个体更关注积极结果的实现, 而防御焦点使个体更关注消极结果的避免。具体而言, 二者在需求层次、核心关注点、期望的目标状态、自我导向、结果敏感倾向、目标导向、担心侧重点和情绪等方面均表现出了一定程度的“对立” (见表1)。

表1   促进焦点和防御焦点的比较

促进焦点 防御焦点
需求层次 成长和自我实现需要 安全需要
核心关注点 我将得到什么 我将失去什么
期望的目标状态 成长、进步和有所突破 稳定、安全和责任
自我导向 理想自我导向 应该自我导向
结果敏感
倾向
“获取” vs. “没有获取” “失去” vs. “没有失去”
目标导向 最大化“获取” 最大化“没有失去”
担心侧重点 错过 错误
情绪 从高兴到沮丧 从不安到平静

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3.2.2 作用机制的对立

促进焦点和防御焦点的不同特征决定了二者在作用机制和作用效果方面均呈现出对立状态(见图1)。其中, 促进焦点激励个体采用“接近”的方式达成目标, 个体更看重成长和突破(Higgins, 1997), 通过探索、实验和创新追求理想状态(Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, & Higgins, 2002)并提高成功的可能性(Tuan Pham & Chang, 2010)。反映在对领导力的影响上, 促进焦点使得领导倾向于参与探索性活动(Ahmadi et al., 2017), 注重决策的效率(Gamache et al., 2015), 更易开展收购行为, 且收购的数量和规模更大(Das & Kumar, 2011; Gamache et al., 2015); 同时, 促进焦点也会使领导者激励下属不断改变、突破、追求新的愿景, 进而带来变革型领导行为(Hamstra, Sassenberg et al., 2014; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007); 相应地激发下属的促进焦点, 并进一步提高下属的情感承诺(Delegach, Kark, Katz-Navon, & Van Dijk, 2017)、增强创造力(尚玉钒, 李磊, 2015)、降低下属的越轨行为(许灏颖, 杜晨朵, 王震, 2014)、增加下属的知识分享行为(Li, Liu, Shang, & Xi, 2014), 而且更容易获得高促进焦点下属的积极领导力评价(Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014)。防御焦点使得个体通过“避免”的方式达成目标, 个体注重规则和责任(Higgins, 1997), 通过强调职责、规避风险达到“应该”状态(Kark & Van Dijk, 2007)。反映在对领导力的影响上, 防御焦点使得领导倾向于参与开发性活动(Ahmadi et al., 2017), 注重决策的质量(Gamache et al., 2015), 且收购的数量和规模均较小(Gamache et al., 2015); 同时, 防御焦点也使领导对下属严格要求、通过负向反馈和惩罚等方式约束下属服从规则, 为下属设定明确的行为规范, 并监督和修正下属的行为和绩效, 表现出交易型领导中的例外管理和权变惩罚(Johnson, King et al., 2017); 相应地激发下属的防御焦点, 进而提高下属的规范承诺(Delegach et al., 2017)、降低下属创造力(尚玉钒, 李磊, 2015)、减少下属的越轨行为(许灏颖等, 2014)和知识分享行为(Li et al., 2014)。因而促进焦点和防御焦点虽然都是为满足个体的需求而产生的动机, 却代表了个体不同的目标和行为倾向, 最终给领导行为、领导决策及领导对下属的影响等带来相互对立的作用效果。

图1

图1   领导调节焦点的作用机制和激活情境


3.2.3 激活情境的对立

促进焦点和防御焦点的对立还体现在激活二者的情境对立(见图1)。对于领导来说, 开放、动态的组织情境会激发领导的促进焦点(例如当组织情境表现出动态、有机等特征时会激活领导的情境促进焦点), 而保守、稳定的组织情境会激发领导的防御焦点(例如当组织情境具有官僚结构, 强调规则、责任和稳定性等时会激活领导的情境防御焦点) (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007)。对于下属来说, 领导是下属调节焦点形成的重要情境。例如Li等人(2014)发现当领导向下属提供积极反馈, 或采用促进性语言框架反馈信息, 强调愿望、成就和发展时, 会激活下属的促进焦点; 而当领导向下属提供消极反馈, 强调责任、义务和职责时, 会激活下属的防御焦点。总的来说, 当领导表现出侧重培养、达成理想状态和强调潜在收益的情境线索时, 会激发下属的促进焦点(Higgins, 1997, 1998), 引发下属追求“理想”状态、关注获取-没有获取, 进而表现出创新行为和帮助行为的增加等(Neubert et al., 2008)。当领导表现出侧重安全需要、职责履行和强调潜在损失的情境线索时, 会激发下属的防御焦点(Higgins, 1997, 1998), 引发下属追求“应该”状态、关注失去-没有失去, 进而表现出增加安全行为、减少越轨行为(Neubert et al., 2008)等。

3.3 促进焦点与防御焦点的共存

3.3.1 促进焦点和防御焦点共存的可能性

尽管目前关于调节焦点的实证研究大多单独研究促进焦点和防御焦点的影响, 但在最初提出此概念时, 学者们就已经认可这两种调节焦点共存的可能性(Higgins, 1997, 1998)。他们认为促进焦点和防御焦点是两种正交的自我调节系统, 任何时候二者都是同时存在的, 只是在不同的情境要素触发下, 会有一种调节焦点占据主导地位, 进而影响个体的行为偏好(Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 1994)。

在个体层次应用矛盾视角面临的最大质疑是, 传统的心理学观点认为个体有很强烈的保持一致性的倾向(Heine & Buchtel, 2009), 尤其在西方社会, 张力的存在很有可能引起个体的认知失调(Festinger, 1957), 而个体为了缓解失调的状态, 最终会选择只保留张力的其中一方, 因此很长一段时间以来, 矛盾的观点并不被接受。但是, 近年来人们开始发现一些支持矛盾视角的间接证据。比如在谈判领域的研究中, 那些采用双赢策略的谈判者同时表现出了利己和利他两种动机(Nauta, De Dreu, & Van Der Vaart, 2002)。按照此逻辑, 同为动机的促进焦点和防御焦点, 尽管内容上相反, 也应该存在共存的可能性。认知失调理论的最新研究为这样的推断提供了新的证据, 学者们发现不一致并不总会引起失调乃至个体的不舒适感, 个体有时并不会意识到不一致, 或者意识到也不一定会感知到失调。比如当一个积极的自我形象不那么重要的时候或者不一致可能会带来潜在益处的时候(Cooper, 2007), 人们会选择保持“不一致”, 而不是调整或放弃张力的一方以保持一致。在实证研究中, 学者也发现同一领导行为有可能同时带来高水平的促进焦点和防御焦点。例如道德型领导既能提升员工的促进型道德调节焦点, 也能提升其防御型道德调节焦点(许灏颖等, 2014)。

实证研究的结果大多也表明促进焦点和防御焦点在统计上不相关(e.g., Neubert et al., 2008)或弱的正相关(e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017) (见表2)。Gorman等人(2012)基于11,765个样本的元分析结果表明这两种调节焦点间的相关系数仅为0.09。因此, 理论和实证上均表明促进焦点和防御焦点相互独立正交, 有可能且有必要将二者结合起来, 基于矛盾的视角来探讨二者的共同作用(Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012)。

表2   促进焦点与防御焦点相关性的实证结果总结

使用量表 文章作者 相关性
工作情境调节焦点量表
(Regulatory Focus at Work Scale; Wallace & Chen, 2006)
Aryee & Hsiung, 2016 0.53**
Wallace & Chen, 2006 0.01
工作调节焦点量表
(Work Regulatory Focus Scale; Neubert et al., 2008)
Li et al., 2014 0.05
Shin, Kim, Choi, & Lee, 2016 0.15
Ahmadi et al., 2017 0.25*
Chen, Wen & Ye, 2017 0.08
Park, Kim, & Sung, 2017 0.37**
调节焦点问卷
(Regulatory Focus Questionnaire; Higgins et al., 2001)
Hamstra, Van Yperen et al., 2014 0.08
Kammerlander, Burger, Fust, & Fueglistaller, 2015 -0.08
一般调节焦点量表
(General Regulatory Focus Scale; Lockwood et al., 2002)
De Jong & De Goede, 2015 0.37
Gamache et al., 2015 -0.10
Sacramento, Fay& West, 2013 0.35**
Schuh et al., 2016 0.13

注:*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3.3.2 促进焦点和防御焦点共存的策略

应用矛盾视角进行调节焦点研究的核心和难点在于理解促进焦点和防御焦点如何实现共存, 这也是进一步基于矛盾视角探讨两种调节焦点共存的前因及结果变量的基础。早期关于矛盾的研究认为组织有四种策略来应对张力中看似相反的两方力量, 分别为:(1)接受(acceptance), 即保持不同力量的相对独立且接受他们之间的差异; (2)空间隔离(spatial separation), 即空间上将两种不同的力量隔离开来, 比如在组织中可以把相反的“力量”安排在不同部门; (3)时间隔离(temporal separation), 即时间上将两方力量隔离开来, 一个时刻只表现出一种主导的力量; (4)整合(synthesis), 即寻找一种方式整合两方力量(Poole & Van de Ven, 1989)。后来还有学者提出其他的一些应对策略, 比如运用矛盾的视角进行组织双元性研究的时候, Gibson及其同事提出情境双元性(contextual ambidexterity)的概念, 认为组织可以通过构建一套鼓励个体自主安排时间以满足不同需求的体系或流程来实现双元性(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), 这其实是一种具体的整合不同力量的方式; 再比如, 有学者提出除了空间、时间上的隔离, 企业还可以通过专长领域上的隔离(domain separation)来实现不同力量的和谐共存(Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006)。

总的来看, 组织可以通过两大类策略来实现相反张力的共存:隔离(separation)和联结(connecting) (Smith et al., 2016)。类似的, 也有人称之为区分(differentiation)和整合(integration)的策略(Smith, 2014)。区分或隔离强调区别两种矛盾的因素, 认识两者独特之处和优劣势, 进而分配特定领域的角色(domain-specific roles), 并独立地寻找相关信息; 而整合或联结强调找出矛盾双方的联系, 通过整合引发协同效应(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005), 相应的措施包括分配负责整合的任务或角色、强调统一的目标和共同解决问题。

将以上矛盾的视角应用到调节焦点的共存上时(以领导力领域为例), 如果要实现两种类型的动机, 即促进焦点和防御焦点的共存, 也可以有类似的两类策略。第一类策略是隔离, 适用于情境调节焦点的共存:单一时空内只有一种调节焦点被激活, 而在多时空内实现两种调节焦点的共存(Lewis & Smith, 2014)。两者通过隔离产生共存的方式包括:(1)意识隔离, 类似于接受策略, 即领导者主观上就能够清晰地对这两种调节焦点进行区分、能够意识到这两种调节焦点对实现领导有效性的必要性, 且能够很好地自我解释以缓解潜在的认知失调; (2)时间隔离, 即领导者在不同阶段, 侧重不同的调节焦点, 通过时间上的隔离来实现促进焦点和防御焦点的共存; (3)情境隔离, 即领导者面对不同的管理情境, 比如和不同的下属相处, 采用不同的调节焦点, 通过情境上的隔离来实现促进焦点和防御焦点的共存。在隔离的情况下, 和权变视角类似, 两种调节焦点作为两个系统根据情境的不同各自独立运行, 但是从长期来看, 利用这种隔离的方式可以实现两种调节焦点的共存。更重要的是, 这可以产生新的价值, 使领导者能够根据环境适时调整, 提高了对复杂环境的适应性。

第二类策略是联结, 适用于长期调节焦点的共存, 即在单一时空内, 同时存在两种调节焦点, 此时, 共存主要通过运用一些创新性的手段整合不同力量来实现。和隔离策略不同, 联结策略下, 个体或团队并不会在意识上隔离两种调节焦点, 而是联结两种调节焦点形成一种新的动机类型。比如在“一往无前” (促进焦点)和“谨慎小心” (防御焦点)两种动机的基础上整合形成“稳健前行”的动机; 并且, 在任何一个时间点或者空间范围, 此个体或团队都同时存在两种调节焦点, 较少受到情境的影响。比如无论在积极或者消极的情境, 均同时有促进焦点和防御焦点两种动机, 和“居安思安”以及“居危思危”的隔离策略不同, 联结策略下更强调“居安思安也思危”以及“居危思危也思安”。调节焦点联结形式的共存相较隔离形式更难实现, 但对管理实践有着重要意义。现实中, 领导者不仅要满足不同角色的要求, 而且常常需要同时满足不同角色的要求。比如在制定企业决策的时候, 领导者必须同时兼顾不同利益相关者的需求, 这就需要联结而不是简单地隔离不同类型的动机。

3.3.3 促进焦点和防御焦点共存的形式

促进焦点和防御焦点的共存既可以在个体层次上, 即在一个领导者身上实现, 也可以在团队层次上, 即在一个领导团队上实现。在个体层次通过隔离的方式实现共存时, 领导者需要具备高度的灵活性, 能够实现两种调节焦点的灵活切换。比如在企业快速成长、需要探索新机会和资源时, 领导者调整自己的动机侧重点为促进焦点, 从而引领企业不断探索新的可能性, 开辟新市场和新资源, 通过不断调整原有战略、新颖的改革等抓住机遇, 促进企业的发展; 在企业遇到危机时, 领导者调整自己的动机侧重点为防御焦点, 从而引领企业关注损失和风险、强调责任和规则, “未雨绸缪”, 使企业有更高的安全和防范意识(Freitas et al., 2002; Wallace & Chen, 2006), 更好地应对危机。此外, 如前文所述, 针对不同特点的下属, 领导者也需要灵活调整, 根据下属的需求和目标导向选择侧重的调节焦点。另一方面, 在个体层次通过联结的方式实现共存时, 意味着领导者可以分成如下四种类型(见图2):1)只求有功, 不惧有过型, 只有促进焦点较强。此类领导者风险意识和责任意识都较弱, 对于失败的负面后果考虑较少, 侧重追求成功带来的积极结果; 2)不求有功, 但求无过型, 只有防御焦点较强。此类领导者最典型的特征是“多一事不如少一事”, 对于潜在的失败和失去十分敏感, 为了不犯错, 宁可什么都不做, 对成功带来的积极结果渴望度较低; 3)谨慎开拓型, 促进焦点和防御焦点均较强。此类领导者在追求成功带来的积极结果的同时, 也有着较强的风险意识和责任意识, 对于如何防范失败和错误也较为敏感, 但不会为了避免错误而不做任何事情; 4)无为怠工型, 促进焦点和防御焦点均较弱。此类领导和放任性领导(laissez-fair)类似, 对下属缺少足够的影响力, 在组织中存在度较低。

图2

图2   矛盾视角下领导者调节焦点的表现形式


领导力的实现不仅可以依赖一个人, 还可以通过团队整体来实现; 尤其近年来, 随着共享式领导力(shared leadership) (Chiu, Owens, & Tesluk, 2016)等概念的兴起, 以及联想“领导班子”等管理实践的普及, 通过团队整体实现领导力成为了学者和管理者均十分关注的问题。顺应这样的趋势, 我们认为促进焦点和防御焦点的共存也可以通过团队整体来实现。首先, 团队由不同的成员构成, 天然“隔离”了不同的调节焦点。基于团队中成员的劳动分工和不同的动机类型, 领导者可以通过其他团队成员或者其下属达到调节焦点的互补, 这样在整个团队实现了不同调节焦点的共存。比如领导是高促进焦点, 那么他/她和团队中高防御焦点的同事就共同在管理团队层面实现了两种焦点的共存。另一方面, 在团队层面以联结的方式实现两种调节焦点的共存并不容易。有关组织双元性的研究表明, 要想在多元化的结构中实现双元性, 需要团队有较好的行为整合(Halevi, Carmeli, & Brueller, 2015), 彼此信任(García-Granero, Fernández-Mesa, Jansen, & Vega-Jurado, in press), 并且形成交互记忆系统(transactive memory systems) (Heavey & Simsek, 2017)。

4 矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用展望

4.1 矛盾视角下调节焦点的前因研究展望:以领导力领域为例

并不是所有的个体、在所有情境下, 都可以实现不同张力的共存以形成矛盾。根据现有矛盾领域的文献, 本文从个体认知、组织结构、外部环境和文化四个层次提出促进焦点-防御焦点这一张力在何种情况下更可能被领导者整合在一起, 从平衡矛盾的角度处理两种焦点。根据前文论述, 情境调节焦点的整合采用隔离的策略, 因此主要依赖结构、外部环境和文化等情境层次因素的影响。但是, 采用隔离策略有一个潜在的假设, 即个体不会对于这两种相反动机的共存感到强烈的失调, 因此, 情境调节焦点的整合也会受到个体层次认知因素的影响。而长期调节焦点的整合采用联结的策略, 因此主要依赖个体层次认知因素的影响, 只有具备一定认知特点的个体才可能实现促进焦点和防御焦点两种动机的联结。但是, 情境的因素往往推动个体采用某种认知方式来整合不同的动机, 因此, 长期调节焦点的整合也会受到情境因素的影响。

首先, 在个体层次, 矛盾主要和认知有关。擅长逆向思维(Lüscher & Lewis, 2008)、整体思维(Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015)、多层次思维(Khazanchi, Lewis, & Boyer, 2007)、整合性思维(Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992)的人会较少意识到对立所带来的不一致, 较少感受到对立所带来的失调感, 他们甚至还非常擅长从不一致中寻找到独特的优势, 更可能容忍不同动机的潜在冲突。因此, 拥有这些认知特征的领导更可能形成促进焦点-防御焦点矛盾。此外, 擅长讽刺性幽默的领导可能也更容易形成促进焦点-防御焦点矛盾(Hatch, 1997)。

其次, 在情境层次, 矛盾和组织结构、外部环境以及文化均有关系。当团队具有多样性的时候, 领导更可能从整合矛盾的角度思考和行动(Beckman, 2006), 促进焦点和防御焦点两种动机更可能共存。当结构设计中有连接张力中对立的两方力量的设置时, 更可能形成矛盾(Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016), 因此, 领导可以通过一些角色和程序的设置来实现整合, 比如专门设置一名管理者, 负责在“促进焦点”相关事务(比如研发部门)和“防御焦点”相关事务(比如质检部门)之间做沟通。

当外部环境具有多方参与(plurality)、变化(change)和稀缺(scarcity)等特点时, 领导更可能采用矛盾的视角处理问题(Smith & Lewis, 2011):多方参与意味着不同的诉求, 在整合不同诉求的过程中会凸显矛盾的重要性(Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999); 变化意味着对新-旧的平衡, 也会凸显矛盾的重要性(Lüscher & Lewis, 2008); 稀缺意味着要在资源有限的情况下实现多重目标, 同样会凸显矛盾的重要性(Smith, 2014)。此外, 还有研究表明当组织业绩下滑明显的时候(Tushman, O'Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007), 或当外部环境剧烈变动且充满竞争性的时候(Teece, 2006), 领导也更加容易采用矛盾的视角分析和处理问题。我们认为, 这些针对一般矛盾的情境前因也适用于促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾。

矛盾的形成还和文化背景有关系。跨文化的诸多研究表明, 东方文化下的领导相较西方文化下的领导更可能采用矛盾的视角分析和处理问题, 因为他们有较少的保持稳定自我的需求, 有更高的对相反事物的容忍度且拥有辩证自我的世界观(Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, Wang, & Hou, 2004), 即认为事物是彼此对立又相互联系且时时在变化之中的(Peng & Nisbett, 1999)。相应地, 我们认为东方文化下的领导者更容易形成促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾。

总体来看, 关于矛盾前因的研究大多还在理论层次, 实证研究较少, 这其中很重要的原因是受研究方法所限。目前对于矛盾的测量, 主要的思路是分别测量两个对立的因素, 然后用交互项作为矛盾的测量(Schad et al., 2016), 这样的测量方式只有在研究结果变量时才有意义, 即看张力的一方取值分别为高、低时, 另一方的作用有什么不同。但是, 由于两方力量的乘积本身没有意义, 很难用这样的测量方式探讨矛盾的前因。近年来逐渐兴起的一种以人为中心(person-centered)的研究方法——潜在剖面分析(Latent Profile Analysis) (Vermunt & Magidson, 2002), 即一种基于观测变量构建类型的统计工具, 有利于研究者识别不同的类别并进行进一步分析。这种方法为研究矛盾的前因变量提供了新的思路, 我们在未来研究促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾的前因变量时可以尝试应用此方法。这种分析方法通过潜在类别变量来解释外部连续变量之间的关系, 借鉴到调节焦点的研究当中, 基于两种调节焦点, 可以通过这种方法鉴别出图2所示的四类领导者, 然后在此基础上探究不同类型领导者的前因变量有何区别。

4.2 矛盾视角下调节焦点的后果研究展望:以领导力领域为例

矛盾的后果变量的研究相较前因变量的研究更加丰富。尽管有研究发现矛盾有潜在的危害:比如引起焦虑和不确定性(Schneider, 1990), 尤其对于认知闭合需求高的人; 再比如认知失调之后引起的不适, 可能会激化个体间的对立状态, 在组织中出现小群体(Ashforth & Reingen, 2014), 但总体来看, 关于矛盾后果的研究结果还是以积极作用为主。以往研究发现, 能够兼顾矛盾双方的个体更容易获取职业成功、拥有更杰出的领导才能, 同时也与优异的团队绩效和组织绩效相关(Smith, 2014)。基于这样的思路, 借鉴之前矛盾后果研究的相关结论, 我们认为领导者拥有促进焦点-防御焦点矛盾之后, 可能会获得三个层面的益处。

首先, 促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾为领导者提供了更大的行为集合, 提升了他们应对不同管理情境和实现不同管理目标的能力。促进焦点和防御焦点对于领导者领导有效性的实现均十分重要, 比如促进焦点促使领导者关注成功的可能性, 更多地进行探索性活动, 有利于组织的长期绩效(Auh & Menguc, 2005); 防御焦点促使领导者关注失败和损失, 更多地进行风险相对较低的开发性活动, 有利于组织的短期绩效(Ahmadi et al., 2017)。而领导者管理有效性的实现需要在探索性活动-开发性活动、长期绩效-短期绩效等方面实现平衡(Auh & Menguc, 2005)。因此, 只具有某一种调节焦点的管理者在某些情境下可能无法做出有效的应对, 实现管理的有效性, 从而不利于企业的长期生存(Schmitt & Raisch, 2013)。一些在员工层次的研究已经发现促进焦点和防御焦点代表了两种不同但互补的动机系统, 当二者共存时, 这两种不同的动机和行为倾向会产生“推拉效应” (pull-and-push forces), 从而带来与单一动机相比更强的情感、认知和行为的反应(Johnson, Lin et al., 2017)。当既被取得成功所激励、又被避免失败所激励时, 个体会取得更高的绩效(Johnson, Chang, Meyer, Lanaj, & Way, 2013)。我们认为这种“推拉效应”同样适用于领导者, 可以提高其管理的有效性。

其次, 促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾为领导者的动机转换提供了可能性, 提升了他们应对管理危机的能力。在跨文化研究中, 学者们发现拥有多重文化认同的个体(比如海归、移民), 在某一个文化身份受到威胁的时候会转换到另一个文化身份上, 以减少其感知到的身份认同威胁, 这个过程被称作缓冲作用(buffering effect)。类似地, 同时拥有两种调节焦点也为领导者提供了转换动机的机会。促进焦点和防御焦点在实现领导有效性方面均有自身的弱点。一方面, 高促进焦点的领导者由于注重取得成就的数量和速度(Higgins & Spiegel, 2004), 往往会缺乏系统的思考或谨慎的决策, 从而让团队或组织面临一定的风险和潜在损失。有研究表明, 虽然CEO的促进焦点会促使企业通过收购等方式扩大企业规模(Gamache et al., 2015), 但仓促和不周全的决策可能让企业的业绩在扩张中不升反降(Wallace, Little, Hill, & Ridge, 2010)。此外, 促进焦点的领导者往往对“损失”不敏感, 可能会导致对诸如安全、风险等的忽视(Wallace & Chen, 2006), 对团队或组织的绩效和发展等带来不利影响。另一方面, 防御焦点高的领导者较为保守和谨慎, 往往会墨守成规, 忽视或避免变化, 不利于创新和变革, 这在动荡的商业环境下更会对组织的发展和增长造成不利影响(夏绪梅, 纪晓阳, 2017)。同时, 高防御焦点的领导者对信息的过度搜寻或迟缓的决策和行动不利于组织抓住机会、取得突破, 可能会错失发展良机。Crowe和Higgins (1997)发现在完成困难的任务或刚刚经历失败时, 高防御焦点的个体表现较差并且更有可能放弃。考虑到这两种调节焦点在很多方面都体现出了相反性, 促进焦点的优势正好可以弥补防御焦点的局限, 而防御焦点的优势正好可以弥补促进焦点的局限, 两种调节焦点的共存可以最大限度地避免单一调节焦点带来的负面影响, 从而提升领导者应对管理危机的能力。

最后, 促进焦点-防御焦点这一矛盾为领导者提供了创新性解决问题的基础, 提升了他们创造性地解决管理问题的能力。已经有大量关于矛盾的研究发现了其对创造力(Jay, 2013; Lempiälä & Vanharanta, 2018)和创新绩效(例如, Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2010; Wadhwa, Freitas, & Sarkar, 2017)的积极影响。这中间的机制主要和对两方力量的“整合”有关, 当个体将不同的张力看作是一种创新的可能性和机会(Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, & MacLean, 2004)时, 会强调对两种对立力量的接受和主动利用, 通过某种整合方式实现二者间的动态平衡。比如当领导者经过矛盾思考训练之后, 会找到一种“可行的确定性(workable certainty)”来更好地平衡求稳和求变(Lüscher & Lewis, 2008); 领导者在对人的管理过程中可以整合矛盾的行为倾向, 从而表现出更多的主动性行为和适应性行为(Zhang et al., 2015)。

4.3 矛盾视角下调节焦点的其他研究方向:以领导力领域为例

首先, 理论和实证上都已经积累了很多有关矛盾结果变量的研究, 但是这些研究中涉及的“矛盾”基本上都是基于隔离策略的矛盾, 对于基于联结策略的矛盾较少涉及。尽管隔离也是矛盾实现的重要策略, 但是单纯的隔离而没有整合, 长久也可能带来潜在的危害, 比如结构性的分割可以减少冲突, 但是可能会造成潜在的权力不平衡; 对于时间分割来说, 如果不能很好地实现时间节点的过渡, 也可能会带来显著的负面影响(Klarner & Raisch, 2013)。因此, 未来关于促进焦点-防御焦点矛盾的后果研究应该更多地探讨这两种调节焦点的联结形式以及联结的益处。

此外, 未来研究还可以通过边界条件的寻找, 探索矛盾理论适用的范围。比如基于矛盾的视角, 促进焦点的领导和防御焦点的下属匹配时, 更容易带来积极效果, 这也和补偿性匹配的观点一致; 但是, 如果从辅助性匹配的视角, 促进焦点的领导和促进焦点的下属匹配时, 可能更容易带来积极效果。因此, 未来研究需要进一步寻找不同理论的适用边界来实现矛盾理论和其他理论的整合。

参考文献

曹元坤, 徐红丹 . ( 2017).

调节焦点理论在组织管理中的应用述评

管理学报, 14 (8), 1254-1262.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

动机是人类行为活动的源泉和动力,但现有研究并不能很好地解释动机是如何产生以及通过何种方式和路径实现的。调节焦点理论的提出弥补了这一理论空白。在此,对调节焦点理论的提出和内涵进行了简要介绍,区分了特质调节焦点和情境调节焦点,整理了两种调节焦点的测量工具。然后,通过聚焦调节焦点理论在组织管理中的应用,在综合归纳两种调节焦点的影响因素和作用结果的基础上,深入分析了调节焦点对工作结果的影响机制。最后,对未来有关研究的发展趋势进行了展望。

雷星晖, 单志汶, 苏涛永, 杨元飞 . ( 2015).

谦卑型领导行为对员工创造力的影响研究

管理科学, 28 (2), 115-125.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

谦卑型领导是领导风格领域最近兴起的研究热点,其相关研究正处于起步阶段。基于领导理论和创造力理论,尝试发现谦卑型领导行为与员工创造力之间的关系,并从心理认知和人格特质视角出发,探讨心理安全和自我效能的中介效应以及调节焦点所起到的调节作用。采用问卷法配对调查326对直接领导及其对应员工,运用结构方程模型和层次回归方法对样本数据进行统计分析。研究结果表明,谦卑型领导行为对员工的创造力有显著的正向影响,心理安全和自我效能在两者间起完全中介作用;员工的防御型调节倾向越突出,谦卑型领导行为对员工心理安全的影响越强;员工的促进型调节倾向越突出,谦卑型领导行为对员工自我效能的影响越强。研究结论为领导者打破传统的自上而下的领导方式、转而应用谦卑型领导行为提升员工创造力提供了新的思路。

李磊, 尚玉钒 . ( 2011).

基于调节焦点理论的领导对下属创造力影响机理研究

南开管理评论, 14 (5), 4-11.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

本研究从心理学的调节焦点理论切入,构建了基于调节焦点理论的领导对下属创造力影响机理模型.具体探讨领导的“行为示范”、“语言框架”及“反馈”,通过对个体调节焦点与群体共享调节焦点两个层面的共同引导,进而影响下属创造力的作用过程.本研究将丰富并厘清人们对领导提升下属创造力的影响路径与作用规律的认识,并为领导通过日常管理来激发下属创造力提供借鉴与指导.

毛畅果 . ( 2017).

调节焦点理论: 组织管理中的应用

心理科学进展, 25 (4), 682-690.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

根据调节焦点理论,人们在实现目标的过程中存在两种调节焦点:促进焦点驱动人们关注理想,防御焦点驱动人们避免失误.虽然调节焦点理论源自社会心理学,但近年来却越来越多地被用于解释组织现象,对管理研究产生了重要影响.在回顾调节焦点内涵的基础上,归纳了常见的操作化方法,梳理了调节焦点理论在组织管理研究中的应用,并提出未来研究的发展方向.

尚玉钒, 李磊 . ( 2015).

领导行为示范、 工作复杂性、 工作调节焦点与创造力

科学学与科学技术管理, 36 (6), 147-158.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

构建并验证了一个解释创造力的被中介的调节模型,通过对中国5家企业340位员工及其直接领导的考察,研究得出以下结论:(1)员工工作调节焦点中介了领导行为示范与员工创造力间的关系;(2)工作复杂性调节了领导行为示范与员工创造力间的关系;(3)员工工作调节焦点中介了工作复杂性在领导行为示范与员工创造力关系间的调节作用。

夏绪梅, 纪晓阳 . ( 2017).

辱虐管理对员工创新行为的影响——心理授权的中介作用

西安财经学院学报, 30, (2), 62-67.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

文章以256名企业员工的问卷调查,探讨中国文化情境下辱虐管理对员工创新行为(包括创新想法的产生和执行两个维度)的影响,并且研究了心理授权在二者之间的中介作用。研究表明:辱虐管理负向显著地影响员工创新行为,心理授权正向显著地影响员工创新行为,心理授权在辱虐管理与创新想法的产生之间起到完全中介作用。

许灏颖, 杜晨朵, 王震 . ( 2014).

道德领导对员工越轨行为的影响: 道德调节焦点和道德认同的作用

中国人力资源开发, (11), 38-45.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

道德型领导和员工越轨行为的关系是组织管理领域新近兴起的课题,但目前学术界对二者关系作用机制的考察相对较少。基于调节焦点理论和道德认同理论,本文旨在揭示二者关系的"黑箱":首先,引入促进型和规避型道德调节焦点,考察它们在道德型领导和员工越轨行为之间的中介作用;其次,引入道德认同,对道德型领导和员工道德调节焦点关系的边界条件进行探讨。以203名企业员工为样本,结果发现:(1)道德型领导对员工越轨行为有显著负向影响;(2)道德型领导对员工越轨行为的负向影响是通过提升员工促进型道德调节焦点和规避型道德调节焦点实现的;(3)员工道德认同在道德型领导和两种道德调节焦点之间有负向调节作用,对低道德认同员工来说,道德型领导对道德调节焦点的影响相对较强。研究丰富了道德型领导与员工越轨行为的作用机制和边界条件,对企业管理实践也有一定的启示意义。

许晟 . ( 2018).

调节焦点视角员工追随选择分化: 前因与后果的影响机制

心理科学进展, 26 (3), 400-410.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

追随行为是组织员工以组织目标为导向,能动地与领导力和组织情境交互作用的多态行为。经对国内外学界相关研究现状的梳理分析,目前对这类多形态员工行为的研究还很薄弱。为此,从调节焦点理论视角,展开员工追随选择分化的前因及对后果差异影响机制的研究,首先是基于两种不同调节焦点的员工追随行为的内涵结构与测量研究;然后,揭示影响员工追随选择分化的三层面前因机制,即领导特征对员工追随选择分化的影响及领导-成员交换关系在其中的调节作用,组织特征对员工追随选择分化的影响及员工组织公平感知在其中的调节作用,个体特征对员工追随选择分化的影响及领导反馈在其中的调节作用;最后检验员工不同调节焦点追随行为对工作绩效的差异作用效应。以期推动追随理论更加契合组织实务。

郑雯, 汪玲, 方平, 李迪斯 . ( 2015).

如何道歉更有效: 调节聚焦与信息框架的作用

心理科学, 38 (1), 166-171.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

本研究结合调节聚焦理论探讨了如何道歉更有效。两个实验通过启动不同调节聚焦,创设冒犯情境并呈现不同框架的道歉信息,考察调节聚焦与道歉框架对道歉效果的影响。结果表明,向促进聚焦的受害者呈现积极框架的道歉信息、向防御聚焦的受害者呈现消极框架的道歉信息能改善受害者对冒犯者的评价,降低交往回避倾向,获得较好的道歉效果,且正确感是此种影响发生的内在机制。

Adler P. S., Goldoftas B., & Levine D. I . ( 1999).

Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system

Organization Science, 10 (1), 43-68.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This article seeks to reconceptualize the relationship between flexibility and efficiency. Much organization theory argues that efficiency requires bureaucracy, that bureaucracy impedes flexibility, and that organizations therefore confront a tradeoff between efficiency and flexibility. Some researchers have challenged this line of reasoning, arguing that organizations can shift the efficiency/flexibility tradeoff to attain both superior efficiency and superior flexibility. Others have pointed out numerous obstacles to successfully shifting the tradeoff. Seeking to advance our understanding of these obstacles and how they might be overcome, we analyze an auto assembly plant that appears to be far above average industry performance in both efficiency and flexibility. NUMMI, a Toyota subsidiary located in Fremont, California, relied on a highly bureaucratic organization to achieve its high efficiency. Analyzing two recent major model changes, we find that NUMMI used four mechanisms to support its exceptional flexibility/efficiency combination. First, metaroutines (routines for changing other routines) facilitated the efficient performance of nonroutine tasks. Second, both workers and suppliers contributed to nonroutine tasks while they worked in routine production. Third, routine and nonroutine tasks were separated temporally, and workers switched sequentially between them. Finally, novel forms of organizational partitioning enabled differentiated subunits to work in parallel on routine and nonroutine tasks. NUMMI's success with these four mechanisms depended on several features of the broader organizational context, most notably training, trust, and leadership.

Adomako S., Opoku R. A., & Frimpong K . ( 2017).

The moderating influence of competitive intensity on the relationship between CEOs' regulatory foci and SME internationalization

Journal of International Management, 23 (3), 268-278.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The international business literature has mainly focused on the impact of top managers' psychological attributes on firms' strategic decisions. However, the potential moderating influence of industry conditions such as competition, has not been well explored. Deriving insights from the regulatory focus and upper echelons theories, this paper extends the international business and regulatory focus literature by investigating how the impact influence of CEOs' regulatory foci on firms' degree of internationalization depends on the intensity of competitive market conditions. Using primary data gathered from 289 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Ghana, the findings of the study revealed when competition is intense in the domestic market, the potency of a CEO's promotion focus as a driver of internationalization is amplified. In addition, the research shows that intense domestic market competition weakens the negative influence of a CEO's prevention focus on a firm's degree of internationalization. These findings have important research and managerial implications for international business.

Ahmadi S., Khanagha S., Berchicci L., & Jansen J. J . ( 2017).

Are managers motivated to explore in the face of a new technological change? The role of regulatory focus, fit, and complexity of decision-making

Journal of Management Studies, 54 (2), 209-237.

URL     [本文引用: 11]

We develop a psychological perspective on managers’ exploration orientation. Our study suggests that the regulatory focus of managers may in different way

Andriopoulos C., &Lewis M.W . ( 2009).

Exploitation- exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation

Organization Science, 20 (4), 696-717.

[本文引用: 1]

Aryee S., &Hsiung H.H . ( 2016).

Regulatory focus and safety outcomes: An examination of the mediating influence of safety behavior

Safety Science, 86, 27-35.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We proposed and tested a model of the relationship between regulatory focus, safety behaviors, and safety outcomes. Specifically, we hypothesized regulatory foci (promotion and prevention) to relate to the safety outcomes (safety-related events and injuries) through safety behaviors (unsafe behavior and safety initiative). Data were obtained at two time points 6months apart from frontline firefighters and their supervisors drawn from New Taipei City Government. The results of multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) revealed that promotion focus related to safety-related events and injuries through safety initiative while prevention focus related to safety-related events (but not injuries) through unsafe behavior. Our findings reinforce the utility of distinguishing between safety behaviors and outcomes as well as the role of a motivational framework in understanding workplace safety.

Ashforth B.E., &Reingen P.H . ( 2014).

Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative

Administrative Science Quarterly, 59 (3), 474-516.

[本文引用: 1]

Auh S.., &Menguc B. ( 2005).

Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity

Journal of Business Research, 58 (12), 1652-1661.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Drawing on Miles and Snow's classification of strategy type, this paper addresses the contingency role that competitive intensity plays in explaining the relationship between exploration/exploitation and firm performance. We further refine our firm performance measure into separate measures of effective and efficient firm performance. Our conceptual argument posits that for defenders, exploration will be positively related to effective firm performance while exploitation will be negatively related to efficient firm performance as competitive intensity increases. Conversely, for prospectors, we assert that exploration will be negatively related to effective firm performance, whereas exploitation will be positively associated with efficient firm performance as competition intensifies. Empirical results provide general support for our predictions. The implications for business theory and practice are discussed.

Bass B.M . ( 1985).

Leadership: Good, better, best

Organizational Dynamics, 13 (3), 26-40.

[本文引用: 1]

Beckman C.M . ( 2006).

The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior

Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 741-758.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This paper's argument is that founding team composition—in particular, members' prior company affiliations—shapes new firm behaviors. Firms with founding teams whose members have worked at the same company engage in exploitation because they have shared understandings and can act quickly. Conversely, founding teams whose members have worked at many different companies have unique ideas and contacts that encourage exploration. In addition, firms whose founding teams have both common and diverse prior company affiliations have advantages that allow them to grow. The results suggest team composition is an important antecedent of exploitative and explorative behavior and firm ambidexterity.

Beech N., Burns H., De Caestecker L., MacIntosh R., & MacLean D . ( 2004).

Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations

Human Relations, 57 (10), 1313-1332.

[本文引用: 1]

Boal K.B., &Hooijberg R. ( 2000).

Strategic leadership research: Moving on

The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 515-549.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

During the last 20 years, the field of strategic leadership has undergone both a rejuvenation and a metamorphosis. We argue that the essence of strategic leadership involves the capacity to learn, the capacity to change, and managerial wisdom. Against this backdrop, we first review issues related to under what conditions, when, and how strategic leadership matters. Next, we selectively review three streams of theory and research. The first is strategic leadership theory and its antecedent, Upper Echelon theory. The second stream of theory and research focuses on what Bryman has labeled the “new” leadership theories. These include charismatic, transformational, and visionary theories of leadership. The last stream of research we classify as the “emergent” theories of leadership. Among these are theories that explore behavioral and cognitive complexity as well as social intelligence. Finally, we attempt to suggest how the “new” and “emergent” theories can be integrated within what we claim is the essence of strategic leadership.

Chen Y. S., Wen Z. L., & Ye M. L . ( 2017).

Exploring profiles of work regulatory focus: A person-centered approach

Personality and Individual Differences, 116 (1), 16-21.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Research on regulatory focus so far has been dominated by the perspective of ‘variable-centered’ that seeks to understand how each foci of regulatory focus (e.g., promotion focus and prevention focus) in isolation relates to other variables. We extend this work by adopting a ‘person-centered’ approach to reveal the distinct profiles of regulatory focus existing in the Chinese context, and further examine how these profiles relate to certain antecedents and outcomes. Our results showed three different profiles, namely high regulatory focus profile, moderate regulatory focus profile and prevention dominated profile, that varied in the level and shape of the profile indicators. With respect to antecedents, high conscientiousness can increase the odds that a subordinate belongs to the high regulatory focus profile, and high anxiety can result in a higher probability that a subordinate belongs to the prevention dominated profile. Furthermore, the high regulatory focus profile had the most favorable levels of outcomes (e.g., higher task performance and more organizational citizenship behaviors). Finally, theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Chiu C. Y., Owens B. P., & Tesluk P. E . ( 2016).

Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability

Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (12), 1705-1720.

URL     PMID:27618409      [本文引用: 1]

The present study was designed to produce novel theoretical insight regarding how leader humility and team member characteristics foster the conditions that promote shared leadership and when shared leadership relates to team effectiveness. Drawing on social information processing theory and adaptive leadership theory, we propose that leader humility facilitates shared leadership by promoting leadership-claiming and leadership-granting interactions among team members. We also apply dominance complementary theory to propose that team proactive personality strengthens the impact of leader humility on shared leadership. Finally, we predict that shared leadership will be most strongly related to team performance when team members have high levels of task-related competence. Using a sample composed of 62 Taiwanese professional work teams, we find support for our proposed hypothesized model. The theoretical and practical implications of these results for team leadership, humility, team composition, and shared leadership are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cooper J . ( 2007).

Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory.

Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

[本文引用: 1]

Crowe E., &Higgins E.T . ( 1997).

Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision- making

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 (2), 117-132.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract A promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth, and accomplishment, whereas a prevention focus is concerned with security, safety, and responsibility. We hypothesized that the promotion focus inclination is to insure hits and insure against errors of omission, whereas the prevention focus inclination is to insure correct rejections and insure against errors of commission. This hypothesis yielded three predictions: (a) when individuals work on a difficult task or have just experienced failure, those in a promotion focus should perform better, and those in a prevention focus should quit more readily; (b) when individuals work on a task where generating any number of alternatives is correct, those in a promotion focus should generate more distinct alternatives, and those in a prevention focus should be more repetitive; and (c) when individuals work on a signal detection task that requires them to decide whether they did or did not detect a signal, those in a promotion focus should have a "risky" response bias, and those in a prevention focus should have a "conservative" response bias and take more time to respond. These predictions were supported in two framing studies in which regulatory focus was experimentally manipulated independent of valence.

Das T.K., &Kumar R. ( 2011).

Regulatory focus and opportunism in the alliance development process

Journal of Management, 37 (3), 682-708.

[本文引用: 2]

De Jong, K., & De Goede M. ( 2015).

Why do some therapists not deal with outcome monitoring feedback? A feasibility study on the effect of regulatory focus and person-organization fit on attitude and outcome

Psychotherapy Research, 25 (6), 661-668.

URL     PMID:26337457      [本文引用: 1]

Objective:Despite research on its effectiveness, many therapists still have negative attitudes toward using outcome monitoring feedback. The current study aims to investigate how the perceived match between values of an individual and those of the organization (Person–Organization fit; PO fit), and motivation to prevent failure or to achieve success (regulatory focus) are related to therapists’ attitude, attitude changes over time, and outcomes.Method:Therapists (n=6520) filled out a feedback attitude questionnaire at two points in time: before the start of outcome monitoring, and after six months. In addition, they completed measures on PO fit and regulatory focus.Results:PO fit was predictive of outcomes, when feedback was provided, but did not predict therapists’ attitude. Therapists with a strong prevention focus (prevent failures), had a more positive attitude toward feedback, but achieved slower symptom reduction in their at risk cases. A strong promotion focus (achieve success) was not predictive of attitude, but did result in faster symptom reduction in at risk patients when feedback was provided.Conclusion:Therapists motivational approach to work and the perceived match with the organization they work for, can influence both their attitude toward outcome monitoring and their outcomes.

Delegach M., Kark R., Katz-Navon T., & Van Dijk D . ( 2017).

A focus on commitment: The roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26 (5), 724-740.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

(2017). A focus on commitment: the roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 724-740. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2017.1345884

Duncan R.B . ( 1976).

The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation

The Management of Organization, 1, 167-188.

[本文引用: 1]

Festinger L . ( 1957).

A theory of cognitive dissonance.

Evanston. IL: Row, Peterson.

[本文引用: 1]

Fransen M.L., & ter Hoeven C.L . ( 2013).

Matching the message: The role of regulatory fit in negative managerial communication

Communication Research, 40 (6), 818-837.

[本文引用: 1]

Freeman D., &Siegfried R.L . ( 2015).

Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company start-up and growth

Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (4), 35-39.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Starting a new business is easy. Leading a start-up and transitioning from founder to CEO is hard. As a result, less than 1 in 25 new companies will grow to have 50 or more employees. This article examines three important challenges faced by entrepreneurial leaders at start-up: developing a vision, achieving optimal persistence, and executing through chaos. The article also considers three capabilities needed by founders who seek to continue to lead their companies during the growth stage of the entrepreneurial process: strategic thinking, coaching, and self-evaluation. The Siegfried Group, LLP, a leading national CPA firm that provides Leadership Advisory and Talent Delivery services to Fortune 1000 organizations, is used as a brief case study to illustrate key challenges and capabilities associated with entrepreneurial leadership.

Freitas A. L., Liberman N., Salovey P., & Higgins E. T . ( 2002).

When to begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (1), 121-130.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Abstract The authors propose that a prevention focus fosters preferences to initiate action earlier than does a promotion focus. Data from four studies either measuring or manipulating regulatory focus support this proposal. Participants in a prevention focus pre-ferred initiating academic (Studies 1 and 2) and nonacademic (Study 3) actions sooner than did participants in a promotion focus. Participants working through a set of anagrams solved those that were prevention framed before those that were promo-tion framed (Study 4). Moreover, regulatory focus and perceived task valence each accounted for unique variance in partici-

Gaim M., &Wåhlin N. ( 2016).

In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32 (1), 33-44.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We examine paradoxes in organizations and the organizations’ ability to deal with the resulting paradoxical tensions. Paradoxes constitute contradictory yet interrelated organizational demands that exist simultaneously, with the resulting tensions persisting over time. Irrespective of the prevailing evidence that engaging paradoxes leads to peak performance in the short-term, which reinforces long-term success, the question of how this might be done remains perplexing. Thus, based on pragmatic philosophy, this paper aims to increase our understanding of what constitutes a paradox and suggests a conceptual framework from which organizations and their members can frame and cope with tensions that result from paradoxes. Specifically, we conceptually map a way to achieve a synthesis of paradoxical tensions that is informed by design thinking. This synthesis is said to occur when competing demands are simultaneously fulfilled to their full potential. In this paper, design thinking – as a management concept – is used to refer to the interplay between perspective, structure, process, and mindset. It provides an alternative framing of how organizations approach paradoxes and deal with the resulting tensions.

Gamache D. L., McNamara G., Mannor M. J., & Johnson R. E . ( 2015).

Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions

. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (4), 1261-1282.

[本文引用: 12]

García-Granero A., Fernández-Mesa A., Jansen J. J. P., & Vega-Jurado J . ( 2018).

Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust

Long Range Planning, 51, (6), 881-893.

Gebert D., Boerner S., & Kearney E . ( 2010).

Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies?

Organization Science, 21 (3), 593-608.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We develop a framework that provides a general theoretical rationale for the claim made by several authors that combining opposing action strategies fosters team innovation. We distinguish between open and closed strategies and posit that these are opposing but complementary in that each fosters one of two processes necessary for team innovation: open action strategies (e.g., delegative leadership) promote knowledge generation, and closed action strategies (e.g., directive leadership) enhance knowledge integration. We argue that each pole of a pair of opposing action strategies both energizes and detracts from elements of innovation. Thus, it could be expected that combining opposing action strategies leads to an impasse, as the negative effects of each strategy might offset the positive effects of the opposite strategy. There is currently no viable explanation in the literature for why this mutual neutralization may not occur. We aim to fill this gap by explicating why and how opposing action strategies, when implemented simultaneously, do not countervail each other's positive effects, but rather yield positive synergies that fuel team innovation.

Gibson C.B., &Birkinshaw J. ( 2004).

The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity

Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 209-226.

[本文引用: 2]

Gorman C. A., Meriac J. P., Overstreet B. L., Apodaca S., McIntyre A. L., Park P., & Godbey J. N . ( 2012).

A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (1), 160-172.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

78 Conducted a meta-analysis of 77 empirical studies of regulatory focus. 78 Promotion and prevention were found to be orthogonal constructs. 78 Promotion and prevention foci were uniquely related to work-related constructs. 78 Regulatory foci accounted for unique variance in job satisfaction and performance.

Halevi M. Y., Carmeli A., & Brueller N. N . ( 2015).

Ambidexterity in SBUs: TMT behavioral integration and environmental dynamism

Human Resource Management, 54 (S1), 223-238.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract This study seeks to advance previous research by linking top management team (TMT) processes to organizational ambidexterity, and highlights the importance of environmental dynamism as a boundary condition on the effectiveness of TMTs in promoting balance between exploratory and exploitative learning. The findings from multiple respondents (245 TMT members, including the CEO of the SBUs, and 883 employees) in 101 small-sized strategic business units (SBUs) with a defined product line indicate that TMT behavioral integration helps build ambidexterity, but that the influence of TMT behavioral integration on ambidexterity is stronger when the task environment is characterized by a high level of dynamism. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the conditions under which behaviorally integrated TMTs are able to pursue an ambidextrous orientation in relatively small-sized units. 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Hamstra M. R. W., Sassenberg K., Van Yperen N. W., & Wisse B . ( 2014).

Followers feel valued—When leaders' regulatory focus makes leaders exhibit behavior that fits followers' regulatory focus

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 34-40.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

61Leader regulatory focus leads to transformational versus transactional behavior.61Fit between leader and follower regulatory focus leads to followers feeling valued.61Transformationaltransactional behavior elicited leader–follower regulatory fit.

Hamstra M. R. W., Van Yperen N. W., Wisse B., & Sassenberg K . ( 2014).

On the perceived effectiveness of transformational-transactional leadership: The role of encouraged strategies and followers' regulatory focus

European Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (6), 643-656.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

The present research sought to examine when and why transformational and transactional leadership are perceived by followers to be effective. A series of five studies revealed that perceived effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership is influenced by the fit between leadership style-driven encouraged strategies and followers' preferred strategies. Specifically, we found that transformational leadership primarily encourages promotion-focused strategies and, accordingly, creates a regulatory fit for promotion-focused followers. In contrast, transactional leadership primarily encourages prevention-focused strategies, creating a regulatory fit for prevention-focused followers. As a consequence of this regulatory fit, leadership is perceived as more effective and predictive of enhanced effort. By integrating literature on self-regulation with insights from leadership research, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the leadership process and of interpersonal influences on self-regulatory experiences.

Hatch M.J . ( 1997).

Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team

. Organization Science, 8 (3), 275-288.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The thesis I explore in this essay is that organizational members use humorous remarks to discursively construct and organize their cognitive and emotional experiences in and of their organizations. My assumptions are that: (1) organizations are socially constructed through discourse about them (especially managerial discourse), (2) humorous discourse provides a contradiction-centered construction of organizations that operates in the domains of both cognition and emotion, and (3) interpretation of the text of ironic remarks will suggest the processes by which contradictions and their cultural and emotional contexts are socially constructed through discourse. In this essay I use a form of analysis that I developed in relation to humor theory (Mulkay 1988), theories of irony (Brown 1977, Weick and Browning 1986) and Rorty's (1989) concept of the ironic disposition to interpret spontaneous humorous exchanges observed during the regular meetings of a group of middle managers. My interpretations of ironically humorous remarks indicate that the managers in my study constructed at least some of their cognitive and emotional experiences in contradictory ways including: possible/impossible, great/horrible, comic/serious, and up-to-date/unprepared. The interpretations also suggest how, in constructing contradiction, the managers reflexively constructed themselves in relation to their organization. The analysis points to a paradoxical understanding of organizational stability and change and informs a contradiction-centered view of organizations.

Heavey C., &Simsek Z. ( 2017).

Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems

Journal of Management, 43 (3), 919-945.

[本文引用: 1]

Heine S.J., &Buchtel E.E . ( 2009).

Personality: The universal and the culturally specific

Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1), 369-394.

URL     PMID:19035827      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract There appears to be a universal desire to understand individual differences. This common desire exhibits both universal and culturally specific features. Motivations to view oneself positively differ substantially across cultural contexts, as do a number of other variables that covary with this motivation (i.e., approach-avoidance motivations, internal-external frames of reference, independent-interdependent views of self, incremental-entity theories of abilities, dialectical self-views, and relational mobility). The structure of personality traits, particularly the five-factor model of personality, emerges quite consistently across cultures, with some key variations noted when the structure is drawn from indigenous traits in other languages. The extent to which each of the Big 5 traits is endorsed in each culture varies considerably, although we note some methodological challenges with comparing personality traits across cultures. Finally, although people everywhere can conceive of each other in terms of personality traits, people in collectivistic cultures appear to rely on traits to a lesser degree when understanding themselves and others, compared with those from individualistic cultures.

Higgins E.T . ( 1997).

Beyond pleasure and pain

American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300.

[本文引用: 11]

Higgins E. T. ( 1998).

Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46)

New York, NY: Academic Press.

[本文引用: 4]

Higgins E.T . ( 2001).

Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states

In J. P. Forgas (Eds.), Handbook of affect and social cognition( pp. 186-211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Higgins E. T., & Spiegel, S. ( 2004) . Promotion and prevention strategies for self- regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171-187). New York: Guilford Press.

[本文引用: 3]

Higgins E. T., Friedman R. S., Harlow R. E., Idson L. C., Ayduk O. N., & Taylor A . ( 2001).

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride

European Journal of Social Psychology, 31 (1), 3-23.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Abstract A new task goal elicits a feeling of pride in individuals with a subjective history of success, and this achievment pride produces anticipatory goal reactions that energize and direct behavior to approach the task goal. By distinguishing between promotion pride and prevention pride, the present paper extends this classic model of achievement motivation. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ) distinguishes between a promotion focus on hopes and accomplishments (gains) and a prevention focus on safety and responsibilities (non-losses). We propose that a subjective history of success with promotion-related eagerness (promotion pride) orients individuals toward using eagerness means to approach a new task goal, whereas a subjective history of success with prevention-related vigilance (prevention pride) orients individuals toward using vigilance means to approach a new task goal. Studies 1&ndash;3 tested this proposal by examining the relations between a new measure of participants' subjective histories of promotion success and prevention success (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ)) and their achievement strategies in different tasks. Study 4 examined the relation between participants' RFQ responses and their reported frequency of feeling eager or vigilant in past task engagements. Study 5 used an experimental priming technique to make participants temporarily experience either a subjective history of promotion success or a subjective history of prevention success. For both chronic and situationally induced achievement pride, these studies found that when approaching task goals individuals with promotion pride use eagerness means whereas individuals with prevention pride use vigilance means. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Higgins E. T., Roney C. J., Crowe E., & Hymes C . ( 1994).

Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276-286.

URL     PMID:8195986      [本文引用: 2]

Two studies using different paradigms activated either ideal self-guides (a person's hopes or wishes) or ought self-guides (a person's sense of duty and responsibility) and measured Ss' concern with different forms of self-regulation: approaching matches to desired end states or mismatches to undesired end states and avoiding mismatches to desired end states or matches to undesired end states. A 3rd study asked ideal versus ought discrepant Ss to select among alternative strategies for friendship. The results suggest that a concern with approach is greater for ideal than ought self-regulation, whereas a concern with avoidance is greater for ought than ideal self-regulation.

Jay J .( 2013).

Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations

Academy of Management Journal, 56, (1), 137-159.

[本文引用: 1]

Jin X. T., Wang L., & Dong H. Z . ( 2016).

The relationship between self-construal and creativity — Regulatory focus as moderator

Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 282-288.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

61Independent self-construal is more beneficial to creativity than is interdependent self-construal.61Promotion focus is more beneficial to creativity than is prevention focus.61Regulatory focus has a moderator effect between self-construal and creativity.61Creativity may be enhanced by a match between self-construal and regulatory focus.

Johnson J.D . ( 2016).

Tensions between teams and their leaders

Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11 (3), 117-126.

[本文引用: 1]

Johnson R. E., Chang C. H., & Lord R. G . ( 2006).

Moving from cognition to behavior: What the research says

Psychological Bulletin, 132 (3), 381-415.

URL     PMID:16719567      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract In 1994, R. G. Lord and P. E. Levy proposed a variant of control theory that incorporated human information processing principles. The current article evaluates the empirical evidence for their propositions and updates the theory by considering contemporary research on information processing. Considerable support drawing from diverse literatures was found for propositions concerning the activation of goal-relevant information, the inhibition of goal-irrelevant information, and the consequences of goal completion. These effects were verified by meta-analytic analyses, which also supported the meaningfulness of such effects on the basis of their unstandardized magnitudes. The authors conclude by proposing new directions for this version of control theory by invoking recent theorizing on goal emergence and the importance of velocity and acceleration information for goal striving and by reviewing research in cognitive neuroscience. Copyright 2006 APA, all rights reserved.

Johnson R. E., Chang C. H., Meyer T., Lanaj K., & Way J . ( 2013).

Approaching success or avoiding failure? Approach and avoidance motives in the work domain

European Journal of Personality, 27 (5), 424-441.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In our set of studies, we extended research on approach and avoidance motivations by investigating (i) motives in a work setting, (ii) interactions among approach and avoidance motives, and (iii) motives at implicit levels. Results of Studies 1 through 3 provided support for the construct validity of our work motives measure by demonstrating that approach and avoidance work motives are markers of more general approach and avoidance temperaments, they are distinct from other individual difference variables commonly studied by organisational psychologists (e.g. conscientiousness, regulatory focus and cognitive ability) and they are stable over time. In Studies 4 through 7, we confirmed our predictions that approach and avoidance motives predict employees' goal orientations, job appraisals and attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction and perceived support) and supervisor-rated job behaviours (e.g. task performance and citizenship behaviour). Importantly, we provide the first empirical evidence that approach and avoidance motives interact to predict task performance and that the motives operate at implicit levels. Copyright 漏 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology

Johnson R. E., King D. D., Lin S. H. J., Scott B. A., Walker E. M. J., & Wang M . ( 2017).

Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29-45.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Regulatory focus is critical at work and is shaped by cues in the environment. We examine how supervisor regulatory foci can activate analogous foci in subordinates. We test this idea across five studies. In Study 1 we find that supervisor regulatory focus predicted change in new hires’ regulatory focus in the first three months after organizational entry. In Studies 2 and 3 we find that leaders’ regulatory foci had unique effects on leadership behaviors, and that these behaviors primed subordinates’ regulatory foci. Specifically, transformational behavior is linked to promotion focus, management by exception behavior to prevention focus, and contingent reward behavior to both foci. In Study 4 we find that leader regulatory focus relates to follower regulatory focus via the mediating effects of the aforementioned leader behaviors. Finally, in Study 5 we additionally find that contingent punishment mediates the relationship between leader and follower prevention focus and that weak regulatory foci increase the likelihood of laissez-faire leadership. Taken together, these results reveal how leader regulatory focus and behavior can be leveraged to shape the motivation of followers.

Johnson R. E., Lin S. H. J., Kark R., Van Dijk D., King D. D., & Esformes E . ( 2017).

Consequences of regulatory fit for leader-follower relationship quality and commitment

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90 (3), 379-406.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Abstract A central tenet of regulatory focus theory is that people hold more positive appraisals and exhibit greater dedication when their regulatory focus is congruent with the orientation of the immediate context, a phenomenon known as regulatory fit. Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to regulatory fit in interpersonal contexts and the consequences of relationship partners having congruent promotion and prevention foci. Integrating regulatory fit theory with theories of relational leadership, we predicted that regulatory fit would enhance relationship quality and commitment within leader–follower dyads. These predictions were examined across three samples, using data collected from multiple sources and at multiple times. Our results indicated that promotion fit, prevention fit, and the interaction between them predicted relationship quality and commitment to the leader, which in turn predicted leader-targeted citizenship behavior and withdrawal cognition. These relationships remained after controlling for demographic fit and followers’ and leader’s individual regulatory foci.

Kammerlander N., Burger D., Fust A., & Fueglistaller U . ( 2015).

Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs' regulatory focus

Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (4), 582-602.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

61CEO's chronic regulatory focus affects entrepreneurship in established SMEs.61Promotion focus is positively associated with exploration and exploitation.61Prevention focus is negatively associated with exploration.61Competitive intensity interacts with promotion focus.

Kark R., & Van Dijk D. ( 2007).

Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes

Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 500-528.

URL     [本文引用: 5]

In this paper we integrate recent theories of motivation and leadership. Drawing on the self-regulatory focus theory and on self-concept based theories of leadership, we develop a conceptual framework proposing that leaders' chronic self-regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention), in conjunction with their values, influences their motivation to lead and, subsequently, their leadership behavior. We further suggest that leaders may influence the motivational self-regulatory foci of their followers, which will mediate different follower outcomes at the individual and group level.

Kark R., Dijk D. V., & Vashdi D. R . ( 2018).

Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes

Applied Psychology, 67 (1), 186-224.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

In this chapter we integrate recent theories of motivation and leadership that are focused on the self. We draw on self-regulatory focus theory and on self concept based theories of leadership in order to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the quality of the leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship that are formed between leaders and their followers. We propose that leaders and... [Show full abstract]

Keller J., &Bless H. ( 2006).

Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance

European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (3), 393-405.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Two studies examined the impact of chronic and situational self-regulatory mechanisms on cognitive test performance. In both studies, test performance was enhanced when situationally induced regulatory mechanisms matched the chronic self-regulatory focus of the test taker. These results support the regulatory fit hypothesis put forward in regulatory focus theory and point to the importance of compatibility between chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory states when it comes to cognitive test performance. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Khazanchi S., Lewis M. W., & Boyer K. K . ( 2007).

Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation

Journal of Operations Management, 25 (4), 871-884.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

For managers, innovation is vital, but paradoxical, requiring flexibility and empowerment, as well as control and efficiency. Increasingly, studies stress organizational culture as a key to managing innovation. Yet innovation-supportive culture remains an intricate and amorphous phenomenon. In response, we explore how organizational values – a foundational building block of culture – impact a particular process innovation, the implementation of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT). To unpack this scarcely studied construct, we examine three-dimensions of organizational values: value profiles, value congruence and value–practice interactions.

Klarner P., &Raisch S. ( 2013).

Move to the beat— Rhythms of change and firm performance

Academy of Management Journal, 56 (1), 160-184.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This study examines how different rhythms of change relate to firm performance. An explorative analysis of 67 European insurance companies between 1995 and 2004 reveals that corporate strategic changes occur in four distinct rhythms, which are classified as either regular or irregular (focused, punctuated, and temporarily switching). Subsequent quantitative analysis shows that companies that change regularly outperform those that change irregularly. This finding prevails under different internal and external contingencies, under different change characteristics, and over time periods. We also find that the rhythm and frequency of change have distinct performance effects. Our findings contribute to research on the change-stability paradox by showing that a regular and sequential balance between change and stability is associated with long-term success.

Lanaj K., Chang C. H., & Johnson R. E . ( 2012).

Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta- analysis

Psychological Bulletin, 138 (5), 998-1034

URL     PMID:22468880      [本文引用: 1]

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) has received growing attention in organizational psychology, necessitating a quantitative review that synthesizes its effects on important criteria. In addition, there is need for theoretical integration of regulatory focus theory with personality research. Theoretical integration is particularly relevant, since personality traits and dispositions are distal factors that are unlikely to have direct effects on work behaviors, yet they may have indirect effects via regulatory focus. The current meta-analysis introduces an integrative framework in which the effects of personality on work behaviors are best understood when considered in conjunction with more proximal motivational processes such as regulatory focus. Using a distal proximal approach, we identify personality antecedents and work-related consequences of regulatory foci in a framework that considers both general and work-specific regulatory foci as proximal motivational processes. We present meta-analytic results for relations of regulatory focus with its antecedents (approach and avoid temperaments, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, self-esteem, and self-efficacy) and its consequences (work behaviors and attitudes). In addition to estimates of bivariate relationships, we support a meta-analytic path model in which distal personality traits relate to work behaviors via the mediating effects of general and work-specific regulatory focus. Results from tests of incremental and relative validity indicated that regulatory foci predict unique variance in work behaviors after controlling for established personality, motivation, and attitudinal predictors. Consistent with regulatory focus theory and our integrative theoretical framework, regulatory focus has meaningful relations with work outcomes and is not redundant with other individual difference variables.

Lavie D., &Rosenkopf L. ( 2006).

Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation

Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 797-818.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Do firms balance exploration and exploitation in their alliance formation decisions and, if so, why and how? We argue that absorptive capacity and organizational inertia impose conflicting pressures for exploration and exploitation with respect to the value chain function of alliances, the attributes of partners, and partners' network positions. Although path dependencies reinforce either exploration or exploitation within each of these domains, we find that firms balance their tendencies to explore and exploit over time and across domains.

Lempiälä T., &Vanharanta O . ( 2018).

Rethinking the control-freedom paradox in innovation: Toward a multifaceted understanding of creative freedom

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54, (1), 62-87.

[本文引用: 1]

Lewis M.W . ( 2000).

Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide

Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 760-776.

URL     [本文引用: 6]

"Paradox" appears increasingly in organization studies, often to describe conflicting demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. This article helps researchers move beyond labeling-to explore paradoxes and contribute insights more in tune with organizational complexity and ambiguity. I first develop a framework that clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their management. Using this framework, I then review studies in which paradoxes spurred by change and plurality are investigated. I conclude by outlining strategies for identifying and representing paradox, addressing implications for research.

Lewis M.W., &Smith W.K . ( 2014).

Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50 (2), 127-149.

[本文引用: 3]

Li G. Q., Liu H. X., Shang Y. F., & Xi Y. M . ( 2014).

Leader feedback and knowledge sharing: A regulatory focus theory perspective

Journal of Management & Organization, 20 (6), 749-763.

[本文引用: 4]

Lockwood P., Jordan C. H., & Kunda Z . ( 2002).

Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (4), 854-864.

PMID:12374440      [本文引用: 2]

Abstract In 3 studies, the authors demonstrated that individuals are motivated by role models who encourage strategies that fit their regulatory concerns: Promotion-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, are most inspired by positive role models, who highlight strategies for achieving success; prevention-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes, are most motivated by negative role models, who highlight strategies for avoiding failure. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors primed promotion and prevention goals and then examined the impact of role models on motivation. Participants' academic motivation was increased by goal-congruent role models but decreased by goal-incongruent role models. In Study 3, participants were more likely to generate real-life role models that matched their chronic goals.

Lüscher L.S., &Lewis M.W . ( 2008).

Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox

Academy of Management Journal, 51 (2), 221-240.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

As change becomes a constant in organizational life, middle managers charged with interpreting, communicating, and implementing change often struggle for meaning. To explore change and managerial sensemaking, we conducted action research at the Danish Lego Company. Although largely absent from mainstream journals, action research offers exceptional access to and support of organizational sensemaking. Through collaborative intervention and reflection, we sought to help managers make sense of issues surfaced by a major restructuring. Results transform paradox from a label to a lens, contributing a process for working through paradox and explicating three organizational change aspects--paradoxes of performing, belonging, and organizing.

Memmert D., Plessner H., Hüttermann S., Froese G., Peterhänsel C., & Unkelbach C . ( 2015).

Collective fit increases team performances: Extending regulatory fit from individuals to dyadic teams

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45 (5), 274-281.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

People experience “regulatory fit” when they pursue a goal in a manner that suits their chronic regulatory orientation. This regulatory fit impacts performance positively. The present research extends performance gains due to fit from individuals to dyadic team performance. Study 1 manipulated team fit of 32 table football participants (i.e., promotion vs. prevention orientation and offense vs. defense positions). Team fit significantly predicted team success in an experimental tournament beyond team skill level. Study 2 replicated this result with data from a real‐life tournament including 66 highly experienced competitors. These findings broaden the concept of regulatory fit from individual to dyadic teams, and suggest collective fit as a possible important predictor for team success.

Nauta A., De Dreu C. K. W., & Van Der Vaart T. ( 2002).

Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (2), 199-213.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In a study of 11 organizations among 120 manufacturing, planning and sales employees, support was found for the hypothesis that a prosocial value orientation-as a personality trait-increases the likelihood that employees show a high concern for the goals of other departments. This concern, combined with a high concern for own goals, furthermore appeared to increase the likelihood of problem-solving behavior during interdepartmental negotiations. Measures of goal concerns were attained, firstly, by asking employees how important they found six specific organizational goals and, secondly, by assessing which goals were found most important by members of which department. The results of this study suggest that problem solving can be induced by selecting or developing prosocial employees, because a prosocial value orientation increases the likelihood of having broad role orientations, in which employees not only care for goals characteristic of their own department, but also for goals of other departments.

Neubert M. J., Kacmar K. M., Carlson D. S., Chonko L. B., & Roberts J. A . ( 2008).

Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6), 1220-1233.

URL     PMID:19025244      [本文引用: 5]

In this research, the authors test a model in which the regulatory focus of employees at work mediates the influence of leadership on employee behavior. In a nationally representative sample of 250 workers who responded over 2 time periods, prevention focus mediated the relationship of initiating structure to in-role performance and deviant behavior, whereas promotion focus mediated the relationship of servant leadership to helping and creative behavior. The results indicate that even though initiating structure and servant leadership share some variance in explaining other variables, each leadership style incrementally predicts disparate outcomes after controlling for the other style and dispositional tendencies. A new regulatory focus scale, the Work Regulatory Focus (WRF) Scale, also was developed and initially validated for this study. Implications for the results and the WRF Scale are discussed.

Park T. Y., Kim S., & Sung L. K . ( 2017).

Fair pay dispersion: A regulatory focus theory view

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142 (1), 1-11.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The authors propose that the debate on the fairness of large pay dispersion can be advanced by considering people’s regulatory focus. While some argue that pay dispersion is fair only when it reflects individual contribution differences, others argue that large pay dispersion is fair as employees perceive others’ high pay as a signal of their own future pay. Invoking the view of regulatory focus theory, the authors suggest that pay dispersion increases pay fairness perception when employees have a strong promotion focus, whereas pay dispersion decreases fairness perception when employees have a strong prevention focus. Using two multilevel field studies—Study 1 with 827 employees in 137 teams at 42 organizations in South Korea and Study 2 with 186 employees in 46 teams at 5 high-technology organizations in Taiwan—the authors present supportive evidence of the promotion focus moderation effect. Evidence of the prevention focus moderation effect is not found.

Peng K.P., &Nisbett R.E . ( 1999).

Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction

American Psychologist, 54 (9), 741-754.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Chinese ways of dealing with seeming contradictions result in a dialectical or compromise approach—retaining basic elements of opposing perspectives by seeking a “middle way.” On the other hand, European–American ways, deriving from a lay version of Aristotelian logic, result in a differentiation model that polarizes contradictory perspectives in an effort to determine which fact or position is correct. Five empirical studies showed that dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese participants preferred dialectical proverbs containing seeming contradictions more than did American participants. Chinese participants also preferred dialectical resolutions to social conflicts and preferred dialectical arguments over classical Western logical arguments. Furthermore, when 2 apparently contradictory propositions were presented, American participants polarized their views, and Chinese participants were moderately accepting of both propositions. Origins of these cultural differences and their implications for human reasoning in general are discussed.

Poole M.S., & Van De Ven A.H . ( 1989).

Using paradox to build management and organization theories

Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 562-578.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Most contemporary theory construction methodologies attempt to build internally consistent theories of limited scope. Relatively little attention has been paid to the opportunities offered by tensions, oppositions, and contradictions among explanations of the same phenomenon. This essay attempts to spell out a set of theory-building strategies to help researchers take advantage of theoretical tensions. Such tensions can be regarded as paradoxes of social theory, and four different modes of working with paradoxes can be distinguished: (1) accept the paradox and use it constructively; (2) clarify levels of analysis; (3) temporally separate the two levels; and (4) introduce new terms to resolve the paradox. These four modes of paradox resolution are illustrated by application to the action::structure paradox in organizational theory.

Qiu J., Donaldson L., & Luo B. N . ( 2012).

The benefits of persisting with paradigms in organizational research

The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (1), 93-104.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT According to Thomas Kuhn, most scientists conduct their research within the existing paradigm, rarely overthrowing it in a paradigm revolution. Similarly, we argue the merits of persisting with existing paradigms for organizational studies, through paradigm continuity, paradigm elaboration, and paradigm extension. In paradigm continuity, the existing paradigm is prosecuted fruitfully. We discuss two of the possible ways: refinement of the protective belt and synthesis of existing models. In paradigm elaboration, the existing paradigm becomes more complex and may give rise to a new variant, which can substantially change it. To illustrate the fruitfulness of the concepts of paradigm continuity and paradigm elaboration, we use new research findings from an old organizational theory research paradigm: structural contingency theory. In paradigm extension, ideas from the core of a paradigm-in this case, the research methodology paradigm-are projected out to form the core of a new theory, here the recently created statistico-organizational theory. Finally, we call for a dialogue between proponents of paradigm persistence and those of paradigm revolution.

Sacramento C. A., Fay D., & West M. A . ( 2013).

Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121 (2), 141-157.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Previous research has produced contradictory findings about the impact of challenge stressors on individual and team creativity. Based on the challenge hindrance stressors framework (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we argue that the effect of challenge stressors on creativity is moderated by regulatory focus. We hypothesize that while promotion focus strengthens a positive relationship between challenge stressors and creativity, prevention focus reinforces a negative relationship. Experimental data showed that high demands led to better results in a creative insight task for individuals with a strong trait promotion focus, and that high demands combined with an induced promotion focus led to better results across both creative generation and insight tasks. These results were replicated in a field R&D sample. Furthermore, we found that team promotion focus moderated the effect of challenge stressors on team creativity. The results offer both theoretical insights and suggest practical implications. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Saeidipour B., Kazemi S. M. M., Mohamadabadi A. J., & Azizi M . ( 2016).

The study of the relationship between transformative leadership and individual creativity of staff in organizations

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7 (4S1), 234-241.

[本文引用: 1]

Schad J., Lewis M. W., Raisch S., & Smith W. K . ( 2016).

Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward

Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 5-64.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

(2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. The Academy of Management Annals: Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 5-64. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422

Schmitt A., &Raisch S. ( 2013).

Corporate turnarounds: The duality of retrenchment and recovery

Journal of Management Studies, 50 (7), 1216-1244.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Corporate turnaround research has described retrenchment and recovery as contradictory forces that should be addressed separately. While a few scholars have argued that retrenchment and recovery are interrelated and may have to be integrated, others have contended that such arguments are flawed since they downplay the contradictions between the two activities. In this paper, we clarify the nature of the retrenchment鈥搑ecovery interrelations, as well as their importance for turnaround performance. Drawing on the paradox literature, we argue that retrenchment and recovery form a duality: they are both contradictory and complementary. Integrating the two activities allows turnaround firms to create benefits that exceed the costs of their integration, which affects turnaround performance positively. We test our arguments through an empirical study of 107 Central European turnaround initiatives and find evidence for the assumed duality between retrenchment and recovery. Our main contribution is integrating the hitherto disparate theory perspectives of corporate turnaround into an overarching framework.

Schneider K.J . ( 1990).

The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature

New York: Insight Books

[本文引用: 2]

Schuh S. C., Van Quaquebeke N., Göritz A. S., Xin K. R., De Cremer D., & Van Dick R . ( 2016).

Mixed feelings, mixed blessing? How ambivalence in organizational identification relates to employees’ regulatory focus and citizenship behaviors

Human Relations, 69 (12), 2224-2249.

[本文引用: 1]

Shin Y., Kim M., Choi J. N., & Lee S. H . ( 2016).

Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance

Group & Organization Management, 41 (2), 232-265.

[本文引用: 1]

Simmons S. A., Carr J. C., Hsu D. K., & Shu C . ( 2016).

The regulatory fit of serial entrepreneurship intentions

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 65 (3), 603-627.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The question why some entrepreneurs self-select out of entrepreneurial careers following exits from successful and failed businesses is of growing interest to entrepreneurship scholars.Using two studies and Regulatory Fit Theory as the theoretical lens, we address this question. Study 1 uses the experimental vignette methodology to test whether business exits under harvest and distress conditions diminished or intensified the serial entrepreneurship intentions of 74 experienced entrepreneurs. Study 2 examines the relationship between the serial entrepreneurship intentions of 196 entrepreneurs who exited businesses and their recall of prior experiences with business success or failure. In both studies, we find evidence of a negative relationship between prevention focused cognition and serial entrepreneurship intentions that intensifies from the regulatory fit of distress business exits. The results of both studies suggest that the cognitive lenses used by entrepreneurs to process their business exits play important roles in their intentions to pursue serial entrepreneurship.

Smith W.K . ( 2014).

Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes

Academy of Management Journal, 57 (6), 1592-1623.

URL     [本文引用: 6]

The organizational ambidexterity literature conceptualizes exploration and exploitation as conflicting activities, and proposes separation-oriented approaches to accomplish ambidexterity; namely, structural and temporal separation. We argue that viewing ambidexterity from the lens of paradox theory enables us to move beyond separation-oriented prescriptions towards synthesis or... [Show full abstract]

Smith W.K., &Lewis M.W . ( 2011).

Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing

Academy of Management Review, 36 (2), 381-403.

URL     [本文引用: 6]

As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the paradox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability--peak performance in the present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the foundation of a theory of paradox.

Smith W.K., &Tushman M.L . ( 2005).

Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams

Organization Science, 16 (5), 522-536.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Sustained organizational performance depends on top management teams effectively exploring and exploiting. These strategic agendas are, however, associated with contradictory organizational architectures. Using the literature on paradox, contradictions, and conflict, we develop a model of managing strategic contradictions that is associated with paradoxical cognition—senior leaders and/or their teams (a) articulating a paradoxical frame, (b) differentiating between the strategy and architecture for the existing product and those for innovation, and (c) integrating between those strategies and architectures. We further argue that the locus of paradox in top management teams resides either with the senior leader or with the entire team. We identify a set of top management team conditions that facilitates a team’s ability to engage in paradoxical cognitive processes.

Smith W. K., Lewis M. W., & Tushman M. L . ( 2016).

“Both/and” leadership

Harvard Business Review, 94 (5), 62-70.

[本文引用: 2]

Spencer-Rodgers J., Peng K., Wang L., & Hou Y . ( 2004).

Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (11), 1416-1432.

URL     PMID:15448306      [本文引用: 1]

A well-documented finding in the literature is that members of many East Asian cultures report lower self-esteem and psychological well-being than do members of Western cultures. The authors present the results of four studies that examined cultural differences in reasoning about psychological contradiction and the effects of naive dialecticism on self-evaluations and psychological adjustment. Mainland Chinese and Asian Americans exhibited greater "ambivalence" or evaluative contradiction in their self-attitudes than did Western synthesis-oriented cultures on a traditional self-report measure of self-esteem (Study 1) and in their spontaneous self-descriptions (Study 2). Naive dialecticism, as assessed with the Dialectical Self Scale, mediated the observed cultural differences in self-esteem and well-being (Study 3). In Study 4, the authors primed naive dialecticism and found that increased dialecticism was related to decreased psychological adjustment. Implications for the conceptualization and measurement of self-esteem and psychological well-being across cultures are discussed.

Stam D. A., Van Knippenberg D., & Wisse B . ( 2010).

The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (4), 499-518.

[本文引用: 2]

Suedfeld P., Tetlock P. E., & Streufert S. ( 1992) . Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Eds.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analyses (pp. 393-400). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Teece D.J . ( 2006).

Reflections on “profiting from innovation”

Research Policy, 35 (8), 1131-1146.

[本文引用: 1]

Tuan Pham M., &Chang H.H . ( 2010).

Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives

Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 626-640.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research investigates the effects of regulatory focus on alternative search and consideration set formation in consumer decision making. Results from three experiments yield two primary findings. First, promotion‐focused consumers tend to search for alternatives at a more global level, whereas prevention‐focused consumers tend to search for alternatives at a more local level. Second, promotion‐focused consumers tend to have larger consideration sets than do prevention‐focused consumers. Building on these two primary findings, it is additionally shown that whereas promotion‐focused consumers attach relatively greater value to options chosen from hierarchically structured sets, prevention‐focused consumers attach relatively greater value to options chosen from nonhierarchically structured item lists. Finally, whereas promotion‐focused consumers attach significantly greater value to options chosen from larger sets than to options chosen from smaller sets, prevention‐focused consumers do not attach significantly less value to options chosen from larger sets than to options chosen from smaller sets.

Tuncdogan A., Van Den Bosch F., & Volberda H . ( 2015).

Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-foundation of leaders' exploration and exploitation activities

The Leadership Quarterly, 26 (5), 838-850.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

In recent years, there has been strong interest in leaders' exploration and exploitation activities, especially because of their positive effects on performance. Most prior research in this area has focused on the organizational antecedents of leaders' exploration and exploitation activities, with less consideration given to the psychological precursors. This paper draws upon insights from the behavioral strategy literature to inform our theoretical perspective on leaders' exploration–exploitation activities. In particular, by conceptually linking leaders' regulatory focus and exploration–exploitation, we provide a theoretical framework to explain these activities from a psychological viewpoint. Moreover, we employ two moderator variables to better understand the different properties and boundaries of this framework. All in all, this paper has a number of implications for strategic leadership theory and practice.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate transformational, ambidextrous, and transactional leadership and their relationship to employee creativity and the extent to which psychological empowerment and promotion focus are consistent with previous studies that identify their significant impact on employee creativity. In addition, employee psychological empowerment and promotion focus are used as mediators in the research model to ascertain whether or not there is a significant mediating effect between transformational leadership, ambidextrous leadership, transactional leadership and employee creativity. Design/methodology/approach - In the study, 500 questionnaires were mailed to 50 electronics companies in China; 427 valid questionnaires were eventually collected. A structural equation model was then used for data analysis to study the causalities between all the parameters. Findings - The research findings indicate that transformational and ambidextrous leadership styles have a significant effect on employee creativity. In addition, the study found that employee psychological empowerment and promotion focus has a significant mediating effect for transformational leadership, ambidextrous leadership, transactional leadership and employee creativity. Originality/value - Executives who adopt a transformational or ambidextrous leadership style tend to have employees with greater psychological empowerment, while transformational or ambidextrous leaders tend to have employees with a stronger promotion focus. Further, the study discovered that when executives adopt a transformational or ambidextrous leadership style, they can use their employees psychological empowerment and promotion focus to improve employee creativity.

Tushman M. L., O'Reilly C. A., Fenollosa A., Kleinbaum A. M., & McGrath D . ( 2007).

Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (3), 345-362.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

As professional schools, business schools aspire to couple research rigor with managerial relevance. There has been, however, a concern that business schools are increasingly uncoupled from practice and that business school research lacks real-world relevance. This relevance-rigor gap affects the quality of our teaching as well as the institutional legitimacy of our business schools. We argue that executive education is an underutilized context that can enhance the quality of faculty research as well as our impact on managerial practice. Using evaluation data from variations of a single executive education program, we find that action-learning programs significantly enhance both individual and organizational outcomes compared to traditional executive education formats. Action-learning programs also enhance our teaching and research efforts. Building on these results and experiences, we suggest that executive education in general, and action learning in particular, are fertile contexts where business schools can bridge the relevance-rigor gap.

Vermunt J. K., & Magidson J .( 2002) . Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Wadhwa A., Freitas I. M. B., & Sarkar M. B . ( 2017).

The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance

Organization Science, 28 (5), 873-893.

[本文引用: 1]

Wallace C., &Chen G .( 2006).

A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance

Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 529-557.

URL     [本文引用: 6]

The purpose of this multilevel study was to test whether regulatory focus mechanisms (promotion focus and prevention focus; Higgins, 1997 , American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300; Higgins, 2000 , American Psychologist, 55 , 1217–1230) can help explain how group safety climate and individual differences in Conscientiousness relate to individual productivity and safety performance. Results, based on a sample of 254 employees from 50 work groups, showed that safety climate and conscientiousness predicted promotion and prevention regulatory focus, which in turn mediated the relationships of safety climate and Conscientiousness with supervisor ratings of productivity and safety performance. Implications for theory and research on climate, motivation, and performance and avenues for future research are discussed.

Wallace J. C., Little L. M., Hill A. D., & Ridge J. W . ( 2010).

CEO regulatory foci, environmental dynamism, and small firm performance

Journal of Small Business Management, 48 (4), 580-604.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research proposes and tests that regulatory foci of small business chief executive officers (promotion focus and prevention focus) relate to firm performance differentially when levels of environmental uncertainty vary. Results suggest that a promotion focus is positively related to firm performance, whereas a prevention focus is negatively related to firm performance. Further, these relationships are moderated by the degree of environmental dynamism such that in more dynamic environments, the relationship between promotion focus and firm performance is strengthened, whereas the relationship between prevention focus and firm performance is negatively affected. The reverse was found for less dynamic environments. Theoretical and practical implications as well as future research avenues are offered.

Wang J., Wang L., Liu R. D., & Dong H. Z . ( 2017).

How expected evaluation influences creativity: Regulatory focus as moderator

Motivation and Emotion, 41 (2), 147-157.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Two studies investigated the effect of expected evaluation and regulatory focus on individuals creative performance. In both studies, first, the type of evaluation (informational versus controlling) was manipulated, and then regulatory focus was measured as an individual difference (in Study 1) or induced as a state using a pencil-and-paper maze task (in Study 2). Results provided evidence that participants who expect an informational evaluation were more likely to adopt an eager strategy; whereas participants who expected a controlling evaluation were more likely to adopt a vigilant strategy. Furthermore, participants in promotion-informational and prevention-controlling groups (regulatory fit conditions) performed more creatively than those in promotion-controlling and prevention-informational groups (regulatory non-fit conditions). In sum, the present findings contribute to a better understanding of how external evaluations and basic motivational orientations influence creative performance.

Zhang Y., Waldman D. A., Han Y. L., & Li X. B . ( 2015).

Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences

Academy of Management Journal, 58 (2), 538-566.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

As organizational environments become increasingly dynamic, complex, and competitive, leaders are likely to face intensified contradictory, or seemingly paradoxical, demands. We develop the construct of "paradoxical leader behavior" in people management, which refers to seemingly competing, yet interrelated, behaviors to meet structural and follower demands simultaneously and over time. In Study 1, we develop a measure of paradoxical leader behavior in people management using five samples from China. Confirmatory factor analyses support a multidimensional measure of paradoxical leader behavior with five dimensions: (1) combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness; (2) maintaining both distance and closeness; (3) treating subordinates uniformly, while allowing individualization; (4) enforcing work requirements, while allowing flexibility; and (5) maintaining decision control, while allowing autonomy. In Study 2, we examine the antecedents and consequences of paradoxical leader behavior in people management with a field sample of 76 supervisors and 516 subordinates from 6 firms. We find that the extent to which supervisors engage in holistic thinking and have integrative complexity is positively related to their paradoxical behavior in managing people, which, in turn, is associated with increased proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity among subordinates.

版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/