恩威并施、积极执行与工作绩效 ——探索中国情境下双元领导的有效性

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00117

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当今复杂多变的环境呼吁领导者应采取双元领导策略, 以平衡组织内部的相异诉求。恩威并施是我国传统文化塑造的一种具有双元特性的典型领导行为, 被大量学者视为提升下属产出的有效方式。然而, 以往研究忽略了“施恩” (仁慈领导行为)和“立威” (威权领导行为)不同组合对下属工作产出的差异化影响及其内部机理。为了弥补这些不足, 文章通过引入追随力理论, 探讨了施恩和立威组合情况如何塑造下属执行力进而影响工作绩效。采用多项式回归和响应面分析方法, 对130份两时间点上下级配对数据进行分析, 发现：(1)在施恩与立威水平相当情况下, 恩威皆高时下属积极执行程度要高于恩威皆低; (2)在施恩与立威水平不一致情况下, 恩多威寡时下属积极执行程度要高于威多恩寡; (3) 施恩与立威组合情况对下属积极执行的影响能够波及至下属工作绩效, 其中, 恩威皆高通过积极执行对工作绩效间接效应是最强的。以上结果细化了学界对恩威并施作用效果的认识, 对双元领导、追随力和工作绩效等研究领域均有一定的启发意义。

关键词: 双元领导, 仁慈领导, 权威领导, 恩威并施, 追随力

Abstract:

Ambidextrous leadership is key to solving organizational tension and complex problems. This type of leadership has gained attention in the field of organizational behavior in recent years. Ambidextrous leadership refers to a set of two complementary leadership behaviors and the flexibility switch between two different behaviors. Existing studies noted the extensive benefits of ambidextrous leadership to employees and organizations. These advantages include enhancement of the psychological empowerment of employees, exploratory and exploitative behaviors, innovation, and organizational change. Prior studies focused on ambidextrous leadership from the Western context. These studies include opening-closing leadership and transformational-transactional leadership. However, the consequences of indigenous ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context remain poorly understood. A particular ambidextrous leadership embedded in Chinese culture was identified, namely, authoritarian-benevolent leadership. The present study focuses on the combination of authoritarian and benevolent leadership, which is regarded as a type of indigenous ambidextrous leadership. The researchers aimed to investigate the effect of different combination modes of benevolent and authoritarian leadership on the work outcome of subordinates and its underlying mechanism.
The researchers identified four scenarios by combining the two kinds of leadership, namely, high authority-high benevolence, low authority-low benevolence, high authority-low benevolence, low authority-high benevolence. This approach was based on the level of authoritarian and benevolent leadership. The former two forms of leadership fall under the congruence category, whereas the latter two fall under the incongruence category. By drawing on followership theory, the researchers expected that the active implementation of subordinates was high when leaders were at a high level of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership than when at a low level of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership. The researchers also found that the active implementation of subordinates was high when the benevolent leadership of leaders exceeded authoritarian leadership rather than when authoritarian leadership exceeded benevolent leadership. Third, the active implementation of subordinates carried the joint effect of benevolent and authority leadership to the job performance of followers.
A multiwave, multiresource survey was used to test the hypotheses. Surveys were given to 204 voluntary subordinates at Time 1. They were required to report their leaders’ benevolent leadership and authoritarian leadership and demographic information. The researchers obtained 183 effective survey responses. After one month, the researchers conducted Time 2 survey, which required leaders to rate the job performance of their subordinates. The subordinates were then required to rate their active implementation. A total of 130 effective survey responses were obtained. The researchers used polynomial regression combined with response surface analysis based on the two-wave data. The results supported the hypotheses.
The findings offered several contributions to literature. First, different combination modes of benevolent and authoritarian leadership have different effects on the work outcome of subordinates. Second, the researchers uncovered the dynamics between authoritarian-benevolent leadership and work outcome of subordinates. These findings can aid Chinese scholars to gain an improved understanding of indigenous ambidextrous leadership. These findings advance the understanding on how authoritarian leadership combined with benevolent leadership affects the performance of followers. The findings also provide further practical insights to practitioners.

Key words: ambidexterity leadership, benevolent leadership, authoritarian leadership, benevolent authority, followership

中图分类号:

B849:C93

侯楠, 彭坚. (2019). 恩威并施、积极执行与工作绩效 ——探索中国情境下双元领导的有效性. 心理学报, 51(1), 117-127.

HOU Nan, PENG Jian. (2019). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, active implementation and job performance: An investigation on the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(1), 117-127.

图/表 8

参考文献 49

[1]	Aycan Z. ( 2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp. 445-466). London: Sage.
[2]	Bjugstad K., Thach E. C., Thompson K. J., & Morris A . ( 2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 7( 3), 304-319.
[3]	Chan S. C. H., Huang X., Snape E., & Lam C. K . ( 2013). The janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34( 1), 108-128. doi: 10.1002/job.1797 URL
[4]	Chen Z. X., Tsui A. S., & Farh J. L . ( 2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75( 3), 339-356. doi: 10.1348/096317902320369749 URL
[5]	Cheng B.S . ( 1995). The relationship between parental authority and leadership behavior: A case study of a moderator in a private enterprise in Taiwan. The Central Research Institute of Ethnology, 79, 119-173.
	[ 郑伯埙 . ( 1995). 家长权威与领导行为之关系:一个台湾民营企业主持人的个案研究. 中央研究院民族学研究所集刊,79, 119-173.]
[6]	Cheng B. S., Chou L. F., Wu T. Y., Huang M. P., & Farh J. L . ( 2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7( 1), 89-117. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x URL
[7]	Cheng B. S., Zhou L. F., & Fan J. L . ( 2000). Paternalistic leadership: Construction and measurement of ternary mode. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3-64.
	[ 郑伯埙, 周丽芳, 樊景立 . ( 2000). 家长式领导: 三元模式的建构与测量. 本土心理学研究, 14, 3-64.]
[8]	Cohen J. ( 1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112( 1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 URL
[9]	DeciE. E.L., & Ryan R.M . ( 1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
[10]	De Cremer D., & Van Dijk E. , ( 2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35( 4), 553-563. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.260 URL
[11]	Dulac T., Coyle-Shapiro J. A. M., Henderson D. J., & Wayne S. J . ( 2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations . Academy of Management Journal, 51( 6), 1079-1098. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732596 URL
[12]	Edwards J.R., & Cable D.M . ( 2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654-677. doi: 10.1037/a0014891 URL
[13]	Edwards J.R., & Parry M.E . ( 1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36( 6), 1577-1613. doi: 10.2307/256822 URL
[14]	Farh J.L., & Cheng B.S . ( 2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & W. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 85-127). London: Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511590_5 URL
[15]	Keller T.& Weibler J. ,( 2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22( 1), 54-71.
[16]	Li H., Ding G., & Li X. J . ( 2014). The impact of leadership on employee innovation behavior in the context of China—The perspective paternalistic leadership ternary theory. Chinese Journal of Management, 11( 7), 1005-1013.
	[ 李珲, 丁刚, 李新建 . ( 2014). 基于家长式领导三元理论的领导方式对员工创新行为的影响. 管理学报, 11( 7), 1005-1013.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2014.07.009 URL
[17]	Li H. L., Song J. W., & Zhou W. J . ( 2015). The impact of transformational leadership on employee followership in the Chinese context. Human Resources Development of China, ( 15), 47-55.
	[ 李浩澜, 宋继文, 周文杰 . ( 2015). 中国文化背景下变革型领导风格对员工追随力的作用机制. 中国人力资源开发, ( 15), 47-55.]
[18]	Li R., Tian X. M., & Liu S. S . ( 2015). Does benevolent leadership increase employee pro-social rule breaking? Acta Psychologica Sinica,( 5), 637-652.
	[ 李锐, 田晓明, 柳士顺 . ( 2015). 仁慈领导会增加员工的亲社会性规则违背吗? 心理学报, ( 5), 637-652.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00637 URL
[19]	Luo J. L., Zhao L., Han Y., Zhong J., & Guan S. J . ( 2016). Overview and prospect on research of ambidextrous leadership. Chinese Journal of Management, 13( 12), 1882-1889.
	[ 罗瑾琏, 赵莉, 韩杨, 钟竞, 管建世 . ( 2016). 双元领导研究进展述评. 管理学报, 13( 12), 1882-1889.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2016.12.018 URL
[20]	Luthans F. ( 2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23( 6), 695-706. doi: 10.1002/job.165 URL
[21]	Mackinnon D. P., Krull J. L., & Lockwood C. M . ( 2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science the Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1( 4), 173-181. doi: 10.1023/A:1026595011371 URL pmid: 11523746
[22]	Matta F. K., Scott B., Koopman J., & Conlon D. E . ( 2015). Does seeing "eye to eye" affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58( 6), 1686-1708. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0106 URL
[23]	Özçelik G.& Cenkci T. , ( 2014). Moderating effects of job embeddedness on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and in-role job performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 872-880. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.096 URL
[24]	Owens B. P., Wallace A. S., & Waldman D. A . ( 2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100( 4), 1203-1213. doi: 10.1037/a0038698 URL pmid: 25621592
[25]	Peng J.& Wang X. , ( 2016). I will perform effectively if you are with me: Leader-follower congruence in followership prototype, job engagement and job performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 8( 9), 1151-1162.
	[ 彭坚, 王霄 . ( 2016). 与上司“心有灵犀”会让你的工作更出色吗?——追随原型一致性、工作投入与工作绩效. 心理学报, 48( 9), 1151-1162.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01151 URL
[26]	Peng J.& Wang Z. , ( 2018). Being a prototypic follower: Burdening or enabling? The paradoxical effect of followership prototype-trait match. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 2), 216-225.
	[ 彭坚, 王震 . ( 2018). 做上司的“意中人”:负担还是赋能?追随原型-特质匹配的双刃剑效应. 心理学报, 50( 2), 216-225.]
[27]	Peng J., Wang X., Ran Y., & Han X . ( 2016). Can positive followership characteristic always promote work outcomes? The activation effect of benevolent leadership. Nankai Business Review, 19( 4), 135-146.
	[ 彭坚, 王霄, 冉雅璇, 韩雪亮 . ( 2016). 积极追随特质一定能提升工作产出吗——仁慈领导的激活作用 . 南开管理评论, 19( 4), 135-146.]
[28]	Podsakoff P. M., Mackenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P . ( 2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 URL pmid: 1451625114516251
[29]	Ren J. G., Farh J. L., Cheng B. X., & Zhou L. F . ( 2003). Paternalistic leadership and organizational effectiveness of senior executives: An analysis of individual and organizational levels. Chinese indigenous psychology research in ministry of education. Taibei: Ministry of Education.
	[ 任金刚, 樊景立, 郑伯埙, 周丽芳 . ( 2003). 高阶主管之家长式领导与组织效能: 一项个人与组织层次的分析. 教育部华人本土心理学研究追求卓越计划研究报告. 台北: 教育部.]
[30]	Rosing K., Frese M., & Bausch A . ( 2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22( 5), 956-974. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 URL
[31]	Schreuders J.& Legesse A. , ( 2012). Organizational ambidexterity: How small technology firms balance innovation and support. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2( 2), 17-21.
[32]	Shi G.F., & Li K. , ( 2014). The impact of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership on team creativity–Test of a mediated interaction model. Journal of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, 32( 5), 53-61.
	[ 石冠峰, 李琨 . ( 2014). 威权领导、仁慈领导对团队创造力—一个有中介的交互效应模型检验. 贵州财经大学学报, 32( 5), 53-61.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6636.2014.05.007 URL
[33]	Shin J., Taylor M. S., & Seo M. G . ( 2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55( 3), 727-748. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0325 URL
[34]	Smith P. B.& Wang Z. M.. ,( 1996) . Chinese leadership and organizational structures. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 322-337), Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
[35]	Tsai C. Y., Spain S. M., & Wang A. C . ( 2013). Paternalistic leadership: Impact of authoritarianism and benevolence on subordinate performance. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, US.
[36]	Uhl-Bien M., Riggio R. E., Lowe K. B., & Carsten M. K . ( 2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25( 1), 83-104. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007 URL
[37]	Wang T. F., Wang F., Tang Y. C., Tang Y. C., & Al E . ( 2016). Land collectivization and the structural transformation of traditional rural families. Social Sciences in China, 37( 3), 111-129. doi: 10.1080/02529203.2016.1194632 URL
[38]	Wei L.& Shi K. , ( 2010). Paternalistic leadership and job involvement: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 8( 2), 88-93.
	[ 魏蕾, 时勘 . ( 2010). 家长式领导与员工工作投入: 心理授权的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 8( 2), 88-93.]
[39]	Xu S., Li Y. Q., & , Cao Y.K . ( 2017). The influence of individual personlity traits on followership behavior: A construction of modulating meditation model. Human Resources Development of China, ( 7), 6-15.
[40]	[ 许晟, 李元清, 曹元坤 . ( 2017). 个体人格特质对追随行为的影响: 一个调节的中介模型建构. 中国人力资源开发, ( 7), 6-15.]
[41]	Yang G. S. ( 2004). Psychology and behavior of Chinese people: A study of localization . Beijing, China: Renmin University of China Press.
	[ 杨国枢 . (2004). 中国人的心理与行为: 本土化研究. 北京:中国人民大学出版社.]
[42]	Zacher H.& Rosing K. , ( 2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36( 1), 54-68. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141 URL
[43]	Zhang A. Y., Tsui A. S., & Wang D. X . ( 2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22( 5), 851-862. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007 URL
[44]	Zhao H.D., & Guo L.M . ( 2017). The best of both worlds: The conceptual structure and influencing mechanisms of ambidextrous leadership. Human Resources Development in China,( 4), 55-65.
	[ 赵红丹, 郭利敏 . ( 2017). 组织中的双面娇娃: 双元领导的概念结构与作用机制. 中国人力资源开发, ( 4), 55-65.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4124.2017.04.008 URL
[45]	Zhao X. S., Lynch J. G., & Chen Q. M . ( 2010). Reconsidering baron and kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37( 2), 197-206. doi: 10.1086/651257 URL
[46]	Zhou H. & Long. L.R . ( 2007). Relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational justice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39( 5), 909-917.
	[ 周浩, 龙立荣 . ( 2007). 家长式领导与组织公正感的关系. 心理学报, 39( 5), 909-917.] doi: 10.1360/aas-007-0297 URL
[47]	Zhou W. R., Zhou L. F., Cheng B. S., Ren J. G . ( 2010). Juan-chiuan and shang-yan: The components of authoritarian leadership. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 223-284.
	[ 周婉茹, 周丽芳, 郑伯埙, 任金刚 . ( 2010). 专权与尚严之辨: 再探威权领导的内涵与恩威并济的效果. 本土心理学研究, 34, 223-284.]
[48]	Zhou W. J., Song J. W., & Li H. L . ( 2015). The definition, structure and measurement of followship in Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 12( 3), 355-363.
	[ 周文杰, 宋继文, 李浩澜 . ( 2015). 中国情境下追随力的内涵、结构与测量. 管理学报, 12( 3), 355-363.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2015.03.006 URL
[49]	Zou Y.C., & Yin T.B . ( 2017). A multi-level perspective on the review of psychological safety. Human Resources Development of China,(4), 66- 75, 121.
	[ 邹艳春, 印田彬 . ( 2017). 多层次视角下的心理安全研究评述. 中国人力资源开发, (4), 66-75, 121.]

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	CFI	TLI
四因素：AL; BL; JJZX; JP	63.05	29	2.17	0.09	0.92	0.95	0.93
三因素：AL + BL; JJZX; JP	223.87	32	7.00	0.22	0.71	0.74	0.64
二因素：AL + BL + JJZX; JP	149.41	34	4.39	0.16	0.81	0.84	0.79
单因素：AL + BL + JJZX + JP	432.43	35	12.36	0.30	0.45	0.46	0.30

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	NFI	CFI	TLI
四因素：AL; BL; JJZX; JP	63.05	29	2.17	0.09	0.92	0.95	0.93
三因素：AL + BL; JJZX; JP	223.87	32	7.00	0.22	0.71	0.74	0.64
二因素：AL + BL + JJZX; JP	149.41	34	4.39	0.16	0.81	0.84	0.79
单因素：AL + BL + JJZX + JP	432.43	35	12.36	0.30	0.45	0.46	0.30

变量	平均数	标准差	1	2	3	4
1 开放-闭合双元领导	0.24	0.27
2 仁慈领导行为	4.07	0.73	-0.12
3 威权领导行为	2.89	0.88	0.36**	-0.12
4 积极执行	4.34	0.62	-0.24**	0.66**	-0.07
5 工作绩效	4.12	0.65	-0.09	0.33**	0.07	0.33**

变量	平均数	标准差	1	2	3	4
1 开放-闭合双元领导	0.24	0.27
2 仁慈领导行为	4.07	0.73	-0.12
3 威权领导行为	2.89	0.88	0.36**	-0.12
4 积极执行	4.34	0.62	-0.24**	0.66**	-0.07
5 工作绩效	4.12	0.65	-0.09	0.33**	0.07	0.33**

变量	积极执行
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3
常数项	4.33**	4.39**	4.27**
性别差异	-0.06	-0.031	-0.01
年龄差异	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01
学历差异	0.04	0.09	0.14
任职时间差异	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01
共事时长	0.02**	0.01	0.01
开放×闭合	-0.43*	-0.40*	-0.52**
自变量
仁慈领导行为(X)b₁		0.52**	0.49**
威权领导行为(Y)b₂		0.59	-0.02
仁慈平方(X²)b₃			0.12*
仁慈×威权(X×Y)b₄			0.08
威权平方(X²)b₅			0.09*
R²	0.14	0.47
ΔR²		0.33**	0.04*