Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (2) : 238-247     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00238
|
Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style
SHEN Yimo1,2(),MA Chenlu1,BAI Xinwen3,ZHU Yanhan4,,LU Yunlin5,ZHANG Qinglin1,LIU Jun2
1 School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2 Business School, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
3 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
4 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
5 School of Business and Law, Jiangsu Second Normal University, Nanjing 210029, China
Download: PDF(687 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Although creativity has been recognized as an important employee outcome related with work context, to date little research has examined the relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity, which has perhaps been hindered by the lack of a theoretical framework outlining the mechanisms underlying this relationship. The current study examined the processes linking abusive supervision to employee creativity in the Chinese context by focusing on the mediating influence of psychological contract breach and the moderating influence of Zhongyong thinking style.
We collected data from 93 supervisors and 369 subordinates at three different time points. In the first survey, the subordinates were asked to provide information about abusive supervision and their demography. One week later, these subordinates were asked to answer some questions about psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style. Approximately two months later, we asked these supervisors to rate their subordinates’ creativity. Multi-level structuring equation modeling technique and Monte Carlo resampling method were employed to examine the hypothesis about the moderating role of Zhongyong thinking style in the indirect relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity through psychological contract breach.
These findings provided support for the hypothesis that the indirect relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity through psychological contract breach is moderated by Zhongyong thinking style, such that the indirect relationship is weakened when Zhongyong thinking style is high, rather than low. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity in the Chinese context, and imply that the negative influence of abusive supervision on employee outcomes could be decreased by guiding employees to cultivate Zhongyong thinking style because it can encourage self-regulation of behavior after experiencing abusive supervision.

Keywords abusive supervision      psychological contract breach      Zhongyong thinking style      creativity     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Yimo SHEN,Yanhan ZHU     E-mail: shenym1980@126.com
Issue Date: 24 December 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yimo SHEN
Chenlu MA
Xinwen BAI
Yanhan ZHU
Yunlin LU
Qinglin ZHANG
Jun LIU
Cite this article:   
Yimo SHEN,Chenlu MA,Xinwen BAI, et al. Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 238-247.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00238     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I2/238
  
模型 χ2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA 模型比较检验
模型比较 ?χ2 ?df
1. 基准模型(4因子) 1480.66 588 0.95 0.96 0.06
2. 三因子模型一 4065.49 591 0.85 0.86 0.13 2 vs. 1 2584.83** 3
3. 三因子模型二 7780.26 591 0.85 0.86 0.18 3 vs. 1 6299.60** 3
4. 三因子模型三 2007.45 591 0.93 0.93 0.08 4 vs. 1 526.79** 3
5. 三因子模型四 7504.47 591 0.86 0.86 0.18 5 vs. 1 6023.81** 3
6. 单因子模型 11119.26 594 0.72 0.74 0.22 6 vs. 1 9638.60** 6
  
变量a M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
个体层面
1. 性别 1.47 0.49 --
2. 年龄 1.70 0.86 -0.08 --
3. 受教育程度 1.23 0.43 -0.08 -0.22** --
4. 任职年限 2.50 1.31 -0.03 0.53** -0.12* --
5. 心理契约破坏 3.23 1.56 -0.05 -0.04 0.01 0.07 (0.96)
6. 中庸思维 2.22 0.79 0.10 -0.11* -0.03 0.01 0.22** (0.92)
7. 员工创造力 4.94 1.16 0.01 0.11* -0.06 0.07 -0.13* -0.05 (0.88)
群体层面
1. 辱虐管理 1.71 0.52 (0.93)
  
变量 心理契约破坏 员工创造力
性别 -0.26 (0.15) -0.05 (0.14)
年龄 -0.21* (0.11) 0.02 (0.07)
受教育程度 -0.04 (0.18) -0.13 (0.17)
任职年限 0.03 (0.06) 0.07 (0.05)
中庸思维 0.28* (0.11) -0.03 (0.07)
辱虐管理 1.02** (0.18)
心理契约破坏 -0.05 (0.03)
辱虐管理×中庸思维 -0.14 (0.22)
心理契约破坏×中庸思维 0.18** (0.07)
  
  
分组统计 辱虐管理(X)à心理契约破坏(M)à员工创造力(Y) 间接效应95%的
置信区间
阶段 效应
第一阶段
(PMX)
第二阶段
(PYM)
直接效应
(PYX)
间接效应
(PMX PYM)
低中庸思维(-1 SD) 1.06**(0.18) -0.12*(0.05) -0.39** (0.14) -0.12*(0.05) [-0.22, -0.03]
高中庸思维(+1 SD) 1.06**(0.18) 0.07 (0.05) -0.39** (0.14) 0.07(0.06) [-0.04, 0.19]
组间差异 1.06**(0.18) -0.18**(0.07) -0.39** (0.14) -0.19*(0.08) [-0.37, -0.04]
  
1 Aiken, L.S., & West S.G, . ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
2 Agarwal, U.A . ( 2016). Examining perceived organizational politics among Indian managers: Engagement as mediator and locus of control as moderator. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24( 3), 415-437.
url: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/IJOA-07-2014-0786
3 Aquino, K., & Douglas S. ( 2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90( 1), 195-208.
url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597802005174
4 Blau, P.M . ( 1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
5 Bliese, P.D . ( 2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations( pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6 Cheung T. S., Chan H. M., Chan K. M., King A. Y. C., Chiu C. Y., & Yang C. F . ( 2003). On Zhongyong rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31( 1), 107-127.
url: https://brill.com/abstract/journals/ajss/31/1/article-p107_8.xml
7 Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
8 Conway, N., & Briner R.B, . ( 2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23( 3), 287-303.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1379
9 Ding G. F., Gu X. X., Zhu Y. Y., & Liu J. X . ( 2012). The mechanism between superior's abusive and subordinate's performance behavior and intervention strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 20( 9), 1347-1354.
9 [ 丁桂凤, 古茜茜, 朱滢莹, 刘建雄 . ( 2012). 上司不当督导与下属绩效行为的作用机制及其干预策略. 心理科学进展, 20( 9), 1347-1354.]
10 Ding, G.F., & Zhang P.T, . ( 2013). Abusive supervision and normative commitment: The mediation effects of followership. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 11( 6), 796-800.
10 [ 丁桂凤, 张澎涛 . ( 2013). 领导不当督导与追随者规范承诺: 追随力的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 11( 6), 796-800.]
11 Edwards, J.R., & Lambert L.S, . ( 2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12( 1), 1-22.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
12 Han G. H., Harms P. D., & Bai Y . ( 2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(#1), 21-31
13 He, X. ( 2009). Can interactional justice solve the silence problem? Management World, ( 4), 128-134.
13 [ 何轩 . ( 2009). 互动公平真的就能治疗沉默病吗? 以中庸思维作为调节变量的本土实证研究. 管理世界, ( 4), 128-134.]
14 Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M . ( 2012). Networks for innovation-but what networks and what innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21( 1), 3-16.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00625.x
15 Ho, M.Y., & Fung H.H, . ( 2011). A dynamic process model of forgiveness: A cross-cultural perspective. Review of General Psychology, 15( 1), 77-84.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0022605
16 Janssen, O. ( 2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73( 3), 287-302.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1348/096317900167038
17 Janssen, O. ( 2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25( 2), 201-215.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1379
18 Ji L. J., Peng K., & Nisbett R. E . ( 2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78( 5), 943-955.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943
19 Khazanchi, S., & Masterson S.S, . ( 2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32( 1), 86-106.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/job.682
20 Kiazad K., Seibert S. E., & Kraimer M. L . ( 2014). Psychological contract breach and employee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87( 3), 535-556.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/joop.2014.87.issue-3
21 Lee S., Yun S., & Srivastava A . ( 2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24( 5), 724-731.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1048984313000702
22 Lee, Y.T . ( 2000). What is missing in Chinese-Western dialectical reasoning? American Psychologist, 55( 9), 1065-1067.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1065
23 Li Y. N., Zhang M. J., Law K. S., & Yan M. N . ( 2015). Subordinate performance and abusive supervision: The role of envy and anger. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015( 1), 16420-16420.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2015.16420abstract
24 Liu D., Liao H., & Loi R . ( 2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55( 5), 1187-1212.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2010.0400
25 Liu D., Zhang Z., & Wang, M .( 2012). Mono-level and multilevel mediated moderation and moderated mediation: Theorization and test. In X. Chen, A. Tsui & L. Farh (Eds.), Management research methods (2nd ed., pp. 545-579). Beijing: Peking University Press.
25 [ 刘东, 张震, 汪默 . ( 2012). 被调节的中介和被中介的调节: 理论构建与模型验证. 见: 陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立(主编). 组织与管理研究实证方法(2nd; pp. 545-579.). 北京:北京大学出版社.]
26 Metcalfe, J., & Mischel W. ( 1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106( 1), 3-19.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3
27 Morrison, E.W., & Robinson S.L, . ( 1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22( 1), 226-256.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180265
28 Muthén, L.K., & Muthén B.O, . ( 2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
29 Ng T. W. H., Feldman D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. ( 2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 4), 744-751.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0018804
30 Oldham, G.R., & Cummings A. ( 1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39( 3), 607-634.
31 Parzefall, M.R., & Salin D.M, . ( 2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63( 6), 761-780.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018726709345043
32 Restubog, S.L, Scott, K.L., & Zagenczyk T.J, . ( 2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96( 4), 713-729.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0021593
33 Robinson, S.L., & Morrison E.W, . ( 2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21( 5), 525-546.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1379
34 Scott, S.G., & Bruce R.A, . ( 1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37( 3), 580-607.
35 Sethi A., Mischel W., Aber J. L., Shoda Y., & Rodriguez M. L . ( 2000). The role of strategic attention deployment in development of self-regulation: Predicting preschoolers' delay of gratification from mother-toddler interactions. Developmental Psychology, 36( 6), 767-777.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0012-1649.36.6.767
36 Shalley C. E., Gilson L. L., & Blum T. C . ( 2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 489-505.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2009.41330806
37 Tekleab, A.G., & Taylor M.S, . ( 2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24( 5), 585-608.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1379
38 Tepper, B.J . ( 2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43( 2), 178-190.
39 Tepper, B.J . ( 2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33( 3), 261-289.
40 Wang C. J., Tsai H. T., & Tsai M. T . ( 2014). Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tourism Management, 40, 79-89.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261517713001143
41 Wu, J.H . ( 2006). Zhongyong make my life better: The effect of Zhongyong thinking on life satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 7, 163-176.
41 [ 吴佳辉 . ( 2006). 中庸让我生活更美好:中庸思维对生活满意度之影响. 华人心理学报, 7, 163-176.]
42 Wu, J.H., & Lin Y.C, . ( 2005). Development of a Zhong-Yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247-300.
42 [ 吴佳辉, 林以正 . ( 2005). 中庸思维量表的编制. 本土心理学研究, 24, 247-300.]
43 Wu L. Z., Liu J., & Liu G . ( 2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41( 6), 510-518.
43 [ 吴隆增, 刘军, 刘刚 . ( 2009). 辱虐管理与员工表现: 传统性与信任的作用. 心理学报, 41(6), 510-518.]
44 Yang, Z.F . ( 2010). Multiplicity of Zhong Yong studies. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 3-96.
44 [ 杨中芳 . ( 2010). 中庸实践思维体系探研的初步进展. 本土心理学研究, 34, 1120-165.]
45 Yao X., Yang Q., Dong N., & Wang L . ( 2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13( 1), 53-57.
url: http://blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajsp.2010.13.issue-1
46 Zhang H., Kwan H. K., Zhang X., & Wu L. Z . ( 2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40( 4), 1151-1174.
47 Zhao H., Wayne S. J., Glibkowski B. C., & Bravo J . ( 2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60( 3), 647-680.
url: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/peps/60/3
48 Zhou, J., & Hoever I.J, . ( 2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1( 1), 333-359.
url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226
[1] Weiguo LIU, Yanran FANG, Junqi SHI, Shenjiang MO. The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
[2] ZHANG Yong, LIU Haiquan, WANG Mingxuan, QING Ping.  The impact of challenge stress and hindrance stress on employee creativity: The mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating role of justice[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(4): 450-461.
[3] SUN Jianmin, CHEN Leni, YIN Kui.  When challenge stressors increase employee innovative behaviors? The role of leader member exchange and abusive supervision[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(4): 436-449.
[4] YANG Wenjing, JIN Yule, QIU Jiang, ZHANG Qinglin.  The effect of prototype difficulty and semantic similarity on the prototype activation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 260-269.
[5] Shengming LIU,Lifan CHEN,Simai WANG. Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(10): 1159-1168.
[6] LIU Min, ZHANG Qinlin, YU Wei, ZHANG Hua.  Preliminary study on creative thinking mechanism of market information integration[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(1): 82-90.
[7] LIU Chao, LIU Jun, ZHU Li, WU Shouqiang.  The causes of abusive supervision from the perspective of rule-adaptation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 966-979.
[8] NI Xudong; XIANG Xiaoxia; YAO Chunxu. Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 556-565.
[9] LI WenFu; TONG DanDan; QIU Jiang; ZHANG QingLin. The neural basis of scientific innovation problems solving[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(4): 331-342.
[10] ZHANG Jinghuan; LIU Xin; REN Feifei; SUN Xiangwei; YU Qi. The effects of group diversity and organizational support on group creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(12): 1551-1560.
[11] GU Chuanhua; WANG Yali; WU Caifu; XIE Xianglong; CUI Chengzhu; WANG Yaxian; WANG Wanzhen; HU Biying; ZHOU Zongkui. Brain Correlates underlying Social Creative Thinking: EEG Alpha Activity in Trait vs. State Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(6): 765-773.
[12] LV Jie; ZHANG Gang. The Mechanisms of Knowledge Heterogeneity on Creativity of Knowledge Teams: An Interactive Cognition Perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 533-544.
[13] MA Jun; ZHANG Haomin; YANG Tao. A Cross-level Analysis of Achievement Goal Orientation and Performance Control on Team Member’s Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(1): 79-92.
[14] ZHANG Yong; LONG Lirong; HE Wei. The Effect of Pay for Performance on Radical Creativity and Incremental Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(12): 1880-1896.
[15] LIN Xiaomin; BAI Xinwen; LIN Lin. Effects of Similarity and Accuracy Indices of Shared Mental Models on Team Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1734-1747.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech