Dialectical leadership behavior and its impact on firm innovation capability and performance: An exploration based on the Chinese culture

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00374

Abstract

Abstract:

Under the framework of exploring the psychological and behavioral characteristics of Chinese people in coping with crises, this paper explores the conceptualization, structure, measurement, and uniqueness of dialectical leadership behavior, as well as discuss its influence on firm innovation capability and performance. This study found that dialectical leadership behavior, which stemmed from the traditional Chinese and Eastern Asia culture, has six dimensions: 1) timely adjusting, 2) individualized mentoring, 3) balancing between kindness and strictness, 4) weighing contradictions, 5) promoting coordination, and 6) holistically managing. Results from multiple studies show that: 1) dialectical leadership behavior is different from other existing leadership behavior concepts; 2) the mean level of Chinese top managers' dialectical leadership behavior is higher than the United States top managers' dialectical leadership behavior; 3) dialectical leadership behavior is positively related to firm innovation capability and performance. Moreover, we also identified firm strategic flexibility as the underlining mechanism in the above relationships. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications and future research direction.

Key words: dialectical leadership behavior, strategic flexibility, firm innovative capability, firm performance, Chinese context

WANG Hui, WANG Ying, JI Xiaode, JI Ming. (2023). Dialectical leadership behavior and its impact on firm innovation capability and performance: An exploration based on the Chinese culture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 374-389.

Figures/Tables 6

References 66

[1]	Aaker, D. A., & Mascarenhas, B. (1984). The need for strategic flexibility. The Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039060 doi: 10.1108/eb039060 URL
[2]	Akman, G., & Yilmaz, C. (2008). Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation: An empirical analysis in Turkish software industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 69-111. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001923 doi: 10.1142/S1363919608001923 URL
[3]	Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 URL
[4]	Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003 URL
[5]	Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink unless it is thirsty. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199800500102 doi: 10.1177/107179199800500102 URL
[6]	Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 962-969. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.48 doi: 10.1057/jibs.2013.48 URL
[7]	Bai, Y., Harms, P., Han, G., & Cheng, W. (2015). Good and bad simultaneously? Leaders using dialectical thinking foster positive conflict and employee performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(3), 245-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2014-0070
[8]	Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122
[9]	Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[10]	Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
[11]	Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). Extending and refining the dialectic perspective on innovation: There is nothing as practical as a good theory; nothing as theoretical as a good practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01161.x doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01161.x URL
[12]	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: Foundations, extensions, and new directions, Jossey-Bass.
[13]	Chen, C., Wu, Xiao., & Wei, F. (2004). Heterogeneity of top management team, managerial ownership, and risk taking. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 19(5), 1-13.
[14]	Cheng, C. (2009). Dialectical thinking and coping flexibility: A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality, 77(2), 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x URL pmid: 19220723
[15]	Cheng, Z. (1988). Chinese language and traditional Chinese philosophical way of thinking. Philosophical Trends, 10, 18-21.
[16]	Cheng, Z., & Lv, L. (2012). Concepts, systems and structures of management philosophy and Chinese management philosophy: Professor Cheng Chung-ying. Chinese Journal of Management, 9(8), 1099-1110.
[17]	Chen, Y., Jia, L., Li, C., Song, J., & Zhang, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and employee organizational commitment: An empirical examination in China. Management World, 1, 96-105.
[18]	Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926623 doi: 10.2307/259291 URL
[19]	El Akremi, A., Gond, J., Swaen, V., de Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311 doi: 10.1177/0149206315569311 URL
[20]	English, T., & Chen, S. (2007). Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within contexts among Asian United Statess and European United Statess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 478-490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.478 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.478 URL pmid: 17723061
[21]	Evans, J. S. (1991). Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00271.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00271.x URL
[22]	Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.67.18259
[23]	Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434 doi: 10.2307/258434 URL
[24]	Hau, K., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 57(2), 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
[25]	Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2017). Dialectical thinking and fairness-based perspectives of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 782-801. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000207 doi: 10.1037/apl0000207 URL pmid: 28150989
[26]	Hiller, N. J., Sin, H., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 URL
[27]	Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509 doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509 URL
[28]	House, R. J., Dorfman, P., Javidan, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Luque, M. S. D. (2014). Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[29]	Hou, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2002). The effect of culture on thinking style of Chinese people. Acta Psychologica Sinica, (1), 106-111.
[30]	Huang, M., & Wang, H. (2017). CEO dialectical leadership: An exploration study. Economic Science, (3), 115-128.
[31]	James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307 URL
[32]	James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285144 doi: 10.1177/1094428105285144 URL
[33]	Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008 URL
[34]	Kirkman, B., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971 doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669971 URL
[35]	Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919 doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919 URL
[36]	Lee, H. (2002). The impact of CEO and TMT characteristics on strategic flexibility and firm performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University.
[37]	Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069392 doi: 10.2307/3069392 URL
[38]	Liu, N., & Zhang, Y., (2007). Cross-sectoral integration for innovation and human resources management support systems. Human Resources Development of China, (11), 35-38.
[39]	Luciano, M. M., Nahrgang, J. D., & Shropshire, C. (2020). Strategic leadership systems: Viewing top management teams and boards of directors from a multiteam systems perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 675-701. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2017.0485 doi: 10.5465/amr.2017.0485 URL
[40]	Lv, Y., Li, W., & Kang, Y. (2016). Relationship among TMT climate, strategic flexibility and firm performance: An empirical study under dynamic environment. Chinese Journal of Management, (13), 195-202.
[41]	Meng, P. (1988). On the basic characteristics of the traditional Chinese way of thinking. Philosophical Investigations, 7, 53-60.
[42]	Meyer, K. E. (2006). Asian management research needs more self- confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2 doi: 10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2 URL
[43]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus version 8 [Computer software manual]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[44]	Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050-1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533196 doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533196 URL
[45]	Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.2.291 URL pmid: 11381831
[46]	Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.355 URL pmid: 12002963
[47]	Pang, P. (1980). Comment on the doctrine of the mean. Social Sciences in China, 1, 75-100.
[48]	Peng, H. (2017). Three characteristics of traditional Chinese thinking style: Holistic thinking, dialectical thinking and intuitive thinking. Social Science Research, 3, 126-133.
[49]	Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. The United States Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
[50]	Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Dialectical responses to questions about dialectical thinking. The United States Psychologist, 55(9), 1067-1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1067
[51]	Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1028-1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1028 URL pmid: 1774625
[52]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasure of man (agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 615-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002 URL
[53]	Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 URL
[54]	Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
[55]	Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 16(5), 522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
[56]	Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1416-1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264243
[57]	Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7＜509::AID-SMJ882＞3.0.CO;2-Z doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7＜lt;509::AID-SMJ882＞gt;3.0.CO;2-Z URL
[58]	Tian, C. (2008). Chinese dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism. China Renmin University Press.
[59]	Tsui, A. (2009). Editor’s introduction-Autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging scientific communities. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00143.x
[60]	Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 URL
[61]	Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407908 doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407908 URL
[62]	Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 122-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609338592 URL pmid: 20514149
[63]	Zhang, D., & Cheng, Z. (1991). Chinese way of thinking. China Social Sciences Press.
[64]	Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 862-873. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020173 doi: 10.1037/a0020173 URL pmid: 20718512
[65]	Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007 URL
[66]	Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., & Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995 doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0995 URL

Items	Exploratory factor analysis						Confirmatory factor analysis
Items	Timely Adjusting	Balancing between Kindness and strictness	Weighing Contradiction	Individualized Mentoring	Promoting Coordination	Holistically Managing	Confirmatory factor analysis
Constantly evaluate the organization's opportunities and threats brought about by changes in the environment	0.95	0.08	0.01	0.06	-0.10	-0.05	0.68
Have a clear understanding of the main problems faced by the organization in terms of long-term development	0.86	0.01	0.00	-0.03	0.00	0.05	0.74
Have a clear understanding of the future development prospects of the organization	0.85	0.04	-0.03	0.02	0.05	-0.03	0.69
Adjust organization strategy timely according to internal and external environment changes	0.77	-0.11	0.01	-0.09	0.05	0.05	0.79
Arrange different tasks according to the characteristics of employees	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.95	-0.09	-0.02	0.75
Adopt different leadership styles according to the age and positions of employees	0.03	-0.05	-0.03	0.91	0.05	0.03	0.77
Adopt different management practices methods based on the characteristics of employees	-0.08	0.02	-0.01	0.86	0.06	0.02	0.85
Consider both criticism and affirmation when treating employees	0.10	0.87	0.03	0.02	-0.03	-0.08	0.79
Get along with employees seriously while friendly	0.00	0.87	-0.03	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.67
Not only empower employees but also control them	-0.06	0.83	0.03	-0.07	0.08	0.03	0.54
Not only lead employees with encouragement but also strain	-0.02	0.82	0.04	-0.01	-0.01	0.07	0.81
Consider both short-term benefits and long-term development when formulating an organizational development strategy	0.01	0.02	0.83	-0.04	0.00	-0.06	0.77
Balance the short-term interest and long-term goals of the organization	0.02	-0.04	0.80	0.00	0.03	-0.03	0.73
Maintain stable development of the organization while promoting change and innovation	-0.03	0.04	0.79	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.69
Not only promote the organization to make full use of existing resources and capabilities but also expand new resources and capabilities.	-0.01	0.08	0.72	0.02	-0.07	0.06	0.67
Promote mutual understanding among different departments and procedures within an organization	0.11	0.00	-0.01	0.01	0.81	-0.06	0.85
Constantly optimize the connections among departments and procedures	0.04	-0.10	0.02	0.07	0.78	0.06	0.85
Promote the coordination between each department and the organization as a whole	-0.13	0.17	-0.10	-0.07	0.78	-0.07	0.85
Emphasize cooperation among departments of the organization when formulating strategy	0.03	-0.01	0.15	0.03	0.70	0.05	0.72
Consider the overall layout of the organization when allocating capital, human resources, and other resources	0.02	-0.02	0.00	-0.07	0.06	0.90	0.77
Consider the overall condition of the organization when appraising the performance of different departments	0.00	0.02	-0.02	0.07	-0.09	0.78	0.76
Consider the opinions of all departments from the overall perspective when making decisions	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.73	0.76
Eigenvalue	8.73	2.99	2.24	1.32	1.15	1.05
Cumulative explained variance	38.35%	51.09%	60.14%	64.69%	68.43%	71.91%
Cronbach's α	0.92	0.93	0.87	0.93	0.86	0.85

Items	Exploratory factor analysis						Confirmatory factor analysis
Items	Timely Adjusting	Balancing between Kindness and strictness	Weighing Contradiction	Individualized Mentoring	Promoting Coordination	Holistically Managing	Confirmatory factor analysis
Constantly evaluate the organization's opportunities and threats brought about by changes in the environment	0.95	0.08	0.01	0.06	-0.10	-0.05	0.68
Have a clear understanding of the main problems faced by the organization in terms of long-term development	0.86	0.01	0.00	-0.03	0.00	0.05	0.74
Have a clear understanding of the future development prospects of the organization	0.85	0.04	-0.03	0.02	0.05	-0.03	0.69
Adjust organization strategy timely according to internal and external environment changes	0.77	-0.11	0.01	-0.09	0.05	0.05	0.79
Arrange different tasks according to the characteristics of employees	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.95	-0.09	-0.02	0.75
Adopt different leadership styles according to the age and positions of employees	0.03	-0.05	-0.03	0.91	0.05	0.03	0.77
Adopt different management practices methods based on the characteristics of employees	-0.08	0.02	-0.01	0.86	0.06	0.02	0.85
Consider both criticism and affirmation when treating employees	0.10	0.87	0.03	0.02	-0.03	-0.08	0.79
Get along with employees seriously while friendly	0.00	0.87	-0.03	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.67
Not only empower employees but also control them	-0.06	0.83	0.03	-0.07	0.08	0.03	0.54
Not only lead employees with encouragement but also strain	-0.02	0.82	0.04	-0.01	-0.01	0.07	0.81
Consider both short-term benefits and long-term development when formulating an organizational development strategy	0.01	0.02	0.83	-0.04	0.00	-0.06	0.77
Balance the short-term interest and long-term goals of the organization	0.02	-0.04	0.80	0.00	0.03	-0.03	0.73
Maintain stable development of the organization while promoting change and innovation	-0.03	0.04	0.79	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.69
Not only promote the organization to make full use of existing resources and capabilities but also expand new resources and capabilities.	-0.01	0.08	0.72	0.02	-0.07	0.06	0.67
Promote mutual understanding among different departments and procedures within an organization	0.11	0.00	-0.01	0.01	0.81	-0.06	0.85
Constantly optimize the connections among departments and procedures	0.04	-0.10	0.02	0.07	0.78	0.06	0.85
Promote the coordination between each department and the organization as a whole	-0.13	0.17	-0.10	-0.07	0.78	-0.07	0.85
Emphasize cooperation among departments of the organization when formulating strategy	0.03	-0.01	0.15	0.03	0.70	0.05	0.72
Consider the overall layout of the organization when allocating capital, human resources, and other resources	0.02	-0.02	0.00	-0.07	0.06	0.90	0.77
Consider the overall condition of the organization when appraising the performance of different departments	0.00	0.02	-0.02	0.07	-0.09	0.78	0.76
Consider the opinions of all departments from the overall perspective when making decisions	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.73	0.76
Eigenvalue	8.73	2.99	2.24	1.32	1.15	1.05
Cumulative explained variance	38.35%	51.09%	60.14%	64.69%	68.43%	71.91%
Cronbach's α	0.92	0.93	0.87	0.93	0.86	0.85

Measurement model	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Six-factor model	262.09	194	-	-	0.97	0.96	0.04	0.05
3-factor model: Timely adjusting + individualized mentoring Balancing between kindness and strictness + weighing contradictions Promoting coordination + holistically managing	397.32	206	135.23^**	12	0.91	0.90	0.06	0.05
One-factor model	491.44	209	229.35^**	15	0.87	0.85	0.07	0.06

Measurement model	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Six-factor model	262.09	194	-	-	0.97	0.96	0.04	0.05
3-factor model: Timely adjusting + individualized mentoring Balancing between kindness and strictness + weighing contradictions Promoting coordination + holistically managing	397.32	206	135.23^**	12	0.91	0.90	0.06	0.05
One-factor model	491.44	209	229.35^**	15	0.87	0.85	0.07	0.06

Distinguishing model	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Two-factor model: DLB, TFL	83.43	34			0.94	0.92	0.04	0.08
One-factor model: DLB + TFL	93.44	35	10.01^**	1	0.93	0.90	0.05	0.09
Two-factor model: DLB, PDL-PM	100.45	43			0.94	0.92	0.04	0.08
Single factor model: DLB + PDL-PM	116.96	44	16.51^**	1	0.92	0.91	0.05	0.09
Two-factor model: DLB, PDL-CD	75.17	34			0.96	0.94	0.04	0.08
One-factor model: DLB + PDL-CD	85.34	35	10.17^**	1	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.09
Two-factor model: DLB, vision	42.62	19			0.95	0.93	0.04	0.08
One-factor model: DLB + vision	63.96	20	21.34^**	1	0.91	0.87	0.05	0.10