领导纳谏内涵及其对工作行为的影响：基于调节焦点理论的视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00697

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

领导纳谏自古有之, 它对组织的发展与成功至关重要。通过对领导纳谏的概念、影响因素和影响结果的详细综述发现, 现有研究缺乏对领导纳谏内涵的关注, 且聚焦于对领导纳谏影响因素的探讨, 这不利于我们深入理解领导纳谏的概念内涵及其作用机制。领导纳谏是一种深思熟虑的认知过程, 但同时作为一种有意识的行为, 它也是一种受动机驱动的目的性行为。本文从领导纳谏的动机视角出发, 基于调节焦点理论系统地探讨领导纳谏的内涵及其效应机制。具体而言, 根据领导纳谏的动机和调节焦点理论, 领导纳谏可以被划分为促进型纳谏和防御型纳谏两个子维度, 同时将从个体和团队两个方面来探讨促进型纳谏和防御型纳谏对员工建言行为和团队创新的不同影响机制, 为领导纳谏研究提供全新视角。

关键词: 促进型纳谏, 防御型纳谏, 调节焦点, 建言行为, 团队创新

Abstract:

Voice-taking is originated from the ancient time and it’s crucial for the growth and success of an organization. This paper dealt with a detailed review on the concept, antecedents and outcomes of voice-taking. It found that existing studies paid less attention to the connotation of voice-taking and focused on discussing the antecedents of voice-taking, which were not conducive to in-depth understanding of the connotation and effects of voice-taking. Voice-taking is a deliberate cognitive process. Meanwhile, as a conscious behavior, it’s also a goal-directed behavior driven by motivation. From the perspective of motivation of voice-taking, this paper systematically explores the connotation of voice-taking and its effect mechanisms based on the regulatory focus theory. Specifically, according to motivation perspective and regulatory focus theory, voice-taking may include two sub-dimensions: promotive voice-taking and preventive voice-taking. At the individual level, promotive voice-taking and preventive voice-taking have different effect mechanisms on promotive voice and prohibitive voice. Promotive voice-taking has a positive effect on employees’ promotive voice by stimulating their felt responsibility for constructive change, while preventive voice-taking has a positive effect on employees’ prohibitive voice by enhancing their psychological safety. Meanwhile, according to regulatory fit theory, employees’ regulatory focus trait is an important factor that affects the relationship between promotive voice-taking and felt responsibility for constructive change, and the relationship between preventive voice-taking and psychological safety. When employees’ promotion focus trait matches the promotive voice-taking environment, their felt responsibility for constructive change will be strengthened and consequently more promotive voice behavior will be performed. When employees’ prevention focus trait matches the preventive voice-taking environment, their psychological safety will be enhanced, thereby more prohibitive voice behavior will be performed. At the team level, the effect mechanisms of promotive voice-taking and preventive voice-taking on team innovation are different. Promotive voice-taking is conductive to the formation of collective promotion focus, thus facilitating team exploration orientation. The flexible way of thinking and willingness to take risks for team exploration orientation are benefit to team innovation. Preventive voice-taking is conductive to the formation of collective prevention focus, then promotes team reflexivity, thus helping to team innovation. Although both promotive voice-taking and preventive voice-taking can promote team innovation through different effect paths, promotive voice-taking has a stronger effect on team innovation through the chain mediating effect of collective promotion focus and team exploration orientation.
Moreover, according to regulatory fit theory, regulatory focus organizational context is an important factor that affects the relationship between promotive voice-taking and collective promotion focus, and the relationship between preventive voice-taking and collective prevention focus. When organizational context emphasizes development opportunities and growth (i.e., promotion-focused organizational context), employees will have a sense of matching between leader promotive voice-taking and promotion-focused organizational context. Then they can perceive correctness and effectiveness of leader promotive voice-taking in the organizational context, thus strengthening collective promotion focus. When organizational context emphasizes avoiding losses, mistakes and risks (i.e., prevention-focused organizational context), employees will have a sense of matching between leader preventive voice-taking and prevention-focused organizational context. Then they can perceive correctness and effectiveness of leader preventive voice-taking in the organizational context, thus strengthening collective prevention focus. The present study expands the research perspective and theoretical basis of leader voice-taking and provides a new direction for future study of leader voice-taking.

Key words: promotive voice-taking, preventive voice-taking, regulatory focus, voice behavior, team innovation

中图分类号:

B849: C93

肖素芳, 徐正丽. (2023). 领导纳谏内涵及其对工作行为的影响：基于调节焦点理论的视角. 心理科学进展 , 31(5), 697-708.

XIAO Sufang, XU Zhengli. (2023). Conceptualization of voice-taking and its effect on work behaviors: From the perspective of regulatory focus theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(5), 697-708.

图/表 4

图1 本研究总体研究框架

图2 领导纳谏内涵及结构维度探索示意图

图3 促进型纳谏、防御型纳谏和员工建言行为的关系示意图

图4 促进型纳谏、防御型纳谏和团队创新的关系示意图

参考文献 49

[1]	陈芳丽, 未蕾蕾, 郑文智. (2016). 领导是如何纳谏的:领导动机归因与主管—下属关系的影响. 企业经济, 36(1), 107-111.
[2]	高中华, 赵晨, 付悦, 刘永虹. (2020). 团队情境下忧患型领导对角色绩效的多层链式影响机制研究. 管理世界, 36(9), 186-201.
[3]	郭振华. (2017). 企业生命周期及其战略选择. 企业改革与管理, 25(1), 7.
[4]	韩翼, 肖素芳, 龚鹏飞. (2020). 基于说服理论的员工谏言与领导纳谏研究. 管理学报, 17(4), 509-517.
[5]	胡国栋, 陈宇曦. (2020). 儒家礼治秩序与中国组织的领导纳谏行为. 学术研究, 63(8), 89-97.
[6]	胡国栋, 王天娇. (2019). 基于《贞观政要》文本解读的儒家伦理与领导纳谏行为关系研究. 管理学报, 16(8), 1107-1116.
[7]	刘一涛, 余福海. (2019). 变革型领导、建设性变革义务感与员工建言行为关系的实证研究. 预测, 38(5), 29-35.
[8]	孙露莹, 陈琳, 段锦云. (2017). 决策过程中的建议采纳: 策略、影响及未来展望. 心理科学进展, 25(1), 169-179.
[9]	魏昕, 张志学. (2014). 上级何时采纳促进性或抑制性进言?——上级地位和下属专业度的影响. 管理世界, 30(1), 132-143.
[10]	易洋, 朱蕾. (2015). 下属建言与领导纳言——基于ELM理论一个被中介的调节模型. 南方经济, 33(7), 93-107.
[11]	詹小慧, 苏晓艳. (2019). 建言者个人声誉对领导纳言的影响:权力距离的跨层次调节作用. 科学学与科学技术管理, 40(8), 126-140.
[12]	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. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00711
[13]	章凯, 时金京, 罗文豪. (2020). 建言采纳如何促进员工建言:基于目标自组织视角的整合机制. 心理学报, 52(2), 229-239. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00229
[14]	张龙, 李想. (2016). 管理者为什么纳言?——基于说服理论的研究. 外国经济与管理, 38(9), 80-92.
[15]	周浩. (2021). 建言方式、建言场合、权力距离对管理者采纳建言的影响. 经济与管理研究, 42(2), 111-121.
[16]	宗树伟, 韩翼. (2022). 从谏如流, 焕发新颜:领导纳谏行为对团队结果的影响. 财经论丛, 38(5), 89-100.
[17]	Ahmadi, S., Khanagha, S., Berchicci, L., & Jansen, 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. doi: 10.1111/joms.2017.54.issue-2 URL
[18]	Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0562 URL
[19]	Chen, H. (2019). A sociopolitical perspective to understand when and why supervisors endorse and implement employees’ suggested changes (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). West Virginia University.
[20]	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. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.2675 URL
[21]	de Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535-549. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468649 URL
[22]	Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0393 URL
[23]	Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1089-1120. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[24]	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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0377 URL
[25]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.003 URL
[26]	Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346-386. doi: 10.1177/0001839213498591 URL
[27]	He, W., Han, Y., Hu, X., Liu, W., Yang, B., & Chen, H. (2020). From idea endorsement to idea implementation: A multilevel social network approach toward managerial voice implementation. Human Relations, 73(11), 1563-1582. doi: 10.1177/0018726719882999 URL
[28]	He, W, & Zhou, H. (2014). Managerial responses to voice: A content and process model of managerial voice-taking theory //Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510:Academy of Management.
[29]	Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.52.12.1280 pmid: 9414606
[30]	Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle //Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, 30, 1-46.
[31]	Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230. pmid: 11280936
[32]	Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R & D Management, 36(2), 113-125.
[33]	Isaakyan, S., Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Guenter, H. (2021). Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1049-1066. doi: 10.1037/apl0000816 URL
[34]	Janssen, O., & Gao, L. (2015). Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1854-1872. doi: 10.1177/0149206312471386 URL
[35]	Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., Jackson, W. E. M., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle- down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 140, 29-45.
[36]	Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. doi: 10.2307/256287 URL
[37]	Lam, C. F., Lee, C., & Sui, Y. (2019). Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 642-658. doi: 10.1037/apl0000358 pmid: 30407041
[38]	Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155. doi: 10.5465/19416521003691287 URL
[39]	Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two- wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0176 URL
[40]	Liang, J., Shu, R., & Farh, C. I. C. (2019). Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 91-104. doi: 10.1002/job.2325
[41]	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.
[42]	Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30(10), 1161-1183. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161 URL
[43]	Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. doi: 10.2307/259200 URL
[44]	Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1088-1111. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0660 URL
[45]	Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337-345.
[46]	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.
[47]	Simmons, S. A., Carr, J. C., Hsu, D. K., & Shu, C. (2016). The regulatory fit of serial entrepreneurship intentions. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 605-627. doi: 10.1111/apps.2016.65.issue-3 URL
[48]	Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 251-282. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x URL
[49]	Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 159-182. doi: 10.1037/a0024871 pmid: 21842973