领导风格与员工创新绩效关系的元分析：基于自我决定视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00781

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

领导对员工创新起到重要作用。什么样的领导风格与员工创新相关更高? 实际研究中存在一定争议。为了回答这个问题, 基于自我决定理论, 我们提出一个理论框架, 来解释不同领导风格与员工创新相关系数的差异。我们使用元分析汇集432篇独立的实证研究的证据(中文研究229篇, 英文研究203篇, 样本总量达161599), 来检验我们的假设。研究发现：(1)交易型领导、伦理型领导、变革型领导、服务型领导、领导-成员交换、授权型领导、包容型领导及真实型领导与员工创新绩效之间均存在显著的正相关, 且相关递增; (2)个人主义、绩效评价方式、数据收集时间点、领导风格测量方式、创新测量方式以及发表语言部分调节领导风格和员工创新绩效的关系。研究结果符合理论预测, 研究促进自我决定理论的发展。更为重要的是, 研究结论为管理者提供重要的实践意义, 即使用合适的领导风格进而促进员工创新。

关键词: 领导风格, 自我决定理论, 员工创新绩效, 元分析

Abstract:

Facing the complex challenges from the environment, if organizations want to survive and develop continuously, they must insist on innovation. Employee creative performance affects the innovation of the entire organization deeply. Thus, managers, scholars, or policymakers are paying more and more attention to employee creative performance. Among the factors that affect employees’ innovation, leadership style plays a vital role. Plenty of leadership styles (e.g., transformational, transactional, and authentic leadership) may influence employee creative performance. Which kind of leadership style has a higher correlation with employee creative performance? To answer this question, drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), we proposed a theoretical framework, to explain the differences of correlations between different leadership and employee creative performance. To begin with, we hypothesized that transformational leadership, transactional leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership, inclusive leadership, empowering leadership, and leader-member exchange are positively related to employee creative performance. Among these leadership styles, authentic leadership had the highest correlation. Then, we hypothesized in the following situations(1) when the sample comes from a country with high individualism, (2) when the creative performance is evaluated by others, and (3) when the data is collected at multiple time points, the correlations between leadership style and employee creative performance were lower. Finally, we detected the potential moderating effects of the measurement of leadership and creative performance

We used meta-analysis to summarize evidences from 432 independent empirical studies (229 Chinese studies and 203 English studies, with a total sample size of 161599 to test our hypothesis. To begin with, we searched the studies from multi-databases. Then, we coded the necessary information from the previous survey studies. Next, the Hunter-Schmidt random effect meta-analysis method was used to correct statistical artifacts (e.g., measuring error and sampling error) and evaluate the true score correlations. Finally, subgroup analysis was used to detect the potential moderating effects.

The results showed that: (1) transactional leadership (ρ = 0.273), ethical leadership (ρ = 0.300), transformational leadership (ρ = 0.364), servant leadership (ρ = 0.400), leader-member exchange(ρ = 0.401), empowering leadership (ρ = 0.402), inclusive leadership (ρ = 0.457), and authentic leadership (ρ = 0.475) had significant positive correlations with employee creative performance, and their correlations showed an upward trend; (2) individualism, methods of performance appraisal, the time point of data collection, measurement of leadership, measurement of employee creative performance and publication language partially moderated the relationship between leadership styles and employee creative performance.

Based on the SDT, this research proposed a theoretical model to explain the different effects of different leadership styles on employee creative performance and test the model robustly based on the meta-analysis technology. Therefore, the theoretical implication of this research mainly focuses on this model. First, this research promotes the development of theories related to leadership styles and employee creative performance. Second, this research promotes the development of self-determination theory and expands the scope of application of self-determination theory. The practical implication is that, when organizations need employees to show higher creative performance, managers can try to adopt the authentic leadership style.

Key words: leadership, self-determination theory, employee creative performance, meta-analysis

中图分类号:

B849: C93

林新奇, 栾宇翔, 赵锴, 赵国龙. (2022). 领导风格与员工创新绩效关系的元分析：基于自我决定视角. 心理科学进展 , 30(4), 781-801.

LIN Xinqi, LUAN Yuxiang, ZHAO Kai, ZHAO Guolong. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relationship between leadership styles and employee creative performance: A self-determination perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(4), 781-801.

图/表 12

参考文献 82

	(注：纳入元分析文献较多, 此处未列出, 感兴趣读者请访问 )
[1]	柴玮, 申万, 毛亚林. (2015). 基于DEA的我国资源型企业科技创新绩效评价研究. 科研管理, 36(10), 28-34.
[2]	陈猛, 卞冉, 王丽娜, 车宏生, 林绚晖. (2012). 情绪智力与工作绩效的关系. 心理科学进展, 20(3), 412-423.
[3]	方阳春, 金惠红. (2014). 包容型领导风格对高校科研团队绩效影响的实证研究. 技术经济, 33(4), 53-57.
[4]	冯彩玲, 张丽华. (2014). 变革/交易型领导对员工创新行为的跨层次影响. 科学学与科学技术管理, 35(8), 172-180.
[5]	黄亮, 彭璧玉. (2015). 工作幸福感对员工创新绩效的影响机制--一个多层次被调节的中介模型. 南开管理评论(2), 15-29.
[6]	黄秋风, 唐宁玉. (2016). 变革型领导与交易型领导对员工创新行为影响的元分析研究. 软科学, 30(3), 60-64.
[7]	李超平, 时勘. (2005). 变革型领导的结构与测量. 心理学报, 37(6), 803-811.
[8]	莫申江, 王重鸣. (2010). 国外伦理型领导研究前沿探析. 外国经济与管理, 32(2), 32-37.
[9]	唐贵瑶, 李鹏程, 李骥. (2012). 国外授权型领导研究前沿探析与未来展望. 外国经济与管理, 34(9), 73-80.
[10]	王震, 宋萌, 孙健敏. (2014). 真实型领导:概念、测量、形成与作用. 心理科学进展, 22(3), 458-473.
[11]	胥彦, 李超平. (2019). 领导风格与敬业度关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1363-1383.
[12]	杨刚, 谢懿, 纪谱华. (2020). 领导成员交换与创造力的关系:基于社会认知理论的元分析研究. 重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版), 37(6), 1-16.
[13]	杨朦晰, 陈万思, 周卿钰, 杨百寅. (2019). 中国情境下领导力研究知识图谱与演进:1949-2018年题名文献计量. 南开管理评论, 22(4), 80-94.
[14]	张建平, 秦传燕, 刘善仕. (2020). 寻求反馈能改善绩效吗?--反馈寻求行为与个体绩效关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 28(4), 549-565.
[15]	张银普, 骆南峰, 石伟, 万金, 张译方, 杨小进. (2020). 中国情境下领导-成员交换与绩效关系的元分析. 南开管理评论, 23(3), 177-187.
[16]	赵燕梅, 张正堂, 刘宁, 丁明智. (2016). 自我决定理论的新发展述评. 管理学报, 13(7), 1095-1104.
[17]	朱金强, 徐世勇, 张丽华. (2018). “宽猛相济”促创新--基于阴阳观的视角. 南开管理评论, 21(5), 200-212.
[18]	Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945 URL
[19]	Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
[20]	Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 793-801. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.003 URL
[21]	Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001 URL
[22]	Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 URL
[23]	Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Menlo Park: Mind Garden.
[24]	Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. doi: 10.1080/135943299398410 URL
[25]	Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
[26]	Borgmann, L., Rowold, J., & Bormann, K. C. (2016). Integrating leadership research: A meta-analytical test of Yukl’s meta-categories of leadership. Personnel Review, 45(6), 1340-1366. doi: 10.1108/PR-07-2014-0145 URL
[27]	Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 URL
[28]	Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.504654 URL
[29]	Chen, M. M., & Danny. (2011). The relational perspective as a business mindset: Managerial implications for East and West. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 6-18.
[30]	Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97 pmid: 12518973
[31]	Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602 URL
[32]	Dahlke, J. A., & Wiernik, B. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415-416. doi: 10.1177/0146621618795933 URL
[33]	Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. London: Penguin books.
[34]	Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 URL
[35]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 URL
[36]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Intrinsic motivation. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp.1-2). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[37]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships:Relationships motivation theory. In Human Motivation and Interpersonal Relationships (pp.53-73). Dordrecht: Springer.
[38]	Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005 URL
[39]	Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(2), 17-31.
[40]	Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280 URL
[41]	Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 URL
[42]	Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 URL
[43]	Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3), 223-248. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00002-0 URL
[44]	Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 URL
[45]	Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5( 1), 90-105.
[46]	Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529. doi: 10.1177/0149206316665461 URL
[47]	Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). London: Sage.
[48]	Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 URL
[49]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Dichotomization of continuous variables: The implications for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 334-349. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.334 URL
[50]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. London: Sage.
[51]	Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 URL
[52]	Kim, M., Beehr, T. A., & Prewett, M. S. (2018). Employee responses to empowering leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(3), 257-276.
[53]	Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837 URL
[54]	Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1-44. doi: 10.1111/joop.v93.1 URL
[55]	Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306-325. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.3 URL
[56]	Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
[57]	Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254-269. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002 URL
[58]	Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6), 1594-1615. doi: 10.3390/su11061594 URL
[59]	Liu, Y., Fuller, B., Hester, K., Bennett, R. J., & Dickerson, M. S. (2018). Linking authentic leadership to subordinate behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 218-233.
[60]	Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2 URL
[61]	Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
[62]	Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609-623. doi: 10.1002/job.v31:4 URL
[63]	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 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251
[64]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 URL
[65]	Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1130. doi: 10.1037/a0029978 pmid: 22985117
[66]	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 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 URL
[67]	Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
[68]	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. pmid: 2810024
[69]	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. pmid: 11392867
[70]	Sajons, G. B. (2020). Estimating the causal effect of measured endogenous variables: A tutorial on experimentally randomized instrumental variables. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(5), 1-17.
[71]	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.
[72]	Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev, O. A. (2017). Evaluating the dimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1215-1238. doi: 10.1177/0146167217711915 doi: 10.1177/0146167217711915 pmid: 28903685
[73]	Sheldon, K. M., & Prentice, M. (2019). Self-determination theory as a foundation for personality researchers. Journal of Personality, 87(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12360 doi: 10.1111/jopy.12360 pmid: 29144550
[74]	Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205014 URL
[75]	Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591-620. doi: 10.1111/peps.1999.52.issue-3 URL
[76]	Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3 URL
[77]	Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.
[78]	Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913 URL
[79]	Watts, L. L., Steele, L. M., & den Hartog, D. N. (2020). Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation: A meta- analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 138-145. doi: 10.1057/s41267-019-00242-8 URL
[80]	Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Joseph, D. L., & McCord, M. A. (2021). A meta-analysis of transactional leadership and follower rerformance: Double-edged effects of LMX and empowerment. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1255-1280. doi: 10.1177/0149206320908646 URL
[81]	Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118 URL
[82]	Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.

领导风格	k	N	r	ρ	SDρ	95% CI	80% CR	Fail-safe N
变革型	114	40 218	0.329	0.364	0.201	[0.325, 0.402]	[0.105, 0.623]	255715
交易型	42	19 404	?0.232	0.273	0.274	[0.186, 0.360]	[-0.084, 0.630]	22132
真实型	39	11 719	0.426	0.475	0.201	[0.408, 0.543]	[0.213, 0.737]	51785
伦理型	21	6 225	0.271	0.300	0.136	[0.232, 0.368]	[0.120, 0.480]	5136
服务型	24	8 239	0.354	0.400	0.222	[0.303, 0.496]	[0.107, 0.693]	11979
包容型	29	9 262	0.413	0.457	0.189	[0.383, 0.532]	[0.209, 0.705]	19394
授权型	37	12 172	0.365	0.402	0.149	[0.350, 0.455]	[0.208, 0.596]	32672
LMX	163	51 948	0.355	0.401	0.174	[0.372, 0.428]	[0.176, 0.624]	591269

领导风格	k	N	r	ρ	SDρ	95% CI	80% CR	Fail-safe N
变革型	114	40 218	0.329	0.364	0.201	[0.325, 0.402]	[0.105, 0.623]	255715
交易型	42	19 404	?0.232	0.273	0.274	[0.186, 0.360]	[-0.084, 0.630]	22132
真实型	39	11 719	0.426	0.475	0.201	[0.408, 0.543]	[0.213, 0.737]	51785
伦理型	21	6 225	0.271	0.300	0.136	[0.232, 0.368]	[0.120, 0.480]	5136
服务型	24	8 239	0.354	0.400	0.222	[0.303, 0.496]	[0.107, 0.693]	11979
包容型	29	9 262	0.413	0.457	0.189	[0.383, 0.532]	[0.209, 0.705]	19394
授权型	37	12 172	0.365	0.402	0.149	[0.350, 0.455]	[0.208, 0.596]	32672
LMX	163	51 948	0.355	0.401	0.174	[0.372, 0.428]	[0.176, 0.624]	591269

领导风格	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SDρ	95% CI	80% CR	Q_M
变革型	低	79	24 420	0.352	0.387	0.209	[0.338, 0.435]	[0.117, 0.656]	2.31
变革型	高	35	15 798	0.294	0.327	0.184	[0.261, 0.392]	[0.086, 0.567]	2.31
交易型	低	27	10 162	0.222	0.258	0.309	[0.134, 0.382]	[-0.148, 0.664]	0.42
交易型	高	15	9 242	0.242	0.290	0.236	[0.157, 0.423]	[-0.028, 0.607]	0.42
真实型	低	28	7 993	0.435	0.491	0.222	[0.403, 0.580]	[?0.200, 0.783]	0.06
真实型	高	11	3 726	0.405	0.443	0.157	[0.332, 0.554]	[?0.228, 0.658]	0.06
伦理型	低	19	5 245	0.282	0.314	0.134	[0.243, 0.385]	[?0.136, 0.492]	0.94
伦理型	高	2	980	0.211	0.230	0.181	[-1.455, 1.914]	[-0.329, 0.788]	0.94
服务型	低	13	4 173	0.351	0.394	0.206	[0.265, 0.523]	[?0.114, 0.673]	1.28
服务型	高	11	4 066	0.357	0.406	0.249	[0.235, 0.577]	[?0.065, 0.747]	1.28
包容型	低	23	7 866	0.427	0.472	0.194	[0.386, 0.558]	[0.216, 0.728]
包容型	高	6	1 396	0.331	0.371	0.148	[0.201, 0.541]	[0.153, 0.590]
授权型	低	31	9 728	0.361	0.398	0.161	[0.336, 0.460]	[0.187, 0.609]	2.64
授权型	高	6	2 444	0.38	0.419	0.095	[0.307, 0.530]	[0.278, 0.559]	2.64
LMX	低	138	43 571	0.369	0.414	0.183	[0.382, 0.446]	[0.178, 0.649]	6.89**
LMX	高	25	8 377	0.283	0.325	0.087	[0.282, 0.368]	[0.211, 0.439]	6.89**

领导风格	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SDρ	95% CI	80% CR	Q_M
变革型	低	79	24 420	0.352	0.387	0.209	[0.338, 0.435]	[0.117, 0.656]	2.31
变革型	高	35	15 798	0.294	0.327	0.184	[0.261, 0.392]	[0.086, 0.567]	2.31
交易型	低	27	10 162	0.222	0.258	0.309	[0.134, 0.382]	[-0.148, 0.664]	0.42
交易型	高	15	9 242	0.242	0.290	0.236	[0.157, 0.423]	[-0.028, 0.607]	0.42
真实型	低	28	7 993	0.435	0.491	0.222	[0.403, 0.580]	[?0.200, 0.783]	0.06
真实型	高	11	3 726	0.405	0.443	0.157	[0.332, 0.554]	[?0.228, 0.658]	0.06
伦理型	低	19	5 245	0.282	0.314	0.134	[0.243, 0.385]	[?0.136, 0.492]	0.94
伦理型	高	2	980	0.211	0.230	0.181	[-1.455, 1.914]	[-0.329, 0.788]	0.94
服务型	低	13	4 173	0.351	0.394	0.206	[0.265, 0.523]	[?0.114, 0.673]	1.28
服务型	高	11	4 066	0.357	0.406	0.249	[0.235, 0.577]	[?0.065, 0.747]	1.28
包容型	低	23	7 866	0.427	0.472	0.194	[0.386, 0.558]	[0.216, 0.728]
包容型	高	6	1 396	0.331	0.371	0.148	[0.201, 0.541]	[0.153, 0.590]
授权型	低	31	9 728	0.361	0.398	0.161	[0.336, 0.460]	[0.187, 0.609]	2.64
授权型	高	6	2 444	0.38	0.419	0.095	[0.307, 0.530]	[0.278, 0.559]	2.64
LMX	低	138	43 571	0.369	0.414	0.183	[0.382, 0.446]	[0.178, 0.649]	6.89**
LMX	高	25	8 377	0.283	0.325	0.087	[0.282, 0.368]	[0.211, 0.439]	6.89**

领导风格	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SDρ	95% CI	80% CR	Q_M
变革型	中	44	13 592	0.458	0.497	0.181	[0.440, 0.554]	[0.261, 0.733]	30.32***
变革型	英	70	26 626	0.263	0.292	0.173	[0.248, 0.335]	[0.067, 0.516]	30.32***
交易型	中	18	7 226	0.290	0.337	0.263	[0.203, 0.470]	[-0.014, 0.687]	3.93*
交易型	英	24	12 178	0.197	0.234	0.278	[0.115, 0.353]	[-0.133, 0.601]	3.93*
真实型	中	15	4 713	0.468	0.527	0.204	[0.411, 0.644]	[0.254, 0.801]	1.57
真实型	英	24	7 006	0.398	0.441	0.197	[0.355, 0.527]	[0.182, 0.700]	1.57
伦理型	中	10	2 819	0.259	0.287	0.145	[0.174, 0.400]	[0.086, 0.488]	0.21
伦理型	英	11	3 406	0.280	0.311	0.135	[0.212, 0.409]	[0.126, 0.496]	0.21
服务型	中	8	2 603	0.380	0.429	0.183	[0.270, 0.589]	[0.170, 0.689]	1.31
服务型	英	16	5 636	0.342	0.385	0.243	[0.252, 0.518]	[0.059, 0.711]	1.31
包容型	中	23	7 866	0.427	0.472	0.194	[0.386, 0.558]	[0.216, 0.728]	1.05
包容型	英	6	1 396	0.331	0.371	0.148	[0.201, 0.541]	[0.153, 0.590]	1.05
授权型	中	20	6 072	0.400	0.445	0.159	[0.366, 0.523]	[0.234, 0.656]	0.06
授权型	英	17	6 100	0.330	0.361	0.130	[0.289, 0.433]	[0.187, 0.535]	0.06
LMX	中	98	30 454	0.402	0.449	0.188	[0.410, 0.489]	[0.206, 0.692]	23.09***
LMX	英	65	21 494	0.289	0.328	0.120	[0.295, 0.361]	[0.172, 0.484]	23.09***