辱虐管理的应对：基于人际拒绝的多动力模型分析

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00844

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着辱虐管理产生破坏性影响的作用机制不断得到丰富和完善, 受辱虐下属选择特定应对方式的原因以及有效性成为未来辱虐管理的研究方向。基于人际拒绝的多动力模型, 梳理了在不同质量LMX的关系情境中受辱虐下属的应对方式, 并提出特定应对方式可能引起辱虐管理的恶性循环的假设模型。建议未来研究通过丰富下属的应对行为变量、增加人格和环境的调节机制以完善受辱虐下属的应对模型, 并以此为基础探究辱虐管理的消极互动机制, 为打破辱虐管理恶性循环提供理论支持。

关键词: 辱虐管理, 应对方式, 多动力模型, 领导-部署交换

Abstract:

As the literature on abusive supervision has gained a great understanding of its detrimental effects and the underlying mechanisms, how subordinates cope with the experience of abusive supervision and the effectiveness of different coping strategies are promising new directions for future research. In this article, based on the multi-dynamic model of interpersonal rejection, we discussed how subordinates might cope with the experience of abusive supervision differently at low and high levels of LMX, and proposed a model in which certain coping strategies can lead to the subsequent experience of increased abusive supervision. We suggest future research strengthen our understanding of subordinates’ coping strategies for abusive supervision with a focus on exploring new coping strategies, including individual different variables, and examining situational factors as moderators. Further, future research can investigate the negative interactions between leaders and subordinates, and provide theoretical support for breaking the cycle of abusive supervision.

Key words: abusive supervision, coping strategies, multi-dynamic model, leader-member exchange

中图分类号:

B849:C93

严瑜, 赵颖. (2020). 辱虐管理的应对：基于人际拒绝的多动力模型分析. 心理科学进展 , 28(5), 844-854.

YAN Yu, ZHAO Ying. (2020). Coping strategies for abusive supervision: An interpersonal rejection-based multi-dynamic model. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(5), 844-854.

图/表 4

参考文献 50

1	黄光国, 胡先缙 . (2010).人情与面子:中国人的权力游戏. 北京:中国人民大学出版社.
2	黄攸立, 李游 . ( 2018). 辱虐管理对上下级关系的双刃剑效应: 工作退缩行为和关系经营的作用. 中国人力资源开发, 35( 09), 51-62.
3	李爱梅, 华涛, 高文 . ( 2013). 辱虐管理研究的“特征-过程-结果”理论框架. 心理科学进展, 21( 11), 1901-1912.
4	沈伊默, 马晨露, 白新文, 诸彦含, 鲁云林, 张庆林, 刘军 . ( 2019). 辱虐管理与员工创造力: 心理契约破坏和中庸思维的不同作用. 心理学报, 51( 2), 238-247.
5	许黎明, 赵曙明, 张敏 . ( 2018). 二元工作激情中介作用下的辱虐管理对员工建言行为影响研究. 管理学报, 15( 10), 988-995.
6	严瑜, 张振嘉 . ( 2017). 组织公平在多层辱虐管理中的角色:基于道德排除理论的多视角分析. 心理科学进展, 25( 1), 145-155.
7	郑莹妮, 胡昌亚, 王中豫, 简世文 . ( 2018). 强制处罚权之效果: 恨铁不成钢规范与主管部属交换关系的调节效果. 本土心理学研究, 49, 277-327.
8	Aquino K. ( 2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26( 2), 171-193.
9	Aquino K. &Thau S. , ( 2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,717-741.
10	Bass B. M. ( 1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
11	Bowling N. A., &Beehr T. A . ( 2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91( 5), 998-1012.
12	Burris E. R., Detert J. R., & Chiaburu D. S . ( 2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93( 4), 912-922.
13	Chi S. C. S., &Liang S. G . ( 2013). When do subordinates' emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24( 1), 125-137.
14	Cropanzano R., Dasborough M. T., & Weiss H. M . ( 2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42( 2), 233-258.
15	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.
16	Ferris D. L., Yan M., Lim V. K. G., Chen Y. Y., & Fatimah S . ( 2016). An approach-avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59( 5), 1777-1800.
17	Fiske S.T . ( 1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38( 6), 889-906.
18	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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6( 2), 219-247.
19	Haggard D. L., &Park H. M . ( 2018). Perceived supervisor remorse, abusive supervision, and LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39( 10), 1252-1267.
20	Khan A. K., Moss S., Quratulain S., & Hameed I . ( 2018). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Management, 44( 7), 2801-2826.
21	Kiewitz C., Restubog S. L. D., Shoss M. K., Garcia P. R. J. M., & Tang R. L . ( 2016). Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 5), 731-742.
22	Li A. N., &Liao H. , ( 2014). How do leader-member exchange quality and differentiation affect performance in teams? An integrated multilevel dual process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 5), 847-866.
23	Lian H., Brown D. J., Ferris D. L., Liang L. H., Keeping L. M., & Morrison R . ( 2014). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57( 1), 116-139.
24	Lian H., Ferris D. L., & Brown D. J . ( 2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117( 1), 41-52.
25	Lian H. W., Ferris D. L., Morrison R., & Brown D. J . ( 2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 4), 651-664.
26	Martinko M. J., Harvey P., Brees, J R., & Mackey J . ( 2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34( 1), 120-137.
27	Mitchell M. S., &Ambrose M. L . ( 2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 4), 1159-1168.
28	Nahrgang J. D., Morgeson F. P., & Ilies R . ( 2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108( 2), 256-266.
29	Nandkeolyar A. K., Shaffer J. A., Li A., Ekkirala S., & Bagger J . ( 2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 1), 138-150.
30	Oh J. K., &Farh C. I. C . ( 2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42( 2), 207-232.
31	Park J. H., Carter M. Z., DeFrank R. S., & Deng Q . ( 2018). Abusive supervision, psychological distress, and silence: The effects of gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 153( 3), 775-792.
32	Peng A. C., Schaubroeck J. M., Chong S., & Li Y . ( 2018). Discrete emotions linking abusive supervision to employee intention and behavior. Personnel Psychology, 72( 3), 393-419.
33	Pyc L. S., Meltzer D. P., & Liu C . ( 2017). Ineffective leadership and employees’ negative outcomes: The mediating effect of anxiety and depression. International Journal of Stress Management, 24( 2), 196-215.
34	Richman L. S., &Leary M. R . ( 2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116( 2), 365-383.
35	Schaubroeck J. M., Peng A. C., & Hannah S. T . ( 2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology,101( 2), 267-278.
36	Seo J. J., Nahrgang J. D., Carter M. Z., & Hom P. W . ( 2018). Not all differentiation is the same: Examining the moderating effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) configurations. Journal of Applied Psychology,103( 5), 478-495.
37	Shelton J. N., &Richeson J. A . ( 2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38( 6), 121-181.
38	Simon L. S., Hurst C., Kelley K., & Judge T. A . ( 2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A multimotive approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100( 6), 1798-1810.
39	Tepper B.J . ( 2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43( 2), 178-190.
40	Tepper B. J., &Henle C. A . ( 2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32( 3), 487-498.
41	Tepper B. J., Moss S. E., & Duffy M. K . ( 2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep- level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54( 2), 279-294.
42	Tepper B. J., &Simon L ,, S. ( 2015). Employee maintenance: Examining employment relationships from the perspective of managerial leaders. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 33, 1-50.
43	Tepper B. J., Simon L., & Park H. M . ( 2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4, 123-152.
44	Thau S. &Mitchell M. S . ( 2010). Self-gain or self- regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1009-1031.
45	Tu M. H., Bono J. E., Shum C., & LaMontagne L . ( 2018). Breaking the cycle: The effects of role model performance and ideal leadership self-concepts on abusive supervision spillover. Journal of Applied Psychology,103( 7), 689-702.
46	van Kleef G. A., Homan A. C., Beersma B., van Knippenberg D., van Knippenberg B., & Damen F . ( 2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 562-580.
47	Wang L., Restubog S., Shao B., Lu V &van Kleef G. A. , ( 2018). Does anger expression help or harm leader effectiveness? The role of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 61( 3), 1050-1072.
48	Wee E. X. M., Liao H., Liu D., & Liu J . ( 2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A Power dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60( 6), 2352-2380.
49	Xu A. J., Loi R., & Lam L. W . ( 2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 5), 763-774.
50	Yu K., Lin W., Wang L., Ma J., Wei W., Wang H., … Shi J . ( 2016). The role of affective commitment and future work self-salience in the abusive supervision-job performance relationship. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 89, 28-45.

研究	自变量	中介/调节变量	因变量	理论基础	相关发现
Pan & Lin, 2018	领导消极情感	辱虐管理	下属消极情感; 工作满意度; 个人主动性	认知神经调节模型; 权力/资源依赖视角; 受害者促进理论	低质量LMX的条件下, 领导的消极情感会通过辱虐管理提升下属消极情感并降低工作满意度和个人主动性。
Park et al., 2018	辱虐管理	中介: 心理压力调节: 性别差异	沉默	资源保护理论	辱虐管理通过增加心理压力导致下属沉默的现象, 并提出上下级关系差异这一关系情境的调节作用
许黎明等, 2018	辱虐管理	强迫工作激情; 和谐工作激情	促进性/抑制性建言行为;	二元工作激情理论	辱虐管理不仅会减少下属的和谐工作激情, 也会增加其强迫工作动机, 从而影响下属的建言行为
沈伊默等, 2019	辱虐管理	中介:心理契约破坏调节:中庸思维	下属创造力	心理契约理论; 认知-情感加工系统理论	主管的辱虐管理行为会通过心理契约破坏的中介作用, 间接影响员工创造力, 但当下属的中庸思维水平较高时, 心理契约破坏的中介作用较弱
Pyc et al., 2017	辱虐管理;专制型领导风格	中介: 抑郁;焦虑	耗竭; 躯体症状; 工作满意度; 退出意向; 低绩效	工作压力模式	两种消极领导方式具有相似性, 焦虑和抑郁在辱虐管理对下属离职意向的负向作用中起中介作用
Ferris et al., 2016	辱虐管理;主管排斥;主管破坏	中介: 愤怒;焦虑	趋近式/逃避式反生产工作行为	情绪与趋近-回避原则	辱虐管理通过愤怒的中介作用引起下属的趋近式反生产工作行为, 如话语粗鲁或直接对峙。
Velez & Neves, 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 身心症状; 调节: 工作自主权	生产偏离	工作要求- 资源模型	工作自主权能够缓解辱虐管理对身心症状和生产偏离的负面影响。
Michel et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 工作相关的消极情感; 调节: 基于下属和组织的攻击性	工作场所偏离行为	情感事件理论	辱虐管理通过激发下属与工作相关的消极情感而增加工作场所偏离行为, 且下属的攻击信念态度和组织攻击规范对这一关系起调节作用。
Kiewitz et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 担心; 防御性沉默调节: 自信;担心氛围	进一步辱虐	趋近模型视角; 自信预期视角	低自信水平和高担心氛围感知会强化辱虐管理-担心-防御性沉默之间的关联性, 且能预测领导进一步辱虐管理。
Yu et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 情感承诺; 调节: 未来工作自我清晰度	工作绩效	认同视角	情感承诺在辱虐管理与下属工作绩效间起中介作用, 且下属未来工作清晰度会放大辱虐管理的破坏性影响。
Schaubroe ck et al., 2016	相对辱虐管理	中介: 感知到的同伴尊重; 调节: 团体效能	离职意向; 组织认同; 情感承诺; 工作绩效	社会认同理论	在高效能团体中, 辱虐管理会通过降低下属感知到的同伴尊重从而降低绩效并产生离职意向。

研究	自变量	中介/调节变量	因变量	理论基础	相关发现
Pan & Lin, 2018	领导消极情感	辱虐管理	下属消极情感; 工作满意度; 个人主动性	认知神经调节模型; 权力/资源依赖视角; 受害者促进理论	低质量LMX的条件下, 领导的消极情感会通过辱虐管理提升下属消极情感并降低工作满意度和个人主动性。
Park et al., 2018	辱虐管理	中介: 心理压力调节: 性别差异	沉默	资源保护理论	辱虐管理通过增加心理压力导致下属沉默的现象, 并提出上下级关系差异这一关系情境的调节作用
许黎明等, 2018	辱虐管理	强迫工作激情; 和谐工作激情	促进性/抑制性建言行为;	二元工作激情理论	辱虐管理不仅会减少下属的和谐工作激情, 也会增加其强迫工作动机, 从而影响下属的建言行为
沈伊默等, 2019	辱虐管理	中介:心理契约破坏调节:中庸思维	下属创造力	心理契约理论; 认知-情感加工系统理论	主管的辱虐管理行为会通过心理契约破坏的中介作用, 间接影响员工创造力, 但当下属的中庸思维水平较高时, 心理契约破坏的中介作用较弱
Pyc et al., 2017	辱虐管理;专制型领导风格	中介: 抑郁;焦虑	耗竭; 躯体症状; 工作满意度; 退出意向; 低绩效	工作压力模式	两种消极领导方式具有相似性, 焦虑和抑郁在辱虐管理对下属离职意向的负向作用中起中介作用
Ferris et al., 2016	辱虐管理;主管排斥;主管破坏	中介: 愤怒;焦虑	趋近式/逃避式反生产工作行为	情绪与趋近-回避原则	辱虐管理通过愤怒的中介作用引起下属的趋近式反生产工作行为, 如话语粗鲁或直接对峙。
Velez & Neves, 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 身心症状; 调节: 工作自主权	生产偏离	工作要求- 资源模型	工作自主权能够缓解辱虐管理对身心症状和生产偏离的负面影响。
Michel et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 工作相关的消极情感; 调节: 基于下属和组织的攻击性	工作场所偏离行为	情感事件理论	辱虐管理通过激发下属与工作相关的消极情感而增加工作场所偏离行为, 且下属的攻击信念态度和组织攻击规范对这一关系起调节作用。
Kiewitz et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 担心; 防御性沉默调节: 自信;担心氛围	进一步辱虐	趋近模型视角; 自信预期视角	低自信水平和高担心氛围感知会强化辱虐管理-担心-防御性沉默之间的关联性, 且能预测领导进一步辱虐管理。
Yu et al., 2016	辱虐管理	中介: 情感承诺; 调节: 未来工作自我清晰度	工作绩效	认同视角	情感承诺在辱虐管理与下属工作绩效间起中介作用, 且下属未来工作清晰度会放大辱虐管理的破坏性影响。
Schaubroe ck et al., 2016	相对辱虐管理	中介: 感知到的同伴尊重; 调节: 团体效能	离职意向; 组织认同; 情感承诺; 工作绩效	社会认同理论	在高效能团体中, 辱虐管理会通过降低下属感知到的同伴尊重从而降低绩效并产生离职意向。

[1]	王海珍, 耿紫珍, 丁琳, 单春霞. 辱虐管理的成因[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(4): 906-921.
[2]	张明, 穆妍, 章玉琪, 孔亚卓. 污名化对被污名个体人际互动的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1564-1574.
[3]	申传刚, 杨璟, 胡三嫚, 何培旭, 李小新. 辱虐管理的应对及预防：正念的自我调节作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 220-229.
[4]	严瑜;张振嘉. 组织公平在多层辱虐管理中的角色：基于道德排除理论的多视角分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(1): 145-155.
[5]	袁加锦;刘莹莹;杨洁敏. 应对方式与认知训练对青少年情绪障碍易感性的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(7): 1062-1074.
[6]	李爱梅;华涛;高文. 辱虐管理研究的“特征-过程-结果”理论框架[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(11): 1901-1912.
[7]	黄小忠;孙炳海;李伟健. “桑美”台风下受创学生的特质应对方式对自杀态度的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(3): 537-541.
[8]	蔺雯雯;崔丽霞. 图式治疗理论与实践[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(4): 576-581.
[9]	封丹珺，石林. 应对方式的生态瞬时评估法及其他测量方法简介[J]. 心理科学进展, 2004, 12(3): 429-434.