上下级之间应该存在何种关系?上下级关系图式

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00216

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以往上下级关系研究大多聚焦于关系的实然特征, 缺乏对关系应有特征或模式的探讨。上下级关系图式是个体对上下级之间关系应有模式或特征的内隐认知, 这种内隐认知有助于揭示上级与下属之间的互动过程, 并为促进上级和下属的积极心理与行为提供理论启示。经过对文献的系统梳理, 将上下级关系图式与内隐关系理论、追随力认知图式、关系自我和关系认同等概念进行区分。个体传统性和现代性、依恋风格、领导行为以及文化因素能够预测上下级关系图式; 上下级关系图式能影响领导的态度与行为、下属忠诚、下属工作绩效、角色外行为、领导评价(道德领导)以及上下级关系评价; 移情的社会认知模型、泛家族主义、社会学习理论、信息加工理论解释了上下级关系图式的前因后果。未来可以从识别预测因素、拓展后果研究以及挖掘作用机制等方面推动上下级关系图式的研究。

关键词: 关系图式, 上下级关系, 关系模式, 内隐认知

Abstract:

Most research on the relationship between supervisors and subordinates focuses on the actual characteristics of the relationship but lacks discussion on the implicit characteristics or patterns of the relationship. In contrast, the supervisor-subordinate relational schema focuses on the implicit cognition of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. This relational schema helps reveal the interaction process between supervisor and subordinate and advances theory in this area, providing theoretical guidance on how to promote supervisors' and subordinates' positive psychology and behaviors. Based on a systematic review of the literature, this paper defines the supervisor-subordinate relational schema as an individual's implicit cognition of the pattern or characteristics of the relationship between supervisors and subordinates. This cognitive structure can serve as role expectations and evaluative standards to assess the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships consciously or unconsciously and as an interactive guide for individual behavior. In addition, this paper lists the measurement of the supervisor-subordinate relational schema and distinguishes the supervisor-subordinate relational schema from the related concepts. Both the supervisor-subordinate relational schema and the implicit theories of relationships belong to the domain-specific relational schemas, but the supervisor-subordinate relational schema focuses on the supervisor-subordinate relationship, while the implicit theories of relationships focus on the romantic relationship. The followership schema and the supervisor-subordinate relational schema are both schema structures. However, the cognitive object of the followership schema is followers (individual-level), while the cognitive object of the supervisor-subordinate relational schema is the supervisor-subordinate relationship (dyad-level). Relational self, relational identity, and the supervisor-subordinate relational schema all relate to relational cognition, but the definition objects are quite different. Relational self and relational identity define "Self" by relational cognition, while the supervisor-subordinate relational schema defines "Relationship." Individual traditionality and modernity, attachment style, leadership behavior, and cultural factors can predict the supervisor-subordinate relational schema. This relational schema can influence a leader's attitude and behavior and subordinates' loyalty, job performance, extra-role behavior, leader evaluation (ethical leadership), and supervisor-subordinate relationship evaluation. Meanwhile, the social-cognitive model of transference, pan familism, social learning theory can explain the antecedent influence to the supervisor-subordinate relational schema. Information processing theory is the leading theory to explain the consequences of the supervisor-subordinate relational schema. Future research is encouraged to identify the predictive factors of the supervisor-subordinate relational schema, expand its consequences, and explore its mediating mechanism.

Key words: relational sch ema, supervisor-subordinate relationship, relational model, implicit cognition

中图分类号:

B849
C93

代毓芳, 张向前, 郑文智. (2022). 上下级之间应该存在何种关系?上下级关系图式. 心理科学进展 , 30(1), 216-229.

DAI Yufang, ZHANG Xiangqian, ZHENG Wenzhi. (2022). What characteristics should the supervisor-subordinate relationship have? The supervisor-subordinate relational schema. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(1), 216-229.

图/表 4

参考文献 73

[1]	蔡松纯. (2012). 领导者与部属上下关系认定之模式建构及其影响效果(博士学位论文). 台湾大学, 台北.
[2]	蔡松纯, 郑伯埙, 周丽芳. (2015). 领导者与部属上下关系认定之理论模式建构. 中华心理学刊, 57(2), 121-144.
[3]	蔡松纯, 郑伯埙, 周丽芳, 姜定宇, 郑弘岳. (2009). 领导者上下关系认定与部属利社会行爲:权力距离之调节效果. 中华心理学刊, 51(1), 121-138.
[4]	陈靖枫. (2018). 成人依附风格与领导者与部属上下关系认定:心理传统性与现代性之调节效果(硕士学位论文). 台北教育大学.
[5]	陈鹏宇, 孙剑, 贾铖. (2020). 越级指挥的代价: 高管越级指挥对中层领导多重交换关系的影响. 中国人力资源开发, 37(3), 43-57.
[6]	冯蛟, 罗文豪, 徐奇, 吴永林. (2019). 领导者-员工关系类型及对员工创新行为的影响. 管理科学, 32(5), 60-74.
[7]	付博, 于桂兰, 梁潇杰. (2019). 上下级关系实践对员工工作绩效的“双刃剑”效应: 一项跨层次分析. 科研管理, 40(8), 273-283.
[8]	郭晓薇, 范伟. (2018). 基于整合构念的中国情境下员工上下级关系量表开发与检验. 管理学报, 15(1), 20-29.
[9]	郭晓薇, 李成彦. (2015). 中国人的上下级关系: 整合构念的建立与初步检验. 管理学报, 12(2), 167-177.
[10]	郭一蓉, 宋继文, 朱丽. (2018). 领导对创造力的作用机制与理论基础探讨. 中国人力资源开发, 35(8), 135-150.
[11]	姜定宇. (2005). 华人部属与主管关系、主管忠诚、及其後续结果:一项两阶段研究(博士学位论文). 台湾大学, 台北.
[12]	姜定宇, 郑伯埙. (2014). 华人差序式领导的本质与影响历程. 本土心理学研究, 42, 285-357.
[13]	孔茗, 袁悦, 钱小军. (2019). “看好”与“做好”:内隐原型交互对员工行为的影响. 科学学与科学技术管理, 40(1), 165-180.
[14]	梁潇杰, 于桂兰, 付博. (2019). 与上级关系好的员工一定会建言吗?基于资源保存理论的双中介模型. 管理评论, 31(4), 128-137.
[15]	刘超, 刘军, 陈星汶, 李巧, 朱丽. (2020). 本土组织情境下上下级匹配模型的构建与探讨. 中国人力资源开发, 37(3), 58-77.
[16]	刘翔平, 郭文静, 邓衍鹤. (2016). 关系图式的理论发展及其实践意义. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (4), 12-19.
[17]	刘颖. (2005). 组织中的上下级信任. 理论探讨, (5), 99-101.
[18]	彭坚, 王霄. (2015). 追随力认知图式: 概念解析与整合模型. 心理科学, 38(4), 822-827.
[19]	彭坚, 王震. (2019). 领导者言行一致对下属工作绩效的影响: 基于工作与非工作双重情境的研究. 中国人力资源开发, 36(1), 83-94.
[20]	彭坚, 王震, 侯楠. (2019). 你和上司合拍吗?组织中的上下级匹配. 心理科学进展, 27(2), 370-380.
[21]	王震, 许灏颖, 宋萌. (2018). “说话算话”的领导让下属更效忠: 中国传统“报”文化视角下的领导言行一致与下属忠诚. 管理评论, 30(4), 106-119.
[22]	卫武, 倪慧. (2020). 工作家庭冲突对员工工作行为的影响:基于资源保存理论和身份认同理论的视角. 管理工程学报, 34(1), 25-33.
[23]	谢佩儒. (2015). 双构面差序式领导与部属效能:上下关系认定之调节效果(硕士学位论文). 台湾大学, 台北.
[24]	杨国枢. (2008). 华人社会取向的理论分析. 见杨国枢, 黄光国, 杨中芳 (编), 华人本土心理学 (pp.171-209). 重庆大学出版社.
[25]	杨静芳, 林尚平. (2019). 从涓滴模式探讨伦理领导对企业社会责任与组织公民行为之影响. 商略学报, 11(2), 123-150.
[26]	周丽芳, 姜定宇, 郑伯埙. (2008年10月). 领导者-部属关系认定与利社会组织行为:照顾义务之中介. 中国社会心理学会2008年全国学术大会, 中国天津.
[27]	周婉茹, 周丽芳, 郑伯埙, 任金刚. (2010). 专权与尚严之辨:再探威权领导的内涵与恩威并济的效果. 本土心理学研究, (34), 223-284.
[28]	祝振兵, 占小军, 李志成. (2019). 皮格马利翁理论视角下追随原型与团队创新的关系研究. 管理学报, 16(10), 1477-1485.
[29]	Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). "Do I know you?": The role of significant others in general social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 384-399. pmid: 2231277
[30]	Andersen, S. M., & Glassman, N. S. (1996). Responding to significant others when they are not there:Effects on interpersonal inference, motivation, and affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3. The interpersonal context. (pp. 262-321). New York: The Guilford Press.
[31]	Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
[32]	Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839. pmid: 14523382
[33]	Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461-484. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461 URL
[34]	Baldwin, M. W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference procedures. Review of General Psychology, 1(4), 326-335. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.1.4.326 URL
[35]	Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
[36]	Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244. pmid: 1920064
[37]	Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Need-to-belong theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 121-140.
[38]	Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 URL
[39]	Brunson, J. A. (2014). Assessing" you," "me," and "us": A comprehensive measure of relational schemas (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), University of Houston.
[40]	Choi, D., Kraimer, M. L., & Seibert, S. E. (2020). Conflict, justice, and inequality: Why perceptions of leader-member exchange differentiation hurt performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 567-586. doi: 10.1002/job.v41.6 URL
[41]	DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
[42]	Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988-1010.
[43]	Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social cognition: From brains to culture (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[44]	Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737-750. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.18378875 URL
[45]	Foti, R. J., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. T. (2017). Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories: Approaches, findings, and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 261-267. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.004 URL
[46]	Giessner, S., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2010). Using a relational models perspective to understand normatively appropriate conduct in ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 43-55. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0790-4 URL
[47]	Gottfredson, R. K., Wright, S. L., & Heaphy, E. D. (2020). A critique of the Leader-Member Exchange construct: Back to square one. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6), 101385-110402. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101385 URL
[48]	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. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 URL
[49]	Huang, L., Krasikova, D. V., & Harms, P. D. (2020). Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader-member exchange differentiation, and follower voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1002/job.2423
[50]	Huang, X., Wright, R. P., Chiu, W. C. K., & Wang, C. (2008). Relational schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader-member exchanges: Some initial evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 266-282. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.003 URL
[51]	Keck, N., Giessner, S. R., van Quaquebeke, N., & Kruijff, E. (2020). When do followers perceive their leaders as ethical? A relational models perspective of normatively appropriate conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 477-493. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4055-3 URL
[52]	Koopman, J., Scott, B. A., Matta, F. K., Conlon, D. E., & Dennerlein, T. (2019). Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1103-1116. doi: 10.1037/apl0000403 pmid: 30843704
[53]	Lee, A., Gerbasi, A., Schwarz, G., & Newman, A. (2018). Leader-member exchange social comparisons and follower outcomes: The roles of felt obligation and psychological entitlement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 593-617. doi: 10.1111/joop.v92.3 URL
[54]	Lord, R. G., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. J., & Hansbrough, T. K. (2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 49-74. doi: 10.1146/orgpsych.2020.7.issue-1 URL
[55]	Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
[56]	MacBlain, S. (2018). Learning theories for early years practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[57]	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 URL
[58]	Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self- expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1579-1599. doi: 10.1177/0265407518768079
[59]	Miranda, R., & Andersen, S. M. (2007). The therapeutic relationship:Implications from social cognition and transference. In P. Gilbert, & R. L. Leahy, (Eds.). The therapeutic relationship in the cognitive behavioral psychotherapies (pp.63-89). London: Routledge.
[60]	Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.003 URL
[61]	Robert, V., & Vandenberghe, C. (2021). Laissez-Faire Leadership and Affective Commitment: The Roles of Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Relational Self-concept. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(4), 533-551. doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09700-9 URL
[62]	Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R. E., & Ybarra, O. (2000). Cultural styles, relationship schemas, and prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 174-189. pmid: 10948972
[63]	Sherman, S. J., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1989). Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 281-326. doi: 10.1146/psych.1989.40.issue-1 URL
[64]	Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M. (2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 638-647. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.638 URL
[65]	Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.23463672 URL
[66]	Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273. doi: 10.1177/002188638201800303 URL
[67]	Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001 URL
[68]	Thomas, G., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Guillaume, Y., & Lee, A. (2013). Social cognition in leader-follower relationships: Applying insights from relationship science to understanding relationship-based approaches to leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S63-S81.
[69]	Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Wang, A. C., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Cheng, B. S. (2017). Effects of relational schema congruence on leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 268-284. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.005 URL
[70]	Tse, H. H. M., Troth, A. C., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Collins, A. L. (2018). Affect and leader-member exchange in the new millennium: A state-of-art review and guiding framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 135-149. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.10.002 URL
[71]	Warren, J. M. (1954). Perceptual dominance in discrimination learning by monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47(4), 290-292. doi: 10.1037/h0055074 URL
[72]	Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1-74.
[73]	Zhou, X. T., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2010). Quantitative and qualitative examination of propositions concerning supervisor-subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 826-843. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.010 URL

文献来源	维度	题项示例	题项	信度
Huang等(2008)	对领导期望; 对下属期望	他性格好, 能与他人愉快合作vs他性格不好, 很难与他人合作直接沟通vs不知道他在想什么	30	0.76~0.87 0.76~0.82
蔡松纯等(2009)	情感性; 工具性	主管和部属应该是无话不谈的工作伙伴; 主管与部属的关系是基于实质利益而来	10	0.86 0.83
蔡松纯(2012)	情感共享; 工具交换; 照顾回报; 权威服从	主管与下属应该能够相互展现真诚情绪, 不论高兴或悲伤; 领导与下属之间要相互计算双方能为彼此带来的实际利益; 领导在上位应无条件的关怀下属, 下属在下位则以尊敬回报主管; 领导就是拥有比较多权力, 下属应该要服从领导的安排, 以避免领导的惩罚	24	0.82 0.83 0.87 0.89
Keck等(2020)	共同分享;	如果我的领导或我需要什么, 我们会给予对方, 而不期待任何回报;	18	0.66
	权威排序;	我的领导做决定, 而我一般都同意;		0.84
	平等匹配;	我和我的领导经常轮流做事;		0.80
	市场计价;	我的领导和我根据各自的利益和成本来做决定		0.77

文献来源	维度	题项示例	题项	信度
Huang等(2008)	对领导期望; 对下属期望	他性格好, 能与他人愉快合作vs他性格不好, 很难与他人合作直接沟通vs不知道他在想什么	30	0.76~0.87 0.76~0.82
蔡松纯等(2009)	情感性; 工具性	主管和部属应该是无话不谈的工作伙伴; 主管与部属的关系是基于实质利益而来	10	0.86 0.83
蔡松纯(2012)	情感共享; 工具交换; 照顾回报; 权威服从	主管与下属应该能够相互展现真诚情绪, 不论高兴或悲伤; 领导与下属之间要相互计算双方能为彼此带来的实际利益; 领导在上位应无条件的关怀下属, 下属在下位则以尊敬回报主管; 领导就是拥有比较多权力, 下属应该要服从领导的安排, 以避免领导的惩罚	24	0.82 0.83 0.87 0.89
Keck等(2020)	共同分享;	如果我的领导或我需要什么, 我们会给予对方, 而不期待任何回报;	18	0.66
	权威排序;	我的领导做决定, 而我一般都同意;		0.84
	平等匹配;	我和我的领导经常轮流做事;		0.80
	市场计价;	我的领导和我根据各自的利益和成本来做决定		0.77

理论	理论观点	应用解释变量	应用阶段	文献作者
移情的社会认知模型	个体关于重要他人的心理表征存在于记忆中, 而且这种表征很容易被任何环境中的相关线索激活, 从而导致人们透过先前存在的重要他人的镜头来看待新的他人(Andersen & Cole, 1990; Andersen & Glassman, 1996)。	依恋风格	前因	陈靖枫, 2018
泛家族主义	家族中的生活经验和习惯通常是传统中国人唯一的一套组织或团体生活的经验与习惯, 因此在参加家族以外的组织或团体活动时, 个体会自然而然地将家族中的结构形态、关系模式及处事方式推广、概化或带入到这些非家族性地团体或组织中(杨国枢, 2008)。	依恋风格	前因	陈靖枫, 2018
社会学习理论	个体会效仿角色楷模(role model), 试图通过观察学习其思维模式、态度或行为, 努力成为与楷模相似的人(Bandura, 1971)。	仁慈领导、尚严领导、专权领导	前因	蔡松纯, 2012
信息加工理论	人类的认知结构不仅可以促进个体选择和编码社会信息, 有效形成对外部事件的知觉(Walsh, 1995), 还能促进个体对知觉进行解释, 并提供适当的回应, 甚至影响个体的行为表现(Shih et al., 2002)。	仁慈领导、专权领导、尚严领导、领导鼓舞激励行为、LMX评分差异、下属LMX评分	后果	Huang et al., 2008; Tsai et al., 2017

理论	理论观点	应用解释变量	应用阶段	文献作者
移情的社会认知模型	个体关于重要他人的心理表征存在于记忆中, 而且这种表征很容易被任何环境中的相关线索激活, 从而导致人们透过先前存在的重要他人的镜头来看待新的他人(Andersen & Cole, 1990; Andersen & Glassman, 1996)。	依恋风格	前因	陈靖枫, 2018
泛家族主义	家族中的生活经验和习惯通常是传统中国人唯一的一套组织或团体生活的经验与习惯, 因此在参加家族以外的组织或团体活动时, 个体会自然而然地将家族中的结构形态、关系模式及处事方式推广、概化或带入到这些非家族性地团体或组织中(杨国枢, 2008)。	依恋风格	前因	陈靖枫, 2018
社会学习理论	个体会效仿角色楷模(role model), 试图通过观察学习其思维模式、态度或行为, 努力成为与楷模相似的人(Bandura, 1971)。	仁慈领导、尚严领导、专权领导	前因	蔡松纯, 2012
信息加工理论	人类的认知结构不仅可以促进个体选择和编码社会信息, 有效形成对外部事件的知觉(Walsh, 1995), 还能促进个体对知觉进行解释, 并提供适当的回应, 甚至影响个体的行为表现(Shih et al., 2002)。	仁慈领导、专权领导、尚严领导、领导鼓舞激励行为、LMX评分差异、下属LMX评分	后果	Huang et al., 2008; Tsai et al., 2017