Paternalistic leadership and employee performance: A meta-analysis of Chinese samples

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01829

Abstract

Abstract:

As a paradigm of local research, paternalistic leadership has gradually been popular in the field of Organizational Behavior. Paternalistic leadership is a leadership style that expresses absolute authority, elder's care, and moral role model in the context of humanism. As a core element in organizational context, employee performance is crucial for organizations, leaders, and employees, etc. However, the conclusion of the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee performance is still controversial, as existing meta-analyses focus on the relationship between this relationship, but relatively ignore the important impact of cultural on the results; besides, most scholars have analyzed the authoritarian, benevolent, and moral dimensions of paternalistic leadership independently or parallelly, failing comprehensively consider the relationship between the three dimensions to conduct research on employee performance; in addition, the effectiveness of leadership style is the result of the joint action of leaders and employees, and previous studies have relatively ignored the moderating effects of gender and age characteristics on employee performance in China.

Based on this, this study used meta-analysis and meta-analytic criterion profile analysis to explore the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee performance in the Chinese context. Through a comprehensive search and screening of the Chinese and English literature on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and performance (including task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive performance) conducted in the Chinese context, a total of 139 studies with 400 effect values were included (N = 44605).

Our research contained three steps. In the first step, the main effects of authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership and moral leadership on employees are estimated, including task performance, organizational behavior, and counterproductive performance with the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analytic method. Thereafter, we identify the paternalistic leadership profile when it is best related to employee performance through multiple regression and determine which profile of paternalistic leadership has the strongest predictive power for task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive performance respectively with the meta-criterion profile. Thirdly, we also tested whether employee's characteristics of gender and age played a moderating role in those relationships.

The results of the meta-analysis found that (1) Benevolent leadership and Moral leadership have strong positive correlations with both task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and strong negative correlations with counterproductive behavior. In contrast, Authoritarian leadership has a significant negative correlation with task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and a significant positive correlation with counterproductive behavior. (2) Low authoritative leadership profile (high level of benevolent and moral leadership) has the strongest predictive power for task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and high authoritative leadership profile (low level of benevolent and moral leadership) has the strongest predictive power for counterproductive behavior. (3) ?Moderator analyses revealed that average age produces a meaningful impact on the relationships between authoritarian leadership and organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive performance, the strength of the relationship between moral leadership and task performance. Moreover,the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and performance is not significant.

The findings firstly revealed the "truth" about the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee performance in the Chinese context, which guide the direction of subsequent leadership research; Secondly, the relationship between the profile of the three-dimensions combination of paternalistic leadership and employee performance is explored from the perspective of person-centered, and the conclusion is more accurate and effective; Finally, the boundary conditions between paternalistic leadership and employee performance are clarified from the perspective of employee demographic characteristics. Further, this research has implications for management practice. On the one hand, leaders should adjust the combination of paternalistic leadership styles in time according to the environment to promote the optimal performance of subordinates; On the other hand, leaders should treat employees of different genders equally and adjust their leadership styles according to the needs of employees of different ages.

Key words: paternalistic leadership, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior, meta-analysis, meta-analytic criterion profile analysis

CLC Number:

B849: C93

LIU Doudou, XU Yan, LI Chaoping. Paternalistic leadership and employee performance: A meta-analysis of Chinese samples[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(10): 1829-1846.

Figures/Tables 11

References 215

	(注：带*的文献表示纳入元分析的文献。)
[1]	* 包欢欢. (2017). 家长式领导对员工绩效的影响 (硕士学位论文). 浙江理工大学.
[2]	陈建安, 陶雅, 陈瑞. (2017). 工作场所中年龄多元化前沿探析及其管理启示. 管理评论, 29(7), 148-162.
[3]	* 陈维政, 刘媛. (2010). 家长式领导风格对员工沉默的影响分析. 人力资源管理评论, 1(1), 67-81.
[4]	陈学军, 王重鸣. (2001). 绩效模型的最新研究进展. 心理科学, 24(6), 737-738.
[5]	* 程敏. (2015). 家长式领导对员工追随和绩效的影响:人际公平的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学.
[6]	* 池美娜. (2020). 仁慈领导对员工建言行为的倒U形影响——责任知觉的中介作用. 中国人事科学, (4), 41-52.
[7]	* 邓昌盛. (2016). 德行领导、工作场所精神性与组织公民行为的关系研究(硕士学位论文). 东北财经大学, 大连.
[8]	* 邓志华, 陈维政, 黄丽, 胡冬梅. (2012). 服务型领导与家长式领导对员工态度和行为影响的比较研究. 经济与管理研究, (7), 101-110.
[9]	董保宝, 曹琦, 罗均梅. (2020). 元分析方法在国内外创业研究中的应用述评. 管理学报, 17(6), 937-948.
[10]	* 杜宁让. (2015). 家长式领导对公务员工作绩效的影响机制研究 (博士学位论文). 兰州大学.
[11]	* 段锦云. (2012). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的影响: 心理安全感的中介机制. 管理评论, 24(10), 109-116.
[12]	樊景立, 郑伯埙. (2000). 华人组织的家长式领导: 一项文化观点的分析. 本土心理学研究, 13(1), 127-180.
[13]	方来坛, 时勘, 张风华, 高鹏. (2011). 员工敬业度、工作绩效与工作满意度的关系研究. 管理评论, 23(12), 108-115.
[14]	* 高智, 胡琪波. (2014). 家长式领导与知识员工反生产行为关系的实证研究——基于家长式领导三元理论的观点. 未来与发展, (7), 92-97.
[15]	* 巩键. (2013). 家长式领导对员工自愿性工作行为影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 杭州电子科技大学.
[16]	韩翼, 廖建桥, 龙立荣. (2007). 雇员工作绩效结构模型构建与实证研究. 管理科学学报, (5), 62-77.
[17]	* 侯楠, 彭坚. (2019). 恩威并施、积极执行与工作绩效——探索中国情境下双元领导的有效性. 心理学报, 51(1), 117-127.
[18]	* 侯文静. (2018). 家长式领导、组织自尊与员工沉默的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 江苏大学.
[19]	黄旭. (2017). 战地黄花分外香: 对家长式领导研究的质疑与批判. 管理学季刊, 2(4), 33-40.
[20]	* 贾阳. (2014). 上级家长式领导与员工建言行为的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 西南交通大学, 成都.
[21]	* 贾真. (2014). 家长式领导风格、员工沉默与工作绩效的实证研究 (硕士学位论文). 南京理工大学.
[22]	* 景保峰. (2012). 家长式领导对员工建言行为影响的实证研究 (博士学位论文). 华南理工大学, 广州.
[23]	* 康乐乐. (2012). 家长式领导、组织支持感与员工沉默的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 东北财经大学, 大连.
[24]	* 赖泰斯, 刘丽红. (2015). 家长式领导对工作绩效的影响——积极压力的中介作用. 才智, (4), 332+334.
[25]	* 李财德. (2011). 家长式领导对组织公民行为影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 华东理工大学, 上海.
[26]	* 李光浩. (2017). 家长式领导对员工职场偏差行为影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 河北大学, 保定.
[27]	* 李蓉. (2013). 家长式领导对组织公民行为的影响:以个人—组织匹配为调节变量 (硕士学位论文). 南京工业大学.
[28]	* 李锐, 凌文辁, 柳士顺. (2012). 组织心理所有权的前因与后果: 基于“人-境互动”的视角. 心理学报, 44(9), 1202-1216.
[29]	* 李爽. (2015). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的影响:组织公平的中介效应 (硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学.
[30]	* 李锡元, 王伟叶. (2020). 绩效压力对职场欺骗行为的影响机制研究. 商业经济与管理, (10), 39-51.
[31]	* 李晓玉, 高冬东, 赵申苒. (2016). 仁慈领导对乡镇公务员工作绩效的影响: 建言行为和组织支持感的作用. 心理研究, (6), 52-59.
[32]	李艳, 孙健敏, 焦海涛. (2013). 分化与整合——家长式领导研究的走向. 心理科学进展, 21(7), 1294-1306.
[33]	李燕萍, 侯烜方. (2012). 新生代员工工作价值观结构及其对工作行为的影响机理. 经济管理, 5(5), 77-86.
[34]	* 李雨萌. (2016). 家长式领导、雇佣保障对员工建言的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 西南政法大学, 重庆.
[35]	* 李镇江. (2016). 家长式领导对新生代员工建言行为的影响:领导成员交换与中庸思维的作用 (硕士学位论文). 华南理工大学, 上海.
[36]	* 李卓. (2013). 家长式领导、心理授权与工作绩效的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 山西大学.
[37]	林声洙, 杨百寅. (2014). 中韩家长式领导与组织支持感及组织公民行为之间关系的比较研究. 管理世界, (3), 182-183.
[38]	* 林杨. (2018). 家长式领导对员工越轨行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 东北财经大学, 大连.
[39]	林姿葶, 郑伯埙, 周丽芳. (2014). 家长式领导之回顾与前瞻. 本土心理学研究, (42), 3-82.
[40]	林姿葶, 郑伯埙, 周丽芳. (2017). 家长式领导之回顾与前瞻: 再一次思考. 管理学季刊, 2(4), 1-32+158.
[41]	* 凌敏. (2014). 浅谈家长式领导对企业员工建言行为的影响. 现代商业, (33), 201-202.
[42]	* 刘冰, 齐蕾, 徐璐. (2017). 棍棒之下出“孝子”吗——员工职场偏差行为研究. 南开管理评论, (3), 182-192.
[43]	刘俊, 秦传燕. (2018). 企业社会责任与员工绩效的关系: 一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(7), 1152-1164.
[44]	* 刘晓燕. (2012). 家长式领导与员工建言行为的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 安徽大学, 合肥.
[45]	* 刘园园. (2017). 初创企业家长式领导对员工绩效的作用机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 南京理工大学.
[46]	骆振冰. (2017). 情感共情与认知共情的年龄差异:社交动机和年龄相关性的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 浙江师范大学, 金华.
[47]	* 马鹏, 蔡双立. (2018). 家长式领导对员工建言行为激励内化机制研究——中庸思维调节下的跨层次分析. 财经论丛, (7), 88-96.
[48]	* 马艳茹, 赵宝福. (2013). 家长式领导行为对员工行为影响机制研究. 中国企业运筹学第八届学术年会, 成都, 中国.
[49]	* 毛畅果, 范静博, 刘斌. (2020). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的三阶交互效应. 首都经济贸易大学学报, (3), 102-112.
[50]	* 裴明君. (2016). 企业家长式领导对员工建言行为影响实证研究(硕士学位论文). 沈阳工业大学.
[51]	* 邱佳理. (2013). 家族企业中家长式领导与员工绩效的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 湘潭大学.
[52]	* 仇勇, 杨旭华. (2015). 家长式领导对高校教师工作行为的影响研究——基于任务绩效和组织公民行为的差异视角. 复旦教育论坛, (6), 62-71.
[53]	* 任迎伟, 李思羽. (2016). 国企背景下家长式领导与员工反生产行为: 基于互动公平的中介效应. 四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (5), 144-152.
[54]	* 任迎伟, 阮萍萍, 王存福. (2012). 家长式领导效能的实证研究. 财经科学, (12), 89-95.
[55]	* 邵珂. (2018). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 山西财经大学, 太原.
[56]	* 沈翔鹰, 穆桂斌. (2018). 家长式领导与员工建言行为: 组织认同的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, (6), 841-846.
[57]	苏涛, 陈春花, 崔小雨, 陈鸿志. (2017). 信任之下, 其效何如——来自Meta分析的证据. 南开管理评论, 20(4), 179-192.
[58]	孙秀丽, 王辉, 赵曙明. (2020). 基于文化视角的中国领导学研究路径评述. 管理学报, 17(8), 1254-1264.
[59]	* 孙艳华. (2014). 家长式、服务型领导风格认知与员工偏离行为关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 南华大学, 衡阳.
[60]	* 唐菁. (2011). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 华中科技大学, 武汉.
[61]	* 滕修攀, 程德俊. (2019). 创造性团队如何盘活内部智力资源?——领导风格与工作特征对员工建言行为的影响. 管理现代化, (4), 78-81.
[62]	* 田艳辉, 柳慧, 白胜军. (2020). 德行领导对高中教师知识分享行为和任务绩效的影响机制. 校园心理, (2), 159-163.
[63]	* 田在兰, 黄培伦. (2014). 基于自我认知理论的家长式领导对建言的影响. 科研管理, (10), 150-160.
[64]	* 仝金. (2019). 家长式领导对公务员工作绩效的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 西安建筑科技大学.
[65]	* 万翔, 丁志慧. (2018). 家长式领导及信任对员工知识回避的影响. 武汉理工大学学报(信息与管理工程版), (3), 354-358.
[66]	* 王琛. (2018). 仁慈型领导对下属工作退缩行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 首都经济贸易大学.
[67]	* 王国猛, 张译涵. (2013). 家长式领导与员工进谏行为:组织认同的中介作用研究. 兰州商学院学报, (5), 46-50+55.
[68]	王辉, 李晓轩, 罗胜强. (2012). 任务绩效与情境绩效二因素绩效模型的验证. 中国管理科学, (4), 79-84.
[69]	* 王嘉琦. (2019). 德行领导对工作绩效的影响 (硕士学位论文). 首都经济贸易大学.
[70]	汪林, 储小平, 黄嘉欣, 陈戈. (2010). 与高层领导的关系对经理人“谏言”的影响机制——来自本土家族企业的经验证据. 管理世界, (5), 108-117+140.
[71]	* 汪林, 储小平, 彭草蝶, 岳磊. (2020). 家族角色日常互动对家长式领导发展的溢出机制研究——基于家族企业高管团队日志追踪的经验证据. 管理世界, 36(8), 98-109.
[72]	* 王石磊, 彭正龙, 高源. (2013). 中国式领导情境下的80后员工越轨行为研究. 管理评论, 25(8), 142-150.
[73]	王甜, 苏涛, 陈春花. (2017). 家长式领导的有效性: 来自Meta分析的证据. 中国人力资源开发, (3), 69-80.
[74]	* 王妍媛. (2013). 家长式领导对企业员工建言行为的影响研究——以目标定向为调节变量 (硕士学位论文). 南京工业大学.
[75]	王震, 孙建敏, 赵一君. (2012). 中国组织情境下的领导有效性:对变革型领导、领导-部署交换和破坏型领导的元分析. 心理科学进展, 20(2), 174-190.
[76]	* 吴道友, 朱迪, 段锦云. (2014). 仁慈领导对员工沉默的影响: 组织内自尊和面子的作用. 应用心理学, (4), 306-315.
[77]	* 吴东哲. (2018). 威权领导对基层公职人员满意度和建言的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 山东财经大学, 大连.
[78]	* 吴磊, 周空. (2016). 家长式领导风格下知识共享行为研究: 主管信任的中介效应. 科技进步与对策, (13), 149-154.
[79]	* 务凯, 李永鑫, 刘霞. (2016). 家长式领导与员工建言行为: 领导-成员交换的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 14(3), 384-389.
[80]	* 吴敏, 黄旭, 徐玖平, 阎洪, 时勘. (2007). 交易型领导、变革型领导与家长式领导行为的比较研究. 科研管理, (3), 168-176.
[81]	* 吴士健, 孙专专, 刘新民, 周忠宝. (2020). 家长式领导有助于员工利他行为吗?——基于中国情境的多重中介效应研究. 管理评论, 32(2), 205-217.
[82]	* 吴有磊. (2018). 家长式领导风格对员工绩效影响的研究 (硕士学位论文). 上海海洋大学.
[83]	* 肖方鑫. (2014). 家长式领导对公务员组织沉默的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
[84]	* 萧健邦. (2018). 家长式领导对新生代员工组织公民行为的影响研究:组织认同的中介作用和差序氛围的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 江西财经大学.
[85]	* 肖庆乐. (2013). 家长式领导、关系对员工建言行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 西南财经大学, 成都.
[86]	* 肖宇佳. (2014). 家长式领导对员工建言行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 辽宁大学.
[87]	* 徐博文. (2013). 家长式领导对下属工作绩效的影响: 权力距离的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 上海交通大学.
[88]	徐畅. (2018). 新生代女性职业生涯观和工作态度的关系研究及管理启示 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[89]	* 许彦妮, 顾琴轩, 蒋琬. (2014). 德行领导对员工创造力和工作绩效的影响: 基于LMX理论的实证研究. 管理评论, 26(2), 139-147.
[90]	* 徐悦, 段锦云, 李成艳. (2017). 仁慈领导对员工建言的影响:自我预防和自我提升的双重路径. 心理与行为研究, (6), 839-845.
[91]	* 薛婷婷. (2014). 家长式领导对组织公民行为的影响机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 安徽财经大学, 蚌埠.
[92]	* 杨良晨. (2009). 变革型领导和家长式领导的有效性研究 (硕士学位论文). 首都经济贸易大学.
[93]	* 杨继平, 王兴超. (2015). 德行领导与员工不道德行为、利他行为: 道德推脱的中介作用. 心理科学, 38(3), 693-699.
[94]	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.
[95]	* 于桂兰, 姚军梅, 张蓝戈. (2017). 家长式领导、员工信任及工作绩效的关系研究. 东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版), (2), 125-129.
[96]	* 于桂兰, 杨术, 孙瑜. (2016). 威权领导、员工沉默行为与员工绩效关系研究. 山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (5), 77-84.
[97]	* 于海波, 关晓宇, 郑晓明. (2014). 家长式领导创造绩效, 服务型领导带来满意——两种领导行为的整合. 科学学与科学技术管理, (6), 172-180.
[98]	* 曾颖. (2012). 家长式领导、员工间知识共享、企业创新绩效关系的实证研究 (硕士学位论文). 西南财经大学, 成都.
[99]	* 赵申苒, 康萌萌, 王明辉, 彭翠. (2018). 仁慈领导对员工亲环境行为的影响:上下属关系与权力距离的作用. 心理与行为研究, (6), 819-826.
[100]	赵显, 刘力, 张笑笑, 向振东, 付洪岭. (2012). 观点采择: 概念、操纵及其对群际关系的影响. 心理科学进展, 20(12), 2079-2088.
[101]	* 张慧芳. (2016). 家长式领导对新生代员工创造力的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 西南大学, 重庆.
[102]	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.
[103]	* 张军成, 凌文辁. (2016). 科技型小微企业家长式领导行为对员工绩效的影响. 广州大学学报(社会科学版), (9), 49-57.
[104]	* 张燕, 怀明云. (2012). 威权式领导行为对下属组织公民行为的影响研究——下属权力距离的调节作用. 管理评论, 24(11), 97-105.
[105]	* 张鹏宇. (2014). 家长式领导、领导部属交换和员工建言行为之间的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 华南理工大学, 广州.
[106]	* 张艳. (2015). 家长式领导、员工沉默与员工绩效的关系 (硕士学位论文). 河南大学, 开封.
[107]	* 张敏. (2017). 家长式领导、雇佣关系和员工工作行为的关系 (硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学, 长沙.
[108]	张亚利, 李森, 俞国良. (2020). 孤独感和手机成瘾的关系: 一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 28(11), 1836-1852.
[109]	* 张亚军, 张金隆, 张千帆, 张军伟. (2015). 威权和授权领导对员工隐性知识共享的影响研究. 管理评论, (9), 130-139.
[110]	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.
[111]	* 张娈婷. (2016). 家长式领导对下属组织公民行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 首都经济贸易大学.
[112]	郑伯埙, 黄敏萍. (2000). 华人企业组织中的领导: 一项文化价值的分析. 中山管理评论, 8(4), 583-617.
[113]	郑伯埙, 周丽芳, 樊景立. (2000). 家长式领导量表: 三元模式的建构与测量. 本土心理学研究, 14, 3-64.
[114]	郑伯埙, 周丽芳, 黄敏萍, 樊景立, 彭泗清. (2003). 家长式领导的三元模式: 中国大陆企业组织的证据. 本土心理学研究, 20, 209-252.
[115]	* 周浩. (2014). 家长式领导对下属进谏行为的影响: 基于关系的视角. 四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (4), 139-148.
[116]	* 周欣宇. (2018). 家长式领导对员工知识分享行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 北京交通大学.
[117]	* 朱晓宇. (2016). 服务型领导和家长式领导对员工工作行为的影响: 心理授权的中介作用 (硕士学位论文). 山东师范大学, 济南.
[118]	Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
[119]	Bedi, A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960-1008. doi: 10.1111/apps.v69.3 URL
[120]	Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
[121]	Boatwright, K. J., & Forrest, L. (2000). Leadership preferences: The influence of gender and needs for connection on workers' ideal preferences for leadership behaviors. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 18-34.
[122]	Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organization (pp. 71-78). Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
[123]	Bowling, N. A., Khazon, S., Meyer, R. D., & Burrus, C. J. (2015). Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 89-104. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9340-7 URL
[124]	Brandt, M. J., & Henry, P. J. (2012). Gender inequality and gender differences in authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1301-1315. pmid: 22733982
[125]	Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 URL
[126]	* Chan. S. C. (2008). Paternalistic leadership styles and follower performance: examining mediating variables in a multi-level model (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
[127]	* Chan, S. C. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? Human Relations, 67(6), 667-693. doi: 10.1177/0018726713503022 URL
[128]	* Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128. doi: 10.1002/job.1797 URL
[129]	* Chan, S. C., & Mak, W. M. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 285-301. doi: 10.1007/s10490-011-9275-3 URL
[130]	* Chan, S. C. H. (2017). Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisory support, and subordinates' performance: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(7), 897-911.
[131]	Chapman, B. P., & Hayslip, B., Jr. (2006). Emotional intelligence in young and middle adulthood: Cross- sectional analysis of latent structure and means. Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 411-418. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.411 URL
[132]	Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.2004.7.issue-1 URL
[133]	* Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2005). The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.
[134]	* Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410604 URL
[135]	Chou, W. J., Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2015). Paternalistic leadership profiles: A person- centered approach. Group & Organization Management, 40(5), 685-710.
[136]	Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 URL
[137]	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
[138]	Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7 URL
[139]	Davison, M. L., Davenport, E. C. Jr., Chang, Y. F., Vue, K., & Su, S. (2015). Criterion-related validity: Assessing the value of subscores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52(3), 263-279. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12081 URL
[140]	* Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Leadership effectiveness in China: The moderating role of change climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(9), 1571-1583. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1571 URL
[141]	* Duan, J., Bao, C., Huang, C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in China. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(1), 62-80. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.61 URL
[142]	Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89-98
[143]	Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 URL
[144]	Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[145]	Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085-1103. doi: 10.1037/a0020858 pmid: 20718516
[146]	Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665-694. doi: 10.1348/000711010X502733 URL
[147]	Field, J. G., Bosco, F. A., & Kepes, S. (2020). How robust is our cumulative knowledge on turnover? Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-17.
[148]	Goštautaitė, B., & Bučiūnienė, I. (2015). Work engagement during life-span: The role of interaction outside the organization and task significance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 109-119. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.05.001 URL
[149]	Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 URL
[150]	Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E., & Cushman, F. A. (2018). Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? Cognition, 170, 95-101. doi: S0010-0277(17)30256-1 pmid: 28963983
[151]	Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102(2), 284-304. pmid: 7740091
[152]	Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32-60. doi: 10.1037/a0017668 pmid: 20063963
[153]	Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557-560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 URL
[154]	Hiller, N. J., Sin, H.-P., 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. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 URL
[155]	Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
[156]	* Hongyu, N., Mingjian, Z., Qiang, L., & Liqun, W. (2012). Exploring relationship between authority leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in China: The role of collectivism. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2), 231-244. doi: 10.1108/17506141211236677 URL
[157]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.
[158]	* Jia, J., Zhou, S., Zhang, L., & Jiang, X. (2020). Exploring the influence of paternalistic leadership on voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(2), 542-560. doi: 10.1108/ER-06-2019-0263 URL
[159]	* Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees' deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 732. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732 URL
[160]	Joplin, T., Greenbaum, R. L., Wallace, J. C., & Edwards, B. D. (2019). Employee entitlement, engagement, and performance: The moderating effect of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14.
[161]	* Lee, J. Y., Jang, S. H., & Lee, S. Y. (2018). Paternalistic leadership and knowledge sharing with outsiders in emerging economies: Based on social exchange relations within the China context. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1094- 1115. doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2017-0068 URL
[162]	* Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 172-189. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001 URL
[163]	Lin, J. Y., Cai, F., & Li, Z. (2003). The China miracle: Development strategy and economic reform. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
[164]	Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[165]	Long, Z. (2016). A feminist ventriloquial analysis of Hao Gongzuo (“Good Work”): Politicizing Chinese post-1980s women's meanings of work. Women's Studies in Communication, 39(4), 422-441. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2016.1224991 URL
[166]	Mansur, J., Sobral, F., & Goldszmidt, R. (2017). Shades of paternalistic leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 702-713. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.06.003 URL
[167]	Morris, S. B., Daisley, R. L., Wheeler, M., & Boyer, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between individual assessments and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 5-20. doi: 10.1037/a0036938 pmid: 24865578
[168]	Motowidlo, S. J., & Kell, H. J. (2012). Job performance. In N. W. Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Second Edition, pp. 82-104). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[169]	Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Asadullah, M. A., Qun, W., & Khadim, S. (2020). Linking paternalistic leadership to follower's innovative work behavior: the influence of leader-member exchange and employee voice. European Journal of Innovation Management. Advance online publication.
[170]	Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.392 URL
[171]	Niu, C. P., Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. (2009). Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 32-39. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.2009.12.issue-1 URL
[172]	O'Boyle, E. H. Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788-818. doi: 10.1002/job.v32.5 URL
[173]	Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta- analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157-159.
[174]	R, Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software, version 3.6. 2]. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
[175]	Ramusack, B. N., & Sievers, S. (1999). Women in Asia: restoring women to history. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
[176]	Redding, S. G., & Hsiao, M. (1990). An empirical study of overseas Chinese managerial ideology. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3-6), 629-641.
[177]	Roth, P. L., Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2018). Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/apl0000293 URL
[178]	Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 1-7.
[179]	Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80. pmid: 11916217
[180]	* Rui, J., & Xinqi, L. (2020). Trickle-down effect of benevolent leadership on unethical employee behavior: A cross-level moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 721-740.
[181]	* Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 203-214. doi: 10.1037/apl0000165 pmid: 27786498
[182]	Scheibe, S., Spieler, I., & Kuba, K. (2016). An older-age advantage? Emotion regulation and emotional experience after a day of work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(3), 307-320.
[183]	Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[184]	Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X. A., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629-640. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0 URL
[185]	* Sheer, V. C. (2010). Transformational and paternalistic leaderships in Chinese organizations: Construct, predictive, and ecological validities compared in a Hong Kong sample. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(1), 121-140.
[186]	* Shen, Y., Chou, W. J., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2019). The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(4), 498-509. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1615453 URL
[187]	Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises (No. 62). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Asia Center.
[188]	Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of autonomous and controlled forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103459. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103459 URL
[189]	Smallfield, J., Hoobler, J. M., & Kluemper, D. H. (2020). How team helping influences abusive and empowering leadership: The roles of team affective tone and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(8), 757-781. doi: 10.1002/job.v41.8 URL
[190]	Sposato, M., & Rumens, N. (2018). Advancing international human resource management scholarship on paternalistic leadership and gender: the contribution of postcolonial feminism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(6), 1201-1221. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1521862 URL
[191]	Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 60-78. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1095 pmid: 26054026
[192]	* Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(3), 291-306.
[193]	* Tian, Q., & Sanchez, J. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 235-246. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2017.47.issue-5 URL
[194]	Vale, M. T., & Bisconti, T. L. (2020). Age differences in sexual minority stress and the importance of friendship in later life. Clinical Gerontologist, 44(3), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2020.1855131 URL
[195]	van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525-531. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525 URL
[196]	Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112-125. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.11 pmid: 26061377
[197]	* Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001 URL
[198]	* Wang, A. C., Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Spain, S. M., Ling, H. C.,... Cheng, B. S. (2018). Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: Testing their relationships with subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 686-697. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.002 URL
[199]	Wang, A., Cheng, B. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106-121. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[200]	* Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 357. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357 URL
[201]	* Wang, L., Huang, J., Chu, X., & Wang, X. (2010). A multilevel study on antecedents of manager voice in Chinese context. Chinese Management Studies, 4(3), 212- 230. doi: 10.1108/17506141011074110 URL
[202]	* Wang, P., CHANG, L., & Wang, S.-Q. (2018). Employee voice behavior and innovative behavior: Comparison of the influence of benevolent leadership and authoritative leadership. Paper presented at the DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, Wuhan, China.
[203]	* Wang, Z., Liu, Y., & Liu, S. (2019). Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 13(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1186/s11782-019-0050-5 URL
[204]	Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
[205]	Wiernik, B. M., Wilmot, M. P., Davison, M. L., & Ones, D. S. (2020). Meta-analytic criterion profile analysis. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication.
[206]	* Wu, M. (2012). Moral leadership and work performance: Testing the mediating and interaction effects in China. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2), 284-299. doi: 10.1108/17506141211236721 URL
[207]	* Wu, M., Huang, X., & Chan, S. C. (2012). The influencing mechanisms of paternalistic leadership in Mainland China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4), 631-648. doi: 10.1080/13602381.2012.690940 URL
[208]	* Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. (2012). Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x URL
[209]	Wu, M., & Xu, E. (2012). Paternalistic leadership:from here to where?. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 449-466). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[210]	* Wu, T. Y., Liu, Y. F., Hua, C. Y., Lo, H. C., & Yeh, Y. J. (2020). Too unsafe to voice? Authoritarian leadership and employee voice in Chinese organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 527-554. doi: 10.1111/aphr.v58.4 URL
[211]	* Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25-36. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.01.002 URL
[212]	Zheng, X., Shi, X., & Liu, Y. (2020). Leading teachers' emotions like parents: Relationships between paternalistic leadership, emotional labor and teacher commitment in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. 519. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00519 pmid: 32318001
[213]	* Zheng, Y. (2016). Fear and compliance: A study of antecedents, mediators and benefits of paternalistic leadership in China (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Durham University.
[214]	* Zheng, Y., Huang, X., Graham, L., Redman, T., & Hu, S. (2020). Deterrence effects: The role of authoritarian leadership in controlling employee workplace deviance. Management and Organization Review, 16(2), 377-404. doi: 10.1017/mor.2019.50 URL
[215]	Zorlu, R. X. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and follower work outcomes: A meta-analysis (Unpublished master's thesis). Utrecht University.

自变量	K	N	$\bar{\gamma }$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI		80%CV		Q	I²	Nfs_-0.05	5K+10
自变量	K	N	$\bar{\gamma }$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	LL	UL	LL	UL	Q	I²	Nfs_-0.05	5K+10
任务绩效
AL	37	13095	-0.13	-0.15	0.22	-0.23	-0.08	-0.43	0.13	652.91^***	94.49	4145	195
BL	34	12549	0.30	0.35	0.16	0.29	0.40	0.15	0.55	394.28^***	91.63	21029	180
ML	30	9739	0.28	0.32	0.18	0.25	0.39	0.09	0.55	390.84^***	92.58	13081	160
组织公民绩效
AL	80	24437	-0.14	-0.17	0.26	-0.23	-0.11	-0.49	0.16	1693.86^***	95.34	25470	410
BL	67	21397	0.36	0.42	0.17	0.37	0.46	0.20	0.63	931.95^***	92.92	162575	345
ML	60	18620	0.36	0.41	0.18	0.37	0.46	0.18	0.64	892.01^***	93.39	132272	310
反生产绩效
AL	23	7118	0.30	0.35	0.23	0.25	0.45	0.06	0.65	457.95^***	95.20	16263	125
BL	21	6335	-0.27	-0.31	0.14	-0.37	-0.24	-0.48	-0.13	146.14^***	86.31	7014	115
ML	17	5657	-0.24	-0.28	0.14	-0.35	-0.21	-0.44	-0.11	113.58^***	85.91	5606	95

自变量	K	N	$\bar{\gamma }$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI		80%CV		Q	I²	Nfs_-0.05	5K+10
自变量	K	N	$\bar{\gamma }$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	LL	UL	LL	UL	Q	I²	Nfs_-0.05	5K+10
任务绩效
AL	37	13095	-0.13	-0.15	0.22	-0.23	-0.08	-0.43	0.13	652.91^***	94.49	4145	195
BL	34	12549	0.30	0.35	0.16	0.29	0.40	0.15	0.55	394.28^***	91.63	21029	180
ML	30	9739	0.28	0.32	0.18	0.25	0.39	0.09	0.55	390.84^***	92.58	13081	160
组织公民绩效
AL	80	24437	-0.14	-0.17	0.26	-0.23	-0.11	-0.49	0.16	1693.86^***	95.34	25470	410
BL	67	21397	0.36	0.42	0.17	0.37	0.46	0.20	0.63	931.95^***	92.92	162575	345
ML	60	18620	0.36	0.41	0.18	0.37	0.46	0.18	0.64	892.01^***	93.39	132272	310
反生产绩效
AL	23	7118	0.30	0.35	0.23	0.25	0.45	0.06	0.65	457.95^***	95.20	16263	125
BL	21	6335	-0.27	-0.31	0.14	-0.37	-0.24	-0.48	-0.13	146.14^***	86.31	7014	115
ML	17	5657	-0.24	-0.28	0.14	-0.35	-0.21	-0.44	-0.11	113.58^***	85.91	5606	95

自变量	整体		水平效应				剖面效应				r_lev.pat
自变量	R	R²	r	r²	$\sqrt{\Delta {{R}^{2}}}$	β	r	r²	$\sqrt{\Delta {{R}^{2}}}$	β	r_lev.pat
任务绩效
PL	0.37	0.14	0.29	0.08	0.04	0.20	0.32	0.10	0.06	0.25	0.34
组织公民绩效
PL	0.46	0.21	0.38	0.14	0.07	0.29	0.37	0.15	0.07	0.28	0.33
反生产绩效
PL	0.43	0.18	-0.13	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.43	0.18	0.16	0.43	-0.34

自变量	整体		水平效应				剖面效应				r_lev.pat
自变量	R	R²	r	r²	$\sqrt{\Delta {{R}^{2}}}$	β	r	r²	$\sqrt{\Delta {{R}^{2}}}$	β	r_lev.pat
任务绩效
PL	0.37	0.14	0.29	0.08	0.04	0.20	0.32	0.10	0.06	0.25	0.34
组织公民绩效
PL	0.46	0.21	0.38	0.14	0.07	0.29	0.37	0.15	0.07	0.28	0.33
反生产绩效
PL	0.43	0.18	-0.13	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.43	0.18	0.16	0.43	-0.34

调节变量	任务绩效				组织公民绩效				反生产绩效
调节变量	B	SE	p	R²	B	SE	p	R²	B	SE	p	R²
男性比例
威权领导	-0.03	0.32	0.92	0.00	-0.29	0.29	0.33	0.00	0.19	0.36	0.60	0.00
仁慈领导	-0.03	0.22	0.89	0.00	0.18	0.22	0.41	0.00	-0.01	0.28	0.99	0.00
德行领导	-0.07	0.33	0.85	0.00	0.11	0.28	0.68	0.00	-0.33	0.39	0.41	0.00
平均年龄
威权领导	0.01	0.01	0.17	0.09	0.03	0.01	<0.01	0.32	-0.03	0.02	<0.10	0.41
仁慈领导	-0.00	0.01	0.76	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.15	0.09	0.00	0.01	0.86	0.00
德行领导	0.02	0.01	<0.05	0.69	-0.00	0.02	0.99	0.00	k值不足