Time related research and future direction in organizational behavior field

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00747

Abstract

Abstract:

Time, is the basic element of personal life and work experience, everywhere. At present, most of the existing literature in the field of organizational behavior explores the relationship between variables from a static perspective, that is, mainly focuses on overall variable levels over a period of time. This is because these studies are based on a mainstream assumption, that is, the overall variable levels are relatively stable. While the role of time, such as the dynamic characteristics of variables over a period of time, has been largely neglected. This widely adopted static perspective that neglects the role of time keeps the existing theory of organizational behavior “static” to a certain extent.
Over time, whether and how the overall variable levels change, and how and when the variables that change over time have an effect, the exploration of these issues provides a new perspective on existing research, which in turn expands traditional management theories. As more and more recent studies in recent years have taken the role of time into consideration in the discussion of theoretical models, researchers have gradually discovered that paying attention to the dynamic characteristics of variables from a dynamic perspective can increase explanatory effectiveness than exploring the impact of overall variable levels. Based on this approach, the construction methods of traditional management theories, the relationship between variables, and even the propositions derived from traditional theories have also changed. Taking the role of time into consideration, that is, focusing on the dynamic characteristics of variables and exploring their antecedents and outcomes from a dynamic perspective, existing research can better “provide an ontologically accurate description of the nature of a phenomenon” (George & Jones, 2000, p. 658).
In line with this approach, in recent years, some scholars have begun to focus on the role of time and to explore the dynamic characteristics of variables. However, in general, this type of research is still quite rare and disorganized in different fields, and has not yet formed a structured system. Based on this, this review focused on the literature that has taken the role of time into consideration in recent years and explored the dynamic characteristics of variables over a period of time, in order to provide inspiration for future research. Specifically, this review selected two dimensions to sort out related research: the first of the dimensions being the type of dynamic characteristics of variables (i.e., trend vs. variability). The trend reflects the change trend of the variable over a period of time, including growth and decay. In research, the slope is often used as a measure. Variability reflects the degree of (in) stability a variable has over a period of time, which is often measured by standard deviation in research. The second of the dimensions being the role of dynamic characteristics of variables in the theoretical model (i.e., independent variable vs. dependent variable). That is, the researcher can use it as an independent variable to explore its outcomes, or use it as a dependent variable to explore its antecedents. Based on these two dimensions, this review divided the relevant research into four categories: (1) Trend is the independent variable; (2) Trend is the dependent variable; (3) Variability is the independent variable; (4) Variability is the dependent variable. Based on this categorization, this review systematically reviewed the related studies and the theories applied in them. Finally, based on the above analysis, suggestions for future research are provided by taking the role of time into consideration to expand the theory of organizational behavior more comprehensively and systematically, such as paying more attention to the variability of variables, investigating trends, interactions between fluctuations and overall average levels, focusing on time, duration and other important dynamic changes, from the perspective of characteristics, etc.

Key words: time, dynamic, organizational behavior, trend, variability

CLC Number:

B849:C93

DONG Xiaowei, QIN Xin, CHEN Chen, HUANG Mingpeng, DENG Huiru, ZHOU Hansen, SONG Bodi. Time related research and future direction in organizational behavior field[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(4): 747-760.

Figures/Tables 3

References 88

[1]	杜旌. (2013). 本土文化情境下领导行为对员工变革反应的影响:基于图式理论的动态研究. 心理科学进展, 21,1531-1541.
[2]	韩翼, 廖建桥. (2005). 企业雇员组织承诺周期模型研究. 南开管理评论, 5,41-49.
[3]	康勇军, 彭坚. (2019). 累并快乐着:服务型领导的收益与代价——基于工作-家庭资源模型视角. 心理学报, 51,227-237.
[4]	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, 21,1901-1912.
[5]	李超平, 时勘. (2003). 分配公平与程序公平对工作倦怠的影响. 心理学报, 35,677-684.
[6]	李锐, 凌文辁, 柳士顺. (2012). 传统价值观, 上下属关系与员工沉默行为——一项本土文化情境下的实证探索. 管理世界, 3,127-140.
[7]	秦昕, 薛伟, 陈晨, 刘四维, 邓惠如. (2019). 为什么领导做出公平行为:综述与未来研究方向. 管理学季刊, 4,39-62.
[8]	王辉, 张翠莲. (2012). 中国企业环境下领导行为的研究述评:高管领导行为, 领导授权赋能及领导-部属交换. 心理科学进展, 20,1519-1530.
[9]	杨帅, 黄希庭, 王晓刚, 尹天子. (2012). 文化影响自我解释的神经机制. 心理科学进展, 20,149-157.
[10]	Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Time-out: Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26,512-529.
[11]	Ariely, D., & Carmon, Z. (2000). Gestalt characteristics of experiences: The defining features of summarized events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13,191-201.
[12]	Au, E., Qin, X., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2017). Beyond personal control: When and how executives' beliefs in negotiable fate foster entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143,69-84.
[13]	Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50248-287.
[14]	Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn't like me when I'm sleepy”: Leaders' sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58,1419-1437.
[15]	Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,468-482.
[16]	Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford University Press,
[17]	Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,844-858.
[18]	Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114,133-151.
[19]	Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.). Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp.287-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
[20]	Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54,159-181.
[21]	Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,278-321.
[22]	Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.O. L. H., & Ng, K. G. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,425-445.
[23]	Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,199-236.
[24]	Connection, C. C. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 18,143-164.
[25]	Courtright, S. H., Gardner, R. G., Smith, T. A., Mccormick, B. W., & Colbert, A. E. (2016). My family made me do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 59,1630-1652.
[26]	Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,99771-783.
[27]	Dunford, B. B., Shipp, A. J., Boss, R. W., Angermeier, I., & Boss, A. D. (2012). Is burnout static or dynamic? A career transition perspective of employee burnout trajectories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,637-650.
[28]	Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36,319-348.
[29]	Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 9,343-363.
[30]	Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,1011-1027. URL pmid: 11414368
[31]	Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,92-126.
[32]	Fortin, M., Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & German, H. (2016). It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,S30-S56.
[33]	George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26,657-684.
[34]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resourcesin conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40,1334-1364.
[35]	Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M. (2011). Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,872-880.
[36]	Herr, R. M., Bosch, J. A., van Vianen, A. E., Jarczok, M. N., Thayer, J. F., Li, J., … Li, A. (2015). Organizational justice is related to heart rate variability in white-collar workers, but not in blue-collar workers—findings from a cross-sectional study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49,434-448. URL pmid: 25472852
[37]	Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44,513-524.
[38]	Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84,632-643. URL pmid: 12635922
[39]	Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J.W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F.R. H., & Alberts, H.J. E.M. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,1113-1128.
[40]	Hsee, C. K., & Abelson, R. P. (1991). Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60,341-347.
[41]	Johnson, H. H., & Avolio, B. J. (2019). Team psychological safety and conflict trajectories' effect on individual's team identification and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 44,843-873.
[42]	Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,635-650.
[43]	Johnson, R. E., Muraven, M., Donaldson, T., & Lin, S.-H. (2014). Self-control in work organizations. In D. L.Ferris, R. E. Johnson & C. Sedikides (Eds.). The self at work: Fundamental theory and research(pp.119-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
[44]	Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Change in newcomers' supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52,527-544.
[45]	Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3,138-160.
[46]	Ju, D., Huang, M. P., Liu, D., Qin, X., Hu, Q. J., & Chen, C. (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154,80-95.
[47]	Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds.). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.3-25). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[48]	Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4,401-405.
[49]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47,263-291.
[50]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39,341-350.
[51]	Kim, T. -Y., Lin, X., W., & Leung, K. (2015). A dynamic approach to fairness: Effects of temporal changes of fairness perceptions on job attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30,163-175.
[52]	Kim, T.-Y., Schuh, S. C., & Cai, Y. H. (2020). Person or Job? Change in person-job fit and its impact on employee work attitudes over time. Journal of Management Studies, 57,287-313.
[53]	Konradt, U., Garbers, Y., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. (2016). Patterns of change in fairness perceptions during the hiring process. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24,246-259.
[54]	Larsen, R. J. (1987). The stability of mood variability: A spectral analytic approach to daily mood assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,1195-1204.
[55]	Li, J., Burch, T. C., & Lee, T. W. (2017). Intra-individual variability in job complexity over time: Examining the effect of job complexity trajectory on employee job strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38,671-691.
[56]	Lilly, J. D., Virick, M., & Hadani, M. (2010). The dynamic nature of justice: Influential effects of time and work outcomes on long-term perceptions. Social Justice Research. 23,37-59.
[57]	Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predications from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,189-210. URL pmid: 11461198
[58]	Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K., (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24,181-223.
[59]	Lin, S. -H., Ma, J., J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology,101815-830.
[60]	Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Hinkin, T. R. (2012). When employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55,1360-1380.
[61]	Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60,743-770.
[62]	Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Guo, Z. A., & Matusik, J. G. (2020). Exchanging one uncertainty for another: Justice variability negates the benefits of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105,97-110.
[63]	McClean, S., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13,479-508.
[64]	Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. The Leadership Quarterly, 28,605-620.
[65]	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,108256-266.
[66]	Ng, T.W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees' embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66,645-685.
[67]	Ng, T.W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behaviour: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23,537-553.
[68]	Ng, T.W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative, behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,14-34.
[69]	Patient, D. L. (2011). Pitfalls of administering justice in an inconsistent world: Some reflections on the consistency rule. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,1008-1012.
[70]	Penner, L. A., Shiffman, S., Paty, J. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994). Individual differences in intraperson variability in mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,712-721. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.66.4.712 URL pmid: 8189348
[71]	Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64,427-450.
[72]	Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91,115-121.
[73]	Qin, X., Direnzo, M. S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. L. (2014). When do emotionally exhausted employees speak up? Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,1018-1041.
[74]	Qin, X., Huang, M. P., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q. J., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61,1951-1975.
[75]	Qin, X., Ren, R., Zhang, Z. X., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Considering self-interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value-expressive motives interact to influence supervisors' justice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 71,225-253.
[76]	Reb, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). Evaluating dynamic performance: The influence of salient Gestalt characteristics on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,92490-499.
[77]	Ritter, K.-J., Matthews, R. A., Ford, M. T., & Henderson, A. A. (2016). Understanding role stressors and job satisfaction over time using adaptation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,1655-1669.
[78]	Rubenstein, A. L., Allen, D. G., & Bosco, F. A. (2019). What's past (and present) is prologue: Interactions between justice levels and trajectories predicting behavioral reciprocity. Journal of Management, 45,1569-1594.
[79]	Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2012). Chameleonic or consistent: A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability. Academy of Management Journal, 55,905-926.
[80]	Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2,237-260.
[81]	Sitton, S. C., & Griffin, S. (1980). The sleeper effect of reconstructive memory. Journal of General Psychology, 103,21-25.
[82]	Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., Cole, M. S., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Developing and testing a dynamic model of workplace incivility change. Journal of Management, 43645-670.
[83]	Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M. -C., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2018). Good things are not eternal: How consideration leadership and initiating structure influence the dynamic nature of organizational justice and extra-role behaviors at the collective level. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25,211-232.
[84]	van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic.
[85]	Varey, C., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5,169-185.
[86]	Yu, L. T. (2017). Some things, if not all things, are about change: A time-based theory of abusive supervision. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from, https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/206390.
[87]	Zhu, J., Tatachari, S., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2017). Newcomer identification: Trends, antecedents, moderators, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 60,855-879.
[88]	Zhu, J., Wanberg, C. R., Harrison, D. A., & Diehn, E. W. (2016). Ups and downs of the expatriate experience? Understanding work adjustment trajectories and career outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,549-568.

类别	文献数量	话题	自变量	因变量	文献
趋势是自变量	16	公平	公平感趋势	工作满意度、组织承诺、离职意向	Hausknecht et al. 2011
				工作满意度、情感性组织承诺	Kim et al. 2015
				职场帮助行为	Rubenstein et al. 2019
		领导力	苛责管理行为趋势	工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为	Yu, 2017
			共享领导趋势	团队绩效趋势	Drescher et al. 2014
			领导-成员交换趋势	建言行为	Ng et al. 2014
		员工态度与知觉	工作满意度趋势	离职行为、离职意愿趋势	Chen et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012
			情感承诺趋势、规范承诺趋势和持续承诺趋势	离职意愿趋势	Bentein et al. 2005
			心理资本趋势	领导评价绩效趋势、客观绩效趋势	Peterson et al. 2011
			团队关系冲突趋势	团队认同	Johnson & Avolio, 2019
			感知的领导组织嵌入感趋势	员工自身组织嵌入感趋势	Ng & Feldman, 2013
			主管支持感趋势	员工组织社会化	Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009
			感知的组织威望趋势	组织认同感趋势	Zhu et al. 2017
		组织情境	工作复杂性趋势	员工压力趋势	Li et al. 2017
		组织情境	工作场所不文明行为趋势	职业倦怠、离职意愿	Taylor et al. 2017
趋势是因变量	11	公平	人格特质	公平感趋势	Konradt et al. 2016
		领导力	绩效	领导-成员交换水平趋势	Nahrgang et al. 2009
		领导力	自我感知的领导能力	领导身份认同趋势	Miscenko et al. 2017
		员工态度与知觉	与工作变动有关的因素、新来者的经验	工作满意度趋势	Boswell et al. 2009
			工作满意度水平	工作满意度趋势	Ritter et al. 2016
			人岗匹配度	工作满意度趋势、情感性组织承诺趋势	Kim et al. 2020
			职业转换类型	职业倦怠趋势	Dunford et al. 2012
			正念	工作恢复趋势	Hülshegeret al. 2014
			组织信任趋势、尊重感知趋势	自我效能感趋势	Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
			自我效能感趋势	想法的产生、传播和实施趋势	Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
			工作适应初始水平、文化经验、自我评估	工作适应程度趋势	Zhu et al. 2016
		组织情境	领导类型	公平感趋势、角色外行为趋势	Tremblay et al. 2018
波动是自变量	5	公平	公平波动	工作满意度、情绪耗竭	Matta et al. 2017
			人际公平波动	群体自豪感	Matta et al. 2020
			领导公平行为一致性	员工公平感	Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
		情绪劳动	表层动作波动	工作满意度、工作退缩	Scott et al. 2012
		领导力	苛责管理波动	工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为	Yu, 2017
波动是因变量	4	公平	自我控制水平	公平波动	Matta et al. 2017
			对公平的态度	公平行为一致性	Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
			公平感	心率变异性	Herr et al. 2015
		情绪劳动	自我监控	表层动作波动	Scott et al. 2012

类别	文献数量	话题	自变量	因变量	文献
趋势是自变量	16	公平	公平感趋势	工作满意度、组织承诺、离职意向	Hausknecht et al. 2011
				工作满意度、情感性组织承诺	Kim et al. 2015
				职场帮助行为	Rubenstein et al. 2019
		领导力	苛责管理行为趋势	工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为	Yu, 2017
			共享领导趋势	团队绩效趋势	Drescher et al. 2014
			领导-成员交换趋势	建言行为	Ng et al. 2014
		员工态度与知觉	工作满意度趋势	离职行为、离职意愿趋势	Chen et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012
			情感承诺趋势、规范承诺趋势和持续承诺趋势	离职意愿趋势	Bentein et al. 2005
			心理资本趋势	领导评价绩效趋势、客观绩效趋势	Peterson et al. 2011
			团队关系冲突趋势	团队认同	Johnson & Avolio, 2019
			感知的领导组织嵌入感趋势	员工自身组织嵌入感趋势	Ng & Feldman, 2013
			主管支持感趋势	员工组织社会化	Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009
			感知的组织威望趋势	组织认同感趋势	Zhu et al. 2017
		组织情境	工作复杂性趋势	员工压力趋势	Li et al. 2017
		组织情境	工作场所不文明行为趋势	职业倦怠、离职意愿	Taylor et al. 2017
趋势是因变量	11	公平	人格特质	公平感趋势	Konradt et al. 2016
		领导力	绩效	领导-成员交换水平趋势	Nahrgang et al. 2009
		领导力	自我感知的领导能力	领导身份认同趋势	Miscenko et al. 2017
		员工态度与知觉	与工作变动有关的因素、新来者的经验	工作满意度趋势	Boswell et al. 2009
			工作满意度水平	工作满意度趋势	Ritter et al. 2016
			人岗匹配度	工作满意度趋势、情感性组织承诺趋势	Kim et al. 2020
			职业转换类型	职业倦怠趋势	Dunford et al. 2012
			正念	工作恢复趋势	Hülshegeret al. 2014
			组织信任趋势、尊重感知趋势	自我效能感趋势	Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
			自我效能感趋势	想法的产生、传播和实施趋势	Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
			工作适应初始水平、文化经验、自我评估	工作适应程度趋势	Zhu et al. 2016
		组织情境	领导类型	公平感趋势、角色外行为趋势	Tremblay et al. 2018
波动是自变量	5	公平	公平波动	工作满意度、情绪耗竭	Matta et al. 2017
			人际公平波动	群体自豪感	Matta et al. 2020
			领导公平行为一致性	员工公平感	Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
		情绪劳动	表层动作波动	工作满意度、工作退缩	Scott et al. 2012
		领导力	苛责管理波动	工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为	Yu, 2017
波动是因变量	4	公平	自我控制水平	公平波动	Matta et al. 2017
			对公平的态度	公平行为一致性	Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
			公平感	心率变异性	Herr et al. 2015
		情绪劳动	自我监控	表层动作波动	Scott et al. 2012

理论	研究使用数量
理论	趋势是自变量	趋势是因变量	波动是自变量	波动是因变量
格式塔特征理论	5
资源保存理论	3	2
前景理论	3	1
意义建构理论	3
个人螺旋理论	2
记忆重建理论		1
适应理论		1
不确定性管理理论			3
道德自我调节理论				1
情绪波动理论				1

理论	研究使用数量
理论	趋势是自变量	趋势是因变量	波动是自变量	波动是因变量
格式塔特征理论	5
资源保存理论	3	2
前景理论	3	1
意义建构理论	3
个人螺旋理论	2
记忆重建理论		1
适应理论		1
不确定性管理理论			3
道德自我调节理论				1
情绪波动理论				1