Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 1463-1487.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01463
• Meta-Analysis • Previous Articles Next Articles
SU Tao, ZENG Haowen, ZHONG Xiaolin, MA Wencong(), CHEN Xiude
Received:
2023-11-07
Online:
2024-09-15
Published:
2024-06-26
CLC Number:
SU Tao, ZENG Haowen, ZHONG Xiaolin, MA Wencong, CHEN Xiude. Woe-fortune interdependence: A meta-analysis of the two-sided effect of narcissistic leadership on subordinates’ work efficiency[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(9): 1463-1487.
自恋型领导 | Fail-safe N | 5k+10 | 需找到的未出 版研究数量 |
---|---|---|---|
工作态度 | 909 | 120 | 41 |
①工作满意度 | 375 | 45 | 53 |
②离职倾向 | 197 | 40 | 33 |
③组织犬儒主义 | 798 | 55 | 89 |
职场行为 | 915 | 180 | 51 |
①知识共享行为 | 393 | 40 | 65 |
②沉默行为 | 1431 | 100 | 80 |
③组织公民行为 | 123 | 60 | 12 |
工作绩效 | 446 | 75 | 34 |
创新 | 816 | 45 | 116 |
工作压力 | 276 | 50 | 34 |
自恋型领导 | Fail-safe N | 5k+10 | 需找到的未出 版研究数量 |
---|---|---|---|
工作态度 | 909 | 120 | 41 |
①工作满意度 | 375 | 45 | 53 |
②离职倾向 | 197 | 40 | 33 |
③组织犬儒主义 | 798 | 55 | 89 |
职场行为 | 915 | 180 | 51 |
①知识共享行为 | 393 | 40 | 65 |
②沉默行为 | 1431 | 100 | 80 |
③组织公民行为 | 123 | 60 | 12 |
工作绩效 | 446 | 75 | 34 |
创新 | 816 | 45 | 116 |
工作压力 | 276 | 50 | 34 |
自恋型领导效能 | k | N | 模型 | 同质性检验 | 主效应分析 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | df(Q) | p | I² | τ2 | SE | SD | Tau | 点估计和95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||||
r | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | ||||||||||||
下属总效能 | 84 | 30493 | R | 1818.35 | 83 | 0.000 | 95.44 | 0.058 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.24 | −0.23 | −0.28 | −0.17 | −8.43 | 0.000 |
工作态度 | 22 | 10167 | R | 457.35 | 21 | 0.000 | 95.41 | 0.046 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.22 | −0.34 | −0.42 | −0.26 | −7.59 | 0.000 |
①工作满意度 | 7 | 4344 | R | 59.16 | 6 | 0.000 | 89.86 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.12 | −0.24 | −0.32 | −0.14 | −4.92 | 0.000 |
②离职倾向 | 6 | 1874 | R | 33.66 | 5 | 0.000 | 85.14 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.000 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 4.54 | 0.000 |
③组织犬儒主义 | 9 | 3949 | R | 280.42 | 8 | 0.000 | 97.15 | 0.083 | 0.049 | 0.002 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.29 | 0.59 | 5.04 | 0.000 |
职场行为 | 34 | 13145 | R | 237.95 | 33 | 0.000 | 86.13 | 0.021 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.14 | −0.24 | −0.29 | −0.19 | −9.23 | 0.000 |
①知识共享行为 | 6 | 2696 | R | 73.31 | 5 | 0.000 | 93.18 | 0.039 | 0.031 | 0.001 | 0.20 | −0.36 | −0.49 | −0.21 | −4.42 | 0.000 |
②沉默行为 | 18 | 5493 | R | 133.57 | 17 | 0.000 | 87.27 | 0.023 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.32 | 6.54 | 0.000 |
③组织公民行为 | 10 | 2384 | F | 13.98 | 9 | 0.123 | 35.63 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.05 | −0.17 | −0.21 | −0.13 | −8.22 | 0.000 |
工作绩效 | 13 | 4116 | R | 141.95 | 12 | 0.000 | 91.55 | 0.035 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.19 | −0.21 | −0.31 | −0.11 | −3.94 | 0.000 |
工作压力 | 8 | 3065 | F | 18.68 | 7 | 0.009 | 62.53 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 12.93 | 0.000 |
创新 | 7 | 2572 | R | 68.21 | 6 | 0.000 | 91.20 | 0.029 | 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 6.41 | 0.000 |
自恋型领导效能 | k | N | 模型 | 同质性检验 | 主效应分析 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | df(Q) | p | I² | τ2 | SE | SD | Tau | 点估计和95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||||
r | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | ||||||||||||
下属总效能 | 84 | 30493 | R | 1818.35 | 83 | 0.000 | 95.44 | 0.058 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.24 | −0.23 | −0.28 | −0.17 | −8.43 | 0.000 |
工作态度 | 22 | 10167 | R | 457.35 | 21 | 0.000 | 95.41 | 0.046 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.22 | −0.34 | −0.42 | −0.26 | −7.59 | 0.000 |
①工作满意度 | 7 | 4344 | R | 59.16 | 6 | 0.000 | 89.86 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.12 | −0.24 | −0.32 | −0.14 | −4.92 | 0.000 |
②离职倾向 | 6 | 1874 | R | 33.66 | 5 | 0.000 | 85.14 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.000 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 4.54 | 0.000 |
③组织犬儒主义 | 9 | 3949 | R | 280.42 | 8 | 0.000 | 97.15 | 0.083 | 0.049 | 0.002 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.29 | 0.59 | 5.04 | 0.000 |
职场行为 | 34 | 13145 | R | 237.95 | 33 | 0.000 | 86.13 | 0.021 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.14 | −0.24 | −0.29 | −0.19 | −9.23 | 0.000 |
①知识共享行为 | 6 | 2696 | R | 73.31 | 5 | 0.000 | 93.18 | 0.039 | 0.031 | 0.001 | 0.20 | −0.36 | −0.49 | −0.21 | −4.42 | 0.000 |
②沉默行为 | 18 | 5493 | R | 133.57 | 17 | 0.000 | 87.27 | 0.023 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.32 | 6.54 | 0.000 |
③组织公民行为 | 10 | 2384 | F | 13.98 | 9 | 0.123 | 35.63 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.05 | −0.17 | −0.21 | −0.13 | −8.22 | 0.000 |
工作绩效 | 13 | 4116 | R | 141.95 | 12 | 0.000 | 91.55 | 0.035 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.19 | −0.21 | −0.31 | −0.11 | −3.94 | 0.000 |
工作压力 | 8 | 3065 | F | 18.68 | 7 | 0.009 | 62.53 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 12.93 | 0.000 |
创新 | 7 | 2572 | R | 68.21 | 6 | 0.000 | 91.20 | 0.029 | 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 6.41 | 0.000 |
调节因素 | 模型 | 同质性检验 | 划分 类别 | k | N | 点估计和95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q组间 | df(Q) | p | r | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | |||||
文化背景 (宏观) | F | 0.60 | 1 | 0.439 | 西方 | 26 | 7438 | −0.20 | −0.24 | −0.15 | −8.97 | 0.000 |
东方 | 41 | 12574 | −0.21 | −0.31 | 0.12 | −4.35 | 0.000 | |||||
行业类型 (中观) | R | 7.75 | 1 | 0.005 | 制造业 | 7 | 2366 | −0.25 | −0.35 | −0.16 | −4.92 | 0.000 |
服务业 | 30 | 11935 | −0.19 | −0.27 | −0.09 | −3.95 | 0.000 | |||||
组织属性 (中观) | R | 16.25 | 1 | 0.000 | 营利性 | 64 | 22693 | −0.16 | −0.17 | −0.15 | −23.94 | 0.000 |
非营利性 | 11 | 5531 | −0.10 | −0.13 | −0.07 | −6.78 | 0.002 | |||||
员工类别 (微观) | R | 7.72 | 1 | 0.005 | 知识型 | 38 | 14531 | −0.19 | −0.28 | −0.11 | −4.50 | 0.000 |
非知识型 | 5 | 2130 | −0.25 | −0.34 | −0.14 | −4.67 | 0.000 | |||||
测量工具 | R | 17.63 | 1 | 0.000 | Hochwarter和 Thompson量表 | 29 | 7500 | −0.25 | −0.36 | −0.13 | −4.03 | 0.000 |
NPI-16量表 | 12 | 5362 | −0.19 | −0.26 | −0.11 | −4.89 | 0.000 |
调节因素 | 模型 | 同质性检验 | 划分 类别 | k | N | 点估计和95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q组间 | df(Q) | p | r | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | |||||
文化背景 (宏观) | F | 0.60 | 1 | 0.439 | 西方 | 26 | 7438 | −0.20 | −0.24 | −0.15 | −8.97 | 0.000 |
东方 | 41 | 12574 | −0.21 | −0.31 | 0.12 | −4.35 | 0.000 | |||||
行业类型 (中观) | R | 7.75 | 1 | 0.005 | 制造业 | 7 | 2366 | −0.25 | −0.35 | −0.16 | −4.92 | 0.000 |
服务业 | 30 | 11935 | −0.19 | −0.27 | −0.09 | −3.95 | 0.000 | |||||
组织属性 (中观) | R | 16.25 | 1 | 0.000 | 营利性 | 64 | 22693 | −0.16 | −0.17 | −0.15 | −23.94 | 0.000 |
非营利性 | 11 | 5531 | −0.10 | −0.13 | −0.07 | −6.78 | 0.002 | |||||
员工类别 (微观) | R | 7.72 | 1 | 0.005 | 知识型 | 38 | 14531 | −0.19 | −0.28 | −0.11 | −4.50 | 0.000 |
非知识型 | 5 | 2130 | −0.25 | −0.34 | −0.14 | −4.67 | 0.000 | |||||
测量工具 | R | 17.63 | 1 | 0.000 | Hochwarter和 Thompson量表 | 29 | 7500 | −0.25 | −0.36 | −0.13 | −4.03 | 0.000 |
NPI-16量表 | 12 | 5362 | −0.19 | −0.26 | −0.11 | −4.89 | 0.000 |
变量 | k | N | coefficient | SD | 95% CI下限 | 95% CI上限 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 27 | 10185 | −0.0067 | 0.0044 | −0.015 | 0.002 | 0.124 |
性别 | 70 | 25121 | −0.0019 | 0.0015 | −0.005 | 0.001 | 0.186 |
学历 | 34 | 14638 | −0.0036 | 0.0013 | −0.006 | −0.001 | 0.006 |
变量 | k | N | coefficient | SD | 95% CI下限 | 95% CI上限 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 27 | 10185 | −0.0067 | 0.0044 | −0.015 | 0.002 | 0.124 |
性别 | 70 | 25121 | −0.0019 | 0.0015 | −0.005 | 0.001 | 0.186 |
学历 | 34 | 14638 | −0.0036 | 0.0013 | −0.006 | −0.001 | 0.006 |
变量 | 自恋型领导 | 心理安全感 | 创新自我效能感 | 工作满意度 | 知识共享行为 | 工作绩效 | 创新 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
自恋型领导 | 1 | ||||||
心理安全感 | −0.43 (k = 3, N = 709) | 1 | |||||
创新自我 效能感 | 0.35 (k = 4, N = 1197) | 0.39 (k = 8, N = 2946) | 1 | ||||
工作满意度 | −0.24 (k = 7, N = 4344) | 0.53a (k = 20, N = 8245) | 0.33 (k = 6, N = 2315) | 1 | |||
知识共 享行为 | −0.36 (k = 6, N = 2696) | 0.52a (k = 19, N = 3427) | 0.46 (k = 13, N = 3728) | 0.35c (k = 6, N = 4972) | 1 | ||
工作绩效 | −0.21 (k = 13, N = 4116) | 0.43a (k = 18, N = 4061) | 0.39 (k = 8, N = 2456) | 0.20d (k = 101, N = 19494) | 0.67f (k = 5, N = 1189) | 1 | |
创新 | 0.41 (k = 7, N = 2572) | 0.13a (k = 10, N = 4567) | 0.35b (k = 68, N = 19973) | 0.21e (k = 5, N = 762) | 0.51f (k = 12, N = 4312) | 0.55g (k = 28, N = 7660) | 1 |
变量 | 自恋型领导 | 心理安全感 | 创新自我效能感 | 工作满意度 | 知识共享行为 | 工作绩效 | 创新 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
自恋型领导 | 1 | ||||||
心理安全感 | −0.43 (k = 3, N = 709) | 1 | |||||
创新自我 效能感 | 0.35 (k = 4, N = 1197) | 0.39 (k = 8, N = 2946) | 1 | ||||
工作满意度 | −0.24 (k = 7, N = 4344) | 0.53a (k = 20, N = 8245) | 0.33 (k = 6, N = 2315) | 1 | |||
知识共 享行为 | −0.36 (k = 6, N = 2696) | 0.52a (k = 19, N = 3427) | 0.46 (k = 13, N = 3728) | 0.35c (k = 6, N = 4972) | 1 | ||
工作绩效 | −0.21 (k = 13, N = 4116) | 0.43a (k = 18, N = 4061) | 0.39 (k = 8, N = 2456) | 0.20d (k = 101, N = 19494) | 0.67f (k = 5, N = 1189) | 1 | |
创新 | 0.41 (k = 7, N = 2572) | 0.13a (k = 10, N = 4567) | 0.35b (k = 68, N = 19973) | 0.21e (k = 5, N = 762) | 0.51f (k = 12, N = 4312) | 0.55g (k = 28, N = 7660) | 1 |
路径 | β | SE | Z | P | Bootstrap95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indirect Effect | ||||||
认知视角 | IND1:NL-PS-JP | −0.14 | 0.010 | −13.84 | < 0.001 | [−0.16, −0.12] |
IND2:NL-PS-KSB | −0.17 | 0.011 | −16.30 | < 0.001 | [−0.19, −0.15] | |
IND3:NL-PS-JS | −0.20 | 0.012 | −17.34 | < 0.001 | [−0.23, −0.18] | |
IND4:NL-PS-IN | 0.00 | 0.009 | 0.37 | 0.710 | [−0.01, 0.02] | |
动机视角 | IND5:NL-CSE-JP | 0.09 | 0.008 | 11.00 | < 0.001 | [0.08, 0.11] |
IND6:NL-CSE-KSB | 0.10 | 0.008 | 12.53 | < 0.001 | [0.09, 0.12] | |
IND7:NL-CSE-JS | 0.05 | 0.007 | 7.26 | < 0.001 | [0.04, 0.07] | |
IND8:NL-CSE-IN | 0.12 | 0.010 | 12.55 | < 0.001 | [0.10, 0.14] | |
Total Indirect Effect | ||||||
TOTALIND1:NL-JP | −0.05 | 0.016 | −3.08 | < 0.01 | [−0.08, −0.02] | |
TOTALIND2:NL-KSB | −0.07 | 0.017 | −4.01 | < 0.001 | [−0.10, −0.03] | |
TOTALIND3:NL-JS | −0.15 | 0.016 | −9.51 | < 0.001 | [−0.18, −0.12] | |
TOTALIND4:NL-IN | 0.13 | 0.015 | 8.47 | < 0.001 | [0.10, 0.16] |
路径 | β | SE | Z | P | Bootstrap95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indirect Effect | ||||||
认知视角 | IND1:NL-PS-JP | −0.14 | 0.010 | −13.84 | < 0.001 | [−0.16, −0.12] |
IND2:NL-PS-KSB | −0.17 | 0.011 | −16.30 | < 0.001 | [−0.19, −0.15] | |
IND3:NL-PS-JS | −0.20 | 0.012 | −17.34 | < 0.001 | [−0.23, −0.18] | |
IND4:NL-PS-IN | 0.00 | 0.009 | 0.37 | 0.710 | [−0.01, 0.02] | |
动机视角 | IND5:NL-CSE-JP | 0.09 | 0.008 | 11.00 | < 0.001 | [0.08, 0.11] |
IND6:NL-CSE-KSB | 0.10 | 0.008 | 12.53 | < 0.001 | [0.09, 0.12] | |
IND7:NL-CSE-JS | 0.05 | 0.007 | 7.26 | < 0.001 | [0.04, 0.07] | |
IND8:NL-CSE-IN | 0.12 | 0.010 | 12.55 | < 0.001 | [0.10, 0.14] | |
Total Indirect Effect | ||||||
TOTALIND1:NL-JP | −0.05 | 0.016 | −3.08 | < 0.01 | [−0.08, −0.02] | |
TOTALIND2:NL-KSB | −0.07 | 0.017 | −4.01 | < 0.001 | [−0.10, −0.03] | |
TOTALIND3:NL-JS | −0.15 | 0.016 | −9.51 | < 0.001 | [−0.18, −0.12] | |
TOTALIND4:NL-IN | 0.13 | 0.015 | 8.47 | < 0.001 | [0.10, 0.16] |
划分 层面 | 年份 | 作者 | 样本量 | 效应值 | 组织属性 (1 = 营利性企业; 2 = 非营利性企业) | 员工类别 (1 = 知识型员工; 2 = 非知识型员工) | 行业类型 (1 = 制造业; 2 = 服务业) | 文化背景 (1 = 西方; 2 = 东方) | 测量工具 (1 = Hochwarter和 Thompson; 2 = NPI-16) | 年龄 (M) | 性别(女 性占比) | 学历(本科及以上占比) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
工作 绩效 | 2021 | 文雯 | 450 | −0.526 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 47.78 | 87.56 |
2012 | Hochwarter | 461 | −0.19 | 2 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 48 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 136 | −0.14 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 57 | NA | |
2020 | 李全 | 679 | −0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | 29.6 | 38.9 | 70.3 | |
2018 | 陈璐 | 191 | −0.191 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 28.5 | 45.5 | 55.2 | |
2021 | 李乃文 | 436 | −0.198 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | 0 | 18.76 | |
2021 | Kamal Shah | 175 | −0.274 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 13.6 | 99 | |
2020 | Asrar | 310 | −0.274 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 283 | −0.16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 44.26 | 55 | NA | |
2020 | Den Hartog | 311 | −0.02 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 2 | 34.8 | 50.5 | NA | |
2022 | 郭玲珑 | 302 | −0.53 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 41.4 | 82.5 | |
2022 | Van Gerven | 165 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 35.07 | 50.3 | NA | |
2023 | Harms | 217 | −0.03 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 30.59 | 42.6 | NA | |
知识 共享 行为 | 2020 | 肖小虹 | 209 | −0.228 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 60.29 | 46.51 |
2018 | 肖小虹 | 231 | −0.402 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 79.1 | |
2020 | 王楷文 | 264 | −0.6 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2017 | 李家俊 | 1524 | −0.17 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 38.9 | 67.3 | |
2018 | Xiao | 228 | −0.322 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 25 | 67.3 | |
2022 | Soral | 240 | −0.376 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 20 | NA | |
创新 | 2021 | 张海涛 | 350 | 0.28 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 14.9 | NA |
2020 | Yang | 266 | 0.674 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | NA | 42.5 | NA | |
2021 | 张海涛 | 399 | 0.31 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 15.61 | NA | |
2019 | 曹洲涛 | 249 | 0.266 | NA | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 51.81 | 55.42 | |
2018 | 杜佳婧 | 654 | 0.329 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 44 | 55.69 | |
2021 | Norouzinik | 455 | −0.493 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 20 | NA | |
2018 | Zhang | 199 | 0.446 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
沉默 行为 | 2020 | 周丽 | 324 | 0.3 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | 31.96 | 49.6 | 78.1 |
2019 | 詹小慧 | 342 | 0.463 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2018 | Carnevale | 357 | 0.3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2020 | Huang | 462 | 0.21 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 30.27 | 39.8 | NA | |
2019 | 刘涵沁 | 255 | 0.441 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 55.7 | 80.4 | |
2020 | 刘雨婷 | 313 | 0.455 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 51.1 | 63.2 | |
2020 | Yao | 437 | 0.464 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2018 | 王华强 | 295 | 0.27 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 41.4 | 75.3 | |
2021 | Wan | 283 | 0.02 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 32.74 | 41 | NA | |
2018 | Wang | 292 | 0.26 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 40.4 | NA | |
2018 | Zhi | 231 | 0.193 | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | 1 | 28.56 | 41.1 | NA | |
2020 | Aboramadan | 468 | 0.11 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | 61.75 | 48.72 | |
2020 | Harrison | 257 | 0.29 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 55 | NA | |
2018 | 陈璐 | 191 | 0.217 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 28.5 | 45.5 | 55.2 | |
2021 | 陈璐 | 663 | 0.11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | 32.4 | 45.25 | 49.32 | |
2021 | Melvyn | 79 | 0.08 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 68.4 | NA | |
2021 | Melvyn | 125 | 0.01 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 55.2 | NA | |
2021 | Melvyn | 119 | 0.06 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 50.4 | NA | |
组织公 民行为 | 2020 | Ha | 158 | −0.2 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 2 | 22.04 | NA | NA |
2018 | Szabó | 256 | −0.15 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 37.12 | NA | NA | |
2021 | Lorsch | 141 | −0.02 | NA | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | 31.11 | 27.7 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 199 | −0.2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 45.59 | 42 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 136 | −0.24 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 48.04 | 34 | NA | |
2020 | AL-Abrrow | 414 | −0.094 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 35.5 | 34.5 | |
2018 | Li | 183 | −0.086 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 36.725 | 50.6 | NA | |
2019 | Webster | 298 | −0.16 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 33.6 | 40.2 | NA | |
2020 | 王淼 | 161 | −0.17 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 30.814 | 39.1 | 54.7 | |
2017 | 张兰霞 | 438 | −0.28 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 53.82 | NA | |
工作 压力 | 2016 | Hadadian | 212 | 0.402 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
2017 | Erkutlu | 1215 | 0.17 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 23.66 | NA | NA | |
2018 | Li | 183 | 0.245 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 36.725 | 50.6 | NA | |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | 0.151 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | |
2020 | Yao | 437 | 0.254 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 53.4 | 67.8 | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 461 | 0.29 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 48 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 136 | 0.34 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | 57 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 111 | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 59 | NA | |
工作 满意度 | 2020 | Brouwers | 600 | −0.21 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 20.1 | 14 |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | −0.211 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2020 | Bernerth J B | 1017 | −0.21 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2019 | Ghislieri | 602 | −0.23 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | 39.9 | 86.7 | 56.3 | |
2016 | Volmer | 811 | −0.09 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | 46.7 | 56.6 | 37 | |
2020 | 李敏 | 713 | −0.15 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 40.5 | 41 | |
2021 | Wang | 291 | −0.54 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 45 | 98.28 | |
离职 倾向 | 2010 | Weaver | 80 | 0.56 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
2020 | Brouwers | 600 | 0.33 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 20.1 | 14 | |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | 0.184 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2019 | 周正 | 231 | 0.379 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 42.9 | 79.1 | |
2021 | Szabó | 340 | 0.08 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 38.83 | 69 | 73.9 | |
2020 | Labrague | 313 | 0.18 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | 29 | 57.5 | 100 | |
犬儒 主义 | 2021 | Mousa | 229 | 0.778 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 18.8 | NA |
2020 | Aboramadan | 468 | 0.361 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | 61.75 | 48.66 | |
2017 | Erkutlu H | 1215 | 0.18 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 23.66 | 79 | NA | |
2020 | Sabir | 294 | 0.505 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2019 | 陈宇 | 294 | 0.762 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 49 | NA | |
2014 | Dobbs | 285 | 0.24 | NA | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 32.3 | NA | |
2018 | Sauadagar | 250 | 0.32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 66 | NA | |
2019 | Dobbs | 285 | 0.24 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 22 | NA | |
2022 | 郭锴 | 629 | 0.44 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 50.24 | 80.45 |
划分 层面 | 年份 | 作者 | 样本量 | 效应值 | 组织属性 (1 = 营利性企业; 2 = 非营利性企业) | 员工类别 (1 = 知识型员工; 2 = 非知识型员工) | 行业类型 (1 = 制造业; 2 = 服务业) | 文化背景 (1 = 西方; 2 = 东方) | 测量工具 (1 = Hochwarter和 Thompson; 2 = NPI-16) | 年龄 (M) | 性别(女 性占比) | 学历(本科及以上占比) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
工作 绩效 | 2021 | 文雯 | 450 | −0.526 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 47.78 | 87.56 |
2012 | Hochwarter | 461 | −0.19 | 2 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 48 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 136 | −0.14 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 57 | NA | |
2020 | 李全 | 679 | −0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | 29.6 | 38.9 | 70.3 | |
2018 | 陈璐 | 191 | −0.191 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 28.5 | 45.5 | 55.2 | |
2021 | 李乃文 | 436 | −0.198 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | 0 | 18.76 | |
2021 | Kamal Shah | 175 | −0.274 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 13.6 | 99 | |
2020 | Asrar | 310 | −0.274 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 283 | −0.16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 44.26 | 55 | NA | |
2020 | Den Hartog | 311 | −0.02 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 2 | 34.8 | 50.5 | NA | |
2022 | 郭玲珑 | 302 | −0.53 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 41.4 | 82.5 | |
2022 | Van Gerven | 165 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 35.07 | 50.3 | NA | |
2023 | Harms | 217 | −0.03 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 30.59 | 42.6 | NA | |
知识 共享 行为 | 2020 | 肖小虹 | 209 | −0.228 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 60.29 | 46.51 |
2018 | 肖小虹 | 231 | −0.402 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 79.1 | |
2020 | 王楷文 | 264 | −0.6 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2017 | 李家俊 | 1524 | −0.17 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 38.9 | 67.3 | |
2018 | Xiao | 228 | −0.322 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 25 | 67.3 | |
2022 | Soral | 240 | −0.376 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 20 | NA | |
创新 | 2021 | 张海涛 | 350 | 0.28 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 14.9 | NA |
2020 | Yang | 266 | 0.674 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | NA | 42.5 | NA | |
2021 | 张海涛 | 399 | 0.31 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 15.61 | NA | |
2019 | 曹洲涛 | 249 | 0.266 | NA | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 51.81 | 55.42 | |
2018 | 杜佳婧 | 654 | 0.329 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 44 | 55.69 | |
2021 | Norouzinik | 455 | −0.493 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 20 | NA | |
2018 | Zhang | 199 | 0.446 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
沉默 行为 | 2020 | 周丽 | 324 | 0.3 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | 31.96 | 49.6 | 78.1 |
2019 | 詹小慧 | 342 | 0.463 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2018 | Carnevale | 357 | 0.3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2020 | Huang | 462 | 0.21 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 30.27 | 39.8 | NA | |
2019 | 刘涵沁 | 255 | 0.441 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 55.7 | 80.4 | |
2020 | 刘雨婷 | 313 | 0.455 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 51.1 | 63.2 | |
2020 | Yao | 437 | 0.464 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2018 | 王华强 | 295 | 0.27 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 41.4 | 75.3 | |
2021 | Wan | 283 | 0.02 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 32.74 | 41 | NA | |
2018 | Wang | 292 | 0.26 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 40.4 | NA | |
2018 | Zhi | 231 | 0.193 | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | 1 | 28.56 | 41.1 | NA | |
2020 | Aboramadan | 468 | 0.11 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | 61.75 | 48.72 | |
2020 | Harrison | 257 | 0.29 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 55 | NA | |
2018 | 陈璐 | 191 | 0.217 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 28.5 | 45.5 | 55.2 | |
2021 | 陈璐 | 663 | 0.11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | 32.4 | 45.25 | 49.32 | |
2021 | Melvyn | 79 | 0.08 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 68.4 | NA | |
2021 | Melvyn | 125 | 0.01 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 55.2 | NA | |
2021 | Melvyn | 119 | 0.06 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 50.4 | NA | |
组织公 民行为 | 2020 | Ha | 158 | −0.2 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 2 | 22.04 | NA | NA |
2018 | Szabó | 256 | −0.15 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 37.12 | NA | NA | |
2021 | Lorsch | 141 | −0.02 | NA | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | 31.11 | 27.7 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 199 | −0.2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 45.59 | 42 | NA | |
2019 | Ellen | 136 | −0.24 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 48.04 | 34 | NA | |
2020 | AL-Abrrow | 414 | −0.094 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 35.5 | 34.5 | |
2018 | Li | 183 | −0.086 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 36.725 | 50.6 | NA | |
2019 | Webster | 298 | −0.16 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 33.6 | 40.2 | NA | |
2020 | 王淼 | 161 | −0.17 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 30.814 | 39.1 | 54.7 | |
2017 | 张兰霞 | 438 | −0.28 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 53.82 | NA | |
工作 压力 | 2016 | Hadadian | 212 | 0.402 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
2017 | Erkutlu | 1215 | 0.17 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 23.66 | NA | NA | |
2018 | Li | 183 | 0.245 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 36.725 | 50.6 | NA | |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | 0.151 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | |
2020 | Yao | 437 | 0.254 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 53.4 | 67.8 | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 461 | 0.29 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 48 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 136 | 0.34 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | 57 | NA | |
2012 | Hochwarter | 111 | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 59 | NA | |
工作 满意度 | 2020 | Brouwers | 600 | −0.21 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 20.1 | 14 |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | −0.211 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2020 | Bernerth J B | 1017 | −0.21 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
2019 | Ghislieri | 602 | −0.23 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | 39.9 | 86.7 | 56.3 | |
2016 | Volmer | 811 | −0.09 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | 46.7 | 56.6 | 37 | |
2020 | 李敏 | 713 | −0.15 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 40.5 | 41 | |
2021 | Wang | 291 | −0.54 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 45 | 98.28 | |
离职 倾向 | 2010 | Weaver | 80 | 0.56 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
2020 | Brouwers | 600 | 0.33 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 20.1 | 14 | |
2020 | Asrar-ul-Haq | 310 | 0.184 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | NA | 52 | NA | |
2019 | 周正 | 231 | 0.379 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 42.9 | 79.1 | |
2021 | Szabó | 340 | 0.08 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | NA | 38.83 | 69 | 73.9 | |
2020 | Labrague | 313 | 0.18 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | 29 | 57.5 | 100 | |
犬儒 主义 | 2021 | Mousa | 229 | 0.778 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 18.8 | NA |
2020 | Aboramadan | 468 | 0.361 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | 61.75 | 48.66 | |
2017 | Erkutlu H | 1215 | 0.18 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 23.66 | 79 | NA | |
2020 | Sabir | 294 | 0.505 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |
2019 | 陈宇 | 294 | 0.762 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 49 | NA | |
2014 | Dobbs | 285 | 0.24 | NA | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 32.3 | NA | |
2018 | Sauadagar | 250 | 0.32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 66 | NA | |
2019 | Dobbs | 285 | 0.24 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 22 | NA | |
2022 | 郭锴 | 629 | 0.44 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | NA | 50.24 | 80.45 |
(带*文献表示纳入元分析的文献) | |
[1] | 包艳, 廖建桥. (2019). 权力距离研究述评与展望. 管理评论, 31(3), 178-192. |
[2] | * 曹洲涛, 王甜, 宋一晓. (2019). “令人生厌”的自恋型领导能促进员工创新行为吗? 武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版), 32(4), 86-93. |
[3] | * 陈璐, 尹欢, 陈宁, 井润田. (2021). 工作激情、建言与变革发起行为: 自恋领导的双刃剑效应. 管理科学, 34(5), 108-121. |
[4] | * 陈璐, 瞿鑫, 杨百寅. (2018). 自恋的下属更沉默? 自恋领导对下属工作绩效的破坏性效应研究. 预测, 37(2), 9-14+21. |
[5] | 陈春花, 苏涛, 王杏珊. (2016). 中国情境下变革型领导与绩效关系的Meta分析. 管理学报, 13(8), 1174-1183. |
[6] | 陈晓萍, 沈伟. (2018). 组织与管理研究的实证方法 (第三版). 北京大学出版社. |
[7] | * 杜佳婧, 李敏. (2018). 自恋型领导与知识型下属创新绩效的关系研究. 研究与发展管理, 30(3), 55-63. |
[8] | * 郭锴. (2022). 自恋型领导与员工网络怠工的关系: 一个有调节的中介模型 (硕士学位论文). 浙江师范大学, 金华. |
[9] | * 郭玲珑. (2022). 自恋型领导对90后员工工作绩效的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 南京邮电大学, 南京. |
[10] | 黄攸立, 李璐. (2014). 组织中的自恋型领导研究述评. 外国经济与管理, 36(7), 24-33. |
[11] | * 李家俊. (2017). 领导者自恋与目标导向对团队创造力的影响研究 (博士学位论文). 南京师范大学, 南京. |
[12] | * 李敏, 杜鹏程. (2020). 管理者自恋抑制员工工作满意度吗? 安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 44(2), 147-156. |
[13] |
李铭泽, 叶慧莉, 张光磊. (2020). 自恋型领导对团队创造力形成过程的多视角研究. 心理科学进展, 28(9), 1437-1453.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01437 |
[14] | * 李全, 佘卓霖, 杨百寅. (2020). 自恋领导对下属绩效的影响研究: 基于关系视角. 技术经济, 39(12), 163-170. |
[15] | 廖建桥, 邵康华, 田婷. (2016). 自恋型领导的形成、作用及管理对策. 管理评论, 28(6), 131-139. |
[16] |
林新奇, 栾宇翔, 赵锴, 赵国龙. (2022). 领导风格与员工创新绩效关系的元分析: 基于自我决定视角. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 781-801.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00781 |
[17] | * 刘涵沁. (2019). 自恋型领导对员工沉默行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 中南财经政法大学, 武汉. |
[18] | 刘鑫, 张梦怡. (2019). 自恋:领导者的一把双刃剑. 清华管理评论, 10(Z1), 73-81. |
[19] | 刘雨婷. (2020). 自恋型领导与上下级关系之间的双中介作用研究 (硕士学位论文). 武汉理工大学, 武汉. |
[20] | 鲁迪, 缪小明. (2018). 多层次视角的商业模式创新影响因素元分析研究. 科技进步与对策, 35(13), 93-101. |
[21] | 马贵梅, 樊耘, 门一, 张克勤. (2014). 权威领导影响下属建言行为的双元心理机制. 预测, 33(6), 1-7. |
[22] | 马丽, 王姜硕. (2024). 新生代员工资质过剩感对越轨创新行为的影响——一个被调节的多中介模型. 科技进步与对策, 41(10), 140-149. |
[23] | 阮文宇, 付景涛. (2022). 自恋型领导对员工主动行为的影响——基于不合规任务感知的中介作用. 领导科学, 38(8), 76-79. |
[24] | 苏涛, 陈春花, 陈冰玲, 刘军, 马文聪. (2021). 职场排斥的“四宗罪”: 中国情境下的一项元分析. 南开管理评论, 24(6), 106-118. |
[25] | * 王华强, 丁志慧, 刘文兴. (2018). 管理者自恋会导致员工沉默吗: 心理安全感与上下级关系的作用. 财经论丛, 34(6), 76-86. |
[26] | 王辉, 常阳. (2017). 组织创新氛围、工作动机对员工创新行为的影响. 管理科学, 30(3), 51-62. |
[27] |
王佳燕, 蓝媛美, 李超平. (2022). 二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 761-780.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00761 |
[28] | * 王楷文. (2020). 自恋型领导与员工知识共享行为的关系研究. 现代商贸工业, 41(23), 66-69. |
[29] | * 王淼. (2020). 领导自恋与部属向上公民行为的关系研究——基于自我概念视角(硕士学位论文). 中南财经政法大学, 武汉. |
[30] | * 文雯. (2021). 自恋型领导对员工绩效的影响——基于贵州省A企业的实证研究 (硕士学位论文). 贵州财经大学, 贵阳. |
[31] | * 肖小虹, 王婷婷, 陆露. (2020). 自恋型领导对知识隐藏的影响研究: 道德认同的调节作用. 山东财经大学学报, 2(6), 67-75. |
[32] | * 肖小虹, 周正, 张亚军. (2018). 自恋型领导对员工知识隐藏的影响研究. 天府新论, 34(6), 113-120. |
[33] | * 许为民, 陈宇. (2019). 感知的三阴人格与组织犬儒主义的关系研究——基于心理资本的调节作用. 中国管理信息化, 22(9), 106-109. |
[34] | 喻婧, 饶俪琳, 雷旭. (2019). 越老越风险规避吗? ——年龄对冲动性预测决策行为的调节效应. 心理科学, 42(6), 1382-1388. |
[35] | * 瞿鑫. (2019). 自恋型领导对下属工作绩效的影响机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 电子科技大学, 成都. |
[36] | * 詹小慧, 戴胜利. (2019). 自恋型领导对建言采纳的影响. 财贸研究, 30(5), 91-98+110. |
[37] | 张娇娇, 罗文豪. (2022). 组织行为研究中的双刃剑效应: 典型模式与策略建议. 管理评论, 34(9), 195-207. |
[38] | * 张海涛, 肖岚, 张建军. (2021). 建设性自恋型领导对员工内创业行为影响的跨层机制研究. 科技进步与对策, 38(13), 143-150. |
[39] |
张建平, 林澍倩, 刘善仕, 张亚, 李焕荣. (2021). 领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系: 基于元分析的检验. 心理科学进展, 29(9), 1576-1598.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01576 |
[40] |
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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00549 |
[41] | * 张兰霞, 张靓婷, 裴亚寒. (2017). 自恋型领导的双面特质对员工组织公民行为的作用机制——一个被调节的中介效应模型. 技术经济, 36(3), 68-78. |
[42] | 张炼, 张进辅. (2003). 压力应对的性别差异及相关的生物学机制. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 202-208. |
[43] | 曾之光, 余宇, 谢鹏鑫. (2022). 仁慈领导对员工积极追随行为的影响研究——基于领导部属关系的中介作用和员工心理授权的调节作用. 经营与管理, 40(11), 113-120. |
[44] | * 周丽. (2020). 自恋型领导对员工建言行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 武汉科技大学, 武汉. |
[45] | * 周正. (2019). 自恋型领导对员工离职倾向的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 贵州财经大学, 贵阳. |
[46] | * Aboramadan, M., Turkmenoglu, M. A., Dahleez, K. A., & Cicek, B. (2020). Narcissistic leadership and behavioral cynicism in the hotel industry: The role of employee silence and negative workplace gossiping. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(2), 428-447. |
[47] | Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E. (2017). High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440-458. |
[48] | * AL-Abrrow, H., Thajil, K. M., Abdullah, H. O., & Abbas, S. (2020). The dark triad and organizational citizenship behavior in health care: The moderating role of positive emotions. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(5), 6-17. |
[49] | Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440-450. |
[50] | Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice. Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77. |
[51] | * Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anjum, T. (2020). Impact of narcissistic leadership on employee work outcomes in banking sector of Pakistan. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 1-9. |
[52] |
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191 pmid: 847061 |
[53] | Barari, M., Ross, M., Thaichon, S., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2021). A meta-analysis of customer engagement behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 457-477. |
[54] | * Bernerth, J. B. (2020). Does the narcissist (and those around him/her) pay a price for being narcissistic? An empirical study of leaders’ narcissism and well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(3), 533-546. |
[55] | 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. |
[56] | * Brouwers, M., & Paltu, A. (2020). Toxic leadership: Effects on job satisfaction, commitment, turnover intention and organisational culture within the South African manufacturing industry. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 1-11. |
[57] | Brown, A. D., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 501-509. |
[58] | Burger, B., Kanbach, D. K., & Kraus, S. (2023). The role of narcissism in entrepreneurial activity: A systematic literature review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 18(2), 221-245. |
[59] | Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297-311. |
[60] | Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284. |
[61] | * Carnevale, J., Huang, L., & Harms, P. (2018). Speaking up to the “emotional vampire”: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Business Research, 91(10), 48-59. |
[62] | Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900. |
[63] | Dean, J. W., Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341-352. |
[64] | De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Nevicka, B. (2015). Gender differences in the perceived effectiveness of narcissistic leaders. Applied Psychology, 64(3), 473-498. |
[65] | * Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Belschak, F. D. (2020). Toot your own horn? Leader narcissism and the effectiveness of employee self-promotion. Journal of Management, 46(2), 261-286. |
[66] | * Ding, Z. H., Li, H. C., Quan, L., & Wang, H. Q. (2018). Reluctant to speak? The impact of supervisor narcissism on employee prohibitive voice. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(10), 1713-1726. |
[67] | * Dobbs, J. M., & Do, J. J. (2019). The impact of perceived toxic leadership on cynicism in officer candidates. Armed Forces & Society, 45(1), 3-26. |
[68] |
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 309-330.
pmid: 3797558 |
[69] | * Ellen, B. P., Kiewitz, C., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2019). Dealing with the full-of-self-boss: Interactive effects of supervisor narcissism and subordinate resource management ability on work outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 847-864. |
[70] | * Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2017). Leaders’ narcissism and organizational cynicism in healthcare organizations. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10(5), 346-363. |
[71] | Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. |
[72] | Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778. |
[73] | Goštautaitė, B., & Bučiūnienė, I. (2015). The role of work characteristics in enhancing older employees’ performance: Evidence from a post-Soviet country. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 757-782. |
[74] | Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (2008). Dumb and dumber: The impact of downsizing on firm performance as moderated by industry conditions. Organization Science, 19(1), 108-123. |
[75] | * Ha, S. B., Lee, S., Byun, G., & Dai, Y. (2020). Leader narcissism and subordinate change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Overall justice as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(7), 1-12. |
[76] | * Hadadian, Z., & Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between toxic leadership and job stress of knowledge workers. Studies in Business and Economics, 11(3), 84-89. |
[77] |
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106.
pmid: 17227154 |
[78] | * Hamstra, M. R. W., Schreurs, B., Jawahar, I. M., Laurijssen, L. M., & Hünermund, P. (2021). Manager narcissism and employee silence: A socio-analytic theory perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 29-54. |
[79] | Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495-511. |
[80] | * Harms, P. D., Bai, Y., Han, G., & Cheng, S. (2023). Narcissism and tradition: How competing needs result in more conflict, greater exhaustion, and lower performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 34(2), 273-298. |
[81] | Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Metaanalytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. |
[82] | * Harrison, J., & Romney, A. C. (2020). Creating silence: How managerial narcissism decreases employee voice. Curiosity, 1(1), 2. |
[83] |
Henninger, D. E., Madden, D. J., & Huettel, S. A. (2010). Processing speed and memory mediate age-related differences in decision making. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 262-270.
doi: 10.1037/a0019096 pmid: 20545412 |
[84] | Higgins, E. T., & Cornwell, J. F. M. (2016). Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136(9), 56-67. |
[85] | Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337-421. |
[86] | Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116-122. |
[87] | Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128. |
[88] | * Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2012). Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes. Human Relations, 65(3), 335-366. |
[89] | * Hoffman, B. J., Strang, S. E., Kuhnert, K. W., Campbell, W. K., Kennedy, C. L., & Lopilato, A. C. (2013). Leader narcissism and ethical context: Effects on ethical leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 25-37. |
[90] | Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers. |
[91] |
Howard, M. C. (2019). The measurement, nomological net, and theory of perceived self-esteem instability: Applying the conservation of resources theory to understand the construct. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 1007-1042.
doi: 10.1177/0033294118781319 pmid: 29871532 |
[92] |
* 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 |
[93] | Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. |
[94] | Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. |
[95] | Kooij, D. T. A. M., Jansen, P. G. W., Dikkers, J. S. E., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111-1136. |
[96] | Kraft, P. S. (2022). The double-edged sword of CEO narcissism: A meta-analysis of innovation and firm performance implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(6), 749-772. |
[97] |
Laird, M. D., Perryman, A. A., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Zinko, R. (2009). The moderating effects of personal reputation on accountability strain relationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 70-83.
doi: 10.1037/a0012567 pmid: 19210049 |
[98] |
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034.
doi: 10.1037/a0027723 pmid: 22468880 |
[99] | Leete, L. (2000). Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(4), 423-446. |
[100] | * Li, M., Ye, H., & Zhang, G. (2018). How employees react to a narcissistic leader? The role of work stress in relationship between perceived leader narcissism and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors to supervisor. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 20(3), 83-97. |
[101] | Lim, S. G. E., & Ok, C. (2021). Knowledge sharing in hospitality organizations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102940. |
[102] | Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta- analysis. Sage Publications. |
[103] | Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137(10), 236-263. |
[104] | Lyubykh, Z., Turner, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Deng, C. (2022). A meta-analysis of leadership and workplace safety: Examining relative importance, contextual contingencies, and methodological moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2149-2175. |
[105] | Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 92-101. |
[106] | * Mousa, M., Abdelgaffar, H. A., Aboramadan, M., & Chaouali, W. (2021). Narcissistic leadership, employee silence, and organizational cynicism: A study of physicians in Egyptian public hospitals. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(15), 1309-1318. |
[107] | Neubert, M. J., Hunter, E. M., & Tolentino, R. C. (2016). A servant leader and their stakeholders: When does organizational structure enhance a leader’s influence? The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 896-910. |
[108] | * Norouzinik, Y., Rahimnia, F., Maharati, Y., & Eslami, G. (2022). Narcissistic leadership and employees’ innovative behaviour: Mediating roles of job embedded and job engagement. Innovation: Organization & Management, 24(3), 355-380. |
[109] | Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157-159. |
[110] | Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151-176. |
[111] | Post, J. M. (1993). Current Concepts of the narcissistic personality: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 14(1), 99-121. |
[112] | * Rhodewalt, F., Tragakis, M. W., & Finnerty, J. (2006). Narcissism and self-handicapping: Linking self-aggrandizement to behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 573-597. |
[113] |
Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y., & Wood, S. (2012). Risky decision making in younger and older adults: The role of learning. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 129-140.
doi: 10.1037/a0024689 pmid: 21767022 |
[114] |
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 69-79.
pmid: 9923465 |
[115] | Rosenthal, S. A., & Pitinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633. |
[116] | Sabir, I., Hussain, S., Majid, M. B., Rehman, A., Sarwar, A., & Nawaz, F. (2020). Impact of narcissistic personality disorder on cognitive organizational cynicism with mediating role of psychological capital in selected hospitals of punjab pakistan. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 29-45. |
[117] | * Shah, K., Jehangir, M., Khan, J. A., Mehwish, Sayyamet, Adil, M., & Ataulla, Khan, Z. (2021). The role leaders’ narcissism on employees’ performance: A moderating- mediated model. Ilkogretim Online, 20(3), 1776-1785. |
[118] | * Soral, P., Pati, S. P., & Kakani, R. K. (2022). Knowledge hiding as a coping response to the supervisors’ dark triad of personality: A protection motivation theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 142(3), 1077-1091. |
[119] | * Szabo, Z. P., Czibor, A., Restas, P., & Bereczkei, T. (2018). “The darkest of all” The relationship between the dark triad traits and organizational citizenship behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 134(11), 352-356. |
[120] | Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681. |
[121] | * Van Gerven, E. J. G., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2022). Gender differences in the perceived behavior of narcissistic leaders. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 809193. |
[122] | Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865-885. |
[123] | * Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders’ dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates’ career success and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101(10), 413-418. |
[124] | * Wan, M., Zhang, Y., & Li, M. (2021). Do narcissistic employees remain silent? Examining the moderating roles of supervisor narcissism and traditionality in China. Asian Business & Management, 22(1), 1-25. |
[125] | * Wang, H., Jiao, R., & Li, F. (2022). Research on the effect of narcissistic leadership on employee job embeddedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 927529. |
[126] | * Wang, H., Li, D., Wu, L., & Ding, Z. (2021). Effects of leader narcissism on career success of employees: An interpersonal relationship perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 679427. |
[127] | * Wang, H., Zhang, G., Ding, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How supervisor narcissism contributes to employee silence: Roles of negative anticipations and leader-member exchange. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(4), 653-666. |
[128] | * Weaver, S. G., & Yancey, G. B. (2010). The impact of dark leadership on organizational commitment and turnover. Leadership Review, 10(Summer),104-124. |
[129] |
Webster, B. D., & Smith, M. B. (2019). The dark triad and organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of high involvement management climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(5), 621-635.
doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9562-9 |
[130] | West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680-693. |
[131] | Woodruffe, C. (1993). What is meant by a competency? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(1), 29-36. |
[132] | * Xiao, X., Liu, F., Zhou, F., & Chen, S. (2018). Narcissistic leadership and employees’ knowledge sharing: Influence of organizational identification and collectivism. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(8), 1317-1329. |
[133] | * Yang, J., Chang, M., Li, J., Zhou, L., Tian, F., & Zhang, J. (2021). Exploring the moderated mediation relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ innovative behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 15(1), 137-154. |
[134] | * Yao, Z., Zhang, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, L., & Luo, J. (2019). Narcissistic leadership and voice behavior: The role of job stress, traditionality, and trust in leaders. Chinese Management Studies, 14(3), 543-563. |
[135] | * Zhang, D., Wang, B., Yan, J., & Zheng, G. (2018). Research on the relationship between narcissistic leadership and employee creativity. International Journal of Science, 5(10), 117-125. |
[1] | LI Xingshan, ZHANG Qiwei, HUANG Linjieqiong. Computational modeling and experimental validation of Chinese lexical and semantic processing [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(9): 1379-1392. |
[2] | TANG Tian, WANG Yu, GONG Fangying, SHI Ke, LI Xi, LIU Wei, CHEN Ning. The relationship between parenting styles and positive development of Chinese adolescents : A series of meta-analytic studies [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(8): 1302-1314. |
[3] | WU Jiahui, FU Hailun. A meta-analysis of the relationship between achievement goal orientation and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and student engagement [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(7): 1104-1125. |
[4] | WANG Tao, ZHAN Xiaojun, YU Wei. The influence of AI awareness on employee’s psychological and behavioral outcomes and its theoretical explanation [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(7): 1195-1208. |
[5] | YAN Ming, ZHENG Shi. Segmentation or integration? The managerial approach to work-family balance in the age of virtual team work [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(5): 754-770. |
[6] | WEN Siyan, YU Xuchen, JIN Lei, GONG Junru, ZHANG Xiaohan, SUN Jinglin, ZHANG Shan, LYU Houchao. A three-level meta-analysis of the relationship between family dysfunction and mental health of children and adolescents [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(5): 771-789. |
[7] | ZHANG Xiangyang, WANG Xiaojuan, YANG Jianfeng. The role of the left Angular Gyrus in lexical-semantic processing [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(4): 616-626. |
[8] | YUAN Yue, WU Zhiming, XIE Qiushi. The effect of time pressure on individual work outcomes: A meta-analytic review [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(3): 465-485. |
[9] | YIN Kui, CHI Zhikang, DONG Niannian, LI Peikai, ZHAO Jing. The relationship between team reflexivity and team resources development, team resources utilization, and team outcomes: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(2): 228-245. |
[10] | MENG Xianxin, CHEN Yijing, WANG Xinyi, YUAN Jiajin, YU Delin. The relationship between school connectedness and depression: A three-level meta-analytic review [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(2): 246-263. |
[11] | SHI Weiting, ZHANG Yaning, LI Xingshan, LIN Nan. Neural basis of social concept representation and social semantic integration [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(2): 276-286. |
[12] | ZHU Yanhan, HE Bin, SUN Lei. The effects of state power on prosocial behavior: A three-level meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(11): 1786-1799. |
[13] | JIANG Jianwu, LONG Hanhuan, HU Jieyu. A meta-analysis of the impact of AI application on employees in the workplace [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(10): 1621-1639. |
[14] | LIU Hongyan, ZHOU Yonghan, CHEN Yanxia. Exploring the effectiveness of marketing intervention strategies for suboptimal food: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(10): 1640-1658. |
[15] | Yueguang Si, Wenxin Su, Zeyu Li, Biao Yan, Jiayi Zhang. Dynamic Changes of V1 Plasticity after Associative Learning [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(suppl.): 110-110. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||