ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (11): 1719-1733.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01719

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇



  1. (1苏州大学东吴商学院, 苏州 215021) (2苏州大学心理系, 苏州 215123) (3教育部人文社科重点研究基地-苏州大学中国特色城镇化研究中心, 苏州 215006)
  • 收稿日期:2013-08-20 出版日期:2014-11-25 发布日期:2014-11-25
  • 通讯作者: 田晓明, E-mail:
  • 基金资助:

    中国博士后科学基金面上项目(2013M530270)和特别资助项目(2014T70548); 国家自然科学基金项目(71302120; 71073108; 71272065); 江苏省高校哲学社会科学研究基金项目(2013SJB6300082); 江苏高校优势学科建设工程:新型城镇化与社会治理协同创新中心研究项目; 苏州大学青年教师后期资助项目; 苏州大学211工程资助项目。

Supervisor Authoritarian Leadership and Subordinate Proactive Behavior: Test of A Mediated-Moderation Model

LI Rui1,3; TIAN Xiaoming2,3   

  1. (1 School of Business, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China) (2 Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China) (3 Key Research Institute of Education Ministry-Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China)
  • Received:2013-08-20 Online:2014-11-25 Published:2014-11-25
  • Contact: TIAN Xiaoming, E-mail:


采用214份主管—下属配对调查数据, 考察了威权领导这一华人企业组织中特有的领导方式对下属前瞻行为的影响, 尤其是检验了下属对领导者信任的中介作用与权威主义和集体主义这两种传统价值取向的调节作用。层次回归分析结果表明:(1)威权领导与下属的前瞻行为呈显著负相关; (2)对领导者的信任在威权领导与下属前瞻行为之间起完全中介作用; (3)下属权威主义取向对威权领导与下属对领导者信任和前瞻行为之间的负向关系均具有显著的弱化效应, 并且下属对领导者的信任完全中介了威权领导与下属权威主义取向之间的交互作用对前瞻行为的影响; (4)下属集体主义取向对威权领导与下属对领导者的信任之间的负向关系具有显著的增强效应。

关键词: 前瞻行为, 威权领导, 对领导者的信任, 权威主义取向, 集体主义取向


Proactive behavior has been recognized as a positive way of behaving which can lead to the increased effectiveness of individuals and organizations. It has attracted increasing attention in western academy of management. However, empirical investigation addressing the issue in China remains quite limited. As the power difference between leaders and subordinates is very large in the context of Chinese organizations, leader-related factors should be more important and special for subordinates’ proactive behavior. In the present study, we tried to examine the influence of authoritarian leadership on proactive behavior, and investigate the mediating role of trust in supervisor as well as the moderating role of traditional values of authoritarianism and collectivism playing in the linkages between authoritarian leadership and proactive behavior. A structured questionnaire was employed as the research instrument for this study. It consisted of five scales designed to measure the variables of interest, namely proactive behavior, authoritarian leadership, trust in supervisor, authoritarianism, and collectivism. To avoid the Chinese people’s tendency of choosing the mid-point of the scale regardless of their true feelings or attitudes, all of the items on the survey were responded to on 6-point Likert scales which did not include a mid-point. Data were collected from 214 dyads of employees and their immediate supervisors. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the above measures were from 0.69 to 0.91, showing acceptable measurement reliabilities. Results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated the discriminant validity of the measurement was also satisfactory. Hierarchical regression modeling was used to test the hypotheses proposed. In line with our hypotheses, regression results revealed that: (1) Authoritarian leadership had a significant negative influence on proactive behavior. (2) Trust in supervisor fully mediated the relationship between authoritarian leadership and proactive behavior. (3) Authoritarianism significantly moderated the negative relationships between authoritarian leadership and trust in supervisor as well as proactive behavior such that they were weaker for subordinates high rather than low in authoritarianism, while trust in supervisor mediated the main effect of authoritarian leadership and the interactive effect of authoritarian leadership and authoritarianism on proactive behavior. (4) Collectivism moderated the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and trust in supervisor such that it was stronger among high collectivist than among low ones. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings, limitations, and future research directions were discussed.

Key words: proactive behavior, authoritarian leadership, trust in supervisor, authoritarianism, collectivism