ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1): 106-115.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00106

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇


徐世勇1; 朱金强2   

  1. (1中国人民大学劳动人事学院, 北京 100872) (2中央民族大学管理学院, 北京 100081)
  • 收稿日期:2015-11-26 发布日期:2017-01-25 出版日期:2017-01-25
  • 通讯作者: 朱金强, E-mail:

Ethical leadership and pro-social rule breaking: A dual process model

XU Shiyong1; ZHU Jinqiang2   

  1. (1 School of Labor and Human Resource, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China) (2 School of Management, Minzu University of China, Beijing, 100081, China)
  • Received:2015-11-26 Online:2017-01-25 Published:2017-01-25
  • Contact: ZHU Jinqiang, E-mail:


尽管已有研究开始探讨亲社会违规行为的影响因素, 但从领导风格角度探究亲社会违规行为的文献并不多见。本研究依据社会信息加工理论, 探讨了道德领导对员工亲社会违规行为的影响。通过对241名员工两时点问卷调查结果的分析表明:道德领导对亲社会违规行为具有显著正向影响; 心理安全感和工作自主性在两者之间起中介作用; 冒险特质调节了工作自主性与亲社会违规行为之间的关系。本研究揭示了道德领导影响员工亲社会违规行为的作用机制及其边界条件, 这对提升组织管理效率, 引导组织进行管理制度创新具有重要价值。

关键词: 道德领导, 亲社会违规行为, 心理安全感, 工作自主性, 冒险特质


Pro-social rule breaking (PSRB), as one form of constructive deviance, is receiving increasing attention from researchers, yet surprisingly our knowledge of the antecedents of PSRB is fairly limited. Although the effects of personal traits on PSRB are well discussed in the literature, we know little about how contextual factors in the work environment, such as leadership style, shape PSRB. The current study aims to address this research gap by examining the relationship between ethical leadership and PSRB. Specifically, drawing from the social information processing theory, we propose a dual process model that ethical leadership enhances employees’ PSRB via psychological safety and job autonomy. We further investigate the moderating effect of employees’ risk taking propensity in the model. The participants were recruited from four organizations in three cities of China (i.e., Beijing, Shanghai, and Dalian). The data was collected at two time points to avoid the common method bias. At Time 1, ethical leadership, psychological safety, job autonomy, and risk taking propensity were measured. At Time 2, that is, one month later, participants’ PSRB behavior was assessed. The final sample size was 241. We used SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 6.12 to analyse the data. First, we assessed the discriminant validity of the key variables through a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and examined the common method variance. Afterwards, we used the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and bias-corrected bootstrap to test our hypotheses. The results showed a significantly positive relationship between ethical leadership and PSRB, and the relationship was mediated by psychological safety and job autonomy. Furthermore, individual risk taking propensity moderated the relationship between job autonomy and PSRB, such that the positive relationship was stronger for those employees with higher, rather than lower, levels of risk taking propensity. Our study contributes to the PSRB literature in several ways. Frist, we investigate the effects of ethical leadership on employees’ PSRB, which broadens our understanding of how contextual factors influences PSRB. Second, we reveal the theoretical black-box of why ethical leadership facilitates PSRB by identifying psychological safety and job autonomy as two underlying mechanisms. Finally, we extend the ethical leadership and PSRB research by demonstrating risk taking propensity as a crucial contingency that moderates the effects of ethical leadership and job autonomy on PSRB.

Key words: ethical leadership, PSRB, psychological safety, job autonomy, risk taking propensity