领导非工作时间电子通信预期影响下属工作绩效的多路径模型

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00964

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

领导预期下属非工作时间随时保持联系、并且及时回复工作信息已成为当下数字经济时代中的职场新常态。文章基于资源保存理论, 构建领导非工作时间电子通信预期(After-hours electronic communication expectations, AECE)影响下属工作绩效的多路径模型。通过实验研究, 以及多时点、多来源的问卷调查研究, 结果发现：(1)在资源获益路径, 领导AECE会通过增强下属组织自尊, 提升工作绩效; (2)在资源损耗路径, 领导AECE会增加下属的压力感知; (3)在资源威胁路径, 领导AECE会引发下属的名声担忧, 进而降低工作绩效; (4)自我领导调节资源威胁路径, 即当下属自我领导水平较高时, 领导AECE通过名声担忧降低工作绩效的间接效应被削弱。整合的理论框架为解释领导AECE对下属工作绩效的复杂影响提供更全面的解释, 这不仅丰富了AECE相关文献, 拓展了资源保存理论在数字经济管理背景下的应用, 同时也为“随时待命”这一职场新常态提供管理实践启示。

关键词: 非工作时间电子通信预期, 组织自尊, 压力感知, 名声担忧, 工作绩效, 自我领导

Abstract:

In the digital economy era, leaders exert influence during work hours as well as beyond work hours, expecting employees to be available after work hours and responsive to work-related matters immediately via electronic communication devices, henceforth named “after-hours electronic communication expectations” (AECE). Previous studies have shed light on the promoting and inhibiting effects of AECE on employees’ job performance, but no research has adopted a unified perspective to explain this observation. Resultantly, we know little about the influence of leaders’ AECE affecting job performance and why it occurs. Drawing upon conservation of resources theory, we propose that leader AECE may affect employees’ job performance through three resource paths. Specifically, in the resource gain path, leader AECE improves employees’ job performance through organization-based self-esteem. In the resource loss path, leader AECE reduces job performance through stress perception. In the resource threat path, leader AECE reduces job performance through reputation maintenance concerns. Furthermore, we consider employee self-leadership an important boundary condition and suggest that it can enhance the resource gain effect and weaken the resource loss and threat effect.
To verify the theoretical framework, we carried out an experimental study (study 1) and a multi-wave, multi-source field study (study 2). In study 1, we recruited 224 full-time employees to participate in the experiment; 4 participants were dropped because they failed the attention test. Participants were randomly assigned to either the manipulation group (i.e., high leader AECE group, n = 111) or the control group (i.e., low leader AECE group, n = 109). Leader AECE was manipulated by presenting different WeChat screenshots. Specifically, we asked participants to imagine that they received a message from their immediate leader at 9 PM, and presented experimental materials in the WeChat screenshots. In the screenshot presented to the control group, the leader sent two messages including “Take your time, contact me when you are free”. In the screenshot presented to the manipulation group, leader sent three messages including “Please respond ASAP” as well as four unconnected voice calls. After reading different screenshots, participants were asked to complete questionnaires containing manipulation tests, organization-based self-esteem measurements, stress perception, reputation maintenance concerns, and demographic information. In Study 2, our sample comprised 418 full-time employees from state-owned enterprise in Guangdong Province and their immediate leaders. We collected data in three waves, each with a one-month interval in between. In Wave 1, the employees reported leaders’ AECE, self-leadership and demographic information. In Wave 2, the employees reported organization-based self-esteem, stress perception and reputation maintenance concerns. In Wave 3, we invited leaders to report subordinates’ job performance. Consequently, our final usable sample included 346 employees.
Study 1 revealed that compared to the control group, participants in the manipulation group reported higher levels of organization-based self-esteem, stress perception and reputation maintenance concerns. This finding confirmed the causal relationship between leader AECE and three mediators. Study 2 suggested that in the resource gain path, leaders’ AECE positively influenced subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, which in turn enhanced job performance. Employees who received AECE from the leader were more likely to experience stress perception in the resource loss path. But stress perception did not have significant effects on job performance. In the resource threat path, reputation maintenance concerns played a mediating role between leaders’ AECE and job performance. Furthermore, self-leadership moderated the indirect effect of leaders’ AECE on employees’ job performance through organization-based self-esteem and reputation maintenance concerns, such that the effect was weaker when self-leadership was high compared to when self-leadership was low. Self-leadership did not moderate the relationship between leaders’ AECE and stress perception.
This study makes several important contributions. First, drawing on conservation of resources theory, we integrate the promoting and inhibiting effects of leader AECE on employees’ job performance in a theoretical framework, which helps form a more comprehensive and dialectical understanding of the mixed effects. Second, we explore the mediating mechanisms underlying the relationship between leaders’ AECE and job performance, contributing to the AECE literature by revealing the “black box” of new leadership's influence on job performance. Third, we demonstrate the role of self-leadership in moderating resource threat effects, which provide guidance for mitigating the negative effects of leaders’ AECE.

Key words: after-hours electronic communication expectations, organization-based self-esteem, stress perception, reputation maintenance concerns, job performance, self-leadership

中图分类号:

B849: C93

李馨, 刘培, 李爱梅, 王笑天, 张俊巍. (2022). 领导非工作时间电子通信预期影响下属工作绩效的多路径模型. 心理学报, 54(8), 964-978.

LI Xin, LIU Pei, LI Aimei, WANG Xiaotian, ZHANG Junwei. (2022). A multipath model of leader after-hours electronic communication expectations and employee job performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(8), 964-978.

图/表 8

参考文献 71

[1]	Baer M. D., Bundy J., Garud N., & Kim J. K. (2018). The benefits and burdens of organizational reputation for employee well-being: A conservation of resources approach. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 571-595. doi: 10.1111/peps.12276 URL
[2]	Baer M. D., Dhensa-Kahlon R. K., Colquitt J. A., Rodell J. B., Outlaw R., & Long D. M. (2015). Uneasy lies the head that bears the trust: The effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1637-1657. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0246 URL
[3]	Banks G. C., Dionne S. D., Sayama H., & Mast M. S. (2019). Leadership in the digital era: Social media, big data, virtual reality, computational methods, and deep learning. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), I-II.
[4]	Barber L. K., & Santuzzi A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172-189. doi: 10.1037/a0038278 URL
[5]	Becker W. J., Belkin L., & Tuskey S. (2018). Killing me softly: Electronic communications monitoring and employee and spouse well-being. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No.1, p.12574). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
[6]	Bernerth J. B., & Aguinis H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229-283. doi: 10.1111/peps.12103 URL
[7]	Bordia P., Restubog S. L. D., Bordia S., & Tang R. L. (2017). Effects of resource availability on social exchange relationships: The case of employee psychological contract obligations. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1447-1471. doi: 10.1177/0149206314556317 URL
[8]	Boswell W. R., Olson-Buchanan J. B., Butts M. M., & Becker W. J. (2016). Managing "after hours" electronic work communication. Organizational Dynamics, 45(4), 291-297. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.10.004 URL
[9]	Bowling N. A., Eschleman K. J., Wang Q., Kirkendall C., & Alarcon G. (2010). A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 601-626. doi: 10.1348/096317909X454382 URL
[10]	Brislin R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[11]	Bromley D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. New York, NY: Wiley.
[12]	Büchler N., ter Hoeven C. L., & van Zoonen W. (2020). Understanding constant connectivity to work: How and for whom is constant connectivity related to employee well- being? Information and Organization, 30(3), 100302. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100302 URL
[13]	Chen C., Qin X., Tan L., Lu H., Zhou H., & Song B. (2020). The (in)congruence effect of supervisor empowering leadership and subordinate self-leadership on subordinate emotional exhaustion and job performance. Journal of Management World, 12, 145-162.
	[ 陈晨, 秦昕, 谭玲, 卢海陵, 周汉森, 宋博迪. (2020). 授权型领导—下属自我领导匹配对下属情绪衰竭和工作绩效的影响. 管理世界, 12, 145-162.]
[14]	Cho S., Kim S., Chin S. W., & Ahmad U. (2020). Daily effects of continuous ICT demands on work-family conflict: Negative spillover and role conflict. Stress and Health, 36(4), 533-545.
[15]	Consiglio C., Borgogni L., Di Tecco C., & Schaufeli W. B. (2016). What makes employees engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social context over time. Career Development International, 21(2), 125-143. doi: 10.1108/CDI-03-2015-0045 URL
[16]	Day A., Barber L., & Tonet J. (2019). Information communication technology and employee well-being:Understanding the “iParadox Triad” at work. In R. N. Landers (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 580-607). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[17]	Derks D., van Duin D., Tims M., & Bakker A. B. (2015). Smartphone use and work-home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 155-177. doi: 10.1111/joop.12083 URL
[18]	Fender C. M. (2010). Electronic tethering: Perpetual wireless connectivity to the organization. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.
[19]	Fenner G. H., & Renn R. W. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-to-family conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations and time management. Human Relations, 63(1), 63-82. doi: 10.1177/0018726709351064 URL
[20]	Furtner M. R., Rauthmann J. F., & Sachse P. (2015). Unique self-leadership: A bifactor model approach. Leadership, 11(1), 105-125. doi: 10.1177/1742715013511484 URL
[21]	Ghafoor A., & Haar J. (2021). Does job stress enhance employee creativity? Exploring the role of psychological capital. Personnel Review, 51(2), 644-661. doi: 10.1108/PR-08-2019-0443 URL
[22]	Grawitch M. J., Barber L. K., & Justice L. (2010). Rethinking the work-life interface: It's not about balance, it's about resource allocation. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(2), 127-159.
[23]	Halbesleben J. R., Neveu J. P., Paustian-Underdahl S. C., & Westman M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130 URL
[24]	Hirschi A., Shockley K. M., & Zacher H. (2019). Achieving work-family balance: An action regulation model. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 150-171. doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0409 URL
[25]	Ho J., & Nesbit P. L. (2014). Self-leadership in a Chinese context: Work outcomes and the moderating role of job autonomy. Group & Organization Management, 39(4), 389-415.
[26]	Hobfoll S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513 pmid: 2648906
[27]	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. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062 URL
[28]	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, 103-128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 URL
[29]	Hobfoll S. E., & Shirom A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory:Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57-81). New York: Dekker.
[30]	Houghton J. D., Dawley D., & DiLiello T. C. (2012). The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): A more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 216-232.
[31]	Hunter E. M., Clark M. A., & Carlson D. S. (2019). Violating work-family boundaries: Reactions to interruptions at work and home. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1284-1308. doi: 10.1177/0149206317702221
[32]	Kao K. Y., Chi N. W., Thomas C. L., Lee H. T., & Wang Y. F. (2020). Linking ICT availability demands to burnout and work-family conflict: The roles of workplace telepressure and dispositional self-regulation. The Journal of Psychology, 154(5), 325-345. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2020.1745137 URL
[33]	LePine M. A., Zhang Y., Crawford E. R., & Rich B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0778 URL
[34]	Li A. M., Wang X. T., Xiong G. X., Li B., & Ling W. Q. (2015). A dual-pathway model of work influencing on happiness: A perspective of job demands-resources model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(5), 624-636. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00624 URL
	[ 李爱梅, 王笑天, 熊冠星, 李斌, 凌文辁. (2015). 工作影响员工幸福体验的“双路径模型”探讨——基于工作要求-资源模型的视角. 心理学报, 47(5), 624-636.]
[35]	Lutz S., Schneider F. M., & Vorderer P. (2020). On the downside of mobile communication: An experimental study about the influence of setting-inconsistent pressure on employees’ emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106216. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106216 URL
[36]	MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff P. M., & Fetter R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T URL
[37]	Manz C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585-600. doi: 10.2307/258312 URL
[38]	Manz C. C. (2015). Taking the self-leadership high road: Smooth surface or potholes ahead? Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 132-151. doi: 10.5465/amp.2013.0060 URL
[39]	Manz C. C. & Neck C. P. (2004). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[40]	Mazmanian M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1225-1250. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0787 URL
[41]	Mellner C. (2016). After-hours availability expectations, work-related smartphone use during leisure, and psychological detachment: The moderating role of boundary control. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(2), 146-164. doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-07-2015-0050 URL
[42]	Momsen J. H. (2000). Gender differences in environmental concern and perception. Journal of Geography, 99(2), 47-56. doi: 10.1080/00221340008978956 URL
[43]	Motowidlo S. J., Packard J. S., & Manning M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618-629. pmid: 3804934
[44]	Müller T., & Niessen C. (2018). Self-leadership and self-control strength in the work context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(1), 74-92. doi: 10.1108/JMP-04-2017-0149 URL
[45]	Müller T., & Niessen C. (2019). Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 883-898. doi: 10.1002/job.2371 URL
[46]	Neck C. P., & Houghton J. D. (2006). Two decades of self‐leadership theory and research: Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 270-295. doi: 10.1108/02683940610663097 URL
[47]	Neck C. P., & Manz C. C. (1992). Thought self‐leadership: The influence of self-talk and mental imagery on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 681-699. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130705 URL
[48]	Neck C. P., Neck H. M., Manz C. C., & Godwin J. (1999). “I think I can; I think I can”: A self leadership perspective toward enhancing entrepreneur thought patterns, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Psychology, 14(6), 477-501.
[49]	Ng T. W., & Feldman D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job performance? Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 89-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01130.x URL
[50]	Niessen C., & Jimmieson N. L. (2016). Threat of resource loss: The role of self-regulation in adaptive task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 450-462. doi: 10.1037/apl0000049 URL
[51]	Park Y., Liu Y., & Headrick L. (2020). When work is wanted after hours: Testing weekly stress of information communication technology demands using boundary theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 518-534. doi: 10.1002/job.2461 URL
[52]	Pearce C. L., & Sims H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6( 2), 172-197. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172 URL
[53]	Pierce J. L., & Gardner D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001 URL
[54]	Pierce J. L., Gardner D. G., Cummings L. L., & Dunham R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
[55]	Piszczek M. M. (2017). Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational expectations for technology use at the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 592-611. doi: 10.1002/job.2153 URL
[56]	Raveendhran R., Fast N. J., & Carnevale P. J. (2020). Virtual (freedom from) reality: Evaluation apprehension and leaders’ preference for communicating through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106415. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106415 URL
[57]	Rosen C. C., Dimotakis N., Cole M. S., Taylor S. G., Simon L. S., Smith T. A., & Reina C. S. (2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1181-1206. doi: 10.1037/apl0000483 URL
[58]	Rosen C. C., Simon L. S., Gajendran R. S., Johnson R. E., Lee H. W., & Lin S. H. J. (2019). Boxed in by your inbox: Implications of daily e-mail demands for managers’ leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 19-33. doi: 10.1037/apl0000343 URL
[59]	Saucier G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516. pmid: 7844738
[60]	Stewart G. L., Courtright S. H., & Manz C. C. (2019). Self-leadership: A paradoxical core of organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 47-67. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015130 URL
[61]	ten Brummelhuis L. L., ter Hoeven C. L., & Toniolo-Barrios M. (2021). Staying in the loop: Is constant connectivity to work good or bad for work performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 128, 103589. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103589 URL
[62]	van Dorssen-Boog P., van Vuuren T., de Jong J. P., & Veld M. (2021). Facilitating health care workers’ self- determination: The impact of a self-leadership intervention on work engagement, health, and performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 259-281. doi: 10.1111/joop.12352 pmid: 34149206
[63]	Wan M., Shaffer M. A., Lau T., & Cheung E. (2019). The knife cuts on both sides: Examining the relationship between cross‐domain communication and work-family interface. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 978-1019. doi: 10.1111/joop.12284 URL
[64]	Wang B., Liu Y., & Parker S. K. (2020). How does the use of information communication technology affect individuals? A work design perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 695-725. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0127 URL
[65]	Wang H., & Huang Q. (2019). The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 122-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.001 URL
[66]	Worthington S. L., & Kasouf C. J. (2018). The paradox of resource availability and the perception of resource adequacy: The roles of psychological capital, perceived stress and age in the innovation process. Small Enterprise Research, 25(3), 276-289. doi: 10.1080/13215906.2018.1522272 URL
[67]	Wu Y., & Wen Z.-L. (2011). Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1859-1867.
	[ 吴艳, 温忠麟. (2011). 结构方程建模中的题目打包策略. 心理科学进展, 19(12), 1859-1867.]
[68]	Zhang Z.-X., Shi J., & Liu J. (2016). Advances and frontiers in research of organizational behavior and leadership. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(3), 317-326. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00317 URL
	[ 张志学, 施俊琦, 刘军. (2016). 组织行为与领导力研究的进展与前沿. 心理科学进展, 24(3), 317-326.]
[69]	Zhang Z.-X., Zhao S.-M., Lian H.-W., & Xie X.-Y. (2021). Self-management and self-leadership in the digital and AI era: An overview and future directions. Foreign Economics & Management, 43(11), 3-14.
	[ 张志学, 赵曙明, 连汇文, 谢小云. (2021). 数智时代的自我管理和自我领导:现状与未来. 外国经济与管理, 43(11), 3-14.]
[70]	Zhao G.-X., & Liang H.-Z. (2011). An overview of current self-leadership research abroad. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(4), 589-598.
	[ 赵国祥, 梁瀚中. (2011). 国外自我领导研究的现状述评. 心理科学进展, 19(4), 589-598.]
[71]	Zinko R., Ferris G. R., Humphrey S. E., Meyer C. J., & Aime F. (2012). Personal reputation in organizations: Two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 156-180. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02017.x URL

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. AECE组	0.50	0.50	-
2. 组织自尊	3.95	0.53	0.51^**	(0.84)
3. 压力感知	3.38	1.09	0.37^**	0.02	(0.91)
4. 名声担忧	3.73	0.75	0.44^**	0.33^**	0.47^**	(0.73)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. AECE组	0.50	0.50	-
2. 组织自尊	3.95	0.53	0.51^**	(0.84)
3. 压力感知	3.38	1.09	0.37^**	0.02	(0.91)
4. 名声担忧	3.73	0.75	0.44^**	0.33^**	0.47^**	(0.73)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. 性别	1.46	0.50	-
2. 年龄	2.37	0.91	0.02	-
3. 教育程度	2.84	0.47	0.05	0.09	-
4. 工作年限	7.35	5.68	-0.02	0.79^**	0.06	-
5. 责任感	3.84	0.55	-0.01	0.08	0.03	0.07	(0.88)
6. 感知领导AECE (T1)	3.71	0.69	-0.06	0.23^**	0.07	0.18^**	-0.05	(0.94)
7. 自我领导(T1)	3.50	0.52	-0.11	0.02	0.11^*	0.02	0.02	0.12^*	(0.89)
8. 组织自尊(T2)	3.49	0.49	-0.10	0.07	0.05	0.03	-0.03	0.15^**	0.31^**	(0.92)
9. 压力感知(T2)	3.29	0.68	-0.11^*	0.02	0.08	0.01	0.11^*	0.15^**	0.24^**	0.18^**	(0.93)
10. 名声担忧(T2)	3.37	0.62	-0.05	-0.09	0.04	-0.04	0.00	0.15^**	0.30^**	0.16^**	0.09	(0.83)
11. 工作绩效(T3, 他评)	3.73	0.59	-0.02	-0.05	0.04	-0.08	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.18^**	0.06	-0.10	(0.86)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. 性别	1.46	0.50	-
2. 年龄	2.37	0.91	0.02	-
3. 教育程度	2.84	0.47	0.05	0.09	-
4. 工作年限	7.35	5.68	-0.02	0.79^**	0.06	-
5. 责任感	3.84	0.55	-0.01	0.08	0.03	0.07	(0.88)
6. 感知领导AECE (T1)	3.71	0.69	-0.06	0.23^**	0.07	0.18^**	-0.05	(0.94)
7. 自我领导(T1)	3.50	0.52	-0.11	0.02	0.11^*	0.02	0.02	0.12^*	(0.89)
8. 组织自尊(T2)	3.49	0.49	-0.10	0.07	0.05	0.03	-0.03	0.15^**	0.31^**	(0.92)
9. 压力感知(T2)	3.29	0.68	-0.11^*	0.02	0.08	0.01	0.11^*	0.15^**	0.24^**	0.18^**	(0.93)
10. 名声担忧(T2)	3.37	0.62	-0.05	-0.09	0.04	-0.04	0.00	0.15^**	0.30^**	0.16^**	0.09	(0.83)
11. 工作绩效(T3, 他评)	3.73	0.59	-0.02	-0.05	0.04	-0.08	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.18^**	0.06	-0.10	(0.86)

模型	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	Δχ²(Δ df)
(1)模型1: 假设模型	231.54^***	174	0.99	0.03	0.04	-
(2)模型2: 组织自尊和压力感知结合成一个潜因子	1366.99^**	179	0.76	0.14	0.12	1135.45^**(5)
(3)模型3: 组织自尊和名声担忧结合成一个潜因子	787.82^**	179	0.88	0.10	0.10	556.28^**(5)
(4)模型4: 压力感知和名声担忧结合成一个潜因子	804.82^**	179	0.88	0.10	0.11	573.28^**(5)
(5)模型5: 组织自尊、压力感知和名声担忧结合成一个潜因子	1922.87^**	183	0.65	0.17	0.15	1691.33^**(9)
(6)模型6：感知领导AECE和自我领导结合成一个潜因子	972.33^**	179	0.84	0.11	0.12	740.79^**(5)