ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办：中国心理学会
　　　中国科学院心理研究所
出版：科学出版社

• •    

团队建言对领导纳谏的影响机制研究：基于合法性视角

范攀, 李福荔   

  1. 西安交通大学管理学院, 陕西 710000 中国
  • 收稿日期:2024-11-29 修回日期:2026-03-23 接受日期:2026-03-25

Research on the Influence Mechanism of Team Voice on Team Leader Voice-taking: From Legitimacy Perspective

  1. , 710000, China
  • Received:2024-11-29 Revised:2026-03-23 Accepted:2026-03-25

摘要： 团队建言是促进团队创新和提升团队适应性的关键驱动力，而其发挥效能的前提在于团队领导的纳谏。既有研究多关注领导对员工个体建言的纳谏过程，却较少探讨领导对团队建言的纳谏机制。基于合法性理论并结合群体影响视角，本文提出团队建言合法性（即领导关于团队集体建言献策的行为在组织内部是否正当的评价）是解释团队建言影响团队领导纳谏行为的重要中介机制。此外，团队领导感知的上级领导开放性，会强化其将团队建言合法性认知转化为纳谏行为（包括团队建言实施和向上级领导传递团队建言）。本文采用问卷法和实验法相结合的研究设计，通过三个研究检验上述理论模型。研究1采用被试内情景实验，对团队建言和个体建言进行了被试内的操控，进而比较领导对个体建言和团队建言的合法性评价及其纳谏行为的差异。基于179名被试的数据分析结果表明：与个体建言相比，领导对团队层面的建言合法性评价显著更高，且该评价对其纳谏行为具有更强的积极影响；研究2基于99名团队领导的三阶段问卷调查数据验证了本文大部分假设；研究3（包括研究3a和3b）设计了2（团队建言：高 vs. 低）×2（上级领导开放性：高 vs. 低）的被试间情景实验，基于350名被试的数据分析结果进一步验证和支持了研究2的发现。本文将建言纳谏机制由个体层面延伸至团队层面，提出了基于合法性的解释视角，并在细化领导纳谏行为维度的同时，扩展了合法性理论的解释范畴。

关键词: 团队建言, 领导纳谏, 合法性, 上级领导开放性

Abstract: Team voice is a critical driving force for promoting team innovation and enhancing team adaptability. However, its effectiveness depends on team leaders' voice-taking. Existing research has primarily focused on leaders' voice-taking of individual employee voice, with limited attention given to the mechanisms through which leaders respond to team voice. Drawing on legitimacy theory and incorporating a group influence perspective, this paper proposes that team voice legitimacy (i.e., defined as leaders' evaluation of whether team voice is legitimate within the organization) serves as a key mediating mechanism explaining how team voice influences leaders' voice-taking. Furthermore, team leaders' perception of their direct leader's openness strengthens the effect of team voice legitimacy on voice-taking behaviors, including both team voice implementation and upward transmission of team voice to their direct leaders. This study adopts a mixed-method design incorporating both survey and experimental approaches. Using three studies, we test the proposed theoretical model. In Study 1, we employed a within-subjects scenario experiment, manipulating both team voice and individual voice to compare differences in leaders' legitimacy evaluations and voice-taking behaviors under these two types of voice situations. Based on data from 179 participants, the results indicate that, compared with individual voice, leaders' legitimacy evaluations of team voice are significantly higher, and these evaluations exert a stronger positive influence on their voice-taking. In Study 2, we tested our hypotheses using three-wave survey data from 99 team leaders, providing support for our predictions. In Study 3 (including Study 3a and 3b), we designed a 2 (team voice: high vs. low) × 2 (direct leader openness: high vs. low) between-subjects scenario experiment. Based on data from 350 participants, the findings further validated the results of Study 2. This research extends the voice-taking mechanism from the individual level to the team level, proposing a legitimacy-based explanatory perspective. While refining the behavioral dimensions of leader voice-taking, it also broadens the explanatory scope of legitimacy theory.

Key words: Team Voice, Leader Voice-taking, Legitimacy, Higher-up Leaders’ openness