累并快乐着：服务型领导的收益与代价——基于工作-家庭资源模型视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00227

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

服务型领导被以往大量研究证实能够对下属产生积极的影响效果。然而, 我们对服务型领导如何影响领导者自己还知之甚少。基于此, 文章根据工作-家庭资源模型, 探讨了服务型领导的收益与代价。采用经验抽样法, 对广州市76名企业单位中的主管进行为期5天的日记研究, 并运用多层线性模型进行数据分析。结果表明：主管每日从事服务型领导行为既可以产生更多的积极情绪, 从而改善工作-家庭关系, 又可能会引发资源损耗, 从而恶化了工作-家庭关系。主管感知的组织支持是服务型领导行为双刃剑效应的“门阀”, 当主管感知到高的组织支持时, 从事服务型领导行为会带来更多的积极情绪, 而当主管感知到低的组织支持时, 从事服务型领导行为可能更容易增加资源损耗。以上结果能拓宽我们对服务型领导影响效果的认识, 并为如何干预服务型领导行为提供一些新的启发。

关键词: 服务型领导行为, 工作-家庭冲突, 工作-家庭促进, 组织支持, 工作-家庭资源模型

Abstract:

Servant leadership refers to a set of behaviors that serve the needs and interests of others that enhance the long-term well-being of subordinates and the stakeholders associated. Many studies have demonstrated that servant leadership has a positive impact on its recipients such as subordinates, teams, and organizations. However, few studies have explored the impact of servant leadership behavior on actors (leaders). This study draws from the work-home resources model, and adopts the actor perspective to identify the benefits and costs of engaging in servant leadership behavior. Specifically, we infer that, on one hand, servant leadership could contribute to resource generation (i.e., positive emotion) and then improve work-family interface; on the other hand, servant leadership may also lead to resource depletion (ego depletion) and therefore have negative effect on work-family interface. However, as a kind of situational resource, organizational support could enhance the resource generation process and buffer the resource depletion process of servant leadership.@@@To test the proposed theoretical model, we surveyed 76 supervisors and their managers in Chinese enterprises using experience sampling surveys. Approximately one week before the start of the daily surveys, we sent a questionnaire containing the measures of our between-level constructs (e.g., organizational support) to participants. During the daily survey, participants were sent three surveys each day while they were at work for 5 workdays. At time 1 (11:00 a.m.), supervisors completed measures of servant leadership behavior, and then managers completed the measures of transformational leadership behavior and ethical leadership behavior of each of their subordinates (supervisors). At time 2 (4:00 p.m.), supervisors completed the measures of negative/positive emotion and ego depletion. At time 3 (7:00~9:00 p.m.), supervisors completed the measures of work-home interface (work-home conflict, work-home facilitation).@@@The results from the multilevel linear model analysis showed that: (1) engaging in servant leadership behavior is not only positively related to positive emotion, but also positively related to perceptions of ego depletion during the day; (2) positive affect and ego depletion, in turn, mediate the effects of servant leadership behavior on daily work-home interface; and (3) organizational support influences the strength of the daily relationships between servant leadership behavior and its positive (positive emotion) and negative outcomes (ego depletion), that is, high organizational support strengthens the positive association between servant leadership behavior and positive emotion whereas low organizational support increases the detrimental effects of servant leadership behavior on ego depletion.@@@Our findings contribute to literature in several ways. First, through taking an actor-perspective, we have investigated both positive and negative effects of servant leadership behavior, which can help us understand the double-edged sword effects of servant leadership behavior more comprehensively. Second, by revealing the mediating role of positive emotion and ego depletion and the moderating role of organizational support, this study has helped increase our understanding of the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the relationship between servant leadership behavior and work-home interface. Finally, based on the work-home resources model, this study has clarified the dynamic process characterizing servant leadership behavior to work-home interface by using within-level research design, which should eventually enrich the application of work-home resources model in leadership literature.

Key words: servant leadership behavior, work-home conflict, work-home facilitation, organizational support, work-home resources model

中图分类号:

B849:C91

康勇军, 彭坚. (2019). 累并快乐着：服务型领导的收益与代价——基于工作-家庭资源模型视角. 心理学报, 51(2), 227-237.

KANG Yongjun, PENG Jian. (2019). Benefits and costs of servant leadership behavior: A work-home resource model perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 227-237.

图/表 7

参考文献 50

1	Bass, B.M., & Riggio R.E. ( 2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2	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
3	Bono J. E., Glomb T. M., Shen W., Kim E., & Koch A. J . ( 2013). Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management Journal, 56( 6), 1601-1627. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0272 URL
4	Chen P., Yang F., & Shi W . ( 2016). Servant leadership: Concept, measurements, influencing factors, and consequences. Advances in Psychological Science, 24( 1), 143-157.
	[ 陈佩, 杨付, 石伟 . ( 2016). 公仆型领导: 概念、测量、影响因素与实施效果. 心理科学进展, 24( 1), 143-157.]
5	Du L. Y., Sun J. M., Yin K., & Peng J . ( 2017). What makes leaders engage in transformational leadership behavior: A literature review of the antecedents of transformational leadership. Human Resource Development of China, ( 11), 87-97.
	[ 杜玲毓, 孙健敏, 尹奎, 彭坚 . ( 2017). 变革型领导从何而来?变革型领导的形成机理. 中国人力资源开发, ( 11), 87-97.]
6	Duan, J.Y., & Chen W.P, . ( 2012). Ambulatory-assessment based sampling method: Experience sampling method. Advances in Psychological Science, 20( 7), 1110-1120.
	[ 段锦云, 陈文平 . ( 2012). 基于动态评估的取样法: 经验取样法. 心理科学进展, 20( 7), 1110-1120.]
7	Duan J. Y., Zeng K., & Yan H . ( 2017). Dual mechanism of servant leadership affecting employee voice behavior. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 23( 3), 210-219.
	[ 段锦云, 曾恺, 阎寒 . ( 2017). 服务型领导影响员工建言的双重机制研究. 应用心理学, 23( 3), 210-220.]
8	Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchison S., & Sowa D . ( 1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71( 3), 500-507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 URL
9	Enders, C.K., & Tofighi D . ( 2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12( 2), 121-138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121 URL
10	Fredrickson, B.L., & Branigan C . ( 2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19( 3), 313-332. doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238 URL
11	Greenhaus J.H., & Beutell N.J. ( 1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10( 1), 76-88. doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4277352 URL
12	Greenhaus J.H., & Powell G.N. ( 2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31( 1), 72-92. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625 URL
13	Greenleaf R. K. ( 1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness . New York: Paulist Press.
14	Guo X. Y., Wang Z. H . ( 2007). Concept, function and meaning of positive emotion. Advances in Psychological Science, 15( 5), 810-815.
	[ 郭小艳, 王振宏 . ( 2007). 积极情绪的概念、功能与意义. 心理科学进展, 15( 5), 810-815.]
15	Hagger M. S., Wood C., Stiff C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. ( 2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self- control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136( 4), 495-525. doi: 10.1037/a0019486 URL
16	Halbesleben J. R. B., Neveu J. P., & Paustianunderdahl S. C . ( 2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40( 5), 1334-1364.
17	Hobfoll S. E., Freedy J., Lane C., & Geller P . ( 1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7( 4), 465-478. doi: 10.1177/0265407590074004 URL
18	Hofmann S. A., Griffin M. A., & Gavin M. B . ( 2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein, & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions ( pp. 75-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19	Hu, J., & Liden R.C. ( 2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96( 4), 851-862. doi: 10.1037/a0022465 URL
20	Hunter E. M., Neubert M. J., Perry S. J., Witt L. A., Penney L. M., & Weinberger E . ( 2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24( 2), 316-331. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001 URL
21	Ilies R., Liu X. Y., Liu Y. K., & Zheng X. M . ( 2017). Why do employees have better family lives when they are highly engaged at work? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102( 6), 956-970. doi: 10.1037/apl0000211 URL
22	Johnson M. D., Derue D. S., & Ilgen D. R . ( 2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 5), 1368-1379. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368 URL
23	Koopman J., Lanaj K., & Scott B. A . ( 2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59( 2), 414-435. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0262 URL
24	Kurtessis J. N., Eisenberger R., Ford M. T., Buffardi L. C., Stewart K. A., & Adis C. S . ( 2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43( 6), 1854-1884.
25	Lanaj K., Johnson R. E., & Lee S. M . ( 2016). Benefits of transformational behaviors for leaders: A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 2), 237-251. doi: 10.1037/apl0000052 URL
26	Lanaj K., Johnson R. E., & Wang M . ( 2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 8), 1097-1110. doi: 10.1037/apl0000118 URL
27	Lapierre L. M., Li Y. H., Kwan H. K., Greenhaus J. H., Direnzo M. S., & Shao P . ( 2018). A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work-family enrichment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39( 4), 385-401. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.4 URL
28	Li W. D., Fay D., Frese M., Harms P. D., & Gao X. Y . ( 2014). Reciprocal relationship between proactive personality and work characteristics: A latent change score approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 5), 948-965. doi: 10.1037/a0036169 URL
29	Liden R. C., Wayne S. J., Meuser J. D., Hu J., Wu J. F., & Liao C. W . ( 2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 2), 254-269. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002 URL
30	Lin K. J., Ilies R., Pluut H., & Pan S. Y . ( 2017). You are a helpful co-worker, but do you support your spouse? A resource-based work-family model of helping and support provision. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138( 1), 45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.12.004 URL
31	Lin S. J., Ma J., & Johnson R. E . ( 2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 6), 815-830. doi: 10.1037/apl0000098 URL
32	Lynch P. D., Eisenberger R., & Armeli S . ( 1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84( 4), 467-483. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.467 URL
33	Ma H. Y., Shen C. G., Yang J., Tang H. Y., & Xie J. L . ( 2014). Boundary flexibility and work-family conflict and enrichment: From person-environment fit perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46( 4), 540-551.
	[ 马红宇, 申传刚, 杨璟, 唐汉瑛, 谢菊兰 . ( 2014). 边界弹性与工作-家庭冲突、增益的关系: 基于人-环境匹配的视角. 心理学报, 46( 4), 540-551.]
34	Podsakoff P. M., Mackenzie S. B., Moorman R. H., & Fetter R . ( 1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1( 2), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 URL
35	Powell, G.N., & Greenhaus J.H. ( 2006). Is the opposite of positive negative? Untangling the complex relationship between work-family enrichment and conflict. Career Development International, 11( 7), 650-659. doi: 10.1108/13620430610713508 URL
36	Preacher K. J., Zyphur M. J., & Zhang Z . ( 2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15( 3), 209-233. doi: 10.1037/a0020141 URL
37	Qin X., Huang M., Johnson R., Hu Q., & Ju D . (in press). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement.Academy of Management Journal. Doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1325
38	Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger R . ( 2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87( 4), 698-714. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 URL
39	Sui Y., Wang H., Yue Y. N., & Luthans F . ( 2012). The effect of transformational leadership on follower performance and satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of procedural justice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 9), 1217-1230.
	[ 隋杨, 王辉, 岳旖旎 Luthans F . ( 2012). 变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响: 心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用. 心理学报, 44( 9), 1217-1230.]
40	Tang G., Kwan H. K., Zhang D., & Zhu Z . ( 2016). Work-family effects of servant leadership: The roles of emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 137( 2), 285-297. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7 URL
41	ten Brummelhuis, L.L., & Bakker A.B. ( 2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67( 7), 545-556. doi: 10.1037/a0027974 URL
42	van Dierendonck, D . ( 2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37( 4), 1228-1261.
43	Wang M., Kwan H. K., & Zhou A . ( 2016). Effects of servant leadership on work-family balance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55( 4), 387-407.
44	Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A . ( 1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54( 6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 URL
45	Watson D., Wiese D., Vaidya J., & Tellegen A . ( 1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76( 5), 820-838. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820 URL
46	Wayne J. H., Musisca N., & Fleeson W . ( 2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64( 1), 108-130. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6 URL
47	Weinstein, N., & Ryan R.M. ( 2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98( 2), 222-244. doi: 10.1037/a0016984 URL
48	Williams J. C., Berdahl J. L., & Vandello J. A . ( 2016). Beyond work-life “integration”. Annual Review of Psychology, 67( 1), 515-539. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033710 URL
49	Xing L., Lin Y. Y., He X. L., & Peng J . ( 2017). Cognition-driven or emotion-dirven: A two path-way model linking responsible leadership to employee green behavior. Human Resource Development of China, ( 1), 31-40.
	[ 邢璐, 林钰莹, 何欣露, 彭坚 . ( 2017). 理性与感性的较量: 责任型领导影响下属绿色行为的双路径探讨. 中国人力资源开发, ( 1), 31-40.]
50	Zhang H., Kwan H. K., Everett A. M., & Jian Z . ( 2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management, 51( 5), 747-767. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v51.5 URL

模型	χ²	df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
六因素模型：SL; PA; ED; WFC; WFF; OS	1013.60	362	—	0.93	0.90	0.08
五因素模型：SL+OS; PA; ED; WFC; WFF	1776.44	367	762.84 (5)	0.82	0.79	0.10
四因素模型：SL+OS; PA; ED+WFC; WFF	2656.40	371	1642.80 (9)	0.71	0.66	0.13
三因素模型：SL+OS+PA; ED+WFC; WFF	3974.00	374	2960.40 (12)	0.55	0.48	0.16
两因素模型：SL+OS+PA+WFF; ED+WFC	4641.10	376	3627.50 (14)	0.47	0.38	0.17
单因素模型：SL+PA+ ED+WFC+WFF+OS	6356.40	377	5342.80 (15)	0.25	0.13	0.21

模型	χ²	df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
六因素模型：SL; PA; ED; WFC; WFF; OS	1013.60	362	—	0.93	0.90	0.08
五因素模型：SL+OS; PA; ED; WFC; WFF	1776.44	367	762.84 (5)	0.82	0.79	0.10
四因素模型：SL+OS; PA; ED+WFC; WFF	2656.40	371	1642.80 (9)	0.71	0.66	0.13
三因素模型：SL+OS+PA; ED+WFC; WFF	3974.00	374	2960.40 (12)	0.55	0.48	0.16
两因素模型：SL+OS+PA+WFF; ED+WFC	4641.10	376	3627.50 (14)	0.47	0.38	0.17
单因素模型：SL+PA+ ED+WFC+WFF+OS	6356.40	377	5342.80 (15)	0.25	0.13	0.21

构念	个体内差异(e²)	个体间差异(r²)	个体内差异百分比(%)
服务型领导行为(T1)	0.40	0.30	57%
积极情绪(T2)	0.85	0.55	61%
消极情绪(T2)	0.55	0.31	64%
自我损耗(T2)	0.66	0.37	64%
工作-家庭冲突(T3)	0.88	0.61	59%
工作-家庭促进(T3)	0.69	0.48	59%
变革型领导行为(T1)	0.34	0.30	53%
道德型领导行为(T1)	0.34	0.34	50%
工作时间	0.88	1.41	38%

构念	个体内差异(e²)	个体间差异(r²)	个体内差异百分比(%)
服务型领导行为(T1)	0.40	0.30	57%
积极情绪(T2)	0.85	0.55	61%
消极情绪(T2)	0.55	0.31	64%
自我损耗(T2)	0.66	0.37	64%
工作-家庭冲突(T3)	0.88	0.61	59%
工作-家庭促进(T3)	0.69	0.48	59%
变革型领导行为(T1)	0.34	0.30	53%
道德型领导行为(T1)	0.34	0.34	50%
工作时间	0.88	1.41	38%

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Level 1变量
1. 服务型领导行为	4.36	0.63	1
2. 积极情绪	2.57	0.92	0.15^**	1
3. 自我损耗	3.46	0.76	0.29^**	-0.24^**	1
4. 工作-家庭冲突	3.21	0.96	0.01	-0.13^**	0.18^**	1
5. 工作-家庭促进	3.58	0.84	0.31^**	0.18^**	-0.03	-0.04	1
6. 消极情绪	1.58	0.74	-0.23^**	-0.23^**	0.11^*	0.25^**	-0.10	1
7. 变革型领导行为	4.17	0.58	0.04	0.08	-0.02	-0.12^*	0.00	-0.16^**	1
8. 道德型领导行为	4.08	0.58	0.06	0.12^*	-0.02	-0.16^**	0.05	-0.19^*	0.53^**	1
9. 工作时间	8.42	0.94	0.05	-0.07	0.04	0.02	-0.07	0.06	0.08	0.09	1
Level 2 变量
10. 组织支持	3.46	0.67	0.47^**	0.24^**	-0.32^**	-0.19^**	0.27^**	-0.26^**	0.10	0.09	-0.03	1