辱虐管理与员工创造力：心理契约破坏和中庸思维的不同作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00238

心理学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (2): 238-247.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00238

辱虐管理与员工创造力：心理契约破坏和中庸思维的不同作用

沈伊默¹^,²(), 马晨露¹, 白新文³, 诸彦含⁴^,, 鲁云林⁵, 张庆林¹, 刘军²

1 西南大学心理学部, 重庆 400715
2 中国人民大学商学院, 北京 100872
3 中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室, 北京100101
4 西南大学政治与公共管理学院, 重庆 400715
5 江苏第二师范学院经济与法政学院, 南京 210029

收稿日期:2016-12-30 发布日期:2018-12-24 出版日期:2019-02-25
通讯作者: 沈伊默,诸彦含 E-mail:shenym1980@126.com
基金资助:
国家杰出青年科学基金项目“组织行为”(71425003);国家自然科学基金面上项目(71872152);国家自然科学基金面上项目(71871214);国家自然科学基金面上项目(31671125);中央高校基本科研业务经费创新团队项目(SWU1709123);重点项目(SWU1709238)

Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style

SHEN Yimo¹^,²(), MA Chenlu¹, BAI Xinwen³, ZHU Yanhan⁴^,, LU Yunlin⁵, ZHANG Qinglin¹, LIU Jun²

1 School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2 Business School, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
3 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
4 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
5 School of Business and Law, Jiangsu Second Normal University, Nanjing 210029, China

Received:2016-12-30 Online:2018-12-24 Published:2019-02-25
Contact: SHEN Yimo,ZHU Yanhan E-mail:shenym1980@126.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

近年来, 辱虐管理与员工创造力的关系受到越来越多研究者的关注。在以往研究的基础上, 本研究构建了一个有调节的中介作用模型, 以探讨中国文化情境下辱虐管理影响员工创造力的中介心理机制及边界条件。采用多阶段-多来源的策略, 以93名主管和369名员工为对象, 通过多水平结构方程建模技术对三阶段主管-员工配对调查所获取的数据进行分析, 结果表明：主管的辱虐管理行为会通过心理契约破坏的中介作用, 对员工创造力产生间接的消极影响; 但该负向的间接关系的强度对高中庸思维者而言较弱。本研究有助于揭示辱虐管理影响员工创造力的心理机制及边界条件, 研究结果对企业员工创造力及创新行为的管理实践也有一定启示。

关键词: 辱虐管理, 心理契约破坏, 中庸思维, 创造力

Abstract:

Although creativity has been recognized as an important employee outcome related with work context, to date little research has examined the relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity, which has perhaps been hindered by the lack of a theoretical framework outlining the mechanisms underlying this relationship. The current study examined the processes linking abusive supervision to employee creativity in the Chinese context by focusing on the mediating influence of psychological contract breach and the moderating influence of Zhongyong thinking style.
We collected data from 93 supervisors and 369 subordinates at three different time points. In the first survey, the subordinates were asked to provide information about abusive supervision and their demography. One week later, these subordinates were asked to answer some questions about psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style. Approximately two months later, we asked these supervisors to rate their subordinates’ creativity. Multi-level structuring equation modeling technique and Monte Carlo resampling method were employed to examine the hypothesis about the moderating role of Zhongyong thinking style in the indirect relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity through psychological contract breach.
These findings provided support for the hypothesis that the indirect relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity through psychological contract breach is moderated by Zhongyong thinking style, such that the indirect relationship is weakened when Zhongyong thinking style is high, rather than low. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between abusive supervision and employee creativity in the Chinese context, and imply that the negative influence of abusive supervision on employee outcomes could be decreased by guiding employees to cultivate Zhongyong thinking style because it can encourage self-regulation of behavior after experiencing abusive supervision.

Key words: abusive supervision, psychological contract breach, Zhongyong thinking style, creativity

中图分类号:

B849:C93

沈伊默, 马晨露, 白新文, 诸彦含, 鲁云林, 张庆林, 刘军. (2019). 辱虐管理与员工创造力：心理契约破坏和中庸思维的不同作用. 心理学报, 51(2), 238-247.

SHEN Yimo, MA Chenlu, BAI Xinwen, ZHU Yanhan, LU Yunlin, ZHANG Qinglin, LIU Jun. (2019). Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 238-247.

图/表 5

参考文献 48

1	Aiken, L.S., & West S.G, . ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
2	Agarwal, U.A . ( 2016). Examining perceived organizational politics among Indian managers: Engagement as mediator and locus of control as moderator. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24( 3), 415-437. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-07-2014-0786 URL
3	Aquino, K., & Douglas S. ( 2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90( 1), 195-208. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00517-4 URL
4	Blau, P.M . ( 1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
5	Bliese, P.D . ( 2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations( pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6	Cheung T. S., Chan H. M., Chan K. M., King A. Y. C., Chiu C. Y., & Yang C. F . ( 2003). On Zhongyong rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31( 1), 107-127. doi: 10.1163/156853103764778559 URL
7	Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
8	Conway, N., & Briner R.B, . ( 2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23( 3), 287-303. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
9	Ding G. F., Gu X. X., Zhu Y. Y., & Liu J. X . ( 2012). The mechanism between superior's abusive and subordinate's performance behavior and intervention strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 20( 9), 1347-1354.
	[ 丁桂凤, 古茜茜, 朱滢莹, 刘建雄 . ( 2012). 上司不当督导与下属绩效行为的作用机制及其干预策略. 心理科学进展, 20( 9), 1347-1354.]
10	Ding, G.F., & Zhang P.T, . ( 2013). Abusive supervision and normative commitment: The mediation effects of followership. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 11( 6), 796-800.
	[ 丁桂凤, 张澎涛 . ( 2013). 领导不当督导与追随者规范承诺: 追随力的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 11( 6), 796-800.]
11	Edwards, J.R., & Lambert L.S, . ( 2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12( 1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL
12	Han G. H., Harms P. D., & Bai Y . ( 2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(#1), 21-31
13	He, X. ( 2009). Can interactional justice solve the silence problem? Management World, ( 4), 128-134.
	[ 何轩 . ( 2009). 互动公平真的就能治疗沉默病吗? 以中庸思维作为调节变量的本土实证研究. 管理世界, ( 4), 128-134.]
14	Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M . ( 2012). Networks for innovation-but what networks and what innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21( 1), 3-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00625.x URL
15	Ho, M.Y., & Fung H.H, . ( 2011). A dynamic process model of forgiveness: A cross-cultural perspective. Review of General Psychology, 15( 1), 77-84. doi: 10.1037/a0022605 URL
16	Janssen, O. ( 2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73( 3), 287-302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 URL
17	Janssen, O. ( 2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25( 2), 201-215. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
18	Ji L. J., Peng K., & Nisbett R. E . ( 2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78( 5), 943-955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943 URL
19	Khazanchi, S., & Masterson S.S, . ( 2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32( 1), 86-106. doi: 10.1002/job.682 URL
20	Kiazad K., Seibert S. E., & Kraimer M. L . ( 2014). Psychological contract breach and employee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87( 3), 535-556. doi: 10.1111/joop.2014.87.issue-3 URL
21	Lee S., Yun S., & Srivastava A . ( 2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24( 5), 724-731. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.002 URL
22	Lee, Y.T . ( 2000). What is missing in Chinese-Western dialectical reasoning? American Psychologist, 55( 9), 1065-1067. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1065 URL
23	Li Y. N., Zhang M. J., Law K. S., & Yan M. N . ( 2015). Subordinate performance and abusive supervision: The role of envy and anger. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015( 1), 16420-16420. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2015.16420abstract URL
24	Liu D., Liao H., & Loi R . ( 2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55( 5), 1187-1212. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0400 URL
25	Liu D., Zhang Z., & Wang, M .( 2012). Mono-level and multilevel mediated moderation and moderated mediation: Theorization and test. In X. Chen, A. Tsui & L. Farh (Eds.), Management research methods (2nd ed., pp. 545-579). Beijing: Peking University Press.
	[ 刘东, 张震, 汪默 . ( 2012). 被调节的中介和被中介的调节: 理论构建与模型验证. 见: 陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立(主编). 组织与管理研究实证方法(2nd; pp. 545-579.). 北京:北京大学出版社.]
26	Metcalfe, J., & Mischel W. ( 1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106( 1), 3-19. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3 URL
27	Morrison, E.W., & Robinson S.L, . ( 1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22( 1), 226-256. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9707180265 URL
28	Muthén, L.K., & Muthén B.O, . ( 2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
29	Ng T. W. H., Feldman D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. ( 2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 4), 744-751. doi: 10.1037/a0018804 URL
30	Oldham, G.R., & Cummings A. ( 1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39( 3), 607-634.
31	Parzefall, M.R., & Salin D.M, . ( 2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63( 6), 761-780. doi: 10.1177/0018726709345043 URL
32	Restubog, S.L, Scott, K.L., & Zagenczyk T.J, . ( 2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96( 4), 713-729. doi: 10.1037/a0021593 URL
33	Robinson, S.L., & Morrison E.W, . ( 2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21( 5), 525-546. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
34	Scott, S.G., & Bruce R.A, . ( 1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37( 3), 580-607.
35	Sethi A., Mischel W., Aber J. L., Shoda Y., & Rodriguez M. L . ( 2000). The role of strategic attention deployment in development of self-regulation: Predicting preschoolers' delay of gratification from mother-toddler interactions. Developmental Psychology, 36( 6), 767-777. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.6.767 URL
36	Shalley C. E., Gilson L. L., & Blum T. C . ( 2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 489-505. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41330806 URL
37	Tekleab, A.G., & Taylor M.S, . ( 2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24( 5), 585-608. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
38	Tepper, B.J . ( 2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43( 2), 178-190.
39	Tepper, B.J . ( 2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33( 3), 261-289.
40	Wang C. J., Tsai H. T., & Tsai M. T . ( 2014). Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tourism Management, 40, 79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.05.008 URL
41	Wu, J.H . ( 2006). Zhongyong make my life better: The effect of Zhongyong thinking on life satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 7, 163-176.
	[ 吴佳辉 . ( 2006). 中庸让我生活更美好:中庸思维对生活满意度之影响. 华人心理学报, 7, 163-176.]
42	Wu, J.H., & Lin Y.C, . ( 2005). Development of a Zhong-Yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247-300.
	[ 吴佳辉, 林以正 . ( 2005). 中庸思维量表的编制. 本土心理学研究, 24, 247-300.]
43	Wu L. Z., Liu J., & Liu G . ( 2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41( 6), 510-518.
	[ 吴隆增, 刘军, 刘刚 . ( 2009). 辱虐管理与员工表现: 传统性与信任的作用. 心理学报, 41(6), 510-518.]
44	Yang, Z.F . ( 2010). Multiplicity of Zhong Yong studies. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 3-96.
	[ 杨中芳 . ( 2010). 中庸实践思维体系探研的初步进展. 本土心理学研究, 34, 1120-165.]
45	Yao X., Yang Q., Dong N., & Wang L . ( 2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13( 1), 53-57. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.2010.13.issue-1 URL
46	Zhang H., Kwan H. K., Zhang X., & Wu L. Z . ( 2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40( 4), 1151-1174.
47	Zhao H., Wayne S. J., Glibkowski B. C., & Bravo J . ( 2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60( 3), 647-680. doi: 10.1111/peps.2007.60.issue-3 URL
48	Zhou, J., & Hoever I.J, . ( 2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1( 1), 333-359. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226 URL

变量^a	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
个体层面
1. 性别	1.47	0.49	--
2. 年龄	1.70	0.86	-0.08	--
3. 受教育程度	1.23	0.43	-0.08	-0.22**	--
4. 任职年限	2.50	1.31	-0.03	0.53**	-0.12*	--
5. 心理契约破坏	3.23	1.56	-0.05	-0.04	0.01	0.07	(0.96)
6. 中庸思维	2.22	0.79	0.10	-0.11*	-0.03	0.01	0.22**	(0.92)
7. 员工创造力	4.94	1.16	0.01	0.11*	-0.06	0.07	-0.13*	-0.05	(0.88)
群体层面
1. 辱虐管理	1.71	0.52	(0.93)

变量^a	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
个体层面
1. 性别	1.47	0.49	--
2. 年龄	1.70	0.86	-0.08	--
3. 受教育程度	1.23	0.43	-0.08	-0.22**	--
4. 任职年限	2.50	1.31	-0.03	0.53**	-0.12*	--
5. 心理契约破坏	3.23	1.56	-0.05	-0.04	0.01	0.07	(0.96)
6. 中庸思维	2.22	0.79	0.10	-0.11*	-0.03	0.01	0.22**	(0.92)
7. 员工创造力	4.94	1.16	0.01	0.11*	-0.06	0.07	-0.13*	-0.05	(0.88)
群体层面
1. 辱虐管理	1.71	0.52	(0.93)

变量	心理契约破坏	员工创造力
性别	-0.26 (0.15)	-0.05 (0.14)
年龄	-0.21* (0.11)	0.02 (0.07)
受教育程度	-0.04 (0.18)	-0.13 (0.17)
任职年限	0.03 (0.06)	0.07 (0.05)
中庸思维	0.28* (0.11)	-0.03 (0.07)
辱虐管理	1.02** (0.18)
心理契约破坏		-0.05 (0.03)
辱虐管理×中庸思维	-0.14 (0.22)
心理契约破坏×中庸思维		0.18** (0.07)

变量	心理契约破坏	员工创造力
性别	-0.26 (0.15)	-0.05 (0.14)
年龄	-0.21* (0.11)	0.02 (0.07)
受教育程度	-0.04 (0.18)	-0.13 (0.17)
任职年限	0.03 (0.06)	0.07 (0.05)
中庸思维	0.28* (0.11)	-0.03 (0.07)
辱虐管理	1.02** (0.18)
心理契约破坏		-0.05 (0.03)
辱虐管理×中庸思维	-0.14 (0.22)
心理契约破坏×中庸思维		0.18** (0.07)

分组统计	辱虐管理(X)à心理契约破坏(M)à员工创造力(Y)				间接效应95%的置信区间
	阶段		效应
	第一阶段 (P_MX)	第二阶段 (P_YM)	直接效应 (P_YX)	间接效应 (P_MX P_YM)
低中庸思维(-1 SD)	1.06**(0.18)	-0.12*(0.05)	-0.39** (0.14)	-0.12*(0.05)	[-0.22, -0.03]
高中庸思维(+1 SD)	1.06**(0.18)	0.07 (0.05)	-0.39** (0.14)	0.07(0.06)	[-0.04, 0.19]
组间差异	1.06**(0.18)	-0.18**(0.07)	-0.39** (0.14)	-0.19*(0.08)	[-0.37, -0.04]

辱虐管理与员工创造力：心理契约破坏和中庸思维的不同作用

Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 48

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张建卫, 周愉凡, 李林英, 李海红, 滑卫军. 教导何以有方?教师辩证反馈对大学生团队创造力的作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(8): 1301-1316.
[2]	徐敏亚, 刘贝妮, 徐振宇. 失却锋芒：父母性别偏见对女性职场表现的负面影响[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(7): 1148-1159.
[3]	董念念, 尹奎, 邢璐, 孙鑫, 董雅楠. 领导每日消极反馈对员工创造力的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 831-843.
[4]	成童, 程南华, 王美芳, 王争艳. 学步期焦虑影响5岁幼儿创造力：一般认知和掌握动机的链式中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(7): 799-812.
[5]	马君, 张锐. 权重望寡：如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为?[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 566-581.
[6]	王丹, 王典慧, 陈文锋. 青少年心理韧性与恶意创造性行为倾向的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(2): 154-167.
[7]	程瑞, 卢克龙, 郝宁. 愤怒情绪对恶意创造力的影响及调节策略[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(8): 847-860.
[8]	张景焕, 付萌萌, 辛于雯, 陈佩佩, 沙莎. 小学高年级学生创造力的发展：性别差异及学校支持的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1057-1070.
[9]	胡巧婷, 王海江, 龙立荣. 新员工工作重塑会带来积极的结果吗?领导成员交换与个体传统性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 659-668.
[10]	朱金强, 徐世勇, 周金毅, 张柏楠, 许昉昉, 宗博强. 跨界行为对创造力影响的跨层次双刃剑效应[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(11): 1340-1351.
[11]	栾墨, 吴霜, 李虹. 预期交流与创造力的关系:解释水平的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10): 1178-1188.
[12]	罗萍, 施俊琦, 朱燕妮, 房俨然. 个性化工作协议对员工主动性职业行为和创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(1): 81-92.
[13]	卫利华, 刘智强, 廖书迪, 龙立荣, 廖建桥. 集体心理所有权、地位晋升标准与团队创造力[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 677-687.
[14]	刘伟国, 房俨然, 施俊琦, 莫申江. 领导创造力期望对团队创造力的影响 ^*[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
[15]	孙健敏, 陈乐妮, 尹奎. 挑战性压力源与员工创新行为：领导−成员交换与辱虐管理的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(4): 436-449.