员工积极主动行为的组态效应：基于过程的视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00792

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

积极主动行为是一个既包含外显实施行为, 又包含内在思维活动的行动过程。然而过往的文献却忽视了思维活动对积极主动行为有效性的影响。本文基于过程的视角, 运用组态的思想和方法, 研究了积极主动过程中的4个元素(预想、计划、实施和反思)对员工工作绩效和情绪耗竭的组态效应, 并探讨了环境不确定性和员工感知的领导信任对这种组态效应的影响, 以及上述组态的增量效应。运用fsQCA方法和回归分析, 本文发现：1)仅有高水平的实施并不能充分地带来高工作绩效; 2)无论环境不确定性是高还是低, 4个元素都高(低)的组态, 均可带来高(低)工作绩效; 3)在环境不确定性高时, 无论实施水平是高还是低, 高水平的预想、计划和反思足以带来高水平的工作绩效; 4)仅有高水平的实施, 而预想、计划和反思处于低水平, 会带来高情绪耗竭; 5)当员工感知到领导高度信任自己时, 无论实施水平是高还是低, 高水平的预想、计划和反思会带来低情绪耗竭; 6)总体而言, 控制住个体差异和积极主动过程中各元素对结果变量的影响后, 组态仍能预测结果变量, 而各单独元素不再能够预测结果变量。最后, 本文讨论了上述研究发现对于积极主动行为的理论价值和管理实践的启示。

关键词: 积极主动, 组态效应, 模糊集定性比较分析, 过程视角, 工作绩效, 情绪耗竭

Abstract:

In recent years, scholars have gradually realized that proactive behavior is a self-regulatory process including not only overt behavioral element (i.e., enacting) but also covert behavioral elements (i.e., envisioning, planning, and reflecting). However, previous research on proactive behaviors focused only on the influence of overt behavioral element on a variety of individual and organizational outcomes but neglected the influence of covert behavioral elements and the synergistic effect of all elements in a proactive process. It leads to an incomplete understanding of proactive behavior. To address this problem, we draw on a process perspective and a configural approach to investigate: 1) the configural effects of all behavioral elements (i.e., envisioning, planning, enacting, and reflecting) in a proactive process on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion; 2) the impact of task context (i.e., environmental uncertainty) and social context (i.e., felt trust) on the configural effects of all behavioral elements; and 3) incremental effect of configuration membership on employees’ outcomes after controlling for the unique effects of each element and individual difference (i.e., proactive personality and neuroticism).

By using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) and regression analysis, we conducted a longitudinal study to test our hypotheses and examine research questions. We examined the configural effects of all four elements on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion, and then examined the impacts of task and social context and the incremental effect of these configurations. 426 full-time employees and their direct supervisors from an education and training company in China participated in a questionnaire survey and reported data at two time points two weeks apart. Supervisors reported their subordinates’ job performance at time 2. The final sample size was 383.

The findings reveal that: 1) a configuration with high level of enacting alone is not sufficient for generating high job performance; 2) a configuration with low (high) levels on all four elements is sufficient for producing low (high) job performance regardless of the level of environmental uncertainty; 3) when environmental uncertainty is high, a configuration with high level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for producing high job performance regardless of the level of enacting; 4) a configuration with high level of enacting and low level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for generating high emotional exhaustion; 5) when felt trust is high, a configuration with high level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for producing low emotional exhaustion regardless of the level of enacting; 6) in general, after controlling for the unique effects of each element and individual difference, the configuration membership can still predict employees' job performance and emotional exhaustion whereas elements in a proactive process cannot.

Our research contributes to the literature on proactive behavior. First, our research presents a novel perspective on the process of proactive behavior. The process perspective of proactive behavior provides a fresh window onto why the consequences of proactive behaviors vary between employees and studies. Second, our research advances the understanding of proactive behavior by revealing the configural effects of four elements in a proactive process on employees’ outcomes. Third, our research demonstrates the usefulness of a configural approach in studying process-related issues in proactive behavior research.

Key words: proactive behavior, configuration, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), process perspective, job performance, emotional exhaustion

中图分类号:

B849: C93

李丽源, 高祥宇, 郑晓明. (2023). 员工积极主动行为的组态效应：基于过程的视角. 心理学报, 55(5), 792-811.

LI Liyuan, GAO Xiangyu, ZHENG Xiaoming. (2023). An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(5), 792-811.

图/表 6

参考文献 92

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2]	Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23(3), 244-263. doi: 10.1080/02678370903282600 URL
[3]	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
[4]	Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170 pmid: 15826226
[5]	Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83-104. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X URL
[6]	Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1146/psych.2001.52.issue-1 URL
[7]	Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[8]	Belcastro, P. A., Hays, L. C., & Gold, R. S. (1983). Maslach burnout inventory: Factor structures for samples of teachers. Psychological Reports, 53(2), 364-366. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.364 URL
[9]	Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134-150. doi: 10.1037/a0024368 pmid: 21744938
[10]	Bolino, M, Valcea, S, & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325-345. doi: 10.1348/096317910X493134 URL
[11]	Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 499-522. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0604 URL
[12]	Cai, Z., Parker, S. K., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2019). How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 209-230. doi: 10.1002/job.2347 URL
[13]	Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429-1448. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0697 URL
[14]	Daft, R. L., Sormunen, J., & Parks, D. (1988). Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics, and company performance: An empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 123-139. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 URL
[15]	de Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the big five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[16]	Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001 URL
[17]	Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. pmid: 11419809
[18]	de Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811-831. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.64870144 URL
[19]	Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 pmid: 16768595
[20]	Du, Y., & Jia, L. (2017). Configurational perspective and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): A new approach to management research. Management World, (6), 155-167.
	[杜运周, 贾良定. (2017). 组态视角与定性比较分析(QCA):管理学研究的一条新道路. 管理世界, (6), 155-167.]
[21]	Du, Y., Li, J., Liu, Q., Zhao, S., & Chen, K. (2021). Configurational theory and QCA method from a complex dynamic perspective: Research progress and future directions. Management World, (3), 180-197.
	[杜运周, 李佳馨, 刘秋辰, 赵舒婷, 陈凯薇. (2021). 复杂动态视角下的组态理论与QCA方法:研究进展与未来方向. 管理世界, (3), 180-197.]
[22]	Du, Y., Wang, X., Deng, C., & Shu, Q. (2015). Organizational decline and turnaround strategy: Foreign theory review and implications for future research. Foreign Economies and Management, 37(6), 26-38.
	[杜运周, 王小伟, 邓长庚, 舒清. (2015). 组织衰落与复苏战略:国外理论述评及未来研究启示. 外国经济与管理, 37(6), 26-38.]
[23]	Fay, D., & Hüttges, A. (2017). Drawbacks of proactivity: Effects of daily proactivity on daily salivary cortisol and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(4), 429-442. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000042 pmid: 27182764
[24]	Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586092 URL
[25]	Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 URL
[26]	Frazier, M. L., Tupper, C., & Fainshmidt, S. (2016). The path (s) to employee trust in direct supervisor in nascent and established relationships: A fuzzy set analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 1023-1043. doi: 10.1002/job.2091 URL
[27]	Frese, M. (2009). Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship: An action theory perspective. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(6), 437-496. doi: 10.1561/0300000028 URL
[28]	Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21^st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6 URL
[29]	Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1084-1102. pmid: 17638467
[30]	Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., Heers, C., Unger, J., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1481-1498. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1481 URL
[31]	Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology:A German approach. In H. C.Triandis, M. D.Dunnette, & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 272-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
[32]	Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329-345. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008 URL
[33]	Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6), 879-898. doi: 10.1177/0018726714548235 URL
[34]	Gabriel, A. S., Campbell, J. T., Djurdjevic, E., Johnson, R. E., & Rosen, C. C. (2018). Fuzzy profiles: Comparing and contrasting latent profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis for person-centered research. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 877-904. doi: 10.1177/1094428117752466 URL
[35]	Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879. doi: 10.1037/a0037408 pmid: 25068812
[36]	García-Castro, R., Aguilera, R. V., & Ariño, M. A. (2013). Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: A fuzzy set analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(4), 390-407. doi: 10.1111/corg.2013.21.issue-4 URL
[37]	Gill, H., Cassidy, S. A., Cragg, C., Algate, P., Weijs, C. A., & Finegan, J. E. (2019). Beyond reciprocity: The role of empowerment in understanding felt trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 845-858. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1678586
[38]	Gillespie, N. A. (2003, August). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle.
[39]	Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T.Higgins & R. M.Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press.
[40]	Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 URL
[41]	Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V.F., & Fiss, P.C. (2013). The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set-theoretic approach. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 38, 49-75.
[42]	Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 URL
[43]	Guzman, F. A., & Espejo, A. (2019). Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 73-90. doi: 10.1002/job.v40.1 URL
[44]	Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 122-128.
[45]	Hao, J., Wang, F., & Wang, C. (2017). Fit between roles of overseas subsidiary and control modes of headquarters and its effects—A two-level multiple comparative case study. Management World, (10), 150-171.
	[郝瑾, 王凤彬, 王璁. (2017). 海外子公司角色分类及其与管控方式的匹配效应——一项双层多案例定性比较分析. 管理世界, (10), 150-171.]
[46]	Hao, P., Long, L., & He, W. (2015). When and why shared leadership influences team outputs? The pivotal roles of information exchange, passionate tone and environmental uncertainty. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(10), 1288-1299. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01288
	[蒿坡, 龙立荣, 贺伟. (2015). 共享型领导如何影响团队产出?信息交换、激情氛围与环境不确定性的作用. 心理学报, 47(10), 1288-1299.]
[47]	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
[48]	Hofmann, D. A., & Frese, M. (Eds.). (2011). Error in organizations. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
[49]	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/orgpsych.2018.5.issue-1 URL
[50]	Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.20208687 URL
[51]	Kalleberg, A. L., & Vaisey, S. (2005). Pathways to a good job: Perceived work quality among the machinists in north America. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(3), 431-454. doi: 10.1111/bjir.2005.43.issue-3 URL
[52]	Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. P., & Pil, F. K. (2010). Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative influence. Human Relations, 63(3), 371-394. doi: 10.1177/0018726709348936 URL
[53]	Lau, D. C., Lam, L. W., & Wen, S. S. (2014). Examining the effects of feeling trusted by supervisors in the workplace: A self-evaluative perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 112-127. doi: 10.1002/job.1861 URL
[54]	Li, A. N., & Tangirala, S. (2021). How voice emerges and develops in newly formed supervisor-employee dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 614-642. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.0961 URL
[55]	Li, L., & Huang, G. (2021). Advantages and disadvantages of individual proactive behavior in organizations. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(8), 1484-1496. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01484 URL
	[ 李玲玲, 黄桂. (2021). 组织中个体主动性行为“利与弊”. 心理科学进展, 29(8), 1484-1496.] doi: 10.1037/a0036169 URL
[56]	Li, W. D., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P. D., & Gao, X. (2014). Reciprocal relationships between proactive personality and work characteristics: A latent change score approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 948-965. doi: 10.1037/apl0000018 URL
[57]	Lin, S. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381-1397. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 URL
[58]	Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
[59]	Meuer, J., & Rupietta, C. (2017). A review of integrated QCA and statistical analyses. Quality & Quantity, 51(5), 2063-2083. doi: 10.2307/257999 URL
[60]	Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143. doi: 10.1177/1094428118773856 URL
[61]	Morin, A. J., Bujacz, A., & Gagné, M. (2018). Person-centered methodologies in the organizational sciences: Introduction to the feature topic. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 803-813.
[62]	Ong, W. J., & Johnson, M. D. (in press). Towards a configural theory of job demands and resources. Academy of Management Journal.
[63]	Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2014). A configural approach to the study of organizational culture and climate. In B.Schneider & K.M.Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture (pp. 532-552). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.010 URL
[64]	Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos. (2016). Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 794-803.
[65]	Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., & Pavlou, P. A. (2017, June). Value co-creation and trust in social commerce: An fsQCA approach. Paper Presented at the 25^th European Conference on Information Systems, Guimarães, Portugal. pmid: 9885197
[66]	Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.
[67]	Parker, S. K., & Bindl, U. K. (Eds). (2017). Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.1177/0149206310363732 URL
[68]	Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554 URL
[69]	Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi: 10.1037/apl0000106 pmid: 28182465
[70]	Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403-420.
[71]	Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2002). Work design and individual work performance:Research findings and an agenda for future inquiry. In S.Sonnentag (Eds.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 69-93). Chichester, England: Wiley. doi: 10.1348/096317901167460 URL
[72]	Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413-440. doi: 10.1146/orgpsych.2019.6.issue-1 URL
[73]	Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 221-248. doi: 10.1111/joop.12254
[74]	Pingel, R., Fay, D., & Urbach, T. (2019). A resources perspective on when and how proactive work behaviour leads to employee withdrawal. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 410-435.
[75]	Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1177/014920630102700504 URL
[76]	Renn, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance. Journal of Management, 27(5), 563-583. doi: 10.1111/peps.2001.54.issue-4 URL
[77]	Seibert, S, E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845-874. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.001 URL
[78]	Strauss, K., Parker, S. K., & O’Shea, D. (2017). When does proactivity have a cost? Motivation at work moderates the effects of proactive work behavior on employee job strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 15-26. doi: 10.1080/00223980109603704 URL
[79]	Strickland, O. J., & Galimba, M. (2001). Managing time: The effects of personal goal setting on resource allocation strategy and task performance. The Journal of Psychology, 135(4), 357-367. doi: 10.1037/apl0000494 URL
[80]	Sun, J., Li, W. D., Li, Y., Liden, R. C., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 250-267.
[81]	Thomann, E., & Maggetti, M. (2020). Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 356-386. doi: 10.1348/096317910X502359 URL
[82]	Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300. doi: 10.1037/a0037756 pmid: 25151463
[83]	Tucker, S., & Turner, N. (2015). Sometimes it hurts when supervisors don’t listen: The antecedents and consequences of safety voice among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 72-81.
[84]	Wang, H., & Zhang, Q. (2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the effects of feeling trusted from supervisor, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World, (8), 110-188. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125 pmid: 18211140
	[王红丽, 张筌钧. (2016). 被信任的代价:员工感知上级信任、角色负荷、工作压力与情绪耗竭的影响关系研究. 管理世界, (8), 110-188.]
[85]	Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 125-139. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305 URL
[86]	Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. doi: 10.1177/1094428117752467 URL
[87]	Woo, S. E., Jebb, A. T., Tay, L., & Parrigon, S. (2018). Putting the “person” in the center: Review and synthesis of person-centered approaches and methods in organizational science. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 814-845. doi: 10.1111/apps.2005.54.issue-2 URL
[88]	Wood, R. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation research in IO psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 192-198.
[89]	Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2018). Action regulation theory:Foundations, current knowledge and future directions. In AndersonN., OnesD. S., ViswesvaranC., & SinangilH. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work, & organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 122-143). New York: Sage. doi: 10.1002/job.v40.1 URL
[90]	Zacher, H., Schmitt, A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Rudolph, C. W. (2019). Dynamic effects of personal initiative on engagement and exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 38-58.
[91]	Zhang, M., & Du, Y. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in management and organization research: Position, tactics, and directions. Chinese Journal of Management, 16(9), 1312-1323.
	[张明, 杜运周. (2019). 组织与管理研究中QCA方法的应用:定位, 策略和方向. 管理学报, 16(9), 1312-1323.]
[92]	Zhang, W., & Wang, H. (2009). The consideration of long-term consequences, the behavior of the spirit of self-sacrifice and the behavior of leaders’ empowerment: The moderating effect of the uncertainty of environment. Management World, (6), 115-123.
	[张文慧, 王辉. (2009). 长期结果考量、自我牺牲精神与领导授权赋能行为:环境不确定性的调节作用. 管理世界, (6), 115-123.]

前因条件	锚点
前因条件	完全隶属	交叉点	完全不隶属
预想	6.58	5.53	4.47
计划	6.45	5.44	4.44
实施	5.88	4.70	3.51
反思	6.37	5.27	4.18
工作绩效	6.83	5.86	4.89
情绪耗竭	4.12	2.79	1.46
环境不确定性	6.46	5.34	4.21
感知的领导信任	5.88	4.89	3.90

前因条件	锚点
前因条件	完全隶属	交叉点	完全不隶属
预想	6.58	5.53	4.47
计划	6.45	5.44	4.44
实施	5.88	4.70	3.51
反思	6.37	5.27	4.18
工作绩效	6.83	5.86	4.89
情绪耗竭	4.12	2.79	1.46
环境不确定性	6.46	5.34	4.21
感知的领导信任	5.88	4.89	3.90

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. 积极主动人格	5.24	0.84	(0.84)
2. 神经质人格	3.23	1.10	−0.25^**	(0.65)
3. 预想	5.53	1.06	0.63^**	−0.21^**	(0.89)
4. 计划	5.44	1.00	0.65^**	−0.22^**	0.76^**	(0.89)
5. 实施	4.70	1.19	0.59^**	−0.14^**	0.64^**	0.68^**	(0.93)
6. 反思	5.27	1.09	0.55^**	−0.19^**	0.68^**	0.72^**	0.63^**	(0.92)
7. 感知到的领导信任	4.89	0.99	0.50^**	−0.17^**	0.45^**	0.46^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	(0.88)
8. 环境不确定性	5.34	1.12	0.48^**	−0.09	0.50^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.43^**	0.36^**	(0.88)
9. 工作绩效	5.86	0.97	0.46^**	−0.13^*	0.45^**	0.45^**	0.43^**	0.45^**	0.36^**	0.27^**	(0.94)
10. 情绪耗竭	2.79	1.33	−0.16^**	0.34^**	−0.22^**	−0.21^**	−0.12^*	−0.21^**	−0.27^**	−0.15^**	−0.13^*	(0.97)
11. 组态1a (2a)：高预想、高计划、高实施、高反思	0.26	0.44	0.50^***	−0.18^***	0.58^**	0.60^**	0.72^**	0.62^**	0.32^**	0.36^**	0.43^**	−0.16^**
12. 组态 1b (2c)：低预想、低计划、低实施、低反思	0.30	0.46	−0.42^**	0.19^**	−0.68^**	−0.62^**	−0.48^**	−0.60^**	−0.30^**	−0.35^**	−0.44^**	0.21^**	−0.38^**
13. 组态1c (2d)：低预想、低计划、高实施、低反思	0.05	0.21	−0.03	0.09	−0.09	−0.11^*	0.07	−0.10	−0.04	−0.05	0.12^*	0.00	−0.13^*	−0.14^**
14. 组态 1d：高预想、高计划、低实施、高反思	0.08	0.27	0.13^*	−0.07	0.21^**	0.23^**	−0.11*	0.22^**	0.12^*	0.09	0.02	−0.12^*	−0.17^**	−0.18^**	−0.06
15. 组态 2b：高预想、高计划、高反思、高环境不确定性	0.26	0.44	0.48^**	−0.16^**	0.53^**	0.55^**	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.34^**	0.54^**	0.40^**	−0.15^**	0.74^**	−0.37^**	−0.13^*	0.23^**
16. 组态 2e：高预想、高计划、高反思、高感知到的领导信任	0.27	0.45	0.52^**	−0.25^**	0.58^**	0.61^**	0.51^**	0.60^**	0.59^**	0.36^**	0.37^**	−0.31^**	0.71^**	−0.39^**	−0.13^**	0.35^**	0.73^**

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. 积极主动人格	5.24	0.84	(0.84)
2. 神经质人格	3.23	1.10	−0.25^**	(0.65)
3. 预想	5.53	1.06	0.63^**	−0.21^**	(0.89)
4. 计划	5.44	1.00	0.65^**	−0.22^**	0.76^**	(0.89)
5. 实施	4.70	1.19	0.59^**	−0.14^**	0.64^**	0.68^**	(0.93)
6. 反思	5.27	1.09	0.55^**	−0.19^**	0.68^**	0.72^**	0.63^**	(0.92)
7. 感知到的领导信任	4.89	0.99	0.50^**	−0.17^**	0.45^**	0.46^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	(0.88)
8. 环境不确定性	5.34	1.12	0.48^**	−0.09	0.50^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.43^**	0.36^**	(0.88)
9. 工作绩效	5.86	0.97	0.46^**	−0.13^*	0.45^**	0.45^**	0.43^**	0.45^**	0.36^**	0.27^**	(0.94)
10. 情绪耗竭	2.79	1.33	−0.16^**	0.34^**	−0.22^**	−0.21^**	−0.12^*	−0.21^**	−0.27^**	−0.15^**	−0.13^*	(0.97)
11. 组态1a (2a)：高预想、高计划、高实施、高反思	0.26	0.44	0.50^***	−0.18^***	0.58^**	0.60^**	0.72^**	0.62^**	0.32^**	0.36^**	0.43^**	−0.16^**
12. 组态 1b (2c)：低预想、低计划、低实施、低反思	0.30	0.46	−0.42^**	0.19^**	−0.68^**	−0.62^**	−0.48^**	−0.60^**	−0.30^**	−0.35^**	−0.44^**	0.21^**	−0.38^**
13. 组态1c (2d)：低预想、低计划、高实施、低反思	0.05	0.21	−0.03	0.09	−0.09	−0.11^*	0.07	−0.10	−0.04	−0.05	0.12^*	0.00	−0.13^*	−0.14^**
14. 组态 1d：高预想、高计划、低实施、高反思	0.08	0.27	0.13^*	−0.07	0.21^**	0.23^**	−0.11*	0.22^**	0.12^*	0.09	0.02	−0.12^*	−0.17^**	−0.18^**	−0.06
15. 组态 2b：高预想、高计划、高反思、高环境不确定性	0.26	0.44	0.48^**	−0.16^**	0.53^**	0.55^**	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.34^**	0.54^**	0.40^**	−0.15^**	0.74^**	−0.37^**	−0.13^*	0.23^**
16. 组态 2e：高预想、高计划、高反思、高感知到的领导信任	0.27	0.45	0.52^**	−0.25^**	0.58^**	0.61^**	0.51^**	0.60^**	0.59^**	0.36^**	0.37^**	−0.31^**	0.71^**	−0.39^**	−0.13^**	0.35^**	0.73^**

前因条件	结果
	高工作绩效	低工作绩效	高情绪耗竭	低情绪耗竭
	组态1a	组态1b	组态1c	组态1d
预想	●	⊗	⊗	●
计划	●	⊗	⊗	●
实施	●	⊗	●	⊗
反思	●	⊗	⊗	●
一致性(Consistency)	0.85	0.80	0.82	0.81
原始覆盖度 (Raw Coverage)	0.48	0.54	0.23	0.20
净覆盖度 (Unique Coverage)	0.48	0.54	0.23	0.20
整体一致性 (Overall Solution Consistency)	0.85	0.80	0.82	0.81
整体覆盖度 (Overall Solution Coverage)	0.48	0.54	0.23	0.20