心理学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (10): 1401-1416.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01401
收稿日期:
2023-09-18
发布日期:
2024-07-10
出版日期:
2024-10-25
通讯作者:
刘伟鹏, E-mail: wpliu666@163.com;基金资助:
JIA Jianfeng1,2,3, LIU Weipeng1(), DUAN Jinyun4(), ZHAO Yang1
Received:
2023-09-18
Online:
2024-07-10
Published:
2024-10-25
摘要:
在强调激活个体及其自主性的背景下, 授权的作用和意义日益凸显, 然而员工如何看待同事被授权的问题仍然没有得到完整的回答。基于社会比较理论, 本研究从旁观者视角出发, 探讨了不同程序公平感的员工在面对同事被授权时会产生何种情绪(妒忌vs.钦佩; 研究1和研究2)和行为反应(研究2和研究3)。研究1采用情景实验(N = 238), 结果表明, 当程序公平感低时, 同事被授权和程序公平感交互对妒忌具有正向影响; 当程序公平感高时, 同事被授权和程序公平感交互对钦佩具有正向影响。研究2采用基于三时点的实地问卷调查(N = 306), 研究3采用经验取样法(N = 1258), 不仅再次验证了研究1的结果, 还发现妒忌与职场排斥正相关, 钦佩与观察学习正相关, 并且妒忌和钦佩分别在交互项对结果变量(排斥和学习)的影响中起中介作用。研究结论为领导者正确认识授权提供了参考和借鉴。
中图分类号:
贾建锋, 刘伟鹏, 段锦云, 赵洋. (2024). 妒忌还是钦佩: 员工对同事被授权的心理与行为反应. 心理学报, 56(10), 1401-1416.
JIA Jianfeng, LIU Weipeng, DUAN Jinyun, ZHAO Yang. (2024). Envy or admiration: Employees’ psychological and behavioral reactions to colleagues being empowered. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1401-1416.
模型 | 模型构成 | χ2/ df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL | 1.73 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.05 |
五因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL | 3.42 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.09 |
四因子模型 | CBE, PJ+DJ+QP, OB, OL | 6.05 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.13 |
三因子模型 | CBE +OL, PJ+DJ+QP, OB | 8.39 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.16 |
二因子模型 | CBE +OB+OL, PJ+DJ+QP | 11.31 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.18 |
单因子模型 | CBE +PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL | 16.64 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 0.23 |
表1 验证性因子分析结果(研究2, N = 306)
模型 | 模型构成 | χ2/ df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL | 1.73 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.05 |
五因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL | 3.42 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.09 |
四因子模型 | CBE, PJ+DJ+QP, OB, OL | 6.05 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.13 |
三因子模型 | CBE +OL, PJ+DJ+QP, OB | 8.39 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.16 |
二因子模型 | CBE +OB+OL, PJ+DJ+QP | 11.31 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.18 |
单因子模型 | CBE +PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL | 16.64 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 0.23 |
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1性别 | — | — | |||||||||||||
2年龄 | 31.48 | 6.88 | 0.01 | ||||||||||||
3学历 | 2.34 | 0.58 | 0.10 | −0.31*** | |||||||||||
4工作时间 | 5.44 | 5.68 | −0.01 | 0.74*** | −0.24*** | ||||||||||
5与目标同事共事时间 | 3.27 | 2.83 | −0.11 | 0.48*** | −0.14* | 0.59*** | |||||||||
6企业性质 | 2.90 | 1.39 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||||
7领导成员交换社会比较 | 5.49 | 0.61 | 0.05 | −0.06 | 0.02 | −0.13* | −0.17** | −0.03 | (0.86) | ||||||
8同事被授权 | 5.56 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.09 | −0.10 | −0.18** | −0.13* | 0.38*** | (0.94) | |||||
9程序公平感 | 4.80 | 0.85 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.15* | (0.93) | ||||
10妒忌 | 2.80 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.23*** | −0.03 | 0.33*** | 0.28*** | −0.33*** | (0.89) | |||
11钦佩 | 5.13 | 0.85 | 0.06 | 0.00 | −0.04 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.02 | 0.11 | 0.34*** | 0.56*** | −0.14* | (0.89) | ||
12职场排斥 | 2.52 | 0.74 | 0.05 | −0.00 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.18** | −0.20** | 0.30*** | 0.54*** | −0.21*** | 0.38*** | −0.05 | (0.92) | |
13观察学习 | 5.36 | 0.80 | −0.04 | −0.00 | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.13* | 0.42*** | −0.14* | 0.46*** | −0.08 | (0.81) |
表2 描述性统计和相关分析(研究2, N = 306)
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1性别 | — | — | |||||||||||||
2年龄 | 31.48 | 6.88 | 0.01 | ||||||||||||
3学历 | 2.34 | 0.58 | 0.10 | −0.31*** | |||||||||||
4工作时间 | 5.44 | 5.68 | −0.01 | 0.74*** | −0.24*** | ||||||||||
5与目标同事共事时间 | 3.27 | 2.83 | −0.11 | 0.48*** | −0.14* | 0.59*** | |||||||||
6企业性质 | 2.90 | 1.39 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||||
7领导成员交换社会比较 | 5.49 | 0.61 | 0.05 | −0.06 | 0.02 | −0.13* | −0.17** | −0.03 | (0.86) | ||||||
8同事被授权 | 5.56 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.09 | −0.10 | −0.18** | −0.13* | 0.38*** | (0.94) | |||||
9程序公平感 | 4.80 | 0.85 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.15* | (0.93) | ||||
10妒忌 | 2.80 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.23*** | −0.03 | 0.33*** | 0.28*** | −0.33*** | (0.89) | |||
11钦佩 | 5.13 | 0.85 | 0.06 | 0.00 | −0.04 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.02 | 0.11 | 0.34*** | 0.56*** | −0.14* | (0.89) | ||
12职场排斥 | 2.52 | 0.74 | 0.05 | −0.00 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.18** | −0.20** | 0.30*** | 0.54*** | −0.21*** | 0.38*** | −0.05 | (0.92) | |
13观察学习 | 5.36 | 0.80 | −0.04 | −0.00 | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.13* | 0.42*** | −0.14* | 0.46*** | −0.08 | (0.81) |
变量 | 妒忌(M1-M3) | 钦佩(M4-M6) | 职场排斥(M7-M8) | 观察学习(M9-M10) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | M10 | ||||||
控制变量 | |||||||||||||||
性别 | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.06 | |||||
年龄 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.05 | −0.06 | −0.10 | |||||
学历 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.05 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.00 | |||||
工作时间 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.14 | −0.13 | −0.11 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.11 | |||||
与目标同事共事时间 | −0.26*** | −0.20** | −0.16* | 0.01 | −0.01 | −0.06 | −0.18** | −0.11 | 0.06 | 0.05 | |||||
企业性质 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.00 | −0.18** | −0.18** | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||||
领导成员交换社会比较 | 0.30*** | 0.21*** | 0.22*** | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.27*** | 0.18** | 0.08 | 0.03 | |||||
自变量 | |||||||||||||||
同事被授权 | 0.21*** | 0.13* | 0.23*** | 0.32*** | |||||||||||
中介变量 | |||||||||||||||
妒忌 | 0.29*** | ||||||||||||||
钦佩 | 0.48*** | ||||||||||||||
调节变量 | |||||||||||||||
程序公平感 | −0.33*** | −0.28*** | 0.53*** | 0.47*** | |||||||||||
交互项 | |||||||||||||||
同事被授权×程序公平感 | −0.23*** | 0.27*** | |||||||||||||
R² | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.23 | |||||
ΔR² | — | 0.12 | 0.04 | — | 0.37 | 0.06 | — | 0.07 | — | 0.22 | |||||
F | 8.43*** | 13.13*** | 14.37*** | 1.10 | 21.04*** | 24.00*** | 7.46*** | 10.49*** | 0.44 | 11.09*** |
表3 阶层回归结果(研究2, N = 306)
变量 | 妒忌(M1-M3) | 钦佩(M4-M6) | 职场排斥(M7-M8) | 观察学习(M9-M10) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | M10 | ||||||
控制变量 | |||||||||||||||
性别 | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.06 | |||||
年龄 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.05 | −0.06 | −0.10 | |||||
学历 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.05 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.00 | |||||
工作时间 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.14 | −0.13 | −0.11 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.11 | |||||
与目标同事共事时间 | −0.26*** | −0.20** | −0.16* | 0.01 | −0.01 | −0.06 | −0.18** | −0.11 | 0.06 | 0.05 | |||||
企业性质 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.00 | −0.18** | −0.18** | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||||
领导成员交换社会比较 | 0.30*** | 0.21*** | 0.22*** | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.27*** | 0.18** | 0.08 | 0.03 | |||||
自变量 | |||||||||||||||
同事被授权 | 0.21*** | 0.13* | 0.23*** | 0.32*** | |||||||||||
中介变量 | |||||||||||||||
妒忌 | 0.29*** | ||||||||||||||
钦佩 | 0.48*** | ||||||||||||||
调节变量 | |||||||||||||||
程序公平感 | −0.33*** | −0.28*** | 0.53*** | 0.47*** | |||||||||||
交互项 | |||||||||||||||
同事被授权×程序公平感 | −0.23*** | 0.27*** | |||||||||||||
R² | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.23 | |||||
ΔR² | — | 0.12 | 0.04 | — | 0.37 | 0.06 | — | 0.07 | — | 0.22 | |||||
F | 8.43*** | 13.13*** | 14.37*** | 1.10 | 21.04*** | 24.00*** | 7.46*** | 10.49*** | 0.44 | 11.09*** |
程序公平感 | β | s.e. | 95%置信区间 | 结果 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
同事被授权→妒忌→职场排斥 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.065 | 0.017 | 不显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.030 | 0.109 | 显著 |
Index值 | −0.05 | 0.02 | −0.087 | −0.021 | 显著 |
差异 | −0.08 | 0.03 | −0.147 | −0.035 | 显著 |
同事被授权→钦佩→观察学习 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.152 | 0.334 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.040 | 0.070 | 不显著 |
Index值 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.067 | 0.200 | 显著 |
差异 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.115 | 0.345 | 显著 |
表4 妒忌和钦佩在程序公平感不同水平下的中介效应(研究2, N = 306)
程序公平感 | β | s.e. | 95%置信区间 | 结果 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
同事被授权→妒忌→职场排斥 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.065 | 0.017 | 不显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.030 | 0.109 | 显著 |
Index值 | −0.05 | 0.02 | −0.087 | −0.021 | 显著 |
差异 | −0.08 | 0.03 | −0.147 | −0.035 | 显著 |
同事被授权→钦佩→观察学习 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.152 | 0.334 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.040 | 0.070 | 不显著 |
Index值 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.067 | 0.200 | 显著 |
差异 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.115 | 0.345 | 显著 |
模型 | 模型构成 | χ2 | df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL | 3469.22 | 540 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.07 |
五因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL | 6963.33 | 545 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.10 |
四因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 9610.36 | 549 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.12 |
三因子模型 | CBE+PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 11137.70 | 552 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.12 |
二因子模型 | CBE+PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 20278.05 | 595 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.17 |
单因子模型 | CBE+PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL | 26590.497 | 555 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.19 |
表5 验证性因子分析结果(研究3, N = 1258)
模型 | 模型构成 | χ2 | df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL | 3469.22 | 540 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.07 |
五因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL | 6963.33 | 545 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.10 |
四因子模型 | CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 9610.36 | 549 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.12 |
三因子模型 | CBE+PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 11137.70 | 552 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.12 |
二因子模型 | CBE+PJ, DJ+QP, OB+OL | 20278.05 | 595 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.17 |
单因子模型 | CBE+PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL | 26590.497 | 555 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.19 |
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
个体内(Level 1)变量 | |||||||||
1 同事被授权 | 5.00 | 1.32 | (0.90) | ||||||
2 程序公平感 | 5.15 | 1.27 | 0.59*** | (0.95) | |||||
3 妒忌 | 2.53 | 0.86 | 0.25 | −0.15*** | (0.80) | ||||
4 钦佩 | 5.26 | 1.23 | 0.40*** | 0.25*** | 0.02 | (0.91) | |||
5 职场排斥 | 2.01 | 1.07 | 0.05 | −0.03 | 0.26*** | −0.02 | (0.96) | ||
6 观察学习 | 4.00 | 1.58 | 0.25*** | 0.10*** | 0.30*** | 0.32*** | 0.11*** | (0.90) | |
个体间(Level 2)变量 | |||||||||
1 性别 | — | — | |||||||
2 年龄 | 31.77 | 4.75 | −0.13 | ||||||
3 学历 | 2.49 | 0.55 | −0.03 | −0.09 | |||||
4 工作时间 | 7.67 | 5.34 | −0.06 | 0.89*** | −0.26*** | ||||
5 与目标同事共事时间 | 2.89 | 2.53 | −0.01 | 0.43*** | −0.15 | 0.46*** | |||
6 企业性质 | 2.60 | 1.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.06 | −0.04 | ||
7 领导成员交换社会比较 | 4.16 | 1.24 | −0.09 | −0.04 | −0.20 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.01 | |
8 同事关系 | 5.49 | 0.87 | 0.07 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.08 | 0.04 | −0.11 | 0.18* |
表6 描述性统计和相关分析(研究3, N=1258)
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
个体内(Level 1)变量 | |||||||||
1 同事被授权 | 5.00 | 1.32 | (0.90) | ||||||
2 程序公平感 | 5.15 | 1.27 | 0.59*** | (0.95) | |||||
3 妒忌 | 2.53 | 0.86 | 0.25 | −0.15*** | (0.80) | ||||
4 钦佩 | 5.26 | 1.23 | 0.40*** | 0.25*** | 0.02 | (0.91) | |||
5 职场排斥 | 2.01 | 1.07 | 0.05 | −0.03 | 0.26*** | −0.02 | (0.96) | ||
6 观察学习 | 4.00 | 1.58 | 0.25*** | 0.10*** | 0.30*** | 0.32*** | 0.11*** | (0.90) | |
个体间(Level 2)变量 | |||||||||
1 性别 | — | — | |||||||
2 年龄 | 31.77 | 4.75 | −0.13 | ||||||
3 学历 | 2.49 | 0.55 | −0.03 | −0.09 | |||||
4 工作时间 | 7.67 | 5.34 | −0.06 | 0.89*** | −0.26*** | ||||
5 与目标同事共事时间 | 2.89 | 2.53 | −0.01 | 0.43*** | −0.15 | 0.46*** | |||
6 企业性质 | 2.60 | 1.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.06 | −0.04 | ||
7 领导成员交换社会比较 | 4.16 | 1.24 | −0.09 | −0.04 | −0.20 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.01 | |
8 同事关系 | 5.49 | 0.87 | 0.07 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.08 | 0.04 | −0.11 | 0.18* |
程序公平感 | β | s.e. | 95%置信区间 | 结果 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
同事被授权→妒忌→职场排斥 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.017 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 显著 |
差异 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.015 | −0.000 | 显著 |
同事被授权→钦佩→观察学习 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.083 | 0.169 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.036 | 0.087 | 显著 |
差异 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.039 | 0.091 | 显著 |
表7 妒忌和钦佩在程序公平感不同水平下的中介效应(研究3, N = 1258)
程序公平感 | β | s.e. | 95%置信区间 | 结果 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
下限 | 上限 | ||||
同事被授权→妒忌→职场排斥 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.017 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 显著 |
差异 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.015 | −0.000 | 显著 |
同事被授权→钦佩→观察学习 | |||||
高(+1 SD) | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.083 | 0.169 | 显著 |
低(−1 SD) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.036 | 0.087 | 显著 |
差异 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.039 | 0.091 | 显著 |
[1] |
Ahearne M., Mathieu J., & Rapp A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955.
pmid: 16162066 |
[2] | Aiken L. S., & West S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Inc. |
[3] | Bandura A., & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. |
[4] |
Blader S. L., & Tyler T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464.
doi: 10.1037/a0013935 pmid: 19271800 |
[5] | Breidenthal A. P., Liu D., Bai Y., & Mao Y. (2020). The dark side of creativity: Coworker envy and ostracism as a response to employee creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 242-254. |
[6] | Brislin R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. |
[7] | Buunk A. P., & Gibbons F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3-21. |
[8] |
Buunk B. P., Collins R. L., Taylor S. E., VanYperen N. W., & Dakof G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1238-1249.
pmid: 2283590 |
[9] |
Campbell E. M., Liao H., Chuang A., Zhou J., & Dong Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000183 pmid: 28191991 |
[10] |
Chen G., Sharma P. N., Edinger S. K., Shapiro D. L., & Farh J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541-557.
doi: 10.1037/a0021886 pmid: 21171730 |
[11] |
Chen M., Chen C. C., & Sheldon O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082-1096.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000111 pmid: 27100068 |
[12] | Chen S. M., Wu B. P., Fang J., Sun P. Z., Gao L., Xiong H. X., & Zheng X. (2011). Admiration: A positive emotion of witnessing excellence and emulating. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(11), 1667-1674. |
[陈世民, 吴宝沛, 方杰, 孙配贞, 高良, 熊红星, 郑雪. (2011). 钦佩感: 一种见贤思齐的积极情绪. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1667-1674.] | |
[13] | Chen X. P., & Peng S. (2008). Guanxi dynamics: Shifts in the closeness of ties between Chinese coworkers. Management and Organization Review, 4(1), 63-80. |
[14] | Cheong M., Spain S. M., Yammarino F. J., & Yun S. (2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602-616. |
[15] | Cheong M., Yammarino F. J., Dionne S. D., Spain S. M., & Tsai C. Y. (2019). A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 34-58. |
[16] | Cohen‐Charash Y. (2009). Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2128-2173. |
[17] | Collins R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51-69. |
[18] |
Cremer D. D., Knippenberg B. V., Knippenberg D. V., Mullenders D., & Stinglhamber F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 3-12.
pmid: 15641886 |
[19] |
Ferris D. L., Brown D. J., Berry J. W., & Lian H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366.
doi: 10.1037/a0012743 pmid: 19025252 |
[20] |
Ganegoda D. B., & Bordia P. (2019). I can be happy for you, but not all the time: A contingency model of envy and positive empathy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 776-795.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000377 pmid: 30556706 |
[21] | Gardner R. G., Harris T. B., Li N., Kirkman B. L., & Mathieu J. E. (2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 610-638. |
[22] | Greenberg J. (2011). Organizational justice:The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 272-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. |
[23] | Halevy N. Y., Chou E., & Galinsky A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32-52. |
[24] | Hao P., He W., & Long L. R. (2018). Why and when empowering leadership has different effects on employee work performance: The pivotal roles of passion for work and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(1), 85-100. |
[25] | Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, And Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. |
[26] | Immordino-Yang M. H., McColl A., Damasio H., & Damasio A. (2009). Neural correlates of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 8021-8026. |
[27] |
Kim M., & Beehr T. A. (2020). The long reach of the leader: Can empowering leadership at work result in enriched home lives? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(3), 203-213.
doi: 10.1037/ocp0000177 pmid: 31999139 |
[28] | Koivisto S., Lipponen J., & Platow M. J. (2013). Organizational and supervisory justice effects on experienced threat during change: The moderating role of leader in-group representativeness. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 595-607. |
[29] | Lee K., & Duffy M. K. (2019). A functional model of workplace envy and job performance: When do employees capitalize on envy by learning from envied targets? Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1085-1110. |
[30] | Li N., Chiaburu D. S., & Kirkman B. L. (2017). Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076-1102. |
[31] | Ma J., Wang H. P., & Yan J. N. (2022). A jump is possible: When does envy of star employees make colleagues resentful and when does it inspire them to improve? Journal of Industrial Engineering, 36(3), 40-50. |
[马君, 王慧平, 闫嘉妮. (2022). 跳一跳够得着: 妒忌公司明星何时引发阻抑何时催人奋进? 管理工程学报, 36(3), 40-50.] | |
[32] | Marescaux E., De Winne S., & Rofcanin Y. (2021). Co-worker reactions to i-deals through the lens of social comparison: The role of fairness and emotions. Human Relations, 74(3), 329-353. |
[33] | Niehoff B. P., & Moorman R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556. |
[34] | Pan J., Zheng X., Xu H., Li J., & Lam C. K. (2021). What if my coworker builds a better LMX? The roles of envy and coworker pride for the relationships of LMX social comparison with learning and undermining. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1144-1167. |
[35] |
Podsakoff P. M., Mackenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251 |
[36] | Schilpzand P., Houston L., & Cho J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next- morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2367-2387. |
[37] | Schindler I. (2014). Relations of admiration and adoration with other emotions and well-being. Psychology of Well-being, 4(1), 1-23. |
[38] |
Smith R. H., & Kim S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46-64.
pmid: 17201570 |
[39] | Song Q., & Chen Y. (2021). The impact of the fit between needed and received empowering leadership on followers’ job-related outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 890-903. |
[宋琪, 陈扬. (2021). 需求和接受的授权型领导匹配对下属工作结果的影响: 情绪耗竭的中介作用. 心理学报, 53(8), 890-903.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00890 |
|
[40] |
Song Q., Ren Q., Chen Y., & Ren Y. (2023). The double-edged sword effect of employee personal initiative behavior on coworker relationships: The moderating role of the employee warmth trait. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(12), 2013-2034.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013 |
[宋琪, 任琪琪, 陈扬, 任迎伟. (2023). 员工主动行为对同事关系的双刃剑效应: 员工热情特质的调节作用. 心理学报, 55(12), 2013-2034.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013 |
|
[41] | 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. |
[42] |
Taylor S. E., & Lobel M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96(4), 569-575.
pmid: 2678204 |
[43] | Tse H. H., Lam C. K., Gu J., & Lin X. S. (2018). Examining the interpersonal process and consequence of leader- member exchange comparison: The role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 922-940. |
[44] |
Van Dijke M., De Cremer D., & Mayer D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 488-502.
doi: 10.1037/a0018921 pmid: 20476828 |
[45] |
Van Kleef G. A., Steinel W., & Homan A. C. (2013). On being peripheral and paying attention: Prototypicality and information processing in intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 63-79.
doi: 10.1037/a0030988 pmid: 23205495 |
[46] | Van Knippenberg D., De Cremer D., & Van Knippenberg B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 113-140. |
[47] |
Vidyarthi P. R., Liden R. C., Anand S., Erdogan B., & Ghosh S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849-861.
doi: 10.1037/a0020033 pmid: 20718513 |
[48] | Wang H. L., & Sun J. M. (2018). Empowering leadership and employee innovative behavior: The moderating effect of structural formalization. Journal of Management Science, 31(3), 29-39. |
[王宏蕾, 孙健敏. (2018). 授权型领导与员工创新行为: 结构正式化的调节作用. 管理科学, 31(3), 29-39.] | |
[49] | Wang L. L., Long L. R., & Zhang Y. (2021). The relationship between newcomers’i-deals and coworkers’ostracism and self-improvement: The mediating role of envy and the moderating role of organizational overall justice. Management Review, 33(8), 234-244. |
[王林琳, 龙立荣, 张勇. (2021). 新员工个别协议对同事职场排斥和自我完善的影响: 妒忌与整体公正感的作用. 管理评论, 33(8), 234-244.] | |
[50] | Watkins T. (2021). Workplace interpersonal capitalization: Employee reactions to coworker positive event disclosures. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 537-561. |
[51] | Wen Z. L., Huang B. B., & Tang D. D. (2018). Preliminary work for modeling questionnaire data. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(1), 204-210. |
[温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹. (2018). 问卷数据建模的前传. 心理科学, 41(1), 204-210.] | |
[52] | Wu J. B., Tsui A. S., & Kinicki A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106. |
[53] | 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.] | |
[54] | Xia F. B. (2020). Analyzing third parties’ unethical reactions to organizational citizenship behavior of coworkers. Management Review, 32(1), 187-196. |
[夏福斌. (2020). “行高人非”: 旁观者不道德侵害“好公民”的原因及其机制探析. 管理评论, 32(1), 187-196.] | |
[55] | Zhang X., Lin Y., & Zhu D. (2018). The mechanism of ingratiation to colleagues on workplace ostracism: A study based on similarity attraction theory. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(9), 1319-1326. |
[张骁, 林颖, 朱頔. (2018). 基于相似吸引理论的逢迎同事策略对职场排斥的作用机制研究. 管理学报, 15(9), 1319-1326.] | |
[56] | Zhang Z. T., Zhao L. J., & Ding M. Z. (2020). Influence mechanism of empowering leadership on employees' taking charge behavior. Science Research Management, 41(10), 218-226. |
[张正堂, 赵李晶, 丁明智. (2020). 授权型领导对员工主动变革行为的影响机制. 科研管理, 41(10), 218-226.] | |
[57] | Zhong S. Q. (2016). Reviews of the study of empowering leadership. Talent Resources Development, (22), 61-62. |
[钟授全. (2016). 授权型领导研究综述. 人才资源开发, (22), 61-62.] | |
[58] |
Zhu Y., Xie J. P., Jin Y. H., & Shi J. Q. (2019). Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(7), 829-840.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829 |
[朱玥, 谢江佩, 金杨华, 施俊琦. (2019). 团队权力分布差异对团队冲突的影响: 程序公平和合法性的作用. 心理学报, 51(7), 829-840.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829 |
[1] | 栾墨, 李俊澎. 失败的游戏玩家, 成功的广告:展示失败体验会令观察者更想尝试吗?[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(12): 1562-1578. |
[2] | 姜平, 张丽华. 委屈可以求全吗?自我表现视角下职场排斥对个体绩效的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(4): 400-412. |
[3] | 邓昕才, 何山, 吕萍, 周星, 叶一娇, 孟洪林, 孔雨柔. 职场排斥对员工家庭的溢出效应:归属需求和工作家庭区隔偏好的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(10): 1146-1160. |
[4] | 宫秀双, 张红红. “别人家的孩子”vs.平庸的自己:社会比较对独特性寻求行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 645-658. |
[5] | 王天鸿, 陈宇琦, 陆静怡. 差距知觉的泛化效应:我和你之间的差距有多大?[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(11): 1327-1339. |
[6] | 王海波, 严鸣, 吴海波, 黎金荣, 王晓晖. 恶意报复还是认同驱动?新员工的角色社会化程度对其职场排斥行为的作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(1): 128-140. |
[7] | 宋晓蕾, 李洋洋, 杨倩, 游旭群. 反应手的不同状态对联合任务中观察学习的影响 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 975-984. |
[8] | 连帅磊, 孙晓军, 牛更枫, 周宗奎. 社交网站中的上行社会比较与抑郁的关系: 一个有调节的中介模型及性别差异[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 941-952. |
[9] | 刘文, 张雪, 张玉, 俞睿玮. 4~8岁儿童公平认知与行为差距: 社会比较的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1504-1512. |
[10] | 刘庆奇;牛更枫;范翠英;周宗奎. 被动性社交网站使用与自尊和自我概念清晰性:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(1): 60-71. |
[11] | 黄婷婷; 刘莉倩;王大华;张文海. 经济地位和计量地位:社会地位比较对主观幸福感的影响及其年龄差异[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1163-1174. |
[12] | 牛更枫;孙晓军;周宗奎;孔繁昌;田媛. 基于QQ空间的社交网站使用对青少年抑郁的影响:上行社会比较和自尊的序列中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1282-1291. |
[13] | 谢俊;严鸣. 积极应对还是逃避?主动性人格对职场排斥与组织公民行为的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1314-1325. |
[14] | 刘小禹;刘军;许浚;吴蓉蓉. 职场排斥对员工主动性行为的影响机制 ——基于自我验证理论的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 826-836. |
[15] | 郑晓莹;彭泗清;彭璐珞. “达”则兼济天下?社会比较对亲社会行为的影响及心理机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 243-250. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||