愿景沟通中负面反馈的解释水平对下属愿景追逐行为的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01417

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了让下属更好地接受并追逐愿景, 领导会在与下属的愿景沟通中有意进行负面反馈。然而, 领导应如何通过调整负面反馈的措辞策略, 来提高愿景沟通的效果尚不明确。基于幻想实现理论开展了情景实验(研究1, N = 76)及问卷调查(研究2, N = 301; 研究3, N = 619), 结果一致表明, 愿景沟通中领导的负面反馈解释水平能够通过下属的愿景实现期望进而影响其愿景追逐行为, 同时这一中介机制被组织经营状态调节。当组织处于顺境中, 领导在采取负面反馈时应该采用较低的解释水平, 而当组织处于逆境中则应采取较高的解释水平, 这样能使负面反馈发挥出最佳效果。研究结论有助于揭示愿景沟通中负面反馈的解释水平对下属愿景认知与行为反应的作用机制, 为领导者如何在与下属的愿景沟通中有效开展负面反馈提供了实践启示。

关键词: 愿景沟通, 负面反馈, 解释水平, 愿景追逐行为, 幻想实现理论

Abstract:

The presence of negative feedback in vision communication is quite common in managerial practices and has increasingly garnered scholarly attention in recent years. However, prior investigations into this domain remain in their infancy. While some studies suggest that subordinates might lower their goal expectations after receiving negative feedback, there is also evidence suggesting that such feedback can motivate subordinates to enhance their performance. Consequently, the precise impact of negative feedback on subordinates’ perception of the leader’s vision remains unclear. To optimize the use of negative feedback, it is imperative to explore negative feedback strategies that are beneficial to subordinates’ vision expectations. The construal level of the message plays a pivotal role in shaping the receiver’s motivation and cognition. Drawing on fantasy realization theory, this study investigates the mechanisms through which the construal level of negative feedback in vision communication affects subordinates’ vision pursuit, particularly under favorable and unfavorable organizational conditions. This exploration aims to offer guidance for leaders to improve organizational communication.

To examine the influence of negative feedback’s construal level on subordinates’ vision pursuit, three studies were conducted. The first study employed a scenario experiment, involving 76 participants divided into four groups. Subjects were exposed to stimuli related to organizational conditions and leader’s speeches. In the second study, 301 participants completed surveys at two time points. At Time 1, they reported the construal level of negative feedback of their immediate superiors during vision communication and evaluated the organizational conditions. At Time 2, they reported their perceptions of vision expectations and vision pursuit. The third study involved a broader survey with 619 valid responses, using refined scales and a sample-split technique to minimize common method bias.

The results showed that: (1) For vision communication under favorable organizational conditions, the construal level of negative feedback had a negative relationship with subordinates’ vision expectations. (2) Under unfavorable organizational conditions, the construal level of negative feedback had a positive relationship with subordinates’ vision expectations. (3) The construal level of negative feedback further affected subordinates’ vision pursuit behavior through vision expectations. (4) This mediating effect is moderated by organizational conditions.

This study makes several contributions. First, it examines the influence of leaders’ negative feedback on subordinates’ expectations and behaviors through the lens of wording strategy, thereby advancing the research on negative feedback. Second, it explores the boundary conditions of negative feedback’s construal level in vision communication. By integrating negative feedback with vision communication, this study has built a theoretical bridge for the integration of multiple communication strategies. Additionally, this study extends the application of fantasy realization theory to workplace contexts.

Key words: vision communication, negative feedback, construal level, vision pursuit, fantasy realization theory

中图分类号:

B849: C93

赵晨, 林晨, 周锦来, 高中华. (2024). 愿景沟通中负面反馈的解释水平对下属愿景追逐行为的影响. 心理学报, 56(10), 1417-1430.

ZHAO Chen, LIN Chen, ZHOU Jinlai, GAO Zhonghua. (2024). The impact of the construal level of negative feedback in vision communication on subordinates’ vision pursuit. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1417-1430.

图/表 11

参考文献 43

[1]	Audia P., & Locke E. (2003). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource Management Review, 13(4), 631-646.
[2]	Berson Y., & Halevy N. (2014). Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 232-246.
[3]	Berson Y., Halevy N., Shamir B., & Erez M. (2015). Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 143-155.
[4]	Brockner J., & Higgins E. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66.
[5]	Fang C., Kim J., & Milliken F. (2014). When bad news is sugarcoated: Information distortion, organizational search and the behavioral theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1186-1201.
[6]	Fang J., Wen Z. L., & Wu Y. (2018). The analyses of multilevel moderation effects based on structural equation modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 781-788.
	[方杰, 温忠麟, 吴艳. (2018). 基于结构方程模型的多层调节效应. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 781-788.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00781
[7]	Fishbach A., Eyal T., & Finkelstein S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 517-530.
[8]	Gai X. S., Wang G. X., Oettingen G., & Gollwitzer M. P. (2016). Effects of mental contrasting on goal pursuit. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(3), 561-565.
	[盖笑松, 王国霞, Oettingen G., Gollwitzer M. P. (2016). 心理对照对目标追寻的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(3), 561-565.]
[9]	Gao Z., Liu Y., Zhao C., Fu Y., & Schriesheim C. (2024). Winter is coming: An investigation of vigilant leadership, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/apl0001175.
[10]	Hack A., & von Bieberstein F. (2014). How expectations affect reference point formation: An experimental investigation. Review of Managerial Science, 9(1), 33-59.
[11]	He X. G., Li J., Lv F. F., & Deng H. (2015). Analysis of opportunistic behavior in firms with good performance- Evidence from Chinese listed companies. China Industrial Economics, (5), 110-121.
	[贺小刚, 李婧, 吕斐斐, 邓浩. (2015). 绩优企业的投机经营行为分析——来自中国上市公司的数据检验. 中国工业经济, (5), 110-121.]
[12]	Hu J. C., & Li T. (2014). A review of the negative feedback research in the west. Human Resources Development of China, 315(21), 40-49.
	[胡君辰, 李涛. (2014). 西方负面反馈研究回顾与启示. 中国人力资源开发, 315(21), 40-49.]
[13]	Hu X., Chen Y., & Tian B. (2015). Feeling better about self after receiving negative feedback: When the sense that ability can be improved is activated. Journal of psychology, 150(1), 72-87.
[14]	Ilgen D., & Davis C. (2001). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 550-565.
[15]	Ilies R., De Pater I. E., & Judge T. (2007). Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(6), 590-609.
[16]	Kappes A., & Oettingen G. (2014). The emergence of goal pursuit: Mental contrasting connects future and reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 25-39.
[17]	Kim Y. J., & Kim J. (2020). Does negative feedback benefit (or harm) recipient creativity? The role of the direction of feedback flow. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 584-612.
[18]	Li S. X., Song A. J., & Duan J. Y. (2022). The influence of linguistic concreteness on advice taking: The role of gender. Psychological Research, 15(3), 230-235.
	[李思贤, 宋艾珈, 段锦云. (2022). 言语具体程度对建议采纳的影响: 性别的作用. 心理研究, 15(3), 230-235.]
[19]	Louro M., Pieters R., & Zeelenberg M. (2007). Dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 174-193. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.174 pmid: 17645394
[20]	Norman C., & Aron A. (2003). Aspects of possible self that predict motivation to achieve or avoid it. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 500-507.
[21]	Oettingen G. (1999). Free fantasies about the future and the emergence of developmental goals. In J. Brandstätter & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action and self-development: Theory and research through the life span (pp. 315-342). New York: Sage.
[22]	Oettingen G. (2012). Future thought and behavior change. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 1-63.
[23]	Oettingen G., & Mayer D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1198-1212. pmid: 12416922
[24]	Oettingen G., Mayer D., & Portnow S. (2016). Pleasure now, pain later: Positive fantasies about the future predict symptoms of depression. Psychological Science, 27(3), 345-353. doi: 10.1177/0956797615620783 pmid: 26825106
[25]	Oettingen G., Pak H., & Schnetter K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(5), 736-753. pmid: 11374746
[26]	Remus I., & Timothy A. J. (2005). Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453-467. pmid: 15910142
[27]	Roberts N., & Grover V. (2012). Leveraging information technology infrastructure to facilitate a firm’s customer agility and competitive activity: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(4), 231-270.
[28]	Rousseau D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 1-37.
[29]	Salancik G., & Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[30]	Stam D., Lord R., van Knippenberg D., & Wisse B. (2014). An image of who we might become: vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science, 25(4), 1172-1194.
[31]	Stam D., van Knippenberg D., & Wisse B. (2010a). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 499-518.
[32]	Stam D., van Knippenberg D., & Wisse B. (2010b). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 457-468.
[33]	Steelman L., & Rutkowski K. (2004). Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1), 6-18.
[34]	van Dijk D., & Kluger A. N. (2011). Task type as a moderator of positive/negative feedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1084-1105.
[35]	van Knippenberg D., & Stam D. (2014). Visionary leadership. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 241-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[36]	Venus M., Johnson R., Zhang S., Wang X. F., & Lanaj K. (2018). Seeing the big picture: A within-person examination of leader construal level and vision communication. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2666-2684.
[37]	Wan P. Y., Zheng J. W., & Zhang Z. D. (2023). Don’t let intimacy become burden: The double-edged effect of supervisor-subordinate emotional guanxi on breakthrough innovation. Journal of Psychological Science, 46(5), 1156-1163.
	[万鹏宇, 郑俊巍, 张振铎. (2023). 勿让亲密成为负担: 上下级情感关系对员工突破式创新的双刃剑作用. 心理科学, 46(5), 1156-1163.]
[38]	Wang H. Y., Tian H., & Xing H. W. (2018). Can corporate social responsibility reputation backfire? The research on consumer’s retaliation behavior in genetically modified product-harm crisis. Management Review, 30(12), 237-246.
	[王汉瑛, 田虹, 邢红卫. (2018). 企业会为名所累吗? ——基于转基因产品伤害危机中消费者报复行为的研究. 管理评论, 30(12), 237-246.]
[39]	Wiesenfeld B., Reyt J., Brockner J., & Trope Y. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 367-400.
[40]	Wu Y. Y., Peng L. L., Yan L. N., & Zhou N. (2019). Elegant advertising vs. popular advertising: Consumers’ attitudes towards different styles of advertising language. Nankai Business Review, 22(1), 213-224.
	[吴月燕, 彭璐珞, 严露娜, 周南. (2019). “阳春白雪”还是“下里巴人”——消费者对文雅和通俗广告语体的态度. 南开管理评论, 22(1), 213-224.]
[41]	Xing L., Sun J., & Jepsen D. (2021). Feeling shame in the workplace: Examining negative feedback as an antecedent and performance and well-being as consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1244-1260.
[42]	Xing L., Sun J. M., Jepsen D., & Zhang Y. (2023). Supervisor negative feedback and employee motivation to learn: An attribution perspective. Human Relations, 76(2), 310-340.
[43]	Zhao X. W., Yang T. R., Xiao J. C., & Liu X. M. (2023). When and why leader negative feedback facilitates employee proactive behavior: The critical role of leader- member exchange. Human Resources Development of China, 40(4), 94-106.
	[赵修文, 杨天然, 肖金岑, 刘雪梅. (2023). 领导负面反馈何以促进员工主动行为: 领导-成员二元互动关系的作用. 中国人力资源开发, 40(4), 94-106.]

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
团队层面
1. 解释水平	2.95	1.57	-
2. 组织经营状态	4.91	1.61	-0.22	-
个体层面
1. 性别	-	-	-
2. 年龄(岁)	36.57	7.19	-0.15^*	-
3. 教育程度	4.87	0.53	-0.04	-0.17^**	-
4. 工作年限	12.56	15.03	-0.08	0.41^***	-0.00	-
5. 与领导共事年限	4.27	3.86	0.13^*	0.29^***	-0.11^†	0.09	-
6. 愿景实现期望	5.61	1.22	0.05	0.11	-0.14^*	0.06	0.18^**	-
7. 愿景追逐行为	5.94	1.28	-0.10	0.15^**	-0.03	0.08	0.09	0.46^***

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
团队层面
1. 解释水平	2.95	1.57	-
2. 组织经营状态	4.91	1.61	-0.22	-
个体层面
1. 性别	-	-	-
2. 年龄(岁)	36.57	7.19	-0.15^*	-
3. 教育程度	4.87	0.53	-0.04	-0.17^**	-
4. 工作年限	12.56	15.03	-0.08	0.41^***	-0.00	-
5. 与领导共事年限	4.27	3.86	0.13^*	0.29^***	-0.11^†	0.09	-
6. 愿景实现期望	5.61	1.22	0.05	0.11	-0.14^*	0.06	0.18^**	-
7. 愿景追逐行为	5.94	1.28	-0.10	0.15^**	-0.03	0.08	0.09	0.46^***

变量	愿景实现期望		愿景追逐行为
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4
团队层面
解释水平	−0.09 (0.09)	−0.11^*(0.05)	−0.29^**(0.10)	−0.25^*(0.10)
组织经营状态	0.31^***(0.08)	0.40^***(0.05)	0.34^**(0.12)	0.19 (0.14)
解释水平×组织经营状态		−0.13^***(0.02)	−0.17^**(0.05)	−0.12^*(0.06)
个体层面
愿景实现期望				0.38^**(0.13)
性别	0.05 (0.09)	0.06 (0.09)	−0.18 (0.13)	−0.21^†(0.12)
年龄	0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)
教育	−0.08 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.10)	0.12 (0.11)	0.15 (0.11)
工作年限	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)
与领导共事年限	0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.02)	0.00 (0.02)
截距项	5.55^***(0.65)	5.39^***(0.66)	4.77^***(0.64)	2.75^***(0.69)

变量	愿景实现期望		愿景追逐行为
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4
团队层面
解释水平	−0.09 (0.09)	−0.11^*(0.05)	−0.29^**(0.10)	−0.25^*(0.10)
组织经营状态	0.31^***(0.08)	0.40^***(0.05)	0.34^**(0.12)	0.19 (0.14)
解释水平×组织经营状态		−0.13^***(0.02)	−0.17^**(0.05)	−0.12^*(0.06)
个体层面
愿景实现期望				0.38^**(0.13)
性别	0.05 (0.09)	0.06 (0.09)	−0.18 (0.13)	−0.21^†(0.12)
年龄	0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)
教育	−0.08 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.10)	0.12 (0.11)	0.15 (0.11)
工作年限	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)
与领导共事年限	0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.02)	0.00 (0.02)
截距项	5.55^***(0.65)	5.39^***(0.66)	4.77^***(0.64)	2.75^***(0.69)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
团队层面
1. 解释水平	1.84	0.96	-
2. 组织经营状态	5.19	1.15	-0.36^**	-
个体层面
1. 性别	-	-	-
2. 年龄(岁)	30.58	7.61	-0.02	-
3. 教育程度	1.81	0.82	-0.14^**	-0.06	-
4. 工作年限	4.21	4.30	-0.03	0.50^***	-0.04	-
5. 与领导共事年限	2.09	2.37	0.04	0.49^***	-0.10^*	0.54^***	-
6. 愿景实现期望	5.65	1.39	-0.00	-0.07^†	0.02	-0.12^**	-0.14^**	-
7. 愿景追逐行为	5.58	1.26	-0.08^*	0.01	0.04	-0.03	-0.11^**	0.54^***