为家所困还是弥补缺憾?负面家庭事件对有效领导行为的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00612

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

现有文献对负面家庭事件在个体内层次如何跨领域影响有效领导行为存在为家所困和弥补缺憾两种不一致的观点。本文引入跨领域领导身份认同理论, 通过两个经验取样法研究发现: 在个体内层次, 领导者经历的负面家庭事件一方面会产生为家所困效应, 通过自我耗竭降低领导身份认同和有效领导行为; 另一方面也会产生弥补缺憾效应, 通过弥补提高领导身份认同和有效领导行为。当领导者具有高外向性人格时, 在个体内层次, 领导者经历的负面家庭事件会提高领导身份认同, 促进有效领导行为。当领导者具有低外向性人格时, 在个体内层次, 领导者经历的负面家庭事件会降低领导身份认同, 减少有效领导行为。研究加深了对负面家庭事件如何影响有效领导行为的理解, 丰富了对外向性人格在领导力中作用的认识, 并拓展了领导身份认同的前因研究。

关键词: 负面家庭事件, 有效领导行为, 基本领导行为, 变革领导行为, 领导身份认同, 外向性人格

Abstract:

Negative family events and experiences have been major social problems in recent years due to the intersection and influence of technical, economic, and epidemic shocks. Negative family events influence leaders’ family domain and also have a cross-domain effect on leadership behaviors at work. However, there are two contradictory views on the relationship between negative family events and effective leadership behaviors. Some scholars claim a negative effect because of the depletion of leaders’ self-control resources, called the “trapped-by- family effect.” Others propose a positive effect owing to cross-domain compensation, called the “compensation effect.”
The inconsistency in existing literature prompts us to reconcile it using the theory of cross-domain leader identity. We argue that the influence of daily negative family events on leader identity and effective leadership behaviors depends on the leaders’ extraversion levels. Specifically, when leaders have higher levels of extraversion, the compensation effect will come into play; that is, daily negative family events will be positively associated with daily effective leadership behaviors by promoting daily leader identity. In contrast, when leaders have lower levels of extraversion, the trapped-by-family effect will play a role; that is, daily negative family events will be negatively associated with daily effective leadership behaviors by reducing daily leader identity.
To capture within-person variance and test our model, we conducted two experience sampling studies of middle managers across 10 consecutive workdays. In Study 1, participants were middle managers from three merchant banks in three cities. Before initiating the daily survey, participants were asked to complete a basic survey containing demographic questions and an extraversion personality inventory. After matching procedures, 461 observations from 67 managers were included in our final sample. Data analysis supported our hypotheses for both initial structure and transformational leadership that are typical effective leadership behaviors in the literature. In Study 2, we collected data from participants from different regions and industries, and the final sample included 307 observations from 42 managers. The data analysis results showed that negative family events did have both a trapped-by-family effect on leader identity and effective leadership behavior through ego-depletion and a compensation effect on leader identity and effective leadership behavior through compensation.
The theoretical contributions of this paper are fourfold. First, we integrate the inconsistent ideas of the relationship between negative family events and effective leadership behavior using the theory of cross-domain leader identity. We find that the levels of leaders’ extraversion play a vital role in deciding whether negative family events will have a trapped-by-family effect or a compensation effect on effective leadership behavior via leader identity. Second, unlike existing empirical studies, our findings suggest that negative family events will not always lead to negative leadership behaviors. At the within-person level, leaders with high levels of extraversion will exhibit more effective leadership behaviors at work after experiencing negative family events. Third, we extend the current research to further explore the effect of personality on leadership behaviors. Prior studies have suggested that extraversion assists leaders in handling the challenges of work, while we find that extraversion will also promote leaders to actively respond to negative family events by engaging in effective leadership behaviors. Fourth, we also contribute to leader identity studies by shifting its antecedents from work domain to family domain and by exploring the interactive effect of personal and situational factors on leader identity. The present study also provides practical guidance for organizations and leaders to cope with the challenge of negative family events and promote its potential positive effects.

Key words: negative family events, effective leadership behavior, initial structure, transformational leadership, leader identity, extraversion

中图分类号:

B849 C933

刘德鹏, 李珏兴, 张生军, 庞旭宏, 王政. (2024). 为家所困还是弥补缺憾?负面家庭事件对有效领导行为的影响. 心理学报, 56(5), 612-629.

LIU Depeng, LI Juexing, ZHANG Shengjun, PANG Xuhong, WANG Zheng. (2024). Trapped by family or compensated from work? The influence of daily negative family events on daily effective leadership behaviors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 612-629.

图/表 12

参考文献 82

[1]	Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 146-154. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.008 URL
[2]	Ashford, S. J., Lee, J. J., Sonday, L. A., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2016). The dynamics of leader identity and leadership behavior in organizations. Paper presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
[3]	Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83(1), 245-252.
[4]	Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy”: Leaders’ sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1419-1437. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.1063 URL
[5]	Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
[6]	Bataille, C. D., & Vough, H. C. (2022). More than the sum of my parts: An intrapersonal network approach to identity work in response to identity opportunities and threats. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 93-115. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0026 URL
[7]	Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., & Tice, D. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x URL
[8]	Beckman, C., & Mazmanian, M. (2020). Dreams of the overworked: Living, working, and parenting in the digital age. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
[9]	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.2016.69.issue-1 URL
[10]	Blanchard, K. (1999). The heart of a leader: Insights on the art of influence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook.
[11]	Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner., & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp.137-164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
[12]	Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2011). Work-family enrichment and job performance: A constructive replication of affective events theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 297-312. doi: 10.1037/a0022880 pmid: 21728437
[13]	Courtright, S. H., Gardner, R. G., Smith, T. A., McCormick, B. W., & Colbert, A. E. (2016). My family made me do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1630-1652. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.1009 URL
[14]	Crawford, W. S., Thompson, M. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2019). Work-life events theory: Making sense of shock events in dual-earner couples. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 194-212. doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0432
[15]	Cunningham, J. L., Sonday, L., & Ashford, S. J. (2023). Do I dare? The psychodynamics of anticipated image risk, leader identity endorsement, and leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 66(2), 374-401. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.1258 URL
[16]	Dahm, P. C., Glomb, T. M., Manchester, C. F., & Leroy, S. (2015). Work-family conflict and self-discrepant time allocation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 767-792. doi: 10.1037/a0038542 pmid: 25664468
[17]	Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity and expertise. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
[18]	DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
[19]	DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. doi: 10.1111/peps.2011.64.issue-1 URL
[20]	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
[21]	Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265-293.
[22]	Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 238-274. doi: 10.2307/258772 URL
[23]	Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178-199. doi: 10.2307/259269 URL
[24]	Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0393 URL
[25]	Foulk, T. A., & Lanaj, K. (2022). With great power comes more job demands: The dynamic effects of experienced power on perceived job demands and their discordant effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000905 doi: 10.1037/apl0000905 URL
[26]	Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969-1006. doi: 10.1177/1094428118802626 URL
[27]	Ganster, M. L., Gabriel, A. S., Rosen, C. C., Simon, L. S., Butts, M. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2023). Retreating or repairing? Examining the alternate linkages between daily partner-instigated incivility at home and helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 826-849. doi: 10.1037/apl0001048 URL
[28]	Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024-1030. doi: 10.1177/0956797612463706 pmid: 23567176
[29]	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
[30]	Hagger, M., 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 pmid: 20565167
[31]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130 URL
[32]	Hammond, M., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Beyond (just) the workplace: A theory of leader development across multiple domains. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 481-498. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0431 URL
[33]	Hollenbeck, J. R. (2008). The role of editing in knowledge development: Consensus shifting and consensus creation. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H., & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.). Opening the black box of editorship. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
[34]	Humberd, B., Ladge, J. J., & Harrington, B. (2015). The “New” dad: Navigating fathering identity within organizational contexts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 249-266. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9361-x URL
[35]	Ju, D., Huang, M., Liu, D., Qin, X., Hu, Q., & Chen, C. (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154(8), 80-95. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.09.003 URL
[36]	Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. pmid: 12184579
[37]	Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855-875. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004 URL
[38]	Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837 URL
[39]	Kercher, K. (1992). Assessing subjective well-being in the old-old: The PANAS as a measure of orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative affect. Research on Aging, 14(2), 131-168. doi: 10.1177/0164027592142001 URL
[40]	Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 13(1), 1-12.
[41]	Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Erez, A. (2019). Energizing leaders via self-reflection: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1037/apl0000350 pmid: 30321029
[42]	Lanaj, K., Gabriel, A. S., & Chawla, N. (2021). The self-sacrificial nature of leader identity: Understanding the costs and benefits at work and home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 345-363. doi: 10.1037/apl0000505 URL
[43]	Lanaj, K., Jennings, R. E., Ashford, S. J., & Krishnan, S. (2022). When leader self-care begets other care: Leader role self-compassion and helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(9), 1543-1560. doi: 10.1037/apl0000957 URL
[44]	Leroy, S., Schmidt, A. M., & Madjar, N. (2021). Working from home during COVID-19: A study of the interruption landscape. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1448-1465. doi: 10.1037/apl0000972 pmid: 34855421
[45]	Lilius, J. M. (2012). Recovery at work: Understanding the restorative side of “depleting” client interactions. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 569-588. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0458 URL
[46]	Lin, S.-H. (J.), Chang, C.-H. (D.), Lee, H. W., & Johnson, R. E. (2021). Positive family events facilitate effective leader behaviors at work: A within-individual investigation of family-work enrichment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1412-1434. doi: 10.1037/apl0000827 URL
[47]	Lin, W. (2019). Fundamentals of management research: What is research and how to conduct a good empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90008-Z URL
	[林伟鹏. (2019). 管理学研究基础: 什么是研究?如何做一个好的实证研究. 人力资源管理评论, 1, 1-10.]
[48]	Liu, Y., & West, S. G. (2016). Weekly cycles in daily report data: An overlooked issue. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 560-579.
[49]	Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543-568. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314 pmid: 19534590
[50]	Ma, M. Y. (2020). Research on the influence mechanism of event intensity on work performance in work and family fields (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yanshan University, China.
	[马梦媛. (2020). 工作家庭事件强度对工作绩效的影响机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 燕山大学.]
[51]	Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337. doi: 10.1146/psych.1987.38.issue-1 URL
[52]	McClean, S. T., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 479-508. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0081 URL
[53]	McClean, S. T., Yim, J., Courtright, S. H., & Dunford, B. B. (2021). Transformed by the family: An episodic, attachment theory perspective on family-work enrichment and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1848-1866. doi: 10.1037/apl0000869 pmid: 33617277
[54]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[55]	Parker, S. K., Johnson, A., Collins, C., & Nguyen, H. (2013). Making the most of structural support: Moderating influence of employees’ clarity and negative affect. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 867-892. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0927 URL
[56]	Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Halbesleben, J. R. B., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2013). The work-family interface and promotability: Boundary integration as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 42(4), 960-981. doi: 10.1177/0149206313506464 URL
[57]	Podsakoff, N. P., Spoelma, T. M., Chawla, N., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). What predicts within-person variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 727-754. doi: 10.1037/apl0000374 pmid: 30640492
[58]	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
[59]	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 pmid: 20822249
[60]	Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631-643. doi: 10.1037/amp0000660 pmid: 32437181
[61]	Probst, T. M., Lee, H. J., & Bazzoli, A. (2020). Economic stressors and the enactment of CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors: The impact of state-level context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1397-1407. doi: 10.1037/apl0000797 pmid: 33271028
[62]	Qin, X., Huang, M. P., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q. J., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951-1975. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1325 URL
[63]	Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 337-396. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.676762 URL
[64]	Raykov, T. (2007). Reliability if deleted, not ‘alpha if deleted’: Evaluation of scale reliability following component deletion. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 60(2), 201-216. doi: 10.1348/000711006X115954 URL
[65]	Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs?. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274-1294. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0611 URL
[66]	Rosen, C. C., Simon, L. S., Gajendran, R. S., Johnson, R. E., Lee, H. W., & Lin, S. J. (2019). Boxed in by your inbox: Implications of daily e-mail demands for managers’ leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 19-33. doi: 10.1037/apl0000343 URL
[67]	Sandberg, J. & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sense-making perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S6-S32. doi: 10.1002/job.1937 URL
[68]	Sherf, E. N., Venkataramani, V., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers' justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 469-502. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1061
[69]	Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(1), 15-28. doi: 10.2307/350547 URL
[70]	Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire - Form XII. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University.
[71]	Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). New leader- behavior description subscales. Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 259-269.
[72]	ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Haar, J. M., & Roche, M. (2014). Does family life help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover processes from leaders to followers. Personnel Psychology, 67(4), 917-949. doi: 10.1111/peps.2014.67.issue-4 URL
[73]	Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Park, H. M., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person-environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343-1368. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0163 URL
[74]	Twenge, J., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability, validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
[75]	Uy, M. A., Lin, K. J., & Ilies, R. (2016). Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in buffering the depleting effects of surface acting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1442-1461. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0611 URL
[76]	Watkins, T. (2021). Workplace interpersonal capitalization: Employee reactions to coworker positive event disclosures. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 537-561. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.1339 URL
[77]	Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 1-74.
[78]	Xu, S., Zhang, Y. C., Zhang, B. R., Shi, J. Q., Yuan, M. S., & Ren, Y. W. (2022). Gain or Loss? Examining the double- edged sword effect of challenge demand on work-family enrichment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(10), 1234-1247. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01234 URL
	[徐姗, 张昱城, 张冰然, 施俊琦, 袁梦莎, 任迎伟. (2022). “增益”还是“损耗”?挑战性工作要求对工作-家庭增益的“双刃剑”影响. 心理学报, 54(10), 1234-1247.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01234
[79]	Yu, L., & Duffy, M. K. (2021). The whiplash effect: The (moderating) role of attributed motives in emotional and behavioral reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(5), 754-773. doi: 10.1037/apl0000810 URL
[80]	Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0088 URL
[81]	Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[82]	Zhang, C. C., Nahrgang, J. D., Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2020). The risky side of leadership: Conceptualizing risk perceptions in informal leadership and investigating the effects of their over time changes in teams. Organization Science, 31(5), 1138-1158. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1350 URL

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²(Δdf)	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR_个体内	SRMR_个体间
1. 五因子模型: NFE, LI, IS, TFL, E	1230.06	534	2.30	—	0.05	0.91	0.90	0.03	0.07
2. 四因子模型: NFE, LI, IS+TFL, E	1744.00	541	3.22	513.94(7)	0.07	0.84	0.82	0.06	0.09
3. 三因子模型: NFE, LI+IS+TFL, E	2763.36	546	5.06	1019.35(5)	0.09	0.70	0.67	0.10	0.14
4. 二因子模型: NFE+LI, IS+TFL+E	2917.43	548	5.32	154.07(2)	0.10	0.68	0.65	0.17	0.23

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²(Δdf)	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR_个体内	SRMR_个体间
1. 五因子模型: NFE, LI, IS, TFL, E	1230.06	534	2.30	—	0.05	0.91	0.90	0.03	0.07
2. 四因子模型: NFE, LI, IS+TFL, E	1744.00	541	3.22	513.94(7)	0.07	0.84	0.82	0.06	0.09
3. 三因子模型: NFE, LI+IS+TFL, E	2763.36	546	5.06	1019.35(5)	0.09	0.70	0.67	0.10	0.14
4. 二因子模型: NFE+LI, IS+TFL+E	2917.43	548	5.32	154.07(2)	0.10	0.68	0.65	0.17	0.23

变量	个体内方差(σ²)	个体间方差(τ₀₀)	个体内方差占比(σ²/(σ²+τ₀₀))
1. 负面家庭事件	0.73	2.05	26.26%
2. 领导身份认同	0.80	1.53	34.33%
3. 基本领导行为	0.50	0.87	36.50%
4. 变革领导行为	0.75	0.93	44.64%
5. 积极情绪	0.53	0.86	38.13%
6. 消极情绪	0.79	1.58	33.33%
7. 积极家庭事件	1.22	0.78	61.00%
8. 睡眠质量	1.18	1.67	41.40%

变量	个体内方差(σ²)	个体间方差(τ₀₀)	个体内方差占比(σ²/(σ²+τ₀₀))
1. 负面家庭事件	0.73	2.05	26.26%
2. 领导身份认同	0.80	1.53	34.33%
3. 基本领导行为	0.50	0.87	36.50%
4. 变革领导行为	0.75	0.93	44.64%
5. 积极情绪	0.53	0.86	38.13%
6. 消极情绪	0.79	1.58	33.33%
7. 积极家庭事件	1.22	0.78	61.00%
8. 睡眠质量	1.18	1.67	41.40%

变量	均值	标准差	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
个体内水平
1. 负面家庭事件	2.61	1.57		0.19^***	−0.25^***	−0.14^**	0.41^***	0.65^***	0.03	−0.81^***	0.19^***	−0.24^***	−0.14^**	0.10^*	−0.07	−0.17^***	−0.02	−0.19^***	−0.36^***
2. 领导身份认同	4.47	1.47	−0.13^**		0.47^***	0.47^***	0.11^*	0.28^***	0.33^***	−0.04	0.96^***	0.44^***	0.45^***	0.18^***	−0.18^***	−0.12^**	0.06	0.10^*	−0.06
3. 基本领导行为	5.13	1.15	−0.11^*	0.40^***		0.93^***	0.21^***	−0.20^***	0.54^***	0.27^***	0.55^***	0.98^***	0.92^***	0.08	−0.14^**	0.30^***	0.29^***	0.53^***	0.08
4. 变革领导行为	5.02	1.28	−0.07	0.32^***	0.66^***		0.36^***	−0.17^**	0.55^***	0.15^**	0.57^***	0.92^***	0.98^***	0.20^***	−0.25^***	0.22^***	0.39^***	0.49^***	0.10^*
5. 积极情绪	4.33	1.15	0.01	0.17^***	0.21^***	0.15^**		0.13^**	0.41^***	−0.42^***	0.21^***	0.24^***	0.36^***	0.23^***	−0.24^**	0.06	0.12^**	0.32^***	−0.28^***
6. 消极情绪	3.56	1.50	0.11^*	−0.09	−0.23^***	−0.21^***	−0.07		0.00	−0.54^***	0.25^***	−0.21^***	−0.17^***	−0.04	0.05	−0.11^*	−0.24^***	−0.26^***	−0.28^***
7. 积极家庭事件	5.10	1.41	−0.32^***	0.03	0.09^*	0.01	0.05	−0.03		0.00	0.35^***	0.56^***	0.54^***	0.24^***	−0.27^***	0.07	0.06	0.34^***	−0.05
8. 睡眠质量	4.72	1.62	−0.34^***	0.00	0.15^**	0.08	0.07	−0.25^***	0.28^***		−0.03	0.25^***	0.16^***	−0.03	−0.00	0.17^***	0.02	0.11^*	0.30^***
9. 领导身份认同(前一天)	4.49	1.46	−0.15^**	0.15	0.11^*	0.13^**	0.15^**	−0.16^***	0.06	0.08		0.54^***	0.56^***	0.23	−0.23^***	−0.07	0.14^***	0.22^***	−0.06
10. 基本领导行为(前一天)	5.15	1.11	−0.05	0.17^***	0.19^***	0.17^***	0.15^**	−0.08	−0.01	0.06	0.35^***		0.94^***	0.14^**	−0.21^***	0.27^***	0.27^***	0.52^***	0.07
11. 变革领导行为(前一天)	5.06	1.26	−0.01	0.09^*	0.16^**	0.21^***	0.10^*	−0.02	−0.04	−0.02	0.21^***	0.62^***		0.21^***	−0.26^***	0.26^***	0.39^***	0.50^***	0.08
12. 天数(周内)	3.23	1.34	−0.01	0.08	−0.08	−0.08	−0.01	−0.00	−0.06	0.01	0.07	0.02	−0.01		−0.98^***	−0.53^***	0.09	0.15^**	−0.12^**
13. 正弦	0.07	0.76	0.01	−0.07	0.07	0.07	0.02	−0.00	0.02	−0.03	−0.07	−0.00	0.02	−0.95^***		0.37^***	−0.13^**	−0.17^***	0.13^**
14. 余弦	−0.41	0.49	0.01	−0.08	0.04	0.04	−0.05	−0.02	0.08	−0.02	−0.05	−0.07	−0.03	−0.45^***	0.24^***		0.27^***	0.10^*	0.11^*
个体间水平
15. 外向性	3.95	0.80																0.25^***	0.16^***
16. 管理者自我效能感	5.03	1.02																	−0.09
17. 工作−家庭区隔导向	5.66	1.13