位居次席: 备选对员工主动担责和时间窃取行为的影响机制*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0683

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

备选是指最终被组织安排承担某项任务或角色, 但并非该任务或角色首选的员工, 近年来逐渐受到学者关注。然而现有研究却忽视了任务分配情境下备选对员工自身态度和行为的影响。本研究基于社会信息加工理论和联想命题评价理论, 采用情境实验(研究1)和三阶段问卷调查(研究2), 探讨了任务分配情境下备选对员工行为的“双刃剑”效应及边界条件。研究结果表明, 当上级发展性反馈水平高时, 备选会激发和谐型激情, 进而引发主动担责行为; 当上级发展性反馈水平低时, 备选会引起工作拖延倾向, 进而发生时间窃取行为。研究结论为大众更加客观、辩证地认识备选提供参考和借鉴。

关键词: 备选, 和谐型激情, 工作拖延倾向, 主动担责行为, 时间窃取行为, 上级发展性反馈

Abstract:

Alternative choice—employees who are ultimately selected to complete tasks but were not the first choice to do so—have garnered increasing scholarly attention in recent years. Some studies have revealed the psychological effects of being compared to the first choice, as well as the behaviors of alternative employees in various contexts, such as those involving employee rewards and recruitment. However, these studies overlook how being an alternative choice impacts employees’ attitudes and behaviors specifically in task allocation contexts. To address this research gap, we drew on the social information processing (SIP) and associated proposition evaluation (AP-E) theories to examine the interaction between the alternative choice and supervisor developmental feedback and its effects on employees’ taking charge and time theft behaviors within task contexts. We also explored the mediating effects of harmonious passion and work procrastination tendency, constructing a moderated mediation model.

Our hypotheses were tested through a scenario-based experimental study (Study 1; N = 232) and a three-stage survey (Study 2; N = 332). For Study 1, we designed a 2 × 2 between-subject experiment with four scenarios depicting a leader selecting a suitable project manager for a new task. We recruited 234 participants from the Credamo platform and randomly assigned each to one of the four scenarios. Each participant read the scenario and took on the role of a project manager candidate. Following this, participants reported their levels of harmonious passion and work procrastination tendency, completed a manipulation check, and provided demographic information. Finally, 232 participants who passed the attention test were retained. In Study 2, we collected empirical data from 332 employees in China using a three-stage questionnaire survey. Before completing the questionnaire, the participants were asked a screening question: “Have you had any alternative choice experience in the past six months?” Only those who responded “yes” were instructed to proceed with the questionnaire. At Time 1, employees reported their alternative choice experience, supervisor developmental feedback, and demographic information. At Time 2, they reported their levels of harmonious passion and work procrastination tendency. At Time 3, they reported their taking charge and time theft behaviors.

We employed an analysis of variance, a confirmatory factor analysis, the bootstrap method, and Harman’s single-factor test to analyze the data. The results showed that when supervisor developmental feedback was high, the alternative choice was positively associated with employees’ harmonious passion, which, in turn, enhanced their taking charge behaviors and reduced their time theft behaviors. Conversely, when supervisor developmental feedback was low, the alternative choice was positively associated with employees’ work procrastination tendency, which subsequently increased their time theft behaviors.

This study has both theoretical and practical implications. First, it enriches the research on “alternative choice” by examining the context of task allocation, revealing employees’ perceptions and responses to being an alternative choice for performing a task and enhancing the research framework on diverse employee groups within organizations. Second, it transcends the traditional social comparison perspective by integrating SIP and AP-E theories to explore the underlying mechanisms through which being an alternative employee influences psychological and behavioral outcomes. Third, it validates the moderating role of supervisory developmental feedback in the double-edged sword effect of alternative choice on employees’ work behavior, thereby extending the boundary conditions of the alternative choice phenomenon. Moreover, the findings offer valuable practical implications for managers and policymakers.

Key words: alternative choice, harmonious passion, work procrastination tendency, taking charge behaviors, time theft behaviors, supervisor developmental feedback

中图分类号:

B849: C93

占小军, 吴可盈, 王涛, 马君, 祝养浩, 周雯珺. (2026). 位居次席: 备选对员工主动担责和时间窃取行为的影响机制^*. 心理学报, 58(4), 683-697.

ZHAN Xiaojun, WU Keying, WANG Tao, MA Jun, ZHU Yanghao, ZHOU Wenjun. (2026). Coming in second: Influence mechanism of alternative choice on employee taking charge and time theft behaviors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(4), 683-697.

图/表 9

参考文献 43

[1]	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
[2]	Brislin R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301 URL
[3]	Call M. L., Campbell E. M., Dunford B. B., Boswell W. R., & Boss R. W. (2021). Shining with the stars? Unearthing how group star proportion shapes non-star performance. Personnel Psychology, 74(3), 543-572. doi: 10.1111/peps.v74.3 URL
[4]	Fehr R., Fulmer A., & Keng-Highberger F. T. (2020). How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral disengagement. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 73-93. doi: 10.1111/peps.v73.1 URL
[5]	Fuller Jr J. B., Marler L. E., & Hester K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1053-1070. doi: 10.1002/job.v33.8 URL
[6]	Gawronski B., & Bodenhausen G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692-731. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692 pmid: 16910748
[7]	Gawronski B., & Bodenhausen G. V. (2011). The associative- propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59-127.
[8]	Harold C. M., Hu B., & Koopman J. (2022). Employee time theft: Conceptualization, measure development, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 75(2), 347-382. doi: 10.1111/peps.v75.2 URL
[9]	Ho V. T., Wong S. S., & Lee C. H. (2011). A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 26-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00878.x URL
[10]	Hu B. Y., & Meng L. (2024). Formation and consequences of employee time theft: A motivational perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(3), 433-450. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00433
	[胡碧芸, 孟亮. (2024). 动机视角下员工时间偷窃的产生机制及影响. 心理科学进展, 32(3), 433-450.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00433
[11]	Jiang W., An Y., Wang L., & Zheng C. (2021). Newcomers’ reaction to the abusive supervision toward peers during organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 128, 103586. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103586 URL
[12]	Kühnel J., Bledow R., & Feuerhahn N. (2016). When do you procrastinate? Sleep quality and social sleep lag jointly predict self-regulatory failure at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 983-1002. doi: 10.1002/job.v37.7 URL
[13]	Lan M., Hu Z., & Nie T. (2025). Unwilling or unable? The impact of role clarity and job competence on frontline employees’ taking charge behaviors in hospitality industry. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 526.
[14]	Lebel R. D., & Patil S. V. (2018). Proactivity despite discouraging supervisors: The powerful role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 724-737. doi: 10.1037/apl0000301 pmid: 29578739
[15]	Li J., Zhang J., Shao B., & Chen C. (2020). A latent profile analysis of work passion: Structure, antecedent, and outcomes. Personnel Review, 49(3), 846-863. doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2019-0145 URL
[16]	Liao H., Feng Q., Zhu L., & Guan O. Z. (2023). The award goes to...someone else: A natural quasi-experiment examining the impact of performance awards on nominees’ workplace collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 66(5), 1303-1333. doi: 10.5465/amj.2021.0662 URL
[17]	Lin C. S., Jin M., Huang P. C., & Xiao R. (2023). Does it take two to tango? The joint role of high-performance work systems and ethical leadership. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113536. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113536 URL
[18]	Liu X. Y., Liu J., Xu J., & Wu R. R. (2015). The effect of workplace ostracism on proactive behavior: The self- verification theory perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(6), 826-836. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00826 URL
	[刘小禹, 刘军, 许浚, 吴蓉蓉. (2015). 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. 心理学报, 47(6), 826-836.]
[19]	Lorinkova N. M., & Perry S. J. (2017). When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1631-1654. doi: 10.1177/0149206314560411 URL
[20]	Lu H. L., Yang Y., Wang Y. L., Zhang X., & Tan L. (2021). Does distrust motivate or discourage employees? The double-edged sword of feeling ability-distrusted by supervisors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1376-1392. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376
	[卢海陵, 杨洋, 王永丽, 张昕, 谭玲. (2021). “激将法”会激发还是打击员工? 感知能力不被领导信任的“双刃剑”效应. 心理学报, 53(12), 1376-1392.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376
[21]	Ma J., & Zhu M. T. (2023). Accept or change your fate: Exploring the golem effect and underdog effect of underdog expectations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 1029-1048. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01029
	[马君, 朱梦霆. (2023). 命运天定还是逆天改命: 探索劣势者成见的“傀儡效应”与“黑马效应”. 心理学报, 55(6), 1029-1048.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01029
[22]	Malik A. R., & Singh P. (2014). ‘High potential’ programs: Let’s hear it for ‘B’ players. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 330-346. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.06.001 URL
[23]	Michailidis E., Xanthopoulou D., & Michaelides G. (2026). Daily workplace embitterment and work-related rumination during off-job time: Illegitimate tasks as antecedents and the buffering role of appreciation. Work & Stress, 40(1), 7-29. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2025.2484761 doi: 10.1080/02678373.2025.2484761 URL
[24]	Morrison E. W., & Phelps C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419. doi: 10.2307/257011 URL
[25]	Nie Q., Zhang J., Lu Y., & Bi Y. Z. (2022). The paradoxical effects of leaders’ high performance expectations: An approach-avoidance framework perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 36(1), 53-63.
	[聂琦, 张捷, 陆渊, 毕砚昭. (2022). 领导高绩效期望的双面性: 趋近-回避理论视角. 管理工程学报, 36(1), 53-63.]
[26]	Nurmohamed S. (2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1106-1133. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0181 URL
[27]	Nurmohamed S., & Schwingel-Sauer Z. (2024). Beyond the first choice: The impact of being an alternate choice on social integration and feedback seeking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(4), 587-598. doi: 10.1037/apl0001163 pmid: 38032602
[28]	Parke M. R., Weinhardt J. M., Brodsky A., Tangirala S., & DeVoe S. E. (2018). When daily planning improves employee performance: The importance of planning type, engagement, and interruptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 300-312. doi: 10.1037/apl0000278 pmid: 29154579
[29]	Salancik G. R., & Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[30]	Shen Y., Chou W. J., Schaubroeck J. M., & Liu J. (2023). Benevolent leadership, harmonious passion, and employee work behaviors: A multi-level moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113571. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113571 URL
[31]	Sirén C., Patel P. C., & Wincent J. (2016). How do harmonious passion and obsessive passion moderate the influence of a ceo’s change-oriented leadership on company performance? The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 653-670. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.002 URL
[32]	Tang Y., Pu X., Xu E., Huang X., Zhang G., & Xiao J. (2025). Passion ignites: Effect of expert worker passion on employee performance in knowledge worker teams. Journal of Business Research, 188, 115052. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115052 URL
[33]	Vallerand R. J., Blanchard C., Mageau G. A., Koestner R., Ratelle C., Léonard M., Gagne M., & Marsolais J. (2003). Les passions de l’ame: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756-767. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.756 pmid: 14561128
[34]	Wang Z., Wang Q., & Wang D. (2024). Reducing employees’ time theft through leader’s developmental feedback: The serial multiple mediating effects of perceived insider status and work passion. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 269.
[35]	Xu C., Yao Z., & Xiong Z. (2023). The impact of work- related use of information and communication technologies after hours on time theft. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(1), 185-198. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05167-1
[36]	Xu S. Y., Yang C. M., Li C. P., & Li H. R. (2024). How “slacking off” sparks innovation: Evidence from a scenario experiment and a survey study on curvilinear mediation of recovery experience. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(1), 135-151. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0135 URL
	[徐世勇, 杨春梦, 李超平, 李海蓉. (2025). “摸鱼”如何带来创新?恢复体验曲线中介效应的情景实验与调查证据. 心理学报, 57(1), 135-151.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0135
[37]	Yousaf A., Yusuf F., & Umrani W. A. (2023). Creatures of a lesser god! Gender-based differences in HR attributions mediated by person-job fit: A poly-contextual analysis. Personnel Review, 52(7), 1842-1860. doi: 10.1108/PR-08-2021-0597 URL
[38]	Zagenczyk T. J., & Powell E. E. (2023). Social networks and citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of organizational identification. Human Resource Management, 62(4), 461-475. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v62.4 URL
[39]	Zhang Y., Tan C., & Wang N. (2024). How does supervisor developmental feedback make employees sense the meaning of work? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 62(1), e12376.
[40]	Zhao F., Zhu H., Chen Y., & Wang L. (2024). True meaning and due duty: Examining how and when career calling promotes employee taking charge. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 39(1), 18-38. doi: 10.1108/JMP-03-2023-0161 URL
[41]	Zhou J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422. pmid: 12814291
[42]	Zigarmi D., Galloway F. J., & Roberts T. P. (2018). Work locus of control, motivational regulation, employee work passion, and work intentions: An empirical investigation of an appraisal model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(1), 231-256. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9813-2 URL
[43]	Zou Y, C., Zhang H. M., Peng J., Nie Q., & Wang Z. (2023). Change or procrastination? Employees’ differentiated responses to illegitimate tasks. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(9), 1529-1541. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01529
	[邹艳春, 章惠敏, 彭坚, 聂琦, 王震. (2023). 变革还是拖延? 员工对不合规任务的差异化应对. 心理学报, 55(9), 1529-1541.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01529

模型	模型构成	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
七因子模型	AC, DF, HP, OP, WP, TC, TT	2.42	0.92	0.92	0.07	0.05
六因子模型	AC, DF, HP+OP, WP, TC, TT	5.17	0.75	0.77	0.11	0.12
五因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP, WP, TC, TT	5.86	0.71	0.73	0.12	0.13
四因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP+WP, TC, TT	7.61	0.62	0.64	0.14	0.16
三因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP+WP, TC+TT	9.50	0.50	0.53	0.16	0.19
双因子模型	AC+DF+HP+OP+WP, TC+TT	10.81	0.42	0.45	0.17	0.19
单因子模型	AC+DF+HP+OP+WP+TC+TT	13.22	0.26	0.32	0.19	0.20

模型	模型构成	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
七因子模型	AC, DF, HP, OP, WP, TC, TT	2.42	0.92	0.92	0.07	0.05
六因子模型	AC, DF, HP+OP, WP, TC, TT	5.17	0.75	0.77	0.11	0.12
五因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP, WP, TC, TT	5.86	0.71	0.73	0.12	0.13
四因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP+WP, TC, TT	7.61	0.62	0.64	0.14	0.16
三因子模型	AC+DF, HP+OP+WP, TC+TT	9.50	0.50	0.53	0.16	0.19
双因子模型	AC+DF+HP+OP+WP, TC+TT	10.81	0.42	0.45	0.17	0.19
单因子模型	AC+DF+HP+OP+WP+TC+TT	13.22	0.26	0.32	0.19	0.20

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. 性别	−	−	−−
2. 年龄	2.67	1.03	0.06	−−
3. 受教育程度	2.71	0.89	0.08	0.02	−−
4. 工作年限	2.39	0.95	−0.01	0.19^**	−0.02	−−
5. 强迫型激情	2.09	0.67	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.09	−−
6. 备选	3.87	0.99	−0.05	−0.09	0.04	0.03	0.16^**	−−
7. 上级发展性反馈	2.60	0.70	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.04	−0.03	−0.08	−−
8. 和谐型激情	3.22	0.85	−0.04	−0.05	0.06	−0.01	0.14^**	0.37^**	−0.16^**	−−
9. 工作拖延倾向	2.22	0.72	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.10	−0.03	0.18^**	−0.13^*	0.04	−−
10. 主动担责行为	3.82	0.79	−0.06	0.09	0.01	0.05	−0.15^**	0.18^**	−0.06	0.24^**	0.15^**	−−
11. 时间窃取行为	2.39	0.88	0.08	0.00	−0.02	0.05	−0.08	−0.27^**	0.04	−0.47^**	0.25^**	0.01

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. 性别	−	−	−−
2. 年龄	2.67	1.03	0.06	−−
3. 受教育程度	2.71	0.89	0.08	0.02	−−
4. 工作年限	2.39	0.95	−0.01	0.19^**	−0.02	−−
5. 强迫型激情	2.09	0.67	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.09	−−
6. 备选	3.87	0.99	−0.05	−0.09	0.04	0.03	0.16^**	−−
7. 上级发展性反馈	2.60	0.70	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.04	−0.03	−0.08	−−
8. 和谐型激情	3.22	0.85	−0.04	−0.05	0.06	−0.01	0.14^**	0.37^**	−0.16^**	−−
9. 工作拖延倾向	2.22	0.72	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.10	−0.03	0.18^**	−0.13^*	0.04	−−
10. 主动担责行为	3.82	0.79	−0.06	0.09	0.01	0.05	−0.15^**	0.18^**	−0.06	0.24^**	0.15^**	−−
11. 时间窃取行为	2.39	0.88	0.08	0.00	−0.02	0.05	−0.08	−0.27^**	0.04	−0.47^**	0.25^**	0.01

上级发展性反馈	备选→和谐型激情→ 主动担责行为			备选→工作拖延倾向→ 时间窃取行为			备选→和谐型激情→ 时间窃取行为			备选→工作拖延倾向→ 主动担责行为
上级发展性反馈	间接效应	标准误	95% CI	间接效应	标准误	95% CI	间接效应	标准误	95% CI	间接效应	标准误	95% CI
低上级发展性反馈	0.03	0.02	[0.002, 0.068]	0.09	0.03	[0.023, 0.157]	−0.08	0.03	[−0.141, −0.021]	0.03	0.02	[0.003, 0.063]
高上级发展性反馈	0.08	0.03	[0.028, 0.133]	−0.00	0.01	[−0.027, 0.025]	−0.19	0.05	[−0.274, −0.099]	0.00	0.01	[−0.011, 0.010]
差异	0.05	0.02	[0.002, 0.089]	−0.09	0.04	[−0.168, −0.014]	−0.11	0.05	[−0.196, −0.015]	−0.03	0.02	[−0.067, 0.000]