团队建言对领导纳谏的影响机制：基于合法性视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1666

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 团队建言的效能取决于领导纳谏,但既有研究多关注领导对员工个体建言的纳谏。基于合法性理论和群体影响视角, 本文提出团队建言合法性(领导对团队建言正当性的评价)是解释领导纳谏的重要中介机制。此外,上级领导开放性会强化该合法性认知向纳谏行为转化。本文采用问卷法和实验法相结合的研究设计, 通过三个研究检验上述理论模型。研究1采用被试内情景实验, 对团队建言和个体建言进行了被试内的操控, 进而比较领导对个体建言和团队建言的合法性评价及其纳谏行为的差异。基于179名被试的数据分析结果表明：与个体建言相比, 领导对团队层面的建言合法性评价显著更高, 且该评价对其纳谏行为具有更强的积极影响; 研究2基于99名团队领导的三阶段问卷调查数据验证了本文大部分假设; 研究3 (包括研究3a和3b)设计了2 (团队建言：高 vs. 低) × 2 (上级领导开放性：高 vs. 低)的被试间情景实验, 基于350名被试的数据分析结果进一步验证和支持了研究2的发现。本文将建言纳谏机制由个体层面延伸至团队层面, 提出了基于合法性的解释视角, 并在细化领导纳谏行为维度的同时, 扩展了合法性理论的解释范畴。

关键词: 团队建言, 领导纳谏, 合法性, 上级领导开放性

Abstract: In the rapidly evolving business landscape, team voice has become a prevalent and highly valued form of proactive behavior in organizations and been recognized as a key driver of team innovation and performance. Although team members can typically make constructive suggestions regarding existing or potential work issues affecting the team, the effectiveness of team voice hinges on the acceptance of team leaders and their action on such suggestions. Despite the significance of the receptiveness of team leaders to team voice, research has predominantly focused on the process of leaders’ acceptance of individual voice and paid little attention to the mechanisms of such acceptance.
To explore how and when team leaders act on team voice, we draw on legitimacy theory and a group influence perspective to propose that team leaders’ perceived legitimacy of team voice serves as a mediating mechanism between team voice and leaders’ voice-taking behavior (i.e., implementation of team voice and delivery of team voice to higher-up leaders). Additionally, we suggest that the openness of higher-up leaders acts as a boundary condition that can strengthen the mechanism.
This study employs a mixed-method of questionnaire surveys and experimental designs across three studies to test the hypotheses. This study collects experimental data from 179 participants in a within-subjects scenario design and from 350 participants in two between-subjects scenario designs and three-wave survey data from 99 team leaders. The within-subjects experimental results demonstrate that compared with individual voice, team voice exerts a stronger influence on leaders’ perception of voice legitimacy and subsequent voice-taking behavior. Moreover, the survey and two between-subjects experiments consistently support most of the proposed hypotheses.
This research makes three significant contributions to the literature. First, this study extends the leader voice-taking process from the individual level to the team level. By introducing legitimacy theory from the group influence perspective, this study reveals that team voice legitimacy is a key mediating mechanism through which team voice influences leaders’ voice-taking behavior. This study goes beyond prior research, which primarily explored leaders’ voice-taking behavior (e.g., implementation) from an interpersonal influence perspective, and reveals the bottom-up influence of collective action as a vehicle of power on leaders’ behavior. Second, this study uncovers a bottom-up legitimacy-generating pathway within the interaction process between leaders and teams in organizational contexts and thus extends legitimacy theory from organizational-institutional contexts to team-leader interactions. Specifically, this study reveals a bottom-up legitimacy construction mechanism driven by collective action from frontline members. Finally, this study distinguishes between two types of leader voice-taking behavior and reveals the distinct response strategies employed by leaders in response to team voice.

Key words: team voice, leader voice-taking, legitimacy, higher-up leader's openness

范攀, 李福荔. (2026). 团队建言对领导纳谏的影响机制：基于合法性视角. 心理学报, 58(8), 1666-1680.

FAN Pan, LI Fuli. (2026). The mechanism through which team voice affects leader voice-taking: A legitimacy perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(8), 1666-1680.

参考文献

[1] Alexiou, K., & Wiggins, J. (2019). Measuring individual legitimacy perceptions: Scale development and validation.Strategic Organization, 17(4), 470-496.
[2] Aronson E., Brewer M., & Carlsmith J. M. (1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 441-486).
[3] Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117.
[4] Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status.Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151-179.
[5] Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process.Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49-75.
[6] Brislin, R. W. (1983). Cross-cultural research in psychology.Annual Review of Psychology, 34(1), 363-400.
[7] Brykman, K. M., & Raver, J. L. (2023). Persuading managers to enact ideas in organizations: The role of voice message quality, peer endorsement, and peer opposition.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 802-817.
[8] Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice.Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875.
[9] Burris E. R., Rockmann K. W., & Kimmons Y. S. (2017). The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice.Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2099-2125.
[10] Cheung Y. B., Goh C., Thumboo J., Khoo K. S., & Wee J. (2005). Variability and sample size requirements of quality-of-life measures: A randomized study of three major questionnaires.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(22), 4936-4944.
[11] Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity.Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
[12] Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
[13] Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work.Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488.
[14] Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice.Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270.
[15] Ditrich L., Lüders A., Jonas E., & Sassenberg K. (2019). Leader’s group-norm violations elicit intentions to leave the group-If the group-norm is not affirmed.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103798.
[16] Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636.
[17] Dutton J. E., Ashford S. J., O’Neill R. M., & Lawrence K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change.Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716-736.
[18] Farh C. I., Li J., & Lee T. W. (2024). Toward a contextualized view of voice quality, its dimensions, and its dynamics across newcomer socialization.Academy of Management Review, 49(2), 399-428.
[19] 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.
[20] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[21] Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes: A group-level examination.Journal of Management, 41(3), 841-863.
[22] Hagedoorn M., Van Yperen N. W., Van de Vliert E., & Buunk B. P. (1999). Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction.Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(3), 309-321.
[23] He W., Han Y., Hu X., Liu W., Yang B., & Chen H. (2020). From idea endorsement to idea implementation: A multilevel social network approach toward managerial voice implementation.Human Relations, 73(11), 1563-1582.
[24] Hoang A. L., Phan A. T. T., Dong D. X., Tran T. T. H., & Nguyen C. T. (2023). Exploring team collective voice: The case of software development teams in Vietnam. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 26(1/2), 78-97.
[25] Huang X., Xu E., Huang L., & Liu W. (2018). Nonlinear consequences of promotive and prohibitive voice for managers’ responses: The roles of voice frequency and LMX.Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1101-1120.
[26] Jacqueminet, A., & Durand, R. (2020). Ups and downs: The role of legitimacy judgment cues in practice implementation.Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1485-1507.
[27] Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). The single-factor within-subject design: Further topics. In Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed., pp.369-400). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[28] Kokkoris M. D., Hoelzl E., & Alós-Ferrer C. (2019). True to which self? Lay rationalism and decision satisfaction in self-control conflicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 417-447.
[29] Krenz H. L., Burtscher M. J., & Kolbe M. (2019). “Not only hard to make but also hard to take:” Team leaders’ reactions to voice.Gio-Gruppe-Interaktion-Organisation-Zeitschrift Fuer Angewandte Organisationspsychologie, 50(1), 3-13.
[30] Lam C. F., Lee C., & Sui Y. (2019). Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement.Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 642-658.
[31] Landis R. S., Beal D. J., & Tesluk P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models.Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186-207.
[32] Liang J., Shu R., & Farh, C. I. C. (2019). Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 91-104.
[33] Little, R. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[34] Milliken F. J., Morrison E. W., & Hewlin P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why.Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
[35] Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
[36] Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world.Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
[37] Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals' identities.Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641-662.
[38] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
[39] Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
[40] Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values.Human Relations, 63(11), 1743-1770.
[41] Rousseau D. M., Hansen S. D., & Tomprou M. (2018). A dynamic phase model of psychological contract processes.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1081-1098.
[42] Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.
[43] Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
[44] Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
[45] Suddaby R., Bitektine A., & Haack P. (2017). Legitimacy.Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451-478.
[46] Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments.Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686-710.
[47] Tröster, C., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2021). When victims help their abusive supervisors: The role of LMX, self-blame, and guilt.Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1793-1815.
[48] Venkataramani V., Zhou L., Wang M., Liao H., & Shi J. (2016). Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 37-48.
[49] Vestergren S., Drury J., & Chiriac E. H. (2019). How participation in collective action changes relationships, behaviours, and beliefs: An interview study of the role of inter-and intragroup processes.Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 76-99.
[50] Wang, Y., & Wen, Z. L. (2018). The analyses of mediation effects based on two-condition within-participant design. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(5), 1233-1239.
[王阳, 温忠麟. (2018). 基于两水平被试内设计的中介效应分析方法.心理科学, 41(5), 1233-1239.]
[51] Wu L., Long A., Hu C., & Xu Y. (2023). An identity threat perspective on why and when employee voice brings abusive supervision.Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1133480.
[52] Zhang Z., Liang Q., & Li J. (2020). Understanding managerial response to employee voice: A social persuasion perspective.International Journal of Manpower, 41(3), 273-288.
[53] Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice.Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.