家庭支持型主管行为对员工的影响与作用机制：基于元分析的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00257

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为厘清家庭支持型主管行为对员工的独特影响, 并比较不同的作用机制, 本研究对包含204个独立样本、340个效应值及91145名员工的164篇文献进行了元分析, 结果发现：(1)与一般主管支持行为相比, 家庭支持型主管行为对员工的任务绩效、创新行为和生活满意度有更强的积极影响。(2)工作对家庭冲突(资源视角)、领导-成员交换(交换视角)和情感承诺(情感视角)均能解释家庭支持型主管行为对员工的作用机制, 并互为补充。具体而言, 三者均能中介家庭支持型主管行为对任务绩效的影响; 领导-成员交换和情感承诺在家庭支持型主管行为与创新行为间起中介作用; 工作对家庭冲突和领导-成员交换则在家庭支持型主管行为影响生活满意度中发挥中介效应。研究结果为家庭支持型主管行为的影响效果提供了可靠结论, 也有助于深入理解其作用机制。

关键词: 家庭支持型主管行为, 元分析, 工作对家庭冲突, 领导-成员交换, 情感承诺

Abstract:

Family supportive supervisor behavior (FSSB) has important impacts on employees’ performance, behavior, and well-being. However, FSSB's incremental predictive effects and its mechanisms have not received enough attention in the literature. Conservation of resources theory, social exchange theory, and affective event theory all can provide distinctive theoretical arguments, while meta-analysis offers a methodological tool to analyze these two issues. We thus conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the incremental predictive effects of FSSB on employees' task performance, innovative behavior, and life satisfaction as well as mechanisms inherently embedded in those three theoretical perspectives.
In this study, we used four methods to search and screen studies about FSSB. Following these steps, 164 qualified articles were included. These articles comprise 204 independent studies and 340 effect sizes, with a total sample size of 91145. Based on these studies, we conducted publication bias analysis, main effect analysis, relative weight analysis, incremental validity analysis, and meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Specifically, we first used Begg's intercept, Egger’s regression, and fail-safe number to test publication bias. Second, Hunter and Schmidt’s method was used to analyze the main effects of FSSB. Third, we conducted relative weight analysis and incremental validity analysis to examine the relative validity of FSSB. Finally, MASEM was conducted.
Publication bias analysis suggested that the meta-analytic relationships examined are robust to publication bias. FSSB was positively correlated with employees' task performance, innovative behavior, and life satisfaction, according to the main effect analysis. In terms of relative validity, we discovered that FSSB significantly predicted employees' task performance, innovative behavior, and life satisfaction, even after controlling for the effects of general supportive supervisor behavior (GSSB). The result of MASEM showed that: work-to-family conflict functioned as a mediator linking FSSB with task performance and life satisfaction. The indirect effects were 0.03 and 0.07, with 95% Monte Carlo confidence intervals (C.I.) [0.02, 0.04] and [0.06, 0.09], respectively. LMX mediated the relationships linking FSSB with task performance, innovative behavior, and life satisfaction. The indirect effects were 0.16, 0.11, and 0.27, with 95% Monte Carlo C.I. [0.13, 0.18], [0.09, 0.14], and [0.24, 0.30], respectively. Affective commitment played a positive mediating role in the relationships linking FSSB with task performance and innovative behavior. The indirect effects were 0.04 and 0.16, with 95% Monte Carlo C.I. [0.02, 0.05] and [0.14, 0.18], respectively.
Our meta-analytic findings demonstrated that FSSB was more strongly associated with task performance, innovative behavior, and life satisfaction than GSSB. In addition, we compared three distinct pathways by which FSSB influenced the above three outcomes, including work-to-family conflict, LMX, and affective commitment. Specifically, FSSB significantly predicted task performance via all of these three mediators. The association between FSSB and innovative behavior was mediated by LMX and affective commitment. Work-to-family conflict and LMX served as mediators in the link between FSSB and life satisfaction. These findings not only deepen our understanding of the construct validity and influence mechanisms of FSSB, but also produce meaningful practical implications for leaders regarding how to lead in more effective ways to facilitate better employee outcomes.

Key words: family supportive supervisor behavior, meta-analysis, work-to-family conflict, leader-member exchange, affective commitment

中图分类号:

B849: C93

李超平, 孟雪, 胥彦, 蓝媛美. (2023). 家庭支持型主管行为对员工的影响与作用机制：基于元分析的证据. 心理学报, 55(2), 257-271.

LI Chaoping, MENG Xue, XU Yan, LAN Yuanmei. (2023). Effects of family supportive supervisor behavior on employee outcomes and mediating mechanisms: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(2), 257-271.

图/表 9

参考文献 84

	(注: 纳入元分析的文献较多, 此处未列出, 感兴趣的读者请访问)
[1]	Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774 URL
[2]	Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2014). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1123-1150. doi: 10.1177/0149206311413922 URL
[3]	Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236-251. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005 URL
[4]	Baranik, L. E., & Eby, L. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviors and employee depressed mood, burnout, and satisfaction with health and life The mediating role of positive affect. Personnel Review, 45(4), 626-642. doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2014-0066 URL
[5]	Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9-22. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.09.001 URL
[6]	Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101. pmid: 7786990
[7]	Bergh, D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D., Boyd, B., Su, P., Lau, C. L. L., & Joo, H. (2014). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 477-497. doi: 10.1002/smj.2338 URL
[8]	Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0 URL
[9]	Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are work-family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1037/a0030389 pmid: 23106685
[10]	Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., & Williams, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249-276. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713 URL
[11]	Choi, J., Kim, A., Han, K., Ryu, S., Park, J. G., & Kwon, B. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction with work-family balance: A moderating role of perceived insider status. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1002/job.2205 URL
[12]	Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 348-365. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1759 URL
[13]	Crain, T. L., & Stevens, S. C. (2018). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors: A review and recommendations for research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 869-888. doi: 10.1002/job.2320 URL
[14]	Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236. doi: 10.1037/a0031757 pmid: 23458336
[15]	Combs, J. G., Crook, T. R., & Rauch, A. (2019). Meta- analytic research in management: Contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and rising standards. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1111/joms.12427 URL
[16]	Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602 URL
[17]	Dahlke, J. A., & Wiernik, B. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415-416. doi: 10.1177/0146621618795933 pmid: 31235986
[18]	Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 pmid: 16367493
[19]	Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 497-527. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0076-y URL
[20]	Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280 URL
[21]	Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 URL
[22]	Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., & Mansfield, L. R. (2012). Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1038-1083. doi: 10.1177/0149206311429379 URL
[23]	Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726-1753. doi: 10.1177/0149206316682830 URL
[24]	Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197-220. doi: 10.1007/s10869-004-0548-4 URL
[25]	Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 URL
[26]	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
[27]	Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work-family intervention processes: The roles of work-family conflict and family- supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134-150. doi: 10.1037/a0020927 URL
[28]	Hammer, L. B., Kossek E. E, Bodner, T., & Crain, T. (2013). Measurement development and validation of the family supportive supervisor behavior short-form (FSSB-SF). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 285-296. doi: 10.1037/a0032612 pmid: 23730803
[29]	Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856. doi: 10.1177/0149206308328510 pmid: 21660254
[30]	Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB):A multilevel perspective. In P. L.Perrewé & D. C.Ganster (Eds.), Exploring the work and non-work interface (pp. 165-204). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
[31]	Hobfoll, S. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513 pmid: 2648906
[32]	Hoch, J., Bommer, W., Dulebohn, J., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta- analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529. doi: 10.1177/0149206316665461 URL
[33]	Hoobler, J. M., Hu, J., & Wilson, M. (2010). Do workers who experience conflict between the work and family domains hit a “glass ceiling?”: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 481-494. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.07.001 URL
[34]	Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 URL
[35]	Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team- level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. doi: 10.1037/a0015978 URL
[36]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[37]	Inceoglu, I., Arnold, K. A., Leroy, H., Lang, J. W. B., & Stephan, U. (2021). From microscopic to macroscopic perspectives and back: The study of leadership and health/well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(6), 459-468. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000316 pmid: 34990165
[38]	Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 URL
[39]	Kossek, E. E., Petty, R. A., Bodner, T. E., Perrigino, M. B., Hammer, L. B., Yragui, N. L., & Michel, J. S. (2018). Lasting impression: Transformational leadership and family supportive supervision as resources for well-being and performance. Occupational Health Science, 2(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1007/s41542-018-0012-x pmid: 31867438
[40]	Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289-313. pmid: 21691415
[41]	Lan, Y. M., Li, C. P., Wang, J. Y., & Meng, X. (2022). Benefits and costs of employee boundary-spanning behavior: A meta- analytic review. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(6), 665-683. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00665 URL
	[ 蓝媛美, 李超平, 王佳燕, 孟雪. (2022). 员工跨界行为的收益与代价:元分析的证据. 心理学报, 54(6), 665-683.]
[42]	Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C. L., O’Driscoll, M. P.,... Kinnunen, U. (2008). Family- supportive organization perceptions, multiple dimensions of work-family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of model across five samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 92-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.02.001 URL
[43]	Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837
[44]	Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2019). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1-44. doi: 10.1111/joop.12265 URL
[45]	Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta- analysis. SAGE publications, Inc.
[46]	Litano, M. L., Major, D. A., Landers, R. N., Streets, V. N., & Bass, B. I. (2016). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between leader-member exchange and work- family experiences. Leadership Quarterly, 27(5), 802-817. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.06.003 URL
[47]	Ma, H. Y., Qiu, M. M., Tang, H. Y., Jiang, H., & Xie, J. L. (2016). A literature review of family-supportive supervisory behaviors and prospects. Foreign Economics & Management, 38(10), 89-101.
	[ 马红宇, 邱慕梦, 唐汉瑛, 姜海, 谢菊兰. (2016). 家庭支持型主管行为研究述评与展望. 外国经济与管理, 38(10), 89-101.]
[48]	Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121. doi: 10.1111/peps.12100 URL
[49]	Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 168-181. doi: 10.1037/a0036012 pmid: 24730426
[50]	Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z URL
[51]	Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 URL
[52]	Meynhardt, T., Brieger, S. A., & Hermann, C. (2020). Organizational public value and employee life satisfaction: The mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1560-1593.
[53]	Mills, M. J., Matthews, R. A., Henning, J. B., & Woo, V. A. (2014). Family-supportive organizations and supervisors: How do they influence employee outcomes and for whom? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(12), 1763-1785. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.860387 URL
[54]	Ng, T. W. H. (2017). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 385-417. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008 URL
[55]	Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243-268.
[56]	Nie, Q., & Xie, Y. (2018). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors and turnover intention: The multiple mediating effects of bidirectional work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Human Resources Development of China, 35(1), 48-59.
	[ 聂琦, 谢煜. (2018). 家庭支持型主管行为与离职倾向: 工作-家庭冲突双向性和工作满意度的多重中介作用. 中国人力资源开发, 35(1), 48-59.]
[57]	Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218-235. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.004 URL
[58]	Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Organizational work-family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process of work- family conflict and enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 28-40. doi: 10.1037/a0026428 pmid: 22149204
[59]	Parker, S., Bindl, U., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. doi: 10.1177/0149206310363732 URL
[60]	Peng, A. C., & Kim, D. (2020). A meta-analytic test of the differential pathways linking ethical leadership to normative conduct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(4), 348-368. doi: 10.1002/job.2427 URL
[61]	Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/brm.40.3.879 pmid: 18697684
[62]	Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77-98 doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 URL
[63]	R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
[64]	Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266. doi: 10.1002/job.141 URL
[65]	Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture: Effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207-217. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000036 pmid: 27101338
[66]	Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
[67]	Roth, P., Le, H., Oh, I.-S., van Iddekinge, C., & Bobko, P. (2018). Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/apl0000293 pmid: 29369653
[68]	Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In H. R.Rothstein, A. J.Sutton, & M.Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1-7). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[69]	Shao, Y., Fang, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C.-H. (D.), & Wang, L. (2021). Making daily decisions to work from home or to work in the office: The impacts of daily work- and COVID-related stressors on next-day work location. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 825-838. doi: 10.1037/apl0000929 pmid: 34138589
[70]	Shi, Y. W., Xie, J. L., Zhou, Z. Q., Tang, H. Y., Ma, H. Y., Zhang, H., & Zhang, N. (2020). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors and employees’ life satisfaction: The roles of work-self facilitation and generational differences. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(3), 262-272. doi: 10.1037/str0000152 URL
[71]	Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70 pmid: 18211136
[72]	Song, J. Y., Zhang, L. X., & Zhang, L. T. (2020). Mechanism of work-family dual conflict affects innovative behavior of knowledge workers. Management Review, 32(3), 215-225.
	[ 宋嘉艺, 张兰霞, 张靓婷. (2020). 知识型员工工作家庭双向冲突对创新行为的影响机制. 管理评论, 32(3), 215-225.]
[73]	Tang, W.-G., & Vandenberghe, C. (2020). The reciprocal relationship between affective organizational commitment and role overload: When autonomy need satisfaction meets the individual self-concept. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(2), 353-380. doi: 10.1111/joop.12295 URL
[74]	Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family- supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6 URL
[75]	Tonidandel, S., & Lebreton, J. M. (2015). RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-Based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of Business & Psychology, 30(2), 207-216.
[76]	van der Laken, P. A., van Engen, M. L., van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Paauwe, J. (2019). Fostering expatriate success: A meta-analysis of the differential benefits of social support. Human Resource Management Review, 29(4), 100679. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.12.003 URL
[77]	Wang, S. Y., Liu, H., & Lin, Y. M. (2019). How does family supportive leadership affect employee's innovative behavior: The chain mediation effects of self-concept. Science of Science and Management of S.&.T, 40(3), 99-115.
	[ 王三银, 刘洪, 林彦梅. (2019). 家庭支持型领导如何驱动员工的创新行为——自我概念的链式中介效应. 科学学与科学技术管理, 40(3), 99-115.]
[78]	Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111. doi: 10.2307/257021 URL
[79]	Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory:A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
[80]	Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 343-357. pmid: 17059298
[81]	Xie, J. L., Ma, H. Y., Tang, H. Y., & Jiang, H. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behavior and marital satisfaction among Chinese dual-earner couples: Testing a positive spillover- crossover model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(3), 359-369. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00359 URL
	[ 谢菊兰, 马红宇, 唐汉瑛, 姜海. (2017). 家庭支持型主管行为与双职工夫妻的婚姻满意感: 一个积极溢出-交叉模型. 心理学报, 49(3), 359-369.]
[82]	Xu, S., Wang, Y. L., Mu, R., Jin, J. F., & Gao, F. Y. (2018). The effects of work-family interface on domain-specific satisfaction and well-being across nations: The moderating effects of individualistic culture and economic development. PsyCh Journal, 7(4), 248-267. doi: 10.1002/pchj.226 pmid: 30113133
[83]	Xu, Y., & Li, C. P. (2020). The impact of demographic characteristics on public service motivation: Evidence from meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(10), 1631-1649. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01631 URL
	[ 胥彦, 李超平. (2020). 人口统计学特征对公共服务动机有什么影响?来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 28(10), 1631-1649.]
[84]	Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L.-Q., & Bednall, T. C. (2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474-2497. doi: 10.1177/0149206318823935 URL

变量	K	N	$\bar{r}$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI	80% CV	Egger检验		Begg检验		Nf_s_-0.05
变量	K	N	$\bar{r}$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI	80% CV	截距	p	Z	p	Nf_s_-0.05
工作对家庭冲突	122	67493	-0.25	-0.28	0.14	[-0.30, -0.25]	[-0.44, -0.11]	-0.26	0.28	0.83	0.40	306126
LMX	23	6988	0.61	0.68	0.23	[0.58, 0.78]	[0.38, 0.98]	0.98	0.29	-2.04	0.04	52026
情感承诺	13	3260	0.39	0.45	0.10	[0.38, 0.51]	[0.32, 0.57]	0.36	0.71	0.24	0.81	4315
任务绩效	32	10309	0.30	0.34	0.17	[0.28, 0.40]	[0.13, 0.55]	0.30	0.96	-0.26	0.80	23827
创新行为	9	3420	0.29	0.33	0.10	[0.26, 0.40]	[0.21, 0.45]	0.26	0.76	0.31	0.75	1242
生活满意度	19	5901	0.29	0.33	0.11	[0.28, 0.39]	[0.20, 0.47]	0.31	0.94	-0.04	0.97	3555

变量	K	N	$\bar{r}$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI	80% CV	Egger检验		Begg检验		Nf_s_-0.05
变量	K	N	$\bar{r}$	$\bar{\rho }$	SD	95% CI	80% CV	截距	p	Z	p	Nf_s_-0.05
工作对家庭冲突	122	67493	-0.25	-0.28	0.14	[-0.30, -0.25]	[-0.44, -0.11]	-0.26	0.28	0.83	0.40	306126
LMX	23	6988	0.61	0.68	0.23	[0.58, 0.78]	[0.38, 0.98]	0.98	0.29	-2.04	0.04	52026
情感承诺	13	3260	0.39	0.45	0.10	[0.38, 0.51]	[0.32, 0.57]	0.36	0.71	0.24	0.81	4315
任务绩效	32	10309	0.30	0.34	0.17	[0.28, 0.40]	[0.13, 0.55]	0.30	0.96	-0.26	0.80	23827
创新行为	9	3420	0.29	0.33	0.10	[0.26, 0.40]	[0.21, 0.45]	0.26	0.76	0.31	0.75	1242
生活满意度	19	5901	0.29	0.33	0.11	[0.28, 0.39]	[0.20, 0.47]	0.31	0.94	-0.04	0.97	3555

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.FSSB
2.GSSB	0.56^b
(K, N)	(4, 691)
3.LMX	0.68^a	0.79^c
(K, N)	(23, 6988)	(7, 2137)
4.情感承诺	0.45^a	0.48^d	0.41^f
(K, N)	(13, 3260)	(25, 6268)	(21, 8118)
5.工作对家庭冲突	-0.28^a	-0.15^b	-0.26^g	-0.17^j
(K, N)	(115, 67493)	(25, 7267)	(32, 14061)	(14, 7400)
6.任务绩效	0.34^a	0.26^e	0.29^h	0.19^k	-0.17^l
(K, N)	(32, 10309)	(7, 920)	(108, 23627)	(59, 14906)	(11, 2169)
7.创新行为	0.33^a	0.30^c	0.31ⁱ	0.42ⁱ	-0.10^a	0.53ⁱ
(K, N)	(9, 3420)	(22, 7031)	(14, 4105)	(4, 944)	(5, 1354)	(30, 6846)
8.生活满意度	0.33^a	0.32^a	0.46^a	0.21^a	-0.35^m	0.14ⁿ	0.30^a
(K, N)	(19, 5901)	(8, 2127)	(4, 1228)	(4, 1043)	(77, 30706)	(10, 2269)	(5, 2495)

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.FSSB
2.GSSB	0.56^b
(K, N)	(4, 691)
3.LMX	0.68^a	0.79^c
(K, N)	(23, 6988)	(7, 2137)
4.情感承诺	0.45^a	0.48^d	0.41^f
(K, N)	(13, 3260)	(25, 6268)	(21, 8118)
5.工作对家庭冲突	-0.28^a	-0.15^b	-0.26^g	-0.17^j
(K, N)	(115, 67493)	(25, 7267)	(32, 14061)	(14, 7400)
6.任务绩效	0.34^a	0.26^e	0.29^h	0.19^k	-0.17^l
(K, N)	(32, 10309)	(7, 920)	(108, 23627)	(59, 14906)	(11, 2169)
7.创新行为	0.33^a	0.30^c	0.31ⁱ	0.42ⁱ	-0.10^a	0.53ⁱ
(K, N)	(9, 3420)	(22, 7031)	(14, 4105)	(4, 944)	(5, 1354)	(30, 6846)
8.生活满意度	0.33^a	0.32^a	0.46^a	0.21^a	-0.35^m	0.14ⁿ	0.30^a
(K, N)	(19, 5901)	(8, 2127)	(4, 1228)	(4, 1043)	(77, 30706)	(10, 2269)	(5, 2495)

变量	任务绩效		创新行为		生活满意度
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
GSSB	0.26 (0.03)^***	0.10 (0.03)^**	0.30 (0.01)^***	0.17 (0.03)^***	0.32 (0.02)^***	0.20 (0.03)^***
FSSB		0.28 (0.03)^***		0.24 (0.03)^***		0.22 (0.03)^***
R²	0.07	0.12	0.09	0.13	0.10	0.13
ΔR²		0.05		0.04		0.03