辩证领导行为及其对企业创新能力和绩效的影响: 一项基于中国传统文化的领导行为探究

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00374

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在探索中国人应对历史危机的心理特征与行为表现的大框架下, 本文研究了辩证领导行为这一概念的内涵、结构、测量方法、概念独特性, 并探讨了辩证领导行为对企业创新能力和绩效的影响。研究发现, 辩证领导行为这一基于东方传统思维模式和哲学思想提出的领导行为概念具有6个维度: 适时调整, 因人而异, 权衡矛盾, 恩威并施, 注重协调和整体管理。多个样本的数据提供的证据表明: 1) 辩证领导行为有别于其他现有的领导行为概念; 2) 中国高层管理者辩证领导行为更胜于美国高层管理者辩证领导行为; 3) 基于中国传统智慧的辩证领导行为可正向预测企业能否生存和发展的绩效指标——企业创新能力与企业绩效, 且企业战略柔性起到中介作用。文章最后讨论了本研究的理论和实践意义, 以及未来的研究方向。

关键词: 辩证领导行为, 战略柔性, 企业创新能力, 企业绩效, 中国情境

Abstract:

Although the continuous spread of the pandemic and the rapid development of technology has brought challenges for top managers in China, the environmental uncertainty also offers an opportunity for them to practice and develop leadership skills. To answer what leadership behaviors will help top managers improve organizations’ adaptability and performance in a rapidly changing and complex environment, we developed a new leadership construct, namely, dialectical leadership behavior based on dialectical thinking rooted in the Chinese culture.

Dialectical leadership behavior is characterized as a strategic leadership behavior including timely adapting organizational strategy and managerial practices to environmental changes, understanding and balancing between management contradictions, and holistically coordinating different departments and resources in organizations. According to upper echelon theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), CEOs’ leadership styles have a profound impact on the strategic choice and performance of the organization. We thus expect CEO dialectical leadership behavior to contribute to firm innovative capability and performance through strategic flexibility in a complex and uncertain business environment.

To better understand dialectical leadership, we first developed and validated a scale. We found that dialectical leadership behavior was composed of six dimensions: timely adjusting, individualized mentoring, weighing contradictions, balancing kindness and strictness, promoting coordination, and holistically managing. We further distinguished dialectical leadership behavior from other related leadership constructs with theoretical and empirical efforts. Besides, as top managers of Chinese firms displayed a significantly higher dialectical leadership behavior than those of U.S. companies, the cultural uniqueness of dialectical leadership behavior was justified. Finally, we revealed that CEO dialectical leadership behavior in Chinese companies positively affected firm strategic flexibility and ultimately improved firm innovative capability and performance.

We make several contributions. First, scholars constantly explore leadership constructs and practice based on the Western culture. However, the cultural difference between the East and the West matters when it comes to the effectiveness of leadership behaviors. Dialectical leadership behavior provides a new perspective for future exploration of indigenous leadership behaviors and influences by incorporating traditional wisdom of Eastern culture and the reality faced by Chinese enterprises. Second, by developing the measurement of dialectical leadership behavior, we contribute to the future investigation of dialectical leadership behavior and its correlations. Additionally, as we found that CEO dialectical leadership behavior is positively related to firm innovative capability and performance, which are critical for enterprises to survive and thrive during the crisis, we lend confidence in applying wisdom from the Chinese traditional culture to current management practice. Finally, by uncovering the role of firm strategic flexibility in mediating the influence of dialectical leadership behavior on firm innovative capability and performance, we extend understandings about the mechanism through which dialectical leadership behavior matters. We also provide the discussion on the limitation of the study and future research directions.

Key words: dialectical leadership behavior, strategic flexibility, firm innovative capability, firm performance, Chinese context

王辉, 王颖, 季晓得, 纪铭. (2023). 辩证领导行为及其对企业创新能力和绩效的影响: 一项基于中国传统文化的领导行为探究. 心理学报, 55(3), 374-389.

WANG Hui, WANG Ying, JI Xiaode, JI Ming. (2023). Dialectical leadership behavior and its impact on firm innovation and performance: An exploration based on the Chinese culture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 374-389.

图/表 6

参考文献 67

[1]	Aaker D. A., & Mascarenhas B. (1984). The need for strategic flexibility. The Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039060 doi: 10.1108/eb039060 URL
[2]	Akman G., & Yilmaz C. (2008). Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation: An empirical analysis in Turkish software industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 69-111. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001923 doi: 10.1142/S1363919608001923 URL
[3]	Anderson J. C., & Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 URL
[4]	Andriopoulos C., & Lewis M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003 URL
[5]	Avolio B. J., & Bass B. M. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink unless it is thirsty. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199800500102 doi: 10.1177/107179199800500102 URL
[6]	Aycan Z., Schyns B., Sun J., Felfe J., & Saher N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 962-969. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.48 doi: 10.1057/jibs.2013.48 URL
[7]	Bai Y., Harms P., Han G., & Cheng W. (2015). Good and bad simultaneously? Leaders using dialectical thinking foster positive conflict and employee performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(3), 245-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2014-0070
[8]	Bass B. M., & Avolio B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122
[9]	Bass B. M., & Riggio R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[10]	Blau P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
[11]	Bledow R., Frese M., Anderson N., Erez M., & Farr J. (2009). Extending and refining the dialectic perspective on innovation: There is nothing as practical as a good theory; nothing as theoretical as a good practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01161.x doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01161.x URL
[12]	Bliese P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass.
[13]	Chen C., Wu Xiao., & Wei F.,(2004). Heterogeneity of top management team, managerial ownership, and risk taking. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 19(5), 1-13.
	[ 陈闯, 吴晓晖, 卫芳. (2016). 团队异质性、管理层持股与企业风险行为. 管理科学学报, 19(5), 1-13.]
[14]	Cheng C. (2009). Dialectical thinking and coping flexibility: A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality, 77(2), 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x URL pmid: 19220723
[15]	Cheng Z. (1988). Chinese language and traditional Chinese philosophical way of thinking. Philosophical Trends, 10, 18-21.
	[ 成中英. (1988). 中国语言与中国传统哲学思维方式. 哲学动态, 10, 18-21.]
[16]	Cheng Z., & Lv L. (2012). Concepts, systems and structures of management philosophy and Chinese management philosophy: Professor Cheng Chung-ying. Chinese Journal of Management, 9(8), 1099-1110.
	[ 成中英, 吕力. (2012). 成中英教授论管理哲学的概念、体系、结构与中国管理哲学. 管理学报, 9(8), 1099-1110.]
[17]	Chen Y., Jia L., Li C., Song J., & Zhang J. (2006). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and employee organizational commitment: An empirical examination in China. Management World, 1, 96-105.
	[ 陈永霞, 贾良定, 李超平, 宋继文, 张君君. (2006). 变革型领导、心理授权与员工的组织承诺: 中国情景下的实证研究. 管理世界, (1), 96-105.]
[18]	Das T. K., & Teng B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926623 doi: 10.2307/259291 URL
[19]	El Akremi A., Gond J., Swaen V., de Roeck K., & Igalens J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619-657.https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311 doi: 10.1177/0149206315569311 URL
[20]	English T., & Chen S. (2007). Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within contexts among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 478-490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.478 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.478 URL pmid: 17723061
[21]	Evans J. S. (1991). Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00271.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00271.x URL
[22]	Grewal R., & Tansuhaj P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.67.18259
[23]	Hambrick D. C., & Mason P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434 doi: 10.2307/258434 URL
[24]	Hau K., & Marsh H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 57(2), 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
[25]	Hideg I., & Ferris D. L. (2017). Dialectical thinking and fairness-based perspectives of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 782-801. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000207 doi: 10.1037/apl0000207 URL pmid: 28150989
[26]	Hiller N. J., Sin H., Ponnapalli A. R., & Ozgen S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 URL
[27]	Hinkin T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509 doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509 URL
[28]	House R. J., Dorfman P., Javidan P., Javidan M., Hanges P., & Luque M. S. D. (2014). Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[29]	Hou Y., & Zhu Y. (2002). The effect of culture on thinking style of Chinese people. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34(1), 106-111.
	[ 侯玉波, 朱滢. (2002). 文化对中国人思维方式的影响. 心理学报, 34(1), 106-111.]
[30]	Huang M., & Wang H. (2017). CEO dialectical leadership: An exploration study. Economic Science, (3), 115-128.
	[ 黄鸣鹏, 王辉. (2017). 高层管理者的辩证领导行为: 一项探索性研究. 经济科学, (3), 115-128.]
[31]	James L. R., & Brett J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307 URL
[32]	James L. R., Mulaik S. A., & Brett J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285144 doi: 10.1177/1094428105285144 URL
[33]	Jansen J. J. P., Vera D., & Crossan M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008 URL
[34]	Kirkman B., Chen G., Farh J., Chen Z. X., & Lowe K. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross- cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971 doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669971 URL
[35]	Lance C. E., Butts M. M., & Michels L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919 doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919 URL
[36]	Lee H. (2002). The impact of CEO and TMT characteristics on strategic flexibility and firm performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University.
[37]	Li H., & Atuahene-Gima K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069392 doi: 10.2307/3069392 URL
[38]	Liu N., & Zhang Y., (2007). Cross-sectoral integration for innovation and human resources management support systems. Human Resources Development of China, (11), 35-38.
	[ 刘宁, 张正堂. (2007). 促进创新的跨部门整合与人力资源管理支持体系. 中国人力资源开发, (11), 35-38.]
[39]	Luciano M. M., Nahrgang J. D., & Shropshire C. (2020). Strategic leadership systems: Viewing top management teams and boards of directors from a multiteam systems perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 675-701. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2017.0485 doi: 10.5465/amr.2017.0485 URL
[40]	Lv Y., Li W., & Kang Y. (2016). Relationship among TMT climate, strategic flexibility and firm performance: An empirical study under dynamic environment. Chinese Journal of Management, (13), 195-202.
[41]	[ 吕源, 李卫宁, 亢永. (2016). 动态环境下TMT团队氛围、战略柔性与企业绩效关系研究. 管理学报, (13), 195-202.]
[42]	Meng P. (1988). On the basic characteristics of the traditional Chinese way of thinking. Philosophical Investigations, 7, 53-60.
	[ 蒙培元. (1988). 论中国传统思维方式的基本特征. 哲学研究, 7, 53-60.]
[43]	Meyer K. E. (2006). Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2 doi: 10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2 URL
[44]	Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. (2017). Mplus version 8 [Computer software manual]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[45]	Nadkarni S., & Herrmann P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050-1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533196 doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533196 URL
[46]	Nisbett R. E., Peng K., Choi I., & Norenzayan A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.2.291 doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 URL pmid: 11381831
[47]	Ostroff C., Kinicki A. J., & Clark M. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.355 URL pmid: 12002963
[48]	Pang P. (1980). Comment on the doctrine of the mean. Social Sciences in China, 1, 75-100.
	[ 庞朴. (1980). “中庸”平议. 中国社会科学, 1, 75-100.]
[49]	Peng H. (2017). Three characteristics of traditional Chinese thinking style: Holistic thinking, dialectical thinking and intuitive thinking. Social Science Research, 3, 126-133.
	[ 彭华. (2017). 中国传统思维的三个特征: 整体思维、辩证思维、直觉思维. 社会科学研究, 3, 126-133.]
[50]	Peng K., & Nisbett R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. The American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741 URL
[51]	Peng K., & Nisbett R. E. (2000). Dialectical responses to questions about dialectical thinking. The American Psychologist, 55(9), 1067-1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1067 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1067 URL
[52]	Pierce G. R., Sarason I. G., & Sarason B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1028-1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1028 URL pmid: 1774625
[53]	Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff N. P., & Lee J. Y. (2003). The mismeasure of man (agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 615-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002 URL
[54]	Shao Y., Nijstad B. A., & Täuber S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double- edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008 URL
[55]	Smith W. K., & Lewis M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
[56]	Smith W. K., & Tushman M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 16(5), 522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
[57]	Spencer-Rodgers J., Peng K., Wang L., & Hou Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1416-1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264243
[58]	Teece D. J., Pisano G., & Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509:AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z URL
[59]	Tian C. (2008). Chinese dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism. China Renmin University Press.
	[ 田辰山. (2008). 中国辩证法:从《易经》到马克思主义. 中国人民大学出版社.]
[60]	Tsui A. (2009). Editor’s introduction-Autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging scientific communities. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00143.x
[61]	Vandenberg R. J., & Lance C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 URL
[62]	Wang H., Law K. S., Hackett R. D., Wang D., & Chen Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407908 doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407908 URL
[63]	Yang C., Nay S., & Hoyle R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 122-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609338592 URL pmid: 20514149
[64]	Zhang D., & Cheng Z. (1991). Chinese way of thinking. China Social Sciences Press.
	[ 张岱年, 成中英. (1991). 中国思维偏向. 中国社会科学出版社.]
[65]	Zhang X., & Bartol K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 862-873. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020173 doi: 10.1037/a0020173 URL pmid: 20718512
[66]	Zhang Y., & Han Y. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007 URL
[67]	Zhang Y., Waldman D. A., Han Y., & Li X. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995 doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0995 URL

题项	探索性因子分析结果						验证性因子分析结果
题项	适时调整	恩威并施	权衡矛盾	因人而异	注重协调	整体管理	验证性因子分析结果
经常评估环境的变化给本企业带来的机遇或威胁	0.95	0.08	0.01	0.06	−0.10	−0.05	0.68
对本企业长期发展所面临的主要问题有清晰的认识	0.86	0.01	0.00	−0.03	0.00	0.05	0.74
对企业未来的发展前景有清晰的认识	0.85	0.04	−0.03	0.02	0.05	−0.03	0.69
根据企业内、外部环境的变化及时调整企业战略	0.77	−0.11	0.01	−0.09	0.05	0.05	0.79
因人而异安排下属的工作任务	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.95	−0.09	−0.02	0.75
针对不同年龄层次的下属, 采取不同的领导方式	0.03	−0.05	−0.03	0.91	0.05	0.03	0.77
随着下属特点的变化而调整领导方式	−0.08	0.02	−0.01	0.86	0.06	0.02	0.85
对待下属时, 批评与肯定兼顾	0.10	0.87	0.03	0.02	−0.03	−0.08	0.79
与下属相处, 既能严肃也能亲和	0.00	0.87	−0.03	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.67
对下属授权的同时也保持监督	−0.06	0.83	0.03	−0.07	0.08	0.03	0.54
领导下属时既给予鼓励也施加压力	−0.02	0.82	0.04	−0.01	−0.01	0.07	0.81
制定企业发展战略时, 兼顾短期利益和长期发展	0.01	0.02	0.83	−0.04	0.00	−0.06	0.77
平衡企业的短期利益和长期目标	0.02	−0.04	0.80	0.00	0.03	−0.03	0.73
维护企业稳定发展的同时推动变革和创新	−0.03	0.04	0.79	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.69
推动企业充分利用现有资源和能力的同时拓展新资源和能力	−0.01	0.08	0.72	0.02	−0.07	0.06	0.67
推动企业内各部门(环节)之间的相互了解	0.11	0.00	−0.01	0.01	0.81	−0.06	0.85
不断优化企业各部门(环节)之间的衔接	0.04	−0.10	0.02	0.07	0.78	0.06	0.85
推动各部门(环节)的发展与企业的整体发展相协调	−0.13	0.17	−0.10	−0.07	0.78	−0.07	0.85
制定战略时, 强调企业各部门之间的配合	0.03	−0.01	0.15	0.03	0.70	0.05	0.72
分配资金、人力等资源时考虑企业的整体布局	0.02	−0.02	0.00	−0.07	0.06	0.90	0.77
对各个部门进行考核时会考虑公司的整体情况	0.00	0.02	−0.02	0.07	−0.09	0.78	0.76
决策时, 从全局出发考虑各个部门的意见	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.73	0.76
特征值	8.73	2.99	2.24	1.32	1.15	1.05
累计解释的方差	38.35%	51.09%	60.14%	64.69%	68.43%	71.91%
Cronbach’s α	0.92	0.93	0.87	0.93	0.86	0.85

题项	探索性因子分析结果						验证性因子分析结果
题项	适时调整	恩威并施	权衡矛盾	因人而异	注重协调	整体管理	验证性因子分析结果
经常评估环境的变化给本企业带来的机遇或威胁	0.95	0.08	0.01	0.06	−0.10	−0.05	0.68
对本企业长期发展所面临的主要问题有清晰的认识	0.86	0.01	0.00	−0.03	0.00	0.05	0.74
对企业未来的发展前景有清晰的认识	0.85	0.04	−0.03	0.02	0.05	−0.03	0.69
根据企业内、外部环境的变化及时调整企业战略	0.77	−0.11	0.01	−0.09	0.05	0.05	0.79
因人而异安排下属的工作任务	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.95	−0.09	−0.02	0.75
针对不同年龄层次的下属, 采取不同的领导方式	0.03	−0.05	−0.03	0.91	0.05	0.03	0.77
随着下属特点的变化而调整领导方式	−0.08	0.02	−0.01	0.86	0.06	0.02	0.85
对待下属时, 批评与肯定兼顾	0.10	0.87	0.03	0.02	−0.03	−0.08	0.79
与下属相处, 既能严肃也能亲和	0.00	0.87	−0.03	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.67
对下属授权的同时也保持监督	−0.06	0.83	0.03	−0.07	0.08	0.03	0.54
领导下属时既给予鼓励也施加压力	−0.02	0.82	0.04	−0.01	−0.01	0.07	0.81
制定企业发展战略时, 兼顾短期利益和长期发展	0.01	0.02	0.83	−0.04	0.00	−0.06	0.77
平衡企业的短期利益和长期目标	0.02	−0.04	0.80	0.00	0.03	−0.03	0.73
维护企业稳定发展的同时推动变革和创新	−0.03	0.04	0.79	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.69
推动企业充分利用现有资源和能力的同时拓展新资源和能力	−0.01	0.08	0.72	0.02	−0.07	0.06	0.67
推动企业内各部门(环节)之间的相互了解	0.11	0.00	−0.01	0.01	0.81	−0.06	0.85
不断优化企业各部门(环节)之间的衔接	0.04	−0.10	0.02	0.07	0.78	0.06	0.85
推动各部门(环节)的发展与企业的整体发展相协调	−0.13	0.17	−0.10	−0.07	0.78	−0.07	0.85
制定战略时, 强调企业各部门之间的配合	0.03	−0.01	0.15	0.03	0.70	0.05	0.72
分配资金、人力等资源时考虑企业的整体布局	0.02	−0.02	0.00	−0.07	0.06	0.90	0.77
对各个部门进行考核时会考虑公司的整体情况	0.00	0.02	−0.02	0.07	−0.09	0.78	0.76
决策时, 从全局出发考虑各个部门的意见	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.73	0.76
特征值	8.73	2.99	2.24	1.32	1.15	1.05
累计解释的方差	38.35%	51.09%	60.14%	64.69%	68.43%	71.91%
Cronbach’s α	0.92	0.93	0.87	0.93	0.86	0.85

测量模型	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
6因子模型	262.09	194	−	−	0.97	0.96	0.04	0.05
3因子模型: 适时调整+因人而异恩威并施+权衡矛盾注重协调+整体管理	397.32	206	135.23^**	12	0.91	0.90	0.06	0.05
单因子模型	491.44	209	229.35^**	15	0.87	0.85	0.07	0.06

测量模型	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
6因子模型	262.09	194	−	−	0.97	0.96	0.04	0.05
3因子模型: 适时调整+因人而异恩威并施+权衡矛盾注重协调+整体管理	397.32	206	135.23^**	12	0.91	0.90	0.06	0.05
单因子模型	491.44	209	229.35^**	15	0.87	0.85	0.07	0.06

区分模型	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
两因子模型: DLB, TFL	83.43	34			0.94	0.92	0.04	0.08
单因子模型: DLB+TFL	93.44	35	10.01^**	1	0.93	0.90	0.05	0.09
两因子模型: DLB, PDL-PM	100.45	43			0.94	0.92	0.04	0.08
单因子模型: DLB+ PDL-PM	116.96	44	16.51^**	1	0.92	0.91	0.05	0.09
两因子模型: DLB, PDL-CD	75.17	34			0.96	0.94	0.04	0.08
单因子模型: DLB+PDL-CD	85.34	35	10.17^**	1	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.09
两因子模型: DLB, vision	42.62	19			0.95	0.93	0.04	0.08
单因子模型: DLB+vision	63.96	20	21.34^**	1	0.91	0.87	0.05	0.10