员工主动行为对同事关系的双刃剑效应：员工热情特质的调节作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究基于趋近−回避系统理论和刻板印象特质相关文献, 探讨了员工主动行为对同事的人际收益和代价, 以及驱动不同结果生效的边界条件和传导机制。本研究相继通过对三阶段、多来源轮询设计问卷调研(研究1)和情境实验(研究2)收集的数据进行分析, 得出以下结论: 当员工热情特质处于高水平时, 其主动行为会激发同事关系能量, 进而驱动同事采取人际促进行为; 而当员工热情特质处于低水平时, 其主动行为会诱发同事人际反感, 从而致使同事采取人际孤立行为。

关键词: 主动行为, 趋近-回避系统, 热情特质, 关系能量, 人际反感

Abstract:

Personal initiative behavior contributes to organizational success and helps employees navigate workplace uncertainty, and is therefore an essential research topic. However, most studies have focused on the influence of personal initiative behavior on leaders rather than coworkers. Moreover, the findings regarding the interpersonal effects of such behavior on coworkers are inconsistent. To address these issues, we take a contingency perspective that shifts the focus from a binary “good or bad for coworkers” logic to an understanding of the interpersonal benefits and risks of personal initiative behavior. Drawing on research stereotype traits, in this study we examine the moderating effect of the trait of employee warmth trait and explore the differential emotional and behavioral responses of coworkers toward employees with high or low warmth traits. We apply the approach-avoidance systems theory and hypothesize that warm and initiative-taking employees generate relational energy, leading to active facilitation behavior, whereas initiative-taking but non-warm employees may experience interpersonal disliking and subsequent ostracism behavior from coworkers.

We conducted two studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 involved a multi-source round-robin survey to test the proposed model. Each survey wave was separated by a three-week interval. At Time 1, team leaders assessed each team member’s personal initiative behavior and demographics. The team members then rated their own warmth trait and demographics. Three weeks later at Time 2, the team members evaluated relational energy and interpersonal disliking through a round-robin design. Finally, three weeks later at Time 3, they rated their active facilitation behavior and interpersonal ostracism behavior using a round-robin design. The dataset comprised 1, 164 dyads of 305 members in 65 teams. In Study 2, to enhance causal inference, a scenario-based experiment with a 2 (personal initiative behavior: high vs. low) × 2 (employee warmth trait: high vs. low) factorial design was conducted. The participants (280 full-time workers) were recruited from an online survey platform (Credamo) and randomly assigned to one of four scenarios. They reported their demographics, read the scenario, and provided responses to manipulation checks and questions regarding relational energy, interpersonal disliking, active facilitation behavior, and interpersonal ostracism behavior.

In terms of data analysis, we considered the complex nested structure of the round-robin data in Study 1 and utilized a multilevel social relations modeling approach to test the research model. In Study 2, we used ANOVA and regression analyses to examine the causal relationships in our theoretical model. The empirical results supported our hypotheses, indicating that initiative-taking and warm employees were more likely to stimulate coworkers’ relational energy and increase their active facilitation behavior. Conversely, initiative-taking but non-warm employees were more likely to trigger interpersonal disliking among coworkers, subsequently leading to increased interpersonal ostracism behavior.

This study has several theoretical implications. First, unlike studies that focus on singular effects, we explored the dual nature of the effects of personal initiative behavior on coworkers, thus providing a deeper understanding and a more comprehensive perspective. Second, by building on the literature on stereotype traits, we identified the employee warmth trait as a critical boundary that distinguishes the interpersonal benefits and risks of personal initiative behavior toward coworkers, thus reconciling other contradictory findings. Finally, by drawing on approach-avoidance systems theory, we revealed that relational energy and interpersonal disliking explain how and why coworkers have differential behavioral responses toward the personal initiative behavior exhibited by employees with high or low warmth traits.

Key words: personal initiative behavior, approach-avoidance systems theory, warmth trait, relational energy, interpersonal disliking

中图分类号:

B849
C93

宋琪, 任琪琪, 陈扬, 任迎伟. (2023). 员工主动行为对同事关系的双刃剑效应：员工热情特质的调节作用. 心理学报, 55(12), 2013-2034.

SONG Qi, REN Qiqi, CHEN Yang, REN Yingwei. (2023). The double-edged sword effect of employee personal initiative behavior on coworker relationships: The moderating role of the employee warmth trait. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(12), 2013-2034.

图/表 15

参考文献 126

[1]	Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68. doi: 10.1002/job.v24:1 URL
[2]	Baer, M. D., Frank, E. L., Matta, F. K., Luciano, M. M., & Wellman, N. (2021). Undertrusted, overtrusted, or just right? The fairness of (in)congruence between trust wanted and trust received. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 180-206. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.0334 URL
[3]	Baethge, A., Vahle-Hinz, T., & Rigotti, T. (2020). Coworker support and its relationship to allostasis during a workday: A diary study on trajectories of heart rate variability during work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 506-526. doi: 10.1037/apl0000445 pmid: 31478715
[4]	Bark, A. S. H., Seliverstova, K., & Ohly, S. (2022). Getting credit for proactivity? The effects of gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(8), 660-675. doi: 10.1111/jasp.v52.8 URL
[5]	Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. doi: 10.1002/job.v14:2 URL
[6]	Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142-163. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142 pmid: 16784335
[7]	Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
[8]	Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. In David L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 452-458). New York: Macmillan Company.
[9]	Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 229-258. doi: 10.1111/peps.2009.62.issue-2 URL
[10]	Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325-345. doi: 10.1348/096317910X493134 URL
[11]	Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series: Vol. 8. Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Sage Publications, Inc.
[12]	Brosi, P., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I. M., & Heilman, M. E. (2016). Expressing pride: Effects on perceived agency, communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1319-1328. doi: 10.1037/apl0000122 pmid: 27281186
[13]	Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 245-272. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.003 URL
[14]	Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 717-727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.717 URL
[15]	Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866. doi: 10.1037/apl0000183 pmid: 28191991
[16]	Cangiano, F., Parker, S. K., & Yeo, G. B. (2019). Does daily proactivity affect well-being? The moderating role of punitive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 59-72. doi: 10.1002/job.v40.1 URL
[17]	Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655-684. doi: 10.2189/asqu.53.4.655 URL
[18]	Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 453-484. doi: 10.1146/psych.2005.56.issue-1 URL
[19]	Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
[20]	Chen, A., & Treviño, L. K. (2022). Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice: Coworker emotions and support for the voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 1973-1994. doi: 10.1037/apl0001003 pmid: 34990163
[21]	Cheng, J., & Shi, M. (2023). Perceived warmth and competence: The role of physiological cues in social cognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(3), 443-454. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00443
	[程婕婷, 史梦薇. (2023). “凭感觉”的热情与能力:社会认知内容的生理线索. 心理科学进展, 31(3), 443-454.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00443
[22]	Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51-69. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51 URL
[23]	Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 516-538.
[24]	Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-648. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 pmid: 17469949
[25]	Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviors, 31, 73-98.
[26]	de Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 280-295. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00022-0 URL
[27]	de Jong, S. B., van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1625-1637. pmid: 18020801
[28]	Duan, J., Lin, X., Wang, X. & Xu, Y. (2022). How organizational cultures shape social cognition for newcomer voices. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95(3), 660-686. doi: 10.1111/joop.v95.3 URL
[29]	Eatough, E. M., Meier, L. L., Igic, I., Elfering, A., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2016). You want me to do what? Two daily diary studies of illegitimate tasks and employee well- being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 108-127. doi: 10.1002/job.2032 URL
[30]	Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111-116. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7 URL
[31]	Elliot, A. J., Eder, A. B., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2013). Approach-Avoidance motivation and emotion: Convergence and divergence. Emotion Review, 5(3), 308-311. doi: 10.1177/1754073913477517 URL
[32]	Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 859-891. doi: 10.1111/peps.2005.58.issue-4 URL
[33]	Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative (PI): An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124 doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06 URL
[34]	Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366.
[35]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 URL
[36]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. pmid: 12051578
[37]	Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 pmid: 21850154
[38]	Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity of two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161. doi: 10.1111/joop.1997.70.issue-2 URL
[39]	Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63. doi: 10.2307/256630 URL
[40]	Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6), 879-898. doi: 10.1177/0018726714548235 URL
[41]	Gardner, R. G., Harris, T. B., Li, N., Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research: A theory-based taxonomy, review, and future research agenda concerning interactive and quadratic relationships. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 610-638. doi: 10.1177/1094428117708856 URL
[42]	Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 239-251. pmid: 11831413
[43]	Grandey, A. A., Houston, L., & Avery, D. R. (2019). Fake it to make it? Emotional labor reduces the racial disparity in service performance judgments. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2163-2192. doi: 10.1177/0149206318757019
[44]	Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. (2011). The performance implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.004 URL
[45]	Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. doi: 10.5465/19416520903047327 URL
[46]	Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4(3), 269-288. doi: 10.1080/02699939008410799 URL
[47]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1628-1650. doi: 10.1177/0149206312455246 URL
[48]	Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107. doi: 10.2307/256901 URL
[49]	Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7(11), 1097-1108. doi: 10.1007/BF00287587 URL
[50]	Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, UK: Routledge.
[51]	Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S., & Han, J. H. (2016). What it takes to get proactive: An integrative multilevel model of the antecedents of personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 687-701. doi: 10.1037/apl0000064 pmid: 26653528
[52]	Isaakyan, S., Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Guenter, H. (2021). Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1049-1066. doi: 10.1037/apl0000816 URL
[53]	Jacob, G. H., Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., & Friedrich, C. (2019). On the importance of a motivational agency variable: Being a formal business in developing countries is only helpful for growth if business owners show a high degree of personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1181-1194. doi: 10.1037/apl0000398 pmid: 30829511
[54]	Katz, D., & Kahn, R., Jr. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
[55]	Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[56]	Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data-analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[57]	Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 141-182). Academic Press.
[58]	Kenny, D. A. & Wong, M.-N. (2016). SRM_R: An interactive tool for estimating the Social Relations Model from directed dyadic data with round-robin-like designs[Computer software]. Available from https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/SRM_R/.
[59]	Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 894-917. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.22798171 URL
[60]	Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588-601. doi: 10.1037/a0021882 pmid: 21171734
[61]	Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34 URL
[62]	Lee, K., & Duffy, M. K. (2019). A functional model of workplace envy and job performance: When do employees capitalize on envy by learning from envied targets? Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1085-1110. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1202 URL
[63]	Li, C. S., Liao, H., & Han, Y. (2022). I despise but also envy you: A dyadic investigation of perceived overqualification, perceived relative qualification, and knowledge hiding. Personnel Psychology, 75(1), 91-118. doi: 10.1111/peps.v75.1 URL
[64]	Li, H. (J.), Wang, X. (C.), Williams, M., Chen, Y.-R., & Brockner, J. 2023). My boss is younger, less educated, and shorter tenured: When and why status (in)congruence influences promotion system justification. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001086
[65]	Li, L., & Huang, G. (2021). “Advantages and disadvantages” of individual proactive behavior in organizations. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(8), 1484-1496. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01484 URL
	[李玲玲, 黄桂. (2021). 组织中个体主动性行为“利与弊”. 心理科学进展, 29(8), 1484-1496.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01484
[66]	Li, W.-D., Li, S., Feng, J. (J.), Wang, M., Zhang, H., Frese, M., & Wu, C.-H. (2021). Can becoming a leader change your personality? An investigation with two longitudinal studies from a role-based perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 882-901. doi: 10.1037/apl0000808 URL
[67]	Liu, H., Ji, Y., & Dust, S. B. (2021). “Fully recharged” evenings? The effect of evening cyber leisure on next-day vitality and performance through sleep quantity and quality, bedtime procrastination, and psychological detachment, and the moderating role of mindfulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 990-1006. doi: 10.1037/apl0000818 URL
[68]	Ma, J., & Zhang, R. (2022). Mindfulness and trust: How to prevent the compensatory abusive behaviors of the low- status supervisors? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 566-581. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00566 URL
	[马君, 张锐. (2022). 权重望寡: 如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为? 心理学报, 54(5), 566-581.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00566
[69]	Mensmann, M., & Frese, M. (2019). Who stays proactive after entrepreneurship training? Need for cognition, personal initiative maintenance, and well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 20-37. doi: 10.1002/job.2333
[70]	Miao, X., Sun, X., Kuang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Co- experiencing the same negative emotional events promotes cooperation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(1), 81-94. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00081 URL
	[苗晓燕, 孙欣, 匡仪, 汪祚军. (2021). 共患难, 更同盟: 共同经历相同负性情绪事件促进合作行为. 心理学报, 53(1), 81-94.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00081
[71]	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
[72]	Ng, T. W. H., Lucianetti, L., Hsu, D. Y., Yim, F. H. K. & Sorensen, K. L. (2021). You speak, I speak: The social- cognitive mechanisms of voice contagion. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1569-1608. doi: 10.1111/joms.v58.6 URL
[73]	Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1146-1168. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0133 URL
[74]	Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 35-49. doi: 10.1037/apl0000032 pmid: 26098165
[75]	Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1088-1111. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0660 URL
[76]	Park, H., Tangirala, S., Hussain, I., & Ekkirala, S. (2022). How and when managers reward employees’ voice: The role of proactivity attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2269-2284. doi: 10.1037/apl0001008 URL
[77]	Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. doi: 10.1177/0149206310363732 URL
[78]	Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 221-248. doi: 10.1146/orgpsych.2019.6.issue-1 URL
[79]	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
[80]	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
[81]	Qu, J., Zhao, Y., & Zhao, S. (2021). How to determine work behaviors when employees of state-owned enterprise perceive the organizational politics: An integrating perspective rooted in the context of political culture-human society in china. Management World, 37(8), 143-162.
	[瞿皎姣, 赵宜萱, 赵曙明. (2021). 国企员工组织政治知觉下的行为选择——基于中国政治文化—人情社会内洽情境的整合性解释. 管理世界, 37(8), 143-162.]
[82]	Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
[83]	Reeder, G. D. (2009). Mindreading: Judgments about intentionality and motives in dispositional inference. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1080/10478400802615744 URL
[84]	Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1252-1269. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.23478720 URL
[85]	Rieger, V., Wilken, J. & Engelen, A. (2023). Career booster or dead end? Entrepreneurial failure and its consequences for subsequent corporate careers. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 800-833. doi: 10.1111/joms.v60.4 URL
[86]	Roseman, I. J. (2008). Motivations and emotivations:Approach, avoidance, and other tendencies in motivated and emotional behavior. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 343-366). Psychology Press.
[87]	Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977-994. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527470 URL
[88]	Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Akimoto, S. A., & Gibson, B. D. (1994). Stereotype-based blocking in social explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 71-81. doi: 10.1177/0146167294201007 URL
[89]	Sherman, J. W. (1996). Development and mental representation of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1126-1141. pmid: 8667161
[90]	Sibley, C. G. (2011). The BIAS-Treatment Scale (BIAS-TS): A measure of the subjective experience of active and passive harm and facilitation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 300-315. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.559389 pmid: 21516589
[91]	Smit, B. W., & Montag-Smit, T. (2019). The pay transparency dilemma: Development and validation of the Pay Information Exchange Preferences Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(4), 537-558. doi: 10.1037/apl0000355 pmid: 30372097
[92]	Smither, J. W. (2012). Performance management. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 285-329). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[93]	Solomon, B. C., Nikolaev, B. N., & Shepherd, D. A. (2022). Does educational attainment promote job satisfaction? The bittersweet trade-offs between job resources, demands, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(7), 1227-1241. doi: 10.1037/apl0000904 pmid: 35737558
[94]	Song, Q., & Chen, Y. (2021). The impact of the fit between needed and received empowering leadership on followers’ job-related outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 890-903. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00890 URL
	[宋琪, 陈扬. (2021). 需求和接受的授权型领导匹配对下属工作结果的影响:情绪耗竭的中介作用. 心理学报, 53(8), 890-903.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00890
[95]	Song, Q., Zhang, L., Gao, L., Cheng, B., & Chen, Y. (2023). Learn from others or put them down? The double-edged effect of upward social comparison in the workplace. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(4), 658-670. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00658
	[宋琪, 张璐, 高莉芳, 程豹, 陈扬. (2023). “行高人非”还是“见贤思齐”?职场上行比较对员工行为的双刃剑效应. 心理学报, 55(4), 658-670.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00658
[96]	Stiegert, P., Täuber, S., Leliveld, M. C., & Oehmichen, J. (2021). The stereotype rub-off effect-organizational stereotypes modulate behavioural expectations, expectancy violation and punishment after transgressions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 127-138. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.04.011 URL
[97]	Sun, J., Li, W.-D., Li, Y., Liden, R. C., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 250-267. doi: 10.1037/apl0000494 URL
[98]	Tafarodi, R. W., & Walters, P. (1999). Individualism- collectivism, life events, and self-esteem: A test of two trade-offs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(5-6), 797-814. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992 URL
[99]	Tai, K., Lin, K. J., Lam, C. K., & Liu, W. (2023). Biting the hand that feeds: A status-based model of when and why receiving help motivates social undermining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 27-52. doi: 10.1037/apl0000580 URL
[100]	Tang, P. M., Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., Lin, K. J., Lee, R., & Trombini, C. (2022). How and when service beneficiaries’ gratitude enriches employees’ daily lives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 987-1008. doi: 10.1037/apl0000975 URL
[101]	Tang, Y., Jia, R., Long, L., Ren, Z., & Pu, X. (2022). The double-edged sword of employee authenticity in coworker interactions: The moderating role of relationship duration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 529-548. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00529
	[汤一鹏, 贾荣雯, 龙立荣, 任芷宇, 蒲小萍. (2022). 员工真诚对同事关系的双刃剑效应: 共事时间的调节作用. 心理学报, 54(5), 529-548.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00529
[102]	Tang, Y., Lam, C. K., Ouyang, K., Huang, X., & Tse, H. H. M. (2022). Comparisons draw us close: The influence of leader-member exchange dyadic comparison on coworker exchange. Personnel Psychology, 75(1), 215-240. doi: 10.1111/peps.v75.1 URL
[103]	Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96(4), 569-575. pmid: 2678204
[104]	Taylor, S. G., Locklear, L. R., Kluemper, D. H., & Lu, X. (2022). Beyond targets and instigators: Examining workplace incivility in dyads and the moderating role of perceived incivility norms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1288-1302. doi: 10.1037/apl0000910 URL
[105]	To, M. L., Lam, C. K., Janssen, O., & Lin, X. S. (2021). Anger displays and integrative behavior among work dyads in teams: A regulatory fit approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(4), 464-482. doi: 10.1002/job.v42.4 URL
[106]	Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44-96. doi: 10.1111/apps.2013.62.issue-1 URL
[107]	Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227-236. doi: 10.1037/a0038082 pmid: 25314365
[108]	Twemlow, M., Tims, M., & Khapova, S. N. (2022). A process model of peer reactions to team member proactivity. Human Relations, 76(9), 1317-1351. doi: 10.1177/00187267221094023 URL
[109]	van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 877-893. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.22798169 URL
[110]	van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. doi: 10.2307/256902 URL
[111]	Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G. J., & Grosser, T. (2013). Positive and negative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1028-1039. doi: 10.1037/a0034090 pmid: 23915428
[112]	Wang, L., Owens, B. P., Li, J., & Shi, L. (2018). Exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1019-1038. doi: 10.1037/apl0000314 pmid: 29781636
[113]	Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1742-1757. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1742 URL
[114]	Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[115]	Wei, X., & Zhang, L. (2019). Single-item measures: Queries, responses and suggestions. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(7), 1194-1204. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01194
	[卫旭华, 张亮花. (2019). 单题项测量: 质疑、回应及建议. 心理科学进展, 27(7), 1194-1204.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01194
[116]	Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Ellen, B. P. III., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2017). Personal initiative and job performance evaluations: Role of political skill in opportunity recognition and capitalization. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1388-1420. doi: 10.1177/0149206314552451 URL
[117]	Wu, S., Kee, D. M. H., Wu, W., Ni, D., & Deng, H. (2022). Challenging your boss with safe words: Newcomers’ voice, supervisors’ responses, and socialization outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138, 103772. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103772 URL
[118]	Xiao, J. C., Mao, J. Y., Quan, J., & Qing, T. (2020). Relationally charged: How and when workplace friendship facilitates employee interpersonal citizenship. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 190. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00190 pmid: 32153453
[119]	Xing, Z., He, W., Zhang, Z., & Jiang, X. (2022). The impact of ethical leadership prototype on the effectiveness of ethical leadership: The mediating role of elevation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(9), 1093-1105. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01093
	[邢志杰, 贺伟, 张正堂, 蒋旭婷. (2022). 员工伦理型领导原型对伦理型领导有效性的影响:员工崇敬感的中介作用. 心理学报, 54(9), 1093-1105.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01093
[120]	Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Chow, C. W. C. (2023). Does taking charge help or harm employees’ promotability and visibility? An investigation from supervisors’ status perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 53-71. doi: 10.1037/apl0000752 URL
[121]	Xu, T., Zhang, M., Wang, X., Huang, Z., & Jiao, C. (2015). Application of social relation model in psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(3), 520-528. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00520
	[徐桃, 张敏强, 王小婷, 黄兆锋, 焦璨. (2015). 社会关系模型在心理研究中的应用. 心理科学进展, 23(3), 520-528.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00520
[122]	Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., & Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: A model of self-esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2296-2318. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0183 URL
[123]	Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Wang, L. (2021). The risks and benefits of initiating change at work: Social consequences for proactive employees who take charge. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 721-750. doi: 10.1111/peps.v74.4 URL
[124]	Zhang, Y., Duan, J., Wang, F., Qu, J., & Peng, X. (2022). “Attraction of the like”: How does coworker proactive behavior stimulate employees’ motivation and job performance? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 516-528. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00516 URL
	[张颖, 段锦云, 王甫希, 屈金照, 彭雄良. (2022). “近朱者赤”: 同事主动行为如何激发员工动机和绩效. 心理学报, 54(5), 516-528.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00516
[125]	Zhu, Y., Chen, T., Wang, M., Jin, Y., & Wang, Y. (2019). Rivals or allies: How performance-prove goal orientation influences knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 849-868. doi: 10.1002/job.v40.7 URL
[126]	Zhu, Y., Chen, X., Zhao, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Energy at work: Convective transformation based on multilevel expression patterns. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(7), 1218-1228. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01218 URL
	[诸彦含, 陈晓卉, 赵玉兰, 周意勇. (2017). 工作中的能量: 基于多层面表现形态的对流转化. 心理科学进展, 25(7), 1218-1228.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01218

变异来源	B因A获得的关系能量			B对A的人际反感			B对A的人际促进行为			B对A的人际孤立行为
变异来源	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE
团队	0.20	37.3%	0.45	0.11	28.8%	0.32	0.13	28.3%	0.35	0.14	21.2%	0.38
A的影响	0.01	1.8%	0.10	0.01	2.1%	0.09	0.02	3.4%	0.12	0.10	15.2%	0.32
B的影响	0.16	29.9%	0.40	0.12	33.4%	0.35	0.10	22.6%	0.32	0.00	0.0%	0.00
A与B关系的影响	0.17	31.1%	0.41	0.13	35.8%	0.36	0.20	45.7%	0.45	0.43	63.6%	0.65

变异来源	B因A获得的关系能量			B对A的人际反感			B对A的人际促进行为			B对A的人际孤立行为
变异来源	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE
团队	0.20	37.3%	0.45	0.11	28.8%	0.32	0.13	28.3%	0.35	0.14	21.2%	0.38
A的影响	0.01	1.8%	0.10	0.01	2.1%	0.09	0.02	3.4%	0.12	0.10	15.2%	0.32
B的影响	0.16	29.9%	0.40	0.12	33.4%	0.35	0.10	22.6%	0.32	0.00	0.0%	0.00
A与B关系的影响	0.17	31.1%	0.41	0.13	35.8%	0.36	0.20	45.7%	0.45	0.43	63.6%	0.65

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. 团队规模(团队层次)	−−
2. 团队年龄(团队层次)	0.41^**	−−
3. A的年龄(个体层次)	0.00	0.17^**	−−
4. A的性别(个体层次)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.08^**	−−
5. A的学历(个体层次)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
6. A的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.11^**	−0.14^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
7. A的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
8. B的年龄(个体层次)	0.00	0.16^**	0.56^**	0.02	−0.13^**	0.23^**	0.28^**	−−
9. B的性别(个体层次)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.02	0.22^**	0.09^**	0.04	0.10^**	0.09^**	−−
10. B的学历(个体层次)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.13^**	0.09^**	0.20^**	0.04	−0.03	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
11. B的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.12^**	−0.14^**	0.23^**	0.04	0.04	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
12. B的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.28^**	0.10^**	−0.03	0.39^**	0.56^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
13. A的主动行为(个体层次)	0.10^**	−0.11^**	−0.12^**	0.09^**	0.07^*	0.03	0.04	−0.09^**	0.04	−0.07^*	0.02	0.06^*	(0.85)
14. A的热情特质(个体层次)	0.11^**	−0.07^*	−0.04	0.09^**	0.09^**	0.12^**	0.09^**	−0.07^*	0.05	0.08^**	0.07^*	0.09^**	0.37^**	(0.78)
15. B因A获得的关系能量(人际层次)	0.07^*	−0.03	−0.16^**	0.00	0.01	−0.24^**	−0.15^**	−0.12^**	0.10^**	0.06^*	−0.16^**	−0.11^**	0.14^**	0.09^**	(0.88)
16. B对A的人际反感(人际层次)	0.00	0.07^*	0.13^**	−0.04	−0.04	0.09^**	0.02	0.14^**	−0.15^**	−0.07^*	0.10^**	−0.02	−0.15^**	−0.14^**	−0.65^**	(0.79)
17. B对A的人际促进行为(人际层次)	0.03	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.01	0.04	−0.05	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.03	0.06^*	−0.06^*	−0.02	0.20^**	0.21^**	0.39^**	−0.47^**	(0.78)
18. B对A的人际孤立行为(人际层次)	0.02	0.04	0.13^**	0.03	0.00	0.08^**	0.05	0.10^**	0.00	−0.02	0.03	0.03	−0.25^**	−0.15^**	−0.20^**	0.22^**	−0.28^**	−−
个体和团队层次
M	10.23	12.19	31.42	0.57	3.38	3.66	2.91	31.42	0.58	3.38	3.66	2.91	3.83	4.06	3.87	1.95	4.03	2.11
SD	4.16	4.56	6.21	0.50	0.51	2.28	1.40	5.12	0.33	0.33	1.78	1.17	0.62	0.45	0.55	0.42	0.47	0.60
人际层次
M	10.36	12.24	31.33	0.58	3.40	3.73	2.93	31.33	0.58	3.39	3.73	2.93	3.83	4.08	3.87	1.96	4.03	2.10
SD	4.13	4.42	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	0.63	0.45	0.74	0.61	0.66	0.81

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. 团队规模(团队层次)	−−
2. 团队年龄(团队层次)	0.41^**	−−
3. A的年龄(个体层次)	0.00	0.17^**	−−
4. A的性别(个体层次)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.08^**	−−
5. A的学历(个体层次)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
6. A的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.11^**	−0.14^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
7. A的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
8. B的年龄(个体层次)	0.00	0.16^**	0.56^**	0.02	−0.13^**	0.23^**	0.28^**	−−
9. B的性别(个体层次)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.02	0.22^**	0.09^**	0.04	0.10^**	0.09^**	−−
10. B的学历(个体层次)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.13^**	0.09^**	0.20^**	0.04	−0.03	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
11. B的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.12^**	−0.14^**	0.23^**	0.04	0.04	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
12. B的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.28^**	0.10^**	−0.03	0.39^**	0.56^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
13. A的主动行为(个体层次)	0.10^**	−0.11^**	−0.12^**	0.09^**	0.07^*	0.03	0.04	−0.09^**	0.04	−0.07^*	0.02	0.06^*	(0.85)
14. A的热情特质(个体层次)	0.11^**	−0.07^*	−0.04	0.09^**	0.09^**	0.12^**	0.09^**	−0.07^*	0.05	0.08^**	0.07^*	0.09^**	0.37^**	(0.78)
15. B因A获得的关系能量(人际层次)	0.07^*	−0.03	−0.16^**	0.00	0.01	−0.24^**	−0.15^**	−0.12^**	0.10^**	0.06^*	−0.16^**	−0.11^**	0.14^**	0.09^**	(0.88)
16. B对A的人际反感(人际层次)	0.00	0.07^*	0.13^**	−0.04	−0.04	0.09^**	0.02	0.14^**	−0.15^**	−0.07^*	0.10^**	−0.02	−0.15^**	−0.14^**	−0.65^**	(0.79)
17. B对A的人际促进行为(人际层次)	0.03	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.01	0.04	−0.05	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.03	0.06^*	−0.06^*	−0.02	0.20^**	0.21^**	0.39^**	−0.47^**	(0.78)
18. B对A的人际孤立行为(人际层次)	0.02	0.04	0.13^**	0.03	0.00	0.08^**	0.05	0.10^**	0.00	−0.02	0.03	0.03	−0.25^**	−0.15^**	−0.20^**	0.22^**	−0.28^**	−−
个体和团队层次
M	10.23	12.19	31.42	0.57	3.38	3.66	2.91	31.42	0.58	3.38	3.66	2.91	3.83	4.06	3.87	1.95	4.03	2.11
SD	4.16	4.56	6.21	0.50	0.51	2.28	1.40	5.12	0.33	0.33	1.78	1.17	0.62	0.45	0.55	0.42	0.47	0.60
人际层次
M	10.36	12.24	31.33	0.58	3.40	3.73	2.93	31.33	0.58	3.39	3.73	2.93	3.83	4.08	3.87	1.96	4.03	2.10
SD	4.13	4.42	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	0.63	0.45	0.74	0.61	0.66	0.81

步骤与变量	B因A获得的关系能量
	模型1		模型2		模型3		模型4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
控制变量
团队规模(团队层次)	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02
团队年龄(团队层次)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02
A的年龄(个体层次)	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
A的性别(个体层次)	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.03
A的学历(个体层次)	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03
A的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.01
A的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.02
B的年龄(个体层次)	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01
B的性别(个体层次)	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06
B的学历(个体层次)	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06
B的工作年限(个体层次)	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02
B的团队任期(个体层次)	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04
自变量
A的主动行为(个体层次)			0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.03
A的热情特质(个体层次)					−0.02	0.04	−0.03	0.04
交互项
A的主动行为 × A的热情特质							0.18^*	0.07