妒忌还是钦佩: 员工对同事被授权的心理与行为反应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01401

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在强调激活个体及其自主性的背景下, 授权的作用和意义日益凸显, 然而员工如何看待同事被授权的问题仍然没有得到完整的回答。基于社会比较理论, 本研究从旁观者视角出发, 探讨了不同程序公平感的员工在面对同事被授权时会产生何种情绪(妒忌vs.钦佩; 研究1和研究2)和行为反应(研究2和研究3)。研究1采用情景实验(N = 238), 结果表明, 当程序公平感低时, 同事被授权和程序公平感交互对妒忌具有正向影响; 当程序公平感高时, 同事被授权和程序公平感交互对钦佩具有正向影响。研究2采用基于三时点的实地问卷调查(N = 306), 研究3采用经验取样法(N = 1258), 不仅再次验证了研究1的结果, 还发现妒忌与职场排斥正相关, 钦佩与观察学习正相关, 并且妒忌和钦佩分别在交互项对结果变量(排斥和学习)的影响中起中介作用。研究结论为领导者正确认识授权提供了参考和借鉴。

关键词: 同事被授权, 程序公平感, 职场排斥, 观察学习, 社会比较

Abstract:

The role and significance of empowerment are increasingly highlighted in the activation of employees and their autonomy. As a differentiated leadership behavior, empowerment by leaders brings unique resources and asymmetric preferential treatment to employees, which can be perceived by colleagues as observers and directly affects their work performance. However, current studies have mainly focused on the employees who are empowered, and few have focused on the colleagues as observers. It is important to recognize and discuss the emotional changes and subsequent behavioral reactions caused by colleagues being empowered from the perspective of observers.

Based on social comparison theory, this research discusses the effect of the interaction between colleagues being empowered and procedural justice on envy and admiration of colleagues. The mediating effect of envy and admiration on the above interaction items and workplace ostracism and observational learning is explored, and a mediated moderation model is constructed. The hypotheses are tested in an experimental study (N = 238), a field sample (N = 306) and an experience sampling method (N = 1258). In Study 1, a between-participant scenario experimental design was used to manipulate procedural justice and colleagues being empowered, 238 participants from China who passed the attention test were retained. Participants were randomly assigned to a scenario to eliminate the effect of their own differences on the experimental results. In Study 2, empirical data from 306 employees in China were collected using a three-wave questionnaire survey. At Time 1, employees reported procedural justice and colleagues being empowered and provided their own demographic information. At Time 2, employees reported envy and admiration towards their colleagues. At Time 3, employees reported workplace ostracism and observational learning. In Study 3, we conducted a field study using an experience sampling method to collect data from employees in northeastern China. The survey process included an initial one-time entry survey and daily surveys administered over two weeks. One week before the start of the daily surveys, employees reported their leader−member exchange social comparison, colleagues’ guanxi and their own demographic information. During the two-week daily surveys, employees reported procedural justice, colleagues being empowered, envy and admiration at 11 am, and reported workplace ostracism and observational learning at 5 pm. The final sample included 1258 usable observations from 137 employees.

We applied analysis of variance, confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, bootstrap method and Monte Carlo simulation to analyze the data. There are three findings. First, when procedural justice is low, colleagues being empowered and procedural justice interaction have a positive impact on envy; when procedural justice is high, colleagues being empowered and procedural justice interaction have a positive impact on admiration. Second, envy has a positive impact on workplace ostracism, and admiration has a positive impact on observational learning. Third, envy and admiration play a mediating role in the interaction terms of colleagues being empowered and procedural justice on workplace ostracism and observational learning, thus showing a mediated moderation model.

This research has the following four implications. First, the research enriched the research perspective of empowerment from the perspective of the observer party. Second, the research integrated the contrast effect and assimilation effect caused by colleagues being empowered, which enriched the research framework of social comparison theory. Third, the boundary conditions of the two social comparison effects caused by colleagues being empowered were expanded. Final, the mediating mechanism of the effect of colleagues being empowered was revealed.

Key words: colleagues being empowered, procedural justice, workplace ostracism, observational learning, social comparison

中图分类号:

B849: C93

贾建锋, 刘伟鹏, 段锦云, 赵洋. (2024). 妒忌还是钦佩: 员工对同事被授权的心理与行为反应. 心理学报, 56(10), 1401-1416.

JIA Jianfeng, LIU Weipeng, DUAN Jinyun, ZHAO Yang. (2024). Envy or admiration: Employees’ psychological and behavioral reactions to colleagues being empowered. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1401-1416.

图/表 15

参考文献 58

[1]	Ahearne M., Mathieu J., & Rapp A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955. pmid: 16162066
[2]	Aiken L. S., & West S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Inc.
[3]	Bandura A., & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[4]	Blader S. L., & Tyler T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464. doi: 10.1037/a0013935 pmid: 19271800
[5]	Breidenthal A. P., Liu D., Bai Y., & Mao Y. (2020). The dark side of creativity: Coworker envy and ostracism as a response to employee creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 242-254.
[6]	Brislin R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
[7]	Buunk A. P., & Gibbons F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3-21.
[8]	Buunk B. P., Collins R. L., Taylor S. E., VanYperen N. W., & Dakof G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1238-1249. pmid: 2283590
[9]	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
[10]	Chen G., Sharma P. N., Edinger S. K., Shapiro D. L., & Farh J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541-557. doi: 10.1037/a0021886 pmid: 21171730
[11]	Chen M., Chen C. C., & Sheldon O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082-1096. doi: 10.1037/apl0000111 pmid: 27100068
[12]	Chen S. M., Wu B. P., Fang J., Sun P. Z., Gao L., Xiong H. X., & Zheng X. (2011). Admiration: A positive emotion of witnessing excellence and emulating. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(11), 1667-1674.
	[陈世民, 吴宝沛, 方杰, 孙配贞, 高良, 熊红星, 郑雪. (2011). 钦佩感: 一种见贤思齐的积极情绪. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1667-1674.]
[13]	Chen X. P., & Peng S. (2008). Guanxi dynamics: Shifts in the closeness of ties between Chinese coworkers. Management and Organization Review, 4(1), 63-80.
[14]	Cheong M., Spain S. M., Yammarino F. J., & Yun S. (2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602-616.
[15]	Cheong M., Yammarino F. J., Dionne S. D., Spain S. M., & Tsai C. Y. (2019). A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 34-58.
[16]	Cohen‐Charash Y. (2009). Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2128-2173.
[17]	Collins R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51-69.
[18]	Cremer D. D., Knippenberg B. V., Knippenberg D. V., Mullenders D., & Stinglhamber F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 3-12. pmid: 15641886
[19]	Ferris D. L., Brown D. J., Berry J. W., & Lian H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. doi: 10.1037/a0012743 pmid: 19025252
[20]	Ganegoda D. B., & Bordia P. (2019). I can be happy for you, but not all the time: A contingency model of envy and positive empathy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 776-795. doi: 10.1037/apl0000377 pmid: 30556706
[21]	Gardner R. G., Harris T. B., Li N., Kirkman B. L., & Mathieu J. E. (2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 610-638.
[22]	Greenberg J. (2011). Organizational justice:The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 272-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[23]	Halevy N. Y., Chou E., & Galinsky A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32-52.
[24]	Hao P., He W., & Long L. R. (2018). Why and when empowering leadership has different effects on employee work performance: The pivotal roles of passion for work and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(1), 85-100.
[25]	Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, And Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
[26]	Immordino-Yang M. H., McColl A., Damasio H., & Damasio A. (2009). Neural correlates of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 8021-8026.
[27]	Kim M., & Beehr T. A. (2020). The long reach of the leader: Can empowering leadership at work result in enriched home lives? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(3), 203-213. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000177 pmid: 31999139
[28]	Koivisto S., Lipponen J., & Platow M. J. (2013). Organizational and supervisory justice effects on experienced threat during change: The moderating role of leader in-group representativeness. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 595-607.
[29]	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.
[30]	Li N., Chiaburu D. S., & Kirkman B. L. (2017). Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076-1102.
[31]	Ma J., Wang H. P., & Yan J. N. (2022). A jump is possible: When does envy of star employees make colleagues resentful and when does it inspire them to improve? Journal of Industrial Engineering, 36(3), 40-50.
	[马君, 王慧平, 闫嘉妮. (2022). 跳一跳够得着: 妒忌公司明星何时引发阻抑何时催人奋进? 管理工程学报, 36(3), 40-50.]
[32]	Marescaux E., De Winne S., & Rofcanin Y. (2021). Co-worker reactions to i-deals through the lens of social comparison: The role of fairness and emotions. Human Relations, 74(3), 329-353.
[33]	Niehoff B. P., & Moorman R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
[34]	Pan J., Zheng X., Xu H., Li J., & Lam C. K. (2021). What if my coworker builds a better LMX? The roles of envy and coworker pride for the relationships of LMX social comparison with learning and undermining. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1144-1167.
[35]	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
[36]	Schilpzand P., Houston L., & Cho J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next- morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2367-2387.
[37]	Schindler I. (2014). Relations of admiration and adoration with other emotions and well-being. Psychology of Well-being, 4(1), 1-23.
[38]	Smith R. H., & Kim S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46-64. pmid: 17201570
[39]	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.
	[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
[40]	Song Q., Ren Q., Chen Y., & Ren Y. (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. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013
	[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.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013
[41]	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.
[42]	Taylor S. E., & Lobel M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96(4), 569-575. pmid: 2678204
[43]	Tse H. H., Lam C. K., Gu J., & Lin X. S. (2018). Examining the interpersonal process and consequence of leader- member exchange comparison: The role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 922-940.
[44]	Van Dijke M., De Cremer D., & Mayer D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 488-502. doi: 10.1037/a0018921 pmid: 20476828
[45]	Van Kleef G. A., Steinel W., & Homan A. C. (2013). On being peripheral and paying attention: Prototypicality and information processing in intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 63-79. doi: 10.1037/a0030988 pmid: 23205495
[46]	Van Knippenberg D., De Cremer D., & Van Knippenberg B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 113-140.
[47]	Vidyarthi P. R., Liden R. C., Anand S., Erdogan B., & Ghosh S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849-861. doi: 10.1037/a0020033 pmid: 20718513
[48]	Wang H. L., & Sun J. M. (2018). Empowering leadership and employee innovative behavior: The moderating effect of structural formalization. Journal of Management Science, 31(3), 29-39.
	[王宏蕾, 孙健敏. (2018). 授权型领导与员工创新行为: 结构正式化的调节作用. 管理科学, 31(3), 29-39.]
[49]	Wang L. L., Long L. R., & Zhang Y. (2021). The relationship between newcomers’i-deals and coworkers’ostracism and self-improvement: The mediating role of envy and the moderating role of organizational overall justice. Management Review, 33(8), 234-244.
	[王林琳, 龙立荣, 张勇. (2021). 新员工个别协议对同事职场排斥和自我完善的影响: 妒忌与整体公正感的作用. 管理评论, 33(8), 234-244.]
[50]	Watkins T. (2021). Workplace interpersonal capitalization: Employee reactions to coworker positive event disclosures. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 537-561.
[51]	Wen Z. L., Huang B. B., & Tang D. D. (2018). Preliminary work for modeling questionnaire data. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(1), 204-210.
	[温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹. (2018). 问卷数据建模的前传. 心理科学, 41(1), 204-210.]
[52]	Wu J. B., Tsui A. S., & Kinicki A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
[53]	Wu Y., & Wen Z. L. (2011). Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1859-1867.
	[吴艳, 温忠麟. (2011). 结构方程建模中的题目打包策略. 心理科学进展, 19(12), 1859-1867.]
[54]	Xia F. B. (2020). Analyzing third parties’ unethical reactions to organizational citizenship behavior of coworkers. Management Review, 32(1), 187-196.
	[夏福斌. (2020). “行高人非”: 旁观者不道德侵害“好公民”的原因及其机制探析. 管理评论, 32(1), 187-196.]
[55]	Zhang X., Lin Y., & Zhu D. (2018). The mechanism of ingratiation to colleagues on workplace ostracism: A study based on similarity attraction theory. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(9), 1319-1326.
	[张骁, 林颖, 朱頔. (2018). 基于相似吸引理论的逢迎同事策略对职场排斥的作用机制研究. 管理学报, 15(9), 1319-1326.]
[56]	Zhang Z. T., Zhao L. J., & Ding M. Z. (2020). Influence mechanism of empowering leadership on employees' taking charge behavior. Science Research Management, 41(10), 218-226.
	[张正堂, 赵李晶, 丁明智. (2020). 授权型领导对员工主动变革行为的影响机制. 科研管理, 41(10), 218-226.]
[57]	Zhong S. Q. (2016). Reviews of the study of empowering leadership. Talent Resources Development, (22), 61-62.
	[钟授全. (2016). 授权型领导研究综述. 人才资源开发, (22), 61-62.]
[58]	Zhu Y., Xie J. P., Jin Y. H., & Shi J. Q. (2019). Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(7), 829-840. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829
	[朱玥, 谢江佩, 金杨华, 施俊琦. (2019). 团队权力分布差异对团队冲突的影响: 程序公平和合法性的作用. 心理学报, 51(7), 829-840.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00829

模型	模型构成	χ²/ df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
六因子模型	CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL	1.73	0.97	0.97	0.05
五因子模型	CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL	3.42	0.89	0.91	0.09
四因子模型	CBE, PJ+DJ+QP, OB, OL	6.05	0.77	0.81	0.13
三因子模型	CBE +OL, PJ+DJ+QP, OB	8.39	0.67	0.71	0.16
二因子模型	CBE +OB+OL, PJ+DJ+QP	11.31	0.54	0.59	0.18
单因子模型	CBE +PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL	16.64	0.30	0.38	0.23

模型	模型构成	χ²/ df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
六因子模型	CBE, PJ, DJ, QP, OB, OL	1.73	0.97	0.97	0.05
五因子模型	CBE, PJ, DJ+QP, OB, OL	3.42	0.89	0.91	0.09
四因子模型	CBE, PJ+DJ+QP, OB, OL	6.05	0.77	0.81	0.13
三因子模型	CBE +OL, PJ+DJ+QP, OB	8.39	0.67	0.71	0.16
二因子模型	CBE +OB+OL, PJ+DJ+QP	11.31	0.54	0.59	0.18
单因子模型	CBE +PJ+DJ+QP+OB+OL	16.64	0.30	0.38	0.23

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1性别	—	—
2年龄	31.48	6.88	0.01
3学历	2.34	0.58	0.10	−0.31^***
4工作时间	5.44	5.68	−0.01	0.74^***	−0.24^***
5与目标同事共事时间	3.27	2.83	−0.11	0.48^***	−0.14^*	0.59^***
6企业性质	2.90	1.39	−0.02	−0.04	−0.02	−0.01	0.01
7领导成员交换社会比较	5.49	0.61	0.05	−0.06	0.02	−0.13^*	−0.17^**	−0.03	(0.86)
8同事被授权	5.56	0.95	0.05	0.01	−0.09	−0.10	−0.18^**	−0.13^*	0.38^***	(0.94)
9程序公平感	4.80	0.85	−0.01	0.03	0.01	0.06	0.10	0.01	−0.05	0.15^*	(0.93)
10妒忌	2.80	0.73	0.04	0.02	−0.09	−0.06	−0.23^***	−0.03	0.33^***	0.28^***	−0.33^***	(0.89)
11钦佩	5.13	0.85	0.06	0.00	−0.04	−0.07	−0.05	−0.02	0.11	0.34^***	0.56^***	−0.14^*	(0.89)
12职场排斥	2.52	0.74	0.05	−0.00	−0.03	−0.07	−0.18^**	−0.20^**	0.30^***	0.54^***	−0.21^***	0.38^***	−0.05	(0.92)
13观察学习	5.36	0.80	−0.04	−0.00	−0.02	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.13^*	0.42^***	−0.14^*	0.46^***	−0.08	(0.81)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1性别	—	—
2年龄	31.48	6.88	0.01
3学历	2.34	0.58	0.10	−0.31^***
4工作时间	5.44	5.68	−0.01	0.74^***	−0.24^***
5与目标同事共事时间	3.27	2.83	−0.11	0.48^***	−0.14^*	0.59^***
6企业性质	2.90	1.39	−0.02	−0.04	−0.02	−0.01	0.01
7领导成员交换社会比较	5.49	0.61	0.05	−0.06	0.02	−0.13^*	−0.17^**	−0.03	(0.86)
8同事被授权	5.56	0.95	0.05	0.01	−0.09	−0.10	−0.18^**	−0.13^*	0.38^***	(0.94)
9程序公平感	4.80	0.85	−0.01	0.03	0.01	0.06	0.10	0.01	−0.05	0.15^*	(0.93)
10妒忌	2.80	0.73	0.04	0.02	−0.09	−0.06	−0.23^***	−0.03	0.33^***	0.28^***	−0.33^***	(0.89)
11钦佩	5.13	0.85	0.06	0.00	−0.04	−0.07	−0.05	−0.02	0.11	0.34^***	0.56^***	−0.14^*	(0.89)
12职场排斥	2.52	0.74	0.05	−0.00	−0.03	−0.07	−0.18^**	−0.20^**	0.30^***	0.54^***	−0.21^***	0.38^***	−0.05	(0.92)
13观察学习	5.36	0.80	−0.04	−0.00	−0.02	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.13^*	0.42^***	−0.14^*	0.46^***	−0.08	(0.81)

变量	妒忌(M1-M3)			钦佩(M4-M6)			职场排斥(M7-M8)		观察学习(M9-M10)
变量	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10
控制变量
性别	0.00	−0.00	0.00	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.02	0.02	−0.03	−0.06
年龄	0.11	0.07	0.05	0.09	0.08	0.10	0.08	0.05	−0.06	−0.10
学历	−0.09	−0.06	−0.05	−0.05	−0.03	−0.06	−0.04	−0.01	−0.02	0.00
工作时间	0.02	0.05	0.03	−0.14	−0.13	−0.11	0.01	0.00	0.04	0.11
与目标同事共事时间	−0.26^***	−0.20^**	−0.16^*	0.01	−0.01	−0.06	−0.18^**	−0.11	0.06	0.05
企业性质	−0.02	0.01	0.03	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	−0.18^**	−0.18^**	0.03	0.03
领导成员交换社会比较	0.30^***	0.21^***	0.22^***	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.27^***	0.18^**	0.08	0.03
自变量
同事被授权		0.21^***	0.13^*		0.23^***	0.32^***
中介变量
妒忌								0.29^***
钦佩										0.48^***
调节变量
程序公平感		−0.33^***	−0.28^***		0.53^***	0.47^***
交互项
同事被授权×程序公平感			−0.23^***			0.27^***
R²	0.17	0.29	0.33	0.03	0.39	0.45	0.15	0.22	0.01	0.23
ΔR²	—	0.12	0.04	—	0.37	0.06	—	0.07	—	0.22
F	8.43^***	13.13^***	14.37^***	1.10	21.04^***	24.00^***	7.46^***	10.49^***	0.44	11.09^***