建言采纳如何促进员工建言：基于目标自组织视角的整合机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00229

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

文章探讨了领导者建言采纳促进员工建言的理论基础、作用机制及其对发展建言研究的意义。通过引入个体心理的自组织目标系统理论, 整合了员工建言研究的动机视角和认知视角, 构建了建言的目标自组织观点。在此基础上, 分析和检验了工作意义感和建言效能感在领导者建言采纳促进员工建言的关系中所起的中介作用。通过问卷调查收集了来自73位领导者与236位员工的纵向数据, 结果显示：(1)领导者的建言采纳对员工的促进性/抑制性建言均具有显著的促进作用; (2)工作意义感和建言效能感在领导者建言采纳与员工建言行为的关系中起到完全中介作用。研究结果发展了对建言行为形成机制的认识, 促进了建言研究的理论发展, 并对管理实践有着积极的启示。

关键词: 员工建言, 心理目标系统, 自组织, 建言采纳, 整合性机制

Abstract:

Extant literature has long documented the important role of employee voice behavior with such literature pointing to leadership as a vital antecedent to employee voice behavior. However, one relatively unexplored area in this stream or research is the understanding of, how leader’s voice endorsement affects employees’ voice behavior. Prior studies have investigated the relationship between leader’s behavior and employee voice through a motivational theoretical perspective or a cognitive theoretical perspective. First, the voice literature has drawn on social exchange theory, conservation of resources theory and expectancy theory to explain how employee voice can be triggered through leader behavior that enhances employee motivation to voice. Second, the literature has also drawn on implicit voice theory, information processing theory, and social cognition theory to understand how the leader influences employee voice through a cognitive lens. However, this results in a fragmented literature with the need for an overarching theory that links these perspectives. Therefore, we provide an integrated framework through the self-organizing goal system theory of human psychology. In doing so, we develop a goal self-organization framework of employee voice behavior which integrates the cognitive and motivational approaches to voice. Based on this framework, how employees self-organize their goal system can function as the core mechanism that influences employee’s voice. Further, we explain how leader’s voice endorsement can promote employee voice using this framework.

Empirically, we tested the hypotheses that both employee’s work meaningfulness and voice efficacy mediate the positive relationship between leader’s voice endorsement and employee’s promotive voice and prohibitive voice. A two-wave survey was conducted in an internet-based financial company operating in Tianjin and Zhejiang. We used existing, validated measures with Chinese questionnaires as well as the standard translation and back-translation procedures to assure item wording validity. Separated surveys were distributed to the focal employees and their immediate supervisors at two different time points. At time 1, supervisors reported their voice endorsement behaviors towards particular subordinate. Two weeks later, focal employees reported their work meaningfulness, voice efficacy, and voice behavior. A sample of 73 supervisors and 236 subordinates’ valid responses was collected. We assessed the discriminant validity with confirmatory factor analysis and tested our hypotheses using Mplus and bootstrap analysis.

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed good discriminant validity for the key variables, as well as a good fit between the hypothesized model and the data. In support of our hypotheses, the results revealed a significant positive relationship between leader’s voice endorsement and employee voice behavior (including promotive voice and prohibitive voice). Additionally, for both types of employee voice behavior, the aforementioned relationship was mediated by employee’s work meaningfulness and voice efficacy, indicating that there are dual psychological mechanisms: specifically, both motivational and cognitive, processes. Our results indicated that employee’s work meaningfulness and voice efficacy fully mediated the relationship between leader’s voice endorsement and both types of employee voice behavior.

To sum up, this study contributes to theory by providing a goal self-organization framework to integrate the fragmented literature on voice from both a motivational and cognitive perspective. Drawing on the theory of human psychology, we integrate the cognitive and motivational perspective by introducing psychological goal system. Furthermore, our study extends the voice literature by showing how leader’s voice endorsement promotes employee voice. Based on this goal self-organization framework, we show that leader’s voice endorsement promotes the attainment of employee’s psychological goals, which in turn triggers and regulates the dual psychological mechanism, and drives individuals towards the fulfillment of their psychological goals. This framework extends our understanding of the leader endorsement-employee voice relationship and contributes to theoretical integration of the voice literature as well as surfaces implications for practice. The implications, limitations and future directions of the study are discussed.

Key words: employee voice, psychological goal system, self-organization, voice endorsement, integrated mechanism

中图分类号:

B849:C93

章凯, 时金京, 罗文豪. (2020). 建言采纳如何促进员工建言：基于目标自组织视角的整合机制. 心理学报, 52(2), 229-239.

ZHANG Kai, SHI Jinjing, LUO Wenhao. (2020). How can leader’s voice endorsement promote employee voice: An integrated mechanism based on the goal self-organization perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 229-239.

图/表 4

参考文献 42

[1]	Azizli N., Atkinson B. E., Baughman H. M., & Giammarco E. A . (2015). Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 82(5), 58-60.
[2]	Bandura A . (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[3]	Bunderson J. S., & Thompson J. A . (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32-57.
[4]	Burris E. R . (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875.
[5]	Cantor N., & Markus H . (1986). Motivation and self-concept. In R. M. Sorrentino, E. T. Higgins (Eds). Handbook of motivation and cognition, Volume 1: Foundations of social behavior (pp.96-121) . New York: Guilford Press.
[6]	Chen X . (2017). The dynamics of psychological goals: A new theory for observing and predicting human behavior. In K. Zhang (Ed). Dynamics of psychological goals: A self- organization theory of motivation and personality (pp.3-5). Quebec: Royal Collins Publishing Group INC.
[7]	Detert J. R., & Edmondson A. C . (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488.
[8]	Duan J. Y., & Wei Q. J . (2012). The structure of voice efficacy and its role in the formation mechanism of employee voice behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(7), 972-985.
	[ 段锦云, 魏秋江 . (2012). 建言效能感结构及其在员工建言行为发生中的作用. 心理学报, 44(7), 972-985.]
[9]	Duan J. Y., Zhang C., & Tian X. M . (2016). Review on the relationship between leadership and employee voice. Human Resource Development of China, (5), 16-26.
	[ 段锦云, 张晨, 田晓明 . (2016). 员工建言行为的发生机制:来自领导的影响. 中国人力资源开发, (5), 16-26.]
[10]	Dweck C. S., & Leggett E. L . (1988). A Social-cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
[11]	Hackman J. R., & Oldham G. R . (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
[12]	Hagedoorn M., van Yperen N. W., van de Vliert E., & Buunk B. P . (1999). Employees' reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 309-321.
[13]	Haken H . (1988). Information and self-organization (Guo, Z. A. et al., Trans.). Chengdu: Sichuan Educational Press.
	[ 哈肯 . (1988). 信息与自组织(郭治安等译). 成都: 四川教育出版社.]
[14]	Harzing A. W . (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243-266.
[15]	Kelso J. A . (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[16]	Klaas B. S., Olson-buchanan J. B., & Ward A . (2012). The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice : An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 314-345.
[17]	Li Y. P., Zheng X. Y., & Liu Z. H . (2017). The effect of perceived insider status on employee voice behavior: A study from the perspective of conservation of resource theory. Chinese Journal of Management, 14(2), 196-204.
	[ 李燕萍, 郑馨怡, 刘宗华 . (2017). 基于资源保存理论的内部人身份感知对员工建言行为的影响机制研究. 管理学报, 14(2), 196-204.]
[18]	Liang J . (2014). Ethical leadership and employee voice: Examining a moderated-mediation model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(2), 252-264.
	[ 梁建 . (2014). 道德领导与员工建言: 一个调节-中介模型的构建与检验. 心理学报, 46(2), 252-264.]
[19]	Liang J., Farh C. I. C., & Farh J. L . (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92.
[20]	Liu W., Zhu R., & Yang Y . (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189-202.
[21]	MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., & Williams J . (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.
[22]	Morrison E. W . (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
[23]	Morrison E. W . (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173-197.
[24]	Ng T. W., & Feldman D. C . (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216-234.
[25]	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.
[26]	Preacher K. J., Zyphur M. J., & Zhang Z . (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233.
[27]	Schultz, D. P. & Schultz, S. E . (2013). Theories of personality (10th Edition) . Boston: Cengage Learning.
[28]	Sniezek J. A., Schrah G. E., & Dalal R. S . (2004). Improving judgement with prepaid expert advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(3), 173-190.
[29]	Sun L. Y., Chen L., & Duan J. Y . (2017). Advice taking in decision-making: Strategies, influences and feature research. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(1), 169-179.
	[ 孙露莹, 陈琳, 段锦云 . (2017). 决策过程中的建议采纳: 策略, 影响及未来展望. 心理科学进展, 25(1), 169-179.]
[30]	van Dyne L., Ang S., & Botero I. C . (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
[31]	Wang D., Gan C., Wu C., & Wang D . (2015). Ethical leadership and employee voice: Employee self-efficacy and self-impact as mediators. Psychological Reports, 116(3), 751-767.
[32]	Wang Y. Y., Ge J. Q., & Chai B. F . (2017). Comparative analysis on multiple mediating effects of ethical leadership on employee’s voice. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(3), 692-698.
	[ 王永跃, 葛菁青, 柴斌锋 . (2017). 伦理型领导影响员工建言的多重中介效应比较研究. 心理科学, 40(3), 692-698.]
[33]	Weiss M., Kolbe M., Grote G., Spahn D. R., & Grande B . (2017). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 389-402.
[34]	Wu L. Z., Cao K. P., Chen Y. Y., & Tang G. Y . (2011). Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: An examination of the mediating mechanisms. Chinese Journal of Management, 8(1), 61-66.
	[ 吴隆增, 曹昆鹏, 陈苑仪, 唐贵瑶 . (2011). 变革型领导行为对员工建言行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 8(1), 61-66.]
[35]	Yan C., & Wang S. H . (2018). The impact of authentic leadership on employee speaking-up behavior: The construction and test of a dual mediation model. Human Resource Development of China, 35(3), 18-28.
	[ 闫春, 王思惠 . (2018). 真实型领导对员工上行建言行为的影响: 一个双重中介模型的建构与检验. 中国人力资源开发, 35(3), 18-28.]
[36]	Zhang K . (2003). A self-organization goal theory of human motivation and its managerial implications. Journal of Renmin University of China, 18(2), 109-114.
	[ 章凯 . (2003). 动机的自组织目标理论及其管理学蕴涵. 中国人民大学学报, 18(2), 109-114.]
[37]	Zhang K . (2004). The self-organizing goal-information theory of interest. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 22(1), 62-66.
	[ 章凯 . (2004). 兴趣的自组织目标-信息理论. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 22(1), 62-66.]
[38]	Zhang K . (2014). Dynamics of psychological goals: A self- organization theory of motivation and personality. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
	[ 章凯 . (2014). 目标动力学: 动机与人格的自组织原理北京: 社会科学文献出版社.]
[39]	Zhang K., Li P. B., Luo W. H., Zhang Q. H., & Cao Y. F . (2014). Strategies of integrating organizational and employees’ goals: A case study based on ZZJYT management in Haier Group. Management World,(4), 124-145.
	[ 章凯, 李朋波, 罗文豪, 张庆红, 曹仰锋 . (2014). 组织-员工目标融合的策略: 基于海尔自主经营体管理的案例研究. 管理世界, (4), 124-145.]
[40]	Zhang K., & Zhang B. Y . (1996). Impact of interest on text comprehension. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 28(3), 284-289.
	[ 章凯, 张必隐 . (1996). 兴趣对文章理解的作用. 心理学报, 28(3), 284-289.]
[41]	Zhang L. L., Yang F., & Gu Y. H . (2016). Inclusive leadership: Conception, measurement and relationships to related variables. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(9), 1467-1477.
	[ 章璐璐, 杨付, 古银华 . (2016). 包容型领导: 概念、测量及与相关变量的关系. 心理科学进展, 24(9), 1467-1477.]
[42]	Zhang Y., Huai M., & Xie Y . (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25-36.

模型拟合指标	因子	χ²	df	Δχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
M0 (五因子)	VE, WM, VEF, PMV, PHV	173.99^**	80	-	0.98	0.97	0.07
M1 (四因子)	VE, WM, VEF, PMV+PHV	269.84^**	84	95.85^**	0.95	0.94	0.10
M2 (四因子)	VE, WM+VEF, PMV, PHV	828.84^**	84	654.85^**	0.81	0.76	0.20
M3 (三因子)	VE, WM+VEF, PMV+PHV	917.66^**	87	743.67^**	0.79	0.74	0.20
M4 (二因子)	VE, WM+VEF+PMV+PHV	1506.20^**	89	1332.21^**	0.64	0.57	0.26
M5 (一因子)	VE+WM+VEF+PMV+PHV	2234.75^**	90	2060.76^**	0.45	0.36	0.32

模型拟合指标	因子	χ²	df	Δχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
M0 (五因子)	VE, WM, VEF, PMV, PHV	173.99^**	80	-	0.98	0.97	0.07
M1 (四因子)	VE, WM, VEF, PMV+PHV	269.84^**	84	95.85^**	0.95	0.94	0.10
M2 (四因子)	VE, WM+VEF, PMV, PHV	828.84^**	84	654.85^**	0.81	0.76	0.20
M3 (三因子)	VE, WM+VEF, PMV+PHV	917.66^**	87	743.67^**	0.79	0.74	0.20
M4 (二因子)	VE, WM+VEF+PMV+PHV	1506.20^**	89	1332.21^**	0.64	0.57	0.26
M5 (一因子)	VE+WM+VEF+PMV+PHV	2234.75^**	90	2060.76^**	0.45	0.36	0.32

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.性别	1.40	0.49	-
2.年龄	27.85	4.54	-0.06	-
3.受教育程度	1.97	0.76	0.06	-0.11	-
4.建言采纳	4.28	1.03	-0.07	0.16^*	-0.08	(0.95)
5.工作意义感	4.28	1.14	-0.28^**	0.12	-0.07	0.33^**	(0.95)
6.建言效能感	4.35	1.02	-0.06	-0.06	0.11	0.32^**	0.46^**	(0.93)
7.促进性建言	5.00	0.85	-0.07	0.08	-0.07	0.23^**	0.42^**	0.48^**	(0.94)
8.抑制性建言	4.93	0.90	-0.12	0.15^*	-0.09	0.24^**	0.51^**	0.48^**	0.81^**	(0.90)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.性别	1.40	0.49	-
2.年龄	27.85	4.54	-0.06	-
3.受教育程度	1.97	0.76	0.06	-0.11	-
4.建言采纳	4.28	1.03	-0.07	0.16^*	-0.08	(0.95)
5.工作意义感	4.28	1.14	-0.28^**	0.12	-0.07	0.33^**	(0.95)
6.建言效能感	4.35	1.02	-0.06	-0.06	0.11	0.32^**	0.46^**	(0.93)
7.促进性建言	5.00	0.85	-0.07	0.08	-0.07	0.23^**	0.42^**	0.48^**	(0.94)
8.抑制性建言	4.93	0.90	-0.12	0.15^*	-0.09	0.24^**	0.51^**	0.48^**	0.81^**	(0.90)