新员工工作重塑会带来积极的结果吗?领导成员交换与个体传统性的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00659

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

每年都有大量的高校毕业生进入职场。在企业竞争日趋激烈的今天, 如何将这些大学毕业生快速地转变成高绩效的企业员工, 是一个重要的研究议题。基于自我表达的理论视角, 本研究探讨工作重塑能否促进新员工的任务绩效和创造力, 以及领导成员交换和个体传统性如何影响新员工的工作重塑。我们对256名新员工进行4轮的问卷调查, 最终得到125份有效的匹配问卷。数据分析结果显示: (1)工作重塑会正向影响新员工的工作投入, 进而影响他们的任务绩效和创造力; (2)对于传统性比较高的新员工, 领导成员交换可以促进他们的工作重塑; (3)个体传统性正向调节领导成员交换对任务绩效、创造力的间接作用, 当个体传统性高时, 领导成员交换通过工作重塑和工作投入对任务绩效、创造力的积极影响更为显著。本研究从新员工自我表达的视角为组织提升新员工的任务绩效和创造力提供了新的思路。

关键词: 新员工社会化, 工作重塑, 任务绩效, 创造力, 领导成员交换, 个体传统性

Abstract:

A considerable number of college graduates enter the workforce every year. Given increasingly heightened competition, understanding how to transform college graduates into engaged and productive organizational employees is crucial. Although numerous studies on organizational socialization exist, most are generally focused on organizational control. However, as work roles become increasingly dynamic in the changing environment, successful organizational socialization requires newcomers to develop an innovative role orientation to be able to constantly shape their role in the workplace and better serve organizational goals. Drawing on the self-expression perspective, this study attempted to explore whether newcomer job crafting could facilitate role performance (i.e., task performance and creativity). Moreover, we examined how initial leader-member exchange (LMX) and individual traditionality jointly influence newcomer job crafting.
We conducted a four-wave survey among 256 newcomers from a large machinery manufacturer in China. The final matched sample size was 125. Results showed that (a) newcomer job crafting was significantly related to work engagement, which in turn, resulted in high levels of task performance and creativity; (b) LMX positively affected job crafting only in newcomers with high levels of traditionality; and (c) traditionality moderated the positive indirect effect of LMX on task performance and creativity via job crafting and work engagement. That is, positive indirect effects were significant in newcomers with high levels of traditionality.
Our study provides several theoretical contributions. First, we examine an employee-centered organizational socialization process from the perspective of self-expression. Second, this research develops a comprehensive newcomer job crafting model including the antecedents and consequences of newcomer job crafting. Third, we add to the employee creativity literature by highlighting how to promote newcomer creativity from the lens of job crafting. Besides its theoretical implications, this study presents practical implications on how to quickly transform new hires into productive and creative employees. Our study recommends organizations to encourage newcomers to craft their job during organizational entry to engender high levels of task performance and to tap into the creativity of new hires. However, managers should be aware that the quality of LMX is likely to be influential in promoting job crafting among newcomers with high levels of traditionality.

Key words: newcomer socialization, job crafting, task performance, creativity, leader-member exchange (LMX), traditionality

中图分类号:

B849:C93

胡巧婷, 王海江, 龙立荣. (2020). 新员工工作重塑会带来积极的结果吗?领导成员交换与个体传统性的作用. 心理学报, 52(5), 659-668.

HU Qiaoting, WANG Haijiang, LONG Lirong. (2020). Will newcomer job crafting bring positive outcomes? The role of leader-member exchange and traditionality. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(5), 659-668.

图/表 7

参考文献 47

[1]	Allen T. D., Eby L. T., Chao G. T., & Bauer T. N . (2017). Taking stock of two relational aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 324-337. doi: 10.1037/apl0000086 URL pmid: 28125264
[2]	Akkermans J., & Tims M . (2017). Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 168-195. doi: 10.1111/apps.2017.66.issue-1 URL
[3]	Amabile T. M . (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 URL
[4]	Ashforth B. E . (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[5]	Ashforth B. E., Myers K. K., & Sluss D. M . (2012). Socialization perspectives and positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[6]	Ashforth B. E., & Saks A. M . (1995). Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examination of the Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68(2), 157-175. doi: 10.1111/joop.1995.68.issue-2 URL
[7]	Baas M., De Dreu C. K. W., & Nijstad B. A . (2008). A meta- analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779-806. doi: 10.1037/a0012815 URL pmid: 18954157
[8]	Bakker A. B., Tims M., & Derks D . (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. doi: 10.1177/0018726712453471 URL
[9]	Bauer T. N., Bodner T., Erdogan B., Truxillo D. M., & Tucker J. S . (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707 URL pmid: 17484552
[10]	Cable D. M., Gino F., & Staats B. R . (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. doi: 10.1177/0001839213477098 URL
[11]	Cheng S. Q., Costantini A., & Zhou H . (2019, August). A model of newcomer job crafting: Implications for organizational socialization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management Proceedings, Sheraton Boston Hotel, Boston.
[12]	Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., & Gevers J. M. P . (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001 URL
[13]	Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., & Halbesleben J. R. B . (2015). Productive and counterproductive job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 457-469. doi: 10.1037/a0039002 URL pmid: 25798721
[14]	Dulebohn J. H., Bommer W. H., Liden R. C., Brouer R. L., & Ferris G. R . (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280 URL
[15]	Eldor L., & Harpaz I . (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 213-235. doi: 10.1002/job.2037 URL
[16]	Farh J. L., Cheng B. S., Chou L. F., & Chu X. P . (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230- 260). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
[17]	Farh J. L., Hackett R. D., & Liang J . (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support - employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715-729. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.25530866 URL
[18]	Feldman D. C., & Brett J. M . (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 258-272.
[19]	Graen G. B., & Uhl-Bien M . (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi- level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 URL
[20]	Grant A. M., & Parker S. K . (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. doi: 10.5465/19416520903047327 URL
[21]	Griffin M. A., Neal A., & Parker S. K . (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 URL
[22]	Hu R. L., & Tian X. Z . (2015). Crafting work identity and meaning: A literature of job crafting research. Foreign Economics & Management, 37(10), 69-81.
	[ 胡睿玲, 田喜洲 . (2015). 重构工作身份与意义——工作重塑研究述评. 外国经济与管理, 37(10), 69-81.]
[23]	Kahn W. A . (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
[24]	Kammeyer-Mueller J., Wanberg C., Rubenstein A., & Song Z . (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104-1124. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0791 URL
[25]	Li X . (2018). Education, employment, entrepreneurship and youth training: The status and development trends. Chinese Youth Study, 7, 114-119.
	[ 李迅 . (2018). 教育、就业、创业与青年人才培养: 现状与发展趋势. 中国青年研究, 7, 114-119.]
[26]	Li Y. P., & Hou X. F . (2012). Structure of work values of millennial generation and mechanism of its impact on work behavior. Economic Management, 34(5), 77-86.
	[ 李燕萍, 侯烜方 . (2012). 新生代员工工作价值观结构及其对工作行为的影响机理. 经济管理, 34(5), 77-86. ]
[27]	Madjar N., Greenberg E., & Chen Z . (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730-743. doi: 10.1037/a0022416 URL
[28]	Peng, J., & Wang , X. (2016). I will perform effectively if you are with me: Leader-follower congruence in followership prototype, job engagement and job performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(9), 1151-1162. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01151 URL
	[ 彭坚, 王霄 . (2016). 与上司“心有灵犀”会让你的工作更出色吗?——追随原型一致性、工作投入与工作绩效. 心理学报, 48(9), 1151-1162.]
[29]	Petrou P., Demerouti E., Peeters M. C. W., Schaufeli W. B., & Hetland J . (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. doi: 10.1002/job.1783 URL
[30]	Saks A. M., & Gruman J. A . (2018). Socialization resources theory and newcomers’ work engagement: A new pathway to newcomer socialization. Career Development International, 23(1), 12-32. doi: 10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0214 URL
[31]	Scandura T. A., & Graen G. B . (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428 URL
[32]	Schaufeli W. B., Bakker A. B., & Salanova M . (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471 URL
[33]	Schaufeli W. B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., & Bakker A. B . (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326 URL
[34]	Scott S. G., & Bruce R. A . (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
[35]	Sparrowe R. T., & Liden R. C . (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522-552. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9707154068 URL
[36]	Tian Q. T., & Guan H. G . (2017). The revolution of job design: Advances and expectations of job crafting. Human Resources Development of China, (3), 6-17.
	[ 田启涛, 关浩光 . (2017). 工作设计革命: 工作重塑的研究进展及展望. 中国人力资源开发, (3), 6-17.]
[37]	Tims M., & Bakker A. B . (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9.
[38]	Tims M., Derks D., & Bakker A. B . (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007 URL
[39]	Van Maanen J., & Schein E. H . (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209-264). Greenwich, Gonn.: JAI Press.
[40]	Vancouver J. B., Tamanini K. B., & Yoder R. J . (2010). Using dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and research: Socialization by the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of Management, 36(3), 764-793. doi: 10.2134/jeq2006.0308 URL pmid: 17412911
[41]	Vogt K., Hakanen J. J., Brauchli R., Jenny G. J., & Bauer G. F . (2016). The consequences of job crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 353-362.
[42]	Wang H. J., Lu C. Q., & Lu L . (2014). Do people with traditional values suffer more from job insecurity? The moderating effects of traditionality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 107-117.
[43]	Ward A.-K., Ravlin E. C., Klaas B. S., Ployhart R. E., & Buchan N. R . (2016). When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1498-1511. doi: 10.1037/apl0000144 URL pmid: 27504663
[44]	Wei X., He Y., Luo Y. L., & Xi J . (2018). Research hotspot and direction of job crafting: A visualization analysis research based on knowledge mapping software. Human Resources Development of China, 35(1), 71-82.
	[ 魏新, 何颖, 罗伊玲, 奚菁 . (2018). 工作重塑的研究热点与方向: 一项基于知识图谱软件的可视化分析. 中国人力资源开发, 35(1), 71-82.]
[45]	Wrzesniewski A., & Dutton J. E . (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
[46]	Xie J. L., Schaubroeck J., & Lam S. S. K . (2008). Theories of job stress and the role of traditional values: A longitudinal study in China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 831-848. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.831 URL pmid: 18642987
[47]	Yang K. S., Yu A. B., & Yeh M. H . (1989). Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Construct definition and measurement. In The psychology and behavior of Chinese people (pp.287-354). Taipei: Laurel Book Publishing Company.
	[ 杨国枢, 余安邦, 叶明华 . (1989). 中国人的个人传统性与现代性: 概念与测量. 见: 中国人心理与行为 (pp. 287- 354). 台湾: 桂冠图书出版公司.]

模型	c²	df	c²/df	Δc²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
6因子模型	257.76	215	1.20	—	0.97	0.96	0.04
5因子模型	336.12	220	1.53	78.36(5)	0.92	0.90	0.07
4因子模型	711.12	224	3.18	453.36(9)	0.68	0.60	0.13
3因子模型	805.17	227	3.55	547.41(12)	0.62	0.53	0.14
2因子模型	1141.84	229	4.99	884.08(14)	0.39	0.27	0.18
单因子模型	1211.79	230	5.27	954.03(15)	0.35	0.22	0.19

模型	c²	df	c²/df	Δc²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
6因子模型	257.76	215	1.20	—	0.97	0.96	0.04
5因子模型	336.12	220	1.53	78.36(5)	0.92	0.90	0.07
4因子模型	711.12	224	3.18	453.36(9)	0.68	0.60	0.13
3因子模型	805.17	227	3.55	547.41(12)	0.62	0.53	0.14
2因子模型	1141.84	229	4.99	884.08(14)	0.39	0.27	0.18
单因子模型	1211.79	230	5.27	954.03(15)	0.35	0.22	0.19

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. 性别	0.42	0.50	—
2. 年龄	23.29	1.11	-0.10	—
3. 学历	1.06	0.29	-0.05	0.57^**	—
4. 领导威权行为(T1)	3.78	1.47	-0.15	0.06	0.06	(0.71)
5. 个体传统性(T0)	4.11	1.00	0.22^*	-0.02	-0.18^*	0.06	(0.66)
6. 领导成员交换(T1)	5.38	0.85	-0.10	0.08	-0.007	0.21^*	0.27^**	(0.87)
7. 工作重塑(T1)	3.52	0.61	-0.06	0.15	0.14	0.12	0.09	0.36^**	(0.86)
8. 工作投入(T1)	4.33	1.00	-0.09	0.11	0.06	0.19^*	0.14	0.49^**	0.58^**	(0.94)
9. 工作重塑(T2)	3.59	0.64	-0.02	0.19^*	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.26^**	0.50^**	0.38^**	(0.90)
10. 工作投入(T3)	4.10	1.15	0.12	0.12	0.12	0.04	0.19^*	0.38^**	0.33^**	0.42^**	0.36^**	(0.96)
11. 任务绩效(T3)	6.06	1.05	-0.03	0.10	0.08	-0.04	-0.003	0.07	0.06	0.13	0.10	0.24^**	(0.94)
12.创造力(T3)	5.43	1.05	0.10	0.20^*	0.10	-0.07	0.11	0.14	0.03	0.21^*	0.15	0.36^**	0.69^**	(0.94)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. 性别	0.42	0.50	—
2. 年龄	23.29	1.11	-0.10	—
3. 学历	1.06	0.29	-0.05	0.57^**	—
4. 领导威权行为(T1)	3.78	1.47	-0.15	0.06	0.06	(0.71)
5. 个体传统性(T0)	4.11	1.00	0.22^*	-0.02	-0.18^*	0.06	(0.66)
6. 领导成员交换(T1)	5.38	0.85	-0.10	0.08	-0.007	0.21^*	0.27^**	(0.87)
7. 工作重塑(T1)	3.52	0.61	-0.06	0.15	0.14	0.12	0.09	0.36^**	(0.86)
8. 工作投入(T1)	4.33	1.00	-0.09	0.11	0.06	0.19^*	0.14	0.49^**	0.58^**	(0.94)
9. 工作重塑(T2)	3.59	0.64	-0.02	0.19^*	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.26^**	0.50^**	0.38^**	(0.90)
10. 工作投入(T3)	4.10	1.15	0.12	0.12	0.12	0.04	0.19^*	0.38^**	0.33^**	0.42^**	0.36^**	(0.96)
11. 任务绩效(T3)	6.06	1.05	-0.03	0.10	0.08	-0.04	-0.003	0.07	0.06	0.13	0.10	0.24^**	(0.94)
12.创造力(T3)	5.43	1.05	0.10	0.20^*	0.10	-0.07	0.11	0.14	0.03	0.21^*	0.15	0.36^**	0.69^**	(0.94)

路径	效应	标准误差	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
工作重塑(T2)?工作投入(T3)?任务绩效(T3, 导师评)	0.09	0.05	0.02	0.21
工作重塑(T2)?工作投入(T3)?创造力(T3, 导师评)	0.13	0.05	0.05	0.25