工作狂领导对团队绩效的双刃剑作用机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着行业竞争压力的加剧, 工作狂领导在职场中愈发普遍。然而对于工作狂领导在组织中的有效性, 无论是在实践界还是在学术界都尚存争议。鉴于此, 本研究基于社会信息加工理论, 分析工作狂领导对团队绩效的双刃剑作用机制。通过对某物业管理服务公司进行多时点、多来源的问卷调查, 研究结果表明：一方面, 工作狂领导会提升团队工作卷入, 促进团队绩效; 另一方面, 工作狂领导也会引发团队消极情绪, 损害团队绩效表现; 团队工作重要性能有效缓解工作狂领导对团队绩效的消极作用, 同时促进其积极作用。以上研究发现有助于辨证理解工作狂领导有效性, 为组织培育管理人才提供有益借鉴。

关键词: 工作狂领导, 团队绩效, 团队工作卷入, 团队消极情绪, 团队工作重要性

Abstract:

Currently, workaholic leaders are prevalent in the workplace, and the relevant research has substantially increased. However, regarding the effectiveness of leader workaholism, researchers have found inconsistent and even contradictory results. In addition, prior research has mostly centered on the effects of leader workaholism at the employee or firm level while ignoring its impacts at the team level. To address these gaps, the current research aims to investigate the double-edged sword effects of leader workaholism on team performance. Based on social information processing theory, we propose that leader workaholism influences team performance through two distinct mechanisms: on the one hand, leader workaholism enhances team job involvement, which has a subsequent positive effect on team performance, and on the other hand, leader workaholism induces team negative affect, which in turn negatively influences team performance. In addition, we also expect that team task significance can mitigate the negative effects and enhance the positive effects of leader workaholism.

We conducted a multitime, multisource questionnaire survey on a property management company in China. Before collecting the data, all participants were assured that their responses would be confidential and used only for academic research. In Wave 1, the team leader rated his or her workaholism, and team members rated team task significance. In Wave 2 (one month later), team members were asked to complete the questionnaire containing questions on team job involvement and team negative affect. In Wave 3 (one month after Wave 2), general managers were invited to evaluate each team’s performance. The three rounds of data collection resulted in 105 matched team leader-team member responses (105 team leaders, 512 team members), with a 69.08% overall response rate for team leaders and a 61.03% overall response rate for team members.

Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a measurement model assessment to verify whether the manifest variables could accurately measure the theoretical constructs. Then, we performed a path analysis through Mplus 7.0. The results showed that leader workaholism was positively related to team job involvement, resulting in higher team performance. However, leader workaholism also heightened team negative affect, thus decreasing team performance. Moreover, team task significance moderated the above two mediating paths. Specifically, when team task significance was higher, the negative mediating effect of team negative affect was attenuated, and the positive mediating effect of team job involvement was enhanced.

The current research makes essential theoretical contributions and has practical implications. First, this study is among the first to examine the relationship between leader workaholism and team performance, answering the call for more research on the effects of leader workaholism at the team level (Clark et al., 2016). Second, based on social information processing theory, we examine two mechanisms through which leader workaholism affects team performance and demonstrate the coexistence of opposite effects in this process, which is helpful for understanding the complicated relationship between leader workaholism and team performance. Third, we elaborate on the moderating role of team task significance, which provides important insights about the contingency factors that shape the effectiveness of leader workaholism. Practically, we suggest that organizations take a dialectical perspective to consider the role of leader workaholism in team management and adopt selection procedures to identify qualified managers.

Key words: leader workaholism, team performance, team job involvement, team negative affect, team task significance

中图分类号:

B849: C93

佘卓霖, 李全, 杨百寅, 杨斌. (2021). 工作狂领导对团队绩效的双刃剑作用机制. 心理学报, 53(9), 1018-1031.

SHE Zhuolin, LI Quan, YANG Baiyin, YANG Bin. (2021). The double-edged sword effects of leader workaholism on team performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(9), 1018-1031.

图/表 8

参考文献 50

[1]	Aiken L.S., & West S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2]	Allan B.A., Duffy R.D., & Collisson B. (2018). Task significance and performance: Meaningfulness as a mediator. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 172-182. doi: 10.1177/1069072716680047 URL
[3]	Bunderson J.S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 458-474.
[4]	Campion M.A., Papper E.M., & Medsker G.J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 429-452. doi: 10.1111/peps.1996.49.issue-2 URL
[5]	Chan D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 URL
[6]	Chi N.W., & Huang J.C. (2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 300-325.
[7]	Clark M.A., Stevens G.W., Michel J.S., & Zimmerman L. (2016). Workaholism among leaders:Implications for their own and their followers’ well-being. In W. A. Gentry & C. Clerkin. (Eds.), The Role of Leadership in Occupational Stress (pp.1-31). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[8]	Cole M.S., Walter F., & Bruch H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 945-958. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.945 URL
[9]	Dionne S.D., Yammarino F.J., Howell J.P., & Villa J. (2005). Substitutes for leadership, or not. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 169-193. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.012 URL
[10]	Edwards J.R., & Lambert L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL
[11]	Emery C.R., & Barker K.J. (2007). Effect of commitment, job involvement and teams on customer satisfaction and profit. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 13(3/4), 90-101. doi: 10.1108/13527590710759847 URL
[12]	Friedman S.D., & Lobel S. (2003). The happy workaholic: A role model for employees. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(3), 87-98.
[13]	Gonzalez-Mulé E., Courtright S.H., DeGeest D., Seong J.Y., & Hong D.S. (2016). Channeled autonomy: The joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organizational goal clarity. Journal of Management, 42(7), 2018-2033. doi: 10.1177/0149206314535443 URL
[14]	Gorgievski M.J., Moriano J.A., & Bakker A.B. (2014). Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 106-121. doi: 10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0169 URL
[15]	Grant A.M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 pmid: 18211139
[16]	Greer L.L., & Jehn K.A. (2007). Chapter 2 the pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on group performance. Affect and Groups, 10, 21-43.
[17]	Hackman J.R., & Oldham G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. doi: 10.1037/h0076546 URL
[18]	Harman H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[19]	Hayes A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
[20]	Hiller N.J., DeChurch L.A., Murase T., & Doty D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1137-1177. doi: 10.1177/0149206310393520 URL
[21]	Jiao Y.F. (2019). Gyroscopic workaholic. Workmates, (8), 12-13.
	[ 焦杨帆. (2019). 旋转陀螺工作狂. 工友, (8), 12-13.]
[22]	Kanungo R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341-349. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341 URL
[23]	Koopman J., Scott B.A., Matta F.K., Conlon D.E., & Dennerlein T. (2019). Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1103-1116. doi: 10.1037/apl0000403 pmid: 30843704
[24]	Lazarus R.S., & Folkman S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
[25]	Li Q., & She Z.L. (2020). The impact of workaholic leaders on followers’ continuous learning. In M. London. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Second Edition (pp.1-13). Oxford University Press.
[26]	Li Q., She Z.L., Yang B.Y., & Qi M.Z. (2018). The mechanism of how workaholic CEO influences organizational performance. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(10), 996-1002.
	[ 李全, 佘卓霖, 杨百寅, 齐明正. (2018). 工作狂型CEO对组织绩效的影响研究. 管理学报, 15(10), 996-1002.]
[27]	Morgeson F.P., & Humphrey S.E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 URL
[28]	Muthén L.K., & Muthén B.O. (2012). Mplus version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[29]	Ng T.W.H., Sorensen K.L., & Feldman D.C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 111-136. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[30]	Pan S.Y. (2018). Do workaholic hotel supervisors provide family supportive supervision? A role identity perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 59-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.013 URL
[31]	Parker S.K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661-691. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208 URL
[32]	Paulsen H.F.K., Klonek F.E., Schneider K., & Kauffeld S. (2016). Group affective tone and team performance: A week-level study in project teams. Frontiers in Communication, 1, 7-10.
[33]	Peng J., Wang Z., & Chen X. (2018). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 419-433. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3799-0 URL
[34]	Preacher K.J., & Selig J.P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77-98. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 URL
[35]	Rabinowitz S., & Hall D.T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84(2), 265-288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.265 URL
[36]	Rotenberry P.F., & Moberg P.J. (2007). Assessing the impact of job involvement on performance. Management Research News, 30(3), 203-215. doi: 10.1108/01409170710733278 URL
[37]	Salancik G.R., & Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[38]	Schaufeli W.B., Shimazu A., & Taris T.W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 320-348. doi: 10.1177/1069397109337239 URL
[39]	She Z.L., Li Q., Kong Y.C., & Yang B.Y. (2020). Can workaholic leader promote follower job performance? The moderating role of follower work centrality. Human Resources Development of China, 37(6), 44-55.
	[ 佘卓霖, 李全, 孔奕淳, 杨百寅. (2020). 工作狂领导有利于下属绩效吗? 下属工作中心性的调节作用. 中国人力资源开发, 37(6), 44-55.]
[40]	Sy T., Côté S., & Saavedra R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295 URL
[41]	Tanghe J., Wisse B., & van der Flier H. (2010). The formation of group affect and team effectiveness: The moderating role of identification. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 340-358.
[42]	Tao X.J. (2014). How to cultivate workaholics. Enterprise Management, (6), 34-35.
	[ 陶小江. (2014). 怎样培养出工作狂. 企业管理, (6), 34-35.]
[43]	Wang L., Owens B.P., Li J.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
[44]	Watson D., Clark L.A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. pmid: 3397865
[45]	Xiong H.X., Zhang J., Ye B.J., Zheng X., & Sun P.Z. (2012). Common method variance effects and the models of statistical approaches for controlling it. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(5), 757-769. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00757 URL
	[ 熊红星, 张璟, 叶宝娟, 郑雪, 孙配贞. (2012). 共同方法变异的影响及其统计控制途径的模型分析. 心理科学进展, 20(5), 757-769.]
[46]	Xu S.Y., & Zhu J.Q. (2017). Ethical leadership and pro-social rule breaking: A dual process model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(1), 106-115. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00106 URL
	[ 徐世勇, 朱金强. (2017). 道德领导与亲社会违规行为: 双中介模型. 心理学报, 49(1), 106-115.]
[47]	Yan A.M., Guo H., Xie J.L., Hao Y.C., & Ma H. (2020). How ethical leadership improves employee taking charge: The effect of felt obligation for constructive change and career calling. Human Resources Development of China, 37(11), 50-61.
	[ 颜爱民, 郭好, 谢菊兰, 郝迎春, 马浩. (2020). 伦理型领导何以促进员工主动变革行为: 建设性责任知觉与职业召唤的作用. 中国人力资源开发, 37(11), 50-61.]
[48]	Yang F., Huang X., & Wu L. (2019). Experiencing meaningfulness climate in teams: How spiritual leadership enhances team effectiveness when facing uncertain tasks. Human Resource Management, 58(2), 155-168. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21943
[49]	Zalesny M.D., & Ford J.K. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(2), 205-246. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90037-A URL
[50]	Zhang Y., Zhou F., & Mao J. (2018). Ethical leadership and follower moral actions: Investigating an emotional linkage. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1881. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01881 URL

变量名称	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. 领导性别	0.62	0.49
2. 领导年龄	38.52	9.03	0.11
3. 领导教育水平	2.32	0.67	-0.04	-0.26^**
4. 团队规模	4.88	1.10	0.06	-0.07	0.11
5. 团队成立年限	5.03	1.94	0.03	-0.07	-0.04	0.07
6. 楼盘规模—小型	0.41	0.49	-0.01	-0.01	0.12	-0.03	-0.03
7. 楼盘规模—中型	0.54	0.50	0.01	0.04	-0.13	0.02	0.04	-0.68^***
8. 楼盘档次—普通	0.38	0.49	-0.05	-0.05	0.09	0.09	0.09	-0.14	0.05
9. 楼盘档次—中档	0.48	0.50	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.01	-0.08	0.14	-0.04	-0.48^***
10. 工作狂领导	4.50	0.98	-0.01	-0.21^*	0.05	-0.03	0.12	0.02	-0.09	-0.03	-0.02	0.79
11. 团队工作卷入	4.38	0.55	-0.11	-0.15	0.06	-0.09	-0.03	0.19	-0.21^*	-0.25^*	0.19	0.35^***	0.75
12. 团队消极情绪	3.65	0.97	-0.03	-0.06	0.10	0.17	-0.02	-0.01	-0.03	0.01	0.06	0.43^***	-0.06	0.90
13. 团队工作重要性	3.72	1.06	-0.14	-0.19	0.05	-0.02	-0.08	0.08	-0.04	-0.00	0.04	0.06	0.14	-0.03	0.85
14. 团队绩效	4.84	0.76	-0.08	-0.15	0.16	-0.08	0.05	-0.12	0.11	0.03	0.08	0.18	0.38^***	-0.19^*	-0.11	0.79

变量名称	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. 领导性别	0.62	0.49
2. 领导年龄	38.52	9.03	0.11
3. 领导教育水平	2.32	0.67	-0.04	-0.26^**
4. 团队规模	4.88	1.10	0.06	-0.07	0.11
5. 团队成立年限	5.03	1.94	0.03	-0.07	-0.04	0.07
6. 楼盘规模—小型	0.41	0.49	-0.01	-0.01	0.12	-0.03	-0.03
7. 楼盘规模—中型	0.54	0.50	0.01	0.04	-0.13	0.02	0.04	-0.68^***
8. 楼盘档次—普通	0.38	0.49	-0.05	-0.05	0.09	0.09	0.09	-0.14	0.05
9. 楼盘档次—中档	0.48	0.50	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.01	-0.08	0.14	-0.04	-0.48^***
10. 工作狂领导	4.50	0.98	-0.01	-0.21^*	0.05	-0.03	0.12	0.02	-0.09	-0.03	-0.02	0.79
11. 团队工作卷入	4.38	0.55	-0.11	-0.15	0.06	-0.09	-0.03	0.19	-0.21^*	-0.25^*	0.19	0.35^***	0.75
12. 团队消极情绪	3.65	0.97	-0.03	-0.06	0.10	0.17	-0.02	-0.01	-0.03	0.01	0.06	0.43^***	-0.06	0.90
13. 团队工作重要性	3.72	1.06	-0.14	-0.19	0.05	-0.02	-0.08	0.08	-0.04	-0.00	0.04	0.06	0.14	-0.03	0.85
14. 团队绩效	4.84	0.76	-0.08	-0.15	0.16	-0.08	0.05	-0.12	0.11	0.03	0.08	0.18	0.38^***	-0.19^*	-0.11	0.79

模型	因子	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	组间SRMR	组内SRMR
五因子模型	每个变量对应一个因子	715.84	225	3.18	0.92	0.91	0.07	0.06	0.05
四因子模型1	工作狂领导与团队绩效合并	873.29	226	3.86	0.90	0.88	0.08	0.15	0.05
四因子模型2	团队工作重要性与团队工作卷入合并	1799.71	227	7.93	0.74	0.71	0.12	0.06	0.13
四因子模型3	团队工作重要性与团队消极情绪合并	1806.05	227	7.96	0.74	0.70	0.12	0.06	0.13
四因子模型4	团队工作卷入与团队消极情绪合并	2808.07	227	12.37	0.58	0.52	0.15	0.06	0.18

模型	因子	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	组间SRMR	组内SRMR
五因子模型	每个变量对应一个因子	715.84	225	3.18	0.92	0.91	0.07	0.06	0.05
四因子模型1	工作狂领导与团队绩效合并	873.29	226	3.86	0.90	0.88	0.08	0.15	0.05
四因子模型2	团队工作重要性与团队工作卷入合并	1799.71	227	7.93	0.74	0.71	0.12	0.06	0.13
四因子模型3	团队工作重要性与团队消极情绪合并	1806.05	227	7.96	0.74	0.70	0.12	0.06	0.13
四因子模型4	团队工作卷入与团队消极情绪合并	2808.07	227	12.37	0.58	0.52	0.15	0.06	0.18

预测变量	结果变量
预测变量	团队工作卷入	团队消极情绪	团队绩效
控制变量
领导性别	-0.10 (0.08)	-0.04 (0.08)	-0.03 (0.08)
领导年龄	-0.09 (0.09)	0.06 (0.09)	-0.04 (0.08)
领导教育水平	0.03 (0.09)	0.07 (0.09)	0.16 (0.08)
团队规模	-0.06 (0.08)	0.17 (0.08)	-0.05 (0.08)
团队成立年限	-0.04 (0.08)	-0.08 (0.08)	0.03 (0.08)
楼盘规模—小型	-0.00 (0.21)	-0.09 (0.21)	-0.17 (0.20)
楼盘规模—中型	-0.16 (0.21)	-0.06 (0.21)	0.05 (0.20)
楼盘档次—普通	-0.21 (0.13)	0.12 (0.13)	0.30^*(0.13)
楼盘档次—中档	0.03 (0.13)	0.17 (0.12)	0.31^*(0.12)
自变量
工作狂领导	0.31^***(0.08)	0.46^***(0.08)	0.18 (0.10)
中介变量
团队工作卷入			0.33^***(0.09)
团队消极情绪			-0.28^**(0.10)
R²	0.23^**	0.24^**	0.31^***
AIC		655.70
BIC		636.00