领导权力和地位对下属建言的影响——心理安全感的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00549

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

通过实验研究(研究1、2)和多来源、多时点的实地问卷调查(研究3), 本文发现: 领导权力对下属建言有消极作用, 领导地位对下属建言有积极作用; 领导地位调节领导权力对下属建言的影响, 当领导地位较低时, 领导权力对下属建言的负面作用增强, 反之则不显著; 领导地位对权力的调节作用通过下属心理安全感传递至下属建言行为。这一研究结果有助于阐明组织层级差异(如权力、地位)是如何影响下属建言行为的。

关键词: 权力, 地位, 建言行为, 心理安全感

Abstract:

The impact of a leader’s hierarchical position on employees’ voice behaviors is both practically and theoretically important. Prior research found that hierarchical differences hinder upward communication and information sharing. Indeed, the hierarchical position is constructed on different bases. For example, power (i.e., the control over valuable resources) and status (i.e., the respect and esteem that a leader holds in the eyes of others) are two different bases of hierarchy, and they are found to have distinct effects on an individual’s behaviors and perceptions. Therefore, employees’ voice decisions may vary when the leader has high power or high status. However, prior research has not distinguished those different hierarchical bases (i.e., power and status) when investigating the effect of a leader’s hierarchical rank on employees’ voice behaviors. Moreover, the interactive relationship between power and status has not been explored in the voice context, although researchers have identified that the power effect often depends on status. We suggest that leader power and status have distinct effects on employees’ voice behavior and psychological safety. We also expect the effect of leader power on employee’s voice behavior to be moderated by leader status and that the moderating effect may be transferred indirectly through employees’ psychological safety.
By taking a multimethod approach, we tested our hypotheses in two experiments (Studies 1 and 2) and a field survey (Study 3). In Study 1, we conducted a 2 (leader power: high vs. low) × 2 (leader status: high vs. low) between-subjects design and recruited 163 full-time employees from Prolific. By using a scenario-based experiment, we aimed to test the main effects of leader power and status on employees’ voice behaviors, as well as the moderating effect of leader status. In Study 2, we conducted a 2 (leader power: high vs. low) × 2 (leader status: high vs. low) between-subjects design and recruited 189 full-time employees from Prolific. In this study, we asked participants to identify a target leader who had either high or low power and either high or low status. After that, they indicated how many suggestions or concerns they would bring up to this leader in a real meeting and reported the perceived psychological safety in that situation. In Study 3, we collected data from a large company in South China. The final sample consists of 346 employees matched with their 111 immediate supervisors. Employees evaluated their supervisor’s power and status at T1 and reported their psychological safety at T2; supervisors reported employee voice behaviors at T2.
In Study 1, we found a negative effect of leader power on employees’ voice behaviors. In addition, we found that the effect of leader power on employees’ voice behavior was contingent on leader status. That is, when a leader has high status, the negative effect of leader power on employee voice behavior was not significant; when a leader has low status, the negative effect was stronger. Study 2 supported the main effect of leader power and status on employees’ voice behaviors, as well as the moderating effect of leader status. In addition, Study 2 provided evidence of the mediating role of psychological safety that links the interaction of leader power and status with employees’ voice behaviors. Finally, Study 3 replicated the main effect of leader power and status on employees' voice behavior, the moderating effect of status on the link between leader power and employees’ voice behavior, and the mediating effect of psychological safety. The results from two experiments and one field study ensured high internal and external validity.
Our study contributes to the literature in several aspects. First, we distinguished the effect of leader power and status on employees’ voice behaviors and psychological safety. We also found that the effect of leader power on employees’ voice behavior depends on leader status. This finding provided more nuanced evidence regarding how hierarchical differentiation influences upward voice. Second, although researchers have identified leader power as an influential predictor of employees’ voice behavior, the findings are mixed. We demonstrated that the impact of leader power is contingent on leader status. This finding helps reconcile the debate on leader power. Third, researchers have focused more attention on how leaders influence employees through hard power than on the influence of soft status. Our results show that dominance (i.e., power) and prestige (i.e., status) are both important sources of influence in organizations.

Key words: power, status, voice behavior, psychological safety

中图分类号:

B849: C93

容琰, 隋杨, 江静. (2022). 领导权力和地位对下属建言的影响——心理安全感的作用. 心理学报, 54(5), 549-565.

RONG Yan, SUI Yang, JIANG Jing. (2022). The effects of leader power and status on employees’ voice behavior: The role of psychological safety. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 549-565.

图/表 11

参考文献 80

[1]	Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 67-97. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259 URL
[2]	Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27(1), 123-140.
[3]	Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. (2014). Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930-945. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.808398 URL
[4]	Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994-1014. doi: 10.1037/a0026651 URL
[5]	Blader, S. L., Shirako, A., & Chen, Y. R. (2016). Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 723-737. doi: 10.1177/0146167216636628 URL
[6]	Blader, S. L., & Yu, S. (2017). Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 1-25. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0078 URL
[7]	Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182-1194. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0590 URL
[8]	Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0562 URL
[9]	Case, C. R., Bae, K. K., & Maner, J. K. (2018). To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 657-676. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000138 URL
[10]	Chen, C., Zhang, X., Sun, L., Qin, X., & Deng, H. (2020). Trust is valued in proportion to its rarity? Investigating how and when feeling trusted leads to counterproductive work behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 329-344. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00329 URL
	[陈晨, 张昕, 孙利平, 秦昕, 邓惠如. (2020). 信任以稀为贵?下属感知被信任如何以及何时导致反生产行为. 心理学报, 52(3), 329-344.]
[11]	Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125. doi: 10.1037/a0030398 pmid: 23163747
[12]	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[13]	Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.26279183 URL
[14]	Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624-668. doi: 10.1177/0001839213510151 URL
[15]	Djurdjevic, E., Stoverink, A. C., Klotz, A. C., Koopman, J., da Motta Veiga, S. P., Yam, K. C., & Chiang, J. T. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1124-1147. doi: 10.1037/apl0000202 pmid: 28333498
[16]	Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimension of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, (3), 127-150.
[17]	Duan, J. Y., & Ling, B. (2011). A Chinese indigenous study of the construct of employee voice behavior and the influence of Zhongyong on it. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(10), 1185-1197.
	[段锦云, 凌斌. (2011). 中国背景下员工建言行为结构及中庸思维对其的影响. 心理学报, 43(10), 1185-1197.]
[18]	Duan, J. Y., Zhang, C., & Xu, Y. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between demographic characteristics and employee voice behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(10), 1568-1582. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01568 URL
	[段锦云, 张晨, 徐悦. (2016). 员工建言行为的人口统计特征元分析. 心理科学进展, 24(10), 1568-1582.]
[19]	Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305 URL
[20]	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
[21]	Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391-394. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013 URL
[22]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 URL
[23]	Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.678-692). New York: The Guilford Press.
[24]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 URL
[25]	Fragale, A. R., Overbeck, J. R., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgments based on targets' power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 767-775. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.006 URL
[26]	French, J. R. P., Jr, & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp.259-269). New York: Harper & Row.
[27]	Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450-1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633 pmid: 19025295
[28]	Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 3. Interpersonal Relations (pp.421-460). Washington: American Psychological Association.
[29]	Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1703-1723. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0035 URL
[30]	Greer, L. L., de Jong, B. A., Schouten, M. E., & Dannals, J. E. (2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 591-613. doi: 10.1037/apl0000291 URL
[31]	Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 pmid: 18605855
[32]	Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & 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. doi: 10.1177/2041386610380991 URL
[33]	Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898-924. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898 URL
[34]	Hays, N. A. (2013). Fear and loving in social hierarchy: Sex differences in preferences for power versus status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1130-1136. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.08.007 URL
[35]	Hays, N. A., & Bendersky, C. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867-882. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000017 URL
[36]	Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165-196. pmid: 11384884
[37]	Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 561-567. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.561 URL
[38]	Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions i n hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641. doi: 10.1177/014920639802400504 URL
[39]	Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205-218. pmid: 17563173
[40]	Ji, H., Xie, X. Y., Xiao, Y. P., Gan, X. L., & Feng, W. (2019). Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(3), 366-382. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00366 URL
	[季浩, 谢小云, 肖永平, 甘小乐, 冯雯. (2019). 权力层级与团队绩效关系: 权力与地位的一致与背离. 心理学报, 51(3), 102-118.]
[41]	Keltner, D., van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151-192.
[42]	King, A. J., Johnson, D. D., & van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of leadership. Current Biology, 19(19), 911-916.
[43]	Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross- cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669971 URL
[44]	Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163-193. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002 URL
[45]	Kumar, K. K., & Mishra, S. K. (2017). Subordinate-superior upward communication: Power, politics, and political skill. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 1015-1037. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21814 URL
[46]	Li, H. J., Chen, Y.-R., & Blader, S. L. (2016). Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 185-198. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.003 URL
[47]	Li, J., Wu, L.-Z., Liu, D., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2014). Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 853-874. doi: 10.1007/s10490-013-9371-7 URL
[48]	Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 116-139. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0977 URL
[49]	Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two- wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0176 URL
[50]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014 URL
[51]	Liu, Y., Chen, S., Bell, C., & Tan, J. (2020). How do power and status differ in predicting unethical decisions? A cross- national comparison of China and Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(4), 745-760. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04150-7 URL
[52]	Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628 URL
[53]	McClanahan, K. J. (2020). Viva la evolution: Using dual-strategies theory to explain leadership in modern organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101315. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101315 URL
[54]	Meng, Y., He, J., & Luo, C. (2014). Science research group leader's power and members' compliance and satisfaction with supervision. Research Management Review, 20(1), 1-15.
[55]	Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00387 URL
[56]	Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2011.574506 URL
[57]	Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 URL
[58]	Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 111-134). UK: Emerald Publising.
[59]	Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. doi: 10.1002/job.413 URL
[60]	Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. (2019). Head above the parapet: How minority subordinates influence group outcomes and the consequences they face for doing so. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 929-945. doi: 10.1037/apl0000376 URL
[61]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 URL
[62]	Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553 URL
[63]	Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 307-332. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01708.x URL
[64]	Reitzig, M., & Maciejovsky, B. (2015). Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm-A behavioral view. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 1979-1999. doi: 10.1002/smj.2334 URL
[65]	Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2012). Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating role of accountability. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 13-26. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.002 URL
[66]	Swencionis, J. K., & Fiske, S. T. (2016). Promote up, ingratiate down: Status comparisons drive warmth-competence tradeoffs in impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.004 URL
[67]	To, C., Leslie, L. M., Torelli, C. J., & Stoner, J. L. (2020). Culture and social hierarchy: Collectivism as a driver of the relationship between power and status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 157, 159-176. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.12.006 URL
[68]	Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0180 URL
[69]	van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 127-138. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003 URL
[70]	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 URL
[71]	Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 400-414. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.004 URL
[72]	Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2017). Why didn’t you say something? Effects of after- event reviews on voice behaviour and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 66-80. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1208652 URL
[73]	Willer, R., Youngreen, R., Troyer, L., & Lovaglia, M. J. (2012). How do the powerful attain status? The roots of legitimate power inequalities. Managerial & Decision Economics, 33(5-6), 355-367.
[74]	Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122-126. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019 URL
[75]	Wu, X. Y. (2007). The characteristics and management of new generation of employees. Human Resource Development of China, (2), 44-46.
	[伍晓奕. (2007). 新生代员工的特点与管理对策. 中国人力资源开发, (2), 44-46.]
[76]	Xiang, C., Li, C., Wu, K., & Long, L. (2019). Procedural justice and voice: A group engagement model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(7), 491-503. doi: 10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0557 URL
[77]	Xu, M., Qin, X., Dust, S. B., & DiRenzo, M. S. (2019). Supervisor-subordinate proactive personality congruence and psychological safety: A signaling theory approach to employee voice behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 440-453. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.03.001 URL
[78]	Yu, A., Hays, N. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84-104. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.011 URL
[79]	Zheng, M. X., & van Dijke, M. (2020). Expressing forgiveness after interpersonal mistreatment: Power and status of forgivers influence transgressors' relationship restoration efforts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(8), 782-796. doi: 10.1002/job.2432 URL
[80]	Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2019). Leader trait learning goal orientation and employee voice behavior: The mediating role of managerial openness and the moderating role of felt obligation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(20), 2876-2900. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1335338 URL

变量	建言行为					心理安全感
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6	模型7	模型8
性别	-0.10 (0.19)	-0.07 (0.18)	-0.02 (0.15)	-0.00 (0.18)	0.02 (0.16)	-0.16 (0.22)	-0.12 (0.20)	-0.05 (0.20)
教育水平	0.05 (0.07)	0.05 (0.06)	0.02 (0.05)	0.04 (0.06)	0.02 (0.05)	0.05 (0.08)	0.06 (0.07)	0.05 (0.07)
工龄	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)
领导权力		-0.32 (0.16)^†	-0.15 (0.14)	-0.73 (0.23)**	-0.37 (0.21)^†		-0.37 (0.18)*	-0.81 (0.26)**
领导地位		0.52 (0.16)**	0.06 (0.15)	0.11 (0.23)	-0.13 (0.20)		0.98 (0.18)***	0.54 (0.26)*
领导权力× 领导地位				0.82 (0.33)*	0.42 (0.29)			0.88 (0.36)*
心理安全感			0.46 (0.06)***		0.45 (0.06)***
R²	0.01	0.08	0.32	0.11	0.33	0.01	0.16	0.19
F	0.38	3.00*	14.41***	3.62**	12.74***	0.47	6.95***	6.92***

变量	建言行为					心理安全感
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6	模型7	模型8
性别	-0.10 (0.19)	-0.07 (0.18)	-0.02 (0.15)	-0.00 (0.18)	0.02 (0.16)	-0.16 (0.22)	-0.12 (0.20)	-0.05 (0.20)
教育水平	0.05 (0.07)	0.05 (0.06)	0.02 (0.05)	0.04 (0.06)	0.02 (0.05)	0.05 (0.08)	0.06 (0.07)	0.05 (0.07)
工龄	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.00 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)	-0.01 (0.01)
领导权力		-0.32 (0.16)^†	-0.15 (0.14)	-0.73 (0.23)**	-0.37 (0.21)^†		-0.37 (0.18)*	-0.81 (0.26)**
领导地位		0.52 (0.16)**	0.06 (0.15)	0.11 (0.23)	-0.13 (0.20)		0.98 (0.18)***	0.54 (0.26)*
领导权力× 领导地位				0.82 (0.33)*	0.42 (0.29)			0.88 (0.36)*
心理安全感			0.46 (0.06)***		0.45 (0.06)***
R²	0.01	0.08	0.32	0.11	0.33	0.01	0.16	0.19
F	0.38	3.00*	14.41***	3.62**	12.74***	0.47	6.95***	6.92***

模型	因子	χ²	df	ΔΔχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
模型1	奖赏权、强制权、地位、权力距离、心理安全感、建言行为	1435.22	512		0.91	0.90	0.07
模型2	奖赏权和强制权并入一个因子	2267.45	517	832.23***	0.82	0.81	0.10
模型3	奖赏权、强制权、地位并入一个因子	2787.43	521	1352.21***	0.77	0.75	0.11
模型4	心理安全感、建言行为并入一个因子	2786.53	517	1351.31***	0.77	0.75	0.11

模型	因子	χ²	df	ΔΔχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
模型1	奖赏权、强制权、地位、权力距离、心理安全感、建言行为	1435.22	512		0.91	0.90	0.07
模型2	奖赏权和强制权并入一个因子	2267.45	517	832.23***	0.82	0.81	0.10
模型3	奖赏权、强制权、地位并入一个因子	2787.43	521	1352.21***	0.77	0.75	0.11
模型4	心理安全感、建言行为并入一个因子	2786.53	517	1351.31***	0.77	0.75	0.11

变量名称	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1性别	—	—	—
2年龄(岁)	31.71	8.35	-0.03	—
3教育程度	2.51	1.14	0.22***	-0.61***	—
4任职时间	2.31	2.20	0.03	0.58***	-0.36***	—
5权力距离倾向	2.28	0.57	-0.11*	-0.12*	-0.03	-0.03	(0.89)
6领导强制权	2.45	0.77	0.16**	0.07	0.05	0.12*	0.05	(0.88)
7领导奖赏权	3.08	0.74	0.26***	-0.08	0.23***	-0.01	-0.18***	0.20***	(0.84)
8领导地位	3.72	0.79	0.10^†	-0.28***	0.29***	-0.26***	-0.25***	-0.18***	0.25***	(0.89)
9心理安全感	3.79	0.76	0.00	-0.12*	0.02	-0.18***	-0.06	-0.40***	-0.01	0.33***	(0.93)
10建言行为	3.60	0.74	-0.10^†	-0.21***	0.20***	-0.19***	-0.03	-0.16**	0.01	0.08	0.23***	(0.97)