领导会视谁为圈内人？内隐追随与领导-成员交换关系研究

doi:10.6049/kjjbydc.2016120588

科技进步与对策

2017, Vol. 34

Issue (11): 140-146 DOI: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2016120588

人才与教育

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

领导会视谁为圈内人？内隐追随与领导-成员交换关系研究

祝振兵¹,罗文豪²,曹元坤³

1.江西理工大学商学院，江西南昌 330013；2.北方工业大学经济管理学院，北京 100144；3.江西财经大学产业集群与企业发展研究中心，江西南昌 330013

Which Kind of Followers Will Be Treated as Insiders by Leaders? The Impact of Implicit Followership Theories on L-LMX

Zhu Zhenbing¹,Luo Wenhao²,Cao Yuankun³

1.School of Business, Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, Nanchang 330013,China;2.School of Economics and Management, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144,China;3.Research Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (10)

全文: PDF (1118 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要基于内隐追随-外显追随匹配视角，探讨中心化追随者原型和理想化追随者原型对领导者感知的领导-成员交换(L-LMX)影响以及工作要求的调节作用。通过问卷调查对一个157人的样本进行多时段施测，结果发现，内隐追随可分为中心化追随者原型和理想化追随者原型。相较于中心化追随者原型与外显追随的匹配，理想化追随者原型与外显追随的匹配同L-LMX之间的关系更为密切。领导者工作要求负向调节两种原型的作用效果。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	祝振兵
	罗文豪
	曹元坤

关键词 ：内隐追随, 中心化追随者原型, 理想化追随者原型, 领导-成员交换

收稿日期: 2017-03-08

ZTFLH:

C933

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目（71640015；71562018）；教育部人文社会科学青年项目（16YJC630183）；江西省高校人文社会科学青年项目（GL1546）；江西理工大学重点项目（HSFJ2015-K10）

通讯作者: 祝振兵

作者简介: 祝振兵(1982-)，男，河南滑县人，博士，江西理工大学商学院讲师，研究方向为组织行为学、人力资源管理；罗文豪(1988-)，男，安徽泾县人，博士，北方工业大学经济管理学院讲师，研究方向为领导理论与组织行为；曹元坤（1966-），男，江西都昌人，博士，江西财经大学产业集群与企业发展研究中心教授、博士生导师，研究方向为管理基础理论、人力资源管理、战略管理。

引用本文:

祝振兵,罗文豪,曹元坤. 领导会视谁为圈内人？内隐追随与领导-成员交换关系研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2017, 34(11): 140-146.
Zhu Zhenbing,Luo Wenhao,Cao Yuankun. Which Kind of Followers Will Be Treated as Insiders by Leaders? The Impact of Implicit Followership Theories on L-LMX. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS AND POLICY, 2017, 34(11): 140-146.

链接本文:

http://www.kjjb.org/CN/10.6049/kjjbydc.2016120588 或 http://www.kjjb.org/CN/Y2017/V34/I11/140

［1］杨晓, 谭乐. 团队领导-成员交换关系：内涵、测量、影响因素与作用机制［J］. 科技进步与对策,2016，33(3):156-160.
［2］LIDEN R C, SPARROWE R T, WAYNE S J. Leader-member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future［M］//G FERRIS. Research in personnel and human resource management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997.
［3］ROCKSTUHL T, DULEBOHN J H, ANG S, et al. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012, 97(6): 1097-1130.
［4］DULEBOHN J H, BOMMER W H, LIDEN R C, et al. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future［J］. Journal of Management, 2012, 38(6): 1715-1759.
［5］GRAEN G B, UHL-BIEN M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective［J］. The Leadership Quarterly, 1995（6）:219-247.
［6］VAN GILS S, VAN QUAQUEBEKE N, VAN KNIPPENBERG D. The x-factor: on the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement［J］. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2010, 19(3):333-363.
［7］SCHYNS B, DAY D. Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence［J］. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2010, 19(1):1-29.
［8］GERSTNER C R, DAY D V. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology,1997（82）:827-844.
［9］SIN H P, NAHRGANG J D, MORGESON F P. Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: an examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009, 94(4): 1048-1057.
［10］WAYNE S J, FERRIS G R. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75(5): 487-499.
［11］SY T. What do you think of followers［J］. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2010, 113(1): 73-84.
［12］JUNKER N M, VAN DICK R. Implicit theories in organizational settings: a systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories［J］. Leadership Quarterly, 2014, 25(6): 1154-1173.
［13］SHONDRICK S J, LORD R G. Implicit leadership and followership theories: dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, leader-follower processes［M］// HODGKINSON G P, FORD J K. International review of industrial and organizational psychology.Chichester：Wiley & Sons,2010.
［14］孔茗, 钱小军. 被领导者“看好”的员工其行为也一定好吗？——内隐追随对员工行为的影响［J］. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1162-1171.
［15］曹元坤，祝振兵. 内隐追随理论：概念、测量、前因及后果［J］. 心理科学进展，2015, 23(2): 280-288.
［16］WHITELEY P, SY T, JOHNSON S K. Leaders′ conceptions of followers: implications for naturally occurring pygmalion effects［J］. The Leadership Quarterly, 2012, 23(5)： 822-834.
［17］彭坚, 冉雅璇, 康勇军. 事必躬亲还是权力共享？——内隐追随理论视角下领导者授权行为研究［J］. 心理科学, 2016, 39(7): 1197-1203.
［18］DERLER A, WEIBLER J. The ideal employee: context and leaders′ implicit follower theories［J］. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2014, 35(5): 386-409.
［19］BARSALOU L W. Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories［J］.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,1985, 11(2): 629-654.
［20］VAN QUAQUEBEKE N, GRAF M M, ECKLOFF T. What do leaders have to live up to? contrasting the effects of central tendency versus ideal-based leader prototypes in leader categorization processes［J］. Leadership, 2014, 10(2), 191-217.
［21］MARTIN R, EPITROPAKI O. Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes［J］.Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2001,22(4): 247-262.
［22］MACRAE C N, BODENHAUSEN G V. Social cognition: thinking categorically about others［J］. Annual Review of Psychology, 2000, 51(3): 93-120.
［23］EPITROPAKI O, MARTIN R. From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes［J］. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90(4): 659-676.
［24］NG K, ANG S, CHAN K. Personality and leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, 93(4): 733-743.
［25］VAN QUAQUEBEKE N, VAN KNIPPENBERG D, BRODBECK F C. More than meets the eye: the role of subordinates′self-perceptions in leader categorization processes［J］. Leadership Quarterly, 2011, 22(2): 367-382.
［26］KARASEK R A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign［J］. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24(6): 285-308.
［27］HUI C, LAW K S, CHEN Z X. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: a Chinese case［J］. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999, 77(5): 3-21.
［28］ZHANG Z, WANG M, SHI J. Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange［J］. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(1): 111-130.
［29］UHL-BIEN M, RIGGIO R E, LOWEC K B, et al. Followership theory: a review and research agenda［J］. The Leadership Quarterly, 2014, 25(3): 84-104.
［30］刘雪峰，张志学.认知闭合需要研究评述［J］. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(1): 51-55.
［31］PAYNE B K, GAWRONSKI B. A history of implicit social cognition where is it coming from? where is it now? where is it going［M］//GAWRONSKI B, PAYNE B K. Handbook of implicit social cognition: measurement, theory, and applications.New York：The Guiord Press, 2009.
［32］SHANOCK L R, BARAN B E, GENTRY W A, et al. Polynomial regression and response surface analysis: a powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores［J］. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2010, 25(4): 543-554.
［33］MA L, QU Q. Differentiation in leader-member exchange: a hierarchical linear modeling approach［J］. Leadership Quarterly, 2010, 21(2): 733-744.