检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:赵晨[1] 周锦来 林晨 高中华 ZHAO Chen;ZHOU Jinlai;LIN Chen;GAO Zhonghua(School of Economics and Management,Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications,Beijing 100876,China;Institute of Industrial Economics,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,Beijing 100006,China)
机构地区:[1]北京邮电大学经济管理学院,北京100876 [2]中国社会科学院工业经济研究所,北京100006
出 处:《管理工程学报》2025年第1期95-109,共15页Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
基 金:国家自然科学基金项目(72172017);北京市自然科学基金项目(9222023);教育部人文社会科学研究基金青年项目(21YJC630170)。
摘 要:危机情境下,领导需要澄清团队目标进而提升员工角色绩效。然而,何种路径-目标澄清行为更加有效亟待明确。整合路径目标理论与变革-交易领导框架,本文探究两种竞争性路径-目标澄清行为(愿景阐释行为与积极纠偏行为)对员工角色绩效的影响。基于某连锁品牌员工的两阶段调查数据发现,愿景阐释行为通过提高团队目标的清晰性增强了员工角色绩效,而积极纠偏行为通过提高团队目标的清晰性对员工角色绩效的影响不显著。团队情绪(团队恐惧与团队自满)调节了路径-目标澄清行为对团队目标清晰性的影响:当团队恐惧情绪水平较高时,愿景阐释行为对团队目标清晰性的积极影响更大;而当团队自满情绪水平较高时,积极纠偏行为对团队目标清晰性的积极影响更大。团队情绪进一步调节了团队目标清晰性在路径-目标澄清行为与员工角色绩效之间的中介机制。本文剖析了团队情绪对于路径-目标澄清行为有效性的影响,对于实现危机情境下的有效领导具有指导意义。In today′s business environment,organisations are vulnerable to various crisis events,such as emergencies,financial crises and technological disruptions,with devastating consequences.These crises are characterised by volatility,uncertainty,complexity and ambiguity,resulting in unexpected disruptions to organisational norms and work processes.As a result,employees often lack clear work direction and experience role ambiguity.These circumstances not only reduce employees′ job satisfaction,organisational commitment and work performance but also undermine the resilience and effectiveness of teams in crisis.Consequently,leaders need to reconstruct employees′ cognitive schemas and provide clarity about team goals and responsibilities.However,existing research debates the most effective behaviour for leaders to use to clarify roles in crisis.Some studies suggest that leaders should use a team vision to provide direction and consensus while opposing views argue that instead of clarifying vague visions,leaders should provide explicit instructions and correct mistakes to improve clarification of work direction.This controversy probably arises from the fact that many studies treat crisis events as a holistic context,overlooking the differences in team responses to crises.In reality,different work teams may have different crisis responses even when faced with the same crisis event.As key actors in crises,team leaders need to adopt behaviours that are consistent with their respective team′s crisis response to effectively clarify team direction and enhance role performance.This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism by which pathgoal clarifying behaviours affect role performance.By integrating path-goal theory and the transformational-transactional leadership framework,we examine the influence of two competing path-goal clarifying behaviours,namely vision-articulating behaviours and actively corrective-avoidant behaviours.We also examine the mediating role of team goal clarity in the relat
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15