心理学毕业论文外文翻译(4).docx

Leader Personality Traits and Employee Voice Behavior: Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Work Group Psychological SafetyFred O. Walumbwa John SchaubroeckMichigan State University Arizona State UniversityThe antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership were examined in a study of 894 employees and their 222 immediate supervisors in a major financial institution in the United States. The leader personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to direct reports ratings of the leaders ethical leadership, whereas neuroticism was unrelated to these ratings. Ethical leadership influenced followers voice behavior as rated by followers immediate supervisors. This relationship was partially mediated by followers perceptions of psychological safety. Implications for research on ethical leadership and means to enhance ethical behavior among leaders and nonleaders are discussed.Keywords: ethical leadership, leadership, personality, psychological safety, voiceIn both the mass media and the academic community, there has been a surge in interest in the ethical and unethical behavior of leaders. Although the high-profile corporate scandals in recent years may explain much of the mass media and popular focus (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), academics interest has been piqued by fresh evidence that ethical leadership behavior is associated with both positive and negative organizational processes (e.g., Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) and outcomes (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). In this study, we sought to contribute to this body of knowledge by examining new antecedents and outcomes of ethical leadership. Brown et al. (2005, p. 120) defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (for a review, see Brown & Trevino, 2006). Brown et al. argued that ethical leaders not only inform individuals of the benefits of ethical behavior and the cost of inappropriate behavior; such leaders also set clear standards and use rewards and fair and balanced punishment to hold followers accountable for their ethical conduct (see also Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). Despite the assumed importance and prominence of ethical leadership in organizations, there are still many questions relating to its antecedents and consequences (Brown et al., 2005). For example, researchers know very little about why some leaders engage in the spectrum of ethical leadership behaviors and others do not. One key question is whether the likelihood of an individual being perceived as an ethical leader among subordinates can be predicted using his or her personal characteristics. Identifying trait antecedents will aid in the development of strategies for selecting and developing ethical leaders and determining the best means to reinforce ethical behaviors. Only a few studies have addressed the consequences of ethical leadership behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Detert, Trevino, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Mayer et al., 2009). Whereas some reliable evidence from recent studies supports the idea that ethical leadership has a range of favorable outcomes (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2009), Detert et al. (2007) found no relationship between ethical leadership and food shrinkage, an index of counterproductive behavior among restaurant employees. Some psychological mechanisms that may explain the more favorable effects of ethical leadership have been discussed (see Brown & Trevino, 2006), but little empirical attention has been directed toward understanding the psychological processes that may differentiate the behavior of followers of ethical leaders from that of followers of less ethical leaders. A clearer understanding of the mechanisms by which ethical leadership influences outcomes is not only needed for the practical concerns of selecting for, developing, and motivating ethical leadership; such information would also be valuable for determining whether the construct developed by Brown and Trevino and their colleagues contributes something genuinely new to leadership research and practice. With these limitations of the extant literature in mind, we had three aims in the present study. First, we identified individual traits that were expected to influence ethical leadership. We chose to focus on how leader personality relates to follower ratings of the leaders ethical behavior for two reasons. Brown et al. (2005) and Brown and Trevino (2006) proposed that three personality traits conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticismare plausible antecedents of ethical leadership. Personality antecedents may be uniquely suited to predicting ethical leadership, because ethical behavior reflects variation in individuals deep-seated values and beliefs; thus, ethical leadership should be a behavioral pattern that is very constant across situations and over time. Second, the present study contributes to the emerging theoretical and empirical research on ethical leadership by examiningindividual- and group-level outcomes that have been established to have important implications for work unit functioning: work group psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) and employee voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Finally, our study tested whether followers perceptions of psychological safety mediated the relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior. We integrated these various factors in a theoretical model that we tested using data from distinct sources. Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual model examined in the present study.Theory and Hypothesis DevelopmentEthical Leadership, Psychological Safety, and Employee Voice Employee voice is defined as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109). It concerns the bottom-up process of rank-and-file employees making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures. Voice behavior is an important component of extrarole behavior (i.e., those positive and discretionary behaviors that are not required by the organization but that are necessary to facilitate effective organizational functioning; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Mayer et al. (2009) found that ethical leadership was a significant predictor of group-level helping behavior, which is a distinct domain of extrarole behavior. Like helping behavior, constructive voice behavior should be valued by leaders because it can reveal problems and solutions to problems as well as point to other ideas that may help work unit functioning (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). One of the central predictions of ethical leadership theory is that ethical leaders “provide followers with voice” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Ethical leaders speak out publicly against inappropriate organizational actions and behaviors and emphasize doing the right thing. From a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977), when leaders proactively create a fair work environment, they become a target of emulation (Brown et al., 2005). Because ethical leaders convey high moral standards to employees, they encourage their followers to voice opinions and suggestions, not only about ethical matters but also about other work-related processes and work context. In support of this linkage, Brown et al. found that ethical leadership was significantly related to members willingnessto report problems to management. This is only one aspect of Van Dyne and LePines (1998) voice behavior construct. In addition, voice behavior includes expressing dissent when employees perceive that certain actions would be inappropriate or unethical, as well as sharing constructive ideas for work unit improvements even when problems have not surfaced. On this basis, we predicted that ethical leadership would promote voice behavior in work Units. Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership is positively related to voiceBehavior. Psychological safety refers to shared beliefs among work unit members that it is safe for them to engage in interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 1999). According to Edmondson, psychological safety goes beyond perceiving and experiencing high levels of interpersonal trust; it also describes a work climate characterized by mutual respect, one in which people are comfortable expressing their differences. Leaders are pivotal for removing the constraints that often discourage followers from expressing their concerns and other ideas. In environments characterized by high psychological safety, leaders also actively communicate the importance of such behavior and guarantee that it will not have negative repercussions for the individual or the work unit as a whole. In this respect, ethical leadership may be particularly important, and yet this function is underappreciated in the literature. Highly ethical leaders value honest and truthful relationships with their followers (Brown et al., 2005). They are seen to act according to their fundamental values and beliefs, rather than to respond to external pressures or narrow and transitory interests. When leaders interact with followers with openness and truthfulness, interpersonal trust and mutual respect is promoted both between followers and the leader and among the followers themselves. Providing a psychologically secure environment for employees can be a double-edged sword for leaders, however. Whereas favorable solutions may result, leaders often must acknowledge feedback that is not consistent with their plans and wishes. The leaders must allow dissent despite the pressures and complications it entails and resist the temptation to use power and authority when doing so may hinder perceived psychological safety. In addition, ethical leaders openly share information and demonstrate high personal moral standards. When individuals in authority share information and provide a rationale for the benefits of ethical behavior, interpersonal trust among followers is found to increase (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). This occurs both through role modeling and through reassurance to subordinates that individual rent seeking, social undermining, and other behaviors that reduce trust among employees will not be tolerated. Similarly, when followers trust their leader has sufficient ability, benevolence, and integrity, which are key foundations of employee trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), they will be more comfortable about engaging in interpersonal risk taking because they trust that the leader will not unfairly punish them when risk taking leads to an unfavorable outcome (see also Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002; Weierter, 1997). This suggests a positive relationship between ethical leadership and psychological safety. We predicted that this linkage with psychological safety would explain the relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior.According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), people developtrusting or transactional relationships based upon their experiences with others (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Relationships may be based on economic exchange or social exchange (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). Economic exchange relationships are transactional in nature; they emphasize short-term interactions and quid pro quo exchanges in which obligations are circumscribed to a particular exchange. Social exchanges involve a shared identity, loyalty, and emotional connections. A key feature of social exchange theory is that the quality of the relationship between the parties is the most proximal cause of behavior. In other words, people choose their actions, in large measure, on the basis of the type of attachment they have with the other person. Brown et al. (2005) argued that ethical leadership promotes beneficial employee behavior, such as interpersonal helping. When employees are treated fairly by a leader they trust, they are likely to think about their relationship with the leader in terms of social exchange rather than economic exchange. One way to reciprocate for such treatment is to engage in constructive voice behavior. In addition, it stands to reason that individuals high in psychological safety perceive little risk to their own welfare in engaging in voice behavior. Some evidence for this relationship was provided by Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008). They found that stronger climates of procedural injustice were associated with the “silencing” of dissenting opinions among nurses. Although Tangirala and Ramanujam did not report on a measure of voice, such suppression of voice suggests a very low voice climate. Together, these arguments about the effects of ethical leadership on psychological safety and employee voice and the linkage between psychological safety and employee voice suggest the following hypothesis:Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between ethical leadership and voice behavior is mediated by employees perceptions of psychological safety.Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Ethical Leadership For decades, researchers have debated whether personality traits are meaningful predictors of leader emergence or effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986; Zaccaro, 2007). As summarized by Judge et al. (2002, p. 770), “previous research notwithstanding, we have a relatively poor idea of not only which traits are relevant, but why.” Personality concerns aspects of an individuals thoughts and behavior that are stable over time and relatively consistent across different situations (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Subordinates are less likely to consider a leader ethical if he or she does not behave ethically and promote ethical behavior with a considerable degree of consistency over time and across situations. In other words, ethical leadership is not behavior that a leader takes on to fit a specific situation, as consideration and directiveness have been specified to do in situational theories of leadership (e.g., path goal theory; House, 1971). Rather, ethical leadership is by definition constant and therefore requires a stable dispositional foundation in the leader. Below we explain how certain distinct personality traits, namely, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, may be expected to reliably predict ethical leader behavior. 领导者的人格特质与员工建言行为：中介角色的道德领导与工作群体的心理安全Fred O. Walumbwa John Schaubroeck亚利桑那州立大学 密歇根州立大学 摘要： 道德领导的前因后果在一个样本为894员工和他们的222个主要的美国金融机制的顶头上司的研究中得到检验。领导特质中宜人性和责任心与下属报告的道德领导水平呈正相关；神经质与道德领导不相关；道德领导影响下属的建言行为，而这种建言行为由下属的直属上司评估。这种关系部分由下属的心理安全来调解。道德领导和手段的研究意义在于增进领导者与非领导者之间对道德行为的讨论。关键词：道德领导，领导能力，个性，心理安全，建言 无论在在大众传媒和还是学术界，都对道德和不道德的领导行为兴趣激增。而最近备受瞩目的企业丑闻可能对大众传媒和大众聚焦做了很好的解释（Walumbwa，Avolio，Gardner，Wernsing，和Peterson，2008），学者们的兴趣被新的证据激起，即道德领导行为是与积极和消极的组织进程(如 Brown, Trevino, 和Harrison, 2005;Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, &和Salvador, 2009)以及结果(De Hoogh 和 Den Hartog, 2008)联系在一起的。在这项研究中，我们试图通过对道德性领导的新的前因及后果的验证来完善这方面的知识结构。 Brown等（2005，第120页）将道德领导定义为“通过个人行动及其人际关系对适当的合乎规范的行为进行示范，通过双向沟通，强化，和决策来促进下属的这种行为”(回顾一下, 见 Brown 和Trevino, 2006)。Brown等认为道德领导者不仅要告知个体道德行为的益处还应告知不适当行为的代价；这样的领导者还设置明确的标准并运用奖励和公正适当的处罚使下属为他们的道德行为负责（见Trevino，Brown, 和 Hartman，2003）。尽管假定并突出了道德领导在组织中的重要性，仍然有许多关于道德领导前因及后果的问题（Brown等，2005）。例如，研究人员对为什么有些领导者参加道德领导行为谱及而有的则没有的原因所知甚少。一个关键的问题是是否有可能使一个个体被下属通过他或她的个人特质来预测其是否道德领导者。识别个性前因将有助于完善选择和发展道德领导者的策略和确定最佳的手段来加强道德行为。只有少数的研究已经处理了道德领导行为的后果（Brown等，2005；Detert, Trevino, Burris, 和 Andiappan, 2007; Mayer等, 2009)。然而最近一些可靠的研究证据支持道德领导具有很多积极后果（例如，Brown等，2005； Mayer等，2009），Detert等（2007）发现道德领导与食物收缩之间没有任何关系，餐厅员工之间达不到生产指标的行为。一些心理机制可以来解释道德领导的更有利的结果（见Brown，Trevino，2006），但没有实证研究区分道德领导的下属与非道德领导的下属之间的区别。对道德领导结果产生机制的清晰的认识不仅是实际关注者选择，发展和激励道德领导的需要，这样的信息对决定是否开发和建设Brown和Trevino以及他们的同事们对领导行为的新的研究和实践也是有价值的。考虑到这些文献的局限性，在如今的研究中我们有三个主要目的。首先，我们确定了预期会影响道德领导的个人特质。我们选择把重点放在领导者的个人特质如何与下属评定领导道德行为之间相关联的两个原因上。Brown等（2005）和Brown和Trevino（2006）所提出的三种人格特质，责任感，宜人性和神经质，是道德领导似合理的前因。人格特质因素可能特别适合用来预测道德领导，因为道德行为反映了个体内心深处的价值观和信念，因此，道德领导应该是跨情境和时间的，保持不变的行为模式。 第二，本研究有助于新兴理论和道德领导的实证研究通过检测已建立的个体和群体水平的结果对于工作单位的的重要意义和作用：工作群体的心理安全（Edmondson，1999）和员工的建言行为（LePine 和 Van Dyne，1998）。最后，我们的研究检验下属的心理安全感是否对道德领导和建言行为具有中介影响。我们将这些不同的因素整合在一个理论模型中，我们研究中采用不同来源的数据。本研究中图1总结了概念模型。理论与假说的发展道德领导，心理安全和员工建言员工建言被定义为“促进着重对挑战性难题的建议行为而不仅仅是批评”（Van Dyne和LePine，1998，第109页）。它涉及一般员工对改变和修订标准流程作出创新性建议的自下而上的过程。建言行为是角色外行为的一个重要组成部分（即那些积极的和可自由决定的既不是组织所要求的又对组织运作有必要的促进作用的行为；Organ, Podsakoff 和 MacKenzie, 2006）。Mayer等（2009）发现道德领导是群体助人行为水平的一个有效预测因子，群体助人行为是角色外行为的一个独特的领域。像助人行为，建设性的建言行为应该通过领导者来衡量，因为它能显示出问题所在以及解决问题的方法和揭示出有助于组织运作的其他方法（Van Dyne和LePine，1998）。 道德领导理论的一个中心预测变量是道德领导者“提供给员工建言”（Brown等，2005，第120页）。道德领导者公开发表反对不适当的组织行动和行为，并强调做正确的事情。从社会学习观点（班杜拉，1977）来看，当领导人积极营造公平的工作环境，他们会把竞争作为目标（Brown等，2005）。由于道德领导者传达给员工的是高道德标准，所以他们鼓励下属表达意见和建议，不仅关于道德问题，也包括其他与工作有关的进程和工作范围。对这种联系的支持，Brown等发现道德领导和员工将问题报告给管理者的意愿显著相关。这仅仅是Van Dyne和LePine（1998）的建言行为构想的一个方面。此外，建言行为包括表达异议当员工认为某些行为时不适当的或不道德的，以及当问题还没有浮出水面的时候就分享改进单位工作的建设性意见。在此基础上，我们预测道德领导将促进组织中员工的建言行为。 假设1：道德领导与建言行为正相关。心理安全涉及的是工作组织成员的共同信念，卷入到人际关系的风险中是安全的（Edmondson，1999）。据Edmo