2015, Vol. 47, No.5, 653 Acta Psychologica Sinica DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00653 *—— 1 2 3 (1, 430079) (2, 430073) (3, 430074) —, , , B849:C93 1 “”“‘’”1“”(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002)(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005 : 20140707 * (71232001) : , E-mail: lrlong@mail.hust.edu.cn 12013)(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004)(van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005)(Choi & Mai-Dalton1999)(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004) (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997)., http: //www.dooland.com/magazine/article_221921.html 653 654 47 (Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013)(Conger & Kanungo, 1998) 2 2.1 (self-sacrificial leadership)(Choi & Yoon, 2005)(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 19992009)()() (De Cremer & van Knippen-berg, 2004)(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999)(Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; De Cremer, Mayer, van Dijke, Schouten, & Bardes 2009)(role model)(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999, 1998)(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer & van Knippenberg 2002, 2004, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999; Lord & Brown, 2003)ChoiMai-Dalton (1999) 1a 1b 2.2 (work orientation)(Parker et al., 1997)(strategic orientation)Parker(1997) (Parker et al.,1997)Parker (2007)5 —— 655 “”(De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Dijke, & Bos, 2006)(Shamir et al., 1993)(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999)(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002) (construal level theoryCLT)(“”)(“”) (Trope & Liberman, 2010)“”“”“” (Trope & Liberman, 2003) (Trope & Liberman2003)(self)(now)(here)(Trope & Liberman, 2010)(Trope & Liberman, 2010)()(Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2010) CLT“”“” 2a 2b 2.3 (identification with leader)()(Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003)ZhangChen (2013)(Sluss & Ashforth, 2008; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999)(Zhang & Chen, 2013) 656 47 CongerKanungo (1998)(Pratt, 1998)(Sluss & Ashforth, 2007)(Sluss, Ployhart, Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012)(Kark et al., 2003) (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005)(De Cremer et al., 2009)(Graf, Schuh, van Quaquebeke & van Dick, 2012; Van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005)De Cremervan Knippenberg (2002)De CremerVan Knippenberg (2004)(collective identification)De Cremervan Knippenberg (2005)(organizational identification)(Choi & Mai-Dalton1999)AtkinsParker (2012) 3a 3b 1(Kark et al., 2003) 1 3 3.1 13—5 —— 657 61253542244.1514464.3%6729.9%6026.8%32.899.175.484.1336.6110.634175.9%1527.8%1425.9% 3.2 Likert“1=”“5=”“1=”“5=” De Cremervan Knippenberg (2004)De Cremervan DijkeBos (2004)6“”Cronbach 0.912 FarhHackettLiang (2007)3“”Cronbach 0.837 Farh(2007)()4“”Cronbach 0.883 Parker(1997)8“” ()Cronbach 0.743 Shamir(Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998)Kark(2003)8“”Cronbach 0.935 3.3 (HLM)rwg0.910.95, ICC (1)0.33, ICC(2)0.67(F=3.00, p<0.01) 4 4.1 LISREL 8.30 ()()1 ()2 4.2 3 658 1 (n=224) 2 2736.51 3301.86 755.91 322.76 df 231 220 208 206 2/ df 11.846 15.008 3.634 1.567 RMSEA 0.251 0.109 0.050 GFI 0.43 0.76 0.88 IFI 0.25 0.85 0.95 NNFI 0.21 0.84 0.95 47 CFI 0.25 0.85 0.95 2 (n=224) 2 860.45 598.58 19.70 df 21 17 13 2/ df 40.97 15.21 1.52 RMSEA 0.392 0.048 GFI 0.57 0.98 IFI 0.33 0.99 NNFI 0.17 0.99 CFI 0.33 0.99 3 1 2 3 0.360 0.480 1 - 0.051 2 - - 3 - 0.679**0.538**0.035 4 0.694**0.105 0.159*0.088 0.100 0.058 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 32.870 7.999 3.940 1.265 8.765 6.277 4.523 0.746 0.639 0.712 0.627 0.805 –0.103 0.515** 0.048 0.078 0.073 4 9.170 5 5.480 6 4.130 7 3.823 8 9 10 11 3.717 3.786 3.756 3.713 0.877** 0.551**0.605** 0.300**0.474** 0.319**0.048 0.010 0.030 0.018 –0.163* 0.060 0.092 0.012 0.014 0.117 0.086 0.188**(0.912)0.103 0.109 0.066 0.046 0.268**0.152*0.045 0.032 0.063 0.019 0.099 0.046 0.305**(0.743) 0.506**0.277**0.355**0.222** (0.935) 0.231** 0.408** (0.837)0.270** 0.403** 0.564**(0.883)** p<0.01n=54n=224Cronbach (01)()()()() 4.3 HLMHofmannGavin (1998)HLM(grand-mean centering)H1aH1b0.2610.4810.1360.17534.26%26.68%2=167.29, p<0.001(2=131.90, p<0.001) Level-245(M1M7)(M2M8)(M2=0.278, p<0.05)(M8: =0.502, p<0.01)M2M813.75%43.67%H1aH1b BaronKenny(1986) 5 —— 4 HLM M1 0.147+ 0.004 0.018 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.137+ 0.003 0.017 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.278* M2 0.131+ 0.005 0.031 0.004 0.011 0.003 0.210+ 0.259** M3 0.118 0.002 0.025 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.100 0.310** M4 0.021 0.010 0.150** 0.013 0.014 0.011 0.269** M5 0.080 0.004 0.038 0.006 0.006 0.014 659 M6 + p<0.1* p<0.05** p<0.01 0.586** 5 HLM M7 0.002 0.016 0.020 0.008 0.014 0.003 M8 0.017 0.014 0.023 0.006 0.009 0.001 0.502** M9 0.027 0.016 0.079 0.012 0.003 0.004 0.414** 0.330** M10 0.0430.0130.0110.0040.0110.005 0.307* 0.338**(=0.414, p<0.01)(=0.330, p<0.01)Sobel(Z=2.55, p<0.05)(Z=2.56, p<0.05)2a2b 3a3bM2M8Level-1(M4M10)(=0.100, ns)(=0.310, p<0.01)(=0.307, p< 0.01)(=0.338, p<0.01)Sobel(Z=4.33, p<0.05)(Z=4.12, p<0.05)3a3b * p<0.05** p<0.01 (M5M6)(=0.269, p<0.01)(=0.586, p<0.01) 2a2b M2M8Level-1(M3M9)(=0.210, p<0.1)(=0.259, p<0.01)660 47 5 5.1 ()(De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004) () 5.2 “”(Parker et al., 1997) 5.3 (Parker et al., 1997)5 —— 661 6 Atkins, P. W. B., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 475–501. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 397–421. Choi, Y., & Yoon, J. (2005). Effects of leaders’ self-sacrificial behavior and competency on followers’ attribution of charismatic leadership among Americans and Koreans. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11(5), 51–69. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., van Dijke, M., Schouten, B. C., & Bardes, M. (2009). When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers’ prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 887–899. De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. (2004). Distributive justice moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 466–475. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858–866. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140–155. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 355–369. De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. (2006). Self-sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 233–245. Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729. Graf, M. M., Schuh, S. C., van Quaquebeke, N., & van Dick, R. (2012). The relationship between leaders’ group-oriented values and follower identification with and endorsement of leaders: The moderating role of leaders’ group membership. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 301–311. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2003). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167–203. Parker, S. K. (2007). “That is my job”: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403–434. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899–929. Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148–1168. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409. 662 47 Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9–32. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19(6), 807–823. Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., Cobb, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). Generalizing newcomers’ relational and organizational identifications: Processes and prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 949–975. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37. Wang, G. F., Huang, W. L., & Zhong, Y. Y. (2013). Self-sacrificial leadership and follower’s prosocial behavior: Evidence from Taiwan’s service industry. Chinese Journal of Management, 10(9), 1309–1315. [, , . (2013). . , 10(9), 1309–1315.] Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 428–436. Zhang, W. H., & Wang, H. (2009). The consideration of long-term consequences, the behavior of the spirit of self-sacrifice and the behavior of leaders’ empowerment: The moderating effect of the uncertainty of environment. Management World, (6), 115–123. [, . (2009). , : . , (6), 115–123.] Zhang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 534–543. How Self-sacrificial Leadership Influences Subordinates’ Work Performance: The Mediating Roles of Strategic Orientation and Supervisor Identification LI Ye1; ZHANG Wenhui2; LONG Lirong3 (1School of Psychology,Central China Normal UniversityKey Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430079, China) (2School of Business and Management,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China) (3School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China) Abstract Self-sacrificial leaders are willing to abandon or postpone personal interests in order to achieve organizational or group goals. They act as role models and motivate the followers to engage in similar behaviors. The mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences followers’ behavior, however, is still unclear. The current paper explores potential mediators between self-sacrificial leadership and subordinates’ work performance from cognitive and relational perspectives, specifically by examining strategic orientation and supervisor identification. The research highlights psychological effects of self-sacrificial leadership on subordinates’ work performance. Data were collected from 54 leaders and 224 subordinates. The leaders evaluated their subordinates’ work performance and their organizational citizenship behavior. The subordinates rated their leaders in terms of self-sacrificial leadership, and reported their own strategic orientation and identification with the leader. The results indicated that self-sacrificial leadership was positively related to subordinates’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Strategic orientation partially mediated the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and subordinates’ task performance, and the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. supervisor identification fully mediated the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and subordinates’ task performance. In addition, identification with the leader partially mediated the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. In conclusion, the present research, with a cross-level design, examined the mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences subordinates’ work performance. The research expands our understanding of the psychological mechanisms between self-sacrificial leadership and followers’ behavior. It has significant implications for managerial practice. Key words self-sacrificial leadership; strategic orientation; supervisor identificationwork performance
