{"title":"军队中权力-创造力关系运用的机制:成就动机与认同","authors":"Ying-Ni Cheng, Zoe Magraw-Mickelson","doi":"10.1080/08959285.2023.2275983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThese two studies tested how supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power influences individuals’ creativity and examined whether subordinates’ need for achievement affects this process. Dyad data were collected from two studies at two time points. The studies indicated that supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power affected subordinates’ identification with supervisor and thereby enhanced subordinate creativity. Interestingly, these results suggest that the functional effects of using coercion are positive if punishments are contingent upon performance. The pattern of the results showed that fear of failure moderated the relationship between supervisors’ use of coercive power and subordinates’ identification with supervisor. Subordinates’ hope for success strengthened the positive effects of supervisors’ use of contingent rewards on subordinates’ identification with supervisor, while these positive effects would be attenuated if supervisors used noncontingent rewards. Theoretical and practical implications of the study findings are discussed. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe data used in the study will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.Notes1 We assessed the size of mediated effects by adopting Fairchild et al. (Citation2009) approach, which calculated the effect size of the mediation effect by dividing the indirect effect by the total effect. For Study 1, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association. In other words, subordinates’ identification with supervisor acted as a mediator in the pathway between supervisors’ use of coercive/reward power and subordinate creativity, and accounted for about 17% of this relation (that is the effect size of the mediation effect). For Study 2, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of noncontingent coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 43% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of contingent reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 62% of this association. The ΔR2 effect sizes of Study 2 is much larger than Study 1. This difference indicates that supervisors’ use of power can better explain their effects on the mediator and dependent variable when the power bases (rewards and coercion) are differentiated into contingent or noncontingent types. Also, this difference suggests that being treated fairly by supervisors conveys evaluative information that makes subordinates feel respected, valued, and self-enhanced (Wiesenfeld et al., Citation2007). Thus, compared with receiving unspecified rewards or coercion in Study 1, subordinates identify more with a contingent reward supervisor who can afford instrumental benefits. Therefore, engaging in creative performance in return for their identified supervisors is promising for the future.2 Compared to most of past organizational behavior/human resources research, the moderation effect sizes in these two studies seem acceptable. Aguinis et al.’s (Citation2005) reported an average corrected effect size (f2) in tests of moderation = 0.002 from their sample of 196 meta-analyses, which can be converted as 0.0019 for an R2 value. Kenny (Citation2018) suggested that “perhaps a more realistic standard for effect sizes might be 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025 for small, medium, and large, respectively” with an optimistic hope in mind to get these f2 effect sizes.Additional informationFundingThis work was partly supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (R.O.C.) under Grant (number 109-2410-H-606-004).","PeriodicalId":47825,"journal":{"name":"Human Performance","volume":"29 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanisms Underlying the Use of Power-Creativity Relationship in the Military: Achievement Motivation and Identification\",\"authors\":\"Ying-Ni Cheng, Zoe Magraw-Mickelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08959285.2023.2275983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTThese two studies tested how supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power influences individuals’ creativity and examined whether subordinates’ need for achievement affects this process. Dyad data were collected from two studies at two time points. The studies indicated that supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power affected subordinates’ identification with supervisor and thereby enhanced subordinate creativity. Interestingly, these results suggest that the functional effects of using coercion are positive if punishments are contingent upon performance. The pattern of the results showed that fear of failure moderated the relationship between supervisors’ use of coercive power and subordinates’ identification with supervisor. Subordinates’ hope for success strengthened the positive effects of supervisors’ use of contingent rewards on subordinates’ identification with supervisor, while these positive effects would be attenuated if supervisors used noncontingent rewards. Theoretical and practical implications of the study findings are discussed. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe data used in the study will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.Notes1 We assessed the size of mediated effects by adopting Fairchild et al. (Citation2009) approach, which calculated the effect size of the mediation effect by dividing the indirect effect by the total effect. For Study 1, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association. In other words, subordinates’ identification with supervisor acted as a mediator in the pathway between supervisors’ use of coercive/reward power and subordinate creativity, and accounted for about 17% of this relation (that is the effect size of the mediation effect). For Study 2, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of noncontingent coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 43% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of contingent reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 62% of this association. The ΔR2 effect sizes of Study 2 is much larger than Study 1. This difference indicates that supervisors’ use of power can better explain their effects on the mediator and dependent variable when the power bases (rewards and coercion) are differentiated into contingent or noncontingent types. Also, this difference suggests that being treated fairly by supervisors conveys evaluative information that makes subordinates feel respected, valued, and self-enhanced (Wiesenfeld et al., Citation2007). Thus, compared with receiving unspecified rewards or coercion in Study 1, subordinates identify more with a contingent reward supervisor who can afford instrumental benefits. Therefore, engaging in creative performance in return for their identified supervisors is promising for the future.2 Compared to most of past organizational behavior/human resources research, the moderation effect sizes in these two studies seem acceptable. Aguinis et al.’s (Citation2005) reported an average corrected effect size (f2) in tests of moderation = 0.002 from their sample of 196 meta-analyses, which can be converted as 0.0019 for an R2 value. Kenny (Citation2018) suggested that “perhaps a more realistic standard for effect sizes might be 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025 for small, medium, and large, respectively” with an optimistic hope in mind to get these f2 effect sizes.Additional informationFundingThis work was partly supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (R.O.C.) under Grant (number 109-2410-H-606-004).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Performance\",\"volume\":\"29 8\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2023.2275983\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Performance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2023.2275983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要这两项研究考察了管理者使用强制或奖励权力对个体创造力的影响,并考察了下属对成就的需求是否影响这一过程。从两个时间点的两个研究中收集了两组数据。研究表明,主管使用强制或奖励权力会影响下属对主管的认同,从而增强下属的创造力。有趣的是,这些结果表明,如果惩罚取决于表现,使用强制的功能效应是积极的。结果显示,对失败的恐惧调节了主管强制权力使用与下属对主管认同的关系。下属的成功希望强化了主管使用偶然奖励对下属认同的积极作用,而如果主管使用非偶然奖励,这种积极作用会减弱。讨论了研究结果的理论和实践意义。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明研究中使用的数据将由作者在合理的要求下提供。注1我们采用Fairchild et al. (Citation2009)方法评估中介效应的大小,该方法通过间接效应除以总效应来计算中介效应的效应大小。在研究1中,(1)中介(即主管使用强制权力-下属认同主管-下属创造力)的效应量约为该关联的17%,(2)中介(即主管使用奖励权力-下属认同主管-下属创造力)的效应量约为该关联的17%。也就是说,下属对上司的认同在上司使用强制/奖励权力与下属创造力之间的路径中起中介作用,约占该关系的17%(即中介效应的效应大小)。在研究2中,(1)中介(即主管使用非偶然强制权力-下属认同主管-下属创造力)的效应量为该关联的43%,(2)中介(即主管使用偶然奖励权力-下属认同主管-下属创造力)的效应量为该关联的62%。研究2的ΔR2效应量远大于研究1。这一差异表明,当权力基础(奖励和强制)被区分为偶然或非偶然类型时,管理者的权力使用可以更好地解释其对中介变量和因变量的影响。此外,这种差异表明,受到主管的公平对待传达了可评估的信息,使下属感到受到尊重、重视和自我提升(Wiesenfeld et al., Citation2007)。因此,与在研究1中接受未指定的奖励或强制相比,下属更认同能够提供工具性利益的偶然奖励主管。因此,从事创造性的表演来回报他们确定的主管是有希望的未来与以往大多数组织行为学/人力资源研究相比,这两项研究的调节效应量似乎是可以接受的。Aguinis等人(Citation2005)报告了在196个荟萃分析样本中,适度检验的平均校正效应大小(f2) = 0.002, R2值可转换为0.0019。Kenny (Citation2018)认为,“也许更现实的效应量标准可能是0.005、0.01和0.025,分别适用于小型、中型和大型”,并乐观地希望获得这2个效应量。本研究得到了国家科学技术部的部分资助(编号109-2410-H-606-004)。
Mechanisms Underlying the Use of Power-Creativity Relationship in the Military: Achievement Motivation and Identification
ABSTRACTThese two studies tested how supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power influences individuals’ creativity and examined whether subordinates’ need for achievement affects this process. Dyad data were collected from two studies at two time points. The studies indicated that supervisors’ use of coercive or reward power affected subordinates’ identification with supervisor and thereby enhanced subordinate creativity. Interestingly, these results suggest that the functional effects of using coercion are positive if punishments are contingent upon performance. The pattern of the results showed that fear of failure moderated the relationship between supervisors’ use of coercive power and subordinates’ identification with supervisor. Subordinates’ hope for success strengthened the positive effects of supervisors’ use of contingent rewards on subordinates’ identification with supervisor, while these positive effects would be attenuated if supervisors used noncontingent rewards. Theoretical and practical implications of the study findings are discussed. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe data used in the study will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.Notes1 We assessed the size of mediated effects by adopting Fairchild et al. (Citation2009) approach, which calculated the effect size of the mediation effect by dividing the indirect effect by the total effect. For Study 1, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is about 17% of this association. In other words, subordinates’ identification with supervisor acted as a mediator in the pathway between supervisors’ use of coercive/reward power and subordinate creativity, and accounted for about 17% of this relation (that is the effect size of the mediation effect). For Study 2, the effect sizes of (1) the mediation (i.e., Supervisors’ use of noncontingent coercive power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 43% of this association and (2) the mediation (Supervisors’ use of contingent reward power – Subordinates’ identification with supervisor – Subordinate creativity) is 62% of this association. The ΔR2 effect sizes of Study 2 is much larger than Study 1. This difference indicates that supervisors’ use of power can better explain their effects on the mediator and dependent variable when the power bases (rewards and coercion) are differentiated into contingent or noncontingent types. Also, this difference suggests that being treated fairly by supervisors conveys evaluative information that makes subordinates feel respected, valued, and self-enhanced (Wiesenfeld et al., Citation2007). Thus, compared with receiving unspecified rewards or coercion in Study 1, subordinates identify more with a contingent reward supervisor who can afford instrumental benefits. Therefore, engaging in creative performance in return for their identified supervisors is promising for the future.2 Compared to most of past organizational behavior/human resources research, the moderation effect sizes in these two studies seem acceptable. Aguinis et al.’s (Citation2005) reported an average corrected effect size (f2) in tests of moderation = 0.002 from their sample of 196 meta-analyses, which can be converted as 0.0019 for an R2 value. Kenny (Citation2018) suggested that “perhaps a more realistic standard for effect sizes might be 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025 for small, medium, and large, respectively” with an optimistic hope in mind to get these f2 effect sizes.Additional informationFundingThis work was partly supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (R.O.C.) under Grant (number 109-2410-H-606-004).
期刊介绍:
Human Performance publishes research investigating the nature and role of performance in the workplace and in organizational settings and offers a rich variety of information going beyond the study of traditional job behavior. Dedicated to presenting original research, theory, and measurement methods, the journal investigates individual, team, and firm level performance factors that influence work and organizational effectiveness. Human Performance is a respected forum for behavioral scientists interested in variables that motivate and promote high-level human performance, particularly in organizational and occupational settings. The journal seeks to identify and stimulate relevant research, communication, and theory concerning human capabilities and effectiveness. It serves as a valuable intellectual link between such disciplines as industrial-organizational psychology, individual differences, work physiology, organizational behavior, human resource management, and human factors.