如果事情不紧急,给他们一根鱼竿:帮助者类型对帮助者领导力支持的影响。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1037/apl0001155
Lily Chernyak-Hai, Daniel Heller, Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli, Merav Weiss-Sidi
{"title":"如果事情不紧急,给他们一根鱼竿:帮助者类型对帮助者领导力支持的影响。","authors":"Lily Chernyak-Hai, Daniel Heller, Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli, Merav Weiss-Sidi","doi":"10.1037/apl0001155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Taking a follower's perspective on leadership and contributing to the new research stream on behaviors conducive to its emergence, we examined how distinct types of instrumental (task focused) helping-autonomy- versus dependency-helping-affected recipients' support for their helpers' leadership. Based on the literature on employees' needs for autonomy and mastery, combined with the empowering nature of autonomy-helping, we reasoned that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping typically signals greater benevolence toward recipients, enhancing their support for their helpers' leadership. Our findings were generalized across various samples (of U.S. and Israeli employees), manipulations, and research settings: simulations (Studies 1 and 2b), workplace role-play scenario (Study 2a), and recollections of helping events in the workplace (Study 3). We found that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping increased recipients' support for their helpers' leadership by heightening perceptions of helpers' benevolence-based (rather than ability-based) trustworthiness (Studies 1 and 3). We also showed time pressure to be a boundary condition under which the advantage of autonomy-helping disappeared (Studies 2a and 2b)-with dependency-helping then inducing comparable levels of perceived benevolence and thus similar support for the helper's potential leadership. Overall, we shed light on the development of informal leadership by uncovering how recipients interpret and respond to the two help types. Practically, this analysis opens the door to new ways for aspiring managers to enhance support for their leadership from potential followers, available even to those unlikely to be appointed to formal leadership positions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Give them a fishing rod, if it is not urgent: The impact of help type on support for helpers' leadership.\",\"authors\":\"Lily Chernyak-Hai, Daniel Heller, Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli, Merav Weiss-Sidi\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Taking a follower's perspective on leadership and contributing to the new research stream on behaviors conducive to its emergence, we examined how distinct types of instrumental (task focused) helping-autonomy- versus dependency-helping-affected recipients' support for their helpers' leadership. Based on the literature on employees' needs for autonomy and mastery, combined with the empowering nature of autonomy-helping, we reasoned that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping typically signals greater benevolence toward recipients, enhancing their support for their helpers' leadership. Our findings were generalized across various samples (of U.S. and Israeli employees), manipulations, and research settings: simulations (Studies 1 and 2b), workplace role-play scenario (Study 2a), and recollections of helping events in the workplace (Study 3). We found that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping increased recipients' support for their helpers' leadership by heightening perceptions of helpers' benevolence-based (rather than ability-based) trustworthiness (Studies 1 and 3). We also showed time pressure to be a boundary condition under which the advantage of autonomy-helping disappeared (Studies 2a and 2b)-with dependency-helping then inducing comparable levels of perceived benevolence and thus similar support for the helper's potential leadership. Overall, we shed light on the development of informal leadership by uncovering how recipients interpret and respond to the two help types. Practically, this analysis opens the door to new ways for aspiring managers to enhance support for their leadership from potential followers, available even to those unlikely to be appointed to formal leadership positions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001155\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001155","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们从追随者的角度看待领导力,并对有助于领导力产生的行为进行新的研究,研究了不同类型的工具性(以任务为中心)帮助(自主性)和依赖性帮助(依赖性)如何影响接受者对帮助者领导力的支持。基于有关员工对自主和掌握的需求的文献,结合自主帮助的授权性质,我们推断,自主(相对于依赖)帮助通常表明对接受者更大的仁慈,增强他们对帮助者领导的支持。我们的研究结果在不同的样本(美国和以色列员工)、操作和研究环境中得到了推广:模拟(研究1和2b),工作场所角色扮演场景(研究2a),以及工作场所帮助事件的回忆(研究3)。我们发现,自主性(相对于依赖性)通过增强对帮助者基于仁慈(而不是基于能力)的可信度的感知,帮助增加了受助者对帮助者领导的支持(研究1和3)。我们还表明,时间压力是一个边界条件,在这个边界条件下,自主帮助的优势消失了(研究2a和2b),而依赖性帮助则诱导了可比较的感知水平仁慈和类似的对帮助者潜在领导能力的支持。总的来说,我们通过揭示接受者如何解释和回应这两种帮助类型来阐明非正式领导的发展。实际上,这一分析为有抱负的管理者打开了一扇新大门,帮助他们从潜在的追随者那里获得对其领导的支持,甚至对那些不太可能被任命为正式领导职位的人也是如此。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Give them a fishing rod, if it is not urgent: The impact of help type on support for helpers' leadership.

Taking a follower's perspective on leadership and contributing to the new research stream on behaviors conducive to its emergence, we examined how distinct types of instrumental (task focused) helping-autonomy- versus dependency-helping-affected recipients' support for their helpers' leadership. Based on the literature on employees' needs for autonomy and mastery, combined with the empowering nature of autonomy-helping, we reasoned that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping typically signals greater benevolence toward recipients, enhancing their support for their helpers' leadership. Our findings were generalized across various samples (of U.S. and Israeli employees), manipulations, and research settings: simulations (Studies 1 and 2b), workplace role-play scenario (Study 2a), and recollections of helping events in the workplace (Study 3). We found that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping increased recipients' support for their helpers' leadership by heightening perceptions of helpers' benevolence-based (rather than ability-based) trustworthiness (Studies 1 and 3). We also showed time pressure to be a boundary condition under which the advantage of autonomy-helping disappeared (Studies 2a and 2b)-with dependency-helping then inducing comparable levels of perceived benevolence and thus similar support for the helper's potential leadership. Overall, we shed light on the development of informal leadership by uncovering how recipients interpret and respond to the two help types. Practically, this analysis opens the door to new ways for aspiring managers to enhance support for their leadership from potential followers, available even to those unlikely to be appointed to formal leadership positions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
期刊最新文献
Do human resource systems indeed have "system" effects? The dual internal fit model of a high-performance work system. A stimulus-based model of the team adaptation process: An integrated conceptual review. Workplace aggression and employee performance: A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms and cultural contingencies. Insights from an updated personnel selection meta-analytic matrix: Revisiting general mental ability tests' role in the validity-diversity trade-off. All is well that replicates well: The replicability of reported moderation and interaction effects in leading organizational sciences journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1