【作者】 钟慧；

【导师】 边慧敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 劳动经济学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 破坏性领导是学术界和业界愈加重视的课题。破坏性领导的研究不仅有重要的理论意义而且有重要的应用价值,有助于拓展对领导效率和领导能力发展的常规性理解。本研究力求理论探索与实证研究相结合,在建构理论模型的基础上,应用结构方程模型进行实证检验,以探索破坏性领导对员工职场偏差行为的作用及其作用方式,这样有利于更加深入全面地了解破坏性领导的破坏作用及其作用原理,丰富领导理论体系,同时完善员工职场偏差行为理论,有助于组织有及时的诊断与有效减少负面行为的危害。通过对已有文献的详细并清晰的梳理,厘清研究的理论脉络,依据内部劳动力市场理论、代理人理论、社会交换理论、领导者—成员交换等理论,基于现有研究的局限性,在员工个体层面建立了破坏性领导预测员工职场偏差行为的工作压力中介模型和组织公平感调节模型,进而收集数据进行实证检验。本研究主要进行了两个方面的探讨：第一部分,将西方学者编制的破坏性领导量表通过预调查进行调整和完善,使其适合测量中国员工对管理领导者的破坏性领导行为的感知。在现有的破坏性领导量表基础上,通过对四川省7个城市不同行业、不同单位性质的579名有效被试的调查,运用探索性因素分析对量表进行调整和完善；在此基础上通过对成都市、绵阳市、德阳市、阿坝州、福州市、中山市、杭州市等城市的不同行业、不同单位性质的889名有效被试的调查,运用验证性因素分析和结构方程模型对量表的信效度进行检验,并展开人口学和组织学特征的差异分析,进一步检验量表的信效度,并获得破坏性领导的人口学、组织学特点。第二部分,破坏性领导预测员工职场偏差行为的模型分析与检验。通过对成都市、甘孜州、台州市、兰州市、厦门市、上海市、重庆市等城市的不同行业、不同单位性质的785名有效被试的调查,运用因素分析、信效度分析法检验了测量工具的信度和效度,采用结构方程模型检验破坏性领导预测员工职场偏差行为的工作压力中介模型和组织公平感调节模型。最后,本研究获得以下主要结论：1.对两个样本数据的探索性因素和验证性因素分析的结果均显示Aasland等人编制的破坏性领导量表,在中国员工的数据中仅能获得专制自私型、支持不忠型、建设型3个因素,与Aasland等人建构的5因素结构有所不同,这可能反映了中国文化对破坏性领导结构的影响。2.调整后的量表包含21个题项,其分半信度、内容一致性系数、内容效度、结构效度均达到了心理测量学的要求,可以认为Aasland等人编制的破坏性领导量表经过调整完善后可以用于测量中国员工对管理者的破坏性领导行为的感受。3.在年龄、工作年限、教育程度、职位和单位性质等人口统计学变量上破坏性领导各个因素的得分以及总分上都存在显着差异。4.结构方程模型的分析显示,破坏性领导对员工职场偏差行为的正向预测作用,工作压力在二者关系中的中介作用,组织公平感在新合并的专制自私型领导与职场偏差行为关系中具有显著的调节作用。这些结果初步支持了我们假设的破坏性领导预测员工职场偏差行为的工作压力中介模型组织和公平感调节模型。这提示破坏性领导不仅可以直接导致工作偏差行为而且会通过增加员工的工作压力来导致工作偏差；同时,组织公平感会调节破坏性领导与工作偏差行为的关系,即当员工的公平感很低的时候,对破坏性领导的感知将不再增加他们的偏差行为。更多还原

【Abstract】 Destructive leadership is paid much attention by academe and business circle. The study of destructive leadership is important in both theory and application, which is helpful to widen the understanding on leadership efficiency and ability.The study is discussing the adaptation of destructive leadership measuring tool under the background of western culture in China specifically and the role destructive leadership plays in workplace deviance by the combination of theoretical exploration and empirical study, basing ourselves upon China and drawing lessons from the western, tradition method and modern science and technology, carrying forward the tradition and adapt the modern needs.The study sets up a train of thought on the employee individual level as destructive-work stress/organization justice-workplace deviance by searching the literature, clarifying the theory path, relying on the internal labor marke theory,the agent or principal theory,the social exchange theory, LMX, etc. and basing on the current study limitations. The study also brings forward the theory model and assumption, and makes a further effort on this topic. The study discusses issues from two sides. On one hand, there are two searches on the correction on destructive leadership scale under the background of western culture. On the basis of current destructive leadership scale, by investigating579effective subjects from different industries and units in7cities in Sichuan Province, the study revises the scale by using exploring element analysis. The study has got the demology and organization traits of destructive leadership by using testing element analysis and structure formulation to test the reliability and validity of the scale, meanwhile carrying out the difference analysis of demology and organization traits to test the reliability and validity of the scale further more on the basis of investigation to889effective subjects in different industries and units from Chengdu, Mianyang, Deyang, Aba, Fuzhou, Zhongshan, and Hangzhou. On the other hand, the study discusses the forecasting function destructive leadership to workplace deviance. The study inspects the reliability and validity of measure tool by using factor analysis, reliability and validity analysis method as well as tests the forecasting function of destructive leadership to workplace deviance, the intermediate effect of work stress and adjusting function of organization justice on the basis of the investigation to785effective subjects in different industries and units from Chengdu, Ganzhi, Taizhou, Lanzhou, Xiamen, Shanghai and ChongqingIn the end, the study has attained following conclusions:1. Find out that destructive leadership structure after the EFA(exploratory factor analysis) and CFA(confirmatory factor analysis) is different from that Aasland’s, which is likely to be the3-element model, which may reflect the influence of the Chinese culture.2. Tthe destructive leadership scale after being revised includes21items,and it’s reliability and validity are good.We may think the rvised scale that was developed by Aasland etc can be used to measure the perception that Chinese staff perceive the destructive leadership behaviour.3. By the analysis of socio-demology, we have checked the reliability and validity in the further, and meanwhile find out that there are obvious differences of demology and organization traits on the all sorts of elements of destructive leadership for cognition and general cognition.4. The study sets up the relation model between destructive leadership and workplace deviance. It has proved destructive leadership’s positive forecasting function to workplace deviance, but also tested work stress’intermediate function between they two, which supports the previous studies. The study still proves that organization justice is of obvious adjusting function in the newly combined tyrannical&self-centred leadership and workplace deviance relation, but not obvious in the adjusting function in the previous supportive-disloyal and workplace deviance. This conclusion reveals the negative results and influence systems of destructive leadership, which is helpful to understand the essence of destructive leadership further more, enriches the systems of leadership theory, but also perfects the workplace deviance theory, diagnoses the organization in time and eliminates the damage of negative behavior effectively.更多还原