员工资质过剩感与越轨创新——基于悖论视角的链式中介关系研究

摘要传统的研究多关注资质过剩感的积极面和阴暗面。然而,在现实情境中员工也可能表现出亦正亦邪的越轨创新行为。基于悖论理论,构建了资质过剩感与员工越轨创新关系的理论模型,揭示员工的冲突体验和悖论思维所起的不同中介效应。基于287份员工实证调研数据的分析表明,资质过剩感会提高员工在工作场所的冲突体验,而冲突体验进一步提升个体的悖论思维;员工的悖论思维促进越轨创新行为;冲突体验和悖论思维在资质过剩感与越轨创新之间发挥了链式中介作用。研究结论有助于员工正确应对因资质过剩而产生的情绪矛盾或认知矛盾,提升悖论思维来发挥个体的创新潜力

	Service

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	Email Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	王朝晖

关键词：资质过剩感冲突体验悖论思维越轨创新

Abstract： Traditional research pays more attention to the positive and dark side of perceived overqualification. However, in real-life situations, employees may also exhibit deviant and innovative behaviors that are both positive and negative. Based on paradox theory, a theoretical model of the relationship between perceived overqualification and employees’ deviant innovation is constructed to reveal the different mediating effects of employee’s conflict experience and paradox mindset. Based on the survey data of 287 employees, the analysis results show that perceived overqualification of employees increase tension experiences, which results in a stronger paradox mindset that in turn, promotes employees’ deviance innovation. The experience of tensions and paradox mindset play the chain mediator role between perceived overqualification and deviance innovation. The research conclusions help employees to correctly deal with emotional contradictions or cognitive contradictions caused by overqualification, and to enhance paradox mindset so as to exert individual innovation potential.

Keywords： Perceived Overqualification Experience of Tensions Paradox Mindset Deviance Innovation

收稿日期 2018-12-22; 接受日期 ;

基金资助:国家社会科学基金项目(17BGL110)

作者简介: 王朝晖(1974— ),男,湖南衡东人,博士,教授,主要从事战略人力资源管理和员工创造力研究。

引用本文:

王朝晖.员工资质过剩感与越轨创新——基于悖论视角的链式中介关系研究[J]. 经济经纬, 2019,5: 128-134

WANG Zhao-hui.The Perceived Employee Over-qualification and Deviance Innovation —Research on Chain Intermediary Relationship Based on Paradox Mindset[J] Economic Survey, 2019,V36(5): 128-134

链接本文:

http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/ 或 http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/Y2019/V36/I5/128

姜秀丽,齐蕾.2018.包含型领导对新员工创新行为的作用机制研究[J].理论学刊(5):63-71.
ASHFORTH B E, ROGERS K M, PRATT M G, et al.2014.Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach[J]. Organization Science, 25(5): 1453-1478.
BAAS M, DE DREU C K W, NIJSTAD B A. 2008.A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6): 779-806.
DENG H, GUAN Y, WU C H, et al. 2018.A relational model of perceived overqualification: The moderating role of interpersonal influence on social acceptance[J]. Journal of Management, 44(8): 3288-3310..
ERDOGAN B, BAUER T N.2009. Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: The moderating role of empowerment[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 557-565.
GEBERT D, BOERNER S, KEARNEY E. 2010.Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies?[J]. Organization Science, 21(3): 593-608.
LEUNG A K, MADDUX W W, GALINSKY A D, et al.2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how[J]. American Psychologist, 2008, 63(3): 169-181.
LIN B, LAW K S, ZHOU J.2017. Why is underemployment related to creativity and OCB? A task-crafting explanation of the curvilinear moderated relations[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 156-177.
LIN B, MAINEMELIS C, KARK R.2016. Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2016, 27(4): 537-556.
LIU S, LUKSYTE A, ZHOU L, et al.2015.Overqualification and counterproductive work behaviors: Examining a moderated mediation model[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2): 250-271.
LIU X, WRAY L R.2012. Lessons for China from the crisis in Euroland[J]. Chinese Economy, 45(6): 6-25.
LUKSYTE A, SPITZMUELLER C, MAYNARD D C.2011. Why do overqualified incumbents deviate? Examining multiple mediators[J]. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3): 279-296.
LSCHER L S, LEWIS M W.2008. Organizational change and managerial sense making: Working through paradox[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221-240.
MAYNARD D C, JOSEPH T A, MAYNARD A M.2006. Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4): 509-536.
MIRON-SPEKTOR E, INGRAM A, KELLER J, et al.2018.Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 26-45.
PROULX T, HEINE S J.2009. Connections from Kafka: Exposure to meaning threats improves implicit learning of an artificial grammar[J]. Psychological Science, 20(9): 1125-1131.
ROTHMAN N B, PRATT M G, REES L, et al.2017. Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 33-72.
SMITH W K, TUSHMAN M.2005.Senior teams and managing contradictions: On the team dynamics of managing exploitation and exploration[J]. Organization Science, 16(5): 522-536.
SMITH W K.2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1592-2873.
ZHANG M J, LAW K S, LIN B.2016.You think you are big fish in a small pond? Perceived overqualification, goal orientations, and proactivity at work[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1): 61-84.