When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China

Li, Shao-Long; He, Wei; Yam, Kai Chi; Long, Lirong

doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9424-1

Cited by 86 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As to why empowering leadership is important, both affective commitment (“reason to”) and RBSE (“can do”) have been shown to mediate the top‐down effect of ambient empowering leadership on individual proactive behavior (e.g., Chen et al, ; Li, He, Yam, & Long, ). Interestingly, Hong et al () found that when simultaneously examining the mediation effects of RBSE (“can do”), intrinsic motivation (“reason to”), and positive affect (“energized to”), only RBSE was significant.…”

Section: Social Context Factors As Antecedents Of Proactive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The role of social context (e.g., leadership, team climate, and organizational support) in shaping employee proactive behavior has received considerable attention and has been investigated across multiple forms of proactive behavior. However, the research has not been well integrated. In this review, we adopt a multilevel approach to synthesize what is known about how social context factors influence employees' proactive behavior, as well as what mechanisms underpin these effects. Our analyses show that leader‐, team‐, and organization‐related social context factors mainly influence employee proactivity through shaping “reason to,” “can do,” and “energized to” states (i.e., proactive motivational states) via individual‐, team‐, and cross‐level processes. That has been most frequently investigated is the effect of the discretionary social context, particularly leadership, on proactive behavior. We also review the interaction effects between social context factors and other factors on employee proactive behavior and found inconsistent support for the motivational‐fit perspective that stimuli with the same directions enhance each other's effect. We offer a research agenda to advance theoretical insights on this important topic.

show abstract

Section: Social Context Factors As Antecedents Of Proactive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High‐power‐distance individuals believe that people have different social classes and statuses, with those with higher status assuming more power because of their abilities and knowledge (Hwang & Francesco, ). Respect and submission to authority are also defining characteristics of individuals with a high‐power‐distance orientation (Li, He, Yam, & Long, ). Such a belief is likely to be more salient in the supervisor–subordinate relationship because of its inherent power imbalance.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a belief is likely to be more salient in the supervisor–subordinate relationship because of its inherent power imbalance. Accordingly, high‐power‐distance subordinates are likely to accept the power inequality because of the pervasive assumption that the more competent individuals (i.e., supervisors) end up at the top of organisational hierarchies (Li et al, ; Magee & Galinsky, ; Raghuram & Fang, ). Thus, high‐power‐distance subordinates tend to suppress their opinions to those with higher status (Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto, & Howell, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Imbalance and Employee Silence: The Role of Abusive Leadership, Power Distance Orientation, and Perceived Organisational Politics

Lam

Xu²

2018

Applied Psychology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employee silence is a costly but omnipresent phenomenon in modern organisations. In this study, we focus on two forms of silence: defensive silence based on fear and acquiescent silence based on resignation. Given the power imbalance in supervisor-subordinate relationships, we hypothesise that abusive supervision is an antecedent of subordinates' defensive silence and that a subordinate's power distance orientation affects acquiescent silence. We investigate the interaction effects of abusive supervision and power distance orientation on these two types of silence. Perceived organisational politics may also aggravate such interactive effects. Based on data collected from 159 junior employees in China in two periods, we find that abusive supervision is associated with employee defensive silence and moderates high-powerdistance employees' tendency to engage in acquiescent silence. When perceiving high politics in the organisation, high-power-distance employees are more sensitive to abusive supervision and engage in more defensive silence. A highly political organisational context also accentuates abusive supervision's moderating effect on the relation between employees' power distance orientation and acquiescent silence. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications for the silence literature.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, occupational stress in terms of low social support is related to general health (Finstad et al, 2019). Furthermore, the leadership-related factors, such as empowered leadership and transformational leadership (Li et al, 2015;Li J. et al, 2016), had been mentioned. Generally, there is a lack of research concerning the factors influencing taking-charge behavior from the leadership level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Leadership and Taking-Charge Behavior: Roles of Psychological Safety and Thriving at Work

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking charge is an important form of proactive behavior that sustains organizational survival and individual development. Learning how to motivate employees to engage in taking-charge behavior has become one of the hot topics in the field of organizational management. Despite considerable research investigating the factors influencing taking charge, less attention has been paid to leadership-related factors, such as inclusive leadership. Based on the self-determination theory and the social information processing theory, we examined the mediating roles of psychological safety and thriving at work in the relationship between inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior. We collected data in two stages from 205 pairs of employees and their supervisors at 17 companies in mainland China. Specifically, the results revealed that inclusive leadership promoted employees' taking-charge behavior first through psychological safety and then through thriving at work. The results describe a more detailed mechanism underlying the formation of taking-charge behavior. The results further deepen our understanding of the path from inclusive leadership to employee behavior. These findings have theoretical implications for the taking-charge literature and managerial implications for practitioners.

show abstract

When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China

Cited by 86 publications

References 87 publications

How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis

How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis

Power Imbalance and Employee Silence: The Role of Abusive Leadership, Power Distance Orientation, and Perceived Organisational Politics

Inclusive Leadership and Taking-Charge Behavior: Roles of Psychological Safety and Thriving at Work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About