领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系：基于元分析的检验

基于183项实证研究, 采用元分析法综合考察了领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系, 包括个体工作态度与绩效(145个样本, 50509名员工)、团队绩效(47个样本, 4856个团队)和组织绩效(9个样本, 1090家企业)。结果表明：领导授权赋能与工作满意度、组织承诺和主观幸福感显著正相关, 与离职倾向、倦怠&压力显著负相关, 与个体(团队)绩效及其各维度显著正相关, 与反生产行为显著负相关, 但与组织绩效的正向关系不显著。其中, 主观幸福感、团队绩效、团队任务绩效的样本文献可能存在出版偏倚, 其元分析结果很可能被高估。在东西方差异上, 领导授权赋能与个体(团队)绩效、个体(团队)任务绩效的相关性均属东亚样本更强、欧美样本更弱, 而与个体(团队)创新绩效、个体(团队)关系绩效之间无显著差异。然而, 团队创新绩效的欧美样本和团队关系绩效的东亚样本仅1份, 故其东西方比较结果可能存在不稳定及不可靠性。此外, 领导授权赋能的量表、数据类型显著调节了领导授权赋能与个体绩效的关系, 行业类型的调节效应不显著。研究结果为领导授权赋能与领导有效性的研究给出了新的阶段性定论。     

Non-Traditional Women's Group

This paper focuses on an intensive large group experience for women that addresses issues of female identity and the cultural constructs that contribute to women's basic experience of self. It includes a discussion of self-concept and the social constructionist theory of the social, emotional, and psychological processes of the development of an individual's view of herself and the world. The author contrasts aspects of traditional group psychotherapy leadership, which tends to perpetuate society's devaluation of the feminine, with the leadership style of this workshop. The use of story and metaphor and other techniques used to achieve the workshop goals--including narrative therapy, guided imagery, movement and dance, and ritual enactment--are also discussed.     

Military Leaders’ Adaptability in Unexpected Situations

This paper investigates adaptability among lower-level military leaders in unexpected threatening situations. Two studies were performed. In the first, a grounded theory approach was used, and 16 Swedish officers and soldiers with experience from international peacekeeping operations were interviewed. A model was developed based on the results. In Study 2, the model concepts from Study 1 were operationalized into a questionnaire and data was obtained from 102 respondents from the Swedish Armed Forces who had recently served in Afghanistan. Based on Study 1, the model suggests that the key aspects of adaptive leadership in such circumstances are 2 balancing acts. One is how subordinates handle structure/following rules versus their own initiatives/freedom of action. The other concerns the balance between individual decision making versus group input. Both are affected by availability of time, resulting in a favorable/unfavorable outcome. The hypotheses from Study 1 were partly confirmed in Study 2.