Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:51:11.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Self-Regulation Model of Zhong Yong Thinking and Employee Adaptive Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

Wen Pan  and
Li-Yun Sun
Wen Pan
Affiliation:
Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau
Li-Yun Sun*
Affiliation:
Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau
*
Corresponding author: Li-Yun Sun ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indigenous Chinese management research has attracted much academic attention in recent years. This study examines the mechanism through which Zhong Yong thinking influences employee adaptive performance from a self-regulation perspective. Using two-wave data of 361 subordinates in 62 teams from Chinese firms, job complexity was found to moderate the direct effect of Zhong Yong thinking on cognitive adaptability and emotional control, and the indirect effect on adaptive performance (via cognitive adaptability and emotional control). The direct and indirect effects of Zhong Yong thinking were found to be stronger with a higher level of job complexity. The study explores an important Chinese indigenous construct and its association with adaptive performance, and adds value to the indigenous management literature.

摘要:

摘要:

近年来, 学术界十分关注中国本土的管理研究。本文从自我调节视角审视中庸思维对员工适应性绩效的影响。本文的样本来自中国企业62支团队的361名下属, 通过两轮数据收集完成。研究发现: 工作复杂度调节中庸思维对认知适应力和情绪控制的直接作用, 并通过认知适应力和情绪控制进一步调节中庸思维对适应性绩效的间接作用。工作复杂度越高, 中庸思维的这种直接和间接作用就会越强。本文探讨了一个重要的中国本土概念及其与适应性绩效的关系, 因而对本土管理研究具有理论贡献。

विगत वर्षों में चीनी देशज प्रबंधन शोध पर ध्यान बढ़ा है. यह शोध पत्र स्व-नियमन परिप्रेक्ष्य में ज़ोंग-योंग़ वैचारिकता के कर्मचारी अनुकूलन प्रदर्शन पर प्रभाव का अनुसंधान करता है. चीनी फर्मों की 82 टीमों के 361 अधीनस्थ कर्मचारियों के द्वि-तरंगी आकड़ों के माध्यम से ये पाया गया की कार्य जटिलता संज्ञानात्मक अनुकूलन व संवेदना नियंत्रण पर ज़ोंग-योंग़ वैचारिकता के प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव को संयमित करती है और साथ ही इसका अनुकूलित प्रदर्शन पर (संज्ञानात्मक अनुकूलन व संवेदना नियंत्रण के माध्यम से) परोक्ष प्रभाव है. ज़ोंग-योंग़ वैचारिकता के प्रभाव तीव्र कार्य जटिलता के सन्दर्भ में सुदृढ़ पाए गए. यह अध्ययन एक महत्वपूर्ण देशज चीनी आदर्श का और साथ ही उसके अनुकूलक प्रदर्शन के प्रभाव का अनुसंधान कर स्वदेशीय प्रबंधन शोध साहित्य में महत्वपूर्ण योगदान करता है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

A pesquisa gerencial natural da China atraiu muita atenção acadêmica nos últimos anos. Este estudo examina o mecanismo pelo qual o pensamento de Zhong Yong influencia o desempenho adaptativo dos funcionários em uma perspectiva de autorregulação. Usando dados de duas ondas de 361 subordinados em 62 equipes de empresas chinesas, descobriu-se que a complexidade do trabalho modera o efeito direto do pensamento de Zhong Yong sobre a adaptabilidade cognitiva e o controle emocional, e o efeito indireto no desempenho adaptativo (via adaptabilidade cognitiva e controle emocional). Os efeitos diretos e indiretos do pensamento de Zhong Yong foram considerados mais fortes com um maior nível de complexidade do trabalho. O estudo explora um importante construto originário da China e sua associação com o desempenho adaptativo e agrega valor à literatura de gestão chinesa.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Китайские исследования в области управления привлекают большое внимание в последние годы. В данной работе рассматривается механизм, с помощью которого философия Чжун Юн влияет на адаптивную производительность сотрудников с точки зрения саморегуляции. На основании двухступенчатой подборки данных, которая содержит информацию о 361 сотрудниках в 62 группах из китайских фирм, делается вывод о том, что сложность работы регулирует прямое влияние философии Чжун Юн на когнитивную адаптивность и эмоциональный контроль, а также косвенное влияние на адаптивную производительность (через когнитивную адаптивность и эмоциональный контроль). Прямое и косвенное влияние философии Чжун Юн усиливаются по мере повышения сложности работы. В данной статье изучается важный китайский структурный компонент и его влияние на адаптивную производительность, и таким образом вносится существенный вклад в китайские исследования по управлению.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

La investigación en gestión autóctona china ha atraído mucha atención académica en los últimos años. Este estudio examina los mecanismos mediante los cuales el pensamiento de Zhong Yong influye el desempeño adaptativo de los empleados desde una perspectiva de auto-regulación. Usando datos de dos ondas de 361 subordinados en 62 equipos de empresas china, se encontró que la complejidad laboral moderaba el efecto directo del pensamiento de Zhong Yong en la adaptabilidad cognitiva y el control emocional, y el efecto indirecto sobre el desempeño adaptativo (mediante la adaptabilidad cognitiva y el control emocional). Se encontró que los efectos directos e indirectos del pensamiento de Zhong Yong eran más fuertes en un nivel mayor de complejidad laboral. Este estudio explora un importante constructo autóctono chino y su asociación con desempeño adaptativo, y agrega valor a la literatura de gestión autóctona.

Keywords

adaptive performancecognitive adaptabilityemotional controljob complexityZhong Yong thinking适应性绩效认知适应力情绪控制工作复杂度中庸思维अनुकूलक प्रदर्शनसंज्ञानात्मक अनुकूलनसंवेदना नियंत्रणकार्य जटिलताज़ोंग-योंग़ वैचारिकताdesempenho adaptativoadaptabilidade cognitivacontrole emocionalcomplexidade do trabalhopensamento de Zhong Yongадаптивная производительностькогнитивная адаптивностьэмоциональный контрольсложность работыфилософия Чжун ЮнDesempeño adaptativoadaptabilidad cognitivacontrol emocionalcomplejidad laboralpensamieto de Zhong Yong
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 135 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. 1994. A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2008. Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 296–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blum, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. 2010. Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36 (4): 1065–1105.Google Scholar
Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China's emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (4): 600–628.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., & Muethel, M. 2012. Doing better research on organizational behavior in Chinese cultural settings: Suggestions from the notebooks of two fellow-travellers. Management and Organization Review, 8 (2): 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, G. A. 2015. Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (2): 431–449.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1981. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Methodology: Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2): 389–444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. 1988. Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement and organization commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 139–145.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. J. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 13: 40–52.Google Scholar
Chang, T. Y., & Yang, C. T. 2014. Individual differences in Zhong-Yong tendency and processing capacity. Frontier in Psychology, 5: 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, G., Thomas, B., & Wallace, J. C. 2005. A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 827–841.Google Scholar
Chiu, C-Y. 1991. Response to injustice in Chinese popular sayings and among Hong Kong college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 131: 655–665.Google Scholar
Chiu, C-Y. 2000. Assessment of Zhong-Yong thinking. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 18 (1): 33–55. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435–462.Google Scholar
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. 2003. Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fang, T. 2012. Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8 (1): 25–50.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Li, J. T., Tsui, A. S., & Weldson, E. (Eds.), Measurement and organizations in the Chinese context: 84–127. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, J. L. 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. In West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies: 207–230. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. 1998. Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 218–233.Google Scholar
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. P. 2008. Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology, 61: 1–36.Google Scholar
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. 1989. Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24 (2): 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasspool, D., & Fox, J. 2005. Knowledge, argument and meta-cognition in routine decision-making. In Betsch, T. & Haberstroh, S. (Eds.), The routines of decision making: 343–358. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work: Lessons from feedback-seeking and organizational citizenship behavior research. In Staw, B. M. & Sutton, R. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28): 3–34. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of work role performance and positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. J. 2001 Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 (6): 214–219.Google Scholar
Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. 1989. Fairness in employment testing. Science, 245 (4913): 14–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50: 1–22.Google Scholar
Haynie, J. M., & Shepherd, D. A. 2009. A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (3): 695–714.Google Scholar
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. 2012. Cognitive adaptability and an entrepreneurial task: The role of metacognitive ability and feedback. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 237–265.Google Scholar
Higham, P., & Gerrard, C. 2005. Not all errors are created equal: Metacognition and changing answers on multiple choice tests. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59: 28–34.Google Scholar
Hobfoll, S. 2011. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84: 116–122.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-L., Lin, Y.-C., & Yang, C.-F. 2012. Revision of the Zhong Yong belief-value scale. Indigenous Psychological Research of Chinese Society (in Chinese), 38: 3–41.Google Scholar
Huang, L. L. 1996. The Chinese people's perspective on harmony and conflict. Indigenous Psychological Research, 9: 47–71.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 72–98.Google Scholar
Jia, L., You, S., & Du, Y. 2012. Chinese context and theoretical contributions to management and organization research: A three-decade review. Management and Organizational Review, 8 (1): 173–209.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1): 107–122.Google Scholar
Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. 2015. Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36 (S1): S53–S71.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. 1989. Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (4): 657–690.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. 1996. Motivational skills and self-regulation in learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 8: 185–209.Google Scholar
Karoly, P. 1993. Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 23–52.Google Scholar
Keith, N., & Frese, M. 2005. Self-regulation in error management training: Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4): 677–691.Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. 1985. Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior: 100–128. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. 2013, September. Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Available from URL: http://quantpsy.orgGoogle Scholar
Le Pine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. 2000. Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53 (3): 563–593.Google Scholar
Leung, K. 1987. Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (5): 898–908.Google Scholar
Li, P. P., Leung, K., Chen, C. C., & Luo, J-D. 2012. Indigenous research on Chinese management: What and how. Management and Organizational Review, 8 (1): 7–24.Google Scholar
Li, P. P., Sekiguchi, T., & Zhou, K. 2016. The emerging research on indigenous management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33 (3): 583–594.Google Scholar
Li, Y. Y. 1990. In search of equilibrium and harmony: On the basic value orientation of traditional Chinese peasant. Paper presented at the international symposium on the study of East Asian societies. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
London, M., & Klimoski, R. J. 1975. A study of perceived job complexity. Personnel Psychology, 28 (1): 45–56.Google Scholar
Murray, B., & Gerhart, B. 1998. An empirical analysis of a skill-based pay program and plant performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 68–78.Google Scholar
Niessen, C., & Jimmieson, N. L. 2016. Threat of resource loss: The role of self-regulation in adaptive task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (3): 450–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connell, D. J., McNeely, E., & Hall, D. T. 2008. Unpacking personality adaptability at work. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14 (3): 248–259.Google Scholar
Peng, K. P., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54 (9): 741–754.Google Scholar
Porath, C., & Bateman, T. 2006. Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (1): 185–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31: 437–448.Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovon, M., & Plamondon, K. E. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (4): 612–624.Google Scholar
Qian, M. 1985. Twelve lectures on Chinese culture. Taiwan: Dongda Press.Google Scholar
Qian, X. 1989. Differentiation of Confucius yi and li, and li and yu and their implication in modern times. In Confucius Thought and Future Society. Shanghai People's Press.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. 2000. Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one's cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (3): 410–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Kemmerer, B. E. 1994. Job complexity, ‘Type A’ behavior, and cardiovascular disorder: A prospective study. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (2): 426–439.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4): 460–475.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. 1995. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (4): 351–371.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In Higgins, E. T. & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior: 527–561. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Seo, M., & Barrett, L. F. 2007. Being emotional during decision making – good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 923–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. C., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (3): 489–505.Google Scholar
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. 2004. Job complexity, performance, and well-being: When does supplies-values fit matter? Personnel Psychology, 57 (4): 847–879.Google Scholar
Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2005. Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16 (2): 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3): 500–517.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2009. Autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging scientific communities. Management and Organization Review, 5 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29 (5): 729–751.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., Chen, Z. X. 2005. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3): 420–432.Google Scholar
Wu, J.-Y., & Kwok, O.-M. 2012. Using SEM to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multilevel approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 19 (1): 16–35.Google Scholar
Wu, C. H., & Lin, Y. C. 2005. Development of a Zhong Yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychology Research (Taiwan), 24: 247–300.Google Scholar
Wu, C-H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. 2016. Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (3): 362–378.Google Scholar
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 1995. Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5): 1288–1309.Google Scholar
Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (6): 1641–1658.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. F. 2010. The initial development of exploratory research in Zhong Yong practical thinking system. Indigenous Psychology Research (Taiwan), 34.Google Scholar
Zheng, S. Y., Li, X. L., & Chiu, C.-Y. 1999. Dialectical thinking and modern life. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences (in Chinese), 15: 1–25.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Pan and Sun supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Pan and Sun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 71.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Pan and Sun supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Pan and Sun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 61.8 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Pan and Sun supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Pan and Sun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 54.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Pan and Sun supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Pan and Sun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 137.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Pan and Sun supplementary material

Translated abstracts

Download Pan and Sun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 52.2 KB