7 研究结论及建议
7.1研究的主要结论
有关个人权力感知的研究，在国外已经涌现出许多成果。但是在我们国家仍然处于起步阶段，需要更多的研究来充实。本研究通过实证研究，在以下几个方面得出一些结论。
7.1.1 个人权力感知对员工敬业度和知识分享行为的影响效果
通过多元回归分析得出：（1）员工个人权力感知可以显着正向预测员工敬业度，即员工个人权力感知越强，敬业度就越高；（2）员工个人权力感知可以显着正向预测知识分享行为，即员工个人权力感知越强，就越倾向于进行知识分享；（3）心理可得性在员工个人权力感知与员工敬业度之间具有部分中介作用；（4）心理可得性在员工个人权力感知与知识分享行为之间具有部分中介作用。
7.1.2 传统性对心理可得性中介效应的调节作用
通过多元回归分析发现:（1）在传统性调节心理可得性在权利感知和知识分享行为的中介作用检验中，自变量与调节变量交互项对心理可得性的影响不显着，而调节变量与中介变量的交互项对知识分享行为的影响也不显着，因此，传统性对心理可得性在权利感知和知识分享行为的中介作用的调节作用不显着；（2）在以员工敬业度为结果变量的分析中，可知，自变量与调节变量交互项对心理可得性的影响不显着，但是调节变量与中介变量的交互项对员工敬业度为的影响显着。因此，可以得出结论，传统性对心理可得性在权利感知和员工敬业度间的中介效应具有调节作用，而对心理可得性在权利感知和知识分享行为间的中介效应不具有调节作用。
7.1.3 不同人口学、组织学特征的员工在权力感知上的差异分析
通过方差分析，独立样本t检验及事后多重比较等手段，结果发现，不同性别、年龄、教育程度、工作年限等人口学变量在员工个人权力感知上存在显着性差异。
7.2研究的不足与展望
本研究主要采用自评式问卷调查回收数据。自评式问卷自身存在一些不足，比如被试填写问卷时随意性较大，难以保证数据的真实性。同时，被试由于社会赞许因素而容易作伪。因此，在以后的研究中需采用一定的措施来控制这种方法的弊端，将实验、准实验、观察法、案例研究等多种方法进行结合，以保证调查数据的可靠性。
个人权力感知的研究来源于国外，国内关于个人权利感知的实证研究较少，研究中缺乏对于国内外员工在个人权力感知上的比较研究，因而对个人权力感知的跨文化性缺乏考证。这需要引起国内学者的注意，以后需在中国文化背景下做更多更深入的研究。
7.3对组织管理的建议
（1）个人权力感知对员工积极行为的正向预测作用对组织管理的启示
个人权力感知程度与员工的积极行为显着正向相关，组织中应充分授权，让员工能感觉到自己的才能有用武之地，能够承担相应的担子，从而增强员工敬业度。“没有不能用的人才，只有不会用人才的企业”，组织成员往往各有所长，在各自专业领域具有某些专长。在人力资源开发与管理过程中，要充分发现这些人的特长并赋予其充分的权力，提高员工的权力感，发掘员工的潜力，从而提高工作绩效为企业创造价值。
（2）个人权力感知对知识分享行为的显着正相关对知识型员工的管理启示
组织的核心竞争力是人才，而建设学习型组织是培养人才的有效途径。从外部引进人才有两个弊端，一是成本较高，二是不够稳定。因此组织人才培养的最好方法是在公司内部培养，建设学习型组织，培养全员学习的氛围。组织成员对知识的分享直接影响着学习成果的转化。而个人权力感知较高的员工与知识分享行为成正相关，那些在组织中有较高影响力或者专家权力的员工更愿意将自己的诀窍分享给大家。因此，在组织中要鼓励员工自主学习，建立职称与薪酬挂钩制度，鼓励先进工作方法和专利的发明。同时，要建立全员培训制度，培训内容要涉及各个方面，使各个部门员工都有提高和分享的机会。
（3）心理可得性的中介作用对组织管理的启示
组织管理社会管理在某种程度上具有相似之处，组织成员的行为表现和心理状态以自身可利用的物质和心理资源为基础，可利用的资源越丰富自己的工作业绩就会越高。这启示我们，要想发挥组织成员的潜力，需要给予其充分的资源使用权。提供给员工舒适的办公环境，让每位员工均有机会感受公司创始人的风采，给每个员工平等接受技能指导的培训机会，对公司内部资源的平等分享，享受企业的利益分红等等，从而增强工作满意度和成就感，进而在公司内部生成人力资源的合力，形成人力资源利用和成长的良性循环。
（4）传统性的调节作用对组织管理的启示
在中国文化背景中，管理者应该恰当利用员工传统性这一变量来激发员工的使命感和满意度，从而为组织更好的服务。在组织中，管理者要通过良好的沟通来了解员工的特点和想法，让员工感受到自己的重要性和工作的安全感，从而增强对企业的忠诚度和敬业度。同时，企业需要培育和宣传良好的企业文化和愿景，提高员工对组织认同程度，将自我发展与企业发展紧密联系起来，增强对组织的归属感，从而降低离职倾向。
（5）个人权力感知的个体差异对管理决策的启示
组织中高个人权力感知者往往通过独断来申明自己的优势，容易在决策时自以为是，听不进员工建议，最终影响决策水平。表现在领导者决断、专家决断等方面。同时，低权力感知者容易产生防御性聚焦（Maner & Mead, 2010），出现情绪上的波动。
因此，在管理过程中，对于大多数员工都不理解的决策行为，要加强沟通，给予合理解释。一项研究表明，决策时给予合理的解释可以显着降低低权力者的抵触情绪和行为（Smith, Jost & Vijay, 2008）。高权力者通过与低权力者进行有效沟通，可以减少低权力者对决策的抵制，从而提高决策接受和执行水平。
（6）个人权力感知在人口学变量上的差异性对组织管理的启示
个人权力感知程度在员工的年龄、工龄、学历、性别上均有显着的差异。在组织中，那些学历较低、年轻的新员工以及女性员工更容易产生无力感，对个人权力感知程度较低，做工作往往会出现畏首畏尾、担心犯错的心理，领导安排的才敢放手做，领导没安排的就忽略不做。这样既影响到工作的效率又影响自己工作的积极性。因此，在管理过程中，对这些员工要经常进行人事谈话，在工作上予以鼓励和指导，对工作中的问题和失误多加宽容，从增强他们的工作主动性和积极性，防止出现离职和怠工倾向。
参考文献: ［1］Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power onapproach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. ［2］Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality,80, 313?344. ［3］Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects ofpersonality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81,116- 132. ［4］Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place:Self-perceptions of status in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094–1110. ［5］American productivity & quality center. Definition of knowledgemanagement. ［6］Alan, M. S. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of ManagerialPsychology , 21(7):600-619. ［7］Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. New York: Guilford Press. ［8］Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: Anautomatic power sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5):768-781. ［9］Boksem, M. A. S., Smolders, R., & De Cremer, D. (2009). Social power and approach-related neuralactivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, doi: 10.1093/scan/nsp006. ［10］Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. (1999). The paradoxical misuse of power by those who seethemselves as powerless: How does it happen?. Journal of Social Issues,55,51–64. ［11］Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes:Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539. ［12］Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. ［13］Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affectiveresponses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 67, 319–333. ［14］Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power forbehavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2):264-277. ［15］Christina, M., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early Predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93(3): 498–512. ［16］Churchill, J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal ofMarketing Research , 16 (1) :64–731［17］Chusmir, L.H., & Parker, B. (1984). Dimensions of need for power: personalized vs. socializedpower in female and male managers. Sex Roles,11,9-10. ［18］Daniel J. S, Carsten, K.W., & Bernard, A. N. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,47,891–897. ［19］Muller, D., Charles M., & Judd. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6:852-863. ［20］Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: Ageneral analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychollogical Methods, 12, 1–22. ［21］Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–40. ［22］Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, andaggression. Psychological Science, 20(11):1406–1413. ［23］Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators ofperceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects ofpower distance and traditionality. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3):715-729. ［24］Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice andorganizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3):421-444. ［25］Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessmentand theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,43,522-527. ［26］Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. AmericanPsychologist, 48, 621–628. ［27］Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory ofsocial relations. Psychological Review, 99(4): 689-723. ［28］Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. New York: Guilford Press. ［29］Fragale, Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: Theeffects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,108,53- 65. ［30］French, John R. P., Raven, J., & Bertram. (1959). The bases of social power. Oxford, England:Univer. Michigan. 1959:150-167. ［31］Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466. ［32］Goodstadt, B., & Hjelle, L. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use of power.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 190–196. ［33］Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power Can Bias ImpressionProcesses: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design. Group Processes IntergroupRelations , 3(3): 227-256. ［34］Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful thanpowerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2):237-252. ［35］Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Reviewof Social Psychology, 18(1):256-295. ［36］Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279. ［37］Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share know ledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing . Knowledge Process Management,6(2):91-100. ［38］Hooff, B. V., & Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context the influence of organizationalcommitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 8 (6) : 117-130. ［39］Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. ( 2004) . Employment relationships in China: Do workersrelate to the organization or to people? . Organization Science, 15, 232 - 240. ［40］Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2005). Power, voice, and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents ofspeaking up in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2): 93-103. ［41］Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,33,692-724. ［42］ Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. ［43］Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model ofsocial power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,40, 151-192. ［44］Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,24, 33–41. ［45］Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distanceorientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-culturalexamination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764. ［46］Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Legitimacy moderates the effectof power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558–564. ［47］Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonalmonitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–530. ［48］Liao, L. F. (2008). Knowledge-sharing in R & D departments: a social power and social exchangetheory perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10): 1881-1895. ［49］Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate theeffects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 107-123. ［50］Lin, Z. S., Xiao, S. Y., & He, H. Q. (2005). Relationship among organizational support, knowledgesharing and citizenship behaviors based on the perspective of social exchange theory: viewpoint oftrust and relationship ( in Chinese). Journal of Human Resource Management, 5 (1) : 77-110. ［51］Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23: 695–706. ［52］Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: Whenleaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self- interest. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 99(3): 482- 497. ［53］Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter. M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,52(1) :397-422．［54］Mast, M.S. (2010). Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonalpower and behaviour model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21,1-33. ［55］May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37. ［56］Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusivenessand professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. ［57］Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge- Creating Company. Oxford University Press. ［58］Perrow, C. (1970). Departmental power and perspectives in industrial firms. Nashville, VanderbiltUniversity Press. ［59］Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity:A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal ofMarketing Research , 18 (2) :133-145. ［60］Rothmann, S., & Joubert, J. H. M. (2007). Job demands, job resources, burnout and workengagement of managers at a platinum mine in the North West Province. South African Journal ofBusiness Management, 38(3):49-61. ［61］Salanova, M., & Schaufeli. W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediatorbetween job resources and proactive behavior. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 19(1):116–131. ［62］Schaufeli , W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands , job resources , and their relationship withburnout and engagement : A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25(1) :293-315. ［63］Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement ofengagement and burnout: A two sample confirmative factor analytic approach. Journal of HappinessStudies, 3:71-92. ［64］Schaufeli, W., & Bakker,A. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnoutand engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:293–315 . ［65］Senge, P. (1998). Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 15:11-12. ［66］Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. London: Sage Publications. ［67］Smith, P. K., Jost, J. T., & Vijay, R. (2008). Legitimacy crisis? Behavioral approach and inhibitionwhen power differences are left unexplained . Social Justice Research,21:358-376. ［68］Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England: JohnWiley. ［69］Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2006). Striving for personal power as a basis for social powerdynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology,36(4):537-556. ［70］Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gundemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking therules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological andPersonality Science, 2(5), 500–507. ［71］段锦云, 黄彩云. (2013). 个人权力感对进谏行为的影响机制: 权力认知的视角. 心理学报,45(2):217-230. ［72］方来坛, 时勘, 张风华. (2008). 员工敬业度的研究述评.管理评论,22(5):47-55. ［73］富立友. (2004). 基于知识共享的组织文化研究.上海:复旦大学博士学位论文. ［74］刘军, 刘小禹, 任兵. (2007). 员工离职:雇佣关系框架下的追踪研究.管理世界,12:88-96. ［75］姜秀梅. (2008). 企业员工敬业度的组织影响因素研究. 曲阜:曲阜师范大学硕士学位论文. ［76］阮媺涵. (2011). 以社会认知理论观点探讨社会支持及社会资本对知识分享行为之影响. 台南:成功大学硕士学位论文. ［77］汪林,储小平.(2008).心理契约违背与员工的工作表现:中国人传统性的调节作用.软科学,22(12):137-140. ［78］魏秋江.(2012).权力和权力动机对建言的影响. 苏州：苏州大学硕士学位论文. ［79］吴隆增,刘军,刘刚.(2009).辱虐管理与员工表现:传统性与信任的作用.心理学报,41(6),510-518. ［80］谢荷锋.(2007).企业员工知识分享中的信任问题实证研究. 杭州:浙江大学硕士学位论文. ［81］杨红明,廖建桥.(2009). 员工敬业度研究现状探析与未来展望.外国经济与管理,31(5):45-59. ［82］杨国枢,余安邦,叶明华.(1989).中国人的传统性与现代性: 概念与测量.台北:桂冠图书公司. ［83］周浩,龙立荣.(2004).共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法.心理科学进展,12(6):942-950. ［84］周浩,龙立荣.(2012).变革型领导对下属进谏行为的影响：组织心理所有权与传统性的作用.心理学报,44(3):388-399. ［85］仲理峰,王震,李梅,李超平.(2013).变革型领导、心理资本对员工工作绩效的影响研究.管理学报,10(4):536-544. （温馨提示：查看本篇硕士论文其他章节，请浏览本页面左侧←【论文目录】导航）