领导离任如何影响下属的组织依附.docx

《领导离任如何影响下属的组织依附.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《领导离任如何影响下属的组织依附.docx（25页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Q Academy of Management Review 2016, Vol. 41, No. 3, 479502. http:/dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0233 HOW DO LEADER DEPARTURES AFFECT SUBORDINATES ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT? A 360-DEGREE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE DEBRA L. SHAPIRO University of Maryland PETER HOM WEI SHEN Arizona State University RAJSHREE

2、 AGARWAL University of Maryland Management scholars have noted that leader departures often foreshadow higher turnover intentions (or lower organizational attachment) of subordinates left behind, especially when relationships between the departing leader and subordinates (leader- member exchanges) h

3、ave been high quality. In this article we posit that the quality of subordinates relationships with all members of their relational system, not only their leader, must be considered to better understand how leader departures affect sub- ordinates organizational attachment. Our proposed relationships

4、 are illustrated in a theoretical model that includes phenomena at the individual level (i.e., a sub- ordinates identification with the departing leader and with his or her organization), group level (i.e., turnover contagion), and organizational level (i.e., organization-wide developmental climate)

5、. As such, we propose that elucidating how leader departures affect organizational attachment requires multilevel theorizing and constructs. We also discuss theoretical and practical implications of such a 360-degree relational perspec- tive on leader-departure effects. Grove could see that Moore wa

6、s distracted. Grove probed, and Moore said to him, Ive decided to leave Fairchild. What are you going to do? a suddenly very excited Grove asked. Im going to start a new semiconductor company, said Moore. Without hesitating one second, Grove blurted out, Im going with you (Tedlow, 2006: 111). When G

7、ordon Moore worked for Fairchild Semiconductor, he was an invaluable asset to the company in part because his leadership inspired dedication and commitment among subordinates like Andy Grove (Tedlow, 2006). Yet, as the anec- dote above illustrates, such inspirational leaders may also prove costly to

8、 organizations, when they leave, because their subordinates may leave and even follow them to their next destination. Leader departures have indeed been found to be posi- tively associated with employees subsequent turnover and thoughts about quitting (Ballinger, The authors greatly appreciate the d

9、evelopmental nature of the rigorous reviews provided by the AMR editor, Belle Rose Ragins, and our anonymous reviewers, thereby demonstrating mentoring at its best. Lehman, & Schoorman, 2010; Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006; Maertz & Kmitta, 2012; Ng & Feldman, 2013; Seibert, K

10、raimer, Holtom, & Pierotti, 2013) and, conversely, nega- tively associated with employees organizational attachment or desire to stay (cf. Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; Hom, Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth, 2012; Tsui, Egan, & OReilly, 1992). This prior work, however, has inadequately identified (1) the underl

11、ying psychological process by which leader departures weaken employees organi- zational attachment and (2) crucial moderators that arrestor bolsterthis detachment effect (and mechanisms through which they work). The void in understanding is due to the fact that in only two studies have scholars exam

12、ined mech- anisms that may explain how leader departures affect followers organizational attachment (Ballinger et al., 2010; Ng & Feldman, 2013), and in each of these studies the mediating mechanisms pertained to only leader-related qualities. Specifically, Ng and Feldman (2013: 655) reasoned that l

13、eader departures diminish organizational 479 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for ind

14、ividual use only. 480 Academy of Management Review July attachment because they elicit negative affect in employees (i.e., feelings of uncertainty and risk and, hence, perceived workplace instability), prompting them to make sense of their leaders “abandoning ship” in ways that lessen their or- gani

15、zational trust (undermining their confidence that “the firm will continue to be a competent, vi- able, and ongoing business enterprise” where they can stay employed). Ballinger et al. (2010) theorized that subordinates quit when a depart- ing leaders exchange relationship (LMX) with them (cf. Scandu

16、ra & Graen, 1984) has been high rather than low quality. Consistent with this but conversely stated, Ballinger and Schoorman (2007) postulated that subordinates likely strengthen their appreciation for, and hence attachment to, their organization when their sensemaking of a leaders departure leads t

17、hem to feel benefited, as occurs when they have had a poor-quality re- lationship with the departing leader (for a similar view see Rothausen, Henderson, Arnold, & Malshe, in press). On the one hand, high-quality relationships “are characterized by honesty, the open ex- change of information, and su

18、pport” (Banks et al., 2014: 274) and offer more socioemotional and in- strumental support (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). On the other hand, low-quality relationships lack these attributes. Subordinates therefore likely suffer a greater sense of loss and di

19、sruption when leader departures involve leaders with whom they have had high- rather than low-LMX re- lationships. Indeed, Ballinger et al. identified the severance of high-LMX relationships as poten- tially “a force that actually drives an individual away from an organization” (2010: 25), whereas m

20、anagement scholars typically recognize high- LMX relationships as a force embedding in- dividuals in organizations (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2011). Ballinger et al.s (2010) finding that higher follower turnover is associated with higher-LMX relationships supports this view and led them to infer th

21、at only higher-LMX relation- ships involving departing leaders can potentiate deleterious effects. By implication, a leader de- parture that interrupts high-LMX relationships thus constitutes a critical event that prompts subordinates to think about quittingotherwise known as “organizational shock,”

22、 according to the unfolding model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996; Maertz & Kmitta, 2012). We agree with Ng and Feldman (2013) that leader departures likely provoke employees to feel uncertain about their future and, thus, to engage in cognitive appraisal or s

23、ensemaking. Contrary to their logic, however, we highlight that this ap- praisal is characterized by varying levels of con- cern and that this concern level depends on both (1) the quality of the relationship a subordinate has had with the departing leader and (2) the quality of the relationship thi

24、s subordinate has with other organizational members. With regard to the first point, as noted above, some subordinates may view the loss of a leader as beneficial, as is likely when that leader is one with whom the sub- ordinates have had low LMX (Ballinger et al., 2010; Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007)

25、. However, when employees lose leaders with whom they have had good relationships, their sense of loss will be greater and may therefore weaken their desire to stay with their organization. With regard to the second point, and contrary to prior perspectives taking an LMX approach (e.g., Ballinger et

26、 al., 2010; Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Rothausen et al., in press), we posit that other workplace relationships may also shape subordinates organizational attachment. After all, employees may form high-quality relation- ships with other organizational members across all job levels (e.g., subordina

27、tes, teammates, other managers). Indeed, Kahn (1993, 1998, 2001, 2007) maintains that employees attachment to organi- zations hinges on how positive their attachments are with all who make up their “relational system” at workthat is, those with whom they interact to carry out role and task responsib

28、ilities. By exten- sion, a more thorough account of employees or- ganizational attachment requires identifying the relationships they have, not only with their su- pervisor but also with all those with whom they interact to do their work. Similarly and more em- phatically, Dutton and Heaphy (2003) d

29、escribe the quality of employees relationships throughout the organization as key to understanding their health and well-being, of which organizational attachment is a part (for an elaboration see Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). This articles purpose is twofold: (1) to formulate a 360-degree relational mode

30、l incorporating all types of relational attachmentssupervisory and nonsupervisorythat may underpin the organi- zational attachment of subordinates left behind by departing leaders, and (2) to include and account for the whole spectrum of relationship 2016 Shapiro, Hom, Shen, and Agarwal 481 quality

31、in the model. In so doing, we extend pre- liminary theorizing by Ng and Feldman (2013) and Ballinger et al. (2010) about how leader departures affect subordinate attachment to organizations. Enhanced understanding about leader-departure effects in organizations has practical as well as theoretical i

32、mportance. This is because organi- zations pay anywhere from 90 percent to 200 per- cent of leavers annual salaries to recruit and train replacements (Cascio, 2006), while suffering production disruptions and revenue losses due to turnover (Jiang, Baker, & Frazier, 2009). Addition- ally, organizatio

33、ns lose knowledge about their technologies, internal operations, strategies, and customers to rival organizations that hire their former employees (Kerstetter, 2000; Rosenkopf & Almeida, 2003), thus incurring a competitive dis- advantage when those exiting are, like Andy Grove, extremely talented em

34、ployees who opt to move with a departing leader (Agarwal, Camp- bell, Franco, & Ganco, in press; Gardner, 2005; Somaya, Williamson, & Lorinkova, 2008). Our theorized relationships are summarized in the model shown in Figure 1. Since these re- lationships include phenomena at the individual level (i.

35、e., subordinates identification with the departing leader and organization), group level (i.e., turnover contagion), and organizational level (i.e., organization-wide developmental climate), we contend that multilevel theorizing and concepts can best explicate how leader departures can undermine or

36、strengthen subordinates organi- zational attachment. Our model thus provides managers as well as scholars with a multilevel approach for deciphering and managing orga- nizational attachmentstrengthening as well as organizational attachmentweakening effects of leader departures in organizations. For

37、scholars, this could mean empirically testing the multilevel conceptual framework we offer. For practitioners, this could mean creating mentoring relationships from multiple sources and hierarchical levels in their organization, thereby building a robust de- velopmental climate to retain employees d

38、uring FIGURE 1 A Process Model of Variables Influencing a Subordinates Organizational Attachment Following Leader Departures Strength of organization-wide developmental climate K/P11: I/P9:+ Size of turnover contagion/lift-outs H/P8:+ Size of subordinates developmental network J/P10:+ Subordinates L

39、MX with departing leader Group/organizational-level dynamics Individual-level dynamics E/P5:+ C/P3:+ Subordinates identification with organization Subordinates identification with departing leader Voluntary departure of A/P1:+ F/P6: G/P7: D/P4:+ Subordinates concern re: Subordinates organizational l

40、eader Leader-departure effect his/her future in the organization B/P2: organizational attachment 482 Academy of Management Review July times of organizational shock, such as leader departures. Our formulation pertains to leader-departure effects in organizations that are viable, not dying. This boun

41、dary condition accords with Campbell, Ganco, Franco, and Agarwals (2012) perspective and enables us to complement their macrolevel observations of how employee mobility harms source organizations with a microlevel view. As illustrated by our opening anecdote, our theory pertains to leader turnover t

42、hat is voluntary (or leaver initiated), not involuntary (or employer initiated; Hom & Griffeth, 1995), and motivated by the leaders pursuit of a new career opportunity. As such, our conceptual analysis excludes leader departures due to labor force exits (e.g., retirement, full-time care work) or the

43、 duress of poor performance or real (or accused) scandals or transgressions. Admittedly, some cases of leader turnover reflect both involuntary and vol- untary causes, as when an inside CEO candidate fails to get the top job in the current organization but is sought after as CEO by another organiza-

44、 tion (Vancil, 1987). Finally, to isolate our focus on how subordinates organizational attachment is influenced by (only) the shock associated with their leaders departure, our examination ex- cludes other types of shocks that require sub- ordinates to change jobs, such as emergence of acute health

45、needs or job-holding and promotion- getting contingencies necessitating geographic relocation (e.g., Kulik, Treuren, & Bordia, 2012; Lee et al., 1996). Our framework pertains exclusively to leader departure and the dynamics it sets into play that ultimately influence the organizational attachment of

46、 subordinates left behind. In the re- mainder of this article we review literature guid- ing the relationships proposed in our model; we conclude by discussing their theoretical and practical implications. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT Overall, our formulation posits that subordi- nates c

47、ognitive appraisal mediates how voluntary leader departures influence their organizational attachment such that those interpreting such events as organizational shocks will begin projec- ting their future organizational lives without their leaders. The likelihood that employees will feel uncertainan

48、d, hence, engage in sensemaking following leader departures was noted by Ng and Feldman (2013); unlike them, however, we submit that such sensemaking is intermingled with varying levels of concern. In Figure 1 we use the label “Subordinates concern re: his/her future in the organization” to reflect

49、the fact that the assessmentalthough it may ultimately be optimisticis prompted by initially felt concern (of varying degrees) about the implications of a leaders departure. This initially felt concern is natural in light of the many valued resources that leaders directly or indirectly control. Such control includes (but is not limited to) leaders allocations of rewards, jobs/promotions, developmental op- portunities, career-enhancing network introduc- tions, and even le