Advances in Psychology
Vol. 09  No. 09 ( 2019 ), Article ID: 32082 , 8 pages
10.12677/AP.2019.99192

A Review of Attachment and Leadership: Understanding Leadership from the Perspective of Intimate Relationship

Zheming Xu

School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC), Chengdu Sichuan

Received: Aug. 14th, 2019; accepted: Sep. 2nd, 2019; published: Sep. 9th, 2019

ABSTRACT

Leadership has long been a hot topic in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. With the deepening understanding of leadership, scholars have found that the interpersonal relationship between leaders and employees would be the key factor which affects the achievement of leadership process. From the perspective of intimate relationship, an in-depth understanding of individual attachment style can help us to unfold the complexity of leadership and comprehend the relationship between leaders and followers. This paper first reviews the theory of attachment, and then analyzes the influence of attachment on leadership from four aspects including leadership behavior, leadership style, leader-member relationship and leadership outcomes on followers. Future research should further focus on the impact of leader attachment on employees’ performance and conduct empirical studies on the impact of attachment on leadership in the background of Chinese culture.

Keywords:Attachment, Intimate Relationship, Leadership

依恋关系与领导力的研究综述: 从亲密关系的视角理解领导表现

许哲铭

电子科技大学公共管理学院,四川 成都

收稿日期:2019年8月14日;录用日期:2019年9月2日;发布日期:2019年9月9日

摘 要

长期以来,领导力的研究一直是工业与组织心理学领域的热门课题。随着学界对领导力研究的深入,学者们发现领导与员工之间的人际关系是影响领导过程顺利实现的关键因素。从亲密关系的视角出发,对个体依恋风格进行深入的理解,有助于洞察领导过程的复杂性和领导者与追随者之间的关系。本文对依恋关系的相关理论进行了回顾,并从领导行为、领导风格、领导–成员关系和领导结果等四个方面梳理了依恋对领导力的影响。未来的研究可以进一步关注领导者依恋对员工表现带来的影响,同时拓展在本土背景下的相关实证研究。

关键词 :依恋关系,亲密关系,领导力

Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

长期以来,领导力的研究一直是工业与组织心理学领域的热门课题。领导力,是一种在组织背景下,基于领导者与追随者关系互动而产生的凝聚团体、感召他人、驱动组织健康发展与快速成长的能力。随着学界对领导力研究的深入,学者们发现领导与员工之间的人际关系是影响领导过程顺利实现的关键因素(Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2016; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Thompson, Glasø, & Matthiesen, 2016; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014)。从亲密关系的视角出发,对个体依恋风格进行深入的理解,有助于洞察领导的复杂性和领导者与追随者之间的关系。以领导者内部工作模式作为切入点,能够让我们更好的理解他们对员工的管理方式、沟通交流方式以及培养训练方式(Bresnahan & Mitroff, 2007)。基于此,许多实证研究开始使用依恋理论来描述和预测领导者在组织中的行为(Underwood, 2015)、风格(Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000)、以及对领导–员工关系(Thompson et al., 2016)和员工表现带来的影响(De Sanctis, 2012)。遗憾的是,目前探讨依恋与领导力相关的研究主要集中在国外,国内学者对依恋在组织情境中的研究屈指可数。因此,本文将对现有的相关研究成果进行梳理和评价,以期为更多研究者提供研究兴趣和思路。

2. 依恋理论回顾

2.1. 依恋理论的起源

依恋(attachment)是婴儿为获得安全感和舒适感,而试图与养育者建立的一种长期、持续的情感联结。依恋关系是个体早期生活中最重要的社会关系,是个体社会性发展的开端和人生经历中重要的组成部分(吴薇莉,简渝嘉&方莉,2004)。根据Bowlby的观点,当个体受到生理或心理威胁时,他们的依恋系统会自动激活,并指导个体去寻求依恋对象的安慰和关心(Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)。此时,依恋对象(通常是父母或养育者)能够为个体提供支持和保护,从而降低个体的焦虑感和恐惧感(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)。通常,婴儿与依恋对象之间的关系有如下三个特征:1) 保持接近。当婴儿感到内心痛苦时,他们会主动寻找依恋对象,并寻求与其亲近;2) 获得安全感。依恋对象为婴儿提供支持和安慰,能够有效缓解婴儿的痛苦;3) 安全基地。依恋对象能够为婴儿探索外部世界提供鼓励性支持和安全保障(Hazan & Shaver, 1994)。

依恋系统(attachment system)在婴儿时期便得到发展,并且该系统将会持续、终生的影响个体在亲密关系中的情绪认知和行为表现(Carpenter, 2001)。个体与养育者之间的互动关系会通过内化作用而形成内部工作模式(internal working model),这是一套关于自己、他人、以及关系的心理表征,影响着人们对事物和环境的看法(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016)。依恋对象(养育者)给予个体情感反馈的及时性和关爱程度是影响内部工作模式形成的关键因素。内部工作模式分为“他人模型”和“自我模型”两个方面:“他人模型”指当个体需要帮助时,个体认为他人是否是可靠的、值得信赖的;“自我模型”指个体认为自己是否值得被照顾和关爱(Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)。研究发现,个体的内部工作模式一旦形成,就会变得相对稳定,从而能够影响个体对自我和他人的期望,塑造成年后人际社会功能的表达、自我图式和社会认知,影响个体在浪漫关系、朋友关系、工作关系中的行为表现(Albert, Allen, Biggane, & Ma, 2015; Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Fraley & Shaver, 2000)。

2.2. 依恋类型的划分

学界对于依恋的划分持有不同的观点,如Main,Kaplan和Cassidy (1985)认为成人依恋分为自主、拒绝、先占三种类型;Kobak和Sceery (1988)将成人依恋划分为三种类型:安全(Secure)、冷漠(Dismissing)和先占(Preoccupied)。Bartholomew和Horowitz (1991)以Bowlby提出的内部工作模型作为基础参考,将回避型依恋根据对自我的看法,进一步分成了两个子类型加以区分:其中轻视–回避型(dismissive-avoidant)个体对自己持有积极看法而对他人持有消极看法;另一种类型为恐惧–回避型(fear-avoidant),个体对自己和他人都持有消极看法,对亲密关系感到恐惧和对社会交往产生回避行为。Collins (1996)总结了前人的重要研究成果,指出儿童时期发展起来依恋类型和行为表现对于描述成人时期的依恋类型和表现有着重要的意义,认为成年人的依恋类型应以安全型(secure)、回避型(avoidant)、倾注型(preoccupied)进行划分。这种分类方法在后续的研究中得到了广泛的应用(Leiter, Day, & Price, 2015; Maslyn, Schyns, & Farmer, 2017; Scrima, Rioux, & Lorito, 2014; Thompson, Glasø, & Matthiesen, 2018)。

相关研究发现,三种依恋类型的个体在认知和行为表现上具有不同的特点。首先,安全型依恋在生活中表现的更加独立自主(Shalit, Popper, & Dan, 2010),他们拥有更高的自我复原能力,对亲密接触感到舒适,容易接受相互依赖的关系,对压力和恐惧的应对能力也很强(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) (Collins & Read, 1990; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016)。其次,焦虑性个体在关系中常感到无能感和无助感,因此他们沉迷于亲密关系,过度寻求安全保障,渴望得到认可(Goeke-Morey et al., 2013)。焦虑型个体采用的过度激活策略往往伴随着对依恋的对象的绝望和怀疑,从而会加剧关系质量、个体的自尊、关系满意度、自我价值感的下降(刘聚红,钟歆,王洋 & Jackson, 2015; Harms, 2011; Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996)。最后,回避型依恋的个体会压抑自己的想法并回避一切可能涉及到自我表露的亲近或亲密关系,强调自力更生和自我独立在关系中的重要性(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Richards & Schat, 2011; Rom & Mikulincer, 2003)。

3. 依恋在领导力领域的研究

3.1. 依恋与领导力

那么,依恋关系又是如何被拓展到领导力的研究领域中的呢?根据图式转换理论的观点,人们在早期与养育者互动过程中形成的关于自我和他人的表征模型不仅可以预测他们对养育者采取的情感反馈和情感表现,还能够被重新被运用于描述新的社会关系(Andersen & Cole, 1990; Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2006)。换句话说,任何可能激活个体依恋系统的关系都能够激活个体的内部工作模式,从而触发个体使用这种表征模型来进行评价和指导行为开展(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016)。Hazan和Shaver (1990)认为,领导-成员关系和爱情关系一样都是一种成人间的亲密联结关系,因此同样需要个体的情感投入和对他人的考虑。在组织情境中,由于长期共事将让领导与员工之间形成一种特殊的情感联结,据此,领导者也能承担起依恋对象的角色,为个体提供依恋功能(Davidovitz et al., 2007)。Mikulincer和Shaver (2007)对这种情感联结关系做了进一步的阐述,他们认为领导者在组织中扮演了类似家长的角色,不仅要照顾那些产生依赖感的员工,还要为他们提供支持感和安全感。由于在情境下所有的社会互动都是基于现实反应和过去的意向和情感转移,在处理关系的过程中,领导者依恋系统中的内部工作模式将发挥重要的重用,他们会依据自己早期形成的对自我和他人的内部表征来评价、解释和预测组织情境中的一系列事件(Popper & Mayseless, 2003)。

3.2. 对领导行为的影响

不同依恋类型的个体对自我和他人的看法截然不同,因此塑造了个体在领导职位上表现出的不同行为和不同领导风格(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2011)。另外,安全型依恋的领导者对组织中的人际关系持有较为积极的评价,对下属的能力持信任态度,因此表现出更多的授权行为(Johnston, 2000)。由于安全型对情感相关的需求感觉较为灵敏,因此在与员工相处时,安全型领导能够有效的把握员工的情感需要(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)。安全型领导在工作中对拥有更加充沛的精力,有更强的利他主义、合作共赢、礼貌待人精神,能为员工赋能,产生积极的导向作用(Geller & Bamberger, 2009)。非安全型依恋在组织中与消极行为的联系更为紧密。受消极的自我认同的影响,焦虑型依恋的领导在组织中对关系与情感的需求尤其重视,因此通常具有较强的控制性,试图利用自身所处的领导职位来寻求他人的认可,即采用控制和干涉行为来提升和巩固自己的价值(Davidovitz et al., 2007; Harms, 2011)。对回避型领导而言,消极的他人评价让他们更加关注自身,从而拒绝与下属进行过多的情感交流,愿意独自工作而不喜欢团队合作(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007)。这使得回避型领导忽视员工的个人成长,将注意力仅仅聚焦在任务执行上(Boatwright, Lopez, Sauer, Vanderwege, & Huber, 2010a)。

3.3. 对领导风格的影响

相关实证研究发现,安全型依恋的领导表现出更多的变革型领导行为和魅力型领导行为,在关注任务本身的同时,也能全面考虑到员工的个人成长。(Boatwright, Lopez, Sauer, Van Der Wege, & Huber, 2010b; Hansbrough, 2012; Underwood, 2015)。安全型依恋的领导者会表现出更多的如关心下属、理想化激励等变革型领导行为(Popper et al., 2000)。这与安全型依恋在养育子女过程中的积极回馈行为一致,安全型依恋的领导者既能有效扮演好安全基地的角色,也能及时对员工的情感进行回应并支持他们投身充满挑战的工作(Leiter et al., 2015)。相反,非安全依恋(焦虑型、回避型)较少的表现出如变革型领导、魅力型领导以及真诚型领导风格(Berson, Dan, & Yammarino, 2006; Underwood, 2015),特别的,回避型领导表现出更多的交易型领导风格,在组织管理中更加注重个人利益,决策方式上更加独裁(Popper, 2003)。

3.4. 对领导–成员交换关系的影响

领导者的依恋类型也直接关系到员工的表现。Keller (2003)的研究认为,当领导者与追随者的依恋模式一致时,其关系处于积极状态;当领导者与追随者的依恋模式不一致时,则领导–成员关系会受到消极影响。Hsu,Lin和Chen (2010)发现依恋模式和领导–成员关系存在显著的正相关,具有高关系自信、高信赖、高舒适的个体在情感–尊重、忠诚–贡献方面表现更好,更愿意与领导者发展交换关系(Hsu et al., 2010)。Thompson et al. (2016)从依恋配对的角度发现,当领导与下属的依恋类型匹配程度越时(如安全型领导对安全型员工),领导–成员交换关系水平得到最高;相反,当依恋类型不匹配时,双方对领导–成员交换关系的评价水平较低,比如,回避型领导在关系中期待独立自主,但焦虑型员工却一直向其表示亲近,这种不匹配反而会促进二者的矛盾,加剧关系恶化。Maslyn et al. (2017)也发现回避型依恋会直接导致更低的领导–成员交换关系。Hinojosa,Mccauley,Randolph-Seng和Gardner (2014)从真诚角度探索了依恋对领导–成员关系的影响,研究发现,当领导者与下属都为安全型依恋时,二者在相处过程中表现得会更加真诚。

3.5. 对员工表现的影响

Davidovitz et al. (2007)在一项能对军方士兵的研究显示,由于回避型依恋的领导者不能够及时的给予下属情感支持与回馈,导致了下属在情绪和精神健康方面的得分较安全型领导的团队更低。Ronen & Mikulincer (2012)发现非安全型依恋的领导者由于对亲密关系的处理方法存在不足,通常不能够有效的对员工的需求进行反馈,对员工的个人成长,职业发展等难以起到有效的引导作用,因而会导致员工出现更多的工作倦怠和较低的工作满意度。Kafetsios,Athanasiadou和Dimou (2014)研究了领导者依恋对员工情感体验和工作满意度的关系,结果发现,领导者的焦虑性依恋倾向越高,员工在工作中体验到的积极情绪则越低,对工作的满意程度也更低。有趣的是,领导者的回避型依恋倾向于员工在工作中体验到的消极情绪呈负相关,与工作满意度呈正相关,这可能是由于回避型依恋的领导较少的干涉员工的自主性,给予了员工更高的工作自由度。

4. 总结与展望

基于对目前研究的分析梳理,本文发现,依恋理论从亲密关系的角度解释了领导者在组织中的各种表现,丰富了我们对领导力的浮现和不同领导行为产生的原因的理解。然而,目前的研究仍存在一些不足,在此进行简要分析并提出了一些未来的研究方向:

1) 关注领导者依恋对员工表现的影响。目前,大多数研究重点仍主要停留在对领导者个人表现的层面,尽管有不少学者研究了领导–员工依恋类型配对带来的影响,但对于员工个人的影响却涉及较少。领导力的产生也同样依赖于被领导者的行为表现,因此,这种以割裂领导者和追随者的方式来研究领导力显然是不够全面的(Slater, Turner, Evans, & Jones, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014)。未来的相关研究在聚焦领导者本身的基础上,应该进一步拓展视野,从更多角度来探索依恋关系对于领导者和追随者之间关系运作的潜在影响;

2) 拓展依恋对领导力影响的本土化研究。在我国,有关依恋关系对领导、员工乃至依恋关系在组织中的相关实证研究都比较缺乏。一些以企事业单位为背景的研究更多聚焦于研究员工依恋类型对个人表现或组织发展的影响(郭亚鸣&李同归,2009;黄迎春,2016;朱迪&傅强,2016)。受文化背景影响,中国背景下所推崇的领导风格和领导行为与西方是存在差异的(李林&刘勇,2014),领导者的依恋关系在何种程度上能够塑造中国特色的领导表现,以及这种对亲密关系的评价会如何影响中国员工的表现,这一系列问题都值得深入探究。

致谢

感谢电子科技大学刘惠教授基于本文的思路给予的指导和批评指正。

文章引用

许哲铭. 依恋关系与领导力的研究综述:从亲密关系的视角理解领导表现
A Review of Attachment and Leadership: Understanding Leadership from the Perspective of Intimate Relationship[J]. 心理学进展, 2019, 09(09): 1582-1589. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2019.99192

参考文献

  1. 1. 郭亚鸣, 李同归(2009). 国有企业员工的团体依恋、组织承诺与工作倦怠. 第十二届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集(页535). 北京: 中国心理学会.

  2. 2. 黄迎春(2016). 员工依恋与组织公民行为: 领导–成员交换的中介作用. 硕士论文, 郑州: 河南大学.

  3. 3. 李林, 刘勇(2014). 变革型领导的前因变量综述. 人力资源管理, (6), 42-43.

  4. 4. 刘聚红, 钟歆, 王洋, Jackson, T. (2015). 爱情关系: 基于成人依恋风格的视角. 心理科学, (5), 1213-1217.

  5. 5. 吴薇莉, 简渝嘉, 方莉(2004). 成人依恋研究. 四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (3), 131-134.

  6. 6. 朱迪, 傅强(2016). 员工依恋风格、社会认同与建言行为: 辱虐管理之有调节的中介. 苏州大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, (5), 112-120.

  7. 7. Albert, L. S., Allen, D. G., Biggane, J. E., & Ma, Q. (2015). Attachment and Responses to Employment Dissolution. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.06.004

  8. 8. Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). “Do I Know You?” The Role of Significant Others in General Social Perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.384

  9. 9. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment Styles among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

  10. 10. Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Attachment Style and Individual Differences in Leadership Perceptions and Emergence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 165-182. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.2.165-182

  11. 11. Boatwright, K. J., Lopez, F. G., Sauer, E. M., Van Der Wege, A., & Huber, D. M. (2010b). The Influence of Adult Attachment Styles on Workers’ Preferences for Relational Leadership Behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150903316271

  12. 12. Boatwright, K. J., Lopez, F. G., Sauer, E. M., Vanderwege, A., & Huber, D. M. (2010a). The Influence of Adult Attachment Styles on Workers’ Preferences for Relational Leadership Behaviors. Werkstoffe Korrosion, 16, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150903316271

  13. 13. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  14. 14. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.

  15. 15. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression. New York: Basic Books.

  16. 16. Bresnahan, C. G., & Mitroff, I. I. (2007). Leadership and Attachment Theory. American Psychologist, 62, 607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.6.607

  17. 17. Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Transference and Attachment: How Do Attachment Patterns Get Carried forward from One Relationship to the Next? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 552-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282740

  18. 18. Carpenter, B. D. (2001). Attachment Bonds between Adult Daughters and Their Older Mothers Associations with Contemporary Caregiving. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56, 257. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.5.P257

  19. 19. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working Models of Attachment: Implications for Explanation, Emotion and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

  20. 20. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult Attachment, Working Models, and Relationship Quality in Dating Couples. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 644-663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644

  21. 21. Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as Attachment Figures: Leaders’ Attachment Orientations Predict Leadership-Related Mental Representations and Followers’ Performance and Mental Health. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 632-650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632

  22. 22. De Sanctis, M. (2012). A Multi-Level Investigation of Leadership from an Attachment Theory Perspective. ‎Victoria: Deakin University.

  23. 23. Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). Leadership and Followership Identity Processes: A Multilevel Review. Leadership Quarterly, 28, 104-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

  24. 24. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult Romantic Attachment: Theoretical Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132

  25. 25. Geller, D., & Bamberger, P. (2009). Bringing Avoidance and Anxiety to the Job: Attachment Style and Instrumental Helping Behavior among Co-Workers. Human Relations, 62, 1803-1827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709337524

  26. 26. Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cairns, E., Merrilees, C. E., Schermerhorn, A. C., Shirlow, P. et al. (2013). Maternal Religiosity, Family Resources and Stressors, and Parent-Child Attachment Security in Northern Ireland. Social Development, 22, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00659.x

  27. 27. Hansbrough, T. K. (2012). The Construction of a Transformational Leader: Follower Attachment and Leadership Perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1533-1549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00913.x

  28. 28. Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult Attachment Styles in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006

  29. 29. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and Work: An Attach-ment-Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 270-280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270

  30. 30. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an Organizational Framework for Research on Close Relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

  31. 31. Hinojosa, A. S., Mccauley, K. D., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and Follower Attachment Styles: Implications for Authentic Leader-Follower Relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 595-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002

  32. 32. Hsu, H. Y., Lin, S. P., & Chen, W. Y. (2010). The Relationship between Attachment Style and Leader-Member Exchange. Paper Presented at the Technology Management for Global Economic Growth.

  33. 33. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-Member Exchange and Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

  34. 34. Johnston, M. A. (2000). Delegation and Organizational Structure in Small Businesses: Influences of Manager’s Attachment Patterns. Group & Organization Management, 25, 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100251002

  35. 35. Kafetsios, K., Athanasiadou, M., & Dimou, N. (2014). Leaders’ and Subordinates’ Attachment Orientations, Emotion Regulation Capabilities and Affect at Work: A Multilevel Analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 512-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.010

  36. 36. Keller, T. (2003). Parental Images as a Guide to Leadership Sensemaking: An Attachment Perspective on Implicit Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9

  37. 37. Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in Late Adolescence: Working Models, Affect Regulation, and Representations of Self and Others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130395

  38. 38. Leiter, M. P., Day, A., & Price, L. (2015). Attachment Styles at Work: Measurement, Collegial Relationships, and Burnout. Burnout Research, 2, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.003

  39. 39. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in Infancy, Childhood, and Adulthood: A Move to the Level of Representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333827

  40. 40. Maslyn, J. M., Schyns, B., & Farmer, S. M. (2017). Attachment Style and Leader-Member Exchange: The Role of Effort to Build High Quality Relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38, 450-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2016-0023

  41. 41. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2011). Adult Attachment and Caregiving: Individual Differences in Providing a Safe Haven and Secure Base to Others. In Moving beyond Self-Interest: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, and the Social Sciences (pp. 39-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388107.003.0018

  42. 42. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Reflections on Security Dynamics: Core Constructs, Psychological Mechanisms, Relational Contexts, and the Need for an Integrative Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701512893

  43. 43. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford Press.

  44. 44. Popper, M. (2003). Narcissism and Attachment Patterns of Personalized and Socialized Charismatic Leaders. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 19, 797-809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502196004

  45. 45. Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to Basics: Applying a Parenting Perspective to Transformational Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00183-2

  46. 46. Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational Leadership and Attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00038-2

  47. 47. Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (Not to) Work: Applying Attachment Theory to Explain Individual Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020372

  48. 48. Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment Theory and Group Processes: The Association between Attachment Style and Group-Related Representations, Goals, Memories, and Functioning. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 1220-1235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220

  49. 49. Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Predicting Employees’ Satisfaction and Burnout from Managers’ Attachment and Caregiving Orientations. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21, 828-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.595561

  50. 50. Scrima, F., Rioux, L., & Lorito, L. (2014). Three-Factor Structure of Adult Attachment in the Workplace: Comparison of British, French, and Italian Samples. Psychological Reports, 115, 627-642. https://doi.org/10.2466/49.PR0.115c25z2

  51. 51. Shalit, A., Popper, M., & Dan, Z. (2010). Followers’ Attachment Styles and Their Preference for Social or for Personal Charismatic Leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 458-472. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011056461

  52. 52. Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment Styles and Internal Working Models of Self and Relationship Partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach (pp. 25-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  53. 53. Slater, M. J., Turner, M. J., Evans, A. L., & Jones, M. V. (2018). Capturing Hearts and Minds: The Influence of Relational Identification with the Leader on Followers’ Mobilization and Cardiovascular Reactivity. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.08.003

  54. 54. Thompson, P. M. M., Glasø, L., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2016). Leader-Follower Dyads through the Lens of Attachment Theory. Attachment Style as a Predictor of LMX. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2016, Article ID: 14688. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.248

  55. 55. Thompson, P. M. M., Glasø, L., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2018). The Way I See You. Implicit Followership Theories Explored through the Lens of Attachment. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 21, 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000069

  56. 56. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

  57. 57. Underwood, R. (2015). Attachment Style, Leadership Behavior, and Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness in Academic Management. Journal of Leadership Education, 15, 100-116.

期刊菜单