心理科学进展, 2019, 27(4): 571-586 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00571

研究构想

骏马易见, 伯乐难寻:决策者心智模式影响创意识别的机制及边界条件

白新文,1, 齐舒婷1,2, 明晓东1,2, 周意勇1,2, 黄明权1,2

1中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室, 北京 100101

2中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京 100049

Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition

BAI Xinwen,1, QI Shuting1,2, MING Xiaodong1,2, ZHOU Yiyong1,2, HUANG Mingquan1,2

1 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

2 Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

通讯作者: 白新文, Email: baixw@psych.ac.cn

收稿日期: 2018-09-21   网络出版日期: 2019-04-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金面上项目.  71871214
国家重点研发计划项目.  2016YFC0802600

Received: 2018-09-21   Online: 2019-04-15

摘要

当前组织创造力和创新研究与实践的一大误区, 是重视员工的创意生成而忽视决策者的创意识别。决策者对组织创新的影响更大, 探讨决策者创意识别的影响因素及其作用机制, 是本领域研究的新方向。决策者的心智模式——即个体用以描述、解释和预测事物并指导判断和决策的知识及信念结构, 是影响创意识别准确性的关键因素。然而, 其重要性尚未得到充分认识。本项目以创造力的系统观作为理论框架, 综合采用实验和现场研究方法, 通过4个子研究揭示固着型与成长型两类决策者的心智模式影响创意识别的中介机制, 并探讨决策者、创造者和环境三个子系统影响决策者创意识别的协同作用。本项目从决策者角度探讨其创意识别的过程及结果, 在理论上为组织创造力和创新研究引入了新视角和新议题, 并有望为决策者如何规避创新决策的陷阱提供实践指导。

关键词: 组织创造力与创新 ; 决策者 ; 创意识别 ; 心智模式 ; 固着型/成长型心智模式

Abstract

As one of the major limitations in organizational creativity and innovation research, much endeavor has been focused on idea generation rather than on idea recognition. Recognizing creative ideas among many options is the most crucial stage in the long process of organizational innovation, and contributes more to its success than generating ideas does. The critical role of decision maker’s mental model—the knowledge and belief structure that individuals use to describe, interpret, predict outside world, and to make judgment and decisions—on idea recognition has yet been examined. By adopting Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988, 1999) system view of creativity, the current study aims a) to demonstrate the difference in idea recognition accuracy between decision makers holding a fixed mindset or a growth mindset; b) to reveal the mediating effect of decision makers’ uncertainty tolerance decision makers; and c) to investigate the moderating effects of idea features and the pattern of organizational innovation practice. The current study contributes to organizational creativity and innovation literature by introducing a new perspective to this field. Also, decision makers can gain insight on how to avoid costly mistakes by reflecting on and modifying mental models of their own.

Keywords: organizational creativity & innovation ; decision makers ; idea recognition ; mental models ; fixed/growth mindsets

PDF (885KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

白新文, 齐舒婷, 明晓东, 周意勇, 黄明权. (2019). 骏马易见, 伯乐难寻:决策者心智模式影响创意识别的机制及边界条件. 心理科学进展, 27(4), 571-586

BAI Xinwen, QI Shuting, MING Xiaodong, ZHOU Yiyong, HUANG Mingquan. (2019). Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(4), 571-586

……千里马常有, 而伯乐不常有……曰: “天下无马!” 呜呼!其真无马邪?其真不知马也。——韩愈《马说》

1 问题提出

创造力和创新是个体和机构获取相对竞争优势、谋求长足发展的最重要驱动因素。为了实现创新, 众多机构不约而同地投入了大量资源, 以期激励员工产生更多新颖且有价值的创意、产品、服务或流程(Amabile, 1996; Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017; Zhou & Hoever, 2014)。然而, 正如开头引文所言, 组织的创新瓶颈常常并不是员工缺乏创意, 更多时候可能是因为决策者无法将真正有潜力的创意鉴别出来。组织的决策者一边抱怨创意匮乏, 另一边却不能慧眼相马, 识别出真正有潜力的创意。商业发展史上, 伟大创意被决策层错误否决的例子可谓层出不穷。例如, 诺基亚公司是最早推出触屏智能手机的厂商之一, 但却错失了智能手机这一革命性的市场机遇而仍然专注于移动手机市场, 最终被彻底颠覆, 诺基亚手机业务最后亦被微软收购; 中国移动早在2007年就研发推出了飞信这款领先的个人即时通讯工具, 但最后却错失了以微信为代表的个人即时通讯市场, 目前在移动互联网大潮中举步维艰。由此可见, 将重心放在创意产生(idea generation), 而忽视决策者如何高效地开展创意识别(idea recognition)工作, 是组织创新实践领域的一大误区。对组织创新而言, 决策者如何提升创意识别的准确率, 筛选出真正有价值的创意进行培育、完善、落实并推进更为关键。因而, 将焦点从员工的创意产生转向决策者的创意识别, 既是组织创新实践的需要, 也将为组织创造力和创新研究领域引入新视角, 甚至产生研究范式的转变(Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012)。

在创意总体数量多、但有价值的创意数量少且组织资源有限的现实背景下, 决策者必须通过有效的创意识别以更好地匹配资源。但是, 决策者常常无法有效地将最有价值的创意识别出来, 而是做出错误判断(Mueller et al., 2012; Mueller, Melwani, Loewenstein, & Deal, 2018), 有时决策者的判断甚至还不如普通人准确(Berg, 2016)。创意识别的结果决定了组织创新启动的方向, 揭示影响决策者创意识别准确性的决定因素, 是本领域需要优先探讨的议题。有限几个研究敏锐地注意到, 决策者所秉持的心智模式, 是影响其如何识别创意的关键因素(Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Mueller et al., 2018)。心智模式(mental models)是个体对特定领域内各种关键要素如何彼此相连的结构化的知识体系, 是个体理解当前情境并进行判断和决策所依赖的内部心理机制(Johnson-Laird, 2010; Rouse & Morris, 1986)。在创意识别过程中, 决策者依赖自身建构的心智模式进行决策和判断(Elsbach & Kramer, 2003), 而心智模式也会影响判断准确性(Mueller et al., 2018)。探讨决策者心智模式对创意识别的影响及其机制, 是本领域的新议题。目前而言, 决策者心智模式的重要性没有得到充分认识, 作用机制更待进一步探讨。

鉴于此, 本项目以创造力系统观(The Systems View of Creativity) (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999)为统领性理论框架, 从决策者角度入手, 探讨决策者的成长型/固着型心智模式(growth/fixed mindsets)1(1 Mental models和mindsets两个概念内涵接近, 相对而言前者更加严谨, 多见于正式的学术性文章, 后者则多见于通俗情境。本项目相互通用, 不作严格区分, 并统一翻译为心智模式。)如何影响其创意识别的效果; 并进一步探究作为组织创新看门人的决策者、作为识别对象的创造者子系统、作为情景因素的组织环境子系统如何相互作用, 共同影响决策者的创意识别。

本项目有望对组织创造力和创新的理论和实践做出贡献。理论层面, 项目将研究视角从创造者转向决策者, 首次提出围绕决策者的心智模式, 探讨创意识别的影响因素, 并采用系统观综合探讨决策者与组织创新其他子系统的交互作用, 为组织创造力和创新领域带来新的研究视角和新的研究主题。实践层面, 项目关于决策者心智模式的研究成果, 可以为决策者如何避免决策陷阱, 优化心智模式及提升创意识别能力提供理论指导。

2 文献综述

接下来, 首先回顾组织创造力的研究现状, 指出存在的误区, 并以创造力系统观为指导提出创意识别研究的总体思路; 然后总结决策者创意识别的各种偏差, 并初步分析其主要原因; 最后探讨决策者心智模式在创意识别中可能起到的作用。

2.1 创意识别在组织创新过程中的重要性

组织创造力研究主要探讨了在特定组织环境下, 员工产生新颖且有价值的创意、产品、服务或流程的过程及结果(Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993)。经过多年发展, 该领域成果丰富。前人研究表明个体特征、领导行为、团队特征、组织氛围等因素, 以及诸因素之间的交互作用显著影响员工创造力(Anderson, Potocnik, & Zhou, 2014; West & Sacramento, 2012; Zhou & Hoever, 2014)。然而, 也有研究者指出, 不能仅关注创意的产生阶段, 对组织机构而言, 创意实施(idea implementation)更加关键(West, 2002)——让新颖创意体现出其潜在价值, 产生实质性影响, 才能真正实现组织创新。因而, 要通过创造力在组织内获取竞争优势, 在提出创意之后, 员工还必须向各方积极推广自己的创意(Janssen, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994), 并获得关键他人支持(Baer, 2012; Lingo & O'Mahony, 2010; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), 使得创意得以实施。

但对组织创新而言, 创意数量不是重点, 质量才是关键。Chandy, Hopstaken, Narasimhan和Prabhu (2006)发现, 研发数量多的制药公司, 其产品转化效果并不好; 研发转化成功率最高的, 反而是那些研发数量中等、但能专注于自己专长范围、选取高质量研发项目进行转化的公司。毫无疑问, 将真正具有价值的少数创意识别出来, 经过反复打磨完善后逐步实施, 才是决定组织创新能否取得成效的关键环节(Berg, 2016)。一旦在创意识别环节就出现重大失误, 比如选择了不佳项目加以推进, 不但创新目标难以实现, 还浪费了组织资源和创新机遇(Kornish & Ulrich, 2014)。另一种失误更加难以觉察, 即否决了极具潜力的创意从而错失了有望获得成功的创新。大多数情况下创意数量多, 但真正有价值的创意却相对稀缺, 决策者必须花费大量人力、物力和时间才能完成创意评估和筛选(Stevens & Burley, 1997)。

创意识别连接着创意产生和创意实施环节, 是组织切实启动创新的关键环节(Berg, 2016; Zhou, Wang, Song, & Wu, 2017)。然而, 组织创造力和创新领域的一大误区, 恰好是组织仅关注如何激发员工提出新创意或如何推进创意实施, 而忽略了创新管理和决策者如何进行创意识别(Mueller et al., 2012)。要走出这一误区, 需要转变研究视角, 将焦点从产生创意的创造者, 转移到负责创意识别的决策者身上, 探讨影响决策者创意识别准确性的因素、作用机制以及边界条件。

Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1999)的创造力系统观, 为组织创造力研究视角的转变提供了理论框架(见图1)。该理论借鉴进化论思想, 其核心观点是, 任何一项创造成果的产生, 都是三个子系统——个体、领域(field)与范畴(domain)交互作用的结果。具体而言, 一项创造成果的产生历经三个阶段:(1)范畴内一系列法则和实践指明何为有价值的内容, 这些信息传递给个人, 并成为个人创造的准则和依据; (2)个体作为创造者, 产生异于范畴内既有实践的创意; (3)该变异能否留存下来成为范畴内的重要成就, 还必须经过领域的选择。领域发挥看门人(gatekeeper)的作用, 根据范畴的规则和实践加以判断和选择。这决定了个体创意能否进入范畴并为其他个体所知晓。创意如果通过了选择, 则被认可成为范畴中的创造性成就得以传衍下去, 成为范畴的一部分并影响其他个体的后续创造过程; 否则就会像大多数新颖想法一样被遗忘掉。扮演看门人角色的人, 通常是范畴或特定领域的关键决策者, 例如学校老师、组织管理者、基金会和学术机构官员、期刊编辑和/或审稿人、投资机构投资人等。上述三个子系统的交互作用体现在:范畴为创造者及决策者的创新活动提供信息及指导准则; 创造者产生创意并提交给决策者评议, 后者依据准则进行评估与选择; 创造者和决策者的互动, 最终又为范畴提供了新的信息。

图1

图1   创造力的系统观

资料来源:Csikszentmihalyi, 1999.


创造力系统观同样可以用来解释组织创新过程和结果。创意产生实质上也是一种变异(Mainemelis, 2010)。但是, 员工产生的有别于组织当前产品、流程和服务的新想法是否有价值, 其倡议的创新能否在组织内得以启动, 从而发挥实质性影响, 还取决于看门人(即各层级决策者)对之识别与评估的结果(Kickul & Gundry, 2001)。组织分工决定了员工和决策者各自扮演不同角色, 员工作为创造者主要承担创意产生的工作, 决策者则以认可、支持、否决他人创意的方式参与组织创新(Mueller, 2017: p.100)。而且很多情况下, 决策者对组织创新的影响通常高于负责产品研发与实施的创造者(Mollick, 2012)。此外, 组织机构一方面为两者提供资源, 另一方面又通过设定正式规则或非正式规范对创新活动加以引导和约束。由此可见, 组织创新的三个关键要素——创造者、决策者与组织环境——正好对应于个体、领域和范畴三个子系统, 三者相互作用, 共同影响组织创新。

需要指出的是, 组织创造力和创新领域的现有研究大多聚焦于员工这一创造者子系统, 仅关注员工的变异产生过程和结果, 相对忽视决策者的关键角色。我们认为, 从创造力系统观出发, 将视角从创造者转向决策者, 探讨决策者创意识别的过程、结果、影响因素及其作用机制, 是本领域的新方向。

2.2 决策者创意识别的初步研究

新近几项研究为创意识别的研究提供了有益启示(Berg, 2016; Mueller et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2017)。但总体而言, 对创意识别的探讨仍处于起步阶段, 数量亟需增加, 研究深度和议题多元化程度也有待加强。前人的多数研究还停留在讨论决策者创意识别是否出现偏差这一问题上, 对影响准确率高低的因素的讨论不足。接下来, 我们简要总结决策者创意识别研究的现状。

在组织创造与创新活动中, 决策者角色的主要职责包括鉴别创意质量, 筛选出合适创意, 并进行预算分配, 进度监控, 最终推动其成功实施(Mueller et al., 2018)。上至组织管理架构的最高层, 下至项目负责人、团队小组长、一线部门经理等基层领导者, 都或多或少承担决策者角色。随着管理层级上移, 相应级别决策者的责任更重、影响面更大。创意识别通常围绕着创意的新颖程度、潜在价值和实施成熟度三个指标来开展, 是一个多轮反复评估的过程(Stevens & Burley, 1997)。通常, 新颖度判断是创意识别第一步, 如果被认为缺乏足够新颖度, 创意识别实际上就终止了(Diedrich, Benedek, Jauk, & Neubauer, 2015; Ford & Sullivan, 2004)。随着阶段深入, 决策者还将进一步考虑其价值大小, 在后期还可能会考虑实施成熟度, 包括实施该创意对时间、人力、资金等组织资源投入的要求(Dailey & Mumford, 2006)。

决策者判断失误的例子非常普遍。无论是在科研学术领域, 如基金评审(Boudreau, Guinan, Lakhani, & Riedl, 2016)、论文评审(Siler, Lee, & Bero, 2015), 还是在商业机构(Criscuolo, Dahlander, Grohsjean, & Salter, 2017), 决策者常常都无法识别和正确选择高质量的创意, 而是将其扼杀掉。即使是新颖度判断, 不同人都存在巨大分歧(Mueller et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2017); 对实施效果进行预测, 误差更是不可避免(Berg, 2016)。

决策者创意识别的偏差还体现为惩罚高新颖度的创意。Criscuolo等(2017)发现, 公司研发项目的经费获批率(即批准额度和申请额度的比例)与项目的新颖程度呈倒U型曲线关系, 中等新颖程度的项目经费获批率最高, 而新颖度高的项目, 经费获批率则较低。Boudreau等(2016)对科研项目申请书的分析也有类似发现, 申请书新颖程度每提高一个单位, 该申请书的同行评议排名就下降4.5个百分位。

为何决策者会出现识别错误?一般认为, 拥有丰富领域知识的专家才能胜任评估职责(Kaufman, Baer, Cropley, Reiter-Palmon, & Sinnett, 2013)。但出乎意料, 决策者拥有丰富的领域知识似乎对降低识别误差的帮助并不大。Siler等(2015)分析了医学领域三个最顶尖专业期刊的拒稿情况, 结果发现, 后来在该领域产生最大影响的14篇论文, 都曾向这三个期刊投稿但无一例外被拒稿。而且其中12篇是编辑直接拒稿(desk rejection), 这说明编辑认为这些论文没有价值, 甚至没有达到送审标准。由此可见, 具有丰富专业知识和经验的顶尖学术期刊编辑也经常出现严重失误。

Berg (2016)认为, 决策者常常判断失误, 主要是没有综合运用发散性和聚合性思维方法。他比较了职业马戏团管理者和节目创作者预测马戏节目是否受欢迎的准确率, 结果发现, 管理者的预测显著比创作者差, 其眼光甚至还不如普通人精准。作者推测, 由于角色不同, 管理者和创作者采用了不同的思维技能。节目创作者需要综合运用发散性思维和聚合性思维, 因而能更准确识别节目的创意水平; 而决策者只采用聚合性思维, 依赖过往积累的常规经验来判断, 缺乏对创意产生过程的开放性和敏感度, 随之也失去了洞察力。然而作者只限于猜测, 并没有直接检验思维技能的作用。

决策者的创意识别, 也是个人特征和环境因素交互作用的结果(Zhou et al., 2017)。Zhou等(2017)发现, 与预防定向的人相比, 促进定向的人给高新颖度的创意以更高评价; 同时, 环境因素也影响创意识别, 当组织鼓励创新时, 员工对新颖程度高的创意评价更高; 特别是, 当所处环境强调要回避风险时, 预防定向的人对创意新颖程度的评价更趋于保守。

鉴于决策者创意识别的结果对组织创新效率产生的重要影响, 全面分析决策者失误的主要原因具有重要意义。目前这个方面研究处于起步阶段, 尚不充分, 对影响因素的认识缺乏系统性, 仍需继续探讨。

2.3 决策者心智模式对创意识别的影响

Mueller等(2018)关于决策者心智模式如何影响创意识别结果的研究引发了新的关注。新近发现, 一旦人们承担了决策者角色, 对高新颖度创意的识别与评估效率就显著下降, 这是因为决策者更经常采用经济性心智模式(economic mindsets)。持这种心智模式的个体认为, 在判断、决策和行动过程中, 需要优先考虑理性、效率、准确性、自身利益等经济性指标(Molinsky, Grant, & Margolis, 2012)。Mueller等(2018)给参加者呈现一个新颖程度较高的产品设计, 并要求他们评价其创意水平。实验室和现场实验的结果一致表明, 当评价者得知该产品已得到目标受众的高度认可, 决策者和非决策者的创意评估没有差异; 但如果得知该产品尚未得到目标受众的高度认可, 决策者会认为其缺乏新意, 而非决策者则不会有这种倾向。中介效应分析发现, 决策者确实持有更强的经济性心智模式, 而正是这种心智模式使得决策者对产品创意水平作出保守估计。

心智模式是个体观察、描述、解释和预测外部世界的内在心理机制(Rouse & Morris, 1986)。本质上, 心智模式是个体主动构建的知识结构, 即对于特定领域中关键要素如何彼此相联系的内部心理表征。透过自己的知识结构, 人们回答了“世界是什么”和“世界如何运作”这两个关键问题, 并用以指导自己的推理、判断和决策(Johnson-Laird, 2010)。

人们会围绕创造力形成自己的内隐理论(implicit theory), 用以解释诸如创造力的本质、高创造力个体的特征、创造力的来源问题(Baas, Koch, Nijstad, & de Dreu, 2015; Loewenstein & Mueller, 2016)。这正是个体描述、解释、判断和从事创造活动所依赖的心智模式。由于决策者责任重大且任务繁重, 常常需要快速决定是否给某个创意更进一步机会, 这时尤其依赖心智模式作为判断和决策的模板。Elsbach和Kramer (2003)为此提供了证据。他们发现, 在好莱坞影片公司的高层管理者心目中, 存在7类编剧原型(prototypes), 其中只有两类原型具有创造潜能, 其他5类则缺乏创造力。管理者常常需要在和素不相识的编辑首次见面后的很短时间内决定, 是否和对方签约并购买其剧本, 这种情况下, 只能通过原型匹配来判断其创造力水平, 最终决定是否签约。Gralewski和Karwowski (2018)将教师对学生创造力的原型认知分为顺应式(adaptive and incremental creativity)和颠覆式(innovative and radical creativity)两类。两类原型都认为创造力高的学生富有创意、独立、有主见、善于解决问题。不同之处在于, 持顺应式原型的教师认为, 创造力高的学生能自律、有毅力、开放性强; 而持颠覆式原型的教师则认为, 高创造力的学生会表现出冲动、自律性低的特点。创造力原型对教师如何评价学生的创造力表现产生重要影响。持顺应式原型的教师, 对艺术能力强、愿意和善于学习的女生的创造力表现评价更高, 但对那些积极参与科学探索活动的女生的创造力反而持负面评价。但男生是否有类似行为表型, 则不会影响这类教师对其创造力的评价。持颠覆式原型的教师, 倾向于认为服从性低的男生更具创造力, 但女生是否表现出服从行为, 并不影响教师对其创造力的评价。需要指出, 由于心智模式常常是快速和自动化地起作用, 决策者自己也难以觉察(Mueller et al., 2012)。如果决策者建构的心智模式本身就存在偏差, 创意识别偏差无法避免而且难以纠正。因而, 深入了解决策者的心智模式如何影响创意识别与评估, 对组织创新的研究和实践都有重要意义。

Dweck及其合作者提出的内隐理论尤其值得关注(Dweck, 2006; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995)。该理论认为, 普通人会针对人类基本特性(如智力, 品格和人格特征)形成自己的朴素理论, 其主要内容是关于人的这些特性保持固定不变, 还是变化以及可塑的。据此提出两种不同的心智模式, 前者为固着型心智模式(fixed mindset), 后者为成长型心智模式(growth mindset)。持不同心智模式的个体, 在对人的特性的基本假定和信念、认知加工模式、动机、目标导向等方面都形成鲜明对比(Levy, Plaks, & Dweck, 1999)。两者的核心差异在于对于未知状态的态度, 固着型心智模式更加难以忍受不确定性, 而成长型心智模式则对不确定性抱有更加积极的态度, 详见表1

表1   固着型/成长型心智模式的差异

固着型心智模式 成长型心智模式
基本假定和信念 人的特质固定不变 人的特质并非固定不变, 而是具有可塑性
特质与行为的关系 行为完全由特质所决定, 外在行为稳定反映人的内在特质, 因而通过观察外显行为可以对特质进行准确的判断 行为受内外部多种因素共同影响, 并随情境不同而变化。需经多方面持续观察一个人在不同时空下的行为表现, 才能对之形成准确判断
认知加工模式 快速的认知加工, 以尽早形成确定的认知和判断 动态的认知加工, 以彻底了解对象为目的
认知需要 低, 追求认知智力活动需要较低, 不追求全面了解事物 高, 积极追求高认知智力活动, 力求全面了解事物
认知闭合需要 强, 即力求达到对事物的确定和封闭的认识, 回避或消除认识上的含糊不确定性和开放状态 弱, 能够忍受事物的不确定性
不确定性容忍 低, 尽量回避任何不确定性, 倾向于维持熟悉的或已知的确定的认识状态 高, 积极探索新鲜事物, 接纳学习过程中的不确定性和未知状态
目标导向 绩效导向, 行动的主要目的是展现能力, 追求积极评价, 回避负性反馈 学习导向, 注重通过参与活动来学习和掌握新的知识或技能
对失败的态度 失败是因为能力差, 自己不可改变的能力导致, 无力克服困难, 倾向于无助性反应 坚持努力、认清导致挫折的具体原因, 以及寻求新的解决问题的策略

[资料来源:作者根据相关文献整理总结]

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


成长型和固着型心智模式会影响个体的创造力表现。与持固着型心智模式的个体相比, 持成长型心智模式的个体在多用途测试和发散性思维等测试创造力的任务上表现更好, 创新自我效能感更强(Puente-Diaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017), 对自己的创造力表现评价更高(Karwowski, 2014; O'Connor, Nemeth, & Akutsu, 2013)。但总体而言, 将心智模式和创造力结合起来的研究较少, 而且大多探讨其和创意产生的关系。例如, Mumford及其合作者发现, 学生自己所构建的心智模式的质量, 和创意产生任务的绩效正相关(Barrett et al., 2013; Hester et al., 2012; Mumford et al., 2012)。Steele, Johnson和Medeiros (2018)开发创意评估自我效能感的测量量表时, 测量了固着型心智模式以检验该量表的区分效度, 结果发现, 两者不存在显著相关。据目前掌握文献情况看, 除了这项研究之外, 尚未有研究直接探讨成长型/固着型心智模式如何影响创意识别的结果。

2.4 已有研究述评

笔者认为, 组织创造力和创新的研究存在若干不足。第一, 组织创造力和创新的研究和实践存在误区, 即重视员工的创意产生, 而忽视决策者角度创意识别的重要性。第二, 决策者创意识别的研究刚起步, 尤其缺乏对识别准确性的关键影响因素的深入探讨。第三, 已有研究较为零散, 亟需采用清晰的理论框架作为指导开展研究。

综上, 心智模式影响创造力的研究尚处于起步阶段, 很多问题都值得探讨。已有的几个研究仅探讨了心智模式如何影响个体创意产生的表现。然而正如研究所示, 决策者会依赖自己所构建的心智模式进行创意识别和决策(Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Mueller et al., 2018)。笔者认为, 探讨决策者心智模式如何影响创意识别, 是组织创造力研究的新议题。比如, 比较持固着型与成长型心智模式的决策者, 在创意识别过程中存在哪些差异, 就很有价值。

3 研究构想

根据创造力系统观(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999), 决策者、创造者和两者所在的组织均是创新的利益相关者, 但在组织创新过程中发挥的作用不同。决策者是组织创新过程中最核心的看门人; 创造者通过提交创意参与组织创新, 其工作成果主要体现为创意具有的核心特征; 组织当前采取的创新模式和特征, 是决策者和创造者行动的依据和制约条件。

本项目以此为统领性理论框架, 从决策者视角切入, 将决策者、创造者和组织环境三个子系统都纳入到研究框架来, 通过现场研究和实验研究相结合, 比较持固着型心智模式和成长型心智模式的决策者在创意识别环节的差异, 揭示决策者心智模式影响创意识别的内部作用机制, 并进一步探讨决策者与创造者子系统或/和组织创新环境子系统的协同效应。拟开展四个研究, 研究1首先探讨决策者心智模式影响创意识别效果的中介机制, 然后揭示决策者心智模式与创造者子系统(研究2)、以及与组织创新环境子系统(研究3)的协同效应; 研究4综合探讨三个子系统的联合效应。总体框架如图2所示。

图2

图2   基于创造力系统观的总体研究框架


3.1 研究1:决策者子系统特征对创意识别的影响及其内部机制

研究1是整个项目的基础, 框架图见图3。研究1核心任务是揭示决策者作为组织创新看门人, 其心智模式如何影响创意识别的结果。此外, 研究1还需要解决对整个项目至关重要的关键问题:1)与非决策者角色相比, 决策者的心智模式对创意识别的影响是否更大; 2)如何在研究中测量和操纵决策者心智模式。

图3

图3   决策者子系统特征影响创意识别的内部机理研究框架(研究1)


创新活动充满不确定性, 即使判断创意是否具有新颖性都存在很大分歧(Siler et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2017)。对其潜在价值或实施效果的预测, 误差更是难以避免(Berg, 2016)。此外, 质量再高的创意, 在初期阶段也有诸多不足, 都需要经过多轮细化完善。如果决策者难以接受整个过程的不确定性, 往往会保守估计, 因而低估其价值(Mueller, Wakslak, & Krishnan, 2014)。只有当决策者的不确定性容忍度(tolerance of uncertainty)较高时, 才有可能充分、全面地评估, 从而提高识别精度(Mueller et al., 2012)。因此, 不确定性容忍度和创意识别精度正相关。

不确定性容忍指个体在处于不确定性情境中的认知、情绪或行为反应倾向。容忍度高的个体, 更能接受不确定性并采取积极应对方式; 容忍度低的个体, 则会感到困扰和有压力感, 有回避不确定性的强烈意愿。持固着型心智模式的个体(以下简称固着型)和持成长型心智模式的个体(以下简称成长型)对不确定性的态度正好相反, 前者尽量避免不确定性和模糊情境, 而后者则更能接受不确定性(Levy et al., 1999)。前者常常依赖启发式加工方式快速达成结论; 而后者认知动机更强(吴梦, 白新文, 2012), 愿意通过系统的认知加工增进对事物的全面了解(崔诣晨, 王沛, 谈晨皓, 2016)。可以预计, 成长型决策者对不确定性的容忍度更高, 进而创意识别精度更高。

由于与非决策者相比, 决策者需要承担更多责任, 他们感受到的不确定性会更强。对于固着型决策者而言, 这种情境更难适应。为了消除不确定性, 固着型决策者更有可能保守估计创意的质量(Mueller et al., 2018)。综上, 研究1预期:与持成长型心智模式的决策者相比, 持固着型心智模式的决策者, 不确定性容忍度水平较低, 进而其创意识别准确率更低。由此提出如下研究假设:

H1:评估者的心智模式和角色的交互作用显著影响创意评估。具体而言, 持固着型心智模式的决策者, 其创意评分显著低于非决策者; 如果持成长型心智模式, 两者创意评估的分数不存在显著差异。

H2:评估者的心智模式和角色的交互作用显著影响不确定性容忍水平。具体而言, 持固着型心智模式的决策者, 其不确定性容忍水平显著高于非决策者; 如果持成长型心智模式, 两者不确定性容忍水平不存在显著差异。

H3:不确定性容忍中介了心智模式和角色的交互作用对创意识别的影响。

研究1拟进行3个子研究, 研究1a为实验室实验; 研究1b也是实验室实验, 但采用因果链的方法进一步检验不确定性容忍的中介效应; 研究1c为现场研究, 目的是对上述实验结果进行交叉验证。

3.1.1 研究1a:决策者心智模式影响创意识别的实验室实验研究

研究1a采用2×2组间设计, 探讨个体心智模式(成长型/固着型)和角色(决策者/非决策者)如何共同影响创意识别, 并进一步揭示不确定性容忍的中介作用。

研究1a方法:借鉴以往研究对于心智模式的启动方法(Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999; O'Connor et al., 2013), 比如要求被试阅读隐含着成长型或固着型心智模式的材料, 引导被试构建成相应类型的心智模式。借鉴Mueller等(2018)的方法操纵角色, 承担决策者角色的被试在创意评估任务中有最终决定权, 创意评估结果完全由决策者决定; 非决策者起专家的作用, 其评分会和其他人的评分一起计算均值作为评价分数, 不具有决定权。通过预试, 选择一个高创造性水平的创意作为实验材料(在5点量表中创意得分接近5分), 考察不同角色、不同心智模式被试对创意的评估(如新颖性、潜在价值、实施成熟度等指标)是否存在差异。

研究1a预期结果:根据上述研究问题的推导, 研究1a预期心智模式和角色交互作用显著影响创意评估(对应于H1), 表现为:持成长型心智模式的两种角色的评分不存在显著差异; 持固着型心智模式的两种角色存在显著差异, 决策者评分较低; 在所有四种条件下, 持固着型心智模式且承担决策者角色的个体, 创意评估分数最低(如图4所示)。

图4

图4   心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1a预期结果)


两个因素交互作用影响不确定性容忍的模式类似(对应于H2, 见图5)。不论是否承担决策者角色, 持成长型心智模式的个体对不确定性容忍水平都较高, 两者不存在显著差异; 持固着型心智模式的个体的不确定性容忍程度存在角色差异, 决策者较低; 在所有四种条件下, 持固着型心智模式且承担决策者角色的个体, 不确定性容忍程度最低。

图5

图5   心智模式与角色的交互作用对不确定性容忍的影响(研究1a预期结果)


本项目还预期, 心智模式和角色的交互作用经由不确定性容忍的中介效应最终影响创意评估(如图3所示, 对应于H3)。从数据统计分析角度看, 这属于被中介的调节效应模型(Edwards & Lambert, 2007)。担任决策者角色且持固着型心智模式的个体之所以对高水平创意的评价最保守, 是因为他们对不确定性容忍的程度最低。

3.1.2 研究1b:不确定性容忍的中介效应的因果链检验

研究1a采用统计分析的方法来检验不确定性容忍是否起到中介作用。越来越多学者建议, 当中介变量既可以有效操纵也能够测量时, 实验因果链设计是检验中介效应的更严谨的设计(experimental causal-chain design) (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016; Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005)。这种设计建议实验分成两步:1)首先操纵自变量, 测量中介变量, 考察自变量的操纵是否能导致中介变量发生符合预期的变化; 2)通过另一个独立实验, 直接操纵中介变量, 测量因变量的变化, 考察中介变量的操纵是否导致因变量发生符合预期的变化。如果两个独立实验的结果都符合预期, 则中介效应存在。

在本研究中, 中介变量——不确定性容忍既能实验操纵, 又可测量, 因而也采用因果链的方法, 进一步检验其中介效应。研究1a是这种方法的第一步, 研究1b则是完成第二步, 即设计独立实验操纵不确定性容忍度(高或低两个水平), 考察其和决策者角色的交互作用模式是否符合预期。

研究1b方法:采用2×2组间设计, 直接考察不确定性容忍(高/低)和角色(决策者/非决策者)如何共同影响创意识别。借鉴Mueller等(2012)的方法, 采用自传体写作的方法, 如要求被试写一篇短文来支持某种观点, 启动被试对不确定性的态度。高容忍度条件下, 被试的文章需要支持“任何问题都存在多种正确的解决方案”这种观点; 而低容忍度条件下, 则写文章论证“任何问题都只存在一种正确的解决方法”。决策者角色的操纵以及实验任务, 和研究1a相同。

研究1b预期结果:不确定性容忍和角色的交互作用显著影响创意识别, 交互作用的模式与图6类似:不确定性容忍程度高时, 两种角色的评分不存在显著差异; 当不确定容忍程度低时, 则存在显著差异, 容忍度低的决策者评分较低; 在所有4种条件下, 不确定性容忍低的决策者, 创意评分最低。

图6

图6   心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1b预期结果)


3.1.3 研究1c:决策者心智模式影响创意识别的现场研究

研究1c拟采用问卷调查方法, 对上述研究1a的实验结果进行交叉验证, 但存在两点不同:1)采用问卷量表测量参加者的心智模式, 目前已经有信效度稳定的测量工具(Karwowski, 2014); 2)研究对象拟选择工作群体, 职位尽量多元化, 保证担任决策岗位和不承担决策职责的样本量足够。

3.2 研究2:决策者子系统与创造者子系统的协同效应

如果研究1发现, 与非决策者相比, 决策者的心智模式对创意评估的影响确实更大, 则从研究2开始只以担任决策者角色的个体为研究对象。

研究2探讨持不同心智模式的决策者的创意识别准确性, 是否因创意特征的不同而不同。与研究1类似, 研究2的假设推导的核心逻辑是:由于固着型决策者倾向于降低创意识别过程中的不确定性(Levy et al., 1999), 一项创意本身所蕴含的不确定性越大, 固着型决策者低估其创意程度的可能性也就越大; 相对而言, 成长型决策者由于对不确定性持中性甚至偏积极的态度, 受到创意本身的不确定性高低的影响较少。

创意特征也是创意识别的重要影响因素, 是因为不同类型的创意本身所蕴含的不确定性程度有差异。换而言之, 不同类型创意给评估者带来的不确定性感知(perceived uncertainty)存在差异。不确定性感知指个体无法确定一个事物或事件未来如何变化的知觉和判断(Rafferty & Griffin, 2006)。新颖性高的创意会导致更高的不确定性感知, 这是因为人们总是依赖自己已有的知识储备来做出判断。然而, 评估者难以在既有知识结构中为高度新颖的创意找到合适的分类依据或判断线索, 由此所感知到的不确定性更高。多项研究表明, 高度新颖的创意反而常常无法得到评估者的好评(Boudreau et al., 2016; Criscuolo et al., 2017), 这可能与新颖创意蕴含的高度不确定性有关。

创意-组织匹配度(idea-organization fit)也是不确定性的重要来源(以下简称创意匹配度)。Dailey和Mumford (2006)发现, 在考虑一项创意能否进入实施阶段, 评估者需要衡量该创意如下几个方面的特征:(1)接受度, 即该创意是否被组织成员所接受, 是否存在明显反对意见, 需要多长时间才能得到认可; (2)对现有流程的干扰程度, 即如果实施该创意, 对组织现有流程是否产生明显干扰, 现有流程需要做多大调整和改变; (3)资源需求度, 即该创意的实施需要额外创设哪些条件, 需要多少人力、物力、财力的资源投入。参考其内容, 我们将创意匹配度定义为该创意和组织现有流程的匹配程度。创意实施如果对组织现有流程产生明显干扰, 需要额外创设很多条件, 或者可能引起许多员工的抵制与反对, 其匹配度就低; 反之就高。低匹配度的新颖创意为组织创新引入了新的不确定性因素, 更有可能导致决策者感知到更强的不确定性。

综上, 创意的新颖性和匹配度都是通过影响决策者的不确定性感知这一路径, 对决策者的创意识别产生影响。高新颖性/低匹配度的创意增加了决策者的不确定性感知水平, 而持固着型心智模式的决策者恰恰对不确定性的容忍程度较低。为了尽量降低创意识别的不确定性, 这种类型的决策者最常见的应对方式就是降低对这些创意的评价, 从而使自己从不确定的困境下解脱出来(Mueller et al., 2012)。因此, 高新颖性/低匹配度的创意遭到固着型决策者否决或低估的概率大大增加。与此形成鲜明对比, 成长型决策者对高新颖性/低匹配度创意的评价有别于固着型决策者。成长型决策者希望能利用机会增进学习, 愿意采用系统加工方式全面了解。此外, 他们认为高新颖性/低匹配度的创意更有可能为组织带来变化和挑战, 其他方面保持一致情况下, 成长型决策者可能更青睐这种创意。由此, 我们预期, 创意特征和决策者心智模式存在交互作用, 共同影响决策者的创意识别; 决策者的不确定性容忍和不确定性感知分别是这两种因素的中介变量。由此提出假设4和假设5:

H4:心智模式和创意特征共同影响决策者的创意识别, 当创意的新颖程度较低(H4a)或匹配度较高(H4b)时, 持不同心智模式的决策者对创意的评估无显著差异; 当新颖程度较高(H4a)或匹配度较低(H4b)时, 固着型决策者的创意评估得分显著低于成长型决策者。

H5:决策者的不确定性容忍和不确定性感知分别是心智模式和创意特征影响决策者创意识别的中介变量。换而言之, 心智模式和创意特征的交互作用, 通过不确定性容忍和不确定性感知的交互作用的中介, 最终影响决策者的创意识别。

研究2拟进行两项独立的子研究(研究框架图见图7), 分别探讨创意的新颖性特征和切合度特征如何调节决策者心智模式对创意评估的影响效应。两个子研究均采用实验方法, 分别操纵创意的这两项特征。

图7

图7   决策者子系统与创造者子系统协同效应的研究框架(研究2)


3.2.1 研究2a:创意新颖度调节决策者心智模式对创意识别的影响

创意新颖程度是创意识别的第一项任务, 因而研究2a首先考察创意新颖度的调节效应。

方法:两种心智模式的操纵同研究1。通过预试选择用于实验的创意, 保证所用到的创意在新颖程度上有足够差异。

预期结果:心智模式和创意新颖程度交互作用显著, 表现为:两类心智模式的决策者对低新颖度的创意评价都低且无显著差异; 心智模式和创意新颖程度交互作用体现在, 在评价高新颖度创意时, 固着型决策者的评价显著低于成长型决策者。两者的交互作用会进一步转化为不确定性容忍与不确定性感知之间的交互作用, 该假设属于被中介的调节效应模型, 借助统计分析方法加以检验(Hayes, 2013)。将不确定性容忍与不确定性感知的乘积项加入回归模型之后, 其回归系数显著, 而心智模式和创意新颖程度乘积项的回归系数不再显著或者显著变小。

3.2.2 研究2b:创意匹配度调节决策者心智模式对创意识别的影响

研究2b探讨创意匹配度的调节效应。

方法:两种心智模式的操纵同研究1及研究2a。通过预试选择用于实验的创意, 保证所用到的创意在匹配度上有足够差异。

预期结果:心智模式和创意匹配度交互作用显著, 表现为:持成长型心智模式的决策者, 对创意的评估不会受到匹配度的影响; 持固着型心智模式的决策者, 对低匹配度的创意的评价显著低于高匹配度的创意。同样采用被中介的调节效应模型来检验假设5。

3.3 研究3:决策者子系统与环境子系统的协同效应

研究3探讨决策者心智模式与组织创新环境的特征如何交互作用, 共同影响创意识别。从创造力系统观看, 组织的既有创新积累和正在开展的创新活动, 是组织成员创新的信息来源, 同时也是其开展创新活动所需要遵循的准则和依据(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999)。作为组织的一员, 决策者的创意识别也受到组织创新环境特征的影响。

组织的创新活动分为开发式创新(exploitative innovation)和探索式创新(exploratory innovation)两类。前者指那些旨在改进现有产品、瞄准既有市场领域的技术创新活动; 后者指那些旨在研发新产品、开拓和培育全新市场领域的技术创新活动(Benner & Tushman, 2002; He & Wong, 2004)。企业需要根据自身发展阶段、资源情况来决定采用什么创新策略(杨学儒, 李新春, 梁强, 李胜文, 2011)。有些企业选择双元平衡战略(ambidexterity), 同时开展两种创新并在两者之间维持平衡(Benner & Tushman, 2003)。有些企业则采取间断平衡战略(punctuated equilibrium), 即在某个特定阶段将注意力集中于其中一种, 并根据外部环境和组织资源的变化, 择机将注意力转移到另一种(Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006)。

开发式创新是在较平稳的环境下开展, 创新目标和方向的制定、创新方法的选择都有据可依, 所导致的不确定性程度较低。与其不同, 探索性创新面临的风险更高, 随之所导致的不确定性更高。笔者认为, 组织创新战略构成了决策者创意识别的环境特征, 能够调节决策者心智模式对其创意识别的影响效应。具体而言, 当组织主要开展开发式创新时, 决策者的不确定性感知水平较低, 固着型和成长型决策者对创意质量的评价不存在显著差异; 而探索式创新活动激发了决策者的不确定性感知, 出于降低不确定性的目的, 固着型决策者对创新活动持保守态度, 对相同创意的评价将低于成长型决策者。由此提出假设6:

H6:心智模式和组织创新活动共同影响决策者的创意识别, 以开发式创新为主时, 持不同心智模式的决策者对创意的评估无显著差异; 当组织主要开展探索式创新活动时, 固着型决策者的创意评估得分显著低于成长型决策者。

研究3进行现场研究, 通过问卷法收取数据, 以更好反映组织创新模式这个变量, 提高研究的生态效度。与研究2一致, 以承担组织创新活动决策职责的各级管理者为调研对象。为了增加组织创新模式的变异, 需要在多个组织中进行数据收集。另一方面, 为了保证在不同组织收集的调查数据具有横向可比性, 借鉴Zhou等(2017)的方法, 为所有参与者提供统一的创意集合, 控制创意质量的影响之后, 考察决策者心智模式和组织创新模式如何共同影响决策者的创意识别结果。通过预试收集适合的若干创意, 构成所需的创意集合。

3.4 研究4:决策者、创造者和环境三个子系统的联合效应

研究2和研究3探讨创意特征或组织创新环境特征与决策者心智模式的二阶交互作用, 在此基础上, 研究4进一步探讨三个子系统的三阶交互作用。

根据研究2和研究3的逻辑推导, 无论是创意特征(新颖度/匹配度), 还是组织环境特征(开发式创新或和探索式创新), 都是通过影响决策者的不确定性感知来影响其创意识别结果。低新颖度(或高匹配度)的创意和开发式创新活动并不会导致明显的不确定性。在这种情况下, 决策者的心智模式不会成为影响创意识别的主要因素, 因而, 固着型或成长型决策者的创意识别不存在显著差异。

心智模式对决策者创意识别的影响, 主要体现在评估高新颖度(或低匹配度)创意或者在探索式创新活动情境下。对于持固着型心智模式的决策者而言, 当组织以探索式创新为主要创新模式时, 高度新颖或匹配度低的创意将带来更高程度的不确定性。固着型决策者通常通过降低对这类创意的评价来消除或减缓不确定性感知(Mueller et al., 2012)。相对而言, 持成长型心智模式的决策者能接纳甚至拥抱创新活动中的不确定性, 对高新颖(或低匹配度)创意持开放态度, 更有可能识别和认可这类创意的价值。因此, 在探索式创新活动中, 固着型决策者对高新颖度(或低匹配度)创意的评价和认可程度, 将显著低于成长型决策者。以开发式创新为主的组织创新战略, 以及常规(或高匹配度)创意不会导致明显的不确定性, 固着型决策者无须为了消除不确定性感知而对这类创意持保守态度, 因而能更准确评估这类创意的质量, 且与成长型决策者的评价不存在显著差异。由此提出假设7。

H7:心智模式、创意特征和组织创新活动存在三阶交互作用, 共同影响决策者的创意识别。具体而言, 当组织主要开展探索式创新活动时, 固着型决策者对高新颖(H7a)或低匹配度(H7b)创意的评估得分显著低于成长型决策者; 其他条件下, 持不同心智模式的决策者对创意的评估无显著差异。

以创意的新颖程度为例, 绘制创意特征和组织创新活动的三阶交互作用模式示意图(见图8)。笔者预期, 匹配度与两因素的交互作用模式类似, 因而不进行图示。

图8

图8   决策者、创造者和环境子系统的三阶交互作用示意图(研究4)


研究4同样以承担组织创新活动决策职责的各级管理者为对象, 但采用准实验设计, 操纵创意特征(新颖度或匹配度), 测量决策者心智模式以及组织创新模式。具体而言, 借鉴Mueller等(2018)的方法操纵待评估创意的特征, 所有参加者都被要求在阅读了同一个创意的详细描述后, 对其质量进行评估。参与者随机分半, 其中一半参加者通过阅读材料得知该创意被大多数专家认定为非常新颖(或匹配度低), 另一半则通过阅读材料得知, 该创意被大多数专家认定为新颖度低(或匹配度高)。从研究3开发的创意集合中选择合适的创意。

由于三阶交互效应已经非常复杂, 如果还要考察创意的新颖性和匹配度两者之间的交互作用, 将产生四阶交互作用。除了对数据要求极高之外, 四阶交互作用的解释和理解本身就非常困难, 所以极少研究会探讨。因此, 本项目单独考察新颖性和匹配度与另外两个因素的三阶交互作用。此外, 单独考察两种特征和其他两个因素的协同效应, 可以对三阶交互效应进行交叉验证。

4 理论建构与创新

现有关组织创造力与创新的研究和管理实践大多只关注创意产生或创意实施阶段, 本项目尝试从组织创新决策者的角度入手, 以创造力系统观(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999)为理论框架, 探讨作为组织创新活动看门人的决策者, 如何在纷繁复杂的情境下进行创意识别。具体来说, 本项目聚焦决策者的心智模式, 比较持固着型心智模式和成长型心智模式的决策者在创意识别环节的差异, 揭示决策者心智模式影响创意识别的内部作用机制, 并进一步探讨其如何与创造者子系统、组织创新环境子系统相互作用, 共同影响决策者的创意识别结果。

本项目的结果将有助于回答三个关键科学问题。第一, 决策者的心智模式是否是影响其创意识别效率的主要因素。进而, 在履行组织创新看门人职责时, 持固着型或成长型心智模式的决策者的创意识别中是否存在差异, 固着型心智模式是否是导致决策者出现创意识别偏差的内在心理基础。第二, 不确定容忍度是否是决策者心智模式影响创意识别的内在机理。此外, 持固着型和持成长型心智模式的决策者在许多方面都存在差异, 成长型决策者的创意识别优于固着型决策者, 是否是因为前者的不确定容忍程度较高。第三, 决策者、创造者和环境三个子系统的协同效应如何体现。决策者心智模式对创意识别的影响, 如何受到创意特征和组织创新环境特征的调节。换而言之, 固着型心智模式所导致的创意识别偏差, 在哪些情况下会更加凸显。

本项目的特色和创新点体现在如下几个方面。首先, 为组织创造力领域提供了新视角。和组织创造力现有大多数研究的取向不同, 本项目并不是从创造者角度探讨组织如何促使员工提出更多新创意, 而是从决策者角度探讨组织如何能更准确识别和选择高质量的创意。事实上, 组织创新失败常常并非由于一线研发员工无法提出新颖且有价值的创意, 而是组织决策层出现重大误判, 将许多优质创意错误否决掉。鉴于决策层对组织创新成效的影响远超负责研发的一线员工(Mollick, 2012), 从创意产生转向创意识别是组织创造力领域的新方向, 无论是对于本领域的实证研究还是管理实践, 都有重要意义。

其次, 将心智模式理论引入组织创造力与创新领域的研究, 不但为本领域引入了新议题, 还有助于深化研究的深度。许多研究表明决策者常常犯错(Mueller et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2018; Siler et al., 2015)。而本项目则指出, 决策者的心智模式可能是决定其能否成为伯乐的主要心理机制。通过系统比较持固着型或成长型心智模式的决策者在创意识别过程中的差异, 并揭示导致或放大此类差异的中介机制及边界条件, 本项目有望深入探讨决策者的内部心理表征如何影响其创意识别, 拓展组织创造力与创新研究的范围和深度。

再次, 将创造力系统观引入组织创造力与创新领域, 为本领域引入了统领性理论框架。正如Zhou等(2017)所指出, 决策者并非单独施加其影响, 而总是和环境因素交织在一起, 共同决定创意识别的结果。此外, 组织创新的不同主体承担各自职责, 与负责创意产出的创造者不同, 决策者主要扮演看门人角色, 以识别、支持、甚至否决他人创意的方式参与组织创新, 发挥独特作用(Mueller, 2017)。借鉴系统观的思路, 本项目同时将决策者、创造者、组织环境三个子系统纳入到研究框架中, 但聚焦于决策者在创新活动中扮演的看门人角色, 并探讨三个子系统的协同效应。创造力系统观为理解和推进组织创新提供了新思路, 可以作为组织创造力与创新研究的指导性框架。

最后, 本项目还可为创造力系统观的发展和完善提供实证依据。该理论虽然指出了决策者的重要角色是看门人, 但并没有阐述决策者如何做才能更好履行此角色。本项目探讨心智模式如何在决策者履行看门人角色的过程中发挥作用, 研究成果对理论的精细化有一定贡献。

本项目对组织创新的管理实践也有重要启示。第一, 转变组织创新的思路, 从鼓励员工创意产生转变为提升管理层的创意识别。诸多机构投入了大量资源来提升员工的创新能力、意愿和绩效。诚然, 员工高质量创意的产出可以促进组织的创新进程。然而, 决策者因素对组织创新绩效的影响更大。重视并优化组织创新决策的效率, 是机构开展创新的新思路。第二, 认识并重视组织管理者在创新过程中的决策职能。各层级领导者在组织创新中的两类职能已得到广泛认可(Mainemelis, Kark, & Epitropaki, 2015)。一是作为推进者, 激励他人开展创新, 或为其提供资源支持; 另一种是直接作为创造者, 指挥下属参与以实现自己的创意, 或者在整合他人创意的基础上生成新创意。此外, 领导者还需要通过识别他人创意来设定或改变组织创新的方向, 这种创新决策职能非常重要, 但尚未得到广泛认识。第三, 本项目关于决策者心智模式的研究成果, 可以为组织各层级管理人员避免决策陷阱提供借鉴。决策者需要自我审视, 意识到自己既有的心智模式——即对创造力和创新的本质的内隐认知和知识结构——会以微妙方式影响组织创新的方向。对于持固着型心智模式的决策者而言, 更需要加强自我觉察和反思。

参考文献

崔诣晨, 王沛, 谈晨皓 . ( 2016).

内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响

心理学报, 48, (12), 1538-1550.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

从表征状态与他人知觉信息加工方式两个角度探讨了内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响。首先采用自编的童话情境测验对120名被试的内隐人格理论进行维度分析,甄选出持不同内隐人格理论的被试(实体论42人、渐变论48人)。随后使用错觉关联效应的实验范式,要求两类被试(持不同内隐人格理论及其指向性情境)对他人行为信息进行判断,记录自由回忆和频率估计的差异值。结果发现:持不同内隐人格理论的个体在知觉他人时采用不同的信息加工方式。实体论者通常采用启发式加工,渐变论者通常采用分析式加工。实体论者在进行启发式加工时,通过对他人行为信息的即时性判断形成他人印象;渐变论者在进行分析式加工时,对他人行为信息进行记忆性判断,最终依赖情境信息形成他人印象。

杨学儒, 李新春, 梁强, 李胜文 . ( 2011).

平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗?

管理工程学报, 25, (4), 17-25.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

在日益动态的商业环境下,平衡开发式创新和探索式创新是企业兼顾当前和未来竞争所必须重视的问题。现有研究过度强调了同时重视开发式创新和探索式创新的二元平衡的价值,假设二元平衡是对任何企业都普遍适用的,但实证检验的结果却并非如此。本研究注意到资源紧缺条件对企业开发式创新和探索式创新平衡战略的影响,发展了资源紧缺条件下中国企业开发式创新和探索式创新的平衡理论,指出,开发式创新和探索式创新的平衡策略不仅有二元平衡,还有间断平衡,究竟哪种策略有效取决于企业资源约束条件决定的开发式创新和探索式创新之间究竟是正交关系还是竞争关系起主导作用。最后,本研究以新创企业和成熟企业的大规模调查数据的比较性实证研究证实了本文的主要理论假设。

吴梦, 白新文 . ( 2012).

动机性信息加工理论及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用

心理科学进展, 20, (11), 1889-1898.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Based on “groups as information processor perspective”, motivated information processing (MIP) model emphasizes that information processing and sharing depends on two types of motivations, epistemic motivation and social motivation, respectively. Epistemic motivation refers to the willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich, and accurate understanding of the world. It determines the depth of information processing. Social motivation is defined as the individual preference for outcome distributions between oneself and others. It influences which information will be processed. Epistemic motivation and social motivation, alone and in combination, interpret information processing at both individual and team level, and information sharing at team level. MIP model contributes to the industrial/organizational psychology literature by integrating the dual-process theory and groups as information processor perspective, and by providing a new perspective in the fields of negotiation, creativity, and team effectiveness. Limitations and implications for future study of MIP model are discussed.

Amabile T. M. ( 1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Anderson N., Potocnik K., & Zhou J . ( 2014).

Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework

Journal of Management, 40, (5), 1297-1333.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Creativity and innovation in any organization are vital to its successful performance. The authors review the rapidly growing body of research in this area with particular attention to the period 2002 to 2013, inclusive. Conceiving of both creativity and innovation as being integral parts of essentially the same process, we propose a new, integrative definition. We note that research into creativity has typically examined the stage of idea generation, whereas innovation studies have commonly also included the latter phase of idea implementation. The authors discuss several seminal theories of creativity and innovation and then apply a comprehensive levels-of-analysis framework to review extant research into individual, team, organizational, and multilevel innovation. Key measurement characteristics of the reviewed studies are then noted. In conclusion, we propose a guiding framework for future research comprising 11 major themes and 60 specific questions for future studies.

Baas M., Koch S., Nijstad B. A., & de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2015).

Conceiving creativity: The nature and consequences of laypeople's beliefs about the realization of creativity

Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 9, (3), 340-354.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

To examine laypeople’s beliefs about the conception of creativity, we asked people (N = 891) to indicate the extent to which they believed that certain cognitive processes, mind states, and circumstances were conducive to creativity (Studies 1–3). We further examined whether these beliefs are in line with their own experiences (Study 2) and with scientific evidence (General Discussion), and we examined the consequences that these beliefs have for the circumstances and conditions people select if creativity is required (Study 3). Findings showed that people have strong beliefs about the facilitating processes and circumstances for creativity. However, these beliefs are often incomplete and not in line with their own experiences and current empirical evidence. Moreover, lay beliefs inform the choices that people make about how to shape the circumstances to putatively stimulate their creativity. Therefore, a better understanding of the scientific evidence about creativity is crucial to help practitioners select and shape the processes and circumstances that stimulate creativity.

Baer M .( 2012).

Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations

Academy of Management Journal, 55, (5), 1102-1119.

[本文引用: 1]

Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Day E. A., Hougen D. P., & Mumford M. D . ( 2013).

Thinking about applications: Effects on mental models and creative problem-solving

Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 199-212.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Many techniques have been used to train creative problem-solving skills. Although the available techniques have often proven to be effective, creative training often discounts the value of thinking about applications. In this study, 248 undergraduates were asked to develop advertising campaigns for a new high-energy soft drink. Solutions to this problem were evaluated for quality, originality, and elegance. Prior to preparing these advertising campaigns, participants were provided with training in strategies for thinking about the potential applications of creative problem-solutions. It was found that training people to think about the uses of ideas and preparation for idea implementation contributed to the acquisition of stronger mental models and production of advertising campaigns evidencing greater quality, originality, and elegance. The implications of these findings for creative though and creative education are discussed.

Benner M.J., &Tushman M. ( 2002).

Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, (4), 676-706.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research explores the impact of process management activities on technological innovation. Drawing on research in organizational evolution and learning, we suggest that as these practices reduce variance in organizational routines and influence the selection of innovations, they enhance incremental innovation at the expense of exploratory innovation. We tested our hypotheses in a 20-year longitudinal study of patenting activity and ISO 9000 quality program certifications in the paint and photography industries. In both industries, the extent of process management activities in a firm was associated with an increase in both exploitative innovations that built on existing firm knowledge and an increase in exploitation's share of total innovations. Our results suggest that exploitation crowds out exploration. We extend existing empirical research by capturing how process management activities influence the extent to which innovations build on existing firm knowledge. We suggest that these widely adopted organizational practices shift the balance of exploitation and exploration by focusing on efficiency, possibly at the expense of long-term adaptation.

Benner M.J., &Tushman M.L . ( 2003).

Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited

Academy of Management Review, 28, (2), 238-256.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We develop a contingency view of process management's influence on both technological innovation and organizational adaptation. We argue that while process management activities are beneficial for organizations in stable contexts, they are fundamentally inconsistent with all but incremental innovation and change. But dynamic capabilities are rooted in both exploitative and exploratory activities. We argue that process management activities must be buffered from exploratory activities and that ambidextrous organizational forms provide the complex contexts for these inconsistent activities to coexist.

Berg J.M . ( 2016).

Balancing on the creative high-wire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations

Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, (3), 433-468.

[本文引用: 7]

Boudreau K., Guinan E. C., Lakhani K. R., & Riedl C . ( 2016).

Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science

Management Science, 62, (10), 2765-2783.

URL     PMID:27746512      [本文引用: 3]

Selecting among alternative projects is a core management task in all innovating organizations. In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of frontier scientific research projects. We argue that the “intellectual distance” between the knowledge embodied in research proposals and an evaluator’s own expertise systematically relates to the evaluations given. To estimate relationships, we designed and executed a grant proposal process at a leading research university in which we randomized the assignment of evaluators and proposals to generate 2,130 evaluator–proposal pairs. We find that evaluators systematically give lower scores to research proposals that are closer to their own areas of expertise and to those that are highly novel. The patterns are consistent with biases associated with boundedly rational evaluation of new ideas. The patterns are inconsistent with intellectual distance simply contributing “noise” or being associated with private interests of evaluators. We discuss implications for policy, managerial intervention, and allocation of resources in the ongoing accumulation of scientific knowledge.

Chandy R., Hopstaken B., Narasimhan O., & Prabhu J . ( 2006).

From invention to innovation: Conversion ability in product development

Journal of Marketing Research, 43, (3), 494-508.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The ability to convert inputs into outputs is a critical determinant of success in many fields of endeavor. In this research, the authors study the ability of firms to convert ideas into products, that is, their conversion ability. Specifically, they address the question, Why are some firms better at conversion than others? In contrast to much of the existing literature, the authors propose that a strong focus on speed and on generating many ideas may actually hurt firms by lowering their conversion ability. The authors test their arguments on data between 1960 and 2001 from a cross-national sample of pharmaceutical firms. They find that firms vary widely in their ability to convert promising drug ideas into launched drugs. Firms with the highest conversion ability are those that (1) focus on a moderate number of ideas, in areas of importance, and in areas in which they have expertise and (2) deliberate for a moderate length of time on promising ideas.

Chiu C. Y., Hong Y. Y., & Dweck C. S . ( 1997).

Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, (1), 19-30.

[本文引用: 1]

Criscuolo P., Dahlander L., Grohsjean T., & Salter A . ( 2017).

Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects

Academy of Management Journal, 60, (2), 433-460.

[本文引用: 3]

Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davisdon (Eds.), The nature of creativity: Comtemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Combridge Universtity Press.

[本文引用: 5]

Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 6]

Dailey L &Mumford M.D . ( 2006).

Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas

Creativity Research Journal, 18, (3), 385-390.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

ABSTRACT: When deciding whether to pursue a new idea, people must predict the resources needed for, and consequences of, idea implementation. The intent of this study was to examine how accurate people are in predicting the resources needed for, and consequences of, creative ideas. Accordingly, 158 undergraduates were presented with case studies describing 3 new ideas drawn from either the education or public policy domains. They were asked to evaluate these ideas with respect to resource requirements (e.g., time, finances) and likely consequences (e.g., positive benefits, organizational disruption). The accuracy of these appraisals was assessed in terms of actual case events. It was found that people were more accurate in predicting resources and outcomes under conditions likely to engender implementation intentions, but that people overestimated outcomes and underestimated resource requirements when they had some familiarity with the issue. The implications of these observations for understanding errors in idea evaluation are discussed.

Diedrich J., Benedek M., Jauk E., & Neubauer A. C . ( 2015).

Are creative ideas novel and useful?

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, (1), 35-40.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT It is a central assumption in creativity theory that the creativity of an idea is defined by its novelty and usefulness. The present study examined this notion by investigating how the perceived novelty and usefulness actually contribute to the overall evaluation of creativity. We collected responses to a verbal and a figural divergent thinking task in a sample of 1,500 participants. All ideas were evaluated for novelty, usefulness, or creativity by a total of 18 independent judges. Results generally indicate a greater importance of novelty than usefulness in the prediction of creativity scores. Novelty and usefulness interacted significantly in the prediction of creativity both as a linear and as a nonlinear term. An examination of the interaction between novelty and usefulness suggests that usefulness is predictive of creativity only within highly novel ideas. In conclusion, novelty can be regarded as a first-order criterion and usefulness as a second-order criterion of creativity: If an idea is not novel its usefulness does not matter much, but if an idea is novel its usefulness will additionally determine its actual creativity.

Dweck C.S . ( 2006).

Mindset: The new psychology of success.

New York:Random House.

[本文引用: 1]

Dweck C. S., Chiu C. Y., & Hong Y. Y . ( 1995).

Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives

Psychological Inquiry, 6, (4), 267-285.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In this target article, we present evidence for a new model of individual differences in judgments and reactions. The model holds that people's implicit theories about human attributes structure the way they understand and react to human actions and outcomes. We review research showing that when people believe that attributes (such as intelligence or moral character) are fixed, trait-like entities (an entity theory), they tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of these fixed traits ("I failed the test because I am dumb" or "He stole the bread because he is dishonest"). In contrast, when people believe that attributes are more dynamic, malleable, and developable (an incremental theory), they tend to focus less on broad traits and, instead, tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of more specific behavioral or psychological mediators ("I failed the test because of my effort or strategy" or "He stole the bread because he was desperate"). The two frameworks also appear to foster different reactions: helpless versus mastery-oriented responses to personal setbacks and an emphasis on retribution versus education or rehabilitation for transgressions. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for personality, motivation, and social perception.

Edwards J.R., &Lambert L.S . ( 2007).

Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis

Psychological Methods, 12, (1), 1-22.

URL     PMID:17402809      [本文引用: 1]

Studies that combine moderation and mediation are prevalent in basic and applied psychology research. Typically, these studies are framed in terms of moderated mediation or mediated moderation, both of which involve similar analytical approaches. Unfortunately, these approaches have important shortcomings that conceal the nature of the moderated and the mediated effects under investigation. This article presents a general analytical framework for combining moderation and mediation that integrates moderated regression analysis and path analysis. This framework clarifies how moderator variables influence the paths that constitute the direct, indirect, and total effects of mediated models. The authors empirically illustrate this framework and give step-by-step instructions for estimation and interpretation. They summarize the advantages of their framework over current approaches, explain how it subsumes moderated mediation and mediated moderation, and describe how it can accommodate additional moderator and mediator variables, curvilinear relationships, and structural equation models with latent variables.

Elsbach K.D., &Kramer R.M . ( 2003).

Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments

Academy of Management Journal, 46, (3), 283-301.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

This study addresses an important but neglected topic by investigating the social judgment processes that experts (studio executives and producers in Hollywood) use to assess the creative potential of unknown others (relatively unknown screenwriters) during "pitch" meetings in which screenwriters attempt to sell their ideas. The findings suggest a dual-process social judgment model. In one process, person categorization, the experts used behavioral and physical cues to match "pitchers" with seven creative and uncreative prototypes. In another process, relationship categorization, the experts used relational cues and self-perceptions to match pitchers with two relational prototypes.

Ford C., &Sullivan D.M . ( 2004).

A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, (2), 279-292.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

One of the primary reasons organizations utilize project teams is to encourage members with diverse intellectual resources to produce novel associations that give rise to creative solutions. When creative sparks fly, learning, innovation and superior performance are often the result. However, in this paper we argue that creative sparks often create heat of another sort-frustration resulting from unfocused effort and diminished productivity. Utilizing Gersick's (1988) punctuated equilibrium model of project team development as a theoretical foundation, we argue that the meaning and impact of novel contributions change during a project team's life cycle. Novel contributions are beneficial to a project team early in its development when its primary goals are to learn more about a problem, search for useful information, and articulate tentative solutions. After the midpoint transition, when a team's attention shifts toward executing the proposal and satisfying external stakeholders before a looming deadline, additional attempts to introduce novel ideas are likely to disrupt performance and induce frustration. We develop a model and accompanying research propositions suggesting that the relationship between novel proposals and the value attributed to those proposals is contingent on timing with respect to a project team's midpoint transition.

Gralewski J., &Karwowski M. .( 2018).

Are teachers' implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students' creativity?

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, (2), 156-167.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT We examine the structure of implicit theories of creativity among Polish high schools teachers and the role those theories play for the accuracy of teachers' assessment of their students' creativity. Latent class analysis revealed the existence of four classes of teachers, whose perception of a creative student differed: two of these classes defined a creative student incoherently with the existing theories of creativity, and the other two classes did that in accordance with Kirton's (1976) theory of creativity styles, that is, as adaptors or innovators. Teachers who perceived a creative student as an adaptor tended to more accurately assess the creativity of females, whereas teachers perceiving a creative student as an innovator more accurately assessed the creativity of males. We discuss the theoretical and practical consequences of these findings.

Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., & Shalley C. E . ( 2006).

The interplay between exploration and exploitation

Academy of Management Journal, 49, (4), 693-706.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Exploration and exploitation have emerged as the twin concepts underpinning organizational adaptation research, yet some central issues related to them remain ambiguous. We address four related questions here: What do exploration and exploitation mean? Are they two ends of a continuum or orthogonal to each other? How should organizations achieve balance between exploration and exploitation--via ambidexterity or punctuated equilibrium? Finally, must all organizations strive for a balance, or is specialization in exploitation or exploration sometimes sufficient for long-run success? We summarize the contributions of the work in this special research forum and highlight important directions for future research.

Hayes A. F. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

This engaging book explains the fundamentals of mediation and moderation analysis and their integration as "conditional process analysis." Procedures are described for testing hypotheses about the mechanisms by which causal effects operate, the conditions under which they occur, and the moderation of mechanisms. Relying on the principles of ordinary least squares regression, Andrew Hayes carefully explains the estimation and interpretation of direct and indirect effects, probing and visualization of interactions, and testing of questions about moderated mediation. Examples using data from published studies illustrate how to conduct and report the analyses described in the book. Of special value, the book introduces and documents PROCESS, a macro for SPSS and SAS that does all the computations described in the book. The authors website (www.afhayes.com) offers free downloads of PROCESS plus data files for the book's examples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

He Z.L., &Wong P.K . ( 2004).

Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis

Organization Science, 15, (4), 481-494.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

While exploration and exploitation represent two fundamentally different approaches to organizational learning, recent literature has increasingly indicated the need for firms to achieve a balance between the two. This balanced view is embedded in the concept of ambidextrous organizations. However, there is little direct evidence of the positive effect of ambidexterity on firm performance. This paper seeks to test the ambidexterity hypothesis by examining how exploration and exploitation can jointly influence firm performance in the context of firms' approach to technological innovation. Based on a sample of 206 manufacturing firms, we find evidence consistent with the ambidexterity hypothesis by showing that (1) the interaction between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is positively related to sales growth rate, and (2) the relative imbalance between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is negatively related to sales growth rate.

Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hougen D. P., Day E. A., & Mumford M. D . ( 2012).

Causal analysis to enhance creative problem-solving: Performance and effects on mental models

Creativity Research Journal, 24, (2-3), 115-133.

URL    

In recent years, it has become apparent that knowledge is a critical component of creative thought. One form of knowledge that might be particularly important to creative thought relies on the mental models people employ to understand novel, ill-defined problems. In this study, undergraduates were given training in the use of causal relationships in applying mental models in creative problem-solving. A pre-post design was used to assess the effects of this training on mental models and creative problem-solving. It was found that causal analysis training resulted in the acquisition of better mental models (in terms of subjective and objective attributes) and better solutions (in terms of quality, originality, and elegance) to problems calling for creative thought among high-ability participants. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of mental models in creative problem-solving are discussed.

Hong Y., Chiu C., Dweck C. S., Lin D., & Wan W . ( 1999).

Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, (3), 588-599.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research sought to integrate C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett's (1988) model with attribution theory. Three studies tested the hypothesis that theories of intelligence-the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) versus fixed (entity theory)-would predict (and create) effort versus ability attributions, which would then mediate mastery-oriented coping. Study 1 revealed that, when given negative feedback, incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to attribute to effort. Studies 2 and 3 showed that incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to take remedial action if performance was unsatisfactory. Study 3, in which an entity or incremental theory was induced, showed that incremental theorists' remedial action was mediated by their effort attributions. These results suggest that implicit theories create the meaning framework in which attributions occur and are important for understanding motivation.

Janssen O .( 2001).

Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction

Academy of Management Journal, 44, (5), 1039-1050.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Activation theory suggests that intermediate rather than low or high levels of quantitative job demands benefit job performance and job satisfaction among managers. Using an equity theory framework, I hypothesize that perceptions of effort-reward fairness moderate these inverted U-shaped demand-response relationships. In support of this hypothesis, survey results demonstrate that managers who perceive effort-reward fairness perform better and feel more satisfied in response to intermediate levels of job demands than managers who perceive "underreward unfairness."

Johnson-Laird P.N . ( 2010).

Mental models and human reasoning

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, (43), 18243-18250.

[本文引用: 2]

Karwowski M . ( 2014).

Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, (1), 62-70.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

ABSTRACT This article describes a research program exploring the structure, correlates, and consequences of creative mindsets, defined as beliefs about the fixed-versus-growth nature of creativity. In the first study, I reported on the development of the Creative Mindset Scale. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a two-factor structure with growth- and fixed-creative mindsets forming two relatively independent, yet negatively correlated scales, rather than two ends of one continuum. I then verified this structure by confirmatory factor analysis using a larger sample. In the second study, the growth mindset and the creative self-concept (creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity) were strongly positively associated. In the third study, the fixed-creative mindset was negatively related to efficiency in solving insight problems, and an association between the growth mindset and problem solving was moderated by the fixed mindset. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

Kaufman J. C., Baer J., Cropley D. H., Reiter-Palmon R., & Sinnett S . ( 2013).

Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, (4), 332-340.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge's role in judging creativity. We describe two studies that examined how "quasi-experts" (people who have more experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compared with novices and experts in rating creative work. In Study 1, we compared different types of quasi-experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study 2, we compared experts, quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-experts (regardless of type) seemed to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were mixed for the engineer quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others to properly evaluate creative work.

Kickul J., &Gundry L.K . ( 2001).

Breaking through boundaries for organizational innovation: New managerial roles and practices in e-commerce firms

Journal of Management, 27, (3), 347-361.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

The information age presents complex opportunities and challenges for organizations, leading to the emergence of new managerial roles and practices. This research examined the influence of management diversity and creativity on the assessment of opportunities for e-commerce organizations, and on innovative internal and external managerial relationships and practices. Results from a sample of 120 CEOs of e-commerce firms revealed that opportunity assessment mediates the interactive effects of managerial diversity and creativity, influencing the adoption of innovative practices that focus on employee relationships, external networks, and new products and services. This research is one of the first empirical studies of managerial behavior in Internet organizations, and a suggested research agenda for this area of inquiry is presented.

Kornish L.J., &Ulrich K.T . ( 2014).

The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the sow's ear hypothesis

Journal of Marketing Research, 51, (1), 14-26.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

How important is the original conception of an idea-the "raw" idea- to an innovation's success? In this article, the authors explore whether raw ideas judged as "better" fare better in the market and also determine the strength of that relationship. The empirical context is Quirky.com, a community-driven product development company for household consumer products. The data include descriptions of the raw ideas as originally proposed, the ultimate product designs that resulted from those ideas, and sales figures. In addition, they contain two measures of idea quality: those from online consumer panelists and those from expert evaluators. The authors note the following findings: First, online consumer panels are a better way to determine a "good" idea than are ratings by experts. Second, predictions with samples as small as 20 consumers are reliable. Third, there is a stronger predictive link between raw ideas and consumers' purchase intent of final product designs than there is between those intentions and market outcomes. Fourth, the commercial importance of the raw idea is large, with ideas one standard deviation better translating to an approximately 50% increase in sales rate.

Levy S.,R Plaks J. E.., & Dweck C. S .( 1999) . Modes of social thought: Implicit theories and social understanding In S Chaiken & Y Trope (Eds), Dual process theories in social psychology New York: Guilford Press Implicit theories and social understanding. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Lingo E.L., &O'Mahony S. ( 2010).

Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects

Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, (1), 47-81.

[本文引用: 1]

Liu D., Gong Y. P., Zhou J., & Huang J. C . ( 2017).

Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership

Academy of Management Journal, 60, (3), 1164-1188.

[本文引用: 1]

Loewenstein J., &Mueller J.S . ( 2016).

Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments

Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, (4), 320-348.

[本文引用: 1]

Mainemelis C .( 2010).

Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas

Academy of Management Review, 35, (4), 558-578.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

What happens when an employee generates a new idea and wants to further explore it but is instructed by a manager to stop working on it? Among the various possibilities, the employee could choose to violate the manager's order and pursue the new idea illegitimately. I describe this action as creative deviance and, drawing on the creativity literature and deviance literature, propose a theory about its organizational conditions and implications.

Mainemelis C., Kark R., & Epitropaki O . ( 2015).

Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization

The Academy of Management Annals, 9, (1), 393-482.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Various streams of organizational research have examined the relationship between creativity and leadership, albeit using slightly different names such as “creative leadership”, “leading for creativity and innovation”, and “managing creatives”. In this article, we review this dispersed body of knowledge and synthesize it under a global construct of creative leadership, which refers to leading others toward the attainment of a creative outcome. Under this unifying construct, we classify three more narrow conceptualizations that we observe in the literature: facilitating employee creativity; directing the materialization of a leader's creative vision; and integrating heterogeneous creative contributions. After examining the contextual characteristics associated with the three conceptualizations, we suggest that they represent three distinct collaborative contexts of creative leadership. We discuss the theoretical implications of a multi-context framework of creative leadership, especially in terms of resolving three persisting problems in the extant literature: lack of definitional clarity, shortage of nuanced theories, and low contextual sensitivity.

Molinsky A. L., Grant A. M., & Margolis J. D . ( 2012).

The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, (1), 27-37.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We investigate how, why and when activating economic schemas reduces the compassion that individuals extend to others in need when delivering bad news. Across three experiments, we show that unobtrusively priming economic schemas decreases the compassion that individuals express to others in need, that this effect is mediated by dampened feelings of empathy and heightened perceptions of unprofessionalism, and that it is circumscribed to bad news that has economic implications. We discuss implications for theory and research on schemas, procedural justice, emotion expression, and prosocial behavior.

Mollick E . ( 2012).

People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance

Strategic Management Journal, 33, (9), 1001-1015.

URL     [本文引用: 10]

Performance differences between firms are generally attributed to organizational factors – such as routines, knowledge, and strategy – rather than to difference

Mueller J.S . ( 2017).

Creative change: Why we resist it.. How we can embrace it.

Boston:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

[本文引用: 10]

Mueller J. S., Melwani S., & Goncalo J. A . ( 2012).

The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas

Psychological Science, 23, (1), 13-17.

URL     PMID:22127366      [本文引用: 2]

People often reject creative ideas even when espousing creativity as a desired goal. To explain this paradox, we propose that people can hold a bias against creativity that is not necessarily overt, and which is activated when people experience a motivation to reduce uncertainty. In two studies, we measure and manipulate uncertainty using different methods including: discrete uncertainty feelings, and an uncertainty reduction prime. The results of both studies demonstrated a negative bias toward creativity (relative to practicality) when participants experienced uncertainty. Furthermore, the bias against creativity interfered with participants ability to recognize a creative idea. These results reveal a concealed barrier that creative actors may face as they attempt to gain acceptance for their novel ideas.

Mueller J. S., Melwani S., Loewenstein J., & Deal J. J . ( 2018).

Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition

Academy of Management Journal, 61, (1), 94-110.

[本文引用: 6]

Mueller J. S., Wakslak C. J., & Krishnan V . ( 2014).

Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 81-87.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

61Creativity theory assumes people can recognize creative ideas61We provide theory and evidence to challenge this assumption61Three studies show that low level construals deter creative idea recognition61Low level construals diminish creativity ratings by promoting uncertainty feelings61Future research should examine antecedents to creative idea recognition

Mumford M. D., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Peterson D. R., Day E. A., Hougen D. F., & Barrett J. D . ( 2012).

Mental models and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes

Creativity Research Journal, 24, (4), 311-330.

URL    

Knowledge, or expertise, has been held to contribute to creative problem-solving. In this effort, the relationship of one form of knowledge, mental models, to creative problem-solving was assessed. Undergraduates were asked to solve either a marketing or an education problem calling for creative thought. Prior to generating solutions to these problems, the mental models used by undergraduates to understand problems in these domains were assessed in terms of their objective and subjective features. It was found that both objective and subjective features of peoples mental models were related to the quality, originality, and elegance of problem solutions. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of mental models in creative problem-solving are discussed.

O'Connor A. J., Nemeth C. J., & Akutsu S . ( 2013).

Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity

Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 155-162.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Attempts to maximize creativity pervade corporate, artistic, and scientific domains. This research investigated how individual's lay beliefs about the malleability of creativity affect several measures of creative potential. Two correlational and 1 experimental study examined the relationship between malleability beliefs about creativity and creative problem-solving and prior creative achievement. In Study 1, incremental beliefs in creativity were associated with interest in creative thinking, self-reported creativity, and creative problem-solving. In Study 2, incremental beliefs were associated with prior creative achievement in a cross-cultural, professional sample. In Study 3, incremental primes of creativity led to improved creative problem-solving. All studies provide discriminant validity and domain-specificity for malleability beliefs in creativity. Specifically, Studies 1 and 2 controlled for individual differences in beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, suggesting that malleability beliefs of creativity and intelligence are meaningfully distinct. Meanwhile, Study 3 found that incremental beliefs of creativity enhance creative problem-solving but not problem-solving more generally.

Perry-Smith J.E., &Mannucci P.V . ( 2017).

From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey

Academy of Management Review, 42, (1), 53-79.

[本文引用: 1]

Pirlott A.G., &MacKinnon D.P . ( 2016).

Design approaches to experimental mediation

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38.

URL     PMID:27570259      [本文引用: 1]

Identifying causal mechanisms has become a cornerstone of experimental social psychology, and editors in top social psychology journals champion the use of mediation methods, particularly innovative ones when possible (e.g. Halberstadt, 2010, Smith, 2012). Commonly, studies in experimental social psychology randomly assign participants to levels of the independent variable and measure the mediating and dependent variables, and the mediator is assumed to causally affect the dependent variable. However, participants are not randomly assigned to levels of the mediating variable(s), i.e., the relationship between the mediating and dependent variables is correlational. Although researchers likely know that correlational studies pose a risk of confounding, this problem seems forgotten when thinking about experimental designs randomly assigning participants to levels of the independent variable and measuring the mediator (i.e., easurement-of-mediation designs). Experimentally manipulating the mediator provides an approach to solving these problems, yet these methods contain their own set of challenges (e.g., Bullock, Green, & Ha, 2010). We describe types of experimental manipulations targeting the mediator (manipulations demonstrating a causal effect of the mediator on the dependent variable and manipulations targeting the strength of the causal effect of the mediator) and types of experimental designs (double randomization, concurrent double randomization, and parallel), provide published examples of the designs, and discuss the strengths and challenges of each design. Therefore, the goals of this paper include providing a practical guide to manipulation-of-mediator designs in light of their challenges and encouraging researchers to use more rigorous approaches to mediation because manipulation-of-mediator designs strengthen the ability to infer causality of the mediating variable on the dependent variable.

Puente-Diaz R., &Cavazos-Arroyo J. ( 2017).

The influence of creative mindsets on achievement goals, enjoyment, creative self-efficacy and performance among business students

Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 1-11.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In two studies, we examined the influence of a growth and a fixed creative mindset on task-approach, other-approach and other-avoidance achievement goals, creative self-efficacy, enjoyment, and perceived performance and effort exerted among college business students from Mexico. We conducted both studies in a business educational setting where the development of creative skills is highly valued. Results from study 1 showed a positive influence of a growth creative mindset on task-approach achievement goals and creative self-efficacy. Results from study 2 showed a positive influence of a growth creative mindset on task-approach achievement goals. Similarly, a fixed creative mindset had a positive influence on other-approach achievement goals. Last, a growth mindset had a direct, positive influence on creative self-efficacy and perceived performance/effort exerted and an indirect influence on enjoyment. From our results, we can conclude that holding a growth creative mindset was related to adaptive motivational and performance outcomes. The theoretical and applied implications of our results were discussed.

Rafferty A.E., &Griffin M.A . ( 2006).

Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, (5), 1154-1162.

URL     PMID:16953776      [本文引用: 1]

Few organizational change studies identify the aspects of change that are salient to individuals and that influence well-being. The authors identified three distinct change characteristics: the frequency, impact and planning of change. R. S. Lazarus and S. Folkman's (1984) cognitive phenomenological model of stress and coping was used to propose ways that these change characteristics influence individuals' appraisal of the uncertainty associated with change, and, ultimately, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Results of a repeated cross-sectional study that collected individuals' perceptions of change one month prior to employee attitudes in consecutive years indicated that while the three change perceptions were moderately to strongly intercorrelated, the change perceptions displayed differential relationships with outcomes. Discussion focuses on the importance of systematically considering individuals' subjective experience of change.

Rouse W.B., &Morris N.M . ( 1986).

On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models

Psychological Bulletin, 100, (3), 349-363.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

This paper explores a wide range of issues associated with research on mental models. Based on a functional perspective, mental models are defined as the mechanisms whereby humans generate descriptions of system purpose and form, explanations of system functioning and observed system states, and predictions of future system states. Specifically, this paper reviews the ways in which different domains define mental models, characterize the purposes of such models, and attempt to identify the forms, structures, and parameters of models. The resulting distinctions among domains are described in terms of two dimensions: nature of model manipulation and level of behavioral discretion. Emerging salient issues include: (1) accessibility of mental models; (2) forms and content of representation; (3) nature of expertise; (4) cue utilization; and (5) instructional issues. Prospects for dealing with these substantive issues are presented. Limits in identifying mental models are due to the

Scott S.G., &Bruce R.A . ( 1994).

Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace

Academy of Management Journal, 37, (3), 580-607.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/256701

Shalley C. E., Zhou J., & Oldham G. R . ( 2004).

The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?

Journal of Management, 30, (6), 933-958.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This article systematically reviews and integrates empirical research that has examined the personal and contextual characteristics that enhance or stifle employee creativity in the workplace. Based on our review, we discuss possible determinants of employee creativity that have received little research attention, describe several areas where substantial challenges and unanswered questions remain, present a number of new research directions for theory building, and identify methodological improvements needed in future studies of creativity in organizations.

Siler K., Lee K., & Bero L . ( 2015).

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, (2), 360-365.

URL     PMID:25535380      [本文引用: 2]

Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill--suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.

Spencer S. J., Zanna M. P., & Fong G. T . ( 2005).

Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, (6), 845-851.

[本文引用: 1]

Steele L. M., Johnson G., & Medeiros K. E . ( 2018).

Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes

Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 21-29.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Since its inception 15 years ago, creative self-efficacy has been identified as an important predictor of creativity, the generation of new and useful ideas. Over 50 studies examining this relationship suggest a strong, positive correlation. Nevertheless, like most research on creativity, the research on creative self-efficacy has overemphasized its generative aspects and largely ignored the evaluative aspects, both of which are critical to the production of new and useful ideas. To address this, the present effort developed a measure of idea evaluation self-efficacy. Through two studies, evidence is obtained for the construct and incremental validity of this measure. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Stevens G.A., &Burley J. ( 1997).

3, 000 Raw ideas = 1 commercial success!

Research Technology Management, 40, (3), 16-27.

[本文引用: 2]

Analyzes data from new product development, patenting activity and venture capital experience to come up with success curves for industrial innovation. Setting expectations of those involved in industrial innovation; Importance of benchmarking one's own process against others in the industry; Calculation of future expected benefits from current innovation spending.

West M.A . ( 2002).

Ideas are ten a penny: It’s team implementation not idea generation that counts

Applied Psychology, 51, (3), 411-424.

[本文引用: 1]

West M. A., & Sacramento C. A. .( 2012) . Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational climate In M D Mumford (Ed), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp 359-385) San Diego: Academic Press The role of team and organizational climate. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 359-385). San Diego: Academic Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., & Griffin R. W . ( 1993).

Toward a theory of organizational creativity

Academy of Management Review, 18, (2), 293-321.

URL     [本文引用: 5]

In this article we develop a theoretical framework for understanding creativity in complex social settings. We define organizational creativity as the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system. The starting point for our theoretical development is provided by the interactionist model of creative behavior developed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989). This model and supporting literature on creative behavior and organizational innovation are used to develop an interactional framework for organizational creativity. The theoretical framework is summarized by three propositions that can effectively guide the development of testable hypotheses.

Zhou J., &Hoever I.J . ( 2014).

Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333-359.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Workplace creativity exhibited by individual employees and teams is a key driver of organizational innovation and success. After briefly touching upon issues re

Zhou J., Wang X. M., Song L. J., & Wu J . ( 2017).

Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity

Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, (2), 180-202.

URL     PMID:27893257      [本文引用: 4]

Abstract Novelty recognition is the crucial starting point for extracting value from the ideas generated by others. In this paper we develop an associative evaluation account for how personal and contextual factors motivate individuals to perceive novelty and creativity. We report 4 studies that systematically tested hypotheses developed from this perspective. Study 1 (a laboratory experiment) showed that perceivers regulatory focus, as an experimentally induced state, affected novelty perception. Study 2 (a field study) found that perceivers promotion focus and prevention focus, measured as chronic traits, each interacted with normative level of novelty and creativity: perceivers who scored higher on promotion focus perceived more novelty (or creativity) in novel (or creative) targets than those who scored lower, whereas perceivers who scored higher on prevention focus perceived less novelty (or creativity) in novel (or creative) targets than those who scored lower. Study 3 (a field study) showed that organizational culture affected the perception of novelty and creativity. Study 4 (a laboratory experiment) found perceiver-by-idea-by-context 3-way interaction effects: for perceivers with prevention focus, the positive relation between normative level of novelty and novelty ratings was weakened in the loss-framing condition versus the gain-framing condition. We discuss implications of the findings for future research and management practice.

版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/