心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1437-1453. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01437

研究构想

自恋型领导对团队创造力形成过程的多视角研究

李铭泽, 叶慧莉, 张光磊,

武汉理工大学管理学院, 武汉 430070

The influence mechanism of narcissistic leadership on the formation process of team creativity: A multi-perspective study

LI Mingze, YE Huili, ZHANG Guanglei,

School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China

通讯作者: 张光磊, E-mail: zhangguanglei@whut.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2019-12-27   网络出版日期: 2020-09-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学青年基金项目.  71802154
中国博士后科学基金面上项目.  2019M662734

Received: 2019-12-27   Online: 2020-09-15

摘要

领导自恋是组织中的普遍现象, 自恋型领导是否能有效地整合团队知识形成创新是管理者不可回避的问题。在回顾已有研究基础上, 采用聚合观、过程观和社会网络三种视角, 全面地厘清自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响。其中, 聚合观强调个体创造力对形成团队创造力的重要作用, 过程观强调团队成员之间的交互作用在团队创造力形成过程中不可或缺, 而社会网络视角注重团队成员的相对位置和内外关系。三种视角相互补充, 明确了自恋型领导和团队创造力之间关系的内在机制以及边界条件。研究结论将为存在自恋型领导的团队干预策略提供参考, 有助于为管理者提高自恋型领导对团队作用的有效性提供借鉴。

关键词: 自恋型领导 ; 聚合观 ; 过程观 ; 社会网络 ; 团队创造力

Abstract

Narcissism leadership is a common phenomenon in organizations. It is important to study whether narcissistic leaders can effectively integrate knowledge in their teams to foster creativity. Draw on the review of the existing research, we adopted the aggregation, process, and social network perspectives to comprehensively clarify the influence of narcissism leadership on team creativity. Specifically, the perspective of aggregation emphasizes the important role of individual creativity in the development of team creativity, the perspective of process emphasizes that the interaction among team members is critical in enhancing team creativity, and the perspective of social network focuses on the team members’ relative positions as well as their internal and external relations. These three perspectives complemented each other to clarify the mechanisms and boundary conditions of the relationship between narcissism leadership and team creativity. This study provides implications regarding the intervention strategies for work teams that are managed by narcissistic leaders.

Keywords: narcissistic leadership ; aggregation ; process ; social networks ; team creativity

PDF (835KB) 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

李铭泽, 叶慧莉, 张光磊. (2020). 自恋型领导对团队创造力形成过程的多视角研究 . 心理科学进展, 28(9), 1437-1453

LI Mingze, YE Huili, ZHANG Guanglei. (2020). The influence mechanism of narcissistic leadership on the formation process of team creativity: A multi-perspective study. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(9), 1437-1453

1 问题提出

团队创造力是企业在激烈的竞争环境中保持优势与活力的重要因素, 因此, 如何促进团队创造力是学者及管理者广泛关注的话题(王明旋, 马艳茹, 张勇, 宋靖, 2019)。大量研究表明, 团队的创造力表现与领导者的风格特质存在着密切的联系(如Zhang, Ou, Tsui, & Wang, 2017; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), 因为领导者支配着组织的资源, 不同风格特质的领导决定着团队资源的倾斜与分配, 决定着团队的表现以及创造力(郭一蓉, 宋继文, 朱丽, 2018)。然而, 一个有趣的现象是, 现实中许多领导身上存在着一种普遍的特质——自恋。许多领导在走上“高位”之后, 自恋的特性表现得愈发明显, 有学者甚至公开指出“自恋是老板间普遍存在的一种文化” (李峰, 2015)。一项实验研究显示, 具有自恋特质的个体容易在组织激烈的竞争中脱颖而出并成为领导(Nevicka, de Hoogh, van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011), 即自恋型领导。因此, 一个亟待解决的问题是:自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响如何?

对于这一问题, 尽管以往研究对自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系进行了一定地探讨, 但在结论上呈现出严重的不一致。例如Zhang等(2017)研究发现同时具备谦虚和自恋特质的领导会增加自身的社会化魅力, 从而提高组织的创新绩效和创新文化。Gerstner, König, Enders和Hambrick (2013)发现自恋型CEO是克服技术变革阻力的重要力量, 他通过增加管理层对新技术的注意力来推动新技术在组织中的顺利实施。此外, Nevicka, Ten Velden, de Hoogh和van Vianen (2011)的研究指出自恋型领导能为组织设定宏伟目标, 促进组织创新。然而, Abfalter (2013)探索了创造性工作环境的极端情况:表演艺术团队所需的领导力特质, 访谈结果表明自恋对于表演艺术人士的领导者来说是黑暗特质, 这是因为自恋型领导会扼杀表演团队的创造性工作和成功。Eisenbeiß和Boerner (2013)认为由于变革型领导的自恋倾向, 可能增加下属依赖性, 从而降低下属的创造力。可见, 有必要对自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系进行深入地剖析, 进一步澄清自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系并揭示其中的作用机制及边界条件。

现有研究对团队创造力的探索主要从聚合观、过程观以及社会网络三种视角对团队创造力的形成进行解构。其中聚合观认为, 个体创造力在形成团队创造力的过程中起决定作用(Taylor & Greve, 2006; Zhou & Hoever, 2014); 这种视角突出员工创造力的作用, 领导特质与行为风格能否促进员工提升创造力成为左右团队创造力的关键因素。过程观强调团队成员之间的互动作用(Hoever et al., 2012); 这种视角更加强调领导对团队知识信息的整合、氛围的打造。社会网络视角基于更为系统和互动的视角来审视团队创造力的形成(Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), 强调了个体在团队中的相对位置以及互动形式, 这种视角下, 领导特质能否与其所处的网络形态相得益彰成为左右团队创造力的关键所在。三种视角之间存在互补与融合的趋势, 但三种视角所带来的结论可能存在差异性。

基于不同团队创造力的研究视角, 自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响关系可能存在差异。例如, 在聚合观视角下, 自恋型领导对员工创造力的作用关系将决定团队创造力的高低。在过程观视角下, 自恋型领导是否有利于团队信息的吸收与整合、是否有利于个体创造性想法向团队扩散?尽管自恋者对自我的青睐可能造成对他人的忽视, 甚至可能打压团队成员的创新想法, 但是在社会网络视角下可能出现另外的故事。研究表明, 自恋型领导对员工产生的影响与相对距离相关, 当自恋领导与员工距离较近时, 副作用显现, 而当领导者与员工距离较远时, 自恋领导的“魅力”作用则更加突出(Nevicka, van Vianen, de Hoogh, & Voorn, 2018), 自恋型领导对处于不同相对位置的员工可能产生不同的影响, 因而在不同的网络状态下, 其对团队创造力影响也可能存在不同。基于此, 为更加透彻的检验领导自恋与团队创造力之间的关系以及作用机制, 本研究拟从聚合观、过程观以及社会网络多种视角出发, 综合探讨自恋型领导的对团队创造力的影响, 并揭示其中的作用机制以及重要边界条件, 为权衡自恋型领导的利弊、指导组织实践提供理论参考。

2 国内外研究现状

2.1 团队创造力的相关研究

团队创造力(Team creativity)源于个体创造力(Creativity), 与个体创造力相似, 团队创造力和个体创造力都是关于产品、过程或者服务的新奇且有用的想法(Amabile, 1988; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999), 但是二者在概念上也有着本质区别。团队创造力不仅仅是某个个体认知的表征, 而是团队整体认知的表征, 包含了团队成员之间的互动(Hoever et al., 2012; Leenders, van Engelen, & Kratzer, 2003)。现有研究过多的关注个体创造力, 而忽视了团队创造力的重要性(George, 2007)。回顾以往研究, 学者们大致从聚合观、过程观与网络观对团队创造力的形成过程进行了探索, 如图1所示。

图1

图1   当前团队创造力的研究现状分布图


聚合观认为:团队创造力的形成是“集腋成裘, 积沙成塔”的过程, 是个体创造力的函数, 强调的是个体创造力在团队创造力形成过程中发挥的作用, 也就是说, 团队成员个体创造力越高, 团队创造力也就越高, 个体创造力聚合成为了团队整体的创造力。例如Pirola-Merlo和Mann (2004)指出团队创造力是在特定时间点团队成员创造力的平均值或者加权平均值。根据这一逻辑, 学者们关注团队成员的特征和构成对团队创造力的影响。关于团队成员的同质性和异质性对团队创造力的讨论较为激烈。例如Hoever等(2012)的研究表明, 在进行观点分析时, 异质性高的团队更具有创造力。Smith, Collins和Clark (2005)指出团队成员的功能异质性有利于团队知识创造。de Wit (2012)提出异质性高的团队会降低团队创造力。倪旭东、项小霞和姚春序(2016)在总结了以往矛盾性观点的基础上提出只有团队异质性的平衡性高时, 才会对团队创造力产生积极影响。相关研究主要聚焦于创造力的构成模型对团队创造力的影响作用, 个体创造力决定了团队创造力, 而团队的特征, 过程和环境在其中也会起到一定的调节作用。例如, 团队成员多样化可能会带来团队冲突, 从而降低团队创造力, 在这个过程中, 变革性领导(Shin & Zhou, 2007)和团队成员观点接受(Hoever et al., 2012)也可以缓和团队成员多样化的负面效应。

虽然聚合观注意到了团队中个体创造力对团队创造力的重要作用, 却忽视了团队成员之间的交互作用。团队创造力的过程观认为除了团队个体创造力之外, 团队过程和团队氛围在团队创造力形成中起到不可或缺的作用。团队成员之间的交互作用一方面可能会激发灵感, 甚至在个体创造力低的情况下, 好的交互作用也会带来较高水平的团队创造力; 另一方面可能会激发冲突和矛盾, 甚至在个体创造力高的情况下, 低质量的团队成员互动也不会促使高水平的团队创造力产生。例如团队愿景、参与性安全、任务导向和团队对创新的支持, 都可以很好的预测团队创造性绩效(Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; West, 2002; West & Anderson, 1996)。此外, 领导支持、团队特征、工作环境、团队氛围等因素也是影响团队创造力的重要因素(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Taggar, 2002)。

聚合观和过程观分别依据“点”和“线”的逻辑对团队创造力的形成过程进行了阐述, 社会网络视角比传统视角则更注重团队成员之间的关系和结构, 从“面”的逻辑来理解团队创造力的产生过程, 可以与聚合观和过程观形成良好的互补。团队社会网络指的是团队成员与团队内部或外部成员构成的网络结构(Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006)。社会网络视角强调团队成员内外部网络关系强度和在网络中的相对位置在团队创造力形成过程中所起到的作用(George, 2007; Leenders et al., 2003; Sosa, 2011)。例如, Uzzi和Spiro (2005)发现创造性艺术家的“小世界网络”与音乐剧的艺术价值和财务绩效之间呈现出倒U型关系。Perry-Smith (2006)提出关系的紧密中心性(Closeness centrality)与网络外部联系的相互作用共同解释了创造力。在用社会网络进行个体创造力分析时, 可以将创造力形成过程分为想法产生、想法精化、想法支持和想法实施这几个阶段。当个体的网络关系符合个体所在阶段的需求时, 个体就成功度过这个阶段, 进入下一阶段, 而一个阶段有益的关系或结构可能对另一个结构有害(Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017)。虽然社会网络与个体创造力之间关系的研究较为成熟, 但社会网络与团队创造力关系的研究仍然处于探索阶段, 相关理论和实证研究匮乏, 现有实证研究结论也未统一(Kratzer, Leenders, & van Engelen, 2010; Wu & Cormican, 2016; 张宁俊, 张露, 王国瑞, 2019)。

团队创造力的聚合观与过程观推动了团队创造力研究的发展, 并且两者之间在不断融合与相互借鉴。但是, 现有研究对于团队创造力的形成机制揭示得仍然不足, 特别是许多研究割裂了个体和团队之间的联系, 无法回应一个关键性的问题:“团队创造力为什么能超越个体创造力的合集而存在?”。为更加深入的理解团队创造力的形成机制, 需要从聚合观、过程观和社会网络视角共同考察团队创造力的形成过程。

2.2 自恋型领导的相关研究

自恋的研究广泛存在于在心理学、精神病学、社会人格学中(Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011)。在组织行为学的研究中, 越来越多的学者将自恋视为一种人格特质, 在人群中正态分布(Foster & Campbell, 2007)。自恋型领导基于自恋这一人格特质而产生。de Vries和Miller (1985)首次将自恋和领导力结合起来, 他将自恋型领导分为三类, 反应型自恋领导、自我欺骗型自恋领导、建设型自恋领导。反应型自恋领导在追求自己的进步的同时, 很少在乎是否对他人的伤害和利用, 对批评非常敏感, 不愿意承认错误。自我欺骗型自恋领导害怕失败, 能够倾听别人的意见, 进行保守的决策, 但其完美主义和犹豫容易使得组织停滞。建设型自恋领导对自己的能力非常自信, 有很强的判断能力和目标导向能力, 是三类自恋型领导中唯一积极的领导类型。Rosenthal和Pittinsky (2006)提出:当领导行事由自大、对权力的幻想等这些自身自恋特质导致的需求驱使时, 自恋型领导就出现了。Khoo和Burch (2008)以及Resick, Whitman, Weingarden和Hiller (2009)也将自恋型领导定义为个人目的的权力行使。基于以往研究, 本研究将自恋型领导定义为领导者行为受到其自恋人格特质影响而表现出一定自恋行为的领导风格。

由于自恋的独特人格, 自恋型领导与其他领导类型不同, 会在自我概念与认知、行为倾向, 以及第三方感知上具有一定的特征。具体如表1所示, 在自我概念与认知上, 自恋型领导具有较为膨胀的自我概念(Wallace & Baumeister, 2002), 受这种自我感念的影响, 心理上会具有较强的虚荣心(Ackerman et al., 2011), 展现出较为强烈的自我表现欲望(Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005)与权力感。但是自恋型领导的自尊与存在感通常建立在他人的关注与赞赏之上, 这种外在因素可能随着情境的变化, 具有不稳定性, 这使得自恋型领导的自尊容易受到外界干扰, 表现出脆弱的自尊(Krizan & Herlache, 2018)。在行为倾向上, 由于自恋型领导对自己较为关注, 因此行为在通常比较利己(Liu, Chiang, Fehr, Xu, & Wang, 2017), 一方面, 他们渴望外界的关注和赞美, 不容许批评的存在(Chatterjee & Pollock, 2017; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004; O’Reilly, Doerr, & Chatman, 2018), 自恋型领导膨胀的自我概念使得其有强烈的应得感, 表现出对他人的知识抑制和对自我的完全肯定(Ouimet, 2010); 另一方面, 他们很容易忽视外界的规则, 存在很强的管理舞弊的可能性(Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013)。在第三方感知方面, 自恋型领导常常在短期的相处中可以赢得好感, 但这种好感并不持久, 随着时间的推移, 这种魅力将难以维持(Wurst et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017), 自恋型领导不关心别人的利益和感受, 显得缺乏同理心(Back et al.,2013)。

表1   自恋型领导的特征

维度特征相关文献
自我概念与认知膨胀的自我概念Wallace & Baumeister, 2002
虚荣心, 自我表现欲Ackerman et al., 2011
权利感Campbell et al., 2005
自我重要性Campbell, Foster, & Brunell, 2004
脆弱的自尊Krizan & Herlache, 2018
行为倾向渴望别人的关注、赞美和认同Chatterjee & Pollock, 2017
对特殊待遇有着期待Lee, Gregg, & Park, 2013
无视规则Harrison, Summers, & Mennecke 2018
缺乏诚信, 管理舞弊Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013
对他人的负面评价敏感O’Reilly et al., 2018
不原谅、不和解Exline et al., 2004
知识抑制Ouimet, 2010
利己性Liu et al., 2017
第三方感知初识具有吸引力, 但难维持Wurst et al., 2017
缺乏同理心Back et al., 2013
个性化魅力Zhang et al., 2017

注:该表格由本文作者根据文献整理。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


现有研究对自恋型领导的有效性呈现出一种“喜忧参半”的局面, 既有光明的一面, 又有其黑暗面。本研究从员工层面、团队层面、组织层面对自恋型领导的影响效果进行梳理。在员工层面, 一方面, 自恋型领导降低了员工基于组织的自尊, 对员工的帮助行为和建言行为产生了消极影响(Carnevale, Huang, & Harms, 2018); 自恋型领导增加了员工的恶意嫉妒, 员工会从事针对领导的反生产行为(Braun, Aydin, Frey, & Peus, 2018); CEO自恋还会增加下级管理者的离职率(Resick et al., 2009)。另一方面, 自恋型领导对员工层面的影响也有积极的方面, 例如自恋型领导在同时具备了谦逊特质时, 员工的工作投入和工作绩效都会提升(Owens, Wallace, & Waldman, 2015)。在团队层面, 一方面, 自恋型领导对团队的公民行为产生负向影响, 并会增加团队成员反生产行为(Martin, Côté, & Woodruff, 2016)。另一方面, 当团队目标与自恋型领导的个人目标一致的时候, 自恋型领导会给团队带来积极的结果(Nevicka, de Hoogh et al., 2011)。在组织层面, 一方面, CEO自恋会降低企业社会责任实践对公司绩效的积极影响(Grijalva & Harms, 2014), 自恋型CEO喜欢冒险, 会增加公司的风险支出(Zhu & Chen, 2015)。另一方面, 自恋型CEO更具有收购、联盟并推出与新技术相关的研发项目的可能性, 同时, 自恋型CEO还会提升管理层对新技术的关注度(Gerstner et al., 2013), 具有谦逊特质的自恋型CEO不仅可以提高其社会化魅力, 还有利于公司的创新绩效和创新文化。总之, 现有关于自恋型领导的研究多集中在员工层面, 对团队和组织层面的研究较少, 并且多集中在自恋型领导的破坏性影响, 为数不多的研究阐述了自恋与一些积极特质或情境的交互, 会激发自恋型领导的积极效果。

2.3 理论链接与述评

尽管现有研究对团队创造力和自恋型领导分别进行了一定程度上的探讨, 但是两个研究领域处于分离的状态, 少有研究直接检验二者的关系。但现有研究现状和理论线索显示, 自恋型领导和团队创造力之间存在着千丝万缕的联系, 迫切地需要实证研究检验与挖掘。

首先, 对于自恋型领导和团队创造力之间的关系, 以往研究尚未进行深入探讨, 现有自恋型领导的研究, 集中在直属上司对员工个体层面, 以及CEO自恋对组织层面的影响结果, 缺乏自恋型领导对团队层面的影响结果和内在机制的探讨。有限的研究结论也未达成一致结论。一方面, 学者们发现自恋型领导敢于挑战和冒险, 为了“哗众取宠”而增加对组织创新的支持(Zhang et al., 2017)。另一方面, 学者们认为自恋型领导所具有的知识抑制、爱出风头等特征将使其阻碍团队成员产生创造性成果(Abfalter, 2013; Ouimet, 2010)。因此, 对自恋型领导和团队创造力之间的关系进行实证研究不仅可以拓展现有的自恋型领导领域的研究文献, 进一步厘清自恋型领导和团队创造力之间的关系, 还有利于对团队创造力的形成机制有更深层次的认知, 进一步检验自恋型领导的有效性。

其次, 对于自恋型领导与团队创造力的之间的作用机制仍缺乏实证探索, 特别是对其积极的内在机制探索尤为匮乏。现有研究更多的将自恋型领导视为“黑暗”的领导, 但是de Vries和Miller (1985)在理论上指出, 自恋型领导也有建设型自恋的一面。例如, Sosik, Chun和Zhu (2014)的研究表明员工感知领导的建设型自恋程度高时, 会增加其心理授权, 从而增加下属的道德认同。值得注意的是, 最近的研究表明, 自恋型领导对团队内部和外部或与领导处于不同相对位置的员工的影响可能截然不同, 因为在组织中, 低领导可见性降低了自恋型领导的消极作用(Nevicka et al., 2018)。因此, 领导自恋对团队“内”、“外”过程可能影响迥异, 尽管自恋型领导的一些黑暗面可能给团队过程造成消极的影响, 但是自恋型领导光鲜的外表、自信的肢体动作和幽默的发言(Back, Schmukle, & Egloff,2010), 可能使得他在外部交流中获得支持, 对团队外部更多的展示的是魅力的一面, 吸收团队外部资源, 为团队吸收社会资源, 进而促进团队创造力的提升。

最后, 团队创造力不同于个体创造力, 团队成员的内外部关系和合作对团队创造力起着重要作用, 结合社会网络关系视角探讨自恋型领导和团队创造力之间的关系能更加清晰的展现自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响过程与效果。领导作为团队内部的“领头羊”, 既可能是团队较为中心的关系点, 也可能是连接团队内外部的重要“桥梁”, 自恋型领导对团队的社会网络有重要的塑造作用。现有对于自恋型领导的研究从个体的心理和行为出发, 更多的关注“点” (对个体创造力的影响)和“线” (对团队过程的影响)的作用, 社会网络方法将个体作为关系网络的一部分, 将“点”与“线”进行链接, 更加清晰地刻画“面”的影响。因此, 关注关系网络的结构性(Scott, 1988), 运用社会网络方法对自恋型领导影响团队创造力的机制和边界进行探讨, 无论是对领导力和还是对团队创造力领域的研究都有重要的拓展作用。

综上所述, 本研究拟从团队创造力的聚合观、过程观和网络化视角出发, 对自恋型领导与团队创造力的关系进行探讨, 并揭示其内在机制及重要的边界条件。

3 研究构想

本研究重点关注团队创造力的形成, 拟分别从领导以及团队成员两方视角出发, 探索领导自恋在团队创造力的形成过程中所扮演的关键作用, 为制定组织干预策略提供参考与依据。具体而言, 本研究将最终达到以下研究目标。(1)从团队以及员工两个层面出发, 进一步探讨领导自恋对团队创造力的影响, 解决以往研究结论不一致的问题。(2)打开领导自恋对团队创造力影响的“黑箱”, 揭示领导对团队创造力形成的影响作用机制, 丰富对领导自恋-团队创造力关系的认识。(3)探索领导自恋对团队创造力影响的干预策略。为扩大领导自恋的优势, 减少领导自恋的副作用提供理论与实证参考依据。

当前对于团队创造力的研究主要从聚合观与过程观两种角度来考察团队创造力的形成。因此, 本研究拟借鉴以往研究框架从产出观与过程观对自恋型领导与团队创造力的关系进行理论链接, 挖掘其中的影响机制与边界条件。本研究的总体框架如图2所示。

图2

图2   自恋型领导对团队创造力形成的影响路径


3.1 研究一:自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响机制:聚合观视角

聚合观视角强调团队创造力来源于个体层面员工创造力的聚合。因此, 员工的创造力水平将直接决定团队创造力的水平。领导者通常控制着团队内部的资源分配以及信息的流动, 领导者的特征与行为会对员工心理与行为产生较大的影响。因此, 自恋型领导可能影响员工创造力水平, 从而影响团队创造力。基于此, 本部分的重点将从团队创造力的聚合观视角出发, 基于社会认知理论和自我决定理论探讨以下问题:自恋型领导与员工/团队创造力的关系如何?自恋型领导是如何影响员工创造力的, 其内在机制是什么?研究模型如图3所示。

图3

图3   聚合观视角下自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响


(1)自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系。以往研究表明, 领导者也是影响员工创造力的关键因素(Dong, BartolL, Zhang, & Li, 2017; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015), 尽管以往研究没有将自恋型领导与员工创造力相联系, 但是一些理论线索表现, 两者仍然存在着密切的联系。当员工的创造性行为受到关注与支持时, 可能促进其创造力的提升, 相反当员工的创造性行为受到忽视与打压时, 则可能降低其创造力(de Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011)。自恋型领导可能抑制员工的创造力, 一方面, 有研究表明个体的自恋与创造力水平成正相关(Raskin, 1980), 因此, 自恋型领导可能具有较高的创造性, 并且自恋者认为自己的才是最好的, 可能将精力放在自身的创意上而忽视他人的想法。另一方面, 自恋者以自我为中心, 不擅长理解他人的观点, 不擅于反思(Exline et al., 2004; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), 因此难以接受他人的创意。一项访谈的研究结果显示, 自恋的特质在高创造力需求的团队领导力中不受欢迎, 因为自恋型领导会扼杀成员的创造性工作(Abfalter, 2013)。综上所述, 自恋型领导将降低员工创造力。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设1a:自恋型领导与员工创造力呈负相关关系。

根据聚合观的观点, 团队成员的创造力水平很大程度上决定了团队总体的创造力水平, 团队创造力可以看作是团队内各成员的创造力的平均值或者加权平均值(Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004), 例如, Gibson和Gibbs (2006)以及Pearsall, Ellis和Evans (2008)都采用将团队成员创造力取均值的方式来计算团队创造力。结合本研究之前的分析, 员工创造力将受到自恋型领导的负向影响, 而依据聚合观, 员工创造力的均值又决定了该团队总体的创造力。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设1b:自恋型领导与团队创造力呈负相关关系。

(2)员工创新自我效能感和员工内在动机的中介作用

尽管持聚合观观点的学者认为, 员工创造力是团队创造力的决定基础, 但是该理论也同样强调了团队过程在其中所起的影响作用。Taggar (2002)重点分析个体创造力向团队创造力转化过程, 指出团队内的个体特征(如性格、价值观等)、个体行为等都会对转化过程产生重要的影响作用。团队领导在团队中占据着重要的地位, 掌握着团队内的资源分配权与话语权。因此, 不同的领导特质和行为势必会对个体-团队创造力关系造成影响。对于自恋型领导而言, 主要可能从两个方面对员工创造力产生影响。

1)员工创新自我效能感。自恋型领导会通过降低员工的创新自我效能感, 从而降低员工创造力。社会认知理论认为个体对自身能否完成任务的认知:自我效能感, 影响着个体后续的行为(Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989)。只有当个体对任务的效能感充分时, 才能积极有效的完成任务。创新自我效能感指的是员工对于自己能够取得创新成果的信念(Tierney & Farmer, 2002)。根据Ouimet (2010)的观点, 自恋型领导追求自我影响力, 倾向于对他人表现抑制, 以抬高自己, 获取荣誉感, 因此自恋型领导可能会忽视他人的观点, 从而对员工的创新自我效能感产生消极影响。此外, 自恋型领导会对团队进行知识抑制, 这为员工的知识积累带来阻碍, 不利于员工的创新自我效能感的产生。员工的创新自我效能感越低, 员工对完成创造性工作会更加没有信念, 创造力无疑会降低(Oldham & Cummings, 1996)。综上所述, 自恋型领导会降低员工的创新自我效能感, 从而阻碍员工创造力的产生。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设1c:员工创新自我效能感中介自恋型领导和员工创造力之间的关系。即自恋型领导通过降低员工创新自我效能感, 从而降低员工创造力。

2)员工内在动机。自恋型领导会通过降低员工内在动机, 从而降低员工创造力。自我决定理论认为, 个体的动机和人格受到社会环境的影响, 社会环境既可能增强个体的自我动机, 也可能会导致个体消极的行为和态度。支持型的外部环境将更利于员工内在动机的激发(Deci & Ryan, 2000), 内在动机不仅与持久性相关联, 还对启发式活动产生积极影响(Deci & Ryan, 2012), 而且还有助于个体进行概念理解(Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), 促进创造力(Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984)。然而, 自恋型领导可能会降低员工的内在动机, 从而降低员工的创造力。自恋型领导是典型的控制型领导(Matosic et al., 2017), 结合自恋型领导缺乏同理心以及剥削下属的特点, 自恋型领导可能会扼杀员工的工作自主性, 这种控制型的互动方式, 将会有损员工的内在动机(Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen, 2011)。此外, Carnevale等(2018)的研究表明, 自恋型领导会降低员工的归属感, 这不仅会降低员工对团队的认同感, 还会抑制员工的内在工作动机。内在动机缺失将会降低员工的创造力(Amabile et al., 1996)。综上所述, 自恋型领导会降低员工的内在动机, 从而阻碍员工创造力的产生。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设1d:员工内在动机中介自恋型领导与员工创造力之间的关系。即自恋型领导通过降低员工内在动机, 从而降低员工创造力。

3.2 研究二:领导自恋对团队创造力的影响机制:过程观视角

过程观的观点认为, 团队创造力的形成起决定作用的是其团队成员之间的互动过程, 例如, Gong, Kim, Lee和Zhu (2013)认为创新支持氛围是决定团队创造力形成的一种重要过程。领导对团队行为过程有着重要的影响。因此, 本部分将基于自恋型组织认同理论, 重点探讨核心问题:领导自恋如何通过影响团队过程, 进而影响团队创造力?具体研究模型如图4所示。

图4

图4   过程观视角下自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响


(1)自恋型领导与团队创造力。尽管以往研究没有直接检验自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系, 但梳理以往研究结论可以发现, 自恋型领导与团队创造力之间可能存在着争议性的关系。一方面, 有学者认为, 自恋型领导自信, 有魅力, 有远大的目标, 能激活员工的积极性, 能够克服困难(Maccoby, 2000), 这有利于提升团队创造力(Tsai, Chi, Grandey, & Fung, 2012)。此外, Gerstner等(2013)的研究表明自恋型CEO与在组织中推行新技术正相关, 并会通过增加管理层对新技术的注意力来减少组织创新的阻碍。另一方面, 也有学者指出, 自恋型领导自私, 只关心自己, 忽视他人的付出, 容易破坏团队良好的氛围, 削弱团队凝聚力(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Campbell et al., 2011), Abfalter (2013)的研究也显示, 自恋型领导不适合存在于创造性团队中。本研究认为, 这些争议性的结论主要原因可能主要来自于两方面:1)自恋型领导内涵的丰富性。自恋型领导不同的维度特质可能对团队创造力产生不同的过程影响。2)情境差异性。不同的情境所激活的自恋型领导的不同特质性行为, 带动的不同团队过程也可能存在差异。基于此, 本研究认为自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系可能取决于两者之间的互动过程以及情境氛围。因此, 这里将不做两者之间的直接关系假设, 并将在下面重点从团队过程探讨两者之间的中介作用并考虑团队氛围的边界作用, 以此来进一步建立两者之间的联系。

(2)领导创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程参与的中介作用。自恋型组织认同理论为理解领导创新自我效能感与团队创造力过程参与之间的关系提供了理论基础。自恋型组织认同指的是个体将自己的身份视为组织身份的核心, 将组织身份包含在个人身份之中。在高度自恋的情况下, 个体的组织认同趋向于自恋型组织认同的形式(Galvin, Lange & Ashforth, 2015)。创新自我效能感(Creative self-efficacy)是指个体对自身创新能力和获取创新成果的信心(Tierney & Farmer, 2002)。团队创造性参与过程(Creative process engagement)是指团队员工参与创造性活动相关的形式与过程(Zhang & Bartol, 2010), 大量研究表明, 具有自恋人格的个体较为自信, 对自身的评价较高(John & Robins, 1994; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), 追求他人的赞扬与影响力(Gerstner et al., 2013)。因此, 自恋型领导可能通过表现自我的创造力以获取团队成员的赞誉与认同, 进而可能推动团队参与创造性过程, 促进团队创造力的形成。换言之, 自恋型领导可能通过创新自我效能的评价促进团队创造性过程, 进而促进团队创造力的形成。一方面, 根据以往研究, 自恋型领导对自身的创造力评价较高, 即使客观上并不是如此(Goncalo, Flynn, & Kim, 2010)。这足以显示自恋型领导对自身能够取得创新成果的信心十足。另一方面, 自恋型组织认同理论表明自恋者将自己认为组织身份的核心, 认为组织获得的成就很大部分与自己有关(Galvin et al., 2015)。自恋型领导追求赞誉, 当其对自身创造力评价较高, 具有较高的效能感时, 可能通过推动团队创造性过程, 从中表现自己以获取团队成员的赞誉与认可。团队创造性过程参与和团队创造力之间有着紧密的联系。创造性过程参与包括(1)问题识别, (2)信息搜索与编码, (3)创意生成(Zhang & Bartol, 2010), 当员工努力的识别问题, 尽可能收集更多的相关信息, 并产生大量的创新的点子时, 新颖有用的想法就更有可能产生(Amabile, 1988)。这个过程增强了团队成员的认知能力以及对于创造性活动的关注, 有利于增强创造力。以往研究表明, 团队创造性过程是推动团队创造力的关键因素(Zhang & Bartol, 2010)。因此尽管自恋型领导基于“私心”推动的团队创造性过程, 但也可能促进团队创造力的提升。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设2a:领导创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程参与中介自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系。即自恋型领导通过对自身创造性能力的评价, 推动团队创造性过程参与, 进而提升团队创造力。

(3)领导感知组织创新价值的调节作用。自恋型组织认同的个体觉得自己是所在组织的关键驱动力。这导致自恋者不会放过增强自身在组织中地位的机会(Galvin et al., 2015)。感知组织创新价值(Perceived Organizational Valuing of Creativity)指的是组织中的个体感知到的组织对创新的支持和重视程度(Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2003)。当领导者的感知组织创新价值高时, 组织中的各个团队会成为竞争关系, 领导者将了解到团队的创新性成果是衡量每个团队的重要指标。根据自恋型组织认同理论, 自恋型领导会为所在团队努力工作, 将团队作为自我炫耀和自我扩张的工具(Galvin et al., 2015)。当自恋型领导的感知组织创新价值高时, 在拥有创新自我效能感的基础上, 领导们将会更加注重推动团队进行创新开发, 从而将自己的团队打造成组织中具有创新竞争力的团队。此外, 领导感知组织创新价值高时, 自恋型领导对创新的风险承受能力更大, 从而对下属创新的容错率更高, 更加鼓励下属探索新的技术方法, 容易在团队中形成对创造力的鼓励, 这有助于强化领导创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程参与之间的关系(Zhang & Bartol, 2010)。相反, 当领导感知组织创新价值低时, 自恋型领导将投入更少的精力鼓励团队进行创新, 这是由于自恋型领导对自身利益过分的关注(Huang, Krasikova, & Harms, 2020), 为了将团队在组织中脱颖而出, 自恋型领导会选择组织更为重视的其他业务活动而非鼓励创新。例如, Shalley (1991, 1995)的研究表明分配创造力目标促进了员工的创造性绩效, 而分配生产量则降低了创造性绩效。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设2b:领导感知组织创新价值调节领导创造性自我效能感与团队创造性过程参与之间的关系, 当领导感知组织创新价值较高时, 领导创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程之间的正相关关系较强。

自恋型领导与身俱来的较高的创造性自我效能感, 可能会推动团队的创造性参与过程进而提高团队创造力。研究表明, 自恋型领导对自身的创造力, 绩效等评价较高, 具有较高的创新自我效能感(John & Robins, 1994; Judge et al., 2006), 喜欢表现出与众不同的感觉, 并追求创新。而作为组织的领导, 自恋者通常会将这种自我概念泛化到团队之中(Galvin et al., 2015), 并期望其团队也追求创新, 进而推进团队创造性参与过程。Henker, Sonnentag和Unger (2015)的研究指出员工创造性过程参与可以有效的提升员工创造力, 而且团队层面的创造性过程参与可以将个体的观点和经验聚集在一起(To, Tse, & Ashkanasy, 2015), 能更好的促进集体的创造性认知, 这对团队创造力有积极的影响(Amabile, 1988)。因此, 团队创造性过程参与可以有效的提升团队创造力。自恋者对自我利益较为关注, 具有较强的结果导向(Huang et al., 2020), 组织中的领导的绩效表现通常与团队表现相挂钩。因此当自恋型领导感知组织创新价值高时, 为了自身的利益, 他们更愿意致力于推动团队努力产生创新成果, 更加能够注重于推动团队创造性过程参与, 自恋型领导通过创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程所产生对团队创造力的积极间接影响更强; 相反, 领导感知组织创新价值低时, 自恋型领导对团队创新的推动动机将会降低, 因此, 自恋型领导通过创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程所产生对团队创造力的积极间接影响也越弱。 基于此, 有如下假设:

假设2c:领导感知组织创新价值调节自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的间接关系, 即当领导感知组织创新价值较高时, 自恋型领导通过创新自我效能感与团队创造性过程所产生对团队创造力的积极间接影响较强。

3.3 研究三:领导自恋对团队创造力的影响机制:社会网络视角

相较于传统视角, 社会网络分析视角弥补了传统研究过于静态的限制, 从较为整体, 更为互动的视角反应团队内部的行为。社会网络理论自提出以来便受到学者们的广泛关注, 并运用于管理学的各领域研究之中(Burt, Kilduff, & Tasselli, 2013)。研究表明, 领导的特质与行为倾向是影响团队内、外社会网络关系与结构的重要因素(Zhang & Peterson, 2011) (Friedrich, Griffith, & Mumford, 2016)。因此, 自恋型领导也可能通过社会网络关系影响团队表现。虽然研究一与研究二从聚合观与过程观视角出发探讨了自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系, 但总体而言, 这些研究并没有超脱团队的边界限制。基于此, 本部分将基于领导距离理论, 从社会网络视角重点探讨一个核心问题:自恋型领导如何通过影响团队外部社会网络关系, 进而影响团队创造力?具体研究模型如图5所示。

图5

图5   社会网络视角下自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响


(1)团队外部网络关系对自恋型领导-团队创造力关系的中介作用。团队外部关系是指团队成员或领导与外部相关主体之间的联结数量。外部网络关系越多, 企业所能获得社会信息与社会资源也越多(Carpenter & Westphal, 2001; Geletkanycz & Hambrick, 1997; Yoo et al., 2009)。自恋型领导可能通过促进团队外部网络关系的增加而促进团队创造力的提升。一方面, 研究表明自恋型领导具有高超的社交技能与迷惑性, 擅长印象管理, 因而具有一定的人格魅力(黄攸立, 李璐, 2014; Ouimet, 2010), 但这种魅力会随着他人对其本质了解的增加而迅速转变(Higgs, 2009)。由于团队与外部主体之间存在着天然的屏障, 这使得外部在认知团队领导时可能存在着信息屏障, 造成信息不对称, 因此外部主体可能感知自恋型领导更多的是其表面上的魅力。这种魅力极大地促进自恋型领导的外部网络关系的形成。另一方面, 领导是团队的象征与代表, 自恋型领导对外的“吹嘘”, 可能给团队造成宣传效应, 潜在的增加了团队对外的吸引力。此外, 领导往往是团队成员的学习对象, 自恋型领导可能“培养”自恋型下属。类似领导魅力, 员工自恋也可能对外展现出个人魅力, 因而也能够增加团队成员的外部网络关系。研究表明, 外部网络关系能够为团队提供异质性的信息以及资源, 因此促进团队创造力的形成。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设3a:团队外部网络关系中介自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系, 即自恋型领导通过促进外部网络关系增加而提升团队创造力。

(2)领导跨边界行为的调节作用。根据领导距离理论, 追随者对领导形象的感知与领导与下属的距离有关。下属与领导的社会距离越远, 越无法获得关于领导者的详细信息, 从而简化对领导的认知(Shamir, 1995)。最近的研究表明, 领导可见性是领导距离的一个方面, 领导可见性越低, 下属感知领导有效性越高(Nevicka et al., 2018)。为了解释为什么自恋型领导的跨边界行为有利于增强自恋型领导与团队外部网络之间的关系, 本研究借鉴领导距离理论来更好的理解领导跨边界行为在自恋型领导和团队外部社会网络关系之间的调节作用。

领导跨边界行为(Boundary-spanning behavior)是指领导为了实现既定的目标而采取的, 旨在与外部相关主体建立联系的不断互动的行为(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)。包括使节行为(Ambassador)、任务协调行为(Task coordination)、侦查行为(Scanning)。跨边界活动是相对于团队内部活动而言的, 两者以团队为界进行区分(薛会娟, 2010)。跨边界行为的对象与自恋型领导的工作接触时间, 相对于自恋型领导的整个工作时间来说较为短暂。而自恋型领导有着强大的印象管理技能(Back et al., 2010), 善于社交, 具有较高的外在魅力(Ouimet, 2010), 这些优势能够在跨边界活动中得到放大, 进而增加团队的吸引力, 保持良好的团队外部网络关系(Korschun, 2015)。当领导跨边界行为更多时, 自恋型领导在维持短期人际关系的优势将会体现出来, 赚取外界更多的好感度(Campbell & Campbell, 2009), 增强了自身团队对团队外部的吸引力, 这有利于团队外部网络关系的形成(Kempe, Kleinberg, & Tardos, 2003, August)。此外, 领导的跨界行为更多时, 既能感受到更多的团队外部文化, 又能获取额外的知识和资源(Teigland & Wasko, 2003), 当其折返会团队内部时, 会将这些文化与知识传递给团队技能, 可能增强团队成员的知识和见解, 这也有利于团队外部网络关系的增强。相反, 当领导跨边界行为更少时, 自恋型领导在团队内部活动的时间增多, 这不仅会扼制领导自身与团队外部的交流, 还可能会扩大自恋型领导对团队内部的危害(Nevicka et al., 2018), 不利于领导和整个团队进行团队外部社会网络的拓展。基于此, 有如下假设:

假设3b:领导跨边界行为调节自恋型领导与团队外部网络之间的关系, 即当领导跨边界行为越高时, 自恋型领导与团队外部网络关系之间的正相关关系越强。

4 理论建构

团队创造力是提升团队核心竞争力, 促进团队发展与进步的关键因素。根据对团队创造力的文献进行回顾发现, 团队创造力的研究趋势变化从研究个体特质向研究关键个体特质转变, 从内部过程向外部过程转变。团队中的领导是团队中的关键人物, 在团队绩效与表现中具有较大的影响作用, 而自恋型领导在组织中具有相当的数量比重。尽管自恋的概念由来已久, 但是自恋型领导的概念却刚刚兴起。虽然领导者自恋在组织中较为普遍, 现有研究对于领导者自恋这一特性的影响, 理论界却没有统一的答案。本项目立足于自恋型领导, 在聚合观与内部过程观中重点关注自恋型领导对团队创造力形成的干预与导向作用, 并采用社会网络的视角将内部过程视角转向外部, 更加全面的探讨团队创造力的形成。

本研究重点关注团队创造力的形成, 分别从领导以及团队成员两方视角出发, 探索自恋型领导在团队创造力的形成过程中所扮演的关键作用, 为制定组织干预策略提供参考与依据。第一, 本研究从团队以及员工两个层面出发, 进一步探讨自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响, 解决以往研究结论不一致的问题。第二, 本研究致力于打开自恋型领导对团队创造力影响的“黑箱”, 揭示领导对团队创造力形成的影响作用机制, 丰富对自恋型领导-团队创造力关系的认识。第三, 本研究探索了干预自恋型领导对团队创造力影响的干预策略。为扩大自恋型领导的优势, 减少自恋型领导的副作用 提供理论与实证参考依据。基于以上思路, 本研究构建了三个模块, 开展了对自恋型领导与团队创造力之间关系的探讨。

研究一从聚合观视角, 基于社会认知理论与自我决定理论, 提出自恋型领导在通过降低员工创造自我效能感以及内在动机, 进而对员工创造力产生抑制效用, 影响团队创造力, 从员工创造力的个体化视角揭示了自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响。研究二从过程观视角, 基于自恋型组织认同理论, 提出自恋型领导将自我概念融入组织概念之中(Galvin et al., 2015), 推动对团队成员进行创造性互动, 进而对团队创造力起到的积极作用。研究三从社会网络视角, 基于领导距离理论, 提出自恋型领导通过自身的魅力与外部印象管理有助于拓展团队外部的网络关系, 影响团队的社会资源与信息资源, 进而影响团队创造力。三种视角相互补充, 从积极与消极面对自恋型领导与团队创造力的关系进行了探讨, 并相应地提出了一些边界机制。

本研究构建了自恋型领导和团队创造力形成机制的理论模型, 从以下几个方面对现有研究进行了理论延伸与拓展:

首先, 自恋型领导与团队创造力属于相对独立的两个研究领域, 以往研究对两者之间的关系揭示不足, 仅有的研究所得出的结论之间存在着明显争议。其中一个主要是原因是, 以往研究并没有对团队创造力的研究视角进行细致的分类, 本研究基于团队创造力研究中的三种研究视角, 即聚合观、过程观以及社会网络视角, 将自恋型领导与团队创造力进行联系, 有助于全面揭示自恋型领导与团队创造力之间的关系。不同的视角下, 自恋型领导可能在其中扮演着不同的角色, 对团队创造力可能产生的影响也不同。从三个视角出发揭示其内在机制, 能综合地、更清晰地揭开自恋型领导与团队创造力关系之间的“黑箱”, 增加对自恋型领导与团队创造力之间关系的认识。

其次, 本研究基于不同的理论基础, 揭示了自恋型领导对团队创造力影响的内在机制。以往研究对于自恋型领导的结果揭示, 主要基于社会交换、特质激活等理论对自恋型领导的影响结果进行揭示, 研究结论较为“消极”, 大多认为自恋型领导会对员工以及组织产生较为消极的结果(Braun et al., 2018; Resick et al., 2009; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006)。本研究立足于团队创造力的三种研究视角, 分别从自我决定理论、社会认知理论、自恋型组织认同理论、领导距离理论以及社会网络理论视角出发, 揭示了自恋型领导在影响团队创造力的过程中所发挥的作用。一方面在不同的理论视角下, 自恋领导的积极面与消极面尽显, 能更全面地反映自恋型领导对团队创造力的影响; 另一方面, 对自恋型领导积极面的探索, 有助于更加全面地认识自恋型领导的有效性。

本研究探索了自恋型领导对团队创造力作用关系的边界条件。根据权变理论, 自恋型领导的作用效果在不同的情境之下会产生差异(Liu et al., 2017)。以往研究对自恋型领导的作用边界探索较少。一些学者呼吁对自恋型领导的作用边界进行进一步的发掘(Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Nevicka et al., 2018), 因为边界条件的发掘能更好地指导企业实践对自恋型领导的作用效果进行干预。因此, 本研究基于不同的理论视角, 从组织对创新的重视程度以及外部过程出发, 探索了自恋型领导对团队创造力作用的边界条件。有利于指导企业发挥自恋型领导的优势, 同时回避其所带来的弊端, 为组织管理与实践提供指导。

参考文献

郭一蓉, 宋继文, 朱丽. (2018).

领导对创造力的作用机制与理论基础探讨

中国人力资源开发, 35(8), 135-150.

[本文引用: 1]

黄攸立, 李璐. (2014).

组织中的自恋型领导研究述评

外国经济与管理, 39(7), 24-33.

[本文引用: 1]

李峰. (2015).

老板自恋不是病

中欧商业评论, (1), 40-44.

[本文引用: 1]

倪旭东, 项小霞, 姚春序. (2016).

团队异质性的平衡性对团队创造力的影响

心理学报, 48(5), 556-565.

[本文引用: 1]

王明旋, 马艳茹, 张勇, 宋靖. (2019).

性别及年龄多样化与团队创造力: 基于自我表现理论的双路径研究

中国人力资源开发, 36(12), 22-36.

[本文引用: 1]

薛会娟. (2010).

国外团队跨界行为研究回顾与展望

外国经济与管理, 32(9), 10-15.

[本文引用: 1]

张宁俊, 张露, 王国瑞. (2019).

关系强度对团队创造力的作用机理研究

管理科学, 32(1), 101-113.

[本文引用: 1]

Abfalter, D. (2013).

Authenticity and respect: Leading creative teams in the performing arts

Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(3), 295-306.

[本文引用: 4]

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011).

What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?

Assessment, 18(1), 67-87.

URL     PMID:20876550      [本文引用: 2]

Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1994).

The Team Climate Inventory (TCI) and group innovation: A psychometric test on a Swedish sample of work groups

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 143-151.

[本文引用: 1]

Amabile, T. M. (1988).

A model of creativity and innovation in organizations

Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.

[本文引用: 3]

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).

Assessing the work environment for creativity

Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

[本文引用: 2]

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989).

The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory

Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 231-253.

[本文引用: 1]

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992).

Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams

Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.

[本文引用: 1]

Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. (2013).

Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013-1037.

URL     PMID:24128186      [本文引用: 2]

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010).

Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132-145.

URL     PMID:20053038      [本文引用: 2]

Bandura, A. (1986).

The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

[本文引用: 1]

Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011).

Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459-1473.

URL     PMID:21700794      [本文引用: 1]

Braun, S., Aydin, N., Frey, D., & Peus, C. (2018).

Leader narcissism predicts malicious envy and supervisor-targeted counterproductive work behavior: Evidence from field and experimental research

Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 725-741.

[本文引用: 2]

Burt, R. S., Kilduff, M., & Tasselli, S. (2013).

Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on advantage

Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 527-547.

[本文引用: 1]

Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005).

Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358-1368.

URL     PMID:16143668      [本文引用: 2]

Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009).

On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership

Self and Identity, 8(2-3), 214-232.

[本文引用: 1]

Campbell, W. K., Foster, J. D., & Brunell, A. B. (2004).

Running from shame or reveling in pride? Narcissism and the regulation of self-conscious emotions

Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 150-153.

[本文引用: 1]

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011).

Narcissism in organizational contexts

Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284.

[本文引用: 2]

Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., & Harms, P. D. (2018).

Leader consultation mitigates the harmful effects of leader narcissism: A belongingness perspective

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 146, 76-84.

[本文引用: 2]

Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001).

The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making

Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 639-660.

[本文引用: 1]

Chatterjee, A., & Pollock, T. G. (2017).

Master of puppets: How narcissistic CEOs construct their professional worlds

Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 703-725.

[本文引用: 2]

Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. C., & Hung, S. C. (2008).

Social capital and creativity in R&D project teams

R&D Management, 38(1), 21-34.

de Stobbeleir, K. E., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011).

Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance

Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811-831.

DOI:10.5465/amj.2011.64870144      URL     [本文引用: 1]

de, Vries, M. F., K., & Miller, D. (1985).

Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective

Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

[本文引用: 2]

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000).

The "what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior

Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

[本文引用: 1]

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012).

Self-determination theory

In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol.1, pp. 416-437). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[本文引用: 1]

Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017).

Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual‐focused transformational leadership

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439-458.

[本文引用: 1]

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999).

Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective

Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307.

DOI:10.5465/amr.1999.1893937      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013).

A double‐edged sword: Transformational leadership and individual creativity

British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54-68.

DOI:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-1      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004).

Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 894-912.

URL     PMID:15598113      [本文引用: 3]

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003).

Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory

Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.

[本文引用: 1]

Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007).

Are there such things as “narcissists” in social psychology? A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1321-1332.

[本文引用: 1]

Friedrich, T. L., Griffith, J. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2016).

Collective leadership behaviors: Evaluating the leader, team network, and problem situation characteristics that influence their use

The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 312-333.

[本文引用: 1]

Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015).

Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization's identity

Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 163-181.

[本文引用: 6]

Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997).

The external ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 654-681.

[本文引用: 1]

George, J. M. (2007).

Chapter 9: Creativity in organization

Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439-477.

[本文引用: 2]

Gerstner, W. C., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2013).

CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities

Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 257-291.

[本文引用: 4]

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006).

Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation

Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495.

DOI:10.2189/asqu.51.3.451      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010).

Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1484-1495.

DOI:10.1177/0146167210385109      URL     PMID:20947771      [本文引用: 1]

The current research examines the link between narcissism and creativity at the individual, relational, and group levels of analysis. It finds that narcissists are not necessarily more creative than others, but they think they are, and they are adept at persuading others to agree with them. In the first study, narcissism was positively associated with self-rated creativity, despite the fact that blind coders saw no difference between the creative products offered by those low and high on narcissism. In a second study, more narcissistic individuals asked to pitch creative ideas to a target person were judged by the targets as being more creative than were less narcissistic individuals, in part because narcissists were more enthusiastic. Finally, a study of group creativity finds evidence of a curvilinear effect: Having more narcissists is better for generating creative outcomes (but having too many provides diminishing returns).

Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013).

A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity

Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851.

[本文引用: 1]

Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014).

Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model

Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108-127.

[本文引用: 2]

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987).

Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.

DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.52.5.890      URL     PMID:3585701      [本文引用: 1]

Ninety-one fifth-grade children participated in a study that assessed the effects of motivationally relevant conditions and individual differences on emotional experience and performance on a learning task. Two directed-learning conditions, one controlling and one noncontrolling, were contrasted with each other and with a third nondirected, spontaneous-learning context. Both directed sets resulted in greater rote learning compared with the nondirected-learning condition. However, both the nondirected and the noncontrolling directed-learning sets resulted in greater interest and conceptual learning compared with the controlling set, presumably because they were more conducive to autonomy or an internal perceived locus of causality. Furthermore, children in the controlling condition experienced more pressure and evidenced a greater deterioration in rote learning over an 8-(+/- 1) day follow-up. Individual differences in children's autonomy for school-related activities as measured by the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Connell & Ryan, 1985) also related to outcomes, with more self-determined styles predicting greater conceptual learning. Results are discussed in terms of the role of autonomy in learning and development and the issue of directed versus nondirected learning.

Han, J., Han, J., & Brass, D. J. (2014).

Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team creativity

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 54-71.

DOI:10.1002/job.1853      URL    

We highlight the social aspects of team creativity by proposing that team creativity is influenced by two types of team social capital: bridging and bonding social capital. Going beyond the structural perspective, we posit that team-level human capital diversity is one of the potential antecedents of social capital for team creativity. We suggest that network structures are formed by teammates' interactions, which are largely the result of differences in their individual characteristics. The results of an empirical study using 36 teams of MBA students showed that the interaction of team-bridging social capital with team-bonding social capital was positively and significantly related to team creativity. Knowledge variety and knowledge disparity had a joint effect on team-bridging social capital, and knowledge separation was negatively related to team-bonding social capital. Moreover, team social capital mediated the effects of knowledge diversity on team creativity. Our study has several important implications for team creativity, social networks, and diversity research. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018).

The effects of the dark triad on unethical behavior

Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 53-77.

[本文引用: 1]

Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015).

Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement

Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235-247.

[本文引用: 1]

Higgs, M. (2009).

The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism

Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 165-178.

DOI:10.1080/14697010902879111      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012).

Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential

Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996.

DOI:10.1037/a0029159      URL     PMID:22774764      [本文引用: 4]

Despite the clear importance of team creativity for organizations, the conditions that foster it are not very well understood. Even though diversity, especially diversity of perspectives and knowledge, is frequently argued to stimulate higher creativity in teams, empirical findings on this relationship remain inconsistent. We have developed a theoretical model in which the effect of a team's diversity on its creativity is moderated by the degree to which team members engage in perspective taking. We propose that perspective taking helps realize the creative benefits of diversity of perspectives by fostering information elaboration. Results of a laboratory experiment support the hypothesized interaction between diversity and perspective taking on team creativity. Diverse teams performed more creatively than homogeneous teams when they engaged in perspective taking, but not when they were not instructed to take their team members' perspectives. Team information elaboration was found to mediate this moderated effect and was associated with a stronger indirect effect than mere information sharing or task conflict. Our results point to perspective taking as an important mechanism to unlock diversity's potential for team creativity.

Huang, L., Krasikova, D. V., & Harms, P. D. (2020).

Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader-member exchange differentiation, and follower voice

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 77-92.

[本文引用: 2]

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009).

Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.

URL     PMID:19702361      [本文引用: 1]

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994).

Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206-219.

DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.66.1.206      URL     PMID:8126650      [本文引用: 2]

Accuracy and bias in self-perceptions of performance were studied in a managerial group-discussion task. Ss ranked their own performance and were ranked by the 5 other group members and by 11 assessment staff members. Although the self-perceptions showed convergent validity with the staff criterion, Ss were less accurate when judging themselves than when judging their peers. On average, Ss evaluated their performance slightly more positively than their performance was evaluated by either the peers or the staff; however, this general self-enhancement effect was dwarfed by substantial individual differences, which ranged from self-enhancements to self-diminishment bias and were strongly related to four measures of narcissism. Discussion focuses on issues in assessing the accuracy of self-perceptions and the implications of the findings for individual differences in self-perception bias and the role of narcissism.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006).

Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-776.

DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762      URL     PMID:16834504      [本文引用: 2]

The authors report results from 2 studies assessing the extent to which narcissism is related to self- and other ratings of leadership, workplace deviance, and task and contextual performance. Study 1 results revealed that narcissism was related to enhanced self-ratings of leadership, even when controlling for the Big Five traits. Study 2 results also revealed that narcissism was related to enhanced leadership self-perceptions; indeed, whereas narcissism was significantly positively correlated with self-ratings of leadership, it was significantly negatively related to other ratings of leadership. Study 2 also revealed that narcissism was related to more favorable self-ratings of workplace deviance and contextual performance compared to other (supervisor) ratings. Finally, as hypothesized, narcissism was more strongly negatively related to contextual performance than to task performance.

Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, É. (2003, August). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 137-146).

[本文引用: 1]

Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. S. J. (2008).

The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study

Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 86-97.

[本文引用: 1]

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984).

Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity

Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248.

[本文引用: 1]

Korschun, D. (2015).

Boundary-spanning employees and relationships with external stakeholders: A social identity approach

Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 611-629.

[本文引用: 1]

Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A., & van Engelen, J. M.. (2010).

The social network among engineering design teams and their creativity: A case study among teams in two product development programs

International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 428-436.

[本文引用: 1]

Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018).

The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3-31.

URL     PMID:28132598      [本文引用: 2]

Lee, S. Y., Gregg, A. P., & Park, S. H. (2013).

The person in the purchase: Narcissistic consumers prefer products that positively distinguish them

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 335-352.

URL     PMID:23773040      [本文引用: 1]

Leenders, R. T. A., van Engelen, J. M., & Kratzer, J. (2003).

Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2), 69-92.

[本文引用: 2]

Liu, H., Chiang, J. T. J., Fehr, R., Xu, M., & Wang, S. (2017).

How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment

Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1590-1599.

DOI:10.1037/apl0000237      URL     PMID:28617000      [本文引用: 3]

In this article we employ a trait activation framework to examine how unfairness perceptions influence narcissistic leaders' self-interested behavior, and the downstream implications of these effects for employees' pro-social and voice behaviors. Specifically, we propose that narcissistic leaders are particularly likely to engage in self-interested behavior when they perceive that their organizations treat them unfairly, and that this self-interested behavior in turn decreases followers' pro-social behavior and voice. Data from a multisource, time-lagged survey of 211 team leaders and 1,205 subordinates provided support for the hypothesized model. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Maccoby, M. (2000).

Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons

Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 69-77.

[本文引用: 1]

Martin, S. R., Côté, S., & Woodruff, T. (2016).

Echoes of our upbringing: How growing up wealthy or poor relates to narcissism, leader behavior, and leader effectiveness

Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2157-2177.

[本文引用: 1]

Matosic, D., Ntoumanis, N., Boardley, I. D., Sedikides, C., Stewart, B. D., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2017).

Narcissism and coach interpersonal style: A self-determination theory perspective

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(2), 254-261.

DOI:10.1111/sms.12635      URL     PMID:26689999      [本文引用: 1]

Athletes' sport experiences are often influenced by the interpersonal styles of communication used by their coaches. Research on personality antecedents of such styles is scarce. We examined the link between a well-researched personality trait, namely narcissism, and two types of coaching interpersonal style, namely autonomy-supportive and controlling styles. We also tested the mediating roles of dominance and empathic concern in explaining the relations between narcissism and the two coaching interpersonal styles. United Kingdom-based coaches (N = 211) from various sports completed a multi-section questionnaire assessing the study variables. Regression analyses revealed a positive direct relation between narcissism and controlling coach behaviors. Furthermore, empathy (but not dominance) mediated the positive and negative indirect effects of narcissism on controlling and autonomy-supported interpersonal styles, respectively. We discuss these findings in terms of their implications for coaching and the quality of athletes' sport experiences.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001).

Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model

Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.

[本文引用: 2]

Nevicka, B., de Hoogh, A. H., van Vianen, A. E., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011).

All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists' leader emergence and performance

The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910-925.

[本文引用: 2]

Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., de Hoogh, A. H., & van Vianen, A. E.. (2011).

Reality at odds with perceptions: Narcissistic leaders and group performance

Psychological Science, 22(10), 1259-1264.

DOI:10.1177/0956797611417259      URL     PMID:21931153      [本文引用: 1]

Although narcissistic individuals are generally perceived as arrogant and overly dominant, they are particularly skilled at radiating an image of a prototypically effective leader. As a result, they tend to emerge as leaders in group settings. Despite people's positive perceptions of narcissists as leaders, it was previously unknown if and how leaders' narcissism is related to the performance of the people they lead. In this study, we used a hidden-profile paradigm to investigate this question and found evidence for discordance between the positive image of narcissists as leaders and the reality of group performance. We hypothesized and found that although narcissistic leaders are perceived as effective because of their displays of authority, a leader's narcissism actually inhibits information exchange between group members and thereby negatively affects group performance. Our findings thus indicate that perceptions and reality can be at odds and have important practical and theoretical implications.

Nevicka, B., van Vianen, A. E., de Hoogh, A. H., & Voorn, B. C. M. (2018).

Narcissistic leaders: An asset or a liability? Leader visibility, follower responses, and group-level absenteeism

Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 703-723.

DOI:10.1037/apl0000298      URL     PMID:29553765      [本文引用: 5]

Although narcissists often emerge as leaders, research has thus far shown inconsistent results on the relationship between leader narcissism and effectiveness in the eyes of followers. Here we draw on leader distance theory (Shamir, 1995) and implicit leader theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) to propose that followers' assessment of a narcissistic leader and followers' overall job attitudes depend on the leader's visibility to the followers. The more opportunities followers have to observe narcissistic leaders the more they will experience these leaders' toxic behavior (e.g., exploitativeness) and the less they will perceive the leader as effective. To test our hypotheses we collected multisource, longitudinal data from 175 retail stores and obtained subjective (followers' perceptions of leader effectiveness and their overall job attitudes) as well as objective (leaders' organizational experience at time of hire, employee absenteeism trends) indices of leader functionality. Results showed that narcissistic leaders had less organizational experience at the time they were hired. Moreover, when followers had fewer opportunities to observe their leader, leader narcissism was positively related to perceived leadership effectiveness and job attitudes. However, when followers had more opportunity to observe their leader, the positive relationship disappeared. Finally, leader narcissism was neither positively nor negatively associated with absenteeism, whereas absenteeism declined over time under non-narcissistic leaders. These findings advance our knowledge of how followers respond to narcissistic leaders and how these leaders function in organizational settings where they have legitimate positions of power. (PsycINFO Database Record

Oh, H., Chung, M. H., & Labianca, G. (2004).

Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties

Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860-875.

[本文引用: 1]

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M. H. (2006).

A multilevel model of group social capital

Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569-582.

[本文引用: 1]

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996).

Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work

Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

[本文引用: 1]

O'Reilly III, C. A., Doerr, B., & Chatman, J. A. (2018).

“See You in Court”: How CEO narcissism increases firms' vulnerability to lawsuits

The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 365-378.

[本文引用: 2]

Ouimet, G. (2010).

Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 713-726.

[本文引用: 6]

Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015).

Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility

Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203-1213.

URL     PMID:25621592      [本文引用: 1]

Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Evans, J. M. (2008).

Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 225-234.

URL     PMID:18211148      [本文引用: 1]

Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006).

Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity

Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85-101.

[本文引用: 1]

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: 2]

Pirola‐Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004).

The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235-257.

[本文引用: 2]

Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015).

Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations

The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 286-299.

[本文引用: 1]

Raskin, R. N. (1980).

Narcissism and creativity: Are they related?

Psychological Reports, 46(1), 55-60.

[本文引用: 1]

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009).

The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365-1381.

URL     PMID:19916649      [本文引用: 3]

Rijsenbilt, A., & Commandeur, H. (2013).

Narcissus enters the courtroom: CEO narcissism and fraud

Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 413-429.

[本文引用: 2]

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006).

Narcissistic leadership

The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.

[本文引用: 2]

Scott, J. (1988).

Social network analysis

Sociology, 22(1), 109-127.

[本文引用: 1]

Shalley, C. E. (1991).

Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 179-185.

[本文引用: 1]

Shalley, C. E. (1995).

Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity

Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.

[本文引用: 1]

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.

[本文引用: 1]

Shamir, B. (1995).

Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study

The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19-47.

DOI:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90003-9      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007).

When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709-1721.

URL     PMID:18020807      [本文引用: 1]

Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005).

Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms

Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346-357.

DOI:10.5465/amj.2005.16928421      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Sosa, M. E. (2011).

Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks

Organization Science, 22(1), 1-21.

[本文引用: 1]

Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., & Zhu, W. (2014).

Hang on to your ego: The moderating role of leader narcissism on relationships between leader charisma and follower psychological empowerment and moral identity

Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 65-80.

[本文引用: 1]

Taggar, S. (2002).

Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model

Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315-330.

[本文引用: 2]

Tang, C. (2014).

The impact of connecting with Professional Virtual Forum, team member and external person on R&D employee creativity

Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 204-212.

Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006).

Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams

Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740.

[本文引用: 1]

Teigland, R., & Wasko, M. M. (2003).

Integrating knowledge through information trading: Examining the relationship between boundary spanning communication and individual performance

Decision Sciences, 34(2), 261-286.

DOI:10.1111/deci.2003.34.issue-2      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002).

Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance

Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.

[本文引用: 2]

To, M. L., Tse, H. H. M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015).

A multilevel model of transformational leadership, affect, and creative process behavior in work teams

The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 543-556.

DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.005      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Tsai, W. C., Chi, N. W., Grandey, A. A., & Fung, S. C. (2012).

Positive group affective tone and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary conditions

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 638-656.

DOI:10.1002/job.775      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Drawing on multiple group-level theories, we explored boundary conditions of the relationship between positive group affective tone (PGAT) and team creativity. We collected data from members and leaders of 68 research and development teams and performed hierarchical linear modeling analyses to test our hypotheses. Consistent with the group-centrism perspective, we found that PGAT was beneficial for team creativity only when team trust was low; when trust was high, PGAT had a negative relationship with team creativity. In accord with the dual-tuning perspective, the positive effect of PGAT on creativity was present only when team trust was low but negative group affective tone was high. We discussed the theoretical and practical implications. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005).

Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem

American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447-504.

[本文引用: 1]

Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002).

The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 819-834.

URL     PMID:12003480      [本文引用: 2]

West, M. A. (2002).

Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups

Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.

[本文引用: 1]

West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996).

Innovation in top management teams

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680-693.

[本文引用: 1]

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989).

Social cognitive theory of organizational management

Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.

[本文引用: 1]

Wu, Q., & Cormican, K. (2016).

Shared leadership and team creativity: A social network analysis in engineering design teams

Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(2), 2-12.

[本文引用: 1]

Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C., ... Back, M. D. (2017).

Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 280-306.

DOI:10.1037/pspp0000113      URL     PMID:27560609      [本文引用: 2]

Narcissism is known to be related to romantic success in short-term contexts (dating, early stage relationships) but also to problems in long-term committed relationships. We propose that these diverging romantic outcomes of narcissism can be explained by differential associations with agentic versus antagonistic dimensions of grandiose narcissism: Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry. Both dimensions serve the central narcissistic goal of gaining and maintaining a grandiose self-view, but do so by different processes: Admiration is characterized by the tendency to promote the positivity of one's self-view by seeking social admiration (assertive self-enhancement). Rivalry is characterized by the tendency to protect oneself from a negative self-view by derogating others (antagonistic self-protection). Across 7 studies (total N = 3,560) using diverse measures and methodological approaches (self-, peer, and partner reports, as well as interpersonal perception measures in video-based studies, face-to-face laboratory encounters, and online surveys), we show that the short-term romantic appeal associated with narcissism is primarily attributable to the dimension of Admiration, whereas the long-term romantic problems associated with narcissism are primarily attributable to the dimension of Rivalry. These results highlight the utility of a 2-dimensional reconceptualization of grandiose narcissism for explaining its heterogeneous romantic outcomes. The findings further underscore the idea that different facets of personality traits might impact different aspects of romantic relationship quality, depending on the stage of the relationship. Such a more nuanced view increases the predictive validity of personality traits in social relationship research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Yoo, J. W., Reed, R., Shin, S. J., & Lemak, D. J. (2009).

Strategic choice and performance in late movers: Influence of the top management team's external ties

Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 308-335.

[本文引用: 1]

Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, H. (2017).

CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits

The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 585-604.

[本文引用: 5]

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010).

Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement

Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.

[本文引用: 5]

Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2011).

Advice networks in teams: The role of transformational leadership and members' core self-evaluations

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1004-1017.

DOI:10.1037/a0023254      URL     PMID:21463014      [本文引用: 1]

This article examines the team-level factors promoting advice exchange networks in teams. Drawing upon theory and research on transformational leadership, team diversity, and social networks, we hypothesized that transformational leadership positively influences advice network density in teams and that advice network density serves as a mediating mechanism linking transformational leadership to team performance. We further hypothesized a 3-way interaction in which members' mean core self-evaluation (CSE) and diversity in CSE jointly moderate the transformational leadership-advice network density relationship, such that the relationship is positive and stronger for teams with low diversity in CSE and high mean CSE. In addition, we expected that advice network centralization attenuates the positive influence of network density on team performance. Results based on multisource data from 79 business unit management teams showed support for these hypotheses. The results highlight the pivotal role played by transformational leadership and team members' CSEs in enhancing team social networks and, ultimately, team effectiveness.

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

Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection

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

DOI:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2015).

Narcissism, director selection, and risk‐taking spending

Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2075-2098.

[本文引用: 1]

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

/