Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (6): 667-677    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667
     研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
领导创造力期望对团队创造力的影响
刘伟国1,房俨然1,施俊琦1,莫申江2()
1 中山大学岭南(大学)学院, 广州 510275
2 浙江大学管理学院, 杭州 310058
The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity
Weiguo LIU1,Yanran FANG1,Junqi SHI1,Shenjiang MO2()
1 Lingnan (University) College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
全文: PDF(495 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

拥有大量极富创造力的项目团队是企业适应复杂环境、应对激烈竞争的关键。本研究基于规范参照群体理论和团队知识创造的过程导向理论, 对116位团队领导及其下属的568位团队成员开展跨时间点数据收集。研究结果表明, 团队领导的创造力期望显著促进团队知识交换行为和边界跨越行为。团队知识交换行为直接有助于促进团队创造力, 而团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力的直接影响并不显著。团队领导的创造力角色认同对团队边界跨越行为与团队创造力间的关系具有显著调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较低时, 团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力具有负向影响。本研究揭示了团队领导影响团队创造力的认知机制和边界条件, 为企业有效提升团队创造力提供了重要对策建议。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
刘伟国
房俨然
施俊琦
莫申江
关键词 领导创造力期望团队知识交换行为团队边界跨越行为创造力角色认同团队创造力    
Abstract

Team creativity is becoming more and more essential for organizations to adapt to dynamically changing environment. Previous literature on team creativity was mainly focused on the impact of leadership behavior on employees’ creative motivation and subsequent creative performance. Less attention has been paid to employees’ cognitive response to leaders’ expectation on creativity. Therefore, based on normative reference group theory and process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams, the current study attempted to examine the mediating effects of employees’ behaviors in response to supervisor’s creativity expectation (i.e., team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior), and investigate the moderating role of supervisor’s creative role identity.

Data was collected from 568 employees working in 116 teams from four IT and software companies in Beijing and Shenzhen, China. Three waves of data collection were conducted. In the first wave, participants were required to report their demographic information (e.g. age, gender, education, and tenure), and their perceptions of supervisors’ creativity expectation. In the second wave, participants assessed team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. In the third wave, team supervisors evaluated their own creative role identity and team creativity. We used Mplus 7.2 to estimate our hypothesized models.

Results showed that: 1) supervisors’ creativity expectation was positively related to both team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. 2) Team knowledge exchange behavior was positively associated with team creativity, whereas the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity was not significant. 3) Supervisors’ creative role identity significantly moderated the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity. Specifically, when supervisors had high level of creative role identity, team boundary spanning behavior did not distract from team creativity, whereas when supervisors’ creative role identity was low, team boundary spanning behavior harmed team creativity. The moderating effect of supervisor’s creative role identity on the relationship between team knowledge exchange behavior and team creativity was not significant.

The current study contributes to the literature of team creativity in several aspects. First, different from previous team creativity literature, this study demonstrated a cognitive model explaining how team leader’s creativity expectation influences team creativity. Second, this study extended the normative reference group theory by clarifying the roles of leader’s creativity expectation and creative role identity in enhancing team creativity. Specifically, our study implies that both of team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior are both stimulated by team supervisors’ creativity expectation. More importantly, supervisors’ creative role identity plays an important role in mitigating the negative effects of team boundary spanning behavior on team creativity. Third, this study also contributed to the process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams by demonstrating the essential role of leader in enhancing the collective process of creative knowledge learning and sharing. Accordingly, managerial implications regarding team creativity management are discussed. We suggest that supervisors in knowledge-intensive companies should always be a real creator to enhance team creativity.

Key wordssupervisor’s creativity expectation;    team knowledge exchange behavior    team boundary spanning behavior    creative role identity    team creativity
收稿日期: 2017-07-31      出版日期: 2018-04-28
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目资助(71772158);国家自然科学基金项目资助(71425004)
通讯作者: 莫申江     E-mail: mosj@zju.edu.cn
引用本文:   
刘伟国, 房俨然, 施俊琦, 莫申江. 领导创造力期望对团队创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
Weiguo LIU, Yanran FANG, Junqi SHI, Shenjiang MO. The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I6/667
  研究假设模型
模型 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI 组内SRMR 组间SRMR Δχ2 Δdf p
五因子模型 629.71 286 0.05 0.92 0.90 0.04 0.07
四因子模型A 1171.19 292 0.07 0.78 0.75 0.09 0.08 541.48 6 p < 0.01
四因子模型B 737.44 290 0.05 0.89 0.87 0.04 0.08 107.73 4 p < 0.01
三因子模型 1276.83 295 0.08 0.76 0.72 0.09 0.10 647.12 9 p < 0.01
双因子模型 2116.16 298 0.10 0.55 0.50 0.13 0.15 1486.45 12 p < 0.01
单因子模型 2234.08 299 0.11 0.52 0.46 0.13 0.17 1604.37 13 p < 0.01
  验证性因子分析结果
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 团队规模 4.86 2.28
2 团队成员平均工作期限 1.67 0.93 0.08
3 团队成员平均年龄 27.89 2.27 0.30** 0.48**
4 团队成员平均教育水平 4.46 0.40 -0.45** -0.30** -0.08
5 团队成员创造力自我效能感 5.28 0.67 0.06 -0.03 -0.07 0.02 (0.86)
6 领导创造力角色认同 5.30 1.00 -0.10 -0.03 -0.13 0.01 0.06 (0.88)
7 领导创造力期望 5.38 0.57 -0.19* -0.13 -0.18 0.03 0.11 0.14 (0.87)
8 团队知识交换行为 5.55 0.53 -0.04 -0.11 -0.08 0.06 0.51** 0.21* 0.20* (0.92)
9 团队边界跨越行为 5.24 0.51 -0.15 -0.05 -0.09 0.07 0.30** 0.20* 0.28** 0.55** (0.82)
10 团队创造力 5.13 0.94 -0.29** 0.07 -0.17 0.16 0.05 0.46** 0.15 0.24* 0.13 (0.90)
  研究变量的平均值, 标准差, 信度和相关性
  研究模型中各路径系数结果图注:图中各路径上括号内所标注的系数为表3中模型一的系数估计结果, 括号外所标注的系数为表3中模型二的系数估计结果。N = 116. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01。
输入变量 模型一 模型二
团队知识
交换行为
团队边界
跨越行为
团队创造力 团队知识
交换行为
团队边界
跨越行为
团队创造力
估计值 标准
误差
估计值 标准
误差
估计值 标准
误差
估计值 标准
误差
估计值 标准
误差
估计值 标准
误差
控制变量
团队规模 -0.01 0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.07 0.06 -0.01 0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.07 0.06
团队成员平均工作期限 -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.24* 0.10 -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.25** 0.09
团队成员平均年龄 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.07 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.07 0.05
团队成员平均教育水平 -0.07 0.15 -0.03 0.15 0.43 0.23 -0.07 0.15 -0.03 0.15 0.50* 0.22
虚拟变量1 -0.26* 0.12 -0.11 0.14 0.29 0.24 -0.26* 0.12 -0.11 0.14 0.40 0.23
虚拟变量2 -0.05 0.12 0.15 0.13 -0.16 0.25 -0.05 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.25
虚拟变量3 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.12 -0.23 0.28 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.12 -0.15 0.27
团队成员创造力自我效能感 0.37** 0.11 0.17 0.15 -0.08 0.16 0.37** 0.11 0.17 0.15 -0.12 0.16
主要影响
领导创造力期望 0.15* 0.07 0.22** 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.15* 0.07 0.22** 0.08 0.07 0.13
团队知识交换行为 0.50* 0.19 0.55** 0.19
团队边界跨越行为 -0.14 0.18 -0.22 0.19
领导创造力角色认同 0.35** 0.09 0.40** 0.09
交互作用
团队知识交换行为×
领导创造力角色认同
-0.30 0.19
团队边界跨越行为×
领导创造力角色认同
0.42* 0.21
R2 0.32 0.20 0.37 0.32 0.20 0.43
ΔR2 0.06
  回归分析结果
  领导的创造力角色认同的调节效应注:N = 116. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; 当领导的创造力角色认同水平较低时, 斜率为 -0.64, p < 0.05; 当领导的创造力角色认同水平较高时, 斜率为0.20, p > 0.05。
[1] Amabile T. M., Schatzel E. A., Moneta G. B., & Kramer S. J . ( 2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5-32.
[2] Ancona D. G., & Caldwell D. F . ( 1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
[3] Basadur, M. ( 2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 103-121.
[4] Bresman H., & Zellmer-Bruhn M . ( 2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120-1139.
[5] Brislin, R. W . ( 1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
[6] Brooke J., Rasdi R. M., & Samah B. A . ( 2017). Modelling knowledge sharing behaviour using self-efficacy as a mediator. European Journal of Training & Development, 41(2), 144-159.
[7] Cai Y. H., Jia L. D., You S. Y., Zhang Y., & Chen Y. L . ( 2013). The influence of differentiated transformational leadership on knowledge sharing and team creativity: A social network explanation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(5), 585-598.
[ 蔡亚华, 贾良定, 尤树洋, 张祎, 陈艳露 . ( 2013). 差异化变革型领导对知识分享与团队创造力的影响: 社会网络机制的解释. 心理学报, 45(5), 585-598.]
[8] Callero, P. L . ( 1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 203-215.
[9] Callero P. L., Howard J. A., & Piliavin J. A . ( 1987). Helping behavior as role behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3), 247-256.
[10] Cheung M. F. Y., & Wong C. S . ( 2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(7), 656-672.
[11] Chung Y., & Jackson S. E . ( 2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442-468.
[12] Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S . ( 2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. UK: Routledge.
[13] Collins C. J., & Smith K. G . ( 2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560.
[14] Cross R., & Cummings J. N . ( 2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge- intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937.
[15] 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.
[16] Edmondson A. C., Dillon J. R., & Roloff K. S . ( 2007). Three perspectives on team learning. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269-314.
[17] Faraj S., & Yan A. M . ( 2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617.
pmid: 19450002
[18] 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.
[19] Ford, C. M . ( 1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.
[20] Glover J. A., & Sautter F . ( 1977). Relation of four components of creativity to risk-taking preferences. Psychological Reports, 41(1), 227-230.
pmid: 909991
[21] Gong Y. P., 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.
[22] Grand J. A., Braun M. T., Kuljanin G., Kozlowski S. W. J., & Chao G. T . ( 2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1353-1385.
pmid: 27504660
[23] Grube J. A., & Piliavin J. A . ( 2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-1119.
[24] Hirst G., van Knippenberg D., & Zhou J . ( 2009). A cross- level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
[25] Janis I. L. , & Mann, L.( 1977) . Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment New York: Free Press A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
[26] Jaussi K. S., & Dionne S. D . ( 2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 475-498.
[27] Jung D. I., Chow C., & Wu A . ( 2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544.
[28] Kelley, H. H . ( 1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Society for the psychological study of social issues, readings in social psychology (pp. 410-414). New York: Holt.
[29] Koopmann J., Lanaj K., Wang M., Zhou L., & Shi J. Q . ( 2016). Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 940-957.
pmid: 26949818
[30] Koriat N., & Gelbard R . ( 2014). Knowledge sharing motivation among it personnel: Integrated model and implications of employment contracts. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 577-591.
[31] Luo J. L., Men C. H., & Zhong J . ( 2014). The effect of leadership behavior and team creativity in dynamic environments. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 35(5), 172-180.
[ 罗瑾琏, 门成昊, 钟竞 . ( 2014). 动态环境下领导行为对团队创造力的影响研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 35(5), 172-180.]
[32] Malhotra A., & Majchrzak A . ( 2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4), 75-88.
[33] Marrone J. A., Quigley N., Prussia G. E ., & Dienhart, J. W. (2016). Can I and do I want to? Cognitive and affective drivers of employee boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016,17851.
[34] Marrone J. A., Tesluk P. E., & Carson J. B . ( 2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.
[35] Merton R. K. ( 1957). Continuities in the theory of reference groups and social structure. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 281-386). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[36] Mumford M. D., Scott G. M., Gaddis B., & Strange J. M . ( 2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
[37] Paulus P. B., & Yang H. C . ( 2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87.
[38] Ramarajan L., Bezrukova K., Jehn K. A. , & Euwema, M.( 2011). From the outside in: The negative spillover effects of boundary spanners' relations with members of other organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 886-905.
[39] 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.
pmid: 18020807
[40] Somech A., & Drach-Zahavy A . ( 2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684-708.
[41] Sung S. Y., & Choi J. N . ( 2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 4-13.
[42] 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.
pmid: 456545
[43] 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.
[44] Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432.
[45] Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293.
pmid: 20954756
[46] Tushman, M. L . ( 1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587-605.
[47] Weisz N., Vassolo R. S ., & Cooper, A. C. (2004). A theoretical and empirical assessment of the social capital of nascent entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2004, K1-K6.
[48] Yang J. Z., Chen Y. X., & Ma H. Q . ( 2012). The impact of organizational structure on employees’ innovative behavior: A role identity theory perspective. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 29(9), 129-134.
[ 杨晶照, 陈勇星, 马洪旗 . ( 2012). 组织结构对员工创新行为的影响: 基于角色认同理论的视角. 科技进步与对策, 29(9), 129-134.]
[49] Zhang A. Y., Tsui A. S., & Wang D. X . ( 2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851-862.
[50] Zhao Z. J., & Anand J . ( 2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’ as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530.
[1] 倪旭东;项小霞;姚春序. 团队异质性的平衡性对团队创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(5): 556-565.
[2] 张景焕;刘欣;任菲菲;孙祥薇;于颀. 团队多样性与组织支持对团队创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(12): 1551-1560.
[3] 吕洁;张钢. 知识异质性对知识型团队创造力的影响机制:基于互动认知的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 533-544.
[4] 林晓敏;白新文; 林琳. 团队心智模型相似性与正确性对团队创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(11): 1734-1747.
[5] 蔡亚华;贾良定;尤树洋;张祎;陈艳露. 差异化变革型领导对知识分享与团队创造力的影响:社会网络机制的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(5): 585-598.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》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