如何消除子团队的消极作用——子团队成员交换的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00259

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文探究子团队层面的团队构成动态变化, 即子团队成员交换是否有助于消除子团队的消极影响。本文将存在两个平衡的以认同为基础的子团队的团队作为研究对象, 试图通过实验的研究方法来探讨子团队成员交换是否能够消除子团队对团队的消极影响。通过对75组子团队进行实验后发现: (1)相较于无子团队成员交换的团队, 有子团队成员交换的团队其团队信息深化及团队决策质量更佳; (2)团队信息深化在子团队成员交换与团队决策质量关系间呈中介作用。

关键词: 子团队, 子团队成员交换, 团队信息深化, 团队决策质量

Abstract:

The core of team research has shifted from team diversity to team faultlines and from faultlines to subgroups. In other words, the study of subgroups is the developmental direction of the study of team diversity and faultlines. Numerous studies have documented the negative effects of subgroups on group functioning, and scholars have explored whether team situations can eliminate such negative influence. However, no studies have explored whether the dynamic change of team composition at the subgroup level, such as subgroup member exchange, can eliminate this negative influence. This study aims to fill the research gap by focusing on this topic.
This research investigates teams with two balanced and identity-based subgroups as the research objects, and uses experimental research methods to explore whether subgroup member exchange can eliminate the negative impact of subgroups on team outcomes. By conducting experiments on 75 temporary teams (38 teams with subgroup member exchanges and 37 teams with no subgroup member exchange), this paper finds that (1) subgroup member exchange has a positive effect on team information elaboration and team decision quality and that (2) team information elaboration plays an intermediary role in the relationship between subgroup member exchange and team decision quality.
The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows: (1) it confirms whether variables at the subgroup level can eliminate the negative effects of subgroups on team functioning and proposes the concept of subgroup member exchange, and (2) it enriches the theory of CEM with subgroups involved in the path, which aims to develop team decision quality through information elaboration. The practical contributions of this study are two-fold. (1) It improves the ability of a team to solve complex tasks and managers can promote the movement of members among subgroups, such as providing them with the opportunity to work together, and valuing more interpersonal rather than inter-subgroup differences. (2) It increases team decision quality by allowing managers to create conditions to improve the degree of team information elaboration, such as fostering pro-diversity beliefs by communicating member’s belief in the value of diversity, and by explaining how task performance can benefit from the diversity of information and perspectives.
Although this research has provided theoretical contributions in subgroup research, numerous areas have yet to be explored. In the future, research on this topic can be improved by the following: (1) scholars can continue to explore how other changes in group composition can affect subgroup mechanism in the dynamic framework, and (2) scholars can continue to expand the CEM theory on subgroup backgrounds and investigate whether team information elaboration plays an active role in diversity, faultlines, and subgroups.

Key words: subgroup, subgroup member exchange, team information elaboration, team decision quality

中图分类号:

B849: C93

倪旭东, 季百乐. (2019). 如何消除子团队的消极作用——子团队成员交换的作用. 心理学报, 51(2), 259-268.

NI Xudong, JI Baile. (2019). Eliminating the negative impact of subgroups by exchanging members in the subgroups. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 259-268.

图/表 3

参考文献 45

1	Bezrukova K., Jehn K. A., Zanutto E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. ( 2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20( 1), 35-50. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0379 URL
2	Bezrukova K., Thatcher S. M., Jehn K. A., & Spell C. S . ( 2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 1), 77-92. doi: 10.1037/a0023684 URL
3	Blau P. M. ( 1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
4	Carton, A.M., & Cummings J.N, . ( 2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37( 3), 441-470. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0322 URL
5	Carton, A.M., & Cummings J.N, . ( 2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98( 5), 732-758. doi: 10.1037/a0033593 URL
6	Chen, S. ( 2016). The influence of team faultlines on team performance: Mediating effect of team transactive memory system. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 1), 84-94.
	[ 陈帅 . ( 2016). 团队断裂带对团队绩效的影响: 团队交互记忆系统的作用. 心理学报, 48( 1), 84-94.]
7	Chen S., Wang D., Zhou Y., Chen Z., & Wu D . ( 2017). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between team faultlines and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34( 4), 931-950.
8	Chen W., Yang Z. L., & Lang Y. F . ( 2015). Empirical study and the effect of team faultlines on team effectiveness: The moderation role of relational leadership behavior and the mediating role of transaction memory system. Business Review, 27( 4), 84-94.
	[ 陈伟, 杨早立, 朗益夫 . ( 2015). 团队断裂带对团队效能影响的实证研究——关系型领导行为的调节与交互记忆系统的中介. 管理评论, 27( 4), 99-110.]
9	Chiu, Y-T., & Staples D.S, . ( 2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44( 5), 498-531. doi: 10.1177/1046496413489735 URL
10	Cronin M. A., Bezrukova K., Weingart L. R., & Tinsley C. H . ( 2011). Subgroups within a team: The role of cognitive and affective integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32( 6), 831-849. doi: 10.1002/job.v32.6 URL
11	Dai, Y.J . ( 2016). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup balance on the quality of team decision (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou.
	[ 戴延君 . ( 2016). 子团队类型和子团队平衡性对团队决策质量的影响研究(硕士学位论文). 浙江理工大学, 杭州.]
12	Ellis A. P., Mai K. M., & Christian J. S . ( 2013). Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98( 6), 948-961. doi: 10.1037/a0033725 URL
13	Gaertner S. L., & Dovidio, J. F .( 2014). Reducing intergroup bias: the common ingroup identity model Essays in Social Psychology Psychology Press the common ingroup identity model. Essays in Social Psychology. Psychology Press.
14	Gibson, C., & Vermeulen F. ( 2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48( 2), 202-239. doi: 10.2307/3556657 URL
15	Heidl R. A., Steensma H. K., & Phelps C . ( 2014). Divisive faultlines and the unplanned dissolutions of multipartner alliances. Organization Science, 25( 5), 1351-1371. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0898 URL
16	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
17	Homan A. C., van Knippenberg D., van Kleef G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. ( 2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 5), 1189-1199. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 URL
18	Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte J. ( 2013). Performance effects of top management team demographic faultlines in the process of product diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34( 6), 704-726. doi: 10.1002/smj.2035 URL
19	Johnson D. W., & Johnson, F. P .( 2008). Join together: Group theory and group skills Bei Jing: China Light Industry Press
	[ Johnson D. W., & Johnson, F. P.( 2008). 集合起来: 群体理论与团队技巧. 谢晓非等译. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社. ]
20	Kearney E., Gebert D., & Voelpel S. C . ( 2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 581-598. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41331431 URL
21	Korsgaard M. A., Schweiger D. M., & Sapienza H. J . ( 1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38( 1), 60-84.
22	Kramer R. M., Brewer M. B., & Hanna B. A . ( 1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research ( pp. 357-389). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
23	Lau, D.C., & Murnighan J.K, . ( 1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23( 2), 325-340. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.533229 URL
24	Lau, D.C., & Murnighan J.K, . ( 2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48( 4), 645-659. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17843943 URL
25	Li, J., & Hambrick D.C, . ( 2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48( 5), 794-813. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803923 URL
26	Mathieu J., Maynard M. T., Rapp T., & Gilson L . ( 2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34( 3), 410-476.
27	Mesmer-Magnus, J.R, & Dechurch L.A, . ( 2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 2), 535-546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773 URL
28	Meyer B., Schermuly C. C., & Kauffeld S . ( 2016). That’s not my place: The interacting effects of faultlines, subgroup size, and social competence on social loafing behaviour in work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25( 1), 31-49. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.996554 URL
29	Meyer B., Shemla M., Li J., & Wegge J . ( 2015). On the same side of the faultline: Inclusion in the leader's subgroup and employee performance. Journal of Management Studies, 52( 3), 354-380. doi: 10.1111/joms.v52.3 URL
30	Ndofor H. A., Sirmon D. G., & He X . ( 2015). Utilizing the firm's resources: How TMT heterogeneity and resulting faultlines affect TMT tasks. Strategic Management Journal, 36( 11), 1656-1674. doi: 10.1002/smj.2304 URL
31	Ni X. D., Dai Y. J., Yao C. X., & Zhang H . ( 2015). Subgroup: Formation, types, intermedia process and influence. Advances in Psychological Science, 23( 3), 496-509.
	[ 倪旭东, 戴延君, 姚春序, 张宏 . ( 2015). 子团队: 形成、类型、中间过程及影响. 心理科学进展, 23( 3), 496-509.]
32	Ni X. D., Xiang X. X., & Yao C. X . ( 2016). Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 5), 556-565.
	[ 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.]
33	O'Leary, M.B., & Mortensen M .( 2010). Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 21(1), 115-131.
34	Pan Q. Q., Tang L. Z., & Wei H. M . ( 2015). Top management team faultlines, innovation capability and internationalization strategy: An Empirical study: Based on the panel data of listed company. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 36( 10), 111-122.
	[ 潘清泉, 唐刘钊, 韦慧民 . ( 2015). 高管团队断裂带、创新能力与国际化战略——基于上市公司数据的实证研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 36( 10), 111-122.]
35	Resick C. J., Murase T., Randall K. R., & Dechurch L. A . ( 2014). Information elaboration and team performance: Examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124( 2), 165-176. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.03.005 URL
36	Rico R., Molleman E., Sánchez-Manzanares M., & van der Vegt, G. S. ( 2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33( 1), 111-132.
37	Rico R., Sánchez-Manzanares M., Antino M., & Lau D . ( 2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 2), 407-420. doi: 10.1037/a0025231 URL
38	Thatcher, S. M.B., & Patel P.C, . ( 2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96( 6), 1119-1139. doi: 10.1037/a0024167 URL
39	Thatcher S. M. B., Jehn K. A., & Zanutto E . ( 2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12( 3), 217-241. doi: 10.1023/A:1023325406946 URL
40	Thatcher, S. M.B., & Patel P.C, . ( 2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38( 4), 969-1009.
41	Van der Vegt G.S., & Bunderson J.S, . ( 2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48( 3), 532-547. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407918 URL
42	Van Knippenberg D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan A. C . ( 2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89( 6), 1008-1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008 URL
43	van Ginkel W.P., & van Knippenberg D . ( 2008). Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 105( 1), 82-97.
44	Xie, Y. ( 2013). Regression analysis. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press (China).
	[ 谢宇 . ( 2013). 回归分析. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.]
45	Zhou J., Li X. Q., & Yang S . ( 2015). Board tasked-related faultlines, effort level and firm value. Chinese Journal of Management, 12( 1), 44-52.
	[ 周建, 李小青, 杨帅 . ( 2015). 任务导向董事会群体断裂带、努力程度与企业价值. 管理学报, 12( 1), 44-52.]

变量	M	SD	1	2	3
1.子团队成员交换	0.51	0.50	1
2.团队信息深化	4.44	0.36	0.47^**	1
3.团队决策分数	25.49	7.82	-0.38^**	-0.57^**	1

变量	M	SD	1	2	3
1.子团队成员交换	0.51	0.50	1
2.团队信息深化	4.44	0.36	0.47^**	1
3.团队决策分数	25.49	7.82	-0.38^**	-0.57^**	1

变量	团队信息深化			团队决策分数
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
控制变量
团队专业多样化	-0.05	-0.03	0.09	0.07	0.05	0.06
自变量
子团队成员交换		0.46^**		-0.38^**	-0.15
中介变量
团队信息深化					-0.50^**	-0.56^**
R²	0.00	0.22^**	0.01	0.15^**	0.34^**	0.32^**
ΔR²	0.00	0.22^**	0.01	0.14^**	0.19^**	0.32^**

变量	团队信息深化			团队决策分数
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
控制变量
团队专业多样化	-0.05	-0.03	0.09	0.07	0.05	0.06
自变量
子团队成员交换		0.46^**		-0.38^**	-0.15
中介变量
团队信息深化					-0.50^**	-0.56^**
R²	0.00	0.22^**	0.01	0.15^**	0.34^**	0.32^**
ΔR²	0.00	0.22^**	0.01	0.14^**	0.19^**	0.32^**