心理学报, 2018, 50(10): 1159-1168 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01159

研究报告

满招损, 谦受益:团队沟通视角下谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响

刘圣明1, 陈力凡,1, 王思迈2

1北京大学光华管理学院, 北京 100871

2福坦莫大学加贝利商学院, 美国纽约 10023

Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective

LIU Shengming1, CHEN Lifan,1, WANG Simai2

1 Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Peking 100871, China

2 Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University, New York 10023, USA

通讯作者: 陈力凡, E-mail:lifan915@foxmail.com

收稿日期: 2017-05-7   网络出版日期: 2018-10-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金重点项目的资助.  71632002

Received: 2017-05-7   Online: 2018-10-15

摘要

谦卑型领导行为是近年来新兴的领导力理论, 团队创造力也一直是学界和实践界关注的焦点, 但是目前缺乏深入探讨二者关系的研究。本文基于团队沟通视角, 研究了谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响机制及其发挥作用的边界条件。对76位团队领导和342位团队成员的匹配数据进行分析后, 结果显示:谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力有积极影响; 团队成员之间横向的深度沟通以及团队成员与团队领导之间纵向的反馈沟通共同中介了这一影响过程; 此外, 团队认知多样性是影响谦卑型领导行为发挥作用的重要边界条件, 在高团队认知多样性的情境中, 谦卑型领导行为通过团队沟通过程对团队创造力的积极影响更加显著。

关键词: 谦卑型领导行为 ; 深度沟通 ; 反馈沟通 ; 团队认知多样性 ; 团队创造力

Abstract

The development of a dynamic but uncertain environment has recently prompted leadership scholars to shift their attention from relying on leaders to resolve all problems to that of a considerably humble approach that focuses on stimulating the followers’ intention to serve. The current study follows this stream of research and empirically explores the construct of humble leader behavior, which is defined as spotlighting others’ advantage, acknowledging self-limitations, and modeling teachability. However, the existing understanding on humble leader behavior is incomplete because only a few studies have explored this behavior’s influence on team creativity. The present study discusses the influence mechanism and boundary condition of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a communication perspective. We propose that horizontal communication (e.g., reflective communication among team members) and vertical communication (e.g., feedback communication between team members and team leaders) could mediate the relationship between humble leader behavior and team creativity. We also consider team composition as a boundary condition and suggest that the effect of humble leader humble is moderated by team cognitive diversity.

The research sample included 342 employees and 76 team leaders from 4 large technology companies in China, thereby enabling us to collect multi-source and time-lagged data. At Time 1, the employees evaluated their leaders’ humble behavior and cognitive diversity of their team. After one month, at Time 2, the employees evaluated their reflective communication in teams and feedback communication with team leaders, while the team leader rated the team creativity. We conducted path analysis using Mplus 7.0 to test the theoretical model.

Results showed that humble leader behavior was positively related to team creativity. Such influence was mediated by team reflective communication among team members and feedback communication between team leaders and team members. In addition, team cognitive diversity moderated the positive indirect effect of the humble leader behavior on team creativity via communication processes. That is, when the team cognitive diversity was high, the positive indirect effect was stronger than the condition when the team cognitive diversity was low.

Moreover, results enrich the research on the field of humble behavior by advancing a new influence mechanism and exploring a significant boundary condition of the humble leader behavior. The present study also contributes to the creativity literature by determining the important role of the “bottom-up” leader behavior. This process is realized by the team communication processes, which include reflective communication among team members and feedback communication between team members and team leaders. Furthermore, we extend the understanding of team communication processes by integrating horizontal and vertical communication and providing evidence on its influence on team creativity. We also respond to the appeal to obtain a solution to the increasingly prevalent management issue of diversity management. Our study suggests that humble leader behavior is effective in the management of team cognitive diversity through utilizing the positive effect of team cognitive diversity on team creativity. Overall, the current study has immense theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: leader humble behavior ; reflective communication ; feedback communication ; team cognitive diversity ; team creativity

PDF (452KB) 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

刘圣明, 陈力凡, 王思迈. (2018). 满招损, 谦受益:团队沟通视角下谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响. 心理学报, 50(10), 1159-1168

LIU Shengming, CHEN Lifan, WANG Simai. (2018). Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(10), 1159-1168

1 前言

1.1 问题的提出

越来越多的公司正采取团队工作的形式, 面对日益激烈的市场竞争和快速变化的外部环境, 如何提高团队创造力成为了企业脱颖而出并获得竞争优势的关键。团队创造力并不是个体创造力的简单加总, 而是复杂团队过程所形成的结果, 其中团队沟通过程是影响团队创造力的重要因素。一方面, 团队创造力来自于团队内的横向沟通, 团队成员间广泛并且深层次的沟通能够产生兼具实用价值和创新性的想法, 实现团队创新能力的提升(Shin & Zhou, 2007)。另一方面, 团队创造力的获得也离不开团队成员与团队领导之间的纵向沟通, 良好的纵向沟通能够使得团队创新与组织目标和市场需求保持一致, 团队领导也能为团队创新提供相应的支持(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004)。虽然学界已经注意到横向沟通和纵向沟通对团队创造力的重要性, 但却缺乏同时考虑这两种沟通过程的研究。事实上, 横向沟通和纵向沟通是团队沟通过程中相互独立的组成部分(Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Smith, 2009), 其形成机制和对团队创造力的作用方式也各不相同, 二者共同展现了团队日常人际互动的全貌。因此, 同时对这两种沟通过程进行研究能够更为全面地反映团队沟通过程对团队创造力的影响。

领导行为是影响团队过程和团队结果的重要因素(Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002), 那么何种领导行为能够兼顾这两方面的沟通过程从而提高团队创造力呢?已有文献对此尚无深入探讨, 而对这一问题的研究有助于丰富对团队创造力形成过程的理解, 也有助于在实践中帮助管理者采取有效措施提升团队创造力。首先, 良好的横向沟通既需要领导提供安全、自由的沟通氛围以保障团队成员能够畅所欲言(Jain, Fennell, Chagpar, Connolly, & Nembhard, 2016), 也需要领导提高团队成员间相互交流的动机(Cooley, 1994)。其次, 良好的纵向沟通需要领导能够亲近下属、身体力行地与团队成员共同工作(Lam, Peng, Wong, & Lau, 2017), 然而领导和下属间存在权力和地位上的固有差异(Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013), 这种差异会对双方的自由交流产生影响, 因此需要一种关注下属的、自下而上的领导方式来促进双方交流。以上促进团队沟通过程的特点正好与谦卑型领导行为的内涵相一致, 为解决这一问题提供了思路。

随着近年来以员工为关注重点的新兴领导力理论的提出, 谦卑的特征在领导力领域日益受到学者们的关注。谦卑型领导行为是指领导者能够承认自身的缺点和不足、关注他人的优点和贡献、树立可教性(modeling teachability, 能够广泛听取他人意见、和员工共同学习和成长) (Owens & Hekman, 2012)。与以往关注领导魅力和主动性的“自上而下”的领导方式不同, 谦卑型领导是一种“自下而上”的领导方式, 其本质是注意力由自身向他人的转移以及自我超越的动机(Owens & Hekman, 2016)。本文提出谦卑型领导行为能够同时促进团队横向沟通过程(深度沟通)和纵向沟通过程(反馈沟通), 从而提高团队创造力。此外, 团队沟通过程和团队创造力都受到团队成员组成的影响, 团队认知多样性反映了团队成员的组成特征, 也被认为是影响团队创造力的关键情境因素(Wang, Kim, & Lee, 2016)。由此, 我们也将检验团队认知多样性发挥的调节作用, 总体研究模型如图1所示。综上, 本文将为团队创造力和团队沟通领域的研究做出贡献, 也回应了学界对检验谦卑型领导行为这一新兴领导力有效性的呼吁。

图1

图1   文章整体模型图


1.2 理论与假设

1.2.1 谦卑型领导行为与团队创造力

团队创造力代表着团队成员能够通过创造力相关的过程, 经过通力合作, 共同产生新颖且有用的想法(Shin & Zhou, 2007)。社会学习理论(Bandura, 1977)指出, 对他人的学习和模仿是个体行为的重要影响因素, 而团队中具有高地位和赏罚权力的领导往往会成为团队成员学习的榜样。团队成员通过模仿谦卑型领导谦虚好学的态度, 会更有意愿向其他同事请教和交流, 这有助于形成团队创造力相关的过程(Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015)。此外, 由于团队创新通常需要打破常规, 面临着一定的风险, 而谦卑型领导能够坦然承认自身的不足、虚心接受他人的意见, 由此团队成员能够不必担心因反驳领导或与领导观点存有异议而受到惩罚, 从而不怕犯错、敢于提出创新性的想法, 最终促进了团队创造力的提升。据此, 我们提出:

假设1:谦卑型领导行为与团队创造力正向相关。

1.2.2 团队沟通过程的中介作用

深度沟通的中介作用。深度沟通是指团队成员之间开放地分享想法和观点并且对此进行深入思考的横向沟通过程(Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003)。员工通过模仿谦卑型领导的行为, 能够关注身边同事的优点和正视自身的不足。对他人优点的欣赏和对自身缺点的反思能够激发向其他成员学习和讨论的动力, 如古语所言“见贤思齐焉, 见不贤而内自省也”, 由此有助于成员间深度沟通的产生。同时, 员工通过学习谦卑型领导接纳和承认自身缺点的行为, 能够减少深度沟通可能带来的矛盾和冲突, 从而形成更加自由和充分的沟通氛围。因此谦卑型领导行为能够促进团队成员间的深度沟通。

成员间良好的深度沟通有助于相互之间的理解、知识的分享、信任的建立以及优质想法的提出, 而这些结果都与提高团队创造力的因素相一致(e.g., van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004)。Hülsheger, Anderson和Salgado (2009)在对近30年来团队层面创新能力的元分析中也总结出高质量的成员间沟通是促进团队创造力提升的关键。因此谦卑型领导行为可能通过深度沟通的中介作用促进团队创造力的提升。根据以上论述, 我们提出:

假设2a:谦卑型领导行为与深度沟通正向相关。

假设2b:深度沟通中介了谦卑型领导行为与团队创造力之间的正向关系。

反馈沟通的中介作用。反馈沟通是指团队成员和团队领导之间分享信息、相互交流和评价的纵向沟通过程(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001)。谦卑型领导乐于同团队成员交流并向他们提供反馈, 因为由此能够指明员工的优点并感谢其贡献。谦卑型领导也会向下属寻求反馈, 以期发现自身不足和提高自我, 而团队成员也会倾向于满足其诉求, 因为这既有助于与领导建立良好关系, 也有助于提升自我效能感(Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett, 2015)。此外, 谦卑型领导的重要特征是能够走下“神坛”和员工共同工作、共同进步, 这一行为增加了双方日常工作中交流接触的机会, 为双方的沟通创造了良好条件。因此谦卑型领导行为有助于形成团队成员和团队领导间的反馈沟通。

反馈沟通同样对团队创造力有积极影响。领导成为反馈沟通的稳定参与者有助于团队成员获得信息的稳定和统一, 从而形成团队创新目标和方向的一致, 避免了混乱和矛盾的产生。同时, 反馈沟通能够帮助团队成员发现自身不足, 进而改进和提高想法的质量, 也能够帮助团队领导了解目前的工作状况和下属面临的问题, 并据此调整管理方式, 以及提供相应的资源和支持来帮助下属克服困难 (Zhou, 2003)。因此, 谦卑型领导行为也可能通过反馈沟通的中介作用提高团队创造力, 我们提出以下假设:

假设3a:谦卑型领导行为与反馈沟通正向相关。

假设3b:反馈沟通中介了谦卑型领导行为与团队创造力之间的正向关系。

1.2.3 认知多样性的调节作用

团队认知多样性是指团队成员在思维方式、知识和能力、价值观和信念上的差异(van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003)。多样化的认知方式为团队创造力提供了丰富的认知来源(Kearney & Gebert, 2009), 但差异化的认知也容易造成成员之间的隔阂和矛盾(Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008)。因此如何有效地利用团队多样性这把“双刃剑”, 一直是创造力领域的热点问题。本研究认为谦卑型领导行为在团队认知多样性高的情境中更能发挥作用。

团队认知多样性调节了谦卑型领导行为通过深度沟通对团队创造力的影响。当团队认知多样性高时, 团队成员对于同一问题有着不同的观点和见解, 而团队成员通过向谦卑型领导学习, 即使面对和自己观点不同的成员, 也能看到自身的局限性, 并且对他人观点持开放性的态度, 从而减少了社会分类造成的矛盾(Greer et al., 2008), 有利于深入交流的进行。另一方面, 差异化的认知方式也使得个体优势更容易被识别(Park & Kim, 2015), 此时谦卑型领导行为中强调关注他人优点和向他人学习的特征更为有效, 由此有助于促进成员间的深度沟通和提升团队创造力。相反, 相似的认知方式使得成员之间更容易达成一致, 难以产生多样的想法和深入的探讨, 谦卑型领导行为的积极影响将会减弱。

团队认知多样性也会调节谦卑型领导行为通过反馈沟通对团队创造力的影响。当团队认知多样性高时, 团队成员在处理工作问题的过程中容易产生多种意见(Mello & Rentsch, 2015), 成员也期望在自身和他人观点之间确定最优的解决方案(Wang et al., 2016), 因此会向领导寻求更多反馈。谦卑型领导能够对不同的观点持开放的态度、给与员工表达观点的机会、并且能注意到不同观点所具有的独特优势, 由此能够为员工提供更多的指导和帮助, 最终促进了双方的交流和团队创造力的提高。相反, 团队认知多样性低时, 成员遇到和思考的问题更为相同, 领导对个别问题提供反馈即可解决多数成员的问题。根据以上分析, 我们提出:

假设4:团队认知多样性调节了谦卑型领导行为通过(a)深度沟通/(b)反馈沟通对团队创造力的间接影响。具体而言, 当团队认知多样性高时, 这一正向的间接影响会增强, 反之会减弱。

2 研究方法

2.1 样本和过程

样本数据来自于中国东南部4家科技公司的研发团队, 该样本适于研究团队创造力。我们首先和公司的高层管理者沟通了本次调研的意义, 得到了对方的支持, 然后请公司人力资源部门提供了工作团队中领导和其直接下属的姓名。之后我们将样本信息和问卷进行编码和对应, 并将问卷封入信封之中, 再将标有名字和所在团队信息的标签贴在信封正面, 由此能够方便团队领导和团队成员清楚地了解自己所在团队的构成。我们请被试在填完问卷之后把问卷密封于信封中并将标签撕去, 以此保证问卷调查的匿名性。问卷搜集过程中得到了公司人力资源部门同事的协助。

我们进行了两次数据收集工作。第一次时, 下属评价领导的谦卑型领导行为以及团队的认知多样性。第二次是在一个月之后, 下属评价团队成员之间的深度沟通以及团队成员与团队领导之间的反馈沟通, 领导评价团队创造力。总体上, 我们共发放86份团队领导问卷及相对应的379名团队成员问卷。我们去掉了没有完成第一次或者第二次调研、无法匹配以及在研究模型中关键变量上填答内容缺失的样本, 最终得到了包括76份领导问卷(回收率88.37%)和342份下属问卷(回收率90.24%)的匹配样本。团队领导样本中, 53.95%是男性, 平均年龄37.00岁(SD = 5.82), 97.40%获得本科以上学历。团队成员样本中, 53.22%是男性, 平均年龄31.45岁(SD = 5.43), 91.36%获得本科以上学历。团队大小从3到10人, 每个团队平均有4.50人(SD = 3.39)。

2.2 变量测量

研究使用的是国际期刊上的通用量表, 我们请英语专业的硕士研究生经过标准的翻译-回译程序对量表进行了翻译, 以确保量表的准确性和易懂性(Brislin, 1980)。除了团队认知多样性外, 条目测量均采用李克特7点量表(1=非常不同意, 7=非常同意)。

谦卑型领导行为。使用Owens、Johnson和Mitchell (2013)开发的9条目量表进行测量。量表题目如“我的领导遇到自己不会的事情时, 会承认自己不会” (承认自身的局限、缺点和错误), “我的领导常常赞美别人的强项” (关注他人的优点和贡献)、“我的领导展现出向别人学习的意愿” (树立可教性)。该量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数为0.96。

深度沟通。采用Gibson和Vermeulen (2003)开发的3条目量表进行测量。量表题目如“团队成员之间有高质量的讨论”。该量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数为0.91。

反馈沟通。使用Zhou (2003)开发的3条目量表进行测量。量表题目如“我的领导经常给我们发展性的反馈”。该量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数为0.94。

团队认知多样性。使用van der Vegt和Janssen (2003)开发的4条目量表进行测量。员工被询问团队成员在思维方式、知识和能力、价值观和信念上存在多大差异。例如“你们团队成员在思维方式方面存在多大程度的差异?” (1=差异非常小; 7=差异非常大)。该量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数为0.96。

团队创造力。采用Farh、Lee和Farh (2010)使用的3条目量表进行测量。量表题目如“这个团队的产出具有很高创造力”。该量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数为0.92。

控制变量。控制变量包括团队领导的性别(1=男, 2=女), 年龄(岁), 最高受教育水平(1=小学, 2=初中, 3=高中, 4=本科, 5=硕士研究生, 6=博士研究生, 7=博士后), 以及团队大小(团队成员数量)。之所以控制这些变量是因为过去研究指出领导的人口统计学特征会影响他们的认知方式、价值观和决策(Hambrick & Mason, 1984), 从而会影响下属的感知、态度和行为。此外, 团队领导的个人特征如性别、年龄、知识水平也会影响到团队成员的创造力(e.g., Solongo, Lee, Kang, Kim, & Kim, 2015), 而团队的大小会影响成员之间的互动以及团队表现(Leenders, van Engelen, & Kratzer, 2003)。

2.3 分析策略

首先, 我们进行了验证性因子分析, 以检验核心变量间的区分效度。其次, 为了确保研究模型中个体层面测量的变量能够聚合到团队层面, 我们检验了相应的聚合指标。最后, 我们在Mplus 7.0中构建路径分析模型进行假设检验, 其中对自变量和控制变量进行了中心化处理, 以此减少共线性带来的问题(Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991), 由于数据来自4家公司, 分析过程中我们也控制了公司差异带来的影响。

3 研究结果

3.1 验证性因子分析

由于谦卑型领导行为、团队认知多样性、反馈沟通和深度沟通均是由相同的团队成员评价, 本研究通过验证性因子分析(CFA)检验以上测量之间的区分效度。理论模型为四因子模型(谦卑型领导行为、团队认知多样性、反馈沟通、深度沟通), 之后构建了4个竞争模型:三因子模型1(谦卑型领导行为、团队认知多样性、反馈沟通+深度沟通), 三因子模型2(谦卑型领导行为+团队认知多样性、反馈沟通、深度沟通), 二因子模型(谦卑型领导行为+团队认知多样性、反馈沟通+深度沟通), 以及单因子模型(谦卑型领导行为+团队认知多样性+反馈沟通+深度沟通)。将竞争模型和理论模型进行对比(如表1所示), 结果显示四因子模型具有最理想的拟合优度(c2 = 428.16, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08), 优于其他竞争模型, 证明了核心研究变量间的区分效度。

表1   验证性因子分析结果

模型 c2 d¦ c2 /d¦ TLI CFI RMSEA
四因子模型 428.16 146 2.93 0.94 0.93 0.08
三因子模型1 1020.34 149 6.85 0.80 0.83 0.13
三因子模型2 1465.90 149 9.84 0.70 0.74 0.16
二因子模型 2055.77 151 13.61 0.57 0.62 0.19
单因子模型 2641.39 152 17.38 0.44 0.50 0.22

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3.2 数据聚合分析

本研究模型中谦卑型领导行为、团队认知多样性、反馈沟通和深度沟通是由个体层面的测量聚合到团队层面, 因此需要检验是否适合聚合。我们分别计算了ICC1, ICC2和量表条目的平均rwg (j)。结果显示, 谦卑型领导行为:ICC1 = 0.22, ICC2 = 0.56, rwg (j) = 0.94;团队认知多样性:ICC1 = 0.38, ICC2 = 0.74, rwg (j) = 0.85;反馈沟通:ICC1 = 0.35, ICC2 = 0.71, rwg (j) = 0.92;深度沟通:ICC1 = 0.27, ICC2 = 0.63, rwg (j) = 0.92。根据以往研究, ICC (1)和ICC (2)分别需要高于0.05和0.50 (James, 1982), rwg (j)需要高于0.70 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), 因此以上变量符合聚合的标准(段锦云, 施嘉逸, 凌斌, 2017), 适合在团队层面进行分析。

3.3 描述性统计和相关分析

表2反映了研究变量的均值、标准差和相关系数, 结果显示谦卑型领导行为与深度沟通(r = 0.51, p < 0.01)、反馈沟通(r = 0.51, p < 0.01)以及团队创造力(r = 0.30, p < 0.01)显著正相关。深度沟通(r = 0.47, p < 0.01)和反馈沟通(r = 0.48, p < 0.01)也分别与团队创造力显著正相关, 结果与预期相符, 研究假设得到初步支持。

表2   研究变量均值、标准差、相关系数表

变量 均值 标准差 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 领导年龄 37.00 5.82
2. 领导性别 1.46 0.50 -0.04
3. 领导教育水平 4.95 0.61 -0.35** -0.09
4. 团队大小 4.50 3.39 -0.12 -0.12 0.00
5. 谦卑型领导行为 5.75 0.69 -0.31** 0.06 -0.02 0.04 (0.96)
6. 团队认知多样性 4.41 1.09 -0.09 0.07 0.14 0.15 -0.21 (0.96)
7. 深度沟通 5.77 0.72 -0.18 0.02 0.18 -0.11 0.51** -0.33** (0.91)
8. 反馈沟通 5.93 0.74 -0.18 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 0.51** -0.35** 0.52** (0.94)
9. 团队创造力 5.21 0.82 -0.12 -0.21 0.25* -0.06 0.30** -0.13 0.47** 0.48** (0.92)

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

注:相关系数是由团队层面计算而得, N=76。括号内为量表在团队层面的内部一致性系数。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3.4 主效应分析

假设1提出谦卑型领导行为与团队创造力正向相关。在控制了领导者性别、年龄、教育水平、团队大小之后, 谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的回归系数显著(b = 0.29, p < 0.01), 假设1得到证明。为了证明之后假设中的双路径中介作用和带调节的中介作用, 我们构建了整体的路径程模型来进行假设检验, 路径系数结果如图2所示。

图2

图2   理论模型结果

注:* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, 模型中系数为非标准化系数, 括号内为标准误。


3.5 中介作用分析

图2显示, 谦卑型领导行为能够显著正向预测深度沟通(b = 0.41, p < 0.01)和反馈沟通(b = 0.42, p < 0.01)。深度沟通(b = 0.38, p < 0.01)和反馈沟通(b = 0.28, p < 0.01)也都能显著正向预测团队创造力, 此时谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的直接影响变得不显著(b = 0.05, ns), 说明深度沟通和反馈沟通能够完全中介谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的积极影响。进一步地, 我们使用蒙特卡洛检验(Monte Carlo Method, 重复值为5000)来计算通过深度沟通和反馈沟通的间接效应(Preacher & Selig, 2012), 结果显示谦卑型领导行为通过深度沟通影响团队创造力的间接效应为0.16, 95%置信区间不包括0(LLCI = 0.05, ULCI = 0.30), 通过反馈沟通影响团队创造力的间接效应为0.12, 95%置信区间不包括0(LLCI = 0.03, ULCI = 0.25)。由此, 假设2a和2b, 假设3a和3b得到支持。

3.6 调节作用分析

图2中结果显示, 谦卑型领导行为和团队认知多样性的乘积项能够显著正向预测深度沟通(b = 0.25, p < 0.01)和反馈沟通(b = 0.24, p < 0.01), 这表明团队认知多样性分别调节了谦卑型领导行为和深度沟通以及反馈沟通之间的关系。我们进一步地将调节作用通过作图的形式表现出来, 并进行简单斜率检验。图3中, 在团队认知多样性高时(高于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为与深度沟通正向相关(b = 0.68, p < 0.01), 而在团队认知多样性低时(低于均值1个标准差), 二者虽然正相关但是不显著(b = 0.14, ns)。同样的, 图4中团队认知多样性对于谦卑型领导行为和反馈沟通之间关系的调节作用也有相似的结果, 在团队认知多样性高时(高于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为与反馈沟通正向相关(b = 0.68, p < 0.01), 而在团队认知多样性低时(低于均值1个标准差), 二者关系同样不显著(b = 0.16, ns)。

图3

图3   团队认知多样性对谦卑型领导行为和深度沟通关系的调节效应图示


图4

图4   团队认知多样性对谦卑型领导行为和反馈沟通关系的调节效应图示


有调节的中介效应的蒙特卡洛检验结果如表3所示。从表3中可以看出, 在深度沟通的路径中, 当团队认知多样性高时(高于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为通过深度沟通对团队创造力影响的间接效应为0.26 (95% LLCI = 0.13, ULCI = 0.36); 当团队认知多样性低时(低于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为通过深度沟通对团队创造力的间接效应为0.05, 此时中介作用不再显著(95% LLCI = -0.06, ULCI = 0.25); 团队多样性在高值和低值时通过深度沟通的间接效应的差异也显著, 效应值为0.21 (95% LLCI = 0.10, ULCI = 0.29)。在反馈沟通的路径中, 当团队认知多样性高时(高于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为通过反馈沟通对团队创造力影响的间接效应为0.19 (95% LLCI = 0.07, ULCI = 0.34); 当团队认知多样性低时(低于均值1个标准差), 谦卑型领导行为通过反馈沟通对团队创造力的间接效应为0.05, 此时中介作用不再显著(95% LLCI = -0.04, ULCI = 0.10); 团队多样性在高值和低值时通过反馈沟通的间接效应的差异同样显著, 效应值为0.15 (95% LLCI = 0.04, UCI = 0.31)。综上所述, 假设4a和4b得到支持。

表3   有调节的中介效应

中介变量 调节变量 效应 标准误差 95%置信区间下限 95%置信区间上限
深度沟通 高值 0.26 0.06 0.13 0.36
低值 0.05 0.08 -0.06 0.25
差值 0.21 0.04 0.10 0.29
反馈沟通 高值 0.19 0.07 0.07 0.34
低值 0.05 0.03 -0.04 0.10
差值 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.31

注:置信区间为蒙特卡洛检验结果, 重复值为5000。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


4 讨论与研究展望

4.1 研究结果

本研究基于团队沟通的视角, 检验了谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响机制。研究结果发现:谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力有着积极影响, 这一过程会通过团队成员之间的深度沟通以及团队成员和团队领导之间的反馈沟通的双中介机制得以实现。团队认知多样性在这一过程中起到调节作用, 在认知多样性高的团队中, 谦卑型领导行为通过团队沟通过程对团队创造力的间接影响更为显著。此外, 我们的研究也发现团队认知多样性低时, 团队中横向的深度沟通和纵向的反馈沟通整体上均高于团队多样性高的情境, 这可能是由于认知的相似性有利于团队成员间的相互理解和配合(van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), 因此团队整体上也更为团结, 使得团队沟通过程本身就在一个较高水平。总体上, 通过检验带调节的中介模型, 本文深入分析了谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响机制及边界条件, 为谦卑型领导行为、团队创造力、团队沟通以及团队多样性领域的研究做出了贡献。

4.2 研究意义

第一, 针对谦卑型领导行为的研究正在兴起, 但是相关领域的实证研究仍然不足。目前鲜有研究在团队层面探讨谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响及其作用机制, 本文探索性地研究了这一问题, 建立了基于团队沟通视角的谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响模型, 也探讨了谦卑型领导行为发挥作用的边界条件, 丰富了我们对谦卑型领导行为有效性的理解。此外, 对于团队创造力领域, 过去研究关注魅力型领导、变革型领导这种“自上而下”的领导方式对团队创造力的积极影响(e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003), 而本文提出, 谦卑型领导行为这种“自下而上”的、低姿态的、关注员工优势、承认自身不足的领导行为同样对团队创造力有着积极影响, 这也与以往关注参与式领导积极作用的研究相一致(Rossberger & Krause, 2015), 为团队创造力的产生提供了新的研究思路。

第二, 本研究丰富了团队沟通领域的研究。团队沟通是组织中的常态, 也是组织中重要的团队过程, 有效的团队沟通也被认为是影响团队创造力的关键因素。过去关于团队沟通的研究中, 有从沟通内容的角度分析了积极沟通和消极沟通(Laczniak, Decario, & Ramaswami, 2001), 有从沟通程度的角度研究了表层沟通和深层沟通(Loo & Thorpe, 2002), 也有从沟通时间的角度探讨了及时沟通和延时沟通(den Otter & Emmitt, 2007)。而本文则提出沟通方向的视角, 关注团队成员之间的横向沟通以及团队成员和团队领导之间的纵向沟通。横向沟通和纵向沟通的产生方式各不相同, 对团队结果也有着独立的作用机制, 虽然以往文献分别探讨过这两种沟通过程(e.g., de Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011), 但是却缺乏同时对它们前因和结果的检验。本研究证明横向沟通和纵向沟通都是连接领导力和团队结果的重要机制, 谦卑型领导行为能够同时促进这两种沟通过程, 而横向沟通和纵向沟通的提高也有利于团队创造力的发展。 由此,本文拓展了团队沟通领域的研究。

第三, 本文也为团队多样性领域的研究做出了贡献。以往该领域的研究多是关注团队成员在年龄、性别、种族等人口统计学上的多样性带来的影响(e.g., Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008), 然而现实中即使背景相同的团队成员在认知方式上仍然可能存在显著差异。差异化的认知为团队沟通过程和团队创造力提供了丰富的源泉和素材, 但也容易造成团队成员间的矛盾(Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999), 因此如何既利用其有利之处又克服其不利影响有着重要的研究价值。学者们(e.g., Wang et al., 2016)也呼吁探讨认知多样化团队的管理问题。本研究回应了这一呼吁, 我们发现谦卑型领导行为有助于发挥团队认知多样性带来的信息增值和决策多样化的优势、减少其可能带来的成员间的冲突和隔阂, 并最终促进团队创造力的提升。

最后, 本研究结果同样具有重要的实践意义。谦卑的特质自古就为中华传统文化所崇尚, 也符合德行领导的范畴, 本研究指出即使在信息高度发达、企业竞争异常激烈的当代社会, 谦卑型领导行为仍然能够发挥积极作用。企业管理者可以学习这种领导行为, 并将其应用到管理实践中, 由此提高团队的创新能力。本研究也指出, 团队沟通过程是影响团队创造力的重要因素, 团队成员之间的深度沟通以及团队领导和团队成员之间的反馈沟通都应当引起管理者的重视, 管理者可以思考如何通过提升这两种沟通方式来促进团队创造力的提高。我们的研究也为多样化团队的管理提供了启示, 随着当代社会新老员工的交替以及互联网的广泛发展, 组织内员工认知方式的差异性日益突显。面对认知多样化带来的冲击, 领导者可以采取谦卑型的领导行为, 通过形成良好的沟通氛围, 促进更多思想的碰撞和灵感的创新, 减少多样化团队所带来的冲突和分裂, 凝聚个人努力, 形成集体智慧。

4.3 研究局限及未来研究方向

本研究同样也存在其局限性。首先, 我们的研究样本来自中国情境, 虽然这样能够为中国企业提供更加可靠和有效的指导, 但是也受限于中国传统文化中对谦卑的固有认同, 因此未来研究可以在不同的文化情境中研究谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响, 例如在崇尚个人主义的文化中检验本研究的结论。其次, 本研究对横向的深度沟通和纵向的反馈沟通采用的是问卷调研的方式进行测量, 其研究概念的测量方式还可以进一步改进, 例如通过日记法或者企业内部资料来记录团队沟通的真实情况, 由此更加精准地测量深度沟通和反馈沟通。最后, 本研究采用的是截面数据, 忽视了时间效应对研究结果的影响, 难以考察谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力产生影响的变化过程, 未来研究可以采取时间序列的长期研究方式, 更加精细和准确地探讨变量之间的因果关系。

5 结论

本研究发现谦卑型领导行为是团队创造力的重要影响因素, 这一影响通过团队内部的沟通过程得以实现, 具体来说谦卑型领导行为通过团队成员间横向的深度沟通和团队成员与团队领导间纵向的反馈沟通对团队创造力产生积极影响。此外, 这一影响机制也受到团队认知多样性的调节作用, 在团队认知多样性高的情境中, 谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的间接影响更为显著。

参考文献

Aiken L. S., West S. G., & Reno R. R . ( Eds.). ( 1991).

Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, Calif.:Sage Publications.

[本文引用: 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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This exploratory study investigated leader behaviors related to perceived leader support, encompassing both instrumental and socioemotional support. The study first established that leader support, proposed to be a key feature of the work environment for creativity, was positively related to the peer-rated creativity of subordinates working on creative projects in seven different companies. Then, to identify the specific leader behaviors that might give rise to perceived support, two qualitative analyses were conducted on daily diary narratives written by these subordinates. The first, which focused on specific leader behaviors that had significantly predicted leader support in a preliminary quantitative analysis, illuminated both effective and ineffective forms of leader behavior. In addition, it revealed not only subordinate perceptual reactions to this behavior (their perceptions of leader support), but affective reactions as well. The second qualitative analysis focused on the behavior of two extreme team leaders in context over time, revealing both positive and negative spirals of leader behavior, subordinate reactions, and subordinate creativity.

Andrews M.C., &Kacmar K.M . ( 2001).

Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22( 4), 347-366.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The discriminant validity of perceptions of organizational politics, organizational support, and procedural and distributive justice was examined as the distinctions between these variables have been blurred in past research. Results from a sample of 418 full-time employees provided evidence of discriminant validity for these variables. First, structural equation modelling was used to isolate the best structural representation of these four variables. Then, six theoretically relevant predictors (i.e., leader-member exchange, centralization, formalization, co-worker cooperation, role conflict, and locus of control) were examined in an effort to provide further conceptual separation. Five of the six antecedents distinguished among politics, justice, and support. Suggestions for additional research that can shed light on the distinctions and similarities of these variables are offered based on the results of this study.

Anseel F., Beatty A. S., Shen W., Lievens F., & Sackett P. R . ( 2015).

How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior

Journal of Management, 41( 1), 318-348.

[本文引用: 1]

Bandura A . ( 1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Boies K., Fiset J., & Gill H . ( 2015).

Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity

The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 6), 1080-1094.

[本文引用: 1]

Brislin R.W .( 1980).

Translation and content analysis of oral and written material

In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 2, pp. 349- 444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Campbell K., & Mínguez-Vera A .( 2008).

Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance

Journal of Business Ethics, 83( 3), 435-451.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Chen Z. X., Tsui A. S., & Farh J. L . ( 2002).

Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75( 3), 339-356.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Cooley E .( 1994).

Training an interdisciplinary team in communication and decision-making skills

Small Group Research, 25( 1), 5-25.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT The use of interdisciplinary teams to address human service delivery issues is becoming increasingly common. Complicated problems require the expertise of a variety of specialists from different disciplines, and increased specialization brings with it a heightened needfor interdisciplinary collaboration. While team meetings are expected to serve as the vehicle for successful collaboration among professionals, three barriers often stand in the way of effective team interactions: disorganization, misunderstandings, and problem-solving difficulties. These problems suggest a need for interventions aimed at improving team communication and decision-making processes, as well as a need for methods to observe and evaluate the effects of such interventions on a team's functioning. The purpose of this research was twofold: First, we sought to investigate the effects of an intervention that differentially targeted and trained three sets of group communication and decision-making skills aimed at addressing the three barriers mentioned above. A second goal was to develop new methods of observation that would overcome several serious limitations which have characterized the bulk of existing team intervention research. An interdisciplinary rehabilitation clinic's staff served as the subject of the study. Using a multiple baseline design across categories of behaviors, the effects of a three-part intervention on the team's day-to-day meeting behavior was assessed. While there was substantial variability and overlap in much of the data, videotaped observations revealed that following each training session, there were modest increases in the average frequency of use of most targeted behaviors. Social validation data indicated that team members found the training to be both useful and enjoyable. Implications forfuture research are discussed.

de Stobbeleir K. E. M., 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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

den Otter A., & Emmitt S . ( 2007).

Exploring effectiveness of team communication: Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14( 5), 408-419.

[本文引用: 1]

Duan J. Y., Shi J. Y., & Ling B . ( 2017).

The influence of high commitment organization on employee voice behavior: A dual-process model examination

Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 4), 539-553.

URL    

以来自36个组织的223名员工为被试,通过上级、同事和员工自评三方配对的问卷数据,研究探讨了高承诺组织与员工建言行为之间的关系。采用多层结构方程模型等方法进行数据分析,结果发现:(1)高承诺组织对员工建言行为(包括上行建言和平行建言)有显著的促进作用;(2)员工知觉到组织内的职业机会在高承诺组织和上行建言之间起部分中介作用;工作满意度在高承诺组织和平行建言之间起部分中介作用;(3)工作绩效在知觉到职业机会和上行建言之间起正向调节作用;人际关系在工作满意度和平行建言之间起正向调节作用;(4)不光如此,工作绩效还调节着“高承诺组织-知觉职业机会-上行建言”这一中介路径;人际关系还调节着“高承诺组织-工作满意感-平行建言”这一中介路径。文章最后对所得结果、理论和实践意义及未来研究做了讨论。

[ 段锦云, 施嘉逸, 凌斌 . ( 2017).

高承诺组织与员工建言:双过程模型检验

心理学报, 49( 4), 539-553.]

URL    

以来自36个组织的223名员工为被试,通过上级、同事和员工自评三方配对的问卷数据,研究探讨了高承诺组织与员工建言行为之间的关系。采用多层结构方程模型等方法进行数据分析,结果发现:(1)高承诺组织对员工建言行为(包括上行建言和平行建言)有显著的促进作用;(2)员工知觉到组织内的职业机会在高承诺组织和上行建言之间起部分中介作用;工作满意度在高承诺组织和平行建言之间起部分中介作用;(3)工作绩效在知觉到职业机会和上行建言之间起正向调节作用;人际关系在工作满意度和平行建言之间起正向调节作用;(4)不光如此,工作绩效还调节着“高承诺组织-知觉职业机会-上行建言”这一中介路径;人际关系还调节着“高承诺组织-工作满意感-平行建言”这一中介路径。文章最后对所得结果、理论和实践意义及未来研究做了讨论。

Farh J. L., Lee C., & Farh C. I. C . ( 2010).

Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when

Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1173-1180.

URL     PMID:20718515      [本文引用: 1]

Bridging the task conflict, team creativity, and project team development literatures, we present a contingency model in which the relationship between task conflict and team creativity depends on the level of conflict and when it occurs in the life cycle of a project team. In a study of 71 information technology project teams in the greater China region, we found that task conflict had a curvilinear effect on team creativity, such that creativity was highest at moderate levels of task conflict. Additionally, we found this relationship to be moderated by team phase, such that the curvilinear effect was strongest at an early phase. In contrast, at later phases of the team life cycle, task conflict was found to be unrelated to team creativity.

Gibson C., & Vermeulen F . ( 2003).

A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior

Administrative Science Quarterly, 48( 2), 202-239.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

This paper examines the relationship between subgroups and team learning behavior, defined as a cycle of experimentation, reflective communication, and codification. We develop the construct of "subgroup strength," defined as the degree of overlap across multiple demographic characteristics among a subset of team members. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we propose that the presence of subgroups within a team may stimulate learning behavior and that organizational design features, such as performance management by an external leader, team empowerment, and the availability of a knowledge management system, may have different effects on teams, depending on subgroup strength. Data on 156 teams in five pharmaceutical and medical products firms confirmed that moderately strong demographic subgroups in teams fostered learning behavior. In addition, both very homogeneous and very heterogeneous teams were more inclined to engage in learning behavior, but only if we controlled for the concurrent effect of subgroup strength. Finally, subgroup strength moderated the impact of organizational design features on team learning. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on team composition, design, and learning by highlighting the importance of subgroups for understanding team behavior.

Greer L. L., Jehn K. A., & Mannix E. A . ( 2008).

Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution

Small Group Research, 39( 3), 278-302.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Hambrick D.C., &Mason P.A .( 1984).

Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers

Academy of Management Review, 9( 2), 193-206.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Theorists in various fields have discussed characteristics of top managers. This paper attempts to synthesize these previously fragmented literatures around a more general "upper echelons perspective." The theory states that organizational outcomes-strategic choices and performance levels-are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics. Propositions and methodological suggestions are included.

Houmanfar R., Rodrigues N. J., & Smith G. S . ( 2009).

Role of communication networks in behavioral systems analysis

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,29( 3-4), 257-275.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This article provides an overview of communication networks and the role of verbal behavior in behavioral systems analysis. Our discussion highlights styles of leadership in the design and implementation of effective organizational contingencies that affect ways by which coordinated work practices are managed. We draw upon literature pertaining to complex systems and rule governance to understand how communication networks and verbal rules contribute to the issues involved in reengineering behavioral systems in the face of continued socioeconomic and cultural demands. An analysis of leadership in relation to communication networks in organizations is discussed.

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     [本文引用: 1]

Jain A. K., Fennell M. L., Chagpar A. B., Connolly H. K., & Nembhard I. M . ( 2016).

Moving toward improved teamwork in cancer care: The role of psychological safety in team communication

Journal of Oncology Practice, 12( 11), 1000-1011.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

James L.R .( 1982).

Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement

Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

James L. R., Demaree R. G., & Wolf G . ( 1984).

Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69( 1), 85-98.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . ( 1999).

Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 4), 741-763.

[本文引用: 1]

Kearney E., & Gebert D . ( 2009).

Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 1), 77-99.

[本文引用: 1]

Laczniak R. N., DeCarlo T. E., & Ramaswami S. N . ( 2001).

Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11( 1), 57-73.

[本文引用: 1]

Lam L. W., Peng K. Z., Wong C. S., & Lau D. C . ( 2017).

Is more feedback seeking always better? Leader-member exchange moderates the relationship between feedback- seeking behavior and performance

Journal of Management, 43( 7), 2195-2217.

[本文引用: 1]

Leenders R. T. A. J., Van Engelen J. M. L., & 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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Creativity is essential to the performance of new product development (NPD) teams. Since the creative NPD task requires teams to combine and integrate input from multiple NPD team members, the team communication pattern is an important determinant of NPD team creativity. In the empirical part of this study, we find that team creativity requires a moderate frequency of communication and a low level of communication centralization. Building on these results, in the second part of this paper, we present a three-factor model (member proximity, communication modality, team task structure) that addresses how creativity can be managed through the effective design and management of virtuality in NPD teams. We end with recommendations for further research.

Loo R., &Thorpe K . ( 2002).

Using reflective learning journals to improve individual and team performance

Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 8( 5-6), 134-139.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT This paper describes the successful application of reflective learning journals to promote critical self-awareness and improve both individual and team performance among members in 11 management undergraduate teams conducting management research projects. Qualitative analyses of the journals revealed several major themes; for example, management skills development, leadership, team communications, stresses of team work, and individual versus team work. Analyses of the journaling evaluation data showed that participants found journaling a useful learning tool. Recommendations are presented for those interested in using reflective learning journals to improve individual and team performance.

Mello A.L., &Rentsch J.R . ( 2015).

Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review

Small Group Research, 46( 6), 623-658.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Owens B.P., &Hekman D.R .( 2012).

Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes

Academy of Management Journal, 55( 4), 787-818.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Owens B.P., &Hekman D.R .( 2016).

How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus

Academy of Management Journal,59( 3), 1088-1111.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Owens B. P., Johnson M. D., & Mitchell T. R . ( 2013).

Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership

Organization Science, 24( 5), 1517-1538.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We draw on eight different lab and field samples to delineate the effects of expressed humility on several important organizational outcomes, including performance, satisfaction, learning goal orientation, engagement, and turnover. We first review several literatures to define the construct of expressed humility, discuss its implications in social interactions, and distinguish expressed humility from related constructs. Using five different samples, Study 1 develops and validates an observer-report measure of expressed humility. Study 2 examines the strength of expressed humility predictions of individual performance and contextual performance (i.e., quality of team member contribution) relative to conscientiousness, global self-efficacy, and general mental ability. This study also reveals that with regard to individual performance, expressed humility may compensate for lower general mental ability. Study 3 reports insights from a large field sample that examines the relationship between leader-expressed humility and employee retention as mediated by job satisfaction and employee engagement as mediated by team learning orientation. We conclude with recommendations for future research.

Park J., & Kim S . ( 2015).

The differentiating effects of workforce aging on exploitative and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of workforce diversity

Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32( 2), 481-503.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Preacher K.J., & Selig J.P . ( 2012).

Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects

Communication Methods and Measures, 6( 2), 77-98.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Monte Carlo simulation is a useful but underutilized method of constructing confidence intervals for indirect effects in mediation analysis. The Monte Carlo confidence interval method has several distinct advantages over rival methods. Its performance is comparable to other widely accepted methods of interval construction, it can be used when only summary data are available, it can be used in situations where rival methods (e.g., bootstrapping and distribution of the product methods) are difficult or impossible, and it is not as computer-intensive as some other methods. In this study we discuss Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects, report the results of a simulation study comparing their performance to that of competing methods, demonstrate the method in applied examples, and discuss several software options for implementation in applied settings.

Rossberger R.J., &Krause D.E . ( 2015).

Participative and team-oriented leadership styles, countries’ education level, and national innovation: The mediating role of economic factors and national cultural practices

Cross-Cultural Research, 49( 1), 20-56.

[本文引用: 1]

Shin S.J., &Zhou J . ( 2003).

Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea

Academy of Management Journal, 46( 6), 703-714.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Using a sample of 290 employees and their supervisors from 46 Korean companies, we found that (1) transformational leadership was positively related to follower creativity, (2) followers' "conservation," a value, moderated that relationship, and (3) intrinsic motivation mediated the contribution of the interaction of transformational leadership and conservation and partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to creativity. We discuss implications of these results for research and practice.

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.

[本文引用: 2]

Solongo E., Lee S. K., Kang E. G., Kim H. C., & Kim E. K . ( 2015).

A study on the influence of leader supervisory style to creativity and job involvement in the age of convergence

Journal of Digital Convergence, 13( 9), 149-159.

[本文引用: 1]

Tost L. P., Gino F., & Larrick R. P . ( 2013).

When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance

Academy of Management Journal, 56( 5), 1465-1486.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

We examine the impact of subjective power on leadership behavior and demonstrate that the psychological effect of power on leaders spills over to impact team effectiveness. Specifically, drawing from the approach/inhibition theory of power, power-devaluation theory, and organizational research on the antecedents of employee voice, we argue that a leader's experience of heightened power produces verbal dominance, which reduces perceptions of leader openness and team open communication. Consequently, there is a negative effect of leader power on team performance. Three studies find consistent support for this argument. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.

van den Hooff B., & De Ridder J.A . ( 2004).

Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing

Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.

[本文引用: 1]

van der Vegt, G. S., &Janssen O . ( 2003).

Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation

Journal of Management, 29( 5), 729-751.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This questionnaire study among 343 members of 41 work teams in a financial set-vices organization examined the effects of individual team members' perceived task interdependence and perceived goal interdependence on innovative behavior in teams characterized by different levels of group diversity. Multilevel analyses revealed that individual's perceived task and goal interdependence were not related to innovative behavior in homogeneous teams. In heterogeneous teams, however, task interdependence was strongly and positively related to innovative behavior for individuals who perceived high levels of goal interdependence, and unrelated to innovative behavior for those who perceived low levels of goal interdependence. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

URL     PMID:15584838      [本文引用: 2]

Research on the relationship between work group diversity and performance has yielded inconsistent results. To address this problem, the authors propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM), which reconceptualizes and integrates information/decision making and social categorization perspectives on work-group diversity and performance. The CEM incorporates mediator and moderator variables that typically have been ignored in diversity research and incorporates the view that information/decision making and social categorization processes interact such that intergroup biases flowing from social categorization disrupt the elaboration (in-depth processing) of task-relevant information and perspectives. In addition, the authors propose that attempts to link the positive and negative effects of diversity to specific types of diversity should be abandoned in favor of the assumption that all dimensions of diversity may have positive as well as negative effects. The ways in which these propositions may set the agenda for future research in diversity are discussed.

Wang X. H., Kim T. Y., & Lee D. R . ( 2016).

Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership

Journal of Business Research, 69( 9), 3231-3239.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Zhou J . ( 2003).

When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 3), 413-422.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

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

/