心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 667-677 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667

研究报告

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

LIU Weiguo1, FANG Yanran1, SHI Junqi1, MO Shenjiang,2

1 Lingnan (University) College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

2 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

通讯作者: 莫申江, E-mail: mosj@zju.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2017-07-31   网络出版日期: 2018-06-01

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

Received: 2017-07-31   Online: 2018-06-01

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。

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.

Keywords: supervisor’s creativity expectation; ; team knowledge exchange behavior ; team boundary spanning behavior ; creative role identity ; team creativity

PDF (495KB) 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 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667

LIU Weiguo, FANG Yanran, SHI Junqi, MO Shenjiang. The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 667-677 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667

1 问题提出

团队领导是推动团队实现创造性结果的一大关键推力(Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; 罗瑾琏, 门成昊, 钟竞, 2014)。领导创造力期望能显著提升成员们的创造动机(Tierney & Farmer, 2011)。然而, 这不足以阐明领导如何促使团队形成集体性创造力(collective creativity)。一方面, 领导创造力期望会改变团队内每个个体对集体性创造知识如何被创生的认知(Drazin et al., 1999; Ford, 1996); 另一方面, 创造努力转化为创造力, 取决于领导是否能有效激发集体性知识分享和深度加工(蔡亚华, 贾良定, 尤树洋, 张祎, 陈艳露, 2013; Marrone, Tesluk & Carson, 2007)。因此, 要想真正理解领导创造力期望如何影响团队创造力, 在关注创造动机变化的同时, 必须理解团队知识创造的认知机制。

回应上述问题, 我们融合Kelley (1952)的规范参照群体理论(normative reference group theory)与Grand, Braun, Kuljanin, Kozlowski和Chao (2016)的团队知识创造的过程导向理论(process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams), 提出团队领导影响团队创造力的认知过程模型。规范参照群体理论指出, 设定行为规范的关键参照对象(significant others)的期望是人们评估自己下一步应该采取什么行动的重要指引(Kelley, 1952; Merton, 1957)。在创造性工作团队中, 团队领导掌握创造资源, 担当关键风险, 把握创造目标(Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003)。因此, 领导的创新倡导行动直接影响团队内部现有知识交换和外部新鲜知识获取等(Bresman & Zellmer- Bruhn, 2013; Chung & Jackson, 2013; Grand et al., 2016)。同时, 集体性创造力不是成员们分别获得新鲜知识, 就自然而然形成的结果(Grand et al., 2016)。新知识转化为创造性结果的过程中, 成员们必须投入更多认知资源, 面对大量创造风险(蔡亚华等, 2013; Marrone et al., 2007)。这一集体性加工过程必须匹配团队领导的高度承诺和示范参与。

因此, 本研究预期有助于人们理解团队创造力形成的认知机制, 拓展规范参照群体理论在团队创造力领域的解释效力, 并通过刻画团队领导在集体性知识创造的学习和分享过程中的影响效果, 强化团队知识创造理论。

1.1 领导创造力期望和团队新知识获取行为

团队领导能够直接影响团队目标设定, 设定内部合作流程, 并决定奖惩规则等(Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; 蔡亚华等, 2013)。成员们通常将团队领导的期望和行为作为群体规范的关键线索, 并依此来调整自身工作行为(Kelley, 1952)。领导创造力期望是指团队领导基于工作职位, 对成员们付出创造性努力、实现创造性结果的工作要求和规范设定。当成员们清晰地感知到团队领导对集体创造性结果提出较高期望时, 会对团队创造性目标形成一致看法, 积极采取创造学习行动, 寻求有助于产生创新想法的新知识和信息(Drazin et al., 1999; Ford, 1996)。

团队知识创造的过程导向理论指出, 团队要想实现集体性创造结果, 必须首先促使成员们通过团队内交流和团队外探索等两种方式, 获得新鲜知识, 拓展各成员加总的知识池(knowledge pool), 以支撑团队整体下一步开展集体性知识加工(Grand et al., 2016)。一方面, 成员们会形成较为一致的集体目标和创造性规范认知(Collins & Smith, 2006), 并感受到创造性工作压力, 意识到无法仅依赖现有知识和方法来获取创造性结果。因此, 他们会更积极地贡献各自拥有的知识, 内部开展高频率知识交换, 以期成员们能够发现新鲜点子或解决思路(Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013; Paulus & Yang, 2000; Teigland & Wasko, 2003)。基于以上理论推导, 我们提出假设1。本研究包含的所有研究假设见图1所示。

图1

图1   研究假设模型


假设1:领导创造力期望有助于促进团队知识交换行为。

另一方面, 当领导提出对创造性成果的明确期望, 成员们会积极开拓思路, 尝试从团队外部找出解决问题的新办法(例如, Grand et al., 2016)。具体来说, 成员们会共同意识到现有知识和方法存在局限性, 无法创造新点子和解决方案; 必须打破团队已有知识体系, 从外界补充新鲜知识。因此, 成员们跨越团队边界, 从外部寻求有助于实现团队创造性工作结果的新鲜知识(Marrone et al., 2007; Teigland & Wasko, 2003)。因此, 假设2如下所示:

假设2:领导创造力期望有助于促进团队边界跨越行为。

1.2 领导创造力期望影响团队创造力:知识交换行为和边界跨越行为

充分的知识交换能够促使团队成员们在自身知识积累基础上, 更加准确地理解团队内其他成员所具备的知识和专长, 以促使成员们开展知识重构, 产出创造性问题解决方案(Janis & Mann, 1977), 最终提升团队整体创造力(Gong et al., 2013)。这一结论在不同类型的团队场景中, 例如, 研发团队(Gong et al., 2013; Shin & Zhou, 2007)、销售团队(Sung & Choi, 2012)、生产制造团队(Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011), 均获得了有效验证。综合假设1中有关领导创造力期望影响团队知识交换行为的理论推导, 我们提出如下假设3。

假设3:团队知识交换行为对领导创造力期望与团队创造力间关系具有显著的间接作用。

团队边界跨越行为是指团队成员们跳出团队边界, 积极与团队外部人员建立联系, 汲取新鲜知识和想法, 并引入到团队工作中来(Faraj & Yan, 2009)。研究表明, 团队边界跨越行为能够显著拓展团队的知识范围(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Cross & Cummings, 2004; Tushman, 1977), 为团队带来与其原本擅长的领域截然不同的新思路和新方法(Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004), 提升团队构思新方案的能力(Weisz, Vassolo, & Cooper, 2004)。因此, 综合假设2有关领导创造力期望与团队边界跨越行为的关系推导, 我们得到如下假设4。

假设4:团队边界跨越行为对领导创造力期望与团队创造力间关系具有显著的间接作用。

1.3 团队领导创造力角色认同的调节效应

团队知识创造可划分为新知识学习(learning)和新知识分享(sharing)两个阶段; 集体性创造力不是成员们分别获得新知识, 就自然后续形成的结果(Grand et al., 2016)。与获取新知识相比较, 成员们为了将新知识转化为创造性结果, 必须投入更多认知资源, 面对大量创造风险, 并就如何将新知识应用到创造工作中去达成共识(蔡亚华等, 2013; Grand et al., 2016; Marrone et al., 2007)。这一过程中, 成员们将更加依赖“团队是否真正将创造力作为核心价值”等规范信息(Farmer, Tierney, & Kung- McIntyre, 2003)。因此, 非常有必要引入创造力角色认同(Callero, 1985; Callero, Howard, & Piliavin, 1987; Grube & Piliavin, 2000), 即团队领导“多大程度上认同创造力价值, 并视自己为创造力践行者” (Farmar et al., 2003; 杨晶照, 陈勇星, 马洪旗, 2012)。

团队内部知识交换促进成员们准确理解其他成员的知识专长, 实现知识重构; 但同时耗费大量认知资源, 打破心理安全(Edmondson, Dillon, & Roloff, 2007)。高创造力角色认同的团队领导会充分利用自身地位, 促进成员们形成关于创造力价值的统一看法, 并促进深度沟通和协作(Collins & Smith, 2006), 树立创造力榜样, 设置清晰的团队创新规范(Jaussi & Dionne, 2003)。这一情境下, 成员们更愿意采纳互动获得的新思路来设计创新方案(Basadur, 2004; Paulus & Yang, 2000)。相反地, 低创造力角色认同领导无法给予直接指引, 甚至不明确创造性努力究竟是否真正被团队尊重和认可, 将导致成员们难以全心投入创造性试错转化过程。同时, 团队领导的创造力期望是推动团队成员们开展内部知识交换的关键动力。综合起来, 本研究提出如下假设:

假设5:团队领导创造力角色认同对团队知识交换行为和团队创造力间关系具有显著的调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导创造力角色认同较高时, 团队知识交换行为更有利于提升团队创造力。

假设6:团队领导创造力角色认同对领导创造力期望通过团队知识交换行为而影响团队创造力的间接效应具有显著的调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导创造力角色认同较高时, 领导创造力期望通过团队知识交换行为提升团队创造力的间接作用更为显著。

以往研究指出, 尽管团队边界跨越行为能够增加团队内知识总量, 但其存在潜在负面影响(例如, Ramarajan, Bezrukova, Jehn, & Euwema, 2011)。团队整体必须承担较大风险(Glover & Sautter, 1977)。成员们分享彼此拥有的新知识, 比单纯的知识学习过程要耗费更多资源(Grand et al., 2016), 容易导致负面情绪、角色过载(Marrone et al., 2007; Ramarajan et al., 2011)。这些都可能导致内部协作能力显著降低, 最终削弱集体性创造效能。

因此, 团队领导展现出对创造力工作的承诺度和榜样作用, 对边界跨越成功至关重要。一方面, 高创造力角色认同的团队领导会不断向成员们传递有关创造力重要性的价值观点, 并通过自身参与, 帮助成员们减轻外部学习导致的角色过载压力(Cheung & Wong, 2011; Marrone et al., 2007)。另一方面, 高创造力角色认同的团队领导提供良好表率, 降低边界跨越不确定性。因为领导担当创新风险, 成员们更敢于面对潜在失败风险, 开展集体性试错。进一步结合领导创造性期望促进团队边界跨越行为的理论推导, 提出如下假设:

假设7:团队领导创造力角色认同对团队边界跨越行为和团队创造力间关系具有显著的调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导创造力角色认同较高时, 团队边界跨越行为更有利于提升团队创造力。

假设8:团队领导创造力角色认同对领导创造力期望通过团队边界跨越行为而影响团队创造力的间接效应具有显著的调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导创造力角色认同较高时, 领导创造力期望通过团队边界跨越行为提升团队创造力的间接作用更为显著。

2 研究方法

2.1 样本和调查过程

本研究所使用的数据来源于位于中国北京和深圳的4家科技型公司。它们主要提供IT软件开发服务。项目研发团队是这些公司的基本工作单元, 并承担着实现产品和技术创新的主要功能。所有参与问卷调查的员工均是自愿参与本项研究, 并在其工作时间内完成了问卷填写。

我们分别在三个时间点收集研究数据, 中间分别间隔两个月时间。第一阶段时, 我们收集了样本人员们的人口统计学信息(包括年龄、性别、教育水平、在现有职位上工作期限), 并统计了参与调研团队的规模; 同时, 团队成员们评价团队领导对他们创造力的期望水平。第二阶段时, 团队成员们主要对团队知识交换行为和边界跨越行为进行评估。第三阶段时, 团队领导除了评价自身的创造力角色认同水平之外, 还对其所负责的团队的创造力水平进行评价。

我们总共向4家公司中的132个项目团队发放了650份纸质问卷, 第一轮回收了来自130个团队的638份问卷; 第二轮回收了来自116个团队的568份问卷; 第三轮时, 我们成功得到了所有样本团队领导的问卷回应。因此, 我们最终得到了来自116个项目团队的568份有效问卷, 有效回收率为87.4%。团队规模均值为4.86(标准差为2.28), 所有样本团队接受问卷调查的成员覆盖率均达到了90%以上。样本人员的平均年龄为27.89岁(标准差为2.27), 其中490位为男性, 在现有工作岗位上的平均任期为1.67年(标准差为0.93)。

2.2 测量工具

本研究采用Brislin (1970)推荐的回译的方式将英文量表翻译为中文。若非特别说明, 本研究的各个量表均选用了Likert 7点量表进行测量, 其中, 1 表示“完全不准确”, 7表示“完全准确”。

领导创造力期望 本研究采用由Tierney和Farmer (2004)开发的量表来测量团队成员感知的团队领导对其创造力的期望。该量表共包含3个题项, 分别为“我的上司期望我做有创造性的工作”, “我的上司视创新为我日常工作要求的一部分”, 以及“我的上司期望我创造性地解决问题”。我们选用了Likert 7点量表, 其中, 1 表示“完全不同意”, 7表示“完全同意”。这一量表的信度系数为0.87。

团队知识交换行为 本研究选用Collins和Smith (2006)的量表来测量团队知识交换行为。该量表共包含8个题项, 例如“通过互相交流和整合思想, 能比单打独斗更快地推进新项目”和“经常感到通过交流和整合思想, 从彼此学到了东西”等。团队成员依据自身团队互动感受, 对团队内知识交换情况做出评价。这一量表的信度系数为0.92。

团队边界跨越行为 本研究采用Faraj和Yan (2009)开发的量表测量团队边界跨越行为。该量表共包含4个题项, 例如“与团队外的重要人物接触, 为团队获得信息和资源”和“重视团队成员利用自己在团队以外的关系获得的信息和资源”等。这一量表的信度系数为0.82。

团队领导的创造力角色认同 本研究采用Farmer (2003)等学者开发的量表来测量团队领导的创造力角色认同水平。该量表共包含3个题项, 由团队领导自我评价在多大程度上“经常想着要有创意”, “时常抱有我是一个‘创造性个体’的自我概念”, 以及认为“成为一个具有创造力的个体是我个人身份的一个重要部分”。这一量表的信度系数为0.88。

团队创造力 本研究采用了Shin和Zhou (2007)开发的团队创造力量表, 由团队领导对其所负责的团队进行评价。该量表包含4个题项, 例如, 你所领导的团队 “在提出创意上做的有多好?”和“创意有多好的实际效果?”等。Likert 7点量表中, 1 表示“非常差”, 7表示“非常好”。这一量表的信度系数为0.90。

控制变量 以往研究文献指出, 团队规模、成员年龄构成、在现有职位上的工作期限长短, 教育水平差异, 以及团队成员的创造力自我效能水平等都可能对团队成员们开展交流和互动的模式以及团队创造力水平产生影响(例如, Brooke, Rasdi, & Samah, 2017; Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Koriat & Gelbard, 2014; Marrone, Quigley, Prussia, & Dienhart, 2016; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013; Tierney & Farmer, 2002)。因此, 本研究控制了团队规模、团队成员的平均年龄、团队成员在现职位上的平均工作期限, 团队成员的平均教育水平, 以及团队成员创造力自我效能感对团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为以及团队创造力的影响作用。我们选用Tierney和Farmer (2002)开发的创造力自我效能感量表来测量团队成员的创造力自我效能感。该量表包含3个题项, 由团队成员评价他们在多大程度上“擅于想出新点子”, “对运用创意解决问题的能力有信心”, 以及“擅长从别人的点子中, 发展出另一套自己的想法”。这一量表的信度系数为0.86。另外, 由于本研究采用的研究样本来自4家公司, 因此我们在数据分析中也加入了3个虚拟变量, 以控制样本来源对模型估计产生的影响。

2.3 多水平验证性因子分析

为了确信本研究采用的各个测量量表能够有效捕捉相应变量, 我们针对研究主要变量(领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为, 领导创造力角色认同, 领导评价的团队创造力)开展多水平验证性因子分析。结果如表1所示。由表1可见, 五因子模型能够较好地拟合数据, χ2 = 629.71, df = 286, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, 组内SRMR = 0.04, 组间SRMR = 0.07。另外, 考虑到团队知识交换和边界跨越行为都是新知识获取行为, 而团队领导创造力角色认同和团队创造力都由团队领导在第三次问卷调研中进行评价, 我们也检验了四因子模型A (将团队知识交换和边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望、领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力作为三个单独因子), 四因子模型B (将领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为作为三个单独因子), 三因子模型(将团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 将领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望作为一个单独因子), 双因子模型(将团队成员评价的领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 将团队领导评价的自我创造力角色认同和团队创造力合并为一个因子)和单因子模型(将所有主要变量合并为一个因子)的模型拟合结果。从表1可读, 相较五因子模型而言, 四因子模型A、四因子模型B、三因子模型、双因子模型和单因子模型的拟合度均显著下降(Δχ2 = 541.48, Δdf = 6; Δχ2 = 107.73, Δdf = 4; Δχ2 = 647.12, Δdf = 9; Δχ2 = 1486.45, Δdf = 12; Δχ2 = 1604.37, Δdf = 13)。因此, 验证性因子分析的结果表明, 研究假设的五要素模型的拟合效果最佳, 为量表的内容效度和区分效度提供了有力支持。

表1   验证性因子分析结果

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

注:N = 568; Δχ2由五因子模型和其它备择模型的χ2分别相减而得; Δdf由五因子模型和其它备择模型的df分别相减而得; 五因子模型即将领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为、领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力都各自作为一个单独因子; 四因子模型A将团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望、领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力作为三个单独因子; 四因子模型B将领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为作为三个单独因子; 三因子模型即将团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 将领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力合并为一个因子, 而领导创造力期望作为一个单独因子; 双因子模型即将团队成员评价的领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为合并为一个因子, 将团队领导评价的自我创造力角色认同和团队创造力合并为一个因子; 单因子模型即将领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为、领导创造力角色认同、团队创造力合并为一个因子。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3 研究结果

3.1 数据聚合

本研究采用了团队水平的研究设计, 但领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为和边界跨越行为的测量都是在团队成员个体水平上进行的。因此, 我们首先需要确认个体水平上测量获得的数据可以被聚合到团队水平上进行统计分析。我们通过计算各个变量的ICC (1), ICC (2)以及rwg (j)中位数来验证数据聚合的合理性。具体而言, 团队成员创造力自我效能的ICC (1) = 0.12, ICC (2) = 0.38, rwg (j)中位数为0.90; 领导创造力期望的ICC (1) = 0.09, ICC (2) = 0.33, rwg (j)中位数为0.90; 团队知识交换行为的ICC (1) = 0.11, ICC (2) = 0.37, rwg (j)中位数为0.97; 团队边界跨越行为的ICC (1) = 0.08, ICC (2) = 0.30, rwg (j)中位数为0.93。这些结果表明, 团队的组间差异能够解释团队成员创造力自我效能12%的方差、领导创造力期望9%的方差、团队知识交换行为11%的方差、以及团队边界跨越行为8%的方差, 且不同团队成员的评分具有足够的组内一致性, 能够聚合为团队水平的变量开展后续分析。由于本研究选用的样本团队规模相对较小(n = 4.86), 因此导致ICC (2)结果相对偏低。我们在问卷发放和回收中, 均保证了90%的团队成员覆盖率(参见Koopmann, Lanaj, Wang, Zhou, & Shi, 2016)。我们认为, 该数据能够保证团队均值的准确性。因此, 本研究后续分析采用聚合到团队层面的创造力自我效能感、领导创造力期望、团队知识交换行为和团队边界跨越行为。

3.2 数据分析策略

本研究采用Mplus 7.2软件, 通过估计两个独立的模型来分别检验中介假设和调节假设。具体而言, 在模型一中, 我们在控制了团队领导创造力角色认同的影响基础上, 同时估计了领导创造力期望对团队知识交换行为、团队边界跨越行为、团队创造力的影响, 以及团队知识交换和边界跨越行为对团队创造力的影响。进而, 根据模型一结果, 通过计算bootstrap置信区间的方式来估计领导创造力期望对团队创造力的间接影响。在模型一的基础之上, 我们在模型二中加入中心化之后的中介变量(团队知识交换和边界跨越行为)与调节变量(团队领导的创造力角色认同)的交互项作为团队创造力的预测项, 并通过计算bootstrap置信区间的方式估计了团队领导创造力角色认同对模型一中所估计的间接效应的边界调节作用。在检验团队领导创造力角色认同的调节效应中, 我们也依据Cohen, Cohen, West和Aiken (2013)的推荐, 依据不同程度的领导创造力角色认同水平(+1/-1 SD)作图进行分析。

3.3 描述性统计分析

各个变量的平均值、相关系数、标准差与信度系数等均已总结在表2中。从表2可见, 团队领导创造力期望与团队知识交换行为(r = 0.20, p < 0.05)以及团队边界跨越行为(r = 0.28, p < 0.01)显著正相关。团队知识交换行为与团队创造力显著正相关(r = 0.24, p < 0.05), 但团队边界跨越行为与团队创造力间关系并不显著(r = 0.13, p > 0.05)。假设1、假设2和假设3得到了初步结果支持。

表2   研究变量的平均值, 标准差, 信度和相关性

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)

注:N = 116. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; 表格中对角线上括号内为α信度系数。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


3.4 假设检验

我们用Mplus7.2估计模型中各变量间的非标准化路径系数, 并将结果总结于表3图2中。首先, 由表3中模型一的系数估计结果可见, 团队领导创造力期望显著促进团队知识交换行为(γ = 0.15, p < 0.05)和团队边界跨越行为(γ = 0.22, p < 0.01)。因此, 本研究的假设1和假设2得到了数据支持。其次, 团队知识交换行为显著提升了团队创造力水平(γ = 0.50, p < 0.05), 而团队边界跨越行为与团队创造力间的关系并不显著(γ = -0.14, p > 0.05)。本研究通过计算5000次bootstrap来估计领导创造力期望通过团队知识交换行为或团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力产生的间接作用的置信区间。结果表明领导期望通过团队知识交换行为对团队创造力产生的间接效应为0.073, 95%的bootstrap置信区间为[0.013, 0.188]; 领导期望通过团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力产生的间接效应为-0.030, 95%的bootstrap置信区间为[-0.171, 0.028]。因此, 领导创造力期望能够通过显著增强团队知识交换行为而间接提升团队创造力, 但不能够通过显著增强团队边界跨越行为而间接提升团队创造力。因此, 本研究提出的假设3得到了有力支持, 而假设4没有得到支持。

图2

图2   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。


表3   回归分析结果

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

注:N = 116. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


表3中模型二以及图2所示, 团队领导的创造力角色认同没有呈现对团队知识交换行为与团队创造力间关系的调节效应(γ = -0.30, p > 0.05), 但对团队边界跨越行为与团队创造力间关系具有显著调节作用(γ = 0.42, p < 0.05)。参照Cohen等(2013)的建议, 我们将团队领导创造力角色认同的调节作用在图3中加以展示。可见, 当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较低时, 团队边界跨越行为不利于团队创造力水平提升(γ = -0.64, p < 0.05); 而当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较高时, 团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力的消极作用不再显著, 并呈现出正向促进团队创造力的趋势(γ = 0.20, p > 0.05)。因此, 本研究提出的假设5没有被支持, 而假设7得到有力支持。

图3

图3   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。


本研究也通过计算bootstrap置信区间, 检验领导的创造力角色认同对领导创造力期望影响团队创造力的间接效应的调节作用。一方面, 团队领导的创造性角色认同水平并不能显著调节领导创造力期望通过团队知识交换行为对团队创造力产生的间接效应(γ = -0.044, 95% CI = [-0.164, 0.002])。假设6没有获得支持。另一方面, 团队领导的创造力角色认同显著调节了领导创造力期望通过团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力产生的间接效应(γ = 0.093, 95% CI = [0.014, 0.252])。具体而言, 当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较低时, 领导创造力期望通过团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力产生的间接影响为-0.142 (95% CI = [-0.376, -0.020]); 当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较高时, 该间接效应为0.044 (95% CI = [-0.057, 0.202]), 二者之间的差异为0.185 (95% CI = [0.029, 0.504])。因此, 假设8得到有力支持。

4 讨论

4.1 研究结果与分析

本研究发现, 团队领导创造力期望能够有效地促进团队知识交换行为以及边界跨越行为。团队知识交换行为能够直接提升团队创造力, 不受团队领导的创造力角色认同水平的调节影响; 而团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力的影响则取决于团队领导的创造力角色认同这一边界条件。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显著的负面影响; 而当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较高时, 团队边界跨越行为呈现出正向影响团队创造力的趋势。

我们认为, 之所以团队知识交换行为和边界跨越行为影响团队创造力的机制存在显著差异, 是因为团队成员们在通过内部知识交换和外部跨界学习提升集体创造力的过程中, 面临着不同程度和类型的创新压力和不确定性。因而, 成员们在开展集体性知识加工的过程中, 对团队领导提供创新规范的依赖度也明显不同。具体而言, 虽然团队知识交换和边界跨越行为都是团队获取新兴知识和信息的重要方式, 但团队成员们在处理由内部知识交换获得的新知识时, 主要基于彼此现有的信息及资源, 进行集体互动而产生知识增量(Gong et al., 2013; Paulus & Yang, 2000; Teigland & Wasko, 2003)。同时, 团队内既有的一定程度的成员们相互协作的创造工作模式, 也有利于成员们将各种创造努力转化为最终创造性结果。而团队成员们在处理由边界跨越行为获取的新知识时, 则必须付出更多努力和资源, 面临更高风险性和不确定性, 设法建立起外部新知识与团队创造性目标间的紧密关联(Teigland & Wasko, 2003)。因此, 相较于团队知识交换行为, 开展边界跨越行为的团队成员们会承担更高的创新压力和风险(Marrone et al., 2007; Zhao & Anand, 2013)。只有当团队领导向成员们充分展示其对创造性工作的真实承诺和充分支持时, 团队整体才可能打破原有知识体系, 让从团队外部引入的新知识真正发挥创造性价值。反之, 在缺少团队领导对创造性过程和结果的真实鼓励和认同的情况下, 引入大量新知识, 反而会导致团队创新停滞。

4.2 理论意义

本研究在现有团队创造力研究文献的基础上, 主要考察领导创造力期望影响团队创造力的间接效应和边界条件, 并获得了以下几方面主要的理论贡献。

首先, 本研究通过展现领导创造力期望感知影响团队创造力的认知机制, 显著促进了人们对于团队领导在团队创造力产出过程中扮演角色的深入理解。具体而言, 以往团队创造力研究着重强调了团队领导能够提升团队成员们的创造动机(例如, 自我创造力效能感), 而较少关注其对团队成员们创造性认知过程的影响。整合规范参照群体理论(Kelley, 1952)和团队知识创造的过程导向理论(Grand et al., 2016), 本研究阐明了团队领导创造力期望通过规范成员们在团队内部和团队外部开展创造性知识学习, 并最终实现集体性创造结果的过程机制。

其次, 本研究通过刻画团队领导创造力角色认同对于团队创新知识学习影响团队创造力关系的调节作用, 拓展了规范参照群体理论在团队创造力领域的解释效力。近年来, 在创造力研究领域中, 学者们持续号召应当深入探讨领导角色之于创造力提升过程的价值(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Mumford et al., 2002)。依据规范参照群体理论思路, 本研究发现, 只有当团队领导表达出高水平创造力期望的同时, 认同并重视将创造学习努力真正转为集体性创造结果, 身体力行加以推动, 才能够帮助团队成员们克服边界跨越行为的潜在负面效果, 真正促进团队创造力提升。

第三, 本研究将团队领导因素纳入团队知识创造的过程导向理论框架, 阐明了团队领导的创造力期望和自身创造力角色认同在集体性知识创造学习和分享过程中的影响作用。这一方面强化了团队知识创造过程理论在创造力领域的解释效力, 另一方面也使得人们对于新知识创造过程理论的团队情境边界有了更加清晰的认识, 提升该理论的应用价值。

4.3 实践启示

本研究聚焦探讨团队领导对团队创造力的影响机制, 对企业优化创造力管理实践具有重要借鉴意义。首先, 企业组织或工作团队的领导者应当采取适当措施, 帮助成员们准确地把握群体对于创造力及创新结果的重视和期望, 进而引导成员们积极开展不同形式的知识获取行动, 为实现集体创造力提升打下坚实基础。其次, 企业管理者和员工们都应当意识到, 团队边界跨越行为带来丰富、多元的新鲜知识的同时, 也会产生不确定性。因此, 我们建议企业组织应当更加有针对性地倡导成员们开展跨界学习, 并与内部知识交换形成有效协同。第三, 团队领导要想成为一名高效的创造力推动者, 就必须在强调提升团队创造力管理能力的同时, 向成员们清晰说明创造性工作的预期目标, 充分认可创造性结果的真实价值, 并亲自参与到团队创新工作中去。单一地要求团队成员们变得更加具有创意, 而不为他们做出真实榜样, 将无法真正激活团队创造力。

4.4 研究局限性与展望

本研究存在着一些不足之处。首先, 在研究测量方面, 在综合考虑问卷调研的可行性之后, 本研究将团队领导的创造性角色认同安排在第三阶段, 而非第二阶段进行测量。以往研究表明, 个体的角色认同属于相对稳定的个人特质(Farmer et al., 2003), 不会在短期内发生重大变化。因此, 我们认为, 本研究运用在第三阶段测量的团队领导创造力角色认同进行分析是可行的。但与此同时, 我们建议未来研究应当采用更加严谨的研究设计。其次, 本研究采用了团队成员个体评价并聚合到团队层面的方式, 测量成员们感知到的团队领导创造力期望 。虽然较高的组内一致性确保了本研究测量的有效性, 但我们建议未来研究应当提出更加细腻的领导创造力期望测量思路, 例如社会网络或时序研究设计, 捕捉不同成员对领导创造力期望感知差异的原因及其对团队互动的影响效果。第三, 以往文献显示, 变革型领导、领导开放性等领导特质或行为变量会对团队创造力产生显著影响(例如, 蔡亚华等, 2013)。因此, 我们建议未来研究考虑更加细腻地控制其他领导特征或行为前因对团队创造力的影响。

5 结论

团队领导的创造力期望显著地促进团队知识交换和边界跨越行为。其中, 团队知识交换行为能够直接提升团队创造力; 团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力的直接影响效果并不显著, 受到团队领导的创造力角色认同的显著调节。当团队领导的创造力角色认同较低时, 团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力具有显著的负面作用。而当团队领导的创造力角色认同较高时, 该负面作用不显著。

参考文献

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.

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

Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams

Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This article focuses on the activities teams use to manage their organizational environment beyond their teams. We used semistructured interviews with 38 new-product team managers in high-technology companies, log data from two of these teams, and questionnaires completed by members of a different set of 45 new-product teams to generate and test hypotheses about teams' external activities. Results indicate that teams engage in vertical communications aimed at molding the views of top management, horizontal communication aimed at coordinating work and obtaining feedback, and horizontal communication aimed at general scanning of the technical and market environment. Organizational teams appear to develop distinct strategies toward their environment: some specialize in particular external activities, some remain isolated from the external environment, and others engage in multiple external activities. The paper shows that the type of external communication teams engage in, not just the amount, determines performance. Over time, teams following a comprehensive strategy enter positive cycles of external activity, internal processes, and performance that enable long-term team success.

Basadur, M. ( 2004).

Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership

The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 103-121.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Individuals, teams, and organizations differ in their creative problem solving styles. How leaders manage these styles can have a significant effect on performance. The most effective leaders of the 21st century will help individuals and teams to coordinate and integrate their differing styles to drive change through a process of applied creativity that includes continuously discovering and defining new problems, solving those problems, and implementing the new solutions. Leaders must appreciate individuals'' differing preferences for various stages of this process. Leaders can use various tools09”notably the Creative Problem Solving Process (CPSP) inventory09”to encourage and enable people to think together in innovative ways.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This paper reports on a study of structural antecedents to team learning. In a study of self-managed pharmaceutical research and development teams, we first find that more team-level structure is associated with more internal learning as well as more external learning. We then establish that more organizational-level structure is negatively associated with both internal and external learning. We find that psychological safety mediates the positive relationship between team structure and team learning, and that task autonomy constraints mediate the negative relationship between organizational structure and team learning. Investigating the interaction effect between team and organizational structure, we find, unexpectedly, that organizational structure supports external team learning under conditions of less team structure. Specifically, when teams have less team structure, the relationship between organizational structure and external team learning is positive. This structure substitutability finding suggests that although more organizational structure, on average, hurts external team learning, there are situations in which it helps. An important implication of the study is that multiple levels of structure, and their interactions, should be taken into consideration when assessing structural effects on team learning.

Brislin, R. W . ( 1970).

Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.

[本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and indirect relationships between individual-related factors and environmental-related factors with the knowledge sharing behaviour through the mediating role of self-efficacy among successful farmers in selected states in Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach: The research used survey method and included 241 participants from Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor. The analysis was conducted using the partial least square structural equation modelling to achieve the research objectives. Findings: The findings indicate that individual-related factors (e.g. enjoyment in helping others, training and prior experience) and environmental-related factors (e.g. social support and trust) have significant influence on the knowledge sharing behaviour. The results also reveal that self-efficacy mediates the relationships between prior experiences (individual-related factor), social support, trust (environmental-related factor) and the

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.

[本文引用: 5]

[ 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.]

[本文引用: 5]

Callero, P. L . ( 1985).

Role-identity salience

Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 203-215.

[本文引用: 1]

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.

URL    

Dominant approaches to the study of helping behavior are characterized by an empirical focus on temporally isolated acts of helping with little concern either for social structure or for interactional history. We suggest that Mead's conceptualization of role offers a unique theoretical basis for incorporating dimensions of both social structure and history. This conceptualization of role also points to certain circumstances in which role and person merge; the extent of role-person merger has direct implications for action. We hypothesized that the degree of merger between person and a particular role, that of a blood donor, is both distinct from and compensatory to more traditional variables such as social and personal norms in its influence on blood donation behavior. We examine this suggestion empirically using a sample of 658 blood donors. Support was found for the three specific predictions derived from this general hypothesis. This approach illustrates the importance of conceptualizing helping behavior as role behavior, facilitating incorporation of both social structural and historical characteristics of such behavior.

Cheung M. F. Y., & Wong C. S . ( 2011).

Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(7), 656-672.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Purpose - This study aims to examine the moderating role played by leaders' task and relations support in the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' level of creativity. Design/methodology/approach - A sample of 182 supervisor-subordinate dyads was randomly collected and returned from a restaurant, hotel, retail store, bank, and travel agent of Hong Kong. Findings - Results indicated that the positive relationship between transformational leadership and followers' creativity is stronger when there is a high degree of leaders' task and relations support. Research lismitations/implications - This study extends the leadership literature to better understand the effects of transformational leadership on employees' level of creativity are contingent on the nature of leaders' support. Sample size is a possible limitation. Practical implications - Intensive training can be provided to supervisors or personality test can be used to screen for selected individuals who are high caliber for being a potential transformational leader. Originality/value - An empirical examination of how leaders' task and relations support can strengthen the positive link between transformational leadership and employees' level of creativity that previously have been overlooked.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Using a sample of 56 science research teams, the authors examined (a) the relationships between qualities of team internal and external networks and team performance and (b) the moderating impact of task routineness on these relationships. The authors argued that the mixed empirical results of past studies investigating the relationship between internal networks and performance may be due partly to variations in task routineness and partly to the presence of curvilinear relationships between network qualities and team performance. Using an objective measure of team performance, the results revealed support for both explanations. The authors found an inverted-U relationship between internal trust relationship strength and team performance and a positive linear relationship between external work relationship strength and team performance. Furthermore, task routineness moderated these relationships, as predicted. Future scholarship and practice may be advanced by attending to the boundary conditions under which strong internal and external team networks are likely to be beneficial to the performance of knowledge-intensive teams.

Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S . ( 2013).

Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. UK:

Routledge.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Includes bibliographical references (p. 531-535) and index

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

In this study, we developed and tested a theory of how human resource practices affect the organizational social climate conditions that facilitate knowledge exchange and combination and resultant firm performance. A field study of 136 technology companies showed that commitment-based human resource practices were positively related to the organizational social climates of trust, cooperation, and shared codes and language. In turn, these measures of a firm's social climate were related to the firm's capability to exchange and combine knowledge, a relationship that predicted firm revenue from new products and services and firm sales growth.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We argue that individual performance in knowledge-intensive work is associated with properties of both networks and ties. Relationships crossing organizational boundaries, physical barriers, or hierarchical levels can, like networks, provide unique information and diverse perspectives to individuals completing tasks at work. Egocentric and bounded network data from 101 engineers in a petrochemical company and 125 consultants in a strategy-consulting firm support our contention that both networks and ties are related to individual performance in knowledge-intensive work.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

In this article we explore assumptions about the levels of analysis embedded in the extant literature on creativity in organizations. Uncovering and then relaxing these assumptions allow us to extend the literature with an alternative but complementary model of how creativity unfolds in complex, large-scale, and long-duration organizational projects. We build on the paradigm of sensemaking and propose a multilevel model of creativity that, as its defining feature, examines how periodic organizational crises reframe the negotiated order of belief structures about creativity.

Edmondson A. C., Dillon J. R., & Roloff K. S . ( 2007).

Three perspectives on team learning

Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269-314.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Faraj S., & Yan A. M . ( 2009).

Boundary work in knowledge teams

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617.

URL     PMID:19450002      [本文引用: 2]

The purpose of this article is to promote an open systems perspective on team research. The authors develop a model of team boundary activities: boundary spanning, buffering, and reinforcement. The model examines the relationship between these boundary activities and team performance, the moderating effects of organizational contextual factors, and the mediating effect of team psychological safety on the boundary work performance relationship, These relationships were empirically tested with data collected from 64 software development teams. Boundary spanning, buffering, and boundary reinforcement were found to relate to team performance and psychological safety. Both relationships are moderated by the team's task uncertainty and resource scarcity. The implications of the findings are offered for future research and practice.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

This study tests a model of creative role identity for a sample of Taiwanese employees. Results showed creative role identity was predicted by perceived coworker creativity expectations, self-views of creative behaviors, and high levels of exposure to U.S. culture. Creativity was highest when a strong creative role identity was paired with perceptions that the employing organization valued creative work. Implications for managers and future creativity research are discussed.

Ford, C. M . ( 1996).

A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains

Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Creative and habitual actions represent competing behavioral options that may be simultaneously influenced by multiple domains of social action. This article integrates psychological and sociological descriptions of creativity and conformity to present a theory of individual creative action within organizational settings composed of intertwined group, organizational, institutional, and market domains. This theory contributes to the innovation literature by illustrating how intentional action and evolutionary processes that legitimize action interact to facilitate creativity and innovation.

Glover J. A., & Sautter F . ( 1977).

Relation of four components of creativity to risk-taking preferences

Psychological Reports, 41(1), 227-230.

URL     PMID:909991      [本文引用: 1]

[Abstract unavailable]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

Adopting a multilevel approach, we examined how team goal orientation may relate to team creativity and individual creativity. We also theorized and examined the bottom- up process linking individual creativity and team creativity. Multisource data were collected from 485 members and their leaders within 100 R&D teams. The results indicated that a team learning goal and team performance approach goal were positively related-whereas a team performance avoidance goal was negatively related- to both team creativity and individual creativity through team information exchange. Furthermore, a trust relationship with a team leader played a moderating role: when the trust was stronger, the indirect positive relationship with team creativity and individual creativity was stronger for the team learning goal but weaker for the team performance approach goal. We also found that average individual creativity within a team was positively related to team creativity (going above and beyond the effect of team information exchange) through a supportive climate for creativity.

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.

URL     PMID:27504660      [本文引用: 9]

Abstract Team cognition has been identified as a critical component of team performance and decision-making. However, theory and research in this domain continues to remain largely static; articulation and examination of the dynamic processes through which collectively held knowledge emerges from the individual- to the team-level is lacking. To address this gap, we advance and systematically evaluate a process-oriented theory of team knowledge emergence. First, we summarize the core concepts and dynamic mechanisms that underlie team knowledge-building and represent our theory of team knowledge emergence (Step 1). We then translate this narrative theory into a formal computational model that provides an explicit specification of how these core concepts and mechanisms interact to produce emergent team knowledge (Step 2). The computational model is next instantiated into an agent-based simulation to explore how the key generative process mechanisms described in our theory contribute to improved knowledge emergence in teams (Step 3). Results from the simulations demonstrate that agent teams generate collectively shared knowledge more effectively when members are capable of processing information more efficiently and when teams follow communication strategies that promote equal rates of information sharing across members. Lastly, we conduct an empirical experiment with real teams participating in a collective knowledge-building task to verify that promoting these processes in human teams also leads to improved team knowledge emergence (Step 4). Discussion focuses on implications of the theory for examining team cognition processes and dynamics as well as directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Grube J. A., & Piliavin J. A . ( 2000).

Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-1119.

[本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

We developed and tested a cross-level model of individual creativity, integrating goal orientation theory and team learning research. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we found cross-level interactions between individuals' goal orientation and team learning behavior in a cross-national sample of 25 R&amp;D teams comprising 198 employees. We hypothesized and found a nonlinear interaction between individual learning orientation and team learning behavior: in teams higher in team learning behavior, the positive relationship between learning orientation and creativity was attenuated at higher levels of learning orientation. An individual approach orientation was positively related to creativity only when team learning behavior was high.

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.

[本文引用: 1]

Jaussi K. S., & Dionne S. D . ( 2003).

Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior

The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 475-498.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This paper examines the relationship between a leader''s unconventional behavior and followers'' creative performance at both the individual and group level in an experimental setting. Our results indicate that after transformational leadership and individual intrinsic motivation for creativity are controlled for, unconventional leader behavior (e.g., standing on furniture, hanging ideas on clotheslines) significantly interacts with follower perceptions of the leader as a role model for creativity to explain follower creativity. Results also suggest that unconventional behavior explains variance in group cohesion above and beyond transformational leadership, and that group cohesion interacts with group intrinsic motivation to explain group creative performance. Academic and practitioner implications are discussed, as are avenues for future research in this area.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

A wide range of factors has been found to affect organizational innovation. Of these, top managers' leadership style has been identified as being one of the most, if not the most, important. Yet, few studies have empirically examined the link between this factor and innovation at the organizational level. This study builds on the extant literature to propose four hypotheses about how top managers' leadership styles directly and indirectly (via empowerment and organizational climate) affect their companies' innovation. A multisource approach is used to collect survey data from 32 Taiwanese companies in the electronics/telecommunications industry. The findings support a direct and positive link between a style of leadership that has been labeled as ransformational and organizational innovation. They also indicate that transformational leadership has significant and positive relations with both empowerment and an innovation-supporting organizational climate. The former is found to have a significant but negative relation with organizational innovation, while the latter has a significant and positive relationship. The implications of the findings and possible directions for future research are discussed.

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.

[本文引用: 4]

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.

URL     PMID:26949818      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The teams literature suggests that team tenure improves team psychological safety climate and climate strength in a linear fashion, but the empirical findings to date have been mixed. Alternatively, theories of group formation suggest that new and longer tenured teams experience greater team psychological safety climate than moderately tenured teams. Adopting this second perspective, we used a sample of 115 research and development teams and found that team tenure had a curvilinear relationship with team psychological safety climate and climate strength. Supporting group formation theories, team psychological safety climate and climate strength were higher in new and longer tenured teams compared with moderately tenured teams. Moreover, we found a curvilinear relationship between team tenure and average team member creative performance as partially mediated by team psychological safety climate. Team psychological safety climate improved average team member task performance only when team psychological safety climate was strong. Likewise, team tenure influenced average team member task performance in a curvilinear manner via team psychological safety climate only when team psychological safety climate was strong. We discuss theoretical and practical implications and offer several directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The existing research literature suggests that six main factors influence the collaborative behavior of workers. Collaborative behavior has a crucial impact on the thriving of an organization and its human capital, being a necessary condition for motivating workers to share and exchange their knowledge. The relevant factors are: the workers鈥 identification with the organization; self, means and external efficacy; human resource management practices; perceived organizational support. While previous studies have dealt with these factors as sub-groups, the current study proposes and tests an integrative model that combines all of them, and adds a new factor: employment contract. The model was validated on IT workers from several sectors.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

根据创造力相关理论,从团队层面探索在动态环境下领导行为对创造力的影响机理。在理论上构建了魅力型领导与团队创造力的关系模型,提出魅力型领导、集体效能感、团队自省、环境动态性和团队创造力之间的假设关系;采用调查问卷方式对524名研发团队员工及其主管进行调查,并采用层次回归分析方法对以上假设进行检验。实证结果表明,魅力型领导与团队创造力显著正相关,集体效能感和团队自省在两者间起完全中介作用,而环境动态性在两者间起调节作用。最后讨论了研究的意义,并指出了研究的局限性。

[ 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.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

根据创造力相关理论,从团队层面探索在动态环境下领导行为对创造力的影响机理。在理论上构建了魅力型领导与团队创造力的关系模型,提出魅力型领导、集体效能感、团队自省、环境动态性和团队创造力之间的假设关系;采用调查问卷方式对524名研发团队员工及其主管进行调查,并采用层次回归分析方法对以上假设进行检验。实证结果表明,魅力型领导与团队创造力显著正相关,集体效能感和团队自省在两者间起完全中介作用,而环境动态性在两者间起调节作用。最后讨论了研究的意义,并指出了研究的局限性。

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Boundary spanning is a common characteristic of global organizations. Such behaviors occur more frequently by employees at lower levels in the hierarchy and with more discretion and less direct monitoring than in the past. These phenomena suggest that a broad understanding of key drivers of boundary spanning behavior within global organizations is warranted. We thus examine boundary spanning behavior with a motivational lens and demonstrate that proximal mediators and distal variables along cognitive and affective pathways motivate employee boundary spanning behavior. Studying 179 professional engineers in a large, global organization revealed that employees boundary span when they perceive themselves as competent to do so (i.e., cognitively possess boundary spanning self-efficacy) and when they are affectively committed to their working unit. Efficacy and commitment, respectively, are predicted by four distal antecedents: extraversion, leader support of boundary spanning, interpersonal fairness, and organizational identification. Theoretical and practical implications for global organizations are discussed.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 7]

We adopt a multilevel approach to a paradox that arises when research findings on the performance benefits of team boundary spanning are juxtaposed with earlier work demonstrating the role overload of individuals who span boundaries. Results revealed that individual and team-level factors predicted member boundary-spanning behavior, which increases individual role overload, which then negatively impacts team viability. However, when we aggregated to the team level of analysis, higher levels of boundary spanning resulted in team members' experiencing significantly less role overload. Implications for addressing the boundary-spanning paradox and developing a multilevel theory of team boundary spanning are discussed.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Global competition, new production techniques, and rapid technological change have placed a premium on creativity and innovation. Although many variables influence creativity and innovation in organizational settings, there is reason to suspect that leaders and their behavior represent a particularly powerful influence. In the present article, we review the available literature examining leadership behaviors contributing to creativity and innovation in organizational settings. Based on the findings obtained in these studies, we argue that the leadership of creative people requires expertise. Moreover, the successful leader must employ a number of direct and indirect influence tactics actics consistent with the needs of creative people working in an organizational environment. The implications of these observations for theory and practice are discussed.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

Knowledge or idea exchange is an important function of groups in organizations. Much research has demonstrated that idea sharing in groups involves relatively inefficient processes. Some of these processes are briefly summarized. It is proposed that there are conditions under which idea sharing in groups can be productive. One important factor is the extent to which group members carefully process the ideas exchanged in the group (attention). Another is the opportunity for group members to reflect on the ideas after the exchange process (incubation). These factors were examined by using a “brainwriting” paradigm. Evidence was obtained for enhanced performance of sharing groups in comparison to nonsharing or nominal groups both during the idea-generation session and in a second individual idea-generation session. This study suggests that, under the right conditions, the idea exchange process in groups may be an important means for enhancing creativity and innovation in organizations.

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.

[本文引用: 2]

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: 2]

The authors examined conditions under which teams' educational specialization heterogeneity was positively related to team creativity. Using a sample of 75 research and development teams, the authors theorized and found that transformational leadership and educational specialization heterogeneity interacted to affect team creativity in such a way that when transformational leadership was high, teams with greater educational specialization heterogeneity exhibited greater team creativity. In addition, teams' creative efficacy mediated this moderated relationship among educational specialization heterogeneity, transformational leadership, and team creativity. The authors discuss the implications of these results for research and practice.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract This study investigated team innovation as a process phenomenon by differentiating the creativity stage from the implementation stage. Based on the interactional approach, the authors argue that team composition (aggregated individual creative personality and functional heterogeneity) affects team creativity, which in turn promotes innovation implementation depending on the team climate for innovation. Results from a study of 96 primary care teams confirmed that aggregated individual creative personality, as well as functional heterogeneity, promotes team creativity, which in turn interacts with climate for innovation such that team creativity enhances innovation implementation only when climate for innovation is high.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

An increasing number of organizations are turning to teams for innovation and creativity. The present study investigated the effects of team knowledge management (TKM) on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Our analysis of data collected from 65 sales teams, across 35 branches of a Korean insurance company, showed that team knowledge utilization (but not team knowledge stock) was positively related to team creativity, which in turn predicted team financial performance over the 6-month period. The positive effects of knowledge utilization were stronger when team leaders had a systematic cognitive style and when teams were exposed to high environmental uncertainty. Furthermore, the systematic cognitive style of leaders had a positive main effect on team creativity and positively moderated the relationship between team knowledge stock and team creativity. The implications of these findings were considered, and some possible directions for future research were suggested.

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.

URL     PMID:456545      [本文引用: 4]

With the global penetration of Internet technologies, individuals may now cross organizational boundaries to communicate efficiently with others regardless of time and space. Thus, when looking for help in solving work tasks, knowledge workers may just as easily contact individuals in rival firms across the globe as a coworker sitting at the next desk. As a result, management faces questions such as (1) How should firms manage employees' knowledge-sourcing activities when they span both intra-organizational and extra-organizational boundaries, and (2) What is the relationship between different knowledge-sourcing activities and individual performance? Grounded in the knowledge-based view of the firm, we investigate these questions using data from Europe's largest information technology (IT) services and management consulting company. Our results provide evidence that organizations should support boundary spanning and knowledge sourcing from both internal and external sources. Results suggest (1) a positive relationship between boundary spanning communication and creativity and general performance, and (2) a negative relationship between a reliance on colocated coworkers as knowledge sources and creativity.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Using data from two different firms, this study tested a new construct, creative self-efficacy, tapping employees' beliefs that they can be creative in their work roles. Results support the discriminant validity of the construct and indicate that job tenure, job self-efficacy, supervisor behavior, and job complexity contribute to creative efficacy beliefs. Creative self-efficacy also predicted creative performance beyond the predictive effects of job self-efficacy. Differences in results between white-collar and blue-collar samples suggest considerations for both theory and practice.

Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2004).

The Pygmalion process and employee creativity

Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The study examined the Pygmalion process for creativity among 140 R&D employees. Results generally supported the Pygmalion model. Supervisors holding higher expectations for employee creativity were perceived by employees as behaving more supportively of creativity. The effects of these behaviors on employee creative self-efficacy were mediated by employee view of creativity expectations. Creative self-efficacy mediated the effects of supervisor expectations, supervisor behaviors, and employee view, on creative performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2011).

Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293.

URL     PMID:20954756      [本文引用: 1]

Building from an established framework of self-efficacy development, this study provides a longitudinal examination of the development of creative self-efficacy in an ongoing work context. Results show that increases in employee creative role identity and perceived creative expectation from supervisors over a 6-month time period were associated with enhanced sense of employee capacity for creative work. Contrary to what was expected, employees who experienced for creativity in their jobs actually reported a decreased sense of efficaciousness for creative work. Results show that increases in creative self-efficacy corresponded with increases in creative performance as well.

Tushman, M. L . ( 1977).

Special boundary roles in the innovation process

Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587-605.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The research described in this article focuses on one important aspect of the innovation process - the need for the innovating system to gather information from and transmit information to several external information areas. Special boundary roles evolve in the organization's communication network to fulfill the essential function of linking the organization's internal network to external sources of information. These boundary roles occur at several organizational boundaries, and their distribution within the organization is contingent on the nature of the organization's work. This research supports literature on boundary spanning in general and highlights the importance of boundary roles in the process of innovation.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The article discusses a study that investigates the social capital perspective of new venture teams, focusing on the different social dynamics involved in the gestation process of a new venture to help identify why ventures started by teams are usually more successful that those started by single individuals. The article states that the study focuses on the internal and external social aspects of teams that are taking steps towards starting a new company. The article hypothesizes that the higher the external social capital of the nascent entrepreneurial team, the better its performance, and the greater the increase in the internal social capital of the nascent entrepreneurial team, the better its performance.

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.

[本文引用: 1]

[ 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.]

[本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In seeking to understand the factors contributing to work group creativity in Chinese organizations, we explored the roles of two different leadership styles (transformational and authoritarian) that Chinese leaders play in group creativity through influencing internal group processes, i.e., collective efficacy and knowledge sharing among group members. We tested our hypotheses with a sample of 163 work groups involving 973 employees in twelve Chinese companies. We found transformational leadership to relate positively but authoritarian leadership to relate negatively to group creativity, mediated by both collective efficacy and knowledge sharing among members within the group. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on group leadership, group creativity and cross-cultural management.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research introduces a framework for selecting efficient interunit structures in facilitating the transfer of knowledge with different levels of complexity. We argue that while the boundary spanner structure is efficient for transferring discrete knowledge, it is inadequate for transferring collectively held complex knowledge. We propose that the transfer of such knowledge requires a more decentralized interunit structure—collective bridge, which is a set of direct interunit ties connecting the members of the source and the recipient units, with the configuration of the interunit ties matching the complexity of knowledge to be transferred. We suggest that while a collective bridge is inefficient in transferring discrete knowledge relative to a boundary spanner structure, it is more efficient for transferring collective knowledge. Copyright 08 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

/