团队反思与团队资源开发、利用及团队结果的关系：一项元分析

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00228

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于95篇文献的96个独立研究(总样本量N = 9052), 对团队反思与团队资源开发、团队资源利用及团队结果(团队任务绩效、团队创造力、团队创新绩效)的关系进行了元分析, 检验了国家文化(权力距离、集体主义、阳刚主义、长期取向)的调节作用, 探究了团队资源开发、团队资源利用在团队反思与团队结果间的中介效应。结果表明: (1)团队反思与团队资源开发、团队资源利用、团队任务绩效、团队创造力、团队创新绩效存在中等程度以上的正相关关系。(2)权力距离正向调节团队反思与团队资源利用、团队任务绩效的关系, 集体主义正向调节团队反思与团队资源利用、团队任务绩效、团队创新绩效的关系, 阳刚主义正向调节团队反思与团队资源利用的关系, 长期取向正向调节团队反思与团队任务绩效的关系。(3)团队资源开发和团队资源利用中介了团队反思与团队结果的关系。相较团队资源开发, 团队资源利用在团队反思与团队任务绩效间的中介作用更强; 相较团队资源利用, 团队资源开发在团队反思与团队创造力之间的中介作用更强; 团队资源开发、团队资源利用在团队反思与团队创新绩效之间的中介作用不存在显著差异。研究结果有助于理解团队反思与团队资源开发、利用和团队结果的关系及跨文化差异, 并为实践中的团队反思提供参考。

关键词: 团队反思, 元分析, 团队资源开发, 团队资源利用, 团队结果, AMO理论

Abstract:

As the internal and external environment becomes more complex and ambiguous, team reflexivity becomes increasingly important for team development. Team reflexivity refers to the behaviour of team members who reflect together on team goals, strategies, methods and implementation processes so that the team can adapt to changes in the environment.

Team reflexivity is closely related to important team-level variables such as team learning, team knowledge sharing, team task performance, and team innovation. Although research on the impact of team reflexivity has been extensive, several issues still require attention: (1) The direction and strength of the effect of team reflexivity on outcome variables still exhibit inconsistencies. (2) Verification of cross-cultural differences in the effect of team reflexivity has not yet been established. (3) The majority of the current studies concerning the mechanism of team reflexivity's impact have only explored a single mediator in isolation, and there is a lack of comparative and testing studies for multiple mediating mechanisms under the same framework.

We thus conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the correlation between team reflexivity and team resources development, team resources utilization, and team outcomes (team task performance, team creativity, and team innovation performance). We also examined the moderating impact of national culture, specifically collectivism, long-term orientation, masculinity, and power distance. Additionally, we analysed the mediating mechanisms between team reflexivity and team outcomes. In this study, we used four steps to search and screen studies about team reflexivity. Following these steps, 96 independent studies (N = 9,052) from 95 cases were included. Based on these studies, we conducted publication bias analysis, main effect analysis, meta-regression analysis, and meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Specifically, we first used Egger’s regression and fail-safe number to test publication bias. Second, Hunter and Schmidt’s method was used to analyze the main effects of team reflexivity. Third, we conducted meta-regression analysis to examine the moderating effects of national culture. Finally, we examined and compared the mediating effects of team resource development and team resource utilisation.

Publication bias analysis suggested that the meta-analytic relationships examined were robust to publication bias. There is a more than moderate positive relationship between team reflexivity and team resources development, team resources utilization, team task performance, team creativity, and team innovation performance. Collectivism positively moderated the relationship between team reflexivity and team resources utilization, team task performance, and team innovation performance. Long-term orientation positively moderated the relationship between team reflexivity and team task performance. Masculinity positively moderated the relationship between team reflexivity and team resources utilization. Power distance positively moderated the relationship between team reflexivity and team resources utilization and team task performance. Both team resources utilization and team resources development can act as mediators between team reflexivity and team outcomes. Team resources utilization exhibited a stronger mediating effect between team reflexivity and team task performance than team resources development. Team resources development exhibited a stronger mediating effect between team reflexivity and team creativity than team resources utilization. No significant difference was found in the mediating effects on the relationship between team reflexivity and team innovation performance.

This study contributes to the team reflexivity literature in several ways. First, we integrated previous empirical studies and reported more precise relationships between team reflexivity and team resources development, team resources utilization, and team outcomes (team task performance, team creativity, and team innovation performance), which advances research on the outcomes of team reflexivity. We then evaluated the impact of cultural contexts, specifically collectivism, long-term orientation, masculinity, and power distance, which increases our comprehension of the variation in cross-cultural influence of team reflexivity roles. Moreover, we tested and compared the dual-mediation mechanism between team reflexivity and team outcomes.

Overall, our contribution is to integrate the literature on team reflexivity and its outcomes, to examine the mediating mechanisms through which team reflexivity affects team outcomes, and to conclude that national cultural context moderates the relationship between team reflexivity and outcome variables. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex relationship between team reflexivity and team resources development, utilization, and team outcomes, while considering cross-cultural variations.

Key words: team reflexivity, meta-analysis, team resources development, team resources utilization, team outcomes, AMO theory

中图分类号:

B849: C93

尹奎, 迟志康, 董念念, 李培凯, 赵景. (2024). 团队反思与团队资源开发、利用及团队结果的关系：一项元分析. 心理科学进展 , 32(2), 228-245.

YIN Kui, CHI Zhikang, DONG Niannian, LI Peikai, ZHAO Jing. (2024). The relationship between team reflexivity and team resources development, team resources utilization, and team outcomes: A meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(2), 228-245.

图/表 8

参考文献 103

	^*为纳入元分析的文献
[1]	陈驰茵, 唐宁玉. (2017). 团队过程研究十年回顾: 2008至2017. 中国人力资源开发, (12), 47-59.
[2]	陈慧, 梁巧转, 张悦. (2019). 基于Meta分析的团队断裂研究: 分类, 效果与情境. 管理评论, 31(3), 116-130.
[3]	^* 陈万思, 周卿钰, 杨朦晰, 张昱城, 钟琳. (2019). 基于跨层双中介模型的知识服务团队认同对团队绩效的影响过程研究. 管理学报, 16(8), 1153-1160.
[4]	^* 陈志红, 李健. (2020). 环境不确定性感知、跨界行为与团队创新研究. 南京社会科学, (6), 40-48.
[5]	池毛毛, 刘姝君, 蔡志慧, 罗博, 卢泉. (2021). IT匹配在IT治理和企业绩效间的中介作用和边界条件研究: 基于元分析技术的探索. 南开管理评论, 24(3), 115-129.
[6]	^* 仇勇, 李飚, 王文周. (2019). 授权型校长对中小学校高层管理团队绩效的影响机制研究——基于北京市的调查分析. 教育学报, 15(3), 113-122.
[7]	^* 邓志华, 肖小虹, 张亚军. (2019). 团队精神型领导与研发团队创新行为的关系——团队自省性和团队外部社会资本的影响. 商业经济与管理, (12), 66-77.
[8]	丁凤琴, 赵虎英. (2018). 感恩的个体主观幸福感更强?—一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1749-1764. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01749
[9]	^* 胡冬青, 顾琴轩. (2022). 团队权力距离和集体主义对团队创造力影响: 基于共享领导视角. 管理评论, 34(5), 167-175.
[10]	焦勇兵, 娄立国, 杨健. (2020). 社会化媒体中顾客参与、价值共创和企业绩效的关系——感知匹配的调节作用. 中国流通经济, 34(6), 27-40.
[11]	^* 解志韬, 王辰轩. (2020). 科研团队授权型领导对交互记忆系统的影响研究. 中国科技论坛, (11), 137-146.
[12]	居佳, 郝生跃, Anumba, C. J., 任旭. (2020). 从“心动”到“行动”——机会与能力在项目团队知识转移中的作用. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 22(3), 111-123.
[13]	李超平, 孟雪, 胥彦, 蓝媛美. (2023). 家庭支持型主管行为对员工的影响与作用机制: 基于元分析的证据. 心理学报, 55(2), 257-271. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00257
[14]	林新奇, 栾宇翔, 赵锴, 赵国龙. (2022). 领导风格与员工创新绩效关系的元分析: 基于自我决定视角. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 781-801. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00781
[15]	刘豆豆, 胥彦, 李超平. (2021). 中国情境下家长式领导与员工绩效关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 29(10), 1829-1846. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01829
[16]	刘俊, 秦传燕. (2018). 企业社会责任与员工绩效的关系: 一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(7), 1152-1164. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01152
[17]	刘薇, 沈晓玲. (2022). 团队行动中反思与团队创新关系研究的动态视角——认知与情绪的双元路径. 心理科学进展, 30(8), 1759-1769. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01759
[18]	^* 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.
[19]	苗仁涛, 西楠, 曹毅. (2021). 高绩效工作系统对团队绩效的影响——团队内、外部社会资本的双中介模型. 经济管理, 43(1), 124-140.
[20]	孙继伟, 邓莉华. (2021). 创业团队冲突导致创业失败的探索性研究. 科技进步与对策, 38(17), 134-143.
[21]	孙梁凯. (2022). 非家族高管涉入如何影响企业创新投入?——基于冗余资源的调节作用. 科技管理研究, 42(9), 82-90.
[22]	王海雯, 张淑华. (2018). 情绪劳动策略与工作满意度关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(4), 599-613. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00599
[23]	王佳燕, 蓝媛美, 李超平. (2022). 二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 761-780. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00761
[24]	王旭东, 何雅吉, 范会勇, 罗扬眉, 陈煦海. (2023). 人际愤怒的利与弊: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 31(3), 386-414. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00386
[25]	王智宁, 孟丽君. (2019). 团队反思对员工创造力的跨层影响——工作旺盛感的中介作用与工作心理所有权的调节作用. 科技进步与对策, 36(16), 140-146.
[26]	卫旭华, 王傲晨, 江楠. (2018). 团队断层前因及其对团队过程与结果影响的元分析. 南开管理评论, 21(5), 139-149.
[27]	^* 魏昕, 张志学. (2018). 团队的和谐型创新激情: 前因、结果及边界条件. 管理世界, 34(7), 100-113.
[28]	吴佳桧, 傅海伦, 张玉环. (2023). 感知社会支持与学生学业成就关系的元分析: 学习投入的中介作用. 心理科学进展, 31(4), 552-569. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00552
[29]	肖素芳, 徐正丽. (2023). 领导纳谏内涵及其对工作行为的影响: 基于调节焦点理论的视. 心理科学进展, 31(5), 697-708. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00697
[30]	谢菊兰, 李露露, 刘小妹, 史燕伟. (2022). AMO理论框架下玩兴氛围对员工绩效的促进机制. 心理学探新, 42(1), 76-82.
[31]	^* 杨兰芳, 陈万明, 朱雪春. (2015). 研发团队主管支持感对团队效能的影响——团队反思的中介作用. 华东经济管理, 29(9), 125-130.
[32]	杨伟文, 李超平. (2021). 资质过剩感对个体绩效的作用效果及机制: 基于情绪-认知加工系统与文化情境的元分析. 心理学报, 53(5), 527-554. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00527
[33]	^* 姚柱, 罗瑾琏, 张显春, 熊正德. (2020). 研发团队时间压力、团队反思与创新绩效. 科学学研究, 38(8), 1526-1536.
[34]	^* 袁楚芹. (2019). 悖论式领导对个体及团队多层面创造力的影响效应研究 (博士学位论文). 华南理工大学, 广州.
[35]	张建平, 林澍倩, 刘善仕, 张亚, 李焕荣. (2021). 领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系: 基于元分析的检验. 心理科学进展, 29(9), 1576-1598. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01576
[36]	张少峰, 陈於婷, 张彪, 吴远鹏. (2022). 创造性团队中地位竞争对团队创新的作用机制——基于解决公共产品困境和团队信任视角. 科技进步与对策, 39(15), 129-139.
[37]	张骁, 胡丽娜. (2013). 创业导向对企业绩效影响关系的边界条件研究——基于元分析技术的探索. 管理世界, (6), 99-110+188.
[38]	张毅, 黄福华, 朱桂菊. (2022). 团队断裂带对团队创新绩效的影响——双元领导的调节作用和创造性综合的中介作用. 管理科学学报, 25(1), 107-126.
[39]	^* 张毅, 游达明. (2014). 团队反思、团队心理安全感对团队创新的影响——一个被中介的调节效应模型检验. 商业经济与管理, (8), 26-36.
[40]	郑明玉, 徐梦丹, 马文聪, 黄攀. (2021). 组织忘却学习如何影响绩效: 基于元分析的证据. 科技管理研究, 41(13), 176-182.
[41]	钟竞, 罗瑾琏, 韩杨. (2015). 知识分享中介作用下的经验开放性与团队内聚力对员工创造力的影响. 管理学报, 12(5), 679-686.
[42]	周建波, 汪志红, 马俊, 周国林, 吴刚. (2019). 基于中国亚文化人格模型的非正式组织文化思维模式. 管理学报, 16(12), 1761-1770.
[43]	周文霞, 谢宝国, 辛迅, 白光林, 苗仁涛. (2015). 人力资本、社会资本和心理资本影响中国员工职业成功的元分析. 心理学报, 47(2), 251-263.
[44]	朱晓红, 张欣, 孙淳. (2022). 高科技企业离职员工创业机会创新性的影响机制研究——基于模糊集定性比较分析. 科技进步与对策, 39(14), 143-152.
[45]	Abraham, W., & Russell, D. (2008). Statistical power analysis in psychological research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 283-301. doi: 10.1111/spco.2008.2.issue-1 URL
[46]	^* Acikgoz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2018). The mediating effect of team reflection on the relationship between a challenging learning goal and new product success. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 50(3), 136-143. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000101 URL
[47]	^* Acikgoz, A., Latham, G. P., & Acikgoz, F. (2021). Mediation of scenario planning on the reflection- performance relationship in new product development teams. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 36(2), 256-268. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-07-2019-0321 URL
[48]	Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T. R., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. New York: Cornell University Press.
[49]	Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560-569. doi: 10.2307/257222 URL
[50]	^* Carter, S. M., & West, M. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in bbc-tv production teams. Small Group Research, 29(5), 583-601. doi: 10.1177/1046496498295003 URL
[51]	^* Chen, Z., Chen, Z., Yu, Y., & Huang, S. (2020). How shared leadership in entrepreneurial teams influences new venture performance: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(4), 406-418.
[52]	Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. S. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40-64. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40 pmid: 15810868
[53]	^* de Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628-638. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628 pmid: 17484546
[54]	Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452. doi: 10.1111/joms.2003.40.issue-6 URL
[55]	Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726-1753. doi: 10.1177/0149206316682830 URL
[56]	Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Rousseau, D. M., & Morris, T. (2020). Line managers as paradox navigators in hrm implementation: Balancing consistency and individual responsiveness. Journal of Management, 46(2), 203-233. doi: 10.1177/0149206318785241 URL
[57]	Gonzalez, R. V. D. (2021). Effects of learning culture and teamwork context on team performance mediated by dynamic capability. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 2000-2021. doi: 10.1108/JKM-05-2020-0385 URL
[58]	Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324-343. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0224 URL
[59]	Herhausen, D., Morgan, R., Brozovic, D., & Volberda, H. W. (2020). Re-examining strategic flexibility: A meta- analysis of its antecedents, consequences and contingencies. British Journal of Management, 32(2), 435-455. doi: 10.1111/bjom.v32.2 URL
[60]	^* Hiller, N., Sin, H., Ponnapalli, A., & Ozgen, S. (2018). Benevolence and authority as weirdly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003 URL
[61]	Hoch, J., & Dulebohn, J. (2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 678-693. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012 URL
[62]	^* Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36(2), 113-125.
[63]	Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316-331. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001 URL
[64]	Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis corrected error and bias in research findings. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[65]	Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 URL
[66]	Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0088 URL
[67]	^* Kakar, A. K. (2018). Investigating the synergistic and antagonistic impacts of outcome interdependence, shared vision and team reflexivity on innovation in software development projects. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(6), 1850050.
[68]	Kedmenec, I., & Strašek, S. (2017). Are some cultures more favourable for social entrepreneurship than others? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 1461-1476. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1355251 URL
[69]	^* Kim, M. J., Choi, J. N., & Lee, K. (2016). Trait affect and individual creativity: Moderating roles of affective climate and reflexivity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(9), 1477-1498. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.9.1477 URL
[70]	Kneisel, E. (2020). Team reflections, team mental models and team performance over time. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(1), 143-168. doi: 10.1108/TPM-09-2018-0061 URL
[71]	^* Knipfer, K., Schreiner, E., Schmid, E., & Peus, C. (2018). The performance of pre-founding entrepreneurial teams: The importance of learning and leadership. Applied Psychology, 67(3), 401-427. doi: 10.1111/apps.2018.67.issue-3 URL
[72]	Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D. A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2019). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837 URL
[73]	Li, P., Sun, J., Taris, T., Xing, L., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2020). Country differences in the relationship between leadership and employee engagement: A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(1), 101458.
[74]	Lim, S., & Ok, C. (2021). Knowledge sharing in hospitality organizations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95(1), 102940.
[75]	^* Litchfield, R., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Carter, M., & Hirst, G. (2017). When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross-team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 350-366. doi: 10.1111/jpim.2018.35.issue-3 URL
[76]	^* Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: The mediating role of team reflexivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 59-70. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2692-3 URL
[77]	^* Marques-Quinteiro, P., Curral, L., Passos, A., Lewis, K., & Gomes, C. (2019). How transactive memory systems and reflexivity relate with innovation in healthcare teams. Analise Psicologica, 37(1), 41-51.
[78]	^* Monks, K., Conway, E., Fu, N., Bailey, C., Kelly, G., & Hannon, E. (2016). Enhancing knowledge exchange and combination through hr practices: Reflexivity as a translation process. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 1-40. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.v26.1 URL
[79]	Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in Teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39. doi: 10.1177/0149206309347376 URL
[80]	Park, H. J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C. F., & Björkman, I. (2003). The effect of human resource management practices on Japanese MNC subsidiary performance: A partial mediating model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(8), 1391-1406.
[81]	^* Prabhu, N., Ramaprasad, B. S., Prasad, K., & Modem, R. (2022). Does workplace spirituality influence reflexivity in ongoing teams? Examining the impact of shared transformational leadership on team performance. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 11(3), 341-369. doi: 10.1108/SAJBS-07-2020-0246 URL
[82]	Pratoom, K. (2018). Differential relationship of person-and task-focused leadership to team effectiveness: A meta- analysis of moderators. Human Resource Development Review, 17(4), 393-439. doi: 10.1177/1534484318790167 URL
[83]	Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & Kühlmann, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system-business performance relationship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1011-1041. doi: 10.1037/a0037712 pmid: 25222523
[84]	Rauter, S., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2018). Team learning from setbacks: A study in the context of start-up teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 783-795. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.6 URL
[85]	Roh, H., & Kim, E. (2015). The business case for gender diversity: Examining the role of human resource management investments. Human Resource Management, 55(3), 519-534. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2016.55.issue-3 URL
[86]	Roth, P., Le, H., Oh, I., van Iddekinge, C., & Bobko, P. (2018). Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/apl0000293 pmid: 29369653
[87]	^* Schippers, M. C., den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2), 189-211. doi: 10.1111/apps.2007.56.issue-2 URL
[88]	Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information- processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6), 731-769. doi: 10.1177/1046496414553473 URL
[89]	Schippers, M. C., Homan, A. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 6-23. doi: 10.1002/job.v34.1 URL
[90]	^* Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Positive group affective tone and team creative performance and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 52-68. doi: 10.1002/jocb.2019.53.issue-1 URL
[91]	Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Balasubramanian, S. (2013). How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management, 26(3), 426-445. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2007.09.001 URL
[92]	^* Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277799 URL
[93]	^* Valls, V., Tomás, I., González-Romá, V., & Rico, R. (2021). The influence of age-based faultlines on team performance: Examining mediational paths. European Management Journal, 39(4), 456-466. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.10.008 URL
[94]	Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865-885. doi: 10.1111/peps.1995.48.issue-4 URL
[95]	Wang, H., Xiao, Y., Su, X., & Li, X. (2021). Team social media usage and team creativity: The role of team knowledge sharing and team-member exchange. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 755208. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755208 URL
[96]	^* Wang, L., Jiang, W., Zhang, H., & Lin, H. (2020). Leader information seeking, team performance and team innovation: Examining the roles of team reflexivity and cooperative outcome interdependence. Information Processing & Management, 57(6), 1023-1043.
[97]	^* Wang, Z., Ren, S., Chadee, D., Liu, M., & Cai, S. (2021). Team reflexivity and employee innovative behavior: The mediating role of knowledge sharing and moderating role of leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(6), 1619-1639. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2020-0683 URL
[98]	West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[99]	^* Widmann, A., Mulder, R. H., & König, C. (2019). Team learning behaviours as predictors of innovative work behaviour-a longitudinal study. Innovation: Organization and Management, 21(2), 298-316.
[100]	^* Yang, M., Schloemer, H., Zhu, Z., Lin, Y., Chen, W., & Dong, N. (2020). Why and when team reflexivity contributes to team performance: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3044. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03044 URL
[101]	^* Ye, S., Xiao, Y., Yang, B., & Zhang, D. (2021). The impact mechanism of entrepreneurial team expertise heterogeneity on entrepreneurial decision. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 732857. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732857 URL
[102]	Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L., & Bednall, T. (2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee ocb and cwb: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474-2497. doi: 10.1177/0149206318823935 URL
[103]	Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Xu, S., Liu, X., & Chen, W. (2021). A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s10490-018-9638-0

类别	包含的具体变量	内涵	依据文献
团队资源开发	团队学习、团队跨界行为、团队共享心智模型、团队交互记忆系统、团队知识共享、团队信息知识整合、团队建言、团队资源获取	强调促进团队资源的有效发展, 能够为团队结果的改善提供能力基础, 助推绩效增长与创新水平提升。	(Fischer et al., 2017; Edmondson, 2003; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982)
团队资源利用	团队成员合作满意度、团队决策满意度、团队创新激情、团队效能感、团队决策承诺、团队心理资本	强调促进团队资源的有效利用, 能够为团队结果的改善提供动机和机会基础, 促进绩效增长与创新水平提升。	(Fischer et al., 2017; Hunter et al., 2013; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982)
团队任务绩效	团队任务绩效	侧重一般目标任务的完成情况。	(卫旭华等, 2018; Gonzalez, 2021)
团队创造力	团队创造力、新产品创造力、方法更新、创意产生	侧重新颖、有价值的方法和观点, 强调新颖性创意的产生。	(Lee et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2021)
团队创新绩效	团队创新绩效、新产品绩效、团队创新行为	反映团队创新的质量和效率, 是对团队实现创新目标程度的评价, 强调创意的实施及效果。	(Lee et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2018; 张毅等, 2022)

类别	包含的具体变量	内涵	依据文献
团队资源开发	团队学习、团队跨界行为、团队共享心智模型、团队交互记忆系统、团队知识共享、团队信息知识整合、团队建言、团队资源获取	强调促进团队资源的有效发展, 能够为团队结果的改善提供能力基础, 助推绩效增长与创新水平提升。	(Fischer et al., 2017; Edmondson, 2003; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982)
团队资源利用	团队成员合作满意度、团队决策满意度、团队创新激情、团队效能感、团队决策承诺、团队心理资本	强调促进团队资源的有效利用, 能够为团队结果的改善提供动机和机会基础, 促进绩效增长与创新水平提升。	(Fischer et al., 2017; Hunter et al., 2013; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982)
团队任务绩效	团队任务绩效	侧重一般目标任务的完成情况。	(卫旭华等, 2018; Gonzalez, 2021)
团队创造力	团队创造力、新产品创造力、方法更新、创意产生	侧重新颖、有价值的方法和观点, 强调新颖性创意的产生。	(Lee et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2021)
团队创新绩效	团队创新绩效、新产品绩效、团队创新行为	反映团队创新的质量和效率, 是对团队实现创新目标程度的评价, 强调创意的实施及效果。	(Lee et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2018; 张毅等, 2022)

变量	k	N	r	ρ	SD	95% CI		Q	I²	Nfs	Egger’ s test (p)	Q_b
变量	k	N	r	ρ	SD	lower	upper	Q	I²	Nfs	Egger’ s test (p)	Q_b
团队资源开发/利用	61	6383	0.45	0.53	0.25	0.46	0.59	497.68^***	87.94%	39637	0.34 (0.773)	1.18
团队结果	74	7424	0.41	0.48	0.21	0.42	0.53	404.15^***	81.94%	34027	0.88(0.448)	1.18
团队资源开发	34	3802	0.46	0.54	0.22	0.46	0.62	239.44^***	86.23%	12132	1.43(0.322)	4.12
团队资源利用	27	2581	0.43	0.51	0.29	0.39	0.63	253.24^***	89.73%	5499	−1.92(0.400)
团队任务绩效	23	2078	0.44	0.50	0.21	0.40	0.60	124.43^***	82.32%	3821	−1.41(0.573)
团队创造力	28	2484	0.48	0.55	0.17	0.48	0.63	118.14^***	77.14%	6483	−1.82(0.166)
团队创新绩效	23	2862	0.33	0.39	0.201	0.29	0.49	126.34^***	82.59%	3181	1.10(0.228)

变量	k	N	r	ρ	SD	95% CI		Q	I²	Nfs	Egger’ s test (p)	Q_b
变量	k	N	r	ρ	SD	lower	upper	Q	I²	Nfs	Egger’ s test (p)	Q_b
团队资源开发/利用	61	6383	0.45	0.53	0.25	0.46	0.59	497.68^***	87.94%	39637	0.34 (0.773)	1.18
团队结果	74	7424	0.41	0.48	0.21	0.42	0.53	404.15^***	81.94%	34027	0.88(0.448)	1.18
团队资源开发	34	3802	0.46	0.54	0.22	0.46	0.62	239.44^***	86.23%	12132	1.43(0.322)	4.12
团队资源利用	27	2581	0.43	0.51	0.29	0.39	0.63	253.24^***	89.73%	5499	−1.92(0.400)
团队任务绩效	23	2078	0.44	0.50	0.21	0.40	0.60	124.43^***	82.32%	3821	−1.41(0.573)
团队创造力	28	2484	0.48	0.55	0.17	0.48	0.63	118.14^***	77.14%	6483	−1.82(0.166)
团队创新绩效	23	2862	0.33	0.39	0.201	0.29	0.49	126.34^***	82.59%	3181	1.10(0.228)

变量	k	权力距离		集体主义		阳刚主义		长期取向
变量	k	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
团队资源开发	33	0.003	0.411	0.001	0.606	0.0034	0.315	0.001	0.844
团队资源利用	27	0.006^*	0.041	0.004^†	0.057	0.008^†	0.053	0.001	0.687
团队任务绩效	23	0.004^†	0.091	0.004^†	0.088	0.003	0.339	0.005^*	0.038
团队创造力	28	0.002	0.525	0.002	0.682	0.005	0.301	0.001	0.843
团队创新绩效	23	0.006	0.186	0.007^*	0.033	0.003	0.583	0.001	0.721