知识颠覆的概念内涵、形成与影响机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2026.0210

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着人工智能等新技术的快速更新迭代和市场环境的日新月异, 组织和个体的知识面临着前所未有的冲击。组织员工如何在动荡环境中利用知识管理转危为机并促进创新, 成为管理研究的重要议题。本研究将采用扎根理论、文本分析、问卷调查和纵向跟踪的方法, 围绕“动荡环境中个体的知识颠覆”开展三项研究：(1)基于知识管理的动态性和边界性, 厘清知识颠覆的概念内涵和维度类别, 并开发测量工具; (2)揭示动荡环境中员工知识颠覆的形成机理; (3)基于社会自我保护理论和内隐理论, 从自我提升和自我验证的视角, 探究个体知识颠覆的影响机制和影响结果。研究的成果将拓展个体知识管理的理论内涵, 并为员工有效应对动荡环境的知识颠覆提供实践启示。

关键词: 知识颠覆, 环境动荡性, 社会自我保护理论, 自我提升, 自我验证

Abstract:

This study systematically investigates the phenomenon of individual knowledge disruption within turbulent environments characterized by rapid technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, and shifting market dynamics. The study's primary innovation lies in its conceptual and empirical examination of knowledge disruption as a perceived threat to the adequacy of one's domain-specific expertise, triggered by external environmental shocks.

The research is structured around three interconnected studies. The first study aims to achieve conceptual clarity by rigorously defining knowledge disruption and distinguishing it from related constructs like knowledge updating,knowledge reconstruction, and knowledge innovation. A key innovation is the proposed differentiation of two distinct dimensions: cross-domain knowledge disruption (complementary challenges from external, non-core knowledge) and within-domain knowledge disruption (substitutive threats from new knowledge within one's core field). Based on the dynamic and boundary characteristics of knowledge management, this study will develop and validate a reliable measurement scale for these dimensions, addressing a significant methodological gap in the literature. The study will employ a combined qualitative and quantitative research methodology. Based on the conceptual framework of knowledge disruption outlined above, it will develop measurement scales for cross-domain knowledge disruption and within-domain knowledge disruption, and validate their reliability.

The second study delves into the formation mechanism of employee knowledge disruption, exploring how environmental dynamism (comprising both technological turbulence and market turbulence) translates into the subjective experience of disruption. The investigation focuses on unveiling the parallel mediating roles of work competency and professional control, thereby revealing the pathways through which external turbulence triggers feelings of knowledge inadequacy. Furthermore, the study examines the cross-level moderating effects of organizational environmental scanning and individual dynamic capabilities, offering a comprehensive framework that incorporates both organizational and individual factors that may attenuate or exacerbate the impact of environmental turbulence on knowledge disruption.

The third study examines the impact mechanism of knowledge disruption. A innovative element is testing a dual-pathway model where the two types of disruption lead to divergent outcomes through different motivational and behavioral processes. It is proposed that cross-domain knowledge disruption may foster innovation performance and work resilience by triggering a knowledge restructuring process. Conversely, within-domain knowledge disruption is hypothesized to hinder these outcomes.

The study further investigates how individual mindset (growth mindset versus fixed mindset) moderates these relationships, particularly examining how growth mindset strengthens the positive path from cross-domain disruption to innovation through knowledge restructuring, while fixed mindset reinforces the negative path from within-domain disruption to performance outcomes.

As for theoretical contributions, this study creatively constructed a series of mechanisms from encountering knowledge disruption to responding to it from the perspective of self-threat. At present, there are very few individual complete mechanism chains regarding knowledge disruption. Therefore, this study, against the backdrop of environmental turbulence, reveals the dynamic process from the cause to the consequence of individual knowledge disruption. Moreover, knowledge serves as the foundation for allocating status and prestige in the professional hierarchy system. Therefore, knowledge disruption implies the possibility of losing social respect or status, that is, facing self-threat. Most existing studies regard individual knowledge as a kind of resource. In this study, knowledge disruption is regarded as a threat to the self-concept. Based on relevant theoretical foundations of self-concept such as threat rigidity theory, the formation mechanism and influence mechanism of knowledge disruption in a turbulent environment are explored. Studying the formation mechanism and the impact mechanism on work results and capabilities in the turbulent environment of knowledge disruption from the perspective of self-threat not only provides a new theoretical perspective for the research in the field of individual knowledge management, but also expands the research content of this field.

Key words: knowledge disruption, environmental dynamism, social self-preservation theory, self-enhancement, self-verification

中图分类号:

B849: C93

冯娇娇, 刘轶, 刘军. (2026). 知识颠覆的概念内涵、形成与影响机制. 心理科学进展 , 34(2), 210-226.

FENG Jiaojiao, LIU Yi, LIU Jun. (2026). The concept connotation, formation and impact mechanism of knowledge disruption. Advances in Psychological Science, 34(2), 210-226.

图/表 5

参考文献 117

[1]	曹红军, 赵剑波. (2008). 动态能力如何影响企业绩效——基于中国企业的实证研究. 南开管理评论, 11(6), 54-65.
[2]	曹洲涛, 杨瑞. (2014). 知识领地行为视角下个体知识向组织知识转移的研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 35(10), 35-42.
[3]	杜俊义, 冯罡. (2020). 技术创新动态能力理论研究综述. 科技管理研究, 40(6), 1-6.
[4]	郭凯明, 王钰冰, 龚六堂. (2023). 劳动供给转变, 有为政府作用与人工智能时代开启. 管理世界, 39(6), 1-15.
[5]	胡汉辉, 潘安成. (2006). 组织知识转移与学习能力的系统研究. 管理科学学报, 9(3), 81-87.
[6]	黄韵瑾, 张荣华. (2020). 内隐理念: 回顾与展望. 心理学进展, 10(7), 943-949.
[7]	蒋兰. (2005). 高层管理者对环境不确定性认知及其结果研究 [博士学位论文]. 电子科技大学, 成都.
[8]	姜荣萍, 何亦名. (2014). 知识心理所有权对知识隐藏的影响机制研究——基于智力型组织的实证调研. 科技进步与对策, 31(14), 128-133. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2014020587
[9]	李海, 朱金强, 张勉, 孙琦, 范思敏. (2016). 如何激励多样化的知识员工?——基于一个分类框架和差异激励模型. 科学学与科学技术管理, 37(10), 164-180.
[10]	李纪琛, 刘海建, 李润芝. (2023). 知识异质性对企业创新绩效的影响研究——基于社会关系的调节作用. 华东经济管理, 37(5), 42-51.
[11]	刘欢, 安立仁. (2021). 期望收益, 知识权力感知对员工知识隐藏行为影响研究. 科学决策, 11, 81-89.
[12]	刘璇, 陈晋, 陈梅梅. (2021). 知识多样性及任务依赖性对团队绩效的影响. 系统管理学报, 30(5), 961-970.
[13]	陆欣欣, 涂乙冬. (2018). 分享还是不分享: 社会困境视角下知识分享. 心理科学进展, 26(11), 2057-2067. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02057
[14]	马鹤丹. (2018). 基于区域创新网络的企业知识创新研究. 人民论坛·学术前沿, (5), 92-95.
[15]	欧锦文, 王安生, 叶文平. (2021). 持续性绩效期望落差与OFDI——基于威胁刚性理论视角. 南方经济, 40(12), 112-129.
[16]	饶湖广. (2019). 创新合作伙伴资源异质性与创新绩效的关系研究 [硕士学位论文]. 杭州电子科技大学.
[17]	芮正云, 马喜芳. (2022). 反思性知识重构, 企业即兴能力及其创新效应. 科研管理, 43(9), 176-184.
[18]	汤超颖, 张悦强, 高嘉欣. (2022). 外部异质知识获取与研发团队突破性创造力. 科学学研究, 40(9), 1621-1629.
[19]	王建军, 曹宁, 叶明海. (2020). 多维知识搜寻, 知识重构与企业持续创新——IT 治理的调节作用. 软科学, 34(9), 85-89.
[20]	王娟茹, 李苹. (2020). 外部知识搜索对制造企业技术创新的影响——知识协奏能力的中介作用与创新意愿的调节作用. 科技进步与对策, 37(3), 81-87. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2019060052
[21]	王林辉, 钱圆圆, 周慧琳, 董直庆. (2023). 人工智能技术冲击和中国职业变迁方向. 管理世界, 39(11), 74-95.
[22]	王思梦, 雷家骕, 邵云飞. (2023). 外部搜索, 吸收能力与企业突破性创新绩效——环境动荡性的调节作用. 系统工程, 41(2), 35-48.
[23]	王志成, 赵曙明, 杨杰. (2020). 多层次知识隐藏行为的形成与后果: 基于地位竞争的视角. 心理科学进展, 28(6), 893-903. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00893
[24]	王重鸣. (2000). 管理心理学. 人民教育出版社.
[25]	魏江, 王铜安. (2006). 个体、群组、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究. 科学学研究, 24(1), 91-97.
[26]	吴晓波, 程心仪, 刘潭飞, 吴东. (2022). 知识耦合与企业技术追赶: 环境动荡性的调节作用. 科学学与科学技术管理, 43(9), 71-88.
[27]	徐宁, 徐鹏, 吴创. (2014). 技术创新动态能力建构及其价值创造效应——来自中小上市公司的经验证据. 科学学与科学技术管理, 35(8), 125-134.
[28]	姚艳虹, 张翠平. (2019). 知识域耦合, 知识创新能力与企业创新绩效——环境不确定性和战略柔性的调节作用. 科技进步与对策, 36(23), 76-84. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2018110580
[29]	野中郁次郎, 竹内弘高. (2006). 创造知识的企业. 北京知识产权出版社.
[30]	章长城. (2021). 跨界搜寻, 组织知识重构与创新绩效——组织合法性的调节作用. 井冈山大学学报: 社会科学版, 42(5), 85-91.
[31]	赵红丹, 刘微微. (2020). 知识隐藏: 基于知识图谱的研究述评. 外国经济与管理, 42(5), 121-138.
[32]	赵健宇, 付程, 袭希. (2020). 知识嵌入性, 知识流动与战略联盟结构升级的关系研究. 管理评论, 32(1), 91-106.
[33]	郑江波, 亢姝婧. (2023). 基于知识冗余异质性的研发团队成员协调配置模型. 系统工程学报, 38(1), 131-144.
[34]	朱云鹃, 陈金标. (2023). 跨界搜寻策略, 知识异质度与企业技术创新绩效. 南京审计大学学报, 20(4), 42-50.
[35]	左美云. (2004). 企业信息化主体间的六类知识转移. 计算机系统应用, 8, 72-74.
[36]	Abbott A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press.
[37]	Alavi M., & Leidner D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. doi: 10.2307/3250961 URL
[38]	Albright K. S. (2004). Environmental scanning: Radar for success. Information Management Journal, 38, 38-45.
[39]	Ambrosini V., & Bowman C. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20(S1), S9-S24.
[40]	Amidon Rogers D. M. (1993). Knowledge innovation system: The common language. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(2), 2-8.
[41]	Anderson E. G., & Lewis K. (2014). A dynamic model of individual and collective learning amid disruption. Organization Science, 25(2), 356-376. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0854 URL
[42]	Anteby M. (2010). Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 606-638. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.606 URL
[43]	Arora A., Belenzon S., & Sheer L. (2021). Knowledge spillovers and corporate investment in scientific research. American Economic Review, 111(3), 871-898. doi: 10.1257/aer.20171742 URL
[44]	Asrar-ul-Haq M., & Anwar S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1127744.
[45]	Barley S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61-103. pmid: 10106582
[46]	Baumeister R. F., Smart L., & Boden J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.1.5 pmid: 8650299
[47]	Beal R. M. (2000). Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 27-47.
[48]	Bechky B. A. (2020). Evaluative spillovers from technological change: The effects of “DNA envy” on occupational practices in forensic science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 606-643. doi: 10.1177/0001839219855329 URL
[49]	Benner M. J., & Tushman M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award — “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497-514. doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0042 URL
[50]	Bontis N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63-76. doi: 10.1108/00251749810204142 URL
[51]	Boyatzis R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons.
[52]	Bucher R., & Strauss A. (1961). Professions in process. American Journal of Sociology, 66(4), 325-334. doi: 10.1086/222898 URL
[53]	Calantone R., Garcia R., & Dröge C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 90-103. doi: 10.1111/jpim.2003.20.issue-2 URL
[54]	Chase W. G., & Simon H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 URL
[55]	Cohen W. M., & Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. doi: 10.2307/2393553 URL
[56]	Compagni A., Cappellaro G., & Nigam A. (2024). Responding to professional knowledge disruptions of unmitigable uncertainty: The role of emotions, practices, and moral duty among COVID-19 physicians. Academy of Management Journal, 67(3), 829-861. doi: 10.5465/amj.2022.0697 URL
[57]	Currie G., Lockett A., Finn R., Martin G., & Waring J. (2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power: Recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organization Studies, 33(7), 937-962. doi: 10.1177/0170840612445116 URL
[58]	Damanpour F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590. doi: 10.2307/256406 URL
[59]	Darban M., Kwak D.-H. A., Deng S. L., Srite M., & Lee S. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of perceived knowledge update in the context of an ERP simulation game: A multi-level perspective. Computers & Education, 103, 87-98. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.011 URL
[60]	Deng H., Duan S. X., & Wibowo S. (2023). Digital technology driven knowledge sharing for job performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 404-425. doi: 10.1108/JKM-08-2021-0637 URL
[61]	Dickerson S. S., Gruenewald T. L., & Kemeny M. E. (2004). When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191-1216. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x pmid: 15509281
[62]	Dickerson S. S., & Kemeny M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355-391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 pmid: 15122924
[63]	Douglas H. (2008). Creating knowledge: A review of research methods in three societal change approaches. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20(2), 141-163.
[64]	Dweck C. S., & Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 URL
[65]	Eisenhardt K. M., & Bourgeois L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770. doi: 10.2307/256337 URL
[66]	Eisenhardt K. M., & Martin J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 URL
[67]	Elenkov D. S. (1997). Differences and similarities in managerial values between U.S. and Russian managers: An empirical study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(1), 85-106.
[68]	Ethel A., & Chun W. C. (1993). Environmental scanning by CEOs in two Canadian industries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(4), 194-203. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4571 URL
[69]	Evans J. (2021). How professionals construct moral authority: Expanding boundaries of expert authority in stem cell science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 989-1036. doi: 10.1177/00018392211011441 URL
[70]	Feng J., & Wang C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1455-1474. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737 URL
[71]	Freidson E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
[72]	Frishammar J., & Hörte S. Å. (2005). Managing external information in manufacturing firms: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 251-266. doi: 10.1111/jpim.2005.22.issue-3 URL
[73]	Goodrick E., & Reay T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372-416. doi: 10.1177/0730888411406824 URL
[74]	Helfat C. E. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell Publishing.
[75]	Issac A. C., Bednall T. C., Baral R., Magliocca P., & Dhir A. (2023). The effects of expert power and referent power on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 383-403. doi: 10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0750 URL
[76]	Jaworski B. J., & Kohli A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. doi: 10.1177/002224299305700304 URL
[77]	Kaur V. (2023). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities: A scientometric analysis of marriage between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(4), 919-952. doi: 10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0112 URL
[78]	Kemeny M. E., Gruenewald T. L., & Dickerson S. S. (2004). Shame as the emotional response to threat to the social self: Implications for behavior, physiology, and health. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 153-160.
[79]	Kogut B., & Zander U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 URL
[80]	Kohli A. K., & Jaworski B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1-18.
[81]	Lamont M., & Molnár V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195. doi: 10.1146/soc.2002.28.issue-1 URL
[82]	Larson M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Oakland: University of California Press.
[83]	Laursen K., Masciarelli F., & Prencipe A. (2012). Regions matter: How localized social capital affects innovation and external knowledge acquisition. Organization Science, 23(1), 177-193. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0650 URL
[84]	Lee C., Lee K., & Pennings J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 615-640. doi: 10.1002/smj.v22:6/7 URL
[85]	Liebeskind J. P., Oliver A. L., Zucker L., & Brewer M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428-443. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.4.428 URL
[86]	Lifshitz-Assaf H. (2017). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746-782. doi: 10.1177/0001839217747876 URL
[87]	Lockett A., Currie G., Finn R., Martin G., & Waring J. (2014). The influence of social position on sensemaking about organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1102-1129. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0055 URL
[88]	Martin G. P., Currie G., & Finn R. (2009). Reconfiguring or reproducing intra-professional boundaries? Specialist expertise, generalist knowledge and the ‘modernization’ of the medical workforce. Social Science & Medicine, 68(7), 1191-1198. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.006 URL
[89]	Maslow A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346 URL
[90]	McClelland D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence”. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1037/h0034092 pmid: 4684069
[91]	Mirabile R. J. (1997). Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training and Development, 23, 30-33.
[92]	Nelson A. J., & Irwin J. (2014). “Defining what we do—All over again”: Occupational identity, technological change, and the librarian/internet-search relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 892-928. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0201 URL
[93]	Nigam A., & Dokko G. (2019). Career resourcing and the process of professional emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1052-1084. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0038
[94]	Peng H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398-415. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380 URL
[95]	Phelps C., Heidl R., & Wadhwa A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115-1166. doi: 10.1177/0149206311432640 URL
[96]	Polidoro Jr F. (2013). The competitive implications of certifications: The effects of scientific and regulatory certifications on entries into new technical fields. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 597-627. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0459 URL
[97]	Prieto I. M., Revilla E., & Rodríguez-Prado B. (2009). Building dynamic capabilities in product development: How do contextual antecedents matter? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(3), 313-326. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2009.05.005 URL
[98]	Quintas P., Lefrere P., & Jones G. (1997). Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90252-1 URL
[99]	Schilling M. A., & Phelps C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113-1126. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624 URL
[100]	Shrauger J. S., & Schohn M. (1995). Self-confidence in college students: Conceptualization, measurement, and behavioral implications. Assessment, 2(3), 255-278. doi: 10.1177/1073191195002003006 URL
[101]	Spencer L. M., & Spencer P. S. M. (2008). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. John Wiley & Sons.
[102]	Staw B. M., Sandelands L. E., & Dutton J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501-524. doi: 10.2307/2392337 URL
[103]	Swann W. B., Jr., & Read S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351-372. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3 URL
[104]	Teece D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. doi: 10.1002/smj.v28:13 URL
[105]	Teece D. J., & Pisano G. P. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537-556.
[106]	Ten Brummelhuis L. L., & Bakker A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545-556. doi: 10.1037/a0027974 pmid: 22506688
[107]	Todorova G., & Durisin B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774-786. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275513 URL
[108]	Tripsas M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119-142. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 URL
[109]	Tushman M. L., & Anderson P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465. doi: 10.2307/2392832 URL
[110]	Velu C. (2015). Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems. AMS Review, 5(3-4), 123-141. doi: 10.1007/s13162-015-0068-6 URL
[111]	Wang S., & Noe R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 URL
[112]	Waring J., & Currie G. (2009). Managing expert knowledge: Organizational challenges and managerial futures for the UK medical profession. Organization Studies, 30(7), 755-778. doi: 10.1177/0170840609104819 URL
[113]	Ye J., Hao B., & Patel P. C. (2016). Orchestrating heterogeneous knowledge: The effects of internal and external knowledge heterogeneity on innovation performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(2), 165-176. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2016.2541863 URL
[114]	Zan A., Yao Y., & Chen H. (2024). Knowledge search and firm innovation: The roles of knowledge inertia and knowledge integration capability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(6), 1150-1165.
[115]	Zhang R., Wang J., & Hao J. X. (2020). How does knowledge heterogeneity affect transactive memory system in innovation? Evidence from a field study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1965-1985. doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0008 URL
[116]	Zhang S., & Wang W. (2012). Inter-firm networks, organizational learning and knowledge updating: An empirical study. Physics Procedia, 24, 1238-1242. doi: 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.02.185 URL
[117]	Zollo M., & Winter S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780 URL

概念	驱动方式	本质特征	变革方式	主要价值目标
知识重构	主动规划	优化现有知识结构	适应性重组	提升效率与抗风险力
知识更新	主动学习	渐进式迭代旧知识	延续性迭代	维持竞争力
知识创新	主动创造	创造全新知识	突破性跃迁	拓展认知边界
知识颠覆	被动冲击	破坏性替代专业知识	系统性失效	被动适应新变化

概念	驱动方式	本质特征	变革方式	主要价值目标
知识重构	主动规划	优化现有知识结构	适应性重组	提升效率与抗风险力
知识更新	主动学习	渐进式迭代旧知识	延续性迭代	维持竞争力
知识创新	主动创造	创造全新知识	突破性跃迁	拓展认知边界
知识颠覆	被动冲击	破坏性替代专业知识	系统性失效	被动适应新变化

维度类型	范围	知识关系	威胁路径	知识类型
跨界知识颠覆	跨界领域拓展	互补	边缘	多样性
专业知识颠覆	专业领域深化	替代	核心	异质性

维度类型	范围	知识关系	威胁路径	知识类型
跨界知识颠覆	跨界领域拓展	互补	边缘	多样性
专业知识颠覆	专业领域深化	替代	核心	异质性