How to reconcile team innovation paradox? An explorative study from the perspectives of members’ cognitive style “composition” and “configuration”

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00001

Abstract

Abstract:

In recent years, “How to improve team innovative performance?” is a popular topic in both management practice and academia fields. Because innovation is an ambidextrous activity including both “exploration” and “exploitation”, understanding how to balance the paradoxical relationship between them is crucial to improve team innovative performance. Based on a micro-perspective of team members’ cognitive styles, “compositional approach” and “configurational approach” were adopted to explore how to reconcile this kind of paradox. Specifically, (1) the complementary effects between members’ cognitive composition and team leader behaviors will contribute to the reconciliation of team innovation paradox; (2) an appropriate “members’ cognitive styles-work role requirements” configuration incorporated with a high level of team coordination climate will be useful to reconcile team innovation paradox. Further, based on the ideology of yin-yang philosophy, the mechanism embedded in the process of reconciling team innovation paradox was also studied. To justify the relevant theoretical propositions, three sub-projects will be conducted to examine the proposed research model with both quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings will not only enrich two streams of literature regarding exploration of the antecedents of team innovation and the approaches to management paradox from a micro perspective, but also provide suggestions on the innovation management practices of companies.

Key words: innovation paradox, team ambidexterity, cognitive style, team composition, team configuration

CLC Number:

B849:C93

ZHAO Kai, XIANG Shuting. How to reconcile team innovation paradox? An explorative study from the perspectives of members’ cognitive style “composition” and “configuration”[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(1): 1-18.

Figures/Tables 6

References 108

[1]	李树祥, 梁巧转, 杨柳青. (2012). 团队认知多样性:和团队沟通对团队创造力的影响研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 33(12), 153-159.
[2]	李艳, 杨百寅. (2016). 创意实施——创新研究未来走向. 心理科学进展, 24(4), 643-653. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00643 URL
[3]	刘惠琴. (2008). 团队异质性、规模、阶段与类型对学科团队创新绩效的影响研究. 清华大学教育研究, 29(4), 83-90.
[4]	罗瑾琏, 管建世, 钟竞, 赵莉. (2017). 基于团队双元行为中介作用的双元领导与团队创新绩效关系研究. 管理学报, 14(6), 814-822.
[5]	罗瑾琏, 王亚斌, 钟竞. (2010). 员工认知方式与创新行为关系研究——以员工心理创新氛围为中介变量. 研究与发展管理, 22(2), 1-8.
[6]	沈灏, 李垣, 蔡昊雯. (2008). 双元型组织对创新的影响及其构建路径分析. 科学学与科学技术管理, 29(9), 103-107.
[7]	汤超颖, 朱月利, 商继美. (2011). 变革型领导、团队文化与科研团队创造力的关系. 科学学研究, 29(2), 275-282.
[8]	王黎萤, 陈劲. (2010). 国内外团队创造力研究述评. 研究与发展管理, 22(4), 62-68.
[9]	王艳子, 罗瑾琏, 史江涛. (2014). 任务互依性对团队创造力影响机理研究. 科技进步与对策, 31(24), 146-150.
[10]	吴忠泽. (2006). 大力推动企业自主创新加快建设创新型国家. 中国软科学, (5), 1-4.
[11]	杨付, 张丽华. (2012). 团队成员认知风格对创新行为的影响:团队心理安全感和工作单位结构的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 15(5), 13-25.
[12]	张玉利, 李乾文. (2006). 双元型组织研究评介. 外国经济与管理, 28(1), 1-8.
[13]	赵锴, 杨百寅, 李全. (2016). 战略领导力、双元性学习与组织创新:一个理论模型的探析. 科学学与科学技术管理, 37(3), 168-180.
[14]	郑晓明, 丁玲, 欧阳桃花. (2012). 双元能力促进企业服务敏捷性——海底捞公司发展历程案例研究. 管理世界, (2), 131-147.
[15]	Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
[16]	Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
[17]	Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173.
[18]	Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
[19]	Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235-258. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[20]	Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595-615.
[21]	Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x URL
[22]	Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.
[23]	Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
[24]	Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822-834.
[25]	Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
[26]	Carnabuci, G., & Diószegi, B. (2015). Social networks, cognitive style, and innovative performance: A contingency perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 881-905.
[27]	Chen, C. C., Zhang, A. Y., & Wang, H. (2014). Enhancing the effects of power sharing on psychological empowerment: The roles of management control and power distance orientation. Management and Organization Review, 10(1), 135-156. doi: 10.1111/more.12032 URL
[28]	Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2010). West meets East: Toward an ambicultural approach to management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 17-24.
[29]	Chen, X. P., He, W., & Weng, L. C. (2018). What is wrong with treating followers differently? The basis of leader-member exchange differentiation matters. Journal of Management, 44(3), 946-971.
[30]	Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D. S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 107-124.
[31]	Couger, J. D. (1995). Creative problem solving and opportunity finding. Danvers: Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company.
[32]	Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32-48.
[33]	Dane, E., Baer, M., Pratt, M. G., & Oldham, G. R. (2011). Rational versus intuitive problem solving: How thinking “off the beaten path” can stimulate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 3-12.
[34]	Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Colak, M. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management, 39(1), 21-37.
[35]	De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107.
[36]	De Dreu, C. K., Koole, S. L., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 975-987. URL pmid: 11138766
[37]	Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433.
[38]	Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
[39]	Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51-100.
[40]	Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.
[41]	Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.
[42]	Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[43]	Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775-819.
[44]	Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
[45]	Giglioni, G. B., & Bedeian, A. G. (1974). A conspectus of management control theory: 1900-1972. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 292-305.
[46]	Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-470.
[47]	Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.004 URL
[48]	Gong, Y., 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.
[49]	Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.
[50]	He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
[51]	Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 659-671.
[52]	Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. doi: 10.1037/a0015978 URL
[53]	Jabri, M. M. (1991). The development of conceptually independent subscales in the measurement of modes of problem solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4), 975-983.
[54]	Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
[55]	Jansen, J. J., Kostopoulos, K. C., Mihalache, O. R., & Papalexandris, A. (2016). A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 939-965.
[56]	Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 475-498.
[57]	Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616.
[58]	Jing, R., & Van de, Ven, A., H. (2014). A yin-yang model of organizational change: The case of Chengdu Bus Group. Management and Organization Review, 10(1), 29-54.
[59]	Kaufmann, G., & Vosburg, S. K. (1997). “Paradoxical” mood effects on creative problem solving. Cognition & Emotion, 11(2), 151-170.
[60]	Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 547-555.
[61]	Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
[62]	Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 385-415.
[63]	Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464-481. URL pmid: 17469987
[64]	Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
[65]	Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.
[66]	Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
[67]	Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-604. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587 URL
[68]	Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
[69]	Li, P. P. (2014). The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 321-332.
[70]	Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
[71]	March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
[72]	Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130-160. doi: 10.1177/0149206313503014 URL
[73]	Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
[74]	Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195.
[75]	Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740-760.
[76]	Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
[77]	Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931. doi: 10.1111/joms.2007.44.issue-6 URL
[78]	Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277.
[79]	Ostroff, C. (2012). Person-environment fit in organizations. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational psychology (pp.373-408). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[80]	Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation-efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9), 1791-1822.
[81]	Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259-278.
[82]	Pretz, J. E., & Totz, K. S. (2007). Measuring individual differences in affective, heuristic, and holistic intuition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1247-1257. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.015 URL
[83]	Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 URL
[84]	Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 141-157. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008 URL
[85]	Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1086-1110.
[86]	Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.
[87]	Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769-788. doi: 10.1177/0149206312441210 URL
[88]	Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
[89]	Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.
[90]	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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 URL
[91]	Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650-669.
[92]	Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0134 URL
[93]	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.
[94]	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.
[95]	Somech, A., & Khalaili, A. (2014). Team boundary activity: Its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 274-299.
[96]	Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. (2007). Group risk taking: The constructive role of controversy in China. Group & Organization Management, 32(6), 653-674.
[97]	Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 540-559.
[98]	Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, III, C., A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29.
[99]	Van de, Ven, A., H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
[100]	Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203-224.
[101]	Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: Freeman.
[102]	West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
[103]	West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680-693.
[104]	West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 393-410. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00044-4 URL
[105]	Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.3997517 URL
[106]	Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0995 URL
[107]	Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333-359.
[108]	Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. New York: Erlbaum.

研究视角	主要变量及其影响效果	典型研究案例
团队结构	目标/任务相互依赖性(正向); 团队规模(正向); 团队年龄(正向)	Gilson和Shalley (2004); Tjosvold等(2004); West和Anderson (1996); 王艳子等(2014)
团队组型	职能多样性(混合); 专长多样性(正向); 认知风格组型(混合)	Miron-Spektor等(2011); Shin和Zhou (2007); Somech和Drach-Zahavy (2013)
团队领导	变革型领导(混合); 交易型领导(混合); 初始结构设定(正向)	Boerner等(2007); Eisenbeiss等(2008); Jaussi和Dionne (2003); 汤超颖等(2011)
团队氛围	反思氛围(正向); 参与安全感(正向); 创新支持(正向); 共同愿景(正向); 冲突氛围(混合)	Gilson和Shalley (2004); Jansen等(2008); Pearce和Ensley (2004)
团队过程	信息交换(正向); 团队参与(正向); 即性创作(正向); 冲突管理(正向); 沟通(正向); 团队反思(正向); 团队边界活动(正向)	De Dreu (2006); Keller (2001); Schippers等(2015); Somech和Khalaili (2014); Vera和Crossan (2005); West等(2003)
交互效应	创新人格特质与从众压力(混合); 职能异质性与领导风格(混合); 目标导向与对领导的信任(混合)	Goncalo和Duguid (2012); Gong等(2013); Somech (2006)

研究视角	主要变量及其影响效果	典型研究案例
团队结构	目标/任务相互依赖性(正向); 团队规模(正向); 团队年龄(正向)	Gilson和Shalley (2004); Tjosvold等(2004); West和Anderson (1996); 王艳子等(2014)
团队组型	职能多样性(混合); 专长多样性(正向); 认知风格组型(混合)	Miron-Spektor等(2011); Shin和Zhou (2007); Somech和Drach-Zahavy (2013)
团队领导	变革型领导(混合); 交易型领导(混合); 初始结构设定(正向)	Boerner等(2007); Eisenbeiss等(2008); Jaussi和Dionne (2003); 汤超颖等(2011)
团队氛围	反思氛围(正向); 参与安全感(正向); 创新支持(正向); 共同愿景(正向); 冲突氛围(混合)	Gilson和Shalley (2004); Jansen等(2008); Pearce和Ensley (2004)
团队过程	信息交换(正向); 团队参与(正向); 即性创作(正向); 冲突管理(正向); 沟通(正向); 团队反思(正向); 团队边界活动(正向)	De Dreu (2006); Keller (2001); Schippers等(2015); Somech和Khalaili (2014); Vera和Crossan (2005); West等(2003)
交互效应	创新人格特质与从众压力(混合); 职能异质性与领导风格(混合); 目标导向与对领导的信任(混合)	Goncalo和Duguid (2012); Gong等(2013); Somech (2006)

比较项目	结构双元性	时间区隔双元性	情境双元性
悖论协调方式	设置不同的单元, 分别从事探索型/利用型活动的一种	在不同的时间段, 分别完成探索型/利用型活动的一种	依靠成员的认知能力同时协调探索型/利用型活动
创新任务特征	任务易于拆分为不同模块	任务可依据时间节点来分割	任务整体性强, 难以分割
领导行为要求	设置组织结构, 针对不同的单元采用不同的领导方式	根据创新任务的周期性安排, 调整自身的领导方式	营造能够让个体同时发挥双元能力的工作情境
工作角色要求	角色清晰, 任务明确	角色清晰, 但会随着时间发生变化	角色模糊, 相对灵活
员工认知能力	稳定的认知能力, 善于探索型/利用型活动的一种即可	柔性的认知能力, 可随着任务性质的改变而变化	同时兼顾探索型活动与利用型活动的认知能力

比较项目	结构双元性	时间区隔双元性	情境双元性
悖论协调方式	设置不同的单元, 分别从事探索型/利用型活动的一种	在不同的时间段, 分别完成探索型/利用型活动的一种	依靠成员的认知能力同时协调探索型/利用型活动
创新任务特征	任务易于拆分为不同模块	任务可依据时间节点来分割	任务整体性强, 难以分割
领导行为要求	设置组织结构, 针对不同的单元采用不同的领导方式	根据创新任务的周期性安排, 调整自身的领导方式	营造能够让个体同时发挥双元能力的工作情境
工作角色要求	角色清晰, 任务明确	角色清晰, 但会随着时间发生变化	角色模糊, 相对灵活
员工认知能力	稳定的认知能力, 善于探索型/利用型活动的一种即可	柔性的认知能力, 可随着任务性质的改变而变化	同时兼顾探索型活动与利用型活动的认知能力