集体心理所有权、地位晋升标准与团队创造力

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00677

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于动机性信息加工理论, 本文首次实证探讨了集体心理所有权对团队创造力的影响机制。一项来自国内企业91个工作团队数据的统计分析发现, 集体心理所有权正向影响团队创造力; 信息深加工中介集体心理所有权与团队创造力的关系; 地位晋升标准显著性调节集体心理所有权与信息深加工之间的关系, 其中刻度型晋升标准增强集体心理所有权对信息深加工的正向影响, 而竞赛型晋升标准则减弱集体心理所有权对信息深加工的正向影响。

关键词: 集体心理所有权, 信息深加工, 团队创造力, 地位晋升标准, 动机性信息加工

Abstract:

Collective psychological ownership has been studies as the latest issue in the field of psychology. Existing studies have not yet explored the mechanism of how collective psychological ownership affects team creativity. This study aims to address the above gaps by examining whether, when and how Collective psychological ownership has impacted on team creativity. Based on the Motived Information Processing in Group Model, this paper first empirically explores the mechanism of collective psychological ownership on team creativity. This study theorizes that collective psychological ownership could affect information elaboration, and in turn enhanced team creativity. At the same time, criteria for status promotion would moderated the positive relationship that collective psychological ownership affects team creativity through information elaboration.

In order to test our hypothesized model, we invited 101 Knowledge-based team leaders and their 800 subordinates who came from 16 big companies located in Wuhan, Zhengzhou and Guangzhou to participate in this research survey. In the end, we got 91 leader-followers dyads. As for scale to measure criteria for status promotion, we learned from Liu et al. (2013) measurement method of how to measure criteria for status promotion. Also, we adopte two items which are Adapted from the scale of Pierce et al (2004) to measure collective psychological ownership, as well as other measurements were well-established scales. Confirmatory factor analyses showed satisfactory model fit indices. Inter-rated agreement (Rwg) and intra-class correlation (ICC) value justified the aggregation of team information elaboration, Collective psychological ownership, Relationship conflict, Team Learning Behavior and Team Creativity.

A hierarchical regression analysis method is adopted to test the hypothesized model. Results showed that collective psychology ownership has a positive impact on team creativity, and information elaboration mediates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and team creativity. Criteria for status promotion moderates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and information elaboration. However, criteria for status promotion does not significantly moderates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and team creativity through information elaboration.

The present research makes some contributions to the Existing literature. First, by examining the positive effect of Collective psychological ownership on team creativity, this research proves the effectiveness of Collective psychological ownership beyond past literatures. Second, this study indicates the mediating role of information elaboration as well as its boundary conditions. For the practical implications, this research suggests that strengthening awareness of collective psychological ownership is conducive to the promotion of information elaboration and team creativity, also leaders should realize that criteria for status promotion will lead to different levels of competition, which impacts the relationship between collective psychological ownership and information elaboration.

Key words: collective psychological ownership, information elaboration, team creativity, status conferral criteria, motived information processing

中图分类号:

B849: C93

卫利华, 刘智强, 廖书迪, 龙立荣, 廖建桥. (2019). 集体心理所有权、地位晋升标准与团队创造力. 心理学报, 51(6), 677-687.

WEI Lihua, LIU Zhiqiang, LIAO Shudi, LONG Lirong, LIAO Jianqiao. (2019). Collective psychological ownership, status conferral criteria and team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(6), 677-687.

图/表 9

参考文献 43

[1]	Amabile T. M . ( 1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45( 2), 357-376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 URL
[2]	Amabile T. M . ( 1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
[3]	Aronson E., Wilson T. D., & Akert R. M . ( 2005). Social Psychology (5th edition), Prentice-Hall.
[4]	Baer M., Leenders R., Oldham G. R., & Vadera A. K . ( 2010). Win or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53( 4), 827-845. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.52814611 URL
[5]	Baer M., & Oldham G. R . ( 2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91( 4), 963-970. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963 URL
[6]	Bechtoldt M. N., de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., & Choi H-S . ( 2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 99( 4), 622-37.
[7]	Bendersky C., & Hays N. A . ( 2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 323-340. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0734 URL
[8]	Carnevale P. J. D., & Probst, T. M . ( 1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74( 5), 1300-1309. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300 URL
[9]	Charness G., Masclet D., & Villeval M. C . ( 2014). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60( 1), 38-55. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1747 URL
[10]	Courtright S. H., Thurgood. G. R., Greg L & Pierotti, S. A. J. ., ( 2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100( 6), 1825-1846. doi: 10.1037/apl0000027 URL
[11]	Dawkins S., Tian A. W., Newman A., & Martin A . ( 2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38( 2), 163-183. doi: 10.1002/job.2057 URL
[12]	de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91( 2), 280-295. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00022-0 URL
[13]	de Dreu C. K. W . ( 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 URL
[14]	de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., Bechtoldt M. N., & Baas M . ( 2011). Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5( 1), 81-89. doi: 10.1002/andp.201370051 URL
[15]	de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., & van Knippenberg D . ( 2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12( 1), 22-49. doi: 10.1177/1088868307304092 URL
[16]	Farh J. L., Lee C., & Farh C. I . ( 2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1173-1180. doi: 10.1037/a0020015 URL
[17]	Hair J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black W. C . ( 1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Prentice Hall.
[18]	Hinsz V. B., Tindale R. S., & Vollrath D. A . ( 1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121( 1), 43-64. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 URL
[19]	Hoever I. J., van Knippenberg D., van Ginkel W. P., & Barkema H. G . ( 2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 5), 982-996. doi: 10.1037/a0029159 URL pmid: 22774764
[20]	Homan A. C., van Knippenberg D., van Kleef G. A & de Dreu, C. K. W. .,( 2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 5), 1189-1199. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 URL
[21]	James L. R., Demaree R. G., & Wolf G . ( 1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69( 1), 85-98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 URL
[22]	Jiang J., & Yang B. Y . ( 2016). Perspective taking, task reflexivity and team creativity: The moderating role of leaders’ critical thinking. Nankai Business Review, 19( 6), 27-35.
	[ 江静, 杨百寅 . ( 2016). 换位思考、任务反思与团队创造力:领导批判性思维的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 19( 6), 27-35.]
[23]	Kearney E., Gebert D., & Voelpel S. C . ( 2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 581-598. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41331431 URL
[24]	Koestler A . ( 1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
[25]	Lin X. M., Bai X. W., & Lin L . ( 2014). Effects of similarity and accuracy indices of shared mental models on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46( 11), 1734-1747.
	[ 林晓敏, 白新文, 林琳 . ( 2014). 团队心智模型相似性与正确性对团队创造力的影响, 心理学报, 46( 11), 1734-1747.]
[26]	Liu Z. Q., Deng C. J., Liao J. Q., & Long L. R . ( 2013). Status-striving motivation, criteria for status promotion and employees’ innovative behavior choice. C hina Industrial Economics, 10, 83-95.
	[ 刘智强, 邓传军, 廖建桥, 龙立荣 . ( 2013). 地位竞争动机、地位赋予标准与员工创新行为选择. 中国工业经济, 10, 83-95.]
[27]	Madrid H. P., Totterdell P., Niven K., & Barros E . ( 2016). Leader affective presence and innovation in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 5), 673-686. doi: 10.1037/apl0000078 URL
[28]	Mayhew M. G., Ashkanasy N. M., Bramble T., & Gardner J. A . ( 2007). Study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147( 5), 477-500. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.147.5.477-500 URL
[29]	Ni X. D., Xiang X. X., & Yao C. X . ( 2016). Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 5), 556-565.
	[ 倪旭东, 项小霞, 姚春序 . ( 2016). 团队异质性的平衡性对团队创造力的影响. 心理学报, 48( 5), 556-565. ]
[30]	Peng H., & Pierce J. ,( 2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30( 2), 151-168. doi: 10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0201 URL
[31]	Pierce J. L., & Jussila I. , ( 2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31( 6), 810-834.
[32]	Porath C. L., Overbeck J. R., & Pearson C. M . ( 2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38( 7), 1945-1980.
[33]	Schultz P. W., & Searleman A. , ( 1998). Personal need for structure, the einstellung task, and the effects of stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 24( 3), 305-310. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00179-7 URL
[34]	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
[35]	Stasser G. & Birchmeier, Z. ,( 2003) . Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B.Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85-109). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
[36]	Steenkamp J-B. E. M., & Trijp H. C. M . ( 1991). The use of lisrel in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8( 4), 283-299. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(91)90027-5 URL
[37]	Tett R. P., & Burnett D. D . ( 2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 3), 500-517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 URL
[38]	Tjosvold D .( 1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47( 3), 285-342. doi: 10.1111/apps.1998.47.issue-3 URL
[39]	van der Vegt G. S, & Bunderson J. S . ( 2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48( 3), 532-547. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407918 URL
[40]	van Dyne L., & Pierce J. L . ( 2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organization Behavior, 25( 4), 439-460. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[41]	van Knippenberg D., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan A. C . ( 2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89( 6), 1008-1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008 URL
[42]	Wang S . ( 2015). Emotional intelligence, information elaboration, and performance: The Moderating role of informational diversity. Small Group Research, 46( 3), 324-351. doi: 10.1177/1046496415578010 URL
[43]	Wang X-H., Kim T-Y., & Lee D-R . ( 2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69( 9), 3231-3239. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026 URL

变量	测项	载荷	t值	AVE	CR
关系冲突	我们团队经常引发与工作无关的人际关系紧张	0.77	12.61	0.67	0.86
	在一起工作时, 我们团队成员很容易变得暴躁	0.85	9.09
	我们团队内部经常存在个体之间情绪性的冲突	0.83	10.41
信息深加工	我们团队成员公开地分享他们的知识来互相弥补不足	0.69	13.97	0.57	0.84
	我们团队成员为产生最佳解决方案而仔细考察各个观点	0.75	12.89
	我们团队成员会仔细考虑每个人提供的独特信息	0.77	12.37
	我们团队产生的思想和解决方案比个人提出的好很多	0.80	11.36
团队创造力	我们团队的工作成果具有创新性	0.64	14.06	0.52	0.81
	我们团队做出了很多具有原创性和实用性的工作成果	0.63	14.15
	我们团队的产出表明我们能创造性地应用现有资源和信息	0.84	8.00
	我们团队提出了许多解决问题的创造性解决方案	0.76	11.21
集体心理所有权	团队中的工作是我们成员集体的工作	0.91	2.23	0.70	0.82
集体心理所有权	我们觉得团队中的工作是我们成员集体的	0.75	7.40	0.70	0.82

变量	测项	载荷	t值	AVE	CR
关系冲突	我们团队经常引发与工作无关的人际关系紧张	0.77	12.61	0.67	0.86
	在一起工作时, 我们团队成员很容易变得暴躁	0.85	9.09
	我们团队内部经常存在个体之间情绪性的冲突	0.83	10.41
信息深加工	我们团队成员公开地分享他们的知识来互相弥补不足	0.69	13.97	0.57	0.84
	我们团队成员为产生最佳解决方案而仔细考察各个观点	0.75	12.89
	我们团队成员会仔细考虑每个人提供的独特信息	0.77	12.37
	我们团队产生的思想和解决方案比个人提出的好很多	0.80	11.36
团队创造力	我们团队的工作成果具有创新性	0.64	14.06	0.52	0.81
	我们团队做出了很多具有原创性和实用性的工作成果	0.63	14.15
	我们团队的产出表明我们能创造性地应用现有资源和信息	0.84	8.00
	我们团队提出了许多解决问题的创造性解决方案	0.76	11.21
集体心理所有权	团队中的工作是我们成员集体的工作	0.91	2.23	0.70	0.82
集体心理所有权	我们觉得团队中的工作是我们成员集体的	0.75	7.40	0.70	0.82

测量模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	GFI	CFI	RMSEA
四因素模型 (RC, EI, TC, CPO)	96.40	57	1.69	0.97	0.99	0.04
三因素模型 (RC+CPO, EI, TC)	492.42	60	8.21	0.89	0.86	0.11
三因素模型 (RC, EI+CPO, TC)	420.31	60	7.01	0.91	0.88	0.10
三因素模型 (RC, EI, CPO+TC)	459.40	60	7.66	0.90	0.87	0.11
二因素模型 (CPO+RC+EI, TC)	1083.10	62	17.47	0.77	0.67	0.17
二因素模型 (EI, RC+CPO+TC)	899.64	62	14.51	0.80	0.73	0.15
一因素模型 (RC+CPO+EI+TC)	1556.26	63	24.70	0.69	0.51	0.21

测量模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	GFI	CFI	RMSEA
四因素模型 (RC, EI, TC, CPO)	96.40	57	1.69	0.97	0.99	0.04
三因素模型 (RC+CPO, EI, TC)	492.42	60	8.21	0.89	0.86	0.11
三因素模型 (RC, EI+CPO, TC)	420.31	60	7.01	0.91	0.88	0.10
三因素模型 (RC, EI, CPO+TC)	459.40	60	7.66	0.90	0.87	0.11
二因素模型 (CPO+RC+EI, TC)	1083.10	62	17.47	0.77	0.67	0.17
二因素模型 (EI, RC+CPO+TC)	899.64	62	14.51	0.80	0.73	0.15
一因素模型 (RC+CPO+EI+TC)	1556.26	63	24.70	0.69	0.51	0.21

变量	R_wg中值	R_wg均值	ICC1	ICC2
团队创造力	0.95	0.93	0.17	0.56
关系冲突	0.90	0.87	0.36	0.78
集体心理所有权	0.91	0.86	0.16	0.54
信息深加工	0.92	0.90	0.22	0.64