团队反思训练对团队双元发展的影响及机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00311

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文基于“差异化−整合化”框架, 探讨团队反思训练对团队双元增长的影响(研究1)以及元知识共享与观点采择的中介作用(研究2)。本研究通过对360名新大学生组成的90个课程团队、进行为期3个月(研究1)和656名员工组成的74个创新团队、进行为期1年的追踪调查(研究2), 分别构建潜变量增长模型和潜在差分模型对数据进行分析。结果发现：(1)团队反思训练正向影响团队双元增长趋势; (2)元知识共享与观点采择中介了团队反思训练对团队双元增长趋势的正向影响, 即当团队接受反思训练后, 团队元知识共享与观点采择水平提高, 进而使团队双元水平上升。研究支持团队反思在促进团队适应能力、提高双元水平的观点, 并在此基础上进一步细化其内在机制。同时, 研究对揭示团队双元的动态性与提升复杂性具有积极作用。

关键词: 团队双元, 团队反思训练, 元知识共享, 观点采择, “差异化?整合化”框架

Abstract:

Performing explorative and exploitative behaviors simultaneously is a key means for teams to quickly adapt to environmental and task changes. How to improve team ambidexterity is an important topic of concern in theoretical and management practice. Although scholars have conducted preliminary analyses on the antecedents of team ambidexterity, conclusions at the between-team level can only be used to identify ambidextrous teams but not to answer the question of how to cultivate team ambidexterity. Based on the “differentiation-integration” framework, this study argues that the realization of team ambidexterity requires team members to obtain and process different types of information. Open collective reflexivity activities provide a rich source of information for teams. However, reflexivity activities are highly complex and resource-consuming, and companies need to use reflexivity interventions (e.g., team reflexivity training) to guide teams to engage in reflexivity activities on their own initiative. The team information processing model states that teams enhance team effectiveness and adaptability through two paths of information sharing and integration. Based on the above deduction, this study suggests that meta-knowledge sharing and perspective picking are the key cognitive mechanisms through which team reflexivity training positively influences team ambidexterity development.

We test our theoretical propositions in an experimental study and a quasiexperimental study. In Study 1, we conducted a course experiment with students and seven wave measurement waves over 4 months, resulting in 630 observations from 90 teams. We invited 360 undergraduates majoring in economics or management from a university in southern China. We randomly and equally assigned 360 college students into 90 teams and then divided the teams into experimental and control groups. We gave the experimental group team reflexivity training and assisted them with reflexivity activities in subsequent sessions, while the control group was given team building training to avoid a placebo effect. We measured team ambidexterity at all seven measurement waves and team reflexivity after and before intervention using established scales and items. Conditional latent growth modeling was applied to test the slope difference of the team ambidexterity trend between the experimental and control groups. To investigate the theoretical hypotheses in Study 2, we further conducted a quasiexperimental study, which took one year and involved three measurement waves; the study resulted in 222 observations from 74 teams. We invited a total of 656 employees from R&D teams in 26 companies engaged in high-tech industries related to information technology, precision instruments, and biopharmaceuticals in a southern Chinese province in this study. Seventy-four R&D teams were randomly and equally divided into experimental and control groups. We gave the experimental group team reflexivity training in the first month and required them to conduct a formal reflexivity activity at a regular time each week (or two weeks) thereafter. We measured team ambidexterity in the first and second measurement waves and meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking in the second and third measurement waves. To account for the mediating effect of meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking between team reflexivity training and team ambidexterity development, latent change score modeling was applied.

The statistical analyses supported our hypotheses. The results of Study 1 showed that teams that did not participate in team reflexivity training showed a nonsignificant downward trend in team duality; in contrast, teams that participated in reflexivity training showed a significant upward trend in team ambidexterity. Based on this, for Study 2, we further analyzed the mediating role of meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking and improved the external validity of the Study 1 finding with a quasiexperimental research design. It was found that teams' meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking improved after participating in reflexivity training, which led to an increase in team ambidexterity.

By increasing our understanding of how to improve team ambidexterity and the key information cognitive mechanisms of it, our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, this study provides rich empirical evidence for ambidexterity research by confirming the role of team reflexivity training in sustainably enhancing team ambidexterity. The findings support the consistent view of team reflexivity training research that it is effective in enhancing team adaptability as a management intervention. At the same time, this study bridges the gap regarding how to help teams build the capacity to perform ambidextrous behaviors, responding to the call for research on “exploring how to guide paradoxical coping into a beneficial developmental process”. Second, based on the “differentiation-integration” framework and the team information processing model, this study infers and confirms that team meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking are important cognitive processes that influence the development of team ambidexterity through team reflexivity training. The findings are not only consistent with the view that “information exchange and adoption among team members is necessary for team ambidexterity” but also expand ambidexterity research from a cognitive perspective. Meanwhile, the findings enrich the narrow research on the team information processing model in enhancing team adaptability and flexibility and reaffirm the fundamental role of efficient information processing in determining team effectiveness. Third, this study introduces the element of time in the empirical study of team ambidexterity for the first time, deepening the understanding of the nature of ambidexterity dynamics. The results found that team ambidexterity was unable to show positive trends over time, which is consistent with the expected negative self-reinforcing effect. This suggests that our team members are not willing to consistently adopt complex behavioral patterns such as ambidexterity for work but instead prefer specific activities due to behavioral inertia.

Our findings also offer empirical evidence that companies need to provide reflexivity courses for their teams to help members acquire and develop good work rethinking habits. At the same time, supervisors can activate and optimize the team information processing process by developing corresponding systems (e.g., a set time and frequency), providing necessary support (e.g., venue and accompanying guidance), and building a good team climate to continuously improve team ambidexterity.

Key words: Team ambidexterity, team reflexivity training, meta-knowledge sharing, perspective taking, differentiation- integration framework

中图分类号:

B849: C93

李其容, 李春萱. (2024). 团队反思训练对团队双元发展的影响及机制. 心理学报, 56(3), 311-325.

LI Cirong, LI Chunxuan. (2024). The influence mechanism of team reflexivity training on team ambidexterity development. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(3), 311-325.

图/表 12

参考文献 48

[1]	Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1146/psych.2001.52.issue-1 URL
[2]	Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0426 URL
[3]	Chen, J., Bamberger, P. A., Song, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). The effects of team reflexivity on psychological well-being in manufacturing teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 443-462. doi: 10.1037/apl0000279 pmid: 29239644
[4]	Chen, X. W., Cui, X., & Yu, G. L. (2015). How team cognitive diversity influences team creativity: A moderated mediation model. Science and Technology Management Research, 35(19), 112-118.
	[ 陈星汶, 崔勋, 于桂兰. (2015). 团队认知多样性如何影响团队创造力: 一个有调节的中介模型. 科技管理研究, 35(19), 112-118.]
[5]	Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 URL
[6]	Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761-773. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275511 URL
[7]	Dean, B. P. (2022). Developing and leading ambidextrous teams: A Team-Centric framework of ambidexterity in volatile environments. Journal of Change Management, 22(2), 120-146. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2021.2013297 URL
[8]	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. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1029 URL
[9]	Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 67-72. doi: 10.1177/0963721413504106 URL
[10]	Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Nägele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 127-142. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.002 URL
[11]	Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989-1008. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.54533180 URL
[12]	Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2017). Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43(3), 919-945. doi: 10.1177/0149206314545652 URL
[13]	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 pmid: 22774764
[14]	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. doi: 10.1111/joms.2016.53.issue-6 URL
[15]	Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V. A. S., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0015 URL
[16]	Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 403-432. doi: 10.1177/0170840616640844 URL
[17]	Konradt, U., Otte, K.-P., Schippers, M. C., & Steenfatt, C. (2016). Reflexivity in teams: A review and new perspectives. Journal of Psychology, 150(2), 153-174. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977 pmid: 26457836
[18]	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.
[19]	Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333-375.
[20]	Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159-178. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.005 URL
[21]	Li, C. R. (2016). The role of top-team diversity and perspective taking in mastering organizational ambidexterity. Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 769-794. doi: 10.1017/mor.2015.54 URL
[22]	Li, C.-R., Li, C.-X., Lin, C.-J., & Liu, J. (2018). The influence of team reflexivity and shared meta-knowledge on the curvilinear relationship between team diversity and team ambidexterity. Management Decision, 56(5), 1033-1050. doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0522 URL
[23]	Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449-470. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1189 URL
[24]	Lv, J., & Zhang, G. (2013). The emergence of team cognition: Based on the perspective of collective information processing. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(12), 2214-2223. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.02214
	[ 吕洁, 张钢. (2013). 团队认知的涌现: 基于集体信息加工的视角. 心理科学进展, 21(12), 2214-2223.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.02214
[25]	Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376. doi: 10.2307/259182 URL
[26]	Mcardle, J. J., & Grimm, K. J. (2010). Five steps in latent curve and latent change score modeling with longitudinal data. In MKees van, H. L. OudJohan & S. Albert (Eds.), Longitudinal research with latent variables (pp. 245-273). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[27]	Myers, C. G. (2018). Coactive vicarious learning: Toward a relational theory of vicarious learning in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 610-634. doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0202 URL
[28]	Nijstad, B. A., & de Dreu, C. K. (2012). Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 87-111. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.004 URL
[29]	Olabisi, J., & Lewis, K. (2018). Within-and between-team coordination via transactive memory systems and boundary spanning. Group & Organization Management, 43(5), 691-717.
[30]	O’Reilly, III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 185-206. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 URL
[31]	Pang, D. L., Xu, L. G., & Xi, Y. M. (2017). Paradox management: Origins of thoughts, characteristic implications, and future perspectives. Chinese Journal of Management, 14(2), 168-175.
	[ 庞大龙, 徐立国, 席酉民. (2017). 悖论管理的思想溯源、特征启示与未来前景. 管理学报, 14(2), 168-175.]
[32]	Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1085-1100. doi: 10.2307/3069390 URL
[33]	Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985-2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 189-229. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2011.590300 URL
[34]	Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282-1290. doi: 10.1037/a0029359 pmid: 22800186
[35]	Rong, P., Li, C., & Xie, J. (2019). Learning, trust, and creativity in top management teams: Team reflexivity as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(5), 1-14.
[36]	Salas-Vallina, A., Pozo-Hidalgo, M., & Monte, P. G. (2020). High involvement work systems, happiness at work (HAW) and absorptive capacity: A bathtub study. Employee Relations, 42(4), 949-970. doi: 10.1108/ER-09-2019-0366 URL
[37]	Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61(11), 1593-1616. doi: 10.1177/0018726708096639 URL
[38]	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
[39]	Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2018). Team reflexivity. In LArgote, &J. M. Levine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp. 1-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[40]	Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655-671. doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9462-9 URL
[41]	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
[42]	Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. pmid: 23516804
[43]	van Neerijnen, P., Tempelaar, M. P., & van de Vrande, V. (2022). Embracing Paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies, 43(11), 1793-1814. doi: 10.1177/01708406211058640 URL
[44]	Wang, Z., Cui, T., & Cai, S. (2022). How and when team reflexivity influences employee innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(1), 61-75. doi: 10.1108/JMP-11-2020-0590 URL
[45]	Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3), 319-339. doi: 10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319 URL
[46]	West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness:A conceptual integration. In M. A.West (Ed.), The handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555-579). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[47]	Wu, Y., Xia, Z. H., Hu, Y. S., Xie, K., & Wang, Q. (2022). Developing dynamic capability of "Harmony in Diversity" with digital technology: A longitudinal case study of SOFIA and its dealers from 2011 to 2020. Journal of Management World, 38(1), 144-163+206+164.
	[ 吴瑶, 夏正豪, 胡杨颂, 谢康, 王茜. (2022) 基于数字化技术共建“和而不同”动态能力——2011-2020年索菲亚与经销商的纵向案例研究. 管理世界, 38(1), 144-163+206+ 164.]
[48]	Zhao, K., & Xiang, S. T. (2021). How to reconcile team innovation paradox? An explorative study from the perspectives of members’ cognitive style “composition” and “configuration”. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(1), 1-18. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00001
	[ 赵锴, 向姝婷. (2021). 如何解决团队创新悖论?基于成员认知风格“组型”与“构型”视角的探究. 心理科学进展, 29(1), 1-18.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00001

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI
M1: 形态等值	340.27	238	0.97	0.95	0.07	0.05
M2: 弱等值性	388.61	286	0.97	0.96	0.06	0.07	48.34	48	0.46	<0.001
M3: 强等值性	443.02	334	0.96	0.97	0.06	0.07	54.41	48	0.24	0.002
M4: 严格等值	495.15	394	0.97	0.97	0.05	0.08	52.12	60	0.76	0.002

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI
M1: 形态等值	340.27	238	0.97	0.95	0.07	0.05
M2: 弱等值性	388.61	286	0.97	0.96	0.06	0.07	48.34	48	0.46	<0.001
M3: 强等值性	443.02	334	0.96	0.97	0.06	0.07	54.41	48	0.24	0.002
M4: 严格等值	495.15	394	0.97	0.97	0.05	0.08	52.12	60	0.76	0.002

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 团队双元T0	—
2. 团队双元T1	0.38^***	—
3. 团队双元T2	0.35^***	0.68^***	—
4. 团队双元T3	0.26^***	0.37^***	0.49^***	—
5. 团队双元T4	0.43^***	0.27^***	0.30^***	0.57^***	—
6. 团队双元T5	0.24^***	0.27^***	0.36^***	0.41^***	0.48^***	—
7. 团队双元T6	0.09	0.11	0.28^***	0.41^***	0.40^***	0.69^***	—
8. 团队反思T1	−0.03	0.07	0.02	0.02	−0.08	−0.11	−0.08	—
9. 团队反思T2	−0.07	−0.04	0.04	0.10	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.39^***	—
M	9.18	9.17	9.10	9.16	9.17	9.11	9.13	4.67	4.79
SD	0.91	0.96	0.90	0.89	0.94	1.08	0.96	0.56	0.56

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 团队双元T0	—
2. 团队双元T1	0.38^***	—
3. 团队双元T2	0.35^***	0.68^***	—
4. 团队双元T3	0.26^***	0.37^***	0.49^***	—
5. 团队双元T4	0.43^***	0.27^***	0.30^***	0.57^***	—
6. 团队双元T5	0.24^***	0.27^***	0.36^***	0.41^***	0.48^***	—
7. 团队双元T6	0.09	0.11	0.28^***	0.41^***	0.40^***	0.69^***	—
8. 团队反思T1	−0.03	0.07	0.02	0.02	−0.08	−0.11	−0.08	—
9. 团队反思T2	−0.07	−0.04	0.04	0.10	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.39^***	—
M	9.18	9.17	9.10	9.16	9.17	9.11	9.13	4.67	4.79
SD	0.91	0.96	0.90	0.89	0.94	1.08	0.96	0.56	0.56

组别/模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	Δχ²(Δdf)	p
M1: 无增长模型	77.22	19	0.70	0.77	0.19	0.12	—	—
M2: 线性增长模型	25.30	16	0.95	0.96	0.08	0.07	45.54(3)	<0.001
M3: 二次曲线增长模型	19.39	12	0.96	0.95	0.08	0.06	5.39(4)	0.25