满招损, 谦受益：团队沟通视角下谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01159

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

谦卑型领导行为是近年来新兴的领导力理论, 团队创造力也一直是学界和实践界关注的焦点, 但是目前缺乏深入探讨二者关系的研究。本文基于团队沟通视角, 研究了谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响机制及其发挥作用的边界条件。对76位团队领导和342位团队成员的匹配数据进行分析后, 结果显示：谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力有积极影响; 团队成员之间横向的深度沟通以及团队成员与团队领导之间纵向的反馈沟通共同中介了这一影响过程; 此外, 团队认知多样性是影响谦卑型领导行为发挥作用的重要边界条件, 在高团队认知多样性的情境中, 谦卑型领导行为通过团队沟通过程对团队创造力的积极影响更加显著。

关键词: 谦卑型领导行为, 深度沟通, 反馈沟通, 团队认知多样性, 团队创造力

Abstract:

The development of a dynamic but uncertain environment has recently prompted leadership scholars to shift their attention from relying on leaders to resolve all problems to that of a considerably humble approach that focuses on stimulating the followers’ intention to serve. The current study follows this stream of research and empirically explores the construct of humble leader behavior, which is defined as spotlighting others’ advantage, acknowledging self-limitations, and modeling teachability. However, the existing understanding on humble leader behavior is incomplete because only a few studies have explored this behavior’s influence on team creativity. The present study discusses the influence mechanism and boundary condition of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a communication perspective. We propose that horizontal communication (e.g., reflective communication among team members) and vertical communication (e.g., feedback communication between team members and team leaders) could mediate the relationship between humble leader behavior and team creativity. We also consider team composition as a boundary condition and suggest that the effect of humble leader humble is moderated by team cognitive diversity.

The research sample included 342 employees and 76 team leaders from 4 large technology companies in China, thereby enabling us to collect multi-source and time-lagged data. At Time 1, the employees evaluated their leaders’ humble behavior and cognitive diversity of their team. After one month, at Time 2, the employees evaluated their reflective communication in teams and feedback communication with team leaders, while the team leader rated the team creativity. We conducted path analysis using Mplus 7.0 to test the theoretical model.

Results showed that humble leader behavior was positively related to team creativity. Such influence was mediated by team reflective communication among team members and feedback communication between team leaders and team members. In addition, team cognitive diversity moderated the positive indirect effect of the humble leader behavior on team creativity via communication processes. That is, when the team cognitive diversity was high, the positive indirect effect was stronger than the condition when the team cognitive diversity was low.

Moreover, results enrich the research on the field of humble behavior by advancing a new influence mechanism and exploring a significant boundary condition of the humble leader behavior. The present study also contributes to the creativity literature by determining the important role of the “bottom-up” leader behavior. This process is realized by the team communication processes, which include reflective communication among team members and feedback communication between team members and team leaders. Furthermore, we extend the understanding of team communication processes by integrating horizontal and vertical communication and providing evidence on its influence on team creativity. We also respond to the appeal to obtain a solution to the increasingly prevalent management issue of diversity management. Our study suggests that humble leader behavior is effective in the management of team cognitive diversity through utilizing the positive effect of team cognitive diversity on team creativity. Overall, the current study has immense theoretical and practical implications.

Key words: leader humble behavior, reflective communication, feedback communication, team cognitive diversity, team creativity

中图分类号:

B849:C93

刘圣明, 陈力凡, 王思迈. (2018). 满招损, 谦受益：团队沟通视角下谦卑型领导行为对团队创造力的影响. 心理学报, 50(10), 1159-1168.

LIU Shengming, CHEN Lifan, WANG Simai. (2018). Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(10), 1159-1168.

图/表 7

参考文献 44

[1]	Aiken L. S., West S. G., & Reno R. R . ( Eds.). ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, Calif.:Sage Publications.
[2]	Amabile T. M., Schatzel E. A., Moneta G. B., & Kramer S. J . ( 2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15( 1), 5-32. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003 URL
[3]	Andrews M.C., &Kacmar K.M . ( 2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22( 4), 347-366. doi: 10.1002/job.92 URL
[4]	Anseel F., Beatty A. S., Shen W., Lievens F., & Sackett P. R . ( 2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41( 1), 318-348.
[5]	Bandura A . ( 1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
[6]	Boies K., Fiset J., & Gill H . ( 2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 6), 1080-1094.
[7]	Brislin R.W .( 1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 2, pp. 349- 444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[8]	Campbell K., & Mínguez-Vera A .( 2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83( 3), 435-451. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y URL
[9]	Chen Z. X., Tsui A. S., & Farh J. L . ( 2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75( 3), 339-356. doi: 10.1348/096317902320369749 URL
[10]	Cooley E .( 1994). Training an interdisciplinary team in communication and decision-making skills. Small Group Research, 25( 1), 5-25. doi: 10.1177/1046496494251002 URL
[11]	de Stobbeleir K. E. M., Ashford S. J., & Buyens D . ( 2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback- seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54( 4), 811-831. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.64870144 URL
[12]	den Otter A., & Emmitt S . ( 2007). Exploring effectiveness of team communication: Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14( 5), 408-419.
[13]	Duan J. Y., Shi J. Y., & Ling B . ( 2017). The influence of high commitment organization on employee voice behavior: A dual-process model examination. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 4), 539-553.
	[ 段锦云, 施嘉逸, 凌斌 . ( 2017). 高承诺组织与员工建言:双过程模型检验. 心理学报, 49( 4), 539-553.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00539 URL
[14]	Farh J. L., Lee C., & Farh C. I. C . ( 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 pmid: 20718515
[15]	Gibson C., & Vermeulen F . ( 2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48( 2), 202-239. doi: 10.2307/3556657 URL
[16]	Greer L. L., Jehn K. A., & Mannix E. A . ( 2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39( 3), 278-302. doi: 10.1177/1046496408317793 URL
[17]	Hambrick D.C., &Mason P.A .( 1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9( 2), 193-206. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1982.4976402 URL
[18]	Houmanfar R., Rodrigues N. J., & Smith G. S . ( 2009). Role of communication networks in behavioral systems analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,29( 3-4), 257-275. doi: 10.1080/01608060903092102 URL
[19]	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
[20]	Jain A. K., Fennell M. L., Chagpar A. B., Connolly H. K., & Nembhard I. M . ( 2016). Moving toward improved teamwork in cancer care: The role of psychological safety in team communication. Journal of Oncology Practice, 12( 11), 1000-1011. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.013300 URL
[21]	James L.R .( 1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219 URL
[22]	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
[23]	Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . ( 1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 4), 741-763.
[24]	Kearney E., & Gebert D . ( 2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 1), 77-99.
[25]	Laczniak R. N., DeCarlo T. E., & Ramaswami S. N . ( 2001). Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11( 1), 57-73.
[26]	Lam L. W., Peng K. Z., Wong C. S., & Lau D. C . ( 2017). Is more feedback seeking always better? Leader-member exchange moderates the relationship between feedback- seeking behavior and performance. Journal of Management, 43( 7), 2195-2217.
[27]	Leenders R. T. A. J., Van Engelen J. M. L., & Kratzer J .( 2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20( 1-2), 69-92. doi: 10.1016/S0923-4748(03)00005-5 URL
[28]	Loo R., &Thorpe K . ( 2002). Using reflective learning journals to improve individual and team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 8( 5-6), 134-139. doi: 10.1108/13527590210442258 URL
[29]	Mello A.L., &Rentsch J.R . ( 2015). Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 46( 6), 623-658. doi: 10.1177/1046496415602558 URL
[30]	Owens B.P., &Hekman D.R .( 2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55( 4), 787-818. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0441 URL
[31]	Owens B.P., &Hekman D.R .( 2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal,59( 3), 1088-1111. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0660 URL
[32]	Owens B. P., Johnson M. D., & Mitchell T. R . ( 2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24( 5), 1517-1538. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0795 URL
[33]	Park J., & Kim S . ( 2015). The differentiating effects of workforce aging on exploitative and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of workforce diversity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32( 2), 481-503. doi: 10.1007/s10490-014-9407-7 URL
[34]	Preacher K.J., & Selig J.P . ( 2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6( 2), 77-98. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 URL
[35]	Rossberger R.J., &Krause D.E . ( 2015). Participative and team-oriented leadership styles, countries’ education level, and national innovation: The mediating role of economic factors and national cultural practices. Cross-Cultural Research, 49( 1), 20-56.
[36]	Shin S.J., &Zhou J . ( 2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46( 6), 703-714. doi: 10.2307/30040662 URL
[37]	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.
[38]	Solongo E., Lee S. K., Kang E. G., Kim H. C., & Kim E. K . ( 2015). A study on the influence of leader supervisory style to creativity and job involvement in the age of convergence. Journal of Digital Convergence, 13( 9), 149-159.
[39]	Tost L. P., Gino F., & Larrick R. P . ( 2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56( 5), 1465-1486. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0180 URL
[40]	van den Hooff B., & De Ridder J.A . ( 2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.
[41]	van der Vegt, G. S., &Janssen O . ( 2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29( 5), 729-751. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00033-3 URL
[42]	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 pmid: 15584838
[43]	Wang X. H., Kim T. Y., & Lee D. R . ( 2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69( 9), 3231-3239. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026 URL
[44]	Zhou J . ( 2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 3), 413-422. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413 URL

模型	c²	d\|	c² /d\|	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
四因子模型	428.16	146	2.93	0.94	0.93	0.08
三因子模型1	1020.34	149	6.85	0.80	0.83	0.13
三因子模型2	1465.90	149	9.84	0.70	0.74	0.16
二因子模型	2055.77	151	13.61	0.57	0.62	0.19
单因子模型	2641.39	152	17.38	0.44	0.50	0.22

模型	c²	d\|	c² /d\|	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
四因子模型	428.16	146	2.93	0.94	0.93	0.08
三因子模型1	1020.34	149	6.85	0.80	0.83	0.13
三因子模型2	1465.90	149	9.84	0.70	0.74	0.16
二因子模型	2055.77	151	13.61	0.57	0.62	0.19
单因子模型	2641.39	152	17.38	0.44	0.50	0.22

变量	均值	标准差	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 领导年龄	37.00	5.82
2. 领导性别	1.46	0.50	-0.04
3. 领导教育水平	4.95	0.61	-0.35**	-0.09
4. 团队大小	4.50	3.39	-0.12	-0.12	0.00
5. 谦卑型领导行为	5.75	0.69	-0.31**	0.06	-0.02	0.04	(0.96)
6. 团队认知多样性	4.41	1.09	-0.09	0.07	0.14	0.15	-0.21	(0.96)
7. 深度沟通	5.77	0.72	-0.18	0.02	0.18	-0.11	0.51**	-0.33**	(0.91)
8. 反馈沟通	5.93	0.74	-0.18	-0.01	-0.03	-0.02	0.51**	-0.35**	0.52**	(0.94)
9. 团队创造力	5.21	0.82	-0.12	-0.21	0.25*	-0.06	0.30**	-0.13	0.47**	0.48**	(0.92)

变量	均值	标准差	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 领导年龄	37.00	5.82
2. 领导性别	1.46	0.50	-0.04
3. 领导教育水平	4.95	0.61	-0.35**	-0.09
4. 团队大小	4.50	3.39	-0.12	-0.12	0.00
5. 谦卑型领导行为	5.75	0.69	-0.31**	0.06	-0.02	0.04	(0.96)
6. 团队认知多样性	4.41	1.09	-0.09	0.07	0.14	0.15	-0.21	(0.96)
7. 深度沟通	5.77	0.72	-0.18	0.02	0.18	-0.11	0.51**	-0.33**	(0.91)
8. 反馈沟通	5.93	0.74	-0.18	-0.01	-0.03	-0.02	0.51**	-0.35**	0.52**	(0.94)
9. 团队创造力	5.21	0.82	-0.12	-0.21	0.25*	-0.06	0.30**	-0.13	0.47**	0.48**	(0.92)

中介变量	调节变量	效应	标准误差	95%置信区间下限	95%置信区间上限
深度沟通	高值	0.26	0.06	0.13	0.36
	低值	0.05	0.08	-0.06	0.25
	差值	0.21	0.04	0.10	0.29
反馈沟通	高值	0.19	0.07	0.07	0.34
	低值	0.05	0.03	-0.04	0.10
	差值	0.15	0.07	0.04	0.31