领导创造力期望对团队创造力的影响 *

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00667

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

拥有大量极富创造力的项目团队是企业适应复杂环境、应对激烈竞争的关键。本研究基于规范参照群体理论和团队知识创造的过程导向理论, 对116位团队领导及其下属的568位团队成员开展跨时间点数据收集。研究结果表明, 团队领导的创造力期望显著促进团队知识交换行为和边界跨越行为。团队知识交换行为直接有助于促进团队创造力, 而团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力的直接影响并不显著。团队领导的创造力角色认同对团队边界跨越行为与团队创造力间的关系具有显著调节作用。具体而言, 当团队领导的创造力角色认同水平较低时, 团队边界跨越行为对团队创造力具有负向影响。本研究揭示了团队领导影响团队创造力的认知机制和边界条件, 为企业有效提升团队创造力提供了重要对策建议。

关键词: 领导创造力期望, 团队知识交换行为, 团队边界跨越行为, 创造力角色认同, 团队创造力

Abstract:

Team creativity is becoming more and more essential for organizations to adapt to dynamically changing environment. Previous literature on team creativity was mainly focused on the impact of leadership behavior on employees’ creative motivation and subsequent creative performance. Less attention has been paid to employees’ cognitive response to leaders’ expectation on creativity. Therefore, based on normative reference group theory and process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams, the current study attempted to examine the mediating effects of employees’ behaviors in response to supervisor’s creativity expectation (i.e., team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior), and investigate the moderating role of supervisor’s creative role identity.

Data was collected from 568 employees working in 116 teams from four IT and software companies in Beijing and Shenzhen, China. Three waves of data collection were conducted. In the first wave, participants were required to report their demographic information (e.g. age, gender, education, and tenure), and their perceptions of supervisors’ creativity expectation. In the second wave, participants assessed team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. In the third wave, team supervisors evaluated their own creative role identity and team creativity. We used Mplus 7.2 to estimate our hypothesized models.

Results showed that: 1) supervisors’ creativity expectation was positively related to both team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior. 2) Team knowledge exchange behavior was positively associated with team creativity, whereas the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity was not significant. 3) Supervisors’ creative role identity significantly moderated the relationship between team boundary spanning behavior and team creativity. Specifically, when supervisors had high level of creative role identity, team boundary spanning behavior did not distract from team creativity, whereas when supervisors’ creative role identity was low, team boundary spanning behavior harmed team creativity. The moderating effect of supervisor’s creative role identity on the relationship between team knowledge exchange behavior and team creativity was not significant.

The current study contributes to the literature of team creativity in several aspects. First, different from previous team creativity literature, this study demonstrated a cognitive model explaining how team leader’s creativity expectation influences team creativity. Second, this study extended the normative reference group theory by clarifying the roles of leader’s creativity expectation and creative role identity in enhancing team creativity. Specifically, our study implies that both of team knowledge exchange behavior and team boundary spanning behavior are both stimulated by team supervisors’ creativity expectation. More importantly, supervisors’ creative role identity plays an important role in mitigating the negative effects of team boundary spanning behavior on team creativity. Third, this study also contributed to the process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams by demonstrating the essential role of leader in enhancing the collective process of creative knowledge learning and sharing. Accordingly, managerial implications regarding team creativity management are discussed. We suggest that supervisors in knowledge-intensive companies should always be a real creator to enhance team creativity.

Key words: supervisor’s creativity expectation;, team knowledge exchange behavior, team boundary spanning behavior, creative role identity, team creativity

中图分类号:

B849:C93

刘伟国, 房俨然, 施俊琦, 莫申江. (2018). 领导创造力期望对团队创造力的影响 ^*. 心理学报, 50(6), 667-677.

LIU Weiguo, FANG Yanran, SHI Junqi, MO Shenjiang. (2018). The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(6), 667-677.

图/表 6

参考文献 50

[1]	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
[2]	Ancona D. G., & Caldwell D. F . ( 1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665. doi: 10.2307/2393475 URL
[3]	Basadur, M. ( 2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 103-121. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.007 URL
[4]	Bresman H., & Zellmer-Bruhn M . ( 2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120-1139. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0783 URL
[5]	Brislin, R. W . ( 1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
[6]	Brooke J., Rasdi R. M., & Samah B. A . ( 2017). Modelling knowledge sharing behaviour using self-efficacy as a mediator. European Journal of Training & Development, 41(2), 144-159. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-04-2016-0021 URL
[7]	Cai Y. H., Jia L. D., You S. Y., Zhang Y., & Chen Y. L . ( 2013). The influence of differentiated transformational leadership on knowledge sharing and team creativity: A social network explanation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(5), 585-598.
	[ 蔡亚华, 贾良定, 尤树洋, 张祎, 陈艳露 . ( 2013). 差异化变革型领导对知识分享与团队创造力的影响: 社会网络机制的解释. 心理学报, 45(5), 585-598.]
[8]	Callero, P. L . ( 1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 203-215.
[9]	Callero P. L., Howard J. A., & Piliavin J. A . ( 1987). Helping behavior as role behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3), 247-256. doi: 10.2307/2786825 URL
[10]	Cheung M. F. Y., & Wong C. S . ( 2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(7), 656-672. doi: 10.1108/01437731111169988 URL
[11]	Chung Y., & Jackson S. E . ( 2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442-468. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394186 URL
[12]	Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S . ( 2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. UK: Routledge. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9884.2003.t01-2-00383_4.x URL
[13]	Collins C. J., & Smith K. G . ( 2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560. doi: 10.2307/20159780 URL
[14]	Cross R., & Cummings J. N . ( 2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge- intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937. doi: 10.2307/20159632 URL
[15]	Drazin R., Glynn M. A., & Kazanjian R. K . ( 1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1893937 URL
[16]	Edmondson A. C., Dillon J. R., & Roloff K. S . ( 2007). Three perspectives on team learning. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269-314.
[17]	Faraj S., & Yan A. M . ( 2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. doi: 10.1037/a0014367 URL pmid: 19450002
[18]	Farmer S. M., Tierney P., & Kung-McIntyre K . ( 2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630. doi: 10.2307/30040653 URL
[19]	Ford, C. M . ( 1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071865 URL
[20]	Glover J. A., & Sautter F . ( 1977). Relation of four components of creativity to risk-taking preferences. Psychological Reports, 41(1), 227-230. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1977.41.1.227 URL pmid: 909991
[21]	Gong Y. P., 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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177 URL
[22]	Grand J. A., Braun M. T., Kuljanin G., Kozlowski S. W. J., & Chao G. T . ( 2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1353-1385. doi: 10.1037/apl0000136 URL pmid: 27504660
[23]	Grube J. A., & Piliavin J. A . ( 2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-1119.
[24]	Hirst G., van Knippenberg D., & Zhou J . ( 2009). A cross- level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035 URL
[25]	Janis I. L. , & Mann, L.( 1977) . Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment New York: Free Press A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
[26]	Jaussi K. S., & Dionne S. D . ( 2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 475-498. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1 URL
[27]	Jung D. I., Chow C., & Wu A . ( 2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X URL
[28]	Kelley, H. H . ( 1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Society for the psychological study of social issues, readings in social psychology (pp. 410-414). New York: Holt.
[29]	Koopmann J., Lanaj K., Wang M., Zhou L., & Shi J. Q . ( 2016). Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 940-957. doi: 10.1037/apl0000097 URL pmid: 26949818
[30]	Koriat N., & Gelbard R . ( 2014). Knowledge sharing motivation among it personnel: Integrated model and implications of employment contracts. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 577-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.009 URL
[31]	Luo J. L., Men C. H., & Zhong J . ( 2014). The effect of leadership behavior and team creativity in dynamic environments. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 35(5), 172-180.
	[ 罗瑾琏, 门成昊, 钟竞 . ( 2014). 动态环境下领导行为对团队创造力的影响研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 35(5), 172-180.]
[32]	Malhotra A., & Majchrzak A . ( 2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4), 75-88. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2005.27019 URL
[33]	Marrone J. A., Quigley N., Prussia G. E ., & Dienhart, J. W. (2016). Can I and do I want to? Cognitive and affective drivers of employee boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016,17851. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2016.17851abstract URL
[34]	Marrone J. A., Tesluk P. E., & Carson J. B . ( 2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439. doi: 10.2307/20159482 URL
[35]	Merton R. K. ( 1957). Continuities in the theory of reference groups and social structure. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 281-386). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[36]	Mumford M. D., Scott G. M., Gaddis B., & Strange J. M . ( 2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3 URL
[37]	Paulus P. B., & Yang H. C . ( 2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2888 URL
[38]	Ramarajan L., Bezrukova K., Jehn K. A. , & Euwema, M.( 2011). From the outside in: The negative spillover effects of boundary spanners' relations with members of other organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 886-905.
[39]	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 pmid: 18020807
[40]	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. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394187 URL
[41]	Sung S. Y., & Choi J. N . ( 2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.01.001 URL
[42]	Teigland R., & Wasko M. M . ( 2003). Integrating knowledge through information trading: Examining the relationship between boundary spanning communication and individual performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 261-286. doi: 10.1111/1540-5915.02341 URL pmid: 456545
[43]	Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148. doi: 10.2307/3069429 URL
[44]	Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001 URL
[45]	Tierney P., & Farmer S. M . ( 2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293. doi: 10.1037/a0020952 URL pmid: 20954756
[46]	Tushman, M. L . ( 1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587-605. doi: 10.2307/2392402 URL
[47]	Weisz N., Vassolo R. S ., & Cooper, A. C. (2004). A theoretical and empirical assessment of the social capital of nascent entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2004, K1-K6.
[48]	Yang J. Z., Chen Y. X., & Ma H. Q . ( 2012). The impact of organizational structure on employees’ innovative behavior: A role identity theory perspective. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 29(9), 129-134.
	[ 杨晶照, 陈勇星, 马洪旗 . ( 2012). 组织结构对员工创新行为的影响: 基于角色认同理论的视角. 科技进步与对策, 29(9), 129-134.]
[49]	Zhang A. Y., Tsui A. S., & Wang D. X . ( 2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851-862. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007 URL
[50]	Zhao Z. J., & Anand J . ( 2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’ as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530. doi: 10.1002/smj.2080 URL

模型	χ²	df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	组内SRMR	组间SRMR	Δχ²	Δdf	p
五因子模型	629.71	286	0.05	0.92	0.90	0.04	0.07	—	—	—
四因子模型A	1171.19	292	0.07	0.78	0.75	0.09	0.08	541.48	6	p < 0.01
四因子模型B	737.44	290	0.05	0.89	0.87	0.04	0.08	107.73	4	p < 0.01
三因子模型	1276.83	295	0.08	0.76	0.72	0.09	0.10	647.12	9	p < 0.01
双因子模型	2116.16	298	0.10	0.55	0.50	0.13	0.15	1486.45	12	p < 0.01
单因子模型	2234.08	299	0.11	0.52	0.46	0.13	0.17	1604.37	13	p < 0.01

模型	χ²	df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	组内SRMR	组间SRMR	Δχ²	Δdf	p
五因子模型	629.71	286	0.05	0.92	0.90	0.04	0.07	—	—	—
四因子模型A	1171.19	292	0.07	0.78	0.75	0.09	0.08	541.48	6	p < 0.01
四因子模型B	737.44	290	0.05	0.89	0.87	0.04	0.08	107.73	4	p < 0.01
三因子模型	1276.83	295	0.08	0.76	0.72	0.09	0.10	647.12	9	p < 0.01
双因子模型	2116.16	298	0.10	0.55	0.50	0.13	0.15	1486.45	12	p < 0.01
单因子模型	2234.08	299	0.11	0.52	0.46	0.13	0.17	1604.37	13	p < 0.01

变量		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	团队规模	4.86	2.28	—
2	团队成员平均工作期限	1.67	0.93	0.08	—
3	团队成员平均年龄	27.89	2.27	0.30^**	0.48^**	—
4	团队成员平均教育水平	4.46	0.40	-0.45^**	-0.30^**	-0.08	—
5	团队成员创造力自我效能感	5.28	0.67	0.06	-0.03	-0.07	0.02	(0.86)
6	领导创造力角色认同	5.30	1.00	-0.10	-0.03	-0.13	0.01	0.06	(0.88)
7	领导创造力期望	5.38	0.57	-0.19^*	-0.13	-0.18	0.03	0.11	0.14	(0.87)
8	团队知识交换行为	5.55	0.53	-0.04	-0.11	-0.08	0.06	0.51^**	0.21^*	0.20^*	(0.92)
9	团队边界跨越行为	5.24	0.51	-0.15	-0.05	-0.09	0.07	0.30^**	0.20^*	0.28^**	0.55^**	(0.82)
10	团队创造力	5.13	0.94	-0.29^**	0.07	-0.17	0.16	0.05	0.46^**	0.15	0.24^*	0.13	(0.90)

变量		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	团队规模	4.86	2.28	—
2	团队成员平均工作期限	1.67	0.93	0.08	—
3	团队成员平均年龄	27.89	2.27	0.30^**	0.48^**	—
4	团队成员平均教育水平	4.46	0.40	-0.45^**	-0.30^**	-0.08	—
5	团队成员创造力自我效能感	5.28	0.67	0.06	-0.03	-0.07	0.02	(0.86)
6	领导创造力角色认同	5.30	1.00	-0.10	-0.03	-0.13	0.01	0.06	(0.88)
7	领导创造力期望	5.38	0.57	-0.19^*	-0.13	-0.18	0.03	0.11	0.14	(0.87)
8	团队知识交换行为	5.55	0.53	-0.04	-0.11	-0.08	0.06	0.51^**	0.21^*	0.20^*	(0.92)
9	团队边界跨越行为	5.24	0.51	-0.15	-0.05	-0.09	0.07	0.30^**	0.20^*	0.28^**	0.55^**	(0.82)
10	团队创造力	5.13	0.94	-0.29^**	0.07	-0.17	0.16	0.05	0.46^**	0.15	0.24^*	0.13	(0.90)

输入变量	模型一						模型二
	团队知识交换行为		团队边界跨越行为		团队创造力		团队知识交换行为		团队边界跨越行为		团队创造力
	估计值	标准误差	估计值	标准误差	估计值	标准误差	估计值	标准误差	估计值	标准误差	估计值	标准误差
控制变量
团队规模	-0.01	0.03	-0.02	0.03	-0.07	0.06	-0.01	0.03	-0.02	0.03	-0.07	0.06
团队成员平均工作期限	-0.05	0.05	0.01	0.06	0.24^*	0.10	-0.05	0.05	0.01	0.06	0.25^**	0.09
团队成员平均年龄	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.02	-0.07	0.05	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.02	-0.07	0.05
团队成员平均教育水平	-0.07	0.15	-0.03	0.15	0.43	0.23	-0.07	0.15	-0.03	0.15	0.50^*	0.22
虚拟变量1	-0.26^*	0.12	-0.11	0.14	0.29	0.24	-0.26^*	0.12	-0.11	0.14	0.40	0.23
虚拟变量2	-0.05	0.12	0.15	0.13	-0.16	0.25	-0.05	0.12	0.15	0.13	0.00	0.25
虚拟变量3	0.04	0.12	0.12	0.12	-0.23	0.28	0.04	0.12	0.12	0.12	-0.15	0.27
团队成员创造力自我效能感	0.37^**	0.11	0.17	0.15	-0.08	0.16	0.37^**	0.11	0.17	0.15	-0.12	0.16
主要影响
领导创造力期望	0.15^*	0.07	0.22^**	0.08	0.03	0.13	0.15^*	0.07	0.22^**	0.08	0.07	0.13
团队知识交换行为					0.50^*	0.19					0.55^**	0.19
团队边界跨越行为					-0.14	0.18					-0.22	0.19
领导创造力角色认同					0.35^**	0.09					0.40^**	0.09
交互作用
团队知识交换行为× 领导创造力角色认同											-0.30	0.19
团队边界跨越行为× 领导创造力角色认同											0.42^*	0.21
R²	0.32		0.20		0.37		0.32		0.20		0.43
ΔR²	—		—		—		—		—		0.06