礼之用, 和为贵?和谐管理理论视角下团队亲社会违规氛围对团队绩效的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00066

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当前关于亲社会违规行为的研究主要集中于个体层面, 但实践和理论都表明我们有探究团队亲社会违规氛围的必要性。为此, 本研究聚焦于团队亲社会违规氛围这一概念, 以和谐管理理论为基础, 分别引入团队和谐作为中介变量和团队互依性作为调节变量, 探讨团队亲社会违规氛围对团队绩效的影响机制和作用边界。本文以74个团队和334名团队成员为研究对象, 通过对三阶段所获取的数据进行分析, 结果显示：(1) 团队互依性对团队亲社会违规氛围与团队和谐的关系具有调节作用：当团队互依性高时, 团队亲社会违规氛围对团队和谐的负向影响更强; (2) 团队和谐对团队绩效具有显著的正向影响; (3) 团队互依性调节了团队亲社会违规氛围通过团队和谐对团队绩效的间接效应：当团队互依性水平较高时, 团队亲社会违规氛围通过团队和谐对团队绩效的负向效应会被增强。本研究证实了团队亲社会违规氛围对团队绩效的作用机制与边界条件, 拓宽了亲社会违规行为和团队和谐的相关研究。

关键词: 团队亲社会违规氛围, 团队和谐, 团队互依性, 团队绩效

Abstract:

In Chinese organizations, it is not uncommon that employees deviate from established rules in order to help others or to enhance work efficiency. Accordingly, such pro-social rule breaking (PSRB) has attracted strong and increasing research attention. However, while scholars have studied the antecedents and outcomes of PSRB at the individual level, no relevant research has explored the notion of team PSRB climate and its effects on team outcomes. By building on harmony management theory, our study proposes and tests a mediated moderation model that explored when and why team PSRB climate influences team performance.
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a three-wave field study from three major construction companies in China. All the data were collected on-site through paper and pencil surveys. At each time point, three researchers visited the companies and distributed the questionnaires to the team leaders and their subordinates. The participants completed the surveys and placed them in sealed envelopes, which were then collected by the research team. All participants received a small gift in exchange for their participation. We received complete responses from 74 team leaders and their 334 subordinates.
The results provided support for our theoretical model and showed that (1) the interaction between team PSRB climate and task interdependence significantly predicted team harmony, such that the negative relationship between team PSRB climate and team harmony was stronger when task interdependence was high rather than low; (2) team harmony was significantly positively related to team performance; (3) team harmony mediated the interactive effect of team PSRB climate and task interdependence on team performance, such that the indirect effect was negative when task interdependence was high.
In summary, our study makes three key contributions. First, we extend the literature by conceptualizing PSRB at the team level and by describing the theoretical foundations for the emergence of team PSRB climate. Specifically, we argue that a team’s PSRB climate develops through processes of social interaction as team members observe, communicate, and share their PSRB experiences. Second, we provide novel insights into the mechanisms through which team PSRB climate influences team performance. Our results suggest that team harmony plays an important role for the effects of team PSRB climate. Third, we identify an important boundary condition for the effects of team PSRB climate. Specifically, our results indicate that it is crucial to consider the moderating effect of task interdependence to yield a more complete and accurate understanding of whether and when teams will experience more or less disharmony as a result of their PSRB climate.

Key words: team PSRB climate, team harmony, task interdependence, team performance

中图分类号:

B849: C93

蔡亚华, 程佳琳, 李劲松. (2022). 礼之用, 和为贵?和谐管理理论视角下团队亲社会违规氛围对团队绩效的影响. 心理学报, 54(1), 66-77.

CAI Yahua, CHENG Jialin, LI Jinsong. (2022). Rules can maintain harmony? The influence of team pro-social rule breaking climate on team performance from the perspective of harmony management. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(1), 66-77.

图/表 9

参考文献 65

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[2]	Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. J. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396-1405. pmid: 17100493
[3]	Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355-373. doi: 10.1177/109442819814001 URL
[4]	Bryant, P. C., Davis, C. A., Hancock, J. I., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). When rule makers become rule breakers: Employee level outcomes of managerial pro-social rule breaking. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(2), 101-112. doi: 10.1007/s10672-009-9114-6 URL
[5]	Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 URL
[6]	Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: conception, measurement, and validation, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 903-934. doi: 10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0 URL
[7]	Chen, Y. S., Wang, L., Liu, X., Chen, H., Hu, Y. Y., & Yang, H. L. (2019). The trickle-down effect of leaders’ pro-social rule breaking: Joint moderating role of empowering leadership and courage. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2647-2656. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02647 URL
[8]	Chua, R. Y. J. (2013). The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1545-1577. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0971 URL
[9]	Courtright, S. H., Thurgood, G. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pierotti, 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 pmid: 25938722
[10]	Crawford, J. L., & Haaland, G. A. (1972). Predecisional information seeking and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(1), 112-119. doi: 10.1037/h0032870 URL
[11]	Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., Mayer, D. M., & Gregory, J. B. (2012). Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro‐social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 21-42. doi: 10.1002/job.v33.1 URL
[12]	Dean Jr, J. W., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects of organizational inertial. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 776-804.
[13]	Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1005-1023.
[14]	Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL
[15]	Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 243-261. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004 URL
[16]	Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 URL
[17]	Guo, G. X., & Cheng, B. (2021). Effects of customer empowering behaviors on employees’ career growth: Perspective of self-determination theory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(2), 215-228. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00215 URL
	[ 郭功星, 程豹. (2021). 顾客授权行为对员工职业成长的影响:自我决定理论视角. 心理学报, 53(2), 215-228.]
[18]	Huang, Y. L., Lu, X. X., & Wang, X. (2014). The effects of transformational leadership on employee’s pro-social rule breaking. Canadian Social Science, 10(1), 128-134.
[19]	Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Lingking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1102-1127. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.1142 URL
[20]	James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied of Psychology, 69(1), 85-98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 URL
[21]	King, D. D., Newman, A., & Luthans, F. (2016). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 782-786. doi: 10.1002/job.v37.5 URL
[22]	Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74
[23]	Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley.
[24]	Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x pmid: 26158912
[25]	Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z.-X., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 795-816. doi: 10.1177/0022022110363474 URL
[26]	Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 201-220.
[27]	Liang, C. G., Han, W., Liu, P., Zhang, J. B., & Xu, S. Q. (2020). Dual coupling theory of constraints-agency and certainty- uncertainty. Chinese Journal of Management, 17(1), 40-49.
	[ 梁朝高, 韩巍, 刘鹏, 张敬博, 胥思齐. (2020). 规定性与能动性、确定性与不确定性的双重耦合理论研究. 管理学报, 17(1), 40-49.]
[28]	Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[29]	Li, P. F., Ge, J., & Xi, Y. M. (2014). Leadership studies in hexie management theory: A review and research agenda. Chinese Journal of Management, 11(11), 159-1600.
	[ 李鹏飞, 葛京, 席酉民. (2014). 和谐管理视角下的领导研究发展初探. 管理学报, 11(11), 1591-1600.]
[30]	Li, R., Tian, X. M., & Ling, W. Q. (2015). Mechanisms of how managerial openness and supervisor-subordinate guanxi impact on employee pro-social rule breaking. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 35(2), 342-357.
	[ 李锐, 田晓明, 凌文辁. (2015). 管理开放性和上下属关系对员工亲社会性规则违背的影响机制. 系统工程理论与实践, 35(2), 342-357.]
[31]	Liu, X. G., & Wang, Z. H. (2018). Influence mechanism of managerial pro-social rule breaking on employee behavior from the perspective of opposition between favor and reason: A cross-levels and longitudinal study. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 191-203. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00191 URL
	[ 刘效广, 王志浩. (2018). 情与理对立视角下管理者亲社会违规对员工行为的影响机理: 一项跨层次追踪研究. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 191-203.]
[32]	Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793.
[33]	Lun, V. M.-C. (2012). Harmonizing conflicting views about harmony in Chinese culture. In X. Huang, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp.467-480). USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[34]	Lun, V. M.-C., & Bond, M. H. (2006). Achieving relationship harmony in groups and its consequence for group performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 195-202. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.2006.9.issue-3 URL
[35]	Luo, X. P., & Zhang, X. Q. (2012). Study on professional executive compensation management in private enterprises based on Hexie management theory. Soft Science, 26(5), 94-99.
	[ 罗兴鹏, 张向前. (2012). 基于和谐管理理论的民营企业职业经理人薪酬管理研究. 软科学, 26(5), 94-99.]
[36]	Maltarich, M. A., Kukenberger, M., Reilly, G., & Mathieu, J. (2018). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 6-37.
[37]	March, J. G., Schulz, M., & Zhou, X. G. (2000). The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[38]	Martin, A. W., Lopez, S. H., Roscigno, V. J., & Hodson, R. (2013). Against the rules: Synthesizing types and processes of bureaucratic rule-breaking. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 550-574. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0223 URL
[39]	Mayer, D. M., Caldwell, J., Ford, R. C., Uhl-Bien, M., & Gresock, A. R. (2007). Should I serve my customer or my supervisor? A relational perspective on pro-social rule breaking. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
[40]	Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1), 5-28. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277790 URL
[41]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5^th ed.). Los Angeles: Author.
[42]	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
[43]	Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. doi: 10.1146/psych.2012.63.issue-1 URL
[44]	Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61 URL
[45]	Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[46]	Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from http://quantpsy.org/.
[47]	Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. pmid: 10740960
[48]	Solow, D., Vairaktarakis, G., Piderit, S. K., & Tsai, M.-C. (2002). Managerial insights into the effects of interactions on replacing members of a team. Management Science, 48(8), 1060-1073. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1060.164 URL
[49]	Sun, J. Q., Tian, X. M., & Liu, Y. (2016). Employees’ pro-social rule breaking in organizations. Journal of Soochow University: Philosophy & Social Science Edition, 6, 114-121.
	[ 孙建群, 田晓明, 刘燕. (2016). 企业组织中的员工亲社会性规则违背. 苏州大学学报:哲学社会科学版, 6, 114-121.]
[50]	Ünal, A. F., Chen, C. C., & Xin, K. R. (2017). Justice climates and management team effectiveness: The central role of group harmony. Management and Organization Review, 13(4), 821-849. doi: 10.1017/mor.2017.54 URL
[51]	van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & van de Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633-655. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600403 URL
[52]	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
[53]	Vardaman, J. M., Gondo, M. B., & Allen, D. G. (2014). Ethical climate and pro-social rule breaking in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 108-118. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.05.001 URL
[54]	Wageman, R. (1999). The meaning of interdependence. In M. Turner (Eds.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp.197-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[55]	Wang, Q., Xi, Y. M., & Shang, Y. F. (2003). The core of the theory of “hexie” management: The interpretation of the theme of “hexie”. Management Review, 15(9), 24-30.
	[ 王琦, 席酉民, 尚玉钒. (2003). 和谐管理理论核心: 和谐主题的诠释. 管理评论, 15(9), 24-30.]
[56]	Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organization. MA: Addison-Wesley.
[57]	Xi, Y. M., Liu, P., Kong, F., & Ge, J. (2013). HeXie management theory: Origins, implications and prospects. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27(2), 1-8.
	[ 席酉民, 刘鹏, 孔芳, 葛京. (2013). 和谐管理理论: 起源、启示与前景. 管理工程学报, 27(2), 1-8.]
[58]	Xi, Y. M., Shang, Y. S., Jin, H., & Han, W. (2009). Reflection on hexie management theory and its application. Chinese Journal of Management, 6(1), 12-18.
	[ 席酉民, 尚玉钒, 井辉, 韩巍. (2009). 和谐管理理论及其应用思考. 管理学报, 6(1), 12-18.]
[59]	Xi, Y. M., Xiao, H. W., & Wang, H. T. (2005). HeXie management theory and its new development in the principles. Chinese Journal of Management, 2(1), 23-32.
	[ 席酉民, 肖宏文, 王洪涛. (2005). 和谐管理理论的提出及其原理的新发展. 管理学报, 2(1), 23-32.]
[60]	Xi, Y. M., Xiong, C., & Liu, P. (2020). Review and discussion on the application of hexie management theory. Journal of Management World, 2, 195-212.
	[ 席酉民, 熊畅, 刘鹏. (2020). 和谐管理理论及其应用述评. 管理世界, 2, 195-209.]
[61]	Xu, C. L., Duan, W. C., Sun, Y. H., & Du, Y. W. (2014). Theme discrimination and optimization of hexie management mechanism for innovation team. Chinese Journal of Management, 11(3), 390-395.
	[ 许成磊, 段万春, 孙永河, 杜元伟. (2014). 创新团队和谐管理机制的主题辨析优化. 管理学报, 11(3), 390-395.]
[62]	Xu, S. Y., & Zhu, J. Q. (2017). Ethical leadership and pro-social rule breaking: A dual process model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(1), 106-115. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00106 URL
	[ 徐世勇, 朱金强. (2017). 道德领导与亲社会违规行为: 双中介模型. 心理学报, 49(1), 106-115.]
[63]	Yan, S. Z., Xu, H. H., & Zhang, P. (2018). Research of influence on employee pro-social violations of differential leaders. Business Management Journal, 44(8), 35-39.
	[ 燕诗舟, 许红华, 张萍. (2018). 煤炭企业差序式领导对员工亲社会违规行为的影响研究. 经济管理, 44(8), 35-39. ]
[64]	Zhu, J. Q., & Xu, S. Y. (2015). Counter-productive work behavior and pro-social rule breaking behavior: Based on compensatory ethics view. Economic Management, 37(10), 75-85.
	[ 朱金强, 徐世勇. (2015). 反生产力工作行为与亲社会违规行为——基于道德补偿理论的视角. 经济管理, 37(10), 75-85.]
[65]	Zhu, J. Q., Xu, S. Y., Ouyang, K., Herst, D., & Farndale, E. (2018). Ethical leadership and employee pro-social rule-breaking behavior in China. Asian Business & Management, 17(1), 59-81.

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
四因子模型	58.79	38	0.94	0.91	0.09	0.09
三因子模型	162.15	41	0.67	0.55	0.16	0.21
双因子模型	202.37	43	0.56	0.44	0.18	0.24
单因子模型	294.62	64	0.31	0.14	0.23	0.29

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
四因子模型	58.79	38	0.94	0.91	0.09	0.09
三因子模型	162.15	41	0.67	0.55	0.16	0.21
双因子模型	202.37	43	0.56	0.44	0.18	0.24
单因子模型	294.62	64	0.31	0.14	0.23	0.29

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. 团队规模	4.51	2.43
2. 领导性别	1.65	0.48	0.22
3. 领导年龄	44.56	6.61	-0.08	-0.18
4. 领导学历	3.60	0.74	0.03	-0.34^**	0.07
5. 团队成员性别	1.58	0.34	0.05	0.20	0.03	-0.04
6. 团队成员年龄	40.24	5.88	-0.05	-0.17	0.61^**	0.21	0.10
7. 团队成员学历	4.27	0.76	-0.03	-0.02	0.27^*	0.49^**	-0.05	0.13
8. 团队亲社会违规氛围	2.44	0.80	0.09	0.14	-0.09	-0.02	0.13	-0.13	-0.10
9. 团队互依性	4.81	1.11	0.13	-0.12	0.16	0.14	-0.14	0.10	0.15	-0.11
10. 团队和谐	5.85	0.68	-0.17	-0.07	0.05	-0.14	-0.04	0.16	-0.06	-0.13	0.20
11. 团队绩效	6.03	0.60	-0.14	-0.09	0.12	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.12	-0.01	-0.04	0.43^**

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. 团队规模	4.51	2.43
2. 领导性别	1.65	0.48	0.22
3. 领导年龄	44.56	6.61	-0.08	-0.18
4. 领导学历	3.60	0.74	0.03	-0.34^**	0.07
5. 团队成员性别	1.58	0.34	0.05	0.20	0.03	-0.04
6. 团队成员年龄	40.24	5.88	-0.05	-0.17	0.61^**	0.21	0.10
7. 团队成员学历	4.27	0.76	-0.03	-0.02	0.27^*	0.49^**	-0.05	0.13
8. 团队亲社会违规氛围	2.44	0.80	0.09	0.14	-0.09	-0.02	0.13	-0.13	-0.10
9. 团队互依性	4.81	1.11	0.13	-0.12	0.16	0.14	-0.14	0.10	0.15	-0.11
10. 团队和谐	5.85	0.68	-0.17	-0.07	0.05	-0.14	-0.04	0.16	-0.06	-0.13	0.20
11. 团队绩效	6.03	0.60	-0.14	-0.09	0.12	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.12	-0.01	-0.04	0.43^**

变量	团队和谐T2			团队绩效T3
变量	b	SE	t	b	SE	t
截距项	5.78	1.04	5.55^***	2.82	1.96	1.43
团队规模(T1)	-0.05	0.02	-2.80^**	-0.01	0.02	-0.37
领导性别(T1)	-0.11	0.17	-0.64	-0.06	0.19	-0.30
领导年龄(T1)	-0.01	0.02	-0.63	0.02	0.01	1.38
领导学历(T1)	-0.18	0.16	-1.15	0.15	0.10	1.44
团队成员性别(T1)	0.21	0.29	0.72	0.15	0.20	0.75
团队成员年龄(T1)	0.02	0.01	2.14^*	-0.02	0.01	-2.40^*
团队成员学历(T1)	0.02	0.13	0.14	0.03	0.03	1.10
团队亲社会违规氛围(T1)	-0.09	0.06	-1.57	0.05	0.05	0.87
团队互依(T1)	0.13	0.06	2.23^*	-0.09	0.09	-1.02
团队亲社会违规氛围(T1) × 团队互依(T1)	-0.22	0.08	-2.96^**	0.12	0.06	1.83
团队和谐(T2)				0.47	0.09	5.57^***
残差方差	0.36	0.11	3.33^**	0.27	0.05	5.48^***