交互记忆系统、学习与创造力的关系
|
摘要
在日趋激烈的市场竞争中,团队逐渐成为组织的基本单元。如何最大限度地协调和应用团队成员的知识是团队管理面临的重大挑战。近年来,交互记忆系统作为团队知识处理的重要机制引起了学者们的广泛关注。所谓交互记忆系统,是团队成员之间形成的一种彼此依赖的,用以编码、储存和提取不同领域知识的合作性分工系统。它不仅强化了团队的知识获取能力,而且提高了团队的知识处理效率,进而有助于创造力的提升。为了深入理解交互记忆系统的作用机理,本文从学习的视角,构建跨层次的研究模型,探讨交互记忆系统、学习行为与创造力的关系。
本文采用了学生团队和企业研发团队、知识型员工团队三个样本,考察交互记忆系统对个体创造力和团队创造力的作用机理。其中,对于中介机理的研究包括如下四个不断深化的子研究：(1)考察团队学习对交互记忆系统与个体创造力、团队创造力关系的中介作用；(2)将团队学习分为团队内部学习和外部学习两部分,考察其对交互记忆系统与个体创造力、团队创造力关系的中介作用；(3)进一步将团队内部学习细化为团队成员的不同学习类型,探讨团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习对交互记忆系统与个体创造力关系的作用；(4)将团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习聚合到团队层次上,探讨利用性学习、开发性学习对交互记忆系统与团队创造力关系的不同作用。
此外,对于调节机制的考察主要包括对团队社会资本、团队知识多样化在交互记忆系统与团队创造力间的调节作用；领导的创新支持在个体层次和团队层次利用性学习、开发性学习与创造力关系间的调节作用。
最后,本文采用多重案例研究的方法,考察交互记忆系统与团队成员学习的演进机理。通过对多家高技术企业中研发团队的分析,阐释了交互记忆系统与团队成员学习类型之间的互动演进过程。
本文主要有如下贡献：
(1)本文从团队学习的中介作用入手,将团队学习细化为团队内部学习和,团队外部学习,然后又进一步将起中介作用的团队内部学习细化为团队成员的利用性学习和开发性学习,试图探讨不同层次的利用性学习和开发性学习在交互记忆系统与创造力间的作用。本文运用学习理论,通过对过程模型的递进性剖析,充分阐释了交互记忆系统对创造力的作用机理。
(2)本文运用跨层次研究的方法对学习行为及创造力之间的关系进行系统考察,弥补了过去只从单一层次进行研究的局限。本文提出,个体层次的利用性学习和开发性学习对个体创造力具有积极影响；但当团队中的所有成员都参与到利用性学习和开发性学习中时,团队层次的利用性学习对团队创造力仍具有积极影响,但开发性学习则对团队创造力产生了消极影响。这一研究深化了我们对不同层次学习类型之作用方向的认识。
(3)本文通过访谈、开放式问卷调查和大样本调查的方法对个体的利用性学习和开发性学习进行量表开发,通过运用两个不同的样本(研发团队样本和知识型员工样本)数据验证了量表的有效性和可信性,深化了对个体利用性学习和开发性学习概念构思的理解,对于以后的相关研究具有一定的推动作用。
(4)本文探讨了在交互记忆系统对个体层次和团队层次产出的作用过程中,团队社会资本、团队知识多样化和领导的创新支持所起的调节作用,通过对团队社会资本、团队构成和领导作用的考察,拓展了对交互记忆系统作用机制的研究。
(5)本文对交互记忆系统作用机制的考察采用调查问卷的方法,弥补了以往现场研究的不足。本文所选择的学生样本是典型的临时性团队；而企业样本是创新需求较高的长期性团队——两者的互动方式、学习氛围等都有所不同,这为我们深入理解交互记忆系统的作用机制提供了更充分的实证证据。
(6)本文运用案例研究方法,从团队成员学习的视角构建交互记忆的演进机理,突破了以往视交互记忆系统为团队层面作用机制的局限,本文关注团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习与交互记忆系统的互动发展过程,为从纵向机制上理解交互记忆系统与学习行为的关系开拓了新的思路。
With the increasing visibility of teams in organizations, there is a great challenge for the teams to coordinate and utilize their members'knowledge. A central concern of team's knowledge coordination has to do with transactive memory system (TMS), which is defined as the shared division of cognitive labor regarding group members' encoding, storage, retrieval, and communication of information from different knowledge domains. Prior research in project laboratory and ad hoc groups has highlighted the roles of TMS not only in improving team knowledge acquisition, but also in enhancing team knowledge process which foster creativity, but field research has lagged because the mechanism surrounding the TMS-creativity link is not well understood, which makes exploring the black box of their relationship crucial.
Drawing on the data from operational teams held in a comprehensive university and enterprises in China, this study presents a multilevel framework for understanding TMS as a learning system that affects individual and team creativity.
This study examines the mechanism of TMS influencing individual and team creativity. It unfolds as follows:first, it examines the mediating role of team learning in the relationship of TMS, individual creativity and team creativity. Second, it validates the mediating roles of two dimensions of team learning involving local learning and distal learning between TMS and creativity. Third, it specifies the team local learning into individual level involving exploitative learning and explorative learning for testing their different effects on the relationship between TMS and individual creativity. Finally, it aggregates the individual exploitative learning and explorative learning to team level to examine their distinguished roles in the relationship between TMS and team creativity.
What's more, this study tests the moderators, for example the moderating roles of team social capital and team knowledge diversity between TMS and team creativity, and the moderating effect of leader's innovation support on the relationship between exploitative learning, explorative learning and creativity. In considering the role of moderators, this study adds to a growing body of literature focusing on how the effects of TMS are context-dependent, and adds more generally to the emerging interest in multilevel influences in team outcome providing further evidence for the promise of this approach.
This study also explores the interactive relationship between TMS and learning behaviors by case study. With the sample of R & D teams in high-tech enterprises, it examines their interaction in different phrases of TMS.
This study thus makes a number of contributions to the TMS literature and also provides an important caveat regarding the benefits of learning. It is an attempt to advance knowledge in following areas.
First, it explores the mediating role of learning behaviors between TMS and creativity step by step. It starts with team learning, then specifies it into local and distal learning and finally explores exploitative learning and explorative learning which are two different learning behaviors of local learning by multilevel analysis. The results show the mediating effect of exploitative learning but there is no mediating effect of explorative learning. This study broadens our understanding of the effect of TMS from a team learning perspective.
Second, using hierarchical linear modeling, it examines multilevel relationship of TMS, learning behaviors and creativity. Previous work on TMS has focused on either individual or group level analysis. This study proposes learning behaviors in both levels are influened by TMS, furthermore, they have different effects on creativity in different levels. That is, when aggregated to the group level, exploitative learning and explorative learning could explain team creativity in different ways. By developing a multilevel framework and providing a more comprehensive picture of what kind of learning behaviors engaging in the relationship between TMS and creativity, this study not only contributes to the understanding of the mechanism of TMS, but also broadens our understanding of different effects of multilevel learning behaviors.
Third, it constructs and validates the two dimensions of individual learning behaviors involving exploitative learning and explorative learning with discussion and data collection, which contributes to the understanding of the individual exploitative learning and explorative learning.
Forth, it contributes to a growingbody of work exploring the context of TMS on creativity, which enriches our knowledge about the mechanism of TMS. The moderating factors include team social capital, team knowledge diversity and leader's innovation support.
Fifth, while most of TMS studies have been conducted in laboratory settings or have relied on either student samples or teams in a single organization, this study has used several samples in China to fill this gap. The samples of the study are representative because one of these is ad hoc group, while others are long-term team samples with different interactive ways and learning atmosphere. It provides more evidence for this study.
Finally, it explores the interactive relationship between TMS and learning behaviors by case study. Prior research tends to treat TMS as evolving linearly, using static measures rather than assessing development over time. In response, this study offers a model emphasizing cyclical aspects of TMS development and it proposes the relationship between TMS and learning behaviors during the development of TMS.
本文采用了学生团队和企业研发团队、知识型员工团队三个样本,考察交互记忆系统对个体创造力和团队创造力的作用机理。其中,对于中介机理的研究包括如下四个不断深化的子研究：(1)考察团队学习对交互记忆系统与个体创造力、团队创造力关系的中介作用；(2)将团队学习分为团队内部学习和外部学习两部分,考察其对交互记忆系统与个体创造力、团队创造力关系的中介作用；(3)进一步将团队内部学习细化为团队成员的不同学习类型,探讨团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习对交互记忆系统与个体创造力关系的作用；(4)将团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习聚合到团队层次上,探讨利用性学习、开发性学习对交互记忆系统与团队创造力关系的不同作用。
此外,对于调节机制的考察主要包括对团队社会资本、团队知识多样化在交互记忆系统与团队创造力间的调节作用；领导的创新支持在个体层次和团队层次利用性学习、开发性学习与创造力关系间的调节作用。
最后,本文采用多重案例研究的方法,考察交互记忆系统与团队成员学习的演进机理。通过对多家高技术企业中研发团队的分析,阐释了交互记忆系统与团队成员学习类型之间的互动演进过程。
本文主要有如下贡献：
(1)本文从团队学习的中介作用入手,将团队学习细化为团队内部学习和,团队外部学习,然后又进一步将起中介作用的团队内部学习细化为团队成员的利用性学习和开发性学习,试图探讨不同层次的利用性学习和开发性学习在交互记忆系统与创造力间的作用。本文运用学习理论,通过对过程模型的递进性剖析,充分阐释了交互记忆系统对创造力的作用机理。
(2)本文运用跨层次研究的方法对学习行为及创造力之间的关系进行系统考察,弥补了过去只从单一层次进行研究的局限。本文提出,个体层次的利用性学习和开发性学习对个体创造力具有积极影响；但当团队中的所有成员都参与到利用性学习和开发性学习中时,团队层次的利用性学习对团队创造力仍具有积极影响,但开发性学习则对团队创造力产生了消极影响。这一研究深化了我们对不同层次学习类型之作用方向的认识。
(3)本文通过访谈、开放式问卷调查和大样本调查的方法对个体的利用性学习和开发性学习进行量表开发,通过运用两个不同的样本(研发团队样本和知识型员工样本)数据验证了量表的有效性和可信性,深化了对个体利用性学习和开发性学习概念构思的理解,对于以后的相关研究具有一定的推动作用。
(4)本文探讨了在交互记忆系统对个体层次和团队层次产出的作用过程中,团队社会资本、团队知识多样化和领导的创新支持所起的调节作用,通过对团队社会资本、团队构成和领导作用的考察,拓展了对交互记忆系统作用机制的研究。
(5)本文对交互记忆系统作用机制的考察采用调查问卷的方法,弥补了以往现场研究的不足。本文所选择的学生样本是典型的临时性团队；而企业样本是创新需求较高的长期性团队——两者的互动方式、学习氛围等都有所不同,这为我们深入理解交互记忆系统的作用机制提供了更充分的实证证据。
(6)本文运用案例研究方法,从团队成员学习的视角构建交互记忆的演进机理,突破了以往视交互记忆系统为团队层面作用机制的局限,本文关注团队成员的利用性学习、开发性学习与交互记忆系统的互动发展过程,为从纵向机制上理解交互记忆系统与学习行为的关系开拓了新的思路。
With the increasing visibility of teams in organizations, there is a great challenge for the teams to coordinate and utilize their members'knowledge. A central concern of team's knowledge coordination has to do with transactive memory system (TMS), which is defined as the shared division of cognitive labor regarding group members' encoding, storage, retrieval, and communication of information from different knowledge domains. Prior research in project laboratory and ad hoc groups has highlighted the roles of TMS not only in improving team knowledge acquisition, but also in enhancing team knowledge process which foster creativity, but field research has lagged because the mechanism surrounding the TMS-creativity link is not well understood, which makes exploring the black box of their relationship crucial.
Drawing on the data from operational teams held in a comprehensive university and enterprises in China, this study presents a multilevel framework for understanding TMS as a learning system that affects individual and team creativity.
This study examines the mechanism of TMS influencing individual and team creativity. It unfolds as follows:first, it examines the mediating role of team learning in the relationship of TMS, individual creativity and team creativity. Second, it validates the mediating roles of two dimensions of team learning involving local learning and distal learning between TMS and creativity. Third, it specifies the team local learning into individual level involving exploitative learning and explorative learning for testing their different effects on the relationship between TMS and individual creativity. Finally, it aggregates the individual exploitative learning and explorative learning to team level to examine their distinguished roles in the relationship between TMS and team creativity.
What's more, this study tests the moderators, for example the moderating roles of team social capital and team knowledge diversity between TMS and team creativity, and the moderating effect of leader's innovation support on the relationship between exploitative learning, explorative learning and creativity. In considering the role of moderators, this study adds to a growing body of literature focusing on how the effects of TMS are context-dependent, and adds more generally to the emerging interest in multilevel influences in team outcome providing further evidence for the promise of this approach.
This study also explores the interactive relationship between TMS and learning behaviors by case study. With the sample of R & D teams in high-tech enterprises, it examines their interaction in different phrases of TMS.
This study thus makes a number of contributions to the TMS literature and also provides an important caveat regarding the benefits of learning. It is an attempt to advance knowledge in following areas.
First, it explores the mediating role of learning behaviors between TMS and creativity step by step. It starts with team learning, then specifies it into local and distal learning and finally explores exploitative learning and explorative learning which are two different learning behaviors of local learning by multilevel analysis. The results show the mediating effect of exploitative learning but there is no mediating effect of explorative learning. This study broadens our understanding of the effect of TMS from a team learning perspective.
Second, using hierarchical linear modeling, it examines multilevel relationship of TMS, learning behaviors and creativity. Previous work on TMS has focused on either individual or group level analysis. This study proposes learning behaviors in both levels are influened by TMS, furthermore, they have different effects on creativity in different levels. That is, when aggregated to the group level, exploitative learning and explorative learning could explain team creativity in different ways. By developing a multilevel framework and providing a more comprehensive picture of what kind of learning behaviors engaging in the relationship between TMS and creativity, this study not only contributes to the understanding of the mechanism of TMS, but also broadens our understanding of different effects of multilevel learning behaviors.
Third, it constructs and validates the two dimensions of individual learning behaviors involving exploitative learning and explorative learning with discussion and data collection, which contributes to the understanding of the individual exploitative learning and explorative learning.
Forth, it contributes to a growingbody of work exploring the context of TMS on creativity, which enriches our knowledge about the mechanism of TMS. The moderating factors include team social capital, team knowledge diversity and leader's innovation support.
Fifth, while most of TMS studies have been conducted in laboratory settings or have relied on either student samples or teams in a single organization, this study has used several samples in China to fill this gap. The samples of the study are representative because one of these is ad hoc group, while others are long-term team samples with different interactive ways and learning atmosphere. It provides more evidence for this study.
Finally, it explores the interactive relationship between TMS and learning behaviors by case study. Prior research tends to treat TMS as evolving linearly, using static measures rather than assessing development over time. In response, this study offers a model emphasizing cyclical aspects of TMS development and it proposes the relationship between TMS and learning behaviors during the development of TMS.
引文
[1]Allen, N. J.,& Meyer, J. P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,1990,63,1-18.
[2]Alvesson, M. Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,2004,58-73.
[3]Amabile, T. M.,& Conti, R. Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal,1999,42(6),630-640.
[4]Amason, A. C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(2),123-148.
[5]Anand, V., Manz, C. C.,& Glick, W. H. An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(4), 796-809.
[6]Ancona, D. G.,& Caldwell, D. F. Demography and design:Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science,1992,3(3),321-341.
[7]Anderson, N.,& West, M. A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,1998,19(3),235-258.
[8]Andrews, K. M.,& Delahaye, B. L. Influences on knowledge process in organizational learning:The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies, 2000,37(6),2322-2380.
[9]Andriopoulos, C.,& Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,2009,20(4),696-717.
[10]Argyris, C.,& Schon, D. A. Organizational learning:A theory of action perspective. MA:Addison-Wesley; 1978,33-59.
[11]Argote, L, Gruenfeld, D.,& Naquin, C. Group learning in organizations. NJ: Erlbaum,2001,369-411.
[12]Argote, L., Insko, C. A.,& Yovetich, N., et al. Group learning curves:The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1995,25(3),512-529.
[13]Ashforth, B. E.,& Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(1),20-39.
[14]Audia, P. G.,& Goncalo, J. A. Past success and creativity over time:A study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry. Management Science,2007,53(4), 341-359.
[15]Auh, S.,& Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,2005,58,1652-1661.
[16]Austin, J. R. Transactive memory in organizational groups:The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(5),866-878.
[17]Barab, S. A.,& Duffy, T. From practice fields to communities of practice. In:D. Jonassen & S. M. Land. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,2000,25-56.
[18]Barua, A., Krieble, C.,& Mukhopadhyay. Information technologies and business value:An analytical and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 1995,6(1),3-23.
[19]Bass, B. M.,& Avolio, B. J. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, GA:Sage,1994,79-94.
[20]Baum, J. A. C.,& Dahlin, K. B. Aspiration performance and railroads' patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organization Science,2007,18(3), 368-385.
[21]Becker, G.,& Murphy, K. The division of labor, coordination costs and knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,11,1137-1160.
[22]Benner, M. J.,& Tushman, M. L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management:The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2),238-256.
[23]Berg, B. L., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,2005,37-43.
[24]Berry, D. C.,& Broadbent, D. E. The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control. Psychological Research,1987,49,7-15.
[25]Bliese, P. D. Group size and measure of group-level properties:An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management,1998a,24(2),157-172.
[26]Bliese, P. D. Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations:A simulation. Organizational Research Methods,1998b,1,355-373.
[27]Boh, W. F., Slaughter, S. A.,& Espinosa, J. A. Learning from experience in software development:A multilevel analysis. Management Science,2007,53(8), 1315-1331.
[28]Borgatti, S. P.,& Cross, R. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science,2003,49(4),432-445.
[29]Bos, W.& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research, International Journal of Educational Research,1999,31(8),659-671.
[30]Bower, J.,& Christensen, C. Disruptive technologies:Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(1),43-53.
[31]Brandon, D, P.,& Hollingshead, A. B. Transactive memory systems in organizations:Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science,2004, 15,633-645.
[32]Bresman, H. External learning activities and team performance:A multimethod field study. Organization Science,2010,21(1),81-96.
[33]Brophy, D. R. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal,1998,11,199-229.
[34]Brown, J. S., Collins, A.,& Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,1989,18(1),32-42.
[35]Bunderson, J. S. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups:A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly,2003,48,557-591.
[36]Bunderson, J. S.,& Sutcliffe, K. M. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams:Processes and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(5),875-889.
[37]Bunderson, J. S.,& Sutcliffe, K. M. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(3),552-560.
[38]Burt, R. S. Structural Holes:The social structure of competition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press,1992,55-72.
[39]Callero, P. L., Howard, J. A.,& Piliavin, J. A. Helping behavior as role behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social Psychology Quarterly,1987,50,247-256.
[40]Cannon-Bower, J. A.,& Salas, E. Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Miami FL:Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1990.
[41]Cannon-Bowers, J. A.,& Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001,22(2),195-202.
[42]Cao, Q. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity:Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science,2009,20(4),781-796.
[43]Carson, P. P.,& Carson, K. D. Managing creativity enhancement through goal setting and feedback. Journal of Creative Behavior,1993,27,36-45.
[44]Choi, J. N. Crisis management in organizational teams:The effect of internal and external activities. Paper presented at the 10th annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC,1998.
[45]Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W.,& White, R. E. An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3),532-537.
[46]Coen, C. A. Seeking the comparative advantage:The dynamics of individual cooperation in single vs. multiple-team environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2006,100(2),145-159.
[47]Cohen, W. M.,& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),128-152.
[48]Cyert, R. M.,& March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1963,17-26.
[49]Damanpour, F. Organizational innovation:A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(2), 555-590.
[50]Davenport, T. H. Ten principles of knowledge management and four cases studies. Knowledge and Process Management,1997,4(3),187-208.
[51]Davenport, T.,& Prusak, L., Working knowledge:How organizations manage what they know, Boston:Harvard Business School,1998,69-78.
[52]Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K.,& Tihanyi, L. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs:The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies,2004,35, 428-442.
[53]Dixon, S. E. A., Meyer, K. E.,& Day, M. Exploitation and exploration learning and the development of organizational capabilities:A cross-case analysis of the Russian oil industry. Human Relations,2007,60(10),1493-1794.
[54]Edmondson, A. C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(2),350-383.
[55]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Bourgeois, L. J. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31(4),737-770.
[56]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[57]Ellis, A. System breakdown:The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(3),576-589.
[58]Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., West, B. J, et al., Team learning:Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(5),821-835.
[59]Ericsson, K. A.,& Smith, J. Toward a general theory of expertise:Prospect and limits. New York:Cambridge University Press,1991,12-20.
[60]Ericsson, K. A.,& Charness, N. Expert performance:Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist,1994,49,725-747.
[61]Espinosa, J. A., Lerch, J.,& Kraut, R. Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies:One size does not fit all. Washington, DC: APA Books,2004,9-51.
[62]Ettlie, J. E. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal,1983,26 (1),27-38.
[63]Faraj, S.,& Sproull, L. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science,2000,46(12),1554-1569.
[64]Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P.,& Kung-Mclntyre, K. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal,2003, 46,618-630.
[65]Feist, G. J. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review,1998,2,290-309.
[66]Feldhusen, J. F.,& Goh, B. E. Assessing and accessing creativity-An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal,1995, 8,231-247.
[67]Feldhusen, J. F. Creativity:A knowledge base meta-cognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior,1995,4,255-268.
[68]Filstad, C. How newcomer use role models in organizational socialization. Journal of Workplace Learning,2004,16(7),396-409.
[69]Fiore, S. M., Salas, E.,& Cannon-Bowers, J. A. Group dynamics and shared mental models development. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2001, 91-93.
[70]Ford, C. M. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review,1996,21(6),1112-1142.
[71]Freeman, C. The economic of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1994,18,463-514.
[72]Gagn e, R. M. Studies of learning 50 years of research. Florida:Florida State University Tallahassee,1989,12-27.
[73]Garcia, R., Calantone, R.,& Levine, R. The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences,2003,34(2),323-350.
[74]Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A.,& Rust, M. C. The common ingroup identity model:Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. London:John Wiley& Sons,1993,1-26.
[75]Gibson, C.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(2), 209-226.
[76]Gibson, C.,& Vermeulen, F. V. A healthy divide subgroup as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,2003,48(2),202-239.
[77]Gilson, L. L.,& Shalley, C. E. A little creativity goes a long way:An examination of teams'engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management,2004,30(4), 453-470.
[78]Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E.,& Todorova, G. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2010,111(1),102-115.
[79]Gong, Y. P., Huang, J. C.,& Farh J. L., Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity:The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academic of Management Journal,2009,52(4), 765-778.
[80]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structures. American Journal of sociology,1985,91,481-510.
[81]Gray, P. H.,& Meister, D. B. Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Science,2004,50(6),821-834.
[82]Gruenfeld, D. H., E. Mannix, K.,& Williams, M. A. N. Group composition and decision making:How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996,67(1),1-15.
[83]Gupta, A., K, Smith, K. G.,& Shalley, C. E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4),693-706.
[84]Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E.,& Taylor, M. S., Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science,2007,18(6),885-897.
[85]Haas, M. R. Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams:The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science,2006,17(3),367-384.
[86]Haas, M. R. Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in challenging work environments. Management Science,2006,52(8),1170-1184.
[87]Haas, M. R.,& Hansen, M. T. When using knowledge can hurt performance:The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26,1-24.
[88]Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999, 44(1),82-111.
[89]Hansen, M. T., Mores, M. L.,& Lovas, B. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal,2005, 48(5),776-793.
[90]He. Z. L.,& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science,2004,15(3),481-494.
[91]Hendrick, P. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,1999,6(2),91-100.
[92]Henry, R. Improving group judgment accuracy:Information sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995,62(2),190-197.
[93]Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S.,& Vollrath, D. A. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,1997,121(1),43-64.
[94]Hogg, M. A.,& Terry. D. J. Social identity and social categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review.2000,25(1),121-140.
[95]Hollingshead, A. B. Communication, learning, and retrieval in the transactive memory system.Experiment Social Psychology,1998a,34,423-442.
[96]Hollingshead, A. B. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1998b,74(3),659-671.
[97]Hollingshead, A. B. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,2000,3,257-267.
[98]Hollingshead, A. B. Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2001,81(5), 1080-1089.
[99]Hollingshead, A. B.,& Fraidin, S. Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise intransactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003,39(4),355-363.
[100]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra- and inter-organizational leaning. Organization Studies,2003,24(1),95-110.
[101]Holmqvist, M. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations:An empirical study of product development. Organization Science.2004,15(1),70-81.
[102]Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R.,& Upton, D. M. Team familiarity, role experience, and performance:Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 2009,55(1),85-100.
[103]Im, G,& Rai, A. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationship. Management Science,2008,54(7),1281-1296.
[104]James, L. R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,1982,67(1),219-229.
[105]James, L. R., Demaree, R. G,& Wolf, G Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,1984, 69(1),85-98.
[106]Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J.,& Volberda, H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:Effects of antecedent and environment moderator. Organizational Management Science,2006,52(11), 1661-1674.
[107]Jehn, K. A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administration Science Quarterly,1995,40(2),245-282.
[108]Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B.,& Neale, M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44,741-763.
[109]Kanawattanchai, P.,& Yoo, Y. J. The implicit of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly,2007,31,783-808.
[110]Kane, G C,& Alavi, M. Information technology and organizational learning:An investigation of exploration and exploitation process. Organization Science,2007, 18(5),796-815.
[111]Katila, R.,& Ahuja, G Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45,1183-1194.
[112]Kim, D. H. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review,1993,1(35),37-50.
[113]Kim, P. H. When what you know can hurt you:A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes,1997,69(2),165-177.
[114]Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F.,& Hall, R. J. Level issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review,1994,19(2),195-229.
[115]Klimoski, R.,& Mohammed, S. Team mental model:Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management,1994,20,403-437.
[116]Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R.,& Heppard, K. A. An empirical test of environmental organizational and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2003, 14(1),21.
[117]Krackhardt, D. The strength of strong ties:the importance of philos in organizations, networks and organizations:Structure, form and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1992,53-68.
[118]Jan, K., Roger, T. Leenders, A. J., Jo, M. L.& Van, E. Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management,2004,13(1),63-72.
[119]Lave, J.,& Wenger, E. Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press,1991,89-95.
[120]Lee, J., Lee, L.,& Lee, H. Exploration and exploitation in the presences of network externalities. Management Science,2003,49,553-570.
[121]Leonard, B. D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[122]Levinthal, D. A.,& March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,95-112.
[123]Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M.,& Wholey, D. R. Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001,22 (2),135-144.
[124]Levitt, B.,& March, J. G. Organizational learning. In Scott WR, Blake J, editors. Annual review of sociology. Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews,1988,47-59.
[125]Lewis, K. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field:Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(3),587-604.
[126]Lewis, K. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams:A longitudinal study of transactive memory system. Management Science,2004,11, 1519-1533.
[127]Lewis, K., Gillis, L.,& Lange, D. Who says you can't take it with you? Transferring transactive memory systems across tasks. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings,2003,1-6.
[128]Lewis, K., Lange, D.,& Gillis, L. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science,2005,16(6),581-600.
[129]Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B.,&Keller, J. Group cognition, membership change, and performance:Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2007,103, 159-178.
[130]Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W.,& Schoenmakers, W. Exploration & exploitation in innovation:Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2008,17(2),107-126.
[131]Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L.& Argote, L. Group versus individual training and group performance:The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1995,21,384-393.
[132]Liao, H.,& Chuang, A. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(1),41-58.
[133]Littlepage, G. E. Effects of task experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,1997,69(1),133-147.
[134]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[135]Markus, H. R.,& Kitayama, S. Culture and the self:Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,1991,98,224-253.
[136]Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F. et al., The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000,85(2),273-283.
[137]McFadyen, M. A.,& Cannella, J. A. A. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(4),735-746.
[138]McGrath, R. G. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1),118-132.
[139]Menon, T.,& Preffer, J. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge:Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science,2003,49(4),497-513.
[140]Miller,"V. D.,& Jablin, F. M. Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 1991,16(1),92-120.
[141]Mohammed, S.,& Dumville, B. C. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework:Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior,,2001,22(2),89-106.
[142]Mom, T. J., Van, B.,& Volberda, H. W. Investigating managers'exploration and exploitation activities:The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies,2007,44(6),910-931.
[143]Moreland, R. L., Argote, L.,& Krishnan, R. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In:Nye J L, Brower A. M, What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.1996,57-84.
[144]Moreland, R. Transactive memory:Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In:L Thompson, D Messick, J Levine, Sharing knowledge in organizations. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,1999,3-31.
[145]Moreland, R. L., Myaskovsky, L. Explaining the performance benefits of group training:Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1),117-133.
[146]Moorman, C., Miner, A. S. The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Market Research,1997,34(1),91-106.
[147]Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P.;& Supinski, E. P. Process based measures of creative problem-solving skills:4 category combinations. Creativity Research Journal,1997,10,59-71.
[148]Mumford, M. D. Managing creative people:Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resources Management Review,2000,10,313-351.
[149]Mumford, M. D., Feldman, J. M., Hein, M. B.,& Nagao, D. J. Tradeoffs between ideas and structure:Individual versus group performance in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior,2001,35,1-23.
[150]Murray, A. I. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10,125-141.
[151]Nahapiet, J.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23,242-266.
[152]Nandkeolyar, A. K. How do teams learn? Shared mental models and transactive memory systems as determinants of team learning and effectiveness, Dissertation, The University of Iowa,2008.
[153]Nebus, J. Building collegial information network:A theory of advice network generation. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),615-637.
[154]Neil, E.,& Michael, A. W. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory; Summary. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1998,19(3),235-259.
[155]Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,1967, 21-76.
[156]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the cynamics of innovation. N.Y.:Oxford University Press, 1995,59-64.
[157]Nrico, R., Nchez-Manzanares, M. S., Gil, F.,& Gibson, C. Team implicit coordination process:A team knowledge-based approach.Academy of Management Review,2008,33(1),163-184.
[158]Oldham, G. R.,& Cummings, A. Employee creativity:Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(3),607-634.
[159]Ostroff, C.,& Kozlowski, S. W. J. Organizational socialization as a learning process:The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology,1992,45(4), 849-923.
[160]Paulus, P. B. Groups, teams, and creativity:The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology:An International Review,2000, 49(2),237-262.
[161]Paulus, P. B.& Yang, H. C. Idea generation in groups:A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000, 82(1),76-87.
[162]Pearsal, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J.,& Stein, J. H., Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams:Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2009,109(1),18-28.
[163]Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Xin, K. R. Exploring the black box:An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44,1-28.
[164]Perry-Smith, J. E.,& Shalley, C. E. The social side of creativity:A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review,2003, 28(1),89-106.
[165]Pinto, J. K.,& Prescott, J. E. Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management,1988,14(1),5-18.
[166]Pirola-Merlo, A.,& Mann, L. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2004,25(3),235-257.
[167]Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G..,& Tushman, M. L., Organizational ambidexterity:Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science,2009,20(4),685-695.
[168]Rau, D. Knowing who knows what:The effect of transactive memory on the relationship between diversity of expertise and performance in top management teams. Ph. D Dissertation, University of Minnesota,2001.
[169]Reagans, R.,& Zuckerman, E. W. Networks, diversity, and productivity:The social capital of corporate R & D teams. Organization Science,2001,12(4), 502-518.
[170]Reagans, R., Argote, L.,& Brooks, D. Individual experience and experience working together:Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science,2005,51(6),869-882.
[171]Ren, Y. Q., Carley, K. M.,& Argote, L. The contingent effects of transactive memory:When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science,2006,52(5),671-682.
[172]Riley, A.,& Burke, P. J. Identities and self-verification in the small group. Social Psychology Quarterly,1995,58,61-73.
[173]Robert, D. D.,& Jane, E. D. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11),1422-1433.
[174]Rollag, K. The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2004,25,853-872.
[175]Rothaermel, F. T.,& Alexandre, M. T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science,2009,20(4), 759-780.
[176]Rulke, D. L.,& Rau, D. Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 2000,25(4),373-396.
[177]Samer, F.,& Lee, S. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science,2000,12,1554-1568.
[178]Sanders, P. Phenomenology:A new way of viewing organizational research. Academy of Management Review,1982,7(3),353-360.
[179]Senge, P. M. The fifth discipline:The art and practice of the learning organization, New York:Doubleday/Currency,1990,31-84.
[180]Schwab, A. Incremental organizational learning from multilevel information sources:Evidence for cross-level interactions. Organization Science,2007,18(2), 233-251.
[181]Scott, S. G.,& Bruce, R. A. Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,1994, 37,580-607.
[182]Shah, P. P. Who are employees' social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others. Academy of Management Journal,1998,41(3), 249-268.
[183]Shalley, C. E. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,1991,76(2), 179-185.
[184]Shalley, C. E.,& Gilson, L. L. What leaders need to know:A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004,15,33-53.
[185]Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J.,& Oldham, G. R. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity:Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,2004,30,933-958.
[186]Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R.,& Volberda, H. W. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science,2007,18 (1),20-41.
[187]Simon, H A. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),125-134.
[188]Simonton, D. K. Creativity in science-chance, logic, genius and zeitgeist. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004,46-68.
[189]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing,1995,59,63-74.
[190]Smith, W. K.,& Tushman, M. L., Managing strategic contradictions:A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 2005,16 (5),522-536.
[191]Somech, A. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management,2006, 32(1),132-157.
[192]Sparrowe, R. T. et al., Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44,316-325.
[193]Stata, R. Organizational learning:The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review,1989,30(3),67-73.
[194]Stein, E W. Organizational memory:Review of concepts and recommendations for management. International Journal of Information Management,1995,15(2), 17-32.
[195]Steiner, I. D. Group process and productivity. New York:Academic Press,1972, 80-102.
[196]Sternberg, R. J. A three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. The Nature of Creativity. New York:Cambridge University Press,1988,125-147.
[197]Stemberg, R. J.,& Lubart, T. I. The concept of creativity:Prospects and paradigms. New York:Cambridge University Press.1999,3-16.
[198]Sutton, R. I.,& Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context:Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Management Quarterly,1996,41,685-718.
[199]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,27-43.
[200]Taggar, S. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources:A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(2), 315-330.
[201]Tajfel, H.,& Turner, J. C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations,1986,2,7-24.
[202]Taylor, A.,& Greve, H. R. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49,723-740.
[203]Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L.,& Klein, S. R. Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,1997,31,27-41.
[204]Tierney, P.,& Farmer, S. M. Creativity self-efficacy:Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45, 1137-1148.
[205]Tierney, P.,& Farmer, S. M. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management,2004,30,413-432.
[206]Tsai, W.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,1998,41(4),464-476.
[207]Tsai, W. P. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[208]Tushman, M.,& Scanlan, T. J. Boundary spanning individuals:Their role in information transfer and their antecedent. Academy of Management Journal, 1981,24(2),289-305.
[209]Tushman, M. L.,& O'Reilly, C. Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review,1996, 38,8-30.
[210]Vanhaverbeke, W., Beerkens, B.,& Duysters, G. Explorative and exploitative learning strategies in technology-based alliance networks. Working Paper,2003.
[211]Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A.,& Salas, E. The impact of cross-training on team functioning:An empirical investigation. Human Factors,1996,38,87-100.
[212]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988,35-42.
[213]Wadhwa, A.& Kotha, S. Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4),819-835.
[214]Walsh, J. P.,& Ungson, G. R., Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review,1991,16(1),57-91.
[215]Weber, R. R. Basic Content Analysis. California, Sage,1990,97-115.
[216]Wegner, D. M. Transactive memory:A contemporary analysis of the group mind. New York:Springer-Verlag.1987,185-208.
[217]Wegner, D. M., Erber, R.,& Raymond, P. Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1991,61,923-929.
[218]Weick, K. E.,& Roberts, K. H. Collective mind in organizations:Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly,1993,38, 357-381.
[219]West, M. A. Innovation and creativity at work:Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester:John Wiley,1990,309-333.
[220]West, M. A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology International Review,2002,51,355-387.
[221]West, M. A.,& Anderson, N. R. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81(4),680-693.
[222]West, M. A,& Hirst, G. Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. Chichester: John Wiley,2003,297-319.
[223]Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S.,& Cronin, M. A. Group learning. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(4),1041-1059.
[224]Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P.,& Zuckerman, C. Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1999,77(5),967-97.
[225]Wittenbaum, G, Stasser, G..,& Merry, C. Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1996, 32(2),129-152.
[226]Wong, S-S. Distal and local group learning:Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science.2004,15(6),645-657.
[227]Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J. E.&Griffin, R. W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acedemy of Management Review,1993,18(2),293-321.
[228]Wu, S., Lincathy, S.,& Lin, T. C. Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual team:A social exchange theory perspective. System Sciences,2006,1(1),26-36.
[229]Yan, A.,& Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6),1478-151.
[230]Yang, K. S. The formation and change of Chinese personality:A cultural-ecological perspective. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica,1981,23(1), 39-56.
[231]Yin, R. Case study research:Design and methods. Beverly Hills:Sage,1994, 40-52.
[232]Yoo, Y,& Kanawattanachai, P. Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,2001,9,187-208.
[233]Yuan, Y. C., Monge, P. R.,& Fulk, J. Social capital and transactive memory systems in work groups:A multilevel approach. Academy of Management Proceedings,2005,1,1-6.
[234]Zahra, S. A.,& George, G, Absorptive Capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[235]Zhang, Z. X., Hempel, P. H., Han, Y,& Tjsvold, D. Transactive memory system links work team characteristics to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007,92(6),1722-1730.
[236]安嘉翔,张磬兰,张增年.学习过程及其运行机制.宁夏大学学报(自然科学版),1997,3,27-32.
[237]奥苏贝尔等.教育心理学——认知观点.北京：人民教育出版社,1994,14-55.
[238]白新文,王二平.共享心智模型研究现状.心理科学进展,2004,12(5),791-799.
[239]布鲁纳.教育过程.深圳：文化教育出版社,1982,4-61.
[240]曹兴,曾智莲.知识分布及其对企业知识转移的影响分析.科学学研究,2008,26(2),344-349.
[241]陈国权.团队学习与学习型团队：概念、能力模型、测量及对团队绩效的影响.管理学报,2007,4(5),602-209.
[242]陈国权.复杂变化环境下人的学习能力：概念、模型、测量及影响.中国管理科学,2008,16(1),147-157.
[243]陈国权,赵慧群,蒋璐.团队心理安全、团队学习能力与团队绩效关系的实证研究.科学学研究,2008,26(6),1283-1292.
[244]陈维军.文献计量法与内容分析法的比较研究.情报科学,2001,19(8),884-886
[245]崔浩,张道武,陈晓剑.组织知识创新机制扩展研究.科学学研究,2005,23(1),130-133.
[246]戴俊,朱小梅.基于团队知识交流的组织知识转化机制研究.科研管理,2005,26(3),121-127.
[247]丁志华,李萍,胡志新等.团队创造力数学模型的研究.北京师范大学学报：社会科学版,2005(3),40-47.
[248]樊斌,鞠晓峰.企业知识分享的正负效应分析.学术交流,2008,169(4),88-91.
[249]方凌云,邹珊刚.企业群体知识的创造与互动性研究.科研管理,2003,24(2),33-36.
[250]郭亮,洪咸友.交互记忆系统理论在团队有效性研究中的应用.科技管理研究,2007,9,221-223.
[251]郝宁,吴庆麟.创造力与能力、专长及胜任力关系评述.心理科学,2005,28(2),501-505.
[252]侯泰杰.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2005,78-104.
[253]柯江林,孙健敏,石金涛,顾琴轩.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究——以知识分享与知识整合为中介变量.管理世界,2007,3,89-101.
[254]李平,张庆普.从知识分享到知识和谐：一种知识管理观念.商业经济与管理,2008,197(3),20-26.
[255]李剑力.利用性创新、开发性创新与企业绩效关系研究——基于冗余资源调节效应的实证分析.科学学研究,2009,27(9),1418-1427.
[256]李栓久,陈维政.个人学习、团队学习和组织学习的机理研究.西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2007,193,214-21.
[257]李忆,司有和.探索式创新、利用式创新与绩效：战略和环境的影响.南开管理评论,2008,11(5),4-12.
[258]刘海燕,闫荣双,郭德俊.认知动机理论的新近展——自我决定论.心理科学,2003,26(6),1115-1116.
[259]罗伯特·K·殷(周海涛译).案例研究设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004,37-52.
[260]马文峰.试析内容分析法在社科情报学中的应用.情报科学,2000,18(4),346-350.
[261]毛基业,张霞.案例研究方法的规范性及现状评估——中国企业管理案例论坛(2007)综述.管理世界,2008,4,122-128.
[262]毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习研究综述.人类工效学,2007,13(4),70-73.
[263]莫申江,,谢小云.团队学习、交互记忆系统与团队绩效：基于IMOI范式的纵向追踪研究.心理学报,2009,41(7),639-648.
[264]潘陆山,孟晓斌.组织记忆研究前沿探析、多重存储模型构建与未来研究展望.外国经济与管理,2010,32(2),24-31.
[2651彭正龙,陶然.基于认知能力的项目团队内部知识特性对知识转移影响机制研究.情报杂志,2008,9,45-49.
[266]皮亚杰.发生认识论原理.北京：商务印书馆,1981,63-89.
[267]卜心怡,赵灵丽.知识分享研究方法与进展综述.杭州电子科技大学学报,2007,27(3),79-83.
[268]邱均平,邹非.国外内容分析法的研究概况及进展.图书情报知识,2003,6,6-10.
[269]阮国祥,毛荐其.社会资本、社会认知和团队知识转移.情报杂志,2010,29(1),151-154.
[270]孙海法,朱莹楚.案例研究法的理论与应用.科学管理研究,2004,1,116-122.
[271]孙慧中.网络组织中知识分享的正负效应.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,3,177-178.
[272]王凤彬,陈建勋.新产品开发团队的异质性知识构成与学习机制.经济理论与经济管理,2008,2,51-58.
[273]王黎萤,陈劲.研发团队创造力的影响机制研究——以团队共享心智模型为中介.科学学研究,2010,28(3),420-429.
[274]王三义,何风林.社会资本的认知维度对知识转移的影响路径研究.统计与决策,2007(3),122-123.
[275]王为东,王文平.关系整合、双重学习与组织持续绩效机制研究.软科学, 2009,23(9),34-38.
[276]魏江,王铜安.个体、群组、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究.科学学研究,2007,24(1),91-98.
[277]吴江,胡斌,刘天印.交互记忆系统影响人群与工作交互的模拟研究.管理科学,2009,22(1),48-58.
[278]吴金希,于永达.浅析管理学中的案例研究方法、特点、方法设计与有效性讨论.科学学研究.2004,22(12),105-111.
[279]武欣,吴志明.团队共享心智模型的影响因素与效果.心理学报,2005,37(4),542-549.
[280]武欣,吴志明.基于共享心智模型的团队知识管理研究.研究与发展管理,2006,18(3),9-16.
[281]武欣,张厚粲.创造力研究的新进展.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997,1,13-18.
[282]肖余春.学习型团队三维特征结构与团队效能关系的现场实验研究.心理科学,2004,2,471-473.
[283]杨志蓉.团队快速信任、互动行为与团队创造力——对中介传导机制的探索与经验研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[284]于海波,郑晓明,方俐洛,凌文辁.中国企业开发性学习与利用式学习平衡的实证研究.科研管理,2008,29(6),137-143.
[285]张钢,倪旭东.知识差异和知识冲突对团队创新的影响.心理学报,2007,39(5),926-933.
[286]张钢,熊立.交互记忆系统研究回顾与展望.心理科学进展,2007,15(5),840-845.
[287]张钢,熊立.成员异质性与团队绩效：以交互记忆系统为中介变量.科研管理,2009,30(1),71-80.
[288]张华,席酉民,丁琳.社会网络对个体创造力的作用机理研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,11,185-192.
[289]张建伟.知识的构建.教育理论与实践,1999,7,48-53.
[290]张娜,陈学中.团队社会资本及对绩效的影响.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,11,181-185.
[291]张淑华,方华.企业组织氛围与组织隐性知识分享之关系研究.心理科学,2005,28(2),383-387.
[292]张文勤,石金涛,宋琳琳,顾琴轩.团队中的目标取向对个人与团队创新的影响——多层次研究框架.科研管理,2008,29(6),74-81.
[293]张玉利,李乾文.双元型组织研究评介.外国经济与管理,2006,28(1),7-14.
[294]张志学,Hempel. P. S.,韩玉兰,邱静.高技术工作团队的交互记忆系统及其效果.心理学报,2006,38(2),271-280.
[295]张振新,吴庆麟.情境学习理论研究综述.心理科学,2005,28(1),125-127.
[296]周密,赵文红,姚小涛.社会关系视角下的知识转移理论研究评述及展望.科研管理,2007,28(3),78-86.
[297]周耀烈,杨腾蛟.个体创造力向团队创造力转化的机理研究.科学学研究,2007,25(S2),409-414.
[298]朱朝晖.探索性学习、挖掘性学习和创新绩效.科学学研究,2008,26(4),860-867.
[299]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习和挖掘性学习：对立或协同?科学学研究,2008,26(5),1052-1060.
[300]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习和挖掘性学习的协同与动态：实证研究.科研管理,2008,29(6),1-9.
[2]Alvesson, M. Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,2004,58-73.
[3]Amabile, T. M.,& Conti, R. Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal,1999,42(6),630-640.
[4]Amason, A. C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(2),123-148.
[5]Anand, V., Manz, C. C.,& Glick, W. H. An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(4), 796-809.
[6]Ancona, D. G.,& Caldwell, D. F. Demography and design:Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science,1992,3(3),321-341.
[7]Anderson, N.,& West, M. A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,1998,19(3),235-258.
[8]Andrews, K. M.,& Delahaye, B. L. Influences on knowledge process in organizational learning:The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies, 2000,37(6),2322-2380.
[9]Andriopoulos, C.,& Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,2009,20(4),696-717.
[10]Argyris, C.,& Schon, D. A. Organizational learning:A theory of action perspective. MA:Addison-Wesley; 1978,33-59.
[11]Argote, L, Gruenfeld, D.,& Naquin, C. Group learning in organizations. NJ: Erlbaum,2001,369-411.
[12]Argote, L., Insko, C. A.,& Yovetich, N., et al. Group learning curves:The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1995,25(3),512-529.
[13]Ashforth, B. E.,& Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(1),20-39.
[14]Audia, P. G.,& Goncalo, J. A. Past success and creativity over time:A study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry. Management Science,2007,53(4), 341-359.
[15]Auh, S.,& Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,2005,58,1652-1661.
[16]Austin, J. R. Transactive memory in organizational groups:The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(5),866-878.
[17]Barab, S. A.,& Duffy, T. From practice fields to communities of practice. In:D. Jonassen & S. M. Land. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,2000,25-56.
[18]Barua, A., Krieble, C.,& Mukhopadhyay. Information technologies and business value:An analytical and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 1995,6(1),3-23.
[19]Bass, B. M.,& Avolio, B. J. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, GA:Sage,1994,79-94.
[20]Baum, J. A. C.,& Dahlin, K. B. Aspiration performance and railroads' patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organization Science,2007,18(3), 368-385.
[21]Becker, G.,& Murphy, K. The division of labor, coordination costs and knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,11,1137-1160.
[22]Benner, M. J.,& Tushman, M. L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management:The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2),238-256.
[23]Berg, B. L., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,2005,37-43.
[24]Berry, D. C.,& Broadbent, D. E. The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control. Psychological Research,1987,49,7-15.
[25]Bliese, P. D. Group size and measure of group-level properties:An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management,1998a,24(2),157-172.
[26]Bliese, P. D. Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations:A simulation. Organizational Research Methods,1998b,1,355-373.
[27]Boh, W. F., Slaughter, S. A.,& Espinosa, J. A. Learning from experience in software development:A multilevel analysis. Management Science,2007,53(8), 1315-1331.
[28]Borgatti, S. P.,& Cross, R. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science,2003,49(4),432-445.
[29]Bos, W.& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research, International Journal of Educational Research,1999,31(8),659-671.
[30]Bower, J.,& Christensen, C. Disruptive technologies:Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(1),43-53.
[31]Brandon, D, P.,& Hollingshead, A. B. Transactive memory systems in organizations:Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science,2004, 15,633-645.
[32]Bresman, H. External learning activities and team performance:A multimethod field study. Organization Science,2010,21(1),81-96.
[33]Brophy, D. R. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal,1998,11,199-229.
[34]Brown, J. S., Collins, A.,& Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,1989,18(1),32-42.
[35]Bunderson, J. S. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups:A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly,2003,48,557-591.
[36]Bunderson, J. S.,& Sutcliffe, K. M. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams:Processes and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(5),875-889.
[37]Bunderson, J. S.,& Sutcliffe, K. M. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(3),552-560.
[38]Burt, R. S. Structural Holes:The social structure of competition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press,1992,55-72.
[39]Callero, P. L., Howard, J. A.,& Piliavin, J. A. Helping behavior as role behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social Psychology Quarterly,1987,50,247-256.
[40]Cannon-Bower, J. A.,& Salas, E. Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Miami FL:Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1990.
[41]Cannon-Bowers, J. A.,& Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001,22(2),195-202.
[42]Cao, Q. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity:Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science,2009,20(4),781-796.
[43]Carson, P. P.,& Carson, K. D. Managing creativity enhancement through goal setting and feedback. Journal of Creative Behavior,1993,27,36-45.
[44]Choi, J. N. Crisis management in organizational teams:The effect of internal and external activities. Paper presented at the 10th annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC,1998.
[45]Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W.,& White, R. E. An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3),532-537.
[46]Coen, C. A. Seeking the comparative advantage:The dynamics of individual cooperation in single vs. multiple-team environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2006,100(2),145-159.
[47]Cohen, W. M.,& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),128-152.
[48]Cyert, R. M.,& March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1963,17-26.
[49]Damanpour, F. Organizational innovation:A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(2), 555-590.
[50]Davenport, T. H. Ten principles of knowledge management and four cases studies. Knowledge and Process Management,1997,4(3),187-208.
[51]Davenport, T.,& Prusak, L., Working knowledge:How organizations manage what they know, Boston:Harvard Business School,1998,69-78.
[52]Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K.,& Tihanyi, L. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs:The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies,2004,35, 428-442.
[53]Dixon, S. E. A., Meyer, K. E.,& Day, M. Exploitation and exploration learning and the development of organizational capabilities:A cross-case analysis of the Russian oil industry. Human Relations,2007,60(10),1493-1794.
[54]Edmondson, A. C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(2),350-383.
[55]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Bourgeois, L. J. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31(4),737-770.
[56]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[57]Ellis, A. System breakdown:The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(3),576-589.
[58]Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., West, B. J, et al., Team learning:Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(5),821-835.
[59]Ericsson, K. A.,& Smith, J. Toward a general theory of expertise:Prospect and limits. New York:Cambridge University Press,1991,12-20.
[60]Ericsson, K. A.,& Charness, N. Expert performance:Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist,1994,49,725-747.
[61]Espinosa, J. A., Lerch, J.,& Kraut, R. Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies:One size does not fit all. Washington, DC: APA Books,2004,9-51.
[62]Ettlie, J. E. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal,1983,26 (1),27-38.
[63]Faraj, S.,& Sproull, L. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science,2000,46(12),1554-1569.
[64]Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P.,& Kung-Mclntyre, K. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal,2003, 46,618-630.
[65]Feist, G. J. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review,1998,2,290-309.
[66]Feldhusen, J. F.,& Goh, B. E. Assessing and accessing creativity-An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal,1995, 8,231-247.
[67]Feldhusen, J. F. Creativity:A knowledge base meta-cognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior,1995,4,255-268.
[68]Filstad, C. How newcomer use role models in organizational socialization. Journal of Workplace Learning,2004,16(7),396-409.
[69]Fiore, S. M., Salas, E.,& Cannon-Bowers, J. A. Group dynamics and shared mental models development. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2001, 91-93.
[70]Ford, C. M. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review,1996,21(6),1112-1142.
[71]Freeman, C. The economic of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1994,18,463-514.
[72]Gagn e, R. M. Studies of learning 50 years of research. Florida:Florida State University Tallahassee,1989,12-27.
[73]Garcia, R., Calantone, R.,& Levine, R. The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences,2003,34(2),323-350.
[74]Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A.,& Rust, M. C. The common ingroup identity model:Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. London:John Wiley& Sons,1993,1-26.
[75]Gibson, C.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(2), 209-226.
[76]Gibson, C.,& Vermeulen, F. V. A healthy divide subgroup as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,2003,48(2),202-239.
[77]Gilson, L. L.,& Shalley, C. E. A little creativity goes a long way:An examination of teams'engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management,2004,30(4), 453-470.
[78]Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E.,& Todorova, G. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2010,111(1),102-115.
[79]Gong, Y. P., Huang, J. C.,& Farh J. L., Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity:The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academic of Management Journal,2009,52(4), 765-778.
[80]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structures. American Journal of sociology,1985,91,481-510.
[81]Gray, P. H.,& Meister, D. B. Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Science,2004,50(6),821-834.
[82]Gruenfeld, D. H., E. Mannix, K.,& Williams, M. A. N. Group composition and decision making:How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996,67(1),1-15.
[83]Gupta, A., K, Smith, K. G.,& Shalley, C. E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4),693-706.
[84]Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E.,& Taylor, M. S., Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science,2007,18(6),885-897.
[85]Haas, M. R. Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams:The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science,2006,17(3),367-384.
[86]Haas, M. R. Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in challenging work environments. Management Science,2006,52(8),1170-1184.
[87]Haas, M. R.,& Hansen, M. T. When using knowledge can hurt performance:The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26,1-24.
[88]Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999, 44(1),82-111.
[89]Hansen, M. T., Mores, M. L.,& Lovas, B. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal,2005, 48(5),776-793.
[90]He. Z. L.,& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science,2004,15(3),481-494.
[91]Hendrick, P. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,1999,6(2),91-100.
[92]Henry, R. Improving group judgment accuracy:Information sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995,62(2),190-197.
[93]Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S.,& Vollrath, D. A. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,1997,121(1),43-64.
[94]Hogg, M. A.,& Terry. D. J. Social identity and social categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review.2000,25(1),121-140.
[95]Hollingshead, A. B. Communication, learning, and retrieval in the transactive memory system.Experiment Social Psychology,1998a,34,423-442.
[96]Hollingshead, A. B. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1998b,74(3),659-671.
[97]Hollingshead, A. B. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,2000,3,257-267.
[98]Hollingshead, A. B. Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2001,81(5), 1080-1089.
[99]Hollingshead, A. B.,& Fraidin, S. Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise intransactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003,39(4),355-363.
[100]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra- and inter-organizational leaning. Organization Studies,2003,24(1),95-110.
[101]Holmqvist, M. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations:An empirical study of product development. Organization Science.2004,15(1),70-81.
[102]Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R.,& Upton, D. M. Team familiarity, role experience, and performance:Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 2009,55(1),85-100.
[103]Im, G,& Rai, A. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationship. Management Science,2008,54(7),1281-1296.
[104]James, L. R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,1982,67(1),219-229.
[105]James, L. R., Demaree, R. G,& Wolf, G Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,1984, 69(1),85-98.
[106]Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J.,& Volberda, H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:Effects of antecedent and environment moderator. Organizational Management Science,2006,52(11), 1661-1674.
[107]Jehn, K. A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administration Science Quarterly,1995,40(2),245-282.
[108]Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B.,& Neale, M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44,741-763.
[109]Kanawattanchai, P.,& Yoo, Y. J. The implicit of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly,2007,31,783-808.
[110]Kane, G C,& Alavi, M. Information technology and organizational learning:An investigation of exploration and exploitation process. Organization Science,2007, 18(5),796-815.
[111]Katila, R.,& Ahuja, G Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45,1183-1194.
[112]Kim, D. H. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review,1993,1(35),37-50.
[113]Kim, P. H. When what you know can hurt you:A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes,1997,69(2),165-177.
[114]Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F.,& Hall, R. J. Level issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review,1994,19(2),195-229.
[115]Klimoski, R.,& Mohammed, S. Team mental model:Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management,1994,20,403-437.
[116]Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R.,& Heppard, K. A. An empirical test of environmental organizational and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2003, 14(1),21.
[117]Krackhardt, D. The strength of strong ties:the importance of philos in organizations, networks and organizations:Structure, form and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1992,53-68.
[118]Jan, K., Roger, T. Leenders, A. J., Jo, M. L.& Van, E. Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management,2004,13(1),63-72.
[119]Lave, J.,& Wenger, E. Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press,1991,89-95.
[120]Lee, J., Lee, L.,& Lee, H. Exploration and exploitation in the presences of network externalities. Management Science,2003,49,553-570.
[121]Leonard, B. D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[122]Levinthal, D. A.,& March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,95-112.
[123]Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M.,& Wholey, D. R. Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001,22 (2),135-144.
[124]Levitt, B.,& March, J. G. Organizational learning. In Scott WR, Blake J, editors. Annual review of sociology. Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews,1988,47-59.
[125]Lewis, K. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field:Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003,88(3),587-604.
[126]Lewis, K. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams:A longitudinal study of transactive memory system. Management Science,2004,11, 1519-1533.
[127]Lewis, K., Gillis, L.,& Lange, D. Who says you can't take it with you? Transferring transactive memory systems across tasks. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings,2003,1-6.
[128]Lewis, K., Lange, D.,& Gillis, L. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science,2005,16(6),581-600.
[129]Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B.,&Keller, J. Group cognition, membership change, and performance:Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2007,103, 159-178.
[130]Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W.,& Schoenmakers, W. Exploration & exploitation in innovation:Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2008,17(2),107-126.
[131]Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L.& Argote, L. Group versus individual training and group performance:The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1995,21,384-393.
[132]Liao, H.,& Chuang, A. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(1),41-58.
[133]Littlepage, G. E. Effects of task experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,1997,69(1),133-147.
[134]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[135]Markus, H. R.,& Kitayama, S. Culture and the self:Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,1991,98,224-253.
[136]Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F. et al., The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000,85(2),273-283.
[137]McFadyen, M. A.,& Cannella, J. A. A. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(4),735-746.
[138]McGrath, R. G. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1),118-132.
[139]Menon, T.,& Preffer, J. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge:Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science,2003,49(4),497-513.
[140]Miller,"V. D.,& Jablin, F. M. Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 1991,16(1),92-120.
[141]Mohammed, S.,& Dumville, B. C. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework:Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior,,2001,22(2),89-106.
[142]Mom, T. J., Van, B.,& Volberda, H. W. Investigating managers'exploration and exploitation activities:The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies,2007,44(6),910-931.
[143]Moreland, R. L., Argote, L.,& Krishnan, R. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In:Nye J L, Brower A. M, What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.1996,57-84.
[144]Moreland, R. Transactive memory:Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In:L Thompson, D Messick, J Levine, Sharing knowledge in organizations. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum,1999,3-31.
[145]Moreland, R. L., Myaskovsky, L. Explaining the performance benefits of group training:Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1),117-133.
[146]Moorman, C., Miner, A. S. The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Market Research,1997,34(1),91-106.
[147]Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P.;& Supinski, E. P. Process based measures of creative problem-solving skills:4 category combinations. Creativity Research Journal,1997,10,59-71.
[148]Mumford, M. D. Managing creative people:Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resources Management Review,2000,10,313-351.
[149]Mumford, M. D., Feldman, J. M., Hein, M. B.,& Nagao, D. J. Tradeoffs between ideas and structure:Individual versus group performance in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior,2001,35,1-23.
[150]Murray, A. I. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10,125-141.
[151]Nahapiet, J.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23,242-266.
[152]Nandkeolyar, A. K. How do teams learn? Shared mental models and transactive memory systems as determinants of team learning and effectiveness, Dissertation, The University of Iowa,2008.
[153]Nebus, J. Building collegial information network:A theory of advice network generation. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),615-637.
[154]Neil, E.,& Michael, A. W. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory; Summary. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1998,19(3),235-259.
[155]Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,1967, 21-76.
[156]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the cynamics of innovation. N.Y.:Oxford University Press, 1995,59-64.
[157]Nrico, R., Nchez-Manzanares, M. S., Gil, F.,& Gibson, C. Team implicit coordination process:A team knowledge-based approach.Academy of Management Review,2008,33(1),163-184.
[158]Oldham, G. R.,& Cummings, A. Employee creativity:Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(3),607-634.
[159]Ostroff, C.,& Kozlowski, S. W. J. Organizational socialization as a learning process:The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology,1992,45(4), 849-923.
[160]Paulus, P. B. Groups, teams, and creativity:The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology:An International Review,2000, 49(2),237-262.
[161]Paulus, P. B.& Yang, H. C. Idea generation in groups:A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000, 82(1),76-87.
[162]Pearsal, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J.,& Stein, J. H., Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams:Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2009,109(1),18-28.
[163]Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Xin, K. R. Exploring the black box:An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44,1-28.
[164]Perry-Smith, J. E.,& Shalley, C. E. The social side of creativity:A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review,2003, 28(1),89-106.
[165]Pinto, J. K.,& Prescott, J. E. Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management,1988,14(1),5-18.
[166]Pirola-Merlo, A.,& Mann, L. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2004,25(3),235-257.
[167]Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G..,& Tushman, M. L., Organizational ambidexterity:Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science,2009,20(4),685-695.
[168]Rau, D. Knowing who knows what:The effect of transactive memory on the relationship between diversity of expertise and performance in top management teams. Ph. D Dissertation, University of Minnesota,2001.
[169]Reagans, R.,& Zuckerman, E. W. Networks, diversity, and productivity:The social capital of corporate R & D teams. Organization Science,2001,12(4), 502-518.
[170]Reagans, R., Argote, L.,& Brooks, D. Individual experience and experience working together:Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science,2005,51(6),869-882.
[171]Ren, Y. Q., Carley, K. M.,& Argote, L. The contingent effects of transactive memory:When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science,2006,52(5),671-682.
[172]Riley, A.,& Burke, P. J. Identities and self-verification in the small group. Social Psychology Quarterly,1995,58,61-73.
[173]Robert, D. D.,& Jane, E. D. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11),1422-1433.
[174]Rollag, K. The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2004,25,853-872.
[175]Rothaermel, F. T.,& Alexandre, M. T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science,2009,20(4), 759-780.
[176]Rulke, D. L.,& Rau, D. Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 2000,25(4),373-396.
[177]Samer, F.,& Lee, S. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science,2000,12,1554-1568.
[178]Sanders, P. Phenomenology:A new way of viewing organizational research. Academy of Management Review,1982,7(3),353-360.
[179]Senge, P. M. The fifth discipline:The art and practice of the learning organization, New York:Doubleday/Currency,1990,31-84.
[180]Schwab, A. Incremental organizational learning from multilevel information sources:Evidence for cross-level interactions. Organization Science,2007,18(2), 233-251.
[181]Scott, S. G.,& Bruce, R. A. Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,1994, 37,580-607.
[182]Shah, P. P. Who are employees' social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others. Academy of Management Journal,1998,41(3), 249-268.
[183]Shalley, C. E. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,1991,76(2), 179-185.
[184]Shalley, C. E.,& Gilson, L. L. What leaders need to know:A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004,15,33-53.
[185]Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J.,& Oldham, G. R. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity:Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,2004,30,933-958.
[186]Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R.,& Volberda, H. W. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science,2007,18 (1),20-41.
[187]Simon, H A. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),125-134.
[188]Simonton, D. K. Creativity in science-chance, logic, genius and zeitgeist. New York:Cambridge University Press,2004,46-68.
[189]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing,1995,59,63-74.
[190]Smith, W. K.,& Tushman, M. L., Managing strategic contradictions:A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 2005,16 (5),522-536.
[191]Somech, A. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management,2006, 32(1),132-157.
[192]Sparrowe, R. T. et al., Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44,316-325.
[193]Stata, R. Organizational learning:The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review,1989,30(3),67-73.
[194]Stein, E W. Organizational memory:Review of concepts and recommendations for management. International Journal of Information Management,1995,15(2), 17-32.
[195]Steiner, I. D. Group process and productivity. New York:Academic Press,1972, 80-102.
[196]Sternberg, R. J. A three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. The Nature of Creativity. New York:Cambridge University Press,1988,125-147.
[197]Stemberg, R. J.,& Lubart, T. I. The concept of creativity:Prospects and paradigms. New York:Cambridge University Press.1999,3-16.
[198]Sutton, R. I.,& Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context:Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Management Quarterly,1996,41,685-718.
[199]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,27-43.
[200]Taggar, S. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources:A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(2), 315-330.
[201]Tajfel, H.,& Turner, J. C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations,1986,2,7-24.
[202]Taylor, A.,& Greve, H. R. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49,723-740.
[203]Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L.,& Klein, S. R. Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,1997,31,27-41.
[204]Tierney, P.,& Farmer, S. M. Creativity self-efficacy:Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45, 1137-1148.
[205]Tierney, P.,& Farmer, S. M. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management,2004,30,413-432.
[206]Tsai, W.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,1998,41(4),464-476.
[207]Tsai, W. P. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[208]Tushman, M.,& Scanlan, T. J. Boundary spanning individuals:Their role in information transfer and their antecedent. Academy of Management Journal, 1981,24(2),289-305.
[209]Tushman, M. L.,& O'Reilly, C. Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review,1996, 38,8-30.
[210]Vanhaverbeke, W., Beerkens, B.,& Duysters, G. Explorative and exploitative learning strategies in technology-based alliance networks. Working Paper,2003.
[211]Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A.,& Salas, E. The impact of cross-training on team functioning:An empirical investigation. Human Factors,1996,38,87-100.
[212]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988,35-42.
[213]Wadhwa, A.& Kotha, S. Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4),819-835.
[214]Walsh, J. P.,& Ungson, G. R., Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review,1991,16(1),57-91.
[215]Weber, R. R. Basic Content Analysis. California, Sage,1990,97-115.
[216]Wegner, D. M. Transactive memory:A contemporary analysis of the group mind. New York:Springer-Verlag.1987,185-208.
[217]Wegner, D. M., Erber, R.,& Raymond, P. Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1991,61,923-929.
[218]Weick, K. E.,& Roberts, K. H. Collective mind in organizations:Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly,1993,38, 357-381.
[219]West, M. A. Innovation and creativity at work:Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester:John Wiley,1990,309-333.
[220]West, M. A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology International Review,2002,51,355-387.
[221]West, M. A.,& Anderson, N. R. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81(4),680-693.
[222]West, M. A,& Hirst, G. Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. Chichester: John Wiley,2003,297-319.
[223]Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S.,& Cronin, M. A. Group learning. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(4),1041-1059.
[224]Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P.,& Zuckerman, C. Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1999,77(5),967-97.
[225]Wittenbaum, G, Stasser, G..,& Merry, C. Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1996, 32(2),129-152.
[226]Wong, S-S. Distal and local group learning:Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science.2004,15(6),645-657.
[227]Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J. E.&Griffin, R. W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acedemy of Management Review,1993,18(2),293-321.
[228]Wu, S., Lincathy, S.,& Lin, T. C. Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual team:A social exchange theory perspective. System Sciences,2006,1(1),26-36.
[229]Yan, A.,& Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6),1478-151.
[230]Yang, K. S. The formation and change of Chinese personality:A cultural-ecological perspective. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica,1981,23(1), 39-56.
[231]Yin, R. Case study research:Design and methods. Beverly Hills:Sage,1994, 40-52.
[232]Yoo, Y,& Kanawattanachai, P. Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,2001,9,187-208.
[233]Yuan, Y. C., Monge, P. R.,& Fulk, J. Social capital and transactive memory systems in work groups:A multilevel approach. Academy of Management Proceedings,2005,1,1-6.
[234]Zahra, S. A.,& George, G, Absorptive Capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[235]Zhang, Z. X., Hempel, P. H., Han, Y,& Tjsvold, D. Transactive memory system links work team characteristics to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007,92(6),1722-1730.
[236]安嘉翔,张磬兰,张增年.学习过程及其运行机制.宁夏大学学报(自然科学版),1997,3,27-32.
[237]奥苏贝尔等.教育心理学——认知观点.北京：人民教育出版社,1994,14-55.
[238]白新文,王二平.共享心智模型研究现状.心理科学进展,2004,12(5),791-799.
[239]布鲁纳.教育过程.深圳：文化教育出版社,1982,4-61.
[240]曹兴,曾智莲.知识分布及其对企业知识转移的影响分析.科学学研究,2008,26(2),344-349.
[241]陈国权.团队学习与学习型团队：概念、能力模型、测量及对团队绩效的影响.管理学报,2007,4(5),602-209.
[242]陈国权.复杂变化环境下人的学习能力：概念、模型、测量及影响.中国管理科学,2008,16(1),147-157.
[243]陈国权,赵慧群,蒋璐.团队心理安全、团队学习能力与团队绩效关系的实证研究.科学学研究,2008,26(6),1283-1292.
[244]陈维军.文献计量法与内容分析法的比较研究.情报科学,2001,19(8),884-886
[245]崔浩,张道武,陈晓剑.组织知识创新机制扩展研究.科学学研究,2005,23(1),130-133.
[246]戴俊,朱小梅.基于团队知识交流的组织知识转化机制研究.科研管理,2005,26(3),121-127.
[247]丁志华,李萍,胡志新等.团队创造力数学模型的研究.北京师范大学学报：社会科学版,2005(3),40-47.
[248]樊斌,鞠晓峰.企业知识分享的正负效应分析.学术交流,2008,169(4),88-91.
[249]方凌云,邹珊刚.企业群体知识的创造与互动性研究.科研管理,2003,24(2),33-36.
[250]郭亮,洪咸友.交互记忆系统理论在团队有效性研究中的应用.科技管理研究,2007,9,221-223.
[251]郝宁,吴庆麟.创造力与能力、专长及胜任力关系评述.心理科学,2005,28(2),501-505.
[252]侯泰杰.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2005,78-104.
[253]柯江林,孙健敏,石金涛,顾琴轩.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究——以知识分享与知识整合为中介变量.管理世界,2007,3,89-101.
[254]李平,张庆普.从知识分享到知识和谐：一种知识管理观念.商业经济与管理,2008,197(3),20-26.
[255]李剑力.利用性创新、开发性创新与企业绩效关系研究——基于冗余资源调节效应的实证分析.科学学研究,2009,27(9),1418-1427.
[256]李栓久,陈维政.个人学习、团队学习和组织学习的机理研究.西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2007,193,214-21.
[257]李忆,司有和.探索式创新、利用式创新与绩效：战略和环境的影响.南开管理评论,2008,11(5),4-12.
[258]刘海燕,闫荣双,郭德俊.认知动机理论的新近展——自我决定论.心理科学,2003,26(6),1115-1116.
[259]罗伯特·K·殷(周海涛译).案例研究设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004,37-52.
[260]马文峰.试析内容分析法在社科情报学中的应用.情报科学,2000,18(4),346-350.
[261]毛基业,张霞.案例研究方法的规范性及现状评估——中国企业管理案例论坛(2007)综述.管理世界,2008,4,122-128.
[262]毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习研究综述.人类工效学,2007,13(4),70-73.
[263]莫申江,,谢小云.团队学习、交互记忆系统与团队绩效：基于IMOI范式的纵向追踪研究.心理学报,2009,41(7),639-648.
[264]潘陆山,孟晓斌.组织记忆研究前沿探析、多重存储模型构建与未来研究展望.外国经济与管理,2010,32(2),24-31.
[2651彭正龙,陶然.基于认知能力的项目团队内部知识特性对知识转移影响机制研究.情报杂志,2008,9,45-49.
[266]皮亚杰.发生认识论原理.北京：商务印书馆,1981,63-89.
[267]卜心怡,赵灵丽.知识分享研究方法与进展综述.杭州电子科技大学学报,2007,27(3),79-83.
[268]邱均平,邹非.国外内容分析法的研究概况及进展.图书情报知识,2003,6,6-10.
[269]阮国祥,毛荐其.社会资本、社会认知和团队知识转移.情报杂志,2010,29(1),151-154.
[270]孙海法,朱莹楚.案例研究法的理论与应用.科学管理研究,2004,1,116-122.
[271]孙慧中.网络组织中知识分享的正负效应.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,3,177-178.
[272]王凤彬,陈建勋.新产品开发团队的异质性知识构成与学习机制.经济理论与经济管理,2008,2,51-58.
[273]王黎萤,陈劲.研发团队创造力的影响机制研究——以团队共享心智模型为中介.科学学研究,2010,28(3),420-429.
[274]王三义,何风林.社会资本的认知维度对知识转移的影响路径研究.统计与决策,2007(3),122-123.
[275]王为东,王文平.关系整合、双重学习与组织持续绩效机制研究.软科学, 2009,23(9),34-38.
[276]魏江,王铜安.个体、群组、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究.科学学研究,2007,24(1),91-98.
[277]吴江,胡斌,刘天印.交互记忆系统影响人群与工作交互的模拟研究.管理科学,2009,22(1),48-58.
[278]吴金希,于永达.浅析管理学中的案例研究方法、特点、方法设计与有效性讨论.科学学研究.2004,22(12),105-111.
[279]武欣,吴志明.团队共享心智模型的影响因素与效果.心理学报,2005,37(4),542-549.
[280]武欣,吴志明.基于共享心智模型的团队知识管理研究.研究与发展管理,2006,18(3),9-16.
[281]武欣,张厚粲.创造力研究的新进展.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997,1,13-18.
[282]肖余春.学习型团队三维特征结构与团队效能关系的现场实验研究.心理科学,2004,2,471-473.
[283]杨志蓉.团队快速信任、互动行为与团队创造力——对中介传导机制的探索与经验研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[284]于海波,郑晓明,方俐洛,凌文辁.中国企业开发性学习与利用式学习平衡的实证研究.科研管理,2008,29(6),137-143.
[285]张钢,倪旭东.知识差异和知识冲突对团队创新的影响.心理学报,2007,39(5),926-933.
[286]张钢,熊立.交互记忆系统研究回顾与展望.心理科学进展,2007,15(5),840-845.
[287]张钢,熊立.成员异质性与团队绩效：以交互记忆系统为中介变量.科研管理,2009,30(1),71-80.
[288]张华,席酉民,丁琳.社会网络对个体创造力的作用机理研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,11,185-192.
[289]张建伟.知识的构建.教育理论与实践,1999,7,48-53.
[290]张娜,陈学中.团队社会资本及对绩效的影响.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,11,181-185.
[291]张淑华,方华.企业组织氛围与组织隐性知识分享之关系研究.心理科学,2005,28(2),383-387.
[292]张文勤,石金涛,宋琳琳,顾琴轩.团队中的目标取向对个人与团队创新的影响——多层次研究框架.科研管理,2008,29(6),74-81.
[293]张玉利,李乾文.双元型组织研究评介.外国经济与管理,2006,28(1),7-14.
[294]张志学,Hempel. P. S.,韩玉兰,邱静.高技术工作团队的交互记忆系统及其效果.心理学报,2006,38(2),271-280.
[295]张振新,吴庆麟.情境学习理论研究综述.心理科学,2005,28(1),125-127.
[296]周密,赵文红,姚小涛.社会关系视角下的知识转移理论研究评述及展望.科研管理,2007,28(3),78-86.
[297]周耀烈,杨腾蛟.个体创造力向团队创造力转化的机理研究.科学学研究,2007,25(S2),409-414.
[298]朱朝晖.探索性学习、挖掘性学习和创新绩效.科学学研究,2008,26(4),860-867.
[299]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习和挖掘性学习：对立或协同?科学学研究,2008,26(5),1052-1060.
[300]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习和挖掘性学习的协同与动态：实证研究.科研管理,2008,29(6),1-9.